War on Women Is 2012 Democrat Rallying Call Against Republicans

[Godhumor]

Source: Bloomberg

Democrats and allied groups including Emily’s List are framing Republican moves to cut federal spending as a war on women, an effort aimed at influencing the 2012 elections.

Support from women voters helped propel Republican gains in the 2010 elections. Democrats are hoping to reverse that next year by arguing that measures including the Republican push to end traditional Medicare would disproportionately affect women, who live longer than men.

Republican efforts to repeal collective-bargaining rights for public employees also are being characterized as anti-woman. For example, 73 percent of the American Federation of Teachers’ 1.5 million members are female.

...

“The Republicans have handed the Democrats a gift,” said Leonie Huddy, a political science professor at Stony Brook University in New York. “If they play it right, they have exactly the issue that will attract women voters to them.”



Read more: http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aajFeOasiHhE

---

If Dems can stay cohesive and on message. I think this can get major play. even with some of the politically apathetic. Republicans won in 2010 in large part becaue women broke with favoring the democrats--nothing like driving them right back to the good side.

[Scuba]

1. I agree women's rights should be a major plank. n/t

[southmost]

2. lemme guess the dems are poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

in 2012

[Le Taz Hot]

3. You're blaming WOMEN for the 2010 defeat?

I thought it was all us Progressives who "stayed home." :crazy: Wasn't there just 16 Democrats in the House who voted FOR anti-abortion legislation (H.R. 3)?

I agree that we have a better chance with D's than with R's, but to assert that women were the cause of the 2010 loss really has to have some kind of backing evidence to be credible.

[Godhumor]

4. Women are a traditionally democratic leaning group that broke 49-48 for the Republicans in 2010

It was the first time more women voted for Republicans than Democrats since 1982.

And I am not blaming women, as you say--just pointing out that losing a traditional group hurts results. I also think the linked article does a pretty good job of explaining that democrats are fighting to get them back in the fold. The republicans are being nice enough to help with that endeavor through sheer stupidity and bullheadedness.

[Demeter]

6. Takes more than words to recoup a "Lost Group"

and we women haven't even been getting lip service from Democrats lately. The Donkeys have been helping the Elephants screw us over, no matter our age, marital status, fertility, education....

[Le Taz Hot]

7. Thanks for the reply

but the article does not offer up a link to the percentages. You are correct that losing traditional groups does have results. Our remedies seem to be different, however. If the Democrats would fight for women, gays, and progressives and actually introduce legislation that indicates they know we even exist except when it comes time to DEMAND our votes, our votes would never be in question.

[Godhumor]

9. The articles has the 49-48, as far as the other stats that I gave,

They're in a few places. Just looking around, I like this article from the NYT before the midterms, as it explains that Democrats were struggling with many of their traditional strong groups:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/us/politics/28poll.html?_r=1

It has the "women have never broken for Republicans since exit polling began in 1982" nugget. As far as election results by election, I think CNN still has most of the results up for the past few cycles.

And I didn't see this as a remedy. I agree with the person quoted in the OP this is a gift. The republicans are doing everything possible to tear down female rights, and I want them to be painted as such. I'm just glad to see democrats have decided on that tact, as, in the past, my perception is they would have been passive about categorizing republican positions.

[iwishiwas]

12. More promises??

[gkhouston]

5. Not a bad message, but the war on the non-rich would be even stronger.

Or... :think: they could talk about both.

[savalez]

13. I agree. It's a good message but they should add the following groups:

Middle Class
Poor
Gays
Non Right Wing Christians
Unions
Public Employees
Students
Other Countries
People in general
etc...

[No Elephants]

8. Was the Hyde Amendment enacted yesterday? Is Bart Stupak a Republican?

I'm so confused!

[FarLeftFist]

10. Womens rights, Workers rights, Class warfare. Get on it!

Will the DNC just hire me already for advertising and strategy!

[iwishiwas]

11. Obama said he would march with the workers but left WI in the cold. I am

tired of broken promises.

[LetTimmySmoke]

14. The GOP loves wars

They are pushing for wars on

Iraq
Afghanistan
Lybia
drugs
terror
women
sex
civil liberties
science
reality

Am I forgetting anything?

[24601]

15. This will be good theater. "Women, we are standing up for you,

and that's why we are trying to open direct talks with the Taleban - they have vast experience in this area...."

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

16. I hope this is part of the message, not the total of it.

around my parts, no one gets elected on choice. Harsh, but true. And disappointing to me. What would play better, imho, is jobs, good paying jobs, the economy, and tax fairness. But, what do I know. Some people would say not a lot.