A president’s first act in office carries considerable symbolic weight. After President Obama was sworn in in 2009, the first piece of legislation he signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Act, allowing women greater ability to sue for pay discrimination. Whether by coincidence or design, with a stroke of a pen Obama positioned himself perfectly for the 2012 election.
Women became a focus of the 2012 campaign when the “war on women” narrative emerged during fights over contraceptive coverage mandates. Though a potent rhetorical tool for Democrats, the “war on women” narrative obscured women’s centrality to this year’s race.
Initially, the Obama administration was losing the debate over contraceptive coverage. Conservatives had successfully framed the issues as one of religious liberty, not women’s rights. But then something happened: conservative men started talking. And it turned out they couldn’t talk about policies aimed at women without saying something remarkably retrograde.
Rush Limbaugh called a Georgetown student a “slut” for advocating for birth control. Rick Santorum, runner-up for the Republican nomination, warned against “the dangers of contraception”. “You know, back in my days,” said conservative mega-donor Foster Friess, “they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees, and it wasn’t that costly.”
In the wake of these comments, women began flocking to the Democratic Party. Democrats saw opportunity in the growing gender gap: They could win over voters by focusing on issues that elicited these kinds of responses from Republicans.
The strategy succeeded. Keeping the focus on so-called “women’s issues”, Democrats forced Republicans to defend their increasingly rigid stance on reproductive rights. Since the 1980s, the Republican platform has called for federal bans on abortion procedures, without specifying any exemptions for rape or the health of the mother. It was a remarkable development for a party that until the late 1960s was the party of feminism, contraception, and abortion rights.
Practiced Republicans have found ways to discuss this stance without sounding radical and regressive, though Mitt Romney did blunder in the second debate with his now infamous “binders full of women” comment. But when novices find themselves obliged to do the same, they end up inadvertently saying what they think. Todd Akin babbled on about legitimate rape and Richard Mourdock asserted pregnancies from rape were what “God intended.”
When they made these claims, voters fled – and not just women voters. Akin and Mourdock’s drubbings last night help illustrate what the “war on women” narrative often obscured: that voters concerned about so-called “women’s issues” aren’t just women. Men too were repelled by the idea of “legitimate rape”, and men too voiced support for the ability to control reproductive choices.
The “war on women” framework also distorted women’s role in the election. By focusing on women as voters, it diverted attention from the historic nature of women’s candidacies in 2012.
Women have long been underrepresented in America’s national politics. They make up only 17% of the current House and Senate – and those are historic highs. In terms of women in government, the U.S. lags behind nearly seventy other countries. While last night’s election results won’t suddenly make the Congress a gender-equal institution, the upper chamber will add four, possibly five, new women senators. This includes Elizabeth Warren, the popular Harvard law professor, and Tammy Baldwin, the first openly gay senator.
And where does the newly re-elected president fit into all this? It is easy to interpret Obama’s decision to lead off with the Ledbetter Act as a play for women’s votes. And to some extent it was. But it was also a signal that the economy Obama planned to rebuild from the rubble of the global financial collapse would be a more equitable one, one in which women would command the same economic value as men.
Tuesday night’s results suggest the political system could become more equitable as well. One could imagine as the results came in that future debates over policies affecting women’s choices might actually include women as policymakers rather than bodies to be legislated.
The phrase “war on women” has real limitations. But to the extent the 2012 election was a battle over what role women would play as America moves forward, the results are clear. Americans rejected Akin and Mourdock, returned to office the man who signed the Ledbetter Act, and increased the number of women senators by at least 25%.
A war on women? If so, it wrapped up last night. And women won.
Sean Lamb
Science Denier
Or rather a war on Black and Latino women, as I think Romney won the white women vote quite comfortably - if not as comfortably as he won the white male demographic - at least according to CNN exit polls.
If you believe those same exit polls the Latino and Black percentage of voters rose from 21% in 2008 to 24% of the electorate in 2012 - and with Obama taking at least 80% of that vote, that was his winning margin.
Still, it must be a proud moment that America has elected its first Cherokee to the Senate. Andrew Bolt would be especially delighted
Mark Harrigan
Dr
The data says
"A majority of women (55%) cast their ballots for President Barack Obama, while a majority of men (52%) voted for Governor Mitt Romney, according to Edison Research."
"Even though Romney won a majority of white women’s votes (56 percent), a gender gap was clearly
apparent among white voters. Forty-two percent of white women, compared with 35 percent of white men,
voted for Obama. Unlike white women, majorities of both black women and Latinas voted for Obama.
However, as with the vote among whites, a gender gap was apparent for both blacks (96 percent of women
versus 87 percent of men voted for Obama) and Latinos (76 percent of women versus 65 percent of men
voted for Obama)."
http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/press_room/news/documents/PressRelease_11-07-12-gendergap.pdf
So, no matter which way you look at it - Obama won because of his greater success with women voters compared to men voters in every demographic
Ken Swanson
Geologist
No Romney got 56% of white women. Whites make up 72% of the electorate.
Obama overwhelmingly got the black and latino women.
So is it a women thing or an ethnic thing?
I think it is an ethnic/ colour of your skin thing which got Obama over the line.
When he goes so will the ethnic thing.
Ken Swanson
Geologist
Elizabeth Warren is the person who fictionalised her family history to bolster her claims to being a Cherokee.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
BS - Thats a republican talking point that has long since been debunked.
She is part cherokee, jst like im part cook islander - gosh but you are white?@?@!?!@
Yes, im a skinny white boi but my family come from the cook islands
Warren was told as a child from her parents, jst like i was, that she had cherokee blood.....and for you to imply that she is lying about this is jst ignorant
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
Actually I think Bill ORielly summed it up best, this is the new america, it no longer has a strong white majority - nothing to do with obama, remember the blacks and latinos came out for bill clinton as well
this has been coming for a long time, demographic changes take generations but it has finally come to a point where they have a strong voice in the elections.
These minorities.....are getting less minor and that has nothing to do with who is in charge of the country
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
BTW, thats pretty bigoted.
"I think it is an ethnic/ colour of your skin thing which got Obama over the line.
When he goes so will the ethnic thing." - Many conservatives are saying this type of stuff at the moment, that Obama only won because of his skin colour....
Nothing to do with Romney offending 90% of the audiance at the NAACP, nothing to do with his 47% comment, nothing to do with romney putting on fake tan when going to talk to latino's, nothing to do with romney's stand on self…
Read moreKen Swanson
Geologist
Why bigoted?
The facts are clear. Romney got a clear majority vote amongst the white community and a clear majority amongst white women which is the point I was responding to from Mark.
Obama got a disproportionately huge vote amongst blacks and latinos compared with Romney.
Why is it unreasonable to suggest there is a greater affinity between these groups and a president who portrays himself as a black american (even though his mother is white) and from a minority group. You may disagree with my assertion but that is not bigotry. You need to grow up a bit Michael and have a mature conversation instead of attempting to intimidate with racist slurs like this.
Ken Swanson
Geologist
If your searing logic was true there would be no need for the Democratic Party to choose black candidates for predominately black districts in New York and the south side of Chicago. All that would be required would be a white guy with the right policies. The fact is that they deliberately choose black candidates like Charlie Rangal because he has a greater affinity ethnically as well as politically.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
Its bigoted because the reason these minorities voted Obama is not because of his skin colour.
You argued that because Obama was ethnic - more ethnics voted for him
"I think it is an ethnic/ colour of your skin thing which got Obama over the line.
When he goes so will the ethnic thing."
So the white men that voted for Romney....were they doing it for racist reasons as well? or is it jst the coloured folk who are too dumb to understand politics
The implication from your statement is when white folks vote white - they do it for real reasons but when coloured folk vote for a coloured folk - they are only doing it because of the colour of his skin
You basically said the decieding factor was president obama's skin colour - thats why he got the non white vote
This is called racist projection
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
Its also bigotry because you have no evidence no proof nothing but your own gut feeling that coloured folks vote purely on race
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
"would be no need for the Democratic Party to choose black candidates for predominately black districts " - Really?
So when the democrats choose white candidates from white regions - thats because they are qualified
BUT when they choose coloured folk from coloured areas......the coloured folk didnt earn it, they get soft treatment due to their skin colour
Why are you not as suprised that in a community that is mostly white they choose white candidates? why is this BAU but when a coloured candidate from a coloured neighbourhood wins - RACIST?
This double standard is referred to as bigotry
Ken Swanson
Geologist
No I have a similar mix myself
I just do not play the victim with it
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
"No I have a similar mix myself
I just do not play the victim with it" - And who is?
I'm not crying about it, Elizabeth warren isnt crying about it - so who is exactly is playing the victim?
Ken Swanson
Geologist
No the whites will also have both a political and ethnic affinity.
The blacks are not stupid and nor are the whites but they both are voting on the package and clearly all parties have opted for a political and ethnic package because it works.
The Republicans have endorsed Marco Rubio in Florida because apart from being an outstanding individual, he is latino and there are a lot of latino voters in Florida who have supported him.
Get in the real world Michael and stop arguing the PC line it does not suit a street fighter like you.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
You are now trying to slither away from your original statement which is a positive sign.
"I think it is an ethnic/ colour of your skin thing which got Obama over the line.
When he goes so will the ethnic thing."
So you think the only reason he got the majority vote from these ethnic group is because all people are inherently racist and vote for their own.........or could it be Romney offending almost everyone at the NAACP, self deportation policy, pledging to repeal Obamacare which affects…
Read moreKen Swanson
Geologist
Off course it is important to any minority community.
You need the policies sure, but all things being equal it is natural for ethnic groups to connect with one of their own.
This happens in all communities not just blacks and latinos.
So returning to the initial point, and not slithering away, when Obama goes the chance for a future Republican candidate to attract a greater number of black voters will improve. It is not the only factor but it is a major factor.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
"I think it is an ethnic/ colour of your skin thing which got Obama over the line.
When he goes so will the ethnic thing."
Alright so first of all - your comment says that the colour of his skin was a major factor that got him over the line.....he won in a landslide - he didnt need getting over the line and its not like he recently became black - even if race was major factor - it didnt get him over the line
"It is not the only factor but it is a major factor. " - Really, based on what evidence…
Read moreKen Swanson
Geologist
Obama won the popular vote by 2.5%. So not a landslide at all for the purposes of this discussion. This adds up to 3 million votes. The black vote is around 9% or 11 million voters. Obama got the vast majority of these I think in excess of 85% with women higher than men which adds up to 9 million votes.
Any future Republican leader only needs to pick up 15% more of the black vote and even less than that for latinos and they win.
Without a black incumbent President they could easily do so.
Skin colour could well have been a factor for white people too. Read previous post.
Do you have any statistical evidence that skin colour is not a factor other than your broad assertions as to other factors?
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
The popular vote doesnt have any affect on the election result, the electoral college does so stop talking nonsense - he won by a bigger margin than bush did in 2004. Bush got 286...Obama 303 = landslide
"Do you have any statistical evidence that skin colour is not a factor other than your broad assertions as to other factors?" - you know this is fallacious nonsense, ie. do you have any proof that there accent didnt play a role?
do you have any proof that shoe size didnt play a role? - its…
Read moreMark Harrigan
Dr
Ken Swanson apparently cannot read others posts nor properly interpret data.
Obama garnered more votes from women than from men in every single (ethnic) demographic. That is what the data says.
Ken Swanson
Geologist
"Even though Romney won a majority of white women’s votes (56 percent),
This is your quote
Mark Harrigan
Dr
Are you really this dim?
I stated that Obama gained more votes from women than from men in every ethnic group. That is what the data says.
Ken Swanson
Geologist
White women are not an ethnic group?
What sort of group are they?
Mark Harrigan
Dr
Apparently you really are that dim.
White people are an ethnic group. Ethnicity is not divided by gender. The fact is, as I state again, that in every ethnic group the proportion of women that voted for Obama was higher than the proportion of men who voted for him. So, as this article states, it was the women that won it for Obama.
Ken Swanson
Geologist
If all women are taken into account, Obama got more female votes.
My point is that amongst white women he was no where near as popular as Romney. A point your original post confirms.
A broad statement that women won it for Obama needs therefore to be qualified to reflect the fact that he was not as popular as Romney amongst white women, only black and latino women.
