Michele Backmamm wins the Iowa straw polls.

[dali71]

You dont post enough to take that bet If it was projo on the other hand...

So you think that Obama may lose?

 

[JSt0rm]

So you think that Obama may lose?

Of course he may lose. He may win too. To make a guess this far out is not reality.

 

[trenchfoot]

Women are completely underrepresented among Republicans at the federal level compared to Democrats. In the Senate, 5 our of 47 Republicans are women, while women represent 12 out of 53 Democrats. In the House, 24 out of 242 Republicans are women, compared to 53 out of 193 Democrats. In the Senate, women are about twice as represented among Democrats as Republicans, and in the House it's closer to three times the relative representation. Adding in the Governors evens things out a bit, as 4 out of 29 Republicans are women, compared to only 2 out of 20 Democrats...but it doesn't make up for the Congressional makeup. All in all, 33 out of 318 nationally notable Republicans are women, while 67 out of 266 nationally notable Democrats are.

This has two effects. One is that not only is the pool of potential female Democratic candidates twice as large in real terms, women make up 2.5 times the percentage of the Democratic pool as they do of the Republican one. This means Democratic candidates are more likely to be women (all else being equal), and female candidates are more likely to be Democrats (again, assuming candidates are more or less randomly selected).

The other effect is more of a cause of this gender disparity...the Republican party is not really the party of women. The female vote almost always leans Democratic, and most "women's issues" fall squarely on the left side of the aisle. What's interesting is that women VOTE Republican far more often than female politicians ARE Republican, at least at the national level, which suggests that support for female candidates is more about party affiliation than gender.

All this to say...picking a good female Republican candidate is hard, since there is a smaller pool to work with. And to be honest, it's not clear to me that women can be as successful in the Republican party in general. Both of which might explain something about the candidates you mentioned.

I've been thinking about what Harvey posted and I came to some similar viewpoints as yours.

In oddly similar fashion, having women on Fox portray themselves the same way Beck, Hannity and O'reilly does lends itself to some of the same...."awkwardness" that republican women running for office share?

Look at how Ann Coulter had to fashion her persona to be a suceess in promoting the far right wing agenda: She had to acquire the personality and general attributes of an aggressive outspoken male.

Is it then plausible to say that the repub party is the party that promotes male dominance with all of it's attending attributes and the Dems represent the effeminate characteristics of the nation?

 

[Harvey]

And I'm sure someone who gives a sh8 about your opinion will, just to remind you how wrong you were... IF you can find anyone gives a sh8 about your opinion. :thumbsdown:

Let's see how confident you are in Obama. If he gets reelected, I will publicly admit I was wrong, then stop posting here. If he loses, you do the same. Deal?

You ARE wrong. The only candidates Republicans are offering are corrupt corporate Koch suckers, mean spirited, bigoted wingnuts and flip flopping ethical turds. Bachmann meets all of those criteria. :thumbsdown:

It would be nice if you'd like to admit it, now, or you can continue posting. You're useful as a great example of the worst American society has to offer. You can stop posting anytime you want to stop making yourself look like a blithering idiot. :biggrin:

If you want to take the time to search my posts, you'll find that I've acknowledged when I have been wrong. This isn't one of those times, and it wouldn't be a reason for me to stop posting if that catastrophe happens. If, somehow, Bachmann is elected, it may be a good reason to question why I'd want to retain my American citizenship.

 

[matt0611]

On a semi-related note, Obama gallup approval rating dips below 40% for first time to 39%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

That's good to see.

 

[ProfJohn]

Here is the key fact you need to know about the straw poll:
"The Ames Straw Poll is one of the Iowa Republican Party's most lucrative fundraising events."

It is really good at showing who won't win, but not so good at showing who can win.

And with Perry and Romney not even showing up it is even more meaningless.

Right now with the dynamics of the race Romney is probably the favorite since Perry & Bachmann may split the Christian right and leave enough vote for Romney to follow the McCain path to victory.

Or Perry may get enough non-Christians and run the field clearing everyone out of the way.

But I don't see how Bachmann can overcome Perry to win. She has too many problems that he doesn't. aka if you are voting for someone due to their religious beliefs then Perry make more sense because he has something to offer beyond his faith.

 

[ProfJohn]

If you want to take the time to search my posts, you'll find that I've acknowledged when I have been wrong.

Have you acknowledged being wrong about Obama yet?

You wrote a nice little song about Bush, but seemed to have been MIA when it comes to Obama.

Obama is everything you bitched about with Bush and then some.

Took the Bush wars and expanded them.
Took the Bush debt and expanded it.
Same policies when it comes to the war on terror.

We could take your little song and make it apply to Obama without changing any lines I believe.


What do you have to say about that?

 

[hal2kilo]

I thought I was watching Extreme Feeds for a second.

 

[ProfJohn]

but I don't think either of them has much of a chance to win.

With the way things are going now Perry or Romney will walk all over Obama.

Bachmann or Palin might even be able to beat him.

I actually think that the whole reason Palin has gone from 100% NOT going to run to maybe she will run is because she sees Obama's falling numbers and thinks that she might have a chance to beat him. (I won't vote for her in the primary)


I think what we saw this last week was the end of Obama in the same way the financial market meltdown was the end of McCain. Unemployment is too high, gdp growth is too low and there is nothing that suggests he can turn either of those around in time to save himself.

 

[ProfJohn]

Nice projection there. I would gladly welcome the liberal/labor party to balance the right wing Dems. The fascist Republican Party can drop into the ashbin of histroy.

What right wing Dems are you talking about??


You seem to mistake what comes out of Washington as being what the people in charge actually want. But you forget that we have split rule right now so neither side is getting what they want and thus we are getting government that doesn't really represent what either party actually wants but more a bastardization of their beliefs.

Rest assured that the Democrats are as left wing and liberal as they have ever been, but with the GOP in control of the house they can't get their agenda passed.

 

[Lemon law]

As usual, Non Prof John blames Obama for all the problems that GWB created.

Nor does Jonney look at the polling, just as Backmann and Perry are about to fight for the religious right tea party vote, the American people are far more negative about the actions of the tea party. As tea party support now stands at only 31% and dropping rapidly. Obama at now 41% favorable is still far more popular than any specific Republican.

http://news.yahoo.com/tea-party-fortunes-fading-even-star-michele-bachmann-225000526.html

 

[Lemon law]

Then we can take the the Non Prof John Statement, "Rest assured that the Democrats are as left wing and liberal as they have ever been, but with the GOP in control of the house they can't get their agenda passed."

To start out with, American politics has drifted steadily rightward, at the same time America
went into decline, so ole Jonney starts out with a wrong premise.

But Jonney is correct, that with total GOP control of the house, neither democrats or Republicans can pass their agenda as American governance drifts into a State of paralysis. Earth to non Prof John, that is NOT A GOOD THING, and only accelerates the decline. At least Obama has a agenda, restore the middle class, while the GOP fights tooth and nail to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Killing off the middle class in the process.

As the GOP other wise has no real platform at all other than to say their only goal is to make Obama into a one term President regardless if its good for America or not.

In short the GOP do not know how to govern but still cling to the proven failed policies of GWB. Remember the far more liberal President Bill Clinton, he was able to promote job growth and balance the budget. And now the GOP brags, they can stop a return to Clinton style economy.

 

[ProfJohn]

The other effect is more of a cause of this gender disparity...the Republican party is not really the party of women. The female vote almost always leans Democratic, and most "women's issues" fall squarely on the left side of the aisle. What's interesting is that women VOTE Republican far more often than female politicians ARE Republican, at least at the national level, which suggests that support for female candidates is more about party affiliation than gender.

You over simplify things with your 'party of women' comment.

Politically women split very different then men. Younger females go for Democrats due to their support for abortion and other 'women's' issues. But once they become married they tend to switch due to the GOPs support for family and morality issues.

Unmarried women are 46% Democrat and 17% GOP.
Married women are 37% Democrat and 31% GOP.
That is a HUGE shift.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104335/love-politics-valentines-day.aspx

All this to say...picking a good female Republican candidate is hard, since there is a smaller pool to work with. And to be honest, it's not clear to me that women can be as successful in the Republican party in general. Both of which might explain something about the candidates you mentioned.

Neither party has a strong base of women who could win a national election.

Hillary is the closest thing we have to a woman who might be able to win the Presidency and she is only in that situation because of who she married.

Otherwise the majority of females in both parties are far to the left or right.
Pelosi is just as unlikable to the right as Bachmann is to the left. And don't forget that Bachmann is only getting 10% of the vote in GOP polls. She probably follows the Mike Huckabee path, gets 10-20% in every primary but never rises above that number or wins anything worth winning.

We are probably another 20 years away from a female candidate who can rise up and become a legit national player on her own.

 

[ProfJohn]

Of course he may lose. He may win too. To make a guess this far out is not reality.

I agree...


At this point though he is heading for defeat. It will take something major to save his presidency and I don't see it happening.

The only thing that could save him would be a strong jump in the economy or the GOP picking a nut job who has a melt down ala Palin 2008. Otherwise Obama is almost certainly gone.

 

[ProfJohn]

To start out with, American politics has drifted steadily rightward, at the same time America went into decline, so ole Jonney starts out with a wrong premise.

American started moving to the right in the mid to late 60s.

LBJ and the great society was the height of liberal power and since then its been down hill.

I don't think you can honestly look at the last 40 years and claim that we have been in decline that entire time. Especially when you look at the FACT that the two longest peace time expansions in our history occurred during that era.

 

[ProfJohn]

Remember the far more liberal President Bill Clinton, he was able to promote job growth and balance the budget. And now the GOP brags, they can stop a return to Clinton style economy.

Would you make up your mind about Clinton.

In one thread you guys claim he was the best Republican President ever.

Now you claim he was a liberal??

Which is it?


I'll give you a hint, what Clinton's actual political beliefs were is irrelevant. What does matter is he policies that were adapted during his presidency and those polices were FAR more conservative than liberal.

Reduction in the government spending, capital gains tax cuts, end of welfare as we knew it, "era of big government is over" etc etc all point to the 90s being one of the most conservative decades in history.

 

[Rainsford]

I've been thinking about what Harvey posted and I came to some similar viewpoints as yours.

In oddly similar fashion, having women on Fox portray themselves the same way Beck, Hannity and O'reilly does lends itself to some of the same...."awkwardness" that republican women running for office share?

Look at how Ann Coulter had to fashion her persona to be a suceess in promoting the far right wing agenda: She had to acquire the personality and general attributes of an aggressive outspoken male.

Is it then plausible to say that the repub party is the party that promotes male dominance with all of it's attending attributes and the Dems represent the effeminate characteristics of the nation?

I think it's got to be more complicated than that. O'Reilly and friends do tend to adopt the mannerisms of football players making fun of the high school chess team, and women like Coulter and Malkin join in; but actual politicians like Palin and Bachmann don't follow that trend.

Another thing that confuses me is the voters themselves. If Republicans were strongly the "male" party and Democrats were strongly the "female" party, you'd think that voters would be more strongly split along gender lines. While women do tend to vote Democratic, and men do tend to vote Republican, it's not a huge majority on either side from polls I've seen. Certainly not nearly as obvious a difference as the gender of the people in power from each party.

To be honest, I think it's actually probably more about traditional gender roles than anything else. As the social conservative party, I'm not sure Republicans are as comfortable with women in positions of great political power as Democrats are...whether or not the Republican voter in question is male or female.

 

[Engineer]

Would you make up your mind about Clinton.

In one thread you guys claim he was the best Republican President ever.

Now you claim he was a liberal??

Which is it?


I'll give you a hint, what Clinton's actual political beliefs were is irrelevant. What does matter is he policies that were adapted during his presidency and those polices were FAR more conservative than liberal.

Reduction in the government spending, capital gains tax cuts, end of welfare as we knew it, "era of big government is over" etc etc all point to the 90s being one of the most conservative decades in history.

Yea, and he also fvcked us in the rear with the signing of the so called free trade agreements. We've spent two decades with the bottom and lower middle class foundations crumbling because of that crap.....and now along comes Obama and want more of the same shit. Throw in people like you who would love to see their taxes raised while cutting more for those at the top....well, the lower and lower middle classes need a large tube of

 

[Rainsford]

You over simplify things with your 'party of women' comment.

Politically women split very different then men. Younger females go for Democrats due to their support for abortion and other 'women's' issues. But once they become married they tend to switch due to the GOPs support for family and morality issues.

Unmarried women are 46% Democrat and 17% GOP.
Married women are 37% Democrat and 31% GOP.
That is a HUGE shift.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104335/love-politics-valentines-day.aspx

I seem to remember that younger women AND men tend to vote Democratic more than older ones. In any case, your stats STILL show that married women prefer the Democratic party more than the GOP, although by a much smaller margin. I said many times that the effect isn't super pronounced at the voter level, but it's still there. Democrats own most women's issues, and women tend to vote Democratic....maybe not the party of ALL women, but clearly more of the "party of women" than the Republicans.

Neither party has a strong base of women who could win a national election.

Hillary is the closest thing we have to a woman who might be able to win the Presidency and she is only in that situation because of who she married.

Otherwise the majority of females in both parties are far to the left or right.
Pelosi is just as unlikable to the right as Bachmann is to the left. And don't forget that Bachmann is only getting 10% of the vote in GOP polls. She probably follows the Mike Huckabee path, gets 10-20% in every primary but never rises above that number or wins anything worth winning.

We are probably another 20 years away from a female candidate who can rise up and become a legit national player on her own.

I would generally agree. My only point here was that I think that candidate is more likely to come from the Democrats rather than the Republicans, given current gender splits in the two parties.

 

[ProfJohn]

To be honest, I think it's actually probably more about traditional gender roles than anything else. As the social conservative party, I'm not sure Republicans are as comfortable with women in positions of great political power as Democrats are...whether or not the Republican voter in question is male or female.

I wouldn't say it has to do with being comfortable as much as it has to do with Republican women being less likely to run for office and more likely to take a more traditional female family role. Aka Republican women become wives and raise families.

 

[Rainsford]

American started moving to the right in the mid to late 60s.

LBJ and the great society was the height of liberal power and since then its been down hill.

I don't think you can honestly look at the last 40 years and claim that we have been in decline that entire time. Especially when you look at the FACT that the two longest peace time expansions in our history occurred during that era.

We've been moving pretty regularly to the left on social issues though. I honestly don't think it's quite so clear cut which direction we've been moving, and I'm not sure we've consistently been doing either over 40 years.

 

[Rainsford]

I wouldn't say it has to do with being comfortable as much as it has to do with Republican women being less likely to run for office and more likely to take a more traditional female family role. Aka Republican women become wives and raise families.

Hmm, that's a good point I hadn't considered. Republican women might just be much less likely to try to go into politics as Democratic women, rather than have any problem once they get there. In fact, to be fair, it's entirely possible that Republican women have a greater success rate at politics than Democratic women. An interesting possibility to consider.

 

[JulesMaximus]

What is it with Republican women that makes them put the dumbest examples of their gender forward as candidates? Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and Christine "I am not a witch" O'Donnell are embarrassments to the XX chromosome. I swear, the only reason any of them opens her mouth is to change feet.

If Bachmann is the Repugnican candidate, she'll guarantee even Democrats who are thoroughly dissatisfied and disappointed with Obama will campaign aggressively and vote for him.

LOL! :thumbsup:

And that dolt Rick Perry scares the crap out of me.

 

[ProfJohn]

I would generally agree. My only point here was that I think that candidate is more likely to come from the Democrats rather than the Republicans, given current gender splits in the two parties.

Presidents tend to come from governorships and right now the GOP is killing the Democrats in that field.

5 of the last 6 female to win a governorship have been Republicans.

I'd say we are looking at 2020 before we see a legit chance for a female to become President and even that is a stretch. There are too many up and coming males on the GOP side and I don't see any emerging females on the Democrat side.

 

[ProfJohn]

We've been moving pretty regularly to the left on social issues though. I honestly don't think it's quite so clear cut which direction we've been moving, and I'm not sure we've consistently been doing either over 40 years.

Socially we are moving in both directions at once!!

We have moved to the right on abortion, but to the left on gay marriage.
But in a way both movements make sense. We are essentially moving in the 'moral' direction on both issues. Abortion is morally wrong, as is discriminating against gays.


On fiscal issues we have moved mostly to the right in the last 40 years. And we are going to move even more to the right in the future. That is because the gravy train is coming to an end. We can no longer expect to spend more money year after year and keep expanding government into more areas. That in itself will lead to smaller government.