2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI can't believe that people would seriously question having two women on the ticket.
That just should not be part of the discussion. Debate the merits of selecting Warren for VP based on her experience, politics and even the chances of taking back the Senate, but the fact of two women on the ticket is not a legitimate debating point for me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)I totally and completely agree!!! And have said so on such posts. What a defeating position to say two women is too risky!! This is 2016!
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)It really turns my stomach when I see a WOMAN making this sexist argument against women. 
rurallib
(62,415 posts)she's right!
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)It's a risky proposition for middle-of-the-road voter. There's no denying that some indys see that as weak.
With that being said, as long as Trump remains the nominee it will work this election cycle.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If we want to go down that route, how many fragile male egos will be threatened by a man being in a formally inferior role to Clinton?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)They are not a legitimate reason not to put Warren on the ticket.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Bien type VP.
This case is no different than Obama's. He shouted up support among white educated men by picking Biden.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)Just no. Any knuckle-dragging, sexist, tiny-handed man who finds himself capable or inclined to stifle the stinging sense of insult to his manhood long enough to cast his vote for a woman just because there is a man with her, already has that excuse built into this candidate.
Which is to say, the knuckle-draggers will either never vote for a woman at the top, or they will comfort themselves because Bill.
EW will net more votes from added excitement in the Democratic and Progressive base BY FAR than could ever be lost to a few cavemen.
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Structural sexism is a fact and the US seems more sexist to me than a lot of other countries. I have no objection to a dual female ticket but I can certainly see it costing ~1% of the votes that might put up with a mixed ticket. Certainly running against a blowhard like Trump would be the ideal time to take such a risk.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I don't think that adds much to the ticket.
Not hating, just don't think that Warren makes sense as VP. Plus, I'd rather her stay in the Senate.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I mean you're basing your judgement of a person's worth on their race, gender, age, and region, rather than what they think and do.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Hillary will win Mass with or without Warren on the ticket.
I don't think Warren is a huge draw to help win in Ohio, Florida, Indiana, and even in PA and VA.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)VPs aren't policy makers or bill authors. They are an insurance policy; it's pretty much a sinecure absent Senate ties. But what they can do is affect who gets to be President in the race. By buttressing perceived weaknesses or real soft support. Warren could do this in soothing the doubts of some who are focused on the sins of Wall Street, real or imagined, above all else but otherwise adds little in either CV or expertise or appeal that Clinton lacks. She's a good choice only if the Bernie or Bust contingent remains undiminished until November, which is unlikely. Without that shoring up of economic left support being noth real and necessary, she's a flipped Senate seat and a continuity heart attack policy.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)I agree with you Scootaloo. What is the world coming to? 
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)
anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)I don't get the sense that the other poster is making any personal judgment of Elizabeth Warren's worth on her characteristics and origin, but simply noting that such factors influence voter behavior (so abundantly documented in the literature of political science that it should not need mentioning) and pointing out that Warren as VP doesn't seem like it would significantly strengthen the ticket.
Senator Warren is actually my top choice for President but she wasn't running this time. I'd sorta like her as VP but then I sorta like her in the senate too, and I don't think her staying there would hinder her future presidential ambitions, so I am neutral on the idea. However can think of a lot of people Hillary could pick as VP that might have greater combined voter appeal than a Clinton-Warren ticket. If Warren were the presumptive nominee they'd also perform better than a Warren-Clinton ticket, if you see what I mean.
pandr32
(11,583 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I hope she wins the seat.
realmirage
(2,117 posts)VPs have almost always been picked based on what region or state they could deliver for the party. Picking two candidates from the same region, both far left, both white, is risky. Past elections show it is almost certainly doomed to fail. The only things that makes it even close to plausible is we are running against the worst Republican candidate in our lifetime.
All bets are off this election, so I'm not sure what will work and what won't. But I don't like gambling when I can get a sure thing that's really friggin good. And I'm not sure pulling Warren out of the Senate is a good thing for the party or the country.
DLCWIdem
(1,580 posts)However, OTOH if we are already breaking the glass ceiling we could double down. The people who would object to 2 women are probably the ones that woukd object to 1 woman on the ticket.
Cirque du So-What
(25,938 posts)I would, however, consider becoming VP a 'demotion' if Democrats can flip the Senate. Then there's the regional consideration. I"d prefer the VP candidate to come from some place other than the NE for balance.
Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)but I think that the ticket should be fashioned to get the most votes...since it may make a difference in the house and senate.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)We need to be smart.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)...I'd day a 2 woman ticket will be difficult. More than once I've heard them say, they hedge at voting for one woman, but two would be a deal breaker.
