I would bet everything I own that it will be a conservative Republican woman who is our first female president. Why, you ask? Because a conservative candidate will not make it about their gender.
5
The problem Americans have is we have been hoodwinked into being against governments that actually spends taxpayers money on taxpayers.
So we don't believe we can have nice things like the advanced democracies in Europe. Free education means that they can have free healthcare, for example, because medical personnel don't have suicidally (yes, literally) crushing student debt.
When she says she can cancel student debt on Day 1, it is because she's actually read the fine print in old legislation nobody else has looked into, and found the part where that IS the Secretary of Education's prerogative ( just like a judge has some leeway with sentencing):
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/14/796329598/cancelling-student-debt-is-easier-than-it-sounds
To understand her approach, read this verbatim interview with her at the NYT.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/01/14/opinion/elizabeth-warren-nytimes-interview.html
...and Ezra Klein's account of the morale of those who worked for her in the initial startup of her Consumer Finance Protection Bureau organization, before Cordray:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/1/15/21054083/elizabeth-warren-2020-democratic-primary
... and this list of bills she sponsored, cosponsored and supported in the Senate for an accurate idea of the "What you see is what you get" authenticity of the woman.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/elizabeth_warren/412542/report-card/2018
1
Electoral College 1. Female Candidate 0. End of.
Wouldn't it be funny of the first American woman president was a Republican?
4
another hit piece on bernie--but it is
backfiring.get used to President Sanders.
5
This piece was originally titled "Are people ready for a Female Candidate?" And then after the blowback from angry comments, because no one wants to be called sexist, the NYTimes changed the title to "Why Questions on Women Candidates strikes a nerve." So you decided it was a bad idea to strike that nerve by calling us all sexist and decided to talk about the nerve. Right.
2
I am willing to bet every cent I own that our first female president will be a conservative Republican. That will be a sweet schadenfreude day.
2
Let me know when I can criticize a female candidate's policies without being labeled a sexist. Same with being critical of a candidate of color's view. That apparently makes me racist.
4
Selena Meyer got elected, so I don't see the problem. Especially since she succeeded her Hispanic female predecessor Laura Montez.
So just chill people.
2
The fact that a comment allegedly made, in private, at a dinner, is blared by Warren during a primary, sums this up. This is idiotic gossip, and had no right to be circulated. The one who blared it was Warren, and speaks ill of her judgement.
I seem to recall that Michele Bachmann of the Tea Party claimed that is was "sexism" that ended her primary fight. I think her complaint was at least as valid as Warren's /s.
3
Unfortunately Warren has an enormous credibility issue. See CURRENT AFAIRS article The Credibility Gap about E. Warren.
Why was this fact ignored in this article?
2
I don’t think raising this as a question helps. We need to get past talking like this and start talking about issues ethics and competence. What is appalling is that we are all wringing our hand about who is competitive against a bigoted arrogant corrupt compulsive liar that has divided the country while hanging out with his bro’s in florida.....oh yeah and almost started another war.
"Elizabeth Warren is not Hillary Clinton. She lacks some of Mrs. Clinton’s strengths and experience, but also much of her baggage."
I would be curious, genuinely, to hear from the writer about what "strengths" Hillary Clinton had that Elizabeth Warren does not.
5
Unfortunately, Ms Warren did not help her candidacy with this display after the debate. If she was that upset , she should have either handled it during the debate or if you want to keep the tif private , keep it private and not on national TV. However it's a long campaign, and every candidate can be expected to blow off a little steam once in awhile.
4
Warren does not seem given to clumsy onstage behavior. We might reasonably assume that her reactions to Sanders were carefully planned and presented for maximum advantage vis-a-vis her supporters.
6
The reality is that a woman did win, which Ms. Cottle grudgingly admits but gives short shrift to. Clinton won by 3 million votes. The problem here is the Electoral College, not whether a woman can win.
Let’s remember back to before Barack Obama was elected President. The prevailing wisdom then was that a black man was “unelectable,” which proved to be untrue. Obama won because he conducted a masterful campaign that created a sense of the possible, perhaps unavoidable reality of a black man as President. His campaign made that happen, due in part to a shift in the tides of history that they took advantage of, and which made it seem not only possible, but inevitable.
Four years ago the idea of Trump being elected seemed ridiculous, but his campaign some how overcame that.
A woman today, actually any candidate, must do the same, with a campaign that makes what currently seems difficult or impossible become inevitable. Clinton almost did it, and at some point, we will either change our system, or discover a woman who will make it happen.
4
A Margaret Thatcher type of any background or race would certainly be electable and receive overwhelming support from Republicans.
4
It is interesting that so many say that they are ready for a woman president, but that they do not believe their fellow voters are. So if the majority believes a woman can win and vote for her, than she would be the winner.
The take away here is to vote for the candidate you like and not try to second guess or speculate as to what others will do.
1
Warren's campaign is fading so she picked a fight with probably the least biased man in America.
This is no different from the charges made against Kavenaugh: no evidence, no witnesses, no nothing.
It is 'He said/She said" with a handy spin for Sen. Warren.
She's desperate.
12
Really? Because Dr B.Ford was completely credible and so was all the corroborative evidence from other potential witnesses, and especially in terms of impeccable character and integrity, Brett Kavanaugh is no Bernie Sanders.
9
The playing field between men and women has been level since the beginning of time; it cannot be otherwise. In politics, as in many other areas, men have simply been winning more. Maybe this will change, and in addition perhaps women's wins (in lifespan, incarceration and homeless rates, workplace injuries, suicides, etc) will someday be shared by men. Or not.
Get ready for president Nikki Haley.
I'll bet Trump replaces Pence with her on his 2020 ticket. And then either she'll ascend to the presidency because Nature removes Trump before the end of his second term or she'll run and win in 2024.
She's a twofer: A woman and a POC.
4
@Tench Tilghman
Are you serious or is this "tongue in cheek"?
2
Donald Trump is the president. Of course people are going to be hesitant to experience an election like 2016 again, given the four years of tragic hindsight.
That said, it does seem a bit concerning that there is a subset of our population who call themselves ‘Women for Trump’, and are presumably mobilized by the desire to overturn women’s suffrage.
1
We need to stop voting based on who we think other people will vote for, and just vote for who we think the best candidate is. 'Electability' should be all about who will do the job best, or will implement the policies that the majority of the people want, and not whatever horse-race we all seem to be discussing.
2
Does the Ipsos poll take into account how completely freaked out voters are by Donald Trump's presidency? Of course not but until they do this poll seems skewed. The worry about how your neighbor will vote reflects a unique level of anxiety. Basically a question about a candidate's gender is too narrow in scope at this specific moment in time when the stakes are so raised and democratic ideals are imploding.
1
I voted for Hillary, if it matters.
I thought she was the best candidate for President.
If you don't mind, I plan to go on voting for the candidate I think is best suited for the job.
Regardless of gender.
7
The attack on Sanders by Warren is the mirror image of the attack by Gillibrand on Franken. And we all know how that ended for Gillibrand.
I am surprised Warren did not learn from that. She made the same mistake and she will go down in flames just the same.
By the way, what is the analogous word for misogynistic when women do the same to men in reverse?
Misandrystic?
10
I just like Bernie, and Pete.
5
They bloody well should be.
This country pretends to be so progressive and then lives in the dark ages.
And as many of us know from personal experience, women are excellent peace keepers, multi tasker's and smart as hell.
So yes, America SHOULD be ready to elect a woman president!
2
A slightly different take on the Sanders/Warren scrape. Warren has been criticized as being too wonky, shrill & professorial. Maybe her uncharacteristic display of gender carding on the debate stage showed us another side, a softer, gentler side, accompanied with that elegant, almost shy, accusatory look at Bernie after leveling the accusation.
This will blow over. Bernie is riding with winds now, ready to seize the first couple primaries. Liz will make a fine VP.
2
No, respectfully disagree, I think Warren has proven all by herself, she won’t. She’ll do well as policy support in the Senate, where she can prove she means it, and as an advisor, where her strengths are. Duplicitous character is not an emblem of a unifying leader. Zephyr Teachout on the other hand, if she would ever choose to run, would make a marvelous national leader. I am confident Stacey Abrams, AOC, and others coming up will be ready and brilliant.
3
2020: When the times asks if we’re ready to elect a woman but not a gay white man.
8
The candidacy of the US isn’t based solely on identity politics. Policies matter most. Who a candidate sources their funding on matters. Pete has a lot going for him, except we can’t survive the same ole neoliberalism that got us here. Otherwise, sure. And we can take solace in the fact, the first president of Jewish heritage will be a tremendous, complimentary accomplishment to uniting the world for climate change and allowing us to join advanced civilization with access to healthcare.
3
HRC won the popular vote
A Black man won the electoral college and popular vote twice
A Catholic won the vote in the 60's
A Southern from AK won twice
A married Gay small-town lawyer is polling strong
An old Jewish Man is #1 in Iowa
According to national polls -the most despised people are Muslims, Atheists and Mormons ..
Instead of wringing hands about bumps in the road, put up a candidate who can beat an Old non-religious, bigot
5
Looks very much like the same disaster is playing out already as it did in 2016. And again, the independents who Bernie appeals to will not vote for Warren who now apparently has resorted to aiming low and bringing out the knives in order to keep Bernie in check.
And as in 2016 this will not be forgiven. If Warren cannot win over the voters fair and square or graciously support the better candidate, then she will get the receipt for that at the ballot box in November. Together with the rest of us.
3
@Captain Nemo I love Bernie, but would be ecstatic to vote for Elizabeth. If you are correct in your assertion, which I doubt for a super-majority of Bernie fans, that unforgivable mistake is on Bernie's die-hards not Warren. Blaming the woman is not a good look.
6
@Ben
She bears responsibility for this.
Tacky at worst, desperate at best.
I'm done with considering her.
5
@Ben
That has nothing to do with "blaming the woman". It is all about the methods. Using sexism to attack a superior opponent is not acceptable. She brought that out and is making a big fuss of it, not Bernie.
A much more valid concern is whether Bernie's reduced life expectancy in the wake of his recent MI makes him a viable candidate (pun not intended).
Apparently that is uniformly considered a taboo topic. Nobody wants to think of death.
"The Argument" podcast brought up a good point. It starts with the hypothetical scenario in which Bernie and Biden emerge as the two primary candidates. In this scenario we have three men, and three aggressive men at that to choose among. I am a Bernie supported, who briefly dabbled in the idea of supporting Warren as my number one choice, but there is something less than desirable about so much dude in the year 2020, especially after #MeToo and women's stellar performance in the 2018 mid-terms. My remedy would be to have Bernie and Warren join forces as soon as the writing is on the wall. A powerful dual-gender ticket that could even carve out a more substantive role for the Vice President in American politics. Truly historic!
4
Americans in general? Sure they are. Democrats? Only if it is particular women. Never heard of Tulsi Gabbard I guess heh Michelle?
Wake up and smell modernity, American misogynists.
There's nothing special about men leading a country.
Elizabeth Warren would make a fine President...and Mr. Warren would make a fine First Gentleman.
Elected female leaders of other countries.
India
Indira Gandhi, 1966
Israel
Golda Meir, 1969
Argentina
Isabel Perón, 1974
Portugal
Maria de Lourdes Pintasilgo, 1979
United Kingdom
Margaret Thatcher, 1979
Iceland
Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, 1980
Norway
Gro Harlem Brundtland, 1981
Philippines
Corazon Aquino, 1986
Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto, 1988
Ireland
Mary Robinson, 1990
Lithuania
Kazimira Danutė Prunskienė, 1990
Bangladesh
Khaleda Zia, 1991
Poland
Hanna Suchocka, 1992
Canada
Kim Campbell, 1993
Rwanda
Agathe Uwilingiyimana, 1993
Turkey
Tansu Çiller, 1993
Haiti
Claudette Werleigh, 1995
New Zealand
Jenny Shipley, 1997
Latvia
Vaira Vīķe-Freiberga, 1999
Switzerland
Ruth Dreifuss, 1999
Finland
Tarja Halonen, 2001
Indonesia
Megawati Sukarnoputri, 2001
Peru
Beatriz Merino, 2003
Germany
Angela Merkel, 2005
Ukraine
Yulia Tymoshenko, 2005
Chile
Michelle Bachelet, 2006
Jamaica
Portia Simpson-Miller, 2006
South Korea
Han Myung-sook, 2006
Moldova
Zinaida Greceanîi, 2008
Croatia
Jadranka Kosor, 2009
Australia
Julia Gillard, 2010
Costa Rica
Laura Chinchilla, 2010
Kyrgyzstan
Roza Otunbayeva, 2010
Slovakia
Iveta Radičová, 2010
Denmark
Helle Thorning-Schmidt, 2011
Kosovo
Atifete Jahjaga, 2011
Thailand
Yingluck Shinawatra, 2011
Slovenia
Alenka Bratušek, 2013
7
@Socrates There really haven’t been any serious female candidates for the Presidency until recently. It’s hard to blame Americans for voting for the only options available.
5
@Socrates
And I voted for Hillary Clinton and I voted for the first female governor of my state. But I'd never vote for any woman just because she is a woman.
Put Michelle Obama on this year's ticket and listen for advance of the thundering herd of ecstatic voters.
Because we've not had a woman as president is not solely attributable to misogynists by any stretch.
It's a flawed presumption.
2
“I think you called me a liar on national TV.” — Elizabeth Warren (to Bernie Sanders right after Tuesday night’s debate)
Sadly, Senator Warren would not make a fine president. And I’m not an American misogynist.
Also, you forgot to mention one of the most admired world leaders today.
New Zealand
Jacinda Arden, 2017
2
Ask Hillary Clinton.
By how new evidence is coming out, USA don’t need to elect a woman president. If legislative branch properly execute the law and impeach President Trump and NOW Vice-President Pence should be impeached too and wola......Introducing the next President of USA, President Pelosi!!!!!!!!!!
4
@jackKO
I would vote for Nancy in a heartbeat!
She is rational and down to Earth.
4
Until the last couple of elections, there haven’t really been many or any serious female candidates for President. It’s not as if there has been an endless option of qualified female candidates and the nation has refused to select one. There are more and more women running for President and that will change the probability of a woman getting elected to the White House. It’s really that simple.
2
Stop giving this ridiculous question air and space. By asking the question, you raise doubts. Hilary got three million more votes. When women run, they can win. Enough of this nonsense NYT. You should be more responsible.
6
Yes.
2
Stop using this as a click bait and to divide Democratic primary voters. Did the Times learn nothing from 2016? Come on.
4
Yes we are ready for a woman president. But it should be Wendy Sherman.
2
I'm a mid seventies left coast liberal male. I was for what Bernie is for long before I knew of Bernie. I like Bernie.
But, I like Warren more - and that's the thing. She is more likable. She has a better sense of humor than Bernie.
This is important. Personality is important - maybe more important than intellectual positions. The question of whether the American electorate would elect a woman is being raised BECAUSE the American electorate is an amorphous stupid animal.
The fact that the Republican Party still has so much power shows how stupid the 99% are. Not all of us, of course, but over 60 million for sure.
I'm a male who believes Warren is more likely to win against Trump than Sanders. It's personality, stupids.
3
@Tracy Rupp
Check back later.
I wasn't laughing after her stunt.
I liked George Carlin, but not as president.
3
To the 20% of Independent and Democratic men who believe that women are less effective in politics than men, I say the issue is not who is better at politics, but rather, who is better at governing. Considering the miserable state of our political system and the lack of competent governing, it seems the answer is obvious.
4
"But she didn’t win the right votes, many Democrats whisper back..." Whisper? Whisper back??? Where have you been for three years. There's an *entire* *wing* *of* *the* *party* - a slew of who have accounts to post here at the Times comments page - that has done nothing - nothing at all but *scream* about this as an inequity and injustice for three years. I voted for Hillary (and Gore in 2000) but I've always understood the electoral college and it was part of the rules coming in.
1
Yes, Hillary Clinton!
2
America already elected a woman, Hillary Clinton, by a large margin. Our lack of critical thinking and white washed memory for history is destroying us.
4
OMG even South America elected two female presidents already. If Americans are not ready they really need to get their act together. The US is not Saudi Arabia after all, I hope.
1
Such gender tropes.
OK, Boomers.
4
It’s the candidate, stupid.
It’s not about a generic man or woman, it's about a specific person who instills respect and admiration and hope and displays authenticity and character and integrity and experience.
Elizabeth Warren has the experience.
The other character traits, not so much.
2
It took Elizabeth Warren over a year to react to Bernie. Now, that’s a slooowww boil! I mean, that’s sous vide.
@Joel H
Cheap shot, Liz.
Kind of like Castro dissing Biden.
1
In our last election we elected a racist misogynistic liar for president.
I think we are ready for a reasonable woman to be elected President.
4
Absolutely yes.
Just not a crazy woman.
2
Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President? sure. The real question is is the New York Times ready to stop painting all disparity as either sexist or racist?
5
Genuinely wondering if similar articles were written in the early days of the Obama/Clinton campaign. But substituting ‘is America ready for a woman president’ with ‘is America ready for a black president’. Also, wondering why this analysis doesn’t include - ‘is America ready for a gay president’ or ‘is America ready for a Jewish president’
2
We already DID elected a woman president......
3
Sure, how about Condi Rice, then you can hit all the bases plus
she is smart and level headed.
1
Wow - so prominently playing identity politics after the HRC tragedy of 2016 - where we got trump due to the DNC playing identity politics. In any event, HRC won the popular vote so the question is moot. Nytimes - get over it. Do what you do best - predicting the outcome like 2016 where you ... oh wait, your daily electrometer totally blew it. Ok then, just report news - don’t try to make it (up). Seriously. You’re not helping.
4
Now that we know who is truly hysteric and nasty, America is ready for a woman president.
1
And we will surely get the question, if Mr. Sanders wins the nomination, whether someone who’s Jewish can be elected President. At least that question will arise from the campaign of an anti-Semite (and anti-feminist) President. Both camps—the anti-feminists (pro machos) and the anti-Semites—have little respect for the American people and our ability to see through the ideological garbage.
We all need to ignore the ideological garbage, or at least reveal it for what it is. Including our best newspapers.
1
Other countries around the world have women Presidents. But so far, not the USA. We're suppose to be the leaders of the free world and yet this stupid question keeps being asked time after time.
Is America ready for a female President?
ABSOLUTELY.
By asking the question the female population is diminished and degraded. Enough with the sexism, please.
Why not write about something worthwhile, like child trafficking, global warming or the homeless, verses taking up needless space with this dribble.
1
Funny how a woman can receive almost 3 million votes than her opponent yet this question is STILL being asked. Big surprise from Anti-Clinton NYT.
1
Why do you print your articles in dark black ink but then print the article in pale grey? For people with less than perfect eyesight this is an extreme problem! Is black ink that expensive? Please, guys, you are driving us up the wall with all these tiny letters in grey. Please have mercy on us and print the articles in black ink the way you all used to do! This is getting ridiculous. Even books in print are doing this and some of them are simply way too difficult to read! Stop doing this stupid thing that is so annoying and making life difficult for us.
1
This is a silly column about a silly issue. Hillary was elected President, case closed. The issue is Trump. Stop the nonsense.
1
Sure, easily. Gov. Nikki Haley will be America's 1st female President. Why? Skills, knowledge, abilities, respectability, and ELECTABILITY. HRC? Nope. Warren? Nope. Klobuchar? Who? Kamala? You gotta' be kidding..........
2
"Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President?"
Why do people continue to say "woman president" when it should be "female president?" To get an idea of how silly it sounds, replace "woman" with "man" in the headline. Interestingly, William Safire addressed this strange, but common, misuse in the NYT a some time ago (linked below).
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/magazine/18wwlnsafire.t.html
Can the Times live with it? A woman won last time, and she had more baggage than an SRO Amtrak train, and spent more time collecting money than campaigning in states that she lost by a percentage or two. The real question is why would a country that thinks it's great elect a hateful, racist, deliberately ignorant, senile, law-hating, misogynist once, and not learn enough to flat out boot him before he gets a second opportunity?
2
I liked Warren - until this.
Now I do not support her.
PS We already elected a female POTUS. She only lost because of the Electoral College.
2
I just hope all the people who believe there are “sides” in this argument will get over it when it comes time to vote - and support whichever Democrat is nominated. Elizabeth, Bernie, Amy, Pete...whoever; we cannot, once again, withhold our votes and thereby contribute to a sickening result as in 2016.
2
I'm tired of this.
As a woman, I've been aware that female human beings are fully functioning, intelligent beings for my entire life.
There is no question that a woman can do the job.
So why do we have to keep asking?
Enough.
1
Unfortunately none of the women who have made it thru the election process have demonstrated qualities befitting of a president. Instead they have re-enforced old stereotypes of fickleness, capriciousness, lack of integrity, lack of moral fortitude and overall poor performance capabilities when compared to their male counterparts. They are running more on their gender than their qualities as individuals. The wrong women are running, that is the problem.
2
@rich williams As opposed to current WH inhabitant? Gimme a break.
I'm ready to elect a woman.... but any woman using gender as some kind of bonafides as to their qualifications is off my vote list. Your gender is in no way interesting to me and does nothing to qualify you for ANY position. This extends to anyone using identity as a qualifier for their position.
1
The correct question is: Are We Ready to Elect *This* Woman President?
2
Saying a woman cannot be elected is like saying a man with size ten feet cannot be elected. I believe that Bernie said it and the fact that he did not use the opportunity to discuss it as a problem in this country is shameful. On the other hand, Elizabeth did use the opportunity to demonstrate that women can be elected and refused to take on a public argument. Good on her!
Here's my take.
Warren had ample time to gather her thoughts after this ridiculous question.
Instead of speaking privately with Bernie off-stage, she
stepped into the fray, again, in full view of the public.
Who does this?
3
How can there actually be so many questions about the electability of a woman, and so little attention on the electability of a gay man?
Is a gay man assumed to be more electable than a woman?
3
It’s time to give the ladies their turn at bat. Enough of the testosterone fueled, “my defense budget is bigger than yours”. Women may not necessarily all like each other but if something’s wrong, they know how to work together to fix it. Obviously, somethings wrong! When I fell off the chicken house and broke my arm, I didn’t run screaming to my dad...there was a reason. Chuck and Mitch getting together? Probably not, but I can see Elizabeth Warren and Susan Collins cooperating to solve a problem. After talking about my truck, my team, and my enlarged prostate, I would never dare ask, any of you guys read any good books lately? Mrs. Adams, you were right...in our race to the bottom, we should remember the ladies and give them their shot
Of course we are ready. Please review the vote totals for Mrs. Clinton vs Mr. Trump...she won hands down! That was over 3 years ago and remains true. This is a non-story article, move on please.
2
This whole argument is invalid unless you also do an article on whether or not Americans would vote for a homosexual? I think this is a gigantic issue to overcome yet somehow seems to be ignored by the third estate. Too politically incorrect but still an issue to contend with.
Two readers, Robert and Katie, replied to a statement I made in my main comment, in which they (Robert specifically) said that I had not represented what Bret Stephens said about how he would vote as concerns Warren and Sanders.
Stephens said that he would not vote for either Warren or Sanders.
Robert replied that my statement was erroneous and he and Katie therefore challenged my statement that if Stephens therefore intends not to vote at all if Warren or Sanders is the candidate chosen, he has no place at the Times.
Robert was in error: Here is what Stephens said in a conversation with Gail Collins:
"But while I would never cast a ballot for Donald Trump, there’s NO CHANCE I’d vote for either Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.”
https://nyti.ms/35PGkVE
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
When I was a young adolescent, India and Israel had women heads of state. Since then even Pakistan has had a woman prime minister. Great Britain has had two female prime ministers. Countries all over the world now have women at the helm.
The USA used to be the most progressive country in the world. We used to be the country that said, "Anybody could grow up to be president." Yet, all we're hearing is "The country isn't ready for a woman president." When will be join the 21st Century?
4
If you read the article closely enough, the big problem is revealed, in the discrepancy between what an individual voter prefers and what he/she thinks other voters might prefer. This clearly can affect how that individual voter will vote, by not wanting to waste it on someone they think others won't support. How to overcome this? I don't know. Nor was the answer revealed in this piece.
1
@John Or do people use the rationale that "other people" won't vote for a woman as an excuse to give in to their own biases?
1
I'm ready...but is the GOP?
4
Claiming that Sen. Sanders is sexist or a misogynist for purportedly saying that a woman can't be elected President in 2020 is like claiming that someone who said in 1972 that a black man could not be elected governor of Alabama is racist. Sen. Sanders may be wrong in his reading of the political tea leaves or unduly pessimistic but unless he completed his statement about a woman not being electable by adding "because women aren't smart enough" or "because women don't have the temperament for the job" he cannot legitimately be accused of being sexist or a misogynist.
5
@Jay Orchard Warren wasn't calling Sanders sexist or a misogynist and refused to contradict Sanders outright with the cameras and mics on. I do believe that your characterization of Sanders's meaning is correct, but no one - including Warren - said or even implied that Bernie was a misogynist. BUT he did imply that she was lying.
1
Bias? The country is full of racists and sexists, but also full of people who will vote FOR someone purely because he is black or she is a woman. It's already happened in the last 2 elections. We've already had Obama, who won in spite of being non-white and having a foreign name... because he was an amazingly hopeful and uniting candidate.
We've already had Hillary, who lost in spite of being incredibly qualified and well known... because she was an astonishingly bad candidate.
Stop with the racial and gender questions. Most people will vote for the best candidate, and the purely racial and gender votes will all cancel each other out.
3
@Jorge But before the 2016 election, the president of the NRA in his dog whistle language said that "Eight years of a demographically significant" president was enough. Remember that gem?
https://www.mediamatters.org/national-rifle-association/nras-wayne-lapierre-clinton-and-obama-eight-years-one-demographically
1
Focus, women and men.
This is just a distraction.
Warren blew it.
3
To paraphrase Dr. King, I hope one day to live in a country in which candidates for office, especially the presidency, will not be judged by the color of their skin, their sex, or their religious preference, but by their competence and THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHRACTER. Period. With what we're experiencing, character should be paramount. Race and sex should not even be under discussion. That it is says everything about us, including the media, and nothing about the candidates.
3
Let's all remember that Elizabeth voted for Nixon and Reagan and Bush! Yes, THAT Reagan who supported racist Apartheid South Africa! I'm relieved that she finally switched to vote D.
I'm very disappointed that Elizabeth attacked Bernie in this way. I've looked the other way when she lied about her DNA. Then there was the story about her lying about her dad being a janitor, her child being in a public school and her plagiarizing recipes for an Native American cookbook. Now it's a he said, she said incident. Not cool Elizabeth! Progressives need to stick together!
2
The question is not whether a woman can win. HRC would have won except for Comeys unusual interference plus the way overblown emailgate. (Please, let us never again go down that path).
The true question is how much of a drag a womans gender is on her candidacy. Is it 5 points, 10 points, some other number? And is she capable of surmounting that drag?
CURRENTLY. THERE ISN'I A WOMAN FOR THE JOB. IF THERE WAS I WOULD BE GLAD TO VOTE FOR HER. I AM A 68 YEAR OLD WOMAN FOR BERNIE SANDERS. HES THE REAL DEAL.
2
No, not yet, we have yet to have a woman step forward who is qualified for the job. Thank you.
3
@Southern Boy This is ludicrous. Are you suggesting *all* the men who have stepped forward are qualified for the job?
That's laughable.
7
@Southern Boy
Donald Trump wasn't (and is not, today) qualified for the job.
6
@Southern Boy why are you fine with men who aren't qualified for the job? There is nothing in the background of the current occupant of the White House that qualified him to govern this country ethically and wisely.
4
The real question is not whether America-USofA is ready to elect a woman POTUS but whether America-USofA will elect a self-described Social Democrat with heart problems. Sad to admit, but this country is not known for either type of boldness. If it came down to a contest between E. Warren and A. Klobuchar, either would be a monumentally better choice than the miscreant currently busy debasing our White House. (BTW, I would bet dollars to donuts that neighbors on either side of me would feel the same way).
A related question: Hasn’t this country consumed enough malevolent testosterone in the last 5 years to last ten lifetimes?
When this soup has been boiled down to irreducible liquor, a woman, a man, or a naturalized extraterrestrial must supplant Trump and begin the daunting task of repairing our democracy and our reputation at home and worldwide!
1
The cruel joke for left leaning Democrats like myself is that America could well elect a woman president by a substantial margin but it would likely be someone akin to an American Thatcher than a Warren. It’s not so much a female candidate seeking the presidency that arouses distaste among many men and women, it’s progressive women who threaten them. The bar is always much higher when you challenge the status quo; especially for women.
64
@Robert Thatcher was well-spoken and free-thinking. It garners respect when a woman who has the courage and bravery to think for herself, and doesn't do the easy thing and fall into line as a disgruntled, marching, sign-wielding feminist. Indeed since the 60's the "status quo" for popular thought has always been liberal and progressive. Republicans like Reagan and Trump got elected because there is still a silent right in this country that stays out of the public conversation in order to avoid the wailing and the tears, but nonetheless votes Red on election day. Warren doesn't have a chance because her insincere, sanctimonious and screeching demeanor is infinitely less likeable than that of Thatcher. Americans want a leader, not a lecturer-in-chief. When it comes down to it, you get elected based on personality. If people don't/didn't vote for Warren/Clinton, it's probably not that they feel "threatened" by them, as if their progressive taglines are just so revolutionary and scary because they are sure to bring the world to perfect and everlasting quality and justice...it's just they are insincere and fraudulent, and people don't like that. People, especially the uneducated, can smell a snake.
7
@Robert You've hit on a key truth, albeit unintentionally: The western democracies' populaces and polities have generally moved to the right over the last 10-20 years. (See U.K., EU nations overall, Israel, and U.S.)
More to the point here at home, simply look at the welter of polls from around the country. While Sanders might do better than Warren, the more moderate Biden has consistently outperformed each and every far-left contender in virtually every battleground state.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/
P.S. I'd vote for Thatcher in a heartbeat if she were alive and on the ballot vs. Trump.
5
@Robert Let's see, Thatcher was tough, smart, confident, gave as good as she got and never played the victim. What's not to like?
6
As a white male, I am tired of people (usually women) generalizing about what they presume to be my caveman views. I get equally tired of being accused of sexism if I find fault with a female candidate. We should be allowed to evaluate all candidates on their merits, regardless of their sex.
In last night's debate, one of the comments that offended me most was when Elizabeth Warren said that every mother worries about her children being victims of gun violence at school. What? So, fathers don't also worry about guns? I felt this comment signaled that I'm not invited into Senator Warren's club. It seemed to echo the age-old mantra that women worry about their children while men worry about, I don't know, taxes, I guess.
Women candidates for President should be judged on their experience, their ideas, their personal qualities. We shouldn't presume to know what kind of leaders they will be on the basis of their sex. For the same reasons, please don't presume to know what I'm thinking just because I'm a male voter.
One shouldn't fight tribalism with more tribalism.
87
@David
Good pick up on only women against gun violence, although it's Mom's Against Gun Violence.
Thinking about it, recently there are Dad's who've been in the news against guns. However, the Mom's have been fighting the gun lobby for decades and their name is a take off of Moms Against Drunk Driving. So thank goodness for moms/women who have been visibly taking a stand against death by drunks and guns.
20
@David Don't take it personally.
13
@David hear hear! I find articles like this completely sexist. And if they said it about race, it would be racist.
Anyway, it is the left accusing the Democrats of sexism and racism, so I'm going to make a bowl of popcorn and settle in to watch this show.
6
since the early 90s, when hilary first came on the scene as the wife of an obscure arkansas governor, i have heard over and over "i just don't like her". the only things known about her were that she was smart and had a career of her own, so it was hard not to think that those qualities were what was not liked. decades of effective public service were apparently not enough to overcome this "dislike", which then became "baggage". people don't know the real reasons why they vote as they do. i am one of the many not outraged, but fearful.
1
Seriously? It's 20 freaking 20 and this is a debate? And that's why there's an orange on the Sedar plate.
1
ABSOLUTELY . . but not Warren. She destroyed her candidacy with this inane stunt. PATHETIC.
5
I hate this question. I, like many others, thought Hillary Clinton would become president in 2016. However, it wasn't about the gender, but about having a qualified candidate who happened to be female. Sadly, Warren has made herself look pandering and petty and brought Sanders down too.
Go Yang!
Warren is so desperate to play the gender car card that the decided to smear BERNIE. That’s it for me. Just say no to Warren.
2
One of the things that I believe motivated voters to not vote for Hilary Clinton wasn't that she was a women (although certainly there were many who were and still are against a woman as President), it was that she was presented by herself. the DNC and MSM as having a "right" to the job because she was a woman. After all, we had finally broken the racial barrier with Obama, and now it was a woman's turn!
But things don't work that way, especially when talking about the Presidency. Remember Al Gore? He "deserved" to win because he had been so loyal, and had put his time in as VP. But, not so fast! The voters - or at least enough of them in terms of Electoral math - didn't agree.
Now here we are again, with the unspoken belief by many, especially in the media, that "Now it REALLY is a woman's turn". And certainly, Warren, Klobuchar, and Harris, all possess ample credentials to support their claim to the WH. But their gender does not guarantee them a pass. They still need to motivate enough voters to get behind them. If they can't because too many Americans still have a double standard, that's unfair, but every adult knows that life is not fair.
I would have no hesitation in voting for Liz if she gets the nod, although I hope it's Sanders personally. In fact, I really wanted her to run against Hilary and thought she had the better chance than Sanders. But she declined. To me, that's the difference between her and Bernie: Bernie's convictions are stronger.
1
Are American Ready to Elect or Re-elect a Rude Crude Lying Sexist Bumpkin President?
4
Personally, I don’t care if the next president is a man or a woman - as long as it’s a donkey.
2
@Queenie Voting should employ greater thinking skills than simply selecting by party.
This piece brilliantly illuminates the implicit biases that stand as obstacles for any female presidential candidate in the United States. Cottle’s most intriguing point: how personal opinions can dramatically differ from an assessment of one’s peers. The polls cited from Ipsos and Lean In suggest a deep disparity between a desire for a woman president and a fear that others do not desire such a candidate, and this gap is troubling. It is an endless cycle: we are “ready” for a woman president, we are scared others aren’t, we don’t want Trump, so we vote against our instincts, indicating that we are not, in fact, “ready.” It is a disturbing self-fulfilling prophecy. In light of what Cottle calls Trump’s “naked appeals to sexism,” a female Democratic nominee seems like the antidote, or the worthy opponent. Also, what does it really mean for America to be “ready” for a woman president? The answer (in light of Hillary Clinton’s strides) is an obvious yes. Perhaps we should ask if we are willing or able to elect one.
1
It’s ignorant to assume that people in midwestern states or southern states aren’t ready for a woman president, as though only those on either coast are progressive, anti-sexist and anti-racist. As an East coast “elite,” I would say that I myself have been guilty of assuming that only we are the enlightened ones. But look around: look at who has been elected in the senate and in the house, not just in New York and in California but across the country, look at the women’s marches, look at who is outraged, look who won the presidency the popular vote in 2016. We are human beings living in 2020. Many of us, most of us, are ready for whoever will repair the damage that has been done, not just with trump, but for hundreds of years. Most of us are looking for someone who is going to elevate us, move us beyond hate, and towards equity and equality. Elisabeth Warren is most definitely someone with the power to do that, and people, not just in a coffeehouse in Portland, believe it.
Are Americans ready to elect a woman? The question is insulting. I will say, however, while I have appreciated and admired Elizabeth Warren for a long time, I was shocked by her conduct after the debate. Watching her march over to Bernie's lectern, fully knowing her mike was hot, to quasi-publically upbraid him was undignified. It smacked of the kind of calculated and snarky move we associate with Mr. Trump, not between declared friends from the same party. It's not that her move was unfeminine; it was unclassy. I expected better from her. I'm Bernie all the way now.
8
And what would you say if Bernie walked up to her? One of the points of this article is to look at the double standard. All I saw was a brave woman stand up for herself...
2
I think if Bernie had marched to warren’s lectern to upbraid her in full view we would say it was belligerent - as well as undignified. What’s the double standard? It’s not how civil politics should be conducted and certainly not how friends behave.
1
So, (as the pundits like to say), just do it and let's see what happens. What could be worse than Trump?
Although please, no real estate developers and/or rich, white men who are "successful" business leaders in their communities. Enough of that. For sure.
Like so much else that’s wrong with our current politics, this is an entirely Boomer problem. Ten years from now, when huge numbers of right-wing Boomers are dead, thank God, and replaced at the polls by Millennials, AOC will be the first woman president, and she will win easily.
1
Yes. She might be a Republican in four years, or a Democrat this year. But, yes, America is ready to vote in a woman as President.
1
Yes, we are ready to elect a woman for president AGAIN. And abolish the electoral college.
1
Of course a woman can be elected, one already was. The EC appointed her opponent anyway.
1
Why did a desperate Warren drop this on Bernie on the eve of the primary, if he made this comment in 2018.
She did so because her ideas have failed to gain traction and she knows it. So she's decided to throw mud.
The real question is not whether a woman can be elected President (of course one can), but rather, do Bernie or Elizabeth has a snowballs' chance in you know where of defeating Donald Trump.
That is all that matters and the answer is no. Neither have an ounce of common sense and their ideas are borderline nuts.
I just hope that Biden or Klobachar win the nomination. Both are electable.
I cannot believe this is still even a question. What a country. By the way, if we had a popular vote for President, a woman would currently BE President.
2
Articles like this -- preeningly pretending it's not about Warren v. Sanders but about the bigger issue of gender-based voter-anxiety -- a garbage diagnosis if ever there was one -- are nothing but bulldroppings. This and similar stuff in this vein will simultaneously:
(1) alienate centrist voters;
(2) deepen fractures in the less-than-unified movement to remove President Trump from power one way or another; and
(3) pose a false choice, vis-a-vis presidential politics, between embracing sexism on the one hand or PC feminism on the other as necessary and unavoidable.
5
Hillary Clinton could have settled this matter four years ago. Her failure to do so was less about gender and more about her same-old-same-old agenda, poor public perception of her personal character that energized A-B-C voters, and a totally inept Democratic electoral campaign that ignored key segments of the blue collar electorate. Despite his corrupt history, Trump simply filled that vacuum, albeit with lies and false promises, and seized an EC “victory.”
In the end, it became a choice between two evils and the worst evil won. But gender had little to do with the outcome and probably won’t this year.
2
Americans are indeed ready to elect a woman president. But not all Americans will choose their candidate based on gender alone. This 'you must be sexist if you prefer another candidate over Warren' ploy does not win people over.
4
We can't even pass the ERA after all these years, why do you think we could elect a woman president? There's still too many women enabling, deferring to men, afraid of their power... Women, stop being 2nd class citizens!
1
Democrats need to pick the best candidate to take on Donald Trump this year.
Ovaries should be optional. A demonstrated commitment to reducing economic inequality should be mandatory.
2
America is absolutely ready to elect a woman president. It does matter who that women is.
1
I don't think you win or lose an election for just one reason.
That being said, there are those of us who think Clinton lost in the Midwest because old white farmers were unwilling to vote for a woman.
1
The people already did elect a woman President.
3
We've never had a Jewish president, a Moslem president, an openly gay president, any woman as president, or an openly atheist as president. We would like to believe the qualities of the individual will shine through, but for "some people" these labels are dealbreakers. True Hilary got the popular vote (and i voted for her) but the disdain with which she spoke to the "deplorables" turned many away. When I hear disdain for others in a candidates delivery, I pull back. if it is disdain for men, I take it personally, as do many men. I support Amy K.
1
"Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President?"
I think the answer is yes unless the Russians and the Trump organization are, through lies and fake news, capable of insuring a Trump win in November if a woman is running against him. They fear only Biden.
If you are entertaining this question at all right now you are being played.
4
73% say they are comfortable with a woman president but only 33% thought the same of their neighbors. This makes perfect sense since most of us have several neighbors. Hard to take an article seriously if the author doesn’t understand such a basic fact.
Doesn't the title question assume the interviewee is making their selection of candidate to vote for based on their sex?
I can infer the intent but it seems like there could be a better title.
1
*This* is exactly *why* a woman will be the perfect foil for Trump - exposing all that inspires hatred toward him:
" It can be hard to shake the tickle in the back of your brain that Mr. Trump’s retrograde brand of politics — his naked appeals to sexism, racism and other forms of old-school bigotry — can be weaponized all too easily against a woman opponent, who, fairly or not, already faces generic, gender-based hurdles."
But, if you still doubt that a women is right for the job, consider this: The Presidency is, ever more, a grossly underpaid position.
As a 55-year-old baby boomer, I just want to say that America is more than ready to stop reading headlines about “Is America Ready?”.
Hillary Clinton losing to Trump means nothing for a future election. Trump beat non-women like Marco Rubio, too, you will recall. Hillary lost to Obama, and would have lost to “Jeb!”
Hillary Clinton was a terrible, uninspiring candidate! Yes, I voted for her. But I didn’t like her, and that doesn’t mean I am sexist. I didn’t like her entitlement, for sure—that she was entitled to be a senator from NY (she’s not from NY) or president because she was First Lady. That’s for Imelda Marcos or Evita. (I didn’t like W being entitled to the presidency, either. I think dynasties are un-American.)
There are smarter, better leaders out there.
New Mexico—probably the most traditional state in the union—has a woman governor, and 2 of our 3 Congressional representatives are women. It’s not that we aren’t ready. It’s that the candidate has to be better.
3
@The Management
We are a Blue state.
Ya know, this seems like an odd question given that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote last time around.
1
Yes, but not Warren, not Clinton. I could see Klobuchar (this year?) or Harris in the near future. But, preachy righteousness does not win, whether a man or woman (Warren).
1
The Times sows doubt among its readers that a Woman can be elected president, based on specious reasoning. Yes, the editorial writers concede the most obvious point: that a woman DID win the Presidential election. They then demolish that concession to reality by claiming that she didn’t win the crucial electoral votes that would have actually won her the office to which she was popularly elected, ERGO, a woman cannot be elected President. Sounds kind of like tautological reasoning, but let’s go on to the next less-than compelling case for a woman’s unelectability: while a majority of women say THEY would vote for a woman, they didn’t THINK most Americans felt the same way. Their “thoughts” don’t vote; neither do their suspicions about how their neighbors might cast their ballots. There are more women than men in the general population; and more of them bother to vote. By mathematical probability therefore, a woman has a much better likelihood of winning the election (especially if the female turnout is proportionately strong). Not only does Elizabeth Warren stand a chance; she stands a much better chance than her male opponents. That includes Bernie if he will for the good of the Party and the country step down and throw his full weight to his fellow progressive.
If Warren and Sanders don't stop this petty squabbling, I voting AGAINST both of them.
2
@JM This is so obviously Warren attempting to squabble with Bernie. He's not taking the bait and you can see that. The media is trying to make it look like they are both fighting each other. They are not. Warren is trying to smear Bernie by misconstruing something he said in private 2 years ago. He was blind-sided and the media continues to aid and abet WARREN'S attack. Bernie and Liz agreed they wouldn't attack the other candidates. Bernie is still holding up his end of that bargain while Liz back stabbed him. Open your eyes and ears.
