« Union Busting -- Now With Bullets | Main | Trollop »

The Rankin Factor

07 Apr 2008 05:50 pm

Hillary Clinton tries out some Girl Power but Holly Yeager has the facts:

“Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote ... so who says men won’t vote for a woman?” Clinton asked the crowd. It's true that women across the U.S. didn't get the right to vote until 1920. But in Montana, thanks in part to Rankin, women got the right to vote in 1914 (which anyone who has ever played "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego" would know).

I miss that game. This is a reminder, however, that I think you can't talk about flaws in Hillary Clinton's campaign without mentioning the collapse in her support among African-American women. Clinton started the campaign very well-regarded in the black community and doing extremely well among black women but eventually lost the vast majority of that support.

In retrospect, the collapse of Clinton's black support sometimes feels obvious, but if you'd predicted in advance that white women would back Hillary, black men would back Obama, and they'd both split white men and black women and then Clinton would win because there are many more white women than black men in the electorate I think people would have considered that a reasonable-if-crude assessment of the situation.

Share This

Comments (24)

In fact I saw people predicting basically that. They would hypothesize Clinton winning X% of women such that she basically was extremely unlikely to lose the nomination, and that necessarily meant a healthy percentage of non-white women voting for Clinton.

Which of course was perfectly reasonable to predict, and perhaps could have happened if Clinton had not run such a poor (to the point of being offensive) campaign, and Obama had not run such a good one.


Less than a year ago the conventional Republican wisdom was that Obama was doomed because the leaders of the Black Political Establishment owed Hillary a lot of favors and that the Black Community always did what the Sharptons and Jacksons told them too - and Obama wasn't even authentically black anyway.

How things change.

I'll add to my list of "Clinton could have won IF" scenarios.

"Jeanette Rankin was elected before women could vote" is an entirely accurate statement.

But it's great to see Democrats falling to Al Gore-"Love Story" levels in their hunger to rip other Democrats.

one of these "facts" seems questionable. montana trivia in "where in the world"?

my memory could be fuzzy, but much more likely that it was "where in the usa". i didn't like that one, actually, which i'm sure would be used against my spouse in a presidential campaign. "where in europe" was best.

Who knew that black women hate racist white bitches?

Clinton's point was, apparently, that Rankin was elected in an election in which women could not vote, thus proving that men will vote for women.

This is 100% untrue. In the only electorate that counted (that of Montana), women could and did vote in the election that Rankin won. She was not elected by the votes of men alone, as Clinton implied. Clinton's statement was untrue (although probably inadvertently).

"Clinton's point was, apparently"

See this? This is "Gore invented the Internet" parsing. The poster above has to construct a 'point' Clinton never made in order to charge her with a lie.

It's the exact same thing that was done to Al Gore eight years ago. Except it's certain Democrats doing it to another Democrat because they really, really hate her. Good times.

Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote ... so who says men won’t vote for a woman?

But women could vote for Jeannette Rankin in 1916. This is clearly a misleading statement. I assume it was not purposefully so, but claiming that her statement was true are ridiculous. You might as well say that Hattie Caraway was elected a Senator in 1932 - long before women could vote - because women could not, at that date, vote in France. Rankin was elected by the voters of Montana. That electorate included women at the time she was elected. She was not elected before women could vote.

It is somewhat amusing that Clinton should use Rankin as her example - a woman with strong principles who was willing to stand for them even when they were unpopular and politically costly. A pity there's nobody like that running today.

One might add - numerous Blacks were elected to southern state legislatures in the late 1860s, before the ratification of the 15th Amendment in 1870. Were they elected "before black people could vote"? Does that prove that white people in the 1860s were willing to vote for Black candidates? That would be absurd - those candidates were elected by Black voters, and the states they lived in allowed Blacks to vote. Rankin was elected before women could vote nationally, but not before women could vote for her, which ought to be the only defining issue here.

This isn't really an effort to play a gotcha on Hillary - it's of entirely trivial importance and almost certainly wasn't a malicious falsehood. But that shouldn't stop us from saying it's wrong. Because it is wrong.

"This isn't really an effort to play a gotcha on Hillary"

Oh yes it is. It absolutely is. Nothing changes but the date.

Come on, give Hillary a break. I'm from Montana, went to the same school as Ranken and have had classes in the building and live next to the park named after her, and I had no idea about that.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm going to give Hillary a pass on this one. It certainly wasn't intentional. How was she supposed to know Montana allowed women to vote before the national amendment?

Come on, give Hillary a break. I'm from Montana, went to the same school as Ranken and have had classes in the building and live next to the park named after her, and I had no idea about that.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm going to give Hillary a pass on this one. It certainly wasn't intentional. How was she supposed to know Montana allowed women to vote before the national amendment?

So, Rankin voted against just wars and Clinton voted for an unjust one. Other than that, totally identical!

I'm not giving her a hard time. I'm just saying that her statement was untrue. Because it was untrue. I don't think it was purposeful.

But it was surely sloppy, and of course there are any number of ways Clinton might have learned this - it's not as though it's some kind of secret fact. I'd always thought that it's reasonably well known that the mountain west allowed women to vote before the 20th Amendment - Wyoming is called the Equality State because they've let women vote since 1869, for instance. Altogether, at least a dozen states had given women the vote prior to the passage of the 20th Amendment.

"I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm going to give Hillary a pass on this one. It certainly wasn't intentional. How was she supposed to know Montana allowed women to vote before the national amendment? "

I knew that, but really only because I had to do a report on Montana in the 4th grade.

Maybe her loss of support in the black community is because a lot of black women that originally supported her got shafted like this crazy lady recently.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=73363&comments=1

Or maybe it was Oprah?

Or maybe it was the race baiting?

Or maybe it was just the fact that they only people who like Hillary are older white ladies like my mom and then there are a bunch of men that feel right now like they tied their wagons to her a little too early because of Bill and wish that they could have their endorsement back, but can't. But also don't want to look like a loser either. No one likes to publicly admit that they were wrong.

John Lewis = American Hero

"See this? This is "Gore invented the Internet" parsing. The poster above has to construct a 'point' Clinton never made in order to charge her with a lie."

Agreed.

If we could all just live up to the honesty and integrity that Taylor Marsh displays on a daily basis the world would be a better place...

Although I have no special insight into what would happen in a "what if" scenario, I would recommend that you all read about Voting Rights Act cases and the extensive evidence of racially polarized voting throughout the country. It might provide a different viewpoint.

Personally, I find it ironic that Obama is winning exactly the demographic groups - suburban, educated, independent, white male voters - whom Mark Penn often seemed to emphasize the Democrats should target.

"Personally, I find it ironic that Obama is winning exactly the demographic groups - suburban, educated, independent, white male voters - whom Mark Penn often seemed to emphasize the Democrats should target.

Posted by Rando | April 7, 2008 10:40 PM"

Until Clinton started losing those, of course. As Ezra's review of Microtrends pointed out, Penn's allegiance to the Numbers is completely bullshit, which is probably why he doesn't release his numbers and analysis like other statisticians. He just says what he needs to get paid. He's the consummate yes-man.

David B.: "So, Rankin voted against just wars and Clinton voted for an unjust one. Other than that, totally identical!"

Well, if WWI is your model of a just war, I suppose you can get to all sorts interesting conclusions. Although I do think helping to found the ACLU is a slightly nobler accomplishment than attempting to ban flag-burning. But hey, if war's your thing, I guess civil liberties aren't really a priority to begin with.


"This isn't really an effort to play a gotcha on Hillary"

Oh yes it is. It absolutely is. Nothing changes but the date

I'd give Hillary a pass on this one b/c it's a small detail that could be plausibly missed (somewhat unlike whether you landed under sniper fire or not), but I don't understand this sentiment at all.

Al Gore never said he invented the internet. He took credit for helping to fund it when it was primarily a military/government deal. This was later spun by a dishonest media as 'he invented the internet'. But the spirit of Gore's claims (and the actual statements themselves) were all true as far as I know. Totally different situation.

More a defense of WWII than WWI, but, yeah it's a closer call. At least we had a stronger national interest in WWI than we did in overthrowing the Iraqi regime. (Both failed models of regime change, as well.) I think it's "just" only in the sense that there was an identifiable causus belli. War is *not* my thing, but Rankin and Clinton could not be further apart, is the point.

Good contrast on the flag burning. I didn't know she was a cofounder of the ACLU. Of course, the ACLU then was not as progressive as the ACLU once you got into the Warren Court era.


Comments closed April 21, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.