If we nominate 2 men, in an election where 60% of Democratic voters could be women,

[pnwmom]

we are fools.

As soon as we do that, Trump will drop Pence and add someone like Nikki Haley or Joni Ernst.

And Trump's chances will be enhanced and the R's could be the first party to elect a woman as V.P.

ON EDIT: Some people seem to assume that the only people qualified for VP will be found among those currently running for President, but we have a much wider list to choose from. Susan Rice, Kathleen Sebilious, and Sally Yates are just a few that come to mind.

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1095292092455108608&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2Finteractive%2F2019%2F02%2Fpolitics%2Fdem-primaries-exit-polls%2F

[JI7]

1. what if most women vote for the white guys in the primary ?

and white women already mostly voted for trump over a Hillary.

most women of color aren't going to vote for trump no matter who he puts on the ticket.

[pnwmom]

3. Just because Biden has a plurality of support for President does NOT mean most women

would want a man in the VP slot.

[JI7]

7. but most white women voted for Trump already. and most women of color

will not vote for trump.

there is a case to be made to not have 2 white guys but it has nothing to do with how women vote becsuse that isn't going to change.

[delisen]

21. Exit poll data not accurate. white women vote was divided

according to Pew Research, neither Clinton or Trump got a majority of the votes of white women. Rather Trump received 47% and Clinton received 45%.

The earliest analyses after an election are based on unscientific exit polling and the fact that news organization and others rush to frame a story either to get readers or to advance an agenda.


The exits also overstated women’s support for Trump, according to Pew’s research. Overall, the center found, 39% of all women voted for Trump, while 54% supported Clinton. White women, who made up 41% of the electorate, went for Trump by a 2-point margin, 47% to 45%, but neither candidate got a majority of their votes. Trump won 35% of college-educated white women and 56% of white women without college degrees. “Most of the differences with the exit polls originate in the composition of the sample,” Carroll Doherty, Pew’s director of political research, tells TIME.

https://time.com/5422644/trump-white-women-2016/

With additional time, it’s possible to get a more accurate picture using public voting records and other data, which can take months after the election to become available. The Pew report matched these records with a survey conducted in November 2016, just after the election, to create what it called “a detailed portrait of the electorate.” This portrait depicts a voting population that is older, whiter and less educated than the exit polls would have you believe. College graduates were just 37%, rather than half of voters. Voters over 65 made up 27% of the electorate—more than double the share of under-30 voters, 13%. And while the exits showed Trump winning college-educated whites by 3 points, Pew found he actually lost them by 20.

[jberryhill]

53. More white women voted for Trump than Clinton

That’s what your post says.

Aside from which, if you are talking about a small difference between 47% and 45%, it is pretty obvious that white women were not strongly influenced by having a woman candidate to vote for.

[WheelWalker]

2. I don't think we're really going to nominate two men. Do you?

[pnwmom]

5. I frequently see people advocate here for various combinations of men.

I just saw someone pushing for two particular white men.

[WheelWalker]

9. I saw that post. I'm not thinking that will happen. What happens at DU stays at DU, I suspect,

for the most part. I predict a woman will be on the Democratic party's ticket. There have been those in my life who have characterized me as "delusional" and even "borderline psychotic", but I have to think I'm no more impaired than anyone else at seeing the future.

[Peacetrain]

4. Well.. truth is we only nominate one.. and that one picks the other.. so up to who ever gets the nod

[stopbush]

28. Bingo!

[Snackshack]

6. Agreed.

That would be unfortunate. I don’t see how that happens, some of the strongest candidates in the field are women...but anything is possible.

[Funtatlaguy]

8. We won't have an all white male ticket. Not to worry.

All of the top tier and most second tier have already acknowledged the need for diversity.

[peggysue2]

10. I'd be very surprised if . . .

we had two white men on the ticket, particularly with the genuine yearning for a woman this year. But as said upthread, whoever the nominee is, the selection will ultimately be theirs to make.

