Misogyny, Sexism, & the Gender Gap in the 2008 Election

Paul Lukasiak’s statistical work on the 2008 elections.

Misogyny, Sexism, & the Gender Gap in the 2008 Election

[Welcome, Pollster.com readers!]

Misogyny, sexism, and the gender gap are alive and well in the American electorate.

Overall, men prefer McCain over either Democrat, while women prefer either Democrat over McCain. But the gender gap widens considerably when a woman is running. When McCain is matched with Obama, the gap is 13.9% (comprising 7% of voters), but when it is McCain versus Clinton, the gap nearly doubles to 26.9% (comprising 13.5% of voters.)

The expansion of the gender gap is due almost entirely to changes in how men vote. Only a few more women (1.6%, comprising 0.9% of all voters) prefer Clinton when matched with McCain than when Obama is matched with McCain—women pretty much stick with the Democrat regardless of whether its Clinton or Obama.

But far more men (11.3%, comprising 5.6% of all voters) prefer Obama when matched against McCain than when its Clinton versus McCain. As a result, when the margins in all 50 states are averaged, Clinton gets 4.3% fewer votes than McCain, while Obama get 0.4% more votes than McCain.

(This study is based on the SUSA National Poll released on 3/5/07 than polled voter on their preference for Clinton or Obama when matched against John McCain in all 50 states. Links to each state’s data will be provided in Part 2)

Table G1 (see below) shows the averages for all 50 states for the margins found in all states, for males, for females, and the gender gap – the difference between the male average and the female average (male minus female), for both each Democratic candidate when matched against McCain. (Rows 1 and 2). Row 3 shows the difference between support for Clinton and Obama (negative numbers mean less support for Clinton) relative to Obama in each category) .

Rows 4, 5, and 6 show the same data weighted based on the percentages of male and female voters in each state. While Rows 1, 2, and 3 compare margins within specific categories, rows 4, 5, and 6 show the percentage of the electorate that the margin comprises. (i.e. In Row 1 the “Male” percentage represents the margin among male voters – McCain received 18.1% more male voters than Clinton. In Row 4, the “Male” percentage represents the margin as compared to all voters – McCain’s advantage among males represented 8.9% of all voters.)

TABLE G1:  AVERAGE DEMOCRATIC MARGIN VERSUS McCAIN
G1A--Unweighted Averages
Row		         All	Male	Female	Gender Gap
1	Clinton         -4.3%	-18.1%	8.8%	26.9%
2	Obama	         0.4%	-6.8%	7.1%	13.9%
3	HRC minus BHO	-4.6%	-11.3%	1.6%	13.0%
					
G1B--Weighted Averages
Row		          All	Male	Female	Gender Gap
4	Clinton	        -4.3%	-8.9%	4.7%	-13.5%
5	Obama	         0.4%	-3.3%	3.7%	-7.0%
6	HRC minus BHO	-4.6%	-5.6%	0.9%	-6.5%

Table G2 (see below) shows where these margins come from. The data shows total vote percentages (“All”), is broken down by gender (“Male” and “Female”, and the “Gender Gap” (“Male” percentage minus “Female” percentage) is shown.

In Table G2A, McCain’s vote is shown the average for each Democratic candidate matchup. Row 2 shows that in a McCain-Obama matchup, McCain gets 45.1% of the total vote, consisting of 49.3% of the male vote, and 41.2% of the female votem resulting in a gender gap of 8.1%. Row 1 shows that in a McCain-Clinton matchup, McCain gets 47.2% of the total vote (2.1% more than against Obama), which consists of 54.1% of the male vote (4.8% more than against Obama), and 40.8% of the female voter (0.4% less than against Obama) , resulting in a gender gap of 13.3% Clinton’s gender gap is 5.2 points higher than Obama’s, largely because of the 4.8% difference in the male vote for McCain.

In G2B, the average vote percentage for each Democratic candidate is shown in their own matchups with McCain. Row 2 shows that Obama gets 45.5% of the votes, comprise of 42.5% of the male vote and 48.3% of the femail vote, creating a gender gap of –5.8%. Row 1 shows that Clinton gets 42.9% of all voter (2.6% less than Obama), comprised of 36% of the male vote (6.5% less than Obama) and 49.5% of the female vote (1.2% more than Obama), creating a gender gap of -13.5%. Again, Clinton’s gender gap is greater than Obama’s (by -7.7 points), due primarily to Obama getting 6.5 more of the male vote than Clinton.

(Table G2D — which is the same as table G1, above —is created by subtracting the values in Table G2A from the the values in Table G2B.)

Table G2C looks at the “Undecided” vote. In the average McCain-Clinton matchup, there are 9.9% “undecided” voters, just 0.6% more than in a McCain-Obama matchup. But there are 2.5% more undecided voters in a McCain-Obama matchup than a McCain-Clinton contest. And while 1.8% more men are undecided when it’s the Clinton matchup, slightly fewer women (-0.7%) are undecided when Clinton is the nominee. (And people say that women can’t make up their minds!)

TABLE G2:  UNWEIGHTED AVERAGES
G2A--Average McCain percentage
Row		        All	Male	Female	Gender Gap
1	vs Clinton	47.2%	54.1%	40.8%	13.3%
2	vs Obama	45.1%	49.3%	41.2%	8.1%
3	HRC minus BHO	2.1%	4.8%	-0.4%	5.2%
					
G2B--Average Democratic percentage versus McCain
Row		        All	Male	Female	Gender Gap
4	Clinton 	42.9%	36.0%	49.5%	-13.5%
5	Obama   	45.5%	42.5%	48.3%	-5.8%
6	HRC minus BHO	-2.6%	-6.5%	1.2%	-7.7%
					
G2C--Average Undecided Percentage versus McCain
Row		        All	Male	Female	Gender Gap
7	vs Clinton	9.9%	10.0%	9.8%	0.2%
8	vs Obama	9.3%	8.2%	10.5%	-2.3%
9	HRC minus BHO	0.6%	1.8%	-0.7%	2.5%
					
G2D--Average Democratic margin versus McCain
		     All	Male	Female	Gender Gap
10	Clinton	     -4.3%	-18.1%	8.8%	-26.9%
11	Obama	      0.4%	-6.8%	7.1%	-13.9%
12	HRC-BHO	     -4.6%	-11.3%	1.6%	-13.0%

Table G3 presents a “weighted” version of Table G2. (see above explanation of Table G1B.) It should be noted each state was weighted according to its own demographic profile; Row O represents the average democgraphic profile of all 50 states.

TABLE G3:  WEIGHTED AVERAGES
Demographic Break down by Gender
row		All 	Male	Female	Gender Gap
0	Average	100.0%	48.4%	51.6%	-3.2%
					
G3A--Average McCain percentage
row		         All 	Male	Female	Gender Gap
1	vs Clinton	47.2%	26.2%	21.0%	5.3%
2	vs Obama	45.1%	23.9%	21.2%	2.7%
3	HRC minus BHO	2.1%	2.4%	-0.3%	2.6%
					
G3B--Average Democratic percentage versus McCain
row		         All	Male	Female	Gender Gap
4	Clinton	        42.9%	17.4%	25.6%	-8.3%
5	Obama	        45.5%	20.6%	24.9%	-4.4%
6	HRC minus BHO	-2.6%	-3.2%	0.7%	-3.9%
					
G3C--Average Undecided Percentage versus McCain
row		        All	Male	Female	Gender Gap
7	vs Clinton	9.9%	4.9%	5.1%	-0.2%
8	vs Obama	9.3%	4.0%	5.4%	-1.4%
9	HRC minus BHO	0.6%	0.9%	-0.4%	1.2%
					
G3D--Average Democratic margin versus McCain
row		         All 	Male	Female	Gender Gap
10	Clinton	        -4.3%	-8.9%	4.7%	-13.5%
11	Obama	         0.4%	-3.3%	3.7%	-7.0%
12	HRC minus BHO	-4.6%	-5.6%	0.9%	-6.5%

There can be little question that it is not simply “Hillary hatred” or “Clinton Derangement Syndrome” that is at work here. It is sexism and misogyny. Women are voting for the Democrat, regardless of who is running. It is men who switch their votes in droves to McCain when it’s a woman running.

But there is a great deal of variation in the extent to which this misogyny and sexism shows itself in various states. That will be the subject of Part 2. Part 3 will look at group of states where the “gender factor” plays a significant role in individual states.

MISOGYNY SEXISM, & THE 2008 ELECTIONS—PART 2

REGIONAL COMPARISONS & BEST AND WORST STATES

The individual state cross tables from the SUSA 50 state general election poll demonstrate how the gender gap determines the winner in a very large number of states. But there is considerable variation between states themselves and within regions. Much of the variation appears to be related to other factors, such as race and racism, and how liberal/conservative a state is.

(Part I of this study can be read here. If anyone finds bad links, or egregious spelling/grammar errors, please note the in the comments)

This study is based on the SUSA 50 state general election poll released on March 7, 2008, which examined McCain v Clinton and McCain v Obama
matchups in all 50 states.

States within each region are:
North East: CT, DE, MA, MD, ME, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT
North Central: IA, IL, IN, KY, M!, MN, MO, OH, WI, WV
South: AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA
Mountain/Plains: CO, ID, KS, MT, ND, NE, OK, SD, UT, WY
Far West: AK, AZ, CA, HI, NM, NV, OR, WA
Links to each state’s data can be found at the end of this piece.

OVERALL REGIONAL AVERAGES – Table G4

By far, the best region for Democrats overall is the Northeast. It’s the best region for both Clinton and Obama, not merely overall, but among both men and women.

But there the similarities end. Clinton’s next best region is North Central, where she all but breaks even among all voters. And her worst is the Mountain/Plains states. While Clinton loses the male vote in every region, only in the Mountain/Plains sates does she also lose the female vote

TABLE G4:  AVERAGE MARGINS BY REGION 
McCain v Clinton
line		All	NE	N Cen	South	Mt/Pln	West
1	all	-04.3%	+08.6%	-00.1%	-05.5%	-20.8%	-04.8%
2	male	-18.1%	-07.9%	-14.3%	-14.5%	-34.1%	-21.8%
3	female	+08.8%	+23.5%	+13.0%	+03.1%	-08.1%	+12.1%
4	gen gap	-26.9%	-31.4%	-27.3%	-17.6%	-26.0%	-33.9%
McCain v Obama
line		All	NE	N Cen	South	Mt/Pln	West
5	all	+00.4%	+11.3%	+01.3%	-09.0%	-07.7%	+07.3%
6	male	-06.8%	+02.5%	-06.0%	-13.4%	-15.5%	-00.5%
7	female	+07.1%	+18.9%	+08.2%	-04.9%	+00.1%	+15.0%
8	gen gap	-13.9%	-16.4%	-14.2%	-08.5%	-15.6%	-15.5%
Comparison of Gender Gaps (Line 8 divided by Line 4)
9	GG dif	194%	191%	192%	209%	167%	219%
(positive number = Dem win, negative number=McCain win)

Obama’s second best region is the Far West, and his worst is the South. The Northeast is the only region where he wins the male vote outright, and the South is the only region where he loses the female vote.

But what is most interesting is that in most regions, the size of the gender gap in Clinton v McCain (Line 4) is almost twice the size of the gender gap in Obama v McCain (Line 8). The only region where its not close to twice as large are the Mountain/Plains states – the only region where Clinton lost the female vote.

