Could a a childless unmarried person become president?

[Stahlherz]

Looking back on our country's history, I can only recall a single example of a person who become president that had no spouse or children; he was James Buchanan (1857–1861). He seems to have been a fluke though, as every president before and after him was married, and perhaps also had children (I don't know if there was a married childless president).

I would love to see someone like Bill Maher become president, you know? (not someone who's a grouchy old crank like him, but someone who is single and speaks out for single people's rights like him).


So anyway:
Do you think Americans, by and large, would vote for a single childless person to be president?
Do you have any guesses on why our two major political parties tend to favor "family men" as nominees?



(P.S.: Much appreciation to Ammo Amy for pointing out James Buchanan to me.)

[Ammo Amy]

You mean like this guy?

Quote:

James Buchanan, Jr. (April 23, 1791 – June 1, 1868, was the 15th President of the United States (1857–1861). He is the only president from Pennsylvania and the only president who remained a lifelong bachelor.

[Stahlherz]

Ammo Amy

You mean like this guy?

Quote:

James Buchanan, Jr. (April 23, 1791 – June 1, 1868, was the 15th President of the United States (1857–1861). He is the only president from Pennsylvania and the only president who remained a lifelong bachelor.

I can't thank you enough for this. You've made my day. biggrin

Anyway, do you have an opinion on the matter of whether or not Americans would vote for a person with no spouse or children?

[Ammo Amy]

America has pretty much developed a stereotype of who should be president. When someone comes along to upset that stereotype, certain factions tend to become unhinged.

[A Really Bad Idea]

Stahlherz

So anyway:
Do you think Americans, by and large, would vote for a single childless person to be president?
Do you have any guesses on why our two major political parties tend to favor "family men" as nominees?

To the first question; it seems possible just doubtful. In part because of the answer to the second.
By and large, the reasoning to which "family men" are put to nominations, is because not having a family and/or children, would be an easy grounds to attack the character of said candidate. It's not rational but were voters rational; you wouldn't see the Republican nom.s as they are.
The problem is that the rhetoric actsa on a basis that said persons wouldn't be able to understand family life or the effect of policy on family. The argument would be they couldn't process how a social policy might affect fathers or mothers. They might argue that they couldn't understand budgeting a household whilst bringing up children hence financial policy is aggressed against.
Sadly (and this is perhaps the worst part), it could stick hence voting for them seems doubtful.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

A Really Bad Idea

Stahlherz

So anyway:
Do you think Americans, by and large, would vote for a single childless person to be president?
Do you have any guesses on why our two major political parties tend to favor "family men" as nominees?

To the first question; it seems possible just doubtful. In part because of the answer to the second.
By and large, the reasoning to which "family men" are put to nominations, is because not having a family and/or children, would be an easy grounds to attack the character of said candidate. It's not rational but were voters rational; you wouldn't see the Republican nom.s as they are.
The problem is that the rhetoric actsa on a basis that said persons wouldn't be able to understand family life or the effect of policy on family. The argument would be they couldn't process how a social policy might affect fathers or mothers. They might argue that they couldn't understand budgeting a household whilst bringing up children hence financial policy is aggressed against.
Sadly (and this is perhaps the worst part), it could stick hence voting for them seems doubtful.

If rationality were a factor you wouldn't see either sides' current or proposed candidates/officials.

Also, George Washington had no children.

[A Really Bad Idea]

Old Blue Collar Joe

If rationality were a factor you wouldn't see either sides' current or proposed candidates/officials.

Also, George Washington had no children.

Probably, if I'm not willing to commit myself to a definitely. I'm more using the Republicans specifically because it's the example of crazy in everyone's faces currently.

[Queen Shining Heaven]

Old Blue Collar Joe

A Really Bad Idea

Stahlherz

So anyway:
Do you think Americans, by and large, would vote for a single childless person to be president?
Do you have any guesses on why our two major political parties tend to favor "family men" as nominees?

