Friday, September 05, 2008
The Palin nomination and the gender gap
The received wisdom has been that John McCain selected Sarah Palin to attract women, including those who might have voted for Hillary Clinton had she been the Democratic nominee. I have thought since the weekend -- an eternity! -- that the received wisdom is wrong. I believe that Sarah Palin will attract male voters, including particularly "Reagan Democrats" who do hard physical work in their jobs, hunt, fish, love sports, fly the flag, believe in American national greatness, and cannot understand why we would not drill for oil anywhere there might be oil, but who are insecure in their economic circumstances and do not trust big business or politicians of either party. Me:
I think the McCain campaign has faked us all out. The Palin nomination was not an attempt to attract disgruntled female supporters of Hillary Clinton; it is a bid for the vote of just about every man in the United States.
Imagine my delight to read that Sarah Palin has emerged from her speech Wednesday night not only more popular than all of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or John McCain, but more popular among men than women:
She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that Obama continues to lead McCain among women voters while McCain leads among men.
Here the press believes that McCain is trying to close the infamous "gender gap," when in fact the strategy may be to widen it. Indeed, I think that some proportion of Palin's support among women probably derives from the ridiculous and obviously sexist press coverage of Palin in the five days before her convention speech and her strength in the face of it. Rank speculation: If the left and the press had acted with more dignity and professionalism, respectively, Palin's gender gap would be even wider than Rasmussen reports.
Release the hounds.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
29 Comments:
By 
Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Sep 05, 02:33:00 PM:
I love The Daily Show. Here's a clip about the amusing hypocrisy of the Republican party.
http://www.scrutinyhooligans.us/?p=5989#comments
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Sep 05, 02:51:00 PM:
Hey Catchy - here's some amusing hypocrisy for ya:
1) Hypocrisy is selling a fraudulent "scientific" hypothesis regarding the catastrophe of global warming, getting rich off it, and having one of the largest carbon footprints in America. That's your 2000 presidential candidate. He lost. He's counting his money these days and obviously eats well.
2) Hypocrisy is voting for a war based upon the same intelligence info everybody had, and then reversing course later as monday morning quarterback. That's your 2004 presidential candidate. He lost. He marries money of course.
3) Hypocrisy is writing 2 best selling memoirs as a 40 something year old, not legislation, making enough money to buy a mansion subsidized by a crook, and leaving your half brother to live on like $12 a month in the Sudan. That's your 2008 presidential candidate.
4) Hypocrisy is feminists swooning over and defending a sexually harassing Oval Office CEO. That was your last president.
People are hypocrites, not parties, my friend.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Sep 05, 02:55:00 PM:
And TH, you are precisely right. Did you hear Todd Palin's bio? 2 jobs (commercial fishing and BP plant), some sort of snowmobiling talent, and a union member. She was really clear to say he was a union member.
Sarah Palin is all about the Reagan democrat, blue collar, joe sixpack dude who can't really stand Obama-types -- not because he's black, but because he's a Harvard phony do-nothing. That Reagan democrat kinda likes McCain, but they love Palin.
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Sep 05, 02:59:00 PM:
Did you even watch the video or did you just open your book of talking points and decide to go to town. Let me rephrase it then.. " The party you support is full of hypocrites."
By Catchy Pseudonym, at
Fri Sep 05, 03:12:00 PM:
It's funny. When shown a video record of Republican double-standard, all you can muster up is some pathetic attacks, three of which aren't even about anyone currently running. Plug the ears, cover the eyes and yell your talking points louder than everyone else. That's the Republican way.
By Andrew Hofer, at
Fri Sep 05, 03:31:00 PM:
It's funny. When seeing a comment on how the Palin nomination is working in ways not anticipated by the loyal opposition, and in fact was not designed as (allegedly hypocritical) an appeal to women voters, you post an off-topic video to decry Republican Hypocrisy.
And then, when confronted with a tiny corner of the overwhelming evidence that Republicans don't have a monopoly on hypocrisy, you change the game and limit your generalization to those currently running for office and maintain an attitude of high dudgeon.
That's the TROLL way, Catchy!
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Sep 05, 03:34:00 PM:
"Plug the ears, cover the eyes and yell your talking points louder than everyone else. That's the Republican way."
Funny. I see the same thing with regard to Obama's Chicago history. (Wright, Ayers, Rezko, and company) Who knew there were so many Republican Obama cultists on the left?
The party you support is also full of hypocrites. Which was CP's point. Which I thought was pretty clear. "People are hypocrites, not parties."
If you intend to dish out, you've got to be able to take it, too.
So can you admit that basic point, or will you just close your eyes, plug your ears, and yell louder?
By 
, at
Fri Sep 05, 03:34:00 PM:
So your video is about McCain, he's running, or the Republican Party, which isn't running? And of course not, I won't waste my time viewing the video, nor would I see anything by Lard ass hypocrite AlGore, Fake war hero Francois Kerry or Hussein. Troll.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Sep 05, 03:50:00 PM:
Catchy! Welcome back! Glad to see you back and commenting.
For the rest of you, Catchy P. has been one of our most longstanding lefty readers, going back at least three years, maybe four (although he has been gone for most of the last year, and we have missed him). He has often written thoughtful comments that enriched us all. No, really. Now, on this thread he was a bit OT, but that is not the usually Catchy P. way.
That said, Cardinalpark pwned him this time.
By Cardinalpark, at
Fri Sep 05, 04:01:00 PM:
But TH, this is not the only time.
Right now Catchy is singing LALALALALALALA
By clint, at
Fri Sep 05, 04:07:00 PM:
Cardinalpark-
Just to tighten up your list, you ought to add to #3: "... and lecturing the rest of us that we must become our brothers' keepers." (See the most recently forgotten of the Greatest Speeches Ever Given.) Otherwise, it's not actually hypocrisy.
By Whiskey, at
Fri Sep 05, 04:38:00 PM:
I've long argued this, TH and CP.
Single women HATE HATE HATE Palin. Particularly for her husband, who they call Kfed, her five children, and her Down's syndrome baby Trig.
All you have to do is go to TMZ or Dlisted. The women there really hate her. For her personal life more than anything else, though her politics are "unfashionable" and her background "hick."
Single women crave status, power, luxury items, etc. To live basically the life of the Sex and the City hags. This is probably an oversimplification since clearly it does not apply to ALL single women but as a useful model it really does predict MOST single women's behavior.
These women were going to vote for "the One" the First RockStar anyway.
Guys LOVE that Palin married a blue collar guy. That she's Lara Croft come to life. Oh yes they love her. Married women with kids identify with her, hard struggles, and the condescension among Yuppie men (definitely a feature of Obama's campaign loaded with those guys).
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 04:55:00 PM:
An admittedly good call, TH.
Question is, do you think more men, or more women, will continue to support her if and when it turns out she faked her latest child's pregnancy?
Nothing revealed so far from the Palin camp has taken that big question mark off the table (for those unsusceptible to Republican Jedi mind tricks, at least) though the answer is likely already known by numerous foreign intelligence agencies, and perhaps even the DNC.
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 05:16:00 PM:
squealer ... wtf are you talking about?
sounds like Eddie Murphy saying I know, that you know, that I know, that you wanna f me up the A## ...
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 05:17:00 PM:
Neither ticket avoids inconsistency, but such is the nature of politics. Skilled people can make effective arguments that cast either party in a bad light on a particular issue.
I would submit that half of the people aren't thrilled with either party. The center doesn't identify with single-issue Democrats, the labor unions or the trial lawyers. The center doesn't identify with the religious right, either. Neither ticket is perfect, and the extremes of either party can repel a voter enough to go to the other -- until the voter meets the extremes of that party.
I live in one of the "vital" suburbs that surround Philadelphia. I split my ticket frequently, as do many Pennsylvanians. I didn't vote for President Bush either time. The pundits say that the four counties surrounding Philadelphia will decide who wins Pennsylvania.
I like Sarah Palin even if I don't agree with all her politics. More women, I think, identify with a suburban hockey mom than an elitist Yale law school graduate whose political career derived from her husband's. Sarah Palin is much more self-made than Hilary Clinton.
Sarah Palin has had the guts to take on Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski, two stalwart Alaska Republicans. Did Barack Obama take on the Cook County machine when he was in Springfield? What change has he effected? And will the change he now proposes be good?
This time around, I and several friends who have voted more often than not for Democrats in the national election, are voting for John McCain. We don't think the country needs a political messiah, we're not cool kids and don't feel a compelling need to join them, and we do not want more government. We respect both candidates, but in the end we'll go with the silver hair over the silver tongue.
