GOP strategy re. Women: tell them they are wrong

[heyjude]

This story made me laugh out loud.
www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/08/28/the_gop_struggles_to_attract_female_voters_who_are_barely_receptive_to_republican.html

*****

Yesterday, Politico published a leaked report commissioned by two Republican lobbying groups on how the party can better attract female voters. The report, based on a recent poll of 800 female registered voters as well as a series of focus groups, is titled “Republicans and Women Voters: Huge Challenges, Real Opportunities.” The central challenge facing the Republican party is that women—particularly single women and women who have graduated from college—are “barely receptive” to its policies, and are likely to consider the party “intolerant,” “lacking in compassion,” and “stuck in the past.”

Here’s where the “real opportunity” comes in: If only the Republicans could explain to these women that they are wrong, their votes would come flooding in. The report says that it is a “lack of understanding” between women and Republicans that “closes many minds to Republican policy solutions.” Republicans can attract the female vote by attacking the Democratic claim that GOP policies do not promote “fairness” for women and dealing “honestly with any disagreement on abortion” before moving on to “other issues.”

Advertisement

Today, R.R. Reno, editor of First Things (a journal that promotes “economic freedom” and a “morally serious culture”), published a very helpful essay illustrating how this fresh new strategy might work in practice. Reno begins his piece with a richly-drawn portrait of a hypothetical female Democratic voter: She is a “single, 35-year-old McKinsey consultant living in suburban Chicago who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.” (Reno does not specify the number of cats she owns, but for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume the answer is "several.") Reno speculates that this woman (whom he has invented and preprogrammed with opinions) feels “judged” by a Republican platform that opposes gay marriage, because “she intuitively senses that being pro-traditional marriage involves asserting male-female marriage as the norm—and therefore that her life isn’t on the right path.” So she votes for the Democrat, who does not appear to be “intolerant” of her lifestyle.

Here comes the part of the exercise where Reno carefully instructs this fantasy lady liberal that she has chosen poorly, and that the Republican party is the logical choice for a woman in her circumstance. This woman is suffering from "various kinds of personal unhappiness related to the lack of clear norms for how to live," Reno writes. She secretly “wants to get married and feels vulnerable because she isn’t and vulnerable because she’s not confident she can." And so, actually, she should support the party that wants to force people into traditional marriages, thus improving her chances of getting married herself. (Perhaps she can marry a gay man?) If only our hypothetical cat lady could get on board, she would get a husband, the Republicans would get another married woman to add to their key demographic, and gay people would get totally screwed. (Yay?)

In short, Republicans understand women plenty—it's women who don't understand themselves. Sounds like a promising strategy that will work with many, many sad single ladies that Republicans have invented in their brains. Next step: Finally granting imaginary women the right to vote.

[katietornado]

The whole gay marriage part didn't even make any fucking sense.

Single women are pro-gay marriage because since they're not married, they're basically lesbians? What the shit? This is comedy gold.

[penguingrrl]

LOFL! Are they serious with this shit? I guess if they wanted to prove just how out of touch they are they did that brilliantly!

[heyjude]

Single women support gay marriage because they don't like feeling judged about their lack of a man. But we just need to tell them that supporting traditional marriage means that they will have more of a shot of landing a man.

I mean? Was this the onion?!

[heyjude]

And I really like how often he talks about women feeling vulnerable.

[penguingrrl]

It sounds like he thinks all women rely on a man to tell them how to think and feel. Like without them we're vulnerable, confused and miserable.

[secretlyevil]

All you can do is laugh. The other options are crying and/or screaming.

[nomad100]

OK so if I am reading this right the woman who is single at 35 votes Democrat because is secretly ashamed that she isn't married and has cats?

SBJ, the GOP is so fucking clueless.

[sushi]

Hold on, I have to ask my h how I'm supposed to feel about this.

[Deleted]

OMG. Maybe women are just tired of all the bullshit.

[sparrowsong]

Clearly all these ideas were created by a bunch of men sitting around a table, likely no women, much less a women majority, deciding what women think and feel. Winning strategy approach.

[Deleted]

I don't know whether to laugh til I cry or make my WAT face.

[captainobvious]

Phew, I'm so glad I got married at 34 so i could avoid a life of unhappiness, cats, and voting Democrat.

[aurora]

Aug 29, 2014 15:55:29 GMT -5 heyjude said:

...Was this the onion?!

This was my question, too.  Maybe it has merged with Politico or Slate?

Most of it is just head-scratchy, as in, "I have no idea how they got from A to B here."  However, this part continues to enrage me:

She is a “single, 35-year-old McKinsey consultant living in suburban Chicago who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.”

I am a married slightly-older-than-35-year-old with a PhD, tenure, and an employed spouse in a field with a lot of demand for his skills.  I'm just about as far from economically vulnerable as you can get.  I vote for enhanced social programs because my moral compass points me in that direction - I believe that I have an obligation to give back to people who didn't have so many steps up earlier in life as I did, and that everyone deserves a chance to move up the economic ladder.  And I also think that our overall economy will be stronger when more people have more opportunity, so that benefits me in the long term.

It makes me so mad when R's assume that the only people who vote D are those who see short-term and direct financial benefit to themselves.

[blink]

I don't understand. My mind isn't equipped to perform these mental gymnastics. I should just ask my husband how it works so he can tell me what to think.

[elleblue]

Aug 29, 2014 16:43:08 GMT -5 aurora said:

Aug 29, 2014 15:55:29 GMT -5 heyjude said:

...Was this the onion?!

This was my question, too.  Maybe it has merged with Politico or Slate?

Most of it is just head-scratchy, as in, "I have no idea how they got from A to B here."  However, this part continues to enrage me:

She is a “single, 35-year-old McKinsey consultant living in suburban Chicago who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.”

I am a married slightly-older-than-35-year-old with a PhD, tenure, and an employed spouse in a field with a lot of demand for his skills.  I'm just about as far from economically vulnerable as you can get.  I vote for enhanced social programs because my moral compass points me in that direction - I believe that I have an obligation to give back to people who didn't have so many steps up earlier in life as I did, and that everyone deserves a chance to move up the economic ladder.  And I also think that our overall economy will be stronger when more people have more opportunity, so that benefits me in the long term.

It makes me so mad when R's assume that the only people who vote D are those who see short-term and direct financial benefit to themselves.

Well duh. Just like Hollywood is teeming with liberals and no one in that town has any money so they of course vote for social programs that will benefit them directly.

[penguingrrl]

Aug 29, 2014 16:43:08 GMT -5 aurora said:

Aug 29, 2014 15:55:29 GMT -5 heyjude said:

...Was this the onion?!

This was my question, too.  Maybe it has merged with Politico or Slate?

Most of it is just head-scratchy, as in, "I have no idea how they got from A to B here."  However, this part continues to enrage me:

She is a “single, 35-year-old McKinsey consultant living in suburban Chicago who thinks of herself as vulnerable and votes for enhanced social programs designed to protect against the dangers and uncertainties of life.”

I am a married slightly-older-than-35-year-old with a PhD, tenure, and an employed spouse in a field with a lot of demand for his skills.  I'm just about as far from economically vulnerable as you can get.  I vote for enhanced social programs because my moral compass points me in that direction - I believe that I have an obligation to give back to people who didn't have so many steps up earlier in life as I did, and that everyone deserves a chance to move up the economic ladder.  And I also think that our overall economy will be stronger when more people have more opportunity, so that benefits me in the long term.

It makes me so mad when R's assume that the only people who vote D are those who see short-term and direct financial benefit to themselves.

I know. I'll bet it would also blow their minds that happily married heterosexuals fight for marriage equality too. Crazy, but I can support and vote for things that benefit society as a whole regardless of whether they actually impact my personal situation. 

[heyjude]

Aug 29, 2014 16:56:17 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Aug 29, 2014 16:43:08 GMT -5 aurora said:

This was my question, too.  Maybe it has merged with Politico or Slate?

Most of it is just head-scratchy, as in, "I have no idea how they got from A to B here."  However, this part continues to enrage me:

I am a married slightly-older-than-35-year-old with a PhD, tenure, and an employed spouse in a field with a lot of demand for his skills.  I'm just about as far from economically vulnerable as you can get.  I vote for enhanced social programs because my moral compass points me in that direction - I believe that I have an obligation to give back to people who didn't have so many steps up earlier in life as I did, and that everyone deserves a chance to move up the economic ladder.  And I also think that our overall economy will be stronger when more people have more opportunity, so that benefits me in the long term.

It makes me so mad when R's assume that the only people who vote D are those who see short-term and direct financial benefit to themselves.

I know. I'll bet it would also blow their minds that happily married heterosexuals fight for marriage equality too. Crazy, but I can support and vote for things that benefit society as a whole regardless of whether they actually impact my personal situation. 

This is where the GOP completely doesn't get it. People CAN and DO support things that have no benefit to themselves. I guess this is what separates Ds from Rs? Which is so funny because supposedly the Ds are the party of no morals.

[heyjude]

The Rs are tying to say that D women support social policies because there is something deficient about women. Like if only they could "fix us" we would "get it" and vote for them. They neglect to realize that D women support social policies because there is something deficient about society. We don't need fixing. We want to fix society.

[litebright]

"Sounds like a promising strategy that will work with many, many sad single ladies that Republicans have invented in their brains."

LOL. 

Keep it up, GOP. All the talk of learning lessons from the last election has obviously gone so well. They STILL don't understand that they're being rejected on their policy stances and simply re-framing the conversation isn't going to bring new voters in because the platform has not changed.

Somehow they still think that people are so goddamn dumb that they can say "we're women-friendly" and women voters will ignore, y'know, their actual platform and actions in office. 

[penguingrrl]

Aug 29, 2014 16:59:54 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Aug 29, 2014 16:56:17 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

I know. I'll bet it would also blow their minds that happily married heterosexuals fight for marriage equality too. Crazy, but I can support and vote for things that benefit society as a whole regardless of whether they actually impact my personal situation. 

This is where the GOP completely doesn't get it. People CAN and DO support things that have no benefit to themselves. I guess this is what separates Ds from Rs? Which is so funny because supposedly the Ds are the party of no morals.

That's exactly it. I have always supported things whether or not I'm personally affected and can't imagine not doing so. It doesn't matter if it affects me if it's the right thing to do. I don't need to plan to get gay married, support a family on minimum wage (which I am immensely grateful to not have to do) or get an abortion to understand why these protections are necessary.

[ringstrue]

Wait! I'm married AND have cats. WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!

[decemberwedding07]

Aug 29, 2014 16:51:26 GMT -5 elleblue said:

Aug 29, 2014 16:43:08 GMT -5 aurora said:

This was my question, too.  Maybe it has merged with Politico or Slate?

Most of it is just head-scratchy, as in, "I have no idea how they got from A to B here."  However, this part continues to enrage me:

I am a married slightly-older-than-35-year-old with a PhD, tenure, and an employed spouse in a field with a lot of demand for his skills.  I'm just about as far from economically vulnerable as you can get.  I vote for enhanced social programs because my moral compass points me in that direction - I believe that I have an obligation to give back to people who didn't have so many steps up earlier in life as I did, and that everyone deserves a chance to move up the economic ladder.  And I also think that our overall economy will be stronger when more people have more opportunity, so that benefits me in the long term.

It makes me so mad when R's assume that the only people who vote D are those who see short-term and direct financial benefit to themselves.

Well duh. Just like Hollywood is teeming with liberals and no one in that town has any money so they of course vote for social programs that will benefit them directly.

