Hillary supporters. How come the "disaffected Republican women" didn't elect Grimes, Davis and Nunn?

[betterdemsonly]

Many who support Hillary argue that while she may alienate the OWS supporters, she will attract a "big block" of "disaffected Republican women." It seems to me they made the same argument in support of Alison Lundergan Grimes, Michelle Nunn, and Wendy Davis. So the question is, If "neoliberal Democratic women" appeal to a big block of "disaffected Republican women," why didn't any of these "centrist Democratic women" win their general election?.

Could it be you over-estimate how many "disaffected Repubiclan women" there are?

[JaneyVee]

1. $$$$$$

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. That is exactly what I was going to say.

$$$$$

[JaneyVee]

6. 98% of candidates with most $$$ won 2014, plus...

Low voter turnout and a field completely slanted in Republican favor.

[whatthehey]

3. Not particularly a Hillary supporter. But there have been plenty of females in Congress/Guvs

None in the WH to date. Firsts are a big deal. That would be the difference.

[betterdemsonly]

5. Sounds like we are answering some question that I did not ask. n/t

[whatthehey]

18. So you weren't implying that Hillary couldn't do better than them after all?

Since I answered why they didn't get a boost from female voters seeking a historic first that she could provide. Sure seemed like you were asking the difference.

[still_one]

4. Because those states are as red as they come, in case you were not aware. Why do you believe there

are that many republican women, even if they are "disaffected" will vote Democratic?

People in red states have been voting against their own interests for years

Also, you are referring to a midterm election. Bill Maher said it best, the looney's come out in force to vote in the midterms, and the normal people in the general election

[betterdemsonly]

8. I don't believe many republcan women will vote democratic

but neoliberalism is geared to appeal to them not to democrats or blue state Americans.

[onehandle]

7. I must have missed something. Is she running for something?

Also, three solid red states didn't elect a Democratic woman.

They didn't elect our current President either.

Shocker.

[betterdemsonly]

11. So you are going to win the tepid support of women who also care about ows issues.

How does this make sense, Also Warren is a women and would appeal to women who care about social and economic issues.

[Tarheel_Dem]

96. Warren certainly didn't "appeal to women" who could have elected Grimes. It's KY ferchrissakes.

[Agschmid]

9. Hell my DEEP blue state didn't elect a Democratic governor this year, riddle me that.

[sheshe2]

30. Aaah~

You are from MA, too~

[Agschmid]

31. Yup...

I was so confused the day after, but unfortunately not all that shocked.

[merrily]

53. I was confused the day after Coakley won the primary, not the day after the election.

[Recursion]

100. 5 of MA's past 6 governors have been R's

It's a hard seat for Democrats to win.

[w4rma]

10. Clinton doesn't attract anyone who is disaffected. She alienates nearly everyone disaffected. (nt)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

19. Not sure that is true; Hillary does attract Wall Streeters disaffected by policies advocated by Elizabeth Warren.

[betterdemsonly]

21. lol n/t

[Thinkingabout]

12. Perhaps starting with 36% voting turnout. It is pathetic to see non voters, WTH are they thinking?

I voted for Wendy Davis but I could not drag 44% into vote. These are still good Democrat women, I hope to see them back in the news again.

[herding cats]

13. I don't consider myself a "Hillary supporter" but they lost due to crappy campaigns and states.

Messed up states like Kentucky, Texas and Georgia (I'm not hating on any of you who live in those states!) have a unique climate and the candidates mismanaged their campaigns terribly. While I didn't follow Nunn's campaign as closely, Grimes and Davis both cost themselves the elections by having terrible, awful, very bad campaigns. As a disclosure, I gave to both and wished for more than what was delivered.

Historically, national elections do bring more people to the polls and the results do tend to skew more Democratic. However, those three states you use in your example are not Democratic strongholds, by far!

This is part of the problem with Democrats decrying weak Dems in red states, they don't understand the political climate or the voters in the states in question. Both of which often lead to Democrats either losing, or ones being elected who don't mirror the party platform. That's the reality of politics in the USA. Our system creates these apparently freakish micro climates of political opinions within red states, which sometimes, although less now than in the past, leads to Democrats being elected who don't fit the ideological model of most of us.

