Well, let’s not forget Ben Carson. 
[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. 
Excellent list, and unfortunately, I agree with you about Condi Rice.
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.
No. John McCain was born in Panama. Her dad was a US citizen, and she is, too.
Military office isn’t important. Her dad was a US citizen. The birthers went after Obama, and he won.
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.
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.
Ignorance fought. Thank you.
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.
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.
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.
This isn’t true:
Trump 2016 - 63 mil
Romney 2012 - 60.7 mil
http://www.cnn.com/election/results
People looked at incomplete initial results and compared them to Romney’s final total. After everything was counted, Trump easily surpassed Romney’s count.
Well, we’re talking about politics here. I don’t know what brought that up!! 
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.