Is there a selection bias in who we choose to become president?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Robert_Sock

Guest
Forgive me for the digression, but it’s interesting to note that there has been zero Jewish presidents and one Catholic one (Kennedy). Do the resulting figures suggest a selection bias within a social system that is supposed to reflect equality, or is this result merely due to chance? Or maybe there are no capable Jews and Catholics out there in the election pool.
 
Robert_Sock said:
Forgive me for the digression, but it’s interesting to note that there has been zero Jewish presidents and one Catholic one (Kennedy). Do the resulting figures suggest a selection bias within a social system that is supposed to reflect equality, or is this result merely due to chance? Or maybe there are no capable Jews and Catholics out there in the election pool.
Click to expand...
LOL! You forgot to add atheists! I know that the beginning of the anti-Catholic bias most likely was in the 1830’s or thereabouts during the potato famine in Ireland when thousands of Irish Catholics immigrated to the States. The WASP’s did not like these incoming Papists and said Catholics were slated to become one of the most hated immigrant groups to land on these shores. As for our brothers and sisters who are Jewish, the fear and hatred migrated from Europe. It’s likely that we will have a woman president ( I’m not saying it will automatically be Hillary) before we have a Jewish president. I’m not sure if we currently have any Jewish governors or senators in our country. As far as electing a Catholic, as long as they are not Santorumesque, I don’t see a problem. You will not be elected president in this country if you advocate outlawing birth control. The women of this country would not allow that sort of politician to be nominated, much less elected. “Just the facts, Mam”.:eek:
 
Robert_Sock said:
Forgive me for the digression, but it’s interesting to note that there has been zero Jewish presidents and one Catholic one (Kennedy). Do the resulting figures suggest a selection bias within a social system that is supposed to reflect equality, or is this result merely due to chance? Or maybe there are no capable Jews and Catholics out there in the election pool.
Click to expand...
Overwhelmingly, the Presidents have been Episcopalian. The one Catholic they elected, they in turn shot. Why would a Jew seek that office? 🤷

John Kerry’s family shed their Jewish heritage when they moved to Mass. Had they moved to another location he may well have became Episcopalian, and subsequently (perhaps) the President. 🤷

For myself, I have nothing against Jews. But then, at just 2% of the population, I don’t know any either.

ATB
 
Just as Catholics were until very recently thought to hold allegiance to Rome over America, a Jewish presidential candidate would be accused of having an allegiance toward Israel.

This would be almost impossible to overcome IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA
 
I would say yes. I think one large reason Mitt Romney is not President today is that he was Mormon. Had he been a nice “safe” protestant he likely would have been elected. I’m speaking from the perspective of most voters, not my own, there.
 
GEddie said:
Just as Catholics were until very recently thought to hold allegiance to Rome over America, a Jewish presidential candidate would be accused of having an allegiance toward Israel.

This would be almost impossible to overcome IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
I forgot about allegiances. This helps explain things. Personally, I’ve never been patriotic, but have my allegiance with the Vatican.
 
I think a lot of it is just simply the pool to choose from for a long time reflected the overall population of the U.S.–the majority of which for a long time was overwhelmingly Protestant. (The pool was also further narrowed by racial and gender restrictions for a good chunk of our nation’s history, some of which have been lifted a lot more recently than we might care to think on.)

That’s shifting a bit now–Kennedy was elected at a time when the country was still overwhelmingly Protestant. Kerry got nominated, and didn’t make too bad of a showing in his run. I doubt his being a Catholic had much to do with him not winning (I never heard much comment on it during the election, aside from he’d be the second since Kennedy if he’d won.)

I remember reading an interesting article about the last election, where somebody mentioned that it was the first time that none of the major-party candidates (meaning the Democrats or the GOP) had a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant in the nomination for either President or Vice-President: Obama is Protestant, but black. Biden and Ryan are white and Catholic, and Romney is white and LDS (usually placed under ‘other Christian’), and it was also noted that the Supreme Court also has no White Anglo-Saxon Protestants–they’re all either Catholic or Jewish. (With several minorities and women–anybody else besides me remember when Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed?)
 
AKDee said:
I would say yes. I think one large reason Mitt Romney is not President today is that he was Mormon. Had he been a nice “safe” protestant he likely would have been elected. I’m speaking from the perspective of most voters, not my own, there.
Click to expand...
And a sizeable percentage of the electorate thought Romney’s opponent was muslim.:D:D
 
  1. The candidates are selected by the two major parties.
  2. The parties ’ sole criterion is “who will get us the most votes?”
Whether Jew, Catholic, atheist, socialist or pathological liar, that will be the candidate.
 
captainrick said:
  1. The candidates are selected by the two major parties.
  2. The parties ’ sole criterion is “who will get us the most votes?”
Whether Jew, Catholic, atheist, socialist or pathological liar, that will be the candidate.
Click to expand...
Pathological liar . . .:hmmm: Yes, we have had a couple of those for president!
 
captainrick said:
  1. The candidates are selected by the two major parties.
  2. The parties ’ sole criterion is “who will get us the most votes?”
Whether Jew, Catholic, atheist, socialist or pathological liar, that will be the candidate.
Click to expand...
I think I hear a sense of concrete thinking in your response. Yeah, ideally that’s the way things are supposed to work, but do they.
 
Robert , it all comes down to who has the biggest ego and most money ,
 
Please remember that discussions of particular political figures are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Robert_Sock said:
I forgot about allegiances. This helps explain things. Personally, I’ve never been patriotic, but have my allegiance with the Vatican.
Click to expand...
You might as well forget your political aspirations, Robert. You will NEVER be President after that statement.
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
You might as well forget your political aspirations, Robert. You will NEVER be President after that statement.
Click to expand...
Patriotism, and worse yet nationalism, are primitive urges. “One people, one planet; don’t take your brother for granted.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top