Election 2014

'War on Women' Rhetoric Not Translating to Election 2014 Support for Democrats

Evoking "The Handmaid's Tale" as a supposed GOP policy goal isn't guaranteeing success at the polls.

|

DonkeyHotey/Flickr

With less than one week left until the 2014 elections, national Democrat and Republican organizations are doubling down on the fight for U.S. Senate seats in several key states. For Democrats, this tends to mean ramping up rhetoric that paints GOP opponents as bad for women's health, livelihoods, and reproductive freedom. But are female voters buying it? And, if so, will that actually translate to wins for liberal candidates?

The polling data doesn't lend itself to much confidence in Democrats' lady-courting strategy. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) has now spent tens of millions trying to motivate female voters in battleground states such as Arkansas, Colorado, and Iowa. But even (or perhaps especially) in races where "women's issues" have been a central focus, Democratic candidates are seeing only modest leads among female voters. Meanwhile, many of these candidates trail terribly among the male electorate. 

In general, women are more likely to vote Democrat and men more likely to vote Republican, a trend that's been brewing since at least the early 1980s. Women are also less likely than men to vote in midterm elections. So it makes some sense that Democrats have been focusing get-out-the-vote efforts on female voters.

Add to this the fact that a) President Obama's once strong approval among women may be waning*, b) nobody wants to campaign on close associations to the president these days anyway, and c) this whole election has been "about nothing," and you can start to see why working the Republican "war on women" angle seemed like a smart strategy. As Reason Senior Editor Peter Suderman noted here recently, no major policy issues have defined the midterm 2014 elections and no particular legislation is imminently at stake. Much of what GOP candidates have been campaigning on has been platitudinal or opportunistic (Ebola czar, anyone?). Much of what Democratic candidates have been campaigning on has been fear-mongering about the GOP.

"It's not an election about which side to vote for. It's an election about which side to vote against," writes Suderman. NBC's Perry Bacon Jr. points out that "despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent by both Democrats and Republicans … many of the biggest issues are being ignored or playing very small roles in the 2014 campaign. … Many Democratic candidates, despite being heavily reliant on the black vote, have offered almost no policy prescriptions to the challenges illustrated by Ferguson, campaigning as if the incident and resulting controversy never happened."

However, the party hasn't avoided identity politics altogether. In several of the most contested races, there's been an inordinate amount of focus paid to what Democrats think women want.

In the Colorado Senate race, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall has gone all-in on bashing his opponent, Republican Rep. Cory Gardner, for Gardner's positions on things like contraception, abortion, and "personhood" amendments. Udall's laser focus on these issues—almost half of his campaign ads have concerned them—has earned him the nickname "Mark Uterus" from The Denver Post. Here's a sample Udall ad: 

All of this might be understandable if Gardner was also focused extensively on these issues, or was campaigning as a particularly socially conservative candidate. But Gardner's campaign has focused more on things like the economy and energy policy. He says his wife uses contraception and he has no desire to "outlaw" it—in fact, Gardner supports making birth control pills available over-the-counter, which Udall does not.

Gardner has also retracted his previous support for a Colorado personhood amendment that would have defined life as beginning at conception. And perhaps most shrewdly, he hasn't let Udall set the agenda, only responding to anti-woman criticisms strategically. It seems Gardner has learned that the first rule of the Internet also applies to the campaign trail: Don't feed the trolls.

Udall does show a slight lead with women in most polls, but it's hardly one Democrats could have been hoping for considering their efforts. The most recent Quinnipiac University poll shows Udall supported by 45 percent of likely female voters, compared to 41 percent for Gardner. Meanwhile, Gardner leads Udall among male voters 51-38 percent.

A recent NBC News/Marist Poll places Gardner 1 percentage point above Udall overall, but 15 points ahead with men, up from a five point male lead in September. Over that same time period, Udall's female advantage dropped from 14 points to 11 points, according to NBC/Marist. And some polls, such as last week's USA Today/Suffolk University poll, even place Gardner ahead among women.

Similar dynamics can be seen in other close Senate races this election. In Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is polling similarly among women as his female Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes, who has made a concerted effort to capture the women's vote.