2
Watch out! Your nose will be next.
The last election taught me that yes, a woman could be elected. Hillary won the popular vote after all. But if the cultural climate of the years since has taught me anything, is that many people in this country still despise women, especially women in power. Even if Warren is elected president, the hatred of women that runs deep in the American psyche isn't likely to change anytime soon.
3
I believe the first woman president will be a Republican: Nikki Haley of South Carolina
Of course a woman could win the presidency.
One already has. She was robbed (and we were too) by the Electoral College.
I will VOTE BLUE no matter who is eventually nominated.
2
Of course!
Sex is neither a qualification nor a disqualification. We need a very smart, very decent, very experienced, very honest, truly patriotic American as our President. That excludes Impeached Donald John Trump and his entire cabal of criminals on ALL counts.
Purge this Trumpian criminal swamp and their Republican supporters and put America back on track to be the shining example of Democracy that we used to be before The Dotard.
1
We (the US) are the only democracy that thinks it unthinkable that woman can be elected head of state.
For shame.
2
I would have gladly voted for Sarah Palin. The reason Hillary lost is not her gender, it was that she was crooked and everyone knew it.
1
We will never be ready for a woman president
2
Nikki Haley, 2024!
2
Goodness gracious, we were ready in 2016! Hillary Clinton won the popular vote!
2
I'm voting for the Democratic nominee whatever sex they are.
3
Nikky Haley, 2024 !
1
Sisters, be the change you want to see in the world-Mahatmi Ghandi
2
@Elizabeth Bardwell
Don't hold back...tell us.
What will happen if Sanders gets the nomination despite the best efforts of the Times and CNN? Is a better question. Why do you want Biden anyhow?
3
"Bernie Bros" was an invention of Hillary Clinton's campaign.
3
Seems like the same swindle that President #44 used to gin up progressive sympathy for his vacuous candidacy (albeit on a distinct inter sectional vector).
Why are we still talking about Hillary Clinton?
It's 4 years!
1
66 million Americans voted for a woman in the l2016 election, so nearly three million more Americans were ready to see a woman rather than a man occupy the White House
1
U.S. was ready for a woman in 2016. But HRC really bumbled things with "deplorables" and failing to visit Rust Belt more.
Recall also Obama also hurt her by pushing controversial LGBT law late in his term. He didn't NEED to do that at all. It was pure vanity. He should have known better than poke a stick in the eye of the religious nuts. She could have done it after safely elected. That one probably cost her North Carolina at a minimum. I guess Obama thought she couldn't lose or just didn't care.
3
Sri Lanka, 1960
India, 1966
Israel, 1969
Argentina, 1974
Central African Republic, 1975
Portugal, 1979
United Kingdom, 1979
Dominica, 1980
Iceland, 1980
Norway, 1981
Malta, 1982
Philippines, 1986
Pakistan, 1988
Ireland, 1990
Lithuania, 1990
Nicaragua, 1990
Bangladesh, 1991
France, 1991
Poland, 1992
Burundi, 1993
Canada, 1993
Rwanda, 1993
Turkey, 1993
Haiti, 1995
Guyana, 1997
New Zealand, 1997
Latvia, 1999
Panama, 1999
Switzerland, 1999
Finland, 2001
Indonesia, 2001
Senegal, 2001
São Tomé and Príncipe, 2002
Peru, 2003
Macedonia, 2004
Mozambique, 2004
Germany, 2005
Ukraine, 2005
Chile, 2006
Jamaica, 2006
Liberia, 2006
South Korea, 2006
Moldova, 2008
Croatia, 2009
Australia, 2010
Costa Rica, 2010
Kyrgyzstan, 2010
Slovakia, 2010
Trinidad and Tobago, 2010
Denmark, 2011
Kosovo, 2011
Mali, 2011
Thailand, 2011
Malawi, 2012
Slovenia, 2013
Brazil, 2014
Mauritius, 2015
Namibia, 2015
United States, 2016*
United States, 2020.
4
Give us some credit. We, Americans, are not adverse to a woman president. It just so happens that the only one presented to us as a candidate was particularly undesirable (I would hate to call her deplorable) even if she had trousers.
2
The "People" already elected a woman president... it was the electoral college that didn't.
Per USA Today... Only 21% say that we are more safe... let's extrapolate [extend the application of (a method or conclusion, especially one based on statistics) to an unknown situation by assuming that existing trends will continue or similar methods will be applicable.]
To those "claiming" that Trump was a democratically elected president
--In the last election only 46% of the nation voted.
--Hillary won the popular vote by 3 Million.
--Half of the voting population would be 23%.
--That would mean that Trump only received LESS than 23% or approximately only 20% of the general populace.
--Trump was put into office by the electoral college which only represents .00051% of the nation's populace.
--Now we know that Russia (Putin), the Kochs, the GOP and media platforms such as Twitter, FaceBook and Instagram were used to feed anti democrat propaganda (Russia funded Facebook and Twitter investments through Kushner investor...TheGuardian)... why would anyone believe that the electoral college wasn't manipulated (deals they couldn't refuse).
--Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules [NYTImes]
--YouTube: Robert Reich: How Do We Abolish the Electoral College?
63 million voters didn't put Donald Trump into office...
Here is the 21% who say that they feel safer!
2
Americans are ready to elect the best candidate
(maybe this time)..... hopefully
1
How crazy that this is even a question? I mean really...are we that ignorant a population? Are we really beholden to such rank stupidity, that a sector of the voting public are just...so stupid?
I have no other words for it. Its just plain stupid that this is being asked...in 2020. Are we ready for a female President?
Im bumfuzzled that there are that many people out there, who are not! Because its not about, should not be about their gender, but always about their abilities!
Say what you will about HRC, and I was no huge fan, mostly because of the presumptive nature of her candidacy re; the DNC...but that resume of hers! A gorgeous CV! It was better then most of the men who preceded her as president, or even ran for the office, and of course Trump! (Summation of his CV. Multiple Bankruptcies, failed Brand seller, TV personality based on a fake back story, adequate golfer.)
Comparing resumes, and every Dem female running, or now not, has a better one then Trump.
Number One on my list of important factors; the relevant entries on their CV! Their gender, IRRELEVANT!
We need to evolve as a people, and fast! Otherwise we're doomed! Caught in a sexist, racist Doom Loop.
1
We will have a woman president but it will not happen in 2020. The woman who wins will be elected not because of her gender but because of her qualifications. To choose a woman because of her sex only is foolish and unwise. Americans are too smart for that.
1
My neighbors will vote for a woman for president just not the ones offered in this last debate. My neighbors are not ignorant or sexist. Warren is doing everything possible to lose their support by playing the sexist gender cards. One of Warren's biggest supporters took down Warren's yard sign after the debate.
The people in MY area are sick of the racist sexist identity politics the Dems use. They are offended that Dem Party leaders believe they are that sexist, racist and feeble minded. And these are life long Blue to the core Dems.
Gabbard is the only woman who has a chance of beating Trump but she refuses to play the Party's stupid games so the Party refuses to back her. Elissa Slotkin and Tammy Duckworth both can beat Trump but they are not running.
1
Why did Warren's campaign dredge up a private conversation held a year ago? What was the context of the remarks? It seems to me, she was just going for political points to shore up the female vote. I have met many women who don't like Trump but wonder if a woman can win.
Here in Texas, I see women proudly wearing their "adorable deplorable" shirts and MAGA hats. I don't think Elizabeth Warren can win here -that doesn't mean I don't think a woman can be president.
1
@Joan
Adorable? Words fail me.
Americans were ready in 2016 but less likely this year in the age of the trump cult especially a very very liberal woman.
Key to success us always about the ability to accurately assess one’s external environment and respond appropriately.
Without Sanders and Russia Hillary would have won in 2016 but environment different now. IMO, men have been empowered to demean women if they choose to so we need a re-normalizing transition and a little less socialist leaning woman next time.
I was very impressed with Elizabeth Warren's debate performance. She is always very well prepared with ideas, much more so than Bernie Sanders (as a supporter of Bernie I would like to think that is by design to paint with broad strokes so as not to put the public to sleep with details which is the case with much of the general public). So I am left mystified how such an obviously brilliant woman can kneecap herself with things like Pocahontas (the more she tried to extricate herself with apologies and DNA tests the dumber she looked). And now this? Let's say Bernie did say it. So what. Voters will decide if a woman (or a man for that matter) will be president not Bernie Sanders.
3
HRC likely was treated differently by the media and many voters because she was a woman. As several writers have noted, there are cultural differences between men and women.
Simple assertive behavior, show of anger or passion by a woman can be interpreted by a man as overly aggressive or "emotional." I once worked with an attorney who spoke with respect about tough male opponents but referred to females who used the same techniques as "ball busters." At an evangelic wedding we attended, the vows seemed to emphasize the dominant, bread winning, head of family position of the husband and the submissive, more domestic role of the wife.
While we hope we are learning and evolving, it is fair to wonder if everyone who votes has similarly "evolved."
1
@T. Schultz Or not voted for because she wasn't transparently truthful in the past. Don't omit that part.
One so-far-unnoticed bit of evidence in favor of the US's willingness to elect a woman President: Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is a Don Trump clone. Same beliefs, same style, same simplistic thinking and communication style. If in 2016 Sarah Palin had run for President in place of Don Trump she would have received pretty much the same number of votes as Don Trump. A few misogynists on the right would not have voted for her. And a bunch of women toward the center would have voted for her. It is beliefs and ability and personality that 99% of the voters base their vote on. Sure the US is ready for a woman President.
Silly question. Of course America would elect a woman President.
Next question.
2
Re: "They say they are. They’re not so sure about their neighbors, though..."
'Male/female/T-g', skin / eye / hair-color, 'N, sexual orientation are examples of 3 irrelevant issues when I step into the voting booth!
Because Mrs. Clinton won 3 million MORE votes than Trump, in '16, w/o (foreign...), 'criminal_assistance', I consider my country to have, already elected a female president!
We may have a lightly, better handle on Trump's, (2020), electoral criminality, or 'sub-criminality', (when viewed in context, of / connection to, all his other crimes...);
So...I'll reiterate: I've voted for every presidential race / many other elections since J. Carter, and I'll continue to vote, (AGAINST Republicans...as always!), in '20!
Yes but not one who allows a misogynist to continue running for president as a Democrat.
1
This sure is a lot of narrative off one unsubstantiated report of what Sanders said, which teed up the CNN question which was horribly handled and angered many, into a forced discussion about a woman president.
And on the '19th, we can also assume Warren will get the endorsement.
The NYT acts like its readers are really not that critical.
2
ANYONE other than Trump. PERIOD. And I used to be a Republican.
1
Of course neither CNN nor the NYTimes seems to understand that harping on these kinds of over exaggerated "he said/she said" lazy-journalism stories is exactly why Trump gains support when he calls them fake news.
3
Disappointingly sarcastic use of “alleged”.
We already elected a woman president. . .
Yes
- Independent male voter
1
Elizabeth Warren should have been President in 2016.
But that opportunity is gone.
She went over to the Dark Side and embraced Hillary Clinton,,,,110%. I felt really bad for Ms. Warren going around stumping for Hillary,,,,when for most of Ms. Warrens life......Hillary's behavior probably made her sick to her stomach......So badly did Elizabeth Warren want to be an insider, the holder of unchecked power, to wield it to destroy the forces of evil, her hatred of the Powerful was strong in that one. But the Clinton Dark Side corrupted her beyond repair.....
In 2016, Elizabeth Warren could have left the DNC Political Machine and the status quo "governance" it imposes on America. But she didnt. And now, she will become irrelevant.
8
@Wherever Hugo
She may have always been there. Recall, she could have endorsed Bernie before Mass./super tuesday primaries - and Bernie would probably be president now! She didn't - and instead we saw that obviously faked NYT frontpage endorsement that the media blamed on Bernie's campaign, but which actually disrupted their efforts to get out that key vote. Their doing it again now. But we're wise to it - and they are desperate and revealing themselves.
2
ABH is how we got in this mess. I'd take Warren in a heartbeat.
It is not lost on me how the plethora of negative attack comments against Senator Warren are mysteriously similar, as if someone’s strategic talking points were being projected like bullets into the webosphere, its targets oblivious as to their possible origin, but nevertheless, ingesting and regurgitating them like gospel. In fact, their almost cultish pronouncements remind me of a religious hit mob sent out to overpower and silence any other thought, never mind voice as though the truth were theirs and theirs alone.
Nikki Haley? Sure! Oh wait, does gender really matter? Or just when it's convenient?
6
Obviously there will never be a female President ...It makes no sense...
Let's get real: women born us, raise us, feed us, discipline us, take us to school, advise us about life and other women, love us totally, weep as thy send us off to war, and they can't be President? Where would we be without them?
Not if you cant have a private conversation with them and worry that anything you say will be used against you.
If Warren told Bernie in private that she didnt think the country is ready to elect a Jew or a homosexual..is Bernie supposed to tell his staff that after the meeting and let the staff do what the staff does.
4
Elect a woman. America must elect a woman. It will be either Warren or Klobuchar.
We are not afraid.
Media is spinning the fear card.
Trump is an abusive ugly wretched human.
A woman must heal the nation and move us forward.
Men are afraid of women.
Women are afraid of men.
Power is the issue.
Procreation is the glue holding us together.
Savagery is the obstacle humans deal with and women are the nurturers.
So now is the absolute time for a woman president.
Every candidate has a place in healing our nation.
Repubs would smarten up by allowing trump to be primaried. Now.
Since the trial starts get rid of him.
In fact tell him he must resign.
We are a nation primed for female emotion laden leadership.
Trumps brand of emoting doesn’t cut cheese.
FFS, we *did* elect a woman as President. Three years ago, in 2016. And have you not heard of Betteridge's law, Ms. Cottle?
The first female president will be a Republican.
“Progressives” will hate her, naturally.
1
Great graphic!
The question should be: are Americans ready to elect someone who is not a lawless, criminal sociopath?
4
I am so confused. America has elected a black back, a catholic, we have had a Greek-American VP (Agnew); a Jewish VP candidate win the popularity vote (Lieberman); and a woman, who was bogged down in highly destructing “scandals” win by 3 million votes 2 years ago.
I think this is a manufactured crisis to fuel Warren’s depleted base.
1
Let's be real. The question is really not whether a woman can win the presidency, it's whether she will win the presidency. One has to take into account all the factors working against Elizabeth Warren including election interference, prevailing attitudes that the myopic liberals still fail to consider (remember that a significant percentage of Trump voters were women?) and the fact that a large percentage of the country likes Elizabeth Warren about as much as they liked Hillary. For that matter, what makes Bernie Sanders think the country would actually elect a self professed socialist as president? So here we go again, watching in horror as the democrats playing into the hands of the republicans.
1
@Martha
What makes Bernie think he's electable? Maybe poll after poll since the winter of 2015.... (You just need to ask ALL likely voters, rather than preselectimg for registered Democrats - where he still does quite good, witness the 2016 primaries.)
A woman could become President despite the well understood sexism and misogyny of our culture.
That said, it appears that Warren, who has faded in the polls of late, leaked details (maybe true, maybe false) of a private conversation with Sanders. As calculated, the leak generated lots of attention including articles like this one where Cottle takes her own shots at Bernie invoking the mythical “Bernie Bros” meme generated by a MSM intent to dismantle the Sanders campaign.
Progressives would do well to let this one go and get back to what’s critical: Medicare for all, and to save the planet, a green new deal, and ending the reign of the military industrial complex as we edge everything closer to war.
I would be more than happy to vote for a woman to be the president of the USA. HOWEVER, it wouldn't be any of the crop of woman that have been, or are running under the banner of the Democratic party. They share the same leftist ideology as the men that are running.
Now, the real question is, will you vote for a woman to be president? Geraldine Ferraro crashed and burned as a VP candidate. Sarah Palin was demonized, demeaned, and denigrated by the left and never give an opportunity to prove herself in the national arena as a VP candidate. Hillary Clinton was too corrupt and had too much baggage to be elected.
The Democratic party is no more prepared for a woman than is the Republican party. To say otherwise is dishonest.
1
Can we agree it's more difficult for a woman (or black person) to be elected, but not impossible? Sanders said he supported Warren before she withdrew for the 2016 election (you might fact check that. I thought then she or Biden could beat Trump but preferred her, wasn't so sure a socialist, Bernie, could. )
Which means either Sanders or Warren lied, oddly only Warren refused to say if he said that to her.
Interesting, republicans don't care if their candidate lies (some like it :) This democrat cares about the truth, disappointed Warren and NYT writer don't.
Wow. This is an incredibly unhelpful—even damaging—article. Is it somehow unclear to you, Ms. Cottle, that you are only making things worse? You, like all these “typical” Americans you talk about, are hiding behind “those other people” to make the case that a woman shouldn’t be nominated.
“I’m not sexist, but other people are, therefore we shouldn’t nominate a woman” is just some of the most ridiculous logic in the world right now. It stuns me that New York Times opinion columnists have taken to joining in that ridiculous chorus.
A woman can be nominated President, despite the sexism in this country. It’s far from unreasonable, and in fact might be MORE reasonable than a socialist being elected, or an ancient, confused, unenthusiastic and not-enthusiasm-inspiring man with a habit for saying words like “malarkey” and a terrible record. Seriously, if you want to do the nation a favor, write about that.
1
I like Klobuchar more than I liked Hillary, and (like most Americans) I voted for Hillary in 2016. We were ready then, and we're still ready. Sort of a dumb question, really.
2
It depends on the woman.
We said the same thing in 2008 about an African American. Are we ready to elect Barak? We did and he did. Let's do this!
If everyone hadn't of stayed home during the last prez election, we'd have a woman prez right now.
If either party presented a candidate like Margaret Thatcher I’d vote for her in a heartbeat. When you give us reckless choices like Warren or corrupt options like Hillary, then of course they’ll lose. At their core Americans are not stupid.
No, Americans aren't ready to elect a women president, sadly. Americans aren't as equality minded as we like to think we are. The sheer number of spittle flecked comments online that I've seen from men and women (mostly men) who are simply outraged that Sen. Warren dared to question or criticize a man (Bernie Sanders) and that she didn't just sit down and shut up tells me that misogyny and sexism are indelibly baked into American culture.
1
It appears that we Americans have constructed a fantasy about what America is. We know - for sure - that 44% of Americans have their head buried in the sand about Trump and his criminal activities and also about the acquiescence of their Republican representatives in the US Senate in Trump's criminal behavior.
Maybe they just don't care. Those true-red patriots, those flag wavers, that moral majority, those neo-puritan evangelicals, those enablers and supporters of Donald J. Trump: Trump the liar, the draft dodger, the tax cheat, the prevaricator, the philanderer family man, the Putin stooge, the bankrupt businessman, the architect of our new normal "great economy."
Sexist? That's way down on the list. Violent. Racist. Dangerous. Guns. Mass murder. Gangsters running our government...
Feminist indignation may be trendy on the Upper East Side over wine and cheese - caviar on hard-boiled eggs - up in the penthouse. In Brooklyn - and down south and out on the prairie - it doesn't cut much ice or guarantee many votes.
America did elect a woman president -- Hillary Clinton. It was only the stupidity of an electoral college, which was established only for the southern slave states to preserve their power, which does not recognize the popular vote that caused her not to be sitting in the Oval Office. This is a typical media question which overlooks the very fact that the people were denied their constitutional rights to a free and fair election.
Stop asking inane questions and get on with the reporting of the thuggery going on in Washington -- on both sides of the aisle.
The theme in the media coverage, by men, of Hillary Clinton has been that she is unlikeable and dishonest. Deja vu?
Remember, we elected Hillary Clinton by a margin. It is only the racist anachronism of the electoral college that gave us Trump.
I worked for HRC here in VA and we won.
Lets get our and vote DEM in 2020.
1
If one goes down the road of determining primarily who you vote for ,on the basis of the candidates gender ,then you have failed as far as intelligent objectivity .
If someone is great at something it is because of what makes them great ,what is in their brains and bones and not because of what gender they happen to be .
Thus it is stupid to vote for a candidate simply because the candidate is a man and not a woman as equally as where a voter selects a woman because the candidate is a woman and not a man .
The argument of sexism and racism etc will always be among us (like the poor ,as Jesus would say ) because mortals are inherently weak and selfish .
The biggest challenge facing America now is how do we get of Trump and that is what should unite all concerned American citizens
Warrens actions and reactions may be understandable tro a point ...BUT it was political self destruction ..For so many voters who may be more inclined to vote for her ,there will probably be a lot more who now,will not ....and many of them will be female voters
Not all Americans think the same and are uniform and understand clearly that the successful President elected does not win on the basis of the popular vote .
Them's the Rules !
Not Elizabeth Warren. Nikki Haley probably. Warren is to risky. Trump will eat her alive in a way he can’t with Bernie. Bernie is a career politician. Warren to symbolic of north East out of touch liberal smarty pants. If we’re going left this election we need nothing less then Brooklyn Bernie to take down trump. Massachusetts won’t do.
If women didn't vote for Trump. a woman would now be President.
1
@Red Tree Hill If men didn't vote for Trump, a woman would now be President, winning in a landslide.
1
I would love it if the NYTimes would evaluate the amount of comments on stories about women and compare that to stories about men. I find, when I share stories about women, I get far fewer comments and interaction.
I do not discriminate based on gender. I believe women can be just as terrible as men when serving as president.
2
Elizabeth Warren's behavior last night was disgusting. Especially when she confronted Bernie during the break. Hillary has already been the nominee of the party, proving that people will vote for a woman. Enough of this already. Klobuchar needs to read the writing on the wall and admit her campaign is going nowhere. If Warren wants to win it, she needs to win it on merit and get back to her ideas, instead of playing the woman card. There are very few people who would not vote for Warren because of her gender and trying to pin that on Sanders to score points in a debate was pathetic.
We are ready for a woman president.
HRC beat Trump in the popular vote by 3 million votes.
So it has already been done.
We just need the right candidate.
It will happen. I am sure of that.
Meanwhile, I just want to get Trump out.
The person who is most likely to do that is a nice Jewish billionaire from NYC.
He will help us get rid of another billionaire from NYC.
Michael Bloomberg has used his smarts and his own money to set up a national operation to do just this.
He is my choice to lead us.
1
News flash. A woman won the popular vote in 2016.
55
@Elizabeth
Yes, but there were all these millions of illegal voters who are now endangering again Trump's reelection.
Fortunately we have the Russians doing their best trying to help our valiant and morally impeccable supreme leader and thus rescue the country from the mayhem that would otherwise ensue....
What has America come to!? We have to rely on the Russians as our best friends now to save us from those Democrats.
Sad!
2
My thoughts exactly, upon reading the headline of this article. Headlines influence beliefs ~ and we vote based upon our beliefs...for this reason, the author becomes an accomplice to any of any existing and potential crimes of whomever our country (and the electoral college system) elects in the fall.
3
@Elizabeth News flash that is a nice consolation prize in this country but that is all it is. Hillary Clinton flat out choked offering a feeble apology for her email indiscretions and then disappeared into her safe space, emerging only to make asinine pronouncements ("I short circuited" "put coal miners out of work" "basket of deplorables") leaving Donald Trump to bash her night after night on national TV and run essentially unopposed.
The number of women winning elections and the fact that Hillary was very, very close to winning indicates that someday soon we will have woman President. It’s more a problem for those who want one just because they want one than for voters.
The real question should be are Americans ready to elect someone that's going to do the job right, whether it be a woman, man, gay, straight, black, white, yellow, red, religious or non-religious, ect., ect. ect.
This country needs someone that can see the future but not forget the past.
1
All I can say is that it is hard to distinguish the trolls who want to divide us from the real reasoned arguments. But if Warren and Sanders are actually fighting over this ridiculous issue, after being friends (and what they BOTH said publicly in response to the questions), then they are really acting stupid. Or this is just for show (on both their parts).
And to supporters of both of them, I like both of them, I would be happy with either as President, and I think a Sanders/Warren or a Warren/Sanders ticket would be awesome: remember, no one is infallible. Everyone makes mistakes.
After seeing what is happening with Trump, we should be more wary than ever of celebrity culture and lionising individuals in a cultish manner. I don't know if particular posts are being made by (Russian) trolls or fans but some are really obsequious.
1
Vote for the candidate your mind and heart tell you is the right one. To do anything less than that is to let your convictions be infected by doubt, cowardice, or someone else's strategic contrivance. Make this an election about integrity, starting with yourself. It is the only way out of our national morass.
2
For heaven’s sake! If Pakistan, India, Iceland, UK, Ireland, Sri Lanka, etc. were all “ready” for a woman leader, why are continually discussing this? Is the US really this backward?
2
What a silly question--the voters have already elected a woman president--in any democracy but the US the winner of the popular vote wins the election, but here the 18th century rules prevail and the loser of the popular vote gets voted in by state 'electors'. Incredibly, this ridiculous system, which has twice awarded the popular vote loser the presidency out of the past five elections, still exists. It is long past time we live up to our belief that we are a democracy where the people's choice is the winner.
2
I like Klobuchar. For her views and experience. Not her gender.
I do not compare her only to other Female candidates to decide, but to All the candidates. To vote for—or against—anyone based on their gender is not only sexist, it is foolish. It eliminates half the possibilities for the chance to beat Trump.
3
Of course they are, to answer your headline, as long as the candidate is not an identity/social engineering obsessed Neo con like Hillary.
A majority of white women voted for Trump they were so ticked off at her identity obsession. It was degrading to them, ie vote for me because I am a woman and not an American who wants to unite people.
In other words if you want a woman to win don't run as a woman, run as an American uniting people.
That is what Obama did. He ran as an American uniting people and not as an identity obsessed angry black man.
He served two terms, Hillary was relegated to the dust bowl of history.
3
As a conservative I can say yes. Very few have a problem with it. That said do I want an unhappy person who lied about her heritage, lied about why she left her first job, and falsely smeared Bernie on the last debate? The answer is no. I don’t want anyone, either sex, that is a disgruntled socialist.
oh, the 15 minutes on the first comment gone because of an "error" in your computer.
Let me be short. She played the gender card. 53% of the Prez election voters usually male. It was a cold calculated premeditated attack to slime Bernie in the eyes of women voters. It was a desperate act, as he minders saw she might fall under the 15% cut of first round in IA.
It was not princioke. Good of country. Or good for party. Just personal ambition. GOP style.
Trump must appreciate its Lady Macbeth style.
Of course for SC it is the weapon Joe will use to beat her down.
People, as a whole, are followers. If a persuasive and competent leader steps forward why wouldn’t a woman be electable. To elect a woman, just for her gender, is ridiculous and is what lowers the respect for the Democratic party.
1
So anyone can become president, all you have to do is win the hearts and minds of the voters. How you do that is the $64,000.00 question. If trump and Obama can win, all you have to have is a candidate that attracts enough votes. It is that simple and anyone trying to spin it another way is clueless. Ya for some voters it is because they are a woman and for some it is because they are a man and for others it is because they are gay. Pick your excuse for who you do or do not vote for. It is after all a gut instinct, as to who to vote for.
I always hate the "are Americans ready" idea. "Ready" implies that we could get ready, if only we had a little more preparation. That if we just learned a little more, or had a little more experience, we'd be "prepared" for a women president. That whole idea is just ridiculous. If someone will not vote for a qualified women candidate because of that candidate's gender, there is no course they can take, nor book they can read to "prepare" them...they're just sexist.
1
What a red herring! Instead of looking at Hillary and Warren objectively and concluding that their dishonesty and outright lying turned many voters off, pundits and other members of the woke class have to twist themselves into knows to explain why these 2 women will never be President. It's sexism!
It's the patriarchy! Blah, blah, blah. Michelle Obama, Nikki Haley, Jennifer Granholm, to name but a few women, would be incredibly competitive candidates. Liz Warren, a woman who has so many plans, she doesn't have a spontaneous thought, tried to goad Bernie into losing his cool with a woman. But it backfired. Instead of taking the bait and becoming defensive, he terminated the interaction and walked away.
Good for him. I'm not a fan of socialists but Warren, a proven liar and Native American cultural appropriator (a major woke sin), has revealed herself to be just as detestable as most voters suspected she was.
2
Depends on the woman. Give us a Maggie Thatcher analog, and absolutely. Offer us a female Jeremy Corbyn and most of us will go off screaming into the night.
The point should be that plumbing doesn't matter, policy does. Anyone who would vote for a person because of her sex is every bit as sexist as someone who would vote against her on the same basis.
One should note, though, that leftists only care about electing women as an intramural matter, and they don't regard conservative women as real women. Leftists put socialism first, identity second. So, despite all the baying about wanting more women in office, when confronted with a choice between a superbly qualified Republican woman and a millionaire white male socialist without a minute's experience in elective office, how did NJ Democrats act?
In short, most of the identity nonsense is a fraud; not a single leftist whining about "Bernie Bros" would abandon him to vote for a Republican woman. Just ask Mia Love and Young Kim about leftist support for women.
Of course, they are ready to elect the first female president. But they are not ready to elect a condescending, whinny and petty person like Ms. Warren who doesn't even want to shake her opponent's hand after a primary debate.
1
It's obvious their disagreement--from two years ago mind you--was about electability. Which is really a euphemism for "swing voters in the Rust Belt”…which is itself a euphemism for "older white noncollege voters [who do not necessarily share the Democratic egalitarian view of the sexes].” Pointing out that potential sexism within this demo could pose an obstacle to electability in *this* election isn't sexist. Warren is no dummy. She knew full well what Bernie was getting at here. But she conveniently elected not to interpret for the non-politicos out there (most everyone) in order to score an easy bucket and humiliate a so-called friend. Now that was elitist—that someone who wants to be president would deliberately fail to interpret and clarify the meaning of discussion in its context, in the hopes that her audience would be too stupid to understand it, in order to score some points and humiliate a rival… wait now who does that begin to sound like? Sorry, but this was a terrible stunt by Warren.
2
Michelle Cottie needs to spend more time in the backwards areas of the USA like my own state of Indiana. There she would learn or be reminded of what she already may know that people are unabashedly, unapologetically sexist, racist and homophobic. They don't care what others think of their views and have a way of life that is not easily shaken by the newcomer Political Correctness. Spend more time in the rural areas of the country and see what people actually think without the chic poses of the Upper East Side or the fake gay support of the college campuses.
2
Aren't women more than half of the population? Aren't they more likely to vote than men? Aren't they more engaged now more than ever before because of #MeToo and Trump (#HimToo)? Isn't this the worst time in history, recent or past, to be a misogynist? I've got five sisters, eight aunts, countless nieces, female cousins and coworkers and a loving, supportive and informative wife but I still don't all I should know about women. The one thing all of them taught me though was, if you want to make sure the next president is a woman, tell women that America isn't ready for them.
Yes. They elected one by popular vote in 2016
We already did. By over 3mil votes. Undone by GOP electioneering.
Yes, but first find us one who isn’t willing to take cheap shots at a man doing everything right!
No, we are not ready.
Clinton won by any rational definition of winning. Full Stop. Only a statistical fluke and a bizarro quirk of a system concocted to compromise with a bunch of 18th century slavers kept her from the White House. Just stop.
Precisely correct. Looking at the comments of Sander supporters here in NYT which is the most liberal in the country and the backlash against Senator Warren from those so called socialists I have to be very pessimistic for Senator Warren.
The first woman president will be Nikki Haley.
Obviously America is ready to a whacked a woman for president. We saw in in 2016. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and narrow we lost the electoral college as a result of about 70000 votes in 3 States. All we have to do is nominate a woman candidate who was not such a crook. We need to nominate a female candidate who doesn't destroy cell phones and emails with hammers and SIM cards after getting a subpoena from Congress. We need to nominate a female candidate who doesn't think it's OK to work in government at a high position and have a private email server in her basement. We need to nominate a female candidate who doesn't think it's OK to allow Russia to purchase almost all of our uranium. Wirelessly, we need to nominate a woman who is a self made person. Hillary Clinton went into public service and had very little personal wealth. After leaving office she is a mega millionaires. How does that work?
It mystifies me that this question is so pervasive, and not the question, “is America ready to elect a gay man?”
Nikki Haley of South Carolina will be the first woman President.
2
Please stop with the Bernie Bros characterization of Sanders' supporters, please.
2
Are we ready to stop asking this question? Get a good candidate and lets see what happens. Are we ready to elect a short president or a tall president and such? Three million more people voted for Hillary so we must have been ready only problem was the Electoral College.We weren't ready to elect a Black person president until we elected Obama? The question is a question with no answer but conjecture. Are we ready to elect a left handed president?Maybe we will ready when the Moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Give it a rest please.
1
We need the Democrats to nominate a candidate that's under the age of 70, don't care if its a woman or a man
3
Do you ever consider that it's articles like this one — that keep asking the question "can a woman get elected president" while purportedly saying that they can — is the problem?
We did elect a woman, by 3,000,000 ballots.
If you put 3,000,000 people in a line, it would stretch for over a thousand miles.
republicans in the electoral college installed the loser.
still a guy world, but barely. Joe Biden- a lock- will run as POTUS
with a top gal- Kamela or Amy K as VP. Joe's goals are to beat don con and, finally, be elected POTUS. He has had his share of administration and will retire in a year or two- leaving one of
the talented, experienced gals to take us into the gal world,
which is surely coning.
“Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President?”
The question is vague and the answer is unknowable. What do you mean by “ready”? What do you mean by “Americans”- all Americans? any Americans? enough Americans?
Even if women lost the next five Presidential elections you couldn’t answer the question unless you could somehow prove that one or more of them only lost because of their sex.
2
Is that really what you would base your vote on?
1
Seems to me that the US, and for that matter, the world, could benefit greatly from a little less testosterone in their politicians!
The Russians and their Republicans allies must be so happy at this self-inflicted wound.
I think the question that Ms. Warren should have for Mr. Sanders is whether Americans are ready to vote for a Jew.
Yes, we absolutely are. But is it too much to ask for one that is not a sociopathic, exemplary negative stereotype of a politician?
1
Are Americans ready to elect another blatant liar?
One of the two senators is lying about the conversation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/us/politics/sanders-warren-debate-handshake.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Or at best is having a "senior moment" re recollections of the conversation.
There are and have been women presidents, prime ministers, etc. etc. all over the world. One might think that the US would be ready to join the 20th (sic!) century in this aspect.
1
Yes. Specially if she’s qualified. Senator Warren is exhibit one
At his latest rally Trump talked about women washing dishes and the crowd roared in applause. No, America is not ready.
Please. Who ISN'T "ready" for a female president? Gender isn't the standard. It's all about who is the RIGHT woman for president. And, Warren -- whose lies about being Native American, that allowed her to prosper in her academic career in place of a real Native American, disqualify her -- ain't it. Like electing Aunt Polly.
Neither, sorry, is the mediocre Klobuchar, a brunette Hillary Clinton.
Now, Tulsi Gabbard -- you've really got something there. She's THE most presidential of the whole Democratic candidate bunch, men included. She's the future for the party, seriously.
I'm ready to vote for a woman, but not Warren. Klobuchar would get my vote. She's more pragmatic than Warren.
If the majority of Americans are “extremely” or “very ready” for a female president then let’s embrace this reality. The pessimist views of fellow Americans as more backwards and bigoted is damaging to this country. Let’s start believing in ourselves and or neighbors again. We can and want to do better.
After seeing the level of misogyny on display in the last presidential election and Democratic primary, both subtle and overt, both from the left (Bernie supporters) and the right, I sadly concluded it might be a while until America has a female president.
It will happen at some point, I’ve no doubt, but for now any women would have to overcome much higher hurdles to win the office, which is something I’m sure many women can relate to. What was particularly sad in 2016 was seeing some women being swayed by the misogyny and criticizing HRC in ways they’d likely never criticize a man.
Please start with the possibility that Bernie is right, that he didn't say this, and that this is just another tactic to divide Americans by gender now instead of race. We ave made it far too possible for the divisions in our country to be widened by all the attention given to them by the media. I love Elizabeth, but I also give Bernie the benefit of the doubt.
1
Oh come on. Clinton lost by 70,000 votes and won by more than 3 million. Of course America is ready. We proved it.
37
@Matt
> Of course America is ready. We proved it.
Sadly, no. We proved that some demographics within America are ready - but the different outcome in the electoral college shows that other demographics are not.
4
The explanation for Bernie’s statement on women’s electability may be simpler, but sadly more cynical than it seems. My good friends, a couple that are both tenured professors at top ivy league university, told me that their school has an official policy and true intent to promote woman above man. So I asked, how is that going? The response was strange. I was told that the biggest resistance to making this diversity feat happen comes from women involved in this process, NOT men. I have no reason to doubt the story. If you translate this attitude of women towards their own specie from advancement at the university to presidential election, you may better understand what Bernie meant and what may lie ahead for female candidates.
We should have a woman President, and Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote. But not Elizabeth Warren. She just torpedoed her own campaign, which will help Bernie a lot. Bernie 2020
1
The single issue in the 2020 election remains unchanged --- defeating Donald Trump. How this happens will not depend on who has the best health care plan or whether the candidate is male or female, black or white. It will depend, in toto, on who votes.
If women, minorities and progressive leaning men come out to the polls in record numbers, the Democratic candidate will win, and it will not matter what they or their policies look like. If not, Donald Trump will be re-elected.
If a female candidate is defeated by Donald Trump it will be because we, the Democratic voters, betrayed her and our country by not going to the polls in sufficient numbers, and the reason will not matter.
2
Ahem ~ The 2016 election results demonstrate unequivocally that a woman can garner enough votes to be elected president. Hillary Rodham Clinton received 2.9 million more votes than did Donald John Trump. The Electoral College awarded the position to Trump because not all votes nationally cast are counted equally; a vote by someone in Wyoming is worth many, many times one that is cast by a Californian.
That this arcane accounting anomaly continues to exist, despite having long lost its reason for being, is something that has only a whimpering justification ~ that it adjusts for some imaginary disparity among the states, or rural vs. urban votes. Why we tolerate this anachronism defies explanation.
1
As Bernie pointed out last night, **Clinton got 3million more votes than Trump in 2016**.
So more people voted for a woman. Done.
Asking the question perpetuates a false narrative and ultimately makes it self-fulfilling. I’m bored of this lazy question.
2
Stupid question.
Hillary came close enough to answer it yes.
1
The relevant question is not whether America is "ready" (whatever that means) for a female president. The question is whether Americans are collectively smart enough to see through the inanity of identity politics and elect the most competent person to effect positive change, regardless of their sex. As a woman (I am an expat who votes), I never vote my biology. HiIlary Clinton's sense of entitlement about being the first female president - renting the Javits center to break its glass ceiling, for example, and then not even having the guts to give a concession speech on the night of the election - that annoyed people. When M. Albright said there is a "special place in hell for women who don't vote for Clinton" - that annoyed people too. When Elizabeth Warren in a town hall meeting snarkily assumed that men (read here: more likely to be bigoted) were more like to oppose gay marriage, that was the kind of classic drive-by attack that leftist women engage in to leverage their own sex. Rather than asking whether we are "ready" for a female president, why don't we ask: when will female candidates stop shooting themselves in the foot? I can much more easily imagine a conservative woman becoming the first President than a liberal. They are less like to play the gender card, less likely to whine, and more likely to roll up their sleeves and get down to business.
2
@Christina
I agree.
1
@Christina
Brava!
(Everyone here saying Nikki Haley 2024: you may be right, but Ivanka Trump will be in the mix.)
"There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women"
-Madeleine Albright
Just a little reminder from one of our greatest patriots and Secretary of State.
2
@cherrylog754
Jusr a little reminder from a woman who has spent a lifetime working for equal rights for everyone: Gender voting is just another way of diminishing and trivializing women. The best person should prevail, whatever the challenge. Infantalizing women by supporting them just because they're female is ridiculous.
1
Since We The People elected a woman president in 2016 by popular vote, the answer is obviously yes. Unfortunately for America; the undemocratic electoral college coupled with Russian election interference prevented Hillary Clinton from taking residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The United States and the World would be better off seating Hillary as the first woman president, contrary to expletive replies by Trump's MAGA loyalists. Certainly Hillary Clinton wouldn't have stayed 257 days at golf resorts playing 110 rounds these past 3 years. Other advantages of having a woman like Clinton as President of the United States compared to Trump include:
- veto of a deficit busting $1.5 Trillion tax give away,
- no secret agendas/calls to dictators like Putin,
- no sudden Syrian pull out by executive fiat,
- no withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,
- no diverted military $$$ wasted on walls,
- no endless resignations b "acting" cabinet appointees who never received Congressional confirmation,
...and lastly, no obstruction of Congress (justice).
Regarding that last issue, Hillary testified to Congress at Benghazi hearings while Trump instructed staff to ignore Congressional subpoenas.
So any variety of short answers can respond to the question wondering if a woman could be elected President of the United States. "We Wish!", "Hell Yeah!" and "In 2020 or Bust!" Especially since women make better leaders and women work together regardless of politics.
1
Dear Ms. Cottle: I don't elect an identity, and I don't base my vote on what my neighbors might do, especially in a primary election. I vote for a person, and the best candidate this time around just happens to not be a woman. There are a lot of people like you who are so hell-bent on the gender agenda, seemingly because (in an echo of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony) that a black man was elected first, that sex trumps, well, everything but Trump. Get over yourself. Same goes for Michelle Goldberg. Put down your pennant, pay attention to the numbers, and especially to the razor thin electorate that doesn't think like you and me but who will actually determine this coming election. They will not vote for a Progressive. Period. Winning requires discipline; it was the lack of discipline by the last female candidate that gave us Trump.
2
What are you saying?
America did elect a woman president! Hillary won in 2016.
Oh, I know. It is not really a victory until you win the electoral college. That is just idiotic. The electoral college was created to prevent our Republic from being democratic.
The electoral college be damned. It was engineered by the founding fathers as a fault mechanism that became a fault itself.
Yes, the founding fathers were wrong. They were mortal.
In a real democracy Hillary would be president right now. But, we are not a real democracy.
It is time to understand that democracies obey a popular vote or they cannot call themselves a democracy. It is in the definition itself. Historians a thousand years from now will point to the fact that America did elect a woman president but for some inane rule, prevented her from becoming so.
The DNC’s real problem isn’t sexism as much as supporting a strong candidate. If not for them choosing HRC, we would be in a much better place. Indeed, Trump would not have been elected. The DNC’s problem is generational. There hasn’t been a Democratic president for people of all economic and racial groups in a very, very long time. Realistically, never.
I’ve never understood the draw of conservatives because they prey on the ignorant. Democrats normally offer a safe place for middle class at the expense of the poor, while Republicans fuel the hatred of the poor who feel trapped by the middle class. Both middle class and poor see each other as enemies. When in reality, it’s the extremely wealthy who put them against each other. And the DNC maintains this status quo by sidelining so-called radicals or socialists.
3
@De Sordures
I think Obama was in fact “for people of all economic and racial groups”, as much as any one person could ever possibly be. Even if we are to resort to that horrendous identity politics thing. He is biracial, originally from an often forgotten state but having lived in a big central city, and has lived as both a not-rich and rich person. And in other countries! And he’s a lefty, and an athlete....
Oh, I miss President Obama.
The hand grenade Warren threw in the Sanders campaign that wouldn't go off is just more DNC tactics in its strategy to disrupt and deny the most progressive candidate the presidency.
Timing: On the last debate before the primaries does anyone think this was at all coincidental? Who benefits? Biden. Who loses? Sanders.
Then there is the question of character and judgement. Does anyone really think Bernie hates women? Does one private conversation with Warren about political possibilities after the Hillary lose really make Bernie a woman hater? Have they seen him act in a pattern of hate or abuse of women? That is not Bernie. People believe in Bernie because he cares about them and fights for a government that will work for them. Medicare For All will help millions upon millions of women as will $15 an hour and free college and a jobs program.
Stay focused. Vote Bernie.
4
The only reason we think" our neighbors" aren't ready for a woman President is because we have been gas lighted by Trump and his cronies to not believe what we see with our own eyes. What started as a field of 20 is now down to 6 and 2 are women. How did they get that far if no one thinks a woman can be President?
Now it is true that Trumps core of the uneducated , White Supremacists and Evangelicals will never vote for a woman, it is also true they will never vote for a Democrat. There are many old school republicans who will , regardless of what they say in public, vote for a Democrat be it a woman or a man because they are true Americans and appalled by the cruel, immoral, inept and corrupt reign of the "new" Republican Party
1
We need to stop asking this question. The more reporters and others talk about whether a woman can be elected, the more seeds of doubt are sown. Can’t we just let this question go at this point???
1
Americans are.
But just as the media tells liberals to elect republican lite candidates because of the electoral college we have to constantly pander to the right wing and be pulled into their delusions of the world.
1
Two women could be beating Trump right now:
Michelle Obama
Oprah Winfrey
Sorry they aren't running.
I don't believe Elizabeth Warren can beat Trump and I don't want her as the nominee.
1
"Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President ?" ! ! !
hellooo, they already did.
This kind of opinion piece is not helping bring the country together. Stop talking about Clinton and Warren and let’s work on getting the ERA passed in all 50 states. See Ken Burns’ video yesterday. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/15/opinion/equal-rights-19th-amendment.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
This is a broader topic than Warren and Sanders. Electing the President should be, and I say “should be”, about the most competent qualified person, not woman or man, black, white or Latino.
It's too bad that Senator Warren's little tiff with Senator Sanders is the catalyst for the question of whether a woman can win the Presidency, because of course they can. The proper question is can a nationwide campaign be constructed to successfully get a woman through gender-based obstacles that naturally are in the way. Mrs. Clinton's disastrous run in 2016 is a poor example, and so far Senator Warren, with her dubious bid to settle the ancestry question, waffling on health care, and now getting mired in a gender-based dispute with a fellow Democrat, is headed down that same road.
The more pressing question: Can a Democrat win this election? Then, is that democrat female?
Yes, Hillary won the popular vote. But in this political system, that is unfortunately more of an opinion poll (with similar trends as listed in the article).
No, Hillary didn’t win the election. Hillary’s Democratic Party ran a faulty strategy.
So, do you want a winning opinion or a winning strategy?
2
I gladly voted for HRC in 2016 because I believed that she was the best choice for assuming the role of president. If the woman candidate in a hypothetical election was Kelley Ann Conway, I'd absolutely vote the other way, because she would be a terrible president. Framing the presidential election as though it was a matter of gender (or other identity issues) alone is just too simplistic. The country need wise and competent leadership period.
9
We have proof that Warren lies?
Please explain.
2
We have proof that character matters. We have proof Warren lies. We have proof Warren wholeheartedly supported destroying the progressive agenda by supporting and endorsing Clinton over Sanders just this last election, which resulted in Trump’s election. We have proof Warren is not trustworthy. We have proof character matters. We have proof why a person runs for office matters. We have proof Warren would rather allow the American people to suffer without progressive policies, when it doesn’t benefit her personally. We have proof character matters in leadership. We have proof we deserve better in our leaders.
2
Democrats HAVE a winning woman candidate on stage: She is Amy Klobuchar.
Still most of the commentators here insist on yapping only about Clinton (who won, but didn't) and free-stuff Warren, then spinning these examples into a mythology about the unelectability of women.
In fall those same people will be spouting the same "poor us" rhetoric, failing to concede they had the best candidate.
It is childlike to extrapolate out a couple of examples to encompass the universe. Yes. The right woman can (could have) won. She's been right there in front of us.
2
WOMEN have to start voting for the qualified Women
64
@Mary M
I’d prefer to use my brain and vote for the most open-minded human being with a penchant for solving the suffering of others. Meet Bernie!
11
@rebecca1048
Trade-offs go with the job. I don't think Bernie is capable of making trade-offs.
10
@rebecca1048: Bernie is a fine man but he has no real hostory as getting things done. His Presidential campaingn website for the last election had only 2 listed accomplishments and one was that he always won his elections by the skin of his teeth and the other was that he was one of a half dozen "Co-authors" on on important piece of Congressional Legislation. Until then I was a Bernie supporter.
5
Yes. I could have voted for Harris as Pres. But not Warren. Hillary 2.0.
Her judgment regarding the Bernie disclosure is questionable. Why bring it up at all if not to seek advantage at the polls? It shows him in a bad light (whether true or not) and her as well for political opportunism. A net loss for the Dems.
4
Seriously I am so sick of the press/media asking this question we already elected a woman President in 2016 her name was Hillary Clinton you remember she took the popular vote by 3+Million votes. The real question is will the press/media continue to sabotage female politicians ?
3
I've been struggling to decide who to support in the Nevada caucuses, just a month away. Last night we watched The Suffragette on Netflix. That narrowed it down for me, it will be Liz or Amy. It's outrageous that it took until 1920 for women to get the vote, and here we are 100 years later still discussing whether a woman can get elected. Besides, those two are way more qualified than the men who were on that stage.
4
@Terry
Your last sentence is the one that counts.
I like Amy, for her views and experience. Not her gender. I don’t compare her only to other women, but yo all candidates. To do otherwise —to choose her based on gender—insults her and all women. It is also both sexist and foolish, in that it eliminates from consideration half the people who could best Trump.
1
The headline itself is a stark reminder that living in 21st Century America doesn't mean that one is so far removed from the Salem witch trials
1
I'm sure more than a few people have reminded you that the voters already have elected a woman as president.
3
I would counter that an elderly Socialist with a grumpy demeanor cannot be elected president but he could probably use his campaign chest and influence to elect a like-minded woman with more universal appeal.
2
I am.
The moment Nikky Haley runs she has my vote.
1
Prioritization . . . it's that simple.
1. Trump must NOT get re-elected this November.
2. Trump's critically damaging policies (environmental, financial, judicial, human, etc.) must be undone.
3. All else follows.
Presently, we are in a ditch at the side of road. We need most American voters (notably the independent moderates) to chose
the most suitable, at this moment in time, planking (candidate) to use to get us out of this ditch and onto the road of democracy.
That candidate for this specific election must be a moderate, comfortable and reassuring individual. Yes, that means a middle aged+, straight, white man. A Biden, a Bloomberg.
Once out of this ditch, in 2024, we seek gender & multiracial.
If we divide ourselves, lose sight of the number 1 priority -- 4 more years of Trump will ensue & secure a fascist state for the U.S. And a relatively free and open election in 2024 will not be possible.
The kerfuffle about whether a woman could be elected president is one that has been blown out of proportion by the news media. Whether or not the Sanders/Warren discussion really took place is not the issue. Even the NYT has made more of this than it should have. Hillary did win more popular votes than Trump and she may have won even more, and she may have won the electoral college if she weren't a woman, and especially if she weren't the 'wife' of the philanderer, Bill Clinton.
So yes, gender is still an issue in 2020. There are still many evolutionary throwbacks in the American electorate who could never see a woman as president. Lord know what their mothers and sisters might think of them. But many mothers and sisters may also think that women are not suited to be president. But that should not make us not want to vote for a woman just because she may get fewer votes from the hairless apes, both male and female, who have the right to vote simply because of where they were born. Hillary was right. There are lots of ignorant "deplorables" still in the American electorate. But they are all sticking with Trump. Even Joe Biden won't get their vote.
1
@RLW
It’s not made a big deal by the media. Warren made it a big deal by dropping this bombshell just before the debate, and then getting mad because Bernie answered a question about it.
1
it is endearing in an era when everyone's special powers are being celebrated as ... special ... that we're all atwitter about whether women's powers are too special, or not special enough.
let's see ... women are great listeners. they can multitask, they can troubleshoot, they can stand more pain than men. they create harmony and consensus wherever they go -- but they can be tough as nails, especially in a nun's habit. they can end war and bring world peace, because they fight hard for what they believe. they're smart as a whip and loyal, too. they can teach us all about spiritual virtues -- and they can cook, too!
they're not into those pesky stereotypes about people and what a person can or can't do ... like men are.
men ... yech ... no special powers there!
although i will say: when a bully is mean to you at school, do you want mom to fix it, or dad? mom will talk all nice and the bully will just sneer. dad, however, dad will get in there and fix that bully good. like dad's do.
democrats say they have a bully problem; that nasty man in the Chalk House. they're afraid of him, they want him to go away.
i think it has to do with not voting your beliefs but voting the way you think other people will vote? or voting so you don't offend other people?
sounds like stereotypical woman thinking.
well, i say, if we all vote they way we think ignorant people will want us to vote, we'll never get anywhere.
cinch up your belts, ladies: liz warren is the man for the job.
Man or woman, America is looking for a candidate who won’t resort to the hucksterism and dirty tricks Warren seems to have engaged in at the debate in making astoundingly uncharacteristic claims toward Sanders. Isn’t this unethical behavior what we are all sick and tired of, regardless of gender?
4
I thought we did, via the popular vote, elect a woman as president by 3 million votes. But, the old white patriarchally based electoral college decided that Mr. Bone Spurs should be president. I think her name was Hillary something;-) So, yes, we are ready. Sometimes, I do wonder who decides what articles to write.
Stop underestimating your neighbors!
It’s very on-brand for Warren supporters to sit around fretting that the electorate is just too unenlightened to vote for their candidate—“Oh, if only they could understand her plan!” “Oh, if only they weren’t all so sexist!” “Oh, if only...”
Waste no time worrying that they can’t; get out and persuade them that they should.
USA is way ahead of the rest of the world in technology but way behind in its attitudes & outlook towards women's rights
3
No. Having a woman Democratic nominee will doom the party to failure in 2020. This is a country that failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, which merely asserted women were equal to men, and nothing has changed. Too many Democratic male and female voters will elect a misogynist demented criminal rather than vote for a woman.
2
Jeesh - just let this non-issue go already - CNN is simply milking this manufactured drama for as much ad money as possible, but the voters don't really care. Clearly the centrist media (especially CNN) don't neither Warren or Sanders in the White House - that's what this nonsense is really about.
2
At this point in history, whether Americans are ready to elect a man or a woman is a silly question. Of course they are. Gender is just a factor amongst many, and if the press would not repeatedly lay emphasis on this "issue", it would not even be a factor at all.
1
This is a silly question.
Voting for a candidate based on the candidates "identity group" is the definition of prejudice.
1
This is a silly question.
Voting for a candidate based on the candidates "identity group" is the definition of prejudice.
2
"She did not win the presidency, despite facing the most patently unfit opponent in the history of the Republic."
Let's not forget HRC was also opposed by Putin and his trolls, WikiLeaks, James Comey, bogus social media ads, Cambridge Analytica and who knows what else.
And for those men who think "women are less effective in politics than men", pay more attention to Speaker Pelosi...
1
They already did... in 2016.
"Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President?" Why does anyone even ask this question? Do people ask: Are people ready to have a woman doctor, a woman lawyer, a woman nurse, etc.?
We already elected a woman president. She won by over 3 million votes
Speaking for myself and everyone of my woman friends, we are beyond ready!!!!!!
I don't care what age the woman is, if she is a Democrat, I would vote for her over the man any day.
I don't know why Nancy Pelosi is not running---she would be incredible.
......and highly electable.
Why is this question even being asked?
We elected Hillary Clinton in 2016.
A woman won’t win as long as they continue to fall back on claims of sexism every time they don’t get what they want.
2
@ M
Funny. I remember a man who got elected who kept falling back on, “But her emails!”
"It also doesn’t help that the Bernie Bros, a segment of Mr. Sanders’s most animated supporters, are famous for their aggressive, at times abusive behavior toward his opponents and critics, earning a reputation for toxic machismo."
Produce the body. I have yet to see a "Bernie Bro" produced on any TV show, in any newspaper or on any radio show or podcast. Journalists deal in facts- as in verifiable facts.
Why has no news organization investigated to see if these mythical creatures were not bots put out in cyberspace to sow division among Democrats? Divide and conquer works.
If the Bernie Bro was a creation designed to divide the Democratic base, it apparently worked as Clinton partisans are still whining about it almost 4 years later.
As to the mention of "woman problems", Ms. Clinotn fired the staffer that brought up such issues on her campaign and Bernie investigated such charges within his. I think you mean Hillary had a woman problem.
I believe that Bernie said what he is being called out on. I wish he would admit to it.
I have lost any good feelings I might have had for Michael Moore who has put forth an episode of his new podcast calling Elizabeth Warren a liar.
Men are believed in a way that women aren't, women are dismissed.
I'm so tired of being second class.
This country would be a much better place run by women.
Stacy Abrams would be great.
What a phony manufactured crisis aimed at the most progressive member on the stage. This is why few people trust the media anymore.
They are.
In fact they'll be ready to elect a woman of color in 2024.
Nikki Haley..with Tom Cotton as her VP.
It doesn't matter. Vote blue, or lose. There is no room or reason for debate, despite the pundts' need to opine endlessly to earn their keep. Simply ask yourself whethe the country can survive another 4 years of the authoritarian monster in the Oval Office, and pull the lever for whoever the Democratic candidate is.
2
Americans maybe ready to elect a woman President but America may not be able to elect Warren. Her claim that Bernie said a woman cannot win is devoid of context.
This year, it would be very difficult to elect a Black American or a woman. Why? Really? Trump and his base are fired up racists and misogynists. Evangelists and Catholics are patriarchal and they are loyal to Trump. 24 women have accused Trump of sexual assault with no outrage. Can Warren or Klobuchar rouse those women who are subordinated by their religion or offended by Trump’s behavior?
A woman will become president. It may be Pelosi, if Democrats can raise the Parnas-Giuliani revelations to a white hot fury.
1
Of course I remember a lot of grumbling that an African-American couldn’t get elected.
I think a lot of these “Can a woman be elecTed?” issue questions are thought up by the media to get our dander up? They’re done covering every little thing that Trump does like they did in 2016? Most who aren’t interested in having a lunatic in the White House, are looking for a candidate that can beat Trump, and that’s it!
We already did.
How anyone would look at this loser of a human being and disaster of a president, who happens to be a male, and then follow up with the idea that a woman cannot or should not be president needs to turn in their voter registration card.
Men have been at the wheels of power and run countries and dynasties since the beginning of time. It's time we had women running some of the big shows around the globe. How much worse could it be? How much better could it be? let's find out.
1
Why isn't the NYT editorial board asking if America is ready to elect a Jewish President? Or a gay President? Neither are relavent questions, but both, as well as the question of whether America is "ready" to elect a female President, reflect the myopic and all-too-often tribalist vision of identity politics.
1
Of course, but CNN moderators slandering Sanders is not the way to make it happen.
1
The answer to your question is No. Why?
President Obama, a man of color won the seat of the Presidency twice. A shock wave rippled through the white male population Voilà', the induction of subpar, alpha white male, djt.
If you were to ask, Is America in need of a female President ? My answer is Yes. A resounding yes.
There are 138 other countries that have elected a woman as the leaders of their countries. And they have been strong, effective leaders...ever heard of Peron, Thatcher, Merkel to name a few? It's time for America to get with the program. We Americans are living in the 19th (not even 20th) century.
1
Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President?
The answer is, "yes". However, do not equate that question with "Can Elizabeth Warren win the presidency?" The answer to that is simple: very unlikely.
It takes a special kind of person to be the first of anything to be elected president. JFK was the first Catholic and he made it clear that he was always open to input and was president of the entire United States. Obama was the first African-American and he made it clear that he was always willing to listen to the people and that he was president of the entire United States.
Warren, by contrast, doesn't listen to anyone, stands up and preaches to people, telling them what she knows they should have. What they actually want doesn't matter, only what she wants them to have. (Bernie, btw, isn't a lot different, but is just a tad less strident.)
So, if what you're looking for is a gender-identity president, you'll have to wait. If what you're looking for is a president of all the people, who is of either gender, any color and any ethnic background, you should get in line. We are all looking for that.
4
Other countries don't seem to have trouble electing women into leadership roles. Anyone remember Margaret Thatcher? or Golda Meir? Indira Gandhi? How about Angela Merkel? or former Canadian Primer Minister Kim Campbell?
Women didn't even get the vote in this country until 1919 and some "conservatives" still think that was a mistake. This country is still dominated, to a large degree, by reactionaries.
I agree with Michelle Cottle: being a woman candidate carries a considerable handicap. And a big part of the problem is the media, including the MSM. In 2016 they virtually ignored Hillary Clinton's qualifications and policies, and focused on personal attacks on her character. It didn't matter that her opponent was far worse in every aspect of his character.
Whether or not a woman can win depends entirely on who the woman is! I happen to believe Nancy Pelosi could win in a heartbeat. Elizabeth Warren? Her views work against her at the national level - too far too fast, and subtle things about her femininity also weaken her. A somewhat high pitched voice, a thing we call 'cuteness' - these traits that a lot of us women have work unconsciously on others to make them doubt our leadership potential. I guess we just have to wait and see -
2
It feels so much better to blame sexism (and racism) than to face the fact that your candidate's platform didn't resonate with the voters - and lost.
I would vote for Klobuchar/Yang over Warren/Biden/Sanders. Those are the candidates who resonate with me. Nothing to do with their gender or race.
4
@Gus
My dream team.
2
Ms. Cottle brings several pertinent points to the forefront of this continuing conversation, the most important of which is:
..."Now, one could point out that believing a woman can be president of the United States is not the same as questioning whether a woman can get elected president."...
I would add that it will take the RIGHT woman to get elected. HRC was not that woman - and please don't bring up the popular vote vs. Electoral College. It is a tangential argument. Until the Electoral College system is amended, it remains the system by which this country legally elects it's President. Consequently the RIGHT votes are the most important. If the Democratic nominee forgets that then we suffer four more years of you know who.
Warren is not the right woman either. Look at how she handled the petty and childish Pocahontas situation. She struggled to formulate a response and seemed absolutely caught off guard. That was nothing compared to what nominee will face in the fall. Maybe Warren has toughened up since then but her often aggressive style isn't going to win many pragmatic voters over. Sanders has the same problem in that he seems like a cranky uncle on the verge of scolding you.
Say I’m not sure about my neighbors electing a woman President.
Say I’m not sure about my neighbors electing a President.
Say I’m not sure about my neighbors.
Say I’m not sure.
Say I’m sure.
Sure.
I’m not.
1
Of course a Woman can be President, anything is possible and I am sure one day a female will be elected President of the United States. The same way nobody thought an African American could be a candidate let alone be elected or a Hispanic or a woman, it will come. The question is whether Elizabeth Warren could be elected and the answer is a resounding no, and it has nothing to do with her being a woman.
3
Here's the deal:
"while 53 percent of voters considered themselves “extremely” or “very ready” for a woman president, only 16 percent thought most Americans felt the same."
Those 84% that think most Americans might not be ready for a woman president are right. 53% is barely more than half, and 3% is likely within the margin of error. Plus, this gives no information about how these people that are ready for a woman president are geographically distributed, which we all know has a disproportionate impact on how voters actually elect presidents in our country.
1
The right woman could win.
Klobuchar could win, though it seems more likely she’ll be VP for Joe. Then she could face off against Haley in 2024, after Joe retires after one term, and after saving the country.
3
The majority of every demographic in the US voted for HRC except White men and Women, whereas the majority of African Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans voted for a woman. The majority of White men and White women voted for Trump so this question is only applicable to White Americans. The rest of us have already proven that we are willing and able to vote for a woman to be president. White people? Not so much!
2
My great concern is that Warren and most of the other Democratic presidential candidates are competing to see who can make the most woke and socialist promises:
Free college tuition. Medicare for all, including illegal immigrants. College loan forgiveness. Reparations for blacks and gays. Guaranteed basic income. Federal job guarantees. Federally mandated school busing to achieve integration. Green New Deal (eco-socialism). Voting and early release for prisoners. Open borders.
All the fabulously wealthy US individuals and corporations together do not have the many trillions of dollars needed to pay for these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes would have to be raised on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All, not to mention the additional trillions needed for the other items. (For perspective, the current US budget is about $4.4 trillion, with a deficit of about $1 trillion.) And Warren proposes to ADD $2 million/year for Medicare for All and to erase student debt by executive order, costing an extra $1.6 trillion on her first day in office!)
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Don’t forget that our goal in 2020 is to elect a Democratic president, and that will require appealing to the independents, undecideds and others whom the Democrats failed to reach in 2016.
10
@Mon Ray. Warren and Sanders are too liberal. Biden has passed his sell by date and Mayor Pete is too young and I suspect we are not really ready to elect an openly gay President.
That leaves us with Klobuchar who matches up quite well with Trump.
10
@Mon Ray
These 'promises', ie: goals, are things that people in other advanced Western Democracies already have; there's nothing exotic or radical about them. On the other hand, if we continue to allow billionaires and corporations to avoid taxes, if we continue to assume more than half of the planet's entire military budget, it might be hard. These are the choices we have to make: Take care of our democracy our people and our nation, or not. Right now, we do not.
11
@Sparky
I think that Sanders would do very well against Trump. He taps into a lot of the worries of the left behind people who voted for Trump.
9
Asking the right questions is half the battle in life.
The question shouldn’t be, “Can a woman be elected President?”
It should be, “Which person is best for the Presidency?”
Asking if a woman can be President is the wrong question. It’s a leading question, full of presumptions and bias, in and of itself.
4
Yes, a woman can win when the stars align. But there is a bias among a small percentage of voters against women candidates. And the 2020 election is critically important and will be razor close and decided by a handful of voters in MI PA WI FL and AZ. The bias can make the difference.
2
What bothers me is that Warren is not just fighting the perception that America isn't ready to elect a woman, but also that America doesn't seem ready to elect a genuine progressive with a vision of how we could become a truly great society by asking the wealthiest among us to sacrifice something in order to get there.
It's really a no-brainer to say that a woman can get elected president for anyone who watched a candidate as qualified yet flawed as HRC actually win a majority of the popular vote in 2016. (Imagine what another woman as qualified but without all the baggage would have done to Trump!) The Democrat's dilemma this time around isn't so much about sexism anymore than it is about the divide between progressives and moderates (think of Klobuchar's own attacks on Warren's proposals), and the divide between generations -- the low expectations placed on Biden or Bernie's repetitive rants against the billionaire class vs the insights and agile intelligence of Buttigieg or Yang.
Throw in the propensity of Dems to shoot themselves in the foot by letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and you might be able to explain to me why I've donated to four different campaigns already this election cycle.
2
Yes, I am.
To my neighbors, my fellow Democrats, my fellow Americans, I say: "Yes I am."
Given the choices I have this election cycle, Elizabeth Warren (for me) has earned my vote. Her gender played no role in my making that decision. This notion that someone would change their vote to fit the preferences of the electorate is overplayed and overblown (I think).
1
A bachelor couldn’t win; Buchanan. A disabled candidate couldn’t win; FDR. A Catholic couldn’t win; Kennedy. A divorcee couldn’t win; Reagan. A black couldn’t win; Obama. A woman won’t win; HRC won the popular vote, of course. A woman can win. The only valid question is whether, on the merits, the current slate of female candidates can win.
85
@MWR
How often does identity politics have to get it wrong before it is abandoned altogether? The problem is too many now owe their livelihoods to it and they wouldn't receive any recognition without it. It's become a kind of gravy train.
7
@MWR
Sure a woman can win.
HRC , however, made it tougher for women by running a dreadful campaign that ignored the rust belt and insulted working people, and was a dreary, condescending, Limousine Liberal affair. She threw away the Middle with both hands, and handed it to Trump.
8
@AACNY
Identity politics has an important role to play in the progressive movement--e.g. black lives matter correctly turns our attention to the problems of police brutality and mass-incarceration.
But we must get beyond this bourgeois obsession with representation: progress won't come from adding a few more people of color to your favorite Netflix show. We need a grassroots movement mobilized around real material issues in the lives of working people.
4
Yes, perceptions of other people’s biases matter. But the most disturbing stat is from the poll that only 74 percent of independents and Democrats said they were personally comfortable with a woman president. I would of thought it would be much higher from that demographic.
2
This is such a moot point. Gee, I wonder if we can run an experiment and see if a woman, running against a man, could win more votes. Oh wait, we already did that and, yes, the woman got three million more votes. In an other democracy in this world that person would be declared the winner. But we have an arcane, corrupt system for choosing our president. Think of the ridiculousness of choosing the governor of your state, not by popular vote, but by how the individual counties voted, i.e, a mini Electoral College on the state level. Absurd? Yup. Now expand that to the entire 50 states and one can see the inanity of our system.
So, let's move forwards and past this silly, already settled debate about if a woman could be ELECTED president, of course she COULD, and let's address the system, not the people, that prevents that from happening.
4
Can a woman beat Trump in WI MI PA FL and AZ? (That is, running up the score in CA, for example, does not count.)
20
@Doug
Midwestern conservatives would never vote for a woman?... You should run this theory by Senator Joni Ernst.
I said it in 2008 and I say it again now—
This country is far more sexist than racist -
and has become classist in my lifetime. The worst sin in American public life is not to be a POC, it is to be poor or female or poor and female.
We will never have a woman as president. Never.
1
@American
Haley might be the first, in 2024.
We already elected a woman to be president. In 2016.
1
How sexist to even ask that question. American's don't care about the gender of the candidate but their policies and leadership qualities. If Michelle Obama could speak properly she would be a great candidate. Someone like Hillary could never get elected because she came across as being a crook. Warren was a great candidate until her $20T health care plan. Just gotta keep looking. I reckon Erin Brockovich would make a great president.
1
I'll readily vote an American version of Margret Thatcher.
1
Evangelicals will vote for Trump. They still don’t want to think. So women are unlikely to win.
stop it -- who really cares -- what US wants, I hope, is to elect a qualified person to be president - no matter the gender. The media concentrating on this is useless and does not do anyone a service. There is so much that this admiistration is doing to hurt the future of this country -- the removal of scientists from their work - their funding - the refusal to fund Puerto Rico after suffering so many disasters - the lack of planning - and to spend time on a fake issue like whether a woman can be voted president - really angers me
1
With all the historical talk that the US is the greatest country in the world, facts don’t support this assertion we continue to cling to. Our healthcare and educational systems are far behind many other developed countries and as for electing a woman as leader of the nation, many other first world countries have already done that. With the religious right’s grip on the Republican party along with that party’s continued and insane support of unrestricted gun access and their belief that they alone should dictate what a woman should do with her body, electing a woman president does indeed seem like a pipe dream and it seems like we’re moving backwards instead of forward. In the last presidential election, one the most qualified candidates in the history of this country lost to a dangerous clown. It’s not so much that we don’t believe a woman can be president: it’s more like the electorate is too dumb to elect one.
1
Once again, Dems are undone by the scourge of identity politics
A rare positive note in this overlong & largely issueless primary has been the authentic solidarity displayed by Warren and Sanders
Their evident mutual respect and support has strongly encouraged
those not afraid to admit the US is in terrible shape & needs major change,
as well as an implicit rebuke to the insistence of Trumpist RPBs AND corporate Dems
that the only "real" understanding of human nature is dog-eat-dog,
& societal programs based on anything but "competition" are indulgent fantasies
In one fell swoop, Warren has destroyed that solidarity
& confirmed the existential cynicism of Trumpism and corporate Dems:
"See, their so-called solidarity was totally fake
Not even two radicals can sustain a facade of sincere co-operation in a competitive situation
Nobody REALLY cares about anybody else
When push comes to shove, it really IS dog-eat-dog"
This is the real damage done by Warren's ridiculous & completely not-credible charge vs Bernie
"Electability" IS a bogus red herring,
whether raised vs women, Jews like Sanders or, more significantly,
progressives who want the powerful to pay their fair share in a socio-economic structure from which they disproportionately benefit
Bernie Sanders is the LAST person promoting this kind of a priori disqualification
Warren knows this
For her to label him "sexist" does more to de-legitimize her own program than a thousand tweets by Trump
Very sad
5
Russian intelligence didn't target Hillary because she's a she. It was aimed at her because the Putin wanted Trump. And Bernie would have been its victim had he been the candidate.
1
Once again, Dems are undone by the scourge of identity politics
A rare positive note in this overlong & largely issueless primary has been the authentic solidarity displayed by Warren and Sanders
Their evident mutual respect and support has strongly encouraged
those not afraid to admit the US is in terrible shape & needs major change,
as well as an implicit rebuke to the insistence of Trumpist RPBs AND corporate Dems
that the only "real" understanding of human nature is dog-eat-dog,
& societal programs based on anything but "competition" are indulgent fantasies
In one fell swoop, Warren has destroyed that solidarity
& confirmed the existential cynicism of Trumpism and corporate Dems:
"See, their so-called solidarity was totally fake
Not even two radicals can sustain a facade of sincere co-operation in a competitive situation
Nobody REALLY cares about anybody else
When push comes to shove, it really IS dog-eat-dog"
This is the real damage done by Warren's ridiculous & completely not-credible charge vs Bernie
"Electability" IS a bogus red herring,
whether raised vs women, Jews like Sanders or, more significantly,
progressives who want the powerful to pay their fair share in a socio-economic structure from which they disproportionately benefit
Bernie Sanders is the LAST person promoting this kind of a priori disqualification
Warren knows this
For her to label him "sexist" does more to de-legitimize her own program than a thousand tweets by Trump
Very sad
3
yes, but not Elizabeth Warren. America doesn't need the pendulum swinging as far left as it did right.
37
@Linda
She is not "far left." That is a media depiction of her.
She serves MA as a Democrat, not a Progressive.
The country is way off track. Let's the pendulum swing--only then will it land in the middle.
31
@Gus
Kinda didn’t say she was far left. She said we couldn’t go “as far left” as Warren. Two very different things.
2
@Gus
Perhaps the better comment would be, we don't need someone who lacks common sense and political instincts.
The Democrats have finally overcome the lies told about the ACA, but at a tremendous political cost to the party.
There is little doubt that Warren's medicare for all concept would be distorted and cost her the election.
The fact that she couldn't grasp this, in particular during a time when the critical issue is defeating Trump, is shocking. Even a child understands this point.
2
Many Americans aren’t buying what Warren’s alleging. Many agree with the Twitter hashtag #NeverWarren trending. Understandable given Elizabeth Warren has a documented history of lying:
Claiming she’s a Native American — check.
Saying she once got fired for being pregnant — check.
Claiming her kids went to public schools — check, check.
Even capitalists like myself who aren’t aligned with Sanders politically are inclined to believe him. Nonetheless, Warren’s miscalculation in refusing to shake his hand in the sprint to the Iowa caucuses could backfire, for if she does ultimately nab the Democratic nomination, she’ll need Bernie’s army of supporters to back her campaign. Harder to do that now after she’s alienated many with both her sexist smear and refusal to shake the Vermont senator’s hand.
Not a wise move.
2
Let's please all stop with the notion of "whether" a woman can be elected President. For all intents and purposes, a woman WAS elected President. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 2.9 million votes. Moreover, let's not forget all the votes stolen from her... e.g. James Comey's remarks, Russian interference in the election.
1
For God's sake, we're in a crisis here.
We need to remove Trump from the presidency.
Who cares whether the candidate is a female or male. The voters will decide.
Then do everything in your power to support the winning Democratic candidate. Both Bloomberg and Wang have promised their full support to whoever wins. I believe Styer has as well.
The drama was a result of, possibly strategically created by, the construction of the questions posed by CNN
Nikki Haley would win in a landslide for may reasons. But one of the main reasons is she doesn't whine about all the disadvantages women have. The antithesis of Hillary, Gillibrand and Warren.
If the Brits could elect Maggie Thatcher in the 80's, we certainly can elect a woman today. It just has to be the right woman.
2
I'm a man, and I think Americans have too many psychological problems to elect a smart woman as President.
They seem strangely drawn to intellectually stunted men who can barely navigate themselves around a sentence or a theory.
Democratic women candidates get held to impossibly high standards while Republican male candidates seem to skate through elections uttering mindless cliches, slogans and lies for a living.
As a candidate, Trump uttered these preposterous lies about healthcare and nobody bothered him about it:
“We’re going to have insurance for everybody. There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”
“I am going to take care of everybody … everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”
Trump did zero research on healthcare reform; he was just saying stuff and lying for a living.
Senator Elizabeth Warren actually went out and did her healthcare homework and presented an exhaustive detailed Medicare For All plan that would improve American lives and she essentially got ridiculed, punished and ostracized for it.
So on the one hand, the male Know Nothing 'leader' gets a complete pass on his honesty, intellect and sincerity...and the much more talented, honest, sincere, hard-working female gets excoriated for doing the right thing.
Ignorance, misogyny and the greatest healthcare rip-off in the world seem to easily defeat knowledge and decency in America.
4
This title's question is part of the problem.
Stop creating a false bar that certain candidates need to overcome. If you raise "electability," you are just creating a false argument and another hurdle for women as a group (and not men). Women win elections. Period. Look at governor races, House and Senate races. Heck here in NH we have a fully female Congressional delegation and have had multiple female governors.
Hillary Clinton won 3 million more votes than her male opponent.
3 million (that's more than the residents of NH, Maine and Vermont combined or Idaho and ND and SD combined- get it- multiple states). Women can and do win.
2
I simply do not buy the “ but my neighbor ” premise. This is politically correct dodgeball that allows people to hide potentially unpopular views. Ask these folks how they think Trump won and they’ll say they know people who did without divulging anything.
1
@Daniel B
Bingo. Agree completely. DJT won because many Americans share his abysmal views of anything that presents as "other" but they didn't have the courage or honesty to indicate that in polls.
Which is why I continue to think we're in a world of trouble on both the political and social front. Chances remain enormous that DJT may well have another four years to wreak havoc.
I’m sure I don’t need to remind anyone that Hillary Clinton received close to 3 million votes more than Donald Trump. America did vote to elect a woman president. Her election was stymied by gerrymandering and god knows what in Wisconsin and Michigan.
It seems that this is just a question that only the relentless media is interested in..put down the bone and report on the awful regulatory policies of the administration. .Or the border, maybe. Remember the human tragedy taking place there. Or Puerto Rico. The list of real news is endless.
I couldn't care less about what my neighbors think about my choice for president. All I care about are my candidate's own qualities, and whether or not I can live with my choice regardless of whether or not my candidate wins. It is a complete and total waste of time to worry about what everyone else thinks, because you'll never have an answer that satisfies you. The very idea is a trap.
1
this is a feud that will hurt progressives and help the middle.
too bad. please remember that this was floated before the debate by Warren's staff. Perhaps to ensure that it would be brought up during the debate? I have no idea, but it could just as easily have been calculated as not. These are after all politicians and what better way to hit your opponent than to accuse him of sexist behavior while making it look righteous indignation.
I don't know the truth of it and neither do you.
Are Americans ready to elect a woman president?
(It's the wrong question, but...)
Yes.
Are they ready to elect a Socialist-Progressive Democrat, who wants to strip them of their health care and who threatens the economy almost as much as Bernie Sanders?
Absolutely not.
If Condolleza Rice were to run, we'd have our first female African-American president.
But, she doesn't want the job.
So, we're stuck with what the Democrats offer.
In other words, no, Americans aren't ready to elect a female president, if she happens to be a radical Socialist Progressive Democrat.
Would Elizabeth Warren be electable if she were a man?
No.
That, right there, is all you really need to ask.
“President Donald Trump sided with 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, saying he believes the senator from Vermont didn't say that a woman couldn't win the presidency.“ (Business Insider)
It takes one to know one.
The road to victory might be steeper, but there should be little serious question as to whether a woman can get elected president in the US. Precisely because all sorts of other roads are also steeper there is a lag between when the people are ready to do it and when a particular woman who meets their other concerns comes along and causes them to actually do it.
This is not to suggest that the electorate isn't sexist. They are. But they are also racist and they elected a Black man which I think I was not alone in expecting not to happen before a white woman was elected.
The particulars of candidates matter. I think Warren could beat Trump, but I'm not confident of it the way I am with Bernie because I think her appeal is narrower. Because she does not poll well with either independents or low-income voters. I don't see her reliably expanding the electorate the way I think Bernie can.
Warren's likely involvement in planting the story about her conversation with Bernie has caused me to think less of her. Her attempt during the debate to make it seem high-minded by turning it into a discussion of the general issue did not impress me either. It was a dirty move on her part. If I had to choose between her or Biden or Buttigieg or Klobuchar, I'd still pick Warren. But I don't have to, so I'm going with Bernie.
1
While it’s useful to unpack the role of misogyny it’s useless to do it by promoting misleading narratives or exaggerating the facts
This very paper reported that many of the so-called Bernie Bros were actually bots coordinated by Russian intelligence to disrupt the election. This author chooses to skip that fact in order to cast Samders history as more problematic than he deserves.
It’s one thing to have a point of view, it’s another to mislead. And the choice to exaggerate is ultimately a disservice to the cause — because credibility is important to the arguments that need to be made.
"That said, the reason Mr. Sanders’s alleged remark has resonated so loudly is not that it revealed him to be an out-of-touch, beyond-the-pale sexist.."
An alleged remark did not reveal Mr. Sanders to be anything, given that an allegation can not reveal anything.
"Women candidates and their supporters aren’t simply outraged that he could be so wrong."They’re worried that he might be right."
The author is a member of the Editorial Board, who has referred to an allegation as fact.
She has been reckless and irresponsible in doing so .
2
I hope we are lucky enough to find out if Elizabeth Warren can win the vote for president this November!
(ps - I bet she can!)
People need to stop worrying about what other people are going to do, and vote for the person they believe will make the best President, regardless of gender, race, age, or sexual orientation.
Ask yourself: "What do I want America to be?" and let that answer guide your vote.
Yes. Thank you!
Far more importantly, though, Americans need a President that speaks to non-bourgeois women, and non-bourgeois workers who have been absolutely toppled by capitalism.
And, to people who can afford this publication, that's not Warren.
Some Democrats are letting their identity politics get in the way of what all Democrats need to do: make Trump part of America's past rather than its future.
It seems to me that Sanders' comment - if indeed he made it - is valid. It's unclear whether a woman can win a Presidential election in this country, especially in the current atmosphere. There is nothing in that statement that even implies that no women could be intelligent/logical/adaptable enough to BE President.
Democrats. Wake up and turn your brains back on!
We weren't ready for a black president until we elected one.
We won't be ready for a woman president until we stop yapping about it and elect one.
Nice that we have one who is fully qualified, has carefully thought progressive policies, is an excellent campaigner and is applying for the job. Warren.
Americans are much more likely to elect a woman than a socialist.
I would not hesitate to vote for a woman. If I remember correctly, Christ first appeared to women when he started his comeback tour...there had to be a reason.
You completely confuse readiness to elect a woman with willingness to vote for one of these women presently running for President. People didn't chose not to vote for Hillary Clinton because she was a woman or vote for Trump because he was a man. They chose not to vote for her because she was Hillary Clinton. Gender does not matter a whit if the candidate resonates with enough of the electorate. Ted Cruz did not resonate because he was annoying and nasally. Same is true for Elizabeth Warren. Again, it isn't gender or double standards. But there is a "likeability" factor involved and it does apply to both genders. Run an unlikeable candidate -- no matter how competent and qualified -- and they will lose.
3
Can we at least conceded that it's beyond baffling and problematic that we are among the very last of nations to elect a woman?
We're a nation that loves to bray about our superiority and yet places we often cast a critical eye on --Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka, Burundi, Rwanda, Pakistan, etc.--have had female leaders for decades.
As with the debate over equal pay, we've entered a phase of tortured explanations for why this is. On the one hand, we want to claim that we're the most advanced and emancipated country in the world, absent any compelling evidence to substantiate that claim. On the other hand, the one that enumerates confirming data, we lag far behind nations that figured out half-a-century ago how to curtail infant mortality (our rate, 5.9 per 1,000 births, is nearly double that of other nations in the OECD), provide high quality daycare and maternity leave, provide their citizens with healthcare, and manage to elect capable women who, not coincidentally, care about these issues.
The reason the world turns a deaf ear when we brag incessantly about being the "greatest" is because we have yet to prove we are in visible ways.
It's fundamentally true that we should not choose candidates just because of their gender. It's equally true that it says something profound about us that we've yet to consider one half of our population worthy to lead. Dance all day on as many pinheads as you like, but that's a telling "little" reality that cannot be waved away.
1
The simple answer is No.
Interesting how the “greatest country on the planet” is so far behind other developed nations on so many levels. The irony.
2
I will be voting for "ANYONE BUT TRUMP" gender is irrelevant, ability, integrity and the welfare of the citizens is what is important.
1
After 2016 I don’t ever want to hear the left talk about the importance of electing a woman again. They did everything they could to make sure the female candidate lost. Which is fine, but spare me from now on. I don’t want to hear their moral self-righteousness anymore.
1
A 'Woman President' has already won the popular vote once, so I guess Americans are ready. But. They need to find a way to win the EC. Warren won't. Klobuchar could.
1
Could we possibly stop with the "can a woman get elected President?" One did in 2016 but the archaic Electoral College snatched it from her and handed it on a silver platter to Putin's bro. Why not ask or better yet demand we get rid of this unfair, dangerous, and non-democratic method of "electing" a President. While we're at it we better get a firm handle on the hacking issue whether it's Russia or another country, it too can leave us with someone we did not elect. Why do we refuse to keep our eye on the ball while fretting over a possible non-problem?
Yes, in American culture there yet resides pervasive prejudices of all stripes, but... President Barack Obama 2008-2016.
So, human culture does evolve, however fussily and in fits and starts, eventually.
Not these two, not the last one.
Long live the electoral college!
2
Not rightly sure if the Midwest is ready for a woman president or not but I can tell you that Fast Burger 2 counties east of me promoted a woman to Store Manager. She is actually doing a pretty decent job. Having fathered 2 girls from my liter I hope that one day the opportunity will open up for them to become President someday.
1
You know, if Bernie had admitted he got his clock cleaned by 3.7 million votes by a woman in the 2016 primaries, then I might believe his protestations, but untill then I believe Warren.
CNN synched the audio of Warren's post-debate confrontation of Sanders with the video of the event. Here it is, and I apologize for my inability to find the CNN excerpt on anything by a right-wing news source.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-warren-confronts-sanders-after-debate-accusing-him-of-calling-her-a-liar-on-national-tv
Also, filmmaker Michael Moore (who, unlike me, apparently believes that only Sanders can beat Trump) was interviewed in The Hill in a piece titled "Michael Moore On Sanders/Warren Sexism Feud: They Will Mark January 13 As "The Day Donald Trump Was Re-Elected."
