Intraparty Gender Gaps in Voters' Identities and Concerns

One difference between men and women is that women are slightly more partisan than men. The independence gap finds men about 5 percentage points more likely to view themselves as leaning independents while women are more likely to view themselves as weak partisans (Norrander 1997). Women's more partisan identities might lead them to be more supportive of incumbent presidents seeking renomination, vice presidents hoping to move up to the top post, and other party frontrunners. Likewise, candidates who have a greater appeal among independent rather than partisan primary voters also should experience a gender gap in support.

Table 1 examines partisan differences between men and women participating in the 1980–1996 Democratic and Republican presidential primaries.¹

First, in both parties' primaries on average three-quarters of the voters identify with the party. About one-quarter view themselves as independent voters, and only a scant 4% are crossover voters. The independence gap occurs more clearly among Democratic primary voters. In 43% of the primaries, the Democratic electorate has statistically a significantly larger proportion of male than female independents. On the other hand, in 51% of the Democratic primaries, women are a larger proportion of the partisan voters. Generally, the few crossover voters are not differentiated along gender lines, but in about one in five primaries more men than women are crossover voters. The patterns are not as distinct among voters in the Republican primaries. In two-thirds to three-quarters of the Republican primaries, no differences exist along gender lines for partisan, independent, or crossover voters. Still, a weak independence gap does occur. Somewhat less than a third of the time, men are more likely to outnumber women among independent voters.

Issue or ideological differences also could separate men from women in each party's primary electorate. Table 1 illustrates that a gender difference on ideology is quite prevalent in the Republican primary electorate.²

Generally, about half of the Republican primary electorate view themselves as conservatives, one-third as moderates, and 10% as liberals. Men outnumber women among the conservative voters in three-quarters of the primaries, while women outnumber men among moderate voters in two-thirds of the Republican primaries. The Democratic primary electorate is more broadly divided among the three ideological identifications but the differences between men and women are more muted. About half of the Democratic primary electorate view themselves as moderates, and in about 20% of the primaries women outnumber men in this category. Nearly one-third of Democratic voters describe themselves as liberals, and once again, about 20% of the time women outnumber men in this category as well. Finally, in the quarter of the Democratic electorate who view themselves as conservatives, men outnumber women about one-third of the time. Similar intraparty ideological gender gaps occur among caucus participants and delegates to the presidential nomination conventions (McMullen and Norrander 2000; Rapoport, Stone, and Abramowitz 1990).

If primary voters are retrospective voters (Monardi 1994; Wattier 1990), women's more pessimistic view of the economy might lead them to be less supportive of incumbents (Chaney, Alvarez, and Nagler 1998) even during the nomination stage. Among voters in the 1992 Republican primaries, women were more pessimistic than men about the economy in 45% of the states while men were more pessimistic than women in 9%. Thus, while women's stronger partisanship could lead them to give greater support to incumbent presidents, women's more pessimistic evaluations of the economy could push their support away from incumbents.

Men and women appear to be looking for different qualities in candidates. Women often are more reluctant to vote for “maverick” candidates. In general election voting, men have been greater supporters of third-party candidates (Alvarez and Nagler 1995; Lacy and Burden 1999; Lacy and Monson 2002). Likewise, in response to the 1992 primary exit polls, men were more likely than women to pick a candidate who would “shake things up.” Women focused more on qualities such as caring, courage, ability to handle a crisis, or experience. Men, on the other hand, also were more likely to be looking for a candidate who could win the fall election (McMullen and Norrander 2000). Thus, a number of differences in partisanship, ideology, evaluations of the economy, and preferred candidate qualities could lead men and women within the same party to support different candidates for their party's presidential nomination.

Intraparty Gender Gaps in Candidate Preferences

To measure the intraparty gender gap in candidate support during the 1980–2000 presidential primaries, the proportion of male supporters is subtracted from the proportion of female supporters and a difference in proportions statistical significance test is applied. A positive gender gap number indicates more support from women and a negative gender gap figure denotes more support from men. When only two candidates contest an election, a gender gap in preferences for one candidate is reflected in the opposite direction for the other candidate. However, in a multicandidate setting a number of combinations could occur. Pairs of candidates could have inversed gender gaps, one favored by women and the other by men. One candidate could garner stronger support from one of the sexes, but voters of the other sex might distribute their preferences across a number of candidates such that none of the candidates has disproportionate support from these voters. It is even possible that a single candidate might be preferred by men in some electoral settings and supported more by women in other primaries.

Table 2 lists the intraparty gender gaps for Democratic candidates. The 1980 contest between President Jimmy Carter and Senator Ted Kennedy produced a significant gender gap only one-third of the time. Contrary to the incumbency support argument due to women's stronger partisan identification but in support of the economic vote hypothesis, women were slightly more likely to support Kennedy (an 8.5 percentage point gap in the statistically significant instances) while more men supported Carter.

