Originally posted by: cpals
Originally posted by: Rainsford
What I find interesting is that this discussion ONLY comes up when we're talking about minority candidates. Nobody has yet complained about the legions of Christians who would only vote for someone who shared their religious views or how being from the northeast really hurts candidates campaigning in the south. No, we're fine with people voting for "their" particular group...up until it's a more traditional minority group. THEN everyone bitches and moans that people aren't more open minded in their choice of candidates. Give me a break.
Wouldn't voting for someone that shares your own beliefs and most likely values be a lot better than voting just because they are a certain color or gender?
I'm Christian, but will vote on whichever candidate I think views line up with how I like and most of the time they are Christian.
Who says that's not what's going on here? The fact remains that we are not a completely homogeneous society...there are certain values and viewpoints more likely to be held by someone of a certain color or gender. Women might vote for Hillary not just because she's a woman, but because AS A WOMAN she might be more likely to be sympathetic to a woman's point of view.
I mean, you're basically doing what I'm talking about. You aren't voting for someone because they are Christian, you're voting for someone because they share your views. But because your views are shaped by your religion, that makes it far more likely that you'll support someone who shares your religion. Similarly, many people in minority groups hold views that are shaped by their race or gender and would want a candidate that shares those views...which is more likely to be someone of the same race or gender.
It makes little sense to be a color or gender blind voter when the issues aren't color or gender blind.