# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  ONLY 36% of women lean Republican, lower than ever

## randomname

For Democrats, their biggest net positive is from the gains theyve made, and built on, with female voters. The Democrats edge with women voters has more than doubled since 2010, from six points to 15 points, with Democrats consistently hammering Republicans over social issues, alleging a war on women. In 2010, Democrats only held a slim 47%-41% advantage, but in 2013 they lead 51%-36%. Among white women, Democrats erased a seven point deficit during their 2010 losses and now have a one point edge. If the GOP slide continues  a key factor in Romneys loss in 2012  its a bad sign for Republicans.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/19/reaso...from-congress/

----------


## kathy88

Not hard to believe. With the media spewing 24/7 how the R's hate women and want to send them back to *gasp* the kitchen. A good way to at least make the mouth breather libbers take a step back is to stress that it's funny to see them begging the government to help them acquire special rights over other groups, as opposed to fighting government for rights for everyone. I've seen a couple heads explode.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

some women are radical feminists who put birth control above all else.

other women like strong, manly men. 

the gop are mushy dorks that cater to neither.

----------


## kathy88

> some women are feminists. some women like strong, manly men. 
> 
> the gop caters to neither.



Some women exist without needing a man to define her, but don't consider themselves feminists.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Can Rand's hair bring them home?

----------


## calendula

Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?

----------


## Danke

> Some women exist without needing a man to define her, but don't consider themselves feminists.


And some women are beyond all definitions.

----------


## kathy88

> Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?


OMG I forgot about that ass clown!

----------


## calendula

I didn't, but I guess I tend to hold a grudge.  People like him just kinda ruin the republican party for me.

----------


## TheGrinch

Meh, I think it has do with more white women digging black guys nowadays

----------


## Snew

> Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?


this

----------


## idiom

Well. Hillary will send em all back to the GOP right? Right?

----------


## angelatc

> Not hard to believe. With the media spewing 24/7 how the R's hate women and want to send them back to *gasp* the kitchen. A good way to at least make the mouth breather libbers take a step back is to stress that it's funny to see them begging the government to help them acquire special rights over other groups, as opposed to fighting government for rights for everyone. I've seen a couple heads explode.


Not to mention the destruction of marriage and family lifestyle.  Now people think you're better off going on welfare than getting married at 19.

----------


## angelatc

> Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?


Oh look - a new member, pretending to be a Republican.

The Libtard media made that an issue.  God forbid they get excited about Democrats dropping bombs on people. We are all better off now that a Democrat has that seat - not.

Like it or not, people his age were taught that in school.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

> Well, when you got retards like Todd Akin claiming, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," is it really any surprise?


todd akin has like 0% name recognition. to think promiscuous fake blondes who break 9-to-1 for statism have any idea who todd akin is, is what's retarded.

----------


## krugminator

The fact of the matter is women genetically do not think the same as men.  Conservatism or libertarianism (especially in economics) appeals much more to logic than gut feel and intuition.  The Republican party needs to personalize its economic message more.

----------


## calendula

> todd akin has like 0% name recognition. to think promiscuous fake blondes who break 9-to-1 for statism have any idea who todd akin is, is what's retarded.


64 percent of the female population are promiscuous fake blondes?

----------


## calendula

> Oh look - a new member, pretending to be a Republican.
> 
> The Libtard media made that an issue.  God forbid they get excited about Democrats dropping bombs on people. We are all better off now that a Democrat has that seat - not.
> 
> Like it or not, people his age were taught that in school.


You are going to have to explain this "pretending to be a republican" bit to me.

----------


## angelatc

> You are going to have to explain this "pretending to be a republican" bit to me.


No, I think you are doing a great job of doing that for me.

----------


## JCDenton0451

Conservatives, take notice! This is how far mandatory ultrasounds get you with female voters.

I'm just waiting for Cooch to lose his election in Virginia to really drive the message home.

----------


## ObiRandKenobi

> Conservatives, take notice! This is how far mandatory ultrasounds get you with female voters.


75% of women couldn't pick mcauly or cooch out of a lineup (same goes for men).

chicks will vote for whoever they are told gives them more free stuff. the end. goodbye.

----------


## AuH20

> 75% of women couldn't pick mcauly or cooch out of a lineup (same goes for men).
> 
> *chicks will vote for whoever they are told gives them more free stuff. the end.* goodbye.


Yup. That's how they usually arrive at their marriage decisions. LOL

----------


## JCDenton0451

You know, if any of you were saying the same things about blacks that you say about blonde women, the more PC posters on board would label you 'racist'.

----------


## matt0611

Women are more emotional creatures than men are when it comes to politics and democrats have put their "emotional message" on overdrive. "War on women", "republicans are racist", "the tea party are terrorists", "republicans want to take away your birth control", "republicans want people to have guns so they can kill children in schools", "republicans are against 'equal pay' ", "republicans don't care about the poor" etc etc

Is it any surprise?

People do actually eat this stuff up, more women than men.

----------


## Deborah K

Okay wait a minute.  This is a poll conducted by whom?   NBC/Wall Street Journal polling??  No agenda there.

----------


## Deborah K

> The fact of the matter is women genetically do not think the same as men.  Conservatism or libertarianism (especially in economics) appeals much more to logic than gut feel and intuition.  The Republican party needs to personalize its economic message more.


What the hell are you talking about??  I was a man in my prior life, damnit.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Women are more emotional creatures than men are when it comes to politics and democrats have put their "emotional message" on overdrive. "War on women", "republicans are racist", "the tea party are terrorists", "republicans want to take away your birth control", "republicans want people to have guns so they can kill children in schools", "republicans are against 'equal pay' ", "republicans don't care about the poor" etc etc
> 
> Is it any surprise?
> 
> People do actually eat this stuff up, more women than men.


This is true to an extent, but you have to admit: Social Conservatives provide them lots of material to work with.

----------


## Barrex

Screw it I am derailing this thread:



P.s.
Ginger kids dont have souls.

----------


## enhanced_deficit

> Meh, I think it has do with more white women digging black guys nowadays


Is he good shopping buddy?

----------


## MelissaWV

In b4 sexist comments implying women are dumb, emotion-driven gold-digging whores.

Oops.  Too late.

----------


## angelatc

> And yet without it, how do we live in a civilized society?  Not everything can be settled through the market.


I think that philisophically speaking you're both right.  My vision of Utopia is probably a stateless society, but I know that's not realistic.

----------


## Czolgosz

Voting is a terrible thing and must be stopped.

----------


## Edward777

Single women without kids vote Democrat and married women with kids vote Republican.  Marriage rates are way down and births to middle income people are lower still.  

Ideal ground for liberalism to flourish.

----------


## Deborah K

> I think that philisophically speaking you're both right.  My vision of Utopia is probably a stateless society, but I know that's not realistic.


Same here, but it'll never be realistic in all situations.

----------


## Deborah K

> Voting is a terrible thing and must be stopped.


How would you stop it?

----------


## Cabal

> Same here, but it'll never be realistic in all situations.


How could you possibly know?

----------


## Deborah K

> How could you possibly know?


Because of the cyclical history of mankind.  I just don't think we have it in us. It's worth striving for though. Also, voting isn't exclusive to holding political office.  What about communities and committees?  How do they settle disagreements over decisions?

(this is a derail - we can start a new thread but I suspect this has been rehashed ad nauseum.)

----------


## Cabal

> Because of the cyclical history of mankind.  I just don't think we have it in us. It's worth striving for though. Also, voting isn't exclusive to holding political office.  What about communities and committees?  How do they settle disagreements over decisions?
> 
> (this is a derail - we can start a new thread but I suspect this has been rehashed ad nauseum.)


The cyclical history before automobiles didn't have automobiles. The cyclical history before the end of slavery had slavery. 

How many votes do you have to cast in your day to day life to "settle" things in a "civilized" way? Because, personally, I don't have to cast any, and the vast majority (with exceptions only where criminality or statism may be involved) of my interactions are entirely voluntary, non-violent, and civilized.

I just think it's fairly dismissive to say something is unrealistic and thus accept an alternative which generates demonstrably 'uncivilized' circumstances, thereby undermining the reasoning behind accepting that alternative in the first place.

----------


## Deborah K

> The cyclical history before automobiles didn't have automobiles. The cyclical history before the end of slavery had slavery.


Not sure what you're getting at here.  The following graphic will help explain my point better, I think:



Until we stop this cycle, we're doomed to repeat it, over and over.




> How many votes do you have to cast in your day to day life to "settle" things in a "civilized" way? Because, personally, I don't have to cast any, and the vast majority (with exceptions only where criminality or statism may be involved) of my interactions are entirely voluntary, non-violent, and civilized.


I don't base my philosophy on this matter entirely on my own life experiences.  I try to consider the macrocosm of a local situation and determine the best solution.  For example:  what if a community is split about whether or not to accept convicts (fill in the blank) into their neighborhoods?  Or what about having a prison nearby, or a landfill?  How is a situation like this going to be settled in the marketplace?  Now put that on a larger scale? These decisions should be voted on.  This is what I meant here when referring to the vote:




> And yet without it, how do we live in a civilized society?  Not everything can be settled through the market.





> I just think it's fairly dismissive to say something is unrealistic and thus accept an alternative which generates demonstrably 'uncivilized' circumstances, thereby undermining the reasoning behind accepting that alternative in the first place.


I think you're being dismissive of my opinion on this by assuming I "accept" the status quo.  I never said I did, and I don't.  I believe strongly that the gov't steals our money and then uses it to control us.  I also firmly believe that was never the intention of the founders, they fought a revolution to escape that situation.  They weren't around for the Federal Reserve Act, or the 16th amendment.   I also firmly believe that had the Constitution been strictly adhered to all these years we would be a lot better off than we are, and we'd quite possibly be moving closer to a 'stateless' society than we are.  I have no expectations that we will get there from here.

----------


## Cabal

> Not sure what you're getting at here.  The following graphic will help explain my point better, I think:
> 
> 
> 
> Until we stop this cycle, we're doomed to repeat it, over and over.
> 
> I don't base my philosophy on this matter entirely on my own life experiences.  I try to consider the macrocosm of a local situation and determine the best solution.  For example:  what if a community is split about whether or not to accept convicts (fill in the blank) into their neighborhoods?  Or what about having a prison nearby, or a landfill?  How is a situation like this going to be settled in the marketplace?  Now put that on a larger scale? These decisions should be voted on.  This is what I meant here:
> 
> I think you're being dismissive of my opinion on this by assuming I "accept" the status quo.  I never said I did, and I don't.  I believe strongly that the gov't steals our money and then uses it to control us.  I also firmly believe that was never the intention of the founders, they fought a revolution to escape that situation.  They weren't around for the Federal Reserve Act, or the 16th amendment.   I also firmly believe that had the Constitution been strictly adhered to all these years we would be a lot better off than we are, and we'd quite possibly be moving closer to a 'stateless' society than we are.  I have no expectations that we will get there from here.


My point was people probably thought, for example, cars and non-slavery were unrealistic things that would never come to pass at some point too. 

I don't base my philosophy entirely on my own life experience either, but neither do I disregard facts that stare back at me every single day of my life.

If I were being dismissive, I wouldn't be engaging you, I think. In any case, I'm glad you don't accept things as they are now, even if I don't agree with your analysis of certain things.

----------


## Deborah K

> I don't base my philosophy entirely on my own life experience either, but neither do I disregard facts that stare back at me every single day of my life.


I hope you're not suggesting that I do.  I am more a victim of the state than I care to discuss.  But I'm realistic about my expectations when it comes to the masses and their ability to move from tyranny to a stateless society.  Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime, or yours probably.  In the meantime, I'll continue with my plan.




> If I were being dismissive, I wouldn't be engaging you, I think.


Fair enough.

----------


## erowe1

> It is happening on this forum. Nobody has any right to vote. Who the hell are women to use government to tell others how to live their life.


JCDenton just called my attention to this post, and it's definitely worth a +rep.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> JCDenton just called my attention to this post, and it's definitely worth a +rep.


Well, you and Cutlerzzz definitely have much in common. You're both social conservatives dinosaurs. 

You two can take credit for these dismal polling numbers.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Well, you and Cutlerzzz definitely have much in common. You're both social conservatives dinosaurs. 
> 
> You two can take credit for these dismal polling numbers.


My mistake. I apologize for ruining Ron Paul's poll numbers and opposing democracy.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> My mistake. I apologize for ruining Ron Paul's poll numbers and opposing democracy.


Obviously, I was referring to this statistic: ONLY 36% of women lean Republican, lower than ever

Opposing women's suffrage would have been deemed extreme 70 years ago, now most people would just think, you're not right in the head and/or have issues with women. It's that kind of rhetoric that's mostly responsible for alienating female voters from the Republican party.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Why would I want women to vote Republican? Am I supposed to see Republicans as being my allies?

