Yes. Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan just re-elected their female Senators on the same ballot as Trump. Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia have had female Senators in the past. Michigan and Arizona both currently have female governors.
So I don’t buy the narrative that misogynists are a large enough demographic in swing states to deny Hillary and Kamala the presidency. This is simply an excuse, a way for the Democratic establishment to blame voters rather than reflect on the viability of their pro-status quo messaging in an era of populism.
Yes, but it’s quite likely the first female POTUS will be some crazy ass MAGA lady. And well, the first (demographic) of anything isn’t guaranteed to be good.
Margaret Thatcher was the UK’s first female PM and she’s still quite controversial.
Yes. I don’t think Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris lost because they were women. Hell, Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 and only lost because of an archaic system.
And as bad as Harris lost in 2024, Biden would have lost even worse.
Yes, and if the pattern holds, the first woman to hold office will be from the conservative party and run away from any of the Glass Ceiling characterizations while campaigning. ie essentially running as a Pick Me who leans into Traditionalism.
Stop using Kamala and Hillary as a benchmark. Both were incredibly unpopular and honestly idiotic picks. Anyone with half a brain cell could tell you that they would struggle to win. The Democrats put actually charismatic women like AOC up then we could be cookin
No. I don’t think the media would allow for such a thing unless it’s someone like Boebert or MTG. But they’d have to get through the primary first for that. I suppose the republican base is dumb enough to go for them based on their lack of policy and dedication to triggering the libs, but the base that is dumb is also the base that are the hard-core misogynists, so unless there was some solid hint that a man would be pulling their strings, they’d quietly vote for someone else in the primary.
But i also don’t think the country will last much more than another decade. We are too divided thanks to venomous right wing misinformation and no one can do anything about it except the rage junkies who are addicted to it. But it is the nature of addiction that they would rather die than quit.
Most Americans voted for Hillary in 2016. But as long as the electoral college system gives rural voters power over city dwellers, it might be a while.
Yes, this is a post made in poor context. The bigger issue is not the gender of the candidate but what we have previously made women do to think they can reach the electorate – discard their entire personality and adopt a lab-created one that pundits think voters like. Doesn’t matter what voters like in a personality because they like genuineness and hate bullshitters more. Hillary was dripping in this, Kamala less so but still obviously not her real personality up there. It’s one of the bigger reasons (on top of popular policy stances) I think AOC has a sizable following – she seems very real when you see her speak.
The first woman president would most likely be conservative. Nikki Haley would have handily beaten Biden by a larger margin if she won the GOP nomination.
Underrepresented candidates do better under right-wing parties electorally because they:
A) Give the illusion of moderation
B) Are able to run on much more right wing policies due to a more moderate image.
Look at the UK. The post-war Tory party has had two women PMs, two ethnic minority leaders, and had the first Asian PM. Their current leader is a black woman raised in Nigeria who got elected by the party because he is the most right wing.
Within our lifetimes? Depends how young you are but I’d say probably not. I don’t see Democrats running one for the next 2 or 3 election cycles at least. If we won 3 in a row Republicans might, but their SOP thus far has been to double down on being more right wing so it’s questionable (and in particular it seems a lot of their gains with young men and minorities has been based on promoting sexism making that more likely in that area at least). If they win any of those I’d expect them not to even consider it. More than 16 years away is impossible to predict.
No. Not until the misogynist elitist male patriarchs who have a strangle hold on this government are all dead and the technobro (and all) oligarchy is abolished.
Yes, Hillary had more baggage than the Titanic and ‘24 was a referendum on Biden not Kamala. I’m not saying she was a great choice but I don’t think it’s fair to dump that loss solely in her lap. The vast majority of that blame goes to Biden and his team that insisted on running for a second term when it was clear that the American people wanted nothing to do with four more years of him and he was no longer up to the job. I wouldn’t run Harris again but I also think using her to judge public readiness for a female president is using flawed data and would just as soon toss that one as an outlier. I know that leaves us with an n of 1 but I really think most of the reasons Kamala lost had little to do with her personally vs Hillary who was just a poor choice for nominee and even worse candidate who lost all on her own merits.
Put another way I don’t know if we’ve had a true clean test of this yet. One was an incredibly well known public figure for decades whom the electorate had already made its mind up on before she ever announced and the other was saddled at the 11th hour with inheriting a dumpster fire of a campaign. Not exactly the best test cases for this.
Yes. I think there’s reason to believe we may already elected one- there are artifacts that favor Trump in both the 2020 and 2024 data- artifacts that exclude votes cast by mail-in ballot. Obviously in 2020 we had a lot more people vote by mail than 2024, so this election interference, should it be proven legitimate, would have been overcome by the sheer volume of mail-in ballots at the time. According to the data analysists who adjusted for the artifact- known as a Russian tail- Harris may have won 6 of 7 swing states.
Sexism may take a few points off but it isn’t like, before Obama, there weren’t plenty of people saying we’d never see a black president in our lifetime.
You need a popular candidate that doesn’t have baggage to show, Harris in 2020 lacked charisma, and had her name tied to biden. Hillary Clinton- well that’s a big story.
I think we might see a Republican candidate be the first woman elected in the US.
But I’ve always had issues with people that really want a female president.
Is it actually important as they claim it is? Surely you wouldn’t support Boebert or MTG for president. So, is it important or not?
Why female, and not some other class of person? Why is female more important than Native American of any gender for example?
We should be able to see objective metrics in regards to black people after 8 years of Obama; Who also happened to be a very good president. What, specifically, do you expect to change after a female president, and why?
Ultimately, I don’t actually believe many voters truly care about what reproductive organs the president happens to have. They care about what party the president belongs to.
We will have a female president when either party decides to nominate a good candidate. In the last election, Harris received votes from people voting against President Trump that she wouldn’t have received if the Republican Party had nominated a moderate candidate.
The only other female from the big two parties was Hilary. My God, what a horrible choice. Most people realize that the Clintons are garbage people. Her involvement in discrediting women that Billy stuck his willy in is horrifingly misogynistic. Pure evil, that one.
Looking back to the post Bush Jr. era, I believe that Condoleezza Rice could have been elected. I likely would have voted for her.
My greatest hope for the next presidential election is for the Democratic Party to nominate a competent moderate female candidate. Even better if she is a POC. She very likely will have my vote.
The answer is no. The US is EXTREAMLY racist – but is is WAY MORE anti women than anything ever. I want to be wrong…. History has taught us that countries thrive under the leadership of women. The US will never let that happen. Not in my lifetime.
At this point, no. We’ve had two amazing women take their shot and lost to a ball of hate with no actual plan to improve American lives, just to make the “other” suffer.
If that can still beat coherent messaging from TWO accredited women, we are so far from where we want to be. Our population is permanently angry and don’t think the greater headcount will ever back a woman
Of course. Just because Clinton and Harris lost doesn’t mean the US won’t elect a female. Their losses had nothing to do with being a woman. Clinton lost because she was incredibly unpopular as a person and Harris lost because of Biden trying to run again, inflation, and well frankly Trump was on the ticket
Yes, I believe Hillary and Kamala lost because they were institutionalists while Biden won because people were fed up with Trump.
We’re in an era of populist rhetoric, where people want significant change, and that’s something both female candidates didn’t deliver. I fear Democrats will draw the wrong conclusion that the electorate is just sexist and they change nothing about their approach instead of recognizing the underlying messaging problem the Democrats have in our current Zeitgeist. If Democrats were to believe the former, I expect the Republicans would be the first to have a female president. Now, this isn’t to say sexism plays no role in all this, I just think it’s not a deciding factor. There are female elected officials in every other conceivable position after all.
No. Simply because women are held to a high bar that only gets higher.
Women have questions about their competency that are never asked of any men.
A woman who had the emotional regulation skill of the average MAGA chud would be called “shrill” or “bitchy.”
A woman who displays emotional regulation is called “inauthentic” or “too rehearsed”
A woman who knows/uses too many big words is accused of being “condescending”
If a woman uses too few big words she’s accused of being “a bimbo who slept her way to the top.”
Inside scoops about the internal campaign workings will play out differently.
A male candidate who sets strong expectations for his staff will be portrayed as a strong decisive leader.
Any female candidate who sets strong expectations for her staff will be portrayed as the second coming of the owner of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory
And then there’s the elephant in the room: The electorate does not like women.
A large portion of the electorate is basically stuck in the “I can’t watch a TV show with a girl on it cuz girls have cooties” phase. People can’t handle seeing a female superhero on a movie screen no matter how she’s written without crying like piss babies. Somehow I don’t think they’re itching for anyone to be the first female President.
And America is the toxic waste dump of the worst of every religious group on Earth. Every time some religious denomination was deemed too deranged and sociopathic for their own country, they came here. They unanimously hate women.
And there are just too many people, even among the people who agree with the Dem platform, who think a woman President would hurt their poor widdle pissy sense of tradition too much.
If we have free and fair elections in 2028, I think there will be a whiplash to liberals, and I think people will want to see some real changes which might be personified in a woman president, although after the last two nights, I need Cory Booker in the White House.
Edit: also, Hilary won the popular vote. Saying “she’s unpopular” is ridiculous. Kamala could have been white af and still lost too because Americans were only motivated by inflation from 2-3 year’s prior which they put on the Biden admin. Her main issue for election was likely the connection to Biden, although let’s not act like Americans aren’t racist and sexist that probably played a big factor too.
Hillary won the popular vote back in 2016, and Kamala only lost by a small margin. If nearly 90 million people who didn’t vote in the past election had actually showed up to the polls, I think it’s very possible Kamala could have won the presidency.
I’m going to say no. There are too many religious folk (men and women) in the US that would never vote for a woman to lead them. You also have a large Latino men population who can’t get past their Machismo. This is a country that didn’t even want women to vote 100 years ago. While we’ve made a ton of progress since then, it feels as if we’ve been going back in time since 2016 when MAGA started its rise. These are just two examples but they make up enough of the difference between who is elected as POTUS.
I believe that being female is a roughly 5-10% handicap in national contests because of sexist voters. Doesn’t mean we will never have a female president but I think it will be a hard fight. Might be impossible now with project 25.
Yes I think it’ll happen but I genuinely think people would make things extremely difficult for a woman potus cause they won’t see her as an equal. Most people might be open to her but a high number of loud people won’t be. That’ll be a major problem. Obama is still seen by a lot of folks as a failed woke experiment though few of them can articulate what made him the disaster they insist he was. I think the same sorta thing would happen with a woman especially a non-white woman. She could be the best president in history with profound achievements. A loud large group of people would still see her as a traitor and they’d create major obstacles for her that could tear down her achievements. Kind of like what happened with Trump vs Obama. Trump was able to sew doubt into people’s perspective of Obama with a nearly effortless racist birth theory that had nothing to back it up. That’s something Obama had to seriously overcome even though he should’ve been able to shake it off like Trump was able to do that with all the legit things that should have inspired doubt in voters. Trump got rid of the pandemic response team because it had Obama’s scent on it. As a result we were hit hard by Covid. We had a death toll that was above 9-11 daily for a while. Meanwhile Trump kept doubling down on bad ideas. He still got the majority vote this last time around. All that being said I’d still vote for a woman if she meet the same standards for potus that I look for.
Of course! Elizabeth Warren came in third in the 2020 Primaries behind Biden and Bernie. But *somehow* the Democratic Establishment felt that the best candidate to take over Biden’s massively failing 2024 campaign in the 11th hour was somebody who couldn’t even win her home state of California back in 2020. I know US voters are regarded as having the “mind of a goldfish”* but if she was unelectable to the Highest Office then, what the heck changed in four years, especially with a stacked deck against her on immigration and Gaza?
