Why Has America Still Never Elected a Female President — Even When the Odds Were 90%?

Why am I posting this?
Take a look at the screenshot —



the only female leader pictured was Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
All the other world leaders in the photo were men.

That image got me thinking.

For all its talk about equality and progress, the United States has never elected a female President.
It’s a surprising fact for a nation that often portrays itself as a global leader in democracy and opportunity.

The 2016 Example: The Favorite Who Lost

In 2016, Hillary Clinton entered Election Day as the overwhelming favorite.
Most Las Vegas bookmakers and prediction markets gave her around 90% odds to win.

On paper, she had everything:

The résumé and political experience

The funding and party backing

Widespread recognition at home and abroad

Yet she still lost — not to a career politician, but to a political outsider.

So Why Hasn’t America Done It?

That outcome raises a bigger question:
Why have most American voters refused to trust a woman with the Presidency, when so many other countries already have — and with great success?

Israel had Golda Meir

The U.K. had Margaret Thatcher

Germany had Angela Merkel

India had Indira Gandhi

Italy now has Giorgia Meloni

…and the list goes on.

Some say it’s cultural — that Americans still associate leadership with masculinity.
Others point to Hillary herself, arguing that she carried too much political baggage and controversy.
Maybe both explanations hold some truth.

But it’s striking how often “likeability” becomes a make-or-break factor for female candidates — something that rarely seems to burden their male counterparts.

The Betting Analogy

From a betting standpoint, it’s like watching the “sure favorite” lose again and again —
not because of poor stats, but because of bias baked into the system.

Until American voters can separate leadership ability from gender stereotypes, we may keep seeing the same story repeat.

Your Thoughts?

What do you think?
Was Hillary’s loss mainly about her as a candidate,
or does the U.S. still have a deeper discomfort with the idea of a woman running the country?

For both Hillary and Kamala, they lost to Trump. Too many people fell for the con man. They didn't fall for it in 2020 but did in 2024 because people have short memories and forgot what a fool he is. Now we are paying the price.

When Hilary ran, I was surprised by how many people( men and women) told me they wouldn't vote for a woman. I was also surprised how many woman told me they would vote the way their husband voted.
We, as a country, have elected alcoholics, serial womanizers and outright morons. We'll get around to electing a woman eventually.
Both Hilary and Ms. Harris were very flawed candidates. At some point, there will be a strong female candidate- most likely the governor of a large state and she will win.
I can actually see an election where both parties nominate a female to run against each other.

Quote: Forum Rules

Controversial Speech: In an effort to keep the focus of the forum on gambling, Vegas, and math, comments of a political, racial, religious, sexual, or otherwise controversial nature are not allowed. We recommend taking such discussion elsewhere
link to forum rules

Please demonstrate that this conversation can happen without devolving into controversy. Contrary demonstrations will likely get the discussion closed.

I have a feeling that the first woman elected will be an incumbent who was elected as Vice-President in the previous term, only to become President when something happened to the elected one.

You also have to remember that the electoral college played a large part in Trump beating Hillary Clinton in 2016 - and gender stereotypes being prevalent in smaller, "redder" states may have played a part in that.
I also wonder how many women were, er, "persuaded" by their husbands/boyfriends to get a mail-in ballot, hand it to the man involved so he could "make sure the vote was cast right" (i.e. vote for Trump), then "persuade" her to sign it. That's a significant problem with mail-in balloting; you can't really confirm that the person who signed the ballot is the person who cast the vote.

Speaking of which, which Republican female that had any remote chance of being nominated would have been most acceptable to the left? The name that comes to mind for me is Elizabeth Dole.

Why doesn't anyone ever worry about apathetic men who turn their ballot over to their female partner?

I don’t think either HRC or KH lost because of their gender. Remember, HRC won the popular vote and KH just lost it by a percent or two.

The prospects in the near term are dim for a woman to ascend to the Presidency. The nominations are Vance’s and Newsom’s to lose. Whoever wins is likely a two termer. That’s 10 years until a potential female candidate emerges. Likely to be Vance’s or Newsom’s VP.

