Loudon: Women Love the Republican Party, Really They Do!

The Worldnetdaily’s Gina Loudon sends us a report from the fantasy world she inhabits, one in which the Democrats are “losing women in droves” and where the Republican Party’s “popularity with ladies has done an about-face.” And she bases this, of course, on her conversations with women who agree with her.

This is yet another example of how completely out of touch the DNC is with its message to women.

Ann Marie Murrell, Morgan Brittany and I have spent the entire last year talking to women about what they really want from their government.

It comes down to essentially three things (though women are a bit complicated, so it took us a whole book to break it down):

1) National security – Real women want secure homes and families, and this is the polar opposite of what those in this administration have offered. Under the watch of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others like Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz and Elizabeth Warren, women around the world are being serially raped, stoned to death and eradicated under Islam.

2) Economic security – Real women want job security. In the video, the Democrat strategist talked about women wanting “more government funding for rape and legal defense for victims.” The problem is that the Democrat machine has made all women victims, and most women strive for more. Women also balance checkbooks, and they know that no matter how many great causes are out there, you can’t give more until you pay your bills. This concept seems to be lost on the Democratic Party.

3) Real freedom – Pay parity is one the Democrats have successfully sold, but it does not match up with what women really want. A recent Forbes study says that more than 85 percent of women agree that they would like to be able to live on one income – something that 50 years of bra-burning feminism has destroyed in their union-hugging, equal-pay tirade.

“Real” women, of course, being those who agree with Gina Loudon. She even cites an irrelevant poll:

But don’t take my word for it. A recent Washington Post/ABC poll said that this administration’s popularity with women has done an exact about-face.

But that poll is only about the popularity of a specific president, not about the two parties. Obama’s approval rating is low, but higher among women than among any other group. Meanwhile, the Republicans’ own polling data shows that a majority of women think the Republican party is intolerant and stuck in the past. But Loudon has a fantasy to maintain, so actual data is irrelevant.

"To be fair, you people would get tax breaks on all the things you Undeserving ..."

Orrin Hatch is Terribly Offended
"In soft core porn, at least, a recurring theme is women who treat men like ..."

Pastor: Accusations Against Moore Part of ..."
"Makes me wonder if flat earthers believe in all planets being flat or just this ..."

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."
"Wait,.... Are Nazis bad again? I need a score card."

Wiles: Christians in America Just Like ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • tsig

    Real women want a big strong man to take care of them. Islam!! Sharia!!! Benghazi!!!

  • eric

    they know that no matter how many great causes are out there, you can’t give more until you pay your bills. This concept seems to be lost on the Democratic Party.

    I am not even sure what this means. Is she trying to say you can’t get another loan from the bank until you pay your bills? You can’t give your kid an allowance until you pay your bills? The government cannot print money, they must collect actual dollars before they spend them?

    A recent Forbes study says that more than 85 percent of women agree that they would like to be able to live on one income

    I’m amazed it isn’t 100% of women and men. Who wouldn’t want the middle class to be such that one could live prosperously on one income? She seems to have assumed “want one income to be enough to live on” is the same as “want to be a housewife,” but I’m betting the people who are most emphatic about this desire are single professional women, including single mothers.

    But Loudon has a fantasy to maintain, so actual data is irrelevant.

    This is the part I really don’t understand. Do they somehow think that maintaining the fantasy is going to increase GOP votes come election day? Do they think there are a significant number of women who go into the voting booth saying “hmmm…I really have no preference, but I hear the GOP is really popular with women, so I’ll vote for them.” Do they think people treat elections the way they select clothing brand? Everything about that logic is ludicrous.

    I understand having a different political philosophy from the Dems. I understand wanting to promote that philosophy and win elections. I don’t understand the desire to pretend one is ahead in the polls when one is behind. Seems to me that whatever your political ideology, you would want the most clear, accurate, and realistic understanding of voter preferences that you could get.

