Blue America candidate Darcy Burner is in the race once again. As everyone here knows, we LOVE candidates who stay in the game, are willing to run and tough enough to withstand a loss to establish name recognition, fight for progressive values that the party should embody and won't waver from them just to pander for votes (like Donna Edwards, Victoria Wulsin and Angie Paccione). Darcy embodies all of these things and she's going to be visiting Blue America with Howie Klein on July 14. (Meanwhile, Chris Carney has turned into an anti-gay menace, along with other members of Congress who banded together to pass what John Aravosis has dubbed the "Samuel David Cheney Gay Bashing Amendment." Rest assured, Carney will not be back.)
Meanwhile, Women's Voices, Women's Votes have just released the results of their recent exhaustive study into the voting habits of unmarried people, both male and female. Among the key findings:
• Unmarried citizens are a surging force in American politics. Currently, there are almost 90 million unmarried adult citizens. More than 52 million of them are registered voters, and almost 37 million are eligible but not registered to vote.
• The majority of households in America (50.3%) are now headed by unmarrieds.
• The story of unmarried America is the story of unmarried women –they account for the largest bloc of unmarried targets (almost 31 million registered voters). There are about 23 million unmarried women who are mobilization targets –including 5 million who were registered but did not vote in 2004, and over 18 million who are not registered currently but are eligible.
• Unmarried voters are change oriented and they want progressive change.
• Unmarried America is economically marginalized compared to married America, and this motivates much of their impulse for change.
• Unmarried Americans are cynical about their government, believing that their voice goes unheard and that their government is run by an elite few.
• This cynicism is a barrier to their participation.
Hillary Clinton took a lot of guff from angry men when she appeared on FDL who did not think that talking about equal pay for women was an important topic for a presidential candidate to be speaking about, but these survey results beg to differ -- unmarried women are a huge, untapped resource of Democratic support who are not being mobilized or motivated to vote. This is largely because the party is not speaking to their economic marginalization and the issues they face as a result, and it's extremely smart and pragmatic of Senator Clinton to use her leadership position to do so.
Please join us on July 14 for our discussion with Darcy, and in the meantime have a look at the WVWV study -- it fascinating and we'll be discussing it in the future, so let us know if you find anything interesting in the comments section.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/28/162035/432
chong!
bueno
Jane, This will make you happy, but this will not.
Jane and Blue America!
We’re gonna win big in ‘08.
Wow, somebody really thought talking about equal pay for women was a waste of time? Seriously?
90 million unmarried adult citizens that tend to be more progressive…HUGE!
I live in a state where unmarried couples basically have no rights (and where it is still in fact illegal to live together and engage in “lewd and lascivious conduct”). Even with the appropriate paperwork drawn up our rights and wishes would still likely be denied if pressed by family in court.
I wonder who the first politician will be that advocares for the rights of unmarried couples or unmarried single parents?
Let’s hear it for unmarried women, of whom I am one!
Darcy Burner, Donna Edwards, Angie Paccione and Victoria Wulsin - The four Women of the Apocalypse. As far as the GOP is concerned that is.
Loo Hoo @ 6
…if they vote. That’s the big problem, as mentioned in the last two bullet points of the quoted report. There are HUGE numbers of people who’ve just given up on voting, believing it does no good. A self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.
They also think the system is all about money, and if you don’t have any you have no voice. Money’s important, but smart politicians know it isn’t everything. Barney Frank, a very smart politician, observed that money is fungible; if you lose support from X, you’ll get it back from Y. Voters are not fungible.
(i’m in the midst of buying my first ever house. when i signed the loan documents the deed listed me as: first name, last name, a single woman. all in bold.
so now i’ve got notarized proof of my official membership in a growing political force.
a new flatware set or power drill would be a bit more practical, but, hey, i’ll take it…)
I’m an unmarried woman. Unabashedly progressive. There’s no mistake that you’re unspokenly penalized for not taking vows and not having any kids. I live that life and find it frustrating.
