When will we see two all-female tickets?

[Alben Barkley]

By which I mean, when will all presidential and vice presidential candidates on both major party tickets be women? Will this EVER happen? If so, how soon could it realistically happen?

[Mister Mets]

I think it'll happen within twenty years, as more women are elected to major office and the issue becomes less polarized (which means there's less of a backlash.)

Right now, it's unlikely. Female major party candidates would be likelier to select a male running mate, due to the larger candidate pool as well as a sense of balance.

But it's possible. You probably would need to have a running mate who is seen as especially impressive, but they might go with the narrative.

[Ferguson97]

I think we’ll see this within our lifetimes. The main hurdle will be getting the GOP electorate to vote for a woman.

[progressive85]

Gender balance I believe will eventually become more common than racial balance... by 2052, it might just be commonplace for a man to choose a woman as running mate, and vice versa.  In both parties.  They'll certainly be enough viable options to choose from.

[The Economy is Getting Worse]

The probability is already around 1/16 if the candidates are random. So we'd have to wait about 64 years on avearge even if there is no gender biases.

[MarkD]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

[Epaminondas]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Not as superficial as you would like to believe.
When is the last time a democratically-elected woman president declared war on another country?

[MABA 2020]

I think this'll be a long time if ever. In the future having a gender balance will probably be the common thing (the Democrats I'd say are already at a place where gender balance is a requirement going forward)

[Ferguson97]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Do you think that 44/45 presidents where white men because they happened to be the best people for the job?

[gerritcole]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Not as superficial as you would like to believe.
When is the last time a democratically-elected woman president declared war on another country?

Thatcher falklands, indira Gandhi 1971

I disagree with your point, small sample size imo, I think it’s kinda misguided  to think women are inherently less ambitious or cunning or war like than men

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Not as superficial as you would like to believe.
When is the last time a democratically-elected woman president declared war on another country?

Thatcher falklands, indira Gandhi 1971

I disagree with your point, small sample size imo, I think it’s kinda misguided  to think women are inherently less ambitious or cunning or war like than men

Didn't Argentina start the Falklands war by invading the place even though the people living there did not want to become Argentinian?

[Vosem]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Do you think that 44/45 presidents where white men because they happened to be the best people for the job?

Given that educational opportunities were restricted to white men for the vast majority of that period, and men are generally more ambitious and it has virtually always been the case that white people in America have been the richest group, virtually assuredly so, right?

[gerritcole]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Not as superficial as you would like to believe.
When is the last time a democratically-elected woman president declared war on another country?

Thatcher falklands, indira Gandhi 1971

I disagree with your point, small sample size imo, I think it’s kinda misguided  to think women are inherently less ambitious or cunning or war like than men

Didn't Argentina start the Falklands war by invading the place even though the people living there did not want to become Argentinian?

Yup it’s quite interesting cause there was some momentum on the British Side to turning the islands over to Argentina, however the Islanders were dead set against that. I believe they were even offered compensation to move. Then the military junta, probably pressured by domestic intrigues, invaded

[Ferguson97]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Do you think that 44/45 presidents where white men because they happened to be the best people for the job?

Given that educational opportunities were restricted to white men for the vast majority of that period, and men are generally more ambitious and it has virtually always been the case that white people in America have been the richest group, virtually assuredly so, right?

That's my point.

[Alben Barkley]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Do you think that 44/45 presidents where white men because they happened to be the best people for the job?

Given that educational opportunities were restricted to white men for the vast majority of that period, and men are generally more ambitious and it has virtually always been the case that white people in America have been the richest group, virtually assuredly so, right?

Not sure that's true so much as it's true that women who are ambitious tend to get portrayed in a more negative light.

Also your post in general is wrong. Many of those presidents were terrible. There is not a doubt in my mind that there were random citizens, male and female, of all races who were better for the job than some of them even at the same time.

Like do you seriously think Frederick Douglass or Susan B. Anthony would not have been a better president than Andrew Johnson for example?

[MarkD]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Do you think that 44/45 presidents where white men because they happened to be the best people for the job?

No, but I am saying that we need to grow up and stop worrying about the fact that they were white men and we need to focus on the important characteristics that candidates have. We need to reject old-fashioned and new-fashionable stereotypes about race and sex. If we think it was an injustice that women and black people were never seriously considered viable candidates for POTUS before 2008, we won't rectify the injustice of the past by copying it while reversing the image. And I guarantee you that the Supreme Court has never, ever been improved by appointing the first black person (or the second one, or the third) to serve on the Court, or by appointing the first woman, or the first feminist icon, or the first Latina. The first few black people and the first few women who were appointed to the SCOTUS have been just as mediocre as the vast majority of white men who have ever served.

The most important quality we need to have on the SCOTUS is OBJECTIVITY, regardless of race, sex, religion, status as an Ivy-league grad, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. etc. The most important quality we need in a POTUS is effective leadership skills (and I, for one, will focus on whether they will appoint the most objective interpreters of law to the Court), not .... well, you know the rest.

[Alben Barkley]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Do you think that 44/45 presidents where white men because they happened to be the best people for the job?