The good news is for the most part the Republicans have reclaimed these regions and have a stronger hold on them than they had pre 2010. Which means less ideologically pure Democrats in congress, but also means less chances of the Democrats regaining the house in the near future. It's a classic case of give and take in politics.

[betterdemsonly]

14. If appealing to those voters causes bad campaigns that why is Hillary doing it? n/t

[herding cats]

16. That's your opinion.

Mine is she's not even campaigning yet.

Thanks for ignoring what I had to say, though.

[MADem]

15. What a sexist remark!!!! You're saying "Oh well--one woman is as good as the next!"

HRC is not Grimes, HRC is not Davis, HRC is not Nunn--HRC is HRC, with name recognition, a career history that includes the United States Senate and the most senior cabinet position in the USA...and you're acting like it's all about "any old woman?"

With more money, perhaps those candidates could have penetrated the market and made themselves better known to the "disaffected GOP" -- but Clinton has been doing that for DECADES now.

Wow. You really stepped in it with that post. I'll bet you don't even realize how deep, either.

[betterdemsonly]

17. strawman. Specifying that these women are all centrist and neoliberal is hardly arguing that these

women are any women. Her Senate career is notable for the IWR. Her diplomatic career is notable for Honduras coup, funding a Syrian opposition that morphed into ISIS, and rekindling a new "Cold War, not to mention inviting a bunch of Bush neocons to serve in her state department.

[MADem]

22. Strawman, my left foot~! You are comparing three relatively new politicians to a highly

experienced and qualified one, who has a world-wide face and name recognition, and wondering if their failure to win in red states was a harbinger of something.

People in CHINA recognize Hillary Clinton. They don't recognize Wendy Davis.

Your comments were uninformed and your comparison, willful or not, was sexist. Women politicians are not interchangeable, the success or failure of one doesn't serve as a harbinger for another. And all of the Waaah, Hondurus, WAAAH Syria, WAAAH Bush Neocons distractions don't work to cut away from that characterization YOU made.

You should just delete this ill-advised mess--or not. Leave it as a monument to how you REALLY feel.

[betterdemsonly]

39. No they are not all interchangable. Liz is better than all four of em n/t

[LuvLoogie]

107. OK Kanye...

But what about Beyoncé?

[betterdemsonly]

41. That is insane by the way. Your trashcanned.

If you can't talk civilly don't respond to my posts. Your paranoid brain doesn't interest me.

[MADem]

46. I characterized your comments, you respond by characterizing me as "paranoid." There's nothing

paranoid about recognizing blatant sexism and pointing it out.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[MADem]

50. Look who's talking. nt

[msongs]

20. some serious faulty logic going on here. hillary and winning over disaffected republican women has

NOTHING to do with other democratic women winning over disaffected women. hint - they are all different people playing on
different fields

[MADem]

23. +1,000! nt

[DanTex]

24. I don't think Hillary will win Kentucky, Texas, or Georgia. Nor would any other Dem.

[Agschmid]

33. Not lately anyway...

[Savannahmann]

25. The truth is that those candidates generally got fewer women votes than the Republicans.

Allison Lundergan Grimes got 47% of the woman's vote. http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/KY/senate#exit-polls

Michelle Nunn actually did get more women voters. She got a whopping 53% which is higher than most of the other Democrats got. http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/GA/senate#exit-polls

Wendy Davis. The hero of the year. Going to bring Texas back to blue. Wendy got 45% of the Women's vote.

That was with a full court press on the War on Women meme. For those who love the polls, how do we overcome those poll numbers? How do we win when Women barely support our candidates in majorities?

Hell that lunatic Earnst in Iowa got the same percentage of the women's vote as we got. http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/IA/senate

So Hillary folks. How do we get the women to vote for us? Because by nominating Hillary we're going to lose a big block of the Union vote, we're going to need record breaking numbers of women voting for us. Now, what are the odds of that happening?

[SheilaT]

26. Here's the real problem, that the Hillary supporters are blind to:

There is a genuine hatred of her outside of the Democratic Party that they don't understand. Additionally, there is NOT a pent-up longing to elect a woman President out there in the larger world. I'm not sure that even exists inside the Democratic Party.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of women (and blacks, and GLBT) who vote Republican, are doing so against their own self interest, but they absolutely don't understand that they are voting against their own self interest. They think they're upholding certain traditional values, which includes women not doing anything outside the home. For many traditional Republicans, and most especially for the religious conservatives among them, the notion that a women occupy the public sphere is complete anathema. And NOTHING we can do as Democrats can make them see otherwise. NOTHING.

If most people voted rationally and for their self-interest, we'd have had a super Democratic majority ever since 1932. Why do you think that's not been the case?

[brooklynite]

28. So those people who viscerally hate Hillary Clinton, will vote for a Socialist like Bernie Sanders?

Or, are you saying it doesn't matter who we run?

[betterdemsonly]

35. No but many dissaffected liberals will particularly in Western States.

Why lose those voters for Southern voters who won't vote for us no matter how right wing the Democrat is? What do we win but running a tepid dem that will lose non-partisan progressives who don't like Wall Street and didn't support the Iraq War, ever?

[SheilaT]

86. I am not about to predict who anyone else will vote for.

And here's the really important thing: just because someone is not in favor of a Hillary Clinton candidacy, does NOT mean that person is a Hillary hater. And until the Hillary supporters understand that, there's no understanding between the supporters of Hillary and everyone else.

Yes, it really does matter who we run. And it really matters that the Hillary supporters understand to what extent she is NOT admired outside a relatively small group of Democrats. Everything you say about how wonderful she is, how she's bullet-proof because she's been through it all before, how the time is NOW for a woman President, NONE of those things actually matters.

What matters is this: She's the embodiment of an old establishment. She brings NOTHING new since her husband left the Presidency. More to the point, she hasn't a clue about the actual middle class, let alone the working class.

She would bring not a single new person and not a single new idea since about 1996 into her administration. She has shown herself to be a war hawk in a truly terrifying way.

I do NOT want my next President to be someone who blithely supports war everywhere. And that's what we get with Hillary. Plus, we get a support of the bankers, a refusal to understand that people declare bankruptcy because of medical debt, that affordable (preferably free) college education should be the birthright of every American. Need I go on?

[DanTex]

32. And yet she's leading every Republican in head-to-head polling.

[betterdemsonly]

36. Only through name recognition and because they don't pay attention to her views n/t

[DanTex]

40. Not so sure it can be written off so easily.

Everyone already knows who Hillary is. The fact that she's leading means they apparently don't hate her as much as people seem to think.

[betterdemsonly]

45. How is this not following the same pattern of 2008 only with no opposition?

The democratic establishment are crazy if they think literally forcing her on us won't backfire.

[DanTex]

52. Not sure what you mean, but 2008 turned out pretty well.

Also not sure how this "backfire" is going to work.

[betterdemsonly]

54. It didn't turn out well for Hillary

She is not a candidate that fares well with voters when they are paying attention to what she actually believes. Du can't force the world to commit to lesser evil.

[DanTex]

55. It turned out well for Dems, is my point. Maybe she'll lose to another Obama this time around,

but I doubt it.

I don't see how the fact that she lost the primary in 2008 has any bearing on what happens in the general election in 2016. Primary voters are all Dems. And if she does win the primary, she won't be "forced" on anyone, she will be the Democratic candidate.

[betterdemsonly]

57. She is forced on Democrats if she is the only candidate allowed to run in the Democratic primary n/t

[DanTex]

59. Of course other candidates will be allowed to run. Who has ever suggested otherwise?

[betterdemsonly]

61. You act as if the donors and the establishment can't discourage other candidates.

I think that is naive..

[Agschmid]

68. See the support for Warren?

I bet she could raise money, and gain support almost immediately... Yet no campaign.

Same with Sanders...

Sure they won't match what she raises but honestly at this point if they aren't complicit what the hell are they waiting for?

[betterdemsonly]

74. I agree they have a moral responsibility

and if she doesn't run I will start suspecting her as being window dressing, but it is probably intimidation.

[Agschmid]

75. I don't buy it.

I've had the pleasure of getting to vote for both Warren and Sanders, and I've met both and they both seem hard to intimidate.

Hell you can hear Bernie talk from three blocks down on Church St.

