Is the Republian Party the new party for women?

[MC.no.spin]

A recent poll shows more women are now pro-life than pro-choice, the Republicans have a female running for VP and the Democrats have bashed Hillary (and thus offended her feminist supporters) for months. Democrats have been the party for women's rights, but have Republicans made sufficient strides and the Democrats made sufficient mistakes to lead a whole new movement into the Republican Party?

 

[Kandahar]

I doubt it. On most issues that women care about more than men (e.g. health care, education, environment), they strongly favor the Democrats' position.

I would be very surprised if McCain does better among women than he does among men, or the opposite for Obama.

 

[Zyphlin]

I don't honestly think either party is the "party of women". Trying to say how "women" in general view an issue is like saying the same thing for men, blacks, youth, etc.

Will they perhaps gravitate to one party or another? Perhaps. But I don't think either is the "party of women".

Yes, education is important to women. Some believe there must be more and more government controlled and ran educational oppertunities. Others believe the government needs to play the roll of parent less and should give more choices to them as to where they want to send their child.

Yes, abortion is an important issue to women. Some believe that a womans choice of what to do with her body is paramount. Others believe that the sanctity of life, which women are able to bring into this world, needs to be respected and protected.

Yes, health care is an important issue for women. Some believe that the government needs to provide health care for all children while other women believe they want to provide health care for their children and have the chance to get them the best possible instead of just what the government provides.

I think its typical divisive politics and pandering when either party tries to say they're the "party of X" or claim the other party is as such. I believe its an insult to every person of that particular nationality/sex/race/religion/etc in the party that is not claimed as the "party of X".

 

[Kandahar]

True, but a party can at least make a CLAIM to being the "party of X" if they do significantly better among members of Group X than among non-members of Group X.

The GOP cannot make that claim in regards to women. For every presidential election since exit polling began, Democrats have done better among women than among men, and Republicans have done better among men than among women. I'd be very surprised if that changed for this election.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

A recent poll shows more women are now pro-life than pro-choice,

Please show me a poll where the majority holds the Pro-Life position that Abortion should be illegal in all cases:

Abortion

the Republicans have a female running for VP and the Democrats have bashed Hillary (and thus offended her feminist supporters) for months.

How have the Dems bashed Hillary Clinton? She got 18 million votes from the Dems. Losing a in a primary is not being "bashed".

Democrats have been the party for women's rights, but have Republicans made sufficient strides and the Democrats made sufficient mistakes to lead a whole new movement into the Republican Party?

No. The Republicans would have to quit moving so far to the right and become more socially moderate and pragmatic to pick up more women votes.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Please show me a poll where the majority holds the Pro-Life position that Abortion should be illegal in all cases:

HE just said pro-life, which within itself has different positions. "Illegal in all cases" is just one of many shades of PL positions.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

HE just said pro-life, which within itself has different positions. "Illegal in all cases" is just one of many shades of PL positions.

Find a single pro-life organization that does not believe abortion should be illegal in all cases. If you even think that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or murder, then your not pro-life.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Find a single pro-life organization that does not believe abortion should be illegal in all cases. If you even think that abortion should only be legal in cases of rape or murder, then your not pro-life.

Michael Savage(You know, the raging die-hard guy?) believes abortion only in cases of rape, murder, etc. at the request of the mother, to be approved at the consensus of 3 doctors.

Yet, everyone calls him pro-life :shrug

 

[Singularity]

Michael Savage(You know, the raging die-hard guy?) believes abortion only in cases of rape, murder, etc. at the request of the mother, to be approved at the consensus of 3 doctors.

Yet, everyone calls him pro-life :shrug

Clarify: how does Michael Savage believe in abortions in cases of murder? And what does "etc" entail here?

Furthermore, I don't think you are correct on Michael Savage's abortion stance. From what I read, he wants to "make abortions illegal, except when the physical survival of the mother is threatened, to be determined by three medical doctors". There is zero mention of rape or murder in his Savage Manifesto.

Source: The Savage Manifesto

 

[DarkWizard12]

Clarify: how does Michael Savage believe in abortions in cases of murder? And what does "etc" entail here?

Furthermore, I don't think you are correct on Michael Savage's abortion stance. From what I read, he wants to "make abortions illegal, except when the physical survival of the mother is threatened, to be determined by three medical doctors". There is zero mention of rape or murder in his Savage Manifesto.

Source: The Savage Manifesto

Ah, ok I just misunderstood what he said yesterday...

or he gaffed! :lol:

But still, even he takes in the consideration of the mother's life.

 

[Doc Howl]

A recent poll shows more women are now pro-life than pro-choice, the Republicans have a female running for VP and the Democrats have bashed Hillary (and thus offended her feminist supporters) for months. Democrats have been the party for women's rights, but have Republicans made sufficient strides and the Democrats made sufficient mistakes to lead a whole new movement into the Republican Party?

