Clinton Wins Republican Women But Loses Democratic Men

[cali]

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Mark Penn, a senior strategist and pollster for Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign, made news recently by suggesting that Clinton could win up to 24% of the votes from Republican women in Election 2008.

Recent Rasmussen Reports polling data from match-ups against top Republican candidates offers some support for that claim—it shows Clinton attracting an average of 18% support from Republican women.

However, there is another side to the gender gap story. The same surveys show that while Clinton is attracting 18% of Republican women, she is losing an average of 20% of Democratic men to the Republicans.

These results come from recent national telephone surveys matching Clinton against Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Two polls matching Clinton against each Republican candidate were included to compile these averages.

<snip>

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/clinton_wins_republican_women_but_loses_democratic_men

have at it, girls and boys.

[wyldwolf]

1. My observation

I never doubted Penn's analysis last week although DU jumped on it like dogs to a pork chop. I'm sure Clinton polling is also aware of of the "man" problem, but polling has suggested that white males are her biggest problem, anyway.

Other polling has suggested she's closed that gap.

[OKNancy]

4. I have a feeling that those "Democrats" are

the wishy-washy kind who voted Reagan, for example. Any Democrat who wouldn't vote for her because she is a woman probably wouldn't vote a Democrat anyway. I discount the few rabid types here who say they will never vote for her. I bet in November most of them will, especially after they see and hear the opposition.

[BootinUp]

16. Exactly. n/t

[bahrbearian]

28. Yea right, wishy washy,,, I never voted for raygun,, and I can see a

Wishy Washy canidate when I listen to one.

[Clark2008]

43. Not true.

I know a few men - one of whom is a Clarkie, btw - who would all vote for the Democrat, providing it isn't her.

It's a true-enough phenomenon.

[wyldwolf]

45. yeah...right

I know a few men - one of whom is a Clarkie, btw - who would all vote for the Democrat, providing it IS her.

:eyes:

Anecdotal evidence. :)

[BlueJazz]

2. If Hillery is on the ballot next November...Damn right I'll vote for her.

I still suspect she's playing the Spider to lure in the right wingers.

[Hieronymus]

3. Edwards is Democrats' best chance of winning against a Republican.

[cali]

5. I don't see that.

At least I don't see evidence for that. But then I really don't go for theorizing about that stuff.

[madmunchie]

7. Yeah, JE talks like a Democrat and votes like a Republican

he voted YES to free trade with China
he voted YES on the 2001 bankruptcy bill
he voted against the 2002 amendment for voting rights to be reinstated to convicted criminals
he cosponsored and voted for IWR
he voted for the Patriot Act

Sure he is talking like a Dem now, but when he had a chance to do something in the Senate, he voted like a Republican.

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Edwardians hate being reminded of those facts.

And the facts are why he's called a Fauxgressive.

[madmunchie]

21. Edwards supporters are an embarrment to the Democratic

Integrity - or what is left of it considering that there are people that call themselves Dems and support candidates like JE.

[saracat]

29. Funny I see Hillary supporters as an embarrassment. And as for integrity.

anyone who campaigns with Rupert Murdoch and hires the union busting, Blackwater defending Mark Penn refuses to realease her own WH records, and votes for Kyl/Lieberman ,is hard pressed to illustrate any integrity in her campaign. And the fact none of this bothers her supporters is astonishing. But ethics and integrity seem mto be of little importance some Clinton supporters.

[madmunchie]

30. I don't like her either

In fact I am not a fan of most of the Dem Candidates.

[Hieronymus]

53. You tell 'em.

[PurityOfEssence]

40. And Clinton's record is worse

She wasn't in the Senate when the China bill went through. She WAS in the Senate and voted for free trade with Chile and again with Singapore, while Biden, Dodd and Edwards all voted against them.

She wasn't in the Senate when the 2000 Bankruptcy Bill was voted on. (Are you trying to mislead us by calling it a "2001" bill?) She didn't even deign to show up for the Bankruptcy Bill in 2005, giving us a fine, upstanding "no vote".

You're right about the 2002 reinstatement vote: she was for, he was against.

He was one of 16 co-sponsors of the Iraq War Resolution, but she voted for it too.

She also voted for the Patriot Act as did every Senator but one (Russ Feingold), but Edwards fought to keep the sunset clauses from being stripped out.

the AFL-CIO gives him a better rating on their voting records.

The National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association gives Edwards 100% (along with Kucinich and Obama) but Biden, Clinton and Dodd only get 93%.

