Post: #1

To Hold Senate, Democrats Rely on Single Women

Quote:ALEIGH, N.C. — The decline of marriage over the last generation has helped create an emerging voting bloc of unmarried women that is profoundly reshaping the American electorate to the advantage, recent elections suggest, of the Democratic Party. What is far from clear is whether Democrats will benefit in the midterm contests this fall.

With their Senate majority at stake in November, Democrats and allied groups are now stepping up an aggressive push to woo single women — young and old, highly educated and working class, never married, and divorced or widowed. This week they seized on the ruling by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, five men, that family-owned corporations do not have to provide birth control in their insurance coverage, to buttress their arguments that Democrats better represent women’s interests.

But the challenge for Democrats is that many single women do not vote, especially in nonpresidential election years like this one. While voting declines across all groups in midterm contests for Congress and lower offices, the drop-off is steepest for minorities and unmarried women. The result is a turnout that is older, whiter and more conservative than in presidential years.

Half of all adult women over the age of 18 are unmarried — 56 million, up from 45 million in 2000 — and now account for one in four people of voting age. (Adult Hispanics eligible to vote, a group that gets more attention, number 25 million this year.) Single women have become Democrats’ most reliable supporters, behind African-Americans: In 2012, two-thirds of single women who voted supported President Obama. Among married women, a slim majority supported Mitt Romney.

“You have a group that’s growing in size, and becoming more politically concentrated in terms of the Democrats,” said Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago.

Single women, Democrats say, will determine whether they keep Senate seats in states including Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan and North Carolina — and with them, their Senate majority — and seize governorships in Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, among other states.

The party is using advanced data-gathering techniques to identify unmarried women, especially those who have voted in presidential elections but skipped midterms. By mail, online, phone and personal contact, Democrats and their allies are spreading the word about Republicans’ opposition in Washington — and state capitals like Raleigh — to pay equity, minimum wage and college-affordability legislation; abortion and contraception rights; Planned Parenthood; and education spending.

Nowhere is the courtship of unmarried women as intense as in North Carolina, where Senator Kay Hagan, a Democrat struggling for a second term, recently has shown gains even in a Republican poll. Midway through a recent Saturday of campaigning, she described her mobilization strategy: “Heels on the ground.”

Among those ground troops is Emma Akpan, an unmarried 28-year-old graduate of Duke Divinity School, who works to register voters but said she understood why so many single women are hard to reach. In an election without presidential candidates and the news media attention they draw, Ms. Akpan said, many women busy with jobs and perhaps children see no point in voting.

“If I wasn’t doing this work,” she conceded, “I probably wouldn’t pay attention either.”

In the 2012 presidential election, 58 percent of single women voted. This fall that could slide to 39 percent, a one-third drop, according to projections from the nonpartisan Voter Participation Center, which for a decade has focused on unmarried women.

“A lot of these are single moms, they’re young, and young people don’t know when there’s an election,” said Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, during a recent four-state bus tour to raise awareness. “It isn’t any lack of civic-mindedness. They’re just living their lives in a different way than, say, seniors are.”

In May, Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, and James Carville, a party strategist, called on Democrats “to make major targeted efforts aimed at unmarried women.” They warned that support among them was down from early 2010, the previous midterm-election year, when the Tea Party’s rise powered a Republican romp.

The Democrats’ model is last year’s victory in the off-year election for Virginia governor. Terry McAuliffe, bolstered by groups like Planned Parenthood’s political advocacy arm, beat a conservative Republican officeholder after a campaign in which women were repeatedly reminded about his rival’s record against reproductive rights. In a race decided by just over two percentage points, Mr. McAuliffe won unmarried female voters by 42 points.

This year Democrats modified the McAuliffe model to emphasize pocketbook issues, too. While single women generally are socially liberal, “the issues they really care about are economic,” Mr. Greenberg said.

Personal economics help explain the difference in voting patterns between unmarried and married women, analysts say. Unmarried women, especially single mothers, have greater “economic vulnerability,” said Ruy Teixeira, a political demographer at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “Married people are typically a bit more secure and have more buffers, so that tends to make them a bit more conservative.”

Democrats say one advantage they have this year, compared with 2010, is that they can cite Republicans’ voting records since taking power that year in the House and in states like North Carolina. “The policy issues that unmarried women care about are legitimately under attack,” said Kelly Ward, executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In response, Republican strategists are urging candidates to counter such talk of a Republican “war on women” by describing party policies as pro-family. Democrats “know if they can paint Republicans as meanspirited, that’s very helpful with women,” said Katie Packer Gage, a Republican consultant for the party’s effort to reach out to women. In a Twitter posting on Wednesday, her firm said, “Our party needs to take seriously the Democrats’ efforts to turn out single women.”

By then, however, a Fox News reporter had ignited a social-media furor by mocking the diverse bloc as Democrats’ “Beyoncé voters” — for the entertainer’s hit song “Single Ladies” — who depend on the government since they lack husbands.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee calls its new voter-mobilization program Rosie, evoking Rosie the Riveter, for Re-engaging Our Sisters in Elections. Among outside groups, the Voter Participation Center has sent registration materials to single women in 24 states, including North Carolina, and will follow up through the fall.

Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood’s action fund are heavily engaged, and they will spend $3 million each on their top priority: Ms. Hagan’s race here against the Republican Thom Tillis. Of Planned Parenthood’s 140,000 members statewide, 50,000 joined since Republicans took power in 2011.

Mr. Tillis, as the state’s House speaker, is widely known for leading a run of conservative activism. The state has cut business taxes while reducing spending for education, unemployment benefits and Planned Parenthood. It has restricted abortion clinics, enacted voting limits, ended teacher tenure and rejected a federally funded Medicaid expansion. On the Tillis campaign website’s summary of his stand on issues, the symbol for jobs depicts a man’s dress shirt and tie.

“Voters are surely going to take a long look at what Thom’s done in the General Assembly,” said Daniel Keylin, his communications director. But “at the end of the day, this race is going to be a referendum on Kay Hagan and what she’s done in Washington” supporting a president who is unpopular here.

Since spring, the Republicans’ record has stoked a Moral Monday movement of weekly protests at the legislature, drawing a diverse crowd including labor, civil rights and women’s groups. “I have never been especially political,” said Jenny Spencer, 26, an unmarried lab technician, at one evening protest. “But in the last year or so I think it’s become increasingly important in North Carolina not just to have your own views but to really make a point of advocating them.”

Ms. Hagan, at a luncheon of Democratic women in Charlotte, promised “the biggest ground game we’ve seen in North Carolina for a U.S. Senate race,” adding, “It can only happen with your support.”

From there, Jackie Blair, a 34-year-old unmarried hotel operations manager, left to canvass door-to-door for Ms. Hagan. Raised a Republican in Nebraska, Ms. Blair said she switched because of Republicans’ stances on reproductive rights, health care and pay equity. At work, she said, she gets ribbed for encouraging other women to vote.

“They always say they will,” she said, “but I don’t know if they actually do.”

Post: #2

When North Carolina and Alaska are battleground states for the Democrats, you know that cultural Marxism is finally bearing fruit. The breakdown of the family has probably been the single best investment the cultural Marxists ever made, followed closely by the education system.

Post: #3

Democrats won't hold Alaska and North Carolina...

Post: #4

if thats the case they should start running more celebrities. Jennifer Anniston for president? Unanimous cat lady support. Ashley Judd is way too hot to win so she wont' run...single women won't vote for a chick with sex appeal even if they are on their same platform. She's hot and married to a race car driver...single women hate her right of that bat for that.

and no, Anniston does not have sex appeal with clothes on and 'out of character' in interviews I don't listen to her talk and thing WB! she comes across as a cold cat lady...like..well, like Hillary Clinton. Run Anniston for the 40+ cat ladies and that unattractive chick shaped like a pear who keeps showing her bad tits on TV but is praised as a writer for the under 40s for VP.

Post: #5

The real political action in the USA is within the Republican Party.

The neocon warmonger / crony capitalism establishment vs. libertarian non-interventionists.

That played out in Cantor vs. Brat, and will play out in races that Justin Amash and Walter Jones are fighting.

Basically, Rand Paul vs. Jeb Bush.

The Democrats will have their own fight in the next couple of years. Economic populists vs. cultural revolutionaries.

Post: #6

Seeing as unmarried women are more likely to vote Democrat, and married women are more likely to vote Republican (I think??), it's obvious to me that the Democrats would benefit from pushing forth the "benefits" and "rights" of single women. Hell, if they didn't they'd be stupid.

On the other hand, in a generation or two when these women aren't having children, the younger generations will be made up of children raised in conservative households. I would say that the Democrats don't care about the future of their party, but with the massive influx of children from Central America perhaps they will be fine down the road.

Post: #7

And in the end the men will continue to lose. We will lose our rights. We will lose our freedoms. We will lose economically. As the single women vote in Democrats so they can steal from men to replace the need for a man in their life, the men will continue to lose.

- Can't buy a prostitute without fear of breaking the law -check
- Huge lack of quality women to have a relationship with now that women no longer have to try - check
- Growing lack of women even worth banging now that women no longer have to try - check
- Men less allowed to defend themselves and eventually their own household, rendering men even more worthless to women - check
- Higher taxes, terrible economy, making it so men are less able to escape and see what is out there and get away from the slave shack - check

It is already very ugly for men in the USA and it will only get worse. I am very blessed to have had a chance to build up some wealth before all this nonsense kicks in.

Women are "equal" to men as long as they can vote in a govt. that steals property to men to give to women, and then on top of it beats men over the head if they choose to try to opt out.

Post: #8

(07-04-2014 09:22 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  The Democrats will have their own fight in the next couple of years. Economic populists vs. cultural revolutionaries.

As a certain person said

"The culture war is over, billionaires won"

Expect to see more progress for Trannies than for the poor from Democrats.

Post: #9

this isn't new to this election. in 2012, Obama won single women 65-35 over Romney. Romney won married women 55-45. The Virginia governor's race, Democrat carpetbagger Terry McAullife won single women 60-40, while Republican Ken Cuccinelli won married women 55-45. A big part of both winning campaigns was to fire up those single women with messages about taking away women's reproductive rights (Obamacare and the Virginia legislature passing a law requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virg...story.html)

just another piece of evidence that women will turn feral like cats without proper guidance.

Post: #10

Are single women more likely to vote for welfare programs?

- Vote for free birth control?
- Vote for more subsidies towards female entitlement projects?
- Education?
- Reduce funding for hands-on infrastructure work?

Yes.

This is a cycle America will need to break if it is to become great again.

Post: #11

I silently hold the opinion that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. If I didn't have to worry about my job, I'd say it out loud.

Post: #12

I can also relate many problems the modern society has to universal right to vote.

Post: #13

The right to vote should coincide with the right to be drafted.

Post: #14

(08-25-2014 09:45 AM)CaP7 Wrote:  The right to vote should coincide with the right to be drafted.

Women are eligible for combat roles, but not the draft. Remember though, "feminism is all about equality."

Post: #15

Abortion is legal, and no Republican administration has made a serious effort to overturn it. It's just political theater. Contraception is a stupid fight because it's not going away. Republicans should support policies that provide free contraception for poor women so they stop having so many damn children. In fact, they should PAY women to get an IUD put in. The best way to prevent single motherhood is to prevent them from getting pregnant in the first place. Meanwhile we can import our nice foreign brides and live happily ever after. What's so bad about that?

Post: #16

"The women's suffrage movement is only the small edge of the wedge, if we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause" Winston Churchill

The old geezer knew the deal.

Post: #17

I always wondered if soon we'll have a conservative revolution on our hands. Just like the 1960s belonged to the left, will this decade (or the next) belong to the right? Will we see people fighting back against illegal immigration, feminism, political correctness, gay marriage, MTV, etc?

Post: #18

(08-25-2014 11:06 AM)MdWanderer Wrote:  I always wondered if soon we'll have a conservative revolution on our hands. Just like the 1960s belonged to the left, will this decade (or the next) belong to the right? Will we see people fighting back against illegal immigration, feminism, political correctness, gay marriage, MTV, etc?

No, a conservative is a person who doesn't stand for anything.

Post: #19

(08-25-2014 09:45 AM)CaP7 Wrote:  The right to vote should coincide with the right to be drafted.

Maybe. Personally I have no problem with women voting, it's the reality and will remain the reality.

The draft complaints I always hear are pretty absurd though. How many people on this forum were even alive during the last draft? How many are between the ages of 18-25? What do people think are the odds that a draft will actually take place in the next 5-10 years? And in the event that a major conflict requires a draft, it'll probably be in our best interest to fight. Really it's a lot of complaining about what is pretty much a non-issue though.


To get back on subject I really appreciated the top comment on the Politico article.

"Let the battle lines be drawn… Highly intelligent, hardworking, married women on the right and unmarried women who want others to pay for their birth control because they're too lazy to use a $0.30 cent condom on the left."

at least some people are seeing the light, and Politico isn't even supposed to be that far too the right. It's pretty insane that feminists believe that having to pay for their own birth control means there is a war on women. It's not as if there isn't a free form of birth control...

Post: #20

(08-25-2014 11:11 AM)puckerman Wrote:  No, a conservative is a person who doesn't stand for anything.

I guess you're right, you hear more Red States turning blue than the other way around.

Post: #21

No small wonder that unmarried women join with the Democrats. Their daily lives have taught them to be resilient, independent, and self-determining. Republicans have fought to keep their salaries low, to insure they have no part in the power structures, to deny them satisfying gay relationships, to push them into intolerant religions, and to control their bodies.

How many married women, in the privacy of the voting booth, vote a straight Democratic ticket? After the recent HL SCOTUS ruling, that number will no doubt soar.

Post: #22

(08-25-2014 11:48 AM)binladen Wrote:  Their daily lives have taught them to be resilient, independent, and self-determining.

Post: #23

Just an alternative view on the right to vote...

When Election Day rolls around in 2016, there will be two voters (myself and my wife) in a household with three children. Effectively, each of us are voting for 2.5 people. Meanwhile, the two Strong Independent Women ™ living across the street vote in favor of policies that benefit them paid for my debt and taxes tht will be paid by the 5 people living in my household.

Why are dependents not factored into the vote? I am voting not just for myself, but for my children who will be saddled with extraordinary debt. Buy your own damn birth control, and dot make me or my kids pay for it.

Post: #24

(08-25-2014 12:30 PM)NilNisiOptimum Wrote:  Just an alternative view on the right to vote...

When Election Day rolls around in 2016, there will be two voters (myself and my wife) in a household with three children. Effectively, each of us are voting for 2.5 people. Meanwhile, the two Strong Independent Women ™ living across the street vote in favor of policies that benefit them paid for my debt and taxes tht will be paid by the 5 people living in my household.

Why are dependents not factored into the vote? I am voting not just for myself, but for my children who will be saddled with extraordinary debt. Buy your own damn birth control, and dot make me or my kids pay for it.

This would only increase the sphere of influence of single mothers perpetuating the problem.

Post: #25

I think the number of votes a person has should be proportionate to his contribution to society. If you're unemployed, you get half a vote.

Also, all people below 25 should be disenfranchised. Most of them are too stupid to make their own decisions.