THE NORTHEAST – Table G5

(State by state data tables for this region can be found here)

The Northeast is clearly the most “Democratic” region, and its also one of the most difficult to characterize.

· Only in New Hampshire does Clinton do worse than McCain
· Only in Pennsylvania does Obama lose to McCain.
· Clinton does better than Obama against McCain in 6 states,
· Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in the other 5 states.

Unlike the Mountain/Plains states, where misogyny clearly plays a major role, or the South where all margins are obviously affected by racial considerations, its hard to generalize about the Northeast.

Clearly, there is misogyny at play in many Northeastern states like New Hampshire, Maine and Maryland

· Among women in these states, there is a mere 2% difference in support for Obama and Clinton,
· The difference in support, which always favors Obama, is much wider among men (11% in MD, 18% in NH, 20% in ME).

Table G5-NE: THE NORTHEAST
Averages, Highs, Lows & Ranges
Clinton v McCain
line		all	male	female	male-fem
1	avg	+08.6%	-07.9%	+23.5%	-31.4%
2	high	+22%	+10%	+39%	-15%
3	low	-08%	-25%	+07%	-47%
4	range	+30%	+35%	+32%	+32%
Obama v McCain
		all	male	female	male-fem
5	avg	11.3%	2.5%	18.9%	-16.4%
6	high	+34%	+32%	+35%	-03%
7	low	-05%	-16%	+00%	-36%
8	range	+39%	+48%	+35%	+33%
Range Difference (line 4 minus line 8)
9	R diff	   -09%	-13%	-03%	-01%

But in other states, like Rhode Island and Massachusetts, feminism plays a role in Clinton’s favor.

· In RI, the difference between the two Democrats among males (in Obama’s favor) is 3%
In RI, the difference among women (in Clinton’s favor) is 8%.
· In MA, Clinton has a 4 point advantage over Obama among men
· In MA, Clinton has 16 point advantage among women.

And while there is evidence of both misogyny and feminism in some states, there are a few states, like Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey, where race (and racism) appears to play a factor.

THE NORTH CENTRAL STATES

(State by state data tables for this region can be found here)

The North Central states are also good territory for the Democrats.

· Obama leads McCain in 6 out of the 10 states
· Clinton leads McCain in 5 (with one tie, Michigan)
· Both are ahead or even with McCain in Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan
· Both are behind in Kentucky, Indiana, and Missouri.
· Obama leads McCain in Iowa, while Clinton is behind McCain there;
· In West Virginiam Clinton leads, Obama lags

Obama does better than Clinton against McCain in 6 states, Clinton does better in 3 states, and one state is tied. But the North Central states also presents the largest contrasts in the differences in ranges of all the regions.

· In the Northeast, the difference in ranges for Clinton and Obama is no more than 13 points (see line 9, table G5-NE above).
· The difference in the North Central region (see line 9, table G5-NC below) are far higher.

This contrast in ranges tells us that there is enormous variety in the North Central states.

Table G5-NC: NORTH CENTRAL 
Averages, Highs, Lows & Ranges
Clinton v McCain
line		all	male	female	male-fem
1	avg	-00.1%	-14.3%	+13.0%	-27.3%
2	high	+11%	+05%	+29%	-11%
3	low	-17%	-25%	-08%	-39%
4	range	+28%	+30%	+37%	+28%
Obama v McCain
		all	male	female	male-fem
5	avg	1.3%	-6.0%	8.2%	-14.2%
6	high	+29%	+23%	+36%	-02%
7	low	-21%	-28%	-16%	-30%
8	range	+50%	+51%	+52%	+28%
Range Difference (line 4 minus line 8)
9	R diff	-22%	-21%	-15%	-00%

Misogyny appears to play a moderate to highly significant role in most of the region.

· Only in Iowa and Wisconsin is the level of support among men and women for both candidates essentially equal.
· In five states, the difference between how men and women vote is over 15 points (IL-26 pts, KY-16 pts, MI-18 pts, MN-17 pts, and WV-26 pts.)
· In two states Clinton’s advantage over Obama among women is in double digits (KY-19 pts, .WV-35 pts) But in both these states, racism, rather than feminism, may be the determining factor.

THE SOUTH

(State by state data tables for this region can be found here)

The South in general is very unfriendly territory for both Democrats, with Obama having a slight edge over Clinton overall.

· McCain bests Obama in 10 states, and ties with Obama in the 11th (Virginia).
· Clinton beats out McCain in only 2 states (Florida, and her home state of Arkansas) and ties in on (Tennessee); she is behind McCain in the other 8.
· In the 7 states where both candidates lose to McCain, Obama outperforms Clinton in 5 of them (Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas)
· Clinton doing better among the remaining two (Alabama and Louisiana).

Table G5-S: THE SOUTH 
Averages, Highs, Lows & Ranges
Clinton v McCain
line		all	male	female	male-fem
1	avg	-5.5%	-14.5%	+3.1%	-17.6%
2	high	+11%	+05%	+22%	-08%
3	low	-21%	-30%	-13%	-28%
4	range	+32%	+35%	+35%	+20%
Obama v McCain
		all	male	female	male-fem
5	avg	-9.0%	-13.4%	-4.9%	-8.5%
6	high	+00%	+09%	+08%	+21%
7	low	-20%	-25%	-18%	-24%
8	range	+20%	+34%	+26%	+45%
Range Difference (line 4 minus line 8)
9	R diff	+12%	+01%	+09%	-25%

Racism, rather than misogyny, appears to be the prevailing bias throughout the South.

· The South is the only region where Clinton does better than Obama overall,
· The South is also the only region where there is very little difference in the percentage of the male vote.

But misogyny does seem to play a supporting role in a few states. The difference between how men and women voted is more than 10 points in four states(LA-12 pts, MS-12 pts, TN-14 pts, TX-13 pts).

Only in Florida does misogyny appear to outweigh racial factors.

· Both Democrats won the male vote, with Obama doing only 4 pts better than Clinton,
· Among females, the difference was much larger—25 point
· Clinton received 13% more of female vote than McCain
· Obama lost the female vote to McCain by 12%.

MOUNTAIN/PLAINS STATES

(State by state data tables for this region can be found here)

Much like the South, the Mountain/Plains states region is unfriendly territory for both Democrats. But unlike the South, misogyny plays a huge role in the margins.

· Clinton not only loses every state to McCain, but only in 3 states is the loss in single digits (Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma).
· In 7 states her losing margin is at least 20% (Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Utah, and Wyoming.)
· Obama manages to outperform McCain in only 2 states (Colorado and North Dakota), Obama’s losses are in double digit in 4 states(Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.)

Clinton outperforms Obama in only one state (OK), and ties in another (KS). In fact, this is the only region where Obama outperforms Clinton among female voters.

· Clinton loses the male vote in every state,
· Obama wins (by 1%) the male vote in only 1 (ND).
· Clinton manages to win the female vote in only 3 (CO, KS, OK – the only states were her overall losses were in the single digits),
· Obama won the female vote in those states, and three others (MT, ND, and SD

Table G5-MP: MOUNTAIN/PLAINS 
Averages, Highs, Lows & Ranges
Clinton v McCain
line		all	male	female	male-fem
1	avg	-20.8%	-34.1%	-8.1%	-26.0%
2	high	-06%	-19%	+20%	-16%
3	low	-38%	-49%	-28%	-54%
4	range	+32%	+30%	+48%	+38%
Obama v McCain
		all	male	female	male-fem
5	avg	-7.7%	-15.5%	+0.1%	-15.6%
6	high	+09%	+01%	+22%	-08%
7	low	-23%	-29%	-18%	-29%
8	range	+32%	+30%	+40%	+21%
Range Difference (line 4 minus line 8)
9	R diff	+00%	+00%	+08%	+17%

But what is most remarkable is consistency or the misogyny of the Mountains/Plains states.

· The average difference between how men voted for Clinton and Obama is 18.6 points.
· The difference between how men and women voted for Clinton is in the double digits in every state – and 19 pts or more in all but 2 of them (MT, SD),
· The difference between men and wom is in single digits for Obama in two states (ND, NE), and 19 pts or more in only three states (CO, ID, KS).

But while the misogyny is consistent, the primary dynamic in the region appears to be “pro-McCain/ant-Democratic” in nature. The Mountain/Plains states actually have the lowest average difference between how men and women vote for Clinton and Obama (see line 9 of Table G4, above). Neither men nor women are favorably disposed toward either Democrat; men are just less favorably disposed toward Clinton relative to Obama than women are.

THE FAR WEST

(State by state data tables for this region can be found here)

The Far West is a mixed bag for both Clinton and Obama, but Obama does better than Clinton throughout the region, outpolling her against McCain in all 8 states.

· Both win 2 of the same states (California, Hawaii) and lose 2 of the same (Alaska, Arizona.).
· Obama outpolls McCain in the remaining 4 states,
· Clinton lags behind the Republican in 3 of them (Nevada, Oregon, Washington) and is tied is the fourth (New Mexico).

But even in states where the Democrat is behind McCain, both remain competitive in most states.

· Only in Arizona are both candidates lagging by double digits
· Clinton has only one other double digit loss state, Alaska.

There is a difference in how each Democrat does with each gender itself.

*Clinton loses the male vote throughout the region,
· Obama wins the male vote in 3 states (CA, HI, WA), and ties with McCain in another (NV).
· Both Democrats do well with female voters in the region, each losing that demographic in one state by small margins (Clinton—AK –3 pts, Obama—AZ –1 pt.).

Table G5-FW: THE FAR WEST 
Averages, Highs, Lows & Ranges
Clinton v McCain
line		all	male	female	male-fem
1	avg	-4.8%	-21.8%	12.1%	-33.9%
2	high	+10%	-11%	+31%	-23%
3	low	-22%	-40%	-03%	-45%
4	range	+32%	+29%	+34%	+22%
Obama v McCain
		all	male	female	male-fem
5	avg	7.3%	-0.5%	+15.0%	-15.5%
6	high	+30%	+21%	+39%	-07%
7	low	-12%	-24%	-01%	-23%
8	range	+42%	+45%	+40%	+16%
Range Difference (line 4 minus line 8)
9	R diff	-10%	-16%	-06%	+06%

But while both candidates do better in the Far West than in the Mountain/Plains region, the evidence of misogyny and sexism is just as pervasive. The difference between how men and women vote for Clinton and Obama is the highest of all regions (see line 9 of Table G4, above).

While on average, women are fairly close in their support of Obama and Clinton, and men support Clinton far less than Obama (see lines 1 and 5, Table G5-FW above), those averages belie the true nature of what is happening in the individual states.

· In only two states (CA, AZ) does Clinton outperform Obama among women,
· Except for Obama’s home state of Hawaii, Obama’s advantage is in the single digits.
· Obama’s consistent advantage among men is in the double digits in all but one state (NM), and in the teens (12 pts) in one other, McCain’s home state of Arizona.
· In the other six states, Obama’s advantage among men is 20% or more (AK-25 pts, CA-20 pts, HI-33 pts, NV-24 pts, OR-23 pts, WA-24 pts).

THE TOP TEN STATES FOR MISOGYNY AND SEXISM

Two criteria were used to determine the most misogynistic states.

