Slog Comments
Mitt Is No Ladies Man
2
Hey, there are blacks, Hispanics, and poor people who vote Republican too. I'll never get it if I live to be 100.
3
@1: 2 out of those 4 women are more concerned with what OTHER women are doing with their reproductive organs than they are their own. They'll never need an abortion, they reckon, and certainly their offspring would never be that irresponsible, so clearly it should just be illegal.
And I really think the other 2 just hate themselves and their gender. I think they really believe they deserve it if they get raped, punched in the face by their husbands, etc. I don't know if it goes back to original sin or what, but they really think it's for the best, like a submissive who can't tell the difference between BDSM and a truly abusive relationship. Or, perhaps, like female Islamic fundamentalists who help mutilate and murder their daughters for honor and propriety.
And I really think the other 2 just hate themselves and their gender. I think they really believe they deserve it if they get raped, punched in the face by their husbands, etc. I don't know if it goes back to original sin or what, but they really think it's for the best, like a submissive who can't tell the difference between BDSM and a truly abusive relationship. Or, perhaps, like female Islamic fundamentalists who help mutilate and murder their daughters for honor and propriety.
5
@4
I tried to read that article but after finishing the 5th paragraph and not getting any information I gave up. Thanks any way.
I tried to read that article but after finishing the 5th paragraph and not getting any information I gave up. Thanks any way.
7
@4 Folks around here only use facts to shoot down ideas that feel good to non liberals. When facts threaten our own biases, we stop reading. Witness @5.
8
I guess more than a few women noticed that the first thing the GOP did when they got control of the House was go after Planned Parenthood.
9
@7
Nice troll attempt but you missed the point (as trolls often do).
I was not criticizing the facts in the article.
I was criticizing the writing style of the article that couched such facts (should there be any) in meandering verbosity.
If the writer cannot get to the facts quickly and concisely then the writer is probably trying to build an emotional appeal out of thin support.
Nice troll attempt but you missed the point (as trolls often do).
I was not criticizing the facts in the article.
I was criticizing the writing style of the article that couched such facts (should there be any) in meandering verbosity.
If the writer cannot get to the facts quickly and concisely then the writer is probably trying to build an emotional appeal out of thin support.
12
@11 YEAH!!! Seriously, though. The realclearpolitics.com article was a bummer for me to read because just like any other left-leaning Slog reader, I love the idea that Obama is going to win a second term. But it's important to be exposed to well-researched opinions that do not mirror our own. Liberals are not supposed to stick their heads in the sand.
13
@6: Nah bro, that's Transvaal. You added an extraneous "gin". And extraneous gin is perhaps the worst kind, although I'm not terribly fond of gin.
14
@10
Really? That is "No! You are!" the best you could think up in defense of that article?
"Liberals are not supposed to stick their heads in the sand."
And a nice baseless attack on "Liberals". Always the favorite strawman of the Right wing.
The article was a crappy attempt at emotional appeal to people who already shared the author's viewpoint. After five paragraphs the author still hadn't gotten to real facts.
Really? That is "No! You are!" the best you could think up in defense of that article?
"Liberals are not supposed to stick their heads in the sand."
And a nice baseless attack on "Liberals". Always the favorite strawman of the Right wing.
The article was a crappy attempt at emotional appeal to people who already shared the author's viewpoint. After five paragraphs the author still hadn't gotten to real facts.
15
@ 3,
Even worse, some of these women WILL get an abortion for themselves or their daughters if they have to. Freedom of choice for me but not for thee...
They'll never need an abortion, they reckon, and certainly their offspring would never be that irresponsible, so clearly it should just be illegal.
Even worse, some of these women WILL get an abortion for themselves or their daughters if they have to. Freedom of choice for me but not for thee...
16
@14 I consider myself a liberal. Maybe I'm a self-loathing one or something. Next time drink a little coffee and keep on reading.
17
@16
"I consider myself a liberal."
I'm sure you do.
And yet you've spent your comments in this thread making claims of how "Liberals" behave and then attacking those claims. Look up "straw man".
"Folks around here only use facts to shoot down ideas that feel good to non liberals."
"Liberals are not supposed to stick their heads in the sand."
I focused my critique on the author of that article.
You focused your critique on the behavior you ascribed to "Liberals".
You are a troll.
"I consider myself a liberal."
I'm sure you do.
And yet you've spent your comments in this thread making claims of how "Liberals" behave and then attacking those claims. Look up "straw man".
"Folks around here only use facts to shoot down ideas that feel good to non liberals."
"Liberals are not supposed to stick their heads in the sand."
I focused my critique on the author of that article.
You focused your critique on the behavior you ascribed to "Liberals".
You are a troll.
18
Last paragraph of the RealClearPolitics article, since we're talking about it:
--Republicans should be concerned. The GOP nominee cannot win with only 37 percent of the female vote. Yet early head-to-head polls are not historically predictive. George W. Bush, like Romney, earned only 37 percent of the female vote in the CBS poll in February of 2000. But Bush won 43 percent of women on Election Day.--
I'd rather be Obama than Romney right now, but let's hold on. Wait 'til Romney picks his veep and then we'll see where we are.
--Republicans should be concerned. The GOP nominee cannot win with only 37 percent of the female vote. Yet early head-to-head polls are not historically predictive. George W. Bush, like Romney, earned only 37 percent of the female vote in the CBS poll in February of 2000. But Bush won 43 percent of women on Election Day.--
I'd rather be Obama than Romney right now, but let's hold on. Wait 'til Romney picks his veep and then we'll see where we are.
20
I don't see the first 5 paragraphs as content-free. They state a hypothesis: the political Villagers are reporting a meme that Romney has slid down in popularity among women. Then they point to one poll that shows no change in his popularity over the year to date, suggesting that the news meme is wrong and is just being parroted. So far, so good.
The problem is that they only report one poll. At RCPs own fucking site
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/…
you can look at many different polls. They should compare several polls.
CNN shows Rmoney/Obama among women going from 45/53 on Jan. 11 to 37/60 on Mar. 24. That's big enough to be a real change, not a sampling error (kinda).
FauxNews has Rmoney/Obama among women on Jan. 12 at 43/49, on Mar. 14 at 37/49. Again, might be a real decline, but probably not statistically iron-clad. I'm not going to dig through any more of the poll links.
So, the problem is not the lack of content, it's that the content they DIDN'T report doesn't support their hypothesis very well, although it may not destroy it. But it looks like it does, if you believe the poll numbers to be exactly correct. I think they're open to charges of cherry-picking.
The problem is that they only report one poll. At RCPs own fucking site
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/…
you can look at many different polls. They should compare several polls.
CNN shows Rmoney/Obama among women going from 45/53 on Jan. 11 to 37/60 on Mar. 24. That's big enough to be a real change, not a sampling error (kinda).
FauxNews has Rmoney/Obama among women on Jan. 12 at 43/49, on Mar. 14 at 37/49. Again, might be a real decline, but probably not statistically iron-clad. I'm not going to dig through any more of the poll links.
So, the problem is not the lack of content, it's that the content they DIDN'T report doesn't support their hypothesis very well, although it may not destroy it. But it looks like it does, if you believe the poll numbers to be exactly correct. I think they're open to charges of cherry-picking.
21
@20
Except that you managed to not only cover that material but also offer a critique of it in only TWO paragraphs. So in 2.5x more paragraphs than you used, he only covered a fraction of the material that you did.
Like I said before, if the writer cannot get to the facts quickly and concisely then the writer is probably trying to build an emotional appeal out of thin support.
Except that you managed to not only cover that material but also offer a critique of it in only TWO paragraphs. So in 2.5x more paragraphs than you used, he only covered a fraction of the material that you did.
Like I said before, if the writer cannot get to the facts quickly and concisely then the writer is probably trying to build an emotional appeal out of thin support.
Comments (22) RSS