|
Edited on Wed Mar-12-08 12:37 PM by democrattotheend
The answer: 0.
In every single Democratic primary this year (as well as the two caucuses for which there were exit polls, Iowa and Nevada), women have been at least 55% of the vote, usually closer to 60.
Obama, in contrast, has had to contend in many states where blacks are less than 5% of the population in order to "get where he is". He had to get through Iowa and New Hampshire before he could go on to South Carolina. He wasn't even winning among African Americans in South Carolina until he proved in Iowa that his appeal went beyond African Americans.
The media did not make much of the Vermont primary last week, but it's worth noting that while Clinton won by 3 points in Texas, where women outnumbered men 57-43, Obama won by 20 points in Vermont, where whites outnumbered blacks 94-1. Clinton would have lost Texas 51-47 without the female vote; Obama hardly got a boost from Vermont's huge African American community.
According to an analysis I did yesterday, Obama has lost as many votes as he has gained among people who say in the exit polls that race is a factor. I need to update it to include Mississippi, so it's possible he may now get an average of as much as half a percentage point bump from it. Clinton, on average, has gotten a 5-point bump among people who say gender is a factor, and she has won the voters who said gender was a factor in every state except Alabama and Mississippi.
Does being the first African American with a real shot at the presidency add a little bit to Obama's luster? Sure, just as the prospect of electing a woman president makes Clinton more appealing than she otherwise would be for some voters (even me). Interestingly, society seems to accept Clinton running as the "woman candidate", while we expect Obama to go to pains to avoid running as the "black candidate". Clinton frequently mentions her gender and talks about being the first woman president; Obama rarely mentions his race or talks about the historic nature of his candidacy. Clinton has support from groups like EMILY's List and NOW, while the NAACP and other African American political groups have stayed officially neutral, and the conventional wisdom is that their endorsement might hurt Obama.
I don't deny that Clinton has been the victim of sexism at times during the campaign or throughout her career. I have had heated arguments with people who called her a bitch or called her outspokenness "obnoxious." But I think her gender has helped her more than it has hurt her on the campaign trail, and I don't think running as a woman in a primary electorate dominated by women is nearly as tough as being a black man with a Muslim-sounding name running in a primary electorate where probably at least 2/3 of the voters are white, Latino, Asian, or another race other than African American.
Please note that I do not intend this to be an attack on Clinton, and I do not believe she shares Ferraro's views, though I do think she needs to go to greater lengths to distance herself. I just wanted to take an honest look at the impact of race and gender in the primaries, so I hope we can avoid turning this into a flame war. Probably wishful thinking.
|