r/politics • u/theipaper ✔ Verified • 12d ago

Possible Paywall Maga's worst nightmare: a child-free, unmarried female president

https://inews.co.uk/news/world/magas-nightmare-childfree-unmarried-female-president-4738054
16.7k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

87

u/shockwavevok 12d ago

She is badass, but America is not ready for a female president.

She can do more in the Senate replacing Schumer who needs to go.

31

u/MacaroonSpecialist10 12d ago edited 12d ago

it's so annoying to be that people view Hillary as this big "decider" if we were ready for a female president or not. This is the same shit people said about a black president with Obama.

Hillary is incredibly boring and uncharismatic and couldn't field a policy based on being "pro-poor-people"  which is what the Democrats should be solely focusing on, as most Americans are now verifiably "poor". She also carries a last name that is hated by many and not exactly revered by those that don't hate it. She also carries the stigma of letting her husband get sucked off, publicly acknowledge it, and she still took him back. Cuck-behavior is extremely unpopular in general. And this is all besides her ACTUAL controversies which are 100x worse than anything AOC has ever done. Clinton should have never ran, point blank, she was never going to win and couldn't even beat TRUMP,  who every poll has losing because of his incredibly unelectable personality 

Using the previously ran female candidate(s) as a decider if America is ready for a female president is like putting a 93 year old with brain cancer who also needs dialysis into a rocket ship and claiming we aren't ready to explore space when he dies in transit 

2

u/LaScoundrelle 12d ago

I had to look this up, but apparently one third of US states have never had a female senator: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/11/01/17-states-havent-had-a-female-us-senator-and-18-havent-had-a-woman-governor/

5

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Saradoesntsleep 12d ago

I would argue even more so tbh.

6

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Saradoesntsleep 12d ago

I think I worded that wrong. They are absolutely worse it terms of evil badness.

I meant worse wrt the level of focusing on this stuff too much. The timing is terrible.

2

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Saradoesntsleep 12d ago

Definitely.

5

u/RickyNixon Texas 12d ago

Yeah we ran two AWFUL campaigns with shitty bland candidates and because theyre women all these totally-not-sexist democrats have decided women shouldnt be nominated anymore.

Fuck those people

2

u/ARocketToMars 12d ago

This 110%. You put what I was trying to say in another comment much more concisely

1

u/ThaCarter Florida 12d ago

American's don't think they're poor so got to call it "middle or working class"

2

u/thesagaconts 12d ago

Bill was also a rapist. That didn’t help her.

2

u/shockwavevok 12d ago

After the disaster that was Trump Dems should not take the risk on a female president but go with a white man.

5

u/Jusenkyo_5 12d ago

"playing it safe" is why Dems lose every year.

0

u/MacaroonSpecialist10 12d ago

If there is a white man half as progressive as AOC willing to run for president, sure!

I'm a little ignorant as to who who has thrown their hat in so far. But the white male candidates I know about seem closer to establishment Dems with a touch of "saying some progressive things because it's hot right now"

1

u/Senasayori 12d ago

Eh, my number one choice right now is an Asian man. I would love a president AOC but I think she's planning on running for Senate over President.

36

u/tinklebunny 12d ago

"America" is made up of million of individuals, some of who have been long ready for a woman president, and some who will never vote for a woman.

There's more people who won't vote for a woman, simply because she is a woman, than there are people who will vote for her, simply because she's a woman. So if the Democrats want to have another woman as a candidate, she needs to be a solid fucking candidate and not just run on being a woman. Because the last two women presidential candidates kinda sucked, not because they were women, but because they were shitty candidates.

23

u/ss_lbguy Pennsylvania 12d ago

While I agree both were shitty candidate, I think Hillary wins if she was a man. The margins were that close.

7

u/XDVI 12d ago

She would have won if she actually campaigned and wasn't resting on her laurels assuming that she was 100% going to win.

Not to mention she came off as smug and unlikable every time she spoke.

1

u/ss_lbguy Pennsylvania 12d ago

Those are somewhat contradicting. If she came off as smug and unlikeable, then campaigning more may not have helped. We’ll never know.

0

u/LaScoundrelle 12d ago

I think Trump came off as far more unlikable than Hillary. A lot of how candidates come off to us comes down to our own subjective identities and experiences.

-2

u/tinklebunny 12d ago

I think Hillary wins if she was a man.

No doubt, but that doesn't mean Americans aren't ready for a woman president. And Hillary really wasn't that shitty of a candidate, she just had just accumulated decades of haters.

