<p>Sokkermom’s demographics don’t mesh well with Clinton’s base of support. White, married, higher income females are most likely to vote Republican. In the Democratic primary, Obama’s strength is among higher income elites.</p>
<p>Mark Penn’s polling shows a distinct break at the $100,000 annual income level. Democratic voters above that level tend to focus on personality, style, etc. (Obama’s forte) Voters below that level tend to be issues-based. (Clinton’s forte).</p>
<p>In fact, one of the reasons that Obama has failed to move beyond his initial wave of traction is that he underperforms with the rank n’ file middle class Democratic base and can’t seem to break the perception that he is a “Starbucks latte Democrat”.</p>
<p>Well, that’s something the Republicans would surely love to see. ^</p>
<p>I honestly can’t see this country–here, even in the 21st Century-- putting in its first woman president–sadly enough. I don’t care how well she’s doing, how much money she has, and how much clout she and Bill have, nor how smart and capable she is, I think a woman president is <em>still</em> gonna be a tough sell in this country. Pair her up with an African American VP (another first), and you can be assured of defeat. Let’s face it-- we’re talking about the same country that voted in our current leader. What does that tell you about the majority of voters out there?</p>
<p>As I’ve said before, I really like Obama and wish he’d waited until 2012, at least. I think he made a real mistake running this early in his career.</p>
<p>I don’t see it. There is bad blood between Clinton and Obama, which I believe results from misrepresentations about his intentions that Obama may have made to Hillary and Bill Clinton before they endorsed him and held fundraisers for him in his 2004 Senate race.</p>
<p>One the woman issue: </p>
<p>I strongly believe that the prospect of electing a female President after 230 uninterrupted years of old white dudes will play as a significant net plus for Clinton in the general election and, in fact, may present an insurmountable obstable for the Republicans. Remember, 54% of the voters in the last two Presidential elections have been women.</p>
<p>The disadvantage for a female candidate is crossing the essential “commander-in-chief” threshold. Is the candidate perceived as being tough enough to deal with national security issues. Clinton has carefully built a foundation in that arena and, in recent polling, has not only crossed the threshold, but is viewed as the strongest candidate in the field in terms of strength and experience to be commander-in-chief.</p>
<p>A few days ago, Texas-based Republican pollster David Hill published a commentary on the challenges Clinton presents to the Republicans with the symbolic power of the first-woman president. He gets it exactly right and pollsters in all corners of the country are seeing it in their gender splits:</p>
So you expect women to vote for HC just because she’s a woman? Just like all AA will vote for Obama? That’s a little discriminatory to me. Women, just like men, will vote for the candidate that does the best job of assuring them that he/she will be the best leader for this country – I think most women, like me, don’t care one bit about gender or race. We just want the person who most closely mirrors our interests and values. For some, that will mean voting for the Democratic candidate and others that will mean voting Republican. Party affiliation trumps gender imo.</p>
<p>No, of course not. You put up a bit of a strawman argument when you talk of “all women”. National elections are won and lost by the swing of a few percentage points. So the real questions are more along the lines of "will the first credible female candidate swing an additional 1 out of 20 women or will it drive women turnout by an additional 5% to 10%?</p>
<p>Beyond that, I believe that elections are primarily driven by the effectiveness of the campaigns in speaking to the issues most important to their voters. Which candidate is doing the better job of identifying and speaking to the most important issues facing the female 54% of the electorate? Senator Clinton or your pick of the Republican candidates?</p>
<p>I’m afraid there are a lot of women who won’t vote for Clinton because she is a woman. My mother is the perfect example. She is 83 years old and has voted both Republican and Democratic, but she won’t vote for Clinton because she really doesn’t think a woman should be president. My Dad feels the same way and he is a Democrat. He thinks she won’t have the clout to deal with middle Eastern men and I don’t know what my mother is thinking. She says none of her friends, many of whom voted for Bill, won’t vote for Hillary. Women are very hard on other women.</p>
<p>40% of the women voters will not vote for Hillary Clinton in the November 2008 election. Or, let’s put it this way, if Clinton gets more than 60% of the women’s vote, the election will be a landslide of historic proportions and she would win every state. That’s not going to happen.</p>
<p>Here’s an example of reality in the gender gap: the Quinnipiac Poll of vital swing state Ohio released last week. In the overall head-to-head matchup with Giuliani, Clinton has a 7% lead (47% to 40%). Among Ohio women, the lead is 19% (54% to 35%).</p>
<p>BTW, nationally, older women (65+) is one of Clinton’s strongest constituencies. The other Democratic candidates seem to conceding this demographic. Neither Edwards nor Obama accepted invitations to address the 27,000 members in attendance at the AARP covention in Boston last week. Clinton gave a speech there to a packed house. Obama is also skipping the AARP Iowa debate in September.</p>
<p>Have you checked the Quinnipiac results for Clinton versus Rudy in Connecticut, NJ and Pennsylvania? In your fanciful calculations revolving around “assuming that Clinton holds all blue states from 2004”, your premise is shot in those three states alone according to the latest reported Quinnipiac polls.</p>
<p>The most recent Quinnipiac poll for Pennsylvania shows Clinton with a 46% to 44% lead over the Crossdresser, reversing a 47% to 43% lead for the Crossdresser in their May 31 poll.</p>
<p>They haven’t polled New Jersey since June, when Clinton had closes an 9 point deficit in April to 3 points in June.</p>
<p>They haven’t polled CT since April.</p>
<p>They polled NY in June, when Clinton had a 16% edge over the Crossdresser.</p>
<p>They polled Florida in early August. Clinton had flipped a 2% deficit in July to a 2% lead.</p>
<p>Basically, what happened was the Crossdresser entered the race with skyhigh positives as most voters knew of him only from TV on 9/11. He cleaned up in the spring polling, but has been tanking ever sense. Clinton has seen the opposite dynamic, tending to increase her poll numbers since the 4th of July.</p>
<p>Another good example is California. That’s a state that the Crossdresser hangs his electability hat on. In the August Field poll, Clinton had increased her March lead over Obama from 13% to 30%. She had increased her March lead over the Crossdresser from 13% to 15%.</p>
<p>This is a serious problem for the Crossdresser. His rationale is that his weakness in the Republican southern evangelical base is offset by his strength against Clinton in the purple and blue states. However, if he can’t beat Clinton in those key swing states, then he becomes a notably weak alternative for the Republicans because the evangelical base will sit on its hands if their nominee is a cross-dressing, immigrant embracing, gay loving, abortion supporter.</p>
<p>I dressed up as a member of the opposite sex for Halloween one year…wow…I didn’t realize that made me a “Crossdresser”- with a capital C yet. A little crossdresserphobia there, interesteddad?</p>