Inspired by Hillary Clinton's recent announcement, I took a look at the electoral gender gap -- which is sometimes neglected in demographic analyses. Dissecting the
2012 exit polls, several interesting dynamics became apparent. To begin with, the gender gap varies significantly in intensity across geographies and racial cohorts. Where it is most pronounced (and most politically decisive) is among white women in New England and the Upper Midwest. The following map depicts the size of the gap among white voters in states where polling is available
(
red = < 5%;
yellow = ≥ 5%, < 10%;
green = ≥ 10%):
Surprisingly, the gap seems more connected to geography than partisan lean. Washington and Vermont are both strongly Democratic states, but the gap in the former is almost nonexistent, whereas in the latter, it's yawning. Likewise, white women in Iowa actually supported the president's reelection by a larger margin than their counterparts in
New York.
States currently represented by female U.S. senators (
dark blue) and the percentage of state legislative seats
held by women (2013)
(
light purple = ≥ 25%, < 30%;
dark purple = ≥ 30%) are shown in the following two maps, respectively:
The South is evidently inhospitable to female politicians, but the disparity in the gender gap between the West and the Upper Midwest/New England remains unexplained. In attempting to account for the difference, I combined the percentages of the population
identifying as Catholic and mainline Protestant in the states depicted in the initial map (
blue = ≥ 49%):
The result seems to track the states with the largest gender gaps fairly well, but I'm not entirely satisfied with this explanation. Any alternative theories?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
