Replies

http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/IWPR-Release-11-11-04.pdf

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/11-04-2004/0002356048&EDATE=

_______________________________

Women gave Senator Kerry just a three point edge in 2004. In 2004, Al Gore won the women's vote by more than ten points. That's 7 percent who switched sides.

__________________________

The US Population in 2004 was 54.5% women

More women register to vote than men. Some 68.7 million women were registered to vote in 2000 compared to 59.4 million men.

Women vote in higher numbers than men, and have done so in every election since 1964. In 2000, 7.8 million more women voted than men did. In 2004, 8.8 million more women voted.

Though more women Democratic, more women CHANGED their vote to Bush in 2004 than men changed in either direction. Add that to the overall greater numbers of women voting, and it tipped the scales, though just barely.

Also, more women are independent and swing voters than men in either party. Again, since they vote in higher numbers than men in either party, their collective votes are crucial.

Given the above, even a statistically small shift in women voters towards Republican candidate can make a big differnce in a tight elections, like the last 2 presidential elections we've had.

I'd say women's votes are pretty damn important. Political campaigns think so too. Only a handful of dinosaur males (sad to say mostly Republican males) discount women's political clout and somehow, idiotically, think insulting women will help them politically.

You originally wrote: There are more women than men and women vote in higher numbers than do men. This worked in Bush's favor in 2004.

I asked how Bush benefitted, to which you replied: Women gave Senator Kerry just a three point edge in 2004. In 2000, Al Gore won the women's vote by more than ten points. That's 7 percent who switched sides.

That's all well and good, but what it means in the real world is that Bush lost the women's vote in 2004 by less than in 2000. The women's vote would only benefit the Republicans if they won it.

Only a handful of dinosaur males (sad to say mostly Republican males) discount women's political clout and somehow, idiotically, think insulting women will help them politically.

I don't think I've insulted women. In fact, discussions such as this one are pretty much prohibited by Political Correctness, so it isn't as if they're commonplace. If someone told me that men shouldn't have the vote, I wouldn't feel the least bit insulted.

The TOTAL women’s vote did not work in Bush’s favor, the SWING in the vote worked in his favor compared to 2000. NON-EXISTANCE of it would have been more in his favor because percentage-wise it would have been mathematically equivalent to 50% of the women’s vote vs. the 48% he actually got in 2004 and the 45% he got in 2000.

This is just an academic discussion about statistics, not about keeping women barefoot and pregnant as you appear to believe.

And us idiotic Republican men don’t discount the clout of womens vote, precisely the opposite because it is working against us. It’s working against you too, if your a Republican and/or Conservative.

This discussion is really just Cons/Repub sour grapes anyway. The women’s vote isn’t going away. Our time would be better spent on showing women why it’s in their best interest to vote for us, and get that all-important swing.