Posted on 02/19/2008 8:19:18 AM PST by jdm
In the Democratic primaries so far, women have voted in larger numbers than men. In the 13 states that Hillary Clinton has won, she owed her victories in no small part to a majority female vote--a sign that a female president is an important election issue for women overall. Among young women, however, that girl-power momentum evaporates, and Barack Obama is the favored candidate. What happens--or hasn't yet happened--to young women that explains this gap? The answer can be found on campus.
Articles on youth voting routinely fail to address gender, focusing instead on how young people are picking the candidate who has their "aspirations" and "attitudes." But it's important to ask why gender, as an issue, is in a position to be ignored. At colleges today, women receive better grades than men and take home more honors degrees; they are more likely to get internships and be involved in campus organizations. They have stronger college applications than men, and have been outnumbering men in enrollment as a result for 25 years. According to Department of Education projections, by 2012, there will be roughly 142 women graduating for every 100 men. In other words, in four dreamy years, women run the show. And that is hurting Hillary Clinton's quest for young female voters.
Unfortunately, there's no exit poll data that singles out young female voters. But there are statistics that suggest how solidly this bloc supports Obama. Even though a majority of young Democratic voters are female, Obama has won the under-30 vote in most of the primaries. Of the 13 Super Tuesday primary states in which of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), a youth civic-participation research group, analyzed the youth vote, ten went for Obama and three went for Clinton. And in Virginia, the most recent primary in which youth voting data has been analyzed, people under 30 gave Obama a thundering 76 percent of the vote.
Obama's support gets even stronger as voters get younger. Among college students, it's even stronger. As far back as April 2007, polls showed Obama with a 17-point lead over Clinton among college Democrats. During that same period, Obama's lead over Clinton was only three percentage points among 18-24 year-olds not enrolled in a four-year school. Fortunately for Obama, this non-college group has abysmal voter turnout. According to CIRCLE, in 2004, the voter turnout for college students and college graduates under 25 was 59 percent; it was 34 percent for non-graduates. In other words, those young voters are mostly college students or recent grads.
Anyone who has graduated in the last decade has anecdotes of guys who come to class late or hungover, while their female classmates seemed to have all their work done. College has become one corner of American life where hardworking females are consistently and fairly rewarded, and they are succeeding there, to a much greater degree than their male counterparts. It's possible, maybe even likely, to graduate college with little sense and zero experience of institutionalized gender discrimination--with almost complete freedom from the type of covert, daily setbacks that drive blacks to the polls for Obama and older women to vote for Clinton.
In a recent New York Times op-ed, Lorrie Moore used women's progress in academic settings to entreat voters not to choose Clinton. "The children who are suffering in this country, who are having trouble in school, and for whom the murder and suicide rates and economic dropout rates are high, are boys--especially boys of color, for whom the whole educational system, starting in kindergarten, often feels a form of exile, a system designed by and for white girls," she wrote.
But if you can afford to be there, the college-world of grades and tests is astonishingly more objective than the rest of life--and that's why women are able to get ahead. The classroom is not political; it's not a popularity contest. Studies show that women earn their school-years dominance by studying more and trying harder than men. The 2005 National Survey of Student Engagement showed that men were significantly more likely than women to say they spent at least 11 hours a week relaxing or socializing, and more men than women said they frequently came to class unprepared.
From within their girl-positive environment, college women are weighing other factors in the primaries aside from gender. Race is one of them. "There's a competition among dueling idealisms," says Yale University political science professor Donald Green, of college voters. "Maybe idealism associated with race is more compelling, has more of a visceral appeal. We're at a moment in our history where there's cause for optimism about gender equality, but less cause for optimism about racial equality. And from [a college student's] standpoint, the real inequality is likely to be racial or ethnic."
A less cynical explanation may be that, with sexism off the table, females in college feel less conflicted than other women about their vote. Gloria Steinem, in a now-legendary New York Times op-ed published the day of the New Hampshire primary, wrote that what "worries" her is that "some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system." Steinem's gloom-and-doom picture of a larger world full of everlasting sexism hasn't seemed to affect the votes of young women. Still, the advantage women have in college quickly slips away in the working world. Women get paid a lot less than the men they graduate with, no matter how much extra work or hours they put in. One year out of school, women working full-time are earning 80 percent of what their former male classmates are making, according to a 2007 study by American Association of University Women Educational Foundation. And this fact hasn't budged over the past ten years--despite the advances women have made on campus.
But would a woman who votes for Obama today rethink her choice after graduation, when she sees a man getting ahead in the workplace, or when she has to make a choice between a higher-level career and kids? Americans usually aren't so if-A-then-B with picking candidates, and Obama's popularity with voters in their thirties and forties has grown in recent weeks. But, interestingly, Clinton has won 25- to 30 -year-olds in a few primaries, such as New Hampshire, where the under-24 vote went to Obama. It gives weight to the idea that post-grads might shift their preferences after a few years away from campus, but given the minimal data collected during exit polls, it's impossible to say for sure.
