Being black may hurt her a little bit, but I doubt it would make much of a difference. Being pro-choice, on the other hand, will sink her chances of ever winning the nomination of the modern Republican party. They’ve spent the last 20 years courting social conservatives, they aren’t going to throw them overboard now.
The same goes for Gulliani, Powell and Ahnuld (whose chances are further hampered by that constitution thingy).
To me, that suggests Bill Frist has a better shot than any of them.
Strangely enough, the exact same number that have polled poorly and then gone on to win a Presidential election.
Well, I had a rant all prepared to lay into the ‘Americans/Republicans are racists’ crowd…but decided to just delete it. Whats the point after all? Perhaps I live in a different country from the rest of you…or maybe some of you guys need to take your heads out of the ground from time to time and look around. All I’ll say is, XT’s dream election in '08 pits McCain (Guliani would work too, but McCain is a friend of the families)/Rice against Richardson/Clinton. If THAT happens XT WILL vote mainstream…and reguardless of who wins privately I’ll be doing the bull dance and thinking of you guys here.
-XT
So why would he have to do that if it wasn’t an issue. If he was a strong pro-choice he would have lost, right?
Where did I say presidential elections?
Are you denying that Americans (as a whole) are racist? What do you base this on? There is plenty of evidence to support the theory that we are. If we are not racist, why have there only been 5 black senators in our country’s entire history? Why only 3 since Reconstruction? What do you base this statistical anomaly on? All of us in the reality base community tend to look at the facts before making up our minds. If slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, etc. are not enough to convince you that many people in this country don’t like black people, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Oh my goodness, that is so wrong. I despise Bush, but one thing - maybe the only thing - I have to give him is that he’s got charisma out the ying-yang.
I think we’re on the cusp of being able to elect a black or female president in this country. Really, really close. And honestly, it could be from either party. My only caveat would be in agreement with this comment:
It will have to be someone who has paid their political dues along the way, who has chits to collect. A Hillary Clinton, not a Condoleeza Rice. A Jesse Jackson Jr., not a Jesse Jackson.
If a black person becomes president, he or she will be a Republican. And a Republican woman has a better chance than does a Democrat. The reason being that a Democratic woman or black person isn’t going to pick up any extra Republican votes, and probably not any extra Democratic votes. But a black or female Republican has a chance of scooping significant votes from the Democrats.
As for pro-choice candidates being unelectable - that’s just Democratic bias speaking. You’re all convinced that Republicans are single-issue troglodytes. But even if the religious right has the kind of power you think they do, that doesn’t mean they are going to reject a presidential candidate on this issue, simply because a president doesn’t have a lot of control over it anyway. All the candidate has to do is to say that he/she won’t pick pro-choice people to serve in the courts, and they’ll be happy. In fact, I believe I’ve already heard one of the religious leaders say they’d have no problem with a pro-choice Republican so long as they were willing to follow the ‘no harm no foul’ rule - in other words, if you don’t believe in the pro-life position, just stay away from the issue and you’re cool.
I think you’re falling for the same trap a lot of my liberal brethren fall into. The fact is, the Republican punditry loves Condi, the Republican bloggers love Condi. But does that mean that the Republicans who will show up to vote love Condi? Maybe, but not necessarily. I’d say that the average Republican might express support because she is associated with the Bush crew, but other than that, they couldn’t tell you much about her.
That was 20 years ago, before the Religious Right took the GOP by the 'nads. People can correct me if I’m wrong, since I was very young at the time, but my impression is that a wishy-washy conversion might have cut the mustard back then, but wouldn’t do it now.
I heartily endorse monstro’s post above, detailing Condi’s electoral downsides–she’s an unmarried black female pro-choice eggheaded policy wonk dogged by rumors of being a lesbian that would only amplify during an election campaign. A GOP candidate might get by with any one of those, but all of them? I doubt it, especially in an era when a 51% victory feels like a landslide. She’d probably keep her SoS post in the unfortunate event that a Republican keeps the White House, but I don’t think there’s any way she’s on the actual ticket.
Go read the exchange again. duffer’s “dickhead” comment was used in reference to himself (in a way intended to deflect such an epithet, of course), while you then stepped in and implied that he would have been correct that he was, indeed, deserving of such an epithet.
I would not say that either of you have denonstrated much courtesy, here, but he did not direct any name calling toward you.
Regardless, I commented that you should not use that formulation regarding another poster in GD, but the warning was the result of your ordering him to “Take your head out of your ass.”
[ /Moderator Mode ]
From a Marist Poll earlier this year:
This is an interesting poll, because it pretty much clobbers the notion that the Republican electorate is in the thrall of the religious right, and won’t vote pro-choice or adopt other moderate positions. Have a look at the front runners: McCain, Guliani, Rice are ALL pro-choice (well, McCain is mixed), and between just those three they have 60% of registered Republicans! There’s your Republican majority right there. Now look at the darlings of the religious right: Rick Santorum? 1%! Romney , Santorum, Owens, and Frist between them have half the support that Condi Rice alone has.
This, btw, is why I think the Republicans are heading for trouble in the next elections. The behaviour of the Administration and much of the Republicans in Congress simply does not line up with where the Republican population is. The right is overreaching, and they have inordinate influence on government in part because of fund-raising, but he religious right makes up less than half of Republicans, and even among that group there are significant differences on issues like stem cell research. That’s why the congress is actually revolting against the President this time. Even the Republicans think he’s wrong, and stem cell research hs almost 80% support, which means Republicans make up a significant chunk of it.
Unfortunately for the Democrats, there just isn’t going be that much movement. There can’t be, because there aren’t that many contested seats in the next election in the first place. Even if the Democrats sweep them, they won’t regain a majority in the House or Senate, but they can close the gap substantially.
They just need a candidate who is credible on defense coupled with fiscal conservatism and a modicum of social liberalism. That’s where the people are. If the Republicans don’t put up a candidate roughly in line with that, then the Democrats have a huge opportunity to shift the electorate to their side. But they’ve got to step up to the plate. They can’t just sit back and watch Bush fail, they have to at some point start offering credible alternatives, and right now they aren’t. For example, this week several Democratic Senators starting calling for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and the heavy hitters like Chuck Hagel had to go out and slap them down on Sunday talk shows. They’ve got to get it together.
This election won’t be held in 1808 or even 1908. The election will be in 2008. Slavers, Jim Crowers and the vast majority of Koo-kooers will have been dead in their graves for lo, these many decades when the next election rolls around. Slavery, Jim Crow and the KKK do not represent current opinion in this country.
I do not think racism is nearly as pervasive in this country as many of you seem to think.
Many of you are looking at Condi Rice in a vacuum. Instead, look at a race between Ms. Rice and Ms. Clinton. Will a significant number of conservatives jump ship and vote for Hillary? Nay, nay. Will a number that that voted Dem or didn’t vote last time vote for Condi? I think they will.
IMHO if such a vote was held tomorrow, Condi would clean Ms. Clinton’s plow, easy.
Yes, but that was oh, so long ago. Virginia seems like a dream to me now…
Racism. Yes, racism is still alive in America. Many Whites will feel uncomfortable encoutering a young Black man on the streets, especially if he’s dressed “unusually”. But these same people will go ga-ga over a favorite Black sports personality, musician, entertainer, or other celebrity-- including politicians. Some people, I’m sure, would be glad to vote for someone like Condi just to prove that they aren’t racist (even if they do harbor some racist tendencies).
Single Woman. I actually think this is a plus. It takes care of the awkward problem of having a “First Gentleman”, or whatever the president’s husband would be called. But keep in mind that I still see her as a great VP candidate, not a presidential candidate, so the whole single female issue is even less important.
Pro-choice. Condi is mildly pro-choice, but has never made abortion an issue, probably because it’s not a foreing policy thing to begin with. And as a VP candidate, it’s just not going to be an issue.
Think VP, not P for Condi this time around. I like Condi, but wouldn’t want to throw into the president’s slot at this point. She needs to be rung thru the political process at least once to see how she does-- and it makes infinitely more sense to do so on the #2 slot.
But their kids and grandkids are still alive and kicking. The KKK may not represent the current opinion in this country, but many people still don’t view black people as equals. Did you forget that McCain’s chances of becoming president were partially sunk by rumors he had a black child out of wedlock. Just the rumor of having a black kid could destroy one’s chances or becoming president. And, of course, we have the Willie Horton situation. Both of these tactics were successful because they preyed on the fears and hatred people have for blacks in this country. Both political parties know this. I really think you are wrong on this one. I assume you are not black, and have never experienced much racism first hand, but I can assure you it exists, and would be a HUGE problem for any black politician.
First, who said either of them were running, or that would be the nominees. That scenario is based on a lot of assumptions that aren’t very likely. Even if Condi ran, she would not win the nomination. Sure, Condi would have a chance if the perfect storm of minority/female candidates were running, but that is unlikely based on past elections.
