Dem
51
GOP
49
The Republican Party, Dobbs decision hanging like an anchor around its collective necks, thinks it can still win back a sizable number of women voters. In the past few days, however, the GOP has had two big whiffs on that front.
First, of course, is the State of the Union response by Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL), which was carefully crafted to connect with women voters. And yet, it conveyed a sense of someone who has perhaps read the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for "Woman," but who otherwise has no understanding of the subject. Britt said the wrong things, in the wrong way, from the wrong place... and then got caught lying, too. Nonetheless, rather than apologize, she went on the offensive, and spent Sunday morning defending the propriety of the incredibly misleading anecdote she used, while slurring her critics as "disgusting."
The message that many Republican strategists took from the speech is that Republicans just don't get it, when it comes to women voters. Britt's message might connect with "traditionalist women" (presumably that means "evangelical women"), but those folks are already voting Trump. It's not going to connect with anyone else and, in fact, the real message is that Britt & Co. have so little regard for women voters that they make up lies and hope they will pass muster. And that's on top of trying to take a highly educated lawyer, former Congressional chief of staff, and U.S. Senator and trying to pass her off as "Average Jane" sitting in her modest kitchen.
The second whiff came on Sunday, when Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) appeared on George Stephanopoulos' show, in part to defend Britt and her use of the misleading story about the sex-trafficked woman. During the appearance (which you can watch here, if you wish), Stephanopoulos asked how Mace can reconcile her experience as a rape victim (her phrasing) with her support for Donald Trump, who has twice been found liable for an act of sexual assault in a court of law. Mace avoided the question, and though Stephanopoulos was very respectful and very cautious, she turned it around on him and said repeatedly how "disgusted" she was that the host was trying to "shame" her and "bully" her.
One must tread lightly when dealing with a rape survivor, but we are inclined to think Stephanopoulos' question was fair, and was handled appropriately. And whether it was fair or not, the fact is that there are many women voters who might like to have an explanation for the apparent paradox, so Mace should be prepared to address the issue. Of course, she can't actually answer, because we all know that the truth is that any Republican politician who wants to keep their job has to behave as if Trump is the stainless knight Sir Galahad, untouched by sin. Even if that means a rape survivor being compelled to grit their teeth, smile, and endorse a rapist.
Again, we are treading lightly here, given the gender dynamics in play. However, the women who write for The Washington Post are not so constrained. And so, Ruth Marcus let loose with both barrels yesterday:
You know what I find disgusting? Women who have achieved such levels of political prominence stooping to play the gender card on a matter as important as sexual violence. It's important to have women in positions of power, not least because they might be more focused on such issues—more inclined to take them up and more attuned to the imperative of dealing with them in a way that reflects the sensitivities of the situation. This was not what Britt and Mace brought to the Sunday talk-show table. Instead, they used gender and the subject of sexual violence to shut down discussion—a shield intended to stifle perfectly reasonable criticism. It doesn't feel like a coincidence that both women used that same charged word: disgusting. It is designed to preempt, not to convince.
Karen Tumulty had a similar response:
How Britt was presented to a national audience, however, says a lot about why the GOP struggles to connect with suburban women. Her breathy, overwrought delivery would have embarrassed any self-respecting high school drama club.
And the setting sent another message that was not helpful at a moment when Republicans are trying to shake their image as a party that wants to send women backward in time. As veteran GOP pollster Christine Matthews put it on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter: "Not sure whose genius idea it was to put a U.S. Senator in the kitchen to deliver the response to the #SOTU. In the panel work I have done w/swing women since 2014 we have tested ads like this—i.e. women talking health care in the kitchen—and it just sets women voters off."
There were a number of other pieces like these from the women writers of the Post and The New York Times, but these two are enough to get the point across.
In the end, making inroads with women voters may be an impossibility for the current iteration of the Republican Party. The strict anti-choice stance is one big problem. Having a presidential candidate who is a misogynist and a confirmed rapist is another. And an understanding of "women" that apparently starts and ends with evangelical women is a third. All we know for sure is that two high-profile GOP women did not help the cause this week, and it's hard to know what they might do differently in the future. They might start with the understanding that women voters are not morons, and that they will not be fooled by hand waving, magic tricks, false anecdotes and empty verbiage. But maybe that's a bridge too far. (Z)