2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumMen are treating 2016 as a normal election. Women aren't.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-treating-2016-as-a-normal-election-women-arent/We could be looking at the largest gender gap in a presidential election since at least 1952: Men are favoring the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, in typical numbers, but a historically overwhelming share of women say they will vote for the Democrat, Hillary Clinton.
As my colleague Nate Silver has pointed out, women are winning this election for Clinton. Between the historic nature of Clintons candidacy, Trumps record of misogynistic comments and now the Trump tape and allegations of sexual assault against Trump, American men and women are incredibly split on the 2016 election. But that split isnt symmetrical. In an average of the most recent live-interview polls from each pollster to test the race in October, Clinton holds a 20-percentage-point advantage among women, and Trump is winning more narrowly among men.
SNIP
To put this years gender split into a little more context: Trumps 7-percentage-point lead among men is about how well George W. Bush did with men in 2000. If we had an average gender gap this year, wed expect Clinton to carry women by between 5 and 10 points (given how men say they are going to vote). That kind of gap would result in a close race overall, which is exactly what the state of the economy suggests should be occurring.
Instead, Clinton is leading by about 6 or 7 percentage points nationally in the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecast. Basically, the vote among men looks normal; the split among women does not. That is, the historically large gender gap this election is because women are disproportionately favoring one candidate (Clinton) to an extent we wouldnt expect them to in a normal election given the fundamentals.
OnDoutside
(19,969 posts)Response to pnwmom (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And you can't seriously be surprised by that.
Response to Ken Burch (Reply #4)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Wilms
(26,795 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)It's a honor to be insulted by a sentient abscess like him.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)He didn't seem to like women.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)And is only familiar with vaginas in theoretical terms.
Response to pnwmom (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)that Trump is more popular with men while Clinton is more popular with women, but I'm willing to bet that things take an interesting twist when looking at men from different demographic backgrounds and women from different demographics. Speaking for myself and the men in my family, none of us would ever vote for Trump. We already know that he is a pervert, ill-qualified, and an ignoramus.
Response to Jamaal510 (Reply #7)
Name removed Message auto-removed
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Response to lovemydog (Reply #12)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hekate
(90,779 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)I missed a lot of action after I signed off for the night, didn't I?
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)came crawling out. Posting racist / sexist garbage.
Hekate
(90,779 posts)Clean up on Aisle 3, STAT!
Response to Hekate (Reply #13)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hekate
(90,779 posts)I can't imagine any man (or woman) in my extended family being even remotely attracted to Trump.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Hopefully many of the overt racists & misogynists die off. But it scares me that there are so many, like the sad soul who just posted above. You raise a significant point about the demographics. The large bulk of the right wing in this country is white people, probably tilted toward white men. I say that as a white man. Regardless of how they may sugarcoat it, the right & alt-right still offer repugnant policy. I really hope that changes at every level. It's worthy of discussion, imho.
Response to lovemydog (Reply #19)
Name removed Message auto-removed
edbermac
(15,943 posts)So long loser
Zing Zing Zingbah
(6,496 posts)There are less and less racists, sexists, homophobes, etc when you look at younger people. I think this is their (the Trumpsters) last ditch effort to try and go back to the way things used to be 1950's and prior, but that's just not happening. They seem so angry because they are losing their privilege and that makes them feel out of control and hopeless. They perceive having Hillary as president as the end of their world, but really they are getting all worked up over nothing and being babies about it.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)Response to pnwmom (Reply #21)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Hekate
(90,779 posts)I only saw post 11, where he was proudly using the N-word, with embellishments. Who the hell are these creatures?
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)I think they're getting desperate.
(I guess the good part is they keep the thread kicked.)
Ruth Bonner
(192 posts)I thought I'd just focus on policy. Nope. I'm actually a bit thrilled to see a strong woman at the podium. Now, if I could just have that dream about 54D Senators, majority in the House, and 4 new justices come true...
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)would be a bigger deal to women than many seemed to realize.
I think that Hillary's inauguration will be as exciting and meaningful to many women as President Obama's was to African Americans.
sarae
(3,284 posts)by the mass defection of women in support of Trump. I've been a little confused by their unwillingness to examine the obvious, blatant sexism on display. At least they're finally paying more attention to this aspect, but I suspect it's only because they now have confirmation in the polls.
drray23
(7,637 posts)In the link above they report more milenial men are voting for Clinton than their female counterpart.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)At least I hope so. I hope they vote in big numbers & continue voting in local & mid-terms too.
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)The new normal is men favoring Republicans by increasing margin. Obama steadily turned off white working class men and there's no sign of it stopping, let alone reversing. A year ago I was very concerned about Hillary's chances, due to that forfeiture of several percent minimum of the male vote. There were many ominous online articles by astute political analysts, all spotlighting that trend. I assumed it would be a balanced national terrain in 2016, not one favoring Democrats by several points. If so, Hillary was an underdog. Normally an open race after one party has held the White House for 8 years is balanced terrain. Since Obama's approval rating has been nearby 50 for a long time, balance made sense for this cycle.
Only the nomination of Donald Trump has obscured the underlying issues that Democrats have with that white male demographic. There is indeed an increased defection of males toward Republicans, but it is concealed by Hillary's current margin. If the race were 50/50 overall, then men would be tilting toward Republicans by higher gap than any recent cycle.
In short, 538 is ignoring situational impact. That is a disservice. I'll concede I read only the paragraphs pasted here, not the full article. I have jury duty in the morning so I actually need sleep before my normal 5:30 AM schedule. Perhaps 538 made mention later in the piece.
Hillary is winning women by inflated margin due to Trump. That is likely fragile, and not applicable to future cycles. The problem with the working class male shift is that it's been ongoing and tipped by political observers or several years, so it's likely a very real problem that applies to 2020 and beyond. We have to figure out a way to halt and hopefully recoup.
kcr
(15,318 posts)By a sexist candidate courting a demographic apparently not concerned with his sexism. The takeaway is we need to be concerned about the demographic that wants the sexist candidate and court their vote? Nah.