March 17, 2008
Race, Gender And Bias In The Electorate
CBS' Kathy Frankovic: Some Americans Admit To Not Voting For Certain Types Of People
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Let's Talk About Race, Gender
Political candidates may shy away from factors of race and gender, but do they matter when the subject keeps coming up? Maggie Rodriguez talks to experts about the real effects of minority politics.
-
Video
Politics And Gender, Race
The Democratic presidential race continues to put light on race, gender and why voters choose the way they do. Harry Smith talks to two experts about Clinton, Obama and Ferraro.
-
Video
Ferraro Defends Her Comments
Geraldine Ferraro says the Obama campaign took her comments on race out of context and is appalled that they were used to attack Sen. Hillary Clinton. Russ Mitchell reports.
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
A look at the life and meteoric rise of the president-elect.
-
Photo Essay
Hillary Clinton
A look at a life and career full of firsts.
Will Americans admit to bias? For years, survey researchers have tried to figure out how to measure bias in voting behavior- whether or not people will say they would not vote for certain types of people.
Before the 1970s plenty of people were willing to admit bias. In 1937, The Gallup Poll asked: “Would you vote for a woman for President if she were qualified in every other respect?” The emphasis on “qualified” is mine, but today we are shocked that only 33 percent of Americans then said they’d vote for such a person. In a different poll taken three years later, the question was posed without the “qualified” qualifier, and only 20 percent said they would vote for a woman. So being described as “qualified in every other respect” netted a hypothetical female candidate only 13 points of support.
More shocking, perhaps, was that findings like this -- even among women -- were consistent negative until sometime after 1970. In 1962, Gallup found only 28 percent of women saying they approved of having a woman as president. Sixty eight percent (again, this is among women) disapproved. In a 1970 poll by the Harris Organization (conducted for Virginia Slims, a cigarette targeted at women), 67 percent of women agreed with this statement: “There won’t be a woman President of the U.S. for a long time and that’s probably just as well.”
By the end of the 1970s -- the decade of Vietnam, Watergate, and the women’s movement (and only 15 years after Congress passed major civil rights legislation) -- attitudes appeared to have changed. By a margin of three to one in a Time Magazine Poll, Americans said it would be good for the country to have a woman president. And by nearly the same margin, they said it would be good for the country to have a black president.
The unanswered question, of course, is whether that change represented real opinion change, or simply a change in what it was socially acceptable to say. Today, few Americans want to admit that they might be prejudiced about a candidate’s race or gender. And when people are asked directly about the Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton contest, they can find plenty of reasons to vote for one or the other that don’t involve gender or race.
Still, there are differences once we move from asking about you personally to asking about other people. In January, 81 percent of registered voters told CBS News and The New York Times that they would vote for a woman, but just 56 percent said most people they knew would do so. Fifty four percent said America was ready for a woman candidate. As for an African-American, the differences were even starker. Ninety percent said they would vote for a black candidate, 65 percent said most people they knew would, but just 54 percent said America was ready for a black president. That was a 36-point gap between the number saying they would vote for a black candidate and the number saying America was ready; there was, a 27-point gap in the responses when people were asked about a female candidate.
Some of the gap is due to skepticism about other people’s behavior, rather than to people concealing their own personal feelings. But there are differences: for example, slightly more voters say they personally couldn’t vote for a woman than say they couldn’t vote for an African-American; and Democratic voters are less likely than others to admit to a bias.
Polls in recent Democratic primaries suggest that something might be going on under the radar. We conduct exit polls on paper, so there is no interaction between an interviewer and a respondent, and therefore less opportunity for socially desirable answers. And in fact, in Ohio, one in five white men -- and nearly as many white women -- said the race of the candidate mattered to them. Those voters voted nearly four-to-one for Hillary Clinton, a much higher ratio than white voters who did not say race mattered. But even more black voters -- about one in four -- said race mattered to them, and nearly all of them voted for Obama: even more than black voters who said race didn’t matter. Fewer voters admitted gender was a factor, but men who did were more likely to vote for Obama than those who did not; women who said gender mattered strongly supported Clinton.
But this experiment in asking about race and gender had a different impact in last week’s Mississippi primary. There was almost no gender gap in Mississippi, but the racial divide was enormous. Ninety two percent of African-American voters supported Obama, while just 26 percent of white voters did. Even though nearly four in ten black voters said that race mattered to them, it would have been almost impossible for them to be more pro-Obama than blacks as a whole. However, when whites admitted that race mattered to them (and 24 percent of them did) their votes were more anti-Obama than white voters overall. Only 10 percent of them voted for Obama.
Race and gender continues to be a particularly American concern - and an issue that pollsters will continue to track, probably through November.
By Kathy Frankovic
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
- Latest in Opinion: Poll Positions
- Poll: Sotomayor Still An Unknown
- Will Americans Embrace Obama's "Change"?
- Bush's Popularity Reaches Historic Lows
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 63 CommentsI''m not sure what this sentence is saying - what is this saying?
Don''t you think it''s best for our country to vote for the most qualified and morally stable candidate? My God, this is our safety and well being we''re talking about here, not to mention the financial aspect. Wake up to reality!
Black, White, Green... who cares? If you want to ship off from this country a large group of people, let''s make it the idiots, no matter the color or gender, that vote for presidents and other public officials based solely on their color or gender. Can that many people be so ignorant and stupid?
For the sake of this great country and all of God''s children, please vote for Senator John McCain on November 4th.
God Bless America. No greater country on earth!
I think the sentence is trying to say that people aren''t responsible for what''s in their own hearts, rather it''s all Obama''s fault.
Geraldine Ferraro isn''t a racist, the 3 Reverends are the racists!
Imus isn''t a racist, the 3 reverends are the racists!
Have you heard what Obama''s pastor preaches? It''s hate against the white man and hate against America (which he calls the "U KKK of A"). HIV was invented by rich white men to kill blacks? Are you serious Reverend Wright? 911 was planned and carried out by the United States? This is only the tip of the iceberg from Reverend Wright''s Sunday morning message.
Being a member for 20 years, can you honestly tell me Barack H. Obama has never sat through one of these "spirited" messages? Please! Hillary''s just laying low, soaking it in while Obama''s campaign goes in the toilet.
Obama better come out and say this guys is a freak and an idiot before it''s too late. Stop with the political jargen stating that you "disagree" with "most" of what he spouts in his so-called sermons.
Shouldn''t Reverend Wright preach eternal salvation, deeds according to Christ and living your life for God? I heard none of it in these racist rants. I wonder how he parlays his message into these hate speeches.
Reverend Wright is nothing but a racist hate mongerer. He is not a messenger for God.
I''m not sure what you''re trying to say here. Anyone serving in the military, as far as I''m concerned, should have as much of a chance as anyone to run for public office including the Presidency of the United States.
Who says they''re somehow not "qualified"? That''s ridiculous!
Voting for a President solely because of race of gender is just ignorance at it''s best.
What''s ridiculous is claiming that one person''s demographics are benefitting a candidate any more than another person''s demographics. If there were a 3-way vote right now, you''d probably see McCain win white men, Hillary win white women, and Obama win black men. Black women would vote primarily for Obama or Hillary.
But to say that ANY of these candidates is viable purely because of their demographic is ridiculous. All three are successful politicians with something to offer.
It''ll come down to party affiliation among the demographics for some. For others it REALLY WILL be just about the issues.
Posted by nolle61
George Bush''s economy and war will cause McCain to lose and lose big. Look no further than the fund raising totals for the Democrats vs. Republicans.
Are you suggesting that the Dems are going to buy the election? Or that the Dems are the party of the super-rich and well-connected? Or perhaps that wealth-and-might-makes-right?
MARCH 14, 2008: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday denounced inflammatory remarks from his pastor
MARCH 17, 2008: Speaking with reporters, Obama said the media is portraying Wright inaccurately.
"I think the caricature that is being painted of him is not accurate, and so part of what I will do tomorrow is to talk about how these issues are perceived from within the black church community for example which I think skews this very differently."
"I think the caricature that is being painted of him is not accurate, and so part of what I will do tomorrow is to talk about how these issues are perceived from within the black church community for example which I think skews this very differently."
I''m sure the KKK''s statements are taimed when veiwed through KKK''s cummunity of supporters. The KKK''s not evil their just misunderstood.
It is white America''s responsiblity to not vote in Obama this year.
Maybe having a black for President is a bad idea.
Vote McCain 2008.
Posted by cbscrash07 at 05:08 PM : Mar 17, 2008
McCains minister openly hates ***--bigotry is bigotry---if someone hates--he/she is a bigot!
Posted by blazercoach1
I am saying it takes money to win an election and the electorate is sending theirs to the Democrats. Both Hillary and Obama have raised in excess of $150 Million each, when one drops out that number will increase substantially for the candidate that remains.
Also, according to open secrets Obama''s money is coming from millions of small ($100 or less) donations.
Ring, Ring: Hello this is Barry. Barry this Rev.W. Who the F**K do you think you are denouncing my comments yesterday. I put you where you are and now your going to turn your back on me? But, Rev.W I thought you said I could lie. Barry not about me! Now here is what your going to do. Tuesday you will go before the nation and defend our church and me, you better sound convincing or I''''ll spill the beans. Yes sir I''''m sorry Rev. W.... Click...
The dems are going to spend most of it fighting each other. Compare Obama''s and Hillary''s earlier finances to what they are raising now. It''s actually gone down. Look at their "cash on hand" on that same website you sighted....I''ve been tracking it since January.....it''s gone down.
They will eat each other alive and spend all of the money in the process. McCain will get his donations once a winner on the Dems side is declared....especially if it''s Hillary.
As for the election, right now everything the Dems say sounds great...because there is nobody there to argue it. Just wait until someone asks, "and how much is that going to cost?..and where do you plan on coming up with the money?"
On the one hand they want to raise taxes on the rich, but now they''re saying they want to cut taxes for corporations who keep jobs here....so that''s a wash. Taxing cigarettes won''t BEGIN to pay for Hillary-care, nevermind the fact that it gives incentive to STOP anti-smoking campaigns.
Don''t read all the Independent and Republicans voting for Obama as being pro-Obama......I suspect they''re anti-Billary. The pollsters never asked if Obama would get my vote in the general election...they just asked if I was a Republican voting for Obama. And I''m sure you already know that many FAR-RIGHT conservatives are voting for Hillary just because she''ll be easier to beat because she''s so hated.
I suspect the election will be MUCH closer than it appears right now.....
Blazercach, of course the donations are decreasing, people are waiting to see where the nomination goes. She can''t catch him mathematically and would need the super delegates to overturn the will of the majority. If they do, and Obama voters are disenfranchised, McCain has a chance. As for tax policy, the war and the 4 Trillion added to the national debt is going to have to be paid for. Anyone that stands in front of you and promises to cut taxes is a liar. I never assumed that all independents and Republicans would vote for Obama, he simply needs a majority of Independents and a small number of Republican crossovers to win by a decent margin. Do you believe that most of that money for Obama is coming from the black communities?
There is another answer to how the debt can be eliminated: cut spending. And that''s the conservative argument. And that''s why you had all THREE candidates in Washington last week to vote for a moratorium on earmarks.....a bill that was soundly defeated, but allowed the candidates to posture.
But that''s the argument that hasn''t been made in Democrat debates: Cut spending. And that''s the part that Democrats. Democrats make HUGE political gains by SPENDING on programs....programs supported by their donors.
Go back to your website, www.opensecrets.org and look at the donations to each candidate by industry. Check the medical fields, especially....and then tell me who is going to have favors to repay...and who is NOT interested in bringing down the COST of medical care. While you''re at it, take a look at our three candidates and their donations from Oil & Gas...you might be surprised! Oh yeah....and look at money from LOBBYISTS and LAWYERS. Do you think the American people want to be beholden to THEM? Follow the money, my friend.....
Posted by Candide777
It''s even more fun watching his beloved spiritual mentor display his true, ugly and hateful intentions for all to hear...and Obama worships at his feet...yes...this promises to be a good show.
Posted by blazercoach1
Blazercoach, from an article by Ben Stein
Let%u2019s start with the obvious. Almost everyone dislikes taxes. No sane person enjoys writing out a big check to Uncle Sam when he could spend that money or bank it for retirement. By the same token, almost everyone likes the phrase %u201Ctax cuts%u201D for the same reason.
The problem, and it%u2019s a killer, is that over the years we have obligated ourselves as a nation to spend truly staggering sums. These sums are growing rapidly. They consist mostly of entitlements, like Social Security and Medicare; fixed obligations like interest on the national debt, pensions for federal and military employees and various subsidies that have already been enacted; and morally mandatory expenses like those for national security.
All politicians campaign on the promise to cut federal spending by identifying hitherto unfound waste, fraud and corruption. None of them ever do so in a meaningful way. Total federal spending has not once fallen noticeably since 1954, no matter the party or the promises of the incoming chief executive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/business/09every.html?ref=todayspaper
Posted by likeitis5050 at 06:47 PM : Mar 17, 2008
get a grip, you can''t attack Obama so you go after his preacher? You''re crazy. I''ve never seen Obama worship at the feet of anyone, so quit being so dramatic.
Nice diatribe, but your attack on everything but his stand on the issues qualifies you to be as racist as you claim his church to be.
Posted by trapbreak at 07:24 PM : Mar 17, 2008
Yes, please do make an issue of that. It''s time we brought this issue to the forefront and recognized that wrapping oneself in the American flag never has and does not now make one a true American. Bush is a fake American, and he can pin that falg on every day for the rest of his life. He will still be a fake American.
Posted by trapbreak at 07:43 PM : Mar 17, 2008
First, you are lying when you say he "refuses." I do not wear one either, but I don''t refuse because this is a free country and no one has ordered me to wear one. Second, Obama is not going for the idiot vote. His supporters recognize that 90% of the politicians who pin that flag on are nothing but con artists. There''s no reason to copy-cat a con artist when you are the real deal.
But that''s exactly why McCain CAN win. He has consistently fought spending, tried to reign in cost on EVERYTHING, and tried to fix the loopholes in the system that encourage spending.
NOBODY can top his record on that issue. One can say that there is no hope because nobody has done it yet.....but I think here is where Obama and McCain agree: There''s always hope.
In this case, though, it''s only McCain saying "spend less". And that''s the message he can sell all the way to the White House. (Obama gets points for wanting to bring down the cost of health care, rather than just promise all the insurance companies that people will be forced to buy their product, regardless of cost!)
and why did you send a link to the NY TImes??
White Male Demographic-- 2
That is a policy both white and black, male and female voters will find especially beneficial as we recover from seven years of a void of leadership during the Bush and GOP congressional terms.
While Clinton deserves credit for her attempt at a national healthcare plan 14 years ago, Edwards deserves credit for the best-planned approach to national healthcare ever fielded. Of the remaining primary field, Obama seems most likely of the three candidates to bring that policy to reality.
Voting for a demographic rather than the interest of the country is what keeps us divided and frustrated as Americans. It is as sexist to vote for, or against, Clinton because she is female, as it is racist to vote for, or against, Obama because he is black.
Obama himself understands this well enough to distance himself from rhetoric about gender or race. Obama concentrates, instead, on rising above the residue of past politics, and is extremely popular with younger Americans as a direct result. The entire country wants reformative change-- not four more years of either Bill Clinton or George Bush.
---
As part of that demographic, I have seen white males vote with enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton. At the same time, I have seen other white males vote with equal enthusiasm for Obama. I, myself, voted for Edwards.
When Edwards left the campaign, I wanted a candidate closest to what Edwards offered the country-- a realistic public policy to benefit most Americans, not just the Beltway corporate lobby tribe.
I also wanted a candidate pledged to a thorough rebuilding of the national infrastructure-- from bridges and highways to job and educational opportunities for even older Americans, who have much to contribute to our changing economy, if only given the chance.
(see White Male Demographic-- 2)
As CBS reported, "Today, Sen. McCain offered carefully measured words: ''I don''t have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy,'' he said. ''They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions.'' "
In this year, we are doomed to an avalanche of shameful, negative deceit from the GOP''s Lee Atwater School of Smear. With graduates like Karl Rove at large, Americans must pay close attention to the facts and leave gut-thinking behind. That also will be a first.
But the entire country is alive with desire for wholesale change in Washington after seven years of corruption, disaster and deceit from the Bush administration. McSame appeals to those who want more of the Bush politics that brought us 911-- a Bush who had not even met with his anti-terrorism working group, and a Paul Wolfowitz who, busy planning invasion of Iraq, had to ask why all the fuss about this "al Qaeda" group...
Obama says he does not endorse Wright''s "fiery sermon" and states his own views at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html
Declaring his own beliefs should have been enough for any candidate to do.
Indeed, GOP bozos now so amused about Wright''s comments should remember McSame, himself, backpedaled furiously only two weeks ago from ultra-right, napalm-and-brimstone Baptist preacher John Hagee. Hagee dismissed the Roman Catholic Church as "apostate" and a "cult". By the way, he also wants to bomb Iran.
(see Obama comments--2)
In addition, during his first year in the US Senate, he wrote 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427.
These included--
*The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006
*The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act
*The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act
*The 2007 Government Ethics Bill
*The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill
In all, since he entered the US Senate, Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1,096.
You''re point about McCain is well taken. However, the reason he did not advocate the tax cuts at first was because they did NOT contain any provisions to cut spending. Ultimately, I believe he played politics and didn''t want to go into primary season having NOT voted for them. For that......he should be called out. However, I do believe that he will fight FOR those spending cuts as President.
You''re point is also well taken that a Democrat congress will not capitulate. However, there is a body of government that has a lower approval rating than Bush: Congress. Also, SEVERAL Republican lawmakers are not seeking re-election.
I believe this gives Republicans an opportunity to "clean house" from the Bush administration. McCain himself has said that the Republicans have stopped acting like Republicans, in terms of economics. I think he''s doing the right thing (as he''s always done) in not supporting people in his party due to their title.
IF he wins the White House, he will be able to use the "bully pulpit" of the President to change the Congress as well. That''s my take on it, anyways. Ultimately, I believe that THAT''S what the American people expect out of their government.....less of it.
In case we don''t get to continue.....I''ve enjoyed writing back and forth! An unusually calm and respectful discussion, given the normal tone on these boards! :)
I have seen on several occasions that Hillary is carrying the Catholic vote....but shouldn''t that you read that as a vote FOR Hillary, and not a vote against a "black" candidate??
If that''s how you read it, you could say that any vote for Hillary is a vote against a black candidate. Would you say that most California, New York, etc... democrats are voting AGAINST a black candidate? I doubt it.
Please don''t try to paint Catholics as voting AGAINST anyone..... They''re tending to vote FOR Hillary, as disgusting as that is for me, a Catholic :)
As a voting Democrate from the old school, I''m happy to learn that Governor Rendell has come out for Hillary in our great State of Pa.
The old guard is alive & well here. They''ve expressed the belief the shepherd boy Obama is a Democrat out of line, not sure what that means, but it is clear that the Governor has connections, and assured us that Hillary will win Pa.???
Each day his constituents gather together at the summit to find new ways to distain, mock, belittle, ridicule, and start rumors circulating concerning Obama. His camp is encircled & he is outnumbered. He has to go it alone! Somehow, we''ve been told that Pa,Ny,Oh,Nj, are superdelegate states and since Rendell was president of the DNC, I''m sure he knows the ropes. We don''t understand this but it sounds like a pretty slick trick.
We''ve been told that Our Great W...e Hope Hillary is entitled to the nomination and nothing is going to stand in HER way. I trust this will be good news for most Pa & the Mainstream News. We are not Gender biased.
This is fun & we''re just warming up here in Pa. It''s Polka time so lets roll out the barrel & start the count down for Hillary. Go Hillary!
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20080331&s=howl
There is no hope anymore in the Democratic party. There was as the begining of the election cycle, but the desire to win at any cost has re-ignited a hatred that has not been this hot since just after the civil war.
No woman President. No black President. Just a war monger will win. Well perhaps he has some sense and morals about some things. Goodness knows the devil''s seed has prospered again.....and England is following suit with a big Conservative party win in the wings.
How tiring and boring all you hate and rumor mongers. Thanks to you I cannot vote for any hopeful scenario.
I cannot imagine 4 more years of the corrupt Clinton twins in Washington.
Clinton and McCain represent more of the same in Washington.
Obama is the only candidate who represents change.
And well it should be.
That this scandal ridden, sleazy, shyster lawyer from Arkansas, the second most backward State in the U.S.
has gotten as far as he(and she) has, says loads about the unaware voting public.
Lets stop the Clintons from going any further.
The Clinton twins and McCain only offer businesss as usual. Is that what you want.
I don''t.
I''ll be voting for Obama.
Posted by Nearl4511 at 10:18 PM : Mar 17, 2008
Don''t lose hope, on one thing we can all agree, nobody wants more of the McSame! After the nomination, there will some time to heal, and half of us will hold our nose and vote against more of the McSame.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 63 Comments