SenorGato Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I just want to see if you guys are quicker than Google, and ask if it is possible there will ever be one? Can American vote for a real life bachelor as president? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetsfan80 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Managing a family is probably more difficult than managing the country. I'd say that's a pretty big reason why people want a family man in charge. Not only does he have to answer to the American people, he has to come home and play with his kids with a clean conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BroadwayJoe12 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Buchanan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green DNA Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Most voters are too afraid that a single guy might be gay. You simply can't have the President offering to swallow Putin's long range missile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Buchanan. Yeah almost 200 years ago. "Single" does mean gay when you go down into the South, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Yeah almost 200 years ago. "Single" does mean gay when you go down into the South, doesn't it? Wow those people back then were a lot more sensible than us! I could list a whole buch for presidents who were married, had children and even prayed but ended up effing the country. But since i do not want to get into a political discussion, I digress! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rillo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I think you HAVE to be married to become president... correct me if I'm wrong tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryK Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It's important for a President to be married. That way, you know there's at least one woman in the White house he isnt having sex with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share Posted February 14, 2012 Isn't marriage outdated yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RutgersJetFan Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Yes, but it's going to be a few decades. As rates of marriage decrease and divorce rates increase, traditional family values in a political context as you understand them will shift as well. Right now a single candidate would have absolutely no shot, but give it 20-30 years and the right candidate and he or she will have a realistic chance on the Dem side. The problem is that creating any sort of feeling thermometer on marriage for a candidate is confounded by so many indirect effects on the variables, best you can do is go by what's probably going to be the logical progression of current models. This is all survey based of course, but NES is usually pretty spot on. Marital status is still used as a form of strategy in campaigns, so we know it's still a very powerful tool, Gingrich is a fantastic example. However, at the same time the adult singles base is somewhat of an untapped constituency and Democrats could certainly it a shot way down the line. No chance you'd ever see a single Repub at this point though, not on the Presidential stage at least, too many of their policies are aimed around conventional family stuff and that aspect is unshakable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerryK Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Joking aside, I think one needs to see marriage in its anthropological context. Humans, due to their intelligence and large brain case, need to be born very prematurely compared to other animals. Think about how quickly your dog can walk, learn tricks and pee in one place. It's a matter of days, while humans take years to get to this point. Marriage is an institution that evolved because cave dwellers needed 2 adults to get our babies (frankly, more like larvae) beyond the 5-8yr old stage which would have been the primordial version of adulthood. Males aren't wired for this, but we put up with it. Marriage might indeed be antiquated, but only if society provides more options for single mothers (who wish to remain single) to feel like they're able to raise the children without help. I don't think we're there yet as a society. So I think a single President, able to sow his oats wherever he pleases, is going to strike people as a bit reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afosomf Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Clinton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatriotReign37 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Clinton? +1 I was going to say the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I think you HAVE to be married to become president... correct me if I'm wrong tho. You're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsFanInDenver Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Joking aside, I think one needs to see marriage in its anthropological context. Humans, due to their intelligence and large brain case, need to be born very prematurely compared to other animals. Think about how quickly your dog can walk, learn tricks and pee in one place. It's a matter of days, while humans take years to get to this point. Marriage is an institution that evolved because cave dwellers needed 2 adults to get our babies (frankly, more like larvae) beyond the 5-8yr old stage which would have been the primordial version of adulthood. Males aren't wired for this, but we put up with it. Marriage might indeed be antiquated, but only if society provides more options for single mothers (who wish to remain single) to feel like they're able to raise the children without help. I don't think we're there yet as a society. So I think a single President, able to sow his oats wherever he pleases, is going to strike people as a bit reckless. Yet the human race did survive before the invention of this marriage thing. Me thinks it was a bunch of ugly people who were not getting any who made a rule that there should be only one woman for one man. That way they increased their chances of getting laid instead of having to watch the group's playboy march away with all the womin behind the bushes! Think about it, even now in our society its the ugly people who make all the rules for all the cool ones! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernJet Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 All Hail Buchanan...JN's mascot http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Has_there_ever_been_a_gay_US_president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Yeah almost 200 years ago. "Single" does mean gay when you go down into the South, doesn't it? Doesn't help that the only "single" President in U.S. history was super ******* gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Yes, but it's going to be a few decades. As rates of marriage decrease and divorce rates increase, traditional family values in a political context as you understand them will shift as well. Right now a single candidate would have absolutely no shot, but give it 20-30 years and the right candidate and he or she will have a realistic chance on the Dem side. The problem is that creating any sort of feeling thermometer on marriage for a candidate is confounded by so many indirect effects on the variables, best you can do is go by what's probably going to be the logical progression of current models. This is all survey based of course, but NES is usually pretty spot on. Marital status is still used as a form of strategy in campaigns, so we know it's still a very powerful tool, Gingrich is a fantastic example. However, at the same time the adult singles base is somewhat of an untapped constituency and Democrats could certainly it a shot way down the line. No chance you'd ever see a single Repub at this point though, not on the Presidential stage at least, too many of their policies are aimed around conventional family stuff and that aspect is unshakable. I think this is exactly what I was looking for. I'll try to be interesting about it later but I'm on the stupid phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.