Suburban women might be better off due to Democrat policies. Stores like Target are pulling out of cities where Democrats won't prosecute shoplifting, so the suburban women get more attention.

Crime, crime, crime......

DC suburbanites are shaking in their boots whenever they have to do a minor errand in DC with carjackings and auto theft up 100+% YoY.

Anonymous wrote:If you’re any presidential candidate trying to win over independent suburban women (don’t we decide elections).

I have the advice for you. It follows a 2015 article that I’ve thought about in a variety of contexts (not political, and political).

I’ll share that article later, but some people could recognize it.

We need to fall in love with you.

(Continuing shortly)

Nikki Hayley was the only R candidate who even tried to appeal to educated suburban moms / but she has single digit support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.

Most people don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for their medical care due to economic constraints. Does that make them not full citizens?

That’s horse sh—— and you know it. If you go to the ER in cardiac arrest, you are treated without consulting lawyers. Oh unless you are pregnant in Texas. Then we let the legislature decide if you really need life saving care.
But keep going on this path. It’s a winner for you.

Are you really trying to suggest that people on Medicaid have access to the same types of medical treatment/similar outcomes to the wealthy in non reproductive-related medical treatment?

The entire premise of your op shows what a privileged bubble you’re in.

Are you really trying to equate having access to critical, immediately lifesaving care completely legally denied to you, with …quality of insurance?
Really?
Like I said- march right on down that path. Go on with your bad self. You’re doing great!

No one actually supports denying abortions when the mother’s life is at serious risk, unlike insurance companies that routinely deny lifesaving procedures due to lack of coverage. If you looked at the numbers of actual resulting deaths, the latter would be exponentially higher.

Do you not have access to news?

No one supports denying abortion when the mother’s life is at risk?

No one supports making ten year old rape victims have babies?

No one supports sending women home to lose half their blood volume in hair salon bathrooms?

Well gosh how in earth are all of things happening that “no one supports”? It’s almost as though one party absolutely does support this?

I agree that no sane person supports these examples but Republican states are doing it anyway .., and going after on/ gun doctors who performs such necessary abortions ..,

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread got quickly derailed and I think that’s great. Are you getting it yet op?
Or whoever else is asking snarky personal questions?
No amount of family dinners is going to matter, and as a woman living in coveted Lake County Ohio, I find these distractions offensive.
Your suggestions make women out to be silly and stupid. It’s insulting and doesn’t sway us to vote for your candidate. We weren’t fooled by issue 1 and we won’t be fooled by this.

Got derailed by one relentless person who wants to debate one issue (probably not representing the entire electorate), and the other person who also wont let it go.

Narrator: But it wasn’t just one person, and when it came to women’s rights and freedoms, they weren’t going to just “let it go”.

But if they keep believing there is only one person, they’ll keep losing elections, so maybe we shouldn’t tell them? They can focus on making women “fall in love with them”

Good point!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread got quickly derailed and I think that’s great. Are you getting it yet op?
Or whoever else is asking snarky personal questions?
No amount of family dinners is going to matter, and as a woman living in coveted Lake County Ohio, I find these distractions offensive.
Your suggestions make women out to be silly and stupid. It’s insulting and doesn’t sway us to vote for your candidate. We weren’t fooled by issue 1 and we won’t be fooled by this.

Got derailed by one relentless person who wants to debate one issue (probably not representing the entire electorate), and the other person who also wont let it go.

Narrator: But it wasn’t just one person, and when it came to women’s rights and freedoms, they weren’t going to just “let it go”.

But if they keep believing there is only one person, they’ll keep losing elections, so maybe we shouldn’t tell them? They can focus on making women “fall in love with them”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread got quickly derailed and I think that’s great. Are you getting it yet op?
Or whoever else is asking snarky personal questions?
No amount of family dinners is going to matter, and as a woman living in coveted Lake County Ohio, I find these distractions offensive.
Your suggestions make women out to be silly and stupid. It’s insulting and doesn’t sway us to vote for your candidate. We weren’t fooled by issue 1 and we won’t be fooled by this.

Got derailed by one relentless person who wants to debate one issue (probably not representing the entire electorate), and the other person who also wont let it go.

Narrator: But it wasn’t just one person, and when it came to women’s rights and freedoms, they weren’t going to just “let it go”.

Anonymous wrote:This thread got quickly derailed and I think that’s great. Are you getting it yet op?
Or whoever else is asking snarky personal questions?
No amount of family dinners is going to matter, and as a woman living in coveted Lake County Ohio, I find these distractions offensive.
Your suggestions make women out to be silly and stupid. It’s insulting and doesn’t sway us to vote for your candidate. We weren’t fooled by issue 1 and we won’t be fooled by this.

Got derailed by one relentless person who wants to debate one issue (probably not representing the entire electorate), and the other person who also wont let it go.

Well OP, if you think you've cracked the code, go tell a campaign manager to cancel all the events and just have dinner with neighbors and sing songs to children. The will probably look at you confused and bewildered, which is how I felt when I read your suggestions.

Please, do not speak for women. I personally would hate to watch a video of Biden or DeSantis singing to children. My entire body would shudder and cringe. And I would be equally irritated with a candidate who wanted to come over for dinner and make me like them. I don't give a crap if I like them. I want people with good policy.

But you're probably closer to how most people think than I am. It seems no one really cares about policies, actual track records, or anything that you'd normally use to determine if someone will do the things you want them to do. Now it's all about which candidates make them feel good because they pop off at the guys they don't like.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. When was the last time a fundamental right standing for 50 years was taken away from half of the population of the United states

Incandescent light bulbs, gas stoves, soon gas powered cars, airline travel, and meat.

Incandescent bulbs are obsolete. Your politics keep you from understanding that.

Anonymous wrote:It just doesn’t sit well with me when a politician says they should decide my medical care. They are saying they don’t trust my decision making.
That isn’t going to win my vote.

Agree but m also not ok with health insurance dictating things either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of “Independent suburban women” rank abortion as their only voting criteria?

I expect for most of us it is not the only criteria, but it is the minimum criteria for consideration. If you can’t tell me that you (and your party’s plank) fully support women’s ability to make medical decisions about our own bodies, including the choice of abortion, it’s thank you, next.

Once you pass that hurdle (shouldn’t even be a hurdle) then I am interested in hearing what else you have to say. At that point I am not as interested in knowing that you spend time with your own family as I am about whether you have an understanding and practical ideas (ideally backed by previous actions that you have taken to good effect) on how to address issues facing all of us.

It’s laughable how many DCUM women seem to think they speak for mainstream America or that their votes are even a blip on the radar for the leading republican candidates.

Np. Here’s the thing. I don’t pretend to speak for anyone else. BUT, women across America (I’m not sure who you consider “mainstream”) are more similar than different. We don’t want to be mansplained, we don’t want to be harassed at work (whether we’re fat, skinny, beautiful, old, whatever), if we’re mothers, we want our kids to be treated fairly, we want to be appreciated for all the free work we do (housework, childcare, eldercare, arranging the office party, chaperoning the school trip), we want to feel safe (walking streets at night, in bars, filling up a car, in a doctor’s office, on a sports team). And much else.

I absolutely agree with all of the above. However I would ardently disagree with the idea that those values are inconsistent with a pro-life stance or that the Democratic Party is inherently more respectful of women.

It depends what you mean by a “pro-life stance”. Do you mean support for pregnant women, legal protections in the workplace, national maternity leave, excellent prenatal care, and no one is allowed to compel you to have an abortion?

Or do you mean “pro life” as in “pro-fetus” and once the baby is born tough shoes here’s your diapers better not ask for welfare.

Because I actually agree the Democratic Party isn’t inherently more respectful these days. They take women’s votes absolutely for granted and do not deliver anything better than “vote for me because I won’t sign an abortion ban”. And you know what? We have to vote for them if we don’t want an abortion ban to kill our daughters.

When I see some “pro-lifers” acting like they care about the lives of women and girls who have already been born, about the horrific state of maternal healthcare in this country—Idaho just stopped counting dead women and hoped they’d go away!— about the struggles to find safe high quality care for infants, about pregnancy discrimination, maybe there will be some credibility there. But there is nothing of that in the U.S antiabortion movement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What percentage of “Independent suburban women” rank abortion as their only voting criteria?

I expect for most of us it is not the only criteria, but it is the minimum criteria for consideration. If you can’t tell me that you (and your party’s plank) fully support women’s ability to make medical decisions about our own bodies, including the choice of abortion, it’s thank you, next.

Once you pass that hurdle (shouldn’t even be a hurdle) then I am interested in hearing what else you have to say. At that point I am not as interested in knowing that you spend time with your own family as I am about whether you have an understanding and practical ideas (ideally backed by previous actions that you have taken to good effect) on how to address issues facing all of us.

It’s laughable how many DCUM women seem to think they speak for mainstream America or that their votes are even a blip on the radar for the leading republican candidates.

Kansas and Ohio are huge blips on the Republican radar and if you believe differently you’re deluding yourself. RNC chair and even Haley have been trying to sound the alarm but then there’s always a guy like you saying women don’t **really** care if we let them die of sepsis.

While you will probably refuse to believe this I am in fact a 40 year old woman with young children. I am a fan of Nicki Haley (whose position on abortion I think you and other liberals are mischaracterizing) but would never vote for a pro-choice candidate and am quite confident that such a candidate would not be able to gain widespread Republican support on a national level.

We can revisit this post in 15 months to see who the deluded party was.

This thread is about attracting independent suburban women, not republican suburban women.

Well an “independent” Suburban woman whose top voting issue is women’s reproductive rights is realistically never going to vote for a republican candidate at the national level so this entire thread is pointless.

Poster you quoted earlier who said the RNC is deluded— I voted for Bush, and voted for Pataki. I’m about as independent as you get in this area and I am 0% interested in forced birth candidates.

Well we’re no longer in the 1990s and politics and the respective party platforms (at least at the national level) have evolved quite a bit since those days so you are probably no longer as independent as you suggest.

Dude I voted for a pro-choice moderate, mainstream Republican. I really do want you to tell me what you think is more “independent” than that in 2023 that you think you’re going to find to swing people to the Republican side.

[img]i

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
1. When was the last time a fundamental right standing for 50 years was taken away from half of the population of the United states

Incandescent light bulbs, gas stoves, soon gas powered cars, airline travel, and meat.

Which of those has been taken away? Every single one of those things is readily available.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If my daughter and her doctor don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for her medical care, she’s not a full citizen. She’s not truly valued. So what else can be taken from her?
Other issues are incredibly important, but this is something I can’t get past. It’s the first check on the form, and if a candidate can’t check that box, they are disqualified from my vote.

Most people don’t have the freedom to make the best choices for their medical care due to economic constraints. Does that make them not full citizens?

That’s horse sh—— and you know it. If you go to the ER in cardiac arrest, you are treated without consulting lawyers. Oh unless you are pregnant in Texas. Then we let the legislature decide if you really need life saving care.
But keep going on this path. It’s a winner for you.

Are you really trying to suggest that people on Medicaid have access to the same types of medical treatment/similar outcomes to the wealthy in non reproductive-related medical treatment?

The entire premise of your op shows what a privileged bubble you’re in.

Are you really trying to equate having access to critical, immediately lifesaving care completely legally denied to you, with …quality of insurance?
Really?
Like I said- march right on down that path. Go on with your bad self. You’re doing great!

No one actually supports denying abortions when the mother’s life is at serious risk, unlike insurance companies that routinely deny lifesaving procedures due to lack of coverage. If you looked at the numbers of actual resulting deaths, the latter would be exponentially higher.

Do you not have access to news?

No one supports denying abortion when the mother’s life is at risk?

No one supports making ten year old rape victims have babies?

No one supports sending women home to lose half their blood volume in hair salon bathrooms?

Well gosh how in earth are all of things happening that “no one supports”? It’s almost as though one party absolutely does support this?