2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThe GOP's Biggest Weakness and How Clinton is Poised to Take Full Advantage of It
If you know any Republican women, particularly the so called "soccer moms", you know that they hold their noses when it comes to their own party's attack on reproductive freedom, equal pay for both genders and "hate" messages, particularly hate directed at their own gay children. "Soccer moms" want to be kept safe. Period. They vote for the leader who will keep them from being blow up by terrorists. After that comes financial security. The GOP courts them by promising to keep their kids safe and their mortgage paid. However, being rugged individualist American women, they do not approve when their party calls them "darlin'" or "sweetie pie" or tells them to "get into the kitchen to make the coffee while the men sit around the smoke filled rooms making policy"--policy that will affect the lives of women and their families. They do not approve of a party that encourages punks to beat up or kill their own, beloved gay children. They do not want to be associated with a party that claims that slaves had it good under slavery. And they definitely do not want to live in a world where the air and water are so polluted that people are dying.
This article was cited in another OP about "wedge" issues in the Dem primary.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2015/04/02/wedge-issues-take-center-stage-in-2016-race
What I find fascinating about the piece is that it is actually an article about wedge issues that threaten to tear the GOP to pieces.
And the furor over gay rights is only part of the larger debate on wedge issues, and it extends far beyond Indiana and Arkansas. Other divisive topics include abortion, immigration, pay equity and equal rights for women, gun control, whether law enforcement authorities discriminate against minorities, and contraception coverage in President Barack Obama's health care law,
Why is the GOP so scared of Hillary? Because there are a lot of self styled Republican women who will make a point of getting to the polls in the fall of 2016 to vote for her---and to teach their own party a lesson.
While all Dems are good on women's issues and family issues, only one major Democratic presidential candidate is the living embodiment of woman's rights. And if she selects Julian Castro to be her running mate, then she exploits the other major "wedge" issue among the GOP---the way that they have repeatedly alienated Latino voters, most recently by cheering on Donald Trump.
All the Democratic candidates who have declared so far would be fine by me. However, one stands above the others in her ability to tear the GOP a new one. One that needs to be torn. No party should succeed in this country by repressing and denigrating women. Women hold up half the sky. Women bring home the bacon and cook it too. Women do more than their share of child rearing, meaning that women determine the future.
The GOP has pissed on women too long. They are about to discover that in way that they will never forget.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)that the talking heads are now pushing Sharrod Brown as VP and not Castro.
( Not that Brown is not great, but I sure love Castro)
On topic: two of my female neighbors are Republicans. Both plan to vote for Hillary.
One is going to change her registration.
Cha
(297,935 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It doesn't matter whether it's Bernie or Hillary. Both can drink the GOP's milkshake with different groups of 'Republican' voters.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)apnu
(8,759 posts)Oh and go women!
Its time, make your voices heard!
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Given voting history, I think it is foolish to count on that happening on a large scale, even with a woman at the head of the Democratic ticket.
republican women simply don't prioritize women's issues that highly. If they did, they wouldn't be republicans in the first place.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)I know a number who are planning to cross over.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)To me it is most logical that if republican women highly prioritized women's issues, they wouldn't be republicans. They rate other republican agenda items as much more significant.
There, of course, will always be a few outliers. There are, after all, gay republicans and black republicans.
TheKentuckian
(25,035 posts)I tend to think some of all this priority would have shown up by now, the difference has been night and day for decades. Let's get real, Clinton isn't on some quantum leap over the Democratic party on women's health and many yes women are TeaPubliKlans specifically because they are anti choice and aren't awaiting Hillary Tubman to lead them past their husbands into the land of reason.
If they were where Clinton is they wouldn't be voting TeaPubliKlan in this day and age.
daybranch
(1,309 posts)and I personally think both declared male candidates would be better advocates for women than Hillary. At least they know who the real enemies of working families are, are willing to call them out and refuse their money. The most important thing to family, (wives, husbands, and children) are economic needs and while Hillary supports just as most democrats do bills to extend welfare more for women and give them their rights over their bodies, she is unwilling to move away from her cozy big money position. She is the favorite of Wall Street. She gets them what they want by maintaining the status quo for the billionaires and throwing some entitlement crumbs to working families to prevent them joining with the rest of the poor and staging a political uprising. The men on the other hand, do not parse their words and cut to the chase. Their positions are well reasoned and authentically held. Hillary is becoming a better performing more attractive, more polished actor but we all know now who call the shots and the billionaires sure are not supporting her for her ability to put a larger share of the pie in the hands of working people.
When we know the truth about the goals of her billionaire donors, her unwillingness to cal them out an d her willingness to support their priorities ( no -reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, continuing Citizens United, the TPP), she just comes across as insincere and unsupportable.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)First, she has made overturning Citizens United a priority of her campaign. Second, Hillary has been fighting for women and children since the 70's, not just in America, but on a global stage. Third, she is the only candidate who has hired a Wall Street watchdog into her campaign, as well as nobel economists Stiglitz and Blinder. Fourth, she has been calling for more Wall Street regulation since 2005.
Eta: she even has a 100% rating for protecting Social Security and Medicare.
Cha
(297,935 posts)Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)because all they comprehend is money and power. Sec. Clinton has more money and power than anyone else in our party, therefore they worry about her the most.
To assume there is any other reason they focus on her is delusional.