quote:Is America ready to elect a female president? Yes 47% No 45% Not sure 8% Total Votes: 522,938
Would you vote for a female candidate for president? Yes 62% No 32% Not sure 7% Total Votes: 503,252
Is America ready to elect a black president? Yes 49% No 42% Not sure 9% Total Votes: 531,689
Would you vote for a black candidate for president? Yes 67% No 25% Not sure 8% Total Votes: 504,212
The above is taken from a current AoL poll. Granted, those things can be screwed with, and aren't all that accurate.
But still. 25% of respondents would refuse to vote for a candidate when the only thing they know about that candidate is the fact that he is black.. And 32% said the same about women.
The optimist in me thinks that many of these "no" votes were hardcore conservatives voting specifically against the idea of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama winning, since their pictures were above the questions.
But still. I really thought the numbers would be different.
By the way, I think it's kind of interesting, too, how little faith Americans have in each other. There is apparently a large group of people who themselves would vote for a black or female candidate, who nevertheless "don't think America is ready" for one.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Polls like that I think have little to zero value. Real polling data is actually pretty damned close to the results it's predicting.
Something like this is undeterminable. You don't know who is voting, where they are from, race they are, gender they are, etc. And for all you know, one guy voted "No" a 100,000 times.
I wouldn't worry too much. While I think there ARE a lot of people out there who'd vote yes or no for some superficial reason, I think once the policy war began, and the race got underway, race wouldn't matter so much as the things they are espousing. No one that supports Hillary's policies is going to vote know JUST because she doesn't have a Y card.
What I want to see is a quiz, that shows the platform of Barack, Giuliani, Mccain and Hillary, and then asks you to vote based on position, and have it shoot out your candidate, then ask you if you'd vote for them or not. That'll say a lot more than a random poll like that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd find that quiz interesting too, Lyrhawn, even for purely personal reasons. It's too bad it's tough to get major politicians to nail down their platforms.
EDIT
quote:And for all you know, one guy voted "No" a 100,000 times.
I dunno. I voted, closed all my browser windows, and tried to vote again, but was unable to. I'm sure someone sufficiently knowledgeable could manage something, but I wouldn't think it'd be that big a factor. I'd guess a kind of inverse-selection bias could come into play, ie. the people who opt to take this poll are more likely to hold racist/sexist views.
The cynical side of me thinks these numbers are all too accurate.
Actually yes. They say how tall we are, the color of our hair, if we're predisposed to weight-gain, eye color, what diseases we can pass on to the next generation...all that stuff. And we never leave home without millions of them, because we never know when someone might offer to take some off of our hands.... Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
We've always had Man Cards. They're passed out at birth.
quote:Originally Posted by Juxtapose: I'd find that quiz interesting too, Lyrhawn, even for purely personal reasons. It's too bad it's tough to get major politicians to nail down their platforms.
Not really THAT hard anymore. Some senators and governors post them on their websites, but for sure you can get them once they start running for president. If they don't have a platform posted online by the primary races, they aren't a serious enough contender to win.
If (when) Hillary and Barrack decide to run, and when Giuliani officially tosses his hat in the ring, their websites will go up, and you'll find a link to all their little ideas and major positions. It's less hard to find than you might think, but the grand majority of people never bother to go looking.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Actually yes. They say how tall we are, the color of our hair, if we're predisposed to weight-gain, eye color, what diseases we can pass on to the next generation...all that stuff. And we never leave home without millions of them, because we never know when someone might offer to take some off of our hands....
quote:Not really THAT hard anymore. Some senators and governors post them on their websites, but for sure you can get them once they start running for president. If they don't have a platform posted online by the primary races, they aren't a serious enough contender to win.
If (when) Hillary and Barrack decide to run, and when Giuliani officially tosses his hat in the ring, their websites will go up, and you'll find a link to all their little ideas and major positions. It's less hard to find than you might think, but the grand majority of people never bother to go looking.
Ahh. I didn't check campaign homepages in '04 (the first presidential election I could vote in) because I knew how I was voting almost out of the gate. Also, wading through the propaganda of campaign websites can be wearying, if sometimes illuminating in its own right.