And, as far as Hillary, for the 855th time, she won the popular vote. She got routed by the Election College, an ancient, racist system that Democrats have had multiple opportunities to get rid of but don’t because, while it’s worked against them in 2000 and 2016, it overall gives them a built-in advantage in the Northeast Corridor and PNW/Cali so that they are freed up to work their ground game in Red States and try to flip them Purple/Blue hope and pray that they get enough Swing States to put them over the top. Oops! How’d that work in 2024?
*Boring fact of the day, but In studies, the “goldfish have bad memories” mantra has been debunked. Goldfish actually have above-average memories among animals. Turkeys are a better fit for that mantra.
Yes. Clinton and Harris didn’t lost because they are women, they lost because they were unpopular establishment candidates when the national mood was hostile to the statu quo. A woman with the politics and personality to mobilize the base could easily win.
Yes. But putting up terrible female candidates is not going to make it happen any faster. And no, they weren’t terrible because they were women. There’s been plenty of better female candidates. Democratic power players and corruption never backed them.
Well yeah I don’t see why it would be impossible, the US already had a female candidate win the popular vote. I don’t think it would change anything to have a female president though
Comments
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Assuming we still have Free & Fair Elections
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted]
It’s not looking too good. Zoomers hate women more than Boomers do these days.
Yes. Wisconsin, Nevada and Michigan just re-elected their female Senators on the same ballot as Trump. Arizona, North Carolina and Georgia have had female Senators in the past. Michigan and Arizona both currently have female governors.
So I don’t buy the narrative that misogynists are a large enough demographic in swing states to deny Hillary and Kamala the presidency. This is simply an excuse, a way for the Democratic establishment to blame voters rather than reflect on the viability of their pro-status quo messaging in an era of populism.
Yes, but it’s quite likely the first female POTUS will be some crazy ass MAGA lady. And well, the first (demographic) of anything isn’t guaranteed to be good.
Margaret Thatcher was the UK’s first female PM and she’s still quite controversial.
Yes. I don’t think Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris lost because they were women. Hell, Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 and only lost because of an archaic system.
And as bad as Harris lost in 2024, Biden would have lost even worse.
Yes, and if the pattern holds, the first woman to hold office will be from the conservative party and run away from any of the Glass Ceiling characterizations while campaigning. ie essentially running as a Pick Me who leans into Traditionalism.
I hope so, but at this point, it’s hard to see a future where we will.
Yes.
Stop using Kamala and Hillary as a benchmark. Both were incredibly unpopular and honestly idiotic picks. Anyone with half a brain cell could tell you that they would struggle to win. The Democrats put actually charismatic women like AOC up then we could be cookin
Yeah, she’ll just probably be white.
If we continue to be democratic country then yes there will absolutely be women president. At some point.
No. I don’t think the media would allow for such a thing unless it’s someone like Boebert or MTG. But they’d have to get through the primary first for that. I suppose the republican base is dumb enough to go for them based on their lack of policy and dedication to triggering the libs, but the base that is dumb is also the base that are the hard-core misogynists, so unless there was some solid hint that a man would be pulling their strings, they’d quietly vote for someone else in the primary.
But i also don’t think the country will last much more than another decade. We are too divided thanks to venomous right wing misinformation and no one can do anything about it except the rage junkies who are addicted to it. But it is the nature of addiction that they would rather die than quit.
Most Americans voted for Hillary in 2016. But as long as the electoral college system gives rural voters power over city dwellers, it might be a while.
Yes, this is a post made in poor context. The bigger issue is not the gender of the candidate but what we have previously made women do to think they can reach the electorate – discard their entire personality and adopt a lab-created one that pundits think voters like. Doesn’t matter what voters like in a personality because they like genuineness and hate bullshitters more. Hillary was dripping in this, Kamala less so but still obviously not her real personality up there. It’s one of the bigger reasons (on top of popular policy stances) I think AOC has a sizable following – she seems very real when you see her speak.
Ever? Absolutely. When? No idea.
Yes.
