Will Democrats Ever Again Nominate a Woman for President?

[Billiejeens]

They tried cankles and lost, then cackles and lost. Who's up next? Linda formerly known as john?

That's actually a decent plan

 

[Billiejeens]

They will. I thought you guys were fine with that as well by leaving it up to the states.

The states where they’re obsessed with killing babies, according to you guys, should be allowed to kill as many babies as they want.

Problem solved. I’m glad we’re both good with lots of babies being legally killed.

The fact that the majority are in the inner city is just a plus.

 

[Billiejeens]

Im not as cynical. Personally I would vote for a woman for president if she was a strong one.

Trump was in some ways a bad candidate, but his message still resonated. HE simply has the "it" factor,
while Kamala was constantly trying to manufacure it.

President Trump connects with the average person like few others do

 

[Billiejeens]

Not with Big Mike the 2028 favorite...

She would have won this time
That ship has sailed

 

[XponentialChaos]

The fact that the majority are in the inner city is just a plus.

Oh ok. So you’re good with lots of abortions as well. Good to know.

 

[Kondor3]

If they DO, they need to elevate that person via the Primary System and NOT simply anoint a candidate...

Who knows... perhaps they'll change-their-spots and invite Liz Cheney to take a crack at it, to win-over Centrists...

 

[Billiejeens]

If they DO, they need to elevate that person via the Primary System and NOT simply anoint a candidate...

Who knows... perhaps they'll change-their-spots and invite Liz Cheney to take a crack at it, to win-over Centrists...

She's not a centrist

 

[Billiejeens]

Oh ok. So you’re good with lots of abortions as well. Good to know.

I am not hard core pro-life
I know some people need killing

 

[Foxfyre]

I doubt it. Not in our lifetimes.

Even as other countries – including Italy, North Macedonia and, most recently, Mexico – have in recent years joined the ranks of countries that have elected the first women to their highest political offices, American voters have picked Donald Trump twice over the two women who have come closest to the White House in US history.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/politics/glass-ceiling-women-kamala-harris/index.html

They will never make such an announcement, of course. But in the last three elections two women and one man ran against Donald Trump. The women both lost and the man won.

As the 2028 primary approaches, the DNC will lament that it was mysogyny that caused Trump's landslide over Harris, planting the subliminal message to Dem voters that nominating a woman is a recipe for another loss. If the voters don't take the hint and nominate a woman anyway, the DNC can just pull the plug on her and replace her with a man.

The Democrats just don't have many women who are in a good position to run for president. Part of that is due to the Dems following their own DIE policy and filling top positions with women without regard to their qualification. Kamala Harris is exhibit A for that claim.

Coming late to this thread, but in my opinion both Hillary and Kamala lost because they were selling what the majority of Americans don't want. Both are Marxist big government people campaigning on what that big government would do for its subjects. And the government will tell the people what liberties, choices, options they will have for their own good and will give them stuff. Government knows better than the people do what is good for them.

Trump ran on government as a servant of the people who will allow them the liberty, choices, options, opportunity, prosperity for all. Everyone would have a better chance to reach for the brass ring, to make their lives better themselves, to prosper. The people know what they want and what is good for them and government won't get in their way.

So those who want a nanny state however authoritarian voted for Hillary or Kamala. Those with the MAGA vision of a strong, free, secure America offering liberty, choices, options, opportunity, prosperity for all voted Trump.

There are more of us--especially now--than there are of those who want a nanny state.

 

[Mister Iggy]

I doubt it. Not in our lifetimes.

Even as other countries – including Italy, North Macedonia and, most recently, Mexico – have in recent years joined the ranks of countries that have elected the first women to their highest political offices, American voters have picked Donald Trump twice over the two women who have come closest to the White House in US history.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/politics/glass-ceiling-women-kamala-harris/index.html

They will never make such an announcement, of course. But in the last three elections two women and one man ran against Donald Trump. The women both lost and the man won.

As the 2028 primary approaches, the DNC will lament that it was mysogyny that caused Trump's landslide over Harris, planting the subliminal message to Dem voters that nominating a woman is a recipe for another loss. If the voters don't take the hint and nominate a woman anyway, the DNC can just pull the plug on her and replace her with a man.

The Democrats just don't have many women who are in a good position to run for president. Part of that is due to the Dems following their own DIE policy and filling top positions with women without regard to their qualification. Kamala Harris is exhibit A for that claim.

20 years till they try that one again..

I cringe at the thought AOC is the nomination..

 

[XponentialChaos]

I am not hard core pro-life
I know some people need killing

So we’re both pro-choice. That’s great. I’m glad we agree on something.

