Arnold is a moderate Republican (with Democratic leanings on things like gay rights and abortion) that has a legion of fans in the 21-60 age range because of his movies. If he is allowed to run in 2016 and if there’s no rising star among the Democratic ranks (I don’t think Biden would want to run) I think he takes it easy.
LA governor Bobby Jindal is Indian and was born Hindu but is now Christian. He is considered to be a front runner for the GOP in 2012 or 2016.
I doubt that there will be a Jewish president in the foreseeable future. Not because of anti-semitism - that’s probably the least acceptable form of bigotry in America. The thing is, there just aren’t all that many Jews, which means the pools of potential presidential candidates is correspondingly tiny. Sure, Lieberman took a stab at it, and it could happen. But wikipedia says there are only about five millions Jews in the United States - I’d be reluctant to bet on anyone from a group that small getting elected. Politicians of Presidential caliber are very, very rare.
On the flip side, half the country’s population is female - the odds of that group producing a top-notch politician are much, much better. Female president is likely for our next “first”, especially since we came damn close to having one this time around.
Come on. You’re linearly extrapolating the increase in religiousity we’ve seen in the last 25 years for another 300?
Look, go back to the 1950s and you’ll find that religiousity was shrinking. The current demand for public displays of religious belief was totally absent. Sure, most people were christians, but elected officials didn’t blather on and on about how much they believed in God. Go back to the founding fathers, and you’ll see that many of them were barely even Christians.
Religiosity ebbs and flows. We’ve had several “Great Awakenings” in the United States, and we’re currently in the middle of another one. It’s not likely to last another generation. We’ve already had plenty of presidents who didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ, they just didn’t make a big public show about it, and the cultural norms of the times were such that they weren’t obligated to make public shows of religious belief.
The current fad for religion in America is just another fad. It will fade. The need for public figures to publicly embrace religion will fade back to the way it was in the 50s and 60s.
As for the contention that we’ll have a Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim president, the problem is demographic. How many Hindus or Buddhists are there in the US? Very few. Unless we see a huge change in demographics, or a wave of mass conversions, there simply won’t be a huge population of these people, and therefore only a very small pool of candidates. Blacks are 10% of the population. Women are 50% of the population. There are lots of black politicians and lots of women politicians, and once women and blacks were accepted as political leaders it was only a matter of time before some political superstars emerged. In order to have realistic non-white-male presidential candidates, you have to have a pool of non-white-male senators and governors and victorious generals. There just isn’t a big pool of Buddhists or Hindus or Muslims to draw from. Sure, it could happen that someone who happens to be of a tiny minority religion just happens to turn out to be a political superstar, but it sure isn’t very likely. And the smaller the demographic, the smaller that likelihood is.
Er, no. I was speaking in hyperbole for comic effect. I thought my reference to Tarzan’s immortality potion made that clear without need of smilies, but I may have been wrong.
I have no idea what will happen in 300 years. I feel safe in saying that we’ll have a female president long before we have an (openly) atheist one.
You must not know many black Southerners. Many persons hereabouts of my race are quite comfortable expressing their disdain for Jews.
Jews are disproportionately represented in U.S. elective office (I am NOT complaining, just noting the numbers). I’d be happy to vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, and wouldn’t be surprised to see one win in the near future.
From Wiki; scroll down to see current U.S. senators: List of Jewish American politicians - Wikipedia
The US is about 1% Buddhist.
Quoth Duke:
Not a chance. Until something happens to change what humans are (which will take a lot longer than 50 years), religion will always be a big part of human life. What is possible, and to be hoped for, is that in 50 years the minority of people who are atheist/agnostic/etc. will be accepted by the religious majority, but the pendulum has swung back and forth on that one.
Quoth oredigger77:
Why is the lesbian so much later than the gay man and the straight woman? If the people can accept a homexual, and they can accept a female, what’s the barrier agains a homosexual female?
Quoth Marley23:
For that short-term, I think that it’s more meaningful to look at individuals than demographics… Are there any specific up-and-coming women who you think are likely prospects? And yes, I know that Obama was a local nobody eight years ago, but I think he’s an outlier.
We’ve had one Quaker President (Nixon), and while still Christian, its a rather small subset of Christianity, and its practices are at odds with many other Christian denominations.
I think that its likely we’ll see a latino or female President fairly soon. Obama’s election has been rather energizing for all Americans, and there’s going to a number of members of various minority groups pushing into politics now. I have a feeling that there will be a strong push within the GOP to run someone other than a white guy, if Obama’s first term is generally successful.
The variables in this are really determined by how successful Obama is while in office. If he leaves office even moderately popular, and we’ll see someone other than a white guy in the office reasonably quickly (his replacement, or in the next term or two). He screws the pooch, and its going to be tough for anyone but a white guy to succeed him. Of course, by that time, we’ll probably have seen an increase in the number of minorities in high government offices, so they’ll just have to play a bit of a waiting game before the country is willing to accept them.
If, for some reason, Obama does not manage to survive his term (due to death), then I imagine we’ll see a minority replace him in short order (Biden might not even be “allowed” to run, if you know what I mean).
I can see an atheist getting elected in the near future, but not if they’re open about it.
Well, we’ve already had the first hillbilly president, so my interest group is covered.
Huh? Biden would replace him, of course. Do you mean that a minority would run in '12? Sure. Maybe more than one along with a bunch of white men too. What do you mean be Biden not being allowed to run?
I mean the party (most likely spearheaded by the Clintons) would put pressure on Biden to not run in 2012 given his fetish for shoe leather. He’s not an idiot, but he’s got an innate ability to say the wrong thing at just the right moment. The party would want to build on Obama’s legacy in such a manner that they’re able to maintain their grip on power. Biden is unlikely to be able to be an inspiring figure, or have the arm twisting ability of LBJ. Getting him to step aside for someone more inspiring or able to twist arms, would be a better recipe for continued Democratic control. If there’s a large Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, he might not be under a great deal of pressure to step aside, but if the Dems have lost seats (as would be not too unusual in at least one of the houses), they’re going to want to try and shift that.
Obama is in no way an outlier. Who had heard of Bill Clinton in 1984? (Reagan doesn’t count, as he kept running for President.) Who had heard of Carter in 1968?
I like Schwarzenegger’s movies, for the most part. That doesn’t mean I would be willing to vote for him. And if you think in 8 years there will be no charismatic, ambitious Democrats with decent resumes, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
I said IF, not that there won’t be.
But our bridge salesman wouldn’t be John Kerry or Al Gore or Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale would it? Because face it, charismatic, ambitious Democrats like Obama and Clinton are the exception, not the rule.
Eisenhower changed religions while he was President. His family had been River Brethren (a branch of the Mennonites) but converted to Jehovah’s Witnesses when Eisenhower was a child. Eisenhower was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness but drifted away from the church without ever formally renouncing it until 1953 when he officially converted to Presbyterianism.
I think some of the estimates here are way too soon. After all, look at the makeup of the US–there just aren’t very many people in some of those categories, period.
A woman will be next; I agree with most everyone on that. We are 50% of the population, and electing a female President has become important to us now. I think it’s a product of the bizarre and outdated “man-at-work, woman-at-home” attitude that we still carry to this day. We really haven’t come very far in this respect–I know several 20-somethings who buy into this, even in an urban area, even in the college-educated population, yada yada yada. It’s proving to be a very, very hard habit to break. But I think it’s become important enough to women as a whole to both run for office and desire more political representation that we’ll see it in the near future. I give it 30 years.
African-Americans are 13% of the population, and the racial baggage in the history of our nation meant that electing an African-American President was a Really Big Deal. The stage was set right for it. They’re a minority, but a large enough one to A) produce a few qualified Presidential candidates since the Civil Rights movement, one of whom actually made it far enough and B) swing a vote with their numbers. Thus, it happened.
Gay and lesbian citizens are, depending on whom you believe, 2-10% of the US population. And we run into our first group here that has “closeted” members, too, so bump those numbers down a bit, perhaps, because of people who aren’t living openly. Now, the gay and lesbian population is extremely politically active, IMHO, but their numbers just aren’t there. Even if all US citizens became completely blind to sexual orientation, the odds would dictate one gay/lesbian President approximately every 40-200 years. Now, that assumes all things are equal (gay/lesbian people run for office exactly as often as heteros, and vote the same way too), which is unlikely. But I say, even if the idea becomes acceptable to the voting public, it may take a few decades for a qualified homosexual candidate to come along. Sadly, I don’t think we’ll see it in my lifetime, and I’m only 27. I give it 80 years unless a large portion of heteros seriously take up the cause of getting an openly gay or lesbian person into the White House.
As far as religious/non-religious minorities, well, that’s even less likely, with the possible exception of a Jewish President. Jews are ~2% of the US population, but, as someone said before, they are heavily represented in politics. I still think it’s unlikely in the near future.
These are all just my opinions, though…I’m not trying to say population statistics account for everything, but I think they count a lot. Some people don’t seem to be figuring them in. Our attitudes will change over time, but the makeup of the country will probably change more slowly.
The first sentence explains the second.
I don’t think we’ll ever be ready for a token *anything *as President.
Similar thread, three years ago: Rank these Presidential attributes!
IIRC Clinton and Obama were already floating around as potential candidates back then.