Jonathon Singer, over at MyDD notes some startling new poll numbers.
In one of my posts yesterday, I noted the whopping 30-point gender gap that the Los Angeles Times
and Bloomberg found on the generic congressional ballot question, with
women overwhelmingly preferring to see a Democratic Congress by a 58
percent to 30 margin while men narrowly prefer a GOP Congress by a 41
percent to 39 percent margin.That LA Times/Bloomberg poll was not the only poll to come out this past week showing a sizeable gender gap. The Cook Political Report
(.pdf) commissioned a poll this week from RT Strategies that showed the
Democrats holding a 10-point generic congressional ballot lead, 46
percent to 36 percent. The gender breakdown of the Cook poll shows an
11-point gender gap, with women favoring the Democrats by 15 points
while men favor the Dems by only 4.Whether women support the Democrats by a 28 percent margin or a 15
percent margin, it seems fairly clear that women’s strong preference
for the Democratic Party — which had shrunk from 12 points during the 2000 presidential election to just 3 points during the 2004 presidential contest — has returned.
I am not surprised to see a return of the gender gap. The appointments of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, combined with the recent aggressive anti-choice movements in South Dakota, Missouri, Alabama and elsewhere have put the issue of reproductive rights back in the national spotlight. The increasingly unpopular war and the bizarre ineptitude of the federal government’s response to Hurricane Katrina have also undermined the Republican’s reputation for compassion. The question I have is this: Will the Democratic strategists look at these new poll numbers and conclude that there is an opportunity to make major inroads by sticking up for women’s rights? Or will they continue to look at the measely 3% gender gap of 2004 and conclude that women’s rights confers no advantage…and perhaps confers a disadvantage?
Women are ready to vote Democratic this November. All they need is a reason to do so. The political climate has shifted. Will the consultants notice?
Hillary’s certainly will.
Peace
Hillary does not want to call attention to women’s issues. She doesn’t want to be seen as a “woman’s candidate”. I’m sure she will be told a lot of things, but what she will do is play to where she thinks the votes are to be gathered, and she seems to have decided that that is from the middle – DLCville.
but if the D’s make serious inroads in the 06 midterms, in spite of the DLC’s heavy handedness and lack of spine, it will alter the playing field, and what issues may or may not be broached, significantly.
Make no mistake, I am not a fan of hers, and do not look forward to the consequences should she get the nomination in 08.
We shall see.
Peace
The Gender Gap is Back indeed, with 6 months left to go.
If anyone with cognitive abilities thinks Karl Rove and Co. (with massive funds stockpiled from years of tax breaks and boatloads of corporate profits) can’t get to these folks, you need to think thrice.
We have a group of voters who, with all facts at their disposal these past 5 years, chose to back the status quo when they should have known better.
These people will be marketed at like there is no tomorrow and the last 20 years have shown that these people can be bought like a pair of Manolo’s.
I wouldn’t get cocky as the the onslaught of Bushco propaganda won’t fully surface until 90 days before the election. You’ll be buying Clorox Wipes to clean yourself from the massive slime headed your way.
Forewarned is forearmed.
There’s no reason why we women should have to put up with anti-choice candidates like Ritter in Colorado. The party plays to the anti-choice folks may well bite the Dems in the ass and cause them to lose where they could have won.
Suggested bumper sticker: “Obey your husband. Vote Republican.”
Time to start the voter nullification program, this time targeting women voters. How about bringing on the Scarlet Letter brigades of Dobson,Falwell and Robertosn? How about making abortion a felony so that anyone who has had an abortion is automatically stricken off the rolls? How about making lesbians criminals, leading to to the same result?
If any latent Republicans are lurking around,I am available for consultation and my fees are only $25 K a pop.And I hear Katherine Harris is interested in this project.
I don’t think the swing we’re seeing is primarily due to reproductive rights, or we’d have seen it sooner in the polls. There’s not been anything in the last week to 10 days on that issue to bring about that big a swing (most folks who are not news junkies like we are seem unaware of the S.D. situation).
What HAS been in the news over that time is the “vote of no confidence” on the part of the generals in Rumsfeld, and the rumors of impending war with Iran. I think what we’re seeing is a reaction against another war, combined with disgust over the way the present one is being handled. To respond to that concern with ads targeting women’s reproductive rights will come across as tone-deaf to what their real concern is – that BushCo through their military adventures are making the country LESS SAFE.
We should not lose sight of the fact that on the part of the electorate that is not on the left there is ambiguity over abortion, but also increasing disgust over the handling of the war, and fear of a new war.
I think the reproductive rights fears are second-tier for the voters we’ve seen swing in this poll, along with residual disgust over Katrina, Enron, climate change inaction, gag orders on scientists, immigration policy, etc. Those issues factor in to people’s opinions and erode Republican support, but the possibility of a war with Iran – using nukes in a first-strike capacity, has driven a whole cohort of people – especially women (who historically have been less pro-war) – over their tipping point.
That’s what these tea leaves tell me, anyway – again, primarily due to the timing, and what has recently been the #1 story on the news.
Maybe so. But I’m not sure how much the numbers reflect a recent shift.
It’s a possibility, although pollsters like Anna Greenberg argue the “security moms” theme is overrated:
Greenberg talks about unmarried women, older married women, and socially sonservative younger married women as distinct voting groups. It would be interesting to find out which of these groups have moved toward the Democrats since ’04.
Maybe it’s older married women, since Singer says seniors are coming back to the Democrats too.
That might be right on the money. From my own observations, I’ve become increasingly convinced that the “security mom” was more of a media creation than a real phenomenon. I would have expected women, when contemplating a terrorist threat, to move in a more authoritarian direction. Indeed I’ve been running a study (data still at this point being collected) in which male and female subjects were randomly assigned to visualize being victimized by a 9-11 style terrorist attack or some neutral situation. They were then given some questionnaires that among other things gauged their endorsement of authoritarian attitudes. Not only is there a huge gender gap in authoritarian attitudes in my data set (men generally are more authoritarian than women), but there is a trend only among men to endorse higher levels of authoritarianism when contemplating a terrorist threat – women show no movement whatsoever.
Again, the caveat here is that this is just one sample, and my conclusions at this point would be fairly tentative.
Knoxville, I completely agree with you. Other women’s issues too, but the war is the thing that’s moving women back into the Democratic camp.
I think women could accept a war if it were in the genuine national interest, but one based on lies, that’s incompetently executed? That’s killing their kids? And if not their actual kids, some other mother’s child?
I don’t usually like to make gender generalizations, but in this case…
One data point does not make a trend, of course, but:
In discussions with Mrs. K.P. [who is at least as liberal as me, but who doesn’t follow the news too closely] before the last election on the topic of “under what circumstances should we move to Canada” the scenario that got by far the biggest reaction on her part was reinstatement of the draft (we have two sons, currently 17 and 21). I wonder if the thought of another war, given how thin our military is already stretched, doesn’t have a lot of folks thinking “draft alert, draft alert.”
I think the reproductive rights issue is a big factor, but there is a limit to the number of women for whom this is an issue, and they generally vote Dem anyway.
You suggest it is the War, but I propose that it is basic welfare. When social services are cut, healthcare costs rise, income does not rise with inflation etc, women are usually the ones to feel it first and the hardest.
Women make up most of the poor.
Women are more likely to be single parents.
Women often make less money than men.
Women make up most of the seniors, who are dependant on the govt. for SS & healthcare.
Etc. Etc.
If there is a jump in the number of women voting Dem, it is because of the fact that they experience everyday the effects of the Bush agenda which is an every man for himself one.
Will the consultants notice?
Yes, they have access to far more information than we do; it would be impossible for them not to notice. Will they be so paralyzed by fear of a misstep that they don’t do anything at all to capitalize on their opportunities? Probably. I don’t have any faith at all in democratic consultants, they have a long track record of ineptitude and it will take more than one good cycle to change that.
I imagine that some combination of all of the issues affect women’s political leanings. But I think another big issue is the economy. Think about the declining middle class, health care costs, the perscription drug fiasco, tuition costs, gas prices, etc. We’ve now had enough time with all of their failed policies to see through the bs. I just want to laugh when the Repugs want to claim that the economy will be their strong suit – yes if you’re in the top 2%. They don’t listen to anyone else.
Given the way most dems are talking right now I doubt it…or they will wait till the last minute of elections and make some noise about women voters rather like when they court Blacks during elections. Basically says that the dems are the party that pays attention to Blacks, women, etc without doing much related to issues that effect them such as the continued disparity in the pay gap between men and women.
I think the consultants will notice. I think they’ll also write it off (at the urging of their right-wing paymasters) as irrelevant. After all, women are too illogical and emotional to participate in something as fundamentally rational as politics, right?
Oh, wait. My bad, I thought I was in the 19th century for a second there. Were those damn kids fiddling with the dashboard on my DeLorean again?