SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Land Shark who wrote (936760)5/25/2016 11:34:39 AM
From: TideGlider  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1572713
 
Does Hillary Clinton Have A Gender Gap Problem?
A Commentary by Fran Coombs

in Politics
FacebookTwitterEmail thisShareThis

Related Articles



Sign up for free daily updates



Wednesday, May 25, 2016

A lot of men don’t like Hillary Clinton. Or at least that’s what our polling seems to suggest.

While much has been written and said about Donald Trump’s gender gap with women, our new White House Watch survey last week found that Clinton trailed the presumptive Republican presidential nominee by 22 points among male voters. By comparison, Clinton had an 11-point advantage among women.

But while men tend to lean Republican, it’s more than a partisan thing when it comes to Clinton. In a head-to-head matchup the same week with her Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders, Trump led by just eight points among men while losing women by 15.

The problem may be getting worse for the likely Democratic nominee. Late last month, while Clinton posted a 10-point lead over Trump among women voters, she was 13 points behind among men.

In fact, by late February, despite Trump’s high negatives, men were already slightly more likely to say they would definitely vote against Clinton than definitely vote against him. Women were far more likely to be pro-Clinton even then.

(Want a free daily email update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

The gap when it comes to voter trust on various major issues is equally noticeable. Men are more critical of President Obama’s performance in most areas than women are. When it comes to handling the economy, 48% of men feel Trump would do a better job than Obama, but only 10% think Clinton would perform better. Among women, 48% believe Trump would do worse than Obama, while 50% say Clinton would do about the same.

Similarly, when it comes to national security, 42% of men say Trump would do a better job than Obama, but just 14% say that of Clinton. As with the economy, more women think Trump would do a better job than Clinton, but 52% of women think he would do a worse job on national security issues. Just about as many women (51%) expect Clinton’s performance in this area to be about the same as Obama's.

As for the selection of the next justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, men express more confidence in Trump by a 49% to 38% margin, while 55% of women think Clinton would make a better choice.

Even pitted against Sanders, men trust the Vermont senator over Clinton when it comes to the economy and social issues but give the former secretary of State the edge on national security. Women trust Clinton more in all three areas.

The answer isn’t as simple as the age-old battle of the sexes. Men (78%) were just as likely as women (79%) to say they would personally be willing to vote for a woman president the last time we asked. Women are nearly as skeptical as men, too, when asked if there is a political “war on women.”

So what is it about Hillary Clinton that turns off male voters? Rasmussen Reports will be exploring that more in the weeks ahead.

Some pundits have suggested that it’s her voice, her stridency, but it doesn’t seem that simple. Exit polls following Democratic primaries have found that even voters in her own party question her honesty. Last fall, 57% of men said the former secretary of State was not honest in her disclosures and testimony related to the attack in Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 that led to the murder of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Forty-seven percent (47%) of women agreed.

With Trump and Clinton already locked in a neck-and-neck race, both sides are sure to try to exploit the gender gap. Clinton and her allies in the media are already portraying Trump as a sexist. Trump has fired back that his opponent’s defense of her husband’s sexual antics makes her an enabler of anti-woman behavior.

Trump will be on dicier ground with any blatant appeals to men, but his continuing tough talk and anti-PC behavior will probably serve him well enough. Men and women strongly agree, too, that female candidates shouldn’t be treated any differently than male opponents.

Will the male vote make a difference this election cycle? We’ll see.

Fran Coombs is the managing editor of Rasmussen Reports.



To: Land Shark who wrote (936760)5/25/2016 1:19:22 PM
From: locogringo1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1572713
 
Are you talking about MR AMERICA, MR Trump?



To: Land Shark who wrote (936760)5/25/2016 5:53:25 PM
From: longnshort1 Recommendation

Recommended By
FJB

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1572713
 
How Bill And Hillary Handled Foreclosures 8 s&l


But the Clintons and McDougall did things differently. When customers wanted to buy a lot, they signed a simple purchase agreement. But this was no ordinary real estate contract. The small print at the bottom read: “In the event the default continues for 30 days … payments made by the purchaser shall be considered as rent for the use of the premises.” In other words, the buyers did not actually take ownership of their property until the final payment was made. If a buyer missed just one monthly payment, all their previous payments would be classified as rent and they would have no equity in the land at all.

This sort of contract was illegal in many other states, because it was considered exploitative of the poor and uneducated!’ One look at the experience of those who bought into Whitewater and you can see why.

Clyde Soapes was a grain-elevator operator from Texas who heard about the lots in early 1980 and jumped at the chance to invest. He put $3,000 down and began making payments of $244.69 per month. He made thirty-five payments in all—totaling $11,564.15, just short of the $14,000 price for the lot. Then he suddenly fell ill with diabetes and missed a payment, then two. The Clintons informed him that he had lost the land and all of his money. There was no court proceeding or compensation. Months later they resold his property to a couple from Nevada for $16,500. After they too missed a payment, the Clintons resold it yet again.

Soapes and the couple from Nevada were not alone. More than half of the people who bought lots in Whitewater—teachers, farmers, laborers, and retirees—made payments, missed one or two, and then lost their land without getting a dime of their equity back. According to Whitewater records, at least sixteen different buyers paid more than $50,000 and never received a property deed. The Clintons continued this approach up until the 1992 election, when they tried to quietly get out of the investment.

I say “the Clintons” did these things because Hillary was at the center of it all. Monthly payment checks were sent to the Whitewater Development Corporation in care of Hillary Rodham Clinton. In 1982, Hillary herself sold a home to Hillman Logan, who went bankrupt and then died. She took possession of the home and resold it to another buyer for $20,000. No one was compensated (and she didn’t report the sale on her tax return).