Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s the Deal with College Educated Women?
As every other group seems to be moving away from the outright catastrophe that is the Brandon Administrion, support for his party is conspicuously increasing among one demographic group.
Why is this demographic group so cultishly loyal to Democrats? Perhaps they are more susceptible to the left-wing social indoctrination of higher education. Perhaps they are over-represented in public employees (particularly public education) and are l0yal to the party of Government. It could also have a lot to do with class conformity and status seeking.
I am going to lay another acronym down, and I know these are confusing to some. The acronym is AWFL: Affluent White Female Liberal or Leftist. These are the women who treat wearing masks in public as a secular religion; the women who populate HOA boards; the women who watch The View; the women who shop at Whole Foods; the women who want the $200,000 loans they took out to pay for their Art History degrees canceled. They are strong, independent women who live in constant terror of being ostracized from their fellow AWFLs for failing to conform.
Highly paid political consultants tell their Republican clients that “suburban women” are the voters they need to target. Their turnout is high, relative to other demographic groups; and they love Government spending (yea!), they hate “divisive social issues” (“boo-hiss”), and they want to see politicians “work across the aisle,” or at least they that’s what they want, but then they vote in large numbers for radical, partisan Democrats.
I’m not a highly paid political consultant, but I don’t think there’s a good ROI (Return On Investment) in pursuing box-wine swilling suburban AWFLs who don’t vote based on policy, but based on their perception of their social status. I would advise Republicans to turn out higher numbers of other voters, in particular, working-class men of all ethnicities. A well-crafted message could probably get 8-9 of these men to the polls for the cost of persuading one box-wine swiller to change her vote; if she is willing to do so.
Republicans have shown a distinct distaste for working-class voters. Every time a Dispatch pundit sneers at “Populism,” Jonah is really sneering at those grubby, working-class voters who probably eat at Waffle House and have no idea the name of a good Barolo to pair with a truffle salad.
Published in General
My momma assures me that once a parent, always a parent, so they keep it for life.
So the parents don’t get their own vote, just the kids’?
No, they get to cancel out their kids’ votes. Plus have their own.
But the kids get the last laugh, when they have kids that cancel out their parents’ votes.
Since our govt. is so fond of the progressive tax brackets…and the richest find all the loopholes to reduce taxes…have a progressive (weighted) vote that correlates to your amount of taxes paid. Anyone paying 30% + tax rate ought to have, at minimum, 3 times the say on how this representative government spends their money.
No taxes – 1 vote (every ‘legal’ citizen continues to get their vote)
0-10% – 2 votes.
11-15% -3 votes.
16-20% -4 votes.
21-25% – 5 votes.
2- 30% – 6 votes.
31 – 35% – 7 votes.
36% and up 8 votes.
Let’s flip the old phrase on it’s head and truly align taxation with representation.
Talk about incentivizing paying taxes ;-)
A lot of people today are so ignorant, they’ll claim you want to disenfranchise them because they get a “refund” each year.
Interesting chart. I’d like to see it broken down further into married and single . . .
I’m wondering…
What does College+ mean? Why the plus sign? It seems like it might mean more than just an Associates or Bachelors degree. Is there a missing category here?
I was reading an interesting take on Éric Zemmour’s collapse in the French election. He presented himself as a populist to take votes away from Le Pen and then catered to the bourgeoisie ruling elites. Absolutely cratered.
Its not a coalition that you can build.
Again, all related to the ‘tax breaks’. Do you want the child tax credit or 2 more votes in November?
I work with more than a few such women. I notice a few themes:
1 – They seem to be overly negative if not outright depressed
2 – They seem to be in an endless struggle to think better of themselves
3-As one poster mentioned, abortion. When that topic comes up, their entire posture changes, the eyes turn to dagger’s they are just waiting to pounce. It’s creepy.
My guess would be, a college degree or beyond. Which would include post-grad work, and/or an advanced degree such as Master’s. Some things break it down into separate categories for just high-school only, some college, a 4-year degree, some post-grad, vs an actual advanced degree. This one doesn’t.
