Login Here
[Editor's note: This is the third of a six-part series by Paul Lukasiak on what polling reveals about how Americans will vote in the coming election. Part I gave an overview explaining that "Not just sexism but also racism were major factors in how the 2008 election would play out." Part 2 examined what happens when the percentage of black voters increases. -- DN]
Racism and Sexism: What Happens When the Gender Gap Shrinks
The previous chapter shows how the gender gap decreases as the Black vote increases. By sorting the same data by the gender gap shift, we can see what happens as the gender gap decreases. (Note that the numbers at the bottom of the chart reflect the progression of the gender gap shift, and not the percentage of Black voters.)
The first thing that should be noted is that while overall gender gap trends are related to the percentage of African American voters, there is considerable variation. The grouping of Black triangles near the Plum line represent those states with the lowest percentage of African American voters; this group includes all the heavily Republican Mountains/Plains states, and also includes two “home states” (Hawaii and Arizona) where “favorite son” status trumps the gender gap.
It is important to keep in mind that while we are looking at an overall trend, that trend in some senses represents a series of similar “sub-trends.” So while heavily Republican states may not have the largest gender gaps, within the subset of heavily Republican states you see a decrease in the gender gap as the percentage of African American voters increases.
So while there are a lot of Black triangles (representing the percentage of Black voters at that point on the gender gap trend line) grouped around the Black % trend line, there are also quite a few obvious outliers.
The behavior of men and women is significantly different, as the gender gap decreases (and Black voter percentages increase.
By sorting by gender gap, we get a much clearer idea of who is responsible for the changes in the gender gap as the percentages of Black voters increases.
· The gaps within the subsets of males and females both get smaller (close in on the 0% Plum line axis) as the gender gaps decreases (and the percentage of African Americans voters gets larger).
· The slope of the male (Blue) line is less than that of the female (Red) line, telling us that women are more responsible for the gender gap shift that occurs that occurs as the percentage of Black voters increases.
· There are few “outliers” among the male and female data points, just as there were few outliers when the same data was sorted by Black percentages, which strongly indicates that there is a significant correlation between Black voter percentages, and the changes in the gender gap.
Finally, if we look at the White vote shift trend line when we sort the data by gender gap shift, while the White shift vote data points are not closely bunched around their trend line, there is slight downward trend among the grouping, suggesting a relationship between the changes in the White vote, and the changes in the gender gap.
In addition, whether sorted by the percentage of Black voters, or by changes in the gender gap, the White shift trend line remains nearly the same, starting very close to +5%, and with little change in the angle of decline, suggesting that there is a fairly strong correlation between the gender gap sharp, the percentage of Black voters, and the White vote shift.
Next: Sexism, Racism, and Win/Loss Margins
Share This 
Spotlight
zed
The Executive Summary, please.
I am hoping that with each following post, some deeper truth will be illuminated eventually. So far, there seems to be a number of terms that are not clearly defined, although it may be just my unfamiliarity with what is commonplace knowledge elsewhere.
Paul, we need you here in the comments to decode some things, if possible.
the “bigger truth” is that sexism still pervades this society, and is manifesting itself in polls like the SUSA 50 state poll where Clinton and Obama are each matched against McCain.
In terms of policy differences, there is simply no way a rational person would switch from Obama to vote for McCain rather than Clinton. Yet, there is a significant shift in votes from Obama in McCain v Obama to McCain in McCain v Clinton.
But the data regarding this evidence of sexism isn’t consistent — and one of the biggest inconsistencies occurs in states with “moderate” to “large” percentages of African American voters.
Simply put, the shift from McCain to Obama is much larger in states with few black voters. When “race” becomes a factor, the evidence of sexism and misogyny is muted.
Well, this certainly puts a whole new wrinkle in things…
Vewdy interesting, indeed…!
Paul … I’m curious about polling and arguing in broad terms “racism” and “sexism” without factoring in the impact of the individual candidates. We’re not seeing or voting on “a black man” v “a white woman” but on two very different personalities, political perspectives and histories.
Could you explain how your analysis factors that in - or why it does not?
well, when you really get down to it, there is very little difference in where Obama or Clinton would lead the country — and that difference fades into nothingness when you compare the difference between the Democrats and McCain.
But “racism” is really the only explanation I can come up with to explain why white voters who would support Clinton against McCain prefer McCain to Obama — expecially when the change in the white vote is pretty obviously related to the percentage of black voters in the various states. The relationship isn’t “linear” of course, but the trend is clear — the evidence of whites voting based on race increases as African Americans become a larger part of the electorate.
But remember, I’m not actually discussing race, what I’ve been writing about is the evidence of sexism — and how when “race becomes a factor” there is less evidence of sexism.
It seems to follow that the black vote is more staunchly democratic or less sexist. Any idea which?
let’s take that as a given.
there are a ton of other non-rational reasons in addition to sexism. i don’t see how you can conclude it is primarily sexism.
but then, i’ve already od’ed on being told that disliking clinton is due to sexism, so i’m not exactly fertile ground for your conclusions. and i’d like to get past that bias and evaluate your work fairly and critically.
… what makes it particularly hard is that your methods, as i understand them, are very different from the way i am used to seeing data analyzed.
but if you will make the raw data accessible, maybe i can convince myself? in the previous thread, you said that you had a massive dataset of the complete raw data. would you share? (i’ve seen some links to various spread sheets but none of them were the raw data set).
more stauchly democratic. When I’ve looked at polling trends over time in places like Ohio and South Carolina, what I find is that black men have switched to Obama faster than black women. (most pre-election polls don’t have race/gender crosstabs available, so you have to look at who is switching their votes over various polls to see the patterns.)
That being said, exit polls invariably show a smaller gender gap between black men and women than you find with white men and women.
excellent point. i don’t see how the confounding factors can be disentangled.
I wonder if your underlying assumption that there’s no real difference between Clinton and Obama is a factor there? If I agreed with that, I could see your point - but if I see a difference between DLC and grassroots, then I think the results actually make more sense based not on racism but on basic political leanings.
Actually, at our Book Salon tomorrow with Keli Goff, we’re going to be discussing her book (Party Crashing) which challenges the “staunchly democratic” position.
name one that doesn’t have its foundation in sexism, Selise. Its not about not liking Clinton, its preferring McCain to Clinton when you prefer Obama to McCain.
I did tell you yesterday that if you wrote to me (election AT glcq DOT com ) that I’d send you the complete set.
But in the meantime, check this out…
http://www.glcq.com/election08/chart_3_users.xls
(please save and close it, because I’m not sure what happens when you play with it as a web page)
its a spreadsheet that provides all the gender based data from the SUSA polls, plus all the demographic data…. and you can copy and paste the demographic/gender results into a table that creates charts, sort it, and see what correlates and what doesn’t and how different variables react with each other.
Wow, no comments on my comment @6 …
keep in mind that we are not talking about primary election polling data, but data that is based on two hypothetical match-ups: McCain v Clinton and McCain v Obama. No one is voting is expressing a preference for Obama over Clinton in this data — they express a preference for Obama or McCain, and Clinton or McCain.
the other key thing to remember is that most people aren’t really focussed on the general election — you’re getting a much more “subjective” response from people that is based on very little information about the contrasts between McCain and Obama, and McCain and Clinton. People are responding to poll questions like these more from the “gut” at this juncture….
thank you! i missed that.
wanting a change from bush/clinton/bush/
here’s a comment. Its off topic.
and while I know this subject bores most people, there are lots of other places where everyone can (and, obviously is — except it is Saturday night) discussing what doesn’t bore them. ;)
oh ctuttle at 6–tempting people with another wet dream……lol……
Paul … I don’t think you can argue that these are “gut” reactions only when at least two of the candidates (Clinton and McCain) are very well known and already have folks who love them and folks who hate them. It would be different if this were an election with less established candidates in all slots IMHO.
My apologies, no harm meant! 8-(
But, it is rather relevant in the scheme of things, and, if they do succeed it renders it a moot argument…
what is the rational basis for that? If Clinton is a good candidate, does her last name really make a difference? (and tell me its “rational” to compare the first Clinton presidency to either Bush I or Bush II).
I mean, how rational is it to say “I’m one of the 80+% of Americans who think we’re heading in the wrong direction, but I’m going to vote for McCain even though he continue to take us in the same direction, because Hillary Clinton is married to a former president?
paul, please expand on your ohio findings…
paul i was referring to your 11
Siun, there is a big difference between high name recognition, and general “favorable/unfavorable” feelings about people you’ve heard of, and having an understanding of the very real differences in what they would do as President. The former is a “gut” reaction…
paul - i specifically said additional NON-rational reasons other than sexism. sexism is just one of many NON-rational reasons.
then I’m confused … on the one hand, you’re arguing that these trends reflect “gut” reactions yet you then argue:
how rational is it to say “I’m one of the 80+% of Americans who think we’re heading in the wrong direction, but I’m going to vote for McCain even though he continue to take us in the same direction, because Hillary Clinton is married to a former president?
Gut reactions to me means folks react to the media meme of McCain as “maverick” rather than make “rational” choices based on actual positions.
and while i agree with your take on mccain (more of the mcsame), that is not how many people see mccain (all maveriky and something different).
clinton wasn’t just married to a former president - she has claimed that experience as part of what has prepared her to take the 3am call. if she didn’t make a big deal about her time in white house or if she had repudiated some of the policies of the bill’s administration, that would be a different story.
In terms of race/gender patterns, Ohio fits a pattern that I’ve seen elsewhere, rather than establishes it. Ohio has insufficient African American voters to say for sure that it fits the pattern, however. But IIRC, as Obama first started doing better against McCain, it was primary among black voters, and the shift was primarily in the male vote. In later polling, as Obama continued to improve against McCain, a lot more white voters starting shifting while more blacks started shifting, and while that shift was overall more female than male, because of the demographics you really can’t say it was black women who were making up the lion’s share of the black vote shift at that point.
The pattern is really better seen in the South Carolina primary polling, where you had voters shifting between three candidates, and a very large proportion (a majority, in fact) of black voters.
we’re not disagreeing, Siun. The “maverick” image is an image, which makes it a “gut” reaction, rather than a considered opinion. When you make decisions based on image rather than substance, that’s a “gut reaction” (at least as I define it).
Ok … but then how can you argue:
I mean, how rational is it to say “I’m one of the 80+% of Americans who think we’re heading in the wrong direction, but I’m going to vote for McCain even though he continue to take us in the same direction, because Hillary Clinton is married to a former president?
If I am following here, you’re arguing that the polls show underlying racism and sexism and how they impact votes. I believe Selise and I are both arguing (and I’m sure Selise will correct me if I’m reading her wrong) that that argument requires ignoring the other factors in play … such as the “gut” reaction people have that McCain is an outsider-y maverick which is a plus in a change election and he is familiar - and that Clinton is not seem as a “maverick” or a break with the old (given her establishment in the DC landscape) which is a minus in a change election.
Obama is still an unknown to those not intensely following the primaries and so will not show as well until he’s in a general campaign and people focus on finding out who he is and what they think of him.
and if you ask most people what they thought about the Bill Clinton presidency, they give it damned good marks (what’s so bad about peace and prosperity).
If times were good — if this was 2000, and we had big budget surpluses, and nearly everyone in the world respected us, it would make some sense to say ‘Lets try something new!’ — but only gambling addicts will place a “blind bet” or ’stay the course’ when the situation is high risk, and the trends don’t look good. Most people will say “lets get back to doing what works” when things aren’t working.
Which is why I think this whole “tired of Bush/Clinton/Bush” is not a rational reason to prefer McCain to Clinton. (I think it is, in some respects, a reason to prefer McCain to Obama in terms of “gut” — but the “inexperienced” meme hadn’t really solidified for Obama when the SUSA poll was taken)
….yeah, and Hillary being a woman has nothing to do with it. In fact, just because the evidence of sexism is the most profound in conservative states with few AFrican American voters is actually a reflection of how ‘not conservative’ those states are, because they’ll vote for someone who most people had never heard of two years ago, but switch to someone who has been around DC for 24 years….
That’s the other evidence that we haven’t discussed — that the evidence of sexism is more significant (when you factor for racism) in ‘conservative’ states. The evidence of sexism in states like Vermont is nowhere near what you find in a place like Idaho…
BTW, ever look at the exit polls from the primary states — you’ll get 80% or so of people saying that race was not any factor at all in their decision… but only 40% or so voted for someone of a different race.
Or you’ll get about 80% saying that gender was not a factor, but (among whites) there are huge differences in how Democratic men and women voted.
Paul … sorry, I think you’re placing too much emphasis on seeing this data from only one perspective. I don’t think you can see Sen Clinton as just a “woman” candidate and therefore argue sexism in the poll results without factoring in the hostility that has grown up around both Clintons over the years - esp. in conservative circles and therefore in conservative states.
Not inexpereience or most anything else I can conjure up would compel me to vote for McInsane or any other republic. What democrat would trust a republic ever again. I never trusted them to begin with but after the bush criminal administration I don’t understand how anyone would even trust them to be dog catcher.
paul, you’re reminding me of a professor waiting to drop the bomb on his students.
well, let me just quote the entire “big statement” part of this piece in reply to that….
siun, let’s be clear here, the republicans, (rove) have anticipated a presidential run by clinton, they have amassed vile hatred through the years for just this purpose
they were doing the same thing to gore anticipating a run from him also, if you notice, the gore attacks as much as disappeared as soon as it became clear he really is not going to run
but that is your point, the hatred for clinton goes much further then simple masogony, it is actually systemic to her being the air apparent to the president they THINK the democrats revere
speaking of gore I have to go off topic because I’ll probably forget to post this when it is on topic
I was just reading some more about global warming and I am stuck in an epiphane how similar gore is to noah
think about it
Some things are true despite Al Gore having said so.
And all this happens because Hillary Clinton isn’t just “a woman”, she is a symbol of the true equality for women that the women’s liberation movement sought to achieve, and as such represents a major threat to the subconscious assumption underlying male dominance of society.
Thought it should be repeated.
actually, the bomb was dropped in the first three parts of the series. This whole race/gender thing started as an appendix to what was supposed to be the third (and final) part of the series on sexism and misogyny, but it was getting bigger than the original part III, so I decided to make it Part IV.
All I’m talking about here really is just how racism has an impact on the evidence of sexism — but unless you read this in the context I already established (national trends, regional trends, and how those trends play out in individual states where Obama lead McCain, but McCain lead Clinton) you’d think that what I was actually writing about racism. I’m not.
You want a woman who will kick the necessary fuck out of both this Dollar-Dazed Land-Of-The-
Free-24/7Code-Brown electorate and our foreign adversaries? Three words:PAT HEAD SUMMITT.
noah warned of impending flood due to the ways of man but things could be averted
the evil doers ignored noah and noah had to build an arc to save mankind
think about this, the paralell is remarkable
I think this is going to be a big issue in ‘08… people who say that race and gender don’t make a difference and then who go ahead and vote as if it does. I can see a lot of people in my parents’ generation voting that way. I’m hoping not, but I think its going to happen. And, unfortunately, that portends a disaster (racists and sexists electing McShrub for four or more years of state terror).
“Decimation.” coming to a species known as homo sapiens relatively shortly.
Looks increasingly likely.
I think that this would work if one showed that across several candidates these gender and racial priorities were demonstrated. But there could be other reasons that people are attracted to the McCain-Obama pole rather than a Clinton-Obama pole.
Some people may view Clinton as closely tied to a network that they really disliked…the DLC. Or they may really dislike the idea of a “dynastic regime” in Washington. Or they may hate BILL (and an “Anyone But Bill” tenor is not related to sexism). Both Clintons have suffered years of attacks from the right wing…implicating that they are corrupt, nepotistic, machiavellian, etc. That likely would continue to weigh heavily on some individuals.
This isn’t to say that there isn’t sexism involved in some of these male chices…the question is how much.
Equally there is a flip side to all of this. That’s the female shift to McCain. But what if there was a Condi Rice on the other side…or an Elizabeth Dole. As you can see personalities and perceptions about individuals can play a big role in all of this. It’s not simply that Obama should equal Clinton and have interchangeable support bases.
Also I think that your plumb lines may actually be curves rather than linear. This is because if you hold the black base of support constant, and establish some gender gap in support for Obama between white men and women (e.g. WM= .40 vs. WF .20) the differential of total support based on gender would narrow the larger the black population. That is, the effect of the white gender difference becomes swamped by an increasing black electorate making the Total (non-racial) gender gap differences smaller.
Thus racism by whites doesn’t have to change at all but the effect would be bigger in States with fewer blacks because there are more Whites. The result is a curved line increasing to the left rather than a linear function. This would be the standard from which variation effects would be measured from.
E.G Assume a State (Magnolia) that’s got a Democratic electorate of 100 individuals- 50% White/Black: To make things easy heuristically assume 100% Black support for Obama and a differential b/w White Males and Females in their support for Obama that’s 60% male and 40% female (or conversely 40% males for Clinton; 60% female. Sex ratios are equal.
Doing the math we find Obama is supported by 50 Blacks+[.6*25WM]+[.4*25WF] = 50+15WM+10WF = 75 vs. Clinton 0 Blacks+ 10WM +15 WF = 25
Obamas’ M/F support difference was 40/35 (53%M or 47%F) Hillary’s was 10/15 (60% F)
Now use the same support ratios in a predominantly White State (Beigeland) where 80% of the population is White and 20% Black.
Obama now has 20+ [.6*40]+ [.4* 40] = 20B+24WM+16WF = 60 vs. Hillary at 0+[.4*40]+[.6*40]= 40
But Obama’s male/female sex ratio has widened to 50 Males vs. 26 Females (65%M or 35%F). And Hillary’s has 16M/24F (60%F). Notice the gender gap increasing. Reason…fewer black females in Obama’s pool of support.
Now this is a heuristic example…but it shows how the gender gap can increase, not as a result of shifts in racial preferences, but in subgroup composition.
Now I think that you are actually showing something akin to this in white male voters shifting to McCain. But again, if you try holding the shift “constant” in WM voters in heavily black states you’d find the effect there to be minimized simply because there are fewer WM voters (in “Magnolia” they make up only 25% of the total electorate while in “Beigeland” they make up 40% of the electorate). But keep the same “jump frequency” and the numbers and effect will be proportionately greater in large White Electorate States. If 10% of the WM voters lack fidelity that effect would be a mere 2.5% in Magnolia…but 4% in Beigeland. Same “jump rate” but greater effect.
I think if Clinton wins the nomination, she’ll be okay — she’s proven that she can overcome the kind of thinking we see reflected in these polls (like in upstate NY), and if she becomes the nominee, the abject sexism of the media itself will become an issue — the reason it hasn’t is that the Democrats are still divided, and the progressive boiz blog club is solidly behind Obama, and much of it is (unknowingly) acting just like the mainstream media at this point.
Obama, on the other hand, is going to have a serious problem. He’s never really dealt with race as an issue in a campaign (hell, he’s never really faced any serious/dedicated opposition). The whole “wright” thing was just a taste of the future — it wasn’t in the Republican’s interest at that point ot exploit the Wright story, and Clinton wasn’t going to, so it was allowed to fade. But if Obama is the nominee, Wright will be an issue — and the question that will be asked won’t be “why didn’t you leave” but “why did you join in the first place.”
In a head to head matchup against McCain given right before Obama’s “greatest speech on race ever given”, Obama had dropped 17 points in Ohio in two weeks time. (actually, it was more like 12-13 points because the poll that showed the “drop” had a much higher percentage of Republicans in the sample). Wright isn’t a bullet that Obama dodged, he’s one of those heat seeking missiles that, if it misses the target the first time, turns around and come back at the target.
I think that Obama still can win, but I’m not encouraged by what he is saying about his november campaign — he wants it to not be about “policy” but about “politics” and how we need a new way of practicing it. That’s competing on McCain’s home turf (he is a ‘maverick’ after all), and the only way for Obama to win is to make it clear that McCain is “four more years”. McCain will be able to sell the “new politics” as well as Obama to middle America. People want “change”, and they don’t like the way that politics is practiced — but that is a secondary consideration right now. What the really want is not a change in “process” but a profound change in policies and direction….and if Obama gets the nomination and doesn’t make that his theme, with everything else he’s got going against him, he’s doomed.
i’m going to try one more time here…
i gave “tired of bush/clinton/bush/” as an example of a NON-rational reason.
NON-rational.
as in NOT rational.
as in the opposite of rational.
arguing that it’s not a rational reason does not address the issue i raised.
Cinna…you’ve been reading progressive blogs way too long — and trying to explain away the data based on your own prejudices.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t walk around with a DLC headband on…. and most people don’t even know what is “wrong” about the DLC. This isn’t about you and me, its about the 100 million plus voters who don’t read political blogs, especially not progressive blog.
okay, but what is the underlying/subconscious basis for this non-rational response. I’m arguing that its pretty much all based on sexism/misogyny, that “tired of bush/clinton/bush” is the rationalization that people use to implement their subconscious sexism.
Paul … while I disagree with your analysis, I was interested in discussing the premises you were basing your argument on and looking at the data. When your response is to post a lengthy argument that Senator Clinton is beset on all sides by sexists (and throw in the line “the progressive boiz blog club is solidly behind Obama, and much of it is (unknowingly) acting just like the mainstream media at this point.” which I believe is a very unfair description of the debate on the blogs) and then try to argue the next minute that Senator Clinton will do fine in a general election while Senator Obama will not be able to overcome racist responses (while the data you are analyzing predates the Wright controversy and Obama’s race speech) you lose me.
and that is just my point. you are claiming (not arguing as far as i can see) that it’s all based on misogyny. that is a premise of your analysis. i’m questioning that premise.
lukasiak at 44-yeah, i know you’re not, i actually followed the graphs and all of your posts. amazing as that is, i liked them.
i took it as you meant it, as math.
i was a math minor.
as i said before on the last two posts, thanks.
wonder what people would do with matrices in finite mathematics……………the functions you hit on a calculator that are done for you were first figured out longhand. with algebraic equations in columns and rows.
pages and pages of math.
this was something that was so simple it was hard.
because of the math, people thought too hard about it.
returning to my orginial point since i think we got side tracked:
Paul- I think that your assertion as a “scientist” without an axe to grind was pretty much clarified by your comments in #50. As I pointed out, this may apply to some of those people that jump. Not all..some. For many people that affiliation doesn’t even have a “name” like the DLC- but it’s “those Clinton people”. One doesn’t have to listen to blogs to here about them…in fact it’s people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, and a host of talk-radio folks that propogate the idea that Hillary is part of some cabal. And yes, these folks are sexist…but they also promote the idea that the Clintons, as a couple, are going to bring back the days of “special privilege liberalism”. It’s not just sexism, its a litany of other attachments as well.
Obama doesn’t (yet) have the two decades of constant linkage to that brainwashing. So some males are more willing to consider him an outsider.
But assuming you are right…then why doi you really think that Hillary would be able to overcome the thinking in these polls, when she’s been on the scene for several decades and hasn’t successfully dispelled the sexism in that period of time. Indeed, if it is systematic sexism…rather than “just Hillary” then she’s not only going to have to deal with dispelling attitudes about HER, but about women in general. That’s gonna be very difficult, and just as fraught with difficulties as the issues that you saddle Obama with.
I think this is precisely what’s difficult about your analysis. If everyone voted for someone of a different race we would have no Blacks voting for Obama and all the whites (and all Republicans would abandon their party to vote for him). Would that be non-racist?
And if we saw randomization between populations…would that indicate non-racism?
The assumption here is that the candidates are merely tokens of their race and gender…and nothing more. That individuals selected candidates through some coin-flipping process that should distribute their own gender and racial identities evenly across politicians and party.
This isn’t to say that there isn’t racism or sexism out there. The fact that there is a male-female differential between Obama and Clinton could be the result of women seeing Hillary speaking to THEIR interests and wanting a member of their sex to become President. This would reduce the number of white support for Obama…but their decision would not necessarily be racist. Is it sexist? Is supporting a candidate that one feels will represent ones interests (education, gender opportunity, healthcare) sexist? It would be if one expects individuals to randomly assort between classes. I’d have hoped that Kucinich had gotten a random split of the vote in the Primaries.
I rack it up to sexism and racism.
Siun, its obvious I lost you the minute I posted data showing that sexism was behind clinton’s performance relative to Obama, and that racism will play a factor in the election. Obama people don’t want to hear either of those things, and they certainly don’t want them quantified.
You don’t seem to have bothered to have read the first three pieces in the series. You don’t seem to have examined any of the evidence of sexism that I’ve presented. That case has already been proven — all that this is about is how racism impacts the evidence in that case.
The most disturbing thing about this whole experience is that the people who are giving me the hardest time are the same people who would have no problem acknowledge that sexism and misogyny are still factors in the daily lives of women — they only dispute it when it comes to why they don’t like Hillary Clinton, because they don’t want to deal with the fact that they have absorbed the misogyny directed at Clinton into their own psyches.
This was never about “Hillary Clinton” or about “Barack Obama” — its always been about demonstrating that sexism still exists in this country — and its not a marginal phenomenon. Its not about politics, its about culture.
Paul;
You found us all in great ignorance, but, thanks to your clarity and steadfast refusal to ‘engage in speculation’, we are very much wiser now.
However, I hope you will agree, that a few good questions were raised for your consideration?
you miss the point. Its not that people vote for people of their own race — its that they claim that race is not a factor in their choice.
We’ll never be able to have a real discussion about racism (or sexism) until people can acknowledge that their own prejudices — acknowledge that there is a lizard brain part of you, or that you have an Id that defines the world and everything in it with yourself as the yardstick by which everything else is measured, is necessary for any kind of honest discussion of these kinds of issues.
Paul … that’s a very inaccurate description of my position and the way I engaged in this discussion. I have read your first two pieces and - as I finally had some free time tonight - I was really hoping to understand your argument and the premises you base it on. I took it seriously and was interested … not as a supporter of any candidate but as someone aiming to understand more about the state of the election. Tomorrow I’m hosting the discussion of Keli Goff’s book and I was hoping to gain some insight from your work that could inform as well my thoughts on Keli’s research on young black voters.
It’s unfortunate that you could not engage without claiming that those ask questions about some of your premises or ask for clarification have merely “absorbed the misogyny directed at Clinton into their own psyches.”
Several of us are asking whether there is a basic problem with the analysis since it requires extrapolating general claims of “sexism” and “racism” from data which potentially reflects other, more specific factors. That’s a legitimate question removed from candidate preference - and has nothing to do with our recognition of the sexism and racism in society.
absolutely. selise has been especially helpful in getting me to look more closely at the data — and finding that in some cases what I thought I was seeing wasn’t really there. And there are lots of caveats to what I did to begin with — part of the problem of examining the impact of racism on the evidence of sexism is that gender distribution is fairly equal, while race distribution has a much wider range — and there is really no “right” way to represent trends between the two. The kind of variables I created to examine the gender gap are useful when looking at the gender gap as a discrete phenomenon, but don’t work very well when comparing them ot other phenomenon. (I mean the “gender gap shift” is one data point based on 18 different bits of data — 16 different male/female/McCain/Clinton/McCain/Obama points of data, plus the distribution of the men and women in the electorate by which the 16 other pieces of data have to be weighed. Trying to relate that to how many white voters support Obama doesn’t work that well.)
But I’m afraid that I don’t learn a whole lot from people who approach this subject from a “democratic primary” perspective.
siun, there are always “other factors”. The question is whether they have more than a marginal impact. And they do — and are reflected in the data itself, and the way that you get different results from Vermont and Idaho. If there weren’t “other factors at work” all data points would line up with their trend lines, and every relationship would be precisely linear.
But what I’m looking at are trends, and this piece is on the impact of racism on the evidence regarding sexism. Racism is a specific, meaningful, and quantifiable phenomenon that can be found in the data. “DLC” is not.
And trying to turn the discussion of trends into a discussion of everything and anything that might make an individual not part of the trend is a waste of time. Its a part of the “progressive” disease — we all hate the idea of being lumped into a group, and not treating each and every person as a special individual, and the very idea of saying “you’re from Connecticut, and you’re white? He’re YOUR data point” is anathema to us.
You can either have a focussed discussion about a trend, or a completely unfocussed discussion about variations from a trend — when the subject becomes variations, there is no subject anymore, just 250,000,000 individuals.
I guess I’m making a distinction between “non-rational reason” and “rationalization”. “Bush/Clinton/Bush” is the rationalization that springs from non-rational decision-making. But as far as I know, there is no general subconscious impetus toward change for its own sake — or at least none that manifests itself in “uncertain” times. That is a desire for change for its own sake may spring from the subconscious when people feel secure and get bored — the brain needs to be stimulated. But the current desire for “change” isn’t a manifestation of security and boredom, but of insecurity and disastifaction. Its change for a purpose, not for its own sake.
In other words, I don’t think that “Bush/Clinton/Bush” fits the category of ‘non-rational reason’. And while I’m sure that there are people out there that have a problem with Hillary Clinton because she reminds them on a subconscious level of some sexually humiliating experience or something, I really don’t think that is what we see reflected in the data, even if it is a “non-rational reason” that isn’t about sexissm.
If what all this is boiling down to is whether or not the hardest fight is going to be over gender or race come Novemeber, my money is race is going to be the biggest fear factor since 9/11. The Rev. videos are going to be on TV ads 24/7. Rezko in jail will be the next overplayed ad. Anti-Clinton ads will all have to be of old footage everyone is already sick of and will be subconsciously tuning out. The unknown Obama is going to be focused on because so many people are going to hear so much about him for the first time.
When Obama spoke about people being bitter he left out how many men still blame afirmative action for job losses. And, that when people in places where the black population is higher they see a lot more crimes committed by blacks on television, often very close to home. Women tend to fear crime more than men. I think this might factor into why Clinton picks up votes in areas where there is a larger black population.
And, those exit polls on whether race factored in. Bunk, total bunk. No one is going to admit out loud that race played a factor in anything or any decision. However, when it comes to gender people tend to be more open about not wanting women in power because sexism is so embedded in our society. What did Randi Rhodes say? Would she say that about men? Whore is a very gender specific derogatory word. Call a man a whore and he laughs. Call a woman a whore and it has all sorts of nasty connotations connected to it no matter what context it was said in.
It’s interesting to see quantification of the fact that misogyny is still culturally very acceptable and has no social or political costs. That misogyny trumps racism as a non-rational reason to vote against a candidate seems to me to follow naturally.
Prejudice easily explains the hysteria caused by Senator Clinton’s effort to become the most powerful woman the modern world has ever known. Not much else rationally can. And, make no mistake, it is hysteria. Note the disdain with which Senator Clinton’s meant-to-be-confidence-inspiring initial slogan of “In it to win it, ” was received, the increasingly desperate efforts to discredit her obviously superior expertise and the recent crude, vitriolic and personal attacks as it has become clear she does not acknowledge any establishment control over her campaign.
Usually liberal politicians, bloggers, and media figures have steadfastly refused to even consider the possibility that Senator Clinton could be a successful presidential candidate, let alone successful president, proving the point that a woman remaining in an expected position, even a position of authority, is not threat and requires no attack.
However, Senator Clinton has refused to remain in her expected position. Even worse she refuses to admit that she, a woman, has an expected position. No one seems able to control her unfeminine behavior and ambition. Exactly the trigger of unexamined fears and prejudices in many men who consider themselves supportive of women. These men have found that they are supportive of women in positions of authority only if the woman ultimately acknowledges superior male authority.
Senator Clinton remains so potent a threat to cultural imperatives that the urgency to discredit her, to insist that she cannot win, that she step down and support Obama’s candidacy has become overwhelming.
This is profoundly dangerous to Democratic hopes in the general election. As you demonstrate so clearly, a major demographic supporting Senator Obama in the primaries/caucuses is white men. White men! White men voting for a black man against a white woman does not indicate the end of racism. It indicates the the overwhelming power of misogyny.
In November 2008 there will be a white man for this demographic to support. A white war hero, no less. How many of those white men who have supported a black man against a white woman will vote for Senator Obama then?
The fact that Senator Obama and the Democratic leadership does not seem to be willing to consider these questions is both expected and dispiriting. If they would do so we would have a much better chance of winning in November should Senator Obama be at the top of the ticket.
actually, I think most of them — the ones who voted in Democratic primaries for Obama — will support Obama if he is the nominee. Just like most democrats will support whoever is the eventual nominee.
The problem is that the general electorate isn’t like the primary electorate, and a general election isn’t like a democratic primary. I keep hearing Obama supporters say that Clinton has “thrown the kitchen sink” at Obama, That really bothers me because its so not true — or true only in the sense that she’s thrown the kitchen sink from Barbie’s Dream House at him. And if they freak out when a little piece of cardboar get tossed at them, when a real, heavy marble kitchen sink gets thrown at them, they are going to so stunned and discombobulated that it will be over before the other side picks up the broken pieces of the sink to keep throwing at Obama.
One of the things that kills me is that when you point out that Hillary Clinton has been running not for the nomination, but for the Presidency, for the last 18 months, Obama supporters treat it as “proof” that Hillary doesn’t know what she is doing. Quite the contrary — if winning the Democratic nomination for President was like getting the Democratic nomination for the 13th Illinois State Senate district, she’d have spent her last seven years in the Senate moving to the left rather than the middle, and run an entirely different primary campaign, and already locked up the nomination and be putting her cabinet together now.
I think that Obama supporters don’t see what I’ve written for what it really is — a piece about our national culture — because it creates so much cognitive dissonance for them. The idea that their candidate has been the beneficiary of sexism and misogyny is simply unacceptable to them.
Obama has the delegate lead because ‘he a better candidate, and has run a better campaign’ and any suggestion that his lead is based on any factor other than the will of a completely unbiased, highly intelligent and well-informed primary electorate must be rejected — if for no other reason that admitting that might not be true would lead them to question how unbiased, intelligent, and well-informed they themselves are. And they don’t want to confront racism because it interferes with their need to not question their candidate’s electability and inevitability in November..
Unfortunately, the data gathered over the last 35 years suggests that there is a negative correlation between winning the Democratic nomination, and becoming president….
Being, I suspect, much older and having seen and experienced how pervasive and unrecognized misogyny is in this culture I am not as sanguine about the staying power of some significant minority percentage of the white male demographic, and in a close election every percentage point counts.
While no rational voter would vote for McCain instead of either Clinton or Obama due to the 180 degree difference exhibited on policy issues (and vice versa) the entire existence of embedded cultural prejudices (The Jesse Jackson admitting to being relieved that the young man following him on a dark street was not black type) is that they are unexamined, unquestioned, deeply subconscious and irrational.
As you so astutely point out the psychological discomfort caused by culturely embedded misogyny is so acute that Obama supporters cannot even admit, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that it exists. This discomfort is also the reason I am not surprised that Democratic leaders seem unable to consider strategies to combat it in the general election. One cannot defend against problems one cannot discuss out loud.
Racism is finally, and very belatedly, being recognized, named, condemned and combated with varying degrees of success at all levels of society. Sexism has a long way to go before it is as universally recognized and even further before it is unreservedly condemned. Misogyny will be even more difficult. I am sure that Senator Clinton and her advisers were prepared for sexism and misogyny, but I don’t think they were prepared for their depth and severity. Perhaps no one was. Your series is a step in defining the problem.