Getting the woman's vote

Kimberley Strassel has some ideas of how GOP candidates could go after the woman's vote instead of seemingly ceding that vote to Democratic candidates.

The Democrats' own views of what counts for "women's issues" are stuck back in the disco days, about the time Ms. Clinton came of political age. Under the title "A Champion for Women," the New York senator's Web site promises the usual tired litany of "equal pay" and a "woman's right to choose." Mr. Richardson pitches a new government handout for women on "family leave" and waxes nostalgic for the Equal Rights Amendment. Give these Boomers some bell bottoms and "The Female Eunuch," and they'd feel right at home. Polls show Ms. Clinton today gets her best female support from women her age and up.
The rest of the female population has migrated into 2007. Undoubtedly quite a few do care about abortion rights and the Violence Against Women Act. But for the 60% of women who today both scramble after a child and hold a job, these culture-war touchpoints aren't their top voting priority. Their biggest concerns, not surprisingly, hew closely to those of their male counterparts: the war in Iraq, health care, the economy. But following close behind are issues that are more unique to working women and mothers. Therein rests the GOP opportunity.

Here's an example of how a smart Republican could morph an old-fashioned Democratic talking point into a modern-day vote winner. Ms. Clinton likes to bang on about "inequality" in pay. The smart conservative would explain to a female audience that there indeed is inequality, and that the situation is grave. Only the bad guy isn't the male boss; it's the progressive tax code.

Most married women are second-earners. That means their income is added to that of their husband's, and thus taxed at his highest marginal rate. So the married woman working as a secretary keeps less of her paycheck than the single woman who does the exact same job. This is the ultimate in "inequality," yet Democrats constantly promote the very tax code that punishes married working women. In some cases, the tax burdens and child-care expenses for second-earners are so burdensome they can't afford a career. But when was the last time a Republican pointed out that Ms. Clinton was helping to keep ladies in the kitchen?

She has several other ideas such as talking about easing labor laws to allow flex time. Or pointing out how free market innovations in health care can help women make choices in their family's medical care.

These are all good ideas. But the perception that Republicans don't do well among women is too broad a generalization. In the debacle of the 2006 elections, the Democrats got 55% to 43% among all women. However, GOP candidates held their own among white women where the split was Dem 49% to GOP 50%. Among married women, (35% of the electorate) the Republicans also held their own, Dem 48% to GOP 50%. Where the GOP is losing the women's vote is among black women (11% of the electorate) Dem 78% to GOP 21% and unmarried women (18% of the electorate): Dem 66% to GOP 32%.

Strassel's suggestions are all good, but where the Republicans are losing the women's vote is not among married women - although they could certainly have an impact if the Republicans could increase their share of that vote to the levels that Bush got in 2004. They will have more of a problem winning the black woman's or unmarried woman's vote and I don't know that Strassel's recommendations are ones that are going to help target increasing the percentage a GOP candidate could earn from those voters.