flyangler

Rasmussen has interesting news for Warren, et al: "Most Don’t See More Women Leaders As Better for Society"

Rate this topic

35 posts in this topic

One of Elizabeth Warren's arguments for her candidacy is that it is time for a woman to rise to the highest office in the land. Like Hillary, embedded in the "it is time" argument is that females are better suited to lead in these complex times than is a male. Especially so they will argue as an alternative to the sexist, misogynist, pooooosy grabbing Trump. This was also the arguments used in 2018 as the Dems fielded a slew of female candidates, many successful, leading to a conclusion that it was their femaleness which made them successful. 

 

How can voters resist such arguments? 

 

Well, pretty simple according to Rasmussen: 57% of likely voters polled think it would be worse (12%) or have no impact (45%) on society if women held more political positions than men. That basically means that at least a plurality of voters will judge candidates not on their gender but in their personal history, values, and vision on a myriad of issues. 

 

If you take away Warren's "vote for me because I am a woman" and related arguments, what are you Left with? 

 

Most Don’t See More Women Leaders As Better for Society

Rasmussen Reports

Friday, September 20, 2019

 

Voters aren’t convinced that more women political leaders are the way to go, perhaps in part because most think men and women have more common interests than not.

 

Only 33% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it would be better for society if women held more political positions than men. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 12% think it would be worse for society. A plurality (45%) thinks it would have no impact.

 

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on September 17-18, 2019 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take the word women out, and replace it with another protected class...________ make better leaders because of what ever trait that sets them apart.  You would be called all kinds of names.

But women seem to get a pass...why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 mins ago, tomkaz said:

 

If you take away Warren's "vote for me because I am a woman" and related arguments, what are you Left with? 

 

She's got detailed geeky plans for about everything is what you'd have. The point isn't whether you agree with her, it's that she's got substance. I think for you to suggest that there's nothing other than voting for a woman sounds like whiney old man talk to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 mins ago, patchyfog said:

She's got detailed geeky plans for about everything is what you'd have. The point isn't whether you agree with her, it's that she's got substance. I think for you to suggest that there's nothing other than voting for a woman sounds like whiney old man talk to me.

Patchy, seriously, "whiny old man talk"?

 

Since you quoted me, did you miss the capital L in Left? That was by design but the double entendre of "left" as in remaining and Left as in socialist was clearly too subtle when you needed a reason to snark. 

 

Yes, she has plans, policies and a myriad of utopian progressive ideas and ideals. And, as I suggested a bit too subtly apparently, when you get beyond her argument that you should vote for her because of her gender, all of what remains is FAR LEFT in its orientation. And, not all that different than Bernie’s except at the margins. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hamlet said:

Our founders knew that most people were too stupid to vote, being primarily mentally dependent on others for thought.

That's why the US is a Republic not a Democracy.

 

The founding fathers who spent time in the salons of Paris in the lead up to the the French Revolution saw enough of democracy in the out of control mobs of Parisian rabble, and the Government troops sent to quell them to allow the mob to rule in the newly forming US.

 

 

Edited by zybathegeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tomkaz said:

 

 

Most Don’t See More Women Leaders As Better for Society

Only 33% of Likely U.S. Voters believe it would be better for society if women held more political positions than men. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 12% think it would be worse for society. A plurality (45%) thinks it would have no impact.

 

 

This headline does not accurately depict the findings and is very misleading.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 mins ago, The Dude said:

This headline does not accurately depict the findings and is very misleading.  

Huh? Do you understand quantitative adjectives? If only 33% believe something, that means the balance don’t believe something. That is the definition of “most”:

 

most  /mōst/
determiner · pronoun
  1. greatest in amount or degree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tomkaz said:

Huh? Do you understand quantitative adjectives? If only 33% believe something, that means the balance don’t believe something. That is the definition of “most”:

 

most  /mōst/
determiner · pronoun
  1. greatest in amount or degree.

I understand this, but when 33% think it would be a positive, 45% think it's neutral and only 12% think it's a negative, the result is positive as a whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 mins ago, The Dude said:

I understand this, but when 33% think it would be a positive, 45% think it's neutral and only 12% think it's a negative, the result is positive as a whole. 

What? 45% neutral is not some sort of equivalent to 45% positive! Are you daft? 

 

Neutral means they don’t see “better”, that is a poll decision, not an abstention to be ignored so that you can say 33%>12%, therefore the result is a net positive. 

 

Sorry, it does not work that way. A plurality intentionally decided that more and less were not the correct choice. They chose not to say it was a positive. Any dissembling to suggest otherwise shows a lack of understanding of polling. 

 

You are an an investment guy, let’s use weighted averages. You understand that concept, correct? 

 

Positive = 1

Negative = -1

No impact = 0

 

33 + (-12) + (45 x 0) = +21

 

+21 / 100 = +0.21

 

+0.21 < +0.50

 

0.50 is the weighted average threshold for this being an overall positive finding. 

 

-1 to -0.5 is net negative

-0.5 to +0.5 is net neutral 

+0.5 to +1.0 is net positive

 

Thus, +0.21 is net neutral and the poll result is NOT “positive as a whole”, no matter how you wish to spin it. 

 

ETA: And that makes the Rasmussen headline accurate. 

 

Edited by tomkaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canned reply for everything:

 

"

you are wrong, you know that right?

you are a fool for not knowing you are wrong, like I know you are wrong.

You are hopelessly enslaved to insane right-wing fake news propaganda.

LOL

"

 

tiresome isnt it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 mins ago, hamlet said:

Canned reply for everything:

 

"

you are wrong, you know that right?

you are a fool for not knowing you are wrong, like I know you are wrong.

You are hopelessly enslaved to insane right-wing fake news propaganda.

LOL

"

 

tiresome isnt it

It is what gadflies do. They are here to annoy, not advance a discussion. 

 

Dude is the worst at attacking sources, failing that then attacking data and then, losing on those two, attacking a headline’s accuracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 mins ago, hamlet said:

Canned reply for everything:

 

"

you are wrong, you know that right?

you are a fool for not knowing you are wrong, like I know you are wrong.

You are hopelessly enslaved to insane right-wing fake news propaganda.

LOL

"

 

tiresome isnt it

Oh my ankles!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, patchyfog said:

She's got detailed geeky plans for about everything is what you'd have. The point isn't whether you agree with her, it's that she's got substance. I think for you to suggest that there's nothing other than voting for a woman sounds like whiney old man talk to me.

Have you taken a look at her "substance"?     :kook:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.