HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Do you think we'll see a ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 02:49 AM

Do you think we'll see a female president?

Simply put, do you think we'll see a female president within the next, let's say, 30 years?

Not necessarily Hillary Clinton but any female president? Assume, for the sake of argument, that we have a female candidate. She espouses more-or-less the standard Democratic party line; she is in almost every way, a generic Democrat. Could she get elected as president or is there still too much sexism (both conscious and unconscious) for her to be elected? If it helps, substitute your favourite female politician into the equation.

98 replies, 2823 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 98 replies Author Time Post
Reply Do you think we'll see a female president? (Original post)
Prophet 451 Feb 2014 OP
Recursion Feb 2014 #1
LuvNewcastle Feb 2014 #2
Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #3
Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #6
Warren DeMontague Feb 2014 #8
RobertEarl Feb 2014 #4
Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #7
Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #70
Chan790 Feb 2014 #80
Auntie Bush Feb 2014 #97
demigoddess Feb 2014 #98
Donald Ian Rankin Feb 2014 #5
bl968 Feb 2014 #9
MADem Feb 2014 #11
BlueMTexpat Feb 2014 #17
MADem Feb 2014 #19
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #38
LuvNewcastle Feb 2014 #46
MADem Feb 2014 #63
Old and In the Way Feb 2014 #41
Iggo Feb 2014 #52
Walk away Feb 2014 #96
Spitfire of ATJ Feb 2014 #10
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #12
davidpdx Feb 2014 #13
Auggie Feb 2014 #14
HughBeaumont Feb 2014 #15
Mister Ed Feb 2014 #16
BlueMTexpat Feb 2014 #18
seveneyes Feb 2014 #20
JoePhilly Feb 2014 #22
seveneyes Feb 2014 #25
JoePhilly Feb 2014 #26
seveneyes Feb 2014 #27
JoePhilly Feb 2014 #30
JDPriestly Feb 2014 #40
MrScorpio Feb 2014 #24
Old and In the Way Feb 2014 #42
MrScorpio Feb 2014 #43
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2014 #75
LeftishBrit Feb 2014 #66
MrScorpio Feb 2014 #21
JustAnotherGen Feb 2014 #29
davidpdx Feb 2014 #37
JustAnotherGen Feb 2014 #39
HereSince1628 Feb 2014 #23
CFLDem Feb 2014 #28
petson Feb 2014 #31
stevenleser Feb 2014 #32
MADem Feb 2014 #64
Eleanors38 Feb 2014 #33
Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #34
madokie Feb 2014 #35
wyldwolf Feb 2014 #36
pipi_k Feb 2014 #44
RBStevens Feb 2014 #61
hack89 Feb 2014 #45
Iggo Feb 2014 #47
CK_John Feb 2014 #48
Xyzse Feb 2014 #49
L0oniX Feb 2014 #50
BainsBane Feb 2014 #51
Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #74
BainsBane Feb 2014 #84
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2014 #76
Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #79
BainsBane Feb 2014 #86
Gothmog Feb 2014 #89
BainsBane Feb 2014 #92
Gothmog Feb 2014 #95
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2014 #53
MissMillie Feb 2014 #54
FiveGoodMen Feb 2014 #55
get the red out Feb 2014 #56
RainDog Feb 2014 #57
Cofitachequi Feb 2014 #58
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2014 #59
Sunlei Feb 2014 #60
madrchsod Feb 2014 #62
LeftishBrit Feb 2014 #65
Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #67
LeftishBrit Feb 2014 #73
sadoldgirl Feb 2014 #68
Egalitarian Thug Feb 2014 #69
bigwillq Feb 2014 #71
librechik Feb 2014 #72
uponit7771 Feb 2014 #77
woo me with science Feb 2014 #78
Prophet 451 Feb 2014 #85
jberryhill Feb 2014 #81
Liberal_in_LA Feb 2014 #82
Democracyinkind Feb 2014 #83
swilton Feb 2014 #87
lumberjack_jeff Feb 2014 #88
Whisp Feb 2014 #90
AverageJoe90 Feb 2014 #91
brooklynite Feb 2014 #94
TBF Feb 2014 #93

Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:10 AM

1. Not if her name is Susan Richards

Ba-dum-bum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:15 AM

2. Sure, why not?

I don't think many people care anymore. We've seen so many men in that position who were fuck-ups that I think the country is ready to give a woman a shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:25 AM

3. Yes, I'd give it probably 95% odds at this point. It's inevitable and overdue.

I think HRC has a solid shot and I think she'll be a formidable candidate if she chooses to run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:56 AM

6. So do I

But I'm not convinced that HRC will run. Having seen what her husband was subjected to and the all-but-lynching of Obama, and knowing what would be alligned against her, why would she choose to subject herself to that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:00 AM

8. Because she's already been through it, and those 2 know the game.

The Clintons- for all their flaws- are no shrinking Violets when it comes to politics.

I think one if the most compelling arguments for Hillary is that she's already weathered having everything AND the kitchen sink thrown at her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:35 AM

4. Yes

Warren is her name. In 2020. If we live that long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:57 AM

7. Interesting that you pick Warren

Rather than the more obvious Clinton. Don't misunderstand, I like what I've seen of Warren.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RobertEarl (Reply #4)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:36 PM

70. Are you expecting Hillary to have only one term?

Otherwise you would have said 2024.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Auntie Bush (Reply #70)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:12 PM

80. I'm expecting that we have already lost the WH if Hillary is the nominee in 2016.

I don't think she's got a snowball's chance in the hottest corner of hell of being elected. I feel she should, for the good of the Nation and for women everywhere, declare today that she will not run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:23 PM

97. Where'd you get that crazy idea?

Been talking to too many crazes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chan790 (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 06:17 PM

98. I know a ton of people who would vote for hillary

and I think she would bring a lot of republican women over to our side if she ran. a more liberal woman like warren might not lure them so easily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:41 AM

5. Perhaps.

I expect there to be 4 more presidents in the next 30 years, or possibly 5.

If there's an 84% chance or less that each of them is male, that would be a 50% chance of a female president.

And I don't think a 1/6 chance of a given president being female nowadays is that overoptimistic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:21 AM

9. HRC will drive votes away from the democratic party if she is selected as the candidate

Yes there will be a female president but I hope it will not be be Hillary Clinton. I for one will not vote for the first time in my life; rather than vote for another Clinton, about the only thing that would make me cast a vote for her is another Bush on the ballot. She has sold her soul to the corporations and the DLC. No corporatist will ever get my vote.

Lets have true change in DC, we have 313,000,000 Americans at least a hundred million of them are of the age to run for president. America shouldn't have, and doesn't need dynastic presidencies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bl968 (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:38 AM

11. No she won't but thanks for playing.

She'll bring in independents and women from the GOP who will quietly vote for her while lying to their sexist husbands.

Funny how no one complains about 'dynasties' when Segolene Royale runs for the presidency of France, loses, and then her erstwhile partner, the father of her four children, runs against the guy who beat her and wins.

I guess it's OK if people split up...or they're French...or they've never bothered to formalize their relationship with a marriage license?

Dynasties usually involve generations--not two people who are unrelated by blood. And America has had families in politics since the days of John Adams. No one griped when we had two Roosevelts in the White House. "W"--turd that he was--was related to two presidents; his 'deddy' and Franklin Pierce.

I guess it's only problematic when a woman jumps in the mix. Then the howling begins....


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 06:51 AM

17. Good response to

GOP memes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueMTexpat (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:07 AM

19. Thank you!

That bit o' business wasn't even subtle...!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #11)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 09:31 AM

38. No. The country was burned twice already.

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:34 PM - Edit history (1)

John Quincy Adams (one term president) and George W. Bush (if he had to be president should have served only one term).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Quincy_Adams

We overturned a monarchy at the outset of our nation. We don't want or need another dynasty, another step on the path to monarchy. The French already made the mistake of trying to return to monarchy. It did not work. This is not an age, not a historical time and place for playing kings and queens, dynasties if you will. Segolene Royal may run, but whether she has the political following to win remains to be seen. I certainly hope not.

I note that Chelsea Clinton who has no particular claim to anything other than being a nice, well educated and intelligent person (like so many of her generation) married to a rich man (as very few in any generation) as far as I can tell, is now out giving speeches. Giving speeches is no biggie, no proof of excessive political ambition or of much of anything, certainly not of dynastic tendencies. Except that when Chelsea Clinton gives a speech somewhere, certain elements in the press report it as if it was a big deal, as if she were someone especially important and as if she too could become a contender for the American throne.

Hillary is experienced and has quite a following. But in 2008, the public, especially the younger voters chose Obama, a neophyte with what appeared to be little D.C. experience instead of her.

The country voted for change in 2008. Obama was elected on change and on a vow to change D.C. He has had to deal with partisanship and a lack of cooperation that is arguably greater than any president has faced since Lincoln. We need a figure who will really talk about and lead us to major changes in the way we govern ourselves. We need a figure who will right the relationship between the majority of voters, giving them more real power and representation in D.C., someone who will lessen the corruption of big money and its representation in our government.

The Clintons wallowed in the corruption of their close relationship with Wall Street and the powerful clique that has formed a shadow government. The Clintons developed a dependency and servitude to the major and well organized banks, corporations and hedge funds that are running our government. Hillary dragged her husband's corrupt buddies into the Obama administration. That has caused major problems for the American people. We have what is called financial reform. But the Obama years have seen economic recovery on Wall Street that far outpaces the recovery on Main Street. And that shows where the political will and power reside.

Hillary Clinton is in no position to wrest power from that insider clique, that shadow government than was Bush. Why? Because she is a part of it.

Hillary probably will run. She alone has the money to run. Whether she can win will depend on how bad the Republican candidate is. Will she get my vote? No.

I feel great sorrow to see my country going down the path to entrenched corruption worse than any we have known since the Gilded Age. To some extent that corruption is already the rule in D.C. (If you don't want to take my word for it, read Greg Palast's Vultures Picnic, and as it applies to the Clintons, especially chapter 6, The Wizard of OOzie. It's a fun read. More like a mystery novel than a political book.) If we Democrats nominate Hillary, it will be difficult, perhaps impossible to ever achieve a government that answers at least to a greater extent than now to the people.

The Tea-Baggers think that the stupidity and religiosity of their nutty spokespeople will end the corruption. It won't. We need someone with the integrity of Elizabeth Warren to change the culture of D.C. at least to the point that we can learn the truth from our government without quite so much propaganda from Wall Street, the oligarchs and our military. And without so much secrecy. How can an oil deal that benefits big corporations that pay almost no taxes if any at all and what look like government-sanctioned bribes to a foreign nation be considered state secrets? (See Palast's book Vulture's Picnic, chapter 6, especially pages 200-201.)

One of our biggest problems is that money is trickling up at an every faster pace while jail and prison time continue to trickle down. America's wealth, much of our industry and many of our jobs have been shipped overseas on the yachts that the rich have built themselves so that they can securely go everywhere and grab everything -- they call them "free trade" agreements.

No wonder more and more Americans are resorting to the one source of a sense of power and self-government that many of them feel they will ever know -- their guns. We cannot change our gun culture until we change the culture in D.C. that makes so many Americans feel powerless and used.

Hillary Clinton would likely be a more divisive candidate than we have ever had in my lifetime of 70 years. Those who like her adore her; those who don't will make up lies about her just to be able to hate her. Regardless of her good qualities, her experience and her brilliance, she will never be able to unite the country or change the minds of the many ordinary people who have been repeatedly lied to about her. This is my opinion, but I doubt that, in spite of polls showing she could win today, she can overcome all the vitriol that has been implanted in the minds of frustrated Americans about her and Bill Clinton. And then there is the truth about the mistakes made during the Clinton era. A lot of people on DU don't realize that the Republican lies have succeeded in shifting the blame for 9/11 onto the Clinton presidency. That the Clinton administration failed to strongly respond to the threat of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is one of those negatives that is very difficult to disprove in spite of all the evidence that it is false.

And then there is her vote for the Iraq War which suggests that even after so many years sleeping in the same bed (presumably) as her husband president and commander-in-chief, in spite of all the lies she must have heard and debunked during Clinton's presidency, she could not tell lies from the truth or speak out in favor of caution when it came to reviewing the evidence provided for that war.

God save America from Hillary Clinton and the division her nomination and presidency would bring us. There is quite a push toward a Hillary run. I just think it is misguided and sad. And I have not even started on her persona as a candidate. It isn't strong. It just isn't. She reminds everyone of the know-it-all tattle-tale in the first grade. Not good. That is why Obama so readily beat her in 2008. Everything in politics depends on how voters respond to you as a person. Hillary is probably very effective in small groups, but seems strident when she gives speeches.

Could someone post some portions of Hillary's speeches in which she tells good jokes? Something that proves her sense of humor? I haven't seen much of that side of her, and what I have seen seems cold. Bill Clinton exuded warmth. We felt that he felt our pain. He didn't even have to say it. That is what won him elections. Hillary is the opposite even though she may feel our pain, we sure don't feel that she feels it. It is a matter of the ability to convey the emotion of love and caring. Hillary exudes confidence and competence, but she does not communicate that she really cares about us as individuals. Obama, just to contrast, really does even though he is quite and studious.

We need a candidate who does not give the impression that she thinks overly highly of herself. We need a client who has our interests not just on the table but in her heart. We need Elizabeth Warren.

Revised to add supporting details, correct grammar (hopefully caught all the mistakes) and improve style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 11:57 AM

46. Thanks, JD. Excellent summary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #38)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 02:26 PM

63. Shoulda, woulda, coulda....

Al Gore's father was in politics. Ted Kennedy's brother, too. Nancy Pelosi's dad. And that is just the very tip of the iceberg.

Your argument is just not supported. Children often go into the "family business" as my link above conclusively demonstrates, and it's up to them to make their case to the voters and the voters to choose to put them in office.

In any event, the only reason Hillary is a Clinton and not a Rodham (which she was for most of her life) is because wingnut assholes bullied her, and she added it on to help her husband.

What "we" need is what the voters decide we need. It's not up to me alone, nor is it up to you. I am not even going to dignify that whole "conspiracy theory" stuff. Candidates come out of left field all the time--some make it, some don't. If HRC was such a monster, Bernie Sanders wouldn't have taken PAC money from her. My read of the situation, barring ill health, is that the odds favor Hillary Clinton.

Elizabeth Warren is not running. She said so. Twenty times, easily. Emphatically. She has raised no money, visited no states, made no state or regional campaign organizational connections, and by now, anyone thinking about running has commenced doing those things. She has pledged--not just suggested, inferred, coyly indicated, but PLEDGED-- to complete her term. I think she is a woman of her word. Her loyalty isn't to her "fans" who really know nothing about her (like her strong support of the military, something that shocked the shit out of some here, who had a phony image of her on the barricades, linking arms with Cindy Sheehan, protesting at the Pentagon in their dreams) but to the people of the Bay State. She, better than most in Congress, knows what it means to SERVE the people of her state.

She comes home pretty much every weekend--she doesn't hang around DC going on MEET THE PRESS or THIS WEEK--she goes on local shows in Boston, if at all. Her loyalty is to us, her constituents in the Bay State, not people who want her to play their personal Don Quixote because they like her anti-bank attitude and somehow think that means "Oh, she thinks like me in every possible way." Her constituent services are the best I've ever seen in a Massachusetts senator's--better than Ted's; her attention to local issues is first rate. She doesn't behave like someone who is using her office as a stepping stone. She's promised to stick, and I take her at her word.

If I were a bettor, I'd say she's angling for the Fed Chair job down the line, when Hillary Clinton becomes President, and appoints her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bl968 (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 09:58 AM

41. That's hilarious.

There is no more qualified woman in the USA today to become POTUS. Former Senator, former SecState, with 8 years of WH experience. In fact, I think every Obama Democrat, alot of Republican men and women will vote for her...as well as others whose big hangup with Obama is his skin color. Will she disappoint me in that I won't get the perfect progressive candidate? Probably. But I'd sleep well at night knowing that the Executive Branch is not run by the Republican Party and their anti-woman/anti-middle-class agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bl968 (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:12 PM

52. Wow! You got a ton of anti-Clinton talking points into two short paragraphs!

I bet if you stretched those out into several posts, they'd be more valuable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bl968 (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:19 PM

96. If you mean a bunch of people at DU will cry and refuse to vote then...

you may be right. Otherwise, she will sweep a new generation of women into office on every level and all over the country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:34 AM

10. Sure....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:48 AM

12. Definitely yes. We will have a female president.

Most women bring the ability to work with people to whatever they do, even the introverts like me.

