November 1, 2024 - 6:30pm
Marital status has become a proxy for political beliefs, cutting across other factors in party affiliation including age, gender and class.
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to be married, at 65% compared to 50%, according to a new research brief from the Institute for Family Studies. The trend has grown stronger since 2000, when there was roughly only a 10-percentage-point gap, despite a decline in marriage for members of both parties. Further, the majority of married adults report being âvery happilyâ married, but Republicans have an 11-point advantage, at 65% compared to 54%.
In this yearâs election, one of the key stories has been the gender-based polarisation of voters, with young women shifting significantly to the Left and young men to the Right. The abortion issue has played into this dynamic. The new analysis, however, demonstrates that this only applies to unmarried women, and 63% of married women aged 25-44 are Republicans.
In response, Democrats are trying to win over married women. One new Kamala Harris ad, voiced by actress Julia Roberts, suggested that married women may need to hide their votes from their husbands, drawing on the narrative that the election is largely a contest between men and women. âIn the one place in America where women still have a right to choose,â the ad says of the ballot box, âno one will ever know⊠Vote Harriz-Walz.â But this research undercuts that idea, revealing that a majority of married women are Republicans.
Married men under 45 are also more likely to be Republican than Democrat, at 55% compared to 42%. Much like the partisan gender gap, the partisan marriage gap is stronger for young Americans, particularly for those with university degrees.
The trend holds true when broken down by social class. Poor and working-class adults have seen a significant decline in marriage rates, but within this group the marriage rate is more than 10 points higher for Republicans in every age category.
The studyâs authors attribute the partisan marriage gap to Left-wing social values among Democrats. Because Democrats place less value on marriage, monogamy and fidelity, they get married less, they argue. At the same time, the partyâs embrace of extended school closures during Covid-19 and lax policing rules proved off-putting to âfamily-mindedâ people, the authors write. âMost progressives today do not think that âchildren are better off if they have two married parents,â even though the science points clearly in the other direction,â they claim, citing research which concluded that social, emotional and safety outcomes are better for children of married parents.
Gallup analysis from July found that a partisan gap in marriage rates opened up in the Eighties, as marriage became less common within both parties, but the trend was about twice as pronounced for Democrats. The lifetime marriage rate for Republicans fell from 90% in 1965 to 67% today, whereas the Democratic marriage rate fell from 90% to 49%.
âFor a long time, we thought the rise of singles in America would give Democrats a big demographic advantage in the presidential election,â Brad Wilcox, IFS fellow and University of Virginia professor, told UnHerd. âBut there is a real chance we will see a South Korea-style election next week where a clear majority of married Americans vote Republican and a large minority of single men who feel alienated from the Democratic Party vote for Trump.â
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe briefest conclusion from this essay is that the progressives are undoubtedly degenerates.
The briefest conclusion from your comment is that you are undoubtedly a complete moron.
Voice from the basement đ
It appears that I’m actually inside your head, metaphorically speaking of course!
(we’ll wait while you Google what metaphorically means)
You could get a job writing tweets for WaPo
I think Champagne Socialist has overstepped the line of decency by singling out a commentator for repeated personal abuse.
The sock does it all the time. He or she picks one or two commentators and then relentlessly targets them with abuse all day, even doing so across different discussions.
It’s not the name calling per se, but the relentlessness of it. Champagne Socialist must get flagged nearly every day yet never seems to struggle getting a post past the censors. Unlike many others…
Thatâs an interesting observation, Has he been flagged often?
I just flagged him/it as “abusive”. 9:15 AM, NYC.
For the record; three days later his post is still there.
Maybe he is keir starmer. Itâs unlikely someone used the name for their kid.
The briefest conclusion from your comment is that you are undoubtedly a complete moron.
And it has demographic implications. The Amish are one of the fastest growing segments. People who chop the breasts off young girls in the name of progress are presumably less fecund, and produce children who are less functional, and themselves less fecund. It’s just a shame we can’t speed the process up a little. I suppose on the downside, orthodox Muslims also veer towards fecundity; and for Islamicists it must be worrying to haemorrhage so many of their useful idiots. I wonder if Champagne Socialist will die out in one generation or whether he (undoubtedly a he) has bucked the trend and produced a dynasty.
This is hardly a revelation is it. Older people are more slightly likely to be married than younger ones, and slightly more likely to be more conservative.
overall that’s definitely true, but it’s interesting that 63% of married women 25-44 (young and middle-aged, not old people) voted republican so it appears marital status does have a big effect for younger women.
Or the other way round; political leanings (and thus general attitude) appear to have a big effect on marital status.
The chicken or the egg question.
Republican states have a higher divorce rate than Democratic states, and thatâs been true for a longtime. Iâll give you an example from my motherâs side of the family. My parents were Democrats, who had five Democratic children and zero divorces. My motherâs two sisters and brother were Republicans with Republican childrenâa total of nine. Every one of those kids had at least one divorce. I should add that all five of us kids are college educated, and none of my cousins went to college. Just a small example, but itâs telling.
Is that because they get married younger? Iâve a mate from the States who was married 3 times before he was 30 (heâs now on his 4th), and he tells me most of his mates growing up were married by their early 20âs.
By comparison only 1 of my mates in England were married before they were 30, and all the marriages have lasted so far
Were you actually born a Democrat? Did the doctor come back with the Good News. Its a Democrat!
Did your parents practice Absolute Democracy with each meal determined by a long debate followed by a vote?
“Republican states have a higher divorce rate than Democratic states,…” Higher marriage rates will do that. A woman with multiple baby daddy’s probably won’t need a divorce lawyer.
Any discussion of marriage stats need to include demographics and whether second and etc marriages are included.
Maybe the issue is that the dems are trying to sabotage republican marriages. Havenât rich people always tried to do the same thing? People are much easier to control when they donât have family support.
Does this include twice divorced conmen for Queens who cheat on their 3rd wife with a pornstar while she’s at home with their infant son?
Just askin’!
Married people cheating on their spouses has nothing to do with political affiliation, I’m sure you don’t need reminding of how much Jackie Kennedy had to put up with her husbands adulterous shenanigans to avoid getting divorced.
Unless I am very much mistaken – and that’s unlikely – I don’t think JFK is on the ballot this year.
Perhaps you have other information?
It is difficult for a man, as well as any male, even of strictly monogamous species, to resist when a female wants him.
.
As I understand it, you have never been in a situation like this. For obvious reasons.
As you understand it?
That’s not a very high bar is it now?!?! What you understand is a very small amount indeed!
You know this has nothing to do with the above piece. Your rabid response in turning any comment, essay, research, anything, into an anti-Trump tirade just makes you look ridiculous. If you canât address the actual content of the story why are you even here? Do you subscribe just to attack any comment in a way that suits your bias? None of it makes any sense, except a very bitter frame-of-mind thatâs trapped in its own making.
These sort of stories, with their research and stats, are very common these days. They appeal to the mob always looking for someone to blame who suddenly turn, pointing fingers, crying âItâs them! Itâs them!â Itâs a form of witch hunting and it does no good.
Canât wait for this election to be over. Whomever âwins.â
Playing women off against men as part of your political strategy is such a bad plan.
And tbh I find that “no one will ever know” ad for married women by the Dems insulting, as it implies women are controlled by or make the same decisions as their husbands. It’s the exact same backwards attitude applied to Melania Trump.
Newsflash: women, married or not, have their own brains.
Also, politics doesn’t have to be an issue in marriage: my parents have been married happily for 52 years: they do not discuss politics at all or how they have voted. It’s just not part of the deal they’ve come to.
Yes, making an ad to undermine relationships seems like a really bad idea. Much like all the ideas the dems hold close to their psyches.