~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
bsutansalt
[–]16 TRP VanguardTRPsubmitter18 points19 points20 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
The key to the puzzle appears to involve attitudes to government safety nets, and a shared sense among unmarried women that they are trying to survive without any back-up in a harsh, increasingly insecure economy (unmarried women are disproportionately likely to work in jobs which do not offer health cover, for instance). Put another way, the conservative battle-cry of “Leave me the Hell alone” sounds different when you are literally on your own.
This says it all
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
As I stated in the identical thread I created in MR:
From the article:
This is very much a gendered issue and traces right back to the explosion of the role of government following women's suffrage and 2nd wave feminism. Removing women's right to vote is not the answer, but telling them to buck up and make it their own way is, and I might add is something men have done for generations before them (or failed spectacularly and died or ended up homeless). Whenever politicians espouse this ideal women take it as an affront to their gender. How dare women be held to the same standard as men! :cue "war on women" rhetoric:
This is all about removing the protections and special privileges women have enjoyed for generations and actually championing for equality. Sadly a few bad apples ruin the bunch and end up corrupting the message that women need to stand on their own two feet in terms of equality, both for the good AND for the bad.
[–]Redpillc0re-3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I call bullshit. They voted the more goodlooking, young guy who appealed to all their feeeelings (who cares if he does very little of those, he has a sexy voice).
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 26 points27 points28 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Just another glimpse into how women expect Uncle Sam to fulfill the role of protector and provider thanks to feminism's destruction of the nuclear family in western society.
[–]realniggasstandup16 points17 points18 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The only way Republicans can win the single women vote is if they supplant the Dims as big daddy gubmint.
Things ain't looking good for the Republicans: fewer incentives to get married resulting in declining marriage rates, the rise of spinsterhood, the rise of single mothers and children born out of wedlock (which creates a vicious cycle of more single baby mommas in future generations). It's pretty much a losing battle. They would have a shot if they grew some balls to defund lesbian/victim studies academics and made ad blitzes vilifying single mothers, but that'd be politically incorrect.
My motto's always been get money, fuck bitches, and AVOID TAXES. Meet with an accountant and make sure the government doesn't get a single penny from you.
Somebody needs to pay for her 15 kids and be held accountable -- is it going to be you?
[–]Rhodos1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Thanks for the video. It is just... wow.
[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I wonder if there is any way for Republicans to win more women's votes by encouraging there to be less single women!!! Maybe they could fight against divorce, and thus make the gay marriage crowd see if they're willing to stay gay married if divorce stops being an option. Two birds with one stone!
I don't know if Repubs can get single mothers on their side, but if the rates of single motherhood became what they were 50 years ago, they wouldn't have to worry about it!!
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
An Australian statistician did a fairly in-depth analysis of demographics and voting intentions over the course of five or so federal elections.
By voting intention, the most conservative demographics in Australia are men aged between 35 - 45 and women aged 55+. Young women aged 18 - 25 were the most liberal voting demographic, and a majority voted for a third party, the Greens (think Ralph Nader on steroids).
Women progressively became more right leaning as they became older. So did men, but far less dramatically. It was impossible from the data sample to determine whether there was a demographic change, and young women have become more liberal, or whether their voting intentions would change over the course of their lives, but it was pretty interesting none the less.
Anyway, from what I've seen, US voters essentially have a false choice between shills and slightly crueller shills. It's becoming that way in Australia too, but we generally have a third party of some kind to off-set the two major parties. Elections just seem like a tool to boot people out of office every few terms when they become too comfortable or too corrupt.
[–]someonewrongonthenet0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Do you happen to have the source handy?
I'm curious to compare it with the American data on the same subject (which shows all age cohorts getting more socially-liberal with age) - media piece and study
Edit: Actually...come to think of it the parties would get more liberal as time goes on too, so voting intentions (as in the austrialia study) would wash out any actual changes in people's attitudes. (The american study used a questionnaire)
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I tried to find the blog it was in a few days ago, and couldn't unfortunately. The results may be different to American results because both major parties are largely socially conservative, barring a few socialists in the Labor party and some libertarians and 'RINOS' in the Liberal party (Australia's conservative party). The difference is mostly based on protectionism vs free trade (and both parties have veered between the two in the last 50 years).
I'm surprised that age would lead to liberalism, because conventional wisdom would think that the elderly would be more conservative, holding to older traditions, and younger voters, particularly now, would be interested in welfare and tertiary education reform (I.e. more benefits and concessions), climate change and social issues like gay marriage.
[–]someonewrongonthenet0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
I'm surprised that age would lead to liberalism, because conventional wisdom would think that the elderly would be more conservative
The elderly are more conservative. Conventional wisdom is correct.
The finding is that those same elderly are more liberal today than they used to be when they were young.
Basically, as Americans grow older, they get more and more liberal...but despite that, the younger generation will still be more liberal than the elder at all time points because they started out more liberal to begin with.
So to use concrete examples:
1) Grandma is less likely to support gay marriage than her teenage grand-daughter... as conventional wisdom dictates.
2) However, Grandma is much more likely to support gay marriage today than she was 50 years ago. So Grandma has gotten more socially liberal with age....but she hasn't caught up to her grand-daughter yet.
Does that make sense?
It's not really that surprising a pattern if you think about it. I'm sure our children will pass laws that seem shocking and wrong to us...and at first our generation will be strongly against these things, and then we'll gradually come around because we see that society hasn't collapsed after all...but we'll never be quite so comfortable with it as our children are. That's basically what Grandma's generation is going through today - as people age, they gradually drift away from the culture of their childhood and towards more contemporary values...but the youngest generation is still the most up-to-date.
[–]ajswdf5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
You realize single men also tend to vote Democratic, right? In fact Obama won single men by 16 points.
Besides, why is this relevant to TRP at all? Jews voted more heavily for Obama in 2012 than single women, does that mean Jews are lazy and want government money? Asians voted more democratic than even Jews, are they lazy and wanting to get government money?
[–]NoReligionPlz3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Excellent points....which I'm sure will be lost in this anti-Dem/Obama circle jerk....
[–]KJL131 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Reminds me of this fine human being. /s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBqjZ0KZCa0
[–]TheEyeUrnShaft2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link
Tl;dr lazy people vote Democrat. Nothing new here
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link
There's way more to it than that, but that's a good tl;dr I guess.
[–]TheEyeUrnShaft1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link
They vote democrat AND it's destroying our country. My healthcare costs have already increased.
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
If it was single payer health care where everyone benefits, I'd be okay. But ACA seems to be designed to force healthy young males to pay for women's new freebies like BC, etc. There's nothing I gain from ACA that women don't also get, and I pay the majority of the new bill for it. If women still had to pay more for their superior coverage and more expensive healthcare, I wouldn't be as pissed.
[–]TheEyeUrnShaft0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
It is a tax on young, healthy males. That's how the SCOTUS explained it when they voted it to be constitutional.
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Lol. It's discrimination but the good kind. Case dismissed
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
That's not a direct result of the ACA. Several insurance companies were scrambling to increase rates as high as possible before the rate increase limit was implemented.
[–]TheEyeUrnShaft5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No? Why were they scrambling to increase their rates? Just a coincidence?
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did you not read my comment? The answer to your question is right there.
Keep on downvoting, Conservatives.
© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]16 TRP VanguardTRPsubmitter18 points19 points20 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 12 points13 points14 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Redpillc0re-3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 26 points27 points28 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]realniggasstandup16 points17 points18 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]Rhodos1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed Contributornyrp0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]someonewrongonthenet0 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]someonewrongonthenet0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ajswdf5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]NoReligionPlz3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]KJL131 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheEyeUrnShaft2 points3 points4 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] -1 points0 points1 point (7 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheEyeUrnShaft1 point2 points3 points (6 children) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheEyeUrnShaft0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Endorsed ContributorrebuildingMyself1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] -9 points-8 points-7 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]TheEyeUrnShaft5 points6 points7 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points (0 children) | Copy Link