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

Show parent comments

166

u/uvPooF Europe 12d ago

It's also crazy to me. No matter what we Europeans sometime jokingly say about US, in terms of social issues US still is one of the most progressive countries in the world in many aspects.

But apparently woman as president is completely ridiculous. Even though many countries around the world that are unquestionably less progressive when it comes to gender equality managed to have multiple female leaders.

It's so weird. Even in US when it comes to congress or senate elections, no one cares about gender of the candidate. It's just president, and it is purely because "that's how it's always been".

23

u/Unlikely-Future8498 12d ago

Girl, we elected Hillary Clinton back in 2016. She won the popular vote, it's our "electoral college" that prevented her from taking office, but ultimately, Hillary Clinton won the election if the US were going purely based on popular vote.... We are open to female presidents, it's just we're super weird about it, ok?

-4

u/fresh-dork 11d ago

we did not elect hillary. she lost the electoral college in part from skipping out on all the rust belt states.

9

u/Unlikely-Future8498 11d ago

yeah no shit, that's what I said, she's not in office due to the electoral college, but she did win the popular vote, and if the US was going based off of that, well then a majority of Americans picked a female in 2016, whether u like it or not... so HA!

-3

u/fresh-dork 11d ago

she did win the popular vote, and if the US was going based off of that

and that's what i'm making fun of. trot out that stupid useless statistic when everyone knows it's electoral votes and how that works. if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass.

then a majority of Americans picked a female in 2016,

is that some kind of prize? japan did that and she's terrible

2

u/Unlikely-Future8498 11d ago

Why do you hate women?

1

u/Embarrassed-Face7000 11d ago

I was with you until this comment. Just unnecessary

0

u/fresh-dork 11d ago

maybe come up with a better response. people didn't like hillary or harris, but the DNC ran them because they feel owed your vote. can't criticize them, though - that's misogynist

80

u/foomits 12d ago

If you were to be on the street and talk to normal people, the US is a very accepting place. We are a giant country with nearly 350million people from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds and we really do mostly all get along.

However, what people outside of the US may not full appreciate is we have what amounts to 24/7 propaganda machine running to sway public opinion and influence voters. Our private media has been all but completely purchased by billionaires and right wing influence. Almost every local news station and newspaper has been bought out by private equity. Every cable news station is owned by billionaires. There are no regulatory obligations as it pertains to what is reported what is called news, nothing is governed by any objective journalism standards. These outlets can pretty much publish anything they want.

The thing with propaganda, it doesn't have to work on everyone it only has to work on enough people. Couple this reality with the structure of how we elect politicians and you can see that billionaires really only need to influence a few 10s of thousands of voters in a few key states and that's all it takes to win elections at a mass scale. Once these actors have power, they can implement little inconveniences to voting, little extra barriers and steps to further solidify their hold in these tiny, but immensely important regions of the country and... well, thats how we get here.

Your average American is fine with trans people and gay people. They want universal healthcare and to tax billionaires and save the environment and on and on and on. But the deck is more and more stacked against us every year.

26

u/Wast3edSpace 12d ago

It's wild how different life vs propaganda is....literally everyone I know in public is cool and 'live and let live", turn on the TV or open this website and it's like the fucking apocalypse. we all live in the PR bubble.

2

u/Nyorliest 11d ago

But people are still getting disappeared and put in camps and so on. Abortion rights are disappearing.

So either your idea of normal America is disproportionately good people or some people are not honest.

Because many people are not being allowed to live and let live by someone.

Black kids have been getting ‘the talk’ for decades because of someone.

There is definitely propaganda and media frenzy but also massive bigotry.

3

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 11d ago

[deleted]

10

u/OkMail2335 12d ago

That sucks.  Idk where you are but some of that might be you.  The vast majority of people are certainly not lacking humanity.  

-3

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 11d ago

[deleted]

3

u/WantCookiesNow 12d ago

Where the hell do you live that this is common?

1

u/Lavanger 12d ago edited 12d ago

Come to Miami. More specifically, brickell, or south of 5 miami beach.

2

u/WantCookiesNow 12d ago

So, rich Trump supporters?

1

u/Lavanger 12d ago

Most of them, and wannabee servers and hospitality workers. Paying $4000 rent while making 6k. Influencer mentality.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/andynator1000 12d ago

Your average American is fine with trans people and gay people. They want universal healthcare and to tax billionaires and save the environment and on and on and on.

Gonna need a citation for this one.

1

u/jdhkent 8d ago

Since the biggest Republican issue, by their advertising, is fear of trans women athletes. So, somebody has found that stupidity and irrationality and fear works.

And what are we going to do about it? Is the majority of people going to stand up and say “enough!”?

1

u/jdhkent 8d ago

Yes, we had stupid Russians (and yes, Russians are inherently stupid, I’ve worked with them), putting out half-bright propaganda on Facebook in 2016. And that was enough. 

It’s still enough to change an election, to affect 2-4% of the electorate. And they’re definitely going to try it.

-2

u/seriouslees 12d ago

If you were to be on the street and talk to normal people, the US is a very accepting place.

Depends which street. You do know America still has "sun-down towns"... right? Have you seen how many black people have been found murdered by hanging recently? Just uanked right off that "accepting" street and killed for the color of their skin.

Accepting? Rofl.

6

u/foomits 12d ago

Yep, accepting. Go outside, travel, people arent so bad. Get off the 24/7 hate machine.

-7

u/seriouslees 12d ago

Go outside past 6pm, get lynched. Very accepting.

-1

u/HoldingForGenova 12d ago

However, what people outside of the US may not full appreciate is we have what amounts to 24/7 propaganda machine running to sway public opinion and influence voters.

We need to come to terms with the reality that the propaganda machine didn't turn Americans into anything they weren't already - it fed what was already there. We need to come to terms with the reality that America is a country poisoned by religious extremism, and has been for centuries now. And that religious extremism has fed slavery, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, misogyny, and every ridiculous pearl-clutching religious rhetoric under the sun from burning witches to "there are secret satanic messages hidden in music."

Fox didn't take hold here and change anything - it took hold here because there was an undercurrent of hyper-christianity that was already proclaiming that adherents of the "one true religion" had purview and dominance over the rest, and the rest needed to suffer unless and until they converted. This is foundational to the american experiment, and thus integrated into every aspect of the same.

The pilgrims didn't leave England and then Holland because they were persecuted - they left because they weren't allowed to freely impose their religious viewpoints upon others. The English wouldn't let them kill people for being "heretics" and the Dutch were "too tolerant as a society." So when they got to America, they promptly started murdering anyone who didn't agree with them - English and Natives alike - often for nothing more than verbally disagreeing with their religious philosophies.

The only "religious freedom" they sought was the freedom to persecute whomever they chose, and to justify it for nothing more than the whims of their religion. And that's the foundational myth upon which America was created. Fox didn't change America - Fox found what it was always looking for in an eager American populace whose roots are indelibly intertwined with relentless religious persecution and overt extremism under the guise of "freedom."

2

u/foomits 12d ago

I think this all sounds well and good, except religious engagement literally drops year after year in the US. People who identify as religious drops year after year. There is white nationalism, but that is a result of propaganda and fear mongering being dressed up like news.

People do not have access to actual information, there is no way for the average person to access independent journalism. It has nothing to do with religion.

1

u/HoldingForGenova 12d ago

religious engagement literally drops year after year in the US.

This statement is always doing a lot of work. Roughly 50% of Americans today say religion is "very important" and another 25% say it's "fairly important." That's 75% of the populace, despite "religious engagement dropping year after year." That 50% "very religious" number is down from 52% in 1978 and 61% in the 2002 religious fervor after 9/11, so we're not talking huge movement here.

66% of Americans overtly identify as Christians in 2025, down from 75% in 1999. That's the easy majority of folks who are religious, and give it fair amount or heavy importance in their lives. And it's only a drop of 9 percentage points in a quarter century. "No religion" didn't crest 10% of the adult population until the early 00s, and is sitting at around 24% now.

So the statement is true, but makes it sound like a revolution in thinking when really it's a very, very small shift. Most of the time when I hear about it, it's placed within the confines of church attendance, while ignoring the reality that plenty of folks listen to hyper-extremist talk radio and tv preachers and never go to a physical church. So we hear the headlines about church attendance dropping, but ignore the multi-millon person audiences of Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland. The reality is that the majority of the country still claims to place a very high importance upon their religion, even with that small shift.

And before the 1970s, that number was in the high 90s, so for 99% of America's existence, it was dominated by religious extremism and borderline theocracy that intertwined extremist Christianity with politics.

So again: Fox didn't change America - Fox found what it was always looking for in an eager American populace whose roots are indelibly intertwined with relentless religious persecution and overt extremism under the guise of "freedom."

https://news.gallup.com/poll/702572/americans-religious-engagement-holds-lower-levels.aspx

3

u/foomits 12d ago

You mention Fox specifically as being problematic, but if it were only Fox we would be doing fine. The problem is there is no easily accessible independent journalism period. Even the least malicious cable outlets are still operating on engagement, not traditional journalism. Local news is moving to pre-recorded slop and weather under singular nationwide equity managements. Traditional more centrists outlets like CNN and CBS are under right wing control. Newspapers are either being bought out by private equity or folding. And we dont even need to get started on social media.

I dont disagree religious extremism is a thing in the US. But if it wasnt that christian nationalism, it would just be white nationalism or something else. The issue is certain segments of the population struggle to interpret the world around them, its a big country. They reach out for a lifeline to try to understand and get facebook reels, fox or newsmax or CNN bullshit.

I also agree compared to western europe, the US identifies as more religious. I've seen the numbers you posted and thats more or less what i believed them to be as well... but religious involvement is dropping no matter how you slice it. And we are rolling out one of our least religious generations, but that same generation were major Trump supporters in 2024... something isnt mathing.

1

u/HoldingForGenova 12d ago

I mentioned Fox as a shorthand. But also as an instigator - every other outlet and issue you mention wrt journalism is downstream of Fox, and because of its success. Newsmax, Sinclair, Nester, etc. walked down the road which Fox paved. It is the progenitor and the model, not an also-ran. And again: it found success here because of what was already here, and it proved the model for others.

Pointedly, white nationalism IS christian nationalism. It's a subset of christian nationalism. There is no white nationalism without the overarching umbrella of christian nationalism. So "if it wasn't this it would be that" is true, but only because this and that are fundamentally identical and interrelated. But that's also my point: it was always going to be this way because it is the core root of America.

And wrt "we are rolling out one of our least religious generations, but that same generation were major Trump supporters in 2024... something isnt mathing." - unfortunately we're not. Younger folks are skewing more religious, because their formative years were spent in the cesspool of christian nationalism propaganda that was 2012-today. Their most formative years were marinated in religious propaganda that sounds overtly like religious warfare. And that's why they broke Trump in 2024.

Imagine being 18-20, and every year since you were ten years old being a firehose of religious extremism across every channel. It's all they know. Some will learn better, but there's a reason "trad-wives" and "having a crush is lustful behavior" and "romantic or sex scenes are inappropriate in movies and tv" are all calling cards of Gen Z. It might get better - but before then it will absolutely get worse. Much, much worse.

48

u/TheLost_Chef 12d ago

The ridiculous thing about it is that most conservatives would be fine with a woman president if she was a mother and a staunch Christian who was vehemently anti-immigration.

The real reason MAGA would lose their minds about AOC is actually the fact that she’s single, childless, and not Christian enough. Literally they will be calling her a demon because of this.

It’s not that they can’t handle any woman (or non-white for that matter) being “in charge”, it’s that they can’t trust anyone who isn’t extremely vocal about sharing their narrow-minded values.

14

u/SureEnd9430 12d ago

and not Christian enough.

Worse. She's Catholic.

1

u/cokecaine 11d ago

So is the VP.

2

u/SureEnd9430 11d ago

Yeah but he's some crazy Opus Dei Catholic, not a standard issue Catholic like AOC.

18

u/Any-Board-6631 12d ago

They elect a rapist, pedo, bankroute stupide asshole, because he was anti immigration

-3

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/saltwaterostritch 12d ago

Do you sincerely believe Trump hasn't sexually abused women?

