What kind of people won’t Americans vote for?

February 20, 2007

For too many Americans, certain presidential candidates are immediately disqualified for consideration, regardless of their party, ideas, or agenda. Gallup’s latest poll shows what kinds of people are the “wrong” kinds of candidates. (via Greg Sargent)

Poll respondents were asked, If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be …, would you vote for that person?

Catholic — 95% would vote for, 4% would not
Black — 94% would vote for, 5% would not
Jewish — 92% would vote for, 7% would not
A woman — 88% would vote for, 11% would not
Hispanic — 87% would vote for, 12% would not
Mormon — 72% would vote for, 24% would not
Married for the third time — 67% would vote for, 30% would not
72 years of age — 57% would vote for, 42% would not
A homosexual — 55% would vote for, 43% would not
An atheist — 45% would vote for, 53% would not

Now, I suspect the numbers are actually worse than this suggests. The Gallup results show voters willing to discriminate against all kinds of people, but it’s worth noting that a fair number of Americans probably harbor these same prejudices, but are reluctant to admit it to a pollster.

Moreover, I also imagine that some of this is likely to change. A voter may express discomfort with a candidate who’s been married three times, but if that same voter really likes Giuliani, would he or she vote for him anyway? Maybe.

Nevertheless, even if we accept the results at face value, this has to be discouraging news for the three Republican front-runners. Indeed, the Mormon (Romney) did surprisingly well against the third-time husband (Giuliani) and the 72-year-old candidate (McCain). As for Dems, their diverse field is sitting pretty, with a black candidate (Obama), woman (Clinton), and Hispanic (Richardson) beating out all of the GOP’s problematic traits.

For that matter, I can’t tell if it’s encouraging or discouraging that gays and septuagenarians do almost equally badly.

While we’re on the topic, I thought I’d add that there’s an ideological difference driving the results. Conservatives are far more likely to reject a candidate based on one of the traits Gallup included in the poll.

Willingness to Vote for Non-Traditional Presidential Candidates by Political Ideology

Catholic — Liberal 97%, Moderate 95%, Conservative 94%
Black — Liberal 95%, Moderate 94%, Conservative 92%
Jewish — Liberal 93%, Moderate 91%, Conservative 91%
A woman — Liberal 96%, Moderate 89%, Conservative 82%
Hispanic — Liberal 92%, Moderate 87%, Conservative 84%
Mormon — Liberal 75%, Moderate 77%, Conservative 66%
Married for the third time — Liberal 74%, Moderate 71%, Conservative 60%
72 years of age — Liberal 59%, Moderate 52%, Conservative 63%
A homosexual — Liberal 81%, Moderate 57%, Conservative 36%
An atheist — Liberal 67%, Moderate 48%, Conservative 29%

Yes, even among liberals, atheists are that unpopular.

I’m not going anywhere special with all of this; I just thought it was interesting.

I guess a gay septuagenarian about to marry his fifth wife, a Mormon atheist, shouldn’t be in a hurry to form a presidential campaign exploratory committee.

  • I’m sure the 7% anti-Semites is understated – but then some would have voted for Feingold just because he’s Jewish so I guess it would balance out.

  • If the Democrats Run true to form we will be nominating a Geriatric Mormon Lesbian Atheist of Hispanic Descent.

  • #1 Alibubba – The question is, did your gay sepuagenarian marry women all 5 times? Or was it something like woman, woman, man, woman, man? I’m sure that would be a 1% factor. 🙂

  • Personally, I think the failings of electability polls were exposed when Mr. Ford met the State of Tennessee last November….

  • I wonder how many would refuse to vote for Deists like Washington and Jefferson who railed against the “superstition” of Christianity?

  • As an atheist, I find this news very disturbing. George Bush is the single strongest argument yet against electing a self professed Christian believer, and Osama bin Laden is the second best argument that speaks to the misery, violence and insanity that religious devotion visits on the world.

    American Conservatism and Islamic Jihadism are both informed by their religiosity and I see absolutely no evidence that the world is a better place because 4 billion people are devout. In fact, I would be very interested to know how torture and the human rights abuses in Guantanamo Bay are reconciled with the “Judeo-Christian Tradition” so loudly proclaimed by so many.

    The Iraqi and American humans now fighting, maiming and dying in this misgegotten war all share a commonality the Right Wing Wackos claim to value and make much noise about. They are all former stem-cell blastocysts and non-aborted fetuses. All the crapola about the sanctity of life…well, is it sacred or not?

    It’s obvious where this post could go; I just get so furious when my ‘values’ are questioned by people who would apparently commit all sorts of crimes against humanity if not for their religion.

  • I agree with bcinaz #9 that religion is not a requirement of virtue and it’s also not a guarantee.

    I wonder how the Islamic world would react to an atheist President.

  • Let’s face it, our country is full of ignorant, under educated religious zealots. Just look at some of the congressmen from the deep south and midwest. Its almost as if we went back in time to the 18th century and found ourselves in the midst of Edward’s “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” sermon. Forget about advancements in science, human rights, labor laws, general civility; a very large portion of Americans would rather our country devolve back to, say, 1830, than progress into the 21st century and finally try and tackle the myriad of issues that face humanity. The question is, how can people of reason take back our country from the willfully ignorant? Are we to stand by and let these people take us back to a time before the age of reason?

  • bcinaz (#9), FWIW, I’m with you. I don’t believe any president was “religious” in the sense of the word used by today’s knuckle-dragging Know-Nothing snaggle-toothed yahoots. The Founders were practically all Deists; I’m not aware of any of them who gave God (let alone organized religion) more than that required to function politically, a la Machiavelli. I sincerely hope that the current version of our periodic Great Awakenings is at last moribund.

  • I don’t think this poll really means much of anything. When people see a vigorous, healthy McCain, they won’t care that he’s 72. There are certainly many other targets to shoot at, but I don’t think that’s one of them.

    Similarly, I don’t think that either Romney’s Mormanism will keep people away. But I think Guiliani’s serial marriages could be used as part of a broader attempt to paint him as someone out of touch with the rest of America, especially when considered in conjunction with the divaeque qualities CB listed the other day.

  • Maybe it’s a sign of progress; more people would vote for a homosexual than an athiest. We athiests are the most maligned of all. We don’t stand a chance of getting elected to anything. In a nation full of superstitious religious yahoos we need our rights guaranteed.

  • 72 years of age — Liberal 59%, Moderate 52%, Conservative 63%

    The only question for which the libera/conservative pattern was reversed, which may be suggestive. I imagine we’d see the same for a fundamentalist Christian, or a billionaire, or a Fortune 500 CEO. That is, for most of these categories, if we had to say they were part of the Democratic or Republican constituency, we’d put them in the former. For what it’s worth. I don’t know if that makes any difference.

  • Wow, how many of us are atheists? I guess we’re the most maligned group. Well, I can cross being President off my list of things to do before I die.

  • This poll has fun playing with the prejudice-o-meter, but generic prejudice has little to do with the complex stew of politics. In 2004 flip-flopping and strength on defense were the litmus tests of greatest import. The 2008 contest wil be judged on criteria that we can’t even predict now. Simplistic labeling is great for pollsters and political hacks, but I’d rather focus on what goes beyond the superficial labels.

  • Atheists have an identity problem in how others see them. Atheists are perceived to lack morality because they don’t anchor their identity in faith with god(s). You could describe as “successful branding” by the major religions that atheists are thought of as “immoral.” The truth is god-believers don’t have a monopoly on morality–they’re often hypocrites. Atheists need an ad campaign that states that “atheists are just as moral as everybody else.”

    Also: Any comments on the ‘Bradley Effect.’ (see comment # 6)

  • # 4 — Ohioan

    “The question is, did your gay septuagenarian marry women all 5 times? Or was it something like woman, woman, man, woman, man?”

    It’s a poser. One sex or the other, he was married to all of them at the same time. That’s why he became a septuagenarian at age 37.

  • First, a GOP candidate must with the nomination, and that means winning the evangelical vote.

    Will that bloc support a Mormon, especially a Mormon who just changed his position on abortion? How about McCain, who just did his flip-flop on Roe? Guiliani the serial philanderer?

    Will they hold their noses and pick one, or will they just stay home?

    Stay tuned!

  • You people do realize that Thomas Jefferson was an Atheist don’t you? You know… Thomas Jefferson… the guy that wrote the Declaration of Independence… I guess you wouldn’t vote for that guy…

    • Comments are closed.