[aldo_14]

Is this real?

[vyper]

And people in Real Life wonder why I rant about religion...

[NGTM-1R]

I doubt that's an unbiased poll, actually. Anti-Catholicism is after all the last of the respectable prejudices.

[aldo_14]

Anti-Catholicism, at least in my experience, tends to generally be more directed towards the pope and Vatican than the followers, though.

[Bobboau]

I'm suprized the bias against the last two-five is so small. I would have expected at least twice as much bias against atheists and gays.
Mormons and multiple marages I would expect more hate as well.
would have expected the 'old' group to have faired better though.

[Taristin]

IIRC there's only been one catholic president, right? Kennedy? And look what happened to him >..>;;

[Turambar]

well then, guess they wont elect me, i'll have to take it by force.

[Bob-san]

Religious bias sucks ass...

Generally, people want someone who has faith in SOMETHING (namely, a God). They don't want a wishy-washy person who will bend whatever way society bends (ehem, HILARY CLINTON MUST NOT BE PRESIDENT FOR THAT VERY REASON).

I would personally vote for a woman or a black; I would really like it if Colin Powell would run for the presidency... I think he would be an excellent candidate. He is a moderate, willing to help out Liberals if it is right. I believe that both democrats and republicans would vote him into office; he seems to me to be the right man for the job.

But whatever... all I really care is that someone like Hilary Clinton (and other, worse, politicians) don't get into the Presidency... many New York-ers still believe her husband was a great president...

All we need now is a "I survived Roe v. Wade" shirt for everyone born in the last 34 or so years!

[aldo_14]

Generally, people want someone who has faith in SOMETHING (namely, a God). They don't want a wishy-washy person who will bend whatever way society bends (ehem, HILARY CLINTON MUST NOT BE PRESIDENT FOR THAT VERY REASON).

I would have thought the former was bad (faith is - by definition- unbendable and irrational belief, which is fine for God but not foreign policy), and the latter is surely democracy emphasised.

[Bobboau]

just cause you don't think there is an invisible man liveing in the clouds doesn't mean you are "wishy-washy"

[aldo_14]

just cause you don't think there is an invisible man liveing in the clouds doesn't mean you are "wishy-washy"

Oh absolutely; I'm just saying there's 2 sides to every coin, and conviction can easily become intransigence and inflexibility.  Personally, as long as it's kept personal, I couldn't give a monkeys about whether a leader is religious or not.

[Bobboau]

I was actually talking at the other guy...

[aldo_14]

I was actually talking at the other guy...

It applies to my statement as well though, I think.  (that's my story, and I'm sticking to it!)

[KappaWing]

In the question it says "your" party, but the Republican party would never dream of nominating most of these categories. The survey presents an unrealistic, unrelatable scenario to half of the people who took it.

[Charismatic]

Yay the anit-atheists win. I declare a day of world peace.

[KappaWing]

Yay the anit-atheists win. I declare a day of world peace.

must.... resist.... urge!

[Polpolion]

Yay for prejudice and discrimination!

[Ghostavo]

Now all we need is to find an atheist, homosexual, 72 years old, hispanic woman who's been married 3 times.

Anyway, I'd be surprised if those who answered those polls knew what an atheist is.

[Nuclear1]

http://politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/USA%20Today%20poll.GIF

Is this real?

Is it really religious bias, or is it just human nature?  Of course you'll want to elect someone who has values similar to your own.  What the poll fails to show is why someone wouldn't vote for a particular candidate; hell, Bill Clinton was a terrific president, but there are those who wouldn't vote for him due to his issues with marital unfaithfulness, or Robert Byrd for being a former KKK member, or Patrick Kennedy for having a drug problem.

"Well-qualified" and "well-liked", unfortunately, don't really go hand-in-hand in American politics anymore.  People will jump onboard with candidates with fantastic stories or a lot of hype (see:  Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama) but ignore those who are genuinely qualified for the job (see:  Evan Bayh). 

People will nitpick candidates and politicians for the most stupid reasons.  That's a fact of life.  However, the reason I typically don't give polls too much credit is because of the information that the poll doesn't offer or didn't ask.  It could show that people would oppose a Catholic president simply because he is Catholic, or it could show that they oppose him because some of his Catholic views may play too big a role in his politics.  In other words, what's really being looked at here:  is it the people's religious bias, or the politician's religious bias?  I'm willing to bet money that it's a fair mix of both.

And what exactly does "well-qualified" mean?  A Harvard law degree, six years in the state legislature, and twelve years or so in Congress, but someone who is known to be a religious advocate?  Someone who can keep an open mind and not let his religious beliefs or racial affiliations influence his decisions to the point of favoritism, but has little political experience?

[TrashMan]

If it's an election, then everyone has the RIGHT to elect whomever he wants FOR WHATEVER REASON HE WANTS..right?

What the hell is biased or predjudiced about?