But it seems fair to say that, if Trump loses the election, it will be because women voted against him.

I'm slowly starting to see what it feels like to be lumped into a demographic. Between this, "locker room talk", and "mansplaining", I'd really like us to find a less socially coercive version of the concept of "gentlemen" that we could use to split the monolithic "men" into at least two groups. Or whatever term you want. I'm probably a little biased here. "Unconventionally sensitive XYs." Whatever.

Let's look at Nate Silver's numbers:

nate's numbers

For heaven's sake, Nate, there are three polls with men voting for Clinton ahead of Trump. Overall, it's a five point swing average. I guess that means Trump 40% and Clinton 35% or therebouts, with 25% undecided or 3rd partied, just to throw a dart at the wall.

That means 7/8th as many men are voting for Clinton as Trump according to Silver's numbers. That's a crudload of XYs.

Further, it'd be in spite of 40% of women voting for a major party voting for Trump. (I'm trying to stay reasonably impartial in my presentation here, but wow. Just wow.)

In other words, If Trump loses the election, it's not because men voted for him. It's not because women voted against him. It's because the country voted against him, and he lost. And vice versa if Clinton loses.

If you wanted to say what Silver tried with more skill, it'd be to say, "If Trump loses the election, it's because his lead with men was larger than Clinton's lead with women."

Stop normalizing me, dang it. Every American without two X chromosomes isn't voting for Trump, and, strangely enough, everyone with isn't voting for Clinton.

Labels: , ,