2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: A slightly more nuanced take on whether Hillary Clinton is "establishment" [View all]WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)So in 2013, EMILYs List launched "Madam President" - our campaign to put a woman in the White House.
Electing a woman president in 2016 isnt just important for the present. Its important for the future. Its important because right now, women are considerably less likely to even consider running for office. A woman in the Oval Office would prove there is literally no position too high, or too important, or too powerful for young girls and women to compete for.
To many women, it's the #1 priority.
I knew this. Women here knew this (most, if not all, deny it). The whole world knew this.
http://www.emilyslist.org/pages/entry/emilys-list-introduces-madam-president
Here's a good article that sheds light on the young vs old woman disconnect I've been talking about for two days.
Sixty-nine percent of Democratic women and 46 percent of Democratic men hope to see a female president of the United States in their lifetime, according to a new Pew Research Center survey on women and leadership.
<I don't care about Republican women>
As much as I hope (and believe) we will elect a woman to lead the free world in the next decade, I don't hope it enough to vote against my principles.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/ct-women-president-voters-political-party-balancing-20150114-column.html
The upshot is clear (isn't it?): There's a direct relationship between age and priorities (i.e., wanting to see a woman president).
Taken together, you and your wife and her friends and everyone you've ever met and spoken to really aren't that tuned in.