The presidential election is essentially a proxy for who men want to be and for who women want to be with. That's why Obama beat Romney and McCain--he was younger and more confident. And that's also why Trump beat Hillary and Harris--because when there's a woman candidate, what does the proxy become?
You could say for liberal female voters, the female presidential candidate represents the girlboss they want to become. But for male voters, what does a female candidate represent? It's not who they want to be because they don't want to be a woman (except for the trans). And it's not who they want to be with because Hilary is old and ugly. Kamala had the same issue of men not liking or respecting her. She wasn't as old or ugly as Hilary, but she was much dumber--and she was nowhere near hot enough to make up for her stupidity. So the only votes Kamala got were from liberal women (and emasculated men).
At least with Biden, centrist men could bring themselves to vote for him because he was a strong, charismatic figure--or at least he presented himself as such. That's ultimately why the Democrats dumped Biden in 2024--because he was too old and senile to convey that strength and charisma anymore, so he would have lost the male swing voters.
It's impossible for the Democrats to win the presidency with a female candidate unless they take a different route, with someone younger and hotter. Try to mirror the same aspect as the original proxy: a woman that women want to be and a woman men want to be with. Like a hot blonde who is also semi-smart (such as every female Fox News host). Except the Dems don't have any such candidates in the wings.
It's more likely that the first female president will be a Republican. Because as long as she is conservative, she will get the conservative vote. And if she's hot enough (like Anna Paulina Luna), she will get the male swing vote, representing someone they want to be with. If she's smart/competent enough, she'll get the female swing vote too, representing someone they want to be. For the Democrats to beat such a candidate, they'd need a strong masculine figure--which they are unlikely to produce any time soon. As much as they’d hope Newsom to be that figure, he is not.
However, I don't think the hot/smart female candidate is the correct strategy for the Republican Party in the near future. They're much better off focusing on strong, masculine male candidates as long as the Democrats are so feminine. Because then you return to the original issue: men will never vote for the more feminine candidate, whereas women (at least conservative women) will vote for a strong, masculine man that they want to be with. Some women may be able to convince themselves they want to be a "successful" woman like Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris, but no man who is not completely ideologically captured can bring themselves to vote for a woman like that to lead them. Sorry Dems, but the future is not female.
