Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Women Lead the Progressive Charge

By Tamara Straus, AlterNet. Posted June 24, 2005.


Emily's List has some advice for Democrats looking for future electoral successes: embrace the fact that family is at the center of women's values.
Advertisement

EMILY's List, the Washington, D.C.-based political network that supports pro-choice Democratic women, has some not-so-subtle advice for Democrats: hijack the family values debate. And do it by targeting the interests of female voters.

According to a research study released by EMILY's List on June 22 entitled "Women at the Center of Change," Republicans are losing the support among women that won them the White House in 2004. The national survey of more than 2,000 women and 600 men found that one third of women who voted for Bush are not planning to vote Republican in the 2006 Congressional election.

"There is a clear message from the women we spoke to: never stand between a woman and her desire to protect and care for her family," said EMILY's List President Ellen R. Malcolm of the study. "Republicans will continue to lose women if they fail to respect that women see themselves -- not government or politicians -- as the arbiter of family values."

This family values argument may seem like a no-brainer to those who wrung their hands (or, more likely, gnashed their teeth) as the Republicans made one masterfully manipulative move after one mind-bogglingly stinging stab around issues of marriage, religion and economics during the 2004 presidential election, but it is instrumental to any future electoral successes for the Democrats. The most significant element of the study is that the concept of family is at the center of women's values.

"There's been a lot of conversation about which is more important -- values or economic concerns," said Karen M. White, national political director for EMILY's List. "Our data shows that's a false choice. For women, it's not an either/or decision. Democrats will not reach women by stressing economics alone."

Among the other top findings of the study are:

  • The gender gap among voters has emerged strongly, as 43 percent of women say they would now vote Democratic and 32 percent would vote Republican. By contrast, a 41 percent plurality of men say they would vote Republican for Congress and 36 percent say they would vote Democratic. This 16-point gender gap is dramatically larger than the 2004 presidential election (7 points) and the 2002 midterm election (5 points).
  • Democrats lead Republicans in every age group, particularly among women age 45 to 54 (46 percent to 29 percent) and those age 55 to 64 (45 percent to 27 percent), Likewise, Democrats have the edge among younger women: 44 percent to 35 percent among those under 35, and 40 percent to 39 percent among those 35 to 44. Seniors give Democrats and eight-point advantage (49 percent to 32 percent).
  • The Republican drop-off is particularly apparent among the following seven demographic subgroups of women: social conservatives, non-college-educated whites, Midwestern whites, Catholics, white married women without children at home, women "in the ideological middle" (or swing voters) and "weak" Republicans.

Why this sea change? The study finds women have moved away from the Republicans since Bush's reelection for three reasons.

First, they are dissatisfied with the country's general direction and blame the Republicans, who now control both houses of Congress and the White House, for the current course.

Second, the issue terrain has shifted from the war on terrorism toward domestic and foreign policy agendas on which Democrats have the advantage. Women in the study volunteered Social Security (27 percent) as their greatest concern, followed by the war in Iraq (25 percent), health care (20 percent), education (19 percent), the economy (16 percent), cost of living and gas prices (12 percent) and jobs (8 percent). This means, the study argues, that the area where Republicans had greatest advantage -- the war on terrorism -- has receded for American women and with it their chances for another electoral sweep. By 60 percent to 25 percent, women choose a diplomatic foreign policy approach over one that hunts down terrorists.

Third, women believe the Republicans have overstated their bounds on issues of privacy, most notably in the recent controversy over Terri Schiavo and euthanasia, and in the relationship between science and religion. Fifty six percent of Republican women believe government shouldn't impose any moral or religious point of view on the country (78 percent of Democratic women feel that way). Also, 60 percent of women choose a pro-science position and worry that the U.S. will not remain a leader in scientific advances in the 21st century.

But these statistics do not foretell a slam dunk for Democrats in 2006, said Geoff Garin of the Garin, Hart, Yang Research Group, a Democratic political polling group that conducted the study for EMILY's List. "Women are pessimistic about the economy and Democrats must offer them hope, but values -- especially those regarding family and community -- must be part of the dialogue."

Digg!

Tamara Straus served as senior editor of AlterNet from 1999-2002.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
xenacat
Posted by: xenacat on Jun 24, 2005 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pandering to the view that Progressives must "hijack" the family values dialogue is absurd. The Democrats tried doing that for the last several elections, morphing into Republican lite in this regard and have consequently lost both elections and party membership.

Progressives need to change the course of the discussion altogether. Both men and women want the best for themselves and thier loved ones. That is a given and so progressives shouldn't be afraid to illustrate just how damaging voting for Republicans is to the average person.

Linking Motherhood and the ability to vote progressively is simply an admission that a white, middle/upper class view of women is the only "correct" view. We win converts by showing we have a spine, not by agreeing with such a narrow concept of why women vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: xenacat Posted by: Dadster3
Dems Lose by Focusing on Demographic Groups
Posted by: blacksheep on Jun 24, 2005 9:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am continually astonished by the naivety of Democratic political analysis in the US. To think that you can still win by appealing to the old strategies that worked when elections were fairly conducted is just absurd. Here are the facts, you figure it out:

1. Election results in the United States are now tabulated not by public elections officials, but by private corporate voting machine manufacturing companies. The election results are counted on software-based machines with no public inspection of the computer source code permitted by the companies.

2. ES&S and Diebold (sister companies stemming from a single pair of brothers, Bob and Todd Urosevich, and funded initially by the far-right wing Ahmanson family) now tabulate an estimated 80% of the national vote. The Republican roots of these companies run very deep and the CEO's are big donors to the BUSH-CHENEY Campaign. In precincts and states where these machines tabulate votes, elections results in many cases have defied the polls. Employees of these two companies routinely 'fix' vote tabulating machines during or after the votes have been cast, under the auspices of 'working' to correct a technical 'glitch'.

3. Ken Blackwell, the Secretary of State in Ohio rsponsible for choosing these voting machines (exclusively) for the swing state, is not only a right wing fundamentalist, but acted as co-chairman for the Bus-Cheney 2004 Campaign.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Democrats give women the shaft in PA
Posted by: mara obelcz on Jun 24, 2005 11:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in my BLUE state of Pennsylvania bigshots in the democratic party could care less about women! Seems they twisted the arm of pro-life, pro-death penalty, republican lite, Bobby Casey Jr. to run against Rick Santorum for US senate! They claim he has name reconition since his father was governor for two terms allowed in this state. Back then what I remember is his dad tearing the party in two with his pro-life stance! Chuck Pennacchio who's progessive is running against him in the primary, but remains a long shot due to $ & no party support. It will be party decisions like this that will turn this state blood RED come 2008!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't understand
Posted by: Sojourner on Jun 25, 2005 10:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You mean Bush and the Republicans sold women the notion that they had more to offer American families than the Demos? That's crazy. I thought women were good shoppers.

The Repugs are opposed to public programs. They're for 'privatizing.' Poverty has increased under the Republicans. Education, especially in Texas as a result of Bush, is in a shambles, even as his buddies in Washington have mandated spreading the Texas manure over the whole country. I thought women talked with school teachers.

And Bush started an unnecessary war where fathers in the reserve have left their families behind to struggle on a serviceman's pay. And on and on and on.

I don't understand? To repeat Freud's classic question, "What do women want?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Talk about false dichotomies!
Posted by: hagwind on Jun 26, 2005 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article quotes Karen M. White, national political director for EMILY's List, as saying: "There's been a lot of conversation about which is more important -- values or economic concerns. Our data shows that's a false choice. For women, it's not an either/or decision. Democrats will not reach women by stressing economics alone."

"Our data" shows it? Our *lives* show it. Many women are still, as the feminist axiom had it, "only one man away from welfare" -- or from the loss of health insurance. Women are still stuck (along with their children) in bad, sometimes physically violent, marriages because the economic consequences of leaving are almost unimaginable. Plenty of us, men as well as women, are stuck in deadening, dead-end jobs for the same reason. Almost every damn day my values collide with economic necessity -- and mind you, I'm lucky: my work is satisfying, and I'm good at it, though I wish it paid better. Where I live, community values are under continual attack by economic circumstances. When you're working two or even three jobs, who has time or energy to volunteer, or even attend a locally produced concert or play?

Is EMILY's List buying into the idea that all families -- especially "intact," traditional, one-man-plus-one-woman families -- are idyllic, supportive, and worth supporting?

I'm totally boggled by the notion that any left-of-centrist needs to be told that "values" and "economic concerns" are inseparable. Where is the grass-roots feminist movement when you need it? It wasn't all *that* long ago that we knew this stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't give me no stinkin family values!
Posted by: Bev on Jun 27, 2005 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a woman, and I would prefer to never hear those words again. The democrats lost because they're not even strong enough to go for what is right for the people. They went middle of the corporate-owned road for a candidate. Kucinich was the man. I will NOT be voting democratic next time around unless they put a candidate in there that is willing to do the right thing. Get rid of corporate-run government!!! Get rid of the pay-offs. We need national health care. We need someone who will do something about big-pharma running things. Stop the oil and auto companies from destroying this entire planet through their endless greed. I must add here that we also have to get rid of the corporate-owned black-box voting machines. What a ridiculous notion to think that we can actually have a democracy when there is no paper trail on our votes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whatever
Posted by: Katja144 on Jul 3, 2005 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Heaven help those of us women who could not care less about having a "family," and whose lives are not centered around reproduction and caring for the product(s) of that reproduction. I don't vote as a baby-machine, thanks.

Way to paint all women with the same stereotypical "mommy brush" that puts us all across as rabid mama bears who will vote for anything that protects our pweshus chyldrun. Some of us care about more than that, and we are not amused when you say we shouldn't. I'm far more worried about my right NOT to have kids (i.e. to be able to go to my doctor, state my desire not to reproduce, and be given a tubal ligation regardless of my age or childbearing status, and to not go to the drugstore and be told that the pharmacist is against me using birth control and therefore will not fill my prescription) than I am about the fictitious children I will never bear.

I was offended enough when political parties decided that as a woman, I needed to be specially targeted as though I did not have the same political interests as men. But now it seems that all of that is because "all women want to be mommies" and therefore will vote "for the children." Whatever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]