To the first question; it seems possible just doubtful. In part because of the answer to the second.
By and large, the reasoning to which "family men" are put to nominations, is because not having a family and/or children, would be an easy grounds to attack the character of said candidate. It's not rational but were voters rational; you wouldn't see the Republican nom.s as they are.
The problem is that the rhetoric actsa on a basis that said persons wouldn't be able to understand family life or the effect of policy on family. The argument would be they couldn't process how a social policy might affect fathers or mothers. They might argue that they couldn't understand budgeting a household whilst bringing up children hence financial policy is aggressed against.
Sadly (and this is perhaps the worst part), it could stick hence voting for them seems doubtful.

If rationality were a factor you wouldn't see either sides' current or proposed candidates/officials.

Also, George Washington had no children.

No, but he had stepchildren who he raised as his own children, as well as step-grandchildren he raised in the same way. Plus, there the account of a certain West Ford

[Queen Shining Heaven]

I suppose people genrally want someone they think of as being relatable, and a married man with a family is more relatable. Yes, James Buchanan was the only president to be a childless bachelor, but Reagan was divorced, though he was married when he ran, so that point is moot.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

A Really Bad Idea

Old Blue Collar Joe

If rationality were a factor you wouldn't see either sides' current or proposed candidates/officials.

Also, George Washington had no children.

Probably, if I'm not willing to commit myself to a definitely. I'm more using the Republicans specifically because it's the example of crazy in everyone's faces currently.

Hardly. It's just the one that the left wants to focus on. It's gonna be another short bus election.

[Old Blue Collar Joe]

Queen Shining Heaven

Old Blue Collar Joe

A Really Bad Idea

Stahlherz

So anyway:
Do you think Americans, by and large, would vote for a single childless person to be president?
Do you have any guesses on why our two major political parties tend to favor "family men" as nominees?

To the first question; it seems possible just doubtful. In part because of the answer to the second.
By and large, the reasoning to which "family men" are put to nominations, is because not having a family and/or children, would be an easy grounds to attack the character of said candidate. It's not rational but were voters rational; you wouldn't see the Republican nom.s as they are.
The problem is that the rhetoric actsa on a basis that said persons wouldn't be able to understand family life or the effect of policy on family. The argument would be they couldn't process how a social policy might affect fathers or mothers. They might argue that they couldn't understand budgeting a household whilst bringing up children hence financial policy is aggressed against.
Sadly (and this is perhaps the worst part), it could stick hence voting for them seems doubtful.

If rationality were a factor you wouldn't see either sides' current or proposed candidates/officials.

Also, George Washington had no children.

No, but he had stepchildren who he raised as his own children, as well as step-grandchildren he raised in the same way. Plus, there the account of a certain West Ford

Which, under examination, can't stand up, otherwise, he and Martha would have had children because it was already established she wasn't sterile, which meant George must have been.
There's several old wives tales floating around that, as time goes by, get more credence than they merit, since most started out as slander pieces to begin with.

[A Really Bad Idea]

Old Blue Collar Joe

Hardly. It's just the one that the left wants to focus on. It's gonna be another short bus election.

You say this yet I cannot find coverage of silliness on the left in the same extent as coverage occurs for the primaries.
Thus I can't say that examples of it on the left are "in everyone's faces currently".

That said; yes - it most probably will be a poor election (possibly even a moribund one).

[Yuki the Third]

They could, but they'd have a hard time considering that america's major voting group is the white married christian with two or more children.

[Touching Hair]

A one legged Golf war veterian could easily win.

U.S. politics is all about image and using the media to manipulate the people's opinion.

[Horace Burtons Ghost]

It could happen, but difficult. We have Prime Minister, who is unmarried, no kids and an athiest to boot. I doubt she would get a look-in if she were running in the US.

In the beginning, quite a lot was made of her lack of children (seems women are damned if they don't, damned if they do, as examples are common within the business sector), and her lack of faith.

A President without immediate family, may be blasted by the general public, for having a perceived lack of empathy for families, in regards to taxation, war, infrastructure etc.

Lame arguments would be made, and based on spin. Maybe.

Newt Gingrich made an argument for the sanctity of marriage, whilst stuffing up at least 2 of them. This is a bloke many believe when he makes a case against gay marriage.

Mitt Romney, (although I hope to god he din't mean it), in an interview basically said he the rich can look after themselves, he isn't concerned about the poor (and won't bother), but putting his entire focus on the middle class.

Way to go married man.

My point, single or married, politician's can be insensitive douches.