Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

The best person for the job IS the person who can best reach out to African Americans. That is (at least part of) the job.

Bigoted people never see AAs as an important and underrepresented voting bloc. Any recognition of them as an important group and valued part of America is “pandering” whereas white “Christian” men are the default. Our bigoted friend above needs to seriously sit and think why, in his mind, electing AA or female candidates means we’ve just elected a token, or an affirmative action hire rather than the best person for the job. Listen, we’ve had enough pandering to white men with mediocre to dire candidates. Time to open up the field and let some real excellence result from actual competition rather than the thumb on the scale there has been for several millennia.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

The best person for the job IS the person who can best reach out to African Americans. That is (at least part of) the job.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want the progressives to just shut up for a minute and really consider what is at stake here. Unless Trump is defeated, there won't be opportunity to deal with climate change, etc. Unfortunately, there are a lot of male voters who secretly like Trump's obnoxious misogynistic behavior, even though they won't say so out loud, and they would still vote for him over Warren or Harris. Whereas in a white male to white male contest,---they would dump Trump in a minute. I'm not saying any of that is right---I just think that's where a lot of guys shake out.

Thank heavens someone gets it!

I’d add to this there are a lot of white women who want to keep the patriarchy in place. Sad.
A Warren supporter who will crawl over broken glass to vote for whoever the eventual nominee is.

All over the world. Women only get elected in parlimentary systems, where active politicians in their own party know their worth, and when they are a stand in for a dead male relative. Does anybody know of a country where a woman was directly elected who wasn't married/daughter/otherwize related to a major politician?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really want the progressives to just shut up for a minute and really consider what is at stake here. Unless Trump is defeated, there won't be opportunity to deal with climate change, etc. Unfortunately, there are a lot of male voters who secretly like Trump's obnoxious misogynistic behavior, even though they won't say so out loud, and they would still vote for him over Warren or Harris. Whereas in a white male to white male contest,---they would dump Trump in a minute. I'm not saying any of that is right---I just think that's where a lot of guys shake out.

Thank heavens someone gets it!

I’d add to this there are a lot of white women who want to keep the patriarchy in place. Sad.
A Warren supporter who will crawl over broken glass to vote for whoever the eventual nominee is.

Anonymous wrote:I really want the progressives to just shut up for a minute and really consider what is at stake here. Unless Trump is defeated, there won't be opportunity to deal with climate change, etc. Unfortunately, there are a lot of male voters who secretly like Trump's obnoxious misogynistic behavior, even though they won't say so out loud, and they would still vote for him over Warren or Harris. Whereas in a white male to white male contest,---they would dump Trump in a minute. I'm not saying any of that is right---I just think that's where a lot of guys shake out.

No.

Anonymous wrote:I really want the progressives to just shut up for a minute and really consider what is at stake here. Unless Trump is defeated, there won't be opportunity to deal with climate change, etc. Unfortunately, there are a lot of male voters who secretly like Trump's obnoxious misogynistic behavior, even though they won't say so out loud, and they would still vote for him over Warren or Harris. Whereas in a white male to white male contest,---they would dump Trump in a minute. I'm not saying any of that is right---I just think that's where a lot of guys shake out.

Thank heavens someone gets it!

I really want the progressives to just shut up for a minute and really consider what is at stake here. Unless Trump is defeated, there won't be opportunity to deal with climate change, etc. Unfortunately, there are a lot of male voters who secretly like Trump's obnoxious misogynistic behavior, even though they won't say so out loud, and they would still vote for him over Warren or Harris. Whereas in a white male to white male contest,---they would dump Trump in a minute. I'm not saying any of that is right---I just think that's where a lot of guys shake out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Warren / Abrams with Tish James for AG.
Gilliam has baggage and conceded too early for my taste. He’s was pulling the “graceful” act and let DeSantis & Garth walk all over him.

If Biden, then Abrams as well.

Guaranteed to lose. Don't even bother with an election. Some of you need to get it through your cement heads that a woman and a black will not win! Biden and a middle-of-the-roader, maybe Klobuchar or another moderate. Harris has already made too many enemies and she's too liberal. An avowed liberal cannot win against Trump, assuming he is the GOP nominee. If he is forced to resign then that is a whole different ball game,! Still, Biden is the safe choice to ensure a win!