I can easily vote for Warren if she does well by the time I get to vote, however, in the mean time I'm also supporting the front runner, Biden.
Michelle,
How can you say "alleged remarks," in one sentence
and "worried that he might be right." shortly after?
Not sure you can give credit for alleged remarks.
1
There are women in America who are absolutely qualified to serve - and serve admirably - as president in 2020. And this 67 year old, white, non-college graduate male will be honored to vote for either of the two remaining women should they be nominated. Still, I am vexed as to whether a woman can win in 2020 or not, against this president.
Unfortunately history does not lend encouragement, our one match up ended with shockingly bad results. Knowing the behavior Trump will present towards a woman candidate is painful to think about. Then again, it will.be just as sickening should a man be the candidate - I know this. Will Republican women support a democratic women candidate in meaningful numbers? I'm thinking they may not.
I sincerely don't consider my concerns sexist and would prefer that they were not there lurking not too far in the back of my mind - but there they are. They are real.
Ugly but they are there.
In 2016 American’s elected a woman for President. It’s just that the Electoral College took our vote away from us.
How many women have been told by a man that a woman could not do the job? Zillions, since the dawn of time. Women have proved repeatedly they can do the job.
Warren is immensely well-liked and the most capable/experienced of all the Democratic presidential candidates.
The subtle dismissal of Warren as a "real candidate" by the press has been noticed by eagle-eyed women voters as she's been "set aside." Comments in the NYTs and Wash Post by men and woman say, "I like Warren, BUT..."
It's time to remove the BUT from commentaries about Senator Warren. Comparisons to Hillary are non-starters. Hillary was/is her own great big bag of turmoil -- so opposite and removed from the candidate Senator Warren, saying "Hillary failed" regarding Warren's chances is absurd.
Voters have to stand up for Warren; drop the doubt and give her your all! Warren will be the best president the US has had in DECADES.
1
I am ready for a woman President... but not for one who is proposing a $20 trillion new tax to fund her endless list of new government programs.
I don't think the country is ready. Maybe in 50 or 100 years. Then lets have this conversation again.
@CJT
In that case, let's also embrace the reality that we're among the most backward countries in the world. No more braying about being the bestest and greatest and most wonderfulest nation in the world. Agreed?
Of course a woman can win the presidency and should. The country would not be mired in an endless state of war had there been a woman president in 2003. The country would still have some standing in the world. Crazy would not be the constant state in the White House. Women, in short, see the world differently than do men: Not through a fog of testosterone but with a sense of what would make it better. How do I know these things? I'm and man who is married to a woman.
I'd love to elect a woman president, someone with integrity like Eleanot Roosevelt. Unfortunately, we don't have anyone like that.
1
This woman has been ready to elect a woman president for decades.
We can and will elect a woman as our president. If we don't elect a woman after this Trump debacle, we truly are lost as a country and people.
The question should not be, "Would you elect a woman President?" The question should be, "Would you elect this woman President?" Yes, sexism and racism are always factors in voters' decision-making. But,we cannot afford to lose our focus on the qualities any candidate brings to the job.
I do not support Elizabeth Warren because she does not display the leadership qualities I want in a President. I do not support Bernie Sanders for the same reason. I want a President who can help us recover from the Trump nightmare: Pete Buttigieg.
And here, the question should not be, "Would you elect a gay President?" It should be, "Would you elect this gay President?"
1
There is still plenty of sexism in politics. Many Democratic primary voters would rather put in two near octogenarians, one doddering, the other humorless and curmudgeonly, over two very capable women in Warren and Klobuchar.
First of all, the answer is yes, of course.
What always looks wrong to me, however, is the use of "woman" as an adjective. We don't say "man president". Perhaps female president is more grammatically correct, if we have to make the distinction at all. Woman driver, woman doctor, woman president: this sounds like language by and for men, and to this woman, it sounds quite negative.
Considering that millions more people voted for Clinton than for Trump, why does this question even need to be asked?
Thanks for raising so many important points, Michelle. Unfortunately, too few of us will have/take time to examine the impact on our thought & behavior of the time honored dodge: “I’m not a racist, sexist, homophobe.....but”. However, perhaps many of us can focus on the fact that even if we’re unsure of where we fall on the continuum, few of us are in the same league as Trump.
Also, please consider a column examining another concern of mine: If Democrat’s primarily act out of fear of losing, we will surely lose. If you like Bernie, vote for Bernie. If you like Elizabeth, vote for Elizabeth. Etc. Your personal opinion is valid and the sole point of this entire exercise.
1
Bernie isn't senile, but some of the synapses of his brain may have just shut down. Of course a woman could beat Donald "John" Trump, But Elizabeth "You called me a liar on national TV" Warren isn't that woman.
Look for a woman who can command the Midwest, and focus on a woman who, in 2006, beat Republican candidate Mark Kennedy (male), Independence Party candidate Robert Fitzgerald (male), Constitution candidate Ben Powers (male), *and* Green Party candidate Michael Cavlan (male) to become Senator of the State of Minnesota. A woman who, in 2012, faced State Representative Kurt Bills (male) and won her second term in the U.S. Senate with 65.2% of the vote to Bills's 30.6%, carrying all but two counties.
Elizabeth Warren won't be the next President, but not because she's a woman. Elizabeth Warren won't be the next President because she can't carry Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylavania.
Amy Klobucar isn't a showboat. Amy Klobucar will win the 2020 election, with Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania leading the way.
3
I'm a long time rren supporter. I think the kerfuffle over electability of a female for president was a huge embarrassment for her -- common sense says "that's not Bernie". She or her staff must have misheard. To play this up with the connivance of CNN and other media is a disgrace.
And the hand shake business -- of course Bernie was made -- he had the right to be -- and she should have apologized.
But I'm still for Warren -- she's the best despite this incident with tacky judgment.
By the popular vote, we did vote for a woman president. Whether we can do so, especially against Trump in the electoral college is another matter. We live in crazy times.
A self-made woman with or without a problematic husband (Bill Clinton on the tarmac with Loretta Lynch), who is willing actively to campaign in all 50 states to the bitter end (not to count the chickens before they are hatched), can be president in theory but not on a debate stage with Donald Trump. No woman currently in American politics can do that except Nancy Pelosi and she's not running and is hated by the 36 percent of Americans who yearn for the 19th century.
Sure. Nikki Haley could win tomorrow.
1
@Snowball
Nikki Haley thinks she became Donals Trump on skirts. If she puts her name on the ballot, people will see she's a phony.
I think Americans are too backward to elect a woman president. But I would never use that argument to talk a woman out of running for president which I believe Sanders did.
Americans already voted a woman for president. The flawed, and apparently all too easily gamed, electoral college on the other hand...
"Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President?"
WE. ALREADY. DID.
Can we please stop asking this question?
1
Since most Americans are and have always been women and America has never had a woman President, most Americans including a significant cohort of women were not and still are not ready for a woman President.
All of the nations with the most Muslims-Indonesia, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh- had/have female heads of government/state.
All of the English speaking nations -Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom- have/had female heads of government/state.
While American women didn't get the right to vote until a century ago. And unless and until the Equal Rights Amendment is finally and fully ratified American women are still subject to the patriarchy and misogyny that can make them separate and unequal and inferior to America men.
1
You conveniently forgot to mention that Israel also had a female prime minister--Golda Meir.
America is ready for a competent President. The qualification to be a President should not be tied to race, gender or sexual orientation. Media should focus on the messages from these candidates and stop amplifying the soundbites.
Tens of millions of Americans are mired in racism, fear, isolation, hate, opportunism, greed, resentment, delusion and ignorance. The 1% has all the money and all the media.
What an interesting "election." It's the world's greatest, most expensive farce ever. It makes Russian and Chinese politics appear a lot more rational, sober, and representative. At least they don't pretend.
I plan to vote for a woman for president so yes, yes we can.
Asking the question reveals the answer. Warren's refusal to shake the hand that personally betrayed her will be an excuse to not vote for her, regardless of the fact that Sanders created the situation. Klobuchar has a shaky voice, open to all kinds of projection and interpretation. The country was ready when it elected Clinton by 3 million votes. It then receded into status quo cowardice by letting racists, classists, misogynists, homophobes, and Christian isolationists determine who is "electable."
I believe your column cannot be properly evaluated absent a look at polling on the "Catholic" issue before JFK's 1960 victory and a look at polling on the "black" issue before Obama's 2008 victory. Firsts are notoriously difficult to predict because, by definition, they have never happened before.
Yes, Americans are quite ready to elect a woman president. They were indeed ready to elect Hillary Clinton in 2008, if it were not for Barack Obama, an unusually charismatic rock star.
In 2016, she probably was washed up. She made far too many mistakes - her hubris, 'deplorable Trump voters' comment, tone-deaf handling of email server issue, not picking Bernie sanders as her running mate. Then Comey's handling of the investigation & his last minute letter. Absence of ANY ONE of 6 or 7 events was enough for HRC to be president now.
Elizabeth Warren had a chance to be the first female president. Then HER hubris with Medicare for All & obstinacy on wealth tax made her unelectable, to be viewed as enemy of capitalism. Now it maybe difficult.
I would venture to predict AOC would become president, within the next 25 years.
I would also say, it is more difficult for a black man than for a woman to become president, notwithstanding Obama's feat.
1
The issue should be whether the candidate is the best person for the job. Anyone who votes for or against a candidate just because of their sex is a sexist. Thus far, it is unfortunate that female candidates for President have been underwhelming -- Hillary Clinton for example.
Where is this country's Margaret Thatcher? She didn't become Prime Minister because of her sex and she would be appalled to be denigrated and demeaned as "the first female Prime Minister" rather than just an excellent Prime Minister.
I have no doubt that the US would happily vote for a female President if the woman was the best candidate.
Recently Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes i would take that as a answer to the question , yes!
the NYT's columnists should stop focusing on the gender of the presidential candidates, and instead stick to straight quality analysis. The simple fact is that none of the highly-touted quartet of major female candidates in the '020 cycle - Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, Gillibrand - are as strong or as qualified as Hillary Clinton was in '016. If we want a female president, a really good female candidate needs to run, and we didn't have one this time.
Obsessing over identity politics helped get Donald Trump elected, and it's the best way to keep him in the White House for another 4 years.
Not any of the women that are running and not Hillary. The Democrats can do better than what has come to the forefront. Hillary and her daughter need to go away. Their continued public appearances are a detriment to the Democrats.
While an interesting conversation, this is much ado about nothing. We need the right woman just like Obama was the right Black man. Yes Hillary won 3m more votes & was very well qualified but she was not an attractive candidate to many. Watching the top to bottom corruption, power by any means white males on the R team, I long for a woman president. But we need the right woman just like we need the right man. It seems that Warren and Klobuchar are more right than Hillary was or the men who remain except possibly Michael Bloomberg. Buttigieg, too young, little experience, Biden lost a step, Bernie too socialist, and Steyer zero charisma. And possibly the best women aren't even running, Michelle, Stacey and Oprah!
1
Listen, like so many others, I will vote for whoever wins the nomination. Trump is a demented monster and has to go. I hope, though, that I will be voting for a woman--not because of her gender, but because Warren and Klobuchar are the best candidates in the democratic field.
Biden just seems too weak, like he's running on his past accomplishments. Everyone likes and appreciates our former vice president, but I don't see anyone getting fired up over him. For so many of us, Bernie Sanders is too cranky, too radical, and too old. Pete is not too young, but he is too inexperienced with governing. Let him run for congress, senate, or governor, work in a president's cabinet, get some experience at a higher level.
That leaves two extraordinary candidates who are smart, strong, experienced with national government, personable and without baggage. They happen to be women.
"Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President?"
Were Americans ready to elect a questionable, narcissistic, NY, real estate guy who is in no way transparent and represents himself before country four years ago? I Guess so.
This man is a reflection of 63 million Americans. If a woman can reflect the values America seems to be longing for, then the answer is YES!
As we found from 2016, when the most capable candidate for president in my lifetime ran, misogyny is alive and well in America. The problem was that Hillary was painted as an untrustworthy liar. Now, Warren is being painted as a liar. Somehow, liar appears to be the default for women. Does that mean people don't trust women? I don't know. But I suspect if a woman had enough charisma to be teflon to attacks she could easily win. Obama won two terms because he had that kind of charisma. It obliterated any and all attacks against him. We should all think about winning this election however we can, regardless of gender.
A private conversation involving only two people becomes public. Corporate America cheers. Trump wins. How depressing.
The way we should look at any candidate in the ideal setting should be neutral to religion, gender, race and sexual orientation but the fact is all of these have influenced folks selection for a candidate. It is time to pick the candidate who is best qualified and best platform. We have had a Catholic President as well as a black President. It is not difficult for me to imagine that the ideal candidate to defeat Trump is indeed a women who is in every way his antithesis.
Without Sanders the US would already have a woman as president! Sanders was, is and always will be on an ego-trip that's about equal to Trump's. If he cared on jot about the country, he would have laid off Hilary in 2016 and wholeheartedly supported her. No such thing for an old, bitter man.
Democrats are fearful about a female candidate because we are so disbelieving that there could be so many troglodytes among us who could vote for Trump, and yet now must accept that a large swath of our fellow Americans are people we just don't understand, who operate out of place of anger, fear, smugness, selfishness, and meanness. Our idea that most Americans are good and kind have been shattered, so our trust that they could elect a woman as president has been severely challenged. But do I still think a woman can win the presidency, despite all of that? Yes, I do! We just need the non voters to actually vote.
I certainly hope that Americans are ready to elect a woman to their highest office. Other countries have done it: India, the UK, New Zealand. The conservative Mrs. Thatcher, the progressive Jacinda Ardern have each taken their nations in the direction they have chosen.
But I doubt that either of the two women in Tuesday's Democratic Party debate can be elected. Amy Klobuchar lacks a clear program and sufficient popular support. Elizabeth Warren might have been successful. Under other circumstances, had she been nominated, she would have inherited much of the energy of the current activist supporters of Bernie Sanders. Now she won't. Did she suddenly remember, as her poll numbers fell, that Sanders said something stupid and sexist a year and a half ago? I doubt it, and I'm sure many Sanders supporters do as well.
There is one woman, already familiar with the White House, who could demolish Donald Trump in the next election if she were nominated. Her name is Michelle Obama.
The Obamas are much too conservative for the supporters of Warren and Sanders but, to get rid of the current outrage in Washington, she would receive their active support.
Americans already elected a woman President, as so many have observed: Hillary Clinton. Why is this questions still being asked?
I hope I live long enough to see the end of this conversation. A day when a candidate can be elected on the basis of his/her integrity, qualifications and achievements...without regard to ethnicity, race, sex or sexual preference. This endless dialog does not advance our collective interests in realizing sound governance.
America is so far behind , this use to be the place of first , not anymore
Oh please, stop this foolishness. America nominated a woman for president in 2016, and she won the popular vote very convincingly. We’ve been ready for years. Our problem is the electoral college, William Barr, the Supreme Court, and the Republican Senate, not the American people. It’s not like it was a slow news day, you don’t need to be flogging this tired old question three years after the answer was completely obvious.
1
Democrats are; Republicans aren't. Pretty simple.
I'm glad you're on the editorial board, Ms. Cottle (though as a Bernie - Liz ----yes! --- supporter, I'm generally not happy about the NYT's faux liberalism, but, later). What impressed me about this piece is that you're non-judgmental and get to the psychological issues that underlie--these days, perhaps too deeply--all the surface brouhaha that's partly been inflicted upon us by Trumpism.
I've urged both campaigns to sort this out, to show the electorate either Bernie or Liz is worthy of being president--and being able to work with a McConnell senate, if necessary.
But still-it's been too long since Geraldine Ferraro. Right now, I feel Bernie is the stronger, more progressive candidate I want, than Elizabeth.
But still: It's way past time for a woman President or Vice-President. Let's meditate this as we, I hope, move to a new, Democratic administration. In order to change the status quo.
It's no surprise two progressives would get into a fight about who's the bigger identity offender. Like an identity catfight.
1
This conversation is ridiculous. We already elected a woman named Hillary Clinton, despite her being the single most demonized and second most hated candidate in living memory.
Due to our country being organized as a Republic rather than a Democracy, with the vestigial traces of nobility known as the Electoral College, she never took office.
I would be happy to see either the Minnesota sportswriter's daughter or the Oklahoma janitor's daughter as the Democratic nominee, with a slight nod to Amy Klobuchar as more certain to beat the incumbent.
Dan Kravitz
Not all Americans are ready, but enough. Just look at how many female governors there currently are, including Republicans in deep red states and, obviously, how many more votes Hillary got.
However, whether female or male, the candidates need that elusive"it" factor: the candidate you feel really cares about you, has empathy, is soothing and sounds 'down to earth'. Hillary and I'm sorry to say Elizabeth, Amy, and Kamala haven't had "it".
But neither do almost all the men running!
1
"Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President?"
65,853,514 voters said yes in 2016; 3 million more than the man received
1
I would love to see a woman president. Unfortunately I would not have loved to see Hillary Clinton as president.
Who ever is the most qualified candidate that fills the needs of the most voters, whether male or female should get the election. Sex is not a function except to closed, unreasonable voters.
1
It's 2016 all over again - the NYT is going all out against Bernie. And CNN is in on the act. The 4 coordinated leaks about a private conversation, just as Bernie is surging and Warren is flagging is not a believable coincidence.
The key difference between Bernie and Warren is not gender, but genuineness.
Bernie has been a socialist since the 60s, Warren was a Republican. She stole Bernie's platform as to differentiate herself from Biden, just as she stole native heritage to further her academic career.
Bernie is a good guy, just look at him trying to shake hands with Brutus. Trump is not a good guy and he will rip Warren apart.
Please cut it out! The short term charter of the Democratic Party is to dump Trump not embarrassing bickering over non-existential disagreements.
I am a 74-yr old white man. And I sincerely believe that the country would be much better off if 50% of our representatives in Congress were multi-ethnic women (white, black, Asian LGBTQ). We also need term limits. The tired old white men singing the same old tune of the 1950's is destructive. We are facing existential problems of the 21st Century. Smash the rear view mirrors and lets get on with it.
But we need to elect the candidate that first, can beat Donald Trump and second, has a good handle on a practical and workable approach to obliterate the perverse inequality that has been brewing and enabled by the US government since about 1980.
I don't care at all about the gender, sexual identity, or race of that person. If perchance Warren is not that person it is most certainly NOT because she is a woman.
So, among us Democrats, please, please, please cut out the self destructive bickering. Let's get one of us elected in 2020 so we don't have to fight with Trump getting reelected in 2024!!! (Oh yes he has brought that up 3 times telling us that many people think he should continue on as President ... )
1
I think it is odd that Warren waited over a year to mention this. Something stinks there. My gut says she staged this little scene for Iowa. I can see Bernie saying a woman would have a tough road to the presidency--tougher than a gay man,an old man or a Jew might have, though they would have a tough road as well.
Right now, I can't say who I am going to support in the primary in my state. I would like to go with Klobuchar or Bloomberg, but like many, I'm afraid that a woman or a very rich Jewish guy can't win. Is this because I have a low opinion of women and old Jewish guys? No.
I have lived in NYC and Connecticut all my life and I am somewhat ashamed to say that I spent a good part of this time not understanding people in my country. The last four years showed me the magnitude of the ugly side of America. How can so many voters still support that monster in the White House? What are Independents thinking? It is frightening. Either of my favorite candidates would be better than our beloved Uncle Joe, but I will happily vote for Biden if he is the one who can beat Trump. We must get that horror show out of the WH. Nothing is more important. It would take a tremendous leap of faith to vote for a woman or an old Jewish guy. If I see a willingness among a lot of people to close their eyes, hold their breath, hold hands and jump, I will grab on and go for it. If not, I'll go with Biden. I know this is disappointing for many, but there is too much at stake this time.
Don't ask "Are Americans Ready to Elect a Woman President?", ask "Are Democrats ready to elect a female president?" or "Are Democrats ready to elect a woman as president?"
We don't care if die-hard Trump supporters are ready.
ps: note the difference between adjective and noun
No. America is never going to elect a woman as president.
Hold on....We did elect a Woman President. Hillary Clinton holds the statistics of popular vote - meaning more people AND their neighbors, for sure, chose Ms Clinton.
Stop the gaming of the candidates -- We have two very capable women and four very capable men, associated with the Democratic party who can be and hopefully will be elected from in 2020.
Amy is my choice! btw
Silly question. The answer is simple. Yes of course but it has to be the right woman. So a better question would be do we have the right woman for the job?
Your question was answered in 2016 when Hillary won three million more votes than Trump. This whole question just seems like something to talk about because we are beat for a conversation. When did America become ready for a female Speaker of The House? If Hillary had of visited three of the States she thought she had a lock on we would not even have this discussion. The question should be asked why was the Clinton campaign so arrogant and too full itself? Those who served Hillary in 2016 did a terrible job.
Oh god, not again.
Toxic Bernie bros? Hillary got more of the popular vote?
I was so happy to be listening to people talk about policies. To compare Warren, Sanders, Biden, Klobuchar, and Buttigieg on a host of things--leadership, experience, goals--that had nothing to do with gender.
And then Warren's team said Sanders said something, Sanders says he didn't--and I don't care!
I do not see this as some watershed. To me, it's clickbait. I think the media is stirring this up.
Yes, but just not a dishonest woman who claims she was a native American to get ahead in life. Or one who claims Bernie is lying about saying "a woman can't win" when Bernie has no record of dishonesty and the woman is a known liar about her race. But Americans are fine with an honest woman for sure.
Americans already elected a woman to the Presidency....by more than 3 million votes.
