The Democratic Candidates

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The best and the most likely to win are two different things.  As much as it would be fine with me if  a Latino or Black woman became president, this next election is critical in terms of getting Trump out.  If America is not ready for a woman or minority woman to be president, then so be it for the 2020 election.  Get Trump out, then let's go for our first female president.  Someone good, of course, and if she's really good, all the better!

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The best and the most likely to win are two different things.  As much as it would be fine with me if  a Latino or Black woman became president, this next election is critical in terms of getting Trump out.  If America is not ready for a woman or minority woman to be president, then so be it for the 2020 election.  Get Trump out, then let's go for our first female president.  Someone good, of course, and if she's really good, all the better!

Pathetic. So the media has decided that white men are the only ones who can beat Trump, so that is what America is going to believe and do. Screw it if the best option is ignored. No way can a woman and/or minority beat TRUMP. The man who a 12 year old could out-POTUS.

Got it.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.  

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.  

I'm speaking in general, not about that one poll. The white men running are getting a massive portion of the media coverage in general, and that is a direct response to what the media reads and what appeals to the masses the most. This isn't some vague conspiracy theory on my part. It's blatant favourtism of the white male candidates, and that is a clear reflection of society as a whole when it comes to attitudes about women and minorities in politics. I see not point in pretending otherwise. That would be willful ignorance IMO.

Halifax2TheMax

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.  

I'm speaking in general, not about that one poll. The white men running are getting a massive portion of the media coverage in general, and that is a direct response to what the media reads and what appeals to the masses the most. This isn't some vague conspiracy theory on my part. It's blatant favourtism of the white male candidates, and that is a clear reflection of society as a whole when it comes to attitudes about women and minorities in politics. I see not point in pretending otherwise. That would be willful ignorance IMO.

Joe’s career in the senate and his 8 years as VP don’t have anything to do with his polling numbers or media coverage? 
 

PJ_Soul

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.  

I'm speaking in general, not about that one poll. The white men running are getting a massive portion of the media coverage in general, and that is a direct response to what the media reads and what appeals to the masses the most. This isn't some vague conspiracy theory on my part. It's blatant favourtism of the white male candidates, and that is a clear reflection of society as a whole when it comes to attitudes about women and minorities in politics. I see not point in pretending otherwise. That would be willful ignorance IMO.

Joe’s career in the senate and his 8 years as VP don’t have anything to do with his polling numbers or media coverage? 
 

I'm talking the 4 men being featured the way they are vs the 0 women or minorities, not about individuals. Let me be clear: I am NOT suggesting that any of the white men aren't qualified or don't deserve supporters. I actually think they all are and all do. AND SO DO THE FEMALES/MINORITIES. Their experience, their qualifications, their messages, they are ALL arguably worthy of the same admiration and attention for their own merits as well ... yet NONE of them are getting even a fraction of the attention or the public attention, as reflected by the polls. This IS a clear overall reflection of where society stands with women/minorities in politics.

And TBH, it stuns me that so many are willing to act like this isn't the case.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The media didn't decide, they are just reporting the result of a poll.  

I'm speaking in general, not about that one poll. The white men running are getting a massive portion of the media coverage in general, and that is a direct response to what the media reads and what appeals to the masses the most. This isn't some vague conspiracy theory on my part. It's blatant favourtism of the white male candidates, and that is a clear reflection of society as a whole when it comes to attitudes about women and minorities in politics. I see not point in pretending otherwise. That would be willful ignorance IMO.

Honestly, I don't know where you see that.  Yes, Beto, Biden and Bernie got attention, but Warren and Harris seem to have had quite a bit as well.  All of the second tier candidates have not, and that includes Kloubachar and such, but that's the nature of second tier. 

PJ_Soul

Sorry, It's laughable and sad that anyone is trying to suggest that sexism isn't alive and well in national politics.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry, It's laughable and sad that anyone is trying to suggest that sexism isn't alive and well in national politics.

I don't think I'm saying that.  I'm saying I don't think the coverage is obviously unequal.  That's different than saying that people are sexist.  

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry, It's laughable and sad that anyone is trying to suggest that sexism isn't alive and well in national politics.

I don't think I'm saying that.  I'm saying I don't think the coverage is obviously unequal.  That's different than saying that people are sexist.  

