What Voters Don't Want

WaPo poll:

According to voters, being over the age of 72, a Mormon, twice divorced or a smoker all are bigger drags on a candidate's support than is gender or race. In this poll, nearly six in 10 Americans said they would be less likely to vote for an older candidate, three in 10 less likely to vote for a Mormon, a quarter less likely to support a candidate with two divorces and 21 percent less likely to back someone who smokes cigarettes. And for each of these, those turned off by the attribute greatly outnumbered those who said they would be more likely to support such a candidate. For example, while 58 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate older than 72, a scant 3 percent said they would be more likely to prefer such a candidate.

Of course, attitudes can also shift, "In this poll, 29 percent said they would be less likely to support a Mormon candidate -- second only to age as a vote deterrent -- but that is down from 35 percent in December." On the other hand, anti-Mormon sentiment is highest among white evangelical Protestants who are disproportionately represented among the GOP primary electorate. The opposition to a smoker (.e., possible Obama) seems interesting and goes to show how successful public health groups have been in their efforts to not just bring wider public attention to the health risks of smoking, but actually turn smokers into a socially stigmatized group.

Comments

My only caution against this sort of analysis is that committed Republicans aren't going to like Romney or Guiliani - right up to the moment they vote for him (either). Republicans are willing to take a hit for the team and vote for the candidate who will support the key points (and who sounds the key dog whistles) when they have to do so to beat the Democrats. And Republicans by nature also do what they are told by their "superiors"; in this case the Republican Party elite who chooses the candidates.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | February 27, 2007 10:16 AM

Let's hope Obama can stick to it. I read that he's on nicorette gum now, and trying to humanize and innoculate himself on the issue by letting it be known that his wife is after him to quite smoking.

The libertarian in me is really turned off by social stigmatization of smokers, but there's no doubt that this is an effective way to alter behavior. It is possible, to a great extent, to legislate morality because people pick up a lot of their behavioral norms from laws (such as laws banning smoking in various places).

If there really is a looming crisis in social security (and I'm not saying there is), couldn't the problem be solved by having the gov't hand out free packs of cigerettes to retirees?

Posted by Jim W | February 27, 2007 10:24 AM

If there really is a looming crisis in social security (and I'm not saying there is), couldn't the problem be solved by having the gov't hand out free packs of cigerettes to retirees?

Probably, though Medicare costs might go up. The real programmatic beneficiary of smoking is Medicaid which covers nursing home bills for a wide swathe of low-to-mid income senior citizens. Treating alzheimer's patients and so forth is extremely expensive, and it's much cheaper for someone to just get lung cancer and die.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 27, 2007 10:26 AM

According to voters, being over the age of 72, a Mormon, twice divorced or a smoker all are bigger drags on a candidate's support than is gender or race.

Read: "According to what voters will admit to a stranger, as opposed to the way they will actually act when in the voting booth, being over the age of ...."

If anyone is actually inferring from this poll that Barack Obama -- or even Hillary Clinton -- can win the presidency, he (or she) is profoundly wrong.

Posted by anonymous | February 27, 2007 10:29 AM

To some degree all of this makes me depressed, though probably the smoking (and the maybe the divorce)part the most. I suppose one might think that a candidate's religion is a good proxy for their political views. That's probably especially so when said candidate makes a big deal of his religious views and showcases them as a plus. People might think that being pretty old is a serious handicap for a president as well though how true that is is debatable. And _maybe_ being twice divorced shows something bad about one's character or judgement, but I'd sure want to know more about the situation to say for sure. But smoking? What, of political significance, could that _possibly_ show? Nothing as far as I can see. So it's quite depressing that people are so dumb.

Posted by Matt | February 27, 2007 10:37 AM

Now if we could just get an ingrained stigma against Country & Western music I'd say progress was being made.

Posted by steve duncan | February 27, 2007 10:39 AM

Actually, from what my old statistics professor taught me, alcohol is a much bigger drag on Medicare than tobacco. Tobacco kills the people it kills quickly and efficiently, while chronic alcoholics can linger for years as a drain on the system.

Posted by Ben | February 27, 2007 10:40 AM

"The libertarian in me is really turned off by social stigmatization of smokers, but there's no doubt that this is an effective way to alter behavior. It is possible, to a great extent, to legislate morality because people pick up a lot of their behavioral norms from laws (such as laws banning smoking in various places)."

But, as we learn from the War on Drugs, there is a limit on the effectiveness of stimatization and reliance on it as a primary tactic goes hand in hand with increasingly dishonest attempts at stigmatization and increasingly draconian punishments for the stigmatized group.

Posted by MattXIV | February 27, 2007 10:44 AM

Also, remember that "less likely to vote for" isn't the same as "not likely to vote for" or "won't vote for."

Someone might be "less likely to vote for" a mormon candidate in comparison to an otherwise identical non mormon candidate, but that doesn't mean they'll vote for the mormon's opponent.

Posted by Patrick | February 27, 2007 10:51 AM

1) Unlike 'anonymous' I'm pretty confident in political scientists ability to poll for racial attitudes. They've been doing this for a while.

2) I don't get why the libertarians here dislike the social stigma about smoking this is showing. Isn't the whole point that society can regulate good behavior better than laws can?

3) The thing is being Mormon or a smoker or a divorcee isn't always obvious, especially to low-information voters who are making decisions based on these handicaps. You don't get reminded of these aspects every time you see them. Being black, or a woman, or 72 years old however is entirely unavoidable on every appearance.

4) However a lot of these stereotypes (mormon, black, woman) exist much stronger among Republican primary voters than Democratic ones. So hey, Romney still has more to worry about than Barack.

Posted by Tony V | February 27, 2007 10:52 AM

Am I the only non-smoker in the world who's more likely to vote for Obama because he smokes? To me, it sends a pretty clear signal that he's a normal human being. Also, in my experience, smokers are much nicer to be around than non-smokers, to make a gross generalization.

Posted by too many steves | February 27, 2007 10:59 AM

I'd be less likely to vote for twice divorced, dictator-loving Republicans, aged pandering, scab-brained Republicans, and Mormon Republicans who are running from their pasts.

But that's just me.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 27, 2007 11:01 AM

I was following a thread discussion on another blog when a familiar commenter I'd otherwise thought of as thoughtful & sane flatly stated that he wouldn't vote for Obama unless he was certain he had quit smoking. It seemed so odd that I pondered how common such single-issue people are. I guess this is an indicator.

There are smokers & non-smokers but among the non-smokers is a dedicated group of people who don't just refrain from smoking or find it distatseful, they actively despise it, and to a lesser degree, the people who partake in it.

Posted by DRR | February 27, 2007 11:15 AM

You could make a strong case that it's better to have a contented smoker in possession of the nuclear trigger than an agitated and nicotine-deprived former smoker.

Posted by Steve | February 27, 2007 11:19 AM

Tony V - I don't see in the article where it says that these stereotypes exist stronger among republicans.

Posted by Mike | February 27, 2007 11:25 AM

These are the kinds of questions to which people very regularly respond with lies or self-deception. For predicting actual voting behavior, my guess is that this poll's value is zero.

Posted by SqueakyRat | February 27, 2007 11:32 AM

My wife used to smoke on and off for a few years, and was paranoid about having people who she worked with finding out about it. I thought it was ridiculous to try to hide it. But, if there really are crazy zealots out there like what DRR is saying, then I can see the point.

Still, I hope I wouldn't let the stigma affect me, if I were a smoker.

I'm trying to think of something I would similarly try to hide from coworkers. The only things I can think of is having coworkers see me renting a porn video.

Posted by Jim W | February 27, 2007 11:36 AM

he wouldn't vote for Obama unless he was certain he had quit smoking. It seemed so odd that I pondered how common such single-issue people are.

I'm a smoker, and I don't find that suprising at all. You have no idea how many zealots on this issue are just out there walking around at this point in our culture. You can get prosletized to quit smoking nearly anywhere you can imagine; there are a lot of people simply so obsessed with it, as addicted to it as I am to cigarettes, that they will just stop what they are doing, no matter how urgent, and lecture you. It's a very special religion all its own, and there are a lot of very active adherents. There's even a subset of folks who sniff for tobacco odors on your clothing and then make faces of disgust.

Posted by artappraiser | February 27, 2007 11:38 AM

"2) I don't get why the libertarians here dislike the social stigma about smoking this is showing. Isn't the whole point that society can regulate good behavior better than laws can?"

A lot of libertarians hold Millian views about social stigmatization in addition to their political views. Also, since smoking is actively being legislated on, there is concern over the potential for a villianization feedback mechanism where stigmatizing behavior leads to increased legal sanctions which lead to increased stigmatization.

Posted by MattXIV | February 27, 2007 11:50 AM

Poor guy, having to be relaxed and charming to thousands of people a day while quitting.

Posted by aleks | February 27, 2007 12:00 PM

Nonwithstanding polling statistics to the contrary, I still think having a cigarette now and again wouldn't be a bad thing for a presidential candidate (at least in the general election). The smoker vote is pretty damn large.

