Gallup poll: Black, woman more likely electable than Mormon, thrice married, old candidate

posted at 7:56 pm on February 20, 2007 by Ian

A new Gallup poll shows Americans are more likely to vote for Obama (a black) and Clinton (a woman) than Romney (a Mormon), Giuliani (married three times) and McCain (72 years years old):

Asked if they’d be willing to vote for a “generally well-qualified” candidate with the followign 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%

James Joyner analyzes:

With all the talk about Romney’s Mormon Problem–with some sizable percentage of Americans thinking the religion he belongs to is a cult–this survey would seem to indicate that it’s less of a problem than being twice-divorced. That’s rather interesting given that there seems to be no real stigma to divorce and re-marriage in the society at large. Further, being 72 years old is massively more problematic, at least theoretically.

I’ve long known that an acknowledged atheist could never win the presidency. But who would have guessed that atheists would poll behind homosexuals? Wonder what Andrew Sullivan would make of that?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Mormon = B-a-a-a-a-a-d

Muslim = G-o-o-o-o-o-d

Parley on February 20, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Wow! The numbers suggest to me that a staggering number of people polled are not prejudiced!

Not toward Blacks, not toward Jews, not toward women, not toward Hispanics, not toward Mormons, not toward serial spouses, not toward seniors, not toward homosexuals, and not toward atheists.

Most censored: atheists.

45 percent of people polled would vote for “generally well-qualified” candidate who happens to be an atheist, and this is characterized as CENSORED?

Amazing poll!

RushBaby on February 20, 2007 at 8:06 PM

I think a black Jewish woman couldn’t lose.

EnochCain on February 20, 2007 at 8:09 PM

I jumped the gun when I read that headline and saw “black” followed by “woman”, and thought maybe we were talking about Condi and then there would be a slight chance of drafting her.

RightWinged on February 20, 2007 at 8:12 PM

Hmmm, but that does really mean that this is good for Obama? I thought Sharpton said that just because his skin was like theirs, didn’t mean he was like them?

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 8:14 PM

But who would have guessed that atheists would poll behind homosexuals? Wonder what Andrew Sullivan would make of that?

…that gave me a little chuckle.

Anyhoo, people vote on charisma more than stats.

Max Power on February 20, 2007 at 8:14 PM

Then theres Cynthia McKenney.Who would vote for that nut?

spazzmomma on February 20, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Does anyone else think it’s kind of appalling that a twice-divorced dude gets no electoral love?

Doesn’t everyone know by now that love can be a pain in the ass?

Enrique on February 20, 2007 at 8:15 PM

let Joemania begin again

dallas94 on February 20, 2007 at 8:17 PM

This poll makes perfect sense to me.

Being black or a woman is nothing more than a circumstance of birth. It tells you nothing about who the person is or what they stand for. Therefore, for most people, if you say “well qualified” black person or woman, they have nothing else to go on other than well qualified.

With Mormon & twice-divorced, we are talking about specific choices that a person has made. If you think the LDS church is a cult (or that only an idiot would believe what they believe) then you probably question the candidate’s reasoning ability. Similarly, if you think that getting divorced a couple times shows poor judgement or a lack of ability to stick with something or be faithful, you would question the character of the twice-divorced candidate.

JadeNYU on February 20, 2007 at 8:23 PM

They didn’t print one entry:

Smoker 15%

askheaves on February 20, 2007 at 8:27 PM

JadeNYU on February 20, 2007 at 8:23 PM

What’s logic got to do with it?

Aren’t all conservatives; war mongers, enviornment destroyers, black haters, Mexican haters, in fact anything not white haters, we hate Jews, only like Christians, all of our women stay at home making babies, own guns, don’t think…Rush tells us what to do, gays? kill em all, oh yeah that is what being a conservative is all about. Just ask any moonbat leftist.

right2bright on February 20, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Another poll worthy of a spot on my bathroom roll.

The greatest urban legend of all time…..the accuracy of polls.

This is the poll no-one asks:
1. Do you care about polls?

Limerick on February 20, 2007 at 8:35 PM

right2bright on February 20, 2007 at 8:32 PM

Shhh…you aren’t supposed to mention these things in public.

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 8:38 PM

There are more details on the Gallup web page .

Interesting point of comparison is that 1960, only 71% said they would be willing to vote for a Catholic. So Mitt can still win. Also, the breakdown is that liberals and moderates would be more willing than conservatives (66%) to vote for a Mormon.

pedestrian on February 20, 2007 at 8:40 PM

Shhh…you aren’t supposed to mention these things in public.

Rick on February 20, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Yeah. Next thing you know, he’s going to tell them where the rallies are held and what color hood to wear.

askheaves on February 20, 2007 at 8:44 PM

I think a black Jewish woman couldn’t lose.

EnochCain on February 20, 2007 at 8:09 PM

Hey, Allah. The way I read this poll, a 72 year old, black, lesbian Morman beats you for the nomination by 18%.

Heh.

Jaibones on February 20, 2007 at 8:45 PM

What about a homosexual on his third gay marriage?

kmcguire on February 20, 2007 at 9:00 PM

What, no Muslim?

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 20, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Mike Huckabee 08!

sonnyspats1 on February 20, 2007 at 9:17 PM

(More Sarcasim)

What about a Homosexual Morman, who marries then divorces a Jewish Illegal Alien from Mexico for the “anchor baby” benefits, divorces her, then marries a Black Gay Athiest male , who smokes?

PinkyBigglesworth on February 20, 2007 at 9:17 PM

When folks are riding you out of town on a poll, get in front and make it look like a parade!

Wait.

I think that’s POLE, not poll.
Oh, well — so much for Fat Tuesday.

Gull on February 20, 2007 at 9:31 PM

I looks like AP won’t leave HA soon to run for president.

Unrelated, I’m sooooo tired of this 2-years out campaigning and constant running. When’s the actual leading?

Entelechy on February 20, 2007 at 9:34 PM

s/b “It looks like….”

Entelechy on February 20, 2007 at 9:37 PM

Care to analyze what E&P is saying here:

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.

Pam on February 20, 2007 at 9:39 PM

I think a black Jewish woman couldn’t lose.

Whoopi Goldberg it is!

SouthernGent on February 20, 2007 at 9:42 PM

Doesn’t everyone know by now that love can be a pain in the ass?

Enrique on February 20, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Especially if you’re gay.

Darth Executor on February 20, 2007 at 10:38 PM

I think a religion friendly, conservative atheist could win. I’d certainly vote him before I’d vote for a liberal Christian.

Darth Executor on February 20, 2007 at 10:42 PM

“generally well qualified”…..Hmmmmmm….Well, the top three do not exist in this pool of candidates, so that leaves a generally well qualified Gov Richardson of New Mexico and Mitt.

csdeven on February 20, 2007 at 11:14 PM

Mitt being generally well quallified also.

csdeven on February 20, 2007 at 11:43 PM

These polls don’t mean anything. It’s the character of the candidate that’s important.

aengus on February 21, 2007 at 12:33 AM

This poll comes from editor and publisher, a leftist rag. It cannot be trusted as published. No demographic metrics are included. No analysis is provided.

However, if you go to the actual gallup poll, additional information about the poll is provided. For instance, Catholics, blacks, and Jews as candidates are essentially in a dead heat at 92% or higher.

In facts Catholics come out 1% point higher than black, which proves that E&P and Gallup are perhaps misleading the public. I think that Noam Chomsky used to use the term “manufacturing consent” for polls like this.

The poll sampled 1006 adults, 18 or older, NOT LIKELY VOTERS OR REGISTERED VOTERS. In addition, the demographic breakdown of the sample (age, race, gender, etc.) was not revealed.

The bottom line here: This poll is useless if not nonsense.

georgej on February 21, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Just me, but I won’t vote for any muslim in my lifetime. The koran makes me say so….

R D on February 21, 2007 at 2:15 AM

This poll means….that people lie to pollsters regularly. In other words, this poll means very little.

BTW–

Doesn’t everyone know by now that love can be a pain in the ass?

Enrique on February 20, 2007 at 8:15 PM
Especially if you’re gay.

Darth Executor on February 20, 2007 at 10:38 PM

Good one!

hillbillyjim on February 21, 2007 at 4:27 AM

So after weeks of Obama-mania, Hillary Soft & Squishy, Mitt’s “Mormon Question” we get a poll that, SURPRISE, shows a “surge” in support for electing a black or woman president.

Do they only question the timing/motives when a Rethuglican is ahead? (Notice the utter lack of vote fraud claims in the last election, wher Dems swooped back to power)

Neo on February 21, 2007 at 5:50 AM

I think they missed a couple of categories in this poll:

Anti-semitic Pony
Jetsetting Environmentalist

James on February 21, 2007 at 8:18 AM

SURVEY SAYS…..

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

CONDI IN 2008!!!!!

seejanemom on February 21, 2007 at 8:55 AM

“with some sizable percentage of Americans thinking the religion he belongs to is a cult”

So I wonder why they left out “muslim” in the poll. Plus, apparently this “sizable” percentage of Americans that thinks the Mormon faith is a cult think it’s ok to elect a muslim Congressman?

darwin on February 21, 2007 at 9:05 AM

Being an ex-mormon and knowing exactly what the church is about I would vote for Mitt. I would ask all those who would not vote for him, What sect of Christianity is the correct one?

Grayzel on February 21, 2007 at 9:28 AM

Mormonism is a cult–here’s a quick briefing.

That being said I would rather vote for Mitt than Obama, but I’d rather vote for Giuliani than Mitt.

JamesVersusEveryone on February 21, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Giuliani will only get my vote when he pries it from my cold dead hand…

Yes, for those of you in rio linda allusion to NRA.

Mitts the Man, so far.

-Wasteland Man

WastelandMan on February 21, 2007 at 11:25 AM

Yup. I agree with hillbillyjim. I hereby nominate Darth Executor for best comment of the thread.

(It is rare event when a HotAir comment causes me such embarassment because I burst-out laughing while I am here at work. All of the other people in the adjacent cubicles tend to stare at me in disapproval.)

CyberCipher on February 21, 2007 at 12:32 PM

I don’t see any comparison between Mormonism and cults. If that’s the case then political parties are cults too. So are Catholics and Jews.

The best example of a successful cult is islam. Cults control thru fear and punishment. No one is allowed to leave the cult, if they do … death. Women are almost exclusively subserviant in cults. The cult serves to enrich those in power.

darwin on February 21, 2007 at 1:50 PM

Does anyone else think it’s kind of appalling that a twice-divorced dude gets no electoral love?

Doesn’t everyone know by now that love can be a pain in the ass?

Enrique on February 20, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Best. Comment. Ever!

Care to analyze what E&P is saying here:

Pam on February 20, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Without even having to RTFA, sure. It’s E&P, so they’re saying “Conservatives suck, vote for progressives!”

bamapachyderm on February 22, 2007 at 3:34 AM