Democracy Has Prevailed.

January 9, 2008

Vagina-Americans have their say


So why were the polls so wrong in New Hampshire?

We heard last night that it might have been the Bradley Effect at work ("instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots"), but if you look at the breakdown of the vote by race and gender, you see that black women broke for Hillary and white men for Barack:


Now look at the breakout purely by gender and you see that Hillary was the clear winner among females:


This is not how it went down in Iowa. While the same percentage of the voters were women in both races (57%), in Iowa, Clinton only received 30% of the women vote there ( 35% Obama, 23% Edwards). In NH it was: 47% for Clinton, 34% for Obama, 14% for Edwards.

Now add to this that 39% of Clinton's supporters made up their minds on election day:


and it sure looks like John Edwards fucked up royally when he responded to Hillary's barely welling up for a second by playing the "Women are too emotional to be Commander in Chief card" or as Nation columnist Katha Pollitt put it:
John Edwards just lost my vote. How dare he take cheap shots at Hillary Clinton for letting her eyes mist over (not "crying" as was widely reported) at a meeting with voters in Portsmouth NH earlier today? This is a man who has used his most private tragedies--his wife's cancer, his son's fatal accident -- in his campaign in a way that had a woman done the same she would surely be accused of "oprahfying' the lofty realm of politics. This is also the man who promoted himself early on as the real women's candidate, and who has repeatedly used his likeable wife to humanize his rather slick and one-dimensional persona. Today he deployed against Hillary the oldest, dumbest canard about women: they're too emotional to hold power.
Let's go now to one of the best blog takes on last night. It's from Jeff Fecke (a man!) over at Shakesville:
And that’s why she won tonight; because women recognized that, at least for tonight, their future was inextricably bound up with Hillary’s, and that, at least for tonight, they needed to send a clear message that misogyny and sexism just won’t work anymore. Clinton may yet lose — there are plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose her. But if she loses, it won’t be because she was too emotional, or because she reminds someone of their ex-wife. It will be because she loses on her merits as a candidate. That’s as it should be, and it’s why our country should be grateful to the angry women who rallied to her, angry women who were angry for a righteous reason, angry women who accomplished something grand. [Emphasis Added]
In closing: a little story.
A few years back I worked for what was at the time the Hispanic shop of a top ad agency. I was basically doing three jobs at once: Corporate Communications Director, Co-director of PR and I also wrote all the correspondence for the CEO (who was not a native English speaker). I put in 70 to 100 hours a week.

While I shared a title with my co-director of PR that was really only on paper as he was not allowed to speak to clients without my being present. At some point, I discovered that my male coworker was making ten grand more than I was. I took it up with the CEO and got a raise and the difference in the last year's salary in the form of two bonuses (one paid immediately and one to be paid a couple of months later).

However, before the second bonus was due, I was sitting in a meeting with the CEO, A VP and another department director (all males). We were all gathered at the end of a conference table. The CEO started in on a sneeze. He looked around as to where to direct it. He looked at each of us. The MFer didn't go for the handkerchief in his bespoke suit pocket. No, he finally turned back towards me and let out the sneeze. None of it really hit me, but I went back to my office after the meeting, called one of the partners in a company that I had worked at before and secured a job there. I then gave the CEO my two weeks notice.
In the interest of full disclosure: I just gave the Hillary Clinton campaign a whopping 10 bucks. It was for the sneeze more than the $10,000. (I still don't consider myself a Hillary -- or anybody else -- supporter.)


(Voter breakdown charts courtesy of Rimjob's diary at Daily Kos.)
.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

John K. says: Polls are vague at best. Problem is the news media used it to drive a story. A story with an agenda. But I have known that ever since 2000 based on how they poll Bush. Polls are now used to set an agenda not report a fact.

Anonymous said...

Looks like Obama did better among women than Hillary did among men. What does that say about electability in the General?

Maria said...

As more women vote than men -- in 2004 54% of voters were female and 46% were male -- it says that Hillary has the edge.

Schultz said...

I hope those who want Hillary to win the Democratic nomination so bad are ready for another 4 years of a Republican in the White House if they get their wish. She is not electable and its not because she is a woman. Its because she's a dirty slimy politician just like the rest of the scumbags in Washington.

If it's McCain or Guliani for the pubs against Hillary chalk it up for the pubs. If it is Romney or Huckabee up against Hillary I would say she has a chance only because those too creep people out - even the conservative Republicans.

If she happens to pull off the nomination, I'll probably tune out because it's going to make 2004 look like it was a cake walk for John Kerry. I think this thing goes down to the wire.

I am backing Obama. It's far from over but I think he needs Edwards to drop out and have his supporters vote for Obama in order for Barack to lock up the nomination.

Regardless of what happens, I have a feeling that Pennsylvania will play a major role in the outcome of the Democratic nomination for the first time since '76. I think we'll have close to a month between the last primary in March and the primary in here in PA, meaning, since we have a large number of delegates up for grabs we will be the center of attention for the campaigns. I'm looking for to it.

Anonymous said...

Maria, I think you are correct in assuming that John Edwards made a fatal error when he insinuated that Hillary Clinton was too emotional for the presidency. These sorts of tactics have brought to light the hidden (sometimes) racism and sexism that exists in our country today, when people use coded language like "unelectable" and "emotional". I would like to invite you to continue to share your views on the outcome of the New Hampshire Primaries at the www.TheIssue.com . Any comments or feedback you had would be greatly appreciated.
Great blog!
Erika, www.TheIssue.com

Tim Murray said...

Good post, Maria.

This is not an endorsement of Hillary, but as a nation, sooner rather than later, we truly need to elect our first woman president -- and a black and a Jew (and I don't mean Whoopi Goldberg) -- to put to rest these inane beliefs that America may not be "ready" for a President based solely on the class they were born into. (I would add "practicing Catholic" to that list, but I realize most everyone accepts we broke through the Catholic glass ceiling in 1960.) It is unfortunate that if Hillary loses, some people will attribute it to gender, whether or not correct.

All other things being equal between a female and male candidate, until we have a woman president, I would be inclined to vote for the woman just to put to rest idiotic sentiments such as "women are too emotional," or from the other end of the spectrum, "men start all the wars" -- or any number of other atrocious gender stereotypes.

And good for you, Maria, on the pay issue. Your ex-employer sounds like a real [delete vulgar word for male body part]. But even enlightened employers will pay EVERYBODY as little as they have to, and studies show that women aren't culturally accustomed to negotiate for salary the way men are. But you showed 'em, and good for you.

Sherry Pasquarello said...

great post. i'm still not sure who i would vote for tho i do know who i wouldn't vote for.
that's a start.

Bram Reichbaum said...

All of a sudden at the last minute, she had a good cry and found her voice. People at it up.

Barack Obama is putting on a clinic in how to be a politician, and the other front runners are finally learning something from him.

There's something going on in America, he said.

Schultz said...

Bram - everyone ate it up except for the woman who asked her the question - she ended up voting for Obama. Clinton's initial reaction, according to the woman who asked the question, was genuine, but Clinton went a little over the top with her act and a lot of people there could see through her.

Let's not elect a woman just for the sake of electing the first woman President, and the same goes for minority candidates. Obama is the Bobby Kennedy of our generation. If you want things to change - vote for Obama. He's been talking about post-partisan politics since he was in the Illinois State Senate.

If you're happy with politics and government the way they are, go ahead and vote for the establishment candidate, Hillary, and watch the Republicans win again in the fall. Obama is the only Democrat that can win over enough Independents and Republicans to ensure a Democratic victory in November.

Can I get an Amen?

Anonymous said...

Sometimes you have to put the blinders on and go.

Hillary did this and it worked.

Maria said...

Can I get an Amen?

No

Some things are partisan: Republicans are against universal healthcare, they were for the bankruptcy bill, the war in Iraq, etc.

And, if he's so much for change why does he have the same voting record as Clinton?

Not ready to buy.

Cynthia said...

It's all too scary for me. Hearing reports on why folks will vote for Obama or as he's known in the press as, "The New Messiah" and that should scare a lot of folks and more than that, questioning why this 'air' of someone being 'all knowing' and 'all powerful' when a lot of the same people who voted for Bush, did so simply because, in their words..."He looks like the kind of guy you want to have a beer with."

HUGH????????? Scary people, ummmm, understatement.

Bush had no qualifications for holding office...of any kind.

I'll end that note here because anyone who reads (pun intended) already is aware of this.

So, I truly hope that Americans do not compare BO to 'any' Kennedy, because we'll end up with what we've had for the last 7 years.
A JOKE!!!!!!
Because people will continue to vote due to a message sounding hopeful with no hope to back it up.

There are so many incredibly ignorant people who are 'allowed' to vote.

And as important as the job of running this country is, just as it is the law to pass an eye exam in order to drive a car, I believe someone, someday, will pass a law where a test must be given in advance to know if a person has any knowledge of politics and of the candidates running.

If you can't SEE you shouldn't be given the priviledge to drive!!!!

Anonymous said...

Try the decaf, Cindy. It's really hard to tell the difference these days. A little sleep might help a bit, too. Just a suggestion.