Friday, September 04, 2015

Uterus uber alles!

Brace yourself for the hysteria.  USA Today:
Hillary Clinton plans to launch a new initiative this weekend as she seeks to weave women’s issues into every facet of her campaign instead of using them in a separate silo as she did in her unsuccessful 2008 presidential bid.

It's the "Mark Uterus" strategy times 1000.


The XX factor said...

Smart politics. 53% of voters are women. 55% of women voters vote Democratic.

Neither of those statistics is likely to change when the Democrats put forth the first female presidential candidate, other than "up."

Oh well, 2020 is only five years away.

Eric said...

Yay, a comment!

I suspect the only Democratic woman Hillary has to worry about is Loretta Lynch.

Roger Bournival said...

"Vote for me - I don't have a penis!"

Phil Lopien said...

As opposed to "Vote for me - I love Jesus" or "Vote for me - hablo espanol" or "Vote for me - get a big wall"?

Please have Bryan tell Huma to get me some tea said...

Smart politics. 53% of voters are women. 55% of women voters vote Democratic.

Um, isn't that essentially true every election? So Republicans never win?

And then, if having a woman presidential candidate will make women extra-inspired to vote Democrat, why do more women apparently prefer Bernie?

The XX factor said...

Um, isn't that essentially true every election? So Republicans never win?

No, it's not true of every election. It's only increasingly true, which is why your pants should be turning increasingly brown.

Here is the share of the female vote for President since Harry Truman. Take a look-see. Find the positive trend or optimistic sign for Republicans in 2016:
1952-- R by 16%
1956-- R by 22%
1960-- R by 2%
1964-- D by 24%
1968-- D by 4%
1972-- R by 24%
1976-- D by 4%
1980-- R by 1% (would have been 3-4% without Anderson)
1984-- R by 16%
1988-- R by 2%
1992-- D by 7%
1996-- D by 17%
2000-- D by 10% (would have been 12% without Nader)
2004-- D by 3%
2008-- D by 13%
2012-- D by 12%

Hypothetical time. What if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, and what if she merely duplicates the female turnout and support that Obama got for his similar “first black ever” candidacy? In that case, all the Republican nominee would have to do to overcome that deficit and draw even is to get 58% of the male vote. No problem. That’s a level that a GOP candidate has reached three times since the Republican Party was founded in 1854.

However, should the first female candidate's campaign unexpectedly and impossibly increase the female vote in 2016, either by turnout or in margin, then the Republican will need to do a little better than that.

But as you note, everything above is now moot because Hillary Clinton is polling slightly behind with New Hampshire women in some surveys. Sure, she’s up by more than 25% among all Democratic voters nationally, but details, shmetails. Let’s focus on your choice of New Hampshire, where Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has no geographic advantage. Since NH is the same great state which has correctly anointed President Stassen, President Kefauver (twice), President Lodge, President Muskie, President Hart, President Tsongas, President Buchanan, President McCain (in 2000) and President Hillary Clinton (in 2008), a primary win by Bernie Sanders there would almost certainly end Clinton’s hopes of winning the White House.

"Help me, Don Quixote, my cankles hurt" said...

So it's "increasingly true", apparently, that women vote and that they vote Democrat. I guess that explains the solid Senate majority and historic House majority that Republicans won in the most recent election.

And if you think that little table you put up (whatever it's supposed to show) demonstrates your theorem, think again. It shows Obama couldn't exceed half of LBJ's 24% female vote (again, whatever that means).

But keep dreaming your sweet dreams of Inevitable Math reductionism.

The XX factor said...

Yes, it's increasingly true, with or without quotes. Women have always comprised more than 50% of the U.S. population, but it took them sixteen national elections to reach 50% of the electorate. They've never gone back since. Increasingly true: women used to frequently vote Republican, often by double digit margins. Now, they do not; the numbers have reversed, hard. Your love of history embraces the current House majority, but larger historic trends may not be your cup of tea.

24% in 1964 means that women voted for LBJ over Goldwater by a 24% margin. I should have said margin instead of share, but my intense cankle pain clouded my nomenclature.

Goalpost move rejected. Hillary Clinton is not running for the Senate or the House. The most recent election was a midterm. The opposition party always wins midterms. The president's party always loses them. The three strongest midterm performances by a sitting president's party were roughly break even. I could demonstrate this by listing two hundred years of incredibly inevitable math reductionism, but another little chart would only anger you. Republicans had a big midterm in 2012, too; how'd their momentum pan out?

Have fun getting 59% of the men's vote. Republicans have reached that level three times in 54 elections, so why wouldn't Trump or Rubio or Jeb Bush be the fourth? Or maybe you'll catch a break, and the prospect of the first woman president will prove no more appealing to women than the animated corpse of John Kerry.

No One Ever said...

I can't wait to vote for Hillary!

correction said...

Republicans had a big midterm in 2012, too; how'd their momentum pan out? 2010, not 2012.

Take the cloth, leave the hard drive said...

The opposition party always wins midterms. Sorry, pal. That's supposed to be your excuse for the most recent Republican showings?!? There may indeed be a handicap to the presidential party in a midterm, but midterms are not a rarity, and with the ever-increasing tidal wave of women frothing for Democrats, how do you end up with a Republican victory magnitude in 2014 that hasn't happened for over 85 years? Remember - that was back when women "used to frequently vote Republican", yet in those days they were hard pressed to haul Republican carcasses over the finish line in a magnitude comparable to 2014. Boy do you got some 'splainin' to do!

24% in 1964 means that women voted for LBJ over Goldwater by a 24% margin. Um...OK, and Obama could only get to 12% and 13% margin over his opponents, which seems puny in comparison. What exactly am I missing, I mean, if I'm supposed to see some sort of trend here?

Republicans had a big midterm in 2010, too; how'd their momentum pan out? See: 2014.

I strongly advise you that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your reductionisms.