The dramatic difference between the women & men's vote in 2016 U.S. Election

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MadeTheSwitch, Oct 11, 2016.

  1. MadeTheSwitch macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #1
    Wow. 538 has done some number crunching by gender and the data is pretty stunning. All I have to say is thank goodness for women because apparently men are largely dumb creatures much to my dismay. :(

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-women-are-defeating-donald-trump/


    image.png


    image.png
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
  3. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #3
    Oregon and Washington too.

    We're all a bunch of Hillary puppets with no critical thinking capacity.

    oh......wait.....
     
  4. MadeTheSwitch thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #4
    I am kind of surprised the women of Utah still go for the guy with the potty mouth.
     
  5. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #5
    Social issues? I dunno. I think you and I disagreed once on my having said the Mormons wouldn't go for Trump because they were sensitive to having been persecuted for their religion in the USA earlier in our history. Anyway looks like I lost that bet! This looks like maybe they just don't want a lefty in the White House. And won't go for McMullin after all...

    Boy I bet Reince Priebus really shudders at the blue map, it's almost as good as the nightmarish one of his current internal polls, where everyone votes but it's still mostly blue when done.

    Good on Five Thirty Eight, that took some data crunching. I'm a little surprised at the blue map southeast coastal states, but it's nice. This is what can happen when you let women learn to read, and vote.

    For the nth time I will never understand why the GOP let this happen.
     
  6. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #6
    They spent years convincing their base to fear government and trust big business.
     
  7. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #7
    That's actually what has happened, isn't it. It's not only racism, xenophobia and etc. It's about bullfeathers and broken promises. Both parties, really, to both sets of used and ignored constituencies. It's going to be a bumpy ride trying to make things better for urban and rural populations that have been played for a long time and finally have got up from left and right both and tried to say "no more."

    Clinton winning is not going to fix that. Both parties have to pay. I still think Clinton has a better chance to nudge things in the direction of the country's interests than does Trump. There are people on both ends of the spectrum expecting something good to happen. Between Clinton and a possibly somewhat chastened Congress, something good better happen. This is why I think Clinton's already been working through Dem surrogates in the House on the budget. We need to back off from this sort of tinderboxy feeling that has got stirred up. Things are not as bad as Trump portrays them but what is wrong is not as easy to fix as he or Clinton have suggested.
     
  8. Populism macrumors regular

    Populism

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2014
    #8
    They're sexist.
     
  9. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    Being from Utah I'm actually surprised as well. People are very anti-Hillary, but this Trump business has just about everyone I know bothered. I won't be shocked if 3rd party has their biggest showing ever in Utah this year.

    I'm not living in Utah anymore, but my wife and I won't be voting for either of them (Hillary or Trump) this year.
     
  10. yaxomoxay macrumors 68000

    yaxomoxay

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Location:
    Texas
    #10
    this graph is very good news for clinton camp
     
  11. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #11
    Thank goodness for Tennessee.

    Why Tennessee? If it weren't for the one senator from there who read and listened to the note his grandmother sent to him on the senate floor asking him to vote yes so she could vote for the only time in her life, we wouldn't have the 19th Amendment, as Tennessee was the last state to ratify it.

    BL.
     
  12. MadeTheSwitch thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #12
    I am sure it would have happened otherwise. Women wouldn't still be sitting around waiting for the right to vote I don't think. But point noted. Unfortunately that bit of history doesn't change the outcome of Tennessee today it would seem. :(
     
  13. WarHeadz macrumors 6502a

    WarHeadz

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2015
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    Nice, I live in a state where most men aren't dumb.

    Shout out to all the Ovarian Americans who will prevent a Trump presidency!
     
  14. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #14
    If that ratification hadn't happened, women would not have the vote, leading to those statistics that 538 mentioned. And seeing that that is a lot of the population, we men should cringe when the day comes that the women outnumber the men in this country.
    But then again in certain cases, maybe not. ;)

    BL.
     
