Indiana, North Carolina and the Gender Gap

Women were 59% of the voters in the Pennsylvania primary and 57% of them voted for Hillary Clinton. There clearly is a gender gap in this primary election, but it's not necessarily what you think.

Women, overall, don't necessarily default to the female candidate, despite conventional wisdom. Only 4% of those exit-polled said gender was most important to their decision, and 15% said it was only one of several factors considered. Of those 15%, 72% of them voted for Hillary. So, if gender is your thing, then you put Hillary's XX chromosomes in the mix, but there are other important reasons women voted for Hillary last night and why the female voter seemed to be galvanizing around her.

When it comes to picking a candidate, women are tougher customers. Despite the stereotype that they respond best to the themes of "making Her-story," women actually care more about the substance and details of a candidate's position on the issues than men do.

While Obama is good on inspiration and optimism, Hillary gets more down and dirty on the economy, tax policy and education. This is especially true during the final stretches of the campaigns. And this could be one of the reasons why last minute voters went to Hillary.

Women also want the candidate who they can connect with and who shows them that they care. Last night Clinton won 56% of voters who ranked "cares about people" as their top candidate quality. Clinton also beat Obama (barely) in exit-polls on how in touch the candidate is with people like you.

Also, women like candidates who speak to their desire for control over their lives. In Hillary's victory speech she noted that she was in the race to "fight for anyone who has been counted out." Most women, at one point or another in their careers, have felt that glass ceiling and can relate to the underdog messaging. She connected with their sense of wanting control.

With Indiana and North Carolina around the corner, if Obama wants to chip further into Hillary's gender gap he doesn't need to worry about being a man. What he does need to do is give women voters more details on policy and do a better job of communicating that he understands their real life situation.

Research shows that women are more skeptical of the political process and take longer to cultivate but that, once you have them, they are extremely loyal and use their word-of-mouth marketing prowess to support their candidate.

This is another reason that support for Clinton is consolidating. The Wall Street Journal points out that around 25% of Clinton's supporters said they would vote for Sen. John McCain rather than Obama, while 16% of Obama's supporters claim to prefer the presumptive Republican nominee to the former first lady.

Women aren't a niche audience this election cycle. How you reach them is as important as acknowledging their electoral heft.

Note: Blog was written before exit poll numbers were finalized. Some of the numbers may have changed.

Comments

[Lon]

So white women vote for Clinton not because she is a woman but becomes she seems more caring and how in touch she is with them. That is to say she is like them and fits best with women associated traits, but not because she is a woman.

Your claim that woman are more issue oriented is certainly undercut by your claim that 25% of them would vote for McCain who holds the opposite positions on the issues over Obama who agrees with Clinton on most issues.

In fact all of the actual evidence provided, as opposed to unsupported claims, would seem to support the idea that the gender gap is just what one would expect. Clinton's appeal is that she is a woman.

[Countess]

Women have proven themselves to be much more right wing during this primary and have backed a candidate who is close to Bush in her world view. The politics of fear seems to have won them over and Hillary Clinton exploits this fear to the hilt. It is a sad spectacle.

[bellecloche]

You can speak for yourself and whatever female Hillary supporters you know, but as you said, women aren't a niche - they're 51% of the population and way too diverse to be politically summed up in 10 paragraphs. (For however many women think Clinton is better on education or the economy, just as many women like me are turned off by her Republican hawkishness and divide-and-conquer campaign strategy.) The press is tying itself in knots trying to explain exactly how the female voter, the black voter, the young voter, the Latino voter, the gay voter, the religious voter, the small-town voter, and the college-educated voter each think. The only safe generalization is that none of the voters of these groups like to be stereotyped.

[leftcoastliberal]

Interesting that so many of Hillary's female supporters would vote for anti-choice, pro-war, ultra-right-wing McCain over Obama, who shares most of Hillary's positions on the issues. If issues don't matter to these women what does? I can think of several things, and none of them put these women in a very flattering light.

[jhamm1]

" women actually care more about the substance and details of a candidate's position on the issues than men do."

Oh really? And I suppose such issues include prior votes on the Iraqi War, 7 pieces of proposed legislation which died in inception due to a lack of co-sponsors, and threats to obliterate Iran, which if anything signal an incentive to persist in the same methods of so-called "diplomacy" that characterized the previous administration.

If side-stepping such concerns amounts to caring about "the substance and details of a candidate's position on the issues ", we're all in big trouble.

[IndyT]

I think you misread the exit polls, and you are looking at old data. Here is the final exit poll for PA: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226004/

Women were 58% of voters, and 59% went for Clinton.

4% of voters said gender was most important, and an additoinal 16% said it was one of many factors.

About 25% of women said gender was important (Clinton won this group 77-23) and about about 15% of men did (Clinton won this group 60-40).

Among the 80% of voters who said gender was not important, Clinton and Obama tied 50-50.

Among the 75% of women who said gender was not important, Clinton won 52-48. That slight advantage is hardly evidence that Obama's message is not resonating with women.

The "Clinton gives details about her stance on issues and Obama doesn't" myth is getting pretty stale. Obama has been offering plenty of details. Perhaps that's why he basically tied her among women who don't care about the candidate's gender.

[ldvisavis]

What a beautiful dream! Oh, if only this campaign--one that filled us all (well, Democrats anyway) with joy in our rich abundance of engaging options--if only this campaign were run as you seem to suggest.

Wouldn't it be lovely if the distinctions in the election were around the level of policy details offered, or the authentic demonstration of caring for others?

I lived in Venice, Italy many years ago. After returning to the US, I visited the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas. It was a weird experience to see the sanitized, Disneyfied version of the city. It was undeniable pretty, but it was disconcertingly unreal. I find the analysis you have offered to resonate in the same way with me.

You make some points that may have semblance of truth, but the veneer is thin. The majority of PA voters recognized Hillary had been unfairly negative. Your advice might be effective if there were not forces working to prey on vulnerabilities and drive a wedge between people who have more in common than seems obvious. To ignore or deny that the trickery and gamesmanship genuinely impacts a susceptible demographic is to ignore reality.