MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Trump Effect: White Men Stand Alone?

A new poll shows white women souring on the GOP.

Erin Scott/Polaris/NewscomErin Scott/Polaris/NewscomWhite women are souring on the Republican Party, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, leaving white men alone as a pro-GOP voting block.

An early measure of voter mood going into the midterm elections, the poll asked whether people were more likely to vote for Democratic or Republican congressional candidates this November.

Democrats were the preferred choice overall, earning a 12-point lead over Republicans among registered voters and a 14-point lead among respondents who said they would definitely vote this fall. The "Democrats' 12 percentage-point advantage on this 'generic ballot' question is the largest in Post-ABC polling since 2006," notes Post pollster Scott Clement.

Republican candidates did come out on top among male respondents: 51 of all the men surveyed and 48 percent of male registered voters said they would vote GOP in the midterms. The GOP was also the preferred choice among white voters overall, with 48 percent saying they favored Republican candidates and 43 percent backing Democrats.

Meanwhile, just 19 percent of nonwhite voters told pollsters they would vote Republican. Sixty-nine percent said they'd vote Democrat.

That much looks a lot like what we saw in the 2016 election, when voters of color overwhelmingly backed Hillary Clinton and when Trump was tops with white voters. According to exit polls, about 58 percent of (non-Hispanic) white voters supported Trump, while 66 percent of Hispanic voters and 88 percent of black voters chose Clinton; among black female voters, Clinton's support jumped to 93 percent.

Men were also more likely to be Trump voters (53 percent to 41 percent) in 2016, while women were more likely to support Clinton (54 percent to 42 percent). But nonwhite men voted more like their nonwhite female counterparts than like white men, and white women voted more like white men than like their female counterparts of color.

According to exit polls, some 53 percent of white women who voted in the 2016 presidential election chose Trump, giving him a nine-point lead over Clinton with this cohort. White women were also more likely to choose Republican candidates in the 2014 midterm elections, by 14 points.

This latest survey marks a change. White female voters now poll more like women (and men) of color than like white men.

Among registered voters, the poll showed white women preferring Democrats by a 12-point lead. Some 50 percent said they would vote Democrat in the 2018 midterms, with only 38 percent preferring GOP candidates.

Non-white female voters preferred Democrats by a 53-point margin.

Overall, 64 percent of all women polled preferred Democrats (up from 55 percent in fall 2017), with 29 percent preferring Republicans. The score was 57–31 in Democrats' favor when we consider only women who are registered voters. And two-thirds of this group said they "strongly disapprove" of Trump's presidential performance so far.

The only group in the survey to overwhelmingly support the GOP was white men. Among the registered white, male voters surveyed, 58 percent said they would vote Republican in the 2018 midterm elections and only 34 percent said they would vote Democrat.

It seems the "Trump effect" on electoral politics so far has been to push white women away from the Republican Party and further isolate white men's voting preferences.

The poll was conducted January 15–18, 2018, and it included 1,005 American adults, 846 of which were registered voters. Overall, 31 percent identified as Democrat, 23 percent as Republican, and 40 percent as independent. Independents were more likely to support Democratic candidates (50 percent) than Republicans (34 percent).

Photo Credit: Erin Scott/Polaris/Newscom

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    White women: not totally evil.

  • Libertymike||

    The question Senator Corey Booker and his 2020 campaign will ask, over and over:

    WHERE THE WHITE WOMEN AT?

  • Kivlor||

  • Rebel Scum||

    That question always makes me think of this despite its origin

    It makes me think of broken links.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Congrats, Tulpa, you got the first three comments!

  • Hugh Akston||

    Meanwhile, just 19 percent of nonwhite voters told pollsters they would vote Republican. Sixty-nine percent said they'd vote Democrat.

    Appealing to paranoid white xenophobes by cracking down on immigration, kneecapping foreign trade, and generally acting like belligerent assholes to the rest of the world is definitely a winning strategy for Team Red going forward.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    This, I mean it worked against Hillary but she was literally worse Hitler.

  • Rhywun||

    I hope you didn't throw out your backpack with the little Canadian flag patch after The One was elected and made the world love us for eight years.

  • Trollificus||

    Didn't they give Obama another Nobel for STILL NOT BEING GWB?

  • ||

    It's a good thing other countries love him, because outside of Toronto/Ottawa, there are a huge amount that detest him.

  • ||

    cracking down on immigration, kneecapping foreign trade, and generally acting like belligerent assholes to the rest of the world is definitely a winning strategy

    It seems to have worked for Jong Un, Putin, Assad, Chavez & Maduro, and Khameini and Rouhani. I mean the worst thing that happens is the whiny undesirable-haters flee across open borders to places with better welfare states and then bitch about ethnic nationalism there.

    "Talk to anybody of color who tried to make it playing hockey up there [in Canada]. Those are still white people up there. Just because they're on the other side of the invisible line doesn't mean they aren't gonna act... like white people."

  • Zeb||

    It seems to have worked for Jong Un, Putin, Assad, Chavez & Maduro, and Khameini and Rouhani.

    And people like that get like 90% of the vote in their elections, so it must work really well.

  • Trollificus||

    When the head has lice, the hat has lice.

    Plus, they just need to keep redefining "hate crime" down and adopt the "listen and believe" reporting standards of the UK police and they can keep doubling that stat for years!!

  • ||

    When the head has lice, the hat has lice.

    Does that make gringo-hating Mexicans crabs?

  • Ishmael||

    You mean like being against all Isreal and the Jews, like the DNC / DFl, like Hillary, B. Hussein O., and famously, just before POTUS runoff in that horror show, "I'm Antisemitic and I'm Al Franken, so I can be!" when doing his last Global Broadcast for the 'non-white male' support with Jon Stewart??

    Or that forward thinking needed with Africa under the B. Hussein O. / Clinton to refer to it as a 'sh#@hole'?

    Or Clinton calling EVERY SINGLE 12 YEAR OLD BLACK MALE A SUPERPREDATOR?

    Or Clintons, Pussy Hats, B. Hussein O., and all 'non-Republicans and never-Trumpers' attacking Victims of actual predators: like Broderick,Jones, Lewinsky, etc?!? You know! The Demoncrats unchecked naked aggression protecting Bill or Al or JFK [or any Kennedy who's 1st name isn't Lisa, or last name Montgomery...]...

    Wait who are the groups that are biggest "belligerent assholes", there you retarded, belligerent ASSHOLE?! HMM?

  • Tony||

    Well Trump is obviously the ideal figure of a president, so I guess white men are the smartest and bestest demo, just as they've been saying.

  • Philadelphia Collins||

    Asians are smarter.

  • Azathoth!!||

    If you separate out a group of white Europeans and treat them as their own distinct--and smartest group of all, then yes, Asians are smarter.

    But if you lump all Caucasians together then no, they're not.

  • Rhywun||

    And it's totally racist to point that out. Or not point that out. Not sure.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Oh, please.

    Where's his vagina?

  • Tony||

    His or other men's?

  • Hank Phillips||

    This is an opp for someone to ask The Looter to name one national leader who is better than The Don...

  • Kivlor||

    Meanwhile, just 19 percent of nonwhite voters told pollsters they would vote Republican. Sixty-nine percent said they'd vote Democrat.

    If the Republicans just let in a couple million more Democrat-voting freeloaders, and refrain from kicking out the 3,000,000 on the chopping block, they'll definitely win the next round of elections with that 19% capture.

  • Kivlor||

    Threading error, this was a reply to Hugh Akston

  • Wanderer||

    That is a winning strategy !

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Sounds like an opportunity for our moment.

  • Pro Libertate||

    One would think. Female libertarian celebrity?

  • Trollificus||

    Nobody. Say. Shakia.

  • DesigNate||

    He said celebrity. Not celebrity in their own mind.

  • Microaggressor||

    Collectivizing social classes with sketchy polls is my favorite libertarian pastime.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Identity politics is so hot right now.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    These polls are accurate.

  • Cy||

    Yep... and Hillary Clinton is President of the US of A!

  • Bearded Spock||

    I especially like ENB's concern-trolling; it reminds me of the standard Planned Parenthood claim that if the Repubs don't knock off all that pro-life stuff NO WOMAN WILL EVER VOTE FOR THEM AGAIN!!eleventy1!!

  • DajjaI||

    Yup. Check out Jill Stein is what I say.

    Hitlary for OberDrümpfenFuhrer 2020 approves this message

  • Crusty Juggler||

    It seems the "Trump effect" on electoral politics so far has been to push white women away from the Republican Party and further isolate white men's voting preferences.

    Trump will usher in a new age of white men fucking robots, and I for one cannot wait.

    Your time is up, ladies.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    That new sex bot is setting the internet alight. This is the end.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    Sy Borg? Or the modified Gay Bob doll?

  • Zeb||

    A magical pig with marital aids stuck all over it?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Design your fantasy sexbot online and 3D print it at home! No embarrassing trip to the Apple store.

  • Trollificus||

    Those Apple hipsters wouldn't know what it was for anyway unless it had three dicks and two assholes notthatthere'sanythingwrongwiththat.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Better be easy on it, or be able to pay for it when you pluk it to death. Else you'll meet bald headed John.

  • Lester224||

    Unless the white men create robots with reproductive capability, sounds like a good way to make your category extinct. The Japanese are the leaders in sexbots and they are in a steep population decline. Coincidence? Of course they also have xenophobia and people putting off marriage indefinitely due to financial insecurity.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    As time goes on I realize that more then Dem versus Republican, I wish we just got rid of all congressmen older than 60.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Don't trust anyone over 30.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I would not trust most people under thirty either, they seem to lack any sense.

  • Libertymike||

    That's good; why not go all the way and get rid of all of them?

  • Trollificus||

    Good point. I don't really see improvement in the new models...maybe when we get self-legislating congresspersons...

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    And people think I'm some sort of parody account for predicting a #BlueWave in 2018 and that Drumpf has zero chance of re-election. These numbers confirm I'm right.

    It still bothers me that Russia stole the election from Hillary, but one positive aspect of the Drumpf regime is that the Republican Party is basically finished. The damage he's done to the brand will last at least another century.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Ah, that Russia stealing the election meme again.

    How long before you start blaming the Jews®™?

  • lap83||

    I used to think you were a parody account, but I haven't even seen you mention the effect of the government shutdown on abortion access. It's like you're not even trying anymore.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    The state of reproductive rights in this country is already so precarious because of Net Neutrality reversal, I can't even contemplate how the #TrumpShutdown will worsen the situation. It's too terrifying to even think about.

  • lap83||

    Thank you.

  • Bearded Spock||

    That was the equivalent of a "to be sure" from Robby; a confirmation that its the real OBL.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The Russians wanted Hilary.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""And people think I'm some sort of parody account for predicting a #BlueWave in 2018 and that Drumpf has zero chance of re-election. These numbers confirm I'm right.'"

    Confirms your bias. We won't know if your right until the election.

    However, it's not a bold prediction since it's common for the party of the president to lose in the midterm, and not representative of the president. Else you can acknowledge how bad Obama was since the dems lost handsomely in his first midterm.

  • lap83||

    White women are souring on the Republican Party, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, leaving white men alone as a pro-GOP voting block.

    Salon.com is giving them all "I used to be Republican until Trumpocalypse" article assignments as we speak

  • Rhywun||

    Fake libertarians hardest hit.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Salon only has one "I Used To Be A Libertarian..." article, they just rerun it with a new byline every six months or so.

  • Hail Rataxes||

    You mean like your friends on TOS?

  • Rebel Scum||

    The Trump Effect: White Men Stand Alone?

    Nobody cares about the whites.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    I care less about the poorly educated, economically irrelevant, stale-thinking, backwaters-inhabiting whites than I did before they well all-in for bigotry, superstition, backwardness, belligerent ignorance, and selfishness.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Democrats were the preferred choice overall, earning a 12-point lead over Republicans among registered voters and a 14-point lead among respondents who said they would definitely vote this fall.

    And Hilldawg has 110% chance of becoming president...

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Democrats beat a war hero with a black guy, then beat Richie Rick with a black guy. Hillary Clinton, with all her flaws, collected more votes than the Republican did, losing only because of the systemic amplification of the yahoo vote.

    America becomes less rural, less religious, less backward, less white, and less bigoted each day. The current Republican-conservative electoral coalition runs mostly on stale intolerance, voter suppression, gerrymandering, and the support of people who will take their preferences for medieval social policy and predatory economics to the grave soon, to be replaced by better, younger voters.

    Good luck, clingers.

  • SIV||

    Generic ballot popular vote? Pollsters and reporterettes need remedial civics.

  • colorblindkid||

    When turnout is super high in dark blue districts and normal in red districts, I can't wait for the Democrats to win the "popular vote" but still not win the House. It is going to be a fucking shit show.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Democrats are saying that Team Blue turnout in Alabama won Doug Jones the victory. It was almost 50% of Republican voters who didn't vote for Roy Moore that allowed Jones to win.

    I would bet that Doug Jones does not win reelection in 2020.

  • Bearded Spock||

    Jones' victory is a quick and easy way to determine if a political analyst is reporting real data trends or is just shilling for Dems.

    If they include Jones' win as part of their primary evidence for a Democrat wave, then they've clearly drank the Team Blue Kool Aid.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    What makes you think Republicans won't run more creepy, bigoted, old, white, character-deprived religious kooks? You figure Roy Moore was a one-off?

  • ||

    The old "but I get to double jump your bishop and knight, and you have to King me" argument.

  • Azathoth!!||

    OMG! And polls say that Hillary won with literally 94% of the vote!!

    Yeer of the wimmenz!!!

  • Zeb||

    And therefore we must assume that all polls are completely wrong from now on, forever and ever and that it is impossible to know anything about public opinion.

    And I feel like it's worth pointing out that no poll told us Hillary would definitely win. If they give her an 80% chance (or whatever it was), that's still a 1 in 5 chance of her not winning.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This is the Uncertainty Principle for politics. By attempting to measure things, you affect what you're trying to measure. Sometimes on purpose.

  • Calidissident||

    Polls don't even give odds of winning. The 94% stuff is based off bad statistical models of polls that overestimated their accuracy. With how close the elections often are, underestimating potential variation by a point or two can drastically affect odds, even if a change that small isn't particularly damning of the polling accuracy.

    538 probably had the best model, IIRC they gave Trump about a 30% chance of winning. Basically that Hillary was the favorite, but a Trump win was not particularly unlikely. It's the odds of a modest sports upset happening, or the odds of Russell Westbrook making a 3 pointer. The election came down 3 or 4 states decided by about 1% or less. It's not as if Trump won a victory through overwhelming, decisive margins.

    Nationally, the polling averages had Clinton winning by 3-4 points, and she won the popular vote by 2. Not a drastic miss overall. The error was somewhat larger in a few key states. There's always more variation at the state level, and that's where I think the overconfident models went wrong - underestimating the variation at the state level, and underestimating the correlation between outcomes in different states, which meant not just underestimating Trump's chances of scoring an upset in MI, WI, or PA, but winning 2 or all 3 (as he ended up doing) at the same time.

  • Trollificus||

    "The election came down 3 or 4 states decided by about 1% or less."

    And those were states that Hillary overlooked and Trump's team applied effective resources. It was a strategy win, and probably says a lot that Trump was much less involved in the winning strategy than Clinton was in the losing one. And I think what it says is, "They should neither have won."

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, Clinton ran a terrible campaign.

  • Zeb||

    Thanks for stating it much better than I did.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Nationally, the polling averages had Clinton winning by 3-4 points, and she won the popular vote by 2

    Do you not understand that saying 'and she came out in front in a game no one was playing' is simply using a lot of words to say 'She lost'?

    The polls are--and have been--counting wrong.

    For a long time.

  • Calidissident||

    Analyzing all this makes me realize how much the binary outcome of an election affects people's perceptions of the polling accuracy more so than the actual accuracy of the polls. In 2012, the polling averages had Obama winning by 1 point nationally, and he ended up winning by 4. They also substantially underestimated his margin in a few battleground states. They were literally less accurate overall than in 2016. But because they still had Obama winning, and he ended up winning, the perception is that the polls were super accurate in 2012 and worthless in 2016. The truth is somewhere in the middle - the averages are a decent general guide, but you can't take them as oracles when a 1 or 2 point difference, or a larger difference in a single state, could swing an election.

    Applying that to this poll - it is one poll, several months in advance of the election. Can't put too much stock into it. If the GOP was down double digits in the averages on election day, winning the popular vote would be shocking. Predicting the allocation of the House gets more complicated since we don't elect it via a proportional national vote. I think the general prediction is that the Democrats likely need to win by 5-8% nationally to take control of the House.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    When the polls predict one person wins over another and the win is not foreseen, the polls are wrong.

    I love to tell pollsters that I vote Democrat when I don't. It makes defeat even more sweet when the Democrats expect to win based on exit polls.

  • Zeb||

    No, the prediction is wrong. All the polls tell you is how the people they polled answered the questions.

  • Calidissident||

    I'll start off with what Zeb said and that polls don't make predictions themselves, they show how people answered the poll. If a poll has Clinton at 50 and Trump at 49 it's not saying "Clinton is for sure winning, she has it in the bag!" There's a margin of error statistically, and then there's also potential for error in the process that doesn't result in a random sample of voters. Because polls are used for something that has a binary outcome, the perception gets clouded. A poll that predicts candidate A will win by 20 when they actually win by 1 is a worse statistical representation than a poll that predicts candidate A will lose by 1.

    Furthermore, virtually no poll covers every state in an attempt to replicate the Electoral College. The national polls cover the popular vote out of necessity, and those polls "predicted" Clinton would win the popular vote nationally, and she did.

  • Calidissident||

    Averages of state polls correctly "predicted" most of the state winners, but were off in a few Midwest states where Trump won by less than 1% when he was polling around 3-6 points behind (depending on the state). That sort of error happens at the state level more frequently than it does nationally. They happened in 2012. The problem was pundits and "experts" who didn't properly take into account that such an error was needed in just one state for Trump to win (not to mention the correlation between errors in one state and others, particularly neighboring states), as Trump was leading or in a tossup for about 270 electoral votes already.

    If you look at the RCP polling averages at the state level, IIRC Trump was leading or within 1% in enough states to get 270 even without MI, WI, and PA. As it turns out, he lost in Nevada despite having a small polling lead, and he lost in NH in a result that almost exactly matched the polls (losing but within 1% in both cases), so he did need one of those 3 to win. But either way such a situation should not be one where the odds are put at 95% and that was a problem with those models. Polling averages aren't Gospel, they shouldn't be taken as infallible predictors, especially in close elections. But the fact is that if the polling averages have you winning by 10 points, you're a lot more likely to win than your opponent. Make of that what you will.

  • Finrod||

    Reminds me of the exit polling in 2004 which predicted a Kerry blowout win. Turns out Democrats voting for Kerry were overenthusiastic in talking to exit pollsters, whereas Republicans voting for Bush just wanted to go home.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Why don't you vote for Democrats? I thought you claimed to be libertarian.

  • EscherEnigma||

    When the polls predict one person wins over another and the win is not foreseen, the polls are wrong.


    Actually, this just shows that you don't understand the connection between polls and predictions.

  • Rockabilly||

    In other news..Hillary Clinton will NEVER be president !!!

    ahahahahahahaahahaahahaaaaa x infinity !!!

  • Don't look at me.||

    When will we stop dividing voters by color?

  • Rhywun||

    When we're all gray.

  • Vernon Depner||

    When we unite against the extraterrestrial threat.

  • EscherEnigma||

    When color stops being a meaningful predictor for how people behave.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Gotta love a poll with a 51% Dem 34% Rep mix acting 'unbiased'

  • Microaggressor||

    We had to take a poll to find out how inaccurate polls are.

  • Bearded Spock||

    The most accurate polls are the ones the parties run themselves for internal consumption only.

    And based on Senator Schumer's abrupt about-face on the shutdown I'd say even the Dems don't believe they are riding a Blue Wave.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Ssssssh!

    Or course they're riding a Blue Wave! Everyone agrees with them! They need to be even MORE strident. Even more outspoken about the venality of white people. That's the winning strategy.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The great liberal-libertarian alliance has been winning, at the expense of conservative preferences, throughout my lifetime in America. This seems destined to continue for so far as humans can foresee. Does anyone genuinely believe America is going to turn back the clock on education, tolerance, reason, and science to flatter bigotry, superstition, ignorance, and dogma?

    Those who prefer reason, education, tolerance, science, progress, and inclusivity have the better schools, the better communities, the better and dominant popular culture, the better ideas. That is the winning strategy.

  • damikesc||

    The great liberal-libertarian alliance

    Yup. Wire tapping journalists. Stealing their parents emails. Deleting evidence of government wrong-doing.

    LIBERTARIAN MOMENT!!!

  • retiredfire||

    Polls, especially ones by biased "news" agencies, are more an effort to influence opinion than to measure it.

  • lap83||

    wsj - "Chuck Schumer says he and Mitch McConnell have "come to an arrangement."
    /shudders

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah, makes it sound like they locked 'em in a room with some champagne, smooth jazz, and a tube of lube--only in the end, it's the taxpayer who gets screwed.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Schumer needs to get the same kind of arrangement that Lucky Luciano arranged for Dutch Schultz.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Things keep getting worse around here.

    It always looks darkest just before it goes completely to shit.

    P.S. The budget "crisis" is over. Too bad for reason staff. I guess they'll have to go back to staring at Trump's twitter feed.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If the Reason air burns your tender lungs, feel free to leave in search of a stuffiness more to your liking.

  • Bacon-Magic glib reasonoid||

    There's still immigration.

  • Bearded Spock||

    We are due for another hysterical immigration editorial from Shikha.

  • Mark22||

    It seems the "Trump effect" on electoral politics so far has been to push white women away from the Republican Party and further isolate white men's voting preferences.

    That pattern becomes pretty easy to explain once you recognize that the government is funded overwhelmingly by the taxation of white males, and that the Democratic party demonizes white males as racists, misogynists, and oppressors.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Just like how Nazis demonized the Judenvolk.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    Quit whining.

  • Mark22||

    Quit spreading hate and totalitarianism, Arthur.

  • ||

    leaving white men alone

    Gawdamn, I thought they'd never leave! Turn the game back on and pass the nachos.

  • Trollificus||

    +1, wishful thinking

  • Old Mexican's Speedos||

    The Trump Effect: White Men Stand Alone?


    "Ha! We don't need women! We know how to cook a steak. And for sex, we can always... Pullout our old Victoria's Secrets catalog!"

    /Al Bundy, Renaissance Man.

  • Mark22||

    "Ha! We don't need men! We know how to extract money from men through the state. That's going to continue to work as long as we get people to vote Democratic. And for sex, we can always... use a vibrator or slut around with muscle-bound jerks and then kick them out!" /modern feminists

    There, FTFY.

  • BYODB||

    I love it when polls take the opinions of 1000 people and extrapolate across all of America. That's some seriously good methodology. It's more or less how we discovered that a few billion people need to be killed to make Earth habitable for the survivors.


    Take two snapshots two seconds apart and extrapolate out into the future using that trend. It's science! It also gets more accurate the more 'opinion' or 'feels' based it is! Well, as long as the results are what you wanted. If they're not what you wanted, just take more snapshots until one of them fits your narrative.


    Winning!

  • Tony||

    Polling, like magnets--inscrutable.

  • BYODB||

    Well, I'd say at least one obvious difference is that the magnet always works ^_-

  • MoreFreedom||

    Who cares about or believes a ABC/WaPo poll? Probably the Democrats who paid the results.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The media love women because they're so easy to manipulate. Just throw out a few anecdotal feels articles and they'll buy anything regardless of the price tag.

  • Nuwanda||

    Hmm. Sounds like libertarian support is mostly white guys, too:

    http://bit.ly/2dWJX61

    Let's play the old word substitution game with two paragraphs from the article:

    ==========

    The only group in the survey to overwhelmingly support libertarianism was white men. Among those surveyed, 66 percent self-identified as libertarians.

    It seems the "Libertarian effect" on electoral politics so far has been to push women away from libertarianism and further isolate white men's voting preferences.

    ==========

  • the_strickler||

    So we're back to believing polls again? What evidence do we have that they can be trusted? Certainly not the 2016 election.

  • Tony||

    Ever consider that the polls were right and the election was stolen? You would if it were the other way around, I suspect.

    Read upthread for some good commentary on why you're full of shit.

  • NoVaNick||

    So yes, there may well be a blue wave, and a pink wave this year-but a wave is a wave, and waves recede. Considering that the lefty pink hatters are leading it, I don't expect any coalition to stay together for very long-if they want to shut out anyone who doesn't agree with their 1968 Marxist views.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The Trump Effect: White Men Stand Alone?"

    Can't wait for the article on "The Libertarian Effect".

  • Dadlobby||

    ABC/WaPo says the mid terms are over so we all might just as well stay home and not bother voting, like in the last Presidential election when Trump didn't stand a chance. Really, this Femi-Marxist libertard claptrap from a "libertarian" site? Reporting fake news as facts makes a site also a fake news site.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Quoth the Log Cabin Republican...

  • julia jumado||

    Hillary ran on identity politics - vilify white males; shame all women and minorities who did not vote for her. Fortunately enough white females felt their husbands/mates and fathers of their children were really not that bad.

    Check out the statistics on married females vs unmarried voting history - I believe there is close to a 30% gap R vs D. (This does not mean I support marriage as the only way to live.)

  • EscherEnigma||

    I love articles like this! It really helps separate folks that understand the connection between polling, predictions and probability and folks that are just angry that they don't understand math.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Would it not make sense to point out to women displeased with the Gee-Oh-Pee that the Libertarian Party's 1972 pro-choice plank made it into the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision? The LP got rid of Dixiecrat coathanger abortions here with a single electoral vote. This helped Canadians repeal all antichoice laws there, where women now have complete and undisputed individual rights.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online