Since the 1960s, there has been talk of the “gender gap” – generally meaning that women were disproportionately voting progressive Democrat. It had its antecedents in the left-wing feminist movement of the era – mimicking the Republican suffragette movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s. The issues of the 1960’s movement were “equal pay”, upward mobility, abortion, and the so-called equal rights amendment to the United States Constitution.
In many ways, the analysis of the female vote in the past was bent by partisan bias. In fact, there was no gender gap in 1972, when President Nixon won 62 percent of men and 61 percent of women.
I particularly recall the 1984 presidential election in which former Vice President Walter Mondale selected Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate. Shortly after the announcement, I was on a television program with a representative of the National Organization of Women (NOW) – the leading left-wing feminist organization at the time.
The lady from NOW claimed the selection of Ferraro would be a game-changer, bringing millions of women into the Mondale camp – resulting in the defeat of Reagan. Conversely, I predicted that not only would Reagan win the election, but he would carry the women’s vote. My counterpart scoffed – with a mocking laugh. When the votes were counted, Reagan won 64 percent of men and 55 percent of women.
In more recent years, the gender gap has widened. Pew Research shows Harris with 55 percent of women and Trump at 41 percent – a 14 point gap. YouGov Survey shows 48 percent of women for Harris and 35 percent for Trump – a 13 percent gap. The current gender gap among women has been expanded due to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
It is noteworthy, however, that Harris is holding only approximately half the women voters – nothing near the female vote that went to Nixon and Reagan in 1972 and 1984 respectively. Even as a Black woman presidential candidate, she is not doing remarkably better than President Biden did in 2020. He got 52 percent of the female vote and 48 percent of the male vote.
What we can conclude from the record is that there IS a gap between men and women voters, but it is not nearly as wide and decisive as it is widely portrayed.
So, why the headline about the male voter?
(Obviously, I was “weaving” before getting to the point. In the past we would call it “giving perspective” – and that is a good thing. But now I am weaving and digressing. So, what IS so interesting about the male voter this season?)
The male vote appears to be moving away from the past numbers – and trending toward the Republican candidate. This appears to be the reason for the widening male/female gap as much as the female vote. This trend has been most noted among minority male voters.
It is generally conceded that Trump is doing better among Black voters than most recent Republican candidates – even besting his own previous numbers. He got 8 percent in 2016 and 12 percent in 2020—and is trending at around 16 percent this time, according to a recent Newsweek poll.
In terms of gender, Trump gets about 10 percent of Black women and 25 percent of Black men. Currently, Harris has 85 percent of Black women and 70 percent of Black men. That is lower than Biden received in 2020 – with 91 percent of Black women and 82 percent of Black men. That is a drop for Harris of 6 points among Black women and 12 points among Black Men.
(Isn’t that interesting? A Black woman candidate is doing worse among Black voters, especially Black women voters, than an old white guy – and they both were up against the same Republican, Trump. But I digress … or weave, if you prefer.)
In 2020 Biden got 38 percent of White men, with Trump taking 58 percent. Polling for 2024 show Harris with 38 percent of the White male vote and Trump with 58 percent. So … the male voting shift is largely in the Black and other minority communities.
Why is it that Republicans tend to do well among male voters – and increasingly well among Black male voters?
I would argue (and I am) that it has to do with the radical left-wing feminist influence in the Democratic Party. You know … that influential faction that talks of “toxic male genes” … misogynists … male chauvinist pigs (that’s an old one) … sexist power mongers … etc. … etc. … etc.
Feminist author Ruth Whippman (you cannot make this stuff up) has a new book called “Boy Mom – Reimagining Boyhood in the Age of Impossible Masculinity” She drones on and on about the problems of our male dominated sexist culture. She shares her opinion on what healthy and unhealthy masculinity looks like. (I will give you a clue. Almost everything we currently associate with masculinity is unhealthy, according to Whippman.) Her essential question – as she poses it – is: “Where are we going wrong in how we socialize boys?”
(Ironically, Whippman has three young sons. Made me wonder if God was punishing her or the young boys. But I digress.)
Whippman is typical of the strident anti-male ideology that has metastasized throughout the feminist movement and consequently the Democratic Party.
What we are seeing is the early stages of a movement of men away from political narratives that demonize them as mindless knuckle-dragging ogres, whose only purpose in life is to use and abuse women. That message has had men fleeing from the left-wing, woke, political correctness, strident feminism of the Democratic Party over many years – and the movement is accelerating. It would appear that the “Me Too” women-as-victims movement is not appealing to half the women in America — and increasing numbers of men.
It may be that this under-reported unappreciated underground masculinity movement will have its effect in the 2020 election. Stay tuned.
So, there ‘tis.