The numbers just don’t square with the narrative.
OK, I understand the simple explanation:
Clinton can make history as the first woman President.
Trump is a crude billionaire playboy.
Women are sensible and sensitive.
Men are … well they’re men.
So, it makes sense that Trump leads by 11 points among men … and Clinton leads by 13 points among women.
But, digging a little deeper into the numbers, things get a bit confusing…
The common punditry is that Trump’s biggest problem is with suburban women.
The numbers seem to support that … Clinton leads by 13 points among suburban women.
Trump has a 9 point lead among white women.
Something seems out of kilter.
Aren’t the vast majority of suburban women white ?
Let’s add another piece to the puzzle:
Overall, Clinton wins Urban voters by 24 points; Trump wins Rural voters by 19 points.
Digressing a bit: this is probably good news for Trump since the Urbans are clustered in states that are unshakably blue … the battlegrounds are mostly rural and working class whites.
Clinton edges Trump in the Suburbs, but only by 4 points.
For Trump to lead among white women, but trail among suburban women then … either
(1) there are a LOT of black women in the suburbs – enough to sway the numbers … or
(2) rural women (presumed to be mostly white) must vastly out number suburban white women.
Something just doesn’t square here … the nums just don’t seem to tie to the narratives.
P.S. If Trump is losing big among suburban women and Clinton has only a slight lead among total suburbanites …. that means that suburban men must be supporting Trump “big league”.
Are lots of married couple splitting their votes?