Reagan Republicans and unmarried voters
|
|
Phyllis Schlafly launched a no-holds-barred barrage on Republicans and John McCain wondering “Where did the Reagan votes go in the 2008 election?”
“By a colossal 40-plus point spread, unmarried women voted for Barack Obama by 70 percent to 29 percent. One explanation is economic: The women who cast off husbands look to Big Brother Government to support them. They vote for the party that promises more benefits from the Welfare State…
The United States today has 24 million children growing up in households without their own father, and 17 million of those are in mother-headed households. Why is anybody surprised that the dissolution of marriage, depriving kids of their own fathers and the widespread acceptance of matriarchy produces eager supporters of Obama’s promise to “spread the wealth around”?”
Is it that simple? Is the changing structure of family changing the role of government?
Schlafly talks about several other issues, including trade, bailouts and youth, but none was so pervasive as her bit about Obama and unmarried women. Trade didn’t decide this election, and the bailout didn’t either (although I think what caused the bailout hurt the GOP on the critical competence issue), and young people have no reason to be conservative - they get more than they give from government.
But both unmarried men and unmarried women went for Obama (men 56%, women 70%) and unmarried voters have been about 35% of the electorate since 2000.
So, why have single people supported Democrats so demonstrably? Is it a big government shift? Are unmarried people more likely to support government safety nets, or even movement towards socialism? Absent the traditional support systems of marriage, or even the days when one salary was enough to provide for a family, is government becoming a more reliable support system than marriage and family?
I don’t think all Schlafly’s conclusions are correct. But, I do think this: While every party official is wondering about “outreach” with regard to race, I think we better plan an effort of outreach into “the marriage gap.”
on 
on
Phyllis Schlafly’s assesment is right on target. It is an example of how economic issues and social issues interlock. If our party lags in our principles in one area it will affect us in all areas.
BS. Schlafly is making a connection that doesn’t necessarily exist, ie, unmarried women = fatherless households. Certainly there are some of those, but what about the number of single women who are childless?
Second, she seems to imply that women need husbands to take care of them. I find that offensive in this day and age.
I think she needs to crawl back under that rock.
Women crave security. Security is something that used to be provided within a marriage. When two people work together to keep a roof over the head of their children it allows for a feeling of security. If that need isn’t being fulfilled within a marriage it would be natural to seek it elsewhere and government is an easy security blanket for people to want to grab onto.
My parents raised me to understand the importance of independence. But if you want to win the unmarried vote I think you have to provide at least the idea of security so they have something to hold onto. Almost everyone, no matter how successful they are, still wants that feeling even if it’s not backed up by reality.
Economics 101
Pretty sure most singlefamily households are making less than 150k
Thats it plain and simple
Obama offered more tax cuts for more people. Thats why he won.
With all due respect to Vivian Page. Have you seen the statistics out of our inner cities? A majority of the children in many of those neighborhoods are living in a homes with a single mother. These communities have been suffering under the “progressive” social structuring projects for over forty years now. Conservatives can connect with these women by presenting a new stategy for reducing that kind of abject poverty through conservative means.
What is interesting is that Obama was the only candidate - including the primaries - who called out absent fathers for failing their families.
Maybe that’s why single women, especially those with children would go for Obama. He is demanding that men be responsible for the families they leave behind.
Women cast off their husbands now? AND they need their support? AND they all look for government help? I’ll let that stand for itself.
In response to Obama calling out the fathers on being deadbeat, that’s good,however, actions speak louder than words and the welfare culture being promoted by the liberal movement is keeping these people stuck in poverty and mediocrity.
Yo Beaver!,
Wake the f*!k up. I can’t believe I’m reading this crap! Single women voted for Obama so that they can go on welfare? OMG!!!
You guys need to pull your heads out of the 50’s! I know you all want to go back to the good old days when you could beat your wife and all your neighbors would turn a blind eye, and forcing your secretary to sleep with you was considered cool because you knew she didn’t have any other job prospects and no chance at advancement, but those days are over.
Women no longer to have to put up with a piece of shit husband and they aren’t! Good for them!
Nova and Mark make good points, another reason they voted for Obama is he also spent much of his childhood with a single mother, as did I.
If the GOP wants to attract single women you might consider addressing issues that matter to them. Being a condisending jackass isn’ t going to work.
speaking from experience?
Brian,
Are you hitting on me?
Well, I don’t know that I agree w/ Vivian Paige very often (though I appreciate her thoughtful perspective) but, in this instance, we are very much in agreement.
Although I appreciate much of Schafley’s leadership in my party, comments like these are both condescending and require giant leaps in logic. Worse, they assume that she is one of the few women capable of thinking rightly about issues. Just as it is ridiculous and offensive for leftists to assume that because Palin is a woman she ought to be a liberal - and to call her names because she’s not - so it is ridiculous and offensive to assume that single women are looking to government as a “husband / father” that will take care of them.
Why the gender gap? Could it be that for far too long, GOP consultants have written off single women and minorities as a voting block? - they’ve told their candidates to go after white men because that was what they saw as the winning formula. Now, they are reaping the consequences of their neglect.
Young women need to see more strong, articulate women in the GOP. We have many such women and they are Republicans - not because of identity politics - but because of principle. Talking about those principles in a way that anyone can understand is our challenge.
So then, does the fact that Palin had a higher unfavorables over favorables among women mean that she wasn’t strong or articulate? Or that women voters are not as susceptible to identity politics as you may suspect?
Jeremy, I’m not a fan of identity politics - and the GOP should not rely on that. I look for representation based on shared ideas - not shared gender or skin color.
Nevertheless, diversity in gender and skin color from the rank and file to the leadership DEMONSTRATES the strength of ideas to a certain degree — that’s why I’m glad to see more strong women and minorities running for office or assuming leadership posts in the GOP.
Palin is certainly strong and articulate. But so is Obama. As I have previously blogged, I think that Obama’s win was a persuasion largely of personality rather than policy. And, we have to remember that Palin wasn’t at the top of the ticket - Obama was. Palin wasn’t ready for the top of the ticket either (though I think she was quite qualified for VP). And, when it comes to Palin’s negatives, we can’t forget the way she was treated in the press. Her positives were highest when she was able to communicate directly with the people - unfiltered and uncut.
Frenchy, you wish.
DCH, I also believe GOP consultants have ignored unmarried female voters. This post was my urging to change that.
And you’re right about Palin - anyone subjected to that level of negative press would be seen negatively. 8 weeks of a full-out media assault would make anyone look terrible.
Commercials work. Why should we think the people selling you Coke or Pepsi can convince you of something, but the news media can’t?
In many cases it is the father that leaves the single mother hanging. But Phyllis Schlafly is correct when she says that liberals have been playing on peoples insecurities in order to promote their big government agenda. It is very important that we promote strong families in order to help people in the inner cities and elsewhere.
The marriage issue may be an area where Republicans can reach out to minorities. Minority voters, by most accounts, were decisive in the California prop 8 vote this year.