Making sense of Hillary's generational gender gap

One thing I found fascinating in watching the TV coverage of last night's Iowa results was how mystified many of the pundits got over the fact that Obama did better than Hillary among young women and single women than Hillary did according to the data of the results out of Iowa.

Me? Well, as a 25-year-old woman who has been firmly in the Obama camp from the beginning, I can't say I'm surprised at all.

Here's what the Times had on this:

Overall, Mr. Obama won 35 percent of women, while Mrs. Clinton won 30 percent and Mr. Edwards 23 percent.

She did well only with women over 65. While older women tend to vote in higher numbers than younger women, that’s still devastating news for her, since women were supposedly the backbone of her candidacy.

This weakness was forecast in the Des Moines Register poll, which showed Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton drawing equal numbers of women, at 32 percent each.

Here’s the breakdown from the entrance polls. Bear in mind that these percentages do not take into account the second ballots.

Mrs. Clinton did the worst with youngest women, getting only 11 percent of those under 24 years old; Mr. Obama won 51 percent of them. Mr. Edwards did better than she did among that age group, with 19 percent.

They all three split the votes of women between 45 and 59.

But Mr. Edwards did best with women between 60 and 64, winning 36 percent of them compared with Mrs. Clinton’s 34 percent and Mr. Obama’s 19 percent.

Mrs. Clinton did best with women over 65, winning 48 percent of them, compared with 21 percent for Mr. Edwards and 20 percent for Mr. Obama.

Back in March I wrote about a new strategy being launched by Hillary's camp and wondered whether it would be effective in Because of Hillary, I can be president?.

As a woman under 30 never living in an America without the benefits of Title IX and all other achievements of the women's rights movement, I suppose I bring a more post-feminist perspective to my politics and I am loathe to vote for a president solely because she shares my gender, though that's not to say I haven't voted for women for office before as I certainly have. But I think I just don't feel the same feeling someone of the baby boomer generation gets when thinking about the possibility of a woman president. Unlike my mother, I didn't have teachers in school taking a ruler to my skirt to measure whether it was too short. I played Little League alongside boys when I was 6-years-old and it wasn't a big deal for me or any of the other girls on the team. I never felt my gender held me back academically or from any opportunity honestly. When I was 10 years old I did want to be president, but while I've stopped wanting that for myself as a personal ambition it had nothing to do with me thinking a woman couldn't do it.

So for me, the fact that Hillary shared my gender wasn't enough for me and at no point in this campaign to this point have I felt like Hillary has connected with me in any real way beyond the surface of us sharing the same gender.

I also think as a single woman, a demographic of which more went for Obama than Hillary in Iowa, that a part of me resents how much Hillary's candidacy is tied into her husband's accomplishments and I wonder if other single women feel the same way.

Finally, there is the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton wariness among young people and that can't be ignored. I think the support for Obama and Edwards among young women shows that a desire for newness is greater than whatever excitement exists for a woman being president.

But that's just my opinion.

What do you guys, no matter what candidate you support, think about the generational gender gap from last night's results and what it means for the future of feminism and the Democratic party?

•  This is exactly the kind of diary I like to read

  Very thoughtful and I appreciate understanding someone a bit younger than my daughter. She originally was pulling for Hillary because of the gender thing, but moved over to Obama when she went to an Obama fundraiser and heard him speak. Then she went to some function for Hillary and got really turned off. She felt patronized. By the time last night rolled out, she was in the anti-Hillary camp. I sense there is a detachment somewhere with her campaign. Because she stage-manages everything to the last detail, her over-rehearsed mannerisms, and her chilly relationship with the press as exposed by Kos yesterday, tells me people are being turned off by something. She better sort it out before Tuesday.

  by tazz on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:44:22 AM PDT

  •  Thanks.

    These primary wars have been pretty crazy, but I hope we all can still talk about this stuff and try to better understand each other.

    by modemocrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:52:57 AM PDT

•  As a woman who voted first in 1960

  I have never voted for someone because of her gender.  I wouldn't vote for Hillary in the primary because of her vote for the AUMF and her pandering to AIPAC.

  by ybruti on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:44:31 AM PDT

•  Responses

  I'm glad that you have known the post-Title IX world and all of its possibilities.  Some goals of the women's movement of the 60's and 70's have been reached and that's great.  But the continuing wage gaps and violence against women in this country mean that we're not done yet.  I hope that younger women don't settle for a world where many women still experience difficulties that men do not.

  Although I understand how younger women may have more reservations about Hillary as a candidate, I would hope that they recognize the profound psychic change that occurs when marginalized groups attain visible power.  It will be a watershed when a woman President emerges from the female half of the population.  And visible symbols of female power are not trivial in a world where many women outside the U.S. suffer even deeper gender punishment than we do here.

  by Athena on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM PDT

  •  This is true.

    And it is truly astonishing and saddening the amount of domestic violence that exists in this country and violence and subjugation women experience worldwide. You are right that the wage gaps and the work left undone by the failed ERA is important.

    But I guess I don't feel like I am settling by voting for Obama instead of Hillary, nor do I believe a Hillary presidency would automatically make those things go away any more than I believe an Obama presidency will instantly alleviate racism. I also feel like a lot of the symbolic benefit of a woman presidency is cancelled out by the husband factor and how much of Hillary's success is predicated on Bill's and that just doesn't feel very feminist to me so it's hard for Hillary to appeal to my feminist side.

    by modemocrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 10:57:38 AM PDT

    •  Bill's success could be predicated on Hillary.

      no?

      Women in America are certainly not in the habit of making voting decisions based on gender.

      I like Edwards but I am not anti anybody from the Democrat fold. I think Hillary's weak support from young women has more to do with Obama than Hillary. He seems dynamic and young. Maybe Obama's win simply represents a better strategy - for Iowa. I would be pretty shocked if Hillary's campaign does not find some momentum before February.

      I see Hillary as more mainstream than feminist.

      by cassidy3 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:15:37 AM PDT

    •  Your diary is nicely thought out

      and brings up good questions and comments.  I don't love everything about Hillary's positions, but I do feel she's very solid and she's a policy wonk, smart, tough, confident - all sorts of things I like in women (and moreover, things that lots of people do not like in women).  Also, I am not like a lot of other people - I feel no need to make personal connections with candidates.  I don't need to be inspired by lofty rhetoric.  I feel inspiration from the slogging hard work that people do.  That's the work that changes the world and goes without sufficient recognition.  I don't need shiny new things; I am pleased with our moldy old Constitution, for example - with updates as needed.

      I hope you always remember that you got to play in Little League instead of sitting in Home Ec class because of the efforts of Hillary and women like her, including a lot of women older than 65.  They didn't get your opportunities but they spent their lives making sure you would have better chances than they did.  Although I'm nowhere near 65, many doors were closed to me when I was a kid in school.  I fought against the barriers and suffered ridicule for it.  While I would prefer that a viable woman candidate for president came up entirely on her own, that's not the way it happened, so I decided not to hold the way she got national attention against her.  I try to judge her on her own merits.  I also believe that having a woman as president would provide enormous benefits for young girls everywhere - not just in the U.S. but around the world.

      The future of feminism is that, like the strength of the middle class, it can disappear as easily as it came into existence if we are not vigilant.

      by Montague on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:55:41 PM PDT

      •  Agree

        How very true - the fragility of what we have won.  I hope that younger women don't forget that - we are not nearly in a post-gender world.

        Sure, the fact that Hillary has a marriage connection to power is not feministly optimal - but she's gotten the closest of anyone - which says that only her idiosyncratic circumstances have begun to level the field.  I don't dismiss that lightly.

        by Athena on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:48:42 PM PDT

•  It's feminism that allows us to reject Hillary.

  Just as the diarist says, when feminism is truly practiced, one doesn't choose one's candidate on the basis of gender. One is free to choose a man if one wishes.

  by threesmommy on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:23:49 AM PDT

  •  Answering for my wife here:

    She's not around, but was discussing this last night.  She's of the 1970s "first" generation of modern feminism, and an Edwards suppporter -- and her argument is that actually for various reasons Hillary is NOT the feminist ideal.  No doubt Hillary is entirely qualified for high office in her own right, but the fact is that it is her husband's success that opened the door to her... not to mention the weird sympathy factor she received due to the Lewinsky affair.  

    by Finck II on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:54:44 AM PDT

    •  There's no feminist "ideal"

      If your wife waits around for that, she'll die first.  Women are human beings with failings.

      by Montague on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:26:55 PM PDT

      •  I think you are taking that too literally

        The specific phrasing aside, the point is that one of Clinton's major selling points to women of my wife's generation was the feminist implications of her run for office.  But my wife feels that the specific circumstances that put Hillary Clinton in the position of being the first woman candidate with a very serious shot at the White House owed a lot to the more traditional ways women came into office before feminism -- namely being married to a powerful man, which was not exactly the cause that brought my wife to the barricades (even granting that Hillary's played a significant role in Bill's ascent).  

        If Hillary wins the nomination -- still not impossible, especially if she takes New Hampshire -- my wife and I will both support her.  But we both lean Edwards at the moment for ideological reasons that are not trumped by the historical significance of putting a woman in the White House.

        Of course, I don't know ANY feminist who would support a candidate SOLELY because she was a woman.

        by Finck II on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 01:18:23 PM PDT

        •  Trust me, if Elizabeth Dole were on the

          ballot, I would never vote for her.  So yes, feminists aren't going to vote for a woman just because of gender.

          But like affirmative action (which I have been in support of), sometimes you need to get the underrepresented into place in order to show society that it can work and to encourage people who thought they never had a shot at a certain job or school.  I don't mean that voting for HRC would be affirmative action - that would be too literal - but that I can accept the way she got where she is, just as I can accept that  sometimes a little push is needed to defeat racism or other "isms."

          by Montague on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:16:00 PM PDT

•  I think what you said makes a lot of sense

  I also think, as a white male, that is the smart point for me to shut up. :)

  by Quicklund on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 11:38:23 AM PDT

•  Win or lose the nomination

  I think Hillary has already made an important mark on electoral politics.  In my mind, she's the first woman to have a serious chance to win one of the two major parties' nomination for President.  She has that chance for a variety of reasons, but least of all because is she a woman.

  As for her riding on Bill's coattails...as mentioned higher upthread, how do you know he'd have attained what he did without her?  Maybe it's his turn to support her the way she did when he was running for office...seems fair to me.  

  While I don't know her at all, seems to me that she is one bright, motivated, and capable candidate who happens to be a woman, her gender is not why she decided to run for President.  Unfortunately for her, I think she's terrible at showing the "real Hillary" to the public...and that reminds me a bit of Al Gore when he ran in 2000.  That's too bad, but like it or not, the ability to connect with the electorate is damned important.

  I guess I've missed the part where all women should be expected to support the one woman candidate, so while I support Hillary myself, I haven't been shocked or surprised that other women support one of the guys on the Democratic side.  

  The most important thing for me this year: getting a Democrat into the White House.  I am going to cheerfully work hard to make that a reality no matter who wins the nomination.

  by Nobody on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:06:59 PM PDT

  •  Well said. (eom)

    by Montague on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 12:56:51 PM PDT

•  Nice diary. This brings up

  an interesting point.

  I'm 50 and there's a lot I admire in your generation with one or two possible exceptions. First I admire how, from all I can tell, you're pretty color blind and aren't homophobic. That alone makes you all a brilliant new and advanced addition to the landscape.

  My only 2 reservations are this: I heard Obama speak here in NYC at a college campus, and it seemed that he was pandering to the college audience, saying the type of things that a young audience likes to hear.

  In other words, if he says, We're going to bring a new politics to Washington or "we're going to get rid of special interests," I think I'd rather have a candidate say things that are really possible to accomplish rather than the feel good bullshit things. Democrats ALWAYS bring a nicer politics to Washington, but they're ALWAYS up against a corrupt machine that, as New York's new Governor Spitzer learned, doesn't yield that easily and puts up a fight. In other words, President Obama can choose to spend his political capital trying to change the system itself--though Congress, for example, is the one that changes lobbying laws rather than the President--or he'll spend his capital trying to get health care, end the war, etc., and in reality he'll get down to business with the latter, not the former. So it's better to try to accomplish a few real things rather than say the stuff that sounds good.

  And 2. Just because I'm not racist and just because your generation isn't, doesn't mean America isn't.
  That's the very contrast I'm speaking about above. Your generation is beautifully color blind. So maybe you can't imagine others who aren't.  The point is Democrats should win this election, and they could take, for the first time, Virginia, Colorado and need to take Florida. Those states won't readily vote for a black man--as much as I wish I could will it otherwise.

  I'll say this., If Obama is the nominee, he has my vote!

  by NY Writer on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:21:56 PM PDT