Have we finally progressed to a time when there will no longer be 4 white guys as the dem and repub presidential and vice presidential candidates? Will there always now be a racial minority and/or a woman on one of the tickets?
4 white guys in presidential race
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/09/2012|
I hope so, but in the same way it was great to have a black man and a white woman running against each other for the Democratic nomination in 2008, it also would be great if the field of nine in a primary included a wide mix of ethnicities, both genders, and two or three sexual orientations.
And if the ultimate candidates for both parties included two people or color or two women or a straight Hispanic woman and a gay black man.
And all the pundits wringing their hands over whether one of them will choose a white male running mate to try to attract that demographic.
It will be a long time before we get there, of course, but I actually have hope that we will, and sooner than 100 years from now.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||07/15/2012|
I think it's wondeful, but at the same time, I hope we don't fall into tokenism.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||07/15/2012|
Whether Obama wins or loses this year, one of the major parties will have a woman at the top of the ticket in 2016. And no, I don't think that means Hillary Clinton.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||07/15/2012|
Where do you get that idea from, VOTN? If you think any woman other than Hillary has a chance, you are not being realistic.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||07/15/2012|
There are two strong possibilities in the Senate right now, Amy Klobuchar and especially Kirsten Gillibrand.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||07/15/2012|
Because in every thread, stated over and ever, VOTN knows EVERYTHING.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||07/15/2012|
We don't know that yet, R4.
Hilary seems pretty old to me to launch a presidential bid in four years.
And we don't know who else might catch fire.
As repellent as I find her, look how quickly Palin became a lot of people's favorite.
Then there's Elizabeth Warren, who has a big problem with her claim to having Cherokee heritage, but she could easily fix that if she wanted to.
|by Anonymous||reply 7||07/15/2012|
I suspect that George W. Bush was the last Protestant straight white man president.
And that's fine by me.
|by Anonymous||reply 8||07/15/2012|
Neither one of them is planning to run, and neither one is likely to win the nomination should they choose to run.
|by Anonymous||reply 9||07/15/2012|
1. Hillary may not run. I'm not saying she will. But she's certainly going to be asked to. Nancy Pelosi is already saying she should. And Hillary would be younger than McCain was, and not much older than Romney is now.
2. Not sure what Palin has to do with anything. She never ran for President, and wouldn't have won if she had.
3. Elizabeth Warren hasn't even gotten elected to the Senate yet, and if she does, she certainly isn't going to be running for President a couple of years after getting elected.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||07/15/2012|
My post is meant for R5.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||07/15/2012|
Considering how visible Gillibrand has made herself, I think she's at least open to the possibility.
I think she's more likely to run than Hillary. I could be wrong about that. Wouldn't be the first time.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||07/15/2012|
Hillary may run in 2016, and I hope she does. If any Republicans bitch that she's "too old," they'll just need to be reminded that their Saint Ronnie was 69 years old when he became President, which is exactly the same age Hillary will be in 2016. And Hillary still has all her marbles.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||07/15/2012|
"Elizabeth Warren hasn't even gotten elected to the Senate yet, and if she does, she certainly isn't going to be running for President a couple of years after getting elected."
Why not, R10? In 2004, you could have said the same thing about a certain newcomer running for the senate in Illinois.
|by Anonymous||reply 14||07/15/2012|
I knew someone would bring up Obama, R14.
That was a once in a generation occurrence. Don't expect it to happen again.
Normally a nominee is expected to have paid their dues and to have been in politics for several years at least.
And Warren is too left-wing and anti-corporate to succeed in the current right-wing Democratic Party, anyway.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||07/15/2012|
R12, how likely would Gillibrand be to beat Andrew Cuomo? And how much support does she have outside of New York?
|by Anonymous||reply 16||07/15/2012|
Gillibrand is awesome on almost all issues.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||07/15/2012|
Not with that name. Fox and CNN will have fits trying to pronounce it.
|by Anonymous||reply 18||07/15/2012|
Gillibrand has also said that she wants Hillary to run in 2016.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||07/15/2012|
Since white men are far less than 50% of the population, it wouldn't be such a bizarre thing if from now on at least one out of the four candidates wouldn't be a white man. It's not exactly too much to expect.
