What Americans want in a 1988 presidential candidate

The resume of America's choice for president in 1988: Male.Conservative. White. Under 65 years of age. A U.S. senator. Not amillionaire.

The resume of a presidential also-ran: Female. Black. Aminister. Older than 65. A millionaire. Never held electiveoffice.

Those instructive, perhaps troublesome and admittedly incompleteprofiles emerged from a Washington Post-ABC News telephone poll of1,506 adults in June.

Survey interviewers read a list of 15 personal characteristics,including sex, age and income status. After each trait was read,respondents were asked whether they would be more or less likely tovote for a presidential candidate with that characteristic.

Among the results: A surprisingly strong tilt towardpoliticians, a cool reaction to women and to blacks, and acomparatively hostile view of members of the clergy and oldercandidates.

Almost half of those surveyed - 49 percent - said they would beless likely to vote for a presidential candidate who had never heldelective office. Another 15 percent found such a candidate moreattractive; the remainder said it would make no difference.

Americans clearly penalize political rookies who aspire to theWhite House. That 34-point gap in favor of experience was thelargest recorded in the poll. That's too bad for Alexander M. Haig.It also should keep Lee Iacocca selling cars, Pat Robertson savingsouls and Jesse Jackson chasing rainbows.

Experience in the Senate, House or in a statehouse was a decidedplus. Almost half of those sampled - 46 percent - said they would bemore likely to vote for a presidential candidate who had served inthe Senate. Only slightly fewer said they would be more likely tovote for a candidate who had served in the House. And fewer than 10percent said a turn in Congress would be a negative.

The public viewed governors favorably, though less so thanpoliticians who had served in Washington. Slightly more thanone-third said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate whohad served as a governor, while only 6 percent said they would beless likely.

Ronald Reagan notwithstanding, a significant minority ofAmericans retain a strong bias against older politicians. The surveyshowed that more than two-fifths of Americans would be less likely tovote for a candidate over 65. Only one in nine said he would be morelikely to favor an older presidential candidate.

There's more bad news for Mr. Robertson and Mr. Jackson.Thirty-eight percent said they would be less likely to vote for acandidate who was "a member of the clergy." An equal percentage saidthey would be less likely to favor a candidate who was afundamentalist Christian.

The data raise an intriguing possibility. One interpretation ofthe numbers suggests that a fundamentalist Christian would farebetter than other members of the clergy.

The evidence: 17 percent of those surveyed said that they wouldbe more likely to support a candidate who was a fundamentalistChristian. But only 11 percent said they would be more likely tovote for a candidate if he were a member of the clergy.

America's maturing romance with the right appears to offer asmall but significant advantage to conservatives again next year.About a third of those surveyed said they would be more likely tovote for a presidential candidate who was politically conservative,while a quarter said they would be less likely.

Smaller numbers of voters will look for the liberal label, thepoll suggests. Only one of five Americans would be more likely tovote for a liberal candidate, while one in three would be lesslikely.

Americans may aspire to be millionaires, but the advantage is toa presidential candidate who is not. Only 7 percent said they wouldbe more likely to vote for a candidate who was a millionaire, while23 percent said they would be less likely.

Being black and female remain political negatives, the surveyshowed.

One-fifth of Americans said they would be less likely to votefor a black for president, while slightly more than one-fourth saidthey would be less likely to vote for a woman. Being black was viewed as a positive by 8 percentof those surveyed, while 10 percent said they would be more likely tovote for a woman.

(Informed consumers of survey results should note, however, thatthe political "penalty" for being black or female may be understatedin this survey. It's likely that a significant percentage of thetruly prejudiced would be unwilling to disclose negative attitudestoward such candidates in a telephone poll.)

The Post-ABC list, of course, was not all-inclusive.Conspicuously absent were issues and personalities, the handles onwhich real elections swing.

Such attribute lists are, however, far from useless.

Campaign strategists read similar results to identify theircandidates' obvious strengths and weaknesses. These lists also serveanother purpose as helpful measures of America's politicalpredispositions: the good, the bad and, too frequently, the ugly.

Richard Morin is director of polling for the Washington Post.