Women overwhelmingly back Sotomayor
Gallup and Quinnipiac have run polls on the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, with interesting results.
Gallup found the nation pretty supportive of the nomination, with 47 percent rating the pick excellent or good and 33 percent fair or poor. That’s better than the ratings for either Samuel Alito (37 percent exc.-good, 39 percent fair/poor) or Harriet Miers (44 percent exc.-good, 41 percent fair/poor), and about barely below John Roberts (51 percent exc.-good, 34 percent fair/poor).
Quinnipiac had the support more overwhelming, at 54 percent approval vs. 24 percent disapproval, for a 30 percent positive approval rating. That’s considerably better than either Roberts (+17) or Alito (+14). Among independents, the numbers were 50 percent approval, 26 percent disapproval.
But as Margie Omero of Pollster.com points out, the marrow of both polls is in the gender breakdown. Democratic men and women support Sotomayor in roughly equal numbers, but there’s a stark gender difference among Republicans. Republican men overwhelmingly reject the nominee, while Republican women do so only narrowly.
The bottom line is that according to Quinnipiac, 59 percent of women overall support the Sotomayor pick, while only 18 percent disapprove. So while Republicans have been warned about alienating Hispanic voters with their attacks on Sotomayor as racist and not too intelligent, their larger concern may the impact of those arguments upon the much larger female vote. Apparently, women in general aren’t too impressed with the concept that white males are under attack in this country and constitute an aggrieved minority.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
120 comments Add your comment
jt
June 1st, 2009
8:00 am
“Democratic men and women support Sotomayor in roughly equal numbers,”
It is no suprise that men who vote democrat or more women-like.
Girly-men.
BDAtlanta
June 1st, 2009
8:05 am
Is this the sixth Catholic on the bench? We need to add a Muslim, an atheist, and a jew too!
Normal
June 1st, 2009
8:15 am
BD, I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic, or not, but I agree
with your sentiment at face value. America is made up of all of
the worlds people, so they all need to be represented.
———–
jt, are you comfortable with your sexuality? Just asking…
DB, Gwinnettian
June 1st, 2009
8:18 am
I don’t think anybody anticipated that Republican men would be much less likely than Republican women to reject a female SCOTUS appointee.
Redneck Convert
June 1st, 2009
8:18 am
Well, I’d sure hate to be a poor redneck up in front of a woman judge like that. She would probly use her “empathy” to drag up all the times we’ve mocked and ranted against the Mexican illegals and throw the book at the guy. If it was me in her court I’d stand the same chance I have with Sister Dusty.
Anyhow, Real Men want men judges. And Real Men vote Republican. The Sissies will want women judges that will cry when some criminal lets out a sob story and tries to get off. Once in a while you get a woman that’s tough. That Condi Rice wouldn’t let sob stories get in the way of a good Waterboarding. But most women just fall for every line in the book.
So I’m not suprized so many women and sissie men want this woman judge to get on the Supreme Court. Us Real Men think diffrent. This country is going to the dogs.
Have a good day everybody.
Copyleft
June 1st, 2009
8:25 am
Yes, Democratic men AND women are sane and civilized, as Republican men clearly are not.
Go blow something up, like another abortion doctor praying at his church, you oh-so-manly men….
DB, Gwinnettian
June 1st, 2009
8:25 am
Ay yi yi. Mas cafe, por favor. I meant “more likely” not less, and anyway, the joke isn’t real funny if you don’t know the original Bush quote reference which I doubt most do. I’ll come in again…
Nobody expects the Sotomayor Inquisition!
RW-(the original)
June 1st, 2009
8:26 am
If justice is blind who cares what religious, ethnic, or gender breakdown the court has?
BDAtlanta
June 1st, 2009
8:28 am
Normal, no sarcasm. What % of the population is catholic? 66%? Didn’t think so.
Off topic:
How Wall Street Almost Killed Detroit
http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/shifting-gears/2009/05/31/how-wall-street-almost-killed-detroit
jt
June 1st, 2009
8:28 am
Normal- You asked.
jt, are you comfortable with your sexuality? Just asking…
Most of the time. I get uncomfortable when women stare at me lewdly in public places. It is just the price a handsome man pays I guess.
Donovan
June 1st, 2009
8:31 am
Hmmm…let’s see. Almost all Democrats approve of Sotomayer and almost all women approve of her, as well. Gee, Jay…what a news flash you have bestowed on all of us this morning. Here’s another news flash. Sotomayer will be confirmed because the Dems hold the House,the Senate, and the White House. The liberal news media will crank up the propaganda machine once again. And the groggy headed American Idol voters of this country love another ethnic story. Never mind that she will base her decisions on “feelings” rather than impartial jurisprudence. You liberals are something.
RW-(the original)
June 1st, 2009
8:31 am
OFF TOPIC FELLOW CAR MAKERS
When do we get our worthless share certificates in Oldsbamamobile?
RetLTC
June 1st, 2009
8:38 am
The republican party is about to become victims of the perfect storm. Or is tsunami a more accurate description?
BDAtlanta
June 1st, 2009
8:39 am
oops, there are already two Jewish folk on the Supreme Court. Yay! Now lets get a Muslim, a Mormon, and an atheist…and maybe an agnostic (but I’m not sure about that one.)
RW, I agree justice should be blind but nurture plays a roll in how we interpret the world around us. This affects how we act, even if we don’t always notice.
RetLTC
June 1st, 2009
8:40 am
Couldn’t be much more worthless than a share of GM today RW. The previous caretakers did such a fine job ya know.
mike
June 1st, 2009
8:41 am
“while Republicans have been warned about alienating Hispanic voters with their attacks on Sotomayor as racist and not too intelligent”
Actually, niether Republican Senators nor the Republican National Committee made any such attacks. In fact, they have come out and distanced themselves from the comments.
It is time that the press stop taking the comments extreme pundits who do not hold elected office as the voice of ‘Republicans”. Kieth Olbermann and Bill Maher’s comments are not held up as the official voice of Democrats now and didn’t when the Democrats were out of office. Let’s call Limbaugh and Newt what they are: pundits and let’s start calling elected Republicans and the RNC the Republican leadership.
It
I rule Andy
June 1st, 2009
8:41 am
MORE MORE MORE… STAY THE COURSE… GET OFF MY LAWN…
(GOP Mantras…)
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww……..
I rule Andy
June 1st, 2009
8:43 am
Keith Olberman and Bill Maher are not the “de facto” leaders of the Democratic party. Limbaugh and Newt ARE the de facto leaders of the GOP, it’s a fact proven here daily….
SICK…
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
josef nix
June 1st, 2009
8:43 am
Good morning! What about a Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh or Jain? We’ve already had Jews, Catholics and atheists. This sounds an awful lot like putting a religious test on holding public office, and I thought we got past that with the Carolina Charter.
BDAtlanta
June 1st, 2009
8:44 am
off topic again:
Bill Clinton’s Classy Moment
The former president shows former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin how to accept responsibility for the recession.
http://www.slate.com/id/2219499/
Even with these self-justifying caveats, though, Clinton has gone much, much further than Robert Rubin in accepting responsibility for helping to create the United States’ worst economic calamity since the Great Depression.
(Clinton has also gone much further than George W. Bush, whose responsibility is infinitely greater than either Clinton’s or Rubin’s. But the idea that Bush would ever take adequate responsibility for his many blunders is so laughable that it hardly seems worth considering.)
ARTC
June 1st, 2009
8:44 am
Obviously you do RW(the original) You seem to reappear when the topic has anything to do with race. Especially the Hispanic one. It isn’t hard to see right through you and others of your ilk. As long as any institution is dominated by white males you are with it. If not, out from under your rock you slither.
DB, Gwinnettian
June 1st, 2009
8:44 am
and maybe an agnostic (but I’m not sure about that one.)
ha.
Sidebar
June 1st, 2009
8:44 am
Just too good to not share (from Boortz – but accurate nonetheless) –
Did you catch this story from the Russian Newspaper Pravda over the weekend? How about “American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper” for a title? Here’s a quote from the article:
“It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.”
Wait a minute! Read that quote again! Here is a columnist in a Russian newspaper talking about America’s decent into Marxism, and he doesn’t sound all that happy about it. How do you like him calling us “passive” and “hapless?” And then there’s that “sheeple” reference.
Rodina, the author, says that the American population was “dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture.” Well … you know that to be true in your heart, but it took this Pravda columnist to spell it out for you.
Fact is, the author isn’t fond of Marxism. That means he isn’t fold of Barack Obama. He writes “The final collapse (of capitalism) comes with the election of Barack Obama.”
Just read the column .. then go outside and drive around town so that people can see your Obama bumper sticker on your car.
I encountered a flight attendant on a regularly scheduled airline this past week who actually uttered these words: “In the event of a sudden loss of cabin pressure … we’re screwed.” The same applies to the election of Barack Obama.
Elections have consequences, folks.
RW-(the original)
June 1st, 2009
8:44 am
RetLC,
I don’t really give a rat’s patoot how the previous caretakers of GM did since I wasn’t being forced to support them. Do you have a point or are you just up to your usual blustery nonsense?
RW-(the original)
June 1st, 2009
8:46 am
ARTC,
What are you blubbering about? If you could translate that 8:44 into some semblance of the English language and provide examples it might be helpful.
josef nix
June 1st, 2009
8:46 am
jt…don’t know what you mean by “girly boy,” but I’ve been in enough county line juke joint brawls to attest that the worst I’ve ever had my a** whupped was by flung out fa**ots. Of course political party affiliation wasn’t at issue!
SOMALIDAWG
June 1st, 2009
8:49 am
هستند و باید در برابر یکدیگر با روح برادری
How Sotomayor even KNOW empathy for Muslim man? Good Muslim no need empathy, only justice blind. (and few dollars for TV from salilitte bill) Takes much dollars for to survivor here in US)
and no khat.
همهٔ افراد بشر آزاد به دنیا میآیند و از
Mrs. Godzilla
June 1st, 2009
8:53 am
interesting definition to review when dicussing the need for “empathy” in the judiciary….
psy·cho·path (sī’kə-pāth’)
n. A person with an antisocial personality disorder, manifested in aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.
@@
June 1st, 2009
8:56 am
Kinda odd when I think about it, jay.
Where was all the women during Hillary’s run for prez? They let Bill charm the pants off of ‘em during his campaign. Same with Obama.
When it comes to being led, women (the majority democrat) prefer a man?
@@
June 1st, 2009
8:56 am
Oops! make that “where were”…
Turd Fergusen
June 1st, 2009
9:00 am
Women are pretty much enablers anyway so this come as no surprise.
@@
June 1st, 2009
9:02 am
Geez, this site sucks!!!!
Now you see ‘em, then you don’t.
RetLTC
June 1st, 2009
9:03 am
Got anything Rush didn’t give you for talking points today RW? Why has the government had to step in with GM anyway RW. Tell us. Based upon your immense knowledge and experience of course.
josef nix
June 1st, 2009
9:05 am
JT
“Most of the time. I get uncomfortable when women stare at me lewdly in public places. It is just the price a handsome man pays I guess”.
Don’t fret. This too will pass. A few decades ago when I had more hair and less girth, I had the same problem. Ah! Sweet memories!
Normal
June 1st, 2009
9:06 am
jt, your 8:28, Ha, ha, good answer!
———————-
Miz G; Be careful now, you are going way over the heads of most here.
Makes a great point, though.
jt
June 1st, 2009
9:06 am
Mrs. G-
That is brilliant.
@@
June 1st, 2009
9:07 am
DB:
Downstairs you said I practiced moral relativism.
That would be true had I declared that Tiller’s murderer was justified. I didn’t so I don’t…
Tiller circumvented abortion law for a $5,000.00 (?) fee. That’s not something that warrants my sympathy. If it’s all the same to you, I’ll reserve it for his family.
Mrs. Godzilla
June 1st, 2009
9:08 am
Normal and jt….
can’t take credit for it….
heard from a caller on Bill Press ealry this a.m.
and looked it up myself to verify
Cindy
June 1st, 2009
9:09 am
RetLTC ole RW isn’t going to get into what got GM into the mess they’re in. He isn’t going to have a solution either. If he did, it would be a blueprint of more of the same ole crap that got em into the mess they’re in to begin with. You’ll never hear ole RW refer to the fact that it was the last administration that slept at the switch and let the economy roll right over the cliff. He’d rather point fingers at one that has been in charge for 4 months.
RW-(the original)
June 1st, 2009
9:10 am
retlc,
The government should never have stepped in with GM. Any more pearls of “wisdom” you’d like to share?
Night Train
June 1st, 2009
9:12 am
RetLTC, the answer to your question at 9:03,”Why has the government had to step in with GM anyway” is ‘the government did not need to step in with GM’.
If they were going to fail or go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, what reason, law or constitutional justification did the government have to bail them out? None!
Free Enterprise means just that, they are free to succeed AND they are free to fail.
josef nix
June 1st, 2009
9:14 am
Miz G and Normal–Thank G-d somebody still remembers words have meaning. I should HOPE Judge Sotomayor would be EMpathetic. I’m not sure about her SYMpathies. My jury’s out on that one.
Copyleft
June 1st, 2009
9:21 am
Night Train: That would be an interesting point, if we had or wanted anything like “free enterprise.” We do not, since a completely free market would be a national disaster.
SOMALIDAWG
June 1st, 2009
9:24 am
دنیا میآیند و از دید حیثیت و حقوق با هم برابرند، همه دارای اندیشه و وجدان ?Is TV from cable on building or TV from satilite cheaper?
DB, Gwinnettian
June 1st, 2009
9:25 am
Second time trying–
@@, I replied downstairs.
Night Train
June 1st, 2009
9:27 am
“since a completely free market would be a national disaster.”
Only in the minds of a true socialist!
For the most part we have had a free market up until around the 1950’s.
Doggone/GA
June 1st, 2009
9:30 am
“For the most part we have had a free market up until around the 1950’s”
guess again. I suggest, just as one tiny example, you check the history of Standard Oil for evidence of government “interfering” in the “free” market. That was in 1911.
I rule Andy
June 1st, 2009
9:30 am
We do not, since a completely free market has been a national disaster due to the proclivities of greedy Republicans…
Come on people, we all know why GM is failing, it’s that evil union and Barney Frank’s fault…
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
AmVet
June 1st, 2009
9:35 am
“Free Enterprise means just that, they are free to succeed AND they are free to fail.”
Until last Sept. when King George countermanded all of the Laws of Capitalism.
And the gleeful, piggish plutocrats, nor their non-monied, enablers and stooges never said a word about the vast amounts of corporate welfare, i.e. our money, given away to them before then…
Mrs. Godzilla
June 1st, 2009
9:35 am
free market – the ultimate oxymoron and a myth to be sure!