No, not yet. The republican party is still too infested with fundamentalist Christians who believe that women are 2d class citizens at best, property at worst. James Dobson, for example, who believes that women are incapable of leading their own lives, is HUGE with the GOP. And let's just say that The Promisekeepers aren't going to flock to the democrats this year.

Some recent changes have improved the situation, but until the party is able to distance itself from the Pat Robertsons and the Pastor Hagees, they are most definitely NOT the party of women.

 

[1069]

Ah, ok I just misunderstood what he said yesterday...

or he gaffed! :lol:

But still, even he takes in the consideration of the mother's life.

Big of him. :?

 

[1069]

Is the Republian Party the new party for women?

The republican Party is the party of warmongers, and as such, it's never going to attract women in significant numbers.

 

[disneydude]

This is funny. The GOP the new party for Women.:rofl Next it will be "The GOP, the new party for minorities".

No, the GOP will always be the party of old white rich men who are afraid of change.

 

[UtahBill]

Yes, it could be, with any luck. Women tend to be less aggressive, more prone to think before acting than men. That is MOST women....I have my doubts about a few, but for the most part, women make better leaders.
Does that make me a gender traitor?

 

[MC.no.spin]

Check this out, I just found this and it hits at a similar notion, but Gallup takes it one step further: Independent White Women.

Gallup.com Video

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

It is pretty laughable to bill a party that disagrees with the majority of women on virtually every issue as the women's party simply because they found a Phyllis Schlafly think-alike to run as their VP.

 

[MC.no.spin]

Interesting!

Pro-Life Democrats Group Highlights Why Party Losing Voters Over Abortion

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 27, 2008

Add to My Yahoo! Email RSS Printer Buzz up!

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- On the same day Gallup released the results of a new poll showing Barack Obama losing support from pro-life Democrats, Democrats for Life of America released a new analysis showing why the party is failing to attract voters. The organization says the pro-abortion stranglehold must loosen to win the White House.

The Gallup poll found Obama losing ground against John McCain in part because he has lost several percentage points with pro-life Democrats.

The DFLA document, sent to LifeNews.com on Wednesday, points to polling data showing the problem.

Its analysis finds a political party whose extreme position in favor of unlimited abortions funded at taxpayer expense is out of step with its own membership.

The group says a 2007 Gallup poll found 51 percent of Democrats say abortion is morally wrong and another 35 percent identified themselves as pro-life in a 2008 Gallup survey.

Not only has the Democratic Party disenfranchised pro-life Democrats, but DFLA says it remains out of touch with Americans as a whole.

While a Zogby poll found about two-thirds of the American public backs sensible abortion limits like parental consent, informed consent, and a partial-birth abortion ban -- both the party and its presidential candidate Barack Obama oppose those ideas.

"Despite overwhelming popular support for restrictions on abortion, the
Democratic Party platform continues to advocate for the small minority of
Americans in favor of abortion-on-demand, no matter what the circumstance," the group told LifeNews.com.

DFLA says the Democratic Party focuses on winning over Hispanic and women voters, but it points to polling data showing them as more pro-life than the general public.

A 2008 Pew Hispanic Center poll found 83 percent of Hispanics oppose abortion and a 2005 CBS News survey indicated just 28 percent of women side with the unlimited pro-abortion position the party and Obama hold.

The group noted that the pro-abortion groups that contribute millions to the Democratic Party and run its abortion stance aren't getting good results.

Emily's List raised $52.3 million for female candidates who support abortion in the 2004 elections, yet, the states where Emily’s List ran an extensive Voter Mobilization Project, none of their Senate candidates won.

Some 80% of the candidates endorsed by the Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life women's political action committee, won their elections while just 35 percent of Emily’s List candidates won.

"Our Party gets a lot of money from pro-choice Democrats. But as this analysis shows, it is not converted into votes for a pro-choice presidential candidate," says Kristen Day, executive director of the group.

"The choice for our Party is not about abortion, but the choice to either have money or have votes. Obama needs to decide which is it going to be?"

Related web sites:
Democrats for Life of America - Democrats For Life of America

Pro-Life Democrats Group Highlights Why Party Losing Voters Over Abortion

 

[Panther]

Is the Republican Party the new party for women?

No, but it is the party for "Straight Women". :2razz:

 

[Kandahar]

Yes, it could be, with any luck. Women tend to be less aggressive, more prone to think before acting than men.

What part of that description sounds like the GOP to you?

 

[UtahBill]

What part of that description sounds like the GOP to you?

I said "could" be, not is....
The GOP has had far too many greedy, selfish, power hungry men in it, compared to the DEMs, altho lately they seem to be catching up. Women don't have those attributes nearly as much as men. Overall, women are not only the gentler sex, but the smarter sex....