New York Times reporter Adam Nagourney has a long piece (10/29/10) about California Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, the Republican candidate for Senate. Both are expected to lose on Tuesday, which leaves Nagourney wondering why women aren’t more eager to support female politicians. The piece poses a lot of big questions–the fact that both are struggling “raising questions about money, gender and Americans’ views of candidates who come out of corporate boardrooms.” It is surprising that they are trailing Democrats who are”symbols of liberal policies and nearly as old as talking pictures.”
Nagourney gets to gender:
And all this flows into the question of gender. California, of all states, has shown little reluctance to vote for women: Both of its senators are women, Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Democratic primary for president here in 2008 and this is the state that sends Nancy Pelosi to Congress.
So why not Whitman and Fiorina, then? We’re told that they exemplify “this new breed of tough female corporate executives looking to shift into public office. This has not always proved to be the best pedigree for a male candidate, and some pollsters and analysts suggested, that it might prove even more complicated for a woman as gender roles continued to evolve.”
In the last paragraph, Nagourney finally arrives at the most logical conclusion: Women tend to support Democratic politicians, and perhaps even more so in California, a Democratic-leaning state:
And in a state that might have pioneered the notion of identity politics, these races show that women are the last voters that Ms. Whitman and Ms. Fiorina should be counting on. Women here are much more likely to vote ideology and issues than gender. In Thursday’s poll, the last Field Poll that will be done before the election, Mr. Brown led Ms. Whitman among women by 51 percent to 35 percent.
In other words, women vote on the issues, and these candidates–who happen to be women–don’t support the kinds of policies most women support. So, yeah, it’s kind of a mystery why they’re not ahead in the polls.
good grief, is nagourney really this clueless? poll after poll this cycle has shown huge gender gaps in races all over the country with men strongly supporting republicans and women democrats…
it’s party, not gender…in wa, murray has a huge lead among women, in ct, mcmahon trails badly with that group, as does o’donnell, in de, etc etc.
in elections between two men, same story…recently saw a poll in the fisher portman senate race….fisher led among women, portman had a 67-33 lead with men..
Nagourney is just blind to the facts that in this case it isn’t gender but what the candidates stand for that is important. Isn’t that the place we would all want to be?
OMG, woodward burnstein, my thoughts exactly. What a friggin’ moron! I had to read it twice, to make sure it wasn’t a joke. Peter, are you tryin’ to put one over on us? Sure, the NYT has many insufferable reptiles and rock-heads in it’s employ, but this Nagourney lad isn’t that dense . . . right? As my mom says, when she hears a particularly stupid person on the radio or TV: “My God, he’s just a dope!”
Yep, as clear as anything….not surprising a NYT would come out with some incredulous wondering why more women aren’t supporting these two corporate lackeys. The NYT is and has been a protectorate of the well-being of the corporate state of America.
While I relish all the money these two have spent and hopefully lost, someone from the other side has to soothe their wounds and make them feel better. Adam Nagourney was given that job….”it’s not their fault their losing… it’s because women don’t know how to appreciate a corporate lackey.”
Nagourney and the NYT display the same dense mentality that thought that voters for Hillary Clinton were going to instantly vote for Sarah Palin just because of her gender. These people are so stupid that they think the majority of the American people are as stupid as they are – and just because they (Nagourney) are hired to ‘write’ an ‘opinion’ by whatever dooffuses have taken over the NYT – they think they are ‘smarter’ than the ‘masses’. It is SO SAD.
The strongest correlation of voting behavior is economic interest. There are of course exceptions, but these usually balance each other out. To analyze poitical behavior without even addressing this issue in a time of high unemployment is foolish. But that is the state of the American media.
I think ‘Sea star’ is probably closest to a plausible explanation here…. that Adam Nagourney is writing to an internal, executive audience for personal career reasons. It seems transparently obvious; after all he’s not going to get a choice assignment in a for-profit entity by writing things that his NYT masters consider ‘socialistic’ or ‘old-school economics’, so he writes something laughably diversionary and ignorant of the obvious. I have to believe it’s a knowing, cynical act, not one of stupidity.
Let me get personal. My mother was a Republican because she was not financially independent and my father was Republican. My parents were openly racist. My father was Barry Goldwater’s campaign manager when Goldwater first ran for the senate. Goldwater ran an anti-civil rights presidential campaign. My Mormon parents were sexists. They both voted against the Equal Rights Amendment when I was a single, working, degreed mom. When I asked my mother why, (not remembering the entire conversation), she said her hero was Phyllis Schlafley. / Independent thinking women, who care about the future of the planet and their children, are not attracted to the Republican mentality. Voila mon avis. // Jean clelland-Morin
In relation to other New York Times fluff, the following is a response to Frank Rich’s recent article (which failed the Midterm objectivity test). True, he has been willing to criticize our president: â┚¬Ã…“The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist, punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy.â┚¬Ã‚ But, in “What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?” it is obvious that his criticism will be “balanced” (when necessary).
Re: What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?
http://wp.me/phRi4-yR
Are we claiming woman vote with their hearts, and men with their heads?Actually one new kink in the theory is the Tea party.Woman are very involved, if not running the show.Truth is is woman are moving up and all over politics.Right left and center.We will see all kinds of variations in the voting blocks.Dems have been good at pointing to any woman with core values as being intransient.Or a religious nut.But the game is becoming diffused as so many woman are entering the arena.Eventually their will come a de emphisis on lame ass social issues better left to states rights and a move to grasp the life and death issues of our times.Woman are being herded at this point.Even the madam speaker.But hold on to your hats boys.Woman are starting to carve their own paths.
vomen vote with zaere big heads…men with zaere little onez…
“Nagourney has a long piece about California candidate Carly Fiorina, the Republican candidate for Senate.”
What kinda moron would wonder “why women aren’t more eager to support female politicians” while reporting on a race between TWO WOMEN?
Nagourney not thhinking. Women know the social issues; health care, education are clearly most important to the welfare and future of citizens. How dies one “make” jobs ?? Women often vote reality, Our government is not our enemy
So true, Doktor Freud, so true.
Women in Congressâ┚¬Ã‚¦Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã‚¦Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã‚¦Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã‚¦Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã‚¦Ãƒ¢Ã¢”š¬Ã‚¦..
Where are all the women in congress?
Where are all the women in congress?
Where are all the women in congress?
Where are all the women in congress?
America, where’s your leadership?
World democratic leadership is measured in representation.
The world leader is India:
Women, women, women. Congress mandates 30% women in the legislature by law.
If elections do not produce fair representation, mandates do.
http://sify.com/news/india-steps-into-history-with-women-s-quota-bill-roundup-news-national-kdju4cdjhca.html
This is leadership.
http://sify.com/news/india-steps-into-history-with-women-s-quota-bill-roundup-news-national-kdju4cdjhca.html
http://sify.com/news/sharad-joshi-lone-dissenter-against-women-s-bill-news-national-kdjvucaejfj.html
http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/279/
Citizen is coach to team democracy. Coach is responsible for success. Check out plan-b. It’s your call, coach.
http://coach-1640280.newsvine.com/
http://coach-1640280.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/04/4462088-coach-cm2-constitution
http://constitutionm2.newsvine.com/
Presidential Candidate (for one of 9 executive branch presidents) 2016
Nagourney is a typical NYT jerk. The Times no longer is the “paper of record,” nad not even fit to use for wrpping fish.
That’s “and.”
If I may say, my wife is totally non-democratic/non-progressive/generally republican but always for the CONSTITUTION!!!!! And she doesn’t care if you’re male or female.
I read this article very useful and more informative..
i get more idea..thanks for ur good work and keep updating..
by
Winworld Exports