Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-future-of-the-democratic-party-is-white-men/

A somewhat older piece (August makes it old news already) from 538 on the democratic path to electorial dominance.

Essentially, it talks about capturing the white voters of both Obama and Trump with four "Obama like" white men (In presentation, social class, ect..), instead of the black voters who stayed at home on election day.

Unless you want to work for the DNC, then they want nothing to do with White Men.

Think it's women myself. Tulsi Gabbard, Kamala Harris, and some others.

That sounds like a terrible idea. If the DNC and media had a shred of self-control there'd be no problem with it, but I get the sense that if they run a woman for president they'll milk the first female president card so much they look like a bunch of identitarian ideologues.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
That sounds like a terrible idea. If the DNC and media had a shred of self-control there'd be no problem with it, but I get the sense that if they run a woman for president they'll milk the first female president card so much they look like a bunch of identitarian ideologues.

The historical aspect can be a boon if the person is an otherwise solid candidate. Worked well for Obama.

fcking dumbasses

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
fcking dumbasses
What?

Either the two of us for saying the DNC will **** things up with identity politics, or the democrats for wanting to try and get white votes.

Which I mean I find it funny how some people will cheer when politicians pander to women or racial minorities, but when you pander to the dreaded white male you're being racist and sexist.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
That sounds like a terrible idea. If the DNC and media had a shred of self-control there'd be no problem with it, but I get the sense that if they run a woman for president they'll milk the first female president card so much they look like a bunch of identitarian ideologues.

Indeed and the MOMENT they do that, they are not to be taken seriously.

Our country is in a state right now where we do not need to worry about diversity quotas in the white house. What is between someones legs is irrelevant.

IOW: "If the Democrats run a woman, it's just because she has a vagina and they're trying to play identity and diversity politics."

Yup, there's absolutely no way that said woman candidate might just be you know, qualified and the smartest choice of the lot? You people are retarded. Lolz.

Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "If the Democrats run a woman, it's just because she has a vagina and they're trying to play identity and diversity politics."

Yup, there's absolutely no way that said woman candidate might just be you know, qualified and the smartest choice of the lot? You people are retarded. Lolz.

This is perfect Rob on display. To a tee. He did not say if they run a woman it automatically means it is because she has a vagina. He said he feels if they do they will try to pull the "first female president" card in order to boost her chances.

He is saying they will try to use identity politics in order to help achieve victory. Did you truly not grasp that? He specifically says they will be milking it, he does not say "if they run a woman it's cuz vagina!".

Make me understand how you didn't get that? Did you not read his post thoroughly? Is it just you trolling?

Originally posted by Robtard
IOW: "If the Democrats run a woman, it's just because she has a vagina and they're trying to play identity and diversity politics."

Yup, there's absolutely no way that said woman candidate might just be you know, qualified and the smartest choice of the lot? You people are retarded. Lolz.
No they very well could be. The point I'm making is that they'd pick a qualified woman candidate, and then undercut their own chances by talking about how anyone who doesn't vote for her is a sexist and how we need to break the glass ceiling or whatever.

Qualified candidate or not, I certainly don't have enough faith in the self-control of either democratic party or the media to not constantly play the identity card.

Originally posted by Surtur
This is perfect Rob on display. To a tee. He did not say if they run a woman it automatically means it is because she has a vagina. He said he feels if they do they will try to pull the "first female president" card in order to boost her chances.

He is saying they will try to use identity politics in order to help achieve victory. Did you truly not grasp that? He specifically says they will be milking it, he does not say "if they run a woman it's cuz vagina!".

Make me understand how you didn't get that? Did you not read his post thoroughly? Is it just you trolling?

^

Classic Surtur poisoning the well.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No they very well could be. The point I'm making is that they'd pick a qualified woman candidate, and then undercut their own chances by talking about how anyone who doesn't vote for her is a sexist and how we need to break the glass ceiling or whatever.

Qualified candidate or not, I certainly don't have enough faith in the self-control of either democratic party or the media to not constantly play the identity card.

Not really, but you're free to imagine that scenario while also ignoring that some people would indeed not vote for a woman simply because she's a woman; this is reality. Sexism does indeed exist.

And if the Republicans ran a woman? How does that play out?

So by pointing out you were wrong...and nobody said the things you say they said, I have poisoned the well?

Oh leftists.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not really, but you're free to imagine that scenario while also ignoring that some people would indeed not vote for a woman simply because she's a woman; this is reality. Sexism does indeed exist.
Yes sexism does exist, and there's also people that would vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, what's your point? There's sexists out there, but the idea that accusations of sexism should be used as a cudgel to try and guilt people into voting for her is bullshit.

Like Hillary blaming sexism for her loss is retarded.

Originally posted by Robtard
And if the Republicans ran a woman? How does that play out?
I think the media would conveniently stop caring about her being a woman tbh, since there are a lot of people who identify as a part of the feminist movement that would conveniently drop support for a woman for committing the crime of wrong think.

Get some candidate whose republican and pro-life and I doubt you'll get the MSM or larger feminist movement blithering on about how if she won it would be some triumph for all women. I mean shit, did the identity politics crowd care about Ben Carson being black?

I'm calling it like I see it given the absurd and ridiculous behavior of the DNC and MSM recently where they're clearly failing to learn from the fact that Donald Trump won the 2016 election. I'd actually like to be proven wrong on this in 2020, but until then I'm not holding out much hope.

I owe you an apology, I started out too strong, so my bad, DMB. We don't often agree, but you're usually cordial regardless.

Clinton says a lot of stupid things, sexism while I'm sure it played a part in her losing in the form of some votes, isn't why she lost. Just like Obama lost some votes (and I'm sure gained some votes) due to his skin color, but he didn't win just because he was the black guy running. His people ran a great campaign.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes sexism does exist, and there's also people that would vote for a woman simply because she's a woman, what's your point? There's sexists out there, but the idea that accusations of sexism should be used as a cudgel to try and guilt people into voting for her is bullshit.

This seems to be the difference in politicians on both sides. Most republicans do not see the Democrats as these inhuman monsters. The Democrats, on the other hand...just look at their rhetoric lol. Look at the ad attacking Gillespie that had a supporter of his chasing down minority children in a frickin truck. They accuse republicans of being murderers for being against frickin Obamacare.

It's insanity. They TRULY believe these things. That is what they truly think of Gillespie voters.



Bingo. I'm also curious if these same people think sexism is the reason Marine Le Pen lost in France.




It is odd to me anyone could think the Dems wouldn't try to use identity politics in order to help win the presidency. They literally did that in the last election lol.

Originally posted by Robtard
I owe you an apology, I started out too strong, so my bad, DMB. We don't often agree, but you're usually cordial regardless.

Clinton says a lot of stupid things, sexism while I'm sure it played a part in her losing in the form of some votes, isn't why she lost. Just like Obama lost some votes (and I'm sure gained some votes) due to his skin color, but he didn't win just because he was the black guy running. His people ran a great campaign.

Yeah, but sexism isn't why she lost either.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but sexism isn't why she lost either.


Yeah, I quite literally said that.

Originally posted by Robtard
I owe you an apology, I started out too strong, so my bad, DMB. We don't often agree, but you're usually cordial regardless.
Damn, respect. I consider the humility to apologize for shit to be one of the main virtues of mankind, and if more people were willing to do that the world would be a better place.

And in that spirit I am likewise sorry if I get too aggressive or hostile in some of my posts.

Originally posted by Robtard
Clinton says a lot of stupid things, sexism while I'm sure it played a part in her losing in the form of some votes, isn't why she lost. Just like Obama lost some votes (and I'm sure gained some votes) due to his skin color, but he didn't win just because he was the black guy running. His people ran a great campaign.
Yeah Obama is actually really damn charismatic.

Nice, and I'm just reaffirming that. Hilary is the one who deserves the majority of the blame for the loss.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Damn, respect. I consider the humility to apologize for shit to be one of the main virtues of mankind, and if more people were willing to do that the world would be a better place.

And in that spirit I am likewise sorry if I get too aggressive or hostile in some of my posts.


Yeah Obama is actually really damn charismatic.



Clinton is too, anyone who runs and comes that close to the presidency has charisma, Trump is highly charismatic, it just come out in different ways depending on the person. Her loss was due to multiple factors, some in her control and some not. eg The smear campaign against her was A-class, I can't recall another that matches or surpasses it. Though I suspect the one against Trump in 2020 might, as politics have seemingly upped the shitgame

Originally posted by Surtur
Nice, and I'm just reaffirming that. Hilary is the one who deserves the majority of the blame for the loss.

Your Clinton obsession is always amusing, Surt. I mean that.

Originally posted by Robtard


Clinton is too, anyone who runs and comes that close to the presidency has charisma, Trump is highly charismatic, it just come out in different ways depending on the person. Her loss was due to multiple factors, some in her control and some not. eg The smear campaign against her was A-class, I can't recall another that matches or surpasses it. Though I suspect the one against Trump in 2020 might, as politics have seemingly upped the shitgame

So wait, you feel the smear campaign during the election was worse for Hilary than Trump?

Originally posted by Robtard
Your Clinton obsession is always amusing, Surt. I mean that.

I feel the same about you and other leftists Trump obsession.

And just to nip the notion of "it's not obsession cuz he's the president!". Nah, it totally is.

Originally posted by Surtur
So wait, you feel the smear campaign during the election was worse for Hilary than Trump?

Absolutely.

Originally posted by Surtur
I feel the same about you and other leftists Trump obsession.

And just to nip the notion of "it's not obsession cuz he's the president!". Nah, it totally is.

Except of course it is a factor, Trump is in power; he can (and has) negatively affected our lives. Clinton can't.

Except no, it's not a factor in obsession. Caring what the president does and obsessing over everything he does are two entirely different things.

That is true, so are you seriously going to whine and try to argue over that?

Whatever you need to tell yourself, I really don't care if you want to ignore facts and reality, Surt. I'm trying to have a cordial exchange with DMB

Originally posted by Robtard
Whatever you need to tell yourself, I really don't care if you want to ignore facts and reality,

Oh the irony.



The very first thing you did in this thread was to claim he said something he never said.

Originally posted by Surtur

The very first thing you did in this thread was to claim he said something he never said.

I then apologized for my poor behavior directly too him; he accepted and we moved on cordially with the convo. You seem bent on trying to turn this thread into another warzone. Sorry, look elsewhere.

Originally posted by Robtard
I then apologized for my poor behavior directly too him; he accepted and we moved on cordially with the convo. You seem bent on trying to turn this thread into another warzone. Sorry, look elsewhere.

You claimed I was poisoning the well by pointing out he never said what you said lol.

Explain that. Explain how it is poisoning the well.

You're still attempting to poison the well, Surt... Anyhow, going to wait for DMB to respond and then go from there, you can have the last word with this as I know you like that.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're still attempting to poison the well, Surt... Anyhow, going to wait for DMB to respond and then go from there, you can have the last word with this as I know you like that.

How was pointing out you misrepresented what DMB said poisoning the well? You have yet to explain that. You know you did something wrong, you apologized. So why was I poisoning the well by pointing out your bullshit?

Originally posted by Robtard
Absolutely.



Except of course it is a factor, Trump is in power; he can (and has) negatively affected our lives. Clinton can't.

Exactly, Hillary is irrelevent.

I wish Trump could at least take away the politicans health care so someone who deserves to suffer could for once, but I'm not sure he could really do that..