[Marxism] Election breakdown by gender, race, region

[Ralph Johansen <michele@xxxxxxxx>]

Fwd from
Ms. Jen McWeeny
Instructor
Department of Philosophy
John Carroll University
20700 North Park Blvd.
University Heights, OH 44118
Phone: (216) 397-4783
Fax: (216) 397-1738

....until we understand how gender, race, and class and religion
intersect we continue to misunderstand why we have someone like
Bush in office.

In addition, it is interesting to note how the Democratic
Party was feminized in the last election.  Schwarzenegger
specifically criticized the Democrats for practicing "girly
economics" and by association too, it was implied that
Democrats wage war like girls (i.e. they let things such as
compassion and morality interfere with world dominance and
killing).  It seems that when the vulnerability and
relationality of the US nation is exposed, citizens respond
by failing to acknowledge this vulnerability and increasing
the nation's masculinity.  After Vietnam, we needed icons
like Rambo and Reagan.  After 9/11, we get Schwarzeneger and
Bush.  Does having leaders who cater to "take no prisoners"
ideals of masculinity make us feel more secure in this life
that is essentially relational and unstable?
Best,
Jen

---- Original message ----

> > Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:13:42 -0500
> > From: Charles Johnson <cwj2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re:"the common man"
> >
> > Jen McWeeny wrote:
> > |
> > | Since there has been so much discussion... does anyone have any
> > | information on how and whether "the common woman" voted in
> > | this last election.  After all, "the common man," if he is
> > | measured by income, is more likely to be a woman, because
> > | impoverished and working-class lives are not distributed
> > | equally with regard to gender in this country or elsewhere
> > | for that matter.
> > | Jen McWeen
>
> Thanks for raising the question. Part of the reason that I posted these numbers is because I hoped to open up a 
> conversation on what phrases like "the common man" and "the American working class" and so on 
> actually mean. And gender is a big part of the equation: way too many middle-class and upper-class Leftists project a 
> picture of the white working-class man (although it's *still* an inaccurate picture) when they start to discuss the 
> "working class" or "the common man" [sic]. But of course, in fact, white men are a minority of the 
> working class; women are a substantial majority (and of working-class men a disproportionate number are men of color). 
> Until we get it through our heads once and for all that women are the majority of the working class, we're going to get 
> a lot of things wrong
That said, here's the numbers that I have available for voting and gender, from 
CNN's exit polls

(http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html). 
Unfortunately I don't have access to the data set at the moment, and no-one 
seems to have thought of breaking out statistics for vote by income and gender. 
What we do have is this: Bush won the male vote 55%-44% nation-wide and lost 
the female vote 48%-51%.

Men were 46% of the electorate and women 54%, but Bush won over men by more 
than he lost women -- thus eking out his popular vote win.

Sorted out by race, Bush beat Kerry in a landslide among white men (62%-37%) 
and actually also won the vote amongst white women (55%-44%). Bush lost 
decisively among non-white men (30%-67%), and even more so -- by a 3-to-1 
margin -- among non-white women (24%-75%).

So both on aggregate and when accounting for race, the gender gap consistently 
comes out to about 6-7 points.

In the East, Bush lost both the male (45%-53%) and the female (42%-57%), with a 
3-4 point gender gap.

In the Midwest, Bush won the male vote (55%-44%) and lost the female vote 
(48%-51%), with a 7-point gender gap.

In the South, Bush won both the male (62%-37%) and female (54%-46%) vote, with 
a 8-9 point gender gap.

In the West, Bush won the male vote (54%-44%) and lost the female vote 
(45%-54%), again with
a big 9-10 point gender gap.

There's a lot more numbers to be crunched--in terms of turnout and shifts from 
2000 and the like --
but for now I'm already statisticked out for the night. Hope this helps.

Cheers,
-C


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism