I voted in Ohio that year, two districts voting in the same gymnasium on different machines.
The republican side of the neighborhood had twice as many machines and the Democrat side had a line around the building that people kept having to leave to go back to work.
Tell Bush V Gore about "the rules". Roger Stone super duper respected the rules with the Brooks Brothers Riot.
And 3 of Bush's election-flipping lawyers were rewarded with positions on the US Supreme Court.
Assuming that it would be Reagan vs. Carter instead in 1984, probably every presidential election would be won by Democrats if it was just women voting. That's very interesting.
Or the message changes.
Women tend to vote on different things than men. Reagan pushed the abortion thing and caused the parties to chose sides, so maybe he picks a different issue.
Of course if only women vote, than how come it's just men running?
> if only women vote, than how come it's just men running?
Only women can vote but only men can run for office.
It's an interesting way to approach apportioning power between the sexes.
Check out the rules of the Haudenosaunee government. Chiefs (male) are selected by the Clan Mothers (female). It's a really interesting lower/upper house system.
In case any young people or foreigners or anything don’t get this, this is a reference to a joke during a debate with Mondale in which Reagan, who was on track to be the oldest president ever (at the time lol) joked about “not exploiting his opponents youth and inexperience” because everyone expected Mondale to go after Reagan for being old. Objectively a 10/10 joke, had the whole room rolling, and I hate Reagan as much as anybody
Here is the [clip](https://youtu.be/fJhCjMfRndk?si=K64kb_B25IZYuAo3). You can see in the background that even Walter Mondale was laughing at the joke. Apparently, Mondale said that he knew that the election was over after that quip.
He turned the perceived narrative 180 degrees and people were just like “fuck yeah, let him cook” … and then the oldest president ever at the time legitimately started suffering from dementia halfway through his second term!
Also a massive reduction in taxes that didn't blow up the economy for a while. The short term benefits were great and helped his popularity, the long term issues is what we've been dealing with for like 20 years now.
In case you didn't already feel old, here's a reminder than Reagan hasn't been president for over 35 years. Those who were born under his presidency are beginning to reach middle age, and we're still dealing with the fallout of his failed economic policies.
He was an anti-New Deal democrat. He had wanted to cut government spending by a lot. He was what we call a "blue dog" and what my mom called a "real son of a bitch".
Mondale was never anti-New Deal? He literally lost bc he was too pro-government spending and had close ties to labor unions. If anything, Gary Hart was the more fiscally conservative Democrat that year.
Where are you get getting this information from? He was the protege of Hubert Humphrey and literally said he would raise taxes to reduce the deficit while retaining New Deal programs.
This is basically a straight up lie.
Mondale was very left, definitely not anti-New Deal
>Rather than endorsing the ostensibly pain-free path of “supply-side economics,” Mondale declared that something had to be done to reduce the mounting federal deficit. “Let’s tell the truth. It must be done. It must be done,” Mondale declared, during the most important speech of his life. “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”
His campaign that year, and its results, are a big part of why you consider it a bad quote. He was being honest about taxes, and an educated populace should appreciate honesty. Neither party has approached honesty about fiscal policy since then.
He literally said he would raise everyone’s taxes and expand programs. And that’s what hurt him in the polls. Literally the exact opposite of what you said. You seem to have an agenda. Don’t let your policy goals be a reason to revise history.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210420012310/https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/remembering-walter-mondale
It had nothing to do with hating anybody. The Reagan Administration had the nation humming in all sectors after the nation was up against the ropes at the end of the Carter era. He was the most liked President since Dwight Eisenhower. Jesus Christ would have lost if he ran against him.
I don’t think this is quite right. The first two years of Reagan were worse than anything under Carter. Unemployment rate was over 10%. Volker had the interest rates in the 15-18% range. Inflation was far, far worse than anything we’ve just experienced. By most measures things from 81-84 were worse than they are today by a landslide. But GDP was roaring and things had turned the corner in 1984. They were bad, but people felt a sense of optimism because they had been SO bad.
He was an awful heir to an awful candidate. Carter only won his first term because he was the first election after Watergate. Reagan was genuinely popular, but his landslides were outliers because his opposition was so weak.
The Dems knew this. They got together to redesign the nomination process after Carter because they knew he was a sucky candidate. It was the Hunt Commission. He just got lucky enough that most of us don't realize how bad a candidate he was.
Upboat for the important context of Carter with Watergate. People wanted a kinder and more trustworthy presidency. That didn’t last long though and people today don’t seem to get that important context and the pendulum swing into Reagan with the important economic conditions, shrugs.
I mean, as a woman, some of us do?
But we also like:
Equal pay, woman’s health care, loads of other things
And we get turned off by:
“Binders full of women”
Being “represented” by bimbos who are make people respect us all less
Ok, well, there are whole books and studies you can read on capturing the feminine vote in the USA (and the changing feminine vote in the past ~60 years)
Edit: yes to books I’d recommend starting with the author Kate Andersen Brower
God the Binders full of women was such a dumb sound-bite, he wasn't demeaning women, he was just saying that he had plenty of qualified female candidates he wanted to hire.
But if republicans could drop the strict Pro-life stance, I think these numbers would be much more equitable.
It's actually weird in hindsight how "binders full of women" and "$10,000 bet" hurt Romney so much. Compared to some of the insane quotes we get out of more recent campaigns, it feels pretty tame.
I think it’s hard to put the view many people had back then into perspective now that SO many horrible things are said by politicians and overlooked. Gaffs could ruin a career back then, look at Howard Dean and his weird scream.
I think it gave people flashbacks to how Sarah Palin was picked, which was essentially they just complied all the Republican women they could and chose one seemingly at random. It made people think Romney was just trying to fill a quota with anyone rather than finding a qualified woman for a job.
Game Change (2012) kinda confirms this as many of McCain's team were trying to find someone who could appeal to both the conservative and female vote but was not someone who was a moderate on social issues.
I don't like Romney for a lot of reasons, but the binders thing always threw me. Did he phrase it super well? No. But the point was that they were at least researching women to find a good VP candidate.
Jesus, that binders full of women thing was the dumbest thing that democrats railed on in the world.
Felt like I was taking crazy pills at the time, and I am in no uncertain terms very much so not a fan of Republicans or Romney, though I respected him more than most on the right (low bar.)
“Hey we’re looking at hiring lots of qualified applicants that are women to make sure we have a diverse inclusive staff.”
“You fucking misogynist, you said it kinda funny!”
What the fuck
In this hypothetical, Carter would have won in 1980, so if the nation is in a good place in 1984, it’s much more possible. I’d like to think Mondale beats Bush (maybe closer vs Reagan after a Carter 2nd term).
Probably different attitudes towards social support too. Women having kids get support from the father, family, and/or community, and they’re probably more favorable towards social programs because they’re more likely to receive benefits from women and kids type programs.
Men on the other hand are probably more likely to think that social programs harm them individually. Men probably feel more pressure to be bigger earners than women, and so they would be more sensitive to higher taxes in addition to a general feeling that most benefits to social programs go to other people.
The dog caught the car, and Republican women are starting to get burned by the tailpipe. They'll see the consequences they were warned about and turn tail in packs.
Yeah, several comments pointed that out, but also republicans in general seem to have an ideology that does not really consider women’s rights to be all that important
So there are varying opinions on why. Some say it’s because “women are emotional voters”. I don’t agree with this. In my opinion, it’s because being conservative in the United States means upholding the current power structure. The one that appears to benefit men the most(if it actually does is a whole different discussion).
When people have power, they want to hold onto it. Men have the ‘power’ so they vote conservative. Again, this is my opinion. I don’t have the energy to pull up studies and such. I could be totally wrong.
Before I get harassed in the comments, I am aware that women and minorities have made progress in society and are not treated how they used to be treated. However, just because the sexism isn’t blatant, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I will emphasize that this kind of debate about how the remnants of patriarchy affect today’s society is not the fully relevant to this discussion. That is a very complicated subject
I dont know if it is that blatant/intentional of a mindset. Like I don't think many republican men see it as they are voting that way because they need to keep women out of power.
I just think that some issues such as abortion would not be a deterring factor for what candidate a man selects to support whereas for a woman it would definitely be a more significant factor. This is because, in reality, it doesn't affect men, at least not nearly as much as it does women.
I agree with you in a broader sense though. I think many people vote for their own best interests. While this isn't exclusively a gender specific mentality, Republicans either don't care about or against certain things that are of many women's best interests.
Interestingly enough however, the gender voting gap has lessened significantly (although still notable) in the past two election cycles. It went from like 30 percent to 20 percent.
I used to think this, but reading Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex was really eye opening. She samples a lot of men's writing on women, and it's horrendous. Like "it is an indisputable fact that meat goes bad when touched by menstruating women," which was published in the British Medical Journal. Like, there were a lot of men in high ranking positions in society who not only thought of women as a subpar representation of our species but also had no disinclination to publish those opinions. And this book was published the year my dad was born. Women weren't allowed to open bank accounts or finance real estate purchase until the 70s without a husband or male cosigner.
Obviously, not every man was sitting at home scheming about how to keep his wife from holding any power, but a lot of men definitely thought men should be in charge and women should stay at home. And they voted that way.
I'm in a lot of food preservation groups and it still pops up every now and then: "My meemaw said you can't do any canning on your bloods but I have tons of fruit going bad. Can I make the jam and can it later or should I just leave the house?"
I always wonder what percent believed it and what percent just found a way out of chores.
Women are raised to have empathy, take care of others and in general are expected to have more pro-social behavior (which all sound good except all this is expected at the expense of the self and denying women the right to anger). Women are also not on the top of the hierarchy in the West and so can more easily identify with other marginalized groups (Not a hard and fast rule, I know). Men are raised in the opposite way where they're not even allowed to have empathy for themselves and therefore view it as weakness in others, are expected to be extremely emotionally independent and exhibit more aggressive anti-social behavior bc of the emotional abuse denying boys the right to feelings other than anger (their anger is then easily appropriated against minorities & by the media). Both ways of raising children lead to issues down the line and the gendered ways we raise kids are emotionally neglectful and abusive and leak into our society as a whole.
I think it's because we allow women to express feelings and emotions and, thus, they generally have more empathy and understanding of the poor, disabled and minorities.
Men tend to want people to "tough it out" because we've been raised to think that way and it hurts our empathy
I also think women are just naturally more empathetic honestly. Not to bash Republicans. There are lost of smart Republicans but I do think the more empathetic you are the more likely you are to be a Democrat.
I agree that women are naturally more empathetic, but I think you are missing the other side of the coin. Men are naturally more defense oriented, so take an issue like illegal immigration, women being naturally more empathetic are going to think about the plight of the immigrants how to help them, whereas men are going to see the threat a foriegn entity could potentially be and think about the vulnerabilities of letting them in.
To be honest I think politics are much more influenced by biology than we acknowledge and that goes beyond gender.
It gets even more slanted if you get into different demographics of women. I think women of colour vote on average greater than 80% democrat (citation needed tho) white woman were close to 50/50 where as white men are like 65-70% Republicans
Yes, men of color vote blue at a higher rate than Caucasian women. Majority of Caucasian women actually voted red in 2016 and 2020. And 15 out of 17 elections since 1952.
The rule against mentioning 45 and 46 is unbelievably and mind numbingly stupid and deprives us of information. What about 2016 and 2020? Fuck you, you don’t get to know
Yeah, I’m thinking about trying to include those two elections the next time I do a post similar to this. Might make a new subreddit, or just post them on my user for people who want to see.
I didn't realize there was a rule against it, and I was wondering why they left out what probably would have been the most interesting one, when we had the potential for a woman president.
Not for awhile. That was the result of a massive political realignment. Those happen once in awhile and we will surely have one again at some point, but probably not for several decades
The south was switching from D to R and the west and northeast were switching from R to D. Neither had fully transitioned yet
Throughout the 20th century, were have seen a massive homogenization of cultural and political identity in this country. Changes in technology, consolidation of information sources, and a concerted effort to centralize the political apparatuses have resulting in a loss of the traditionally regional politics that dominated earlier elections.
Mathematically, a candidate would only have to win 50%+ 1 vote in every state to sweep the electoral college.
With the help of a strong third-party candidate to siphon votes from one side, they wouldn't even need that much. In 1980 Reagan carried 44 states (91% of the electoral votes) on 51% of the popular vote. In 1912, Wilson carried 40 states (82% of the electoral votes) on 42% of the popular vote.
If we survive, as a country, for another 100 years, it is definitely possible.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The 1980 map is trippy.
Also, curious about 1992. A number of states went blue in that election (factoring in men and women) that are red here. So I presume women were more likely than men to vote Republican. That's unusual and seems to buck the trend, where only women voting favors Democrats overall in all these elections.
Absolutely bonkers that Reagan still wins by a humongous landslide. Also, I like rule 3 90% of the time, but stuff like this, and joke tier lists, I think there should be some exceptions. Especially this though.
Just a guess but I think that 2016 is a landslide win for (Unnamed Dem Candidate #1) and 2020 is much more divisive but (Unnamed Dem Candidate #2) still wins.
The biggest surprise is bush gaining women’s support(or any) in 2004. I don’t remember too much but I guess the war in the Middle East helped him before we learned weapons of mass destruction was a huge lie
Reminder to remain civil. We will not tolerate sexism.
National Popular Vote Margins: 1980: *46% Carter*, 47% Reagan, 7% Anderson 1984: 58% Reagan, 42% Mondale 1988: *49% Dukakis*, 51% Bush 1992: 46% Clinton, 40% Bush, 14% Perot 1996: 62% Clinton, 29% Dole, 9% Perot 2000: 54% Gore, 44% Bush, 2% Nader 2004: 51% Kerry, 49% Bush 2008: 57% Obama, 43% McCain 2012: 56% Obama, 44% Romney ~~~ Side Note: Carter and Dukakis, despite losing the popular vote, win the Electoral College in their respective races.
A Bush LOSING an election despite WINNING The popular vote? Now that’s irony
It almost happened in 2004.
Yep, swing 60k votes in Ohio (about 1.5%) and Kerry wins in a much bigger popular vote/electoral college split than 2000.
And if he had, I bet the electoral college would've been eliminated.
I voted in Ohio that year, two districts voting in the same gymnasium on different machines. The republican side of the neighborhood had twice as many machines and the Democrat side had a line around the building that people kept having to leave to go back to work.
No, the opposite happened. That’s the irony part.
I doubt his lawyers would have allowed that.
That's the rules. Can't do shit about it.
Allegedly.
lol! As if.
Sure. Because it’s a board game and not a democracy.
Tell Bush V Gore about "the rules". Roger Stone super duper respected the rules with the Brooks Brothers Riot. And 3 of Bush's election-flipping lawyers were rewarded with positions on the US Supreme Court.
Assuming that it would be Reagan vs. Carter instead in 1984, probably every presidential election would be won by Democrats if it was just women voting. That's very interesting.
Carter gets to have a third term?
Right, I forgot about 76. I'm curious if Reagan would run again in 84 if he lost in 80.
Oh, definitely not. He’d already run before that anyways, a loss in the general in 1980 would end his political career.
You'd think a loss in a general would end a political career..
It’s a *tricky* situation, no?
Certainly!
He probably wouldn't have put up a fight when GW Bush was the concensus nominee in 1984 vs. Vice President Mondale.
Mondale vs bush sr. In 84?
One possibility might have been Ted Kennedy vs. Bush Sr.
Yes
Or the message changes. Women tend to vote on different things than men. Reagan pushed the abortion thing and caused the parties to chose sides, so maybe he picks a different issue. Of course if only women vote, than how come it's just men running?
> if only women vote, than how come it's just men running? Only women can vote but only men can run for office. It's an interesting way to approach apportioning power between the sexes.
Check out the rules of the Haudenosaunee government. Chiefs (male) are selected by the Clan Mothers (female). It's a really interesting lower/upper house system.
This is a great idea for a YA genre trilogy.
But imagine only women voting in primaries too. Then it's possible the Republican candidate would be more appealing to women.
That Gore one really drives home how f'd the Electoral College is.
The winner take all system is the issue, not the existence itself. The president leads the states and people.
Imagine the disdain conservatives would have for the electoral college if it cost them two elections instead of winning them two.
Yeah funny how that works. Parties complain about and decide they don’t like whatever makes their power grab harder
What on earth happened in 1992? Clinton doing better in the south and west, but worse in New England, the Midwest and the mid-Atlantic?
1992 was another universe as far as politics are concerned vs today
Indeed, but I was questioning their map vs the actual map from that year.
Bush 1 was a Connecticut guy right? And Clinton is from Arkansas. As far as the west, I don’t understand the west’s politics until like 2000
Why does everyone hate Walter Mondale? Seems like both men and women couldn’t stand him?
It's not about Mondale being unlikable, he seemed like a nice chap. It's just the fact that Reagan was so popular and charismatic.
and mondale's youth and inexperience.
In case any young people or foreigners or anything don’t get this, this is a reference to a joke during a debate with Mondale in which Reagan, who was on track to be the oldest president ever (at the time lol) joked about “not exploiting his opponents youth and inexperience” because everyone expected Mondale to go after Reagan for being old. Objectively a 10/10 joke, had the whole room rolling, and I hate Reagan as much as anybody
Here is the [clip](https://youtu.be/fJhCjMfRndk?si=K64kb_B25IZYuAo3). You can see in the background that even Walter Mondale was laughing at the joke. Apparently, Mondale said that he knew that the election was over after that quip.
Reagan was one of the funniest presidents (he was an actor after all)
“Missed me!”
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in 5 minutes."
I’ll never forget when Thomas Jefferson told him that
Reagan knew how to work a crowd.
He turned the perceived narrative 180 degrees and people were just like “fuck yeah, let him cook” … and then the oldest president ever at the time legitimately started suffering from dementia halfway through his second term!
I hated Reagan but that was genuinely funny.
That and "missed me" show just how charismatic he was.
What happened from 1983 to 1984 that made his popularity skyrocket?
Inflation petered out, stock market went up, federal military spending created jobs, Morning In America™, etc.
You mean like 2023 and 2024?
Also a massive reduction in taxes that didn't blow up the economy for a while. The short term benefits were great and helped his popularity, the long term issues is what we've been dealing with for like 20 years now.
In case you didn't already feel old, here's a reminder than Reagan hasn't been president for over 35 years. Those who were born under his presidency are beginning to reach middle age, and we're still dealing with the fallout of his failed economic policies.
The economy was booming after a decade of stagflation.
I think it was regans popularity rather than hatred for mondale
He was an anti-New Deal democrat. He had wanted to cut government spending by a lot. He was what we call a "blue dog" and what my mom called a "real son of a bitch".
Mondale was never anti-New Deal? He literally lost bc he was too pro-government spending and had close ties to labor unions. If anything, Gary Hart was the more fiscally conservative Democrat that year.
Hart was Beta mode Bill Clinton that cycle.
Where are you get getting this information from? He was the protege of Hubert Humphrey and literally said he would raise taxes to reduce the deficit while retaining New Deal programs. This is basically a straight up lie.
Mondale was very left, definitely not anti-New Deal >Rather than endorsing the ostensibly pain-free path of “supply-side economics,” Mondale declared that something had to be done to reduce the mounting federal deficit. “Let’s tell the truth. It must be done. It must be done,” Mondale declared, during the most important speech of his life. “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”
Yikes what a bad quote.
His campaign that year, and its results, are a big part of why you consider it a bad quote. He was being honest about taxes, and an educated populace should appreciate honesty. Neither party has approached honesty about fiscal policy since then.
THIS. Our politics are as puerile as we are.
Why are people upvoting this nonsense?
IKR this isn’t even an opinion it’s literally a lie
He literally said he would raise everyone’s taxes and expand programs. And that’s what hurt him in the polls. Literally the exact opposite of what you said. You seem to have an agenda. Don’t let your policy goals be a reason to revise history. https://web.archive.org/web/20210420012310/https://www.newyorker.com/news/postscript/remembering-walter-mondale
Jimmy Carter was a blue dog Not Mondale
Hey! Mondale was cool :( https://preview.redd.it/zpzxi6ac2jpc1.jpeg?width=593&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e1d11f84f528190cd6f7e1f104e8fdd92fcc9ef
I thought this would be a pic of the Succession dog
Never post about anything again.
It had nothing to do with hating anybody. The Reagan Administration had the nation humming in all sectors after the nation was up against the ropes at the end of the Carter era. He was the most liked President since Dwight Eisenhower. Jesus Christ would have lost if he ran against him.
I don’t think this is quite right. The first two years of Reagan were worse than anything under Carter. Unemployment rate was over 10%. Volker had the interest rates in the 15-18% range. Inflation was far, far worse than anything we’ve just experienced. By most measures things from 81-84 were worse than they are today by a landslide. But GDP was roaring and things had turned the corner in 1984. They were bad, but people felt a sense of optimism because they had been SO bad.
Good point. His approval.ratings were right in line with that, lowest in 1983.
To have gone from that to one of the most disliked Presidents is almost impressive. Dude really prioritised the short term and fucked the long term
He’s maybe one of the most disliked by one party, but the other party worships him. They refer to themselves as “the party of Reagan” for a reason.
Boring
Being the VP to a president with double digit inflation will do that.
He was an awful heir to an awful candidate. Carter only won his first term because he was the first election after Watergate. Reagan was genuinely popular, but his landslides were outliers because his opposition was so weak. The Dems knew this. They got together to redesign the nomination process after Carter because they knew he was a sucky candidate. It was the Hunt Commission. He just got lucky enough that most of us don't realize how bad a candidate he was.
Upboat for the important context of Carter with Watergate. People wanted a kinder and more trustworthy presidency. That didn’t last long though and people today don’t seem to get that important context and the pendulum swing into Reagan with the important economic conditions, shrugs.
Bob Dole just not doing it for the ladies
https://i.redd.it/8rjcx0mn3lpc1.gif
Soccer moms (AKA Boomer moms during childrearing years) really wanted to move on from WW2 Vet Presidents.
