NationStates Jolt Archive

With the current Dems nomination race marking the first serious run for the US presidency by both a female candidate and a Black candidate, and the concordant disputation that comes with that, I have a question for you all:

IGNORING THE CURRENT CANDIDATES, lety me set up a hypothetical.

There is a choice between two nearly identical candidates.

They agree with your ideology as completely as possible, be it commy, Libertarian, socialist or whatever. They both meet all your criterion for experiences, background, etc.,m etc.

The only difference is that one is one an ethnically "white" female candidate and the other an ethnically "Black" male candidate.

Who do you choose?

To expound

Ralph Nader.

There isn't such a thing as "identical" candidates.

I would find some issue difference. It's easy to find one.

I'm scared of potential leaders that aren't old, white, and rich.

None of them, there all just plain terrible. None of them will ever do anything good for the US. It seems that democracy only ever raises unworthy people to lead us these days...

There isn't such a thing as "identical" candidates.

I would find some issue difference. It's easy to find one.

DK, either you missed the fact that this is a hypothetical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothetical) case, or you failed English. :rolleyes:

As I argued elsewhere semi-seriously, president of the USA is a stereotypical womans job. Making sure things run smoothly, that everyone can go to their job/school, planning 15 things at once..

However, a nice coinflip would work.

They are completely identical other than race and gender? I'd probably draw names out of a hat.

None of them, there all just plain terrible. None of them will ever do anything good for the US. It seems that democracy only ever raises unworthy people to lead us these days...

So you wouldn't vote for a hypothetical polytickian who honestly and truely supported all of your ideals?

As I argued elsewhere semi-seriously, president of the USA is a stereotypical womans job. Making sure things run smoothly, that everyone can go to their job/school, planning 15 things at once..

However, a nice coinflip would work.

They are completely identical other than race and gender? I'd probably draw names out of a hat.

Most excellent. I'm happy to see that at least some NSGers really have actually moved on to post-gender/ethnicity polyticks. :D

black man because the psychological boost to the country would be greater than having a woman win.

a woman president is inevitable at this point but black politicians seem to get mired in "black" politics that leaves them on the sidelines of the national scene.

With No difference I would probably randomly vote for one

DK, either you missed the fact that this is a hypothetical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothetical) case, or you failed English. :rolleyes:

I'm saying the case would never occur.

[QUOTE=NeesikaI'm scared of potential leaders that aren't old, white, and rich.[/QUOTE]

Oh yes, I'm sure you are. :P (You forgot male in your catalog...)

...is the woman fun to look at? either way I want a woman leader so that when this question is raised in future I won't have to think about thatcher

Oh yes, I'm sure you are. :P (You forgot male in your catalog...)

The penis was implied. As was the lack of physical disability, the heterosexuality and the Christianity.

black man because the psychological boost to the country would be greater than having a woman win.

Then again, having a woman as head of the most powerful country (military wise) would have a bigger impact on the rest of the planet. Many countries after all consider women unfit to lead.

I'm saying the case would never occur.

Again, you fail at understanding what a hypothetical is.

So you wouldn't vote for a hypothetical polytickian who honestly and truely supported all of your ideals?

I would but no such politician exists and probably never would. As for the OP's question race does not come into it, nor does gender so long as they believed in what I believe and that will transcend the barriers.

Again, you fail at understanding what a hypothetical is.

If we're speaking "hypothetically" I would roll a d20.

Of course, since your hypothetical has no bearing on reality (as you insisted in the OP), the answers are equally meaningless.

With the current Dems nomination race marking the first serious run for the US presidency by both a female candidate and a Black candidate, and the concordant disputation that comes with that, I have a question for you all:

IGNORING THE CURRENT CANDIDATES, lety me set up a hypothetical.

There is a choice between two nearly identical candidates.

They agree with your ideology as completely as possible, be it commy, Libertarian, socialist or whatever. They both meet all your criterion for experiences, background, etc.,m etc.

The only difference is that one is one an ethnically "white" female candidate and the other an ethnically "Black" male candidate.

Who do you choose?

To expound

really, to base an opinion off of that is just plain silly. If they are so similar why would they not run together (Thats the hypothetical people...the real ones, uh uh no they should not). But still if a choice is made in such a way then it would be a failure in the democratic system. Of cource...I'de still choose a black guy, at the moment there has not been a women leader of a nation that has proved she has what it takes to take control of a military presidency. Although it sounds bias, I would prefer a man, white or black, to run at the moment. (Thats not to say a women can't do it, just there's been no good evidence and if the situation was as such that would be the only backing i'de have for my vote)

Then again, having a woman as head of the most powerful country (military wise) would have a bigger impact on the rest of the planet. Many countries after all consider women unfit to lead.

*cough* (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Commonwealth_of_Nations.png)

*cough* (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Commonwealth_of_Nations.png)

"Many" is not "all". I think you will be able to find quite a few people in the Arabic and Asian countries that do not believe a woman should run a country. Often justified with "of course they are not inferior. Just different. Better suited for making babies and such".

Their squirming would be fun.

...is the woman fun to look at? either way I want a woman leader so that when this question is raised in future I won't have to think about thatcher

Seeing as both "meet all your criterion for experiences, background, etc." I think that's covered, no?


The penis was implied. As was the lack of physical disability, the heterosexuality and the Christianity.

