Wisconsin shows that democrats need better outreach to men.

[lumberjack_jeff]

Men have a greater impact on voting than our 46% of all voters would suggest.

Single women support democrats by huge margins; 20 points as of this writing. As soon as they marry however, that support disappears. In 2008, there was a 44 point difference between the voting of married and single women. This effect is even more pronounced when they have kids. The voting patterns of a single mom is the polar opposite of the voting patterns of a married mom.

Unfortunately, single women are far less likely to vote than married women.

Statistically, when women marry, they adopt the voting patterns of their husbands. Essentially, men and married women vote as a bloc. When men marry, they become more likely to vote, but not significantly change their party preference.

Solutions?
a) make marriage more difficult.
b) convince women to keep their single voting preferences
c) convince men to adopt their new wife's voting preference
d) outreach to working class men.

A-C are impractical, which leaves D. It's a two-for-one deal.

[Kaleva]

1. To be more specific, it's white males.

Black males tend to vote Dem by a very wide margin. I believe that a majority of Hispanic male voters also tend to vote Dem.

[Dokkie]

2. Oh my

Now democrats will get saddled with accusations of war against marriage. Talk about calling for political suicide. How about we just start appealing to men and women instead of just pandering to women?

[Warren Stupidity]

3. e) wait for white suburban males to be a minority.

I'm only half joking. At this point in time white suburban males are lost in the weeds. They are voting to shoot their own asses off and are fucking proud of it. If you know a way to reach them other than the current DLC strategy of being republicans in everything but name, let me know.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. White suburban males are already a minority.

They are only an important voting bloc by default; women change their voting patterns when they marry.

Our approach of just writing them off has proven to be a failure, because of the phenomenon I posted in the OP. You're not writing off just them, but also their wives.

And no, I don't have any sure-fire ideas, but if there are any, this is where they'll start.

My best suggestion, cynical as it may sound, is 1) keep the patriarchal parts of gender political issues, the ones that men buy into on the basis of protecting their women (e.g. VAWA, health care reform, choice), jettison the gender warfare (paycheck equity), improve education for boys, insist on fairness in family court by making examples of some judges. End draft registration.

2) Get into John Edwards-esque economic populism in a big way, with emphasis on the job creating benefit of churning wealth through the economy rather than keeping it sequestered in a handful of banks.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. more of a minority.

I can't sign up for triangulating over gender issues, anymore than I can for racism and homophobia. It is all of us together or count me out.

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. All in it together?

Men buy into the ideas of protecting women ("women and children first&quot . We are also generally okay with expecting individual men to carry their own weight ("every man for himself&quot . When men get their backs up is when we are told that the different choices men and women make shouldn't result in different economic outcomes, and that we should man up and tolerate unfair treatment in family court. The problem that men have with both of these is that they compromise our ability to be adequate providers for our families.

This is the employment to population ratio among working-age men. This is the economic reality that men experience.


Men reaching adulthood today will earn 28% less than their grandfathers. It's no wonder that they are pissed. Telling them that this is unjust in favor of them is both a distortion as well as an impossible, counterproductive sell.

What should be an easier sell is telling men that democrats recognize and want to fix this situation. Americans expect and insist that their kids will have it better than they did, even if it does require hard work.

I must admit that there are some days when I can understand what it would feel like to be a log cabin republican.

[caseymoz]

10. Instead, why not work to retain married women?

And get more single women to vote?

It's rather apparent, from what you say, that men are extremely inflexible in their POV and party affiliation. Example: With all the money poured into the Wisconsin, the vast 91% of the population did not change their mind at all from when the signatures were gathered till Tuesday.

At least women show that they are flexible.

I'm sorry to say that the trend that you cite with 28% less income than their grandfathers is an inevitable result of more women competing for jobs. You could either give males income support, and you can bet that will go over well, or you can discourage women from working, and yes, that will be popular, too, as well as unjust.

It's not from discrimination that income for males has declined. It's unpopular to point it out here, but their grandfather's were privileged. They had few women competing for jobs, no computers to make their jobs superfluous, and little or no downsizings and outsourcings. A decline of privilege feels much the same as discrimination.

Also, if you think men will become progressives if we favored them more in family court, I think you're grossly miscalculating. They're still going to be opposed to Choice. They are still going to be gun righters. They are still going to perceive their interests to be in de-regulation. They are still going to listen, by and large, to tax-free religions, many of which make their money by spouting a fundamentalist, male-favorable religious sects. They may become less strident, watch other TV besides Fox, but this generation of males will vote mostly the same. Their political affiliation is based on a view of the world.

I myself think: this current generation of males is a loss. They won't change ideologically until there's catastrophe that requires them to rethink things. That goes for the citizenry in general.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Married women's interests are aligned with the family's interests.

When people marry, their interests become subordinate to those of the family. Women place a higher value on flex hours and working conditions and men place a higher value on monetary compensation largely because of their roles in the family. It is in a family's interest that the husband be able to earn a lot, and the wife have flexibility to deal with domestic/childrearing tasks. If you think that it's better for men to do the domestic tasks while the wife earns as much as possible in the workplace, that is a worthwhile discussion, but it runs counter to people's motivations; women don't seek out men who aspire to be househusbands.

Gender is not the major determinant of views on abortion - education is. In fact if men were as well educated as women, it's unclear whether there'd be a gender gap on the issue at all. I think men generally support choice. In fact, they think it might be nice to have some.

The next generation of males won't be any different than the last. Despite their pathetic level of education, they're expected to be breadwinners. In the increasingly unlikely event they succeed in this regard, their success in their riskier, harder, and more time consuming work will be written off as "privilege" and evidence that their part time wife is underpaid.

They are still going to be gun righters. They are still going to perceive their interests to be in de-regulation. They are still going to listen, by and large, to tax-free religions, many of which make their money by spouting a fundamentalist, male-favorable religious sects. They may become less strident, watch other TV besides Fox, but this generation of males will vote mostly the same. Their political affiliation is based on a view of the world.

In general, women are more religious than men are. Men's views on taxation and deregulation have been shaped by the camp into which they've been pushed. In the 40's and 50's, the gender gap by party didn't exist. The biggest practical problem with the gap as it exists is that single women don't stay in the Democratic fold. They adopt their husband's voting habits.

You can hold all the negative stereotypes you wish, but this is the reality. To the extent that your stereotypes influence the behavior of the party, it further alienates men.

This party won't change ideologically until we face a catastrophe which requires us to rethink things. I should think that GWB would have been enough of a catastrophe.

[caseymoz]

12. You see "reality," but I hold "negative stereotypes?"

Sorry, conversation can't progress on that basis. All I could say is, wow, you've persuaded me already. I can forecast you how your ideas are going to fare in the wider world.

As for GWB being a catastrophe. No, think a world war. Think a world-wide depression far worse than anything we've seen in our lifetime. Think environmental wreckage that will erase the US off the map. I mean changing your mind in a way that huge armies moving through Europe changed the minds of the German people.

That's what I'm talking about with catastrophe. GWB wasn't even a prelude to it. He was just the first sign that something's structurally wrong with this country.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. conversational progression.

Okay, let's see if we can agree on some facts;
1) we lost in Wisconsin.
2) single women vote for democrats by a huge margin.
3) there's a 44 point swing in voting patterns among women, depending on if they are married or not.
4) men, specifically white men, tend to vote for republicans, before and after marriage.
5) married people are much more likely to vote.
6) "men and married women" outnumber "everyone else"
7) we want to win elections, and huge armies moving through the US is a bad outcome.

Are we agreed so far?

The reasons are complicated, but my feeling is that pay equity as an issue is part of this - is not a winning platform. It seems like a good idea in the abstract, because people doing the qualitatively and quantitatively same work should be paid the same. It is in fact the law. Unfortunately, that's not the metric that organizations use to measure the gap. To the extent that a pay gap exists, it is because men and women do qualitatively and quantitatively different work. When a woman marries, leaves work to have a child and her husband gets laid off, it is vitally important to both of them that HE go back to work as quickly and as profitably as possible. "Pay equity? Who cares? I can't go back to work yet!"

Instead of pay equity, (a wedge issue which uses distorted statistics that are irrelevant to the individuals concerned AND puts us in the minority), how about child care? If childcare were affordable for the couple, she could return to work at whatever she chooses giving the family a little slack to ride out the cyclical nature of his employment.

This provides direct, tangible benefit for her and is not an open attack on him. We need to put more attention into issues that benefit the family and not seek opportunities to poke him with the stick.

[caseymoz]

14. Again, if you see "reality," but I hold "negative stereotypes" . . .

. . . there's nowhere this discussion can go. Period.

[lumberjack_jeff]

15. You don't like the facts or you don't like the conclusions?

If the answer is "both" then yes. It's your negative stereotypes that are getting in the way.

[caseymoz]

16. I didn't read it.

I don't trust the source now.

Goodbye.

[opiate69]

17. I give it a 5.

Missing the traditional "have a nice day" and the wave smiley.

[lumberjack_jeff]

18. Challenging opinions aren't everyones cup of tea. nt

[opiate69]

19. yep...

that`s why I figure I`ll just rate the oh so predictable storming offs for a while... gotta amuse myself somehow

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. I think this is part of the solution.

But the economic situation is a big, big part of why people vote the way they do.

As another poster mentioned in GD this morning, the issue appears to be about peer jealousy "I don't have a pension, so why should you?". This peer jealousy is a great distraction from the useful and productive jealousy that should be directed at the 1%-ers for whom sending $30 million to the Walker campaign is a prudent investment.

There's no escaping wedge politics. The point is to drive the wedge in the right place. 99% vs 1% is a great place. Men vs women is not. Particularly not when married women vote like their husbands, and want them to earn as much as possible.

[lumberjack_jeff]

21. One would think so.

But when Rush and Hannity and Coulter get done spinning and rehabilitating him...

I very much want working class men to vote for democrats, but the turnaround won't happen in one election cycle.