For all the hubbub about the gender gap, the marriage gap more than doubles it:

http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/2012/all/president/#exitPoll

Marriage Gap

Married Men: 60-38 for Romney
Married Women: 53-46 for Romney

Unmarried Men: 56-40 for Obama
Unmarried Women: 67-31 for Obama

Overall Married: 60-40 for Romney

Gender Gap

Men: 52-45 Romney
Women: 55-44 Obama

I found this interesting.

11/7/2012 1:56:13 PM

For men, having children makes you more likely to vote for Romney.
But for women, having children makes them more likely to vote for Obama.

Also, the race distinction is stunning:

Category Obama Romney % Total
White 39 59 72
Black 93 6 13
Hispanic or Latino 71 27 10
Asian 73 26 3
Other 58 38 2

I find it really problematic that we have entire ethnic groups that will vote >90% for a candidate. I would blame the GOP for this, not black people. But either way, it points to a sharp divide, the kind of divide that can become dangerous.

Romney's support never goes that deep either. Even if you narrow it down to white protestants you're not topping 80%. The higher percents are just trivial statements. If you disapprove of the president's job of course you're voting for the other guy.

11/7/2012 2:44:14 PM

Quote :

"I find it really problematic that we have entire ethnic groups that will vote >90% for a candidate. I would blame the GOP for this, not black people."

That's kinda what happens when you dismiss out-of-hand the unique concerns of every ethnic minority as "The race card".

Unless you believe 96% of black people are deluded or racist, you pretty much have to admit that there are some still-serious issues with discrimination and prejudice in this country. I mean, unless you believe the entirety of intelligent, rational, level-headed black people are in that 3-4%

11/7/2012 2:49:21 PM

Yeah, I wanted to mention the racial stuff, but didn't want to muddy the waters.

I would have never guessed that if you only look at white votes, Obama would have lost:

CA, IL, PA, OH, MI, and even NJ and MD.

Honestly, looking at this data, I have no idea how Mitt Romney wasn't the last, best hope for any Republican to win the White House. Unless there is major structural change in the Republican Party, that is.

Every election cycle, Dems inherently gain a point or two based on changes in racial composition of the electorate. Throw in a decline and/or delay in marriage and children among whites, and the Rep. picture doesn't look very happy.

11/7/2012 2:50:52 PM

When one party built its base and power by turning poor whites against poor blacks, what do you expect to happen a few decades later?

11/7/2012 2:56:10 PM

Quote :

"Unless you believe 96% of black people are deluded or racist, you pretty much have to admit that there are some still-serious issues with discrimination and prejudice in this country. I mean, unless you believe the entirety of intelligent, rational, level-headed black people are in that 3-4%"

You know what amazes me? Even in 2008 voter turnout for blacks was lower than whites.



I mean, if you are non-white, if there was one election in the history of elections that you should have gotten your ass out to, it should have been 2008. We keep talking about this block of votes the Democrats will naturally inherit due to population change, but shit... if you could just get them out there in equal numbers, the nation would turn blue like Papa Smurf.

That makes the implied social issues all the worse. Not only is a large group of Americans almost 100% decided toward a particular candidate/party, but they don't even feel like going out to vote is worth it. That is a god damn high level of disenfranchisement. I mean, that's scary.

It's like we're in the calm before the storm, and the Republicans are saying everything they possibly can to make it worse when the tides do change.

[Edited on November 7, 2012 at 2:59 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2012 2:58:51 PM

This might be related to age (not sure if that was mentioned). Younger people vote more heavily Democrat, and younger people are less likely to be married. That doesn't account for all of this, but I'm sure its a factor.

11/7/2012 3:26:14 PM

^Same goes with race - whites are more likely to be married. But the gap is sustained even within racial groups, just not quite to the same extent.

11/7/2012 3:30:09 PM

^, ^^ I think these cross-correlations are pointless without a fundamental mechanism behind it. If you look at religion, you get a considerably greater clumping for Romney, and this has an obvious connection to marriage.

I would suggest as a 2nd mechanism home-ownership and development patterns. Marriage is often the starting point for moving into a house and finding a more permanent development to live in. This almost always leads to living in a town with a lower population. The degree of urban vs. rural shows a correlation almost as large as religiosity.

From anecdotal experience, I would venture a guess that it's (lifestyle choice) --- implies ---> (political preference), versus the other way around. Many people (more than enough to explain this difference) who live "The American Dream" and vote conservative had previous days of youthful indiscretion when they lived in a larger city and still learned new things.

Strangely, it's the suburban lifestyle that's one of the most dependent on handouts from the government. You have the mortgage deductions to start with, and then an entire smorgasbord when we start talking about children.

[Edited on November 7, 2012 at 3:56 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2012 3:55:58 PM

Quote :

"That makes the implied social issues all the worse. Not only is a large group of Americans almost 100% decided toward a particular candidate/party, but they don't even feel like going out to vote is worth it. That is a god damn high level of disenfranchisement. I mean, that's scary."

I think your vastly overestimating how many Americans of any race really give a damn in the first place. The fact is only bout half the nation is even registered to vote, let alone goes out to vote. Of those people, I would bet the vast vast vast majority don't even vote the individual, they vote the party. He'll even here in TSB I bet you could count on one hand the number of active posters that have ever voted cross party in a presidential election, and arguably we're more plugged in than most.

Honestly, I think that despite the media hyperventilating, most voters don't really pay much attention in the first place, and most of them just vote the same way they always have, which is likely the same way their parents voted. And the numbers really aren't all that surprising or amazing, they pretty much match with historical trends. In 2004, the white black turnout was 67% and 60% respectively. 61 and 56 in 2000. I wasn't able to find the census data for 96, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was more or less identical.

11/7/2012 11:27:38 PM