Is the U.S. Ready to Elect a Female President?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hcour, Aug 21, 2006.

Is a Woman Electable

  1. Yes

    6 vote(s)
  2. No

    11 vote(s)
  3. Maybe

    4 vote(s)
  4. Yes, but not Hillary

    3 vote(s)
  1. hcour

    hcour Guest

    No matter how one feels about Hillary, imo the U.S. is years, perhaps even decades, away from electing a woman president. To put a woman on the ticket, even if it was Mother Teresa reborn as Eleanor Roosevelt in the body of Jessica Simpson, would be political sucide for the dems. As a country, we simply aren't that far along yet; women still have enough problems breaking the glass ceiling in the business world, much less the highest office of the land. It just ain't gonna happen right now.

  2. under normal circumstances you probably would be right but faced with a choice of a woman or another idiotlike bush clone anything could happen.
  3. No because there are too many ignorant inbred hillbilly rednecks in this country imo

    I for one would love to see a woman president merely as a change from the norm.

    I mean how does anyone win with a Gore/Bush or Kerry/Bush choice.....

    Pick your poison.... and I am tired of the same old stuff
  4. pattersb

    pattersb Guest

    Spoken like a true patriotic-liberal american. Yes, it has become an oxymoron.

    The ironic thing is, the first female president is likely to be a republican.

    Actually, it is not ironic at all....
  5. the first female president is likely to be hillary
  6. Arnie


    Care to wager on that?:D
  7. Pabst


    Being a woman in itself generally helps a candidate more than detracts. Naturally there's a number of men AND women who will shy away from a female nominee. But MANY women will vote for a "sister" even if that woman candidate is less of a match ideologically than the opposing male. Women will vote gender just as others vote race or religion. Generally the more "oppressed" a group collectively feels the higher the probably they'll vote for candidates within their sub-group.

    Someone mentioned JFK. There were many who felt Kennedy exploited his Catholicism in the West Virginia primary when he knocked Humphrey out of the campaign. Kennedy made it appear one was a bigot if they didn't support him. A Harris poll later revealed that Kennedy's Catholicism attracted more voters (fellow Catholics who "crossed over") than votes it cost him (Southern Baptists and WASPS). It thus possible that he won a VERY close election because he was Catholic.
  8. sure. 5 bucks. its hard to make a wager until we see who the repulbs run. it is possible they can come up with someone with a brain who will run against the bush record and win.
    speaking as a lifelong i would hate to see hillary win but with the performance the repubs put up in the last term we deserve defeat.
  9. No! Partly because of the neanderthal thinking of the male electorate, and partly because any truely qualified and successful woman wouldn't want to deal with the bullshit. What you're left with is a poorly prepared flock of chickens in a cock fight with the roosters. Pathetically incompetent as the current roosters are, they'll still beat the chickens on pure hate and fear mongering. How's that for an ugly metaphor?
  10. Wait a minute I am a little confused here. If a male refuses to support a candidate based on sex he is a Neanderthal, but if a female chooses to support a candidate based on sex that is okay. What is the difference.

    A female candidate would be received fine by me, and I agree a female Republican would have a good chance to win.

    I also love the liberal who posted everyone else is a redneck, talk about prejudging people. Who is the real bigot ?
    #10     Aug 22, 2006