1) Gap in support for Clinton between men and women of 30 pts or more. (see lines 2, “g. gap” in Table G6)
2) The overall gender gap when comparing Clinton v McCain to Obama v McCain . (see lines 2, “g. gap” in Table G6)

Four states (AZ, HI, IL, NY) were excluded because of the “home state” factor, which may skew the results. It should also be noted that these are not necessarily the most misogynistic states – other factors may hide the true extent of misogyny in many states.

TABLE G6—MISOGYNY TOP 10
line		margins
1	California	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton	        +10%	-14%	+31%	-45%
3	Obama   	+11%	+06%	+16%	-10%
4	HRC-BHO 	-01%	-20%	+15%	-35%
1	Colorado	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	-06%	-34%	+20%	-54%
3	Obama   	+09%	-06%	+22%	-28%
4	HRC-BHO 	-15%	-28%	-02%	-26%
1	Connecticut	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	+10%	-10%	+27%	-37%
3	Obama   	+21%	+16%	+24%	-08%
4	HRC-BHO 	-11%	-26%	+03%	-29%
1	Delaware	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	+05%	-11%	+19%	-30%
3	Obama   	+09%	+05%	+14%	-09%
4	HRC-BHO 	-04%	-16%	+05%	-21%
1	Maine   	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	+06%	-19%	+28%	-47%
3	Obama   	+14%	+01%	+26%	-25%
4	HRC-BHO 	-08%	-20%	+02%	-22%
1	Michigan	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	+00%	-19%	+17%	-36%
3	Obama   	+01%	-08%	+10%	-18%
4	HRC-BHO 	-01%	-11%	+07%	-18%
1	Nevada  	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	-08%	-24%	+08%	-32%
3	Obama   	+05%	+00%	+10%	-10%
4	HRC-BHO 	-13%	-24%	-02%	-22%
1	Oregon  	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	-05%	-24%	+12%	-36%
3	Obama   	+08%	-01%	+17%	-18%
4	HRC-BHO 	-13%	-23%	-05%	-18%
1	Pennsylvania	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	+01%	-16%	+16%	-32%
3	Obama   	-05%	-11%	+00%	-11%
4	HRC-BHO 	+06%	-05%	+16%	-21%
1	W. Virginia	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	+05%	-11%	+19%	-30%
3	Obama   	-18%	-20%	-16%	-04%
4	HRC-BHO 	+23%	+09%	+35%	-26%

Of particular note is the lack of any states where McCain outpolls both Clinton and Obama. Race and general pro-Republican bias seem to mitigate the impact of misogyny in many states.

· In 5 of the states both Obama and Clinton are ahead (CA, DE, CT, ME) or tied with (MI) of McCain.
· In 3 others (CO, NV, OR) Obama does better than McCain, while Clinton does worse,
· In the remaining two (PA, WV) Clinton does better than McCain and Obama worse.

THE ANTI-MYSOGYNY HONOR ROLL

Two criteria were used to determine the 5 least misogynistic states.

1) An overall gender gap of plus or minus 5 points when comparing Clinton v McCain to Obama v McCain . (see lines 4, “g. gap” in Table G7)
2) The gap in support for Clinton between men and women (see lines 2, “g. gap” in Table G7)

TABLE G7—5 LEAST MISOGYNIST
line		margins
1	Iowa    	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	-05%	-14%	+05%	-19%
3	Obama   	+09%	-01%	+17%	-18%
4	HRC-BHO  	-14%	-13%	-12%	-01%
1	New Jersey	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	+05%	-09%	+17%	-26%
3	Obama   	+00%	-16%	+13%	-29%
4	HRC-BHO 	+05%	+07%	+04%	+03%
1	New Mexico	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	+00%	-11%	+12%	-23%
3	Obama   	+07%	-02%	+16%	-18%
4	HRC-BHO 	-07%	-09%	-04%	-05%
1	Wisconsin	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	+04%	-12%	+18%	-30%
3	Obama   	+11%	-05%	+25%	-30%
4	HRC-BHO 	-07%	-07%	-07%	+00%
1	Wyoming 	all	male	female	g. gap
2	Clinton 	-33%	-42%	-23%	-19%
3	Obama    	-19%	-27%	-10%	-17%
4	HRC-BHO 	-14%	-15%	-13%	-02%

Unlike in the “Top 10 Misogynistic States”, there is no clear pattern in the results. Only in Wisconsin do both Clinton and Obama out-poll McCain, in 2 others (NJ, NM) one Democrat beats McCain, while the other ties him. In Iowa, Obama beats McCain, and Clinton loses to him, while McCain outpolls both Democrats in Wyoming (where the it would appear that anti-Democratic sentiments outweigh any misogynistic biases.

LINKS TO SUSA STATE BY STATE DATA
The Northeast:

CT—Connecticut (7), DE—Delaware (3), MD—Maryland (10), ME—Maine (4), MA—Massachusetts (12), NH—New Hampshire (4), NJ—New Jersey (15), NY—New York (31), PA—Pennsylvania (21), RI—Rhode Island (4), VT—Vermont (3)

North Central

IL—Illinois (21), IN—Indiana (11), IA—Iowa (7), KY—Kentucky (8), MI—Michigan (17), MN—Minnesota (10), MO—Missouri (11), OH—Ohio (20), WV—West Virginia (5), WI—Wisconsin (10)

The South

AL—Alabama (9), AR—Arkansas (6), FL—Florida (27), GA—Georgia (15), LA—Louisiana (9), MS—Mississippi (6), NC—North Carolina (15), SC—South Carolina (8), TN—Tennessee (11), TX—Texas (34), VA—Virginia (13)

Mountain/Plains States:

CO—Colorado (9), ID—Idaho (4), KS—Kansas (6), MT—Montana (3), NE—Nebraska (5), ND—North Dakota (3), OK—Oklahoma (7), SD—South Dakota (3), UT—Utah (5), WY—Wyoming (3)

The Far West:

AK—Alaska (3), AZ—Arizona (10), CA—California (55), HI—Hawaii (4), NV—Nevada (5), NM—New Mexico (5), OR—Oregon (7), WA—Washington (11)

There was no polling data for DC—District of Columbia (3) and it is not included in any region.

Misogyny, Sexism, & the Gender Gap in the 2008 Election--Part 3

HOW THE GENDER GAP, SEXISM, AND MISOGYNY CHANGE THE OUTCOME IN INDIVIDUAL STATES

The gender gap in presidential elections is a well documented phenomenon. Almost without exception, women vote for Democratic candidates at a higher percentage than do men, while men vote for Republican candidates at a higher percentage than women. Moreover, men’s preference for Republican candidates is more pronounced than women’s preference for Democrats. In the 2004 election, nationally men gave Bush an 11 point lead (Bush 55%, Kerry 44%), while women gave Kerry a mere 3 point lead (Bush 48%, Kerry 51%).

Data from a recent (conducted Feb 26-28, released March 7) 50 state Survey USA (SUSA) poll of registered voters shows more than just a gender gap; it provides evidence that sexism and misogyny can have a profound impact in shaping electoral outcomes. The gender gap is nearly double the size when the matchup is John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton than when it is McCain
and Barack Obama. McCain/Clinton shows a 13.5% gap in registered voters and a 7% gap when it is McCain/Obama.

The source of the gap is unmistakable – it is due to male voting patterns. Women remain more loyal to the Democratic nominee than do the male voters regardless of the nominee while men are more likely to switch parties and vote for McCain if the nominee is Clinton than if the nominee is Obama.

Part I of this series focused on overall national trends, Part II looked at how those trends varied between regions. Part III will examine the way misogyny and sexism affects outcomes in specific states as a means of demonstrating how the dynamic of misogyny and sexism works.

The individual state cross tables from the SUSA 50 state general election poll demonstrate how the gender gap determines the winner in a very large number of states. (An alphabetical listing of data from all states can be found at Table G8 here)

In 17 states, the gender gap plays no role in determining the winner in a McCain v Clinton contest.

· Clinton loses both the male and female vote in 11 states
· Clinton wins both the male and female vote in 6 states.

In the remaining 33 states, the size and distribution of the gender gap determines who wins a McCain v Clinton matchup.

· In 17 states, the gender gap favors McCain
· In 13 states the gender gap favors Clinton.
· In 3 states the gender gap results in a tie, with male preference for McCain balanced by female preference for Clinton

In a McCain v Obama matchup, the gender gap plays a less significant role.

· In 14 states, Obama loses both the male and female vote,
· In 14 other states, Obama wins both the male and female vote..
· In 11 states the gender gap favors McCain
· In 9 states the gender gap favors Obama
· In 2 states the gender gap results in a tie.

But there are only 16 states where the gender gap results in the same outcome for both Clinton and Obama. (For details see Table G8A here)

Table G8A Summary— States where the outcomes

are the same for Clinton and Obama, and gender

support was not dependent upon the Democratic

candidate (margins are affected) Num of Winning Clinton Clinton Obama Obama States Party Male Female Male Female 6 GOP lose lose lose Lose 3 Dem win win win win 5 GOP lose win lose win 2 Dem lose win lose win

· In 6 states (GA, WY, UT, ID, IN, and AL) both Democrats lose both the male and female vote.
· In 3 states (RI, MA, and OH) both Democrats win both gender categories.
· In 5 states (KS, SC, NC, MO, and TX both Democrats lose while winning the woman’s vote and losing the men’s vote.
· In 2 states (WI, MN) both Democrats win by winning the woman’s vote and losing the men’s vote.

There are also 18 states where the outcomes are the same, but one candidate wins both the male and female vote, while men and women vote differently for the other candidate. In these states, the size of the gender gap results in a win or loss for one or both of the Democratic candidates. (For details see Table G8B here)

Table G8B Summary— States where the outcomes

are the same for Clinton and Obama, but gender

support was dependent upon the Democratic

candidate (margins are affected) Num of Winning Clinton Clinton Obama Obama States Party Male Female Male Female 5 GOP lose win lose lose 4 GOP lose lose lose win 8 Dem lose win win win 1 Dem win win lose win

· In 5 states (AZ, KY, LA, MS, and OK) both Democrats lose, with Clinton losing the male vote and winning the female vote, and Obama losing both the male and female vote.
· In 4 states (AK, MT, NE, and SD) both Democrats lose, with Obama losing the male vote and winning the female vote, and Clinton losing both the male and female vote.
· In 8 states (CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, ME, and VT) both Democats win, with Clinton losing the male vote and winning the female vote, and Obama winning both the male and female vote.
· In 1 state (NY) both Democrats win, with Obama losing the male vote and winning the female vote, and Clinton winning both the male and female vote.

There are 5 states where one of the Democrats tie with McCain. The size of the gender gap determines the outcome in all of these states. (For details see Table G8C here)

Table G8C-- States Where the Gender Gap results in a tie

for one candidate HRC v Clinton Clinton BHO v Obama Obama States McCain Male Female McCain Male Female margin margin margin margin margin Margin MI tie -19% 17% 1% -8% 10% NM tie -11% 12% 7% -2% 16% TN tie -6% 4% -16% -14% -11% VA -10% -19% 0% tie -5% 5% NJ 5% -9% 17% tie -16% 13%

· In Tennessee, while the gender gap results in a tie for Clinton, it has no impact on Obama because he loses both the male and female vote.
· In Michigan, winning the female vote and losing the male vote results in ties for Clinton, and wins for Obama.
· Winning the female vote and losing the male vote results in a loss for Clinton in Virginia, a win for Clinton in New Jersey, and ties for Obama in both states.

Finally, there are 11 states where Obama wins and Clinton loses (7 states) or Clinton wins while Obama loses (4 state). In two of these states, the winner wins both genders, and the loser loses both genders. Iin the other 9 states, the distribution of the gender gap determines who wins and loses (For details see Table G8D here)

Table G8D Summary— States where the outcomes differ

for Clinton and Obama because of the gender gap Clinton Clinton Clinton Obama Obama Obama States outcome Male Female outcome Male Female 4 lose lose win win lose win 2 lose lose win win win win ND lose lose lose win win win AR win win win lose lose lose FL win win win lose win lose PA win lose win lose lose tie WV win lose win lose lose lose

· Obama wins 4 states (CO, IA, NH, and OR) that Clinton loses where both lose the male vote, and win the female vote.
· Obama wins 2 states (WA and NV) that Clinton loses where Obama wins both the male and female vote, and Clinton wins the female vote but loses the male vote.
· In North Dakota, Obama wins by taking both the male and female vote, Clinton loses while losing both the male and female vote.
· In Arkansas, Clinton wins by taking both the male and female vote, Obama loses while losing both the male and female vote.
· In the other 3 states (FL, PA, and WV) that Clinton wins but Obama loses, Clinton wins the female vote, while Obama loses or ties for the female vote.

HOW MISOGYNY AND SEXISM DETERMINES THE OUTCOME IN INDIVIDUAL STATES

(Note: The data is “weighed” to reflect the gender distribution used in the SUSA polls, and reflects the percentage of all voters, rather than distribution within separate gender categories. This “weighing” provided a clearer picture of how the gender gap influences the outcome in the various states. It should be noted that apparent discrepancies in the data are due primarily to increases/decreases in the “undecided” vote, and to a lesser extent to the extension of the weighed data to an extra tenth of a percent – all SUSA data was in whole number percentages. See appendix 1 below for a fuller explanation of the “weighing” process. Weighed and unweighed data for all states can be found at Table G9. Note this is a very large file, and takes time to load.)

The following sections looks at the states where sexism and misogyny result in different outcomes when Clinton and Obama are matched against McCain. While there are many states where sexism and misogyny affect only the margin by which McCain wins or loses when matched against Clinton or Obama, the states below were chosen to illustrate where and how McCain wins when matched against Clinton, but loses when matched against Obama, due to the impact of the gender gap, sexism, and misogyny . (Links to SUSA polling data can be found at the beginning of each state’s analysis under their respective tables. Tables for all 50 states can be found here, and links to SUSA data for all 50 states can be found at the end of Part II of this series.)

The best place to start is in a state where there is practically no evidence of sexism, yet the outcome changes when the Democratic candidate changes. In Iowa, while there is a significant gender gap, the size of that gap does not change substantially when the outcome changes – both men and women switch their preference from the Republican (when matched McCain against Clinton) to the Democrat (when McCain is matched against Obama) in almost equal numbers

IOWA
	McCain v Clinton
	Column	A	B	C	D
line	Cand.	All	Male	Female	G. Gap
1	McCain	46%	25.5%	20.5%	+05.0%
2	Clinton	41%	18.5%	23.0%	-04.5%
3	Margin	-05%	-07.0%	+02.5%	+09.5%
	McCain v Obama
4	McCain	41%	23.0%	18.5%	+04.5%
5	Obama	50%	22.5%	27.0%	-04.5%
6	Margin	+09%	-00.5%	+08.5%	+09.0%
	Clinton margin minus Obama margin
7	Change	-14%	-06.5%	-06.0%	+00.5%

In Iowa, both men and women both men and women prefer Obama to Clinton when matched against McCain by nearly identical margins (Row 7, Col B and C)

· Women preferred both Democrats to McCain (Col C)
· Obama does significantly better among women than Clinton, gaining an extra 6 pt greater advantage of the overall vote (Row 7, Col C)
· Men preferred McCain over either Democrat (Col B)
· The difference among males in Obama v McCain is almost non-existent, comprising 0.5% of the overall vote (Row 6, Col B)
· The difference among males in Clinton v McCain is significant, comprising 7.0% of the overall vote (Row 3, Col B)
· The gender gap when its McCain v Clinton is 9.5% of registered voters (Row 3, Col D)
· The gender gap when its McCain v Obama is 9.0% of registered voters (Row 6, Col D)
· The gender gap is only 0.5% of registered voters when its Obama, rather than Clinton, running against McCain (Row 7, Col D) (

While there is clearly gender based voting patterns in evidence in Iowa, the reason Clinton loses to McCain by 5 points (Row 3, Col A) and Obama beats McCain by 8 points is a nearly identical shift of the votes in both genders. As will be shown below, this is the exception, rather than the rule, in states where the outcome changes.

The next three states show the clearest examples of how major shifts in male voter preference can affect the outcome of the vote, even as the change in women’s vote is relatively small. In all three states, women prefer both Democrats to McCain, and men prefer McCain to both Democrats, but it is the difference in the male vote when the Democrat is a male or a female that determines the outcome. The most extreme case is Colorado, which will be examined first, followed by the least extreme case, New Hampshire, and then Oregon, which falls between the two. In each state, the gender gap is about twice that when its Clinton v McCain rather than Obama v McCain.

COLORADO
	McCain v Clinton
line	Cand.	All	Male	Female	G. Gap
1	McCain	48%	28.8%	19.2%	+09.6%
2	Clinton	42%	12.5%	29.6%	-17.2%
3	Margin	-06%	-16.3%	+10.4%	+26.7%
	McCain v Obama
4	McCain	41%	23.0%	18.2%	+04.8%
5	Obama	50%	20.2%	29.6%	-09.5%
6	Margin	+09%	-02.9%	+11.4%	+14.3%
	Clinton margin minus Obama margin
7	Change	-15%	-13.4%	-01.0%	+12.4%

In Colorado women significantly preferred the Democrat over McCain

· Women provide both Democrats with an advantage in the overall vote of more than 10%
· There is no difference in how women voted for Clinton and Obama
· Slightly fewer women voted for McCain when matched against Obama than against Clinton
· The gender gap between Clinton and McCain is 26.7% of registered voters

There is a massive difference in how men voted that results in a 15pt shift in the overall vote.in Obama’s favor

· Men preferred McCain over either Democrat
· The difference among males in Obama v McCain is minimal, comprising 2.9% of the overall vote
· The difference among males in Clinton v McCain is huge, comprising 16.3% of the overall vote
· The gender gap between Obama and McCain is 14.3% of registered voters

In Colorado, the gender gap in McCain v Clinton is nearly double that in McCain v Obama, and as a result Obama leads McCain by 6 pots, while McCain leads Clinton by 9 pts.

NEW HAMPSHIRE
	McCain v Clinton
line	Cand.	All	Male	Female	G. Gap
1	McCain	49%	27.9%	21.4%	+06.5%
2	Clinton	41%	15.7%	25.0%	-09.3%
3	Margin	-08%	-12.3%	+03.6%	+15.8%
	McCain v Obama
4	McCain	44%	24.0%	20.4%	+03.6%
5	Obama	46%	20.6%	25.0%	-04.4%
6	Margin	+02%	-03.4%	+04.6%	+08.0%
	Clinton margin minus Obama margin
7	Change	-10%	-08.8%	-01.0%	+07.8%

New Hampshire resembles a less extreme version of Colorado. As in Colorado women significantly preferred the Democrat over McCain

· Women provide both Democrats with an advantage in the overall vote of 3.6% or more
· Both Democrats received the same level of support from women
· Slightly fewer women voted for McCain when matched against Obama than against Clinton, giving Obama an addition 1% edge in the overall vote

There is a significant difference in how men voted that results in a 10 pt shift in the overall vote.in Obama’s favor

· Men preferred McCain over either Democrat
· The difference among males in Obama v McCain is small, comprising 3.4% of the overall vote
· The difference among males in Clinton v McCain is quite large, comprising 12.3% of the overall vote

The near doubling of the gender gap (from 8% to 15.8% of registered voters) when Clinton, rather than Obama, is matched against McCain allows Obama to achieve a small lead over McCain of 2 pts, while McCain has a far more significant lead (8 pts) over Clinton.

OREGON
	McCain v Clinton
line	Cand.	All	Male	Female	G. Gap
1	McCain	48%	28.5%	20.0%	+08.5%
2	Clinton	43%	16.5%	26.0%	-09.5%
3	Margin	-05%	-12.0%	+06.0%	+18.0%
	McCain v Obama
4	McCain	41%	23.0%	17.5%	+05.5%
5	Obama	49%	22.5%	26.0%	-03.5%
6	Margin	+08%	-00.5%	+08.5%	+09.0%
	Clinton margin minus Obama margin
7	Change	-13%	-11.5%	-02.5%	+09.0%

Oregon shows the same general pattern as Colorado and New Hampshire, and is between those two states in terms of the impact of changes in the gender gap. As in those states women significantly preferred the Democrat over McCain

· Women provide both Democrats with an advantage in the overall vote of 6% or more
· Both Democrats received the same level of support from women
· Fewer women voted for McCain when matched against Obama than against Clinton, giving Obama an addition 2.5% edge in the overall vote

There is a significant difference in how men voted that results in an 11.5 pt shift in the overall vote.in Obama’s favor

· Men preferred McCain over either Democrat
· As in Iowa, the difference among males in Obama v McCain is minimal, comprising 0.5% of the overall vote
· The difference among males in Clinton v McCain is quite large, comprising 12.0% of the overall vote

In Oregon, the gender gap literally doubles (from 9% to 18% of registered voters) when Clinton is on the ballot, and as a result Obama achieves a significant lead over McCain of 8 pts, while McCain has a smaller but still significant lead of 5 pts over Clinton

The next three states to be examined show what happens when men change their preference depending upon who the Democratic candidate is, but women remain with the Democrat (Nevada, Washington), or when both men’s and women’s preference change with the change in the Democratic candidate (North Dakota). In all three cases, the gender gap expands as male voters switch in large numbers to McCain when Clinton is the Democrat.

NEVADA
	McCain v Clinton
line	Cand.	All	Male	Female	G. Gap
1	McCain	49%	29.1%	20.6%	+08.5%
2	Clinton	41%	16.8%	24.5%	-07.7%
3	Margin	-08%	-12.2%	+03.9%	+16.2%
	McCain v Obama
4	McCain	41%	21.9%	19.1%	+02.8%
5	Obama	46%	21.9%	24.0%	-02.1%
6	Margin	+05%	+00.0%	+04.9%	+04.9%
	Clinton margin minus Obama margin
7	Change	-13%	-12.2%	-01.0%	+11.3%

Unlike the previous four states that have been examined so far, Nevada’s gender gap when Obama is matched against McCain (+4.9%) is smaller than the 50 state average of +7%.

