Why Obama lost in PA: gender bias

[tds1273]

Hillary also had all the big name, Pennsylvania political support in her corner. I know endorsements have generally been down played, but having local names such as Rendell, Nutter, Murtha, Sestak, amongst others had to have made a big impact. Especially with Murtha & Sestak.

Of course, Obama had in his corner, Rep. Patrick Murphy, who is the only current-Iraq War Vet serving in Congress; that might of provided some small bit of balance.

I don’t know how to cite or check my hunch(though I’d love some help), but I suspect political support might have been the difference maker in this State. As long as they are there for Obama in November, so should Pennsylvania.

[Polerius]

@Pochacco

Or:
[ul][li]If Hillary is truly the better candidate, then men are exhibiting gender bias by leaning heavily towards Obama.[/li][li]If Obama is truly the better candidate, then whites are exhibiting racial bias by leaning heavily toward Clinton.[/ul][/li]See, you keep assuming that white male voters are the norm and that other groups are biased.

No one is “the norm”. Everyone has biases.

It just so happens that in this particular election (where we have a white woman vs a black man) white males are sort of torn between their gender bias (towards Obama) and their racial bias (towards Clinton), so it evens out, to a degree.

White women, on the other hand, have their gender bias and racial bias working in the same direction, so it adds up to a bias for Clinton.

Black men have their gender bias and racial bias working in the same direction,
so it adds up to a bias for Obama.

Black women are torn between between their gender bias (towards Clinton) and their racial bias (towards Obama).

See the data from the NYT exit polls linked to below.

                       Voted for
        Voters       Clinton   Obama
       White men       53        46
       White women     64        36
       Black men       4         96
       Black women     11        89

The data seems to show that because the racial bias of blacks is so strong, black women’s gender bias does not bring black women all the way down to 50-50, but it does make them much less race-biased than black men.

If the situation is not as I described it above (with peoples’ gender and race biases coming into play), what scenario would explain the above data?

[Polerius]

@you with the face

I think it’s easy for people to glom onto the black vote and assume racial bias is work. It’s harder to do that with white votes because it happens to be split closer to 50/50, which we typically associate with fairness and impartiality. But it’s a mistake to think that way.

96% of black males voted for Obama. If this is not evidence of racial bias, I don’t know what is.

Unless you think Obama can truly be 24 times better than Clinton

[The_Hamster_King]

@Polerius

The data seems to show that because the racial bias of blacks is so strong, black women’s gender bias does not bring black women all the way down to 50-50, but it does make them much less race-biased than black men.

If the situation is not as I described it above (with peoples’ gender and race biases coming into play), what scenario would explain the above data?

That the racial bias of whites against voting for a black is so strong that it drags Obama way, way down. The effect isn’t as strong for white men because some are even more biased against women. They’d rather elect a black man than a white woman.

[Shayna]

@Polerius

Unless you think Obama can truly be 24 times better than Clinton

I can, and I do think Obama is 24 times better than Clinton. In fact, I think he’s 100 times better than her.

White chick, ftr.

[The_Hamster_King]

Polerius, the problem is that you’re assuming that 50/50 has some special significance. So if one group votes 50% for Clinton and 50% for Obama that proves that they aren’t biased.

But a 50/50 outcome isn’t any more significant that 20/80 or 60/40. We don’t know what the true “unbiased” results should be. Maybe Obama really should be winning 95/5 and the black men are the only ones looking at the situation objectively.

[9thFloor]

@Polerius

96% of black males voted for Obama. If this is not evidence of racial bias, I don’t know what is.

Unless you think Obama can truly be 24 times better than Clinton

Amen.

[Polerius]

@Pochacco

Polerius, the problem is that you’re assuming that 50/50 has some special significance. So if one group votes 50% for Clinton and 50% for Obama that proves that they aren’t biased.

But a 50/50 outcome isn’t any more significant that 20/80 or 60/40. We don’t know what the true “unbiased” results should be.

Agreed. There is some true “unbiased” result and it is not necessarily 50-50.

If I have the time, I will see if I can come up with a model that has a X% vs (100-X)% unbiased result, and some racial and gender bias coefficients for each subgroup, and try to fit it to the data, to see if I can come up with what X is.

