2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumIf there had never been a Man President in the 240 years of this country.
Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:04 AM - Edit history (1)
Would most men feel some type of obligation to make history and vote for the first male President? I think folks are underestimating the magnitude of women on both side of the political spectrum stepping into voter's booth and being able for the first time in history vote for a woman at the head of a Presidential ticket.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)a guy who believes that there should be "some form of punishment" for women who have abortions.
This could well be the most lopsided female vote in a presidential election, ever.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)To try and offset that some. I don't doubt that 4 months from now most women will be behind Hillary, even from Bernie supporters and republicans.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)But it's a valid reason as any. And it will likely persuade a lot of women voters, whether people like it or not.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)You've put less thought into it than people who decided the winner of American idol
deathrind
(1,786 posts)You are absolutely correct. It really is amazing how decades long core values of a political party have simply been swept to the side in the name of making history by voting for the first woman president.
840high
(17,196 posts)Ghost Dog
(16,881 posts)more than primary or secondary sexual, um, assets.
Also culture and history.
"Liberation of women" we called it, back in the day: my/our culture's greatest, though still incomplete, achievement of the last century.
,.. Doesn't mean the likes of Clinton, Albright, Thatcher, etc. are exemplary political women, does it?
What about Brazillian Dilma Rousseff?
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)if we were asked to consider that it would still be more effort than voting based on the basic biological gender characteristics of the species, which was what the poster was talking about.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)But the vast majority of women who support Clinton, do so because they think she's the best person for the job.
Suggesting that people "only" support Clinton because of her sex is deeply insulting. I've never understood how Bernie's supporters don't seem to understand that.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)Fiorina went nowhere in the primaries, and no Republican, let alone any Republican woman, would ever under any circumstances vote for HRC.
It can only be transformative to elect a rebel woman in the spirit of Shirley Chisholm or Bella Abzug or Sissy Farenthold. Once you are in the 1%, once you become a hawk, you lose any ability to be transformative. No war can ever again liberate women and neither can any victories for corporate power.
merrily
(45,251 posts)We all know that. For whatever reason, a majority of the population did not get the vote until well after the 14th Amendment. Then, for whatever reasons, women did not run for many elected offices or elect use their majority vote to elect many other women.
I am a woman. What I experience is no different from what other American women experience. I would dearly love to see a woman President, but not Hillary or Palin. I didn't vote for Obama because we'd never had an African American President. I voted for him because I thought he would win the general and because I thought he would make a good President. Once I reached my decision, however, I was thrilled that I could support an African American for President. When I feel the same way about a woman, I will be just as thrilled. I don't feel that way about Hillary or Palin and bathing suit parts alone are not reason enough for me to vote for a President.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Gwhittey
(1,377 posts)You could of elected the first Women VP in history. Why did you not vote for that ticket then?