The Centrist
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 05:20:00 PM:
I don't usually watch David Letterman, for the simple reason I don't find him funny anymore. At least not intentionally, the way he was while still working daytime. But having said that, I did happen to catch him the other night talking about Palin and lingered long enough to hear what he said. Funny thing. He's obviously very smitten.
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 05:33:00 PM:
Judging from Obama's frantic comments on the stump, he already realizes Sarah Palin has a higher testosterone level and sperm count than he does.
Barack Hussein Obama:
International Girly-Man of Mystery
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 06:15:00 PM:
I think Palin was indeed picked to attract women voters. That she is attracting conservative males is an unintended consequence as is the way she fired up the base. No one could have predicted that, especially John McCain.
By Escort81, at
Fri Sep 05, 06:23:00 PM:
The Centrist has a common sense approach, as usual. Furthermore, he is correct that PA will be a key state in November. Over at RCP, Obama is currently +5% in PA; he will win Philly huge and the inner ring suburbs (where I live) fairly convincingly. The rest of the state is in play, and Palin puts McCain in pretty good shape in the center of the state. Can she peel away enough blue collar folks in that region who voted for Hillary in the primary (who like the fact that she knows and appreciates the difference between a 12 gauge side-by-side and 20 gauge over/under), whether they are male or female? And do so as well in Ohio and the panhandle of FL and central FL?
I imagine that to TH's point there will be further breakdowns of the gender gap over the next few weeks (by party, age bracket, marital status, etc.), but the gap numbers that matter the most are in the key districts in the key swing states, obviously.
Unless the media can nail down stories that she removed "questionable" books from the shelves of the Wasilla library while she was mayor, or there's more to "Troopergate" than meets the eye, she will help get some votes for the ticket from the blue collar center, while at the same time seriously inspiring the base (she is already being sought out to campaign down ticket).
This is now a tighter horse race than I thought it would be, and the Dems will kick themselves if Obama does not win in a year when the Repulican brand is this badly damaged going into an election year.
Exogenous events between now and election day may end up being determinative.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Fri Sep 05, 07:19:00 PM:
Related, FYI:
"Democrats in Trouble" - Dick Morris & Eileen McGann, New York Post
Link:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/democrats_in_trouble_127548.htm
"Rangel Failed to Report $75,000 in Income" - David Kocieniewski, New York Times
Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/nyregion/05rangel.html?ex=1378353600&en=6c10a168c60a4bf3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Sep 05, 07:39:00 PM:
"No one could have predicted that"
Anyone who doesn't care about identity politics could see it.
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Sep 05, 08:58:00 PM:
Trig is 4 months old. His sister, Bristol, is 5 months pregnant. Doesn't take a genius (or a DNA test) to figure out the truth of the matter...
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 09:42:00 PM:
Miss Ladybug:
Trig is 4 months old. His sister, Bristol, is 5 months pregnant. Doesn't take a genius (or a DNA test) to figure out the truth of the matter...
Come now, Miss Ladybug: what does logic have to do with rumor and innuendo?
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 10:20:00 PM:
Ladybug, how about Bush lied, or Bush's war, or raising taxes will eliminate the budget shortfall,or drilling for oil won't help, or government medicine is awesome, or about 95% of everything a liberal says. DNA test not needed.
By Roy Lofquist, at
Fri Sep 05, 11:26:00 PM:
Dear Folks,
I've been watching this stuff since 1949. Fuggedabout any prior political analysis. And now for something totally different....
Sarah, Our Lady, Dame Sarah is America's sweetheart - everybody's kid sister - everybody's daughter. I want to adopt her.
I don't know where this is going but this is the most exciting race I've seen since '52.
Regards,
Roy
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Sep 06, 10:01:00 AM:
"in the end we'll go with the silver hair over the silver tongue. "
Catchy.
By , at
Sat Sep 06, 11:13:00 AM:
Ladybug & Anon: C'mon guys, this is basic biological and epistemological stuff here, nothing complicated.
Question: How do we know Bristol is pregnant, and how do we know how far along she is?
Question: Even if the child born in April was not Bristol's, how does that disprove the governor faked a pregnancy?
These are not rumors which can never be proven (like proving a negative). A simple DNA test will reveal the truth of the matter.
By Roy Lofquist, at
Sat Sep 06, 11:38:00 AM:
Dear Squealer,
Frankly it's none your damned business.
Regards,
Roy
By , at
Sat Sep 06, 02:02:00 PM:
Palin makes Bob Barr a much less attractive alternative for die-hard conservatives.
