It would not surprise me, at all, if the first female President was a Republican.
So you think there weren’t a lot of “never trumpers” or reluctant trump supporters that have become supporters after his SCOTUS nominations?
Not every Trump voter is drinking the kool aid, just like not every bernie supporter will be drinking the kool aid if he wins the nomination.
They use to say the first black President was going to be a Republican.
I think she’s the first Democrat I’ve ever considered voting for.
If Joe picks a woman, that may be how we get our first female president. 
Women in this country will never have a clearer Feminist choice than Hillary and ‘Grab them by the crotch’ Trump.
They did not come out in droves for their gender. The GOP doesn’t respect women because they don’t have too, some of that is on a substantial amount of women.
Seems like an appropriate time to resurrect this thread.
I do think a woman will be elected president sooner or later at some point - the glass ceiling can’t stay forever. But this is indeed the second time in eight years that a woman has lost to one of the worst male candidates in US history.
At this point I expect women to lose the right to vote or hold office; forget the Presidency.
Once upon a time, as mentoned well up-thread, many used to say that the first (black/female) president would have to be a Colin Powell or Christine Todd Whitman type. Not someone who came up from the Liberal Democrat machine. Because otherwise there would always be the “too liberal” excuse.
Obama broke that prediction twice on the racial side, benefitting from how enough White and Latino men in the voting public did not fear that his would be a Black Power presidency. But all that achieved was the other side doubling down on anything said or done about race as per se “divisive”.
And 16 and 8 years after the primary and general runs of Hillary Clinton we are still stuck on having a reliable line of attack about a female candidate as being “shrill” and “cackling”.
Harris will also carry the burden from the after-action reports that it will be mentioned she did not come up thru the primary process , where whoever did not like her would have already had the chance to voice their objections and be given assurances and time to make peace with compromises. I’m not sure I complety buy that — H. Clinton was tested and it was still not enough — and Harris did remarkably well for what I would expect of a late-inning reliever. Not that replacing the top of the ticket with 4 months to go has been tested before in the modern political age.
You forgot to add that one of the worst candidates in US history [Harris] lost to one of the worst male candidates in US history.
She was given a losing hand by Biden, but she was a terrible candidate in 2020 and she remained so in 2024. It wasn’t that long ago there was talk on how Biden could ditch Harris for another VP candidate to run with in 2024. She went from that to the candidate of ‘joy.’
And Clinton wasn’t all that liked in 2016 either for reasons that don’t need to be discussed again.
Before Obama was elected, the left was certain that America would never elect a black man. The glass ceiling applied to minorities as well. If you had polled Americans in 2004 and asked who would first be elected to the presidency, black man or a woman, I bet they would have said a woman. (Would love to know the actual answer.)
But first you need a quality female candidate.
The country or the world is never ready for anything.
We weren’t ready for Obama as prez or Trump as prez. Were we ready for Oprah? Taylor Swift? Elvis? Marilyn Monroe?
If a woman wants to be prez, maybe follow the model of Oprah or T-Swift. I’m not a woman, I can’t do it for them. But you’re not going to win a waiting game.
I remember a discussion/debate we had when I was in college in the late 60s early 70s. Who would be President first, a Jew, a woman, a black, or a professed atheist. That was my order. At the time a gay person and a trans person were not in the discussion. More recently, I’d have put a woman ahead of a Jew, but I agree neither Harris nor Clinton was a very good candidate.
Or a conservative one.
In all seriousness, how was she one of the worst?
I was shocked Harris got less women votes (percentage wise) than Biden in 2020
I think you’re pulling my leg, but . . .
Her message was completely wrong for 2024. You could argue it was the party or her advisors, but she (or they) completely misread what the electorate wanted. And like her run in 2020 that didn’t even make it to Iowa for goodness’ sake, she was light of anything specific, and long on ‘light’ such as being the ‘brat’ or candidate of ‘joy.’ She had no reply to the “she’s for they/them” ad and the Robert’s ad that told women on that right that they could lie to their husbands about who they voted for (since they clearly didn’t have the backbone to tell them) was absurd. How can Harris being a female think that was a good idea??
But I’d rather not turn this into a blue/red politics debate. If America was (is) willing to vote for a black man twice for President, they sure as hell will vote for a female.
What’s absurd about it? It was trying to address a very real phenomenon.
William Neuman, who went door-to-door for the Harris campaign in Pennsylvania, wrote about his experience for the New York Review of Books (paywalled). He notes:
“Some women would come outside and close the door behind them. Their husbands were Trump supporters, they’d confess in a low voice, but they were voting for Harris. They didn’t seem intimidated; they simply wanted to avoid friction at home.”
Republicans would like nothing better for Democrats to keep telling the electorate that they are too dumb to know what’s good for them.
I believe that analysts on the left read that Neuman quote and were chomping at the bit to think the worst of those women - that they were more numerous than they were, and weaker than they actually were. A continuation of the elitist viewpoint.
Keep telling women that you understand they are too weak to speak their mind to their husbands. Let me know how that works for you. Hint: It will continue to look a lot like last week.
Before the election there were other, similar stories.
Unfortunately such a decisive voting surge turned out to be a fantasy. A lot of women voted for Trump, huge oozing warts and all.
I don’t know why people put any credence into those stories. It just mystifies me. They’re inherently selection-biased, usually sourced without evidence, and of course even if these anecdotes are true - and I sincerely doubt they all are - it’s a country of 335,000,000 people, and a handful of cherry-picked examples supporting the opinions of the author mean squat.
A common thread running through post-election reactions is that many, many people on the losing side are absolutely shocked they lost. This isn’t just an American thing; here in Canada whichever side between the Liberals and Conservatives loses the election (change the parties up in some provinces) is invariably full of candidates and party faithful who are completely flabbergasted about taking the L.
A person actively involved in a political campaign isn’t just in a bubble, the way people on the SDMB were, of people are on social media; they’re in a VERY reinforced bubble, because they spend almost all their time being told, in person, by smiling faces, by almost as many people as you can meet in that span of time that they have those people’s support. Political candidates and most campaign workers spend almost all of their time with supporters. When you’re spending your time at rallies and shaking hands with the party faithful, you are literally seeing thousands, TENS of thousands of people who are 99% behind you. It’s more people can a human brain can comfortably do the arithmetic on. But it’s also a completely meaningless sample.
In 2011, when Michael Ignatieff led the Liberal Party to the most humiliating defeat in the more-than-a-century-long history of the party, he was clearly surprised he lost, and I knew Liberal party members who were genuinely surprised they did that badly… even through the polls were almost bang on. But Ignatieff had spent almost all his time going to Liberal Party functions.
Anyway, back to the OP; had Hillary Clinton won the nomination in 2008, she’d have won the general election. McCain was a boring, uncharismatic candidate who seemed to have gotten the nomination as a lifetime achievement award. McCain likely wins Indiana and North Carolina, but that doesn’t make it all that close.