6
all 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] criitz@reddthat.com 28 points 1 month ago

In general, I believe a two woman ticket would get fewer votes than a woman/man ticket, which would get fewer votes than any male-led ticket. The misogyny effect is strong. But it really depends a lot on the specific people.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

There are way too many Conservatives, who are … conservative

[-] originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com 18 points 1 month ago
[-] lemonmelon@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Could? Possibly, sure.

Would? Why should any ticket guarantee a win based solely on arbitrary characteristics of the candidates? Nothing about being a woman, a man, trans, cis, gay, straight, bi, ace, black, white, Latino, Asian, biracial, triracial, short, tall, hirsute, bald, balding, skinny, jacked, overweight, or any other randomly chosen descriptor should be a factor in electability. The fact that it's even in question is a strong indictment of how we view politics in a broad sense.

[-] hperrin@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

Considering Hillary won the popular vote, I think most people don’t consider gender very important. Or at least the people who do consider gender very important are voting Republican anyway.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Generically, no. For some specific ticket: sure, theoretically possible. But, in practice, I don't see any actual such combination that the Dems have any chance of nominating. Well I don't know anything about Whitmer, whose name I keep seeing.

[-] That_Devil_Girl@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah, a lot of us don't do identity politics. I don't care if they're a man or woman or whatever. It could be a sentient ham sandwich for all I care.

What matters is their record and their willingness to fix things.

[-] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

gender is irrelevant

will they stand with the people or the corporations?

[-] QuarterSwede@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

A freaking men. No pun intended.

I want to see 2 things:

  1. Term limits on all gov’t elected position, including the Supreme Court and all of Congress

  2. Lobbying reform. Like massive.

If you have a good game plan to enact those two things then I’m down. I don’t care who or what you are.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

Depends on the women honestly, where Joe struggles with the shadow being old casts on his flubs, any woman who takes his place would face the same shadow being cast from being a woman.

Yes Hillary was the victim of a 40 year character assassination campaign but you cannot tell me that even half the shit that's been flung at her would have stuck were she a man.

That being said, a Harris Whitmer ticket would in either configuration do a lot to re-energize people who have begun to despair over Joe's odds.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The democrats wouldst vote f'r aught with a D behind their nameth.

[-] HarbingerOfTomb@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

I'd vote for it but probably not.

[-] NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

No. That would be trouble.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

No. But it won’t happen anyway. Whitmer is really the only realistic choice besides Kamala and Whitmer has said she doesn’t want the POTUS or VP nomination. It’ll likely be Kamala at the top of the ticket and one of a handful of male governors competing for the VP slot. Probably from a swing state like Shapiro or Cooper

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

She didn't say she doesn't want the office, she said she didn't want to get it via a convention coup without Biden stepping aside willingly, a sentiment that basically everyone who's been floated as a viable alternative has also expressed.

As much as we might see policy and electoral virtue in them, they're all still politicians, they'll take a promotion in an instant, but not until they think they can get it without becoming a target for party leadership.

[-] frog_brawler@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Gender is not a relevant consideration for the Democratic Party.

[-] kitnaht@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Imagine genuinely thinking this.

[-] AhismaMiasma@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Depends on the women, Kamala has serious baggage receiving an appointment from her lover.

Whitmer has a good bit of support, I could see a Whitmer/AOC ticket going places but it would be challenging.

[-] 7fb2adfb45bafcc01c80@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Which women? What are their voting records? What experience do they have? Can they work with the other party if they need to? Are they respected by foreign leaders?

If it's this election, are we sure putting them on the ticket will survive certain legal challenges?

Too many questions without enough answers.

Generally speaking though, no, I don't think it would happen. I would totally support it, but I think there are too many misogynists out there. On the other hand, I never thought there would be a Black president either.

this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2024
6 points (63.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35281 readers
753 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS