Madam President or Mars and back - which is first?

In My Humble Opinion
1

A spin-off of this thread, wherein it is suggested that the title question is today’s equivalent, so this is a poll for posterity.

Which even do you think will happen first - a woman being elected president or a manned mission to Mars? Will society and politics be faster to advance than technology and science, or do you reckon the reverse will be true?

To clarify, we’re talking about a woman being elected as POTUS on the ticket, *not *a Vice President or Speaker ascending to the presidency if the POTUS dies/resigns/whatever.

For Mars, we’re talking anyone getting to set foot on the surface and returning safely. Country, corporation, private means, it doesn’t matter who sends them.

What do you think is first to be noted in the future history books?

2

Madam President, but not because of a staggering change in society or politics. Right person at the right time. We’re not heading out to Mars any time in the next 20 years or so.

3

I think a female president will come first.

I can see that happening in the next 20 years. If we should happen to get to Mars before then, it’s going to be a one-way trip.

4

Thank you, Mr. Kobayashi for creating this poll.
Weirdly, those would have been my first two choices for events.
I voted for Madam President first.
Manned mission to Mars is 2030 at best.

5

Yea, I’d be pretty surprised if the vote doesn’t come up overwelmingly in favour of Madam President. We’ve already had two major tickets with ladies in the VP spot, and one woman who came very close to a major party nomination, and looks likely to give it another try next cycle. The bars to people accepting woman in positions of power have fallen a lot over the last few decades, so I agree Madam President is just waiting for someone to be in the right place at the right time.

On the other hand, the publics appetite for large, expensive national prestige projects seems to be at a low ebb, and even if we were committed to doing it, developing a Mars program would take decades. I suspect I’ll have grandkids before I see a man on Mars, if I see it at all.

6

I see no reason to go to Mars any time soon. I can easily imagine that a woman running for President will at least be the lesser-of-two-evils choice, as has been the case in races for Senator and Governor. And if I see things that way, the female-majority electorate will presumably not see that view as odd.

7

Woman President. We can get to mars easily, but lack the collective will to fund such a mission. There isn’t anything within our near solar system that we couldn’t handle technologically speaking that a large infusion of cash won’t fix.

8

Unlike what someone in 1950 would have thought of a black President, by now a woman President is pretty much considered an eventual inevitability, a “when” not an “if ever”; we already have one candidate that is not just considered plausible, viable and formidable but* who is believed by many would have **already *been it if not for an unexpected electoral phenom; and we are not devoid of current, former and ascendant political officials and corporate execs who could run.

Long-range manned spaceflight “showpiece” missions OTOH are on a downswing, and there’s nothing in the horizon to trigger a Cold War-style Space Race. Heck, it’s iffy at this time whether the old men who walked on the moon will live to see THAT happen again.

So I don’t see Man on Mars before 2030 save some yet unseen triggering force for an Apollo-project type crash drive; but “Madam President” as early as Jan. of 2017 is already a subject of real-world political analysis.

9

Let’s put it this way: just six years ago (give or take) we were basically choosing between a black male and a white female. We happened to choose the black male (which is, if anything the more surprising option to me), and in two years, there’s a reasonably decent chance for a woman to be in the running again.

Mars, on the other hand… even if reality turned into a bad SyFy miniseries in which we made it to Mars or went extinct, I think we’d still be 20 years away.

10

Madam President, for many of the reasons already stated. I think a more closely contested poll would be an openly homosexual president vs. a manned mission to Mars…

11

President. I have no faith in our space program. And I think it’s 50/50 at best that Mars will be done by another country.

12

This seems like an odd question to be asking at a time when clear frontrunner to be the very next president is a woman.

13

It’s currently polling sixty-to-one in favor of the obvious answer.

My question is, what the heck explains that one?

14

The solution to Human spaceflight’s problems is simple. Just a constitutional amendment barring a women being elected President until there has been a successful manned mission to Mars.:p:D

15

1970 called. It wants its poll back.

16

Interesting phrasing. :eek:

17

Hilary Clinton is quite likely to be elected in 2016, and it’s too late for a there-and-back Mars mission to be completed before then.

18

This. There’s also the fact that numerous other countries have/had women heads of state, and the US isn’t that backwards.

19

Someone whose mouse aim was shaky.

20

And note that if Clinton decides not to run, there’s another reasonably popular woman (Warren) being mooted as a potential candidate as well by the electorate (and note that the problems with her candidacy lie around her experience, not her gender). Even the GOP could hit this milestone first if they stop promoting women from the batshit fringe (Bachmann, Palin) and nominate someone a bit more coherent.

Only the caveman contingent (predominantly - but probably not exclusively - within the GOP) thinks having a woman run for President is a ridiculous idea. It’ll happen by 2032 easily.