The Lasting Lesson from Election '08: Deliver on the Hopes for Change That Led Unmarried Women to the Polls
More than a week after a historic election, political analysts still are sifting through the results, trying to figure out how different segments of society voted, why they cast their ballots as they did, and what their political preferences and patterns of participation mean for the future.
But three lessons are inescapably clear: The electorate that changed America reflects a changing America -- younger, more racially and ethnically diverse, and less likely to be married. The largest demographic group within this new American electorate -- unmarried women -- played a pivotal role in electing Barack Obama as President, building a bigger margin for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and delivering the largest Democratic margins in national politics since 1964. And, for progressives from the White House to both houses of Congress, there is no more urgent challenge than addressing the needs of unmarried women -- especially for economic security - and ensuring that they continue to participate in the political process.
While they usually tend to register and vote less heavily than married people, unmarried women increased their participation this year. Indeed, 20 percent of unmarried women voters cast ballots in their first presidential election this year, compared to 11 percent of all voters and only 4 percent among married women. Similarly, unmarried women were more likely than other voters to have recently registered to vote, with 41 percent of these women having registered during the last four years. (Throughout this article, I am citing statistics compiled by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Women's Voices, Women Vote and Edison/Mitofsky.)
In addition to voting in numbers reflecting their presence in the population -- 53 million in all and 26 percent of voting-age adults -- unmarried women delivered decisive margins for Obama for president and Democratic candidates for the U.S. House, Senate, and public offices at almost every level of government. These women favored Obama over John McCain by a stunning 70-to-29 percent margin, while preferring Democratic candidates for the U.S. House by 63-to-31 percent and for the Senate. In a dramatic indication of how heavily unmarried women supported progressive candidates, Obama's overwhelming 70 percent share of unmarried women's votes was even greater than his 66 percent showing among young voters and his 67 percent of Latino voters.
Unmarried women's crucial role in electing Obama is underscored by the "marriage gap" between their political preferences and those of married women. While unmarried women supported Obama by 41 percentage points, married women favored McCain by 50-to-47 percent for a marriage gap of 44 points. By way of comparison, the gender gap between the preferences of women and men was surprisingly static at 12 percent.
Even more remarkably, in spite of the fact that they overwhelmingly believe that the nation has been "on the wrong track," unmarried women cast their votes in a spirit of hope and purpose, not anger and despair. Seventy-five percent of unmarried women agreed that "this election made me believe average people can help change the country." For these women, change means addressing the most important challenge in the lives -- pervasive economic insecurity.
In many ways, these single, separated, divorced and widowed women really are "women on their own." In an unstable economy, more than 40 percent have household incomes of $30,000 or less. In a discriminatory workplace, these women earn 56 cents for every dollar that a married man makes. In the midst of the healthcare crisis, these women are less likely than married people to have health coverage. In a society where it's difficult to balance work and family, more than 10 million are single moms with children at home. And, when they are too old to work, about 25 percent rely on Social Security as their only source of income.
Now, these women are on their own in a housing crisis, a financial crisis, and a deepening recession. They are more vulnerable than married people to foreclosures, layoffs and bankruptcies.
For President-elect Obama and the newly strengthened majorities in the House and Senate, the message of their mandate from unmarried women is clear: Address the issues of creating good-paying jobs, providing equal pay, expanding healthcare coverage, and securing retirement income that motivated these "women on their own" to register and vote in record numbers. For progressives generally, the lesson is even more emphatic: Our top priority must be to keep these women involved in the political process so that a changing electorate can continue to change America.
Page S. Gardner is president of Women's Voices, Women Vote, a national nonpartisan organization that seeks to increase unmarried women's participation in the political process.
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'm a single male, never married and I voted FOR Obama too.
I don't mind if married folks have tax breaks et al, but I do sometimes get a bit tired of
"marrieds".
Because single people seem to get overlooked all the time.
Much of the time we are the workhorses...looking after sick parents etc.
This is so true in to many people.
This country wants people married and settled down. But Not the Gays and Lesbians they don't want us.
I guess the LGBT community should leave the country after paying taxes and taking care of family.
If your single and st8 your not compling with the masses either.
One answer to this is that single woman on the whole are better educated and more
likely to be in the business world. Many married women are the types that have
marriage (and being taken care of financially) as a goal when they're young and
these women tend to be more conservative and fearful and less capable of
independent thinking.
The Obama Administration needs to address the issues of creating good-paying jobs, providing equal pay, expanding healthcare coverage, and securing retirement income.
Drill, baby, drill; mine, baby, mine: Oil and mining jobs in Alaska pay on average in excess of $80,000, with equal pay for equal work, have healthcare coverage and secure retirement benefits. These are not government based jobs (which is 10 trillion in the hole) but PRIVATE SECTOR INDUSTRY JOBS.
Will the new president support oil and mining exploration in Alaska and other parts of the country, or will he eschew such high paying industry jobs? Many, many unmarried women in Alaska have such jobs.
Eh, maybe it is better to close off all the Federal Lands in Alaska to such development, and put in solar panels to generate electricity during the winter, and give "green" ANWR eco-tours during the summer...
Not that those activities would generate good paying jobs, healthcare or retirement benefits, but it would help fundraising activities of national environmental groups based in NYC and DC.
God bless NYC / DC based environmental groups, who raise alot of money trying to abort resource extraction industries and their high paying jobs. They don't provide alternatives to these good paying jobs across the country. Though unmarried women may find themselves in low paying jobs, they can be assured that when the green dream is achieved, all unmarrieds, along with the nation, will be joining them in the low rung on the economic ladder.
How does the perspective of married voters differ from the perspective of unmarried voters?
It isn't about married women voting like men. There's a marriage gap for men, too, and it's almost as big as the marriage gap for women. Unmarried men supported Obama 58% to 34%, and married men supported McCain 51% to 42%, giving men a marriage gap of 33%-- much bigger than the gender gap of 12% . See the gallup polls at http://www.gallup.com/poll/108058/Candidate-Support-Marital-Status-Gender.aspx . What happens when people get married? Or, maybe, what kind of people get married?
It isn't about age, either. Older women are more likely than not to be unmarried--half of women 60 through 74 and four out of five 75 and older are not married.
I would like to see data for the marriage gap among older women. Widows predominate in this group; how does their vote compare with the votes of their sisters whose husbands are still living?
While I agree that we need to understand what drives this marital status gap, I don't agree that the gap is as large for men as it is for women. Based on the CNN exit poll data, the marital status gap in favor of Obama is 44 for women but only 27 for men. (It's a bit of a pain to calculate since for some reason CNN doesn't seem to have simple breakout of their data by marital status AND gender...). Nevertheless, the marital status gap overall is 37-points in favor of Obama - and there's hardly any news coverage of that.
(Source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p2)
Thank God! We can say good-bye to the security concerns of "soccer moms" and "hockey moms" and all of the other "moms" who gave us 8 years of Bush and a loss of our most basic freedoms.
Thank you for recognizing the single woman. As one, I find your article to be right on. We are meant to feel something less of a citizen because we are not married or have a family.
Woman still are second class citizens.
So is the Lesbian and gay community.
When any one group is singled out not to have equal rights everyone is in jepardy of their rights beening taken away.
We are taxed and pay school taxes and have no representation, If you don't have children you still pay for everyone elses that have them and also get all the benefits married with children get.
If you make five kids you should have to figure out how to take care of them.
I received this email (I will forward to anyone)
---Start E-Mail---
"Our friends at the Democratic National Committee laid it all on the line to bring change this year.
We've been reviewing the books, and the DNC went into considerable debt to secure victory for Barack and Joe. It took unprecedented resources to staff up all 50 states, train field organizers, and build the technology to reach as many swing voters as possible.
It worked.
But it also left the DNC in debt. So before we do anything else, we need to help pay for this winning strategy.
David Plouffe
---END E-Mail---
My reply
---Start Reply---
"Unprecedented resources" that you did not have... The DNC is now like AIG...
The idea that citizens will pay to get anyone who thinks their position is important enough to go into debt to achieve is what Obama argued was "a problem.". You "chose," own up to the consequences.
United filed for Chapter 11 and is "alive". The automobile industry should follow suite. Oh, wait... You want to give them my money too...
How is this "change" when it is what got everyone in this trouble?? You are doing what was complained about in the election--spending what you don't have with no plan.
You lost me.
---End Reply---
If this is the change Obama and the DNC were talking about, I made a mistake...
Hopefully, Congress will rectify this today and strip Paulson of this power to give all this money to his friends. I can't believe that Congress signed another blank check that increased the executive's power even as it bankrupts our country.
If you don't want to contribute, don't contribute. All the campaign is asking for is a donation to the DNC, which, by the way, worked on many more senatorial campaigns than they had orginally planned.
No need to forward...I have my own thanks.
Is it possible that the Obama camp did not know the status of the DNC spending until everything shook out? Like you, I find it irresponsible for the DNC to have spent themselves into debt, however I am not certain this was done with the approval of Obama's team. Perhaps they are trying to help clean up the DNC's mess. Either way, maybe we should hold off on casting judgement until all of the facts are in.
I think the auto industry should file Chapter 11.
Throwing money at a mismanaged mess will only give us more of the same.
Look at AIG wants more and more and goes on 1/2 a million vactions.
I was a Hillary supporter, and when she threw her support to Obama, I voted for him. I also voted against McCain for nominating Sarah Palin, a complete and utter insult to thinking women. I am not enamoured of Obama, but I am glad he won. I haven't voted Republican because I can't see what they would do for me. I am a single mother and am appalled at what they have done to this country.
I hope that they run Palin in '12. Obama would mop the floor up with her in a debate.
I am tired of the love affair with stupid this country has had. I want my leaders to have some brains.
I am also sick of the religious litmus test. The Bush white house was honey combed with Bible studies. That sure worked well. Maybe less "faith based initiatives" which don't work, and more
brains would be better? I wish the Christians would stay in church and out of public life.
This makes perfect sense. Unmarried women live in the real world. They don't have a man to lean on or his income to add to their own. They live in the real world and have to deal with every day issues by themselves. I honestly think there should be some single mothers in government. They know how to budget with a little bit of money.
I'd like to add that just because you are single or a single mother, it doesn't necessarily mean you have very little money. Lots of unmarried women have great jobs and incomes.
Not counting that nice "child support" LOL We do alright...
That is so the wrong thing to say.
If a husband is the bread winner in the family, and the woman doesn't have a paying job, that doesn't mean that she doesn't work...housewives do just as much if not MORE than what their husbands are doing, they just don't get paid for it.
I know....I am one - I cook, clean, run errands - that's MY job, but I"m still involved in the finances.
So...
Are you suggesting that all other people who are not unmarried women live in an unreal world? Like... married people or single men, or single men raising children, or grandparents... or what? I am confused by the statement that unmarried women live in the real world?
I may be wrong... but is this more of a "people who agree with me live in the real world"?
Sorry I was in a hurry. My personal view and this is from dealing with married women at my job, is that they act as if because they're married they know exactly what a single mother on a budget goes thru. That may be the case if they were a single parent before getting married, but 9 times of out 10 that is not the case. I'm not sure what the exact statistics are but I would guess 80% of single parents DO NOT make good money. Child Support is not guaranteed and can not be counted as income. I do not count stay at home parents because they CHOSE to stay at home. Most single parents did not choose to become single parents. We make due with what we have and most times it's not enough. Again, these are my opinions and I do include single fathers when I say they know how to do it.
" In a discriminatory workplace, these women earn 56 cents for every dollar that a married man makes."
Oh, Puleeeeze. Stop with this ancient shibboleth. If you correct for education and number of years in the workforce, the differential almost disappears. And that doesn't even take into account the difference caused by self-selection of different careers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
You know, IT IS TIME to cut through the I CANNOT BELIEVE IT IS REALLY HAPPENING Obama won fog, and start focusing on the business at hand NOW, becaue bush and paulson and their thieving cronies are making their getaway with that 700 billion dollar bailout package behind the scenes.
You mean the 700 billion that the Dem Congress voted for?
well
there was this article in the NYT last year and I have been wondering when there would be some coverage :
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/us/16census.html?hp&ex=11
Major problems with the numbers here. The GQR study of 2000 tallies 66% of the 11/4-5 survey group as married. If the majority is married, the majority cannot be unmarried. I'm assuming that's the reference study, since there seems to be no other from GQR. Cites with links most welcome.
The NYT also draws a different set of conclusions, supporting a far more democratic and, IMO, accurate assessment of broad-based support among many groups. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/weekinreview/09connelly.html?ref=weekinreview
Here are two other perspectives on the breakdowns, and again, a different result on the source of Obama's win:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2008/11/raw_data.html
http://www.thenextright.com/patrick-ruffini/the-straight-ticket-youth-vote
It makes me uneasy to see conclusions bandied about and picked up hither and yon as fact, without seeing primary material that substantiates their basis. And when the conclusions serve the business interests of the groups doing the bandying, it's especially bothersome.
whatshisname? Nate Silver from fivethirtyeight.com -- could you come deal with this asap!
Nate should know about WVWV's history of troubled mailings. If you search back on this site, there are several threads on them. The responses have more key data than the blogs, if I remember right.
Kevin Drum in MoJo also reports: "Also worth noting, just because they're such obvious swing groups, are Obama's large gains among moderates (+12) and the unmarried (+14)." So, 14 percentage points more unmarried voted for Obama (vs McCain) than for Kerry (vs Bush). True, that pales in comparison to the first time voters (+33 swing) but I think it still supports some of the conclusions regarding the marital status gap.
Please note that I am not saying that to support WVWV - I have read those stories about their robo-calls and other strange things. I am pointing this out because there is something to marital status that seems to be related to voting behavior but this is largely ignored (like in the NYT article you mentioned, for example, which doesn't even break things down by marital status). I also agree with Kevin Drum (and presumably your point) that we have to look at more than raw data. Looking at the swing makes a lot of sense to me.
The fact that "married women favored McCain by 50-to-47 percent for a marriage gap of 44 points," was probably due to the fact that many married women vote the same as their husband. It is interesting that of the married couples I know, very few of the women vote differently than their husband. Of those who vote the same as their husband, I like to kid them that their husband will not allow them to think for themselves. One lady I know even admitted she asks her husband who to vote for as she does not keep up with politics. Needless to say I had a nice long talk with her, reminding her that we now live in 2008. She finally agreed that she was old enough and smart enough to read and decide for herself. She was surprised that I do not tell my wife who to vote for, and that we discuss issues, etc., then go cast our ballot for the candidate we each like.
It was an age factor.
My mother-in-law was the same way - she said her husband said if he votes republican and she votes democrat they cancel each other out. She was really undecided until I told her to go w/her gut and her heart and that NO one should tell her who to vote for....(she voted Obama...:) )
In all fairness, I ask my wife to who to vote for.
The use and mis-use of exit polls is becoming a real growth industry, perpetuated probably by assignment editors at newsdesks.
If exit polls reveal that Bob was the most common male name to have supported the winning side, we could see reporters running down stories asking the question, how should the winning side pay particular attention to needs of males named Bob? We hope we never see those stories. Similarily because a voter happens to be unmarried does not necessarily mean she voted a certain way because of her gender and marital status.
I am single and female and I can tell you it had EVERYTHING to do with the way I voted....
Gender and marital status are indicators of many other factors that help determine how a person votes. I don't vote the way I do bc I am female, unmarried, etc., but being so gives me a perspective on the issues that may be different for someone in different circumstances. Where you are positioned in life has a lot to do with how you see the world.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