[betterdemsonly]

77. So what do you think their motivation is? n/t

[Agschmid]

78. Their motivation *not* to run?

[betterdemsonly]

80. yes? n/t

[DanTex]

69. You said "allowed". Anyone can encourage or discourage anyone. That's also allowed.

[Agschmid]

66. No one. Ever.

[Agschmid]

65. Anyone can run...

In fact at this point the only person "running" is Webb.

[Bluenorthwest]

109. It's too early. That's why people are not announcing yet.

Here's a bit of trivia: in the last three Presidential elections without an Incumbent, the 6 candidates from both Parties who eventually ran in the general announced an average of 526 days out from the election. That would be end of May, top of June of this year. Obama announced 633 days out.
The idea that people are not announcing when they usually would be is incorrect. We are barely into the season when anybody announces at all, which is why basically no one has. Same as it ever was.

[SheilaT]

90. No. Everyone does not already know who Hillary is.

They may think they know, but I bet if you dig down a bit further they will not be able to correctly tell you how she voted on various issues.

She is leading because of name recognition.

[SheilaT]

87. Name recognition, pure and simple.

Which is something a lot of people just don't understand.

[DanTex]

88. Well, the people who hate her certainly recognize her name. And yet, she's still leading.

[peacebird]

102. Did you notice her popularity drops when she is out talking (recent book tour, for example)

She can't help herself, she is her own worst enemy when talking to the press.

She is not inevitable, and if she is the dem nom then she will lose the general election. We need more candidates running.

[DanTex]

104. That's very common. And even with the dips, she still leads the polls.

She's may not be the best choice in terms of actually governing, but she is the most likely to win the GE of anyone who's been mentioned. She polls the best, she can raise the most money, and she's already withstood decades of GOP attacks and still has favorable poll numbers.

What you don't realize is that some centrist positions that are unpopular here on DU (her hawkishness, for example), are actually popular among non-Democrats. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, great as they are, aren't going to win swing states. The voters in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, etc. are not all a bunch of DUers.

If there were another Obama, that would be great. But there isn't. Obama had already declared at this point in 2007. He was already a rising star, and he already had support from a lot of people inside the party. The closest would be Julian Castro, who is definitely not going to run against Hillary.

[peacebird]

105. Her "centrist" positions may be popular with non Dems, but her last name is not

Repubs hatred for Clinton is blinding. They will not only not vote for her, they will be extremely energized to defeat her.
Her candidacy in turn demoralizes the left wing of her own party, instead of energizing it.
The combination does not bode well for someone who's popularity always goes down the more we see of her....

[DanTex]

106. Republicans hate all Dems, not just Hillary. But independents don't.

The fact that she polls well is a good indication of that.

Like I said, most politicians' numbers go down the more you see of them. That's the way it is. The presidential elections are not just about winning DU popularity contests. They about swing states: Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Virginia, etc. They are also about fundraising. And about winning independent votes.

Sure, Warren or Sanders will energize the base more than Hillary. But will they do better among independents? No. Will they do better in swing states? No. Will they be able to raise money like Hillary? No.

[brooklynite]

27. Perhaps , because they're in Tennessee, Georgia and Texas...

not States the Democrats will need in 2016.

[betterdemsonly]

38. Then why run a neoliberal

Because the states we do need don't like them. Only the Southern States are into this philosophy.

[JI7]

60. people who want to run decide to run and voters vote for them

[betterdemsonly]

62. Are you not bothered that corrupt donors are discouraging good candidates?

It is clear from the polls and the posts that most would prefer Warren and even Bernie Sanders.

[JI7]

63. people who don't post on DU are allowed to vote also

[DanTex]

84. LOL.

[Agschmid]

70. Then why aren't they running?

I'm all for them being in the race... What are they waiting for?

[betterdemsonly]

73. They're intimidated by threats from leaders donors and lobbyists. n/t

[Agschmid]

76. Threats of what?

They both already speak out against banks, private equity, hedge funds, etc...

I just don't buy it.

[betterdemsonly]

79. Their not going to allow her on a committee or support her next campaign etc...

There are a number of ways the party leadership can stifle people.

[Agschmid]

81. If she cares about that then she is just as "bad" as the others.

I've met her and I didn't get the impression she was but we will certainly find out.

