According to a new WNBC poll, 28% of American adults say they would not vote for a woman for President regardless of party.
By sex, 23% of women and 33% of men say they wouldn’t vote for a woman for President.
By political affiliation, 21% of Democrats, 29% of Republicans, and 31% of independants wouldn’t vote for a woman for President.
The numbers look better if you concentrate on younger people; for instance, “only” 16% of women under 45 say they’d never vote for a woman.
Hat tip: Pam at Pandagon.
“You’ve come a long way, baby!“
Looks like Pam’s link didn’t make it.
Whoops! Thanks, I’ve fixed the link now.
Any idea about similar values from earlier decades? I’m just wondering whether this is an unprecedented question (so it’s being asked would be good) or at least an improvement from eras past…
One wonders how much of that is pre-primary posturing. In a hypothetical race between Condeleeza Rice and Barney Frank, one analysis is “Is racism + sexism > homophobia”, but I think the more likely answer is that partisans don’t want a “weird” nominee, that would make their candidate less electable.
I wouldn’t vote for a woman president on the basis that she was a woman. I don’t vote for a man on the basis that he’s a man, either. I did vote for a woman once for President in a primary (Shirley Chisolm – you guess what year that was), but that was because I thought her positions on the issues made more sense than the other candidates. She lost.
As far as I can tell, any candidate whose positions make more sense on an issue is under a huge disadvantage, because in order to make sense of something you have to think. Since most campaigns (commercials, TV shows, news stories) are designed to appeal to emotions, not reason, a candidate who makes you think is in the minority and is asking people to do something they’d rather not do.
I wonder how much the polling on this question is thrown off by the Hillary Factor. Right now (my Riceian dreams aside) if you talk about a “female candidate for President”, everybody assumes you mean Hillary.
Robert may have a point there. The more extreme conservatives absolutely froth at the mouth when they think of Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office.
“I wonder how much the polling on this question is thrown off by the Hillary Factor.”
The poll actualy asked: If the Democratic/Republican Party nominates a woman for president in 2008, are you very likely, likely, not very likely, or not likely at all to vote for her?”
And the percentage that said that they were “Very Likely/Likely Only if Dem” is slightly larger (possibly only within margin of error larger) than the percentage that said “Very Likely/Likely Only if Repub.”
The number of people who want Clinton to run vs. don’t is split down the middle. Rice , oth, has more people not wanting her to run than wanting her to run. Then again, people have been pondering the former question longer than the latter, so the latter has is more likely to change.
Judging by how the numbers change if you look at only those under 45, I’d say the biggest factor is age. I’d be curious as to what the percentage is for the 18-30 crowd vs. the 30-45 vs. the baby boomers versus, those over 65.
If they studied her record more closely, they might be able to save at least some of their froth. :p
I don’t exactly froth at the mouth, but I do groan at the prospect of a Hillary presidency as do, I’m sure, many other readers of this fine blog.
It’s interesting to note that slightly over a fifth of Democrats polled wouldn’t pull the lever for any woman. Isn’t this the party we’re supposed to support at all costs to, you know, keep the sky from imploding and the Middle Ages at bay?
Barbara Lee/Lynn Stewart 2008
Because I’m a feminist and I’ve had it with poseurs.
:D
DP – I groan too, but it’s mostly because of the baggage she brings with her, not Clinton herself. I’d feel the same about Kerry – and I can see why people would feel that way about Gore as well.
“It’s interesting to note that slightly over a fifth of Democrats polled wouldn’t pull the lever for any woman.”
Isn’t it? But not terribly surprising, unfortunately.
I think it’s just not a very good poll. If you ask me if I would vote for a woman for president, and I say it’s not likely regardless of which party nominated her, it could simply mean that I don’t like Hillary Clinton or Condoleezza Rice, since those are the only two women who are actually likely to be nominated (Clinton far more than Rice), not that I’m opposed to women in general being president. So my guess is that people are mentally substituting those two women in particular for the category “women” in general, and answering on that basis. Personally I know people who won’t vote for a Republican under any circumstances, and at this point if the Democrats nominate Hillary they might be so dismayed that they don’t vote at all. So it’s not likely they’d vote for a woman for president despite being committed feminists.
Traditionally most women who have been elected president have been close relatives of a previous male president. Examples include Indira Ghandi (India), Isabel Peron (Argentina), and Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan). On another level there are all the women who are/were elected to Congress to fill their dead husbands shoes. And of course, there are the exceptions like Margaret Thatcher (UK) and Golda Meir Israel).
As a feminist, this is _not_ an influence that I would advocate. But I won’t be surprised if it helps Hillary.
You know what’s sad? My first thought was “I wouldn’t vote for a woman for president. I’d vote for a person for president.”
I wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton. I’d break my neck trying to get to the polling place to cast my first local vote for Barbara Boxer.
I endorse the idea of Boxer voters breaking their necks. Skateboarding is good. That and bungee-jumping. Here, I’ll pack your gear.
Alsis, I know that you think of Hillary Clinton as being about two inches left of Pat Buchanan…but in 90% of the country, we’re convinced that in her heart of hearts, she’s a hard-leftist.
Your heart of hearts wouldn’t know a hard-Leftist from a hard-boiled egg, Robert. You really need to get out more. But that’s besides the point here.
Barbara Lee/Lynn Stewart 2008
Hey, alsis39, who are these folks?
Barbara Lee: U.S. Congresswoman
Lynne Stewart: Civil Rights attorney (I misspelled her name the first time.)
Google can help you out with the rest, Ron.
LOL, alsis. Your duo works for me. Boxer can be AG.
Hillary is your typical Democrat, who’s been moving further away from the Left like it’s some form of social disease for years. Eventually she and Pat will bump into each other and they will commiserate about said social disease.
It’s all rhetorical anyway. People from slightly different factions in our One Party system speculate about whether or not they’d vote for a female president, or Clinton vs Rice. Dole vs Clinton, etc. but when push comes to shove, do you think they will actually run a female candidate, even a poor one. I think not.
Remember when we used to engage in all this meaningless water-cooler speculation about the first Black presidental candidate, what’s-his-name?
*sigh*
hint, the Grand Old Pain party will break any ground when it comes to breaking away from what’s been referred to as the “pale male” candidate, before the Demobrats will.