Author Topic: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020  (Read 4863 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #240 on: March 07, 2020, 11:54:41 am »

Would be nice to see a female POTUS someday but i think voters care more about policy and other factors than what's between their legs or the colour of their skin etc.  People would likely vote for Michelle Obama or Oprah in a heartbeat.

Pretty safe bet the first female POTUS will not be a Republican.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #241 on: March 07, 2020, 12:25:58 pm »
Pretty safe bet the first female POTUS will not be a Republican.

I would agree with that especially since the two names mentioned would not likely be running for the Repubs. However there is that Kay Ivey, (gov. of Alabama) who supports teachers carrying guns in schools, is anti-abortion, and doesn't seem to mind if Black people are put to death by the state even when there is a convicted Black man sitting on death row who actually committed the crime. That approach might have appeal to the types who voted for the current POTUS. 

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #242 on: March 07, 2020, 03:04:50 pm »
Pretty safe bet the first female POTUS will not be a Republican.

Probably not, but they did like Sarah Palin, and Thatcher I guess.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #243 on: March 07, 2020, 03:24:06 pm »
Probably not, but they did like Sarah Palin, and Thatcher I guess.

Thatcher was actually elected but in a different country. Palin was simply chosen as a running mate and probably helped dash McCain's hopes of being elected in the US.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #244 on: March 07, 2020, 10:50:36 pm »
Probably not, but they did like Sarah Palin, and Thatcher I guess.

Conservatives have picked women in other countries. Thatcher, May, Campbell etc. Ambrose would probably win the CPC nod if she ran. Republicans are a different animal.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #245 on: March 07, 2020, 11:00:47 pm »
Conservatives have picked women in other countries. Thatcher, May, Campbell etc. Ambrose would probably win the CPC nod if she ran. Republicans are a different animal.

I knew it was a complete and utter fairy tale but I had a giggle envisioning Michelle Obama stepping into the race and ending up with Trump kicking horse turds down the road.

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #246 on: March 08, 2020, 10:49:06 am »
Of the 78 women in the House of Representatives, 13 are Republicans.
The Senate is better with 21 Republicans vs 36 Democrats.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10258
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #247 on: March 08, 2020, 11:20:17 am »
Of the 78 women in the House of Representatives, 13 are Republicans.
The Senate is better with 21 Republicans vs 36 Democrats.

But women also tend to vote more for Democrats than GOP.  If that's the case there will never be natural gender parity among GOP candidates.  The interests of most women are served better by the Democrats.

I wonder if the difference in the House of Reps is based on the women running but not getting votes, there not being enough quality potential female candidates who want to run as GOP, or the GOP choosing men candidates over women to run?  There's lots of variables here.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline wilber

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9167
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #248 on: March 08, 2020, 12:23:27 pm »

I wonder if the difference in the House of Reps is based on the women running but not getting votes, there not being enough quality potential female candidates who want to run as GOP, or the GOP choosing men candidates over women to run?  There's lots of variables here.

Either way, that points to a party which is not female friendly.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #249 on: March 08, 2020, 02:11:30 pm »
But women also tend to vote more for Democrats than GOP.  If that's the case there will never be natural gender parity among GOP candidates.  The interests of most women are served better by the Democrats.

I wonder if the difference in the House of Reps is based on the women running but not getting votes, there not being enough quality potential female candidates who want to run as GOP, or the GOP choosing men candidates over women to run?  There's lots of variables here.

Ah, no not a lot of variables. It's called misogyny. And this party has the perfect man representing them in the White House now who supports that attitude as well as racism. William Hurd, the GOP's only Black in the house has announced he is leaving the party, but not politics. He cites Trump's racist rants as reason.

Offline segnosaur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1558
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #250 on: March 12, 2020, 12:27:43 pm »
Pretty safe bet the first female POTUS will not be a Republican.
I've always felt the opposite... that the republicans might try having a woman GOP candidate as a way to say "See? We ain't so bigoted", and would succeed because of a combination of  1) people who always vote republican (even if they themselves are sexist), and 2) people who truly want a woman to be president.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #251 on: March 12, 2020, 12:49:36 pm »
I've always felt the opposite... that the republicans might try having a woman GOP candidate as a way to say "See? We ain't so bigoted", and would succeed because of a combination of  1) people who always vote republican (even if they themselves are sexist), and 2) people who truly want a woman to be president.

