It is abundantly clear we have to bide our time longer... Too many disgustingly bigoted and misogynistic attitudes right now--especially among the Independents and NEVER-TRUMPIST/NEVER MAGAT R's that are hiding out there somewhere.

But suggesting to do so NOW is just showing a painful lack of awareness. sigh...

... and I think you're correct.

I feel the same way about Pete. Absolutely qualified, but not electable.

We have a sample set of two women to have made it to the level of a major party nominee and both lost very close elections.

The US has had women in the following high offices:

- VP
- Supreme Court
- Multiple Cabinet positions
- Speaker of the House
- Senate leadership positions
- House and Senate
- Governors
and more

I am hopeful that a diverse group of women with a range of policies engage in the primary process.

HERE ON DU--especially those (like me) present here from the first (2001), actively promoting HRC and every other female candidate over two decades!

Shame on you! Perhaps you are more than willing to let us have more of Trump and his Fascists, while we refuse to build out our strength by running our best female candidates in those elections they can win, and thus create a bulwark for the future. But, no. You just want to claim the women here who have been feminist here and elsewhere for decades are somehow "SEXIST?" How damned beyond any real understanding that is.

Shame belongs to anyone in the Democratic party who preemptively rules out a woman candidate exclusively because she is a woman.

Words mean things.

to successfully defend democracy now and in the coming years against an unmitigated and irreversible Fascist takeover disaster.

And yes, you did imply women who realize we have to wait a bit longer are being sexist, rather than strategic--that attitude DOES deserve shame and denunciation.

DU woman for merely being strategic. You don't get to imply "holier than thou" attitudes toward women here--especially those of us who have long records of fighting on this score for decades--merely for being clear-eyed and strategic. No one suggested your inaccurate, disingenuous comment nor your insinuation of the same. When you have fought for decades as I and the other DU women (and DU's Feminist-aligned men) then maybe you will GET it--or at least show some ability to discuss respectfully. Till then, I gather you are likely just trolling.

I will stand in opposition to anyone who says that we should preemptively rule out any woman candidate, any gay candidate or any other qualified candidate. If that describes you, I stand in opposition to you.

If that makes you feel attacked, that's unfortunate, but I would rather have you mad at me than hamstring our party.

Thanks.

I see what's going on here.

Last edited Mon Dec 8, 2025, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

All that's "going on here" is I am saying that the Democratic party needs to welcome qualified candidates, regardless of sex or sexual orientation and that no one should be preemptively excluded on either basis.

If this is controversial in a Democratic community, then you're goddamn right there's something "going on here."

if things were different and our democracy wasn't at such a high risk of being lost
folks here have shown tremendous support for people regardless of sex/gender & sexual orientation

which is why it's so disappointing when I see someone saying we should only field a white hetero man. I fundamentally disagree with this.

i am pre judging the voters, who have continued to demonstrate that they will not, in enough quantity to beat a maga, vote for one.

that may be unfair, or even false, but the stakes are too high to nominate anyone except a capable white hetero man.

kelly '28

our country has twice said "Nope!" to highly qualified women in favor of literally the most unqualified person in the history of this nation.

And somehow, we're supposed to say "Let's try again, surely they will be smarter and less misogynistic THIS time!"

AGAIN: They are debating whether women should continue to be allowed to vote at all.

I trust her judgement more than anyone's on DU.

When she said this country is not ready to elect a woman President, she was just pointing out the bloody obvious.

But hey, enjoy losing more elections by electing a Dem female candidate for Pres, and enjoy this country's pronounced descent into an authoritarian regime.

She is wrong. Truly I don't understand this mindset and if women waited around for permission to do things, like voting or having their own bank account, they would have been waiting around forever for someone to give them permission to do it.

Sorry, same goes for Black folk. Would Obama have ever been president under this type of interpretation of society being "ready" for it?

Truly I find this line of reasoning very disturbing from Democrats. It's embarrassing. No matter how you slice it there is no nice way of interpreting "we can't run women for president".

Mango Mussolini cannot run again and to be honest, if the last year is any indication, I have serious doubts he could win even if he could run again.
If a woman runs in the primary and I believe in them, I will support them to be our candidate and call out anyone insinuating they shouldn't run.

I get it, people are afraid.

So serious question, when would it be "ok" for a woman to run for office?
What magic do they have to perform to get people's permission to run for public office?

If that's what you got from her comments and my post.....

Let's just leave it that.

What magic does a woman have to perform to run as a presidential candidate?

I mean I go tell my little niece that "Some Democrats don't think women should run for president"

When should I tell her it ok for her to run for president?

Unnecessary. Women have been bombed back to the cave under this administration. It is a travesty. Let’s have a list if we must but don’t eliminate more than 50% of the population. With future candidates of any gender I suggest we have a set plan for post election to certify the results of our candidate. Recounts, and lawsuits if necessary. If we had done this with Harris I think even if the result hadn’t changed we would have spotlighted problems that need fixing.

