I had this thought yesterday(I don't know why). I'm not one to look at the president as my moral leader. I don't believe he/she would be a player or unstable if he/she didn't have a mate. For some reason, I believe the public would have a problem with a unattached President of the United States.
Stretch Armstrong
Favorite Answer
Absolutely nothing, however perception is reality...people perceive a married person as more stable...secure...and ethical than they perceive a single person
Please note that I said perception is reality....NOT TRUE...because there have been plenty of married presidents with questionable stability, security, and ethics...
jonathan.tsou
A mate often gives the other mate moral support and ideas on how to do different stuff. Most likey only some people will have problems if a president has no mate but I dont
Anonymous
The Public wouldn't have agreed for a black president some years ago too. Times change. GO rest your thought for a few years and a bachelor might be in the white house in maybe year 2040.
lare
hopefully nothing wrong with that because we elected two single presidents, James Buchanan and Grover Cleveland. Grover wimped out and got married while in office.
i am not a social scientist, but having a single president most likely became politically taboo once women were allowed to vote.
whoknew
The last single male to run was Adlai Stevensen, Dem, against Eisenhower, Rep. Because he was a bit of an intellectual and bookish it was thought by many that he might be gay.
He lost for various reasons, basically Eisenhower had very strong support just after WW II and Truman, Dem prez, still hadn't been appreciated for what he did.
,