The first woman president would most likely be conservative. Nikki Haley would have handily beaten Biden by a larger margin if she won the GOP nomination.
Underrepresented candidates do better under right-wing parties electorally because they:
A) Give the illusion of moderation
B) Are able to run on much more right wing policies due to a more moderate image.
Look at the UK. The post-war Tory party has had two women PMs, two ethnic minority leaders, and had the first Asian PM. Their current leader is a black woman raised in Nigeria who got elected by the party because he is the most right wing.
Ever? Yes.
Within our lifetimes? Depends how young you are but I’d say probably not. I don’t see Democrats running one for the next 2 or 3 election cycles at least. If we won 3 in a row Republicans might, but their SOP thus far has been to double down on being more right wing so it’s questionable (and in particular it seems a lot of their gains with young men and minorities has been based on promoting sexism making that more likely in that area at least). If they win any of those I’d expect them not to even consider it. More than 16 years away is impossible to predict.
No. Not until the misogynist elitist male patriarchs who have a strangle hold on this government are all dead and the technobro (and all) oligarchy is abolished.
Yes but she will have to be charismatic unlike who the dems have been picking though Harris was a better candidate than Biden
Yes, Hillary had more baggage than the Titanic and ‘24 was a referendum on Biden not Kamala. I’m not saying she was a great choice but I don’t think it’s fair to dump that loss solely in her lap. The vast majority of that blame goes to Biden and his team that insisted on running for a second term when it was clear that the American people wanted nothing to do with four more years of him and he was no longer up to the job. I wouldn’t run Harris again but I also think using her to judge public readiness for a female president is using flawed data and would just as soon toss that one as an outlier. I know that leaves us with an n of 1 but I really think most of the reasons Kamala lost had little to do with her personally vs Hillary who was just a poor choice for nominee and even worse candidate who lost all on her own merits.
Put another way I don’t know if we’ve had a true clean test of this yet. One was an incredibly well known public figure for decades whom the electorate had already made its mind up on before she ever announced and the other was saddled at the 11th hour with inheriting a dumpster fire of a campaign. Not exactly the best test cases for this.
Yes. I think there’s reason to believe we may already elected one- there are artifacts that favor Trump in both the 2020 and 2024 data- artifacts that exclude votes cast by mail-in ballot. Obviously in 2020 we had a lot more people vote by mail than 2024, so this election interference, should it be proven legitimate, would have been overcome by the sheer volume of mail-in ballots at the time. According to the data analysists who adjusted for the artifact- known as a Russian tail- Harris may have won 6 of 7 swing states.
This is not the original video I watched but it is the same analyst:
Nathan 2024 Election Overview
Yes. Why would there not be?
Sexism may take a few points off but it isn’t like, before Obama, there weren’t plenty of people saying we’d never see a black president in our lifetime.
At one point, yeah
Say hello to future president Boebert
Bound to happen sooner or later.
Is it possible? Yes.
You need a popular candidate that doesn’t have baggage to show, Harris in 2020 lacked charisma, and had her name tied to biden. Hillary Clinton- well that’s a big story.
I think we might see a Republican candidate be the first woman elected in the US.
Ever? Yes
Sure.
But I’ve always had issues with people that really want a female president.
Is it actually important as they claim it is? Surely you wouldn’t support Boebert or MTG for president. So, is it important or not?
Why female, and not some other class of person? Why is female more important than Native American of any gender for example?
We should be able to see objective metrics in regards to black people after 8 years of Obama; Who also happened to be a very good president. What, specifically, do you expect to change after a female president, and why?
Ultimately, I don’t actually believe many voters truly care about what reproductive organs the president happens to have. They care about what party the president belongs to.
We will have a female president when either party decides to nominate a good candidate. In the last election, Harris received votes from people voting against President Trump that she wouldn’t have received if the Republican Party had nominated a moderate candidate.
The only other female from the big two parties was Hilary. My God, what a horrible choice. Most people realize that the Clintons are garbage people. Her involvement in discrediting women that Billy stuck his willy in is horrifingly misogynistic. Pure evil, that one.
