Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sinn Fein

2020: The Race For the White House - The Good Place

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Anyone object to requesting this be merged with Squiz’s thread?

I'd rather not have to wade through all the twitter crap, but......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

What's the difference between the two threads, though?  I get that there's different discussions because of different posts but they have the same theme. Let's say I want to discuss Candidate A doing or saying something ... where do I do that?

There has to be a difference or the OP never would have started this thread after mine had been in existence for eight months and then continued it when people pointed out it seemed redundant. And as far as where to post, if Kamala Harris makes a statement about her possible candidacy you want to discuss, should it go in her thread, the Democratic primaries thread or a 2020 Presidential election thread? (and a couple other threads might qualify).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

What's the difference between the two threads, though?  I get that there's different discussions because of different posts but they have the same theme. Let's say I want to discuss Candidate A doing or saying something ... where do I do that?

here please  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about Gillibrand, but I will give her lots of credit for being credible and consistent on #MeToo.  We need more like her on both sides of the aisle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'd rather not have to wade through all the twitter crap, but......

See they are different. :hophead:

Not much Twitter stuff here (and think of what you all are missing). :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Duplicate threads like this happen all the time because some feel the need to create threads months and months prior to them being relevant (for what reason, I am not sure).  Then they fall off into the depths of nowhere because, well, they aren't relevant.  Then the topic surfaces and becomes relevant and people create a thread at that time not thinking someone would have created thread that many months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, squistion said:

There has to be a difference or the OP never would have started this thread after mine had been in existence for eight months and then continued it when people pointed out it seemed redundant. And as far as where to post, if Kamala Harris makes a statement about her possible candidacy you want to discuss, should it go in her thread, the Democratic primaries thread or a 2020 Presidential election thread? (and a couple other threads might qualify).

I don't know what was happening with the bolded but that's not really an answer.

It's not a big deal obviously, but it's easier on all of us if two threads that are clearly discussing the exact same subject are combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

I don't know what was happening with the bolded but that's not really an answer.

 

3 hours ago, The Commish said:

Duplicate threads like this happen all the time because some feel the need to create threads months and months prior to them being relevant (for what reason, I am not sure).  Then they fall off into the depths of nowhere because, well, they aren't relevant.  Then the topic surfaces and becomes relevant and people create a thread at that time not thinking someone would have created thread that many months ago.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, squistion said:

There has to be a difference or the OP never would have started this thread after mine had been in existence for eight months and then continued it when people pointed out it seemed redundant. 

You are a little passive-aggressive %^&*@! - and this is why I have you on ignore.

I started this thread on November 9 - at 8:17 AM ET - Friday after the mid-terms were over.  It seemed like a good time to turn the page on the 2018 election cycle and look forward to the 2020 cycle.

 

The thread you started back in March 2018 - when the 2018 races were relevant, not the 2020 race - had been buried due to inactivity.  Prior to my starting this thread, the most recent activity was September 10, 2018 - or 2 months before I started this thread. 

I am not going to apologize for not searching back two months worth of posts for a dormant thread, that had no prior relevance.

 

And then - after I started this thread - YOU bumped your old thread - at 12:31 PM ET on November 9, 2018.  

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/765378-2020-presidential-election-thread/?do=findComment&comment=21498813

 

Now, explain to me how that is any different than what I posted in here?  

 

####### %^&*@!.

  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

You are a little passive-aggressive %^&*@! - and this is why I have you on ignore.

I started this thread on November 9 - at 8:17 AM ET - Friday after the mid-terms were over.  It seemed like a good time to turn the page on the 2018 election cycle and look forward to the 2020 cycle.

 

The thread you started back in March 2018 - when the 2018 races were relevant, not the 2020 race - had been buried due to inactivity.  Prior to my starting this thread, the most recent activity was September 10, 2018 - or 2 months before I started this thread. 

I am not going to apologize for not searching back two months worth of posts for a dormant thread, that had no prior relevance.

 

And then - after I started this thread - YOU bumped your old thread - at 12:31 PM ET on November 9, 2018.  

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/765378-2020-presidential-election-thread/?do=findComment&comment=21498813

 

Now, explain to me how that is any different than what I posted in here?  

 

####### %^&*@!.

