Women Now Support Conservatives

[August1991]

In four polls through Nov. 26, support for the party among men averaged 42 per cent, compared with 33 per cent among women. In the most recent Ipsos poll, released Dec. 22, the gap spiked to 15 percentage points. Forty-three per cent of men said they would vote for the Conservatives, compared with only 28 per cent of women.

Canwest Late 2010

Looking at the ballot numbers by gender, support for the Conservatives among men was at 43.6 per cent, compared with 29.0 per cent for the Liberals. On the other hand, 35.6 per cent of women favoured the Tories compared to 30.7 per cent for the Liberals.

CTV 9 April

Over the last two weeks, the poll showed that among women, the Conservatives lead the Liberals by a 32-27 margin.

"As long as I've been in the business, Liberals have always enjoyed a solid 10-point lead on the women," said Gregg.

Winnipeg Free Press 28 March

The conventional wisdom in the MSM is that women don't like Harper or the Conservatives. The fact is, the conventional wisdom is wrong.

According to polls, the Conservatives now enjoy a plurality of support among women. While men still are more likely to support the Tories than women, the gender gap has shrunk.

It is surprising that the MSM has not reported on this remarkable change in apparent voting intentions. If the Tories are now polling consistently in majority territory (high 30s), this is due to switches among women.

----

Long ago, I thought that if Harper wanted a majority, he would have to improve his numbers among one of two groups: women or Quebecers. I have no ready explanation for this change among women voters.

Edited April 16, 2011 by August1991

[Evening Star]

?

Your source is a MSM outlet that is reporting on it...

[August1991]

?

Your source is a MSM outlet that is reporting on it...

No. My links above are to obscure paragraphs in news articles about poll results that happen to include breakdowns according to gender.

ES, do you know of any news analysis of this apparent poll result?

[Harry]

Actually more women than men support the NDP and The Bloc, Liberals are supported by women and men equally, and more men than women support the Cons.

[Harry]

Actually more women than men support the NDP and The Bloc, Liberals are supported by women and men equally, and more men than women support the Cons. Check the EKOS pdf file that was released today.

[August1991]

Actually more women than men support the NDP and The Bloc, Liberals are supported by women and men equally, and more men than women support the Cons.

But overall, according to the polls that I have seen, a plurality of women support the Conservatives.

This is a remarkable change and largely explains why Harper is polling numbers that give him a good chance at forming a majority government.

Edited April 16, 2011 by August1991

[Battletoads]

Odd considering they do support women at all.

[kimmy]

Surprising that women have left the Liberals in light of the Big National Daycare plan that seems like a calculated play for female votes.

Maybe women really do vote based on "feelings" instead of logic. Logic says "Big National Daycare could really help me out", but feelings say "That Ignatieff just creeps me out."

-k

[Bonam]

Maybe women really do vote based on "feelings" instead of logic. Logic says "Big National Daycare could really help me out", but feelings say "That Ignatieff just creeps me out."

I dunno, maybe many women's real thoughts on "national daycare" is more like "crap, now I won't have an excuse not to work anymore". How many women (or men for that matter) work because its a financial necessity for their family and how many because they really want to? Only those that are really passionate about their careers should really want the daycare. Probably many others would be just as happy to not have to work and receive government money / tax breaks for staying at home with their kids instead, and that of course favors the Conservative income splitting proposal.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Bonam

[kimmy]

I think that most two income couples both work because they want to provide a lifestyle for their family that isn't affordable with a single income.

My dad was easily able to provide a big house with a nice yard on a single income when I was little, and he wasn't long out of college at the time. That was in the 1980s. Think you can do that on a single income now? If you live in most major Canadian cities, fat chance.

-k

[Bob]

Surprising that women have left the Liberals in light of the Big National Daycare plan that seems like a calculated play for female votes.

Maybe women really do vote based on "feelings" instead of logic. Logic says "Big National Daycare could really help me out", but feelings say "That Ignatieff just creeps me out."

-k

I think the "Big National Daycare" appeals to a specific type of woman - the type that has more children than she can afford. I would hope that intelligent and reasonable minded women such as yourself would be able to see through this attempt to buy votes by promising yet another unaffordable entitlement. Basically, Ignatieff wants to bankrupt the country in order to get elected.

[Bonam]

I think that most two income couples both work because they want to provide a lifestyle for their family that isn't affordable with a single income.

My dad was easily able to provide a big house with a nice yard on a single income when I was little, and he wasn't long out of college at the time.