The USA has had 2 major female candidates for POTUS and 3 for VP with one overlap between them. While there may have been some minor candidates, they do not matter any more than Lyndon Larouche does. Only one has been successful. Lets look at them all objectively.

1984- Geraldine Ferraro as VP candidate. She was likely just picked to put a woman on the ticket. Mondale was sent in as a jobber to jobbers. The guy who lost to Steve Lombardi at a house show. To call Reagan unbeatable is beyond mild. The only thing more one-sided in the 80s was when the Bears played the Patriots in the Super Bowl. I remember the next day my HS social studies teacher saying that we would not see a woman on a ticket for at least 20 years. He was off by 4 years.

2008- Sarah Palin as VP to John McCain. Another case of a party jobbing an election they would not be able to win. Not nearly as bad as 1984, but nothing ever will be as one sided as that. Despite people saying Sarah "cost McCain the election" the week to two after she was picked was the only time his campaign had any energy, only time he even threatened. McCain jobbed to perfection, lost big.

But interesting to 2008 was Hillary. She was "anointed." She had been groomed, set up to win a safe Senate seat in 2000 to build her resume. The field was largely cleared for her. But Obama was not at the meeting where he was told he was supposed to lose. It was "Rocky." Obama scooped up delegates especially in caucus vs. primary states. There was usual talk of "misogyny" that a woman was not picked. But that was kind of weird in a majority female party. Hillary came off with a sense of entitlement, a sense of "why do we have to go thru all this?" Obama came across as a fighter.

2016 - Hillary. After her loss she was given an executive job to further groom her. This time nothing was going to be left to chance. And this time the Democrats were joyful that the GOP picked some outsider who some thought of as a joke. But a funny thing happened.

Hillary had every organizing advantage. Every fundraising advantage. But came off as just too polished. Trump's campaign in comparison came off as a garage-band-campaign. Everything Hillary did looked as if it was focus-grouped over and over. Which was where the problem was. "Make America Great Again" came off as something a bunch of guys came up with sptiballing. But it worked. Hilllary had "Stronger Together" which was rumored focus grouped a dozen or more times.

So what Hillary came of as was like GM cars in the 1980s and 1990s. GM would focus group trying to remove what people hated. Which gave cars nobody hated, but nobody liked. Thus, it was not about "we do not want to elect a woman" more that "we do not like HER." Hillary is just not likable. She also takes no risks that can be avoided. That will get you to middle management, it will not get you to the CEO office.

2024 - Kamala. Most of what made Hillary lose is what made Kamala lose. But Kamala did not have the husband people used to like to soften things. Kamala also made most of her campaign about not being Trump. She never gave a reason to vote for her, other than perhaps abortion but those voters were locked up anyhow. She also showed an inability to think on her feet. The "I can't think of a single thing that comes to mind" about what she would have done different than Biden is a great example. That is the kind of question you get when you are going for a low to mid management job. And you answer by turning a negative into a positive. "Well, most of what my boss has done is good, but I would like us to have more cross-training."

She just came off as being in over her head.

Now, the second part. When will the USA elect a female POTUS and how? I do not see it in 2028 or 2032. Few women of the current political class seem to have even the name recognition to get energy behind them. The ones on the left that do are very far on the left so will not get the needed crossovers. On the right we used to have a couple governors who might have been able, Whitman from NJ in the 1990s for example, but not now.

IMHO it will be a moderate GOP female from a southern state who does it. 2036 or later. Need more boomers to die off. I do not think I see it in my lifetime,

It’s all about the numbers

1917 men have served as senators. 46 women
2300 men have served as governors 51 women

Quote: KevinAA

For both Hillary and Kamala, they lost to Trump. Too many people fell for the con man. They didn't fall for it in 2020 but did in 2024 because people have short memories and forgot what a fool he is. Now we are paying the price.
link to original post

Both of them were brought down by a Russian conspiracy, led by agents Smirnoff and Stolichnaya.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Quote: KevinAA

For both Hillary and Kamala, they lost to Trump. Too many people fell for the con man. They didn't fall for it in 2020 but did in 2024 because people have short memories and forgot what a fool he is. Now we are paying the price.
link to original post

Both of them were brought down by a Russian conspiracy, led by agents Smirnoff and Stolichnaya.
link to original post

Yup, not even 10 posts in someone makes it silly political.

Quote: Armagedden

...

What do you think?
Was Hillary’s loss mainly about her as a candidate,
or does the U.S. still have a deeper discomfort with the idea of a woman running the country?
link to original post

Nuclear obliteration every 28 days.

Really- boys and girls are different. The differences between the races are only superficial, and a black brother is just like me as long as we mutually agree that is so. But a girl does and sees, and reacts to everything differently than me.

I guess a place populated with casino APs is as good a place to ask as any- why are there so few females in that world? Anyone who has played chess competitively- notice anything missing? So many things I've done in my life from my engineering career (all nuts & bolts stuff), my Bitcoin mining, my AP, my coding interests have been almost exclusively male pursuits, and I'm not talking about things that require upper body strength, nor about any literal fraternities. All things where there are no gatekeepers but interest in the pursuit and the desire and the confidence to pursue.

Women evolved to take care of children and they are much better at that. And that is probably the most important single role in society that there is, because we were all children and how we were raised will affect the rest of our lives and the path that society takes. And to care for children requires the subjective- a child is crying and for no objective reason, and while that might be difficult for a man to understand, a mother can be right on it. There is a reason why Schwarzenegger as a kindergarten teacher was a comedy and not really an action film! In the female world feelings matter, how you feel about yourself, how you look, whether the home is comfortable, whether the people around you are happy, that is all important. We all like living in a domestic environment where those things are recognized.

In the male world things are done differently. All the higher animals have sexual dimorphism, but being the brain of the primate is so evolved that sexual dimorphism manifested itself in a brain function and thus thought processes as well as our bodies. We're in the "just the facts" world- we have to make big decisions quickly based on what we observe and both closed and conditional calculations intended to provide the best outcome, and with determination and confidence. They did a study about this and driving, who is the better driver. While women are more likely to avoid dangerous situations, men perform better once things go bad- when tires blow out and cars start spinning, that male capability where we block the punch and counterpunch, where we evade and strike in one motion, takes over and we have better outcomes.

And that's what we like in our leaders, and always have. Imagine yourself as part of a Paleolithic hunting party or war party. What characteristics would you want the leader of that party to have, and the men beside you to have? And those are the male virtues! That's the way we want to be and the way we want those around us to be when things get tough. And then the ladies can make us feel good when we get home. But only after the job is done!

There have been 60 US presidential elections. If it was completely random that’s like a one in a quintillion chance. It’s probably not by chance, there must be some outside factors. Are men better politicians? Given how much dislike there is for both Biden and Trump, I highly doubt that. There’s very few people who would prefer Biden over Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley, while also preferring Trump over Kamala Harris and Hilary Clinton. Many other countries have also elected females to the highest serving position and there is no evidence they do worse than their male counterparts. Since it was men who used the states monopoly of violence to stop women from even voting for the majority of this countries history, then followed that up with many more decades of more laws backed by threats of violence, such as allowing men unilateral control of jointly held property, it seems the only reasonable answer is that men are unethical.

There have been some ruthless lady leaders in history, having no problem killing people.

Next leader of N. Korea looks like it's going to be a woman. Hard to imagine she's going survive in that position without the same kind of iron fist and boot on the throat of anyone who opposes her. She may have already had to prove herself in that way. She'll probably have to kill people right off just to intimidate all around her when she takes over.

Quote: AZDuffman

Thus, it was not about "we do not want to elect a woman" more that "we do not like HER." Hillary is just not likable.

