I’m quite happy for this to develop into a debate, but to begin I’m interested in your opinions on this matter; as well as an estimate of how soon these things might happen, please include your reasons.
I think we’re past the point of anyone who matters protesting it so the answer is: As soon as one who is a better candidate than his/her opponent runs.
Let me clarify that a bit: I think a few people will protest but it won’t dissuade enough people to make a difference (like it might have 30 or 40 years ago.)
I think we are getting closer…
but, there are a lot of conservatives who would be against it on both of the major parties…
I would guess that we are probably 30-50 years away…
Why limit it to a black president? How about any other minority group?
I’m just asking because I saw an article in one of the East Coast papers once making a big deal about how the race for Governor of New Mexico was between Richardson and Sanchez. Apparently an all-Hispanic governor’s race is a big deal–not to me, of course.
Why think of it in terms of minorities? It is inherently racist.
No, it’s factual. There are more white people in america than black people so it doesn’t take a mathematician to tell you that they are a minority. How is that racist?
asterion: he’s probably not “limiting” it to a black president but since blacks are the largest minority then it is highly likely that our first minority president will be black.
I have this belief that Chelsea Clinton will be our first woman president. So, not till she’s about forty-something, and she’s what, 22 now?
2020 or thereabouts, says I.
Not necessarily. Not if we accept the fact that the likelihood of becoming president is directly proportional to the wealth a person has access to.
Are blacks the richest minority group? I don’t think so.
I remember doing an exercise in English class one day. The professor asked us to look at a photograph featuring a diverse group of people, all of them “minorities”. A black man, an Asian woman, a Jewish white guy, and some other folks that I can’t really remember. Then she asked us which one of the people in the picture was probably the poorest. Everyone said the black man. Then she asked which one of the people had the best chance of being the next president. Everyone said the black man. In my mind these two assumptions contradict one another.
I don’t think the first “minority” president will be black. Maybe Jewish or Hispanic, but not black.
I think it is going to be a while. The effects of gerrymandering will keep black candidates from being elected. There don’t seem to be any women who would make good candidates currently in politics. Asians do not typically seek office in great numbers and Latino candidates seem to be only just starting to seek office and gerrymandering might hurt them to. Of course someone could do a Colin Powell and come out of nowhere. He would probably already be President if it wasn’t for his wife.
Hillary Clinton is probably the best hope on the Democrat’s side. But something would have to happen for her to overcome her highly negative perception in some areas of the country.
JC Watts has an outside shot if he goes back into politics and wins the OK governorship next time. I think he was the only black politician in congress to represent a majority white district when he was in the house.
Condolezza Rice probably has the name recognition and is from an important state but she has never run for elective office. If she runs for Governor in California in 2006 and wins she will then probably be the frontrunner for 2008 or 20012, or if something happens to Cheney she could be appointed vice president and then have good shot at 2008.
These are all very long longshots though.
But that’s like accepting that the earth is flat as a premise. Go along with it if you like, but it’s still bollocks. Unless of course Bill Gates is president of the US…
Well, I probably wouldn’t phrase it exactly like monstro did but I do agree with the point he’s trying to get across. You need money to finance a campaign. Doesn’t mean the richest guy is going to win, it just means the poor guy won’t win.
:eek:
They’re saying Hillary Clinton might have a decent shot election-after-next. I expect a Jewish president will come first, then later a black president, although the timeline is rather blurry. That’s just MHO, of course. (Unless it plays out; then it’s due to my prescience.)
Nah, I don’t think Hillary will ever be pres or even come close. Chelsea, people Chelsea.
Why am I the only one who sees the truth?
Somebody (CNN?) did a poll in the last year and something like 35% of people would not vote for a woman for president right now (knowing nothing else about the candidate).
I was shocked. Anyway, if 35% won’t vote for you out of hand, you’ve got an impossible candidacy.
It’ll be a while for a woman.
If Colin Powell runs, he might win - say in 2012.
I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Think about it for a minute.
We’ve never elected a non-Christian Pres. All have been protestants but one (who served 1/2 a term).
All our Presidents have been of English, Irish or German descent except one (Van Buren who was Dutch).
All our Presidents have been of average hieght or more (with the possible exception of Madison).
If you want to be Pres., you had better (a) look like the voters (white, protestant, non-“ethnic”) and (b) Look like a leader (tall, male, athletic). As the voters change some of this will change, but it will take time.
No it isn’t. How many poor presidents–or even middle-class presidents have we had? I can only think of a couple, and none of them were elected in modern times.
Bollocks would be believing that everyone has the same chance of becoming president. Of course we don’t have the same chance. And money is one factor that determines access to power.
Agree or disagree?
Well, whatever poll I saw disagrees with these that I found Googling:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/specialReports/pollSummaries/polls_this_century_QuizA.asp
Still, when 10% of people won’t vote for you out-of-hand, and another who-knows-how-many vote strict party lines, you’ve got quite a handicap to overcome.
Monstro, it depends on what you consider “poor”. Look at Bill Clinton. While he has money NOW, he surely wasn’t rich when he was young.
I agree that “poor” people don’t run for president. Why is that? Because if you have enough on the ball to run for president or high elective office, you’ve got marketable skills enough to make a comfortable living. Presidents might be wealthy compared to the average man on the street, but most of them aren’t scions of wealthy families.
This is a tough call, because you CAN’T take people at their word on a subject like this. Polls have proven that time and again.
Most recently, here in Texas, Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk (a very popular, well-respected, moderate) ran for the Senate seat being vacated by Phil Gramm. In case you didn’t know it, Kirk is a black Democrat. He was running against white Republican John Cornyn.
Now, I supported Cornyn, but I think highly of Mayor Kirk, who was an attractive candidate. And in every survey, right up to Election Day, Kirk was neck-and-neck with Cornyn- indeed, Kirk often had a slight lead over Cornyn. Or, at least, that’s what people told the pollsters. On Election Day, Cornyn won handily.
Why do I bring this up? Because, I’m afraid, people generally tell pollsters what they THINK the pollster wants to hear. A typical white Texas Democrat who had no intention of voting for Ron Kirk (or ANY black candidate) almost certainly lied to pollsters, to avoid appearing racist.
So… forget what you read in surveys. Even people who ARE racist to the core, who’d never vote for any black candidate for any office, generally aren’t going to tell a pollster that. So, in any election where a black candidate doesn’t have an OVERWHELMIG lead in the polls, I’m inclined to think he’ll lose. At best, he’ll win by a much smaller margin than expected.