November 6, 2012

Gender Gap 8 points, but Marriage Gap 21 points

It appears that some massaging of the exit poll data is being done as the hours go by, perhaps to make it line up more with fairly close actual vote totals. In any case, here's the latest from NBC website, which has far more exit polls questions than CNN or some of the other sites. As usual, NBC has the Gender Gap as the 1st question displayed:

Gender

CategoryObamaRomney% Total
Male455247
Female554453

while the Marriage Gap is the 62nd question:

Are you currently married?

CategoryObamaRomney% Total
Yes425660
No623540

Gender by marital status

CategoryObamaRomney% Total
Married men386029
Married women465331
Not married men564018
Not married women673123

Do you have any children under 18 living in your home?

CategoryObamaRomney% Total
Yes514736
No504764

Married with children

CategoryObamaRomney% Total
Married with children455427
All others534573

Parents

CategoryObamaRomney% Total
Men with children455316
Women with children564320
Men without children475030
Women without children544534

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Incredible: Al and Peggy Bundy would have voted for Mitt Romney, while Kelly and Bud would have cancelled out their vote.

Anonymous said...

Hope this isn't too OT, but just now found the courage to watch Mitt's concession speech. It was so very gracious. Sorry, but just don't think the other guy is his match in any way, not in intellect, not in capacity to work, not the ability to work in a bi-partisan fashion, and certainly not in the "good man" category, and as I watch his speech and his reference to work and to family, I thought of the posts you have put up here, which I saw earlier, about the demographics of single versus married, and I thought of single with children and married with children, and looking at Mitt and his brood and his obvious happiness with his brood, I found myself longing for an America that truly doesn't exist any more, with family as its basis.
Oh, yes, Obama has very nice family as well, that's not my complaint. My complaint is that his policies and those of the Dems do everything imaginable to keep people from forming families that give security to children, a mom AND a dad, and they do everything imaginable to make me keep paying for such dysfunction.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1952378563001/

Anonymous said...

I know too many thirty something guys with college educations who are still not married and would be in the Obama demographic. They don't see what awaits them once they do get married and have even one kid.

Anonymous said...

I really wanted a Father Knows Best Robert Young kind of guy as POTUS, one with a temperament that liked working with people of different points of view. I would have liked to see just how he and Ryan would have worked together and how they would have tackled things. Won't get that chance. I think the country missed out on something, I really do. While Mitt's strengths have been as a businessman and a behind the scenes leader, I have seen him grow in a capacity to connect with people, and I really began to think that while he'd never be called a consummate pol, I thought he actually might have been the right man for the right time. This guy certainly isn't. He hasn't the temperament to forge alliances with anybody, not even demonstrating an ability to work with people in his own party. He didn't campaign for them and gave them no money either. I have a friend who knows a Freinstein aide very well. The senator doesn't think much of him at all, dislikes him, in fact. Reason: won't work with anyone.

Wow. The country is just so divided about what this country is even about that it scares the bejesus out of me. The only thing I take a bit of heart in is in the huge numbers of young people of college age I saw in Mitt's crowds in Colorado and Ohio--huge and devoted and young. They seem to know something.

Whiskey said...

Steve, you're missing the point.

The Gender Gap, at 8 points, shows men more than women like Romney, Generic Republican. While Married women like him even more by 21 points.

However ... most women are unmarried. Being more dutiful (marriage is a marker not a creator of responsibility), married out-vote the non-married. But even so, if I read them right, the exit polls have 40% of women voting not married. Duh.

When 40% of your female voters are basically Sandra Fluke, its all over.

America is ruled by Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Lesbians, and urban sluts. There's a winner.

Anonymous said...

" I think the country missed out on something, I really do."

Yeah, saving itself.

Anonymous said...

The marriage and gender gaps just seem to correlate with one's sense of financial independence. Married men > married women > single men > single women.

Professor Woland said...

Steve,
The $64,000 question is why there is no organized men's movement as a counter weight to the women's movement and what would electoral politics would look like if there was. It will have a powerful effect gender gap and bring the two sexes into the state of equilibrium. Next to white people, men are the only other single demographic that does not have a lobby, and as such, it should be no surprise that we get pissed on like fire hydrants. Once men start to effectively promote their interests there will be consequences for women's bad behavior.
A prime example of this is medical care. Women use 31 -41% more health care than men throughout their entire lives and they out live men by roughly 5 years. Since they are so keen on ObamaCare and equality, force their hand by demanding a Title IX solution by requiring 50% of all health care dollars go towards men. Also, we kept hearing about women's lack of access to birth control this election. Of course we did not hear anything about men's access either, primarily because it does not exist yet. Ironically, we are probably only a couple of years away from several male fertility treatments but because of the lack of funding the research is being done outside the country in Israel and India. If for every dollar we spent on the Sandra Fluke's of the world we spent the same on developing a male pill the feminists would probably not be so eager to use it as a wedge issue.
Gay marriage is another example. Liberals enjoy attacking religious conservatives by painting them as bigots for opposing gay marriage but do not say a peep over the obsolescence of the straight marriage contract. Nothing could be more progressive than to end the slavery of lifetime alimony or require shared equal parenting for awarding custody. Women are filing roughly 70% of the divorces. One of the prime reasons they do is that they are usually quite confident they will end up with custody and more money than they started with. Just start telling women they have to split the baby down the middle and you will see the number of divorces plummet. While not explicitly Republican or "conservative" by nature, these ideas will be Pro-Patriarchal and hence, anti-feminist and anti-Democratic.

youngreact said...

The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves over universal suffrage - a sentiment they would find as plausible as men from Pluto.

Anonymous said...

Professor Woland

Women need birth control because without it men won't marry us

If I had a dime for every time I've heard a boyfriend say "I had to force my girl to go on the pill"

Liberal women fuck men in hopes one will be lazy (or honest) enough to stay with her. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Steve, you do realize that this anti-woman sentiment ala Heartsy/Roissy is being planted on these blogs for a reason right?

I feel really bad for my liberal female friends....they are all married but it took 6+ years of fucking a guy before he got guilty enough to propose. Of course these women support Planned Parenthood! Planned Parenthood was their real husband for 6 years while the men tried to make up their minds!

Anonymous said...

"you do realize that this anti-woman sentiment"

Zzzzzzz.

Anonymous said...

Professor W, I'm not sure why you are wondering about the absence of a NASA moonshot project to develop the, uh, male pill... Please don't play into harmful stereotypes of frumpy absent-minded college faculty

AMac said...

No time for a long comment (kids to school then back to looking for work), but Steve's 10/29/12 polling data infographic maps very well to the Single/Married M/F data he presents here.

Raw numbers below; recall that Steve's 10/29 poll percentages are "Romney/(Romney+Obama)" rather than
"Romney/(total vote)" for today's exit poll numbers.

53% - 11/7 Married F (all races)
55% - 10/29 Married F (all races)
63% - 10/29 Married F (white)

31% - 11/7 Not-married F (all races)
32% - 10/29 Single F (all races)
44% - 10/29 Single F (white)

60% - 11/7 Married M (all races)
59% - 10/29 Married M (all races)
67% - 10/29 Married M (white)

40% - 11/7 Not-married M (all races)
42% - 10/29 Single M (all races)
52% - 10/29 Single M (white)

So Steve's 10/29 estimates of the huge white marriage gap seem to have held up.

A demographic observation with a great deal of explanatory power. As far as I can see, a dog that doesn't bark in this morning's MSM. Antonio Gramsci scores again.

Mitch James said...

Well, once again it is the naïveté of women and union workers who cost the election.

We could afford such foolishness during times of unprecedented prosperity, but these people are going to have to do a better job of thinking, if they haven't fucked things up beyond repair at this point.

Women- does the party in favor of mass immigration promote more or less sexism, rape, and misogyny overall by increasing the proportion of Hispanics and Blacks in this country? How about Muslims? I know your professors pretend whites are depraved, evil vampires, but close the study notes and look around at reality once and a while. What kind of world do you leave to your daughters? If you care about your sons, what kind of world do you leave to them, when they are an increasingly persecuted minority under the left?

Gays-Much like the notes for women, except for the having kids part at the end, the pertinent question for you is whether a browner and more Muslim America is less tolerant, particularly violently less tolerant than a lily white America. Whites may look at gays at times with disgust, but the other groups are virulently against you.

Union workers- what good is that overpaid job and pension going to be, when you drive the company you work for bankrupt? What good will any job be if you keep voting for a party that takes more and more of what you earn and transfers it to others, then takes what you have left and inflates it away to nothing through their endless printing sprees? Is the short term gain of supporting your union bosses whims worth the long term cost of the destruction of the country, and the impact of making your race a minority in a world driven mad with genocidal hatred toward you? If you think it will hit down the road so not impacting you, who will pay your social security and medicare benefits when you are older? Will a minority dominant young workforce in America pay for the benefits of an old, retired white America? What of the world left to your children?

For all who voted for four more years of BO in congress, what do you think will happen to a world increasingly under the foot of China? They do not have the foggy, Eloi mushiness in thinking and acting that restrains America. They will do whatever is in their best interest, tear the earth to ruination for the slightest benefit, persecute racial minorities to extinction, and will not hesitate in the slightest, once they have the advantage, to do whatever it takes to keep that advantage over you. It will not be a healthy competition where everyone plays fair and if you work hard, you have a chance to catch up as a nation or people. How do I know? Look at what they've been doing for decades.



Charles Smith said...

"...looking at Mitt and his brood and his obvious happiness with his brood, I found myself longing for an America that truly doesn't exist any more, with family as its basis.
Oh, yes, Obama has very nice family as well, that's not my complaint. My complaint is that his policies and those of the Dems do everything imaginable to keep people from forming families that give security to children, a mom AND a dad, and they do everything imaginable to make me keep paying for such dysfunction."

His policies do everything to keep YOUR people from forming families and giving security to YOUR children...

Anonymous said...

To what extent is the "marriage gap" explained by other correlated variables like income, age, and race?

bleach said...

To think, Whiskey was right all these years!

Anonymous said...

Oh, yes, Obama has very nice family as well, that's not my complaint. My complaint is that his policies and those of the Dems do everything imaginable to keep people from forming families that give security to children, a mom AND a dad, and they do everything imaginable to make me keep paying for such dysfunction.

Making family formation harder means the unfit have fewer kids and more unsatisfying lives. Meanwhile those who are tougher and make it as married have more kids. Darwinism anyone?

Anonymous said...

"The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves over universal suffrage"

People vote according to what they are told by the media. Media is controlled by a handful of elites.

Prof. Woland said...

Anonymous #1,

A MBCP will be for men not women. Your girl friends don’t have to like it. You made my point however; the more personal power men have relative to women, the more leverage they will have politically and vice versa. If women want men’s money they will actually have to add some benefit and not just get free prizes for showing up like now. But because men have failed to organize, in essence, they have failed to show up.

Anonymous #2,

I just use the MBCP as one example. There is no silver bullet. By its self, it won’t change things as much as women gaining reproductive control of their bodies and what change there is will be slow. I personally think that using DNA to positively attribute fatherhood will have an even greater impact in the long run and we are already well under way.

AMac said...

@ Anonymous 6:59 AM --

"Making family formation harder means the unfit have fewer kids and more unsatisfying lives. Meanwhile those who are tougher and make it as married have more kids. Darwinism anyone?"

Darwinism concerns survival of the fittest to reproductive age (etc.). You would have a point, if. That is, if the unmarried were having fewer children, or if the children of the unmarried were unable to have children of their own.

The trend to unaffordable family formation means neither of those things, for the US as a whole.

Anonymous said...

"The $64,000 question is why there is no organized men's movement as a counter weight to the women's movement"

Actually, I think a more successful organized movement ought to be the marrieds versus the singles or the families (spouses with kids) versus the singles with kids.

Every married couple who has agonized over whether they can actually afford to have a second or a third child and still pay the mortgage and plan for educations, should be attacking the bitches and bastards who have the kids and pry tax dollars from the marrieds to pay for their bastard children.

Of course, they'd have to leave the words "bastard children" out of their argument but they ought to try this w/out using the church as their proxy. After all, isn't this, for the most part, the Christian churches have been trying to say, albeit badly?

Anonymous said...

Looking at the "Gender by marital status", I see that there are a lot more unmarried women than unmarried men, and to a lesser extent, more married women than married men.


Was the electorate really lopsidedly female?

Anonymous said...

The real "gender gap" is that so many more women than men voted. What's that all about? It can't be the case that there are that many more women than men in the country.

Anonymous said...

Whiskey - "most women are unmarried."

It's irrelevant for our purposes whether most women are married or unmarried. What matters is women voters. Most women voters are married.

When 40% of your female voters are basically Sandra Fluke, its all over

But for some strange reason, you're very comfortable with nearly 40% of male voters being Sandra Flukes. Care to explain that discrepancy?

Jehu said...

The reason there is no significant men's movements is this:
An awful lot of men are under this insane delusion that being deferential to women will get them laid more often.

Davani said...

1) In the United States, there is currently a record number of single people. Married couples, on the other hand, are at a record low.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/married-couples-at-a-record-low/2011/12/13/gIQAnJyYsO_story.html

2) More Americans than ever before are living alone. Fully 50% in big cities! This is a remarkable statistic. Watch the interview on PBS:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/social_issues/jan-june12/goingsolo_03-27.html

For the purposes of this discussion, let's not go into the "why's" of this social phenomenon -- they are complex, and oftentimes, beyond people's control. What's important is that the phenomenon itself is undeniable and inexorable.

My point? If you frame your entire campaign around "family" and "family values," you are not exactly connecting with today's majority of voters, who are single and living alone. You are alienating more than 50% of the current US population. Your conservative talking points about marriage and religion are falling on the deaf ears of an increasingly urban and single population.

Did you read the statistic that today's young people couldn't care less about cars, unlike previous generations? That's because they are increasingly living in urban places which are ideal for single life.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/04/how-do-you-sell-a-car-to-a-millennial/255415/

Republicans need to adapt. They can't live in the bubble of marriage and conservative family values, they need to offer an agenda for single urbanites too, which is an ever-increasing bloc in America.

Anonyia said...

"Making family formation harder means the unfit have fewer kids and more unsatisfying lives. Meanwhile those who are tougher and make it as married have more kids. Darwinism anyone?"

The intelligent people most sensitive to giving their children a good life in light of limited resources will have none or few children. Meanwhile hispanics, blacks, trashy white single mothers, and the kooky, dimmer segment of the religious population pop out maladjusted children regardless of the consequences. Such a fine example of Darwinism indeed.

Pooter Joe said...

"The $64,000 question is why there is no organized men's movement as a counter weight to the women's movement"

There is- its called the Republican party.

Anonymous said...

Take heart Steve. Media figures are starting to pick up on your point that the "Gender Gap" is really the "Marriage Gap". Bill O'Reilly had Bob Beckel (a Democratic operative who is a Fox contributor) on his show tonight doing a post mortem on the election. He repeatedly challenged Beckel to explain why a married 32 year old woman was a likely Romney voter while a 32 year old single woman was more apt to be an Obama supporter. Beckel was wise enough not to take the bait and give the reasons he and everybody else knows to be the case, and he mumbled something about "demographics". Amusing.