WaPo has the results of a Democratic polling memo that shows — hear it for our sisters! — “that women, who voted for President Bush last year in large numbers, have begun migrating back to their traditional home in the Democratic Party as the public’s agenda has shifted from homeland security and terrorism to domestic concerns such as jobs and the economy.”
Do you think this will help us in 2006? What do we have to do to reach them and turn them into solid members of our team?
I think that womens’ disenchantment with Bush definitely has the potential to help the Democratic party both in 2006 and 2008. I think there are a few things we can do to help this along:
I would also add that post-inauguration outbreak of Fristianity has alienated a lot of people, especially women.
Pastordan and Frederick Clarkson are doing great work on exposing this element of the GOP and it will scare a lot of women away from the Republican Party.
Even my father, who is a staunch libertarian who voted for Reagan twice, told me yesterday that he will never vote for the GOP again. I think Schiavo was the last straw.
I think women in particular see the utter dangerousness of Fristianity, particularly as revealed during the Schiavo circus. Many women and men have fully embraced the societal advances made during the feminist movement and absolutely suspect that Fristianity means to strip away many of those gains.
We should definitely keep emphasizing the zealotry and hypocrisy of the Fristian movement. If people, men and women alike, hate anything, it’s religiosity.
Those two should be reversed, and discrediting (negative) should be part of the positive message. Note how you’ve described the message in terms of what we shouldn’t, rather than what we should.
If “we” have consensus on an issue, add it to a “living document” (as yet unavailable – anywhere) that defines basic principles, and which will lead to a clearly defined agenda.
but you have to examine this in the context of the minority Democratic party. Thus, what policies we vigorously obstruct are nearly as important as those policies we propose.
But you’re spot on about the need for a living document which clearly articulates the basic principles of the Democratic party. Unfortunately, as revealed in the Bankruptcy Bill, we have quite a ways to go in convincing our elected representatives that a strong populist agenda is best for the party…
Obstruction I understand as a necessity. But the tactic would be more successful if the leadership could point to their alternative.
I do think the populist agenda is being drafted. But it’s coming from the precinct level up this time. And that’s a good thing.
While I was working in my studio yesterday I was listening to AAR. Randi Rhodes had a segment about a newly retired CIA guy who was told by his superior, before we attacked Afghanistan, to take seven fellow agents into that country to catch, kill and behead bin Laden. Not only that, but to put bin Laden’s head on a pike, packed in dry ice, so his boss could take it to the president. Why? As a trophy? Huh?
Of course, this probably can’t be proven since it’s this agent’s word against the White House/Republican spin machine, but it looks like we have a barbarian psycho president. While this might appeal to macho (avoid military service at all costs, neocon) types, meaning mostly guys, I can’t imagine those of the female persuasion thinking this is a good thing. It certainly had the shiver down the spine, ick factor for me. I’d think many, if not most, of my fellow women earthly travelers, would have the same adverse reaction to this information. It shows Bush as a sicko bloodthirsty wacko rather than a pious Godly sort.
I don’t watch TV. Has this been aired on network or cable TV?
It made one of the Sunday am talk shows (I was only half-listening) on NBC this week. It was surreal.
But of course, now that GW has been swinging his hips in Georgia, the fact that he’s a bloodthirsty barbarian is now overshadowed by his cute factor…er something. I sort of remember videos of Saddam getting jiggy at some celebration years ago. Birds of a feather…
with his advocacy of torture. Thus, another way in which we can strike at the Bush administration is coupling the Gitmo torture stories with the revelation that the majority of Gitmo prisoners haven’t been charged with any crime due to lack of evidence. Sadism for sadism’s sake…this can’t go over too well with those who don’t care for gratuitous violence.
First: Hallelujah!
Second: I was talking to a friend of several weeks ago. He is a pollster/advertiser/public opinion kinda guy working mainly in LA for the film industry but he also keeps in touch with various political hotshots. We got to chatting about the 2004 elections and he made a comment that, frankly, staggered me.
According to him, polls consistently show people prefer political leaders who are decisive and quick to make decisions even if those decision are wrong rather than a leader who will wait to make the correct decision.
My only comment was, “Huh?” But mulling over his comment some of the ‘below the radar’ attacks on Senator Kerry, that I laughed at at the time, begin to make sense. The ‘waffling’ issue was a direct attack by the Rove propaganda machine aimed at this group. It was never effectively countered by the Kerry campaign and so became a dominate meme through-out the election.
As much as I hate to admit it, I think it cost us the election.
We tend to laugh at this stuff but we shouldn’t. The perception a candidate is a “Strong Leader” is very important to many people and they simply will not vote for someone they perceive (rightly or wrongly) lacks decisiveness.
Note that the most important issue was fear: homeland security and terrorism. Also that the split was – one more time – 51/49. If we make the honest attempt to reach everyone we will pick up that lousy 2% at the national level, including women.
Already noted in national polls is the shift away from Bush’s strong points – support for the war, economic policies – with no change in democratic “message”. Once fully informed on an issue, the public already turns away from “BushCo”.
If democrats had engaged in more advanced planning, and less navel-gazing, those disaffected would have found a home in the party.
however, the GOoPers were good at closing the gap last election. The Dem/GOP generic congressional ballot never got in-favor of the Democrats as it should have been.
Also, we need to make sure women are coming to the Dems because they like what WE are doing, not just disliking Bush.
Actually, women voted for Kerry by a small margin. Every demographic voted for Kerry except the usual suspect, white males. I don’t know what this tells us, strategywise, except to pay more attention to economic security, fairness, and social services and less to macho posturing.
There is some irony when you compare the common “wisdom” about what women want with the way they vote. Women supposedly act from fear, but it’s white men who voted for the security state. Women rejected the most irrational president in US history while white men embraced him. Women are supposedly more religious, but it was the “realistic, pragmatic” white men who voted in the theocracy.
Maybe our best plan would be to have election day on the same day as the Superbowl, Nascar, nationwide Hooters fests, and a Sports Illustrated swimsuit peepshow, all running during voting hours, and all located as inconvenient and far from the nearest polling place as possible.
a GOP split between the Fristians and the warmongers, they’ll stay away anyway. What is high on the list of priorities for Fristian zealots? Eliminating porn! That alone has the potential of disaffecting the majority of the country.
Women supposedly act from fear, but it’s white men who voted for the security state.
White men (generally speaking) are afraid of brown people. The Republican Party represents white male power and keeping the little people in their place.
I think women are finally acting from simple self preservation.The fristian agenda is deadly for women, literally. Now that it’s getting a bit more attention women are backing away from it. Good, the more public the theocrats are the better for us. That’s assuming any kind of fair election, which I’m not too hopeful about.