Ron Paul has a woman problem: Time to address it

There is a women and old people problem. The problem with women is that they want safety nets as a poster above wrote. Ron Paul should talk about how he would save trillions per year by ending the wars, the war on drug, the bailouts and would take care of anyone who needs it while the other candidates will spend all of the money on wars, the war on drugs, and bailouts while everyone suffers from the inflation.

The old people problem is because they have been brought up to be trigger happy and believe any war propaganda.
 
While it's true that Romney is a handsome man, and looks are very important for both sexes (do you think Sarah Palin would have gotten anywhere if she were unattractive?), I don't think that explains the degree of discrepancy in voting. Ron is an endearing looking older man.

Has there been any studies breaking down concerns with Ron Paul by gender? I frankly would have thought that Ron would poll higher with women due to his anti-war stance, but maybe that shows how little I know. Perhaps my assumption that women preferred less hawkish candidates is completely off.
 
milo10 said:
While it's true that Romney is a handsome man, and looks are very important for both sexes (do you think Sarah Palin would have gotten anywhere if she were unattractive?), I don't think that explains the degree of discrepancy in voting. Ron is an endearing looking older man.

Has there been any studies breaking down concerns with Ron Paul by gender? I frankly would have thought that Ron would poll higher with women due to his anti-war stance, but maybe that shows how little I know. Perhaps my assumption that women preferred less hawkish candidates is completely off.
Click to expand...

Maybe an important number of women are very influenced by radical feminist man-haters who want to force other people to take care of them, provide them with free abortion services.
 
sailingaway said:
study after study say women are more concerned with the existence of a safety net, whether they use it or not, being more likely to head up one parent families and more likely to be one paycheck away from poverty. Address how Ron's plan protects social security and medicare and transfers the safety net to the states, in block grants, before ending the federal administration of it, and you will address the disparate concerns of seniors and women both, measurably. I also think rule of law is a good one, as well.
Click to expand...

Finally, a sensible thought in this bizarre thread.

But no matter how much catering to people the campaign can do to show RP won't touch social security, etc, etc, etc, he still ranks LAST in terms of willingness to give out entitlements (thank GOD for that). So you're not going to win over any true support and you're just going to make RP look moderate (and theres a pretty popular moderate in the race right now).

RP says it best; as usual he's several steps ahead of everyone on this forum--RP continues to point out that the intellectual revolution (and influencing people's hearts and minds) must get bigger before the political revolution can happen.

You guys seem tow ant the RP campaign to play by the same rules that the Obama campaign played by, or that the Romney campaign plays by. Formula: (1) find the most moderate Republican (or Democrat) position to suit the mainstream media dialogue while providing enough rhetoric to stir the party's base, (2) hire a staff of witty writers to give you nebulous but hard-hitting one-liners (have you heard Mitt's recent speeches? the whole "Obama was elected to lead, he chose to follow, now he must get out of the way" blurb is exactly what I'm talking about), (3) align with wealthy special interests to secure funding (money can pay for supporters in crowds and anything else you could politically desire).

The RP campaign CAN'T play by this strategy b/c we don't play by the same rules. We can't pander to the base b/c it undermines the whole point of RP's candidacy. We can't get in bed with special interests b/c its morally reprehensible. We can't put on the facade of being moderate because WE AREN'T!

Stay true to the message, stay true to RP. Thats the only path to real success that we have.
 
LibertyEagle said:
How about this. A whole lot of people over 40 perceive Dr. Paul as weak on national defense and siding with our enemies. Many also perceive him as being "anti-military". They do not hear a strategy for defending our country against our enemies and have interpreted him saying "anti-war" as being a pacifist. Many also do not know what he is talking about when he says business cycle or washing out the malinvestment and they do not hear what actual steps he will take that will result in them being able to find a job. Top all that off with the fact that they do not believe he can beat Obama. Voila.
Click to expand...

I don't know that anything can be done about this in this election cycle. It's pretty clear by now that Dr. Paul is not going to change the way he's framing his message. I'm running into more and more people who tell me, "Look, you and other Paul supporters do a better job of explaining Paul's positions than he does. That's a problem with your candidate, and that's not going to cut it for people who need to hear a message they can understand and support from the candidate.

Ron has said, multiple times, that he plans to "keep doing what we've been doing." He's also said, "If Americans are ready to hear my message, I will do well. If they aren't, then I won't." In other words, either people are ready to wake up and accept the Liberty message, or they aren't. He's not going to try to finesse or reframe the message to get people to vote for him without going through the epiphany that the supporters here have experienced.

In other words, Ron is Ron, not Rand. He's more interested in preaching Liberty than becoming President. With that being the case, there's only so much we as supporters can do.
 
low preference guy said:
I actually believe it probably would be true but in the general election, not the GOP primary.
Click to expand...

There's a segment of the population that is, indeed, feminist. I can't imagine any of them voting for a Republican.... ever.

But it isn't a large slice of the electorate and I can't imagine that they're in any way representative of the larger female population.
 
Boss said:
Finally, a sensible thought in this bizarre thread.

But no matter how much catering to people the campaign can do to show RP won't touch social security, etc, etc, etc, he still ranks LAST in terms of willingness to give out entitlements (thank GOD for that). So you're not going to win over any true support and you're just going to make RP look moderate (and theres a pretty popular moderate in the race right now).

RP says it best; as usual he's several steps ahead of everyone on this forum--RP continues to point out that the intellectual revolution (and influencing people's hearts and minds) must get bigger before the political revolution can happen.

You guys seem tow ant the RP campaign to play by the same rules that the Obama campaign played by, or that the Romney campaign plays by. Formula: (1) find the most moderate Republican (or Democrat) position to suit the mainstream media dialogue while providing enough rhetoric to stir the party's base, (2) hire a staff of witty writers to give you nebulous but hard-hitting one-liners (have you heard Mitt's recent speeches? the whole "Obama was elected to lead, he chose to follow, now he must get out of the way" blurb is exactly what I'm talking about), (3) align with wealthy special interests to secure funding (money can pay for supporters in crowds and anything else you could politically desire).

The RP campaign CAN'T play by this strategy b/c we don't play by the same rules. We can't pander to the base b/c it undermines the whole point of RP's candidacy. We can't get in bed with special interests b/c its morally reprehensible. We can't put on the facade of being moderate because WE AREN'T!

Stay true to the message, stay true to RP. Thats the only path to real success that we have.
Click to expand...

You won't win those actively agitating for a hand out, but the 'uneasy' financially would at least know absolute worst case wouldn't happen for them or their kids. I sure think it's worth a try, given how taken for granted this element is in influencing the female vote AND that of the elderly.
 
LibertyEagle said:
Because you do not need to single them out, for the most part. Women know about Gingrich's past. It's just that considering what is going on with our economy and the world, that takes precedence.

I do not think you understand how many women are in this movement. Do you realize I am one?
Click to expand...

You being a woman and being a Ron Paul supporter doesn't take away from the fact that Romney and Gingrich did well with women last night in Nevada. It doesn't take away from the fact that he is doing poorly in Minnesota with women. I am not bashing women. The reason I am discussing this with you and others is because I am truly astonished that he polls so poorly with them. I was watching Fox News once where a woman said she is voting for Dr. Paul because she can see it in his eyes that he is telling the truth and he is honest. To me, women are much better at judging character than men because they have to.

But, even that doesn't take away from the fact that he is polling poorly with them. If the women were backing Romney and/or Santorum, followed by Paul and Gingrich last, I could see your point. But, as I said, Gingrich was second behind Romney among women who voted. That is what I am trying to say. It is on them, not us.

Ron has a message of liberty. I don't want to pander to any group. It is up to them to take it or leave it.

I am very disappointed with how we are polling among women.
 
Last edited:
Stossel had guests on recently who showed that our economic and social preferences as developed in small groups in our ancestral environment don't scale up to complex, modern societies; that's why a lot of our decisions are irrational and guys cannot understand why women are so fixated on looks and personality. (In a small group situation those things are a reassurrance to women, but they are meaningless in the modern world where decisions and the setting of policy is the most important thing.)

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/01/12/your-instinct-wrong-sunday-3pm-et-fox-news

http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/index.html

In addition, I think that because most women know that because they will have to be economically dependent on others at some stage (late pregnancy & bringing up children), they are reluctant to adopt libertarian principles themselves, where standing on your own two feet is paramount.

If I was going to create a libertarian message to attract women to the cause it would go something like this: Women have organized their own childcare for tens of thousands of years and do not need a man from the government with a beard and a clipboard to tell them how to bring up children or anything else. Women need to start organizing with their husbands, families and other women to pursue their needs instead of looking to government to do this for them - a government which is being lobbied by a zillion other people who want it to give them all the things that they want as well.
 
jasonxe said:
We have a women and old people problem.
Click to expand...

