My only response to this is really, "o boy...!" According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released today there has been a jump in support for McCain amongst white women as a result of him choosing Palin as his running mate.
The Washington Post/ABC News poll found that much of McCain's surge in the polls since the Republican National Convention is attributable to the shift in support among white women.Before the Democratic National Convention in late August, Obama held an 8 percentage point lead among white women voters, 50 percent to 42 percent, but after the Republican convention in early September, McCain was ahead by 12 points among white women, 53 percent to 41 percent, the poll found.
David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, is saying this poll is untrue, so it will be interesting to see what other polls report. However, this is troubling. My hunch is that those that have switched support to McCain because of Palin are a small group of women that generally vote Republican, but felt compelled to vote Democrat for Clinton. Whether actual, pro-choice, pro-woman, die-hard Democrat voting women actually jumped ship for Palin, I think is yet to be seen. Also, how are women of color voting?
Either way concerning. Starting to agree with my friend Kristina from Wiretap Magazine who over lunch last week suggested that it is going to be voter turnout from youth and people of color that will potentially decide this election.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: New poll shows white women supporting McCain after chosing Palin.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9183
I don't need a B.S. poll to tell me how it's really going.
Republicans are voting for her.
Anti- choicers are voting for her.
They were the same people that would have voted for McCain.
The problem with these polls and other analyses of voter behavior is that people are treated as static blocks. Large groups of people do not move one way or the other in large tides. Both sides underestimate the complexity of people and their political views. Many come out and say one voting block, be they women of color or blue collar males, will decide this election. Issues of race, class, sexual orientation, and religion make this an exceedingly complicated mess. Only time will tell, but to be honest I am extremely fearful that McCain will win.
This poll doesn't say anything. We're these women for Hillary Clinton initially? What are their political views? Why do they support McCain/Palin? That nutty liberal media is making a story out of nothing!
Do these polls survey people who don't have land lines? I haven't had a land line since 2004 and many people of our generation have only had cellular phones for as much as 8 years... hmnnn...
Also, for those of us who are fearful of a McCain win (myself included), the burden rests on us to get out there, talk to friends in or travel to swing states and get the vote out for Obama. This is a really critical situation. Our economy is in shambles, health care is unaffordable for working people. We're at war. Quality of education is on a steady decline. Working people are losing their houses and their jobs.
Even if Obama is not the second coming of Christ, it is crucial that he be the next president and we all need to do all that we can to ensure that happens.
I can't find the original source now after Googling, but I read that the women supporting McCain/Palin in that poll are independent women, married women, and Catholic women. If anyone can find verifiable sources of what I read, I'd love to know more.
Bah, I just read another news story that showed that the majority of women polled -- 55 percent -- disapproved of Palin. And as for polls in general, well, all I have to say is "Dewey Defeats Truman."
>Do these polls survey people who don't have land >lines? I haven't had a land line since 2004 and >many people of our generation have only had >cellular phones for as much as 8 years... >hmnnn...
All the polling agencies are well aware of the cell-phone only households, and are trying to address it in some way or another. They definitely recognize that cell-phone only is a growing segment, that they are demographically different, and that polls need to find a way to capture them.
Ugh. These polls tend to be innacurate and to oversimplify the issues, but I agree: The idea of a McCain/Palin win makes me want to flee the country, and fast!
Ugh.
~Jen M.
Ugh. These polls tend to be innacurate and to oversimplify the issues, but I agree: The idea of a McCain/Palin win makes me want to flee the country, and fast!
Ugh.
~Jen M.
I think this shows that there are a lot of women out there that like Palin, and are inspired by her pro life conservative positions. Perhaps there are not as many women out there that share a liberal ideology as some women at this site would like to believe. That may be a tough pill to swallow for some of you. Also, Palin thinks (and perhaps a lot of other women too) that a socially conservative, Christian, heterosexual, white, male should be the leader of this country. Tough pill, indeed.
Ugh. These polls tend to be innacurate and to oversimplify the issues, but I agree: The idea of a McCain/Palin win makes me want to flee the country, and fast!
Ugh.
~Jen M.
Ugh. These polls tend to be innacurate and to oversimplify the issues, but I agree: The idea of a McCain/Palin win makes me want to flee the country, and fast!
Ugh.
~Jen M.
Thanks for making me hate my fellow white women, McCain!
/SNARK
These polls just baffle me. How is it possible that Obama is not at least 20 points ahead these two lying crooks? I really really hope the numbers are a reflection of the fact (I think it's a fact) that pollsters typically call land-lines in the middle of the day, which means they miss out on an enormous chunk of the under-30 demographic.
I'm about as white as you can get (well, ok, that's not completely true, I'm 1/32 native American, but it's statistically insignificant) and I wouldn't vote for those McCain Palin wingnuts if you paid me.
I am sorely disappointed in my fellow white women if the polls are true. Sigh.
Once again, my faith in the American electorate is smashed. It's painful.
I have a t-shirts that says "never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups" and the more I look at polls, the more I think that's true.
Not that alot of Clinton voters are stupid, but there are some people who're really afraid of Barack Obama, and they're using Sarah Palin as a safe answer.
Hopefully they'll realize that she's not that safe, and the honeymoon period will be brief.
yup. every single oppressed group in this country is capable of self-hate... even at the heights of political power. too bad, from your tone, indy, it seems that you think this is a good thing. that so many women have been convinced that a man knows what's better for them and their country than they ever could.
don't look at it that way, sibling... make it make you want to TRANSFORM the country - and fast! too many of my friends talk about moving to other countries and whatnot, but the power still lies here... and if we, some of the most privileged people on the planet, don't take responsibility for transforming the dialog in the nation that's blessed us with wealth and opportunity, then we're partners in the violent and irresponsible path this great nation has set foot upon.
so stop talking about leaving and start talking about campaigning, okay? this shit is mad important and it's bigger than you just feeling proud of where you live or being comfortable.
to be clear, i totally understand where you're coming from and i don't mean to be too harsh, i just think it's critical this point gets across...
peace and blessings
>> it seems that you think this is a good thing that so many women have been convinced that a man knows what's better for them and their country than they ever could.
Could we not say exactly the same thing about female Obama supporters? As a preface, I am an Obama supporter. But, I do tend to play devil's advocate on blogs because both sides are rarely aired.
In my opinion, progressive and feminist blogs often make the mistake of assuming that all women agree with our political assessment. But, as we often note here, "women" are not a monolithic voting block. There are leftist women, progressive women, independent women, conservative women, and even reactionary women.
The fact that Sarah Palin is a hardline conservative would not necessarily be a problem for many women throughout this country. So I do not find it particularly odd that the addition of a strong, articulate, conservative woman to McCain's ticket would help him among conservative and independent women ... and maybe even women who are slightly progressive, but are put off by Obama. I also have no doubt that her nomination will not help him at all among staunchly progressive women ... but, I don't really think we were the target audience.
I usually try to separate my progressive politics from my feminist advocacy. I do not believe that one must be progressive in order to be a feminist. A feminist can be a corporate stooge, a Christian, a housewife, a warmonger, a conservative, a tax cutter -- a feminist can even be anti-choice. A woman need not share my progressive opinions for her voice to have value.
I support Sarah Palin in her right to run for Vice President, in her right to be spared sexism from political opponents, and in her right to have and voice her own opinion on matters of public policy. She has the right to be conservative. That I disagree with her -- and millions of other women across the country who support her -- does not devalue her opinion.
It means that I won't vote for her -- but I have no doubt that many less-progressive women will. I think Obama made a serious mistake in his choice for VP, and I think John McCain made a selection that will ultimately help his chances of winning.
Honestly, I don't have a good feeling about this election.
kbz
I never take the polls seriously, they're nearly always skewed and tend to oversimplify.
KBZ,
you _did_ read the comment to which i was replying, right? if you didn't, i quoted it right above the sentence to which you responded. context matters and it's pretty clear that neither Obama (who even apologized for calling Michelle "sweetie" on the campaign trail) nor Biden feel that a woman's place is behind a man. it's not so clear that McCain (who suggested his wife compete topless for a prize in a biker rally) has as much respect for women.
if you're going to be a devil's advocate (is that redundant?), at least be a well-informed one.
One thing to keep in mind is that the errors on a subset of polling data are going to be larger than on the polling data as a whole. If women make up half the poll, and white women make up some fraction of total women, you're dealing with a subset of a subset, and the errors get pretty big. So the swing could easily be a lot smaller than the ABC News poll suggests. There is a nice post about this effect on this very poll here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/mommy-quotient.html
I read the comment. I know the context. Some women think a heterosexual white male should be the leader of the country -- some women think a heterosexual black male should be the leader of this country. Both are supporting a man to run the country.
In my opinion, Obama's policies are certainly better than McCain's with regard to women. But, I acknowledge that some women may disagree. Their opinion is no less valid than mine ... such is the nature of democracy.
kbz
Taking polls with a grain of salt, as is wise, Pew has an article up on how cell-phone only respondents appear to be impacting their data. The article is .
In short, their study found:
Including cell-phone only respondents bumped their results a couple of percentage points toward Obama. (Not a huge change, but enough to be relevant in a close election.) Cell-phone only respondents were mostly young (18 to 29, I believe), mostly male, and mostly POC. However, they were also less likely to be registered to vote, and if they were registered, less likely to say that they were "definitely voting."
What they don't say is whether or not they have included cell-phone only respondents in their polling since publication (July 2008), so I don't know if more recent polls reflect the increase of support for Obama or not.
However, what that does tell me, is that voter registration, especially among young people and in communities of color, should be a priority for Democrats; as should voter turnout drives within those same communities.
Sigh. My HTML got screwed up. The period in my previous comment is a link, but so is this:
Link to Pew article on cell phones and polling results
the difference here is that the commenter to whom i was replying was speaking in general terms, suggesting that a woman should _never_ run the country herself, whereas people who think that Obama should run the country don't think women should not lead or that our only national leaders should be heterosexual black males.
Fellow Feministas,
I am a feminist and pro-life and was not going to vote for Hillary Clinton. However, though I had no personal affinity for Hillary Clinton prior to her race for the nomination for the Democratic ticket... when I saw how reporters and her own party treated her (as well as hecklers in the crowd)... I gained some heartwarming feelings of affinity for Hillary Clinton. I am angry she was treated as she was. I have a sense of "sisterhood" with Hillary I would never have felt had she been treated with the respect she has earned and deserves.
Now, I will tell you this. There are plenty of pro-life women who WERE going to vote for Hillary on the same basis as the "pull" I felt to back her - because I was incensed at how she was treated. But my issue stand was too strong to swing towards support of her personally in my vote. There were PLENTY of women who were going to cross the aisle to vote for a woman candidate - and who didn't really care what her issue stands were - because she was respectable, a woman, and a vote for her was a vote for women like her - us.
Now, you are going to see the same "swing" over to the McCain ticket for Sarah Palin. Numerous, numerous women are going to vote for her because she is respectable - a woman - she's getting treated with disrespect... and she represents us - as feminists... because she is a woman moving to shatter the glass ceiling.
She's going to get the white women vote that Hillary would have gotten... and it's just the reward Mr. Obama has earned for himself by not putting Hillary on the ticket.
Though I wouldn't have voted for Hillary - I can feel the ire with the Hillary supporters that she was not requested to run with Barack Obama.
Why not??
That's what I want to know.
And what exactly qualified Joe Biden more than Hillary Clinton?? I can't see any substantive difference on issues. He certainly doesn't excel against Hillary Clinton. She's extremely intelligent... and she had the support of about half of the Democratic party for President.
Why did Barack Obama choose Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton??
I think it was sexist. No possible way do I believe any different - since I see no greater qualification in Joe Biden... and Hillary, in my opinion, really did "earn her spot" with her incredible strong showing against him throughout the national contest for the Democratic ticket.
Mr. Barack Obama made the mistake of a lifetime - I'm hoping.
There's no better victory for Democrat and Republican feminists alike than McCain/Palin.
Our "stock" as women is going to skyrocket.
It's going to be obvious that McCain won by being inclusive towards all women in the person of Sarah Palin.
It's going to be obvious that Obama lost be failing to be inclusive towards all women in the person of Hillary Clinton.
It's our future... and our "stock" needs to RISE!! to the percent we deserve... and it's just about time we got what we really deserve:
"R E S P E C T... find out what it means to me."
Laura D.
>> the difference here is that the commenter to whom i was replying was speaking in general terms, suggesting that a woman should _never_ run the country herself
That's not how I interpreted her comment. I interpreted it to mean in THIS INSTANCE she thinks a heterosexual white male is the right person for the job. Granted, it was poorly phrased -- but voters that think women are simply not qualified to run the country won't be voting for Palin as VP (as there is a legitimate chance that she'll be running the country eventually).
>> whereas people who think that Obama should run the country don't think women should not lead or that our only national leaders should be heterosexual black males.
Some might. Mostly not. But, I didn't interpret her comment to say that only a white male can be qualified -- I interpreted them to say that in this instance the white male is the most qualified.
If your interpretation were correct, why would she support a ticket that left a female (thus, a non-male) only one geriatric breath away from the Presidency?
kbz
Hafta get something off my chest...it sickens me that Sarah Palin wants to count herself amongst those 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling. It's like the person who takes credit for opening the pickle jar when the 20 women behind her loosened the cap. She is not fit to count herself amongst the ranks of those women who truly rocked that ceiling. Say what you want about Hillary, heck I was never a big fan, but at least she put her crack in through true grit and hard work, and maintains her composure. If I were Hillary I would be fucking furious, and the whole world would know it! But that's why I am a secretary and not a politician.....
If McCain wins, I'm sticking my head in a goddamn woodchipper.
>> Why did Barack Obama choose Joe Biden over Hillary Clinton?? I think it was sexist.
I wouldn't necessarily say it was sexist. There are quite a few reasons not to choose Hillary Clinton. He might not have wanted a VP that would compete w/ him for attention -- i.e. he might not want to chance being overshadowed by his running mate (McCain obviously doesn't care that his running-mate CLEARLY overshadows him). He might have preferred Biden's foreign policy experience, his lengthy Washington service, etc.
Ultimately, I think he chose Biden because Biden was a safe pick. He's non-controversial, he's safe, he's an inside-the-beltway type. He doesn't rock the boat, and he's been around Washington FOREVER. He doesn't really change the race at all. He's mainstream -- and he doesn't distract from Barack Obama. He's basically a Democratic version of John McCain.
McCain, on the other hand, took a risk. He nominated a true outsider, an inexperienced fresh face. And, McCain really shook up the campaign in the process. She's invigorated and inspired the right, and made the center sit up and take notice. She completely overshadows McCain ... and he may ride HER coattails to the White House. Ultimately, McCain nominated a conservative version of Obama ... an exciting and engaging candidate with the possibility of making "history".
>> Hillary, in my opinion, really did "earn her spot" with her incredible strong showing against him throughout the national contest for the Democratic ticket.
She lost. He earned the right to choose whomever he wants. Personally, I think he chose poorly. But, Hillary Clinton really didn't earn anything.
klbz
"R E S P E C T... find out what it means to me."
I don't know about you, Laura D, but here's what respect DOESN'T mean to me:
Being charged $1200 for your own rape kit. (See post directly before this one.)
Being blatantly lied to.
Being denied the right to marry the consenting adult you are in love with, if that person should happen to be your own sex.
Being denied access to contraception and proper sexual information, and then denied a home for yourself and your baby.
Shall I go on?
Republicans respect women -- so long as they're willing to throw other women to the hounds.
I think it's a huge mistake to assume that Hillary would have wanted or accepted the VP nomination.
She's far, far more powerful as a Senator, and her ability to get ahead and get things done are far more served in the Senate than as VP. Presidential candidates do not tell us how many people turned them down, they only celebrate the acceptance. I read somewhere, but will offer it only as rumor since I can't remember where to link to it, that Hillary asked to not be vetted.
Sure, if Obama died, then Hillary would be President - but do we want a woman like her sitting around waiting for a mere possibility, or do we want her in a position where she can make things happen? She's her own woman with her own ambitions, and while being President was one of those ambitions, I wouldn't automatically assume that being VP was one, too.
This website is mainly bubble gum to me, fun to read every so often. But this comment strand demonstrates an absolutely startling misunderstanding of feminism and its values. One striking example is how one individual stated that a feminists are so diverse that some could even be labeled 'warmongers' as well as peace advocates.
Now, that's just stupid, really. It doesn't work that way, I'm sorry. Oppression of any kind, be it based on race, class, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or even based on species in some cases, is unforgivable and unacceptable within the feminist community. You cannot support war and claim to be feminist because you have a vagina. Sorry, doesn't work.
But, line by line, issue by issue, if you are at all dissatisfied with the status quo, just go ahead and vote Obama-Biden. They present a far, far superior ticket. I mean, really, if you were going to gamble on change or some kind of progression, how could you on principle alone gamble with the party already in power who have so magnificently screwed things up? I mean, you really have to be ignorant to vote McCain, or racist perhaps, but mainly ignorant.
