Obama leads Mitt Romney 51% to 42% in the swing states in the April 2 Gallup Poll. A month ago, he trailed Romney by two points in those states. The astoundingly rapid reversal is easily explained... Romney's stand on contraception ticked off Momma. Conventional wisdom says, "When you make Momma unhappy, nobody's happy." Simply put, unhappiness will rule your world.
A further breakdown shows that women under 50 changed their support for the President from less than 50% just a month ago to more than 60%. He leads Romney two-to-one in this demographic, and that's enough to turn all twelve swing states to Obama's camp were the election held today. But there is even worse news for the Republicans. Romney leads by 18 points (56 - 38) in the over 50 male demographic, but by only a single point for all men. Meanwhile, the President leads among all women by that same 18 points, a gender gap beyond any in recent memory.
Sara Taylor Fagen, a Republican strategist and former political adviser to President G. W. Bush, said, "The focus on contraception has not been a good one for us ... and Republicans have unfairly taken on water on this issue," a disingenuous statement if ever there was one. After all, as soon as the Catholic Church decided to make a fuss about a contraceptive provision they'd been quietly living with in 26 states for years, every surviving Republican candidate, plus Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and every conservative blogger in the country jumped on the Church's side of the issue. Momma was not amused.
Having "taken on water" on the contraceptive issue, fairly or unfairly, whichever candidate becomes the nominee is going to have to start bailing immediately and back away from some pretty inflammable pronouncements. They will be busy explaining away not only their own statements, but those of the Republican Party in general and Republican leaders. They're not going to have a choice if they want to make up ground. Plaintive male cries of, "But we're right!" will do nothing to assuage the Republican female dystopia on this issue.
Generally speaking, despite the relatively extreme gender gap, and the constant warring among themselves, Republicans do not face an insurmountable wall (the President only leads 49% to 45% nationwide)... unless they make it so. A four point lead is not a big deal this early in a campaign.
But it's not just the contraceptive issue. The Republican candidates, as a group, have moved so far right that there is virtually no chance of cross party voting as things now stand, and Independents don't look to be a promising substitute. Unless the Nominee starts moving to the center, and smartly too, and the Party follows him, the President will hammer the extremism of the TEA Party and its control of the Republican Party like a tom-tom, and that beat will be the defeat of more than just the Republican Presidential Nominee. Romney may be able to make that move comfortably, but Santorum or Gingrich never will, and nobody would believe them if they did. Perhaps a candidate from a brokered convention could opt out of the whole business, but there's still the Party's role.
Whatever happens, everybody needs to remember... When Momma's not happy - nobody's happy: and Momma is definitely not happy today.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 99
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. ;)
And you just earned a "never respond again."
And great article.
No, I'm nothing "like that." It would be the furthest thing from my mind to make light of such a thing; nor, of a Man who has suffered such greatest loss as that of His Woman, and His Love.
Again, my condolences...and, my apologies.
Chuck, sorry if I added insult to injury stepping in, again, I couldn't stop myself. :-(
Mr. Larlham and I have only recently become acquainted. Many may share his distaste for me, and that is your prerogative...and his.
I've made my apology. Those who know me, know also the depth of its' sincerity. Make of it what you will.
My Mom died two years ago after taking care of her for many years. If someone had said to me what Mark John said to Chuck, I wouldn't have even thought to inform him at that time that she was dead.
Everyone know John Mark would hate to make such a mistake, Since it was an off the cuff remark I was amazed that Chuck used it like twisting a little knife in someone stomach. That's his right but, just between us adults, it was very petty.
Some national polls of likely voters have the race as a near dead heat between Obama and Romney
Further, checking into their credentials as political pollsters, I found that they are considered to be and in actuality, are Conservative and Religious biased in their ideology. Therefore, the polls which they take are more than likely skewed to be biased and their questions are framed in those directions.
All polls are probably biased one way or the other. I'm more worried about how polls may no longer be accurate due to may ditching land phones since directories of cell numbers arent publicly available. The Ras poll uses some sort of online survey to make up for it but I don't know how accurate it is. I'm sure all professional pollsters are having similar issues.
However, JR, they're pushing to hire Mr. Etch-a-Sketch; he is a better waffler than any of our previous president-wanna be's. And, he's a professional liar. Most upper business execs can lie to beat a detector.
Not only that, with the billions of dollars they'll spend on internet, media, news, and cable advertising, with the intent to spew more of their made up lies (did you catch the bit about Sanitorium lying about the Netherlands?) They'll stand a really good chance on slandering the current Prez, and all of his positive changes...at least with the Sheeple Voters.
Never underestimate the power of the dollar, and the Rethugs that spend them.
Where's Rove today?
