They cry on cue, dress the same, all get 'things' tattooed or pierced the same (to show their individuality), repeat the same feminist nitwittery, vote in lockstep for whomever is in their collective trough and are just generally annoying and un-fun to be around...all of them. Every single one.
If NOW didn't tell them to, they wouldn't defecate and would eventually explode.
DISCLAIMER: This could be a bit broad in the generalization department. No offense is intended. No, really!
The hardcore feminists will boycott Obama. The funny thing is though, if there was a female Republican nominee, they wouldn't vote for her either. You have to be female, and a liberal.
That would be nice if "they" did but I agree & doubt very many would do that. They don't want a REP after Bush so I doubt they will stick to their guns (or likely lack of guns knowing them).
Speaking as an American who is married to a woman, I'm absolutely sure my wife will not vote for Hillary or her Democrat competitor who won't wear a flag pin (but has no problem wearing a turban).
They have to have a woman who is for abortion, against traditional families, PETA activist, et cetera, et cetera. A female conservative would not give them those agendas so they couldn't in "good conscience" (that's assuming they have one at all) vote for a woman who possesses morals. A female conservative presidential nominee would turn the feminists into walking oxymorons. And I think it would be hilarious!
First, not only does he believe in abortion, but believes the doctor has the right to kill them after they are born. Can Hillary say she would go that far?
Second, let's wait for Hillary to drop the sissy bomb on Barack sometime Wednesday.
Hillary will say (or not say) whatever she thinks it takes to get elected. She has tried to position herself as a moderate and for her to go that far would reveal to the sheep what a far left radical she actually is. Now, we educated voters already know this so it doesn't matter to us. Hillary is hanging on by a thread and for her to take a stand on anything at this point would be political suicide, since it seems she's reduced to relying on the undecideds for votes. All she has left, speaking to your second point, are attacks on Obama. I'll look forward to the outcome of your prediction, but I can easily see that happening.
The thought of this sort of thing happening has never even crossed my mind. I can't imagine women would be so shallow (excluding, of course, a handfull of radicals out there who might indeed "boycott," but these are called "statistical outliers"). It's not as if Obama was being imposed upon them by the Taliban.
If you're going to ask this question, then I'm afraid you have to pose the following question as well:
"Might Some African-Americans Boycott Elections if Barack Loses the Nomination?"
Yes if Hill wins, I think a measurable % would NOT go vote for Hill because she (cough, likely) did cheat (if she wins from how it looks at this point).
My wife likes Huck & will vote for him early. Wonder how TX will turn out...
The answer to your bolded question is "Yes." No doubt about it.
Pundits have been saying for weeks that the high voter turnout during Dem primaries is being caused by young people and blacks coming out for the first time in their lives due to their excitement over Obama. What makes you think they remain excited if he's not in it?
If the Clinton race card had worked in January, and Hillary was now heading toward the nomination, this would definitely impact black turnout in November. No question ns
I would agree with that, which is why it would be good to have this question as a follow-up survey question -- it will put the results to the current question into some perspective. I think the Dems will face a far larger "boycott" were Hillary to gain the nomination.
If the race card had worked, and Hillary was winning, that question would be asked. As she's toast, it's too late to do so.
That said, I believe you're wrong about which boycott has more potential, for there is a far greater number of feminist misandrists -- or, what Rush refers to as "feminazis" -- in America than blacks. As such, their boycott would be far more impactful in my view. ns
The race vote is MUCH larger than the anti-hillary vote. The best thing that can happen to the GOP is Osama getting nominated!!! I keep hearing all these people who have no idea what they are talking about playing on the anti-Hillary vote. It would be nice if they actually talked to people. If Hillary got nominated she would get all the liberal and moderate women and many "conservative" women once they went into the voting booth. Only Rudy or Romney could hold onto women voters vs Hillary. The anti-hillary vote is not enough. With Osama, he is getting 99% of the black vote, those reliving the 60s and all the far-left liberals. Women do not want to vote for him. All the brain-washed idealists already are voting for Hussein. Hillary's voters once she drops out will be split between McCain, Osama and now Nader once he enters. Osama has NO CHANCE IN HELL OF WINNING.
Most assuredly there are women (and men too, for that matter) who will not vote for Barack should he steal the nomination from the annointed one. Likewise there are blacks who won't vote if Hillary steals the nomination from the chosen one. Like it or not, "-isms" are very definately alive and well in the US, particularly among those who scream the loudest at the thought of there being any.
"...thought of this sort of thing happening has never even crossed my mind..."
Really? I'd make some snarky comment about your being a noob, but I know better. If it didn't cross your mind, then you must post without reading anything, for all political sites are rife with this attitude. Should you have any doubts, please feel free to look back over the anti-Mormom Romney bashing that occurred on this very site. What '-ist" would that be, I wonder.
The really interesting thing about this poll, is the number of selections of the non-answer answer :o). Unless you believe there is one and only one person in the entire US that will not vote if Hillary is not the nominee, and that person is wavering, then the 'maybe' choice has no meaning. If you think even one single person will sit out, then the answer must be yes; only if you conclude that not a single person will sit out can you vote no. Then where does a maybe answer come into play? Blame it on the wording of the question, lol, and now you know why polling results are so screwed up. You can get any answer you want, if the question is properly worded and emotionally loaded.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
"Unless you believe there is one and only one person in the entire US that will not vote if Hillary is not the nominee, and that person is wavering, then the 'maybe' choice has no meaning. If you think even one single person will sit out, then the answer must be yes; only if you conclude that not a single person will sit out can you vote no."
Hammer meets nail, squarely on the head. That's why I voted "yes." How could "41%" possibly vote "no?" Can they truly believe that not one Democrat misandrist would stay home?
I think those that say "No" are misreading the tea leaves. After all, as the saying goes, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." And, as Tina Fey and Cokie Roberts illustrated this weekend, many women will indeed feel scorned if Hillary loses, especially to, as Cokie said, a cute guy saying sweet nothings.
