White House Poll: Blacks, Women, Hispanics OK, Others Iffy

Editor & Publisher has an interesting report on some poll numbers: “A new Gallup survey confirms that Americans claim they will be willing to vote for a woman (read: Hillary Clinton) or a black (read: Barack Obama) for president next year. But they still raise questions about voting for a well-qualified Mormon (Mitt Romney) or 72-year-old (John McCain) or someone who has been divorced twice (Rudy Giuliani).”

White_houseHere is how the numbers lined up:

“Asked if they’d be willing to vote for a ‘generally well-qualified’ candidate with the following characterisitics, here’s how the tally went in the Feb. 9- 11 poll.

Black 94%

Jewish 92%

A woman 88%

Hispanic 87%

Mormon 72%

Married for third time 67%

72 years of age 57%

A homosexual 55%

An atheist 45%

Conservatives express more misgivings about candidates from all of the above categories — except the age question, where they are more disapproving of voting for someone 72 or over.”

Fairly interesting results.


  1. Daniel says

    I was raised Mormon and I would have some issues voting for a Mormon though it’s not an automatic no for me.

    However, I would never, never, never vote for Mitt Romney.

  2. Randy says

    Theres a BIGGG DIFFERENCE between polls and booths (George W Bush)…. have you ever heard aof LUGs (lesbians until graduation)?, well they need to come with DUVs (democrats until voting)

  3. Matt says

    Let’s face it the Republicans rule in this country. There are for more voters who vote Republican than Democrat. The only reasons why the Democrats won in this past election was because Republican voters were sending a message saying we don’t like how the Republican party is being run. I would never vote for a Morman for president.

  4. titus says

    what one sayes in a poll and what one does in the polling booth i feel is somewhat different. i don’t know how a survey could be conducted on such a question, but i can’t see this country voting for a black, a woman or gay. those poll numbers may reflect the percentage willing to consider voting for such, but tragically i don’t think the country is capable yet. i feel it is still a generational thing and since the seniors tend to vote in a higher percentage, i feel they still have the sway against. most likely in another two or three presidental cycles the influnce of the baby boomers and the generations that have followed will hold the edge and the a black or a woman can and will win. and maybe when we baby boomers are in our dotage a gay can win.

  5. Jack! says

    People always give a more positive answer to pollsters so they look good but when they have an actual stake in things it’s totally different. Let me show you the real numbers:

    A woman 73%
    Jewish 67%
    Hispanic 65%
    Black 63%
    Married for third time 63%
    72 years of age 57%
    Mormon 40%
    A homosexual 36%
    An atheist 30%

  6. Chris says

    Does anyone else think that last line is miswritten? It doesn’t make sense to me…

    “Conservatives express more misgivings about candidates from all of the above categories — except the age question, where they are more disapproving of voting for someone 72 or over.”

    They express more misgivings, except the age question, where they are MORE disapproving?

    I think it’s supposed to be “less” disapproving. That would make sense in the text and in the idea of what conservatives would prefer. Certainly Reagan was ancient and they had no problem with him.

    (BTW the towleroad post is accurate – the original source is identical.)

    Jacki, where did you get those numbers from?

  7. jzn says

    Why do people fear atheist? I would vote for a qualified atheist over any of the other canidates. It would be nice to finally separate chruch and state. It would kind of refreshing not to have to hear about “god’s will” and “with the help of god” and have an individual that actually takes responsibility for their own actions instead of leaving things to “god’s plan.”

  8. sean says

    we’re such a labelist species. everything and everyone must fit neatly into an appropriately labeled little box. this shit starts the minute we are born. none of these factors should come into play regarding the viability of a candidate… gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion. how bout integrity, honesty, fairity, intelligence, industriousness. excuse me while i take my rose-tinted glasses off to massage my brow. i have a headache already and we’re no where near nov. 2008. schmucks.

  9. Da says

    “those poll numbers may reflect the percentage willing to consider voting for such, but tragically i don’t think the country is capable yet.”
    Posted by: titus |

    I’m not sure I agree with that..I think it’s just one of those popular beliefs we’re made to take as a given. Like “people would never buy in a movie as a gay actor as a romantic lead”.

    In politics, I believe it’s all about understanding the psychology of the people, what they care about. And in that sense Americans as people are no different than the British, the Indian, or the German.

    I think any Woman or Black candidate who is confident enough to ignore those myths, and is smart enough to run on the ideas & ideals can revite the voters in their platform will be a winner.

  10. Jack! says

    Chris it’s Jack with an !, exclamation. The numbers come from many polls and scientific tests that I’ve seen regarding those groups.

    Da, I think you are very idealistic. Just as people voted for Bush because he was a Bush they can NOT vote for a canidate because they are something they don’t like. Secondly politicans don’t have a good level of trust or admiration from Americans. It would be herculean to overcome both obstacles.

  11. Da says

    Of course I’m an idealist, but you have to be to dream of changes! Anything you can’t envision cannot happen, obviously.

    And I don’t believe Bush was voted because simply because he was “Bush” – saying that is coping out of examining the reasons why he genuinely appealed to the public and ended up winning. Bush had a confidence of his ideas, and as much as the conservatives can be faulted for their tactics they’ve understood long ago that the general public still care about ideas (not just gossip). And they’ve kept on discussing them which is envigorating to the debate. The public and voters love that.

    I’ve said it before, but I feel that the democrats have abandonned all the great ideas which made liberalism such a powerful political force in the past (social justice, feminism, human and gay rights, racial unity, global equity and peace etc etc)..those are things people still care about if a leader knows how to engage them. It’s the same when people say, “gays are supercial and don’t care about the issues”. I think it’s absolutely false, everyone wants to participate in the debate process when it’s phrased in a way that speaks to them. And that’s what any democrat candidate will learn how to do.

  12. strepsi says

    The most telling figure is the last one – there will be no gay equality in America until like most civilized countries it separates church and state…. I know you SAY you do, but the fact it is overwhelmingly Christian, and a very fundamentalist form where there is no disctinction between the person and his or her job.

    In Canada, Prime Minister Paul Martin admitted as a Catholic he had issues with gay marriage, but allowed that he could NOT govern or alter civil rights of citizens based on his personal views…

    America is falling further and further behind — as Jon Stewart said… “OK – so now we’re less progessive than SOUTH AFRICA…”


Leave A Reply