Why did so many women vote for Trump?

Although I haven't read it yet, First Things has an article "How Trump won over women voters."  How Trump Won Over Women Voters | Rachel Bovard | First Things I'll give my own opinion and read it later--usually you can read that excellent religion and culture journal free for one or two times.

 
My take. Although highly paid and over-educated women as a group do lean to the left and are easily led because they are too busy with career and kids to carefully research the issues of the day, most women care about their budget, their children's education, their neighborhood, the safety of their families and community, and they love being women. They may love men, but don't want to compete with them for restroom facilities or athletic scholarships. Also, they don't like wimpy, childish men. Really.

 
That would sum up a Trump voter, or at least a voter who realized Harris didn't align with their values no matter who was running against her. Women voters knew, because Harris said so, that she was the last person in the room when Joe signed off on the Afghanistan bug out, when he showed the world how weak and feckless he was throwing us into 2 wars with no vote from Congress, and how she went along with the country lock down mandates, how the churches closed without a whimper from fear, and how children were unnecessarily forced to get the jab or be locked out of their schools and athletic events. Women voters saw other women being cancelled for speaking out or deciding not to run for school board or city council out of fear of retaliation. Women voters saw their own grocery bills and housing costs soar while illegals were being housed and fed in hotels. https://nypost.com/.../nyc-now-using-14-hotels-to-house.../

"In the real world, where the vast majority of American women actually live, this shift was inevitable. Most American women are turning to the right because the elite left has turned against most American women.

According to exit polls, women voters’ top concerns in 2024 were the economy and “threats to our democracy.” By contrast, Democrats’ top campaign messages were “abortion-on-demand” and “Orange Man Bad.” 

Maybe their marching song instead of "I am woman hear me roar" (1972) became "I am woman respect my body and my vote" (2024).

Thoughts by Mike on the Virginia victory--and I agree

Mike, a commenter at the NeoCon blog pointed out what we should all remember about the Virginia victory:

"Not to pull a black cloud out of a silver lining but it is important to remember that in order to get last night’s results, we literally had to have the top Democrat in Virginia say out loud in front of cameras “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach” AND we had to have a story break in the closing weeks of the campaign of a Virginia school literally covering up for a rapist, seemingly out of fear of offending the transgender community.

And even with all THAT, NBC News exit polls showed 62% of college-educated white women STILL voted for McAullife.

There’s a long fight ahead of us.
Mike"

Being a white, college-educated suburban woman myself, I sometimes suspect woman suffrage was a terrible mistake. They just seem to want to be taken care of, and the Democrat party promises that, but never delivers.

Know what your party stands for before you vote

From  Joan Shaw Turrentine

"Our current society is mostly emotion driven, but good decisions are based on reason, not emotion. Before Election Day, when deciding where you’d like to help pilot our national plane (You know, the one we’re all going to fly or die in together) use your God-given reasoning power. Know each party’s platform when deciding your vote.

•Where does the ticket stand on religious freedom?

•Where does the ticket stand on life for the unborn?

•Where does the ticket stand on helping our low income citizens find financial freedom?

•Where does it stand on your pension plan?

•Where does the ticket stand on freedom for the citizenry to determine their own prosperity?

•Where does the ticket stand on adherence to the Constitution - separation of powers, bill of rights, etc?

Read the platform.

Read their RECORD - especially on hot-button issues such as race, gender-equality, etc

Don’t be fooled by labels thrown about.

Picture our country as you’d like it to be ten years from now.

Our RIGHTS as American citizens depend on all of us exercising our corresponding DUTIES as American citizens."

That pesky male female gap

The Pew Research Center found that 2019 will be the first year in which women will comprise the majority of the college-educated labor force in the United States. Women first received more than half of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in the 1981-82 academic year—almost 40 years ago.  Today they earn about 57% of bachelor’s degrees. The number of college-educated women in the adult population (ages 25 and older) surpassed the number of college-educated men in 2007. Does anyone fret about that imbalance created by loans, scholarships, affirmative action and unfair regulations?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/20/u-s-women-near-milestone-in-the-college-educated-labor-force/ft_19-06-20_womenlaborforce_women-now-half-of-us-college-educated-labor-force-2/

So why are we still hearing about the “gap,” especially since for about 4 decades the college enrollment rate for females has exceeded males and for the younger demographic there is no gap given the same starting place and position? 

There’s a lot of mischief in gap statistics.  Especially college degrees.  Women, even in the same fields as men, may select different specialties—pediatrics instead of neuroscience, family law instead of corporate law, bibliographer instead of library director, or they may want to be an artist instead of a plumber or electrician. Women may decide to raise their own children and “stop-out” for 5-10 years, reentering the labor market with reduced value to employers.  Married women with husbands of equal education and financial status often have the luxury to leave the medical or law fields to start a business in a completely different direction such as interior design or selling craft items. 

Unfortunately, these “justice” studies rarely compare women with women—female doctors with female pre-school directors, or female TV hosts with female owners of bed and breakfasts, or female chefs with female dishwashers, female traffic court judges with female circuit court judges. Why not compare single women who are heads of household with married women who have no children?  In the universe of women employees there are gaps with men, but there are overlaps also, with low end of the bell curve  the men who clean the offices of  wealthy women politicians like Pelosi and Warren who are sitting at the high end of the bell curve.

What is concerning to me is that college educated women increasingly vote for Democrats, seeing themselves still as needing additional help from the government to manage their lives.

Forget toxic masculinity

2019 may become the year of toxic feminism. We experienced a temper tantrum by the aging Pelosi, the highest elected female in the country, in line for the presidency, refusing Trump his SOTU; then when it finally happens we had to watch a block of white lab coats described variously as abortion assistants to noisy middle school girls' silliness; a Michigan Congress woman called the President a disgusting term; we have Kathy Tran proposing death to fully viable babies in Virginia; and women who cheered late term abortion in New York; and finally yesterday we saw the grossest, most vile behavior of Ilhan Omar in Congress that I've ever seen in my life time, coming on the heels of her anti-Semitism of a few days ago which was defended by another female, Ocasio-Cortez. Time to get the cameras out of these hearing rooms! They are exposing women and are embarrassing 51% of the country.

A few political thoughts for my angry, atheist troll

I think I know how Bernie wins with young people. About 5 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was looking through a history encyclopedia in the public library. Slick, new, great publisher. History had already been revised, and of course, academe is very liberal. As I recall, there was no entry for "USSR." There was a x-ref to WWII, I suppose because USSR was our ally in the 1940s. Nothing about millions of starving Ukrainians, or 5 year economic plans that always failed, or city people sent to the countryside for political mistakes, or the 1930s trials and executions of loyal Communists, or empty shelves in government run stores.

Ilya Somin who writes for Washington Post, mentioned today that his father (born and raised in Russia during the Communist era) had this to say about Bernie: "In his victory speech Bernie complained (or boasted) of his poor childhood, when he grew ...up in a 3.5 (what is that 0.5?) room apartment with his parents and a brother..... He should thank his "Polish" immigrant parents for that (somehow he does not want to say they were Jewish). Under socialism I grew up in one room with my parents in a communal apartment with several other unrelated families each also having one room (and this was considered luxurious)."

Yesterday I heard that most college students feeling the Bern can't tell you who their U.S. Senators are, but naturalized citizens can--they need to know this for citizenship. OK Ohio. Listen up. Rob Portman and Sherrod Brown are our Senators. They faithfully send me e-mails. I've watched some of Watters' World, and they also are crickets on what socialism is, and can't name the Vice President, either.

Dennis Prager mentioned today the huge gap between single women and married women in voting. Married women are much more conservative and over 50% vote Republican, and about 1/3 of single women are conservative. And then when the married women become parents, it's even more pronounced. He was wondering why, and I assume listeners were going to call in but I was on my way to a funeral and didn't hear the comments. It does make you wonder if the downgrading and demeaning of marriage and children (even to the point of not letting them be born) by progressives is a ploy to get more votes from women. Just keep them single and dependent on the government for love.

There's an article in the Atlantic that points out something I said on this blog 9 years ago about graduating with college debt. If you borrow money for living for four-five years you'll have debt. In Sweden college is free but apartments, food, transportation and utilities aren't, so Swedish students also graduate with high debt. Someone should tell Bernie's fans who seem to be lining up for free stuff.  Since 1985 college costs have soared over 500%, a direct result of the federal government funneling money to the colleges who then raise tuition and fees.  This is much more than any other sector of the economy.  This was the government's doing, so who is screaming the loudest?  The socialists.

Happy 95th anniversary, women

95 years ago women got the right to vote. Big whoop. Women had already made great strides in every area before they got the right to vote--they had a higher graduation rate than men, they had employment, they owned businesses, they'd accomplished public health miracles through women's clubs and agricultural extension, they established the first public libraries, they were speakers at lyceums and actresses in theater and fledging film, they were inventors, designers and musicians and artists. They were pastors of churches. Many states and localities already had voting women, as did churches. Most important, they were wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, taking care of business in the home and on the farm, where butter and egg money kept many families afloat. Getting the vote, although morally right, made almost no difference in women's lives. Their efforts in temperance and abolition were far greater and more important. And until Obama was elected, I'm not sure they even made a difference in who was in the White House, and that's not benefitted the poor, minorities or women.

          

Hillary Clinton’s gender gap

The CNN poll via Byron York as reported in James Taranto’s WSJ column:

When asked whether [Mrs.] Clinton “cares about people like you,” 57 percent of women said yes, while just 36 percent of men said the same—a 21-point gender gap.

* When asked whether Clinton “inspires confidence,” 57 percent of women said yes, while just 41 percent of men said so—a 16-point gender gap.

* When asked whether Clinton “is honest and trustworthy,” 49 percent of women said yes, while just 34 percent of men agreed—a 15-point gender gap.

* When asked if they have an overall favorable or unfavorable opinion of Clinton, 54 percent of women said favorable, while just 38 percent of men said the same—a 16-point gender gap.

Why do wealthy, single women vote for Democrats?

R.R. Reno observes:

“Thus we have the seemingly odd political instincts of a single, 35-year-old McKinsey consultant living in suburban Chicago who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life. Why would a woman whose 401K already exceeds $1,000,000 and who owns a condo worth almost as much be so concerned to expand public support for in-home care of the elderly? It’s because she’s not married and feels as though she’s going to have to take on all the responsibilities of life on her own—a prospect that is indeed daunting."
 
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2014/08/the-dilemma-facing-social-conservatives

She seems to think that if Republicans are in office they will somehow take away programs that help her?  She cares about the poor and thinks the GOP will slash benefits? 

I’d like to see the evidence that Republicans have ever NOT supported massive government spending (Obamacare was the first ever that didn’t have a single Republican vote). It’s a campaign lie that women and minorities are told to keep their vote. If they didn’t, all our debt and deficit would be only on the shoulders of the Democrats. Do you really want that responsibility? The best (and least) they’ve done is to vote against huge increases, but nothing ever decreases. The biggest social services president was GW Bush, until Barack Obama came along. His ARRA added $100 billion in federal aid to education in 2009, and yet when it wasn’t continued or increased, it’s called a cut and blamed on Republicans. Race to the Top is Obama’s program, but No Child Left Behind was Bush’s, both extravagant, wasteful interference in local education systems which now have to teach to the test.

If wealthy, white educated women are worried about their futures as they age, because they aren’t married, they need to be studying investments, markets, tax loop holes, etc., not supporting a president who cavorts with Hollywood celebs, lobbyists for banks, and Union officials and wants to take more of their hard earned money by raising tax rates or contemplating a wealth tax.

The federal government alone currently funds and operates 126 different welfare or anti-poverty programs. If even one is “cut” or “combined” there are screams of mean and stingy GOP, yet obviously they are not moving people up the ladder of prosperity (nor are they even included in studies of income, which they should be).

Medicaid and CHIP are the biggest with about 65,000,000 participants, and SNAP is next with about 46,500,000 (Oct. 2014)—and those don’t include Indian tribes who get cradle to grave medical support and a different type of nutrition support. SNAP has never come down after the big push of ARRA money to increase the rolls with more money for recruiting.  SNAP doesn’t include school lunch programs, or summer lunch programs, or breakfast programs, or WIC, or emergency food assistance, or commodity foods assistance, or special milk program (I think they had that even when I was in school) or farmers’ market programs, or community food projects. But name one that the woman in Reno’s example with a million in her 401-k would ever use, or even know anyone who used them. But she’s still afraid not to vote Democrat!

What happened from 1950 to 1965 was economic growth and big increases in family income. The transfers actually had a small effect on the rate of poverty in the War on Poverty. It just grew the government bureaucracy. The largest gains ever for the bottom quintile was before the War on Poverty. What happened after the War on Poverty was the slide in marriages and children being left in poverty.

By 1965 only 13.9 percent of American families were officially classified as poor, down from 32 percent in 1947 and 18.5 percent in 1959. The recession has been over for 5.5 years, yet the government is supplying about 32% of the income (in transfers) for the poor and the rate is still higher than in 1965. Lack of marriage of the parents is probably the biggest reason for children in poverty. Two adults working full time at minimum wage are well above the poverty line (although they might not get as much as those earning less because they might lose their eligibility for gov’t programs). Norma

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato- journal/1985/5/cj5n1-1.pdf

http://www.heritage.org/childpoverty/united-states

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0235.htm

http://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aarp/research/public_policy_institute/econ_sec/2013/income-and-poverty-of-older-americans-AARP-ppi-econ-sec.pdf

Women want to depend on Uncle Sam--relationships are too hard

“Single women, who went 67 percent to Obama this week, have been sold a bill of goods by the Left since the 90s. Women have been told that empowerment comes from sex, and that we have a “right” to things like birth control. Television models the Carrie Bradshaw lifestyle of shoes and parties and sex without consequence. Meanwhile, America wonders why women walking around with iPhones and Kate Spade bags at Ivy League colleges are demanding that we pay for birth control they could acquire at WalMart for $4 a month.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/tabithahale/2012/11/09/dc_cannot_save_america_hollywood_can

Abortion is not “reproductive health”

It’s sure death for the baby, but what about the mother?  So why do Democrats push abortion as a “health” issue. It’s anti-health. And our government is trying to export it and fund it for black and brown women in developing countries.

• subsequent preterm birth;
• placenta previa (a complication during pregnancy where the placenta partially or totally covers the mother’s cervix and which can cause severe bleeding before or during delivery);
• subsequent suicide or suicidal ideation;
• major depression;
• substance abuse;
• anxiety;
• sleeping disorders;
• breast cancer as a result of the loss of the protective effect of a first full-term pregnancy;
• miscarriage;
• ectopic pregnancy;
• and death.

http://www.aul.org/planned-parenthood-exhibits-exhibit-8/

Are these Julia’s lady parts?

We knew the left didn’t think much of women, but this e-card for the Obama campaign confirms it.  To politicians like Teddy and Edwards, Fluke, Clinton and Obama, a woman voter is the sum of her “lady parts.”

I’m a single issue voter!

But that one issue covers a lot of territory.  Enticing women to vote Democrat with free birth control pills?  Tacky.  Plus, for as long as they’ve been keeping track, the more birth control is made available, whether free or insurance or private money, the higher the abortion rate goes.  Now, if you can’t figure that one out, it’s back to Sex 101 for you. 

The most anti-life President in the history of the United States, both as an Illinois senator and a U.S. senator, who has also expanded  the wars, personally selects his drone targets, not kept his promises to religious groups, and bowed to Muslim leaders who enslave women and imprison gays.

Tax money for the nation’s largest abortion provider (actually Nixon started that, so Obama is only expanding what a Republican started).

Destruction of the first amendment with the HHS Mandate—he began with religion which is the basis of free speech, and now he’s wimping out before Muslims over our constitutional right to free speech because they want Shariia.  Morsi, whom he helped put in power with his smiling approval of Arab Spring, is criticizing Obama’s defense.

Mother Teresa said that abortion is the biggest threat to world peace, and I agree. And your reasons for approving the killing of babies in the womb?

Democrat women don’t care about the last 4 years?

“We’ll continue doing what we have been doing, trying to get the president’s message out on the ground. Whether it’s in the suburban areas of Northern Virginia, or Denver, Ohio, to talk about what the president wants to do in the future. That’s the other thing that you find most often with women. They’re not really concerned about what’s happened over the last four years, they really want to know what’s going to happen in the next four years,” Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said to guest host Susan Page on the Diane Rehm Show today.

With women like this on his staff, Obama has a War on Women with female generals. Apparently, Democrat women are too dumb to worry about the last 4 years (increasing unemployment, expanding wars, exploding middle east, inflation, rising tuition costs, declining home values, etc.) they only care about the next 4 years and getting free contraception.  Republican women, however, have a different perspective.

A war against women led by the king of food stamps

Hilary Rosen vs. Ann Romney

The GOP and radio/TV talkers (I’m listening to Rush at the moment) should get off the choice of women to work at home or at the office, and get on with the important stuff--defeating Obama.  They keep letting him define the topic. Democrats are too clever to talk about real issues, they want slogans like "hope and change" and "war on women." And the GOP always fall for it.

The issue is that today most “stay at home moms”  are at opposite ends of the social spectrum.  Women in the top 20% are more likely to be married, have a good income, have good educations, and will be staying at home with their smart, well cared for children at least during their critical formative years, kids who have the advantages that only good genes can buy.  At the other end, you have welfare moms who didn’t have their first baby after they got married,  or didn’t marry at all, and maybe didn’t finish high school.  These are the “stay at home moms” that Uncle Sam parents.

If Republicans continue down this road, defending moms at home, the Democrats will turn on them and start defending welfare moms at home.

Even with fraud and bussing in the homeless

Obama raised and spent millions more than any candidate in history, much by theft and fraud which will never be investigated, carpet baggers ran around the nation registering Democrats, many states had early voting, and raised the dead, and still . . .

"The report released Thursday estimates that between 126.5 and 128.5 million Americans cast ballots in the presidential election earlier this week. Those figures represent 60.7 percent or, at most, 61.7 percent of those eligible to vote in the country.

“A downturn in the number and percentage of Republican voters going to the polls seemed to be the primary explanation for the lower than predicted turnout,” the report said. Compared to 2004, Republican turnout declined by 1.3 percentage points to 28.7 percent, while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6 points from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3 percent in 2008." CNN

I'm not surprised that Republican turn out was low (or that single women were high); I overheard two older people at the library on Tuesday discussing whether it was worth it to vote. The press and polls tried to build Obama at every opportunity and suppress McCain's support. Conservatives didn't have a candidate until the end of August when Palin appeared, then all the "moderates" jumped ship. The slavish devotion of the press corp and op-ed-ers to expiate their guilt was palpable. I wish them luck, because the race industry is just too huge to be dismantled in the voting booth.

Now about that woman thing

Lisa Schiffren writes: ". . . some commentators object that Palin was chosen primarily as a sop to female voters, especially disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. Well, of course the McCain campaign wants to entice those women to vote for the Republican ticket. Putting together coalitions is how elections are won. Women happen to be 52 percent of the electorate. Ignoring them, let alone insulting them as Barack Obama is perceived to have done, is politically foolish. Some worried that McCain would pick a token woman, such as Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas—she of the long Washington tenure, liberal Republican views, and few accomplishments (though she does look the part). Instead, he surprised many by picking Palin.

Is it irresponsible to put a half-term governor in the vice presidential slot? It depends on her record. But surely for a Washington novice, the vice presidency is more appropriate than the presidency. A half-term governor has more claim to leadership and experience than does a one-third-term U.S. senator who has risen through a big-city political machine. Palin is a woman of action, moreover, who has used her political capital at every stage to fight corruption and bad policy. It’s hard to find anyone in politics who does that; pols “save” their capital instead, as Obama has done by voting “present” on numerous occasions, lest spending it cost them something somewhere down the road. Her personal profile—raising five children, hunting, fishing, and being a real NRA member—make an appealing contrast with the overly cerebral, political calculations of those who merely hold positions and whose lives have been led in the service of their résumés." More here