90% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats said that they would vote for a woman. The 2015 the total was 92%, 4% lower than the 2019 numbers, which would lead me to believe that that would likely have dropped the R vs D to something in the range of 86% and 93% (though we can’t be certain just from these numbers).
So did Hillary lose because she’s a woman? Did the Patriots lose because they failed to read the Philly Special? Hillary needed to gain a few % points here and there to win the EC. I do think its reasonable to assume that her vagina gave her a few % point hurdle to overcome. Sure, she could have made up the difference by being more charismatics, or debating better, or running a better campaign, etc.
But would merely having been a man made the difference?
Most of you have already made up your mind, but I did at least want to bring up the data.
Having said that, there are all sorts of groups on there that have pretty big hurdles with regard to electability. I was going to say that it pokes a big hole in the myth that we are living in a post racial America, but i think Trump did us a huge favor by flushing the bigots out of the bushes and into the open. The best news is that the trends do show that everything is moving in the right direction.
No, although I would potentially vote for some of the European social democrats who are only marginally center left. I generally lean center right though. Socialist has become a very dirty word in US politics, which is a reflection of how far to the right of the political spectrum US politics as a whole is.
How many people voted for Hillary because she was a woman?
I suspect that her gender was a net positive for her.
Interesting you say that, because my sister and her wife refused to vote for Hillary because she was a woman. They didn’t want to vote against their own interests - MONEY!
I suspect that her gender was a net positive for her.
The same argument was made for Obama, even though the poll questions regarding race showed the opposite to be true, and that he underperformed the rest of his party in the senatorial and congressional elections by 10%, meaning that large numbers of people voted for a Democrat for congress, but chose not to vote for him for President.
How many people voted for Hillary because she was a woman?
I suspect that her gender was a net positive for her.
Interesting you say that, because my sister and her wife refused to vote for Hillary because she was a woman. They didn’t want to vote against their own interests - MONEY!
How is voting for a woman voting against their monetary interests?
I suspect that her gender was a net positive for her.
The same argument was made for Obama, even though the poll questions regarding race showed the opposite to be true, and that he underperformed the rest of his party in the senatorial and congressional elections by 10%, meaning that large numbers of people voted for a Democrat for congress, but chose not to vote for him for President.
Do you base your suspicions on any actual data?
If Obama underperformed relative to Democrats running for other offices at the time, it doesn’t necessarily mean that race was the primary factor.
And, no, I haven’t looked at any data re HRC. It’s just a suspicion (as I said) – She picks up points in groups that value diversity and among women voters at the expense of losing the group that wouldn’t vote for a woman. I suspect (there I go again) that the votes from the first two groups outnumber those from the last.
I suspect that her gender was a net positive for her.
The same argument was made for Obama, even though the poll questions regarding race showed the opposite to be true, and that he underperformed the rest of his party in the senatorial and congressional elections by 10%, meaning that large numbers of people voted for a Democrat for congress, but chose not to vote for him for President.
Do you base your suspicions on any actual data?
If Obama underperformed relative to Democrats running for other offices at the time, it doesn’t necessarily mean that race was the primary factor.
And, no, I haven’t looked at any data re HRC. It’s just a suspicion (as I said) – She picks up points in groups that value diversity and among women voters at the expense of losing the group that wouldn’t vote for a woman. I suspect (there I go again) that the votes from the first two groups outnumber those from the last.
The demographics are all pretty stable except whites have moved to the Republicans over recent years while they have become a smaller portion of the electorate. Asians have also moved towards the Democrats but are a much smaller portions of the voters.
Interesting numbers. Thanks. But, I don’t see how you came to your conclusion. Please explain.
You can also throw in 2000, another close election.
I’m making some broad ass assumptions.
Look at each demographic. They are very very close across each election. Like I said in the second post with this, the only real change is white voters have moved more towards the GOP and their share of the electorate has gotten smaller.
If people were voting for or against Obama because he was black or Clinton because she was a woman I would expect movement in specific demographics (men/women or white/black) that are specific to that election. And it doesn’t show up at all.
Interesting numbers. Thanks. But, I don’t see how you came to your conclusion. Please explain.
You can also throw in 2000, another close election.
I’m making some broad ass assumptions.
Look at each demographic. They are very very close across each election. Like I said in the second post with this, the only real change is white voters have moved more towards the GOP and their share of the electorate has gotten smaller.
If people were voting for or against Obama because he was black or Clinton because she was a woman I would expect movement in specific demographics (men/women or white/black) that are specific to that election. And it doesn’t show up at all.
I think I follow you – e.g. 54% women voted HRC; 55% women voted Obama. But, that seems like a pretty tenuous conclusion to draw. I don’t think that Obama is a very good male Hillary proxy, nor Hillary is a very good white Obama-proxy.
I said it before and will say it again - I would have voted for 2008 Hillary over Trump because I truly believed 2008 Hillary would be a 3rd term for Bill Clinton. Personal failings aside, I have said, and maintain, Bill was a good President. But 2016 Hillary was an entirely different person. Something happened to her. She went full on cray-cray criminal. So, I could not vote for her in 2016 (but also did not vote for Trump and fully expected Trump to lose).
If Obama underperformed relative to Democrats running for other offices at the time, it doesn’t necessarily mean that race was the primary factor.
Race was a primary factor for SOME people as determined by polling data, and where it was, the net effect was against him for being black.
While I agree that underperforming compared to congressional races by a margin of 10% does not mean that they voted against him because he’s black, but it sure does make it difficult to argue that being black helped him, which was the point that I made.
Interesting numbers. Thanks. But, I don’t see how you came to your conclusion. Please explain.
You can also throw in 2000, another close election.
I’m making some broad ass assumptions.
Look at each demographic. They are very very close across each election. Like I said in the second post with this, the only real change is white voters have moved more towards the GOP and their share of the electorate has gotten smaller.
If people were voting for or against Obama because he was black or Clinton because she was a woman I would expect movement in specific demographics (men/women or white/black) that are specific to that election. And it doesn’t show up at all.
I think I follow you – e.g. 54% women voted HRC; 55% women voted Obama. But, that seems like a pretty tenuous conclusion to draw. I don’t think that Obama is a very good male Hillary proxy, nor Hillary is a very good white Obama-proxy.
That’s why I find 2000 (or 2004) helpful.
There has been a general trend of whites towards the GOP. That seems like a steady trend and not a spike because of Obama and Clinton.
I am not aware of any polling that is on point for either question.
If Obama underperformed relative to Democrats running for other offices at the time, it doesn’t necessarily mean that race was the primary factor.
Race was a primary factor for SOME people as determined by polling data, and where it was, the net effect was against him for being black.
While I agree that underperforming compared to congressional races by a margin of 10% does not mean that they voted against him because he’s black, but it sure does make it difficult to argue that being black helped him, which was the point that I made.
I think you’d have to compare all black democrat officials running then vs their white counterparts to reach that conclusion. And, even then you’d have the deal with the demographic makeup of each of each official’s constituency.
Comparing Obama’s presidential voting stats to congress’ is pretty weak to even form a correlation, let alone causation. E.g., factors such as his perceived inexperience or political platform could swamp any detectable effect from race.
‘Would you vote for a man?’ wasn’t one of the questions. I’d bet you’d find 5% of the population who wouldn’t vote for a man.
1000 people polled and that’s the basis of your ‘glass ceiling’ argument? Nevermind that if Hillary weren’t such a shitbum candidate we’d have a female president RIGHT NOW. Nevermind that a woman being president in no way proves nor disproves the existence of a glass ceiling.
