MSNBC
The fight for women voters is on! And the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found President Obama leading Mitt Romney among women by 15 points — 53 to 38 percent. In 2008, women voters helped Obama seal the deal and win the presidency with 56 percent voting for the Obama-Biden ticket compared to just 43 percent for McCain-Palin.
While House Republican women try to win over women voters with their new Women’s Policy Committee, the Obama team is pointing to Republicans' record on issues like domestic violence, reproductive health, and pay equity. Just today, Vice President Joe Biden hammered Mitt Romney's stance on women's issues, saying that his policies will take us back to the 1950s:
I haven't even touched on Romney's social policy either. One that says a woman should no longer get to make her own decisions about her own body and her health, one that says it's OK for insurance agencies to charge women more for health insurance than men, to count pregnancy as preexisting condition. I know this sounds like fiction.
As the original creator of the Violence Against Women Act, Biden also took issue with the House Republicans' new version of the bill that would leave out protections for immigrants, LGBT, and Native American women:
The Violence Against Women Act has become part of our popular culture. Businesses, everybody has embraced the notion that a woman has a right to be free of violence an intimidation on the street and in her own home, wherever it is. And these guys in the House just voted down our version, the continuation of the existing Violence Against Women Act. And they cut out big chunks. Folks, this is not your father's Republican party.
Leave a Comment:
Honestly , I know this sounds crazy but its like the Republicans have been taken over by alien beings from another world. They are so out of touch with the times of 2012.
Why is it that the Republicans do not know that Romney cannot win in November? If they would only consider the dynamics of the next election, surely they would come to the conclusion that Romney cannot win. If they apply a little inteliignce and a little reason, they would come to the conclusion tha someone else needs to be nominated for them to have a chance to win. Are they willng to just give up and not be concerned about keeping even a majority in the house. If any Republican has any influence and reads this post, please tell those that have any power to change the course of things to nominate someone else other than Romney. The problem I see if that a great number of people just do not like Romney. When I ask them, Republicans Fundamentalist in Sunday School Class, why they do not like Romeny. They just do not know. Am I the only person who has exprienced this 'just not like Romney" attitude? These individuals may not vote for Obama, but also I know for sure they will not vote for Romney. They may not vote. It is a big mistake to nominate Romney, especially if you consider the variables. I think that Santorum has a better chance of winning because he has nothing negative about him and he is likeable I think that a lot of people will vote for Santorum, including myself, just because he is more reasonable.
Agustas:
U.S. Presidential Politics is full of examples of Presidential candidates winning elections because a majority of the voters believed they were the more competent of the two major party candidates, especially during times of widespread disatisfaction with the Party in power for the previous term.
Take your cue from what is comimg when the polls consistantly show Obama is "liked" over Romney by the majority of the voters, while the majority of voters also say they believe Romney would be the better choice for a mch needed economy.
This is the reason why the Obama campaign is on the attack on Romney's character, while disparaging his accomplishments as a businessman in his private equity investment career. It's also the reason why they are so upset by Democrats like Mayor Cory Booker, former PA Governor Ed Rendell, former Congressman and DNC leader Harold Ford, former Obama Car Czar Retter, and now today Colin Powell have voiced their support for the successes Bain Capital has had, and admiration for Romney's achievements in founding BVain and serving as its CEO for 25 years as the firm grew to be the largest and most successful of the nation's private equity investment institutions/
Iamnotfooled,
Are you a former or current student of Tanya Dixon-Neely?
Are you in touch with reality in her manner?
Or did you do too much blow with the big O in the day?
Honestly.
Yep, there goes Maynard again! What in the HELL does Tanya Dixon-Neely have to do with ANYTHING? You seem to be fixated on her! So a teacher bullied her students - guess what? That used to happen to me all the time!!!
Maynard, you are IRRELEVANT! Get a CLUE! This new Republican Party is NEVER going to get the women's vote because people like you just CAN'T figure it out!!
It's really not that hard to figure out; the Dmocrat Party wants thru Big Benneficial Government programs to give the allusion of security to women voters as a purchasing coin for their votes. Too bad all that social spending is being done on borrowed dollars that is robbing your children of their futures and their tax dollars as the bills for former extravagances come due.
Grandpa, did you just suggest that women's favors could be bought?
You realize what you called them, don't you?
Ya, just like what the Secret Service called those Columbian "women."
