Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sarah Palin looked good; she dressed professionally, but I don't think most of us knew where she actually stood politically. Plus, Tina Fey did such a great job impersonating her that she quickly became walking political satire. It's like that was just not meant to be. I don't really know how she could have saved herself.
Hilary Clinton, though, we kind of already know where she stands. Her husband was already president, and I doubt her views are much different than his. That said, though, I think I want a Republican this time, if I have no other choice; Obama's socialist policies are putting the U.S. a little too close to Europe and even communist countries. I don't want unemployment to get so bad that people with master's degrees and doctorates can't find jobs.
We just need to convince more white females that democrats hate them for being white and are trying to replace them too. If the females come over, the Democrat party collapses overnight . Females and their posterity will fare a lot better with the conservatives. Republicans should just cater to white females.
Little too late, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
I'd predict many women will be turned off by Hillary. Women can be some of the worst towards other women.
Goodness. My Goodness. You shore do know a lot about women. Roll eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
When you think about it most females are actually conservative even if they don't realize it. Many of them want to get married, have children and families, live in nice and stable neighborhoods-all the things progressive libs policies oppose.
Are you sensing why it is that women are not attracted to the Republican party? No. You'll probably never figure it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1
Women tend to vote for the more youthful, charismatic and more attractive candidate. If they wouldn't consider dating the candidate, they won't vote for him lol. It's not very objective.
Wow. Now sentiments like these are REALLY going to entice women over to your side.
I think McCain lost mainly because of his own blunders. Had he opposed the bank bailouts, halted the stupid rhetoric about bombing Iran, and chose someone halfway competent as VP, I think his chances would have gone up tremendously.
If Jesus ran as a republican in 08 he would have lost.
It's not just Hillary. The entire Democrat Party has a massive white male problem. That's what happens when your platform is based on demonizing and attacking white males.
"Steve Schale worked on all three campaigns. He said it makes more sense to increase support from whites just a little bit than trying to boost support from minority groups a lot. "Take Hispanics alone: Every point of white share you lose, you have to win Hispanics by 4 to 5 points more" to make up for it, Schale said. "In '08, we knew if we really focused on keeping whites above 40 (percent), we couldn't lose. To me, that makes more sense than always trying to cobble out a tight win. And at some point we are going to max out (with) Hispanics.""
First off in that article a conservative pollster calls bs on the whole premise.
he says Hiliary doesn't need white men to win. Which is the truth.
This same conservative pollster goes on to say if you increase the conservative advantage amongst white male voters to plus 31% up from plus 27% in 2012 and decrease the disadvantage that conservatives have with black and Hispanic voters, Hiliary would still win the popular vote by 3%.
That bit of reality within the article destroys the whole point of the article.
In other words, if voters turnout in 2016, This conservative pollster admitted what everyone already knows to be true, Hilary will win by 5 percent. It's not gonna be close.
And I'm not a huge Hilary supporter, but the demographics are just brutal for conservatives.
Who only win in so many states because of low voter turnout during off year elections.
In the 2012 elections, 130,234,600 people voted. In the 2014 elections, 81,687,059 people voted. 49million fewer people voted than in 2012.
In the 2008 elections, 132,618,580 people voted. In the 2010 elections, 90,682,968 people voted. 42 million fewer people than in 2008.
We basically lose over a third and sometimes 40% of voters during off year elections. This is how conservatives win by people not voting.
This is what they are praying for in 2016, fewer Americans voting.
First off in that article a conservative pollster calls bs on the whole premise.
he says Hiliary doesn't need white men to win. Which is the truth.
This same conservative pollster goes on to say if you increase the conservative advantage amongst white male voters to plus 31% up from plus 27% in 2012 and decrease the disadvantage that conservatives have with black and Hispanic voters, Hiliary would still win the popular vote by 3%.
That bit of reality within the article destroys the whole point of the article.
In other words, if voters turnout in 2016, This conservative pollster admitted what everyone already knows to be true, Hilary will win by 5 percent. It's not gonna be close.
And I'm not a huge Hilary supporter, but the demographics are just brutal for conservatives.
Who only win in so many states because of low voter turnout during off year elections.
In the 2012 elections, 130,234,600 people voted. In the 2014 elections, 81,687,059 people voted. 49million fewer people voted than in 2012.
In the 2008 elections, 132,618,580 people voted. In the 2010 elections, 90,682,968 people voted. 42 million fewer people than in 2008.
We basically lose over a third and sometimes 40% of voters during off year elections. This is how conservatives win by people not voting.
This is what they are praying for in 2016, fewer Americans voting.
I agree. Hillary seems to be more and more the "not republican" candidate.
Subjectively, who actually really thinks she would be a good president?
At this point, I don't even think SHE wants to be president.
I think she thinks she deserves to be president, I think she thinks that she's entitled to be president ... but I really don't think she wants to be.
She was far more excited in 2008. Hillary is just cranky now. And tired. And crusty.
The most exciting thing about Hillary is Bill. And they have him locked away for the most part these days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Females and their posterity will fare a lot better with the conservatives. Republicans should just cater to white females.
