This one is interesting because it is predominantly caucus goers who have caucused previously. Rand doing better with favorables, he's in the + territory now.
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/images/pol...15_I35hkfm.pdf
Not very popular with the women:
Rand has a hot wife, probably explains it. Or they don't like curly hair.
In all seriousness it has to do with emotions. Rand does not connect or portrary in an emotional manner but more logical which hurts him in many areas, including women.
It's because he's short, they don't see him as a sex symbol. Women are shallow.Originally Posted by adam220891
Pretty good sample size in this one.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what Rand can do to gain among women. Other than ditch that professorial style which would probably help him with men as well.
Hofstadter's Law: It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law. -Douglas Hofstadter
Life, Liberty, Logic
His numbers with women improved a bit after his wife did a tour there a few months ago.
How long did it take for Carson to implode in Iowa? A month? Cruz here's looking at you...
I've said this before and it's a little harsh but Rand is bland...he needs to have more excitement in his voice and throw some humor in there. These days, policies alone are sadly not enough for this country.
The videos I've seen (townhalls) have all been good lately.He was very open in his Senate run but seems to have lost that a little this time although better lately.Who knew that Trump would abolish political correctness? Who knows if Trump is an insider or not?
Exactly. Women are emotional voters not logical ones. The Dems do a very good job at pulling those emotional strings in the general, hence why that greedy party wins such demographic.
Cruz will not be leading Iowa come Feb.
Trust me.
Based on what?
Non-violence is the creed of those that maintain a monopoly on force.
Well, based on the posts over the last few days regarding the false rumor that Rand would be dropping out, men are hysterical sheep.Women are shallow.
If Cruz imploding = Trump surging then I pray Cruz does not implode. We need Trump to lose Iowa. Frankly we were better off when Carson was leading Iowa because Carson was certain to lose New Hampshire. Trumps attacks on Cruz could help him in New Hampshire. Worst case scenario for us is any candidate getting an Iowa/New Hampshire sweep.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Might as well use Trump's arrogance and his supporters' stupidity against them. It would be far easier to become a sleeper delegate for Rand under the Trump flag than any other.
It's almost guaranteed there will be different winners in Iowa and NH. There are 3 or 4 now putting all their efforts into taking NH away from Trump, and after he has insulted Iowans a couple times already, Trump will be down to 10-15% there by January.
It might help that the Left isn't overly obsessed with Planned Parenthood, abortion, or what goes on in a woman's body in general, as the Right tends to salivate over that.
I really think it's going to be Cruz in Iowa unless something drastic happens. But the good news is that Cruz has a ceiling of about 10-15% in NH.
I can see Christie stepping in after Iowa to take on Trump directly. It would be an epic battle of belligerence. Establishment versus pseudo non-establishment.
Non-violence is the creed of those that maintain a monopoly on force.
On the flip side those are all people likely to drop out after NH. Kasich and Christie, along with perhaps Jeb! have the most on the line there...
Compared to democrats, nothing the GOP will ever put up will be popular with most* women. The libertarian party fares even worse.Not very popular with the women:
I could delve into my personal theories about how the growing lack of real men who take responsibility in the home have led to an increasing number of women who look to government to be daddy the protector and provider, but point is: no one should find these numbers shocking.
What *is* shocking, at least to me, is that Trump leads the pack on people identifying themselves as 'moderate/lib', when the MSM, liberals, and GOP establishment keeps regurgitating that he will never be able to get votes from anyone other than the 'far right'. Looks like Trump could be snatching up the 'center' vote as well. Actually looking at the numbers in the OP, he's got the whole thing pretty well balanced. That's if you measure things on 'their' paradigm.
Last edited by nobody's_hero; 12-15-2015 at 08:59 AM.
This is getting silly.T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me
American women are raised to be spoiled princesses; they like to be taken care of. They also overall make less money than men and thus support things like social security; Rand needs to stop talking about raising the age for ss...tell that to a waitress who's on her feet all day.
Cause everyone falls this far out. Walker fell and is out. Carson has already falling after being at about 30% in Iowa and a favorable of like 75%. Trump has fallen a bit albeit still a solid second. Cruz will fall eventually too. How much? Just a wait and see.
Indeed. Thats telling us young people to work harder and longer to pay off the old $#@!s that got us into to deficiet in the first place. Wont fly too well. Hell, even i cringed at it. Why the $#@! should younger gen work longer and have our wages garnished to balance the budget.
I bet you those 4000 iowan student caucus would be pissed if they knew about how they would have to work longer.
Students give 0 $#@!s about SS, they all think they are going to make enough money to retire at 40.
That's not fair. Those "old $#@!s" have been giving their money to the government for years with the promise that it'd get paid back at retirement. The gov't then turned around and spent the money. Ron Paul was right on this issue. Yes, we should let young people opt out. But the Fedgov OWES the old $#@!s their money back.
Non-violence is the creed of those that maintain a monopoly on force.
Those "old $#@!s" are also primarily responsible for the electing the politicians who have gotten us into this mess in the first place. Their generation literally controls 95% of our government.
But it was Rand who brought up about some of the reasons pay inequality is the worst in Democrat cities etc., but then Carly stole the topic,
and the msm would just go along with her blabbing over - unless the msm talks about it and rehashes it, no one notices.
Most of them, like myself, know its stolen money, pissed away in the wind that we'll never see.
At least this way, for us, it takes care of grandma and grandpa.
....that's certainly not it.
You understand Mussolini and Putin were/are like 5'6, and women in their nations loved/love them. Rand's problem with women has more to do with his tone, his "shush your mouth" incident, and his ideology that doesn't sound like the kind of thing safety moms cling to.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us