Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ] 

GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

30 Sep 2014, 12:45 pm

YouGov just did a poll on gender differences in political orientation leading up to the 2014 US Midterm elections (N = 1,000, error margin is +/- 4.7 percent).

Image Image

For comparison, I have also included a previously posted figure showing the gender gap in previous US presidential elections:

Image

As evident above, the Gender Gap in the YouGov poll exceeds that of all previous presidential elections since 1952. The Gender Gap is thus an impressive 27 percent (9 percent male lead for Republicans + 18 percent female lead for Democrats), 7 percentage points larger than the previous 2012 record. And the Democrat advantage seems to be increasing; the 4 percentage point net gender advantage for Democrats in 2012 (8 vs. 12 percent) is now a 9 percentage point gender advantage in the YouGov poll.

It should be noted, however, that the political polarization of Congress (and the House in particular due to gerrymandering) is likely larger than the polarization of a presidential race, and it is thus not given that people will place identical votes in the 2014 Midterm and the 2016 Presidential elections. However, if If the above poll is any reasonable indication of the gender preferences at the presidential election in 2016, it will be almost impossible for the Republicans to re-claim the presidency.

Source: https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/09/2 ... democrats/

Please discuss.



Last edited by GGPViper on 30 Sep 2014, 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

30 Sep 2014, 1:07 pm

So in short Hilary Clinton is most likely to be president next presidential term in 2016?


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

30 Sep 2014, 1:08 pm

So these people blindly vote for a party ?

Republicans have an excellent chance to win:
-Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has baggage with her numerous scandals
-Men may not be willing to pick a woman as their leader (not one has won yet)
-The Republican will lie and promise middle class tax cuts / the Democrat won't promise tax cuts
-President Obama's low approval rating (Gallup Poll has him at 42% job approval rating)
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barac ... roval.aspx
-The Republican will lie and promise "change" from the malaise that most Americans are experiencing with their declining
standard of living (do you want more of the same , or change?)
-Obamacare has angered many



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

30 Sep 2014, 3:06 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
-Men may not be willing to pick a woman as their leader (not one has won yet)

Women have been elected in the UK, Germany and Australia, as well as other countries that are maybe less comparable to the USA. Is the USA more misogynistic than those nations?

77% of people say they would be willing to vote for a woman. Some may well be lying, but that's more than say they would vote for a Republican or indeed a Democrat.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

30 Sep 2014, 4:25 pm

That last one is a graphic of "final pre-election" poll which obviously doesn't mean as much as actual result.

What I find interesting is the difference between married and unmarried women, what does that say?

To imply that Hilary is assured victory from this is pretty ignorant, this isn't a linear change and there are pullbacks. The president basically is always punished during midterm elections and becomes a more divisive figure the longer he is in office for obvious reasons. It is interesting looking at those polling averages from yesteryear when you try to put them into the context of the candidates and issues of that election.

Hilary has a decent chance of winning but she is an extremely divisive and widely known figure already, I do not believe she will have the same intensity of support as Obama. I think if anything, a gender gap will hurt Hiliary in 2016 as men will likely be driven away from her candidacy as well as the natural prevailing winds. What it will come down to is who the GOP nominates as their candidate, duds like McCain and Romney were doomed from the start. The country is ready for change, people are weary after 8 years of Obama and the Democrats so it is up the GOP to sell a better alternative.

You have to find a candidate that can appeal outside their base demographic, I am biased here but the only potential candidate that I see doing that for the GOP is Rand Paul. Rand is only GOP candidate aggressively courting young and minority voters, he is the only one that brings any new ideas at all.



Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

02 Oct 2014, 2:57 pm

Jacoby wrote:
What I find interesting is the difference between married and unmarried women, what does that say?


It says to me "cherry picking interesting results". It's too random a subset. What about the married and unmarried men?

Many years ago, I saw a curious statistic that stated 87% of the children of Israeli fighter pilots were female. The immediate question that comes to mind is "what are Israeli fighter pilots doing that causes them to have so many girls?" - this is because the human brain is bad at probability. The real question is "why are we looking at Israeli fighter pilots?" This isn't due to anything special. It's a spike in the data. Looking at Israelis in general, or fighter pilots in general, or (say) Italian plumbers you'd find a fairly normal, boring distribution of boys and girls.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

02 Oct 2014, 4:10 pm

Thom_Fuleri wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
What I find interesting is the difference between married and unmarried women, what does that say?


It says to me "cherry picking interesting results". It's too random a subset. What about the married and unmarried men?

Many years ago, I saw a curious statistic that stated 87% of the children of Israeli fighter pilots were female. The immediate question that comes to mind is "what are Israeli fighter pilots doing that causes them to have so many girls?" - this is because the human brain is bad at probability. The real question is "why are we looking at Israeli fighter pilots?" This isn't due to anything special. It's a spike in the data. Looking at Israelis in general, or fighter pilots in general, or (say) Italian plumbers you'd find a fairly normal, boring distribution of boys and girls.


I don't agree with this, there seems to pretty stark married/unmarried divide in every poll they do of this subject. Married women are an important swing vote in this country, the GOP's success in the 2002 midterms and Bush's 2004 victory was in large part credited to strong support of married women(the famed security moms). At the time it was explained as married women disproportionately worry about war, domestic terrorism, the security of their children and put more trust in the GOP to deal with these issues. I'm not sure how much credence I give that theory but it does seem that married women are much more conservative than single ones who are amongst the most loyal voters for the Democrats. If married women break more towards the GOP this November then it will be bad news for Democrats and I think you'll see a much smaller gender gap as a result of it as turnout in midterms is far less than presidential ones where the Democrats traditional demographics are more likely to vote.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

03 Oct 2014, 2:00 pm

A lot of the married/unmarried split in women has to do with economic security (two incomes vs. one) - in general, the better-off tend to vote Republican more - and with abortion, as a single woman will suffer far more from an unplanned pregnancy than a married woman.



Ergop
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 29

04 Oct 2014, 2:04 am

The elections are just for show. Whomever is elected President will do what must be done and not make any really important decisions on his/her own.

We as Americans are tricked into following the two party system when candidates like Ron Paul, a libertarian, are kept out of preliminary debates intentionally.

Obama's campaign was funded 90% by the banks that he bailed out in 2008, which caused the worth of the dollar to fall.

These politicians in the Republican and Democrat parties are funded completely by interest groups. The candidates will say whatever it takes to be elected so that they can represent those that funded their election. WOMEN NEED RIGHTS! MINORITIES ARE MISREPRESENTED! THE UNION NEEDS A PAY RAISE!

Remember Obama's "Change" platform... nothing has changed.

These polls are irrelevant. As a woman, I couldn't careless how many women are voting, because I know that that is purely a statistic for the politicians to contemplate as they decide what platform will win them the election.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

05 Oct 2014, 10:47 pm

Ron Paul would destroy this country if he got into power, but I would like to see him debate the major candidates more. Half of his policies are insane, and the other half are too sane for politics.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

05 Oct 2014, 11:43 pm

LKL wrote:
Ron Paul would destroy this country if he got into power, but I would like to see him debate the major candidates more. Half of his policies are insane, and the other half are too sane for politics.


seems like Obama and Bush have a done a fine job destroying this country

someone that actually will follow the constitution, oh the humanity



The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,872
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.

06 Oct 2014, 4:35 pm

What about unmarried men?



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Oct 2014, 7:24 pm

Jacoby wrote:
LKL wrote:
Ron Paul would destroy this country if he got into power, but I would like to see him debate the major candidates more. Half of his policies are insane, and the other half are too sane for politics.


seems like Obama and Bush have a done a fine job destroying this country

someone that actually will follow the constitution, oh the humanity

The constitution was written before we had electricity, antibiotics, or nuclear weapons. Hewing to the letter of the document at this point in time, rather than the intent, would be incredibly destructive as well as forcing us to simply ignore the areas of our lives that the document can't be said to directly touch.

In addition, Paul is pretty damn selective about which parts of the constitution are applied in which circumstances. Does a pregnant woman have a right to privacy (which right, btw, is not actually in the BoR but is interpreted to be there)? Not so much, as far as he is concerned.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Oct 2014, 7:24 pm

The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
What about unmarried men?

apparently not addressed in the study above.



AspieOtaku
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,051
Location: San Jose

07 Oct 2014, 12:38 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tV1m71WT9s0[/youtube]


_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList


Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

08 Oct 2014, 2:35 pm

LKL wrote:
The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
What about unmarried men?

apparently not addressed in the study above.


And exactly why I'm suspicious. Why go into the study with married and unmarried women as different groups, but not the men? Either this is begging the question (because they already know the results) or they split the sample in many ways and picked this split purely because it had significant differences. Which doesn't mean anything from just one study.