PDA

View Full Version : Gender Gap.........Romney got stomped


JustRalph
11-10-2012, 08:27 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

I am surprised, but not really.

I spend some time with some young people and 9 of 10 I spoke to brought up the "war on women" as a reason they were not voting for Romney. and this was in Texas. These were all 20 something females I spoke with.

Women rely on handouts more than ever in this country. Easy pickings for the Dems.

elysiantraveller
11-10-2012, 08:34 PM
It starts with being Pro-Life and embracing, as a party, the dream of one day repealing Roe vs. Wade. (unbelievable the party still talks about it... it was 4 decades ago)

Romney is most likely pro-choice (says he isn't but I don't think he cares) but the GOP embrace of the pro-life crowd (ie Santorum) makes it pretty easy to sell a war on women...

I understand the actual policy is a lot more nuanced than this gross over-simplification but its pretty easy to formulate a campaign against the GOP on the issue... throw out a few "rape baby" comments by other GOP members and you've got "smoke and mirror" gold...

Tom
11-10-2012, 10:45 PM
I guess handouts are part of women's lib.

Stillriledup
11-11-2012, 01:27 AM
I guess handouts are part of women's lib.

Naw, they just get offended at the notion that they might have to carry a rapists baby to term. Or, that they're just a bunch of 'binders'.

sammy the sage
11-11-2012, 08:10 AM
Naw, they just get offended at the notion that they might have to carry a rapists baby to term. Or, that they're just a bunch of 'binders'.

This EXACTLY...it's a shame really...a SIMPLE concept...

Look if a man had to carry an unwanted unborn child...this WOULD have never be/been an issue...

Rookies
11-11-2012, 10:06 AM
Look if a man had to carry an unwanted unborn child...this WOULD have never be/been an issue...

Pretty good line on the outlier part of this divisive issue which heavily contributed to handing defeat to Akin & Mourdock. On the whole, Ralph is correct that Women were a lynchpin in the President getting elected in 2008 and then again last Tuesday. But, not only for his rationale as a 'taker' of Governments' benefits. Rather, that the Democratic party has been more responsive to women across a panoply of issues and the Republicans are perceived (and have been so perceived) as the party who is not.

This article in the NYT summed up what is obvious to almost everybody, not named Karl Rove:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/11/sunday-review/the-building-blocks-of-re-election.html?_r=0

Women, Hispanics and Asian-Americans, voters under 45, liberals and moderates, those living in the Northeast and the West, and urban dwellers gave a majority of their votes to Mr. Obama. His opponent, Mitt Romney, lost with a far narrower and less diverse band of support — mostly men, voters 45 and older, conservatives, Southerners, evangelical Christians and married voters. The gender gap — the difference between a candidate’s votes from men and votes from women — has been studied for more than 30 years. This election, women were 10 points more likely to support Mr. Obama than men were...

Or for that matter, Bill Oreilly, who had this curious thought post Tuesday:
"The demographics are changing. It's not a traditional America anymore."

Whaaaa? Was Ike just elected?
Did anybody outside of the hard core Con base believe that Ward Cleaver was coming to the rescue of America?
That BM's flogging of the pictures of the Mittens' Wonderbread family was a less than subliminal sign to vote for the 'classic- traditional' Family Guy?

That 'traditional America-Rockwell' icon has long sailed, certainly in 2008. Eventually, due to pop demographic shifts, up to half of the South and the entire SouthWest will eventually vote Democrat nationally.

It will NEVER be returning.

The growing population face of America will be a minority one, particularly the Hispanic component and it will take an overwhelming (+80%) number of older, White males (obviously a decreasing number) to counteract that. Not going to happen.

And this was the first time, I believe, that the incumbent wasn't shellacked, with the economy tanking. THAT, is a very bad sign for Republicans.
This doesn't mean that Republicans can't win in individual states, by pushing social agendas antithetical to a majority of Americans. They can- but on a national level, they're doomed.

Republicans, like any other voter, can always retain their personal beliefs on these issues. However, they need to stop yelling about planks, like anti- Gay Marriage and anti- Illegal Immigration (perceived as anti- Hispanic). Concentrate on economic issues, eliminate the backscratching quid pro quos among politicians, providing intelligent entitlement reform, etc. If they have any chance of winning future, national elections, that's the road to take.

Tom
11-11-2012, 10:27 AM
Naw, they just get offended at the notion that they might have to carry a rapists baby to term. Or, that they're just a bunch of 'binders'.

Seriously, a really stupid reply.

Tom
11-11-2012, 10:28 AM
Look if a man had to carry an unwanted unborn child...this WOULD have never be/been an issue...

Followed by an equally stupid reply.

horses4courses
11-11-2012, 10:46 AM
Women rely on handouts more than ever in this country. Easy pickings for the Dems.

What a truly ridiculous statement. Off the cuff, no factual basis.
What's new around here? Ah, yes....same blowhards, different day.

horses4courses
11-11-2012, 10:55 AM
However, they need to stop yelling about planks, like anti- Gay Marriage and anti- Illegal Immigration (perceived as anti- Hispanic). Concentrate on economic issues, eliminate the backscratching quid pro quos among politicians, providing intelligent entitlement reform, etc. If they have any chance of winning future, national elections, that's the road to take.

That's like telling a dog with fleas to stop scratching........

PaceAdvantage
11-11-2012, 11:06 AM
That's like telling a dog with fleas to stop scratching........You conveniently ignore the fact that the "non-white" Dem electorate that you so like to claim is proof of how out of touch the GOP is with the country, is in fact MORE ALIGNED with GOP social stances when it comes to gay marriage and religion as compared to Dem social stances.

Of course, a poll or two was released right before the election claiming a sudden and remarkable shift in attitude among blacks in terms of supporting gay marriage...in 2011, only 36 percent of blacks favored gay marriage. This year, that number seems to have risen to 44 percent. Still behind the 49 percent of whites who favor gay marriage.

TJDave
11-11-2012, 03:27 PM
You conveniently ignore the fact that the "non-white" Dem electorate that you so like to claim is proof of how out of touch the GOP is with the country, is in fact MORE ALIGNED with GOP social stances when it comes to gay marriage and religion as compared to Dem social stances.


Doesn't matter. They aren't 'line in the sand' issues.

PaceAdvantage
11-11-2012, 03:30 PM
Doesn't matter. They aren't 'line in the sand' issues.How can this be? Isn't the claim being made that these social issues (gay marriage, "war on women," etc.) are what lost the election for Romney?

The left is certainly making it seem like these ARE line in the sand issues...they are stating point blank that the "out of touch" GOP is the reason why they lost.

They certainly weren't making the claim that it was the GOP stance on the economy that lost the election for them...they keep harping on these other items that (I agree) are not (or should not be) "line in the sand" issues.

TJDave
11-11-2012, 04:05 PM
How can this be? Isn't the claim being made that these social issues (gay marriage, "war on women," etc.) are what lost the election for Romney?

The left is certainly making it seem like these ARE line in the sand issues...they are stating point blank that the "out of touch" GOP is the reason why they lost.

They certainly weren't making the claim that it was the GOP stance on the economy that lost the election for them...they keep harping on these other items that (I agree) are not (or should not be) "line in the sand" issues.

I was responding to your comments that Blacks and Latinos are more in line with conservative positions on social issues. I can't speculate on claims from one side or the other. Based on turnout my educated guess is that the democrats simply did better in getting out the vote. Millions of republicans passed on this election. That was the difference.

Robert Fischer
11-11-2012, 04:07 PM
http://www.gallup.com/poll/158588/gender-gap-2012-vote-largest-gallup-history.aspx?utm_source=google&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

I am surprised, but not really.

I spend some time with some young people and 9 of 10 I spoke to brought up the "war on women" as a reason they were not voting for Romney. and this was in Texas. These were all 20 something females I spoke with.

