August 8, 2008
By Margie Omero
A bipartisan Lifetime poll released this week made the rounds for showing women "up for grabs." Obama's 11-point lead among women was called "lackluster" since it fell short (by a point) of majority. To me, this sounds much like the "Obama can't close the deal" Republican talking point. In this critique, Obama should be performing as well as an incumbent, in an open seat, and if he's not then he must be somehow weaker than McCain, even if McCain is trailing. It strains credulity.
In fact, Obama's lead among women is comparable to past elections, looking at national exit polls in the graph below (for this purpose, 1996 Dole and Perot support are combined). If Obama's support is lower, it's because, with 10% undecided, and presumably 3% voting for a third party candidate (the polling release is unclear), the sub-total of 87% is lower than the 100% in exit polls. If, as the Republican pollster said, Obama is underperforming with 49% (compared to 54% in 2000), then McCain is also underperforming with 38% as opposed to 43%.
A gender gap update
As I wrote last week, Obama's gender gap is currently at the high end of what we've seen in past elections. As one commenter correctly noted, Obama's 10-point gender gap from July 21-27 indeed had increased dramatically since June, and was reaching historic highs. But I didn't express alarm because I wasn't convinced the increase would continue. Indeed, an update to our Gallup gender gap graph shows that to be true.
Another commenter wondered what was causing the fluctuation in Obama's gender gap--Obama's support among women or men. The chart below shows both Obama and McCain's support by gender. And, in fact, Obama's support among women is (slightly) the most volatile.
However, by volatile, I mean a fluctuation of four points, compared to a fluctuation of two or three points for the other groupings. Now, four points obviously can mean a lot on election day, but this far out, in a national survey (as opposed to battleground state analysis) "slightly more volatile" is as far as I'm willing to go when talking about Obama's support among women. "Lackluster" it is most certainly not.
By Margie Omero on August 8, 2008 1:42 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (6)
| TrackBacks (0)
August 1, 2008
By Margie Omero
Some of the press interest in targeting women voters appears to have died down some in the weeks since Hillary Clinton's exit from the race. It's worth checking in to see how the overall gender patterns in Obama's vote compare to previous Democratic nominees.
The Marriage Gap
Last week Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund came out with a survey of unmarried women in battleground states (WVWV is a non-partisan organization; their surveys are typically conducted by Democratic polling firms). As we've noted before, "unmarried" people can be in many varied stages of life--the single and college-aged, co-habitating couples in their late 20s, single parents, gay couples in a committed relationship, divorced baby boomers, older widows and widowers. Such diversity makes me wonder about studying "unmarried" voters as a group. Is the implication that non-marriage is somehow unifying? Or does non-marriage frequently (but not always) co-vary with more dominant characteristics when it comes to predicting voting behavior, such as being younger, downscale, or more transient? If it's the latter, then maybe we should be studying those other demographic variables instead.
I've written before here and here about the "marriage gap in turnout" that, despite the lopsided press coverage, is actually larger among men than among women. I continue to worry about singling out a "marriage gap" in Democratic performance among women, leading some to think it a uniquely female phenomenon. For one, it sends a message that women form their political views based on their relationships to others. The "Soccer Moms" of yesteryear have given way to the "Carrie" voters of today; we are led to believe the presence or absence of husbands and/or children changes the way women (rather than men) view their worlds. One blogger immediately seized on the recent poll results with: "why is it that women change their party registration with their marriage license?"
Second, and most importantly, the marriage gap is actually not uniquely female. Recent Gallup research on the presidential race shows a marriage gap across gender, in the chart below. For both men and women, unmarried voters are more Democratic than are their married counterparts. In fact, as the chart below shows, the marriage gap in Democratic performance has frequently been larger for men than for women. (We used a definition of the marriage gap that is consistent with the definition of the gender gap. Here, it is the difference between unmarried and married voters' support for Obama.)
Further, Obama's marriage gap, even across gender, is consistent with past elections. WVWV's own materials show a similar pattern in the 2004 presidential race and 2006 midterm elections. The table below averages the marriage gap from the Gallup poll and compares it to past exit polls.
|
|
marriage gap/men |
marriage gap/wmn |
|
2004 exit polls |
14 |
18 |
|
2006 exit polls |
15 |
18 |
|
2008 gallup (average) |
16 |
14 |
So the marriage gap is not a female-specific phenomenon. Further, Obama's marriage gap is consistent with what we've seen in the past.
The Gender Gap
Gallup's weekly tracking also allows us to monitor the overall gender gap. Since June, Obama's gender gap has widened slightly.
But either at its low end or high end, Obama's gender gap falls in the range established in recent elections. The chart below shows the gender gap from every presidential race since 1980, plus the 2006 midterm elections (using national exit polls).
We obviously still have a ways to go until November. But what strikes me about Obama's marriage gap, the gender gap, and this post on Obama's performance with white women, is how similar they all are to previous elections. Despite this election being historic, a pure open seat, and during both wartime and economic crisis, Obama's performance in many ways resembles the typical, contested elections of recent years.
By Margie Omero on August 1, 2008 3:52 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
July 11, 2008
By Margie Omero
[Margie Omero is President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]
Wednesday, Politico told the story of a single poll number getting mistakenly pushed around through blogs and talking points. Republican talkers from Rep. Putnam to Matt Drudge to Freedom Watch announced a "single-digit" congressional approval rating. Their proof was a Rasmussen poll that asked respondents to rate Congress using 4-point job scale: excellent, good, fair, or poor. Typically, one would call this a "job rating" and combine excellent/good to be "positive" and the fair/poor to be "negative." In this particular poll, Congress did receive a nine (9%) positive rating.
What Congress did not receive in that poll was a single-digit "approval rating." That is a different type of standard question altogether. An approval question usually reads "do you approve or disapprove of the job Congress [or whomever else] is doing?" While some use a 4-way approval rating, collapsed into two categories, most have only two categories (besides an "unsure" option). And all use the word "approval" as opposed to an entirely different set of words. Even the most cursory scan of public results demonstrates that a collapsed 4-point job rating scale will typically yield a smaller positive rating than will an either a 4-way collapsed or 2-way approval question.
It's not that one type of question is better than the other. But the shorthands that have emerged for particular questions mean something to pollsters and poll-watchers. To avoid confusion, it's best to just make sure you're comparing apples to apples, and using the clearest terms available.
Just as some reminders, here are some common other wording specifics to be on the lookout for when comparing across polls. (If you haven't already, also check out the pollster.com FAQ.)
Party ID vs. party registration: Definitely not the same thing. Identification is self-reported, and subject to national trends, local press, and respondent whims. Party registration requires some interaction with the state, and varies massively from state-to-state. In many states, voter declares party affiliation when registering to vote. In some states, like Ohio, "registration" refers to which party's primary ballot was recently pulled, rather than requiring a voter to declare their party in advance. Other states, like Missouri, have no party registration at all. In national polls, "party" means identification. But in state or Congressional district polls, the pollster should specify.
The "Re-elect:" Many pollsters ask a "re-elect" question about an incumbent, which includes only the incumbent and no challenger names. An example, "Would you vote to re-elect Mystery Pollster, would you consider someone else, or would you vote to replace Mystery Pollster?" The question wording varies (such as the SC public poll here), and some pollsters use a 2-way question (re-elect or not). Many just look at the response for re-elect and ignore the rest. But the "replace" can also be a useful figure, as we note in our own poll for Congressional candidate Victoria Wulsin (OH-2), which shows the Republican incumbent's "replace" as high as her re-elect.
Leaners: Typically respondents initially undecided in a vote are asked a follow-up, something like, "Well, if the election were held today and you had to decide, toward which candidate do you lean?" Net support for each candidate would then include leaners. But it doesn't have to. Leaners can be included in the undecided. A good polling memo or story should simply specify.
Public disclosure of calling methodology and weighting schemes are of course important, particularly with the closely followed national media polls. But that information is not always available, or easy for the average poll reader to decipher. In many cases, paying attention to wording differences, and asking pollsters for their question language can minimize reporting gaffes.
By Margie Omero on July 11, 2008 12:26 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
March 21, 2008
By Margie Omero
A common pattern in polling is to see greater tolerance for issues in one's personal sphere than outside it. Voters like their own Member of Congress more than they like "Congress." Voters are more open to public spending helping their own community than to help others'. Call it, perhaps, a reverse NIMBY phenomenon. Interestingly, we see the same pattern when it comes to infidelity and sex scandals; Americans seem more tolerant personally than they are of elected officials.
At some level I'm hesitant to discuss this topic. Does it feed into our baser instincts? Are sex scandals even relevant? However you answer those questions, though, the fact remains that sex scandals are very relevant in the campaigns in which they occur, and show no sign of abating. We might as well try to understand voters' views.
Initially, Americans attitudes toward infidelity are quite dramatic. According to Gallup, nearly all Americans (91%) feel "married men and women having an affair" is morally wrong. This makes it less acceptable than cloning humans (86% morally wrong), and as unacceptable as polygamy (90%).
But ultimately, Americans turn out to be more forgiving. For one, according to ABC News, more report their own infidelity (16%) than I'm assuming would admit to human cloning or polygamy. Further, according to USA Today/Gallup reports of "knowing anyone" who has been unfaithful are much higher (54%).
Perceived pervasiveness could lead to potential forgiveness. Over a third (33%) say they would "probably" or "definitely" forgive their spouse's infidelity. A similar number (36%) suspect that if they were married to a philandering political spouse, they would "stand beside" the spouse during a press conference announcing the infidelity. In fact, far from a consistent pattern, only 55% of married adults say they would leave their spouse if they found out about an affair.
Politicians implicated in recent sex scandals, however, are generally not let off the hook so easily:
- A Marist Poll pre-resignation (so, admittedly, an overnight poll) showed 70% of New York voters wanted to see Eliot Spitzer resign.