Yep, it's really that obvious. Hillary was disliked by almost everybody, even the people who knew her personally could not stand her. And Donald Trump was liked by almost everybody, people seem to forget that. He had a number one TV show on NBC for 10 years and they were going to sign him up for another one. He was on TV talk shows for 30 years and even the women on The View loved him. Both Leno and Letterman said he was the best liked guest they had. They said audiences loved him, he was funny, he was engaging, and he had great self-deprecating humor about himself. He made cameo appearances in movies and TV shows and he was mentioned by name in countless TV shows and movies. So somebody who almost the entire country loved ran against somebody who almost the entire country disliked and look what happened. And nobody can figure it out? They know why, it's just convenient to forget the truth.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: AZDuffman

Thus, it was not about "we do not want to elect a woman" more that "we do not like HER." Hillary is just not likable.

Yep, it's really that obvious. Hillary was disliked by almost everybody, even the people who knew her personally could not stand her. And Donald Trump was liked by almost everybody, people seem to forget that. He had a number one TV show on NBC for 10 years and they were going to sign him up for another one. He was on TV talk shows for 30 years and even the women on The View loved him. Both Leno and Letterman said he was the best liked guest they had. They said audiences loved him, he was funny, he was engaging, and he had great self-deprecating humor about himself. He made cameo appearances in movies and TV shows and he was mentioned by name in countless TV shows and movies. So somebody who almost the entire country loved ran against somebody who almost the entire country disliked and look what happened. And nobody can figure it out? They know why, it's just convenient to forget the truth.
link to original post

There was a turning point in that 2016 campaign, and it wasn't completely against her but also against those around her.

That point was some video when she was being poured into a limo with her shoes falling off. The whole world saw it. And everybody who was not just old enough to drink but old enough to vote in the United States knew what they just saw. If that happened with a random person in front of Caesar's Palace or the Cosmopolitan, would there be anyone at all questioning what condition that person was in?

But that alone wasn't it. A day later, a brigade of sycophants from the punditry and media all came out, in unison, "Oh no no no, that wasn't what you saw. It was really something else! Maybe she was just tired from all that hard work she does for the children! Yeah, that's it!" And after that, millions of people stopped believing a word those people say anymore. Gaslighting, whizz on my leg then tell me it's raining, whatever you want to call it, people don't like it.

So I think the rejection was not directly of her, but of the establishment that built her up and propped her up to begin with. Reality check: her earned experience consisted of being a low-end lawyer and somebody's wife, and the political offices she had were either appointed positions or non-competitive races that were set aside for her to use as a stepping stone. Just like scheduling fighters you think will be popular and sell tickets/views to fight bums to build their records up so they can be headline events. She never won a competitive election. The candidate in 2024 had a similar history, but nonetheless had the near monolithic support of this same establishment. Thus what I believe really happened was the magic of the media and other institutions to make winners or losers out of anyone they choose broke down, people got a peek behind the curtain, and to this day they are distrusted and it all started with that one absurd narrative to try to protect their chosen candidate from having to bear some shame. The candidates themselves were just the cargo that went down with the ship.

Quote: TomG

There have been 60 US presidential elections. If it was completely random that’s like a one in a quintillion chance. It’s probably not by chance, there must be some outside factors. Are men better politicians? Given how much dislike there is for both Biden and Trump, I highly doubt that. There’s very few people who would prefer Biden over Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley, while also preferring Trump over Kamala Harris and Hilary Clinton. Many other countries have also elected females to the highest serving position and there is no evidence they do worse than their male counterparts. Since it was men who used the states monopoly of violence to stop women from even voting for the majority of this countries history, then followed that up with many more decades of more laws backed by threats of violence, such as allowing men unilateral control of jointly held property, it seems the only reasonable answer is that men are unethical.
link to original post

Women couldn't vote until after WW1, so it's 25 or so elections they were eligible to be elected.
Most women leaders have been Prime Ministers, not Presidents. Getting elected Prime Minister is very different than being elected President. If we had a parliamentary election system, Nancy Pelosi would have been Prime Minister a decade ago.