And just when I thought we were breaking through, the Rogan podcast bro generation has come along and it is very damaging... all these 20 something males and even some young females have bought into that garbage. Its really set us back.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Especially not one with a foreign sounding name and running against a war hero. Everything seems impossible until it's done. In 2008 California passed prop 8 to ban same sex marriage. In 2024 the voters repealed that.

The two women we've nominated ran under weird circumstances. Clinton was one of the most unpopular nominees because she had been attacked for decades by Republicans. Harris became the nominee very late and had the headwinds of being in a deeply unpopular administration that she wasn't able to distance herself from.

Additionally they ran against Trump a very charismatic person to a section of the public that felt left out from the progress of the world. At least so far, none of the potential maga successors have replicated Trump's charisma.

sooner than later, but timing is everything. If you had read my posts, I suggest we focus on strategically filling judicial (all levels, state, local, and Federal), Congressional, state legislature, and local political seats so as to FINALLY have a literal COMPETENT FEMALE PIPELINE to fill these positions and to be able to assist an amply qualified female presidential candidate over the line WHILE LIKEWISE getting the likes of Trump and all his FASCIST refuge out of our government, but especially the Presidency). That won't happen overnight but we at least have to give it a cycle.. Strategic means just that. Your platitudes do not substitute for THAT. (Nor suggestions that those women of DU (and Feminist-aligned men) who have worked for decades--not only for Kamala Harris, but HRC and too many women Congressional candidates to name, are not serious about electing a female President. Don't even start...)

And I did read your other posts in this thread. I also disagree with your posts having presented the argument about the pipeline of talented women. You started with preemptively bashing anyone who would prefer a candidate who's a woman calling us painfully unaware, and then got upset when someone called that attitude out.

And instead of responding to what I wrote, you reduced it to platitudes and immediately dismissed me in favor of a position you didn't make in this thread, but gave yourself credit for in talking about the pipeline of women candidates downstream. But that's not a particularly convincing argument to me because we already have that. Yes obviously we could use more women, people of color, LGBTQ+, etc, but we have people from those groups already. What would convince you was the right time? We've had an incredibly effective woman as Speaker of the House, we've had a woman VP for an administration that got an impressive amount of legislation passed (including some bipartisan legislation in an era where that's rare), women governors. Do we need to have had x number of women vice presidents? A woman leading the Senate majority?

Well, I'm sure we all need you to mansplain to all the silly little women of DU--despite those decades of work to get a female President elected that many of us have undertaken, still can't possibly make this issue and strategic timing anything WE could understand. Our shared experience dealing with misogyny in our own lives and careers can't possibly be as important as YOUR opinion.

that we need to have AN ELECTABLE person this time around........in 2024 we may have won a small battle, but lost the war..............There were many fence sitters that no way in hell would have voted for anyone who wasn't a white male, and certainly not a woman, let alone a Black woman.....
Sad as it may be to all of us, the people running by the Dems, for the time being, must be ELECTABLE by the fence sitters and independents........getting any true MAGAot voters is a lost cause......

They're going to have to win it against Newsom, though. They're going to have to bring their A-game charisma to beat him.

a Dem woman could have a fighting chance at winning

She lost because she had so little time to campaign after the complete collapse of the Democratic campaign. She should have had at least a year. She proved herself to be a formidable candidate who absolutely demolished Trump in a debate. Her energy level was astounding and she did very well on issues, though somewhat burdened by Biden’s policy on Gaza.

I think in 2028 there will be a backlash against fascism. I hope Kamala Harris runs again in 2028 and I would be very pleased if our nominee was a highly qualified woman such as Harris, AOC or Jasmine Crockett. In fact, I would be deliriously happy to see any two of those three on the ticket.

Full disclosure: I’m just an old white coconut pilled male. I think we should always reach for higher ground.

Beyond that, you need to do your homework and stop being so damned dismissive of those of us who worked constantly (for both Harris and HRC) to try to elect them. Your dismissive comments are beyond inappropriate to those of us here who have worked for decades to elect a woman President, while likewise putting in the effort to elect women to Congress.

When you have put in decades of effort (and have the political, personal, career, and economic scars to show for it), then you can rudely diminish and seek to deliberately and disingenuously reframe the concerns of those who already have.

What was "rudely diminishing"? What was "disingenuous"?

I'm going to go out on a limb and think you just don't like it if someone disagrees with you. Boo Hoo.

misogyny.

Women are HATED by far too many in our country. The fact that we can even vote is apparently up for discussion.

We can't nominate a woman. Probably ever.

not necessarily the candidate we most WANT. There's a difference there.

And I happen to think that AOC, or Kamala Harris, or Jasmine Crockett can win. I am even more certain that if any two of those in any combination were on the ticket, they would WIN. But I want an open and fair primary season with any and all serious candidates running. What I don't want is a coronation.

Now that tRump’s presidency is falling apart, everyone is getting in on the act, including Rs.

Newsom’s my candidate. He’s been great for CA, IMHO.

And yet, he won.

A year is a lifetime in politics.

“Past performance is not indicative of future results.”

