In these days of high anxiety I get a lot people asking, “So who do you think will win?” To which I first say, “I don’t know. No one does.” But then, if they’re truly interested, I add, “Given a straight popular vote, Harris should win by at least four million. But with the Electoral College, where the choices of 150 million people are left in the hands of 70,000 – 80,000 oddballs who don’t ever pay much attention to this stuff, this could go either way.”
If I think they’re really interested I throw in the conventional wisdom that Democrats always need something like 2.1% more popular vote than Republicans just to make up for the built-in disadvantages the Electoral College. And then, if their eyes haven’t completely glazed over and they’ve wandered back to check on some not-too vital football game, I offer the fairly scientific opinion that this election is a matter of “Boys v Girls”.
Poll after poll shows a startling gap in enthusiasm, with men preferring Trump by 20% or more over Harris and women in some cases supporting Harris by closer to 30% over Trump. Some of this can be attributed to nothing more complicated than standard-issue gender identification, with the added understanding that many men, no matter who the candidates, will never vote for a woman. “Too emotional”, y’know.
But in 2024, studies continue to show that men, particularly younger, so-called “blue collar” men are steadily falling behind their female counterparts in terms of education and earning levels. Currently, over 60% of college degrees are being earned by women, a dramatic shift from even 20 years ago. The explanations for this are murkier. But one worth considering is that more men than women failed to react effectively to the great shift from a physical labor-to-information econmy. Put another way, men have held to the view that they were entitled to good-paying, low-education jobs. Work that required nothing more of them than muscle and the willingness to put in eight hours a day.
In my mind I add a couple other dimensions to this very real trend. One, an anecodote admittedly, is a line from a book by retired CIA director Michael Hayden. In his view, after analyzing data from post-election surveys in 2016 he concluded that the most reliable indicator of a Trump voter was someone still living within 25 miles of where they grew up. Whether far rural Kansas or Staten Island, New York.
A more recent data point shows the wide-and-getting-wider gulf between more and less-educated voters, with the former migrating towards Democrats and the latter toward (Trump-era) Republicans.
And to this you say, “This is supposed to surprise me?”
And I get that. But the “within 25 miles” business is interesting, especially when you see these Trump rallies so ften set in rural-to-far-exurban areas. No doubt there are a few hedge fund/private equity bros in those MAGA crowds, cheering on a looming era of carnivorous deregulation. But the — fair — guess is that the seething, beating heart of these gatherings are men, mainly, who have never ventured far from where they grew up.
And why? Because they liked small town, rural life and fresh air too much to think of leaving in pursuit of a higher (economic) standard of living? Or because life in or closer to a large city was simply too scary and intimidating a prospect to them? Being as places like big “liberal” cities are full of people and cultures too alien and uncomfortable for them to understand … or so they’re told by the perpetually reaffirming sources they trust most?
Now obviously there are a significant number of women at MAGA rallies. No group of any kind is monolithic. But as an old movie critic, I can tell you plenty of women tag along with their boyfriends/husbands to see lunk-head, ultra-macho “action” films like “Rambo” and “Death Wish” back in the day or disposable junk like “Hard Kill” today. Those gals, loyal by tradition, “support” their men, come what may whatever they think.
The point here is that where a profound shift has taken firm hold among women in terms of making an an effort to gain more education, adapt to the modern world and achieve professional-level standards of living, men are backsliding. Instead of getting more training after the factory or mine closes and maybe moving to where work pays more, they remain in place, close to what is familiar, working minimum-wage jobs … and growing ever more bitter toward “the elites” and/or “government” for failing them, as though they were entitled by race and gender to the same comfortable life the recall their fathers having.
So ,,, in my mind this election will come down to which of these groups, angry, self-pitying men or ambitious, self-motivated women gets up off their butts and votes.
.
This is a perceptive piece. What’s interesting in that 25 mile radius data point is that, historically, laborers and skilled workers alike have been eager to pick up and move to wherever the work, or the possibility of work, was. Across oceans and continents. I include myself. I was raised in a family that moved from Michigan to New York to Pennsylvania, following the opportunities. I relocated from Pennsylvania temporarily to Texas, then back to Pennsylvania, then here to the Twin Cities. In every instance to pursue, and achieve, upward mobility.