In a Man’s World, Trump Would Still Win
If only men would vote, Trump would be the next president. If only women voted, Clinton would win by an even bigger landslide.
From a young age, Frank was fascinated by maps and atlases, and the stories they contained. Finding his birthplace on the map in the endpapers of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings only increased his interest in the mystery and message of maps.
While pursuing a career in journalism, Frank started a blog called Strange Maps, as a repository for the weird and wonderful cartography he found hidden in books, posing as everyday objects and (of course) floating around the Internet.
"Each map tells a story, but the stories told by your standard atlas for school or reference are limited and literal: they show only the most practical side of the world, its geography and its political divisions. Strange Maps aims to collect and comment on maps that do everything but that - maps that show the world from a different angle".
A remit that wide allows for a steady, varied diet of maps: Frank has been writing about strange maps since 2006, published a book on the subject in 2009 and joined Big Think in 2010. Readers send in new material daily, and he keeps bumping in to cartography that is delightfully obscure, amazingly beautiful, shockingly partisan, and more.
He’s been maligned for birtherism, racism, sexism, and half a dozen other isms. A growing number of Republicans no longer support his candidacy. The opinion polls show a widening gap in favour of his main opponent. But Donald J. Trump would still easily win the presidency. If only it were truly a man’s world.
If only men could or would vote, Trump would win by a landslide. The real-estate mogul would come out on top in 35 states, garnering 350 votes in the electoral college. Hillary Clinton would win only 188 electoral votes, and only 14 states. Most of the country would turn red, the exceptions being Hawaii, Washington, Oregon and California in the west; a huddle of northeastern states – Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont and Massachusetts; and in between only New Mexico and Illinois. Maine’s electoral votes would be split between both candidates.
But what if women ruled the world, or at least what if only their votes counted? It’s an even bigger landslide – in the other direction. Hillary would get 458 votes on the electoral college, Donald only 80. That would give him only 12 states: a western clump consisting of Idaho, Wyoming, Utah and North Dakota; and a southern string, from Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana through Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee to Kentucky and West Virginia. In this scenario, the Republican and Democratic candidates would have to share Nebraska’s electoral votes.
These maps are from FiveThirtyEight, where Nate Silver expands on the “massive gender split” that caught his eye in a recent poll: “Clinton trail(s) Trump by 11 percentage points among men but lead(s) him by 33 points among women. To put those numbers in perspective, that’s saying Trump would defeat Clinton among men by a margin similar to Dwight D. Eisenhower’s landslide victory over Adlai Stevenson in 1952, while Clinton would defeat Trump among women by a margin similar to … actually, there’s no good comparison, since no candidate has won a presidential election by more than 26 percentage points since the popular vote became a widespread means of voting in 1824”.
Granted, the gender split isn’t as pronounced in all polls, but the average still adds up to a Clinton lead of 15% among women, and a Trump lead of 5% among men, Silver says. Factoring in those differences to the current, gender-neutral polling averages for each state pushes them into the Trump or Clinton columns on these maps. Leaving the dual monarchy of gender-separated electorates behind for the less divisible republic in which the November 8 election will take place, Silver concludes: “If Trump loses the election, it will be because women voted against him”.
Strange Maps #806
Got a strange map? Let me know at email@example.com.
The ability to speak clearly, succinctly, and powerfully is easier than you think
The ability to communicate effectively can make or break a person's assessment of your intelligence, competence, and authenticity.
Researchers discover a link between nonverbal synchronization and relationship success.
- Scientists say coordinating movements leads to increased intimacy and sexual desire in a couple.
- The improved rapport and empathy was also observed in people who didn't know each other.
- Non-verbal clues are very important in the development stages of a relationship.
What defines a dark horse? The all-important decision to pursue fulfillment and excellence.
When we first set the Dark Horse Project in motion, fulfillment was the last thing on our minds. We were hoping to uncover specific and possibly idiosyncratic study methods, learning techniques, and rehearsal regimes that dark horses used to attain excellence. Our training made us resistant to ambiguous variables that were difficult to quantify, and personal fulfillment seemed downright foggy. But our training also taught us never to ignore the evidence, no matter how much it violated our expectations.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.