"Could an Unmarried Woman Sink Obama?"

[FloriTexan]

This headline caught my attention. I thought, well crap, is Obama pulling a Tiger Woods? Then I remembered I was on the Fox sight where I went to vote in this poll: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2099561"

The article is really about whether unmarried women would still vote for Obama:

"The liberal research, polling and strategy firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR) found after the 2008 election that, "If not for the overwhelming support of unmarried women, John McCain would have won the women's vote and with it, the White House." Unmarried women voted for Barack Obama over Sen. John McCain, 70 percent to 29 percent—and cast 23 percent of all votes in that election."

Edited to add link to article..
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/07/could-unmarried-woman-sink-obama/?intcmp=obinsite

[Kber]

1. What a stupid headline

Tabloid journalism at it's worst.

[polmaven]

2. Stupid and sexist

to the hilt. But, then, what else would we expect from Fox?

[tblue]

11. Really! Entirely unneccessary.

Just to stir up some crap. I swear Obama must be the most squeaky clean person on the planet, or we sure as hell would know by now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. So, any word on which Republican in 2012 might get the "unmarried women" vote?

Rick Santorum? :rofl:

stupid, stupid. :banghead:

Who polls for all of these ridiculous demographics? Oh yeah, Fox News. :eyes: What exactly has President Obama done to piss off unmarried women?

[FloriTexan]

6. Perhaps...

they were hoping that all unmarried women would be pissed off at him because he was married :rofl:

[Alcibiades]

21. What's outragous is the headline

Just plain stupid, a dead giveaway on the poor quality and hyperideological reporting at Fox.

"Unmarried women also will share with other voters a very personal, emotional reaction to whoever is running for office." Actually, I bet that was changed. This sentence really serves no purpose, except to accuse women of being emotional.

And, gosh, golly, no mention of abortion in the whole article. No mention of the fact that, the SCOTUS being what it is, the next election may determine not only the fate of Roe, but Griswold. And I don't know many women, married or unmarried, who would like to go back to those days.

Anyway, you're wrong about the issue of polling for various demographics. These data are, by and large, drawn from polls of the entire population. There's data on race, income, marital status, education and other variables that are used to assess how different groups within the population opine, and, in exit polls, how they voted. I'm a political scientist. This sort of data has been available for a long time. Much of the time, you see folks making asinine inferences from the data, such as "the latest poll shows Romney up among affluent Hispanics in Idaho, and this could be a sign of a surge for him in Flordia," which would be problematic in any number of ways, mainly because subsamples become less reliable (to the point of observed variation being indistinguishable from noise) as the N gets smaller.

The fact is, though, is that Fox is being cute here. This article is a headline in search of a point. The real point is that, at the presidential level, unmarried women have been the core--not a part of the core, but the core--of the Democratic coalition for my entire lifetime. What Fox does not mention, perhaps because they cannot, is that this is simply a FACT, repeated across decades, in elections at every level. The possibility that Obama will lose this demographic is effectively nil.

So the article itself is ignorant and stupid, but the phenomenon it purports to "report," the support of unmarried women for the president, is significant, but the article itself has few of the relevant facts.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. I hope that nothing I said was offensive

I'm just getting sick of hearing all of these so-called "polls" being spouted by various outlets that purport to show Obama "in trouble" with one group or another. Fox News is not, of course, credible in the least.

[Whisp]

4. tiger woods?

because tiger is black? I don't get the comparison and whether it is yours or from your c/p.

all black men cheat differently (as that was the initial reaction) than white men?
I don't understand. Has Obama taken up pro golf lately and became a champ unbeknownst to us all?

[FloriTexan]

5. Sorry to disappoint you, but

the fact that Tiger and our President are the same race did not enter my head. Seriously. Why are you inserting race into the discussion? Please feel free to reconsider my post and insert any name of any cheater (regardless of color, race or sexual preference) that you would like.

[Whisp]

7. sorry, just felt weird to me. Guess I was wrong.

[FloriTexan]

8. No problem. n/t

[CakeGrrl]

10. Not to pile on, but why not use Clinton or Edwards?

I see what you're saying - a more parallel comparison could have been made.

[FloriTexan]

12. Because Tiger is the person I thought of...

It had nothing to do with race or politics or picking the name of a cheater that would appeal universally to everyone or fit what someone else might find more appropriate. That would obviously be as hard a task as interpreting the headline itself. It could have been about Michelle Obama.

[JTFrog]

16. Riiiiiight.

:thumbsup:

:eyes:

[WI_DEM]

9. I don't see unmarried women flocking to Willard Romney

[undeterred]

13. Unless they are going to primary him using the Clooney Feingold ticket

he's still got the unmarried women.

[ladywnch]

14. enough with the ridiculous minutia already! no wonder politicians

sound like schizophrenics.......they're trying to pander to EVERY conceivable demographic in the known world!

All this slicing and dicing is just absurd. At the end of the day, I doubt seriously whether it means anything to anyone.....except the slicers and dicers.

[Avalux]

15. Speaking as an unmarried woman, I'll vote for Obama again. n/t

[GoCubsGo]

17. As will I. n/t

[rury]

19. Single female voting for, making calls for and donating to Obama

again enthusiastically!

[treestar]

20. Same here.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.