(Exercise 6) The Impact of ATTITUDES TOWARD GAY MARRIAGE On 2004 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE CHOICE Controlling for PARTY Identification

1
(Exercise 6)The Impact ofATTITUDES TOWARD GAY
MARRIAGEOn 2004 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE
CHOICEControlling for PARTY Identification

• Roger C. Lowery
• PLS 401, Senior Seminar
• Department of Public International Affairs
• UNC Wilmington

2
Univariate Hypothesis

• Theory
• Immediately prior to Election Day 2004, the
  nationwide trial-heat margin between Bush and
  Kerry was too close to call.
• H1 Neither Bush nor Kerry was a consensus
  choice among pre-election voters in 2004.

3
Table 1
4
Univariate Findings

• H1 (neither Bush nor Kerry was a consensus choice
  in 2004) is supported by the sample data in Table
  1 because
• The pattern predicted by H1 is observed in the
  sample data.
• There is very little difference (less than 2)
  between Bush and Kerry support in the sample.
• The differences in Bush/Kerry support that are
  observed in the sample are too small to be
  statistically significant.
• The random-sampling error margin for the sample
  results in Table 1 (3.0 ) is larger than the
  vote-choice margin between Bush and Kerry
  supporters (1.6 ).
• http//www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sam
  ple-calculator.asp

5
Bivariate Hypothesis

• Theory
• Bush supported a constitutional ban on gay
  marriage and Kerry opposed.
• http//www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/13/evening
  news/main629360.shtml
• H2 Voters who opposed gay marriage were more
  likely to support Bush in 2004 than voters who
  supported gay marriage.

6
Table 2
2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage
Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N V125 Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?) V125 Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?) V125 Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?) V125 Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?)
Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N 1Yes 2No but permit unions 3No ROWTOTAL
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice 1 Bush 25.463 61.013 63.5301 50.7376
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice 2 Kerry 74.6184 39.08 36.5173 49.3365
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice COL TOTAL 100.0247 100.022 100.0473 100.0742
Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics
Tau-b -.35 Chi-square probability 0.00 0.00
7
Bivariate Findings

• H2 (voters who opposed gay marriage were more
  likely to support Bush in 2004 than voters who
  supported gay marriage) is supported by the
  sample data in Table 2 because
• The pattern predicted by H2 is observed in the
  sample data. Taub 0.35, which indicates that
  gay-marriage attitudes were a strong predictor of
  vote choice.
• This sample finding is statistically significant.
  The chi-squared probability of random-sampling
  error is less than 0.05 (?2 0.00).

8
Multivariate Hypothesis

• Theory
• Because some (but not all) gay-rights supporters
  have gravitated to the Democratic Party and some
  (but not all) gay-rights opponents have moved to
  the Republican Party therefore, there is less
  conflict within each party than between the two
  parties on the issues of gay rights.
• H3 the impact of attitudes toward gay marriage
  on 2004 presidential vote choice will be weaker
  within partisans than in the total population.
  Party identification will be a confounding
  variable.

9
Table 3a
2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Democrats) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Democrats) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Democrats) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Democrats) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Democrats)
Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?) V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?) V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?)
Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N 1Yes 2No or civil unions only ROWTOTAL
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice 1 Bush 3.76 15.727 9.733
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice 2 Kerry 96.3164 84.3146 90.3311
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice COL TOTAL 100.0171 100.0174 100.0344
Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics
Tau-b -.20 Chi-square probability 0.00
10
Table 3b
2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Independents) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Independents) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Independents) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Independents) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Independents)
Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?) V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?) V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?)
Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N 1Yes 2No or civil unions only ROWTOTAL
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice 1 Bush 36.64 44.413 42.317
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice 2 Kerry 63.47 55.616 57.723
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice COL TOTAL 100.011 100.030 100.040
Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics
Tau-b -.07 Chi-square probability (p 0.65)
11
Table 3c
2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Republicans) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Republicans) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Republicans) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Republicans) 2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification (Republicans)
Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?) V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?) V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage (Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?)
Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N Cells contain-Column percent-Weighted N 1Yes 2No or civil unions only ROWTOTAL
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice 1 Bush 83.051 93.6269 91.7320
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice 2 Kerry 17.011 6.418 8.329
V002RCL 2004 Presidential Vote Choice COL TOTAL 100.062 100.0287 100.0349
Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics Summary Statistics
Tau-b -.15 Chi-square probability 0.01
12
Multivariate Findings

• H3 (the impact of attitudes toward gay marriage
  on 2004 presidential vote choice will be weaker
  within partisans than in the total population) is
  supported by the sample data. Party
  identification is a confounding variable in this
  analysis.
• The strength of the bivariate relationship did
  weaken as predicted in the partisan subgroups.
  The taub for Democrats (0.20) and Republicans
  (0.15) was less than in the total sample (0.35).
• The impact of gay marriage on vote choice
  (although weakened) was still statistically
  significant within Democratic (?2 0.00) and
  Republican (?2 0.01) subgroups.

13
Substantive Implications

• The Democratic Party is more internally divided
  on the issue of gay marriage than is the
  Republican Party.
• However, party identification out-weighed the
  impact of gay-marriage attitudes in presidential
  vote choice in 2004.
• even if the electorate had been limited to only
  Democratic identifiers who opposed gay marriage,
  then Kerry would still have easily defeated Bush.
• even if the electorate had been limited to only
  Republican identifiers who supported gay
  marriage, then Bush would still have easily
  defeated Kerry.
• There were relatively few single-issue gay-rights
  voters in 2004 who voted against their partys
  candidate.

14
Methodological Implications

• Why is gay marriage is more of a wedge issue
  for the Democratic Party than the Republican
  Party?
• What important demographic groups are most likely
  to oppose their partys stand on gay marriage
  and, therefore, more likely to defect?
• Do other gay-rights issues (adoption, employment,
  hate crimes) align with or cross-cut the
  gay-marriage issue cleavage?
• Do other group cleavages (age, gender, race,
  ethnicity, religion, etc.) align with or
  cross-cut the gay-rights issue cleavage?
• Do other public morality issues (public-school
  prayer, sex education in public schools,
  abortion, torture, etc.) align with or cross-cut
  the gay-rights issue cleavage?