He is the guy who started a thread on State of the Union Address with a twitter post that already was being talked about in three threads.  Clearly just wanted it to be his thread.  Just ignore him and his constant repost of twitter posts which really should be the goal of all posters here.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

He is the guy who started a thread on State of the Union Address with a twitter post that already was being talked about in three threads.  Clearly just wanted it to be his thread.  Just ignore him and his constant repost of twitter posts which really should be the goal of all posters here.  

I guess you are new here but we have had a separate State of the Union Address thread every year for as long as I can remember, going back to at least the beginning of Obama's first term. It usually starts a few days or a week before the actual scheduled address but sometimes before that if there is something newsworthy about it and Pelosi withdrawing Trump's invitation to appear in front of Congress would definitely qualify as news.

And the thread was actually started with an ABC News story about Pelosi's letter and while there was also a tweet, the tweet was a screen capture of the actual letter for those who just wanted to read that instead of the entire ABC article.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, squistion said:

I guess you are new here but we have had a separate State of the Union Address thread every year for as long as I can remember, going back to at least the beginning of Obama's first term. It usually starts a few days or a week before the actual scheduled address but sometimes before that if there is something newsworthy about it and Pelosi withdrawing Trump's invitation to appear in front of Congress would definitely qualify as news.

And the thread was actually started with an ABC News story about Pelosi's letter and while there was also a tweet, the tweet was a screen capture of the actual letter for those who just wanted to read that instead of the entire ABC article.

 

I have been here for much longer then you and I just don't feel the need to troll every thread up with constant twitter posts.  

Edited by Redwes25
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/11/2018 at 4:55 PM, Sinn Fein said:

Politico's list of players in the Dem race

 

Lots of names, not sure how many are legitimate:

Senators - leading contenders

Booker - I think he'll run

Sherrod Brown - strategic candidate - carries Ohio

Gillibrand - don't think she has the backing of the machine, or independent voices - she will not be a factor

Tim Kaine - don't think he can go it alone, might be a VP candidate again

Klobuchar - gaining some early buzz, we'll see if its sustainable - should do well in Iowa.

Merkley - Oregon senator - I don't know much (anything?) about him - seems like a long-shot, at best

Kamala Harris - she'll run.  Lets see how she does in the mid-west.

Bernie - He'll run.  He won't be a factor.

Mark Warner - might have a better chance than Kaine - former Governor also

Warren - I think she dip her toes, but she won't last long - her window was last election cycle.

 

House Members - bigger step up, imo

Delaney (maryland) - meh - he is running, but hard to see him generating any enthusiasm.

Gabbard (Hawaii) - a progressive favorite, but a bit out of her depth imo

Joe Kennedy (Massachusetts) - has the name - but needs a moment

Seth Moulton (Massachusetts) - military background - I know nothing else

Beto O'Rourke (Texas) - he'll run, but needs to get in the national spotlight to work against Harris and Booker.

Tim Ryan (ohio) - anti-Pelosi - will need to fundraise like a madman

Eric Swalwell (California) - born in Iowa - not sure that is enough to get a good start

 

Governors - dark horses

Steve Bullock - Montana

Andrew Cuomo - New York

John Hickenlooper - Colorado

Jay Inslee - Washington

Terry McAuliffe - Virginia - too much a part of the machine...

Martin O'Malley - same as it ever was

Deval Patrick - Massachusetts 

 

Mayors 

Bloomberg - NYC

Pete Buttigieg - South Bend - young, openly gay - no chance

Eric Garcetti - Los Angeles - too much California to win in the rustbelt imo

 

Update - Bolded are running

A few are still considering.  Big names like Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke, Booker can afford to wait to jump in.

 

As always, fundraising will be the key thing to watch - both in how much people can raise via grassroots like Bernie, and how much Big Donor money commits now versus later.

 

An interesting side note when it comes to endorsements -  I wonder who will chase, and who will get, an endorsement from AOC....it will be interesting to see how that courtship plays out, and whether it helps/hurts the candidate vis-a-vis endorsements from the establishment Dems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

And the first of the field, I believe, to skip an exploratory committee. 

When you know.  You know.

 

You know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2019 at 11:53 AM, IvanKaramazov said:

I don't know much about Gillibrand, but I will give her lots of credit for being credible and consistent on #MeToo.  We need more like her on both sides of the aisle.

