The Gender Gap: Women In The Democratic Coalition

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Nichlemn]

My thread arguing that the gender gap in and of itself does not favour either party.

Sure it's bad for Republicans if they lose women badly, but it's equally bad for Democrats if they lose men badly. Given you already know the margin, the gender gap doesn't make a difference.

[All Along The Watchtower]

This thread should have been entitled

"Why are (straight) white men so terrible?"

[Oldiesfreak1854]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Never mind that Republican fought and died for civil rights when it wasn't popular, and Democrats only supported it when it was popular.  I'm also waiting for them to paint horns on the GOP. 
That being said, women vote Democrat, like most Dem voting blocs, because they believe the GOP is extreme on social issues.

[Nichlemn]

Never mind that Republican fought and died for civil rights when it wasn't popular, and Democrats only supported it when it was popular.  I'm also waiting for them to paint horns on the GOP.

What? Republicans may have fought more against slavery, but opposition to slavery was popular at the time (at least in the North). I don't think the activities of the parties decades or especially centuries ago make much of a difference to today's votes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What? No. Women if anything are a little more socially conservative on average than men. The same goes for many Democratic racial minorities. Economics has a lot to do with it.

[Franknburger]

My thread arguing that the gender gap in and of itself does not favour either party.

Sure it's bad for Republicans if they lose women badly, but it's equally bad for Democrats if they lose men badly. Given you already know the margin, the gender gap doesn't make a difference.

It does male a difference in polling, though. In both the 2008 and 2012 elections, most of the "undecided" during the last campaign weeks used to be low-to-middle income, some-or-no- college women. If they don't - as is commonly assumed - break 50:50, or for the challenger, but vote majority democrat instead, all these nice "horserace" and "possible last-minute swing" narratives become futile.

P.S: The female vote also appears to be less 'swingy' than the male vote. Compared to 2008, Obama lost 1% support among women, compared to 4% among men. I haven't checked on older elctions whether such female "swing resistance" is a particular 'Obama-phenomenon', or a longer-term pattern. However, it is common marketing knowledge that women tend to display stronger brand loyality than men.  As such, I think it may be much more difficult for Republicans to regain lost female votes, than for Democrats to win over more men.

[Mr. Morden]

It does male a difference in polling, though. In both the 2008 and 2012 elections, most of the "undecided" during the last campaign weeks used to be low-to-middle income, some-or-no- college women. If they don't - as is commonly assumed - break 50:50, or for the challenger, but vote majority democrat instead, all these nice "horserace" and "possible last-minute swing" narratives become futile.

P.S: The female vote also appears to be less 'swingy' than the male vote. Compared to 2008, Obama lost 1% support among women, compared to 4% among men. I haven't checked on older elctions whether such female "swing resistance" is a particular 'Obama-phenomenon', or a longer-term pattern. However, it is common marketing knowledge that women tend to display stronger brand loyality than men.  As such, I think it may be much more difficult for Republicans to regain lost female votes, than for Democrats to win over more men.

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other.  Women are overrepresented among undecided voters, and yet the female vote is less swingy than the male vote?  How are both of those things true?

In any case, I think the crux of Nichlemn's point is that the gender gap itself by definition shouldn't favor one party over the other.  A candidate is wise to focus on convincing voters who are persuadable, whether those voters are disproportionately male or female.  The actual breakdown of votes between the two sexes is irrelevant.  It really doesn't matter whether you won a narrow election victory with gender parity, or with one sex voting disproportionately for you and the other against you.  Both of those outcomes count the same.

[Sopranos Republican]

Who wrote this, Rachel Maddow? I understand that the Democrats have done a better job reaching out women and minority voters, but I think this article is just biased. So there may be people who spew garbage in the Republican Party, but most of us aren't these sexist jerks, who hate women. I really think we have a messenger problem. I think there a lot of good people who are Republicans, who aren't pleased with our elected officials. I know I'm sure as hell tired with some of them.

[Franknburger]

These two paragraphs seem to contradict each other.  Women are overrepresented among undecided voters, and yet the female vote is less swingy than the male vote?  How are both of those things true?

Because these women only appear to be undecided, but are ultimately very predictable in their voting behaviour. To put it differently - they say they might swing, but ultimately, they don't.

Who wrote this, Rachel Maddow? I understand that the Democrats have done a better job reaching out women and minority voters, but I think this article is just biased. So there may be people who spew garbage in the Republican Party, but most of us aren't these sexist jerks, who hate women.

Yeah, that's one of the weaknesses of the article. The gender gap is not an US phenomenon, but exissts in most industrialised countries, as is demonstrated in this study. Major underlying factors include better female education and higher labour market participation, as well as cultural factors (e.g. emergence of feminism, changing family patterns). There is nothing here the Republicans can be blamed about, aside from not noticing and/or ignoring these trends.

In order to give credit where it is due, here is the post which lead me to the study:

If anybody has further analysis on the female vote, please share it here (I have done Latin in school, so I am able to read some Italian).

 I unfortunately don't have any recent research on this topic available right now, and also nothing specific to Italy. But I was interested if you have read some classic analyses of the gender differences in electoral behaviour? A good summary is the article "The developmental theory of the gender gap: Women's and men's voting behavior in global perspective" by Inglehart and Norris from 2000. Should be available online. They analyze three different periods: the traditional situation especially in 1950s, in which women were the more right-wing and conservative voters in almost every country, the shifting situation especially in 1970s, in which women slowly moved to the left (or men to the right) in many countries such as the US and Scandinavia, while in many others like Italy and Germany women were still considerably more right-wing, and the establishment of a new paradigm during the 1990s, in which women become the more left-wing gender in almost all developed countries especially because of young women being much more leftist than young men. Italy was one of the last European countries to move from the old gender gap to the new one, more or less simultaneously with the changes in party system in 1994.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My thread arguing that the gender gap in and of itself does not favour either party.

Sure it's bad for Republicans if they lose women badly, but it's equally bad for Democrats if they lose men badly. Given you already know the margin, the gender gap doesn't make a difference.

You're right. There is also something implicitly sexist in claiming that the gender gap "hurts republicans", since that assumes that it is women who diverge from the "norm" which men represent. Not that I think Snowstalker is sexist, at all, but I think his essay (which is pretty good overall) is very poorly worded in that regard.

[Associate Justice PiT]

My thread arguing that the gender gap in and of itself does not favour either party.

Sure it's bad for Republicans if they lose women badly, but it's equally bad for Democrats if they lose men badly. Given you already know the margin, the gender gap doesn't make a difference.

You're right. There is also something implicitly sexist in claiming that the gender gap "hurts republicans", since that assumes that it is women who diverge from the "norm" which men represent. Not that I think Snowstalker is sexist, at all, but I think his essay (which is pretty good overall) is very poorly worded in that regard.

     The assumption that men are normal and women are different is a very pervasive one in media and culture. While the sexist undertones are deeply troubling, it's hard to fault someone for not really recognizing them in a given context.