The Moms Who Could Flip the U.S. Senate
Back in 2004, I recall reading that married women with children were one of the key factors behind the Bush re-election.
This "mom vote" was a big reason why President Bush won by 3 million votes in 2004. In other words, women felt that Pres. Bush would protect their families better than Sen. Kerry.
Are we going to see something like that in 2014? We may, according to Peter Beinart:
Suddenly, it feels like 2002. Democrats got creamed in midterm elections that year because the women voters they had relied on throughout the Clinton years deserted them. In 2000, women favored Democratic congressional candidates by nine points. In 2002, that advantage disappeared entirely. The biggest reason: 9/11. In polls that year, according to Gallup, women consistently expressed more fear of terrorism that men. And that fear pushed them toward the GOP, which they trusted far more to keep the nation safe. As then-Senator Joe Bidendeclared after his party’ s midterm shellacking, “soccer moms are security moms now.”
Unfortunately for President Obama, the security moms are back. And as a result, the levee Democrats were counting on to protect against a GOP hurricane is starting to crumble.
Remember Chris Matthews talking about the "mommy" and "daddy" parties? Matthews's idea was that voters saw the GOP as the party that protected you and your family.
Frankly, I never subscribed completely to Matthews's theory, although it was supported by all of those GOP presidents who ran on a strong national defense platform.
Twenty-fourteen is a bit different, I think.
In other words, I think that "the security moms" just don't think that Pres. Obama is up to the job. By the way, a CBS poll just released does show that Americans don't think that Pres. Obama is "tough enough" or has a strategy.
They want the government to protect their families, from the border to ISIS, and they don't see it in Pres. Obama.