  • http://www.thelosersleague.com theschwa

    Women think I am the greatest guy in the world. It is not just my opinion, I have spoken to several* women and know this is what they think.

    (*My mom and my wife)**

    (**these are two separate people)

  • M can help you with that.

    A recent Forbes study says that more than 85 percent of women agree that they would like to be able to live on one income – something that 50 years of bra-burning feminism has destroyed in their union-hugging, equal-pay tirade.

    And here I thought that being “union-hugging” would be a way to bring up incomes so that a single earner could support a family.

  • scienceavenger

    the Democrat strategist talked about women wanting “more government funding for rape and legal defense for victims.” The problem is that the Democrat machine has made all women victims.

    Silly Democrats, you thought the rapists made women victims. But the Republicans know if you just don’t call attention to victims and their needs, the victimization goes away. Woohoo! Freedom for all!

  • pocketnerd

    The GOP is TOTALLY ALPHA DAWG BRO and bitches love that shit. Democratic Party, do you even lift?

  • http://haphazardhermit.blogspot.com/ michaeld

    @4 M can help you with that.

    Wouldn’t it also mean that one person could take on a riskier job (pay wise) like say trying to be a writer or freelancing somewhere without having to worry about money? If you can live off one income that’s a fair bit of financial security for your family and doesn’t really mean only one person is working.

  • dingojack

    ” Under the watch of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others like Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz and Elizabeth Warren, women around the world are being serially raped, stoned to death and eradicated under Islam.”

    And here was me thinking Islam goes all the way back to the 7th century CE*.

    Or is Louden being ageist, and suggesting that Hillary et al. are really, really old?

    Dingo

    ———

    * Not to mention the other Abrahamic religions. That takes it back to the 6th century BCE, at least.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake Zaraeric, #2:

    This is the part I really don’t understand. Do they somehow think that maintaining the fantasy is going to increase GOP votes come election day? Do they think there are a significant number of women who go into the voting booth saying “hmmm…I really have no preference, but I hear the GOP is really popular with women, so I’ll vote for them.” Do they think people treat elections the way they select clothing brand? Everything about that logic is ludicrous.

    I understand having a different political philosophy from the Dems. I understand wanting to promote that philosophy and win elections. I don’t understand the desire to pretend one is ahead in the polls when one is behind. Seems to me that whatever your political ideology, you would want the most clear, accurate, and realistic understanding of voter preferences that you could get.

    I think we’re seeing the end-state of 25 years of the Republican media bubble growing ever more self-contained and elaborate. Even the most ardent fan of right-wing talk radio in the middle 90s still got postcards from reality in the form of friends, newspapers, and news shows that didn’t share his bias. Now you can get all your news from Fox News, Breitbart.com, and Facebook circles. In the resulting echo chamber, extreme views are normalized (because everybody you talk with shares them) and outrageous spin is passed off as “fair and balanced” reporting (because no other perspective is offered or even permitted). The wide streak of anti-intellectualism doesn’t help, either.

    It has grown so bad that merely acknowledging facts that don’t fit well with the GOP narrative is seen as ideological treason by the Party’s faithful. The GOP won’t, and can’t, address its critical failures over the past few years: The Iraq War was a heinous waste of money and lives; the Affordable Care Act has not caused health care costs to skyrocket; Barack Obama won re-election because a majority of Americans voted for him rather than for a Republican. These issues must be explained away (We were WINNING the war before Obama weakened us! The CBO is cooking the books! VOTER FRAUD!!) or simply displaced with a more comfortable narrative (BENGHAZI!!).

    Remember how hard the Party faithful hit the wall after the 2012 election — confident in a landslide victory, and instead losing by an uncomfortable margin? Expect to see more of that, if the GOP can’t seize control of the electoral process itself. (So expect to see much more shameless gerrymandering and voter suppression in the next few years.)

  • John Pieret

    another example of how completely out of touch the DNC is

    Paging Bryan Fischer … Mr. Fischer to the white courtesy phone please.

    though women are a bit complicated

    To the simple-minded, everything is complicated.

    like to be able to live on one income – something that 50 years of bra-burning feminism has destroyed in their union-hugging, equal-pay tirade.

    WTF is that even supposed to mean? Unions lowered wages, not corporate bottom-liners? Women had to start working because they burned their bras? Women working outside the home made it possible for corporate bottom-liners to lower mens’ wages? And, since women still don’t get equal pay with men, where is the cause and effect?

    Excuse me … I forgot for a moment that rationality is a stranger to wingnuts.

  • John Horstman

    Real women

    Man, I immediately noticed the same thing you did, Ed: that’s a very suspicious turn of phrase. Most of us just say “women” when we’re not trying to play No True Woman.

    Real freedom

    O.o

    Apparently they’ve noticed people objecting to their attempts to call authoritarian government control of your day-to-day life “freedom”.

  • John Horstman

    @eric #2:

    I’m amazed it isn’t 100% of women and men. Who wouldn’t want the middle class to be such that one could live prosperously on one income? She seems to have assumed “want one income to be enough to live on” is the same as “want to be a housewife,” but I’m betting the people who are most emphatic about this desire are single professional women, including single mothers.

    I was thinking the exact same thing. There are people out there who want two-income households to be necessary for survival? WTF are single people supposed to do? Is this the new forced-marriage strategy?

  • http://twitter.com/#!/TabbyLavalamp Tabby Lavalamp

    National security – Real women want secure homes and families, and this is the polar opposite of what those in this administration have offered. Under the watch of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others like Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz and Elizabeth Warren, women around the world are being serially raped, stoned to death and eradicated under Islam.

    The second bolded part is a serious issue. That said, what the hell does that have to do with “national security”? Perhaps there isn’t enough bombing of Muslim women to death by good Christian Americans to save them from being eradicated by that evil Islam? That whole paragraph makes no friggin’ sense.

  • raven

    A recent Forbes study says that more than 85 percent of women agree that they would like to be able to live on one income.

    Cthulhu, this is stupid.

    1. I’m sure 85% of men would say the same thing. Who doesn’t want a paycheck that can support them and their families.

    2. I’m also sure that 85% of women and men would like a flying car, immortality, and cheap unleaded gasoline.

    3. And just how is the GOP going to raise wages? They aren’t. Their last attempt was the Great Recession which we are still recovering from. The one that almost became The Second Depression.

    Their economic plans, driven by the oligarchy and the Koch’s seems to be a New Feudalism. Economic inequality has been rising since the 1970’s. They are always on the side of the rich.

    4. The GOP isn’t the solution. They are the problem.

  • marcus

    This coincides with the “Republicans Are People Too” campaign recently launched by the GOP(pher Fuckers). However, it seems that they were unable to stock their photo collage with real “Republican People” and had to resort to buying stock portraits. Story at Daily Kos.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/29/1333278/-GOP-s-Republicans-Are-People-Video-Can-t-Find-Any-Uses-Stock-Photos

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X
  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    oops Marcus beat me to it by two minutes.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    LOOK ITS REALLY QUITE SIMPLE!!! WOMEN DONT WANT SOCALLED “CONTROL” OF “THEIR” LADYPARTS OR “THEIR” “WAGES”!!! WOMEN REALLY WANT TO BE SAFE FROM MUSLINS AND HAVE THEIR FAMILY EARN A WAGE THAT ALLOWS ONLY ONE PARENT TO WORK AND ALSO THAT PARENT ISNT THEM!!! ONLY THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PROMISES TO PROVIDE THIS ECONOMICALLY BY STANDING ASIDE LETTING THE FREE MARKET CHOOSE THEIR WAGE AND THEIR JOB AND IF THEY HAVE A JOB OR NOT AND WHETHER THEY CAN GET PAID LESS SIMPLY BECAUSE THEYRE LADIES AND SAFETILY BY BOMBING AND SHOOTING AND TORTURING MUSLINS AND TAKING THEIR OIL FOR FREEDOM!!! AND ALSO THE REPUBLICANS WILL BE POLICING LADY UTERUSES AND STOPPING “URBAN AMERICANS” (*WINK!!! WINK!!!*) WHICH WILL HELP SOMEHOW!!!

  • Loqi

    Some fanatics halfway around the world are being barbaric, and somehow that’s Elizabeth Warren’s fault? What the hell is she supposed to do about it? What would a “real woman” do in her place to fix that?

  • caseloweraz

    Loudon: National security — Real women want secure homes and families, and this is the polar opposite of what those in this administration have offered. Under the watch of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others like Pelosi, Wasserman Schultz and Elizabeth Warren, women around the world are being serially raped, stoned to death and eradicated under Islam.

    So much is wrong with this paragraph. It conflates foreign and domestic policies, as if the fact that women are being mistreated under Islamic regimes overseas directly threatens American homes and families. A case might be made that Hillary Clinton, while Secretary of State, did not do enough to reduce those overseas abuses; but I expect it would be a difficult case to make. (And how did Loudon miss the fact that Mrs. Clinton left that post?) As for the other women mentioned, they have negligible power to make changes in other nations. Elizabeth Warren? She was a Republican until 1995, when she decided that party had lost its connection with rational capitalism. After failing to become permanent director of the CFPB due to opposition from business interests, she won a Senate seat in 2012. When has her focus ever been on anything other than domestic economics?

    I think it is fair to label this statement by Loudon a tirade. It’s nothing but a transparent attempt to link the names of women the GOP sees as a threat with scary things like rape and stoning and Islam. “Full of sound and fury…”

  • argos

    @marcus #15

    Republicans Are People? False! As everybody knows, only corporations and fetuses are people.

  • pocketnerd

    Thus Spake ZaraJohn Horstman, #12:

    I was thinking the exact same thing. There are people out there who want two-income households to be necessary for survival? WTF are single people supposed to do? Is this the new forced-marriage strategy?

    The robber barons, of course. The whole idea of a middle class is anathema to them; they don’t want comfortable prosperity and the American Dream, they want grinding poverty for the masses and the rock-bottom labor costs it brings.

  • http://drx.typepad.com Dr X

    @Argod:

    Republicans Are People? False! As everybody knows, only corporations and fetuses are people.

    Agree. Life begins at conception and ends at birth.

  • shadowwalkyr

    Republican view on #1: “National security” means “be scared.”

    Republican view on #2: “Economic security” means “rich people support us.”

    Republican view on #3: “Real freedom” means doing what we tell you.

    Do they think nobody has noticed?

  • iknklast

    This whole live on one income thing? I spent most of my adult life living on one income – mine. This in spite of the fact that the men at my office made more than I did. One time they even gave me that old canard: “M” needs to make more than you because he is a man and needs to support a family. At the time, “M” was a single man in his late 20s, no family. i was a single mother of a teenager, and my ex refused to pay child support. Because of my low salary, I couldn’t afford a lawyer. I lived on one salary, and I made it work. So yes probably many women would like to be able to live on one salary; they are tired of working multiple jobs, and wish that they could support themselves on one full time job with benefits.

  • mistertwo

    @10 John Pieret, I believe their logic is that when two-income families started to become common, the extra family income resulted in not paying attention to spending, which in turn resulted in inflation, with the eventual outcome being that one income was no longer enough for the basics.

    Correlation, as they say, does not imply causation. It may be true that the second income was simply (often) a way to get ahead back in the 60s and 70s, but that doesn’t mean it caused the inflation. Not my area of expertise, but from what I read consumer credit may be mostly to blame for inflation, with the increase in number of two-income families being the result, rather than the cause.