Question:
Why would women voters who support Hillary turn around and vote for a republican like Mcain/Palan?
anonymous
2008-09-17 00:03:05 UTC
Yes I know my spelling is a little rusty but if that's all everyone wants to comment on is correct spelling then I guess I'm in the wrong place! The last question I asked about MCain and his vice president was only answered by people who had nothing else better to do but comment on my misspelling of Mcaine and Sara Palen. So please overlook the spelling.

What I want to know is why women who like Hillary would vote for Mcaine simply because he nominated a women for presidency. The Democrat and republican partys have extremely different ideals. One is pro life and the other pro choice. one party appeals more to the middle class and the other is for people with 6digit incomes and up. I'm a white male and I'm voting for Barrack Obama and if it were Hillary who had won I'd vote for her . Would it make any sense if I decided to vote for a white male who says that millionaires are middle class members that deserve the same tax breaks as the people making 50k per year? With a multitrillion dollar deficit rising millions per minute there is no reason for tax cuts. Sure paying less taxes is great but when the deficit is so high the currency exchange rates rise and since everything in America is Made somewhere over seas then we have to pay more because the dollar is worthless.That's why gas is so expensive and then making your food more expensive. At the current rate the average cost of living for the middle class has risen 8percent in the past 2years . Inflation wont slow down until we pay our national debt and we cant do that if were giving Bill Gates a tax cut! or wasting money in Iraq.
Seventeen answers:
anonymous
2008-09-17 00:17:33 UTC
The simple answer is because they are dumb. They were never true Hillary supporters, as voting for McCain goes against everything Hillary has fought for. They were in favor of her for the simple fact that she is a women, and not for what she stands for. Unfortunately it seems as though many people are voting for all the wrong reasons.
bill t
2008-09-17 07:23:12 UTC
not a woman but i know 2 that are 100% going to flip from Democrat to Republican for the first time ever (both have voted for 38+ years all democrat)

0bama can't do what he is telling you he can, otherwise Hillary would have already done it in a BETTER economy. Reasoning behind the flip is they believe in a more centered candidate than 0bama.....I think the Democrats forgot about or dislike moderation and keep putting out shady candidates. Also the attacks on Palin are ridiculous. Trooper gate is just a big smear that the Dems want to use..funny thing is she fired that guy for all the right reasons and she can fire a commissioner anytime for anything as THEY ARE APPOINTED and he was clearly not doing what she wanted, regardless about the trooper who ended up being not worthy to hold a badge
anewfoundglory1521
2008-09-17 07:15:17 UTC
Ignorance. They are idiots to vote for McCain because Obama beat her. What they don't realize is if they do what they say they are going to do, the same thing will happen to Hillary in 2004. A lot of Obama supporters will vote for the Rep. candidate out of spite and she will lose. And I am a Republican so I won't complain too much. "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King
Notyour B
2008-09-17 07:21:02 UTC
The only way this would happen is if the Clinton supporter was only supporting the candidate because she had a vagina. Beyond the vagina they don't seem to have anything in common. Clinton a left-wing liberal, Palin a right-wing nut job. Clinton pro-choice, Palin Pro-life. Clinton fighting for women issues for decades, Palin winning beauty pageants. WAIT! They both lie! Clinton "took fire in Serbia", Palin said "Thanks but no Thanks..." (but I'll take the cash) to that bridge. OK, so if the voters two key issues are a) Vagina b) Liar, then the vote will cross over, otherwise it's highly unlikely.
anonymous
2008-09-17 07:38:59 UTC
He's a stand up guy with your best interest at heart. You got to know he hired Lobbyist to do the dirty work, a bank lobbyist wrote his economic

package. Your damn right he knows what's best for you and you are about to eat it again. talk about slow learners. Either your all rich or plain can't read. If you like Bush you'll love McCain, get ready to keep shelling out. Thank God I'm retired own everything and don't have to pay taxes.



http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_mccain.html

Sounds good to me, Watch him hit you with taxes for his health plan, ha-ha. Don't forget about billions of dollars in bailouts because the Republicans gave them a free hand to screw things up.. If you think all these people are losing their homes because of the Democrats, fooled again, God their good at lying.
Maureen L
2008-09-17 07:18:15 UTC
Because most smart women care what direction this country goes in!

Obama is definitely not ready to lead this nation! A person would have to be extremely gullible to vote for Obama!



McCain/Palin 2008
Sky Blue Waters !
2008-09-17 07:17:51 UTC
Well if Obama didn't see see his refusal to pick Hillary as a huge problem, What type of judgment could he possibly have?

Cmon, really.

He actually thought he was that wonderfull and dreamy that the country would never go against him.

What an ego.....
anonymous
2008-09-17 07:09:08 UTC
The same reason some Black people will vote for McCain if he hired a Black man to be his running mate... if Obama lost the nomination.



It doesn't matter as long as their sisterhood is on the uppity.
ÂŅŦĬ ĂĈǾŖŇ
2008-09-17 07:12:34 UTC
I think her gender and the Hillary expectations were not weighed heavily, she was considered before Obama clinched (sic) ha ha.

Things made elsewhere and shipped to America didn't make gas and everything else more expensive. Inflation rises, particularly in real crisis, like the threat of terror, or the tax and spend philosophy of Democrats.
Barbara
2008-09-17 11:18:54 UTC
I will answer your question, but it's ironic that you expressed concern about the falling dollar & rising costs:



You seem not to realize that Obama has an economic advisor named Franklin Raines who is at the center of the housing scandal which caused the current recession. As CEO of Fannie Mae, in accounting fraud that hurts every American financially, he gained "seven figures" (you say the Repubs are for 6-figure people: Well...I'll give you some links to show Dems are helping their 7-figure cronies), and agreed to give back $25Mil of it but that's only half of one of the bonuses he got, allegedly via the fraud. I wonder if the "reformer" Obama will give Raines a Cabinet post, as advisors are often given?? He took on Raines AFTER Raines was already disgraced and removed from Fannie Mae.



Before Raines, Obama took favors from a man named Rezko, after he was ALREADY indicted for buying favors from politicians. Obama himself called his relations with Rezko "boneheaded". I'd say it was even MORE boneheaded to repeat the same mistake with Raines just 2 years later (has trouble learning from past mistakes).



Obama also gave out earmarks, from hardworking Americans to Obama's friends (e.g. google Hunter Biden Obama).



NYTimes also says Obama's Social Security plan will not balance the budget. (8-14-08, Larry Rohtor) i.e. harder times are coming than what Obama wants Americans to believe. (What Obama says: "what I know is that Soc-Sec is solvable". The reality: HIS OWN PLAN will not solve it! Obama's numbers don't come close to correcting America's (i.e. YOUR) financial ruin...his plan will continue America's 50-year path into debt (and possible bankruptcy, like the French Revolution, and Rome a few hundred years before that...unless we get REAL change to government budgeting). Obama is a millenarist, promising utopia but he won't deliver what Americans need: his own numbers prove it. (BTW, another Dem, FDR, started Social Security complete with all the flaws that will kill our economy when the Boomer retire soon -- as the next 2 links show ...and bear in mind, MSNBC is very far to the left of FoxNews and these are EDUCATED opinions from financial experts, not some right-wingers nor scaremongering wackos; the GAO has many CALCULATIONS to back it up...cos they are also very concerned:

msnbc.msn.com/id/26091249 says "Creditworthiness of the COUNTRY is at stake", i.e. your QUALITY-OF-LIFE is at stake and in a separate article, articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/TheHugeThreatToTheUSEconomy.aspx ) So Social-Security is especially important for anyone younger than Baby Boomers; yet ironically, Obama has a young following.





a little more detail:

1. The Fannie/Freddie scandal has essentially DOUBLED THE NATIONAL DEFICIT (http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/SuperModels/a-desperate-but-necessary-bailout.aspx). The Iraq expenses you're so concerned about...are small beans compared to this. Obama consulting the primary man responsible...basically shows where Obama's deficits will go. Also note that FDR started Fannie/Freddie, then the CLINTON admin inserted loopholes that allow today's congressmen to rip off us taxpayers (SEE www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26695074 or www.slate.com/id/2200160 NOTE THAT I'M NOT LINKING TO FOX NEWS HERE, AND EVEN LEFTIST EDITORS ARE TRYING TO WAKE UP DEMS TO THE FACT THAT SLICK WILLIE AND TODAY'S CONGRESSIONAL DEMS (AND FDR WHO STARTED FANNIE/FREDDIE, AND SOCIAL SECURITY, COMPLETE WITH THE FLAWS HARMING US TODAY) ARE NO SMARTER THAN BUSH, AND MANY ARE NO LESS CORRUPT THAN BUSH). Let me also point out... LIES LIES LIES from Obama: "In a statement issued shortly after 6 a.m. ET, Obama said he did not blame McCain, but "I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to. It's a philosophy we've had for the last eight years -- one that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." As my last 2 links show, trickle-down (Reaganomics) did not cause this recession...unless Bill Clinton is a trickle-down Reaganomics adherent, cos the Slate link, and the last MSNBC link to a WASHINGTON POST article, show that THE CLINTON ADMIN started today's housing mess which is at the core of the recession: specifically, the 1995 HUD bill.



2. The center of the current recession -- the collapse of Fannie/Freddie -- WAS NOT DUE TO A GIFT FOR THE POOREST AMERICANS, AS A WAY TO OWN A HOME: THEY'RE MOSTLY BACK INTO RENTAL HOUSES, OR WORSE, HOMELESS.

OR, AS A BLACK PROTESTER WITH UHURUNEWS.COM PUT IT TO OBAMA (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/08/01/1240564.asp): "we are talking about attacks [on black people; but where I disagree with the protester is the 'attack' was on people of ALL colors] LIKE THE SUBPRIME MORTGAGE that you [Obama] spoke of...". Obama, who has since used the disgraced Fannie exec Franklin Raines as a campaign advisor despite claiming he is for "reform" and "change". IN
joseph b
2008-09-17 11:19:36 UTC
Because they are voting for issues, not parties.
anonymous
2008-09-17 07:11:34 UTC
Maybe they fell for the Muslim & racist rumors? Or they've been overexposed to sodium fluoride in the water and ingesting too much aspartame.
pank t
2008-09-17 07:08:01 UTC
Only idiotic women would do that...the similarities b/w clinton and palin are, i mean, the one similarity b/w them IS they are both woman. They differ on everything else.
Centurion
2008-09-17 07:07:47 UTC
They would vote McCain-Palin because they understand Obama is just an empty suit. McCain-Palin will shake up washington and expose dirty politicians such as Obama. They will make the names public. You will know who stands for you, and who stands in the way of you.



McCain-Palin 08!
anonymous
2008-09-17 11:44:10 UTC
(continued...)

This is Obama, who has since used the disgraced Fannie exec Franklin Raines as a campaign advisor despite claiming he is for "reform" and "change". INSTEAD OF POOR PEOPLE, IT WAS A GIFT TO THE EXECS OF FANNIE/FREDDIE (abcnews.go.com/Business/MarketTalk/story?id=5521570&page=1) AND SOME CONGRESSMEN. Since the current recession was caused by inept and corrupt politicians and their cronies, is Obama -- a self-described "bonehead" when it comes to keeping corrupt associates -- really who you want handling OUR money? Only difference between Obama and McCain is Obama CLAIMS he'll do the right thing for working-class people by expanding government's control of capital (defined by Marx as socialism when 100% is State owned). Stalin & Hitler made the same promise Obama makes (2nd “S” in USSR = The "S" in Hitler's NDSAP = sssssssozialistische (socialism) ). Obama has already proven himself to be aligned with the crony-capitalists of Fannie Mae who were POSING like "we're just socialists trying to get every American into a home" when in fact they were fattening their own wallets and left the poorest Americans in foreclosure.



3. As the 1800's economist Bastiat observed:

"Finally, as it will be accepted in principle that the state is responsible [for the financial wellbeing] of its citizens, we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. [Today’s "special interest groups"] Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the state. THE PUBLIC TREASURY WILL BE LITERALLY PILLAGED [TODAY'S FEDERAL DEFICIT]. …Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. THE SUFFERING CLASSES, ALTHOUGH HAVING THE GREATEST CLAIM, WILL NOT ALWAYS HAVE THE GREATEST SUCCESS" AND INSTEAD, THE MOST CUNNING POLITICIANS (AND THEIR CRONIES, IN THE GROUPS SUCH AS "LANDED PROPERTY" ETC) WILL.

......Bastiat's quote is exactly what happened in the Freddie/Fannie scandal: Just as the last line of Bastiat's quote predicts, the poorest of the poor are mostly back into rental housing (or homeless), whilst Dems and Repubs alike, who claim to be YOUR "representative" walked away wealthier, whilst the "public treasury" is pillaged (ORDINARY TAXPAYERS WILL PAY FOR THE "FAVORS FROM THE STATE" THAT THE EXECS OF FANNIE/FREDDIE GOT). Bastiat's intent in the last line of the quote was to observe that the flaw in Marx's ideas "to help the poor" is that socialism only ENABLES crony-capitalists -- corrupt politicians and their friends -- who will pretend to be socialists "helping the poor" when in fact they are actually helping themselves and their cronies...just as Barney Frank walked away wealthier -- and his cronies at Fannie/Freddie paid him off, and still walked away wealthier. Of course, Republicans are corrupt too (just usually w/o even PRETENDING to be helping blacks or the poor...). When any politician expands the government's CONTROL over your finances… Control=POWER... and "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Therefore, smaller libertarian government is superior for avoiding so much corruption. (Hitler and Stalin both recognized that financial control=power, and pronounced themselves to be socialists -- the S in Hitler's NDSAP party and the 2nd S in USSR -- when in fact they violate what Marx wrote. That 20th-century history -- and the [[bracketed]] Bastiat's quote above -- has proven Bastiat correct. What crony-capitalism shares with socialism (but not communism) is that cronyists and socialists both want to put more of YOUR money in a politician's hands.) When any politician controls growing portions of your finances, he is one step closer to having "absolute" power over your quality-of-life and DUH, of course he spends a growing portion of YOUR money on HIMSELF if you LET him and re-elect him, it's as if you just gave your money to a fat kid in a candy store.



. . . And the politicians will do this until -- as Bastiat CORRECTLY predicted -- "The treasury (YOUR money, i.e. YOUR quality-of-life) will be literally pillaged". <--THAT IS AMERICA'S FUTURE, to be pillaged. Well, it is so long as Dem and Repub VOTERS do not unite against corrupt incumbents of BOTH parties, just as the politicians have UNITED to rob Americans blind (even if their other, non-fiscal goals are divergent from other Congressmen’s).



To answer your question (I put it here since ironically it's not nearly important for EVERY AMERICAN as all the other issues you brought up): Hillary had plenty of support from Hispanic women (often Catholic, disagreed w/Hilary on abortion), and women caring for special-needs kids should like her promise to help. Other than that, I don't quite see it myself.
anonymous
2008-09-17 07:13:04 UTC
They won't

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=alaska+woman&search_type=&aq=-1&oq=
DynaFlowHum
2008-09-17 07:06:35 UTC
Because most women are intelligent and realize that Mccain/Palin are the best choice for them and their families.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...