Sign the Petition. Tell Gov. McCrory To Stop Common Core
Hit The Lady’s Tip Jar!
The Latest from The Lady
- #HB673 – “Modify Read to Achieve” In K12 Committee Today
- NC Citizens Sound Off On Need For #OptOut
- Duke Report Drives False Narrative That Charter Schools Cause Segregation
- #DM7 Article: The Common Core War Of Unicorns and Crawfish
- Is It Time To #OptOut In North Carolina?
- Hillary Clinton’s Positions on Education in 2008 vs 2015 (video)
- State-Led Myth Nuked By Duncan Himself: Opt Out and Fed Will Have To ‘Step In’.
- The Common Core Weekend Reads – 4-25-15
- Dear @TheBlaze and @GlennBeck, I Have a Scott Walker Question for You
- There are 203 Education Related Bills At The #NCGA (Updated)
Past Musings from The Lady
Tag Archives: election 2012
Welcome to the LL1885 Election 2012 Thread
This post will be updated throughout the day and evening until the election is called. Updates will begin below the fold, but first a few items that will remain static:
I am on Twitter and Facebook all day and evening today as well. Check the top of this blog to get connected with me.
Follow #WatchTheVote on Twitter today. Vigilance, folks.
Here’s the list of when the polls close and where: Election Day polls: closing times
IF YOU HAVE NOT YET VOTED… What the $#@% are you waiting for? Go do it now.
Rolling Updates (newest first):
I am not vouching for or against the accuracy of any links posted here today. We all know what a zoo Election day can be. Read the items and decide for yourself. I will attempt to post updates, corrections and the like as the day progresses. Continue reading
A ton of people know who Jim Turner is now.
I am sure I was not the only one who emailed the NC Board of Elections, inquiring that one Jim Turner be investigated for potentially having voted multiple times during early voting in North Carolina.
Close up of his comment:
Turner doesn’t even think his comment, true or not, had anything wrong with it:
Indeed, I was not the only one to follow up with the Board of elections. They were apparently overwhelmed. I did receive this answer though:
“We are aware of this claim of multiple voting posted on Facebook. We share your concerns. A preliminary investigation found that this claim is without merit, but we are continuing our investigation of this matter. This claim has been referred to appropriate law enforcement authorities.”
It would seem he intended to cause a stir and he succeeded. Continue reading
Related: The PJ Tatler » Obama Ticket Demand Low — In Boulder Continue reading
Published on Oct 27, 2012 by TrueFeministVids
A simplification of the larger elements at odds this election. When you boil it down, the choice is not so complicated as our political parties want us to believe. It’s truly very simple, and with a look back at history, it’s easy to see the future, either way.
[youtube=http://youtu.be/2b7JxnIOVxk] Continue reading
CNN pulled a post off their website yesterday that was only up for a few hours and put this in its place:
October 24th, 2012
08:15 PM ET
Post removed: Study looks at voting and hormones
A post previously published in this space regarding a study about how hormones may influence voting choices has been removed.
After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.
We thank you for your comments and feedback.
My curiosity got the better of me. So I checked for the cached page. Get ready ladies, if you’re ovulating you’re risking voting with your eggs instead of your brains. LADYPARTS!!! I can’t say more, because the stupid…ow, it burns. Just read it:
October 24th, 2012
05:10 PM ET
Study looks at voting and hormones
While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.
You read that right. New research suggests that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.
Please continue reading with caution. Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.
A bit of background: Women are more likely to vote than men, other studies have found. Current data suggest married women favor Gov. Mitt Romney, in a 19% difference, over President Barack Obama, while Obama commands the votes of single women by a 33% margin, according to the study. And previous studies have shown that political and religious attitudes may be influenced by reproductive goals.
In the new study’s first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.
They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.
Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.
The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers’ overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.
Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.
“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.
Durante’s previous research found that women’s ovulation cycles also influence their shopping habits, buying sexier clothes during their most fertile phase.
“We still have the ovulatory hormones that have the same impact on female brains as across other species,” she said. We want sex and we want it with the best mate we can get. “But there are some high costs that come with it,” she said, particularly for women who are already in committed relationships.
This isn’t the first time hormones have been looked at in connection to voting. Last year Israeli researchers published a study in the journal European Neuropsychopharmacology examined the stress hormone cortisol in voters in Israel. Levels of this hormone were higher in people right before they were about to vote than in the same people when they were not voting.
Durante’s study on women noted that liberal attitudes favor social equality and tend to be less associated with organized religion. Conservatism is more about traditional values and is linked to greater participation in organized religion.
The most controversial part of the study is not only that hormonal cycles are linked to women’s preferences for candidates and voting behaviors, but also that single women who are ovulating are more likely to be socially liberal, and relationship-committed women are more likely to be socially conservative, said Paul Kellstedt, associate professor of political science at Texas A&M University.
One of the major caveats this paper fails to address is that men also have biochemical changes, Kellstedt said.
“The reader may be left with the impression that women are unstable and moody in ways that extend to their political preferences, but that men are comparative Rocks of Gibraltar,” Kellstedt said in an e-mail.
Kellstedt does not study biology, but he has been involved in research suggesting that men’s political preferences are even more volatile than women’s.
“There is absolutely no reason to expect that women’s hormones affect how they vote any more than there is a reason to suggest that variations in testosterone levels are responsible for variations in the debate performances of Obama and Romney,” said Susan Carroll, professor of political science and women’s and gender studies at Rutgers University, in an e-mail.
Carroll sees the research as following in the tradition of the “long and troubling history of using women’s hormones as an excuse to exclude them from politics and other societal opportunities.”
“It was long thought that a woman shouldn’t be president of the U.S. because, God forbid, an international crisis might happen during her period!” Carroll said.
A better explanation for the divide in voting preferences between single and married women is the difference in economic status, she said.
One expert gave it a little more credence: Israel Waismel-Manor, a political scientist at the University of Haifa in Israel, who did the cortisol study last year.
He’s not sure that this hormonal effect Durante found among women isn’t real, but offered an alternate explanation too: Research has shown women prefer more “manly men” when they are in their most fertile phases of the cycle. Obama and Romney are both handsome, in good physical shape and could fit the type of “provider of the family,” so either could fit the ideal, depending on a woman’s preference.
Assuming there is some hormonal explanation, the effects could cancel themselves out, since different women will be on different cycles when they vote, and the candidates have a similar level of physical attractiveness, Waismel-Manor said. A more elaborate research design is needed to examine it further.
“Even if the finding is correct, there’s a chance that it won’t have a cumulative effect on the electorate,” he said.
Women: Do you feel the political parties don’t represent you? Share your story Continue reading