Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Is Romney a Safer Choice for Women?
I like this author, Michael Barone. He does a good job analyzing early election returns and can give insight about whether it's going to be a good night for Obama or Romney based on a few key swing districts and whether they're outperforming 2008 totals.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/330797/romney-safer-choice-women-michael-barone
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE www.nationalreview.com PRINT
Is Romney a Safer Choice for Women?
An interesting story from last winter: An e-mail friend, a staunch Republican who lives in an affluent suburb far from Washington, was watching one of the Republican debates with his wife, a staunch Democrat.
He was surprised by her response to Mitt Romney. ?He?s a grown-up. He?s someone who is reliable,? he told me she said. ?People will feel safe if he is in charge.?
I?ve been thinking about that e-mail in the wake of the first presidential debate on October 3 and the vice-presidential debate last week. (This is written on deadline before the October 16 Long Island debate.)
There?s obviously been a surge toward Romney. He was trailing in just about every national poll conducted before October 3. He has been leading in most of those conducted since.
His national lead was matched as swing-state polls came in. In the Real Clear Politics average of recent polls, he?s ahead or even in states with 248 electoral votes. He?s ahead, even, or within two points in states with 301 electoral votes, 31 more than the 270-vote majority.
Fascinatingly, it appears that he?s made greater gains among women than among men. The USA Today/Gallup poll has him running even with Barack Obama among women, 48 to 48 percent. Pew Research Center?s post-debate poll has women at 47 to 47.
That?s a huge difference from 2008, when the exit poll showed Barack Obama leading John McCain among women by 56 to 43 percent. Men favored Obama by only one point.
All the evidence suggests that the first debate made the difference. ?In every poll we?ve seen a major surge in favorability for Romney,? Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told USA Today?s Susan Page.
?Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney,? she went on, ?and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them.?
That sounds a lot like what my e-mail friend?s wife said last winter.
Obama campaign strategists are pooh-poohing the notion that Romney could be making gains with women.
?Why, he?s against ?access to contraception,?? they thunder. That was something we heard a lot about at the Democratic National Convention.
But it?s code language. ?Access to contraception? turns out not to mean access to contraception. No one anywhere in the country is proposing to ban contraceptives. The Supreme Court ruled in 1965 ? 47 years ago! ? that states can?t do that.
The code language refers to the Obamacare requirement that employers? health insurance pay for contraception. So ?access? means you won?t have to pay the $9 a month that contraceptives cost at Walmart.
Big deal. That?s about the price of two pumpkin lattes at Starbucks.
Maybe it?s just possible that women voters are more concerned about an economy where 23 million people are out of work or have quit looking.
Or about a president who the day after the murder of a U.S. ambassador flew off to a Las Vegas fundraiser and for two weeks kept blaming that murder on a spontaneous response to a video, contrary to what his State Department knew on day one.
Joe Biden tried to appeal to women by predicting that a Supreme Court with more Republican appointees might overturn Roe v. Wade and make abortion illegal.
One is reminded that Biden was near the bottom of his class at Syracuse Law School. A Roe reversal, which is highly unlikely no matter who is confirmed to the high court, would simply return the issue to the states. Abortion wouldn?t be banned anywhere except, maybe, in Utah, Louisiana, and Guam.
Once upon a time, abortion was a defining issue for many voters. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, partisan preferences on both sides were linked to strong religious and moral beliefs. Voters didn?t switch parties much.
In the last half a dozen years, voters have responded more to events, emerging issues, and leaders? strengths and weaknesses. Many switched parties to vote for Obama. Some, many of them women, are switching now to vote for Romney.
Women tend to be more risk-averse than men, and the gender gap grew when Reagan Republicans were depicted as scaling back welfare-state protections.
The debates may have shifted the perception of risk. The downcast Obama and the cackling Biden may have sounded dangerously risky. Many women may have felt, as my e-mail friend?s wife said last winter, that they would feel safe if Romney were in charge.
Readers who watched Tuesday?s debate can judge whether that still holds.
? Michael Barone is senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner ? 2012 The Washington Examiner
Re: Is Romney a Safer Choice for Women?
Actually, Romney thinks states SHOULD be able to ban contraceptives and that the Supreme Court's decision in 1965 was wrong. And he wants to appoint justices who would overturn this decision.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/2012-abcyahoowmur-new-hampshire-gop-primary-debate-transcript/2012/01/07/gIQAk2AAiP_blog.html
ROMNEY: Has the Supreme Court -- has the Supreme Court decided that states do not have the right to provide contraception? I...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, they have. In 1965, Griswold v. Connecticut.
ROMNEY: The -- I believe in the -- that the law of the land is as spoken by the Supreme Court, and that if we disagree with the Supreme Court -- and occasionally I do -- then we have a process under the Constitution to change that decision. And it?s -- it?s known as the amendment process.
And -- and where we have -- for instance, right now we?re having issues that relate to same-sex marriage. My view is, we should have a federal amendment of the Constitution defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. But I know of -- of no reason to talk about contraception in this regard.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you?ve got the Supreme Court decision finding a right to privacy in the Constitution.
ROMNEY: I don?t believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided. It was based upon that same principle. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it?s in the federal Constitution.
Honestly, I just don't feel like it's right to choose the economy over social issues. And that's not saying I am choosing Obama strictly based on social issues. But let's say Romney is elected, and it becomes harder to get an abortion or obtain affordable birth control, do you realize that just makes for more people who need to go on welfare? (You in general, not specifically). Obviously, that is not a step in the right direction.
I don't feel the economy is going to magically get better under ANY plan, set forth by Dems or Reps. It's going to take time. To go backwards on social issues, just to have the POSSIBILITY of getting better economically is not right in my mind. And I seriously do not understand the conscience of anyone willing to bypass these very important issues. I feel everybody voting without social issues in mind in a time like this is voting on the wrong side of history. JMO.
BC may be $9 at Walmart, but thats the copay only if its covered. Many religiously affiliated organizations do not want it covered at all, which means instead of just $9, you wind up paying $50-200 per month. So I have issues with the direction conservatives are wanting to go to get away from having to follow the health care laws.
Also, I dont know any of those women. The only women at work who like Romney are a couple of the older ladies, but they also are ones who paste scripture everywhere they can. Women with more secular interests are all pissed off at Romney and wont be voting for him.
I am not sure what the demographic of the ladies/gents posting on this board is...but I think almost every republican candidate for president who has been pro life has vowed to have the supreme court overturn Roe vs. Wade. It has never happened.
I think back to when George H.W. Bush was running for president, mentioned the same thing. Nothing was ever done.
I think being a one issue voter is shortsighted. The number of women in the U.S. without a job has increased more than 15 percent since President Barack Obama took office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. More important for me is to see the 6 Million women in this country who are unemployed/underemployed get back to work.
I do not believe that birth control will be outlawed nor do I believe Roe vs Wade will not be overturned (not that I care about that anyway).
And the whole Romney wants every woman to be home barefoot, pregnant and home cooking dinner is just ridiculous.
When Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, the state was recognized for its record in putting women in leadership roles. In 2004, ?10 of the 20 top positions in Romney?s administration were filled by women, including lieutenant governor Kerry Healey,? (as noted in the Boston Globe).
This is not completely true. My ex-husband works for a Catholic Institution and his health insurance did not cover BC. My out of pocket was $15 a month.
As far as excoriating conservatives as saying we want to get the church to weasel out of following the ACA? The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." How can you expect a religious institution to follow a law which is inherently contrary to one of its principal beliefs?
Don't get me wrong, I believe in BC...but I also believe the Catholic Church should not be forced to go against something they truly believe in (and should be protected from doing as stated in the constitution).
Cincy, the next president is probably going to get two supreme court nominations and the court is already conservative leaning. Overturning Roe v Wade is a legitimate concern.
Also, Romney's economic "plan" isn't going to do anything except shrink the middle class.
And I suggest you look carefully at Romney's record on employing women. They were disproportionately employed in lower paying jobs. "on average full-time women staffers earned 25% less than male staffers that year, according to data from the Massachusetts Comptroller?s office." He likes hiring women... as "staff assistants."
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/18/womens-pay-level-in-gov-romneys-staff/
I am not at all a one issue voter - but I certainly consider abortion. I have a daughter. If she needed an abortion, I want to make damn sure she can get one. In Michigan, the Republican lawmakers have stated that their horrible bill to outlaw abortion after 20 weeks with no exception for the life of the mother, as well as requirement changes for places that provide abortions, would effectively outlaw it in the state. That was said. They WANT to ban it.
Laws like that are what convince me that this issue WILL be back to the supreme court sooner or later, and if the makeup of the supreme court is affected by a conservative president, then there is no doubt Roe v. Wade will be in play.
It's nice that you think there is no way it will be overturned, but you couldn't be more wrong.
When Romney was governor of Massachusetts he was pretty damn much a Democrat.
Yes, I have seen your cited blog post...and you forgot this point.
The highest-paid woman staffer throughout Mr. Romney?s Massachusetts tenure was Cynthia Gillespie, the governor?s chief policy adviser, who now works for a Washington law firm. Her pay, which started at $150,000 in 2003, each year was the same as the top-paid male staffer, Eric Fehrnstrom, currently a top aide to the Romney campaign.
It is easy to look at a statistic in a vacuum ( "on average full-time women staffers earned 25% less than male staffers that year") but unless you are looking at their resumes, education, experience how can you determine (regardless of gender) what is a fair salary? I certainly don't want to be paid the same as a male co-worker just because...that would negate (IMO) my college education and my hard work.
And I am fully aware of the upcoming supreme court nominations...but I still do not believe they will overturn Roe vs. Wade.
I fully recognize that hiring is dependent upon receiving qualified candidates. But if Romney actually had binders of women, then you'd think there would be enough to to fill a few dozen spots equitably. You're telling me in all these binders of women who were actively recruited, there weren't a half dozen women equally qualified to be top staffers? Perhaps the men of Massachusetts are just really damn good?
I don't know, I wasn't privy to the resumes in those binders full of women.
Yeah, we're not going to have all the info. But if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
Or a platypus. Do platypuses quack?
Hmm... yahoo answers says platypuses make "kind of a hooting, cooing, squishy squeel.. it's really hard to explain.. if you've ever heard a ferret or an otter.. it's kind of like that."
So, they sound like Tagg.
You mean like basing your voting on the economic plans of one candidate?
Like that kind of one issue voting?
Well actually, there is more than the economy. And I have yet to hear a comprehensive plan from Obama. There are several reasons I am voting for Romney and not Obama:
1) I don't agree with the ACA. Insurance is regulated at a state level, if an individual state wishes to implement something similar it should be voted on by the resident's of that state. A federal mandate to purchase insurance is too much of a slippery slope to me.
2) Economy - Yes this is one aspect of my decision. I happen to subscribe to the supply side economics philosophy. I feel Romney's plan is more in tune with my beliefs (especially since I am a small business owner).
3) Energy - We have lots of natural energy resources within the US. We should take advantage of those. We also should explore Renewable Energy but not throw money at it at the pace Obama did. We are a Free Market Society and I believe with everything I have..when there is money to be made with renewable energy people will be lined up to get into that business.
But to me, the bottom line is Obama's record. I cannot in good conscience give him 4 more years. I do not trust he will do right by the American people.
Do you honestly think that people are voting for Obama based solely on abortion rights?
Not at all, I am certain there are other reasons. My dear friend is voting for Obama and I am sure it has nothing to do with abortion since she and I hold the same belief in that regard.
However, this thread's topic dealt with Women's Rights and it led into that type of discussion.
I fear another 4 years of Obama. This election can't come fast enough...can't wait to see who wins.
I find it so interesting how differently people view the same information. I personally, am scared sh!tless of a Republican controlled government. I would never move to a red state...I would be too frightened.
I can't even stand the thought of Romney winning. To me, it is a horrifying idea. It's very odd that people are frightened by the idea of 4 more years of Obama, and actually excited by the thought of Romney in the white house. The idea makes me throw up in my mouth a bit. Yuck.
That is what makes this country great! Can you image how boring it would be if we agreed on everything?
Everything is worse for us right now than four years ago. Simple as that. Economy, taxes, gas prices, the value of our home, now maybe even our health insurance, etc. So we are scared to have another four years of the same situation or worse. Why would we ever have faith that Obama can turn it around for us? And now to fit the stereotype, we are small business owners who are directly being affected by everything from the economy to new diesel truck regulations. We are getting smothered. So of course we are scared for another four years of Obama! Why wouldn't we be?
I have to agree with the above comment. I don't understand how people could be frightened by romney. to me he seems like a great leader with a plan for the mess we are in. what is obamas plan for the next 4 years, economically speaking? really, can anyone tell me. maybe i'm missing something.
I completely disagree with you. I'm not even going to go through the litany of things that Obama has done right. It's too long. Has the economy completely recovered? Of course not! Do I think Obama put us on the road to recovery? YES. Do I think another 4 years of failed Republican leadership and Sarah Palin as VP would have done anything positive for our country in the past 4 years? No way in hell. That's crazy talk.
We had 8 freaking years of Republican leadership prior to Obama. Did you forget all about that?? I know you probably voted Bush into office for a second term. How could you trust him???? I didn't...and I was right not to.
I can't even imagine looking at the last 20 years of presidents and thinking that a Republican president, following Republican ideals and platform, could ever do anything positive for our country. I mean, how can you trust them??
Answer me that. What good have Republicans done for this country in the past 20 years? Maybe if you can answer that you will have swayed a voter.
ETA: this is already tl:dr, but I have to add. When you say "It's that simple," your ignorance really shows through. You think the economy, gas prices, your home value, etc., are all Obama's fault?? I don't think you are very well informed.
I could disagree. Gas prices were high, over $4, before the 2008 election. They dropped very low prior to the election, then went back up. The value of my home has increased over the last couple years. Health insurance? I'm just grateful my future children can't be denied coverage for a condition they could potentially be born with. My father still cannot legally marry his partner of 28 years in the state they live in but thanks to the President, they can at least have visitation rights should one of them end up on their death bed in the hospital. It's a step in the right direction and I hope we continue to move forward.
Okay, you said it better than I did and with less words. I'll just cosign this.