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)There are men that would not be enthused about a woman but wouldn't massively object to one, even Hillary Clinton (who I have always thought is hated by conservatives for her unwillingness to 'stay home and bake cookies'. They're sort of sexist, miss it being a man's world if you get down to it, but not ideologically so - kinda selfish but basically fair-minded. Two women, though, and they might flip from putting up with the fact that the world is changing to feeling like things have 'gone too far' and voting from Trump an emotional assertion of masculinity more than anything else.
Put another way, men who passively benefit from structural sexism may be willing to accept change but not to carry the cultural can for it, and would react negatively if they felt disproportionately sidelined. Think of the type of man that gets upset if a discussion of rape culture gets really broad and feels the need to start a #notAllMen subthread because he now feels personally attacked, or indeed the sort of white person that can only listen to people saying Black Lives Matter for so long before feeling their identity as a white person is somehow implicitly devalued. Such people aren't likely to actively promote discrimination but may perversely endorse it in the voting booth as an expression of political frustration.
Bryan Caplan's book The Myth of the Rational Voter has some excellent insights into the manifestation of and motivations behind such electoral behavior. In a nutshell he argues that people often knowingly vote against their best interests because they rationally feel fairly powerless and throwing sand in the gears compensates for their inability to get what they want.
Maru Kitteh
(28,340 posts)the number and enthusiasm of likely Democratic voters gained through the addition of Warren to the ticket. I believe this firmly.
We shall see.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)Whether the VP pick is Liz or someone else.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)It'd be great to just forget about them, but if they were to succeed they could inflict significant damage. Catering to them (even if that just means adjusting strategy to take account of their existence) is far preferable to letting them get in charge.
Bucky
(54,013 posts)Wait, I mean "woman president" ... What did I type? Nothing. You saw no Freudian slips from me. Go away.
merrily
(45,251 posts)That should be the only litmus test for a ticket.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)... rooted in the American psyche.
I don't believe that the pair would be insignificant, or should be considered with gender-blindness or something. The symbolism alone would be transformational for many elements of society.
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these women are Democrats with personal histories of support for many initiatives important to women which have languished for decades behind persistent opposition from republicans, issues integral to so much of women's lives. The communicative benefit on those issues, the described bully-pulpit effect from these two, would give prominence and precedence to those issues.
Orrex
(63,210 posts)And it would also give VP Warren a nice boost for her own 2024 Presidential campaign!
yellowcanine
(35,699 posts)Of course she doesn't have to be on the ticket to do that.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)K&R!!
Koinos
(2,792 posts)Republicans won't know what hit them.
floriduck
(2,262 posts)My preference is that Warren continue to help lead in the Senate. Her value seems greater there than what the VP is limited to.
okasha
(11,573 posts)No one else can be that. There are several others who'd make a good VP.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)A man who takes a back seat to our female presidential candidate. Some people would find a man diminished by that. It's the way shit works.
I kind of like the two of them running.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)But I'm assuming if hrc picks her, she will have polled this question,
zenabby
(364 posts)unless of course you voted for Hillary, because you voted just because she's a female, and of course one must never do that, never consider gender but pick the best person because being the first female nominee is no big deal, but then obviously two women are risky...not only is it misogyny, but is it selective misogyny.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Yes, I would love it!!!!
giftedgirl77
(4,713 posts)My father would be losing his shit right now if his choices were Trump or any woman & he was one of the most obnoxious Republicans I've ever known. There is still plenty of ppl out there that don't think HRC is qualified simply based on her gender, 2 women would be a deal breaker.
Many men still don't want a woman in charge and two would tip it for men( and some women) who hate Trump and might otherwise go for Hillary.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)LynnTTT
(362 posts)I have many Republican friends who are really worried about Trump and may be persuaded to vote for Hillary. But these are older white men, who would be scared of by an all woman ticket, especially with the VP being a a very vocal and forceful woman like Warren.
I
d like to see man with a really good governing record, Personally I like Martin O'Malley. But maybe someone from a swing state?
Baby steps, baby steps
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)well recently. Let a couple of female Democrats kick some ass, so to speak.
yardwork
(61,608 posts)It's hard to believe that anybody would vote for Trump, for instance. But they do. That's the reality.
You and I and much of DU can say that it's ridiculous for anybody to think twice about two women on the ticket, but politicians have to convince people to vote for them, and lots of people are dumb.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)choices than Warren. It's not just about "excitement." Brown, Kaine, and Beccera are more qualified and have other features that better serve the ticket.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)That would be my only concern.
It would be nice if we could set someone up for the election after Hillary. 
Bucky
(54,013 posts)Anyway, I expect to cast my ballot for Bernie in 2024. He'll only be 82. That's plenty young.
Bucky
(54,013 posts)
jillan
(39,451 posts)even further if Warren is the VP pick.
The Second Stone
(2,900 posts)I'd like Warren to be the choice in the event that something happens to Clinton.
The argument that two women shouldn't be on the ticket comes of to me as just really weird. I can't wait to hear what garbage Trump has to say about the idea.