Obama was lightning in a bottle. The right man for the right time against two establishment Republicans. Times are very, very different.

Newsom is T-H-E Right's poster child for perceived (I said, perceived--not that it is correct AT ALL ) evilness to originate and come out of California.

Like I said, I love Newsom. He's a fighter and I like the fire that ignites the base--but I question his appeal to a wider national audience.

That's a tacit acceptance of Fox News propaganda about this state. It is also a sure-fire way to lose.

Newsom is succeeding because he projects a strong image. He doesn't back down, and people respect that.

all the other names I see tossed out (who aren't being rejected for being gay or female) have either no charisma or no national level name recognition. We are going to need someone with charisma who knows how to take on the media.

to get support from certain types than those who aren't all of that.

But California has a $4 trillion GDP, larger than that in Texas at $2.7 trillion. The California GDP is larger than in most countries around the world, and it is Democrats who have been in charge during its growth. Considering how much Trump and Republicans are damaging the economy and raising prices, the economy will be a major concern in 2028, which could benefit Newsom.

we'll see ... but, right now we're just talking headlines and internet memes.

I expect a lot of noise for its own sake about the meritless accessories such as appearance, age, income, etc. between now and midsummer, and I'll do well to focus on the candidate's particular merits rather than the commercial buzz's priorities of bubblegum and lip-gloss.

Democrats who will tell us what their vision is for this country and what policies they will fight for. That will be an exciting time. But asking people at this point who they’d vote for is an exercise with no goal. No one would have had Obama on their bingo card or Mamdani either early in the game.

That person is brillant!!

Democratic leadership, PLEASE take note...

Listening to him slaying Hegseth and Trump in a way that shows clear leadership and a commitment to preserving the Constitution. And he's from Arizona. I do love Newsom, and his wonderful parodies of Trump's deranged posts but while that tells me he's smart and witty, it doesn't really say anything about his actual leadership. I can see a remorseful MAGA voting for the tough Naval leader/astronaut from a red Southwestern state but staying home or voting against Newsom just for being from California.

Gabby is the native of Arizona. Mark moved there to be with her long ago, but he is from New Jersey.

I do like him, and we have a deep bench.

because there have been several candidates in the past who looked perfect on paper but proved not to be at that level when they tried to run for president.

Pete Buttigieg, of course. But no, NEVER a gay person. ANYBODY but a gay person. A well-rounded man who is both intellectually agile, but also has combat experience, and can relate to the people we ask to do it, if necessary (Venezuela is NOT necessary, and Pete knows it).

I personally reject the "it HAS to be a (fill in the blank)," but I also reject the idea of "it just can't be a (again, fill in the blank).

I certainly suspect Mark could do the job ably, probably Newsom as well, but for the "has it ALL" package, Pete Buttigieg looks to me to be the one who could do us the most good in the oval office. Not that he has a chance in hell of being nominated or elected, but just on pure merit, he is "da man." If someone could snap his or her fingers and have Pete Buttigieg in the Oval Office without having to go through the whole primary circus, I think the country would be better, no, BEST off. But, alas, the Genie of the Lamp passed me by today, and it's not a choice I get to make.

And I think his sexuality would not be as big a problem as many people do.

I think Pete actually suffers from a different challenge and that is being from Indiana.

If he were from a blue state, he would already be in line (if not already) a Senator or Governor. That is a lot clearer path to the Presidency for someone with his political talent.

As it is right now, he has had to take a circuitous rout through a cabinet position. While I think that is valid real world experience, there are not a lot of examples of it being a successful path. How far back do you have to go to have a non Governor, VP or Senator in that position (outside of the current occupant of course).

The "Mayor Pete" moniker is endearing but I am not sure it is totally an asset to acknowledge that his peak elected position was a smallish city.

Having said that, I would vote for him in a hot second. But he would have to win it on wits alone which I think he could likely do. Even Obama took the path through Senator even if it was on the express train.

Just my two cents

His seat is up for reelection next year. But Trump & Hegseth are giving him high ground to fight from over the spot reminding our military members what the UCMJ says about illegal orders.

But sad to say, I don't think he can win. California has been so ridiculed and demonized by right wing media over the years, half the people in this country hate the place and have never been there. I honestly believe the two best WINNABLE candidates are Mark Kelly or Andy Beshear

I will be voting for whoever wins the (D) nomination, in the general election.

I soured on the 2024 campaign season, when President Biden received enough delegates to win our nomination then was forced out and without any of our votes, Kamala Harris is suddenly our candidate.
I vowed never to vote in a primary again, as long as the Party Elders can change the candidate overnight without our vote.
Sorry.

Here.

We won't know anything until after the midterms.

So I want to see what we actually get when primaries happen. Newsom deserves the support though. He actually did something meaningful to fight the GOP with this gerrymandering nonsense. Yea, he and his team have fun giving Trump hell on social media but results are what matter most. And Newsom is the only Democrat that has really wielded power to fight back in a big way.... and yes I understand the House and Senate Dems have their hands tied right now.