The 1984 Democratic contest had some candidates, such as Jesse Jackson, producing a more frequent gender gap, and some odd combinations where the same candidate (Gary Hart, Jackson, Walter Mondale) at times had greater support from women and in other primaries greater support from men. Much of the explanation for these gender gaps in the 1984 Democratic contest has to do with racial voting patterns in that election. In 1984, the support for Jesse Jackson came almost entirely from black voters. In primaries with exit poll data, Jackson on average received the support of only 5.5% of white voters while attaining the votes from 77% of African American voters. Black women are more likely to turn out to vote in elections than are black men (McClain and Stewart 1998, 83). This was true in many of the 1984 primaries, where women comprised 59.3% of the black electorate in comparison to 51.8% of the white electorate (a difference statistically significant in eight of the 13 primaries). Thus, the greater presence of black female voters led to an overall gender gap of women supporting Jesse Jackson.

When the 1984 election choices are controlled for race, the gender gap for Jackson among white voters occurred in only two states, and in these two states (California and Illinois) men gave Jackson higher support. Among white voters, John Glenn had greater support from male rather than female voters in only one state, Hart garnered more support from women rather than men in only one state, while Mondale drew greater support from women in two states and men in one state. Overall, the number of significant gender gaps among white voters shrunk from 16 states to seven states. (The discrepancy in total number of gender gap states with those listed in Table 1 occurs because exit polls in several states did not include a race question.) Among black voters, Jackson had only one significant gender gap, drawing the support of more female voters in New York. Black male voters in New York were sightly more likely to support Mondale. Finally, black male voters were more likely than black female voters to support Hart in three states (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee).

In 1988, Jackson's gender gap is once again primarily explained by differential turnout rates among black voters. In three of the four states where Jackson had greater support from female voters, black women participated at higher rates than white women. In the one state where Jackson drew greater support from male voters, black men participated at a higher rate than white men.³

Al Gore had the most frequent gender gap in 1988. In six mostly southern states, Gore received more support from men than women, perhaps tapping into the greater number of conservative male voters. In four states, women gave greater support to Michael Dukakis, while the votes for Richard Gephardt, Hart, and Paul Simon never produced a gender gap. In 1992, a gender gap occurred only about one-fourth of the time. Men gave greater support to Jerry Brown, hoping to shake things up. Women gave greater support to Clinton because he cared or could handle a crisis and to Paul Tsongas because he was courageous (McMullen and Norrander 2000). In the 2000 Democratic contest, Gore experienced a more consistent gender gap than he received in 1988, but in 2000 female voters gave him greater support than male voters in 11 of the 20 states. This may be the case of women's greater partisan leanings producing added support for a vice president seeking to move up to the top post. In general, a gender gap occurred about one-fourth of the time for candidates in the 1980– 2000 Democratic primaries.

Table 3 presents evidence on the gender gaps for Republican candidates. These differences between male and female voters appear to be slightly more pronounced in the Republican primary electorate. Overall, about one-third of the time a Republican presidential nominee seeker experienced a gender gap in support. The 1980 primaries are a notable exception, with only one instance of a gender gap. The most frequent gender gap in the 1988 Republican primaries occurred in support of Pat Robertson, who drew greater support from women than from men. Women are more religious than men, which appears to explain women's greater support for Robertson. Robertson also had more women among his financial supporters than did the other Republican candidates (Wilcox 1992).

While George H. W. Bush drew greater support from men than women in a small number of the 1980 and 1988 primaries, in 1992 President Bush was consistently and strongly favored by female voters. The 1992 Republican contest pitted an incumbent president against a maverick-style opponent. Men supported Pat Buchanan to shake up politics and because of their concern for the deficit, trade issues, and affirmative action. Women's stronger partisanship and search for candidates with experience led them to support President Bush's renomination, despite their more negative evaluation of the economy. Women who supported Buchanan did so due to concerns about family values while men who supported Bush cited him as a winner (McMullen and Norrander 2000). The reasons and patterns of support for Buchanan and Robertson hint that the gender gap might partially overlap with divisions between economic and social conservatives within the Republican party.

The 1996 Republican primaries saw a repeat of Buchanan's wider support from male voters, although in fewer primaries than in 1992. When the vote for Dole reflected a gender gap, he was favored more by women than men—a pattern that also occurred in the 1988 primaries. For the two main candidates in the 2000 Republican primaries, George W. Bush drew broader support from women while John McCain attracted greater support from men. Bush's compassionate conservatism versus McCain's maverick style and support from independent voters may underlie the gender gap in the 2000 Republican primaries.

A number of instances of gender gaps exist within as well as across the two major American parties. About one-fourth of the time, candidates seeking the Democratic nomination experience a statistically significant difference in support levels from male versus female voters. A gender gap is more likely to occur for Republican candidates, about one-third of the time. Within the Democratic primary electorate, women are more likely to view themselves as Democrats while men are more likely to describe themselves as independents. This pattern is less strong in the Republican primary electorate. Yet, the Republican primary electorate is more divided along gender lines when it comes to ideology. Men in three-quarters of the Republican primaries are more likely to describe themselves as conservatives while women see themselves more often as moderates in two-thirds of the primaries. Men and women also appear to be searching for different qualities in a presidential nominee. The gender gap for two candidates (George H. W. Bush and Al Gore) reversed itself when these candidates changed from being challengers, when they were favored more by men, to incumbents, when women gave them more support. While the gender gaps within each party are often small and somewhat varied in their appearance, victory in the primaries is often attained by small vote margins. A greater awareness of gender differences within each party should serve to better our understanding of the dynamics of support during the nomination phase of the presidential selection process.