No factor has been more responsible for the demise of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid than ignoring the white male voter.
As Barack Obama relishes his recent primary victories in Wyoming and Mississippi, let’s probe the dynamics of race and gender in this increasingly bitter Democratic race.
Just a few months ago Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in for the Democratic presidential nomination. Now amazingly, the latest Gallup poll shows Barack Obama leading by five points.
So what prompted the turn-around? Let’s examine the Democratic primaries and caucuses where exit polling was done. Of these 29 contests, Clinton won 14 and Obama prevailed in 15.
The American electorate consists of four major voting blocks: white females, white males, blacks, and hispanics. In most Democratic primaries, white females outnumber white males by about 50%. In the South, blacks represent a sizable proportion of the electorate, while in California and the Southwest, Hispanics are a force to be reckoned with.
For white women, blacks, and Hispanics, their vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses has been unsurprising:
- White women: This electoral group has lined up predictably behind Mrs. Clinton. The only states where Clinton lost the white female vote were Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, and Vermont.
- Blacks: African-Americans have voted overwhelmingly in favor of Obama.
- Hispanics: About two-thirds of Hispanics have tipped their hat to Clinton, with telling effects on the races in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas.
So while the votes of white women, blacks, and Hispanics have been predictable, white men have been anything other than humdrum.
In 14 states — Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee — the white male vote went for Mrs. Clinton.
By contrast in 13 states – California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Vermont – white men pulled the lever in favor of Mr. Obama. In Texas and Delaware they split evenly between the two candidates.
Now look at the results. When Hillary captured the white male vote, she won 9 out of 14 contests. But when the guys favored Obama, he triumphed in 9 of the 15 races. If that’s not throwing an election, I don’t know what is.
For example in Utah, Obama cornered 64% of the white male vote. In Vermont, male voters turned out in droves to support Obama by a 29-point edge. Obama easily won both of those primary battles.
In three states — Connecticut, Georgia, and Maryland – white males joined forces with Blacks to put Obama over the top. In Connecticut, Virginia, and Wisconsin, Obama overpowered Clinton’s female advantage thanks to his strong showing among white males.
By contrast, the white female vote did not determine the outcome in any of the Obama victories. As ABC pollster Gary Langer concludes, “in states with significant but not vast numbers of black voters, and few Hispanics, white men are critical.” Despite their smaller numbers, Democratic white males, who are supporting Obama by a 60-40% margin, have emerged as the critical swing group.
So is men’s support of Barack Obama the latest example of incorrigible sexism, the dreaded patriarchy again conspiring to keep women down?
Here’s the surprising answer: Among white females, 35% say the sex of the candidate plays a major role, and these women voted for Clinton by an overwhelming 78-17% margin, according to ABC. In comparison, only 17% of white males say the candidate’s sex is important. And get this – those men also favored Clinton 54 to 35%.
So sexism clearly is a factor in the 2008 Democratic primary race. For women and men alike, that bias operates strongly in favor of candidate Hillary Clinton.
Democrats have always considered the gender gap to be a knock on conservativism, proof the Republican Party is unable to attract the female vote. But this time the Dems must face up to the disparity within their own ranks.
So why have so many liberal white men turned their backs on Hillary? Polling data reveal men are less apt to believe Clinton would be the best commander-in-chief.
And men are 17 points less likely to believe Clinton would unite the country. Having been on the receiving end of Hillary’s gender put-downs, white males wonder if Hillary’s agenda is to let them out to pasture while the pantsuits run the country.
David Paul Kuhn has written in The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma, “No factor has been more instrumental in causing the Democratic decline in presidential politics than the loss of white men.” If Barack Obama ends up winning the nomination, we will add, “No factor was more responsible for the demise of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid than her snubbing of the white male voter.”
careyroberts@comcast.net
Read more articles by Carey Roberts
Carey:
1 white male vote = 1 white female vote.
I don't see your point that any group has more weight than another.
I do agree that Hillary has garnered female support on the basis of her sex, as Obama has gained black support on the basis of his race. That might be expected.
I disagree with you in your analysis of why white males like myself don't support Hillary.
It is not that she is a raving politically correct feminist, but that she is an unprincipled, ends justify the means, politician in the traditional sense.
I don't see where she has snubbed white men. Gender issues have not emerged as an issue of debate in the Dem primary and there is no difference between the candidates on these issues.
Indeed, what characterizes the Dem primary, as opposed to the GOP, is that the two candidates have no significant policy differences on any issue.
Hillary is busy inventing these differences, because when one removes policy from the debate, then it is decided on likability in which she loses.
Comment by yonkel | March 14, 2008
“No factor was more responsible for the demise of Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid than her snubbing of the white male voter.”
That's why no man can vote for Hillary and still call himself a man.
Comment by sedonaman | March 14, 2008
yonkel:.
“1 white male vote = 1 white female vote. … I don't see your point that any group has more weight than another.”
You are comparing the specific with the aggregate; the author was talking about the aggregate. Besides, it depends on the relative size of the groups.
“I do agree that Hillary has garnered female support on the basis of her sex … ”
Actually, it would be closer to say she has garnered the feminist support on the basis of her sex. I know plenty of non-feminist women who won't vote for her. On the basis of garnering the feminist vote, she has alienated the white male.
Comment by sedonaman | March 14, 2008
It's also important to keep in mind that when you're talking about Hillary or Obama attracting or repelling "white men", you're talking about white men *among Democratic primary voters*. White men in the Democratic party are a minority voter bloc, and are more or less exactly like every other Democrat. Sexist feminists vote for the sexist feminists, racist blacks vote for the racist black, and everybody else in the Democratic party is in a quandary as to which "minority" person they should free from oppression by handing them their vote. The only thing unique about white male Democrats is that they have to choose whether they feel more guilty for having penises or white skin. The party would do well next time to select a gay, black, female candidate so their constituents aren't put in this situation again.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | March 14, 2008
Sedonaman:
From McCain country, I take it, at least geographically speaking.
