Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Royal would win. were it not for the +65. | 83 comments (83 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 1)
It would require a near unanimity among the women, assuming the men break nearly 50:50 as the 50-64-year-olds do.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 04:27:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (4.00 / 2)
Not quite, as there are significantly more older women than older men, considering the life expectancies.

I'm sure you can find the exact numbers over at INED or at INSEE.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 04:49:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 0)
OK
By sex and age: recent data
65 and over: Total 10,111,093; Male: 4,165,027; Female: 5,910,955
Some  possibilities:
  • Men - 60:40 for Royal; Women - 0:100 for Sarkozy
  • Men - 50:50; Women - 7:93 for Sarkozy
  • Men - 25:75 for Sarkozy; Women - 25:75 for Sarkozy
  • Men - 0:100 for Sarkozy; Women - 43:57 for Sarkozy
Note it is impossible for the women to break 50:50 and still have a 25:75 overall split.

If 14:1 is not "near unanimity", I don't know what is.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 05:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 1)
I'm sorry, how exactly did we decide that this was all women's fault?  Since we have no data regarding the gender breakdown of the over-65 vote?

What percentage of France's 65+ population is female?

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 10:00:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 1)
65 and over: Total 10,111,093; Male: 4,165,027; Female: 5,910,955

What percentage of France's 65+ population is female?

That would be 58.5% female and 41.5% male.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 10:06:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (4.00 / 2)
Sorry, I could have done that math myself, but I for some reason didn't see that you'd included the numbers.

I think we would have to eliminate the possibility that women or men voted 100% for anybody.  That doesn't happen.  You've said it's nigh-impossible for women to have split 50-50.  It seems likely that one of two things happened:  (a) a large majority of women and men voted for Sarkozy, in roughly equal proportions, or (b) a majority of both women and men voted for Sarkozy, but a larger majority of women did.

We have no evidence (that I know of) that (a) is not true, but everyone here seems to be assuming that (b) is the case.  It would not surprise me if (b) was in fact true, but I just wanted to note that we do not have the data to support that, and if it's true, we don't know how wide the gap between senior men and senior women was.  Without that data, all this speculaton about older women being overwhelmingly more conservative and listening to their priests more is not terribly constructive.

Really, all we know is that a significant majority of older people voted for Sarkozy.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 10:21:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 0)
This is not voted but would vote (according to a poll).

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 10:25:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 1)
You are correct, sorry, I'm clearly a little distracted today.  But the points stand.  We don't have a gender breakdown of intent to vote, do we?

Which I think is rather strange.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 10:29:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 0)
We do, but not of gender and age.

Overall, men break 47:53 for Sarkozy, and women 48:52.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 10:31:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 0)
So what is likely is that men and women of the same age vote similarly in the SR/NS duel - but since there are more older women than older men, women end up voting more for NS.

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 11:56:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 0)
That is inconsistent since overall women favour Royal (albeit by 1% only). If women voted in the same proportion as their age group, as they are overrepres nted in the grouo that iverwhelmingly votes for Sarkozy, one would expect women to vote more in favour of Sarkozy in the aggregate.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 04:14:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Royal would win. were it not for the +65. (none / 0)
I'm sorry, how exactly did we decide that this was all women's fault?

About here, I think.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 30th, 2007 at 10:13:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Royal would win. were it not for the +65. | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: