Posted on 09/20/2007 7:17:05 AM PDT by HoosierGirl25
Fact: 54% of voters in the 2004 election were women and that’s good news for Hillary Clinton (D-NY). According to various news reports, Clinton employs six full-time staffers specifically for women’s outreach -- more than any other candidate -- to reel in the female vote.
For now, Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the Democratic race by a 42-23% (according to the latest RCP poll) margin and will likely take the nomination for 2008. She knows how critical that female vote is, which is why she participated in a Women in Public Policy (WIPP) event yesterday. Clinton used the opportunity to tout her freshly unveiled healthcare agenda.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Yawn. They say this every election cycle.
“Have you ever heard of an “educated moron” ? I believe there’s a surfeit of them clogging up the halls of academia.
Personally, I think only those people who are willing AND able to unclog a toilet should be allowed to vote.”
And here you apply your own stereotype, and base a belief on it. Interesting.
54% of voters in the 2004 election were women and George W. Bush won. How exactly is that good news for Hillary?
Never underestimate the contempt accomplished women can have for a woman who’s trying to skate into the White House on her husband’s coattails. Hillary will not get 50% of the women’s vote in ‘08.
Read the definition of stereotype and the difference will become clear. Or maybe not, if you can’t think beyond a stereotype.
An interesting read: http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/stereotypes.htm
Stereotypes don’t change - hence their endurance over millenia - even when directly countered by facts.
Of course their heads aren't full of mush.
How is unclogging a toilet a stereotype ?
Or - let me guess - you don’t think women can do so, thereby playing into your own stereotpe ?
Note that I neither said nor implied any gender, since the usual tool to perform the deed is not gender specific.
You, stuck in a rut, fell into the trap. And that’s why stereotypes are often useless.
One the bright side, sadly no longer elect the best candidate but at least we elect the cutest candidate with the best looking spouse and children.
“Stereotypes don’t change - hence their endurance over millenia - even when directly countered by facts.”
And from the source you cite:
“We change our stereotypes infrequently. “
Ok, so infrequently now means never? Or do you simply make this up as you go along?
English is a dynamic language, but back in the day when I was taught what a stereotype was, it was taught as a generalized belief based on experience of a small sample. A stereotype doesn’t have to be race or gender based.
No, you clown, I said this:
The rise of socialism in this country coincides with teh women's suffrage movement.
Coincides, as in "2. To happen at the same time or during the same period."
The rise of socialism happened during the sme period (late 19th, early 20th Century) as the Women's suffrage movement, culminating in the 19th Amendment.
Are you dense?
You can add me to that list. I’d vote for my pet goldfish before I’d vote for that.... person ( being charitable here! ).
If only men voted, Bill Clinton would not have been President!
But all those women have been voting for male presidents. So isn't the problem with the men?
“You, stuck in a rut, fell into the trap. And that’s why stereotypes are often useless.”
You are so busy screaming, you don’t have time to think or read. The stereotype I referred to is the “educated moron”. Once again, stereotypes are not limited to race or gender.
In fact, the unclogging toliet is another stereotype. The stereotype that only someone willing to do work, in this case decidedly unglamorous work, is capable of discriminating thought.
Here’s a hint, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Look, CLOWN, the women’s suffrage movement did not put a hex on men to vote certain ways. Nor did all of a sudden in the late 19th century did women get politically active, where they were never active before.
Do you think women have not been politically active for millenia ? I guess Elisabeth Tudor was apolitical, or Mary Queen of Scots, or Abigail Adams, or masses of other women not even recorded by history.
Obviously not - you think it all started in the late 1800s.
As I said, you need to read some history.
It’s always the last resort of people in the wrong when they start calling names instead of debating with facts.
You are in it deep, pal, because you are really straining for relevance.
Bill Clinton never had a majority of the vote, male or female, in either election.
I’d have to see the raw numbers to know whether you are right or not. Sources ?
Have a nice day, and thanks for the chuckle.
“You are in it deep, pal, because you are really straining for relevance.”
Yes, it is a strain. I’ve factually refuted you with your own source and you ignore it. You respond just like a liberal. I’ll consider you as such until proved otherwise. See, stereotypes do have a use.
Be gone troll.
bad news for the unborn
how’s that in your face Sally!
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.