Married women are now inclined to believe that the Democrats would be better at handling the war in Iraq and the economy than the GOP.

The war I can understand, more or less - the general impression one gets from the news coverage is that we're making no progress in the Iraq War. (Whether that news is accurate is another story.)

But the economy??? I'd expect swing voter moderates to start pining for Dem leadership if the economy were tanking. But the opposite is true. What gives?

Despite the Heritage Foundation's assertions to the contrary, whatever the economy is doing, I don't think workers feel better off. If they are being compensated more -- and it's my understanding that median income for workers has been essentially stagnant over the last 30 years -- but, even if they are, the increase in compensation is being eroded by things like increased out of pocket medical expenses or increased insurance premiums and more expensive energy prices.

The statistics do tend to show that the very, very rich have gotten much, much richer. But I don't think your average Joe cares one way or the other about that. He or she just wants to feel prosperous by having a bit more leisure time and having a bit more financial security. With the remarkable increases in productivity over the past couple of decades, that should be entirely possible.

Maybe married women also noticed that when the interests of big business and traditional families collided over bankrupcy 'abuse' and college and grad student indebtedness, George Bush's GOP sided with big business.

Look for the Dems to begin to emphasize family-centric politics and offer a progressive vision of family support that take direct aim at "the GOP's structural advantage on family issues."

Regarding "family issues," I've long agreed with the late Robert Casey (former PA gov) that if the Democratic party ended its marriage with the abortion lobby (and, I would add, the gay rights lobby--at least as far as supporting gay marriage), it would become the majority party for a very long time.

Personally, I would have voted for Bob Casey, Jr. against Arlen Specter.

We will come to rue the day we ever gave women the vote.

I saw in the article that one married woman complained about gas prices. Was that interview conducted weeks ago before the price started dropping like a rock?

Regarding abortion rights, I have trouble seeing how the Democrats supporting the policy preferences of well over half the population count as following a "lobby" too closely.
(See, e.g., http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm )

And the bit about the Dems and gay marriage is rather daft, since the party basically leaves that to be a local/state matter. Note that, for example, both Kerry and Gore supported DOMA, though not a constitutional amendment.

phil--According to the very poll data you linked to, 66% of Americans favor stricter limits on abortion than we have now (with 35% favoring "rape, incest, and woman's life only" and 11% favoring "not permitted at all").

Of course Congressional Democrats want to leave gay marriage as a state issue--so that it can be legitimized nationwide through the "full faith and credit" clause. That at least applies to any Democrat who voted against DOMA. And regardless, it is Democrats who are pushing gay marriage initiatives (or opposing heterosexual definitions of marriage) at the state level.

I love how some people are able to so narrowly define 'family issues.' I would suspect that there are many American families who have "issues" that extend beyond abortion and gay marriage.

You assume too much, JohnS. In fact, what I've been getting at with my comments on this thread is that the exact family issues you raised (paying for education, health care, etc.) would naturally attract many social conservatives to the Democrats if not for the moral issues that drive them away from that party.

"According to the very poll data you linked to, 66% of Americans favor stricter limits on abortion than we have now (with 35% favoring "rape, incest, and woman's life only" and 11% favoring "not permitted at all")." Yes, but it doesn't make any sense, given the political landscape, to lump the "stricter limits" folks in with the the other two groups that you listed -- it's fundamentally a pro-choice position! Also, it makes little sense for anyone to use the abortion issue to chase the votes of the yes-it's-basically-ok-but-I'd-like-some-restrictions voters, since they almost certainly are not people whose vote is significantly determined by this issue.

As for the DOMA, well, you basically don't know what the hell you're talking about. DOMA passed both houses by overwhelming majorities, including a clear majority of Democratic legislators; was signed into law by the last Democratic president; and was supported by the last two Democratic nominees for president. The national Democratic party just isn't trying at all to make this a country with same-sex marriage, and that fact would be clear to anyone who actually bothered to become well-informed on the matter.

And I must say that, whereas I can understand the perspective of the kind of voter who would withhold a vote from the Dems over the abortion issue, someone who would be willing to be a single-issue voter whose single issue is the opposition to gay marriage, is basically just a homophobic schmuck, and you Republicans are welcome to have that person (along with the racists whose votes you continue to depend on).

Why Senator O'Connor, I didn't know you read blogs.

http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2005/06/shes-waiting-for-cromagnon-man-to-club.html

phil,

You seriously need to chill out and lower the animus level...

Yes, but it doesn't make any sense, given the political landscape, to lump the "stricter limits" folks in with the the other two groups that you listed -- it's fundamentally a pro-choice position!

So, you're saying that allowing the legal option of a 16-year-old to get an abortion but requiring her to have her parents' consent is a "pro-choice" position? Why then do pro-choice lobby groups oppose parental consent laws?

Granted, voters who support those laws but generally want to see abortion kept legal are not likely to vote based on that issue alone (though it could make a difference when they're otherwise undecided between two candidates). But there are still 46% of Americans who support a complete or near-complete ban on abortions. And among those are a large number of would-be Democratic voters.

As for the DOMA, well, you basically don't know what the hell you're talking about.

I know exactly what I'm talking about, thank you very much. Just under a third of Democratic Senators and Representatives voted against DOMA. Meaning that a substantial portion of the Democratic party wanted to allow the possibility of all states being forced to recognize gay marriages performed by a single state.

The fact is that the Democratic party (at the federal, state, and local levels) is generally a friend of the homosexual agenda, including not only gay marriage but also legislation such as that which forced the Catholic Charities of Boston to choose either to participate in adoptions by same-sex couples or to quit their long-standing and highly beneficial work in the community.

Regardless of your sneering, therefore, my point remains that the abortion and "gay rights" issues are keeping the Democratic party from electoral dominance.

"So, you're saying that allowing the legal option of a 16-year-old to get an abortion but requiring her to have her parents' consent is a "pro-choice" position? Why then do pro-choice lobby groups oppose parental consent laws?"

To some extent, I'd just agree with the basic point here, in that pro-choice groups tend to lobby for some positions that are at a far end of the policy spectrum here. But I'd also note that the laws the GOP keeps trying to pass usually have some sort of element in them that keep them outside the mainstream as well; I oppose many parental notification laws myself, because they typically don't have any good mechanism for a young woman to make a case to a judge in reasonable time to pursue an abortion if she can make a good case for her own competence and/or special need to go outside the family (e.g., incest). But I support such laws when they do include such a mechanism.

"Granted, voters who support those laws but generally want to see abortion kept legal are not likely to vote based on that issue alone (though it could make a difference when they're otherwise undecided between two candidates). But there are still 46% of Americans who support a complete or near-complete ban on abortions. And among those are a large number of would-be Democratic voters." Um... so the Dems should stop representing the policy preferences of over 54% of the electorate, to make a dash after some fraction of the remaining 46%? Doesn't that obviously look a little ... off? Indeed, it would make a bit more sense -- about 8% more, I suppose -- to say that the GOP should come to the pro-choice position, and thus cement its electoral lock on the population. (But really neither view makes much sense; who would choose to gain a handful of squishy moderates to lose the die-hard support of your base? In the end, the math just doesn't work out.)

"Meaning that a substantial portion of the Democratic party wanted to allow the possibility of all states being forced to recognize gay marriages performed by a single state." Right -- and what sort of states and districts are on the whole, do you think, represented by those particular legislators? And what sort of states and districts are, on the whole, represented by the ones who voted for DOMA? They are supporting it where their constituents generally support it, and not supporting it where they don't. Which, again, shows that you are completely talking out your ass in your claims about what is or isn't a recipe for electoral success for the Democrats.

Um... so the Dems should stop representing the policy preferences of over 54% of the electorate, to make a dash after some fraction of the remaining 46%?

No. Again, you are illegitimately lumping in the 20% "legal but stricter limits" group with the 34% "generally available" group. You said yourself that those 20% are unlikely to decide their vote based in large part on this issue. If they did, they are arguably closer to the GOP position since the Democrats staunchly oppose all further limits on abortion. But even if we agree to leave out the "squishy moderates," it's 46% pro-life to 34% pro-choice.

Picture this. The Democrats (in general) drop their opposition to a handful of abortion restrictions, but stop short of a complete national ban. Suddenly, their party is a lot more attractive to millions of middle-income, church-going folks who worry about paying for health care, education, etc. The GOP is still staunchly pro-life, so the pro-choicers aren't going to cross the aisle (and they still agree with the Democrats on a number of other issues). I see big gains for the Democrats.

"Talking out of my ass"? You may disagree with me, but I'm not the one playing fast and loose with statistics.