How Obama Can Win With Women

foundit66 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Congratulations, Republicans! The tents have been struck and Mitt Romney will be your nominee. But before you pop the champagne, the women of America have a message for you: Welcome back to 1992 – the Year of the Woman.

The 2012 election was supposed to be all about the economy. But two months into the latest Republican delirium over birth control, Planned Parenthood, mandatory ultrasounds, "vaginal wands," Rush Limbaugh and Sandra Fluke, it’s turned into a referendum on sex and women, much to the glee of Democrats, who can scarcely believe their luck. President Obama has opened up a decisive lead against Romney thanks to a fresh surge in support from women voters. In swing states, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll, Obama has a 19-point lead over Romney among all women, up from 12 points before the GOP’s "war on women" was flushed into the open for all to see, and a 2-to-1 lead among women under 50. One-quarter of women in that survey say that the birth control issue is extremely important to their vote. A recent Pew poll has Obama leading Romney by 20 points among women nationally. If the presidential election were held today, Obama would be reelected thanks to this overwhelming advantage with women, who've outnumbered men at the polls in every election since 1986.

....
And how did all that venom about women work out for the GOP? Bill Clinton won the presidency with the largest gender gap ever and a record number of Democratic women swept into Congress. Women voted for Clinton over Bush by a 20-point margin.

If 1992 offers a cautionary tale for the Republicans – one they show little sign of heeding – it likewise provides a useful playbook for Obama and the Democrats.

Read more: How Obama Can Win With Women | Nancy Cohen | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And the economy is still showing signs of improvement...

Guess that means that the Republicans are going to have to hate Obama even harder in order to not get elected...

40yearfan · #2 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Read more: How Obama Can Win With Women | Nancy Cohen | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And the economy is still showing signs of improvement...

Guess that means that the Republicans are going to have to hate Obama even harder in order to not get elected...

Let's take a look at this again in August and see where it is at. The Republican machine is going to be able to go tit for tat against the Obama superpacs in negative campaigning and they have a lot more ammunition. Thanks to Obama alienating the insurance industry, small business, Wall Street and the super rich, those dollars are going to pour into the Republican coffers.

If the economy is stuttering again (only 110,000 jobs created in March), Obama is for sure a one term president.

foundit66 · #3 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

Let's take a look at this again in August and see where it is at.

Oh. No doubts.
There are plenty more opportunities for Republicans to screw up until the actual election vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

The Republican machine is going to be able to go tit for tat against the Obama superpacs in negative campaigning and they have a lot more ammunition.

The right-wing thinking is hilarious.
The right-wing has been persisting on "blame Obama" negative campaigning...
... but you try to phrase it like Obama has been negative campaigning.

And in advance, I have no doubt that there is a lot of irony on the "blame Obama" / "blame Bush" historical aspects.

It's just that there are still a LOT of polls which show that a significant portion of the populace recognizes that Obama is trying to CLEAN UP Bush's mess, and not really causing one of his own...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

Thanks to Obama alienating the insurance industry, small business, Wall Street and the super rich, those dollars are going to pour into the Republican coffers.

I'm sure Romney wishes that money raising is how the election will be won.

But on that note, while Romney spends a lot OF HIS OWN money, and generates money FOR HIS OPPONENTS from people who despise him...
... I think you're forgetting Obama's money raising capabilities in 2008.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

If the economy is stuttering again (only 110,000 jobs created in March), Obama is for sure a one term president.

"stuttering"?
It's amazing how we see repeated signs of improvement, but the right keeps trying to refer to it as failing.
Perhaps it's a sign of how good the improvement is if you're trying to only refer to it as "stuttering" instead of "failing".

AzMike · #4 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Read more: How Obama Can Win With Women | Nancy Cohen | Politics News | Rolling Stone

And the economy is still showing signs of improvement...

Guess that means that the Republicans are going to have to hate Obama even harder in order to not get elected...

2010 seems more relevant. Is Obama really counting on the '92 numbers for re-election?

The economy is hitting far more women than birth control.

1069 · #5 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

2010 seems more relevant. Is Obama really counting on the '92 numbers for re-election?

The economy is hitting far more women than birth control.

Bullsh!t. Keep telling yourself that.
You have no idea. Republicans could be handing out free thousand dollar bills weekly, and most women would still not vote for them if they're anti-contraception. 98% of American women use contraception. As a man, you really have no idea how important access to it is to women- married women even more so than single women.
Women care more about being able to have sex without getting pregnant than they do about having more money. Just trust me on this.
A good economy won't help them take care of their families if they're forced to have a dozen children (or else abstain from sex, lose their husband, and take care of their kids on their own). Reproductive freedom- access to contraception- is more important than the economy to most women..
Your statement sums up exactly why the republicans will lose in 2012, and keep on losing: cluelessness and misjudgement.

foundit66 · #6 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

2010 seems more relevant. Is Obama really counting on the '92 numbers for re-election?

Congressional elections and Presidential elections are two different animals.

If you want to go that route, look at his ACTUAL approval ratings at the time of the 2010 election.
They were about evenly split on approval / disapproval. Nowhere near indicative of what happened in Congress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzMike

The economy is hitting far more women than birth control.

The real question is how many people believe taking Obama and replacing him with Romney will help fix things.

Cause if most women believe the effect will be non-existent to minimal, but they are concerned regarding the Republican impact on birth control, you'll lose votes.

Republicans keep wanting to pin the economy on Obama, but it's simply continuing to improve and NOTHING the Republicans have shown would lead anybody to rationally conclude that any huge improvement could be seen by putting Mitt in the Oval Office.

40yearfan · #7 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

Oh. No doubts.
There are plenty more opportunities for Republicans to screw up until the actual election vote.

