The Men/Woman vote.

[George W. Bush]

WOMEN only vote.




MEN only vote.

[Alcon]

I like how the CNN exit poll says Kerry won white men in Washington, but lost men overall.

"?!?"

[bgwah]

I like how the CNN exit poll says Kerry won white men in Washington, but lost men overall.

"?!?"

LOL, I noticed that way back in November.

[Alcon]

I like how the CNN exit poll says Kerry won white men in Washington, but lost men overall.

"?!?"

LOL, I noticed that way back in November.

Not only that, but Kerry loses non-white men 59-40 and wins non-white women 74-24! I don't get it!

Kerry also lost the "Other" racial category 51-46. Native Americans? I doubt it.

[Dave from Michigan]

where are you getting these exit polls from I can't find them

[Alcon]

where are you getting these exit polls from I can't find them

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/

Click on the state.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Some of the exit polls look really fishy. For example New York state:
voters by area

Big cities 33%
Smaller cities 3%
Suburbs 61%
Small towns 0%
Rural 3%

If you know anything about upstate NY, you know that can't be right.

[Alcon]

Not only that, but Alaska seems to only consist of suburbs and rural areas.

Sigh.

[Beet]

CNN had a story today about the early exit polls... paragraph 2 was something like "CNN did not report these results or post these results on its website." Getting a little defensive for a news organization? Its well known that they changed their exit poll numbers between election night and the next morning.

[dazzleman]

Very interesting map.

Male-only voting would have resulted in a landslide for Bush, while women-only voting would have meant, at best, a narrow win for Kerry.

I would have thought that only women voting would have produced a bigger win for Kerry.  I wonder what a comparable 2000 map would look like.  My guess is that it would have produced a bigger win for Gore.

[phk]

There is a huge racial gap.

[dazzleman]

There is a huge racial gap.

True, but that's not the subject of this thread.  Everybody knows that if only white people voted, Bush would have won in a landslide.

The most striking racial gap I ever saw was in the 1993 New York City Mayoral election of incumbent Mayor David Dinkins (Democrat, black) against Rudolph Giuliani (Republican, white).

Black neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for Dinkins, while white neighborhoods voted overwhelmingly for Giuliani.  The borough of Staten Island, the whitest borough, gave 87% of its votes to Giuliani.

Hispanics split their vote, with enough going over to Giuliani to give him victory.  Even some addle-brained guilt-ridden white Manhattan liberals deserted Dinkins for Giuliani because the crime rate and civic breakdown had become so unbearable under Dinkins.

[opebo]

There is a huge racial gap.

True, but that's not the subject of this thread.  Everybody knows that if only white people voted, Bush would have won in a landslide.

I suspect that if everyone were forced to vote, Bush might actually lose even the white vote.  The great majority of non-voting whites are poor, so if they were dragged to the ballot box, there's at least a chance they'd vote in their economic interest.  But as it is, if only the same white people voted, and lets say all the ballots of non-whites were thrown out (as no doubt did happen in a marginal way though not wholesale), then yes, Bush would've had a landslide.

[George W. Bush]

There is a huge racial gap.

True, but that's not the subject of this thread.  Everybody knows that if only white people voted, Bush would have won in a landslide.

I suspect that if everyone were forced to vote, Bush might actually lose even the white vote.  The great majority of non-voting whites are poor, so if they were dragged to the ballot box, there's at least a chance they'd vote in their economic interest.  But as it is, if only the same white people voted, and lets say all the ballots of non-whites were thrown out (as no doubt did happen in a marginal way though not wholesale), then yes, Bush would've had a landslide.

That is very True.

[Gustaf]

Um...I don't get this. New MExico was tied if you count both men and women. It was tied among women. How can it not be tied among males?

Secondly, do women vote to a much greater extent than men? Considering that otherwise the male and female maps should be at equal distance from the actual result.

It seems that if you count women only Kerry gains only the tied states of Iowa as well as the very close Nevada while only tiing in the close states of Ohio and NEw Mexico, whereas Bush with the male vote picks up close Kerry wins such as New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, but also substantial Kerry wins like Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Maine, even New Jersey and Delaware. How is that possible?

[dazzleman]

Um...I don't get this. New MExico was tied if you count both men and women. It was tied among women. How can it not be tied among males?

Secondly, do women vote to a much greater extent than men? Considering that otherwise the male and female maps should be at equal distance from the actual result.

It seems that if you count women only Kerry gains only the tied states of Iowa as well as the very close Nevada while only tiing in the close states of Ohio and NEw Mexico, whereas Bush with the male vote picks up close Kerry wins such as New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, but also substantial Kerry wins like Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Maine, even New Jersey and Delaware. How is that possible?

Dude, I can't come up with a logical answer to your first question.  I can only say that since Bush won the state narrowly, and if it was tied among women, that means that male voters voted more strongly for Bush than female voters.

Women make up slightly more than half of the voting age population (because they live longer than us oppressed and exploited men) and also a higher percentage of them vote, so the electorate is modestly more than 50% female.

What I think happened is that the male edge for Bush was stronger than the female edge for Kerry.  Therefore, removing women from the equation gave Bush more states, and by a bigger margin, than removing men from the equation did for Kerry.

When you say that male only and female only maps should be an equal distance from the actual result, you are not considering that the degree of lead a candidate has among male or female voters is not equal.  As I said, male voters favored Bush by a stronger margin than female voters favored Kerry.  It also depends on the state.  In the south, for example, both male and female voters favored Bush.  There were only a handful of states where male voters favored Kerry, and almost no states where white male voters favored Kerry.

Liberal media outlets have brainwashed us on the gender gap for so long that we forget that it has usually benefited Republicans, because Democrats have a real deficit of support among male voters, moreso than Republicans have among female voters in most elections.  But of course, men don't count according to the liberals, so this is not pointed out.  They spend all their time harping on why Republicans need to appeal to women, but fail to address the complete failure of Democrats to appeal to men, particularly white men.

[nclib]

Couldn't Gustaf's third question by explained by differences in the gender gap between the lean-Kerry states and the lean-Bush states?

Or could there also have been more close Kerry states than close Bush states?

[dazzleman]

Couldn't Gustaf's third question by explained by differences in the gender gap between the lean-Kerry states and the lean-Bush states?

Or could there also have been more close Kerry states than close Bush states?

That's basically what I was saying.