Warren lies to gain advantage. Period. She lied about her Native American heritage to gain advantage in academia. And now she is making up stuff again in a desperate attempt t damage Sanders.
1
Kind of makes me sick that a woman is asking this question in 2020 when it was already answered in 2016 by 3 million votes.
Warren lied that she was Native American to improve her odds for a Harvard appointment, an UNFORGIVABLE breach of academic ethics. In the debate she claimed she did not intend to 'criticize Bernie,' seconds after labeling him a male chauvinist bigot. A former Republican she is super-ambitious and dangerously dishonest. Even Trump in the White House with a House of Representatives in firm opposition would be better than her. God knows what she would do as POTUS, probably return to her GOP roots.
They are. 3 million more people voted for a woman in 2016.
1
America has already elected a woman president.
Duh!
The relevant question is whether the Electoral College, specifically in the form of the "swing states," is ready to elect a woman president, especially and specifically a woman who is also a Democrat, and even more specifically one of the two women in the 2020 race.
Democrats and women, ask yourself the famous "Dirty Harry" question: Do you feel lucky?
"What the world needs now" is the leadership of concerned and capable women. We've had quite enough of the greed, paranoia, and power lust of male leaders.
If you think a woman can’t win, she won’t.
A woman? Sure. Elizabeth Warren? Nope. Senator Klobuchar? Perhaps yes. She’s a Midwesterner with Midwestern values. Much more palatable than a left like Warren.
WE are as ready for a woman president as we are a man. As with the man, we do not want just any man. Neither you nor the DNC provided us with a decent woman candidate. You pushed Hillary and now you are pushing Elisabeth Warren. Neither is worth any consideration. Tulsi Gabbard, on the other hand, is. She would be a great addition to Bernie Sanders. So would Barbara Lee (D-Oak) from California. If this country and this planet are to survive, we must elect Progressives. Your "Centrists~ Business As Usual" candidates just won't cut it.
1
Sounds like the tropes used against my community (gay) for years. The fact that this is even a question in 2020 is disgusting. I think we should right the ship immediately by not only paying women as much as men, but more than men--so that in a few thousand years it will eventually even out.
The bulk of America, I believe, just wants competent, adult leadership, accompanied by unbiased analyses of policy proposals. We don’t care about “identity” one whit. By contrast, the media’s goals seem designed to drive clicks and views by making the serious issue of selecting a leader into a blood sport.
1
The only reasonable answer to this question, regardless of party or election year, should be: LOL, yes, who cares if the person running is a woman.
That's it.
I'll actually take Bernie's side on this one and say I think this is a lie. He says this in 2018 (purportedly) and NOW you're making an issue of it. And this is aside from the fact that the Democrats had a woman running last time around who actually did win the popular vote. If I didn't already despise Warren, I'd say this is an example of why I'd never vote for her. Conceited, and using identity politics as a cudgel to drive an agenda. Really the two last things we need in a leader.
Ageism and sexism on full display. Any of the candidates on the stage is far superior to what we have now in the White House. Let’s get behind decency, integrity and people with plans to level the playing field.
3
It’s funny, all of the boomers that I speak to mention that a women can win the office of the presidency — just not these women. Misogyny is in full force in America and needs to be confronted head on. Sorry boomers, no more calling the server sweetheart.
just want to put out there: i love Warren's policy positions, and her gumption. but i think the fights she has picked w/Buttegieg and Sanders display a serious lack of judgment.
1
I only voted for Hillary because she was the nominee. I was a energetic Bernie supporter and felt that Hillary unfairly stole the nomination from him. He would have made a much, MUCH better president than either Hillary or Trump. Now, I will vote for Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren gives me hope. She is not only the smartest person in the room, she will take our country into a much better future. Yes, I am a resident of Massachusetts, but I would vote for her no matter where I lived. Bernie lost my vote because of the way he treats women.
4
Neither of these women... I will vote blue, however, but I may have to grit my teeth, like I did with Hillary. This is our chance to get the president who will actually work for the people, not just anyone. I'd rather not settle.
I am a left-leaning Democrat who is scared stiff that we will not win in November and need to be absolutely sure the nominee is electable, no matter if a man or woman. Risk aversion is a powerful emotion that will cloud peoples' minds.
1
As you point out, Bernie answers the question raised in the title of your article. Of course American's are ready. Hilary got enough votes to win. The American people have been ready for a while; what's the difference after all (good and bad). The real question should be, is America ready for a woman President. Hilary is not our President because of the antiquated Electoral Collage. It's time we trashed that idea and started having the American people elect the president and not the States.
I still can’t get past the fact that Trump won by 77,000 votes over three states despite the Comey blunder, Russian interference and a questionable campaign strategy by Clinton. And, of course, there is that 3 million vote victory.
3
Excellent points made by Ms. Cottle; until Obama was elected, people questioned whether Americans would vote for a black man for president. Until a woman is elected president, the same will be asked regarding voting for a woman. Ultimately, all should vote for the best person irrespective of race, religion or sex. Trump practices projection, ascribing his beliefs, motives to others, and so do most other Americans to some extent. Consequently, Dems must pay attention to polls when people question whether their neighbors are ready to vote for a woman. Asking whether a woman CAN be president (a resounding YES) is not the same as asking if a woman can be elected president. The experiences in other countries not withstanding, we have yet to show that in the US a woman can. However, care must be taken in generalizing the result of the last election. In spite of her qualifications, HRC was a seriously flawed candidate who ran a poor campaign. In my opinion, Sen. Klobuchar would be an excellent, unifying Dem nominee. However, this election is too important to take unnecessary risks. Americans generally prefer incremental change, and maybe a woman as the VP nominee is a safer path to follow.
1
@Maggie
Whether you want to admit it or not, HRC was a flawed candidate with "unfavorable" numbers almost as high as Trump's, probably the only candidate the Dems could run who would lose to Trump. Yes, I'm sure that some/many men did not vote for HRC because of her sex, but let's not tar all men with that brush. Many men had non-gender reasons for voting for Trump or for not voting for HRC, one of which may have been Bernie's lukewarm support when he did not get the nomination. Also, many women did not vote for HRC either. Let's get to the point where the only thing that matters in a candidate is character, accomplishments and policy positions.
This fellow thinks Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified candidate, period. This is what we should be striving for...putting the best PERSON in the White House. She realizes that the true swamp is not in Washington, but on Wall Street. She is spot on.
4
Misogyny is real. After Hilliary’s loss I was at a dinner with family and family friends for Christmas. I was railing on trump and a family member started saying the nastiest stuff about Hilliary and then said he could never vote for a woman. I was shocked at his vitriol towards her. I ended up yelling at him for being and my sister had to calm me down.
Its not about whether a woman can win, it’s about all the people that would not vote for a woman. There are probably lots of them. It’s so sad, I don’t know how they came to be that way.
5
@TSam
Misogyny is real.
Perhaps, but not because someone dared to criticize Hillary.
@TSam
So, "railing on trump" and "yelling at" your relatives is normal, but "vitriol toward" Clinton is misogyny.
Americans are ready to elect any candidate with leadership skills and vision to solve problems and move in directions to improve the country and better the world, regardless of gender, race, or political affiliation. It is not about gender. What the Left does not comprehend is that only they divide and cease to see beyond the surface, that over which we have no control. Hilary Clinton lost, not because she is female, but for her divisive politics which unfortunately continue, driven by her Party and the media.
5
This is the craziest, most counter-productive way to frame this discussion. The question itself perpetuates the idea that it needs to be discussed. America already popularly elected a woman by a massive margin. It is impossible to watch Warren or Klobuchar and question their readiness to be elected. People might prefer other candidates, but the notion that gender is even close to the end of the list that should be discussed or debated is a passive way of suggesting that people should be evaluated substantively on their gender. Under the heading of "debate" this kind of article sets us all back. THE ONLY ISSUE THAT COUNTS IS CAPACITY FOR BALANCED LEADERSHIP.
3
@ACH
Yes but Hillary won the popular votes in the blue progressive states. She lost the vote in the more moderate and conservative states that, at this moment, may be less inclined to vote for a woman.
I think that Warren raised and exaggerated the issue because Sanders is rising in the polls, and she is looking for additional support and sympathy from women voters. A woman could be elected president, but she would need to be as good if not better than the other candidates on the merits.
2
Politics matter more than gender. Conservatives would enthusiastically vote for a woman with the stature of a Maggie Thatcher. The same is true of race. Note that conservatives strongly support Clarence Thomas, while he is vehemently opposed by liberals.
4
Subtle, and not so subtle gender bias may impact which candidate is voted for as a nominee. I doubt it will have an impact on the national election. In fact, when, not if, Trump denigrates a woman opponent look out for the backlash from suburban women.
3
@JH
Yep. Democrats' personal biases will come out in the wash during the primaries along with their progressive/moderate proclivities, but will not be a factor in the general election. The choice will be clear - a Democrat who supports health care, living wages, affordable college, reproductive freedom. . . or Trump.
Voters' task during primary season: Vote for the best person. In November, we'll have the best person, by consensus, vs. Trump.
This question is worthy of contemplation.Why USA never had a woman president? Because women never ran for one,until Hillary Clinton did in 2008 and then in 2016. Same woman running 8 years apart. People blame the electoral college for her loss but that's not the only reason. In general,because US has had only male presidents ,people do not know what to expect from a female president.How will she execute plans on the world stage,on jobs,wars etc? Since there is no precedent on this,no one wants to go into the unchartered territory. Often,it's the female electorate who is wary of voting for female candidates for anything because they associate male gender with success,enterprise,the can -do spirit and other qualities . They were raised that way. It will be a long time before a woman becomes president in US unless people are willing to give her a chance,take a "risk" and encourage her. The first step with anything is to get behind the proposal, in this case vote for a woman. You can know if she is good in the 4 years she holds office.
If you don't do that it will another few years or even a generation before such a thing happens. Already US lags behind other countries in many factors,this will be another one.
3
Want an example of a woman who could win? Watch Brené Brown in her Ted Talk on The Power of Vulnerability. Bright, wise, accessible, unflappable, outgoing. There are plenty of women who could win the presidency. Yes, Hillary got the popular vote, but a whole lot of people familiar with her for decades said "no thanks" and as a result she lost. Period. End of story.
1
Of course Americans are ready to elect a woman as president. They've elected women as mayors, senators and congressional reps, at local, state and federal levels, so why not?
The real problem is that presidential candidates have to have a strong character narrative that captures the voter's imagination and resonates with them, and all too often "progressives" fail to understand that not all voters think -- and imagine the future -- in the same way that they do.
It was not enough for Senator Clinton to run on "first woman president" -- she stated that far too often, and that was never as strong as the "stick it to the uncaring elites!" narrative that President Trump was selling.
The best Democratic woman for a presidential candidate? A current or former state governor. That will give them political experience but let them run as an "outsider" at the federal level. Oregon's Kate Brown, or Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, for example.
1
Of course the US is prepared to elect a woman President. We just did so a few years ago. She won the popular vote with nearly 3 million to spare. We are ready!
Alas, for the second time in sixteen years, the elected candidate did not get to serve, thanks to the aniquated, anti-democracy Electoral College. And which Rep or Senator has done anything at all to rid the nation of the EC in these ensuing years? Not one that I am aware of.
2
Meld the physical looks of Tulsi Gabbard, the pragmatism and humor of Amy Klobuchar and worldly experience of Hillary Clinton, and of course we'd have a winner.
Don't like looks being a litmus test, then you don't know the difference between how women are assessed and men are. Of course a woman could be/can be elected. But an electable one needs to run.
And, yes, male candidates are never held to the same standards. But fail to factor that into an election at your own peril.
Michelle Obama, for instance, embodies all of these. Problem is, she's not running...
2
@Maggie
Yes, we do, like it or not. A beautiful, classy woman with brains and ability would win.
Michelle Obama.
Looks are one driver of female success in this country in all fields.
It's fact.
Most citizens believe a female candidate could take the presidency. However, many know that she is not as effective in politics than man as stated by Cottle. This is because history has shown bias against women and people of color. They know she has the will power, the strength, the mindset to do it, yet citizens still believe that there is something holding her back. This doubt, is the root of why America isn't ready for a female presidency.
1
Bernie probably said something to the effect that a woman candidate may have difficulty defeating Trump in a general election or that a woman candidate may face unique challenges in a Presidential election.
Not necessarily untrue.
But I doubt Bernie suggested a woman--including Elizabeth--could not become President.
Bernie's record suggests otherwise.
Elizabeth, the former Republican, is using Bernie's policy playbook.
The timing of this disclosure makes one cynical.
Time for a Sunday Times-length piece on the formidable women leaders worldwide and why America--perhaps the world's exemplary democracy--has yet to witness and experience a woman President.
2
The question is the problem. Are Americans ready to elect (insert name). It's about who the candidate is. Do they motivate people to vote for them because of their ideas, vision, personal charisma? Stop talking about women as a group rather than individuals. I'm betting those swing state voters would cast a ballot for say Nikki Haley.
2
@Carol Colitti Levine
Absolutely.
When just logic is involved it the decision of whether to vote for female or male candidate when everything else is relatively equal, the answer would be a resounding yes. But when emotion is put into the mix, the answer is unclear, and leans towards no. Many people are, some are not. Just take a look at one of the great mirrors of society, movies.
Our society history is full of the strong men as a focus of many of the movies we are offered. But, more and more women are being seen as strong and competent. Consider Vice Admiral Holdo compared to either Commander/Captain Dameron (Poe) or General Hux in “Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi”. Who was the more competent or courageous? (Holdo did get out of Poe’s trap and sacrificed herself to take out the dreadnaught.) But at the same time, there has been (and still is) a lot of negative comments by men about Laura Dern’s wonderfully nuanced performance.
Just look at the Best Supporting Actor/Actress Oscar nominations 2020. The men are all in male dominant movies. The women are split between male dominant movies (“Richard Jewel” and “Jojo Rabbit”) and female dominant movies (“Little Women” and “Bombshell”). The exception is Laura Dern for “Marriage Story”, which focuses on a man and a woman. (“Supporting” because Best Actor/Actress movies are usually gender dominant.)
The real question is not so much whether Americans are ready to vote for a woman, but rather how many of the current male candidates are worth voting for. I count only one: Bernie Sanders.
Warren or Sanders in the White House, that's what I want -- and the other as vice-president.
1
"Now, one could point out that believing a woman can be president of the United States is not the same as questioning whether a woman can get elected president."
Elected President. That's the key. And honestly, it doesn't matter whether it's a man or a woman at this point, it is whether a Democrat can be elected President this time around.
I've never had an issue with the concept of a woman President. The fact that it would be a female has little bearing on my decision. It would be what they can bring to the table.
I thought Gabbard would've stood against Trump and actually have a shot at winning vs. any of the standouts. Unfortunately, she doesn't 'excite' people - as if that mattered. Her ideas and policies are generally on-point, she's serious and not playing to any of these childish games.
Bernie and Biden are old hat and won't win nor primary and Warren, who I really like and will likely primary, is playing to the Far-Left too much. They're not that big of a demographic and she is missing the mark. The Centrists of both the Republicans and the Democrats: Those are the one's deciding elections.
At any rate, there's a high probability the Democrats will likely and sadly lose the election regardless whether it's a man or a woman - because winning is what really counts - not their genitals.
Americans are not ready to risk electing any woman just because she is a woman. Just as an African American never voted for a president because that person was African American. Race, religion, national origin and gender real does not matter . Words matter, record matters, experience matters, physical fitness matters, exemplary lifestyle matters.
Why do democrats and some independents dislike Trump? Not because he is white, not because he is rich and not because he is a New Yorker? Then what is it?
At a time when there is a serious health crisis due to self inflicted harm due to vaping, smoking, excess alcohol consumption, drug addiction etc, our president sets a great example by being a non smoker, a teetotaler, a drug free individual but still a very high energy person. One would think he is leading by example. No one appreciates good things about a person they dislike from the beginning.
What it all boils down to is the individual and not the identity. America is ever ready for a woman president and in 2016 more Americans voted for a woman than for a man candidate. To quote none other than Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi hearing What difference did it make?
1
What better time? With an alternative like Trump, why be choosy? A man might be safer but whoever the candidate is, they will have the moral and ethical high ground, and experience in more than big business and bankruptcy.
My concern is that many will refuse to vote for someone gay, even though the job does not involve sexual activity. At least it's not supposed to.
1
@JR
Well, based on B. Clinton and Trump it does involve sexual activity.
I am a woman, have always been one. Am I ready to vote for someone like Sarah Palin or Carly Fiorina for president? NO! Even Hillary didn't thrill me, though I certainly voted for her. Someone mentions Margaret Thatcher in their comment. Exactly. Still absolutely no. Policies, not identity.
2
Ms. Cottle - A woman might be elected only if the following conditions apply:
1. There are two women for president on the ballot.
2. There is one woman for president running against a horribly incompetent male. There’s desperately no other reasonable choice.
3. The woman running has been Secretary of State, a U.S. Senator, First Lady, has no marital baggage, and has had no external sabotage launched against her.
Take an easier approach in your surveys. Don’t ask the question. Show people a set of facial pictures. Ask them who they would identify as CEO. Hide the qualifications. Reveal them only after a choice has been made. You have seen these tests. The answer won’t surprise you.
The Most Important thing for Americans to end up with Health Care that works and people who are fighting against the 40-year insurgency by oligarchs into our democracy is that Liz and Bernie work together and in essence have an agreement for a co-presidency. They need to unify the delegates and the corporations will do everything they can to divide them. This "opinion" piece is in my opinion, another corporatist curve ball to try to divide Liz and Bernie.
My advice to their campaigns is that they need to be entirely unified.
Now to the question of the article:
Mr. Sanders said: Do I believe a woman can win in 2020? Of course! After all, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump by three million votes in 2016.
While the deeply corporatist news media monopolies fear Bernie and Liz and the CNN debates were filled with "moderators" who were anything but moderate without a single progressive on the stage, those so-called "journalists" who have thrived on pitching the false war narratives so profitably and who take so much money from the giant and corrupt for-profit health and drug industry pitched one loaded curve ball after another at Bernie.
Divide and conquer and every dirty trick from the fascists / corporatist playbook illustrated by our 5 Federalist society judicial lobbyists for big money interests on the Supreme Court, brought to US courtesy of the 40-year Republican fat cat, Machiavellian masters of Orwellian spin and their well-paid technocrats is what I'm seeing.
It's highly controversial but in a democracy I'm entitled to my truth. At 43 and having swallowed feminism Max at Sydney university, you realise multiple variances in the real world and nature at large. I've worked in the corporate world and have discovered that it is so much easier dealing with a man manager than a female one. Why? 1 Inability to listen. 2 The hierarchy kicks in heavily against 'Beta' men they deem inferior at the higher levels. 3 Over sensitivity to criticism or general questioning.
I'm not too worried personally about ambitious women per se which seems to be the article's conclusion- my concern is the dilution of competence in the quest for this mythologically constructed leftist nirvana.
You cannot socially engineer evolution.
We need a giant, public digital pledge ticker people can sign onto, national debt-style. I PLEDGE TO VOTE FOR A WOMAN SHOULD ONE BE THE NOMINEE. Those millions of numbers ticking up might *finally* give us hand-wringing Democrats the confidence to stop looking over our shoulders!
I can't speak for my neighbors, but I am ready. Too much leadership by (mostly white) men has landed us in the largest climate crisis we never wanted to imagine, without a path forward. Don't get me wrong, I will vote blue down the line without question - but yeah, I'm ready. Especially when you look at the capabilities of the women candidates - they are top notch.
3
For the umpteenth time, Clinton beat Trump hands down. Hillary lost the Electoral College because of blatant gerrymandering by Republican-led state legislatures.
2
@Gina
Listening to people complain about winning the popular vote and not the electoral college is like a football coach saying that they really won the football game because they had more yards passing Than the other team, And should be the real winners even if they had less points on the scoreboard than the other team.
You do understand that the Republicans would campaign completely different if it was about getting the most populous votes?
4
I do not understand how you can dismiss or downplay the fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes as evidence that a Democratic woman could win the Presidency. A Democratic woman candidate does not have to win over Republicans who favor Don Trump, whether they are misogynists or not. All she has to do is keep the voters that Hillary Clinton won. Who are mostly Democrats. Some independents. Maybe add a few votes, which shouldn't be hard considering Mr. Trump's poor personality. Hillary Clinton's popular vote victory is the most powerful evidence that at least a majority of the voters will votes for a woman candidate. As was Barack Obama's two wins--both by several million votes--the most powerful evidence that the nation--yes, mostly Dems--would vote for a black man.
Well, unfortunately, Bernie is right. It’s an ugly truth that we need to accept. Might sound contrite, but I think if Lincoln had just turned the South loose when he had the chance, we would’ve already had a female president by now. But then I likely wouldn’t be reading The New York Times, would I?
Change is happening slower than progressives would like because the old systems are still in tact, especially in the South. Places where evangelical religion, which we all know is designed to elevate men — women can’t even lead the closing prayer in a Southern Baptist church, yes in 2020 — are not ready to elevate women to the presidency. I’ve been waiting for a journalist to write about the Southern Baptist Convention’s role in electing Trump. Christianity Today opened the door for it, and it’s important to look at the SBC because it’s the largest denomination across the South and it’s basically married to far right wing politics. If you look at a map of the SBC’s reach, it looks exactly the same as the Confederacy.
We have to expose the sexism (and of course the racism) in the old systems if we aim to get everybody on the same page because here we have these fantastic women running for president and half the country is keeping us from electing them. It’s sickening, but Bernie is right.
1
What woman? I voted for Hillary. I wanted to vote for Harris. I won't vote for Warren though. We need an executive, not a policy wonk.
2