Reply
Tue 3 Oct, 2006 09:23 am
Gallup: Americans Say Country Ready for a Female President
By E&P Staff
Published: October 03, 2006 10:40 AM ET
Gallup reports today that a new poll finds that 6 in 10 Americans believe the country is ready to have a female president, with more than that saying they would be willing to vote for one. The view of a president coming from some other minority groups is not so favorable.
"With Hillary Rodham Clinton the clear front runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, it is natural to ask whether Americans are ready to elect their first female president," Gallup explained.
Sixty-four percent of Democrats said the country was ready for a woman in charge, compared with 54% of Republicans. About half of Democrats said the U.S. was ready to elect a black or a Jewish candidate, with Republicans coming in at 67% and 58% respectively on those questions.
But only a minority of American feel the country is ready for a Hispanic, Asian or Mormon president.
The vast majority of the public believes Americans are not ready for an atheist or gay or lesbian president.
While 6 in 10 whites believe the country is ready to elect a black, only 4 in 10 blacks feel that way.
Gallup notes, "In addition to Hillary Clinton's long-rumored candidacy, other possible 2008 non-traditional candidates include Bill Richardson, the Hispanic Gov. of New Mexico, Mitt Romney, the Mormon Gov. of Massachusetts, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, who is Jewish, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice -- a black woman."
Oh for another Lady Thatcher! But Hillary, you are no Margaret Thatcher.
Another observation, I am tired of people wanting to elect somebody based on them being a woman, a Jew, a black, a Mormon, Hispanic, the list goes on, good grief, vote on their leadership ability and their stance on issues. So I am not much interested in the above speculation, BBB, to tell you the honest truth.
okie
okie wrote:Oh for another Lady Thatcher! But Hillary, you are no Margaret Thatcher.
Another observation, I am tired of people wanting to elect somebody based on them being a woman, a Jew, a black, a Mormon, Hispanic, the list goes on, good grief, vote on their leadership ability and their stance on issues. So I am not much interested in the above speculation, BBB, to tell you the honest truth.
I don't and never have, voted for someone based on their gender. But it's only lately that I've had the option between genders.
I've always thought that the first woman president probably will have to be a republican because that's the only reason Republicans would vote for her. They would never approve a Democrat woman.
BBB
Republicans usually do not vote for a Democrat regardless of gender, and for whatever reason, the Democrat women that would be mentioned as possible candidates are even more liberal than Democrats in general, so that could help explain the phenomena you speak of. There may be a small percentage in both parties that will not vote for a woman no matter what. Also, there may be some women that would vote for a woman no matter what, but I doubt many men would do that, and those women that would vote for a woman no matter what are probably more likely liberals.
I think the discrepancies in polls we discussed in my thread on polling in biracial elections applies in this case.
I think alot more people will say they'd vote for a woman, than would actually vote for one.
I think that the next president should be a lesbian. That's why I am going to vote for Coulter.
Likely, snood is correct to suppose that folks may well behave differently in answering a poll and how they might actually vote.
But the poll is good news in any case. These cultural changes are very slow often.
Gender/race/religion are definitely factors in how I'd go about supporting a candidate. If George Bush were either a black or a woman, while still being the connected rich kid, snot-nosed, incurious and uneducated case of walking pathology that he is, I would actually be more willing to support him. Even if that "more" in my sentence is rather like "I would be more happy eating uncooked cow brains than eating elephant ****"
You got a definite way with words, Sir mountie.
It will never happen. Truly independent women like Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters are regularly denigrated by the right wing controlled media.
Okie's right, some people will vote for a woman just because she's a woman
and
Some people (men and women) will not vote for a woman because they don't think a woman should be president.
Throw in the minority factor......
I think Rice would win an election against Bill's wife. But I don't think she would win an election against a male candidate.
Ah, well, I don't like anybody much... not least do I not like either Hillary or Candi.
Buncha kumquats all around.
Well, my word kumquats includes males too.
I don't think either woman lining up is better, or worse, than others.
I'd prefer not to elect a lamesituationed first woman.
I would vote in a heartbeat for the most brilliant woman in the House of Representatives- Nancy Pelosi. When the Democrats control the House and she is the speaker, watch the results of her leadership. All the people I know in San Francisco-her district--think she is super.
MarionT, what an absolutely brilliant analysis!
Liberalesque or left of that person that I am, I don't know that Pelosi speaks for me
Well, wake me up when the **** coalesces.
Pelosi's district in San Francisco is composed of some of the best educated and politically aware voters in the USA and they all think she is the best. She has been re-elected time after time by large margins.
blatham wrote:Likely, snood is correct to suppose that folks may well behave differently in answering a poll and how they might actually vote.
But the poll is good news in any case. These cultural changes are very slow often.
Gender/race/religion are definitely factors in how I'd go about supporting a candidate. If George Bush were either a black or a woman, while still being the connected rich kid, snot-nosed, incurious and uneducated case of walking pathology that he is, I would actually be more willing to support him. Even if that "more" in my sentence is rather like "I would be more happy eating uncooked cow brains than eating elephant ****"
Incurious? He just read
The Stranger. I understand he found it to be interesting and a quick read.
Yeah, that same night he read War and Peace. Then him and his pet pig flew off to beddy bye. How gullible are you? He reads Camus because he says he reads Camus?
snood wrote:Yeah, that same night he read War and Peace. Then him and his pet pig flew off to beddy bye. How gullible are you? He reads Camus because he says he reads Camus?
And how cynical are you?
Such disdain and ill feelings are not good for you, you know.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace