Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Top Presidential Disqualifiers
The great unwashed have been polled by WSJ/NBC, and have spoken. The top three traits causing voters to be uncomfortable or have reservations about a president candidate are: 1. No previous elected experience (excludes Carson and Fiorina) 2. A leader of the Tea Party movement (excludes Cruz and possibly Rubio); and 3. No college degree (excludes Walker).
While I haven’t been able to dig up the methodology on this poll — and I suspect Democrats are over-sampled, as usual — I believe these results are instructive. The most favorable traits among the general electorate are for an African-American or a woman, which verifies my speculation that Hillary picks up six points just for being a woman, the way Barack Obama picked up six for being African-American. It also tells me that Americans are enamored by what identity politics says about them way more than they are interested in improving the country. I think that’s sad, but true.
The poll also indicates how hung-up the country has become on credentials, and how badly damaged the Tea Party brand has become. There’s also something deeply disturbing about the state of the nation’s moral compass that “corrupt” doesn’t even register as a category. That may be a flaw in the poll or, perhaps — as long as your team wins — it doesn’t matter if your candidate regularly sells her influence to the highest bidder <cough>Hillary Clinton<cough>. Hard to tell without more information.
Among Democrats, the highest negatives are:
- A leader of the Tea Party movement;
- No previous elected experience;
- No college degree; and
- An evangelical Christian (surprise!).
Among Republicans, the highest negatives are:
- No previous elected experience;
- A person who is gay or lesbian (I don’t think this would be a thing if it weren’t for the SSM battle);
- No college degree; and
- First term senator.
What do you think? Are these traits of any concern to you when picking your primary or general election candidate? Or do you have other, greater concerns?
As an aside, is the Tea Party brand redeemable with average voters?
Image Credit: Joseph Sohm / Shutterstock.com
Published in Politics
I don’t know how many people agree with me, but there is only one issue that really disqualifies a candidate for me: that he opposes the removal of the illegal aliens. If he wants them to stay, he won’t get my vote.
All the other issues are downstream from this.
Huh. Which candidate is talking up deportations?
None, unfortunately.
Regarding the source, it was Ricochet member Tim Groseclose who wrote the book on media bias about ten years ago. He quantified for us the disconnect at the Wall Street Journal between the news pages and the editorial pages. The editorial pages were conservative, the news operation was in the middle of the pack of center-left journalists.
Does anyone know why the WSJ teams with NBC News for this poll?
I agree, it seems designed to hurt several of the GOP candidates, especially the most conservative ones.
Regarding a college degree, I think this is put in this poll specifically to hurt Scott Walker.
I don’t think it is a disqualifier at all. I like his story and I could get behind a Walker candidacy.
There is a subtle difference between “got a college education” and “got a college degree,” and the Leftists and the RINOS will exploit this difference to hurt Walker. That makes me even more kindly inclined towards him than before.
People want the president to be intelligent and well-informed, and I think that answer is a stand-in for that. If a candidate clearly appears competent and knowledgeable (as Walker manifestly did in Wisconsin) I think the issue is moot. If a candidate makes significant verbal stumbles or appears ignorant, it will fit into a narrative.
I’d say the college issue makes the stakes a little higher for Walker — a major foreign policy misstatement would hurt him more than, say, Jeb Bush. Absent that, I don’t think swing voters elsewhere will care when the Wisconsin electorate didn’t.
Anyone know if Groseclose’s analysis was made before or after the paper changed hands in 2007? I recall reading somewhere that the news pages began to lean right after the change in ownership.
I am pretty sure his research spanned the period from 2005 to 2009, so it is possible that the WSJ news pages have moved to the right. I think that it would take a serious-minded effort by ownership, though, since they are located in New York and almost any journalist they might hire has been thoroughly indoctrinated by the leftist faculties of journalism. Unless they deliberately start hiring from Evangelical colleges it will be a tough adjustment to make.
Check out his website:
http://www.timgroseclose.com/
Ha! I like Jindal and would like to see him president, but I don’t think it will happen. They use television and other visual media in political contests now you know.
If everyone else jumps off the primary cliff for Jindal I will too, but I’ll be scared.
If Jindal were to maintain his normal rate of speech he would be fine. Someone tried to slow him down when he delivered the response to the State of the Union speech that one time, and he ended up sounding simple-minded.