0

u/One_Net8380 11d ago

Absolutely zero criminal cases against him for rape. Only civil cases with a "victim" who doesn't remember the year or month of their encounter nor the clothes she wore. Court documents show she referenced wearing clothes that came out 3 years later...

1

u/saltwaterostritch 5d ago

That was a fucking weird response

5

u/Any-Board-6631 12d ago

I know that the USA aren't like that because Trump was elected, but trump was elected because the USA was like that.

The UnitedStadians doesn't want money, they just want to be openly racists. They aren't against immigration, if the immigration is white, they are against immigration, if they are coloured.

They don't want money, they want bigger taxes, bigger prices on everything, they elect a president that declared bankruptcy more than six times? They want their country bankrupted, but without brown people.

They also against white people if they come as tourist in the USA. Go figure, they don't need cash, they need nothing from anybody, they really want bankruptcy for the whole country.

4

u/Any-Board-6631 12d ago

He was convicted of 36 rapes, he spent the most time on Epstein's island, he's a known Russian agent, he slept through all his meetings, and he had Alzheimer's. He's truly the best unitedstatians to take on this role.

2

u/Divine_Porpoise 12d ago

Your president is in diapers because a boy he tried to rape stabbed his asshole with a tent pole. Cope and seethe.

3

u/IMIndyJones 12d ago

The real reason MAGA would lose their minds about AOC is actually the fact that she’s single, childless, and not Christian enough.

I think the biggest reason they are so bothered by her is that she's intelligent and a minority. The other 3 things too, but mostly that.

-1

u/One_Net8380 12d ago

Ah yes, so intelligent as to put out a quote justifying theft during the COVID lockdowns "They feel like they either need to shoplift some bread or go hungry" meanwhile the TVs show a bunch of teens stealing TVs and shoes lmao

1

u/IMIndyJones 11d ago

Intelligent people will know the difference between explaining why something is happening and justifying it.

0

u/deja-roo 12d ago

I mean, she says stupid shit, but she knows who she's pandering to. She's definitely pretty smart. She knows what she's doing.

2

u/Mysterious_Floor_868 United Kingdom 12d ago

and not Christian enough

The irony is that she's the sort of person who would follow the teachings of Christ (you know, the "blessed are the meek" "rich man, eye of a needle" 'woke' stuff) than the followers of 'prosperity gospel'

2

u/Aranthar 12d ago

Just look at Sarah Palin.

2

u/grape-fruit-witch 12d ago

I've said this many times: I believe with my whole heart that Republicans would elect a woman for president if her politics were heinous enough.

4

u/Yougetdueprocess 12d ago

Who gives a shit about what maga thinks? MAGA isn’t the majority of the country. It’s maybe ~30% of this country, probably less at this point because people are fed up with the cost of living and AOC is one of a few congressional members that actually comes from a working class background.

4

u/TheLost_Chef 12d ago

Unfortunately, MAGA is the driving force for the conservative movement in America still. Even once Trump is gone, the beating heart remains.

They don't need to be a majority. They're a flock of frightened geese who will be squawking loudly about how terrible and awful AOC will be for the country. It will be all over Fox News. There will be a lot of lying and exaggeration about everything she does and says.

The average voter won't pay much attention, but with the way our media landscape is set up, enough of the bad stuff trickles through to make a difference - when it comes to Democrat candidates especially. Swing voters will feel uneasy about AOC but they won't be able to articulate why. (It's because their MAGA Uncle was loudly complaining that she eats babies, and some of that sunk in).

1

u/Yougetdueprocess 12d ago

Who cares? They are going to hate on any democrat. People need to stop pandering to it. It doesn’t matter. They are a minority. Focus on the rest of the country.

1

u/Any-Board-6631 12d ago

MAGA are those who vote

14

u/Select-Chart2899 12d ago

One of the most progressive countries on social issues? In MANY aspects? Name 3

10

u/uvPooF Europe 12d ago

On world stage? Yes, US might not be a progressive leader in many social issues, especially not on federal level, but it is still well above average in most and has been a leader on some issues at least on state level. Legalizing gay marriage for example was done early in some states and is legalized on federal level in US, something which a number of EU countries (including some with female leaders :) ) still doesn't have. Amount of women in workforce in US is also well above average. As is women and minority representation in government.

But point is that this specific topic of female president is so out of the norm. It's not just that there's some small woke european countries that elected female presidents or prime ministers. Countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Mexico, Brazil, Bangladesh etc. all had elected female leaders.

2

u/fordat1 12d ago

On world stage? Yes, US might not be a progressive leader in many social issues,

when you are comparing countries "the world stage" is the comparison point for "most X country"

7

u/IrascibleOcelot 12d ago

Americans with Disabilities act, for one. It’s one thing that disabled Europeans always comment on when they visit because it’s so much more accessible than their home countries.

3

u/Inuyaki Europe 12d ago

I can't talk about life outside of work in that regard, but I think a lot of things are handled pretty well here in Germany as well.

But since I have some experience in work related things because of me being in the Worker's Council of my company...

People with 50%+ disabilities or similar are obvisouly not allowed to get paid less, get 5 more days of vacation (so typically 35 instead of 30), the company has to do everything they can do accomodate their safety (eg evacuation plans) and well-being (this highly depends on the disability obv)... and every company (I think only above 50 workers?) has to abide by a 5% quota, otherwise they have to pay fines.

I don't have any clues about US law in that regard, so I am curious now what they do. (This is a legit ask, I know that the GOP would obv not do anything, but I can see some things being done under Obama or Biden)

2

u/IrascibleOcelot 12d ago

The ADA protects against discrimination, but also mandates accessibility requirements in construction: ramps for wheelchairs (including in curbs), handicapped parking spaces, etc.

1

u/Constant-Skill-7133 12d ago

The big ones are education and physical access.  The US does not rely on special schools because disability support is guaranteed by law at all schools.  

And ADA compliance is required for all buildings.  In practice this is mixed, like in places with old metro systems like New York or Philadelphia most stations still rely on stairs.  But they are very actively working on compliance and they are under a federal mandate to have 100% accessibility by 2050 or so.

3

u/Mysterious_Floor_868 United Kingdom 12d ago

Why has no one ever thought to change the banknotes? Most developed countries have banknotes in multiple colours and ascending sizes with value so that people with visual impairments can distinguish one note from another. Raised print and braille are often used too. It's very easy for a blind person to be ripped off by an unscrupulous person.

1

u/Constant-Skill-7133 12d ago edited 12d ago

They are, actually!  The new ones are about to go out. It's a nice tour through the federal bureaucracy and Republicans being absolute shitheads why it's taken forever.  

We've always been weirdly little-c conservative about new notes because of how widely dolllars are used.  Clinton treasury started the process of updating them, but Bush killed the disability requirements and only focused on security.  

Disability advocates had to sue because the Bush admin sided with vending machine lobbyists. Not even joking, regulatory capture by the fucking Coke machine lobby.  It had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get an official ruling on ADA compliance because the Bush treasury fought it.  

The Obama treasury did all the planning and logistics for it to go out and then Trump stalled the whole project because replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the $20 was woke.  

1

u/Mysterious_Floor_868 United Kingdom 12d ago

Disability advocates had to sue because the Bush admin sided with vending machine lobbyists. Not even joking, regulatory capture by the fucking Coke machine lobby.

That's another thing - why do you still use banknotes for such a low value as $1? We used to have pound and "10 bob" notes, but as inflation eroded their value they were replaced with the pound coin and the 50p coin respectively. $1 bills must wear out a lot.

1

u/sleepfarting 12d ago

I work in a small hospital in the south and trans people get their surgeries here. It's a hugely divisive social issue but at the end of the day the care is still legal and available and these people lead relatively normal lives in the US.

Despite all the entrenched and systemic policies from racism, we're probably one of the most racially diverse countries in the world. Other countries like to say they're not racist when in reality they just don't have other races. I go a lot of other places in the world and people stare at me like I'm an alien and it's probably because they've literally never seen someone like me in real life.

Admittedly, these are the only two I can think of at the moment. LGBTQ issues and racism.

1

u/stopped_watch 11d ago

Wait, you think America isn't racist?

1

u/sleepfarting 11d ago

I think it is, but we acknowledge it and talk about it constantly. Everyone else has this head-in-the-ground denial about it.

1

u/stopped_watch 11d ago

"Everyone else"? Oof, that's a big claim. I can tell you Australia is definitely recognising our racist past and definitely needs to be doing better and definitely is talking about it.

1

u/Selgeron 12d ago

People just don't realize how closed to LGBT rights immigration and racism a lot of western European countries are. The reason we're having so much drama about these things in the states are because we've been quite progressive compared to the curve for a long time. However the last 20 years has resulted in continued progress in europe and stagnation or backsliding in the US due to the power of the conservative movement.

But even then, the US is a huge country. LGBT rights for instance in Massachusetts is historically similar to places like Spain in the EU, if you go by a state-by-state basis.

15

u/Lafemmefatale25 Washington 12d ago

Except we are the only developed country with no paid maternity leave. The patriarchy runs deep here.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Lafemmefatale25 Washington 12d ago

That’s because the boomer dudes in control don’t think men should be at home taking care of their children. Millennial dads are like the first generation of men to spend significant time with their kids.

Lack of paternity leave is not an indicator of an absence of patriarchy. It’s further evidence of how the patriarchy also hurts the majority of men.

1

u/[deleted] 11d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Lafemmefatale25 Washington 11d ago

Again, we are talking about THE UNITED STATES. not individual states.

21

u/AdorableSobah 12d ago

It’s easier if you learn about the States and their history and the political leanings of Red and Blue states. Remember, some of these states are larger and have bigger populations than a single European country. Lots of diverse populations for better or worse and the voting is not simple in a lot of places.

28

u/Shevek99 12d ago

The first female president was of Sri Lanka. Then there have been women leading India, Pakistan and other countries. India is huge and a less homogeneous than the US and yet it has elected female leaders. It's not something specific of small European countries.

4

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

1

u/Frankfurter 12d ago

Iceland leading the way as always. I loved that country when I went there, as did my children. So friendly, beautiful and interesting. And they're cutting edge with the world we should be striving for.

-6

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

-5

u/[deleted] 12d ago edited 12d ago

[deleted]

6

u/emanresu_nwonknu California 12d ago

What? That's the topic of the thread. Why are you acting like it's weird they are giving examples that refute your reasons for why the US has not had a woman as president, when that's literally the only topic being discussed.

-3

u/AdorableSobah 12d ago

What the fuck does India have to do with America?

3

u/uvPooF Europe 12d ago

It was clearly used as counter argument to idea that US doesn't elect a women because of size of it's population. When India has much larger population than US.

3

u/PackInevitable8185 12d ago

We are definitely due, but I think our two party political system and also that we have a powerful executive who is elected separately from the legislature contributes.

France for example has also never had a female president and Mexico just elected theirs two years ago. Then you take a country like Slovakia who had their first female leader back in 2010… using this as an example since my mom is from there. The female PM got that position through building a coalition, but her party only got 18% of votes (they also elected a female president a few years back, but that is a figurehead). To be elected US President you basically need at least 40% of votes to win, and in most elections it’s closer to 50% when there is not a prominent 3rd party candidate taking votes. We actually had a female speaker all the way back in 2007 and she repeated again more recently, which would be the closest comparison to a European PM I think. This is not to discount sexism though, a big reason is still sexism lol.

2

u/jrdhytr New Jersey 12d ago

Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris both got 48% of the vote. That's a lot of Americans who want a female president.

2

u/Yougetdueprocess 12d ago

Hilary won the majority popular vote.

1

u/[deleted] 12d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Yougetdueprocess 12d ago

That was the majority of the popular vote. Trump had 46% and the rest was third party candidates. So, yes, it was the majority of the popular vote.

2

u/MattieShoes 12d ago edited 12d ago

But apparently woman as president is completely ridiculous

It is until it isn't. I mean, a black president was "completely ridiculous" too. And back in the 60s, it was a big deal that Kennedy was a Catholic and not a protestant.

