Suppose you run for the White House. And, suppose one evening during the campaign you address 10,000 voters.

Your advisers tell you that maybe 60 percent of them are women. What types of issues do you suppose you will choose to talk about with this group? And, do you suppose you might make sure a lot of women are on stage with you?

Will you use boxing analogies in your talk?  (“We need to deliver a knockout blow!”) Or military analogies? (“We’re attacking with all guns firing.”)         

Or will you instead use softer language? Will you speak of what is “fair” and “unfair”? Because such words tend to resonate more with women than with men. Will you — like the brilliant campaigner Bill Clinton — tell the voters you feel their pain? If the group was all men, I bet you would not. Men are more likely to feel you should, “suck it up.” More likely to feel winning is more important than fairness.

The candidates face an electorate that is about 60 percent women. Women outnumber men by several million. And, a higher percentage of them vote.

So guys, if you don’t want to see Obama and Romney pander to women in this campaign, don’t turn on your television. These guys will focus on women, women, and women.

Consider the propaganda flung at you in the last few weeks. Rush Limbaugh insulted a woman. The president pounced on it. The White House released a big report titled “Keeping American Women Moving Forward.” One woman writer called it a 70-page
campaign flier.

Headline: Obama White House pays women less than men. Another: Both parties count women’s vote. Another headline: Truth about war on women. Another: Obama campaign runs from Democrat strategist’s insult on Ann Romney. (The strategist said Ann Romney had never worked a day in her life. Romney’s campaign pounced on that and sent out old photos of Ann and her five boys.)

We had the duel between the president and a Roman Catholic cardinal. Over whether Obamacare could force Catholic institutions to cover contraception for their employees. Hmm… A president standing up for contraception for women vs. a celibate guy in a ball gown. His church protected priests who preyed on small boys. And cloistered women. I think the president’s advisers rolled the dice on this, knowing the dice were loaded.

I could cite another dozen headlines regarding the candidates and women’s issues. Just from the past few weeks. Here are two more from the last few days: Senate Democrats fundraising pitch: Republicans have been waging a war on women. Nancy Pelosi says Republicans are waging a war on women’s rights.

What lies ahead? Hundreds more such headlines and features in your television news. Candidates kissing the hems of women who have television shows. Candidates in the kitchen. Candidates talking about childcare and problems working moms suffer. And, talking about single-mom problems. And, education. And, equal pay for women. And, talking about whatever issues researchers tell them will excite women.

Every major speech will be vetted through women’s lenses. Every talking point for the debates will be tested with panels of women. Every line the candidates rehearse for debates will be viewed from women’s points-of-view. So will the ties they wear. And, the colors and fit of their slacks. The photos that the campaigns release will mostly have women in the background or surrounding or hugging the candidates.

I could go on and on. But, I don’t have to, because the campaigns will.

Women, this campaign is for you.

From Tom…as in Morgan.                      

Tom Morgan writes about financial and other subjects from his home near Oneonta, in addition to his radio shows and new TV show. For more information about him, visit his website at www.tomasinmorgan.com 

“If the people don’t want to come out to the ballpark,” baseball’s Yogi Berra once misquipped, “nobody’s going to stop them.” 

Labor bosses must feel the same way about wage and salary workers who are avoiding union halls these days. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest union membership report, only 6.9 percent of private-sector workers carried cards in 2011, which is a historically low rate for the private sector. 

After failing to ram its “card-check” unionization ploy through Congress recently, big labor sees no future in playing by the rules. That’s why bosses have turned to their friends at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). No longer a non-partisan, fair-handed government agency concerned with balancing labor relations in the workplace, the NLRB is only too eager to help reverse union members’ rush to the exits. 

Now dominated by former labor lawyers, the agency is scurrying to rewrite federal regulations before the polls open in November. Its latest gift to labor is an “ambush” rule designed to speed up union elections by shortening the period between petition filing and voting to less than 20 days. The rule would remove a critical 25-day waiting period to give small employers time to seek counsel and talk with their employees. 

But U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming, ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, is rallying colleagues to block the rule’s April 30 implementation. He’s getting strong support from the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), which played a key role in thwarting labor’s card-check assault. 

NFIB is ramping up a nationwide grassroots effort among its 350,000 small-business-owner members to build momentum for Enzi’s resolution. Concerned that some employers mistakenly believe narrowing the petition-to-filing window might give them an advantage in union elections, the business organization warns the reverse is true: If this change were bad for unions, would they be working to promote it? 

Fortunately, the unions have a more-than-able, and powerful, opponent in the small-business community. For example, NFIB was the only business group to legally challenge the constitutionality of President Obama’s mandated health-reform law, ensuring it would be reviewed by the Supreme Court. 

Unions already win more than 70 percent of their elections, says Enzi, thus there is no justification for ambushing employers with elections in 20 days or less. He said this regulatory reversal could limit businesses’ free speech and other legal rights, calling it a transparent attempt to increase unionized workplaces. 

If the NLRB’s ambush rule takes effect, small employers will have little time to educate their employees so they could make informed decisions in union elections. And since small firms typically lack labor-relations expertise and in-house legal departments, their disadvantage would be even greater. Add that to employers’ inability to compete with professional union organizers who can secretly campaign and unfairly promise workers high wages and better benefits, and small businesses would be easy pickings. 

Labor and the NLRB must play by the rules. This attempt to ambush job-creating entrepreneurs who are already struggling to survive is a dangerous game, especially when the legs of our economy have yet to regain their strength.                        

Dan Danner is president and CEO of the NFIB, which represents 350,000 small-business owners in Washington, D.C. and every state capital.