The numbers…

I can’t remember when the split was this large, and Gallup’s numbers from the past 9 years bears that out…

And here’s the graph for men…

Remember, McCain lost by 9.5 million votes and Obama became the first Democratic nominee to garner above 50% of the vote since Carter in 1976 and the highest percentage win for a Dem since LBJ in 1964. If Republicans can’t bring women back into the fold, the won’t win the White House. It’s just that simple.

Since I covered the Tea Parties today, I figured I should also cover a protest that’s much more in the spirit of what the Boston Tea Party stood for.

From NY Times:

KABUL, Afghanistan — The young women stepped off the bus and moved toward the protest march just beginning on the other side of the street when they were spotted by a mob of men.

“Get out of here, you whores!” the men shouted. “Get out!”

The women scattered as the men moved in.

“We want our rights!” one of the women shouted, turning to face them. “We want equality!”

The women ran to the bus and dove inside as it rumbled away, with the men smashing the taillights and banging on the sides.

“Whores!”

But the march continued anyway. About 300 Afghan women, facing an angry throng three times larger than their own, walked the streets of the capital on Wednesday to demand that Parliament repeal a new law that introduces a range of Taliban-like restrictions on women, and permits, among other things, marital rape.

Folks, there’s true bravery for you. And that’s when compared with any protests that happened in this country in recent memory, not just today’s events.

Also, I think this type of behavior by the Afghan government is atrocious and I hope Obama leans on Karzai enough to help get things changed, especially since we’re doubling down on our bet to win this country’s freedom.

I found this interesting nugget in Obama’s economic proposal…

Summing across industries suggests that the total number of created jobs likely to go to women is roughly 42% of the jobs created by the package.

Given that so far in the recession women have accounted for roughly 20% of the decline in payroll employment, this calculation could reflect that the stimulus package skews job creation somewhat toward women, possibly as a result of the investments in healthcare, education, and state fiscal relief.

And here are the jobs breakdowns by industry…

3,000 for 13% of Mining
3,000 for 26% of Utilities
21,000 for 42% of Information
23,000 for 24% of Transportation and Warehousing
49,000 for 31% of Wholesale Trade
52,000 for 52% of Other Services
88,000 for 13% of Construction
117,000 for 29% of Manufacturing
127,000 for 59% of Financial Activities
140,000 for 57% of Government
154,000 for 45% of Professional and Business Services
186,000 for 77% of Education and Health Services
262,000 for 53% of Leisure and Hospitality
304,000 for 50% of Retail Trade
1,529,000 total jobs created, 49% of them going to women

Obviously I’m not pointing this out because I have any sort of problem with it. In fact, I think it’s refreshing to see that more women could be entering the workforce, creating more balance and leveling the playing field.

However, allow me to play Pop Psychologist for a moment and let’s look at historical political trends and what this could mean in the future.

Traditionally it has been men who have supported Republicans and women tend to support Democrats. So if more women are being employed, this has the potential to create a certain amount of anger and frustration in the male population and ultimately help Republicans because guys will feel that they aren’t getting their fair share.

The other potential effect is that women start strongly supporting Democrats, and since they represent a majority of the population that could spell trouble for the Republicans. It could also mean that a female Democratic President is eminent.

We shall see…

Just something to think about on this day when we celebrate family, friends and abundance.

More here.

Need a woman’s point-of-view this election season? How about two? CitizenSugar provides readers with an entertaining look at breaking news, politics, and the most hotly debated issues.

Featuring summaries of the day’s headlines, profiles of newsmakers and the people behind their success, discussions of the issues that matter most to women, and a regular look at the intersection of Hollywood and the Hill, CitizenSugar provides readers with the Sugar Network’s unique mix of editorial and user-generated content. CitizenSugar is a conversation and conversation-starter, and we’re set to bring that conversation to Donklephant!

Two distinct voices lead the discussion on the site: Citizen and Liberty.

Citizen is a a true compassionate conservative with a major interest in humanitarian issues in Africa, India, and beyond. She’s a pragmatic conservative, small-town farm-girl-turned vegan, not afraid to shoot straight.

Liberty, a San Francisco native, defends the progressive principles she believes in, like tolerance, civil liberties, diplomacy, and government transparency.  Liberty also loves to compare how different cultures and countries address societal concerns, such as treatment of women.

Tomorrow night Citizen and Liberty will each tell you who they think won the final debate right here on Donklephant.

Stay tuned!

This “sexist” term is being thrown around a lot these days, isn’t it? But is it accurate?

Well, I guess that depends on how Palin feels about it.

First, here’s Campbell Brown’s rant on Palin’s press shyness…

Hey, who knows…maybe Palin doesn’t want to talk to the press, right? Maybe she wants to be cloistered in her own special little political cocoon, only to emerge for the occasional one-on-one interview, some rallies, the Veep debate and the inauguration. Because if that’s the case, then McCain’s not being sexist, he’s just doing what she’s asking.

If, on the other hand, Palin is saying “Hey, I want to get out there and talk to the press,” and McCain’s handlers aren’t letting here…well, Brown may have a point. And if that’s not sexist, it’s at least extremely strange. After all Geraldine Ferraro gave a press conference less than 24 hours after she was announced as the Veep pick. So why not Palin?

Moving on…

Well, as Ambinder notes, after months of Obama saying “he or she” in response to Veep questions, the candidate says “he” very specifically throughout the following answer.

From CBS:

Let me tell you first what I won’t do. I won’t hand over my energy policy to my vice president, without knowing necessarily what he’s doing. I wont have my vice president engineering my foreign policy for me. The buck will stop with me, because I will be the president. My vice president, also by the way my vice president also will be a member of the executive branch, he won’t be one of these 4th branches of government where he thinks he’s above the law.

No mention of “she” anywhere. So unless this is a big head fake, there will be no Hillary, nor Sebelius.

I still think it’s Biden.

First, let me once again point out that McCain is just plain lying that Obama will increase taxes on people earning more than $42,000. If you haven’t been in the loop on that meme yet, McCain said it in a previous ad because Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire in 2011 and Obama will let them expire. But he would replace those with middle class tax cuts of his own. Under Obama’s plan, taxes would only increase for those making over $250K a year. So yes, once again, McCain is lying.

But to the more troubling pattern emerging in McCain’s ads…what is he trying to suggest by having women talk about Obama as if they’re attracted to him? This is starting to feel like very close to what the RNC did to Harold Ford Jr. back in 2006.

If you don’t remember it, here ya go…

And please, don’t pretend like the McCain camp doesn’t know what they’re doing by injecting the “dreamy” meme into this campaign, as if this is all just some innocent joke and liberals just don’t have a good enough sense of humor to “get it.” This is very underhanded, divisive stuff they’re starting to peddle, and to see McCain go here this soon in the campaign is just plain sad.

Another key swing state poll shows it up for grabs.

Here are some gender breakdowns…

Gender – Male
McCain – 56%
Obama – 39%

Gender – Female
Obama – 59%
McCain – 34%

As we can see, Obama and McCain are taking women and men by fairly large margins, but McCain has 8 more points to make up among women than Obama has among men. And I’m not exactly sure how John plans to do that, especially given the Supreme Court question mark around Roe v. Wade.

And age breaks out as such…

Age – 18 to 49
Obama – 53%
McCain – 43%

Age – 50+
McCain – 47%
Obama – 45%

Nothing surprising here, although Obama is keeping it much closer in the older age bracket than usual. Still, Iowa is where he launched his historic upset, so it’s understandable that these olders votes may be more inclined to see what he’s all about as a President.

Now, you ready for this? Here comes the biggest shocker, and it’s about race…

Race – Caucasian
Obama – 50%
McCain – 44%

Race – African American
McCain – 55%
Obama – 45%

That’s right. McCain is leading Obama among African Americans.

Now, to put this in the proper perspective, Caucasians make up 95% of the population in Iowa, while African Americans only make up 2%, but this is still an interesting anomaly when we talk about Obama having a lock on the black vote.

More as it develops…

Obama picks up 1 today and maintains a pretty consistent lead for the past 5 days, as well as hovering right around 50%.

The 5 day:
06/12/2008: McCain – 44%, Obama – 50%
06/11/2008: McCain – 44%, Obama – 49%
06/10/2008: McCain – 43%, Obama – 50%
06/09/2008: McCain – 44%, Obama – 50%
06/08/2008: McCain – 43%, Obama – 50%

The demographic details…

Obama currently leads by eleven points among women but trails by a single point among men (including leaners). Thirty-nine percent (39%) of women say they are certain they will vote for Obama in November. Another 10% say they would vote for him today but could change their mind, and 3% are leaning towards voting for Obama. For McCain those numbers are 30% certain, 8% who could change their mind, and 3% leaning towards voting for him.

Thirty-six percent (36%) of men are certain they will vote for McCain while 34% say the same about Obama.

Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 42%. The numbers for McCain are 54% favorable and 44% unfavorable. Among women, Obama is viewed favorably by 57%, McCain by 52%. Among men, McCain earns positive reviews from 56%, Obama from 54%.

What’s clear is McCain has a bunch of ground to make up with regards to women. Gallup showed something similar yesterday, with women starting to coalesce around Obama. And since they make up more of the electorate, all Obama would have to do is keep the male vote close if he’s winning the female vote by double digits.

More tomorrow…

(NOTE: Graphs fixed. Sorry for any confusion.)

Gallup provides additional perspective when you compare this to Hillary’s head-to-head numbers before she dropped out…

While campaigning for president, Clinton demonstrated an especially strong appeal to women. She led McCain by 52% to 40% in her final full week as a candidate, exactly equal to the average since mid-March.

Long story short: Obama is just as competitive against McCain as Hillary was.

More as it develops…

Okay, the feed is down now, so a couple thoughts…

1. This was probably one of the better speeches she has given on the campaign trail, and she certainly hammered home the importance of not switching over to McCain. You could definitely hear the boo-birds when she first started saying his name, but they eventually died down.
2. I think it was a VERY good call for Obama to not be on that stage today. They can have the classic, arm raised photo op later, but this was her time to talk to her supporters and leave this campaign as her own person.
3. She had one line in particular that really resonated with me and it went something like this, “We may not have broken the glass ceiling this time around, but it’s got about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through.” Definitely a historical line for a historical candidate who, even with all of her flaws, still put up one hell of a fight.
4. Could she be the VP? I don’t know, but this speech certainly helped her case. Ultimately, I don’t think it’s going to go to her, and I’m not sure if the reports that she wants the job are even accurate. It’ll be interesting to see how this next month shakes out.

So that’s all I’ve got. Anybody else see it? Thoughts? Likes? Dislikes?

No doubt he’ll get some of them, but will Clinton voters be jaded enough to vote for McCain instead of a Democrat in the fall?

From Politico:

John McCain portrayed her as a trailblazing model for aspring female politicians yesterday and now one of his top surrogates and vice-presidential prospects is taking the next natural step and promising that they’ll compete for Hillary Clinton’s supporters.

“I think many of those voters are going to consider and support Senator McCain,” said Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty in an afternoon conference calldesigned to prebut Obama’s speech tonight in St. Paul. [...]

“They see and saw in Senator Clinton somebody they value experience in and, in many cases — in terms of her personal characteristics — her persistence and strength,” the governor said of Clinton’s backers. “Many of those same characteristics and more are in Senator McCain. So we think he’s going to be able to compete for Senator Clinton’s supporters to a significant degree when and if she terminates her campaign.”

So leads obviously leads into the Democratic Veepstakes, because Obama could lose just enough women to McCain for it to really hurt.

And sure, he could pick Hillary…and many Obama supporters would hold their nose and vote for him anyway. But wouldn’t it be nice if it were a female politician from a swing state like Sebelius, McCaskill or Napolitano? Somebody fresh and new instead of somebody who could potentially offset any gains among Dem women voters because voters coming out on the other side to vote against her?

One last note…if Hillary doesn’t concede tonight (and I don’t think she will), then this speech by McCain will have even more impact. Because it’ll give all those women (and men) time to actually consider a McCain candidacy, and that’s something Democrats don’t want.

More as it develops…

Gee…I wonder why…

The Pew polls states specifically that Obama’s problems have more to do with personal reasons than politics, and in recent weeks Hillary has made this campaign ALL about how she’s getting cheated because of sexism in the media, etc. So who else are these white women going to point their finger at?

Here’s some of what they found…

Currently, just 46% of those who support Clinton for the nomination say the party will unite behind Obama if he is the nominee. In March, 58% of Clinton supporters said the party would rally behind Obama if he is the nominee. [...]

Recent declines in Obama’s image have been pronounced among whites – especially white women. Currently, just 43% of white women express a positive opinion of Obama, down from 56% in late February. [...]

The survey finds that as many 39% of Clinton’s female supporters believe that her gender has hurt her candidacy.

It’s pretty frustrating really, because everybody knows that without white women, you won’t win the presidency. It just can’t happen.

So here’s the billion dollar question…what will Hillary do to get these women back?

So when Hillary Clinton started making claims that it was sexism that was to blame for her campaign’s second-place showing, we wanted to see if she was right or if there were other factors that could have explained her disappointing finish. The following questions and subsequent responses provide some interesting insight:

Question 1. Would you vote for a woman for President?

(Regardless of political affiliation, could you see yourself voting for a female presidential candidate?)

Out of 402 votes, 346 replied ‘yes’ – meaning 85.9% of respondents would vote for a candidate regardless of gender. Fair enough, maybe Hillary is onto something, given a slight bias against voting a woman into the top political office.

But what about Obama? Does his being African-American provide a similar handicap given some people’s desires to vote along certain racial preferences?

Question 2. Would you vote for a black man for President?

(Regardless of political affiliation, could you see yourself voting for a black presidential candidate?)

389 out of 434 members, 89.4%, said that they would vote for someone regardless of their race. A similar bias against Obama exists, as suspected, but one slightly less pronounced than voting on the basis of gender. So far, a slight comparative bias exists to support Clinton’s claim. But is a 3.5% (statistically insignificant) difference in biases really enough to explain the massive swing in voter preference to the Obama camp?

If it’s not race or gender that’s really setting the two candidates significantly apart, what could it be? The next two questions tell the tale:

Question 3. Do you think Barack Obama is honest?

Out of 1014 votes, 680 members, 67%, think Obama is honest. Not bad for a politician. To compare, George W. Bush clocks in at 22.8%, and McCain at 43.3%. What about Hillary?

Question 4. Do you think Hillary Rodham Clinton is honest?

Out of 1030 votes, only 268, or 26% think Hillary is honest. That puts the public perception of her honesty only slightly above George W. Bush. Think about that. There is a 40% chasm separating the perceived honesty of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. It’s not sexism, it’s not racism, Hillary. It’s your honesty, or perceived lack of it.

There is no doubt that there have been both racist and sexist remarks uttered by all manner of Democrats this year. Most have been mild although the responses have often been shrill. If Clinton supporters really want to dwell on the matter, they won’t have a hard time convincing themselves that Clinton’s loss is some kind of male-chauvinist slap in the face to all women. Question is, will enough women feel that way to damage Obama’s chances in November?

My guess is no. When the election arrives, most of Clinton’s supporters will be voting for Obama. They will probably decide that defeating John McCain is more important than making some statement about Clinton’s perceived mistreatment. After all, if these are the types who can convince themselves that sexism and not Clinton’s grossly incompetent campaign is what gave Obama the nomination, then they’re also the type to buy into the Democratic spin that McCain is some evil Republican doom-bringer whose election would ruin us all.

Obama will probably have to make the appropriate speeches to women’s interests groups, but I don’t think he has too much to worry about. He’ll get the votes of most of Clinton’s supporters.

Here are the numbers…

The details…

The only major demographic group still supporting Clinton to the tune of 51% or more is women aged 50 and older. This group’s preferences have changed little during May, at the same time that Clinton’s support among younger men (those 18 to 49) has declined by nearly 10 points.

Could this group abandon Obama in the fall because of charges of sexism being leveled by people like Geraldine Ferraro?

We shall see…

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows 72% of those surveyed say voters are ready to elect a qualified black candidate, 18% say they’re not. Meanwhile, 71% say Americans are ready to vote for a woman, 20% say they’re not. But only 61% say the voters are prepared to vote for a person over 70, while 29% say they’re not. Not exactly encouraging numbers for McCain and the Republicans.

Who knew? Apparently there is more bias against old people than against African Americans or women. Then again, only one of those groups has an increased chance of dying in office. And that’s really what these results show, right? People are worried that John McCain will croak. Or maybe they think he’ll have a senior moment and launch a nuclear attack when he meant to just page his secretary.

While these numbers aren’t good for McCain, I’m even more disturbed to see that a full one fifth of Americans are so racist and/or sexist as to reject a qualified candidate solely because of their race or gender. I guess prejudices change slowly and one fifth is probably a lot fewer bigots than you would have found even 25 years ago, let alone 50 years ago.

As hinted at above, I think she digs herself deeper by saying the only reason she was chosen in 1984 was because of her gender. I’m sure she didn’t say that at the time. In fact, I’m sure she probably attacked those who suggested it.

And frankly, her feelings on what happened in 1984 have little bearing on the racial and gender dynamics of a contest 24 years later. So to use this specious reasoning now to defend herself seems to be a pretty transparent ploy.

Also, did you note her comment at the very end? She’ll raise money for Obama only if he quits making these “horrendous attacks at me”? Pfft…yeah Geraldine, you and your money raising juggernaut…

I think he’ll stick to his 1,000,000 internet contributors.