- In September 2007, a CNN/Opinion Research poll also showed majority of Americans (52%) felt Dennis Hastert should have resigned because of his handling of the Mark Foley incident.
- In a NBC News/Zogby poll, More than eight in ten (84%) were dissatisfied with Gary Condit's explanations about his relationship with Chandra Levy, and 81% said they wouldn't re-elect him if he was their Congressman.
Only former Governor Jim McGreevey fared a bit better than his ignominious peers. Just half (48%) of New Jersey voters said it was necessary for him to resign, compared to 42% who wanted him to stay.
Admittedly, most of these scandals, to varying degrees, involved a bit more than adultery. And the hypocrisy of private behavior differing from public stances also affects voters' attitudes. But we still seem to see reverse NIMBY writ large; people tend to be more judgmental of others than of themselves. Politicians should beware what might be one of the oldest political biases.
By Margie Omero on March 21, 2008 5:10 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (9)
| TrackBacks (0)
March 20, 2008
By Margie Omero
Much like the Dow is but one measure of the nation's economy, Presidential horserace numbers are just one measurement of how a race is evolving. And like the Dow's prominent appearance in newscasts and newspapers, horserace numbers are usually the only Presidential polling numbers to appear regularly in political coverage.
But this far out from Election Day, horserace numbers are, ultimately, close to meaningless, especially without an incumbent. We look at many other indicators of campaign health, frequently referred to in pollster parlance as "beneath the surface." Two recent public polls from USA Today/Gallup and from CNN/Opinion Research (before Obama's race speech) show that despite the coverage of Obama's slippage in the general election matchup, he remains stronger than McCain on most dimensions. In many ways, Obama is also stronger than Clinton.
The polls cited here are quite similar, their dates are identical, and both the structure of the survey instructions and the individual rating items are quite similar (full results for the CNN poll appear in National Journal's 3/18/08 Hotline, available by subscription). Respondents hear a series of descriptions three times-once for each candidate-and report whether they feel each item describes each candidate. I like this methodology because respondents are not forced to evaluate multiple candidates in a single question. (The last three columns show the differences between the candidates; "BO-JM" is Obama's advantage over McCain, for example. The tables are also ranked by Obama's advantage over McCain.)
On Most Dimensions, Obama is Stronger Than McCain
Obama is most likely to best McCain on measures of empathy, such as "cares about people like you," or understands problems Americans face in their daily lives." He also does very well on being "someone you would be proud to have as President." McCain's weakest dimension is "generally agrees with you on the issues" and both Obama and Clinton have a clear advantage over McCain here.
Obama does less well on items related to experience, such as "is a strong and decisive leader" and "has the right experience to be President." However, despite these disadvantages, more items from both surveys are seen as describing Obama than McCain.
Obama Is Also Stronger Than Clinton
In both surveys, Obama is described by more traits than is Clinton. Once again, his strengths are on empathy, but he also exceeds Clinton on "would work with both parties to get things done." Obama trails Clinton on experience and decisiveness, as he trailed McCain, but it's important to note that Clinton also trails McCain on these measures (although by not nearly as much).
McCain is strongest on "honest and trustworthy," and Obama is close to even with him on that measure. But it is Clinton's weakest dimension on the USA Today/Gallup poll (it wasn't asked in the CNN/OR poll). In fact, Gallup has tracking that shows Clinton to be the weakest she's ever been on this measure since 1994.
The Obama campaign has had a difficult few weeks (pre-speech); no doubt the fluctuation in the horserace reflects those events and missteps. But beneath the surface, a more complex picture of Obama's strength emerges. Just as economic indicators (like home foreclosures) can reveal more about the economy than the Dow, horserace numbers are necessary, but not sufficient, to understand the Presidential race.
By Margie Omero on March 20, 2008 11:01 AM
| Permalink
| Comments (11)
| TrackBacks (0)
February 15, 2008
By Margie Omero
Much was made this week of Obama's performance among white men in Virginia. Indeed, his support with white men was seen as both the key to Obama's Potomac Primary victories, as well as a sign of broadening support to include those formerly in Clinton's base. Others are skeptical, even worrying that while male superdelegates might tip the scale toward Clinton.
In fact, Virginia was neither the first state (nor even first Southern state) where Obama bested Clinton among white men. Nor was it the state where he won this group by the largest margin. Obama has been doing well with this group since the beginning of primary season.
Below is a table of the Clinton/Obama vote among white men, from exit poll data from every contest thus far. The table is ranked in descending order, with the state showing the largest Obama margin at the top.
Compared to Virginia, Obama did even better with white men in Utah, New Mexico, and California (setting his home state of Illinois aside). This pattern is also not a function of election type or overall outcome. Obama led with white men in states with primaries and states with caucuses, and in states that he won and states that Clinton won.
Further, the country doesn't exactly fall into an obvious North/South divide. While Obama tends to do less well with white men in the South, he still led with the group in Georgia (in addition to Virginia), and trailed with the group in New Jersey and Missouri.
Finally, it's also worth reminding ourselves about the contest that started it all - the Iowa caucuses. Among white men in Iowa, Obama garnered a 10-point lead over Clinton, and an 8-point lead over Edwards.