I was thinking specifically of Project Vote Smart and their issue position questionnaire. In the midterms, it seemed like very few of the major candidates filled it out.
As an aside, have elections always been like this, immediately after one election ends the analysis for the next begins? In fact, commentary for '08 began before the commentary for '06 as I recall.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think if they added a questionabout whether you'd vote for a white male, the numbers there would be about the same.
Posts: 368 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't recall it beginning quite this fast last time around. It only really works this way for post mideterms, because no one really cares to speculate about midterms after a presidential election, it just doesn't matter.
The last time would've been in 2002 to talk about 2004, and it didn't matter much then, everyone knew Bush was running, and the Democratic front runners didn't appear until after the primaries. They were all virtual unknowns going in.
This is the first time in what, like 30 years or more when there hasn't been an incumbent or his VP running against a newcomer. And especially with so many big names out there, and even the handful that have already announced (which is out of the ordinary, to be announcing so soon after the midterms, with the primaries still a year away. It's not unusual to have people say they WON'T run, because it frees up supporters and fundraisers to find other horses to cart themselves to.
I don't think any of this analysis and commentary on 08 means anything until we hit the month before New Hampshire and Iowa. It's all the same speculation over and over again. Nothing matters until we start hearing some stump speeches. Until then, it's all just talking heads trying to kill us with babbling. I try my best to ignore them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to see the a similar poll asked of blacks "Would you vote for a black Republican candidate for President?" I think it is also a mistake to believe the 25% and 32% totals are from hardcore Conservatives. There are a large number of democrats that wouldn't vote for a black or a women either. Pennsylvania is primarily a Democrat state and there are plenty of Democrats that would not vote for a black, or a non-white candidate for that matter. Granted my evidence is anecdotal, but no more anecdotal than an AOL poll.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I got several emails telling me to go vote in the "would you vote for a Mormon for president?" poll by Newsweek. I haven't checked it, but I imagine the results on that poll were totally skewed by a ton of LDS voters. So I have zero faith in the accuracy of these things.
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I worked with a lady who said she wouldn't vote for a woman for president, even if she agreed completely with her platform. (I think the specific woman under consideration at the time was Elizabeth Dole.)
I have had wonderful dreams about Colin Powell running for president. I think he could have won.
I tend to think that the first African-American president will be a conservative. Not because it should be that way, but because history has led me to believe it more likely. Unless the African-American candidate is also a woman. The Democratic party has a lot of strong women of color to its credit. Still, give it another 20 years for the older generations to die off, and we might have a chance.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:By the way, I think it's kind of interesting, too, how little faith Americans have in each other. There is apparently a large group of people who themselves would vote for a black or female candidate, who nevertheless "don't think America is ready" for one.
Yup. I totally understand, as I am the same way.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't have a lot of faith in the AOL polls, I'm wondering why people are so shocked by this. I'm a little suprised that the numbers are so high, in part because I think that are many people out there who wouldn't vote for a black man or a woman who don't necessarily admit this to themselves, but those numbers aren't terribly suprising to me. They are maybe a bit higher than I would expect even if you include the people I thought wouldn't admit it, it's not something that blows me away.
posted
Only 3% wouldn't vote for a Mormon, in the poll that my mormon friends spammed me with. Is it possible there were democrat respondents who thought it was about Condi and republican respondents who thought it was Obama/Hillary?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'd like to see the a similar poll asked of blacks: Would you vote for a black Republican candidate for President?"
Colin Powell polled very high amongst AfricanAmericans in '95/'96. And despite being a Republican who would be opposing a Democratic incumbent, higher amongst Democrats than amongst Republicans. Woulda been an interesting presidency: either a Republican voted in by Democrats or a Democrat voted in by Republicans.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
just a thought on the numbers: there's probably a number of people who wouldn't vote for a black/woman candidate not so much because they are racist/sexist but because they think that enough OTHER people will be that they would be throwing their votes away.
It's similar to why a lot of people I know don't bother voting for the Libertarian candidates, because it feels like throwing your vote away (and yes I know it's faulty logic, but it's out there)
Posts: 1038 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the question was would you vote for a female or African American who has a platform you agree with, that would be more meaningful. Otherwise, people can go, well, I wouldn't vote for a woman just because she is a woman. Or I wouldn't vote for Condi or Hilary.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the range of how people seem to be interpreting the poll questions, I think a certain amount of the oddness of the results can be explained that way. I myself read the question as asking, "Would you ever vote for a black/woman?" scholar and Zamphyr both read it differently from me (and differently from each other, as well). The poll itself doesn't make the distinction clear.
Given the fuzziness of the wording, and the complete statistical uselessness of any online poll open to the general public, I'm inclined to take these results with a grain of salt. Even if the site prevents multiple-voting by individual users, it's not a controlled, randomized sample. People who fill out online polls are overwhelmingly those with a strong opinion on the subject, and they will spread the link to the poll around to their friends. If a link to this poll was posted to a white supremacist website like Stormfront (which it very well may have), then you can bet that the quantity of "No" votes to the black candidate question will have been dramatically inflated as a result.
Personally, I'd vote for Obama in a heartbeat. Hillary, I'd vote for in the general election but won't vote for in the primaries. In any case, I don't give a damn whether a given candidate is black, female, or what have you, so long as he or she demonstrates leadership qualities and has a platform I can support.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
December 12, 2006. I'm marking down this date as the one where I first noticed serious discussion of the coming American presidential election. Nearly two years in advance.
I have to say, I rather like our "uncertainty style" up here. Keeps us on our toes, and keeps the politicians from starting so early.
(This post is posted with some mild amusement but no rancor or scorn, for the record.)
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Three years ago, a friend and I volunteered to go to a local polling site during the primary to stump for Howard Dean, and this little old woman was harping on people to vote for Dennis Kucinich. It was pretty funny, because as nice as the woman seemed, I got the feeling she was actually pretty cutthroat. She got into an argument with the John Kerry girl that left the JK supporter crying, then merrily went back to trying to get votes for Kucinich.
I'd be surprised if he polled above 3% of Democratic contenders.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I tend to think that the first African-American president will be a conservative. Not because it should be that way, but because history has led me to believe it more likely.
Along the same lines, I tend to think that the first woman American President will be a conservative. This is consistent with what has happened in other countries that have elected women as heads of state (England and Germany for example). I think that this is because a conservative woman (or black) is much more likely to get voters to cross party lines than vice versa.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. I think white women are the ballgame. White women voted for Clinton then went home and lied to their husbands about it. The question is whether Mrs. Clinton or Obama are worth lying to your husbands about.
The problem with black Republicans is finding qualified ones who don't smell evil. There are black conservatives, they abound, but black republicans are few, far between and are not the most morally attractive lot. If you think George Bush's tough on crime posture is hard to stomach, imagine if it were coming out of a man who knew better. I actually don't think Powell would have won the primaries because of domestic issues. ______
Rabbit, Do you think that the first Jewish Chancellor of Germany will be conservative or liberal?
posted
I don't think the first black or woman president will be Conservative.
I think in general, a black of female candidate will make traditional conservatives stay home, and just not vote for anyone. There's a strange assumption out there sometimes that if one candidate turns someone off, they'll automatically vote for the other guy. That's not automatic. I also don't think women automatically will vote for a woman, and blacks won't automatically vote for a black man or woman. I can't remember which thread I already mentioned this in, but Maryland's governor race saw a black republican candiate lose to a white guy, who captured the majority of the black vote. African Americans don't just vote race, they vote for the guy who has the record of supporting their issues.
If you look at black issues, Democrats are their friends. Women, especially so called "Security Moms" are flocking to the democratic side too, and may have been the swing group that tipped the Congress Democratic this time around. Liberals I think are just as committed to their issues as conservatives. Liberals aren't going to vote for Condi just because she's black, or a woman, because she's demonic and evil (heh, j/k, she's not demonic). If she were more centrist, and not a lying grumpy pants, she might have a chance, for that, look at the well respected Colin Powell.
The furthest I'd be willing to go, is to say that the first woman (if not Hillary) or black elected, or Hispanic, will be a Blue Dog democrat.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The furthest I'd be willing to go, is to say that the first woman (if not Hillary) or black elected, or Hispanic, will be a Blue Dog democrat.
I'll also add that he or she will be palatable to white moms. Yeah, I don't know how comfortable I feel about jeniwren, brinestone, and Olivet deciding our national priorities, but you all have the ball. The candidate that makes you split the ticket with your husband is the candidate that'll break a gender/race barrier in the White House.
__________
In short, black people vote for white people all the time for high office. We work for white people. We don't like it, but we are innured.
They say a Democrat needs to be southern to win the south. It's because white people are clannish. Call it family values. Call it conservative. But white people, especially guys, have been on top for 200 years, and the "conservative" impulse tells them not to look a gift horse in the mouth. They want one of their own on top to make sure things stay exactly as they are.
It's easy to assume that black people vote race, especially when 90 percent go democrat. And I think this is what flummoxes the Republican party and why they don't understand why "smart" blacks don't go to the Republicans as a power play. To be honest, that way of thinking doesn't come naturally to us. People call that sort of strategic voting "pragmatic," I call it a white way of thinking, but depending on who you talk to, I'm a big ole' racist. Slick black politicians look slick and slimy, slick and slimy white ones just look like, well, Mitt Romney. I also think that as a people, black people dignify the vote too much to use it as a chit, strategically like that, and I believe in the saying, "The Dems may take us for granted, but the GOP takes us for fools."
The parties aren't the same to us. The platforms aren't interchangable to us. I don't know how to more clearly state that there is a huge disconnect between the white republican party and Black Americans, and for the most part, blacks don't talk about it in the open out of fear, and whites just don't know.
What percentage of felonys in the US are commited by what skin color groups?
Question:
Is the answer to the above question, if taken in isolation, a good enough reason to prejudge a candidate?
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
What percentage of felonys in the US are commited by what skin color groups?
Who knows? Especially if you consider unreported ones including drug, tax evasion, and the manifold forms of racketeering.
quote: Is the answer to the above question, if taken in isolation, a good enough reason to prejudge a candidate?
It depends, you can adjust for as many variables as possible, and set that against what you know about a particular candidate. Should a responsible voter have gleaned from Bush's Texas days and the state's relationship with Capital Punishment that his adiminstration would be casual about torture? Maybe. But predicting the future isn't a science, and doesn't admit smoothly to percentages, unless you are LaPlace or are in charge of college admissions.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I agree with everything Lyrhawn said.
quote:The furthest I'd be willing to go, is to say that the first woman (if not Hillary) or black elected, or Hispanic, will be a Blue Dog democrat.
I'll also add that he or she will be palatable to white moms. Yeah, I don't know how comfortable I feel about jeniwren, brinestone, and Olivet deciding our national priorities, but you all have the ball. The candidate that makes you split the ticket with your husband is the candidate that'll break a gender/race barrier in the White House.
__________
In short, black people vote for white people all the time for high office. We work for white people. We don't like it, but we are innured.
They say a Democrat needs to be southern to win the south. It's because white people are clannish. Call it family values. Call it conservative. But white people, especially guys, have been on top for 200 years, and the "conservative" impulse tells them not to look a gift horse in the mouth. They want one of their own on top to make sure things stay exactly as they are.
It's easy to assume that black people vote race, especially when 90 percent go democrat. And I think this is what flummoxes the Republican party and why they don't understand why "smart" blacks don't go to the Republicans as a power play. To be honest, that way of thinking doesn't come naturally to us. People call that sort of strategic voting "pragmatic," I call it a white way of thinking, but depending on who you talk to, I'm a big ole' racist. Slick black politicians look slick and slimy, slick and slimy white ones just look like, well, Mitt Romney. I also think that as a people, black people dignify the vote too much to use it as a chit, strategically like that, and I believe in the saying, "The Dems may take us for granted, but the GOP takes us for fools."
The parties aren't the same to us. The platforms aren't interchangable to us. I don't know how to more clearly state that there is a huge disconnect between the white republican party and Black Americans, and for the most part, blacks don't talk about it in the open out of fear, and whites just don't know.
Irami, how do you reconcile that with the fact that if a black man or woman is elected to the presidency, it'll be because they convinced enough white men to make it so, or whites in general? Even if all the blacks, hispanics, asians, etc voted for a black candidate, the whites of the nation could still overwhelm them. If ALL white men are as you say, there will NEVER be a black president, EVER. If Barrack Obama wins, it'll be because a whole lot of white guys decided he was the best man for the job. And that, according to you, is a "black" way of thinking. I don't get that either.
Might I also ask, to your quote on blacks not liking working for whites, what do you expect? Part of being a minority, having nothing to do with which race is which, is that there is always more of the "other guy" than you. It's a question of numbers that has nothing to do with racism.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami, how do you reconcile that with the fact that if a black man or woman is elected to the presidency, it'll be because they convinced enough white men to make it so, or whites in general? Even if all the blacks, hispanics, asians, etc voted for a black candidate, the whites of the nation could still overwhelm them. If ALL white men are as you say, there will NEVER be a black president, EVER. If Barrack Obama wins, it'll be because a whole lot of white guys decided he was the best man for the job. And that, according to you, is a "black" way of thinking. I don't get that either.
Because I don't think that there is a thorough-going, conscious conspiracy to stick it minorities, for the sake of sticking it to minorities. I think it's conceived of more in the way of collateral damage for the greater good: Law and Order, Family values, democracy, efficiency, and if it so happens that the demands of these three noble ends roger black people but good, then it was all done in the spirit of American Values.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
It's only a racial problem as a matter of historical accident. The good news is the racial problem highlights some of the deeper political problems with worshiping majority rule, "family values," efficiency, and our current penal system.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, right here at home it takes a two-thirds majority to override a Presidential veto and a unanimous verdict for many jury convictions. Neither of those procedures are governed by simple majority-rule. Not to mention checking all majority-rule propositions against a written constitution, and privileging the constitution if there are discrepancies.
The strong sense of majority-rule we carry with us is linked to English Utilitarianism, and whether that's an appropriate way to consider the business of human relations is highly controversial.
quote: Who knows? Especially if you consider unreported ones including drug, tax evasion, and the manifold forms of racketeering.
I am talking about reported felonies. There actually are numbers on this; people do know.
As for unreported felonies, well, it's not a felony per se until it is reported and convincted.
quote: It depends, you can adjust for as many variables as possible, and set that against what you know about a particular candidate. Should a responsible voter have gleaned from Bush's Texas days and the state's relationship with Capital Punishment that his adiminstration would be casual about torture? Maybe. But predicting the future isn't a science, and doesn't admit smoothly to percentages, unless you are LaPlace or are in charge of college admissions.
I didn't ask if you could adjust for as many variables as possible. I asked if you could pre-judge a character using soley the information gleaned from the question, what percentage of what races commit what crimes.
Predicting the future actually is a science. It's called economics, psychology and stastics. Among other things. If you only have numerical information about something, is it not reasonable to predict the future based on that?
If you are given only 1 bit of information. A person is X not A or Y. You are also told that 3 times the amount of crimes are commited by members of group X than those in group A and Y together, even when balanced by population size.
With only that information, what would you decide?
Also: (something I found interesting and really does have nothing to do with the topic at hand)
quote:The most disparate result came with rape, with 83% of black defendants who were tried for rape being acquitted and only 24% of the white defendants having that result.
New study finds blacks acquitted more often than whites. Kelly McMurry. Trial 33.n1 (Jan 1997): p82(2). From Expanded Academic ASAP.
The study is based on 55,512 cases.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Predicting the future actually is a science. It's called economics, psychology and stastics. Among other things. If you only have numerical information about something, is it not reasonable to predict the future based on that?
I'm not sure how many economists, psychologists, and statisticians would agree with the confidence with which you say this. Look, I'm a huge fan of judging. I think that it's an art that should be encouraged in school and in life, I also think that judging has gotten a bad wrap because people aren't very good at it, and also think that part of the wisdom in judging is knowing when you can't responsibly judge.
People laugh when I'm disturbed by our society's fetish for and faith in numbers, and I'm not sure I'd want to be anywhere near Fugu's infomatics program, but I really think that the attempt to turn judging from an art to a hard science damages our character in a meaningful way by forcing us to give weight to necessarily suspicious studies. I imagine that there are a few lawyers who are similarly troubled by evidence rules in trials.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
