What is the earliest Presidential election a _______ could be elected?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:45:22 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  What is the earliest Presidential election a _______ could be elected?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What is the earliest Presidential election a _______ could be elected?  (Read 894 times)
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 19, 2023, 02:38:35 PM »

Regardless of when one actually was, or even if any have been at all. For example no woman was ever been elected President but Hillary Clinton obviously could've been without some boneheaded campaign moves, and it's quite the stretch to say all women would've been unelectable in 2000 as well.

So what's the earliest election (if it's happened yet) you think any of these groups could be elected? Actual date for ones who have in parantheses:

Non-WASP (1836)
Catholic (1960)
Jew
Muslim
Unaligned theist (*)
Woman
Black (2008)
Bisexual
Homosexual
Trans
Atheist
Has many visible tattoos
Emo fan

*Technically we've already some like Thomas Jefferson and possibly Lincoln, but those were during times when one's such personal beliefs weren't very advertised or known to voters, so here I'm asking in a more modern time when that's known.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,521
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2023, 02:41:23 PM »

Regardless of when one actually was, or even if any have been at all. For example no woman was ever been elected President but Hillary Clinton obviously could've been without some boneheaded campaign moves, and it's quite the stretch to say all women would've been unelectable in 2000 as well.

So what's the earliest election (if it's happened yet) you think any of these groups could be elected? Actual date for ones who have in parantheses:

Non-WASP (1836)
Catholic (1960)
Jew
Muslim
Unaligned theist (*)
Woman
Black (2008)
Bisexual
Homosexual
Trans
Atheist
Has many visible tattoos
Emo fan

*Technically we've already some like Thomas Jefferson and possibly Lincoln, but those were during times when one's such personal beliefs weren't very advertised or known to voters, so here I'm asking in a more modern time when that's known.

This one is interesting.  I would say there was a period ~1915-75 when someone with these views couldn't get elected, but not hard at all before or after that.
Logged
Atlas Force
mlee117379
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,268
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2023, 03:52:37 PM »

It’s worth considering not only the willingness of the electorate to vote for someone from one of these groups, but also how many prominent politicians are from the group in question to begin with. After all, the more politicians a certain group has, the bigger the chance is that one of them will rise in prominence enough to at least get on a major party ticket.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2023, 04:24:36 PM »

Jew: 1950s. Post-World War II introspection with a boom in postmodernist war literature, slightly delayed as is typical for societal reflection on wars, was clearly the turning point for antisemitism in American society. It made the difference between Milton Shapp changing his name in the 1930s to him playing a visible role in Kennedy's 1960 campaign, not to mention Goldwater's run.
Muslim: 2070s. I think Gen Z wouldn't mind, but 9/11 needs to pass out of living memory, and that's when the youngest Millennials are as old and numerous as World War II veterans today barring a significant extension of the average lifespan. There will always be enough latent Islamophobia among those who were there when the post-9/11 nationalistic pandemonium kicked off IMO. Plus, secularization and diversification needs time to advance.
Woman: 1980s. Long enough for second-wave feminism to have made its mark and for there to be examples of woman leaders to point to internationally, like Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher.
Black: 1990s. Colin Powell could have done it. Any earlier and you run into latent pre-crime drop racism.
Homosexual: 2020s. Public opinion was changing before the unfair AIDS stigma, and it was only delayed after that started waning in the late 1980s by the political capital that the religious right gained from 9/11. After they were discredited, things moved fast during the 2010s, to the point where conservatives have been trying to court gays into the current moral panic against trans people.
Bisexual: 2020s. Ditto, and although bi stereotypes are a serious issue (they're generally and unfairly stereotyped as "more promiscuous"), a bi political candidate would be received about the same as a gay one by the electorate if they conformed to heteronormative gender roles.
Trans: 2080s. Similar situation as Muslims in that younger Gen Zs came of age when the gender binary was seriously contested in the 2010s and probably wouldn't be latently transphobic in aggregate.
Atheist: 2010s. I think enough people would be ready after the religious right was discredited.
Logged
MyLifeIsYours
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 378
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.74, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2023, 08:28:55 PM »