Women rely on handouts more than ever in this country. Easy pickings for the Dems.
handouts?
lol
i would think the abortion issue would be about 1000 times more relevant than handout concerns...

Robert Fischer
11-11-2012, 04:12 PM
What a truly ridiculous statement. Off the cuff, no factual basis.
What's new around here? Ah, yes....same blowhards, different day.

stuff like handouts are exciting to romney's party

so... it's easy to want to project that out

it's only natural..

i just haven't heard people say that was womens objection to the republican platform before

JustRalph
11-11-2012, 04:40 PM
What a truly ridiculous statement. Off the cuff, no factual basis.
What's new around here? Ah, yes....same blowhards, different day.

75% of households on welfare are led by an unmarried woman.

Single women voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

42% of children born today are to single women.

72% of children born to black females are born to single mothers.

4 million children born in the U.S. in 2011

That's 1.6 million single mothers a year. Those add up year after year.

On and on......there are lots of other stats. Apply some of the stats to the battleground blue states from this election, versus the single mothers in the Red states, and you find that these numbers are very important to both campaigns.

Romney got his ass kicked in this Demographic. Toss in the other categories of females voters, LGBT etc. this is low hanging fruit for the Dems. If you are a women and buy into the Dem mantra that is.

Not off the cuff at all. I know my numbers.

TJDave
11-11-2012, 04:46 PM
75% of households on welfare are led by an unmarried woman.

Single women voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

42% of children born today are to single women.

72% of children born to black females are born to single mothers.

4 million children born in the U.S. in 2011

That's 1.6 million single mothers a year. Those add up year after year.

On and on......there are lots of other stats. Apply some of the stats to the battleground blue states from this election, versus the single mothers in the Red states, and you find that these numbers are very important to both campaigns.

Romney got his ass kicked in this Demographic. Toss in the other categories of females voters, LGBT etc. this is low hanging fruit for the Dems. If you are a women and buy into the Dem mantra that is.

Not off the cuff at all. I know my numbers.

So...

What's your position on abortion? ;)

horses4courses
11-11-2012, 05:03 PM
75% of households on welfare are led by an unmarried woman.

Single women voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

42% of children born today are to single women.

72% of children born to black females are born to single mothers.

4 million children born in the U.S. in 2011

That's 1.6 million single mothers a year. Those add up year after year.



So, you must approve of birth control, and a concerted effort to educate adolescents (of all races and backgrounds) on sexual matters?

Tom
11-11-2012, 05:28 PM
What arrogance to presume to know what he thinks.
Did responsibility of the women ever enter into your thought process?
Unless you are a total idiot, you damn well know where those babies come from. A mother who gets knowingly pregnant and cannot afford the baby is irresponsible. You understand many have babies just so they can get more welfare money, right? You understand we pour billions of money into education as it is. you understand there is a 100% fool proof method
of birth control and it is 100% free.

Naw, let someone else pay for it.
Typical lib though process....or lack of.

TJDave
11-11-2012, 05:47 PM
Did responsibility of the women ever enter into your thought process?


With rare exception, if a women's thought process had included responsibility there would be no need for abortions. ;)

Tom
11-11-2012, 06:04 PM
Exactly.

TJDave
11-11-2012, 06:16 PM
Exactly.
Can we also agree that people who behave irresponsibly are least likely to pay for the consequences?

Tom
11-11-2012, 07:54 PM
That is a reasonable conclusion.


What are you setting me up for? :rolleyes::D

sammy the sage
11-12-2012, 11:35 PM
Karen Hughes, Former Bush Adviser: If Another Republican Man Talks Rape, I'll 'Cut Out His Tongue'

"And if another Republican man says anything about rape other than it is a horrific, violent crime, I want to personally cut out his tongue," she wrote. "The college-age daughters of many of my friends voted for Obama because they were completely turned off by Neanderthal comments like the suggestion of 'legitimate rape.'"

sorry Tom if it's too SIMPLE for you to understand...

fast4522
11-15-2012, 07:50 AM
Mitt Romney is and always was a moderate, the Tea Party will always reject a moderate. It is who we put forward in the future that will determine if there will be support needed to win. In two years and two more trillion spent if the narrative will be hyperinflation and a anemic economy and the Tea Party will be in the news again.

Valuist
11-15-2012, 08:27 AM
Funny how little the media talked about Obama's war against small business. All the regulations they've imposed have little or no effect on big business. They have big legal teams, they have lobbying interests. Small businesses do not have legal teams or lobbying interests. They get crushed. Think Dodd-Frank was good? All it did was make banks pass on additional charges to customers. They didn't eliminate too big to fail.

hcap
11-15-2012, 05:57 PM
Mitt Romney is and always was a moderate, the Tea Party will always reject a moderate. It is who we put forward in the future that will determine if there will be support needed to win. In two years and two more trillion spent if the narrative will be hyperinflation and a anemic economy and the Tea Party will be in the news again.I have read your NUMEROUS posts telling us how the American people will reject the " filthy" Socialist. And how the Tea Party types are a glorious return to the founders vision.

What happened?. I guess conservatism was failed by a "fake" conservative as usual. Conservative policies are never failures. Conservatism is ALWAYS failed by candidates NOT conservative enough. :lol:

Or the latest meme: "Obama bribed the moochers for their votes" :lol: :cool: :eek: :sleeping:

Jay Trotter
11-15-2012, 06:25 PM
Funny how little the media talked about Obama's war against small business. All the regulations they've imposed have little or no effect on big business. Which specific regulations have been imposed that negatively impact small business?

elysiantraveller
11-15-2012, 06:44 PM
Which specific regulations have been imposed that negatively impact small business?

Ask and you shall receive:

Dodd Frank and Community Banks (http://www.aba.com/aba/documents/dfa/dfguide.pdf)

Want to talk about ACA or taxes next?

Jay Trotter
11-15-2012, 06:47 PM
Ask and you shall receive:

Dodd Frank and Community Banks (http://www.aba.com/aba/documents/dfa/dfguide.pdf)

Want to talk about ACA or taxes next?Right, send me a 32 page document. Tell me in your own words how that hurts small business?

elysiantraveller
11-15-2012, 08:17 PM
Right, send me a 32 page document. Tell me in your own words how that hurts small business?

In a nutshell.

Dodd-Frank overregulates virtually every aspect of the lending world. Big banks with large legal teams will be able to sift through the regulation relatively easily as the staff to implement the legislation is already on hand. Smaller banks don't have those resources and consquently will struggle, run risk of legal action, or simply avoid lending.

In the meantime instead of doing something that WOULD prevent another issue like the one suffered in 2008 Dodd-Frank goes the other way. Instead of breaking up the large banks DF declares them "too big too fail" which essentially means that no matter what hot water the larger banks find themselves in the federal government will ALWAYS be there to bail them out. There is a reason why a guy like Dimond over at JPMORGANCHASE is such a huge fan of Obama... its because the Federal government as basically given these superbanks a blank check for future indiscretions.

I can get into real specific examples if you would like but thats a glossing over of the issue in the banking world. A disclaimer, I'm not actually against regulations in the banking world although I do feel predatory lending occurs at such a low amount that its more a scapegoat. The real problem I have with legislation like DF is that instead of actually going after the real guilty parties it just slaps them on the wrist and then gives them unlimited funds while hurting the smaller lending institutions out there. Its like putting a kid in timeout before taking him to go get ice cream... it makes no damn sense.

ACA has been pretty well covered on here and Obama's plan of raising taxes on those making over $250,000 is complete garbage for small business if you would like a breakdown of why I'd be happy to share.

Tom
11-15-2012, 09:55 PM
All regulations have a negative effect.
Needless, crushing ones, geared towards a liberal agenda rather than public safety or anything of substance will have the negative effect of cost - and that hurts the economy.

Jay Trotter
11-15-2012, 10:18 PM
In a nutshell.

Dodd-Frank overregulates virtually every aspect of the lending world...

...ACA has been pretty well covered on here ...

...and Obama's plan of raising taxes on those making over $250,000 is complete garbage for small business ...Thanks for your response.

As someone hit hard by the bursting financial bubble I'm all for increased regulations on the Banks and perhaps the seperation of banking (as our fathers knew it) and investing (speculating) that today's banks combine. I really don't see "banks" as small businesses, even the smaller ones.

As a Canadian (communist) I'm all for universal health care. A good employer is going to want to offer "quality" employees the benefit of a health care package, so I don't see the cost as a huge deterrent in the long run. There would be some short term pain for long term gain.

As a "small business owner" myself I would love to have a taxable income greater than $250,000. It is the taxable income we're talking about when it comes to the increased tax rate isn't it? (asking)

I guess we'll agree to disagree. My reference to "small business" was really just that -- small business -- just regular Mom & Pop type businesses.

elysiantraveller
11-15-2012, 10:51 PM
As someone hit hard by the bursting financial bubble I'm all for increased regulations on the Banks and perhaps the seperation of banking (as our fathers knew it) and investing (speculating) that today's banks combine. I really don't see "banks" as small businesses, even the smaller ones.

As a "small business owner" myself I would love to have a taxable income greater than $250,000. It is the taxable income we're talking about when it comes to the increased tax rate isn't it? (asking)

I guess we'll agree to disagree. My reference to "small business" was really just that -- small business -- just regular Mom & Pop type businesses.

I reordered this for ease.

First on banking. I fail to see how you can make this disconnect. There are plenty of small banks. The article I posted to by the ABA features the president of a bank managing only $98 million. Thats small by any standard, in tiny Kalamazoo, Michigan I can think of 5 people worth more than that... but I think you are missing the point... these regulations (some good and some bad) are packaged in a way that does nothing to solve what was identified as the underlying issue. The entire financial system hinges on the health of less than 10 lending institutions... so instead of actually fixing that system we give them a blank check while regulating the majority of small banks to death.

Dodd-Frank does nothing to the oligarchs of the system but can be a death sentence for the local community bank that actually keeps, invests, and distributes dollars within a single community.

Secondly, I think we have a COMPLETELY different understanding of what a small business is. You sir, are not a small business owner you are in fact self-employed. Its not a insult its a fact. I've ran my own "business" for years now but don't pretend to be a small business owner if I ever expanded... had people counting on me for a paycheck... then sure but now? No way.

My mother is a small business owner. Employs well over 2,000 people has steered her company through growth and decline... When SHTF she is ultimately accountable for making sure people get paid on time. Its completely different than me handling my book of clients or you doing whatever it is you do. In 2008 she leveraged most of her assets to keep cash flow going... in 2009 a payroll glitch happened and people didn't get their Thanksgiving week pay... we (myself included though I don't work there) spent our entire Thanksgiving contacting all 2,000 workers trying to make things right.

We make mistakes its no big deal we only have to answer to ourselves... people like her not so much...

As a Canadian (communist) I'm all for universal health care. A good employer is going to want to offer "quality" employees the benefit of a health care package, so I don't see the cost as a huge deterrent in the long run. There would be some short term pain for long term gain.

We have been over this before...

ACA is nothing even remotely close to universal healthcare its so far away you SHOULD hate it. It also costs us jobs. Finally, to the bolded part since you don't live here I don't think you are really aware of the costs of offering health insurance for a employer...

Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway there is absolutely no long-term gain for a employer because they face non-tax deductible fines no matter what they choose. If you work for company A, who offers a good quality health plan (that costs them money BTW), and then don't enroll they still are penalized even though they offered it to you... where exactly is the sense in that???

I'm dying to hear from people exactly what these long-term gains are for employers/employees... It cuts hours, leads to layoff, reduces capital, hurts your ability to project cost, is anti-competition, and largely presents a no-win scenario for a business owner....

So what exactly am I missing "long-term?"

Valuist
11-16-2012, 08:24 AM
As someone hit hard by the bursting financial bubble I'm all for increased regulations on the Banks and perhaps the seperation of banking (as our fathers knew it) and investing (speculating) that today's banks combine. I really don't see "banks" as small businesses, even the smaller ones.



I agree with your point on keeping banking and investing separate. Dodd-Frank doesn't do that. We need Glass-Steagal back on the books to keep banking and investing separate. All that happens from the regulations and fines issued to banks is they just pass those down to customers in the form of additional fees.

eddy1
11-17-2012, 10:23 PM
Thanks for your response.

As someone hit hard by the bursting financial bubble I'm all for increased regulations on the Banks and perhaps the seperation of banking (as our fathers knew it) and investing (speculating) that today's banks combine. I really don't see "banks" as small businesses, even the smaller ones.

As a Canadian (communist) I'm all for universal health care. A good employer is going to want to offer "quality" employees the benefit of a health care package, so I don't see the cost as a huge deterrent in the long run. There would be some short term pain for long term gain.

As a "small business owner" myself I would love to have a taxable income greater than $250,000. It is the taxable income we're talking about when it comes to the increased tax rate isn't it? (asking)

I guess we'll agree to disagree. My reference to "small business" was really just that -- small business -- just regular Mom & Pop type businesses.

:rolleyes:

sammy the sage
11-18-2012, 08:14 AM
I reordered this for ease.

First on banking. I fail to see how you can make this disconnect. There are plenty of small banks. The article I posted to by the ABA features the president of a bank managing only $98 million. Thats small by any standard, in tiny Kalamazoo, Michigan I can think of 5 people worth more than that... but I think you are missing the point... these regulations (some good and some bad) are packaged in a way that does nothing to solve what was identified as the underlying issue. The entire financial system hinges on the health of less than 10 lending institutions... so instead of actually fixing that system we give them a blank check while regulating the majority of small banks to death.

Dodd-Frank does nothing to the oligarchs of the system but can be a death sentence for the local community bank that actually keeps, invests, and distributes dollars within a single community.

Secondly, I think we have a COMPLETELY different understanding of what a small business is. You sir, are not a small business owner you are in fact self-employed. Its not a insult its a fact. I've ran my own "business" for years now but don't pretend to be a small business owner if I ever expanded... had people counting on me for a paycheck... then sure but now? No way.

My mother is a small business owner. Employs well over 2,000 people has steered her company through growth and decline... When SHTF she is ultimately accountable for making sure people get paid on time. Its completely different than me handling my book of clients or you doing whatever it is you do. In 2008 she leveraged most of her assets to keep cash flow going... in 2009 a payroll glitch happened and people didn't get their Thanksgiving week pay... we (myself included though I don't work there) spent our entire Thanksgiving contacting all 2,000 workers trying to make things right.

We make mistakes its no big deal we only have to answer to ourselves... people like her not so much...



We have been over this before...

ACA is nothing even remotely close to universal healthcare its so far away you SHOULD hate it. It also costs us jobs. Finally, to the bolded part since you don't live here I don't think you are really aware of the costs of offering health insurance for a employer...

Ultimately it doesn't matter anyway there is absolutely no long-term gain for a employer because they face non-tax deductible fines no matter what they choose. If you work for company A, who offers a good quality health plan (that costs them money BTW), and then don't enroll they still are penalized even though they offered it to you... where exactly is the sense in that???

I'm dying to hear from people exactly what these long-term gains are for employers/employees... It cuts hours, leads to layoff, reduces capital, hurts your ability to project cost, is anti-competition, and largely presents a no-win scenario for a business owner....

So what exactly am I missing "long-term?"


Very WELL written and stated on BOTH topics! :ThmbUp:

Stillriledup
11-18-2012, 09:39 PM
Seriously, a really stupid reply.

Huh, and i was so looking forward to impressing you with something that wasnt 'stupid' . I'll have to regroup and try harder to win your approval. :(