The Washington Post released a new poll today that shows President Obama up 49-47% over his likely challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. My colleague Mike Flynn did an excellent job earlier today breaking down the Post's flawed methodology that favors Democrats to an almost absurd degree, but even with this bias in favor of Obama, the numbers still prove that the President has lost his cynical "war on women."
Over at NRO's Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty deep-dived into the poll and discovered some results that should be of great concern to a White House that, with their media allies, pulled out all the stops to condescend women into their camp:
Obama leads by 7 points among women who are registered to vote, 51-44 percent, compared with 57-38 percent in April. (It’s now a 47-49 percent Obama-Romney contest among men.) The change chiefly is due to married women, who went from a scant 4-point tilt toward Obama last month to a 38-55 percent split in Romney’s favor now.
Among women registered to vote, in just one month, Obama lost a full 6 points that went over to Romney.
The most startling move is among married women. Last month Obama was winning that group by 4 points. Today he is losing by 17!
Some might blame Hilary Rosen for those numbers, but if you don’t think Obama was behind Rosen's attack on Ann Romney -- and by extension stay-at-home-moms, -- you aren't paying attention.
Here's another poll result of note that has nothing to do with politics:
Married women are more apt than men, or other women, to say they’ve gotten worse off rather than better off under Obama’s presidency.
Married women are feeling the full effect of Obama's failed policies more than married men, despite the fact that Obama's promised, through his condescending "Julia" campaign, to care for those poor, helpless female souls from cradle to grave.
The question also begging to be asked is what these numbers might look like with a more accurate polling sample?
Though former CNN anchor Campbell Brown is married, in many ways her shot across Obama's bow this Sunday in the pages of the New York Times seemed to be a pretty good indicator of how women in general were taking the President's campaign to win their hands in political matrimony. Campbell's piece was titled, "Obama: Stop Condescending to Women," and pulled no punches:
When I listen to President Obama speak to and about women, he sometimes sounds too paternalistic for my taste. In numerous appearances over the years — most recently at the Barnard graduation — he has made reference to how women are smarter than men. It’s all so tired, the kind of fake praise showered upon those one views as easy to impress. As I listen, I am always bracing for the old go-to cliché: “Behind every great man is a great woman.”
Some women are smarter than men and some aren’t. But to suggest to women that they deserve dominance instead of equality is at best a cheap applause line. …
The women I know who are struggling in this economy couldn’t be further from the fictional character of Julia, presented in Mr. Obama’s Web ad, “The Life of Julia,” a silly and embarrassing caricature based on the assumption that women look to government at every meaningful phase of their lives for help.
In his statist efforts to win over females, Obama's not only declaring them helpless, he's patting them on the hand and calling them "little ladies."
I've been married for going on 23 blissful years now and, as a result, I still know next to nothing about whatever that wonderful thing is that makes women tick. What I do know, though, is that the smart ones can smell an oily con man disguised as a suitor coming from a mile away.
Obama's now lost the "war on women," the "war on dogs," and is currently losing the war on Bain Capital. If this keeps up, Obama's almost certain to lose the war for all that "flexibility" he's so eager to enjoy.
Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC