November 25, 2013

Study: Having daughters makes parents more likely to be Republican

(Credit: John Carleton)

Two sociologists have found that parents who have daughters are more inclined to support the GOP and turn a cold shoulder to Democrats.

In newly published findings that challenge earlier research, Dalton Conley of New York University and Emily Rauscher of the University of Kansas found that having more daughters than sons and having a daughter first “significantly reduces the likelihood of Democratic identification and significantly increases the strength of Republican Party identification.”

Not only is the daughter effect statistically significant, it’s substantively large.  They found that overall, “compared to those with no daughters, parents with all daughters are 14% less likely to identify as a Democrat….[and] 11% more likely to identify as a Republican than parents with no daughters,” they write in the journal Sociological Forum.

The daughters effect is considerably stronger among better educated and wealthier parents, they find. But among those farther down the socioeconomic ladder, it weakens to statistical insignificance.

Their startling conclusions are based on data collected two decades ago from 661 respondents with biological children interviewed for the 1994 General Social Survey conducted by the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center. Even though this national trend study has been administered regularly since 1972, the 1994 survey is the only one that included questions about the sex and birth order of a respondent’s biological children. (Surveys typically measure only whether a respondent has any children, including step-children and adopted children.)

The researchers note that their results fly in the face of the few other studies that test the effect of daughters on political attitudes. Among them is a 2008 voting analysis of members of Congress. It found U.S. Senators and Representatives with more daughters voted more liberally than other members.  A 2010 study in Great Britain found having daughters increased the likelihood of voting for the Labor or Liberal Democrat parties as opposed to the Conservative Party, though the data are limited to “children who live at home, do not include information on those who have left home, and include step-children,” Rauscher and Conley write.

However, their findings are consistent with a recent study that found boys who grew up with sisters in the house were more likely to identify as adults with the Republican Party.

But why would having a daughter cause parents to become more Republican? The authors speculate that men and women might want more socially conservative policies when they have daughters and thus be more attracted to the GOP.

Conley and Rauscher caution that having daughters is not the only factor or even the most important one predicting party identification.  The authors only studied the effect of the sex of children and not the gender of other family members, though they did control for a variety of factors including the parent’s education, age, religion and gender.

“The sex mix of a variety of other groups (such as the [gender makeup of siblings] with whom the respondent was reared during his/her formative years) may have important implications for party identification as well, but this study is limited to children,” they write.

About the authors: Dalton Conley is University Professor at New York University and formerly served as the university’s Dean for the Social Sciences and Chair of the Department of Sociology. Emily Rauscher is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Kansas.

Category: Social Studies

Topics: Political Attitudes and Values, Political Party Affiliation

  1. Photo of Rich Morin

    is a senior editor focusing on social and demographic trends at Pew Research Center.


  1. Lynne3 years ago

    I believe the survey’s conclusion that “parents who have daughter are more inclined to support the GOP” is a false cause-effect relationship. Americans generally became more conservative in the 1980s with the election of President Reagan, and though they elected Bill Clinton in 1992, the “Republican Revolution” led by Newt Gingrich occurred in 1994, the year the survey was taken. So the survey simply reflects the conservative mood of the voters that year and has nothing to do with whether or not the parents had daughters.

  2. Amanda L4 years ago

    So much wrong with this study…

    An observation, I’d like the authors to explain:

    Clintons: 1 daughter
    Obamas: 2 daughters
    Bushs: 2 daughters
    Cheney: 2 daughters
    Carter: 1 daughter

    Correlation does not show causality. PEW should know better than highlight this example of sloppy research.

    1. Peter McIlhon4 years ago

      You are correct in noting that correlation is not causation. However, it should be noted, that your sample size is quite small, and does little to refute the claim of the article.

  3. Eric A4 years ago

    This data from this study is 20 years old. It does present a paradox. How do the authors explain that fact that currently, women support the Democratic over the Republican Party by a large margin, according to Gallup polling 44% to 35%.

    1. Richard4 years ago

      Huh? There’s no paradox.

      Having daughters makes the family members of those girls/women more conservative. It doesn’t make those girls/women more conservative.

  4. barbara morriston4 years ago

    Statistics 101: Correlation does not show causality. The title is misleading and does readers a disservice.
    I note also that the authors of the study do not appear to consider whether anyone changed party affiliation after having daughters.

  5. Isabel4 years ago

    In 1994, the Republican party was not what the Republican party is today. 20 years have passed! The study may be new, but the data are old.

  6. Boston Bill4 years ago

    Read the Liberal tirades. They are full of stories of “forced vaginal ultrasounds”, back room abortions, abusive White men.

