Are historic 'barriers' to minorities and women winning enough votes to become president irrelevant

[bigtree]

to our candidates in the upcoming presidential election?

Were there barriers? If so, are they outdated, or have they been made moot by the quality or character of our candidates?

I always understood that there would be as much opposition this election, or more, to women and minority presidential candidates as there would be folks in support. All of the polling so far in favor of Sens. Obama and Clinton (and, to some extent, Richardson) seem to have put the question to rest. But I wonder just how much of role their race and gender, respectively, will play in the general race? I even wonder if we'll see some resistance in our primary, despite the polls.

Should the candidates directly address the issue, or is their performance alone enough to trump any of the historic resistance to minorities and women in the presidential race?

[bigtree]

1. shutting my eyes again . . .

thinking cap off . . .

[bigtree]

2. still ready to talk about this

will the issue just die like this thread?

hAVE wE rEALLY cOME tHAT fAR?

[treestar]

3. Maybe, or at least they should have

An individual can go far - Pakistan had a female President, and that is a Muslim country where women aren't always treated equally. But that particular individual was in the right place at the right time.

The individuals in this case could make it irrelevant - especially in comparison to whoever the rethug candidate is.

The oldest generation is the most dangerous, they are the most likely to have higher percentages of people who have an outdated view of a woman's place, etc. Even so, Elizabeth I was queen of England - even societies that firmly believe women are secondary people can sometimes forget about it in the face of an extraordinary individual, and this society is at least getting to the point where that is in question. Then the President is by definition from among the extraordinary individuals - well, I'll have to think about that last one, because we did get the Chimperor.

[bigtree]

4. good response

"The individuals in this case could make it irrelevant - especially in comparison to whoever the rethug candidate is."

I wondered if support for these particular candidates could transcend their race, gender, or ethnicity. Although I personally feel that the three I mentioned may have other characteristics which could exacerbate any opposition based on these because of individual controversy, shortcomings, or lack of organizational support from the groups which would be sympathetic to their particular association.

For instance, Richardson lacks a Latino name which would automatically identify him with that group. Obama hasn't been involved in 'black issues' on a national level and could be seen as outside of some movement or caucus. Clinton may have trouble attracting a solid bloc of women because of the wide divergence of issues and concerns shared by the female community.

For that matter, it does seem like there is more diversity these days within these groups which has caused a splintering support from what may have once been solid defensive blocs of blacks, Latinos, women, etc.. There may not be a ready mass of support from these for candidates to appeal to.

I do think that there will emerge folks who get involved in the process just out of opposition to these categories. I remember the last election brought out record numbers of Democrats; but it also brought out record numbers of republicans stirred up by the demagogues' cynical campaigning.

[treestar]

5. Looking from the other end, is it wise to assume that the

group itself will vote for the candidate?

I'd vote for Hillary anyway if she were the nominee, over any repuke, so I can't say I'd vote for her just to have a woman as President. I would vote against a lady Rethuglican candidate - would there be women who would vote for her just to see a woman President? I would really like to see one, but not bad enough to have any right wingers of Condi's ilk in the White House.

Women are not a good solid bloc though, and I don't know of many women who would vote for her just to have a woman as President, but probably there are some - maybe more than we'd think. And there will be the loud mouthed Phyllis Schafly types going against her just because she is a woman, and they are women too.

Richardson not having a Latin name is interesting - and Obama being half white - it's like testing the waters with a half and half. Someone from a minority should run for governor of California, isn't that state's population already situated so that whites are a minority as against adding up all of the other minorities? Then there is the question of how does it work between different groups, that is, does being hispanic help you or hurt you with the black voters and vice versa.

There are too many xenophobes out there, too. Have Richardson give one speech in Spanish and they are going to scream, due to their ridiculous fear that Spanish will take over and they'll be left out. That could even include Democrats. White Americans get hysterical over their refusal to even consider learning a second language. I don't know about African Americans, maybe there is a poll on whether they think English should be the official language and all that sort of stuff.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. How would a Hillary/Obama ticket do. Or, vice-versa? Overload?

I'm a fan of neither but I was think about the possibility in terms if Hillary got the nomination (god forbid) who would she select out of the other candidates for VP.

I decided that Edwards would be the only possible choice.

Obama - African American and a woman?
Richardson - Mexican American and a woman?
Dodd - Another candidate from the NE?
Biden - Too alike and, if anything, more hawkish than Hillary.
Kucinich - Too "liberal".
Gravel - Too, too.

That leaves Edwards. A sop to the anti-war left. A southerner.

As for "can a woman/minority" win?

At this point, if any Democrat on the list can't win against a Republican party nominee for president, after Bush, the Dems should consider disbanding as too incompetent to hold office.

[bigtree]

8. I heard Vilsack wants to be Clinton's VP

You should know how these campaigns go. You never know how it will turn. If there's something the media can latch on to, they'll repeat it over and over as gospel.

What I think is the biggest potential threat would be the effect of our nominees stirring up right-wing voters who might have just sat this one out because of their own lackluster field. Nothing more pernicious than voters who come to the process against something or another. You have to take notice of the phenom last pres election where record numbers of KKK Karl-coerced republicans trumped the record numbers of Democrats who showed up.

Maybe doubling the challenge isn't as smart a strategy as diluting it.

I've got to wonder, though, just how far we could advance as a nation if we were successful in selling a minority-minority or a minority-woman ticket?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. Can't see it. I think she has to do something to attempt to appease the left.

And, Vilsack sure isn't the guy. There's quite a few of us noseholders out here whose noses are rebelling against further abuse.

[bigtree]

14. It's all complicated by the right's portrayal of Clinton as a leftie

I don't think the majority of the country has accepted her as the moderate she's been positioning herself as (and the moderate positioning critics on the left despise) because of the decades-old drumbeat from the conservative machine casting her as a wild-eyed liberal. I wonder who she'll decide is more important to appeal to.

Wait . . . I actually know the answer to that.

[BlooInBloo]

7. Until a vote takes place, there's nothing but speculation.

[bigtree]

10. If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must Man be of learning

from experience!

-Shaw

[gollygee]

9. I think people who wouldn't vote for a woman or black man

wouldn't vote for a Democratic candidate regardless. So who cares about them?

[bigtree]

11. You really think Democrats don't act on their prejudices? Or have any?

I'd like to believe that . . . but I don't.

[gollygee]

12. I would hope not

but I see your point. That's a bit naive.

The people I've known over time who would openly say, "I'd never vote for anyone who is black" or something like that are all Republicans. But Democrats might either not care for a candidate for that reason but not even realize it's for that reason, or might know it's for that reason and just not say so out loud. I've read some bigoted things right here at DU and we're supposedly a progressive crowd.