• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Poll indicates Clinton and Trump voters' contrasting views on likelihood of a woman POTUS in their lifetime, personal hopes

Thread title revised to accurately represent poll data
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...nt-lifetime-poll-yougov-america-a8327061.html

It asked respondents whether they thought they would see a woman elected as President of the United States in their lifetime.

A total of 63 per cent thought they would either “definitely” or “probably” see a woman take office, 19 per cent thought they would “definitely” or “probably” not, while the rest were unsure.

Seventy-seven per cent of those who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 compared to 63 per cent of Donald Trump voters felt it was likely they would see this happen.

But when the question was changed to look at their personal wishes, the results also changed.

A total of 66 per cent of people responded yes to the question: “Do you personally hope that the United States elects a woman President of the United States in your lifetime, or not?

While 95 per cent of Clinton voters said yes to the question, only 40 per cent of Trump voters responded affirmatively.

Sixty percent of Republicans said they did not hope to see a female president.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Moneal

Member
This is the question on the survey. Do you personally hope that the United States elects a woman President of the United States in your lifetime, or not? I would answer no to this. Not because I dont want a female president, more that i dont care either way. Why would I hope for a female or male president? I hope for a good president. This whole spin that the people that said no don't want a female president is stupid.
 

Dr. Claus

Banned
This is the question on the survey. Do you personally hope that the United States elects a woman President of the United States in your lifetime, or not? I would answer no to this. Not because I dont want a female president, more that i dont care either way. Why would I hope for a female or male president? I hope for a good president. This whole spin that the people that said no don't want a female president is stupid.

Not surprised given the poster. Either way, there was only 1500 total that were polled (478 of which voted for Trump and a total of 518 that were conservative). This was a poorly put together article and an embarrassing attempt at trying to push some inane agenda.
 
Last edited:
Here is the poll in question:

Ou589qk.jpg


What I find remarkable is that 30% of women don't 'hope' for a female president. I'd say the problem is with how the question is formulated. Hope is too much of a colored word for the result to make sense. I don't 'hope' for a leader to be a specific identity, because I don't really care about these immutable characteristics. I'd much rather prefer a competent leader.

I'd say that's also the reason why so many women reacted negatively to that question, because they don't want to be reduced to their gender. It's also no wonder that 95% of Hillary voters would react positively to that question, since she ran a political campaign that was heavily influenced by identity politics.

I wonder what the results would be if the question was formulated otherwise: "Would you mind the gender of a competent President of the United States?" or "would you object to a female, yet competent President...?", something like that.
 
Last edited:

TrainedRage

Banned
Would I vote for a female candidate for president... Absolutely.

Would I do it JUST because she is a woman... Absolutely NOT.
 
I would like to ask the conservatives in this poll who they would rather have as the current president:

Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama, or Sarah Palin. How many honestly wouldn't say Palin? It's not about gender. It never has been, and constantly suggesting otherwise is a large part of why Hillary lost.
 
Last edited:

SatansReverence

Hipster Princess
I laughed but I thought we were moving away from mods trying to influence discussion. Dudes just going to get dogpiled now it's mod approved.

The fuck are you talking about?

"Mod approved"? The op made the title up all on his lonesome.

*redacted*

Would I vote for a female candidate for president... Absolutely.

Would I do it JUST because she is a woman... Absolutely NOT.

This all the way.

But in 2018, according to the far left this just makes you a bigoted misogynist.

If your vote is dependant on what is or isn't flopping around between the candidates legs than you are neither mature enough nor mentally fit to even vote in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Papa

Banned
The fuck are you talking about?

"Mod approved"? The op made the title up all on his lonesome.



This all the way.

But in 2018, according to the far left this just makes you a bigoted misogynist.

If your vote is dependant on what is or isn't flopping around between the candidates legs than you are neither mature enough nor mentally fit to even vote in the first place.

Nah, the original title was something like “60 percent of Trump voters don’t want to see a woman president in their lifetime.”
 

bucyou

Member
play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Maybe OP should take a break and go outside, considering 100% of their posts are in OT political threads
 

Sàmban

Banned
While I think the OP’s post was hopelessly partisan bait with little substance, I don’t think the mods should be doing fucking dumb shit like inserting hot takes in titles to make fun of users. It was one of the ways that old gaf moderators encouraged dogpiling and gave the perception that mods were picking sides.

Dear moderators, if you think a thread has a problem, edit the OP, put up a warning or lock it with a professional message like you generally do. Don’t make personal attacks against users because you disagree with them. This title edit is literally just the mod making fun of OP’s posting habits. It isn’t informative. It doesn’t help the OP post better or guide the community on better engagement.

It’s practically a shitpost turned into a title. Why the hell is that ok from moderators? I thought we were done with this old gaf shit.

And before you call me/ban me for publicly criticizing moderators; maybe moderators should exercise better judgment when editing public OP titles given that thread titles often influence discussion in the thread.

EDIT: saw the mod edit. I disagree. No, don’t “shame” the op. That is not productive. Lock the thread for being partisan garbage, which is what it is. Shaming op just makes some people focus on “oh shit that librul/conservatard got owned it’s funny lol!” instead of “huh, maybe I shouldn’t post garbage partisan shit” because there is no explanation that the thread sucks because it is clickbait.
 
Last edited:
While I think the OP’s post was hopelessly partisan bait with little substance, I don’t think the mods should be doing fucking dumb shit like inserting hot takes in titles to make fun of users. It was one of the ways that old gaf moderators encouraged dogpiling and gave the perception that mods were picking sides.

Dear moderators, if you think a thread has a problem, edit the OP, put up a warning or lock it with a professional message like you generally do. Don’t make personal attacks against users because you disagree with them. This title edit is literally just the mod making fun of OP’s posting habits. It isn’t informative. It doesn’t help the OP post better or guide the community on better engagement.

It’s practically a shitpost turned into a title. Why the hell is that ok from moderators? I thought we were done with this old gaf shit.

And before you call me/ban me for publicly criticizing moderators; maybe moderators should exercise better judgment when editing public OP titles given that thread titles often influence discussion in the thread.
I think they were just having a little fun. Chill out
 

Sàmban

Banned
I think they were just having a little fun. Chill out
I don’t think so. We should hold leadership accountable. Complacency about moderating standards was a problem on old gaf with some mods playing favorites and clearly being impartial. I’m not saying that was the intent here, but this does not send an impartial message. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen here.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think so. We should hold leadership accountable. Complacency about moderating standards was a problem on old gaf with some mods playing favorites and clearly being impartial. I’m not saying that was the intent here, but this does not send an impartial message. Let’s make sure that doesn’t happen here.
Mod edit said it was to be silly. Nothing to hold accountable.
 
Lock the thread or delete.

The rest including the demotion is old gaf nonsense in the other direction.

Why are there no new strikeninja24 threads.



Resist!
 

Papa

Banned
Lock the thread or delete.

The rest including the demotion is old gaf nonsense in the other direction.

Why are there no new strikeninja24 threads.



Resist!

I didn’t realise he was demoted. I think that’s a bit petty and should probably be reversed. In general, I think Strike’s opinions are poorly informed and ideologically conditioned, but I wouldn’t want to see him banned or permanently prevented from making threads. That’s how we end up with an echo chamber again.
 

Dr. Claus

Banned
I didn’t realise he was demoted. I think that’s a bit petty and should probably be reversed. In general, I think Strike’s opinions are poorly informed and ideologically conditioned, but I wouldn’t want to see him banned or permanently prevented from making threads. That’s how we end up with an echo chamber again.

I think it has been a long time coming. Strike has had a history of instigating arguments, throwing petty insults, and making low effort posts and threads (such as this one). Though I do think the mods went overboard with the title change.
 

Papa

Banned
I think it has been a long time coming. Strike has had a history of instigating arguments, throwing petty insults, and making low effort posts and threads (such as this one). Though I do think the mods went overboard with the title change.

I know, I’ve seen it too, but if he should be banned/juniored, it should be for those instances, not this.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
60% of trump voters polled don’t want to vote for a woman... or something
Low effort Strike. I said if you wanted a real conversation, pick an adult topic and lets have at it.

You instead went with this? C'mon man. I love a good conversation, but this is low effort and embarrassing.
 

dolabla

Member
I didn’t realise he was demoted. I think that’s a bit petty and should probably be reversed. In general, I think Strike’s opinions are poorly informed and ideologically conditioned, but I wouldn’t want to see him banned or permanently prevented from making threads. That’s how we end up with an echo chamber again.

I agree. I wouldn't want to see to him banned. We definitely don't want another echo chamber.
 
So many first world countries have had female leaders now, that I dont think it'll really be a big deal when it eventually happens in the US too.
 

i_am_ben

running_here_and_there
So why don't 60 per cent of Trump voters hope for a female president?

I agree that you shouldn't elect someone purely based on their gender, but a female President would be a nice milestone.
 
This is the question on the survey. Do you personally hope that the United States elects a woman President of the United States in your lifetime, or not? I would answer no to this. Not because I dont want a female president, more that i dont care either way. Why would I hope for a female or male president? I hope for a good president. This whole spin that the people that said no don't want a female president is stupid.

I'm sure a female president won't compromise any quality. Especially with the low bar the U.S. has to deal with, it really couldn't get any worse.
 
Top Bottom