So what exactly happened to the much vaunted women's vote? The increased women doing early voting

[LymphocyteLover]

and the skewing towards Harris? Did it just not hold up on election day?

I still don't know what happened to the Roe vote.

[John2028]

1. Womens vote

Good question

[Colgate 64]

2. Makes two of us nt

[Skittles]

3. overridden by the MEN WHO ARE SKEERED vote

FUCK THEM

[Kaleva]

39. There are more women then men

[Meadowoak]

4. Musk stole it for Trump/Putin

[Blue_Roses]

31. But how?

He's smart enough. And off the rails enough. But, how? Other than some gut feeling,
there is no factual proof.

Hypothetically, IF it was some nefarious stuff going on, I hope someone figures it out.

[marybourg]

5. State pro-choice initiatives and constitutional amendments

out-polled Kamala in most cases. We were counting on her getting all the pro-choice votes.

[SharonAnn]

17. Women who voted for pro-choice initiatives thought it would protect them. It won't. Federal law can overturn them.

[marybourg]

20. If every one of them had

also voted for Kamala, they would have better protection.

[Irish_Dem]

6. All those women standing in line voted for Trump? Sure.

[SheltieLover]

7. Right

[0rganism]

12. Not all, but apparently enough to make a difference

I was initially surprised by the amount of split-ticket voting, but seems like there are sufficient reasons for it to happen. If some people disconnect the federal government's actions from their sudden need to protect women's health care at the state level yet link the federal government inextricably to higher retail gas and grocery prices, those people might just vote for the "change candidate" who's been advertising at them nonstop for the last 2 months. Obviously, such reasoning is deeply flawed but people do sometimes vote on the basis of gut feelings and vibes without strongly questioning the basis for said impressions.

[Zeitghost]

30. No

But ~46% did.

[Kaleva]

40. Enough of them did to give Trump the win

[Dem4life1234]

8. Voter suppression

[TwilightZone]

9. A lot of them were Republicans.

Many GOP politicians were pushing early voting HARD in their states/districts, so the early voting wasn't nearly as heavily Democratic as many assumed.

In Florida, the GOP had a million-vote edge in early voting.

The Roe vote was highly overestimated. Many just assumed it would override other issues, and it clearly didn't. It was important, but not important enough to sway voters on other races. That was obvious in places like Florida, where the amendment got 58%, but Rs dominated.

[cilla4progress]

11. But the early vote Rs were supposedly

voting D.

And what about all the late breaking independent supposedly breaking our way?

Do putin and musk have the technology to fuck with our ballots?

[Irish_Dem]

13. Yes they have the technology.

We know they interfered in 2016.
And they did it again.

[TwilightZone]

14. It wasn't actually true.

The one claim (10% of GOP voting for Harris) that most frequently made the rounds was based on faulty data. The source, some random guy on X, was trying to combine data from two different sources, but the datasets didn't match up, and he made some wrong assumptions in the calculations. Plus, one of the sources was a CNN poll of one state (AZ), and polls aren't real data and can't be extrapolated to other states or national figures.

Some real garbage made the rounds on DU the past couple weeks. It set up some very unrealistic expectations.

[msfiddlestix]

16. Thank you, that explains a lot on this question.

[LymphocyteLover]

22. so all those women went out early and voted for... trump? Really?

[TwilightZone]

28. Well, some of them clearly did.

Trump got 53% of the white women vote. The GOP ramped up their early voting efforts.

The GOP had a one-million vote edge in early voting in Florida alone. They weren't all men, were they?

So, yeah, some of them voted for Trump. Is that supposed to be surprising?

[cilla4progress]

29. What about

the enthusiasm gap?

[jimfields33]

23. That was wishful thinking. There was no evidence of that.

[Kaleva]

41. What are your sources?

I think it was based on the supposition that women would overwhelmingly vote for Harris.

[cilla4progress]

44. A lot of Simon Rosenberg

David Plouffe?

[Fiendish Thingy]

10. Come back in about six months when the *real* exit poll data is available

What you’re hearing pundits talking about are just snippets of the exit data collected. Pew research interviews tens of thousands of voters after every election, and their exit poll analysis is seen as some of the most reliable.

But it takes time to compile and analyze.

[TwilightZone]

15. Agreed.

Pew did an extremely solid, very informative breakdown of the 2020 election, but it took them months to compile.

I've probably referred to it 50 times this cycle.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/

[Kaleva]

42. Agree. It will take quite a awhile to gather and analyze the data.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

18. White women break for Republicans. Non-white women don't.

[Blue_Roses]

32. I'm white

and my daughters are white and we all voted for Harris. I have a highly educated republican friend who voted for Harris. Smart, educated women of all colors, shapes and sizes, voted for Harris. And I'm in a red state. Although, I agree, the "norm" is most wealthy white women vote for Trump.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

35. That's fine, but you're in the minority among your cohort. More white women vote for Republican presidential candidates

than Democratic. They've broken for the Dem only twice since 1960.

[tenderfoot]

19. A lot of women a worse misogynists than men are

eom

[kwolf68]

21. My take is

IN midterms people who vote are politically engaged, there is no freak show Presidential race, so serious thinkers come out and vote.

In the Prezzy election for the "lead rock star" a lot of dumbasses vote, thus serious and legitimate issues get pissed away.

Maybe I am wrong about this all.

[LymphocyteLover]

24. there's probably something to that, yes... though still, all those early women went for trump based on silly reasons?

[Self Esteem]

26. You're not wrong at all. I made the same comment here weeks ago talking about turnout.

I told people to temper their expectations based on turnout. High turnout was not necessarily a good thing for Democrats because that meant a lot of disengaged voters, who generally didn't vote, were being activated. Poll after poll after poll showed that Harris did well with voters who voted in 2020 and 2022, while Trump did exceptionally well with voters who didn't vote in 2022 but voted in 2020 - as well as "voters" who didn't vote in either of those elections.

That was Trump's target for his campaign and it worked. Turnout will be down from 2020 but I bet it's higher than 2016, which was higher than 2012.

The Democrats have built a coalition that is more engaged (typically college educated voters) and they'll come out in the midterms, while the average Republican voter might stay home. But in a general election? Those non-voters are more activated and super-charged to vote.

[lindysalsagal]

46. You've nailed it

[Self Esteem]

25. Women did see an uptick on the overall electorate.

But we have to understand that there's not an infinite amount of women voters. They make up roughly 50.4% of the overall US adult population and the past few elections, either 52 or 53 percent of the voting electorate. In 2020, it as 52. In 2024, it was 53.

The only way it was going to be larger is if men didn't vote - and they did.

Where Harris got burned is that more women voted for Trump than they did four years ago.

In 2020, Biden won the women vote 57-42. This time? Harris won it 53-45. It was actually the worst a Democrat has done among women voters since 2004.

And she did worse among men than Biden. Biden lost men by eight in 2020. Harris lost men by thirteen.

So, what happened? Abortion took a backseat to inflation.

All the talk about how women would Roe, Roe, Roe the vote and it never materialized.

[kelly1mm]

27. In a kind of tragic/ironic way, so many states enacting pro-choice ballot initiatives took the wind

out of the 'Roe vote's' sails. Some women (and men) saw they could ensure abortion access on the state level so they were not as motivated at the federal level to vote for VP Harris. Basically a FUIGM attitude .....

Now this ignores that that a federal ban or week limitation would overrule those protections but I actually believe President Trump will not pursue a federal ban/week restriction. However, the House at least will have a vote on it .....

[DontBelieveEastisEas]

33. There was no increased women doing early voting; 2020 had high women to men early voting.

[LymphocyteLover]

34. well, I guess those reports of increased women in the early vote were disinfo?

[LisaL]

38. Not disinfo.

More women voted than men. Both in 2020 and in 2024. There was a large gender gap in many states. But again, more white women voted for Trump than for Harris.
So having more women than men was not going to elect Harris. Unless all those women were minority women, which they were not.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

36. I'm bettng white women supported the abortion initiatives on their ballots and then split their vote for Trump.

They saw themselves in the vivid and emotional abortion ads, but not other people.

[LisaL]

37. Well, more women voted than men, but

when more white women voted for Trump than Harris, that doesn't help, does it?

[Kaleva]

43. Agree

[notroot]

45. Because white women are mostly garbage people, like almost all white men.