I know a very rich guy, who is also a Democrat. A Republican once asked him why he would do such a thing and he said, "Sometimes you have to vote like a Democrat to live like a Republican." I think that can be taken a lot of ways, but I think from a tax perspective, the point that a lot of people miss is that if heavy taxation improves the economy, the rich STILL get richer.

[decemberwedding07]

Aug 29, 2014 17:12:09 GMT -5 litebright said:

"Sounds like a promising strategy that will work with many, many sad single ladies that Republicans have invented in their brains."

LOL. 

Keep it up, GOP. All the talk of learning lessons from the last election has obviously gone so well. They STILL don't understand that they're being rejected on their policy stances and simply re-framing the conversation isn't going to bring new voters in because the platform has not changed.

Somehow they still think that people are so goddamn dumb that they can say "we're women-friendly" and women voters will ignore, y'know, their actual platform and actions in office. 

To be fair, there ARE some people on whom this strategy works.

[litebright]

Aug 29, 2014 17:33:29 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

Aug 29, 2014 17:12:09 GMT -5 litebright said:

"Sounds like a promising strategy that will work with many, many sad single ladies that Republicans have invented in their brains."

LOL. 

Keep it up, GOP. All the talk of learning lessons from the last election has obviously gone so well. They STILL don't understand that they're being rejected on their policy stances and simply re-framing the conversation isn't going to bring new voters in because the platform has not changed.

Somehow they still think that people are so goddamn dumb that they can say "we're women-friendly" and women voters will ignore, y'know, their actual platform and actions in office. 

To be fair, there ARE some people on whom this strategy works.

Oh, there absolutely are. Sometimes I despair about the amount of ignorance among voters. But among the demographic they're talking about, especially re women who have graduated from college? Not so much, I would hope. 

They do the same thing with the Latino vote, though. Froth at the mouth and spew absolutely hateful rhetoric over undocumented immigrants and immigration, and wonder why parading Marco Rubio around isn't enough to win Latino votes. You don't have to be a high-information voter to be aware of the incredible hypocrisy, yet somehow the GOP seems bewildered that it isn't making inroads where it thinks it should be. 

[heyjude]

Aug 29, 2014 17:44:44 GMT -5 litebright said:

Aug 29, 2014 17:33:29 GMT -5 decemberwedding07 said:

To be fair, there ARE some people on whom this strategy works.

Oh, there absolutely are. Sometimes I despair about the amount of ignorance among voters. But among the demographic they're talking about, especially re women who have graduated from college? Not so much, I would hope. 

They do the same thing with the Latino vote, though. Froth at the mouth and spew absolutely hateful rhetoric over undocumented immigrants and immigration, and wonder why parading Marco Rubio around isn't enough to win Latino votes. You don't have to be a high-information voter to be aware of the incredible hypocrisy, yet somehow the GOP seems bewildered that it isn't making inroads where it thinks it should be. 

Oh? I guess you haven't heard about Libre (#libre!)? Where the Koch brothers fund teeth cleaning and pass out tortillas and watermelon to Latinos?

[ESF]

The Wonkette take on this had me in stitches.

wonkette.com/558522/republicans-poll-ladies-learn-ladies-too-dumb-to-see-republicans-awesomeness

[tictac]

Aug 29, 2014 17:17:53 GMT -5 ringstrue said:

Wait! I'm married AND have cats. WHAT DOES IT MEAN?!

Ask your husband.

[heyjude]

Aug 29, 2014 17:54:46 GMT -5 nuggetbrain said:

Aug 29, 2014 17:48:21 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Oh? I guess you haven't heard about Libre (#libre!)? Where the Koch brothers fund teeth cleaning and pass out tortillas and watermelon to Latinos?

......I refuse to believe this is real. I won't do it. WILL NOT DO IT.

m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5667819

[heyjude]

Aug 29, 2014 17:53:47 GMT -5 ESF said:

The Wonkette take on this had me in stitches.

wonkette.com/558522/republicans-poll-ladies-learn-ladies-too-dumb-to-see-republicans-awesomeness

This was great!