Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 05, 2015, 04:31:12 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: True Federalist, Small Business Owner of Any Repute, Badger)
| | |-+  "Republicans are on the wrong side of a gender gap" and similar fallacies
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: "Republicans are on the wrong side of a gender gap" and similar fallacies  (Read 1400 times)
Nichlemn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1721


View Profile
« on: November 14, 2010, 12:22:27 am »
Ignore

For example, this story from 2000 claims that Bush was on the "wrong side" of a gender gap due to trailing his overall numbers among women. Another example is this recent PPP blog post which calls Democrats the "beneficiaries of a gender gap", although it's not as bad because it does mention how men favour Republicans.

However, you could just as easily claim that Gore was the wrong side due to trailing his overall numbers among men. The fact of the matter is: all over-performances among some group or groups must be matched by under-performances among some other group or groups. Sort of like Newton's Third Law. Yet whenever I see the gender gap analysed, it's always treated as if this benefits Democrats. Why is this so? Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

We also see this with race, although there is less consensus on who "benefits". I can't find the full article, but here's some excerpts of one that talks about how whites gave a majority of their vote to John McCain. Yet clearly, if a candidate does extremely well relative to their national margins among minorities, it is necessary for that candidate to do relatively poorly among whites. If that meant the candidate still won whites, that means the candidate must have won in a landslide. With political competition as it is, landslides can't be sustainable.  
« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 12:26:56 am by Nichlemn »Logged

Dgov
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1572
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2010, 02:00:47 am »
Ignore

I think it's because Women vote slightly more than Men do.
Logged

Political Matrix:  +7.1, -3.83

A world without sin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-NVs68X_S4
Nichlemn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1721


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2010, 05:40:11 am »
Ignore

The proportions don't matter. All that matters is getting to a plurality of the vote (or majority of the Electoral College in the case of Presidential elections). Perhaps that requires you win men by a greater percentage than you lose women. But to say that gap "advantages" one side or the other is absurd.
Logged

Mr. Morden
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 22608
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2010, 05:56:12 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, this is one of my pet peeves as well.  The "gender gap" is just the differential between how men vote vs. how women vote.  By definition, it doesn't confer either side with an advantage, since all that matters is the total vote.  I think you're right that people are misled by the assumption that men should be considered the "default" group, which is of course nonsense.
Logged

My magnum opus is now complete.  Read the complete "The Adventures of Hobo Orgy Guy & Blondie" (now in paperback).

Watch Dave being briefed by the mods.

Being a moderator is basically like one giant party.  Except you're the one ruining the party and everyone hates you.
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8665
Liechtenstein


Political Matrix
E: 4.52, S: -1.57

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2010, 06:18:30 pm »
Ignore

Yeah, this is one of my pet peeves as well.  The "gender gap" is just the differential between how men vote vs. how women vote.  By definition, it doesn't confer either side with an advantage, since all that matters is the total vote.  I think you're right that people are misled by the assumption that men should be considered the "default" group, which is of course nonsense.

Indeed, since women vote at a slightly higher rate than men, they should be considered the "default group," if anything.
Logged
nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8999
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2010, 07:31:48 pm »
Ignore

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.
Logged



[George W. Bush] has shattered the myth of white supremacy once and for all. -- Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY)

"George Bush supports abstinence. Lucky Laura."
- sign seen at the March for Women's Lives, 4/25/04

wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8665
Liechtenstein


Political Matrix
E: 4.52, S: -1.57

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2010, 08:35:44 pm »
Ignore

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.

But the point of this thread is that it is equally valid to say it indicates the Democrats' failure to appeal to men (indeed, more so, since men deviate from the average slightly more than women).
Logged
Nichlemn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1721


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2012, 10:53:52 pm »
Ignore

bump because there's been a lot of talk about this recently
Logged

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13765
Nepal


View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2012, 02:41:42 pm »
Ignore

In the polling for the presidential election, there has been a gender gap that benefits Democrats because the Democrat advantage among women has been greater than the Republican advantage among men.
Logged
PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6370
United States


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2012, 04:21:36 pm »
Ignore

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.

But the point of this thread is that it is equally valid to say it indicates the Democrats' failure to appeal to men (indeed, more so, since men deviate from the average slightly more than women).

That's like saying Democrats fail to appeal to white people.
Logged
Nichlemn
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1721


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2012, 05:52:00 pm »
Ignore

In the polling for the presidential election, there has been a gender gap that benefits Democrats because the Democrat advantage among women has been greater than the Republican advantage among men.

That's an inevitable mathematical consequence of Obama having a lead over Romney. If Romney pulls out to a lead the opposite will be true, even if the reasons for his lead have nothing to do with gender issues.

My latest theory is there's a whole lot of people paid to cover the Presidential race but basically no stories, so journalists have to make up stories by examining polling crosstabs and vastly exaggerating their significance.
Logged

krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6081


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2012, 06:11:54 pm »
Ignore

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.

But the point of this thread is that it is equally valid to say it indicates the Democrats' failure to appeal to men (indeed, more so, since men deviate from the average slightly more than women).

That's like saying Democrats fail to appeal to white people.

Yes, of course. The 2010 landslide was fundamentally built upon whites fleeing the Democratic party.
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17182
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2012, 06:21:12 pm »
Ignore

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.

But the point of this thread is that it is equally valid to say it indicates the Democrats' failure to appeal to men (indeed, more so, since men deviate from the average slightly more than women).

That's like saying Democrats fail to appeal to white people.

Yes, of course. The 2010 landslide was fundamentally built upon whites fleeing the Democratic party.

It also helps wildly shift from one party to another when a midterm election has an embarrassingly low rate of turnout in comparison to other first world democracies.
Logged


Those who shout the loudest about respecting “diversity” and the culture of others, cannot stir themselves to respect the French enough to learn their language and understand their culture.
PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6370
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2012, 06:28:45 pm »
Ignore

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.

But the point of this thread is that it is equally valid to say it indicates the Democrats' failure to appeal to men (indeed, more so, since men deviate from the average slightly more than women).

That's like saying Democrats fail to appeal to white people.

Yes, of course. The 2010 landslide was fundamentally built upon whites fleeing the Democratic party.

So you admit that Republicans are the Party of racist whites?
Logged
hopper
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1782


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2012, 07:33:36 pm »
Ignore

The women problem with Republicans is with latina and black women. White Woman vote Republican. Bottom Line is Black Women will never vote Republican in huge numbers even though there is Republican Black Women out there like Star Parker, Amy Holmes(bi-racial), Mia Love, and Angela McGlowan. Latina Women: we all know why that is which is the extreme position of the GOP on immigration reform. The Latina Women vote is a problem that the GOP has to be concerned about in the near future like in the next 10-15 years.
Logged
krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6081


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2012, 07:39:20 pm »
Ignore

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.

But the point of this thread is that it is equally valid to say it indicates the Democrats' failure to appeal to men (indeed, more so, since men deviate from the average slightly more than women).

That's like saying Democrats fail to appeal to white people.

Yes, of course. The 2010 landslide was fundamentally built upon whites fleeing the Democratic party.

So you admit that Republicans are the Party of racist whites?

No, of course not. There is nothing racist about voting for the Republican party.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2476
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2012, 10:58:24 pm »
Ignore

Is there some subconscious sexism, the idea that men are treated as the "default" group and so we think of the "male vote" as being roughly synonymous with the overall vote, but the "female vote" as a separate category?

This is the best explanation. Also, given that most leaders (of each party) are male, it can indicate the GOP's failure to appeal to women.

But the point of this thread is that it is equally valid to say it indicates the Democrats' failure to appeal to men (indeed, more so, since men deviate from the average slightly more than women).

That's like saying Democrats fail to appeal to white people.

Yes, of course. The 2010 landslide was fundamentally built upon whites fleeing the Democratic party.

So you admit that Republicans are the Party of racist whites?

No, of course not. There is nothing racist about voting for the Republican party.

Why do you have such a fetish with whites leaving the democratic party? You're on the same level as RYANinSEPA.
Logged

-1.38, -1.38
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines