Originally Posted By jonvn "Do you think it possible for a Mormon to win a Presidential Election? " I don't. Here's the thing, though: What prejudice will win out? If you have a white male mormon for the republicans, vs a white female christian on the democrats, which hatred is going to win out? Anti-women, or anti-mormon? Now, of course, if there were a hilary/obama ticket, that'd be a sure loss, because the prejudice level there would surely outweigh the mormon one, I'd think. All in all, i would bet that if the mormon ran against the girl, the girl would lose. People are more anti-women than anti-mormon, I'd think. But I could be wrong... I know if the mormon ran against a protestant or catholic, the mormon would lose. Not to a Jew though. No Jew is going to win.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Do you think it possible for a Mormon to win a Presidential Election?<< Part of the problem with this (and it applies to Obama and Clinton as well) is that all this talk of who the Mormon candidate is, the female candidate is, and the black candidate is, opens the door for people to say "Well see, America isn't ready for it yet." Maybe. Or maybe people didn't vote for Mitt Romney because his flip-flopping makes John Kerry look like he's never changed his mind since the 1st grade. Mitt's latest move was to excoriate Obama for his support of a program that taught school children the difference between a "good touch" and a "bad touch". Of course, Mitt labeled it a "sex education program for kindergarteners" and then failed to mention that he supported exactly the same thing as governor of Massachusetts. Oops. Someone might want to tell this guy about videotape and the concept of record keeping. And of course, if Obama loses, then it's because we aren't ready for a black President. Or maybe voters want someone with a little more experience than Eddie Munster. I say that as someone who would consider voting for Obama if he got the Democratic nomination; I'm just saying that while there's plenty of scumbag Americans who won't vote for someone because they're Mormon, black, or female, plenty more won't vote for candidates for what they see as very legitimate reasons.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm sure you can come up with a legit reason to not vote for anyone. But they won't vote for hillary because she's female, obama because he is black, and romney because he's a mormon.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I don't think that's quite fair. Sure, there are millions of people, unfortunately, who will not vote for someone based on race or gender or religion. Consciously or unconsciously, that is their reason. But there are others who really are voting on the individual. I'll consider voting for Obama, or Colin Powell if he were running. But Al Sharpton? Not a chance. In fact, he did run, and I had the chance to vote for him in the primary, and did not. But not because he was black. I didn't vote for him for mayor of NYC either, and I did vote for David Dinkins. Similarly, I'll consider voting for Hillary, or for Susan Gordon (to pick a GOP woman) if she ran. But some woman I can't stand - say, Nancy Grace if she entered politics? Not a chance.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Sure, there are millions of people, unfortunately, who will not vote for someone based on race or gender or religion." That would be the difference between winning and losing. But, I think not only will people not vote for someone who is black, for instance, they will also go out of their way to vote against them. People who would not ordinarily vote would come out to cast ballots against a black person. That's why I just don't see it as happening.