Young people are going to continue to impact this election in unprecedented ways--a force of history that leaves me simultaneously in love with young people's fervor and optimism and unnerved by their lack of interest in Hillary. For the candidate, the parallels between college and the real world are striking. She has worked hard and done what's expected of her, but may very well get passed over by a less qualified guy when payday comes.
Why? They have been told that she is what successful girls can grow up to be and are horrified that they will have to resemble her to be considered “successful”.
Why, because Obama’s dreamy and Hillary isn’t.
Well, it’s obvious to me why younger women don’t support Hillary in big numbers. They don’t identify with Hillary. Hillary is not a real woman. Hillary is only where she is because she swallowed all her pride and self-respect to stay with a philandering husband. Hillary apparently stayed with him to have her own political career. Hillary did not work to make it on her own. And aside from all of that, Hillary has all the old Clinton baggage. She’s a blast from the past, when we all know, as Bill Clinton himself once said, elections are about the future.
America is just not ready for a big assed president in The Oval Office.
The bwitch is an anomaly ... a creature and not a person.
... and totaly vacuous.
For years I’ve been pointing out evidence of how young women abandoned Hillary. At least young women who had family responsibilities. The name “Hillary” for newborn girls plummeted after 1992. Why people ignored this is totally beyond my understanding:
According to data published by the Social Security Administration, the name Hillary is the most severely poisoned baby name in history. Hillary had been steadily climbing the baby name charts since the 1960s, when it first graced the Top 1000, becoming the 136th most common name for baby girls in 1992. But the name sharply reversed course in 1993, smashing several longstanding records for name contamination in its plunge from the Top 1000 girl names last year.
The title for the most rapid case of name contamination had been held by Ebenezer and then Adolph, names that were shunned by parents after they became associated with Dickens’s miserly banker and the Nazi dictator Hitler. But while Ebenezer and Adolph each took over 30 years to fall from the Top 1000 after they were negatively associated with their prominent name sakes, Hillary dropped off the charts in just 10 years, upsetting the prior records in less than 30% of the time. Besides this achievement, Hillary also set records for largest drop in a single year (295 places in 1994), two years (420 places in 1993-1994) and ten years (>864 from 1993 to 2002). These titles taken together constitute the grand slam of name poisoning.
As of the 2006 figures, “Hillary” had risen back to number 982.
http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/babyname.cgi
Unfortunately, their inexperience keeps them from recognizing Marxist Socialism for what it is (one a power hungry Marxist, the other a Muslim Marxist), and from recognizing that their "democrat" party is not about democracy at all.
Not to mention that the schools they're coming from teach class warfare like it's a good thing.
Sad.
We’ve had President Taft already ... not to mention Bill Clinton.
Hillary is unappealing to younger women because she comes across as pedantic and self-aggrandizing. She reminds women of the type that most of us have either worked for or had as professors in school. Other women do not see then as examples, but rather as, something to avoid.
Obama is a youth movement. He’s the Don’t worry, be happy candidate. These voters are worn down by the negativity of the baby boomers, and they are tired of waiting in the wings for the baby boomer to leave the stage. They think if they get rid of the Clintons, all the world’s problems will be solved. They aren’t sure how that will happen, but they really don’t care. Life is good for them.
But, most of us are too young to remember President Taft, and most of those who are old enough to have lived when he was President can’t remember that he ever was President.
The only ones I ever hear (I'm a truck driver) speak well of the bwitch are black men (drivers).
When questioned, they cite the experience and the ability to manipulate men as a worthy characteristic.
And just whose 'side' are they on, anyway? And furthermore, if we were talking about a man, would his 'ability to manipulate men' be seen as a positive characteristic by these folks? Do they want an Al Capone in office, or a Joseph Stalin?
Personally, I want someone who can do the job of maintaining our country, not some conniving, manipulative political hack. Neither Hillary!, Hussein, nor McCain fit that bill.
That it's her way or the highway.
Disclaimer: I love my mom. :-)
“Simple ... This batch isn’t feminist and queer. The bwitch is an anomaly ... a creature and not a person.... and totaly vacuous.”
You are correct.
And notice she has never reached out to the male population as a block of voters. She must think they only make up .000001% of the population. But then, she is the smartest woman in the world.
Also, I cringe to think who her lesbian VP is going to be should she become the Democrat candidate.
Yeck!!!
“But if you can afford to be there, the college-world of grades and tests is astonishingly more objective than the rest of life—and that’s why women are able to get ahead. The classroom is not political; it’s not a popularity contest.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Sorry, but in the real world of business, results matter. THAT is more objective, not the coddled world of school where your grades depend on being of the correct sex and ethnic group.
The classroom is not political; it’s not a popularity contest.This alone prompts me to wonder if the author of it ever set foot in a modern day classroom. But then again, the bass ackward thought process on display here convince me that this author was probably taught one.
My son’s girlfriend, born in 1989, is named Hilary. She hates having everyone say to her, “you must be for Hillary Clinton.” She isn’t for HRC, in fact she can’t stand her. I think she wishes she could change her name.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.