A Quote by Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Economic opportunities will win the women's vote. — © Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Economic opportunities will win the women's vote.
It's interesting when you read the debates in parliaments between MPs about whether they should give women a vote. It's a lot of fear; it is fear of change. It's fear if women get to vote, family structures will break down. Women will stop having children. Women won't vote for war.
Women tend to vote the economic interests of their families and to speak out on family economic issues. For men, there's often much more focus on the idea of personal failure: "If I'm not winning this great economic game, it must be my fault."
I would like to see both parties aggressively compete for the women's vote and talk about what they will do to unleash the economic power of women, to protect women's health, to provide the right policies that provide for real family stability and real family values.
Investing in girls and women is the smartest thing we can do, and will help us to improve opportunities for all people. With equal access to education, health care, employment, and representation in political and economic decision-making, girls and women are force to be reckoned with.
When women vote, Progressives can win. When women organize and bring some common sense to the conversation, it becomes more authentic.
Boosting STEM education opportunities for young women globally is one critical way that the U.S. can promote women's equality, as well as economic development, around the world.
The When Women Succeed, America Succeeds economic agenda will enable women to achieve greater economic security, raise wages for women and their families, and better allow working parents to support and care for their families.
It's my greatest success. Women did not vote in Italy until 1946. A good friend and I put together a group of women to protest this. I was very young, just a girl. We went to the Viminale [home of the Ministry of the Interior] and spoke to the chair of the ministry board. Thanks to our initiative, we got the bureaucracy rolling on giving women the right to vote. I have to thank my father for this. He was in Geneva at the League of Nations, and women voted there. He thought it was absurd that women didn't vote in his country yet.
The company was actually founded on creating earnings opportunities for women, even before it went into skincare, lipstick, and fragrance. The founding Avon principle, before women could vote and when basically only men were working, was to allow women to get out of their homes and to create an entrepreneurship opportunity for them.
The right way to win is to recognize that winning isn't the end game, but rather the beginning of new opportunities - maybe even opportunities to help other people win.
We never fought for the popular vote. There was no economical reason, and there was no reason based off the system of our Constitution to do so. We needed to win 270, and to do so we needed to win in certain states, and we needed to target registered voters that had a low propensity to vote and propensity to vote for Donald Trump if they come.
Hillary certainly needs the black vote, and Democrats need it. She's not doing anything too soon; she's raising her money and not wanting any issues to come back and bite her later. The black vote will be crucial for Hillary and so will the women's vote.
Every bank should give an economic opportunity to one woman, one dalit or one tribal person to become entrepreneurs. This will create many job opportunities. So this is the basis of my economic philosophy.
And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obamas way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?
It would be a mistake to overstate the similarities between the Brexit vote and Trump's win - but there are common themes, not least in the rallying cries that the winning campaigns used. They focused on a supposed economic threat posed by outsiders, as immigrants or as trade partners. This fuelling of anxieties underpinned a narrative centered on the need to "regain control," whether of borders or of economic forces.
So few people vote these days, and I think it's partly because they don't feel like the institution really means anything to them. If you want them to vote, give them opportunities to do something else other than vote, to help.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!