The US presidency: it’s a man’s world

Since July 4 1776, the founding of the USA, we have witnessed 60 presidential elections. The elections have produced 45 presidents. The presidents have all been men. In over 248 years, not one woman has been successful in the presidential elections, with the closest candidates being in 2016 with Hillary Clinton and 2024 with Kamala Harris. Therefore, this raises question: will the US ever be ready for a female president?

There have been 59 women who have been presidential candidates since 1872. Victoria Woodhull was the first despite not being eligible as she was only 34 years of age – candidates must be 35, as stated in Article II of the constitution. Many of these women, however, were never feasibly winning the election due to only appearing on the ballots of a limited number of states or being ‘write-in’ candidates. A ‘write-in’ candidate refers to a name written by voters despite them not appearing on the ballot – a practice not allowed in nine states and many only allow it if the candidate is registered. Therefore, these women will never be able to secure the popular vote or the required 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.

The electoral system in the USA is a two-party system which means that two parties dominate the political field. In the US, these two parties are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, and since 1868, the president has always been a member of one of these parties. Excluding ‘write-in’ candidates, the only female presidential candidates who have represented these parties have been Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris – both endorsed by the Democratic Party. Therefore, of the 59 women who have been presidential candidates, only two were potential presidents.

Hillary Clinton, who ran for president in 2016, opposed Donald Trump. Clinton, unlike Trump, possessed political experience as she had previously been elected to the Senate in 2000 which was a position she held until 2009 when she became the 67th US Secretary of State. She ran a successful campaign in 2016, even securing the popular vote against Trump with 65.8 million votes compared to Trump’s 62.9. However, due to the electoral college, a process to strengthen the power of the smaller states to ensure they are considered in campaigns, she was unsuccessful. Similarly, Kamala Harris also lost to Donald Trump.

Let’s focus on Harris in 2024. It would be foolish to suggest that her race and her gender were not intersecting attributes which affected how people voted, but Harris believed that the US was “absolutely” ready for a female president. Therefore, some have suggested it was due to the political context, such as Tammy Baldwin, who argued that the 2024 election was defined by change, and as representing the incumbent party, Harris was at an inherent disadvantage. Alternatively, individuals like Julian Epstein, have argued that mistakes within the campaign, notably Harris’ choice of Walz for vice president, or as Nancy Pelosi believes, the failure of Biden to swiftly step down, doomed Harris to fail, placing her in a weaker position against Trump. Therefore, irrespective of her gender, the political climate and the context of her candidacy were not in her favour, which contributed to her defeat.

It is completely unbeknownst to us who the Democratic Party will put forth as their presidential nominee for 2028, but I wouldn’t expect them to put a female candidate

The loss of Harris, as opposed to the hypothetical loss of Biden, has the additional arguments of her race and her gender to justify why the party was unsuccessful – whereas if Biden were to have lost, as the incumbent, it would have been more embarrassing and damaging for the Democratic Party.

With this in mind, let’s consider Clinton in 2016. Obama, a member of the Democratic Party, had just finished his second consecutive term, and therefore, the Democratic Party were able to select a new presidential candidate – Clinton was supported by the Democratic National Committee. At this point, there had been a general trend in US politics, since the 1950’s, in which after two terms of one party, the alternate party would be successful. For example, Bill Clinton’s two terms as a Democrat preceded George W. Bush’s two terms as a Republic which were succeeded by Obama’s two terms as a Democrat. Therefore, Clinton’s candidacy was not in a strong position, purely based on trends, regardless of her campaign’s failures, her gender identity, and the personality of Trump.

It is completely unbeknownst to us who the Democratic Party will put forth as their presidential nominee for 2028, but I wouldn’t expect them to put a female candidate. Considering Trump will be unable to run again, due to the two-term limit, it will be completely new candidates, and I think it’s likely that in this context, the Democratic Party will be hopeful for success – and in turn, the DNC will support a male candidate, just as they supported Biden following Clinton’s defeat.

It’s important to note that the DNC’s support of Clinton and Biden stemmed from their opposition to the alternate leading nominee, Bernie Sanders, who they did not favour as revealed in released emails, due to his identity as a democratic socialist. The DNC, in favour of Biden, believed a more centrist candidate would be better suited against Trump, and thus continued to oppose Sanders. Regardless, I think it would be naive to not consider that the DNC, in ‘protecting the party’ would set up a female candidate, like Harris, to be a sacrificial lamb.

The USA is culturally ready for a female president, but the historical institutions in conjunction with the political climate have not allowed for a female candidate to be successful, thus making it a man’s world

Contrastingly, the Republican Party has never had a female nominee. In 2016, when Clinton was nominated, the top six candidates in the republican primaries were men, with Carly Florina, as the female candidate receiving only one delegate – 1,237 are needed to win. In 2024, the second leading candidate was a woman, Nikki Haley, but she paled in comparison to Trump, only receiving 97 delegates while he secured 2,268. Therefore, it is clear within the dominant parties, women are unable to succeed and achieve the role of president, and thus reform to the operation of the political parties and the political system needs to occur, to increase opportunities for women to be represented in the executive.

My focus has been almost completely on social structures, but I think this is important. Beyond the political system, we should also consider the impact of media representations of women in politics. The Northeastern University School of Journalism found, in their analysis of articles, female candidates are consistently described more negatively than their male counterparts. Therefore, when the media is approached uncritically, the female candidates are perceived unfavourably, which encourages opposition to their success. In conclusion, I agree with Harris when she claims that the US is “absolutely” ready for a female president. This is supported by polls which show 52% of Americans would feel “very comfortable” having a female president, and more so with 67% of Trump supporters believing that “women are as qualified as men to hold the highest offices in government”. I would argue that the USA is culturally ready for a female president, but the historical institutions in conjunction with the political climate have not allowed for a female candidate to be successful, thus making it a man’s world.