Can a female win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination post-Hillary?

[Suburbia]

After the shocking presidential defeat of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, can a female win the 2020 Democratic nomination? Will the past 2008 and 2016 campaigns that Hillary Clinton ran be a stain on future female presidential contenders for the Democrats in 2020? We know that Sen. Wlizabeth Warren is a co-frontrunner, but can a female win post-Hillary?

http://www.salon.com/2017/04/15/hillary-hatred-exposed-what-drives-americas-never-ending-case-against-clinton/

[catographer]

Just because there was a bad female candidate doesn't ruin the waters for all future female candidates...
At least it shouldn't. No more so than should George W. Bush make it hard to ever elect another white man, because he was such a sh**tty President. Or that if Obama's presidency was a disaster, that it would ruin it for future black candidates.

[Hammy]

More than likely, anybody who is unwilling to vote for a woman just because Clinton was a terrible candidate, probably wouldn't vote for one to start with already.

[GoTfan]

Of course it is. Hillary was a uniquely damaged candidate that was nonetheless shoved down everyone's throats. Someone like Elizabeth Warren would be heavily favoured.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Easily.

Really need a strong candidate with a sense of leadership.

[OSR STANDS WITH PALESTINE]

Honestly at this point, the only two women I see gettin the democratic nomination are Michelle Obama, and Caroline Kennedy

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Honestly at this point, the only two women I see gettin the democratic nomination are Michelle Obama, and Caroline Kennedy

Those two aren't getting it. The first woman President is probably going to have get there without a ton of nepotism.

[BaldEagle1991]

Yeah, Elizabeth Warren has a good chance.

[Mr. Morden]

I’m pretty skeptical of the argument that primary voters tend to put much emphasis on electability.  Or, to the extent that they look at electability, they will often get it wrong, confusing support in the primary itself with electability in the general election.  (I remember this phenomenon at least going back to the 2000 GOP race, when there were polls showing that voters inexplicably thought Bush was a stronger general election candidate than McCain.)

Even in the supposedly stereotypical case of primary voters going with the electable option, Bill Clinton 1992, I don’t actually attribute his nomination to a calculated electability motivation on the party of primary voters.  Rather, he was just a really charismatic guy who was the only Southern candidate running in a year where the primary calendar favored the South, and there was no Jesse Jackson in the race to draw black Southern votes.

So yeah, even if it’s correct to conclude that 2016 means that a woman would have a tough time winning the general election, I don’t think that will deter the Democratic primary voters from nominating another woman, if there’s one that they like.  In fact, my current list of top five most likely nominees includes three women: Warren, Gillibrand, and Harris.  (The men would be Booker and Sanders.)

[RINO Tom]

I’m pretty skeptical of the argument that primary voters tend to put much emphasis on electability.  Or, to the extent that they look at electability, they will often get it wrong, confusing support in the primary itself with electability in the general election.  (I remember this phenomenon at least going back to the 2000 GOP race, when there were polls showing that voters inexplicably thought Bush was a stronger general election candidate than McCain.)

Even in the supposedly stereotypical case of primary voters going with the electable option, Bill Clinton 1992, I don’t actually attribute his nomination to a calculated electability motivation on the party of primary voters.  Rather, he was just a really charismatic guy who was the only Southern candidate running in a year where the primary calendar favored the South, and there was no Jesse Jackson in the race to draw black Southern votes.

So yeah, even if it’s correct to conclude that 2016 means that a woman would have a tough time winning the general election, I don’t think that will deter the Democratic primary voters from nominating another woman, if there’s one that they like.  In fact, my current list of top five most likely nominees includes three women: Warren, Gillibrand, and Harris.  (The men would be Booker and Sanders.)

As for the OP, of course; a female who appeals to the right folks can very, very easily win either party's nomination in the hypothetical.

As for the bolded, this is totally off topic ... but I wonder how the primary map between Hillary and Bernie would have looked if every state had closed primaries (specifically thinking that a lot of Southern states might have results closer to Oklahoma, Kentucky and West Virginia).

[MAINEiac4434]

Considering the favorites are almost all women (Gillibrand, Harris, Warren) I'd say that's a resounding yes.

[President Johnson]

For sure. Warren or Harris are the most likely women to be nominated.

[Shadows]

Warren & Gillibrand have a solid chance. Harris is a 1st Senator who has little charisma & is close to Mnuchin. The NY & Mass Senators have better chances than the California one where all 3 will likely be branded as coastal elites !

[MM876]

A woman can absolutely win the 2020 dem nomination!  It's the general election they stand a good chance of losing.

If the same WWC men who voted for Trump think that the dems are trying to pull another referendum on 'women's issues' or on feminism, or on the precedent of a first female presidency, then there is a good chance a dem woman nominee loses.

That's why Gillibrand, Warren, and Klobuchar might be too close to the mold Clinton left of a 'finger-wagging school marm' condescending to WWC voters. Really, with Clinton as the most immediately recognizable female politician in our generation, if not in American history, a woman president is still going to be viewed as both a bit of a gimmick and as inherently connected to Hillary through the connection of sharing that gimmick.

Say what you will about Tulsi Gabbard or Kamala Harris, but by virtue of policy oddities and genetics respectively, they could be women that differentiate themselves and avoid this issue.

I still think Sherrod Brown or Al Franken would be the best options, and while I'm uncertain Bernie is going to be healthy enough to govern, let alone run, if he's able and Trump is still president (i.e. not Pence) I truly don't see how he could lose unless Trump achieves global peace, the end of crime, and/or unprecedented economic growth.

[ReaganLimbaugh]

More than likely, anybody who is unwilling to vote for a woman just because Clinton was a terrible candidate, probably wouldn't vote for one to start with already.

