Race, Gender And Bias In The Electorate
This column was written by CBS News director of surveys Kathy Frankovic
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
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. 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
I''m tired of Obama and Clinton, I don''t care for either. Quarar
The good Rev. Wingnut and Obama used race in
campaign now it has come back and bit him Well
TOO BAD if you think it that bad hear leave He''s
done this will not go away and like tony rezko I
Did not know will not work not after 20 years Bye Bye
Obama
Americans are not usually bias when alone, bias kicks in when around friends and peers, the proverbial peer-pressure!
Hillary publicly praised NAFTA over and over again, and then bashed NAFTA before the Ohio primary. Barack had been consistent in his views about NAFTA since before he began his campaign. Then, a person who was not a part of his campaign at the time makes a comment in Canada, and that somehow trumps Hillary''s incontinency and hurts Barack.
John McCain spoke out against the Bush tax cuts, not just because there wasn''t a way to pay for them, but because they were skewed toward the rich. He said it himself. Now he supports making them permanent because that is the stance of the republican party. Still, he is considered the "straight shooter". Barack Obama has been consistent in his plan to roll back the tax cuts for the rich and cut taxes for the working class. He''s also been consistent with his views on the war. But somehow, he is the liar who has been fooling America.
It seems that people are looking for a reason not to support Obama. Clinton and McCain have wide margins of error. Obama has to run a perfect campaign, and even then he can be hurt by any rumor, any half-truth, and any mis-spoken word by anyone even associated with him.
Wright is a scared old man the same as Falwell was, same as RObertson, and that other charleton recently supporting McCain.
I am a white man who will be voting for Obama, providing I get the chance.
I think that is he goes down "K" Street gives out another shout of victory in money over "one person, one vote" representation.
As I said, an experience political candidate would, especially since the issue has been brought up so many times. Politics is perception.
Posted by trapbreak at 08:04 PM : Mar 17, 2008
As I said, Obama is not going for the idiot vote this year. Anyone who thinks voters this year are asleep at the wheel again, is in store for a rude awakening!