Pass along a news tip by clicking HERE.

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Ohio Women And Midwestern Sisters: Not Interested In What GOP Is Selling

CINCINNATI (TDB) -- A political editor for the well-read national Republican blog called Race 4 2008 has studied presidential poll results from the Great Lakes states -- including Ohio -- and reports they are drying up as sources of women voters who favor the GOP. He says "it appears that a trend is afoot" this summer and forecasts a political drought ahead where GOP hopes and candidates will wither. He says the region is crucial to the Republican Party with 85 electoral votes.

Mind you, this is from a Republican. He sees New York Sen. Hillary Clinton as the primary beneficiary, and believes the polls are forecasting that "Middle American women are prepared to elect Hillary Clinton president." Here's what is known about Dave G, the analyst whose identity is not fully disclosed:

"DaveG is Race 4 2008’s Contributing Editor. He is a former congressional staffer who currently resides inside the beltway and works in the legal and policy fields. Dave’s roots are in the upper Midwest, a region whose politics he knows well and which he believes is vital to the sustainability of any long-term Republican majority. In addition to his work on this blog, Dave maintains a personal political blog, Political Prognostications."

He hasn't said anything on Political Prognostications since late June, where he described himself as an attorney and "center-right Republican." That last tidbit puts him in the GOP wing that includes Ohio's Sen. George Voinovich, Indiana's Sen. Richard Lugar and Minnesota's Sen. Norm Coleman.

Everything Dave G wrote about the shift of Midwestern female voters to the Dems is here is his analysis called "American Woman." He says the GOP has lost them because it does not have a platform that appeals to their concerns.

"Midwestern women have for some reason decided that they like Hillary Clinton, and that they don't really like any of our guys. As such, it doesn't matter that Midwestern men aren't voting for Hillary. Cantankerous old New Deal coots and white ethnics in Rust Belt urban areas, it has been said, would vote for a guy like John Kerry -- a veteran, a practicing Catholic, etc., -- but would never pull the lever for the shrillness of Hillary Rodham. And yes, it does appear that those Midwestern men will be voting GOP by a wider margin than in 2004, when male voters in Ohio favored Bush over Kerry by just 5 points. But these gains will be more than canceled out by Midwestern women. Female voters in Ohio were evenly divided in 2004 between Bush and Kerry. Next year, they will be voting Democrat by a landslide unless something is done to once again appeal to the (collective shudder) soccer moms that will apparently control the Electoral College in 2008. Without a GOP platform that can appeal to the concerns of Middle American women, a Democratic government in January 2009 becomes a foregone conclusion."


  1. Maybe one of the reasons women are so disgusted with white male-dominated Republican politics and so ready to vote for Hillary is descriptions of her "shrillness," when in fact she is a much more even and downtoned speaker and more moderate in her opinions than 90% of the current field in either party. Women are just sick and tired of being told that if they voice their concerns in any fashion that doesn't include an abject apology for speaking up they are being "shrill." I know I am.

    Rudy is "shrill." Dennis Kucinich is "shrill." Hillary is not "shrill."

  2. Hi Anon 2:51 pm --

    I don't know if shrill does justice to Kucinich. There has to be a superior description than that. Perhaps you apply the words that are used to define shrill: High-pitched and piercing.

  3. Apparently, the 50% that consistently say in polls that they would never vote for her must all be men.

  4. Bill,

    I don't know if I completely buy into gender politics being as pervasive as DaveG believes. However, if the Dems do nominate Clinton I think it would lead to a higher voter turnout from women particularly younger women. What could make this much more pronounced would be if my side screws up and nominates Giuliani. His past coupled with his opponent being the first female at the top of a national ticket could lead to a massive landslide.

  5. Hi Joe C.

    I think that is DaveG's point. He's saying the GOP is losing the female vote, and it is going to Hillary, or the Democrats. He thinks the GOP needs to offer something for women or else it will not be competitive in 2008. Perhaps he is wrong. But if a party needs to hold office to make its some portion of its political agenda a reality, then what DaveG is saying ought to be of concern.
    He's worried about his party becoming a minority, a minority without much influence over national policy. Are his worries overblown? Who knows? If he's right, it means the GOP is in for a time in the wildnerness, maybe a long time.

  6. Hi LargeBill --

    Well, I have bought into the theory that Hillary wouldn't get the male vote. But he thinks she gets enough females votes, according to the polls, that she's a winner both D vs. D, and D vs. R. DaveG is saying she is a force because of the female vote, which he sees as something us males haven't really recognized as having the impact it can have. He kind of opened my eyes.

  7. Let's assume that these two ridiculous theses that the Republican party has nothing to offer women - security and opportunity society for their families not being enough - and hence all women are going to vote for Hillary are true. Don't Hillary and the Democrats have to find something to offer men? Aren't we at least a significant minority? What if 2 or 3 percent of women lose their minds and vote Republican?

  8. Hi Joe C.

    Usually you are on top of your game. But I think you just said that people (women) would have to "lose their minds" to vote Republican.

    I know you really can't believe that folks must be unhinged to vote for the GOP.

    Or do you?