In Arkansas, Democratic incumbent Mark Pryor polled slightly higher among women in a recent survey from CBS News/New York Times Upshot/YouGov, attracting 38 percent of the female vote to GOP challenger Tom Cotton's 33 percent. Yet Cotton is winning over men by 18 percentage points more than Pryor. And one poll showed Pryor losing among men and women, with women favoring Cotton 46-43 percent.

Even in races where women voters are leaning more strongly Democrat, they're not doing so at high enough rates to counter strong male support for the Republican candidates. In Alaska, where incumbent Sen. Mark Begich has been slamming GOP opponent (and current Anchorage mayor) Dan Sullivan for his views on equal pay and abortion, the Democrat does enjoy a hefty 49-32 percent lead among women. But this is offset by Sullivan's 51-34 percent lead among men, and Sullivan is polling slightly higher than Begich overall.

In Iowa, U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley has hammered Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst and for her support of federal and state "personhood" amendments, which may be paying off with female voters—a Quinnipiac University poll released October 29 showed women backing Braley 50-42 percent. But this is down from the previous week's poll, when women split 53-40 percent in Braley's favor. And Ernst now enjoys a 17 percentage point lead among male voters. Overall, the Quinnipiac poll showed Ernst leading 49 to 45 percent. 

And in North Carolina, where Sen. Kay Hagan has campaigned hard for women's votes, she does lead by 10 percentage points among all likely female voters and 29 percent among unmarried women. GOP opponent Thom Tillis, however, has a 10 point lead among men likely to cast a ballot. (This is also the state where Cosmopolitan magazine will be sponsoring a party bus, equipped with shirtless male models, to drive female college students to the polls.) 

Are Democrats' new tactics in these states driving the female gender gap in their favor? That's hard to say, considering women voters routinely skew Democrat. It's certainly plausible that emphasis on issues like contraception and equal pay may be helping them gain ground in some races where Republicans aren't particularly adept on these issues. Nationally, however, it's hardly been a home-run strategy for the DSCC. 

At least part of the reason "War on Women" rhetoric worked so well for Democrats in 2012 was the existence of GOP senatorial candidates such as Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock and their tone-deaf comments on things like rape. There has been no Akin-proportionate GOP gaffe this year to grab national headlines. Rather we have folks like Gardner, whose messaging around women's issues has been spot on. 

When pressed about polls showing lackluster female support, Democratic strategists have insisted that this matters little and, come election day, it'll all pay off. 

It's interesting to note, however, that "women's" electoral issues don't really divide the sexes in the way many might expect. In the 2008 book Unconventional Wisdom: Facts and Myths about the American Voter, the authors point out that gender-specific issues (such as abortion) tend to find similar support and opposition levels among both women and men. 

These issues also just aren't that salient to voters right now. In a recent NBCNews/Marist poll of likely Colorado voters, respondents biggest concerns were job creation and economic growth (22 percent), breaking partisan gridlock (17 percent), health care (11 percent), government spending (10 percent), and ISIS (8 percent). "Looking out for the interests of women" came in a three-way tie for lowest issue of concern among the choices, along with immigration and Social Security/Medicare (each received 7 percent).

As many political strategists, writers, and pundits have noted over the past few weeks, issues like birth control and abortion simply rank low among the list of current concerns for female voters. This likely isn't an expression of how important women consider their availability—the vast majority of American women will use birth control in their lifetimes and one in three will have an abortion—but the fact that they genuinely aren't pressing political matters right now at Congressional level.

The federal Life at Conception Act—which several Democrats have used as a cudgel against GOP opponents who did (Gardner) or do (Ernst) support it—has about as much chance of being enacted as your dog does of becoming president; it would take passing both chambers of Congress with two-thirds support and ratification by 75 percent of state legislatures. And as George Will noted in a recent Washington Post column, "access to contraception has been a constitutional right right for 49 years" while "the judiciary has controlled abortion policy for 41 years."

The idea that this country will ban birth control entirely or amend the Constitution to define fertilized eggs as people is simply not plausible. But as H.L. Mencken says: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." In 2004, our hobgoblins were happily married gay couples. In 2010, an influx of illegal immigrants. This year, it's The Handmaid's Tale coming true. 

Whether the strategy proves effective remains to be seen, albeit for not much longer. But the 2014 election has already proved Democrats just as willing as GOP counterparts past to stoke absolutely baseless fears for electoral gain. 

* Gallup contests the (oft-cited elsewhere) idea that women's approval of President Obama has waned over the past few years.

NEXT: Millennials Favor a Republican Congress, Ebola Breeds Quarantine Fever, ISIS Gets More Stuff That Goes BOOM: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. A uterus in every pot!

    2. ABORTIONS FOR SOME, MINIATURE AMERICAN FLAGS FOR OTHERS!

  1. Thanks ENB this is very important. The War on Women didn’t help Obama. Women voters didn’t get him across the finish line minorities did, and conservatives DGAFing on Romney.

  2. Better vibrators?

    1. I’ll vote for whoever makes sex toys tax deductible.

      1. You had me at sex.

        1. Why can’t I buy a Magic Wand with my FSA? Could it be INSTITUTIONAL MISOGYNY?!

      2. Mine are named and have ssn’s.

  3. Since Colorado is home to several mega-churches (all fundamentalist/charismatic), the Democratic strategy may well backfire. The women in these churches have no problem with outlawing abortion and they are getting organized and alarmed at the attacks on Gardner. Women, like Hispanics are hardly monolithic in their political views.

    1. Yeah, it does seem like if anything Udall’s obsessive focus may be mobilizing the so-con base there.

  4. At the end of the day, women want to be taken care of, like whats-her-face in The Life of Julia.

    1. Shugga daddy government.

  5. I never quite got why being treated like a helpless idiot appeals to so many women, but apparently it’s not uncommon. It must be some kind of political BDSM thing.

  6. STOP THE WAR ON MEN!!!

    http://witchwind.wordpress.com…..look-like/

    Seriously, you gotta read this. You’d think it’s a parody but no, it’s real.

    1. I most certainly do not.

    2. “All men at least above 15 (or younger if very asocial) should live separately from women and children, on their own in small huts or studios, isolated from one another and scattered around so that women can keep an eye on them (they should never be in groups or packs, that would be illegal).

      So it would also be illegal for male adults to impose their presence on females, girls and children. Men would have to care for themselves on their own: food, laundry, etc. No male above his age of puberty would be allowed to receive any kind of service from a female. Their life expectancy would probably drop to the age of 40, but that’s how things should be.

      PIV(?) would be illegal too of course, as well as the initiation of any verbal or physical contact to women and girls or boy children, unless solicited by a woman for specific matters. I’m not sure what to do about boy children. Obviously you know my opinion, but let’s say that’s up to the mother to decide what she wants to do before he turns of age to leave the female family circle….”

      PIV? Guesses, anyone?

      1. Penis In Vagina.

        Seriously.

      2. Penis in vagina.

        1. I’m surprised at myself for not even contemplating that.

          1. You should try it. Despite the author’s poor opinion of the practice, it can actually be a lot of fun!

    3. “In order to keep all men and post-pubescent boys busy, we’d send them to clean up the vast amounts of detritus, pollution and toxic wastes men have littered and almost killed the world with. Much of the damage to the earth is irreversible, however with a great deal of effort and genius, women will find sustainable, natural and simple ways of healing a lot of the damage men have caused, and send men off to do the dirty work. No man will be allowed to take any decision without female guidance. We know what happens when men decide on their own! DISASTER.

      Family, child-raising and reproduction

      Fathers’ rights will cease to exist. There is no such thing as fatherhood ? as we all know, it’s a myth…

      Mmmm.

      I confess, i am not really that interested in quoting how the rest of her theoretical universe works. Although i found the part where she explained that ‘all governments would be replaced by a group of co-operating female experts’ to be LOL-inducing.

      Because everyone knows, committees of 100% females are the most ‘co-operative’ things on earth.

      1. I can’t get two female friends of mine in the same room without one of them bitching non-stop about the other.

        World needs dicks, pussies AND assholes.

      2. Exactly.

        I have several women friends who would readily admit to the fact that most of their closest friends are men because they don’t like other women.

        Her diatribe is less realistic than Scientology.

      3. I laughed all the way through, after I got past being shocked that people who “think” this way actually exist. The economic fantasies alone are enough to extinct all of the all female colonies they could plant.

      4. Toxic waste disposal is already a thoroughly male-dominated profession. Like garbage disposal more generally, it is men’s work, not because men somehow exclude women from the work but because common men take these jobs, which pay more than low skill alternatives, to win the favor of women sharing their income while earning less. As a consequence, “gender gap” statistics show women earning less than men by systematically ignoring the fact that women consume much of the income earned by men exposing themselves to toxic waste.

        Everything I say here was common knowledge in 1985 when Margaret Atwood wrote The Handmaid’s Tale, the dystopian story of a future in which women live in barracks subject to a military elite (of military men and their wives), alienated from their children and reduced to cleaning up toxic waste if they don’t work out in the barracks. Seriously, that’s an accurate summary of the novel. It’s an allegory in which women play the role of common men, and I suppose Atwood was aware of it.

    4. Truly epic rant. That is one horribly troubled lady. I can’t imagine sitting around fantasizing about the extermination and intentional infliction of pain and suffering on millions of my fellow humans, but then again I’m not a progressive.

    5. Let’s hope that this is indeed a parody. Otherwise this “female person” needs some serious mental health meds. Stark, raving, crazy beeotch. A truly scarey view. How’s all those fatherless families working out so far. Oh,Oh, and just wait until they all get on the same cycle at the same time…No Wars…yeah, right.

      1. How’s all those fatherless families working out so far.

        Got ten bucks this wannabe Pol Pot with a pussy is product of a fatherless household herself.

        The whole worldview is one long ‘Are you my daddy!?’

    6. Wow. That was amazing!

      So much in there to make me chuckle, it is hard to pick just one thing. But here it is:

      “This isn’t by any means a realistic plan of how to achieve it, but just reading it makes me feel happy. It makes it feel more real, more possible. Enjoy!”

      See, men! Women who talk about their problems really don’t want you to help think about how to solve them. They just want you to listen while they talk about them.

  7. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if the greatest damage from the “War on Women” rhetoric comes from Republicans taking it seriously. That is, I wonder if the damage comes from Republicans jumping through hoops to counter the claims. These are idiotic claims. No major U.S. politician is out to take away women’s ability to buy birth control. And birth control purchases don’t make up a significant expense for just about anyone. In short, these are claims that deserved to be laughed at and people dumb enough to buy into them deserve to be ridiculed as the morons they are. If a Republican were to respond to the War on Women cry by asking women “You’re not really so retarded that you think I’m out to ban the pill, are you?”, how would most women respond?

    1. I don’t know, but when I here “war on women” irl, I laugh in the person’s face and call them a moron. What they get for wasting my time.

      1. Which is exactly what you should do. I just wonder if Republican politicians might not be wise to start following your example.

        1. I also meant “hear,” but somehow my brain is not functioning well tonight. I blame the ‘shine.

  8. I live in Colorado and I think that part of the problem is that Udall (and pro Udall PACs) has (have) failed to provide any other message whatsoever than “Gardner hates teh Womans”. I think that this tactic was effective for the first month or so (and the polls showed it), but has become stale.
    What I don’t get is why Udall has failed to message his popular initiatives, like his fight against the Patriot Act. I think that this would resonate with the unaffiliated voters in this state.

  9. On my Derpbook feed, I saw a bunch of butthurt progs whining that some newspapers in Colorado, particularly the Denver Post, had endorsed Gardner over Udall for this exact reason–because his obsessive focus on painting Gardner as a coathook-wielding monster overtook whatever other message he might have been trying to convey. It shows just how tribal their worldview has become.

    Honestly, does anyone really think that in this day and age, people are swayed by newspaper endorsements? Most people have their vote decided months before the election, barring some October surprise event, so there’s no logical reason to start pissing and moaning just because a paper decides to endorse one candidate over the other.

    1. Honestly, does anyone really think that in this day and age, people are swayed by newspaper endorsements?

      The only people newspaper endorsements matter to are Progressives, and when one of their beloved papers endorses the Wrong Guy for a list of reasons obtained through the use of “logic” and “reason,” it causes a backlash. Mostly because of cognitive dissonance.

      1. Bullshit. Both sides bitch when their guy doesn’t get the endorsement…in equal measures.

        1. Considering I consider both Team Red and Team Blue progressive in nature, that doesn’t contradict my statement.

          1. I’ve yet to become fully fluent in Libertarianese…where Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mussolini, and every other tyrant ever is considered a lefty progressive. It’s a hell of a definition…but hey, if you miss the field goal, just move the goal posts eh?

            1. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Mussolini, and every other tyrant ever is considered a lefty progressive.

              Maybe not lefty progressivism, but certainly exemplars of 20th century authoritarianism, of which the progressive movement was one branch.

            2. If your goal is to use the government to exert power over other individuals that don’t agree with you, then it doesn’t really matter what label is applied to you, does it?

              Also, I didn’t move the goalpost. I never said Republican nor Democrat. I stated, specifically, Progressives, with a capital P. I’m not sure how much more clear I could have been.

              1. The problem is that while Progressivism is a form of Authoritarianism, it is not by any means the only form we see in society today. It’s weak sauce that Libertarians cook when they try to equate the two, and it reaks of the stench that Republicans leave on the movement. Instead of sounding like some fucking Ditto-head, or Fox News alcolyte, how about you just use the term – Authoritarian?

                1. Fuck off, Progressive.

                2. Because the political philosophy of today’s lefties is traceable to turn of the century Progressivism. It’s nearly an exact match. Perfection of man through gov, command economy implemented via hyper regulation, rejection of axiomatic foundation of gov, etc…it’s all there. Which makes them evil mother fuckers.

                  1. A kinder, gentler totalitarianism. Fuck off Slaver.

            3. Perhaps not Hitler, as he was too much a political beast to be beholden to principals, but the Strassers were assuredly “left” and had a huge impact on the Nazi 25 points. Mussolini simply saw fascism as an amalgamation of communism with nationalism.

              In the end, fascism, communism, and socialism all draw from the Romantic movements of the ~1840’s. They are the product of people who truly believe that if the right Top Men are in place, the world with be birthed into a utopia. And there is no limit to the misery they will unleash the reach their ideals.

              In the end, semantics are what they are – labels that are imperfect and can be switched and moved. But the reality is there has been a huge upsurge in the broad use of Force, over the last 150 years, by Romantics who typically don’t have the first clue of how real equity is made much less how it should be allocated.

        2. “Bullshit. Both sides bitch when their guy doesn’t get the endorsement…in equal measures.”

          Considering that most newspapers lean left, this statement doesn’t pass the smell test.

    2. Honestly, the best (and funniest) thing to come out of the Udall-Gardner race was Deadspin completely fucking up a hit-piece on Gardner related to his time on the high school football team. Gardner immediately posted yearbook photos that showed him in uniform, and the reporter was shown to have done such poor due diligence that Deadspin’s chief editor “Commie” Craggs had to post an entry acknowledging said fuck-up.

      1. Yeah, aside from the dumpster fire that is the Wendy Davis campaign, that whole Deadspin-Gardner fail was my favorite so far.

        1. Gawker Media is nothing more than a giant neo-McCarthyite organization. Their reporters and editors live to find embarrassing information about people’s past and ruin their lives and those of their families in the process.

          Now that they’re shitting the bed over Gamergate because they went after targets who should have been their natural social allies, people are starting to see Gawker for the toxic entity it really is, with a comment section filled with people who proudly wear their emotional handicaps on their sleeve like a badge of honor–as if being a complete basketcase is something to crow about and normalized.

  10. as Vincent answered I am stunned that a student can make $4999 in 4 weeks on the internet . have a peek at this site

    ===== http://www.MoneyKin.Com

  11. people are sick of hearing that you are anti woman if you don’t support paying for everyone else’s birth control. There are many more real issues that women care about and the democrats have failed on.

  12. Don’t worry guys – Koch money has the midterm sewed up for you “conservative” types. Just don’t pretend it has anything to do with people liking those candidates (it doesn’t) or with the type of Gubment people want.

    I followed some of the closer races and it’s pretty much one dollar = one vote. That is, the GOP winners usually have X more dollars in ads than the Dem candidates.

    Let’s not fool ourselves and say this is an ideal republic.

    1. Honest question, craig: when you right these things, do you realize you aren’t making a single salient point? Or do you re-read the post and honestly think it’s insightful and thought provoking?

      1. Takes his comments from the daily prog news letter.

    2. Does it work that way with Democrat winners too? Or, just when Republicans win?

      1. lol, I was wondering the same thing.

    3. So please enlighten us, by what mechanism is it that this Koch money is generating additional votes for their preferred candidates if it is not using advertising to convince people to LIKE the republican candidate?

      Ergo yes the people DO like the GOP better.

    4. craiginmass|10.29.14 @ 8:00PM|#
      “Don’t worry guys – Koch money has the midterm sewed up for you “conservative” types.”

      Yeah, ASSHOLE, how about the union vig?

    5. How much would the Koch’s have to pony up in advertisement money to get your vote?

    6. Wow! Yeah, thanks for the heads up. Being in Iowa all the Braley ads are pretty adamant that all the R candidates are in cahoots with the Kochtopus. That is their entire campaign whilst the Rs are just putting up ads about how well the state economy is going for our podunk state since an R governor took back over. Watch a local news show…hell…the World Series had a Dem sponsored ad…but the Ds are 2:1 in ratio of their ads to R ads. But, yeah, it is about teh evul moneyz not benevolent union coffers.

  13. Abortions for all, guys must sign up for anti-rape classes, plus legislated classes on something to do with toilet seats or….

    Husband makes $200 gs a year, and the woman gets to go to yoga, and lunch every day with her girlfriends.

    Which one does the average woman really want?

    1. They want both.

  14. It always amazes me how much mileage dems still get out of the abortion fear mongering 40 years after roe v wade.

  15. “Fear-mongering about the GOP”

    Hi Elizabeth,

    You mean reminding voters that the last time Republicans had power we ended up in an illegal and unconscionable war in Iraq and that their ownership society rhetoric and policy landed the economy at the brink of depression.

    I know, I know.,, BOOOSCH. Does misspelling George Bush’s name make his record any better? I think Obama has run the country competently so I can just spell it O-B-A-M-A and feel good about economic stimulus spending,

    1. I’m sorry, did you say something ?

      1. Did it say something?

    2. american socialist|10.29.14 @ 9:05PM|#
      “Hi Elizabeth,”

      Hi, dipshit. Pay off your mortgage yet? Still fronting for mass-murders, dipshit?

      1. No but I think I paid an installment last April.

      2. You know, right, that the government has gotten billions in settlements from those crooks at BofA. The idea that those of us smart enough to give the finger to crooked bankers cost the taxpayer a dime is belied by the billions of dollars that BofA paid in penalties to the government. I know, I know… that money came from the salaries of corrupt CEOs and shareholders. Sniff. Poor, poor them.

    3. i think asshole socialist is really Joseph Biden, unchained. Obama doesn’t let him out of his dog-run anymore, but Funny Joe hid a flip phone up his ass and can still send simple messages. You would have to admit, this would explain everything.

    4. @american socialist

      If you’re going to be off topic, it’s common etiquette to say so.

  16. This really isn’t surprising at all. The “war on women” phrase was built on the foundation of Republican candidates saying stupid things about rape. But even in 2012 when those things were said, there was no evidence that the remarks influenced elections outside of the ones which contained those foolish politicians. In both Todd Aiken’s statewide race in Missouri and Richard Mourdock’s statewide race in Indiana, Mitt Romney was able to win both of those states (despite losing almost every other swing state). Unsurprisingly, a majority of voters polled said that the comments made by Aiken did not reflect the views of the Republican Party. That they were just an isolated incident from a gaffe prone politician. So it’s also not a surprise that in a year where comments like this have not occurred that Democrats cannot take advantage of the “war on women” rhetoric.

    1. Thank you for spelling losing correctly. I commend you.

  17. Hi Elizabeth,

    I like the placement of your article when I load Reason.com. Your article, dismissing the political party that doesn’t want to interfere with the birth and conception of your child, loads right above the puff piece on hero of liberty, justin amash, who would have you go to an underground doctor if you wanted to have an abortion. Was the placement intentional? If so, kudos to you guys. I loves me some irony.

    1. Oh look, the turd shows up hours after the thread is dead to shit all over it. Fuck off turd.

  18. The problem is that you are just looking at women, not single women.

    Single women are Democrats, married women tend to be Republican. However, there are more and more single women, so that’s who the Democrats are chasing

  19. Chicks are stupid.

  20. Can you have some spare time to sit back in your chair having your laptop with you and making some money online for some interesting online work said Jenny Francis in the party last nightsee more what is for you there to increase your pocket money??.

    http://shorx.com/clickforsurvey

  21. The Handmaid’s Tale is an allegory in which women play roles (living in barracks subject to a military elite alienated from their children, cleaning up toxic waste and so on) that common men customarily play in reality, so it has already come true.

    Rearrange these letters:

    AHIDDENMAN

    Then ask yourself why Scrabble plays a central role in the story.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.