Hillary's Man Problem
A lot of men don't like Hillary. A lot of men say they don't want to vote for Hillary--even Democratic men. The new L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll, released Dec. 28, shows that only 19 per cent of Democratic men favor Clinton in upcoming caucuses and primaries - less than one in five. The implications for Hillary are ominous: since she can't expect Republican men to vote for her, how can she win the election?
That poll focused on likely voters in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries, but other polls asking a national sample about the November election have come up similar results. A Washington Post-ABC poll in November found that, in a Clinton-Giuliani matchup, men preferred Giuliani 51 to 44. In a CNN poll in October, only 41 per cent of men said Clinton is someone they admire (compared to 57 per cent of women).
Why do so many men dislike Clinton? Is it simply because she's a woman? Susan Carroll, Senior Scholar at the Rutgers University Center for the American Woman and Politics, told me that politics provides a more important explanation than sexism: "Men are more likely than women to identify as Republicans," she explained. "Men are more likely than women to prefer Republican candidates and their policy positions. Men's partisan preferences are the main reason why many of them wouldn't vote for Clinton. Many of the men who say they won't vote for Clinton wouldn't vote for any Democratic candidate, man or woman."
But that doesn't explain the Democratic men who won't vote for Clinton. Some of them disagree with her on the issues, especially her vote for the Iraq war - but for others, the explanation may lie in simple hostility to the idea of any woman as president.
Even if some Democratic men won't vote for her in November, Clinton could still get elected if she won enough votes from Republican women. In fact that's what the Clinton campaign is predicting. Mark Penn, a Clinton senior strategist and pollster, told reporters in October that Clinton could win 24 per cent of Republican women.
With that gain, Hillary could win the election even if 20 per cent of Democratic men voted Republican, according to DailyKos. However recent Rasmussen polls show Clinton winning only 18 per cent of Republican women, rather than the required 24, while losing 20 per cent of Democratic men. That's not enough Republican women to get Clinton elected.
Clinton advocates point out that if she got 44 per cent of the male vote in November -- the figure in that Washington Post poll matchup with Giuliani -- she'd end up ahead of Kerry, who got only 41 per cent of men in 2004. She also would end up ahead of Al Gore, who got 42 per cent of men in 2000.
Amazingly, if she got that 44 per cent of men in November, she'd be doing better than Bill Clinton, who got only 43 per cent of the male vote when he won his reelection race in 1996. According to the Center for the American Woman and Politics at Rutgers, Bill Clinton's 43 per cent of men is the best a Democratic candidate has done in the last 25 years.
That suggests Hillary's man problem is not very serious -- but it still might bring her defeat in November. Of course Kerry and Gore would have won if they'd had more votes from men, and Bill Clinton won only because Ross Perot siphoned off conservative (i.e. male) votes from the Republicans. The December polls show Hillary beating Giuliani, but only by one or two points -- too close for comfort -- and losing to McCain by a frightening five points.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think it's not that men won't vote for a woman, but that men don't want to vote for a woman with a particular kind of grating personality.
Remember that male voters have voted in female heads of state and government all over the world.
A woman was just voted into the presidency in Argentina. Maggie Thatcher was voted in as Prime Minister in the UK -- granted in parliamentary systems, you only vote for your representative, not the PM. Angela Merkel is Chancellor of Germany. There are popularly-elected female presidents in Chile and Liberia, and a female PM in New Zealand.
I think it's not Hillary's two X chromosomes which rankles most men, but her particularly annoying personal style which men dislike. This has absolutely nothing to do with being married to Bill Clinton -- this has been Hillary's personality since her youth.
Granted, George Bush has a very annoying personal style, and yes, I think men are more willing to excuse such a liability in a male candidate if they see a concomitant "strength" (something most voters belatedly realized was just bluster in Bush -- but it was convincing for a while, wasn't it?)
My point is, there are other women who could run for president who don't have an annoying personality, and they could attract tons of male votes.
So Hillary's problem is NOT being female; it's being female PLUS being annoying, shrill, and plastic.
Men detect this; apparently many Democratic women are willing to overlook it.
I have a suggestion for any women out there who a): are planning to vote for Hillary Clinton, and b): are married to Neanderthal men who don't want a woman President.
Cook him up a nice Ex-Lax Omelette for breakfast, then he won't be able to get to the voting polls! I'd do it myself, but my husband is already voting for Hillary.
We are still a misogynistic country in many ways, although hopefully getting better.
I would not vote for her since she voted for War in Iraq and worse, voted for the Patriot Act. How anyone, man or woman, can support someone who voted for the Patriot Act is beyond my comprehension.
I think it was on Huff Post that once showed a count of the number of “hits” on the story. There had been about 200 comments and 20,000 hits. It was a Hillary involved story and as usual most comments were negative. I had seen the names of some of these commentators before. There are probably only about 1000 Hillary hater commentators, who have nothing important in their lives to do other than to write their rubbish to gratify the small audience reading these comments. That is, all these Hillary hater commentators feel powerful with their ranting are in fact ineffective. They have no effect on the 200,000,000 who are old enough to vote.
Hillary is going to win the nomination. She will have enough paid or free exposure so that ordinary non political people see that she is smart, experienced and offers promise of improving their lives. In any debate she will out perform any of those now seeking the republican nomination. She will be elected and will do a fine job as president.
Some women who usually vote Republican will want to vote for Hillary as clearly they did in the last NY election. Male Democrats are less likely to vote for any that third rate lot of Republican candidates. Perhaps McCain has some stature but it would mean an administration with many of the same people that got the nation into such a sorry state and it would mean veto of Democratic legislation to effect need changes.
The problem is with the switchback dynasties that have undone this country.No
As a man, I wouldn't vote for her. Not because she is a woman, but because of her terrible policies and voting record.
I'm a man and I'm support her for President because I believe she's just the most qualified and offers the plans and ability to enact the change we need. If she's the Democratic nominee the Democratic men will come back to her, because lets face it, look at the alternative. Any Democratic man who would vote for any Republican over Hillary should just leave the Democratic party as far as I'm concerned.
Some men don't like Hillary and that's HER problem? WHY? Sounds more like it is THEIR problem.
I don't see any evidence of sexism in the electorate but plenty of sexism in the essay.
Usually the well know gender gap in politics is cited as a problem for Republicans. This is the usual media sexism against men where the female vote is counted as somehow important whereas the male vote is nothing. As if women's votes were worth double or something. Thus for years now this issue has been described in terms of how badly Republicans do attracting women voters (although in fact the majority of married women vote Republican and the majority of white women vote Republican).
But for this essay the idiocy is reversed and suddenly it's men's votes that are worth double and Clinton is in trouble because of the gender gap, not say McCain or whoever on the Republican side of things, or both equally in trouble. I can only only suppose this reversal was pulled as a stunt or to take a poke at Clinton.
There is a genuine question of gender here as to why men prefer the Republican party and women the Democratic party. However the sexism is probably to be found on the part of the Democratic party not the voters.
Just take a look at some of the comments in this thread. Thick with contempt of men. There's a big sign saying "Men NOT Welcome" in the Democratic party. I dunno... you think that might maybe have something to do with why men don't vote for the party that openly despises them?
I'm confused.
If analysts are predicting that she will get more of the male vote than Kerry, Bill, or Al, how is it that she has a "man problem"?
Hillary's biggest problem is not with men. It's with reasonable and progressive Democrats (like myself) who are sick and tired of the Clintons and their triangulating, dissembling, dishonest ways. People, we need a change. Hill and Bill are not change. How plain can we make that fact!! Obama is my choice for real, generational change. Edwards would be fine, too. Kucinich would be wonderful, but his chances are slim to none (unfortunately). And, as much as I like Dodd and Biden, they are as establishment as they get. In other words, they are not about change. Richardson is a good guy; would make a solid VP candidate.
For me the problem with Hillary is not that she is female but that she simply comes off to me and my family as "here's the new boss, same as the old boss." (Although not to imply she has even a passing resemblance to the Chimp - she just comes off as , well, mediocre, lacking in at least the dynamism of Obama or the "let's hope he's got a little something" of Edwards.
Fact of the matter is that my votes to females haven't been ready to go since either Barbara Jordon or Shirley Chisolm were possibilities. Even further, I don't believe that I personally have felt as strongly for ANY candidate since those two were possibilities.
This time around (Democrat-wise) it feels just a hair above the best of the usual pack.
A lot of men don't like strong women. Particularly if they are seen as "uppity". She also seems to threaten some women writers who fear that she might really show what women in politics are capable of, instead of decrying what women were prevented from doing.
Hillary does not have a "man problem" but a lot of men, even the ones on the left have a "woman" problem.
I always love the "I'd vote for a woman, just not Hillary." Reminds me of my sister when we were adolescents: "You can borrow ANY shirt, except the blue". Of course the blue one was the one I had asked to borrow.
Men will now vote for ANY woman, just not Hillary. BS to the max. Misogyny from the left and right. The "John Wayne" mentality is alive and strong in America.
Women are not buying the excuses and crap.
Hillary's voting record is almost identical to Edwards and Obama. Their stances on almost every issue are so close, the differences are negligible. But still, the hate for Hillary pours out and the sexism is SO OBVIOUS.
American men are control freaks and they are scared as hell that women, first time out, might do better.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
