(EXERCISE 6)THE IMPACT OF

ATTITUDES TOWARD GAY MARRIAGEON 2004 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE CHOICE

CONTROLLING FOR PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Roger C. LoweryPLS 401, Senior Seminar

Department of Public & International AffairsUNC Wilmington

April 20, 2023 1

• 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.

Univariate Hypothesis

April 20, 2023 2

Table 1:

April 20, 2023 3

V002

Presidential vote choice

Text of this Question or Item Whom did you vote for in the presidential election? (Nonvoters are recorded as NA).

% Valid

% All

N

Value

Label 50.1

38.6

412

1

Bush

48.5

37.4

399

2

Kerry 1.5

1.1

12

3

Other

22.8

243

9

NA

100.0

100.0

1,066

Total

Univariate Findings

• H1 (neither Bush nor Kerry was a consensus choice in 2004) is supported by the sample data in Table 1 because:

1. 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.

2. 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-sample-calculator.asp

April 20, 2023 4

Bivariate Hypothesis• Theory:

– Bush supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage and Kerry opposed.*

*http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/13/eveningnews/main629360.shtml

• H2: Voters who opposed gay marriage were more likely to support Bush in 2004 than voters who supported gay marriage.

April 20, 2023 5

Table 2:

April 20, 2023 6

2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage

Cells contain:-Column percent-Weighted N

V125 Attitude toward Gay Marriage(Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?)

1Yes

2No but permit

unions

3No

ROWTOTAL

V002RCL:

2004 Presidential Vote Choice

1: Bush25.463

61.013

63.5301

50.7376

2: Kerry74.6184

39.08

36.5173

49.3365

COL TOTAL100.0247

100.022

100.0473

100.0742

Summary Statistics

Tau-b = -.35Chi-square probability =

0.00

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:

1. 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.

2. This sample finding is statistically significant. The chi-squared probability of random-sampling error is less than 0.05 (χ2 = 0.00).

April 20, 2023 7

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.]

April 20, 2023 8

Table 3a

April 20, 2023 9

2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay MarriageControlling for Party Identification

(Democrats)

Cells contain:-Column percent-Weighted N

V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage(Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?)

1Yes

2No or civil

unions only

ROWTOTAL

V002RCL:

2004 Presidenti

al Vote Choice

1: Bush3.76

15.727

9.733

2: Kerry96.3164

84.3146

90.3311

COL TOTAL100.0171

100.0174

100.0344

Summary Statistics

Tau-b = -.20Chi-square probability =

0.00

Table 3b

April 20, 2023 10

2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification

(Independents)

Cells contain:-Column percent-Weighted N

V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage(Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?)

1Yes

2No or civil

unions only

ROWTOTAL

V002RCL:

2004 Presidenti

al Vote Choice

1: Bush36.6

444.413

42.317

2: Kerry63.4

755.616

57.723

COL TOTAL100.011

100.030

100.040

Summary Statistics

Tau-b = -.07Chi-square probability =

(p= 0.65)

Table 3c

April 20, 2023 11

2004 Presidential Vote Choice by Attitude toward Gay Marriage Controlling for Party Identification

(Republicans)

Cells contain:-Column percent-Weighted N

V125RCL Attitude toward Gay Marriage(Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?)

1Yes

2No or civil

unions only

ROWTOTAL

V002RCL:

2004 Presidenti

al Vote Choice

1: Bush83.051

93.6269

91.7320

2: Kerry17.011

6.418

8.329

COL TOTAL100.062

100.0287

100.0349

Summary Statistics

Tau-b = -.15Chi-square probability =

0.01

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.

1. 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).

2. The impact of gay marriage on vote choice (although weakened) was still statistically significant within Democratic (χ2 = 0.00) and Republican (χ2 = 0.01) subgroups.

April 20, 2023 12

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 party’s candidate.

April 20, 2023 13

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 party’s 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?

April 20, 2023 14