Is America Ready for a Woman President?

Parent Cafe
141

<p>I’m much more concerned about the Supreme Court than the presidency, but of course, that makes me very concerned about the presidency. My heart almost stops when I think about a Republican appointing another Scalia or Thomas. I wonder though whom Rudy would appoint.</p>

142

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree with you. He needed to ride the initial wave higher than 25% in the polls (and he needed Clinton to give him an opening by not running the most disciplined, effective campaign in memory). The only way he could have dealt with his unprecedented lack of experience was to come out of the gate with the most breathtakingly detailed set of policy initiatives, burying his skeptics with policy wonkism and depth. The problem, fundamentally, is that he doesn’t have the experience to go deep on the issues. It’s not something a politician can do just from last minute cramming from white papers. He topped out from the initial surge trailing Clinton by double digits and hasn’t budged since.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>She serves on the Senate Armed Serviced Committee. That’s the epicenter of national security policy in the legislative branch – all defense appropriations, all Dept. of Defense appointments. Many Defense Secretaries have been drawn from that committee, most recently William Cohen in the Clinton administration. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) is mentioned as a possible Defense Secretary pick for Hillary.</p>

143

<p>

</p>

<p>The two keys to understanding the dynamics of the general election are:</p>

<p>a) the electoral college map</p>

<p>b) the demographics of the voters. White males and white suburban married women vote Republican. Minorities, all other women, and white young single males vote Democratic. Clinton has enormous strength with all of the key Democratic constituencies: women, single women, African Americans, Latino/a, Jewish voters, gay voters, working class voters and so on and so forth. Attracting Republican voters is really irrelevant to the Democrats election prospects…the demographics of the country are moving hard away from the white male Republican base.</p>

<p>If Hillary gets Al Gore’s womens vote percentages (Kerry tanked with women), Hillary will win the election. If Hillary’s get-out-the-vote machine and the excitement of an historical election drives the womens turnout up 5% or more, the election will be a blowout in the electoral college. The sixteen state test marketing trial run in the 2004 election, increased the turnout of unmarried women by 5% to 16% depending on the state and the intensity of the voter contact.</p>

<p>Here’s how Reagan’s 1980 campaign manage Ed Rollins handicapped the race:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22494[/url]”>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22494&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

144

<p><a href=“http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071001/NEWS81/71001040[/url]”>http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071001/NEWS81/71001040&lt;/a&gt;
"WASHINGTON (AP) _ Democratic presidential contenders flocked to Sen. Edward Kennedy’s 75th birthday party earlier this year.</p>

<p>Sen. Barack Obama showed up at Kennedy’s home with a bottle of wine as a gift. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pulled Kennedy aside to schmooze. Sen. Christopher Dodd needled Kennedy about getting older.</p>

<p>The shower of personal attention underscored Kennedy’s star power in the White House race. The liberal senator’s endorsement is among the most coveted by the eight Democratic contenders."</p>

<p>Darn. Hillary’s campaign may have made a mistake. Obama got the wine to Kennedy first. Interesting dilemma indeed. :confused: Hillary thought they said schmooze. In actuality, they probably said bring booze… :)</p>

145

<p>

</p>

<p>He’s one of you (a Democrat), so I wouldn’t worry if he got elected.</p>

146

<p>Can I make book with you that Kennedy endorses Clinton before New Hampshire?</p>

<p>That article is the standard pro forma “everyone has great qualifications” speech one gives weeks in advance so as to not offend anyone too badly when the final decision is announced.</p>

<p>Blast from the past: I see where George McGovern is endorsing Hillary.</p>

<p>Coureur: the numbers I’ve seen is that Hillary will pull come Republican-voting women, particularly working class. I think she’ll do okay among independents. But I think turnout among some Democratic segments is going to be very high.</p>

147

<p>^ Of course he will.</p>

<p>Lets not forget, “During the Clinton administration, Kennedy was a key White House ally. The Kennedys and Clintons often sailed together during first family vacations on Martha’s Vineyard.”</p>

<p>Yup, old school politicians who understand the working man (and woman).</p>

<p>I have to think that a Kennedy endorsement means squat. If anything, it reinforces the fact that Hillary subscribes to politics as usual.</p>

148

<p>

</p>

<p>B-Rock brings wine, which I admit is a strong inducement to Kennedy. But, Clinton brings the opportunity for him to cap off his life in public service by authoring, sponsoring, and passing legislation on the signature issue of his career – universal health care. She offers him political immortality.</p>

149

<br>

<br>

<p>Yeah, but I worry about a “voting booth melt.” A lot of not-so-firm supporters might <em>say</em> that would vote for a woman when asked. But in the privacy of the voting booth they are not quite so progressive as they imagined, and their hand strays over toward the male candidate.</p>

<p>It’s the same thing that doomed the governorship of Tom Bradley. He had a strong showing in the pre-election polls - people <em>claimed</em> they would vote for a black man for governor of California. But in the actual booth a lot of those people somehow ended up voting for Dukmejian.</p>

150

<p>Here is the all female ticket I’m definitely voting for:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.goldwatermiller08.com/[/url]”>http://www.goldwatermiller08.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>;)</p>

151

<p>Find me a Republican candidate who not only doesn’t practice politics as usual but is any good at either it or governing. Null set. Kennedy and Clinton are both fundamentally Establishment. Obama is running an Anti-Establishment campaign dolloped with a fair dose of hypocrisy but what the heck. And poor John Edwards is looking for a position to play.</p>

<p>Coureur, I think Bradley was doomed by some gun rights initiative on the ballot that brought out the wingnuts in larger than anticipated numbers. In fact, I think it may have been the accidental prototype of the practice the thuggish Dividers have about trying to put anti-gay rights measures on the ballot to boost pro-GOP turnout. I think it’s a tactic whose benefit is on the wane.</p>

152

<p>

</p>

<p>As I understand it, the opposite has occured in Clinton’s Senate races. The final margin has been several percentage points higher than the polling indicated – the result of a hidden women’s turnout and vote.</p>

<p>Pollsters weight their samples to match historical turnout levels of men and women voters. If there is a factor in a race that results in higher than anticipated women’s turnout, the polls understate the results. </p>

<p>I could be wrong, but I believe electing the first female President in 230 years will result in historically high female turnout. Increased female turnout will break nearly unanimously for Clinton. That makes her get-out-the-vote targeting very simple. Anything her campaign does to drive women to the polls increases her vote totals. And, this dynamic transcends, to some degree, party affiliation, issues, etc. </p>

<p>Unmarried women are 22% of the electorate and the fastest growing demographic segment, increasing from 19% to 22% between 2000 and 2004.</p>

153

<p>A few asked earlier about Clinton’s position on Iran. A new statement from Clinton’s Senate office today may shed some light:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284618&&[/url]”>http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284618&&&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

154

<p>I’ve been thinking about this thread and it struck me that there may be some hypocrisy on my part, but not for the reasons you may think. Rather than partisanship, I think I may be guilty of “personalship.” I’ve had occasion to deal with Andrew Cuomo’s office with regard to some things that impact my community and those dealings, along with a general satisfaction with the job he’s doing overall have made me a supporter of Mr. Cuomo. He is his father’s son, obviously, but if he continues on this path, I could really see myself as an enthusiastic supporter for higher office. Even though he’s not of my party. So there you have it.</p>

155

<p>Again, all our reasons for our votes and candidates are subjective. Even those that masquerade as objective. So zoosermom, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me.</p>

156

<p>Personal experience with someone trumps all the other stuff any day.</p>

157

<p>I haven’t read every single post, but is America ready for another rich white guy who doesn’t have a clue for president?</p>

158

<p>Touche bethie. Sorry about the accent.</p>

159

<p>“I want sincerity, honesty and integrity.”</p>

<p>And you’re hoping for these things from a POLITICIAN? They’ve already been bought and paid for long before the first lever is pulled.</p>

160

<p>“I want sincerity, honesty and integrity.”</p>

<p>I’m not even sure that I think that someone could have all those things and be a good President. I think Jimmy Carter tried.</p>