The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label Beck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Beck. Show all posts

Saturday, June 27, 2015

A Conservative Gallery of Horrors: Fifteen Days of Pure Hell!




It has been a terrible two weeks for conservative America. Their national moniker, the confederate flag, has come under fire since its pictorial brandish via a killer of nine African-Americans during a prayer worship session. The SCOTUS also handed conservative Americans a fat case of heartburn and psyhic fizzle via a series of rulings that culminated in legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states. Thus, it is time for a run through a TPI gallery of conservatism.

Let's start our review of the gallery with a Mediaite segment featuring a noted rightwing minstrel who will see a marked decrease in his earnings potential int he near future.

Mediaite.....


Screen Shot 2015-06-24 at 11.14.00 AM
A discussion on Fox News surrounding efforts to remove the Confederate flag from Southern state Capitol buildings took a sharp turn Wednesday morning when The Black Sphere founder Kevin Jackson uttered this assertion about the young, white man who shot and killed nine black people in Charleston, South Carolina church last week: “Liberals created this kid that shot up the church.”
Video follows


Kevin Jackson must be taken in context. He is yet another example of minstrels who flock up against President Obama and progressive America. He and others like him (including the increasing emotionally unstable Cornell West) will see their television airtime and earning potential exponentially subside when President Obama leaves office Fox news and other media will have no need for "color commentary" (pun intended) via black minstrels.
 Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry, better known by the stage name Stepin Fetchit, was an American comedian and film actor. And he was brilliant! 

Kevin Jackson placates Fox News's white audience like the fictional character called Stepin Fetchit. 
________________________

Ann Coulter goes "Immigrant berserk" against South Carolina's brown skinned Governor with a tsunami example of Put Buchanan like white nationalist oratory. Linked here.   

While Haley's only offense was her comments in support of removing the Confederate Flag from the south Carolina capital building, she became an object of conservative hatred and scorn. After a few days of flak regrading Coulter's "Dog Whistle" us of anti-immigrant oratory and cloaked racism, Coulter went here
________________________

Noted homophobe and chief conservative bigot is fuming.

Pence says Supreme Court decision “profoundly disappointing” Calls Ruling “Display of Judicial Activism…and a Detri ...
WWW.JOURNALGAZETTE.NET


ADDICTINGINFO.ORG


The following gallery of conservatism starts with a statement from SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas that will archive in US history with no competing examples of pure insanity. As you read the linked information, think in terms of the US President who nominated Thomas.


































Unbelievable.
Posted by Mike Victor on Saturday, June 27, 2015
Fox News dogma has no end and speaks tot he level of hatred endemic in its viewers. We must always remember, Fox News is a business and Business can only remain viable and an ongoing business concern if the business gives its customers (viewers) what they want.
10 years of Fox News panicking about marriage equality:
Posted by Media Matters for America on Friday, June 26, 2015
The following gallery items is without question unfathomable. 
Wow...
Posted by Mediaite on Friday, June 26, 2015
Yet another Fox News talking head demagogue equates the Justice ruling on same sex marriage with a diminution of democracy. 

 Image result for democracy
  1. Democracy definition. A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. Note: Democratic institutions, such as parliaments, may exist in a monarchy.
Fox News' Charles Krauthammer thinks today was a terrible day for democracy.
Posted by Mediaite on Friday, June 26, 2015
A little something for Krauthammer.....Freedom To Marry comprehensive polling data that tells the real story of 'majority' support for same ex marriage. The operative word here is "majority," as in democracy. 
Hannity is so sad you might even be able to taste his tears. They even float judicial impeachment - and Hannity includes John Roberts! 
Posted by Media Matters for America on Friday, June 26, 2015
We will visit the gallery a bit more as America's conservatives are percolating beyond the precipice of sanity and boiling over with anger.  Wonder why no anger about the Citizens United ruling, voting rulings that negatively affect black people, decisions that facilitated discrimination against child bearing aged women, and absolutely no anger about the many corporations friendly rulings from the Roberts Court.  

Robert's Court aside, issues related to the Confederate Flag speaks volumes about the GOP and its regressive civil rights hating constituents.

MSNBC' Chris Hayes ran a segment that follows a radio broadcast in which a caller was taken to task after she express empathy and respect for ancestors who may have held the flag.

Prof. Paul Butler: "I have no respect for your ancestors"

Prof. Paul Butler: "I have no respect for your ancestors" Prof. Paul Butler: "I have no respect for your ancestors"
Posted by All In with Chris Hayes on Thursday, June 25, 2015

StumbleUpon

Monday, December 9, 2013

More Right-wing ACA Stories That Fizzle

Ed Schultz, The Ed Show
Eric Stern Salon Dot Com's
one man ACA Inspector Clueso
At the 2:45 minutes mark of the video embedded (below) you will find the most recent version of conservative Beck/Fox News Anti-ObamaCare propaganda.  Eric Stern of Salon Dot Com is making an investigative name for himself via simply calling people who allow themselves to go on conservative news sets with super sad stories of ObamaCare woes.

An intriguing aspect of these broadcast is the extent to which Fox News and Beck show disregard for the mentality of their audience.  After keyboarding that thought, I realize that my thought represented the essence of propaganda: feed the listener either what they wish to hear or scare them with stories that reach deep into the inner psyche.  Since, the Right-wing demagogues are not finding evidence of Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassely's "Kill Grandma," the propagandist focus on stories of children with severe medical conditions.  The stores are truly sad, yet always accompanied by either uninformed or "Do not wish the be informed" parents.

If Eric Sterns phone calls to the complaining parented yields easily discernible gross lack of knowledge or a general disregard for seeking knowledge, we can easily see how the propagandist use them as subjects.

Watch Ed Schultz, The Ed Show, and Eric Stern again shows the extent to which Right-wing media manipulates its viewers and listeners. 

http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show (GOP refuse to stop criticizing health care)




Do you recall how the concerned father reacted to Sterns questions about how he ended up on Fox News and other broadcast,  Did the guy actually say, he did not know?

After Sterns reports do yo recall seeing anyone from Fox or from Beck's organization go back on camera and retract their faked reports.  The answer is clearly, "no."  A fact that drives us to only one conclusion: the propagandist are developing 
the stories as thoroughly and effective as Breitbart News and James O'Keefe fake their ACORN pimp stories.

The propagandists deal is purely fabrication. And, they do so without any regard for the millions upon millions who are and will derive life sustaining benefit from the ACA.


Even you could reach that millions dollar cap on health insurance policies formerly promulgated across the health insurance industry.


Can someone tell me why these people are standing or propped up in protest? 



Do you think the likes of Beck and Hannity have time convince Congress is exempt from the ACA?  Question for you, do you think these people are covered by most provision of the ACA? Hint: Age 65 is the eligibility age for Medicare. Do you think they know the ACA could save the elderly 8 billion as it closes the Bush Pharma Donut Hole?

The questions are rhetorical.... no need to answer. 


StumbleUpon

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Beck and Limbaugh Claim JFK; Mario Piperni Is Not Buying It!

Re-Blog from Mario Piperni Dot Com

Conservatives Claim JFK As One Of Their Own

Republican politics for Dummies   :   http://mariopiperni.com/

Why am I not surprised by this?

As the nation mourns the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, conservative media figures have attempted to appropriate his legacy and attribute to the beloved former president their conservative ideas and positions. This effort runs counter to Kennedy’s stated positions, speeches, and other historical facts surrounding his presidency.

Is there a shortage of heroes on the right that they now have the need to appropriate liberals and claim them as their own?

What this is really about is that Americans have given JFK an 85% approval rating – the highest ranking among modern day presidents – and there is no way the right could allow that to stand without a fight. In any case, let’s allow the good citizens of Dumbfuckistan the opportunity to voice their thoughts on Kennedy and why they believe he was not really a liberal.

Glenn Beck:

“Who was John F. Kennedy? He has been co-opted by the left…if you could bring back the politician that JFK was, he wouldn’t be accepted by the Republican Party because he would be a Tea Party radical.

Limbaugh:

“[Kennedy] was not in any way a liberal as you know Liberals today…Kennedy was not a big believer in the Civil Rights Act.”

Some Boston Globe winger:

“Kennedy was no liberal. By any reasonable definition, he was a conservative” and that “Today’s Democratic Party — the home of Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Al Gore — wouldn’t give the time of day to a candidate like JFK.”

And on it goes, even though Kennedy was not shy to shout out his liberal creds…or even though a “Wanted for Treason” poster of Kennedy was circulated in and around Dallas in the days before that fateful day in November 1963.


Sorry guys, you’re going to have to be satisfied with your deluded Reagan heroship. John F. Kennedy was an intellectual who would have been repelled by the sheer ignorance of today’s Republican/Tea Party – a sorry excuse for a political party overflowing with sociopaths and clowns. I’d love to know what JFK would have thought of Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin and Louie Gohmert and Rand Paul and Rick Santorum and George W. Bush and Rick Perry and any number of crazies that have turned the Republican party into the laughing stock of the world. I’d think that Kennedy would sooner pluck out his left eye than be associated with any of these dumbasses.

Here’s a thought…any chance that in 2063, Republicans will claim Barack Obama was the country’s first black conservative president?
___

Follow MarioPiperniDotCom on Facebook and Twitter.
StumbleUpon

Friday, October 25, 2013

Believing The GOP Fiscal Hype Is Killing The Middle Class And Burying The Poor

    

             

MSNBC's Ari Melber effectively refutes GOP mantra and "false fiscal" propaganda.  If you are a high information voter, this information is probably not new to you.  If you are a bit less informed, you may actually believe GOP mantra, and you may also exist as fodder for GOP election wins.  Wins, that have yet proven beneficial to the US economy and less beneficial people who live on the lower end of the following info graphic.

The following infographic illustrates the end game for people who have bought hook-line-and sinker into GOP fiscal policy  A policy labeled "trickle-down" by Ronald Reagan.  The policy is more aptly named supply-side economics. 

Mother Jones...... (linger on  left chart in "Winners Take All Section" below and think back to which US President took office in 1981). We do not see a trickle.

HOW RICH ARE THE SUPERRICH?

A huge share of the nation's economic growth over the past 30 years has gone to the top one-hundredth of one percent, who now make an average of $27 million per household. The average income for the bottom 90 percent of us? $31,244.


The richest controls 2/3 of America's net worth

Note: The 2007 data (the most current) doesn't reflect the impact of the housing market crash. In 2007, the bottom 60% of Americans had 65% of their net worth tied up in their homes. The top 1%, in contrast, had just 10%. The housing crisis has no doubt further swelled the share of total net worth held by the superrich.

WINNERS TAKE ALL

The superrich have grabbed the bulk of the past three decades' gains.

Aevrage Household income before taxes.

OUT OF BALANCE

A Harvard business prof and a behavioral economist recently asked more than 5,000 Americans how they thought wealth is distributed in the United States. Most thought that it’s more balanced than it actually is. Asked to choose their ideal distribution of wealth, 92% picked one that was even more equitable.

Average Income by Family, distributed by income group.
Download: PDF (large) | JPG (smaller) 

CAPITOL GAIN

Why Washington is closer to Wall Street than Main Street.

median net worth of american families, median net worth for mebers of congress, your odds of being a millionaire, member of congress's odds of being a millionaire
MEMBERMAX. EST. NET WORTH
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)$451.1 million
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.)$435.4 million
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)$366.2 million
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.)$294.9 million
Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.)$285.1 million
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)$283.1 million
Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.)$231.2 million
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas)$201.5 million
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)$136.2 million
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)$108.1 million
COMBINED NET WORTH:$2.8 BILLION
10 Richest Members of Congress 100% Voted to extend the cuts
Congressional data from 2009. Family net worth data from 2007. Sources: Center for Responsive Politics; US Census; Edward Wolff, Bard College.
Download: PDF (large) | JPG (smaller) 

WHO'S WINNING?

For a healthy few, it's getting better all the time.

YOUR LOSS,THEIR GAIN

How much income have you given up for the top 1 percent?

 See More at Mother Jones

MSNBC The Cycle's Ari Melber address another clear case of GOP mind-induction.  Be careful, it is time to de-hypnotize yourself.


We often write about the LIVs (low information voter/people). We write as such based in what may be a misguided belief that people are unaware. There is a antipodal state that is truly tragic.  What about the prospect people who sit and watch Fox News, and, or, listen to Alex Jones, Limbaugh and Beck, do not care about the data depicted above? 

Let's hope the full 47% of people who voted for Mitt Romney are in the antipodal state. That ever-present abyss called a Great Depression looms and it looms very near one major error in fiscals policy, or practice. 
StumbleUpon

Monday, October 7, 2013

The Daily Kos Literally "Nails" Right-Wing Propaganda



Media matters published a meme over the weekend that sets the sage for a piece I am going to introduce from The Daily Kos. The meme exemplifies a basis for propaganda and dogma messaging that can and does influence people to a place that is not in their best interest. A place contrary to the person's normal position on issue, or a place diametrically opposite beliefs espoused throughout the person's life.

Conservative America is masterful at mind-altering messaging. As far back as Richard Nixon, the GOP has leveraged its wherewithal in mind-altering messaging wile steadfastly moving the nation Right of Center. Hence, the conservative SCOTUS. We are seeing the epitome of such messaging on a daily basis since Barack Obama took the Oval Office in January 2009.
The Daily Kos recently published a piece that is must reading, viewing  and contemplating. The piece, The-Brainwashing-Of-My-Dad-By-Limbaugh-Fox-GOP-Media, explores via Kickstart documentary a writers personal view of watching the influence of viral Right-wing media on the psyche of a former progressive mind (and family man). 

If you are reading here (the TPI), you know our position related to right-wing media, and powerful people who have corralled conservative and libertarian politician into "Solyent Green-like" functionaries. Worse yet, those same mind altering entities have "done a job" on millions while introducing a phenomenon to the American political spectrum.  We now have LIVs (low information voters) who are as dangerous to our society as external military threats.

LIVs are not people who would harm the nation angst. They are people who have subscribed to political thought and paradigm, so influence by right-wing media and 50 years of Republican dogma, they refuse to consider thought outcomes that even remotely approaches  "center of Right or Left."

You know them.  You have them as Facebook 'friends'. I formerly connected to a few; once discovered as low information conservatives the Facebook connection change to an "unfriend" status.  Life is too short to interact with people who would vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan after witnessing the horrors of the 2012 campaign. Anyone who will completely ignore empirical data showing Democrats are much better managers of the US economy is not a person with whom, I care to interact.  If a person cannot see the social implications of a political party that is 92% white (in a nation as divers as the US), the person has accepted a form on intolerance that is a core ideology/axiom of the GOP.

We are going to introduce the Daily Kos (must read) piece via embedding a video from the piece; the piece is linked after the video. 

The Daily Kos


The Brainwashing Of My Dad By Limbaugh, Fox & GOP Media


http://youtu.be/Qh3TeTxgNVo


Linked piece 
StumbleUpon

Friday, September 27, 2013

Open Secrets: Men Contribute More Than Women On US Politics!





Open Secrets is an encyclopedia (or modern contemporary data and information repository) of money in politics.  We regularly select articles to publish here on the TPI. If you are truly interested in money in politics, do not simply read pieces we place here. Visit the site, link to the site, establish Facebook Notifications, maybe even setup a Twitter notification.  "High Information" people will find the time spent on Open Secrets invaluable.   Warning, based on site content you will grow even more contemptuous of "low information" people who ignore facts and pose arguments straight out of Fox News, Hannity Limbaugh and Beck bag of circus barking.

We feel the issue is critical for reasons additional to points delineated by Open Secrets. Example, of the Fortune 500 CEO's less than eight percent are women.  Do you do see the relevance? Think in terms of the Good Ol Boy network.  Do you see the relevance now?  Men hire, promote and mentor men far more than women. Thus, we see clear discrimination and workplace disparity in earnings.  

While men donors may be more inclined to donate for "best return on investment," rest assured gender will become a secondary factor as men open their wallets. Now if you will simply factor a does of conservatism to the mix, guess what?  Good Ol Boy white male candidates indebted to their money-brokers.  

Open Secrets, enjoy!

________________________

Responsive Politics report on women as donors and candidates
by Sarah Bryner and Doug Weber, Sept. 26, 2013
The Center for Responsive Politics

Introduction


In 1989, a gallon of gas cost 97 cents. The USSR was still a formidable world power, Germany was not yet a united country, and Madonna's Like a Prayer was one of the most popular pop songs of the year. And, in the lead-up to the 1990 elections, 31 women were serving in Congress.

How much things change, and yet, how much they stay the same.

The 2012 congressional elections saw a record number of women elected to both the House and Senate. And even though most of his large campaign donations came from men, Barack Obama relied more heavily on female campaign contributors than any general election presidential candidate since at least 1988.

But many patterns have remained remarkably consistent. In the 1990 campaign cycle, 22 percent of all itemized federal contributions came from women. So far in this election cycle, 25 percent of all contributions have come from women. This 3 percent increase, substantially smaller than the increases seen in the numbers of female elected officials, is one telling component in a much more complex story about how women campaign donations by women have changed over time.

In this special report, we'll detail trends in contributions to women candidates, and from women donors. Some takeaways:
As candidates, female Democrats rely most heavily (and male Republicans, the least) on the support of female contributors. That's been the case since 1990. 

Of the top 100 contributors in 2012, 11 were women; that's down from the 21 who fell into that elite group of donors in 1990. 

As politics has become more polarized, so too have the patterns of donations from women. They donate more consistently to congressional Democrats. But women who have outside employment (as compared to homemakers) have moved to the left, while those who self-identify as homemakers have moved to the right. 

Even though women are more evenly represented in Congress than ever before, the “donor gap” between men and women is still real, and remarkably steady.

Women as Candidates


The number of high-profile female politicians continues to creep up. But, in the 30 years that Opensecrets.org has been monitoring campaign finance and elections, the political landscape for female candidates hasn't shifted as much as one might guess.

Certainly, there are more women in Congress than there were in 1990. Then, 7 percent of all winning House candidates were women. By 2012, nearly 18 percent of victorious House candidates were women. Although this may seem like a major increase, not all candidates win at the same rate. There are more Democratic female candidates and more winners, whereas the number of Republican female candidates, as well as the number of winners, has stayed static. In fact, the 2012 congressional elections led to a decrease in the number of House Republican women -- 20 GOP women won, down from an all-time high of 23 in 2008. Even since the election, one of those women (JoAnn Emerson, a Missouri Republican) left office and was replaced by a man (Jason Smith).


The parties have not always been so dissimilar in this area. In 1990, 10 percent of the Democrats' general election House candidates were women (38), compared to 7 percent of Republican general election House candidates (28). However, in 2012, the Democrats fielded 116 female candidates (28 percent of the party's candidate pool) while the Republicans ran only 48 women candidates (11 percent of their pool). As candidates, female Democrats seem to be slightly more likely to win their contests than female Republicans -- about 50 percent of female Democrats won in 2012, compared to 41 percent of female Republicans (although many other factors contribute to election success).


Generally, some candidates are more likely than others to receive money from women donors. Female Democrats receive the highest proportion of their money from women, and Republican men receive the lowest. This trend can be seen just by scanning the list of the members of the 113th Congress who received the highest proportion of their money from women. Of the top 10 members from each chamber, only one, Bernie Sanders, is not a female Democrat. Similarly, of the members who received the lowest percentage of their money from female donors, only three -- Ed Markey, Gene Green, and Mark Pryor -- are not Republican men. The sitting member who received the least amount of money from women is Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), who took in only 9.5 percent of his total itemized contributions from women.

Highest Percent of Campaign Donations from Women

Senate
MemberTotal Gender CodedTotal from Women% from Women
Barbara Boxer (D-Calif)$5,964,690$2,698,95245.3%
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis)$17,411,227$7,620,48243.7%
Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)$10,586,560$4,492,95542.4%
Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass)$1,231,254$498,35640.5%
Claire McCaskill (D-Mo)$2,613,188$1,018,46939%
Kay R. Hagan (D-NC)$10,468,423$3,977,45938%
Bernie Sanders (I-Vt)$3,042,583$1,153,74937.9%
Patty Murray (D-Wash)$9,480,395$3,581,24637.8%
Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn)$3,713,972$1,394,80037.6%
Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)$3,844,184$1,381,04435.9%
House
MemberTotal Gender CodedTotal from Women% from Women
Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill)$686,044$445,90065%
Julia Brownley (D-Calif)$1,077,108$550,87251.1%
Chellie Pingree (D-Maine)$533,925$271,32050.8%
Jackie Speier (D-Calif)$443,479$222,72450.2%
Donna Edwards (D-Md)$241,234$118,10049%
Betty McCollum (D-Minn)$253,436$122,67748.4%
Lois Capps (D-Calif)$1,472,863$709,95148.2%
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)$587,046$280,63447.8%
Ann Mclane Kuster (D-NH)$1,524,411$717,31447.1%
Robin Kelly (D-Ill)$222,405$103,15046.4%

Lowest Percent of Campaign Donations from Women

Senate
MemberTotal Gender CodedTotal from Women% from Women
Thad Cochran (R-Miss)$1,172,839$145,73112.4%
David Vitter (R-La)$6,349,395$1,023,16316.1%
Ed Markey (D-Mass)$446,615$75,25016.9%
James M. Inhofe (R-Okla)$3,183,135$541,42417%
Tom Coburn (R-Okla)$1,016,514$184,67518.1%
Mike Crapo (R-Idaho)$1,495,767$274,85518.4%
Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala)$3,618,554$669,78318.5%
Mark Pryor (D-Ark)$2,683,647$499,41918.6%
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)$4,414,776$922,69220.9%
John A. Barrasso (R-Wyo)$2,985,542$632,68921.2%
House
MemberTotal Gender CodedTotal from Women% from Women
Howard Coble (R-NC)$118,275$11,2409.5%
Steve Scalise (R-La)$676,295$69,15010.2%
Mike D. Rogers (R-Ala)$431,035$44,53510.3%
Gene Green (D-Texas)$150,550$16,45010.9%
Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)$282,333$33,03011.7%
Tom Cole (R-Okla)$455,181$54,30011.9%
Chris Collins (R-NY)$393,910$51,90013.2%
Frank D. Lucas (R-Okla)$408,694$54,00013.2%
Adrian Smith (R-Neb)$332,086$44,24213.3%
Rob Bishop (R-Utah)$102,404$13,65013.3%

Of course, just receiving more or less money from women does not mean that the lawmakers are likely to behave any differently from each other once elected, nor does it mean that those members are receiving less money from women for any specific reason. However, access is often granted to deep-pocketed campaign donors, and if those campaign donors are predominantly male (or female), this may be an indication that the politician is more likely to grant access to men.

Women as Contributors


Women are actually slightly better represented among large campaign donors than they are among members of Congress, but not among the very deep-pocketed donors. In 2012, women contributed just under 30 percent of all of the money given that cycle, but they only contributed 19 percent of all money to outside spending groups, which are allowed to receive unlimited contributions. And, if we remove contributions by the top woman donor (Miriam Adelson) from the list, women contributed only 11 percent of all money to outside groups. In fact, women tended to give, per capita, smaller donations than did male contributors. Of the 100 most generous campaign contributors in 2012, only 11 were women.

Looking only at the amount of money coming from women can be deceptive. The candidates who get the most money, as a percentage, from women are almost entirely female Democrats, but the average female contributor is not necessarily donating to female Democrats. Fewer Republican women run for Congress, and so -- naturally -- more money tends to flow from women to Democratic women, compared to Republican women.

However, as a proportion of the overall amount of money given, women only marginally tend to prefer Democratic candidates. In fact, in 1996, women favored Republican congressional candidates. Substantially more money was delivered from women to George W. Bush than to Al Gore in 2000, although Bush refused matching funds and had no limit on his primary fundraising, leading him to receive much more money than Gore.

Barack Obama, however, received 70 percent more campaign money from women than did John McCain in the 2008 presidential contest. In 2012, Obama was also more dependent on female contributors than any general election presidential candidate since 1990. More than 44 percent of his itemized campaign money came from women, while only 28 percent of Mitt Romney's money was provided by women.

Contributions to Federal Candidates from Women

CycleAmount from women to CandidatesAmount from Women to DemocratsPercent of women's money to Democrats
1990$36,337,893$18,870,40451.9%
1992$55,960,955$33,003,71459%
1994$64,321,090$32,931,02551.2%
1996$77,716,390$37,379,47448.1%
1998$77,960,548$40,314,85651.7%
2000$109,592,551$57,215,45952.2%
2002$113,102,129$62,241,69155%
2004$149,905,777$80,788,62053.9%
2006$189,249,525$108,892,72757.5%
2008$181,868,319$106,516,62458.6%
2010$222,570,178$117,140,30852.6%
2012$231,810,103$120,895,90352.2%
2014$33,800,926$18,981,16656.2%

Women are not a monolith, of course. They represent different interests and industries, and come from different backgrounds. In 1990, homemakers donated similarly to women who work outside the home, based on party preferences. In fact, homemakers were very slightly more likely to support Democrats in 1990 than were women who reported outside employment. That reversed itself and the gap has widened since 1990, and in 2012, 56 percent of the donations from women who reported outside employment went to Democrats, compared to 37 percent of the donations from women who self-identified as homemakers.

Employed Women vs. Homemaker Contributions

CycleEmployed Women
% to Dems
Female Homemakers
% to Dems
Difference between
% to Democrats
199042%42%0%
199257%45%12%
199452%43%9%
199649%35%14%
199854%40%14%
200050%38%12%
200254%44%10%
200459%44%15%
200659%44%15%
200866%57%9%
201060%45%15%
201256%37%19%
201462%42%20%

The overall number of homemakers, as a proportion of overall donations, is still a small share of the overall pool, with these women only contributing between 7 percent and 9 percent of all money since 1990. From this data, it appears that even though a similar proportion of the overall pool is composed of homemakers, those homemakers are becoming more conservative, or the women who enter the workforce are becoming more liberal.


Just as not all women have outside employment, not all women who have outside employment are in the same kinds of jobs. Women report employers from many different industries, but substantial variation exists in how large a share of these industries' contributions come from women. For example, only 16 percent of contributions from the defense sector came from women in 2012. More than 43 percent of contributions from the “ideological” sector came from women.

These numbers do not necessarily suggest that fewer women work in the defense sector than in the ideological sector. What they do suggest is that candidates who receive substantial amounts of money from the defense sector are less likely to receive money from women.

Certain industries are also more likely to see more money flowing from female donors to federal candidates. So far this cycle, more than 63 percent of all money from the nonprofit sector has come from women. Other industries that tend to see a larger percentage of their contributions from women include miscellaneous services, education, and religious institutions. Those industries that lean more on men making contributions include casinos and gambling, defense aerospace, special trade contractors, and mining.

Limits & Legal Reform

In the last 24 years, there have been dramatic shifts in the ways individuals can donate money. Until 2002, individuals could give essentially unlimited amounts of money to political parties, which could then distribute those funds to state parties and candidates which could spend that money on issue ads that were permitted to mention federal candidates. This "soft money" system allowed individuals to circumvent contribution limits.

In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which banned unlimited soft money. But in 2009, legal developments allowed individuals (and organizations) to begin donating unlimited sums of money to "independent expenditure only" committees. These committees provided deep-pocketed individuals with the opportunity to spend large amounts of money again.

What do these legal changes have to do with women's donation habits? Women tend to make up a larger percentage of the donor pool when contribution amounts are limited by law -- although the overall percentage of women donating tends to be no higher than 35 percent. In the 2004, 2006 and 2008 cycles, which were the only three since 1990 with strict donation limits restricting the amount of money a single individual could give, the percentage of women as a portion of the donor pool increased.


Breaking out the percentage of women donating to the various types of political recipients reveals some other trends. Women tend to be a larger portion of the donor pool to presidential candidates, and a smaller proportion of the donors to PACs. After 2002, when soft money donations to parties were banned, the proportion of money contributed to the parties by women, compared to men, increased. These trends suggest that when campaign limits are enforced and effective, women tend to make up a larger share of the donor pool.

The Polarization of Women Donors

More women are giving more money to politicians and parties now than they were 20 years ago, and Democrats are growing increasingly dependent on their support. This map shows counties where women have given at least $25,000 in an election cycle. Darker-colored counties are those where contributions to candidates are most polarized, by party.

Women Donors Drift to Left

Men Still Rule in Political Donations

How do we identify contributor's sex?
We use an algorithm developed by Melissa Data (and available here) to decompose a contributor's name into Firstname, Lastname, Prefix, Suffix, and Sex. The software recognizes contextual clues (including identifiers like “Mrs.” or “Mr.”) as well as known sexes for names like John and Mary to sort names into one of four categories: male, female, unknown, or ambiguous. OpenSecrets.org staff members reconcile any conflicting sexes for individual contributors, and manually identify sex for some of the largest contributors.

Methodological Notes

Importantly, this study examines only contributions from individuals who donated at least $200 to an individual candidate, party, PAC, or super PAC. Individuals making contributions of less than that amount are not included in the Federal Election Commission's downloadable file, and are therefore not included in our analysis. There is no reason to believe that individuals who donate more than $200 are a representative sample of all Americans, or even a representative sample of all Americans who donate to federal campaigns. However, these large contributions consistently come to more than 60 percent of the total money received by campaigns, so the impact of individuals who make these contributions is magnified.




The Center for Responsive Politics 
StumbleUpon