When Will We See a Woman POTUS?
Only two women in my lifetime have been within shouting distance of the Oval Office. Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale’s running mate in 1984, would have been VP had Mondale been elected (although his chances were ridiculously slim). Similarly, Sarah Palin would have been VP had McCain been elected; Palin would probably have had a pretty good shot at the Oval Office, considering McCain’s age at the time of the campaign.
One of the names that’s come up as a possible running mate choice has been New Hampshire junior Senator Kelly Ayotte.* If Romney wins, she could get a shot at the Oval Office by virtue of Romney dying in office (doesn’t look likely; he’s relatively young and seems to be in decent health); or by virtue of running (and winning) on her own after the Romney administration.
Another (admittedly far-fetched) possibility would be if Obama replaced Biden with Hillary Clinton on the 2012 ticket (as has been rumored, although I doubt anyone is taking this rumor very seriously). That would make Clinton a Democrat contender for 2016 (unless, of course, Obama wasn’t able to finish his second term for some reason - and that assumes he’d even be re-elected in 2012).
What are your thoughts about when (or if) you’ll see a woman POTUS in your lifetime?
I don’t know. I would have preferred seeing a female POTUS before now, but realistically? I don’t think it’s going to happen in my lifetime. There’s just too many silverbacks who can still vote, and they aren’t about to let some uppity woman become the President.
Also, I closed your other two threads, since you said “never mind”.
I voted Probably in my lifetime, but it was a toss-up between that and Two administrations. I don’t see Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin being elected president, and I’m not sure who else is on the horizon on either side.
Eight years ago, though, if you’d asked about the first black president, I’d have given basically the same answer. Candidates can pop up kind of quickly.
Had Hillary won the nom over Barack, I firmly believe she would beat John. The same people who say that a woman couldn’t get elected said a black man couldn’t be elected in '08. The main problem is the dearth of serious candidates. There aren’t as many women in politics in general. Some possibilities for right now: Hillary Clinton, Olympia Snowe, Kathleen Sibelius, Kailey Bay Hutchinson, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Condoleezza Rice. Sarah Palin isn’t a serious possibility IMO. It’s just a matter of the right candidate coming along. When and who, I have no idea.
Probably in my lifetime was the best answer I could choose. But I only mean that there’s no barrier now except for having the right woman run under the right circumstances. Hillary could have won in 2008 if Obama wasn’t running. For any candidate it’s being in the right time and the right place. That leaves men with an advantage because so many more of them are running for the office.
There is no reason a woman can’t win now. I voted “in my lifetime” because it will depend on a particular set of circumstance, as did the election of the first black president. I personally am hoping for Elizabeth Warren.
I picked “next administration after Romney/Obama 2”
Wishful thinking, mostly; I just think it’s about time. Speaking as a 61 year old white male Democrat who never thought he’d live to see a black POTUS.
.
I picked ‘in my lifetime, but not anytime soon’, but I agree there’s really no way of knowing. I suspect, though, that 2016 will produce a Republican POTUS, and I don’t think the Republican’s are as keen on backing a woman candidate - but then again, the right has been able to produce world leaders at a higher rate than the left (I’m thinking of Merkel or Thatcher), so I might be wrong there.
I should note that ‘in my lifetime’ is a poor measurement, since some Dopers’ lifetimes are going to over a lot sooner than some other Dopers’ lifetimes; giving that answer is quite different for a 25 year old than it is for a 65 year old.
I’m shooting for the 12-20 year mark. By now it’s pretty much inevitable. You may notice, that the first AfrAm POTUS was not preceded by any other as major-party VP candidate (we’ve already had two women in that role) or as viable presidential contender as late as June (one woman). Paradoxically having had Gerry, Hillary and Sarah blaze the trail may actually chill the excitement, in the sense of nobody getting quite the *“OMG you gotta listen to this guy/gal” *effect that Barack generated and that was key in his meteoric rise.
In any case watch the keynote speakers and the folks in charge of introducing the candidates at the conventions. That’s how we got Bill Clinton AND Obama on the nationwide screen
I think at least since the 1980s it’s been possible. But anyone making it to the Presidency is a combination of their personal abilities combined with whoever else happens to be running combined with the current state of the country. All of those things have to go in your favor. I’m a huge American history geek, and I can think of probably 10 extremely prominent politicians who probably had all the right stuff to win a Presidential election but just never did because of bad timing and strong opponents.
FWIW I think it’s sort of being looked at the wrong way. I don’t believe there is some push to have a woman candidate, that once it reaches critical mass will vault a woman into the White House. Just as I don’t think there was a big push to have a black President that reached critical mass and resulted in Obama being elected. No, you had a black guy who is a good campaigner going up against a very old white guy who was a bad campaigner at a time when the white guy’s party was at historical lows in terms of party popularity.
If he wins the presidential election this year, he’ll be the fourth-oldest president at the time of his inauguration in American history. (Beaten out for third by James Buchanan by only a day.)
The sexism argument is interesting given that women make up the majority of US citizens. If the desire exists for a woman to become President women need only vote in a bloc to make that happen.
I’m with the crowd who think that it is simply a matter of the right candidate who happens to be female. HRC runs in 2016? She’d likely win. Because of her strengths. (And she will still young enough at 68 that cycle.) A woman who loses will, at this point, be losing not because of her gender, but because the other candidate ran a more effective campaign or perhaps even had policies and/or a personality appealed to more people. And as said there seems to be a relative lack of national level females with the characteristics to win chomping at the bit compared to males.
Now openly gay? Doubt in my lifetime. Jewish? I’m not sure if that is insurmountable or not. Muslim? Not in the next several decades anyway.