Charts: Women Are Backing Obama by the Binderful

Earlier this week, the New York Times‘ Nate Silver wrote about the gaping “gender gap” at the heart of the presidential race, specifically the degree to which women are breaking for Barack Obama and men are breaking for Mitt Romney. On average, polls show Obama beating Romney by 9 points with women, while Romney has a 9-point advantage with men. All in all, that’s an 18-point gender gap, a powerful indicator of just how much each candidate’s chance of victory depends on one sex or the other.

(Update: Does a new AP poll mean the gender gap is gone? Not so fast.)

The red-blue gender gap has grown during the past two decades, but women and men’s presidential preferences have often diverged. According to historical Gallup survey data, in 1952, women supported Republican Dwight Eisenhower by more than 5 points over men; likewise, men broke toward Democrat Adlai Stevenson by 5 points. (Total gender gap: 10 points.) By the ’80s, women supported Democratic candidates much more solidly than men. In the 2008 election, 57 percent of women voted for Obama, compared with 50 percent of men; 50 percent of men voted for John McCain, while 43 percent of women did. (Total gender gap: 14 points.)

In short, women have been increasingly backing Democrats by the binderful. Nearly 30 years of exit-poll data tells the story:

The shift has been most dramatic among women 18 to 29 and single women. A new report from the the Voter Participation Center finds that the gap between married and single women’s support for Democrats is profound. In 2008, unmarried women chose Obama over McCain by a whopping 41 points, while McCain carried married women by 3 points. This is big news for Democrats, especially considering that unmarried women made up 23 percent of voters in 2008. The gender gap helps explain why this year’s race is so tight. A slice of recent swing-state polling by Public Policy Polling shows that it’s very pronounced in key battleground states, including Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Virginia, and Iowa. (And that’s just one pollster’s results.)  

So why are more women flocking to Democratic presidential candidates (and fleeing Republicans)? The answer doesn’t seem too complicated, what with stuff like this, this, and this. A recent Gallup poll in 12 swing states found that more than half of female voters said that abortion or equal opportunity were their top election priority—issues that the president’s campaign has repeatedly hammered Romney, Paul Ryan, and Republicans on.

Or maybe it’s just hormones.

Update, 10/25: According to a just-released AP poll, Romney has erased his 16-point disadvantage with women and his lead with men has shrunk to 5 points. However, this is is just one poll; it will be interesting to see if other nationwide tracking polls show similar shifts in the week ahead. As Nate Silver’s post explained, nine major polls show a significant gender gap; the 18-point split he cited was an average of those. It didn’t include AP. If you factor in the new AP poll, Obama has an average 8.5-point advantage with women; Romney’s average advantage with men is 8.7 points.

Update 2, 10/25: A new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds a 14-point gender gap, with support for Obama falling among unmarried women.

This article has been revised.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.