Posted on 05/03/2024 7:09:53 AM PDT by rod5591
Nope, but that’s just a fact. Warren Harding is the proof. Bill Clinton is the proof. Obama is the proof.
Women vote for the one the most fantasize about sexually, or as a “daddy” provider. They are nesters and it’s their natural way.
It has intensified since marriage fell on hard times after the pill and no fault divorce.
Now the fair sex runs almost 60% for communists. According to Pew, in the last 4 decades a permanent gender gap has women voting 10 more than men for Democrats.
And with abortion in the mix, under 30 females run 24% higher for Dems.
It’s just a fact. Conservative women could best achieve the society they wanted by all women getting the vote taken away. But that will never happen, so here we are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m0vtpyUbQY
Here is an amazing short vid on why women voted for Harding in their first election.
I’ve spent enough time with you mbrfl whatever that means.
You accused Vivek supported according to you by your vibe.
I’m done.
Good bye and good luck.
He is a good dark horse pick as far as chances of being the one selected.
His betting odds have been consistently lower than the publicity that he has garnered.
Look you can watch a video & think you’ve figured out why women vote for a candidate, but instead of listening to a theory on why women vote the way they do- try listening to one with a response. Conservative women vote their values more than their economic views. Libertaria dismissed & free markets are mainly am appeal to men. That isn’t to say we don’t take economics into consideration, it just takes a back seat to moral values. Leftist women vote the way they do bc they see themselves as paragon of tolerance & social justice.
Moderate women are essentially like moderate men- wishy washy, unmoored to firm principles & much easier target vote getting appeals at. I would also say that moderate women are likely the ones represented in your theory & the video. When you don’t have well formed, principled views & are in need of having moronic politicians craft lame appeals toword you just to win your votes. They would most likely be the ones who are prone to deciding a vote on something so superficial. They’re likely also the ones who vote based we d on personality or likeableness. Those aren’t representative of anything approaching a majority.
They are the equivalent of the men who think Kristy Noem or Lauren Boebert would make a great VP because they like her rack. Men are more visual creatures than women. As far as Bill Clinton 🤮🤢 or Obama 🤮🤮. Gross! Men on here need to stop commenting on banning women’s votes bc yall aren’t doing conservatives any favor. By the way, not sure you’d notice but Trump is winning 45% of women, barely under half & nearly even. Trump is winning 52% of men. Barely above half. That means 48% of males are potentially voting for a leftist moron. If men were all that different than chick’s politically, I’d expect more of a difference between the two. Nearly half of your own gender votes the wrong way too 🤔😉
I like Gabbard.... she is smart well spoken, strong on military, female, her home state doesn’t help much but I don’t see her as president but she could be a lot of help to Trump but a lot of the “female” democrates in the house and senate would hate her guts.
Youngkin is a RINO!!!
Totally agree. Vance it is~
Byron Donalds
I agree, Vance or Tulsi Gabbard. Leaning toward Gabbard. Very bright, admirable military career, Terrific speaker and knowledgable regarding foreign entanglements. She would likely have the veterans vote, as well as many of the women. She comes across as likeable and knows the ins an outs of D.C. politics.
Governor Burgum campaigned for President here in New Hampshire and got no traction. Although highly qualified, he would add little to the ticket.
My frivolous vote goes to Condoleezza Rice.
I held the door for Dick Cheney as he entered the Jackson, Wyoming post office to rent a PO Box.
Let’s not vote like a senseless, empty headed modern woman. With the eyes only and not looking at policies. Remember OBozo? “He dresses so sharp, sigh.” Started back with JFK over Nixon.
Go JD!
You asked me a question. I gave you the short answer. You complained that that wasn’t good enough for you, so I gave you a more thorough answer with examples. So you won. You got what you asked for. Aren’t you happy? I gave you plenty of the objective reasons as to why Vivek is not trustworthy, that you asked for. Isn’t that what you wanted? No I guess not. I guess you didn’t really want a debate after all. Good bye.
In 2016, enough male Democrats voted against the person: Hillary Clinton.
In general, I find Democrats who are divided between tendencies to vote on
- personality
- policy
But most left-wing media chant against Republican policy while actually being very opposed to the Republican candidate’s personality.
California Governor Newsom definitely attracts votes for personality.
B. Clinton and B. Obama attracted votes for personality. B. Clinton and B. Obama were re-elected on “That’s Entertainment” tickets. Bob Dole (1996) was respected as a WW-II veteran, but not entertainment; Mitt Romney on another tack, was NOT favored by Reagan Democrats who oppose neo-Fettermans in “the man” clothing.
IMHO
Tulsi Gabbard is very much aware the she attracts votes for personality, but the voter cannot tell what kind of a pitch she will throw, next. Point being: She knows what sells, yet she hides herself.
Fetterman sells “man on the street” level personality, as NYC Mayor Adams will at select moments in a public setting.
Trump's "volatile" and Burgum is the polar opposite from what I've seen.
Little Marco not a good fit in any way I can see.
Same for Tim Scott. Say what you want about Tim Scott, he presents himself as a decent, man of faith and I just don't see a fit between him and Trump.
That leaves JD Vance. A couple years of experience in the US Senate makes him VP material? I think he's a logical guy, well spoken, presents his ideas and arguments well but is he "ready?"
My only conclusion is: it's not really any of the above. It's someone else and it's going to be a surprise.
Tulsi Gabbard attracts Chamber of Commerce policy-travelling salesmen. She already won the swimsuit competion that offends the liberal media.
She can win against a RINO Paul Ryan + Fetterman ticket . . . in debate, but voters still do not know her.
The Angry Women Tent of the Democrat-HAMAS Encampment occupying The Vacuum of American Leadership, will oppose Gabbard with every last sharp claw of their unmentionables.
I would much prefer a conservative Republican who is very well versed in our worthy American heritage AND NOT in public office. We ought not pull people from public offices.
Tulsi would be a great cabinet pick but sorry. I believe women shouldn’t be in high office except for the rare Margaret Thatcher woman who thinks with logic and not emotion. Probably better chance of finding a 3 legged spotted and striped purple unicorn who speaks Norweigan.
I think folks need to remember that, in addition to making picks, the people picked must also be on board with serving with and for Trump.
In my opinion, that was a problem during Trump’s earlier term. He could pick the best people. But if they didn’t want the position he offered, then he had to offer the positions to others who did. And he got who he got. I think a lot of good people that may have been tapped had an eye to an uncertain future and worried if they worked with Trump, their chances of working with another administration could be severely diminished and perhaps politely refused.
JMHO on that matter.
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.