Dem
47
GOP
53
We've actually been meaning to get to this for a couple of weeks. The above item, and a speech from Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), make this as good a time as ever to finally take care of business.
The initial story, from a few weeks ago, was a speech from Former First Lady Michelle Obama. Democrats across the country would be thrilled to draft her as their presidential candidate. And she wants none of it. Speaking at a town hall-style event, she explained part of the reason why: "As we saw in this past election, sadly, we ain't ready. That's why I'm like, don't even look at me about running 'cause you all are lying. You're not ready for a woman."
On Sunday, Clyburn was on Meet the Press, and he seconded Obama's sentiment: "Michelle Obama is absolutely correct. If you look at the history, we demonstrated that we are not ready. These are incredible women who have run—Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris." The Representative added that he hopes the glass ceiling will be broken sometime soon, and so he will continue to support women candidates, but he just doesn't know when the day will arrive.
At this point, let us note that anytime this issue comes up, we get e-mails observing that Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump did, a fact that potentially argues against the point that Obama and Clyburn are making. Truth be told, however, we think the Clinton experience actually proves their point (as Clyburn himself implies). Clinton was eminently qualified for the presidency, and she had some scandals (of dubious significance). Donald Trump was entirely unqualified for the presidency, and he had some scandals (of substance). And yet, he won. Clinton got more votes because she ran up the score in states where the majority of voters are comfortable with the notion of a woman leader. And she lost because Trump eked out wins in the states where there is considerably less widespread comfort with that possibility.
The important question, of course, is when the day will finally come. Nearly a hundred other nations have broken their glass ceilings; when will the U.S. catch up with (much of) the rest of the world? We very seriously doubt that, unless the event is a generation or more in the future, the first woman president will be a Republican. There are just too many Mike Johnsons, both in the leadership, and in the rank and file, of the party for that. As to the Democrats, we cannot get away from our sense that blue-team primary voters are going to play it very safe in 2028, and give their support to the whitest, straightest, male-st, most moderate candidate they can find. We suppose that a Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI) or a Kamala Harris could pull off a surprise, but we wouldn't bet on it.
That takes us to 2032. If a Democratic man wins in 2028, then he'll be running for reelection in 2032. If the Republican wins in 2028, then the "play it safe" sentiment is likely to be even more intense, resulting in another straight, white, moderate, male candidate.
That means that we have to conclude that the next opening, as it were, is 2036 or 2040, unless a woman candidate gets elected VP, and then succeeds when the president succumbs (or resigns). If the U.S. does wait that long, or longer, it will be rather embarrassing that it took the country so long to catch up to the U.K., Mexico, Ireland, India, Japan, Italy, Israel, Taiwan, Poland, South Korea and so many others. But it's hard for us to read the tea leaves in a manner different from the way in which Obama and Clyburn have read them. (Z)