I see a need to go find a single woman and help her to vote.

[cheshire]

[bliss_eternal]

1. Agreed!

He's so sexist! I thought it was funny when the moderator asked him about being surrounded by strong women--and he fumbled and mumbled a bit before he answered the question. I got the strong sense he doesn't see women as 'strong' or even as an entity. Asshole!

I know many single women that are not at all happy with the way his administration supports and awards families, and married couples, but what about single women with no children?

Such a doofus!

[catchthefever]

2. Feistygrrl...

I share your sentiments. I am *gasp* almost 31, single, no kids, one dog. I have repubs at work that say shit to me like, "You'd make a great mom", "Why aren't you married?", etc. Like I am supposed to be June Cleaver, or worse, a birthing pod? I mean, come on.

To say that I am disgusted with this administration is an understatement. I shortly after this bozo took office, I lost my job. I am far from uneducated and lazy, as this buffoon seems to think those without jobs are. I have bachelor's and master's degrees in electrical engineering. I have a good job for now, but, courtesy of the Iraq quagmire, work is very light. Being single means you are totally self-sufficient - there is no second, full-time income nor the potential for a second, full-time income to rely upon. That extra income is a BIG deal when you have a mortgage, bills, etc, just like everyone else.

[bliss_eternal]

3. Hi Catchthefever!

I feel your pain! I was self supporting for many years and know what you are talking about. What's worse was, I was living in southern California, without a car(impossible) and trying to put myself through school. I can't even imagine trying to do all that now under this administration.

When I got married and met some of dh's brain dead (former) friends I hated them...they are total sheep. They are the kind of people that ask you why aren't you married...hate those people.

They had kids, because everyone else in their circle had kids. They got married for the same reason. Had more kids because, well...of course so there are more children there to take care of them when they get old. What-fuckin-ever! They didn't 'get' me at all. Didn't get why dh and I hadn't started procreating IMMEDIATELY! I mean it is what good wives, good Catholics, etc. do right? Sheep! That's all I ever heard from them "why don't you have kids, yet."

But back to the main issue, these women had no concept or clue what it meant to be self supporting. Paying the bills yourself AND having medical care, etc. Most of them went from their parents homes, to a home with a husband(where they are taken care of).

I suspect that THESE are the kind of women that support Bush. The ones that don't get that there are women in the world that aren't like them.That there are Women that work and NEED jobs, jobs that aren't outsourced w/decent pay, medical benefits, etc. And yes even women that have no plans of getting married or having children. Hello?!

I find the insinuation that people that are a certain income are uneducated or stupid incredibly insulting. While I haven't completed a degree--I started one, not finishing had more to do with financial concerns than my intelligence.

Feistygrrl:)

[secular_warrior]

4. We really need more single women to vote - it is their duty

I heard somewhere a while back that there are about 20 million single women and most do not vote. They refer to it as the "sex and the city" vote and were interviewing educated urban women who said they don't vote, and gave a variety of reasons.

If they want their rights protected, they need to vote. If they like their way of life, they need to vote.

I just think some people take the nice, fancy life and rights they have for granted, especially those at the top of the liberal socioeconomic spectrum (the so-called "liberal elite"). Just a generation ago women couldn't have a credit card or do anything much without a husband. The "hipsters" of today only have it so good because people got down and dirty and fought for those rights. I think they not only do a disservice to themselves, but a disservice to all those who need their help in the "great struggle" towards social and economic equality.

[demokatgurrl]

5. No kidding, it's true-

so MANY single women didn't vote in 2000. Assuming they would vote Democratic, Gore would have won by a big enough margin to avoid having the election stolen. Life would be different today. The WORLD would be different today.

"Vote or Die".

[spooky3]

6. I agree, but also think that the candidates need to address the

concerns of single women and men, and childfree people, and specifically speak to them in their programs and speeches. Many of these people don't vote because what they hear are "family values", tax policies explained in terms of effects on couples with children, etc. They think it doesn't matter whether they vote or not. Haven't we heard far more about the need to appeal to "soccer moms", the "gun vote" (mostly white males) and Nascar dads, etc., etc., than about single or childfree people?

If Kerry-Edwards were having trouble getting African Americans to get out and vote for them, wouldn't we be urging them to find out why their message was not resonating with enough African Americans, and then change their proposals, the way their proposals were articulated, or the amount of time they were spending with these groups? The numbers of singles and childfree couples are far higher.

[secular_warrior]

7. I wholeheartedly agree

Regardless of the outcome of this election, the Dem party has to take a serious look at itself and decide what it wants to be.

The GOP learned long ago the benefits of selling their message to regions most receptive to that message instead of simply trying to win over everyone. They understood the need to build a majority - it's not necessary to over every voter.

The Dems must understand that the future of American politics is retro/conservative/religous/rural Red America vs. metro/liberal/secular/urban-suburban Blue America. The party needs to sell a highly appealing message to metro America, which includes single and childfree people, as well as the standard liberal constituencies like women, the poor, the middle class, minorities and labor.

[lawladyprof]

8. And then there are the formerly married

Women who find themselves single, often divorced, at midlife. Their dependence may have doomed them to a very impoverished life, especially as they age. One issue that arises is that lowering the tax burden on married couples puts it on everyone else and there really is only another group to put it on--those who are single.

Even married women should be aware of the fact that that two-income lifestyle can be only one floozy away from disaster.

[secular_warrior]

9. Exactly - there are so many blocks of voters/potential voters

that are left out now, the way things are.

The Repubs are doing the smart thing for them - they are selling a highly appealing message to retro America. They are turning out as many voters as possible with their retro, conservative message.

The Dems are NOT selling a highly appealing message to metro America. The party is still stuck in the past, straddling the line between old, rural conservative Dems (who are lost to the Repubs anyway) and modern liberal Dems. This leaves a lot of people out of the process - most of which come from metro America. We should especially be building and turning out our base in a lot of these emerging metro areas in red states -- states we can turn blue if the metro turnout is high enough. This is what happened naturally in states like Washington (because of Seattle) and Oregon (because of Portland) in recent history.