A Woman, A Gay Person, A Jewish Person, An Hispanic Person, A Muslim, or An Atheist
List in order the odds of a person from one of those groups becoming President of the United States in the next 32 years.
Before I can answer, I must ask for clarification. Would the gay have to be completely "out" to be counted? Must he/she be a declared atheist and not an agnostic? If the Jew had one Christian parent would that then make a difference? Likewise if the Hispanic were of mixed race? You didn't consider an Asian or Indian or any other minority either. Also we might have an Hispanic VP soon. How does that figure into the equation, especially is the Hispanic is female?
We don't really need a Jew President. They already have a ton of control.
Being Hispanic isn't bad in the US. The crime is being a poor Hispanic. A wealthy Hispanic could be elected without much stress about him being Hispanic. "Hispanic" covers a large number of people - a lot of whom appear to be white.
Hillary Clinton would have beat John McCain and Mitt Romney both if she had been the nominee in both elections. 'Nuff said about women's electability.
As long as he's running on the Republican ticket, yes.
We're in fantasy territory here. Frankly, neither this or the next two are going to happen in the next 32 years. Religious people are crazy, and there are simply too many of them to allow a non-religious person to get a major party nomination, let alone the presidency.
Only if they start migrating like crazy and have as many children as they can to constitute a majority of the population.
Too many religious people. Hell, in most of the country, we can't even marry and can be fired at will. We should probably nail down the civil rights everyone else has before we expect to win the presidency.
Jews and women would be tied for #1. Hispanics would be just below them, although I'm not so sure of a Hispanic woman, although with there being one on the Supreme Court it sort of narrows the gap. I hate to say it about anyone gay (as I am), but it will be a long time (50 years maybe?), I believe, before someone openly homosexual can win the Presidency and given the religious complexion of the US, I would be willing to say that Muslims (who carry the terrorist cachet, like it or not) and Atheists who are open about it would stand even less of a chance than gays would. On the local level openly homosexual people are becoming routinely elected outside the South, Mormonland and the retarded midwest square states (Dakotas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas) but nationally it's going to take a while--then again there was Barney Frank, but he was a mere Congressman, not a Senator.
Not a Muslim (despite the fact that half this stupid country believes we have a Muslim president - A Radical Muslim Socialist President). I am not seeing a gay person and I don't see a Jewish person either. Not once the ignorant repug part of the country finds out that Jewish people don't believe in Jesus Christ's resurrection. They'll freak out about that. For now they mostly just hate Jewish people because they're different from them. they don't bother to find out about why their different or anything else. That's the repugs reason for being - hating everyone who is different in any way from them.
Jesus is the poster boy for the nasty, hateful, bigoted, corrupt, reprehensible, greedy, cheating, sinning repugs who never practice what they preach.
But you know, we may have all these people as our next presidents (A woman, a gay person, a Jewish person, a Hispanic person a Muslim and an Atheist) in the next 30 yrs. As long as that person is willing to lie to the public. Repugs believe anything a repug tells them. That's the thing about them. They NEVER, EVER lets facts, proof, science and reason get in their way. They actually still believe that mitt romney, a renowned serial killer of American jobs was the leading creator of American jobs
A gay person would bring back much-needed classic Jackie Kennedy elegance to the WH. Tim Gunn for president.
The dumb fucks think we already have a Muslim person.
I'm sure he's an athiest and I'm sure he isn't our first athiest president.
I would say, a woman, a Jewish person, a hispanic person...we've probably already had gay, so?
[quote]On the local level openly homosexual people are becoming routinely elected outside the South, Mormonland and the retarded midwest square states (Dakotas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas)
R13, meet Joshua Boschee, North Dakota's first openly gay state legislator.
R19, Taft was fat enough to get on disability. Is that good enough for you?
OK, I'll concede that much r18, but Fargo, the big city in North Dakota, is probably a much more progressive area than North Dakota generally and it is right over the line from more progressive Minnesota. And being elected to the state legislature is, I think, a somewhat different kettle of fish than something on the national level, like Congress. But, that said, never say never--I would be somewhat surprised, considering North Dakota being solidly republican, if he is successful on the Federal level but thanks for the introduction, he might be worth keeping tabs on.
r19, are you forgetting Franklin Roosevelt?
I think r23 has nailed it.
Fargo is definitely more progressive than any other place in ND, but I'm still stunned that an out gay person was elected to anything.
And I do agree with you on the "retarded" thing.
Agree with r12.
1) A closeted gay man
2) A woman
3) A HIspanic Jew
4) A Hispanic Gentile
5) A Non-HIspanic Jew
6) An Atheist
7) A Muslim
8) An out gay person
Highest odds are for a hispanic person. The population is growing. They can be a Republican or a Democrat. They also come in any color you find desirable.
Next is women. It was pretty close with Hilary Clinton and a woman with less baggage(Bill) would stand a pretty good chance. The country is ready to let a woman take a crack at it.
The remaining are pretty tough now. A Jewish president would probably be the next likeliest. Then after that a Gay person.
