Gender Gap May Be a Plus for ’92 Women Candidates

On that July morning in 1984--the day after Walter Mondale tabbed Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate--I was interviewing Lynn Cutler, vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, in her San Francisco hotel room.

I should say I was trying to interview her because the phone was ringing so often that it made talking to her almost impossible. Women from around the country, ecstatic over the Ferraro announcement, wanted to share their joy with Cutler. I remember one of the calls being from astronaut Sally Ride.

Anyone who was at the Democratic convention in 1984 will tell you the atmosphere was electric, especially among women. That morning in her hotel, Cutler talked about a vast national mobilization of the women’s vote. Indeed, despite Ronald Reagan’s popularity, many women were convinced for those glorious few days in the summer of ’84 that the presence of Ferraro on the ticket--a woman many had never heard of--would be enough to win the White House for the Democrats.

As history showed, the air escaped fairly quickly from that balloon. By fall, Mondale-Ferraro had gone pffft . The Reagan-Bush ticket won a majority of the women’s vote nationwide, according to a Los Angeles Times/CNN poll, just as it had in 1980.

Which brings me to a comment that U.S. Senate candidate Bruce Herschensohn recently made. Beneath the surface, it was actually more of a plaintive cry than a comment. Clearly feeling which way the wind is blowing, Herschensohn said he hoped that Californians aren’t going to vote for his opponent, Barbara Boxer, just because she’s a woman.

An interesting appeal Herschensohn makes. Interesting because he has in one statement both identified the scenario and prophesied the outcome.

Americans--both men and women-- are going to vote for women this year with a force they didn’t bestow on Ferraro. Although a majority of women voters supported Reagan in 1984, by 1988 they divided their votes almost evenly between Bush and challenger Michael Dukakis.

Is there any reason to think the trend isn’t going to continue this year? Surely not, especially with 11 women U.S. senatorial candidates on ballots--many in large states--to bring out women voters.

In a purely philosophical sense, I agree with Herschensohn about casting votes based on gender. You can almost sympathize with him.

Almost. But his argument against voting for women just because they’re women would resonate much stronger were it not for our knowledge that we’ve been voting for men just because they’re men.

So, women for women’s sake?

Yes, and why not? Does a 100-member U.S. Senate that has two women senators provide an accurate reflection of American priorities? Does it provide the best listening post for what is really happening around the country?

EMILY’s List, a national political network for pro-choice Democratic women, says that support for women’s candidates this year won’t be gender-based. One of their officials told me Tuesday that “people are excited about women running, but they aren’t going to vote for them just because they’re women, but because they’re good candidates. They’re good on issues their constituents are concerned about. People say those are women’s issues, but they’re not--they’re family issues, they’re what people are concerned about when they go home from work. . . . It’s not just change for change sake. It’s got to be change for the better.”

I think they do protest too much.

People are going to vote for women this year. And in some cases, they will vote for them because they are women.

Voters are in the mood to shake things up. You can see it in Illinois, where a relatively obscure Cook County recorder of deeds, Carol Mosely Braun, knocked off the incumbent Democratic senator in the primary and now is leading her male opponent in the general election. You can see it in Pennsylvania, where first-time candidate Lynn Yeakel is in a near-deadlock with incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, a longtime fixture in statewide politics. And, in California, both Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer are comfortably ahead and are running even with their Republican male opponents in Orange County.

The euphoria that women felt over Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 was short-lived, but whatever emotions they’ve been holding in for eight years are going to spill over next month.

Yes, somewhere down the road, gender won’t matter at election time.

But this year, believe me, it’s going to matter.

Just ask Bruce Herschensohn, John Seymour and a trail of other male candidates on Nov. 4, all of whom will be asking the time-honored question, “What hit me?”

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, Calif. 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.