# The USA is not now and may never be ready for a woman President **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 22, 2017, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371 "2017-08-22T15:15:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/61 "2017-08-22T19:32:08Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Trump beat all the men in the GOP primary, all of whom were better qualified than he was. Well, let’s not forget Ben Carson. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/62 "2017-08-22T19:52:30Z")
[QUOTE=Aspenglow] Remember too, that more Democrats crossed over to vote for Trump than for Hillary. [/QUOTE] But they only made a difference because so many Democrats didn’t vote. Comes back to those numbers again…Trump got fewer votes than Romney. Thousands of dissatisfied Dems did, indeed vote for Trump instead of Hillary…but millions of Dem voters didn’t vote at all. And that made the key difference. In addition, I seriously doubt that many of the Dems who voted for Trump instead of Hillary did so because she was a woman…it was more a backlash of blue collar populism, coal miners and other rust belt types who felt and still feel like the Dems have forgotten them and taken them for granted. I think those same cross overs would have happened to any Dem in this election…but it would have been background noise had the majority of Democrats who voted for Obama just bothered to go to the voting booths in this election. As you can probably tell, it’s a bit of a sore point with me. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Patx2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/73ab20/32.png) [@Patx2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patx2)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/63 "2017-08-22T19:56:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In 2010, Pew Research asked people to name the Chief Justice of the United States. > > 53% did not know. 8% said it was Thurgood Marshall and 4% said it was Harry Reid. > > My own off-the-top-of-my-head response: Condi Rice, Susana Martinez, Nikki Haley. Condi’s too smart to do it, of course. Excellent list, and unfortunately, I agree with you about Condi Rice. ---
**Author:** ![gonzoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a6a055/32.png) [@gonzoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzoron)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/64 "2017-08-22T20:07:19Z")
Tammy Duckworth was who I thought of too, but unfortunately she was born in Thailand, according to Wikipedia. Doesn’t that rule her out? Even if there’s some technicality for being the child of an active military officer, the birthers would come back out in force, I’d imagine. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/65 "2017-08-22T20:15:19Z")
> [@gonzoron](#): > > Tammy Duckworth was who I thought of too, but unfortunately she was born in Thailand, according to Wikipedia. Doesn’t that rule her out? No. John McCain was born in Panama. Her dad was a US citizen, and she is, too. > [@](#): > > Even if there’s some technicality for being the child of an active military officer, the birthers would come back out in force, I’d imagine. Military office isn’t important. Her dad was a US citizen. The birthers went after Obama, and he won. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/66 "2017-08-22T20:33:25Z")
There’s little point in arguing whether Hillary’s gender is why she lost the election - it was the reason. As were the emails. As was Bernie’s existence. As was her lack of charisma. Seriously, the vote was so close that anything that any negative impact on her at all could be called “the reason”, because removing _any_ single factor’s influence would be enough to have tipped her over to victory. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/67 "2017-08-22T21:30:47Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > IMHO it’s very important that Donald Trump not be reelected in 2020, given that he’s still in office by then and runs again. But if the Democrats nominate another woman (Elizabeth Warren’s name pops up) I believe they will be throwing the election away. Likewise a non-white man-- no matter how qualified. > > This comes under the heading of Sad But True: only a white man can defeat Donald Trump. > > As bad a Presidential candidate as Hillary may have been (even though she was widely described as possibly THE single most qualified candidate ever to run for President), She was indeed described that way, by her supporters. It wasn’t true, though. She was not the “most qualified person ever to run for President” by any logical measure I can imagine. Nor is there evidence that the extent of a person’s qualifications is what causes them to win. Barack Obama was objectively far less qualified to be President than John McCain, but he won. George W. Bush was less qualified (I’m just going by experience in government positions here) than Al Gore, but Bush won. Bill Clinton was obviously not as qualified as George H.W. Bush, but Clinton won. Ronald Reagan was not anywhere near as qualified as Jimmy Carter, but he won. Honestly, it’s been a REALLY long time since a new candidate, someone not already President, won an election in which they were the more qualified candidate. ---
**Author:** ![gonzoron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a6a055/32.png) [@gonzoron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzoron)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/68 "2017-08-22T21:31:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No. John McCain was born in Panama. Her dad was a US citizen, and she is, too. Ignorance fought. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/69 "2017-08-22T21:52:42Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > I think this glass ceiling will be broken by way of the vice presidency. Once we have a woman as vice president, scandal-free, popular, it would be easier for (some) people to elect her to the presidency. Or she could get there via the death-of-the-CiC. > > I think the Dems should definitely nominate a woman for veep in 2020, and I’m quite the cheerleader these days for Tammy Duckworth filling that spot. The top of the ticket could be any (charismatic, smart, experienced) guy-- so, yeah, I guess I sorta agree with the OP here. I think we need a guy in 2020; black, white, Jew, gentile, doesn’t matter. But we need a dude. > > Could a woman win? Sure. Do we want to take that chance against Trump in 2020? This is a guy who pulls no punches in 1) sexist behavior and 2) making his opponent look weak. We don’t need Trump’s female opponent being made to look weak because of her gender. There are too many people out there who would still have a hard enough time pulling the lever for a woman; that number goes up considerably when the POTUS makes her look weak because of her gender, and he is a despicable dishonorable man who would have no qualms about making any woman look weak, emotional and victimized. These vile behaviors didn’t hurt him in 2016. > > 2020 isn’t the year for a bold, landmark step for our nation. It’s an election that we just need to send in someone who can go toe-to-toe with a rabid dirt monkey, fight like hell in a mud pile full of rusty nails, and win. > > Although if Pence is somehow the incumbent in 2020, let me just say now to all of what I just wrote: Never mind. If a woman becomes president by virtue of the death of the POTUS and the female VP therefore becoming president, there will be detractors who will claim that the glass ceiling wasn’t really broken decisively; the female POTUS happened by being sneaked in. Even if that female VP –\> POTUS later goes on to win reelection. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/70 "2017-08-22T21:54:12Z")
HRC lost white women to Trump 43% to 53%. She just did not connect with people. Even Obama did better with white women. A different woman of the democratic persuasion could turn those numbers around and win the White House. It’s true a woman candidate has to be nearly flawless; a female, Trump-like buffoon could never get elected. It will happen, but the next democratic nominee won’t be a woman. Perhaps in 2024 or 2028. Kamala Harris might have a shot. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/71 "2017-08-22T21:54:16Z")
As for Duckworth, she may run into a Democratic version of John McCain Syndrome; namely, trying to sell herself too hard on the Purple Heart angle, the basis of military service and combat-sustained injury. Even if she does in fact have more substance to offer than that. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/72 "2017-08-22T22:07:43Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Trump got less votes than Romney did. This isn’t true: Trump 2016 - 63 mil Romney 2012 - 60.7 mil [http://www.cnn.com/election/results](http://www.cnn.com/election/results) > **[View 2020 primary and caucus results](https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/primaries-and-caucuses)** > > View 2020 primary and caucus results, interactive maps, poll information and candidate fundraising totals in each state and US territory. People looked at incomplete initial results and compared them to Romney’s final total. After everything was counted, Trump easily surpassed Romney’s count. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/73 "2017-08-22T22:23:26Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > HRC lost white women to Trump 43% to 53%. She just did not connect with people. Even Obama did better with white women. Well, we’re talking about politics here. I don’t know what brought that up!! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/74 "2017-08-22T22:42:20Z")
I think if Sarah Palin had run for national office, like senator or congress maybe, she would have been an excellent choice in 2016 for the republican nomination. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/75 "2017-08-22T22:49:07Z")
> [@BlankSlate](#): > > HRC lost white women to Trump 43% to 53%. She just did not connect with people. Even Obama did better with white women. A different woman of the democratic persuasion could turn those numbers around and win the White House. It’s true a woman candidate has to be nearly flawless; a female, Trump-like buffoon could never get elected. It will happen, but the next democratic nominee won’t be a woman. Perhaps in 2024 or 2028. Kamala Harris might have a shot. I think many democrats were pissed with the DNC saying with Hillary “shut up and vote for her” and not giving them any other choice. It’s not like she was an incumbent or something yet she was treated as such. The republicans had 15 candidates in this while the democrats had just one. See any problem with that? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/76 "2017-08-22T22:51:32Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > I think if Sarah Palin had run for national office, like senator or congress maybe, she would have been an excellent choice in 2016 for the republican nomination. Palin is an idiot. If you want the Republicans to lose, nominate her! She’s got the brains of Trump and none of the sordid fame. Well, not as much as Trump has. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/77 "2017-08-22T22:56:18Z")
> [@JcWoman](#): > > I’m inclined to agree that Clinton was just not the right female candidate. Too many people hated her. I also thought she was very abrasive even though she was more qualified than Trump. > > The challenge with a woman candidate for president though, is that you need a strong woman in that position. And strong women too quickly get labelled “bitch”. A tough man is called assertive but a tough woman is called aggressive. This is what we need to fix in our society. I think all the women dopers here know what I’m talking about. (Raise your hand if (you’re a woman and) you’ve NEVER been called a bitch at work simply for holding your ground on some issue.) I’m not a woman, but I agree with you. The bright side of this is that it’s gradually changing. Misogyny may be lagging racism in being shamed and driven underground on the way to being eventually eliminated entirely, but it’s going in that direction. If you look back at the culture of the 50s just half a century ago, women’s success was largely judged on being good housewives and pleasing their husbands, the natural breadwinners. This was widely reflected in the advertising and entertainment culture of the day; there were few career paths for women other than a traditional few servile jobs that were seen as stopgaps for young ladies prior to marriage. Today we have women in powerful executive positions and misogyny is on the wane, though still very much with us. We are also more than half a century past the point that it was considered remarkable that a Roman Catholic could get elected president. So yes, a woman will be present at some point in the not greatly distant future, though I’m sure not prepared to say when. Racism still reared its ugly head throughout Obama’s presidency, so while the times they are a’changin’, they still have a ways to go. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/78 "2017-08-22T22:56:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Palin is an idiot. If you want the Republicans to lose, nominate her! On the other hand, Trump is an idiot, and _he_ won. So it’s not like idiocy is really a problem for a republican nominee. That said, I was valiantly resisting saying something similar - that I agreed that Palin would have been a great candidate, because she would have assured a Clinton victory. Because Palin wouldn’t have been able to leverage any of the things that got Trump his victory: showmanship, outsiderism, racism, russian support. She’d have had gerrymandering and the republican slander machine (emails!) behind her, true, but it wouldn’t have been enough to get out the vote beat Hillary. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/79 "2017-08-22T23:03:34Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > On the other hand, Trump is an idiot, and _he_ won. So it’s not like idiocy is really a problem for a republican nominee. > > That said, I was valiantly resisting saying something similar - that I agreed that Palin would have been a great candidate, because she would have assured a Clinton victory. Because Palin wouldn’t have been able to leverage any of the things that got Trump his victory: showmanship, outsiderism, racism, russian support. She’d have had gerrymandering and the republican slander machine (emails!) behind her, true, but it wouldn’t have been enough to get out the vote beat Hillary. Gerrymandering doesn’t do anything in a presidential race. ---
**Author:** ![BlankSlate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blankslate/32/80_2.png) [@BlankSlate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlankSlate)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2017, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371/80 "2017-08-22T23:05:46Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > I think many democrats were pissed with the DNC saying with Hillary “shut up and vote for her” and not giving them any other choice. It’s not like she was an incumbent or something yet she was treated as such. > > The republicans had 15 candidates in this while the democrats had just one. See any problem with that? Well two, obviously. The DNC favored Clinton, no doubt about it, but their clout isn’t the primary reason for the lack of contenders. The Clinton fundraising machine scared them off. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-usa-is-not-now-and-may-never-be-ready-for-a-woman-president/794371.md?page=5)