Actually, it isn't. It is a Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. See, this is what happens when you google things without reading.
Had you read the poll, it actually hurts your position. 45% of the respondents said there are entities that are trying to take away reproductive (abortion, birth control availability, etc.) rights and only 7% said no such entities. That is not a good number.
I agree with the statement about war on women being a catchprase without real meaning.
But the numbers in terms of the response don't lie. Oh, and the poll was pre-election 2012. How did women vote? How did they vote for anti-abortion candidates? Tea Party? Obama?
War on women might not make sense in and of itself, but the substance behind it must mean something based on voting patterns and habits.
Actually, it isn't. It is a Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. See, this is what happens when you google things without reading.
Had you read the poll, it actually hurts your position. 45% of the respondents said there are entities that are trying to take away reproductive (abortion, birth control availability, etc.) rights and only 7% said no such entities. That is not a good number.
I agree with the statement about war on women being a catchprase without real meaning.
But the numbers in terms of the response don't lie. Oh, and the poll was pre-election 2012. How did women vote? How did they vote for anti-abortion candidates? Tea Party? Obama?
War on women might not make sense in and of itself, but the substance behind it must mean something based on voting patterns and habits.
Here is the actual poll. Maybe next time, you should click the link the article that popped up on google.
https://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-may-2012/
Here is the actual poll. Maybe next time, you should click the link the article that popped up on google.
https://kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kaiser-health-tracking-poll-may-2012/
Apparently the women say the content does matter since they overwhelming voted for Obama, Democratic candidates, and against candidates who were anti-choice.
Apparently the women say the content does matter since they overwhelming voted for Obama, Democratic candidates, and against candidates who were anti-choice.
As I said to the other poster, while the catch phrases might be disingenuous, voters pretty overwhelming support the Dems when asked which party is better in the following:
1) supporting a women's right to choose;
2) protecting the environment;
3) supporting minorities;
4) and protecting social security.
It may not be the phrases that work, but the content is, apparently.
As I said to the other poster, while the catch phrases might be disingenuous, voters pretty overwhelming support the Dems when asked which party is better in the following:
1) supporting a women's right to choose;
2) protecting the environment;
3) supporting minorities;
4) and protecting social security.
It may not be the phrases that work, but the content is, apparently.
As I said to the other poster, while the catch phrases might be disingenuous, voters pretty overwhelming support the Dems when asked which party is better in the following:
1) supporting a women's right to choose;
2) protecting the environment;
3) supporting minorities;
4) and protecting social security.
It may not be the phrases that work, but the content is, apparently.
Obviously the first question does not count. What do you take from the other questions? Was the poll asked in a way that explained the issues or was it tacitly accepted that Democrats 'take care of minorities and old folks'? Or was it explained that in the longterm Republicans have policies that they feel are as effective or better without directly giving them money, etc.?
It just seems to me Republicans do not try to explain their positions and policies well. Whereas, Democrats try to accuse Republicans of not caring for anyone or anything to distract from their failed policies. Therefore, you get a lot of ranting and raving.
Don't more married, and more married with kids, women vote Republican? What do you make of that if it is so?
As I said to the other poster, while the catch phrases might be disingenuous, voters pretty overwhelming support the Dems when asked which party is better in the following:
1) supporting a women's right to choose;
2) protecting the environment;
3) supporting minorities;
4) and protecting social security.
It may not be the phrases that work, but the content is, apparently.
Obviously the first question does not count. What do you take from the other questions? Was the poll asked in a way that explained the issues or was it tacitly accepted that Democrats 'take care of minorities and old folks'? Or was it explained that in the longterm Republicans have policies that they feel are as effective or better without directly giving them money, etc.?
It just seems to me Republicans do not try to explain their positions and policies well. Whereas, Democrats try to accuse Republicans of not caring for anyone or anything to distract from their failed policies. Therefore, you get a lot of ranting and raving.
Don't more married, and more married with kids, women vote Republican? What do you make of that if it is so?
Obviously the first question does not count. What do you take from the other questions? Was the poll asked in a way that explained the issues or was it tacitly accepted that Democrats 'take care of minorities and old folks'? Or was it explained that in the longterm Republicans have policies that they feel are as effective or better without directly giving them money, etc.?
It just seems to me Republicans do not try to explain their positions and policies well. Whereas, Democrats try to accuse Republicans of not caring for anyone or anything to distract from their failed policies. Therefore, you get a lot of ranting and raving.
Don't more married, and more married with kids, women vote Republican? What do you make of that if it is so?
I have to admit, until this post, I did think you might have some pragmatic and independent leanings, but this pretty much showed you for a complete partisan.
1) Why wouldn't the first question count?
2) Are really suggesting that polls are improperly slanted on those issues? You really think that that majority voters believe Republicans are better in the environment? With minority issues? With social security?
3) As far as your last question, I do believe that, although most voters say the Dems are better when it comes to education. It is more of an affluent thing. Married w/ children are more likely to be affluent and the more affluent vote Repub, generally.
And really, it is only the Dems that accuse Repubs of not caring for anyone as a distraction? O'Reilly?
That door swings both ways. Dems are horrible when they accuse Repubs of wanting to gut social security, yet it is Repubs who generally have proposed or supported SS changes (and by the way, I think some are necessary and good, but if you want to scare seniors, all you have to do is suggest SS changes). But Repubs have characterized Dem actions quite similarly (death panels, initiatives on combating global warming being akin to create socialism...just to name two). Neither party is deserving of a pass when it comes to the politics of fear.
Obviously the first question does not count. What do you take from the other questions? Was the poll asked in a way that explained the issues or was it tacitly accepted that Democrats 'take care of minorities and old folks'? Or was it explained that in the longterm Republicans have policies that they feel are as effective or better without directly giving them money, etc.?
It just seems to me Republicans do not try to explain their positions and policies well. Whereas, Democrats try to accuse Republicans of not caring for anyone or anything to distract from their failed policies. Therefore, you get a lot of ranting and raving.
Don't more married, and more married with kids, women vote Republican? What do you make of that if it is so?
I have to admit, until this post, I did think you might have some pragmatic and independent leanings, but this pretty much showed you for a complete partisan.
1) Why wouldn't the first question count?
2) Are really suggesting that polls are improperly slanted on those issues? You really think that that majority voters believe Republicans are better in the environment? With minority issues? With social security?
3) As far as your last question, I do believe that, although most voters say the Dems are better when it comes to education. It is more of an affluent thing. Married w/ children are more likely to be affluent and the more affluent vote Repub, generally.
And really, it is only the Dems that accuse Repubs of not caring for anyone as a distraction? O'Reilly?
That door swings both ways. Dems are horrible when they accuse Repubs of wanting to gut social security, yet it is Repubs who generally have proposed or supported SS changes (and by the way, I think some are necessary and good, but if you want to scare seniors, all you have to do is suggest SS changes). But Repubs have characterized Dem actions quite similarly (death panels, initiatives on combating global warming being akin to create socialism...just to name two). Neither party is deserving of a pass when it comes to the politics of fear.
I have to admit, until this post, I did think you might have some pragmatic and independent leanings, but this pretty much showed you for a complete partisan.
1) Why wouldn't the first question count?
2) Are really suggesting that polls are improperly slanted on those issues? You really think that that majority voters believe Republicans are better in the environment? With minority issues? With social security?
3) As far as your last question, I do believe that, although most voters say the Dems are better when it comes to education. It is more of an affluent thing. Married w/ children are more likely to be affluent and the more affluent vote Repub, generally.
And really, it is only the Dems that accuse Repubs of not caring for anyone as a distraction? O'Reilly?
That door swings both ways. Dems are horrible when they accuse Repubs of wanting to gut social security, yet it is Repubs who generally have proposed or supported SS changes (and by the way, I think some are necessary and good, but if you want to scare seniors, all you have to do is suggest SS changes). But Repubs have characterized Dem actions quite similarly (death panels, initiatives on combating global warming being akin to create socialism...just to name two). Neither party is deserving of a pass when it comes to the politics of fear.
I don't think first question is anywhere close to evenly divided. It is abortion issue--most Dems for and most Reps against. So not a good question to ask which side is basically for abortion.
Not trying to be partisan---just pointing out both sides frustrate me with not stressing their good points.
No--I actually agree with you about the Dems being better on environment. But they be scaredy-cat and forceful about it.
O'Reilly is entertainment to me though. But I agree with your point on that also.
Will take your word about the affluent thing!
You are right in last paragraph---I agree scare tactics are crazy by both sides---all it does it stir up your own base somewhat. What is the plan to try to convert undecideds?
I have to admit, until this post, I did think you might have some pragmatic and independent leanings, but this pretty much showed you for a complete partisan.
1) Why wouldn't the first question count?
2) Are really suggesting that polls are improperly slanted on those issues? You really think that that majority voters believe Republicans are better in the environment? With minority issues? With social security?
3) As far as your last question, I do believe that, although most voters say the Dems are better when it comes to education. It is more of an affluent thing. Married w/ children are more likely to be affluent and the more affluent vote Repub, generally.
And really, it is only the Dems that accuse Repubs of not caring for anyone as a distraction? O'Reilly?
That door swings both ways. Dems are horrible when they accuse Repubs of wanting to gut social security, yet it is Repubs who generally have proposed or supported SS changes (and by the way, I think some are necessary and good, but if you want to scare seniors, all you have to do is suggest SS changes). But Repubs have characterized Dem actions quite similarly (death panels, initiatives on combating global warming being akin to create socialism...just to name two). Neither party is deserving of a pass when it comes to the politics of fear.
I don't think first question is anywhere close to evenly divided. It is abortion issue--most Dems for and most Reps against. So not a good question to ask which side is basically for abortion.
Not trying to be partisan---just pointing out both sides frustrate me with not stressing their good points.
No--I actually agree with you about the Dems being better on environment. But they be scaredy-cat and forceful about it.
O'Reilly is entertainment to me though. But I agree with your point on that also.
Will take your word about the affluent thing!
You are right in last paragraph---I agree scare tactics are crazy by both sides---all it does it stir up your own base somewhat. What is the plan to try to convert undecideds?
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.