Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
On Moms and Latinos
Also in Top Stories
Synthetic Pot as a Military Weapon? Meet the Man Who Ran the Secret Program
Martin A. Lee, AlterNet
Economic Realities Are Killing Our Era of Fantasy Politics
Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com
Why Karl Rove Should Go to Jail
Rep. Linda T. Sanchez, Huffington Post
Maliki Endorses Obama's Iraq Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush
Tom Hayden, Huffington Post
Reborn MLB Slugger Josh Hamilton Is One Lucky Former Drug Addict
Anthony Papa, AlterNet
Fidel Castro on Fidel Castro
Greg Grandin, The Nation
What Does Silence Really Sound Like?
Marisa Taylor, Ode
As Obama Heads to Middle East and Europe, Let's Talk About U.S. Imperialism
Roberto Lovato, Of America
From the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation:
In this edition of Public Opinion Watch:
(covering polls and related articles from the weeks of September 20-26, 2004)
The Myth of the Security Mom
Last Wednesday, Katherine Seelye solemnly informed us in the New York Times that Kerry is in a struggle for a Democratic base: women. The next day, Lois Romano piled on and claimed in the Washington Post that female support for Kerry was slipping, which was particularly heavy with theorizing about the importance of the alleged "security mom." Both articles, however, were thin on data and logic, never stopping to ask themselves whether, if Kerry has less support than he did, say, six weeks ago, he has actually lost more support among women than among men and whether that pattern has been consistent across polls during that time period. And neither bothered to look at how women stack up to men in terms of being politically motivated and supportive of the president because of security issues.
Nah. Too complicated.
But others have taken the time to look at the questions the New York Times and Washington Post reporters chose not to investigate. I am delighted to report their findings here in Public Opinion Watch.
First, let's take the issue of how much women's support of Kerry has changed compared to men's. Here's what Philip Klinkner, professor of government at Hamilton College and contributor to the political science blog, PolySigh, has to say:
[Wednesday's] NYT reports that the Kerry campaign is worried about losing support among women. The story however provides no evidence that the gender gap is closing. The only numbers cited show that Kerry is running worse among women than Gore did in 2000, but Kerry's also been running worse [among] men. In fact, there's no evidence that Kerry has lost any more support among women than among men. Bush, at least until recently, has been running better than Kerry, so that almost inevitably means that he'll be doing better among women as well as among men. But is there any evidence that Bush is closing up the gender gap? In fact, to paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the demise of the gender gap are greatly exaggerated.
In 2000, exit polls showed that Democratic vote among women was 54-43 and among men it was 42-53. Calculating the gender gap as the women's Democratic vote minus the men's Democratic vote divided by two, that gives a gender gap of 11 points [((54- 43)- (42-53))/2]=11
In the latest (early September) WaPo poll, the Democratic vote was 49-43 among women and 39-57 among men. That's a gender gap of 12 points... a bit higher than in 2000. The latest ARG poll shows women voting Democratic 50-42 and men 42-51. That's a gender gap of 8.5 points, a bit lower than in 2000. Both polls suggest that the gender gap is running about where it was 4 years ago.
Furthermore, there's no evidence that Bush's recent surge came more from women than from men. The early August WaPo poll showed Kerry leading Bush 50-44. The early September poll had Bush up by the same 50-44 margin. That means Bush picked up a net of 12 points (he went from down 6 points to up by 6 points). In August, Kerry was running 56-39 among women and 44-50 among men. That means Bush picked up a net of 11 points among women (from down 17 to down 6) and a net of 12 among men (from up 6 to up 18). Thus, the Bush surge came equally from men and women.
Well, that takes care of that. Now let's look more specifically at the security moms nonsense. Pollster Anna Greenberg is all over this one, as you can see from checking out her excellent memo, "The Security Mom Myth." Here are some excerpts from the memo:
Sixty-four percent of women voters are married, but only 43 percent have children under 18 years of age. This means that only 26 percent of all women voters could be characterized as "security moms." If we narrow the analysis to white women, this number goes down to 22 percent of all women voters. Women are diverse and trying to characterize them as a monolithic group with unified set of political views misses the mark. As we know, there are huge differences among women voters, just look at the marriage gap between married and unmarried women. Kerry currently wins unmarried women by 22 points and loses married women by 4 points....
Ruy Teixeira is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
| More News and Analysis: | ||
|
Maliki Endorses Obama's Iraq Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush Election 2008: In a stunning breakthrough for Obama, Iraq's prime minister endorsed the Dem candidate's timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq. By Tom Hayden, Huffington Post. July 19, 2008. |
Nine Reasons to Investigate War Crimes Now Rights and Liberties: Why we can't let the Bush Administration get away with its crimes. By Jeremy Brecher, Brendan Smith, The Nation. July 19, 2008. |
As Obama Heads to Middle East and Europe, Let's Talk About U.S. Imperialism ForeignPolicy: As Obama prepares for his world tour, we must prepare to ask him the tough questions about imperialism and the U.S. global military machine. By Roberto Lovato, Of America. July 19, 2008. |