But it does leave open the possibility that maybe they’re trying to hide something. Like, maybe only women with the most-advanced degrees, are shifting more towards the Dims. But they group them all together to cover that up.
Got to be BS and higher . . .
Or BA and higher.
The Republicans are making inroads into college educated women over COVID, CRT and schools. They should not give up but intensify their efforts. From the WSJ:
“BRIDGEWATER, N.J.—Democrat Jennifer Loughran spent the pandemic’s early days sewing face masks for neighbors. Last month, as a newly elected school-board member, she voted to lift the district’s mask mandate. That came four months after she voted for the state’s Republican candidate for governor.
After a monthslong political identity crisis, Ms. Loughran decided her opposition to her party’s mask mandates, economic restrictions and school-closure policies outweighed her support for positions on climate change, abortion and gay rights, at least for the moment.”
I wonder where 2-year degrees fit in . . .
🧐 You aren’t trying those weird sexual experiments again, are you?
Most insightful, WC, even as we come at the issue from opposite sides.
It’s absolutely unthinkable for the vast majority of educated women in our country that they might not be able to pass on to subsequent generations the legal right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and exercise the choice of reproduction on a schedule of their own. This right has been in place now for about 50 years, and it’s going to become much more emotional on the pro-choice side if jeopardized.
As pro-choice men like myself get older, we’ve detached from this (presumably settled) issue enough to let other matters — just about everything else — sway us to push for GOP majorities. With women, on the other hand, it’s an issue tied in to personal identity and the movement for liberation, a generation’s signature accomplishment made manifest in their careers, partner commitments, and the children they did have.
Now we seem unavoidably headed toward a showdown (“Roe-down”?) If Roberts, Kavanaugh & Co. cross the viability Rubicon and bodyslam stare decisis, my own partisan certitude will brace for the ensuing shitstorm. (But I’m not at all sure that will happen.)
Beyond reproductive rights, I think there are other reasons why women more than men find it difficult to switch political teams in mid-life, despite all the good reasons to do so:
I don’t think that’s quite right.
More men are pro-choice than women. Which is perfectly understandable, of course. I’ve had a few lady friends tell me that they were pro-choice until they felt their first baby kick while pregnant. Men understand the idea, but not quite on that level, I suppose.
And support for abortion, especially among women, falls well short of “vast majority”. I don’t have the numbers in front of me – perhaps someone else does? But I’m pretty sure that support for abortion is well under 50% for men and women.
I think. I apologize if I have that wrong.
But if memory serves, support for abortion falls well short of “vast majority”, even in men.
This pro-choice argument sounds very similar to a pro-slavery argument.
And I know people like eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted that, but why would hopefully-sensible people go along with it, even enthusiastically?
Except for when they want to kill their unborn kids.
And the ones who sometimes beat or starve their born kids, sometimes to death…
I must be a man.
Remember the “must not mention the war” Fawlty Towers episode? In our household, it’s when someone comes to the door selling solar panels that my family cringes and begs me not to answer.
My mother’s family (3 females, 2 males) loved a good
fightargument, so I must have gotten it from her.Of course, there are other options besides solving your problems by killing children.
She can avoid the problem in the first place by practicing chastity and waiting until she’s married to have relations. She can even use birth control responsibly, although my stated position is the contraceptive mentality is the precursor to abortion on demand. Or, she can carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption. There are way more couples wanting to adopt than there are babies available.
All of the above options will make her a better person and the world a better place.
Another argument is that people already make their choice when they engage in unprotected sex, etc. After that, it can become assuming the risk of the choices made.
If you go drunk driving, for example, and crash and kill someone, you don’t get the “choice” of making that not happen.
I think men push abortion more. They get free sex and no responsibilities. One day women will realize they aren’t liberate but are underpaid prostitutes.
I don’t know about the end of the republic, but the beginning of the welfare state certainly did begin with it, and as a direct result.
Same thing.
You can console yourself with the fact that men gave women the vote, so it’s ultimately their fault.