Home / womenssuffrage
Showing posts with label womenssuffrage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label womenssuffrage. Show all posts
From today's New York Times on my research: Women's suffrage

From today's New York Times on my research: Women's suffrage

I guess that this is some of my research that is considered politically acceptable. This is from part of NANCY FOLBRE's piece today:
A large proportion of all public social spending, ranging from public education to Medicare and Social Security, is devoted to dependent care. Women have long favored such expenditures more than men. Historical research by the economists John Lott and Lawrence Kenny offersconsiderable evidence that the extension of voting rights to women in the United States contributed to the rise of public-sector spending. A more narrowly focused study by Grant Miller shows that newly enfranchised women voted for candidates who supported new public health-care programs that significantly reduced child mortality. Robert Shapiro and Harpreet Mahajan have documented persistent gender differencesin policy preferences and R. Michael Alvarez and Edward J. McCaffery more specific gender differences in fiscal preferences. . . .
What would happen if Republicans explicitly appealed to Men or whites?

What would happen if Republicans explicitly appealed to Men or whites?

Obama has previously made open appeals to minorities to vote for him because they are minorities. The strategy is now to explicitly appeal to women. Why doesn't this turn off women voters?

In a last-ditch effort to prevent electoral disaster, President Barack Obama and Democratic allies are vigorously wooing women voters, whose usually reliable support appears to have softened.
From blunt TV ads to friendlier backyard chats, they're straining to persuade women that it's the Democrats who are on their side and it's in women's vital interest to turn out and vote in the Nov. 2 elections that could give Republicans control of one or both houses of Congress.
In Seattle on Thursday, Obama told local women and others that "how well women do will help determine how well our families are doing as a whole." Accompanied by women who own businesses, he spoke in a family's backyard about the economy's effects on women and outlined ways he said his policies have helped them.
Later, trying to rekindle the enthusiasm of his presidential race, he all but ordered thousands of cheering supporters at a packed University of Washington arena to get out and vote, even though he's not on the ballot. Hoarsely shouting over the applause, he said, "If everybody that voted in 2008 shows up in 2010, we will win this election. We will win this election. But you've got to come out and vote." . . .
The latest Associated Press-GfK poll underscores the Democrats' concern: Women long have leaned toward Democrats but, at a time of great economic unrest, those who are likely to vote now split fairly evenly between the two parties, 49 percent favoring Democrats, 45 percent Republicans. That's a significant drop from 2006 when Democrats had a double-digit edge. The current margin mirrors 1994, the year of a Republican wave that swept Congress. . . .


See also this:

Yet despite 22 months of such gender-specific policy moves – and a recent push to energize disenchanted women voters — Obama has steadily lost ground with women, the Democratic Party’s biggest constituency.

Their lack of enthusiasm has imperiled a crop of 2010 Congressional candidates, complicated Obama’s own path to victory in 2012 – and resulted in the president making the kind of explicit, 11th hour appeal to women voters that he made here Thursday. . . . .
Men/Women Voting in Texas

Men/Women Voting in Texas

The top two Republican candidates would beat the Democrat by substantial margins in the upcoming Texas Governor's race. A third Republican candidate would win by a smaller amount. But that difference is driven by male voters. If only women could vote, the male Republican candidates would be in for a tough election.

All three Republican contenders carry male voters over White by double-digit margins. Women favor Hutchison over the Democrat but break even when Perry is the Republican in the race. White wins female voters by six points against Medina.
Are women are programmed to tattle?

Are women are programmed to tattle?

Is this one reason that women shouldn't be in law enforcement or intelligence?



Researchers found that women are overcome by a burning desire to share gossip as soon as they hear it.

They will typically spill the beans to at least one other person in 47 hours and 15 minutes.

Depending on who the gossip is about, their boyfriend, husband, best friend or mother are most likely to be the initial recipients of the information.

The study of 3,000 women aged between 18 and 65 also found that four out of ten admitted they were unable to keep a secret – no matter how personal or confidential the news was. . . .

"We were really keen to find out with this survey how many secrets people are told. What we didn't bank on was how quickly these are passed on by those we confide in.

"No matter how precious the piece of information, it's often out in the public domain within 48 hours. . . .




New Op-ed at Fox News: Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics?

New Op-ed at Fox News: Is There Really a Bias Against Women in Politics?

The full piece is here:

Are women really discriminated against in politics? Sen. Hillary Clinton surely thinks so.

Indeed, she believes this year's presidential campaign has shown that sexism limits women's influence in politics. She claimed last week that "every poll I've seen shows more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American."

It's possible that Democrats are particularly sexist, but with women making up the majority of voters, one would think that politicians were ignoring women at their own peril. . . . .


Some discussion on this can be found here
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)