Sorry, I'm not just talking about you, or you at all, really. Still talking generally! I do really think that the coverage AND the public reaction to candidates both to coverage and just in their own rights are very obviously unequal though, and that is very obviously because of sexism IMO, and suggesting otherwise makes no sense to me. I am heartened, however, to see that an openly gay man is gaining some traction (and honestly Buttigieg might be my fave male candidate) .... but even that also highlights how bad the sexism in politics really is.

Spiritual_Chaos

curmudgeoness

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Sorry, It's laughable and sad that anyone is trying to suggest that sexism isn't alive and well in national politics.

I don't think I'm saying that.  I'm saying I don't think the coverage is obviously unequal.  That's different than saying that people are sexist.  

Sorry, I'm not just talking about you, or you at all, really. Still talking generally! I do really think that the coverage AND the public reaction to candidates both to coverage and just in their own rights are very obviously unequal though, and that is very obviously because of sexism IMO, and suggesting otherwise makes no sense to me. I am heartened, however, to see that an openly gay man is gaining some traction (and honestly Buttigieg might be my fave male candidate) .... but even that also highlights how bad the sexism in politics really is.

I don't know about the coverage, since I don't watch a lot of news. And I'm sort of self-selecting which candidates I follow. I don't read about Sanders or O'Rourke, because they don't interest me (yes, if one of them ends up being the nominee, I will vote for them, but I'm really hoping someone else will be the nominee). So, I follow Harris, Booker, and Buttigieg; I'll be following Biden if/ when he enters the race. I wish Sherrod Brown had decided to run, because I think he would have been a great option.

Anyway, I'm not perceiving unequal coverage. But, speaking as a woman, and with memories of 2016 still fresh in my head, no, I have no doubt that sexism is alive and well in national politics. I think Kamala Harris would be a dynamite option, and I'm thrilled that she's running. But I'm also well aware that there are parts of the country where most people think that it's "not ladylike" for a woman to be in that position (despite *how many* countries that already have female leaders?!?), and adding in that she's a woman of color makes it all the more challenging.

I find it interesting. Someone somewhere (maybe it was here?) thought that Buttigieg's sexuality would be a big strike against him. My sense, based on little more than my gut and the rapid national change in attitude toward marriage equality, is that many people would be more likely to vote for a white man who happens to be gay than a woman (or another person of color -- I'm a fan of Cory Booker, too). I'm not happy about that, but that's what my gut is telling me.  

PJ_Soul

I think I said a little while ago that if Ireland of all places - land of the Catholics, lol - can elect a gay PM (and vote to legalize abortion too!), surely America can find it in its soul to elect a gay POTUS.... surely?

curmudgeoness

I should clarify -- I have ZERO issue with any candidate's sexuality (and as I've said, I *love* Mayor Pete). Sexual ethics :ahem: are another matter. I was voicing my frustration over the general lack of progress on women's issues in this country.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The best and the most likely to win are two different things.  As much as it would be fine with me if  a Latino or Black woman became president, this next election is critical in terms of getting Trump out.  If America is not ready for a woman or minority woman to be president, then so be it for the 2020 election.  Get Trump out, then let's go for our first female president.  Someone good, of course, and if she's really good, all the better!

Pathetic. So the media has decided that white men are the only ones who can beat Trump, so that is what America is going to believe and do. Screw it if the best option is ignored. No way can a woman and/or minority beat TRUMP. The man who a 12 year old could out-POTUS.

Got it.

OK, look,  before you start throwing burning spears at me (actually, that guy's music is quite cool, so go ahead, lay some Burning Spear on me!) I don't know if a woman is or isn't capable of winning in 2020.  It's too early to tell WHO is going to win.  I've said that before.  When we get closer- a lot closer- if it comes down to one of the half way, or better, decent men running as candidate being more likely to beat Trump, that's who I think it would make the most sense to vote for.  If I thought I could vote for an outsider I really like knowing Trump will not win a second term either way, I would vote for the outsider.  But right now, I'm not so confidant Trump cannot win a second term.  It's too early to say.

What I said earlier has nothing to do with me thinking a woman can or can't become president. And I don't give two fucks what the media says- it's all bullshit anyway.  I don't even think the media could stop the right woman from winning. 

And where did you get the notion I think the best option should be ignored?  WTF? I didn't say that.  

And I'm not a goddamn male chauvinist pig.   I am kind of steamed that you would even hint at that. 

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The best and the most likely to win are two different things.  As much as it would be fine with me if  a Latino or Black woman became president, this next election is critical in terms of getting Trump out.  If America is not ready for a woman or minority woman to be president, then so be it for the 2020 election.  Get Trump out, then let's go for our first female president.  Someone good, of course, and if she's really good, all the better!

Pathetic. So the media has decided that white men are the only ones who can beat Trump, so that is what America is going to believe and do. Screw it if the best option is ignored. No way can a woman and/or minority beat TRUMP. The man who a 12 year old could out-POTUS.

Got it.

OK, look,  before you start throwing burning spears at me (actually, that guy's music is quite cool, so go ahead, lay some Burning Spear on me!) I don't know if a woman is or isn't capable of winning in 2020.  It's too early to tell WHO is going to win.  I've said that before.  When we get closer- a lot closer- if it comes down to one of the half way, or better, decent men running as candidate being more likely to beat Trump, that's who I think it would make the most sense to vote for.  If I thought I could vote for an outsider I really like knowing Trump will not win a second term either way, I would vote for the outsider.  But right now, I'm not so confidant Trump cannot win a second term.  It's too early to say.

What I said earlier has nothing to do with me thinking a woman can or can't become president. And I don't give two fucks what the media says- it's all bullshit anyway.  I don't even think the media could stop the right woman from winning. 

And where did you get the notion I think the best option should be ignored?  WTF? I didn't say that.  

And I'm not a goddamn male chauvinist pig.   I am kind of steamed that you would even hint at that. 

You took that WAY too personally Brian. I was referring to the state of affairs in America, as I view them and as you referred to them, not you or your opinion about it. I didn't get the idea at all that you think anything should be ignored, nor that you're sexist. At all. I didn't hint that..... Perhaps next time you think I'm trashing your character, which I would never do and never have, you should ask me some more questions to make sure you're clear on what I'm saying!

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Yes well ... Now my primary concern is that 3 (maybe 4 now) white men are getting the huge lion's share of the attention from the media now, which is a whole other story.

Don't we want the best candidate to take on Trump, not the one that can pile up the most minority attributes?  

Yes. And why in the world has the media decided that all the white men are the best candidates?? That is the point.

The best and the most likely to win are two different things.  As much as it would be fine with me if  a Latino or Black woman became president, this next election is critical in terms of getting Trump out.  If America is not ready for a woman or minority woman to be president, then so be it for the 2020 election.  Get Trump out, then let's go for our first female president.  Someone good, of course, and if she's really good, all the better!

Pathetic. So the media has decided that white men are the only ones who can beat Trump, so that is what America is going to believe and do. Screw it if the best option is ignored. No way can a woman and/or minority beat TRUMP. The man who a 12 year old could out-POTUS.

Got it.

OK, look,  before you start throwing burning spears at me (actually, that guy's music is quite cool, so go ahead, lay some Burning Spear on me!) I don't know if a woman is or isn't capable of winning in 2020.  It's too early to tell WHO is going to win.  I've said that before.  When we get closer- a lot closer- if it comes down to one of the half way, or better, decent men running as candidate being more likely to beat Trump, that's who I think it would make the most sense to vote for.  If I thought I could vote for an outsider I really like knowing Trump will not win a second term either way, I would vote for the outsider.  But right now, I'm not so confidant Trump cannot win a second term.  It's too early to say.

What I said earlier has nothing to do with me thinking a woman can or can't become president. And I don't give two fucks what the media says- it's all bullshit anyway.  I don't even think the media could stop the right woman from winning. 

And where did you get the notion I think the best option should be ignored?  WTF? I didn't say that.  

And I'm not a goddamn male chauvinist pig.   I am kind of steamed that you would even hint at that. 

You took that WAY too personally Brian. I was referring to the state of affairs in America, as I view them and as you referred to them, not you or your opinion about it. I didn't get the idea at all that you think anything should be ignored, nor that you're sexist. At all. I didn't hint that..... Perhaps next time you think I'm trashing your character, which I would never do and never have, you should ask me some more questions to make sure you're clear on what I'm saying!

My apologies for the misunderstanding, Allison.  Mea culpa! 

Gotta run, will catch up here more late.

Peace!

Hi!

Spiritual_Chaos

Hi! said: