Creative Destruction

February 21, 2007

Who Can’t Be President?

Filed under: Politics and Elections — Robert @ 2:38 pm

An interesting rundown of groups Americans say they’d never support in a Presidential race.

If you’re a thrice-married elderly Hispanic lesbian atheist, you can pretty much just stay home.

Interestingly, blacks, Catholics  and Jews are all in the single-digit column for rejection. I and my negrohebraic compatriots thank the American people for their acceptance.

Advertisements

19 Comments »

  1. I wonder how well this correlates with who people actually vote for. Reagan got elected, despite being an elderly, remarried (though not thrice) man.

    Comment by Dianne — February 22, 2007 @ 12:08 pm | Reply

  2. Yes, but bear in mind that Reagan was 50 feet tall and made of pure radiation.

    Comment by Robert — February 22, 2007 @ 12:17 pm | Reply

  3. I don’t believe some of those responses. I have seen some studies (or maybe I heard it from TV pollsters) that suggest that black candidates tend to poll higher than the actual votes.

    Comment by Rachel — February 24, 2007 @ 2:31 am | Reply

  4. That used to be the case, but it doesn’t appear to be as big a factor anymore.

    Comment by Robert — February 24, 2007 @ 2:37 am | Reply

  5. That’s good news. However, I would like to see a meta-analysis of that data. I’m also curious about the Republican issue, and the fact that so many Black candidates lost.

    To be frank part of what makes be a little hesistant is the figures showing the number of people who would not vote for a woman candidate is higher then those who would not vote for a black candidate. I dont really buy that, but it could be within the margin of error (It would be interesting if they divided it by race/gender groups–black man, white man, black woman, etc.).

    I’m also hesistant about the Black/Latino comparison.

    Comment by Rachel — February 24, 2007 @ 3:06 am | Reply

  6. It would have been worth asking if anyone would not vote for a white, male or Christian candidate in elections where there are alternative candidates.

    I, for one, would be quite leary about voting for a candidate who was public about their Christianity. Recent experience shows that it’s the most devout followers of the Prince of Peace who are most likely to plunge the world into war.

    Comment by Daran — February 24, 2007 @ 6:36 am | Reply

  7. I was pleased that Edwards didn’t sack Marcotte and McEwan over the “God’s jism” affair, choosing to give them a public carpetting instead. We’ll never know whether that would have turned out to be a wise move, but it was a bold one, and suggests that maybe Christianity doesn’t have quite as firm a grip on US politics as might appear. It’s a shame that men’s rights have no traction at all.

    Comment by Daran — February 24, 2007 @ 6:44 am | Reply

  8. I, for one, would be quite leary about voting for a candidate who was public about their Christianity.

    I’ve yet to see a candidate who was not publically religious (mostly Christian but there are a few Jews and Moslims in office) get elected to a national level office. Am I missing anyone? Bernie Sanders maybe?

    It’s a shame that men’s rights have no traction at all.

    Because men are sooo underrepresented in Congress and there’s never even been a male candidate for president from a major party, muchless a male president. Oh, wait…

    Comment by Dianne — February 24, 2007 @ 10:08 am | Reply

  9. It would have been worth asking if anyone would not vote for a white, male or Christian candidate in elections where there are alternative candidates.

    I think that you would find very few people who would state that they would catagorically NOT vote for a white, male, or Christian candidate, though you might find a minority would would preferentially vote for a non-white, male, Christian candidate all other things being equal. I probably would vote for a minority woman over a white man all other things being equal, but I’d certainly vote for, for example, Barry Deutsch over Michelle Malkin any day.

    Comment by Dianne — February 24, 2007 @ 2:01 pm | Reply

  10. Malkin-Deutsch in 2008!

    (It would be wrong to give a white male the top spot.)

    Comment by Robert — February 24, 2007 @ 2:03 pm | Reply

  11. Dianne (quoting me):

    I’ve yet to see a candidate who was not publically religious (mostly Christian but there are a few Jews and Moslims in office) get elected to a national level office. Am I missing anyone? Bernie Sanders maybe?

    The UK, where I live, is a far more secular society than the US, which is ironic because we have an established Church.

    Tony Blair is quite open about his Christianity. There are probably a fair few atheists among our politicians but I couldn’t say for certain, because most do not wear their faith on their sleeves.

    It’s a shame that men’s rights have no traction at all.

    Because men are sooo underrepresented in Congress and there’s never even been a male candidate for president from a major party, muchless a male president. Oh, wait…

    You’re well aware, I’m sure, of the fallacy here, which is so common it’s been given a name: the frontman fallacy.

    It is a fallacy to assume that because the majority of politicians are men, therefore men’s issues will predominate. Privileged men have always been able to insulate themselves from the male-hostile policies they impose upon the rest of us, as the “chickenhawks” discourse exemplifies.

    In fact, it’s more plausible to assume that because the electorate is well over 50% female, politicians will favour women at the expense of men.

    But it’s still a fallacy. The bottom line is that if you want to determine whether politicians favour men, you need to look at their policies, not their penises.

    Comment by Daran — February 24, 2007 @ 2:15 pm | Reply

  12. “The bottom line is that if you want to determine whether politicians favour men, you need to look at their policies, not their penises.”

    Aren’t you the same guy who put up this post insinuating that feminists should vote based on a candidate’s gender identity not their policies.

    Incidentally, I agree with you in principle, that policy should trump a person’s gender identity, but you need to be opened to the fact that many feminists think the same way.

    Plus, the original point was not about politicians and their ideologies, but voters and their ideologies. The question was do voters favor men; not do political candidates favor men.

    Plus, many of those “anti-male” policies you are complaining about are policies that are at the institutional level racist and classist. The candidates are creating policies that will hurt the chances of wealthy white guys like themselves. They create policies that harm gay men, men of color, poor white men and so on. It’s an unfortunate, outcome of patriarchy. Men are so afraid of other men that they work their best to keep those men and all women at least a couple steps behind.

    Comment by Rachel — February 24, 2007 @ 5:57 pm | Reply

  13. The UK, where I live, is a far more secular society than the US, which is ironic because we have an established Church.

    That’s because you dumped all your religious fanatics here.

    Comment by Dianne — February 24, 2007 @ 6:53 pm | Reply

  14. The UK, where I live, is a far more secular society than the US, which is ironic because we have an established Church.

    No no, it’s BECAUSE you have an established Church. In the marriage of Church and State, it’s always the Church that loses out eventually.

    Comment by Susan — February 24, 2007 @ 8:40 pm | Reply

  15. Malkin-Deutsch in 2008!

    (It would be wrong to give a white male the top spot.)

    I will gladly obtain sex transition surgery if it’s the only way of preventing President Malkin.

    Comment by Ampersand — February 28, 2007 @ 3:35 am | Reply

  16. I think the poll may reflect more what voters feel it’s decent to say aloud, then what they’d really do in the voting booth.

    Comment by Ampersand — February 28, 2007 @ 3:39 am | Reply

  17. I will gladly obtain sex transition surgery if it’s the only way of preventing President Malkin.

    Ooh, I bet “transsexuals” are definitely a high-rejection category. So that won’t work. You’ll be working under President Malkin, and you’ll like it.

    I think the poll may reflect more what voters feel it’s decent to say aloud, then what they’d really do in the voting booth.

    That’s certainly possible. However, the report I linked in my response to Rachel would seem to indicate a pretty good correlation between what people say and what they do.

    Comment by Robert — February 28, 2007 @ 4:05 am | Reply

  18. Can a person who was born in the Virgin Islands become president? Father from West Virginia & Mother from Puerto Rico. Dad in the military.
    Please respond. thanks Peggy

    Comment by Peggy Pabon — March 9, 2007 @ 11:15 pm | Reply

  19. Article II, Section 1: “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President…”

    So if your person of interest is a natural born citizen, they’re good to go.

    Comment by Robert — March 9, 2007 @ 11:51 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: