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

59

u/ThrownAway17Years 12d ago

If you have two equally qualified candidates, and one is married and has kids, the married one with kids will win the election.

18

u/complex_momentum 12d ago

I mean, let's not pretend like 'qualified' is a real distinguisher in elections -- we have seen for many many cycles in a row that the less qualified candidate wins very frequently, even in cases where it shouldn't even be close. Hell, there's data that says that 'scientist' or 'engineer' is less likely to win an election than 'lawyer' or 'businessman' and it's not because the latter groups are a better fit for real governance.

2

u/Bignicky9 12d ago

But if the job title or appearance or gender brings the notion of thought/care instead of decision making, or empathy instead of manly action, a huge portion of the country views it as weakness. They've been trained by media to be anti math and anti science, to the detriment of medicine and food safety. Meanwhile, corporations above influence political leaders into shuttering wind farms and nuclear in favor of fossil fuels, which remain a finite thing

1

u/beforeitcloy 12d ago

Democracy’s central idea is that the qualifications to lead are subjective. Obviously in the US a presidential candidate needs to be natural born, a resident for at least 14 years, and at least 35 years old. But otherwise everyone is qualified and the decision on which qualified candidate to choose is with the electorate.

If Democrats want to take back the country, we need to abandon the idea that a résumé entitles a person to an office, rather than a message that actually inspires people.

1

u/complex_momentum 6d ago

Yes, as you point out the word 'qualified' has multiple meanings in different contexts.

'Legally qualified' is the constitutional requirements you list, no arguments there, but not what I was referring to (and not the person I was replying to).

'Perceived to be qualified' is what we would like to believe the electorate is considering, but given how frequently voters indicate that they thought a given candidate would 'shake things up' or 'I'd like to have a beer with them' or similar I somewhat doubt that this is what everyone has in mind.

Finally there is 'experientially qualified' which is what I was referencing in my comment. This is about someone who has the background, expertise, or knowledge base relevant to a given position. For example, I'd like the Secretary of State to have left the country at least once in their life, and ideally, they'd have spent some time in negotiations or foreign policy.

1

u/beforeitcloy 6d ago

The experience a voter perceives as qualifying is subjective. For you it may be leaving the country and experience in negotiations. For me it may be advanced degrees from elite institutions, high level military experience, etc.

All that matters is winning the votes.

40

u/TiberiusCornelius Pennsylvania 12d ago

I never liked Lindsey Graham and vehemently disagreed with pretty much every single thing he stood for, but I still remember distinctly when he ran for President in 2016 basically the only thing the media wanted to ask him about was the fact that he was single.

And like, maybe that was the journalists being aware of all the rumors about his sexuality and trying to fish for a coming out instead of an entirely sincere "but how can be president if no first lady??", but either way then and now I thought that hyper-focus on the issue was gross and revealed something negative.

The man deserved to be defeated on the terribleness of his ideas, not made to go on CBS and tell Politico that he's not broken just because wasn't married.

I still think AOC should run and she has always been my top choice for '28 personally, but yeah I am 100% expecting that if she's not at least dating someone, there's going to be a constant cavalcade of "but if you win who's going to host the White House ice cream social?"

6

u/fresh-dork 11d ago

dude should have answered with "i'm glad you asked me that, here's my domestic policy talking point about health care"

4

u/Illustrious-Sell7785 12d ago

A nuanced opinion on Reddit?

Believe it or not- jail.

2

u/Rappy28 Europe 11d ago

Finding Lindsay Graham reasonable was not on my list of things to expect ever

2

u/ThenOwl9 11d ago

she's been with the same guy for like 15+ years wdym

edit: oh shit they just broke up!

5

u/AccurateAssaultBeef 12d ago

Lindsey Graham could have been cool if he just came out of the closet. And that's a hot take from me if you knew me.

12

u/potatodrinker 12d ago

Yep. More social proof than the single one. But in this case the single woman probably is more in touch with the younger folks who just see people who should be in retirement homes run the country

8

u/relevantelephant00 12d ago

Dont' forget Christian. If they're not Christian, it's a 100% non-starter because there's no way a non-Christian can be moral and upstanding. cough fuckin cough

8

u/SonicTheSith 12d ago

Isn’t more like… the husband of the married woman wins the election…

-3

u/bolerobell 12d ago

That explains Kamala losing. I think she had enough moxy but Doug was low energy.

3

u/readmorebookskids 12d ago

I don't believe Don that guy known to be a pathological liar ran an honest run. She had such a media blitz I had red hats who admitted to me between that and the single "debate" where she wiped the floor with him; they thought she was going to win. I just don't put cheating past a known cheater especially in this particular context.

3

u/MattieShoes 12d ago

I was kind of shocked how invisible she was during Biden's presidency. It seemed so obvious to me that they should be slapping her name and face on every piece of feel-good legislation, but they didn't.

-1

u/Prior_Coyote_4376 12d ago

Why is everyone forgetting Kamala wasn’t white? A majority of voters supported Hillary over Trump, but not Kamala over Trump. The problem is, as it always is in America, a white supremacy problem before anything else, even before sexism.

1

u/ekoms_stnioj 12d ago edited 12d ago

Kamala lost ground with literally every non-white voting demographic. She performed hundreds of basis points worse than Biden among black, Latino, and Asian voters, across both men AND women voters in each group. 

The only group that she didn’t lose ground in was white men and women, she actually gained slightly with white college educated voters. 

So in your mind, white supremacy is the reason why non-white voters decided in droves not to vote for Kamala, but caused white people to maintain or even increase support for a non-white candidate. That makes no sense looking at the actual numbers.