The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.Here
and
Now
opinions
With Trump's win, some women wonder: Will U.S. ever see a female president?
By MARYCLAIRE DALE and JOCELYN NOVECK WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
44 Comments
falseflagsteve
She didn’t appeal to them simple as that.
TaiwanIsNotChina
It's a good question, but I think the first step is to get people's assumptions about Failed Businessman cleared up.
falseflagsteve
Taiwan
I dont Think Harris ever ran a business.
Desert Tortoise
To hear some old white guys around here talk (complain) in four years women will be fortunate if they can still vote and drive a car.
Norm
True that.
Trump, OTOH, has run six companies…into the ground.
In these cases it was via bankruptcy (i.e. stiffing and shafting creditors to his financial advantage).
And he got his namesake “university” closed for defrauding the students. Closed after he paid $25,000,000 in a class-action lawsuit.
Oh, and then there’s the Donald J. Trump Foundation. Closed under the supervision of the court. Also fraud.
I don’t think Harris minds not having all that experience on her résumé.
Tokyo Guy
I dont Think Harris ever ran a business.
One thing that sure can be said for Trump. He ran several businesses.
...into the ground.
YeahRight
The problem with Clinton and Harris wasn't (isn't) that they are women. It is that they represent ultra-left progressive agendas that most people don't want.
I think either Tulsi Gabbard or Nikki Haley would be an excellent president.
Geeter Mckluskie
Trump "the mysogynist" just made his Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles.
NCIS Reruns
It's being reported that Steve Bannon is recommending that Marjorie Taylor Greene be appointed as head of Homeland Security. That should be good training for her running for president in 2028. (If Trump doesn't run again himself -- the Constitution appears to be vague on this point.)
Tokyo Guy
NCIS RerunsToday 10:04 am JST
It's being reported that Steve Bannon is recommending that Marjorie Taylor Greene be appointed as head of Homeland Security
That would be entertaining until it becomes self evident that she couldn't run a cookie stall, let alone one of the most important jobs in the USA. Can you imagine the (not insubstantial number of) countries who hate the USA hearing that and just rubbing their hands together with glee?
Geeter Mckluskie
by whom ? Rachel Maddow?
Jimizo
Has to be a joke.
The Jewish space laser lady in charge of homeland security?
Lol.
Zaphod
Where was the "qualified woman" this person imagines? Fwiw, I would vote for Tulsi Gabbard as president i a heartbeat.
Jimizo
I heard she was very popular with Joe Rogan watchers.
All the charisma and charm of a pork chop. Terrible grifter too - far too transparent. Tucker Carlson and particularly Russell Brand much better at it and they are absolutely ridiculous.
wallace
The defeat of Harris has set back a woman president by several elections.
Ricky Kaminski13
Ladies lamenting to the sky this question, 'Will we ever see a woman president ??"
Did you really want Kamila to be the one? She wasn't elected she was placed, she couldn't connect with people or get them emotionally invested in her even if they tried, she was completely inept at explaining even a single piece of her policy strategies or vision, despite being the VP for the past four years; the salads, platitudes, the awkward performances. 'Let's get the vote in' chant, you could see at this very moment she didn't stand a chance.
"Can you see the stars?? The light of a bright billion of stars...." Her final parting piece at the concession speech.
With so many hyper-performing ladies better suited for the job out there, I suggest she would have done more damage than good for your cause. She was a terrible candidate chosen by a party living in denial and drunk delusion.
Now that it's all done and dusted what springs from the ashes of this mess can only be better. When it happens and a woman is selected, it'll be because she deserves it and it'll be plain as day to all.
bass4funk
She was absolutely one of the worst women they could have put up, she never had a chance, I think and hope that there will be a woman President one day, but so far, the Dems do not have a single one in their party that could win and with their toxic policies that they embrace so much they will alienate a lot of people like the way Kamala did.
bass4funk
And revived them and created new ones, the main thing is, that he has experience as a realtor
And it was found there was no wrongdoing.
And?
I see
Well, when she goes back to the private sector next year, McDonald's won't be on there either.
funkymofo
Yeah, that's the main requisite for being president- failed businessman.... and realtor!!! lol
And... his business model either runs on fraud or goes bankrupt. That's why it matters- he's a criminal. The fact that this doesn't bother you shows the moral dereliction at the heart of the maga cult.
nishikat
He can put anyone he wants (including Rudy) in his cabinet.
bass4funk
She ran a horrible campaign and there was just now way she would have won, the Dems didn’t hold a primary, they just pushed Biden and inserted her in this position, she was without a doubt one of the worst candidates the Dems could have run. Now comes to time to reflect and I hope the Dems will go forward to put forth a candidate that is qualified and knows the issues and that people can wholeheartedly support because they believe in her and not out of civic duty purely.
Daniel Neagari
You can be a misogynist and still hire/appoint women for any job position.... just to make it clear to some around here
Cephus
"With Trump's win, some women wonder: Will U.S. ever see a female president?"
Pathetic question at best, usually many don't vote based on gender but on articulation of sound policies beneficial to the people. Moreover, regardless of gender running a phony campaign is disastrous. You can't answer every question asked with "I grew up in a middle-class family" Hillary, Harris and both (Tims) were bad choices and rejected by the electorates due to their bad policies and at times saying the wrong things are the wrong time.
Chikatilo
@ MARYCLAIRE DALE and JOCELYN NOVECK
Really?? Is that the highest glass ceiling in American politics? I am not even American, but elections are the same in every democracy: it is not a pageant, or a novelty context or a piteous event to give the price to the one that has never had one.
It is a utmost requirement to be the highly knowledgeable at almost everything to deal with everything a president does, and have sound, realistic solutions.
What is next after the "1st female president"? the first latino? the first asian president? the first fat president? What benefit did the 1st black president bring to America or the worlds or black people in general that it is so good to vote for face and color instead of content and capability?
Does it have to be ANY woman to be the 1st president? shouldn't it be one truly deserving one in order for it to be worthwhile and actually lead to something good?
You have your expectations set in the wrong place. As long as life is good and/or improves for the better, who cares who is at the helm? lady presidents abound already in the world and have been around long enough, see Margaret Thatcher (ok, PM), and their results are the same as any man, ok, so that has been proven, there's nothing else to proof there. When a good enough lady candidate appears she'll be duly elected president. This Kamala was not, that's it. End of it.
Jay
Why is the first quote from "women" a male? This wokeness is one big reason why the democratic party lost this election. The vote for Trump in 2024 was a vote to return to COMMON SENSE and NORMALITY.
"Will we ever see a woman president?" Well for one, democrats can't even define what a woman is, and according to transgender ideology, there is no difference between men and women...
but yeah if you have an intelligent and educated woman with good policies and is qualified for the position, then yeah we will see a female president one day. Many men, including myself, would love to vote for someone strong, based, and logical like Megyn Kelly if she were running.
rcch
Ricky Kaminski13Today 12:12 pm JST “ Ladies lamenting to the sky this question, 'Will we ever see a woman president ??"
Did you really want Kamila to be the one? She wasn't elected she was placed, she couldn't connect with people or get them emotionally invested in her even if they tried, she was completely inept at explaining even a single piece of her policy strategies or vision, despite being the VP for the past four years; the salads, platitudes, the awkward performances. 'Let's get the vote in' chant, you could see at this very moment she didn't stand a chance.
"Can you see the stars?? The light of a bright billion of stars...." Her final parting piece at the concession speech.
With so many hyper-performing ladies better suited for the job out there, I suggest she would have done more damage than good for your cause. She was a terrible candidate chosen by a party living in denial and drunk delusion.
Now that it's all done and dusted what springs from the ashes of this mess can only be better. When it happens and a woman is selected, it'll be because she deserves it and it'll be plain as day to all. “
•
Well said—Kamala is an incompetent whose ideologies would only bring the country (and the rest of the western world) down further—not to mention that she abandoned her supporters when they needed her most—she didn’t have the courage to face them, console them, and thank them for their work and dedication which was just further confirmation that she doesn’t have what it takes to lead other people, let alone be the leader of the free world—
she was light years away from deserving to be the first female president and if she had been elected, it would’ve been a stain on the country’s history—she was vice president and ended up running for president because of her gender, race and who can control her—basically, she is (or was) the face of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party and the perfect example of why millions of Americans no longer believe in the DP…
…
Just today we had news of Susie Wiles, someone who led one of the most iconic campaigns of all time, being named the first female chief of staff in history;
—there are many strong, intelligent and competent American women who can and should aspire to be President of the United States. Kamala is not one of them.
funkymofo
Yeah Rcch, much better to elect an adjudicated fraudster and rapist, with a non existent health policy, a tariff plan that even his own people admit will blow out inflation, and who is hell bent on taking away women’s rights.
Norm
Two questions to the above poster to which I know I will never get a clear, coherent answer, so if anyone else wants to respond for fun and education, that would be great:
Does anyone beside me know the difference between “Realtor” and “real estate developer”? (I’ll give you a hint: The best answer is probably not the deflectional “The main thing is [something unrelated]. What matters is [something really completely unrelated]”.)
How many companies did Trump revive? Where are the casinos now? Can I visit one on my next trip to the U.S.?Peter Neil
the article starts out with the opinion of a black trans woman named precious, as if the adjectives validate the opinion.
and people wonder why trump won? what are you, nuts?
politics is a pendulum. the pendulum swung so far left, then swung so far right. it’ll eventually swing less and more in the middle.
men have been demonized. look at any tv commercial, the woman is the smart one and the man is depicted as an idiot goofball.
people felt betrayed (one of the strongest emotions) because the playing field is tilted with dei. hiring the best person is demonized.
diversity is not a strength. having common values and goals is a strength. try taking a turn on a motorcycle if the passenger wants to lean the other way. be it, rowing, a sports team, a business, a common goal with the best people for the task will always be more successful.
forgiving loans as a political tool is inherently unfair to those who paid their loans off.
the freedom to succeed on a level playing field is important.
Peter Neil
you’ll see a woman president when a good one runs.
funkymofo
Trump owns no casinos in Vegas.
Dr.Cajetan Coelho
"Woman is the companion of man, gifted with equal mental capacity. If by strength is meant moral power, then woman is immeasurably man's superior. If nonviolence is the law of our being, the future is with women" - Mahatma Gandhi
Jimizo
Don’t know about that when it comes to leadership of countries.
The UK has had 3 female PMs.
Thatcher was belligerent and certainly not a pacifist. Hardly compassionate either - played on the fault lines and created division. I despised Thatcherism but she was a success at the ballot box.
May was pretty bright but not a good leader. To be fair to her, she inherited a car crash.
Truss was an unmitigated disaster. Absolutely ridiculous.
Dating it from Thatcher, we had Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron, Johnson, Sunak and now Starmer from the male side. Plenty of incompetence, success, immorality and stupidity there too.
I don’t see much of a difference with all respect to Mr Gandhi.
jeffy
From the title of the article:
Sure, if the voters find her to have the best platform for the country vis-a-vis her rival. Where’s the problem in that? Others have expressed in the comments that they would have no problem with Tulsi Gabbard or Nikki Haley. It therefore appears that the question is not about sex, but political orientation. So while it is true that some may have found Hilary Clinton or Kamala Harris to be worthy of the mantle of first female president, these two ultimately did not win their respective elections and were therefore evidently deemed unworthy. Sexual discrimination is not a factor here. So the “some women” asking the question of the title would do better to focus on finding a better female candidate who can present a platform that the voters will find to be the most compelling if their aim is to see a female president. It would be my hope, however, that the parties would focus on finding the best candidates for their parties regardless of their sex.
Jimizo
Not necessarily. There may have been some who didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Harris because they were women.
Were Clinton and Harris great candidates? No.
Was Biden a great candidate? No, but he gave Trump a spanking.
I’m not saying that’s the main reason why they lost but I don’t know how you rule it out as a factor.
Basically, I think you want to.
jeffy
Jimizo Today 10:31 pm JST
There were certainly some voters who did not vote for these candidates simply on the basis on that they were female just as there were certainly some voters who did vote for these candidates simply on the basis that they were female. But the question is whether each of these two camps, each displaying sexual discrimination in their choices as you intimate, were sufficiently large enough to ultimately affect the aggregate of voters. I would say no. Therefore in line with my claim that “Sexual discrimination is not a factor here” with respect to the loss of these two candidates in their respective elections, I still maintain that sexual discrimination was not what led to their defeats.
Yes. And this is why I maintain they ultimately lost, not sexual discrimination. This is my position.
I do not “want” to. In light of the consideration expressed above as well as the support for female candidates from those who opposed these two candidates on the right evidences for me no a priori rejection of the idea of a female president from the majority of voters on the right. This is why I rule it out as significant to the loss of these two candidates.
Raw Beer
Exactly. There will never be a female president as long as the parties choose a clearly incompetent candidate and hope that people vote for her simply because she is a woman of color.
Jimizo
No based on what?
I notice you left out the Biden point - not a great candidate but destroyed Trump ( the childish conspiracy theory nonsense about stolen election isn’t serious ).
I still don’t know on what basis you are dismissing the idea that discrimination didn’t play a large enough part. You said there were some. How many?
I honestly don’t know.. What do you have to base your opinion on?
It sounds like feeling to me.
bass4funk
You always get a clear answer from me, be fair now. Always willing to engage in a serious debate.
A realtor is a licensed professional who acts as an agent or broker and helps clients buy, sell, or rent properties. A real estate developer, on the other hand, is an investor or company that buys land, develops it by building or renovating structures and sells or leases the property to make a profit. In short, realtors facilitate transactions, while developers create properties. I hope that answers your question. Any other proof you need?
Trump has many successful, busy, and profitable properties and companies, including his Casino in Vegas.
HooKnows
What a lot of folks fail to understand is that in US politics, an election is almost always overwhelmingly a referendum on the incumbent.
For Trump, Covid exhaustion and unprecedented racial/social justice tension months before the election undoubtedly contributed to the general angst and discontent. People wanted a return to "normalcy" and the far off reliability of the Obama years, part of Biden's massive popularity at the time.
Biden's popularity dropped off a proverbial cliff the last year or so in office, and his repeated blunders and visibly declining mental state made him easy pickings for those looking to take shots and score points.
Kamala never did anything, or at least nowhere near enough, to separate herself from his legacy. It was a fine line to walk so I'm not saying she could have done it better, but she was the VP in a deeply unpopular presidency the last 18 months of it or so, and was never able to shake the mantle of just being Biden 2.0.
theFu
50.2% of Americans who voted, voted for Trump. That leaves 49.x% who didn't and nearly all of those voted for Harris.
I never considered that she was a woman or black or India at all in my choice. I don't think most Americans did.
America is ready for a woman, minority as President - well, just under 50% are. A few more years and the people who can't will all die off.
And if you are under 30 and eligible to vote, but didn't, shame on you. Trump won because older people vote.
While the electoral college numbers make it appear to be a blowout, it definitely wasn't. Trump's data guys were just better and the democrats didn't make the election about the truth and didn't provide facts enough to convince MAGAs that things weren't as bad as Trump claimed. The economy has been growing steady under Biden. Crime is down. Personally, our net-worth has never been higher. And I didn't have to worry about a President being petty or gutting some environmental protections or just saying anything stupid for the last 3.5 yrs.
She didn't do a good job distancing herself from unpopular issues. Some of the ads showing her support on far left topics actually turned me off greatly. I held my nose when voting for Harris over some of those issues. She's in-electable due to them. Using public funds to perform surgery for transgender convicts is the worse.
I have a problem when our govt pays for surgery related to gender identity for prisoners. It is just another way for inmates to force the govt to move them to a different facility - a women's prison. If they want the surgery, then they can pay for it themselves. If they already had surgery before being arrested for the crime they are in prison, then the drugs used to keep them a specific gender should continue, but only if they've been snipped already.
HooKnows
Well, sort of.
Trump actually got (as of the latest tally) 50.7% of the vote, to Harris' 47.7%
Trump also carried the popular vote by over 4 million votes. That's not insignificant. It's the largest rout by a Republican in nearly 4 decades, since George H.W. Bush.
Trump also carried the largest percentage of Black and Hispanic voters ever from a Republican candidate.
The left is going to have to do some soul searching about why these results were as pronounced as they were. The default bleating of, "Oh, all these racist misogynist old white nazis!" refrain is part of the reason they lost, as well as being empirically untrue and falsifiable. As stated, Trump made in roads with demographics that were impenetrably blue for decades, and it shows on the electoral map.
jeffy
Jimizo Nov. 8 11:59 pm JST
Let’s see:
Clinton: Based on the information here ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/ ), of those validated voters who voted for Clinton, 41% were men and 54% were women. Conversely, of those validated voters who voted for Trump, 52% were men and 39% were women. Now according to here ( https://www.statisticstimes.com/demographics/country/us-sex-ratio.php ), the sex ratio estimate for the US population in 2016 was 50.17% men (165,136,242/329,179,427) and 49.83% women (164,043,185/329,179,427). While these figures are for all males and females in the US population in 2016, assuming that those age 18+ were essentially the same percentages, what this means is that, all things being equal, men were more disposed to vote for Trump +1.83 percentage points higher than their representation in the population and women were more disposed to vote for Clinton +4.17 percentage points higher than their representation in the population. Women therefore were more disproportionate in their voting for Clinton than men were in their voting for Trump. Even so, Clinton lost the election. Therefore, even if one wishes to completely attribute the disproportionate +1.83 of men and the disproportionate +4.17 of women to gender preference, it had no effect on the outcome of the election.
Biden: Based on the information here ( https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/ ), of those validated voters who voted for Biden, 48% were men and 55% were women. Conversely, of those validated voters who voted for Trump, 50% were men and 44% were women. Now according to here ( https://www.statisticstimes.com/demographics/country/us-sex-ratio.php ), the sex ratio estimate for the US population in 2016 was 50.29% men (170,710,103/339,436,158) and 49.71% women (168,726,055/339,436,158). While these figures are for all males and females in the US population in 2020, assuming that those age 18+ were essentially the same percentages, what this means is that, all things being equal, men were less disposed to vote for Trump -0.29 percentage points lower than their representation in the population and women were more disposed to vote for Biden +5.29 percentage points higher than their representation in the population. Women therefore were more disproportionate in their voting for Biden than men were in their voting for Trump. Biden won the election. One may wish to view Trump’s loss here as due to a disproportionate loss of male voters and a disproportionate over representation of women voters for Biden, but since both Trump and Biden are men, these figures give no evidence for gender preference. Perhaps you can understand now why I intentionally left out Biden since, not being a woman seeking to be president, he is not relevant to the discussion at hand which is about whether voters are adverse to having a woman become president.
