Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
The most important split among Democratic voters this year may not be based on race, gender, age, or even whether or not you think bitter is a bad word; I look at the exit polling tonight and wonder if the defining difference isn't one of temperament, with angrier voters not only favoring the angrier candidate but guaranteeing that this race isn't going to be over anytime soon.
I say that because according to the exit polls, Clinton voters are significantly more likely to vote Republican or stay home on Election Day if they don't get their way in the primary. (Sixty-two percent would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee, and maybe that's no big whoop; dissatisfaction is a vague word, and a mewling little feeling that fades. But only about half of Hillary's supporters in Pennsylvania would vote for Obama in the fall? Now you have my attention. Fully a quarter of them would rather see John McCain in the White House than the Brand X Democrat—and nearly 1 out of 5 say they'd take their toys and stay home.) It makes sense that Clinton's angrier backers like that their candidate is that way, too; they seem to think it is a good thing that she is mad at the competition and the activists and the press -- and good that she won't quit no matter what. For her supporters, this shows the backbone that's been lacking in some other Democrats we could name—and she has named them. To them, it means she'd be harder to swift-boat. It means she wouldn't wimp out and put the country's interests first in a recount -- how weak is that? -- or work with the opposition once elected.
Obama supporters, on the other hand, are the dreaded Kumbaya types who will not go home mad if their guy is not the guy—and that's to their clear disadvantage. (Only 52 percent of them could whip up even dissatisfaction if they don't get their way; 16 percent say they'd go for McCain and 13 percent would stay home.) The obvious problem for Obama is that his chilled-out supporters like him that way, too; his ability to make good on Bush's broken promise to be a uniter, not a divider, is so central to his appeal that if he followed the advice of all those people who want him to "close the deal'' the old-fashioned way, he would lose what sets him apart.
Angry doesn't win general elections. It doesn't entice new voters into the process or beguile independents or heaven knows, invite Republican defections. But by definition, it has enormous negative power. And in the next couple of weeks, we're going to see how angry Hillary and her supporters really are.
-
sponsorship
Here’s a thoughtful piece from Courtney E. Martin at the American Prospect responding to Linda Linda Hirshman’s Slate piece from last Friday about the ways in which young feminists resent Hillary Clinton out of a semi-Freudian need to destroy their mothers. For those scoring along at home, Debra Dickerson fires off a round for Hirshman’s team here at Mother Jones.
Anyone but me find it hilarious that every feminist writer of every generation evidently comes to this battle with claims that they are interested in pursuing a deeper, more nuanced conversation about gender, just before they let loose with the scattershot accusations about the other side? Martin accuses some “older women” of dismissing women’s body issues, for instance, as “frivolous.” While Dickerson takes aim at “young women who inherited what we mothers fought for and now want us to disappear so our girls can go wild and pole dance without feeling all guilty.” I get it that Martin’s criticism is couched in a larger discussing about the need to learn from one another and that Dickerson’s going for comedic effect. But their continued talking past each other raises the question about what a “nuanced” conversation about our differences can possibly look like, if every assertion about those differences—be it from Hirshman, Martin, or your mamma—is instantly disparaged as peddling in reductive stereotypes.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?