 

What does this mean? Oh - because she lead the charge against Al Franken? 

Just want to make sure I'm not missing anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kamela could very well be the nominee. California moving up its primary really helps her. If she can survive Iowa and New Hampshire and then win South Carolina, she could lock it up by Super Tuesday..  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

top, we should use this thread instead of squiston's. Sorry squistion but it has to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Kamela could very well be the nominee. California moving up its primary really helps her. If she can survive Iowa and New Hampshire and then win South Carolina, she could lock it up by Super Tuesday..  

How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?

 

Lets call the main contenders:  Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?

 

Lets call the main contenders:  Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand

 

This is fine question but I’m not going to answer it. My problem is that I’m honestly not sure in my own mind how we should go about defining progressivism, and whether or not there is a consistent scale. 

For instance: based on her stated views I’ve always regarded Harris as rather leftist. Then I heard some progressives attempt to disqualify her because she has taken corporate donations. (I certainly hope that doesn’t become a litmus test.) 

In the past I’ve done as much labeling as anyone else but I’ve decided I won’t do it anymore. I want to hear these guys debate and then decide on how many issues I agree with them on vs disagree and which ones to prioritize. I also want to move away from labels in general, for both political parties. I am open to new innovative ideas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

This is fine question but I’m not going to answer it. My problem is that I’m honestly not sure in my own mind how we should go about defining progressivism, and whether or not there is a consistent scale. 

For instance: based on her stated views I’ve always regarded Harris as rather leftist. Then I heard some progressives attempt to disqualify her because she has taken corporate donations. (I certainly hope that doesn’t become a litmus test.) 

In the past I’ve done as much labeling as anyone else but I’ve decided I won’t do it anymore. I want to hear these guys debate and then decide on how many issues I agree with them on vs disagree and which ones to prioritize. I also want to move away from labels in general, for both political parties. I am open to new innovative ideas. 

Thats fair - I was not looking to put you on the spot - just a general gauge on where the candidates stood.  I figure you have as much knowledge as anyone here in that regard.

 

I don't feel like i have a strong enough sense of the various backgrounds - and I am sure that its complicated.  Candidates might be progressive in some areas, while more centrist in other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Harris specifically - its hard to imagine any prosecutor being labeled "leftist" - so I would have assumed she was more centrist.

 

The other reason why I think this is a significant issue - is for the reason stated above - I wonder where/when AOC will weigh in during the primary.  I think the Primary will be essentially a battle for control - and primaries are generally bad places for that to happen.  Activist are motivated to vote in primaries - rank-and-file members are less enthusiastic.  But, that can hurt in the general election, where rank-and-file members are more important to victory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't explain why I don't think she's left enough, but I do. I'm sure that will change during the campaign but as of now I'd cast a vote for her and be okay with it. Also, this needs to be topped above squistion's thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?

 

Lets call the main contenders:  Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand

 

Sanders - Warren - Booker - Gillibrand - Harris - Biden - O'Rourke - Klobuchar

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

How would you rate the main contenders on a Progressive -> Centrist scale?

 

Lets call the main contenders:  Harris, Booker, Sanders, Biden, O'Rourke - and just for good measure, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand

 

Sanders

 

Harris

Klobuchar

 

O'Rourke

 

Warren

 

Gillebrand

Booker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biden

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, timschochet said:

This is fine question but I’m not going to answer it. My problem is that I’m honestly not sure in my own mind how we should go about defining progressivism, and whether or not there is a consistent scale. 

For instance: based on her stated views I’ve always regarded Harris as rather leftist. Then I heard some progressives attempt to disqualify her because she has taken corporate donations. (I certainly hope that doesn’t become a litmus test.) 

In the past I’ve done as much labeling as anyone else but I’ve decided I won’t do it anymore. I want to hear these guys debate and then decide on how many issues I agree with them on vs disagree and which ones to prioritize. I also want to move away from labels in general, for both political parties. I am open to new innovative ideas. 

How about making it simple and putting in terms of what the country (electorate) is wanting.  So if the country wants two years of further education, running on two years is "moderate", running on four years is "progressive", running on not expanding it at all is "conservative".  

