How’s about atheist?
Openly atheist? Not a prayer!
…
=
Only after the first female, Jewish, Hispanic, Gay, Muslim, and Transgender presidents.
You left out “rock cocaine addict.”
That’s not really relevant to what I said as I made no value judgments, but since you brought it up it gives further lie to the sexist argument, as it is difficult to blame men for something that other women choose on their own.
The bottom line is this: put up a woman who is “qualified” and has no baggage and she has as good a shot as any. The proof is the black man currently in the Oval Office, something that was just as unlikely.
I’m hoping for a Warren/Grayson ticket after a second Obama term.
Nor their skin color.
IIRC, according to Gallup polls historically the strongest opposition to a female President has been from women, not men.
This. Hilary would have had a shot in 2008 if Obama hadn’t been in the picture. And the UK had a female prime minister back in the 80s.
So, we’ll see a woman POTUS just as soon as there’s one running who’s more appealing to voters than any of the male candidates—which could be very soon, or it could take a long time.
Sen. Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY) might win it in '16.
Not to mention Angela Merkel and Indira Gandhi and Julia Gillard and…
This. If Obama hadn’t run, or had run a less brilliant campaign, or if Hillary Clinton’s staff had had a clue about delegate apportionment rules, Hillary would be President already. And I would say she’s got a pretty good shot in 2016 if she chooses to run.
If she doesn’t, it’s all about when the moment and the candidate come together. I’d be surprised if it didn’t happen in my lifetime, but whether it’s one, two, or more Administrations off, I wouldn’t even hazard a guess.
She would be the second-oldest president ever elected. Reagan would beat her by nearly a year, but it would probably not help her.
She’s not going to run in 2016 anyway.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
That’s not really relevant to what I said as I made no value judgments, but since you brought it up it gives further lie to the sexist argument, as it is difficult to blame men for something that other women choose on their own.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a non sequitur. It only makes sense under the assumption that complaints about sexism are equivalent to “blaming men”, which isn’t true. Not all right-wing talking points are true.
[QUOTE=littlespeedysuperbike]
Sen. Kristin Gillibrand (D-NY) might win it in '16.
[/QUOTE]
She’ll have to compete with other highly plausible candidates like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Dennis Kucinich, and Lyndon LaRouche for the Democratic nomination.
I’m a huge fan of Ms. Gillibrand (it’s “Kirsten”, by the way) but she’ll be president of the U.S. when pigs fly.
People often bring up that some places have had women prime ministers in the past. Is it the same as United States electing a woman for the presidency? So far as I know, a Prime Minister isn’t elected by the population at large
That is true, but there are a number of elected female Presidents as well (mostly in Latin America, it seems):
[ul]
[li]Violeta Chamorro of Nicaragua[/li][li]Mireya Moscoso of Panama[/li][li]Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines[/li][li]Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia[/li][li]Michelle Bachelet of Chile[/li][li]Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina[/li][li]Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica[/li][li]Dilma Rousseff of Brazil[/li][/ul]
I thought most of those presidencies were largely ceremonial but it looks like in the Philippines the president is head of state and government and is elected by the people. Ignorance fought! Nice job, SDMB!
In a parliamentary system, one of the biggest issues in a general election is always the comparison between the prime minister and the leader of the opposition, because voters know that by voting for one of the candidates for the two main parties they are effectively voting for the leader of that party to be the next prime minister.
(And in the U.S. the population at large doesn’t vote for the President: he or she is chosen by the Electoral College, so it’s not all that different from a parliamentary system, except that that the EC only elects the President once. A parliament has other functions, including legislation and a continual review of the prime minister’s performance.)
I voted “Within my lifetime” for this reason. I think it will happen fairly soon, but I don’t see anyone on the current political radar who looks likely to pull it off.
I don’t think it will need to go that far. The first gay president will be far enough to show that the religious right have completely lost their influence. While I expect Christianity in general to devalue the issue, I don’t expect the religious right to ever change their minds.