• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would You Vote a Woman into Presidential Office?

Would you vote for a woman running for president if she held your political views?

  • I'd be happy and excited to vote for a woman

    Votes: 87 82.9%

  • I would have some hesitations, but vote for her if she was best qualified

    Votes: 12 11.4%

  • I would vote for her only if there wasn't a qualified man

    Votes: 2 1.9%

  • I would not vote for a woman even if she held my views

    Votes: 4 3.8%
  • Total voters
    105
Ikari said:
Atheists are the least electable category for all potential candidates.
Click to expand...

Yes, you said that. I'm asking either where you got that information(if you can provide citation), or why you've come to that conclusion(if you can't provide citation).
 
waas said:
Yes, you said that. I'm asking either where you got that information(if you can provide citation), or why you've come to that conclusion(if you can't provide citation).
Click to expand...

Ikari's right about that. There've been a number of polls over the years indicating as much. Here's the first reference to one such poll that popped up on my google search (probably the most recent poll).

NEAL: Would you vote for an atheist? - Paradise Post

So apparently atheists have a better perception than they have had in the past, but still worse than any other group.


***Edit: Here's the actual poll: Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias as Presidential Candidates
 
kerussll said:
The United States seems much more resistant to electing women into high positions when compared to Europe and other western countries. So I'm interested to see people's views and how they would vote. Would you vote for a woman who you held all of your views politically and promised to make changes you agreed with? Would you be more like or less likely to vote for your candidate because she's a woman?

My views: I would be very excited to see a woman who held my views run for president or even vice president. I would be excited to see someone whose views match my own running for office, but her being a woman would be the cherry on top. I would not go so far as to vote for any average woman just because she's a woman, because I feel the first female president is going to be held to higher standards and have her every move scrutinized by her critics. A sub par female president would only set us back.
Click to expand...

I think only the fewest people would answer that they would not vote for a woman who shares their views and is qualified.

The reason why most women are less likely to be elected is because many people unconsciously apply a different yardstick to women than to men. An aggressive man "has balls", an aggressive woman is "a bitch". A soft-spoken man may be regarded as "diplomatic" or even perceived as "speaking softly, but carrying a large stick", a soft-spoken women is considered "weak". A man who has a political career while his wife and children are at home is a "family man", a woman who gives her children into the hands of nannies to have a career is considered "a bad mum". And so on.

So I think even most of the people who hold biases against women and are less likely to vote a woman into office are not consciously doing so, and will reply that of course they will elect a woman, if she is the right one -- just that it's much more difficult for women to meet their standards than for men.
 
German guy said:
I think only the fewest people would answer that they would not vote for a woman who shares their views and is qualified.

The reason why most women are less likely to be elected is because many people unconsciously apply a different yardstick to women than to men. An aggressive man "has balls", an aggressive woman is "a bitch". A soft-spoken man may be regarded as "diplomatic" or even perceived as "speaking softly, but carrying a large stick", a soft-spoken women is considered "weak". A man who has a political career while his wife and children are at home is a "family man", a woman who gives her children into the hands of nannies to have a career is considered "a bad mum". And so on.

So I think even most of the people who hold biases against women and are less likely to vote a woman into office are not consciously doing so, and will reply that of course they will elect a woman, if she is the right one -- just that it's much more difficult for women to meet their standards than for men.
Click to expand...

It's not exactly like we have had a Magret "Iron Maiden" Thatcher step fowards to run. Most of the women we have had even try to run have either been total socialist witches like Clinton and other "liberals" or the ones on the other side have been complete dingbats, like Michelle Bachman and God forbid Sarah "hockey mom" Palin. "3rd" party and indipendent candidates, to date, just cannot draw enough interest to stand a chance of winning. Someday maybe a really charismatic one with a decent platform will step fowards, but this doesn't look like the year for it.
 
Of course I would....
 
Tigger said:
Both. I do not believe that women were ever intended to be involved in the political process at any level. Not as voters, poll workesr, campaign staff members, or candidates.
Click to expand...

The poll workers thing is probably because he is against women working. Any empowerment of women seems unacceptable to Tigger.


Gipper said:
I'm not sure why he doesn't move to Iran, a country that comes much closer to espousing his ideals and beliefs. Over there, women are 4th class citizens, below the dog and the camel.
Click to expand...

He has said he is looking into moving to Iran. But here's his problem with it: He believes that anyone who leaves the country, and there is the slightest question about their actions being good for the US, should be put to death.


longview said:
Tigger, While I cannot agree with you,
I admire that you stand firmly where you stand.
Unto thy own self be true!
I am glad we are both free to believe as we each see fit.
Click to expand...

He believes that beating women is proper. He has beaten girlfriends in the past (he's described a specific episode here at DP) and says the extent of the beating depends on the severity of the 'offense'.


Tigger said:
She agrees with me that she shouldn't be voting.
Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised that she has so little self esteem; a mere HS graduate is qualified to vote and does.

Tigger said:
There's no need for a SecState if there is no interaction with other nations.
Click to expand...

"No interaction" hahaha

Tigger said:
We've got more important things to worry about, like diapers and dinners." as she has put it to me on several occasions.
Click to expand...

Are your genes fit for reproduction? That's a serious question, not trolling/flaming (Tigger has disabilities, I dunno if they are genetic).





Tigger said:
No, time does not heal all wounds. At least not in the span of a single human lifetime. It definitely doesn't right any wrongs.
Click to expand...

Tigger said:
I realize that's pretty much a lost cause at this point. Only time will correct those wrongs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
waas said:
Yes, you said that. I'm asking either where you got that information(if you can provide citation), or why you've come to that conclusion(if you can't provide citation).
Click to expand...

Electability.jpg

This is a bit older, I think it came from 2007, the numbers have slightly improved a bit, but not that much
 
A candidate being a woman is extra points in my calculations. I don't buy into this whole "gender doesn't matter" routine. We need to move forward as a country and a woman president would be a nice step towards the acceptance of women as equally capable.
 
DVSentinel said:
That would totally depend on your definition of improvement based upon your point of view. I don't see an Athiest being more likely to get elected as "improvement", just the opposite.
Click to expand...

Well there are certainly a sect of certain folk who would certainly freak out about it because...well I don't know why. I have hard time understanding irrational ignorance.
 
ecofarm said:
A candidate being a woman is extra points in my calculations. I don't buy into this whole "gender doesn't matter" routine. We need to move forward as a country and a woman president would be a nice step towards the acceptance of women as equally capable.
Click to expand...

It will happen when it happens - I'm not about to abandon any of my real values under some false guise that 'we must have one'

We WILL have one - just not right now . . . we'll have one when the right one comes along and people want her in office. Simple.

It's not MY fault that most females in politics are pieces of **** :shrug: Of all the notable figures I can think of none qualify. In fact - some that are 'out there' are the exact opposite of what I feel is important as far as qualities and experience goes.
 
DVSentinel said:
That would totally depend on your definition of improvement based upon your point of view. I don't see an Athiest being more likely to get elected as "improvement", just the opposite.
Click to expand...

I do. From my point of view, it's similar to any religious affiliation. Let's put it this way: would you view it as improvement if a Muslim or Mormon became more likely to get elected? How is this any different if you swap in atheist for Muslim/Mormon?
*Note, I am not equating the beliefs or historical relevance of Atheism to that of any religion
 
Aunt Spiker said:
It will happen when it happens - I'm not about to abandon any of my real values under some false guise that 'we must have one'
Click to expand...

Feminism is a real value of mine.

We WILL have one - just not right now . . . we'll have one when the right one comes along and people want her in office. Simple.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think this changes my position?

It's not MY fault that most females in politics are pieces of **** :shrug: Of all the notable figures I can think of none qualify.
Click to expand...

H. Clinton would be fine for me (and I lean hard right on economics). Disclosure: she's a hawk, that helps.
 
kerussll said:
The United States seems much more resistant to electing women into high positions when compared to Europe and other western countries. So I'm interested to see people's views and how they would vote. Would you vote for a woman who you held all of your views politically and promised to make changes you agreed with? Would you be more like or less likely to vote for your candidate because she's a woman?

My views: I would be very excited to see a woman who held my views run for president or even vice president. I would be excited to see someone whose views match my own running for office, but her being a woman would be the cherry on top. I would not go so far as to vote for any average woman just because she's a woman, because I feel the first female president is going to be held to higher standards and have her every move scrutinized by her critics. A sub par female president would only set us back.
Click to expand...



