Should We Choose a Candidate Based on Age, Race and Sex?

[Vidal]

One of the other posts on this forum says, in arguing against Joe Biden:

"I don’t think the best alternative to Trump is another 70-something white man."

And a lot of people think it's OK to express these kinds of thoughts.

What if I said I was against someone because she was a young black woman? Would that be OK?

Is it OK to be against someone because he is an old white man?

Seems like a double standard and it could have some very negative consequences if people on this forum think it's OK.

I see a lot of this and I really think we should encourage people to stop expressing their candidate preferences based on age, race and sex.

What do you think?

[ehrnst]

1. What are you hoping to accomplish with this post? (nt)

[Demsrule86]

4. I think it needs sayng....some examples of the posts about white men are sickening

I have a Dad, brothers,a husband nephews and a son.. all of whom i adore. And I find it disgusting behavior to attack them in this manner. Why is it OK to post derogatory posts about white men....which has has included Butigeige and Beto, it makes those posters look really bad.

[ehrnst]

9. You think pointing out that that we've had so many white men as leaders is 'derogatory?'

Last edited Fri May 17, 2019, 11:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Can you point to examples that you're talking about in your OP?

[Demsrule86]

36. Depends how it is done. I don't pick my candidates by the color of their skin, their age or

their sex. The idea that there is no place for white male candidates in the Democratic party is ridiculous.

[ehrnst]

40. Who said this? (nt)

[Andy823]

13. I think it's all about

Stirring things up and causing problems, but I could be wrong,

[Hortensis]

39. Struck me as shit-kicking regardless of intent, but

Last edited Sat May 18, 2019, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

as someone fast heading for elderly by any definition I'm willing to discuss the bigotry of regarding old people as a group with hostility and intolerance. "Respectable" targets used to include all PoC and women. No more, but hey! Now a whole "new" group has come to notice of people living and working longer. This is putting a lot of noses out of joint because they're holding good jobs, living in nicer homes, refusing to die and leave estates, running for political office, and voting in larger numbers than other groups.

Some, driven by resentment, very mistakenly believe that bashing this group and individuals based solely on age is respectable. NOT! Suggestions that age alone somehow makes a person intrinsically less worthy than younger age groups are as bigoted as if skin color were the issue.

Should one choose a candidate based on race, sex or age? Of course not if the decision is based on hostility toward a whole group. Despicable -- put a chain on that! We're not damned trumpsters.

But in a highly diverse society, in more than just race, sex and age, there are other reasons to, for instance, choose against two white men on a ticket. I expect to do just that, but nothing against white men themselves.

[Vidal]

14. What do you think?

I'm sure you can figure it out.

[Demsrule86]

2. I don't think it is OK...Form of bigotry

[brooklynite]

3. As crass as it may seem, we should factor in how those items play with the electorate

I do NOT think that race and sex have a negative impact on electability. Age may, depending on how it's framed.

[gristy]

5. huh?

[Sherman A1]

6. No

It should be about ideas.

[SouthernProgressive]

7. The actual quote used was..

“I don’t think the best alternative to Trump is another 70-something white man who has an unpleasant history with women.“

To answer your question, I do think it’s fair to take the things you mention into consideration. We are a Representative Republic and some demographics are seriously underrepresented, mainly due to historical societal norms.

The actual quote referenced is garbage. I’ll stand up for Biden and his history with women at every turn.

[MineralMan]

8. None of those are actually considerations for me.

Both of my senators and my house rep are women. I worked to help them get elected based on their abilities and positions. Their sex is not a factor in any way. I try very, very hard not to let biases for or against any such factor get in my way.

[jberryhill]

10. What is this "we" nonsense? I am not choosing a candidate with you or anyone else

The way that personal choices work is that I make mine and you make yours. Were you planning on joining me in the voting booth or something?

If you are married, did you choose your spouse on the basis of age, race or sex?

What if I said I was against someone because she was a young black woman? Would that be OK?

Would it be okay for who?

I guess if I were the sort of person who stayed up nights worrying about how other people make their personal choices, then I'd be upset that you won't vote for a young black woman. Obviously, I'd have to come to your home, stand outside, and shout at your windows until you changed your mind.

How young are we talking about? If she's under 35, she can't be president anyway. So it's pretty obvious that age is a consideration whether you like it or not.

But, all right, so if you say you won't vote for a young black woman, and it's not "okay" with me, then what? Are we going to wrestle to see who wins? Pistols at dawn? What?

[Vidal]

16. "We" is not nonsense

"We" on this forum have acceptable norms and standards for postings. That's what I'm talking about. Thought that was obvious.

If I said I would not support a candidate because who was black and female, I'm sure this forum would object strenuously to me expressing that opinion.

But it is not my personal opinion. I'm just raising a point to discuss, which I think is valid and important.

[JI7]

19. what you posted is shit that right wingers are always claiming

[jberryhill]

28. "We" on this forum have acceptable norms and standards for postings.

Yes, but we do not have acceptable norms for how individuals make their own decisions.

When I got married, I chose to marry someone of the opposite sex. Did I do so because I am a homophobe? I don't think so. I don't really care who other people marry. Maybe it's because I never met the right guy, or maybe it's simply because I just might be straight. Who knows? But my choice to marry someone of the opposite sex did not arise out of some sort of animus toward others who make decisions which differ from mine.

There are people who will not vote for Joe Biden because he is an "old white guy". They just won't do it. What do you want to do with them? Flog them in the public square?

There are also people who WILL vote for Joe Biden precisely because he is an "old white guy". Not only that, but there are people who will do so not because they are sexist or racist, but because they assume that enough of the electorate at large IS sexist and/or racist, so that makes Biden "electable" in their opinion.

People will make their decisions based on whatever matters to them. If you want to persuade them to vote for or against a particular candidate, then you have to find reasons which matter to them.

But, you have made me curious. If I said "I won't vote for Joe Biden because he is an old white guy" then you would suggest to me that I should not be a racist or an ageist, and should think about other factors instead which would make me reconsider my opinion of Joe Biden.

If, on the other hand, I said, "I'm voting for Joe Biden because he's an old white guy" then would you suggest I shouldn't vote for Joe Biden, and should consider voting for Kamala Harris instead?

Or, is it "okay" if I'm racist, sexist and ageist in favor of Joe Biden, but "not okay" if I'm racist, sexist and ageist against Joe Biden?

Ultimately, browbeating people because they make their personal voting decisions for "bad reasons" is not an effective strategy toward any productive end.

But as far as this "we" nonsense goes, let me assure you that it is perfectly fine with me if you vote for one candidate and I vote for a different candidate, for whatever personal reasons you and I might have. Ergo, there is no "we" involved in those voting decisions.

[rzemanfl]

24. Tonto to Lone Ranger. I bet you know the punch line. n/t

[samnsara]

31. i dont! tell me cuz now im curious

[jberryhill]

32. .

https://huntthedevil.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/what-do-you-mean-we-white-man/

[rzemanfl]

35. Thank you for that. I responded without noticing you had covered the question. n/t

[rzemanfl]

34. The Lone Ranger and Tonto are surrounded and under fire from

many Indian warriors. The Lone Ranger says, "We're in big trouble." Tonto says, "What's with this 'we' business, White Man?"

[demmiblue]

11. Hmm...

[Demit]

12. We know that as people age there are potential cognitive issues.

Not everyone experiences age in the same way, but it is a real phenomenon. You're not discriminating against grandpa when you take away his car keys because has has begun to get into minor accidents, for example. Your reasons are based in reality.

As for choosing presidents based on sex, we've been doing that for years, haven't we. Same with race, until Obama.

[TCJ70]

15. No. You should choose based on policy...

...and who you believe will push hardest to accomplish those goals.

