January 24, 2005

GIVE THEM A MORTGAGE & THEY'LL GIVE YOU THEIR VOTES:

"Maritalism" vindicated as key to red-blue divide (Steve Sailer, January 23, 2005, V-Dare)

The prominent Democratic polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, headed by Stanley Greenberg, has issued an important analysis of the 2004 Presidential election. It validates my recent conclusion on VDARE.com: the "Marriage Gap" is the single best way to understand why states vote Republican or Democrat.

As you will recall, I found that Bush's share of the vote by state correlated at the extraordinarily high level of r = 0.91 (in quant speak) with the average years married among white women ages 18 to 44.

And, I went on to argue, GOP success depends far more than you'd expect upon whether citizens can afford a house big enough for a spouse and several children. [...]

[I]n this new report Greenberg breaks out the white unmarried vote. One big reason for this: single voters as a whole include a much higher proportion of blacks (i.e., blacks don't get married much these days). So without specifically focusing just on white voters, it's hard to tell whether the Marriage Gap really does drive how people vote … or whether the Marriage Gap is just a side effect of the Race Gap that we already know is so deep.

Answer: according to Greenberg, even among whites, the Marriage Gap is still a chasm.

Bush carried merely 44% of the single white females but 61% of the married white women—a 17 point difference.

Among white men, Bush won 53% of the singles and 66% of the married—a 13 point difference.

Marriage seems to narrow the gender gap by encouraging wives to vote more like their husbands. Among single whites, the gender gap is 9 percentage points, but among married whites, it's only 5 points.

It's likely that wedlock makes women more Republican for at least two reasons.

* Married women tend to be financially less dependent on government jobs, welfare, and Social Security than are their single sisters.

* Husbands seem more likely to persuade wives to adopt their political worldviews than vice-versa. Maybe this is because men tend to follow national and international affairs more closely than women do, as Kate O'Beirne has documented.

Nonetheless, while marriage has a bigger impact on women’s Republican voting than mens, it strongly affects both sexes. Hence that 13 point gap between single and married white men’s’ GOP propensity.

It's not hard to make up a long list of reasons why marriage inclines people to vote Republican:
bullet Married people are more likely to be homeowners than renters.

* Children make you more culturally conservative.

* Having children to protect encourages you to move away from "diverse" (i.e. dangerous) neighborhoods.

And that's just a start.


What President Bush gets, and the rest of the Stupid Party does not, is that things like the marriage initiative and the Ownership Society aren't just good public policy, they're also ways of making people more conservative.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 24, 2005 9:03 AM
Comments

Would have been interesting to split out the married Hispanic vote. It might have confirmed Sailer's worst nightmare: more than 50% for the Repubs.

Pretty soon (if not already) the GOP will get a majority of married Hispanics. Not long afterwards they'll get a majority of all Hispanics. That day will drive Sailer and everybody else at Vdare batty.

Posted by: Casey Abell at January 24, 2005 1:17 PM

By the way, the press releases on the Greenberg site make for funny reading - or painful memories, depending on your politics. Right up to the election their polls showed Kerry ahead and promised a Dem win.

They had to, uh, modify things a little after November 2.

Posted by: Casey Abell at January 24, 2005 1:27 PM

The downside is that marriage discourages risk taking, the great engine of the economy. If you have a couple of kids, it's much tougher to quit your job and start your own company.

Posted by: Bart at January 24, 2005 4:13 PM

Vdare types commit the same error as the multiculturalists, namely, to mix up race and culture, as if thought and knowledge were genetic. It's easy enough to see how this works when we see Whites deculturating, and the Sailerites seem to note these movements readily enough. Of course, the reverse is much more common: outsiders tending, no, striving, to "become White."

I live in a large northern city with a substantial African-American population, and I am constantly struck by the runaway extinction of "Ebonic" speech. No one should be surprised at this. In a free society, one may choose his identity, and who would choose not to be a Man of the West?

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 24, 2005 6:02 PM

Vdare types commit the same error as the multiculturalists, namely, to mix up race and culture, as if thought and knowledge were genetic. It's easy enough to see how this works when we see Whites deculturating, and the Sailerites seem to note these movements readily enough. Of course, the reverse is much more common: outsiders tending, no, striving, to "become White."

I live in a large northern city with a substantial African-American population, and I am constantly struck by the runaway extinction of "Ebonic" speech. No one should be surprised at this. In a free society, one may choose his identity, and who would choose not to be a Man of the West?

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 24, 2005 6:03 PM

Lou,

I don't know which American city you live in but it ain't NYC. When you travel a subway or bus here, you can't avoid American Blacks speaking an untranslateable version of English at a loudness about equivalent to that of a jet airplane engine. Even for those of us whose Spanish is pretty modest, it's easier to understand the illegals just in from the hills of Oaxaca than the ebonics crowd.

If by not choosing to be a 'Man of the West' you can continue to receive welfare, free health care, have all your crimes excused because of 'oppression' and generally be allowed to behave like a Hun with a toothache and no social skills or morals, you will not choose to be a 'Man of the West.'

Posted by: Bart at January 25, 2005 6:56 AM
« FREE OR ELSE: | Main | SAVE CANADA: BURN YOUR (MAPLE) LEAVES. »