Is America Ready for an All-Woman Ticket?

[Frodo]

Thought I'd ask since Hillary Clinton has included Elizabeth Warren on her shortlist of possible Vice-Presidential running-mates. 

[IceSpear]

Normally I'd say no, but the angry white men are so heavily against Hillary already, I'm not sure there's much more room to fall. So I'll say yes.

[Dwarven Dragon]

No. Granted, Hillary might win anyways against TRUMP/Cruz.

[Dr. Arch]

I optimistically answered yes, but the fact that one can plausibly ask this question makes me second-guess myself. In any case, if there ever was a cycle where Americans would be forced to answer this question, it would be this one.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Very much "yes"!

The Democrats may need to drive the Gender Gap through the roof in order to win the kind of victory that would bring in a Democratic Senate, and (maybe) a Democratic House as well.

[Famous Mortimer]

Yes.

Although I would prefer a ticket that just happens to be two women (Clinton-Warren) over a ticket that is designed specifically to be two women (Clinton-Any Other Random Female Senator).

[Mr. Morden]

I'm not sure.  I mean, what happens if they're in the middle of a Cabinet meeting, and they both start having babies?  Who will answer the 3am phone call then?

WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP TO THINK ABOUT THIS EARLIER, AMERICA?

[Mr.Bakari-Sellers]

Not Warren who is Bernie Sanders. Kholbuchar or Gillibrand represent Clinton values. But Deval Patrick would be picked with Clinton before any of those.

It's gonna be Castro first Latino Veep nominee

[Mr. Morden]

Not Warren who is Bernie Sanders.

I've never seen the two of them in the same room together, so this sounds plausible.

[Figueira]

I feel like not picking someone because of perceived bigotry against a certain demographic is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[BlueSwan]

Yes.

Although I would prefer a ticket that just happens to be two women (Clinton-Warren) over a ticket that is designed specifically to be two women (Clinton-Any Other Random Female Senator).

Agreed.

I would like to see a Clinton-Warren ticket. Not a ticket designed to be an all-female ticket just for the sake of it. I really don't want a Clinton-Gillibrand ticket. I guess a Clinton-Klubuchar ticket would be alright. I don't want a Clinton-McCaskill ticket because the dems would almost certainly lose McCaskills senate seat, whereas the other mentioned senate seats (MA, NY, MN) are very winnable.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I don't know, but I wouldn't mind this happening.

[President Johnson]

In the future I'd like that. Maybe Gilibrand/Harris or so. Or with Ivanka Trump.

[Blair]

Yes, I actually agree the idea that you're not ready until you try it. Obviously it requires barriers to be broken in the past, but if you play it as being about qualifications sure

[HagridOfTheDeep]

No. Not until people stop feeling threatened by the fact that it is actually okay to support a person just because they identify as a woman. The people who complain about that don't understand how the system is rigged and why it is important to include voices that have traditionally been marginalized in positions of leadership. There would be mind explosions across the country if Hillary chose a woman running mate, and I don't think it would be positive. She would be accused of playing identity politics even though we have had male–male tickets from the major parties in all but two elections.

That being said, I still think the circumstances could be right for an all-female ticket to win... But I don't think that would represent the country actually being ready for it. Although obviously the move would have strong supporters. It could even be a net-positive political move in that the people who would be most against it likely wouldn't support Hillary anyway, and it could win over others in a tide of female pride. On balance though, judging the intensity of sentiment and the fact that some would support Hillary and still hate the decision, no, the country would not be ready.

[pho]

The majority of voters are women, so yeah probably. That said, most women have critical thinking skills and will probably find a less shallow reason to vote.

Most people don't see politics through the lens of identity and do not care about these issues, at least not until some late blooming SJW starts implying they are bigots.

[Santander]

Yes, America is ready, but not for Clinton/Warren.

[Kingpoleon]

No. Not until people stop feeling threatened by the fact that it is actually okay to support a person just because they identify as a woman.

Why is it OK to support someone solely for their gender, race, or age?

[For Trump, everything. For immigrants, the law]

Those that aren't ready wouldn't vote for Hillary regardless of who she picks as her VP.

[NeverAgain]

I mean it depends on who the women are... If it's Hillary/Warren or Hillary/Gillibrand then OF COURSE. But if you mean Palin/Ernst then no. In general, it's about time we had an all women ticket, but so far when you pick a woman veep you lose in a landslide.

[Iowa+3]

If it's against Trump I can't see how it matters.

[Orser67]

Most of America is, but I voted no because I think there are a few million men (and probably some women) who would be much less likely to vote for an all-women ticket. Given that the first rule of picking a running mate is "do no harm," I think an all-women ticket would be a mistake.

[7,052,770]

Probably, but why tempt fate?

[TDAS04]

A ticket with two women certainly could win, but it would risky.

[BoJack Horseman]

I don't think she'll do it. I think you'll see a woman-versus-woman general election before you'd see an all-female ticket. I'd like to see a general election between Elizabeth Warren and Shelley Moore Capito tbh.