Posted on 11/10/2010 5:39:30 AM PST by FreeManDC
ading up to Tuesday’s election, all the pundits were predicting this would be the Year of the Woman. And true to form, the female electorate outnumbered men, 53% to 47%. But after the polling places had closed and the ballots had been counted, in race after race it was men who cast the deciding vote.
How could this be true?
The reason is the female vote split right down the middle — 49% going for the Republicans and 48% for the Democrats. In contrast, the male electorate was far more unified, with 56% giving the nod to the GOP candidate and 42% going Democratic, as highlighted by this CNN poll. (The percentages don’t add to 100% because of third party candidates.)
So in Florida, 64% of men pulled the lever for Rubio, while only 44% of women did the same, handing Rubio a convincing 20-point gender gap advantage with men. In New Hampshire, 65% of men supported Kelly Ayotte, compared to 55% of women. In Pennsylvania, Republican Pat Toomey scored a 10-point advantage with the male electorate. And in Wisconsin, insurgent GOP candidate Ron Johnson edged out incumbent Russ Feingold thanks to an 8-point lead with the guy team.
For sure, the female vote appeared to be decisive in some senatorial races, such as in Arkansas, Illinois, and South Carolina. But far more often, a look at the exit poll numbers reveals men were the electoral king-makers, such as in Indiana (Dan Coats), Ohio (Rob Portman), and in countless House races.
Despite the euphoria of the moment, one sobering fact remains: Despite heady pre-election predictions, the Republicans did not take the Senate. There the Democrats still rule the roost with a solid 53-47 majority.
Let’s look at the four races where Republican candidate ran neck-and-neck with the Democratic opponent throughout the campaign, but in the end faltered: Nevada, Colorado, California, and Washington.
In the closely watched Nevada contest, Harry Reid’s web site featured a six-page “Working for Women’s Issues” promo, festooned with 13 “Highlights of Senator Reid’s Women’s Issues Record.” Yes, Harry is a swell guy!
So how did Sharron Angle counter in order to attract the male vote? Well, do a web search on the words “Sharron Angle” and “men’s issues,” and you’ll come up drier than a red-spotted toad marooned on the macadam in a Nevada heat wave.
So in the end, 53% of women went for Harry Reid, and 48% of men voted for Sharon Angle. First Lost Opportunity.
In Colorado, the contest featured weeks of Democratic Party ads hitting Buck for his supposedly less-than-progressive views on women’s rights. “Ken Buck. He’s too extreme for Colorado” became the Democratic sing-along.
And what was Buck’s proactive approach to attracting men? Among campaign strategists, it’s known as the 3-Z strategy: Zip, Zilch, and Zero. As a result, 56% of women voted Democratic and 53% of men went Republican.
Lost Opportunity Number Two.
But the night isn’t over, so now it’s On to California!
Of course, throughout her senatorial career, Barbara Boxer has been at the forefront of every radical feminist issue de jour. These accomplishments were paraded on her “Highlights of Senator Boxer’s Record on Women” website, complete with a flattering YouTube video.
In contrast, Carly Fiorina, who had bootstrapped her way to become CEO of Hewlett-Packard, immediately commanded the respect of male voters who are wary of tax-and-spend Democrats. But what were her views on issues of unique concern to men, like rampant bias in the family court system and woeful funding for prostate cancer research? No one knew for sure.
In the end, her ship was torpedoed by the female vote that swung sharply — 55% — for Boxer, while only 46% of men voted for the GOP luminary.
L.O. Number Three.
But one more chance up in the Pacific Northwest, where the legendary “Mom in Tennis Shoes” was still duking it out with the GOP’s never-say-die candidate, Dino Rossi. But the Washington contest played out almost identically as in California, with the flat-footed Rossi continually on the defensive in the battle for the gender vote.
On a night when the Republican Party scored stunning advances with city councils, state houses, and governor’s mansions across the nation, the GOP’s Achilles’ heel was in the United States Senate, where Harry Reid and his Democratic minions will continue to call the shots for the next two years.
Hopefully next time around the Republicans will stop ignoring the male electorate, the demographic that TV commentator Tucker Carlson has dubbed “America’s single most important voting bloc.”
Men wield this thing called “Common Sense”.
Now the election's over can we dispense with this revisionist nonsense? Fiorina was reviled by HP's old guard (including a member of the founding family) as well as the rank and file and she oversaw some historically disastrous moves. HP still has not recovered.
There is a reason women were not allowed to vote. That reason has not changed.
Wall Street Journal had an article where they reported that about 80% of the layoffs since 2008 have been men.
Men are being absolutely economically hammered in this great Recession. Furthermore, most of the jobs being created are primarily directed at women including a majority of the government jobs.
When Democrats like Robert Reich make statements that any shovel ready jobs created should NOT go to white males, why would any white male vote for the Democrat Party??
Now, now. Women can be stupid as can men. At least 49% of us voted Republican this time. And what of Marco Rubio? I thought he’d get more women votes based on looks alone, maybe they counted the transgendered as female who I am sure voted Crist!
And a lot of liberal zombie women vote using this thing called "Emotion".
It is very hard to morally support female suffrage when you look at the outcome.
Face reality. The woman voting block will slow our progress every time. They are still the number one block that votes against us.
As a female, your tone almost sounds like you want me to vote against republicans/conservatives just to prove your point. Maybe not telling women they “slow your progress” and that they shouldn’t be able to vote might go a long way toward getting their vote. Face that reality.
Repeal the 19th Amendment
Women generally vote for security, men for freedom.
That’s why women weren’t allowed to vote. Freedom is no longer as important at the voting booth as it used to be.
Facts are facts. If it were the men, we’d be saying the same thing.
And we are supposed to be thrilled with the fact that women on the balance were a vote for more communism? Please.
Look, we have enough problems already. The fact that women consistantly voted for more socialism, more government, more spending is a serious issue.
Shift this from 49 to 51, and it is a sea change. Why aren’t you ladies as angry as the rest of us at your fellow ladies?
Here’s a simple test;
A small boy is climbing a tree in the backyard.
Someone calls out “Get down right now before you fall and hurt yourself”. Someone else yells out “hey do you see that branch righ above you’re head, do you think you can climb up that high?”
Which person made each statement, mom or dad?
Depends. I was the girl in the tree.
Exactly. Fight for those two percentage points instead of telling women they shouldn’t vote and you’ve got your sea change. A lot of woman are put off by some of the rhetoric you seem to be using. A lot like me grew up listening to that rhetoric and yet were able to put it aside and embrace true conservative values, not the disenfranchisement of over half the population. Women got the vote, what 1920? Can’t blame my gender for Woodrow Wilson et al if you want to talk about usurping freedom.
Depends on what?
Depends on who your mom and dad are. I know just as many moms as dads that would encourage the kid to climb the tree higher.
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.