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It is happening on this forum. Nobody has any right to vote. Who the hell are women to use government to tell others how to live their life.





> JCDenton just called my attention to this post, and it's definitely worth a +rep.


Agreed. JCD seems to be coming more and more unhinged.
(Not that his door was mounted too firmly to begin with ...)

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Agreed. JCD seems to be coming more and more unhinged.
> (Not that his door was mounted too firmly to begin with ...)


Occam, I thought you were wisely staying out of this thread!

----------


## Czolgosz

> How would you stop it?


Mostly jesting.  


Mostly.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Occam, I thought you were wisely staying out of this thread!


We all have our moments of weakness. This was one of mine.

----------


## JCDenton0451

> Agreed. JCD seems to be coming more and more unhinged.
> (Not that his door was mounted too firmly to begin with ...)


So, you live in the 21st century and you think that women should be denied the right to vote? And you somehow frame this as a pro-Liberty position...
You're part of the problem, Banana. 

Here is another specimen, who admits that mandatory ultrasounds is a stupid policy, yet doesn't want it overturned since the women who seek abortions "deserve no sympathy anyway". To the extent such attitudes are common among the social-conservatives they explain the problems Republican party is facing with female voters.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> So, you live in the 21st century and you think that women should be denied the right to vote?


I said I agreed with erowe1's positive remark about Cutlerzzz's post.

Cutlerzzz said, "Nobody has any right to vote," and, "Who the hell are women to use government to tell others how to live their li[ves?]"

Given that I am an anarchist who doesn't think that anyone should be allowed to "use government to tell others how to live their lives," what's NOT for me to agree with in any of that?

No where in this can you find any basis for concluding that I "think that women should be denied the right to vote."
People cannot be denied a right they do not have to begin with. Not men. Not women.
Not left-handed Scientologists who wear glasses and go line-dancing every other Friday ...




> And you somehow frame this as a pro-Liberty position..


I did not "frame" anything as anything else.

Oh, wait - actually I did. I framed you as a door coming off its hinges. I stand by that assessment.




> You're part of the problem, Banana.


You're an idiot who has severe reading comprehension deficiencies (see above).

----------


## JCDenton0451

> I said I agreed with erowe1's positive remark about Cutlerzzz's post.
> 
> Cutlerzzz said, "Nobody has any right to vote," and, "Who the hell are women to use government to tell others how to live their life[?]"
> 
> No where in this can you find any basis for concluding that I "think that women should be denied the right to vote."


 You can find basis in the context of Cutlerzzz's comment if you follow the link to read his post in full.

----------


## erowe1

> You can find basis in the context of Cutlerzzz's comment if you follow the link to read his post in full.


The only part of his post that I didn't quote was his quote of somebody else.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> You can find basis in the context of Cutlerzzz's comment if you follow the link to read his post in full.


I remarked upon erowe1's remark (which was a remark upon Cutlerzzz's remark (which was a remark upon A. Havnes's remark (which was ... )))

What's next?

Are you going to play "Six Degrees of _der Führer_" to call me a Nazi because it can be shown that Adolf Hitler and I agree that "2 + 2 = 4" ... ?

So  right back at you. And have another:

----------


## Cabal

> Agreed. JCD seems to be coming more and more unhinged.
> (Not that his door was mounted too firmly to begin with ...)


My front door frame gets rather warped in the summer heat and becomes a pita to open.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> My front door frame gets rather warped in the summer heat and becomes a pita to open.


Ah, but "warped" is a thing apart from "unhinged" ...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I remarked upon erowe1's remark_ (which was a remark upon Cutlerzzz's remark (which was a remark upon A. Havnes's remark (which was ... ))_ *(Thus you all suck because of a long absurd train of peace-quoting)*
> What's next?
> 
> Are you going to play "Six Degrees of _der Führer_" to call me a Nazi because it can be shown that Adolf Hitler and I agree that "2 + 2 = 4" ... ?
> 
> So  right back at you. And have another:


This really, really reminds me of Outside the Camp...  Ugh...

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> You can find basis in the context of Cutlerzzz's comment if you follow the link to read his post in full.


The context was that no one has the right to vote.

----------


## Carlybee

> I cry a lot lately.  Am I becoming more woman like?


Men are bigger crybabies than women. They are just better at concealing it.

----------


## Petar

Carlybee and Cajuncocoa should have supported Ken Cuccinelli.

----------

