Election Day Special

Predictions for Nov. 5, and observations from the past year

It was exactly one year ago today that I started this Substack, Men and the 2024 Election, with the goal of both following the media’s coverage of men and advocating for the Democratic Party to support men and therefore appeal to male voters. I also conducted in-depth research on the topic and published my first book, How Democrats Can Win Back Men. This information, I hoped, would improve the Democratic Party’s odds with not only the presidency but also with Congress. Additionally, those male-supportive policies would be good for the country, helping our grandfathers, fathers, sons, and therefore, everyone—because we are all interconnected.

This year’s campaign has been extraordinary in a number of ways, and with such a tight race according to the polls, anything can happen. The gender gap in voting turned out to be one of the main stories of this election. Between the issue of abortion, the possibility of the first female president, and images of different types of masculinity on each side, gender has been front and center. I want to look at a few of the most important data points.

The 7 Swing States

First, let’s look at the 7 swing states and note that in 2020, Republicans won among men in each even though they lost 6 of the 7. This is why I have stated since last year that Democrats should be focusing on male voters in these 7 states. Here’s the 2020 data (gender data is exit polls, not counts), and the 2024 data is the most recent polling from 538.com:

Compared to 2020, Trump needs to pick up 38 electoral votes in order to win this year. All seven of the swing states are within the margin of error, so he could pick them up here. Hence, most consider this race a tossup.

The Electoral Bias May Be Smaller This Year

Some encouraging news for Dems regarding Electoral Bias. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1% and still lost; Biden won the popular vote by 4.5% and just narrowly won in several states to secure the victory. Therefore, I’ve been going along with the assumption that Democrats would need to win nationally by 3%, even 4% to be safe, as a benchmark. However, according to research from The Center for Politics, that may not be true this year. In fact, Electoral Bias, as it’s called, has frequently fluctuated between the parties. (See this graph on the Washington Post for the interactive version.) So, Harris may only need to win the popular vote by a small amount and could still win the Electoral College.

Will the 8% “Magic Line” hold?

One key analysis of gender data I’ve developed is that, according to a popular dataset, Democrats have won every election when they have gotten -8% or better among men. And conversely, they have lost every election when the opposite was true. While this is not etched in stone, it has happened every year since 1972, a fact I have named “Sutton’s Key.”

The best Dems have ever done among women is +16% in 1996, Bill Clinton’s second term. Could Harris beat that? Gender gap data, which is always based on exit polls and therefore imprecise, is notoriously all over the map this year, so it’s difficult to pinpoint a number. But let’s look at a couple of polls to get an indication of the gender gap this year.

NYT/Siena poll late Oct: Harris -14% among men, +12% among women (source)

In previous years, I would have said this was extremely likely to be a Democratic loss. However, this year, the distribution is different, and Democrats have enough in the swing states to possibly win. Again, keep in mind that this gender data has varied widely this year. This is just one poll. Let’s look at the Washington Monthly’s Gender Gap Tracker created by Bill Scher which aggregates data from many polls:

Washington Monthly Gender Gap Tracker: Harris -8.7% among men, +10% among women (source)

You can see this number, Dems at -8.7%, is extremely close to the -8% line, yet another indication of a close race. Given a reasonable margin of error, that number could easily be less than -8%.

My Presidential Prediction

Given how close things are and how varied poll data has been, I don’t have strong confidence in a winner. Two months ago, I would have said Harris; two weeks ago, I would have said Trump. Today, I’m very, very slightly again leaning to Harris.

Final prediction: Harris 276, Trump 262. I predict Harris wins the Blue Wall states (WI, MI, PA) plus Nevada; Trump wins AZ, GA, and NC. (By the way, you can go to 270towin.com and make your best guess!)

Here’s how I weighed key factors to determine my choices:

Advantages for Harris:

• Abortion, and the possibility of a first female president, are motivating female voters

• I’ve heard numerous accounts that in rural counties in the Midwest, there are far fewer yard signs for Trump than in previous elections, and more for the Democratic ticket

• There are so many famous Republicans voting for Harris; this is unprecedented. I never thought I’d be on the same side of a vote as former VP Dick Cheney, but here we are

• That horrible Republican MSG event likely alienated many Latino voters late in the race as well as moderates who just didn’t like the tone

• Her opponent is a convicted felon

Advantages to Trump:

• Many people blame inflation on Harris/Biden, and think Trump is better for the economy which is almost always the #1 issue

• The conflict in the Middle East may hurt Democrats, particularly in Michigan which has a high Middle Eastern population

• Some cultural and identity issues, such as transgender athletes in women’s sports, motivate some to vote Republican

• Trump has developed a strong following, basically campaigning for 10 years straight

• And of course, Trump maintains a strong lead among male voters who feel the Democrats don’t care about them

I don’t have a crystal ball, but my gut thinks that Harris will have just enough. Anything could happen, but that’s my best prediction.

