Hold these two thoughts:
First: Thursday’s congressional swearing-in will reflect the stunning success of the Democrats’ ground game at turning out minorities — a strategy that stretched across Native American reservations, college campuses, Hispanic supermarkets, and crowded urban neighborhoods.
Comments
So, I can't argue with the stats about the Republicans...
but, seriously, can anyone think that more debbie wasserman-schultz's or nancy pelosi's would make *anything* better?
Or Michelle Bachmann?
Agree with both thecpt and JLErwin3 here, and add Elizabeth Warren. Has she thought of a Republican member of Congress she can work with yet? Is she ready to start on that 'blood and teeth on the floor of the Senate' ?
If more women run for election more will be elected, but democracy, and the sake of democracy, whatever that is, is independent of gender. The author's argument is more likely to spur knee-jerk responses rather than rational ones, and polarization is already the most significant lodestone on the functioning of democracy.
There are some great examples of women Democrat leaders, Hillary Clinton and Kirsten Gillebrand come to mind. Unfortunately, some of the most prominent women leaders in the Democratic party: Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Wasserman-Shultz are some of the most divisive, combative personalities in politics.
This comment has been removed.
Self-serving, divisive, narrow-minded article. I would vote for a Martian, provided that he/she/it brought intelligence and honesty to the office before I voted stricktly along gender lines.
This comment has been removed.
Yeah, falls into the silly category ... There's NO difference between men and women! Unless ... we want there to be and it's beneficial to us!
Excuse the typo. "strictly".
This comment has been removed.
Unlike the author of this article, I vote for the best candidate. I do not pick my candidates on their gender or skin color.
No doubt if women were in charge of Congress they would have supported the latest budget deal that inceases spending and does nothing to decrease the national debt.
Women have historically favored the cadidate and government programs as their “safety net.” Several years ago, John R. Lott Jr. and
Larry Kenny of the University Law School and the University of Florida Dept. of Economics respectively, published a paper, “How Dramatically Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government ?”
One chart shows the per capita state expenditures rising dramatically since 1920, the first year women were allowed to vote in a significant set of states.
The authors conclude that giving women the right to voted dramatically changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has risen since the 1970s.
Suffrage coincided with immediate immediate dramatic increases in state government expenditures and revenue and these effects continued growing
as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occured at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the Congressional delegations.
This comment is a perfect example of a knee-jerk response. Why not just claim women are the bane of men because, according to the Book of Genesis, it was Eve gave Adam the apple?