Potential female presidents in today's politics
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:00:02 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Potential female presidents in today's politics
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: Is there a rising female president out there right now?
#1
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
 
#2
Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK)
 
#3
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D-KS)
 
#4
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
 
#5
Gov. Janet Napolitano (D-AZ)
 
#6
Sec. Condoleezza Rice (R)
 
#7
Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD)
 
#8
Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
 
#9
Gov. Bev Perdue (D-NC)
 
#10
Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AK)
 
#11
Sen. Claire McKaskill (D-MO)
 
#12
Atty Gen. Lisa Madigan (D-IL)
 
#13
Carly Fiorina/Meg Whitman (R)
 
#14
Chelsea Clinton (D)
 
#15
Other (please name others if you have specific alternatives)
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 58

Author Topic: Potential female presidents in today's politics  (Read 14925 times)
paul718
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,012


Political Matrix
E: 4.00, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 19, 2008, 01:41:22 PM »

knocked this guy off

based on other societies choices of female leaders a trend seems to emerge that the first female leader a nation elects tends to be a conservative

applying that logic to the united states would mean that sarah palin is the most likely one out of the current crop of political figures

sebelius is unfortunately too old for it Sad
Logged
Four49
Rookie
**
Posts: 197
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 19, 2008, 03:57:37 PM »

I think the trend leads to conservative women because a liberal is often considered to be a 'radical', to at least some small degree.  And society has barely evolved enough to accept female leaders, let alone a radical one. 

And I agree, if Hillary's success is a precedent, it's a dangerous one.  On many levels, but primarily, to me anyway, that a woman's success has to be initiated by that of her husband.  Same way Napolitano being single hurts her chances and is the main reason people think she's a lesbian.  Many still believe, even if they lie to themselves about it, that women 'have their place' and only begin to trust them if there's a 'good guy' in the background.
Logged
Spaghetti Cat
Driedapples
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 19, 2008, 04:13:17 PM »

Of those not mentioned, I would say Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Marsha Blackburn, Jo Ann Emerson, and Shelley Moore Capito all have a good chance of being elected to the Senate in within the next 6 years or so.  After that, they're chances at president are extraordinarily higher than those of their fellow male GOP senators (Elizabeth Dole ran in 2000, KBH I think would've been VP if she hadn't turned it down for Texas gov, the Maine twins are widely mentioned, and have been, and well, Lisa is too corrupt). 
Logged
Four49
Rookie
**
Posts: 197
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 19, 2008, 04:56:44 PM »

Also not mentioned - Maria Cantwell, Democratic Senator from Washington.  I lived in Seattle when she first got elected.  She's very smart and articulate without coming off as condescending.  She made a buttload of dough as a VP for RealNetworks, so she has business experience.  And she was raised in Indiana.  Good background bullet points for a national campaign. 

Though she did lose her seat in Congress in 1994.  But so did a lot of Dems that year.  And it was in a conservative district.  She was the first Dem to win that seat in forty years.  She also got a lot of votes from conservatives in eastern Washington when she was up for re-election in 06. 

Watch for her name mentioned as a potential VP if Obama has a good four years and decides to dump Biden.
Logged
Nixon in '80
nixon1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,308
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 19, 2008, 09:52:40 PM »

I think you're all missing an obvious one.  Michelle Obama.  If her husband's successful, she's the next Hillary.  I don't know what her ambitions are regarding public office, but who does?

I think her negatives make Hillary look like Betsy Ross.
Logged
Four49
Rookie
**
Posts: 197
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 19, 2008, 11:39:02 PM »

I think you're all missing an obvious one.  Michelle Obama.  If her husband's successful, she's the next Hillary.  I don't know what her ambitions are regarding public office, but who does?

I think her negatives make Hillary look like Betsy Ross.

Examples? 

Logged
Nixon in '80
nixon1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,308
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 20, 2008, 12:01:35 AM »

I think you're all missing an obvious one.  Michelle Obama.  If her husband's successful, she's the next Hillary.  I don't know what her ambitions are regarding public office, but who does?

I think her negatives make Hillary look like Betsy Ross.

Examples? 



Many of her comments on the campaign trail, including, but not limited to, the "first time in my adult life" line, have come off as snobbish, condescending, and occasionally outright disdainful to the American public.

Her thesis, while not necessarily a negative in it's own right, hurts the "post-racial" image she attempts to portray.

Okay, so perhaps my statement was a bit heavy-handed, but I maintain she does have definite negatives she would have to overcome before considering a run for office herself.
Logged
Four49
Rookie
**
Posts: 197
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.42, S: -8.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 20, 2008, 03:53:01 AM »

I actually agree on those two points being negatives.  But I wouldn't consider them insurmountable.  People have short term memories.  If Barack's as successful as his fan base hopes, and future Dem Presidents don't screw up too bad, she has a built in base of 50-60 million voters, maybe more. 

Then again, like her husband, it will depend largely on the climate.  There would probably have to be an outgoing Rep POTUS with Bush like unpopularity. 

And her window would be small.  Like Hillary, she'd probably have to wait a while after her husband is out of office, in order to establish her own credibility.
Logged
Nixon in '80
nixon1980
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,308
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.84, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 20, 2008, 05:09:58 AM »

She's obviously smart and driven... I don't know, we just have to wait and see if she wants it.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 20, 2008, 09:25:17 AM »

She don't want it at all.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 01, 2009, 06:55:04 PM »

If Obama loses re-election then Kay Hagan could be on the ticket as soon as 2016.
Logged
Robespierre's Jaw
Senator Conor Flynn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,129
Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 01, 2009, 07:16:06 PM »

If Obama loses re-election then Kay Hagan could be on the ticket as soon as 2016.

I think Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton has a greater chance of being on a Democratic ticket in the near future than Senator-elect Kay Hagan and that's saying something.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 01, 2009, 07:19:27 PM »

If Obama loses re-election then Kay Hagan could be on the ticket as soon as 2016.

I think Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton has a greater chance of being on a Democratic ticket in the near future than Senator-elect Kay Hagan and that's saying something.

We will see.
Logged
Matt Damon™
donut4mccain
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,466
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2009, 08:21:02 PM »

Palin
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 01, 2009, 10:07:38 PM »
« Edited: January 01, 2009, 10:11:42 PM by bgwah »

From what little I know about her, Kay Hagan seems possible...

Cantwell and McMorris Rodgers have both been mentioned so far. I don't really think either of them will go any higher than they currently are.

Well, Cathy McMorris Rodgers will go higher--in that I think she'll become a very powerful member of the Republican leadership in the House--but I don't think she'll run for Senate or Governor (or President..). Maybe I'm crazy but I could see her being Speaker one day, which would be funny considering that district already produced one recently. I've just always gotten the impression that she'll probably keep her seat and focus on rising in the ranks of the House as opposed to seeking a higher elected office.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 01, 2009, 10:13:23 PM »

I think the trend leads to conservative women because a liberal is often considered to be a 'radical', to at least some small degree.  And society has barely evolved enough to accept female leaders, let alone a radical one. 

And I agree, if Hillary's success is a precedent, it's a dangerous one.  On many levels, but primarily, to me anyway, that a woman's success has to be initiated by that of her husband.  Same way Napolitano being single hurts her chances and is the main reason people think she's a lesbian.  Many still believe, even if they lie to themselves about it, that women 'have their place' and only begin to trust them if there's a 'good guy' in the background.

The first women Governors and Senators served because they succeeded their husbands or were in some way only in power because of their husbands, but no one today thinks that a successful woman candidate for Governor or Senator can only come about because of the woman's husband. Hillary's path was the same as previous women pathbreakers, and in that sense perfectly normal. If she had won, it absolutely would not have set a precedent, IMO, in that regard at the Presidential level.

On the other hand it would have demolished the notion that liberal women are somehow radical or unacceptable. The biggest irony there is that the most passionate Obama partisans usually argue that she lost because of her Iraq war vote.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2009, 10:46:26 PM »

Hillary isn't as liberal as most of her fellow Democratic female senators. She falls somewhere between the Boxer/Murray type and Lincoln/Landrieu type on that spectrum, so she was never deemed a whackjob.  Most female Republican senator are too liberal/moderate for their party at the national level too, which is why I tend to expect more from the female Democrats from southern states who can play the family values angle and whatnot.

Anyway, 10 years ago, there were 8 female senators. The next Congress will have 16-19 depending on final replacements of vacated seats. Women are incredibly more active in state and local politics than ever before, so it's expected that this number will continue to rise.  I wonder if there will ever be a day with 50+ seats being held by women.

We can only hope. I strongly believe women make better politicians.
Logged
ChrisFromNJ
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,742


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -8.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 01, 2009, 10:46:43 PM »

Future Senator Caroline Kennedy (D-NY)
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 01, 2009, 10:53:24 PM »

Hillary isn't as liberal as most of her fellow Democratic female senators. She falls somewhere between the Boxer/Murray type and Lincoln/Landrieu type on that spectrum, so she was never deemed a whackjob.  Most female Republican senator are too liberal/moderate for their party at the national level too, which is why I tend to expect more from the female Democrats from southern states who can play the family values angle and whatnot.

Anyway, 10 years ago, there were 8 female senators. The next Congress will have 16-19 depending on final replacements of vacated seats. Women are incredibly more active in state and local politics than ever before, so it's expected that this number will continue to rise.  I wonder if there will ever be a day with 50+ seats being held by women.

We can only hope. I strongly believe women make better politicians.

Why? Women are just as vulnerable to moral failing, greed, corruption, or heartlessness as male politicians. Yes, statistically, they tend to be more liberal than the average within both parties, but it all depends on the woman. Gender essentialism would be a mistake, IMO.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 01, 2009, 11:04:20 PM »

Hillary isn't as liberal as most of her fellow Democratic female senators. She falls somewhere between the Boxer/Murray type and Lincoln/Landrieu type on that spectrum, so she was never deemed a whackjob.  Most female Republican senator are too liberal/moderate for their party at the national level too, which is why I tend to expect more from the female Democrats from southern states who can play the family values angle and whatnot.

Anyway, 10 years ago, there were 8 female senators. The next Congress will have 16-19 depending on final replacements of vacated seats. Women are incredibly more active in state and local politics than ever before, so it's expected that this number will continue to rise.  I wonder if there will ever be a day with 50+ seats being held by women.

We can only hope. I strongly believe women make better politicians.

Why? Women are just as vulnerable to moral failing, greed, corruption, or heartlessness as male politicians. Yes, statistically, they tend to be more liberal than the average within both parties, but it all depends on the woman. Gender essentialism would be a mistake, IMO.

No, I say that because women because most women's like the think out-side of the box to fix problems, men like plain black and white ideas. Also women more then men think about how things/actions will effect others. Also women know how to get people to do what they want. But that is just my view and how I see things.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 01, 2009, 11:07:34 PM »

Hillary isn't as liberal as most of her fellow Democratic female senators. She falls somewhere between the Boxer/Murray type and Lincoln/Landrieu type on that spectrum, so she was never deemed a whackjob.  Most female Republican senator are too liberal/moderate for their party at the national level too, which is why I tend to expect more from the female Democrats from southern states who can play the family values angle and whatnot.

Anyway, 10 years ago, there were 8 female senators. The next Congress will have 16-19 depending on final replacements of vacated seats. Women are incredibly more active in state and local politics than ever before, so it's expected that this number will continue to rise.  I wonder if there will ever be a day with 50+ seats being held by women.

We can only hope. I strongly believe women make better politicians.

Why? Women are just as vulnerable to moral failing, greed, corruption, or heartlessness as male politicians. Yes, statistically, they tend to be more liberal than the average within both parties, but it all depends on the woman. Gender essentialism would be a mistake, IMO.

No, I say that because women because most women's like the think out-side of the box to fix problems, men like plain black and white ideas. Also women more then men think about how things/actions will effect others. Also women know how to get people to do what they want. But that is just my view and how I see things.

Do you have any proof of this or is it just your conjecture?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,802


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 01, 2009, 11:14:45 PM »

I tend to like female politicians more, but that's usually just because I think they have more interesting personalities. And they're so fashionable.

But really, I do find a lot of them to be more pragmatic and reasonable than the boisterous male idealogues  within their respective parties, especially within the Republican party. A lot of my favorite politicians are female Republicans, and I hardly align myself with the party's typical ideology.

Perhaps they have interesting personalities because it is *more likely* to take an interesting personality to make a serious run for office as a woman. And fashions for women politicians are hardly well-defined by tradition, as both Clinton and Palin and others have proven.

As far as the Republican party, perhaps because within strongly conservative circles, it is not viewed on as a woman's "proper role" to be heavily involved with career, particularly if she has a family (as is requirement for most pols), and therefore there are a dearth of boisterous ideologues.

The point is, these can all be explained by probabilities and environmental factors, not some essential genetic trait that says that if X is a woman, X will be pragmatic and reasonable. Each politician should be examined individually.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 01, 2009, 11:28:29 PM »

Hillary isn't as liberal as most of her fellow Democratic female senators. She falls somewhere between the Boxer/Murray type and Lincoln/Landrieu type on that spectrum, so she was never deemed a whackjob.  Most female Republican senator are too liberal/moderate for their party at the national level too, which is why I tend to expect more from the female Democrats from southern states who can play the family values angle and whatnot.

Anyway, 10 years ago, there were 8 female senators. The next Congress will have 16-19 depending on final replacements of vacated seats. Women are incredibly more active in state and local politics than ever before, so it's expected that this number will continue to rise.  I wonder if there will ever be a day with 50+ seats being held by women.

We can only hope. I strongly believe women make better politicians.

Why? Women are just as vulnerable to moral failing, greed, corruption, or heartlessness as male politicians. Yes, statistically, they tend to be more liberal than the average within both parties, but it all depends on the woman. Gender essentialism would be a mistake, IMO.

No, I say that because women because most women's like the think out-side of the box to fix problems, men like plain black and white ideas. Also women more then men think about how things/actions will effect others. Also women know how to get people to do what they want. But that is just my view and how I see things.

Do you have any proof of this or is it just your conjecture?

Just my view.
Logged
Jeff from NC
Rookie
**
Posts: 174


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 01, 2009, 11:44:08 PM »

I don't think Bev Perdue will make it far.  She is part of a corrupt Raleigh establishment, and frankly ought to have won her election by more than she did since her opponent was the mayor of Charlotte.  (Charlotte mayors are not kindly regarded elsewhere in the state.)  She is a mediocrity.
Logged
Jeff from NC
Rookie
**
Posts: 174


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: January 01, 2009, 11:48:19 PM »

As for Hagan, one plus is that her husband is a multimillionaire, so that would be good seed money for a national campaign.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 15 queries.