The most interesting finding of a recent NYT poll on voter preferences before the midterms: The Democrats have lost their edge with women. Though the NYT write-up of the poll doesn’t mention the change, it shows up in the accompanying graph... When asked “If the 2014 election for United States House of Representatives seats were being held today, would you vote for the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate in your district?” women favor Democrats over Republicans by one point only, 43 to 42 percent.This is a huge swing in a short period of time: just one month earlier, women preferred Democrats by 51 percent to 37 percent in response to that question in a similar Wall Street Journal poll. Nobody quite knows what accounts for the shift, but given that support for President Obama’s foreign policy has seen similar big drops among women, it’s likely the recent global unrest is part of the cause.
Perhaps what we are seeing here is the awakening of the under-appreciated “Wal-Mart mom” Jacksonians. Many Americans are default Jacksonians who favor muscular use of force abroad to protect U.S. interests. But when things seem to be going reasonably well, their Jacksonianism lies dormant, and they can appear to be non-interventionists. It is only when threats pile up and the world begins to seem less safe that Americans reveal their true foreign policy colors. Mothers with younger children can, as any student of human nature will tell you, act aggressively if they feel their children’s safety is threatened.
As Mead observes, while the Democrat's phony "war on women" meme has served the party well, it would appear that the rise of ISIS, the invasion of Ukraine, and a catastrophic panoply of disease, chaos, and criminality on the southern border take precedence over free contraceptives for many women.
In other words, reality trumps bullcrap.
Sandra Fluke (pronounced: fluck) hardest hit.
Hat tip: BadBlue News.
I've read the hypothesis that women, particularly single women, vote for the candidate that they feel will act as their surrogate father. They're looking for the candidate that will provide protection from the hazards of the world. Democrats in particular are supposedly fulfilling this need. Perhaps what we're seeing is an increase in the percentage of women who have come to understand that, at least right now, the democrats have failed to provide the desired protection.
ReplyDeleteGive me a break. Would anyone care to bet and how the womyn will vote in the next election cycle, esepcially the ones with five of six baby daddies?
ReplyDeleteAnd as for muscular foreign policy, the last time the USA had a muscular foreign policty was under Reagan. Our foreign policy since then has been to attack sixth rate nations that pose no threat to us nor can put up a reasonable fight (by that I mean the resistance a bridge table of 70 year old women are capable of).
If you mean that most people are tired of the greatest liar, most corrupt, best example of a racist, Marxist queer dirtbag who has carefully destroyed America's economy, foreign policy, and military and sabotaged its civic institutions, then you are probably correct, but note that 35% of the population would still vote for Satan, if the Democrats ran him.