Posted on 09/27/2011 2:15:38 PM PDT by ReformationFan
We have all heard about the sex gap in voting patterns. This is the phenomenon whereby, in every election, women are far more likely to support liberal candidates than men are. For instance, in 1996, Bill Clinton captured 54 percent of the women's vote but only 43 percent of the men's. And in subsequent elections, the male-female gap has been as follows: in 2000, Al Gore, 42-54; in 2004, John Kerry, 41-51; and in 2008, Barack Obama, 49-56. In fact, even in the watershed election of 2010, during which we heard about the rise of the conservative woman, the fairer sex favored Democrats by 1 point, 49 to 48. The Republican victories were attributable to a sex gap (I don't use the word "gender") that was as wide as ever, ranging from 4 to 19 points.
So, clearly, women tend to gravitate toward statist candidates. And there are many reasons for this. One is that, being the more emotion-driven sex, women are more susceptible to liberals' emotional appeals. Another is that where men are big-picture-oriented, women are detail-oriented. This feminine quality is wonderful when handling young children, whose lives must be micro-managed; the problem is that it also leads to acceptance of a micro-managing government that, ultimately, will treat us all like children. And then you have not just a nanny state (a feminine descriptive, mind you), but what we are quickly descending into: The Harridan State.
Yet there is an even greater reason why women veer left, and it's the one I'll focus on today.
They are the Security Sex.
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Silly little darlings...
One conclusion that could be drawn from this: The majority of women are IDIOTS.
The women got the vote and the nation got Harding.
Actually, I read an article on this a number of years ago. It can be further granularized. If you remove married women from the list it is wildly liberal. Single women want the government to be their sugar daddy. It’s the welfare state writ large: The state is better than a man because it won’t waste the money on booze, it won’t gamble away the rent check, it won’t sleep around and, let’s face it, living with another adult that doesn’t acquiesce to your every whim is just, well, hard.
There’s also the appeal of the message that says “it’s not your fault”.
Not only is ‘The View’ a hit, it is considered a show analyzing current events.
The demographic overlap between the observation in the thread, and the audience of The View is no coincidence.
Did you really just write that?
Although in gross numbers this is true, what is important in elections is the SHIFT in voters. In 2004, the shift in women voters toward Bush is what gave him his second term (the male vote between the parties remaind virtually unchanged from 2000).
This “women are silly” message is not a good one for conservatives to persue. It will hurt them.
More women are Independents than men. Conservatives will probably never get a majority of women’s votes ... but they can steadily get MORE of them. This is what is important.
Alienating potential voters, no matter how few, is not a smart political move (look how the liberal meme of voters not being smart enough hurt them in 2010).
Plus, there are many solidly conservative women who are turned off by this message.
Keep these statistics in mind:
1. There are more women eligible to vote than there are men eligible to vote.
2. There are more women registered to vote than men.
3. Registered women voters actually vote in larger percentages than male registerd voters. (In 2004, 8.8 MILLION more women voted than men did).
So even small shifts in women’s votes can make a big difference in an election.
You don’t have to have all the women’s votes, you just have to have enough to win.
Bump
They’re treating this country like a club, where they will let in thsoe who let them party, or who are ‘fun,’ but they don’t want to be part of a team that requires that they set aside personal preferences for the sake of the success of the ocmpany. They treat the workforce and this country as a playground where the responsible look out for them rather than looking after themselves.
With some unpleasant professional experiences in the workplace as a teenager, I can personally tell you with all sincerity that often in the workforce, they are looking for security and want to turn the workplace into a country club, not a place where they work together ot make the company work. It’s all about them and who they like being there and if they don’t like you, they will work to make it so miserable until you are driven out, no matter the cost to the company.
For them it’s all about a check, a place to socialize, and a place where they can be catered to (along with their chronically unstable temperments) and pampered. Not about working, learning the right skills, and taking pride on doing a good job.
Although in gross numbers this is true, what is important in elections is the SHIFT in voters. In 2004, the shift in women voters toward Bush is what gave him his second term (the male vote between the parties remaind virtually unchanged from 2000).
This “women are silly” message is not a good one for conservatives to persue. It will hurt them.
More women are Independents than men. Conservatives will probably never get a majority of women’s votes ... but they can steadily get MORE of them. This is what is important.
Alienating potential voters, no matter how few, is not a smart political move (look how the liberal meme of voters not being smart enough hurt them in 2010).
Plus, there are many solidly conservative women who are turned off by this message.
Keep these statistics in mind:
1. There are more women eligible to vote than there are men eligible to vote.
2. There are more women registered to vote than men.
3. Registered women voters actually vote in larger percentages than male registerd voters. (In 2004, 8.8 MILLION more women voted than men did).
So even small shifts in women’s votes can make a big difference in an election.
You don’t have to have all the women’s votes, you just have to have enough to win.
This is the most sexist, vomit inducing, stereotypical drivel I have ever read. Whatever idiot male wrote this has no knowledge of women whatsoever, outside of an abnormal fantasy life. Most Tea Party members are women, myself included.
OK. Women are not all just silly emotional voters.
Unless, of course, they are supporters of Ron Paul. In which case they are pot-smoking, unpatriotic, pro-abort, pro-homo isolationists!
/sarc
No, not really, read the article first before jumping to this conclusion. The author specifically mentions married women with children as NOT fitting this category of women wanting a nanny state. He goes into the reasons why. Apparently you two are not like your divorced, single mom-never-married, sisters and really resent being in the same cohort as them, i.e. women. That is a GOOD thing!
This thread could easily turn into a women-bashing thread but that is not what it is about. The article explains it well, better than I perhaps. Women being used as a cat’s paw is the take-away.
Repeal the 19th!!!!
I’m kidding ladies don’t hurt me!!!
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.