Posted on 03/20/2012 3:16:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Fix's Chris Cillizza marvels at Rick Santorum's increasing polling strength among Republican women, as measured by a new Washington Post/ABC News poll:
Judging from the coverage of Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign over the last few weeks, you might think that the former Pennsylvania Senator’s numbers would be cratering among women.
But you would be wrong. Way wrong.
In a new Washington Post-ABC poll, Santorum’s numbers among Republican and Republican-leaning women have soared over the past month. He now has the highest favorability rating among that group of any of the top-tier Republican presidential candidates. ...
The poll numbers reinforce findings from recent exit polls that suggest Santorum is holding steady — if not strengthening — among Republican women. In Alabama, Santorum beat former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by eight points among women; in Mississippi, Santorum took 35 percent among women to 32 percent for Romney.
Cillizza cites three theories for why Santorum has proved so popular with the fairer sex. One theory suggests his increased favorability rating among females is just the result of growing recognition of Santorum’s name, in general. Another suggests women find him a sympathetic figure because he has endured a relentless onslaught of attacks for his social views from the media. A third suggests that he’s successfully framed the key “women’s issue” of this election — the contraception mandate — as more about government encroachment on personal beliefs than about contraception itself.
None of these theories go far enough. Increased name recognition, for example, doesn’t explain why women like Santorum more than men do. The media theory discounts the truth that all the GOP candidates have been relentlessly vetted by the MSM. The third theory ignores that Santorum hasn’t always done a good job framing the contraception issue in terms of freedom.
So what is it? As a Republican woman who has liked Rick Santorum ever since I first read of his pro-life work as a senator (in an e-mail from a pro-life list-serv to which I was subscribed), I can at least speak for myself. I appreciate that Rick Santorum speaks up for the many women in this country who do have radically different views from the mainstream about what women are uniquely able to offer to society. For too long, feminists have pretended to speak for all of us — as though we are all eager to neuter ourselves, to obliterate gender difference, to deny our own fertility. When Santorum speaks about social issues, I hear in his voice a kind of awe at the mystery of womanhood that is sadly lacking among liberals. His awareness that women only can be mothers — and that mothering, whether physical or spiritual, is something every society needs — permeates his views about, for example, contraception and stay-at-home motherhood as one of the most important careers a woman can choose. Plenty of women never articulate their views about what it means to be a woman, but most of us sense innately that we are different from men and that, in that difference, there is also a complementarity. When we pretend to be like men to prove our equality, that complementarity is lost. When we embrace what makes us women — namely, our unique ability to give birth to the next generation (again, both physically and spiritually) — that complementarity is restored. Santorum encourages us to do just that — to embrace our womanhood.
It’s crazy, isn’t it? That a man has, in a way, become the first in a long time to speak up for the right of women to be women. While the rest of society tells us our fertility is a disease, Santorum tells us (and shows us by his own family) it’s our glory and our strength, our greatest source of influence. What woman wouldn’t like to hear that? We’re not just our fertility, of course, and not all women are able to physically have children, but I fail to see how the denial of a woman’s potential for physical and spiritual motherhood is at all empowering or uplifting.
Again, I speak only for myself here, but I’d be very surprised if many women, even if only subconsciously, aren’t drawn to Santorum as a candidate for the same reasons I am.
We’ll all have a problem with him if he wins, when obama steam-rolls over him in November.
Why don’t Republican women have a problem with Willard Mitt Romney?
OK, but who of the other 3 candidates do better against Obama in the polls?
See here for instance:
I AM a conservative FIRST; however, I AM a Republican woman, AND I DO “HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RICK SANTORUM”!!!
GO NEWT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you explain to us what your problem is with Santorum that Newt does not have?
All I can tell you is my two twenty something married with children daughters have trouble with him. And yes they are social conservatives and born again Christians. They ain’t voting for Ricky. We might even lose them to the other side. And they agree with him on the issues, they just can’t stand the way he talks about them. Truth.
I have trouble with him because he’s not well informed on the economy and issues facing the country. He’s not evil so he is a step better than Romney and Obama. But he is a socialist and want a nanny state with himself in charge of the rule making.
Yes, Gooooo Newt!
Well, not trying to speak for my daughters they just think he is a light weight and does not know how to speak to the heart of people about the issues he cares about. They even agree with him most of the time. Wierd.
Actually Sara, I would like to be in charge of everything. But my wife already told me know way. So there you go.
> We’ll all have a problem with him if he wins, when obama
> steam-rolls over him in November.
We don’t have a candidate that can beat 0bama0, the way things are today. I submit the only one who could have done so, despite his flaws, was Herman Cain.
Newt, though favored by most of the conservative base, is not liked by the Mushy Middle, and hated by 0bama0’s base.
Santorum will have trouble mobilizing the conservative base.
Romney is 0bama0 light, so the “independents” and mushy middle are less likely to vote for him.
Ron Paul ....
Well, I’ll just let that one hang there. The only thing he’s got going for him is that some of 0bama0’s base might actually vote for him, but that should worry conservatives, not motivate them.
> they are social conservatives and born again Christians.
...
> We might even lose them to the other side.
So, you’re telling me your born-again, Christian kids would consider voting for a rabid pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Marxist alien.
Given that piece of information, I would have to question the level of their commitment to Christ.
I like Santorum over Romney, Gingrich over Santorum, and Palin over everybody.
Just exactly how is it that Sen. Santorum talks about them. Do you mean they don’t like men who treat them with respect? They would prefer a man who lies to them and is trying to ruin this country, like Obama. That’s truly sad. I feel sorry for you.
Well... I ALSO HAVE “A PROBLEM” WITH MITT ROMNEY!!!
GO NEWT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Could've easily been Newt, but Newt can't beat Obama if he can't beat Willard.
So its Santorum.
The alternatives are too ugly to contemplate.
Please allow me to “correct” my comments:
FIRST AND FOREMOST, I AM A CONSTITUTIONALIST.
That should explain WHY I support Newt over ANY of the other candidates...
People can see Rick is a good man by the way he treats his family. He has become more and more conservative over the years. Many of these women, like me, are very concerned about the culture war on our children. Freedoms being stripped by this president, the left. If we lose our kids to the lefts ideas and to the culture, we will have lost what is most important in life. Rick is the only candidate talking to this issue. There are times I can’t sleep wondering what the future will be like for our kids. The left has taken God out of schools, and look at the results. They have taken God out of the public square, wherever they can. Schools have replaced God with sex ed and gay ed. Kids are being socialized in school and being dumbed down. We need someone who will speak to the moral disease that is a cancer on this nation.
He’s anti-baby killing, he’s anti-pornography, he’s a devout family man who treats women with respect.
Hmm. I can see why women would be expected to hate him. < /sarc >
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.