I've always wondered why Americans always elected old white Protestant men for the office of president. What did these guys have that the rest of the population didn't? Did their race or gender make them better candidates? How could they truly represent the population when in reality they were a minority themselves?
In 2006, it was estimated that there are 0.97 males for every female in America*; thus, women outnumber men. Of the US population, approximately 66.8% are white, non-Hispanic*. Assuming the gender trends in America apply to race, only 32.9% (0.97/1.97*0.668=32.9%) of Americans are white males. Now, about 52% of Americans are Protestant*. This means that the percentage of white Protestant males in America is 17.1% (32.9%*0.52=17.1%). Why should this minority rule the country?
Historically, the wealthiest, best-educated people in the country belonged to this minority. Women stayed in the home cooking, cleaning, and raising children. African-Americans used to be denied freedom, not to mention an education. Native-Americans were herded onto reservations as the white settlers stole their lands. Asians and Hispanics had to deal with prejudice, too. So the only people who had the money and old-boys-network contacts to get onto the presidential ticket were white Protestant men. These guys also had the education needed to understand the key issues facing the country and communicate their ideas effectively. They made the rules, so they made sure that only they had the ability to seize and hold power.
However, things have changed. Slavery has been outlawed. Americans of all races and both genders have been given the vote. Desegregation got rid of the flawed "separate, but equal" doctrine. And now the equal opportunity laws are giving the stereo-typical minorities-women, African-Americans, Native-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and others-the right to a good education and fair hiring practices. Those with the determination to take advantage of the opportunities available and make something of themselves now find themselves in positions of power. So the stereo-typical minorities are entering politics.
Election 2008 may break the mold with a woman or an African-American winning the presidency-that is if a Democrat wins. The Republican candidate will probably be the traditional white Protestant man.
On April 4, 2007, it is still too early to see the Democratic ticket. However, I would not be surprised if it consisted of a woman and an African-American man. I will not speculate over who would be the president, and who the vice president. In the end, it may not matter. The vice president would have a higher probability of winning a future election, be it 2012 (if the Republicans win) or 2016 (if the Democrats win), based on name recognition and/or incumbency.
One of the key factors in the 2008 election is Americans' annoyance with the Bush White House. The president's low approval rating may severely maim the 2008 Republican ticket. The "anything, but Bush" vote, which seems to be increasing if conversations heard on the street mean anything, might decide that all Republicans are like Bush. But then again, the "anything, but Bush" vote may consist of those who complain loudly, but don't actually make it to the voting booth.
So the race and gender issues may prove vital. If support for a historical first-the first woman president or the first African-American president-makes a significant percent of female voters and/or African-American voters actually show up at the voting booth to support the Democratic candidate, then the Democrats may win. I mean people may choose to vote along gender or race lines, instead of party lines. This would shape the future of American politics because more female and African-American candidates would emerge in future presidential elections.
Speaking of voting along new lines, here are some statistics. Women make up about 50.8% (1/1.97=50.8%) of the American population. About 12.9% of Americans are African-Americans*. So if all eligible female voters voted along gender lines, then the Democrats would win. See "Is America ready to have a woman for president?" (http://www.helium.com/tm/142353). However, if only some female voters cast their ballots, and most men and women voted along party lines, but all eligible African-Americans voters voted along race lines, then the Democrats would probably win the election. An organized minority that makes as many of its members as possible vote for the candidate that best represents them can win the White House. Look at what the AARP has been doing for years.
I just wonder how likely it is that a new minority group will gain control. I mean most people do not bother to vote. This apathy puts unpopular leaders into power, and those who did not cast ballets live to lament the situation. Yet do they have the right to complain? See "Voter apathy related to poor candidates" (http://www.helium.com/tm/166690).
* https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/u s.html
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_American