Quote: billryan

Quote: TomG

There have been 60 US presidential elections. If it was completely random that’s like a one in a quintillion chance. It’s probably not by chance, there must be some outside factors. Are men better politicians? Given how much dislike there is for both Biden and Trump, I highly doubt that. There’s very few people who would prefer Biden over Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley, while also preferring Trump over Kamala Harris and Hilary Clinton. Many other countries have also elected females to the highest serving position and there is no evidence they do worse than their male counterparts. Since it was men who used the states monopoly of violence to stop women from even voting for the majority of this countries history, then followed that up with many more decades of more laws backed by threats of violence, such as allowing men unilateral control of jointly held property, it seems the only reasonable answer is that men are unethical.
link to original post

Women couldn't vote until after WW1, so it's 25 or so elections they were eligible to be elected.
Most women leaders have been Prime Ministers, not Presidents. Getting elected Prime Minister is very different than being elected President. If we had a parliamentary election system, Nancy Pelosi would have been Prime Minister a decade ago.
link to original post

According to Article I, section 2 of the US Constitution they were always eligible to be elected. The eligibility requirements are written in the article and can't be changed.

Good point about them being PMs. Very different system. I'd like to see us switch to a triumvirate, myself. Top 3 electoral vote-getters are the presidents. And they would need either 1, 2, or 3 out of 3 to do the different tasks of the office.

Quote: TomG

There have been 60 US presidential elections. If it was completely random that’s like a one in a quintillion chance. It’s probably not by chance, there must be some outside factors. Are men better politicians? Given how much dislike there is for both Biden and Trump, I highly doubt that. There’s very few people who would prefer Biden over Sarah Palin and Nikki Haley, while also preferring Trump over Kamala Harris and Hilary Clinton. Many other countries have also elected females to the highest serving position and there is no evidence they do worse than their male counterparts. Since it was men who used the states monopoly of violence to stop women from even voting for the majority of this countries history, then followed that up with many more decades of more laws backed by threats of violence, such as allowing men unilateral control of jointly held property, it seems the only reasonable answer is that men are unethical.
link to original post

Please! The "men having unilateral control of joint property" was disproved here long ago. At least in the USA.

Quote: EvenBob

Quote: AZDuffman

Thus, it was not about "we do not want to elect a woman" more that "we do not like HER." Hillary is just not likable.

Yep, it's really that obvious. Hillary was disliked by almost everybody, even the people who knew her personally could not stand her. And Donald Trump was liked by almost everybody, people seem to forget that. He had a number one TV show on NBC for 10 years and they were going to sign him up for another one. He was on TV talk shows for 30 years and even the women on The View loved him. Both Leno and Letterman said he was the best liked guest they had. They said audiences loved him, he was funny, he was engaging, and he had great self-deprecating humor about himself. He made cameo appearances in movies and TV shows and he was mentioned by name in countless TV shows and movies. So somebody who almost the entire country loved ran against somebody who almost the entire country disliked and look what happened. And nobody can figure it out? They know why, it's just convenient to forget the truth.
link to original post

If you are going to make it in politics you have to like getting out there and making yourself known. Think Reagan, was in movies for years. We may never see a guy who likes doing that as much as Trump (He kayfabe owned "Monday Night Raw" for a couple weeks!) But you are right on his name being mentioned even when he was not around. "The Simpsons" predicted him being POTUS over a decade before, he took over the body of Bill The Cat as "Bloom County" ended, and he kayfabe bought "Bloom County!" Hillary, OTOH, seemed to never go anywhere unless it was primed to make her look positive. Everything about her looked marketed and packaged. Trump looked authentic. Trump looked like the boss who you hoped you would be able to chat with as you waited for the Kureg in the break room. Hillary looked like the woman in an office where the door was almost always closed and you dreaded having to ask about something with.

