Moms for Obama -- or Not?
I found this article interesting. It's based on a Reuters/Ipsos poll of women between the ages of 25 and 45. Instead of sub-grouping them by race, it asks whether they work and/or have children:
Childless working women favor Obama over Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican nominee, by a striking 20 points, 46 percent to 26 percent. "Obama has done pretty well, stimulating the economy, getting out of Iraq and investing in healthcare," said Joanna Giddens, 27, who works for a Denver nonprofit and can't afford health insurance.
Working mothers were less likely to favor the president, by 42 percent to 34 percent. Stay-at-home mothers such as Formato, along with unemployed mothers, gave the president only a 5-point margin: 37 percent to 32 percent.
What the groups have in common is that, so far, no more than three out of 10 of the women polled support Romney.
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Apr '12
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
I have been wanting to write a post in the Members' Feed on the women's vote and how to gain traction with it.
Romney getting his wife to run the women's group is a disasterous move. Ricochet is one of the first places where I get to read great articles by conservative stay at home mums and work place mums. We often have been both. Mums are an even better "group" to use when targeting messaging and Obama's campaign has figured that out. Mums tend not to be activists, we are too busy. We do not have a voice and politicians talk to us without realizing our priorities.
Our kids.
talk about tax breaks for swimming lessons, summer camp, extr curricular that schools no longer provide.
It is win/win.
You may have noticed how much Canada is improving in the Olympics because these extra curricular sports programs are tax deductible. You may have noticed that we are doing better in education. My sons's math coach and summer debating camp was tax deductible.
Those details about giving families a tax deduction paint a warm picture for mums.
Oct '10
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
"What the groups have in common is that, so far, no more than three out of 10 of the women polled support Romney."
Hmmm... Was female suffrage a good idea? :-)
Apr '12
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
@TeamAmerica.
My sons like to joke with me that the first thing women did when they got the vote was vote for prohibition! That went well...
May '10
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
Gosh, we may be doomed. " "Obama has done pretty well, stimulating the economy, getting out of Iraq and investing in healthcare," said Joanna Giddens, 27, who works for a Denver nonprofit and can't afford health insurance."
I, too, have joked about women's suffrage, but this woman has got to be dumb as a stump.
Aug '10
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
Mike McConnaughey: Gosh, we may be doomed. " "Obama has done pretty well, stimulating the economy, getting out of Iraq and investing in healthcare," said Joanna Giddens, 27, who works for a Denver nonprofit and can't afford health insurance."
I, too, have joked about women's suffrage, but this woman has got to be dumb as a stump. ยท 57 minutes ago
You've just insulted stumps everywhere.
Jun '11
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
Free stuff (like contraception) from the government is more popular than the alternative.
Dec '10
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
My Beloved (fiancee) is an Obama voter.
Yesterday, she took an internet test and it steered her towards Gary Johnson. She asked me, "Please, short answer, who is this Gary Johnson"? As I looked over her shoulder, I noticed that the ranking of candidates, for her included Romney, over Obama.
I did my best to explain that Johnson had run in the Republican primary and what the Libertarian party is. It was a good talk.
Our home actually has a painting in it, entitled, "Hillary, In A Dress, Voting For Obama, Because She Needs A Change, Too".
I am making a point,here. My extremely liberal, single mom, Beloved, is looking for a different candidate.
For the first time since we met, she may not cancel out my vote. This strikes me as significant. For years, I have gently ponted out differences, or awkward predictions that have not come to pass. Even some arch-liberals may have the mist clearing from there eyes, absent harranguing.
Dec '11
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
TeamAmerica: "What the groups have in common is that, so far, no more than three out of 10 of the women polled support Romney."
Hmmm... Was female suffrage a good idea? :-)
Speaking as a female, I'm beginning to think not. (I'm not joking, either.) Prohibition was only the beginning...
Why? You made the decision to have children; should taxpayers subsidize that decision? No one would argue against the benefits of maintaining population replenishment (see the harmful effects upon Italy/Spain/France of a no-growth policy), but having a family is not a right; it's a serious financial responsibility. Vote for a candidate that will lower tax rates and allow you to keep more of your hard-earned money so you and your spouse can take fiscal responsibility for your children's extracurricular activities.
Apr '12
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
@EThompson. Yes, I agree. Why should people without kids have to pay anything to education? The Canadian argument is that these young people will pay the taxes that fund your retirement and health care (in Canada).
Look how well that is going.
But we are talking how to get women to even look at Romney.
Tax breaks on a mother's choice to spend money to develop her child outside of the public education system can be seen as the first step to encouraging parents to pay for ALL of their children's education. It is almost a voucher. It is about choice and using the tax levers to encourage that MORE is done outside of school unions.
Family tax breaks, not welfare, is a big, shiny lure to catch women's attention and the Soccor mums' top priority is her child. Something for mums may even trump Iraq or environmental issues. Health care is a very simple shiny lure that gets mums.
Dec '11
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
I am perfectly willing to fund schools (preferably charter), public libraries, public playgrounds, etc. but do resent paying more than those who directly benefit from these public facilities. In other words, I don't believe in tax breaks for parents just as I do not believe in affirmative action.
