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.
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
I’m sooooooooo glad I read your post before I went postal on some of the knuckle-draggers here, LOL!
It went a huge way to calming me down before I added to the stupidity that is this thread...
I really don’t care how ANYONE pegs me when it comes to my voting record. It speaks for itself with ONE misguided vote for Sen. Russ Feingold long ago - but he was the lesser of two evils in my state at the time and I didn’t want to ruin my PERFECT voting attendance record up until that point, LOL!
Well, Rusty’s gone now - thrown out with a flourish, so all is well in My Little World. :)