Well, I could vote for HRC, though I lean toward McCain, and last I checked I still had my XY chromosomes and associated appendages. Maybe I will check a testosterone level.
But, a vote either way, would have little to do with what I perceive, feminists, or white men, or anybody else doing, but on policy.
Hillary is attractive to women in the same way that Giuliani is to Italians, Kennedy to Catholics, Obama, to blacks, and if a one legged armadillo ran for office, they would certainly garner that demographic. A certain percentage of people will support their own kind.
I don't even know that on the Dem side, Hillary has the support of the feminists. I am familied into a contingent of loony leftists and most of them support Obama as does most of the left wing of the party, feminists included.
If you know otherwise, show me the data. Statistics trump fanciful arguments.
The original piece to me claiming that the White Male vote is more significant than the other demographics is a mathematically incorrect argument.
Obamas victories in most of the states with a high black turnout were based on that demographic in places like SC, MS, MD, VA, and even though he lost the white vote in general, if the black vote goes 80% Obama and the white vote 55% Clinton, he wins.
The author pointed out that Obama did win the women vote in a number of states, an lo and behold, he won those states.
My point is that in the aggregate, it is not which demographic one wins but the percentage by which one wins. If Clinton only gets 45% of white males, but 56% of white females she wins.
And although it is obviously true that the conservatism of the white male population helped Republicans, one can just as easily argue that women elected Clinton and are responsible for the recent ascendency of the Democrats. The gender gap since 1980, being the difference in support between men and women for one party has ranged from 4-11%:
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Apr/14-284075.html
So when the Dems win it can just as easily be argued that it is because the GOP has lost the women vote. It is a stupid argument, however, because it is not who wins which gender, Kerry got 51% of the female vote, but the relative difference between the plurality of men for the GOP and women for the Dems, factoring in the actual breakdown between number of female and male voters, and in the last 50 years or so women have both outnumbered and outvoted men:
http://www.nationalreview.com/blyth/blyth200409160630.asp
Curiously, prior to 1980 women were more likely to vote Republican.
Now, although I am purporting that no demographic holds a key, I do feel that an interesting demographic that I am watching, is youth, who are voting in far greater numbers than historically, and generally more liberal, and in this primary season more Obama than Clinton. That vote will push the country blue.
Current Rasmussen numbers have voter identification almost 10% more Dems than GOP (41.5 to 31.8):
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/party_affiliation/partisan_trends
but of course JM has deep support among independents and Dems, and in my opinion has two relatively weak oppenents in a year where I think Al Sharpton could have beaten Romney.
Given that, the election appears to me a dead heat unpredictable. I think JM will pull it out, but if you give me 6-5 odds, I go either way.
Dems take 3-5 senate seats.
I must think I am back on election projection blog.
Comment by yonkel | March 14, 2008
I am predicting a McCain victory.
The 2004 election was decided with GWB enjoying a 35 EV margin.
Looking at states in which neither party garnered more than 53% of the vote, we can call them the "in play states", representing 167 EV we have:
For GWB:
CO 9EV
FL 27
IA 7
NV 5
NM 5
OH 20
Total 73
For Kerry:
MI 17
MN 9
NH 4
NJ 15
OR 7
PA 21
WA 11
WI 10
Total 94
Looking to Rasmussen for most recent state polling data:
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_snapshot
regardless of who the Dem candidate is McCain is ahead in:
FL, MI, NH, OH, PA
This represents 89 EV, over half of the "in play vote" and 16 more than GWB garnered, so if he takes those states, he would win. PA is very close. Judging from recent elections, I do not believe that a party could lose both OH and FL and win.
There are a number of states in which polls indicate a variance in which party wins depending on the Dem candidate.
Most recent polls indicate Obama would take IA, MN, NV, OR, WI but Clinton wouldn't.
Also Clinton would take NJ, WA where Obama would fall short.
There is no state of the "in plays" in which both Democrats outpoll McCain
Most of these polls came before Obama's recent troubles and he is definitely trending down in the polls so my guess is that McCain will gain the upper hand in some of those states that favored Obama.
The thing about election predictions is that they are only a snapshot in time. Factor in events in Iraq, the economy, etc. and things can change, but at this point I believe it is McCains to lose and all the trends are his way, notable Obama's demise and the coming internecine warfare among the Democratic camps.
Comment by yonkel | March 22, 2008
yonkel:
"The thing about election predictions is that they are only a snapshot in time."
That's it exactly. About this time in 2004, we saw Kerry way ahead of Bush in the polls. Toward the very end of the campaign, there was a cross-over point in their ratings. And that was not the only campaign that changed.
One of my friends use to be head of the Republican party of Ohio, and he tells me the Republicans are short of money this campaign. This has been on the news a few times recently. It could be more of a deciding factor than who is ahead now.
Comment by sedonaman | March 22, 2008
Sedonaman:
The Dems have raised considerably more $ in the primaries, but it is being spent, at this point fighting each other. If the nomination goes all the way to the convention, neither HC or BA will have any money left though obviously the parties do.
In the meantime, while the two Dem candidates are going at each tother, McCain is out hitting the $100 plate circuit, so I think come the fall the GOP will be in much better shape.
Congress might be a different story.
My prediction is more a speculation than offered with any degree of assurance. I see McCain as strong in the rustbelt and holding FL and OH and putting PA in play which is more than enough to take the electoral college.
Comment by yonkel | March 22, 2008
yonkel:
Hope you are right. I fear it's a loooong way until Nov.
Comment by sedonaman | March 22, 2008