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.
I hear ya. Make no mistake. IF Santorum is the nominee I will vote for him. Basically I am ABO.
Are individual women that shallow? No, not that they'd admit or be consciously aware. But, preference among women for Presidential candidates over time does more than hint that as a group women evaluate candidates as they would evaluate a mate.
The phenomenon really came into its own with the election of JFK, and with the exception of Presidential elections wherein the incumbent was extremely unpopular, the trend holds. It arguably does even with unpopular incumbents.
Lesson, don't expect to win with a crabby old guy, especially a short one. Notable arrogance is also a sure loser, which dings both Romney and Gingrich. Paul is old and weird, to this reasoning.
Process of elimination - Santorum.
Try it with every Presidential election with which you're familiar enough to recall candidates other than the eventual nominee, let alone the actual election.
Well GingerC, you were partly right. But its always good to see the complete picture.
Ditto.
Rick is a social justice Catholic. He’s giving you hints that you are missing.
When he whines about birth control and gets himself all tied in a knot in the media, he could have avoided that if it was his instinct to denounce socialism - in this case socialized medicine.
When he tells America he’s not worried about unemployment why would that be his instinct? Socialists are always worried about the economy and want to make sure the government is not messing up job creation.
He is pro union and unions are not only socialist, they are international communists.
Rick’s main problem is that he is not a conservative thinker and leader is a follower of whoever is the leader of the GOP. No so with Newt.
Really? For starters, how do you reconcile Newt's long advocacy of energy cap & trade with conservative principles?
face it - both men are flawed candidates.
The telling difference is one currently has a much better chance of sparing us a Willard nomination and inevitable defeat in the fall.
It was not “long” and he denounced that position.
Has Santorum denounced the Union International communists? Bet the dummy does not even know the background and underground of who he empowers. Which is why he is a follower and not a leader.
So if Santorum denounced his alleged pro union lobbying you’d be oK with him as you are with Newt?
even more, I am thankful every day he is in this race to win....that we have a viable, true conservative candidate.
And he's winning against all odds....including the group at FR that feel so threatened by him.
Maybe women prefer a candidate whose main focus is on family and social issues. Who knows?
Groups arent monoliths. Im sure every woman who supports him has a reason, and there are probably many of them. Im sure those who dont are the same.
Second of all who the heck cares about a woman's issues with contraception when the country is going up in smoke!! It's a matter of priorities for crying out loud. The stupidity of some woman is more than astounding!....and I am one.
Obama wants the issues to focus on "sexual"..."race" and "religion" for it works to distract from his miserable failures on the important issues of our time. And it's a dang shame woman are falling for the bait.....further Obama is most delighted to think possible he'd be going up against Santorum.....reasons are obvious to any discerning voter...they'll frame the debates around these issues to make Santorum comfortable....and then deal the blow because Obama is all about womans issues.
So keep on taking the bait...and we'll be looking at Obama's administration another four years.
Often times lies are mistaken for opinions.
I think part of the issue is a lot people will think “I can live like a social conservative without needing the government to do anything”. I dont know that Santorum will convince enough people that he doenst want a theocracy. Not every voter (even Republicans) come to FR.
Agree
Mitt, Paul and now Newt are united against the only conservatives left who can still win aka Rick Santorum.
The framing of that remark is straight out of the Alynsky playbook ...
Nope,.... if you get Obama....Do Not Blame anyones kids or adults who refuse to buy the kool-aid your drinking......You can blame the Cardinals in the GOP college that sent the white smoke up the chimney on the fraud Romney... and the lightweight Santorum who loves nothing more than riding the waves he has not created but others have for him.
So SICK of the lectures about another four years of Obama.
If we win, let it be a dynnamic, results oriented, big picture, successful and conservative candidate who has the tools to do the surgery needed, and the experience to do the surgical strikes needed...... or let the idiot Obama completely destroy the country..........We apparently aren’t smart enough to learn from the last 100 years worth of mistakes.
If Romney or Santorum gets the nod, Obama wins by default..... And that’s it.... That’s the election.
So please, peddle the ‘Obama is going to be your fault’ among those who've managed to derail Newt time and again.... I’m not buying it, and neither should any sentient being still left in the conservative caucus.
“Moreover,....... IF we vote for Romney or Santorum, we're now personally responsible for what either is about to perpetrate,.... and I sure as heck won't get behind either for thier motives are not for this country but for their own motives and gain.... Romney for the Glory...and Santorum for the Ride..... Both have histories to prove as much.
Newt's not peddling religious dogma or doctine...he's promoting the Nation we were. and what it was founded on... the Constitution of The USA....He intends to Give the Glory back to God that's been lost and this thru the rightful place God holds within those documents...ALL true Americans can relate to that....
It's Newt or nothing at all!!!! Go Newt Go!!!!! On to Convention!!!!!!
Often times brainless people are mistaken for conservatives.
So what about you? Why are you supporting a guy who supports international communism?s
Cause he's running against that moron assclown WrongMee?
Why are you supporting a rookie who thinks the election is not about the economy rather about his preferences in birth control for women?
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.