Will the National GOP learn from Virginia?

[manifold]

"...But just so I'm clear, are you saying that ALL women are intelligent, informed voters?"

Nope. I'm sure there are just as many low-info voters on the female side of the gender fence as on the male side.

My 'all' was intended to embrace Left, Right and Center rather than just the Left, as your original in this series might otherwise lead one to believe.

Ahhh, so you took exception to Ickyman singling out stupid women, while by virtue of omission, giving stupid dudes a free pass.

I can see why you'd take it that way, but that isn't how I took it.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Ahhh, so you took exception to Ickyman singling out stupid women, while by virtue of omission, giving stupid dudes a free pass. I can see why you'd take it that way, but that isn't how I took it."

I saw it as an attack upon the competency of women to participate in the political process.

Given the content of Post Nos. 239 and 241, it's a little difficult to deduce otherwise.

Why? Did you perceive that differently, in substance?

 

[manifold]

"...Ahhh, so you took exception to Ickyman singling out stupid women, while by virtue of omission, giving stupid dudes a free pass. I can see why you'd take it that way, but that isn't how I took it."

I saw it as an attack upon the competency of women to participate in the political process.

Given the content of Post Nos. 239 and 241, it's a little difficult to deduce otherwise.

Why? Did you perceive that differently, in substance?

Oops, I missed the rollback the 19th Amendment part.

But from a big picture sense, I do believe that for better or worse, our civilization took a left turn at Albuquerque when woman were granted suffrage. On balance I'd definitely argue it was for the better, but I'd also argue that if women were never granted suffrage, our country would be far more reflective of conservative ideals today. Just think about it for a minute. Probably no FDR, no Social Security, no medicare, little or no welfare, no JFK, no Clinton. Sure it's merely speculative and academic, but it's still interesting to think about.

 

[RKMBrown]

However, the GOP should take a lesson and start running candidates that will siphon off liberal and progressive votes. I'd run a few wack job progressive extremists in each district and siphon off at least 15% of the vote away from the Democrat.

I fully expect the GOP to do exactly that.

Politics is like sports in that whenever something works, it's sure to get copied.

I'm thinking the republicans need to create a unique party for each of the different groups in the democrat party. One party for the criminals, one party for the global warming peta faction, one party for the gays, one party for the butch women, one party for the progressives, one party for the illegals, ...

 

[manifold]

However, the GOP should take a lesson and start running candidates that will siphon off liberal and progressive votes. I'd run a few wack job progressive extremists in each district and siphon off at least 15% of the vote away from the Democrat.

I fully expect the GOP to do exactly that.

Politics is like sports in that whenever something works, it's sure to get copied.

I'm thinking the republicans need to create a unique party for each of the different groups in the democrat party. One party for the criminals, one party for the global warming peta faction, one party for the gays, one party for the butch women, one party for the progressives, one party for the illegals, ...

I wouldn't expect that.

All it would take is to bankroll one Green party candidate to at the very least, cancel out the Libertarian.

 

[Capstone]

We need more panties in politics. The boxers and briefs have been screwing things up for long enough.

I'm not sure that's the standard you want to settle on, what with the Larry Craig's of the world and all...

Hadn't thought of that.

I suppose the standard might be useless regarding some of the chicks as well.

Still, the law of averages is on my side...

 

[manifold]

nooice!

 

[RKMBrown]

"...Ahhh, so you took exception to Ickyman singling out stupid women, while by virtue of omission, giving stupid dudes a free pass. I can see why you'd take it that way, but that isn't how I took it."

I saw it as an attack upon the competency of women to participate in the political process.

Given the content of Post Nos. 239 and 241, it's a little difficult to deduce otherwise.

Why? Did you perceive that differently, in substance?

Oops, I missed the rollback the 19th Amendment part.

But from a big picture sense, I do believe that for better or worse, our civilization took a left turn at Albuquerque when woman were granted suffrage. On balance I'd definitely argue it was for the better, but I'd also argue that if women were never granted suffrage, our country would be far more reflective of conservative ideals today. Just think about it for a minute. Probably no FDR, no Social Security, no medicare, little or no welfare, no JFK, no Clinton. Sure it's merely speculative and academic, but it's still interesting to think about.

Nah. Just because the democrat party is chock filled with anti-maternal tom boys, does not mean that the majority of women do not reflect conservative ideals.

On Hillary, she didn't create the modern progressive movement. That was Salinsky, the weather underground, and the pony tailed marxist / communist / socialist coup of our liberal arts colleges.

 

[RKMBrown]

I fully expect the GOP to do exactly that.

Politics is like sports in that whenever something works, it's sure to get copied.

I'm thinking the republicans need to create a unique party for each of the different groups in the democrat party. One party for the criminals, one party for the global warming peta faction, one party for the gays, one party for the butch women, one party for the progressives, one party for the illegals, ...

I wouldn't expect that.

All it would take is to bankroll one Green party candidate to at the very least, cancel out the Libertarian.

Nah the dems will just come out with a return to religion party and stay one step ahead. The way to fix our voting problem is easy. Rank the vote like all other voting systems. Three people running, you get to say you want candidate #1, otherwise candidate #3. This way you can vote for the libertarian first, republican second pointing out at the voting booth who you want. That or you have a run off election in all cases where one candidate does not get 50.00001%. This is not rocket science, our voting system is stupid as a rock.

 

[Mr Natural]

The GOP needs to offload the Teabaggers and the religious nutjobs if they want to start winning elections.

 

[manifold]

I saw it as an attack upon the competency of women to participate in the political process.

Given the content of Post Nos. 239 and 241, it's a little difficult to deduce otherwise.

Why? Did you perceive that differently, in substance?

Oops, I missed the rollback the 19th Amendment part.

But from a big picture sense, I do believe that for better or worse, our civilization took a left turn at Albuquerque when woman were granted suffrage. On balance I'd definitely argue it was for the better, but I'd also argue that if women were never granted suffrage, our country would be far more reflective of conservative ideals today. Just think about it for a minute. Probably no FDR, no Social Security, no medicare, little or no welfare, no JFK, no Clinton. Sure it's merely speculative and academic, but it's still interesting to think about.

Nah. Just because the democrat party is chock filled with anti-maternal tom boys, does not mean that the majority of women do not reflect conservative ideals.

On Hillary, she didn't create the modern progressive movement. That was Salinsky, the weather underground, and the pony tailed marxist / communist / socialist coup of our liberal arts colleges.

So are you arguing that nothing would be different today, politically speaking, if women were never allowed to vote?

Or are you just saying that you disagree with me about how it would be different? If so, please elaborate?

 

[thanatos144]

You guys do know the republican did not lose the woman vote right?

 

[RKMBrown]

Oops, I missed the rollback the 19th Amendment part.

But from a big picture sense, I do believe that for better or worse, our civilization took a left turn at Albuquerque when woman were granted suffrage. On balance I'd definitely argue it was for the better, but I'd also argue that if women were never granted suffrage, our country would be far more reflective of conservative ideals today. Just think about it for a minute. Probably no FDR, no Social Security, no medicare, little or no welfare, no JFK, no Clinton. Sure it's merely speculative and academic, but it's still interesting to think about.

Nah. Just because the democrat party is chock filled with anti-maternal tom boys, does not mean that the majority of women do not reflect conservative ideals.

On Hillary, she didn't create the modern progressive movement. That was Salinsky, the weather underground, and the pony tailed marxist / communist / socialist coup of our liberal arts colleges.

So are you arguing that nothing would be different today, politically speaking, if women were never allowed to vote?

Or are you just saying that you disagree with me about how it would be different? If so, please elaborate?

I was only focused on the modern element.

Taking a look back in history... We would not have had prohibition. Course that was thrown out.

We would not have had female hiring and promotion quotas. Which led to racial quotas. So we would have had less discrimination against white males. We would have less attempts at woosification of our boys in our school systems and subsequently of our men in politics.

We would not be murdering children in the womb by the tens of millions.

So would there be differences? yes.

But I disagree with these points "Probably no FDR, no Social Security, no medicare, little or no welfare, no JFK,..." I believe all of those would still be in place, I would not blame female voting for any of those issues.

 

[007]

Opinion: What GOP can learn from Cuccinelli's tanking bid in Virginia - CNN.com

(CNN) -- Virginia is a cautionary tale for conservatives this year. And those Republicans who always argue that their party wins when it moves further to the right are going to have a lot of explaining to do after Election Day.

This was written before the election, but I doubt the GOP will learn a lesson. Their call now is, "But the margin wasn't as big as......"

Actually, the GOP should have kept the Governor's mansion from all historical accounts. And they could have if they had nominated Bill Bolling the moderate Lt Gov. But the TP fanatics and the untra-right out of state money pushed for Coooooch.

This is just a small lesson for the national GOP. Will they heed the warning or continue their march to the right?

 

[bendog]

This thread has turned special.

 

[007]

This thread has turned special.

This thread was a special kind of turd from the beginning.

It's leftard propaganda, nothing more.

 

[bendog]

Blame the women. You guys are fikcing (literally) nuts. LOL



Ask yourself: How did Ken Cuccinelli (R) win on the pocketbook issue of the economy (49%-43%) and health care (49%-45%), but lose the race? Ask any political consultant worth his/her salt and that person would tell you, if you win on the economy, you win. That didn’t happen. Cuccinelli lost. And he lost on the issue of abortion by a whopping 59%-34% margin. What’s more, not only did Terry McAuliffe win female voters by nine points (51%-42%), he also won non-married women by 42 points (67%-25%). There’s also this: While just 46% said they supported the health-care law, only 34% said abortion should be ILLEGAL in all or most cases. And Republican pollster Byron Allen said the GOP shortcoming in Virginia wasn’t abortion; it was birth control. “While I’m convinced by data and experience that pro-life candidates can win in swing states, it’s becoming equally clear that we have handed Democrats an issue on a silver platter by arguing over birth-control, whether it’s government funding or mandates in Obamacare.” You can argue if the Obamacare issue tightened the race. But we know why Cuccinelli lost in purple Virginia: abortion and birth control.

First Thoughts: GOP rivals begin dishing on Christie - First Read

 

[manifold]

Nah. Just because the democrat party is chock filled with anti-maternal tom boys, does not mean that the majority of women do not reflect conservative ideals.

On Hillary, she didn't create the modern progressive movement. That was Salinsky, the weather underground, and the pony tailed marxist / communist / socialist coup of our liberal arts colleges.

So are you arguing that nothing would be different today, politically speaking, if women were never allowed to vote?

Or are you just saying that you disagree with me about how it would be different? If so, please elaborate?

I was only focused on the modern element.

Taking a look back in history... We would not have had prohibition. Course that was thrown out.

We would not have had female hiring and promotion quotas. Which led to racial quotas. So we would have had less discrimination against white males. We would have less attempts at woosification of our boys in our school systems and subsequently of our men in politics.

We would not be murdering children in the womb by the tens of millions.

So would there be differences? yes.

But I disagree with these points "Probably no FDR, no Social Security, no medicare, little or no welfare, no JFK,..." I believe all of those would still be in place, I would not blame female voting for any of those issues.

From where I'm sitting, you're agreeing and disagreeing with pretty much the same underlying point... we'd be more reflective of conservative values today if women were never given the vote. And while you have every right to think that JFK and Clinton would've been elected without women voters, it is my opinion that you couldn't be more wrong about that.

 

[manifold]

Blame the women.

One man's blame is another man's credit.

 

[Redfish]

Women do not all think the same or have the same political ideas. The are divided just like men.

the dem mantra "GOP war on women" is nothing but a political lie.

but I will never expect any dem to admit that.