• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can the Dems nominate a woman of color or a gay man

Can the Democrats win with a woman of color or a gay man as their nominee?

  • 2. Absolutely not, Americans are not going to vote black woman or gay.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
Let's say, for sake of argument, the Democrats decide NOT to go with Joe Biden in 2024.
Should they select a woman of color like Kamala Harris or a gay man like Pete Buttigieg?

Reason I ask: I was absolutely shocked that Americans would vote for a black man, not only once, but twice. I assumed at the time - wrongly as it turns out - that the U.S. had grown up. Then Trump happened.

Joe Biden shouldn't run for another term but hey, I get no say on that, that is just my humble opinion. The question now is - do they even try a woman like Gretchen Whitmer let alone a black woman? AND YOU KNOW why I am asking. The U.S. may have come to accept a black man (and probably because he wasn't TOO black) but a woman? Or a woman of color?

Ditto with a gay man, and you all know WHY I am asking.

In order to hold on to the Presidency will the Democrats be forced to nominate another white man as they did in 2020? Gavin Newsom maybe? Even if he isn't the "preferred" candidate? Or should the Democrats risk going with a woman of color or a gay man?

Let's not devolve this thread into how senile Biden is or how unfairly Trump has been treated. This is a straight up question as to whether the U.S. can or would vote for a woman of color or a gay man.

Options above.

I do not believe that America is ready for a woman President. So many people on both sides of the aisle applied the "yes, but not her" line to Hillary, and they're doing it to Kamala now.

An openly gay President is possible. The right won't hate him any more than they did Obama, who served two full years.
 
I agree that Obama sewed up his 2008 nomination with his 2004 Key Note Speech. Now if you'd like to insist he was offered the slot because he was black, and not because he was the kind of speaker who could get an arena standing on their feet and cheering, that's your choice.
Another democrat secured his future nomination in 1988 with a Key Note Speech. His name was Bill Clinton, a white guy.
Obama and Clinton... each were "People who were educated in the Civics of America's Representative Constitutional Democracy". They each were good speaker, because they each knew their subject matter, and they knew the current day impacts before they started talking.

America's categories of willful civics illiterates, has shown they have a resentment wrapped in jealousy, that sends them into a rage, when Obama and Clinton would speak intelligently about current political agenda during their administration and how to make America better for All.
______________

People know that's a fact: Anyone can go on the streets and talk to another, and communicate about things the other never thought about or did not know, that person who never thought about it, or did not go would go on "immediate defense"... and attack the person who is trying to communicate with them.
 
Obama and Clinton... each were "People who were educated in the Civics of America's Representative Constitutional Democracy". They each were good speaker, because they each knew their subject matter, and they knew the current day impacts before they started talking.

America's categories of willful civics illiterates, has shown they have a resentment wrapped in jealousy, that sends them into a rage, when Obama and Clinton would speak intelligently about current political agenda during their administration and how to make America better for All.
______________

People know that's a fact: Anyone can go on the streets and talk to another, and communicate about things the other never thought about or did not know, that person who never thought about it, or did not go would go on "immediate defense"... and attack the person who is trying to communicate with them.
I like your term "willful civics illiterates." A very accurate description leading to a day where Marjorie Taylor Greene or Herschel Walker have people voting for them.

I remember Clinton was described as "boring" while Obama was described as "uppity". Hmmmm
 
I agree that Obama sewed up his 2008 nomination with his 2004 Key Note Speech. Now if you'd like to insist he was offered the slot because he was black, and not because he was the kind of speaker who could get an arena standing on their feet and cheering, that's your choice.
Another democrat secured his future nomination in 1988 with a Key Note Speech. His name was Bill Clinton, a white guy.
You mean Governor Bill Clinton? Obama was a State Senator when he spoke in 2004. One that voted "present " whenever he had the opportunity.
 
You mean Governor Bill Clinton? Obama was a State Senator when he spoke in 2004. One that voted "present " whenever he had the opportunity.
When was the last time Arkansas governor gave a key note speech? You think Clinton was chosen because he was governor or because of a charisma?
 
Let's say, for sake of argument, the Democrats decide NOT to go with Joe Biden in 2024.
Should they select a woman of color like Kamala Harris or a gay man like Pete Buttigieg?

Reason I ask: I was absolutely shocked that Americans would vote for a black man, not only once, but twice. I assumed at the time - wrongly as it turns out - that the U.S. had grown up. Then Trump happened.

Joe Biden shouldn't run for another term but hey, I get no say on that, that is just my humble opinion. The question now is - do they even try a woman like Gretchen Whitmer let alone a black woman? AND YOU KNOW why I am asking. The U.S. may have come to accept a black man (and probably because he wasn't TOO black) but a woman? Or a woman of color?

Ditto with a gay man, and you all know WHY I am asking.

In order to hold on to the Presidency will the Democrats be forced to nominate another white man as they did in 2020? Gavin Newsom maybe? Even if he isn't the "preferred" candidate? Or should the Democrats risk going with a woman of color or a gay man?

Let's not devolve this thread into how senile Biden is or how unfairly Trump has been treated. This is a straight up question as to whether the U.S. can or would vote for a woman of color or a gay man.

Options above.
Any dispassionate look at the American political scene would indicate that the only viable answer is #4 - ESPECIALLY if you include "and have any chance of winning the Presidential election".

Remember, the key (only?) criterion is "Can this candidate win the election?".

The question "Is this person the best candidate that we can find to administer the laws of the country in the best interests of the people of the country and of the nation qua nation?" simply is no longer operative in the United States of America.
 
The question "Is this person the best candidate that we can find to administer the laws of the country in the best interests of the people of the country and of the nation qua nation?" simply is no longer operative in the United States of America.
AMEN!
 
It is one thing to have diversity. It is entirely another thing to judge someone by something as superficial as their appearance when it comes to voting. What you are advocating is a kind of tribalism, ie. Voting based on a feeling of belonging by skin creed, colour and gender or any particular facet.
I think it a fair statement that it's perfectly attainable to find good people amongst women, minorities, and homosexual peoples. So yes, there should be a push to have representation without any diminishment in governance.

I do agree that this form of argument for tribalism is used in politics. Which is my comment on american politics. It really pushes that tribalism thing.
People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons. From their looks to whether or not they're religious. I'd be more worried about that.
And correct, it is not moronic. Pity then that american politics does not have what you describe and as a result, is moronic.
America has been old, male, and white for way too long. I will never forget the girl that had to testify in front of a panel of only old and white congressmen on why it was important for her to take birth control. A true facepalm moment.
 
When was the last time Arkansas governor gave a key note speech? You think Clinton was chosen because he was governor or because of a charisma?
A governor with charisma. Obama was a clean articulate black man to paraphrase Joe Biden.
 
I like your term "willful civics illiterates." A very accurate description leading to a day where Marjorie Taylor Greene or Herschel Walker have people voting for them.

I remember Clinton was described as "boring" while Obama was described as "uppity". Hmmmm
Today, even in casual conversation between people who are knowledgeable about a subject, talking to one who is not knowledgeable about the subject. The person who is not knowledgeable will "get not only defensive" their blood pressure rises, their anguish intensifies, and they become resentful followed by being antagonistic, then they start deflecting and denying.

It's was the common cycle Republican Conservatives and Right Wingers went into, any time Obama and Clinton would start speaking.

Human beings, hate to deal with people knowledgeable on a subject when they are not knowledgeable. Rather than LISTEN and LEARN, they are obsessed with defending themselves for their own lack of informed knowledge, even when there is no challenge posed to them. They do it when people try to share and impart information that can be beneficial to them and for them to learn.
We see it "EVERYDAY" in these Forums. I know as many others know... If there is any commentary that is more than two or three lines of text, it confuses and confounds some. It's so unfortunate... but reality is...
School in the past did not focus on teaching "Critical Thinking"... it was based on "Indoctrinations, because the Daughters of The Confederacy had their hands into what was placed in text books and what was designed for classroom presentations. That design and programming was based on "white nationalist indoctrinations"....
any and all important political concerns was left up to the "well to do and the wealthy", and daily matters was left to white men in suits. So, the general public of white society, felt safe that these people would protect them and look out for them.
REALITY IS: The same people they put all their faith and trust in, screwed them repeatedly every time there was a Republican Administration, whether it was Federal, State or Local.
These Republican Conservatives and Right Wingers have been trained to think "Any Bully Stomping Shit Talker" will help them.. When that Bully Stomping Shit Talk is designed to keep them distracted while they get fleeced and screwed over in ways they can't get from under. Republicanism has done it to them Repeatedly and they still have not become wise to it.

LBJ tried to awaken them, but they ignored what he told them:
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
 
  • Like
Reactions: JMR
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
BRILLIANT!

AND
oh so true of today's Trumpers and Rightwingers.
 
The question "Is this person the best candidate that we can find to administer the laws of the country in the best interests of the people of the country and of the nation qua nation?" simply is no longer operative in the United States of America.
I'm thinking that has never been the case in America (or much of any other democracy or republic). There have always been understood walls against some people, obviously gender and race but also family name, university, region of birth. In many ways, I see that as lessened rather than increased.
 
The Government Principles and Values of the United State is the Same Government its been since the crafting of The Constitution. The change is, now it "has been made to Represent and Respect with Equality the Lives of each Person as an Individual.

Some white people just can't deal with that principle, because they want to be treated special because they have white skin. They expect to have first opportunity and first choice in everything because they are whites, and they expect to be paid more than others Americans, simply because they have white skin. They hate to see American Governmental Programs Serve Everyone, because they have never wanted Government Programs to serve anyone other than people with white skin.

Reality is: It has been people with white skin that led this nation into $30+ Trillion of Debt. It is white people who carry the largest volume of personal credit debt, It is white people who carry the largest mortgage debt, and it is white people who default on that debt more than any other people, because of their pursuits of image based status, in a monetary caste system created by wealthy white people, to separate the wealthy from the working class.

Whether its bad business decisions, over borrowing based on a stock ticker, to embezzlement, and over paying executives, and wasting corporate money on perks for the over paid executives, and etc... "All" these things were created by "white people". All such things contribute to continual corporate failures, layoffs and selling off of business, to another who plays the same game under the banner of "Inc's", which is nothing more than a modern form of Monopolization, which engages in price fixing and creating and promoting "inflation".
There has never been a black or brown person in the Top Executive Roles of the Majority of Fortune 500 Companies, therefore, none of that madness can be blamed on any other people other than the WASP Males in America.

We've seen everything from Corporate destruction of Legacy Business, to Mega Churches and Scandals from Money Embezzlement to Child Molestations. The more people research history the longer people come to learn this has been taking place.

Working Poor and Poor White People should know, that White Superiority was never about them, if it had been, there'd be no poor and under-educated and uneducated white people in America. The working poor are lead to play into the Ponzi schemes of the Stock Ticker, and every time there's a corrective adjustment made to the over inflated stock, it is the working class that lose.
People talk about their 401k, they get excited talking about how much it gained, and within 6 months or a year, or acts done by Republicans that damage the system, suddenly they see what they thought were gains "wiped out". Yet, the wealthy are always ahead of the curve and take their profits before the working class is even aware the fleecing that will result. When it happens, they act "shocked"... and repeat the cycle over and over and overs.

Any time Republican talk about Cutting Taxes on The Wealthy, what always follows is cutting funding for programming, and when that happens companies start laying off people, other companies buy another, and cancel 1000's of jobs, and entire cities suffer. By that time, the wealthy have taken the money that should be in Federal Coffers, and the result is the Federal Debt Increases. Then Republican first thought is cut programs that benefit and service the working class and the poor.

White people of the Republican Conservative Ideology can't see it, because they have been taught exactly what LBJ tried to warn them against falling for.
LBJ tried to awaken them, but they ignored what he told them:
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

( I can post it a thousand time and they will try to deny it a thousand times, and continue getting fleeced by continuing to be told who next to look down upon, while they are being fleeced. )

It has always been played on the people, all the way back to looking down on Native American people, black people, brown people and then they spin their cycle of looking down on various ethnicities of white people, one minute it's the Irish, next its the Italians, then the Jews, then the Polish, the Japanese, the Germans, the Muslims, the Mexicans and that goes in a continual "circle".. All the while, "as long as the wealthy can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
 
Last edited:
The Government Principles and Values of the United State is the Same Government its been since the crafting of The Constitution. The change is, now it "has been made to Represent and Respect with Equality the Lives of each Person as an Individual.

Some white people just can't deal with that principle, because they want to be treated special because they have white skin. They expect to have first opportunity and first choice in everything because they are whites, and they expect to be paid more than others Americans, simply because they have white skin. They hate to see American Governmental Programs Serve Everyone, because they have never wanted Government Programs to serve anyone other than people with white skin.

Reality is: It has been people with white skin that led this nation into $30+ Trillion of Debt. It is white people who carry the largest volume of personal credit debt, It is white people who carry the largest mortgage debt, and it is white people who default on that debt more than any other people, because of their pursuits of image based status, in a monetary caste system created by wealthy white people, to separate the wealthy from the working class.

Whether its bad business decisions, over borrowing based on a stock ticker, to embezzlement, and over paying executives, and wasting corporate money on perks for the over paid executives, and etc... "All" these things were created by "white people". All such things contribute to continual corporate failures, layoffs and selling off of business, to another who plays the same game under the banner of "Inc's", which is nothing more than a modern form of Monopolization, which engages in price fixing and creating and promoting "inflation".
There has never been a black or brown person in the Top Executive Roles of the Majority of Fortune 500 Companies, therefore, none of that madness can be blamed on any other people other than the WASP Males in America.

We've seen everything from Corporate destruction of Legacy Business, to Mega Churches and Scandals from Money Embezzlement to Child Molestations. The more people research history the longer people come to learn this has been taking place.

Working Poor and Poor White People should know, that White Superiority was never about them, if it had been, there'd be no poor and under-educated and uneducated white people in America. The working poor are lead to play into the Ponzi schemes of the Stock Ticker, and every time there's a corrective adjustment made to the over inflated stock, it is the working class that lose.
People talk about their 401k, they get excited talking about how much it gained, and within 6 months or a year, or acts done by Republicans that damage the system, suddenly they see what they thought were gains "wiped out". Yet, the wealthy are always ahead of the curve and take their profits before the working class is even away of the fleecing that will result.

Any time Republican talk about Cutting Taxes on The Wealthy, what always follows is cutting funding for programming, and when that happens companies start laying off people, other companies buy another, and cancel 1000's of jobs, and entire cities suffer. By that time, the wealthy have taken the money that should be in Federal Coffers, and the result is the Federal Debt Increases. Then Republican first thought is cut programs that benefit and service the working class and the poor.

White people of the Republican Conservative Ideology can't see it, because they have been taught exactly what LBJ tried to warn them against falling for.
LBJ tried to awaken them, but they ignored what he told them:
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

( I can post it a thousand time and they will try to deny it a thousand times, and continue getting fleeced by continuing to be told who next to look down upon, while they are
I can only speak to this white person. I look down at liberals equally. Skin color, orientation gender don't matter.
You could be speaking to elements of the Democrat party. Hate is not the necessary reason to vote against someone who checks a particular box though it is a symptom of the party whose reason for existence is division; pitting one group against another.
 
A governor with charisma. Obama was a clean articulate black man to paraphrase Joe Biden.
Yes, do dig out all the talking points to make your case that Obama was president simply because he is black.
 
Yes, do dig out all the talking points to make your case that Obama was president simply because he is black.
He was the nominee and got the fast break he got because he was black. He was president because McCain sucked. Romney not much better. Obama was talented. I think he would have done well in future anyway. Though voters would know more about him. I would never vote for him. He's a Democrat. I no I do not hate him.
 
He was the nominee and got the fast break he got because he was black. He was president because McCain sucked. Romney not much better. Obama was talented. I think he would have done well in future anyway. Though voters would know more about him. I would never vote for him. He's a Democrat. I no I do not hate him.
He got the fast break because the Democratic Committee recognized a huge political talent. If Obama had been white he would have gotten the same break. They saw a winner.
 
I'm thinking that has never been the case in America (or much of any other democracy or republic).
It has always (well, for the past 200 years at any rate) been more of the case in the US than in most other democratically governed countries.
There have always been understood walls against some people, obviously gender and race but also family name, university, region of birth. In many ways, I see that as lessened rather than increased.
I will grant you that the importance of things like gender, race, family name, university, region of birth, and religion has declined in how the field of candidates for the "But can they win?" selection process has declined.

That, however, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the PRIMARY criteria in American candidate selection is "Can they win?" rather than "Is this person the best candidate that we can find to administer the laws of the country in the best interests of the people of the country and of the nation qua nation?" .
 
I think it a fair statement that it's perfectly attainable to find good people amongst women, minorities, and homosexual peoples. So yes, there should be a push to have representation without any diminishment in governance.


People vote for candidates for all kinds of reasons. From their looks to whether or not they're religious. I'd be more worried about that.

America has been old, male, and white for way too long. I will never forget the girl that had to testify in front of a panel of only old and white congressmen on why it was important for her to take birth control. A true facepalm moment.
Trouble is that while this is taken for granted in countries like mine. America still is having an issue over it.
 
It has always (well, for the past 200 years at any rate) been more of the case in the US than in most other democratically governed countries.

=
I do agree it has happened more in America than most other democratically governed countries. Our "caste" system is more easily breakable.
 
Let's say, for sake of argument, the Democrats decide NOT to go with Joe Biden in 2024.
Should they select a woman of color like Kamala Harris or a gay man like Pete Buttigieg?

Reason I ask: I was absolutely shocked that Americans would vote for a black man, not only once, but twice. I assumed at the time - wrongly as it turns out - that the U.S. had grown up. Then Trump happened.

Joe Biden shouldn't run for another term but hey, I get no say on that, that is just my humble opinion. The question now is - do they even try a woman like Gretchen Whitmer let alone a black woman? AND YOU KNOW why I am asking. The U.S. may have come to accept a black man (and probably because he wasn't TOO black) but a woman? Or a woman of color?

Ditto with a gay man, and you all know WHY I am asking.

In order to hold on to the Presidency will the Democrats be forced to nominate another white man as they did in 2020? Gavin Newsom maybe? Even if he isn't the "preferred" candidate? Or should the Democrats risk going with a woman of color or a gay man?

Let's not devolve this thread into how senile Biden is or how unfairly Trump has been treated. This is a straight up question as to whether the U.S. can or would vote for a woman of color or a gay man.

Options above.
I wanted Pete Buttigieg to win the nomination, still wish he had won. I would vote for him, but I do not know if it may impede others from voting for him, especially independents. It isn't likely to be an impediment for Democrat voters, but independents and moderate Republicans may not cross over.
 
Honestly, it should be not hard for a person of color to get elected on the Democratic side. If Obama and Kamala can do it, shouldn't be that hard for others.

Gay is bigger of a concern, because it's only been (fairly) recently accepted as a general part of society.

But of course, the only thing I give a damn about is who the candidate is. Not their race or sexual orientation.
most likely gays have been there already.
 
Back
Top Bottom