[Tarheel_Dem]

97. If she can be intimidated that easily, WTF would anyone want her for POTUS?

[LuvLoogie]

108. Or maybe, just maybe, Beyon... er uh, Liz

really does want Hillary to run and supports her. Possibly?

[brooklynite]

110. Ohio? Michigan? Wisconsin?

States that re-elected Tea Party Governors? Are they more likely to vote for a Center-left candidate like Clinton, or a Socialist like Sanders?

[RandySF]

29. Texas, Georgia and Kentucky.

Come back with something else.

[pnwmom]

34. Those women all live in Red states. Hillary will be elected in a purple country. n/t

[HereSince1628]

103. We'll see, purple WI didn't have much interest in Mary Burke

whose DC experience, business background. and interest in education issues aligned pretty darn well with the Democratic right.

Of course there are 50 shades of purple so there is going to be a lot of wiggle room...

The available polls for WI that align Clinton vs Walker are a year to a year and a half old and obviously highly speculative due to the timing. Daily Kos recently blogged on those numbers...but it's hard to not see that they are really within a margin of error for the Burke vs Walker polling that took place at the same time...

Burke lost amid a very good turnout, WI had the 2nd or 3rd highest voter turnout in the country and it's likely to not be much more than 5%-10% better in the general. Not all of that increase is going to be blue, because WI is no longer a reliably blue state but reddish purple. That's going to be split. My guess is that split will slightly favor dems because that's the historic pattern in WI. It may tighten things here, but unlike past presidential elections it's not as likely to tip the table. The teahadists are highly motivated to turnout, WIdems have actually been improving turnout while Walker has been winning, the teahad has matched all that improvement.

[Recursion]

37. They did elect Gwen Graham

Last edited Sun Feb 22, 2015, 01:57 AM - Edit history (1)

And that was one of two incumbents we beat; the other case was Ashford, who also peeled of a lot of Republican support.

(Edited to make clear I'm talking about the Democratic woman Gwen Graham.)

[Aerows]

42. Please edit

I detest Lindsay Graham, but let's stay with the gender role he assigns himself with. It's ugly to slur the trans and gay among us this way.

[JI7]

47. i think he was talking about Bob Graham's Daughter

who won in a red district

[merrily]

49. I agree. Lots of reasons to attack Graham. His orientation and/or identity is not one of them.

[JI7]

58. it's not about lindsey graham, it's about Bob Graham's daughter

[Recursion]

72. Edited; I was talking about the conservative female Democrat Gwen Graham (FL-2) (nt)

[Recursion]

71. Sorry, didn't realize people would think I was talking about the Repubican Senator

Since this was a thread about Democratic female candidates and we had a winning one named Graham.

I also don't like attacks based on his presentation.

[Aerows]

85. No need to apologize

A lot of people seize on his gestures to mock gay people. I know you aren't a homophobe, Recursion, that's why I brought it up, my friend.

[merrily]

44. Would a rightist woman who does not believe in abortion vote for a center rightist woman who does?

[betterdemsonly]

51. That is a good point

but I think they are assuming there are lots of pro-choice republican women. I think there are but I think the prioritize their wallet or national security over choice and can get abortions whether it is legal or not. I also think many democratic women don't singularly care about abortion and will be turned off by Hillary's economic and foreign policy wingnuttery.

[merrily]

56. I think people vote a lot along party lines, unless someone or something has energized them mightiy.

I doubt the center right is going to energize the right.

What energizes the low info, low interest genuine Indies? No clue.

I engage somewhat in the no true Scotsman fallacy with Indies because the largest voting group in Massachusetts is registered Indie, yet, Massachusetts generally goes blue. Governors are an exception in that the state has a long tradition of Republican Governors, going back to when Republicans were considered the party of emancipation. It also has a legislature that has been over 90% Democratic for a good while, so the risk of a Republican Governor is relatively low. And some people don't think every state office should be in the hands of one party.

In any event, some people who are strongly Dem or strongly Republican register Indie for a variety of reasons, including they don't think how they vote is anyone's business but their own.

[Recursion]

83. They did for Landrieu for years and years

Last year was a bridge too far, apparently.

[JonLP24]

92. I can't find exit polls regarding that

From 2014 compared to 2008 she took a hit with white voters from 33% to 22%, who vote tally with white women voters are identical but can't find anything regarding Republican Women to see how many did vote for her compared to recent.

She had a couple of issues working in her favor in 2008 -- ?w=700

Iraq dropped off but a majority of those voting against her referenced the Economy as the Most Important Issue.

There was also the Obama factor. She got 99% of the "my vote is a sign of support of Obama". 72% opposition voted for the Republican challenger. Another 23% voted for the 3rd party guy
?w=700

http://bobmannblog.com/2014/11/05/what-the-exit-poll-tells-us-about-louisianas-u-s-senate-race/

[JI7]

99. things changed after Obama became President, some of the racists who use to vote for her

didn't do so again after a black guy became president.

[merrily]

113. Landrieu is a different state and a different election.

In Louisiana, Landrieu had her surname working for her and her campaign last year was horrendous.

Elections are not interchangeable.

[napi21]

64. Nunn didn't get elected because this is GEORGIA!

I've lived here for 15 years and haven't met anyone who wasn't a RW extremist!

Grimes I think failed because she tried way too hard to distance herself from Obama...not even admitting that she voted for him!

Davis encountered the TEXAS chauvinism. I also lived in Tx. for 9 years and I'm still shocked that Ann Richards ever got elected Governor. That entire State still operates in the philosophy of the 50's.

[betterdemsonly]

67. So what is the point of running dem to appeal to those voters

because Hillary doesn't appeal to traditional democrats, or even so called moderates who are antiwallstreet and antiwar..

[napi21]

93. In Ga. I think they keep trying because lots of people are moving here,

and many of them are Dems. IF we can ever convince the Dems to get off their butts and vote, we just might get some Dem. wins. In Tx. there are constantly more Hispanics either reaching voting age. Most of them vote Dem, so maybe our time is coming. Ky. I think it's a lost cause!

[SidDithers]

82. Were they dameocrats?...

What is a dameocrat, anyway?

Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

98. !!!

[davidn3600]

89. Very small number of people would vote based on gender

Every time a Democrat woman is running we hear the same thing that Republican women will secretly go in that voting booth and vote for the Democrat because she's a woman, and then lie to the exit pollster.

First off, that's sexist. Second off, where has there ever been any proof of this claim? There is none.

The reality is that there is a significant percentage of women in this country that are truly conservative. Those kind of women do not see Hillary as an ally.

I remember a poll back in 2008 that showed Hillary was more popular with men and Obama was more popular with women! Figure that one out.

[JonLP24]

91. Allison Grimes received 40% of the vote from Independents

Though those registered Independent could vary widely and not necessarily mean "in the middle". A majority said she was "too liberal" over the voters claim that McConnell was "too conservative".

OK Found it. Grimes received 52% of the vote from "Moderates".

Regarding your claim she received just 8% of the vote from Republican women.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2014/results/state/KY/senate#exit-polls

The vast majority of those who did vote for her were African-American 90%, Liberal 81%, & poor (under $30,000) 53% which the bulk (majority of the vote) all in Louisville & parts around it.

One thing that link doesn't mention is she got hammered in coal counties. The 8 counties where Mitch McConnell improved on from his last election were all coal counties. Harlan County voted Republican the first time in 50 years (they still voted D in local state races). All that distancing didn't pay off.

On edit - I'm not sure where my in over 50 years claim came from. Maybe Mondale carrying the county threw me off. McConnell improved from 54% in 2008 to 72% in 2012

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-05/mitch-mcconnells-win-by-the-numbers

[bluestateguy]

94. Wendy Davis had LOSER written all over her

See, I'm a little old fashioned, I think that a winner is someone who actually wins, and does more than just symbolic stuff.

[AgingAmerican]

95. Democrats depending on Republicans for extra votes?

Ain't gonna happen,

[wyldwolf]

101. has there been a competition on DU to see who can come up with the dumbest anti-Hillary posts?

[Beacool]

111. Apparently so..........

I don't recall Hillary supporters on this site stating that Republican women will vote for her. Then again, I'm not here that much.

[zappaman]

112. What a ridiculous OP.

Do you think all women are the same?