-k

Ok, they want to provide that lifestyle, and the mom works because she has to. If we provide a national daycare plan, that means the economy realigns itself even further in the expectation that all / almost all moms will be working. A big part of why housing rose in cost is because women joined the workforce. Suddenly, families with two incomes were competing for the same houses that families with just one income used to buy, so the price was driven up. The more it becomes the norm for moms to be working, the more financially impossible it will become for a mom not to work. In the long run, national daycare removes family's options rather than opening them up, since both partners will have to work rather than having a choice of one not working.

I think financial incentives for families with just one working parent will do a whole lot more good and open up a lot more options for people than a national daycare system.

That was in the 1980s. Think you can do that on a single income now? If you live in most major Canadian cities, fat chance.

Well, I already have couple six figure salary offers just coming out of grad school so... maybe... not in Vancouver though of course.

Edited April 16, 2011 by Bonam

[Bob]

Ok, they want to provide that lifestyle, and the mom works because she has to. If we provide a national daycare plan, that means the economy realigns itself even further in the expectation that all / almost all moms will be working. A big part of why housing rose in cost is because women joined the workforce. Suddenly, families with two incomes were competing for the same houses that families with just one income used to buy, so the price was driven up. The more it becomes the norm for moms to be working, the more financially impossible it will become for a mom not to work. In the long run, national daycare removes family's options rather than opening them up, since both partners will have to work rather than having a choice of one not working.

Well, this phenomenon wouldn't happen all of a sudden, and the market would respond by adding more homes to the available supply to hit a new equilibrium. I also think the amount of household income gained by a second income would typically surpass the extra costs added to homes based on this increased demand you're assuming would happen.

Anyways, I think the important thing to realize here is that women who don't avoid the workforce because of their children, generally speaking. We don't have plenty of female professionals sitting on unemployment because they can't afford daycare for their children. This promise is simply an attempt to buy votes from the poor.

I think financial incentives for families with just one working parent will do a whole lot more good and open up a lot more options for people than a national daycare system.

How's that?

[Bonam]

How's that?

How does it give people a choice? Well, both partners can work and the family can have more money, or just one can work, and they pay reduced taxes, allowing them to maybe still do ok on just one income. This is in comparison to the daycare system, where if just one parent works, he/she is still paying the full taxes, some part of which is gonna go to paying for the daycare program that babysits other people's children. In the first case, there is a financial pro/con to consider, in the second case, there is no such consideration, all financial factors align to encourage both partners to work. The first case leaves a viable choice, the second does not.

Well, this phenomenon wouldn't happen all of a sudden, and the market would respond by adding more homes to the available supply to hit a new equilibrium. I also think the amount of household income gained by a second income would typically surpass the extra costs added to homes based on this increased demand you're assuming would happen.

Not really, the number of homes that are built depends on the population, not on the income. Each family is gonna want a place to live, whether they are earning a single income or two incomes. Families also want to live in nice places, typically, they will buy the best (most expensive) house they can afford. Thus, families bid against each other to try to buy the houses they prefer. This process is what controls the price of houses. It is not like cars, where you can just build more and more of them and prices go down because of economies of scale. With houses, they are built on land, and extra land cannot be created out of nowhere, and as more people compete to buy houses the value of that land increases. The market can't supply more land in places like Vancouver.

[bloodyminded]

But overall, according to the polls that I have seen, a plurality of women support the Conservatives.

If a plurality of women support the Conservatives, that means a majority of women do not.

Most women prefer to vote in a more liberal/leftist direction. God bless 'em. And that majority preference is split, which accounts for a Conservative plurality.

[Molly]

How bizarre. That whole conversation seems predicated on the assumptions that men don't have children, and women don't have jobs....

http://hrblog.goldbeck.com/?tag=canadian-labour-statistics

73% of women with children under 16 and a signifigant other sharing the parenting are in the workforce. Only 70% of lone-parent women with kids under 16 hold down a job.

[Wild Bill]

Odd considering they do support women at all.

Mr. Toads, with all due respect, that's just anti-conservative, partisan, non-objective crap! :angry:

It reminds me of the old Reform days. The Liberals and the NDP would start making cracks about Reform being made up of old men. Reform would gently point out that they had more women MPs than either the Liberals or the "Dippers.

Then the line would be "They're made up of old WHITE men!" Again, Reform would respond with the obvious - there were more visible minority faces among the Reform caucus sitting in the House than there were on the other sides!

Some folks seem to run on caricatures, letting their dislike for a party or individual colour their impressions of them. So they make ad hominem attacks first, without really checking if they are true or not.

Ask Deb Gray if her party supported women! She was worth TEN Hedy Fry's or Carolyn Parrish's!

[kimmy]

If a plurality of women support the Conservatives, that means a majority of women do not.

Most women prefer to vote in a more liberal/leftist direction. God bless 'em. And that majority preference is split, which accounts for a Conservative plurality.

August's point is that a very short time ago it was the Liberals who enjoyed a plurality of support among women. What changed in just a couple of years? Conservative policies? Liberal policies? Womens' political philosophy? I think the answer is obvious.

-k

[August1991]

If a plurality of women support the Conservatives, that means a majority of women do not.

Most women prefer to vote in a more liberal/leftist direction. God bless 'em. And that majority preference is split, which accounts for a Conservative plurality.

Wow, Sherlock. And a majority of men don't support the Conservatives either.

Huh? Conservative support is around 40%.

The significant point is that a large number of women now choose the Conservatives and indeed they choose it rather than any other party.

As to your conclusion that women who don't choose the Conservatives are necessarily "liberal/leftist", have you considered the possibility that some women simply don't like Harper's blue eyes?

My dad was easily able to provide a big house with a nice yard on a single income when I was little, and he wasn't long out of college at the time. That was in the 1980s. Think you can do that on a single income now? If you live in most major Canadian cities, fat chance.

But overall, the median disposable income is higher now than in the 1980s. So something is wrong in your conclusion.

[bloodyminded]

August's point is that a very short time ago it was the Liberals who enjoyed a plurality of support among women. What changed in just a couple of years? Conservative policies? Liberal policies? Womens' political philosophy? I think the answer is obvious.

-k

The photograph makes a good point.

Seriously, I find it pretty hard to believe that women are now more attracted to the Conservative's policies--which, including by supporters' standards, are not unique, not utterly distinct from Liberal policies as we have known them, and contain nothing clear which would attract--or repel--women voters. Nor do I think the Liberals a more "natural" fit for women. Both male and female support for Harper derives to a large extent from the same unremarkable quality that once had the Liberals in a similar position: familiarity.

[kimmy]

But overall, the median disposable income is higher now than in the 1980s. So something is wrong in your conclusion.

The cost of housing has risen far more rapidly than disposable income, so my conclusion is just fine.

-k

[ToadBrother]

But overall, according to the polls that I have seen, a plurality of women support the Conservatives.

This is a remarkable change and largely explains why Harper is polling numbers that give him a good chance at forming a majority government.

A strange claim, considering his numbers seem to be falling back to the 2008 election levels.

[bloodyminded]

As to your conclusion that women who don't choose the Conservatives are necessarily "liberal/leftist", have you considered the possibility that some women simply don't like Harper's blue eyes?

Sure, but obviously the same goes the other way; that a plurality who do vote Conservative are not so much supportive of Harper as unwilling to vote for Lurch, Curly or Clouseau. I can't hold this against Harper supporters, either.

[August1991]

The photograph makes a good point.

I too am sceptical that women have switched to Harper because of Ignatieff. Ignatieff has been leader since 2009. The change however seems to date from the end of 2010.

As I say, I don't really have an answer except to argue (weakly) that women tend to be risk-averse and are rarely first-adopters. I'll bet that it's easier to market a new razor to older men than a new tampon to older women.

The cost of housing has risen far more rapidly than disposable income, so my conclusion is just fine.

-k

I know that I'm hijacking this thread but statistics show that median real income has risen in Alberta over the past 30 years. IOW, despite the increase in housing prices, incomes are still higher.

Each individual case is different but in general, my point is that if you want the widescreen TV, the two cars, the vacation to Hawaii, the dishwasher, central vac and so on, you'll need two incomes. If you are willing to live as your father 30 years ago, you'll need only one.

A strange claim, considering his numbers seem to be falling back to the 2008 election levels.

The Conservatives received 37.6%. Most polls now show them polling above that (keep in mind the margin of error). The few extra percentage points seem due to women, and will give Harper his majority.

Unless the vote splits are extreemly unlucky for him, Harper will have a majority at 38.6% or 39.6%.

Edited April 20, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

I haven't the slightest idea why any woman would vote for the Conservatives. Edited April 21, 2011 by cybercoma