Prokopton: Which is nice.
Posted on 07/03/2011 10:43:29 AM PDT by Nachum
The founders were 1 for 2. They never should have given women suffrage. At least since Kennedy, women have always gone for the Democrat promising the most security.
2008
Obama
Women 56%
Men 49%
Women elected Obama
2004
GW Bush
Men 55%
Women 48%
Men elected GW Bush
51% of women voted for Kerry
2000
GW Bush
Men 53%
Women 43%
Men elected GW Bush
54% of women voted for Gore
1996
Clinton
Women 54%
Men 43%
Women re-elected Clinton
1992
Clinton
Women 45%
Men 41%
Women elected Clinton
1988
Men 57%
Women 50%
1984
Men 62%
Women 56%
They both elected Reagan
1980
Men 54%
Women 46%
Men elected Reagan
45% of women voted for Carter
1976
Men 50%
Women 50%
Both elected Carter
Now add in the fact that there are ALWAYS more women voters than men in every election, and now you know that if women had never gotten the vote, our country would not be racing toward socialism, despite the very rabid socialist men in the Democratic Party.
I mean no disrespect to the active but small minority of Conservative Freeper women who do not vote the way most US women vote.
But the sad fact is that, if women had never gotten the vote, the sacrifice Freeper women would have made in not being able to vote would have been a huge net plus to this nation, to insure that the massive numbers of liberal women would not swamp their vote.
I hope I haven’t infuriated the Freeper ladies, but the fact as you can see above, is that if women could not vote, Obama and Clinton would never have been elected.
I can’t find much on the gender gap before 1976, but this 1972 article from Gloria Steinem of all people, does some up how women tend to vote:
http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2002/steinem.asp
Excerpts from the article:
“Politically, the Princeton man is a liberal Republican,” the study concluded, but the wives were “more liberal politically.”
71 percent of the women questioned believed that “women are more sensitive to the problems of the poor and underprivileged than men are.”
Women also believed that females were generally less hardened to the suffering of other people.
Louis Harris said, “Women are more inclined now to vote and to become active not only for their own self-interest, but for the interest of society, the world, and most of all, out of compassion for humanity.”
In 1968 women voters were still not turning out in the same proportion as men. If they had, Humphrey would have won in 1968.
In spite of our generally more liberal voting, we have less party loyalty than men, black or white, and react less to labels of “liberals” or “conservatives.” decide.
Apparently, we are becoming less “conservative.” Even about ourselves.
They didn't deny it either. That was left to the states.
ABC reveals their loathing for America’s tradition and values.
I can remember when the day before Independence Day would be nothing but reminders of who we are and the sacrifices made to make this country, of our special place in the world, of how blessed we are to enjoy the special benefits and FREEDOM of being an American.
ABC doesn’t even try to disguise how much they hate patriots, the founders, freedom, traditional values, property rights, state sovereignty, the military, religion and family.
I really never thought I would see this in my lifetime. I really didn’t.
They really are communist to the corpse. Pun intended.
Not only that, If I’m not mistaken, there was a time when you would only see a mans face reading the news on ABC.
Prokopton: Which is nice.
Seems as if, occasioned somehow by the Fourth of July weekend, the topic was the Constitution. Obviously, it's the Declaration of Independence that was promulgated on the Fourth, but since the Constitution is frequently mentioned in the same breath and has been elevated in profile in recent years by discussions of Obama, his eligibility, and his actions in office, the lefties controlling the content of the show steered the discussion in their desired direction.
Nothing that was said by these people on ABC with regard to the Founding Fathers, slavery, and women is surprising at all. It's become almost automatic for the Left to discredit the plain meaning of the Constitution by painting the authors of it as racists and misogynists.
The Left's current agenda can only be achieved by effectively dismantling the Constitution as written, so it behooves them to divert attention from the constitutional text by generalized attacks on its writers. That's about the only way the Constitution can be viewed from the perspective of the Left: not as the supreme law of the land, but as a malleable, "living, breathing" piece of ancient history that serves only an impediment to their socialist program.
Thanks for the ping!
People stupid enough to just yesterdays actions by todays standards should not be allowed to write stories about history
The USA GOT RID OF SLAVERY
It was accpeted practice throughout history before the USA came into existance.
They didnt know any better before that- but they still knew enough to want to and finally proceed to ending it.
That's technically true, but the powers granted to the federal government under the new Constitution were enumerated in Article I, and hence limited. Many of the enumerated powers, BTW, had also been granted to Congress under the Articles of Confederation, but the means to execute these powers under the Articles were hampered by the requirements that Congress could only levy taxes directly on the respective states by apportionment, and by the requirement that all Congressional acts needed the approval of nine of the thirteen state delegations in Congress.
And when one says that the Constitution created "a stronger federal government," it must be pointed out there was no federal government at all before the Constitution, only a confederal structure. So "stronger" is accurate only by comparison to the very weak central government in place previously.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
When women first started voting, they didn't have that much of an effect on elections, voting almost always the same as their husbands. The first presidential election in which women voted nationally was in 1920. If women had any effect on the outcome of national elections from then until 1960, it seems that hardly any pundits took notice.
However, there were studies from the years when women could vote in some states and not in others, which showed that states allowing women voting increased state spending significantly more than states not allowing women to vote.
In recent decades, with the decreased percentage of married women in the population sparked by the feminist movement, there has been a more pronounced gender gap, with women voting more 'Rat than men.
The redefinition of history by imposing todays morality retroactively for 200 years?
What a laugh.
I suppose one could say the men dressed like fags because they wore silk hose in Washington’s day?
These leftists are something else, just vitriolic, they dehumanize what they intend to destroy.
In doing so they prove themselves liberal fascists worse that those they decry in their adjudgement of history.
Oh yes, we know who THEY are, and we intend to send them packing.
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.