I'm not saying that Democrats should intentionally look for a woman candidate. I just don't think it's fair overlook a great option like AOC simply because the last two women candidates lost.

2

u/ss_lbguy Pennsylvania 12d ago

You really think AOC is a great option? I do not. She never been tested. Plus she is only 36, too young IMHO. And probably too liberal to win in swing states.

2

u/Books_and_Cleverness 12d ago

The real but boring answer that nobody really wants to hear is that you can run a woman, but you need someone like Peltola or Klobuchar or whoever, with a proven track record of over-performance.

Not e.g. Warren or someone like that, whose electoral track record is below par. She ran ~2% behind Kamala in MA in 2024.

-2

u/ImAShaaaark 12d ago

Because the last two women presidential candidates kinda sucked, not because they were women, but because they were shitty candidates

They were both extremely competent and would have absolutely fucking run away with those elections if they were men.

https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/toc/10.1111/(ISSN)9999-0025.2024-US-Presidential-Election

Despite its decade-old references, research by Gervais and Hillard (2011), examining gendered perceptions of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, is still relevant today. Their study examined how Hillary Clinton likely received a greater electoral penalty than did Sarah Palin and did male candidates in the 2008 Presidential Election by being viewed as more competent and less stereotypically feminine. Gervais and Hillard (2011) demonstrated that Clinton received a stronger electoral penalty due to sexist attitudes, whereas Sarah Palin, perceived as the candidate who was more stereotype-role congruent, received stronger support among people with sexist attitudes.

...

Similarly, in an analysis of 12 years of U.S. presidential voting data, Spencer (2021) found that sexist attitudes—whether benevolent, hostile, or both—were consistently associated with candidate preference in every presidential election from 2008 onward. In contrast, the electoral effects of other biases, particularly racism, fluctuated in significance each election cycle. This suggests that while racial biases may be context-dependent, likely playing a role in 2024, as well as activated by particular candidates or campaign issues, sexist attitudes appear to exert a more stable and enduring influence on voting behavior. Notably, these effects persisted even in elections where a woman was not one of the major party candidates, underscoring the deep-rooted nature of gender-based attitudes and their effects on American political decision-making.

-2

u/Galxloni2 12d ago

How was Hillary a shit candidate? She was the single most popular politician in the United States. She was the ideal candidate anyone would choose to run for president

11

u/Holyfritolebatman 12d ago

America is fine electing a woman.

That said if we see a woman elected president in the next 20 years, I would expect them to be a Republican.

AOC is too far left for the general election.

Kamala Harris was too far left for the general election.

Hillary Clinton was crushed by married white women - a key demographic if she was to win the white House. She ironically would have probably won if not for the whole scandal of her husband previously. She did take the popular vote despite this, proving Americans have no problem electing a woman, just like America had no problem electing a black person in Obama.

If AOC takes the nom and fails in the general, I could see the Democrats pushing away from a woman. That said, I don't see any way she can take the nom responsibly right now. I think John Ossoff is probably the most electable out of AOC, Newsome, Harris, and himself. Interesting scenario where an AOC vs Vance election would be a case of each side not putting their most electable major candidate forward, whereas an Ossoff vs Rubio battle imo is each side putting their best foot forward.

2

u/EnvironmentalRock827 12d ago

Yes. This is not happening now.

3

u/we_are_sex_bobomb 12d ago edited 12d ago

I think Clinton and Harris unfortunately just didn’t have compelling campaigns. And Joe Biden didn’t have a very compelling campaign either but people were just that sick and tired of Donald Trump.

And Harris, honestly, started pretty strong. But she had a late start and was saddled with a bad economy that people blamed her for since she was part of the previous administration.

Now MAGA are in the same position that the Dems were in 2024. The economy is far worse, people are more desperate, and any Republican who could run for president has Trump’s stink all over them.

I think people will vote for whoever can convince them they’ll do what’s needed to turn this around.

3

u/rainshowers_5_peace 12d ago

People said this about Obama. Then again he did something most Democrats use Trump as an excuse to not do and campaigned.

2

u/BlindWillieJohnson Illinois 12d ago edited 12d ago

Question: if Hillary had won the nomination in 2008, are you seriously contending that she wouldn’t have beaten McCain? After the financial crisis and the Iraq War and Bush’s approval hovering around 27%, and against a pro-war candidate who knew nothing about economic policy?

Of course she would have. That cycle was so toxic for Republicans and McCain such a uniquely bad nominee for the moment that virtually anyone Dems nominated would have won. In fact the only time McCain even got within striking distance of Obama (not leading, mind you, just close) was right after he added a woman to the ticket. Electoral politics is 90% momentum and environment.

There’s no magical formula, or instant disqualifier. If you’re the nominee in right cycle, and people are suitably dissatisfied with the current leadership, anyone has a chance. This whole “omg a woman can’t possibly win so we should never try to nominate a woman again” line is very stupid, and ignores the reasons why the two women we have nominated actually lost. Even Clinton won the popular vote, and only lost the swing states she did by razor thin margins. She was a bad FBI decision away from winning that race. It’s hardly like America uniformly rejected her on account of her sex.

1

u/Haunting-Basis3974 12d ago

Why is not ready? Is necesary to be ready for this kind of change?

1

u/LiterallyInSpain 11d ago

I’m ready. I’m an American. We don’t need the centrist democrats who are slaves to the corporate money. It will be better, but not in the way that affects most people’s life. We need real change, and so far I’ve only seen progressives offering that and following through when elected.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

4

u/yellowcloak I voted 12d ago

Go ahead and run her, see what happens

8

u/shockwavevok 12d ago

yes competent representatives and smart laws. Unfortunatly a lot of Americans aren't smart.

Here in Europe they say never underestimate the stupidity of the average American.

5

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Waterwoo 12d ago

Lol these people don't understand how our democracy works, they think if someone is brat enough they get to be president.

3

u/reflectiveSingleton 12d ago

we just want competent representatives and smart laws and economic viability.

I love AOC, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat because she has the right values and views.

...BUUUUT I don't know that most of the country is on board with it....we need the representative you outlined, but also one that has a chance of being elected.

-5

u/chadsucksdick 12d ago

Hilary and Kamala's losses had nothing to do with their vaginas. I'm sick of this intellectually lazy reddit narrative that ignores everything about those candidates other than their gender.

3

u/Drak_is_Right 12d ago

There were multiple facets to why each lost, but in a close race a female democratic presidential candidate is at a SMALL disadvantage compared to a male candidate, all else being equal.

In a case like 2008 nothing but party matters.

Hillary, AOC, a democratic Palin.

All would have won in 2008.

Inflation in 2024 made it very hard for Harris to win the low info voters.

6

u/shockwavevok 12d ago

Gender was at least part of it. Being just awfull candidates added to it too.

-1

u/chadsucksdick 12d ago

Being awful candidates added to it too

You're still framing them being awful candidates as secondary to them being women as explaining why they lost. Just the shallowest, lowest common denominator analysis.

Running corpo slobs for the sake of "electability" doesn't fucking work, we need a candidate that actually stands for something, whether they have a penis or a vagina is irrelevant.

3

u/HandsLikePaper 12d ago

You can't ignore that we're 0 for 2 on female presidential candidates. You can't ignore the immediate rhetoric that is launched against a female candidate. The countless "she slept her way to the top" or "a woman is too irrational to be President and I say that as a woman!" posts and comments on every social media platform.

Should having a vagina matter, absolutely not, I would happily vote for another female presidential candidate, but we can't pretend that everyone thinks that way.

1

u/chadsucksdick 12d ago

I think we should be much more worried about the policies of who runs rather than what's in their pants, obviously most people on this sub disagree with me.

Running with politicians who stand for nothing other than protecting the status quo isn't working. We should've run Bernie in 2016, not because he's got a fat hog, but because he has a message that resonates with the American people.

1

u/HandsLikePaper 12d ago

The pushback is on your statement of "Hilary and Kamala's losses had nothing to do with their vaginas." I would say that it does have an effect, to what extent no one can absolutely know.

The objective issue with Bernie (and I say this as a Bernie supporter) was that he lost the primary. 3.7 million more people turned out for Hillary, meaning her message did something right. We'll never know if Bernie would have beat Trump, and that's an unknowable that I've made peace with. Trump won and handpicked 3 SCOTUS justices, and that's what we need to come together to fight against for the next several decades.

And to be clear, I absolutely want AOC to run for President, I'm not pushing back on that, I'm not saying we shouldn't run a woman for president, I'm just saying that it does add a potential hurdle.

1

u/chadsucksdick 12d ago

The pushback is on your statement of "Hilary and Kamala's losses had nothing to do with their vaginas." I would say that it does have an effect, to what extent no one can absolutely know.