Maybe Obama really should be winning 95/5 and the black men are the only ones looking at the situation objectively.

This may be true in some hyper-theoretical sense, but here in the real world, that is highly unlikely.

[Sampiro]

I mentioned in another thread that the old joke about PA being “Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama in the middle” unfortunately didn’t hold true as Obama won by a 14 point margin (56% to 42%) in Alabama.

As in the rest of the nation, the overwhelming majority of black voters have supported Obama. What’s interesting is that the black population of Alabama is 26% of the state, while the black population of Pennsylvania is 12.4%, a difference of almost 14%, which is the margin Obama won by here. I’m thinking that is more than coincidence.
I think it’s encouraging that Southern blacks, one of the demographics least likely to show up at the polls, are finally showing their power. Also, the states with the largest black populations percentagewise tend to be in the Deep South, where states go red. This year, twixt the black voters showing up in larger numbers and the whites who vote Dem (usually 30-40% in most southern red states) we could actually have a shot of going blue for a change (knock wood).
I am hoping that black churches and community leaders will do all they can to mobilize black voters this year with registration drives, car pools for those without automobiles, etc., as this is going to be a bloodbath of an election year but for the first time in forever we Dixie Blues have a shot.

[Huerta88]

@John Mace

Why do you assume that the vote should be split evenly in the first place? Maybe women are smarter than men at understanding the issues. Or maybe they are less smart.

Younger Americans and Women Less Informed: One In Four Americans Follow...

It's Super Tuesday: What will women do?

[From the latter link]:

Hirshman also describes how men, on average, are more interested in national politics than women – 42 percent versus 34 percent in a 2006 study. (Similar discrepancies have been found for at least the past 20 years.) She quotes a specific study by the Pew Center that tested men and women on their political knowledge and found that, on average, men were far more knowledgeable than women on the national level. (Women tend to catch up when it comes to awareness of local politics.) Depressingly (at least to me), women reported getting their news from “soft” sources like morning talk shows far more often than did men, who said they turn more frequently to newspapers and Internet news.

So sex bias does not have to be a primary motivator (it may be for some, just as there are surely some blacks, and fewer whites, voting for “their kind”). It may just be that the women who aren’t very informed are casting about for a basis on which to make their choice and say . . . well, she’s the same sex as me, so that’s good. This is also consistent with the polls showing that women remain undecided longer than men. This could be because they are really deliberating. It could be because many of them have little basis for substantive deliberation and just make up their mind based on which candidate looks most like them, or “shared their story,” or went on Oprah.

[sugar_and_spice]

I think it should also be mentioned that HRC does in fact had a respectable resume when it comes to women and family issues. In particular as First Lady she’s associated with SCHIP, adoption legislation, and violence on women concerns. Now, we could probably start a whole thread on ‘Who is the pro-woman and/or pro-family candidate’ but my point is I think you have to go through that discussion before you make the assumption that PA women tended to vote for HRC over Obama merely because she is a woman. This implies that if we were to fabricate a fictional candidate identical to Barrack Obama in all things but gender, then PA women would vote for her over Obama. I don’t think we can say this is true or not, and I don’t think the PA number help us decide since they describe a different more unbalanced scenario.

I may be misunderstanding your definition of “gender-biased” but I assume you mean “would vote for a woman candidate over a man, all else being equal.” If I am wrong pls correct and clarify.

[you_with_the_face]

@Polerius

96% of black males voted for Obama. If this is not evidence of racial bias, I don’t know what is.

You can declare that there is racial bias in an absolute sense, and I wouldn’t argue with you. I agree with you that there is racial bias affecting black voting (and white voting, and Latinos, etc).

But if you declare that blacks are more racially biased relative to whites, and you seek to “prove” this assertion on the basis that blacks are voting differently than whites, then I’m gonna argue that your conclusion is flawed. That assertion rests on the assumption that whites are the reference group against which blacks are to be judged. You can’t quantify how much racial bias is driving black voting simply by looking at how whites vote.

Unless you think Obama can truly be 24 times better than Clinton

Dude, he might not be 24 times better, but he doesn’t have to be in order for him to garner overwhelming support. If most people think he’s even just a little bit better than Clinton, then most people will probably vote for him.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Polerius

This may be true in some hyper-theoretical sense, but here in the real world, that is highly unlikely.

I agree. As I said, I suspect that bias is going both ways.

Say that Obama’s hypothetical unbiased baseline support is 70%. Among black men racial bias pulls it UP to 95%. But among white men racial bias pulls it DOWN to 45%.

That would give you the numbers you posted. You say that the numbers show evidence that black men are racially biased in their voting patterns. I say we have no way of knowing who is biased because we don’t know what the baseline is.

Personally I find it relatively easy to believe that about a quarter of both blacks and whites are racially biased in their voting patterns. I find it harder to believe that half of blacks are biased and virtually no whites are.

You began your OP with the assertion that “the numbers clearly show that women were much more gender-biased than men.” I’m saying that assertion is false. There are clearly gender differences in voting patterns. But there is no evidence that women are any more biased than men.

[Shayna]

@sugar and spice

I think it should also be mentioned that HRC does in fact had a respectable resume when it comes to women and family issues. In particular as First Lady she’s associated with SCHIP. . .

Not exactly.

Clinton role in health program disputed

WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children’s health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

In campaign speeches, Clinton describes the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, as an initiative “I helped to start.” Addressing Iowa voters in November, Clinton said, “in 1997, I joined forces with members of Congress and we passed the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.” Clinton regularly cites the number of children in each state who are covered by the program, and mothers of sick children have appeared at Clinton campaign rallies to thank her.

But the Clinton White House, while supportive of the idea of expanding children’s health, fought the first SCHIP effort, spearheaded by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. And several current and former lawmakers and staff said Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the congressional legislation, which grew out of a similar program approved in Massachusetts in 1996.

. . .

Many members of Congress said they believe Hillary Clinton has a deep and sincere commitment to children’s health issues. She has sponsored numerous bills and amendments dealing with a plethora of healthcare matters.

But privately, some lawmakers and staff members are fuming over what they see as Clinton’s exaggeration of her role in developing SCHIP, including her campaign ads claiming she “helped create” the program. The irritation has grown since Nov. 1, when Clinton - along with fellow senators and presidential candidates Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, and John McCain - missed a Senate vote to extend the SCHIP program, which was approved without the votes of those lawmakers.

. . .

McDonough, a Democrat who has not endorsed a presidential candidate, also said it was Kennedy who developed the SCHIP idea after that meeting. “I don’t recall any signs of Mrs. Clinton’s engagement,” McDonough said. “I’m sure she was behind the scenes, engaged in lobbying, but it is demonstrably not the case” that she was driving the effort, he said.

. . .

Just another one of Hillary’s “I was instrumental in bringing Peace to Ireland” Tall Tales. So let’s not give her more credit than she’s due.

[sugar_and_spice]

@Shayna

Not exactly. Just another one of Hillary’s “I was instrumental in bringing Peace to Ireland” Tall Tales. So let’s not give her more credit than she’s due.

This may very well be the case. My point is that women voters will associate HRC with the issues and accomplishments she choses to present in her campaign, and this is different than identifying with her as another woman. Even if her presentation is misleading, incomplete, or all-out false, she can still influence and persuade with the information she puts forward. What’s more, the fact that someone is questioning HRC’s role in SCHIP may be indicator that this resume bullet point is striking a chord with someone, and I propose that someone could very well be woman voters.

[Huerta88]

@sugar and spice

This may very well be the case. My point is that women voters will associate HRC with the issues and accomplishments she choses to present in her campaign, and this is different than identifying with her as another woman. Even if her presentation is misleading, incomplete, or all-out false, she can still influence and persuade with the information she puts forward. What’s more, the fact that someone is questioning HRC’s role in SCHIP may be indicator that this resume bullet point is striking a chord with someone, and I propose that someone could very well be woman voters.

But the Pew studies I cited suggest that, compared to men, women are less likely to have extensive knowledge of the factual and policy issues in play (they follow the national news less, etc.). Not no knowledge, but substantially less. This suggests that, whoever their vote is cast for, it will (compared to the votes of men) be influenced, cet. par., more by non-substantive-policy issues than would the vote of the average male voter.

The OP suggested that one of (well, he may arguably have implied “the only”) such “factor(s) other than substantive policy” could be sex favoritism. He hasn’t proved it probably, but the anomaly is there and cannot be attributed solely to policy preference if Pew is right that a good number of female voters aren’t in a position to analyze the policies due to (relative) lack of following the process and reading up on the issues.

[Polerius]

@Pochacco

You began your OP with the assertion that “the numbers clearly show that women were much more gender-biased than men.” I’m saying that assertion is false. There are clearly gender differences in voting patterns. But there is no evidence that women are any more biased than men.

You bring up some good points.

We do indeed need to look at some other data to see whether women are more gender-biased than men or whether blacks are more race-biased than whites.

Barring a more in-depth study, one data point could be the fact that women and blacks turned up in much higher numbers than their percentage among the general population.

For example, according to this website blacks in PA are about 10% of the population, whereas they accounted for about 15% of the voters in yesterday’s primary.

And given the historical tendency of blacks to have a lower voter turnout than whites, this indicates that, for this election, blacks are very motivated to come out and vote for their guy. If they did not have the notion that “finally, we can elect a black person to the presidency”, but only had the notion that “this candidate is better than the other candidate”, I don’t think that would have been such a strong motivating factor in getting out and voting in such record numbers.

Similar observations can be made about the women who accounted for 59% of the votes in PA, whereas I assume they arfe just above 50% in the general population. However, after some searching, it seems women have tended to have a higher voter turnout than men in the past few elections, so the effect is not as strong as for the high black turnout this year.

Besides the raw data, my idea of how people would think in these situations is what made me state in the OP that the data shows bias.

Basically, it seems to me that since white males have had “their type” of candidate elected to president for the past couple hundred years or so, they don’t care as much whether the next president turns out to be white or black, or man or woman. What’s one more?

For women and blacks, who have never had “one of their own” as president, it matters a lot whether the next one is a woman or black. It would be a landmark event, and so it makes sense that they might forgive some policy issues of that candidate, just because the candidate is female or black.

So, it makes sense that women will be more gender-biased and blacks more race-biased, in this particular election, compared to white males. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that, it is simply human nature, no matter how enlightened we claim to be.

I am a white male, and I think that if either of them becomes president that would be great. We either get the first female or the first black president, and I think that would set a great precedent for future elections.

I am more-or-less indifferent between the two. I would just like the person most likely to defeat McCain to win.

If I were female/black I think it would take a very incompetent femal/black candidate and a super male/white candidate to convince me to vote for the latter candidate (in this election; as more female/black presidents get elected, by bias would reduce)

As it is, the two candidates are very similar in competency and policies, so personal biases will definitely play a huge role.

Anyway, going back to the issue raised in the OP, I see the point that, given the available data only, we cannot conclusively state that women or blacks are more biased than men or whites.

[Kevbo]

I wonder if the gender statistics were controlled for age:

PA tends toward a more elderly demographic. As a population ages, the men tend to die off earlier, thus the older the population, the more heavily are women represented, and if you compare men to women, the men will on average be younger.

Thus the statistics of the OP may represent, for a good part, the age based bias HRC has enjoyed thoroughout this campagne.

[sugar_and_spice]

@Huerta88

But the Pew studies I cited suggest that, compared to men, women are less likely to have extensive knowledge of the factual and policy issues in play (they follow the national news less, etc.). Not no knowledge, but substantially less. This suggests that, whoever their vote is cast for, it will (compared to the votes of men) be influenced, cet. par., more by non-substantive-policy issues than would the vote of the average male voter.

Well people can have a strong opinion in an election even when they do not fully understand the issues on the table, and the studies cited also are not limited to the subset of the population that actually got up off the sofa to vote.

But you are absolutely right that I cannot say that policy is the sole influence in the HRC win, I didn’t mean to imply this. I do think it may account from some of the cited 57/43 split, for no other reason that if merely putting forward a candidate in a pastel suit were enough to get female voters to the polls, well, someone would have picked up on this trend by now and PA would have a lot more women in Congress. (By my count they only have one)

[Der_Trihs]

Why the assumption that if a bias exists among women due to the gender of the candidate, that it’s a pro-female one ? As I recall , women according to the polls have historically favored male leaders/bosses more than men have. Just because women, or some women favor Hillary doesn’t mean they favored her because she’s female.