While it’s impossible to know, probably even in retrospect, there is no reason not to ask the question.
Do you think the universe of women who will vote for a female presidential candidate just because she is a woman is bigger than the universe of men who will vote against a woman just because she is woman?
Relatedly, does the party the candidate represents change your analysis?
I think “universe” is probably the wrong term to use, because I don’t think either group is all that large. You’re basically starting with the “swing voter” subset of the voting populace, of whose existence I’m about as sure of as I am that of unicorns and gryphons. The huge majority of people will refuse to vote or vote for a candidate based solely on their party affiliation.
You’re probably less likely to get people who will vote for or against a woman and more likely to get people who might be more or less likely to show up at the polls to vote for their preferred party’s candidate if she is a woman.
I would never vote for a female candidate just because she is a woman, and I would hope that most others out there are like me.
That’s one of the things that is/was so great about Obama, he was not only the best candidate, he was a great candidate – and so we have a great (though not perfect) president and he is black. That helps pave the way for the future.
But an okay president who is a black man or an okay president who is a woman DOES nothing good for black or female candidates for the future. In truth, that probably sets things back in the long run.
I don’t think the universe of women who vote for females because of vaginas is significant. The universe of men who vote against women because they are women? Quite significant.
I don’t know if you guys realize it, but across the Xtian Fundie South those people MEAN IT when they say that women should be silent in the presence of men:
“I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet…” first Timothy 2:12
This potential tranche of votes, and not-voting (half-votes in practice) skews largely GOP anyways…
That’s true. But I think the women who are motivated to vote for Hilary because she’s a woman will be very motivated and work hard to get her elected whereas the old curmudgeons who vote against a vagina for President will be lucky if they can convince their wives not to neuter them.
If your argument was valid wouldn’t President Clinton be in the middle of her second term?
No, those women fought very hard, they were just outnumbered by those of us who preferred Obama. But if Hillary is the candidate, those women will be back at work, and in fact, I think you will find most women more willing to contribute time and money on her behalf. Being a woman isn’t enough to make her win, but once she has the spot, it’s definitely a bonus.
The women worked very hard, but that campaign was a hot mess, clearly lacking in leadership and organizing skills.
There’s that. No amount of enthusiasm can overcome bad organization. Let’s hope she’s learned a few things.
And doesn’t just include men, I presume. There are many women who won’t vote for Clinton because she’s a woman. Far fewer than men, I imagine, but sexism of this sort isn’t exclusively a male domain.
But overall, I wonder if the question isn’t flawed. It’s not ‘voting for/against her because she’s a woman,’ it’s more ‘which attacks do more damage because she’s a woman?’
I thought evangelicals would quibble to get behind a Mormon. I was wrong, but on reflection, many of those hesitant to back a Mormon may have ended up casting a vote against a candidate they believed to be a Muslim rather than for a Mormon.
I would expect a similar calculus if a woman were running on the GOP ticket against a Democratic man. The man would be smeared to the point that holding one’s nose and voting for the GOP woman would ultimately become the consensus among all but the most fanatically anti-female voters. Once primary season is over, the far right discovers pragmatism.
I will never vote for any GOP member no matter what sex they are.
I have no problem voting for a Democratic woman.
I feel that any sane women would not vote for a GOP woman for the GOP pushes to many anti-women policies.
On a lighter note it is nice to know that all of the GOP will soon have the delight of being educated by the Sarah Palin channel. This should enlighten many GOP members into the inner mind of Palin.
I don’t know women who will vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. We were pretty insulted by the GOP thinking that would work. But I know many women who will work harder for a woman candidate they support. Being female is a bonus for a decent candidate, in that it increases enthusiasm. My Democratic male friends are torn between those who just vote for who they like best, and those who think minorities need more representation. None of them would ever vote against a woman for being a woman. In CA, I doubt even Republican men would admit to such bigotry out loud. They know they would end up sleeping on the couch. In short, party affiliation trumps gender here. But I know that’s not the case everywhere.
Do you know women who will vote for a woman mainly because she’s a woman in a Democratic primary where the ideological differences are smaller than the gulf between a Democrat and a Republican in a general election?
Yes. As long as the ideological differences are truly small. I know men who will, as well. Many believe that the increased diversity is more important than minor policy differences. In fact, the GOP attack on women’s rights will probably make this even more likely.
Four words: Olympia Snowe. Susan Collins.
Neither would have achieved the kinds of majorities they won/win without the votes of a non-trivial slice of Democratic women.
This has kept Maine Democratic party types — male and female — pulling their hair out for 20 years….
Absolutely. Different places respond in different ways. California had a Republican woman running for governor four years ago. She lost by 13%. We are a very partisan state. Maybe if we had someone somewhat sane, like Susan Collins, it might be different, but our GOP doesn’t seem capable of convincing sane women to join them.
For a serious answer, don’t imply that all members of any group of people are alike. Some of us would like to see more women in power.
Personally I’d like to see serious efforts toward peace and will vote for the person I can trust to pursue it despite the politics.
Q-Do you think the universe of women who will vote for a female presidential candidate just because she is a woman is bigger than the universe of men who will vote against a woman just because she is woman?
A-Yes.
AG
Addendum:
As long as the woman in question is:
1-Well advertised and branded.
2-Which presupposes that she and her handlers are well versed enough in national politics not to let her come off as stupid as say Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann. This is not to say that the woman must be any smarter than those two duds…although for sure HRC and Elizabeth Warren are indeed much brighter than either of them…but she certainly must be successfully sold as the real deal in order to get the female vote out in force.
They used to say “The proof is in the pudding.”
Not anymore it isn’t.
Anything can be sold.
If they can sell this collection of toxic chemicals as a pudding, they can sell anything.
The proof is now in the advertising.
Bet on it.
AG
More important than discussing the presence or absences of vaginas and cajones of US politicians?
Libya:
Huge blaze spreads at fuel storage depot in Tripoli
Leave Libya now, Foreign Office tells Britons
U.S. Evacuates Embassy in Libya Amid Clashes
Ukraine:
Ukraine political gridlock on view as government falls, premier resigns
Didn’t Victoria Nuland declare that “Yats our guy.”
And appears that this latest episode of Israeli bloodlust fever has yet to break:
Netanyahu: Israelis Must Be ‘Ready For A Prolonged Campaign’ In Gaza
I think that the voters who make their choice based on “Shares my values” will vote for either gender. See: Palin, Sarah.
There are a lot of women who vote for the woman, no matter what. There are certainly a lot of women who will vote for Clinton because she’s a woman and won’t listen to reasoning about her qualifications or policies. There are subsets of cultures who won’t vote for a female candidate no matter what. Most of those voters wouldn’t vote Democratic anyway.
I doubt anyone has valid data to support any claim that one set of voters out-numbers the other. My best guess is that it’s a wash. I don’t really expect gender to prevent people from voting for a favorite candidate any more than race did in ’08 or ’12. Likeability and popularity and name recognition far outweigh gender.
No, I think Party trumps all. Gender may come into play in the primaries but even then I don’t think it’s that big of a factor one way or the other. Did the PUMAs impact the election(s)? I don’t think there’s a GOP equivalent, but if there is then they’re even less relevant.
I’d love to have some actual data to test that hypothesis, though.
Think we could quit referring to women as vaginas? I get that it’s supposed to be shocking or mind-expanding (or something), but really: doesn’t it just get old after a while? For example:
I think fewer vaginas will vote for a vagina because she’s a vagina than dicks will vote against her because she’s a vagina, with the difference between the genitalia being greater where the vagina is a Democrat than where she’s a Republican.
See what I mean?
I would never vote for a Republican woman.
My mother found Sarah Palin to be a disgusting piece of shit.
Then again, my mother was a good liberal and a good human being.
So, no.
If Sarah Palin had been the POTUS candidate for the Republican party, I’m sure she’d have picked up a few votes from liberal women, but nothing significant, because most liberals actually understand themselves enough to know that voting for Sarah Palin just because she is a woman is akin to considering a burglar a family member just because they’re in your house.
Yes. No.