It's the main reason I don't have Biden near the top of my list at the moment. I don't trust him to work as hard as possible to get the most out of legislation that comes to his desk. Especially not after saying he believes Republicans will work with him after the last 10+ years of Republican behavior.

[MrsCoffee]

17. I think once we all have centuries of equal representation then this question can go away.

Until then, I tend to favor qualified candidates who can help us reach that goal. If the choice is between two equally qualified candidates, I will choose the one who has the least representation almost every time.

Not sure what that says about me. Really don’t care, lol.

[JI7]

18. reverse racism/sexism ? you really aren't helping Biden with your posts

and I'm sure he wouldn't like it either .

[WhiskeyGrinder]

20. You can pick a candidate however you want. Other people can pick candidates using whatever

calculus they want -- even totally bigoted or racist reasons. You can take or leave their reasoning. Opinion is not party procedure, and people who commit thoughtcrimes can still be involved in the process.

I really think we should encourage people to stop expressing their candidate preferences based on age, race and sex. What do you think?

I think this is straight-up garbage, as representation is a vital part of that concept of whether a candidate is "electable." A preference is an opinion, and sometimes people have shitty opinions. But when it comes down to it, the primary is just one big opinion-fest.

[rzemanfl]

21. Bookmarking. n/t

[The Mouth]

22. No

Period.

Fuck racism
Fuck ageism
Fuck homophobia.

Obviously, these will subconsciously figure into some people's calculations, instead of it just being about ideas, but we have our P.O.S. Troglydites on the left, too.

[ehrnst]

23. This sounds like "All Candidates Matter." (nt)

[Indygram]

25. I don't think race or gender matters

As far as age goes, while I don't think it's a deal breaker, I do think it's a valid issue to discuss. We obviously want to have whoever is the nominee in office for two terms. The winner won't take office until January of 2021 and would ideally stay until January of 2029. That's a decade. When people get older they DO face increased health issues and illnesses. Where candidate health comes into play it's a valid concern to have.

Again, this does not necessarily mean an older person can't be the nominee...and likewise it should not be a topic that is off limits because it IS relevant.

[comradebillyboy]

26. Please don't presume to tell me what factors I am or am not allowed

to consider in my candidate preferences.

[question everything]

27. NO! to all.

One reason why we lost touch with rural voters is because they consider the Democratic party an elitist that cares more about "identity politics" than about the "common man."

[Kaleva]

29. I'm not going to tell others how to choose their prefered candidate

[jberryhill]

33. I go by IQ divided by shoe size, and pick the highest number

If you are smart and have small feet, you are my candidate.

[LanternWaste]

30. Voting for inclusion is progressive. Voting to deny inclusion is not.

It's not a difficult concept at all. Unless of course, we want it to be difficult to better validate our irrational thoughts as something other than what they are.

Which is why the "if I said the same thing about..." argument is specious at its best, filled with logical fallacies and peppered with a faux-concern as obvious as sprinkles.

[JonLP24]

37. Nope

[Vidal]

38. Agree

it should have nothing to do with it.

[TreasonousBastard]

41. Race and gender, absolutely not...

but age is something else entirely. Race and gender may affect your life experiences and some attitudes, but that is in no way a bad thing, and do not directly affect your ability to do the job. Age, however, has few, if any, benefits.

Experts disagree when the mind peaks, but I see late 20's mentioned a lot, and everything is allegedly downhill from there. It's also fairly obvious that physical abilities are reduced with age. Other things being equal, the older person just won't have the stamina of a younger one.

In my own case, I can feel my body breaking down in some areas, and there are many things I simply can't do any more. Concentration, short term memory, and other things are nothing like they were when I was younger. I feel that whatever I may have gained in wisdom and experience, I have lost much of the ability to use those things.

Yes, everyone ages at a slightly different rate, and we all know people in their 80's who are still sharp as a tack. But, at I would not trust myself at this point to accept the responsibilities of the White House, so why would I trust an even older person when younger ones of great ability are available? This sounds like discrimination, but it is more like picking the right tool for the job.