Harris: Based on the information in the present article, 53% of those who voted for Harris were women and 46% of those who voted for Trump were women. Therefore, the remaining 47% of Harris voters and 54% of Trump voters were men. Now according to here ( https://www.statisticstimes.com/demographics/country/us-sex-ratio.php ), the sex ratio estimate for the US population in 2016 was 50.24% men and 49.76% women. While these figures are for all males and females in the US population in 2024, assuming that those age 18+ were essentially the same percentages, what this means is that, all things being equal, men were more disposed to vote for Trump +3.76 percentage points higher than their representation in the population and women were more disposed to vote for Harris +3.24 percentage points higher than their representation in the population. Men therefore were more disproportionate in their voting for Trump by +0.52 percentage points than women were in their voting for Harris. If one wishes to completely attribute the disproportionate +3.76 of men and the disproportionate +3.24 of women to gender preference, I guess that is one interpretation. But it seems to me that even if this were the case, the close percentage points make it a wash and is therefore not significant to Harris’ loss.
So while it is true that men were disproportionate (-0.29) in voting against Trump when Biden was the opposition as opposed to when Clinton and Harris were the opposition, +1.83 and +3.76, I also note that women were more disproportionate in their voting for Biden (+5.29) than they were when the choice was Clinton (+4.17) or Harris (+3.24). It therefore seems that there was something other than gender preference at play in the 2020 election.
Jimizo Nov. 8 10:31 pm JST
And neither am I. And so I said,
jeffy Nov. 8 10:53 pm JST
And I say no because gender preference is evidently not a significant factor affecting the outcomes of the elections discussed. Ya feel me?
rcch
theFuToday 01:02 am JST “ 50.2% of Americans who voted, voted for Trump. That leaves 49.x% who didn't and nearly all of those voted for Harris.
America is ready for a woman, minority as President - well, just under 50% are. A few more years and the people who can't will all die off.
*And if you are under 30 and eligible to vote, but didn't, shame on you. **Trump won because older people vote.*
While the electoral college numbers make it appear to be a blowout, it definitely wasn't. Trump's data guys were just better and the democrats didn't make the election about the truth and didn't provide facts enough to convince MAGAs that things weren't as bad as Trump claimed. “
•
Smh—I mean, what you said in your post is not factual and distorts what actually happened in this election.
—
HooKnowsToday 01:51 am JST
“ Well, sort of.
*Trump actually got (as of the latest tally) 50.7% of the vote, to Harris' *47.7%
Trump also carried the popular vote by over 4 million votes. That's not insignificant. It's the largest rout by a Republican in nearly 4 decades, since George H.W. Bush.
Trump also carried the largest percentage of Black and Hispanic voters ever from a Republican candidate.
The left is going to have to do some soul searching about why these results were as pronounced as they were. The default bleating of, "Oh, all these racist misogynist old white nazis!" refrain is part of the reason they lost, as well as being empirically untrue and falsifiable. As stated, Trump made in roads with demographics that were impenetrably blue for decades, and it shows on the electoral map. “
•
Exactly—this massive victory by Trump and the Republicans (remember, the democrats lost both the House and the Senate) cannot and should not be underestimated and minimized—Trump won all the swing states (and that includes the three blue wall states), one in three black and Hispanic voters voted for Trump (and he increased his support with Hispanic voters by double digits from 2020), Trump improved support with the 18 to 29 age category by 10 points and made massive gains in the bluest of states and cities (and yes, that includes California and New York), and he did this despite the fact that he was given 89% negative media coverage while Kamala Harris was being given 86% positive coverage (meaning that, for the first time ever (and this is also historic), more than half of the population was able to break through the propaganda echo chamber of the mainstream media)—
…
( this gives an idea of how much Kamala, her policies (or lack thereof), and the Democratic Party (this new version of the Democratic Party) were rejected by the American people and just goes to show that Kamala’s defeat in this election had nothing to do with her being a woman… )
…
( … as I’ve said previously here on JT, I believe someone like Tulsi Gabbard (or any Democratic woman, if the DP finds someone good enough) could run for president in 8, 12 years… )