Can the GOP ever win the women vote?

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

White women went McCain by 7.  Hispanic  women went Obama by 38 and black women went Obama by 93.  Looking at the 2008 results, there is virtually no difference between the white male and white female vote, with the exception of New England, where it appears white males and white females were watching 2 different elections.  That wasn't the case in the rest of the county.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

White males and white females voted Obama in Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts.

They did, but here was the breakdown.  White males (WM) in Rhode Island tied 48-48.  White females (WF) went 66-33 Obama, a 33 point gender difference. 

Vermont WM was 63-33 Obama, WF was 71-28 Obama, an 13 point difference.  Bigger than the national average, but not that big for New England.

Mass WM was 53-46 Obama and WF was 65-33, a 25 point difference.

The national average was about a point 9 gender difference.  Without New England, it would probably be 3-4 points.  Why is there such a big separation in the sexes in New England?  I am genuinely curious.  I made a map charting gender differences, but I don't yet have enough posts to display it.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

My guess would be the men are more likely to vote based on "fiscal responsibility" and "small government" in New England, while the women are more likely to emphasize "social justice."

It could also be that more women work and are well-educated in New England, which translates to feelings of independence from the views of men.


[/quote]

I may agree with you as to the first part, but that is more on gut feeling than any empirical evidence.  I'm not sure that prior to Obama's inauguration, there was any indication he would be a bigger spender that W.  McCain, I believe, was widely perceived as carrying on W's legacy of "compassionate conservatism" a/k/a big spending conservative, so I'm not sure "fiscal responsibility" pushed people towards McCain.  In fact, those voters who were very concerned about the economy went 60-38 for Obama.

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.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Who is this person creeping in on my name? 

Ha!  Sorry on the creep.  It's hard to pass up a good name.  I may now have the required posts to post my own map.  If so, I may try posting it tonight.

[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.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

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

[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.

[Lucius Quintus Cincinatus Lamar]

Sorry Ogre.  I think I've fixed it.