Wilka
We often see varying yet, dis-similar positives in the polls or activity of the GOP-ers and the voters. The fact that POTUS 44 has not as yet ramped-up his campaign I remain so much more positive about November 6th 2012, than I did about November 2008. Why, because nothing of National substance has been laid out from the Right of any popular acceptance. Romney trails POTUS 44 in today's polls and, lets' face it, which has more charisma and relatable delivery, not to mention, facts to support a seat in the Oval office---not Romney!
I do not stress over what I hear in the media, chalk it up to 8 decades of living while Black in America or just that I am an avid researcher on issues I am vested in for an on-going period of time. I simply do not see anything to raise a genuine concern when it comes to the GOP this election cycle. When I see POTUS 44 show concern, THEN I will join that wagon.
Those who hate POTUS 44, or feel he is not working for them today, are not necessarily how they will feel come November, save the haters, they are fixed in stupidity. When President Barack Obama begins to debate and campaign the field will change and the voting public will back away from the absolutely flaccid, vapid, manipulative GOP thanks to Romney and those who have heavily engaged in demonizing women and our rights to health care.
Rove is attempting to re-group!
I do agree Dems have somewhat convinced women, falsely, that the constitutional intrusion into the moral rights of religious groups and individuals is some sort of personal assault on women's rights. This is a political ploy, and eventually will be overcome. It is a long way to November. In the end, even Democrats know ABO.
If this canard and Political ploy works on said Women, it will indeed speak poorly of them. The Women in this Country hold great sway with Election outcomes...and they have done a very poor job of it. We can only hope that they will endeavour to become much more enlightened on what this Country stands for, and where the future of this Country is concerned...
I don't want the Republicans or the Catholic Church dictating personal choices for me.
You are being fed the rubbish...and you're buying it.
You may call be unenlightned and you may call my political beleifs BS.
But we would get much further discussing the issues and staying aay from name calling.
That aside, "Having "taken on water" on the contraceptive issue, fairly or unfairly, whichever candidate becomes the nominee is going to have to start bailing immediately and back away from some pretty inflammable pronouncements."
Santorum and his personal choice not to use contraception for religious reasons has taken over, regardless that he has made it clear that he would not attempt to impose that on the American people. Additionally, Sandra Fluke and that controversy, that was only that religious institutions should not be forced to give out condoms.
Really, I feel that this issue has been manufactured by the mainstream media to take attention away from actual pressing matters. Are there any "inflammable" statements in particular that you are referring to in this article?
No, it wasn't. In fact, the word "condom" doesn't even appear anywhere in Ms. Fluke's remarks to the congressional panel.
Wil B. Apr 4, 2012, 12:17am EDT
Condoms are one of many forms of contraception. To say that the controversy over Ms. Fluke's remarks was "only that religious institutions should not be forced to give out condoms" simply isn't true.
To say Republicans and Catholics want to take away birth control, is not only not not true, it is a deliberate lie. Birth control is on every corner, free from most health departments. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Who are you accusing of telling that lie, Char? Certainly not me, since I've never said any such thing.
"Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!"
Who are you talking about, Char?
That has nothing to do with whether or not republicans and catholics want to take away birth control."
Except with the ones who'd like to do whatever they could to ensure that it wasn't available, like back in the good old days when not only was using contraception illegal, even providing information about it was illegal.
I didn't say anything about a "Republican war on women", although I believe that's an accurate, if somewhat dramatic, description. I was specifically talking about the reactions to Sandra Fluke's remarks, thinking in particular of the ridiculous and disgusting attacks launched by people like Rush Limbaugh.
So I'll ask again, Char. Who exactly are you calling a liar? Since you've quoted me, it looks like you're calling me a liar. If so, please point out the lie in the statement you quoted.
Sandra Fluke's comments about the cost of prescription oral contraceptives was accurate, Char. One of the ways Rush made himself look like an idiot was in his insistence that the potential cost of the contraceptives was somehow connected to the frequency of intercourse.
"If she is taking birth control pills it's still waaaay less than what she said."
She didn't say anything about how much she paid for birth control pills, and her statements about the costs were absolutely correct. I've checked the prices myself.
"In any case, I was pointing out that the Dems in particular are lying, and taking everything out of context to say there is a war on women."
That's not true, Char. The things done by Republicans that are being collectively referred to as their "War on Women" have actually happened, and are continuing to happen. And it's not just Democrats who are saying so. For example, "It makes no sense to make this attack on women. If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters." That's Sen. Lisa Murkowski's advice to her fellow Republican lawmakers.
And the Republican "war on women" goes far beyond wanting to allow employers to deny their employees access to contraceptives through their insurance plans. For example, Wisconsin Republicans just repealed that states Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Not long ago, Republicans legislators attempted to redefine rape (so they could deny government funding for abortions to some rape victims). Oh, and other Republican legislators tried to change the law so that alleged rape victims wouldn't actually be referred to as "victims", but as "accusers".
And Republican legislators have introduced laws to make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. Republican legislators have, or have tried to, cut or ended government funding for Planned Parenthood and other health care services with a large proportion of female clients. They've passed legislation banning insurance companies from covering abortions. They've introduced hundreds of laws attempting to further restrict abortions, including waiting periods, transvaginal ultrasounds, etc. as well as various "personhood" laws that aim to ban abortion, contraception, IVF treatment, embryonic stem cell research, etc.
The list goes on and on, and makes it clear that the Republican "war on women" is very real, Char, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
As for the rape accusers and equal pay issues, I am highly suspicious of the way those legislative changes are characterized. The equal pay may have been badly worded to automatically make an employer liable if there was any disparity between the best paid male and the newest female. All companies have Bands or pay Grades that employees float through. That were probably trying to fix a nuisance lawsuit problem, but leave it to the Dems to divide people any way they can, in this case male against female.
I suspect there is a reason for the victim vs accuser too. What comes to mind is the idea that during a trial the word victim being used repeatedly is looked upon by defense lawyers as a characterization implying guilt of the defendant, and there was no way to object to it, so in order for trials to be more fair, they asked it not be used when their client had not been proven guilty. That might be good if someone was falsely accused, say you, don't you think?
I have never heard of a law to make it legal to kill abortion lawyers, and need a reference on that! As for planned parenthood, almost all services are farmed out except for abortions, which the government is not allowed by law to fund. I happen to believe life begins at conception, as does more than half of the population, and believe these too have the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I hate it! :)
Wil "If you don’t feel this is an attack, you need to go home and talk to your wife and your daughters." That's Sen. Lisa Murkowski's advice to her fellow Republican lawmakers."
ME; first of all, Sen Lisa Murkowski is just like the Democrats in that area. Why would I care what she says? Heer saying something doesn't make it true or constitutional.
Wil "The things done by Republicans that are being collectively referred to as their "War on Women" have actually happened,"
ME: That's because when they itemize them it is obvious that their are rights of several different people in conflict.
Abortions; SCOTUS gave the right for women to kill their babies. We that think it is murder accepted their decision. Now, Obama has made plans (He may have changed them by now but I don't think all of them) to say that anyone on staff of any hospital must help them murder their baby.
You don't think that is interfering with our religious freedom? He wants us to pay for them. Pay to have the child killed. How can you possibly think that is fair to us to force us to be part of it.
First of all, I don't owe much to anyone. I owe them them care and love for God but that's not a problem. That is the fun part :) But no one on the street that wants a condom for his girlfriend that night ... it is really forcing it to say I should be involved with what anyone wants to do with their sex life.
Just to keep down abortions I wouldn't mind clinics making pills or condoms (Well, I mean I'll live with it) available free. OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF MY HEART. I certainly don't owe them that.
Catholics on the other hand have always had a very strong rule against preventing births because they think it is a sin.
Do you think the church should be forced to participate in that sin just so she doesn't have to put out the money? If the constitution said women have a right to kill their child, it also said there is to be a separation of church and state. The state cannot force the church to sin.
Nobody owes those women anything, anymore than they owe me to NOT get an abortion because I think it is wrong. I'm honoring her in the freedom ruled by the courts. The state and the women will have to honor me and my freedom of religion.
Let them get a job somewhere else rather than the state unconstitutionlly butting into what benefits the private company owes his employers.
You've taken her freedom to have things and force others to forsake their freedom.
Wil "allow employers to deny their employees access to contraceptives through their insurance plans. And the Republican "war on women" goes far beyond wanting to..."
Yes. He has rights under the constitution just as we recognize her right to kill her child. It that isn't when the business or hospital offers, she has the freedom to go elsewhere...Why would one choose to take away the religious constitutional rights of the employer.
Why are you saying religious freedom should be taken away from employer when she is free to get a joy elsewhere? I really don't understand that. You act like the freedom that affect us aren't nearly as important as their freedom. I know you aren't interested in our beliefs, but I think you are interested in our religious freedom.
Wisconsin Republicans just repealed that states Equal Pay Enforcement Act.
That doesn't tell us much Wil :) Was that for teachers? Yaaa. There are some pretty bad teachers & a couple of my kids (maybe more) wasted a whole year with two young women. I think that is now what I pay them for.
Not long ago, Republicans legislators attempted to redefine rape (so they could deny government funding for abortions to some rape victims). Oh, and other Republican legislators tried to change the law so that alleged rape victims wouldn't actually be referred to as "victims", but as "accusers"
There are a lot of ongoing problem trying to decide was is rape and what isn't. These are not talking about a stranger, or even a friend come in a forcibly rapes some one. But state laws have all assortment of rules trying to cover all the many situations that are really hard to figure out. Are those the type of cases they are talking about?
"And Republican legislators have introduced laws to make it legal to kill doctors who perform abortions. Republican legislators have, or have tried to, cut or ended government funding for Planned Parenthood and other health care services with a large proportion of female clients."
They've passed legislation banning insurance companies from covering abortions. They've introduced hundreds of laws attempting to further restrict abortions, including waiting periods, transvaginal ultrasounds, etc. as well as various "personhood" laws that aim to ban abortion, contraception, IVF treatment, embryonic stem cell research, etc.
Well that's only fair. If they suspect someone murdered someone, they would call him 'the murderer' before he was found guilty. Why are you so willing to give women all the breaks. We're just the same as you guys. If you broke into your neighbors house and robbed him, you wouldn't want to go thru the whole court being called the thief :)
I've been watching and learning but you got a little sloppy here I think. Unless of course you turn my words back on me because I made assumptions.
"Do you think the church should be forced to participate in that sin just so she doesn't have to put out the money?"
Are you talking about Sandra Fluke and Georgetown? The students at Georgetown are required by the school to buy health insurance if they're not already covered by another policy, Glome. The cost is nearly $2,000 per year, and according to the Georgetown website, "Unlike most employer health plans that have a large employer subsidy, students must pay for the full cost of their health plan."
"You act like the freedom that affect us aren't nearly as important as their freedom. I know you aren't interested in our beliefs, but I think you are interested in our religious freedom."
I don't think "religious freedom" provides a blanket exemption from any and all laws that somebody claims somehow interferes or is in opposition to their religious beliefs.
"There are a lot of ongoing problem trying to decide was is rape and what isn't."
I'm sure there is, Glome. Some people just can't seem to figure it out. Especially, I'm sure, people who like to rape women. But I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that politicians who try to redefine rape in order to stop government funding for abortions for some rape victims are engaged in a "war on women."
"Well that's only fair. If they suspect someone murdered someone, they would call him 'the murderer' before he was found guilty."
No, it's not fair, Glome. The law wasn't about what to call the person accused of committing a crime.
"If you broke into your neighbors house and robbed him, you wouldn't want to go thru the whole court being called the thief."
No, I wouldn't. Do you think my neighbor would like to be referred to, not as a victim of burglary, but as an "accuser"? That's the thing about the change to the law I mentioned, Glome. It didn't apply to alleged victims of all crimes. People could still be victims of murder, of burglary, of assault, of robbery, of fraud, etc. Just not rape. People who claimed to be the victims of other crimes could still be referred to as "victims", but people who claimed to be victims of rape were to be referred to as "accusers".
Given that about 90% of all rape victims are women, I don't think it's unreasonable to consider that attempts to reclassify them not as "victims", but as "accusers" is part of a "war on women."
The GOP is out of touch with what Americans want.
"They're letting the TEA-Twits set their agenda as a party. That's insane." -- Larlham
Larlham, would you care to explain to me what is so "insane" about our Constitution?
Since it seems to be the wont and Custom of the Leftist to condescend with petty names, perhaps we might have a silly, pejorative name for you, as well. Hmmmn...how 'bout this:
"Non-Con."
Now, don't you have some Hay to shake, or some Hill to billy? ;)
In 2007, Hillary Clinton said, "With oil nearing $100 a barrel and gas prices over $3 per gallon, Americans are feeling the pain of seven years of a failed Bush-Cheney energy policy," the LA Times reported. Then Senator Barack Obama "speaking at a town hall meeting Thursday in Ottumwa, Iowa, also reminded voters of the recent rise in gas prices." Mr. Obama continued, "Washington has ignored the economic pressures facing the working class" and "Three dollars a gallon in November—that's never been seen before."
I'm sure the republicans will likely try and use the gas price issue but Obama can counter with some of the positive trends.
Then why was it Bush's fault back then? Oh ya, the standards are different for Obama.
Perhaps we want to balance the budget so we don't have to "sellout to our Chinese counterparts". So, are you an Occupy guy?
I do.
The repugs always, always vote against the middle class and the struggling poor. What shames me is that so many dems also vote with their eyes on their own portfolios. I will be happy to vote for better dems this November, along with NO repugs. None. Any person making less than $250K would be insane to vote for a rethug, in any state, no matter what s/he "says" she would do. S/he WON'T do it once elected.
Geesh. Can't fix those pesky sheeple--no matter how we try. Maybe we could come up with "eleeeetist pills" and help the education of those silly kids?