Wash Times: Ron Paul’s campaign finds Big Gender Gap

bobbyw24

Banned
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
14,097
Wash Times: Ron Paul’s campaign finds Big Gender Gap

Ron Paul’s been playing to big crowds in Iowa and New Hampshire, but there’s something striking about them — there are usually way more men than women at his events.

That gender gap was evident in the voting in Iowa, too, where entrance polls before the caucuses showed he won a larger percentage of the male vote than the female vote. The gap is persisting into New Hampshire, where The Washington Times/JZ Analytics poll released last week found a 12 percentage point difference between his support from men and women.

Following Iowa’s voting, his supporters took note.

“Huge gender gap! We are not getting women voters!” read the headline on an active discussion on DailyPaul.com, an independent website that has become a must-read forum for his supporters.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/9/pauls-campaign-finds-big-gender-gap-to-bridge/
 
The Daily Paul is a "Must Read Forum" for Paul Supporters

www.DailyPaul.com

an independent website that has become a must-read forum for his supporters.

ron-paul-2012b.jpg
 
I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:
That reminds me of my female friend who voted for Bush in the 2008 elections because she thought he was better looking than Kerry. I would think it would be on abortion, but both Paul and Frothy disagree with it, except Paul doesn't want to force anti-abortion legislation down the state's throats--so got no idea.
 
Last edited:
I'll say it for you: More women vote based on physical appearance than men and unfortunately the ladies just don't think Ron Paul is a hot guy. :rolleyes:

They say that in 1920, women chose the better looking candidate--by a large margin
 
They need to get out the old family pics and the stories regarding how he handled his ob practice. I have been insulted in the past by AF's characterization of women but recent exposure to a group of voting females has jaded me to the fact that he is more right than wrong. The female voter is more emotional and irrational.
 
Part of it's looks, part of it is abortion, part of it is that more women than men vote from emotion, not logic -- and part of it is that we've failed to figure out how to work around those three issues.
 
Maybe they don't view him as compassionate with regard to the poor, the old and children? One woman's question at a townhall asked about how Paul would deal with child welfare/healthcare for the poor. Seems they need to be educated a bit more on market delivered services vs gov delivered.
 
better looking candidate?..not as bad a reason as neocon warmongering.atleast the motive is stupid and not evil
 
Good opportunity here to give a shout-out to all the female(s?) on Ron Paul forums to see past the superficial and vote for substance.
 
You can call me sexist, doesn't bother me. I've never known a woman who was actively engaged in politics for its own sake, in my entire life. Not to say they aren't around. But in order to get Ron Paul, you have to actively do research, and see through the propaganda. It's just a bridge too far for people who are generally casual observers.

In fact, I'll go even further than that. Just one generation ago, most women probably voted for whoever their husband voted for. Not because they were subservient, but because they didn't care all that much, and were deferring to someone who they felt knew more. Now the media has more of an influence than family, education, religion or anything else put together. When people call it big brother, I'm afraid it can be taken quite literally.
 
Women loved Clinton
Oh, how much we've learned since then.... if we could have a fiscally conservative president who runs surpluses, at a time when the dollar is strong, I wouldn't care how many hummers he gets in the oval office.

Of course, that whole pioneering paramilitary raids on people who haven't committed crimes thing would have to go.
 
The female voter is more emotional and irrational.

This is really misplaced male superiority.

Ron Paul makes a trade off of long term benefit vs short term caring. Women are less likely to be willing to make that trade off.

Wanting long term economic growth is as subjective a goal as wanting to help everyone today with what we have and be willing to have less later.

Maybe if Paul people weren't blinded to this we could do better.
 
All of the more active Ron Paul supporters I know were navy nukes along with my husband and the military has way more men than women. Maybe that factors in a little bit? Also that article doesn't actually compare Ron Paul to any other candidates, it just took some people talking on a forum and made it a story.

My husband also said that there are apparently scientific studies that prove men are better at economics than women. :rolleyes:
 
A lot of collectivist thought in here...

I'm not sure why this is, but I would suspect that there is a larger percentage of women that do not feed on politics the way a larger percentage of men do.

Just speaking from personal experience, my wife thinks much more locally. She thinks about the aspects of her life that she can control and thinks national politics is something that is out of her control. She likes Ron Paul because he is all about returning control to the localities as much as possible. Thereby, putting these issues back closer to her control. I'm not sure if this aspect would be a selling point to more women or not.
 
Back
Top