Despite all the hype, there are many Democrats that believe Obama is an empty suit full of nice words. I can't tell you how many Dems I know that feel he brings nothing to the table other than charm and charisma.
Since to many women Hillary represents a feminist ideal other than her bizarre relationship with Bill, her defeat will be seen as a defeat to feminism. Moreover, is there any woman on the horizon that could win the White House in the future?
Pundits have spoken about the fabulous voter turnout at Dem primaries this season. They typically attribute it to young people and blacks energized by Obama that have never voted before. What about women that have never voted before that are energized by Hillary? Will they be so energized if she loses?
Frankly, I don't believe they will, and this could be a very serious issue for Democrats in races around the country come November. ns
Despite all the hype, there are many Democrats that believe Obama is an empty suit full of nice words.
At least they are right about SOMETHING!
As to the female democrat votes, most will vote for either but there will be some who will stay home. Hillary has been put on a false pedestal as "the smartest woman in the world". I don't think the women stayed home in 04 when Carol Moseley Braun dropped out, but then again the ones who only follow the MSM probably didn't even know she made a bid. But if the "Great Hillary" were to lose, as it appears will happen, that could be a big scar to all who see her as God's gift to politics.
You almost make me feel hopeful. Too bad McCAN is our likely nominee. Guess that may help out since many DEMS & INDEPs may vote for him if they don't like the full out COMMY DEM plan.
Let's look at this another way: what percentage of women are misandrists? For those unfamiliar with the term, this is the opposite of misogynist, ergo a woman that hates men.
We all know them, and we've all met them. Frankly, I believe without a doubt Hillary is a misandrist. No question.
With that in mind, you think misandrists that enthusiastically supported Hillary are going to vote for Obama if Hillary loses?
Before you answer, do you think a misogynist Democrat or Independent would have voted for Hillary if she won the nomination? ns
LOL Excellent point. Was going to do that one later, but yours is so much more succinct than mine would have been.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
At this point I don't know what I will do. I have voted for Dims and Libertarians Ross Perot and Republicans. McCain doesn't excite me but neither do the Dims. Lots of prayer and supplication is required for that voice to tell me who to vote for. I might write in a canditate. I like Alan Keyes and his no nonsense but he is not electable.
I feel like Jesus being grilled by the Jewish Patriarchs at the table or when He was confronted by the crowd who caught the adulterous woman and need just the right answer. So what did Jesus write in the sand?
"... I might write in a canditate. I like Alan Keyes and his no nonsense but he is not electable..."
These statements, if I read them correctly, are contradictory. All write-in candidates are non-electable, and hence tantamount to not voting. So, if you vote, and I certainly hope you do, make your choice between one of the two electable candidates. Whether you choose to vote for the Democrat candidate, or the Republican candidate, make your vote count and matter. Do not be dissuaded by the argumant that to vote in this manner is choosing between the lesser of two evils.
"Choosing the lesser of two evils," is nothing more than presenting a choice with which someone does not agree in a negative manner. The exact same statement, from a positive perspective, would be, "choosing the candidiate with whom I agree the most." While it's always better to have a full loaf, you won't starve eating only half.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
I know if I vote for any other than who is on the ballot then it will be a write in protest. I was was just stating I like Alan Keyes but he is not palatable to the people because he is no nonsense. Im not sure he would be a good President but would make on heck of a Secretary of State and tell it like it is.
I think you miss my point, and that is there is no good choice and choosing the lesser of two evils may not be acceptable. Jesus never chose between two evils, He always chose th side of right with no evil. He is also God and therefore perfect and I am not.
But that does not mean I have to chose betyween two evils. Perhaps I am the crossroads and need to choose the wide path or the narrow one.
I do know one thing if we elect more Rinos then the trend will be more and more Rinos and no conservatives. The Republican party has left me, so choose the path carefully.
Noel-I don't think conservatives are inherently more intelligent than liberals . . . we just think with different parts of the brain. I agree that traditional conservatives are much less emotional and much more pragmatic than these FM's. That said, after thinking through the matter step-by-step, there are still significant numbers of conservatives that will find ways to avoid voting for McCain.
Also some Evangelicals share the same thought process with Liberals . . . they just come to different conclusions.
I wasn't asking whether you thought cons are more intelligent than libs. I said I felt conservatives are more intelligent than feminist misandrists. See the difference.
As it pertains to conservatives boycotting the elections because of McCain, I think this will resolve itself once the general campaign begins, and folks get to see Obama next to the certainly moderate but significantly more conservative by comparison senator from Arizona. At that point, I believe the pragmatism in conservatives currently disappointed by their Party's nominee with rule the day.
Why? Because at that point, conservatives I believe will recognize what's in their immediate best interest, and choose not to be radical or revolutionary. In the end, that's what a boycott would be, correct?
By contrast, feminist misandrists are by nature radical and revolutionary, aren't they? Mightn't they be significantly more interested in making a statement AGAINST MEN by boycotting the election than conservatives will be interested in making a statement against moderate Republicans?
While your pondering, I'd also like you to consider how much money out of their own wallets conservatives are willing to spend in the form of significantly higher taxes to make this point about moderate Republicans. In the end, since most conservatives are fiscally conservative, I think the answer will be "none!" ns
Noel-We are talking philosphy and pragmatic thinking vs. raw emotion. From that standpoint conservatives opposed to McCain because of what he has done or the fact he is MSM's favorite Republican (at least he once was), would be more likely to grit their teeth and pull the lever. Your FM's, those motivated by pure hatred for men, would rather stay home and watch the hair in their armpits grow.
Noel... The boycott, as you call it, has been growing daily. The 'no vote for McCain' pledge is being joined by Fred supporters, Duncan supporters, Mitt supporters, and even a few Tancredo and Ron Paul supporters, and on most days the number doubles from the day before.
And almost every single one of these people are being pragmatic in their decision. The general concensus is that 4 terrible years of Obama will have people screaming for an adult to lead this country, as in a real conservative leader. We are thinking long term.
Noel... The boycott, as you call it, has been growing daily. The 'no vote for McCain' pledge is being joined by Fred supporters, Duncan supporters, Mitt supporters, and even a few Tancredo and Ron Paul supporters, and on most days the number doubles from the day before.
And almost every single one of these people are being pragmatic in their decision. The general concensus is that 4 terrible years of Obama will have people screaming for an adult to lead this country, as in a real conservative leader. We are thinking long term.
you think misandrists that enthusiastically supported Hillary are going to vote for Obama if Hillary loses?
Noel, the anwer to that is, IMO, a resounding NO
And it's not necessarily a boycott.
Dick Morris, back when Her Royal Clintoness was looking inevitiable, used to say that her ace in the hole was that she would bring out to the polls, several million women who had never voted before.
If HRC is not the nominee, those women will just stay home. Obama isn't losing those votes, since they wouldn't have voted for him anyway.
I heard that Nader is running again as third party. Not the point of this particular blog, but he'll probably siphon off some of the Democrat votes. However, Noel, the simple answer to your question is "NO." And I agree wholeheartedly. To know one misandrist is to know all them. The percentage of women misandrists may be small but the original question was, "will SOME women stay home." I think absolutely. Being driven by hate is a blind path to follow. To them there is no alternative.
May I be so bold as to predict that Lady McClinton will win the Democratick party nomination -- by hook or by crook -- but mainly crook.
America just isn't ready for a Barack president.
And that the election will hinge on a small, embittered, angry old white woman with no military experience, versus a small, embittered, angry, slightly older white man with war hero status.
There are only so many pussy ass men in the Dem party and they even prefer Osama, since he identifies more with their pussy ass nature. Union workers which are by far male are NOT feminists and liked other candidates like Edwards and prefer Hussein or McCain over Hitlary. Hitlary's legions of feminists are not enough.
A modicum of decorum, please. "P***y a** men" isn't acceptable, nor is referring to Barack as Osama. This type of vitriol should be reserved for liberals at their websites. I expect a higher standard from conservatives...with all due respect. ns
Not only women, but Jewish voters as well after the photo of 'bama dressed up like a muslim on Drudge this morning. What's he got to say to that? Maybe he was going out trick or treating? Also he was endorsed by that muslim nut Farrakhan. This gets better all the time. Thanks, Hillary!
It all adds up to keeping the dems out of the WH in November.
yes. As some blacks may not vote if Barack loses the nomination. There are always some people who are so caught up in identity that they'll boycott anything that seems even slightly oppositional.
These kook liberal women will not "boycott" even if I voted yes, but will instead be so overcome with the whole situation they just won't be able to rise to cast a vote.
They will lament another loss by a man........those evil men......and not even Lee Woodruff be able to get a sexual thrill in it being a "dirty black man" conquerring her white womanhood........but just another man putting up the glass ceiling which keeps all women down when they stick together.
They will diaper their token children, drive their SUV's listening to Phil Donahues war music, leave a light off to lessen their carbon footprint.....and just go to beach in solitude with their other kooks to find solace in another loss.
That is why Lynn Cheney will be thee female for John McCain to pick.........Condi does not want it and there is no other Conservative woman on the board who can be a national candidate to rally these jilted women to vote in that 5% spread.
The GOP has a landslide ready and waiting........we just need to get McCain pointed in the right direction.
Certainly a significant number of women will boycott the elections if Hillary loses. My guess is at least 2-5% of women will boycott, even if the Democrat primaries end immediately after the March 4th primaries with Hillary's concession. Moreover, the longer the primaries continue and the nastier the campaign between Barack Hussien Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the greater the number. If it goes all the way to the Democrat Convention floor, the alienation between the camps will be enormous.
Mainly because I haven't the foggiest clue, actually. I think the gasp and swoon crowd are going to probably stick with Obama, but the hard-core flag-waving man-haters will stand behind Hillary. Both groups are equally as likely to stay home, or not to stay home, in the event their "guy" doesn't make the cut.
It will be interesting to see if whoever does end up being the dem nominee can successfully heal the fracture that currently exists within the dem party and that I believe, for the moment, is a far more serious rift than what is currently being reported. If they wind up in a nasty, drawn out convention fight, and I still believe this is possible, there might not be enough time to heal the rift prior to the election.
I know things are looking rather bad for Hillary, but I think it is a mistake to assume she is going to lose out to Obama in the nomination. This woman did not "work" most of her life to reach this point only to have the prize snatched away at the last moment by a smooth-talking upstart like Barack Obama.
I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the reslove of this woman. Yes, the people running her campaign are not the most competent in the world, but she has a fair number of grizzled veterans working behind the scenes. Anything is still possibe.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
I think yes some of hillary's feminists will not vote for the 'man' that denied what they see as their best shot at the presidency when BO could have waited 'his turn' considering his age.
But also what about hillary's hispanics? They could easily go for McAmnesty. The Blacks and the Browns have a 'difficult' relationship.
before she even officially announced, lesbian groups and feminists (of which my GF's mother is a big member of nowadays) were already repeating the mantra "there'll be a black man in office long before a woman!". Setting it up so that if she fails, it's the "old boy's network" and the Great Male Conspiracy and sexist voters that kept her from winning-not her politics, policies, record, or lack thereof.
All they can point to are crazy female leftist congresswomen who can't get any support outside of their home districts and say "see, it's that glass ceiling/sexists/male pigs that are keeping sistah's down!". For some reason, they can't be arsed to look at their voting records, borderline psychotic rantings, socialist policies, or even criminal or near criminal dealings. The blinders go on when feminists start screaming "sexism!" and many women are programmed to ignore everything else and start hating.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
At first I would have said no. But after watching MSM kissing Obama's b.... day after day and giving him a free ride while dissing the lady (treating her like the Republician candidate), I am now saying the women supporting Hillary are getting really mad. Double standard here. Looks like the Dems are more sexist then racist. I can see them staying home on election day.
i think it would be great if a bunch of socialist voters women or men would give up. i have to be honest if mccain is the republican candidate, i'm writing in the most offensive candidate in history i can think of because a vote for mccain is like voting for hillary, just with a penis.
...any and all radical feminist disappointment over the defeat of their gal Hillary.
He could clinch this by choosing a female running mate.
But, Obama's down-the-line Left ideology incorporates feminism as one of many identity politics creeds. And Black victimization identity trumps (or at least equals) female victimization. They are both sacred groups.
The girls will fall in line and bow to the shared ideology.
That said, I think the Obama "wave" hysteria is being overplayed by all sides (for different reasons). The center is still the center. No matter how enthused college kids and Leftist activists are about their attractive young candidate, his true-blue 95th percentile Left voting record will eventually catch up with him and his campaign.
Could we end up with another McGovernesque surprise?
I am in agreement with you on that, and this was my own thought from the very start of this question being asked. With left-wingers, including feministas, it is more about one's ideology than about one's race/sex. We've all heard of the sentiment in the popular culture that "a liberal white man is more 'black' than a conservative black man (sic)." Same goes for gender (sex). As others have pointed out, there's no way leftist feministas would support a female (pro-life) Republican candidate, even if she were otherwise a feminist wet dream. All things being equal, if Hillary were pro-life, then she wouldn't have even made it to the Senate (as a Democrat, that is).
Ah, but what is left after 4 years will likely not be fit to govern. Everything good done for the last 20 years will be overturned. If Obuma wins, I intend to ignore him from day one, never look at him, never listen to him, never acknowledge him. I know I can do it; did it with Willie.
I voted maybe (which is why women should not run for president) but after reading the comments; YES there could be a few women trying to relive the 1960's all over again. I watched the debate tonight in Ohio between Obama and Hillary and neither one turns me on. I am voting for McCain despite all the Dem's that I live around and see on a daily basis.Now, if I was still married I would have been forced to vote for a Dem which I do NOT have to put up with any longer.What matter's most to me is that I get to vote for WHO I want without a knife in my back. Regardless of who wins between the Dem's,I don't have to look up to either one of them and I don't plan on it. I've almost given up that a gop has a chance of winning but I'm still going to vote for him anyway.I realize that the hardest core Dem's will condemn me for emailing this BUT I'm use to it and I don't have to live with you.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
No, because Obama's so
February 25, 2008 - 10:37 ET by wiwfNo, because Obama's so dreamy! :P
/sarc
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
→ Absolutely not
February 25, 2008 - 10:40 ET by Cool ArrowWomen aren't the monolithic group of likeminded idiots the Dems make them out to be.
♣ a seal
Of course they are!
February 25, 2008 - 13:51 ET by heldmyw"Progressive" women, anyway...
They cry on cue, dress the same, all get 'things' tattooed or pierced the same (to show their individuality), repeat the same feminist nitwittery, vote in lockstep for whomever is in their collective trough and are just generally annoying and un-fun to be around...all of them. Every single one.
If NOW didn't tell them to, they wouldn't defecate and would eventually explode.
DISCLAIMER: This could be a bit broad in the generalization department. No offense is intended. No, really!
Most libs will vote for either candidate, BUT
February 25, 2008 - 10:43 ET by fonzie2178The hardcore feminists will boycott Obama. The funny thing is though, if there was a female Republican nominee, they wouldn't vote for her either. You have to be female, and a liberal.
The liberal tag is the main
February 25, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Hunter12The liberal tag is the main decider. That's why a feminist organization like NOW could support a serial rapist.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Good comments so far!
February 25, 2008 - 10:48 ET by MaximusBraveheartThat would be nice if "they" did but I agree & doubt very many would do that. They don't want a REP after Bush so I doubt they will stick to their guns (or likely lack of guns knowing them).
→ Maximus
February 25, 2008 - 10:56 ET by Cool ArrowSpeaking as an American who is married to a woman, I'm absolutely sure my wife will not vote for Hillary or her Democrat competitor who won't wear a flag pin (but has no problem wearing a turban).
♣ a seal
Maximus, you know exactly how feminists are
February 25, 2008 - 11:03 ET by fonzie2178They have to have a woman who is for abortion, against traditional families, PETA activist, et cetera, et cetera. A female conservative would not give them those agendas so they couldn't in "good conscience" (that's assuming they have one at all) vote for a woman who possesses morals. A female conservative presidential nominee would turn the feminists into walking oxymorons. And I think it would be hilarious!
→ But Fonzie
February 25, 2008 - 11:08 ET by Cool ArrowObama might be both.
First, not only does he believe in abortion, but believes the doctor has the right to kill them after they are born. Can Hillary say she would go that far?
Second, let's wait for Hillary to drop the sissy bomb on Barack sometime Wednesday.
♣ a seal
Good point CA,
February 25, 2008 - 12:41 ET by fonzie2178Hillary will say (or not say) whatever she thinks it takes to get elected. She has tried to position herself as a moderate and for her to go that far would reveal to the sheep what a far left radical she actually is. Now, we educated voters already know this so it doesn't matter to us. Hillary is hanging on by a thread and for her to take a stand on anything at this point would be political suicide, since it seems she's reduced to relying on the undecideds for votes. All she has left, speaking to your second point, are attacks on Obama. I'll look forward to the outcome of your prediction, but I can easily see that happening.
you gotta be kidding me
February 25, 2008 - 10:56 ET by lotrThe thought of this sort of thing happening has never even crossed my mind. I can't imagine women would be so shallow (excluding, of course, a handfull of radicals out there who might indeed "boycott," but these are called "statistical outliers"). It's not as if Obama was being imposed upon them by the Taliban.
