[Prince Caspian]

The survey found that 79 percent of participants were willing to vote for a woman as president...

The more interesting statistic implied is that 21% were NOT willing to vote for a woman president. Which means the female candidate would be competing for votes only within a 79% subset of the population. I daresay the percentage of people willing to vote for a male as president is somewhere close to 100%.

[Navy Patriot]

Excellent observation, a gal would need to pull a plurality from 79% of those voting. High hurdle.

[proud American in Canada]

I daresay the percentage of people willing to vote for a male as president is somewhere close to 100%.

Good point, and even more telling when we are at war. Will women trust a woman (my preference for the out-of-the-ordinary Dr. Rice excluded), especially a Dem woman, in a time of war? Doubtful.

[Fido969]

Which means the female candidate would be competing for votes only within a 79% subset of the population.

You are assuming people won't vote for someone they are "not willing" to vote for.

I have cast plenty of vote against the lesser of too evils, I don't think these folks would necessarily NEVER vote for a woman. Also, any disadvantage there would be nullied if there were two women running.

[no dems]

"21% were NOT willing to vote for a woman president."

So, let's hope Condi runs against Hillary.

[Beckwith]

The more interesting statistic implied is that 21% were NOT willing to vote for a woman president

If Condi and Hillary were running, that 21% would either sit out or vote for a woman.

Ergo, 100% of those voting would vote for a woman.

[dangus]

>> I daresay the percentage of people willing to vote for a male as president is somewhere close to 100%. <<

I dunno... Last election we had a bunch of men, and only about 50% of the country was willing to vote for any of them. :^D

[AuH2ORepublican]

"The more interesting statistic implied is that 21% were NOT willing to vote for a woman president. Which means the female candidate would be competing for votes only within a 79% subset of the population."

---

21% may have answered the poll question that way, but I doubt it's true for more than 5% of those polled (and most of those are probably non-voters). If you ask a question about whether you'd vote for a woman 5 seconds after asking people if Hillary should run for president you're bound to get some crazy answers.

If a pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-gun, pro-tax cuts, pro-war on terror female Republican was running for president against John Kerry, even the most sexist conservative would gladly pull the lever for the female Republican.