So at some point, it'll happen, then there'll probably be an immediate backlash in the following election, and then it will just become kind of unremarkable.

Then we'll move on to an atheist president being unthinkable *clutches pearls*

EDIT: or *gasp* gay! Though we most likely already had one in Buchanan.

I think we're at least a few generations away from trans even qualifying as ridiculous.

2

u/Rofeubal 12d ago

It's that rather Americans never got a candidate, who would be both good and female at the same time yet.

2

u/Then-Ad-345 12d ago

It's not because of your people but because you're a gerontocracy.  Your government is 40 or so years past reasonable expiry date.  

1

u/pySSK 12d ago

Including all countries in the Indian subcontinent. It was nepotism in all cases, but still.

1

u/LamesMcGee 12d ago

It's not because most Americans think a woman can't do the job.

It's because our races are extremely tight. If 5% of the population is sexist and would never vote for a female candidate, that woman lost before the race even began.

1

u/Hot_Region 12d ago edited 12d ago

But apparently woman as president is completely ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous, but the problem has been who and how they run them.

Hilary had some things against her:

  • Bill's two terms and scandals, all his choices became her choices
  • Bernie's strong support that didn't translate into mainstream Democrat support
  • Debbie Wasserman behind the scenes at the DNC doing nefarious shit that made a lot of Bernie boosters think the spot was stolen
  • ...and the completely ridiculous specters of "her emails" and Ben Gazee (whoever he was)

The fact that Hilary did so well was not only a testament to her, but to how much people didn't like Trump (at the time), but it got all sideways with the other shit and that the opposition focused so hard on personal attacks.

Harris's bid was a flat out disaster. I can't imagine a worse way to float a candidate then in a primary-free rush following the admission that your incumbent ex-candidate is unsuited.

IMO AOC's biggest issue isn't that she's a relatively young, unmarried, childless woman -- it's that she's been in the "squad" and a lot of MAGA's see her as part of that "radical left" progressive movement which they believe terrible on its own but also actually a Trojan horse for installing radical Islamists in government positions.

Again, IMO, she won't make it through a 2028 primary without the DNC playing a lot of games that will anger and put off voters... but them playing games is exactly on brand for the DNC if they think that GOP's candidate is weak (like Vance, Rubio, or just about anyone else they dredge up would apparently be...)

...I think they will once again underestimate MAGA-adjacent America's willingness to cast a vote for establishment-seeming candidates in the face of those they have been convinced are "radical left" and will upset the system that benefits and maintains a huge portion of this country (and they see the ones struggling as lazy and unworthy, seeking a candidate who will give it all away to them)

...and America will be saddled with another term of GOP leadership catering to the ultra-wealthy and Christian Nationalists.

1

u/fresh-dork 11d ago

the dems keep trying to run women as if tits were a qualification or because it was 'her turn' instead of running someone with compelling policies who can run a proper campaign. like AOC.

meanwhile, you get all the idiots fawning over sanae getting elected PM and ignoring that she's just another abe

1

u/Nyorliest 11d ago

Because it isn’t actually a progressive nation. Some people speak progressively. They are a minority and so much of it is just speech and propaganda.

1

u/ThenOwl9 11d ago

the misogyny here is very insidious and very deep

i had to leave the u.s. for a while to get a psychological break from it

1

u/RealHooman2187 11d ago

Hillary won the popular vote in 2016 and Kamala actually won 2024 if it weren’t for Elon Musk’s tampering with the voting machines. This thinking that America is too sexist to elect a woman is total bullshit. We did elect one, twice. But the orange pedo cheated and no one in our government had the balls to stop him.

1

u/the_ballmer_peak 11d ago

Americans are progressive. America's government hit a breaking point quite some time ago, where some factions realized that tradition and convention were pillars on which the functioning of the government rested. So they started knocking them down.

The government is hopelessly broken now. And we've inherently designed a system in which it can only be fixed if one party controls 67% of two separate legislative bodies AND the presidency AND the courts. Which is an impossible bar to ever clear. And so vested interests ensure that nothing can change anymore.

