Posted on 08/25/2012 9:12:34 AM PDT by A'elian' nation
Yes. I agree with you.
Yet, Hillary and Biden can talk as if they are wearing Blackface in a Minstrel Show, and they get away with it.
Go Figure.
There have been more women voters than men voters since 1964, and women register and vote at a higher percentage than men.
Men were taught to be self-reliant. Women were taught to be dependent on men, and, since the Great Society, on the government.
Now they are the dumb ones I was talking about, those that would change their vote on a largely irrelevant and trivial matter. Were any of them thinking that they might want an abortion or might get raped? And even if they did, abortion law is largely a state matter (within the paramaters of Roe V. Wade) over which a US Senator is likely to exercise little influence.
Mark
Is Frightwig her real last name, or did Charles Dickens dream it up?
Charles Dickens, at your service, sir...
Women voters had been skewing politics toward more government largesse long before the "Great Society," in fact even before the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified c. 1920.
I saw a study that evaluated state spending data from the period just before the Nineteenth Amendment. States that allowed women's suffrage had significantly greater increases in state spending in the years immediately following the start of women voting, when compared to states that did not allow women's suffrage in a comparable time frame. Conclusion: Women in general supported more government spending than men and put more pressure on government in that direction.
That pattern continued at the federal level, but with a lag period. Harding and Coolidge, the first two presidents elected with a significant number of female voters, were fiscal conservatives. But then came Hoover, who introduced some new government programs, followed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, who could be viewed as "Hoover on steroids" in terms of government expansion.
If the "ministry of propaganda" has as much clout as you fear, things are even worse than I thought.
Hard to see how the flap over Akin could depress Republican voter turnout in MO in a presidential election year in which Republicans own a significant advantage in the enthusiasm gap.
The question was when women voters began to outnumber men voters.
First, thanks for the ping! Been out of the loop a bit today as preparing for possible trouble with Issac. Really think FL panhandle area and AL,MS,LA will get the brunt but hope it isn't over a CAT 2!
As far as reports that “women tend to vote for the ‘rats’, I believe that is what the Media wants everyone to think and that is what they hope for! I find it hard to believe but maybe it is because I am a Conservative woman. AND even when I was a registered Demrat years ago, I was still conservative in my thinking! Hard to believe, right?
I will add that this coming election gives us all a clear choice, and women will no doubt turn out in droves. It is also my opinion that the women AND men who choose Obama in November will clearly be those who have done NO research, listen ONLY to Liberal Media, AND preally don't CARE that they know NOTHING about Obama!
It's pretty well known that in just about every general election contested between a Republican and a Democrat for any office anywhere in the country, the Democrat will do better among women than he/she will do among men. This is the so-called gender gap. It does not necessarily mean that the Democrat will win the majority of the women's vote, but the percentage of women voting for the Democrat will be greater than the percentage of men doing so.
The most common explanation given for the gender gap is that women in general have more of a vested interest in government handouts and thus agitate for the big government programs advocated by 'Rats more than men do. This statistically holds much more strongly for single women than it does for married women.
Thanks for the ping!
I just hope in November it doesn’t prove to be true!! We need a landslide AGAINST Obama!! That is what I pray for!!
Thanks justiceseeker93, well said.
Unfortunately, the "gender gap" is one of those things that will not be eradicated this year nor in the near future. It's kind of built in to the big government mentality and demographic structure of the population.
But don't get depressed about it. As I said, it doesn't necessarily mean that the women's vote will go overwhelmingly to Obama. Not at all. If Romney can come close to even with Obama among women voters, let alone beat him narrowly among women, men will vote very decisively for Romney so as to give him, if not a landslide, a decisive victory, perhaps on the order of Obama's win over McCain in '08 (6-7 percentage points difference in the popular vote). I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a greater Romney margin which could be termed a "landslide."
The "ministry of propaganda" (formerly known as the "mainstream media") still has a HUGE amount of clout.
I hate to say it, but FR is something of an "echo chamber" where it's easy to forget that not everyone thinks like many do here. I work in an industry where we have to deal with SOX, Dodd-Frank, and the CFPB, yet far more than half of the people I work with are Obama supporters. Everyone on them could very well be put out of work by Obama and his regime. But they're going to vote for him.
With very few exceptions, everyone I know get their new from the ministry, whether it's the NY Slimes, the KC Red Star, or any of the alphabet networks. Even people with access to high speed Internet don't really use it for keeping up to date on news and current events.
Mark
You might want to plug the FoxNews evening lineup to them: O'Reilly-Hannity-Van Susteren. Far from perfect, but still an improvement upon what they are currently reading and watching. Also, would it be dangerous to expose them to Limbaugh or Hannity on radio while you're at work?
Dang right they do! They circle the wagons and more often not come out no worse for the trouble.
One guy on our side stumbles and everyone's in a wobbly panic to put them down. Never an "On your feet, mate. Steady on and watch yer step."
The GOP should have clarified his statement, brushed it off as a misunderstanding, and gone immediately after McCaskill's record.
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.