The Winning Democratic Strategy: Only Vote for Women

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

Everyone agrees, we want anyone but Bush. We can argue forever about which of the candidates is the most "electable", Dean for his fundraising, Clark for his resume, Kerry for his seniority, Kucinich for his platform, but it's difficult to get the majority to agree. We always say leading Democrats is like herding cats. As Democrats, we range the spectrum from liberal to conservative, urban to rural, rich to poor, east to west. We all agree on one thing - women have an equal place in government.

If most women and many men vote for an all female ticket, across the board, from Carol Moseley-Braun and Barbara Lee, to every local Democratic female candidate (or an independent or third-party or even Republican female candidate when the Democrats couldn't deliver), in the primary and the general election, it would be a guarenteed win for America in general.

President Carol Moseley-Braun and Vice President Barbara Lee will choose competent administration officials, and I'm sure will choose a few men, perhaps Clark for Defense, Dean for State, Kerry for HHS, Kucinich for Labor. Since they are Democrats, we'll have a Democratic government, perhaps more centrist than I would like, but it would certainly be an improvement over what we have now and any Democratic administration in my memory. Some of the women will be liberal, some conservative, many moderate. Just the change of leadership and the different perspective would be better than any other outcome, at the best a status quo moderate establishment government.

We would have to make sure everyone calls the CEOs of the media everyday and demand fair coverage of Braun, and swamp radio shows will calls and letters of support. She'll get a few "tough" males appeal to the male vote, and can present a face for those voters who need one. We will demand FOX, CNN, CBC, ABC, and NBC air positive coverage of our female candidates as strong on national defense and fair on social issues. Any network or celebrity saying negative things about our female candidates will get immediately attacked, villified, and boycotted. Let's be honest, sometimes politics can be rough and dirty. We have to play to win.

Sure, it might be unfair to a few male politicians who "deserve" our vote, and we might even wind up getting a female candidate that's worse than a male contender. On the whole, across the national and in our states and counties, the new faces in government would go a long way to reclaiming government of the people and by the people.

It's a simple stragety and a sure fire winner. ONLY vote for women.

[DarkPhenyx]

1. Of course you are assuming this is a good thing...

...and that a female politician will be any different than a male one.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

2. no, but a majority female goverment

might be better than the majority male government we have always had. I can't imagine how it could be worse?

[WillyBrandt]

3. The Lady is not for Turning

Ever hear of Maggie Thatcher?

[amlouden]

4. don't remind me

her politics and bush's are right down the line

[JohnKleeb]

9. Willy dont remind me

:argh: I hate her.

[kiahzero]

13. It could be worse

Because you'd be discriminating against half of the population.

When did discrimination become part of our platform?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

25. It is not discrimination to vote for a woman

I didn't say make it illegal to vote for a man, and besides, is discrimination against males in government a big problem right now?

[kiahzero]

30. Following that logic

It's not discrimination to not vote for a black man, simply because he is black. You're not encouraging voting for women so much as not voting for men.

[Skittles]

41. that's like saying

there's no difference between Dems and repugs

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zorra]

15. lol - This is a joke, right?

:puke:sexism

[kiahzero]

17. Because the sexism in the original post is any better?

:puke: hypocrisy.

[Zorra]

18. Are you inferring that I am a hypocrite?

Because my comment had nothing to do with the original post, which I do not necessarily agree with, although I do believe it would be a good thing for this country if qualified women had as equal a presence in representing the people as men have. We are, after all, half of the population.

[kiahzero]

24. I'm pretty sure I came right out and said it

There's nothing preventing more women from running. But don't expect everyone to bow before their coming and immediately put them into office.

Get a woman with good policies in the General Election, and I'll vote for her. I don't care about gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, etc. I just want someone who's going to do the job right.

[Zorra]

45. Then it seems you owe me an apology.

Once again:

Because my comment had nothing to do with the original post, which I do not necessarily agree with, although I do believe it would be a good thing for this country if qualified women had as equal a presence in representing the people as men have. We are, after all, half of the population.

I am saying that it would be a good thing for the country if qualified women were in government, not that people should bow down and immediately put them into office because they are women. Women are very under represented in government relative to their percentage of the general population. There are numerous and complex sociological reasons why women are under represented in government, and, IMO, one of the main reasons is that we are a society that has evolved from patriarchal and prejudicial Judaeo-Christian traditions. I believe this is a primary reason that women are still under represented in government, and why we still need to struggle for equality. A larger number of qualified women in government would provide a different, broader perspective in the way our nation is governed, and that this would be good for the country. Women and men generally grow up with very different familial and societal conditioning, are different biologically, and usually view things from a different(and please note that I am not saying better)perspective than men. A balance in gender perspective would, IMO, be very healthy for our government in order to represent all of the peoples interests.

Apparently, you are not prejudiced, and you seem aware and intelligent enough to realize that there is still a good deal of prejudice against many minorities in this country. You also probably are aware that there is still prejudice against women also. Just check out the many comments made about women by Rush Limbaugh for proof of this. The prejudicial attitudes perpetuated by people like Limbaugh and his followers are another reason that women have problems attaining greater representation in government. We only got the right to vote 80 years ago, and are still struggling for real equality, just as gays and ethnic minorities are. Another example of this prejudice is that, as has been statistically proven, women are often paid less than men when they perform the same type of work.

What I have just tried to outline here may be difficult for many men to fully understand; although men may recognize these gender inequalities, they do not have the experience of having to deal with these societal preconditions and prejudices, or struggle against them, on a daily basis. Try imagining your life from a woman's perspective.

"Get a woman with good policies in the General Election, and I'll vote for her. I don't care about gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, etc. I just want someone who's going to do the job right."

Me, too.

Calling me a hypocrite was unwarranted. I was responding to another post that has been deleted, which was, IMO, blatantly sexist, and inferred that women are not qualified to be President.

[Clete]

19. Oh really as contrary to the peace loving men

who don't start wars (psst, it was really Laura Bush who invaded Iraq), and are never on the defense from Republicans? (Sorry I forgot. They are Republicans!) Clinton never worried about being weak. He knew he was way cooler than anyone. :-)

[janekat]

6. How about if we only allow women to vote - they vote Dem...

Especially single women. I think about 70% of all single women voted for Gore. We'd have a Dem Congess, Dem President.

[Loyal]

22. How about that's discrimination?

Or is this about getting even for the period in which women couldn't vote. You weren't alive back then. And unless you are getting on in years, you've most likely always had the right to vote, and weren't harassed or anything. So stop.

[catzies]

7. WE ARE NOT A SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP ANYMORE

WE ARE HALF THE POPULATION
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
WE DESERVE HALF THE REPRESENTATION
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. No, you don't actually

Deserve it, that is. You can get it and more if you work at it however. But that is up to you and about 150 million other women. The problem is many women don't agree with your gender prejudice. They vote for the person they consider the best candidate. Go figure.

[catzies]

11. We are working. But, whenever there's a void, even a worthless

man would rush in and fill it.

Women are disinclined to run, and if they start a political career at all, most of them start later in life.

We're not even half the number of names on any given ballot. I know what we're up against.

[Muddleoftheroad]

28. Their choice

If they don't run, they are making a choice. I am for freedom of choice in elections as well as abortion.

[noiretextatique]

14. "deserve" is an inaccurate word

do men "deserve" the status they have? do white men "deserve" the hegemony they have? of course not...things are the way the are for a reason: it was by design. when the 'electable' (presidential) candidates are almost always white men, you should say "people vote for the best white man they consider the best candidate.

[kiahzero]

16. Your argument makes no sense

The grandparent's post was saying that no social group 'deserves' a certain percentage of the Congress. That's not affirmative action, that's a quota.

If you think that women (or men, for that matter) 'deserve' to be in Congress because of their gender, you're wrong. You don't 'deserve' to be in Congress, period. You earn it.

[Muddleoftheroad]

29. Half those people are women

How they vote is up to them.

[Loyal]

23. No entitlements, thank you.

Women are not represented equally because MOST OF THEM DON'T RUN. It's probably not because of discrimination, in fact, the largest beneficiaries of affirmative action have been white women. That might have to be corrected.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

12. TOO FUNNY! --- I Already Do That...

When trying to decide which candidates to vote for in local minor offices like school board, etc. I'll ALWAYS choose the female candidate (if the name is an obvious clue).

-- Allen

[Clete]

20. Hurray for Allen. He get's it.

:hi:

[Loyal]

21. No,

I'm for the best candidate, no matter what gender they are. I am not going to vote for a woman just because she's a woman, and I'm not going to vote for a man just because he's a man. If the best candidate(say, in 08 or 12) happens to be a woman, like Hillary, i'll gladly vote for her. If she runs and she's not the best candidate with the best chance of winning, I won't vote for her. Simple as that. By the way, I like Carol-Moseley Braun a lot, but I don't like Barbara Lee at all.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

26. How do you decide who is "best"?

Individually, your vote hardly matters. Whatever criteria you are using (electable, good voting record, personal appeal) is bound to be different than anyone else's. We need a *strategy* that a majority can cooperate on. I'm suggesting voting for a all-female ticket, just this once, or maybe in the next two elections.

Then you can go back to calibrating the minute differences between Dean, Kerry, Edwards, yadda yadda. Voting for your individual conscious is a loser, we need a team strategy.

That's why it's a simple and effective strategy. It's easy to remember, there is no long list of names to memorize. Just vote female, in the primary and general.

[Muddleoftheroad]

27. Easy and Stupid

Face it, it's a discriminatory and stupid policy. It says Democrats are too stupid to decide based on issues, we need some dumb ass slogan and a concept so foolish that it defies imagination.

Not all women deserve my vote. In fact, just like men, many do not.

I vote for the best candidate.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

31. It is not a policy, it is a strategy

Can you really not see the difference? I am not saying that female candidates deserve our vote more than males candidates do. I'm not saying that a female can necessarily do the job better than any male. I'm not saying that all women have better positions and policies than all men.

I am saying that in this election, and maybe the next one, we should just vote for females across the board. The strategy has a few good, practical advantages:

1. Most voters are female, and presumabley most would have no problem voting for a female candidate, and perhaps female candidates could appeal to the majority better than a male candidate could.

2. A radical all female ticket might bring out women and many men in large numbers.

3. Most women are Democratic, but we could appeal to independents and even Republicans.

4. It would appeal to the anti-incumbent "throw them all out" notion.

5. It couldn't possibly be worse than Bush and Republicans.

It's simple, easy to remember, and effective.

[kiahzero]

32. It's a crappy one

I am not saying that female candidates deserve our vote more than males candidates do. I'm not saying that a female can necessarily do the job better than any male. I'm not saying that all women have better positions and policies than all men.

Then why are you encouraging that we all vote solely for women?

Most voters are female, and presumabley most would have no problem voting for a female candidate, and perhaps female candidates could appeal to the majority better than a male candidate could.

Obviously you haven't met the Stockholm-syndrome "anti-feminist" women.

Face it: your idea inhales. Vigorously.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. It is the absence of an idea

It simply says, "Vote for me, I have breasts." While this might be the natural evolution of celebrity politics, it is not what this or any party stands for.

[kiahzero]

34. Good point...

Should we have voted for Mary Carey for Governor? After all, Arianna pulled out, and Mary's a woman. Sure, she was a porn star, and was completely unqualified, but she had a vagina, so clearly she'd be better than Davis, Bustamante, or the Gropenator all together!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. You are so missing the point

I didn't say vote for the worst, least qualified female. I just ASSUMED everyone would vote for the best, most qualified female. Perhaps I should have been more specific for those who equate an all-female ticket to an all-porn star ticket.

I'm not saying vote all women forever. I'm saying THIS election, let's vote in all women. There are plenty of qualified women running for office around the country. Even though Male Y might be slightly more "qualified" than Female X in a specific election, over the whole government, it would be a good change to have a whole bunch of new women in office, and since most women lean Democratic and liberal anyway, the chances of getting a liberal Democratic government would be good.

Plus, as an anti-incumbent strategy can be very effective if it is played right.

The other strategy is to try and decide between a bunch of centrist establishment white males, which in the last few elections has been a LOSING strategy for the Democrats.

[Muddleoftheroad]

36. So let's lose as bigots

Somehow your strategy seems worse.

I am saying vote for the best candidate, NOT the best woman. The two are often not the same just as it is with men.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

37. what bigotry?

People don't have a "right" to be elected. It's not bigotry to follow a voluntary strategy of an all-female ticket. It's a short term strategy to get energize the base, get more women out to vote, and throw out lots of incumbents.

"I am saying vote for the best candidate, NOT the best woman. The two are often not the same just as it is with men."

