Probably.
Politicians manage their campaigns based on who will vote. So Clinton and JFK made efforts to convince women to vote for them.
Some of the choices they made lost male voters, but gained more female voters. Had women not been able to vote, they would have campaigned in other directions, and gotten stronger support among men.
Consider this allegory ( or simile or whatever.) You and I sit down and play a game of chess. After an hour, I squeak out a victory using my two bishops.
Now you could say that I wouldn't have won if chess didn't have bishops, but in fact I could have still won, using a rook based ploy, or perhaps by using my knights well.
(This is very hypothetical, since I really stink at chess, and haven't won a game since I was seven and my grandmother was feeling sorry for me.)
So, if women were suddenly not allowed to vote on Either Kennedy's or Clinton's election days, they might have lost, but if otherwise, they probably could have won.
2007-09-28 01:44:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by Mr. Bad Day 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Your father is probably right but neither would Reagan have won without the women enamored by a movie star. By the way some of our worst presidents were elected when only men could vote and some of our best were elected when there was universal suffrage.
2007-09-26 12:06:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Your father probably also complains about women drivers, even though statistics show that women are safer drivers than men. JFK won because his father bought votes and there was a lot of fraud in Chicago with Mayor Daly. To imply that women vote for men who are considered attractive is insulting. We have brains, you know.
Have you considered, in the case of Clinton, that his policies were more favorable for women? Women in this country still are not treated as equals under the law. Just today, the front page story on Long Island was about a case brought against Adelphi University because there is proof they are paying women less than men for the exact same jobs. You think the conservatives care about doing anything about things like that?
And, dee, I love how you right-wingers won't miss a chance to make some ignorant crack about Clinton. What you said has nothing to do with the question.
2007-09-26 12:04:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
JFK was a war hero. Against Nixon he was almost a lock. Clinton used the Soccer mom vote to the fullest. The 2nd term, he kicked the snot out fo Bob Dole. Don't let your dad fool you.
2007-09-26 12:21:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by Deep Thought 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
If George Bush can play a shell interest with WMDs, place self assurance in defective intelligence, run up the deficit on an identical time as proclaiming to be a financial conservative, compromise the judiciary with arguable appointments, sell an power coverage that no person believes in, carry no person to blame for 9/eleven, undermine our alliances, and propose tax breaks for the wealthy, then it is honest to declare that the believe concern is up for grabs and positively Hillary has a shot." And bill can connect her. a minimum of he wasn't a cheer chief at Harvard like "little" w. on an identical time as Bush replaced into wending his thank you to the convention by skill of way of plane and satellite tv for pc hookup, John McCain replaced into throwing the excellent party of the week. interior a popular city-center eating place referred to as Buddakan -- insert your man or woman low priced Trick shaggy dog tale right here -- Ed Rendell, the exuberant former mayor of Philadelphia and the present Democratic national chairman, shredded Bush's compassion-and-variety offensive as a "hoax," then slapped the Arizona senator on the back. journalists reminisced approximately those golden days aboard the at present communicate exhibit. Die-demanding McCain donors groused that their hero replaced into compelled to be too deferential to "that wimp" George W. Bush. ~quote from Republican convention in Pennsylvania~ Why does no longer he be allowed in with Hillary? a minimum of he would not shave his legs and positioned on a short gown on an identical time as leaping around on a soccer container.....
2016-10-09 21:22:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
WHO KNOWS?
Lets just be thankfull that women can vote. Otherwise we may have missed out on the two best Presidents in history.
2007-09-26 12:07:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by H.E. G 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Nope.
It's a known fact that gender wise, especially in Clinton's case, out of the 49% who voted for him, over 30% of that was from women.
Who knows why?
Maybe because they thought he was cute or something.
Don't know about JFK.
ADD-
Look it up wiz, it's called the internet. I take it back, actually it was 58% of those that voted for Clinton were women.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html
2007-09-26 12:02:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by scottdman2003 5
·
2⤊
3⤋
No
they were the best looking candidates,
so they got the woman's vote...
I can hold my head up high and say i do not vote according to looks...
I am a real woman not slanted towards one looks but towards ones knowledge
2007-09-26 12:04:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by KittyCatFishApe 3
·
4⤊
1⤋
Hmmmm a question from the anti-suffrage corner
2007-09-26 12:04:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by captain_koyk 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
And men weren't allowed to vote, Bush wouldn't had been elected.
2007-09-26 12:03:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
3⤋