Those same people would go ga-ga over their favorite black star until they date their daughter or move in next door. All the things you mentioned are areas in which people don’t assume blacks are inferior. They are areas where blacks are accepted. It’s not the same as politics.
See, I don’t understand this. Don’t most voters vote for a candidate according to how this candidate’s policy position will affect the voter’s life? Why would you vote for someone solely based on their personal appearance/personal life? It’s not as though the average voter is going to have much personal interaction with the putative President.
And as much as I disagree with the woman’s political standpoint, the girl does have charisma once you get her away from Washington. The footage I’ve seen of her when she was recently in Europe revealed a graceful, confident, smiling Condie chatting away to various dignitaries in high heels and with legs crossed at the knees! :eek: I get the impression that she keeps herself on a very tight rein when she’s in the Republican White House, for whatever reason.
She’s got the intellect to make her an excellent President for the US, and a terrifying one from the rest of the world’s viewpoint.
Go back enough generations and all of our ancestors thought the world was flat. Opinions change over time.
I submit that the slight damage done by this rumor was the same as would have been done to a candidate having ANY child out of wedlock. Black wasn’t the point.
Again, turn a dangerous criminal loose and you’re likely to get some fallout. I don’t think race had anything to do with it.
From the OP: “What an exciting election campaign that would be if she ran against Hillary.” Their running against each other, and speculation about it, is the theme of this thread.
I am not black. I do live in an area with about 50% black population, and often work in a county that’s 80% black. I am no stranger to interactions between races. I think Condi would carry Alabama if she went head-to head against Hillary.
Remember, there are black racists too. To date, they’ve held their noses and voted for the white candidate that they least disliked. White racists might quite likely vote for Condi because she is less objectionable than whatever lefty the Dems put forth.
I’m hoping so, panache, I’m really hoping so.
I saw a commercial recently on Discovery? The History Channel? about the upcoming show about the “greatest American.” And it looks like a good show, it does. Yet of all the pictures of candidates they showed, not one woman was featured. Not even a single American woman was considered “great” enough to make the 30-second blurb. Now, I fully realize that this isn’t a reflection of discrimination, but rather of simple circumstance: for most of our country’s history, women haven’t been able to aspire to the highest positions because of societal conventions and social standing. Yet we live in the “enlightened” 21st century, in “progressive” America of 2005 where women do have the freedom to hold high office and control policy. And still, not one woman was shown in the blurb (tho’ I’m rather certain that a few will make the list).
I don’t think the commercial was a conscious decision. It’s not like someone said, “hey, we gotta get a few chicks in there - nah, leave 'em out.” It’s just that when the majority of us start to think about who’d we put on the list for greatest American, we think of men. Yeah, it’s because of history and that historically men have held the highest positions, yadda, yadda, yadda, and that forms part of our mindset. And I really hope we can break out of that
How many people are out there who’d make a comment like “I can’t vote for someone who’s going to be PMSing once a month,” or “<candidate>'s too much of a bitch,” or “vote for her? she can’t even drive properly!” Lots. I’m not certain we’ve enough on the other side to swing the day, and I’m not certain we’ll have those numbers for some time.
Yes, interacial dating can still be problematic for a lot of people. But politics isn’t necessarily like that. Do you think it’s an accident that Dave Chapelle trading Powell and Rice to the White Team when he did his “racial draft” skit? The idea behind that might not get them as much support in the Black community as someone who isn’t an “honorary White Person”, but it does make the color line disappear for most Whites.
Not long ago I read a pretty good book called, IIRC, “Preparing for Madame President.” It was a collection of essays about the social and political changes that will be necessary for a woman to move into the Oval Office. One of the more interesting - and appalling - essays was by a pollster who noted that, over the past 30 years or so, there have always been 15-20% of voters who say that under no circumstances would they vote for a woman for President.
Even when the polling question is worded as something along the lines of, “If a highly-qualified woman from your own political party were to run for President, would you vote for her?”, there is a bedrock segment of the American electorate that just won’t vote for a woman for President, no way, no how. Explanations differ, but it seems that there are some people who just think it’s a man’s job, and should always remain so. (I emphatically disagree, but that’s their view).
Since recent Presidential elections have routinely been decided by less than a 5% margin between the top candidates, any female candidate running against a male candidate will find herself behind the eight ball.
If it’s Hillary vs. Condi, though, all bets are off…