While pollsters crunch numbers and pundits predict who’ll win in November based on whether they’re for or against homosexual “marriage” and child killing, favor an open border or border fence, are hard or soft on Islamofascism, and promise to raise or lower taxes, politicians may want to consider a couple of issues that often aren’t discussed.
As a rule of thumb, married people with children tend to be more right-leaning than single and/or childless people. There are exceptions, of course, and I am one. I’m single and childless, and I’m more conservative than most conservatives, socially and fiscally. But generally, being married with children correlates more strongly with voting for Republicans.
USA Today published two related stories Marriage gap could sway elections and “Fertility gap” helps explain political divide: From the marriage piece:
Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people…Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married.
The political tug-of-war is between people who are married and those who have never been…The “never married” group covers a variety of groups who form the Democratic base: young people, those who marry late in life, single parents, gays, and heterosexuals who live together.
The marriage divide drew attention in the 2004 presidential race. President Bush beat John Kerry by 15 percentage points among married people and lost by 18 percentage points among unmarried people, according to an exit poll conducted by national news media organizations…Most serious Democratic challenges this fall are in Republican-controlled House districts that have lower marriage rates.
Generally, Republicans tout the “traditional values” line while Democrats are much more…what’s the right word? Non-traditional? Permissive? I’ve heard it said that as people marry, buy property, and age, they tend to become more conservative, not more liberal.
Think about it. Housing is cheaper in “fly over country” than in urban centers. Single homeowners in the city may be worried about crime and are paying an arm and a couple of legs for housing, but the lifestyle is cost-prohibitive once they’re married with children (unless they’re rich). Kids cost money, I’ve heard, and most parents would do anything to keep their kids safe. So, off to the suburbs or “exurbs” they go. Not only are the suburbs safer, generally speaking, they’re cheaper. And people who own property are keenly aware of the tax implications; therefore, they tend to vote for the candidate who promises lower taxes. Chances are, he/she won’t be a Democrat.
Most of us don’t need studies and charts to confirm any of this, but it helps. From the fertility article:
GOP Congress members represent 39.2 million children younger than 18, about 7 million more than Democrats. Republicans average 7,000 more children per district.
Many Democrats represent areas that have many single people and relatively few children. Democratic districts that have large numbers of children tend to be predominantly Hispanic or, to a lesser extent, African-American.
This “fertility gap” is crucial to understanding the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University. These childbearing patterns shape divisions over issues such as welfare, education and child tax credits, he says.
James Taranto of the Opinion Journal offered a “Roe Effect” theory to argue that Democrats, the pro-child killing party, are killing off their voting bloc.
In 2004, Steve Sailer wrote about the marriage and baby gap between red state voters and blue state voters. About the stronger relationship between marriage/fertility and voting for Republicans, he writes:
“Why do voters follow these patterns? Because blue regions tend to be more densely populated and racially diverse—which raises the cost of both capacious housing and safe schooling. This makes children harder to afford. Bigger families make red staters more open to voting on the GOP’s ‘family values’ issues.”
He explains in the baby gap article why he focused on white families:
“I’ll focus primarily on Caucasians, who overall voted for Bush 58-41, in part because they are doing most of the arguing over the meaning of the red-blue division. The reasons blacks vote Democratic are obvious, and other racial blocs are smaller. Whites remain the 800-pound gorilla of ethnic electoral groups, accounting for over three out of every four votes.”
Again, these are generalizations. I remember reading a story about voting patterns among married-with-children blacks, and the numbers weren’t similar in any way to voting patterns among their white counterparts. Blacks vote for Democrats in high numbers (Dems get about 90 percent of the black vote), and marriage, parenthood, and suburban living are less predictive for them.
