I'll Have My Change With a Little Contradiction on the Side, Please

Iowa and New Hampshire turned out to be the day of the woman: But not exactly for the reason that you might think.

There was a very potent voting bloc -- that emerged and caucused last week in Iowa -- and then turned out and stood up in New Hampshire in overwhelming numbers: Women. And more specifically, unmarried women.

Here's why it matters. In the last two elections 2 million more of these women have entered the electorate. They are now solidly in the mix. Capturing married women has long been a huge part of every candidate's campaign strategy. But until very recently, unmarried women have been virtually ignored by both the candidates and the press. That is until the new Census came out in 2006 presenting the new America: For the first time in our nation's history, single heads of households exceed married ones. And the majority of these are headed by single women. These women are being mobilized -- moved by feeling the power and influence their vote can have on the issues they care about: The war, the economy, health care. They want change and this time they may come out in record numbers. They have historically been the largest group of non-voters in America but if that changes this year and the trend toward a higher turnout of these voters continues -- they could decide who becomes the next president of the United States. It's as simple and as complicated as that.

If you think that this is an overstatement. Keep reading.

57% of caucus goers in Iowa were women. Of those, 28% were unmarried women. Single women made up a greater share of the Iowa Democratic caucus electorate than their presence in the overall state population. While unmarried women are 22% of the eligible voting age population in Iowa, network entrance polls suggest that they were 28% of participants in the Democratic caucus. This is unprecedented. Network exit polls out of New Hampshire reveal that 50% of unmarried women voted for Clinton, 33% for Obama and 11% for Edwards. Unmarried women accounted for 22% of all New Hampshire Democratic Party voters.

Okay. So even without getting awash in statistics, that's a lot of people.

Perhaps what is most interesting about Iowa and New Hampshire is that these women, and women in general, may not be voting along gender lines and thus keeping the top tier candidates on their toes -- along side the pollsters, analysts and pundits.

I have followed this voting bloc closely as my company, Balcony Films has been creating media campaigns and Public Service announcements to reach these voters for the past two election cycles, working with the non-profit non-partisan voter engagement group Women's Voices, Women Vote. Women's Voices, Women Vote has been studying and registering single women since the 2000 election when they realized that 22 million single women did not vote in that election.

For last year's mid-term election our campaign "Remember Your First Time" featured several film and TV actresses talking about their "first time"...voting. It received a lot of media attention, and came on the heels of the new Census.

Our current PSA campaign features a diverse group of women in the Oval Office to make the point that if this group participates they could be the pivotal voice in 2008. Gender will continue to play an historic role in this election; but it may not be a predictable one.

The only thing that may be clear in this volatile presidential race is that the common ground among these voters -- and perhaps all voters -- is the desire for change and the demand for a candidate that best personifies that change is the only constant. It is safe to say that that we are in a transformational moment: That, as Obama repeatedly says on the campaign trail, "something is stirring in the air. Something is coming".

So I am interested to know: What comes first, the change candidate or the change agents? If a candidate arrives that inspires change does that awaken something in us or have we awakened something in them? What is the secret sauce? It's kind of like that old saying that change happens gradually and then suddenly. It would seem that we are at that place now... maybe...hopefully.

So it may be best to accept that we just don't know what is going to happen...yet. But even though the future may be a bit opaque at the moment the road to understanding how these single women have come into their own and could alone decide the fate of the presidential election is very real.

It would seem from the overwhelming turnout of these women that the last two cycles of outreach to them is working in concert with their own growing feeling that things have got to change. The strategy for reaching and empowering them has been afoot for several election cycles now -- and the moment for all of that outreach, grassroots organizing and messaging has reached a tipping point. They feel their power and they know what they need to do to leverage it. But how and with whom they will ultimately stand is still, well...changing.

The biggest news about the way these women caucused in Iowa is that they voted not on gender, but consistent with the issues that matter to them the most: They were the first voting bloc to place ending the war in Iraq at the top of their agenda. So they voted overwhelmingly democratic and against the war. They didn't play the role that any movie script would have written for them: they voted for Barack Obama because they believe him to be the stronger anti-war candidate. The New Hampshire primary might have gone the same way as Iowa -- except for that rare unscripted and spontaneous moment we all witnessed -- when Hillary Clinton broke the fourth wall. It revealed something voters seemed to be yearning for; it may have been Senator Clinton's moment of poetry that drew more democratic voters -- maybe even specifically women voters -- to her.

Change goes hand-in-hand with the symbols of it. And this election may be as much about a kind of generational transfer of power as it is about gender and race. It's really interesting to me that almost no one has yet mentioned that Senator Clinton's victory in New Hampshire was the first time in our history that a woman won a presidential primary. Maybe that's a good thing; that the discussion of the need for change is beyond these outward signals and hovering over trying to find that deeper definition. Only one thing seems certain right now. Just as there are new and old leaders in the field of candidates, there are equally powerful signals of old and new leadership taking shape in the electorate. There is another historical first, the power of which cannot be minimized or ignored: There are as many single, divorced, widowed and unmarried women in this country as there are married ones. They account for 26% of eligible voters nationally and they are finding their voices too.

Go to www.wvwv.org to learn more about the power of the single women's vote.

Comments

[research]

It's hard to believe Obama Clinton or even Edwards will be the

“Change”

Candidates.

All three are Lieberman DLC DINO's

Check out Obama's relationship with the DLC and Lieberman

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/17/520896.aspx

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04242006.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/1/12052/83146/461/428731

http://pieceofmind.wordpress.com/2007/01/18/obama-lieberman-and-the-dlc/

Check out Clintons love of Lieberman:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/08/hillary.lieberman.ap/index.html

http://www.irregulartimes.com/clintonliebermanletter.html

http://decision08.net/2006/11/11/lieberman-triumphant-means-a-break-for-hillary/

Check out Edward Lieberman connection:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=426&kaid=103&subid=111

[Nutcase]

Clinton and Obama again. I thought from the headline your blog was to be about change. I guess you haven't had time yet to deal with real change, just the rhetorical kind.

[Cay]

Yay! Both of my sisters are single - I'll convince them to vote for Obama.

[ilvlamp]

I'm in shock that single women wouldn't support the only candidate that provides single payer not-for-profit health care; Dennis Kucinich.

Why are these women voting for Bush Lite dressed as a Democrat? The only candidate truly for the people, not the corporations, is Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate to vote against the Iraq war, and the only candidate that voted against continued funding of the war. He's the only candidate that voted against the Patriot Act, because he's a fierce defender of our Constitution.

Kucinich has the courage and foresight to introduce articles of impeachment for Cheney before Bushco takes us into a war with Iran.

I just don't understand how anyone could not support this man of moral courage, integrity, and perseverance. Especially single mothers who are so vulnerable in this economy. Half of all bankruptcy filers in this country cite medical reasons. The insurance industry is trying to hold onto their billions of dollars in health care profits by undermining and sabotaging Dennis Kucinich, and our democratic process of electing our president.

If single women have the power in this election to determine who becomes president, then I urge them to research Dennis Kucinich, and then vote with their conscience.

"Always vote for principle,though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."
- President John Quincy Adams

[raptor]

I suggest Hillary introduce something like the "The Change Act of 2008" now, and take some wind out of Obama's sails.

[rabun666]

WOMENS SUFFRAGE TO END AND SEXIST GENDER DISCRIMINATION LEGALIZED! The voter ID law before the Supreme Court is meant to prohibit minorities and the elderly from voting. The vast majority of elderly are SINGLE ELDERLY WOMEN and they will be disproportionately affected with this sexist gender discriminations being legalized.Minority elder women will be affected even more disproportionately. Furthermore, those prohibited from voting will not be able to vote against those who want to prohibit them from voting. Some of these elderly women were born before women's suffrage and may die without it as well.

[patb]

Too old for this day of the woman. All women must take advantage of this new found power. A vote is the first step.

[Beatitudes]

I have watched analysis of the single women factor in the elections, past and future, and have yet to note anyone defining what a single woman is. When she is referenced, the perception that is given is of a female of voting age who has never married. We are a much more powerful group. We are:
- never married
- divorced
- widowed
- lesbian, in states where we are not allowed to legally marry

That makes up much more in percentage than what is actually being counted. And the greater percetage of all voting age women, not married, bring in and spend most of the money in this country, manage the lives of children, have jobs that scale the income ladder from top to bottom to homelessness. We also make up the majority of community volunteers from Friends of the Library to Food Aid and beyond. We are and can be the most powerful force in this election. And, as that kid says in South Park, "I do what I want" and I'm freakin' not going to iron your shirt, busta.

Lyn LeJeune - Rebuilding the Public Libraries of New Orleans, The Beatitudes, The New Orleans Chronicles, and "When Ignatius J. Reilly Worked at The New Orleans Public Library and I Went Crazy at the Port-O-Call" at www.beatitudesinneworleans.blogspot.com

[kj593]

I thought the signifiance of her victory has been drowned out the media handwringing of how they could get it so wrong. Her victory stands as a testiment of how far we've come in this country and how far we have to go. And I didn't want her to win, but I applaud her victory.

[SolarPowerGuy]

(Trying to post this a second time, this time using two carriage returns between each paragraph -- will it be more readable? The preview showed line feeds! But then the posted version didn't have them!)

"The biggest news about the way these women caucused in Iowa is that they voted not on gender, but consistent with the issues that matter to them the most: They were the first voting bloc to place ending the war in Iraq at the top of their agenda. So they voted overwhelmingly democratic and against the war. They didn't play the role that any movie script would have written for them: they voted for Barack Obama because they believe him to be the stronger anti-war candidate."

Is that really the reason? If so, the logic is terribly flawed. If you really wanted a strong anti-war candidate, why wouldn't you support Richardson, Kucinich, or Gravel?

I had some hope for Obama before he got elected to the Senate. Since then he has retreated to the "safe," "centrist" position on the war which Hillary Clinton and John Edwards also hold. All three were asked whether U.S. troops would all be out of Iraq by 2013, and all of them said NO. What's up with that?

[SolarPowerGuy]

"The biggest news about the way these women caucused in Iowa is that they voted not on gender, but consistent with the issues that matter to them the most: They were the first voting bloc to place ending the war in Iraq at the top of their agenda. So they voted overwhelmingly democratic and against the war. They didn't play the role that any movie script would have written for them: they voted for Barack Obama because they believe him to be the stronger anti-war candidate."
.
Is that really the reason? If so, the logic is terribly flawed. If you really wanted a strong anti-war candidate, why wouldn't you support Richardson, Kucinich, or Gravel?
.
I had some hope for Obama before he got elected to the Senate. Since then he has retreated to the "safe," "centrist" position on the war which Hillary Clinton and John Edwards also hold. All three were asked whether U.S. troops would all be out of Iraq by 2013, and all of them said NO. What's up with that?
.
(I'm putting these funny dots between paragraphs because the changes in the comment system here at HuffPo are stripping out plain-old white space. Hopefully someone will correct the bug soon?).

[Uselessboy]

Leadership in politics never precedes the people. There has to be a motivated base to tap into.

It's a shame we have to decide between barriers to break down this election, whether it's gender, race or to a lesser extent the first aggressive economic populism in most of a lifetime.

All sides are being slandered unjustly, and all are claiming abuse at times when it isn't happening. It's not a pretty process, and it'll be uglier once society's powerful forces that oppose all change start their campaign in earnest. It's going to be difficult to impossible to debate anything productively once the emotional bombs start exploding.

[AnninCA]

Interesting information. As you point out, the election is already highly influenced by women voters due to the issues that are important.

The part that is divisive is that there doesn't seem to be the same on the racial issues It's just all about racial prejudice, old feelings and the same ole' blame game.

That's going to wear out very fast with most people.