Looking back to the post Bush Jr. era, I believe that Condoleezza Rice could have been elected. I likely would have voted for her.
My greatest hope for the next presidential election is for the Democratic Party to nominate a competent moderate female candidate. Even better if she is a POC. She very likely will have my vote.
I am a woman.
The answer is no. The US is EXTREAMLY racist – but is is WAY MORE anti women than anything ever. I want to be wrong…. History has taught us that countries thrive under the leadership of women. The US will never let that happen. Not in my lifetime.
At this point, no. We’ve had two amazing women take their shot and lost to a ball of hate with no actual plan to improve American lives, just to make the “other” suffer.
If that can still beat coherent messaging from TWO accredited women, we are so far from where we want to be. Our population is permanently angry and don’t think the greater headcount will ever back a woman
It’s sad
Of course. Just because Clinton and Harris lost doesn’t mean the US won’t elect a female. Their losses had nothing to do with being a woman. Clinton lost because she was incredibly unpopular as a person and Harris lost because of Biden trying to run again, inflation, and well frankly Trump was on the ticket
Only if two women run against each other.
Yes, I believe Hillary and Kamala lost because they were institutionalists while Biden won because people were fed up with Trump.
We’re in an era of populist rhetoric, where people want significant change, and that’s something both female candidates didn’t deliver. I fear Democrats will draw the wrong conclusion that the electorate is just sexist and they change nothing about their approach instead of recognizing the underlying messaging problem the Democrats have in our current Zeitgeist. If Democrats were to believe the former, I expect the Republicans would be the first to have a female president. Now, this isn’t to say sexism plays no role in all this, I just think it’s not a deciding factor. There are female elected officials in every other conceivable position after all.
No. Simply because women are held to a high bar that only gets higher.
Women have questions about their competency that are never asked of any men.
A woman who had the emotional regulation skill of the average MAGA chud would be called “shrill” or “bitchy.”
A woman who displays emotional regulation is called “inauthentic” or “too rehearsed”
A woman who knows/uses too many big words is accused of being “condescending”
If a woman uses too few big words she’s accused of being “a bimbo who slept her way to the top.”
Inside scoops about the internal campaign workings will play out differently.
A male candidate who sets strong expectations for his staff will be portrayed as a strong decisive leader.
Any female candidate who sets strong expectations for her staff will be portrayed as the second coming of the owner of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory
And then there’s the elephant in the room: The electorate does not like women.
A large portion of the electorate is basically stuck in the “I can’t watch a TV show with a girl on it cuz girls have cooties” phase. People can’t handle seeing a female superhero on a movie screen no matter how she’s written without crying like piss babies. Somehow I don’t think they’re itching for anyone to be the first female President.
And America is the toxic waste dump of the worst of every religious group on Earth. Every time some religious denomination was deemed too deranged and sociopathic for their own country, they came here. They unanimously hate women.
And there are just too many people, even among the people who agree with the Dem platform, who think a woman President would hurt their poor widdle pissy sense of tradition too much.
A female President ain’t happening.
If we have free and fair elections in 2028, I think there will be a whiplash to liberals, and I think people will want to see some real changes which might be personified in a woman president, although after the last two nights, I need Cory Booker in the White House.
Edit: also, Hilary won the popular vote. Saying “she’s unpopular” is ridiculous. Kamala could have been white af and still lost too because Americans were only motivated by inflation from 2-3 year’s prior which they put on the Biden admin. Her main issue for election was likely the connection to Biden, although let’s not act like Americans aren’t racist and sexist that probably played a big factor too.
Hillary won the popular vote back in 2016, and Kamala only lost by a small margin. If nearly 90 million people who didn’t vote in the past election had actually showed up to the polls, I think it’s very possible Kamala could have won the presidency.
Yes
Probably, but aiming for a female President rather than a president that just happens to be female is a losing strategy.
Yes but at this rate she won’t be a dem. dem’s are obsessed with identity politics and will lean too much into that over merit.
Yes but it’ll be a conservative
Honestly, no. I think we will move on from the presidential system as we know it before electing a woman.
Yes, but she will be a Republican.
I’m going to say no. There are too many religious folk (men and women) in the US that would never vote for a woman to lead them. You also have a large Latino men population who can’t get past their Machismo. This is a country that didn’t even want women to vote 100 years ago. While we’ve made a ton of progress since then, it feels as if we’ve been going back in time since 2016 when MAGA started its rise. These are just two examples but they make up enough of the difference between who is elected as POTUS.
Sure hope so. Who it’ll be? No clue.
I believe that being female is a roughly 5-10% handicap in national contests because of sexist voters. Doesn’t mean we will never have a female president but I think it will be a hard fight. Might be impossible now with project 25.
Yes I think it’ll happen but I genuinely think people would make things extremely difficult for a woman potus cause they won’t see her as an equal. Most people might be open to her but a high number of loud people won’t be. That’ll be a major problem. Obama is still seen by a lot of folks as a failed woke experiment though few of them can articulate what made him the disaster they insist he was. I think the same sorta thing would happen with a woman especially a non-white woman. She could be the best president in history with profound achievements. A loud large group of people would still see her as a traitor and they’d create major obstacles for her that could tear down her achievements. Kind of like what happened with Trump vs Obama. Trump was able to sew doubt into people’s perspective of Obama with a nearly effortless racist birth theory that had nothing to back it up. That’s something Obama had to seriously overcome even though he should’ve been able to shake it off like Trump was able to do that with all the legit things that should have inspired doubt in voters. Trump got rid of the pandemic response team because it had Obama’s scent on it. As a result we were hit hard by Covid. We had a death toll that was above 9-11 daily for a while. Meanwhile Trump kept doubling down on bad ideas. He still got the majority vote this last time around. All that being said I’d still vote for a woman if she meet the same standards for potus that I look for.
Yes. Relatively speaking the last two ran pretty flawed campaigns.
Of course! Elizabeth Warren came in third in the 2020 Primaries behind Biden and Bernie. But *somehow* the Democratic Establishment felt that the best candidate to take over Biden’s massively failing 2024 campaign in the 11th hour was somebody who couldn’t even win her home state of California back in 2020. I know US voters are regarded as having the “mind of a goldfish”* but if she was unelectable to the Highest Office then, what the heck changed in four years, especially with a stacked deck against her on immigration and Gaza?
And, as far as Hillary, for the 855th time, she won the popular vote. She got routed by the Election College, an ancient, racist system that Democrats have had multiple opportunities to get rid of but don’t because, while it’s worked against them in 2000 and 2016, it overall gives them a built-in advantage in the Northeast Corridor and PNW/Cali so that they are freed up to
work their ground game in Red States and try to flip them Purple/Bluehope and pray that they get enough Swing States to put them over the top. Oops! How’d that work in 2024?*Boring fact of the day, but In studies, the “goldfish have bad memories” mantra has been debunked. Goldfish actually have above-average memories among animals. Turkeys are a better fit for that mantra.
No.
Yes It’ll happen someday
Yes. Clinton and Harris didn’t lost because they are women, they lost because they were unpopular establishment candidates when the national mood was hostile to the statu quo. A woman with the politics and personality to mobilize the base could easily win.
I assume you’re referring to america?
Sure, there is no reason for America never reaching gender equality. There are also plenty of good candidates.
Of course, but she’ll be Republican
Yes. And I don’t doubt that it will be soon.
I don’t think maga would elect a woman they’re riddled with misogyny
Yes, when you are not expecting it – it will happen
Yes. But putting up terrible female candidates is not going to make it happen any faster. And no, they weren’t terrible because they were women. There’s been plenty of better female candidates. Democratic power players and corruption never backed them.
Not until everyone here is too old to care.
Well yeah I don’t see why it would be impossible, the US already had a female candidate win the popular vote. I don’t think it would change anything to have a female president though