If you're going to ask this question, then I'm afraid you have to pose the following question as well:
"Might Some African-Americans Boycott Elections if Barack Loses the Nomination?"
Obama boycott
February 25, 2008 - 11:07 ET by MaximusBraveheartYes if Hill wins, I think a measurable % would NOT go vote for Hill because she (cough, likely) did cheat (if she wins from how it looks at this point).
My wife likes Huck & will vote for him early. Wonder how TX will turn out...
lotr
February 25, 2008 - 11:09 ET by Noel Sheppardlotr,
The answer to your bolded question is "Yes." No doubt about it.
Pundits have been saying for weeks that the high voter turnout during Dem primaries is being caused by young people and blacks coming out for the first time in their lives due to their excitement over Obama. What makes you think they remain excited if he's not in it?
If the Clinton race card had worked in January, and Hillary was now heading toward the nomination, this would definitely impact black turnout in November. No question ns
Noel
February 25, 2008 - 11:22 ET by lotrI would agree with that, which is why it would be good to have this question as a follow-up survey question -- it will put the results to the current question into some perspective. I think the Dems will face a far larger "boycott" were Hillary to gain the nomination.
lotr
February 25, 2008 - 11:30 ET by Noel Sheppardlotr,
If the race card had worked, and Hillary was winning, that question would be asked. As she's toast, it's too late to do so.
That said, I believe you're wrong about which boycott has more potential, for there is a far greater number of feminist misandrists -- or, what Rush refers to as "feminazis" -- in America than blacks. As such, their boycott would be far more impactful in my view. ns
delete
February 25, 2008 - 13:06 ET by motherbeltdelete
I suppose you do have a
February 25, 2008 - 13:41 ET by lotrI suppose you do have a point there -- I may be underestimating the misandrists out there.
Osama cannot win
February 25, 2008 - 12:52 ET by PopularTechThe race vote is MUCH larger than the anti-hillary vote. The best thing that can happen to the GOP is Osama getting nominated!!! I keep hearing all these people who have no idea what they are talking about playing on the anti-Hillary vote. It would be nice if they actually talked to people. If Hillary got nominated she would get all the liberal and moderate women and many "conservative" women once they went into the voting booth. Only Rudy or Romney could hold onto women voters vs Hillary. The anti-hillary vote is not enough. With Osama, he is getting 99% of the black vote, those reliving the 60s and all the far-left liberals. Women do not want to vote for him. All the brain-washed idealists already are voting for Hussein. Hillary's voters once she drops out will be split between McCain, Osama and now Nader once he enters. Osama has NO CHANCE IN HELL OF WINNING.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
The Answer To Both Questions Is Yes
February 25, 2008 - 11:28 ET by CGattonMost assuredly there are women (and men too, for that matter) who will not vote for Barack should he steal the nomination from the annointed one. Likewise there are blacks who won't vote if Hillary steals the nomination from the chosen one. Like it or not, "-isms" are very definately alive and well in the US, particularly among those who scream the loudest at the thought of there being any.
"...thought of this sort of thing happening has never even crossed my mind..."
Really? I'd make some snarky comment about your being a noob, but I know better. If it didn't cross your mind, then you must post without reading anything, for all political sites are rife with this attitude. Should you have any doubts, please feel free to look back over the anti-Mormom Romney bashing that occurred on this very site. What '-ist" would that be, I wonder.
The really interesting thing about this poll, is the number of selections of the non-answer answer :o). Unless you believe there is one and only one person in the entire US that will not vote if Hillary is not the nominee, and that person is wavering, then the 'maybe' choice has no meaning. If you think even one single person will sit out, then the answer must be yes; only if you conclude that not a single person will sit out can you vote no. Then where does a maybe answer come into play? Blame it on the wording of the question, lol, and now you know why polling results are so screwed up. You can get any answer you want, if the question is properly worded and emotionally loaded.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
"Unless you believe there
February 25, 2008 - 13:49 ET by Indiana Joe"Unless you believe there is one and only one person in the entire US that will not vote if Hillary is not the nominee, and that person is wavering, then the 'maybe' choice has no meaning. If you think even one single person will sit out, then the answer must be yes; only if you conclude that not a single person will sit out can you vote no."
Hammer meets nail, squarely on the head. That's why I voted "yes." How could "41%" possibly vote "no?" Can they truly believe that not one Democrat misandrist would stay home?
Women and Hillary
February 25, 2008 - 11:03 ET by Noel SheppardNBers,
I think those that say "No" are misreading the tea leaves. After all, as the saying goes, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." And, as Tina Fey and Cokie Roberts illustrated this weekend, many women will indeed feel scorned if Hillary loses, especially to, as Cokie said, a cute guy saying sweet nothings.
Despite all the hype, there are many Democrats that believe Obama is an empty suit full of nice words. I can't tell you how many Dems I know that feel he brings nothing to the table other than charm and charisma.
Since to many women Hillary represents a feminist ideal other than her bizarre relationship with Bill, her defeat will be seen as a defeat to feminism. Moreover, is there any woman on the horizon that could win the White House in the future?
Pundits have spoken about the fabulous voter turnout at Dem primaries this season. They typically attribute it to young people and blacks energized by Obama that have never voted before. What about women that have never voted before that are energized by Hillary? Will they be so energized if she loses?
Frankly, I don't believe they will, and this could be a very serious issue for Democrats in races around the country come November. ns
Noel, you said
February 25, 2008 - 11:10 ET by fonzie2178Despite all the hype, there are many Democrats that believe Obama is an empty suit full of nice words.
At least they are right about SOMETHING!
As to the female democrat votes, most will vote for either but there will be some who will stay home. Hillary has been put on a false pedestal as "the smartest woman in the world". I don't think the women stayed home in 04 when Carol Moseley Braun dropped out, but then again the ones who only follow the MSM probably didn't even know she made a bid. But if the "Great Hillary" were to lose, as it appears will happen, that could be a big scar to all who see her as God's gift to politics.
Noel, how sad... (LOL)
February 25, 2008 - 11:12 ET by MaximusBraveheartYou almost make me feel hopeful. Too bad McCAN is our likely nominee. Guess that may help out since many DEMS & INDEPs may vote for him if they don't like the full out COMMY DEM plan.
Fonzie, Maximus, et al
February 25, 2008 - 11:18 ET by Noel SheppardFonzie, Maximus, et al:
Let's look at this another way: what percentage of women are misandrists? For those unfamiliar with the term, this is the opposite of misogynist, ergo a woman that hates men.
We all know them, and we've all met them. Frankly, I believe without a doubt Hillary is a misandrist. No question.
With that in mind, you think misandrists that enthusiastically supported Hillary are going to vote for Obama if Hillary loses?
Before you answer, do you think a misogynist Democrat or Independent would have voted for Hillary if she won the nomination? ns
Just Change a Few Words
February 25, 2008 - 11:38 ET by CaringwhiteguyMight some CONSERVATIVES boycott elections if MC CAIN WINS the nomination?
Do Ya T'ink!
February 25, 2008 - 11:58 ET by CGattonLOL Excellent point. Was going to do that one later, but yours is so much more succinct than mine would have been.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
CWG
February 25, 2008 - 12:06 ET by Noel SheppardCWG,
They might, but I'm confident that conservatives are much more intelligent and pragmatic than feminist misandrists. Do you disagree? ns
At this point I don't know
February 25, 2008 - 12:14 ET by Dan The Man 2At this point I don't know what I will do. I have voted for Dims and Libertarians Ross Perot and Republicans. McCain doesn't excite me but neither do the Dims. Lots of prayer and supplication is required for that voice to tell me who to vote for. I might write in a canditate. I like Alan Keyes and his no nonsense but he is not electable.
I feel like Jesus being grilled by the Jewish Patriarchs at the table or when He was confronted by the crowd who caught the adulterous woman and need just the right answer. So what did Jesus write in the sand?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
If You Feel This Way
February 25, 2008 - 12:35 ET by CGatton"... I might write in a canditate. I like Alan Keyes and his no nonsense but he is not electable..."
These statements, if I read them correctly, are contradictory. All write-in candidates are non-electable, and hence tantamount to not voting. So, if you vote, and I certainly hope you do, make your choice between one of the two electable candidates. Whether you choose to vote for the Democrat candidate, or the Republican candidate, make your vote count and matter. Do not be dissuaded by the argumant that to vote in this manner is choosing between the lesser of two evils.
"Choosing the lesser of two evils," is nothing more than presenting a choice with which someone does not agree in a negative manner. The exact same statement, from a positive perspective, would be, "choosing the candidiate with whom I agree the most." While it's always better to have a full loaf, you won't starve eating only half.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
I know if I vote for any
February 25, 2008 - 13:00 ET by Dan The Man 2I know if I vote for any other than who is on the ballot then it will be a write in protest. I was was just stating I like Alan Keyes but he is not palatable to the people because he is no nonsense. Im not sure he would be a good President but would make on heck of a Secretary of State and tell it like it is.
I think you miss my point, and that is there is no good choice and choosing the lesser of two evils may not be acceptable. Jesus never chose between two evils, He always chose th side of right with no evil. He is also God and therefore perfect and I am not.
But that does not mean I have to chose betyween two evils. Perhaps I am the crossroads and need to choose the wide path or the narrow one.
I do know one thing if we elect more Rinos then the trend will be more and more Rinos and no conservatives. The Republican party has left me, so choose the path carefully.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I agree in a way
February 25, 2008 - 13:11 ET by CaringwhiteguyNoel-I don't think conservatives are inherently more intelligent than liberals . . . we just think with different parts of the brain. I agree that traditional conservatives are much less emotional and much more pragmatic than these FM's. That said, after thinking through the matter step-by-step, there are still significant numbers of conservatives that will find ways to avoid voting for McCain.
Also some Evangelicals share the same thought process with Liberals . . . they just come to different conclusions.
CWG
February 25, 2008 - 14:03 ET by Noel SheppardCWG,
I wasn't asking whether you thought cons are more intelligent than libs. I said I felt conservatives are more intelligent than feminist misandrists. See the difference.
As it pertains to conservatives boycotting the elections because of McCain, I think this will resolve itself once the general campaign begins, and folks get to see Obama next to the certainly moderate but significantly more conservative by comparison senator from Arizona. At that point, I believe the pragmatism in conservatives currently disappointed by their Party's nominee with rule the day.
Why? Because at that point, conservatives I believe will recognize what's in their immediate best interest, and choose not to be radical or revolutionary. In the end, that's what a boycott would be, correct?
By contrast, feminist misandrists are by nature radical and revolutionary, aren't they? Mightn't they be significantly more interested in making a statement AGAINST MEN by boycotting the election than conservatives will be interested in making a statement against moderate Republicans?
While your pondering, I'd also like you to consider how much money out of their own wallets conservatives are willing to spend in the form of significantly higher taxes to make this point about moderate Republicans. In the end, since most conservatives are fiscally conservative, I think the answer will be "none!" ns
Not Far Apart
February 25, 2008 - 17:46 ET by CaringwhiteguyNoel-We are talking philosphy and pragmatic thinking vs. raw emotion. From that standpoint conservatives opposed to McCain because of what he has done or the fact he is MSM's favorite Republican (at least he once was), would be more likely to grit their teeth and pull the lever. Your FM's, those motivated by pure hatred for men, would rather stay home and watch the hair in their armpits grow.
CWG
February 26, 2008 - 00:49 ET by Noel SheppardCWG,
My work is done here :-) ns
...and dmp, dmp, dmp, another one bites the dust...
February 26, 2008 - 02:58 ET by R D HelmDarn it, Noel, this would be so much easier for us McCain detractors if you weren't so danged persuasive. :-)
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
Noel... The boycott, as you
February 26, 2008 - 02:46 ET by Clear thinkerNoel... The boycott, as you call it, has been growing daily. The 'no vote for McCain' pledge is being joined by Fred supporters, Duncan supporters, Mitt supporters, and even a few Tancredo and Ron Paul supporters, and on most days the number doubles from the day before.
And almost every single one of these people are being pragmatic in their decision. The general concensus is that 4 terrible years of Obama will have people screaming for an adult to lead this country, as in a real conservative leader. We are thinking long term.
Noel... The boycott, as you
February 26, 2008 - 02:46 ET by Clear thinkerNoel... The boycott, as you call it, has been growing daily. The 'no vote for McCain' pledge is being joined by Fred supporters, Duncan supporters, Mitt supporters, and even a few Tancredo and Ron Paul supporters, and on most days the number doubles from the day before.
And almost every single one of these people are being pragmatic in their decision. The general concensus is that 4 terrible years of Obama will have people screaming for an adult to lead this country, as in a real conservative leader. We are thinking long term.
you think misandrists that
February 25, 2008 - 13:16 ET by motherbeltyou think misandrists that enthusiastically supported Hillary are going to vote for Obama if Hillary loses?
Noel, the anwer to that is, IMO, a resounding NO
And it's not necessarily a boycott.
Dick Morris, back when Her Royal Clintoness was looking inevitiable, used to say that her ace in the hole was that she would bring out to the polls, several million women who had never voted before.
If HRC is not the nominee, those women will just stay home. Obama isn't losing those votes, since they wouldn't have voted for him anyway.
Something else that might help,
February 25, 2008 - 11:25 ET by fonzie2178I heard that Nader is running again as third party. Not the point of this particular blog, but he'll probably siphon off some of the Democrat votes. However, Noel, the simple answer to your question is "NO." And I agree wholeheartedly. To know one misandrist is to know all them. The percentage of women misandrists may be small but the original question was, "will SOME women stay home." I think absolutely. Being driven by hate is a blind path to follow. To them there is no alternative.
May I be so bold as to
February 25, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Jack BauerMay I be so bold as to predict that Lady McClinton will win the Democratick party nomination -- by hook or by crook -- but mainly crook.
America just isn't ready for a Barack president.
And that the election will hinge on a small, embittered, angry old white woman with no military experience, versus a small, embittered, angry, slightly older white man with war hero status.
Why Hitlary is losing = Men
February 25, 2008 - 12:58 ET by PopularTechThere are only so many pussy ass men in the Dem party and they even prefer Osama, since he identifies more with their pussy ass nature. Union workers which are by far male are NOT feminists and liked other candidates like Edwards and prefer Hussein or McCain over Hitlary. Hitlary's legions of feminists are not enough.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT
February 25, 2008 - 13:08 ET by Noel SheppardPT,
A modicum of decorum, please. "P***y a** men" isn't acceptable, nor is referring to Barack as Osama. This type of vitriol should be reserved for liberals at their websites. I expect a higher standard from conservatives...with all due respect. ns
Happy Halloween
February 25, 2008 - 11:21 ET by NoMoreClintonsNot only women, but Jewish voters as well after the photo of 'bama dressed up like a muslim on Drudge this morning. What's he got to say to that? Maybe he was going out trick or treating? Also he was endorsed by that muslim nut Farrakhan. This gets better all the time. Thanks, Hillary!
It all adds up to keeping the dems out of the WH in November.
→ Halloween
February 25, 2008 - 11:25 ET by Cool ArrowFOX News has already shown the Obama dressed as Muslim pic twice this morning.
Good thing Obama wasn't wearing his American Flag lapel pin. Seems togas don't have lapels.
♣ a seal
More Choices
February 25, 2008 - 11:39 ET by WoodyMYou left out "None that I would miss" and "Hope so."
"Some"
February 25, 2008 - 12:08 ET by BD57Yes to "some" - but how many?
*Some* women,
February 25, 2008 - 12:24 ET by kimschyes. As some blacks may not vote if Barack loses the nomination. There are always some people who are so caught up in identity that they'll boycott anything that seems even slightly oppositional.
yes, but the word is not boycott
February 25, 2008 - 13:17 ET by Lame CherryThese kook liberal women will not "boycott" even if I voted yes, but will instead be so overcome with the whole situation they just won't be able to rise to cast a vote.
They will lament another loss by a man........those evil men......and not even Lee Woodruff be able to get a sexual thrill in it being a "dirty black man" conquerring her white womanhood........but just another man putting up the glass ceiling which keeps all women down when they stick together.
They will diaper their token children, drive their SUV's listening to Phil Donahues war music, leave a light off to lessen their carbon footprint.....and just go to beach in solitude with their other kooks to find solace in another loss.
That is why Lynn Cheney will be thee female for John McCain to pick.........Condi does not want it and there is no other Conservative woman on the board who can be a national candidate to rally these jilted women to vote in that 5% spread.
The GOP has a landslide ready and waiting........we just need to get McCain pointed in the right direction.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Certainly a significant number
February 25, 2008 - 14:18 ET by Ten7sCertainly a significant number of women will boycott the elections if Hillary loses. My guess is at least 2-5% of women will boycott, even if the Democrat primaries end immediately after the March 4th primaries with Hillary's concession. Moreover, the longer the primaries continue and the nastier the campaign between Barack Hussien Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton becomes the greater the number. If it goes all the way to the Democrat Convention floor, the alienation between the camps will be enormous.
I voted maybe.
February 25, 2008 - 18:19 ET by R D HelmMainly because I haven't the foggiest clue, actually. I think the gasp and swoon crowd are going to probably stick with Obama, but the hard-core flag-waving man-haters will stand behind Hillary. Both groups are equally as likely to stay home, or not to stay home, in the event their "guy" doesn't make the cut.
It will be interesting to see if whoever does end up being the dem nominee can successfully heal the fracture that currently exists within the dem party and that I believe, for the moment, is a far more serious rift than what is currently being reported. If they wind up in a nasty, drawn out convention fight, and I still believe this is possible, there might not be enough time to heal the rift prior to the election.
I know things are looking rather bad for Hillary, but I think it is a mistake to assume she is going to lose out to Obama in the nomination. This woman did not "work" most of her life to reach this point only to have the prize snatched away at the last moment by a smooth-talking upstart like Barack Obama.
I think it would be a mistake to underestimate the reslove of this woman. Yes, the people running her campaign are not the most competent in the world, but she has a fair number of grizzled veterans working behind the scenes. Anything is still possibe.
Proud member of the "Rough Republican Attack Machine."
I think yes some of
February 25, 2008 - 19:38 ET by MidAmericaI think yes some of hillary's feminists will not vote for the 'man' that denied what they see as their best shot at the presidency when BO could have waited 'his turn' considering his age.
But also what about hillary's hispanics? They could easily go for McAmnesty. The Blacks and the Browns have a 'difficult' relationship.
feminists planned for failure from the beginning
February 25, 2008 - 19:45 ET by UndercoverConservativebefore she even officially announced, lesbian groups and feminists (of which my GF's mother is a big member of nowadays) were already repeating the mantra "there'll be a black man in office long before a woman!". Setting it up so that if she fails, it's the "old boy's network" and the Great Male Conspiracy and sexist voters that kept her from winning-not her politics, policies, record, or lack thereof.
All they can point to are crazy female leftist congresswomen who can't get any support outside of their home districts and say "see, it's that glass ceiling/sexists/male pigs that are keeping sistah's down!". For some reason, they can't be arsed to look at their voting records, borderline psychotic rantings, socialist policies, or even criminal or near criminal dealings. The blinders go on when feminists start screaming "sexism!" and many women are programmed to ignore everything else and start hating.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
Women Boycotting Election
February 25, 2008 - 22:20 ET by MountainmamaAt first I would have said no. But after watching MSM kissing Obama's b.... day after day and giving him a free ride while dissing the lady (treating her like the Republician candidate), I am now saying the women supporting Hillary are getting really mad. Double standard here. Looks like the Dems are more sexist then racist. I can see them staying home on election day.
where's the
February 25, 2008 - 22:26 ET by botgi most absolutely positively hope so! option?
anyone foolish enough to vote only based on gender should be removed from the voter gene pool.
No Poofdas
you left out the option, i hope so
February 25, 2008 - 23:38 ET by lunaticcringeradioi think it would be great if a bunch of socialist voters women or men would give up. i have to be honest if mccain is the republican candidate, i'm writing in the most offensive candidate in history i can think of because a vote for mccain is like voting for hillary, just with a penis.
lunaticcringeradio
Obama is Left enough to overcome...
February 26, 2008 - 02:32 ET by Parker1227...any and all radical feminist disappointment over the defeat of their gal Hillary.
He could clinch this by choosing a female running mate.
But, Obama's down-the-line Left ideology incorporates feminism as one of many identity politics creeds. And Black victimization identity trumps (or at least equals) female victimization. They are both sacred groups.
The girls will fall in line and bow to the shared ideology.
That said, I think the Obama "wave" hysteria is being overplayed by all sides (for different reasons). The center is still the center. No matter how enthused college kids and Leftist activists are about their attractive young candidate, his true-blue 95th percentile Left voting record will eventually catch up with him and his campaign.
Could we end up with another McGovernesque surprise?
Parker... Could we end
February 26, 2008 - 15:50 ET by bigtimerParker...
Could we end up with another McGovernesque surprise?
That is my hope...and I do say 'hope'.
Parker
February 26, 2008 - 16:26 ET by lotrI am in agreement with you on that, and this was my own thought from the very start of this question being asked. With left-wingers, including feministas, it is more about one's ideology than about one's race/sex. We've all heard of the sentiment in the popular culture that "a liberal white man is more 'black' than a conservative black man (sic)." Same goes for gender (sex). As others have pointed out, there's no way leftist feministas would support a female (pro-life) Republican candidate, even if she were otherwise a feminist wet dream. All things being equal, if Hillary were pro-life, then she wouldn't have even made it to the Senate (as a Democrat, that is).
not voting
February 26, 2008 - 03:18 ET by JudithAh, but what is left after 4 years will likely not be fit to govern. Everything good done for the last 20 years will be overturned. If Obuma wins, I intend to ignore him from day one, never look at him, never listen to him, never acknowledge him. I know I can do it; did it with Willie.
WOMEN BOYCOTT IF HILLARY WINS
February 27, 2008 - 02:50 ET by DarlaI voted maybe (which is why women should not run for president) but after reading the comments; YES there could be a few women trying to relive the 1960's all over again. I watched the debate tonight in Ohio between Obama and Hillary and neither one turns me on. I am voting for McCain despite all the Dem's that I live around and see on a daily basis.Now, if I was still married I would have been forced to vote for a Dem which I do NOT have to put up with any longer.What matter's most to me is that I get to vote for WHO I want without a knife in my back. Regardless of who wins between the Dem's,I don't have to look up to either one of them and I don't plan on it. I've almost given up that a gop has a chance of winning but I'm still going to vote for him anyway.I realize that the hardest core Dem's will condemn me for emailing this BUT I'm use to it and I don't have to live with you.
if I was still married I
February 27, 2008 - 21:10 ET by botgif I was still married I would have been forced to vote for a Dem
why how very liberal of him
No Poofdas
Darla has issues.
February 27, 2008 - 21:12 ET by bigtimerDarla has issues.