Do females usually outperform their male counterparts in electoral turnout?

[Franks Wild Years]

Because if so, it *really* shows how the polls are slanted.

Take the Rasmussen daily, for instance, wherein Obama leads by four points.

"Obama currently leads by thirteen points among women while McCain leads by six among men."

This must be noted. If what I've heard about women being more likely voters than their male counterparts - or even *equal* - Obama's lead is unequivocally, undeniably larger than four points. It could quite reasonably be more than double that.

[Wetzelbill]

1. I don't know if they are or not however

A poll is a snapshot of an overall view of various demographics, unless listed otherwise. If you pick 1000 random people and ask them who they will vote for, it'll probably be fairly even in this instance. But that doesn't account for turnout or voter registration advantages. Right now, Dems have being doing better all year with registration, they dwarfed the GOP turnout in the primaries, even ones when the GOP race was still contested and this, like 2006, is a heavy Dem year. I'd say yes, you'll probably see more women turn out than many polls would indicate, and that's good for The Big O.

[Franks Wild Years]

3. Another thing that's really got me wondering is the 2004 demographics...

I mean, Bush won by 2.4%

Females outvoted men by roughly 8%

By gender, the breakdown was as follows:

Males: Bush 55% Kerry 44%

Females: Bush 48% Kerry 51%

So, I mean, even if the final polls were manipulated to Bush's advantage - and if you look at the numbers, the exit poll from which this data was taken was certainly 'off' by around 2%, if we look at the 3% Kerry advantage among women cancelling out the 11% male lead for Bush.

However, the overall discrepancy in Male/Female vote would be much harder, almost impossible to explain away. Maybe you could shave a few % here and there, but that's about it. A lot of people have been speculating that McCain's internals look infinitely worse than the polls suggest, and I think perhaps his choice of running mate says more than his campaign would care to admit.

If one is to assume that women will once again turn out in greater numbers than men (1996 & 2000 saw a 4% female advantage), a mere 6% lead in the male vote is downright catastrophic for McCain if Obama is to maintain a lead among women equal to or greater than that enjoyed by John Kerry in 2004. Even if the turnout among women is slashed by a couple of percent, it still paints an atrocious picture.

Why try to pander transparently to a particular demographic if you're beyond doomed unless said group moves over to you en masse?

[Wetzelbill]

6. It doesn't make sense

She's an interesting pick. But the more she's out there the luster wears off. Voters aren't really going to vote for a candidate because of the VP. I don't think she's an asset in the end. And don't forget, the GOP has stoked up a certain segment of their base to be divisive on race, gender etc forever. There is a certain segment of GOP male voters who think women are good for nothing except cooking, cleaning and breeding. If they were already disenchanted by McCain before, they might just stay home now. I suspect these guys would just as soon saw their arms off than vote Dem, but they've never been excited much about McCain and I doubt this helps make them like him any more than they already did. Probably the opposite.

I'd say your analysis is pretty close to what's going on. I read somewhere that privately, Republican stalwarts and strategists think this could be a blowout. If McCain thought this was as close as it looks, I don't think he makes a wild pick like this.

[ps1074]

2. They do indeed

I believe the usual turnout model is 53% female and 47% male.

[goldcanyonaz]

4. 54% of women vote according to the news last night. eom

[Franks Wild Years]

5. So again...

...that would suggest that a 13 point lead amongst women should, ultimately, result in a larger than four point lead overall.

HMMMM!

Slanty-slanty-slant-slant....