You women had a chance to elect the first woman VP in American history 4 years ago.

Your words now are just empty rhetoric.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Your words now are just empty rhetoric.
Click to expand...

The question was not "would you vote for a woman solely because she's a woman", the question was "would you vote for a woman who had your political platform and was a qualified candidate". Perhaps we could have elected the first woman VP in history 4 years ago; but that would have meant McCain as President and a dumb **** as VP.
 
ecofarm said:
Feminism is a real value of mine.



Do you honestly think this changes my position?



H. Clinton would be fine for me (and I lean hard right on economics). Disclosure: she's a hawk, that helps.
Click to expand...

Feminism is important to me, too - but I'm not going to ignore a better candidate because of my gender-views. Gender equality does not mean gender superiority or favoritism.

If a male candidate is better qualified over a female candidate you bet I'll vote for him - shameless. I have no shame in upholding my values and not sacrificing them.

Don't tell me you wish we all joined vaginas and voted in Clinton - or Palin in the future. :roll:
 
We get the whole "I'm a super-value person" routine. I have my own values, and I adhere to them as well. See: signature.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Feminism is important to me, too - but I'm not going to ignore a better candidate because of my gender-views. Gender equality does not mean gender superiority or favoritism.

If a male candidate is better qualified over a female candidate you bet I'll vote for him - shameless. I have no shame in upholding my values and not sacrificing them.

Don't tell me you wish we all joined vaginas and voted in Clinton - or Palin in the future. :roll:
Click to expand...

What do people mean when they say "Feminism"? Equal pay for equal work and not be restricted by sex but by ability or women should have access to all jobs and if they cannot meet the requirements, then requirements should be lowered or means of assisting should be mandated, the first type of Feminism, hey, no problem, I am all for it, the secound type, forget about it. Meeting existing standards, which usually exist because it is needed such as the military and fire fighters, means meeting standards regardless of whether someone has "indoor" or "outdoor" plumbing, if not enough women to satisfy someone doesn't make the cut, too bad.
 
Ikari said:
The question was not "would you vote for a woman solely because she's a woman", the question was "would you vote for a woman who had your political platform and was a qualified candidate". Perhaps we could have elected the first woman VP in history 4 years ago; but that would have meant McCain as President and a dumb **** as VP.
Click to expand...

Well the vote went the other way, so instead of a dumb **** as a VP, we now have one for P and a VP. And frankly our choices this time around don't look any better, this years election is kind of like choosing between cutting off your left thumb or your right thumb, it's going to hurt like hell either way. So I am voting for the dumb **** that hasn't already spent four years there.
 
Ikari said:
This is a bit older, I think it came from 2007, the numbers have slightly improved a bit, but not that much
Click to expand...

I posted what I'm pretty sure is the most recent Gallup poll on the subject on page 13 of this thread, and things have improved... slightly.
 
VanceMack said:
If the candidates are all going to be as bad as they have been for the last several elections...hell yes...and I hope she is a large breasted hot as hell stripper. Redhead would be nice.

What difference does gender make? Offer some candidates. I would have voted for Hillary over McCain. I would vote for Rice in a heartbeat. I was a big fan of Jean Kirkpatrick running back in 88 and the 90s.
Click to expand...
 
DVSentinel said:
What do people mean when they say "Feminism"? Equal pay for equal work and not be restricted by sex but by ability or women should have access to all jobs and if they cannot meet the requirements, then requirements should be lowered or means of assisting should be mandated, the first type of Feminism, hey, no problem, I am all for it, the secound type, forget about it. Meeting existing standards, which usually exist because it is needed such as the military and fire fighters, means meeting standards regardless of whether someone has "indoor" or "outdoor" plumbing, if not enough women to satisfy someone doesn't make the cut, too bad.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if they're for equality, I'm all for it. However, to quote The Amazing Atheist, "Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal by focusing solely on the issues of one of them." Unfortunately, in far too many cases, feminists, if they see something someone else has that they don't, proclaim "I want that!" but if they have something someone else doesn't, respond "hell no, that's mine!"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom