In response to:

Female vs. Male Senators

PoliticalHistorian Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 9:04 PM
Mr. Thomas "danced" around a huge problem for Republicans. Explain this. 20 women in the Senate, 16-4 Democrats; 78 women in the House, 58-20 Democrats. Same in the state legislatures -- lopsided Democrat advantage. Females outnumber males in voting age population. Females vote in greater proportions than men. Females favor the Democrats. This advantage ... doing the math ... is about 8-9 million votes nation wide. Why the deficit for the Republicans? Mr. Thomas fails to address these facts. The RNC people need to stop relying upon anecdotes, as Mr. Thomas does, and address the core issues here.
para_dimz Wrote: Jan 09, 2013 9:27 AM
I wouldn't know about your pointed question. But what popped up in my head is with those stats why is the country in the straights its in if women are the answer? Seems not to be working as advertised.

As the son of a woman, the husband of a woman and the father of daughters and granddaughters, I celebrate the record number of females who are now United States senators. However, I do see some differences in the way these and other women are treated, depending on their party, policies and beliefs.

Diane Sawyer broadcast a celebratory report last week on ABC's "World News Tonight" on which she gushed about the "record number" of 20 female senators. Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., also praised the Senate female population. Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said she won't be satisfied until there are 50...