I don’t have several hours to spend on refuting every point you make, but what I tried to do was to explain the points I had been trying to make, and where I thought you were failing to understand and/or twisting what I was saying. So I focused on that.

I cannot make head or tail of your numbers or your argument, although I read your comment twice in an effort to understand your point. White people don’t vote in a bloc, nor do women or men, (although black people pretty much do), so what’s your point about the 72% versus the 28%? And I have agreed that the left has fostered the breakdown of the family and marriage in order to get more votes for themselves. Why do you continually find disagreements even where they don’t exist (and insult me as well)?

I have been very patient because I think (as I’ve said many times) you have an interesting perspective and lots of facts and history that others are unaware of, and I think there’s value in hearing it. But I have no idea why you’re insulting me right now, and I have no idea why you continue to think I’m some sort of brainwashed feminist and/or dupe who has a pro-woman agenda. I don’t see anything I’ve said as a defense of women or an attack on men. Young and unmarried women and men voted predominantly for Obama. Older and married women and men voted predominantly for Romney. But in each grouping, the men voted more for Romney than the women did, and the women voted more for Obama than the men did. That’s my point.

Here, by the way, are the states on single women in the population as a whole:

In 2011, 48% of adult women were not married, up from 45% in 2005. Included in this count are single women (who have never married), women who are separated or divorced and widows. Almost all of the growth, however, is from the single, never married set. In fact, while the percentage of women who are separated, divorced or widowed has remained flat in recent years, the share that has never married increased a relative 15% since 2005. Today, 24% of adult women (12% of all adults) have never made a trip down the aisle, up from 21% in 2005.

So, if there were 119 million votes cast (so far, that is; a few more will come straggling in), and women are 53% of that total, we have about 63 million. If 23% of them were unmarried, we have about 14 1/2 million of those. If 31% were married, we have about 19 1/2 million of those. Since the ratio of married to unmarried women is higher than in the general population, my conclusion is that married women vote in higher rates than unmarried ones (which actually makes sense to me in terms of age, and voting patterns in general).

You ask whether I’m trying to defend married women. Let me repeat: I couldn’t care less about defending married women. What I’m trying to do is present some facts for discussion, to see whether there’s anything to learn from them. Period. I don’t see the point of generalizing about what all women do, think, say (or, for that matter, what all men do, think, and say) without understand that subgroups can be very different from the whole, and it can be instructive to look at subgroups.

For example, the “married/unmarried” distinction seems to be important for both sexes. And so is the gender distinction, as well as many other distinctions.

accuracy?
so you broke out the numbers to derive the number i am talking about and dont have the space to put and discuss?

no. you did NOTHING of the sort

what percentave of women are married?
where is that number since your talking married? how can you be accurate if half the numbers you need to actually know the point your saying are not there, not published and hasv to be derived by doing the math?

but you sure did negate any investigation into the nubmers did you?

and that helps the left doesn’t it? it may not be your intent, but then again, the whole concept of being a useful idiot is not knowing your the useful idiots, and not knowing how the result helps so that you have no choice in that. no?

so, you defended them. it may not be your intent. it may not be at all what you think your doing. but if the actions add up to help them, and you did them, then you helped them. your personal idea of it does not absolve you of that.

you should know better being a lawyer and a psychologist, as you just negated the concept of guilt in involuntary manslaughter..

if i am not aware of how i help (or kill) then i am not responsible for it. right? not at all. the court doesn’t look at your intent, it looks at your actions.

guess what i am looking at and since you can lie as to intent, which do you think i look at more and believe more?

the key here is analysing your actions and then realizing how you helped so that next time you dont do it again without realizing it.

thanks for killing any and all analysis into how the left plays moneyball with gender,race, and COALITION MAJORITY.

ie. i was showing the math of coalition majority and how an election was lost.

what were you doing? and answer from looking at your actions, not your intents.

defending married women? like nancy pelosi, clinton, ethel rosenberg, hanoi jane, etc?

ya got to love someone who claims accuracy afer being asked to do the math, and the math isnt done, and they claim your wrong.

so who OTHER THAN ME has done the actual gritty math?

