Skip to main content

“A Bee in my bonnet,” Responding to accusations that white women failed Hillary



Earlier this week I was invited to sit on a panel discussion regarding the 2016 Presidential Election and our Trump future. I chose to look at the role women played in the electoral outcome, particularly “white women.” Specifically, I wanted to respond to Samantha Bee’s show following the election where she made impassioned accusations that white Americans, particularly white women, had failed Hillary Clinton. This was also a response to a number of colleagues who in the week following the election would in scandalous tones exclaim that Trump had won anywhere between 50% to 70% of the vote of white women. The actual total was closer to 53%.  The astonishment was that, ’white women had for some extraordinary reason (the unsaid statement that they had allowed their race to overshadow their gender) had turned against their own best interesst and abandoned what should have been the first woman President!”

I agree with the assessment of the Centre for American Women and Politics at Rutgers, that “claiming that women abandoned Clinton not only misrepresents historical facts, it misunderstands what motivates women.” For one thing, as the Pew Foundation, Facttank, pointed out the morning after the election, the gender gap between Clinton and Trump was one of the largest since 1972 (McGovern v. Nixon). The majority of women cast their ballots for Clinton in 23 of the 28 states where exit polls were available, and, if only women had voted, Trump would have lost in 10 battleground states (AZ, FL, GA, IA, MI, NC, OH, PA, TX, WI) (Dittmar, 11/11/ 2016). The situation is far more simple and more complicated than the statement of Clinton failing to attract white women voters suggests.

The simple fact is the majority of white women have voted for the Republican party since 2004. While this does not mean race and gender are not factors in party affiliation, it certainly does indicate that a significant reason for how women voted in 2016 was based on party identification.  

Actually, Trump did worse with white women voters than previous Republican candidates. Trump’s white women support was 3 points behind Mitt Romney’s in 2012 (56%), and 2 points behind John McCain (55%) and W. Bush (55%) in 2008 and 2004, respectively. Clinton polled better with white women than did Obama in 2012 by 1 percentage point. She did significantly better among College educated white women. According, to Dittmar, she bested Trump with these voters by 6 points, 51% to 45%. The Washington Post had the results as 48% of white women with college degrees for Clinton, 33% for Trump. In the 2012, Romney won this group. With married women, Clinton’s support was 2 points higher than Trump’s, making her the first democrat to win this group in 20 years (Dittmar). Therefore, the primary group of white women who supported Trump were those without a college degree. According to the Washington Post, 59% of these women supported Trump and 28% Clinton. This is not a surprise as Republican party identification has grown within the cohort of white Americans without college degrees for the past 24 years.

The more complicated fact is that we need to get beyond the myths generated about women voters, particularly the belief that women will vote for other women. Just remembering back to 2008 election, while McCain did better with white women voters than Trump, there is certainly no indication that Democratic women were willing to vote Republican because Sarah Palin was on the ticket as vice-President. In accessing women voters, it has to be recognized that woman does not necessarily equal feminists; not all women are feminists. As the Pew Foundation found in its breakdown of identity groups and voting intention, “feminists” was a slam-dunk for Clinton. It also has to be recognized that in elections the issues that women vote on are not necessarily all that different from the issues motivating men. While women are said to be more likely to vote based on issues of health care or childcare (Trump had a maternity leave policy), polls proceeding the election showed the main issues to be employment and terrorism for both men and women. In a nutshell, the motivating issues of the election could be described as being about the precarity experienced in both economic and physical life.

The election has been characterized as being about lower-middle class white male anger. This cohort of men fear the precarity they see in their lives as their full-time full-year manufacturing jobs disappear not just because of capital flight and free trade (although those are easy targets), but because of production efficiencies and on-time delivery networks of flexible specialization of the manufacturing process, and even more ominous the increasing turn to automation and digitization in the manufacturing process.  

However, this was also an election of lower-middle class white women’s anger and fear. Statistically women’s unemployment rates are lower, because women tend to employed in service sector, part-time and contract work. This is already a precarious form of work, but that does not mean it is immune from the pressures of production efficiencies and automation. Much of the part-time service work undertaken by women is particularly vulnerable to automation and digitization. Think of this next time you go through the self-checkout at the grocery store or do your shopping on-line.

Let’s be honest, the primary reason the assumption was made that women would vote for Clinton rather than Trump was because of the misogynistic discourse and the recounting of sexual aggression and abuse that the Republican candidate seemed unable to keep to himself. That he was so obviously a sexist, racist, sizest, sexual predator would cause all women to vote against him.  However, this connection is not obviously clear.  As I discussed in my most recent blog, it is really indicative of the hegemonic hold “rape culture” has in American society, particularly when it is combined with the class issues.  The normalized nature of attitudes of women’s sexual availability particularly for powerful and wealthy men clearly vindicates Trump. It is not just men who hold such cultural values, it is also women. Most women understand their position or role is to take responsibility for protecting and comporting themselves to avoid such uncomfortable advances. This returns us to precarity and an understanding that women’s lives are always precarious but they have adapted and lived with/repressed the fear for millennia. Therefore, for many women it’s not an issue worth voting on.

The relationship between race and gender is also very complicated. It is unfair to say that the “uneducated/no college degree” women who voted for Trump were allowing their race to overshadow their gender, i.e., they voted as whites who just happened to be women. This speaks to the appeal of Trump’s ultimate bogey-man, the Mexican rapist because it speaks to both race and gender. This is the fear of the “white woman;” it is the combined racial and gender assault from which they see the need of protection. It is not an either or, race before gender, it is a profound intersection of the two. As for the sexual indiscretion of the rich white male, putting himself forward as protector, as stated above, “that’s just the way it is; a cross women have had to bear for all the ages.”

As Dittmar concludes in her analysis, “in the autopsy of the election 2016, there is a good reason to pay close attention to women votes, but that means doing the work to avoid homogenizing them or evaluating their behavior without historical context.”  I agree and add to it: We cannot ignore that many women and men voted for what they hoped would be the first woman American President. Actually, the majority of American voters voted for a woman. Hillary Clinton clearly won the popular vote. Where Clinton lost was in the filter that requires that state’s rights have the final word over and above a popular mandate – the electoral college.

Kelly Dittmar. No, women didn’t abandon Clinton, nor did she fail to win their support. Presidential Gender Watch 2016. Center for American Women and Politics. November 11, 2016

Pew Research Centre. A Divided and Pessimistic Electorate. Voters skeptical of progress in many areas --- even jobs – since 2008. U.S. Politics and Policy. November 10, 2016.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Women Mayors in Ontario

 Recently, I've been up-dating the information on women councillors in Ontario. The following table lists the women elected Mayors in the municipal elections held in October 2022. The list is organized in order of descending population of the municipality. It notes whether the Mayor is an incumbent or newly elected, while new position indicates that the Mayor is new to the position, but was an already incumbent member of council.  Of the 417 Ontario Councils which held elections, 101 are now led by women. (There maybe a few I've missed, as I have not included Reeves.) Mayor Incumbent or New Municipality Pop Acclaimed Bonnie Crombie incumbent Mississauga 717,961 Andrea Horwath new Hamilton 569,353 Marianne Meed Ward incumbent Burlington 186,948 Elizabeth Roy new position ...

The State of Gender Parity in 2019

On December 16, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released its Global Gender Index for 2020 based on 2019 country performance. Canada has dropped 3 places in the ranking since the last report a year ago.  Since 2006 the WEF has produced annual reports on the progress made toward gender equality using benchmarks based on four thematic dimensions: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. In the latest edition of Women, Politics and Public Policy: The political struggles of Canadian women, (Newman, White and Findlay, 2020, p. 389) we had this to say of the 2017 report:  According to the 2017 report, no country has fully closed its gender gap; four of the five Nordic countries, Rwanda (4th), and Nicaragua (6th) have closed more than 80 per cent of their gaps. And Canada? Canada does not crack the top ten; it ranks 16th out of 144 countries, which is 2 points lower than its first ranking in 2006. This d...

Is Low Voter Turnout Actually A Good Thing?

 [It's a provocative position. I hope my answer is a bit more nuanced. Thinking with a pen, so the views are my own and likely to change as I think about it a bit more.] The big talking point regarding yesterday's municipal election in London is the free fall debacle in voter turnout. Only 25.5% of eligible voters cast a ballot, a significant plunge from the 40% turnout in 2018 (the BRT election) and from the 2014 high of 43% (the get rid of Fontana and the Fontana 8 election).  This low turnout is seen as the reason for the rather surprising outcomes in some of the words, namely the defeat of three "incumbents."* Incumbents are considered safe bets because they have name recognition and represent the status quo for voters. Generally, the mass of voters in municipal election have little to guide their votes other than name recognition and a desire not to change things up. However, when that "mass" of voters decides not to show up, that generalized support fo...