Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Obamarama
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Watson; Hastert; Ameren; Latinos (Use all caps in password)
Posted in:
[Bumped to the top for discussion purposes.]
Carol Marin’s column today is about the hurdles faced by female candidates.
And just Tuesday, Thomas B. Edsall’s New York Times column pointed to what he called “disturbing” Democratic numbers. “In the 42 top-tier ‘Red to Blue’ races selected by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for intensive financing and support, 25 of the candidates were male and 17 were female,” wrote Edsall. “In those contests, male candidates batted .800: 20 victories to five defeats. The women faced higher barriers: three won and 14 lost, batting .176.”It’s got to be something that Hillary Clinton is studying. As the Democrats embark on a presidential season that arguably could yield a woman or a person of color like Sen. Barack Obama as its presidential nominee, we are once again asking if the country is ready for either.
We have a long way to go on both fronts.
But it may well be that gender remains the larger liability.
Which is the “larger liability” in American politics today? Gender or race? Explain.
*** UPDATE *** As if on cue, we have some new polling numbers.
CNN just ran results from an Opinion Research Corporation poll that asked two questions:
* Do you think America is ready for a black/African-American president or not?
* Do you think America is ready for a woman president or not?
And here’s the story:
Sixty percent of voters said, “A female president? No problem.'’ Both men and women agree. Do Democrats see a problem? Nope. Seventy percent of Democrats say the country’s ready for a female president. Perhaps they have one in mind.
How about an African-American president? A slightly higher number, 62 percent, see no problem with that either. Whites are a little more confident than blacks that the country is ready for a black president. But a majority of blacks believe the country is ready.
Can those results be trusted? Polls are not always reliable when they ask people about prejudice. As CNN’s polling director, Keating Holland, noted, “Sometimes people will hear a question and give pollsters the answer that they think the pollster wants to hear.'’
The question of electability may be less about prejudice in general and more about this woman and this African-American. Holland said, “Americans may be thinking about these specific people, [New York Sen.] Hillary Clinton and [Illinois Sen.] Barack Obama.'’
I think a much better question to ask would be “Would you rule out voting for a black or female presidential candidate?” and I think there was a poll earlier this year about the female side of that (with quite a few saying “No”) but I haven’t been able to find it yet.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 9:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Obamarama
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Watson; Hastert; Ameren; Latinos (Use all caps in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Neither, its the American voter’s bigotry: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance (Merriam-Webster definition)
Comment by A Pluralist Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 7:53 am
So the reason Tammy Duckworth lost was because she was a female, and thus, we have a ‘long way to go’
Crass oversimplification and pandering, but ok fine, whatever…..
Comment by Johnny USA Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 7:57 am
Yeah, and Melissa Bean taking out Crane?
Comment by Consensus? Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 8:11 am
i’ve worked a lot with female candidates. in general, the female candidates i’ve worked with had a harder time raising money. they tended to take the rejection personal. they allowed it to paralyze them. my experience with unsuccessful female candidates is that they spent too much time trying to raise money from other women, not all of whom had the resources to fund a campaign. they needed to expand their list significantly outside their immediate circle.
the women that i’ve worked with (most of whom won, a bare majority, but still), tended to be more community-centric and less egotist. that seemed to have the drawback of being more shy in front of a camera. i’ve never had (and can’t think of) a female version of charles schumer. experience of being in front of cameras helped significantly.
with female candidates, we’ve argued more about money (not just the fund-raising aspect). but they were much more willing to follow the message arc we constructed. the opposite has been my experience with male candidates — we argued more about message, less about our budget and their fundraising responsibilities.
i continue to believe that opportunities like IWIL and emily’s list training for candidates can neutralize these negative factors. fundraising is easier if you think of the campaign as a cause than as money given to you, the candidate. the more you ask, the more you raise. and as women climb the corporate ladder and break through the glass ceilings, female candidates will be more successful. one last thing: focus groups have repeatedly shown that a significant number of women will not vote for female candidates just because they are women. they have to make the case for support just like men do, both to voters and to contributors. it is interesting to see what kind of women voters will elect, but it’s a lot harder than it looks…
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 8:25 am
I haven’t seen any bias against woman at the polls. Actually, a female name on the ballot seems to be an advantage over the past several years.
Nationally, race may still be an issue. In Illinois, though, it’s primarily a prejudice in favor of Black candidates on the part of African American voters (blacks and whites voted for Obama and John Stroger, many whites for Todd, nearly ALL blacks for Todd).
These prejudices work both ways, and I think due to “PC” a lot of people refuse to face that fact, at least publicly.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 8:32 am
Did not realize Marin still had that gig.
Both race and gender can be a problem. Neither will slow down the Dems in ‘08, because the opponents are the NYC Mayor with the 9-11 millions to explain and the rather tired looking guy from AZ.
Sen Clinton or if she opts Sen. Obama will blow right by, put the nation back on track and let voters feel good about putting someone other than a middle age white guy in the WH
Comment by JMedill Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 8:43 am
Females often have an advantage in lower ballot races with little profile — take the Water Reclamation District — five females and two males — Patricia Horton clearly won because she was only one of two males on the ballot as she hardly ran a campaign.
On higher profile campaigns, women are often the biggest critics of other women. This election cycle, anectodataly speaking, women were just vicious when talking about Topinka — most of it surrounded around her hair or makeup. I think women get very catty about high profile women. And both genders tend to label powerful women as… um… female dogs.
As for EMILY’s List — it is a good organization but often hurts women running for congress. Even though they acknowledge that you need early money to be viable and to raise more money, and that they are supposed to provide early money — they do not — instead they want to see you raise your own early money and when you make fundraising calls everyone asks if EMILY’s List is supporting you, and then you tell them they are interested but want to see us raise some early money on our own first, then the potential donor says I will support you when EMILY’s List does — get it??? Its a real catch 22. I know from working on a particular congressional campaign.
Comment by Just Observing Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 8:50 am
In my experience with people that are white and generally conservative but not neccesarily Republican, they would rather vote for a black man that believed what they believed rather than voting for a white woman that believed the same as them. Mostly it is because of cultural norms. I hesitate to call it sexism because most downstate conservatives believe that women are equals. Men just want to vote for somebody who reasonably looks like a good leader. Welcome to Hare crushing Zinga. She appeared weak… while Hare appeared… um, not quite as weak. Once again, cultural norms have something to do with that. Whatever the reasoning, women have a much tougher time than minority men.
Comment by Lovie's Leather Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 9:04 am
Read Maureen Dowd’s op ed piece and also the piece on Patti Solis in today’s NY Times for a perspective on the Clinton-Obama competition. It’s going to be fun to watch …
Comment by jaundiced eye Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 9:13 am
Are there any African-Americans in the House today who represent a predominantly non-African American district? I have to go with race as a bigger liability - usually.
But lingering racism may not apply or hinder Obama, because racism today is less likely to be genetically-based, but to rely on overarching cultural stereotypes that nearly all African-Americans are lazy, shiftless, etc. In that case, even a hard-core racist may be willing to accept a _few_ exceptions from the trend - and in those cases, studies have shown, they are even _more_ positive about the candidate. Since their expectations for African-American politicians are so very low, when they see an articulate spokesman like Obama, they go ga-ga. I call it the “Such a Good Negro” phenomenon. So Hillary’s gender may well be more of an obstacle than Obama’s race in this particular contest. It may be particularly relevant, in the South at least, that I don’t think anyone is going to hang any sexually promiscuous / sleeps with white women charge on Obama that probably hurt Ford in Tennessee.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 9:24 am
Are there any African-Americans in the House today who represent a predominantly non-African American district
JC Watts did recently. When was the last time a minority district had a non minority representing it?
As for race vs gender, lets look at a House Race in CA. When Loretta Brixey first ran for Congress, she lost. Then, for the rematch she used her maiden name, Sanchez. Why would anyone lose the name recognition from a previous run?
Unless to show that “I am one of you”.
Comment by Pat Collins Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 9:34 am
Pat, several Illinois legislative districts with minority majorities have elected white representatives (House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie is a prime example). I know your comment was more about Congress, but I thought I’d throw it in to keep this from escalating further.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 9:45 am
I work in a professional field and unfortunately I think women have a long way to go. I work with several women and one made the statement that she did not want to work for a woman. Being a female supervisor myself, I asked her why she made the statement and she replied that it was easier to get what she wanted from a male. She further stated that a man would be more sympathetic when it came to that ‘time of the month’ and she didn’t feel like working. (I stood there with my mouth open because I could not believe what I was hearing from this ‘professional’ woman.) A couple of months ago, another female made the statement that she would never vote for a female running for a major office. I asked her why and she stated that she did not believe a woman could represent America to other world leaders. I asked her if she was aware of all the other women who currently and in the past had represented other countries. Again I was utterly mystified by the statement and the beliefs of this individual. (The last person who made the statement is regarded as ‘kind of special’ and not in a good way where I work).
Personally, I would rather have a smart, capable women then a dumb, inept man in any position. I don’t think it should matter the sex, color or religious belief of the individual as long as they can do the job.
Comment by anon #1 Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 10:05 am
I guess it it all depends on what side of a news day the coin lands - Judy Baar Topinka was the biggest vote getter in Illinois; certainly no victim of gender bias. Carol Mosely Braun ‘with Smile That Lights Up A Room’ goes to Washington and dazzles - for about a week - exit gender and race bias. Some guy puts down the wrong box of Wheaties and a new ‘insightful’ study puts us straight - and then we comment about it. Lord, Lord.
Comment by Pat Hickey Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 10:27 am
I said this before and I believe this today, Hillary Clinton’s biggest impediment to winning the White House is not that she is a woman, it’s the fact that, if she is elected to two terms, the Bush Family and the Clinton Family will have occupied the Oval Office for TWENTY-EIGHT STRAIGHT YEARS.
Woman make up half the population and in theory, half the electorate. There is no reason women shouldn’t be running stronger in these races. I think it comes down to demographics and logistics.
Comment by John Lee Pettimore Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 10:29 am
As for EMILY’s List — it is a good organization but often hurts women running for congress.
note that my mention of emily’s list was about its training program, not its endorsement process. afaik, its training program is open to any woman who wants to attend. i agree that there’s a catch-22 in getting their endorsement and contributors…
Comment by bored now Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 10:30 am
I skimmed through my Almanac of American Politics to check on my figures and my claim about African-Americans and district representation, and while I still think I have a point, it is not as absolute as I portrayed it above.
First off, while there are very few African-American politicians who represent non majority-minority districts, not all these districts are majority-black. There are plenty of examples of African-American politicians in DC who represent districts where African-Americans and Hispanics combined make up the majority of the district.
More important, in addition to the JC Watts example listed above, there are by my count two African-American representatives in the House who currently represent majority-white districts. They are Sanford Bishop, GA-2, and Keith Ellison in Minnesota, who represents an overwhelmingly white district.
And when I was talking about the challenges of race in getting elected, I was only talking about being African-American. I think every discriminated-against demographic in America could tell its own story about running for office, and I don’t think those stories should be lumped together and analyzed as one.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 10:39 am
And last post, I promise, for the day - in terms of representation going the other way, this midterm just saw the election of Steve Cohen, white, from Harold Ford’s 60% African-American House district.
Bottom line, no matter what any general trends are, there are exceptions, and both Barack and Hillary could defy those trends.
Comment by ZC Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 10:45 am
ZC, you’ve offered up a lot of details. Feel free to keep them coming.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 11:01 am
sadly, it’s not event close….women have it more difficult. Republicans did not take advantage of the three women on the statewide ticket. perhaps this is because Topinka is such an objectionable person. I disagree that the sniping at her was mainly because of her looks, but I do agree that similar sniping does not really exist when it comes to men. Jim Thompson, George Ryan…wow, they are real lookers, and no criticism there.
and women are very critical of other women, absolutely sad. but women also still find it difficult to be accepted by men. it’s still a locker room out there. and, to quote Stephen Colbert, “what’s the qualification to be President? Brown hair and a penis.” despite all the snarky people, I’m all for HRC….
Comment by alice Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 11:09 am
On females, it depends on how far someone wants to push against human nature. You’ve got really really radical feminist types, and then the very mainstream types who are fair-minded, so men and women alike will feel more comfortable with those mainstream types. The rads are relegated to the gender studies departments of America’s university campuses (trust me, I’ve had them teach a comp class, and they’re whacked-out insane).
African-Americans? Sure. Depends on who’s running, though. Personally, I think Rudy Giuliani should take Colin Powell along with him as VP. It’ll crush the Democrat-Obamamania ticket if that’s who ends up running after the primaries.
As far as “liability” is concerned, I think women suffer most, because to win in Machiavellian politics, you really have got to be a bit of a rhymes-with-witch and not mind that someone will call you that. A lot of women are turned off by it, though, as well as many men. We, as a society, still tend to expect women to be more nurturing and caring, but sometimes, very ambitious types have totally different personalities. Gotta be well-balanced to pull it off, although I’ve gotta say that Dr. Rice is THE most unique blend of classic-looking, ladylike poise coupled with a very shrewd mind. No wonder she’s popular with everyone.
Comment by Angie Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 11:11 am
I’m inclined to vote for someone based on politics. I’m not sure what I would do if it were a contest between a white male and black female, each with identical conservative platforms. I’ll probably be waiting for Hell to freeze over before that happens.
So the question is, is the average voter racist/misogynistic enough to overlook politics for race/gender? I don’t know.
Comment by Hal Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 11:37 am
Marin’s article may be responsible for the most senseless killing of trees ever. It’s just goofy.
For one thing, Topinka and her “willfully ignorant” allies have put up most of the roadblocks to women in the GOP. I can’t think of a single Republican female candidate (or male for that matter) that Topinka has ever tried to assist. Her M.O. has always been to keep the drawbridge pulled up and the bench empty.
And everyone needs to stop spouting the goofy lies that Topinka was “drafted” for State GOP Chairman or Gov. She lusted for both jobs.
But I’ll be sure to pass along Marin’s revelations to Oprah. She needs to know that she has no chance to succeed because she’s female AND African-American.
Comment by whatever Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 12:42 pm
Maybe it was because I was born in a stump and raised by wolves but I personally do not think gender or color have jack to do with who we elect today. It has to do with their ability to lead, their ability to ascertain the facts, and their ability to make hard choices. It isn’t the fact that they are female or black. It’s the fact that there simply is not a large enough pool from which to select at this point. Until recently, historically speaking, it was a white mans world in politics in the US. It’s starting to change and will continue to pick up momentum. But I don’t choose someone on the basis of their age, race, sex, or social status. I choose them because I trust them to do the best job, and to assemble a good team of advisors and key staff. Margaret Thatcher is one of my all time favorite leaders. And Nelson Mandela was no slouch either. Of course the other point is who in the hell in their right mind would want to be in politics? Maybe that is why the best and brightest aren’t involved…..they are not nuts.
Comment by Justice Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 2:52 pm
Boy, “whatever” beat me to the punch… Marin is simply wrong on her facts and her analysis. As said, Topinka maneuvered for State Chairman AND the nomination for governor. Given the disaster her Chairmanship was, I believe, but am not sure, that she decided that going for Governor was not as sure a shot as she had considered for years. But her years of showing others that she would be in play for governor convinced the “Combine” to insist that she run, once Edgar was out.
Marin’s description of Topinka as a kind of Illinois Mother Theresa is so off the mark as to be funny. The list of her intra-party feuds is prodigious, and Blagojevich’s awful negative campaign had traction because it was at least half right about Topinka.
“whatever” is right on the money about Topinka’s notable absence when it came to supporting other Republican women in times of need: Loleta Didricksen is a case in point. The rap on Topinka amongst almost every Republican female leader I know was that “she isn’t really one of us”.
