Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:11 PM

Should The Democratic Party Have A Latino On The Ticket In 2016?

44 votes, 16 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	5 (11%)
	Yes, if possible
	31 (70%)
	No
	8 (18%)
	16 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

72 replies, 2607 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

72 replies	Author	Time	Post
Should The Democratic Party Have A Latino On The Ticket In 2016? (Original post)	DemocratSinceBirth	Nov 2012	OP
If some brilliant rising star stands out, why not? n/t	dimbear	Nov 2012	#1
Julian Castro	womanofthehills	Nov 2012	#31
We need him in Texas first!	hamsterjill	Nov 2012	#36
They cannot win state offices	Blue4Texas	Nov 2012	#45
We should run the best candidate we have regardless of race ethnicity or gender.	Warren Stupidity	Nov 2012	#2
You are so correct.	SoapBox	Nov 2012	#5
+1	Agschmid	Nov 2012	#8
This Latino agrees!	ProudProgressiveNow	Nov 2012	#10
This AA agrees	LuckyStrykes	Nov 2012	#20
I	John2	Nov 2012	#22
Yes, running candidates on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, orientation, religion, etc.	Chan790	Nov 2012	#23
Not tokenism if they are qualified	Blue4Texas	Nov 2012	#46
No, you're right about that...	Chan790	Nov 2012	#56
Agreed	Blue4Texas	Nov 2012	#65
+++++++++++++++++++++++	Coyotl	Nov 2012	#33
Agreed.	graywarrior	Nov 2012	#39
This /nt	War Horse	Nov 2012	#42
As a Latina I agree. My fear is	LukeFL	Nov 2012	#51
That's what those fuckers thought they had with Palin.	Warren Stupidity	Nov 2012	#52
Florida will go for GOP	LukeFL	Nov 2012	#54
A few points	NewJeffCT	Nov 2012	#67
+ 1 n/t	ejbr	Nov 2012	#55
I'm just not sure...	SoapBox	Nov 2012	#3
It's time	lyingsackofmitt	Nov 2012	#4
Why not an Asian, they're the fastest growing group n/t	flamingdem	Nov 2012	#6
Not enough of them	ready2go83	Nov 2012	#15
OK I'm in for the Latino then, preferably female!	flamingdem	Nov 2012	#17
We should have the best candidate there is, regardless of what/who they are. n/t	Agschmid	Nov 2012	#7
+1 nt	ProudProgressiveNow	Nov 2012	#11
Agreed but	Blue4Texas	Nov 2012	#47
I voted no because of the work "should". It makes me think we would do that for no other reason	brewens	Nov 2012	#9
I picked the same option for basically the same reason.	CBHagman	Nov 2012	#16
+1	nsd	Nov 2012	#38
How about we should pick the best person for the job.	LisaL	Nov 2012	#12
We should run the best person regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. nt	aaaaaa5a	Nov 2012	#13
Hillary would be that person.	graham4anything	Nov 2012	#27
I do agree.	aaaaaa5a	Nov 2012	#29
We really should not have two Caucasians	union_maid	Nov 2012	#14
Only of they're the best person for the job.	BenzoDia	Nov 2012	#18
Not just because he/she is Latino(a). We should have the two best qualified for the job of	LoisB	Nov 2012	#19
Yeah we should either that or a woman.	craigmatic	Nov 2012	#21
We should just have the best ticket, period.	Blue_In_AK	Nov 2012	#24
Presidential candidates should be picked by the 'Content of Character' not the 'color of skin'	Tx4obama	Nov 2012	#25
Due To Demographic Trends The Republican Party At The Presidential Level Is In Its Death Throes	DemocratSinceBirth	Nov 2012	#28
i would like to hope	theKed	Nov 2012	#49
It's possible that	abetterkid	Nov 2012	#62
Hillary45/Castro46	graham4anything	Nov 2012	#26
And of course, there's nothing more important four years	SheilaT	Nov 2012	#30
We should have the best people we can find	DFW	Nov 2012	#32
not if we are picking him/her simply as a Latino	Jersey Devil	Nov 2012	#34
If he or she is qualified.	calico1	Nov 2012	#35
It should not be a priority, we should run who is best qualified to govern and best able to win.	Mr.Turnip	Nov 2012	#37
We are not the token party we have upcoming stars of all races in our party.	JRLeft	Nov 2012	#40
We should have two people on the ticket who uphold the values of the Democratic Party	hedgehog	Nov 2012	#41
Sounds like tokenism when asked this way	demhottie	Nov 2012	#43
I voted no for the simple fact that	Hutzpa	Nov 2012	#44
Lets look at 2008 Primary to see how important "Self Identification" is for undecideds.	tevolit	Nov 2012	#48
Julian Castro	CitizenLeft	Nov 2012	#50
Hahaha we just never know. Same thing	LukeFL	Nov 2012	#53
I agree with Castro for VP	socalfree	Nov 2012	#57
I don't think it's necessary, just as long as the Democratic Party continues to be inclusive	nc4bo	Nov 2012	#58
Not as a token	quaker bill	Nov 2012	#59
We should	Lugia	Nov 2012	#60
We should just have the strongest possible candidates on the ticket	cherish44	Nov 2012	#61
Sure. They should also have	lunatica	Nov 2012	#63
Whoever is the most qualified, regardless of race	Daniel537	Nov 2012	#64
I bet that...	abetterkid	Nov 2012	#66
to choose by race is a loser republican tactic.	Sunlei	Nov 2012	#68
Latino, Asian, African-America, Woman...whatever	BlueCollar	Nov 2012	#69
If possible - the person being the best candidate	treestar	Nov 2012	#70
re	Freemont13	Nov 2012	#71
Should the Democratic Party have a white person on the ticket in 2016?	libdem4life	Nov 2012	#72

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:12 PM

dimbear (5,150 posts)

1. If some brilliant rising star stands out, why not? n/t

Reply to this post

Response to dimbear (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 12:05 AM

womanofthehills (240 posts)

31. Julian Castro

He really stood out at the convention and I noticed the next night at the convention, Julian and his twin Joaquin had seats right next to Michelle.

Reply to this post

Response to womanofthehills (Reply #31)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:17 AM

hamsterjill (4,306 posts)

36. We need him in Texas first!

I want him to beat Perry first. Then the nation can have him. He is phenomenal!

Reply to this post

Response to hamsterjill (Reply #36)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:39 PM

Blue4Texas (437 posts)

45. They cannot win state offices

Unfortunately

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:13 PM

Warren Stupidity (31,961 posts)

2. We should run the best candidate we have regardless of race ethnicity or gender.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:14 PM

SoapBox (5,828 posts)

5. You are so correct.

Last edited Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:14 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

...let's hope the Pukes and Baggers never figure that out!

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:15 PM

Agschmid (1,879 posts)

8. +1

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:15 PM

ProudProgressiveNow (3,239 posts)

10. This Latino agrees!

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:40 PM

LuckyStrykes (103 posts)

20. This AA agrees

We need to nominate the person best suited to lead the country. Regardless of sex or race.

Reply to this post

Response to LuckyStrykes (Reply #20)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:50 PM

John2 (1,760 posts)

22. I

agree, but I do like the guy from Texas and the mayor of Los Angeles as candidates. I also like the Governor of Massachussetts and Biden's son.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:54 PM

Chan790 (13,778 posts)

23. Yes, running candidates on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, orientation, religion, etc.

is tokenism and it's pretty offensive.

It's something I expect from the GOP...the same people that cannot figure out why women didn't turn out in droves to support Sarah Palin and are confused by Alan Keyes lack of support among black voters. At their pace, I expect the GOP to scour America to find the one female black lesbian Muslim conservative they can run as a running mate for some older doofy white guy in 2016...and they'll be shocked when they still lose.

Reply to this post

Response to Chan790 (Reply #23)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:40 PM

Blue4Texas (437 posts)

46. Not tokenism if they are qualified

Reply to this post

Response to Blue4Texas (Reply #46)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:21 PM

Chan790 (13,778 posts)

56. No, you're right about that...

but it's about the qualifications first and the demographics second. I don't see a lot of people suggesting Julian Castro on the basis of his resume as opposed to the color of his skin. I'd wager that if I chose 5 random people advocating in this thread for him, 4 of them can't tell me his accomplishments or qualifications for higher office. I have a problem with that.

Suggesting Castro solely or specifically because he's Latino is offensive.

Is he the best candidate or just the token candidate chosen to pander to a key demographic?
If it's the second, how are we better than the pandering games the GOP plays?

Reply to this post

Response to Chan790 (Reply #56)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:17 AM

Blue4Texas (437 posts)

65. Agreed

Just saying that if we have two candidates both qualified and one will help us win because of demographics we have to consider even if neither Mayor Castro or his brother a newly elected Congressman have served in state offices in Texas as part of their qualifications due to the gerrymandering red here. The best candidate is not always the most qualified candidate.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:44 AM

Coyotl (5,164 posts)

33. +++++++++++++++++++++++

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:57 PM

graywarrior (57,087 posts)

39. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:33 PM

War Horse (559 posts)

42. This /nt

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:36 PM

LukeFL (299 posts)

51. As a Latina I agree. My fear is

That for 2016 Rubio will be picked for VP.. And there goes our chances.. They only need 40% of Latinos votes to win.. With Rubio on the ticket they will get that.

Reply to this post

Response to LukeFL (Reply #51)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:41 PM

Warren Stupidity (31,961 posts)

52. That's what those fuckers thought they had with Palin.

Women weren't buying and neither will hispanic voters. Their bullshit has worn thin.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #52)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:45 PM

LukeFL (299 posts)

54. Florida will go for GOP

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:48 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Cubans, puerto ricans and the rest will vote for it. Although in this past election cubans in FL went for Obama and Rombey equally they will rally behind Rubio.- just because he is Hispanic and the first in history to be nominated as VP. The comparison of Palin with Rubio is naive. Palin was crazy and rambled nonsense. Rubio is calmer and seems genuine compassionate.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #52)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:49 AM

NewJeffCT (35,937 posts)

67. A few points

1) Palin was a horrible candidate who couldn't do anything more than spout hateful platitudes.
2) Rubio gave a good speech at the GOP convention - one of the few GOP speeches that didn't put me to sleep. I didn't like its content, but it was well delivered.
3) Rubio has a good story as the son of immigrants. And, unlike Palin and her questionable academic & political credentials, Rubio has a JD and will have a full Senate term under his belt by 2016, and was Speaker of the Florida house before that.
4) He doesn't need to win the Hispanic vote, he just needs to get to somewhere around 40% to make a huge difference in swing states.

Reply to this post

Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:04 PM

ejbr (3,953 posts)

55. + 1 n/t

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:13 PM

SoapBox (5,828 posts)

3. I'm just not sure...

We'll know in a couple of years.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:13 PM

lyingsackofmitt (105 posts)

4. It's time

It's time for women to rise!

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:14 PM

flamingdem (22,749 posts)

6. Why not an Asian, they're the fastest growing group n/t

Reply to this post

Response to flamingdem (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:22 PM

ready2go83 (80 posts)

15. Not enough of them

Not enough of them to make a big impact.

Reply to this post

Response to ready2go83 (Reply #15)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:23 PM

flamingdem (22,749 posts)

17. OK I'm in for the Latino then, preferably female!

Como no?

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:14 PM

Agschmid (1,879 posts)

7. We should have the best candidate there is, regardless of what/who they are. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to Agschmid (Reply #7)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:16 PM

ProudProgressiveNow (3,239 posts)

11. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Response to Agschmid (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:42 PM

Blue4Texas (437 posts)

47. Agreed but

If one will win and one will not then let's not make the good the enemy of the best, just saying

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:15 PM

brewens (3,014 posts)

9. I voted no because of the work "should". It makes me think we would do that for no other reason

than playing the Latino people. The Republicans might try that and they will see right through it. We could and we can, provided a Latino wants the job and really looks like a good candidate. Do you have anyone in mind?

Reply to this post

Response to brewens (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:23 PM

CBHagman (14,025 posts)

16. I picked the same option for basically the same reason.

I'd welcome a Latino candidate, but first let's see who declares an interest, what strengths he/she brings, whether he/she has fire in the belly and political savvy. The race for president is, among other things, a long, grueling job interview, and moreover we don't know precisely what the national field of candidates will look like or, for that matter, what will be going on in the world.

Reply to this post

Response to brewens (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:56 PM

nsd (1,736 posts)

38. +1

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:18 PM

LisaL (22,858 posts)

12. How about we should pick the best person for the job.

Without demanding he or she be of certain race or ethnicity.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:19 PM

aaaaaa5a (3,701 posts)

13. We should run the best person regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. nt

Reply to this post

Response to aaaaaa5a (Reply #13)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:41 PM

graham4anything (9,316 posts)

27. Hillary would be that person.

Reply to this post

Response to graham4anything (Reply #27)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:42 PM

aaaaaa5a (3,701 posts)

29. I do agree.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:21 PM

union_maid (3,500 posts)

14. We really should not have two Caucasians

Of course we need the best people, but if the top of the ticket turns out to be a white person - male or female, I really think it would behoove the candidate to choose someone in a minority for VP. There should be plenty of very qualified candidates to choose from.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:26 PM

BenzoDia (526 posts)

18. Only of they're the best person for the job.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:38 PM

LoisB (501 posts)

19. Not just because he/she is Latino(a). We should have the two best qualified for the job of

President regardless of ethnicity. White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim, atheist...doesn't matter to me.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 09:44 PM

craigmatic (3,226 posts)

21. Yeah we should either that or a woman.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:14 PM

Blue_In_AK (37,743 posts)

24. We should just have the best ticket, period.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:31 PM

Tx4obama (29,048 posts)

25. Presidential candidates should be picked by the 'Content of Character' not the 'color of skin'

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. — Martin Luther King Jr.

Reply to this post

Response to Tx4obama (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:41 PM

DemocratSinceBirth (46,047 posts)

28. Due To Demographic Trends The Republican Party At The Presidential Level Is In Its Death Throes

Last edited Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:48 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

I want to take it out of its misery. If the Latino share of the electorate equals their share of the adult population and they continue to vote for Democratic presidential candidates at a 2-1 and 3-1 rate the Republican candidate will have to get upwards of seventy percent of the white vote to win. Even Nixon in his 1972 landslide got 68%.

I can see the promised land and it doesn't include a Republican party.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #28)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:34 PM

theKed (1,220 posts)

49. i would like to hope

that white people aren't the only ones who vote 'off-race' because of a superior candidate. The idea that a latino voter will vote dem because we have a latino candidate is insulting to a large swath of that base. the latino vote comes with sound policies, not color matching.

Reply to this post

Response to theKed (Reply #49)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:43 AM

abetterkid (6 posts)

62. It's possible that

people also vote for a candidate who they feel to be just like them.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 10:39 PM

graham4anything (9,316 posts)

26. Hillary45/Castro46

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Sun Nov 11, 2012, 11:32 PM

SheilaT (12,478 posts)

30. And of course, there's nothing more important four years

before that election to start figuring out who will be on the ticket.

Yeah, what Obama might do between now and then isn't the least bit important. The only thing that matters is the next election.

You can decide if I'm being sarcastic or not.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:38 AM

DFW (13,379 posts)

32. We should have the best people we can find

I don't care if they're Hispanic, White, Black or Samoan.

I just want them to be progressive, competent, bright, and charismatic enough to blow away the opposition in the media.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 07:56 AM

Jersey Devil (7,449 posts)

34. not if we are picking him/her simply as a Latino

We should pick the best candidates regardless of color or ethnicity. Repubs seem to think just picking a candidate of a particular ethnic background, like Rubio, will win the Latino vote but I think that is very insulting. A candidate who supports Latino issues will win their vote regardless of race or ethnicity as we saw in this election.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 08:04 AM

calico1 (8,389 posts)

35. If he or she is qualified.

And I say this as a Latina.

The GOP parade around their minority candidates because they think that's all it takes to get votes.

Let's not do the same thing as them.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 02:27 PM

Mr.Turnip (624 posts)

37. It should not be a priority, we should run who is best qualified to govern and best able to win.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:02 PM

JRLeft (1,953 posts)

40. We are not the token party we have upcoming stars of all races in our party.

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:03 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

We are the multicultural party and will have people of every ethnic group run. And yes I believe Julian Castro will be President one day and so does the Breitbart gang.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:11 PM

hedgehog (30,432 posts)

41. We should have two people on the ticket who uphold the values of the Democratic Party

and are capable of being President of the United States.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:40 PM

demhottie (292 posts)

43. Sounds like tokenism when asked this way

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:13 PM

Hutzpa (10,475 posts)

44. I voted no for the simple fact that

ethnicity is not going to win elections, it is what that candidate believes in that's what wins election. Their policies of inclusion.

Asking question in this way reminds me of the republican saying that they should now start recruiting Latinos which is utter disregards of their needs and wants. It is another form of affirmative action.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:31 PM

tevolit (26 posts)

48. Lets look at 2008 Primary to see how important "Self Identification" is for undecideds.

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

I remember the debates between Obama and Clinton.

I think we could look to the % of Votes received from AA and Women to calculate the importance of pandering to an individuals ethnic and gender identity when a voter is not torn by the issues.

Where can we find these statistics?

P.S. We could look at DEM vs REP senate races to get a closer idea of how much effect there is when the candidates have disparate views.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:36 PM

CitizenLeft (2,609 posts)

50. Julian Castro

I'd love to see him grow, become a national figure first.

On the other hand, as much as I liked Barack Obama immediately upon reading about him for the first time in April 2004, and seeing the photo of his beautiful family, I didn't think he was ready in 2007. I wanted him to wait at least another senate term.

So there ya go.

Reply to this post

Response to CitizenLeft (Reply #50)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:42 PM

LukeFL (299 posts)

53. Hahaha we just never know. Same thing

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2012, 09:50 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Here. I thought Barack was too young and did not have too much experience.

So there you have it. The rest of history.

At this point we just never know. I would like to see Castro more and be exposed more so public can see more if him. So yes, he would be great choice.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 11:43 PM

socalfree (3 posts)

57. I agree with Castro for VP

I don't think its fair to wait until he turns Texas blue because quite frankly its a very uphill battle. The state is big and democrats don't have a good ground game there. Having Castro as VP will still help in other south west states like Colorado. And if we nominate someone older like Biden or Hilary it will be good to have a young and energetic VP. He will be able to do the hundreds of get out the vote rallies that they probably won't have the energy for.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:34 AM

nc4bo (13,355 posts)

58. I don't think it's necessary, just as long as the Democratic Party continues to be inclusive

and fights for the rights of EVERY one and what is fair for all citizens regardless of race, gender, sex, ethnicity, religion, class. A token will never be necessity.

If a qualified candidate just happens to be Latino, well that's another story.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 06:33 AM

quaker bill (7,130 posts)

59. Not as a token

people see right through that and are usually put off by it. However if a Latino leader arises who is a logical compliment and good choice for the ticket, it would be a just fine with me.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:20 AM

Lugia (52 posts)

60. We should

have the best person for the job, whether he/she is Latino or not.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:25 AM

cherish44 (2,460 posts)

61. We should just have the strongest possible candidates on the ticket

regardless of ethnicity or gender.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 07:56 AM

lunatica (28,865 posts)

63. Sure. They should also have

Asians, Blacks, American Indians as well as gays and Muslims and Atheists. You know, a broad sampling of the American electorate. It is a representative government isn't it?

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:07 AM

Daniel537 (1,051 posts)

64. Whoever is the most qualified, regardless of race

But my personal pick for POTUS would be Jon Tester, the VP position, we can debate.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:46 AM

abetterkid (6 posts)

66. I bet that...

the Republicans are going to place a token politician in their VP slot to try to out diversify us. I'm still surprised we won the Cuban vote this year though....amazing.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 08:52 AM

Sunlei (2,297 posts)

68. to choose by race is a loser republican tactic.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:17 PM

BlueCollar (3,504 posts)

69. Latino, Asian, African-America, Woman...whatever

As long as they are a progressive democrat I'm ok. Just don't put another Lieberman on the ticket...

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 12:33 PM

treestar (40,532 posts)

70. If possible - the person being the best candidate

Julian Castro - the maker of a Convention Keynote speech seems to be the next nominee in at least a couple of recent cases!

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:26 PM

Freemont13 (6 posts)

71. re

Its not about so much about experience with Castro because he has some as a Mayor and how much more experience does Paul Ryan have or even any one term Governors or one term senators? He has the schooling and the leadership qualities.

Reply to this post

Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Original post)

Tue Nov 13, 2012, 09:49 PM

libdem4life (1,783 posts)

72. Should the Democratic Party have a white person on the ticket in 2016?

Seems to have been a trend over the past few decades. There are hundreds of qualified individuals for national office, many of whom do not have the money, power, exposure, etc. Just as many people were intelligent enough to get BA or MA degrees ... still are ... but without access it doesn't much matter, now does it.

Hand-wringing that it's racist to even the playing field...heaven forfend we should actually mention heritage or identification by surname or visual identification...has no place in a liberal or progressive conversation.

We're leaning way over to accommodate fearmongers...and Obama and his "bipartisanship" has done his share. Liberals need to hang tough and to hell with the PC excuses. Make 'em come get us.

Reply to this post

Politics 2013 (Forum)