The male vote factor in Clinton v. Obama: is it the Clinton, or is it the female?

I think it's a misleading question - or at least a misleading presentation. After all, is it possible that only 47% of women think it would be a "good thing" if a woman were elected President? I'd think it would be around 85%. Clearly there's something going on with the question. My guess is that only 31% of male voters SUPPORT CLINTON because it would be a good thing to have a female President; the same is true for 47% of women.

Interesting take on the survey's angle. Maybe the public in general is so ingrained in seeing a woman leader, president in particular, as looking like Hillary that they can't imagine what another option might look like. If that's the case, that would be unfortunate since of course there are as many different styles of women who lead as there are women.

Thanks.

Jill,

I agree that it looks like there's some nuance missing. The term "female president" is generic... and Hillary Clinton is not. Since we're smack dab in the midst of a campaign, it would be very hard to separate the two just now.

Even then, though -- I don't think it's safe to assume that the opposite of "it would be a good thing to elect a female president" is that it would be a "bad thing".

That's not to say that there are no men who think it would be a "bad thing" to have a female president; I'm certain there are. But IMHO, it's too broad a conclusion.

Polimom - you make an excellent point, thank you. I agree that the opposite of it being a good thing isn't necessarily that it's a bad thing. Absolutely. I should not have jumped to that nor should I imply it. I guess I fell into the trap that since there is no futher explanation or analysis of what exactly it DOES mean to respond that one does not think it's a good thing, I made that assumption. You are so right. This is what I love about blogging and comments. :)

What DO we imagine it might mean, besides people identifying Hillary with the likely type of female president and if they don't like her, they don't think it would be a good thing? Maybe it's just too narrow a question to really get at what's going on re: people's feelings about female leadership?

Before Clinton announced her candidacy I was all for her. I was even hoping Obama would run. After they both announced their candidacies, Obama was my man and Clinton was second. I would have been happy should either have become President.

However I've since taken Clinton completely off my list for a couple reasons. First she seems to consistently poll as being the most divisive of all the candidates. Second, I can not forgive her for her Iran Revolutionary Guard vote. She bought into Bush's misleading statements about Iraq (which I forgave her for- I thought the press gave her too much grief for her vote and I accepted her explanation) but once she did it again with Iran, I dropped her like a hot potato. There are some other reasons, but those are the two big reasons.

I agree that there is nuance going on here which may not be adequately accounted for. I agree wth Polimom- that "female president" is generic and Hillary is specific. It is difficult to separate the two at this point. If someone asked me if I was willing to support a female president, my answer would be "No" because the only option for a female president, as pointed out, is Hillary. If the question was, "Is gender important to you when considering presidential candidates?" My answer would be "No." Gender isn't important and I would vote for a man or a woman.

This debate is just part of a larger debate- which minority is the country more ready for as President? A black man or a white woman?

I think it's interesting that Clinton had much more support than Obama, which leads me to believe (and I don't know the mix) two things. First, the country was more comfortable with a white woman and second, voters had questions about whether other voters would vote for Obama. in other words, people may support Obama privately but if they thought no one else would vote for him then they would support someone else. Once it became apparent that Obama was truly in the running (he was electable) then people could reevaluate their support. I mean, how many times have we heard someone say (in the past- I'm not referring to Obama), "I really like him and he would do a good job but he would never win"? I think if there had been a white man who was running with Clinton's poll numbers up until this month, then that man would have seen continued support. But since the two leading contenders are both minorities, that allows people to evaluate both more honestly.

I still think there is some resistance for people voting for Obama because of the electability factor, but hopefully that continues to go away. I'm tired of people voting for their "second choice" because they believe that person has the best chance of winning.

Sorry that this answer was a little long- but I think the question this article is about- "...is it the Clinton or is it the female?" might be simple enough but the answer is complex. My answer would have been much shorter if it were Clinton v. Edwards.

I agree with everything you wrote, Stockboy, esp. how easy it is to ask the question, compared to answering it.

I've said before that Clinton has been my bottom choice from the start. And I agree with you about the Iran Rev. Guard vote - that was nuts. But it's like operating in a whole other paradigm.

On the other hand, are you aware how often Obama hasn't voted on things while running for president? And I owe myself a trip to Factcheck.org on this, but I was told that - and again, I don't know the veracity of this don't trust me on it per se - Obama missed something like 160 votes (or didn't vote on 160 items) when he was in the Illinois senate. I'd like to know more about that - because I have noticed the votes he's skipped since running for pres.

I suppose we should feel lucky that we don't have the GOP field - talk about disarray. And when you hear pundits talk about them, they say, Oh well - any one of the GOP candidates would be fine presidents.

FINE? FINE??? I need and want and deserve far better than "fine"!! Ugh.

Anyway - thanks - good comment you wrote. :)

StockboySF said, "But since the two leading contenders are both minorities, that allows people to evaluate both more honestly. "

That's an interesting statement, and I think that's actually true for the majority of people. I've been astonished how much race and gender have come up, though, between the two campaigns themselves. To me, it just goes to show how badly we needed to break down some of these barriers and kick off the dialogue.

Jill -- are you talking about the "present" votes? I'm having some trouble sorting out the truth of this one, because it's being spun so hard. I found a NY Times link about it, and the Obama site also has a page about it. Didn't find anything on FactCheck about it, though.

Thanks, Jill and Polimom. I find Obama's missed votes bothering, too. I've heard that in the IL senate a Senator can vote "Present" rather than Yea or Nay. I've heard that IL Senators often use this tactic so they do not vote for pieces of the legislation that are political ploys- i.e. Republican putting in an unrelated measure in a piece of legislation that would normally get a Senator's vote.
As far as his present votes in the US Senate- even though he is on the campaign trail, I still find it troubling. It would be interesting to compare Obama's voting record with those of other Senators/Representatives (in the current election cycle and the 2000 and 2004 cycles). The truth is that campaigning is such a grueling job that I'm surprised any of the candidates do anything other than campaign.

Polimon- my comment about both Hillary and Obama being minorities- I actually stopped while writing that and had to decide if Hillary qualified as being a minority. Of course she is because women still face obstacles simply because they are women.

Personally I tend to gravitate toward strong women- my Mom was a professional when few women were in the workplace and all of the successful women I've worked with have had to do their jobs twice as better as any man just to get half the recognition. I come across some poll every now and then about how guys don't like strong women, or women who earn more than them, etc. These polls always throw me for a loop until I remember that a lot of men just need to be macho, or feel that they need to be the breadwinners.

Anyway, Polimom, I agree with you- America still needs this dialogue. What better context than in the choosing of a President? Though if Hillary is nominated and loses to a Republican, I wonder if people will use that as proof that the US wasn't ready for a woman Pres.

Polimom - I bet you are right - I believe the person or the place where I saw it mentioned (re: Obama and the IL state senate) had merely reference "160 votes" and didn't state whether that was absent, not voting (as they can say in the US Senate) or "present." I was simply going to google "160 votes Obama IL state senate" to see what came up and then go from there. I'll start with those links though.

This is a perfect example as to why we, I have to research what I hear - it so dangerous to just be shocked and in awe by something you hear, until you check it out. Thanks for reminding me to be sure I am thorough. :)

StockboySF said: "Though if Hillary is nominated and loses to a Republican, I wonder if people will use that as proof that the US wasn't ready for a woman Pres."

Some people certainly will, and I expect we'd hear a bit of it from both the misogynists and the feminists, for wildly different reasons. And if Obama wins the Democratic nomination but loses the general, we'll hear the same from different quarters.

As it happens, I think America is ready for both (or rather, either) in the generic sense. Furthermore, I think the "ceiling" is already broken in both categories. Regardless of whether Hillary or Obama get the nomination, neither of them are seen as frivolous candidates. They're both seen, right now, as very serious contenders for the White House. All by itself, that's pretty amazing.

Jill -- the Democratic primary campaigns are so full of hyperbolic spin (not all of it manufactured internally), it's almost hard to imagine what the general might look like. I've reached the point already where I don't believe anything I read. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. It's a bit scary actually... LOL!

This is a great dialogue, btw. It's been quite awhile since I've been involved in such a respectful give and take.

Polimom, interesting and good comments. Thanks! I agree with you- America is ready to elect (as you say, in the generic sense) either a black or woman president. In reading your comments, I think you'd agree that a lot of work still needs to be done. There is still too much racism and misogyny in this country.

Jill, thanks! We all need to be thorough and not taken in by what we hear. Unfortunately there's so much information out there and everyone is spinning it to support their own candidate it's really next to impossible to wade through and it takes a real commitment. And there are no guaranties that I'll arrive at the right conclusion.

"There is still too much racism and misogyny in this country."

Alas, I suspect it will always be there.

:(((