Carol Marin, go out to the Chicago suburbs and tell me that Republican women do not have leadership positions: the number of Republican women who have served in the Illinois General Assembly over the last 25 years is quite substantial, not to mention municipal officers and local party leaders. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of female v female Republican primaries (e.g. Penny Pullen, Geocaris) At least two GOP nominees for U.S. Senator over the last 20 years have been women. If the party is so anti-woman, why did the Establishment back Judy for Governor? And it is amusing to see that one of Marin’s authorities for this whining is Chris Dudley: she’s a woman, and she has earned the position of being one of the most senior GOP operatives and consultants in Illinois.
Also, Carol, Topinka may be out of a “job” (her term for an elected position), but at age 62 and after 26 years of government service, I can’t imagine that her pension benefits are too shabby.
Comment by Conservative Republican Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 2:58 pm
I read Marin’s column. She accurately points how how rotten 2006 was for the only statewide elected republican. She then turns this into a story about how rough it is to be a female candidate. From there she morphs into Rodham Clinton and Obama’s possible plight.
Regarding those numbers: well, incumbancy works. How many of those ladies were incumbants? If you merely look at the gender or race of candidates, you ignor this vital part of the story. What is more important in this post isn’t either race or gender - it is incumbancy. With a high 93% re-election rate, what matters is who is already in office.
So, it is not correct to use the figures Marin uses to debate the success of female candidates.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 3:35 pm
Most of the Democrat women lost to Republican women.
Comment by T.J. Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 4:30 pm
VM, the advantage of incumbency works in favor of males, females and all races. In recent years, it’s pretty doggone hard to lose a seat unless one has a scandal problem or is an idiot.
On the other hand, there are a few incumbents that can survive both. One example that would further illustrate the silliness of Carol’s piece is Cong. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) who roughed up a Capitol Police Officer who failed to recognize her as an M.C. and then pulled the race card instead of apologizing. I’m sure there are a number of other examples.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 8:50 pm
Female candidates do very well on the lakefront and the North Shore. It’s a definite advantage to be female on the lakefront. Generally,the women female candidates I have volunteered for have been a pleasure to work with. Our next elected Democratic Governor will be Lisa Madigan . As a whole, I think gender is not a a political liability in metropolitan Chicago area. We seem to have a fairly respectable number of female Alderman in the Chciago City Council. I’ve never run into anyone in my capacity as a politicl volunteer who said they wouldn’t vote for a female candidate because of her gender.
Comment by Captain America Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 10:19 pm
Blagojevich had tons of money to air negative ads, but Topinka could not even secure her own base. Too many people who care about Republican politics have been burned by Topinka over the years and it was pay back time for them in November.
Comment by Honest Abe Wednesday, Dec 13, 06 @ 11:01 pm
Just noticed those poll numbers. America should be embarrassed by the pitiful #s. But it help explain how mopes like Bush get elected.
Hopefully the population wakes up — some day.
Comment by Reddbyrd Thursday, Dec 14, 06 @ 8:33 am
I would, will and have voted for women and minorities, and for members of both main parties, and for people with no party affiliation.
Judy Barr Topinka, irrespective of being a woman, in her campaign, did and said absolutely nothing that would have convinced me to vote for her.
Alan Keyes, irrespective of being a minority, in his campaign, did and said absolutely nothing that would have convinced me to vote for him. Quite the contrary!
Carol Marin, in this case, missed not only the boat, but the dock, and the whole port.
Comment by NoMoreAdsForAWhile Thursday, Dec 14, 06 @ 10:43 am
Don’t knock Carol Marin so bad. Whether you agree with her view of the day, or not, she’s an excellent writer.
By the way, I took an anthropo course last quarter (God bless those profs who curve those tests, because I bombed my final by studying all wrong and still ended up with an A), and it was mentioned that lower fertility in modern society is leading more women to run for public office.
At least some of the past non-participation may have had much to do with lack of that much ambition, but women are now choosing smaller families, and so they have plenty of time to run a campaign (like Hillary, who has one daughter, although Nancy Pelosi had a bundle of kids, apparently).
In any event, Carol makes you think a bit, whether you agree with her or not, and she is an excellent writer.
Comment by Angie Thursday, Dec 14, 06 @ 12:48 pm