Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats must excite black voters so they turn out and vote. Hillary did not excite black voters. That’s why Democrats must have a black candidate on the ticket. I can’t think of a single white candidate who can motivate enough AA voters to go to the ballot box to vote Orange Pusspile out of office.

Are you saying that black people would only be excited by a black cadiddate?

Anonymous wrote:Democrats must excite black voters so they turn out and vote. Hillary did not excite black voters. That’s why Democrats must have a black candidate on the ticket. I can’t think of a single white candidate who can motivate enough AA voters to go to the ballot box to vote Orange Pusspile out of office.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

DP: I don't know why anyone is concerned about AA at this point because the fastest growing voter demographic is Hispanics. It is almost like white men and African Americans are making their last grasp of power as important minorities in the United States. The future of this county is Hispanic and I don't understand why the AAs remain the "major minority" when their numbers are falling as fast as white voters.

We will be better as a country when we no longer care about voting blocks based on race and gender. The fact is that more African American voters pulled the lever for Trump than they did for Mitt Romney. How does that work into your voting block math?

That would take the destruction of the Republican party as we know it today since its core is the biggest single race & gender voting block in American politics.

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?

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.

DP: I don't know why anyone is concerned about AA at this point because the fastest growing voter demographic is Hispanics. It is almost like white men and African Americans are making their last grasp of power as important minorities in the United States. The future of this county is Hispanic and I don't understand why the AAs remain the "major minority" when their numbers are falling as fast as white voters.

We will be better as a country when we no longer care about voting blocks based on race and gender. The fact is that more African American voters pulled the lever for Trump than they did for Mitt Romney. How does that work into your voting block math?

Anonymous wrote:Democrats must excite black voters so they turn out and vote. Hillary did not excite black voters. That’s why Democrats must have a black candidate on the ticket. I can’t think of a single white candidate who can motivate enough AA voters to go to the ballot box to vote Orange Pusspile out of office.

Anonymous wrote: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?

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.

DP: I don't know why anyone is concerned about AA at this point because the fastest growing voter demographic is Hispanics. It is almost like white men and African Americans are making their last grasp of power as important minorities in the United States. The future of this county is Hispanic and I don't understand why the AAs remain the "major minority" when their numbers are falling as fast as white voters.

AAs vote for Democrats much more reliably and I think their turnout numbers are higher than those for Hispanics.

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?

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.

DP: I don't know why anyone is concerned about AA at this point because the fastest growing voter demographic is Hispanics. It is almost like white men and African Americans are making their last grasp of power as important minorities in the United States. The future of this county is Hispanic and I don't understand why the AAs remain the "major minority" when their numbers are falling as fast as white voters.

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?

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.

DP: I don't know why anyone is concerned about AA at this point because the fastest growing voter demographic is Hispanics. It is almost like white men and African Americans are making their last grasp of power as important minorities in the United States. The future of this county is Hispanic and I don't understand why the AAs remain the "major minority" when their numbers are falling as fast as white voters.

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?

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: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 want Stacey Abrams on that ticket. She is so freaking smart.

I love her too.

Anonymous wrote:I want Stacey Abrams on that ticket. She is so freaking smart.