"[M]en who had voted for the losing presidential candidate... suffered a big drop in their testosterone after hearing of his defeat."

Some study found, and Victoria Bassetti riffs on that finding in the opinion pages of The New York Times (under caricatures of high and low masculinity):

Is it possible voting makes male voters too vulnerable? Could the unpleasant feelings male voters experience when their candidates lose discourage them from revisiting the polls? No wonder they stop voting. It hurts too much....

Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry will come up with a little blue pill to make people voters. But until then, we may need to man up and face facts. For all our idealism about voting and democracy, we have created a needlessly complex and burdensome voting system. We can’t fix the hormonal fallout from voting, but biology provides another reason we should think about making voting simpler and easier.

Oh, boring. This turns into one more NYT article about how voter ID laws and such are bad. I'd like to see more on this topic of men's hormones and political decisionmaking. If there is this deep, physical need to be on the winning side, then those who want the men's votes need to work on the illusion that their candidate is likely to win. You know, skew the polls, get the media to pump up your guy, portray him as unbeatable, popular, etc.

But don't go too far. If you make men overconfident that your guy is a huge winner, and then there's a debate and he looks way different from what he was pumped up to look like, he's all deflated, and he seems tired and listless, and the other candidate stands up straight and delivers strong points, these men will have to switch sides to preserve their manhood.

Related: "Vote like your manhood depends on it... because it kinda does."