« The Economic Case For Fairer Income Distribution (In Rhyme)
Penn State Said to Be Planning Paterno’s Exit Amid Scandal »
Dear Republicans: You Need the Women’s Vote to Win
WASHINGTON – Dumber than a bag of rocks comes to mind. Republicans have made a never ending spectacle of themselves this fall, with Pres. Obama and his team getting luckier by the day. After splitting the women’s vote in 2010, it seems Republicans are determined to reverse that miracle with their fetish for failure.
Rick Perry being floated as potential presidential material was likely the largest speculative wash-out seen yet. How anyone around him thought the GOP primary electorate would buy his immigration philosophy is beyond me. The general election voter, especially independents, very unlikely to warm to sonogram Rick’s idea of individual freedoms for women, either.
As for Herman Cain, it’s obviously not dawned on Tea Party Republicans that they cannot win in 2012 without women. The establishment is getting it and that’s why Cain’s doing a press conference today. It comes just as the Washington Examiner, that bastion of liberal media hype (end snark), reports yet another woman talking about Cain’s proclivities, which according to the Examiner story also includes Cain being cheap.
The women’s vote is also what makes the latest baloney of a Newt Gingrich boomlet equally ridiculous and sure to end in doom, though that doesn’t mean Republicans won’t put us all through it.
This does give you an idea of the Republican establishment’s message problem with women, which is why Mitt Romney is standing over in his tidy, clean little corner yelling “Mitt’s It.”
Nobody’s buying that one yet, but looking at the women’s vote he’s got the best chance of any of the Keystone candidate crew Republicans are hoisting on us this year. All of whom, even given the historical economic numbers that point to defeat, are giving Pres. Obama and his re-election team dreams of victory exactly one year from today.
Taylor Marsh’s new e-book, The Hillary Effect – Politics, Sexism and the Destiny of Loss, the view from a recovering partisan, will be published on November 8th. Marsh is an author, Washington based political analyst, veteran national politics writer and commentator on national politics, foreign policy, and women in power. She has reported from the White House, been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and has been seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her new media blog.
18 Responses to “Dear Republicans: You Need the Women’s Vote to Win”
I don’t know… I think a lot of conservative women vote Republican because they were taught to do so. I could be wrong, but I have yet to see any numbers showing conservative female voters going Dem at the national level. There would have to be some major incident to change their vote, not your typical political he said she said stuff.
Hi ShannonLeee.
It’s not about conservative women going Republican.
The votes in play are Independents and they won’t budge for someone like Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich.
But you can’t count out suburban Republican women, moderates (like some in my own family), married, who simply won’t vote for the current frontrunner, Herman Cain, with Newt Gingrich having the same problem.
You can’t win the White House without women.
More slanted hogwash from our omniscient Ms. Marsh. The only truth to her thread that I see is the “dreaming” part.
Unless our current Prez pulls a rabbit out of his hat, in twelve months he will be kicking renter Emmanuel out of his house in Chicago. When diehard Dem’s like Rachel Maddow and the guests on her show start pounding on O and pointing out his unfulfilled promises and inability to get things off high center; when the campaign starts in earnest, and we are all reminded that O spent two years, when he had complete control of both houses, cramming a flawed healthcare plan down our throats instead of working on budget issues and creating jobs; when he kowtows to Wall Street and kicks Elizabeth Warren out in the street (a person that moderate indies dearly love), there will be plenty of us, who call ourselves independent, voting for whoever the Repub’s candidate might be. This includes independent woman, who, I might add, are smarter than you are giving them credit for being.
Prior to the big vote next November, these same women will be involved in many states with assuring that Cain and Perry, and anyone else that the TP’ers support, are not the Repub candidate going up against O.
Unfortunately, your harangue doesn’t counter a thing I wrote.
Pres. Obama’s “rabbit” right now is well represented by the Keystone Republican candidates.
John Johnson:
You have proven yourself to be a master of the ad hominem attack in so short a time.
More to the point of Taylor’s post, as opposed to your rant, it is mathematically impossible for any Republican, let along as misogynist like Cain or Gingrich or a self-loather like Bachmann, to win the election without substantial support from indie women and even a few Democratic women.
If you would care to dispute that with hard facts, please have at it. Otherwise, please go away.
They pretty well have half the women’s vote now. Women are pretty well divided down partisan lines.
Actually, Allen, that’s incorrect.
Obama/Biden won a majority of the women’s vote in 2008, but they split fairly evenly in 2010 midterms, which is rare in recent history.
Outside Obama’s base, many women who voted for Obama in 2008 are not sure this time, but they still like the President. So, Republicans have a chance, but not if they don’t get a grip on the current Cain circus, which Newt Gingrich only amplifies.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/monitor_breakfast/2011/1102/Election-2012-challenge-How-to-win-over-frustrated-Walmart-moms-video
I never disputed that there are “Keystone Republican candidates. I, in fact, stated that women would be responsible for making sure that Perry, Cain, and Bachmann would not be the Repub candidate. If you refer to Romney as one of the “Keystone’ers”, I disagree with you.
And to Shaun…First, I don’t think Ms. Marsh needs your help defending her positions, but I’m sure she is grateful for you riding up on your white horse.
Second, there were no “facts” stated in the thread, so am I not entitled to respond in kind? And if you want to delve into facts, why not address the facts I listed for reasons why women aren’t going to be running to the booths to vote for O again.
And third, go back and read what I wrote all the way through…I addressed women’s role in the upcoming election process. My thoughts just don’t mirror hers or yours
Women did not elect President Obama. Women were part of the group that elected President Obama. The largest “group” or block that elected President Obama were Black Americans and they aren’t going anywhere.
Hmm, I wonder why this wasn’t a problem for Bill Clinton? The soccer moms loved him as I recall, and women as a voting block stuck by him even after it was apparent that he was a serial harrasser and lech.
Allow me to interject a couple of more thoughts.
The two pointed words in my post, “slanted hogwash”, get it classified by Ms. Marsh as a “harangue”, and by Shaun as a “rant”.
How do you classify the thread itself? Would the opening sentence that begins with “Dumber than a box or rocks” qualify it as harangue. Would the fact that my post states some facts and hers conveys nothing but attitude make her words closer to a “rant” than mine?
Futhermore, after going to the link provided by Ms. Marsh and taking a look around, I found this additional link which seems to poo-poo what she is stating in her thread. Her statement here is how she would like it to be, but is not how it actually is. Women are not enamored with Obama. It seems that they don’t like the state of the economy any more than men do…and they are not blaming Republicans for the last three years of the same old, same old.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0921/women-voters-could-be-key-to-presidential-race
Traditionally women have identified as democrats and independents twice as often as they have as republicans (for reasons which should be obvious by now). The GOP seems oblivious to this reality, and as Taylor has pointed out, there’s a good chance that blind spot is going to (again) bite them in the ass – especially given the motley bunch they are fielding as candidates.
Mr. Spencer, you might want to read this old link from last Prez election.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2008/0921/women-voters-could-be-key-to-presidential-race
What is the “women’s vote”? Is it like the “black vote” and the “Hispanic vote” and the “GBLT vote” and all others that must be liberal (according to standard blueprint) in order to be authentic, and of course Democratic?
More and more independant women are voting Republican because more and more of them no longer depend on men for their sole income. Their careers allow them to re-evaluate the governments role and their dependancy on it as they age. This is a good thing.
I agree with others; from the get go the article is written in a style that invites attack. It seems unfair to be surprised at that or even criticize it. An author’s style and tone will dictate the type of responses she or he gets.
And ShannonLee said … “a lot of women vote Republican because they were taught to”?! I’d like to hear you elaborate on that one without sounding like a bigot.
Anyone running for President needs women _and_ men to vote for them. The majority of men will not support a candidate who is guilty of sexual harassment any more than women will. It bothers me that the article insinuates that they would and that women are the only ones that might be bothered or threatened by such a scandal if what is being said about Cain is true. Men care. I have a wife and two daughters and I care deeply about these issues.
Please refresh my memory and point me to articles that show N.O.W.’s stance and it’s public outcry during the Clinton administration. As well, I would appreciate reading some of the writings by Ms. Marsh during this period that were in support of what the Clinton gang called his “bimbos”.
1. The beginning of the end for Western civilization can be dated to 1979, when the Swiss canton of Zug voted to allow women to vote, ending a century of noble resistance to a flawed idea.
2. The 2012 presidential election is as of right now a coin-toss.
3. The best way for you to lose in 2012 is to assume Obama’s going to ride to an easy victory.
4. Romney is very, very likely to be the Republican nominee.
5. As long as you fall into the seductively easy thought that some joker like Cain is going to be Obama’s opponent, and easy to dismiss, the more likely Obama loses.
6. A lot of women in America think like their menfolk, like it or not. Just because NOW says you have to vote for Obama doesn’t mean he’ll carry the women’s vote in PA or NC by some huge margin.
7. To me, one big difference between Bill Clinton and Cain is that Bill apparently managed to have sex with the women he approached, while Cain seems more like an unlucky lech.
8. Off-topic, but so many Dems wail about the “stolen election” of 2000. It wasn’t stolen, but the election of 1960 most definitely was. How come we never hear any compliants about that?
9. My first point was largely tongue-in-cheek, but it’s cheap entertainment to get feminists all riled up : )
Clinton was slime personally but yes, he was a competent president.
What would be the public reaction if he took over from Obama soon?