EXAMPLE: In 2008 , unmarried women—a group that includes single, separated, divorced, or widowed - voted Obama over McCain by an astounding 70 to 30 percent!
Along those same lines, the under-25 voting bloc - reared from kindergarten through college in a left-leaning educational milieu - went for Obama by EXACTLY the same margin...69.5 to 30.5 percent!
Was this some freakish coincidence? Sheer happenstance?
It was by DESIGN - a political harvest reaped by the cunning of the Democrats, who - ever since Reagan - continue to outfox Republicans at every turn; their amazing success borne of a malevolent strategy that paints all conservatives as..."extremely right wing."
Think about it; if you were an undecided woman, or a mystified 20 year-old, alone in the booth - indifferent about voting "D" or "R" - which way would you ultimately decide?
FACT: 53% of those who voted in 2008, were female; and the vast preponderance of women - perceiving Limbaugh as emblematic of the republican party- continue to migrate Leftward; a trend that becomes only worse, as women see themselves as "liberated" (i.e. a cleverly-devised leftist term that subconsciously implies one's "right" to an abortion).
Ever since Roe v. Wade, abortion-obsessed unmarried women have historically voted for Democrats. In 2004, for example, 62 percent chose Kerry over George Bush; but Obama's telling performance easily surpasses that of any of his predecessors.
Not surprisingly, women show up at the polls in greater numbers - perceiving themselves as having "more to lose" (i.e., their right to choose); hence they vote democrat in overwhelming, and usually decisive proportions.
So is it any wonder that women did not rush to the defense of Sarah Palin, after her calamitous "Gibson-Couric" fiasco? Remember the way Saturday Night Live was able to lampoon her as some hapless, homespun airhead?
Hence- given her image as an unintelligent, moose-hunting, "extreme right winger," single women are in fear of a Palin presidency like the Jews dreaded Hitler.
More than anything, women fear republicans in much the same way the senior citizens are tricked about "losing their social security".
Thus, most conservative-sounding candidates are regarded as right winger, anti-abortionists - overturning Roe-Wade the first day upon entering office.
So who is to blame for this? Certainly not Mr. Limbaugh - who is flat-out brilliant, and offers political analysis far above anyone the demon democrats have on their side.
But is it ever preferable to win every battle, but ultimately lose the war? Most cleverly, the Democrats have painted Limbaugh as head of the republican party, and have all but marginalized the true bearer of the title - Michael Steele
After the disastrous McCain debacle last year, the republicans had their chance to crown Palin as head of the party - someone who could truly instill the fear of God into every democrat. Someone who could call out the liberals for their callous betrayal of the Constitution.
And the Left knew it from day one - which is why they sought to wipe Palin off the political map the way Katrina blew away New Orleans.
But choosing to put Palin out to pasture - and out of a bizarre notion of political correctness -Republicans chose to countermand America's first African-American president "in kind", picking Steele, who -unlike Obama- is sorely lacking in political guile.
But what if the republicans had had enough foresight to chose Ms. Palin instead?
-Palin has political guile enough to see through ANY democratic ploy, and turn the tables against them.
-Palin has the rare ability to put democrats on the defensive like no one since Reagan himself.
-Palin can deliver thought-provoking, spell-binding speeches - exactly what the republicans need: someone with the abilty to "herd cats" - both conservative and moderate - and focus disparate factions into a cohesive political force, much the way democrats excel at coalition-building.
CONCLUSION: Sarah Palin was BORN to lead the republican party - especially with the political climate rife for revenge in 2010.
But back to reality and the "Great Incompetent One" - Michael Steele; a man better suited to heading the Post Office, rather than a 'right-wing political' party. A man best descibed as..."politically out to lunch." The Republican debacle in New York's 23rd Congressional district more than re-affirms it.
And who was that said, "there's no such thing as free lunch?
With Steele running the GOP - come 2010 - the republicans may not even capture but 10 seats. They will pay a high price indeed.