Uncle Joe is not up to the task of what lies ahead. I'm not just talking Trump. Climate change, income inequality, racism... I'm looking at whoever I think can make structural change. And, I don't think Trump will even be around in 2020 so the candidate will be up against Pence.

Affirmative action doesn't mean what you think it does.

I want more qualified candidates to be elected and a large number who happen to be women and happen to be POC. We have had qualified and unqualified white men as candidates and elected officials for hundreds of years. It isn't working out well at all for our country to have over representation by one demographic.

At any rate, Stacey Abrams is awesome.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/19/stacey-abrams-fight-for-a-fair-vote

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

Why are you assuming Abrams wouldn’t be the best? Why, after around 90 white male POTUSes and VPOTUSes shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented?

Your last phrase implies they are Affirmative Action candidates. There are hundreds of very well qualified white women in Congress governorships who actually won ejections and who better qualified than Abrams, They will never be considered because minority representation is the goal.

Let me get this straight: any female or minority pick is necessarily an affirmative action hire in your brain? I’m going to let you sit with that for a few. I’m sure you think every white man is of course the best and most qualified.

(Pssst. You got some strong unconscious biases against women and minorities.)

Not at all. You are the one who said: “shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented.” That is the basis for Affirmative Action.
Perhaps you meant: “shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities compete.”

WTF? No it's not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

Why are you assuming Abrams wouldn’t be the best? Why, after around 90 white male POTUSes and VPOTUSes shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented?

Your last phrase implies they are Affirmative Action candidates. There are hundreds of very well qualified white women in Congress governorships who actually won ejections and who better qualified than Abrams, They will never be considered because minority representation is the goal.

Let me get this straight: any female or minority pick is necessarily an affirmative action hire in your brain? I’m going to let you sit with that for a few. I’m sure you think every white man is of course the best and most qualified.

(Pssst. You got some strong unconscious biases against women and minorities.)

Not at all. You are the one who said: “shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented.” That is the basis for Affirmative Action.
Perhaps you meant: “shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities compete.”

No. We actually need POC and women REPRESENTING.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

Why are you assuming Abrams wouldn’t be the best? Why, after around 90 white male POTUSes and VPOTUSes shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented?

Your last phrase implies they are Affirmative Action candidates. There are hundreds of very well qualified white women in Congress and governorships who actually won ejections and who better qualified than Abrams, They will never be considered because minority representation is the goal.

Let me get this straight: any female or minority pick is necessarily an affirmative action hire in your brain? I’m going to let you sit with that for a few. I’m sure you think every white man is of course the best and most qualified.

(Pssst. You got some strong unconscious biases against women and minorities.)

This is what I was thinking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

Why are you assuming Abrams wouldn’t be the best? Why, after around 90 white male POTUSes and VPOTUSes shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented?

Your last phrase implies they are Affirmative Action candidates. There are hundreds of very well qualified white women in Congress governorships who actually won ejections and who better qualified than Abrams, They will never be considered because minority representation is the goal.

Let me get this straight: any female or minority pick is necessarily an affirmative action hire in your brain? I’m going to let you sit with that for a few. I’m sure you think every white man is of course the best and most qualified.

(Pssst. You got some strong unconscious biases against women and minorities.)

Not at all. You are the one who said: “shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented.” That is the basis for Affirmative Action.
Perhaps you meant: “shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities compete.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Biden, Abrams.

If Warren, Beto. (possible dent in texas)

But she needs more black support - that's the thing

So Abrahms. I’m all for the two woman ticket. If you need a guy, Booker.

Why does the race or ethnicity of the pick matter? Shouldn't we go with the best person for the job?

Why are you assuming Abrams wouldn’t be the best? Why, after around 90 white male POTUSes and VPOTUSes shouldn’t we be able to have women and minorities represented?

Your last phrase implies they are Affirmative Action candidates. There are hundreds of very well qualified white women in Congress and governorships who actually won ejections and who better qualified than Abrams, They will never be considered because minority representation is the goal.

Let me get this straight: any female or minority pick is necessarily an affirmative action hire in your brain? I’m going to let you sit with that for a few. I’m sure you think every white man is of course the best and most qualified.

(Pssst. You got some strong unconscious biases against women and minorities.)