No, but I am saying that we need to grow up and stop worrying about the fact that they were white men and we need to focus on the important characteristics that candidates have. We need to reject old-fashioned and new-fashionable stereotypes about race and sex. If we think it was an injustice that women and black people were never seriously considered viable candidates for POTUS before 2008, we won't rectify the injustice of the past by copying it while reversing the image. And I guarantee you that the Supreme Court has never, ever been improved by appointing the first black person (or the second one, or the third) to serve on the Court, or by appointing the first woman, or the first feminist icon, or the first Latina. The first few black people and the first few women who were appointed to the SCOTUS have been just as mediocre as the vast majority of white men who have ever served.

The most important quality we need to have on the SCOTUS is OBJECTIVITY, regardless of race, sex, religion, status as an Ivy-league grad, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc. etc. The most important quality we need in a POTUS is effective leadership skills (and I, for one, will focus on whether they will appoint the most objective interpreters of law to the Court), not .... well, you know the rest.

In theory, being blind to color and sex is good. In practice, if somebody doesn't point out the problems with literal centuries of one race and gender dominating all institutions of power, things will never change. There's a balance here, to be sure, and a danger of going too far in the other direction with Affirmative Action overkill. But it's naive to just pretend like it's a coincidence that all but one US president has been a white man, zero still have been women, and that these characteristics (while equal) are totally "superficial." Even if they SHOULD be that way, they HAVEN'T been treated that way for most of our history (and I would argue they are still sadly very relevant because 2016 demonstrated that even the most qualified female candidate in history can lose against the least qualified male candidate in history). Again, it's about balancing the theoretical ideals with the practical realities. Anyone who goes all-in on one while ignoring the other is making a mistake if they want to see true progress.

In any case my question was not a demand for an all-female ticket, it was merely a hypothetical question about when such a thing might happen. You might claim to see it as no more significant than an all-ginger ticket or something, but I'd wager that about half the human race disagrees with you. And regardless, some people might find that interesting even if entirely "superficial." No need to virtue signal about how superior you are for pretending that there is no significance to a woman being elected president, as again that wasn't even the point of my post.

[Vosem]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Do you think that 44/45 presidents where white men because they happened to be the best people for the job?

Given that educational opportunities were restricted to white men for the vast majority of that period, and men are generally more ambitious and it has virtually always been the case that white people in America have been the richest group, virtually assuredly so, right?

Not sure that's true so much as it's true that women who are ambitious tend to get portrayed in a more negative light.

This is the kind of thing that's 'on average' like height, where there's definitely substantial overlap in the distribution.

Also your post in general is wrong. Many of those presidents were terrible. There is not a doubt in my mind that there were random citizens, male and female, of all races who were better for the job than some of them even at the same time.

Like do you seriously think Frederick Douglass or Susan B. Anthony would not have been a better president than Andrew Johnson for example?

On the one hand, no, but on the other hand I'm not sure that great advocates and activists necessarily make for the greatest leaders; throughout the entire period I think most of the leading enterprises were generally also run by white men. (Like, would Frederick Douglass or Susan B. Anthony have been better than Andrew Johnson? Yes. But would Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller have been better than Frederick Douglass or Susan B. Anthony?)

I think what we're discussing here kinda just comes down to 'democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others'. You really can't trust ordinary people to consistently elect good leaders, and yet every other method that has ever been used has been so many orders of magnitude worse that at this point anti-democratic perspectives can be reflexively dismissed. (In addition to being literally true, this also works as a metaphor for other things, incidentally.)

I agree that for almost any particular President who was a white man, it would be possible to find a woman or non-white man who would've done the job better; for some of them, like Andrew Johnson, it would've been facile. But I think statistically, because of educational outcomes and business records, probably the vast majority of the abstract 'best' choices would've been white men.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Do you think that 44/45 presidents where white men because they happened to be the best people for the job?

Given that educational opportunities were restricted to white men for the vast majority of that period, and men are generally more ambitious and it has virtually always been the case that white people in America have been the richest group, virtually assuredly so, right?

Not sure that's true so much as it's true that women who are ambitious tend to get portrayed in a more negative light.

This is the kind of thing that's 'on average' like height, where there's definitely substantial overlap in the distribution.

Also your post in general is wrong. Many of those presidents were terrible. There is not a doubt in my mind that there were random citizens, male and female, of all races who were better for the job than some of them even at the same time.

Like do you seriously think Frederick Douglass or Susan B. Anthony would not have been a better president than Andrew Johnson for example?

On the one hand, no, but on the other hand I'm not sure that great advocates and activists necessarily make for the greatest leaders; throughout the entire period I think most of the leading enterprises were generally also run by white men. (Like, would Frederick Douglass or Susan B. Anthony have been better than Andrew Johnson? Yes. But would Andrew Carnegie or John D. Rockefeller have been better than Frederick Douglass or Susan B. Anthony?)

No. They would not.

[Skill and Chance]

When will we stop worrying about the superficial characteristics of our candidates for POTUS, VPOTUS, and SCOTUS?

Do you think that 44/45 presidents where white men because they happened to be the best people for the job?

No, but we've only had 14 presidential elections since the VRA went into effect and 2 of them were won by a black man.  Black people are about 1/7 of the US population, so at least post-VRA, this is right in line with what we would expect to happen randomly. 

On the other other hand, it's pretty remarkable that it took nearly 100 years after the 19th Amendment to even nominate a woman, considering they are roughly half the population and a majority of presidential voters in all of the past 10 elections.

[Pres Mike]

Didn't Hillary think about Warren? The biggest reason she didn't pick Warren was because MA had a Republican governor.

A all female ticket isn't that far fetched