Growing number say country ready for black president

Posted: 04:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A new poll suggests that the number of Americans who believe the country is ready for a black president is on the rise.

Seventy-six percent of those polled in a CNN/Essence Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Thursday say that the country is ready. That's up 14 points from December 2006, at the start of the presidential campaign.

"Some of the increase in the number of Americans who say the country is ready for a black president is a simple recognition of Barack Obama's success in the Democratic primaries," said Keating Holland, CNN's polling director.

"We're not asking this question in a vacuum. In many cases, respondents must have had Obama in mind when giving their answer, even though he is not mentioned anywhere in the questionnaire."

The senator from Illinois is locked in a battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York for the Democratic presidential nomination. Obama currently leads Clinton in states won, delegates pledged, and in the overall popular vote in the primaries and caucuses held so far this year.

The poll also indicates that more white Americans than African-Americans think the country is ready for a black president. Seventy-eight percent of white Americans surveyed say the country is ready, as opposed to only 69 percent of African-Americans polled. Both numbers are up substantially from December 2006.

"Drawing on their own life experience, blacks are a little more skeptical than whites," said Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst. "But blacks, too, have come around, particularly after the Iowa caucuses demonstrated that Obama could win in an overwhelmingly white electorate."

Holland added, "Among blacks, the belief that the country is ready for an African-American president is highest among blacks who share traits with Obama. Optimism about the country's acceptance of a black president is higher among black men than among black women, higher among college-educated blacks than among those with no college degree, and higher among younger blacks than older blacks."

The poll also suggests that more Americans think the country is ready for a black president than a woman president. Sixty-three percent of those surveyed said that the country is ready for a female president. That's 13 points lower than those who say the country is ready for black president.

"Do Americans see more prejudice against a woman than an African-American," Schneider asked. "More likely, they see more negative feelings about this woman than about this African-American. Because it's true. More people have an unfavorable opinion of Hillary Clinton than of Barack Obama."

It's also important to note that the poll asked whether the country is ready for a black or woman president, not whether the respondent would vote for a black or woman president.

"Few people will acknowledge their own prejudices, but they will answer whether they think the country is ready to elect a black or woman president," Schneider said.

The CNN/Essence Magazine/Opinion Research Corporation survey was released on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

The poll was conducted by telephone from March 26 to April 2, with 2,184 Americans questioned, including 1,014 blacks and 1,001 whites. The survey's margin of error is plus or minus 2 percentage points for the overall sample and plus or minus 3 percentage points for the questions asked just of black or white Americans.

I see no reason for this thread to be closed. There has been some very interesting and intellectual debate here from both sides. As someone who is still a bit "on the fence", I have enjoyed hearing from everyone. As long as we stick to attacking the idea, and not the person, this thread shall remain open.

Wait, wait wait! Don't close it yet. The election isn't over yet and this is an important discussion.

Jack, I think your stats are something that are helpful. And I have a question for you: Which party has spent the most in the past several presidential elections?

Also, do you want to cite where generally the campaign contributions have come from on both sides and generally in what amounts?

Sorry if I sounded "too edgy" yesterday. Seriously. I stayed online way too long and when I do that, it usually winds up getting harsh on both sides. But just because someone provokes another, doesn't mean that the whole debate, or discussion, is worthless and should be thrown out.

I am curious too about this negative campaign issue. Of course there are negative sides to every issue. Especially when both sides push the limits of how the other plan is to be interpreted.

What I'd like to know, and what the news commentators do not seem to be making an issue of when they're counting up the numbers of negative ads is: What constitutes a negative ad? Is a rebuttal a negative ad? Is an explanation of the other side's plan, a negative ad? Is a personal insult a negative ad? Is an untrue accusation that is repeated over and over, to be considered negative one time or all the numbers of times it is run? If someone intentionally incites negative and heated responses from the crowd at a rally, is that considered negative or just politics as usual?

Now I'm not being testy or on the edge with these questions. I am sincerely wondering what constitutes negativism in this campaign. I keep hearing questions about who's running the most negative campaign in the media lately. I just don't know how they define the term "negative".

Sorry Susan. I didn't see yours before I posted mine. Thanks for keeping it open.

