Women voted for Nixon in 1960.
The white female vote is still republican.
Posted on 08/14/2012 4:47:26 PM PDT by SJackson
Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s newly chosen running-mate in this year’s presidential election race, is a strong candidate on many grounds. He is a brilliant man, a thorough master of government finances – which as we all know need work these days – and he is more conservative than Romney, which should appeal to the party’s skeptical Tea Party faction. He is a good speaker, and at age forty-two he is a generation younger than Romney — and also a good deal younger than President Obama – which might help the GOP connect with younger voters.
All this is just fine, but in watching the news today I also heard it suggested more than once that Ryan might be more popular than Romney with women. Romney, we are told, is an old-fashioned, milk-drinking square who wants to deprive women of their rights and privileges and send them back to the 1950s.
Ryan, by contrast, is a good-looking guy, tall and trim, said to have fantastic abs, and blessed with that enviable Irish charm. His line of chatter over cocktails might be off-putting to women – few of whom care much about the federal budget – but they probably figure that if they can corner him for a moment they can make him stop talking.
Many women, it seems, vote with their gonads.
When John F. Kennedy was running for president, hordes of young women invariably lined his parade routes. Theodore White, the author of the “Making of the President” series of books, observed that the women in the back rows would frantically jump up and down to get a glimpse of the dazzlingly charming candidate.
When JFK’s opponent, Richard Nixon, went riding by, not a single woman onlooker lifted a foot. Probably most of them were into middle-age or older, and suffering from arthritis and gout.
The people who run for president are not unaware of this female tendency. John Kerry, when he ran at the head of the Democratic ticket in 2004, chose John Edwards as his running-mate. I can’t think of any special qualities that Edwards brought to the ticket, except perhaps an ability to appeal visually to giddy, young female voters.
Bob Dole seems to have made a half-hearted stab at it when he ran against President Clinton in 1996, choosing as his running-mate the charismatic but slightly superannuated ex-football player Jack Kemp. I don’t know what George Bush the elder had in mind when he chose young Dan Quayle as his running-mate, but the ticket did win the first time around, although Quayle himself turned out to be a dud.
I don’t enjoy having to write this, but I think the time has come to limit women’s suffrage. The noble experiment that began when women were granted the right to vote in 1920, by the Nineteenth Amendment to the Constitution, has failed.
In the years before the amendment was passed, women’s suffrage was opposed not only by men, but also by some women. The historians tell us that it was opposed by married women who circulated in political-leadership circles, who had a behind-the-scenes influence on women’s issues with the decision-makers, and who didn’t want to see that influence turned over to the hoi polloi.
These women also argued that if women had the vote, they would want to impose prohibition of alcoholic beverages on the nation. Who is to say that they were wrong?
Those arguments aren’t the ones we hear today, but there still seems to be something wrong with letting women vote. The mere fact that they strongly favored Obama in 2008, and that they continue to strongly favor him in 2012, should be argument enough for some kind of reform.
I do not favor taking their votes away entirely. I don’t perceive any threat that they will re-impose Prohibition. But I wouldn’t allow them to vote in any election featuring male opponents, because they are too likely to make their choices for reasons that have nothing to do with the welfare of the republic.
I see no danger in letting them vote in elections where both opponents are women, but so far there has never been a presidential election in which even one of the major party tickets was headed by a woman. And there has never been one in which both V.P. candidates were women. So we are dealing only in theory for now.
I would even go so far as to suggest, in my even-handed way, that maybe men shouldn’t be allowed to choose between two women, especially in the unlikely event that one of them was good-looking.
Suppose someday a woman runs against a man for the top spot? Should we let women vote in that case? I would say no, because they unquestionably would vote for the woman for chauvinistic reasons, unless her male opponent was a fantastic hottie like JFK, in which case they would totally overlook the female candidate’s good qualities. No matter how a woman voted, it would be a flawed choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87U4ANfJRWg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i1mLF3uMWw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu1zy2MrsFM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_yUM3gtUFo&feature=related
I have always been against female suffrage - I am female - and I do so love the comment made by Alice Longworth: “any woman who can’t get her own husband to vote the way she wants isn’t worth much.”
Your comment is false and unfounded. It is so easily refuted that I'm almost suprised you thought you could slide it by. More women than Catholics voted for Obama AND Kerry.
I suppose You'd of rathered T-Paw or some other wishy-washy phaux-protestant to Paul Ryan?
Go take a running leap at yourself, Jackass.
Good Lord man, sober up, read my post, the thread is about taking the vote from women.
Conservatives say that kind of ridiculous bigoted thing because they think that women have always voted democrat.
I pointed out that women are far, far to the right of Catholics, and no conservative would ever talk about taking away the vote from them.
Romney /Ryan will do better than expected with women this year because they are better looking than Obama/Biden. . . . ; )
Women voted for Nixon in 1960.
The white female vote is still republican.
Correction, as I said in my original post.
"The women’s vote has been far, far, to the right of the Catholic vote since it started."
Since 1992 females vote more like Catholics, and even slightly worse, in 2008 for instance Obama got 56% of the female vote, and only 54% of the Catholic vote.
“If we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers and husbands.” 1910-Winston Churchill.
I’ll consider this historical FYI, as we both know that the overall female vote today is electing Democrat after Democrat after Democrat.
Here is how women voted since 1992
1992 Clinton - 45% of female vote
1996 Clinton - 54% of female vote
2000 Gore - 54% of female vote
2004 Kerry - 51% of female vote
2008 Obama - 56% of female vote
Women voters are clearly pushing this nation into socialism. The topic not even debatable. Not that Freeper women are, but the overall women’s vote is electing one Democrat socialist after another.
1992
Clinton - 45% of female vote
Bush - 37% female vote
1996
Clinton - 54% of female vote
Dole - 38% female vote
2000
Gore - 54% of female vote
Bush - 43% female vote
2004
Kerry - 51% of female vote
Bush - 39% female vote
2008
Obama - 56% of female vote
McLame - 43% of female vote
Of course I know those numbers, that is what I was posting in post 47.
The feminists want us to pretend that women are just men with breasts, that we are identical in all other respects. On the other hand, science has discovered that women are different from men right down to the manner in which our brain’s are wired, and how we hear each other.
No disrespect to women, but they never should have gotten the vote. Many women have the emotional and intellectual fortitude to cast their votes with an eye toward liberty, but as an entire group, they usually cast their votes with an eye toward security, and are only to happy to give up their liberty to get it.
This is deleterious to a free Republic which seeks to protect its People’s God given constitutional rights.
Women will be furious at hearing it, but Churchill was absolutely right, and the record since women’s suffrage clearly points it out.
I'm sure you meant the "non-hispanic white female" vote is still Republican. Meanwhile, non-hispanic white females are a rapidly shrinking group as the group of hispanic white females explodes. Ditto for males of both groups.
This does not bode well for the future of US liberty being that hispanic women vote democrat in larger percentage than the female vote overall. The more of them there are, the closer the overall female vote will approach 60% guaranteed in every national election.
You aren’t sure of that at all, did the New York Times chart separate out Hispanics? especially from 1972 to 2008? I doubt it, but frankly I don’t know.
You seem to repeat my posts back to me as though you have something new to say, or correct, but you don’t.
As far as Hispanics go, a lot of that vote depends on if they are Protestant or Catholic/secular.
Do you know that the Catholic vote has always been democrat, and that the only years it has not been so were 1956, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 2004? Soon it will revert back to pure democrat.
Would you take the vote from Catholics?
Until 1992, the female vote was dependably republican, and in the most important election of all, it was the men who doomed the nation, by electing JFK.
The election of JFK was the end of America, Vietnam, the 60s, LBJ, government unions, and the fatal pill of immigration.
“However, if there is one man who can take the most credit for the 1965 act, it is John F. Kennedy.
Kennedy seems to have inherited the resentment his father Joseph felt as an outsider in Boston’s WASP aristocracy. He voted against the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, and supported various refugee acts throughout the 1950s.
In 1958 he wrote a book, A Nation of Immigrants, which attacked the quota system as illogical and without purpose, and the book served as Kennedy’s blueprint for immigration reform after he became president in 1960.
In the summer of 1963, Kennedy sent Congress a proposal calling for the elimination of the national origins quota system. He wanted immigrants admitted on the basis of family reunification and needed skills, without regard to national origin.
After his assassination in November, his brother Robert took up the cause of immigration reform, calling it JFK’s legacy. In the forward to a revised edition of A Nation of Immigrants, issued in 1964 to gain support for the new law, he wrote, “I know of no cause which President Kennedy championed more warmly than the improvement of our immigration policies.”
Sold as a memorial to JFK, there was very little opposition to what became known as the Immigration Act of 1965.”
Is this guy kidding? He obviously hasn't seen the comments by women who ripped Sarah Palin to shreds .... Sarah was young, athletic, good-looking, and charismatic. What's not to hate? Never mind her abilities -- I hateherhateherhateher!!! That was about the reaction she got from a lot of nominally conservative women, and the Atlantic Coasters who hate Middle America anyway were energized and confirmed in their bigotry by Sarah and her family's activities. How gauche, how droll, how .... Wasilla!
It's still the "blackest" candidate .... and in any case, bloc-voting is toxic to the Republic and bad citizenship in the first place.
XIX Is the Wrong Amendment.
Repeal the XXIVth and bring back POLL TAXES! Seemed to be fairly effective before.
Charge $1000 per vote, no limits.
Could replace state lotteries in time, with a fair bit of irony.
Now that’s satire.
Do not women have the God given Constitutional right to vote?
Kerry blacker than Bush? Gore blacker than Bush? Tough calls there.
Bill Clinton, our first "first Black President" didn't do so well among African-Americans. Perot cut into his margins.
.... and in any case, bloc-voting is toxic to the Republic and bad citizenship in the first place.
97% of Mississippians and 98% of South Carolinians for Franklin Roosevelt? Sure, pretty toxic.
Considering what FDR brought us, yeah. Pretty much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.