Why Won't Virginia Elect Women? (renting, how much, big house)
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.
No solid research but I'll venture that lower turnout favors more conservative, male candidates.
I believe that there are data supporting this or related point. People who vote in off years tend to be disproportionately older, white voters, who tend to vote more conservatively. And, in most election years, people in groups who might for demographic reasons be expected to vote for Democrats are less likely to vote, e.g., lower % turnout, than other groups. Can't put my hands on it, though.
Virginia is definitely not "center-right"--especially if you consider the entirely population rather than the most recent voters. There are two Dem. senators. And, many indicators are that it is trending bluer, as indicated in the 2008 election, when turnout was higher than in 2010, when the more conservative voters were more likely to vote. In addition to the bluer areas already indicated, parts (but not all) of the Tidewater area, and other university locations also lean blue. And blue NoVA is growing at a much more rapid pace than are the red sections--and, I hasten to add, providing a lot of tax revenue that is then redirected by our state legislature to help those in redder communities, who don't seem to appreciate it!
Things may be red in Lynchburg, but that isn't any more representative of the state statistically than is Arlington.
I believe that there are data supporting this or related point. People who vote in off years tend to be disproportionately older, white voters, who tend to vote more conservatively. And, in most election years, people in groups who might for demographic reasons be expected to vote for Democrats are less likely to vote, e.g., lower % turnout, than other groups. Can't put my hands on it, though.
Virginia is definitely not "center-right"--especially if you consider the entirely population rather than the most recent voters. There are two Dem. senators. And, many indicators are that it is trending bluer, as indicated in the 2008 election, when turnout was higher than in 2010, when the more conservative voters were more likely to vote. In addition to the bluer areas already indicated, parts (but not all) of the Tidewater area, and other university locations also lean blue. And blue NoVA is growing at a much more rapid pace than are the red sections--and, I hasten to add, providing a lot of tax revenue that is then redirected by our state legislature to help those in redder communities, who don't seem to appreciate it!
Things may be red in Lynchburg, but that isn't any more representative of the state statistically than is Arlington.
And, judging by congressional seats in the last election, Webb's seat will definitely be in the toss-up department. Certainly no guarantee that Kaine will take it. Look how close Fimian came this time -- in the most liberal part of the state.
Let's put aside the vast amounts of empirical evidence showing that your views of women do not describe the realities for most women today. Instead, let's assume that personal choices about families and children, rather than sexism and misogyny on the part of the media, voters, political machines, etc., are the primary reason why women don't want to try to run, or are kept from winning.
That cannot explain why Virginia has an even lower proportion of female statewide elected officials, than you see in many other states (or developed countries, for that matter), unless you have evidence that women in other states, etc., want families less than do women in Virginia.
So therefore, it's misogyny? Where is your empirical data that Virginia's unique misogyny is responsible for the result? May I see it please?
Other "developed" countries have much greater numbers of female legislators and executive-branch officials either because there is a defined affirmative action-type plan (e.g. x percentage of legislators have to be women) or a long history of "feminist" political career paths. It's not uncommon for Northern European women to have children out of wedlock, never marry and let the state raise the kids in their state-run nurseries. That is most certainly NOT what most American mothers want.
Here is an interesting factoid for you. In most European and East Asian countries, the female labor participation is high or is becoming high while the overall fertility rate is dropping. In other words, these are cultures where women work and don't have lots of kids. IN CONTRAST, the fertility rate in the United States is INCREASING. There is both empirical and anecdotal evidence aplenty that the post-feminist generation of American women is increasingly turning away from professional careers and toward homemaking/having children DESPITE greater professional opportunities open to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACWhite
But if that's true, that suggests that there is a problem in the machinery and process of getting nominated as a candidate in the first place. If you are a well-qualified woman who is willing to run, but can't raise the $ at least in part because donors don't want to support female candidates, or because the king/queen makers in your party don't want to, you don't get the chance to run in the first place. It can be a vicious circle--women can't win, so we don't nominate them, so they don't win.
Why do you automatically assume "in part because donors don't support female candidates"? Where is the evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACWhite
I believe that there are data supporting this or related point. People who vote in off years tend to be disproportionately older, white voters, who tend to vote more conservatively. And, in most election years, people in groups who might for demographic reasons be expected to vote for Democrats are less likely to vote, e.g., lower % turnout, than other groups. Can't put my hands on it, though.
IN GENERAL and historically, Republicans have done better with a lower voter turnout for a number of reasons. However, there have been several (recent, that is in the past decade or so) significant elections where the reverse was the case. During the Bush years, the GOP built a quite an impressive exurban voter drive. I remember after one of these election, a Democrat activist/strategist exclaimed "We actually out-did ourselves in the cities and the suburbs and thought we had the election locked. We had the best GOTV ever!
And then these other voters came out of nowhere like Zombies in the exurbs -- even in greater numbers than ours -- and crushed us. We didn't realize so many people lived in these areas! And that they leaned GOP!"
Quote:
Virginia is definitely not "center-right"--especially if you consider the entirely population rather than the most recent voters. There are two Dem. senators. And, many indicators are that it is trending bluer, as indicated in the 2008 election, when turnout was higher than in 2010, when the more conservative voters were more likely to vote. In addition to the bluer areas already indicated, parts (but not all) of the Tidewater area, and other university locations also lean blue. And blue NoVA is growing at a much more rapid pace than are the red sections--and, I hasten to add, providing a lot of tax revenue that is then redirected by our state legislature to help those in redder communities, who don't seem to appreciate it!
Things may be red in Lynchburg, but that isn't any more representative of the state statistically than is Arlington.
VA is NOT trending bluer! First, of all, don't confuse left-right with Democrat-GOP. They are not the same. Both Democrat senators (even the one who is dropping out) in VA are pretty centrist in rhetoric, style and even in substance of policy. And they would have to be to be elected here.
If you were to remove party labels and put a series of policy questions to an accurate sampling of VA voters, you will get an overwhelming evidence of center-right orientation.
In my view, 2008 was a highly exceptional year, the perfect storm of a high degree of George Bush fatigue, large scale unresolved military operations, the black swan in the economy and the rise of a very unique and compelling Democratic candidate who built a highly unusual coalition (which has not been put back together since and is unlikely to be so even in 2012).
While the GOP is no more popular, there is begining to be Obama fatigue and, more ominously for the Democrats, a mass defection by the independents who were turned off by the continuing struggles in the economic outlook and the massive increase in government spending and entitlements, without corresponding and apparent improvements in the economy.
Triumphalists in both parties like to cite certain elections as evidence of "permananet realignment" of the ideological makeup and they are in a vast majority of case dead wrong.
So therefore, it's misogyny? Where is your empirical data that Virginia's unique misogyny is responsible for the result? May I see it please?
Other "developed" countries have much greater numbers of female legislators and executive-branch officials either because there is a defined affirmative action-type plan (e.g. x percentage of legislators have to be women) or a long history of "feminist" political career paths. It's not uncommon for Northern European women to have children out of wedlock, never marry and let the state raise the kids in their state-run nurseries. That is most certainly NOT what most American mothers want.
Here is an interesting factoid for you. In most European and East Asian countries, the female labor participation is high or is becoming high while the overall fertility rate is dropping. In other words, these are cultures where women work and don't have lots of kids. IN CONTRAST, the fertility rate in the United States is INCREASING. There is both empirical and anecdotal evidence aplenty that the post-feminist generation of American women is increasingly turning away from professional careers and toward homemaking/having children DESPITE greater professional opportunities open to them.
Why do you automatically assume "in part because donors don't support female candidates"? Where is the evidence?
IN GENERAL and historically, Republicans have done better with a lower voter turnout for a number of reasons. However, there have been several (recent, that is in the past decade or so) significant elections where the reverse was the case. During the Bush years, the GOP built a quite an impressive exurban voter drive. I remember after one of these election, a Democrat activist/strategist exclaimed "We actually out-did ourselves in the cities and the suburbs and thought we had the election locked. We had the best GOTV ever!
And then these other voters came out of nowhere like Zombies in the exurbs -- even in greater numbers than ours -- and crushed us. We didn't realize so many people lived in these areas! And that they leaned GOP!"
VA is NOT trending bluer! First, of all, don't confuse left-right with Democrat-GOP. They are not the same. Both Democrat senators (even the one who is dropping out) in VA are pretty centrist in rhetoric, style and even in substance of policy. And they would have to be to be elected here.
If you were to remove party labels and put a series of policy questions to an accurate sampling of VA voters, you will get an overwhelming evidence of center-right orientation.
In my view, 2008 was a highly exceptional year, the perfect storm of a high degree of George Bush fatigue, large scale unresolved military operations, the black swan in the economy and the rise of a very unique and compelling Democratic candidate who built a highly unusual coalition (which has not been put back together since and is unlikely to be so even in 2012).
While the GOP is no more popular, there is begining to be Obama fatigue and, more ominously for the Democrats, a mass defection by the independents who were turned off by the continuing struggles in the economic outlook and the massive increase in government spending and entitlements, without corresponding and apparent improvements in the economy.
Triumphalists in both parties like to cite certain elections as evidence of "permananet realignment" of the ideological makeup and they are in a vast majority of case dead wrong.
Even the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Alford, today went on a rant, calling Obama the most anti-business president ever.
Even the head of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Alford, today went on a rant, calling Obama the most anti-business president ever.
I find most anti-Obama rhetoric comically sad and don't buy some of these Manchurian candidate-type descriptions.
HOWEVER, the president was pretty clear in his book that he considered the private sector "enemy territory" when he worked in it ever so briefly. I think his aversion to, and discomfort in, the market place is well demonstrated.
He is not a bogeyman or a monster, but simply a highly successful and capable politician with a statist and "social-democratic" philosophy. In many way, he IS to the left of Bill Clinton and the DLC-type economic centrism.
Of course, I personally find his political philosophy repellent, but I don't let that blind me to the political realities or to the some of the more odious personal attacks against him.
It's not uncommon for Northern European women to have children out of wedlock, never marry and let the state raise the kids in their state-run nurseries. That is most certainly NOT what most American mothers want.
This statement is not only offensive it's just flat out wrong. I'm guessing your unenlightened perceptions about women's equality are colored by your foreign cultural background. You should take note that most educated Americans nowadays aren't that different from Europeans in our attitudes about it.
Virginia is at the least center-right. If you look statistically, Richmond is pretty much a blue city, NOVA/Charlottesville/immediate surrounding areas are mostly blue, but that's about it. Hampton Roads is purple. The rest of the state leans red or is completely red. So that's only really 2 areas in the entire state that is blue. Does that have an impact on why women aren't elected? I don't think so, because personally, I can't remember that many women running for the high ranking positions. Is that because of sexism or "traditional beliefs"? Possibly. Without studies done on the subject we won't know for certain.
This statement is not only offensive it's just flat out wrong. I'm guessing your unenlightened perceptions about women's equality are colored by your foreign cultural background. You should take note that most educated Americans nowadays aren't that different from Europeans in our attitudes about it.
Even as they've grown more comfortable with same-sex or unmarried couples raising children, most Americans still view single mothers as detrimental to society, according to a new poll of attitudes toward the country's soaring number of non-traditional families.
Most types of non-traditional families are broadly accepted or at least tolerated, including same-sex couples with kids, unmarried parents and childless women, according to a poll from the Pew Research Center's Social and Demographic Trends. But two decades after TV's Murphy Brown caused a public furor by having a child without a husband around, many people still draw the line when it comes to single motherhood.
In Norway, half of all children are now born to unmarried mothers. In Pettersen's county, 82% of couples have their first child out of wedlock. The numbers are similarly high for Sweden and Denmark. While many couples marry after having the first or second child, it's clear marriage in parts of Scandinavia is dying.
In the USA, the percentage of children born to unwed mothers has more than tripled since 1970. But there's still a stigma in the USA for women who have a child out of wedlock. Not so in the Nordic countries...
In Scandinavia, however, social trends have been reinforced by policies designed to promote equality for women and further separate the church and state. As a result, the link between marriage and having children has all but disappeared.
Whether you like it or not, traditional Christianity plays a much stronger role in the social fabric of American life than is the case in Europe, especially northern Europe, and as such the differing levels of religiosity between the U.S. and northern Europe have a strong, measurable impact on views about sexuality, marriage and single motherhood.
As for my particular view on male-female relationship, it is not so much informed by my "foreign cultural background" (it's amazing how quickly you accuse others of sexism despite your own demonstrated racism, "Asians are not community-oriented", xenophobia "sexist... foreign cultural background," and general ignorance on a variety of topics), but by my subscription to a traditional religious faith.
In point of fact, in the country of my birth, most young women today work and do not have more than one child even after marriage, quite unlike most married American women.
My own wife, who was born in this country, has a doctorate, is an Ivy League graduate and is educated well enough, shares the same view as I do on this particular topic, as do most women I know at my church.
But my own belief system is not at issue here. What is at issue is your strange refusal to accept the fact that northern Europeans and Americans, despite similar education levels, have differing views on the role of women, single motherhood, etc. with consequently different politics, including the number of female politicians.
Is that because of sexism or "traditional beliefs"?
Aren't those one and the same?
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.