As I've sensed you have intimated, this next generation of kids- who still live with their parents and enjoy free healthcare coverage until the age of 26- won't be too terribly contributory to my retirement.
Indaba: @EThompson. Yes, I agree. Why should people without kids have to pay anything to education? The Canadian argument is that these young people will pay the taxes that fund your retirement and health care (in Canada).
Look how well that is going.
Nov '10
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
According to Rasmussen, Obama has been fluctuating around 44% support for a couple months now, while Romney is fluctuating around 46% -- in the general population.
Now let's pull out a subpopulation in which Obama does relatively well -- I don't care what group you select. What does this tell you about the other group -- the "general minus special" demographic left over? Call this the "remainder".
Well, it's pretty simple. If Obama lags Romney in the general population but has a massive lead in the special group, then it means that Obama lags even worse in the remainder. The bigger the lead in "special", the bigger the lag in "remainder".
This story is 100% spin. The exact numbers depend on the relative size of the single mother demographic targetted, but just as an example, it may mean that Romney leads by (say) 49% to 40% in the remainder.
So one just as well write a lead that says:
What a difference emphasis makes.
Oct '10
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
romney has a 30% likability rating overall. not surprised by this.
Apr '12
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
EThompson: I am perfectly willing to fund schools (preferably charter), public libraries, public playgrounds, etc. but do resent payingmore than those who directly benefit from these public facilities. In other words, I don't believe in tax breaks for parents just as I do not believe in affirmative action.
Edited 9 hours ago
10 hours ago
EJ, how is a tax break making those without children pay more? Or am I missing your argument?
Mums who pay for a math at Kumon - say $1,000 to keep it simple, get a % back of tax PAID. So it is not an extra hand out by the state. Other tax payers are not funding the Kumon classes chosen by the mother to improve her child's education..
Apr '12
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
Why I like the soccer mums having a bundle of tax breaks bundled for her choices of extra curricular activities is because the individual tax payer gets back to making decisions on her own, no big government telling her where to spend it, which math company to use.
Government talking straight to soccer mums, that silent majority who do not speak out for their needs as Bill's article discusses, would get women voting for R. I saw it work with Stephen Harper here in Canada.
The Economist has an article on Romney. The say if he gets the female vote, 35+, with kiddies, who is worried about getting ahead, it will get him the win.
If Romney, brings out tax breaks, not gifts, for mums with kids, goes to a soccer pitch and discusses it with groups of mums, that visual will help. Believe me, if Stephen Harper can come across as caring, Romney can too. But leave Ann out of it.
May '10
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
Women are conditioned to seek a protector. The feminist movement and the leftist school indoctrination has convinced them that they don't need a man. So, what's left? Big Daddy Government.
Obama is their new bread winner.
By calling everything a "right" it removes the stigma from being a serf.
Apr '12
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
EJHill: Women are conditioned to seek a protector. The feminist movement and the leftist school indoctrination has convinced them that they don't need a man. So, what's left? Big Daddy Government.
Obama is their new bread winner.
By calling everything a "right" it removes the stigma from being a serf. ยท 7 minutes ago
Very true - even as a reformed feminist and MBA, supposed to be tough female in biz, we do want the male archetype. But I will not admit that in public, as I will be killed by women.
No reason Romney can not scoop that Sugar Daddy image from Obama. We are simple to read - kids and tax breaks.
But Stephen Harper also brought out the killer app for the women's vote - kitties.
Dec '11
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
Indaba
EThompson: I am perfectly willing to fund schools (preferably charter), public libraries, public playgrounds, etc. but do resent payingmore than those who directly benefit from these public facilities. In other words, I don't believe in tax breaks for parents just as I do not believe in affirmative action.
Edited 9 hours ago
10 hours ago
EJ, how is a taxbreakmaking those without children pay more? Or am I missing your argument?
Mums who pay for a math at Kumon - say $1,000 to keep it simple, get a % back of tax PAID. So it is not an extra hand out by the state. Other tax payers are not funding the Kumon classes chosen by the mother to improve her child's education.. ยท 6 hours ago
Simple: I don't get a tax deduction for each of my children.
Apr '12
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
EThompson. I am not getting your point. May I give it a try?
e.g. You and I have two children each. You pay for child 1 to take hockey in the community league and piano for child 2. You submit your regular taxes with receipts for cost of hockey camp and piano lessons. The Government makes deductions for these programs and you pay less tax. I have two children and do not do any activities with my children and submit my regular taxes, and there are no additional deductions. I just pay regular tax.
This allows you and me to choose to do more or less for our children beyond school.
Is that how you were seeing it?
Or are you thinking that a person without children is not getting deductions and that is not fair? In that case, the mother is still paying their $100 for piano lessons but getting a % of that that removed from their overall tax. They will still be out of pocket more than the person without kids. It is not the same as giving a baby bonus for just popping out a baby. It rewards active parenting without giving freebies and extras.
Jul '12
Re: Moms for Obama -- or Not?
I wish they'd poll me -- a single, childless, working woman (in higher education, no less!) in that age range who wouldn't vote for Obama in any scenario. Don't paint us all with the same brush! Obama is a destroyer, not a protector.