I usually don't address my posts to anyone unless they address me specifically, but did get off track yesterday. I apologize.

phewww:sleep:

I am curious too about this negative campaign issue. Of course there are negative sides to every issue. Especially when both sides push the limits of how the other plan is to be interpreted.

What I'd like to know, and what the news commentators do not seem to be making an issue of when they're counting up the numbers of negative ads is: What constitutes a negative ad? Is a rebuttal a negative ad? Is an explanation of the other side's plan, a negative ad? Is a personal insult a negative ad? Is an untrue accusation that is repeated over and over, to be considered negative one time or all the numbers of times it is run? If someone intentionally incites negative and heated responses from the crowd at a rally, is that considered negative or just politics as usual?

Now I'm not being testy or on the edge with these questions. I am sincerely wondering what constitutes negativism in this campaign. I keep hearing questions about who's running the most negative campaign in the media lately. I just don't know how they define the term "negative".

This is a GREAT question, issue, discussion topic. I think negativity is in the eye of the beholder. Is it negative if something points out the truth but isn't very pretty? Because I believe both campaigns think they're not being negative, and both opponents believe the other campaign is being negative. Someone told me Sarah Palin hit this on the head the other day (I didn't hear it directly -- just heard about it) -- a reporter asked her about all of the GOP negative ads and her opinion of them, and she asked them to tell her which ads. They said, "the negative ones." She asked, "Which ones in particular? Because if it's true, can it be called negative?" According to the person I heard this from, the reporter couldn't name a specific ad that was negative.

I think the real question should be “Are we ready for Palin as the first woman Vice President?” Hell No! She is so unqualified on so many levels and I also think the electoral vote needs to be abolished.

As far as Rev. Wright is concerned, if you listen to his full sermons, not just the snippets that you see on TV, he is stating so many truths about being black in American and our history which is still being felt today. Some states still practice this negative mentality more than others. People of color should never be expected to bow their heads and not realize the injustices we have experienced. All I all can say is do a search and listen to Wright's sermons completely. See what he is saying and why. Once you do that then come back and lets talk about it.

Edited October 22, 200817 yr by Lowbmier

I think the real question should be “Are we ready for Palin as the first woman Vice President?” Hell No! She is so unqualified on so many levels. The electoral vote needs to be abolished.

As far as Rev. Wright is concerned, if you listen to his full sermons, not just the snippets that you see on TV, he is stating so many truths about being black in American and our history of being black in America that are truthful. The history of this country is no secret. Some states still practice this mentality more than others. People of color should never be expected bow their heads and not realize the injustice they encounter daily even isome f people think it doesn't exists or just refuse too. All I all can say is do a search about Wrights sermons and listen to them completely. See what he is saying and why. Once you do that then come back and lets talk about it.

That's true... i don't agree with the man or the word... but underneath the extremism there is truth lined there... is he had more tack he would really be respected. but he has gone the way of bat nuts crazy....

I won't comdemn or agree with his approach. Like McCain, he seems agry and not appealing to the masses. My interest is for people to take a look at his record and listen to why he is stating what he is stating and then talk about it. I wouldn't call him what you called him by any means. I am not a radical person but a realist. To me, people can say anything, but it's what they do not what they say.

I do not believe for one minute that Rev. Wright's usual sermons contained those hurt-filled, angry sound bytes. If they did, you can be sure that the successful people in Chicago, like Senator Obama would not have sat through them very often. That would have been politically stupid. The one thing that we know for sure is that Obama is not stupid.

I say to the Republicans, bring it on. Say anything you wish about the Rev. Wright/Obama relationship. The polls tell us that most Americans know that Obama and the other people in Chicago that attended that church are not Rev. Wright and he is not them. He speaks only for himself. They speak for themselves.

Still continuing my pledge to stay out of political conversations, I will not speak as to the relationship og any candidate for office in relation to pastors.

I will speak as a former pastor, and as a white man, regarding Rev. Wright.

The clips I have heard of his sermons are not offensive to me as a Christian. To say "God D...n America" is reasonable in the context of the fact that there are many people who somehow sense that, because we are Americans, we automatically are blessed in God's sight. We are not. When we get into wars that are not justified, when we get into hurting our own people, when we don't act as a Christian nation, why would we expect God to bless us? I take it as a valid warning that we could be acting out of God's blessing.

