Non-white, non-geriatric Democratic candidate?

[Paprika]

This thread is for speculation whether the Democrats can get a more diverse candidate field this election than white people old enough to be grandparents (ie Hillary, Sanders, and possibles like Warren and Biden).

Personally I'm of the current view that after the political catastrophe that was the presidency of young Black Obama, the Democrats are going for the safe Republican stereotype they've always claimed to abhor: the old white male (with Hillary as token female). However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

[FinalEnigma]

This thread is for speculation whether the Democrats can get a more diverse candidate field this election than white people old enough to be grandparents (ie Hillary, Sanders, and possibles like Warren and Biden).

Personally I'm of the current view that after the political catastrophe that was the presidency of young Black Obama, the Democrats are going for the safe Republican stereotype they've always claimed to abhor: the old white male (with Hillary as token female). However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Okay, Let me follow.

The two main democratic candidates are a woman, who would be the first woman to be president OR vice president, and a Jew, who would be the first Jewish president or vice president. And I don't think that the democratic frontrunner is a 'token' female.

And these are the candidates following the first black president.

And how about old? Obama was an outlier - there aren't very many presidential candidates who are young, and that's because a lot of the time, we're looking for people with experience (and the minimum age is 35, anyway)

How is this following the same old, safe types of candidates that have always been president?

You're moving the goalposts before they've even been set up. Sure, they're old and white, but the frontrunner is a WOMAN and the other main candidate is a JEW. That's not the same old safe that's been done. The same old safe candidates would be old white male protestants.

What's your argument, that now that they've elected a black man, it's cowardly not to try to elect a young black woman?

The reason for the diversity on the republican side is because they're desperate, and because there's about 15 of them.

[Paprika]

This thread is for speculation whether the Democrats can get a more diverse candidate field this election than white people old enough to be grandparents (ie Hillary, Sanders, and possibles like Warren and Biden).

Personally I'm of the current view that after the political catastrophe that was the presidency of young Black Obama, the Democrats are going for the safe Republican stereotype they've always claimed to abhor: the old white male (with Hillary as token female). However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Okay, Let me follow.

The two main democratic candidates are a woman, who would be the first woman to be president OR vice president, and a Jew, who would be the first Jewish president or vice president. And I don't think that the democratic frontrunner is a 'token' female.

I seem to recall 'Jew' as being classified under 'White' as would 'Germanic' and 'Irish'.

And how about old? Obama was an outlier - there aren't very many presidential candidates who are young, and that's because a lot of the time, we're looking for people with experience (and the minimum age is 35, anyway)

How is this following the same old, safe types of candidates that have always been president?

As I noted, you have old white people, with a token female.

What's your argument, that now that they've elected a black man, it's cowardly not to try to elect a young black woman?

Hardly an argument. I merely note with great amusement the lack of Diversity in the Democrat candidates, especially the penchant for the old and white, despite their own alleged esteem of Diversity and their criticism in the past of Republicans for having old and white candidates.

[FinalEnigma]

This thread is for speculation whether the Democrats can get a more diverse candidate field this election than white people old enough to be grandparents (ie Hillary, Sanders, and possibles like Warren and Biden).

Personally I'm of the current view that after the political catastrophe that was the presidency of young Black Obama, the Democrats are going for the safe Republican stereotype they've always claimed to abhor: the old white male (with Hillary as token female). However, I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Okay, Let me follow.

The two main democratic candidates are a woman, who would be the first woman to be president OR vice president, and a Jew, who would be the first Jewish president or vice president. And I don't think that the democratic frontrunner is a 'token' female.

I seem to recall 'Jew' as being classified under 'White' as would 'Germanic' and 'Irish'.

And how about old? Obama was an outlier - there aren't very many presidential candidates who are young, and that's because a lot of the time, we're looking for people with experience (and the minimum age is 35, anyway)

How is this following the same old, safe types of candidates that have always been president?

As I noted, you have old white people, with a token female.

What's your argument, that now that they've elected a black man, it's cowardly not to try to elect a young black woman?

Hardly an argument. I merely note with great amusement the lack of Diversity in the Democrat candidates, especially the penchant for the old and white, despite their own alleged esteem of Diversity and their criticism in the past of Republicans for having old and white candidates.

Your diversity goalpost is ridiculous. if either of the two main candidates won, it would be either the first female president, or the first Jewish president. Neither of these is the same old safe candidate.

Further, you are comparing the democratic candidates to the much larger number of republican candidates and declaring a lack of diversity. OBVIOUSLY! there's a lot more republican candidates.

and as far as diversity, what about all these able bodied candidates? both parties are ignoring disabled people completely! Such a lack of diversity. Incredible.

[Paprika]

Your diversity goalpost is ridiculous. if either of the two main candidates won, it would be either the first female president, or the first Jewish president. Neither of these is the same old safe candidate.

My dear fellow, now you're the one "moving the goalposts" by emphasising 'Jewish' when we don't emphasise (for example) the 'Irishness' or other candidates.

And clearly, we're talking about the candidates as they stand: the candidate pool, and not 'what would happen if one of them won'.

Further, you are comparing the democratic candidates to the much larger number of republican candidates and declaring a lack of diversity. OBVIOUSLY! there's a lot more republican candidates.

Indeed. And why are there so few candidates for the party that supposedly values Diversity? Why are the only major candidates (and proposed ones) all old white people?

and as far as diversity, what about all these able bodied candidates? both parties are ignoring disabled people completely! Such a lack of diversity. Incredible.

That Republicans ignore Diversity hardly matters because they generally don't care about it. It is the Democrats who fall short of their own standards; it is hardly significant in the same way for the Republicans to fall short of what aren't their own standards (the silly tu quoque rejoinder).

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 1 by Paprika]

I don't understand what your point is.

You're disappointed with the skin colour of the candidates?
You're disappointed with the age of the candidates?
You're disappointed with the sex of the candidates, except when they're the right sex, you're still disappointed because then they're a token?

I want to see the best group of candidates there are (and with the best policies), not the most diverse group of candidates there are.

[Paprika]

[Replying to post 1 by Paprika]

I don't understand what your point is.

I'm afraid I don't have the inclination to explain again what I've implied pretty clearly and elaborated on explicitly multiple times. My suggestion would be to (re)read all the posts I've made in the thread.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 26 by Paprika]
Having read all that, I still say:

I want to see the best group of candidates there are (and with the best policies), not the most diverse group of candidates there are.

You mean a mere token female whose only claim to notice is being married to a powerful man?

Why are you putting that on the party? To be a token, she'd have to be put there for some sort of benefit from pro-diversity advocacy, publicity or legislation (the irony is not lost on me). Even if she were a token (Whose token, the entire party? All her supporters?), why would you make a token a possible president? If she won, would you call the president a token?

If it were still reasonable to think her a token, tokenship is literally the product of advocacy for diversity, as opposed to just advocacy for non-discrimination. Some people even go the collectivist route and say tokens are good because they're role models for whatever unrepresented group.

To be a major candidate, she has to have a significant following. If you're saying her following is not for things she's done, surely you should take it up with them and say "why are you following her?". If you're right, they'll probably answer by saying "Well, stuff like being sexually diverse would be good; isn't that the one issue which we, the leftists, keep emphasising?".

Well, stuff like being racially diverse would be good; isn't that one issue which the leftists keep emphasising?

I always thought that the problem with lack of diversity was based on the assumption that uniformity was there because of discrimination, not that uniformity was inherently bad. Is diversity not neutral, or are we just to assume discrimination (on part of the candidacy, and the candidates' followers) by default?

The Democrat party has as many women and African Americans running as does the Republican party.

Obama isn't running again. So 0 African Americans. And 0 Hispanics. Some might conceive of that as racist.

I just put this quote in because, unless it's satirical, it's its own counterargument.

Ah, I missed the small fry, probably because the media doesn't take much note of them. It's good to know they're not as racist as I thought; do let me know when a Hispanic is running.

Are you suggesting the most plausible explanation is that they're racist? Do you think that "racist" is a poor description of a person with a greater interest in Hispanic candidates?

And how would that be?? That would not describe Hillary Clinton, because she was a senator, and also secretary of the state. Both are highly responsible and challenging jobs.

But of course; her husband being a past President had had nothing whatsoever to do with her obtaining those positions, that strong independent woman she is.

I seriously doubt that this is the first time nepotism has aided election candidates.

If her positions came from her being married to a past president, and this is now apparently a gendered issue, are you suggesting that the Democratic party is biased against male candidates, or are you suggesting that getting women into positions of power for nothing but whom they married is actually evidence of the system discriminating against women?

[Replying to post 26 by Paprika]
Correlation isn't causation. Why do you assume that they are at fault for the over-abundance of old white male candidates?[center][/center]

[ecco]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I am not getting notifications for all threads.

ecco

What significant portion of the population of what state?

Paprica

What does state matter, since this is a presidential election?

If it doesn't matter, why did you post...

Indeed, it is most disappointing that a significant portion of the population are finding a voice in a supposedly democratic state.

I was just asking which State you were referring to since you didn't provide any source for your comment.

Paprica

Do you propose that the huge amount of Trump has merely to do with his hair?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, it may just be that there exists a lot of grassroots dissatisfaction over the illegal immigration and that Trump being the first candidate to voice out strong opposition and a concrete plan to deal with it might just have something to do with his increasing support, despite his other obvious flaws?

His increasing support among some Republicans.

Paprica

It's really quite amusing. So many people will espouse the virtues of democratic representation, but once you get a person representing Badthink that gets lots of popular support, such as Trump, Farage, or Marine LePen it's such a terrible thing that the people they represent are actually being represented!

It's really quite amusing. So many people will espouse the virtues of democratic representation, but once you get a person representing Badthink that gets lots of popular support, such as Obama it's such a terrible thing that the people they represent are actually being represented!

[Paprika]

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I am not getting notifications for all threads.

ecco

What significant portion of the population of what state?

Paprica

What does state matter, since this is a presidential election?

If it doesn't matter, why did you post...

Indeed, it is most disappointing that a significant portion of the population are finding a voice in a supposedly democratic state.

I was just asking which State you were referring to since you didn't provide any source for your comment.

That should have been 'country'. My bad.

His increasing support among some Republicans.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

It's really quite amusing. So many people will espouse the virtues of democratic representation, but once you get a person representing Badthink that gets lots of popular support, such as Trump, Farage, or Marine LePen it's such a terrible thing that the people they represent are actually being represented!

It's really quite amusing. So many people will espouse the virtues of democratic representation, but once you get a person representing Badthink that gets lots of popular support, such as Obama it's such a terrible thing that the people they represent are actually being represented!

Quite, it cuts both ways. Hypocrisy is ...what was that buzzword... , ah yes, bipartisan.

[ecco]

Paprika:

Indeed, it is most disappointing that a significant portion of the population are finding a voice in a supposedly democratic state.

ecco:

I was just asking which State you were referring to since you didn't provide any source for your comment.

Paprika:

That should have been 'country'. My bad.

Paprika (corrected):

Indeed, it is most disappointing that a significant portion of the population are finding a voice in a supposedly democratic Country.

Well, seven years, a significant portion of the population found a voice in a democratic Country.

Obama:

Yes we can!

And we did.