Dem
47
GOP
53
We have gotten an avalanche of messages on one of the great surprises of the 2024 election, namely the gender dynamics (which includes the fact that 53% of white women and 40% of Latinas voted for Donald Trump). Some reader thoughts on the subject:
K.X.I. in Malden, NJ, writes: My wife, Caroline, has been devastated by this election result. She's depressed, not sleeping well, having nightmares, and despairing for the future of our country, particularly for women. She grew up in the era of the women's movement, the start of busing, etc., and understands how difficult it has been to create change. Caroline now feels like that movement was set back decades, and that even though we live in a blue state, her daughter may not have the same freedoms she was granted.
Judy is a friend who serves with her on a local commission, and who is a Trump supporter. We've been careful not to let that get in the way of the relationship, and have often gone out together. This week Judy reached out to set a date to take Caroline out to lunch for her birthday. Her text ended with this: "Thank heavens the country voted with common sense!." (Smiley emoji)
Caroline was terribly upset, and didn't know how to respond. But at the same time, this seemed out of character for Judy, who had never seemed like one to rub something like this in one's face. So after a lot of deliberation, she responded with this text: "Maybe you didn't realize that we don't have the same political opinion. This has been an emotional week for me and I prefer not to discuss politics. I don't feel that I would be very good company this week."
Judy almost immediately responded: "Really sorry Caroline. I didn't realize we had different political opinions. Please forgive me. We'll try for lunch when you feel more comfortable." (Face with heart emoji)
So perhaps there really is room for dialog. On the other hand, possibly this is more difficult with men.
Caroline received a call the same day from a very long-time male friend who is also a Trump supporter. He was calling because his wife had seen something Caroline had posted on Facebook that expressed her angst, and he was concerned. But he expressed his concern in a very condescending manner, saying "Everything is going to be fine, you don't have to worry." And he was dismissive of her concerns about the setback in women's rights. He talked about how the "mainstream media" misrepresents everything and lies, and he doesn't pay them any attention. His call to calm her just made her feel that much more despair.
P.B. in Spring Lake, NJ, writes: I think I can understand why some young men voted for Trump, but I don't see how 40+% of women voted for this person found liable for sexual assault and caught on tape bragging about grabbing women by the genitalia. I was brought up and raised my kids that "'no' means 'no'". For these women, I guess no means "maybe" or perhaps "a little further"? I think of this whenever I see a woman in a MAGA hat or t-shirt.
T.C in St. Paul, MN, writes: When I saw the "Julia Roberts Reminds Us" political ad that encouraged women to vote and reminded them their election choice was their private information, I had a different response to it than many other people. I worried that an ad like that might actually have the opposite effect than intended. Instead of encouraging women to vote for Harris, it may have actually discouraged female participation in this year's presidential election. My concern is that male Trump supporters saw that ad and therefore did what they could to prevent their wives or girlfriends from voting altogether. I'd be curious to know if voter turnout among women married to Trump supporters was disproportionally lower compared to 2020.
J.O. in Portsmouth, NH, writes: It pains me to write this, but I think the Democrats would be well served NOT to nominate another woman for a while.
D.S. in Lakewood, OH, writes: I appreciate all that (V) and (Z) and contributors and staff give the Electoral-Vote.com community. I hope you guys manage to continue with the same reasoned analysis you have provided for 20+ years. This will probably be my primary source of news during the coming troubles.
It will be interesting to see what explanation there was for the wild polling misses that herded so many swing states and swing senate races to even (or lean blue) that ended up 5+ points in the red direction.
Postmortem, I have no idea how anyone can put a woman at the top of the ticket knowing that two of the most qualified candidates in history lost to one of the least qualified men in history. And who will ever campaign on truth and facts when blatant lies and outrageous hyperbole do no harm?
B.D.B. in Columbus, OH, writes: After Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 race, a lot of people said that if only she had visited Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, she might have won. We now know that those people are what I would call "idiots." There is no way any woman will win the presidency, at least not in my lifetime (I'm 52). This country is too misogynistic. And yes, I'm saying that the only reason Clinton and Kamala Harris lost to Trump is because they are women. Am I saying that Biden would have done better? No. Not in 2024. But Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) or Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg might have. This country went out of its way to elect a racist baboon rather than elect an eminently qualified female president twice now. What more proof do we need? If Hillary Clinton had won the 2008 Democratic primary, John McCain would have won the presidency. It's as simple as that. A week ago, I was naive enough to think that Harris actually stood a chance. Now I know better.
Clearly, the mindset of a lot of women voters is different from what we, and many readers of the site, imagine it to be. In particular, gender stereotypes die hard, and it may be difficult to imagine and accept that there are many women out there who are just as motivated by anger and resentment as the "angry young men."
Let's give a specific example, Over the past couple of months, we've published a bunch of letters from E.G. in The Villages, FL. And 100% of people who have written in about E.G., and needed to make reference to gender, assumed E.G. is a man. That is not the case, however, she's a woman AND a Latina. And we only published the least vicious of her messages. Some of the unpublished messages are as vitriolic and threatening as the messages we get from Trumpy men.
In any case, we think the last three readers above are correct, and it will be a while before we see another woman nominee. Remember, it is no longer the case that "the party decides," it's the primary voters. And we think it's a pretty good bet that Democratic primary voters, even those who would like to see a woman president, are going to favor male candidates, just for tactical reasons. It's probably more likely, at this point, that the first woman president will be a Republican.
Oh, and one last thing. You won't be hearing from E.G. in The Villages anytime soon... or ever again. First, we're going to aggressively tamp down the negativity on the site for at least the rest of the year. If there is going to be a complaints department in any of the next 7-8 mailbags (and probably beyond), the complaints will have to be substantive criticisms, presented respectfully, and not just ranting and raving. Second, we have become much more aggressive with the mailbag banhammer in the past week, and E.G. is one of the correspondents who have been banned. Her e-mails now go straight into the trash without our ever seeing them. (Z)