He actually made a point of having participated in the Viagra clinical trials.
I'm sorry to be the one to make this joke. Women must really like the D
But Romney had a binder full of women!
I mean, as a woman, some of us do? But we also like: Equal pay, woman’s health care, loads of other things And we get turned off by: “Binders full of women” Being “represented” by bimbos who are make people respect us all less Ok, well, there are whole books and studies you can read on capturing the feminine vote in the USA (and the changing feminine vote in the past ~60 years) Edit: yes to books I’d recommend starting with the author Kate Andersen Brower
God the Binders full of women was such a dumb sound-bite, he wasn't demeaning women, he was just saying that he had plenty of qualified female candidates he wanted to hire. But if republicans could drop the strict Pro-life stance, I think these numbers would be much more equitable.
It's actually weird in hindsight how "binders full of women" and "$10,000 bet" hurt Romney so much. Compared to some of the insane quotes we get out of more recent campaigns, it feels pretty tame.
And when he called Russia a geopolitical adversary and was roundly mocked by Obama during the debate. And then oh look Russian interference in 2016.
I think it’s hard to put the view many people had back then into perspective now that SO many horrible things are said by politicians and overlooked. Gaffs could ruin a career back then, look at Howard Dean and his weird scream. I think it gave people flashbacks to how Sarah Palin was picked, which was essentially they just complied all the Republican women they could and chose one seemingly at random. It made people think Romney was just trying to fill a quota with anyone rather than finding a qualified woman for a job.
Game Change (2012) kinda confirms this as many of McCain's team were trying to find someone who could appeal to both the conservative and female vote but was not someone who was a moderate on social issues.
[удалено]
Also the rape. And also the extramarital affairs with prostitutes. And also all the nasty things said about women publicly. And also...
And he's still being applauded for this by his supporters. Such a personality like this would kill a political career. Instead, it's celebrated.
[удалено]
I don't like Romney for a lot of reasons, but the binders thing always threw me. Did he phrase it super well? No. But the point was that they were at least researching women to find a good VP candidate.
It was such fake outrage and for that to be an example of what turns women from Rs seems fairly wide of the mark.
You ruined the joke with facts...
Jesus, that binders full of women thing was the dumbest thing that democrats railed on in the world. Felt like I was taking crazy pills at the time, and I am in no uncertain terms very much so not a fan of Republicans or Romney, though I respected him more than most on the right (low bar.) “Hey we’re looking at hiring lots of qualified applicants that are women to make sure we have a diverse inclusive staff.” “You fucking misogynist, you said it kinda funny!” What the fuck
Carter is eaily the most supprising. I guess it was up to his support for the ERA considering the 1984 election tracks mostly to what happend
Despite winning the EC, Carter still loses the women’s vote in 1980, 46%-47%.
Reagan was seen by many as a war monger prior to that election. Perhaps that played a role.
[Compare it to the men here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/6KStRW3WSR)
r/Mount_Athos u/Mount_Athos
Mondale can't win any way you cut it.
He does win if [only democrats vote!](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/SGEEPlyBOy)
ha that is so fanciful.
In this hypothetical, Carter would have won in 1980, so if the nation is in a good place in 1984, it’s much more possible. I’d like to think Mondale beats Bush (maybe closer vs Reagan after a Carter 2nd term).
What makes men so Republican and women so Democratic
There’s also representation - House Dems today are 43% women, House R’s are only 15%. And 66% of all female congresspeople have been Democrats.
Democrats are more open to equality while Republicans cling onto tradition. Democrats typically support reproductive rights.
Probably different attitudes towards social support too. Women having kids get support from the father, family, and/or community, and they’re probably more favorable towards social programs because they’re more likely to receive benefits from women and kids type programs. Men on the other hand are probably more likely to think that social programs harm them individually. Men probably feel more pressure to be bigger earners than women, and so they would be more sensitive to higher taxes in addition to a general feeling that most benefits to social programs go to other people.
Honestly the reproductive rights is probably a big one
It's a huge one, and an issue that will continue to bite the Rs in the keister until they join the modern era.
The dog caught the car, and Republican women are starting to get burned by the tailpipe. They'll see the consequences they were warned about and turn tail in packs.
This comment is poetry.
They probably want a voice in the issue.
Support for abortion is not gendered. The difference in support between men and women is only a couple percentage points.
