Laura Coker-Garcia is the kind of suburban mom presidential campaigns love to woo: She votes, she cares about education and she worries about national security. Coker-Garcia, a Texas resident of unincorporated Harris County, is a member of this year’s hot-button, swing voter demographic: the security mom.
A step beyond the soccer moms of earlier election seasons, the security moms are a threat to Democrats, because their priorities have expanded beyond pocketbook and social concerns toward issues that favor Republicans, such as national security.
While polls have shown national security to be a rising issue with women voters, neither party has managed to gain meaningful traction on that issue alone.
Democrats are at a historical disadvantage with voters on national security, and the Bush administration has been criticized for its efforts at bringing about homeland security programs. The impact on next year’s election, particularly with women voters, remains an open question.
Security moms are not the whole picture. In key battleground states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida, women of all stripes are once again expected to be pivotal in choosing the next president.
“The gender gap has been a critical factor in every election since 1980, and I suspect it will be once again,” said Larry Sabato, University of Virginia political scientist.
While more women tend to vote Democrat than Republican, they also tend to approach voting with a pragmatism that transcends party loyalty. Many are classic swing voters: They are ballot-splitters and party-switchers. Their political allegiance is elusive.
Coker-Garcia, a libertarian who home-schools her kids, said her vote may also be up for grabs this year, if the Libertarian Party fails to get ballot access.
“I oppose the war, so that would be a consideration,” she said.
At the same time, Coker-Garcia said she strongly favors national security measures, such as airport screening.
Her views represent a widespread and perceptible shift that pollsters have measured since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Women want national security, and they’ve added it to their list of priorities, along with health care, education and economic concerns.
In the 2000 election, Democrat Al Gore won 54 percent of the female vote, to President Bush’s 43 percent. This year, Bush is looking to improve his odds with women, in what is expected to be another close election.
“He has brought compassionate conservatism to a different level; he has reached way beyond his base,” said Bob Stein, Rice University political scientist and pollster. “Medicare is a good example, working with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison on a stalker bill is another.”
The way Bush has begun talking about the war in Iraq also is aimed at appealing to women, said Stein.
“He is defining the war not as a John Wayne macho thing, but more along the lines of what President Clinton or Carter would have said, `Because it’s the right thing to do,”‘ Stein said.
The strategy may already be working to Bush’s advantage. In 2002, the first national elections after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, election results showed the gender gap narrowing. More women were voting Republican, and helped Republicans gain control of the Senate and key governorships.
But whether Bush can pull that off in 2004 is questionable. Sabato noted that turnout was low for the 2002 midterm elections, and voters as a whole tended to skew more Republican that year.
Just as Republicans hold a traditional advantage on national security, Democrats tend to rate higher with voters on domestic issues–which are of significant interest to many female swing voters.
With so much diversity of opinion in one demographic, it’s hard to imagine a single candidate of any party successfully appealing to a large percentage of women.
