Home › Blogs › The Alpha State
« Time for a change | Main | Regan fired »
December 18, 2006
Party of Diversity
The Los Angeles Times did a poll last week and the throw away question was…
Supposing a presidential candidate agrees with you on most issues; for which candidate could you NOT (emphasis added) vote for because he or she is a/an….?
In party A, 4% would have trouble voting for a woman, compared to 6% in party B. However, in party A, 4% wouldn’t vote for a black candidate, compared to 3% in party B, 17% wouldn’t vote for a Mormon, compared to 13% in party B, 19% wouldn’t vote for someone 72 years old, compared to 12% in party B and 63% of party A could vote for all of the above, compared to 71% in party B.
While less willing to accept a women candidate, party B was much more willing to accept differences in race, religion and age.
It might surprise some readers to find that the party shown as more diverse and more willing to accept differences is the Republican Party. This was buried on page 22 of the Times (12/14), but something tells me if the numbers had been reversed, it would have bumped up a bit.
Comments
This type of poll is worthless. It is like asking the question, "Are you a racist?" Who is going to admit that he is a racist? Who is going to say that he would not vote for a black or female president? Very few people would. If you ask the question, "Is the country ready to elect a black president?", the answer will be a lot different. This will be a more honest answer also as it implies that "while I may not be a racist, there are people around me who are."
Posted by: wolverine at December 18, 2006 10:51 PM
Interesting survey in view of my count of the actual make up of the current state legislature:
State Senate: 11 women, all Democrats
State Assembly: 22 women, 16 Democrats
My take: In California, Democrats nominate and elect women, Republicans usually do not. Perhaps, the makeup of the local Republican central committees and state party machinery (dominated by men) is probably responsible for this. Perhaps Republican women only get the nod to run in districts that are considered "safe" with heavy Republican registration. This seems to be counter productive to gaining control of state government.
All of this is most amazing in view of the fact that women voters in California are not a minority group, but are a majority of the state's population and voters!
A look at real minorities (black, Spanish surname, etc.) will generally follow a similar pattern - Democrats are much more likely to get such candidates elected than are Republicans.
Regardless of whom members party A or B say the would NOT vote for in a survey, it seems the reality is women and most minorities have less of a chance being nominated and elected (by a wide margin) if they are Republicans.
Posted by: Garibaldi at December 18, 2006 01:43 PM