He was also one of the most aggressive questioners in the Ashcroft confirmation hearings; they both voted against the nomination.

Edwards gets a lot of snottiness for not having done much in the Senate, but he had a pretty good single term there. He was very vigorous in fighting for McCain-Feingold, arguing successfully against the reactionaries' assertion that this was "stifling free speech". Feingold called him a "terrific asset" in moving the bill toward passage.

He was instrumental in not allowing parts of the Senate deliberations in the Clinton Impeachment Trial from being held behind closed doors as the right wanted, at a time when this was a point quite a few on the left were willing to concede.

He co-sponsored a bill that would allow for cameras in the courts in federal cases but it was not acted on.

In fact, a bit surprisingly for such a do-nothing guy, he co-sponsored 203 bills. What a loafer. A lot of them are ceremonial piffle, but there's lots of truly honorable lefty stuff there, like increasing the minimum wage (tried repeatedly), creating a center for social work research, providing more affordable pharmaceuticals, modernizing and protecting railroad retirement programs, amending the Clean Air Act to reduce power plant emissions, prohibiting discrimination based on genetic information, providing Federal assistance to help local governments prosecute hate crimes, recruiting and retaining nurses, prohibiting racial profiling, improving health care in rural areas, providing economic assistance for trade-affected communities, prohibiting employment discrimination due to sexual orientation, providing services to prevent family violence, providing economic security for American workers (sponsored by Wellstone) and prosecuting those who destroy evidence in securities fraud cases.

No wonder the right hates his guts.

Those were just the ones he co-sponsored.

He also sponsored the "Spyware Control and Privacy Protection Act", the first such legislation to protect computer users from this nasty stuff. This is hardly the work of a conservative, and it's something he did very early in his career.

He was the guy who did the depositions on Monica Lewinsky and Vernon Jordan, even in his first year in the Senate, he was considered a major legal player.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's record is to the right of John Edwards'. You can parse it and obfuscate it all you will, but it's simply the case. Bear in mind, too, that he was representing a pretty red state. Perhaps Kerry was right, perhaps he couldn't have won re-election.

There's much, much more if you care to read.

[harun]

47. I think it is Republicans who need a chance to win against

the Dem but you are right. Edwards will do better where it counts and is also a great candidate.

Edwards/Obama is what I am hoping the ticket is.

[Hieronymus]

54. That ticket could work.

[cobalt1999]

6. 20% of democratic men won't vote for Hillary

I wouldn't doubt that about republican men, but I always thought democratic males were more enlighten than that. 1 out of 5 democratic men won't vote for a woman? That's sad.

[Larynx Oblation]

9. Thats Nothing

If by bad fortune she gets the nod. You will see a ground swell of repug's that would not consider voting, come out of the woods just to cancel her ticket. And you can bet that the repug women will be right there with them.

[cali]

11. Who knows?

You certainly don't. Nor do I. There are a lot of variables- including who the repuke nom is.

[Larynx Oblation]

13. Who Knows Factor

There is an element to that, but we can conclude for certain that repukes are more racist, homo-phobic, and chauvinistic.

[cobalt1999]

17. Actually, I don't agree

I don't see the passion in the centrist republicans anymore. The hard-core will vote against the democratic nominee regardless, Hillary or not. I also believe that a sizable number of republican women will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, but that's just my opinion.

I've heard these fears of the republicans expressed here before, but have no idea why people believe it and are so scared of them.

[EV_Ares]

19. Yeah, I think most know it is inevitable where she will be or tend

to be more of a divider, Edwards would tend to be more of a uniting factor. So far, past and present polls pretty well indicate attitudes toward Hillary and how things might go. Naturally, it still will depend on a lot of variables and possible screw ups on either side. A lot of people are sick of Bush and a lot of people do not want to go back to another Clinton era. They much prefer someone new, different ideas and not part of the Washington establishment.

I have no doubt however unfortunate that she will be the nominee for the democratic party. She has the money, power, DLC and everything she needs to get the nomination. However, that does not mean she will be the winner by any means. It will be a very divisive race with her as the nominee.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. 80% of Democratic men will vote for Hillary

Playing with theses numbers is called 'poll dancing' :rofl:

[cobalt1999]

14. Well, I would think those 20% of men would stick around for the "poll dancing" at least.

Good one. :rofl:

[Bluestar]

20. And yet supported by the misogynistic comments that I see here

on DU everyday!!

[mark414]

24. not voting for a woman does not equal woman hater

my House rep is a woman and I'd gladly vote for her every day of the year.

i'm not voting for Hillary because she doesn't represent the change I desire to see in this country; her gender has nothing to do with it

[spooky3]

31. I think the point was that this 20% would vote for a Rethug

before they would vote for the Dem., Clinton. The comparison in this poll is not to other Democrats.

I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to conclude that that implies sexism or Reagan-DINO voters (or both).

[mark414]

36. IMHO, it implies stupidity

for anybody to think any single one of the Repub candidates would be better than Hillary (even though she's my last Dem choice) implies a lack of brain cells, or at least that's how I see it

though it is definitely a sad fact that some people won't vote for Hillary just because she is a woman - much like Obama will lose some voters because of his skin color.

god bless america! :sarcasm:

[spooky3]

52. lol!

[amandabeech]

35. Maybe they just don't like her, but would vote for another woman.

Goodness knows there are plenty of people around here who don't like Clinton and say they won't vote for her if she's the nominee. I'm sure that there are some males among them.

I expect that there are some moderate to conservative Dem males who don't want to vote for a woman. I would expect that to be an older crowd in large part. Seventy and 80-year olds grew up in a different world, and they are probably not going to change.

I'm not particularly fond of her myself, but I am looking forward to voting for a woman candidate whom I can really root for before I die.

[cobalt1999]

49. Yes, but would you rather vote for a republican over her?

That was the point in the article I was calling out.

[amandabeech]

51. No. I'll hold my nose. n/t

[MadHound]

44. Wow, that's a sexist statement.

Perhaps those Democratic men aren't going to vote for her based on her politics not her sex. Ever consider that, or did you just automatically jump to the sexist conclusion that the twenty percent group were Neanderthals?

I'm one of that twenty percent who won't vote for Hillary, and it isn't because she's a woman. It is because of her pro-war, pro-corporate policies. I couldn't care less what sex she is, hell, I've worked long and hard in the womens' movement, going back to when I was helping out trying to ratify the ERA. But nooooo, according to you I must be some sort of sexist pig because I won't vote for Hillary:eyes:

[cobalt1999]

48. If you had bothered to read the original article..

It's saying 20% would vote REPUBLiCAN vs. Hillary. 20% of DEMOCRATIC men would rather vote for a REPUBLICAN. If you are one of those, yes, I would consider you a Neanderthal.

LOL, and you talked about "jumping to conclusions"! :rofl:

[MadHound]

50. I did read the article, and also what you stated.

I was responding to the latter, not the former.

[still_one]

8. I am a guy, and if 20% of those so-called Democrats are going to vote for the current crop of repugs

then either they have something against powerful women, or they were never Democrats in the first place

For nothing else, the Supreme Court is at stake, and the differences between all of the republican candidates verses the Democratic ones are huge

bunch of morans if they would vote for these republican thugs

I will say that if women want to preseve control on their bodies, equal pay for equal work, and a host of other issues, they had better unite and vote Democratic

[spooky3]

32. agree--and that was true in all prior elections in this century

Look at the behavior of the SC members who have been added since * took office.

Of course, Dems may have won more of these elections.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. That Twenty Percent Figure Strikes Me As A Bit High

But one needs to keep in mind most Democratic national candidates only garner 87% -90% of the Democratic vote...It's not as if everybody who calls themself a Democrat votes for the Democratic candidate, as counterintuitive as that might sound...

You can massage statistics until they say whatever you want them to say or say nothing at all...

I also need to look at a conglameration of polls and not just one poll...

[Bitwit1234]

18. Well we all know that the men out there are sexist

they couldn't stand for a woman to be in charge. AND just think the men have done such a damn good job, why would they want a woman to show them up.

[Lucinda]

22. She's losing 20% of Dem men to the REPUBLICANS?

I'm seriously doubting that.

[WCGreen]

23. I basically said the same thing in a post a while ago....

You can check here if you care to see how prophetic I am....


LOL!!!!


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/WCGreen/48

[sampsonblk]

25. I'll take that

Gains are more important than losses in this environment. Chances are, losing Dem men doesn't mean they will vote GOP.

[PurityOfEssence]

26. Gender has nothing to do with any of her support, period.

That's what I keep hearing. The fact that a lot of very liberal women who are pro-union, anti-free trade and anti-war are supporting her has nothing to do with it, even when the other Democratic candidates are all to the left of her on most issues.