Jane it is SO good to see your posts coming back-to-back again. You give us all hope.
lisadawn82 @ 9
Yes, they are indeed reason to have hope. They all lost by small margins last time, I think we can make the difference this time in helping them by getting started early. If you’ve got a few spare nickels jingling around in your pocket, consider dropping them in the Blue America can for them.
alias #12,
the penalties for being unmarried are more than unspoken, as I’m sure you know. I didn’t get married till 40, and couldn’t believe how much my taxes and insurance went down.
Well, hit some button that posted my prior comment before I could add my substantive material.
Here’s the problem: women and unmarrieds are a threat to the existing power structure, which is male and married. That’s why any attempt for equality hits such a brick wall. I flung myself at it every day for 30 years on Wall St, so I know whereof I speak. It’s one of life’s many thankless tasks–well, almost thankless as there were other benefits to my job that made it more than bearable.
It’s the thankless task part of the problem that makes unmarried women cynical and unwilling to participate in the political process.
I always thought the right approach was the group approach. On Wall St, however, each woman felt there would be so little room for advancement for her gender that all other women were her competitors, not her comrades. In national politics, it’s hard to organize this disaffected group for effective action. (Unlike the religious right who get organized every Sunday, as well as many other ways.)
Progressive women candidates (i.e., not Hillary Clinton) are a step in the right direction. When single women see that they are really represented in the political arena, they’ll participate more.
So, it’s okay if I join the fabulous throngs of progressive, successful Unmarried Women?
(to Loo Hoo - Ha!)
And Tommy Chong’s video cracked the shit out of me. Our Premier Stoner? Somebody hook me up!
I was totally kidding about the hook me up part. Completely kidding. I did not, in any way, mean it. Fer sure!
Jane, Chemo certainly hasn’t affected your brain.. The wisdom keeps on coming!!!
lisadawn82 @ 9
I like that. A lot.
RonD @ 15
It irks me about that, but i still vote. I’m cynical yes–but not so ignorant of the process that i won’t participate. I think that’s the main difference between me and those that dont’ vote.
I still can’t be as activist as i’d like to be because i’m exquisitely vulnerable economically and i can’t exactly afford to go head to head with the large corporation that employs me(or big insurance) if decided to speak out on the exploitation i see every day of patients. All because of so many factors and one of the largest is because i’m unmarried. My family support system is fairly good though, but even they can’t help me if i went up against those beasts. We’re blue collar for the most part and dont’ have a lot of money to spare.
Equal pay for women is a huge issue. An issue Democrats should own, however I’m not exactly sure HRC has the strongest record when it comes to fighting economic marginalization.
Another overlooked issue that goes to economic marginalization is single women who are also mothers who are owed unpaid child support obligations. There should be more federal involvement in the enforcement of child support obligations, particularly when it involves out of state non-custodial parents. Would like to see some Dem candidates speaking to this.
Alias, the injustice makes it even more important that people fight cycnicism and continue to vote. It’s an ongoing process to push the system, and when people quit voting, then they, well, lose. As you pointed out.
Another single progressive woman here — own my own home, have voted every year since 1974! Just ask any long-term adult single person about the “marriage penalty!”
While looking for progressive and successful candidates, I am wondering (OT)where the action is to assure the integrity of the voting system. Of course, 2004 was a sham, then ‘08, esp. in certain districts, and now we can see the shenanigans in the US Atty offices doing more to disenfranchise Black voters. I know the voting issue is one facet in Tavis Smiley’s contract. From what I read, however, it seems that the efforts to assure safe voting are pretty scattered. What are some of you hearing? We surely do not need to encounter another fraud election.
jim oconner @ 22
Equal pay for women is a sure loser for a prez candidate as it would PO every male voter and not bring out many disaffected women voters who would (rightly) assume the candidate was pandering. Furthermore, no corps would donate to such a person’s campaign. NOW do you understand what I said @ 16 about going against the extant power structure?
It’s like Tom Schaller says: Why oh why do Democratic consultants keep urging Dems to trash their core values chasing after people who will never vote for them when there’s tens of millions of women who will, if you just spend a fraction of the time on them that you spend on the bigots?
Phoenix Woman @ 27
Ummm…Because they’re spineless chicken**ts?
eCAHNomics @ 16
Yup, group efforts are the way to go — some of the Queen Bees like being the only ‘girl’ in the room. (They’re the ones the males CEOs can use both as tokens and as enforcers of the status quo.)
And speaking of strong, progressive women,,,
what if we said no more tuna noodle casseroles until the troops come home?
(I know, it’s been done before…and I think it worked.)
Phoenix Woman @ 27
I know the answer to that one. It’s like the old joke about the drunk looking around the ground under a streetlight. Passerby asks what he’s doing. Searching for my lost wallet sez drunk. Did you lose it around her? Oh no, I lost it over in those bushes. So why not search there? Because it’s dark over there.
So the Ds see the votes that the Rs already have but can’t see the ones that really exist over in the dark.
lisadawn82 @ 28
And because a lot of the consultants are shills for corporate America, which by and large wants to turn Democrats into Republicans.
But Corporate America has run into a problem: Its alliance with the Fundies and Bigots (aka “the Southern Strategy”, though it works in many non-Southern places too) is fracturing over the very bigotry the Corporates have inflamed and encouraged.
Just a quick drive by. Excuse please. Jane, thanks so much for helping to pull me out of South Lurkerville. Your e-mail re: my check, and your optimism has helped me to tickle the keyboard again. I’ll stick around this time. Sending much love and good vibrations from N.Y.C.
bluejeansntshirt
PW,
There’s also the inverse of that. *grins* I work in a pharmacy headed and run almost exclusively run by women. We are the only pharmacy in about a 15 mile radius that keeps Plan B on hand at all times for those that need it. We’re progressive without saying so, and most all of us voted democrat in 2006, and likely will again. We have two pharmacists, one of them male. But the entire tech staff is female. *grins* Our Pharmacy manager is the female pharmacist. It’s an interesting dynamic, that.
demi @ 30
It wasn’t tuna noodle casseroles. And it has been done before.
aliasofwestgate @ 21
Take hope. Fighting the corporate tentacles will smash you because they control your very existence. However, leap over them and establish contact with your senators and representative and make certain they hear from you regularly. There is always a way to become empowered and still put food on the table and a roof over your head.
demi @ 30
Laura as Lysistrada?
nomolos @ 37
I’d be surprised if she got closer than 10 feet from him any time other than during photo ops. Don’t think that one’s gonna fly.
Quakergirl,
I’ve got Rep Ehlers for my House congresscritter. He wont’ do jack. Levin and Stabenow have been lukewarm lately but they do act, for the most part. Which is why i keep in contact with them, but working with Ehlers is head against the brick wall time in terms of progressive issues. The only consolance is that he’s not Hoekstra, the nieghboring wingnut that is the House Rep for Holland,MI.
Speaking of strong women, Ellen Goodman writes up Justice Ginsberg today. A must read.
Steve T. @ 10
Amen.
eCAHNomics @ 26.
Maybe I miss your point. My point is I want real Democrats. Not Republican-lite.To me HRC is Republican-lite.
Who wants to be first?
aliasofwestgate @ 39
I understand. I have a sicko also who has done nothing that is in the interest of my contingent but I still go after him. Remember the Elie Weisel position - Always tell them so they can never say they didn’t know.
RevDeb @ 40
This quote was interesting
“She’s still a voice of moderation,” says Yale Law School’s Judith Resnik. “It’s the court that has become radical.”
For a moderate to read her dissent means the good ole boys are way more than radical. Fanatic coes to mind.
lisadawn82 @ 28
Misinformed spineless chicken**ts.
jim oconnor @ 42
Progressives fro sure & certainly not Hillary. My point was that to explicitly raise equal pay for women as a campaign issue would be a sure loser because it so threatens the existing power structure. Campaign on other progressive issues and try to legislate around the equal pay issue. Which means you need a female-friendly Congress too, of course.
eCAHNomics @ 47
How do you elect a female-friendly Congress if the candidates are not willing to take a stand on an issue as important as equal pay for women?
howieklein @ 43
Howie, can they set up a PayPal account? They would get a lot more donations.
eCAHNomics @47
The Lamont campaign was a threat to the power structure. For me, it came close enough to keep trying. That said, add to your list a judiciary that’s not in the pockets of big business.
Lawmakers Sell Out Americans!
When I ran against Congressman Tom Price I pointed out how Price was selling out American jobs and wages in exchange for campaign donations by co-sponsoring a bill (H.R. 3938) to increase the annual cap on all employment-based visas (not just technically-oriented H1Bs) by over 115% (from 120,000 to 260,000).
Please watch this training video by a law firm that teaches companies how to disqualify American workers and instead hire low-wage immigrants.
http://controlcongress.com/unc.....-americans
LD-According to the According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 2000 and 2005, the United States’ employment for computer workers grew by about 332,000.
During the same time period, the United States imported about 330,000 H1-B workers for computer occupations.
The situation for engineers was even worse, with 95,000 H1-B visas issued in the same period for engineering, yet according to the Department of Labor, engineering jobs shrank by almost 124,000 jobs.
howieklein @ 43
I have a fund raiser at my house next week for Jay Buckey…does that count :)
neurophius @ 48
Slowly over time. Full frontal attack would be self-defeating.
nomolos @ 52
LOL! No, I was subtley pointing out that I just added Darcy to the Blue America page in honor of Jane’s post today.
I just wish I knew who will watch dog for the integrity of the voting process and the machines that can be programmed to do anything. May be that is something else Gore can take on; we know the Court is not to be trusted. It does not matter much who we are nominating or voting for if the numbers don’t get counted accurately.
John @ 51, I hope that you run again. Name recognition is everything. Because Price was the Dr. for Roswell High’s sports programs he thought of as a god. Keep up the good fight, you had my vote.
if the few gains progressive causes have gained have taught us anything, it’s that you don’t (and CAN’T) fight effectively in an underhanded way. You can’t advocate for positions that you’re afraid to even talk about and you’ll seem insincere if you try to do so.
Jane, how I hate to disagree with you but Fred Thompson won’t be the death of the Republican Party.
Strong, progressive women will. 23 million of ‘em.
lisadawn82 @ 9
And coming up on Blue America this summer:
109 of us have donated to Victoria Wulsin and Angie’s up to 61 donors so far. 114 of us gave to Carol Shea-Porter and 50 of us gave to Donna Edwards. We can get the ball rolling for Darcy today. No need to wait ’til Bastille Day.
jim oconnor @ 50
Ding ding ding on the corporate owned judiciary.
As I was responding to your earlier comment, I started thinking about the court route for equal pay, like the gay marriage approach. There must be friendly jurisdictions where the right case might have some chance of success. Camel’s nose under the tent? I vaguely recall there have been some. The Wall St. women’s cases are almost always settled with nondisclosure clauses so no one can find out what happened. And that after years and years of legal maneuvering. So maybe that’s not the route either, though even the settlements have probably had some influence on Wall St. behavior.
As for Lamont, it took an almost self-financed candidate to do it. Ditto Corzine, though it remains to be seen how progressive he turns out to be. But my point is that is not a model you want to have to rely on. I think ActBlue and other internet approaches have made significant progressive progress, and with a method that I like.
“Hillary Clinton took a lot of guff from angry men when she appeared on FDL who did not think that talking about equal pay for women was an important topic…”
1. Wrong, wrong, wrong again, Ms. Hamsher. Ole Gutless & Spineless took grief because she refused to answer general questions about a myriad of important issues. Ever heard of a place named….Iraq? There’s a war going on over there, and our boys are dying. Your hero, ole Gutless & Spineless refused to answer any questions about that.
2. And, perhaps you don’t mean to, but referring to “angry men” makes it sound like you view any male who “dares” to disagree as being of a lower level in life. Belittling “men” is not wise….and too broad a stroke. I don’t think you meant it that way.
3. On a POSITIVE note, many months ago Ms. Hamsher wrote about ideas on getting people, INCLUDING women, registered to vote. It was, and still is, a good idea! And, I suggest, right NOW is the time to get started on this. This Summer! I encourage Ms. Hamsher to bang the drum on this issue. Just please stop ranting about “angry men”.
Ghostman
howieklein @ 54
Hank Johnson’s website link takes you to on of those phony sites.Hank Johnson
Hey! Those people in that ad are chanting my name!
Darcy, Darcy, Darcy!
I detest the way many employers have gotten away with paying unmarried people less for the same job within the same company than married employees are paid. Unmarried people, no matter gender or background continue to be discriminated against in our society.
Ghostman @ 61
Yea, it pisses me off when she does that! :)
New post upstairs. Chris Bowers, formerly of MyDD.
link
“Hillary Clinton took a lot of guff from angry men when she appeared on FDL who did not think that talking about equal pay for women was an important topic for a presidential candidate to be speaking about…”
A total and disingenous misrepresentation of the discussion about Senator Clinton’s sudden appearance here. No one was angry and I’m not certain everyone who had questions was male. The problem was the Senator’s choice of a topic was designed to please a Firedoglake audience without addressing what had been the A-#1 topic for months: the war in Iraq.
Characterizing that objection as “men who don’t care about women” is absurd.
Just scored the First Darcy Burner donation on Act Blue, plus a little to Charlie Brown and Eric Massa.
I wish Joe LIEberman or Ann Coulter was stumping for Darcy’s opponent…
I also wish I had some money to throw Darcy’s way, but I don’t. Jane thinks enough about this candidate that she took the time to write a piece to let us know what a fine addition to Blue America Darcy Burner is. That is good enough for me.
If you are lucky enough to have some spare cash to donate to causes that are important to you, please consider giving something to Darcy’s Blue America kitty today.
1,562 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
Citizen Slothrop and the Firepup Patriots:
“Characterizing that objection as ‘men who don’t care about women’ is absurd.”
Yes indeed, absurd and surprisin’ comin from Citizen Hamsher but I’m afraid that’s what we’re gunna be hearin’ from Mrs. Clinton and the Clintonistas as this thing drags on. The tactic of tryin’ ta marginalize and intimidate progressive men who don’t support Mrs. Clinton will jest make it clearer and clearer to new women voters like my two college student daughters that Mrs. Clinton is NOT progressive and not workin’ in the interests of workin’ women or other living things.
KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION AND WATCH YER STEP, THERE’S A LOTTA SHIT COMIN’ DOWN!!
JPL
Thank You!
NorskeFlamethrower @ 70
Whoa Nellie, there’s aa mighty wind a comin!
1,562 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN GOEZ ON AND ON AND..
P.S. And I won’t vote for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstances and I will actively work to see that she is NOT elected president. That goes for any Blue Dogs includin’ the one in my district, Ron Kind.
KEEP THE FAITH AND BE VIGILANT!!
Maybe this is EPU’d, but I’m hoping some kind soul can help me answer a question for a friend.
I know someone, casual friend, who says she was divorced 6 yrs ago. Her former husband kept the farm they’d shared, and she still uses that address for filing her income taxes.
She tells me, however, that she has had to move several times after the divorce, so has had no permanent address she can call her own for voting purposes, i.e., for longer than 6 mos.
This is in OH, so with all the hanky panky about cage-ing votes and every other trick former SecyState Kenneth Blackwell had been pulling, I don’t know what she’s run up against - legal, illegal, or perhaps a faulty assumption on her part.
Does anyone in the FDL pack know about Ohio voting law restrictions? IS it necessary to have a “permanent” address for at least 6 months in order to vote? I know this lady has a steady job, because, at least weekly, we frequent the business where she works.
Here’s a steady, hard-working citizen who thinks she’s not allowed to vote. Can this be?
I’d truly appreciate some advice from someone familiar with the OH state election law, so I could help her learn how to exercise her rights, without intruding too much.
Thanks, all.
I was one of the “angry men” when Hil posted on here and didn’t address the war. I am a woman.
It was a cheap pandering event to a specific sector… women. I disagree with that tactic from a Presidential candidate. I’m a woman. An unmarried woman. An economically marginalized unmarried woman with no children. I don’t feel she serves me or even understands or thinks in anything other than sound bites she can trot out for the sole purpose of getting to be the first woman President. She is a Republican/neocon to me. I don’t think Hillary can do anything to change that in my view.
Now, Darcy Burner for Congress. Well, okay! This is an important issue, and I will be reading up on it and Darcy as well.
I saw last night on Facebook that Ann Kirkpatrick is exploring a run against Renzi. I already know I can support that!
>Darcy Burner, Donna Edwards, Angie Paccione and Victoria Wulsin - The four Women of the Apocalypse. As far as the GOP is concerned that is.
Women like Hillary Clinton are why no one cares if women get elected. Women like Darcy, Donna, Angie, Victoria, AND Tammy Baldwin, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters,are why unmarried women COULD become engaged motivated voters.
That is, it has to be a woman who got there on her own, not cuz of who she married. Maybe Hillary is really running to keep Bill interested. What I know is millions of women will NEVER vote to bring him back into the White House–although we sophisticates don’t care what he does, THEY DO and will vote accordingly.
My God, Hillary is selfish.
Being unmarried and a Democrat, I would never vote for any politican who tailors his or her campaign message around the family unit.
Any politican who mentions the word “family” in their speeches tells me that they only want to be president for American families and not for Americans in general, so people without a family whether single males or single females are on their own.
Thanks for another great post, Jane. What would we do without you?
When it comes to pay equity, unmarried women are even further behind other women - their wages are 56 cents to a married man’s $1 (20 cents lower than the figures cited for in pay equity legislation).
A third of unmarried women move every election cycle, so registering and voting presents extra hurdles, not to mention coping with voter suppression and the fact that being on their own means their lives are stretched to the limit. Any convenience factor in voting like vote-by-mail or same day voting helps to get them registered and voting.
And politicans who connect with their lives will help to turn around the cynicism.
SilenceIris @ 5
Not that I recall . . . I won’t do a thread search and sort, but, I vaguely recall a general dissatisfaction that bloggers coulnd’t address OTHER candidate issues . . . and a lot of disgruntled pup comments were about the fact that the whole ‘interview’ seemed rigged aforehand to AVOID all other topics. That’s what I vaguely, recall.
Jane Wrote Above: “Hillary Clinton took a lot of guff from angry men when she appeared on FDL who did not think that talking about equal pay for women was an important topic for a presidential candidate to be speaking about,”
I just don’t recall it that way.
I’d like to know why Jane Hamsher is so gung ho on HRC for prez . . . and shouting down males in opposition to HRC, but not talking much about WOMEN who don’t support HRC . .
I’d like to know this . . . . given that HRC is NOT going to further peace, non-interventionist policies, a reduction in colonial rule and expansion, is NOT going to make an investment in the middle class, and only really represents one percenters looking to consolidate MORE wealth and power into their own hands at the expense of the middle class.
What’s your stake in HRC, Jane?
What’s your STAKE in a candidate who basically, represents the status quo, and represents NOTHING of the values of the progressive blogosphere, which YOU and FDL claim to be a LEADER of such . . . . I’d like to see a FDL mission statement on that. I really would.
Harumph.