[Rodamala]

awesome... this will split the democrat vote.

[kearnyirish2]

“awesome... this will split the democrat vote.”

I don’t think so; more likely it will rope in a certain demographic, and in the end the party will determine that the Dem candidate best represents their views (against the Republican candidate).

Dems need to set up a few of these groups, to convince various demographics (especially those at odds with each other - like blacks and Hispanics fighting for the same affirmative action freebies) to vote for the Dem candidate. It is to prevent any rational “preferred minorities” from abandoning the Dems, no matter how much worse their lots in life have become under the Obama/Dem regime.

[eater-of-toast]

Could split off some pro-abortion Republican ladies. There are more than a few.

[AuH2ORepublican]

In New York State, candidates can run under more than one ballot line; it is common for the Republican nominee also to be the nominee of the Conservative Party and for the Democrat nominee also to be the nominee of the Working Families (sic) Party. So to the extent that the new Women’s Equality (sic) Party nominates the Democrat nominee, it won’t split the pro-abortion vote. Where it might get fun, though, is when the new WEP nominates someone even more militantly pro-abortion than the Democrat, which might indeed result in the pro-abortion vote being split and give the Conservative and Republican nominee to win with a plurality.

[Lexinom]

That was my thought. It could prove a very good thing by offloading some of the death stench within the Democrat party and providing a home for the more rabid and bloodthirsty extremists in that party.

I'm scratching my head as to how keeping abortion (nevermind late term abortion) legal, thereby providing a means for "friends" to pressure women into doing something unnatural which decision they will live with the rest of their lives, is somehow "equality" for women. Are men really that miserable?