[Demsrule86]

11. Or we might win...no evidence that a woman can win this election in the states we need...I don't see

any of the current candidates other than Biden or possibly Sanders winning the rust belt.

[pnwmom]

16. Klobuchar is FROM the rust belt. And I don't know why Warren couldn't do as well

as Biden with the kinds of voters in the upper midwest.

[Demsrule86]

25. Klobachar is losing the primary...in single digits. As for Warren no way...she went way to far left

and the ACA is popular in the Mid West states that expanded Medicaid.

[pnwmom]

26. Where did I mention Harris? In your mind are Warren and Harris the same person? n/t

[guillaumeb]

12. Could Trump drop Pence for Haley?

She looks and is non-European.

Ernst would, in my view, be a better choice because she reminds one of Sarah Palin in attitude and intellect.

[Lucky Luciano]

14. Ernst is probably smarter than palin, but similar unpleasant attitude. nt

[guillaumeb]

18. Being smarter than Palin is a very low bar.

My cat could easily jump over that bar.

[Lucky Luciano]

19. So not similar in intellect. That's all. Palin really is the queen of fuckwits. nt

[guillaumeb]

20. Imagine Palin and Trump having children. eom

[customerserviceguy]

22. Yeah, Trig and Track Trump! n/t

[JI7]

15. Haley is the idiot.

[NoMoreRepugs]

13. Pence delivers the Evangelicals...no?

[customerserviceguy]

23. Trump's not going to piss off the fundies

They're counting on Trump's death or resignation just after January 20, 2023. Then Pence could run for election in both 2024 and 2028. They know RBG can't possibly hold on that long.

[melman]

17. You're still on this Nikki Haley thing?

FFS. Democrats and Democratic-leaning women are not going to vote for Dump just because Nikki Haley is on the ticket. It's ridiculous.

[Thekaspervote]

32. This!!

[customerserviceguy]

24. I wouldn't worry about it

The ticket will contain one woman, and one person of color, and they could be the same person. If that is the case, the other person will be a white male.

[stopbush]

27. Er, the POTUS candidate picks their running mate. We do not "nominate two men."

[Renew Deal]

29. It worked for McCain

[dem4decades]

30. Are we really basing our vote on gender? Isn't that silly?

If Biden is the choice and he picks a male from a state he needs to win, does that mean women won't vote for him?

Similarly, if Warren wins and picks a women from a state she needs to win, can men choose not to support them because it's two women?

Can't we just vote for the ticket?

[MrsCoffee]

40. I guess after more than 200 years it might seem silly to some.

Some of us think equal representation is absolutely necessary in order to bring about real change.

Since the Democratic base always ends up “just voting for the ticket” anyway, why not make the ticket look a little more like the Democratic base?

Equal representation in all branches of our government should be a top priority on the Democratic Party platform. Progress requires progress. There is nothing silly about it.

[treestar]

45. It is possible that a man can represent me

Where there are women who can’t. There are a lot of women I would not want representing me. Let’s start with Michelle Bachman. Sarah Palin. A lot of men who would do better.

[MrsCoffee]

55. Yeah, those women or women like them are likely to be on our ticket.

I am so sick of that stupid argument I could puke. It's not a matter of ANY woman and you know it.

[treestar]

56. My point was

That merely being female does not mean they represent us and vice versa. I might think a male democrat would represent me better than a female one. I don’t think we should demand a female merely for being one.

[MrsCoffee]

58. And my point is

all other things being equal.... (i.e. among our current candidates, not some republicans or deplorables)

I'm voting for the woman.

Pretty sure I'm not alone.

Somethings has got to give.

[Blue_true]

31. My guess is it won't be two White men.

My sense is either a man/woman, woman/man, Black/White, White/Black, Hispanic/White or White/Hispanic. I can see a woman/woman ticket, but not a Warren/Klobuchar or reverse ticket, more like Harris/Warren or Klobuchar or Warren or Klobuchar and Harris as VP. I see Gillibrand and Gabbard losing out completely and Booker being in the mix only if Biden or another centrist wins, though Warren or Klobuchar and Booker as VP would be a strong ticket.

[Hekate]

33. I, personally, have given up on the deplorables, & any of the 40% who still think Trump's policies

...are worth supporting. To hell with them. Just to hell with them. They will not vote for a Democrat -- whether male, female, gay, straight, black, brown, or white. They will not. They are authoritarians who love the jackboot.

We need to pick the people WE believe in, because as Joe B said in his campaign opener, "This is a fight for the soul of this nation."

[blueinredohio]

34. Why would I, as a registered democratic woman vote republican

just because they have a woman on the ballot? I have more sense than that. I would never vote republican. EVER.

[JI7]

36. exactly, the OP makes no sense . there are MANY cases for having a woman on the ticket but none of

it is what the OP says it is.

[DesertRat]

35. K&r

[TreasonousBastard]

37. A lot of that 60% are black women who are not going to be fooled into voting Trump, or...

staying home. They know pandering when they see it.

Since they got the vote, women have been voting for men. That's mainly because there weren't that many women running, but who is saying women will vote for a woman simply because she's a woman?

There are, however, a lot of men who will not vote for a woman simply because she's a woman.

[pnwmom]

39. And a lot could be YOUNG women who could be excited about voting for someone like Haley,

and had been trained to believe there was no significant difference between the "corporate' parties.

Assuming there was no woman on the Democratic ticket.

[ucrdem]

38. What if women don't want the job of veep?

Stacey Abrams and Kamala Harris have already turned it down, at least publicly. It's a consideration but there are many other considerationa and at the end of the day the job goes to the best available person.

[pnwmom]

44. There are women who haven't even been mentioned. Susan Rice, for example.

Sally Yates is another well-qualified woman. Kathleen Sebilious . Just off the top of my head.

There are lots of choices. A Vice President doesn't have to have been in elected office (But Sebilious was Gov. of Kansas.)

[ucrdem]

46. I think it's a commendable idea, but isn't it as objectionable to appoint a woman #2 as a man?

Also, it hasn't worked twice already, for either party, and it didn't work in 2016 with the other combination (female-male), though the ticket could not have been more thoughtfully balanced. And I know Clinton-Kaine won, but they weren't able to take office. So I'm not sure this should be an overriding criterion unless polling makes it clear that it's going to work.

[pnwmom]

47. What does that even mean? SOMEONE has to be appointed,

and if we don't put a woman on the ticket, then we're taking a major risk that the first woman who becomes President or Vice President will be Nikki Haley or another Republican.

And a whole generation of young women will see a Republican as the first ever woman Vice President.

[ucrdem]

49. But why would Trump trade in Pence?

Pence brings in the evangelicals and Trump needs them.

[Kahuna7]

41. I can just here the M$M bleatings now: Blacks will be disappointed and

may not show up like in 2016, if a WOC isn't on the ticket. They have been telegraphing that all year. :eyeroll:

[pnwmom]

48. We're constantly being told that African Americans love Biden. So why would they be disappointed

with a woman on the ticket?

And what race do you think Susan Rice is?

[Kahuna7]

50. Sigh. WOC is for Woman of color. nt

[ecstatic]

42. As a woman, that sounds like bull

trump has to go. Period.

[treestar]

43. We know very well the 60 percent

Includes anti-choice, anti-feminists, deplorables and those who would think women could not do the job.

[elleng]

51. Democratic voters will vote for the Democrat,

the rest of the electorate will decide on it's own.

[pnwmom]

52. Young voters and first time voters are largely party-less.

We are risking the possibility that a whole generation will decide that the R's are the ones who can put a woman into office.

[JI7]

57. young people are mostly liberal leaning and fucking nikki haley is not going to

get their votes.

[pnwmom]

59. Nikki Haley is good at playing a moderate on TV. She's a real threat. n/t

[JI7]

60. she supported trump, its not young people who will support her

[treestar]

61. A whole generation is not going

To vote solely on that issue. Why would liberals vote republican just because they put women in office ? Those would be Republican women.

[hurl]

54. Maybe if a woman wins the nomination she will pick Biden as VP

Biden at the top keeps the election in stealing distance IMO, but having his experience in the administration along with bold new leadership would be very hard to beat.

[Celerity]

62. Kathleen Sebelius is too old to be VP, she would be 80 in 2028, and VP is a set up for a POTUS run

[pnwmom]

63. Obama never considered it as a set up for a POTUS run. One of the reasons

he picked Biden, according to reports, was because he thought, considering Biden's age, that Biden would feel free to work for Obama's agenda, without any concern about his own future agenda.

[Celerity]

66. and look how that turned out, lolol (not laughing at you at all, just laughing at the irony)

I have not changed my mind on who I think Biden picks as VP, a call I made from before he even officially jumped in the race. 2 of his most senior aides, Steve Ricchetti and Mike Donilon, tipped that hand with their trial balloon long ago, back in mid-March.

Stacey Abrams. Unless she does a 180 and decides to run for the Senate.

She checks damn near every box.

Young, but not too young.
A person of colour.
A woman.
From a potential swing state/region (GA, plus NC and FL) that her presence on the ticket would help to turbocharge Dem turnout there.
Progressive but not far left.
Superb speaker.
Whip smart.
Super charismatic, she has that 'it' factor.
Was the top GA state Democratic congressional leader, so not just simply an entry level elected official.
Compelling background story, along with the fact she was literally robbed of her gubernatorial win by a white power scum using voter suppression and abuse of his office (Sec. of State who oversees elections) in an OBVIOUS conflict of interest.

Susan Rice is in the mix, and so is my dark horse pick, Deval Patrick (who was Obama's favourite to run someday, so that would really close the loop.) I do not see Harris or Booker getting the nod at all atm, unless Harris drops out early and really goes 1000% pro-Biden (which could happen.) Warren has less than zero chance, as Biden and her are at complete philosophical loggerheads and he is not going to pick a VP who will hurt him with the white, older, non tertiary-educated mod/con swing state voters. He will not pick Pete due to the anti-LGBTQ backlash that would come from PoC and older mod/cons (lots of overlap there) when it comes to gay men (lesbian and bi females do better as politicians when it comes to elections from all that I have seen.) Pete's cop issues also hurt his chances. Last two are dice rolls, Klobuchar and Beto. I would be surprised if he went with either, but would not be at all shocked. Same for Bullock, who needs to run for the damn Senate seat in MT.

I have made my peace with switching to Biden, if/when Pete drops out. We need to win, a Trump second term will set the country on a path to either civil war or a breakup via succession within 15 to 20 years max, for a variety of reasons. The Blue States will never abide living under a theocracy, which is a distinct possibility if Rump takes the SCOTUS to an 7-2 or even 8-1 HARD RW composition, plus stacks the federal lower judiciary with RWNJ. Most all post Brown v Board civil rights (including quite possibly Brown itself) will be eviscerated.

I see Biden, as long as he doesn't collapse, and is able to be cogent and clear enough to duel with Rump, as probably the only one who can garner enough all-round support to make winning even remotely a fairly sure thing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

64. Every candidate should post matchups. All that matters

This time! We can nominate others and be proud...but it won't matter if we lose.

[Vegas Roller]

65. Misandry at its worst nt

[IronLionZion]

67. It would be super interesting if Hillary was VP

She wouldn't want it probably.

There are plenty of women and minorities and minority women who would be a great choice without losing a seat in Congress.

Trump needs to go. Ginsburg isn't getting any younger. They've already detained and deported US citizens for being nonwhite. Dems need to win this election because real people's lives depend on it on several important issues. If the blue wave gets us majority of the Senate, we need a skilled VP who can whip the votes in favor of progressive legislation and judicial appointees.