Differing Perceptions of Candidate Clinton and Obama - Comment from Julia Azari, fivethirtyeight.com
Throughout the campaign, it’s been noted that Clinton is more popular when she’s not a candidate. She was, generally speaking, more popular as Secretary of State, as First Lady, and New York Senator than as a presidential candidate (although some of the differences are not that large). And this discrepancy, such as it is, is often attributed to gender factors. The underlying assumption is that people like women just fine as public servants, but dislike them as ambitious candidates trying to move up the political ladder. This story isn’t as clear or neat as that – but it is a central way that people have understood Clinton’s candidacy.
The reverse was true of Obama. People loved candidate Obama more than President Obama. It’s somewhat tough to compare, because his and Clinton’s career trajectories have been so different. But in 2008, candidate Obama was quite popular. His political troubles started once he got into office and started promoting policies like the economic stimulus and health care reform. His candidacy was heralded as racially unifying, while his presidency has had the opposite effect. And there’s considerable evidence that race is part of the story of public responses to policy during the Obama years. His approval ratings have rebounded in his final year in the White House, so he’s not totally immune to the benefits of being off the ballot. Still, it’s worth thinking more about how our first potential female president seems to lose people when she’s campaigning, while our first African-American president faced similar consequences for governing.
Julia Azari is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University. Her research interests include the American presidency, political parties, and political rhetoric. She is the author of “Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate.”
The reverse was true of Obama. People loved candidate Obama more than President Obama. It’s somewhat tough to compare, because his and Clinton’s career trajectories have been so different. But in 2008, candidate Obama was quite popular. His political troubles started once he got into office and started promoting policies like the economic stimulus and health care reform. His candidacy was heralded as racially unifying, while his presidency has had the opposite effect. And there’s considerable evidence that race is part of the story of public responses to policy during the Obama years. His approval ratings have rebounded in his final year in the White House, so he’s not totally immune to the benefits of being off the ballot. Still, it’s worth thinking more about how our first potential female president seems to lose people when she’s campaigning, while our first African-American president faced similar consequences for governing.
Julia Azari is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University. Her research interests include the American presidency, political parties, and political rhetoric. She is the author of “Delivering the People’s Message: The Changing Politics of the Presidential Mandate.”
This is clearly the case, and I'm still flabbergasted when people state that gender is NOT a factor in this election.
Comments
Post a Comment