How far would an unmarried Presidential candidate get?

Great Debates
1

I’ve heard people speculate as to how soon we’ll see a woman, a gay person, or a “minority” as a serious presidential candidate. While such discussions are interesting, I’ve always wondered about a much more subtle idea: What reaction would voters have to a single guy running for the Oval Office? Would his lack of a spouse be a serious liability? Would his social life be under that much more scrutiny? Since all of the previous presidents have (to my knowledge) been married, would the novelty of it have any effect on his popularity?

I’d have to say that yes, it would be a great hinderance; less photo oppertunities, and he would be seen as being less “stable”. That’s the reason that most policitians make a big deal about their families: it makes then seem more “ordinary” and more like “regular Joes.”

I know this much: I’d HATE to be the young lady out on a date with him. Talk about turning your life upside down…

2

Obligatory nitpicks:

Grover Cleveland did not marry until after he had been elected president to his first term–and he ran with a claim of having fathered a child out of wedlock ten years previously. (Not that he could win in the 21st century.)

James Buchanan never married and his niece acted as first lady.

3

Well, we’ve only ever elected two unmarried men as president: James Buchanan in 1856 and Sam Tilden in 1876 (though Tilden never got to be president for similar reasons that Al Gore didn’t become president in 2000.)

Maybe things were different in those days, and it was easier for a closeted gay man to advance himself. (Buchanan was reputed to be involved with a particular congressman, I’ve heard, but I don’t have any confirmation on that, off hand.) Nowadays, it’s a documented fact that married men do advance faster in their careers. I believe this does have something to do with the fact that a man who has a healthy sex life encourages a certain comfort level among others, who themselves either have healthy sex lives or feel encouraged by being around those who do.

I’ve read that the loveless man is the odd one out in an office, whether it’s in the private sector or the public. Successful men are perhaps more driven by the women they love and who love them; the psychological bolster that the support of a lover can offer has proven physiological effects.

I can vouch for this. When I first got to my office, the guys were talking about their wives and fiancées and girlfriends and the pleasures and agonies they derive from them. Valentine’s Day was approaching, I remember. One of the guys turns to me, the new guy, and asks, “So, you got anything planned?” “Um… no,” I told him. “You’re not… um… you don’t have anyone…?” he asked. “No,” I said politely, and he said, “Oh,” and that was that. I let the awkward situation end gently.

My situation has excluded me from a lot of conversations, true enough. Since I’ve never actually had a girlfriend, even, I don’t have anything to dredge up from the past. And if you’re in my situation at age 33, people will think of you as a definite oddity. It would be one thing if this were voluntary, but I don’t think I could successfully lie about that if I wanted to. Needless to say, I’m definitely an “irregular guy,” if you will.

CEOs and senators and presidential candidates are almost always married; that’s just how it works out. There’s something in the male psyche that needs female companionship. That companionship affects his outward personality as well as his inward drive. Sure, there are successful bachelors—Ralph Nader and the late Herbert Block come to mind—but they’re exceptions to the rule. I think a wife is a vital part of the presidential package in many ways, so I don’t think you’ll be seeing another bachelor president for quite some time.

4

tomndebb—Whoops! I forgot about Cleveland!

5

I’m referring to my former candidate from 2000.
I don’t think the public cares, really.
How far would any candidate get?
As far as how much financial contributions from big business they get, thats how!

6

Eeew, gross.

7

Don’t forget Jerry Brown in 1992. I think he won five or six states in the Demo primary.

8

BTW, “First Lady” simply means that person who takes on the social role of “Hostess of the House” when a head of State/Government is unmarried for any reason. Can be a relative, in-law, family friend, wife of the second-in-command.

9

Come on. A single guy? He’d be propositioning aides in hotel rooms, having his knob gobbled in the Oval Office by thong-flashing aides, and laying astroturf in the back of the presidential El Camino.

The populace wouldn’t stand for that!

10

not the one I voted for…

11

I have seen contemporary fiction speculate that a recent widower would have a good shot at the presidency (both in various novels and the film The American President). In most cases the sympathy vote went their way.

I could really see this work. It’s really hard to hammer someone who has suffered a recent loss without looking like a really big jerk.

And yes I would feel really sorry for any woman who was even casually aquatinted with the guy–the tabloids would have a field day!

12

Third base, at least.

Home run during a crisis.

13

Well, in the case of Buchanan, there’s some evidence (not conclusive) that the love of his life died four years before his term commenced – just after becoming Vice President.

14

I’ve always felt that a President should be single, for the same reason some religions say priests should be single. Except I wouldn’t say the president can’t have sex.

15

:confused: Do you mean that sexually satisfied people are just happier or more confident, or that others’ judgments of them are colored by their perception of the person’s sex life? Being married doesn’t mean you have a good sex life, and being single doesn’t mean you don’t. I respect my boss because he has exhibited respect and devotion to his wife and kids, but my perception of his sex life doesn’t enter into it.

16

Sorry, but I couldn’t resist…

Oh, so Tilden lost the election?

runs for cover

17

We’ll find out.

18

[ul]:wink: [sup]So he’d go all the way.[/sup][/ul]

19

I pretty much agree. I voted for Nader, too, and it had nothing to do with his marital status.

I think that people who vote depending on somebody’s marital status, or sex, or sexual preference, are pretty fucking dumb…and it scares me that dipshits like that are voting in the frist place.

Cases in point: the 2002 elections that the Republicans stole. The FIVE canditates in a certain Texas district that each got 18181 votes - exactly.

Has anybody launched an honest-to-god investigation into this?

No.

What about all of those computer voting booths? No paper trail, and the damn things were made by Republican activist companies?

Any investigations? Outrage from Fox, CNN, etc?

No.

The fact that a chump like Jeb Bush won Florida. The fact that about 90,000 voters who were mistakenly branded as felons in the 2000 theft were still catagorized as felons in 2002, thanks to that cunt, Kathy Harris…

So this whole married or unmarried question is really ridiculous.

I mean…could Superman beat Spiderman?

If Bugs Bunny and Olive Oyl had kids, what would they look like?

I mean, what the hell?

Our whole political process is corrupt from the top down.

Not until we instill publicly-funed elections will we have a real democracy.

Until then, smile and pretend you’re cumming, coporate slaves.

Oooo, Oooo, Ahhh, Ahhh…Are You Done Yet?

20

Now taking bets on how long this lasts…