Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 22, 2014, 07:36:32 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Presidential Election Trends (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King)
| | |-+  Can the GOP ever win the women vote?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Poll
Question: In the next 50 years or so
Yes   -37 (75.5%)
No   -12 (24.5%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 48

Author Topic: Can the GOP ever win the women vote?  (Read 4280 times)
Username MechaRFK
RFK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1275
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2011, 11:30:27 am »
Ignore

Where is the "gender gap" the smallest, regionally?


Minnesota? S**t, I don't know.
Logged



 
wormyguy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8554
Liechtenstein


Political Matrix
E: 4.52, S: -1.57

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: August 25, 2011, 11:45:57 am »
Ignore

IIRC Ford won the female vote in 76, while Carter won the male vote.
Logged
Username MechaRFK
RFK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1275
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 25, 2011, 12:49:23 pm »
Ignore

IIRC Ford won the female vote in 76, while Carter won the male vote.

DarthNader says otherwise. Who knows?
Logged



 
Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar
amcculloum
Full Member
***
Posts: 116


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: 4.00

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: August 25, 2011, 01:03:46 pm »
Ignore

Where is the "gender gap" the smallest, regionally?

If my memory served correct, I believe the swath of smallest gender difference started in New Jersey, went largely through the south and southern great plains and ended in California.  I remember NJ, MO, LA (in LA WF may have voted more GOP than WM) and the Pacific West being the least amount of difference.  The biggest gap was in New England, followed by the upper mid-west and upper Great Plains.  I think Alaska also had a large gender gap.

Hopefully, I'll get the map up tonight.
Logged
"'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry Indicted"
DarthNader
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 392


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2011, 01:57:14 pm »
Ignore

IIRC Ford won the female vote in 76, while Carter won the male vote.

DarthNader says otherwise. Who knows?

I've actually heard the same thing RE: Ford, but both the Roper link and this one have Carter getting the same percentage with both genders. In any case, '80 appears to mark the start of the present-day "gender gap".
Logged
They call me PR
Progressive Realist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5467
United States


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2011, 03:56:47 pm »
Ignore

I think the reason for a bigger "gender gap" in New England is because the two parties aren't as polarized in New England.

I mean, in the South or West, for example, the parties are more polarized. So you are less likely to have people from the same household splitting tickets.

Also, women probably don't marry as early in New England as say, the South (in other words, they remain single longer, which translates to more single female voters). Thus, they aren't really influenced by a conservative husband/partner.

Of course, that's just me speculating, I really don't know for sure...
« Last Edit: August 25, 2011, 03:59:53 pm by Grover Cleveland was a DINO »Logged
Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar
amcculloum
Full Member
***
Posts: 116


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: 4.00

View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2011, 06:16:12 pm »
Ignore

I posted my map of gender differences on the 2012 Presidential Election forum under the subject line "Gender Wars".
Logged
Username MechaRFK
RFK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1275
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2011, 06:34:31 pm »
Ignore

I think the reason for a bigger "gender gap" in New England is because the two parties aren't as polarized in New England.

I mean, in the South or West, for example, the parties are more polarized. So you are less likely to have people from the same household splitting tickets.

Also, women probably don't marry as early in New England as say, the South (in other words, they remain single longer, which translates to more single female voters). Thus, they aren't really influenced by a conservative husband/partner.

Of course, that's just me speculating, I really don't know for sure...
Logged



 
Username MechaRFK
RFK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1275
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2011, 09:22:16 am »
Ignore

Does social issues in the liberal side tend to lean towards females over males? As well as economic where females are probably more liberal(in the American sense) then males are.
Logged



 
Username MechaRFK
RFK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1275
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2011, 01:18:20 pm »
Ignore

I posted my map of gender differences on the 2012 Presidential Election forum under the subject line "Gender Wars".

I'm already posted that the ticket isn't as polarized agreement with anti-reagan. And I said my prediction on who win the female vote in the 2012 presidential election.
Logged



 
Snowstalker
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17583
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -8.45, S: -4.26

View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 26, 2011, 02:50:15 pm »
Ignore

In a good GOP year, they will. Expect elections in the future to be a little less strictly North vs. South, Men vs. Women, or White vs. Nonwhite, especially as the Religious Right begins to die out. The GOP will eventually become the socially moderate, fiscally conservative (but not insane) party of the West, Midwest, and parts of the South and Northeast (I expect Alabama, South Carolina, and Mississippi to stay Republican), while the Democrats become the party of the working class and urban areas. I also expect fewer counties voting >80% for one party or the other. For instance, imagine what a Huntsman vs. Pryor election would look like.
Logged

Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2068
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -4.35

P P

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 26, 2011, 03:09:59 pm »
Ignore

The GOP can and has won the women's vote.  Perhaps the more interesting question would be what are the roots of the gender gap.  Even when they win the women's vote, the modern GOP has done worse among women then men.  Abortion rights certainly plays a role, but it would be too simplistic to say that was the main reason and leave it at that.

We could point to some historical events, such as the 1970's women's movement association with the Democratic Party and the Clarence Thomas hearings, as having played a role in the gender gap.  Perhaps that 70s activism was a catalyst for the gender gap's first appearance in 1980, just as the Thomas hearings turned 1992 into the "Year of the Woman."  The GOP has placed far fewer women in elected office than Democrats and I believe that also shapes perceptions of the party.  I do not think most women are fooled by the GOP putting a few high profile conservative women in front of a camera -- especially those that are clearly unqualified.
Logged
All In For KC
tmthforu94
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18438
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: August 26, 2011, 06:07:30 pm »
Ignore

Probably not on a regular basis, but there's a good chance both sides will probably have one landslide election. Democrats will win the male vote and Republicans will win the female vote at some point soon.
Logged


"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."
-Jackie Robinson
Snowstalker
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17583
Cuba


Political Matrix
E: -8.45, S: -4.26

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: August 26, 2011, 08:12:08 pm »
Ignore

Probably not on a regular basis, but there's a good chance both sides will probably have one landslide election. Democrats will win the male vote and Republicans will win the female vote at some point soon.

They won the male vote in 2008. Tongue
Logged

nclib
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8825


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: August 26, 2011, 09:38:07 pm »
Ignore

The GOP can and has won the women's vote.  Perhaps the more interesting question would be what are the roots of the gender gap.  Even when they win the women's vote, the modern GOP has done worse among women then men.  Abortion rights certainly plays a role, but it would be too simplistic to say that was the main reason and leave it at that.

We could point to some historical events, such as the 1970's women's movement association with the Democratic Party and the Clarence Thomas hearings, as having played a role in the gender gap.  Perhaps that 70s activism was a catalyst for the gender gap's first appearance in 1980, just as the Thomas hearings turned 1992 into the "Year of the Woman."  The GOP has placed far fewer women in elected office than Democrats and I believe that also shapes perceptions of the party.  I do not think most women are fooled by the GOP putting a few high profile conservative women in front of a camera -- especially those that are clearly unqualified.

Even though most women don't identify with feminism, they are still aware that some aspects of feminism do make their lives better, and most Democrats show how they realize that there are plenty of structural issues in our society that favor men.

I think the lack of a gender gap before 1980 (or a reverse one) had more to do with more women staying in their so-called "place", and being shielded from the positives of feminism. Working women have always been more liberal than working men, though of course there used to be a lot fewer of the former.

Either way, I disagree with you on the second statement.  I have no indication that New England white females are any more educated than West Coast white females.  RI, VT and MA had a 33, 13 and 25 point gender difference, respectively, but CA, OR and WA had a 9, 6 and 2 point gender disparity, respectively.  If you compare those voters in RI, VT and MA with bachelors or post graduate degrees, you get 47%, 52% and 47%, respectively, to those in CA, OR and WA, at 49%, 45% and 48%, respectively, they have a substantially similar level of higher education. (The national average was 45%).

So both the Pacific west and New England voters were slightly above the national average in college degrees, both politically liberal, yet the Pac west averaged less than a 6 point gender difference, while New England averaged nearly a 25 point difference.  If whites voted with a gender consistency seen in the rest of the US, NY, NH and ME come into play for McCain (though still probably go to Obama), while CT might tip to McCain.

Or NH or ME would have voted more like CA, IL, or MD. You can't treat New England WF's as any more of an aberration than New England WM's!
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

Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16058


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: August 27, 2011, 12:04:03 am »
Ignore

One note, I would hesitate to draw too much conclusion from "ecological inference". That is a fallacy whereby the attributes of individual behavior are extrapolated from geographical aggregates.

Let me give an example. Suppose that in City A, the average income is $50,000, and City A votes 60% Democratic, whereas in City B, the average income is $40,000, and City B votes 60% Republican. You would conclude that the rich vote Democratic, whereas the poor vote Republican. You would also be wrong. As it turns out, 60% of the population of City A makes $30,000 and votes Democratic, and 40% makes $80,000 and votes Republican, averaging out to $50,000. In City B, 40% makes $25,000 and vote Democratic, and 60% make $50,000 and vote Republican, averaging out to $40,000. In both cities, the lower incomes vote Democratic and the upper incomes vote Republican, precisely the opposite result you would get from looking at geographical aggregates.

Instead of geographical aggregates, to correlate variables such as education and the gender gap you need to go to the individual behavioral level and get micro-level survey data directly from the people involved. Gallup has done that and found some relationship, at least under Obama:

Logged

RIP Robert H Bork
officepark
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9466
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #41 on: August 27, 2011, 01:11:54 am »
Ignore

If it's a women like the Maine senators or someone that pro-choice and moderate socially, yes, I can see the GOP winning the women vote. If not, it stays the same as the current state for the GOP grab for the women vote.

*FACEPALM*

And what you're saying isn't even true, as Reagan undoubtedly won the female vote already!
« Last Edit: August 27, 2011, 01:14:46 am by Senator SayNoToRomney »Logged

Clearly the solution is to privatize presidential elections.

So, in less than four years, get excited for the 2016 MetLife Financial U Pick The Prez Extravaganza. If you tweet a picture of your completed ballot with the hashtag #ivoted, you could win a trip for two to the inauguration or an iTunes gift card.
Username MechaRFK
RFK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1275
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

View Profile
« Reply #42 on: August 27, 2011, 11:49:48 am »
Ignore

If it's a women like the Maine senators or someone that pro-choice and moderate socially, yes, I can see the GOP winning the women vote. If not, it stays the same as the current state for the GOP grab for the women vote.

*FACEPALM*

And what you're saying isn't even true, as Reagan undoubtedly won the female vote already!

And I found out that by DarthNader post on here. My bad.
Logged



 
Username MechaRFK
RFK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1275
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: August 29, 2011, 10:01:31 pm »
Ignore

One note, I would hesitate to draw too much conclusion from "ecological inference". That is a fallacy whereby the attributes of individual behavior are extrapolated from geographical aggregates.

Let me give an example. Suppose that in City A, the average income is $50,000, and City A votes 60% Democratic, whereas in City B, the average income is $40,000, and City B votes 60% Republican. You would conclude that the rich vote Democratic, whereas the poor vote Republican. You would also be wrong. As it turns out, 60% of the population of City A makes $30,000 and votes Democratic, and 40% makes $80,000 and votes Republican, averaging out to $50,000. In City B, 40% makes $25,000 and vote Democratic, and 60% make $50,000 and vote Republican, averaging out to $40,000. In both cities, the lower incomes vote Democratic and the upper incomes vote Republican, precisely the opposite result you would get from looking at geographical aggregates.

Instead of geographical aggregates, to correlate variables such as education and the gender gap you need to go to the individual behavioral level and get micro-level survey data directly from the people involved. Gallup has done that and found some relationship, at least under Obama:



What makes men more into McCain where women into Obama?
Logged



 
Jack1475
Rookie
*
Posts: 20
View Profile
« Reply #44 on: August 30, 2011, 12:33:14 am »
Ignore

I think it would be difficult, because the GOP already struggles with the women vote and it struggles with the black and hispanic votes.  The population is becoming more black and hispanic.  Therefore it is quite likely that the "new women" will not reverse the trend.
Logged
Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar
amcculloum
Full Member
***
Posts: 116


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: 4.00

View Profile
« Reply #45 on: August 30, 2011, 09:43:48 am »
Ignore


I think the lack of a gender gap before 1980 (or a reverse one) had more to do with more women staying in their so-called "place", and being shielded from the positives of feminism. Working women have always been more liberal than working men, though of course there used to be a lot fewer of the former.


What was the gender voting breakdown pre-1980?  I couldn't find a good chart.


Or NH or ME would have voted more like CA, IL, or MD. You can't treat New England WF's as any more of an aberration than New England WM's!

I mentioned this in my post on the 2012 Election board.  It is possible the New England WMs would vote more democratic rather than WFs voting more republican, but I thought it unlikely.  New England WMs voted only slightly more democratic than WMs in the rest of the country while WFs voting way more democratic than WFs in the rest of the country.  If we were talking about a huge gender gap in the south, I would expect the WMs to vote more democratic rather than southern WFs to vote more republican, because the WM vote was much further off from the national average.  Here is my stats from the other post:


That is a good point.  It could very well mean the males vote more democrat.  However, nationally white males voted +16 for McCain and white females voted +7 McCain.  Northeastern white male voted much closer to the national average for white males than Northeastern white females did compared to the national average for white females.  For example CT white males (WM) McCain +8, WF Obama +19.  New York WM McCain +2, WF Obama +14.  Rhode Island WM - tie, WF Obama +33.  PA WM McCain +13, WF Obama +3. Since Northeastern white females voted significantly more democratic than the national average for white females than did Northeastern white males compared to the national average, I looked at Northeastern WF as a statistical aberration.  
« Last Edit: August 30, 2011, 03:15:50 pm by Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar »Logged
Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar
amcculloum
Full Member
***
Posts: 116


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: 4.00

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: August 30, 2011, 09:52:31 am »
Ignore

One note, I would hesitate to draw too much conclusion from "ecological inference". That is a fallacy whereby the attributes of individual behavior are extrapolated from geographical aggregates.

Let me give an example. Suppose that in City A, the average income is $50,000, and City A votes 60% Democratic, whereas in City B, the average income is $40,000, and City B votes 60% Republican. You would conclude that the rich vote Democratic, whereas the poor vote Republican. You would also be wrong. As it turns out, 60% of the population of City A makes $30,000 and votes Democratic, and 40% makes $80,000 and votes Republican, averaging out to $50,000. In City B, 40% makes $25,000 and vote Democratic, and 60% make $50,000 and vote Republican, averaging out to $40,000. In both cities, the lower incomes vote Democratic and the upper incomes vote Republican, precisely the opposite result you would get from looking at geographical aggregates.

Instead of geographical aggregates, to correlate variables such as education and the gender gap you need to go to the individual behavioral level and get micro-level survey data directly from the people involved. Gallup has done that and found some relationship, at least under Obama:



I tried to incorporate education levels into explaining the difference, but could not find a satisfactory reason.  While the liberal west coast had virtually no gender difference, the liberal north east had a huge gender difference, despite those states having a similar level of college graduates and post-graduates.

I have no indication that New England white females are any more educated than West Coast white females.  RI, VT and MA had a 33, 13 and 25 point gender difference, respectively, but CA, OR and WA had a 9, 6 and 2 point gender disparity, respectively.  If you compare those voters in RI, VT and MA with bachelors or post graduate degrees, you get 47%, 52% and 47%, respectively, to those in CA, OR and WA, at 49%, 45% and 48%, respectively, they have a substantially similar level of higher education. (The national average was 45%).

So both the Pacific west and New England voters were slightly above the national average in college degrees, both politically liberal, yet the Pac west averaged less than a 6 point gender difference, while New England averaged nearly a 25 point difference. 

Maybe my methodology is bad, but I don't see how education level can account for the difference between the west coast and the north east.
Logged
Ogre Mage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2068
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.00, S: -4.35

P P

View Profile
« Reply #47 on: August 30, 2011, 02:37:08 pm »
Ignore


I think the lack of a gender gap before 1980 (or a reverse one) had more to do with more women staying in their so-called "place", and being shielded from the positives of feminism. Working women have always been more liberal than working men, though of course there used to be a lot fewer of the former.


What was the gender voting breakdown pre-1980?  I couldn't find a good chart.


Or NH or ME would have voted more like CA, IL, or MD. You can't treat New England WF's as any more of an aberration than New England WM's!

I mentioned this in my post on the 2012 Election board.  It is possible the New England WMs would vote more democratic rather than WFs voting more republican, but I thought it unlikely.  New England WMs voted only slightly more democratic than WMs in the rest of the country while WFs voting way more democratic than WFs in the rest of the country.  If we were talking about a huge gender gap in the south, I would expect the WMs to vote more democratic rather than southern WFs to vote more republican, because the WM vote was much further off from the national average.  Here is my stats from the other post:


That is a good point.  It could very well mean the males vote more democrat.  However, nationally white males voted +16 for McCain and white females voted +7 McCain.  Northeastern white male voted much closer to the national average for white males than Northeastern white females did compared to the national average for white females.  For example CT white males (WM) McCain +8, WF Obama +19.  New York WM McCain +2, WF Obama +14.  Rhode Island WM - tie, WF Obama +33.  PA WM McCain +13, WF Obama +3. Since Northeastern white females voted significantly more democratic than the national average for white females than did Northeastern white males compared to the national average, I looked at Northeastern WF as a statistical aberration. 

Those  quotes are from nclib, not me.
Logged
Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar
amcculloum
Full Member
***
Posts: 116


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: 4.00

View Profile
« Reply #48 on: August 30, 2011, 03:16:50 pm »
Ignore

Sorry Ogre.  I think I've fixed it.
Logged
Username MechaRFK
RFK
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1275
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -5.16, S: -7.30

View Profile
« Reply #49 on: August 31, 2011, 03:38:57 pm »
Ignore

Was the women vote for the Republicans back then due to being the party of women rights and the Dems being the backwards party?
Logged



 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines