People often say "I don't have a problem voting for a woman, but I worry that other people will"

[StarfishSaver]

And then use that as an excuse for not supporting female candidates.

Please think about what this says, what it means, and how that affects female candidates and the process.

Among other things, it feeds into and perpetuates systemic discrimination while allowing themselves to feel "above it all" and appear not to be participating in the sexism they claim to be identifying.

Fearing that someone else will behave in a sexist manner is not a valid excuse for not voting for a woman. If you don't want to vote for the female candidate, for whatever reason that may be, don't vote for her. But claiming you're not going to vote for her because you think someone else might not vote for her because they're sexist makes you as culpable in the sexism as the people whose behavior you claim to be able to predict and feel entitled to protect the rest of us from.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. I came across an article in the last year that talked about "electability" and the idea that when

people pick candidates by making assumptions about what other people will support, we end up with candidates nobody really likes. We outthink ourselves. I wish I could find it again.

[StarfishSaver]

2. Yes!

People were so sure that "other people" wouldn't vote for Barack Obama. I kept telling them "stop worrying about what you think other people might do and vote the way you want to vote."

[PunkinPi]

5. Was it this one?

Vote for the Candidate You Actually Like, Not the One You Think Will Win by Jess McIntosh

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a28817104/elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-electability/

[LongtimeAZDem]

3. This isn't a game, or an abstract exercise; it is an election, and, such factors do exist

Ignoring them, or pretending they don't matter, is a naive recipe for disaster.

I will happily, enthusiastically support and promote a female candidate if one wins the nomination, but I see it as a factor that diminishes our chances of ousting Trump.

[CTyankee]

4. Um, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote with 3 million votes. So "other people" sure have in the

supported a woman for president.

This is a sham argument, made by people who really don't want a woman candidate. this is pure and simple bullshit.

[StarfishSaver]

6. White men lost the popular vote in the last three elections to a minority and a woman

[PunkinPi]

7. +1, This! nt

[corbettkroehler]

9. Ditto! (n/t)

[IronLionZion]

12. As long as we have an Electoral College

winning 3 million more votes in blue states like California doesn't stop a flaming orange pile of toxic waste from taking the presidency away from a qualified woman.

[StarfishSaver]

13. It won't prevent him from taking it away from a qualified man, either

[CTyankee]

16. Or from a qualified man, right?

[IronLionZion]

19. Correct

We need more than votes. We need electoral votes.

[EffieBlack]

21. A white man has lost every single presidential election in American history

That hasn’t stopped anyone from running a white man in the next election.

Just like in the real world, white men can fail miserably over and over and it is never held against other white man while women and minorities are constantly held to a higher standard and if one of our own fails to grab the brass ring every single time, the rest of us are told to stand down so that a white man can step in.

White men lost the popular vote to a black man and a woman in 2008, 2012 and 2016. The black president was, without question, one of the most popular, effective, and respected presidents in the country’s history .And the white man who stole the presidency from a woman in 2016 is an unrepentant criminal pig whom most of the country despises and wants removed from office. Yet, I have yet to hear anyone claim that Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders or any of the other white men running this time should step back and allow a minority or female to have a clearer shot because America would surely prefer a non-white male this time around.

[IronLionZion]

22. I'm supporting a female candidate in this race

and it would be great if Biden and Sanders stepped aside to let her take down the "unrepentant criminal pig" without any emails or Benghazi. Warren would kick his ass

[mcar]

24. +1000!

[corbettkroehler]

8. I Wish It Were Irrelevant - To Me, It's A Cop-Out But You're Right (n/t)

[cwydro]

36. Wow.

Noted.

[cwydro]

40. Ugh.

Noted.

[George II]

10. I'm afraid that there is still too big a % of the population that are biased against...

....women and African Americans in public office. That Barack Obama won in 2008 was bigger than many people think. He not only overcame the republican candidate but also overcame the conscious or even unconscious bias that he is AA.

The same thing with Hillary Clinton in 2016 - she was running against more than just trump, but the innate bias of many Americans

[StarfishSaver]

14. That's not a good enough excuse to not run or vote for them

Every candidate has downsides. But men's deficits aren't treated as deal-breakers - we just figure out how to balance them out and overcome them. But we - even those who should know better - treat women and minorities differently. It's used as an excuse not to go any further instead of as one of the many things we must overcome when dealing with human beings in any situation.

[George II]

17. I'm not one of those. Back in 2008 when the primary campaigns began I supported Clinton, then....

as time went on and we got to see more about what Obama was like (he was pretty much unknown in early 2008), I switched and voted for Obama in our primary, and then twice in the two General Elections. I was 100% behind Clinton in 2016.

[cwydro]

41. She won the popular vote.

You miss that?

[Backseat Driver]

11. I have no problem with supporting and voting for a woman candidate.

However, I do worry that US talks and negotiations with mid east/muslim nations may not be taken as seriously; hence a tasked statesMAN in her administration. That may sound misogynistic nationally as women are not really a minority nor are they incapable of being a tough and effective leader; but legislation will not change how global societies and cultures inwardly view this segment anymore than other discriminations. I want to, instead, view talks like these with a UNITED presence of gender in peacemaking and disciplinary decisions the US would convey to global leaders that might use a form of selective hearing in these meetings regardless of other factors necessary for great leadership such as intelligence, knowledge, communication skills, age and/or appearance.

[CTyankee]

18. Well, tell that to ALL the other countries of the world that have elected women heads of state.

Most of them our allies. They don't seem to have your worry.

Why is that?

[StarfishSaver]

20. Seriously?

[mcar]

25. Seriously?

Hillary Clinton was one of the most successful SoS in American history.

You also may have noticed that many other countries have female leaders.

[IronLionZion]

29. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan elected a female prime minister

India and Sri Lanka and a few African countries have elected female prime ministers.

It's funny how many female Secretaries of State have handled US talks and negotiations with mid east Muslim nations.

DUers were concerned the world wasn't ready for Obama either.

[cwydro]

43. Wow..

This thread is illuminating.

Unfuckingbelievable.

[EffieBlack]

15. This is like the people who say THEY'RE not racist, but their customers are, so

they’d better not hire the black sales clerk or THEY’RE not racist, but their neighbors are, so they’d better not sell their house to that nice black family ...

[mcar]

23. I cannot even count how many times I've heard that

Along, of course, with: "I want to vote for a women, just not that woman."

[True Dough]

26. Agree with the premise

and would extend it to "a gay man." That's not the only thing holding Pete Buttigieg back, but it's one of them.

[zaj]

27. I love Elizabeth Warren...

She is my favorite. But you are definitely wrong here.

Wishful thinking won't win elections.

Elizabeth Warren might, but not wishful thinking.

[StarfishSaver]

28. Why do you think not assuming a woman need not apply because "other people" might discriminate

against her is "wishful thinking"?

Any wishful thinking occurring in this context is more likely coming from those who assume that a white man should always be the go-to until American gets over its racism and sexism. Wishful thinking and white male entitlement on full display.

[zaj]

33. Wishful thinking is that...

... mysoginy won't impact the election.

I thought Obama knocked down the harder, higher glass ceiling. And that sexism was clearly less of an issue than racism.

That turned out to be wildly untrue. I now believe that a strong, thoughtful, professional black man faces less emotional resistance than a strong, thoughtful, professional white woman.

It's terrible in either case.

But it requires wishful thinking to believe that being a woman won't make it harder to win this year.

I think Biden has enough flaws and Elizabeth Warren is amazing. So I think she can overcome them right now.

But the I "won't vote for a woman" but won't say it... voting block (older, whiter, less educated, suburban/rural independent swing voters) are real. And we probably need them to defeat Trump. And we definitely need them in places like Ohio, Arizona, Maine, Colorado... to win the Senate.

[StarfishSaver]

34. EVERYTHING affects elections

But we don't avoid running candidates because someone else might not like something about them - unless, of course they're women or minorities.

Lots of people won't vote for a white man. But we don't refuse to run white men because of it. White men lose elections. We don't refuse to run white men because of that.

You can spin it and sugar coated all you want. But the notion that a woman or minority shouldn't be the nominee because some unnamed, unidentified "other people" might not vote for them is pure bullshit. It's unapologetic white male privilege on full display. And it's no more acceptable than refusing to hire a person of color because other people are racist or give a qualified woman executive a promotion because some of the corporate board members are misogynist. Even though it's masked superficially in non-racist, non-sexist language, it's still, plain and simple, racism and sexism - only it's worse because it's being practiced by our extensible allies who should know and do better

[zaj]

38. That's not true. We didn't run...

... Bernie because he didn't seem electable. We might not run Biden or Bernie because they seem too old. We might not run Kamala because she's a strong black woman. We might not run Buttiegieg because he's gay.

Politics is about power. And it's hard to accumulate the trust requires to gain power. Dems generally don't fear the outlier, minority, different kinda people. But we can recognize how others don't share our enlightenment. But we know we need others to win power.

You are absolutely right to object. And you are right to challenge the assumptions. And you are right to push me in this post.

I just think it's clear that what I'm arguing is clearly, if uncomfortably, true.

[StarfishSaver]

39. Bernie didn't get the nomination because voters thought Hillary was much more qualified

But we also heard plenty of people saying she shouldn't get the nomination because people wouldn't vote for a woman. And after she didn't obtain the presidency, people are now claiming that's proof that the country won't vote for a woman and are using that as an excuse disqualify women running now and giving the nomination to a man by default ... Because "other people won't vote for a woman."

And while it's true that there are people who won't vote for a woman, it's not true that that should be the basis on which Democrats select our nominee.

[zaj]

42. That's not universally true.

In fact, I would venture to guess you might not find even one person on this site or any pundit in the media making that case.

He was old. He was crazy. He was extreme. He was unelectable. He was scary. He was marginal. He was radical. He was progun. He had a problem with black voters. He... He... He...

People said all of those things.

I don't remember anyone saying he wasn't qualified enough.

They were both objectively experienced. They were both objectively qualified.

He seemed unelectable. And she seemed a pretty clear winner.

[spooky3]

30. Sexism and racism ARE a reality, but the response is that we must

work harder, contribute more, etc., to put all of our candidates over the top.

[happybird]

31. We Democrats have no problem voting for women

Our votes were not enough to win the EC last time. That’s my fear.

HRC had a bunch of stupid conspiracy theory bullshit working against her, but how many moderates and right-leaning dump haters, how many delegates “couldn’t bring themselves to vote for her” because of the bs OR simply because she is a woman?? Their god supposedly doesn’t like to see women in power. The poor, put-upon white man votes based on fear of being further marginalized and emasculated (Gag. It made me nauseated just typing that). That’s what we are up against.

[Midnight Writer]

32. I know many people who would not vote for a woman President, but none would vote Democrat anyway.

[brooklynite]

35. What is your basis for "people often say"?

[cwydro]

37. Yeah , we've got those people here.

They fool no one.

[jcgoldie]

44. If you don't vote for a woman because you claim other people are too sexist to elect her

...then you are the de facto sexist.

[StarfishSaver]

45. Or at the very least, you're perpetuating systemic misogyny