But we live in the United States.
Where people are much more likely to be disturbed by the fact that each of the four leading women on a situation comedy about female hipsters in Williamsburg are all white.
(By the way I haven't noticed that anyone is upset that all of the seven major characters on "The News Room" are apparently straight. Why? Because that would be idiotic. About as idiotic as this faux controversy about "Girls")
WHAT A FUCKIN' COUNTRY!
|by Anonymous||reply 20||07/15/2012|
If only we had more than two candidates...
|by Anonymous||reply 21||07/15/2012|
R21, we use Plurality voting in this country. If we had more than two candidates, the likely outcome is that the least-desired candidate would win as the majority gets split.
If you want more than two candidates, then you need to advocate for voting reform, and a switch to a Condorcet voting system (like virtually every other modern democracy uses).
|by Anonymous||reply 22||07/16/2012|
Is OP posting from 2007?
|by Anonymous||reply 23||07/16/2012|
No, r23 the question is valid. Except for Ferraro and 2008 the 4 people on the dem and repub tickets were always 4 white guys. I am asking whether the parties would ever go back to a time when all 4 are white guys. I think it could go back to all 4 white guys but more likely will always include either a woman or a person of color.
|by Anonymous||reply 24||07/16/2012|
Kirsten Cuntibrand isn't fit to be dog catcher.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||07/16/2012|
R24, women and minorities will become more common, but to answer your question, yes, I think it's very possible that there will be years when it will be 4 white guys.
Take the Republicans first:
There is almost as little diversity in the Republican Party as there was in 1964 when the Civil Rights Act was passed. They rarely have more than one Black member of Congress at any point in time, Eric Cantor is the only Republican Jew, and most of the Senate leadership positions are held by men.
So just which women and which racial minorities from the Republican Party are available to run in 2016? Not every many except perhaps Rubio or JIndal, and neither one of those is a certainty.
Now the Democrats:
Unlike the Republicans, they have elected a Black President and a Woman Speaker of the House. They also many racial minorities in Congress, and many more women as well.
But other than Hillary Clinton, I don't see any other woman who could make a major run for the nomination in 2016.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||07/16/2012|
not very many
|by Anonymous||reply 27||07/16/2012|
What a pointless thread.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||07/16/2012|
Betty White for President!
|by Anonymous||reply 29||07/16/2012|
No Hillary is too old. The Democrats will nominate light skinned black guys because they know that by doing that they are immune from criticism. No one can say anything against Obama without being accused of being racist.
Plus blacks normally vote 90-10 Democrat but with Obama they voted virtually 100%. Asians and Latino also voted 2-1 historically for Democrats but with a black candidate both voted 95% for Obama.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||07/16/2012|
R10/R15, you've certainly proved to the rest of us that you are psychic and that no one else should bother forming an opinion, because you have all the answers.
In fact, you are so brilliant, I'm surprised you would waste your time here on DL. Your time would probably be better spent on one of the big networks telling their viewers what to think, since you are so clearly better informed than everyone else.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||07/16/2012|
I'm a little cynical, and I'm worried about tokenism as well. Right now we are living in an idealistic era where there feels like a general need to prove that the US is "post-racial" and "post-feminist" (whatever that means), so minorities and women will be more likely to be tapped to run for office. But after all is said and done, white males will still be valued above everyone else, so I wouldn't be surprised if there are still many years ahead of four white guys (with the occasional token thrown in just to remind everyone how "progressive" we are now).
|by Anonymous||reply 32||07/16/2012|
R30, what do those statistics have to do with the nominee in 2016? First of all, some of the numbers you quoted aren't even correct - Obama did not get 95% of the Latino or Asian vote.
Secondly, you're saying that the Democrats are only going to nominate 'light skinned black guys' from now on?
Are you being serious?
|by Anonymous||reply 33||07/16/2012|
Are there any third party candidates?
|by Anonymous||reply 34||07/16/2012|
Now, with this election, I think there will always be a woman or nonwhite person on one of the tickets.
|by Anonymous||reply 35||11/09/2012|