Yeah, and nobody could figure it out!

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

So I think the rejection was not directly of her, but of the establishment that built her up and propped her up to begin with. Reality check: her earned experience consisted of being a low-end lawyer and somebody's wife, and the political offices she had were either appointed positions or non-competitive races that were set aside for her to use as a stepping stone. Just like scheduling fighters you think will be popular and sell tickets/views to fight bums to build their records up so they can be headline events. She never won a competitive election.

Hillary was billed as "the most qualified POTUS candidate ever!" by many people. Talking heads mentioned her "resume." But it was like the kid who joined a bunch of clubs in high school to get into a good college but barely went to the meetings. In the corporate world it is called "grooming." You identify someone you want for a higher management position. So you put them in places where they can look good then get them out before they look bad there. Seen it happen. Guy they wanted to move up, they thought he had the smarts. To be fair, he was very intelligent. But ask a manager who succeeded him at a location about him, the story was different! Left disaster behind.

Back to Hillary, she could say she had many jobs but could not say any accomplishments at them. Trump meanwhile had lots to say. He had failures, he had successes. Biggest thing was he could say how he kept moving on. People admire that kind of thing. Back to thread, thus it was not "America would not elect a woman" but "America would not elect THIS WOMAN!"

Perhaps a businesswoman like Mary Barra steps up. I do not care for Mary's management, but she has a story and cred. Again, though, I do not see it happening before 2036. And it cannot be a woman who thinks it is just "her turn to run" as Hillary and Kamala seemed to. It is going to have to be a woman who knocks off the establishment candidate as Obama and Trump each did.

Quote: bradnjanet

I've seen endless post-hoc discussions of these elections like this and they are mostly bs.

The truth is that Hilary got more votes so she was literally more popular than Trump, or perhaps more accurately less hated. Discussing her likeability or otherwise is fatuous in that context. Trump beat her because of the electoral college system-that's not a person with views on likability, it is a system. If you want an explanation of why Trump won or Hilary lost you should be looking there.

I'd add that the the current and previous incumbents have obvious cognitive problems and there is little logic behind either of them becoming president. It is just random. In most places neither would be employed in any capacity at all let alone politics at any level. At a minimum any one employed at even a junior political level has to be able to speak in a comprehensible manner. There is no rational explanation for such obviously mentally incapable people becoming president. So employing rational arguments as to why a woman has or has not been elected is absurd.
link to original post

Please knock off the politics so the thread does not get closed.

Quote: bradnjanet

Quote: AZDuffman

Please knock off the politics so the thread does not get closed.

You wrote a long and tedious Trump fanboy post above which was entirely political in nature, and your own political bias is very obvious, amongst a sea of obvious political speech. I responded to it with an obviously non-partisan objective post that was much more on-topic.

No, I wrote an analytical post describing both sides and the election.

Quote:

I notice looking through your profile you do this again and again, make politically biased posts and then accuse others of political speech when you respond. I don't know if you think you are playing some kind of clever game or something but you are welcome to continue talking to yourself and the three people that still post here. I am sure it will be fascinating for you.

There is a difference between analysis and political.

MODS, please check this poster out for sock puppet status. Based on number of posts and tone of posts I find them suspect.

Quote: AZDuffman

Please! The "men having unilateral control of joint property" was disproved here long ago. At least in the USA.

In the US, it was disproved as constitutional 44 years ago. That certainly seems like a long time, but more than 80% of presidential elections happened before that ruling.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep450/usrep450455/usrep450455.pdf

This thread is still open? Pay the over.

Both scornwith and bradandjanet were sockpuppets of a certain ex-member of the forum. I apologize to anyone who was offended by him. We were just a step slow on recognizing him and banning him.

Quote: TomG

Quote: AZDuffman

Please! The "men having unilateral control of joint property" was disproved here long ago. At least in the USA.

In the US, it was disproved as constitutional 44 years ago. That certainly seems like a long time, but more than 80% of presidential elections happened before that ruling.

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep450/usrep450455/usrep450455.pdf
link to original post

While it’d be great if laws worked perfectly, but long term biases don’t disappear regardless of what a new law says or constitutional review.

The 2 best chances for women happened to have run into Trump who is a complete outlier candidate. There doesn’t seem to be any woman in the pipeline right now that has a chance. AOC is interesting. She became nationally known when she was elected. For some reason though her star status doesn’t seem to be increasing the past couple of years. The right kind of labels her wacky but I would caution this as she is very passionate and determined and that tends to turn into movements. She could very easily catch some momentum. At the same time it seems the left doesn’t know what to think of her either. She hasn’t climbed through the ranks or become an authority on anything in her own party.

Quote: unJon

This thread is still open? Pay the over.
link to original post

Best post on this thread!

This is of course anecdotal, but one of the best predictors of the "next president" I've ever seen is the DOPE personality assessment (https://www.powerofpositivity.com/bird-personality-reveal). Basically, America elects a president with a different personality (as best the electorate can judge on the campaign trail).

Reagan (eagle) succeeded by Bush 41 (owl) succeeded by Clinton (dove) succeeded by Bush 43 (parrot) succeeded by Obama (owl) succeeded by Trump (eagle) succeeded by Biden (dove) succeeded by Trump (eagle). I would say HRC was also an owl and KH was a dove. I would look for the next president to be an owl or parrot, so for the Republicans, maybe Rubio (owl) or Ramaswamy (parrot? owl?) and for the Democrats maybe Newsom (parrot) or Shapiro (owl).

As for the "why no woman?" question, maybe look for an owl or parrot on your side of choice and see how she might do in 2028. Other possible objective factors:
(1) I think it's only happened once since 1900 that the same party held the WH for 12 years (Reagan, Bush 41), and Bush lost re-election. I think that worked against HRC. And, she was undeniably unlikeable.
(2) I don't think Biden and the Dems gave KH much of a chance, the way that whole thing played out. I never thought she said what was really on her mind regarding Biden's condition and record. Add to it a horrible economy (yes, it was horrible) and stagflation, and the party in power was very unlikely to win.

Before everyone jumps on me ... look, this is just a stupid internet forum to share ideas. If you think the Biden economy was great, fine. If you don't think Trump's personality is an eagle, fine. I'm just offering an opinion in a civilized manner in a civilized forum.

Quote: SummerlinDave

Quote: unJon

This thread is still open? Pay the over.
link to original post

Best post on this thread!

This is of course anecdotal, but one of the best predictors of the "next president" I've ever seen is the DOPE personality assessment (https://www.powerofpositivity.com/bird-personality-reveal). Basically, America elects a president with a different personality (as best the electorate can judge on the campaign trail).

Reagan (eagle) succeeded by Bush 41 (owl) succeeded by Clinton (dove) succeeded by Bush 43 (parrot) succeeded by Obama (owl) succeeded by Trump (eagle) succeeded by Biden (dove) succeeded by Trump (eagle). I would say HRC was also an owl and KH was a dove. I would look for the next president to be an owl or parrot, so for the Republicans, maybe Rubio (owl) or Ramaswamy (parrot? owl?) and for the Democrats maybe Newsom (parrot) or Shapiro (owl).

As for the "why no woman?" question, maybe look for an owl or parrot on your side of choice and see how she might do in 2028. Other possible objective factors:
(1) I think it's only happened once since 1900 that the same party held the WH for 12 years (Reagan, Bush 41), and Bush lost re-election. I think that worked against HRC. And, she was undeniably unlikeable.
(2) I don't think Biden and the Dems gave KH much of a chance, the way that whole thing played out. I never thought she said what was really on her mind regarding Biden's condition and record. Add to it a horrible economy (yes, it was horrible) and stagflation, and the party in power was very unlikely to win.

Before everyone jumps on me ... look, this is just a stupid internet forum to share ideas. If you think the Biden economy was great, fine. If you don't think Trump's personality is an eagle, fine. I'm just offering an opinion in a civilized manner in a civilized forum.
link to original post

You missed the six terms of the democrats in the thirties, forties and fifties for longest single party domination of the white house since 1900 (or perhaps ever).

The Biden economy was horrible (although the Trump economy hasn't lowered prices) but the Biden economy was due to coming out of a worldwide pandemic.

The NY economy was awful during Republican Mayor Bloomberg's years but I recognize that was due to NY coming out of the disaster of 9/11.

I find it awful that people can't see the forest for the trees.

Addressing the OP more directly: There is something that must be considered in political polling: The pollster can only be tested by the last poll they take before an election.

So they are free to take this cycle's media darling candidate, puff them up, prop them up with astounding polls 3 months before an election, because they know people who aren't that engaged in politics just want to be on the winning side. So they regale them with these astounding, invincible polling numbers, and then the water cooler talk all around the country becomes "Of course I'm voting for Media Darling! What kind of weirdo would even consider voting for Disfavored Pragmatist?" and that has an effect on mass opinion. That's a form of manufacturing opinion, that was brilliantly described by Chomsky and Herman in 1988. https://files.libcom.org/files/2022-04/manufacturing_consent.pdf

But then in the final poll they release the weekend before Election Day: "Well now, it looks like it's tightened up, with a sudden surge of support for Disfavored Pragmatist, and Media Darling's lead is now within the margin of error..." How many times have we heard that, and how many times will bettors keep falling for it?

Being the only test of the polling is the election itself, and polls and actual opinions are expected to change over the course of a campaign (which is the very purpose of having a campaign) the pollsters can do whatever they want with the earlier polls and still have a cop-out to avoid losing credibility. This is different from setting odds on a football game, where the guys who were on the team early that week when the odds came out are the same ones who will be playing on Sunday. So concepts like "90% favorite," that doesn't mean anything to me applied to elections. Nobody's going to be held to account for that number.

Quote: AutomaticMonkey

Addressing the OP more directly: There is something that must be considered in political polling: The pollster can only be tested by the last poll they take before an election.

So they are free to take this cycle's media darling candidate, puff them up, prop them up with astounding polls 3 months before an election, because they know people who aren't that engaged in politics just want to be on the winning side. So they regale them with these astounding, invincible polling numbers, and then the water cooler talk all around the country becomes "Of course I'm voting for Media Darling! What kind of weirdo would even consider voting for Disfavored Pragmatist?" and that has an effect on mass opinion. That's a form of manufacturing opinion, that was brilliantly described by Chomsky and Herman in 1988. https://files.libcom.org/files/2022-04/manufacturing_consent.pdf

But then in the final poll they release the weekend before Election Day: "Well now, it looks like it's tightened up, with a sudden surge of support for Disfavored Pragmatist, and Media Darling's lead is now within the margin of error..." How many times have we heard that, and how many times will bettors keep falling for it?

Being the only test of the polling is the election itself, and polls and actual opinions are expected to change over the course of a campaign (which is the very purpose of having a campaign) the pollsters can do whatever they want with the earlier polls and still have a cop-out to avoid losing credibility. This is different from setting odds on a football game, where the guys who were on the team early that week when the odds came out are the same ones who will be playing on Sunday. So concepts like "90% favorite," that doesn't mean anything to me applied to elections. Nobody's going to be held to account for that number.
link to original post

I remember before election day 2016 that News Anchors were saying that Trump was laughingly far behind in the polls and that Clinton had the election in the bag and was a surefire shoo in to win. On election night, Trump was "miraculously," only four votes behind Clinton and he ended up quickly being four votes AHEAD of her and his numbers rapidly went up and he won the election. 💡

Quote: unJon

This thread is still open? Pay the over.
link to original post

I'm not sure who won the pool, but I'm satisfied that we still can't have political discussions here.

DT is open, and since I don't go there, I won't close the thread there.