The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

Why 2024 is the year we’ll elect a woman president

A political expert makes the case

By
March 5, 2020 at 8:28 p.m. EST

It seemed like 2020 could finally be the year America elected its first female president. All the early signs were there: the splashy announcements of high-profile senators, the breakout debate moments, the plans.

Oh, the plans.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) dropped out of the race on Thursday, guaranteeing that the next U.S. president will be male, white, and over 73 years old. (Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii remains in the race, but has only two delegates and is polling at one percent.)

On the campaign trail, Warren made a lot of pinky promises: She would crouch down to look a little girl in the eye and say, “I’m running for president, because that’s what girls do.” One of the hardest parts of quitting, she said Thursday, was knowing all those little girls would have to wait four years before the country had another shot at electing a woman.

Speaking to reporters outside her home in Cambridge, Mass., Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) announced she was ending her presidential bid on March 5. (Video: The Washington Post)

It could be four years, but it could be longer. Maybe much longer. Jennifer Lawless, a professor of women and politics at the University of Virginia, talked to me about the political path that will lead the country to elect its first female president — and how long, exactly, she thinks that will take.

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Caroline Kitchener: It’s early March, and all the viable women are out of the race. Is that surprising to you?

Jennifer Lawless: I would have expected that Elizabeth Warren would have garnered Bernie Sanders’s slot, going against Joe Biden. And I certainly would have thought that after Sanders had the heart attack. I’m not that surprised about Amy Klobuchar or Kamala D. Harris. They hadn’t had national name recognition. They were sort of similar to a lot of the other moderate candidates when it came to policies. And it’s just really, really hard to run for president and build a national following.

But Warren was an incredibly competent, smart, dynamic candidate. She was well known nationally because she had taken on Trump, willing to at least try to hold him accountable over the course of the last four years. And so it just seemed to me that given that Sanders lost in 2016, the progressive movement would be inclined to move toward her. But that just didn't happen.

What Warren’s departure means for the 2020 field

CK: When do you think we’ll finally elect a woman president? Is it 2024? 2028? Or later?

JL: If Biden is the nominee, I think he will choose a female vice president, because he’s said that. And that could fundamentally change the calculus. If he serves only one term, that person is better situated than any woman has ever been to become president. So I really think it could be 2024.

If Trump wins, I think it could also be 2024 because all of these guys who have demonstrated they’re at the front of the pack will be in their 80s. They’re not running again. If Sanders loses this time, it’s done. If Biden loses, it’s done. That doesn’t mean that the John Hickenloopers and Jay Inslees and Cory Bookers won’t come back. But I think that Biden and Sanders, really, because of their initial stature in this race, made it difficult for everybody else to garner name recognition and attention.

It’s also feasible that the first female president could be a Republican. It’s hard to imagine a scenario whereby [former governor of South Carolina] Nikki Haley does not run on the Republican side in 2024. That would be a real kicker to the Democrats — if Republicans are the ones who get this done first.

CK: And if it’s not 2024, when?

JL: I mean, if Sanders wins and he doesn’t pick a female vice president, whether he seeks a second term or not, that person probably would. And then, I don’t know, we’re talking eight years, 12 years, it’s hard to know. You also have to consider that if Biden or Sanders wins [in 2024], we cement the idea that we needed to go with an octogenarian man — that electing a woman would have been too risky.

Depending on how these things play out, you could wind up with men for the foreseeable future. Or you could wind up with a scenario where a woman gets the nomination from both major parties.

Elizabeth Warren’s exit raises questions about the role of women in U.S. politics

CK: Do you think the nature of this primary season — starting out with several strong female candidates, none of whom made it to the final stretch — has made things easier or more difficult for women presidential candidates of the future?

JL: Prior to this election cycle, since 2000, there has been at least one woman in the race every election. But this time around it felt different. These were women who made it for the top tier all the way to Super Tuesday and there were multiple women. And so I do think that sends a signal. I also think it’s helpful that really, really credible men with excellent credentials didn’t last as long as Elizabeth Warren. I think that matters here. It’s not like the women fell like dominoes.

CK: Just looking at social media today, there is a sadness. It reminds me of the very particular sting many people felt when Hillary Clinton lost — not just of Trump winning, but of Clinton, specifically, being the one who lost. Is that sadness specific to watching qualified women lose?

JL: It’s interesting. There was a Vox article this week about why Elizabeth Warren is losing even though all your friends love her. Because you had all these people saying, “Oh my gosh, she’s so qualified, she’s so amazing, she’s going to be an amazing president.” But they all live in the same social bubble — educated, somewhat well-off, mostly in cities. And I think it’s that demographic that’s expressing the sadness. It’s the same demographic that was so devastated when Clinton lost.

I think part of it is also that Warren was so qualified and so smart, so articulate. So here are two women, Clinton and Warren, who were willing to fight with Trump in a way that made it difficult for him.

CK: Why is that so sad?

JL: I think some of it is sheer disappointment, because what this means for sure is that it’s going to be a male-male race: an oldish white man against an older white man. The other part is that if there’s ever been a president against whom you’d want to run a woman because the differences are so dramatic, it’s Donald Trump. This means that Trump will probably get a little bit of a pass once again on some of the things that he says or his history, because chances are that his opponent has some sketchy stuff in his past, too. Not the same way, of course — not an Access Hollywood tape. But he will be facing one of two old men who in the last 40 years have said off-color things.

CK: Warren’s line about the pinky promises reminded me of Clinton’s concession speech, when she spoke to all the young girls who were watching. Do you think these candidates feel a responsibility to show that, even though they failed, the country can still elect a woman?

JL: I think they felt like they were in a position to change the narrative and make history. And by falling short, they don’t want to suggest that history can never be made. But the comparison kind of ends there because most little girls don’t know who Elizabeth Warren is. If she had won the nomination, they would have. So maybe that’s a little bit of a silver lining: If she had gotten the nomination and lost to Trump in a very similar way that Clinton did, I think that could have really felt quite defeating for little girls.

CK: What’s next for Warren?

JL: I think she’s in a position where she could become the Ted Kennedy of the Senate: the lion of the Senate.

The Democrats have always had a group of those kinds of people: Ted Kennedy, but also I think about Chris Dodd and John Kerry. I think she’s in that mold. She is in a very safe seat, she has national name recognition. She is incredibly smart. She works really, really hard. She’s demonstrated an ability to think through difficult questions. And then she actually has plans to solve them.