Among Democratic Voters, No Gender Gap

(CBS)  By Kathy Frankovic, CBS News director of surveys

---

The gender gap - the difference in how women and men vote in an election and react to political questions - doesn't seem to matter much this year in the Democratic presidential selection process. Among Democratic primary voters in the October CBS News Poll, men were just as likely as women to support Hillary Clinton for the nomination (just over 50 percent in both cases), and Democratic men and women expressed generally similar views of her. More than seven in ten male and female Democratic primary voters viewed Clinton favorably, two-thirds said she would unite the country if elected, and very few - only about 5 percent of each sex - agreed with one perceived Clinton weakness: that she has less honesty and integrity than others in public life.

There are still gender differences when we look beyond Democratic partisans. Independent women were 12 points more likely than independent men to have a favorable opinion of Clinton. And they were 11 points more likely to withhold any judgment about whether or not they would vote for her if she were the Democratic nominee. While a plurality of men independents saw Clinton as someone who would divide the country, the reverse was true of women independents: women were more likely to see her as someone who would bring people together.

We don't often evaluate women at the national level - except for First Ladies. And it's important to recognize that in these polarized times, partisanship nearly always takes precedence over gender. In a CBS News Poll taken last February, men and women Republicans gave similar evaluations of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. So did men and women Democrats. Republicans (both men and women) were ten times as likely to give Rice a favorable as an unfavorable rating, while Democrats (men and women) were twice as likely to dislike her as to like her. Once again, it was independents who showed any gender difference at all: although male and female independents gave Rice a positive rating, the margin for men was much larger (two to one) than the very narrow positive rating she received from women.

Gender differences in assessment of Rice are clearly mediated by feelings about U.S. foreign policy, especially in reactions to the war in Iraq. The sexes have almost always differed when it comes to opinion about specific wars and about the strategy of war in general.

This is not new. In 1920, the Democratic National Committee expected newly enfranchised women to take the Democrats' side in the election. One reason why was war and peace, especially Woodrow Wilson's support for the League of Nations. In an ad in the November 1920 McCall's Magazine, the Democratic National Committee headlined: "Women Voters! The Future of a War-Worn World Is Yours to Decide." And the party's candidate (who would lose to Republican Warren G. Harding) greeted women's suffrage by saying: "The civilization of the world is saved. The mothers of America will stay the hand of war…."

In 1980, pollsters first noticed the gender gap. Men gave Ronald Reagan a 20-point margin over Jimmy Carter in that election, while women voters divided evenly. This gender gap continued in the sexes' approval ratings for President Reagan throughout his two terms in office, and it seemed to be explained best by the differences in how men and women looked at Reagan on foreign policy. Women were more likely than men to say they worried that Reagan "might get us into a war."

This kind of gender gap shows up in many questions about war and peace - on questions about U.S. military incursion into places like Panama in 1990, and on whether or not the U.S. should invade Iraq in 2003. Women are consistently less likely to support military action. The gender gap exists today, even with controls for party identification, when Americans are asked how long U.S. troops should remain in Iraq. In the last CBS News Poll, a majority of all women (52 percent) said U.S. troops should not remain in Iraq for more than one more year. That sentiment is shared by only 38 percent of all men. Gender differences exist for both Republicans and Democrats. A third of women Republicans want U.S. troops out of Iraq after a year, while only 15 percent of Republican men do. Among Democrats, half of the men want U.S. troops to remain in Iraq for one more year or less, and nearly two-thirds of women do.

Many women also have a different view from men about what works best when it comes to keeping the U.S. safe from terrorism. By a margin of 55 percent to 41 percent, men say it is better to confront groups and states that support terrorism, while by 49 percent to 39 percent, women say it is better to stay out of other countries' affairs.

Clinton doesn't fit the pacifistic female stereotype (and neither does Rice). But so far that hasn't hurt the Democratic frontrunner with women, and may very well be helping her secure the support of men.
By Kathy Frankovic

[topprophet]

CLINTON HIRES CRIMINAL AND RECEIVES ILLEGAL MONEY
On Sept. 20, CBS News (quietly) reported that Hillary Clinton''s campaign fundraiser Norman Hsu was being charged in New York with running a ponzi scheme that also involves illegal campaign contributions to her presidential campaign. He was a leading money bundler for Clinton, and had actually earned the nickname, "HillRaiser" from Hillary for his efforts at collecting donations for her. Ultimately, her campaign was forced to return ($850,000) in donations that were linked to Hsu. Afterwards, Clinton promised, "stricter scrutiny of donors." Hsu was actually a wanted fugitive, with an outstanding Felony Warrant, the entire time he worked for Clinton. Hsu''s ponzi scheme involved getting people to invest in what appeared to be a lucrative financial investment while at the same time getting those individuals to donate money to Hillary Clinton''s presidential campaign. Hsu was wanted in California on charges stemming from a 15-year-old Felony Theft conviction. Shouldn''t we demonize Hillary, like CBS is (clearly) attempting to demonize Ron Paul? I''m suprised CBS doesn''t Photoshop some devil horns on top of his head in that worst possible photograph they always use of him. The fact is, folks, no candidate can control who does, and who doesn''t donate money to their campaign. Candidates can only return money when they discover that it has been somehow donated illegaly. However, Ron Paul doesn''t staff his campaign with CRIMINALS LIKE HILLARY does.

[topprophet]

With the full support of Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain, President Bush recently signed into Law the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, which, according to Senator Leahy (VT), will actually "encourage the President to declare Martial Law." It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of Laws that limits the President''s ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic Law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush has now undone those prohibitions. Public Law 109-364, or the John Warner Defense Authorization Act (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the President in a private ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency," suspend Congress and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of your Governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act. In a sense, the two Laws compliment one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad of those who dissent and are stripped of their citizenship, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. STOP THIS MADNESS! Vote for Ron Paul.

[topprophet]

My fellow Americans just don''t seem to care that our nation, along with The Constitution upon which it was founded, is being flushed-down the NWO toilet by our nations'' bought and paid for politicians and media. While the Oligarchs warn and insite fear in the sheeple about the prospect of terrorism, they at the same time leave our border wide open, and fund and conduct illegal wars overseas that do nothing but encite the terrorism which their Orwellian Laws like the Patriot Act and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act pretend to protect us from. Wake up America! It''s not about protecting you from terrorism, or saving the planet from Global Warming, or any of that other fear-mongering garbage the sold-out, mainstream media feeds you 24/7. It''s about feeding the bankers and the military industrial complex, and facilitating the global elite''s ability to ratchet-down control over the American people, placing us into a total control grid where they can surveille, track and control everywhere we go and everything we do. It''s the groundwork for totalitarianism. It''s the New World Order plan of Bush, Clinton, Edwards, McCain, Giuliani, et.al., being executed quite beautifully. You''re a frog in a pot. In order to cook a frog, you don''t throw him into a pot of boiling water. If you do, he''ll resist and jump-out. What you do instead is, you turn the heat-up REAL SLOW, and by the time the water is boiling he won''t be able to jump out anymore, because it''s too late--he''s already doomed.

[topprophet]

Sadly, even though Clinton voted for the war in Iraq, and a host of Laws aimed at removing your liberties, so many Democrats are blinded by her cult of personality that I predict they will overwhelmingly vote to put her crime family back into office. While I''ve made some progress in educating Liberals as to the phony staged consensus of the left-right paradigm, the fact remains that a majority of Democrats still see the White House as some kind of political Super Bowl, where the success of their "team" is the be all and end all - to the expense of America as a whole. The Punch and Judy show theatre that was the "troop surge" debate in the Senate characterizes Hillary''s role in hoodwinking Americans perfectly. The debate is framed as not whether the U.S. should get out of the Middle-East altogether, but the relative minutia of whether to feed thousands of more troops into the meat grinder or not. Clinton''s Campaign Manager recently compared Hillary to Margaret Thatcher, which translates as more war, more dead Americans, and a further desecration of the tattered shreds of what''s left of our Constitution. Clinton is the ultimate global elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base, the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. I''m sure she informed the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix as to her presidential aspirations during her last visit to attend the Bilderberg conference. Vote for a REAL AMERICAN. Vote for Ron Paul.

[topprophet]

What we need is a President who will show us the way. Not the old way. Not the same way, but a NEW WAY. Think about this for a minute. What if we pulled all of our troops out of South Korea? They''ve been there for 50+ years. What if we quit worrying about Iran, but instead, realized that its having a nuclear weapon will not mean the end of the world? What if we pulled all of our troops out of the Middle-East, and brought them all home? What if we realistically addressed the National Debt, and paid attention to REALLY DOING SOMETHING about stopping illegal immigration? These are the ideas of Republican Presidential candidate, Dr. Ron Paul. He''s a ten term Congressman and a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies. He''s an intellectual who''s published four books, three of which are devoted entirely to sound economics and one to foreign policy. He was raised on a dairy farm in Pennsylvania as a pious Lutheran, but now he attends a Baptist church. Paul is given to mulling things over morally. Whenever he recollects the helicopter pilots he treated as an Air Force Flight Surgeon (Captain) during the Vietnam War, a war which he now says was "totally unnecessary and illegal," he laments, "They were gung-ho. I''ve often thought about how many of those people never came back." Candidates with the high level of personal integrity and proven track record of adherance to The Constitution, Congressman Paul has always demonstrated only come around once in a lifetime, if we''re lucky.

[topprophet]

I support Ron Paul and his non-interventionist foreign policy. All of the other candidates wants to continue our illegal police action in Iraq indefinitely, and they do not rule out a preemptive (nuclear) first strike against Iran. Ron Paul voted against our (undeclared) war in Iraq, which was sold to us with lies. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies--the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. The war in Iraq has cost more than 3,500 American lives and almost a trillion dollars. We need a leader in the White House who will ensure this never happens again. Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have 750 foreign bases and troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing our borders against illegal aliens who are invading our country from the South. No war should ever be fought without a Declaration of War voted upon by the Congress, as required by The Constitution. Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Too often, we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we too become despised.

[topprophet]

Ron Paul does not support secret offshore prisons like the one in Guantanamo, wherein our government tortures prisoners, who have no right to redress of grievance, or to Writ of Habeus Corpus. Ron Paul promises he will close these "illegal prisons" down. He wouldn''t necessarily just release the prisoners either. He said he would simply bring them to detainment facilities on U.S. soil where they would be entitled to an attorney, and to their day in Court--"American Justice." Significant others agree with Paul. "Essentially, we have shaken the belief that the world had in America''s justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open and creating things like a military commission," former U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell recently said.

[topprophet]

I agree with Ron Paul about the issue of illegal immigration. The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. Ron Paul has a plan: (1.) Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. (2.) Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. Law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. (3.) No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That''s a lot of people to reward for breaking our Laws. (4.) No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules, but taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. (5.) End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong. (6.) Pass true immigration reform. The current system, and those proposed by ALL other candidates, is incoherent and unfair, and would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country. Vote for Ron Paul.

[topprophet]

They Don''t call him "Doctor No" for no reason. Congressman, Paul never votes for any Bill which he feels is not authorized by The Constitution, regardless of what it is named. Ron Paul "is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues," says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. "He is independent, but not ornery." Paul has made a habit of objecting to things that no one else objects to. In October 2001, he was one of only three House Republicans to vote against the USA Patriot Act. He was the sole House member of either party to vote against the Financial Antiterrorism Act (412-1). In 1999, he was the only naysayer in a 424-1 vote in favor of casting a medal to honor Rosa Parks. Nothing against Rosa Parks. Paul also voted against similar medals for Reagan and Pope John Paul II. He did offer $100 of his own money, though, to help pay for Reagan''s medal, and invited others in Congress to match his offer, but not one Member took him-up on it. Instead, Congress spent YOUR money. He not only routinely opposes resolutions that are unconstitutional, he votes against Bills which presume to advise foreign governments how to run their affairs: He has refused to condemn Mugabe''s violence against Zimbabwean citizens (421-1), to call on Vietnam to release political prisoners (425-1) or to ask the League of Arab States to help stop the killing in Darfur (425-1).

[topprophet]

In Congress, Ron Paul is not only known for his lack of ego (a rare quality in Washington), he''s widely admired for his resistance to the influence of special interest groups. Again. They don''t call him "Dr. No" for no reason. He consistanly votes against pork-barrel spending. In a rice-growing, cattle-ranching district, Dr. Paul consistently votes against farm subsidies. In the very district where, on the night of Sept. 8, 1900, a storm destroyed the city of Galveston, and where repairs from Hurricane Rita and refugees from Hurricane Katrina continue to exact their toll, he votes against FEMA and flood aid. In a district that is home to thousands of employees of the Johnson Space Center, he votes against financing NASA. Nothwithstanding this, his constituants in the 14th District of Texas continue to re-relect him. Why? You ask? I think one voter I talked to there summarized it nicely when she said, "We may not like his vote. But we trust his heart." Ron Paul is a man with Presidential-like constitutional integrity and frugal spending principles, which I fully support. That''s why he has my vote.