Overpriced.
And to oncearepublican above, did those teachers bully you because you used CAPITALS to accent your clueless points in you D- reports?
Or, are you just that PARANOID and/or masochistic?
Orioles in October, Republicans (and unemployed Dems) in November.
Maynard g you sound like an ignoramass!!!!!!
I don't (and few do) "sound like" anything. Maynard G e-mails make no sound.
I make stealth mind injections...oooo!
Democrats will always win more female votes. That's because they are far more inclined than Republicans to promise something for nothing and to wage war on the other party by accusing it of waging a war on women.
Re: "Republicans' record on issues like domestic violence, reproductive health, and pay equity"
On domestic violence, see "Open Letter to Senate Judiciary on the VAWA" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/open-letter-to-senate-judiciary-on-the-vawa/
Excerpt:
Since women, without provocation, batter and kill children, whom they supposedly have been socialized to love, they can, without provocation, batter and kill men, whom they definitely have been socialized — by the media, feminist literature, and the Violence Against Women Act — to distrust, fear, and hate.
If feminists don’t take women’s violence and abuse as seriously as we take men’s, why should men take women’s opinions as seriously as we take men’s? After all, according to ideological feminists’ own — and correct — definition of hate crimes, an act of violence is merely an opinion acted out, a view transformed into behavior.
On reproductive health and gender health, see, for example, "Does Obamacare discriminate against men?" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/does-obamacare-discriminate-against-men/
Excerpt:
“There are at least 7 new agencies and departments devoted solely to women while there is not one office for men or male specific ailments.” This despite the fact that men have a shorter life span and sooner of the 12 leading causes of death.
President Obama wants to spread the health around — but only to women. Improving the health only of the healthier, longer-living group — women — is like improving the wages only of the higher-earning group — men. What would women say about the latter? The same thing men should say about the former.
On pay equity, see "Will the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act Help Women?" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/will-the-ledbetter-fair-pay-act-help-women/
Excerpt:
“There were fewer cases charging sex-based wage discrimination last year than the year before the [Ledbetter law] was signed, and the wage gap was wider in 2010 than it was in 2007.” -BusinessWeek, May 13, 2012, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-13/obama-pitches-equal-pay-to-win-women-even-as-charges-drop
If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands' incomes range from moderate to high, are able to:
-accept low wages
-refuse overtime and promotions
-choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do
-take more unpaid days off
-avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)
-work part-time instead of full-time (“According to a 2009 UK study for the Centre for Policy Studies, only 12 percent of the 4,690 women surveyed wanted to work full time”: http://bit.ly/ihc0tl See also an Australian report at http://tinyurl.com/862kzes)
All of which LOWER WOMEN'S AVERAGE AND MEDIAN PAY.
Women are able to make these choices because they are supported — or anticipate being supported — by a husband who must earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry. (Still, even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well. If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.
In case there are others out there who doubt the reliability of this poll and want to point to others suggesting a dead heat or a Romney lead among women, this bud's for you...
http://jezebel.com/5910606/that-poll-saying-romney-leads-obama-among-women-total-crap
The CBS/New York Times poll was an outlier when it was conducted last month — while other polls showed the President with a lead over his Republican challenger, CBS/NYT showed the two candidates in a dead heat. But rather than try to grab a more representative sample, CBS/NYT just interviewed the same people they interviewed for the last out of whack poll.
The truth is that since Clinton's 1992 election, the Democrat's margin of victory amongst women voters has been declining, with Obama's share in 2008 the smallest of 5 presidential elections, smaller than Gore and Kerry succesively.
Notably Obama is doing well with unmarried, childless young women, but not so much with mature married mothers and older women. We will see who turns out to vote in the key states this time around.
As to your comment two up Cab Driver, its your mind that is down in the gutter, not mine. Recall Thoreau's dictum "Rember, it's always the First Person who is speaking!"
Uh Grandpa, Thoreau was an anti-war pacifist....
And honest, I taught a number of his essays in several schools here. You tried this one a few months ago and sounded just as stupid. And I can't find it on the page of Thoreau quotes I just Googled up... But I did find this one:
God reigns when we take a liberal view, when a liberal view is presented to us.
As for that crapola you're trying to pawn on Obama vs. Kerry, man, if your mother were alive, she'd be reaching for the soap bar.
President Obama won the women's vote in 2008 by 56-43; John Kerry's percentage over George Bush was only 3%.
Per General Powell's advice to Mitt this morning: "Think, man, think!"
Naw, that's too onerous a task for a parrot. I did see an interesting piece on Hardball a half hour ago, however. Chris pointed out that despite all the fact-checking done to prove Romney has been lying throughout the campaign (like the one Fuzzie is fond of repeating, that there's been runaway spending almost unequaled in history; in fact, spending has remained level), these lies continue to be repeated.
Grandpa Fuzz's intransigence is proof Matthews was dead-on with that bit of reporting.
Why Cab Driver, you ignorant slut! Ala SNL, you know?
Look into "Walden", Chapter 1A and you will find that relevant quotation by Thoreau. Don't know how your "search" failed to turn that up...perhaps you don't know how to search unless it's on your liberal blogs? Sounds to me as if your knowledge of Thoreau is juvenielly limited to his "Civil Disobediance" essay taught in your common High School curriculum.
As to the percentage of young, unmarried women's votes secured by Kerry in 2004, it was a full, impressive 62%.
And on Mathews nonsense, he trotted out charts to show Obama's Administration's spending stayed level through 2009-2011 calandar years, yes. But he failed to note that the last budget the Federal Government had was the fiscal year that began under Bush in Oct, 2008 and extended to end of Sep, 2009, which was immediately busted by Obama and the free spending Democrats in control of both houses of Congress in 2009 by over $1,000,000,000,000+ dollars (that's one trillion bucks plus) including the $800 billion of deficit financed spending for the infamous, non-effective "stimulus"bill. And unfettered by a budget for the next two years, and also beginning again on Oct., 2012 for a third year (so he can front end spending of this election year) thanks to the resistance of the Democrat Party control of the do nothing Senate to House passed budget proposals; Obama has doubled down each year (2010, 2011, and assurdedly in 2012 on the over one trillion plus each year of deficit financed spending.
You don't know your arse from your perpetually bending elbow on the fiscal matters of this country; alternatively, like the in the bag for Obama MSNBC fools like Mathews, you are simply a liar. Your choice!
I suggest you cease stalking me on this blog with your pitiful attempts to refute my arguments, as you are steadily losing any credibility you thought you once had here!
Cabbie's not so much a stalker as a Anthony Weiner cybertype showing his pitiful "junk" on the internet.
T'aint much Cabbie!
T'aint much.
Seen in the writings of David Kornacki in the liberal publication Salon on Wednesday: results in states like Oklahoma, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas where an incumbant President Obama in his own Party's Primaries running against such stirring candidates as "Uncommitted, a felon serving time in a federal prison, a local attorney in Arkansas without any national presence, etc. has not been able to above the mid 50% of even his own party's voters to vote for him in the affirmative for his reelection. As Kornacki points out, it is becoming increasingly evident to voters that Obama personifies a Democrat Party that sppears to have been hijacked by the interest of "affluent liberals and feminists...and minorities, secularists, and gays." Of course, reading the MSNBC blogs and watching such shows as O'Donnel's Last Word and Mathews, and Maddow, and Sharpton nightly, that analysis does appear to be right on. Only old Sergeant Ed Schultz is laboring in the trenches trying to appease the old Regan Democrats...those kind of voters such as the Pennsylvanians that "cling to their guns and bibles" as Obama referred to them to his San Francisco crown financial backers, or the good folks in our energy producing states and the heartland of the agricultural sector.
Can anyone see the similarilties coming in the Romney vs. failed President Obama election of 2012 and the Regan vs. failed President Carter election of 1980?
Keep the campaign rolling on these nonrelevant to national policies and politics "LBGT" issues and "free contraception and free unregulated access to Plan B abortion" issues and the attacks on business men and women and attack on the constitutionally protected rights of religious expression and beliefs and you will simply alienate a further large swath of voters, especially those who look askance at the flagging economy, foolish restrictions on fossil fuel exploration and production, and a sinking strategic defense posture while the social spending deficits keep mounting up.
Of course, if you really believe the election hinges on the votes of the Sandra Flukes and Jonathon Capehearts of this coutry (anyone notice how ever present that giddy commentator Commentator has been on MSNBC's daily and nightly shows over the past month?), if that is your "ace in the holes" so to speak in the election, well go ahead and double down!