HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Monday, August 08, 2016

 
Why GOP college educated women are going to Clinton

by digby













I wrote about the gender gap for Salon this morning:

Back before the Trump circus overwhelmed the GOP primary I wrote a piece about how the Republicans planned to use Hillary Clinton's gender against her and use women to do it.  After all, the GOP had spent years building up a propaganda line about Democrats being soft on America's enemies (and perceived enemies) and portraying the party's presidential candidates as effete and flaccid politicians who could not defend the country. It didn't take much imagination to assume they would find a way to use this stereotype of liberal leadership against the first woman nominee.

It may have seemed odd to believe that Hillary Clinton would ever be perceived as weak.  She has a reputation for hawkishness and a long history of gritty forbearance in the face of attacks from the both the press and the Republicans. But ironically, the data showed that if Clinton were to have a problem with national security and foreign policy it would likely come as much from women as from men.

I drew heavily from this piece by nationals security expert Heather Hurlburt in The American Prospect who wrote:
The majority of voters express equal confidence in men and women as leaders, but when national security is the issue, confidence in women’s leadership declines. In a Pew poll in January [2015], 37 percent of the respondents said that men do better than women in dealing with national security, while 56 percent said gender makes no difference. That was an improvement from decades past, but sobering when compared to the 73 percent who say gender is irrelevant to leadership on economic issues... 
The terrorist attacks of the past year in Europe and at home could have been expected to grow those numbers:
Gender politics magnify the electoral effects of anxiety in two ways. First, in surveys and other studies, women consistently report higher levels of anxiety. In fact, women poll twice as anxious as men, largely independent of the specific topic. Women are more concerned about security, physical and economic, than men. According to Lake, Gotoff, and Ogren, women “across racial, educational, partisan, and ideological divides” have “heightened concerns” about terrorism. Those concerns make women “more security-conscious in general and more supportive of the military than they were in the past.”
Had the Republicans nominated a standard mainstream Republican they may have been able to take advantage of that opening. But the campaign has turned out to be much more complicated than anyone could have foreseen with the GOP nominating someone who does not fit any of the standard expectations of the conservative party. This year they are running with a populist pitch on trade combined with xenophobic, nativist white nationalism that targets Asians as economic threats, Latinos as criminal threats and Muslims as existential threats. It's can be defined as a foreign policy but it's not a foreign policy that anyone in national politics had dealt with in the modern era (if ever.)

Trump's "anti-PC" positions are popular among a specific sub-group of white, non-college educated Americans but they are have not been part of mainstream political discourse for a long time and they are startling. People who read books like Ann Coulter's "Adios America" may have been familiar with this notion that America is overrun with Latino rapists and criminals but average Americans just don't think in those terms. Nobody but far right talk radio cultists were considering deporting millions of undocumented families or banning Muslims from the country until Trump blurted it out on the stump. Casually embracing torture or insisting that the military would follow orders to commit war crimes in a presidential debate is far outside normal political discourse. An American presidential candidate dissing NATO and endorsing nuclear proliferation is simply unprecedented.

Donald Trump has done something completely unexpected. With his combative, contentious convention, he managed to focus all the anxiety people are feeling back on to himself. His erratic bellicosity and his obvious lack of knowledge (or interest in acquiring any) on the most important issues a president faces has actually created more anxiety than existed before.

The new Washington Post-ABC poll shows that Trump and Clinton are roughly even on the issue of terrorism. But Trump has crippling problems in all these other pertinent areas that apply to leadership and temperament:
Seventy-nine percent of Americans say he doesn’t show enough respect for people he disagrees with, 70 percent express anxiety about a Trump presidency, 67 percent think he lacks the personality and temperament it takes to serve effectively, 64 percent doubt his understanding of world affairs, 63 percent see him unfavorably overall, 62 percent say he's not honest and trustworthy, 61 percent think he's unqualified for office and 60 percent think he's biased against women and minorities.
Actually "problems" is quite the understatement. It's clear that people are finally accepting that his bizarre antics are for real and that the man is not going to reveal that this has all been an act for the base. And he has shown women that he is insensitive and uncomprehending of their issues and concerns with his litany of sexist comments:
Clinton has improved notably since mid-July among college-educated white women, a critical group in this election; she now leads Trump by 19 points among them, 57-38 percent, after roughly an even split last month. Largely because of that shift, Clinton now holds a wide 58-35 percent lead among women overall (her highest support among women to date), while Trump is +10 among men. And, again given college-educated women, she leads Trump by 6 points among college-educated whites overall, a group Democrats never have won in exit polls dating to 1976.
College educated white women represent many of the people Hurlburt was talking about in her article about women and national security anxiety. But Trump has broken the faith of many of them that men would more likely have the experience and disposition to lead the country in a time of increased nervousness about terrorism and national security. Women are flocking to Clinton in great numbers not only because Trump is a sexist and treats women with disdain. They are flocking to Hillary Clinton because she makes them feel safer than a male Republican.

It would be beyond ironic if the bellicose bully Donald Trump were the man to finally convince female Republican voters that a woman can protect the country better than a man. If that's his legacy he will have ended up doing America a good deed after all.