  15. MadeTheSwitch thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #15
    Do you really think that if it hadn't been ratified then, that women would be just cooling their jets and still not have the vote nearly 100 years later?
     
  16. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #16
    Unknown. But keeping in mind that there is an amendment that was proposed back in 1789 that is still up for ratification.

    Subsequently, the 27th amendment was also proposed in 1789. It was ratified in 1992.

    BL.
     
  17. MadeTheSwitch thread starter macrumors 6502a

    MadeTheSwitch

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2009
    #17
    I don't think women would have put up with that nonsense all these years. Particularly when other western countries moved forward on the issue, some even before us. I can't see women tolerating that situation for even a decade more back then, much less almost a century longer.
     
  18. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #18
    I would hope not..

    but keep in mind that it took 89 years to realize that Blacks were people, not property..

    We're still dealing with Native Americans being 'merciless Indian Savages', per the Declaration of Independence...

    It took just as long after the Revolutionary War up to World War I for women to get the vote in the UK.

    Sucks, but as Metallica said, Sad but True. :(

    BL.
     
  19. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #19
    It's as well to remember that all men only got the same right of universal suffrage at the same election ( 1919 with the removal of the property ownership restriction ) and 25% of woman still didn't have the right to vote for another ten years ( the age restriction).
     
  20. Scepticalscribe, Oct 12, 2016
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2016

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #20
    Fascinating. I hadn't known that story.

    I have been reading this exchange with interest.

    While I agree with @MadeTheSwitch that women wouldn't have waited a century, @bradl also has a point.

    France didn't grant women the vote until after the Second World War, and as @Peterkro, below, correctly points out, it wasn't until after the First World War in the UK that the suffrage was extended fully and unconditionally to all men (property restrictions had applied prior to that) and all women (an age restriction applied until 1929 - the assumption being that young flipperty-gibbets would be too air-headed to be trusted with the responsibility of being able to exercise the franchise).

    However, while women might not have received the full franchise in the US in 1920, had Tennessee not ratified the amendment (and it is a lovely story, @bradl), I cannot envisage any situation where the US had not granted women the the right to exercise the franchise by the outbreak of World War 2.

    Moreover, certainly, in the immediate post war period, attempting to argue such a position - as a democracy - would have cost the US a lot of mortal authority and political leadership (internationally), not least because by then hardly any other democracy denied women the franchise.

    Excellent point and post.
     
  21. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #21
    McMullin polling within the margin of error. Good chance Trump comes in third there.

    [​IMG]
     
  22. twietee macrumors 603

    twietee

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2012
    #22
    Let's hope so, because 26% reads like way too much for me. What's up in Utah?

    But I wouldn't trust this poll anyway. way to biased - putting in Trump second when he as just as much % as Hillary? C'mon now!
     
  23. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #23
    My post contained my usual sloppiness the election of course was 1918 although the government took power in 1919.It was also the election which saw the first female MP elected ( Countess Markievicz nee Gore-Booth was elected for Sinn Fein although as with all Sinn Fein MPs she did not take her seat.The usual answer to the first woman MP is that of the repulsive Lady Astor which is wrong).
     
  24. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #24
    Cough.

    I spotted that but decided not to correct you (although I am usually insanely pedantic about such things). But well done.

    And yes, Countess Markiewicz was elected to the House of Commons, declined to take her seat, and was appointed Minister for Labour in the revolutionary Irish Parliament (the First Dáil) which broke away from Westminster.

    However, the state which grew out of the Irish revolution, a conservative Catholic Ireland, didn't appoint another female Government Minister until 1979, 60 years after Countess Markiewicz had been appointed to Cabinet rank.
     
  25. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #25
    Yes well we all know the colossal F up that the free-staters created.1918 should be burnt on my brain cells because that election is the legal basis for a 32 county Ireland (yet to be achieved).
     

Share This Page