Female 2000 Vote (Blue for G.W. Red for Gore.)
Posted on 03/04/2002 5:53:45 PM PST by spintreebob
If there's one long-term electoral trend worrying Republicans, it's the widening gender gap in voting behavior. In the early postwar period, a majority of women favored Republican candidates, while men were more inclined toward Democrats. In recent decades, however, voting patterns have reversed sharply, with far more women supporting Democrats and men voting Republican.
Recent elections highlight the shift. The support of women was a big factor in Bill Clinton's victories, and if women's votes alone had been counted in 2000, Al Gore would have won by a landslide. While polls suggest that George W. Bush has at least temporarily closed the gender gap after September 11, it still exists at the Congressional level.
The crucial question for political strategists of both parties, of course, is just why this has occurred. Conventional explanations center on such developments as the sharp increase in the ranks of working women, the rise of feminism, and women's concern over social issues such as abortion rights.
In a new study, however, economists Lena C. Edlund and Rohini Pande of Columbia University conclude that the major cause is the differing impact of the decline in marriage on the economic well-being of men and women.
Since the early 1960s, as the proportion of marriages ending in divorce has risen to nearly 50% and as more people have chosen to defer marriage or remain single, the unmarried share of the adult population has surged to 44%. In the study, which will appear in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Edlund and Pande relate this trend to the reversal in men's and women's party allegiances and the subsequent widening of the political gender gap.
Arguing that the decline in marriage has tended to make men richer and women poorer, they find that states with rising divorce rates have seen a decline in support for Democrats among men and a marked rise in such support among women. The data also show that women become more likely to vote Democratic after a divorce and less likely after marriage.
Such gender shifts seem largely limited to middle-income voters. Why? The authors theorize that some poor men might become a bit richer via divorce, but not enough to turn them into Republicans. And affluent single women may be less well off than their married peers, but not enough to spur them to vote Democratic.
The authors also find no evidence that women's views on social and religious issues affect the political gender gap. And working seems to make only middle-income women--not poor or rich women--more likely to support Democrats.
In sum, the decline in marriage, and especially its effect on the relative economic fortunes of a majority of women, seems to be pushing them to the left. And that suggests that Republicans may face an uphill battle with female voters unless marriage stages a comeback.
We precinct captains know a woman in a stable marriage is more conservative than her husband (often union-Catholic Democrat in this area). A woman shacking with a man is more liberal than her mate. A single woman holding out for marriage is more conservative than one who is giving it away (or selling it).
Married women see the husband, and entire extended family as the safety net. This is true of suburban Blacks and Hispanics as well as ethnic whites and WASPs.
Divorced and promiscuous women expect government to protect them from disease and give them health care when they catch it. In the same way a conservataive wife expects it of her husband, the others expect government to give them money when they ask. And yes, to feel their pain and be sympathetic to their worries and problems.
Is the solution value conversion thru a religion or philosophy? Or is the solution to compromise and meet them half-way?
If military votes alone had been counted in 2000, Bush would have won by a landslide.
If Utah votes alone had been counted in 2000, Bush would have won by a landslide.
If rural votes alone had been counted in 2000, Bush would have won by a landslide.
If my family's votes alone had been counted in 2000, Bush would have won by a landslide.
If men's votes alone had been counted in 2000, Bush would have won by a landslide.
Female 2000 Vote (Blue for G.W. Red for Gore.)
NEWS FLASH!!! BUSH DID WIN!!!
Let's look at the numbers.
A Lot of people will get the idea that the Minority women vote caused the gender gap because they look at the voting patterns of conservative southern states. IN These states, The Gender gap still exists, but it really is more of a racial gap.
Examples: In South Carolina Bush won the White Male Vote 75%-25%. He Won the White Female Vote 67%-31%,
There is still a slight gender gap here.
White Females supported Bush less than White males did. The overall gender gap in the state, IE: Total Male for Bush 59%-36%, Total Female for Bush 52%-46% was caused by the 90%+ Black vote for Gore.
But I say again, South Carolina is a Conservative, Republican state. Let's look at the States that don't have as high a Minority Population as many of the Southern States.
In New York Bush WON the White Male vote 47%-46%, he LOST the White Female vote 59%-37%.
In Pennsylvania Bush WON the White Male vote 57%-40%, he LOST the White Female Vote 54%-43%. (Bush would have carried Pennsylvania, and by all means should have, but the women vote in larger numbers than men, and they had enough to push PA to Gore by 200,000 Votes. Pennsylvania has a very low minority population, you cannot blame the gender gap on anyone but liberal soccer mommies here.)
In Michigan Bush WON the White Male Vote 51%-46%, he LOST the White Female Vote 56%-42%. (Similar Situation as with Pennsylvania.)
In California Bush WON the White Male Vote 53%-41%, He LOST the White Female Vote 53%-43%. (Again this is amazing, Bush Would have carried California if just the male vote counted, Bush Won the Overall Male Vote 48%-47%, He Lost the Overall Female vote 58%-37%)
You might have a dream that White Females are conservative, but outside of the South and Western Moutain States, they are not. Bush Would have won all but 6 states without the Female Vote.
The Only states that truely have real Conservative Women in large numbers are states like Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Nebraska ect...
BTW: There is still a HUGE Gender Gap in the White Men Vs White Women. You brought up the point that White Women Picked Bush by 1 Point, And you are correct, but you left our that White Men Picked Bush by 24 points. That is a 23 Point Gender Gap.
What is truely amazing is even in the 3 most conservative states in the Country and the Three states that gave bush his Highest percentages of Victory there is STILL A Gender Gap.
In Utah Bush won the Male vote 75%-21% He only won the Female vote by 60%-36%. The White Gender Totals are almost Identical Here since Utah is 96%+ White. White Males Went to Bush 73%-18, White Females 64%-30%.
In Wyoming Bush Won the Male Vote 76%-21%, He only won the Female vote by 62%-34%. Wyoming is 93%+ White, and the White Gender Votes still have a gap White Males voted for Bush 77%-20% and White Females only 64%-32%.
In Idaho Bush Won the Male vote 76%-21%, He only won the Female vote 62%-36%. Idaho is 95% White, There is still a gender gap here too. White Males voted Bush 78%-20%, White Females only voted Bush 62%-36%.
The Fact Is, Women, vote more liberally than men. They want to murder their babies, take your guns, have free government handouts, sleep around, have lesbian relationships, and promote a femi-nazi agenda.
Your dream that it is all the Minority Women's doing, is a lie, And I don't understand why conservatives on this stie will keep promoting that lie, women, white women, black women, asian women, indian women, all women, are more liberal than men. Period.
Soft, effiminate Gore wooes the females! Suprize, suprize...
It is more like women's war against Republicans. They are mad that Republican does not give them more goodies. Republicans have to promote stable marriage big time. Instead of squeezing into a goal-post, move the goal-post in front you and just walk in. We have to move the goal post. Promote stable marriage and make more Republicans out of women.
Yeah, women who are daft enough to elect Clinton!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.