Poll War On Women

Poll: Republicans Not a Fan of Women in Government


The shockers just keep rollin’ in today, don’t they?

According to a new ABC News/Fushion poll, very few Republicans (about 23 percent) view electing more women as a good thing.

On gender issues, 63 percent of women think women have fewer opportunities than men in the workplace; fewer men, 43 percent, agree. And women are 13 points more apt than men to call it a good thing if more women were elected to Congress, 49 vs. 36 percent.

Similarly, 54 percent of nonwhites say it’d be good to elect more women, compared with 38 percent of whites. Interestingly, nonwhites are less apt to say it would be a good thing to elect more nonwhites to Congress (as noted above, 29 percent) than they are to say the same about women. Still fewer whites, 20 percent, see electing more nonwhites as a good thing.

Another interesting result is that, among Republicans, partisanship trumps gender in views on electing women to Congress: There’s essentially no difference between Republican men and GOP women in calling this a good thing, 22 vs. 24 percent. There is a difference, though, between Democratic men (54 percent see electing more women as a good thing), compared with Democratic women (among whom more, 69 percent, hold this view).

Read another way, about 77 percent, or slightly more than three quarters, of all Republicans do not think electing more women would be a good thing.

ABC’s poll is discouraging to say the least, and not just for the highlighted reason.

You can view the full PDF here.

  • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

    To wit, let me just add this lovely little quote from someone who purports to be a Democrat (emphasis mine):

    The oomph of the Democratic party in the blogosphere today can be summed up with a cursory glance at posts and comments on Balloon Juice, Little Green Footballs and Booman Tribune. They bend over backwards to justify the party bailing out banks, the nation going deeper into debt with global military expansion, and spying on citizens, yet they’ll nitpick that a libertarian is willing to allow abortion to be a state issue.

    This is from Jerome Armstrong who used to run http://www.ianwelsh.net/jerome-armstrong-on-the-failure-of-the-netroots. ht Balloon Juice and John Cole

    My point is that too many men, regardless of party are all about liberty, until it comes to something having to do with women. Then it’s a nitpick. I’d like to shove a transvaginal ultrasound wand up Jerome’s butt and see how nitpicky it feels then. All liberals (and libertarians too) should agree that liberty applies equally to both genders. We still have a long, long way to go baby.

    (edited to fix messed up HTML)

    • Kitty Smith

      Ugh, no. I DO NOT WANT ABORTION to be a state issue. Never mind that I *HATE* the concept of states rights. I want it to be a settled issue, on a FEDERAL level, with all women getting the medical care they fucking need.

      Anyone who wants to make it a “state issue” is NOT a progressive, unless they are very specifically working at the state level..

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        Since Libertarians want everything to be a state issue it would be. What Jerome is referencing here, are the liberals and progressives who refuse to join hands and sing kumbayah with Greenwald and the Pauls over NSA issues. He says we don’t like them because of their “states rights” advocacy and how that would affect women’s issues like abortion. Too many male liberals consider abortion a “nipicky issue” and would rather us focus on privacy. As if the right to privacy regarding our wombs isn’t part of the larger issue as well. Ultimately, if male liberals are this far behind recognizing us as being equal human effing beings, then there is much more work to be done.

    • i_a_c

      Wow, someone’s butthurt that he’s irrelevant. Here’s one of his comments.

      as a progressive, I went and worked on Gary Johnson’s campaign, went
      back and forth with him as I drafted out the entire website platform,
      didn’t hide where I was coming from, and we had disagreements. But
      mostly agreement. And if you had showed up at the mall last weekend, you
      would have noticed that the libertarians were in greater number, asking
      why more progressives hadn’t showed up.

      There you go, Jerome Armstrong likes Gary Johnson.

    • feloniousgrammar

      ARRRGGGHH. The Bush Administration wanted to give banks the money. It was under the Obama Administration that plans were made to have the banks pay the loans back. He didn’t “give” money to the banks!

      … due to interest, dividends and other revenue streams, the government has
      received more money back ($266.7 billion, according to the Treasury) than it handed out to banks under the bailout law ($245.2 billion).


      Women’s issues aren’t “special interests” they’re the issues of half of the population and they have a profound effect on our society, especially the impact on women and children.

  • feloniousgrammar

    The numbers for Democratic men and women are disappointingly low. Women— who are about half of the U.S. population are 18.3 percent of this congress— 20% in the Senate of which four are Republican; and 17.9% in the House of which 19 are Republican. This is not representative.

    Nancy Pelosi was the first woman who served as the Speaker of House, and is still the last.

    We’ve never had a woman president or vice-president of the U.S.

    Thanks to Obama, we now have three women on the Supreme Court, which brings the grand total of women who have been Supreme Court Justices up to four.


    • JozefAL

      Well, we COULD have had a female President in 2008 but too many in the Democratic Party were gung-ho to have the first (half) Black President elected–even to the point of continual calls for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race (beginning at the end of JANUARY of 2008; the calls became even louder as the primary season progressed). And there were a lot of Democrats who claimed that Hillary simply could NOT win in 2008 (despite having begged her to run in 2004 and despite the constant claims that ANY Dem would be able to win in 2008 after the debacle that had been the Dubya years) because she would be seen as “damaged goods” because of Bill and that the far-right would simply excoriate her with all sorts of negative campaign ads (as though Obama had smooth sailing with the far-right).

      Oh, and of course there were all the “we don’t want dynasties–Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton” whines (though it was pretty interesting that some of these same people were starting to speculate–even before Barack actually took office–that Michelle Obama should run in 2016).

      • http://drangedinaz.wordpress.com/ IrishGrrrl

        Let me guess, you are/were a PUMA?

      • feloniousgrammar

        I’m happy with Obama and don’t feel the need to pit him against Clinton. I don’t think that anything could have prepared her to be POTUS more than her time in the State Department— an appointment that demonstrated Obama’s respect for her and confidence in her abilities. She was the third woman to serve in that position and the best of the bunch.

        I want to live to see a woman POTUS. I’ve wanted this since I was eleven years old. Seeing a black man as a POTUS exceeded my dreams.

      • i_a_c

        Water under the bridge, man. I’d vote for Hillary if she’s nominated.

      • D_C_Wilson

        I’ve never liked the idea of political dynasties.

        And no, I haven’t been calling for Michelle Obama to run in 2016.

        Dude, the 2008 primary is done. Hillary Clinton got over it ages ago, why don’t you?

  • trgahan

    Well of course!

    Like African Americans during the civil rights movement, American women betrayed a fundamental conservative tenant by refusing to know and keep their “place.” Instead they paid back “decades” of imaginary conservative largess by having the gull to ask for their basic rights and freedoms as citizens and human beings.