At New York Women in Communications, we aren’t endorsing a candidate, but we are watching closely this historic race. What we saw with last night’s results in Texas and Ohio were trends that closely match up with the results of the national survey we conducted in December.
Compare the findings below from our survey with the following quote from the New York Times, and you see that the pieces were in place then for women and Hispanics to favor Hillary in matters of economics and education:
“Just 17 percent of women (compared to 14 percent of men) say they would be more likely to vote for the female if they liked a male and a female candidate equally. Yet, when asked about specifics, over one-third of women (36 percent) say they would support a female seeking public office due to her perceived strength on issues like education and health care. For black and Hispanic voters, the figure is even higher, with 41 percent of black voters and 45 percent of Hispanics saying a female candidate deserves their vote on the issues. And though only 20 percent of all respondents say they would support a woman as a historical precedent, 36 percent of Hispanic voters and an identical percentage of those 18 to 24 say they would support a woman in order to ‘make history.’”
From the New York Times:
“Surveys of voters leaving the polls showed Mrs. Clinton doing well among Hispanics in Texas, a major target for her there, as well as among lower-income voters and women in Ohio, suggesting that she was reassembling the coalition that had broken down in her losing 11 straight state contests to Mr. Obama over the past month. Mr. Obama was showing strength among black voters who made up 20 percent of the Democratic electorate in both states.“In Ohio, Mrs. Clinton’s emphasis on economic issues helped her to some extent. Three-quarters of respondents said they were concerned about their families’ financial situation, and more than half of those voted for Mrs. Clinton. She also won a majority of union households in Ohio and, in a reversal of her standing in early races, won decisively among white men.”
We still don’t know if a woman can win, but we know she can make a comeback.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
Tags: New York women, politics, women
“Hillary” Against the Rest?
Can a woman win? What a patronizing implied doubt! I am irritated by the question, but it has to be asked. Eleanor Roosevelt said in 1934: “I hope [a woman president] will only become a reality when she is elected as an individual because of her capacity and the trust, which the majority of the people have in her integrity and ability as a person.” I wholeheartedly agree with this, but am afraid most American voters have not yet grown enough to answer Roosevelt’s call.
In most of the Western World and parts of the Middle East, questioning the ability of a woman candidate isn’t even an issue. But here, in the United States, it is. Give me a break! Who are we kidding? Even though women make up more than half of the population and its voters, 84% of the members of congress and 77% of Senators are male; only six of the 50 states have women governors; of the top 100 US cities, only 15 have female mayors. One might argue that we’re making progress; but in fact, over the past five years, women’s representation has stayed constant. Yes, there were (and are) strong women in politics and beyond in America. But by far not enough! And yet, you still believe a woman can become U.S. President?
We are all at fault: Men are at fault, because they don’t like to shake the boat if they’re the ones who could be thrown overboard first; women are at fault, because we follow Clinton’s presidential candidacy like Pavlov dogs and actually say out loud that we consider voting for her not based on her experience and qualifications, which she has plenty of, but because of her gender (and God help the man who admits he’ll vote — or won’t vote — for a candidate because of gender).
The media are at fault, because they urge Clinton to be approachable and emotional (but not too much, thank you very much), nicely dressed and coiffed. Pundits, pompous commentators and presumptuous op-ed writers are more often than not to blame, both men and women — even though 80% of all op-ed writers are men; they ponder likeability — and we all know where that call has left us the last time.
The tone of the entire public discourse regarding Clinton is dismissive, diminutive and condescending: We refer to her as “Hillary”, as if she’s our little “gal”. She is running against the grownups Edwards, Obama and all the other candidates with surnames. We treat her as our pet project — but won’t refer to her as Clinton, lest we not confuse her with her husband.
“Hillary” against the rest? What a sad state of affairs. Now let’s get our priorities straight and discuss the issues!
— Tekla Szymanski
Filed under: politics, presidential election, women in politics | 1 Comment
Tags: gender issues, politics, presidential election, primaries 2008, women in politics
Here are some key findings that seem to shed light on Clinton’s clear win in Nevada:
Just 17 percent of women (compared to 14 percent of men) say they would be more likely to vote for the female if they liked a male and a female candidate equally. Yet, when asked about specifics, over one-third of women (36 percent) say they would support a female seeking public office due to her perceived strength on issues like education and healthcare. For black and Hispanic voters, the figure is even higher, with 41 percent of black voters and 45 percent of Hispanics saying a female candidate deserves their vote on the issues. And though only 20 percent of all respondents say they would support a woman as a historical precedent, 36 percent of Hispanic voters and an identical percentage of those 18 to 24 say they would support a woman in order to “make history.”
Read the survey here.
What do you think? Post comments.
Filed under: politics, presidential election, women in politics | 1 Comment
Can a Woman Win?
Welcome to Can a Woman Win?, a nonpartisan analysis of the first presidential race to include a serious female candidate.
What kinds of things will you find here?
Here’s something that struck me while watching the New Hampshire Primary returns on CNN, ABC News, NBC News and other outlets. Not one noted the historical significance: As far as I can tell, it was the first time a woman won a presidential primary. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) It’s not mentioned in Wednesday’s NY Times coverage, either.
Here’s another issue: Was it really the tears that won Hillary the primary? I thought the anger that spilled out of her during the Saturday night debate was refreshing, and might have won her some votes. Also it might have been women angry that the media was making such a huge thing of her “welling up.”
What do you think? Post your comments!
–Deirdre Wyeth
Filed under: politics, presidential election, women in politics | 9 Comments
Tags: Hillary Clinton, New Hampshire Primary, presidential election, women in politics
