No rings, 53 million strong: Unmarried women could change election

San Francisco Chronicle: No rings, 53 million strong: Unmarried women could change election
Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 27, 2007

....A quarter of all eligible voters - 53 million - are unmarried women, according to an October study by the influential liberal polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, but 20 million did not vote in the most recent presidential election. "They have the power to reshape American politics further, if they vote," according to the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner study. "Unmarried women have the potential to emerge as the 'Democrats' Evangelicals.' "

They're generally younger and have less household income than their married sisters, and they are turned off by the tit-for-tat repartee of political campaigns and the ensuing horse-race media coverage. And for the first time in a presidential race, there are as many unmarried women in America as married. The key to appealing to them, said Ann Lewis, a senior strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, is "to tap into their social networks," both online and offline.

What binds unmarrieds of all stripes are economic issues, said Lewis, who prefers the term "single anxious female" because "there's a lot of anxiety about economic issues." While 43 percent of unmarried women have household income of less than $30,000 annually, according to the 2005 American Community Survey, a similar portion of married women earn more than $75,000. More often than unmarried men, unmarried women are taking care of children or are responsible for the health of an older relative.

Pollsters say their research shows that the unmarrieds are in the mood for changing not just who is in office, but how government works. "These women are leading different lives and they want people to know it," said Page Gardner, founder of Women's Voices, Women's Vote ( www.wvwv.org), a nonpartisan outfit that is targeting 3 million single women. Gardner said the campaign will improve on its 2004 get-out-the-vote effort and already has heard an increased sense of urgency from its audience. "They're really paying attention, and they know what's at stake," she said.

The Clinton campaign - the most financially and organizationally formidable ever launched for a female candidate - is piquing interest among women. About 20 percent of the women polled last month by Lifetime Television, a cable network aimed at women, said they were more likely to vote because Clinton was running....

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/27/MNVTTDNOM.DTL&tsp=1

:spray:

as is the statistic that 1/4 of the eligible voters in the country are single women. If Clinton really is tapping into this vein of voters, she's got a huge leg up.

I don't think I fit into the mold however, as I make more than the demographic that they state. If this group became energized by someone other than a rich married woman, a person who has been poor, like Kucinich, then they could have a real impact on the election.

"The unmarrieds are in the mood for changing not just who is in office, but how government works."

It's too bad DK's campaign isn't or can't do that energizing.

or do they think we will just vote for Hillary? I don't get this we are not a block. I want this war over and Hillary doesn't seem to be at all interested in that.

After decades of "family this" and "family that", I am sick to death of the implication that if you are not part of a "family"(parent with children) you are an unperson.

We are the "invisable" that Clinton talks about, but whether she will do anything about it is another matter. The "Tit-for-tat" and horse-race mentality is also spot-on.

I must be in the minority of single women. I'm not a "single anxious female" and I don't have any kids.

Hillary Clinton is my last choice candidate because I get the distinct impression that she WON'T change politics as usual except in a negative direction.

Me, my mom, and my grandma are all single, and we all support different candidates for different reasons. :shrug:

Why not refer to unmarried men as a bloc? Or married men? Or married women? :shrug: