WASHINGTON, D.C. -- More than nine in 10 Americans say they would vote for a presidential candidate nominated by their party who happened to be black, Catholic, Hispanic, Jewish or a woman. Such willingness drops to eight in 10 for candidates who are evangelical Christians or are gays or lesbians. Between six and seven in 10 would vote for someone who is under 40 years of age, over 70, a Muslim or an atheist.
Just one group tested -- socialists -- receives majority opposition. Less than half of Americans, 45%, say they would vote for a socialist for president, while 53% say they would not.
These findings are based on a Gallup question asking, "Between now and the 2020 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [characteristic], would you vote for that person?"
Gallup first tested Americans' willingness to vote for candidates who don't fit the traditional Protestant white male mold in 1937, asking that year whether they would support a well-qualified Catholic, Jew or woman for president. Support for a woman as president was only 33% at that time but has since grown, as has support for other diverse candidates added to the list over the decades.
Since 1958, the sharpest increase in voting tolerance has been for blacks, followed by atheists, women, Jewish candidates and Catholics. More recently, the biggest shift has been for gay or lesbian candidates.
The latest results are based on a Gallup poll conducted Jan. 16-29, 2020. When Gallup last measured these attitudes, in 2019, the results were within a few percentage points of those found today.
Acceptance of Candidate Characteristics Differs by Party
Democrats express at least somewhat more willingness than Republicans to support most of the candidate types tested, with the widest gaps seen for Muslims, atheists and socialists. While at least two in three Democrats say they would vote for presidential candidates with these profiles, support among Republicans drops to just over 40% for Muslims and atheists, and to only 17% for socialists.
Republicans are more accepting than Democrats of evangelical Christians and candidates over 70. While President Donald Trump falls into the latter category, so do four of the leading Democratic candidates: Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bloomberg.
Republicans and Democrats are about equally likely to support Catholic and Jewish candidates.
The views of political independents fall midway between those of Republicans and Democrats for several candidate types -- including socialists, with less than half of independents saying they would vote for such a person.
Independents are closer to Democrats than Republicans in their greater reluctance to support an evangelical Christian candidate, and in their greater willingness to support a candidate who is a woman, gay or lesbian, someone under age 40, a Muslim or an atheist.
Bottom Line
As the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries get underway, it may be instructive to know that little prejudice stands in the way of Democratic as well as national support for candidates who happen to be Catholic, Hispanic, Jewish or female. Being especially young or advanced in age could pose minor appeal problems.
Being gay or lesbian, Muslim, an atheist or a socialist wouldn't cause much stir among Democrats, but these candidates could have difficulty attracting support from Republicans and, to a lesser extent, from political independents.
Disheartening to see still this kind of antipathy toward atheists even though I'm encourage by the upward trend in acceptance or at least a "willingness to vote" for. 45% "willingness to vote" for a socialist by independents, good luck with that.
My peoples, what are your thoughts about these numbers vis a vis the 2020 election and beyond?
Well you have had over 70 years of anti-socialism propaganda.
The middle class should be sceptical of Socialism. Socialism works one way in theory and another way in practice. In theory everyone is equal and costs are shared by everyone. In practice the rich and the poor eat the middle class. This is because it is easy for the rich to dominate the narrative and institutions that shape public opinion.
Not surprising, or shocking. Problem is what do Americans consider socialism. And looking at what people say online that covers left, center left, center, center right and right political parties from other capitalist countries.
Most people in the USA don't really understand socialism. And honestly, I wouldn't vote for a socialist either. The most successful economies are mixed.
Some see "socialism" for the "rich" and ask why can't the poor have socialism too? I see "socialism" for the "rich" and say lets take it away from them and that'll be the end of it.
@leicam6: my guess is that religous people dont trust somene without faith passing anything that could affect thier institutions. Thiers nothing wrong with being atheist, but I get how religous people wouldn't like it, I'm more agnostic myself. I dont know for sure. Thats where im at
Some see "socialism" for the "rich" and ask why can't the poor have socialism too? I see "socialism" for the "rich" and say lets take it away from them and that'll be the end of it.
I already mentioned the problem in my first post in this thread.
The rich already have the ability to use the media in order to frame the narrative and control the debate.
This forum is the perfect example. Most people emotional masturbate to outrage porn designed to control the narrative.
@Master_Live: yeah socialist policies are mixed into our current system already, but its still mainly capitalism, the problem with Bernie is while he is endorsing medicare for all and eliminating private insurance, hes also calling for open borders and supports giving free healthcare to illegal aliens as well. He does a horrible job explaining how this is sustainable. He will bring up smaller European countries which is a ruff comparison (they are mixed economies and tax over 40%) while also speaking on the good parts of Castro in Cuba.... Hes a mess, a big hypocritical mess.
In a CNN interview recently, when asked how he was going to pay for his proposals, he said " I'm not going to get into the nickels and dimes of everything"..
Yeah thats not going to fly... Hes going to need a SOLID plan figured out before trying to reconstruct the entire US economy. Free college for all, free healthcare for all, open borders, you know bernie used to refer to illegal immigration as a "Koch brothers scheme" then Trump comes in and he flip flops lol
Socialism in general shouldnt have to be connected to Bernie, but due to the current political landscape, Bernie is the poster boy for it, so the more ambiguous and hypocritical he is about it, then the public will view it unfavorably.
Obama was called a socialist and condemned it, Bernie wears it like a badge of honor. I wasnt a big fan of Obama but he was a much better canidate than Bernie. Bernie spent 40 years of his life in politics and hasn't accomplish anything.
The more I listen to Bernie the less faith i have in socialism actually working in the US, atleast at the level he is suggesting.
@jeezers: I don’t get it and it sounds pretty stupid to me, tbh. I’m not going to handwave bigotry. I’m not religious myself but it wouldn’t matter if elected officials were.
Well you have had over 70 years of anti-socialism propaganda.
The middle class should be sceptical of Socialism. Socialism works one way in theory and another way in practice. In theory everyone is equal and costs are shared by everyone. In practice the rich and the poor eat the middle class. This is because it is easy for the rich to dominate the narrative and institutions that shape public opinion.
The irony, most if not all socialist democratic countries do comfortably better than the US better in terms of quality of life index now called 'Where to be born index'
I am atheist. And I get preached to more by atheists than I do Christians. I've listened to atheists discuss plans to mass persecute people for being christian. I hear them with all their ideas about how organized religion should be eliminated. Until atheists, as a whole, can respect the belief of others in the same way they preach, but rarely practice, then there will always be mistrust of them.
And about Socialism, I think it's cute when people think Scandinavian countries are socialist. Any line of BS it takes to spread the agenda I guess. Voters aren't dumb and when most people who advocate for socialism lie to do so, or when they show about as much knowledge on the subject as those on this board have displayed, it's hard to take them as credible.
Safety nets like Medicaid available for those who need it, when they need it, paid for by taxes isn't socialism. Government eliminating all insurance companies and becoming the sole provider of healthcare in the country, that is socialism.
On the flip side, when you poll Americans on many of these "socialist" policies the right screams about without calling them socialist in the poll question they beat out the GOP ideas.
Not hard to do though. The GOP ideas on most things are pretty embarrassing and less popular.
@Master_Live: I'm just saying, when you poll the actual policies without any label they do better, or at the least still decimated the GOP alternative in popularity.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the last GOP health care plan had 12%, Medicare for all at 40%, and Medicare for all that want it at 70%. A majority 58% for free college. Or things like a higher minimum wage which the GOP also call socialism at 67%, as well as increasing taxes for the super rich at 64%.
Some see "socialism" for the "rich" and ask why can't the poor have socialism too? I see "socialism" for the "rich" and say lets take it away from them and that'll be the end of it.
Which candidates are advocating to do that, and how?
Most people in the USA don't really understand socialism. And honestly, I wouldn't vote for a socialist either. The most successful economies are mixed.
Right, but, I don't think very many are seriously suggesting a total social economy. We already have socialist entities in the likes of education, police, roads, etc. And we do so because they are in the public interest.
Whether or not a healthy and educated public is in the public interest should not be a point of argument, but somehow it is.
@eoten: yeah ive always felt that many atheists tend to be too preachy for my liking. Even more than christians at times.
We get it, your so smart for not believing in a higher power, its all make believe and you know better! Listening to atheists bitch about how dumb and stupid religous people are is just as annoying as listening to the most hardcore of bible thumpers.
When in actuality, nobody knows for sure where the universe came from or why anything exists.
Its like a wall and no one has ever seen the other side of it, but the people argue about how they know whats on the other side of it. Both of them are full of it.
@eoten: yeah ive always felt that many atheists tend to be too preachy for my liking. Even more than christians at times.
We get it, your so smart for not believing in a higher power, its all make believe and you know better! Listening to atheists bitch about how dumb and stupid religous people are is just as annoying as listening to the most hardcore of bible thumpers.
When in actuality, nobody knows for sure where the universe came from or why anything exists.
Its like a wall and no one has ever seen the other side of it, but the people argue about how they know whats on the other side of it. Both of them are full of it.
At least atheist don't wake your ass up at 10am on a Saturday to hand you a Jesus track.
Far cry from the 20 million people killed by the Soviet Union, many for being Christian, or the Chinese atrocities against religion. The reality is, militant atheist regimes have been the most brutal and most destructive to human life in human history, killing multitudes more in a 50 year period than all the crusades and all the inquisitions combined. So, society has a reason to mistrust a lot of the crap atheist politicians have historically preached, and that tends to be the abolition and persecution of organized religion.
As for Socialism, I get a chuckle at how many pro "socialists" on these boards haven't the slightest clue what it even is, when they start talking about schools, police, or welfare safety nets. Socialism is very easy to explain. It isn't any tax funded industry or service, Socialism is when the federal government takes full control of that entire industry. Meaning public schools isn't socialism, but banning private schools making the government become the sole provider of education, that would be. They do not understand this so they support an absolutely oppressive by nature ideology because the people, like Bernie, selling them on this aren't being honest about what he is actually selling.
So yes, "universal healthcare" is socialist because it makes government the sole provider of healthcare. The only people uninsured in the US right now are those who are not working, able bodied, yet not looking for a job (willfully unemployed) or people working for themselves, or opting out of it from their place of employment and taking that risk. What Bernie preaches isn't to help the lower class, they're already covered. What he preaches is a socialist takeover of the entire industry by the federal government, which right now, 2020, means Donald Trump and Mitch McConnel would be in control of your health, no one else, and there'd be nothing you could do about it.
@eoten: yeah ive always felt that many atheists tend to be too preachy for my liking. Even more than christians at times.
We get it, your so smart for not believing in a higher power, its all make believe and you know better! Listening to atheists bitch about how dumb and stupid religous people are is just as annoying as listening to the most hardcore of bible thumpers.
When in actuality, nobody knows for sure where the universe came from or why anything exists.
Its like a wall and no one has ever seen the other side of it, but the people argue about how they know whats on the other side of it. Both of them are full of it.
At least atheist don't wake your ass up at 10am on a Saturday to hand you a Jesus track.
@eoten: By your own definition, Medicare for all isn't socialism since hospitals and doctor's offices would still be privately run. I guess you could say it's socialist insurance.
Anyhow, MFA isn't something people want just for the uninsured, many people are who have insurance are fed up with it. Our system may be private, but it somehow mannaged to become more complicated, more expensive, and less effective than the rest of the developed world. It's not even about wheather or not it's socialist, most people just want our system to suck less.
MFA may not even be the best idea, but its the only clear alternative with any real momentum. If Republicans want to fight it, they need to come together behind fucking something. Cause that repeal and relace shit show impressed no one.
Far cry from the 20 million people killed by the Soviet Union, many for being Christian, or the Chinese atrocities against religion. The reality is, militant atheist regimes have been the most brutal and most destructive to human life in human history, killing multitudes more in a 50 year period than all the crusades and all the inquisitions combined. So, society has a reason to mistrust a lot of the crap atheist politicians have historically preached, and that tends to be the abolition and persecution of organized religion.
As for Socialism, I get a chuckle at how many pro "socialists" on these boards haven't the slightest clue what it even is, when they start talking about schools, police, or welfare safety nets. Socialism is very easy to explain. It isn't any tax funded industry or service, Socialism is when the federal government takes full control of that entire industry. Meaning public schools isn't socialism, but banning private schools making the government become the sole provider of education, that would be. They do not understand this so they support an absolutely oppressive by nature ideology because the people, like Bernie, selling them on this aren't being honest about what he is actually selling.
So yes, "universal healthcare" is socialist because it makes government the sole provider of healthcare. The only people uninsured in the US right now are those who are not working, able bodied, yet not looking for a job (willfully unemployed) or people working for themselves, or opting out of it from their place of employment and taking that risk. What Bernie preaches isn't to help the lower class, they're already covered. What he preaches is a socialist takeover of the entire industry by the federal government, which right now, 2020, means Donald Trump and Mitch McConnel would be in control of your health, no one else, and there'd be nothing you could do about it.
Religion was abolished in Russia officially, unofficially it was more "don't ask, don't tell". The Holodomor was a purge of the farming class, as they were pretty much unionized and still held power. Other than that, any ideological dissident was a problem, it had very little to do with religion.
And I know plenty of working people who make too much to qualify for government assistance anything but can't afford insurance because yes, medical bills, keeping the car running, keeping the kids fed...
Seriously, this whole idea of 'everyone pick themselves up by their bootstraps' is exactly as ideologically dumb as communism. And I mean real communism: no state, just the local apparatus. They're both on the same side of stupid.
And before anyone here has a brain fart, socialism =/= communism. One is an economic model, the other is a model of government.
@eoten: yeah ive always felt that many atheists tend to be too preachy for my liking. Even more than christians at times.
We get it, your so smart for not believing in a higher power, its all make believe and you know better! Listening to atheists bitch about how dumb and stupid religous people are is just as annoying as listening to the most hardcore of bible thumpers.
When in actuality, nobody knows for sure where the universe came from or why anything exists.
Its like a wall and no one has ever seen the other side of it, but the people argue about how they know whats on the other side of it. Both of them are full of it.
At least atheist don't wake your ass up at 10am on a Saturday to hand you a Jesus track.
Nor do they threaten you with eternal damnation, the most horrific of fates, if you don't believe as they do, but not before assuring you that it's not THEM that believe you deserve to go there, they're only the "loving" messenger who wishes to save you. But hey, it's YOUR choice, even if you aren't at fault for being born into a world where eternal torture is your destiny.
Christianity wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't attempt to wrap up its disgusting doctrine in virtue.
@eoten: yeah ive always felt that many atheists tend to be too preachy for my liking. Even more than christians at times.
We get it, your so smart for not believing in a higher power, its all make believe and you know better! Listening to atheists bitch about how dumb and stupid religous people are is just as annoying as listening to the most hardcore of bible thumpers.
When in actuality, nobody knows for sure where the universe came from or why anything exists.
Its like a wall and no one has ever seen the other side of it, but the people argue about how they know whats on the other side of it. Both of them are full of it.
At least atheist don't wake your ass up at 10am on a Saturday to hand you a Jesus track.
Nor do they threaten you with eternal damnation, the most horrific of fates, if you don't believe as they do, but not before assuring you that it's not THEM that believe you deserve to go there, they're only the "loving" messenger who wishes to save you. But hey, it's YOUR choice, even if you aren't at fault for being born into a world where eternal torture is your destiny.
Christianity wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't attempt to wrap up its disgusting doctrine in virtue.
Do you think that's just Christianity? And do you think they're the only ones that pretending to be virtuous?
@eoten: yeah ive always felt that many atheists tend to be too preachy for my liking. Even more than christians at times.
We get it, your so smart for not believing in a higher power, its all make believe and you know better! Listening to atheists bitch about how dumb and stupid religous people are is just as annoying as listening to the most hardcore of bible thumpers.
When in actuality, nobody knows for sure where the universe came from or why anything exists.
Its like a wall and no one has ever seen the other side of it, but the people argue about how they know whats on the other side of it. Both of them are full of it.
At least atheist don't wake your ass up at 10am on a Saturday to hand you a Jesus track.
Nor do they threaten you with eternal damnation, the most horrific of fates, if you don't believe as they do, but not before assuring you that it's not THEM that believe you deserve to go there, they're only the "loving" messenger who wishes to save you. But hey, it's YOUR choice, even if you aren't at fault for being born into a world where eternal torture is your destiny.
Christianity wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't attempt to wrap up its disgusting doctrine in virtue.
Do you think that's just Christianity? And do you think they're the only ones that pretending to be virtuous?
I don't think Christians pretend to be virtuous at all, I believe they truly think they are.
Aside, what's your point? That because others do it it's somehow less repugnant? Atheism never tells me I am deserving of a fate that is unfathomable in its horror, due to nothing but a lack of belief. A demand that I abdicate my critical faculties for dogma, enforced by fear.
@eoten: yeah ive always felt that many atheists tend to be too preachy for my liking. Even more than christians at times.
We get it, your so smart for not believing in a higher power, its all make believe and you know better! Listening to atheists bitch about how dumb and stupid religous people are is just as annoying as listening to the most hardcore of bible thumpers.
When in actuality, nobody knows for sure where the universe came from or why anything exists.
Its like a wall and no one has ever seen the other side of it, but the people argue about how they know whats on the other side of it. Both of them are full of it.
At least atheist don't wake your ass up at 10am on a Saturday to hand you a Jesus track.
Nor do they threaten you with eternal damnation, the most horrific of fates, if you don't believe as they do, but not before assuring you that it's not THEM that believe you deserve to go there, they're only the "loving" messenger who wishes to save you. But hey, it's YOUR choice, even if you aren't at fault for being born into a world where eternal torture is your destiny.
Christianity wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't attempt to wrap up its disgusting doctrine in virtue.
Do you think that's just Christianity? And do you think they're the only ones that pretending to be virtuous?
I don't think Christians pretend to be virtuous at all, I believe they truly think they are.
Aside, what's your point? That because others do it it's somehow less repugnant? Atheism never tells me I am deserving of a fate that is unfathomable in its horror, due to nothing but a lack of belief. A demand that I abdicate my critical faculties for dogma, enforced by fear.
Yeah? So do atheists. Do YOU have a point? You're pretending that being atheist makes you more virtuous, it doesn't. The sooner atheists realize their particular beliefs do not make them special, or better than others, the sooner people may respect and trust them. But there's a lot of self-absorbed arrogance and tons of intolerance within the atheist community as they preach against those things, claiming them to be traits unique to religious folk.
@Master_Live: I'm just saying, when you poll the actual policies without any label they do better, or at the least still decimated the GOP alternative in popularity.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the last GOP health care plan had 12%, Medicare for all at 40%, and Medicare for all that want it at 70%. A majority 58% for free college. Or things like a higher minimum wage which the GOP also call socialism at 67%, as well as increasing taxes for the super rich at 64%.
Like I have always said, polls are polls and their results should be taken into account when making decisions but they aren't the sole determinant or even the most important determinant.
If the GOP think repealing the Affordable Care Act is the best course for the country they should do that and let the chips fall where they may.
Some see "socialism" for the "rich" and ask why can't the poor have socialism too? I see "socialism" for the "rich" and say lets take it away from them and that'll be the end of it.
Which candidates are advocating to do that, and how?
They are people in this thread advocating for that, which is what I was referring to.
Regarding candidates, Sanders have said:
We are living, in many ways, in a socialist society right now," Sanders said. "Problem is, as Dr. Martin Luther King reminded us, we have socialism for the very rich, rugged individualism for the poor."
Yeah? So do atheists. Do YOU have a point? You're pretending that being atheist makes you more virtuous, it doesn't. The sooner atheists realize their particular beliefs do not make them special, or better than others, the sooner people may respect and trust them. But there's a lot of self-absorbed arrogance and tons of intolerance within the atheist community as they preach against those things, claiming them to be traits unique to religious folk.
There are asshole atheists, but I promise they were assholes first. You can't judge a whole swath of people based on the loudest.
The big difference here is that atheism has no canonical tenets that claim we are the chosen ones and all others are evil. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, for instance.
Where atheists become condescending is when factual, observational and tangible evidence is dismissed in lieu of dogma. But that's a judgement based on consequence, rather than as the result of default unworthiness of the moral destitute as per religious judgement.
Most people in the USA don't really understand socialism. And honestly, I wouldn't vote for a socialist either. The most successful economies are mixed.
Right, but, I don't think very many are seriously suggesting a total social economy. We already have socialist entities in the likes of education, police, roads, etc. And we do so because they are in the public interest.
Whether or not a healthy and educated public is in the public interest should not be a point of argument, but somehow it is.
Oh yeah. The "socialists" and "libertarians" in American politics are all talking about mixed economies. Just with different ratios of A and B.
Some see "socialism" for the "rich" and ask why can't the poor have socialism too? I see "socialism" for the "rich" and say lets take it away from them and that'll be the end of it.
Which candidates are advocating to do that, and how?
They are people in this thread advocating for that, which is what I was referring to.
Regarding candidates, Sanders have said:
We are living, in many ways, in a socialist society right now," Sanders said. "Problem is, as Dr. Martin Luther King reminded us, we have socialism for the very rich, rugged individualism for the poor."
Some see "socialism" for the "rich" and ask why can't the poor have socialism too? I see "socialism" for the "rich" and say lets take it away from them and that'll be the end of it.
Which candidates are advocating to do that, and how?
They are people in this thread advocating for that, which is what I was referring to.
Regarding candidates, Sanders have said:
We are living, in many ways, in a socialist society right now," Sanders said. "Problem is, as Dr. Martin Luther King reminded us, we have socialism for the very rich, rugged individualism for the poor."
Yeah? So do atheists. Do YOU have a point? You're pretending that being atheist makes you more virtuous, it doesn't. The sooner atheists realize their particular beliefs do not make them special, or better than others, the sooner people may respect and trust them. But there's a lot of self-absorbed arrogance and tons of intolerance within the atheist community as they preach against those things, claiming them to be traits unique to religious folk.
There are asshole atheists, but I promise they were assholes first. You can't judge a whole swath of people based on the loudest.
The big difference here is that atheism has no canonical tenets that claim we are the chosen ones and all others are evil. 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, for instance.
Where atheists become condescending is when factual, observational and tangible evidence is dismissed in lieu of dogma. But that's a judgement based on consequence, rather than as the result of default unworthiness of the moral destitute as per religious judgement.
Beautifully stated, and spot on (especially the bolded).
@eoten: Yeah? So do atheists. Do YOU have a point? You're pretending that being atheist makes you more virtuous, it doesn't. The sooner atheists realize their particular beliefs do not make them special, or better than others, the sooner people may respect and trust them. But there's a lot of self-absorbed arrogance and tons of intolerance within the atheist community as they preach against those things, claiming them to be traits unique to religious folk.
Hell is a concept that is unique to many religious, is it not? So tell me how it's a lot of "self-absorbed arrogance and tons of intolerance within the atheist community" to preach against this, which is the only thing I did?
But you're right, I am intolerant towards people telling me I'll be tortured forever simply for not believing as they do while sitting there masquerading it as love and forgiveness; that I'm offered "salvation" from the very one who placed me into this predicament in the first place.
There's no arrogance whatsoever in repudiating the concept of eternal punishment. It's abhorrent.
@eoten: I agree with some of your post, except your main argument about healthcare. Universal healthcare does not de facto mean that the gov't is the sole provider of healthcare. There is a range of models with single payer systems where the actual providers of the healthcare service include the private sector.
Log in to comment