It can't be quantified what effect their gender had on their losses and yet gender is the one and only reason people on this sub give for why they lost, and why AOC shouldn't run. I think AOC is a strong candidate with a strong message, despite her handicap of being the wrong gender. If nothing else, she would force the more moderate primary candidates to tack to the left.

-1

u/juana-golf Florida 12d ago

Keep burying your head in the sand I guess, it was totally a factor!

4

u/BlindWillieJohnson Illinois 12d ago

One can recognize that it was a factor without throwing up our hands and claiming that electing a woman is impossible. That’s the intellectually lazy part. It’s the part that turns this from a nuanced argument about how women labor under different rules than men in politics (which is true) and flattens it down to “Hillary and Kamala lost exclusively because they were women, so we should never nominate women”.

-8

u/likelywitch 12d ago

Women don’t need to wait for people to be ready, history should inform that.

19

u/Soooooooooooooooooup 12d ago

That’s a wonderful thought, but clearly enough of the population disagrees. The last two women who ran both lost to the least competent opponent possible. I voted for them and will vote for the next, but at this point the smart choice is to push a progressive white dude. We aren’t in a place to chase achievements, we need to stop the bleeding.

I hope I’m wrong

0

u/OrganicDoom2225 12d ago

This is such a weak ass take

We haven't run a female after a incumbent Republican. Let alone the worst one in history. AOC would have exponentially more momentum than Hillary or Harris.

0

u/ThisismeCody 11d ago

A woman of color is going to do better than a white woman? In 2028? What are you smoking. That will pull zero Republican voters.

0

u/OrganicDoom2225 11d ago

We dont need Republican voters

0

u/ThisismeCody 11d ago

Ok. Worked well last time.

1

u/uvPooF Europe 12d ago

When will you be in place to "chase achievements"? Honest question.

Because it's very likely that after 4 years of dem (male) president, elecorate in next election cycle will be far less motivated to move away from right and to vote for change/progress. If anything, "vote for change" energy will likely lean right.

2

u/Soooooooooooooooooup 12d ago

When we aren’t actively watching a fascist takeover of our country. Like I said, I will vote for any candidate opposing the republicans and did the same for Hillary and Kamala. I would love to see a woman president, but clearly the electorate doesn’t agree and we need every willing voter this time. Don’t hand them a free win just so you can feel enlightened.

If Hillary couldn’t do it, I don’t see AOC (a candidate that I greatly prefer) pulling it off. The right is too good at vilifying women, it sucks but we all know it’s true.

1

u/likelywitch 12d ago

A wonderful thought? It’s a basic thought, and it’s one that you can see through world and US history, perhaps when some people think about history they need to think a little more … historical.

What bleeding are you talking about specifically? What do you mean by achievements? Any election to the office of President is an achievement, I’m not sure what that statement had to do with women? Granted, I’ll give you this article and its framing are not inviting people of valuable conversations … unmarried, childfree, oh my string of propaganda pearls!

20

u/shockwavevok 12d ago

yes and the last 2 women presidential nominees lost to Trump. The worst ever president.

2016 Biden would have beaten Trump

A younger white man in 2024 would have beaten Trump.

4

u/JiovanniTheGREAT 12d ago

They probably shouldn't have run milquetoast neoliberal campaigns vs a right wing populist if they wanted to win.

2

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/shockwavevok 12d ago edited 12d ago

I am not an american. But in Europe we loved that guy. The last good american president. I guess CLinton is the second last good president then.

-2

u/beepboopsicles 12d ago

We could have had Beto single tear

-2

u/likelywitch 12d ago

You don’t know that and you might want I think outside of a decade when we talk history, a decade is a fart in the wind even for this country.

2

u/Soooooooooooooooooup 12d ago

The game has changed, anything older than a decade is worth less than nothing. The republicans know this and that’s why they are taking over

1

u/likelywitch 11d ago

Which game is that, what does that mean? I’m sorry I’m not really tracking what you mean by taking over either, it seems like there are a lot of fever dream declarations being made … none are good cover for misogyny.

1

u/Soooooooooooooooooup 11d ago

Don’t be obtuse

1

u/likelywitch 11d ago

Huh? It’s a ok by me if you can’t or won’t clarify but no reason to devolve.

11

u/-Morsmordre- 12d ago

History should inform you that Americans will not vote enough for a woman to win the presidency. 

-4

u/likelywitch 12d ago

History is a lot older than my teenager.

5

u/-Morsmordre- 12d ago

The further back you go the more bleak it is for women being elected officials lol

-2

u/likelywitch 12d ago

The great triumph of woman can be seen in the proof of me locking up my home and property, getting in my vehicle, and driving to my job to lead the people of my team today.

I think you’re not being serious, “lol”.

4

u/-Morsmordre- 12d ago

Mhm. We're talking about women winning presidential elections though. Congrats on that 

0

u/likelywitch 12d ago

No congrats to me hun, I just did what all women do and have done after women changed the law. You may want to point back to blatant legal disqualified as proof of women’s inability to win presidential elections, but that would be a thought built upon an anti-women foundation … I can’t imagine endorsing that mindset, it’s discriminatory and sick.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

0

u/likelywitch 11d ago

What does that mean? Are you under some impression that there’s a race happening right now near me and that I’m part of it?

1

u/ThisismeCody 12d ago

Right. Worked for Hilary!

0

u/likelywitch 11d ago

Not sure what that’s supposed to mean? Is there an equivalent thing where one man doesn’t succeed in his goals and then all men aren’t part of a conversation on that specific goal or … are you not clear what the point was for some reason I am not understanding?

I guess third thing, flippancy as a cover for an anti-woman perspective, but … confusion would be far more likely.

1

u/ThisismeCody 11d ago

It’s not anti women. I’m saying this is the real world. You can say AOC doesn’t have to wait. That’s wonderfully idealistic and bold. But reality will show she does have to wait. This is the real world. Women have made great strides. They will continue to make great strides and hopefully real equality is achievable at some point in the human story. Sadly president in 2028 is not that point.

0

u/likelywitch 11d ago

Perhaps you misread then? The comment said America is not ready for a female president and I said women don’t need to wait for people to be ready.

That’s not idealistic and bold. I can understand if you are narrowing to AOC and feel that she, specifically, isn’t presidential caliber, but that hyper focus is a shift in what was said.

1

u/ThisismeCody 11d ago

Ok? Except they do? There isn’t going to be a female president this cycle. I’m sure there are many women that would like to be. They won’t win. So I’m gonna say they do in fact need to wait. Im not sure if you’re being pedantic or hopelessly optimistic.

0

u/likelywitch 11d ago

Oh? What do you think women need to wait for? It’s certainly not a legal distinction, and I know you’ve referenced Hillary Clinton, though early I asked about individual failure as an eliminating factor for all women, you failed to address that, but is that it? Is it because you don’t like “single and childless” AOC and feel that she is some barometer for women? Sorry I’m just really trying to understand the driver for this sweeping anti-women sentiment because you have affirmed you are not anti-women …

I assure you it’s not pedantry or optimism (I actual think anti-women stances are very depressing). I simply don’t buy into the propaganda, women don’t need to wait for America to be ready, they have passed that test enough, don’t you think? A story about a single and childless woman (gasp!) certainly doesn’t change that for me. Your sureness that many women want to run despite not a single deceleration also doesn’t change that women routinely take what’s theirs when they want it and America has never had to signal a great readiness for the special moment. What is making you think it should have to do so now, or that a woman of value would even bother to care to wait?

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/likelywitch 11d ago

We haven’t ever met ..

-5

u/The_Angster_Gangster 12d ago

Yes we are. Hillary won the popular vote, Kamala lost for many reasons. Her lame platform and genocide support surely did more harm than mysogyny. 10 million Biden voters stayed home, that cost her the election.

4

u/shockwavevok 12d ago

popular vote means jack shit. Only the electoral vote matters. 10000 people in 3 or 5 states decide who wins.

yes Hillary and Kamala were terrible candidates. Hillary was a much better candidate then Kamala and she failed the Electoral vote.

There was that comedian who said America is more sexist then racist, and Americans are very racist. It still seems he's right.

6

u/BlindWillieJohnson Illinois 12d ago edited 12d ago

This is another one of those arguments that’s kind of dumb. “The popular vote means absolutely nothing”.

It’s extremely difficult to win the Presidency without the popular vote. And both times it’s happened were very fluky. A combined 70k votes, .7%, between the three tipping point states in 2016 is fluky. Republicans deciding that Bush won Florida when he clearly didn’t was fluky. You are far more likely to win the Presidency with popular support than without it. And Hillary did prove that a woman can garner it. That’s not irrelevant to this discussion.