What these parties stood for in the past is generally irrelevant moving forward.  It's always seemed an antiquated approach to me, but I don't have a problem with change either.  I wish I had a party that shared that position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good image of how 538 sees the Dem contenders

 

Article here:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

 

In a nutshell, it maps the contenders against 5 key constituents:

 

1.  African-American
2.  Hispanic/Asian
3.  Party Loyalists
4.  The Left
5.  Millennials

 

Harris has the biggest footprint - scoring well with African-Americans with no real weak areas.  Booker also rates well.

Gillibrand has no weak spots - but she has no strengths either.

I was a little surprised with Klobuchar - only rated well with Party Loyalists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the "Left"  looks like 538 rates them as follows:

1. Sanders
2. Warren
Tie Sherrod Brown
4.  Harris
Tie  Gillibrand
6. Castro
7. Booker
Tie Biden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

For the "Left"  looks like 538 rates them as follows:

1. Sanders
2. Warren
Tie Sherrod Brown
4.  Harris
Tie  Gillibrand
6. Castro
7. Booker
Tie Biden

I don't understand what this ranking is based on. Certainly not electability or chances of winning? (I hope?) Or is it just supposed to be from left to right in order?

And where is Klobuchar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

This is a good image of how 538 sees the Dem contenders

 

Article here:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

 

In a nutshell, it maps the contenders against 5 key constituents:

 

1.  African-American
2.  Hispanic/Asian
3.  Party Loyalists
4.  The Left
5.  Millennials

 

Harris has the biggest footprint - scoring well with African-Americans with no real weak areas.  Booker also rates well.

Gillibrand has no weak spots - but she has no strengths either.

I was a little surprised with Klobuchar - only rated well with Party Loyalists.

 

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't understand what this ranking is based on. Certainly not electability or chances of winning? (I hope?) Or is it just supposed to be from left to right in order?

And where is Klobuchar?

 its in the article I posted above - Klobucher is rated low on the "Left" scale - but very high on the "Party Loyalist" scale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dedfin said:

Sanders

 

Harris

Klobuchar

 

O'Rourke

 

Warren

 

Gillebrand

Booker

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biden

I would have Warren below Sanders and O'Rourke a mile below Biden. O'Rourke refused to support a democrat for house and tacitly supported the republican instead. I don't know that democrat's policies, so maybe if she thought that Hitler did nothing wrong or something where it is reasonable not to support her, but in a bubble that is a 1 strike and you are out offense for the democratic nomination. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/19/us/politics/beto-orourke-democrats-president.html

Edited by huthut
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Leroy Hoard said:

I think Harris would do well across the board with Dems. Younger (54) than most of her more fossilized competition.

Isn't the end game to nominate someone that can beat Trump?  Harris isn't that person.  She would get smoked.

Edited by JohnnyU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PublicPolicyPolling‏Verified account @ppppolls

FollowFollow @ppppolls

More

Our new national poll finds no matter what Dem you test against Trump, he is stuck at 41-42%

Biden 53 Trump 41

Sanders 51 Trump 41

Harris 48 Trump 41

O'Rourke 47 Trump 41

Warren 48 Trump 42

Booker 47 Trump 42

Gillibrand 47 Trump 42:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bucky86 said:

PublicPolicyPolling‏Verified account @ppppolls

FollowFollow @ppppolls

More

Our new national poll finds no matter what Dem you test against Trump, he is stuck at 41-42%

Biden 53 Trump 41

Sanders 51 Trump 41

Harris 48 Trump 41

O'Rourke 47 Trump 41

Warren 48 Trump 42

Booker 47 Trump 42

Gillibrand 47 Trump 42:

The danger in these polls are that individual states matter more than national polls.  I raised that issue in the 2016 cycle, only to be chastised...

 

Having said that, I don't think Trump can win key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania in 2020  (maybe Ohio).  Those are the states that matter.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sinn Fein said:

The danger in these polls are that individual states matter more than national polls.  I raised that issue in the 2016 cycle, only to be chastised...

 

Having said that, I don't think Trump can win key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania in 2020  (maybe Ohio).  Those are the states that matter.  

Dems only need a slight up bump in those states and that's a big swing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Leroy Hoard said:

Dems only need a slight up bump in those states and that's a big swing.

Agree - I think it will be very difficult for Trump to hold those states.

But, I also think it underscores the importance of Dems to get the messaging right here - they have to find a way to include working-class whites as part of the winning coalition.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as he pounds away at this wall thing for the next 18 months, the rust belt will look pretty different this next time around.  The ads to those people write themselves.  They are being worked over by the tariffs and the government is shut down so they can't even get the little bit of shielding they were promised to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sinn Fein said:

The danger in these polls are that individual states matter more than national polls.  I raised that issue in the 2016 cycle, only to be chastised...

 

Having said that, I don't think Trump can win key states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania in 2020  (maybe Ohio).  Those are the states that matter.  

I know you weren't necessarily excluding them but I think the playing field is way broader than that. I would add North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Arizona to the list of very possible Dem pickups (Minnesota, Maine and Nevada as possible GOP pickups, although I think they're all less likely unless something changes considerably).  So Trump needs to win most of those Great Lakes states, but even if he does he can still be defeated.  One of many possible paths for the Dems would be to win Florida and either Arizona or North Carolina (or Michigan, the Great Lakes state that seems to be reverting to the status quo the most). On the other hand Trump almost certainly can't win without them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

I know you weren't necessarily excluding them but I think the playing field is way broader than that. I would add North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Iowa and Arizona to the list of very possible Dem pickups (Minnesota, Maine and Nevada as possible GOP pickups, although I think they're all less likely unless something changes considerably).  So Trump needs to win most of those Great Lakes states, but even if he does he can still be defeated.  One of many possible paths for the Dems would be to win Florida and either Arizona or North Carolina (or Michigan, the Great Lakes state that seems to be reverting to the status quo the most). On the other hand Trump almost certainly can't win without them.

:goodposting:

 

And, its one of the reasons I think the Iowa results will be more important than perhaps they might appear at first blush - I think Iowa will be a good indicator of how Mid-Western dems view the candidates - and that will be important in the mid-western states.

That is countered by states like Georgia and North Carolina, which might require more minority support for a Dem to win - so South Carolina will play a role in deciding how african-americans are viewing the candidates.

 

My hope is that a real front runner emerges early into the debate season, and Dems can rally around one candidate, and then choose a strategic running partner...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, I would add, as Tobias already did - those states are more important to Trump than they are to the Dems - because I don't see Trump winning any new states, so he has to keep what he already won, and given the narrow margins - it will be difficult at his current popularity levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sinn Fein said:

And, I would add, as Tobias already did - those states are more important to Trump than they are to the Dems - because I don't see Trump winning any new states, so he has to keep what he already won, and given the narrow margins - it will be difficult at his current popularity levels.

Underestimate Trump....again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JohnnyU said:

Underestimate Trump....again.

Hey johnny, what new states do you think he could win in 20w0? Also, do you think he will have a tough primary challenge? Kasich is who i suspect will try.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2019 at 3:37 AM, Sinn Fein said:

This is a good image of how 538 sees the Dem contenders

 

Article here:  https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-5-key-constituencies-of-the-2020-democratic-primary/

 

In a nutshell, it maps the contenders against 5 key constituents:

 

1.  African-American
2.  Hispanic/Asian
3.  Party Loyalists
4.  The Left
5.  Millennials

 

Harris has the biggest footprint - scoring well with African-Americans with no real weak areas.  Booker also rates well.

Gillibrand has no weak spots - but she has no strengths either.

I was a little surprised with Klobuchar - only rated well with Party Loyalists.

Wondering if they should have had a key constituent category for the Women's vote?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JohnnyU said:

Underestimate Trump....again.

I don’t believe people failed in their estimation of Trump, but rather failed in their estimation of their fellow Americans in general. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still believe that the Democratic nomination is decided by African-Americans. Which is why I think in the end it will come down to Biden, Kamela Harris, and Corey Booker. Currently, Bernie Sanders is leading among black voters but that is mostly due to name recognition. 

If Biden enters the race I think he has to be the favorite especially if Obama endorses him. I’m not sure the Democrats have ever had a kingmaker in modern times the way Obama could be for this election. 

I also think that Hillary should stay away from endorsing anyone, as it will unfortunately be regarded as a negative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mr fancypants said:

Wondering if they should have had a key constituent category for the Women's vote?

From my understanding, “the women vote” is a bit more heterogeneous and less reliable for electoral purposes than other demographics. There’s a big sociological aspect to it which I’m not well read on, but the gist of it is that gender is usually not central to one’s identity in the way that race tends to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.