Well, a lot of people are going to bash me for this...but,

we are not going to get the baby boomers. Ron has repeatedly stated that he will not touch SS and Medicare. They have rejected Ron's message because they are so wrapped up in the entitlement system. Think about it, it is all they know. So when someone gets up there and says he thinks it's unconstitutional, even though he will protect it, they are automatically turned off.

Another point to consider is that a lot of the older people don't care. Again, I am going to receive a lot of harsh words for what I am about to say:

They don't care about the future. They want what they believe is theirs. They feel entitled to their Social Security and Medicare. Just look up that episode where John Stossel talked with the baby boomers and hear what they say. It was absolutely disgusting. They know very well they are robbing the younger generation and they don't care. Think about it, they are receiving 3x the benefits that they put in themselves. That is robbery! Now, I am not going to say that ALL of the baby boomers share that outlook. That would be unfair of me to do. In fact, when I was in New Hampshire, an older guy came walking up with what appeared to be his granddaughter. He came up to me (I was holding an RP sign) and he said "I want her (his little girl) to have a future. I am voting for Ron Paul." It almost made me tear up. Also, a lady who needed to be helped to vote, walked up to us after she voted and said, "I voted for him. Good luck". Also, I do know some older people who are supporting Ron Paul. But the facts are, based on the previous primaries, that they do not support Dr. Paul's message. This is very clear.

Here comes the bashing in...
3
2
1
.....
 
Last edited:
We haven't sold RP to the average women, so it doesn't surprise me. Everything we do is all based on technicalities and we never explain WHY Ron Paul would be a good president or WHAT they can expect from his policies. Everything we tend to do comes off professorial or theory based and many women (and men) don't respond well to that.

Some of the words Ron Paul uses make me cringe at times too. "safety net" "welfare state" has some serious bad connotation to it. I also hate his "cradle to grave" line he uses in almost every stump speech. Ugh. He needs to remove it from his vocabulary imo. Not every woman is single with 3 kids and are on welfare. We need to go after the independent single and married women who are buying groceries, struggling with bills, sending their husbands and kids off to war.

Why are we trying to sway the pro-abortion, pro-entitlement women? Someone help me understand why in these threads the abortion and welfare idea always comes up? How many women on welfare are Republicans? How many women who are pro-abortion are Republicans? Focusing on these two issues makes zero sense at all.

There was a thread asking for input on a brochure for women and this is what I had to say. These are the types of ideas we need.

If you want to make a brochure for women, then you need to have broad, general ideas of what Ron Paul would do for them. Sure there are a lot of women here who like the fine details in things (I am one of them lol), but I think for the average woman out there, we need to step back from the theories, professorial approach and come at this with hard hitting emotional big picture ideas. Having lots of pictures is probably a good idea too.

Here's some rough ideas I came up. Grammar and word choices probably aren't the best, but it gives you an idea of what I'm thinking.

  • Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands the hardships our military families go through during times of war. He will give those families their ultimate dream by bringing the troops home. [picture of a serviceman and wife reuniting]
  • Ron Paul is the only one who understands why it is becoming harder to keep food on our tables for our families. He knows exactly what needs done in order to keep the cost of living from continuing to climb each year.
  • Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes we should keep the government out of our lives. He will trust you to make your own decisions based upon what is good for you and your family.
  • Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes the government should keep their hands off of your hard earned cash. This way you can choose how to spend your money on what is important to you, instead of allowing bureaucrats in Washington to spend your money wastefully.
Click to expand...
 
sailingaway said:
You won't win those actively agitating for a hand out, but the 'uneasy' financially would at least know absolute worst case wouldn't happen for them or their kids. I sure think it's worth a try, given how taken for granted this element is in influencing the female vote AND that of the elderly.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not against trying to emphasize those points, so long as it doesn't come at the expense of emphasizing what RP holds to be top priorities. I thought the last speaker at the CNN "late night caucus" for RP did a good job of articulating what you are describing.
 
I just realized I'm a socially awkward penguin.


354e4w.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
Report: US Deploys Air and Naval Forces to Southern Caribbean To ‘Address Threats from Cartels’
Replies
0
Views
18
PAF
PAF
Occam's Banana
The lessons of Ron Paul
Replies
12
Views
152
acptulsa
acptulsa
PAF
Who Killed Charlie Kirk?
Replies
2
Views
166
James_Madison_Lives
J
PAF
A Big Beautiful Bill for the Military-Industrial Complex
Replies
0
Views
41
PAF
PAF
PAF
The Police State Has a New Playbook: Martial Law, One City at a Time
Replies
1
Views
37
PAF
PAF
Back
Top