…that’s not the point Art’.

so married women negated themselves cancelign out and leaving a few points for obama

Nearly 40% of women have never been married, and fewer are in a first marriage. and your numbers do not show that… do they? where is the number and why do you throw the incomplete numbers at me from leftist press as any form of proof without actually DOING THE MATH

60% of women are not married
and 70% of them voted for Obama

40% of women are married
and near half of them voted for Obama

however, the married breaks down by race, and you end up with even more skew

and note. separating married as different leaves out nancy pelosi, and all the other LEADERS of the movement who are all married and wealthy and have lots of kids (nancy had 5).

if you do the math your going to find that the women voted him in. thats why i can get you nearly 100 articles that say the same thing, however their numbers are not the numbers to indicate it clearly.

basically what i am trying to show you is what MONEYBALL is all about. and you know what? the guys doing that were surrounded by others who didnt do the math, didnt understand the math, didnt want to break from what they were told, and so didnt get how moneyball works

ie. this is moneyball applied to politics

Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game
Moneyball has made such an impact in professional baseball that the term itself has entered the lexicon of baseball. Teams which appear to value the concepts of sabermetrics are often said to be playing “Moneyball.” Baseball traditionalists, in particular some scouts and media members, decry the sabermetric revolution and have disparaged Moneyball for emphasizing concepts of sabermetrics over more traditional methods of player evaluation.

the papers and such are not giving you the numbers to follow it. and your not doing the math. yet telling me i am wrong.

do the math… or give me the space to put all the math and details in.

you would need the population numbers to change percents into numbers that mean something

after all, when you say married women, you realize its not 1970 when the rate was double what it was. now its less than half.. so the percentage of what married women did, is meaningless other than if you look, its near half and so you can completely cancel married women out for neutralizing themselves.

that only left single women, brown people as the election called them, against just the white men republicans.

and this number is higher…
so guess who had the real choice
and guess who spent hundreds of millions in election funds and billions in bribery over the years because of that truth?

ie. they won knowing what i am telling you
and their winning is my proof of the numbers and why they did what they did.

and the distinction made protects the women like pelosi who lead and are married, and oprah who lead and are married. from the barren harridens who do the work and dont have kids and will die as these married leftists wealthy families continue dynasty.

do all the math please
dont negate what i am saying by repeating percentages with no back numbers and not broken down to get the answer you need

And yeah, I’ve been closely following those numbers. I do regard them as useful.

But I’m coming to understand that the real failure may have been a structural one in the Romney campaign.

I trusted that the campaign would be as brilliant in the general as the primary. My bad: I was wrong.

I trusted Romney himself to be on top of his campaign.

I liked the guy. (Still do. And I agree with Dennis Miller’s evaluation of Romney.)

Personally, I’m leaning towards him being too damn busy by “events” to have time for the nitty gritty details. The stuff that I’m absolutely sure he would have per-force paid attention to during his younger, “hungry” days.

Another way of saying: he trusted the wrong people.

They ran a McCain campaign after all (I don’t merely despise McCain for historico-political reasons, but for apparently “wasting” the talents of the brilliant Sarah Palin …she’s one of those “comes along once-in-a-generation leadership types” whose successful vilification is a tremendous loss to the Republic). I wasn’t expecting that (i.e., a rehash of the McCain campaign) after the primaries.

…which threw my extrapolations into the toilet too (there: my excuse lol).

One thing I’ve read today, that I fervently hope is true: maybe this disaster will finally end the influence of the old Bush campaign team. Two disastrous losses.

Aargh.

And I at least have some clout :-), because I was NOT surprised by Obama’s victory. I had expected it for weeks, although I deeply hoped I was wrong.

Men definitely preferred Romney more than women did. But among both men and women, the unmarried preferred Obama. I would like to see what percentage of each unmarried group (men and women) was under 30, because Obama performed very strongly among voters under 30, and this was actually responsible for his win overall, because Romney won among voters over 30. The breakdown would tell us whether it’s age that makes of the difference, or whether it’s marriage. My guess is that both factor in.

Some more detailed stats are here: Obama won among unmarried men 56-40 (compare to unmarried women, who went for Obama 67-31). Romney won among married men 60-38 (compare to married women 53-46). So you can see that there are indeed gender differences, with women in all groups having more preference for Obama than men in all groups do. But a very important difference is between the married and unmarried, with both unmarried men and women preferring Obama by a very significant margin, and both married men and women preferring Romney by a very significant margin.

After all, I read – and long mused on – that particular genre of sci-fi dystopia extrapolation growing up, too.

And being one of – and having recognized the fact since the mid-1970’s – the single most discriminated AGAINST subgroup in America …i.e., the white male …I am inherently predisposed towards the point you’re making.

(I’m not kidding; it was the mid-1970’s or so when I recognized that discrimination against white males was becoming rationalized, and would inevitably be institionalized. I knew I was screwed around age 24 or so, opportunity wise. Whatever happened with my life, was going to come from me.

(Oh, I didn’t complain. What was the point? I’ve never been a whiner. For a long period, maybe around 1988 or so, I “dropped out”, as it were. And I can tell you, it was a lot of fun out on the periphery. But …winter was coming. After awhile doing something economically viable was no longer avoidable. Had to find some way to survive in old age, beyond cat food. Still looking, lol.

(All said to cement the factoid that I’m your target support group, artfldgr old man. And I know it.)

My problem is the one-way street thing. And the numbers …you might have to simply trust (or excuse! …forgive me ladies) my pseudo-misogynistic black heart (all puns intended) on this, but most wives (outside the NY-DC corridor) vote with their husbands. As truism. (As proof: the numbers.) So “our side” (if you will) has actually twice as many votes as you’re allowing for in the current political impact of the Mars v. Venus thing.

To put it plainly: we didn’t lose that battle on the right because of the wimmens (the same is possibly not true on the Left).

So. While I generally agree with most (almost all) of what you informatively post as background info (I’m as now-rabidly anti-communist as any post-Useful-Idiot male growing up the Cold War era can possibly be after his eye-opening enlightenment of being manipulated directly by Kremlin operatives …seriously, that is not as paranoid NOR as reductionist as it sounds, people: Art’s right about the utterly brilliant disinformation campaign of the 1960’s KGB that is still bearing fruit decades after the fall of the USSR), this particular route of historical, oh, what’s the terminology (hate getting old: memory sucks)? – hmm, Hegelianism? …no, somewhat relevant, but not the right word …dialectic? …no, pulled that one out of my ass lol …ah, yes, it’s the Hegelian dialectic …thesis-antithesis-synthesis …so I was indeed close the first time: maybe my memory still has a few synaptic junctions left after all) …seems fruitless to me.

From what I’m understanding in this line of reasoning, your first leg rests upon a patriarchial absolutism, your second upon a rise in matriarchial absolutism …but that’s it. Your conclusion jumps straight to We’re Doomed.

If what you ulimately posit (infer?) is correct, that would be the end of sexual selection re: Darwin “fitness”, re: the Republic.

Uh.

I don’t think so.

Not just for the reasons you state (even while ignoring the twist to “the numbers” I suggest are important), but because, philosophically Hegelian-dialectic-wise, I suspect you’re not taking into account the potential synthesis of the equation here.

Or have simply ignored the historical import of the actual synthesis

It was, after all, Rosie the Riveter who won WWII (as much as GI Joe). Israel recognizes this (let’s call it “usefulness”), in their armed forces (which our military has not, not noticed). Indeed, the Soviets weren’t all that unaware of 50% of their population either than, were they?

A civilization ignores half it’s population …half it’s potential …only if it’s suicidal.

So. Simply not buying it. Well, in it’s present form.

Because if you keep going along those lines, you merely end up with Elizabeth the First. That’s not a bad thing.

(I said 8 years ago if it came down to the pre-Palin McCain and Hillary, I was voting Hillary: I despised McCain …and still think we’d have been better off. The problem in hindsight for Clinton was the Arkansas machine wasn’t as ruthless as the Chicago Model.)

I don’t think despair is very useful.

Humans will trudge on.

And American humans will sort out the idiocy and ignorance that has become pandemic amongst both the literati AND the illiterati (they, at least, have an excuse).

We will teach those simpletons simple math.

Later than sooner, apparently. And sadly.

…granted that I was so wrong this past electoral cycle that even I see no need to trust what I’m saying. (I was at least as shocked as Mitt …though somewhat earlier in the evening, since by around 05:30P PST ??? I was pretty sure this was going to be a disaster of epic proportions.)

http://www.lipstickalley.com/f153/breakdown-voting-demographics-447733/

voting population break down:
white men 34%
white women 38%
black men 5%
black women 8%
latino men 5%
latino women 5%
all others 5%

now, tell me how 28% can beat either 38% of white women or 34% of white men

28% can never beat 72%

The ONLY way was to polarize that big group to work against each other…

and its overwhelming that the majority of Caucasian men, wanted freedom, and so on.
because in redistributive state, the Volk will bleed the white men dry till they die.

the Caucasian women have some bizarro fantasy that if they oppose the white men, and win, and the white men die out in poverty, they will have wealth and all that…

hows that going to work? their behavior is akin to sawing the branch that your sitting on to have fire wood.

the one thing you wont see is age, race, gender in one graph…

because that tells the story that even you are hinting at… ie. older women stood by their mates, younger women hated them. and younger women also have younger men in their coalition…

so all you did was confirm that feminism which is stronger in its hate and entitlement in young women than older women (some who remember relationships and dating in the past). but the older women mix up their voting like the men. so older wome cancel themselves out while the younger women and young men cancel the older white male freedom vote.

this is as it was in Germany as the older males had been neutralized by the war, not circumstances.

and you forget (i think) that i work in a reserch library with access to the papers, reports, and things that the general public cant afford to and generally dont have access to, and rely on dishonest journlists to tell them.

the way it breaks down mathematically is that a majority of women of any age voted against freedom…

and for entitlements which are justified to be received as they are not to blame for anything, and only one group is to blame

even here, on your blog, they are not responsible for their votes in germany, and they are not responsible for their votes in the US

if that is so.. why does the lefts political games dominate that one category?

lets play a game… (not global nuclear war)

are you ready?

i will put up 5 women only perks from feds or state, or 501c, or other related programs for women (and minorities) only
and you will put up 1 agencies for men only

and we will see who wins…
1) White House Council on Women and Girls
2) Women’s Bureau (Labor Department)
3) Women in Development USAID
4) Women, Infants and Children Program
5) The Office of Women’s Health (OWH), U.S.Food and Drug Administration

1) Office of Research on Women’s Health, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
2) The Office on Women’s Health, Office of Public Health and Science, Office of the Secretary
3) Office on Violence Against Women
4) Trafficking in Persons and Worker Exploitation Task Force (TPWETF)
5) Office of Women’s Business Ownership Entrepreneurial Development

and just to get the ball rolling, here is the second 10… this means you only have to find two agencies for men only (and not just brown men or immigrant men)…

1) National Women’s Business Council
federal advisory council created to serve as an independent source of advice and counsel to the President, Congress and the U.S. Small Business Administration on economic issues of importance to women business owners.

2) Make Mine a Million – Gives access to creative women who are dedicated to helping other women succeed in business.

3) Women Impacting Public Policy – Provides information on Women Impacting Public Policy, a national nonpartisan public policy organization that advocates for and on the behalf of women and minorities in business

4) Association of Women’s Business Centers
5) National Association of Women Business Owners

this is how they bribe them and why so many will not stop and as the older women die out, it will be more and more and more the other way. no way to stop it. by the time they realize their populatin will be in such decline they cant do anything (As the only ones that can help them out of it are financially dead due to all the burdens that their mates put on them as a class)