"Republicans are on the wrong side of a gender gap" and similar fallacies
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:55:07 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  "Republicans are on the wrong side of a gender gap" and similar fallacies
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: "Republicans are on the wrong side of a gender gap" and similar fallacies  (Read 3028 times)
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 14, 2010, 12:22:27 AM »
« edited: November 14, 2010, 12:26:56 AM by Nichlemn »

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.  
Logged
Dgov
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,558
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2010, 02:00:47 AM »

I think it's because Women vote slightly more than Men do.
Logged
Nichlemn
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2010, 05:40:11 AM »

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
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,073
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2010, 05:56:12 PM »

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
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2010, 06:18:30 PM »

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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2010, 07:31:48 PM »

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
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2010, 08:35:44 PM »

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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: May 01, 2012, 10:53:52 PM »

bump because there's been a lot of talk about this recently
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,663
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2012, 02:41:42 PM »

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
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2012, 04:21:36 PM »

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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,920


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2012, 05:52:00 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2012, 06:11:54 PM »

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 Backbeat
Marokai Blue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,477
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2012, 06:21:12 PM »

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
All Along The Watchtower
Progressive Realist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,417
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2012, 06:28:45 PM »

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2012, 07:33:36 PM »

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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2012, 07:39:20 PM »

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: 3,828
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2012, 10:58:24 PM »

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
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.054 seconds with 12 queries.