On the other hand, nonmarried voters break strongly for the president over Romney, 56% to 35%. Marriage is a significant predictor of presidential vote choice even after income, age, race, gender, education, religiosity, region, and having minor children are statistically controlled for.
१४ सप्टेंबर, २०१२
"Married registered voters prefer Republican challenger Mitt Romney over Democratic President Barack Obama by 54% to 39%..."
Says Gallup (looking at June-August data):
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५१ टिप्पण्या:
Ironically, I consider Obama's family life his strongest point.
If blacks had a higher marriage rate, that poll result would be closer.
Chicken and egg question: do democrat policies try to destroy families because this will increase their voting base, or do families not vote democrat because of their policies?
So you're saying freeloading Julias and crazy cat-hoarding spinsters break for Obama?
Much of the hatred that I read, particularly on Facebutt where I have friends on the left, is aimed at Romney precisely because he is the patriarch of a traditional family, and because he has a plentitude of children and grandchildren.
Somehow, employing sexuality for its primary function is a threat.
Coulter had it right about a major Dem constituency being stupid single women who want the government to be their husband.
It's all self interest. Married people see that their needs are protected by the family. Unmarried and/childless adults do not have that safety net. Thus, they falsely believe that the governmnet will be there to take care of them if they fall on hard times. There are exceptions of course. A lot of single people have extended families that they rely on.
But, all of this is a big lie. The governemnt won't be taking care of anyone after it goes bankrupt in a few years.
We can debate stuff like "whould the government be paying for contraception or abortions." But in a few years this will no longer be a choice because the governemnt won't have any money. INstead, we will be debating the simpler things that government's with no money debate (like should the government have a military or just a "security force."
@Thomas
Are your lefty FB friends married in traditional families? Most of mine are, and none are complaining about Romney's family life.
Baby daddies are breaking for Obama by a wide margin too.
It's a(nother - sorry Daniel Richwine) chicken and egg question - Are married people more likely to vote as mature adults, or people who vote as mature adults more likely to be married?
Personally, I think that it's a little bit of both. Dare I plug my support for gay marriage on this topic? (That is, marriage and solid familial life makes for better, more conservative citizens.)
Married with kids tend to make people more responsible.
Responsible people tend to vote fiscally conservative.
Triangle Man: @Thomas
Are your lefty FB friends married in traditional families? Most of mine are, and none are complaining about Romney's family life.
My lefty friends are probably equally split (between married and singles, though few to none with kids), and I've not seen anyone complaining about Romney's family, either.
Correlation, causation confusion at work yet again.
Not smart to go though life with kids, unmarried, often absent a man.
Also not smart to vote for Obama, who is clearly a disaster.
So what is a possible causative factor than would help explain the poll results?
The Demos need people who aren't educated and need assistance because of the choices they've been encouraged by the media to make.
Marriage and family force exposure to the real world. Exposure to the real world inclines one to become more conservative. This is one of the many good reasons to support same-sex marriage.
y lefty friends are probably equally split (between married and singles, though few to none with kids), and I've not seen anyone complaining about Romney's family, either.
My lefty friends in FB are hysterical about Romney's life as a traditional patriarch. They've convinced themselves, absent any evidence, that he's going to shut down the porn industry, deprive women of the vote, outlaw contraception... etc.
What do you suppose was the theme of the Dem convention last week?
Much of the hatred that I read, particularly on Facebutt where I have friends on the left, is aimed at Romney precisely because he is the patriarch of a traditional family
You are lying. I bet you can't even provide more than a handful of examples out of thousands of comments.
It's a(nother - sorry Daniel Richwine) chicken and egg question - Are married people more likely to vote as mature adults, or people who vote as mature adults more likely to be married?
Personally, I think that it's a little bit of both. Dare I plug my support for gay marriage on this topic? (That is, marriage and solid familial life makes for better, more conservative citizens.)
Yes! I agree with this, and please do plug your support. My partner and I are not married (yet), but do live together and have pooled our finances. I've found that doing that -- being responsible for not only my own money, but someone else's -- has made me more conservative. And also more annoyed by taxes and spending that don't seem to benefit me in the least.
Of course this divide is true. The primary philosophical question dividing the parties is this, "To whom should women be married? Husbands or the state?"
When a woman already has a husband, she has no need to marry the state.
My lefty friends in FB are hysterical about Romney's life as a traditional patriarch. They've convinced themselves, absent any evidence, that he's going to shut down the porn industry, deprive women of the vote, outlaw contraception... etc.
Romney's role as a patriarch has nothing to do with the policies that you claim we (lefties) deduce from it.
Your lefty FB friends are either idiots or you are just making shit up.
I guess Althouse is just trying to justify her disdain for Obama. "Now that I'm married, I just can't vote for Obama."
I've not seen anyone complaining about Romney's family, either.
Earlier in the year there was a hilarious article by some liberal woman in which she talked about how she felt actual revulsion when seeing Romney's happy too-perfect family on TV. I think it was partly tongue-in-cheek, but I can't find it now to check. Does anyone remember this?
When a woman already has a husband, she has no need to marry the state.
I hope this is meant as satire or sarcasm.
It is scary to contemplate you are being serious.
Freder Frederson said...
It is scary to contemplate you are being serious.
It is funny you can't even begin to address the point.
Of course you're one of those bitter old hags that Julia grows up to be.
So there is that.
One of Ann's tags could explain this difference: "Obama the Boyfriend"
The Lefties must be in panic mode.
Sending shiloh and Freder at the same time.
It is funny you can't even begin to address the point.
If I had to address every staggeringly stupid point made on this site I wouldn't have a life outside of commenting.
I have to limit my constructive comments to merely stupid statements.
Someone should ask the 39%/35% why they are in the minority.
Coincidentally, Oct. 2008 Bush had a 25% job approval rating and 71% job disapproval rating, highest in Gallup polling history. And someone should ask who are these (25%) ?!?
@Freder I agree with you about the bad joke, and I've deleted all the posts that quoted it (including yours).
Feel free to repost anything other than the part that quoted the joke.
@Heather Sorry, but you quoted the joke. You can repost whatever else you wanted to say.
Freder Frederson said...
If I had to address every staggeringly stupid point made on this site I wouldn't have a life outside of commenting.
RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHHHHTTTT!
We belive you, silly hag, really!
Freder Frederson said...
I have to limit my constructive comments to merely stupid statements.
Except you have no "constructive" comments, anywhere.
Keep flailing.
What about divorced and widows/widowers ...
Damn, I missed the joke! :-P
Sending shiloh and Freder at the same time.
Indeed 10% libs vs. 90% cons is a fair balance. Whereas 5% libs should be quite adequate, but like cheney/bush/rummy/condi in Iraq "we" want that shock and awe effect!
"In both Florida and Virginia, Obama is ahead of Romney by five points among likely voters (including those leaning toward a particular candidate), 49 percent to 44 percent.
In Ohio, the president’s lead is seven points, 50 percent to 43 percent.
Among a larger pool of registered voters, Obama’s advantage over Romney slightly increases to 7 points in Virginia, 8 in Florida and 9 in Ohio."
Not winning in the must wins is a weird strategy...
Gay marriage, Republicans. Just sayin'...
No I wasn't joking. Although there is disagreement in how certain programs should be designed, almost nobody objects to the safety net that benefits the helpless, the old, the infirm, and those who need help through no fault of their own.
But that's not what many of these social programs are about. They "help" so that one becomes dependent on the government and foster the destruction of the family unit. People used to rely on family for support and now they sign up for government benes. The family need not be bothered and the individual is "independent" except he is now beholden to the government.
The partisan divide is whether or not this state of affairs is a good thing.
machine said...
"In both Florida and Virginia, Obama is ahead of Romney by five points among likely voters (including those leaning toward a particular candidate), 49 percent to 44 percent.
In Ohio, the president’s lead is seven points, 50 percent to 43 percent.
Among a larger pool of registered voters, Obama’s advantage over Romney slightly increases to 7 points in Virginia, 8 in Florida and 9 in Ohio."
Not winning in the must wins is a weird strategy...
In the immortal words of Moe Howard, I'll explain it so even you can understand it.
The skew for FL is D +3.
The skew for VA is D +5.
The skew for OH is D +10.
We all know it. The mindless automaton is fooling himself if he thinks he's scaring anybody.
In Ohio, the president’s lead is seven points, 50 percent to 43 percent.
If you actually believe Obama will win Ohio by 7 points, you're a moron.
If the election were held today I think Romney would be at 53%. Rasmussen, even skewed, shows Romney ahead 48% to 45%. Keep believing the fake polls.
Coincidentally, Oct. 2008 Bush had a 25% job approval rating and 71% job disapproval rating, highest in Gallup polling history. And someone should ask who are these (25%) ?!?
Hell, Obama has approval in the 40's and is markedly worse in basically every single measurable category.
What type of mind-numbed idiot would be in that minority supporting the Resident?
Democrats are fiscal child abusers. It follows that they are more likely to appeal to childless people, who are more likely to be single.
Damn, I missed the joke! :-P
You didn't miss anything. It was only a "joke" under the loosest definition of the term.
Ann was right to remove it. It is good to know that even Ann thinks the right-wingers on this site go too far once in a while.
Is Freder a hag? I saw it more as a gnome...an evil gnome.
If I had to address every staggeringly stupid point made on this site I wouldn't have a life outside of commenting.
If you had to address every staggeringly stupid point made on this site, you'd be responding only to yourself, shiloh, garage, ritmo, lindsey, leslyn, America's Politico, R/V, Robert Cook, Jake Diamon, and AllieOop...and that's not what you are getting paid for.
That's a racist dog whistle.
Everyone knows marriage is SWPL.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा