Can the GOP ever win the women vote?

[Username MechaRFK]

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

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

[crypto-fascist superhero]

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

[Username MechaRFK]

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

DarthNader says otherwise. Who knows?

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

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.

["'Oeps!' De blunders van Rick Perry 2016!]

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".

[Progressive Realist]

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...

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

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

[Username MechaRFK]

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...

[Username MechaRFK]

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.

[Username MechaRFK]

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.

[Senator Snowstalker]

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.

[Ogre Mage]

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.

[Jayhawker]

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.

[Senator Snowstalker]

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.

[nclib]

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!

[Beet]

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:

[RIP Robert H Bork]

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!

[Username MechaRFK]

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.

[Username MechaRFK]

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?

[Jack1475]

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.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

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.  

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

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.

[Ogre Mage]

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.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Sorry Ogre.  I think I've fixed it.

[Username MechaRFK]

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