Nice idea for sure but unlikely to occur because the republicans in the US are so bigoted. One need only look who they have as their "leader".

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #252 on: March 12, 2020, 02:38:59 pm »
Too bad about Liz, but as I said earlier, America just isn't ready yet:
Some notable firsts:
1789 - first President
1960 - first Catholic President
2008 - first black President
2016 - first orange President

<---- We are here ---->

Predictions:
2020 - first Jewish President
2032 - first openly gay President
2040 - first Muslim President
2052 - first openly atheist President
2064 - first transgender President
2076 - first robot President
2092 - first extraterrestrial President
2144 - first female-born female President
Try again in 124 years, Liz.

My heart is broken that Warren didn't do better.  First Hillary lost to a turd like Trump and then a healthy smart woman took a seat to allow two withering old men take the stage. One with a faltering mind and the other with a faltering body.

I made excuses after Clinton, but America really is NOT ready for a woman president.  It was one thing when the general population did it, it's a whole other level when DEMOCRATS do it.

It has really hurt me to see it.

I agree, although I was disappointed to see her get into identity politics.  What made her a star in the first place was her work following the financial crisis of 2007, when she was among the most prominent voices calling for accountability in the financial sector, working under Obama to form the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, and so on. Her real strength was talking about economic and financial reforms, stuff that would affect everybody.  On the other hand hearing her say that her Secretary of Education would have to be vetted by a transgender child was so cringe-inducing that I felt embarrassed for ever thinking she could win.


In the aftermath of Warren dropping out, I've read a number of think pieces about why a woman couldn't win.  There are a couple of main hypotheses that hold water.

The first is that people feel that beating Trump is the most important priority and they are afraid that sexism will prevent a woman from beating Trump. They feared that choosing a woman would just be 2016 all over again. Joe Biden said something along the lines of "a lot of sexist attacks were used against Hillary in 2016, but that's not going to work against me."  Sanders last week said something along the lines of "female candidates face obstacles that men do not have". People are afraid that sexism might hold back the Democratic nominee from defeating Trump, so they've chosen a man.

"Sexism means a woman can't win so we have to nominate a man" is self-perpetuating logic that will hold women back, not just this election but for a long time to come. Had Hillary won, it would have ended that cycle, but instead it has been reinforced.

The second train of thought is that people are okay with the idea of a female president in an abstract sense, but not in a real sense.  Somebody might feel completely comfortable with the idea of a female president, but ask them about any specific woman and the answer is "no, she just doesn't fit with my idea of what a female president would be like."  For some person perhaps the picture of a female leader would be Hillary Clinton, for others perhaps Margaret Thatcher, for others perhaps Chrystia Freeland or Rona Ambrose or even Sarah Palin or Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, but for too many others, none of those options fit their notion of what a female leader would be like. I think people are generally accustomed to the idea that a middle-aged (or older) man in a suit is what a leader looks like, and for somebody who doesn't fit that description it's harder to convince them.



Pretty safe bet the first female POTUS will not be a Republican.

I disagree, actually.  Conservatives dread the idea of a progressive woman being president, but they'll support one of their own.  As Poonlight posted earlier, they loved Thatcher and they loved Sarah Palin.  I think it's an "Only Nixon could go to China" type situation.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12532
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #253 on: March 12, 2020, 03:02:53 pm »
  they loved Sarah Palin.   

hard not to see why

CLICK THIS

 

Offline segnosaur

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1558
Re: Presidential Non-Predictions 2020
« Reply #254 on: March 12, 2020, 03:09:04 pm »
Re: first female president being a democrat...
Quote
I've always felt the opposite... that the republicans might try having a woman GOP candidate as a way to say "See? We ain't so bigoted", and would succeed because of a combination of  1) people who always vote republican (even if they themselves are sexist), and 2) people who truly want a woman to be president
Nice idea for sure but unlikely to occur because the republicans in the US are so bigoted. One need only look who they have as their "leader".
Oh, I don't deny that they're huge bigots. The best bigots. Their bigotry is the stuff of legend.

Just that they may try to run a female presidental candidate as a way to cover over their bigotry.  Those bigots will line up to vote for anyone with an R beside their name, as long as they won't take their guns away and will love them some jebus.