Wooing Women Voters
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-09-24/wooing-women-voters
Men and women have different views of this year’s presidential election. Most polls show Republican Mitt Romney holds a small lead among male voters, while President Barack Obama has a big lead among female ones. In the final six weeks of the campaign, women have become a key target for both sides. More women are registered, more turn out to vote and they are more likely to be undecided or “persuadable.” Democratic pollster Margie Omero and Republican pollster Christine Matthews describe what sorts of women could decide the November election. Bay Buchanan, a representative of the Romney campaign, and Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for Obama’s reelection, tell us how the candidates are trying to appeal to them.
Guests
Margie Omero
president and founder of Momentum Analysis, a Democratic public opinion research firm.
Bay Buchanan
adviser to the Romney Presidential Campaign.
Stephanie Cutter
deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama's 2012 reelection campaign.
Christine Matthews
president of Bellwether Research.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
One would think that no women voters at all would vote for the Republican candidates. However, I have to keep in mind that old saying that we tend to "vote our pocketbooks". Hardly surprising when it seems that we have confused the God of Materialism with the God of Creation.
Elections are a game for these party power players. Woo, as you say, as many voters as possible, promise the moon, and once elected, cater to the special interests while maintaining the illusion of caring about the people. Wash, rinse, repeat. And the MSM always falls into line, serving to maintain this illusion of democracy.
One of my cousins wrote to me saying "if women do not vote for Obama they may never be able to vote again" LOL
comment: Romney did say that people did feel 'entitled' to food. One of your guests said the other one was exaggerating when she said that Romney said that.
Access to birth control and other reproductive health services IS an economic issue. If families cannot control the size of their families, they have a hard time controlling the economics of their families.
Actually Mr. Romney did say that the 47% feel "entitled to healthcare, to food and to housing" it was not an exaggeration. John Jacobson, Toledo, OH
I think the Tea Party has given a greater gift to the president than anyone else could have. For example, my wife (and me for that matter) has always been a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, but plans to vote for President Obama this year because she is sick of the selfishness and ineptitude the Republicans have exhibited during this congress.
I am a white, college educated woman, living in the suburbs and considered upper middle class. I was an undecided voter until Romneys comments were made public. I don't want someone representing me and leading my country who thinks that 47% of his constituents believe themselves to be victims and worthy of entitlements. His comments revealed his true thoughts about the people he would be representing. Shameful.
Romney did, in fact, say that people believe they are entitled to food. From t he transcript:
"All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement."
Pretty easy for someone who uses overseas tax shelters, has multiple homes, owns several cars, and attends $50,000 a plate dinners to scoff that there are people who believe that their family should have enough to eat, that their children should have access to health care and someplace to live.
I listen to this program daily and find it valuable and entertaining. However, this is one of the worst segments I have heard. I'm not sure who is responsible for booking the guests but I may decide to give up DR until after Nov 6.
To listen to these women spout their spun rhetoric is just disgusting. Want to do a program about women voters? Select female voters at random. That would be far more interesting than listening to 4 women spout pre-formed BS lines for 50 minutes.
Really DRShow. This was perhaps the most ill conceived and valueless program in your history.
I am an unmarried, college educated woman in Detroit and I disagree with the notion that the economy is the biggest indicator of voting preference. I believe the economy will recover, it always has. What I don't believe is that damaging legislation enacted by republican leadership will be easily overturned or come without extreme, life threatening consequence to the lives of women.
I have truly never felt as though my personal freedom and autonomy have been more at-stake than they are at this time, under these proposed republican restrictions.
Put bluntly, I can say without question that I *will* be voting for Obama in 2012 because I have a uterus, which is more important to me than how much money I am making.
How can you folks be so clueless? Women's health issues are not social issues. Theese are economic issues.
How can women hold jobs and raise families without control of their own bodies?
Republican's are anti-abortion. They say they are for small government, but they want to insert themselves in women's bedrooms & doctors offices.