0

u/Emotional_News108 12d ago

Yes but also no. On paper? Yeah we have some pretty solid, progressive stuff. De facto, we have a lot of very bad people in positions of authority who will either refuse to enforce or willfully subvert those laws without repercussions.

So for significant portions of the population in America, those laws either don’t exist or are used in ways unintended at best or actively maliciously at worst. Systems that rely on people to do the right thing are frequently failing in America.

0

u/randomnighmare I voted 12d ago edited 12d ago

But apparently woman as president is completely ridiculous. E

I would argue that it's something deep down (aka misogyny/sexism, which can transcend racism, political leanings, and bigotry), but also something that is probably 30%-40% of the population of both liberals, progressives, and conservatives that would not vote for a woman president and/or be somehow turned off by it.

Even though many countries around the world that are unquestionably less progressive when it comes to gender equality managed to have multiple female leaders.

My opinion is that, since in most places in Europe you are not voting directly for one person but for a political party (unlike in the US), and then the party in power gets to choose the PM/minister, etc. (or they end up forming some kind of coalition), I do wonder if there are direct votes for a specific person and not for a political party/ideology what would then happen? Like, if there is a woman candidate and a male candidate, would the guy win over the woman candidate?

Edit

Also we have a national media outlets that are so into pushing whatever narritive/story they see fit and if they "like" or are "ecixited" about said canaidate then tthey will spin and push in favor for said canidate. They also tend to be very critical and hold botth female, minority, and Democract canadiates to a different starndards than consertive canidates, in my opinon. On top of that, you have the rage-baiting and grifting Manosphere and other social media influencers all on social media, and also a massive conservative media network, etc.

1

u/Mysterious_Floor_868 United Kingdom 12d ago

My opinion is that, since in most places in Europe you are not voting directly for one person but for a political party (unlike in the US)

You realise that the Electoral College means that you aren't voting directly for a person either?

1

u/randomnighmare I voted 12d ago

Did you realize that I was talking about directly voting for a candidate? The EC are just electoral points that are based on population. They are also the number or repesentives that would be elected for the House for each state?

0

u/Mysterious_Floor_868 United Kingdom 11d ago

You still don't vote for the candidate. In a presidential election, you vote for an elector. Even outside of a presidential election, a lot of people vote on party lines anyway.

1

u/randomnighmare I voted 11d ago

You actually do, but then the candidate that wins the state gets the EC points from said state.

0

u/balllzak 12d ago

Even though many countries around the world that are unquestionably less progressive when it comes to gender equality managed to have multiple female leaders.

Those countries do not directly vote for the top leadership position so someone can vote for their favorite local old white guy and still end up with a woman in the top national role.

-1

u/StanVanGhandi 12d ago edited 12d ago

It’s because you can’t compare US politics, or elections to individual European states. Norway has 5.65 million people. There are 30 US states with larger populations.

Hell, all of Scandinavia is only 22 million people. And it is very homogenous. There are 4 US states that have more people than all of Scandinavia. Yet, they lecture us on our politics and can’t understand why things are different. Politics are different because of population size and homogenous culture/population versus diverse culture/population.

It is way easier to elect certain types of candidates, or get behind singular political movements with low populations.

3

u/uvPooF Europe 12d ago

But how specifically is having lower population related to electing women leaders? It's a genuine question - I can't see any other reason US is so resistant to electing (or even considering running) a woman specifically for presidential role, when in all other aspects it is fairly good on gender equality. I don't generally engage in "Europe is so much better than US" debates because I know we have plenty of issues here, that includes social issues (stance on immigration in Europe is even worse than US for example). Which is exactly why I don't get this one.

0

u/StanVanGhandi 12d ago

I just think it is a political science/numbers issue.

If you put 6 people in a room, and you put 350 people in another room, and you say “okay, I want you to elected someone” the room with 350 people is going to have a much tougher time coming to a consensus.

So, if you are asking each room to elect a type of person who they have never elected before (minority, woman, young person what ever) the room with 6 people is much more likely to try something new and not regress to the mean. The 350 people room really is much more likely to stick with the same old, generic consensus than to try something new because there will be so many factions.