Female presidential candidate?

theotherone

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 1:54 pm

I was listening to a talk show on the radio and someone called in and said that Hillary lost because America isn't ready to elect a woman as president. The host disagreed and said that America was not ready to elect HILLARY but would elect the right candidate.
Regardless of your personal political preferences, can you think of any women who have the respect, name recognition, and experience who would stand a chance of winning?
So far, my husband and I came up with: Diane Feinstein, Condoleeza Rice, Nikki Haley, Elizabeth Warren. (he also said Sarah Palin but I disagree on that one).

Chayalle

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 1:56 pm

I agree with the host - I really don't think that the issue was a woman as president.

That being said, I do think that there are few(er) female candidates that can win the election because, truth is, not that many women pursue political careers to such a great extent. It's a grueling path, for anyone, and many women would rather not take it.

Miri7

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 2:16 pm

Diane Feinstein has too much political history. I think one problem for Hillary is that her track record is too long. She's been in the public eye for a long time and that makes her vulnerable.

One benefit for Obama is that he was relatively new to politics, so there was less of a track record to take issue with. Same for Trump.

I think that political johnny-come-latelys have an advantage in this regard. Unfortunately, I think that women who are newbies won't be taken as seriously as male newbies. Women will need to have a lot of experience and credibility, more than their male counterparts, just to get over people's subconscious perception of women as less innately qualified than men for the presidency.

I would have loved to vote for Elizabeth Warren this year. While I don't agree with her politics, I think that Nikki Haley might have the right amount of experience - just enough, not too much. But it all depends on what political storms she has to weather before the next election.

doctorima

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 3:24 pm

I'm sure there are some people who will never vote for any woman, but they're a small minority, and even though they didn't help Hillary, that's not why she lost. Even the GOP gave Carly Fiorina a fair chance. The right woman could definitely win. Finding her is the million dollar challenge.

octopus

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 3:30 pm

I don't think Hillary represented women. If Condoleeza Rice were in the running, I would vote for her. Btw- that would make her the first black woman voted as (hypothetical) president. Black women, historically, have been the last to gain equal rights, post civil war.

leah233

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 3:43 pm

Margaret Thatcher

Yes I know she is dead and not an American citizen.But if it was someone like her running against Trump she definitely would have won. Especially among conservative voters. So I don't believe that Hillary being a women is what caused her to lose

How many female politicians are there in the entire world? That is why there is no women president. The potential pool to pick from is too small.

DrMom

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 4:29 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

I think that the gender of a president is important to some groups, especially for many evangelical Xtians.

Why do you think this?

agreer

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 4:36 pm

I would vote for a woman.

I found it so ironic that everyone kept saying that America will show the world that women are equal by electing Hillary.

So many other countries have had female leaders: israel, UK, ... even Pakistan!

Puh-lease. The US could absolutely have a woman as president...but it has to be the right woman, not just any.

Raisin

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 4:38 pm

leah233 wrote:

The way a person becomes prime minister of the UK is very very different to an american presidential election. Basically the party chooses a leader, and that leader of the party who wins the most seats in parliament becomes pm. A leader can also resign in between elections and someone else is chosen, which is what just happened with Theresa May.

MagentaYenta

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 4:42 pm

DrMom wrote:

Why do you think this?

Fundamentalist evangelical Xtians have very set rules about what the biblical role of woman is, within the home and in society. We can say that yes our religion has rules such as these as well. In fundamentalist evangelical sects rules are specific about women speaking out publicly esp. when it comes to political issues, no less running for office. I am not talking about mainstream evangelicals like the Evangelical Lutherans, Evangelical Quakers,Evangelical Presbyterians, I'm talking about sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses, Primitive Baptists, the Nazarenes, some Anabaptists,Pentecostals and the Holiness churches to name a few. I live in an area where there is a plentitude of fundamentalist evangelicals, many more than mainstream Xtian sects.

FranticFrummie

Thu, Nov 10 2016, 4:49 pm

I would vote for ANYONE with the right platform. Gay, trans, disabled, people of color, you name it. I look at the issues, and the qualifications of the person who is running.

If a straight, rich, white male just happens to have the platform I support, then they are going to get my vote, but the body that person comes in falls at the very BOTTOM of the list of things I take into consideration.

Diversity is good, but diversity just for diversity sake is stupid.

rfeig613

Sat, Nov 12 2016, 7:46 pm

Sarah Palin already shot herself in the foot, so I'd view that as a liability
Ivanka Kushner in about 10 years
Condoleeza Rice
Joni Ernst
Ileana Ros Lehtinen
Elizabeth Dole

Elizabeth Warren from the Dems

allthingsblue

Sat, Nov 12 2016, 9:22 pm

rfeig613 wrote:

Why would you call her ivanka kushner? She goes by trump.