When he talks about our negative actions in the bombing of Japan, it is true that it ended the war, and ended Japan's agression... but it is also true that more civilians were killed than military folks - and we should at least question our actions as to how we got to that. I don't think it is unAmerican, and certainly not unChristian, to question ourselves.

When he speaks of America putting AIDS into the African American community, I don't agree with that, but he is not the first educated man to say that. The tusgeegee experiements have been widely reported, and have never completely been disputed. As I mentioned in another post, seeing how congress and the pharmacutical industry have worked together to shut down testing for the mercury/autism connection, it makes a person wonder if it could happen. Certianly, the way we killed our own troops with Agent Orange in Viet Nam says it could be.

I might not like Rev. Wrights wording, and I might not like his bringing politics into the pulpit, but nothing I have heard is unChristian, and I have not problem with him.

Steve I appreciate your observations on this. You certainly make a lot of sense.

I am reminded of the involuntary sterilization of black girls in the south many years ago.

Which party has spent the most in the past several presidential elections?

Also, do you want to cite where generally the campaign contributions have come from on both sides and generally in what amounts?

You mean Obama isn't going to give the other presidential candidates a larger portion of his campaign contributions? I mean, hey, the libertarian candidate is under-privilaged....Obama is all about the richer making it easier for the poorer, right? How 'bout extending that "spread the wealth" policy to all areas??

You mean Obama isn't going to give the other presidential candidates a larger portion of his campaign contributions? I mean, hey, the libertarian candidate is under-privilaged....Obama is all about the richer making it easier for the poorer, right? How 'bout extending that "spread the wealth" policy to all areas??

Love it, plain. Hey -- I wonder if he has to pay taxes on those contributions -- at 50% or 60% because he got so much?

You mean Obama isn't going to give the other presidential candidates a larger portion of his campaign contributions? I mean, hey, the libertarian candidate is under-privilaged....Obama is all about the richer making it easier for the poorer, right? How 'bout extending that "spread the wealth" policy to all areas??

I think you and the gadget think that being a libertarian thinker means spreading the wealth. No that's not what I interpret this ideology to mean. To me, I think being a middle class citizen, I have supported the richer getting richer just by me getting up every day and going to work. They are the ones who benefit by the tax breaks me and so many people like me should be receiving. Instead, the people who benefit from my efforts to make a living are going to large corporations shipping my job overseas. Padding the pockets of corrupt companies who have already shown where their loyalties are. It is capitalism at its best. Reduced unenforced government regulation, to protect me and my family against China and the crap that we are seeing that has come out there. The current government has slapped me in the face as far as changing the constitutional laws to accommodate their corrupt agendas. No one has stood up to oppose these atrocities against our country. Only the people who are not affected by these issues are the ones who are motivated to reason with this madness and try to appeal to others to buy into this imbalance (not all of them though). People are fed up with this way of thinking. Your thoughts are to protect your wealth, sure but not at my expense. When I vote, I am voting for someone who will be for all people in this country, not just for the wealthy. Obama’s agenda on not giving vouchers so people can give my tax payers dollars so they can send their child to a private school instead of a public school is not something I agree with either. If I decide to bring a child into this world and I am able to provide them the privilege of going to a private school then that’s on me, not the taxpayer. Public funding is for those who need their children to be educated and are unable to provide that extra level of education. Not everyone can go to college. I want my taxes to go to bringing the public school system up to a better standard. This, I think will benefit us all. Again, I don’t want my taxes going to pay for someone else’s child going to private school. I don’t even have kids so don’t put that extra elite tax on me. As far as McCain’s heath care policy, if he has his way, not only will the illegal immigrants continue to tax our health care system but regular people will be forced to practice this as well. If you think about it, you may have wealth now, but you won’t have it for long. This war and the billions funding it…that should be enough to stop you in your tracks because that is another thing that will change how many millionaires and billionaires we have in the country (I say, not for long) not to mention if McCain starts the draft again with his war mongering mentality.

I think you and the gadget think that being a libertarian thinker means spreading the wealth. No that's not what I interpret this ideology to mean.

Actually the libertarians believe in minimal government influence. Kind of a laissez-faire philosophy in all aspects of life. My point was that, since the libertarian candidate doesn't recieve federally - matched funds to support his run for president, maybe Obama could share some of his. Especially seeing how Obama doesn't mind sharing your stuff or my stuff with others.