The headline in this article therefore should have read
"Its the black and latino women wot won it"
That would have been more accurate
Mark Harrigan
Dr
So, you are incapable of admitting that your original point was wrong and now seek to shift your ground.
Obama Won, Romney Lost. In all ethnic groups more women voted for Obama than men. Overall the majority of women voted for Obama. It is only in the ethnic white group that Romney acheived a majority of voters - of both genders - but still more favourable than women toward men.
The original thesis of the article is quite sound. Only your unexamined ethnic prejudices and gender bias has blocked you from seeing the facts in front of your face.
Jenny Goldie
editor
It's actually unmarried women wot won it for Obama. See this report:
"Nearly a quarter of the voters in Tuesday's election were unmarried women – and Obama captured more than two-thirds of their votes, 67%, according to research released on Thursday by the Women's Voices Women Vote Action Fund.
"Unmarried women were the drivers of the president's victory," said Page Gardner, the president of WVWVAF."
More married women voted for Romney than Obama but by a much smaller margin.
Ken Swanson
Geologist
"The unmarried women of the 2012 make up almost 40% of the African American population, nearly 30% of the Latino population"
"Single women have traditionally been Democratic voters, largely for economic reasons. They tend to have less money than married women – because they don't have a husband's earnings to fall back on. They also tend to be less educated."
Thanks for the link Jenny.
Jerry Boggs
logged in via Facebook
See "Is there a war on women?" http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/is-there-a-war-on-women/
Excerpt:
About 55 percent of voters are women. Women are a majority of the population because as a group they outlive men*, who die sooner of the 12 leading causes of death. (They die sooner largely because the government funds more health research for the group that is healthier and longer-living than it does for men — which would be like taking most of the funding for the sexes’ economic…
Read moreMichael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
"That’s because pay-equity advocates continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:"
- Wait a minute, are you against equal pay for equal work?
Craig Minns
Self-employed
"That’s because pay-equity advocates continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:"
Precisely the point I have been making on these pages for some time, to the predictable howls of outrage from professional feminists and those who want to be see as pro-feminist.
The simple FACT is that women produce less effectively than men in paid work, not because they cannot do as well, but because they have other priorities that intrude. The social organisation that is derided as "patriarchy…
Read moreMichael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
What is amazing to me is that you can have one party that passes law after law restricting womens right to choose, restricting their rights to healthcare coverage, you can make claims about legitimate rape and non legitimate rape, force women to have the baby of their rapist and give custody rights to the rapist and even have GOP leaders stating that "Some girls Rape easy", also introducing laws that would require a rape victim to prove she was raped before recieving emergency medical treatment else it wont be covered by healthcare................But to call it a war on women phhmmm
What would the author of the article prefer it to be called? a crusade against womens rights? an attack on human rights?
All and all the author here is jst argueing semantics but knows full well the GOP has constantly, consistently and specifically attacking females - stop stating that the war on women was JST rhetoric - its not true and its inherently dishonest
Debra Joan Smith
Account Executive
Here is a beautiful talk about women and their tendancies. I enjoyed it:
Help a Woman. Help the Planet.: Annie Griffiths at TEDxSanJoaquin
http://youtu.be/PJcweJ3wAGs
Jenny Goldie
editor
It was not just the "war on women" domestically - it was the war on women everywhere. The infamous "Global Gag Rule" required that any overseas organisation receiving U.S. aid not have anything to do with abortion. It was rescinded by Obama within three days of taking office four years ago. This allowed money to flow again to organisations such as UNFPA (UN Population Fund) and other organisations whose main role was providing basic reproductive health services to woemn, including contraception. Romney had promised to reintroduce it. Those of us who have had experience of working in poorer countries know the need for reproductive health and rights is critical in the development process. Romney and his Republican mates would have set the women's cause back decades.
Dianna Arthur
Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
Environmentalist
Irrespective of skin colour, I continue to be amazed that ANY woman would vote Republican or, for that matter the likes of Tony Abbott or Christopher Pyne whose view of women remains firmly fixed in a 1950's fantasy of the 'little' woman tending the home while 'hubby' went out to paid work.
Obama won because his policies were humane and pitched towards the majority of Americans - not just the wealthy elite.