Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
To anger female voters in America is to tread on the tiger's tail... (Original Post) Playinghardball May 2015 OP
Problem is..... daleanime May 2015 #1
"The War on Women" didn't propel Udall or Hagan to victory. SMC22307 May 2015 #2
You are somewhat right. To me the economy means my children, grandchildren and great jwirr May 2015 #5
does not seem to be stopping, or hindering in any way, those woman-hating pols who are niyad May 2015 #3
wishful thinking. drray23 May 2015 #4
That enough women are not that angry is to me ... ananda May 2015 #6

SMC22307

(8,090 posts)
2. "The War on Women" didn't propel Udall or Hagan to victory.
Sat May 16, 2015, 05:32 PM
May 2015

I appreciate what Rollins is saying, but I'm guessing the economy is what women voters care about most.

2014 Midterms: Women Voters Care About More than Reproductive Rights

....

But so-called women’s issues aren’t limited to abortion and contraception and Republican candidates appear to be banking on Democrats only campaigning for women’s votes by talking about reproductive rights. Indeed, women as a group care even more about economic issues, especially paid leave, equal pay for equal work, and the minimum wage. This raises the question: when is an issue the focus of a campaign because it has the potential to affect the well-being of a large number of people and when is it being somewhat cynically exploited for its political appeal to a particular voting bloc but without much substantive merit?

....

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2014/10/21-2014-midterms-women-voters-sawhill

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
5. You are somewhat right. To me the economy means my children, grandchildren and great
Sat May 16, 2015, 06:00 PM
May 2015

grandchildren. And what is threatening them right now is the economic impact on low income workers. I am also concerned about women's issues because the young ladies in my family are going to need protection. But if the bottom falls further for low income families they are also going to need economic protection.

niyad

(113,254 posts)
3. does not seem to be stopping, or hindering in any way, those woman-hating pols who are
Sat May 16, 2015, 05:41 PM
May 2015

happily, eagerly, cheerfully, voting to eliminate our rights.

drray23

(7,627 posts)
4. wishful thinking.
Sat May 16, 2015, 05:59 PM
May 2015

If that was true, we would not have 31 GOP governors out of 50, and we would not have 68 out of 98 state legislatures controlled by the GOP. Too many people, women included vote against their own interest, especially in red states.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»To anger female voters in...