September 15, 2016--Trump and Women

Timing in politics is everything. Reporting on politics is also everything. Sometimes both collude.

Take Donald Trump's speech on Tuesday in which he outlined his child and eldercare policy.

Should I whisper that his proposals are in some ways more expansive and progressive than Hillary's? Should I mention that the New York Times, the "paper of record," on Wednesday buried the story on its Website, devoting more ink to Trump's deciding not to go on/then to go on TV with the charlatan Dr. Oz to discuss the state of his health?

The same New York Times that has been castigating Trump about his reluctance or inability to discuss social policy essentially ignored Trump's rather generous and nuanced program.

They felt it more important to highlight Mike Pence's failure to rally Democratic members of Congress to support Trump's candidacy. Once again the Times chose to cover the process more than the substance.

I suspect the Trump specifics are not well known among Progressives so here in outline are the highlights--

Employers would be required to provide paid maternity leave of up to six weeks per pregnancy. (Hillary's plan calls for 12 weeks.)

Parents would be able to deduct from their taxes childcare costs for up to four children until they reach the age of 13. 

Low-income parents would receive a tax credit for up to four children. 

"Above the line" tax deductions of up to $5,000 per year would be allowed for eldercare as well as "adult day care."

There is no surprise that Clinton supporters are saying that her plans for parents and children are better. Though they have little to say about eldercare since I cannot find evidence that Hillary has much of a program of this sort for them.

And there is little surprise that Republicans are criticizing Trump and his plan because it would create another unfunded entitlement program. Something they claim Democrats do, thought they conveniently forget George W. Bush's also unfunded prescription drug plan for which a majority of GOP congressmen voted. A plan that had already added more than a trillion dollars to our national debt.

Clearly Trump is attempting to appeal to female voters who are overwhelmingly and understandably turned off by him. One could say that he is pandering to working mom's who, if even a small percentage of them now turn to him, could tip the election in his direction. In addition, if he can attract more senior citizens whose care is largely ignored by policy makers and politicians (including by Hillary), watch out.

If Trump had revealed these programs a year ago--timing again--and had not acted so egregiously when it comes to women's issues, we probably now would see him with a substantial lead. Even so, incredibly, more-and-more polls are showing him in either a statistical tie with Clinton or actually in the lead. In crucial Ohio, for example, he has a 5 point margin.

Again, timing is everything. But Hillary supporters are feeling increasing worried. Me included.

April 21, 2016--Headline: TRUMP TAKES 60.5% OF REPUBLICAN VOTE IN NEW YORK

The real headline should have been--

TRUMP TAKES 57% OF FEMALE VOTE AND 54% OF COLLEGE-EDUCATED VOTE

More than anything else, these percentages have befuddled print and digital media pundits. They do not fit the conventional narrative.

Until the New York votes were tallied, the story has been that college-educated voters do not vote for Trump and, even more starkly, only a quarter or so of Trump supporters are women.

Democrats, liberals have been not-so-secretly thrilled about this. If only Trump can hang in there and win the nomination, turning off well-educated and women voters will guarantee that Hillary will win in a landslide.

Not so fast.

As the New York numbers may portend, it could be that a "presidential" Trump has more appeal among the college-educated and women than generally assumed. If so, this makes him a potential winner in November. Even against Hillary Clinton.

How could that possibly be? Are the New York numbers an aberration, perhaps attributable to the fact that Trump is a real New Yorker and that trumps everything else?

We may be chauvinistic in New York (Trump appeared at his rally last night to the strains of Frank Sinatra's swaggering, "New York, New York"), but we're not stupid.

Finally getting a chance to vote in a primary that has real meaning (the nomination process is usually pretty much over when it gets to be New York's turn) focused voters' attention and I suspect registered Republicans took their choice-making very seriously.

So the question remains--why did Trump do so well among women and the college-educated?

To my female and male feminist friends who are supporting Clinton primality because she is a woman (still an insufficient reason to me) or because she is "good" on women's issues such as equal pay, parenting leave, and the right to choose (all critical issues to me as well), for many non-feminst women (and there are millions of them) Trump is a better choice because he for them is on the right side of the issues that count most for them--mainly economic and national security issues.

Exit polls indicated that Trump's female voters care more about who they feel is best able to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks than who will fight harder to achieve pay equity. They care more about the security of their jobs and their capacity to make enough money to support families and themselves than about keeping abortions legal. They care more about how their children will fare in college and their viability as the nature of the American economy continues to morph into something unrecognizable than about securing paid leave for childcare.

Not that these are unimportant issues--women (and men) can support the right to choose but still vote for someone who wants to limit or even end it because they are not litmus-test voters. For them it appears what James Carville said back in 1992--"It's the economy stupid"--is still the most potent impulse.

And, understandable.

This, then, may be at the heart of Trump's appeal and staying power.