Wait, what? Are you reading the same graph I am? From 2001 to 2013 men identifying as “pro life” increased by 5 percentage points. For the same years it increased by 6 percentage points in women. How is that a growing gap? The gap is narrowing, if anything.
Additionally, I’m not sure you can extrapolate from that, anyway. From 2009 to 2013 men saw a decrease in pro life respondents of 4 percentage points and women a decrease of only 3 percentage points.
I’m comparing the trend lines not the endpoints.
In greater detail…
The pro-life men - pro-choice men has a trend line with a slope of 0.9231.
The pro-life women - pro-choice women has a trend line with a slope of 0.6593.
The pro-life men - pro-choice - (pro-life women - pro-choice women) has a trend line with a slope of 0.2637.
The men’s trend line is above women’s trend line and the gap between them is getting larger.
Though you may not know it, you’re pushing a personal bias. The difference is tiny, if it even exists, but you are searching for the mode of analysis that will make it appear the largest. What you are actually observing is that men’s views are more volatile than women’s from year to year. Men’s will bounce from 46% to 54% and then back down to 45% in just three years. You can’t draw a trend line through 12 years of that and expect it to mean anything. In short, I do not agree with your conclusions.
Not at all.
I’m not pushing anything.
I grabbed the first set of data that I could find from a reputable source and reported the trends contained therein.
I’ll be happy to do the same analysis on a different data set if you point one out to me.
True, and I should add that this goes far beyond domestic politics. War is not pro-life! Many of the members of the demographics most (ostensibly) opposed to abortion are also the most bellicose, and even then, they and the American public in general only seem to have a problem when Americans die in vain, not when they kill in vain.
In early 2003, I was very worried about the fate of the hapless, conscripted Iraqi troops, and hoped they would have opportunities to surrender. Why is this sort of humanitarian impulse so rare?
Also, back to abortion, if you really oppose it, then you ought to support a course of action that is empirically proven to collapse the abortion rate and pay for itself, namely, subsidizing long-acting reversible contraception/contraceptives (LARCs; i.e. IUDs and implants) and comprehensive sex education. With some important exceptions, the supposedly pro-life crowd does not.
One more thing. I computed the variance/covariance matrix for the linear regression on the data set.
The slope of 0.263736264 has a variance of 0.005494505. This means that the probability that slope is actually flat or negative is 0.000186847.
Speaking on behalf of the American Association of Mathtards…go spoon a goose, numbercruncher!
In BrainGlutton’s link, there’s a bit I’m puzzling over (in a half-assed, not enough to drain my phone battery by trying to find a clarification way):
I can read this bolded bit in two totally different ways. Is she saying:
1- Millennials aren’t interested in “social issues” (i.e. abortion) nearly as much as other “issues” (like the economy, or foreign policy or whatever), so they should focus on those other issues in the beginning so millennials will look more favorably on them?
Or
2- Millennials are less likely to agree with the GOP position on “social issues” (i.e. abortion) (aka: She thinks millennials are more pro-choice instead of pro-life), so they should do other things first to not piss off/alienate millennials?*
My gut thinks it’s #2, but again, I don’t know the stats offhand or her intent.
It’s #1. The point is not the vote, per se, but that it’s the first vote, before they vote on more important issues, like the economy, jobs and wages.