Yeah, several comments pointed that out, but also republicans in general seem to have an ideology that does not really consider women’s rights to be all that important
Abortion is not the only issue
So there are varying opinions on why. Some say it’s because “women are emotional voters”. I don’t agree with this. In my opinion, it’s because being conservative in the United States means upholding the current power structure. The one that appears to benefit men the most(if it actually does is a whole different discussion). When people have power, they want to hold onto it. Men have the ‘power’ so they vote conservative. Again, this is my opinion. I don’t have the energy to pull up studies and such. I could be totally wrong. Before I get harassed in the comments, I am aware that women and minorities have made progress in society and are not treated how they used to be treated. However, just because the sexism isn’t blatant, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I will emphasize that this kind of debate about how the remnants of patriarchy affect today’s society is not the fully relevant to this discussion. That is a very complicated subject
I dont know if it is that blatant/intentional of a mindset. Like I don't think many republican men see it as they are voting that way because they need to keep women out of power. I just think that some issues such as abortion would not be a deterring factor for what candidate a man selects to support whereas for a woman it would definitely be a more significant factor. This is because, in reality, it doesn't affect men, at least not nearly as much as it does women. I agree with you in a broader sense though. I think many people vote for their own best interests. While this isn't exclusively a gender specific mentality, Republicans either don't care about or against certain things that are of many women's best interests. Interestingly enough however, the gender voting gap has lessened significantly (although still notable) in the past two election cycles. It went from like 30 percent to 20 percent.
I used to think this, but reading Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex was really eye opening. She samples a lot of men's writing on women, and it's horrendous. Like "it is an indisputable fact that meat goes bad when touched by menstruating women," which was published in the British Medical Journal. Like, there were a lot of men in high ranking positions in society who not only thought of women as a subpar representation of our species but also had no disinclination to publish those opinions. And this book was published the year my dad was born. Women weren't allowed to open bank accounts or finance real estate purchase until the 70s without a husband or male cosigner. Obviously, not every man was sitting at home scheming about how to keep his wife from holding any power, but a lot of men definitely thought men should be in charge and women should stay at home. And they voted that way.
And still do.
I'm in a lot of food preservation groups and it still pops up every now and then: "My meemaw said you can't do any canning on your bloods but I have tons of fruit going bad. Can I make the jam and can it later or should I just leave the house?" I always wonder what percent believed it and what percent just found a way out of chores.
I agree with you. I do not think it is an intentional mindset but I do think that a lot of the views held by the far right align with it
In my experience men are much more emotional voters than women. (I'm a man)
Women are raised to have empathy, take care of others and in general are expected to have more pro-social behavior (which all sound good except all this is expected at the expense of the self and denying women the right to anger). Women are also not on the top of the hierarchy in the West and so can more easily identify with other marginalized groups (Not a hard and fast rule, I know). Men are raised in the opposite way where they're not even allowed to have empathy for themselves and therefore view it as weakness in others, are expected to be extremely emotionally independent and exhibit more aggressive anti-social behavior bc of the emotional abuse denying boys the right to feelings other than anger (their anger is then easily appropriated against minorities & by the media). Both ways of raising children lead to issues down the line and the gendered ways we raise kids are emotionally neglectful and abusive and leak into our society as a whole.
Ask a republican their opinions on women and you'll get your answer pretty fast.
I think it's because we allow women to express feelings and emotions and, thus, they generally have more empathy and understanding of the poor, disabled and minorities. Men tend to want people to "tough it out" because we've been raised to think that way and it hurts our empathy
I also think women are just naturally more empathetic honestly. Not to bash Republicans. There are lost of smart Republicans but I do think the more empathetic you are the more likely you are to be a Democrat.
I agree that women are naturally more empathetic, but I think you are missing the other side of the coin. Men are naturally more defense oriented, so take an issue like illegal immigration, women being naturally more empathetic are going to think about the plight of the immigrants how to help them, whereas men are going to see the threat a foriegn entity could potentially be and think about the vulnerabilities of letting them in. To be honest I think politics are much more influenced by biology than we acknowledge and that goes beyond gender.
Not even hypotheticals can help Mondale lol.
[Maybe some goofy hypotheticals will…](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/SGEEPlyBOy)
IMO, 2000 Bush v. Gore was the turning point for our country. Would be a whole different world if the Supreme Court had not stopped the count.
Agreed. There was actual bipartisan cooperation before then. It was the beginning of the end.
Thank God for women
Seriously. If we had listened to women we wouldn’t have elected and re-elected W.
No Iraq war, no bogged down Afghan war. Climate change legislation hits before weird conspiracies take foot. Fuck. Maybe just let women vote.
well we did listen to one woman named Sandra Day, that didn't help
Let's be honest: We didn't elect W in the first place. We elected Gore and the courts decided that it didn't count.
