Summary: With the race for president contested for both parties, every segment of the population is dissected by political scientists to see how one group could have an impact in swaying the outcomes of the primaries and national election. The female vote is interesting because it does constitute a numerical majority, but has often been treated like a minority group. In first presenting the “Hillary Factor” as front-and-center to the minds of female voters, the writer identifies the most obvious connection. Upon further reading, one may find that the female vote in these elections is complex, ambiguous, and misunderstood due to the flood of conflicting polls and reports showing numerous factors stimulating political interest and engagement of women.
Focus Questions: After reading all 16 ways to look at the female vote, which factors do you feel will be most instrumental to determining the primary election outcomes? Overall, do you believe the female vote can (should) be characterized or generalized?
Article Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/magazine/03womenvoters-t.html?ref=politics
1 response so far ↓
lindsayh // February 7, 2008 at 3:58 am |
I think the most important parts of the article were that women are swing votes more often than men are, and that women vote “sensibly” with their families in mind. Women also use “emotional intelligence and relational intelligence to …figure out if this is a trustworthy person,” (5). I think the female vote can be generalized, as shown in this article, by reliable statistics. I don’t think, however, that it should be assumed that every woman votes based on the factors that the article describes. In some parts of the article, it just called it “the female vote” as if the candidates are trying to get one person to vote for them. All in all, I’m glad someone finally categorized the complexity and individuality of each woman’s vote into 5 easy pages.