• ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Sadly, we’re not at a point where two women on the same ticket is a viable option for winning an election. There’s still too much hostility among many voters towards it. I think such hostility is idiotic. But it is what it is.

    • BassTurd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think Whitmer is currently in a much better position to affect change. Moving to VP would take her from Michigan and then basically take away any power she has. Obviously depending on her future ambitions, VP looks pretty good on a resume, but she can make a much bigger difference right now and for another 4+ where she’s at. I do wonder given the current political landscape, how many people that would normally be turned off by women in the office would look past it. And if those that can’t, how many were going to vote Democrat to begin with?

    • aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      I feel I like this idea gets repeated a lot as if it’s a time-tested universal truth. But really, can you conceive of a voter for whom a brown, mixed-race woman as president is just fine, but a second woman is a bridge too far? In other words, anyone who has a problem with two women on the ticket probably wasn’t going to vote for Harris anyway.

      The same goes for a VP candidate who is gay (Buttigieg), Jewish (Shapiro), or, I dunno, bald (Kelly).

      • criitz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        3 months ago

        I can definitely conceive of voters for whom an entirely female ticket is a bridge too far.

    • Omega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m fine with running a qualified man (or white man) as the VP to appeal to the most voters possible. Same with running a qualified black woman or any other demographic they want to appeal to.

      If our candidates became man/woman, woman/man as the standard, that would be fine with me.

    • Zaktor
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is the continual refrain whenever the Democrats think about putting forward someone who isn’t a white man. Nominally left people were saying the same thing about a black president in 2008. There’s always this appeal from people who say they totally think it’s dumb, but we need to think of the sensibilities of bigots. Then we do the thing anyway and it turns out most people have bigger issues to think about and those that are dedicated to their prejudice already recognize that the Republicans are their party.

      Stop playing devil’s advocate for sexist boogeymen and just live your values. The Republicans know that sexism isn’t a winning issue with undecided voters, that’s why they’re telling their base to STFU. Democrats don’t need to help enforce the social structure of some imagined gettable bigots.

      • Godric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Maybe if progressives came out in bigger numbers than bigots, they’d have more of a say in how the country is run.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You’d rather court bigots than progressives right after you got a huge demonstration that progressives are willing to vote for a compromise candidate.

          Centrists were against Harris running and used the exact same “the bigots we love and respect won’t like her” argument.

          • Godric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Want to court bigots over progressives? No I wouldn’t personally.

            Sadly, politics isn’t based upon who you want to be besties with, it’s based on what you can convince a certain percentage of the electorate to vote for.

            If progressives made up a larger portion if the electorate than bigots, they’d a better seat at the table.

            All political parties favor the old not because of some trite respect for the elderly BS, they favor the old because they fucking vote in massive numbers, while the young simply don’t.

            Politicians need to be elected to enact policy. You want your group to be a bigger hand in policy? Make your group a bigger part of the electorate.

            • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              If progressives made up a larger portion if the electorate than bigots, they’d a better seat at the table.

              Bigots don’t vote for Democrats already. Courting them is a fool’s errand.

              All political parties favor the old not because of some trite respect for the elderly BS, they favor the old because they fucking vote in massive numbers, while the young simply don’t.

              Young people are registering in droves right now because the party ignored the bigots. You just got a demonstration that addressing the concerns of young people works. Bigots were voting for Trump before and they’re voting for Trump now. But since the party covets votes they’re never going to get over votes they can get, we’ll probably get some dopey Werther’s Original enthusiast who thinks young people have it too easy.

              • Godric@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                So if progressives have so many votes to offer and are the key to gaining political power, why don’t progressives dictate who the president/congress is?

                If they’re such an easy key to power, why aren’t politicians on both sides of the isle getting in line to get progressive or young votes to vote for them?

                Are all politicians and all the staticians running their campaigns stupid???

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  So if progressives have so many votes to offer and are the key to gaining political power, why don’t progressives dictate who the president/congress is?

                  Because donors do that.

                  If they’re such an easy key to power, why aren’t politicians on both sides of the isle getting in line to get progressive or young votes to vote for them?

                  Because donors don’t want them to do that.

                  Are all politicians and all the staticians running their campaigns stupid???

                  gestures broadly at results

      • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Unfortunately we still have to accommodate for moderate bigots when it comes to gender, race etc of candidates. Hopefully once Gen Z and Gen A really get into voting that race/gender intolerance for politicians won’t be a factor any more.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Bigots are given greater consideration than progressives.

          It’s like the party regrets the Civil Rights Act because of all the dixiecrats who jumped ship.

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fuck Whitmer. But also fuck the idea that gender matters in politics. QUALIFICATIONS matter, not gender. Assuming Harris is the nominee, do Harris/Warren or Harris/AOC

    • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Politicians have a habit of saying they don’t want to run up until the instant they’re like “well, you twisted my arm.”

    • BoxOfFeet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, I was so happy to vote for her last time. I would LOVE to have her on the big ballot this year, but I’m very happy she’s dedicated to getting shit done here at home.

      • Godric@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        One could wonder if she’s just loved on lemmy because she’s agreeable to lemmy, but didn’t she win her last gubernatorial race by like 55%-45%?

        Pretty fucking impressive for a swing state! I hope to see her on the national ballot in a cycle or two