Gender Gap in 2004 (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 04, 2024, 09:47:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  U.S. Presidential Election Results
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: Dereich)
  Gender Gap in 2004 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Gender Gap in 2004  (Read 6036 times)
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,924


« on: February 06, 2005, 05:11:59 AM »

The gender gap was less than in 2000 - only 7 points. What are the possible reasons behind this?

Bush gained 5 points among women, compared to just 2 points among men. I do not know if this would explain the gender gap falling so much, but its safe to say the the drop has come due to movement among women.

Here are some points-
1. In 2000, the debate was primarily over domestic and especially economic issues. In these issues, women are more liberal across the board by between a couple and several percentage points. In 2004, the debate was primarily over foreign policy. Women are also less likely to favor the use of force in foreign policy. However, Kerry never really made an issue of the war itself. He made an issue of how much body armor the troops were going to get, etc. In other words, Kerry did not hammer strongly enough the Democratic issues that women respond to, he only spewed rhetoric, and the campaign was largely based on around image.

2. Voting is often influenced by social (family, community, and national "environmental") cross-pressures. It is my personal hypothesis that women, being less knowledgeable about politics, as it is still stereotyped as a "man's game" to some extent, are more susecptible to these cross-pressures. For example, a Democratic woman married to a Republican man is more likely to change her view, all other things equal, than vice versa. When the national "climate" is either favorable or neutral to the woman's independent view, she is more likely to be able to withstand such pressures and vote her own mind. But when the national "climate", as indicated by campaigning tactics, incumbency, polling, media, and other factors favor the husband's view, she is more likely to be influenced.

This is the feminist position to take, because it hypothesizes that many women, because of mens' dominance in political officeholding and discourse, are not as knowledgeable about politics and thus feel pressured disproportionately to 'cave' to the husband's viewpoint instead of making up her own mind.

It also posits (implicitly) that the appearance of the gender gap in 1980 was due in part to more married women thinking for themselves rather than simply voting as their husbands did in ages past. The 1980 election was the first relatively polarizing (and relatively close, at least until the last weekend) election since the feminist movement occured.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,924


« Reply #1 on: February 06, 2005, 05:57:35 PM »

Men tend to vote Republican for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that the Democratic party is blatantly biased against men due to the influences of feminazi groups like NOW.

What particular issues do you think the Democratic party is biased against men with regards to due to the influence of groups like NOW, and how might they (we) eliminate those biases? And if the Democrats were to end their so-called "bias" against men, would substantially more men seriously consider coming back to the party?
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,924


« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2005, 12:57:54 PM »

Unfortunately politics is getting more and more totalitarian. It's not about the issues anymore. The issues are disappearing. Bush and Kerry should have debated whether or not Scott Peterson should have been convicted or whether or net Michael Jackson is a pedophile, that would have gotten people's attention. Politics, it is now all about style and who you identify with more, what you see your place in society as being, what your race, gender, and culture is, who you hang out with, how religious you are, etc. etc. We all belong to special interests now, which come to define the stereotype of ourselves, and we think in terms of "us" vs "them". The Enemy Within is more important than the enemy without. The "other side" doesn't count, they aren't true americans, if they die who cares, etc. etc. This is what it seems like in the media. Why, because people gobble up this sh**t. The same reason they gobble up Janet Jackson, Bill Cosby, and various other homosexuals and fetuses. No it is not true but the media is making it true. It is all the same paradigm. Entertainment. That is what this forum is, is it not? Ha ha. WHat a century.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 12 queries.