A Muslim would be hard to elect in this country unless things radically change. An atheist would probably have the least chance. There are people in this country who're up in arms because a Walmart employee dares to tell them happy holidays. They're not ready for the non believers.
1. Woman or Hispanic
Wasn't Buchanan the first gay president?
2. Woman (this country is really sexist)
6. Out gay
Hillary will be the first woman AND the first gay person.
As a lot of you might know, here in Australia we have a female, atheist and (rumoured) lesbian as our Prime minister. She is every bit as bad as any other male/ christian/ hetero P.M. we have ever had. So, an interesting thread, but it really won't make too much different what combo any country may have/get.
They are all liars and scum.
(Maybe a Martian could throw a curve or two)
There is speculation about Buchanan r30 but that's about all it's ever going to be; the idea of "coming out" or "being open" then would at best be regarded as very eccentric and at worst deranged.
She's a lesbian but doesn't know it yet r31? That reminds me, I wonder what Bill is doing for sexx these days.
Hillary would not have beaten Romney. The only credibility she has is being married to Bill, who was a terrible president.
From crazy, this was R35. Back to you, reality.
[quote]She's a lesbian but doesn't know it yet [R31]? That reminds me, I wonder what Bill is doing for sexx these days.
oh she know it....is does her lover Huma.
I basically agree with R1. I think we'll have a woman president before any of the others. And then probably a Jewish president. A lot of the Sheriff Arpaio fan girls/tea party types would have to die before we get a Hispanic president. Unfortunately these bigots procreate. Americans are becoming less religious so I can see an atheist president in a few decades and then probably an openly gay one. Now, as far as a Muslim president, that's a tough one. I don't see that happening within the next 32 years.
A Jewish person
A hispanic person
A gay person (a lesbian before a gay man)
You do realize that Goldwater, Republican nominee for President, was half Jewish, R15.
You're all dreaming if you think a woman has that high a chance of becoming president any time soon. You forget what her own party did to Hillary and don't tell me that wasn't fueled by sexism. Most of the criticism about her was couched in sexist terms.
Before a woman - Jew, Hispanic, Atheist.
No. Hillary sank her own campaign years earlier when she voted for the Iraq War. Those of us with decent memory remember that that's what fueled Obama's early success in the primaries. He was perceived as the anti-war candidate.
I like Hillary, but the charges of sexism were by and large bullshit. In fact, she was able to discuss the potential historicity of her campaign in ways that Obama was not. I recall tons of interviews with her talking about how she wanted to inspire young girls. Had Obama said that he was running to inspire young black children, he would have been labeled a "reverse racist."
Hillary was labeled a ton of things, r42. And like r41 said, a lot of it was sexist.
But I also think that due to the election of Obama (not once but twice), it will now be easier for a woman to be voted in, despite the sexism. People are now more amenable to the idea. I think a Hispanic man may stand a better chance, though.
Bitch, cunt, dyke...regardless of what Hillary is, she still proved to be a viable candidate in 2008. Her gender had nothing to do with her loss. Like the fabled hare, she thought she was the inevitable winner and Obama proved that slow and steady wins the race. Quit trying to blame her failures on other people. It's actually pretty damn sexist to imply that women always have to be victims!
Woman, Jewish Person, Hispanic Person - 100% chance
Atheist - 75% chance
Gay Person - 50% chance
Muslim - zero percent chance. Our war will just be warming up by then.
I think it's interesting how people rightly predict that a Muslim has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming president! Just look at the UK...despite all the lamentations about the influx of Muslims, there's no way in hell a Muslim will become Prime Minister anytime soon (and they have the U.S. beat when it comes to placing a woman (Thatcher), a Jew (Disraeli), and an Atheist (Attlee) into power).
I don't think anyone is saying that's the only reason she lost, r44. It was one of many factors. You're the one trying to make things black and white.
1. Woman (Hilary has a high chance)
2. Gay (Nobody thought we will get an African American so early but we did. We have a better chance from our gay community)
3. Hispanic (Large population)
5. Jew (Most Americans don't trust a Jew. We are only nice to them because we are afraid of their power)
6. Muslim (Most Muslims aren't good politicians and this is coming from someone like me who is born and brought up as as Muslim)
A Woman, A Gay Person, A Jewish Person, An Hispanic Person, A Muslim, and An Atheist walk into a bar....
I am in my late twenties can't imagine an atheist or a Muslim becoming President in my lifetime. I could possibly see, like, a Colin Powell minus the Iraq war type military dyke being elected when I'm very old.
Silly thread. If a black man can be elected President in 2008 (and re-elected in 2012), then surely any of the above could become President by 2044.
5. Hard to say. Neither Muslim nor Jew for at least the next 40-50 years. If we're still around. But honestly, I think we'd pick a Muslim before a Jew . Most Jewish American politicians have such close ties to Israel, there would be a level of mistrust. Plus I think there are more Arab Americans.
Of course, when I consider a guy like Russ Feingold or Paul Wellstone (I know he's dead) I will reconsider. But then you think of Leiberman or Cantor and they are too Pro Israeli. Maybe as a VP first. Who knows.
I was waiting for R49.
...all walk into a bar at the same time and the bartender says, "What is this? Some kinda joke?"
Hey, R39. I guess you don't think a Muslim qualifies as a "person."
And it's "an" Hispanic person.
[quote]And it's "an" Hispanic person.
No, it's a Hispanic person. The H is not silent.
(sorry for "Gay" at end of list; I'd like to see it on top! (so to speak, heh-heh)
It depends on how you define Jew. I'm a Jew and I know this country will NEVER elect a president or even a VP who doesn't believe I. Jesus. The fact is, mostmgentiles cannot conceive of a social,order that isn't built on the fundemental belief in Jesus. Most gentiles think that us Jews say we don't believe in Jesus.,but that deep down inside we really do. Guess what? Deep down we don't. Such a person will never be elected president or tolerated as vp. Thats just the way it is.
What about a Black woman? Or a Black Jewish woman?
I would put equal odds on a woman, a Hispanic, and a Jew being elected in my life time. Higher odds if they are Republican.
Gay or Muslim? Not in this lifetime, regardless of their political affiliation.
What about this senario? A smart, masculine, out gay from a political dynasty with an equally "man's man" partner who played football at Harvard and their two college-aged kids (a boy and girl) who are a visible part of the campaign. All tall, white, and beautiful. The parents are the envy of men and the family is the desire of women. A potential first family?
I realize this plays on some damaging and problematic ideology and more so than usual, but whatever... it's hypothetical.
What would the first gay family in the White House look like? Discuss.
Hispanic, woman, Jew - possible.
Muslim, out gay, out atheist - not happening in the next 32 years.
r40, thank you. I am not the poster you were addressing, but I never knew that both Goldwater's paternal grandparents were Jewish (or any of his family for that matter). And apparently this was no secret. And, frankly, I'm shocked that I never knew of this before. BTW, Goldwater's mother was Old colonial Yankee and Goldwater was an Episcopalian, but still, very interesting.
I have a problem with the Atheist one. Honestly, a candidate could choose not to discuss religion. They could be Atheist easily without anyone knowing.
Atheist shouldn't be part of this list.
[quote]A lot of the Sheriff Arpaio fan girls/tea party types would have to die before we get a Hispanic president.
They have no power.
Hispanics nearly own the country, and if it's a Republican Hispanic, they'd be one of the most viable candidates around.
You can't win an election without winning the Hispanic vote, Republican or Democrat. That's how big they are, and they have the highest birth rate in the country.
They have power in the Republican party/primaries because they vote. There is way too much animosity towards Hispanics among Republican voters for them to nominate a Hispanic for president. A Hispanic president would most likely be a Democrat. The country is going more left anyway.
A Hispanichas the highest chance of becoming elected because Hispanics are less threatening to the Judeo-Christian value set.
An openly Jewish candidate will have a harder time winning because this country is full of Jesus freaks. An openly Muslim, openly atheist, openly gay, or single candidate will have an even harder time.
African Americans, Asians, biracials, and females are the wild cards. They can only win if they are dynamic & non-threatening enough to connect to Middle America like our current POTUS
Straight trumps all. Christian trumps all. Penis trumps vagina.
R64, I think if there was a gay president (in our lifetime) it'd probably be a lesbian.
A conservative, Christian-identified, middle-aged lesbian, particularly one with a legal spouse and children, would definitely trump a liberal, single, agnostic gay male.
I don't know, R67. If a candidate initially refused to discuss religion, they would probably be hounded by people who would want to know they "believe in something." Some people get really wound up about atheists.
I was recently stuck watching Fox News reports about the "War on Christmas" (and other culture war bullshit). My relatives, some of whom are not very religious, complained about atheists, holiday trees, and all that other stuff that no one other than Fox talks about. In the immediate national elections, I doubt any openly atheist candidates will have a chance.
However, I honestly think any of the top three probably wouldn't be that big of a deal.
I read this title and I keep wanting the body of the post to say:
walk into a bar...
Atheist is dead last in this exercise. And I say that as an atheist. Proof:
The most recent study was conducted by the University of Minnesota, which found that atheists ranked lower than "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society.' Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry." The results from two of the most important questions were:
This group does not at all agree with my vision of American society...
Conservative Christians: 13.5%
Recent Immigrants: 12.5%
I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group....
Conservative Christians: 6.9%
[quote]Atheist is dead last in this exercise. And I say that as an atheist.
It's maddening. Great Britain had Clement Attlee, an agnostic, right after WWII. Here it's the 21st century, and there's still not a chance the U.S. will vote in a president without a declared religious affiliation.
FDR was disabled with polio.
[quote]I have a problem with the Atheist one. Honestly, a candidate could choose not to discuss religion. They could be Atheist easily without anyone knowing. Atheist shouldn't be part of this list.
They should stay in the closet?
People can't handle an out atheist? This is why an atheist will be at the bottom.
Let's spark this one back up.
2013 has been an enormously positive year for the gays, have our chances gone up?