# Rank these Presidential attributes! **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 17, 2006, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017 "2006-02-17T22:08:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/1 "2006-02-17T22:08:17Z")
This could become a Great Debate (well, if enough people respond) so if this gets moved, I won’t be peeved. So! Seems to me the a presidential hopeful is more likely to suceed in the U.S. elections if they’re a middle-to-old aged, white, “christian lite” male. With that in mind, rank these attributes of a presidential hopeful in the order you think are most-to-least likely to be voted in in the U.S. [ol] [li]Fundamental Christian[/li][li]Muslim[/li][li]Fundamental Muslim[/li][li]Jew[/li][li]Orthodox Jew (“Fundamental Jew” didn’t sound right)[/li][li]Agnostic[/li][li]Athiest[/li][li]Stringent Athiest (as in the equivalent of a fundamental religious person)[/li][li]Black[/li][li]Hispanic[/li][li]Female[/li][li]Homosexual[/li][li]Bisexual[/li][li]Young (Teenage to 30 year old)[/li][/ol] The list assumes that it is widely known that the hopefuls have this attribute - they don’t hide it (in the cases where it could be hidden). ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/2 "2006-02-17T22:13:06Z")
1)Female 2)Hispanic 3)Agnostic 4)Black 5)Jew 6)Fundamental Christian 7)Bisexual 8)Athiest 9)Orthodox Jew (“Fundamental Jew” didn’t sound right) 10)Homosexual 11)Stringent Athiest (as in the equivalent of a fundamental religious person) 12)Muslim 13)Fundamental Muslim (This is impossible according to the Constituation) Young (Teenage to 30 year old) ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/3 "2006-02-17T22:36:22Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > (This is impossible according to the Constituation) Young (Teenage to 30 year old) Really? I’m not that surprised, but I didn’t realise there was an actual minimum age set out. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2006, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/4 "2006-02-17T23:00:46Z")
Yep. 35. ---
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/5 "2006-02-18T03:34:18Z")
Using the rule of “Who I believe would win if running against one another”: 1)Female 2)Hispanic 3)Jew 4)Fundamental Christian 5) Agnostic 6)Orthodox Jew 7) Black 8)Bisexual 9)Homosexual 10)Muslim 11)Athiest 12)Fundamental Muslim 13) Stringent Athiest 14) Young ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/6 "2006-02-18T03:46:09Z")
I assume we’re talking about right now? 1. Hispanic 2. Female 3. Black 4. Fundamental Christian 5. Agnostic 6. Bisexual 7. Jew 8. Orthodox Jew 9. Homosexual 10. Athiest 11. Muslim 12. Stringent Athiest 13. Fundamental Muslim ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/7 "2006-02-18T03:49:17Z")
1. female 2)homosexual 3)jew/orthodox jew (many wouldn’t draw any differences between the two) 4)bisexual 5)stringent athiest 6)agnostic 7)fundamental muslim 8)fundamental christian 9)athiest 10)black 11)hispanic 12)muslim 13)young (that’d be me anyways) now, the debate rages…why your list? personally, i think that a muslim male in good standing could win a pretty high office these days. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/8 "2006-02-18T04:03:50Z")
From Most to Least Likely: 1. Fundamentalist Christian (Depending on your definitions, we’ve got one right now). 2. Hispanic 3. Jew 4. Female 5. Black 6. Orthodox Jew 7. Agnostic 8. Homosexual 9. Bisexual 10. Atheist 11. Muslim 12. Stringent Atheist 13. Fundamentalist Muslim There’s some room for nuance there, of course. I think a black woman has a better chance than a black man, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e480ec/32.png) [@Least\_Original\_User\_Name\_Ever](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Least_Original_User_Name_Ever)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/9 "2006-02-18T18:54:10Z")
> [@Least Original User Name Ever](#): > > 1. female > 2)homosexual > 3)jew/orthodox jew (many wouldn’t draw any differences between the two) > 4)bisexual > 5)stringent athiest > 6)agnostic > 7)fundamental muslim > 8)fundamental christian > 9)athiest > 10)black > 11)hispanic > 12)muslim > 13)young (that’d be me anyways) > > now, the debate rages…why your list? > personally, i think that a muslim male in good standing could win a pretty high office these days. crap, mine is the opposite…it’s least likely (being 1) to most likely…grr ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/10 "2006-02-18T19:09:35Z")
