This is an old poll. It was released today but was in the field from September 11th to 15th, the height of the McCain post convention bounce. Go to Pollster.com, and you can click on any poll and see if they have publicly available crosstabs that breakdown the sample by gender, race, class, whatever. Just keep in mind that the subsamples have a larger margin of error than the overall sample.

Today's DKos/R2K national poll crosstabs are here. That poll, which tends to be one or two points better for Obama than the other tracking polls, but has easily accessible crosstabs, shows Obama winning women by 17 points (55 to 38).

This is a really interesting polling analysis/ electoral projections site as well:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

I think if we've learned anything from the elections of 2000 and 2004, it's that a close election will go to the Republican. These poll numbers (even the updated dailyKOS ones) are deeply troubling.

What Kristi said. Good point.

Well you know, in a class I'm taking at school we just learned that more women in this country attend church regularly than men.

I don't think socially liberal women will be converted to Palin. But for those women who are socially conservative, it kinda makes sense that Palin would help rally them to the polls...

I'm scared too. Any rational person could look at all the evidence indicating that Palin would be a terrible choice-- a history of censorship and cronyism, flip-flopping on the "bridge to nowhere," making women pay for their own rape kits, being extremely anti-choice and anti-fair pay, etc. But we know these things because we (as I'll assume from being on a political blog!) are politically aware citizens. I'd bet that most people (not just women) aren't; they probably see negative (and often untrue) ads, and maybe read the local newspaper. They don't hear all these stories, and might not know what to make of them if they did.

And shit, there are still people out there who think Dubya is keeping up the good work. There's just no way to get through to everyone.

My mother is a Republican, and I've yet to ask her what she thinks about Palin (because things have been peaceful with my family lately, I didn't want to ruin it). But things have happened that I think may see Palin in a new light.

Her niece (my cousin) recently had to have a third trimester abortion, because the fetus at 6 months had only developed 3% of its brain and would not have survived outside the womb without life support. She lives in a southern state, and had to drive 400 miles to Kansas for an abortion, which was actually more like a birth since the baby was so large, and she had to be induced. It took days. Our family, in general, is very conservative and religious. Because of this, my aunt couldn't get any support or guidance from her sisters (except for my mom). While before they had been in a large family happy about a new baby, they were now surrounded by unfriendly people who they could not even talk to about their problems.

My mom drove with them to the clinic, and stayed in a hotel with them in the days that followed. My mom told me that if anyone were to bring it up in a negative way at Thanksgiving (we'll have to travel hundreds of miles to get there) we will simply leave.

Would it be cheap for me to ask her if this has changed her view on an anti-choice candidate? If it were up to Palin, my cousin* would have had to carry the fetus to term, then care for it on life-support for the rest of its short life.

*She is currently in an abusive marriage. My extended family also looks down on divorce, and always talks warmly of her husband, who has changed the bank information so she cannot have access to her own money.

I recently heard Michael Moore speak, and he said that the one group of voters that Kerry won four years ago was the youth vote, though sadly, that wasn't enough. Maybe Obama Mania will trump Kerry Mania though. hehe

Every Presidential cycle Democrats attempt to assuage their fear by saying "The youth vote will save us." And then it doesn't.
When you study the youth vote in every presidential election since 1972 (first Pres. election in which 18 yr olds could vote) they vote in lesser numbers than other groups and they tend to vote about like their parents do as far as preferences go, with just a slight advantage to liberals/democrats (an advantage that dissipates as they get older).
This myth that the youth vote is going to save us each cycle is as persistent as the silly "wait...young people have cell phones not land lines so polling companies don't poll them so the poll numbers are wrong." nonsense (polling companies study demographics, then they assembel a representative group and present those results. Having or not having a cell phone is NOT a factor).

Polls bounce around then tend to solidify once the debates begin. What is scary is that the Democrats usually have large leads in late summer polls and then the lead slowly dissipates up to election day and the Republicans win (except for the Ross Perot induced electoral accident of Clinton tripping his way into office with a whopping 43% of the vote in 1992). Obama never had a large lead this summer and it is already very tight.

EVERYONE needs to work, work, work or we are looking at a McCain presidency.

ThinkingClearly, glad I'm not the only realist. Whenver I intone "John McCain will be the next president," people look on me with loathing, as though I were McCain's campaign manager, amatuer cheerleader and false prophetess in one.

I did the same thing back when Kerry ran, and received the same death-stares. People of my acquaintence despise "inconveneient truths."

Unlike you, though, I don't think any amount of "work" will keep McCain out of the White House. Republicans win elections, and they have a very engaged, geographically diverse, and active electorate.

People ask me if I would believe differently if Obama was entirely of European ancestry. I would.

Can someone convince me otherwise? Please, prove me wrong; I want to be.

pinkpicnic,

I loved your post. I was Pro-Life most of my life and even up until fairly recently, so I know how difficult it is to reach people who, like me, strongly dislike the act of abortion itself. (The sticking point with me is the violence of abortion to a creature--I am also anti-death penalty, mostly vegetarian, and anti-gun. I have since realized that the violence to a woman of bearing and giving birth to a child is not justified, and on an equal level with the violence to the fetus).

I too have a 100% conservative, sex-in-marriage only, no-divorce family. The difference between my family and perhaps many American families of similar views is that, coming from a non-Western country where people are imprisoned and abused for extramarital sex, my family has been conditioned to actually practice what it preaches. (The combination of laws, vice cops, social strictures, and families living several to a small apartment or hut means it's often near to impossible for men or women to get away with unmarried sexual activity). So I'm not that concerned that they might be hypocrtical in their beliefs. ACtually, it would make it easier for me if they WERE hypocritical.

As it is, they disdain "American conservatives" as "fakes" because, apparently, real conservatives like them wouldn't drink alchohol, go on dates, wear sleeveless tops, or be alone with members of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. My mother calls Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson "sinners," the Bush twins "loose," and Christian contemporary singers "shameful." Incidentally, my parents had an arranged marriage and are "very happy, thank you very much!"

So, there is no chink in my family's honor that I can exploit--"cheaply," as you put it--to try to suggest that anti-choicers might not be the best choice for the long-term physical, emotional and mental health of women in this country.

Your mom, though, seems like she might entertain a dialogue with you on a touchy subject. I think that your cousin's situation, though appalling, is actually the perfect type of scenario to appeal to people like our families. Think about it: (1) Decently Married young woman (2) submitting to the Natural Order of the world by getting pregnant and passing down her husband's family's genes. It would be even better if she had no alcohol or cig connection that they could seize on ("She drank that wine cooler a few months ago; what if she endagered the baby!?"). (3) Her baby, if born, appears to be in medical danger such that it might suffer dreadfully before dying hooked up to machines.

So, short answer: No, I don't think it would be "cheap" to bring up the point, very gently, in a non-confrontational way (and in NO WAY referencing any politicians or political parties) when you and your mom are alone together.

GOod luck.

honestly thinkingclearly, i don't want to be glib or assume that this one is in the bag at all--we all need to work very, very hard, it's true.

but polls are well, not really the most accurate gauge here. for one thing, all the major polls are telephone polls. it's illegal for pollsters to call cell phones. how many people do you know who even have a land line? i don't know anyone under 30 who has one, and even the 30-somethings i do know with landlines are at work all day and busy in the evenings so the odds of them even picking up for a random number on the caller ID is slim to none. by contrast, i know a lot of people who don't have land lines but who are going to vote for barack obama. like, a LOT. i also hail from a red state where i'm hearing more and more accounts of people who voted republican in the past but who are switching this time--but not being open about it for fear of harassment and generally having to explain themselves all the time. even though this is anecdotal, the land line issue is a serious fact that makes traditional polling stats unreliable considering the number of registered voters under 30 who have already shown interest in the obama campaign.

i'm 27, so i've been in that elusive under-30 voting bloc the dems pray for what will be three presidential races so far. i've lived in red states and blue. the amount of support and degree of enthusiasm and general increase in political awareness among this bloc for obama outshines anything gore or kerry had by a mile. by five thousand miles. i've never seen anything like it and i never thought i would from my generation.

of course we must work to get the voters that have historically shown up on election day, but i really think the youth are going to deliver this time.

Pinkpicnic, it sounds like your mother and cousin both need someone to talk to anyway. If you don't bring it up, she might go crazy expecting you to, if it's what has the whole family on fire. Even still, it might make things very ugly at a time when it can easily get so.

All this negativity! It just makes the young idealistic voter like me just want to turn off the TV and not pay attention at all come November. Oh, right. But I have to at least vote, and if I vote... I'll want to see how things turn out, right? I'll have invested some feelings, which could be hurt tremendously. Maybe I shouldn't vote after all, huh?

Er, oops! I re-read my comment above and it should have read:

"People ask me if I would believe differently if Obama was entirely of European ancestry. I would NOT."

My natural pessimism knows no bounds. Note that it doesn't stop me from acting--in many cases, I'm a very vocal and visible activist. And I of course vote and encourage everyone I know to do so, and engage with my friends and families on the issues.

It just keeps me from believing, deep down, that things will turn out the way I hope.

Despite the negative effects the current economic crisis will have on many families of any financial background, one positive note is it seems to be helping Obama's standings, as he is perceived as better able to handle the crisis. I'd be interested in seeing what anyone can do about the crisis without screwing middle class Americans.

What I've seen in the PUMA blogs bears out the "women 55-64 and married moms" thing. The New Agenda, for example, claims to be nonpartisan but appears to be primarily a Palin PUMA vehicle.

I believe Palin's nomination has tapped into a vein of resentment in older white women and married white women with kids -- even some progressive feminist women in those groups. They are extremely angry at women who chose Obama over Clinton. They are disappointed Clinton didn't win and often angry that the black guy got in (there are mutterings about his "race-baiting", how "some races are more equal than others", et cetera). They have legitimate grievances about the way Obama supporters treated Clinton supporters in the primary, feel betrayed by those sluttish younger women, and they want to hit back. This is why these previously pro-choice, "left-leaning" women are now so eager to embrace Palin and throw reproductive rights under the bus -- because it will hit young women where it hurts.

Personally, I'm afraid.