Non-WASP (1836)--1820's
Catholic (1960)--1950's
Jew--1960's
Muslim--2050's
Unaligned theist (*)--1800's
Woman--1980's
Black (2008)--1990's
Bisexual--2030's
Homosexual--2020's
Trans--2030's
Atheist--2030's
Has many visible tattoos--2020's
Emo fan--2030's
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,693
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2023, 10:49:25 PM »

Beto could've conceivably won in 2020 if he ran like he did in 2018 instead of that wacko campaign he did.
Logged
Born to Slay. Forced to Work.
leecannon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,788
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2023, 11:28:47 PM »
« Edited: December 20, 2023, 03:44:24 AM by Born to Slay. Forced to Work. »

Part of me thinks there was a narrow chance of a woman being elected president in the 40s with Frances Perkins becoming VP and succeeding Roosevelt. She was obviously close to him being one of the few people to last his entire presidency.
Logged
Bismarck
Chancellor
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,342


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 20, 2023, 11:09:35 AM »

Non WASP is less meaningful than non Protestant Northern European. The Dutch elite were pretty firmly in the WASP camp. FDR was Dutch but no doubt the most waspy POTUS.
Logged
progressive85
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,312
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2023, 02:17:39 PM »

Jew - 2000, a plurality of Americans voted for a Jewish vice president this year.

Muslim - 2050s, I can see this happening more with a charismatic black candidate that was Muslim but not very religious.

Unaligned theist (*) - 2030s, it would be a Democratic candidate who doesn't have a denomination but believes in God, Heaven, prayer, etc.

Woman - 2028.

Bisexual - 2070s, I actually think a gay person would get elected before a bisexual one.

Homosexual - 2050s for a woman, 2060s for a man.  It would actually not be that hard to imagine a popular and likable lesbian candidate becoming POTUS.

Trans - Not in this century, although I do predict that gradually we'll see a disproportionate number of trans people run for office and actually do very well at the statewide level.  Maybe for every 100 trans people, 30% or more are either somewhat or very involved in electoral politics by the 2050s.  When you're under attack, you gotta fight back.

Atheist - 2060s, but they'd have to not say anything that would be criticized as anti-religious.  A simple "I'm not religious, more so spiritual" would be enough.  For someone that said "I don't believe in God" that would be around 2100.

Has many visible tattoos - In a country where that's common among everyday people, it won't even be something to talk about, so 2028.  Besides, they'd be covered up mostly all the time.

Emo fan - lol.  2024... a personal like of a certain kind of music is not enough to cancel them out as a POTUS.  We'll probably have POTUSes who are really into heavy metal once we get into Gen X and the millennials.

Many of these automatically become more likely if the person is a celebrity first.  They don't even need to have political experience.  A popular enough celebrity (whether its acting or music or sports, etc.) can bypass the political process and run with wider instant name recognition.
Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2023, 02:22:23 PM »

Part of me thinks there was a narrow chance of a woman being elected president in the 40s with Frances Perkins becoming VP and succeeding Roosevelt. She was obviously close to him being one of the few people to last his entire presidency.

Keep in mind that the scenario is asking if a woman could be elected outright. The post-World War II purge of the rosies- and the insistence throughout the war that women's gains were temporary- makes me doubt that she's taken seriously. If she falls into the job like you suggest, she's seen as a caretaker until the next election, which itself would be a testament to the progress made by that first waver generation of suffragist activists.
Logged
Born to Slay. Forced to Work.
leecannon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,788
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 20, 2023, 02:47:32 PM »

Part of me thinks there was a narrow chance of a woman being elected president in the 40s with Frances Perkins becoming VP and succeeding Roosevelt. She was obviously close to him being one of the few people to last his entire presidency.

Keep in mind that the scenario is asking if a woman could be elected outright. The post-World War II purge of the rosies- and the insistence throughout the war that women's gains were temporary- makes me doubt that she's taken seriously. If she falls into the job like you suggest, she's seen as a caretaker until the next election, which itself would be a testament to the progress made by that first waver generation of suffragist activists.