I think that is biological and derived from our evolution from animals, especially from animals in the ape family. Watch how many of the animals in the ape family live. I may be wrong, but I understand that there is a dominant male, other males who compete in various ways in hopes of becoming the dominant male and lots of females who produce babies and live together fairly contentedly (they can get angry or fight at moments). In that animal environment, the male's job in that primitive society is to protect and impregnate the females around him. The females' jobs are to care for the young.

I watched a very young male gorilla in his relationship with a much older dominant male in the zoo one day. The young male tried to challenge the older one to a fight, and the older one just teased the young one as if making the young one the brunt of jokes. The females were with their young if they had them and were quite calm, socializing in their way together.

I do not want to stereotype gender roles. Women can be anti-social and difficult just as men can. But socially capable women are really good at organizing people and cooperating with people. The right woman in the White House would be great. The wrong one would be horrible. Some women use their social intelligence to create problems and avenge themselves. That kind of woman, one whose competitive instincts are greater than her cooperative ones, would be a nightmare in the White House, a black widow spider-like president.

But a woman president might be able to bring adversarial groups in the country to understand each other. That is my hope. I think Elizabeth Warren is a woman who could do that.

Apparently Nancy Pelosi has shown how this works in the House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:38 AM

13. I'm in my early 40's

I think we will have one in my life time. I'm encouraged it will happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:53 AM

14. Yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 06:03 AM

15. Of course. 2016, most likely.

Due, naturally, to a combination of the RNC being a self-and-nation-destroying clown car of parasites and not really many "Can't Miss" candidates on the Democratic side of the fence besides Hillary Clinton.

That doesn't really praise HRC by any means; I don't see any evidence that she's become more economically progressive since her Senatorial term and her IWR vote is unforgivable. It's just the facts of the political climate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 06:46 AM

16. Yes, and a good one.

Back in the 1980's, when this question came up in conversations with friends, I used to express my fear that our first female president would be an American Margaret Thatcher. I figured that only an ultra-conservative female candidate would be able to win the votes of reluctant conservative/sexist/traditionalists, while still getting the votes of many independents, and even liberals, who might be willing to put aside their dissatisfaction with her policies if that's what it took to finally see a woman in the White House.

I no longer have that fear. I think we're living in a very different social and political climate than we were back then. I have every confidence that I'll live to see a female president, and that she'll be one I can be proud to have voted for. I don't know who it might be, and indeed, she might turn out to be someone who's not even on my political radar yet. But I feel confident that she's out there, and that the public is more than ready for her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 06:52 AM

18. Yes, I do. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:13 AM

20. Yes, and she just might be from the GOP

It can not be ruled out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seveneyes (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:27 AM

22. Who, Michelle Bachmann?

The GOP couldn't find a woman to sit on their panel about women's reproductive health.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #22)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:34 AM

25. Not a woman like her

If the GOP ever got rid of their anti choice, anti gay and other ignorant social issues, they just might survive as a party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seveneyes (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:36 AM

26. They won't be doing any of that.

Can you name a living woman, who is in the GOP, who has any shot whatsoever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoePhilly (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:47 AM

27. Not at this time

But who would have thought a minimal term Senator would come out of Chicago and wind up as President? Political alchemy has a history of surprises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seveneyes (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:18 AM

30. In 2004, I predicted he's be vice President in 2008. So ...

The GOP has NO ONE. Nothing. Nada.

No ideas, no female candidates at a national level.

Nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seveneyes (Reply #25)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 09:55 AM

40. "If the GOP ever got rid of their anti choice, anti gay and other ignorant social issues,"

they would lose the only thing that gets any of them elected -- their nutty Christian fundamentalist base. The oligarchy presses those "social issues" (read issues of personal morality) in order to attract the votes of the fanatics in our country.

What do you think the Koch brothers care about most: those "social issues" or grabbing all the money for themselves and their wealthy friends in the US?

Those "social issues" are the bait the Republicans use to attract poorly educated, fearful people in our country whose economic conditions remind them daily just how powerless they are.

They go to church not to learn what they should do to bring a loving God into their lives. They don't really believe that in a loving God because why would a loving God make their lives so powerless and intolerable. They believe in a God who is to be feared above all because at any moment their lives can crash around them without their having any say in the matter.

No. Those who vote on "social issues" use religion as a drug so that they can endure the uncertainty and slight of their lives. They go to church to find out what THEY SHOULD NOT DO, not what they should do. They go to church so that they can feel superior to all those sinners out there who seem to be having a lot more fun than God wants them to have. When you are really down, it is important to be taught a set of rules that fool you into thinking that in some areas of life, you are up and those who appear to be superior to you are really beneath you.

The fundamentalists do not go to church to find out how to live better. They go to church to be told that they should be thankful they are not living worse. They go to church to find out how they can "show" all those sinners out there. They go to church so that they can be reassured that they can get verbal stones to throw at all those peole they identify as sinners based on the church's teachings on "social issues." It's not really about "social issues." As a general rule, remember, the divorce rate is higher in states in which fundamentalism is stronger.

"Southern men and women had higher rates of divorce in 2009 than their counterparts in other parts of the country: 10.2 per 1,000 for men and 11.1 per 1,000 for women, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau released Thursday.

By comparison, men and women in the Northeast had the lowest rates of divorce, 7.2 and 7.5 per 1,000, which is also lower than the national divorce rate of 9.2 for men and 9.7 for women."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/08/25/divorce.bible.belt/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seveneyes (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:28 AM

24. Interesting that you should say that

If we will ever see a GOP woman president, I don't think we've yet seen her enter the political stage yet.

That has to do with two things, the kind of women that end up being GOP party leaders and the kind of politicians that survive the Republican primary process.

There are other factors too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:08 AM

42. Until there is a fundemental shift in the thinking of the GOP, I doubt that

any women can run on the present GOP platform. Sarah Palin? Maybe, but she's toast in the GE. Seriously, a moderate GOP woman will never get through the primaries, unless she's willing to tell bald-faced lies to get the nomination. If she runs on an anti-woman agenda, like the base seems to value, she'll join Romney and McCain as loser apparent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:11 AM

43. Abso-freakin-lutely! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:06 PM

75. Many do.

http://herrerabeutler.house.gov/biography/

There's nothing about being a woman that makes a person inherently sensible, pro-choice or public spirited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seveneyes (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 02:36 PM

66. Too true; as I just mentioned, we had Maggie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:23 AM

21. Yes, we will, and afterwards very few will see another

Last edited Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:21 AM - Edit history (2)

I'm pretty much sure that I'll never see anther Black president in my lifetime. So we'll get our woman president, and there stands a good chance that she'll get reelected. But I've lived a long enough time in this country to know how it works.

With the exception of a particular set of circumstances that need to happen, but haven't as of yet, it doesn't seen very likely that we'll see more than one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrScorpio (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:17 AM

29. Agreed

But I think the first woman President will be from my generation - ie neither HRC or Warren. I could be proven wrong in a few years - and we COULD have an HRC or Warren.

But I'm inclined towards a Gen X woman with a Military Background/Service. Tammy Duckworth though turning 46 this year - is still very very young. She's not ready yet - but I would knock on her doors and drive people to the polls for her.

ETA - I hate to note - Duckworth was not born in the US. She's a pipedream - but someone like her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 09:09 AM

37. I'm also a Gen Xer

and think it will be someone younger. It sure would be nice by 2020 if we could pull it off. I want my mom to be able to see it. She turns 66 this year, so if she stayed in good health she'd only be 72.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidpdx (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 09:50 AM

39. I'd like my mom to see that too!

She's turning 67 this year - and I would really love for the baby boomer women to get that in their lifetime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 07:28 AM

23. Within 30 years, yes

Maybe soon enough that I'll see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:05 AM

28. Yep and HRC is her name-o

 

and quite frankly our party's strongest candidate considering nothing new can be revealed about her plus she's an expert campaigner.

Hell she'd be the current president if Obama hadn't run in 08'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:19 AM

31. We don't have any issue in that

I don't think we must have problems in that, many men have tried, but what was the result, let her give the chance to a woman at least one time and then we can decide who is better one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:20 AM

32. Yes, and she will be sworn in January 20, 2017. Here she is...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 02:34 PM

64. Hail to the Chief!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:39 AM

33. Sure. We might have 2 women run against each other for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:45 AM

34. Absolutely, at least one.

It could easily be Hillary but she'll just be the first, not the last.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:45 AM

35. I'd like it to be a certain person originally from Ok

Senator Warren. I realize that she is in a good place as the senior Senator of Mass and that she can have some good effect where she is.
I want to see a Woman President very much though. I want to see the heads exploding of the rest of those assholes whose heads didn't explode with the election of our President Obama.
Talk about sending some over the edge it sure would

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 08:56 AM

36. Yes, and how soon is directly related to whether Hillary Clinton runs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:15 AM

44. I would say

there's a good chance.


Much better chance than seeing an Atheistic president, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipi_k (Reply #44)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 01:01 PM

61. That you bring up Athieistic is is interesting -

 

and that I'd like to see. And along those lines I've always said (I'm 50-ish) that we will never see a Jewish POTUS.

Black, woman? Sure, as long as they (appear to be) some sort of Christian.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 10:18 AM

45. Yes. In 2016. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:04 PM

47. I thought we'd never see a black president in my lifetime.

So, as much as I hate this cliché, I have to say "Never Say Never."

EDIT: I'm well aware that there's a better than even chance it'll happen in 2016 (well, 1/17). I was trying to keep my answer generic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:06 PM

48. IMO, Sen Gillibrand has the best chance to be the first in 2020. 2016 is a lost cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:08 PM

49. Very very possible.

Hell, even Republicans thought Palin was Presidential material.

Sad as a low bar as that sets, it still generally shows that the vast majority of people consider a Female President as a definite possibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:09 PM

50. Gender and or race should never be a primary reason for voting.

I would like to see a female for POTUS but only if she represents most (not all) of my interests over the other candidate. Being as how most candidates lie or promise shit they will never be able to accomplish it would be hard for anyone to meet my minimal standards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:11 PM

51. Yes, though I think some will never vote for a woman regardless

but their numbers aren't large enough to determine an election. I expect a number of people who claim to be Democrats will vote Republican if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. Clinton would also attract the votes of some swing blue collar voters and middle-class married women who might otherwise vote Republican as well. I expect the numbers of the latter are larger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:05 PM

74. But why would some Dems defect?

Which would be the larger motivation for them to defect to teh Repubs; because she was a woman or because she was that particular woman?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:17 PM

84. Well, first off I don't know who is really a Democrat

But I see a lot of people, men and women alike, with a great deal of antipathy toward the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton in particular, but also the President. I also notice that some of these same posters are very hostile to discussions of equality and inclusively. Given their particular hostility toward feminists and equal opportunity, I wouldn't be surprised if they refuse to vote for Clinton should she be the nominee. In fact some have already announced they will not. Certainly they will argue it is about Clinton in particular, just as they like to pretend that Barack Obama is the first Democratic President to ever be swayed by financial interests. They also attack Clinton and praise Joe Biden within the same sentence, even though both voted for the war. I find it difficult to believe that people with so much animosity toward women would vote for a female President, but as I said, I don't think their numbers are large enough to swing an election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:08 PM

76. And some will vote for a woman regardless of party. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:12 PM

79. Yep, that's probably true as well

Question is how many there are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:20 PM

86. Really? How many here do you think voted for Palin or Bachmann?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:54 PM

89. Hillary Clinton would do well in Texas

There is polling that shows that Clinton could carry Texas. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/01/clinton-could-win-texas.html Without Texas, the GOP has no chance to win the electoral college

There are some good rumors that Hilary Clinton will come to Texas during the summer to campaign for Wendy Davis. I think that Hillary Clinton could help Senator Davis

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #89)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:57 PM

92. Wow.

That would be amazing if she took Texas. (If she runs, if she's the nominee). A Hispanic nominee on the GOP side could shake that up though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #92)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 05:09 PM

95. Not if her VP candidate is one of the Castro brothers

The Texas Democratic Party has printed up a decent number of Clinton/Castro 2016 bumper stickers. We do not care which Castro brother is on the ticket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:19 PM

53. Do you think we'll see a female president within the next 30 years? Yes. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:20 PM

54. Easily

If Hillary is kept out of office, I don't think it's her gender that would do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:28 PM

55. That's the wrong question to ask, in my view.

The first female speaker of the house promised not to go after Bush's war criminals.

The first black president keeps trying to sign all national sovereignty over to the multi-national corps.

Condoleezza Rice is both black and female; was she the right person for her job?

Let glass ceilings break when they break.

Pick the best candidate available at any given time.

This is too important for symbolism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:46 PM

56. Yes

I don't see why not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:49 PM

57. of course n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:52 PM

58. I'll be pleased to vote for Hillary.

 

She knows the vigors of a national campaign, has executive experience, and is willing to entertain progressive ideas.

Too many feel that they vote for someone to take over the reigns. Put them in charge and they will handle things. I disagree. We have to work constantly, and the best we can hope for is someone who sill give an ear to our ideas, and not interfere when we work to make change.

That, I feel, has been the weakness of the Obama years. Too many "let off the gas" when he was elected and left him hanging.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:53 PM

59. It depends on whether she can attract enough votes.

I have voted twice in the general election for women to be POTUS. But, it wasn't because of their gender, but because of their political stances. i.e. I would vote for a progressive male over a moderate female, and vice versa.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 12:57 PM

60. yes, I think we will especially a D. We have so many presidential quality D woman in politics today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 01:02 PM

62. at my age it would have to be Hillary.

i do`t see any other woman at this time who could run and win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 02:36 PM

65. Yes, one day. Many countries have had female leaders by now; so why not America?

And I hope your first female leader is better than ours was!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:14 PM

67. I'm a Brit

Our female PM was a demonic force of evil whose extended life proved the cruelty of god.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:02 PM

73. +1,000,000!

By the way 'your' was intended for the majority on the thread; I know you're a fellow British citizen and shared in the disaster that was Thatcher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:31 PM

68. Perhaps, but I don't think it will be in 2016

The country ran one experiment in 08, and many voters might want to return to the good old fashioned white boys club. Still, I hope to see a very bright and determined woman succeed in my life time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:35 PM

69. 30 years? Yes, probably.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:38 PM

71. Yes (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 03:41 PM

72. what the hell difference does it make? Others unseen are running the show

not the puppets we "vote" for and see in"authority" For example, how will a woman get on the ticket? She must be chosen by those unseen before we get our "vote."

They put on a good show. But The People have very little to do with it.

Heres' a good introduction to the situation:
http://billmoyers.com/segment/preview-the-deep-state/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:08 PM

77. yes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:11 PM

78. I'm more interested in whether we will see a non-corporatist President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #78)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:19 PM

85. Within the next 10 years? No chance

The problem with getting a non-corporatist is that the people who we'd need to change the system are the same people who have benefitted from that system. We'd be asking politicians to challenge the system that brought them to the top. Added to that, the GOP are now simply the political arm of the corporate class in the same way as Scalia et al are the legal arm of the corporate class.

The corruption is in too deep now. Even if you could convince a politician to bite the hand that feeds and challenge the system, the conservative majority on the SCOTUS can just find (i.e. pull out of their ass) that it's unconstitutional and strike down any laws they dislike (Thomas and Alito decide what they want to do, then construct a legal figleaf to justify it; Scalia doesn't even bother disguising it).

An it won't change until everything changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:16 PM

81. If her superpower is invisibility then, no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:16 PM

82. yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:17 PM

83. Yes. IF and only if they count ALL the votes.

I'm ready as ever for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:44 PM

87. The gender is not as important

as the views of the candidates...

A more meaningful question would be 'Do you think we'll see a PROGRESSIVE president?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:47 PM

88. Probable but there's no guarantee she'll be a democrat.

In fact, I'd venture that the need for a woman candidate to get the support of a significant number of male voters makes it less likely she'll be a (D).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:56 PM

90. Definetly Yes and it will be a lot sooner than 30 years.

And it won't be Hillary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:56 PM

91. Wendy Davis or Liz Warren would be great candidates, IMO.

And yes, Hillary Clinton too. And our current FLOTUS as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageJoe90 (Reply #91)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:59 PM

94. Wouldn't it be nice to see if Davis can win a statewide election...

...before pushing her as a national candidate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Original post)

Mon Feb 24, 2014, 04:57 PM

93. The sooner the better -

I'm personally not that impressed with what I've seen from many of the men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread