Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Dillard; Third House; Chapa LaVia; Madigan; Exelon; Sacia; White; Incumbents; Turnout (Use all caps in password)
Posted in:
I know this is national, but we talked about this yesterday, so I thought I’d post it. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll [pdf file] has some interesting results for presidential preference based on race, religion and gender.
I’m going to list several types of people who might run for president. For each one, please tell me whether that type of candidate is someone you would (a) be enthusiastic about, (b) be comfortable with, (c) have some reservations about, or (d) be very uncomfortable with.
According to the poll, a total of 12 percent would either have some reservations about (8) or would be very uncomfortable with (4) an African-American candidate.
* 16 percent (8 with some reservations and 8 very uncomfortable) said the same about a woman.
* 19 percent (10 and 9) said that about a Jewish candidate.
* 23 percent (14 and 9) said it about an Hispanic.
* 52 percent (19 and 34) said the same about a gay candidate.
* 54 percent (26 and 28) said it about an evangelical Christian.
* 59 percent (25 and 34) expressed reservations about someone who had been a member of George Bush’s cabinet.
* 53 percent (27 and 26) had doubts about voting for a Mormon.
* 66 percent (37 and 29) said the same about someone over age seventy (bad news for McCain?)
Several of the questions were only asked of half the respondents, kicking up the MoE fairly high. But the African-American question was asked of everyone, as was Hispanic and gay.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 9:52 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Dillard; Third House; Chapa LaVia; Madigan; Exelon; Sacia; White; Incumbents; Turnout (Use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I don’t put a lot of stock in this. I think that people would quickly overcome these initial kneejerk responses, if the candidate being put before them was of sufficient quality.
Comment by Squideshi Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 9:56 am
OK, but let’s be honest here about the predjudices that still linger in society. How many would express reservations about voting for an openly passive-aggressive, cross-dressing, biological male who has hair extensions and has chosen to dye it all blonde? Furthermore, let’s say this candidate is into Marilyn Manson’s music?
And why don’t they do these polls in academia, by the way? I’d really like to know who would “express reservations” about hiring a complete libertarian for the econ, pol-sci, or English departments, and at the post-grad level, how about stacking the law school faculty slots with a good chunck of old-school liberals in the classical tradition (read: libertarians)?
In all seriousness, though, I suspect that the more people make an issue out of whether or not people would vote for someone based on this or that trait, it sets people up for psychological resistance. It is almost like the effect of push-polling, as if there might be a reason why.
Think about it. You get asked “Would you have any reservations about…?” Just what on Earth is your mind thinking beneath the surface? Well, is there something wrong here that you need to ask if I would have any reservations?
Comment by Angie Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 10:34 am
Side note: Rich puts up all the good topics on this blog, by the way. Wish the mainstream media would let the public chime is half as much. We’d all see things from the perspectives of real people so much more clearly.
Comment by Angie (post-script) Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 10:38 am
Well isn’t that nice. Evangelicals, Mormons, and the elderly are more discriminated against than gays, hispanics, and jews… Usually with discrimination it is okay to hate the majority. But Mormons aren’t any kind of majority. This is kind of bizarre. They should do another poll and see if people would rather have an elderly president or a gay president, an evangical or a gay president, a mormon or a gay president, a jewish or evangelical president, a jewish or an elderly president, a jewish or a mormon president, a hispanic or an evangelical, hispancic or elderly, and hispanic or mormon. I bet the answers would be a whole lot different if you asked people which they would rather have!
Comment by Lovie's Leather Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 10:51 am
Angie -
Get used to it. You are going to be seeing these polls NON-STOP between now and Nov 2008 that tell you that it is OK to vote for Barack. This is just the opening salvo.
Within a year, the media is going to be doing everything it can to make Barack palatable to you. Watch carefully how the media brainwashing is going to happen.
Comment by Johnny USA Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 11:04 am
These are not the kind of polls that many respondents are entirely honest about. I wouldn’t put much stock into this one at all.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 11:09 am
Johnny,
You are oh-so-correct! Watch for a media frenzy soon as Obama embarks upon a “Journey Across America”, showing all how he is just like them, only better, because he “cares” about everyone.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 11:11 am
Sex,age,race,or education should not matter.
We need to forgot single issues. We need some one who will give this country hope again. Not just fear, war, good jobs going away.
We need another Lincoln, FDR, or JFK type who has the vision of moving forward.
I do not care if he or she is whatever.
We need someone that why stop this Rove division politics.
Comment by decaturboy Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 11:42 am
It’s interesting that they didn’t include atheists in the list.
Religion (or lack of it) still seems like the biggest divide in politics. You can see that by the extraordinary numbers of people who say it makes a difference if the candidate is an evangelical or Mormon. Atheism is probably a far bigger negative than race or sexual orientation.
I tend to agree with Snidely, though for slightly different reasons. In a vacuum, it’s hard to say what and how these characteristics mean. Jimmy Carter was an evangelical, yet his politics are far different from W Bush’s.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 11:43 am
Well, it’s PC to have doubts about evangelicals, and not PC to have doubts about women, people of minority races, disabled people, etc. So I think there could be some underreporting going on with the black and woman questions. However, it’s VERY interesting that 23% would have doubts about a Hispanic candidate. All the yelling about illegal immigrants seems to have rubbed off on anybody Hispanic-looking. Good grief…
Comment by KPE Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 11:44 am
Well, speaking as a 82 year old Mormon gay woman who served in George Bush’s cabinet as his Evangelical Christian representative for Hispanic Jews - I take this as proof that I shouldn’t run for office.