 

[dblack]

What I'm wondering is if Democrats will ever nominate a good candidate for President. I can't give a shit about their gender. Will they nominate someone who can bring the country together for a change? They seem to very have little interest in doing that.

 

[dblack]

If they DO, they need to elevate that person via the Primary System and NOT simply anoint a candidate...

Who knows... perhaps they'll change-their-spots and invite Liz Cheney to take a crack at it, to win-over Centrists...

I dunno. The primary system hasn't been doing much better. As long as we're stuck in the two-party death spiral, neither party has much incentive to nominate a good candidate. It simply doesn't have much to do with whether they win or lose. The Presidential election has devolved into partisan proxy civil war.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Coming late to this thread, but in my opinion both Hillary and Kamala lost because they were selling what the majority of Americans don't want. Both are Marxist big government people campaigning on what that big government would do for its subjects. And the government will tell the people what liberties, choices, options they will have for their own good and will give them stuff. Government knows better than the people do what is good for them.

Trump ran on government as a servant of the people who will allow them the liberty, choices, options, opportunity, prosperity for all. Everyone would have a better chance to reach for the brass ring, to make their lives better themselves, to prosper. The people know what they want and what is good for them and government won't get in their way.

So those who want a nanny state however authoritarian voted for Hillary or Kamala. Those with the MAGA vision of a strong, free, secure America offering liberty, choices, options, opportunity, prosperity for all voted Trump.

There are more of us--especially now--than there are of those who want a nanny state.

All very true, but how many Democrat politicians of either gender is that not true of?

Trouble with the Kamaltoes and Hitlerys of the nation is that they aren't good at pretending to be conservative in a national election, so they lose.

 

[Foxfyre]

All very true, but how many Democrat politicians of either gender is that not true of?

Trouble with the Kamaltoes and Hitlerys of the nation is that they aren't good at pretending to be conservative in a national election, so they lose.

Maybe the people are finally waking up that that grandiose promises of 'all the Democrats will do for us' only barely materializes if it happens at all. The only ones who really benefit are those they curry favor with or owe favors to.

Bigger, more authoritarian, more invasive/intrusive government into all aspects of our lives and the 'woke' and climate change agenda and tens of millions of migrants overrunning the country does nothing but drain more and more resources from the citizens that they could be using to actually improve their lives. And we also put up with escalated crime, being more at personal risk, and having less liberty and opportunity, fewer choice and options, and the buying power of the average American is reduced by thousands.

All of the above is why Trump won this month and why the majority of people are hopeful that things can get getter even if he can't do everything he hopes to do.

 

[Kondor3]

She's not a centrist

If she ever ran as a Democrat her NeoCon leanings would have to be greatly modified towards the Center, yes?

 

[Billiejeens]

I dunno. The primary system hasn't been doing much better. As long as we're stuck in the two-party death spiral, neither party has much incentive to nominate a good candidate. It simply doesn't have much to do with whether they win or lose. The Presidential election has devolved into partisan proxy civil war.

We have a binary system
This may simply not be the country for you.

 

[Billiejeens]

If she ever ran as a Democrat her NeoCon leanings would have to be greatly modified towards the Center, yes?

The Democrats have no interest in her now.
Her only role was to stop Trump.
Prior to Trump breaking her into a million little pieces, she was a solid Republican .

 

[NetJedi]

Yes! the Democrats will nominate another woman for the Presidency, just as soon as they figure out what a woman actually is. Up to this point they've just been flipping a coin.

 

[Independent thinker]

I doubt it. Not in our lifetimes.

Even as other countries – including Italy, North Macedonia and, most recently, Mexico – have in recent years joined the ranks of countries that have elected the first women to their highest political offices, American voters have picked Donald Trump twice over the two women who have come closest to the White House in US history.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/08/politics/glass-ceiling-women-kamala-harris/index.html

They will never make such an announcement, of course. But in the last three elections two women and one man ran against Donald Trump. The women both lost and the man won.

As the 2028 primary approaches, the DNC will lament that it was mysogyny that caused Trump's landslide over Harris, planting the subliminal message to Dem voters that nominating a woman is a recipe for another loss. If the voters don't take the hint and nominate a woman anyway, the DNC can just pull the plug on her and replace her with a man.

The Democrats just don't have many women who are in a good position to run for president. Part of that is due to the Dems following their own DIE policy and filling top positions with women without regard to their qualification. Kamala Harris is exhibit A for that claim.

Why not? I watched a Bill Maher clip analyzing the election and he pointed out that we not only elected a black man president twice but that in 2016 Hillary got 3 million more votes than Trump. So, Harris didn't lose because Americans wouldn't vote for a black or a woman or both or either.