No ring, strong... and votes.
Posted on 11/27/2007 4:30:42 AM PST by TornadoAlley3
Fifty-year-old Carmen Cortez cleans buildings until 1 a.m. as a janitor in San Francisco and lives with her adult son. Courtney Harrell is a 32-year-old lesbian working in the film industry who rents an apartment with three others. Kathleen Moschel is a 63-year-old Republican and former Hallmark card store owner who lives in the Contra Costa County retirement community of Rossmoor.
Despite those differences, some political operatives and pollsters are herding these women into the same sprawling demographic: unmarried women. The "unmarried" bloc is emerging as this year's trendy political moniker, the granddaughter of the coveted "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads" micro-targeted by campaigns past.
So what's the reason for wooing unmarried female voters - whom the targeters define as anybody not wearing a ring?
A quarter of all eligible voters - 53 million - are unmarried women, according to an October study by the influential liberal polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, but 20 million did not vote in the most recent presidential election.
"They have the power to reshape American politics further, if they vote," according to the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner study. "Unmarried women have the potential to emerge as the 'Democrats' Evangelicals.' "
They're generally younger and have less household income than their married sisters, and they are turned off by the tit-for-tat repartee of political campaigns and the ensuing horse-race media coverage. And for the first time in a presidential race, there are as many unmarried women in America as married.
The key to appealing to them, said Ann Lewis, a senior strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign, is "to tap into their social networks," both online and offline.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Probably the single greatest reason I, a political junkie, find watching American election "news" practically unbearable.
So what’s the reason for wooing unmarried female voters - whom the targeters define as anybody not wearing a ring?
-
they are fiscally and socially more vulnerable and more receptive to liberal views.
What is it about being female and unmarried that makes one a Socialist by default?
Well that’s what this article says anyway...reality is that there’s only a slight trend towards unmarried women being more liberal.
No ring, strong... and votes.
I’m beginning to get the feeling that the “unmarried females” will come in and save the day for Hillary Clinton just as the youth vote elected President Al Gore and President John Kerry.
Geez, I’m 50, unmarried and a strong Republican - sorry Hillary!
He's talking about Hillary here, right?
As a media junkie but casual observer of campaign efforts, could you expand on that thought a little.
Oh you sick SOB, I am eating my breakfast here....
Nope, no reason to doubt this theory.
Yes but what the article doesn’t state are the proportions of unmarried females that each state contains. If larger proportions are to be found in already Democratic liberal states, they could vote in large numbers for hillary but still not affect the Electoral college to any great degree!
Maybe the best example is "angry white male," which originally a term introduced to diminish Newt's Contract With America. I can still hear Peter Jennings say the voters threw a "temper tantrum," when they handed control of the House to the Republicans.
Fact of the matter is, soccer moms go to NASCAR races, and NASCAR dads go to soccer games, and people sometimes vote "angry." And the media are lazy.
Because most unmarried women are unmarried mothers, (over 35 at least) and these women are natural targets for socialism. The liberals tell them it’s society’s fault for their problems and society’s responsibility for being parents to their kids. Now they can get services traditionally associated with fatherhood from government social workers paid for by the men they have no connection or responsibility to.
Lastly, no-fault divorce for families with kids and punitive (and unconstitutional) child support laws were the stupidest things republicans went along with liberals on. Republicans, trying to punish the welfare dad gave liberals the loaded gun to destroy the family.
Hillary and her Brown Shirts are trying to divide the country even further.
I doubt that it would bother most liberals if we had a revolution where any one with traditional values was silenced either by the government or by death.
The Lesbians mentioned made their sorry lives and now have to face the consequences of old age lonely and confused where money will not buy happiness.
I have posted several times......the sucessful candidate will be the one that promises to reduce feminine stress.
If you watch tv commercials two facts become clear. Womeen have a strong interest in reducing stress. Tthe products being pitched promise to reduce or eliminate stress.
Stress is a primary concern of American females.
The second most common promise is to hydrate. American women think that water is the answer and will buy anything with the prefix hydro or hydrate or hydration. They still seek the fountain and water of youth.
Who? Oh, you mean the spinsters?
Oh Lord if Hillary starts spamming me I am going to report it to my server as junk mail.
Courting the unmarried, Lesbian WallFlower vote.
(minus the Blonds who will vote a day late)
Well there goes my breakfast.....
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.