Chapter 3.6 · Report

The gender gap in attitudes and votes

In 2024 women gave the Democratic presidential candidate more of the two-party vote than men did, by 8.1 points in the ANES.

Author: Vishal Singh
Affiliation: NYU Stern
Published: 30 September 2026

Every estimate of the chapter with its interval and every figure as a table, generated from the chapter's data files. Table n of this report is figure n of the chapter. The same report as Markdown: report.md.

Identification

Title

The gender gap in attitudes and votes

Chapter

3.6 (Part III, Participation and coalitions; Coalitions and political differences)

Question

How large are gender gaps in gender-role attitudes and in the vote, and are they larger among the young?

Dek

In 2024 women gave the Democratic presidential candidate more of the two-party vote than men did, by 8.1 points in the ANES.

Grain

individuals

Status

draft

Published

30 September 2026

Updated

not revised

Data sources

ANES Cumulative Data File. Cumulative Data File, presidential vote 1952-2024 and feminist thermometer 1988-2024; years: 1948-2024 (33 study years; even years only after 2004; no 2006, 2010 or 2014 study); weights: post-election weight where available, else VCF0009z
Cooperative Election Study. Cumulative File, presidential vote 2008-2024 and party identification 2006-2024; years: 2006-2024 (every year; self-reported turnout is available in the 10 even years); weights: weight_cumulative; vvweight for the matched-weight rows (2024)
General Social Survey. 1977-2024, gender-role item fefam, with interview mode from the raw file; years: 1972-2024 (35 study years); weights: weight_use
World Values Survey and EVS. United States, wave 7 (2017); years: 1981-2023 (7 unified waves); weights: weight (S017)
Nationscape. Weekly waves, July 2019 to February 2021; years: 2019-07-18 to 2021-04-15 (85 weekly waves); weights: weight; errors clustered on the weekly wave

Canonical URL

https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-gender-gap

Markdown

https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-gender-gap/report.md

BibTeX

@misc{singh2026thegendergap,
  author = {Singh, Vishal},
  title = {The gender gap in attitudes and votes},
  year = {2026},
  url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-gender-gap},
  note = {In The Public Mind. Published 30 September 2026.}
}

Principal estimates

The facts the dek and the opening prose cite, in order of appearance. Every fact is in the table of all estimates below.

Estimand	Population	Period	Value	Interval	n	Weights	Source	Fact id
difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024	8.1	95% CI 3.6 to 12.6	3,943	post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File	anes_gap_2024
difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024	4.1	95% CI 2.6 to 5.7	41,757	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study	ces_gap_2024
difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate and were matched to voter-file records	2024	8.0	95% CI 6.3 to 9.6	32,776	vvweight (respondents matched to voter-file records)	Cooperative Election Study	ces_vv_gap_2024
gap among ages 18 to 29 minus gap among ages 30 and older, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024	+2.6	95% CI −3.8 to 8.9	41,757	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study	diff_2024
count of surveys where the party gap minus the gender gap has a 95% interval above zero	GSS 2024, ANES 2024, WVS United States 2017, Nationscape 2019-2021	latest window of each survey	3			none (count)	General Social Survey	n_party_larger
count of surveys compared	GSS 2024, ANES 2024, WVS United States 2017, Nationscape 2019-2021	latest window of each survey	4			none (count)	General Social Survey	n_instruments
difference in weighted shares, Republicans (party identification 4 to 6) minus Democrats (0 to 2), leaners included; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item who are Democrats or Republicans, leaners included	2024	25.8	95% CI 19.6 to 31.9	1,548	weight_use	General Social Survey	gss_party_gap_2024
difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	2024	4.4	95% CI −1.1 to 9.9	2,153	weight_use	General Social Survey	gss_gender_gap_2024
party gap minus gender gap, ignoring how the two gaps move together on the same respondents; item: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	WVS United States respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded party (or left-right side) and sex	2017	0.3	95% CI −2.9 to 3.5	5,125	weight (S017)	World Values Survey and EVS	wvs_party_minus_gender

Findings

In 2024 women gave the Democratic presidential candidate more of the two-party vote than men did, by 8.1 (95% CI 3.6 to 12.6) points in the American National Election Studies (ANES) and by 4.1 (95% CI 2.6 to 5.7) in the Cooperative Election Study (CES). With the CES weight for respondents matched to voter-file records (lists of registered voters) the CES gap is 8.0 (95% CI 6.3 to 9.6), so the size of the gap depends on the weight as well as on the survey. The CES gap among voters under thirty minus the gap among voters thirty and older is +2.6 (95% CI −3.8 to 8.9), and its confidence interval includes zero, so a larger gap among the young is not shown.

Party separates gender-role attitudes more than gender does in 3 of 4 surveys, each measured on one item chosen for this chapter. In the 2024 General Social Survey (GSS) the share giving the traditional answer on the roles of men and women is higher among Republicans than among Democrats by 25.8 (95% CI 19.6 to 31.9) and higher among men than among women by 4.4 (95% CI −1.1 to 9.9). The World Values Survey (WVS) is the exception, and it compares ideological groups instead of parties. The file has no party variable for the United States, so the left and right sides of its left-right scale stand in for Democrats and Republicans. The gap between the right side and the left side minus the gender gap is 0.3 (95% CI −2.9 to 3.5), an interval that includes zero.

Every gap in this chapter is a difference between two percentages, in points. The vote gap and the party-identification gap are women minus men, so a positive value means women were more Democratic. The attitude gender gap is men minus women and the attitude party gap is Republicans minus Democrats, so a positive value means men or Republicans were more likely to take the traditional or hostile position. The chapter measures the vote gap from 1952 and the attitude gaps as far back as each survey allows, and compares each gap among the young with the gap among older adults. The estimates come from cross-sections of respondents in the United States, so they compare groups within a survey and do not follow individuals. For the parties' coalitions as a whole, see Chapter 3.2, The two coalitions.

The ANES vote gap estimate has been positive since 1964

Table 1 plots the ANES gap from 1952 to 2024. The estimate is negative in the three elections before 1964, and only the 1956 interval, −6.2 (95% CI −11.6 to −0.8), lies below zero. From 1964 the estimate is positive in 16 of 16 elections, and the interval lies above zero in 11 of them and includes zero in the other 5.The ANES vote estimates use the post-election interview and its weight where the file has one. Every interval in this chapter is a 95% interval on the Kish effective sample size [1], and it treats the weighted sample as a simple random sample, which leaves out the survey's strata and clusters and can move an interval either way. Nationscape is the exception, and its intervals are described in the attitudes section. The highest estimate is 14.9 (95% CI 8.4 to 21.3) in 1996. The change from 1996 to 2024 is −6.8 (95% CI −14.6 to 1.1), an interval that includes zero.

Table 1. The ANES vote gap estimate has been positive since 1964 and peaked at 14.9 points in 1996

Work covering 1952 to 1996 traced the gap to a change in the partisanship of men [2]. A time-series study of 1979 to 2000 tied the growth of the partisan gender gap to a more conservative political climate, a weaker economy and a larger share of economically vulnerable single women [3]. The estimates here describe the gap and do not test either account.

The ANES and CES disagree about 2020 to 2024

The CES has more respondents than the ANES (41,757 voters against 3,943 in 2024), and its intervals are narrower at every election from 2008 to 2024.The CES is an online survey of opt-in panel members whose weights match them to the electorate, so it is not a random sample of adults. Its intervals, like the ANES ones, describe sampling noise and not who joined the panel. The two surveys' intervals overlap at every election from 2008 to 2024, yet the difference between the CES gap and the ANES gap has an interval above zero in 2020, when the CES gap exceeds the ANES gap by +4.5 (95% CI 0.8 to 8.2). From 2020 to 2024 the ANES gap changed by +4.0 (95% CI −1.7 to 9.7) and the CES gap by −4.5 (95% CI −6.4 to −2.5). The two changes differ by −8.5 (95% CI −14.5 to −2.5), so the surveys point in opposite directions for the latest change and the difference between them excludes zero.

The CES weight for respondents matched to voter-file records gives 8.0 (95% CI 6.3 to 9.6) in 2024, against 4.1 with the standard weight. On the same matched respondents the standard weight gives 3.6 (95% CI 2.0 to 5.2) and the matched weight gives 8.0, a difference of +4.3 (95% CI 2.9 to 5.5). The level of the 2024 CES gap therefore depends on the weight, and the age comparisons below report both.The matched weight is the CES weight for validated registered voters, the respondents whose registration the survey could match to voter-file records. The file holds it for 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2024. In 2020 it is the standard weight multiplied by the same number for every respondent, so the two weights give the same gap for the matched respondents, and this chapter compares them in 2024 only. The interval on the difference between the two weights resamples respondents, which keeps both weights on the same people.

The ANES added web interviews in 2012, so its series mixes survey modes after 2008. The face-to-face gap is smaller than the web gap in 2012 and in 2024, but each face-to-face interval includes zero and overlaps the web interval. A difference of mode therefore cannot be separated from sampling noise (the estimates are in the notes to Table 1). The file has no mode weights for 2020, so the change from 2020 to 2024 cannot be split by mode.

Voters under thirty against older voters

In 2024 the CES gap is 6.5 (95% CI 0.4 to 12.7) among voters under thirty and 3.9 (95% CI 2.4 to 5.4) among voters thirty and older. Between 2020 and 2024 the under-thirty gap minus the older gap moved by +8.6 (95% CI 1.0 to 16.1). The older gap changed by −5.2 (95% CI −7.2 to −3.2), and the under-thirty gap changed by +3.4 (95% CI −3.9 to 10.7), an interval that includes zero. Table 2 shows the same pattern for four age groups: the gap fell in each of the three older groups, and the youngest group's change is not distinguishable from zero.

Table 2. In the CES the vote gap fell after 2020 in every age group except the youngest

Table 3 compares the two age groups election by election. In 3 of the 4 earlier elections (2008, 2012 and 2020) the under-thirty gap was smaller than the gap among older voters, with an interval below zero, and in 2016 the difference reached above zero by a small margin. In 2024 the difference is +2.6 (95% CI −3.8 to 8.9), which includes zero, so a larger youth gap is not shown. The interval of the change since 2020 excludes zero by a small margin, and the intervals assume a simple random sample, so intervals that allowed for the survey design could include zero. The evidence that the age pattern changed rests on this one survey.

Table 3. The under-thirty vote gap was smaller than the older gap in 2008, 2012 and 2020 and not in 2024

The under-thirty estimate is imprecise. In 2024 the smaller of the women and men groups has an effective sample of 434 among voters under thirty, against 7,955 among voters thirty and older, because the CES holds few voters under thirty and their weights vary. The matched weight gives a larger under-thirty gap, 11.6 (95% CI 3.8 to 19.3), and an older-voter gap of 7.3 (95% CI 5.8 to 8.9). The difference of +4.2 (95% CI −3.7 to 12.1) again includes zero, so the level of the youth gap depends on the weight used.

The second tab of Table 2 plots the 2024 gap for four age groups under both weights. With the standard weight the oldest group's gap exceeds that of ages thirty to forty-four by +6.3 (95% CI 2.2 to 10.3), and the youngest group's gap exceeds it by +5.5 (95% CI −1.5 to 12.6), an interval that includes zero. The youngest group's interval covers the estimates of both middle groups, and with the matched weight the estimates for the youngest and the oldest group each fall inside the other's interval.

Race-by-gender groups are mostly too small

Whether the youth gap sits mainly among voters of color needs enough respondents in each race-by-gender group (for example Hispanic women under thirty in 2024), and the CES has few. This chapter draws a group only when its women and its men each number at least 100 respondents and have an effective sample of at least 100, a floor that leaves out every group below it. Table 4 shows the groups that clear the floor. In 2024 only white women and white men under thirty clear it, and the effective samples of the Black, Hispanic and Asian groups run from 23 to 82. Combining the 2020 and 2024 samples brings the Hispanic groups over the floor. The combined-sample gap is 11.2 (95% CI 1.0 to 21.4) among Hispanic voters under thirty and 2.3 (95% CI −2.5 to 7.1) among white voters under thirty. The difference of +8.9 (95% CI −2.4 to 20.2) includes zero, so a larger gap among Hispanic voters is neither shown nor ruled out.

Pooling can also lower an effective sample, when the weights in one year vary a lot. Among Asian voters under thirty the smaller group has an effective sample of 101 in 2020, which clears the floor, and 64 in the combined sample, which does not. Black voters under thirty also stay below the floor in the combined sample. The estimates of the gap for the pooled Black and Asian groups are positive, and the sign is given only to show that leaving them out reflects the number of respondents and not the estimate. Chapter 3.3, Hispanic, Black and Asian voters (planned) looks at these groups across all ages.

Table 4. Among voters under thirty, few race-by-gender groups are large enough to compare

Table 5 plots the Democratic share of the two-party vote among voters under thirty in 2020 and 2024. The share changed by −6.3 (95% CI −10.9 to −1.6) for women and by −9.7 (95% CI −15.2 to −4.1) for men. The gap between the two changes is +3.4 (95% CI −3.9 to 10.7), so a faster move by men cannot be separated from a move shared by both. Among white voters under thirty the changes are −2.1 (95% CI −8.0 to 3.8) for women and −5.1 (95% CI −12.1 to 1.9) for men, and both intervals include zero.

Table 5. Both young women and young men gave Democrats a smaller share in 2024 than in 2020

Party identification among adults under thirty

Party identification is observed in every even-numbered year from 2006, and it covers all young respondents who identify with a party, voters and nonvoters alike. Table 6 plots the under-thirty gap in Democratic identification, women minus men. It was 9.5 (95% CI 5.5 to 13.6) in 2006, the highest estimate of those years, 8.5 (95% CI 4.9 to 12.1) in 2020 and 3.1 (95% CI −2.5 to 8.7) in 2024. The 2006 gap minus the 2020 gap is +1.1 (95% CI −4.3 to 6.5) and the change from 2020 to 2024 is −5.4 (95% CI −12.1 to 1.3), and both intervals include zero. The highest estimate therefore does not stand out from the later years, and the fall to 2024 is not distinguishable from zero. The under-thirty vote gap changed by +3.4 (95% CI −3.9 to 10.7) over the same years, an interval that also includes zero, so the two series do not show party identification and the vote moving apart after 2020. The identification measure counts Democrats and Republicans only, so it rests on a different base from the vote.

Table 6. The under-thirty party-identification gap was 9.5 in 2006 and 3.1 in 2024, and the 2024 interval includes zero

Party separates attitudes more than gender does, except in the WVS

Four surveys ask about gender roles in ways that cannot be merged into one scale, so each is analyzed alone, and each contributes one item chosen for this chapter.

Survey and year	Item	Counted as the traditional or hostile position
GSS 2024	Whether it is better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family	Agree or strongly agree
ANES 2024	Rating of feminists on the feeling thermometer	A rating below fifty
WVS United States 2017	Whether men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	Agree
Nationscape 2019 to 2021	Whether women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve	Agree

The GSS and WVS items concern roles, the ANES item concerns feeling toward feminists and the Nationscape item concerns hostility toward women who report harassment, so the four gaps measure related but different things. Each item is coded so that a higher share means the traditional or hostile position. The party gap compares Republicans with Democrats and leaves out independents, whereas the gender gap compares men with women among all respondents with an answer. The WVS file used here has no party variable for the United States, so the left and right sides of its left-right scale stand in for party. Table 7 plots the party gap and the gender gap, the gender gap within each party, and the share for women and men within each party.Nationscape interviewed people weekly from July 2019 to early February 2021 through an opt-in market-research panel [4]. Like the CES, it is not a random sample of adults, and estimates from such panels can be off because of who joins the panel, which no interval measures [5]. Its intervals allow for correlation among respondents interviewed in the same week (clustered standard errors), which makes them wider than intervals that treat respondents as independent. Its party identification leaves out leaners, unlike the GSS and ANES, so its party gap is not comparable in size to theirs.

Table 7. Party, or left-right group in the WVS, separates the traditional answer more than gender does in 3 of 4 surveys

The party gap is 25.8 in the GSS, 31.6 in the ANES and 19.2 in Nationscape, against gender gaps of 4.4, 8.8 and 9.6. The party gap minus the gender gap has an interval above zero in each of the three, and in the WVS it is 0.3 (95% CI −2.9 to 3.5), which includes zero. Restricting the gender gap to Democrats and Republicans, the same respondents as the party gap, leaves the count at 3 of 4 surveys.

Within a party, men give the traditional answer more often than women in every group by the estimate. The interval of the men-minus-women difference excludes zero in both parties in the ANES and Nationscape and on the left side of the WVS scale. It includes zero in both parties in the GSS and on the right side of the WVS scale, so the GSS is the survey where the difference is not distinguishable from zero in either party.

Table 8 follows the two gaps over time. In the GSS the party gap in the traditional answer was −2.0 (95% CI −8.0 to 4.0) in 1977, an interval that includes zero, and 11.3 (95% CI 4.9 to 17.8) in 2018. The estimated gender gap did not exceed 12.1 (95% CI 5.6 to 18.6) in any of the 24 survey years. The GSS moved partly online after 2018, so its later estimates mix modes. In 2024 the party gap is 19.1 (95% CI 8.5 to 29.6) among face-to-face respondents and 32.3 (95% CI 24.4 to 40.2) among web respondents. The face-to-face estimate is above the 2018 estimate, but the intervals overlap, so growth after 2018 and the change of mode cannot be told apart.

Table 8. The GSS party gap went from −2.0 in 1977 to 11.3 in 2018, and the estimated gender gap never exceeded 12.1

The ANES has a different history. Its party gap in rating feminists as cold was already 20.6 (95% CI 16.0 to 25.2) in 1988 and is 31.6 (95% CI 28.3 to 34.9) in 2024. Its gender gap went from 1.0 in 1988 to 8.8 in 2024, a change of +7.8 (95% CI 2.2 to 13.3). The gender gap estimates run from 0.9 to 1.7 through 2000 and from 6.0 to 9.4 from 2004 on. The change from 2000 to 2004 alone is +6.5 (95% CI −1.1 to 14.1), an interval that includes zero, so the estimates show a higher range from 2004 without dating the rise to a single election.

Table 9 compares the gender gap in these attitudes among the young with the gap among older adults in each survey. In Nationscape the gap among adults under thirty exceeds the gap among older adults by +6.5 (95% CI 5.3 to 7.7), an interval that excludes zero. In the ANES the difference is −9.3 (95% CI −19.3 to 0.7) and in the WVS +1.5 (95% CI −4.4 to 7.3), and both intervals include zero, with the young estimate the smaller in the ANES and the larger in the WVS. The GSS groups under thirty fall below the floor, and the gap among older adults there is 2.4 (95% CI −3.5 to 8.3). Only Nationscape's difference excludes zero, and it is the opt-in panel.

Table 9. Only Nationscape shows a larger attitude gender gap among adults under thirty

What these data cannot show

The estimates describe groups in each year and cannot show that any person changed. A rise in the under-thirty gap between two elections compares different people, so age cannot be separated from generation here, which Chapter 3.7, Age and generation takes up. The vote gaps use self-reported votes, and the two surveys and the two CES weights differ on the 2024 level and on the change since 2020, so the data cannot say which estimate is closest to the electorate. Both the CES and Nationscape are opt-in online panels, so their intervals leave out the error that comes from who joined the panel. The CES intervals also treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample, so allowing for the survey design could widen or narrow them. Results whose interval ends close to zero, such as the under-thirty gap in 2024 and the change in the age difference since 2020, could include zero if the intervals were wider. Most race-by-gender groups are too small to estimate, and a gap that is not distinguishable from zero in a small group is not evidence that the gap is zero.

The attitude items differ in wording, scale and window, and their levels cannot be compared across surveys or merged into one index. Each survey contributes one item chosen for this chapter, so the count of surveys in which the party gap exceeds the gender gap describes these items, and a different item could change it. Within a survey, the comparisons of party with gender and of young with old are informative, and the party gap minus the gender gap ignores how the two gaps move together, because both are computed on the same respondents.

All the data are from the United States. A widely read Financial Times analysis described a gender divide among the young in several countries [6], and a comparative study of gender attitudes examined many societies [7], but nothing here tests either claim outside the United States. The files record two genders, so nonbinary respondents cannot be examined. Finally, the data hold no measure of why the gaps arise. They cannot separate differences in policy attitudes from differences in the salience of issues, in candidates or in party strategy, and Planned, Two moralities (planned) places gender-role attitudes among other cultural attitudes.

Tables

Table 1. The ANES vote gap estimate has been positive since 1964 and peaked at 14.9 points in 1996

Women's minus men's Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote, points, among voters for a major-party candidate; ANES 1952 to 2024 and CES 2008 to 2024; 95% intervals

Election	Survey	Gap (points)	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Voters
1952	ANES	−2.1	−7.7	3.5	1,181
1956	ANES	−6.2	−11.6	−0.8	1,266
1960	ANES	−5.4	−13.1	2.3	898
1964	ANES	3.7	−1.8	9.3	1,111
1968	ANES	4.6	−1.4	10.7	1,027
1972	ANES	6.6	1.9	11.3	1,587
1976	ANES	0.2	−5.3	5.8	1,322
1980	ANES	6.9	0.7	13.1	958
1984	ANES	7.6	2.4	12.8	1,376
1988	ANES	6.5	0.8	12.2	1,195
1992	ANES	10.1	5.3	14.9	1,658
1996	ANES	14.9	8.4	21.3	1,116
2000	ANES	8.9	2.4	15.4	1,120
2004	ANES	7.1	−0.4	14.6	811
2008	ANES	5.0	−1.2	11.3	1,539
2012	ANES	5.2	1.1	9.3	4,188
2016	ANES	6.0	1.3	10.7	2,579
2020	ANES	4.1	0.6	7.6	6,183
2024	ANES	8.1	3.6	12.6	3,943
2008	CES	6.4	4.8	7.9	23,585
2012	CES	5.3	3.7	6.8	37,789
2016	CES	8.2	6.9	9.5	40,891
2020	CES	8.6	7.4	9.9	43,872
2024	CES	4.1	2.6	5.7	41,757

Note: The ANES added web interviews in 2012. The gap is 0.2 among face-to-face respondents and 7.8 among web respondents in 2012, and 1.8 and 8.4 in 2024; each face-to-face interval includes zero. The file has no mode weights for 2020.

Note: In 2024 the CES weight for respondents matched to voter-file records gives 8.0, and the standard weight on the same respondents gives 3.6.

Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1952-2024, and CES Cumulative File, 2008-2024; weighted with each survey's survey weights (the ANES post-election weight where the file has one)

Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/vote_gap_long_run.json

Table 2. In the CES the vote gap fell after 2020 in every age group except the youngest

Women's minus men's Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote, points, by age group; CES 2020 and 2024; 95% intervals

Table 2.1. Change since 2020

Change in the gap from 2020 to 2024

2024 gap minus 2020 gap, points, by age group; standard weight

Age group	Gap in 2020	Gap in 2024	Change (points)	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Voters
Ages 18 to 29	3.2	6.5	3.4	−3.9	10.7	7,338
Ages 30 to 44	7.2	1.0	−6.2	−10.4	−2.0	16,863
Ages 45 to 64	9.1	3.5	−5.6	−8.6	−2.6	34,547
Ages 65 and over	11.3	7.2	−4.0	−7.4	−0.7	26,881

Table 2.2. Gap in 2024 by weight

The 2024 gap under two weights

Gap in 2024, points, by age group; the open dot is the standard weight and the filled dot the matched weight

Age group	Standard weight	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Voters	Matched weight	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Voters
Ages 18 to 29	6.5	0.4	12.7	2,978	11.6	3.8	19.3	1,348
Ages 30 to 44	1.0	−2.4	4.4	6,993	5.1	1.5	8.7	5,152
Ages 45 to 64	3.5	1.2	5.8	16,800	6.1	3.9	8.3	13,593
Ages 65 and over	7.2	5.0	9.5	14,986	11.1	8.6	13.6	12,683

Source: CES Cumulative File, 2020-2024; weighted (survey weights; the weight for respondents matched to voter-file records in the matched-weight rows)

Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/vote_gap_by_age.json

Table 3. The under-thirty vote gap was smaller than the older gap in 2008, 2012 and 2020 and not in 2024

Women's minus men's Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote, points, by age group and election; CES 2008 to 2024; 95% intervals

Table 3.1. The two gaps

The two gaps, election by election

Gap by age group, points; the open dot is the gap at 30 and over and the filled dot the gap under 30

Election	Weight	Gap, 30 and over	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Gap, under 30	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Under 30 minus 30 and over	Lower 95%	Upper 95%
2008	Standard weight	8.3	6.7	9.9	−0.6	−4.6	3.4	−8.9	−13.2	−4.6
2012	Standard weight	6.2	4.7	7.8	0.3	−4.6	5.1	−6.0	−11.1	−0.9
2016	Standard weight	8.3	6.9	9.7	4.4	0.2	8.5	−4.0	−8.3	0.4
2020	Standard weight	9.1	7.8	10.4	3.2	−0.7	7.0	−6.0	−10.1	−1.9
2024	Standard weight	3.9	2.4	5.4	6.5	0.4	12.7	2.6	−3.8	8.9
2024, matched	Matched weight	7.3	5.8	8.9	11.6	3.8	19.3	4.2	−3.7	12.1

Table 3.2. The difference

The difference between the two gaps

Under-30 gap minus the gap at 30 and over, points, with the 95% interval of the difference; below zero means a smaller youth gap

Election	Weight	Difference (points)	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Voters
2008	Standard weight	−8.9	−13.2	−4.6	23,585
2012	Standard weight	−6.0	−11.1	−0.9	37,789
2016	Standard weight	−4.0	−8.3	0.4	40,891
2020	Standard weight	−6.0	−10.1	−1.9	43,872
2024	Standard weight	2.6	−3.8	8.9	41,757
2024, matched	Matched weight	4.2	−3.7	12.1	32,776

Note: Each gap has its own interval, and the interval of the difference combines the two standard errors as if the two age groups were independent samples.

Source: CES Cumulative File, 2008-2024; weighted (survey weights; the weight for respondents matched to voter-file records in the matched-weight rows)

Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/youth_vs_older_gap.json

Table 4. Among voters under thirty, few race-by-gender groups are large enough to compare

Women's minus men's Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote, points, voters aged 18 to 29, by race; single elections and 2020 and 2024 pooled; 95% intervals

Group and period	Gap (points)	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Voters
All voters, pooled	5.4	1.5	9.2	7,338
White, 2016	1.5	−3.8	6.7	2,601
White, 2020	0.5	−4.4	5.5	2,861
White, 2024	3.5	−4.2	11.2	1,800
White, pooled	2.3	−2.5	7.1	4,661
Hispanic, 2016	10.2	0.8	19.6	645
Hispanic, 2020	8.1	−1.7	17.9	588
Hispanic, pooled	11.2	1.0	21.4	1,092
Asian, 2020	4.0	−5.6	13.6	344

Note: Black groups miss the floor in every election, Asian groups clear it only in 2020, and Hispanic groups clear it in 2016 and 2020 but not in 2024, when the effective samples of the Black, Hispanic and Asian groups run from 23 to 82.

Note: Pooling two elections can lower a group's effective sample when the weights in one year vary a lot: among Asian voters the smaller group has an effective sample of 101 in 2020 and 64 pooled, so the pooled Asian estimate is not drawn. Groups that miss the floor are left out, not shown with wider intervals.

Source: CES Cumulative File, 2016-2024; weighted (survey weights)

Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/youth_gap_by_race.json

Table 5. Both young women and young men gave Democrats a smaller share in 2024 than in 2020

Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote, percent, voters aged 18 to 29; CES 2020 and 2024; 95% intervals

Group	2020 share	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	2024 share	Lower 95%	Upper 95%
Women	69.3	66.9	71.6	63.0	59.0	67.0
Men	66.1	63.1	69.2	56.5	51.8	61.1
White women	60.9	57.8	64.0	58.8	53.8	63.8
White men	60.3	56.6	64.1	55.2	49.4	61.1

Source: CES Cumulative File, 2020-2024; weighted (survey weights)

Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/youth_shift_2020_2024.json

Table 6. The under-thirty party-identification gap was 9.5 in 2006 and 3.1 in 2024, and the 2024 interval includes zero

Women's minus men's Democratic share of respondents who identify as Democrats or Republicans, points, ages 18 to 29, even years 2006 to 2024; CES; 95% intervals

Year	Gap (points)	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Respondents
2006	9.5	5.5	13.6	2,726
2008	2.4	−1.4	6.3	3,737
2010	4.2	−0.5	9.0	3,271
2012	1.6	−2.9	6.0	4,737
2014	2.6	−1.4	6.5	5,507
2016	3.9	0.8	7.0	6,611
2018	7.0	3.5	10.6	7,098
2020	8.5	4.9	12.1	6,537
2022	7.1	3.2	11.1	5,285
2024	3.1	−2.5	8.7	5,162

Source: CES Cumulative File, 2006-2024; weighted (survey weights)

Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/pid_gap_under30.json

Table 7. Party, or left-right group in the WVS, separates the traditional answer more than gender does in 3 of 4 surveys

Points and percent taking the traditional or hostile position on the one item each survey asks; most recent wave of each survey; 95% intervals

Table 7.1. Party gap and gender gap

Party gap, gender gap and their difference in each survey

Party gap is Republicans minus Democrats (right side minus left side in the WVS) and gender gap is men minus women; points

Survey	Measure	Points	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Respondents
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	Party gap	25.8	19.6	31.9	1,548
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	Gender gap	4.4	−1.1	9.9	2,153
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	Party gap minus gender gap	21.3	13.1	29.6	3,701
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Party gap	31.6	28.3	34.9	5,103
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Gender gap	8.8	5.5	12.1	5,475
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Party gap minus gender gap	22.8	18.1	27.5	10,578
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Party gap	3.2	0.8	5.5	2,534
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Gender gap	2.9	0.7	5.0	2,591
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Party gap minus gender gap	0.3	−2.9	3.5	5,125
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Party gap	19.2	18.4	20.0	317,051
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Gender gap	9.6	9.1	10.1	480,535
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Party gap minus gender gap	9.6	8.7	10.5	797,586

Table 7.2. Gender gap within party

The gender gap within each party

Men minus women in the traditional or hostile position, points, among all respondents and within each party (left or right side of the scale in the WVS)

Survey	Group	Points	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Respondents
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	All respondents	4.4	−1.1	9.9	2,153
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	Democrats	7.5	−0.1	15.2	806
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	Republicans	2.0	−7.7	11.7	741
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	All respondents	8.8	5.5	12.1	5,475
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Democrats	5.7	2.2	9.2	2,627
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Republicans	6.2	0.5	11.8	2,440
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	All respondents	2.9	0.7	5.0	2,591
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Left side	4.0	1.5	6.6	1,510
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Right side	0.7	−3.3	4.8	1,024
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	All respondents	9.6	9.1	10.1	480,535
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Democrats	11.1	10.4	11.8	170,756
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Republicans	7.9	7.1	8.8	146,295

Table 7.3. Share by party and gender

Share taking the traditional or hostile position, by party and gender

Percent, by party (left or right side of the left-right scale in the WVS) and gender

Survey	Group	Percent	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Respondents
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	Democratic women	15.5	10.8	20.2	475
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	Democratic men	23.0	17.0	29.1	331
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	Republican women	43.5	36.7	50.3	379
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	Republican men	45.5	38.5	52.5	362
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Democratic women	7.2	5.4	9.1	1,547
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Democratic men	12.9	10.0	15.8	1,080
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Republican women	38.3	34.3	42.4	1,158
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Republican men	44.5	40.5	48.4	1,282
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Left side, women	2.2	0.8	3.6	763
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Left side, men	6.2	4.1	8.4	747
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Right side, women	6.8	3.6	9.9	403
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Right side, men	7.5	5.0	10.0	621
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Democratic women	15.2	14.7	15.6	104,987
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Democratic men	26.3	25.5	27.0	65,769
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Republican women	34.9	34.2	35.6	76,535
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Republican men	42.8	42.1	43.5	69,760

Note: GSS: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family. ANES: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer. WVS: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce. Nationscape: agree that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve.

Note: Nationscape is an opt-in online panel, not a random sample of adults. Its intervals allow for correlation within the weekly wave, which widens them, and still describe sampling noise among panel members and not who joins the panel.

Source: GSS 2024, ANES 2024, WVS United States 2017 and Nationscape 2019-2021; weighted (survey weights; Nationscape intervals cluster on the weekly wave)

Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/attitudes_by_gender_party.json

Table 8. The GSS party gap went from −2.0 in 1977 to 11.3 in 2018, and the estimated gender gap never exceeded 12.1

Gap in the share taking the traditional or hostile position, points: Republicans minus Democrats (party gap) and men minus women (gender gap); GSS 1977 to 2024 and ANES 1988 to 2024; 95% intervals

Survey	Gap	Year	Gap (points)	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Respondents
GSS	Party gap	1977	−2.0	−8.0	4.0	1,319
GSS	Gender gap	1977	4.8	−0.6	10.2	1,503
GSS	Party gap	1985	1.6	−5.1	8.3	1,340
GSS	Gender gap	1985	7.3	0.9	13.6	1,502
GSS	Party gap	1986	1.4	−4.8	7.6	1,252
GSS	Gender gap	1986	1.9	−3.8	7.7	1,444
GSS	Party gap	1988	5.7	−1.9	13.2	835
GSS	Gender gap	1988	6.4	−0.6	13.3	964
GSS	Party gap	1989	0.9	−6.7	8.4	846
GSS	Gender gap	1989	4.7	−2.3	11.7	977
GSS	Party gap	1990	0.5	−7.1	8.2	792
GSS	Gender gap	1990	7.8	0.5	15.0	901
GSS	Party gap	1991	0.5	−6.9	7.9	866
GSS	Gender gap	1991	1.2	−6.0	8.4	996
GSS	Party gap	1993	5.4	−1.6	12.4	907
GSS	Gender gap	1993	5.8	−0.8	12.3	1,054
GSS	Party gap	1994	5.8	0.5	11.2	1,622
GSS	Gender gap	1994	5.4	0.5	10.4	1,916
GSS	Party gap	1996	8.6	3.7	13.5	1,951
GSS	Gender gap	1996	6.2	1.7	10.6	2,353
GSS	Party gap	1998	6.9	1.3	12.5	1,472
GSS	Gender gap	1998	2.9	−2.2	8.0	1,818
GSS	Party gap	2000	9.8	3.9	15.7	1,393
GSS	Gender gap	2000	3.2	−2.0	8.4	1,804
GSS	Party gap	2002	11.2	2.6	19.8	696
GSS	Gender gap	2002	6.2	−1.5	13.8	898
GSS	Party gap	2004	7.5	−0.8	15.8	739
GSS	Gender gap	2004	2.1	−5.5	9.7	894
GSS	Party gap	2006	10.9	5.1	16.6	1,553
GSS	Gender gap	2006	4.7	−0.4	9.8	1,968
GSS	Party gap	2008	14.0	7.0	21.0	1,080
GSS	Gender gap	2008	5.2	−1.1	11.4	1,308
GSS	Party gap	2010	11.3	4.2	18.4	1,132
GSS	Gender gap	2010	7.7	1.4	13.9	1,418
GSS	Party gap	2012	18.5	11.0	26.0	1,004
GSS	Gender gap	2012	12.1	5.6	18.6	1,285
GSS	Party gap	2014	12.4	6.3	18.5	1,276
GSS	Gender gap	2014	2.8	−2.5	8.2	1,655
GSS	Party gap	2016	15.4	9.9	21.0	1,501
GSS	Gender gap	2016	0.2	−4.8	5.2	1,872
GSS	Party gap	2018	11.3	4.9	17.8	1,186
GSS	Gender gap	2018	5.0	−0.6	10.7	1,545
GSS	Party gap	2021	20.8	16.3	25.3	2,054
GSS	Gender gap	2021	5.6	1.6	9.5	2,647
GSS	Party gap	2022	17.1	10.6	23.6	1,710
GSS	Gender gap	2022	9.9	4.3	15.4	2,335
GSS	Party gap	2024	25.8	19.6	31.9	1,548
GSS	Gender gap	2024	4.4	−1.1	9.9	2,153
ANES	Party gap	1988	20.6	16.0	25.2	1,448
ANES	Gender gap	1988	1.0	−3.4	5.5	1,627
ANES	Party gap	1992	27.0	22.9	31.1	1,834
ANES	Gender gap	1992	0.9	−3.0	4.8	2,085
ANES	Party gap	2000	18.4	13.1	23.7	1,255
ANES	Gender gap	2000	1.7	−3.3	6.7	1,427
ANES	Party gap	2002	20.0	13.9	26.0	1,166
ANES	Gender gap	2002	4.7	−1.4	10.7	1,276
ANES	Party gap	2004	25.1	19.2	31.0	917
ANES	Gender gap	2004	8.2	2.5	13.9	1,028
ANES	Party gap	2008	21.4	16.2	26.5	1,723
ANES	Gender gap	2008	8.2	3.5	12.8	1,972
ANES	Party gap	2012	28.5	24.9	32.0	4,657
ANES	Gender gap	2012	9.4	6.1	12.8	5,376
ANES	Party gap	2016	29.8	26.2	33.5	3,098
ANES	Gender gap	2016	6.0	2.4	9.6	3,537
ANES	Party gap	2020	34.2	31.5	36.9	6,453
ANES	Gender gap	2020	7.1	4.3	9.8	7,279
ANES	Party gap	2024	31.6	28.3	34.9	5,103
ANES	Gender gap	2024	8.8	5.5	12.1	5,475

Views: GSS (instrument = GSS); ANES (instrument = ANES).

Note: GSS item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family. ANES item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer.

Note: The GSS 2021, 2022 and 2024 samples mix interview modes; the ANES has web interviews from 2012. Lines are not drawn across the years in which the item was not asked (GSS 1978 to 1984 and 2019 to 2020, ANES 1996), so the GSS 1977 estimate stands alone; its interval is in the tooltip and the data table.

Source: GSS 1977-2024, weighted (survey weights); ANES Cumulative Data File, 1988-2024, weighted (survey weights)

Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/attitude_gap_trends.json

Table 9. Only Nationscape shows a larger attitude gender gap among adults under thirty

Men's minus women's share taking the traditional or hostile position, points, by age group, and the difference between the two age groups; most recent wave of each survey; 95% intervals

Survey	Age group	Gap (points)	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Respondents
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	All adults	4.4	−1.1	9.9	2,153
GSS 2024: man the achiever, woman at home	30 and over	2.4	−3.5	8.3	1,798
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	All adults	8.8	5.5	12.1	5,475
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Under 30	1.4	−8.0	10.7	545
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	30 and over	10.7	7.1	14.2	4,672
ANES 2024: feminists rated below 50	Under 30 minus 30 and over	−9.3	−19.3	0.7	5,217
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	All adults	2.9	0.7	5.0	2,591
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Under 30	4.3	−1.1	9.6	630
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	30 and over	2.8	0.5	5.2	1,961
WVS 2017: men first when jobs are scarce	Under 30 minus 30 and over	1.5	−4.4	7.3	2,591
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	All adults	9.6	9.1	10.1	480,535
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Under 30	14.8	13.7	16.0	106,828
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	30 and over	8.3	7.8	8.8	373,707
Nationscape 2019 to 2021: harassment complaints	Under 30 minus 30 and over	6.5	5.3	7.7	480,535

Note: Nationscape is an opt-in online panel; its intervals allow for correlation within the weekly wave and describe sampling noise among panel members only.

Source: GSS 2024, ANES 2024, WVS United States 2017 and Nationscape 2019-2021; weighted (survey weights; Nationscape intervals cluster on the weekly wave)

Data: vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/attitude_gender_gap_by_age.json

All estimates

Every fact in facts.json (120), sorted by id. The same values as JSON: facts.json.

Fact id	Value	Unit	Estimand	Population	Period	Interval	n	Weights	Source
anes_1996_2024_diff	−6.8	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	2024 gap minus 1996 gap, independent samples	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	1996 and 2024	95% CI −14.6 to 1.1	5,059	post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_age_diff	−9.3	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men-minus-women gap among ages 18 to 29 minus the gap among ages 30 and older; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating with a recorded sex and age	2024	95% CI −19.3 to 0.7	5,217	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_change_2020_2024	+4.0	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	2024 gap minus 2020 gap, independent samples	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2020 and 2024	95% CI −1.7 to 9.7	10,126	post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_ftf_gap_2012	0.2	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, face-to-face interviews	2012, face-to-face interviews	95% CI −7.3 to 7.6	1,336	mode weight (weight_ftf or weight_web)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_ftf_gap_2024	1.8	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, face-to-face interviews	2024, face-to-face interviews	95% CI −8.6 to 12.3	688	mode weight (weight_ftf or weight_web)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gap_1956	−6.2	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	1956	95% CI −11.6 to −0.8	1,266	post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gap_1976	0.2	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	1976	95% CI −5.3 to 5.8	1,322	post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gap_1996	14.9	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	1996	95% CI 8.4 to 21.3	1,116	post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gap_2024	8.1	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024	95% CI 3.6 to 12.6	3,943	post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_change_1988_2024	+7.8	percentage points	2024 gender gap minus 1988 gender gap, independent samples	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	1988 and 2024	95% CI 2.2 to 13.3	7,102	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_change_2000_2004	+6.5	percentage points	2004 gender gap minus 2000 gender gap, independent samples	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	2000 and 2004	95% CI −1.1 to 14.1	2,455	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_dem	5.7	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women among Democrats; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating who are Democrats	2024	95% CI 2.2 to 9.2	2,627	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_gap_1988	1.0	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	1988	95% CI −3.4 to 5.5	1,627	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_gap_2024	8.8	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	2024	95% CI 5.5 to 12.1	5,475	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_max_from_2004	9.4	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	largest estimate of the men-minus-women gap among the survey years 2004 to 2024; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	2004 to 2024			weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_max_to_2000	1.7	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	largest estimate of the men-minus-women gap among the survey years 1988 to 2000; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	1988 to 2000			weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_min_from_2004	6.0	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	smallest estimate of the men-minus-women gap among the survey years 2004 to 2024; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	2004 to 2024			weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_min_to_2000	0.9	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	smallest estimate of the men-minus-women gap among the survey years 1988 to 2000; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	1988 to 2000			weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_o30	10.7	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	2024, ages 30 and older	95% CI 7.1 to 14.2	4,672	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_rep	6.2	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women among Republicans; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating who are Republicans	2024	95% CI 0.5 to 11.8	2,440	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_gender_u30	1.4	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded sex	2024, ages 18 to 29	95% CI −8.0 to 10.7	545	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_party_gap_1988	20.6	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, Republicans minus Democrats, leaners included; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating who are Democrats or Republicans, leaners included	1988	95% CI 16.0 to 25.2	1,448	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_party_gap_2024	31.6	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, Republicans minus Democrats, leaners included; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating who are Democrats or Republicans, leaners included	2024	95% CI 28.3 to 34.9	5,103	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_party_minus_gender	22.8	percentage points	party gap minus gender gap, ignoring how the two gaps move together on the same respondents; item: rating feminists below 50 on the 0 to 100 feeling thermometer	ANES respondents with a feminist thermometer rating and a recorded party (or left-right side) and sex	2024	95% CI 18.1 to 27.5	10,578	weight (VCF0009z)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_web_gap_2012	7.8	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, web interviews	2012, web interviews	95% CI 3.0 to 12.7	2,852	mode weight (weight_ftf or weight_web)	ANES Cumulative Data File
anes_web_gap_2024	8.4	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, web interviews	2024, web interviews	95% CI 1.4 to 15.5	1,364	mode weight (weight_ftf or weight_web)	ANES Cumulative Data File
asian_neff_2020	101	respondents (Kish effective sample size)	smaller of the effective sample sizes of the women cell and the men cell	Asian women and men ages 18 to 29 who voted	2020			weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
asian_neff_pooled	64	respondents (Kish effective sample size)	smaller of the effective sample sizes of the women cell and the men cell	Asian women and men ages 18 to 29 who voted	2020 and 2024 pooled			weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
band_diff_18_29_30_44	+5.5	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	gap among ages 18 to 29 minus gap among ages 30 to 44, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024	95% CI −1.5 to 12.6	9,971	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
band_diff_65p_30_44	+6.3	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	gap among ages 65 and older minus gap among ages 30 to 44, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024	95% CI 2.2 to 10.3	21,979	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
band_gap_2024_30_44	1.0	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 30 to 44	2024	95% CI −2.4 to 4.4	6,993	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
band_gap_2024_45_64	3.5	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 45 to 64	2024	95% CI 1.2 to 5.8	16,800	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
band_gap_2024_65p	7.2	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 65 and over	2024	95% CI 5.0 to 9.5	14,986	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
cell_floor	100	respondents	minimum number of respondents and minimum Kish effective sample size for a published cell	each race-by-gender cell	2016-2024			none (constant)	Cooperative Election Study
ces_anes_change_diff	−8.5	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	change in the CES gap from 2020 to 2024 minus the change in the ANES gap, independent samples	CES and ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2020 and 2024	95% CI −14.5 to −2.5	95,755	CES weight_cumulative; ANES post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight (VCF0009z)	Cooperative Election Study
ces_anes_diff_2020	+4.5	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	CES gap minus ANES gap in 2020, independent samples	CES and ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2020	95% CI 0.8 to 8.2	50,055	CES weight_cumulative; ANES post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight (VCF0009z)	Cooperative Election Study
ces_change_2020_2024	−4.5	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	2024 gap minus 2020 gap, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2020 and 2024	95% CI −6.4 to −2.5	85,629	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
ces_gap_2024	4.1	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024	95% CI 2.6 to 5.7	41,757	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
ces_std_matched_2024	3.6	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men, standard weight on the matched respondents	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate and were matched to voter-file records	2024	95% CI 2.0 to 5.2	32,776	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
ces_vv_gap_2024	8.0	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate and were matched to voter-file records	2024	95% CI 6.3 to 9.6	32,776	vvweight (respondents matched to voter-file records)	Cooperative Election Study
diff_2008	−8.9	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	gap among ages 18 to 29 minus gap among ages 30 and older, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2008	95% CI −13.2 to −4.6	23,585	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
diff_2012	−6.0	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	gap among ages 18 to 29 minus gap among ages 30 and older, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2012	95% CI −11.1 to −0.9	37,789	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
diff_2016	−4.0	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	gap among ages 18 to 29 minus gap among ages 30 and older, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2016	95% CI −8.3 to 0.4	40,891	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
diff_2020	−6.0	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	gap among ages 18 to 29 minus gap among ages 30 and older, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2020	95% CI −10.1 to −1.9	43,872	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
diff_2024	+2.6	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	gap among ages 18 to 29 minus gap among ages 30 and older, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024	95% CI −3.8 to 8.9	41,757	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
diff_change_2020_2024	+8.6	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	change from 2020 to 2024 in the under-30 gap minus the 30-and-older gap	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2020 and 2024	95% CI 1.0 to 16.1	85,629	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
gss_dem_men	23.0%	percent taking the traditional or hostile position	weighted share agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	Democratic men, leaners included	2024	95% CI 17.0% to 29.1%	331	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_gender_dem	7.5	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women among Democrats; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item who are Democrats	2024	95% CI −0.1 to 15.2	806	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_gender_gap_1977	4.8	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	1977	95% CI −0.6 to 10.2	1,503	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_gender_gap_2024	4.4	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	2024	95% CI −1.1 to 9.9	2,153	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_gender_max	12.1	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	2012	95% CI 5.6 to 18.6	1,285	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_gender_min	0.2	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	2016	95% CI −4.8 to 5.2	1,872	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_gender_o30	2.4	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	2024, ages 30 and older	95% CI −3.5 to 8.3	1,798	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_gender_rep	2.0	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women among Republicans; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item who are Republicans	2024	95% CI −7.7 to 11.7	741	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_party_ftf_2024	19.1	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, Republicans (party identification 4 to 6) minus Democrats (0 to 2), leaners included; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item who are Democrats or Republicans, leaners included	2024, face-to-face interviews	95% CI 8.5 to 29.6	538	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_party_gap_1977	−2.0	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, Republicans (party identification 4 to 6) minus Democrats (0 to 2), leaners included; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item who are Democrats or Republicans, leaners included	1977	95% CI −8.0 to 4.0	1,319	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_party_gap_2018	11.3	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, Republicans (party identification 4 to 6) minus Democrats (0 to 2), leaners included; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item who are Democrats or Republicans, leaners included	2018	95% CI 4.9 to 17.8	1,186	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_party_gap_2024	25.8	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, Republicans (party identification 4 to 6) minus Democrats (0 to 2), leaners included; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item who are Democrats or Republicans, leaners included	2024	95% CI 19.6 to 31.9	1,548	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_party_minus_gender	21.3	percentage points	party gap minus gender gap, ignoring how the two gaps move together on the same respondents; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded party (or left-right side) and sex	2024	95% CI 13.1 to 29.6	3,701	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_party_web_2024	32.3	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, Republicans (party identification 4 to 6) minus Democrats (0 to 2), leaners included; item: agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	GSS respondents with an answer to the item who are Democrats or Republicans, leaners included	2024, web interviews	95% CI 24.4 to 40.2	824	weight_use	General Social Survey
gss_rep_women	43.5%	percent taking the traditional or hostile position	weighted share agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home	Republican women, leaners included	2024	95% CI 36.7% to 50.3%	379	weight_use	General Social Survey
n_anes_2024	3,943	voters	count of respondents behind the 2024 gap	ANES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024			none (count)	ANES Cumulative Data File
n_anes_ci_pos	11	count	count of elections where the 95% interval of the gap lies above zero	ANES presidential elections 1964 to 2024	1964-2024			none (count)	ANES Cumulative Data File
n_anes_ci_zero	5	count	count of elections where the 95% interval of the gap includes zero	ANES presidential elections 1964 to 2024	1964-2024			none (count)	ANES Cumulative Data File
n_anes_elections	16	count	count of presidential elections	ANES presidential elections 1964 to 2024	1964-2024			none (count)	ANES Cumulative Data File
n_anes_pos	16	count	count of elections with a positive estimate of the gap	ANES presidential elections 1964 to 2024	1964-2024			none (count)	ANES Cumulative Data File
n_ces_2024	41,757	voters	count of respondents behind the 2024 gap	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate	2024			none (count)	Cooperative Election Study
n_diff_below_zero	3	count	count of elections where the 95% interval of the under-30 minus 30-and-older difference lies below zero	presidential elections 2008 to 2020	2008-2020			none (count)	Cooperative Election Study
n_earlier_elections	4	count	count of elections	presidential elections 2008 to 2020	2008-2020			none (count)	Cooperative Election Study
n_gss_gender_ci_pos	8	count	count of survey years where the 95% interval of the gender gap lies above zero	GSS survey years with the gender-role item, 1977 to 2024	1977-2024			none (count)	General Social Survey
n_gss_years	24	count	count of survey years with a published gender gap	GSS survey years with the gender-role item, 1977 to 2024	1977-2024			none (count)	General Social Survey
n_instruments	4	count	count of surveys compared	GSS 2024, ANES 2024, WVS United States 2017, Nationscape 2019-2021	latest window of each survey			none (count)	General Social Survey
n_party_larger	3	count	count of surveys where the party gap minus the gender gap has a 95% interval above zero	GSS 2024, ANES 2024, WVS United States 2017, Nationscape 2019-2021	latest window of each survey			none (count)	General Social Survey
n_party_larger_partisans	3	count	count of surveys where the party gap minus the gender gap, with the gender gap restricted to Democrats and Republicans (or the left and right sides of the WVS scale), has a 95% interval above zero	GSS 2024, ANES 2024, WVS United States 2017, Nationscape 2019-2021	latest window of each survey			none (count)	General Social Survey
neff_o30_2024	7,955	respondents (Kish effective sample size)	smaller of the effective sample sizes of the women cell and the men cell	CES voters ages 30 and older	2024		38,779	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
neff_u30_2024	434	respondents (Kish effective sample size)	smaller of the effective sample sizes of the women cell and the men cell	CES voters ages 18 to 29	2024		2,978	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
ns_age_diff	+6.5	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men-minus-women gap among ages 18 to 29 minus the gap among ages 30 and older; item: agree that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve	Nationscape respondents with an answer to the item with a recorded sex and age	July 2019 to February 2021	95% CI 5.3 to 7.7	480,535	weight, cluster-robust interval on the weekly wave	Nationscape
ns_gender_dem	11.1	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women among Democrats; item: agree that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve	Nationscape respondents with an answer to the item who are Democrats	July 2019 to February 2021	95% CI 10.4 to 11.8	170,756	weight, cluster-robust interval on the weekly wave	Nationscape
ns_gender_gap	9.6	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve	Nationscape respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	July 2019 to February 2021	95% CI 9.1 to 10.1	480,535	weight, cluster-robust interval on the weekly wave	Nationscape
ns_gender_o30	8.3	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve	Nationscape respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	July 2019 to February 2021, ages 30 and older	95% CI 7.8 to 8.8	373,707	weight, cluster-robust interval on the weekly wave	Nationscape
ns_gender_rep	7.9	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women among Republicans; item: agree that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve	Nationscape respondents with an answer to the item who are Republicans	July 2019 to February 2021	95% CI 7.1 to 8.8	146,295	weight, cluster-robust interval on the weekly wave	Nationscape
ns_gender_u30	14.8	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve	Nationscape respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	July 2019 to February 2021, ages 18 to 29	95% CI 13.7 to 16.0	106,828	weight, cluster-robust interval on the weekly wave	Nationscape
ns_party_gap	19.2	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, Republicans minus Democrats, party identification without leaners; item: agree that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve	Nationscape respondents with an answer to the item who are Democrats or Republicans, leaners not included	July 2019 to February 2021	95% CI 18.4 to 20.0	317,051	weight, cluster-robust interval on the weekly wave	Nationscape
ns_party_minus_gender	9.6	percentage points	party gap minus gender gap, ignoring how the two gaps move together on the same respondents; item: agree that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve	Nationscape respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded party (or left-right side) and sex	July 2019 to February 2021	95% CI 8.7 to 10.5	797,586	weight, cluster-robust interval on the weekly wave	Nationscape
o30_change_2020_2024	−5.2	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	2024 gap minus 2020 gap, ages 30 and older, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 30 and older	2020 and 2024	95% CI −7.2 to −3.2	78,291	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
o30_gap_2024	3.9	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 30 and older	2024	95% CI 2.4 to 5.4	38,779	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
pid_change_2020_2024	−5.4	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of two-party identifiers	2024 gap minus 2020 gap, independent samples	CES respondents ages 18 to 29 who identify as Democrats or Republicans (leaners not included)	2020 and 2024	95% CI −12.1 to 1.3	11,699	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
pid_diff_2006_2020	+1.1	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of two-party identifiers	2006 gap minus 2020 gap, independent samples	CES respondents ages 18 to 29 who identify as Democrats or Republicans (leaners not included)	2006 and 2020	95% CI −4.3 to 6.5	9,263	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
pid_gap_2006	9.5	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of two-party identifiers	difference in weighted Democratic shares of party identifiers, women minus men	CES respondents ages 18 to 29 who identify as Democrats or Republicans (leaners not included)	2006	95% CI 5.5 to 13.6	2,726	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
pid_gap_2020	8.5	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of two-party identifiers	difference in weighted Democratic shares of party identifiers, women minus men	CES respondents ages 18 to 29 who identify as Democrats or Republicans (leaners not included)	2020	95% CI 4.9 to 12.1	6,537	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
pid_gap_2024	3.1	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of two-party identifiers	difference in weighted Democratic shares of party identifiers, women minus men	CES respondents ages 18 to 29 who identify as Democrats or Republicans (leaners not included)	2024	95% CI −2.5 to 8.7	5,162	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
pooled_gap_hispanic	11.2	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 18 to 29, Hispanic	2020 and 2024 pooled	95% CI 1.0 to 21.4	1,092	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
pooled_gap_white	2.3	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 18 to 29, white	2020 and 2024 pooled	95% CI −2.5 to 7.1	4,661	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
pooled_race_diff	+8.9	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	Hispanic gap minus white gap, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 18 to 29	2020 and 2024 pooled	95% CI −2.4 to 20.2	5,753	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
race_neff_max_2024	82	respondents (Kish effective sample size)	largest cell effective sample size	Black, Hispanic and Asian women and men ages 18 to 29 who voted	2024			weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
race_neff_min_2024	23	respondents (Kish effective sample size)	smallest cell effective sample size	Black, Hispanic and Asian women and men ages 18 to 29 who voted	2024			weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
shift_m_2020	66.1%	percent of the two-party presidential vote	weighted Democratic share of the two-party vote	CES men ages 18 to 29 who voted for a major-party candidate	2020	95% CI 63.1% to 69.2%	1,440	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
shift_m_2024	56.5%	percent of the two-party presidential vote	weighted Democratic share of the two-party vote	CES men ages 18 to 29 who voted for a major-party candidate	2024	95% CI 51.8% to 61.1%	1,209	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
shift_m_change	−9.7	percentage points	2024 share minus 2020 share, independent samples	CES men ages 18 to 29 who voted for a major-party candidate	2020 and 2024	95% CI −15.2 to −4.1	2,649	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
shift_w_2020	69.3%	percent of the two-party presidential vote	weighted Democratic share of the two-party vote	CES women ages 18 to 29 who voted for a major-party candidate	2020	95% CI 66.9% to 71.6%	2,920	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
shift_w_2024	63.0%	percent of the two-party presidential vote	weighted Democratic share of the two-party vote	CES women ages 18 to 29 who voted for a major-party candidate	2024	95% CI 59.0% to 67.0%	1,769	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
shift_w_change	−6.3	percentage points	2024 share minus 2020 share, independent samples	CES women ages 18 to 29 who voted for a major-party candidate	2020 and 2024	95% CI −10.9 to −1.6	4,689	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
shift_wm_change	−5.1	percentage points	2024 share minus 2020 share, independent samples	CES white men ages 18 to 29 who voted for a major-party candidate	2020 and 2024	95% CI −12.1 to 1.9	1,621	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
shift_ww_change	−2.1	percentage points	2024 share minus 2020 share, independent samples	CES white women ages 18 to 29 who voted for a major-party candidate	2020 and 2024	95% CI −8.0 to 3.8	3,040	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
u30_change_2020_2024	+3.4	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	2024 gap minus 2020 gap, ages 18 to 29, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 18 to 29	2020 and 2024	95% CI −3.9 to 10.7	7,338	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
u30_gap_2024	6.5	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate, ages 18 to 29	2024	95% CI 0.4 to 12.7	2,978	weight_cumulative	Cooperative Election Study
vv_band_gap_2024_18_29	11.6	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate and were matched to voter-file records, ages 18 to 29	2024	95% CI 3.8 to 19.3	1,348	vvweight (respondents matched to voter-file records)	Cooperative Election Study
vv_band_gap_2024_65p	11.1	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate and were matched to voter-file records, ages 65 and older	2024	95% CI 8.6 to 13.6	12,683	vvweight (respondents matched to voter-file records)	Cooperative Election Study
vv_diff_2024	+4.2	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	gap among ages 18 to 29 minus gap among ages 30 and older, independent samples	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate and were matched to voter-file records	2024	95% CI −3.7 to 12.1	32,776	vvweight (respondents matched to voter-file records)	Cooperative Election Study
vv_minus_std_2024	+4.3	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	matched-weight gap minus standard-weight gap on the same matched respondents; interval from a seeded percentile bootstrap over respondents, 400 replicates	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate and were matched to voter-file records	2024	95% CI 2.9 to 5.5	32,776	vvweight and weight_cumulative on the same respondents	Cooperative Election Study
vv_o30_gap_2024	7.3	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate and were matched to voter-file records, ages 30 and older	2024	95% CI 5.8 to 8.9	31,428	vvweight (respondents matched to voter-file records)	Cooperative Election Study
vv_u30_gap_2024	11.6	percentage points, women minus men, Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote	difference in weighted Democratic shares, women minus men	CES respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican candidate and were matched to voter-file records, ages 18 to 29	2024	95% CI 3.8 to 19.3	1,348	vvweight (respondents matched to voter-file records)	Cooperative Election Study
wvs_age_diff	+1.5	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men-minus-women gap among ages 18 to 29 minus the gap among ages 30 and older; item: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	WVS United States respondents with an answer to the item with a recorded sex and age	2017	95% CI −4.4 to 7.3	2,591	weight (S017)	World Values Survey and EVS
wvs_gender_gap	2.9	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	WVS United States respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	2017	95% CI 0.7 to 5.0	2,591	weight (S017)	World Values Survey and EVS
wvs_gender_left	4.0	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women among the left side (1 to 5); item: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	WVS United States respondents with an answer to the item who are in the left side (1 to 5)	2017	95% CI 1.5 to 6.6	1,510	weight (S017)	World Values Survey and EVS
wvs_gender_o30	2.8	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	WVS United States respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	2017, ages 30 and older	95% CI 0.5 to 5.2	1,961	weight (S017)	World Values Survey and EVS
wvs_gender_right	0.7	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women among the right side (6 to 10); item: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	WVS United States respondents with an answer to the item who are in the right side (6 to 10)	2017	95% CI −3.3 to 4.8	1,024	weight (S017)	World Values Survey and EVS
wvs_gender_u30	4.3	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, men minus women, all respondents; item: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	WVS United States respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded sex	2017, ages 18 to 29	95% CI −1.1 to 9.6	630	weight (S017)	World Values Survey and EVS
wvs_party_gap	3.2	percentage points (share taking the traditional or hostile position)	difference in weighted shares, right side (left-right 6 to 10) minus left side (1 to 5), because the file used has no party variable for the United States; item: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	WVS United States respondents with an answer to the item who placed themselves on the left-right scale	2017	95% CI 0.8 to 5.5	2,534	weight (S017)	World Values Survey and EVS
wvs_party_minus_gender	0.3	percentage points	party gap minus gender gap, ignoring how the two gaps move together on the same respondents; item: agree that men should have more right to a job than women when jobs are scarce	WVS United States respondents with an answer to the item and a recorded party (or left-right side) and sex	2017	95% CI −2.9 to 3.5	5,125	weight (S017)	World Values Survey and EVS

Definitions

Percentage point: The unit for the difference between two percentages. A change from one share to another is stated in points, not in percent, so that absolute and relative change are not confused.
Survey weights: Numbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight.
Confidence interval: A range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise.
Effective sample size: The number of equally weighted respondents that would give the same precision as the weighted sample. It is smaller than the raw count when the weights vary a lot, and it sets how wide the confidence interval is.
Survey mode: How respondents were interviewed: in person, by phone, on paper or online. Mode can change answers, so a change in mode can look like a change in opinion.
Feeling thermometer: A 0 to 100 rating of a group or person, where 0 is the coldest feeling and 100 the warmest. The American National Election Studies ask respondents to rate parties, candidates and social groups this way.
Clustered standard errors: Standard errors that allow answers within the same group, such as the same county or the same week, to be related. They are wider than ordinary errors when members of a group resemble each other.
Partisan leaner: A respondent who first says they are independent but, when asked, says they lean toward one party. Most figures group leaners with the party they lean toward, and each chapter says which grouping it uses.

Methods

Samples: the vote gap uses respondents who reported voting for the Democratic or Republican presidential candidate. ANES Cumulative Data File, presidential elections 1952 to 2024 (post-election weight where the file has one, otherwise the full-sample weight VCF0009z); CES Cumulative File, 2008 to 2024 (weight_cumulative). The CES is an online survey of opt-in panel members whose weights match them to the electorate, so it is not a random sample of adults. The matched-weight rows use vvweight, the weight for respondents matched to voter-file records, which the file holds for 2018, 2020, 2022 and 2024; in 2020 it is a constant multiple of weight_cumulative, so the matched weight is compared with the standard weight in 2024 only. Party identification in the CES uses even years 2006 to 2024 and counts Democrats and Republicans only, leaners excluded, among all respondents and not only voters. Attitude items, one per survey and chosen by the author: GSS agree or strongly agree that it is much better if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of the home and family (1977 to 2024, weight_use, party and sex from the subset); ANES feminist feeling thermometer below 50 (1988 to 2024, VCF0009z); WVS United States wave 7 (2017, weight S017), agreement that men should have more right to a job when jobs are scarce, with the left side (1 to 5) and right side (6 to 10) of the left-right scale standing in for party because the cleaned file has no party variable; Nationscape (weekly waves from July 2019 to early February 2021, plus four later interviews in the file, weight), agreement that women who complain about harassment often cause more problems than they solve, party identification without leaners. Party is Democrat or Republican with leaners included in the GSS and ANES; the party gap therefore leaves out independents (and, in Nationscape, leaners), while the gender gap uses all respondents with an answer, and a check restricts the gender gap to Democrats and Republicans. Gender is the two-category variable in each file; ANES respondents coded Other (11) are dropped. Age groups are 18 to 29, 30 to 44, 45 to 64 and 65 and over. Estimands: a gap is a difference of two weighted shares, women minus men for the vote and for party identification, men minus women and Republicans minus Democrats for the attitude items; a change is a difference of two gaps from different samples. Intervals: 95% normal intervals on the Kish effective sample size, model based, treating the weighted sample as a simple random sample and ignoring clustering; differences of independent estimates combine the two standard errors in quadrature (the party gap minus the gender gap ignores how the two gaps move together, because they are computed on overlapping respondents). The difference between the matched-weight and standard-weight gaps for the same 2024 respondents is a percentile bootstrap over respondents (400 replicates, seed 12345), because the two gaps share people. Nationscape estimates are weighted regressions with errors clustered on the 85 weekly waves, wider than the Kish interval, and still describe sampling noise among opt-in panel members. Suppression: a race, age or party cell needs 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100 (subgroup-by-year floor); timeline cells built on one item need 150 respondents and an effective sample of 100; a gap is published only when both cells clear the floor. Pooling two elections can lower a cell's effective sample when the weights in one year vary a lot (among Asian voters under thirty the smaller cell has 101 in 2020 and 64 pooled), so a pooled group can miss the floor that its 2020 cells clear. Modes: the ANES mode split uses weight_ftf and weight_web (2012, 2016 and 2024; the file has no mode weights for 2020); the GSS mode split uses the interview mode from the raw file (2022 and 2024 mix in-person and web interviews, 2021 is mostly web).

What these data cannot show

The estimates describe groups in each year and cannot show that any person changed.
A rise in the under-thirty gap between two elections compares different people, so age cannot be separated from generation here, which Chapter 3.7, Age and generation (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/age-and-generation) takes up.
The vote gaps use self-reported votes, and the two surveys and the two CES weights differ on the 2024 level and on the change since 2020, so the data cannot say which estimate is closest to the electorate.
Both the CES and Nationscape are opt-in online panels, so their intervals leave out the error that comes from who joined the panel.
The CES intervals also treat the weighted sample as a simple random sample, so allowing for the survey design could widen or narrow them.
Results whose interval ends close to zero, such as the under-thirty gap in 2024 and the change in the age difference since 2020, could include zero if the intervals were wider.
Most race-by-gender groups are too small to estimate, and a gap that is not distinguishable from zero in a small group is not evidence that the gap is zero.
The attitude items differ in wording, scale and window, and their levels cannot be compared across surveys or merged into one index.
Each survey contributes one item chosen for this chapter, so the count of surveys in which the party gap exceeds the gender gap describes these items, and a different item could change it.
Within a survey, the comparisons of party with gender and of young with old are informative, and the party gap minus the gender gap ignores how the two gaps move together, because both are computed on the same respondents.
All the data are from the United States.
A widely read Financial Times analysis described a gender divide among the young in several countries [6], and a comparative study of gender attitudes examined many societies [7], but nothing here tests either claim outside the United States.
The files record two genders, so nonbinary respondents cannot be examined.
Finally, the data hold no measure of why the gaps arise.
They cannot separate differences in policy attitudes from differences in the salience of issues, in candidates or in party strategy, and Planned, Two moralities (https://vishalsingh.org/politics/two-moralities; planned) places gender-role attitudes among other cultural attitudes.

References

Kish, Leslie (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons.
Kaufmann, Karen M.; Petrocik, John R. (1999). The Changing Politics of American Men: Understanding the Sources of the Gender Gap. American Journal of Political Science 43(3): 864-887. doi:10.2307/2991838
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M.; De Boef, Suzanna; Lin, Tse-min (2004). The Dynamics of the Partisan Gender Gap. American Political Science Review 98(3): 515-528. doi:10.1017/S0003055404001315
Tausanovitch, Chris; Vavreck, Lynn (2021). Democracy Fund + UCLA Nationscape Project (version 20211215). Harvard Dataverse. doi:10.7910/DVN/CQFP3Z
Mercer, Andrew W.; Kreuter, Frauke; Keeter, Scott; Stuart, Elizabeth A. (2017). Theory and Practice in Nonprobability Surveys: Parallels between Causal Inference and Survey Inference. Public Opinion Quarterly 81(S1): 250-271. academic.oup.com/poq/article/81/S1/250/3749176
Burn-Murdoch, John (2024). A new global gender divide is emerging. Financial Times, 26 January 2024.
Inglehart, Ronald; Norris, Pippa (2003). Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge University Press.

Provenance

Pipeline version: 1.0.0
Build script: book3/chapters/the-gender-gap/build.py (sha256 e153f4a58f9349d05b60723d8dda0508da6ce5c672768f23877a55c7ca25beec)
Built on: 2026-09-30
Site commit: 16414b2c7257546a7042d0b1734657f208999f60

Inputs

File	Size (bytes)	SHA-256, first 1 MB	SHA-256, last 1 MB
data/anes/anes_cdf_clean.parquet	15,640,720	b3f0c2d8ae5673b2c40cf6df71318ea3f712cd845c4f1aad0460f28d1b022643	04f06dae56b65649291caf6cf77aab9767d9c92d0c2669c6d3655d9063970583
data/cces/cces_clean.parquet	53,454,868	9430e88b3196c9ca2250bdda1908d3920e80e276ca0c529c514e2fc2bdd00806	f61097c727c38fd8d7c8e53fe86935fb626f351a64d99ccb1ae0b56715b2c405
data/gss/gss_all_raw2024.parquet	35,044,704	6f6560d1929e8a100f576317a296ee88f777ca061ab7dbc1471cbdc7b3563538	5c3294f206beb53d9a8387fccb1983bf3088818df090bd8ed3f378adadafcf9b
data/gss/gss_sub2024.parquet	4,925,270	09c4894730735ec7ae5a057c99d97705866b0b4d485a8b14030435944f909fba	fbbacc5d2586b9f6a774f02031f3686c14fa23a0effee92366bb90a6de8e0ad3
data/nationscape/nationscape_clean.parquet	43,528,088	6a7904b0ca979052a375585356a3e4fb85129f4902770bee653b54e95fc936e4	8dc1daf282a9fa90033abf3be0312eb5d1bf351a6a0b719c43204c904af86a44
data/wvs/wvs_clean.parquet	71,974,374	cef4479481f8a48d6c765d39dc5438d31daa32fcecee3f181aaaf8e257f41f0b	59a8e3c369176b7e1a2cb37fc10b87985ed79b02fab2eae1cca08e7a972db061

Outputs

File	SHA-256
facts.json	731d9847d89ffaabe6ccb029ed2cc49104a8baa205255eacf77c60c83a8fdb52
figures/attitude_gap_trends.json	f0b4dea1b1b9b998eeb0036fcc2328cda34c026e22bbb8449d22c731bd1653db
figures/attitude_gender_gap_by_age.json	f3edf0c7192f2834a06ebbd5be2c86bf40513954ad1312401619a649a1a96a16
figures/attitudes_by_gender_party.json	85d6819360e2c77b6fd370c9b54d309d206d7e920e97b65ccb56d99973bbd829
figures/pid_gap_under30.json	6fb42e50edff5ba22c8c90cd7546aea2216155f20fdf819b3e0184c8bd1cc712
figures/vote_gap_by_age.json	e55aa73b49d9195e6818a73fc232698e5f752bdf57dd7e55fbd70ece565aa49e
figures/vote_gap_long_run.json	865d9a712c30eea262167f96d535b5cf1ed1fecf47a1e086dee05cd3b7eefe5e
figures/youth_gap_by_race.json	3b98c257cca83056eb38e9d9be4513069df7debb8cf8ed65d1d838a9ca642cd4
figures/youth_shift_2020_2024.json	da472b2e622a81f2821185e8a78810eff91f4e6bfe000796b233f59bdd362c22
figures/youth_vs_older_gap.json	83f6af3dfc64ce8de87b701e66dcd53139b7b87eab03df4c952e3641a07766aa
meta.json	1fac64defac0be3e92e7cde54984155d00f9ebbd6155d11fcdcd124abdad5502
refs.json	1508e30ad784b5631010b1983a94d2fb1208de7d0dd3509b829d6c5bcca6c560

Machine formats

Report (Markdown): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/the-gender-gap/report.md
Every estimate (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/facts.json
Table 1, figure "vote_gap_long_run" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/vote_gap_long_run.json
Table 2, figure "vote_gap_by_age" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/vote_gap_by_age.json
Table 3, figure "youth_vs_older_gap" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/youth_vs_older_gap.json
Table 4, figure "youth_gap_by_race" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/youth_gap_by_race.json
Table 5, figure "youth_shift_2020_2024" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/youth_shift_2020_2024.json
Table 6, figure "pid_gap_under30" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/pid_gap_under30.json
Table 7, figure "attitudes_by_gender_party" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/attitudes_by_gender_party.json
Table 8, figure "attitude_gap_trends" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/attitude_gap_trends.json
Table 9, figure "attitude_gender_gap_by_age" (JSON): https://vishalsingh.org/politics/report/the-gender-gap/figures/attitude_gender_gap_by_age.json
Index of every report: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/llms.txt; all reports in one file: https://vishalsingh.org/politics/llms-full.txt

Identification

Principal estimates

Findings

The ANES vote gap estimate has been positive since 1964

The ANES and CES disagree about 2020 to 2024

Voters under thirty against older voters

Race-by-gender groups are mostly too small

The Democratic share fell among young women and young men

Party identification among adults under thirty

Party separates attitudes more than gender does, except in the WVS

What these data cannot show

Tables

Table 1. The ANES vote gap estimate has been positive since 1964 and peaked at 14.9 points in 1996

Table 2. In the CES the vote gap fell after 2020 in every age group except the youngest

Table 2.1. Change since 2020

Table 2.2. Gap in 2024 by weight

Table 3. The under-thirty vote gap was smaller than the older gap in 2008, 2012 and 2020 and not in 2024

Table 3.1. The two gaps

Table 3.2. The difference

Table 4. Among voters under thirty, few race-by-gender groups are large enough to compare

Table 5. Both young women and young men gave Democrats a smaller share in 2024 than in 2020

Table 6. The under-thirty party-identification gap was 9.5 in 2006 and 3.1 in 2024, and the 2024 interval includes zero

Table 7. Party, or left-right group in the WVS, separates the traditional answer more than gender does in 3 of 4 surveys

Table 7.1. Party gap and gender gap

Table 7.2. Gender gap within party

Table 7.3. Share by party and gender

Table 8. The GSS party gap went from −2.0 in 1977 to 11.3 in 2018, and the estimated gender gap never exceeded 12.1

Table 9. Only Nationscape shows a larger attitude gender gap among adults under thirty

All estimates

Definitions

Methods

What these data cannot show

References

Provenance

Machine formats