It’s true that the GOP has a problem with women. I’d estimate it’s about a 5-7% gender gap at normal times -- though this isn’t uniform among all women. And the Democrats have tried very, very, very hard to exploit that gap with their “Republican war on women” meme because they need to win women overwhelming to win the election. But now that the primary is over, the Democrats are in for shocker.
What kind of shocker you ask? How about this: a leftist CBS/NYT poll released yesterday finds that Romney is LEADING among women by 46-44%. Fascinating. This is an 8% swing even from April, when Obama’s lead among women was already beginning to vanish. Let’s discuss.
For starters, there are reasons the Democrats do better with women, and it’s best to understand those:
● For one thing, many more black women vote than black males, and black voters skew nearly 100% toward the Democrats. With blacks representing 11% of all voters, this could account for as much as 2% of that 5% difference. Interestingly, McCain actually won white women by 54% to 46% (compared to white males voting for McCain 59% to 41%) -- he lost blacks by 96%.
The only thing offsetting these factors and keeping the gender gap as low as 5% is that once you start talking about older married women, a significant pro-Republican gap appears similar to that of males.
● Secondly, single professional women are loyal to the Democrats because the Democrats promise affirmative action. Believe it or not, the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action have not been blacks, they have been white professional women.
● Single women are also much more likely to depend on government benefits (everything from welfare to student loans), which again makes them likely Democratic voters.
● Finally, women work disproportionately for the government, which again makes them Democratic voters.
So how do we explain the disappearance of this gap and Romney actually pulling ahead? How about this:
1. Romney No Scary. That’s right, Romney doesn’t scare women. He looks dull. He doesn’t pound the table about impure women trying to sneak out of the home. He’s not rabid about abortion and he doesn’t run around claiming women should “submit” to the husbands. More importantly, it’s pretty clear to everyone that Ann Romney is no shrinking violet. Does anyone doubt that she’s a forceful presence in the Romney household? And if Romney is married to someone like that, then it’s pretty hard to paint him as secretly looking to subjugate women.
2. Obama No Nice. Yep, Obama’s an ass. Let’s be frank about it. When Obama came on the scene, all you heard was him calmly reading inspiring words from a teleprompter in a soaring, hopeful voice. But since that time, all we’ve seen is a snippy, angry jerk you wouldn’t want to spend time with. He pushed off responsibility (i.e. blame) on everyone around him, he plays passive-aggressive with people he’s dealing with, and then he says really asshole things when everything falls apart. He can’t even deliver a self-effacing joke without tearing down others, and his favorite target over the years has been Hillary Clinton. When we started this blog, I speculated that Obama might be a misogynist. I think that’s been proven. Name a woman he hasn’t disrespected? Not to mention, there have been constant and persistent claims of sexism from highly placed women in the Obama administration (like the latest issue about an 18% pay gender-gap). Do you really think women don’t notice these things?
3. You Talkin’ To Me? There’s also the debacle of the Democratic “War on Women” meme. It became very clear very quickly that the Democrats were using women as a political punching bag and were just trying to score points rather than actually help them. At a time when women are getting laid off in record numbers, when there are no jobs, and when women are losing their health insurance at work because of Obama, the Democrats have taken to the ramparts to define women as whiny, rich, spoiled, law school sluts who don’t want to pay for their own condoms. Nice. If you were a single mother struggling to find a job, would this give you confidence that they care about you?
Then there’s the Julia website, where Obama and the Democrats want you to believe that women are incapable of succeeding at ANYTHING in their entire lives without uncle Obama holding their hands the whole way. Trust me on this, women hate being condescended to. And think about all the ultra-sexist smears of conservative women by liberal Hollywood types right in the middle of the supposed war on women and how the Democrats tried to claim, “oh, that’s different.”
All of this must have independent women wondering just what the Democrats really think of them and just how the Democrats are planning to make their lives better?
So what you have here is a Republican candidate who not only doesn’t scare women, he seems to be offering the very thing they want: jobs and economic security. On the other side, you have Democrats acting like jackals, substituting theater for substance, and defining women in stunningly unflattering ways. Add in a President who appears to be a misogynist and who can’t stop taking shots at the women around him and you’ve got a real turn off for women voters. That has translated into a collapse of the gender-gap.
I can’t say that this trend will stay, but if it does, forget everything I said about this election being close. . . it’s going to be a blowout.
Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
News From The Front: The War on Women
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
63 comments:
Obama's campaign has misfired continuously since it became apparent that Romney was the nominee-presumptive. He believes in being nice to women, but only because if he isn't, Michelle will beat the crap out of him. I'm beginning to agree with you about the election. I'm not ready to declare a blowout quite yet, but if this is the best Obama can do, he's toast.
I agree. The women in my life, don’t buy the horse- pucky coming from Barry, or his minions for a minute. In fact it angers them to be talked down to by an effete weak kneed dweeb, like Barry, and like Moochele, would like to kick his ass, but for different reasons - - for the screwing of America.
Mea culpa: I take back the kick ass part, my wife and daughter are wonderful, brilliant women, who wouldn’t stoop so low.
Pssst…over here. My wife read what I posted, about kicking ass, and threatened to put me on a skewer, and roast me on an open flame, if I didn’t correct my profanity laced screed, using her and my daughter as props, I meant what I said.
By the way, if you can't read the cartoon, you can click on all images at the site and they will enlarge. :)
Lawhawk, I'm not ready to call it a blowout either, but Obama seems intent on turning it into one. He's done everything wrong and keeps doing everything wrong. And worst of all for him, the old tricks just aren't working. The war on women, war on blacks, war on immigrants and whatever other wars he's proclaimed have all sounded hollow. Attacking Romney as a "vampire" and going after his childhood sounds desperate and not presidential. And he's offered people nothing to believe in.
Stan, LOL! Glad to hear your correction! I can't imagine Southern Ladies using such terms! ;)
Seriously though, I don't know any women who like to be spoken down to like Obama does. Everything he says is laced with condescension and implies that they are children who need him. Add in all the shots he keeps taking at every woman he ever deals with (Palin, Pelosi, Hillary, even his own wife) and it becomes a pattern.
So it's no surprise to me that he's wiped out the gender gap.
I read some of the demographic breakdown of the poll yesterday, and it's amazing how shallow Obama's support is among most of the groups (youth, women, etc.) who ought to be his core supporters. When you couple this with the fact that Romney's now cracking 50% in a couple other polls, it's no wonder some people are starting to look at this as a possible major momentum shift. (I don't want to go that far just yet, but they could be right.)
I suspect Ann Romney's appeal is a major factor in this turnaround. That, and the "housewives never worked a day in their lives" debacle.
T-Rav, Yep, the housewives thing was a disaster, especially as they kept putting their feet in their mouths even after it happened.
And he can't stop. Yesterday he told women "you can be stylish and powerful" as if somehow women were scared to be independent because they thought it might affect their fashion sense. Talk about condescending!
I am seeing the beginning of a momentum shift. I saw it first when the moderates like Peggy Noonan called him creepy and now the polls are slowly catching up.
Keep in mind, he needs to win women overwhelmingly (maybe 8-10% to win the election) and he needs to get huge turnout among blacks and the young -- he lost every other group last time. And right now, that's not happening.
This is really surprising news to me. I don't think the trend will hold because it's in so many women's self interest, but this is surprising and shows a real problem Obama has.
Talking down to women is a huge mistake and every time I hear Obama speak, that's exactly what he does. His attacks on Hillary have bothered me the most. They are nasty and abusive since he is her boss and she can't strike back.
DUQ, Honestly, it is a surprise. A huge percentage of women have a vested interest in supporting the Democrats because that is where they get their income -- government jobs, benefits, affirmative action. So to see numbers like this tells us that Obama has really made them unhappy.
Ellen, That is one thing I absolutely know about women -- never talk down to them. And Obama has done nothing but talk down to them. Plus, there has been this steady stream of items coming out of the White House how women are excluded from his decision maker circle, how their views don't matter, how they are paid less, etc. None of that will play well with professional women.
And yeah, I think the attacks on Hillary have been really telling. But don't forget, they aren't the first. He also attacked Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Nancy Pelosi... all very publicly. I think he even attacked Olympia Snow of Maine if memory serves.
That's true, Obama has been very personal in his attacks on every woman he's dealt with and I do remember his talking down to Pelosi. She deserves it from all of us, but it was very unprofessional.
It's interesting, I've seen it theorized that a slight majority of American women tend to vote Democrat because the party makes emotional appeals to the electorate rather than logical appeals. That wouldn't hold true for the Women of Commentarama, of course (hmm, that sounds like a calendar).
If that theory were true, then it would seem that emotional appeals are negated when Democrats reveal their "government knows best" condescension in response to logical arguments. But really, the attitude comes from Obama the narcissist, because Clinton could have pulled off this campaign in his heyday.
Obama has been foolish with regard to his constant insults of Hillary, plus the 2008 campaign shenanigans to keep her from becoming the nominee are a sore spot for her supporters. Not only did he lose a lot of support from women, he lost a chunk of the gay vote as well.
Ellen, He has. Personal, condescending and unprofessional. Part of this is just how he treats everyone, but that's not really an excuse, is it?
given the built in poll bias, he really does seem in a heep of trouble. B.O. doesn't even appear to believe his own bullshit anymore so why should anybody else?
wahsatchmo, I've seen that theorized as well, but I'm more of a believer in incentives. And the truth is that a lot of women have strong incentives to vote for the Democrats -- ditto on minorities. Specifically, the Democrats provide them with a steady source of income.
But under either theory, it does appear true that condescension can undermine that support.
And you are right, Clinton could have easily carried off the "government knows best" campaign because he had a much stronger gift for telling people what they wanted to hear and knowing how to phrase it. I have no doubt he would have phrased this much more intelligently.
The attacks on Hillary have been stupid. All they've done is make him look like a soar winner and a petty man.
Jed, That's another interesting point to consider. There is probably a 5% pro-Obama bias in this poll. So he could be in serious, serious trouble.
And you're right, even Obama doesn't seem to believe his own argument anymore. It's almost comical how he's just going through the motions.
I think the Julia website has really hurt Obama. They thought they were being very clever is showing how much the "Government" can play a part in the success of women. But it turned out just looking like Obama and the Dems think that women cannot succeed without goveranment intervention no matter what their educational backgroun. And not becuase of discrimination, but because they just were not capable of finding their own way in life. Of course what makes it worse is that he has two daughters...
Oh, and just to make this clear - The Women Of Commentarama will not be making any calendars...unless we are paid...alot! UN-ION, Un-ION, UN-ION!!!
Bev, I knew Norma Rae. And you, ma'am, are no Norma Rae.
Bev, LOL! It would be an interesting calendar of all different types of avatars! ;)
Bev, I agree that the Julia website hurt Obama a lot because it was very condescending for the reasons you state -- it told women point blank that without Obama to take care of them, they will fail and their lives will be a miserable disaster. I don't know many women who want to hear that.
It would have been a LOT better to show Julia as a success whose success is made better by Obama than showing Obama as the only thing standing between success and failure.
Onion, Onion, Onion? Did I read that right?
T-Rav, I too have a hard time seeing Bev as a unionizer. A rebel, yes. A trouble maker, yes. Someone who stirs the pot and agitates, sure. But not a unionizer.
Ellen, That would be hilarious! A calendar of avatars! LOL!
I hadn't thought about the bias in the poll. Obama must really be in trouble!
"Bev, I knew Norma Rae. And you, ma'am, are no Norma Rae. "
and we are glad of it...
DUQ, Yep, that makes it even worse. He could well be looking at a 7-8% negative gap. If that's the case, then this will be a Reagan-sized blowout, especially as young people aren't going to turn out.
Women of Commentarama, We are glad of it too! LOL!
Now how about that calendar? ;)
This is really good news. I guess we'll see if it holds, but for Obama to lose women is really telling. I agree with Bev that the straw which broke the camel's back has been the Julia website. That's turned into a disaster and you have to wonder how the whole administration could have such a tin ear?
Also, maybe Obama put out a Women of the Administration calendar to turn this around?! ;)
Hillary drunk textings.
Napolitano looking rather butch.
Pelosi on her broom.
Kagan playing softball and also looking rather butch.
Sotomayor looking all wise-latina-y
What's her name worshiping Mao.
DebbieWasserman Schulz playing Gollum in a school play.
That's about it, isn't it?
Andrew:
Incentives make sense, because I can see where Republicans make emotional appeals with regard to certain social policies as well without commanding a majority of women voters.
On Obama's condescension towards women, I just saw this article at World Net Daily on his Mother's Day self-promotion. Seems timely.
Doc, that was completely uncalled for, comparing Debbie to Gollum. Gollum doesn't look that bad.
Doc, I think the Julia thing was the most noticeable straw, but his problems began long before that. The attack on housewives didn't help, nor did his failure to shoot down his own people when they got ultra-vile against Palin and Bachmann.
But the Julia website really strikes right at the heart of what bothers professional women: respect.
Doc, That would be quite a calendar.
What's interesting about it though, is that only three of those women are in the administration (one of whom has complained about sexism). Have we had an administration with fewer high profile women since Carter? Even Reagan had several high profile women like Kirkpatrick.
wahsatchmo, In my experience, incentives are what motivate people. So a wise politician finds ways to create incentives for people to vote for them. Obama really hasn't. He's just mentioning old promises (like an equal pay amendment) and then says he won't deliver on them. That's a mistake.
I heard about the Mother's Day card. What an ass! How stupid do you need to be to think it makes sense to send out a politicized Mother Day card? It's like sending out an ad. "The good people of X corp want you to know we love you, customer 319478." Yeah, right.
T-Rav, Gollum has a better haircut! ;)
Andrew: And let's not forget who appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court.
Lawhawk, Bill Clinton? Just kidding. It was the evil Ronald Reagan.
Thinking back on it, I really can't think of an administration which had fewer high profile women since at least Carter.
I'm glad to see the gender gap slammed shut, but at the same time, I always thought it was overblown. For one, ID politics is the Democrats' bread-and-butter, and for another the phenomenon only started in the 1980s, hardly a long-standing thing. I always figured I'd see the end of it.
The way it's closing is perfect, too! It's far better, IMO, for the Dems to prove themselves liars. There comes a point where Republicans straining to close the gap ends up looking cloying and desperate. Sometimes, when the truth is on your side, all you can do is wait for people to recognize it.
I should have said, "..the best thing you can do..."
tryanmax, I don't think it's closed forever. I think it's closed because this election is about economics, because the Democrats are taking women for granted and are talking about contraception for rich girls, and because Romney is more palatable to women than Obama.
I suspect the gender gap will always continue because the kinds of choices women make have them gravitate towards the kinds of jobs and situations which make what the Democrats offer seem enticing. It's the same thing with minorities.
And what Republicans need to do if they want to end this gap permanently is to tone down the Rick Santorum rhetoric which sounds like "I want to use the government to control you" and they need to realize that when you claim you want people to have a choice, you need to accept that they may choose something different than you wanted. Otherwise, people will understand it's just rhetoric and they will assume you have rotten motives you are hiding.
Also, did you see that George W. Bush gave Romney a really pathetic endorsement? Frankly, that's a good sign. I've come to believe that anything W believe in is bad. So him not liking Romney makes me more comfortable.
Doc - It is astounding to me how "tin-eared these guys are. Another interesting statistic -from the same CBS/NYT poll - 67% poll believe Obama made his announcement on same-sex marriage based “mostly for political reasons,” while 24% percent said it was “mostly because he thinks it is right.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us/politics/poll-sees-obama-gay-marriage-support-motivated-by-politics.html
Bev, I saw that headline and I laughed. If people think he's just saying things now for political reasons, then he has no chance of convincing people that he's sincere about anything. He might as well resign.
Doc, I didn't see that, but I agree with you. Bush's endorsement means nothing to me. In fact, his endorsement most likely would just make me suspicious.
Bev and Doc, I saw that article and I had the same reaction. It's amazing the amount of cynicism which has suddenly surrounded the public's view of Obama. If people doubt him this much now, how in the world is he going to turn around the public's view of him?
Here's your link: LINK
Andrew, there will probably be a gender gap off and on, but it closing just once deprives the Democrats of acting like it is this long-standing thing. The left has been using the gender-gap to say that Republicans are so out-of-touch with women that nothing will win them over. And they would never even think the same of themselves. So the way the left uses it, if the gap closes once, it closes forever.
tryanmax, Let's wait and see how the election goes before we make any firm conclusions, but you are right that it does put the lie to the Democratic idea that they will always win women.
The thing is, the Republicans need to understand why this has happened. Basically, there is a lot of luck here that Romney fits a certain mold and Obama doesn't. If it was Romney v. Bill Clinton, I suspect things would be very different.
The Republicans need to learn how to shift more women away from the Democrats without changing their own beliefs. I think that's very doable, but it requires some changes.
Andrew, Poor Obama. Even if women are just less enthusiastic that will hurt Obama. He needs all of his supporters to turn out if he plans to have any chance.
tryanmax, I'm concerned that this is just an anamoly and will go back next time.
Andrew - It is very clear that Bill Clinton likes women, and he is/was a consummate politician with a capital "P", so he appealled to most women. However, remember that even Clinton never had more than 45% of the popular vote.
Ed, Obama benefited from Democrats being about 3% more enthusiastic than Republicans last time. That won't happen this time and items like this are the reason.
Bev, That's all correct. You never doubted at all that Clinton liked women. With Obama, I seriously doubt that he does.
And you're right that Clinton never did win more than 45% of the vote. In a way, Ross Perot made him President and the Republicans kept him president by picking Bob Dole as their candidate.
I also firmly believe that if we had picked someone less clownish and unstable than McCain, Obama might actually have lost the presidency. Still, it's honestly good he won because he has single-handedly undone 8 years of damage to the brand.
Andrew - I truly believe that even if the Democrats had run a head of cauliflower, they would have won in 2008. A Democrat was going to win no matter who the Repub candidate had been.
Bev, That's possible and I certainly can't dispute it. It did strike me at one point that McCain was getting close to catching up until he pulled his "I'm freezing my campaign to go Washington to pretend I'm important" moment. But it could well be that wouldn't have amounted to anything.
Interestingly, despite everything Obama had going for him, he still lost among whites 43-57%. White males went for McCain by 59-41% and white women went for McCain by 54-46%. Where his advantages came in were college kids who turned out in record numbers and gave him 55% and in blacks who also turned out in record numbers and gave him 96%.
Andrew
Very good article....
You forgot to mention the flap about the dastardly ploy by Republcian Men to leave the toilet seat up but other than that you covered all the basis...
Indi, Didn't I see that on South Park? LOL!
The Toilet Seat Administration...
I love the idea that Obama is doing so much damage to the Democratic coalition.
Kelly, It seems to be an Obama specialty to wreck things he touches.
I guess I missed all the fun, and only had time to read the article. Sorry for you libtard Dems, you don't speak for me. FYI--I DON'T LIKE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION! I want recognition because of WHAT I do, not simply because I'm female. And...right now, I'm busy trying to fight the system.
Jen, That's pretty much how most of the women I know feel. They don't want anything handed to them, they want to earn it. That's a hard concept for many liberals though who don't see the difference.
I can't resist this one. In the home of lefty-looneyism, San Francisco, the sheriff has been suspended pending resolution of the spousal abuse charges against him, and the fire chief has had her wages garnisheed for failure to pay spousal support. So who's conducting a war against women? The mayor and the entire Board of Stupidvisors are all Democrats. The judge who ordered the wage garnishment is also a Democrat.
Lawhawk, That is pretty funny. San Fran is one messed up place!
Post a Comment