Originally Posted By barboy "But, I think not only will people not vote for someone who is black, for instance, they will also go out of their way to vote against them. People who would not ordinarily vote would come out to cast ballots against a black person." I don't see it. If this were 1985 or earlier I would agree with you. Sure there would be some backward thinkers out there coming out of the woodwork but those numbers would be so miniscule and I would never expect them to impact an election.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Don't be so sure of yourself barboy. Business people will tell you that "thank you" letters are few and far between but complaint letters will come in droves. I think there is a good chunk of voters who would go to the polls strictly to vote against someone. In fact, I think that is what happened to some extent during the last congressional election. Wasn't it a "mandate against the Bush Administration"? Now, is that "chunk" of voters significant enough to sway an election? I think we are destined to find out this go-around.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I'm sure you can come up with a legit reason to not vote for anyone. But they won't vote for hillary because she's female, obama because he is black, and romney because he's a mormon< interesting as I see one of those 3 being the next president - so somethings gotta give -- I truly believe it will be Hillary .... not a lot of comfort to me because I certainly am no fan....but it is possible she is the best candidate in the race.( and it takes a lot forme to say that - trust me )
Originally Posted By barboy I am talking about those specifically coming out to vote against a qualified candidate because he/she is black--- there would be some jokers out there but not enough to impact. I just don't see it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "If this were 1985 or earlier" You make it sound like that was a long time ago. It isn't. "interesting as I see one of those 3 being the next president - so somethings gotta give --" Perhaps. Maybe we'll see which form of prejudice is least ensconced. I don't think it'll be the female. On the other hand the other two are so absolutely ghastly a choice, I hope it is her.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper barboy, do you think race relations in this country are so good now that people won't think about that at all at election time? I'd love to say that would be the case, but there are a thousand reasons why I think it isn't.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper And, for as "progressive" as we think we are today, ask female executives if they get paid the same as their male counterparts. Ask females how they are feeling about the glass ceiling these days. Considering the percentage of male to female teachers, ask yourself why nearly 75% of secondary school principals are male vs female. It is my opinion that what people tell polsters about their voting habits is not what pans out in the voting booth. Again, just from a sociological point of view this is going to be a fun election.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I am talking about those specifically coming out to vote against a qualified candidate because he/she is black--- there would be some jokers out there but not enough to impact. I just don't see it. < sure -- there will also be a segment that votes for Hillary BECAUSE she is a woman and Obama BECAUSE he is black etc...
Originally Posted By barboy "You make it sound like that was a long time ago. It isn't." Yes, it was a long time ago. I'll one up you and say a VERY long time ago not in the strict sense of years but as far as societal change. I chose "1985" somewhat arbitrarily. But back then the world was a very different place. no internet no cell phones less political correctness seat belts were not required(at least in CA) no Tower of Terror far less tv offerings housing was more affordable HMO's were less of a player less acceptance of gays less acceptance of racial minorities fewer sexual harassment lawsuits baseball and football dominated sports less restrictive school conduct codes No Mission Space a more liberal AFDC less concern about sexual misconduct nuclear war worries less scrutiny of public figures' every single move or word aifare was relatively more expensive far less off-shoring of quality jobs less domination of large chain retailers sports arenas had a non- company names like "Three Rivers" and "Candlestick Park". Clearly not all 22 years are equal. Our world did not change much from 1685- 1707 but from 1985- 2007 it has.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"Sure, there are millions of people, unfortunately, who will not vote for someone based on race or gender or religion.">> <That would be the difference between winning and losing.> Sadly, yes. I was just making the point that some people DO make the distinction and vote for individuals. <But, I think not only will people not vote for someone who is black, for instance, they will also go out of their way to vote against them. People who would not ordinarily vote would come out to cast ballots against a black person. > Sadly, I agree with that, too. Dinkins ran twice against Guiliani for NYC mayor, barely beating him the first time, and barely losing the second. Both times it was just about 50/50. But NYC about 5 to 1 Democrat. What was interesting was this: in the black, heavily Democrat neighborhoods, Dinkins won handily, as you'd expect. Those neighborhoods also went heavily for Dem. state and local candidates in the same time period: Dukakis, Cuomo and Clinton. So the voting patterns of those neighborhoods was consistent. What was interesting was the also heavily-Democrat white neighborhoods. These neighborhoods also went heavily for Dukakis, Cuomo, and Clinton. Yet for mayor, they crossed party lines to do what they essentially never do - vote for the Republican -when the Democratic choice was black. Perhaps we're radically different now than in 1993 - but I don't think we're THAT different.
Originally Posted By barboy "barboy, do you think race relations in this country are so good now that people won't think about that at all at election time?" No, I don't believe that either.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I was thinking that maybe the presence of someone other than a rich, white male candidate might bring out voters in the otherwise lackluster 18-25 age group. Even though there are sure to be people who would not vote for someone specifically because they are female, or black, or whatever else, maybe voters who see a possibility for real change other than just "which rich white guy?" might come out in bigger (significant?) numbers.
