Re: The matrimony gap.

1

Any control for race or income or age? I'm wondering if marriage, given statistics, turns out to be a proxy for white, older, and wealthier.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
2

Perhaps 46% of all women in Ohio would never vote for either Clinton or Giuliani, and they're just phrasing it controversially.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 7:54 AM
horizontal rule
3

It's as if you're suggesting they would manipulate statistics to create a story, heebie. How cynical!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
4

Nope, it's what Cala said -- 39% of all women in Ohio say they'd never vote for Clinton, while 38% of all women in Ohio say they'd never vote for Giuliani. Full results here.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
5

Half of all women in marriages end up divorced, whereas half of all men in marriages end up in lasting, permanent relationships.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
6

I'm wondering if marriage, given statistics, turns out to be a proxy for white, older, and wealthier.

That sounds right.

Also, it's not just married women who say they would never vote for Clinton:

Despite their wide leads for the nominations, both Clinton and Giuliani face sizable segments of the Ohio electorate (41 percent for her, 39 percent for him) who say they would never vote for them. Clinton's problems are worse among married voters - 46 percent of married women and 48 percent of married men say they would never vote for her.

Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:07 AM
horizontal rule
7

5 is very funny.


Posted by: Invisible Adjunct | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:08 AM
horizontal rule
8

heebie's right at least to the extent you can great a story that says 54% of married women would vote for Clinton! How well she polls in family values land....


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:12 AM
horizontal rule
9

Well, "would not" is certainly a stronger and thus more newsworthy claim than "maybe would". And on that note it seems that the more relevant comparison is that 43% of unmarried women definitely would vote for Clinton while only 27% of married women definitely would vote for Giuliani. But those numbers don't, like, look the same, so in that way they're less relevant.


Posted by: mano negra | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:16 AM
horizontal rule
10

More political miscellany:

"I have fired a grenade launcher and hit the target two out of three times, so I think that's pretty good odds for me," [Mrs. Huckabee] said, noting that she had a special interest in military matters and has also jumped out of an airplane, flown in an F-16 and shot an MP5 submachine gun.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
11

I forget what the relevant bizarre beliefs of voters are, does publicizing that his wife could kick a terrorist's ass make him more likely to win because people want an action hero for President but will settle for having one as first lady, or less likely because having a strong wife makes you less of a man?


Posted by: washerdreyer, Esq. | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
12

My recollection is that married white women break heavily for Republicans. I wonder if Clinton does better than expected for a Dem.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
13

having a strong wife makes you less of a man

Elizabeth Edwards really broke that rib wrestling buffaloes.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
14

Matrimony with a Stanley impersonator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oec5DWPImQc


Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:33 AM
horizontal rule
15

I loves me some Avett Brothers. North Carolina represent!


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 8:36 AM
horizontal rule
16

Buffalo abuse is no joke, people.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 9:00 AM
horizontal rule
17

16: You're referring to what Randy Moss will be doing this Sunday, I take it?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
18

My recollection is that married white women break heavily for Republicans

I recall the so-called "Marriage Gap" as a fairly robust finding. As Cala notes, there's a potential confound with wealth and age. If you control for those factors, however , the effect remains. A good summary can be found here.


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
19

11: Every token of the love of guns, guns and more guns is sweeter than a stolen kiss to the Republican mook voter.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 9:08 AM
horizontal rule
20

NORTH CAROLIIIIINA
COME ON AND RAISE UP


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 9:25 AM
horizontal rule
21

Sorry to threadjack, though it's about women at least - just read this and thought it might go down well here - Feminists are better lovers.


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
22

Feminists are better lovers. Slutty girls know all the good tricks.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 9:37 AM
horizontal rule
23

Well, practice makes perfect.


Posted by: Cryptic Ned | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 9:38 AM
horizontal rule
24

20: Awww yeah.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
25

Feminists are better lovers. Slutty girls know all the good tricks.

Didn't the Kinsey Report include a somewhat arch remark to the effect that sexual experiences of men, initiatory, regular and recurring, varied by age, class, education and region, but the certainty that one's particular sexual history was normal and normative was universal?


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
26

Even though the analysis baa links to is written from a "progressive opportunity" point of view, that the number of unmarried women heads-of-households ought to be directly appealed to because of their numbers, it acknowledges the marriage gap makes a huge gap in the votes of women, with married trending conservative/Republican within every category and group.

I wonder how much the effect is due to selection, i.e. is already true as she stands at the altar, and how much to effects from being married? An analysis that tracked results according to time married might show the answer.


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
27

More interesting to me, and mentioned by but not highlighted by the USA Today coverage, is that while Obama & Clinton beat Edwards in the primary, Edwards beats Giuliani by a bigger margin in the general. Electability, schmelectability.

Edwards 46%, Giuliani 40%
Clinton 44%, Giuliani 43%
Obama 41%, Giuliani 41%

They all crush Romney. More.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:04 AM
horizontal rule
28

The single women of New York, on the other hand, are known for marrying Giuliani. Of course that doesn't guarantee they'd cast their ballot for him, but...


Posted by: TJ | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
29

Electability, schmelectability.

Yay!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:15 AM
horizontal rule
30

Other than that I think the poll results in 27 are useless at this stage, of course.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
31

I wonder how much the effect is due to selection, i.e. is already true as she stands at the altar, and how much to effects from being married?

As in married women are more likely to vote Republican because women who vote Republican are more likely to get/stay married? Sounds pretty plausible, actually.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:19 AM
horizontal rule
32

useless at this stage

"This stage" is only a month and a half before the voting begins.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
33

32: not voting in the general. My personal opinion is that nobody who isn't a professional pollster of political consultant should think one whit about "electability" in the primaries.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
34

Relationships make people stupid.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:51 AM
horizontal rule
35

I'd be interested to see if age of marriage correlates with Republicanicity. Women who marry young because it is the only way to have sex, or because they are already pregnant could be a big factor in the "married women vote Republican" phenomenon.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
36

I'd be interested to see if age of marriage correlates with Republicanicity

The data I've been able to turn up on this is inconclusive. certainly within the 18-24 age cohort, there's a big marriage gap. That gap persists in over 65 population and in the college educated population. It's of course possible that all the gap in those populations is due to people who married young, but absent a finer breakdown, who knows. Another way to do this work would be to look by religious group. If the marriage gap is found across all levels of church attendance, e.g., that would be suggestive.

I wonder how much the effect is due to selection, i.e. is already true as she stands at the altar, and how much to effects from being married?

Great question. And in general, the question of what happens to political affiliation over time is pretty interesting. If anyone has good links to data (or time to find them) I'd be grateful.


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
37

35: wanting to share the pain, you mean?


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
38

34: Or is it that stupidity makes people have relationships?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
39

And in general, the question of what happens to political affiliation over time is pretty interesting.

Didn't the NYT have a story about a year ago suggesting that the party (here, a proxy for politics) you pick in your twenties tends to stick? I think that maybe someone here did a post about it, but I'm too lazy to look.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
40

38: The Buddhists have worked it out into a sixteen-step process, with step 16 causing step 1. Once started, it's eternal until someone breaks the chain (as Stevie Nicks pointed out).


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
41

I wonder to what extent "being married" is also a proxy for "being a parent." I think Altemeyer mentioned some research in The Authoritarians where he tracked former students over time, and found that going through college tended to make right-wing authoritarians more liberal (or at least more centrist), but becoming parents tended to push them back a bit to the right (not as far as where they started, though). This may be a "duh, yeah" intuitively, but he has some quantification of the size of the effects involved.


Posted by: DaveW | Link to this comment | 11-15-07 5:19 PM
horizontal rule
42

Sir Kraab: I've been looking at these comparative-electability-in-the-general-election matchup polls for a while now (they post a lot of them on pollingreport.com and TPM Election Central), and my impression is that they're all over the place. Sometimes (usually, in my recollection, though I don't know why) Clinton does better than Obama and Edwards against Giuliani, but sometimes she does worse, and it varies a lot in state-by-state results. I would not base any conclusions about electability on a single poll of this type.

People who post about politics on the Internet have a longstanding belief that Hillary Clinton is unelectable, possibly because few people who post about politics on the Internet, left or right, actually like Hillary Clinton (she's the anti-Ron Paul). But this is not necessarily a good indication about the general voting public.


Posted by: Matt McIrvin | Link to this comment | 11-16-07 7:58 AM
horizontal rule
43

41: Isn't that what i said the other day about soccer moms being put up against the wall?


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 11-16-07 2:25 PM
horizontal rule
44

'up against the wall' sounds sexual, not revolutionarily violent, on second thought.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 11-16-07 6:49 PM
horizontal rule
45

I tend to take all of these polls with a very large spoonful of salt.

That said, there's been some interesting research in Britain suggesting that parents' political views (as measured, in part, by party affiliation) shift as they have (more) children. Specifically, the more sons you have, the more conservatively you vote, and the more daughters, the more liberal you become.

From a layperson's view, the research outlined in this paper (pdf) seems at least plausible.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 11-16-07 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
46

45: i guess that makes sense too, but i would have guessd it went the other way round, since i think its the fear of boogiemen that makes conservatives, and girls need more protection from boogiemen then boys. theoretically.


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 11-17-07 2:15 AM
horizontal rule
47

that paper augers for an evopsych argument, more than a psychoanalytic one for teh otehr way


Posted by: yoyo | Link to this comment | 11-17-07 2:21 AM
horizontal rule
48

46 -- Fear of the hypothetical boogieman is nothing compared to fear of the actual patriarchy.


Posted by: NĂ¡pi | Link to this comment | 11-17-07 7:01 AM
horizontal rule