I am so freaking tired of hearing about "the black vote" and the "women vote" and so on... don't people (the media) realize how incredibly ridiculous that is to assume that because a large group of people have something in common, such as race or gender, that they would vote the same! It's not one big vote! I heard on CNN today that John McCain had "vowed to pursue the black vote" --- what does that even mean?!?!?
ok, so this is a little off subject, but these polls irritate the crap out of me!
I agree with you for the most part. I am a peace activist, and strongly decry war as a political means. We probably see eye-to-eye with regards to most policy.
But, perhaps your definition of feminism is more narrow than mine. That's fine. To each her own. But, I would define feminism as endeavoring for the betterment of women. Generally, I believe women can define "betterment" however they please (certainly within reason). Allowing and acknowledging this individuality in women is essential for the true achievement of women's liberation. Women must be free to be conservative, progressive, independent or disinterested.
Perhaps "warmonger" was a poor choice of words (it was a progressive epithet for the position I ascribe to conservative "hawks"). But, some women, particularly conservative women, may believe the "betterment" of womankind is achieved by the "defense of liberty". I know women like this -- my sister-in-law, for instance. She truly believes the betterment of life for women worldwide requires the elimination of despotic regimes, through military means if necessary. She believes we're ALL better off with Saddam Hussein dead.
She might be wrong. But, then again, so might I. I am not arrogant enough to deem my political philosophy the only "feminist" philosophy. Women can reasonably disagree. Many do.
kbz
KBZ
Well, what happens when one women decides that the "betterment of women" involves them all having babies. Not a big deal...unless that women attempts to pass laws that ban abortion, restrict access to birth control etc. She would be forcing her policies on other women. That is the issue I have with Palin. If someone doesn't want to have an abortion...don't get one, but don't assume your decision is THE RIGHT decision and take that away from other women...that's not betterment.
Feminists fight for people's rights to vote for who they want, choose to give birth to how many children they want, choose what type of person they marry, choose their birth control/birthing method, choose to say home or go to work. People who aren't feminists fight against having those choices because they have decided what is better for women in all situations.
As a woman of color, I will be voting for Obama-Biden for several reasons:
1. Sarah Palin and I don't share the same beliefs;
2. When John McCain won the Republican nomination, the first thing I thought was my God he's too old;
3. Sarah Palin and John McCain are running a campaign on sound bites; they are using quips and jabs as policy proposals and experience;
4. Since they announced Sarah as the VP pick, almost every word to come out of her mouth has been a lie. I've had enough of government lying to me, I'm looking for a little truth telling;
5. I believe strongly in the separation of church and state and
6. I believe strongly in a woman's right to choose.
A lot of people mistakenly believe that black women or black people in general are voting for Barack just because he's black and that couldn't be further from the truth; he's so much more than just a "black man" and it will be unfortunate if America doesn't see that.
If Barack was as severely pro-choice as Sarah, I wouldn't vote for him. If Barack didn't have a vision for this country that I believed in, I wouldn't vote for him and if Barack came out of the gate lying to the American people, he wouldn't be worth the effort. But thank goodness he is worth the effort and if we don't elect him president, I kinda feel sorry us; we will have missed an opportunity to see this country flourish.
Be well, CF
PS: I think Joe Biden is ready to be president on day one.
Sorry, should have been:
If Barack was as pro-life as Sarah I wouldn't vote for him either. I couldn't see making my Daughter bare her father's child.
That's just me.
Be well, CF
My first reaction to McCain's choice of Palin, and my subsequent research into her political positions, was to immediately say, "Nobody's fooled by this!" Unfortunately, some people actually are more willing to consider the similar genitalia (presumably) of Clinton and Palin over their obvious and distressing gaps in policy. Sigh.
who knows if this is true. it seems like evey poll i read has different results regarding the same thing. and some of these polls seem to be very unprofesional such as college polls.
As an independent, I have yet to decide where to place my support in this election. There are negatives on both tickets. However, I am constantly surprised at the level of prejudice that exists in our country today - even among a progressive group of feminists as on this forum. During this election season, we still see prejudice regarding Obama for being black, for having a Muslim background, for being 'elite'. We see prejudice from media and others on Hillary being a woman -- incredible and shameful! We deplore these instances of prejudice, yet even today we see comments of prejudice against Palin for being conservative, Christian, a mom (!), and a woman. We even see prejudice against McCain for being "old" -- doubtlessly from much younger and wiser individuals. This last one surprises me - though it should not. Age discrimination is rampant in today's workplace. When I was younger we used to say never trust anyone over 30. Today it seems that society does not want to trust or have