[ol] [li]Fundamentalist Christian (arguably already happened in 2000 & 2004)[/li][li]Black[/li][li]Female[/li][li]Jew / Orthodox Jew (already had a VP candidate)[/li][li]Hispanic[/li][li]Muslim[/li][li]Bisexual[/li][li]Naturalized citizen[/li][li]Young, under 30 yr old[/li][li]Homosexual[/li][li]Atheist / Agnostic[/li][li]Stringent Atheist (as in the equivalent of a fundamental religious person)[/li][li]Fundamental Muslim[/li][/ol] I added #8. I realize #8 and #9 requrie changes to the Constitution, but I think that’s still more likely than those below. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/11 "2006-02-18T19:15:24Z")
When you say fundamental Christian what do you mean? Are you referring to [Fundamentalist Christianity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism)? The way you’re using the word fundamental it could be interpreted in other ways. . . ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/12 "2006-02-18T19:17:55Z")
[QUOTE=scr4] [list=1] [li]Fundamentalist Christian (arguably already happened in 2000 & 2004)[/li][/QUOTE] Probably not would be my opinion. Bush is fairly conservative-leaning as far as Methodists go, but in general the United Methodist Church isn’t associated with fundamentalist christianity. Nor is the Episcopalian church that he was raised in and attends semi-regularly. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/13 "2006-02-18T19:27:22Z")
1- Fundamentalist Christian Quite nearly happened in 2000 and 2004 when Bush nearly won the election. 2- Hispanic. I don’t see why not 3- Jew. Joe Lieberman didn’t cause any hesitation that I could recall. 4- Black. Very tough one in my opinion between black and female. Once we get past #5, we’re talking not in our lifetimes. 5- Female. Ferraro did blaze the VP trail before any black, but I think slightly less likely than a black male. 6- Orthodox Jew. Makes the WASPs too nervous. 7- Agnostic. We’ve had presidents who really were not active churchgoers (Reagan for example), so not a big leap to agnostic. 8- Atheist. Again, not a large leap from #6 9- Stringent atheist 10- Homosexual. However, this has already happened. See Buchanan, James. 11- Bisexual. Some might put this WAY higher on the list, considering some frontrunners in 2008. 12- Muslim. Not pretty, but this is my honest reaction. Too many blame all Muslims for 9/11. 13- Fundamentalist Muslim. You’re more likely to see George W Bush campaigning for Jane Fonda than see a FM get elected. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2006, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/14 "2006-02-18T22:28:59Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > 11- Bisexual. Some might put this WAY higher on the list, considering some frontrunners in 2008. Who did you have in mind? Why does my list look like it does? Black men did get the vote in this country before women did, so I can see a minority male (though I opted for Hispanic instead of black, as that’s a larger population) getting a shot at the Presidency before a woman does. I think Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice are both overrated as candidates - even if they both run (I think Clinton will), I think they’ve got a name recognition edge now that won’t be much help in two years. After them, I’m not sure which women will be future contenders. But in general, I see politicians recognizing the impact of Hispanic voters. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/15 "2006-02-19T00:41:23Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > When you say fundamental Christian what do you mean? > > Are you referring to [Fundamentalist Christianity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism)? The way you’re using the word fundamental it could be interpreted in other ways. . . Yes, fundamentalist christianity. Apologies for the poor wording, but I didn’t think there was that much difference between “fundamental” and “fundamentalist” in this case - clearly I was wrong. But yeah, fundamentalist. ---
**Author:** ![Hirundo82](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@Hirundo82](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirundo82)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/16 "2006-02-19T04:26:11Z")
1. Fundamentalist Christian 2. Hispanic 3. Female 4. Jew 5. Agnostic 6. Black 7. Bisexual 8. Athiest 9. Stringent Athiest 10. Homosexual 11. Orthodox Jew–difficult for most people to relate 12. Muslim–would have been more likely before 9/11, now unlikely until most people who have personal memories of it die 13. Fundamentalist Muslim 14. Young–as noted, impossible without a constitutional amendment I think only those up through 6, perhaps 7, are likely in any of our lifetimes. I’d love to be pleasantly surprised, but I don’t think most Americans are that accepting yet. ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/17 "2006-02-19T05:00:33Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Why does my list look like it does? Black men did get the vote in this country before women did, so I can see a minority male (though I opted for Hispanic instead of black, as that’s a larger population) getting a shot at the Presidency before a woman does. OTOH, there are more women (both white and POC) in the US than people of color, so there’d be a larger pool which might vote for gender over political ideology. My list: 1. Fundamentalist Christian (has already happened) 2. Young (by which I mean 35, the youngest age) 3. Jewish 4. Hispanic 5. Female 6. Agnostic 7. Orthodox Jew 8. Black (I think there are still far too many people who would vote against a black person. I also think our first black president is far more likely to be Republican.) 9. Bisexual (with the caveat that they are in a monogamous opposite-sex relationship at time of election, otherwise see below) 10. Stringent Atheist 11. Homosexual 12. Muslim 13. Fundamentalist Muslim ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/18 "2006-02-19T05:08:42Z")
> [@davenportavenger](#): > > OTOH, there are more women (both white and POC) in the US than people of color, so there’d be a larger pool which might vote for gender over political ideology. I don’t think a lot of women would choose gender over ideology. Generally, I’d say women don’t any problem voting for a man, and I’m sure some men would have a problem voting for a woman. And women are a full part of the electorate now; there’s not much outreach going on toward women. But the Hispanic population is relatively new territory, and it’s a fast-growing segment of the population. The first Hispanic Attorney General is in office right now, Bush has widely been expected to appoint a Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see Bill Richardson as a Democratic VP candidate soon-ish. ---
**Author:** ![Suburban\_Plankton](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/suburban_plankton/32/219_2.png) [@Suburban\_Plankton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suburban_Plankton)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/19 "2006-02-19T06:33:16Z")
Without reading any of the other responses in this thread, and having given the matter about three minutes of thought, here are my responses: 1. Female I’d be willing to put money that this will be the first “minority” group to be represented in the White House 1. Hispanic 2. Black 3. Jew 5 Orthodox Jew (“Fundamental Jew” didn’t sound right) Maybe I’m naive, but I don’t really think that there’s rampant anti-Semitism in this country, at least not among Mr. and Mrs. Middle America. But I still think a black/Hispanic Protestant/Catholic stands a better chance, just on the basis of being less “different”. 1. Fundamental Christian 2. Agnostic 3. Athiest 4. Stringent Athiest (as in the equivalent of a fundamental religious person) I originally had “Fundamental Christian” down at number 11, but I think that the overwhelming majority of voters on this country firmly believe in God, and that “any religion is better than no religion” 1. Homosexual 2. Bisexual It just ain’t gonna happen. Whether it’s a sin, a lifestyle choice, or a part of one’s genetic makeup, too many people just can’t understand or accept it. 1. Muslim 2. Fundamental Muslim Islam being the exception to the “any religion is better than no religion” rule. It’s not right, it’s not “fair”, but that’s the way it is. It would have been impossible on September 10th, 2001, and it’s less likely now. 1. Young (Teenage to 30 year old) It would take an act of Congress (literally). ---
**Author:** ![Gladstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90db22/32.png) [@Gladstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gladstone)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017/20 "2006-02-19T15:25:46Z")
> [@Revenant Threshold](#): > > This could become a Great Debate (well, if enough people respond) so if this gets moved, I won’t be peeved. > > Seems to me the a presidential hopeful is more likely to suceed in the U.S. elections if they’re a middle-to-old aged, white, “christian lite” male. What does “Christian-lite” mean? GW Bush and Jimmy Carter are both born-again Christians (aka evangelical/fundamentalist Christians). Bill Clinton was Baptist, another evangelical denomination. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rank-these-presidential-attributes/345017.md?page=2)