Good point Hammy

[TML]

Remember, a 2015 poll indicated that 92% of American voters would be open to voting for a female candidate for President. This suggests that sexism was not the dispositive factor in Hillary's loss.

[SCNCmod]

Its not likely in 2020... although very likely in 2024 or 2028(if Dems win 2020).

If I were giving odds which female could win 2020... and they would all be below 15% ...

1) Hillary
2) Gillibrand
3) Klobuchar

[Mr. Morden]

Its not likely in 2020... although very likely in 2024 or 2028(if Dems win 2020).

If I were giving odds which female could win 2020... and they would all be below 15% ...

1) Hillary
2) Gillibrand
3) Klobuchar

Are there *any* candidates (male or female) who currently have a probability of winning the nomination that's over 15%?  I'd say that it's debatable, since the race is so wide open.  On my personal rankings, I'd actually probably put Warren somewhere in the 15-20% probability range, and every other candidate (both male and female) below 15% (though Booker is a close call).

[Del Tachi]

As terrible as it is, I think a lot of people subliminally attribute a significant portion of the fact that Hillary lost to her being a woman.

I don't think a woman will be the nominee in 2020.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a higher-standard for liberal women.  I expect that, like most of developed world, the U.S.' first female president will come from the center-right.   

[Mr. Morden]

As terrible as it is, I think a lot of people subliminally attribute a significant portion of the fact that Hillary lost to her being a woman.

I don't think a woman will be the nominee in 2020.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a higher-standard for liberal women.  I expect that, like most of developed world, the U.S.' first female president will come from the center-right.   

That's in the general election though.  Is being female really a big disadvantage in the primaries?

As I said upthread, I remain skeptical of the ideas that voters take lessons on who is electable and who isn't from previous elections.  So I don't see Clinton losing the GE in 2016 as the sort of thing that'll make primary voters skittish about nominating another woman.  The impression I get is more that voters like who they like, and then talk themselves into believing that whoever they like is going to be electable.

I do think it's probably more likely than not that the 2020 Dem. nominee will be male, but that's just because the majority of candidates will be male, so they have better odds.  It's not because the women in the race face big gender-induced roadblocks to being nominated.

[Del Tachi]

As terrible as it is, I think a lot of people subliminally attribute a significant portion of the fact that Hillary lost to her being a woman.

I don't think a woman will be the nominee in 2020.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a higher-standard for liberal women.  I expect that, like most of developed world, the U.S.' first female president will come from the center-right.   

That's in the general election though.  Is being female really a big disadvantage in the primaries?

As I said upthread, I remain skeptical of the ideas that voters take lessons on who is electable and who isn't from previous elections.  So I don't see Clinton losing the GE in 2016 as the sort of thing that'll make primary voters skittish about nominating another woman.  The impression I get is more that voters like who they like, and then talk themselves into believing that whoever they like is going to be electable.

I do think it's probably more likely than not that the 2020 Dem. nominee will be male, but that's just because the majority of candidates will be male, so they have better odds.  It's not because the women in the race face big gender-induced roadblocks to being nominated.

Yes, the same double standard was evident in the 2016 primaries.

Sanders was hailed as the more "progressive" candidate despite the fact that he lacked any major legislative accomplishments, was well to the right of Clinton on gun issues (something that should have sunk him with liberals), and never released his own tax returns. 

The fact that someone as much of a joke as Bernie Sanders had an almost credible shot at the Democratic nomination in 2016 shows how pervasive the double standard is.

EDIT:  And don't even get me started on the media's portrayal of Obama vs. Clinton in '08

[HAnnA MArin County]

As terrible as it is, I think a lot of people subliminally attribute a significant portion of the fact that Hillary lost to her being a woman.

I don't think a woman will be the nominee in 2020.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a higher-standard for liberal women.  I expect that, like most of developed world, the U.S.' first female president will come from the center-right.   

That's in the general election though.  Is being female really a big disadvantage in the primaries?

As I said upthread, I remain skeptical of the ideas that voters take lessons on who is electable and who isn't from previous elections.  So I don't see Clinton losing the GE in 2016 as the sort of thing that'll make primary voters skittish about nominating another woman.  The impression I get is more that voters like who they like, and then talk themselves into believing that whoever they like is going to be electable.

I do think it's probably more likely than not that the 2020 Dem. nominee will be male, but that's just because the majority of candidates will be male, so they have better odds.  It's not because the women in the race face big gender-induced roadblocks to being nominated.

Yes, the same double standard was evident in the 2016 primaries.

Sanders was hailed as the more "progressive" candidate despite the fact that he lacked any major legislative accomplishments, was well to the right of Clinton on gun issues (something that should have sunk him with liberals), and never released his own tax returns. 

The fact that someone as much of a joke as Bernie Sanders had an almost credible shot at the Democratic nomination in 2016 shows how pervasive the double standard is.

EDIT:  And don't even get me started on the media's portrayal of Obama vs. Clinton in '08

PREACH! PREACH!

I get why Sanders "has" to be pro-gun because Vermont is such a rural state, but do they really cling to their guns up there like the rednecks do around here where I live? Vermont just doesn't strike me as a place where sitting in some frigid cold forest at 3 a.m. waiting to kill a deer would be so popular.

*In before one of jfern's "neoliberal warmongering corporatist something something who voted for Iraq War something something*

[Mister Mets]

If the question is simply can it happen, believing that there's a one in a hundred chance is enough to answer in the affirmative.

It's probably more like than not, due to the party's bench at the moment. The populist favorite is Elizabeth Warren, and she comes from the big state next to New Hampshire. An establishment favorite is Kristen Gilibrand, who has the advantage of the New York media market. The most prominent new statewide office is Kamala Harris. There are a few other women who could conceivably win the nomination.

There are a handful of dudes as well, but the frontrunners are women.