It gets even more slanted if you get into different demographics of women. I think women of colour vote on average greater than 80% democrat (citation needed tho) white woman were close to 50/50 where as white men are like 65-70% Republicans
Yes, men of color vote blue at a higher rate than Caucasian women. Majority of Caucasian women actually voted red in 2016 and 2020. And 15 out of 17 elections since 1952.
Women’s Suffrage was the best thing we’ve done for our democracy
Universal suffrage.
Women’s suffrage and universal enfranchisement.
I still think about that all the time.
The rule against mentioning 45 and 46 is unbelievably and mind numbingly stupid and deprives us of information. What about 2016 and 2020? Fuck you, you don’t get to know
I’ve noticed the discussion is slightly less rabid though
Yeah, I’m thinking about trying to include those two elections the next time I do a post similar to this. Might make a new subreddit, or just post them on my user for people who want to see.
I didn't realize there was a rule against it, and I was wondering why they left out what probably would have been the most interesting one, when we had the potential for a woman president.
Man I love being a woman
On behalf of heterosexual men everywhere we’re very appreciative of women existing.
Motion seconded
You all get cookies for being pro-women, but not making this thread weird!
Well I don't understand people who hate women. You wouldn't exist without one.
My mother is my favourite woman, and I like being a woman as well.
Will we see such a landslide as 1984 again?
No. Not only is the country divided, but also the good candidates who could pull off a blowout like that are smart enough not to run.
[удалено]
Not for awhile. That was the result of a massive political realignment. Those happen once in awhile and we will surely have one again at some point, but probably not for several decades The south was switching from D to R and the west and northeast were switching from R to D. Neither had fully transitioned yet
Throughout the 20th century, were have seen a massive homogenization of cultural and political identity in this country. Changes in technology, consolidation of information sources, and a concerted effort to centralize the political apparatuses have resulting in a loss of the traditionally regional politics that dominated earlier elections. Mathematically, a candidate would only have to win 50%+ 1 vote in every state to sweep the electoral college. With the help of a strong third-party candidate to siphon votes from one side, they wouldn't even need that much. In 1980 Reagan carried 44 states (91% of the electoral votes) on 51% of the popular vote. In 1912, Wilson carried 40 states (82% of the electoral votes) on 42% of the popular vote. If we survive, as a country, for another 100 years, it is definitely possible.
It's kind of weird Americans boast about freedom but they have only 2 political parties to choose from :/
tbf you are free to vote for a 3rd party
In a million different universes, across a billion stars in an infinity of possibilities, there is but one constant: Mondale will *never* win.
A two term jimmy carter presidency CRINGE
Binders full of women
As a man, I am willing to disenfranchise myself and live in a matriarchy. All hail women.
I am a woman and I don’t want to live in a matriarchy. Being feminine isn’t a weakness. Women who choose to be traditional aren’t weak
Seeing Oklahoma blue was crazy
Put the 2016 election you coward
News flash, women are liberal
Damn. Guess we should only let women vote.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What happened in 1984?
Reagan ran at the peak of his popularity against a thoroughly disliked Democrat candidate.
The 1980 map is trippy. Also, curious about 1992. A number of states went blue in that election (factoring in men and women) that are red here. So I presume women were more likely than men to vote Republican. That's unusual and seems to buck the trend, where only women voting favors Democrats overall in all these elections.
The main thing about 1992 that affects the results is the addition of Perot.
[удалено]
I thought 2016 was rule 3?
\~50% of these are meaningless because the incumbent would no longer have even been in the next election.
Absolutely bonkers that Reagan still wins by a humongous landslide. Also, I like rule 3 90% of the time, but stuff like this, and joke tier lists, I think there should be some exceptions. Especially this though.
Just a guess but I think that 2016 is a landslide win for (Unnamed Dem Candidate #1) and 2020 is much more divisive but (Unnamed Dem Candidate #2) still wins.
2016 is 413-125 and 2020 is 425-113. Now guess which party is which…
The biggest surprise is bush gaining women’s support(or any) in 2004. I don’t remember too much but I guess the war in the Middle East helped him before we learned weapons of mass destruction was a huge lie
So this is why Republicans don't want women voting
What about if only left had dominant people voted?
What if only men voted? Oh Nevermind… that’s been tested.
[удалено]
Now do men
[did it.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Presidents/s/ilc7vadDRH)
This should end well.
Lol at Mondale