** (Thanks to Joe Lenski for correcting the original graph by sending the official numbers from Iowa.)
By Margie Omero on February 15, 2008 11:13 AM
| Permalink
| Comments (19)
| TrackBacks (0)
February 4, 2008
By Margie Omero
It's worth checking out Linda Hirshman's piece in the NYT Magazine this weekend, in which she makes 16 different observations about women voters. Hirshman (best known for her "Get To Work" manifesto) makes many strong points here-such as the overemphasizing of voter gender in press coverage of the Democratic primary, and the underemphasizing of socioeconomic and other demographic differences. Indeed, these are topics I've also covered here and here. Her takes on gender differences in news consumption and political knowledge, while beyond the scope of pollster.com, are also worth reading.
But two of the 16 "ways" also relate to some of our work here, and so merit a little further discussion.
Clinton's presence is driving women's turnout?
First, "Way 11" says "Sisterhood is Power," by showing that women's participation in the Democratic primaries has increased since 2004. Last week I wrote that women's participation has been mixed when compared to 2000, but we did not look at 2004, since with an incumbent in office it was a less comparable election. Below is a table that includes the 2004 exit polls to which Hirshman refers.
Indeed, she is right-women's participation has increased since 2004. But since the 2000 percentages were as high or higher, that makes me think it is perhaps not Clinton's presence on the ballot alone that is increasing women's participation. Of course, there are other factors at work. There is record turnout this year in the Democratic primaries. Perhaps new surges of all kinds of voters (younger, African-Americans, women) render the percentage exercise not particularly useful for the Democratic primaries. At any rate, I'll include the 2004 numbers in all future discussions of this topic.
How do we measure the influence of unmarried women?
Second, "Way 15" says "The Political is Personal," and in passing uses a quote suggesting that a swing in the vote among unmarried women from Iowa to New Hampshire shows how influential this group could be. While I'm not arguing that unmarried women are not or could not be influential as a voting bloc, I don't think that particular finding is sufficient evidence. It would leave us in an awkward position of declaring unmarried women unimportant if their vote was consistent, or comparable to married women's vote. The table below shows exit poll results among married and unmarried women for each of the states for which data are available (Edwards is included since they are also states where he did well).
It seems like Iowa was an anomaly. It is the only state where the two groups of women disagreed on the winner. In every other state, Clinton's margin over Obama (or Obama's over Clinton) is not that different across that marital status/gender grouping. Given what we know about younger voters trending toward Obama, I would imagine that older, divorced women vote differently than younger, never married women. Since they are all "unmarried women" it's harder to identify exactly what is happening. If we want to argue the importance of unmarried women's contribution, it should be based on general election predictions or turnout numbers, not the primary vote (or else separate the unmarrieds by age).
But these are both fairly minor points. To me, the more ways people are looking at the women's vote, the better.
By Margie Omero on February 4, 2008 12:10 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
January 30, 2008
By Margie Omero
Although it hasn't stopped folks from trying, it's a little too early to tell how people will vote in the November general election. But primary turnout so far suggests that the gender gap is poised to increase.
The gender gap, which is the difference across gender in the vote for the winner, has existed in every presidential race since 1980. It was a high of 11 points in 1996, and a low of 4 points in 1992 (when Ross Perot was a viable 3rd party candidate). A good one-pager on the gender gap is here.
So far, in every single primary, women made up a much higher percentage of Democratic primary voters than Republican primary voters. As the table below shows, in South Carolina, 61% of Democratic primary voters were women. In the early Democratic contests, women were 57%.
By comparison, only in South Carolina (where apparently women love to vote!) did women make up about half of the Republican primary electorate. In most contests, women were clearly a smaller part of their process.
Further, I don't think this simply reflects Clinton encouraging new women voters (although that may be happening). For example, Florida, which is a closed primary state, showed one of the biggest dropoffs on the Republican side. Also, South Carolina, a state that Obama won decisively, had the highest female turnout of all the Democratic contests.
What should really concern Republicans is that in nearly every contest, the percentage of women participating in the primary dropped from 2000, the last time no incumbent was running. We don't have as many 2000 figures for the Democratic contests, but a trend seems to be emerging on the Republican side. Women are becoming even less likely to vote in Republican primary contests.
Does this mean that women will be even more likely to vote Democratic this November? Perhaps too early to say, but certainly turning out in a Democratic primary, or sitting out the Republican contest, are good first steps. We'll keep track of this metric, and report back if things change.
By Margie Omero on January 30, 2008 3:27 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0)
January 17, 2008
By Margie Omero
The recent Pew poll of Democrats and Democratic-leaning registered voters nationwide finally provides us with some crosstabs of the Democratic presidential primary of gender by other demographic variables. We can now observe what I hypothesized last week from exit polls-the gender gap in the Clinton vs. Obama race can be substantially explained by other demographic variables. Age, socioeconomic status, and ideology may be driving the Democratic primary more than gender.
Overall, the Pew study shows that among Democrats, Clinton has a larger lead over Obama with women (+21) than she does with men (+5). The gender gap, defined as the gender difference in support for the winning candidate, is 8 points. The demographic breakouts are in the table below. (Pew surveyed 1515 adults, including 621 Democrats. We have no additional subgroup size information, nor have we performed significance testing.)
The gender gap almost disappears with older voters. Clinton has nearly the same large lead with older women (+26) as with older men (+21). However, among younger voters, she leads with women (+17) but trails with men (-9).
Socioeconomic status is a larger cleavage. The race is exactly the same with women in households earning over $50,000 as with their male cohorts (41% Clinton, 36% Obama). Clinton trails with college educated voters, regardless of gender (women: -3; men: -11).
But the most dramatic gender difference is along ideological fault lines. Obama leads with liberal women (+5 Obama), but trails with liberal men (+15 Clinton). Clinton has a strong lead with non-liberal women (+37 Clinton), but ties with non-liberal men.
These data suggest a few possibilities. First, ideology, socioeconomic status, and age are likely all more important drivers of the vote than gender. Second, there appears to be an interaction with ideology and gender. Of all the demographic groups of women examined, Obama does best with liberal women, and worst with non-liberal women.
This is not to say that the issue of Clinton's gender isn't important. But its importance is external; voters say others may respond differently to Clinton's gender. The same Pew study also shows more Democrats say Clinton's gender will hurt her if she is the nominee (34%) than say Obama's race will hurt him (29%). Similarly, more Democrats say Obama's race has not been a factor so far (57%) than say the same about Clinton's gender (38%).
I have been arguing this point here for a while. While the press continues to assume voters view Clinton through the lens of their own gender, perhaps it is the press's own lens that is clouded. At a minimum, we should recognize that gender patterns in the Democratic primary are more nuanced than the simplistic "Women Support Hillary" frame.
By Margie Omero on January 17, 2008 5:25 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (7)
| TrackBacks (0)
January 10, 2008
By Margie Omero
[Margie Omero is President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]
The big news this week is that women, who voted for Obama in Iowa, put Hillary Clinton over the edge in New Hampshire. But rather than treat women as a monolithic group, it's worth examining the exit polls closely to look at the role of work status, parental status, and marital status in the New Hampshire vote. Despite the increasing focus on women's marital status, in addition to the usual focus on parental status (such as the "security moms" and "soccer moms" of yore), it is actually women not working full-time who are most likely to vote for Clinton.
Exit polls from the Democratic primary helpfully include breakouts by marital status by gender, by parental status by gender, as well as breakouts among married women with children, and women who work full-time. I extrapolated the rest (identified with an asterisk), and include it all in the table below.
(Note: The exit polls defines "parents" as the presence of children under 18 in one's home, and unmarried is not broken out further. And probably because of different versions of the exit poll questionnaire, Obama receives 32% of the vote from both married and unmarried women, but receives 34% from women overall.)
A few patterns emerge:
- There is no real difference in Obama's edge between men with kids at home and men without kids at home.
- But among men, there is a sizable difference by marital status. Obama has a much larger lead with unmarried men than with married men.**
- Among women, kids at home makes more of a difference than marital status. Those without kids at home are more likely to support Clinton than those with kids at home, across marital status groups. Unmarried women without kids at home are most likely to support Clinton, while married women with kids at home are least so.
- All groups of women we can examine with the exit polls give Clinton an edge.
But the most salient difference by gender is among women not working full-time. Clinton receives a strong 25-point lead with this group, compared to her 3-point lead among those who do work full-time. And while this could be partly due to older retired women being in the non-working group, it's likely socioeconomic status plays a large role, too.
In fact, aside from voters without a high school diploma, no other demographic group gave Clinton such a large margin. (I'm not counting "favorable toward Clinton" or prioritizing "right experience" as demographic groups.) Clinton also had a stronger lead with voters earning under $50,000 a year, with those who feel the country's economy is poor, and with those who say the economy is the most important issue. The table below shows her standing with voters at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum.
Because without a dataset-or even crosstabs-we can't discern causation from the exit polls, it's worth considering the different options. Much has been made about the role of gender in the New Hampshire primary. Everything from the "diner sob" to aggrieved women fed up with sexism to Gloria Steinem's NYT op-ed piece has been credited. But perhaps causality went the other direction. Maybe a long-standing Clinton infrastructure in New Hampshire grounded her base with lower socioeconomic folks, who happen to be more likely to be women. She has done well with this group for some time, and did best (+17 over Obama) with voters who decided earlier than a month ago.
Why is it because women gave Clinton the edge, we assume it's because they had an emotional reaction to Clinton (and her gender) personally? Clinton did better with those who said the "candidate's position on issues" was most important (39% Clinton, 34% Obama) than with those who said the "candidate's leadership/personal qualities" were most important (37% Clinton, 45% Obama). It might be that Clinton's female support may have been actually considering issues like the economy, rather than listening to their emotions.
