October 16, 2014

"The gender gap, which was exceptionally strong in the previous poll, has all but vanished in this poll."

"Among likely voters, men favor [Scott] Walker by a 48-46 percentage-point margin while women favor [Mary] Burke 48-47. Among all registered voters, men prefer Walker 49-43 and women are evenly split at 47 percent for each candidate. Since July, Walker’s advantage among men has varied between 11 and 28 percentage points, while Burke’s advantage among women has ranged from 6 to 18 percentage points."

The mystifying new Marquette poll in the Wisconsin gubernatorial race. Just 2 weeks ago Marquette had this:
A large gender gap is present in voting for both governor and attorney general. Among likely voters, Walker leads among men with 62 percent to 34 percent for Burke. Among women, Burke leads with 54 percent to Walker’s 40 percent. With registered voters, Walker leads among men 54-39 percent while Burke leads among women 50-40 percent.
What could account for that change? Among men and women viewed in one undifferentiated lump, Burke has gained ground and Walker lost in these 2 weeks. Now, both candidates have 47%, but 2 weeks ago, Walker had 50% and Burke 45%. That's a shift toward Burke, though entirely within the margin of error. (That's likely voters.) What could explain a huge gender gap turning into almost nothing?

There was that "plagiarism" business (about Burke's jobs plan containing material from Democratic candidates for governor in other states), which was peaking when the older poll was taken. Conceivably, more women empathized with the beleaguered candidate and more men reacted with starchy rectitude. I'm assuming issue has melted into the background as the newsfolk direct our thought to ebola and ISIS and other things that, unlike plagiarism, could kill us. Or maybe with more time to contemplate plagiarism, women were troubled while men warmed up to the take-good-ideas-wherever-you-find-them defense. 

There was also a debate last Friday, and not much happened except that Burke was able to stand next to the incumbent governor for an hour and seem reasonably equally weighted. But there was that moment when both candidates were asked to say something nice about the other. Walker easily expressed admiration for Burke's philanthropy, while Burke "began with a long 'uh' and a shake of the head." Maybe that's the kind of thing that attracts the men and alienates the women. Ha ha, she hates him versus If you can't say one thing nice about somebody, what does that say about you?

There's another debate tomorrow. Does anyone really watch these things live? I mean, I will, but I think these things are mainly raw footage for attack ads. Which would explain the dullness. Avoid mistakes. Anyway, I will watch, but I'm not going to question-by-question live-blog this time. I think I'll lock in, stare at the damned thing straight through, then give a summary of impressions, more like a normal person. 

27 comments:

Tank said...

You watch that, I'll watch the Jets.

Two painful assignments.

David Hampton said...

I think Burk is in over her head. She needs to take the ideological blinders off and deal with with reality not her perception of it.

Henry said...

That's a shift toward Burke, though entirely within the margin of error. (That's likely voters.) What could explain a huge gender gap turning into almost nothing?

Margin of error. You've answered your own question.

Henry said...

@Tank. My sympathies. I'll watch the Patriots.

traditionalguy said...

Make the first choice in tomorrow's poll:
1) Althouse thinks like a normal person.

It will be close.

Original Mike said...

One thing you learn from interpreting data for decades is that there are outliers. If the gender gap is large and persistent, and then all of a sudden it disappears in one data point for no apparent reason, it is likely a bad data point.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ann Althouse said...

"I think Burk is in over her head. She needs to take the ideological blinders off and deal with with reality not her perception of it."

What do you know about this candidate whose name you misspelled?

show me one socialist success in world history said...

If Burke cannot muster the simple graciousness to express something positive about one's opponent in a highly publicized political debate, she does not deserve the trust of the people to govern.

RecChief said...

Interesting.

On a side note, I actually responded to a telephone survey last night.

Serious question, what is the propensity of moderately conservative to definitely conservative voters to answer these surveys? Are they more likely to hang up as I usually do, or freely answer?

Finally, I felt sorry for the kid reading the questions, especially when we got to the last two. The second to last question was whether I owned any guns, and the last question was "What is your full name or initials?" kind of odd questions for a political survey.

RecChief said...

"show me one socialist success in world history said...
If Burke cannot muster the simple graciousness to express something positive about one's opponent in a highly publicized political debate, she does not deserve the trust of the people to govern."

I'd argue that it is because the left in this country has said so many times that their opposition is "evil" and "immoral". Leftism is a religion, and any who don't adhere are savages.

paminwi said...

No legitimate survey asks your name. This survey was about getting your name for future elections ala the wonderful, great, amazing Obama database! (Which, if course, he will sell in the future to other Democrat candidates for a pretty penny!)



garage mahal said...

Paging Emil Blatz.

Mark said...

The difference in polls can be seen mostly in the sample and the significantly smaller MOE on the newer poll, whose sampling overall seems to match demographics much better.

Anonymous said...

The great interest in this election is that it is so obviously drawn as a battle between Scott Walker and The Vagina as Fascist State. Your vote is your mirror.

Fen said...

direct our thought to ebola and ISIS and other things that, unlike plagiarism, could kill us

The plagiarism was a symptom of corruption and incompetence. Its not Ebola or ISIS thats going to kill us, it America's corruption and incompetence.

Rome destroyed itself long before the barbarians looted the remains.

Big Mike said...

What do you know about this candidate whose name [David Hampton] misspelled?

I know that she is a Democrat, and these days, in light of Obamacare web sites that don't work and are insecure, plus Ebola, plus ISIS, plus failures of nearly every "green energy" company that was bankrolled by the US Government, her party affiliation creates a presumption of governmental incompetence.

Big Mike said...

@David Hampton, nice locomotive picture. I don't recognize the type.

Mark said...

Yes, Mike, its not like the insecure private industry who lose customer credit card information to hackers one after another in a ceaseless roll call of major stores. Target, Home Depot, Michaels, chain after chain all hacked.

Or that great recent Apple iOS update that bricked some of the newest released phones.

Yep, only the government botches tech rollouts and is insecure.

Birkel said...

Yes, Mark. And only one of those things demands that I interact with it under penalty of law.

Back to you, idiot.

mikee said...

Here in Texas, the Democrat candidate blew a fuse and completely lost all decorum when it was pointed out that, despite her anger over the Republican Attorney General's behavior, that action was required by a law she had voted into being.

"If you don't know the answer to a question, don't ask it" is a common saying among lawyers. She's a lawyer.

But not gonna be the next Texas governor. By about 15%.

And not self-destructing in a debate is a pretty damn low bar to set for approving the election of a Democrat in your state, Althouse.

garage mahal said...

Yes, Mark. And only one of those things demands that I interact with it under penalty of law.

I'm glad ObamaCare was there for you when you needed it.

Charles said...

It MEANS that academia is the wrong place to look for accurate polling or political analysis.

This is a well-known adage among political professionals. I've never met a political professional who doesn't roll his/her eyes whenever the local news features a professor of political science on the news to comment on a campaign. It's a farce. A running joke, really.

Anonymous said...

not self-destructing in a debate is a pretty damn low bar to set for approving the election of a Democrat in your state, Althouse

You must be new here. Scott Walker could walk into the debate covered with vomit, reeking of booze and unable to stand up on his own and Althouse would still vote for him.

She is one of, if not the biggest supporter of Scott Walker in our state and if nothing he has done so far has changed her opinion then doubtful anything ever will.

Mark said...

Charles, that would be nice except the fact this poll repeatedly has been more accurate than the professionals.

Brian McKim & Traci Skene said...

So... rectitude is "starchy" now, is it? Why can't rectitude just be rectitude? Actually, isn't "rectitude" already loaded with morality? Isn't calling it "starchy" piling on?

Also: How many carbs in starchy rectitude? (I'm on a low-carb diet and I don't want to backslide.)

RecChief said...

"paminwi said...
No legitimate survey asks your name.
"


Yeah, the reason I felt sorry for him was that I wouldn't answer his question. When he pressed me, I pressed back, asking "what polling survey asks for a name or initials?" Poor kid, he sputtered something about demographics, and how he couldn't complete it without an answer from me. So, I told him my initials were GM.