Sure, what's the "best" candidate? Your views are different than anyone else's. Forget the specific candidate, forget specific policies, think in terms of strategy and the overall difference in government. At this point, we will go into the primary divided among a handful of centrist candidates, all qualified to one degree or another. Whoever wins will probably choose a few of their former rivals for their administration.

If we vote an all-female ticket, the choices will narrow and we can come out of the primary united behind a new team of candidates that will offer a clear distinction with the Republicans - NOT because they are all female, but because they are all female, are almost CERTAINLY going to be more Democratic and more liberal than Republicans, and will certainly offer a big change of pace.

As a strategy, it's a winning idea.

[Muddleoftheroad]

38. It is bigotry to deliberately only vote for one gender or one race

People do not have a right to be elected. But it IS bigoted to say you should only vote for a woman or a man or a black or Hispanic.

No, I will not "forget the specific candidate, forget specific policies." I vote for the best person, not some ridiculous strategy that would turn rational-minded members of both genders against us.

All I can say is boy I am glad you are not planning our strategy.

As a strategy, it's an embarrassing idea.

[Loyal]

47. Good job Muddle

I don't bother listening to WhoCountsTheVotes anymore.

[kiahzero]

39. Perhaps I should make myself clearer

for those who don't understand logic.

You made a proposition: Voting only for women is a good strategy for our current political situation.

I disproved your implication by citing a counterexample: the most prominent female in the CA gubernatorial race was Mary Carey after Arianna dropped out. Clearly she is not a good candidate, thereby disproving your assertion that voting only for women would be a good strategy.

Want some formalism? OK:
Your assertion:
For all X, Y, where X is a member of the set Female, and Y is a member of the set Male, Voting for X is superior to voting for Y.

To negate this statement, there exists a member of the set Female, Z, for whom this statement does not hold.

My counterexample: Mary Carey, who is a member of the set Female, does not make your proposition true. Therefore your assertion is false.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. oh so wrong

The fact that there exists female candidates that are not as "good" as male candidates was dealt with in the original post. A straightforward reading of my post certainly never said that in every case, voting for a female is better. I said that in aggregate, we would have a better outcome by voting a straight female ticket.

But I suppose that's bigotry, but voting for white males since they are "more electable" is not. Strange logic from a progressive message board. Ah well.

[kiahzero]

51. What are you talking about?

The fact that there exists female candidates that are not as "good" as male candidates was dealt with in the original post. A straightforward reading of my post certainly never said that in every case, voting for a female is better. I said that in aggregate, we would have a better outcome by voting a straight female ticket.

So then you're arguing that the women running for office are, over all, inherantly better than the men? That's the only way I see voting solely for women resulting in a better outcome than voting for the best candidate out of those running for each specific post.

But I suppose that's bigotry, but voting for white males since they are "more electable" is not. Strange logic from a progressive message board. Ah well.

:wtf:

So now I'm the bigot, because I'm going to vote for the candidate that I support, rather than another candidate, based solely on their gender?

*cough* Projection *cough*

[yellowdawgdem]

40. Agreed

:thumbsup:

[PurityOfEssence]

42. The history of women leaders is not "nice" by any stretch

Take it from an ardent feminist male, not only in the underlying argument of female moral superiority a bit off-putting, it's also FALSE.

Historically, women leaders have been a bloodthirsty lot. Perhaps one can dismiss this as them having to be more powerful and ruthless than men to secure their place and fight off the onslaught of reaction, but the facts are pretty clear. Look at the powerful female leaders of history: Indira Gandhi, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, Margaret Thatcher are a few good examples of some real sweethearts who rivaled any of the other sex.

It's also a dangerous social tenet to hold, since acceptance of women is something that must be agreed upon, and those who are told that they're inferior generally don't want to sign on to the theory.

As for your premise that the math supports this, I'd still say that it's more of an issue of the individual. Sadly, the media scrutiny and assorted public torture that attends political life these days generally keeps those of greatness from having anything to do with the calling. Should someone of real fire--say, like Jan Schakowsky--run for high office, she'd have a real chance. The trick is always going to be the coupling of fervor with broad appeal, as it is for progressive men.

There are more and more women in public life all the time, and almost all offices outside of the top of the executive have been held by them. Remember: we're only thirty some-odd years into this new kind of world, and we're experiencing a period of social backlash that really started with the 1980 election. Even with that, things are undeniably better, and will continue to improve.

The implicit contention that women are somehow more noble, warm, nurturing and emotionally ethical is a counterproductive annoyance and a thorough an insult. It may be true on the average (I'm still not buying it) but the ones who aspire to high office are of a special subset, and they're the group that should be discussed. The sampling to examine is the group with the desire for power, and that group shouldn't benefit from some genital similarity with Mary Poppins.

Aileen Wuornos was female; Fred Rogers was male.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

44. your post would be more interesting if it responded to what I wrote

"underlying argument of female moral superiority"? Come now, is that anywhere in what I wrote? It's not a moral argument, but a practical one. At this point in time, among the US voting population, women are a majority and more likely to lean Democratic and liberal. No one said women were "morally superior"

But damn, the whole idea really brought out more male hostility than I expected.

"The implicit contention that women are somehow more noble, warm, nurturing and emotionally ethical is a counterproductive annoyance and a thorough an insult."

I would agree, but of course, I neither implied that, nor do I believe it, so what exactly is your point?

[PurityOfEssence]

48. Very nice of you to say, and you're right, but here's why I wrote that

Under the surface of feminism simmers this assumption, and under proposals for preferentially supporting women is the same. It was an extreme stretch, and really somewhat inappropriate, but it does come into play whenever suggesting such things.

More appropriate would be the through-line of many women voting against what I think are their best interests out of fear of the unknown or a weird primal attraction to power. The former is the case in the ERA being shot down by women in Texas and the latter in the surprising number of female votes for Herr Schickelgroper (thanks to Snellius for the name) out here in California.

It was a rant that got off-topic, and can only be loosely justified, so I cop to that. I will say again that such proposals are attempting to claim the moral high ground, and I have to remind us all that women do not automatically deserve that right when past actions are called into account. So how's that for a mealy-mouthed and qualified apology?

I hope you see the point. Do you not agree that it's somewhat implicit in the proposal that this is also a claim of moral superiority?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

50. no, not implicit at all

I was explicitly saying that a majority female government would be *different* and implied that that difference would be *better* than the status quo, but certainly not because of a supposedly innate superiority of females.

Women have no more weird primal attraction to power than men do, nor do they vote against their own interests any more often than men do.

I suppose we'll have to settle for a centrist rich white male, since that's "electable" - no bigotry there, right?

[PurityOfEssence]

53. Apparently you can only accept unconditional total victory

Bigotry is bigotry and it's a form of favoritism. To advocate a form of favoritism is what you're doing. I was being neighborly and honorable with that response, pointing out a connotation of the proposal. Nowhere did I advocate a cowardly sucking up to the system by accepting rich white males only. I am the one advocating no restrictions; you are the one advocating restrictions. If you don't like the theory that there's an underlying goody two-shoes superiority in the more radical expressions of feminism, that's fine, but that doesn't give you the right or justification to presume my fear of change.

My statement regarding the attraction to power and voting against interests in no way states or implies that women do this more than men; that's your interpretation, and it shows you as assuming hostility from those who disagree with you on this point. I reject that, and am annoyed that it comes on the heels of a heartfelt explanation of a rather thorny subject.

Must you have absolute victory and a complete denial of positions somewhat opposed or qualified? This tack I've been taking is far from derisive, yet you see fit to respond with an attack and attempt to marginalize me as some running dog to the thug-patriarchy.

So much for subtlety. People who attempt to point out drawbacks to your theories in a civil manner aren't your enemies; maybe you should think about that.

[sangh0]

43. Now there's a winning strategy

Not

[wadestock]

46. Women are the key....but

not as you describe.

Women are the swing vote and will result in Bush being voted out of office.

Reason being quite simply....they are more sensitive and have the true "intuition" concerning whether we really are safer now.

Be careful to note that the Republicans have tried earnestly to work this issue and will continue to do so...with all out lies and fabricated interviews, etc...that the women of this country feel that they are safer under Bush.

NO...only the true Reaganites believe that.

The majority of women and any person with half a brain knows quite clearly that we are 100 times more unsafe now under Bush.

[Vogon_Glory]

52. I'm From Texas, Your Idea Is Naive

I'm from Texas and your proposal to only vote for women is naive. I can name at least three reactionary Texas Republican women without breathing hard: State Senator Jane Nelson, State Senator Arlene Wohegemuth, and Suzanne Hupp. In addition, the Texas state Republican Party is currently chaired by yet another Texas female reactionary.

--VG