Yes there are. There are also plenty more opportunities for the Democrats to screw up also. The biggest thing is whether Obama can hold it together or not. He's not used to losing and he knows he has a real fight on his hands. Just the fact that he threatened SCOTUS shows he is starting to unravel under the strain.

The right-wing thinking is hilarious.
The right-wing has been persisting on "blame Obama" negative campaigning...
... but you try to phrase it like Obama has been negative campaigning.

BO will be doing nothing BUT negative campaigning. Look at how he tore into the Ryan budget. If you don't call that negative, you aren't being honest with yourself. BO doesn't have a record he can run on, especially if SCOTUS overturns his signature legislation. It will be like he wasted 2 years of having a majority in both houses and all he could accomplish was a healtcare debacle.

And in advance, I have no doubt that there is a lot of irony on the "blame Obama" / "blame Bush" historical aspects.

It's just that there are still a LOT of polls which show that a significant portion of the populace recognizes that Obama is trying to CLEAN UP Bush's mess, and not really causing one of his own...

Right. It's all Bush's fault. I'm sure BO will be muttering that same old tired refrain as he walks out of the White House for the last time in 2013. The guy has never taken responsibility for anything.

I'm sure Romney wishes that money raising is how the election will be won.

If you don't think money plays a VERY important part in electing a president, you aren't up to date. It's 50% of the battle.

But on that note, while Romney spends a lot OF HIS OWN money, and generates money FOR HIS OPPONENTS from people who despise him...
... I think you're forgetting Obama's money raising capabilities in 2008.

They aren't near as good in 2012. He can't run on hope and change anymore as people are realizing he was talking about changing our Republic to Socialism and hoping no one would notice the horrendous debt he was running up.

"stuttering"?
It's amazing how we see repeated signs of improvement, but the right keeps trying to refer to it as failing.
Perhaps it's a sign of how good the improvement is if you're trying to only refer to it as "stuttering" instead of "failing".

Economists were predicting 205,000 jobs being added in March, but we only added 120,000 (non-adjusted). The unemployment rate only went down 1/10th of a percent and that was due primarialy to people who are running out of unemployment or have just given up looking for work. A lot of the top economists are worried about a double dip recession. The adding of less jobs than predicted is a bad sign.

Quote:

But mostly, the picture was disappointing at a time when all eyes are on the U.S. to help keep global growth humming. The jobless rate, which is obtained from a separate survey of households, edged down to 8.2% from 8.3%, its lowest point in three years. However, that decline was due less to new hiring than people abandoning their job searches.

Friday's report stirred fears of a repeat of what happened in the early part of the past two years, when signs of strength petered out as months ticked by. Consumers increased their borrowing in February, Federal Reserve data showed Friday, but use of credit cards dropped for the second month, suggesting a pullback on some expenses. But most economists cautioned it was too soon to conclude that a slowing trend is under way. Private economists and the Federal Reserve have predicted that job creation would moderate this year, given that overall demand growth remains subdued and the economy faces challenges such as higher oil prices.

Job Growth Loses Steam - WSJ.com

40yearfan · #8 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1069

Bullsh!t. Keep telling yourself that.
You have no idea. Republicans could be handing out free thousand dollar bills weekly, and most women would still not vote for them if they're anti-contraception. 98% of American women use contraception. As a man, you really have no idea how important access to it is to women- married women even more so than single women.
Women care more about being able to have sex without getting pregnant than they do about having more money. Just trust me on this.
A good economy won't help them take care of their families if they're forced to have a dozen children (or else abstain from sex, lose their husband, and take care of their kids on their own). Reproductive freedom- access to contraception- is more important than the economy to most women..
Your statement sums up exactly why the republicans will lose in 2012, and keep on losing: cluelessness and misjudgement.

So show me where the Republicans have come out against birth control and don't want women to have it. And I don't mean some obscure, off the wall group who have no chance of getting anywhere with it. I mean where it is a part of the Republican platform. We have no problem with your reproductive freedom. Do as you please, but don't expect us to pay for it. We don't want to pay for implants or face lifts either unless it is for a family member and we pay for it out of our own pocket. Same thing for abortions. Have all of them you want. Just don't ask us to pay for them.

Rant and rave all you please, but at least get your facts straight.

rjaz · #9 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

So show me where the Republicans have come out against birth control and don't want women to have it. And I don't mean some obscure, off the wall group who have no chance of getting anywhere with it.

Yeah this whole "War on Women" thing is the biggest made up piece of garbage.

If you saw the Republican debate when Stephanopolous asked Romney about the issue of birth control, he had the biggest WTF is that question? look on his face.

It's a tactic to divert from high unemployment, underemployment, gas prices and other things that really matter.

Nobody wants to ban birth control. Having taxpayers pay for it is another issue.

1069 · #10 (**permalink**) 04-08-2012, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 40yearfan

So show me where the Republicans have come out against birth control and don't want women to have it.

Rick Santorum: Birth Control Is 'Not OK' - Video surfaces of Santorum decrying moral hazards of protected sex

Women will not elect someone who thinks this way to the highest office in the land, no matter how much you want to dismiss their concerns or claim that the president doesn't have the power to ban birth control and that he wouldn't even if he could, although he thinks it is "not okay".
Women also will not support a party in which this fool is one of the two front runners, and the other one is being forced into a "more-morally-upstanding-slash-patriarchal-and-oppressive-than-thou" competition with him.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
1069, saltwn

The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following User Says Thank You to 1069 For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following User Says Thank You to 40yearfan For This Useful Post:
rjaz

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rjaz For This Useful Post:
AzMike, GottaGo

The Following User Says Thank You to 1069 For This Useful Post:
foundit66