WHO asks these questions? What weirdo would?
“Would you vote for an Evangelical Christian?”
Why not:
“Would you vote for a man with a lisp and a severe limp, addicted to morphine?”
or:
“Would you vote for a conjoined-twin engaged to a mule?”
The supposed “problems” presented during polling says a whole lot more of the stunted mentality of the pollsters than anything else.
lame.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 12:31 pm
Hey Snidley -
Keep your eyes open for the national stories about how Barck had to grow up being different then all the other children because of his mixed heritage. This will soften people up into accepting him more.
Remember: Barack had to overcome many obstacles groing up because he was different than all the other children. This will be one of the main themes of his campaign.
Another one I can think of: How having a president with the middle name of ‘Hussein’ will help the US ‘rebuild bridges’ with the middle east.
There is going to be a lot to learn about big media marketing and co-opting the populace by watching the media the next year.
Comment by Johnny USA Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 12:58 pm
“Would you vote for a candidate with huge ears?”
What we know about that question is that guys like LBJ and Paul Simon had election difficulties at times. Perhaps the pollsters should ask a question like that for Barak.
Who knows? Perhaps those flappers could become stumbling blocks as well.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 1:06 pm
Re: : Atheism is probably a far bigger negative than race or sexual orientation.”
I don’t think militant, in-your-face atheists like biologist Richard Dawkins or the atheistic communist regimes that have been responsible for more mass killings in cold blood than any other regime help matters much, but that’s true that belief/disbelief is a huge divide.
I practice no organized religion, but although I understand that many atheists are not militant jerks (they just don’t believe at all), I am somewhat more comfortable with people who do believe (even outside of practicing an organized religion).
The psychological literature treats religiousity/spirituality as a trait, I do believe, and so people tend to trust those with traits in common (unless you’re a sociopath who knows better than to trust fellow sociopaths, I suppose).
So, that begs the question: Are people biased out of preference or out of negativity towards someone different from them? I think that’s what people need to analyze more. There is preference, and then there is outright predjudice. A bit different from each other, I would say.
By the way, last time I checked, a huge chunk of the global population is non-white. If you are white, did you even realize that you are a minority? You would never have figured that out had you set foot on one of America’s university campuses or tuned into the mainstream media, would you now?
Yes. YOU are a minority, too! You see how much everyone has in common after all? lol
Comment by Angie Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 1:26 pm
I am a ScotsAmerican and I vote for the person. All the rest is BS designed to detract from their real qualifications. We are being led by the nose, ever so slightly, by letting these polls set the criteria. Unfortunately fewer and fewer people realize it and actually respond to these bogus parameters.
Comment by Justice Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 2:13 pm
Not to deny that prejudices exist on both the right and left, I think another factor in the explaining the range of poll results is that race and gender do not directly reflect ideology. A woman, African-American, or Hispanic can be far right to far left in their beliefs.
While religious identification does not directly link to ideology, it does reflect a person’s belief system and therefore politics. While I recognize the reality is more complex, the perception is the vast majority of Mormons and Evangelical Christians are conservative.
Jews are different because being Jewish can be viewed as an ethnicity and the religion covers all political spectrums.
An openly “gay” candidate indicates an ideology that is socially liberal, regardless if they are a conservative or libertarian in other respects.
The age issue reflects the fact that the standard retirement age is 65 and there are true risks electing an older person, i.e. Reagan becoming senile in office.
I also totally disagree with the idea is that these polls help Obama or Clinton. If anything they have the opposite effect by reminding us that they are “different” than the norm.
Comment by Objective Dem Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 3:12 pm
“Keep your eyes open for the national stories about how Barck had to grow up being different then all the other children because of his mixed heritage. This will soften people up into accepting him more.”
That would be so hilarious. Obama grew up in the most diverse culturally liberal states in the US. Hawaii is completely accepting of people regardless of their ethnicity or color. What are we going to see to back this story? Are they going to discover that there was once a bigot somewhere around Kapaa?
Claiming Obama suffered discrimination in Hawaii would be about as believable as Paris Hilton claiming she was once a member of Mensa.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 3:34 pm
Vanilla, I think that was a cynical prediction, without any real facts. Easy there, guy.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 3:54 pm
I was very excited when Obama ran for the U.S. Senate. He always impressed me as I observed him in committee hearings in the General Assembly. I am not sure I am ready to vote for him for President. He is making me a little nervous with his “messiah” complex about saving the nation.
Comment by So Blue Democrat Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 4:43 pm
Would I have a problem voting for a black person? No, none at all. I have done so for a number of offices (although not president - yet).
Would I have trouble voting for Obama? Yes, lots of trouble. In fact, I wouldn’t do it. His voting record is essentially the polar opposite of my position on virtually every issue about which there is the least controversy.
Comment by m Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 4:55 pm
Check this out. Pretty soon, you’ll be given a “Hate Speech” ticket if you refuse to agree that voting for a minority because they are minorities is bad policy.
http://thefire.org/index.php/article/7587.html?PHPSESSID=324cb6818faa99c0b1da7613f457dcd2
Maybe the Senator can speak out about the fascism coming out of our colleges and universities sometime?
The pols rarely touch this, but for God’s sake, these people are just insane on these campuses, some of ‘em.
Does Obama have an opinion on free speech that he wants to proclaim loud and clear, so that it actually reaches the ears of the idiots who write up these fascist policies? We’d all love to hear it.
Comment by Angie Friday, Dec 15, 06 @ 7:56 pm