Clinton's Appeal to Female Voters Overrated

On August 12, the Associated Press (AP) ran a story about the presidential candidacy of pro-abortion Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) that was immensely revealing on several levels. What the AP's Ron Fournier found takes on added significance in light of the eye-opening results of a poll conducted last week that asked women whether they would vote for Sen. Clinton.

Under the headline, "Clinton a drag? Dems fear her negatives," the opening paragraphs of the AP story summarized the elephant-in-the-room truth about Sen. Clinton's presidential ambitions: "Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom. They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry."

And with good reason! A Gallup Poll conducted in early August found that an astonishing "49 percent of the public says they have an unfavorable view of Clinton compared to 47 percent who say they hold her in high regard."

In a recent debate among Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton brushed aside her extremely high negatives as the product of the "right wing attack machine." Clinton's confident dismissal to the contrary notwithstanding, it is no wonder the AP's interviews with 40 "Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region" were filled with apprehension that Clinton's "political baggage" would "drag any candidate down 3 or 4 percentage points," as one put it.

The widespread uneasiness with Clinton tells us a lot about her. So does her dismissive answer that the public's unease with her is not a reflection of Clinton, but rather of the skill of those who have challenged her over the years. It is most revealing that the Clintons' reputation for political hardball is so awesome that only one of the 40 interviewed by the AP who had serious concerns about her impact as willing to be quoted by name.

Given all this, the logic that underpins her candidacy has to be that were she the first female presidential nominee of a major political party, Clinton would be the beneficiary of a tidal wave of support among women. But a poll released this week strongly indicates this is far from the whole truth.

Commissioned by the Susan B. Anthony List, the survey of 600 women was conducted August 15-20. There were two questions about whether the respondents would vote for Clinton for President.

When asked "which of the following statement best describes your own position, " 40% said, "I would voter for Hillary Clinton as the First woman President in 2008." (Another 30% said, "I would vote for a woman for President in 2008, but not for Hillary Clinton.")

The pollster inquired in a second way. After being told that "Senator Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States," the 600 women were asked which best describes "your current thinking." Of these women, 49% said they would vote for Sen. Clinton, 45% said they would vote against her.

The picture is not all bleak for Sen. Clinton among women. The poll revealed that a majority had a favorable opinion of Clinton (56%). Moreover 49% said they were more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who "is pro-choice on abortion," as compared to 40% who were less likely.

But this is as odds with the fact that strong majorities said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who held positions on abortion that Clinton has supported in the past.

For example 64% said they were less likely to support a candidate for President who voted against a ban on partial-birth abortions.

And 73% felt the same way about a candidate for President who "voted against a law that would have made it a criminal act for an adult to take a girl younger than 18 years of age across state lines for the purposes of obtaining an abortion without her parents' knowledge."

In addition, 68% were less like to vote for a candidate for President who "supports using taxpayer dollars to pay for some abortions in the U.S."

Cumulatively, this tells us a lot. With respect to voting for her for President, Clinton has much less support than I would have thought among women. In addition, while her favorable numbers among females is higher than among men, a sizable minority do not have a favorable impression of her.

And at the same time people are less likely to vote for President for someone who (like Clinton) opposes commonsense limitations on abortion, it is also true that a blurry, generic "pro-choice" label benefits her.

Put those two clauses together and it's clear that generalities work for her, specifics don't. When what it means to be "pro-choice" is spelled out--for instance support for crushing skulls of viable unborn babies and dipping into your tax dollars to pay for abortion--the scales tend to fall from people's eyes.

If you have any comments or questions, please write Dave Andrusko at daveandrusko@hotmail.com.