Other predictions

House: Dems end up +2. Senate: Republicans end up +2. So we would have a split congress.

Just to have a little fun, I predict that Trump will declare victory at 11:07PM PDT Tuesday, even if none of the outlets have called the race. If he eventually loses, he will then claim the election was rigged and contest everything in court. Basically, 2020 all over again. One doesn’t need a crystal ball to see that—this idea has been covered by many news outlets, including this article at the Guardian.

Male Votes, but Not Issues

I am thrilled that so much attention was paid to the male voting bloc this year. In previous elections, there were virtually no ads targeted at men (I saw just one total in 2016 and 2020 combined, from the Lincoln Project). The importance of the male vote came into focus both in the news media and the fact that numerous campaign ads, not all of them effective, were geared toward a male audience. I was invited to join a new group called the Young Men’s Research Initiative (YMRI) which is a Democratic team analyzing one subset of the male vote, young men.

Unfortunately, men’s issues, such as a 5.9-year life expectancy gap, poor educational outcomes, and high rates of “deaths of despair” didn’t make it into the discussion. Many other legitimate male social issues could have been part of the election discourse. Instead, we got a lot of what I call “Manwashing”—Gov. Tim Walz hunting pheasants, Hulk Hogan ripping off a t-shirt, etc. These are attempts at appearing “masculine” without actually discussing any real issues specific to male well-being.

Thank You, Readers

I would like to thank all of you who have followed along on this blog this year and who have supported me. I’ve received many important articles and a lot of key information from folks around the world! I completed my debut book on a topic that resonated with readers, and I have been fortunate to interact with so many people, some in person, and some virtually, on this important topic of Men and the Democratic Party.

Needless to say, I hope everyone voted, and I wish everyone a happy election night.

I will be continuing my work post-election; obviously, the results may dictate what type of direction that work may take.

One More Opinion - The San Francisco Ballot is Ridiculous

Okay, there is one more thing I have to mention because it’s so ridiculous. San Francisco has adopted run-off voting for most races, including mayor. I’m against run-off voting for several obvious reasons:

1. It’s very complicated, and most people don’t understand it. I attended San Francisco Politics 101, a great event run by a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (yes, that same board that banned the Happy Meal a while back.) After 20 minutes, most of the room still couldn’t understand it. It’s too confusing. And this was a group of motivated people who showed up at a political event. Imagine casual voters!

2. It takes the voter much more time to think of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and even more choices than just selecting their first choice. My voter guide in San Francisco is a whopping 296 pages (yes, 296 pages!) and on top of that, I received a whole separate guide on how to properly fill out the multiple run-off races. I don’t have the time, energy, or inclination to learn everything about every candidate. I just want to select the best one and move on.

Okay, so let’s look at the choices for mayor:

This year, you can select up to 10 out of 13 candidates. I’m serious. Here’s what that part of the ballot looked like:

Do you want to know how many possible choices you have? There are 13 candidates, plus you could leave a column blank, so the total possible CORRECT options are:

14*13*12*11*10*9*8*7*6*5 = 3,632,428,800

That’s right, over 3.6 billion options! (And that doesn’t include write-ins; it looks like they left the bottom row open for that!)

And there are infinite ways to screw it up and have your vote not counted.

Now, the old-fashioned way:

Vote for the candidate you like best out of 13 options.

There, I described it in one sentence, and everyone understands it.

So, here’s how voting should be conducted in my opinion:

• If it’s an important race and you want the winner to have over 50%, include that race in the primary, which already exists. Then the top two are on the election day ballot, and one of them will get more than 50%.

• If it’s not an important enough race to get on the primary, then just say whoever gets the most votes, wins.

Simple, right? San Francisco has a way of making things way too complicated.

Okay, happy election day everyone!!