The fact that many recriminations of her character, policies, actions and more importantly inactions are repeatedly met with cries of misogyny has nothing to do with anything.

Gravity does NOT exist, and the sky is whatever particular color she wants it to be, even when it's simultaneously different colors for different audiences. Anyone who says any different is a woman-hating pig of the first order, even though gender has nothing to do with it.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooky3]

33. The OP is not discussing Clinton vs. other Dems.

As others have said, any "Dem." who would vote for any of the current crop of Rethug. contenders rather than Clinton can be very legitimately questioned, and these questioners are not engaging in sexism. The records of all of them are more conservative and problematic than hers, and in addition, most if not all of them would be less supportive of women's rights.

I say this as an Edwards supporter.

If we were talking about relative support for Dems. instead: It would not be hard to understand why some liberal, pro-union, anti-free trade, etc. people of color would vote for Obama before Kucinich or Edwards, for example, nor would I consider that racist. Such voters might just be sick of having to trust that a white candidate, even one whose positions they agree with on more issues, would be as genuinely committed to certain issues of concern to them as someone who has experienced many of the same things that they have.

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Nor am I.

Bringing up the gender issue as it relates to the general election is just as taboo as its effect on the primaries is.

It's a big issue, but it's constantly ignored or downplayed. If she's nominated, I don't want it to come down to a male versus female thing, I'd like it to be about policies and character.

My point in posting this bit of sarcasm is that it underlines that gender IS a big issue in her candidacy, and it has to be dealt with directly, instead of having certain subjects be forbidden in polite society. Bringing this issue up often gets met with EXTREME responses, and much as people would like things to be a certain way, they may not be and they should be addressed.

I'd be very surprised if the net change in standard voting affiliation would lean this way because of gender. It's always seemed quite realistic that many otherwise conservative women would mark the ballot for a fellow woman just because of that, but I'd be rather surprised if gender alone caused a net loss because of otherwise Democratic men voting against the concept of a woman as president. I may very well be wrong; perhaps misogyny is much greater even on the left than I'd ever suspected, but I just don't see this.

My assumption is that, in addition to those who genuinely vote on policy, she'd draw in moderate, conservative and non-voting women who were voting for her gender, and that this would more than counterbalance the misogyny vote, but that it wouldn't be able to overcome the extreme negatives she has from so many directions. This assumption is based on the belief that the stone-headed misogynists of the world are already irredeemably Republican, with a few swing voters and Dems thrown in, but not enough to erase the gain she'd have from her own gender.

What is unfortunate is that the subject can't really be broached without a storm of derision and dismissal. It's an emotional issue and it's an important one. There's a dangerous "how dare you say that?" kind of response when one brings up the specter of those who will not address that a significant element in her support is due to gender. More than anything, this is used systematically by some to dismiss any resistance to her, and that doesn't engender much affection.

[sandnsea]

34. Connecticut Republicans?

Maybe. But who cares, that state will go Dem anyway. Is she gaining any in Florida or Ohio or New Mexico, that's the question. And from the Republicans I know in those states, I'm going to say not by a long shot.

[jmp]

37. "Clinton is attracting 18% of Republican women"

Hillary couldn't attract 15% of Republican women if the GOP candidate was declared ineligible and the only alternative was Satan running as a communist with a pro-gay marriage, pro-abortion, pro-drugs, anti-military, anti-gun, freedom from religion platform. :eyes:

[Jim Lane]

38. I'm guessing that the poll UNDERSTATES both these effects

If Hillary is the nominee...

A Republican woman tells her friends, and any pollsters, that of course she's voting for the Republican. Then she gets into the privacy of the voting booth and she remembers all the crap she's had to put up with because she's a woman. She remembers everything from job favoritism to unfunny jokes. Here's her chance to strike back and to help advance a woman. She votes for Hillary and immediately resumes assuring everyone that she voted Republican.

On the other hand: A Democratic man tells his friends, and any pollsters, that of course he's voting for Hillary. Then he gets into the voting booth and wonders if a woman can be tough enough to deal with terrorists. And what if a crisis arises at the wrong time of the month? He votes for a tough-guy Republican but, like the woman in the preceding paragraph, lies about it.

I think both these scenarios will be fairly common if Hillary is our nominee. The election might turn on which is more common.

[Perry Logan]

41. Can you spell M-I-S-O-G-Y-N-Y?

I thought you could.

[Clark2008]

42. Heck, I could have told you this without a poll

I see it every day.

[wyldwolf]

46. ..because you have a "few friends..."