A woman is probably most likely. I think that’s a pretty surmountable barrier at this point, and there are quite a few female governors and senators. (I also think an appealing Jewish, Hispanic, or Asian candidate would see relatively few issues related to their ethnicity, but there just aren’t as many of them in the upper reaches of politics right now. Hispanic being the most likely of those three IMO.)
I also think it’s entirely possible that Barack Obama will be the only black president in any of our lifetimes. It’s still relatively rare for African Americans to win high-profile statewide elections. If there is another black president reasonably soon, I think he or she will more likely be someone like a general or cabinet secretary who rose to that level through appointments rather than elections. (It might not be totally unfeasible for a member of the House to win, but I do think it would be unfeasible for a member of the House from a black-majority district to win, and that’s where most of the black Congresspeople come from right now.)
Some of these are unlikely to be President in any 20 year period even if the public didn’t care about their backgrounds, simply because there aren’t many of them. Gays, for example, are at best only 1/20th of the population, so even an electorate that was completely indifferent to the sexual-orientation of its candidates would only choose a gay President once every 80 years or so.
Interesting trivia note: no President has ever been an only child*. Will we see the first one of those elected in the next twenty years?
*Franklin Roosevelt had an older brother, James. But he was a lot older. James was twenty-eight years older and was already married and had children of his own when Franklin was born. So Franklin Roosevelt effectively grew up as an only child.
Female or Hispanic most likely. Asian less likely due to demographic size but possible. Unmarried has happened before. Jewish, absolutely. Gay, maybe not.
Atheism is normal in many parts of the country, but it’s more likely to negatively affect a national vote. Everywhere I’ve lived it’s not necessarily considered a bad thing.
You know, it seems that voting for any of these categories means that we believe a good thing will happen. I would find the election of the married couple option appalling.
Please; the Republicans have been positively delusional over him. His opponents typically have no idea what his positions actually are, nor do they care; they oppose a fantasy-Obama, not the actual Obama.
I think Jews and Mormons are equally “odd”, that is somewhat familiar to the mainstream, sbut have certain points of departure, and do attract some hostility from certain extremist idiots. Buddhism/Hinduism would attract less hostility, but most people would consider those faiths a lot "odd"er
It’s totally different from what would happen if an openly-practicing Muslim tried running.
In 2000, the Dems won the majority of the vote with a practicing Jewish VP candidate
In 2012, the Reps won the majority of the vote with a practicing Mormon candidate.
But look how much hostility BHO got just because he was involved with Islam at most for two years when he was 6. Decades of churchgoing didn’t matter, dedicating a book to his pastor didn’t matter, two years decades ago made him a foreign ‘other’
There have been some studies where, while the conclusions aren’t 100% cut and dry, it appears Americans trust atheists slightly less than they trust rapists.
Let that sink in for just a moment.
As an atheist I think there’s a good reason that a good 25% of whatever of the population isn’t church going, are probably not really religious and would probably be atheists openly but aren’t, and I think that is because there is a large amount of social pressure to say you’re religious. Not being religious can be a serious barrier to a lot of things if you’re too open about it. I don’t hide my atheism, but I don’t talk about it or bring it up, either. It can be a deal killer in dating, business, it can make you unwanted in groups you’d otherwise be wanted in etc.
Now, I think that’s changing, but I think there is a lot of truth to the idea atheism is still widely seen as unacceptable by many. And there is a lot of voting done outside of San Francisco, New York, Chicago etc. I think something like 70% of people have strongly negative opinions of atheists, I don’t see how you win a national election with numbers like that.
Plus, an atheist who was serious about politics would just lie and say they’re Christian. If I was, that’s what I’d do, no doubt. Absolutely no reason not to, and it’s easy to lie about being religious.
If that were the case then Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or any other candidate would have won the Democratic nomination in 2008. Instead Obama fairly easily won it, and neither of his two elections were really cliffhangers. The reasonable conclusion is that a significantly large portion of the country is indeed ready for a black president.
…And for that matter, I think they’ve been ready for a while. When polls showed that Colin Powell could have won if he’d run in 1996 I remember thinking it was kind of neat but nothing shocking, and I don’t remember any frothing at the mouth at the prospect back then, either.
For other groups, it all very much depends on the candidate. A great woman, Hispanic, Asian, or Jewish candidate would, I think, have some barriers (same as a black candidate), but nothing insurmountable - any of those are perfectly possible.
An atheist? Less likely - candidates are going to need to at least play lip service to religion for a while longer, though I can imagine a nominally religious candidate who is unobservant.
Gay? Not likely. Gay rights have only started in earnest in, what, the last 15 or 20 years or so? Opinions are changing quickly, but not fast enough for me to imagine a gay couple in the White House any time soon.
An unmarried candidate might conceivably have an advantage, if he or she was young and reasonably good looking. The tabloids would have a field day with each date!