Unmarried Women: The New Soccer Moms?

Expect Michelle Obama to start making more of a stronger impact. While not a single woman, she is younger than Hillary and is still a working woman with 2 young children. Just my opinion.

Yes, the DNC has indeed always coveted and coddled their core Shrill & Strident Lifer Losers vote, while the trial lawyers and pop therapists and Universalistic Church panhandlers laugh all the way to Davos.

Never mind the kids, just don't make the 2 Moms sad, or kinda angry!

Any of you guys read The Politico's mea culpa? When talking about how the Beltway media all read the same websites, they list off three that are popular among the chattering class: Drudge, Real Clear Politics, and The Page.

Notice that they're all right wing sites. Heckuva job, MSM.

You know... Hillary could really use this to pick up more single male votes... where are you likely to meet that special some one? At a Hillary rally!

They aren't the new soccer moms. Soccer moms were people who turned out to vote.

Single woman are actually the new Hispanics -- a group with traditionally lower than average turnout that, and if you can get them to turnout for you, you'll win.

That's a 30 percentage point swing over the course of five days.

or it would be, if the biggest city in the New Hampshire primary had been Des Moines, Iowa.

I had the NH polling screw ups dead to lefts yesterday, but did you get it (the facts fax) at Time-Jazeera?

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Here's another flake, er, colonel of truth, and No Extra Charge (aside from Huckahate's new internet tax scheme):

The New Hampster difference was the ABSENTEE BALLOTS MAILED IN BEFORE IOWA EXPLODED.

The college crew was en route to Daytona or Denver or Disney World, they said they wanted to vote communist early, and they did -- with no chance to erase their lost votes on comrade Clixon once the corn chads were counted.

IS this too basic for you pressed on nails feminazi phonies to grab, from the dark bowels of some campaign paid airaflot for Hillary?

Next!

Nice headline.... are unmarried women now soccer moms because the libruhls are destroying marriage and promoting teh sex culture?

"Hillary could really use this to pick up more single male votes... where are you likely to meet that special some one? At a Hillary rally!"

Sweet!

Hey there all you Sierra Clod gals, I'll be at the Holiday Inn Express next to the old Myrtle Beach carousel ring after 9 on Saturday morning.

Ask for QH in the Happy Hour Haven.

Or just look around for someone not wearing Birkencraps.

When axed, reply that your zodiac sign is "Herpes" and we'll shove off from there...

In Iowa, they had voted heavily in favor of Barack Obama, who won 40% of their vote, compared with 27% for Clinton, which is a 13 percentage point margin. In New Hampshire, Clinton won them by a 17 percentage point margin, 50-33% over Obama. That's a 30 percentage point swing over the course of five days.

actually, KT, its a (potential) seven point swing.

I hate to have to remind you of this but Hillary and Obama ARE NOT THE ONLY TWO FREAKING CANDIDATES IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.

Two of the candidates dropped out after Iowa. Three others showed that they had no chance -- and then there is that other guy...you know, the one who came in second in Iowa.

(and lets get serious for a moment here, Karen. We both know that within any particular subgroup, there are big differences between the kind of people who will show up at a caucus, and the kind of people who will show up to vote in a primary -- let alone differences within any particular subgroup that are in different regions of the country. This "30 point swing" is pure hype from a special interest group -- and someone like you should know better than repeat it without qualification. EVERY FREAKING ONE OF YOU GOT NEW HAMPSHIRE POLLING WRONG BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO UNDERSTAND THE DATA YOU WERE SHOWN. Yet here you go again, making the same basic mistake.)

Holy bat crap!

mediasox just pulled out a can of whoop ass on Karnage!

And do I detect two full loons, er, moons over the lake house this starry, starry night?

There is NO WAY that the 7% difference in Obama's polling of unmarried women is outside the statistical variance of such a refined subgroup of such a small population.

Therefore, the real story is that undecideds and non-Barack Obama voters swung to Hillary Clinton from Iowa to New Hampshire in general (and in this case, with unmarried women in particular).

Again, this holds for all Democrats in the New Hampshire polling. They swung away from John Edwards and the rest to Hillary Clinton, while Barack Obama maintained his level of support. You don't need a Mark Penn-approved subgroup to tell you that.

Did Time-Jazeera have a chance to interview the two black people in Manchester, before flying off to Charleston?

KT here--

Let me explain the "swing": Hillary Clinton starts out 13 points BEHIND Obama with this group; she ends up 17 point AHEAD. That is a 30-point swing. And, yes, there may be differences between the demographics and the processes (caucus vs. primary) of the two states, but nonetheless, it is a big enough number that the Clinton campaign believes it was very important, and possibly decisive. Folks, I'm reporting their own analysis of the election.

Karen,

I think it would be oversimplistic to divide the female electorate on single vs married. Age, education, and income level are factors as well. I also wonder if Edwards being strong in IA led him to get some of the types of female voters than went to HIllary in NH where Edwards was not as strong.

The other thing to keep in mind is the caucus vs primary factor. Caucus bring out the more motivated. the more informed, but the lack of secret ballot may influence things. A primary gets many more casual low infomration voters who may be swayed by last minute feelings, but also operate with a secret ballot without any peer pressure.

I think by trying to compare IA and NH you're trying to compare apples and oranges.

The biggest mistake the media is making in trying to interpret NH is oversimplification. There are multiple issues at play here. Now, of course, complexity and uncertainty do not make good copy, but in this case it's the reality.

Karen: Thanks as always for responding to commentary, it is very appreciated.

Let me explain the "swing": Hillary Clinton starts out 13 points BEHIND Obama with this group; she ends up 17 point AHEAD.

what new hampshire poll did you get that data from --- because the source you originally cited for the "13 points behind" was CAUCUS GOERS from THE MIDWEST. An entirely different demographic from PRIMARY VOTERS in NEW ENGLAND.

Folks, I'm reporting their own analysis of the election.

no Karen, you're reporting their spin. Their "analysts" will tell you that there was a thirty point swing between Iowa and New Hampshire, and they get away with it because they know you won't challenge on it. They know you aren't going to screw up your shot at a good relationship with Hillary Clinton -- I mean, we all know how Senator Ice Princess is about the press, and you managed to get a nice long interview with her. But as a reporter, you should take the word of people who have an agenda; you should go all Cuba Gooding Jr. on them and say SHOW ME THE DATA!

So here is what I think you should do. Call up Mark Penn. Ask him for a set of his crosstabs from new hampshire right before the Iowa caucus.

Then get back to us, and tell us whether Mark Penn's data showed that there was a 13 point gap in the support of unmarried women in New Hampshire on the day of the Iowa caucuses.

Hell, maybe you can get him to let you publish his Iowa polling numbers -- its not like their a national security secret, and the caucus is over. And having the sets of Iowa data that the Clinton campaign is basing their decisions on would provide us political junkies with some information that would actually be useful -- rather than trivia like show shovel purchases in Iowa.

If the 2008 Election doesn't look like more than a variation on the theme of "Look Who's Coming to Dinner," Democrats could very well lose it - by their own foolish follies - to Republicans, and it would be justified.

No one has more to lose in the 2008 race, or more to gain, than single women since they are the ones scattered and without a coalition of their own, or the power to be heard.

How they generate a presence or how they use that presence to make themselves felt in the nation is like trying to catch a butterfly.

Good Luck.

But, single women are a prize worth the effort. Their singleminded acuity, and ability far exceeds those of other groups as they have knock out memories, and a unique decison-making method apt to measure variables invisible to others that few can match. Discerning is an understatement, and without the baggage and burdens that married women have, they have a unique opportunity to be a very powerful group - if one can catch their eye.