Why Politicians Only Care About Your Wedding Ring

It’s 2014, and both parties are still reducing women to their marital status.

Detail photo of a ring worn by Penleope Cruz as she attends the 'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' photocall at the Palais des Festivals during the 64th Cannes Film Festival on May 14, 2011 in Cannes, France.
National Journal
Alex Roarty
See more stories about...
Alex Roarty
April 10, 2014, 1 a.m.

As Re­pub­lic­ans and Demo­crats dig in for this year’s midterm elec­tions, they both say they’re fo­cused on win­ning over wo­men. But that doesn’t mean they’re tar­get­ing the same voters.

Strategists sur­veyed from both parties be­lieve this year’s elec­tion res­ults will de­pend on two dis­tinct groups of fe­male voters: single wo­men tar­geted by Demo­crats, and mar­ried wo­men sought after by Re­pub­lic­ans. In­deed, des­pite all the talk of a gender gap, the big­ger polit­ic­al di­vide is between mar­ried and un­mar­ried wo­men.

Last week, of­fi­cials at the Demo­crat­ic Con­gres­sion­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee re­vealed a new na­tion­al voter mod­el that will help them identi­fy single wo­men and de­vise the best mes­sages to reach them, while an early blitz of TV ads from con­ser­vat­ives has been aimed squarely at mar­ried wo­men.

The loom­ing battle is crit­ic­ally im­port­ant to cor­rect two long-stand­ing elect­or­al di­lem­mas for each party. For Re­pub­lic­ans, win­ning strong sup­port from mar­ried wo­men means they could close the gender gap, a prob­lem that plagued them dur­ing Pres­id­ent Obama’s 2012 reelec­tion cam­paign. For Demo­crats, the goal is to en­sure that single wo­men, who are solidly Demo­crat­ic, turn out to vote in the first place. Like oth­er core mem­bers of the party’s co­ali­tion, they vote in dra­mat­ic­ally smal­ler num­bers dur­ing midterm elec­tions.

The polit­ic­al dif­fer­ence between mar­ried and un­mar­ried wo­men is stark. In 2012, Obama won un­mar­ried wo­men by bet­ter than 2-to-1 while los­ing their mar­ried co­horts, who voted 53 per­cent to 46 per­cent for Mitt Rom­ney. The split stems from a vari­ety of reas­ons. Single wo­men, for in­stance, are more at­tuned to de­bates over ac­cess to con­tra­cep­tion — a key Demo­crat­ic talk­ing point against Re­pub­lic­ans in re­cent years.

But ac­cord­ing to poll­sters, the gap is rooted mostly in eco­nom­ics. Single wo­men, es­pe­cially those with chil­dren, tend to be poorer than mar­ried wo­men, many of whom live in a two-in­come fam­ily. The dif­fer­ence in fin­an­cial cir­cum­stances fun­da­ment­ally al­ters how each views gov­ern­ment as­sist­ance.

“Wo­men in a stable mar­riage, wheth­er a single- or double-in­come house­hold — they have a sup­port struc­ture that’s kind of built in,” said Wes An­der­son, a Re­pub­lic­an strategist who has stud­ied the split between the two blocs. “And they start to be­come more con­scious about what they’re pay­ing for with oth­er people, so they tend to grav­it­ate to­ward us.”

Their con­cern over gov­ern­ment spend­ing of­fers an op­por­tun­ity for the GOP to press its case to mar­ried wo­men with an is­sue already front-and-cen­ter with most voters: Obama­care. An­der­son said a poll con­duc­ted in March by his firm On­Mes­sage found that 55 per­cent of them op­pose the health care law, a share roughly in line with the gen­er­al pub­lic.

That sur­vey was en­cour­aging, he ad­ded, be­cause it sug­gests the party can rep­lic­ate its per­form­ance from 2010, when the health care law was also a lead­ing is­sue. That year, Re­pub­lic­ans won 56 per­cent of mar­ried wo­men, lead­ing to a sweep­ing midterm vic­tory.

And it’s no co­in­cid­ence that most of the early TV ad­vert­ising, es­pe­cially from the con­ser­vat­ive group Amer­ic­ans for Prosper­ity, has fea­tured middle-aged wo­men sit­ting at their kit­chen table who, while not ex­pli­citly iden­ti­fied as be­ing mar­ried, ex­plain the toll they say Obama­care has taken on them and their fam­il­ies. Re­pub­lic­ans think their fo­cus on the health care law paid di­vidends in the Vir­gin­ia gubernat­ori­al race, where Re­pub­lic­an Ken Cuc­cinelli, branded by Demo­crats as out of the main­stream on so­cial is­sues, won mar­ried wo­men by 9 points, ac­cord­ing to an ana­lys­is by the Demo­crat­ic polling firm Green­berg Quin­lan Ros­ner Re­search.

Single wo­men, while un­enthused about Obama­care, view gov­ern­ment sup­port more fa­vor­ably. And the is­sue al­lows Demo­crats to court them more ef­fect­ively with prom­ises of a so­cial safety net.

“The prob­lem is, and it’s true for single men as well, get­ting by in this eco­nomy on one paycheck is really very chal­len­ging,” said Mi­chael Pod­horzer, the AFL-CIO’s polit­ic­al dir­ect­or, who sees the dif­fer­ent polit­ic­al pref­er­ences of mar­ried and un­mar­ried wo­men as en­tirely the res­ult of the dif­fer­ences in their wealth. “And that puts eco­nom­ic is­sues more in the fore­front.”

The chal­lenge for Demo­crats isn’t just to per­suade these voters to back their can­did­ates. They must first make sure they vote in the first place. And on both fronts, the party has reas­on to worry.

A sur­vey re­leased this week from Green­berg Quin­lan Ros­ner found that 66 per­cent of single wo­men who voted in the 2012 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion said they were “al­most cer­tain” to vote this year. That’s less than the 72 per­cent of over­all voters who said they were guar­an­teed to vote, and 13 points less than the 79 per­cent of Re­pub­lic­an-lean­ing voters. Worse yet, Demo­crats are ahead with the group by only a 26-point mar­gin (58 per­cent to 32 per­cent), not quite as bad as their 2010 show­ing but far from their 2012 ad­vant­age.

Those num­bers, per­haps more than any oth­er reas­on, ex­plain why Demo­crats have ad­op­ted a pop­u­list agenda this year in Wash­ing­ton, push­ing is­sues like equal pay for equal work and min­im­um-wage hikes. The party, fa­cing a dif­fi­cult na­tion­al cli­mate and a red-state Sen­ate map, have to turn out and win over large shares of un­mar­ried wo­men to have a chance of mit­ig­at­ing their losses in 2014.

“Very few [single wo­men] think the na­tion­al polit­ic­al con­ver­sa­tion ad­dresses is­sues they care about most. And when that hap­pens, they don’t vote,” said Erica Seifert, a Demo­crat­ic poll­ster.

Seifert said she thought that in 2010, Demo­crats preached a mes­sage of eco­nom­ic re­cov­ery wholly out of touch with most of their base voters. This year’s agenda, fo­cus­ing on pock­et­book is­sues and in­equal­ity, is far bet­ter suited to drive turnout.

“If you’re a single wo­man, the mes­sage that Re­pub­lic­ans will aban­don you has had some ef­fect in the past,” An­der­son said. “There’s some res­on­ance there with single par­ents, es­pe­cially single moms.

“They paint that with a thick coat of class war­fare to it, and they’ve had suc­cess with that in some places.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4879) }}

What We're Following See More »
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
30 minutes ago

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
30 minutes ago

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
30 minutes ago

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
30 minutes ago

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”