Love and kisses to my lovely "fascist" babe. ;)

Then again, having a woman as head of the most powerful country (military wise) would have a bigger impact on the rest of the planet. Many countries after all consider women unfit to lead.

Honestly, seeing as how many Islamic and other "conservative" countries have had female heads of state, I'd be inclined to select a female on the grounds of OMFG PAKISTAN had a female head of state before my country did... How embarassing! :(

I'd go with the black guy, because this is USA polyticks. That means that in order to succeed on the political battlefield, those who deviate from the old white rich male standard need to demonstrate overcompensating behavior to act more like whatever they aren't. Frankly, I'd rather have the weatherman from the Today Show than a big dick.

Then again, having a woman as head of the most powerful country (military wise) would have a bigger impact on the rest of the planet. Many countries after all consider women unfit to lead.

thats a good point.

All else being equal, I think I'd probably go with the woman simply because, given the relative proportions of female-male and black-white in this country, it is statistically somewhat more pathetic that we haven't elected a woman yet. :p

To the THUNDERDOME!

thats a good point.

:::Sees your "good point", and raises you a Gandhi, a Thatcher, a Megawati Sukarnoputri, a Benazir Bhutto, a Khaleda Zia, a Sheikh Hasina, a Tansu Çiller, et al....:::

All else being equal, I think I'd probably go with the woman simply because, given the relative proportions of female-male and black-white in this country, it is statistically somewhat more pathetic that we haven't elected a woman yet. :p

I find both to be embarasing. ;)

The male. He wouldn't be as moody :p Jk. Does it really matter?

With the current Dems nomination race marking the first serious run for the US presidency by both a female candidate and a Black candidate, and the concordant disputation that comes with that, I have a question for you all:

IGNORING THE CURRENT CANDIDATES, lety me set up a hypothetical.

There is a choice between two nearly identical candidates.

They agree with your ideology as completely as possible, be it commy, Libertarian, socialist or whatever. They both meet all your criterion for experiences, background, etc.,m etc.

The only difference is that one is one an ethnically "white" female candidate and the other an ethnically "Black" male candidate.

Who do you choose?

To expound

Sometimes, the running mate can be a deciding factor on who gets the vote...and this is a good example.

:::Sees your "good point", and raises you a Gandhi, a Thatcher, a Megawati Sukarnoputri, a Benazir Bhutto, a Khaleda Zia, a Sheikh Hasina, a Tansu Çiller, et al....:::

speaking of which...

im thinking that margaret thatcher was a good example to the US. a female leader of a major world power and all.

I would deny the possibility of the candidates being so identical that the only difference is race and/or gender. Surely I could find SOME difference.

Interesting and somewhat telling to see that the US and non-US votes are near mirrors, even if the sampling is small. That's something I didn;t expect and is worthy of investigation...

speaking of which...

im thinking that margaret thatcher was a good example to the US. a female leader of a major world power and all.

Indeed so. (I listed mostly Islamic women because the Islamic world has a relatively well deserved anti-female reputation. That the US hasn't yet produced a Thatcher is personally embarassing to me.)

I would deny the possibility of the candidates being so identical that the only difference is race and/or gender. Surely I could find SOME difference.

As I pointed out to DK, it's a hypothetical. It's not meant to represent reality, but rathere to echo the choices and thinking of those choosing.

None of them, there all just plain terrible. None of them will ever do anything good for the US. It seems that democracy only ever raises unworthy people to lead us these days...You're just jealous because you can't vote yet.

I'd wait for the black woman candidate that meets all my criteria...


Seriously though, I'd probably just pick one at random.

I'd wait for the black woman candidate that meets all my criteria...


Seriously though, I'd probably just pick one at random.

If you can come up with a Condi Rice who's not bought into the neo-con idiocy, I'd love it!

Better yet - an economic moderate, international realist, social libertarian, intellectual black female who's done military service would be a near wet dream of a candidate in my books...

If you can come up with a Condi Rice who's not bought into the neo-con idiocy, I'd love it!

Better yet - an economic moderate, international realist, social libertarian, intellectual black female who's done military service would be a near wet dream of a candidate in my books...

I could be happy with that myself...

I could be happy with that myself...

If you find one, let us know!

Whoever is more electable.


LAWL!

I'd vote for the black guy. I always wanted the national anthem to be "Fuck the Police".

The candidates might be identical, but the institution in which they operate probably isn't identical in its racist and sexist prejudices. So that way you could presumably find a way in which one candidate could be more effective than the other.

That said I'm not sure whether I'd vote for the "more effective" candidate or the one that would ruffle more feathers. Probably the latter because I'm like that. And in the world of UK politics that would be the black candidate. British politics feels more racist than sexist to me. After all the coined phrase was "Blair's Babes" not "Blair's Blacks".

*snip*...
difference is that one is one an ethnically "white" female candidate and the other an ethnically "Black" male candidate.

Who do you choose?

I don't vote for people based on their race or gender, and even though it's a hypothetical, I find it hard to imagine that two people could be identical in their beliefs and have beliefs very close to my own. Two people will always be different people, so I'd probably find myself watching all of the debates and trying to make a decision based on their persona and any little things that I've noticed. Also, I'd take into account their history in politics.

I'd vote for the black guy. I always wanted the national anthem to be "Fuck the Police".

Oh my god, that is so funny.

I'm ashamed: I actually LOLed.