Sense Presidential Poll
Per Morning Edition on NPR, in a poll commissioned by the Hearst Newspapers released in time for President's Day, two-thirds of respondents said America is ready for a woman president. Nine out of 10 Democrats say they'd vote for a woman. Seven out of 10 Republicans would. And the top two candidates: Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice.
Between the following ten categories, in what order do you think Americans will elect a Presidential candidate who is acknowledged to be a member of the category? If you see the same person being a pioneer in more than one category, as for example a black woman, you can indicate that by assigning the same rank to each category. I’ll post my opinion after a few others do so, or else at the end of the week.
Asian
Atheist
Black
Disabled
Jew
Hispanic
Homosexual
Muslim
Obese
Woman
posted by Tom Blake | 12:22 PM
4 Comments:
Jew
Black
Woman
Disabled
The following have no chance, so order is irrelevant, but I'll try.
Asian
Hispanic
Muslim
Obese
Homosexual
That leaves one: atheist. I have not included this category because no serious politician would admit to being an atheist, no matter what his or her religious beliefs are. The other categories cannot be faked. So I put atheist last because just by running on that ticket shows total incompetence.
This is fun. How about doing another one that readers are invited to pick professions that should be barred from running for president? My categories would include actors, preachers, disk jockeys, sports announcers, and close relatives of former presidents. (Yes I would happily trade Hillary for not having to live with W.)
John from Phoenix
I tend to agree with John's rankings, with the exception of "obese"-- if a _male_ (NOT female candidate) has an attractive ('manly," rugged) face and laugh, I think his size might be spinnable as just a manifestation of his inner solidity, gravity and substance (and on a more unconsciously effective level: american imperialism and dominance). The guy would have to display a certain amount of "control" in how he moved his physique, however. Rather than coming across as a flabby gym reject, he'd show muscle, just using his extra mass for a boost of force.
I think there might be a greater chance of me (scrawny, female, gay-friendly, pan-spiritual, dirt-poor writer) being elected right now than a candidate from one or more of the other categories (ex, Muslim).
"Disabled" would certaintly depend on the disability and, of course, the spin. Ex, wheelchairs could be heroic; quadrapelegic, too depressing. No disability that marred the perfect image of USA would be welcome. Colorblindness, certainly, yet near impossible.
Anna of VT
I am somewhat in agreement with John and Anna, but with a few significant differences. I think the right Hispanic would be highly electable, in part because they are now the largest ethnic minority, but also because many, like NM Governor Richardson, are only incidentally viewed as Hispanic. I do not think any Jew could be elected, because of anti-semitism and concern that having a Jewish President would make all the Muslim nations even more hostile to us than they already are.
I give Asians a higher chance, maybe out of some West Coast myopia to the fact Asians are not as highly regarded by whites to the east of us - here in Washington State we had a Chinese Governor for several terms before electing our second woman Governor - the first woman governor was probably lesbian but that was at a time when almost all homosexuals were in the closet and most people had their heads in the sand about the realities of sex.
I agree with Anna that disability as a factor depends on the nature of the disability and how it was caused. Supposedly a soldier disabled in battle could be elected, though Bob Dole could not win the Presidency and Max Cleland's paraplegia was discredited by Republicans who claimed his injuries were caused by his own negligence. If a wounded vet runs as a Republican he will have a better chance, because a wounded Democrat vet will never be given crefdit for his service, as shown by the attacks on Kerry's service medals.
There are a few obese people in Congress, notably Congrressman Nadler, but Anna is right in pointing out that a rotund male has more chance than a rotund female. One thing we probably all agree on is an acknowleded atheist would be at the bottom.
Here is my list.
Viable candidates in order of likely election:
Hispanic
Black
Woman [the first woman President will be white]
Marginal possibilites:
Asian
Disabled [with right nature and cause]
Obese [in accord with Anna's analysis]
Not gonna happen:
Jew
Homosexual
Muslim
Atheist
As for barring professions, the two worst Presidents we have had since the Vietnam War were an actor and a ne'er do well.
Anna has good insight regarding obesity. As I was reading her analysis, I thought of Raymond Burr in that courtroom drama (I can't remember the name of the show). He was fatter than a pig, but he had gravitas and was attractive in a suit. Then I thought of Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meier (sp?). They were stout woman as national leaders, but I don't think anyone would call them obese. They both looked like a typical representation of the females of their nations. Doing a quick mind search, I can't think of an obese US President since Taft, 1909 - 1913. That was a long time ago. Centuries ago obesity was associated with wealth and status. Today it's a disability. Taft was elected in a time closer to the former association. And he wasn't subjected to national TV scrutiny. While I agree with Anna that there is a difference between male and female obesity, I'm not changing my ranking for obesity.
I put Jew at the top of my list. In my experience predjudice against Jews is very low in the US. But Tom's insight that the American people would not vote for a Jew for fear of inflaming international hatreds is a good one. Sadly, I will have to move Jews to the group having no chance.
I also agree with Anna about disability. If the disability is obesity or schizophrenia, no chance. If the disability is bi-polarism or impotence, we might not notice. Several presidents have had disabilities and some of them did quite well and others not so well: Franklin Roosevelt, Lincoln, Kennedy, Nixon, and W (assuming stupidity is a disability). So disability moves to "depends".
Tom's admission of west coast myopia to Asians is apt. They have no chance of becoming president. Nor would they unite in a politcal program to elect one of their own. The American Asian leaders are much more interested in technical and financial careers.
Tom through a wrinkle into the rankings by introducing a camouflaged Hispanic. I agree that the American people would vote for a man named Richardson with no accent. But they would not vote for Alberto Gutieras (sp?) a Phoenix politician who has held many offices and who has a engaging accent.
John from Phoenix
Post a Comment
<< Home