I am a republican woman who is conservative and married with children. This interview I am listening to is hysterical to me. Is Bay getting her info from the census?, Phone polls,? She seems to really feel confident that she know s an accurate cross section of American women. I think she is talking about an uninformed cross section of Americans. A population of people who fill out every form and give personal information, social security numbers etc with out batting an eye
I believe statistics will always lean towards liberals who hand over their lives to the government ignorantly.
I can assure you Mam, you don't speak for all american women.
The Democrat Party? Why does Diane Rehm and quest hosts put up with Republicans calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party. It is uncivil for the Republicans to decide to say the name of their opposing party differently than it has been said for generations. We do not call them the Republic Party. This shows a lack of basic respect for people who think differently than you and contributes to all the hostility. It started on the nasty margins of the GOP and now is standard for Bay Buchanan and all Republicans. Show hosts should correct them when they try to get away with this but of course NPR always has to bend over backwards for the right.
I would take issue with the premise that we should be categorizing such important issues as birth control, access to women's health care and abortion rights as "social issues." I believe that women (on the whole) DO see these issues as economic issues, and that is why Mitt Romney has a "disconnect" with women voters. Out of pocket medical expenses take an enormous toll on the family budget as it is, so adding $1200 to have an IUD, $40 per month for birth control pills...that adds up very quickly....not to mention the financial burden of an unexpected pregnancy (regardless of one's decision to keep or not keep the pregnancy).
Heidi in Whitmore Lake MI
Babe Buchanan skirts a number of very uncomfortable truths beginning with the fact that the Republicans have been waging a war on women for years and that their economic plan--lower taxes on the rich, cut government aid to the poor--would hurt women and children. Their approach to women's health issues is unspeakable, e.g., as in Texas, closing Planned Parenthood Clinics, which provide necessary health services to women, because less than 5% of Planned Parenthood's funding goes toward abortion services. This failure to take responsibility for the party's essentially misogynistic approach typifies the duplicitousness that has marked the Romney campaign on every issue.
I don't remember the first Presidental election after I was born (1952), but I do recall most of the ones since. The more things change, the more they remain the same. Lies, promises that are impossible to keep or otherwise forgotten once the election is over, corruption, pandering to the one-percenters, etc. And no matter who is elected, the country continues to decline. America is indeed fated to suffer the fate of the empires of the past.
And yet---with each election, we continue to delude ourselves with the idea that this election, and this candidate, will make it all better.
Unbelievable!
I love the Diane Rehm show, but today's guests are far too partisan. The topic is fine, but would be far more interesting without representatives from each party or biased pollsters. Those of us in the battleground states get enough of this noise daily; I was really hoping for a more elevated-level of conversation.
Susan Page is doing a deplorable job of moderation during this episode. This entire show has seemed like an attempt to knock Pres. Obama in some way.
Susan, have you ever thought to challenge some of your non-Democratic guests on questions? Have you considered being neutral?
When guests say things similar to "Mitt Romney didn't actually say people expect food as an entitlement" or that the video was somehow 'misleading' is GARBAGE.
We have all seen the video, and if you have to twist in the wind to make your "position" match the actual facts....you're spinning. Susan Page is allowing the spin, and letting them fly by.
I can't wait for the return of Diane. This is very, very, weaksauce.
Susan Page isn't in any hurry to challenge, follow-up, or even parse some of the partisan garbage in this episode.
She should be ashamed of herself.
As a native of Indiana who ones a home in LaPorte - Please ask the Republican panelist from Kokomo why she didn't reference the fact the Mitch Daniels is double dipping in not only leasing the Indiana Toll Road but receiving federal funds to maintain the road. This is something that has been discussed in local Indiana papers
I guess the federal government is O.K. if Mitch Daniels can take advantage of it, claiming he and his policies alone have helped the state.
There has also been an interest in his administrations sloppy handling of state funds.
No, no, no...your Republican guests are not listening to what women are saying. I do understand that they want to put their spin on the message and move it away from women's issues and back toward the economy. This is their strategy. However, without basic equal rights women can not succeed in business or in having a quality of life. I don't have a big problem with Romney because I think he is pretty moderate. I have a BIG problem with the right of right extremist (white privileged males) wanting to peel away my rights to have the opportunity to compete just because I am a woman. It is NOT the same party it use to be. I'm not a fan of the Democratic party either because I am concerned about our debt. However, my rights are far more important than being allowed to work for less money and for a corporate America that has taken over our government and our country's wealth. We don't have jobs because they aren't hiring even with record profits. I don't need someone to "give" me a job - I am perfectly able to give myself my own job (self-employment) if necessary. I just want the same rights that a white male has. (And, if men would pony up to their responsibilities as fathers - not just financially - most of this would be mute.)
I find Baby Buchanan's assertion that women support Obama because they are more likely to have used the social safety net to be offensive. I am a college educated, middle-aged woman and a business owner. I will not support Romney because he presumes that if I did not pay income taxes, I'm a freeloader. If he's really a businessman, he'd understand that you don't pay income taxes unless you make a profit, and in recessionary times, many small business owners supported their businesses using their personal savings and thus did not pay income taxes. Romney is completely out of touch with economic reality. I thought we were doing quite well with a household income well above $100K, until Romney informed me that it takes $250K to reach middle class. These perspectives -- not to mention his position on social issues -- are why I will not support him. And at one time, I worked in the RNC.
I would be interested in knowing what your guests think women voters think about the obscene amount of money that the campaigns are spending on this campaign.
As a woman and a business owner, one would think that it would be logical to vote for the candidate with a strong business background to help us out of this economic situation. Unfortunately, I have no idea who Gov. Romney would focus on to get us out of this situation. In business you have a focus, the business and how to make it more profitable, for the owner primarily, and the board. This cannot translate fully to a country. You have to cut, but where?The weak part of the "business" i.e. stop supporting those that are "dependent" on government assistance? Reward those that continue to bring in revenue? Mostly large corporations? By doing this don't we step away from why this country was founded?
I like to think of this election as a vote for the person who will look out for the entire country. We need people to have health care, we need to bring down the debt with a long range plan and not a quick fix. More importantly, we need to continue to re-build our reputation in the world as leaders that are sensitive to others and that can listen to the entire story before making comments that can destroy relations.
The speaker for the Romney campaign kept talking about saddling the future generations with bills and debts. They talk about protecting the future. You don't protect the future by destroying the present, however. You don't protect the future by turning Medicaid and foodstamp money over to the states thereby virtually guaranteeing more deprivations of access to healthcare and malnutrition. You don't protect the future by gutting environmental, workplace safety and financial regulations. You certainly don't guarantee the future by destroying public education. The fact is that it's already been shown that the Affordable Care Act has saved seniors billions of dollars in prescriptions. Isn't that a good legacy to leave our kids.
It is amazing that millions upon millions endlessly pour into campaigns but there is no money for living wages for men or women.
I "love" reading comments accusing Obama of seeking "wealth distribution" and "socialism." What do you think trickle-down economics, lobbying, and pork-barrel/pet project spending is? Wealth distribution! Conservatives want to see wealth move toward the top, liberals want to see it moved to the bottom...no difference!
http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/
Why are so many republicans out of touch with the working class of Americans? Every time I turn on the radio I hear how Romney has stuck his foot in his mouth. As far as I'm concerned let him swallow his foot. I have never seen a person who represents a political party open his mouth and show just out of touch he is with the average american.
As far as women opening small businesses, I have a friend who is a woman running a small business that has been open for 3 yrs. and is growing. She has told me herself that she is not voting for Romney based on his detatched outlook regarding women.
I would have preferred a meaningful analysis of today's topic from individuals who were not so clearly embedded in the camps of the two candidates. I learned very little beyond what we hear daily in the campaign speeches.