Talk politics.

(*SWCM = straight white Christian male)

OK, we've had our share of Hillary talk, even Warren talk, and for a while we might've imagined that a female US president was even a viable scenario. Heh.

I've wondered at times how come a developed society (presumably the most developed, actually) which often likes to declare itself the paragon of freedom and democracy in the world, has not had any female president, religious minority president (hell, even openly atheist president to that matter), or why not, openly gay president (hm, Buchanan doesn't count as "open", right?)

I've heard all sorts of excuses reasons for this curious fact, and now that the US has got its first black president (even a two-term one, wow!), we might as well be delving into the naive belief that anything is possible from here on.

Reasons for no female POTUS yet: From what I've heard, the excuses reasons generally revolve around the fact that women didn't get the right to vote until 1920, making it impossible for a woman to be elected before then. Problem is, there's been a century since then, and only 2 (namely: two) women have been ever nominated for VP, both in campaigns that were already the underdogs, and the hope was that nominating a woman for VP would've resonated with the "lady vote" and close the gap somewhat. It didn't work. So far, there haven't been many women in Senate, either. Most important committees are mostly male, if not all-male, including ones deciding on issues directly affecting women (like birth control). Hillary might've been the closest a woman could've gotten to the nomination, but it didn't work. Obama stole the glory back then. Now her name is again being regularly tossed around.

Anyway; so what's your take, folks? Why still no female president? Why America still hasn't joined the glorious club of democracies like Haiti, Nicaragua, Burundi, Guyana, The Philippines, Indonesia, Liberia, Gabon, Kosovo, Malawi, Central African Republic, Mongolia and Guinea-Bissau?

And what about the first gay president? OK, Buchanan might or might not have been one, but even if he indeed was, he wasn't openly gay, he didn't run while people knowing that he was gay, and they probably wouldn't have elected him if they had known. So what would it take to see the first openly LGBT prez? Hell, when will we see the first openly LGBT Republican nominee, let alone prez?

And here we come upon the elephant in the room, so to speak...

"Americans are somewhat more open to the idea of an atheist president"

"Somewhat more open"? What does that even mean? Oh right. Even if some of the candidates may've been atheist, so far few of them have dared declare that openly. Most major candidates never stop blabbering about God and the Bible, even the more progressive/liberal/heathen/you-name-it ones. Why is that? Maybe because "America has been founded on Christian principles", etc. At least that's what I'm being told by our more conservative friends. So when will we see an openly atheist candidate who doesn't have to pander to the religious majority, and still retain their chances of getting their party's nomination, and even being elected president? Would that EVER happen in the US?

What about non-Christian candidates? A Muslim, perhaps? THE HORRORS!

Or a representative of a smaller racial/ethnic minority? Asian, anyone?

We might ask similar questions about other "minorities" (hey, are you sure non-believers are actually a minority any more?) - like physically disabled candidates. FDR may have been one at the time he ran, so we may have a precedent already. But do you picture a candidate in a wheelchair ever having a viable chance of getting nominated and being elected into office?

All that said, here's a poll for ya. Which minority (from a political POV) has the best chances of getting a representative of theirs into the White House? And which will never see it happen?

[Poll #1972687]

[Poll #1972688]

Your turn, guys. Any votes / opinions / 2 cents / mocking macros / curses at the OP?