Posted by Korha | February 27, 2007 12:05 PM

I've seen this polling data noted in several places and nobody brings up the likelyhood that people will underreport their sexist and racist tendencies. Nobody wants to say that they won't vote for blacks or women, even anonymously, because they don't want to think of themselves that way. That kind of prejudice isn't treated as leniently as anti-Mormon, agist, or anti-smoker tendencies (and rightly so). But when it comes time to vote, Obama's blackness will matter a boatload more than his smoking.

Posted by Mavis Beacon | February 27, 2007 12:45 PM

Am I the only non-smoker in the world who's more likely to vote for Obama because he smokes?

Nope, tehre's at least two of us (altho admittedly my non-smoking status is not entirely secure.) But as you say, being a smoker is a sign that he's a real human being not a manufactured candidate-bot.

As for the anti-smoking zealots, I suspect many (most?) are former smokers themselves. A little righteous indignation really does make it easier to stay quit.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | February 27, 2007 2:58 PM

Mavis Beacon, SqueakyRat, and annonymous,

While your arguments cannot be directly refuted, David Weigel over at reason.org has an interesting post from two weeks ago (www.reason.com/blog/show/118736.html) on the issue of whether white voters lie to pollsters about their intention to vote for a black candidate. He finds the assertion that such lying is common to be unsupported by the evidence, and reports polls and final results from 2006 to support his view. Obviously, since you've all expressed a non-falsifiable view, counter-evidence can't defeat it, but I would be interested to know if you have any actual evidence for your assertions.

Posted by Rich C | February 27, 2007 4:04 PM

Actually I think the main goal of many of the newer programs is not actually to convince smokers to quit, but instead primarily to stigmatize smoking. In particular I'm thinking of an advertisement featuring a young man riding in the passenger seat of a car with an older woman (presumably his mother) driving the car. The kid does the passive agressive fake coughing fit, and his mother continues smoking. The kid then farts in her face. I don't know about you, but I don't want the ad council or any other group that receives funding at least directed by the federal government going to teach kids to be disrespectful--we've got plenty of private funds going to that goal.

Not only that, but I fail to see how that attacks the problem. Making a new group for Americans to hate isn't hard, but it's not productive either. Stigmatizing smokers serves to strengthen the feeling of an oppressed minority that's already taking root in that community. By continuing to push divisive and stigmatizing advertising campaigns, I believe the ad council and other organizations are doing drastic harm to efforts to wean adults from smoking. I realize it's important to help guard against children smoking, but ads that encourage disrespectful behavior or unfarily stigmatize smokers aren't the answer.

The really funny part is that at least considering the narrative, you'd think smokers would be cast in a sympathetic light. I mean, they were lied to by an industry that sold them addictive chemicals, all the while doing all they could to make that addiction stronger. Smokers may have made the initial choice to smoke, but to stigmatize people who are struggling with an artificially enhanced addiction to one of the most addictive substances on Earth is just wrong.

I wish Barack the best of luck in quitting. I had a hell of a time of it, and I still from time to time slip. For people to suggest that somehow he is undesirable as a presidential candidate for being a victim of the tobacco industry is despicable.

Posted by James Hare | February 27, 2007 4:04 PM

This post, and most of the comments, seem to assume that it is somehow rational to oppose a presidential candidate on the grounds that he (or she) is a smoker, twice divorced, over 72, or a Mormon.

It seems to me that all of those criteria are as irrelevant to someone's ability to do the job of Predident as being black or female. I suppose an argument could be made about health in reference to the smoking or age criteria, but that would only imply that we'd need some assurances that the candidate wasn't really at death's door or showing signs of senile dementia.

As for anonymous, sadly, I have two different thoughts. On the one hand, the history of sexism and racism in this country is much longer, and therefore deeply ingrained, in the culture, and the veneer of tolerance has been applied so many times that a poll really is likely to mis-state the numbers. Wasn't the Tenn. senate race predicted to be closer than it was?

The larger issue, though, is about the media setting the agenda. While racism/sexism are deeply ingrained, the issues get more play than that history calls for because the MSM continues to highlight them. You won't see a lot of articles about how Americans are reluctant to vote for a man twice divorced, but you will see a lot on whether, deep-down, Americans will vote for a black man or any color woman; probably, you'll see a lot on the Mormon question.

This comment is schizo, I realize that, in that I'm saying essentially there are good reasons to focus on race and sex and then criticizing that tendency in the MSM.

Posted by Adam | February 28, 2007 10:56 AM