** typo corrected.
By Margie Omero on January 10, 2008 1:40 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (16)
| TrackBacks (0)
January 4, 2008
By Margie Omero
[Margie Omero is President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]
Gender played a huge role in the Iowa caucuses yesterday...on the Republican side. Mike Huckabee's sizable lead over Mitt Romney came largely from women. According to exit polls from both the Democratic and Republican caucuses, 40% of women voted for Huckabee and 24% for Romney. Among men, Huckabee and Romney are nearly tied (29% and 26%, respectively). The full breakdown is below, with the difference between the candidates' share across gender in the right-most column (results from the exit poll may differ from final delegate totals):
In the Democratic caucus, the pattern is far less dramatic. Yes, Clinton does fare better with women than she does with men. This is likely because of turnout efforts by EMILY's List and the Clinton campaign to bring more women to caucus for the first time. She fared much better than Edwards among first-time caucus goers, although not as well as Obama, who also fought to increase new turnout (among first-timers: 41% Obama, 29% Clinton, 18% Edwards). Ultimately, Obama bested Clinton across gender. Below is the full breakdown from the Democratic caucus:
One pattern emerges in both parties' caucuses: men are more likely to vote for second-tier candidates than are women. In the Democratic caucus, 19% of men and 13% of women voted for someone other than Obama, Edwards and Clinton. In the Republican caucus, 55% of men and 64% of women voted for Huckabee or Romney. Even when we control for this pattern, there is still a larger gender gap on the Republican side than on the Democratic side, as in the table below:
These results suggest that on the Democratic side, voters are more complicated than pundits predicted. They've been quick to assume that women will automatically vote for Clinton, and men will automatically vote against her. On the Republican side, the gender gap could reflect other differences between Romney's and Huckabee's base of support-religiosity, dissatisfaction with Bush, and socio-economic status are all viable hypotheses. But Iowa also confirms that women have the ability to decide an election, even if both candidates turn out to be men.
By Margie Omero on January 4, 2008 3:00 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (8)
| TrackBacks (0)
December 21, 2007
By Margie Omero
[Margie Omero is President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]
A Washington Post story on Thursday declared men unwilling to support Hillary Clinton. But much like stories in Slate's compendium of easily-debunked trend pieces across topics, this story uses thin analysis and anecdotal quotes to support its claim. Selected quotes from male voters and opponents' pollsters and a quick wave over some polling data not only leave the question "Will Enough Men Stand By This Woman?" unanswered, I'm left asking, "Why was this question asked?" (Disclosure: I do not currently work for any of the Presidential candidates. Call me!)
Yes, in the Democratic primaries, Clinton does better with women than with men. But does this mean that men don't like her because of her gender? Or could it be that women like her more because of her gender or are moved by her potential First Woman President status? A recent ABC-News/Washington Post poll of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters shows women are twice as likely as men to say Clinton's historic run makes them more likely to vote for her.
Alternatively, Clinton could fare worse among men for an entirely different reason, related more to partisanship than gender. The article alludes to Clinton's popularity among men in the general election, and quotes an independent man going to hear Mitt Romney speak. Given the gender gap in partisan identification (Clinton aside), it is important to compare genders within each party. Naturally Republican-leaning men are going to like Clinton less than do Democratic-leaning women, meaning sexism or a "pushy" personality aren't automatically to blame, as the article implies.
The story also claims that men dislike Clinton because "half of men say she's not willing to say what she really thinks. Large majorities say that Obama and John Edwards are." It's true that in both Iowa and New Hampshire, clear majorities of Democratic Primary voters feel Obama and Edwards are "willing enough to say what they really think about the issues" (78% and 76% for Obama in New Hampshire and Iowa, 71% and 73% for Edwards). Clinton's numbers on this measure are indeed weaker (55% and 50% in New Hampshire and Iowa). Now, we haven't been able to track down the results to this question by gender. But given how much lower her overall numbers are on this question relative to her opponents, it seems to me that Clinton doesn't have a "male problem" as much as a "not seen as saying what she thinks" problem. Whether this is a problem that will translate into votes will be revealed in the next few weeks.
By Margie Omero on December 21, 2007 8:34 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (1)
| TrackBacks (0)
December 20, 2007
By Margie Omero
[Today's Guest Pollster's column comes from Margie Omero, President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]
Women's turnout may prove crucial to victory in the upcoming Democratic primaries and caucuses. All the leading campaigns have strong female surrogates, be it Oprah, Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards, or Hillary Clinton's mother, daughter, and of course, there's Hillary herself. Every candidate has a "women for __" committee, and Clinton even has a "Moms for Hillary" group. It makes sense for the campaigns to focus on the issues of interest to women voters. But do women voters require woman-specific tactics to encourage them to actually vote? EMILY's List, the pro-choice women's organization that is the largest PAC in the country, is encouraging women to caucus for Clinton through "You Go Girl," and while aimed at women specifically, it relies on the basics of GOTV: encouraging people to bring someone with them, and explaining the perhaps unfamiliar process of caucusing in Iowa. EMILY's List seems to know something the press has not yet figured out: there are not obstacles to voting that are unique to women.
In previous posts, I used Census data to establish that women are in fact voting more frequently than men, across age and education lines, and also among non-married adults, despite the "Single Anxious Female" moniker. Women have been voting at a higher rate than men in every presidential election since 1980, and in every midterm election since 1986.
But for years, there has been a lopsided amount of coverage about why women, in particular, aren't voting. Some stories cite studies of women only, but make conclusions about women-specific motivations for voting. Some use no data at all. Without comparing both genders' voting behavior, these conclusions are poorly drawn, and reflect biases of their own. Below are three common myths about women's turnout, followed by the facts that bust them.
Myth #1: Women find voting confusing
This story asked why "millions of women still fail to cast ballots." Many women-specific reasons are tossed about-nursing home abuse of "frail women," difficulty changing one's name after marriage, and the worry of domestic violence victims to have their address publicly available. While these are all unfortunate obstacles, they surely can't account for the 36% of adults who did not vote in the last presidential election. And what about that bothersome detail-that women are actually voting at a higher rate than men?
This often-cited finding from a 2006 study of unmarried adults concluded that "Many women on their own find elections complicated." Yet the toplines showed men and women similarly unconfused about the registration and voting process.
Even as far back as 1997, Knight-Ridder ran a story called "Many women don't vote because they lack the time, the information, and the belief elections are relevant to them" (link not available). That story concluded "many women have trouble with even the most basic steps in political participation," citing a poll conducted by pollsters Linda DiVall (R) and Celinda Lake (D). The poll, however, just surveyed women, making it impossible to know whether it is women alone who have trouble with these "basic steps," or non-voters as a whole.
Myth #2: Women find politics confusing
Others claim it is politics that confuses women, not just the voting process, and this confusion leads women to sit out elections. In 2004, an organization called Women Against Bush garnered national press through a "cocktail campaign" and yoga parties to organize the non-voting single woman, who allegedly believe "they have to be an expert to offer an opinion-something that has never stopped men"
Even studies that do show some women to find politics confusing still don't confirm this translates into a difference in turnout. The same 2006 study of unmarried adults noted above showed unmarried women more likely than unmarried men to agree that "Sometimes politics and elections seem so complicated I cannot really understand what's going on" (70% of unmarried women; 59% of unmarried men). However, the women in this survey were also far more likely to report having voted in 2004 (82% women, 76% men), in 2002 (66% women, 59% men), and said they were certain to vote in 2006 (53% women, 45% men).
Myth #3: Politics is a turn-off for women
Another assumption made about women and politics is that they find it too distasteful to participate, or feel so alienated from it that they simply can't relate. In 2004, the daughters of both the Republican and Democratic candidates for President and Vice President came together for a discussion called "The Missing Vote" to lament young women's lack of participation (never mind that they vote at a higher rate than younger men). One of the daughters hypothesized about the missing vote, "I think that women feel less secure in their economic status."
Another story pointed to a few anecdotal quotes in this Los Angeles Times story to show that "scores" (doesn't a score = twenty?) of women "are so turned off by politics that they are failing to vote." And this study concluded that unmarried women to have "a deep-seated level of cynicism towards the government and political system."
Fact #1: There Are Few Gender Differences In Reasons For Not Registering Or Voting
Thankfully, the Census can help clear these myths up. It turns out that there are hardly any differences across gender in apathy or disinterest in voting. The table below shows reasons for not registering and for not voting (among those who are registered), broken out by gender.
For starters, there are not many large gender differences in any of the reasons for not registering or voting, aside from women being more likely to report illness or disability, and men more likely be too busy or out of town. But the most common reason for not registering, "not interested in the election or not involved in politics," is just as common among men (46.7%) as among women (46.5%). When it comes to political excuses (highlighted in yellow), such as lack of interest, and feeling one's vote would not make a difference, there are actually no sizable gender differences. The slight (1.4) difference between men and women reporting that they did not know how to register to vote surely does not justify over a decade of hand-wringing about women not knowing "the basic steps" of participation.
Fact #2: Women Are More Positive Than Men About Politics And Government
The research is also fairly consistent in showing women to feel less negative about their government than men. Pew has shown women just as likely as men to show interest in following local politics. And in 1999, Pew also showed women more likely than men to say "voting gives me a say in how my government is run," and "most elected officials care what I think."
Even some of the same studies that perpetuate these myths about women's (particularly unmarried women's) turnout also confirm Fact #2. This study showed unmarried women more likely than their male counterparts to be proud to be an American, and slightly more optimistic about whether the government represents them. Similarly, this study showed unmarried men somewhat more likely to say their vote didn't matter.
So before we declare women unable or uninterested in voting, we should look at the facts. It's not that there aren't women who find voting or politics confusing or off-putting; but the evidence that women feel this way more than men is inconsistent, at best. It's unclear to me why it helps women to suggest they are uniquely challenged by voting. Crying wolf cycle after cycle has made the press very quick to write the "women don't like politics" story, as pointed out here. Candidates (at least on the Democratic side) are putting a lot of thought into how to talk to women voters. Pollsters, pundits, and journalists should put as much thought into talking about women voters.
By Margie Omero on December 20, 2007 6:36 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (2)
| TrackBacks (0)
December 7, 2007
By Margie Omero
[Today's Guest Pollster's column comes from Margie Omero, President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]
I posted last week about the "Single Anxious Female" moniker, and how coverage of this demographic group largely trivializes women. In fact, not only are women across marital status groups voting at a higher rate than men, this gender gap in turnout has existed for years, and is poised to widen further.
Census data here and here [2006 data found with this program] show that women have been turning out at higher rates than men in every Presidential election since 1980, and in every mid-term election since 1986. Not just raw numbers (there are more women than men, so even a lower turnout rate among women could still mean more women voters), but the percentage of adults who report voting. The graph below shows the difference between women and men's turnout rates (abbreviated as "women - men"). Note that the gap is more dramatic in Presidential years.
This pattern is not surprising. Not only have women been making societal gains in political influence, but women's educational attainment also increased dramatically during the same period. Again using census data, in the last mid-term election, for the first time more women than men had some college education (among adults 25 and older). This bodes well for a continued increase in women's turnout.
And despite the attention on young and/or single women not voting, it is younger women who comprise this gender gap in turnout. The table below shows 2004 turnout by age and gender. It is only among the oldest voters that men vote at a higher rate than women.
Naturally age and education are related. Younger women are more likely to have some college education than their male counterparts; the reverse is true among older men and women. But even within each education level (with one small exception), younger women are voting at a higher rate than younger men.
Looking at these numbers, I see a positive story not being told. The data suggest women's turnout will continue to increase, particularly in a Presidential year. And the gender gap in turnout is particularly large among younger voters, regardless of their level of education. But while women are becoming increasingly influential in elections, they are being told by the media their voting behavior is just another thing that requires improving. Surely there is a way to mobilize women and make their issues heard without hyperbole and finger-pointing. In a future post, I'll look at some of the assumptions made about why women aren't voting, and what the data really show.
By Margie Omero on December 7, 2007 3:44 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (4)
| TrackBacks (0)
November 27, 2007
By Margie Omero
[Today's Guest Pollster's column comes from Margie Omero, President of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic polling firm based in Washington, DC.]
It's almost official. Single women are poised to be the "Security Mom" or "Soccer Mom" of the 2008 election. They even have their own easy to remember moniker: the "Single Anxious Female." At first blush, it seems like a good thing for women. A woman top-tier candidate, a focus on women's issues and women's voters - it must be a good thing, right?
Actually, much of what you read about single women and voting is not borne out by the data. There is indeed a "Marriage Gap" among women. Married people vote at a higher rate than non-married people. But the marriage gap is actually larger among men. According to Census reports from the 2004 election, married men are as likely to vote (63% turnout) as married women (65%). But unmarried men (which includes single, divorced, separated, and widowed) are substantially less likely to vote (46%) than unmarried women (55%). The marriage gap is 10 points among women, and is nearly twice that (18 points) among men.
If you look specifically at single, never-married adults, this pattern holds. A majority of single women voted in 2004 (52%), compared to fewer single men (43%). This is even true with 18 to 24 year-olds (47% of single women in that group vote, compared to 40% of single men). The table below shows the turnout rate by gender and marital status. [Note: at the time of this post, the Census table contained an error, in that Row 88 (widowed men 18-24) should be blank, and all data currently in Rows 88-91 should be moved down one row. The error was corrected by email from the Census, but has not yet been updated on the site.]
You would never know about women's higher turnout by examining the press coverage. A CNN piece this month called single women, particularly younger single women, "notoriously difficult to get to the polling booth." An entire organization is devoted to closing the marriage gap among women . And women's advocates hypothesize about why single women don't turn out, making their own gender-based assumptions about women not recognizing their power.
More disturbingly, however, is what this focus on single women has wrought. Dubbed "Single Anxious Female," that cringe-inducing name has stuck, and has generated a sizable amount of press devoted to the caricature of the single woman. This group has become defined not by political views, but by their lack of gravitas. Several have called them the "Sex in the City voter". Feminist icon Naomi Wolf says they are more like Melanie Griffith in "Working Girl," as compared to Hillary's Sigourney Weaver. The CNN piece said this group is "more interested in showing off than in true political activism" and cited others who called single women "slutty" or "stupid." Advocacy has begotten dismissiveness.
Now, encouraging non-voters to vote is obviously important, and the point here is not to object to women-specific voting programs. And certainly campaigns should continue to reach out to women. But we need to change tactics. First, let's use the data correctly. Women vote at a higher rate than men. Unmarried women, however defined, vote at a higher rate than unmarried men. And this pattern holds across age groups. Second, it does not further the cause to allow women to be called anxious, show-offs, bubbly, stupid, or confused. These characterizations only perpetuate stereotypes about women, rather than work to improve our status.
By Margie Omero on November 27, 2007 8:37 PM
| Permalink
| Comments (9)
| TrackBacks (0)