There are examples from that time period of women who fell into office but were able to campaign and keep it. Hattie Carraway is an example of this. If, for example, Perkins succeeds FDR in 1945 she’s have essentially a full term to get the party behind her and set up for re-election in 1948.


It’s not a likely scenario, but I think it is the earliest a woman could have been elected president. After that I don’t think till the 70s of 80s though.
Logged
Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook
The Obamanation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,853
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 20, 2023, 07:17:50 PM »
« Edited: December 20, 2023, 07:21:54 PM by Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook »

Part of me thinks there was a narrow chance of a woman being elected president in the 40s with Frances Perkins becoming VP and succeeding Roosevelt. She was obviously close to him being one of the few people to last his entire presidency.

You could also count her for bisexual, although she obviously was not open because 1940's.

Non-WASP (1836)
Catholic (1960)
Jew
Muslim
Unaligned theist (*)
Woman
Black (2008)
Bisexual (2008, didn't you read the letters that Obama said he was into men? Closeted though.)
Homosexual (1856, though closeted)
Trans
Atheist
Has many visible tattoos
Emo fan


Fixed.
Logged
ProgressiveModerate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,562


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2023, 01:24:25 AM »

I feel like for a lot of these, it depends upon how they present.

A good example would be Obama 2008 - when he ran, he defied many of the negative stereotypes about black people and was able to win. I think if he was a black man that fit into certain stereotypes, even physically, he may have had a harder time (i.e. darker skin, an urban African-American dialect, ect).

Same goes for gay/bi folks. I think America could theoretically elect a gay President like Pete Buttigieg in 2024, however, a gay man who presents as more submissive and feminine, defying many traditional gender roles would probably not be able to win.

I think for a lot of these groups, individual members could be elected, but members who fit into certain subsets of these groups wouldn't be.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2023, 08:11:13 AM »

I feel like for a lot of these, it depends upon how they present.

A good example would be Obama 2008 - when he ran, he defied many of the negative stereotypes about black people and was able to win. I think if he was a black man that fit into certain stereotypes, even physically, he may have had a harder time (i.e. darker skin, an urban African-American dialect, ect).

Same goes for gay/bi folks. I think America could theoretically elect a gay President like Pete Buttigieg in 2024, however, a gay man who presents as more submissive and feminine, defying many traditional gender roles would probably not be able to win.

I think for a lot of these groups, individual members could be elected, but members who fit into certain subsets of these groups wouldn't be.

The major issue for Gay candidates is actually the polarization. The best for one would be Blue/Purple state Republican or a Red State Democrat, but a gay male would have to be a notch or two to the right of a heterosexual one in a similar fashion to how Obama initially signaled that way.

The best trajectory would probably be a Gay Lee Zeldin. Gay, ultra Pro-Cop(which in the current climate would mean major fights with Pride groups which have seen a total ACAB takeover) immigration and whose credit for "ending anarchy" in a blue state would get him credit in the right. At the same time being in a blue state would get them forgiven some stuff.

Also if married with kids they would probably need a Sister Souhjah moment of stating how uncomfortable they were with sex in schools and give a heartfelt interview in favor of parental rights. That they would likely be hated by activists and the feeling would be mutual would aid them

This person probably couldn't win the nomination. They could potentially stumble into the Vice Presidency however

Logged
Born to Slay. Forced to Work.
leecannon
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,788
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2023, 08:30:52 AM »

I feel like for a lot of these, it depends upon how they present.

A good example would be Obama 2008 - when he ran, he defied many of the negative stereotypes about black people and was able to win. I think if he was a black man that fit into certain stereotypes, even physically, he may have had a harder time (i.e. darker skin, an urban African-American dialect, ect).

Same goes for gay/bi folks. I think America could theoretically elect a gay President like Pete Buttigieg in 2024, however, a gay man who presents as more submissive and feminine, defying many traditional gender roles would probably not be able to win.

I think for a lot of these groups, individual members could be elected, but members who fit into certain subsets of these groups wouldn't be.

The major issue for Gay candidates is actually the polarization. The best for one would be Blue/Purple state Republican or a Red State Democrat, but a gay male would have to be a notch or two to the right of a heterosexual one in a similar fashion to how Obama initially signaled that way.

The best trajectory would probably be a Gay Lee Zeldin. Gay, ultra Pro-Cop(which in the current climate would mean major fights with Pride groups which have seen a total ACAB takeover) immigration and whose credit for "ending anarchy" in a blue state would get him credit in the right. At the same time being in a blue state would get them forgiven some stuff.

Also if married with kids they would probably need a Sister Souhjah moment of stating how uncomfortable they were with sex in schools and give a heartfelt interview in favor of parental rights. That they would likely be hated by activists and the feeling would be mutual would aid them

This person probably couldn't win the nomination. They could potentially stumble into the Vice Presidency however



The candidate you described would hemorrhage support from democrats
Logged
Pres Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,222
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2023, 10:07:02 PM »

Non-WASP (1836)
Catholic (1960)
Jew: 1992?
Muslim: 2100

Unaligned theist (*): 1788
Woman: 2008

Black (2008)
Bisexual: 2020, but only a woman who is married to a man
Homosexual: Heat death of universe
Trans: Heat death of universe
Atheist: 1788
Has many visible tattoos: Heat death of universe
Emo fan: 2028 (We already had kids of presidents be fan of emo)
Logged
Republican Party Stalwart
Stalwart_Grantist
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 365
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 24, 2023, 12:21:38 AM »

To the extent that "White Anglo-Saxon Protestant" is a useful demographic category in American political studies to begin with, Martin Van Buren in 1836 really shouldn't be considered "non-WASP." "WASP" really should include "WASP-passing" and "WASP-adjacent" in most circumstances. The Dutch as a nationality/ethnicity are socially and culturally a very close group to the majority-Protestant ethnicities of the British Isles, and the Dutch-Americans (even if possibly less so in the pre-Civil War Era than in the post-) are by far the most WASP-adjacent "white ethnic" population in the United States, with the possible exception of the French Huguenots.

Non WASP is less meaningful than non Protestant Northern European. The Dutch elite were pretty firmly in the WASP camp. FDR was Dutch but no doubt the most waspy POTUS.

FDR, unless you consider '"elite"/"rich" in America' to be an innately "WASP-y" category, was pretty far from being the "most WASP-y POTUS" (he's beat by literally every Republican President to date). Your post otherwise was 100% correct.
Logged
Reactionary Libertarian
ReactionaryLibertarian
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,048
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 27, 2023, 12:08:27 AM »

Regardless of when one actually was, or even if any have been at all. For example no woman was ever been elected President but Hillary Clinton obviously could've been without some boneheaded campaign moves, and it's quite the stretch to say all women would've been unelectable in 2000 as well.

So what's the earliest election (if it's happened yet) you think any of these groups could be elected? Actual date for ones who have in parantheses:

Non-WASP (1836)
Catholic (1960)
Jew
Muslim
Unaligned theist (*)
Woman
Black (2008)
Bisexual
Homosexual
Trans
Atheist
Has many visible tattoos
Emo fan

*Technically we've already some like Thomas Jefferson and possibly Lincoln, but those were during times when one's such personal beliefs weren't very advertised or known to voters, so here I'm asking in a more modern time when that's known.

Wasn’t James Buchanan gay?
Logged
TheReckoning
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,653
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 27, 2023, 06:01:30 PM »

Regardless of when one actually was, or even if any have been at all. For example no woman was ever been elected President but Hillary Clinton obviously could've been without some boneheaded campaign moves, and it's quite the stretch to say all women would've been unelectable in 2000 as well.

So what's the earliest election (if it's happened yet) you think any of these groups could be elected? Actual date for ones who have in parantheses:

Non-WASP (1836)
Catholic (1960)
Jew
Muslim
Unaligned theist (*)
Woman
Black (2008)
Bisexual
Homosexual
Trans
Atheist
Has many visible tattoos
Emo fan

*Technically we've already some like Thomas Jefferson and possibly Lincoln, but those were during times when one's such personal beliefs weren't very advertised or known to voters, so here I'm asking in a more modern time when that's known.

Wasn’t James Buchanan gay?

There is no evidence that is true. And saying otherwise tells me you think men can’t have close relationships without being gay.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.245 seconds with 12 queries.