Sunday, March 26, 2017

Marriage and gender gaps in presidential elections since 1968

Steve Sailer has been pointing out since at least the 2004 presidential election that the marriage gap is a bigger deal than the much more media salient gender gap. The GSS reveals that Steve's perspicacity has been descriptive extending much farther back than that, since at least 1968.

Parenthetically, this is often the case with Steve's insights. He's portrayed as an extremist by all the usual suspects even though his observations tend to be quite modest and parsimonious given the data--both quantitative and qualitative--he bases those observations on.

The following graph shows the marriage and gender gaps, in black and red respectively, by presidential election. The marriage gap values are computed by taking the Republican candidate's performance in a two-way race among unmarried voters and subtracting it from his performance among married voters. The gender gap values are computed by taking the Republican candidate's performance in a two-way race among female voters and subtracting it from his performance among male voters:


The GSS asks about each presidential election for no more than seven years--three or four survey iterations, as they're conducted every couple of years on average--after that election occurs. So the 1988 election between the elder Bush and Dukakis gets a question in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1993. Since these responses are being cross-referenced with marital status at the time of survey participation, there's going to be a little noise in the marital status figures. Someone responding in 1993, who may have been single when he voted for Dukakis in 1988 but who married in the interim, will show up as a married who voted Democrat even though he was unmarried when he actually voted.

This will modestly understate the real size of the marriage gap in each election while leaving the gender gap untouched (excepting the handful of trannies who may be hiding in the data sets!). Consequently, the difference in magnitude between the marriage gap and the gender gap is modestly greater than what is depicted in the graph above.

We can thus confidently conclude that in every US presidential election going back to at least Humphrey and Nixon in 1968 the marriage gap has been wider than the gender gap has been.

GSS variables used: PRES68(1-2), PRES72(1-2), PRES76(1-2), PRES80(1-2), PRES84(1-2), PRES88(1-2), PRES92(1-2), PRES96(1-2), PRES00(1-2), PRES04(1-2), PRES08(1-2), PRES12(1-2), MARITAL(1)(3-5), SEX

11 comments:

IHTG said...

McGovern was quite the youth phenomenon, wasn't he? He really stands out for the time.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

McGovern was the Bernie Sanders of 1972: a socialist candidate from an unlikely place (Sanders in VT, McGovern in SD) who was an idealist and managed to capture the attention of leftist college students. Had Bernie managed to beat Hillary in the primaries, I think he would have turned out the way McGovern did.

> Parenthetically, this is often the case with Steve's insights. He's portrayed as an extremist by all the usual suspects even though his observations tend to be quite modest and parsimonious given the data--both quantitative and qualitative--he bases those observations on.

Steve Sailer is regarded as an extremist because he notices things, which is very much verboten if the results don't back up the current progressive narrative and these days, very little does.

Joshua Sinistar said...

Marriage is just a pigeonhole in a demographic survey. Its your kids. Its the kids that create the psychological imperative to care about the future. And I don't mean those dumb brown and black pets that are fashion accessories and a way for probably ghey boy cucks to socially signal to the bagel boys at the bank. When you have kids, its real. Children are the future. They are the future of you and your ancestors. Miscegenation isn't just a failure for you, its a failure for your whole ancestral tree. Your ancestors fought, suffered, worked and toiled to put you here and now. You are the future they made. Their genes have to be passed on to someone or they will have lived in vain. Don't waste your seeds on barren lands or cast your lot at the monkey house. Children are your future. They are the future for your ancestors. The White Kids are the ingredient that decides between Space Travel and the Planet of the Apes. As Always: CHOOSE WISELY.

Feryl said...

Isn't the toothpaste out of the tube, absent some serious balls appearing out of nowhere on alpha conservatives/traditionalists? I've noticed too how cucky Christians have gotten over the last few generations, in terms of exalting women. I'm sure it's got something to do with father hating Boomers having a complex with masculinity.

There's been successive Left spearheaded movements to give greater rights for more and more people, and germane to the topic at hand, voting rights in particular were a big victory for the Left. The problem with Protestants is that they let themselves get played over and over again. We give more and more rights and excuses to the very people who want to destroy us. And should we raise objections, we're taken all too willingly behind the woodshed and then must seek some kind of absolution for ever having opposed Leftist civil rights/PC. Meanwhile, outside of the Anglo/Teutonsphere, there's little in terms of respect for the rule of law, fair play, and a guarantee of individual dignity.

Boomers in particular have been a scourge (as the most individualist and thus most HBD clueless generation), but really, our sense of "compassion" has been exploited for many generations at this point. The growing misery of whites is becoming an eye opener, though. Especially to kids with later born parents who didn't get in on that "white privilege" action.

Dan said...

AE -- Did you make it out to that Kansas City event?

Audacious Epigone said...

IHTG/Random Dude,

It is notable how narrow the gender gaps were in both of Nixon's successful runs compared to how wide the marriage gaps were. Without looking, I assume this is a result of a huge age effect.

Yes, Steve is an extremist because not only does he refuse to participate in the War on Noticing, he's a standard bearer for the enemy!

Joshua,

Not only are they the future, they are us. Having children is the closest we can get to immortality. The future belongs to those who show up for it.

Feryl,

ore America needs to put interests over principles.

It comes naturally to everyone but WEIRDOs.

The solution is simple to understand but exceedingly difficult to realize in practice, in part because of culture but also because of genetics.

It’s the great challenge of our day. Success means flourishing and prosperity for ourselves and our posterity. Failure means South Africa is our future.

Dan,

No. Every single potential tag along backed out or was unresponsive when I pressed for a commitment. See here.

Audacious Epigone said...

*Core America, not ore America

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> It’s the great challenge of our day. Success means flourishing and prosperity for ourselves and our posterity. Failure means South Africa is our future.

If Hillary won, passed amnesty, and the demographic game would be over, I always wondered if America would turn into South Africa/Zimbabwe or Brazil.

Feryl said...

Would focusing on whites only make a big difference? It doesn't look like you adjusted for race, and single non-white women presumably are not voting Republican.

The generation gap rears it's head in the 60's/early 70's. Later G.I.s and Silents got married earlier and more often than later generations and had more of a stake in defending "the man" than naively contrarian/restive young Boomers.

As for Bernie's chances, I think there's enough white kids in the upper heartland that he would've won Michigan, Wisconsin, and PA. If anything, Hillary was brought down because she inadequately appealed to not just under 40 whites but to under 40 blacks too. So if we had a re-do, Trump and Sanders would likely repeat Trump Vs. Clinton among older voters while the results among younger voters tips things in Sanders' favor. Sanders also would've capitulated to a platform substantially similar to Hillary's, though perhaps with less overt race baiting and more emphasis on resenting (mostly older) rich people. Which is absurd given that so many X-ers and Millennials are a big part of the problem, seeing as how they think not going to college or marrying "down" makes you a "loser". We've all got to tone it down, but commie Bernie would have you believe that we can get utopia by making rich people pay even more of their income to the state. That's a fallacy, though, because the reason the system is what it is at least partially because of every generation and class striving and competing for greater status. It' distracting and pointless for younger impoverished voters to blame older people and the biggest winners.

The generational rift that opened up in the late 60's when early Boomers reached voting age is not showing any signs of closing up. It's imperative that the striving sweepstakes be ended as soon as possible, so that:

- better jobs for prole men open up
- women put less effort into getting educated and finding work (one of the most toxic aspects of this is the rise of worthless jobs to accommodate female strivers who don't want their feelings hurt or their hands to get dirty, while some jobs far more suitable for men e.g street police work are inexplicably given to women)
- both men and women of all social classes feel more comfortable, which translates into voting for the party that represents stability and security.

Unfortunately, the toxic effects of being in a high striving environment for decades may be hard to reverse for older people. We do know however that Millennials are much less interested in individual rights and the sacredness of "the process" than previous generations. This ought to make correcting many of our problems easier in the future, though I do admit that the heavily non-white nature of younger people also presents it's own problems. Then again, the Boomers were heavily white and what do we have to show for it? Unless you make an investment for the future at an earlier age via having and mainlining a stable family, it may take some time to reverse the bad effects and for some that reversal may never happen (pathology correlates to liberalism, and Boomers are for more likely than previous generations to be obese, have drug/alcohol problems, have a criminal record etc.)

Feryl said...

The last sentence was kinda garbled. What I meant was that living in a hedonistic and self-centered climate for most/all of your life damages a lot of people, and it's going to be difficult to impossible to repair the damage. To begin with, look at all the people maimed and murdered subsequent to the "Great Society" ambitions of the later 60's. We can't undo all of the financial and emotional pain inflicted by those enabled by a society that failed to socialize people into grasping the effects of putting yourself before others and putting short-term gratification above long-term well-being. And a society that nihilistically tells white people to deny their genetic inheritance and posterity.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

We' d eventually get to pockets of both to varying degrees. The US is a big country. If the likely political dissolution is unstructured and messy, all sorts of things will sprout out of the carcass.

Feryl,

I didn't restrict it to non-white Hispanics since the "gender gap" Narrative doesn't either. After what I found, I wanted it to stand as a pretty clear refutation of the undue influence on the gender gap that we hear so much about but that doesn't tell us all that much.

With regards to women being given traditional male jobs, it's not much discussed but as close to a universal truth as social arrangements produce: Whenever a group that was previously exclusively male opens itself up to female membership, everything about the group--its rituals, its objectives, its esprit de corps, its value systems--fundamentally change. The competitive aspect of the group tends to change the most of all. I currently play competitive co-ed volleyball. We're 4x defending league champs. We're damned competitive. But it's not even close to the intensity that I've experienced in competitive sports through most of my life and I've played them continually since I was in elementary school.