The Democratic party nominated a woman for president in 2016

[Yavin4]

And if White women would have voted for her, she would be the president right now. Based on election demographics, if only non-White men were allowed to vote, Hillary would have won overwhelmingly.

I say all that to say this. Men and women of color have a long history of voting for female candidates in large numbers. If any group has a problem supporting women for higher office, it is White men and disappointingly, White women. Maybe some of the ire and focus should be directed towards understanding why White women didn't support Hillary instead of broad brushing all Democrats.

<a href="http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/2-11-2/"><img width="309" height="773" src="?w=309" class="attachment-large size-large" alt="" /></a>

http://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/2-12-2/

[NCjack]

1. I'm voting for the progressive DEM that demonstrates strong voter appeal

and convinces me that he or she will work for my interests.

[Bucky]

4. Yes. Exactly

With the proviso that we really should consciously push for a diverse ticket. There's never really any compelling reason for any one person to be nominated vice president. So that's the point at which you hit your diversity. It used to be geographic diversity, but the evolution of democracy changed that. Now it's demography that matters.

Personally I thought the best VP candidate in 2016 for Clinton would've been Elizabeth Warren. It would've been daring because they really represent two very diverse approaches to politics. But everyone who I said this to was like "But we can't have two women! We'd lose!" Like Tim Kaine closed the deal on any state. (No hate, I love that little ewok). So no one was listening to me. No one listens to me. You're probably not even reading this.

My point is, I have enough faith in this party to believe that we'll only have diverse tickets from here on out. At least for a few cycles until we don't have to worry about such things in the future.

[EffieBlack]

2. True! And non-white voters have a long history of voting for candidates of other races (i.e. white)

Minority voters consistently vote for white candidates, even when those white candidates run against minority candidates.

It's time we stopped acting as if it's expected and ok for white voters to refuse to vote for non-white candidates and to DEFINITELY stop catering to them by discouraging support for minority candidates because they may not get the support of some backward thinking white voters

[Bucky]

3. Just to drive home the point... 32% of white men voted for Clinton instead of Trump

But we still go about attacking "white men" as the main problem without any clarification.
If 1 out of 3 targeted people don't fit in your stereotype, you got a bad stereotype.
It's a substantial minority of men that picked a woman over a man. We should celebrate that

Of course all stereotypes suck. So quit sucking. We should all add nuance to our political arguments. We can say "rich white men" or "conservative white men" or "fuckfaced jabbering racist shit-stain white men" and we'll be promoting Democratic unity across all our demographics. And won't that feel good?