June 16th, 2009
06:00 PM ET

Why are women more likely to be Democrats?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

There is a fundamental gender gap when it comes to American politics. A new Gallup poll of almost 150,000 people shows women are significantly more likely than men to identify themselves as Democrats.

A woman wears Donkey glasses and an Obama temporary tattoo at the DNC in Denver in August 2008.

Consider this: 41 percent of women say they're Democrats; that's nine-points higher than the 32-percent of men who say that. 26-percent of women identify themselves as Independents - compared to 34-percent of men. As for those who identify themselves as Republicans, there's not much of a difference there - 25-percent of women compared to 28-percent of men.

What's especially interesting here is that the gender gap is evident across all age groups - from 18 to 85-year-olds. Also, it shows up within all major racial, ethnic and marital-status groups.

For example - African-Americans and Asians are more Democratic than whites; but within each of these groups, women are more Democratic than men.

The poll also shows Democrats have their greatest advantage among baby boomers and the very young; and relatively speaking, are the weakest among people in their late 30s and those in their mid-to-late 60s.

Gallup says these findings suggest that by the time young men and women are 18 years old - the different cultural and social factors that determine party identification are already well established.

Here’s my question to you: Why are women more likely to be Democrats?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Democrats
June 16th, 2009
05:00 PM ET

How should U.S. respond to Iran’s election controversy?


A supporter of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi protests in Tehran, Iran. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama is walking a fine line when it comes to the controversy over Iran's election.

After several days of a cautious response from the White House - the president came out yesterday saying he was deeply troubled by the violence he was seeing on TV and that free speech and the democratic process need to be respected. Nonetheless, he said he wants to respect Iran's sovereignty and that it's up to the Iranian people to decide who their leaders are. Mr. Obama said he's not trying to dictate Iran's internal politics.

Critics are calling on the president to be stronger in his support of the Iranian protesters. House Republican whip Eric Cantor says the administration's "silence in the face of Iran's brutal suppression of democratic rights represents a step backwards for homegrown democracy in the Middle East." Senator John McCain has called the election corrupt and says President Obama should speak out that this is a fraud election.

Also, other foreign leaders have been more forceful in their condemnation, but experts acknowledge that President Obama is in a no-win situation... strong criticism could backfire, while a muted response gives an impression of weakness.

Also, while the president's message of change matches with that of the Iranian protesters - a young and tech-friendly bunch, much like his own campaign... the president doesn't want the U.S. to become the story in Iranian politics.

Adding to the pressure on Washington was the move by Iran today to severely restrict journalists' access to the protest rallies. That has raised speculation the government plans a violent crackdown... on the order of what happened in Tiananmen Square 20 years ago.

Here’s my question to you: How should Washington proceed when it comes to Iran's election controversy?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Iran • Washington
June 16th, 2009
04:00 PM ET

Is government too involved in our lives under Pres. Obama?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama wants to create another federal bureaucracy. This one would be a financial watchdog agency whose mission will be to protect consumers from deceptive or dangerous mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

Supporters are calling it a "financial products safety commission" and compare it to the federal agency that oversees safety of toys and other products. The banking industry is not a fan of this idea, with critics saying it's bad for consumers and there are already several regulatory agencies that do this.

This new potential watchdog agency is just the latest in a string of moves by the Obama administration to increase the role of government - including everything from the bailouts and part ownership of the American auto companies GM and Chrysler, to the bank bailouts, to tighter rules on credit card companies and oversight of executive compensation.

Critics say the government is playing too big a role... Former President George H.W. Bush tells the Washington Times, "I think people are alarmed now. There's too much government intervention into everything... Too much. And too much spending."

Meanwhile - the American people seem to still be behind the president. A recent CNN/Opinion research Corporation Poll found 42 percent of those surveyed think the increased government involvement in how businesses are run is about right - 35 percent say the involvement has gone too far, while 23 percent think the government hasn't gone far enough.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to the government's role in our lives, has President Obama gone too far?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Government • President Barack Obama