· Women in Nevada showed essentially the same level of support for whichever Democrat was matched against McCain
· Obama’s margin among women increases by 1% because of an increase in undecided women voters. While a slightly smaller number of women supported Obama than supported Clinton, McCain’s support dropped three times that amount when McCain was matched against Obama.
· Male support was evenly split when Obama was matched with McCain.
· Obama got a net gain of 12.2% of registered voter over Clinton due to the male vote
· The undecided voters in Obama v McCain totaled 13% of the sample, significantly higher than the 9.3% 50 state average.
· Only two states, NJ and AZ, had a higher percentage (14%) of “undecided”, three other states, KY, MT, and NE were also at 13%.
· NV is the only state with such a high percentage of undecided voters in Obama v McCain where Obama has a lead (he ties in NJ)

The reduction in the gender gap in Obama v McCain to less than a third of that in Clinton v McCain makes it possible for Obama to be 5 pts ahead of McCain in Nevada, where Clinton lags behind McCain by 8 pts.

WASHINGTON
	McCain v Clinton
line	Cand.	All	Male	Female	G. Gap
1	McCain	46%	25.5%	20.0%	+05.5%
2	Clinton	44%	19.0%	25.0%	-06.0%
3	Margin	-02%	-06.5%	+05.0%	+11.5%
	McCain v Obama
4	McCain	38%	20.0%	17.5%	+02.5%
5	Obama	52%	25.5%	26.5%	-01.0%
6	Margin	+14%	+05.5%	+09.0%	+03.5%
	Clinton margin minus Obama margin
7	Change	-16%	-12.0%	-04.0%	+08.0%

In Washington,there is a significant net increase from both men and women when Obama is matched against McCain.

· Women support both Obama and Clinton over McCain.
· Obama’s greater support among women relative to Clinton comes from an increase of 1.5% of registered voter in actual support for Obama, and a decline in support for McCain representing 2.5% of registered voters.
· Among men in Washington, the level of support for McCain and the Democrat essentially “flips”
· Obama’s gets the same level of male support that McCain does when he is matched against Clinton, and McCain gets only 1% more of the vote against Obama, than Clinton did against McCain.
· As a result of this “flip” Obama’s greater support than Clinton among males is equal to 12% of registered voter.
· The gender gap in Obama v McCainin Washington is only half that of the national average of 7% of registered voters.
· The gender gap in for Washington in Clinton v McCain (11.5% of registered voters) is only slightly lower than the national Clinton v McCain average of 13.5%

In Washington, the gender gap increases over 250% (from 3.5% to 11.5% of registered voters) when Clinton, rather than Obama, is the Democratic candidate. This increase is caused by the “flip” in male voters, and is the primary reason why Clinton is close to, but remains behind McCain (by 2 pts) in Washington, while Obama’s lead (at 14 pts) is well into the double digits.

NORTH DAKOTA
	McCain v Clinton
line	Cand.	All	Male	Female	G. Gap.
1	McCain	54%	29.5%	24.5%	+05.0%
2	Clinton	35%	14.0%	20.5%	-06.5%
3	Margin	-19%	-15.5%	-04.0%	+11.5%
	McCain v Obama
4	McCain	42%	22.0%	19.5%	+02.5%
5	Obama	46%	22.5%	24.0%	-01.5%
6	Margin	+04%	+00.5%	+04.5%	+04.0%
	Clinton margin minus Obama margin
7	Change	-23%	-16.0%	-08.5%	+07.5%

If there is one state that falls into the category “shocking”, North Dakota would probably be it. Bush beat Kerry here in 2004 by a 63% to 36% margin, and the fact that any Democrat could look competitive here, let alone be ahead of McCain, has to be seen as a tribute to Obama’s cross-cultural appeal.

· The shift in the female vote represents a net loss for Clinton of 8.5% of registered voters
· North Dakota is the only state where such a large shift in the female vote helps change the outcome between Clinton v McCain and Obama v McCain.
· While three other states (HI, ID, UT) have larger female vote shifts toward Obama, in none of these states does the preference of the majority of women change, nor does the overall outcome change.
· In Hawaii, women still favor both Democrats, and both Clinton and Obama defeat McCain, in Idaho and Utah, women favor McCain over either Democrat, and McCain beats both Democrats.
· The shift in the in North Dakota male vote toward Obama is almost twice that of the female vote, representing 16% of registered voters.
· These shifts mean that Democrats go from a huge loss of the male vote, and a small loss of the female vote when its Clinton v McCain, to a very small win among males, and a significant win among females, when its Obama v McCain.
· Only nine states, including ND, have vote shifts greater than 20%, and ND is the only one that provides Obama’s with a margin of victory. (The two large shifts in Clinton’s direction in Arkansas and West Virginia both change the outcome in her favor.)

While the gender gap nearly triples between Obama v McCain and Clinton v McCain, this change in the gap is only partially responsible for Obama’s leading McCain while Clinton is well behind McCain. In North Dakota, the major shift in the female vote is equally responsible for Obama’s lead.

These seven states – Iowa, Colorado, New Hampshire, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, and North Dakota – are the only ones where Obama wins a match-up with McCain, while Clinton loses against McCain. And while this is a specific subset of states, it accurately describes the impact of sexism and misogyny on the 2008 general election.

And while these seven states demonstrate the dynamic of sexism and misogyny, in many states this dynamic is complicated by the presence of racism. But racism does play a role in how people vote, and the interplay between racism and sexism is especially complex. Part IV of this series will examine that phenomenon.

APPENDIX 1 – WEIGHED AND UNWEIGHED DATA

In the above state-by-state analysis, the original polling data was “weighed” according to the proportion of males and females in each state’s samples. This is done for a number of reasons:

· The weighed data provides a clearer picture of how the overall electorate behaves by providing percentages of the electorate in general, rather than providing isolated views of demographic categories.
· This process is not crucial when looking at gender distribution, because the difference in the relative size of two categories is insufficient to have a truly major impact on the overall outcome. One can simply take a simple average of the male and female vote, and get a fairly good representation of overall voter behavior.
· This is especially true with regard to the sample being used by SUSA, which looks at registered voters, rather than “likely voters, and there is far less variation in gender distribution among registered voters in each state than there is among actual (or likely) voters.
· However, weighing is crucial in other demographic categories such as race and party affiliation, where there are usually large differences in the size of each group. You cannot simply take the average of how Democrats, Republicans, and Independents voted, and get a number that is close to the overall results.
· In general, weighing the data provides a far more accurate picture of changes in the electorate. While apparent discrepancies do arise when using weighed data, those are usually caused by increases/decreases in the “undecided” vote.
· It should be noted that in 4 of the 7 states examined above (IA, ND, OR, WA), “weighing” had no impact on the outcome, because the of a 50-50 split in gender categories
· Finally, it should also be noted that this data from the SUSA poll was from registered voters, and that the gender distribution in the actual election will be different. The table below shows how SUSA broke down the vote by gender in the seven states cited above, and the gender breakdown from CNN exit polls from the 2004 elections for those same states.

	SUSA poll	CNN 2004
	(2/26-28/08)	exit poll
	gender	gender
	breakdown	breakdown
	Male	Female	Male	Female
CO	48%	52%	44%	56%
IA	50%	50%	46%	54%
ND	50%	50%	49%	51%
NH	49%	51%	51%	49%
NV	51%	49%	48%	52%
OR	50%	50%	45%	55%
WA	50%	50%	45%	55%

To illustrate how weighed data gives a more accurate picture, we’ll examine the McCain v Clinton contest in Colorado, where the gender breakdown was 48% male, 52% female.

COLORADO: MCCAIN V CLINTON Unweighted Data (averaging male and female) col A B C D E Average Error line All Male & From Voters Male Female Female Average 1 McCain 48.0% 60.0% 37.0% +48.5% -00.5% 2 Clinton 42.0% 26.0% 57.0% +41.5% +00.5% 3 Margin -6.0% -34.0% +20.0% -07.0% +01.0% Weighed Data (adding male plus female) Male Error All Plus From Voters Male Female Female Adding 4 McCain 48.0% 28.8% 19.2% +48.0% -00.0% 5 Clinton 42.0% 12.5% 29.6% +42.1% -00.1% 6 Margin -6.0% -16.3% +10.4% -05.9% -00.1% Error from averaging unweighed data versus

adding weighed data Unweighed data Weighed data Average Error Male Error All Male & From Plus From Voters Female Average Female Adding 7 McCain 48.0% +48.5% -00.5% +48.0% -00.0% 8 Clinton 42.0% +41.5% +00.5% +42.1% -00.1% 9 Margin -6.0% -07.0% +01.0% -05.9% -00.1%

As the above chart shows, a failure to weigh the data properly results in a distortion of the actual results. Simply averaging the male and female data results in a margin that is one point greater (Row 9, Cols B&C) than was actually reported (Row 9, Col A). Whereas when the data is weighed, the difference is only one tenth of one percent (Row 9, Col D&E) which rounds to the margin that was reported.

There is, however, a noticeable flaw in the weighed data, because the male vote adds up to only 41.3% instead of 48%, and the female vote adds up to only 48.8% instead of 52%. This is because 14% of males, and 6% of females, were “undecided” in the McCain v Clinton matchup. When those percentages are weighed, you get an additional 6.7% on the mal side, and and additional 3.1% on the female side. By adding the “undecideds” in each gender category, you get the appropriate gender breakdown (males 41.3% + 6.7% = 48.0%, females 48.8% + 3.1% = 51.9%, which rounds to 52%)

In Colorado, because of how “undecided” voters behaved the distortion had only minor impact on the outcomes reported when the comparison was made between McCain v Clinton and McCain v Obama.

LINE 7 FROM COLORADO STATE BY STATE

COMPARISON ABOVE Clinton margin minus Obama margin 7 Change -15% -13.4% -01.0% +12.4%

The overall change in the margin, based on unweighed SUSA data, was -15%, while the weighed data, adding the shifts in both the male (-13.4%) and female (-1.0%) vote, showed a change of -14.4%. (Undecided voters overall declined by only 1% from McCain v Clinton to McCain v Obama, with the percentage of undecided male voters declining from 14% to 10%, and the percentage of undecided female voters increasing from 6% to 9%. As a result, the male decrease/female increased tended to balance themselves out in Colorado.)

However, this is not always the case. In Iowa, undecideds overall dropped from 12% to 9% when McCain v Clinton was compared to McCain v Obama, and both male and female undecideds being lower in the McCain v Obama contest. As a result, the final numbers are not nearly as close.

LINE 7 FROM IOWA STATE BY STATE

COMPARISON ABOVE Clinton margin minus Obama margin 7 Change -14% -06.5% -06.0% +00.5%

As a result, while the unweighed SUSA data shows a change in the margin of –14% of voters, the combined shift in the male(-6.5%) and female (-6.0%) votes add up to only -12.5%. Again, this is due to a change in the undecided vote.

Because this study is designed to contrast male and female voting patterns in the aggregate, and measure the change in how each gender splits their votes when the gender of the candidate opposing McCain changes and how the gender gap widens when a male candidate is substituted for a female candidate, these apparent discrepancies remain in the tables.

They also remain there as a reminder that this is simply polling data that has a margin of error of plus/minus 4%, and that no percentages can be considered a precise reflection of reality. Instead, this data is being presented because of the overall trends that it represents—-trends that appear in the national averages examined in Part I, that are confirmed in the regional averages examined in Part 2, and show themselves at work in the data from the individual states examined in Part 3.

APPENDIX 2 – LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA

The SUSA national poll represents a snapshot in time. The data was collected on February 26 through 28, 2008, at a point where (according to the national trends lines from pollster.com) Obama was at his peak when matched against McCain, and Clinton was at her lowest point when matched against McCain. (Since that time, the trend lines show that Obama has fallen relative to McCain, while Clinton has risen relative to McCain) This was before the Texas and Ohio elections on March 4 took place, and in a media environment where most pundits were predicting a victory for Obama in Texas, and a close race, if not an upset for Obama in Ohio. And of course, the data was collected before the recent controversy surrounding Obama’s association with Dr. Jeremiah Wright, and the well-received speech on race relations given by Obama in response to that controversy. Subsequent polls have showed significant shifts in voter sentiment since the time the SUSA poll data was gathered.

As with all such general election polling data this far from November, the predictive value of the SUSA poll is practically nil. This is especially true because it is a poll of registered voters, not “likely” voters. But the timing of the poll itself makes it practically ideal for analyzing trends concerning the electorate as a whole, especially when it concerns gender issues. While Hillary Clinton has always been defined as a woman first (wife, mother, and a symbol of gender equality) and a “politician” second, at the time the poll was taken everyone knew who Barack Obama was, but he remained essentially undefined in the minds of the most voters, and despite his race was as close to a “generic” male candidate as we are likely to see. (As will be shown in Part 4, Obama’s race has been a factor in many states, but the data shows that both gender and race are factors in most of these states.)

Finally, it should be noted that the margin of error in each state is around plus or minus four points – and that the margin of error is higher within demographic categories because the sample size of each category is smaller. Thus, data from individual states should be considered far from authoritative, and this may (or many not) be especially true in states that seem to be anomalies.

What makes the SUSA data so valuable, however, is that it offers an “apples to apples” comparison – all the data was collected at the same time, using the same questions, in the same order, for all 50 states, in a way that each state had approximately the same margin of error. This is entirely different from most “national” polls, which simply look at a national aggregate of voter preferences, and individual state polls that are taken during different time periods by different polling firms, in which the questions asked often vary in both content and order.

THE POISONED LANDSCAPE -- RACE, GENDER, & ELECTION 2008

Part 4 of Misogyny, Sexism, & the Gender Gap in the 2008 Election

In choosing a nominee, the Democratic Party will not merely be deciding who deserves to win, or who would make the best candidate. It will also be a decision about which poisoned landscape the Party wishes to compete upon —- one in which toxic wildflowers of misogyny and sexism are in full bloom, or one in which the poisonous weed of racism is a constant part of the environment, and needs the merest watering to completely despoil the land.

When the Survey USA (SUSA) 50 State Poll was released on March 6 (conducted Feb 26-28) comparing how McCain does against both Obama and Clinton, simply by looking at the data you could see wide discrepancies in how men and women voted. The trend is clear: men and women voted differently depending upon whether McCain was matched against Clinton or Obama. Women tended to stick with the Democrat regardless of whether it was Clinton or Obama, while men more frequently favored McCain when Clinton was on the ballot. The gender gap was significantly smaller when Obama was on the ballot. Sexism was obviously playing a role in the political landscape.

But it was clear that another factor was at work, a phenomenon described in a recent recent Nicholas Kristof column. When states were broken down by region, the two most consistently Republican/conservative regions showed a significant and consistent difference in the size of their gender gaps. The gap was much larger in the Mountain/Plains states than in The South. Not just sexism, but racism, was a factor in how the 2008 election would play out.

(This is the fourth in a series of articles based on the SUSA 50 state poll examining the impact of sexism and misogyny.
Part One, which looked at the impact of sexism from a national perspective, can be found here
Part Two, which examined regional difference in the way that sexism impacts the electoral landscape, can be found here
Part Three examined the way in which sexism affects can impact the outcome in individual states, with an emphasis on states where McCain leads Clinton while lagging behind Obama because of gender voting
differences, and can be found here.)

OVERVIEW: TRENDS IN MALE AND FEMALE VOTING, AND OVERALL MARGINS, AS THE PERCENTAGE OF BLACK VOTERS INCREASES

The increase in the Black vote creates profound changes in how men and women support McCain, Obama, and Clinton. Overall, it benefits Clinton, and hurts Obama, when each is matched against McCain.

The chart below describes what happens within the male and female vote, and overall margins, as the percentage of the black vote rises. The proportions are the same, although the positions of the lines have been adjusted for greater clarity. The space between the horizontal axes represents a 5% change. The data is sorted according to black voter percentages in the states, and the gender distributions are “unweighed” data (see Note 1).

The Black that cuts diagonally across the center represents the trend in the increase of black votes, and shows an overall “trend” increase of 27%
The top part of the chart is McCain v Obama, the lower part McCain v Clinton.

McCAIN v OBAMA (upper part of chart)
As the black vote increases:

Orange

Dark Purple

Orange

Dark Purple

Dark Green

Dark Blue

Dark Green

Dark Blue

Light Green

Light Blue

Light Green

Light Blue

Light Green

Dark Green

Light Blue

Dark Blue

CHART ONE

McCAIN v CLINTON (lower part of chart)
As the black vote increases:

Orange

Purple

Orange

Purple

Dark Green

Red

Dark Green

Red

Light Green

Pink

Light Green

Pink

Light Green

Dark Green

Pink

Red

But these lines really only describe overall trends, and cannot describe the complex interplay between race and gender, and racism and sexism, that define the electoral landscape (for instance while Obama’s gender gap does increase as the percentage of Black voters rises, it does not from 2% to 16%.).

To understand what is really going on, the data must be examined more closely.

RACISM AND SEXISM – WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PERCENTAGE OF BLACK VOTERS INCREASES

There are obvious patterns that emerge when one compares the gender gap to the percentage of Black voters among the electorate, as shown on Chart Two. It is important to keep in mind that the data is weighed to reflect the impact of changes on overall vote totals. (see Note 2).

Plum line (notched)– The 0% axis. As trend lines go toward the Plum line, gaps decrease, as trend lines go toward the Plum line, gaps increase. (In other words, a line that goes down above the Plum line shows a shrinking gap, a line going down below the Plum line shows a growing gap.)

data points are triangles or other shapes that represent specific data. lines (except for most instances with the Black line) represent “trends” in the data for a particular data series that is the same color as the data points. (See Note 1)

Black data points/line — Black voter % data (and trend line): The actual percentage of Black voters, and the other data is based on these Black voter percentages (all data points are on the line) The Black % trend line only varies when the data is sorted differently. In general the closer the data points are to their corresponding line, the more likely that the trend line describes something significant in relation to the variable that was used to sort the data.

CHART TWO
Blue data points/line – Male gap data and trend: This data/line represents the difference in the male vote when Clinton or Obama is matched against McCain. The Blue line starts above the (Plum colored) 0% axis line, meaning that a higher percentage of men preferred Obama to Clinton in states with few Black voters.

Chart Two shows that as the percentage of Black voters increased, the difference in male support for Obama and Clinton decreased, until there was almost no difference.

Red data points/lines – Female gap trend. The Red line is below the (Plum colored) 0% axis line, meaning that fewer women supported Obama than supported Clinton in states with few Black voters.

Chart Two shows a very slight increase (and therefore probably insignificant) in women’s preference for Clinton as the percentage of Black voters increases (the Red line is under the 0% Plum line, and moves only slightly downward, and away from the Plum line.)

Pink data points/line – Gender gap shift trend line: The pink data points and trend line reflect overall differences and changes in male and female preferences as the percentage of Black voters increases. (Technically, it’s a gender gaps shift, rather than compare gender vote percentages, it considers the gender gaps for each candidate.) The farther from the Plum line the pink line is, the greater the difference in male and female preferences.

The downward slope of the Pink line means than the difference is how men and women would vote decreases substantially as Black voter percentages increases.

Orange data points/ line – White voter shift trend line: The Orange data points and trend line represent the impact, and changes in the impact, of the preference of White voters as the percentage of African American voters increases.

Orange

Plum

(When looking at the Orange line, it is crucial to keep in mind that it reflects “weighed” votes, indicating how changes in the White vote affects overall margins. In other words, to get a 20 point White vote shift in a state with 95% while voters, only about 21% of White voters have to vote differently when Obama, rather than Clinton is matched against McCain. To get that same 20 point White shift in a state that has 75% White voters, 27% of White voters have to vote differently – but the chart reflects only the impact of the change in White voter preference (the 20 point difference) rather than change in the preference itself. The unweighed White shift trend line shows a not-insignificantly sharper decline than what is shown here, indicating a larger difference in White voter behavior. See note 1.)

RACISM and SEXISM – WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE GENDER GAP SHRINKS

The previous section shows how the gender gap decreases as the Black vote increases. By sorting the same data by the gender gap shift, we can see what happens as the gender gap decreases. (note that the numbers at the bottom of the charge reflect the progression of the gender gap shift, and not the percentage of Black voters.)

The first thing that should be noted is that while overall gender gap trends are related to the percentage of African American voters, there is considerable variation. The grouping of Black triangles near the Plum line represent those states with the lowest percentage of African American voters – this group includes all the heavily Republican Mountains/Plains states, and also includes two “home states” (Hawaii and Arizona) where “favorite son” status trumps the gender gap.

It is important to keep in mind that while we are looking at an overall trend, that trend in some senses represents a series of similar “sub-trends”. So while heavily Republican states may not have the largest gender gaps, within the subset of heavily Republican states you see a decrease in the gender gap as the percentage of African American voters increases.

So while there are a lot of Black triangles (representing the percentage of Black voters at that point on the gender gap trend line) grouped around the Black % trend line, there are also quite a few obvious outliers.

The behavior of men and women is significantly different, as the gender gap decreases (and Black voter percentages increase.

By sorting by gender gap, we get a much clearer idea of who is responsible for the changes in the gender gap as the percentages of Black voters increases.

Plum

(Blue)

(Red)

Finally, if we look at the White vote shift trend line when we sort the data by gender gap shift, while the White shift vote data points are not closely bunched around their trend line, there is slight downward trend among the grouping, suggesting a relationship between the changes in the White vote, and the changes in the gender gap.

In addition, whether sorted by the percentage of Black voters, or by changes in the gender gap, the White shift trend line remains nearly the same, starting very close to +5%, and with little change in the angle of decline, suggesting that there is a fairly strong correlation between the gender gap sharp, the percentage of Black voters, and the White vote shift.

THE POISONED LANDSCAPE FOR NOVEMBER – SEXISM, RACISM, AND WIN/LOSS MARGINS

The poisoned landscapes described above is not merely an academic concern. Sexism and racism are also having an impact on the win/loss margins in individual states – and will play a major role in how the November campaign unfolds as certain states wind up “out of play” because of either sexism or racism (depending upon the candidate.)

Chart Three below (see note 3) is sorted by the percentage of Republican voters (Grey DATAPOINTS and line), in order to help differentiate between changes that result from an increase of Republicans, and changes that occur for other reasons. Most of the chart itself is unsurprising….

CHART THREE

Red (Clinton) and Blue (Obama) data points and lines – Overall vote percentage against McCain. It will come as no surprise to anyone that the more Republicans there are in a state, the fewer votes a Democrat will get.

These Red and Blue lines do, in fact, run parallel to each other, but that merely reflects overall trends over 50 states. The same parallel lines pattern appears when we sort alphabetically with Obama’s showing a slight, but consistent, advantage over Clinton, and the data points appear distributed at random.

The Black data points/line represent the percentage of Black voters in the state(s). Somewhat surprisingly, the trend line suggests that the more Republicans there are in a state, the more Black voters there are.

Orange data points and line - White votes for Obama. The Orange data points/line represents percentages of all votes cast, in other words, the Orange line starts at 40%, it means that 40% of all voters in a state were White voters who support Obama against McCain.

The difference between the Orange (White voters for Obama) and Blue (Obama total vote percentage) data points/lines tells you how much of Obama’s support was “non-White” (i.e., the Blue triangle on the far left right below the Blue line that Obama was supported by 53% of voters in that state (Rhode Island), the Orange triangle directly below it tells you that 45.4% of all voters in that state were Whites who cast their vote for Obama, and thus that 7.6% if voters in that state were non-Whites who supported Obama (53% minus 45.4% equals 7.6%).

Pink (Male votes for Clinton) and Light Blue (Male votes for Obama) data points and lines. Unsurprisingly, as the percentage of Republicans increases, the numbers of male supporters of both Democrats goes down These lines almost always move in the same direction; the size/impact of the gender gap can be determined by how close they are – the further away from each other, the bigger the gender gap.

Both the Pink and Light Blue lines are, like the Orange line, based on weighed data, i.e. they represent a percentage of all “votes” cast. The difference between the Pink line to the Red line (Clinton total %), and the Light Blue line to the Blue line (Obama total %), reflects the female votes cast for Clinton and Obama respectively.

While the Light Blue line remains above the Pink line, showing that sexism continues to play a role in all 50 states, the distance between the Pink and Blue lines decreases. As shall be shown, that decrease in distance is related to the trend of less white support for Obama as black voter percentages increase.

When you look at the data from a different perspective, that of the percentage of Black voters, the trends above are confirmed, and new ones can be seen. The traditional strong support of African Americans for Democrats makes the increase in Clinton’s overall totals, and her increase in male votes, unsurprising.

But we see a different trend with regard to Obama’s data – while Clinton’s margins (Red line) increase as the percentage of traditionally Democratic African American voters increases in a state, Obama’s (Blue line) trends lower as the percentage of African American voters increases.

A similar pattern emerges when we look at male support for the two Democrats. Clinton’s male support (Pink line) increases as the percentage of Black males among male voters increases, while Obama’s male support (Blue line) decreases – virtually wiping out any evidence of sexism as the percentages of Black voters gets higher.

And Obama’s White voter % (Orange) line explains why this can occur, despite his overwhelming support among African Americans. Obama’s race is a not a factor for White voters where race is not a factor in their daily lives, but it would appear that the more African Americans there are in a state, the more White voters resist voting for a Black candidate. The resistance of White voters to a Black candidate is so significant that it overwhelms the influence of the traditionally Democratic black vote as the percentage of Black voters rises, leading to a decrease overall vote totals, and overall male (and female) support for Obama.

But not even this provides a full picture of the way in which sexism and racism intertwine to create two different poisoned political landscapes for the Democratic nominee. Breaking the data down further provides even more insight. (Note: Overlapping state data is used in the following charts in order to provide a clearer sense of the dynamic involved.

There are 24 states where the percentage of Black voters is under 6 %. This includes 8 of 10 Mountain/Plains states (four of which are a 0% Black voters), 5 of 6 New England states (3 of which are the other “0% Black voter” states), 6 of Far West states, 5 of 10 North Central states, and no “Mid-Atlantic” or Southern states. These states also include the full range of GOP voter percentages. In other words, a group of states that manages to be simultaneously incredibly diverse, representative of the GOP as a whole, but unrepresentative of the nation as a whole.

By isolating these states, and sorting by GOP percentages, we get a much clearer picture of the impact of sexism on a political landscape where racism is far less of a factor.

Blue

Red

Blue

Orange

Blue

Light Blue

Pink

Light Blue

TABLE 1
Average Overall, Male, & Female margins,
 and Gender gaps  (weighed data)
					
Black %		total	male	female	g gap
<6%	Clinton	+41.0%	+16.4%	+24.6%	+08.2%
	Obama	+46.8%	+21.2%	+25.5%	+04.2%
	Differ.	+05.8%	+04.9%	+00.9%	-04.0%
4%-19%	Clinton	+45.7%	+18.3%	+27.4%	+09.1%
	Obama	+45.6%	+20.6%	+25.1%	+04.5%
	Differ.	-00.1%	+02.2%	-02.4%	-04.6%
14%-33%	Clinton	+43.6%	+18.1%	+25.6%	+07.6%
	Obama	+45.0%	+19.8%	+25.4%	+05.6%
	Differ.	+01.4%	+01.7%	-00.3%	-02.0%

It is in the middle range of “Black voter” states where racism and sexism interact. This is by far the most “representative” and “diverse” group of states: Although the Far West is under-represented (2 of 8 states) here, and this group contains all 5 “Mid-Atlantic” states, it also has 5 of 10 North Central states, 4 of 10 Mountain/Plains states, 3 of 6 New England states, and 6 of 11 Southern States

And by sorting these states by Obama’s White vote percentages, we get trend lines that are not very consistent with 50 state trends, but which reveal why those 50 state trends exist.

Pink

Light Blue

Both Clinton and Obama’s overall vote totals decline when there are a “moderate” percentage of Black voters, but Obama’s totals (Blue line) decline more severely than Clinton’s (Red line) in this subset of states, to the point where Clinton does better in the states with higher percentage of Black voters.

Red

Blue

Orange

Black

The trends found in the states with the highest percentages of Black voters are similar to those found in the “moderate Black voter percentage group.” This group includes 7 of 11 Southern states, and 2 of 5 Mid-Atlantic states – and unlike the “moderate” group, is neither representative of the US as a whole, nor very diverse.

But in this group, Obama’s white support (Orange line) declines only slightly more than the percentage of Black voters (Black line) or GOP (Grey line) percentages increase. Much of this is due to the already low white support that Obama has in these states.

But the overall “Republican” nature of most of these states means that both Clinton’s (Red line) and Obama’s (Blue line) total votes decline.

It is the impact of racism that leads to the sharper decline of Obama’s totals, especially in the South. And while there is racism evident in all states with more than a minimal Black voter percentage, not all states are the same.

The impact of racism is also felt in the differences in male support.

Once again, we see the decreasing difference in Obama’s (Light Blue line) and Clinton’s (Pink line) male support as the percentage of African Americans increases. But this chart also demonstrates that in the absence of racism, we see the true impact of sexism. Indeed, the two “non Southern” states in this group, Delaware (triangles at the far left) and Maryland (second highest Light Blue triangle, and the Pink triangle below it) show the greatest differences in male support for Clinton and Obama.

SUMMARY:

appear

appearance

While this study makes clear much of how racism itself affects the electoral landscape, the purpose of this study has been to gauge the potential impact of sexism and misogyny on the 2008 Presidential election. A future study will look more closely at the how racism, and positive racial identification, could impact that election.

SEXISM – AN ISSUE, NOT JUST A “FACTOR”

At the time SUSA data was gathered, the Jeremiah Wright controversy had not yet exploded on the national scene, and while “racism” was a factor, it wasn’t really an “issue.” (see Afterword for a discussion of what happens to the gender gap when race becomes an “issue.”)

But when it comes to Hillary Clinton, it is clear that her gender isn’t just a “factor”, but an issue. If she “acts like a woman” and shows emotion, it becomes a topic for endless media discussion and speculation. If she gives a speech to a woman’s group, or she discusses the historic nature of her candidacy, she’s playing the “gender card”. How she looks, including what she is wearing, and how she sounds, are discussed in ways in which the media would never consider talking about a man. She is consistently defined in terms of her husband and marriage, and accused of not getting where she is on her own, but rather because of who her husband is.

The hostility toward Hillary Clinton is visceral, and is comparable to the hostility and hatred directed toward Eleanor Roosevelt in her day. Roosevelt was the first “modern” First Lady – and the first truly post-woman’s suffrage one. While many First Ladies were women of sharp intelligence and political acumen, prior to Roosevelt they stayed behind the scenes. Eleanor Roosevelt completely rejected the then “traditional” role of First Lady, and became a public figure who was a strong advocate for civil rights and human rights, and played a significant role in her husband’s administration.

As a result of Roosevelt’s refusal to only play the “traditional” role of First Lady, both she and her husband were vilified during his Presidency —- it was clear that Franklin Roosevelt didn’t “permit” Eleanor to have a public persona separate and distinct from her husband, he “enabled” it. Tens of millions of Americans, unhappy with the changing role of women in society, saw that “enabling” in the same way that we perceive the enabling of alcoholics or drug abusers – as a sign of weakness, corruption, and cravenness on Franklin Roosevelt’s part, as was as despised as Eleanor Roosevelt was feared, resented and hated by them.

And while most subsequent First Lady’s adopted/adapted the Eleanor Roosevelt model (although Bess Truman is best remembered for being “not Eleanor Roosevelt”), Hillary Clinton represents the first truly “post-women’s liberation” First Lady. Roosevelt and her successors adopted “causes” and “stood in for” their husbands as a representative of the Office of President. Hillary Clinton didn’t adopt causes, she took on issues, and wasn’t just a “stand in” for Bill Clinton, but his alter ego – she represented The President.

Just as Eleanor Roosevelt was hated by millions because she represented the changing role of women, and just as Franklin Roosevelt was equally despised for his role as her “enabler”, so too are Hillary and Bill Clinton hated. It has nothing to do with policies, or politics – it’s a visceral reaction to avatars of change in the relationship between men and women.

As a result, Hillary Clinton is constantly criticized for showing traits that would be considered admirable in a man.

Hillary Clinton isn’t just “ambitious”, she is “too ambitious.” Nevermind the fact that she had spent 14 years in Washington, including 6 years in the Senate, before announcing for President, while Obama spent only two years in DC as a Senator before he announced, and is seldom described as “too ambitious.” Clinton “has spent the last seven years running for President”, a fact that is equally (if not more) true of John McCain, but no one seems to mention that McCain has had his own eye on the Presidency since at least 1999.

Hillary Clinton isn’t “smart”, she’s “too calculating”. She isn’t “assertive”, she’s “too controlling”. Clinton doesn’t “compromise”, she “betrays her principles.” And Hillary Clinton is incapable of righteous anger, instead she is “shrill.”

And, of course, she’s a “bitch”.

And all this happens because Hillary Clinton isn’t just “a woman”, she is a symbol of the true equality for women that the women’s liberation movement sought to achieve, and as such represents a major threat to the subconscious assumption underlying male dominance of society.

As a woman, she isn’t equal to men, she is equal with men; Hillary Clinton represents the rejection of “maleness” as the yardstick by which women are judged. And the moment the word “co-president” was utterred, Hillary Clinton became a threat to everything that men believe on a subconscious level about the “natural order of things”and the subconscious male assumption that men have the right to bestow equality upon women, and define the terms under which “equality” is exercised.

But perhaps Clinton’s biggest “crime” is her refusal to project any sense of sexual availability to men. By not engaging in “sexual politics”, by playing games of flirtation and seduction expected/demanded of women who seek power, she represents a threat to the very core of male identity itself, and a threat to core identity of many women as well.

Hillary Clinton’s gender is an issue, not just a factor, because she is no different from any male politician. She is no more (and no less) deserving, no more (and no less) ambitious, no more (and no less) “unprincipled”. It is her very demand that she be treated equally WITH men that makes it acceptable to talk about, describe, and attack her in ways that people in the media would never consider talking about a man.

Ultimately, the way in which people feel free to talk about Hillary Clinton is their way of asserting that women are ”different” from men, and must be treated differently, and it is Clinton’s insistence upon equal treatment that makes it acceptable to establish that “difference” in negative terms.

The male-dominated media’s treatment of Clinton feeds into every fear that men (and many women) have of true female equality, and not merely allows sexism and misogyny to thrive, but practically demands it. And the huge differences between how men and women vote for Clinton and Obama – two remarkably similar politicians who are both overwhelmingly different from John McCain – shows that the demand is being met.

AFTERWORD: WHEN RACE BECOMES AN ISSUE – THE GENDER GAP OVER TIME

The SUSA 50 state poll provides an excellent opportunity to describe the contours of the political landscape at a specific point in time, but cannot tell us anything about voter behavior over time within that landscape. The image is static; it’s not a movie, but a snapshot (or, perhaps more appropriately, a multi-dimension holographic image), and where voters are “pooled” like a liquids in 50 different areas of that landscape.

As the contours of the landscape change, the voters wind up “pooling” in different places, and a political campaign is the equivalent of candidates and other people trying to shift the contours of the landscape to get the voters to “pool” where they want them. While the actions of the candidates and others can change the contours of the landscape by raising issues and providing new information, the landscape can also change “naturally”. But ultimately, it is “the media” that controls the landscape by controlling the access, and more crucially, the nature of the access, to the levers and pulleys that change the contours of that landscape.

It is “the media” that decides whether “illegal immigration” or “universal health coverage” or “Hillary Clinton’s tax returns” is actually the force determining the contours of the landscape, and decides who has what kind of access to the levers of power as the landscape changes. The SUSA 50 state poll provides a still picture of what looks like a “political landscape”, but when that picture comes to life and the contours begin to shift, it is because what we are really looking at is a “media landscape”.

And as the landscape changes, and the voters “pool” in different areas, the gender gap itself usually changes. South Carolina and Ohio provide two examples of how the gender gap changes as the “media landscape” changes —- but how, when the media decides to make “race” an issue, it can shift large numbers of voters without substantially altering the gender gap.

SOUTH CAROLINA: PLAYING THE PHONY RACIST CARD

When, subsequent to her win in New Hampshire, false accusations that the Clinton campaign was deliberately injecting race into the campaign, it created significant changes in the established trends that defined the changes in the gender gap in South Carolina. And contrary to popular opinion, the efforts of the Obama camp (as documented by Sean Wilentz) to cast the Clinton campaign as racist backfired – while Clinton lost 3% of her Black support, and Obama gained 5 points among Blacks, the real impact was on Obama’s loss of a quarter of his White support while the controversy raged, and the shift of 12% of the White vote to Clinton.

Once it ebbed, when the voters went to the polls, Clinton had lost the White support she gained during the controversy, but only a small fraction of the White votes (1/7) that wound up “in play” found their way to Obama. Ironically, all these changes had little visible impact on Clinton’s gender gap – and considering the major shift in candidate preference, the impact of these changes in gender distribution for Edwards and Obama was negligible in the short term. If the “racial controversy” in South Carolina had any impact on the gender gap, it was in altering the trends that would have continued had the controversy not taken place.

Thanks in no small part to overwhelming positive media coverage (and a media that all but ignored John Edward) for Barack Obama. By early November 2007 Obama, a candidate with less than three years of national political experience, had managed to establish himself solidly in the number two position for the Democratic nomination. Hillary Clinton’s was still getting twice as much support in national polls as Obama,but Obama was getting twice the support third place Edwards. Obama was rapidly becoming the candidate of choice for the “anyone but Hillary” crowd, and had even managed to overtake Edwards in Iowa.

But after starting strong in the national polls in the winter of 2007, by early spring Obama had stalled, and started fading over the summer as Clinton increased her own support. Obama began picking up steam again in early October, apparently because Al Gore had made it clear that he was not running. (by mid- October, most pollsters were no longer including Gore in its questions on the Democratic nomination.)

And thus the stage is set for the first Democratic primary poll taken by Survey USA in South Carolina, conducted on Nov. 9-11, showed Clinton with a solid 14 point lead over Obama, with Edwards mired in third place. And while Obama was already ahead of Clinton among males by 19 points, her even more substantial, 33 point lead among women (who were projected to make up 62% of the electorate) gave Clinton a nice cushion. The gender gap was at its peak in November in South Carolina, with a 52 point spread between Obama (Light Blue line) and Clinton’s (Pink line) gender gap numbers.

Obama was also well ahead among African American voters, getting the support of a clear majority (dotted Blue line) of 52% to Clinton’s 39%. But perhaps most significant, in terms of this discussion, is Edwards’ incredibly poor showing among Black voters: after winning a plurality (37%) of the Black vote in the 2004 primary, and spending four years focusing on issues of important to the Black community (like poverty and economic justice), Edwards was only getting 3% of the Black vote.

CHART A1

But Obama was lagging well behind in the White vote, with Clinton at 55% (solid Red line) to Obama’s 15% (solid Blue line.). This data suggests that Obama had established himself as a viable enough candidate for African Americans to support as a gesture of positive social identification. But in early November White voters on the whole remain unconvinced. The data also strongly suggests that in early November, there was a considerable gender gap among Black voters —- Clinton’s overwhelming support among women, Obama’s strong showing among men and African Americans, and weakness with White voters (and subsequent gender and racial polling trends) seem to show that a significantly large percentage of Black women than Black men were supporting Clinton at that time.

Two polls taken over the subsequent five weeks (December 7-9 and Dec 17-18) show that both Clinton and Obama maintain about the same percentage of the male vote, with Edwards gaining 11 point among men. Edwards also picks up six points among women, while Obama gains 8 points while Clinton loses 8 points among women. As a result, Clinton’s lead over Obama was cut to 2 points. The loss of women for Clinton and the increase in female support for Obama results in the shrinking of their respective gender gaps.

However, during the same period, there was little change in Clinton’s Black support (-2%) or Obama’s White support (+3). Obama also picks up an additional 5% of the Black vote. But the big change is in the White vote loss of 11 points for Clinton, and Edward’s gaining 15% more of the White voters. Clinton was looking increasingly vulnerable, but White voters shifted to Edwards, and not Obama.

TABLE A1

SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY POLLS (gender)
date	      Clinton	Edwards	Obama  Undec  Undec
              g. gap    g. gap  g gap   male  female
Nov 9-11	-30%	1%	22%	15%	8%
Dec 7-9	        -29%	5%	22%	7%	5%
Dec 17-18	-22%	6%	15%	3%	2%
Jan 4-6	        -7%    -1%	7%	5%	4%
Jan 16-17	-7%	3%	2%	4%	2%
Jan 23-24	-6%	6%     -2%	5%	3%
Exit (jan 26)	-7%	7%	0%

It is during the next three weeks that the most dramatic changes in the gender gaps took place – a period during which Obama overtook Clinton in Iowa polls and subsequently won the Iowa caucuses. The poll
taken on Jan 4-6 shows that while Clinton lost only 2% of the male vote during the period, one third of her female support fell away (going from 50% to 33%) while Obama picked up 14% of women voters. Obama also increased his male support by 6%, and Edwards lost the same amount of male support.

As a result of these shifts, major changes in the gender gaps for the candidates too place. Clinton’s gap was reduced by nearly 70%, going from negative 22 to negative 7 (a negative gender gap number means that a candidate has more support among woman than men, a positive number means male support is greater). Edwards’s gap also dropped substantially (by 7 points), to where there was almost no difference in how the genders voted for Edwards. And Obama’s gender gap was reduced by more than half, from 15% to 7%.

It also during this “pre-controversy” period that Clinton loses the biggest chunk of her Black support, going from 37% of the Black vote to 23%, while Obama picks up an additional 12% of Blacks (and Edwards loses 1%). Clinton and Edwards also loses 8% and 4% of their White vote respectively, while Obama picks up 11%. Because Edwards gender gap drops substantially, and he lost 4% of Whites and 1% of Blacks, it is safe to say that most of the gender gap drop was due to the loss of White males. This fact, and the fact that Clinton lost only 2% of her male support, tells us that the Black voters that shifted to Obama were significantly disproportionately female.

TABLE A2

SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY POLLS (race)
BLACK VOTER PERCENTAGES
Date	        Clinton	Edwards	Obama	Undecided
Nov 9-11	39%	3%	52%	6%
Dec 7-9	        39%	2%	56%	3%
Dec 17-18	37%	5%	57%	1%
Jan 4-6	        23%	4%	69%	4%
Jan 16-17	20%	3%	74%	3%
Jan 23-24	18%	6%	73%	3%
Exit (jan 26)	19%	2%	78%	
				
WHITE VOTER PERCENTAGES
Date	        Clinton	Edwards	Obama	Undecided
Nov 9-11	55%	17%	15%	13%
Dec 7-9	        51%	23%	19%	7%
Dec 17-18	46%	32%	18%	4%
Jan 4-6	        38%	28%	29%	5%
Jan 16-17	50%	26%	22%	2%
Jan 23-24	38%	38%	21%	3%
Exit (jan 26)	36%	40%	24%

It is at this point that the “racial code-word campaigning” accusations against Clinton started to fly, and they reached their peak right before the next polling was done on Jan. 16-17. Obama finally admitted that there was nothing “racial” in the comments of Bill or Hillary Clinton right before the Jan. 15th debate in Las Vegas, but never acknowledged that not only his supporters, but his own campaign, were responsible for the phony controversy.) And while the biggest impact was on racial voting patterns, it also had an impact on the gender gap.

The changes that occurred can best be accounted for by simply assuming that South Carolinians, both Black and White, know the difference between real “dog whistle” racism, and false accusations of the intentional use of “racial code.” Black voters recognized that the accusations were false, and during the controversy Clinton lost only 3% of her Black support, while Obama’s Black support rose by only 5 points. (Indeed, given that Obama wound up with 78% of the Black vote in SC, when he got at least 85% of the Black vote in subsequent southern primaries in Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama, the controversy may have dampened African American enthusiasm for his candidacy in SC.)

White Democrats, meanwhile, seem to focus not merely on the fact that the accusations were false, but where those accusations were coming from, and as a result of the controversy Obama lost 7%, or nearly a quarter, of his White support. White undecideds fell from 5% to 2% in this period, and Edwards also lost 2% of his White support, resulting in Clinton going from 38% of the White vote to 50%. This strong White shift back to Clinton can best be explained by the idea that White Democrats began to identify with Clinton, based on their own fears (or experiences) of being falsely accused of racist intent.

CHART A2

Ironically, these changes had no impact on Clinton’s gender gap – she picked up 6% of both the male and female vote. But Obama lost 7% of his male support while losing only 2% of his female support, resulting in a 5% reduction in his gender gap. And Edward’s male support went up by 2% during this period, while his female support went down by 2%, resulting in a net increase of 4% in his gender gap.

The subsequent SUSA poll, taken on Jan 23-24 after the controversy had died down and right before the Jan. 26 primary, shows little change in the Obama’s percentages of Black and White voters, but his gender gap numbers decline anyway by four points – this can be explained by noting that the change in the racial distribution of the sample occurred. (see Note 4) And while there was a 12 point shift in the White vote from Clinton to Edwards, given the distorting effects (see note 4) of the change in demographic distribution,