    Maybe, just maybe, Pew connected with something profound that is more about society and less about politics and the Tea Party.

    Maybe, parents see the carnage of all the social experimentation and want to slow down the train so that their children can process the change. So far, the number of liberated women are far outnumbered by their impoverished and single-parenting sisters.

  7. JA4 years ago

    Should these authors have used GLMs rather than linear models to predict the liklihoods of the outcomes for PID (or in Soc is this the terminology they use for GLMs?) and note how little variation is actually explained by these models. While the effects may be ‘real,’ they might not be as ‘substantive’ as the authors claim. Or am I completely misreading the tables in the linked paper?

  8. Tom Raywood4 years ago

    Yes, “infirm” rather than “affirm” where context dictates.

  9. Tom Raywood4 years ago

    Moving past the arguably glib non-sequitor, let me say this. Many of the more explicit comments here answer to the wearisome conflation and demagoguery so typical of broadcast news, Fox v MSNBC et al. Tired and altogether stock us-or-them notions such as the idea that Democrats want to take all your guns, straddle future generations with the burden of greater national debt, free up the clinics to indiscriminantly kill the yet unborn, ad nauseum. No less overly-generalized than that Republicans care little to none about the plight of the poor.

    Clarity can only follow from abandoning this Hatfield and McCoy mentality and getting to the heart of the matter, to wit, what the very definition of ‘entitlement’ really ought to be. Following lock step with the talking points of either party muddies these waters endlessly well and does nothing to frame the matter in anything of a productive light. And failure to acknowledge what has or hasn’t worked to remedy social inequity is as sure a guarantor of continued problems as any.

    Entitlement ought to mean collective provision for members of society who for reasons not grounded in lack of personal character have not the ability to make adequate or even comfortable provision for themselves. The metric for this, too, can derive almost infallibly from one central fact logged handily and transparently under the “proof is in the pudding” column. Capable persons automatically strive to ascend socially and economically and, at best, intellectually as well. Such is the nature of things. No laws need be in place which are ‘imagined’ to ensure of this. The law is a natural one. Therefore, and in perfectly straightforward fashion, well-intended adult members of society who fail to prosper are their own form of proof that something prevents of that ascension. Is that something raw absence of personal capacity (e.g. intellect in any of its various forms)? Or is it missing or blocked opportunity (e.g. institutional bias against members of a specific group)?

    It matters neither which. The former simply cannot be corrected, or at least not unless persons lacking core facility are exterminated and/or prevented from being born (a position entertained by only the most extreme of solutionmongers). For there will always be some small percentage of society defined by persons who lack the core facility to ascend. So much for the former. And even though the latter has been addressed in part and can be further addressed via the slow-running train of social change and corresponding legislative will, for the time being it is at best non-factual and at worst simply dishonest to claim that all citizens share of the same opportunities for ascension in the United States. The list of examples of such disparity is long and regularly rehearsed.

    So whether for lack of core facility or for absence of equal opportunity, the bottom line is what it is. Many members of our society are not positioned in life in such a way as to make a fair and gainful run of it the way the others of us are. Thus in returning to an open and apolitical definition of entitlement, (collective provision for members of society who for reasons not grounded in lack of personal character have not the ability to make adequate or even comfortable provision for themselves), and in acknowledging that both of these groups fit that definition, let us return to the matter of the metric, that is, the means by which such determinations can rightly be made.

    The adult members of society who for all their youth exemplified the likes of a inferior intelligence, or a learning disability, or who has been diagnosed with a prohibitive mental illness, or even physical impairment, are relatively easy cases in this light. Cases of this sort do not need to drag on over extended periods of time to make it clear that an “equal footing” is absent, and thus that entitlement is warranted. There’s no equal footing where, metaphorically, there are no feet. But, following the metaphor, what of persons with feet but no shoes? In other words, what about persons who, though adequately equipped, are unduly impeded by external forces beyond their control?

    The proof of their right to entitlement is, as stated earlier, in the pudding. When the perfectly natural enthusiasm of youth has found itself misspent on otherwise acceptable efforts to ascend and, instead of resulting in ascension, levels off at an endless and impenetrable cycle of barely making ends meet, unless such an individual has proven to lack the character deserving of collective sympathy (e.g. failure to abide by local, state and federal laws), after the passage of some years it becomes ipso facto apparent that social forces (and social forces alone) have blocked the progress they so eagerly sought and worked so hard for. So whether those forces class as of the darkest sort (institutional bias) or of the most generalized sort (bad economic times), what but deliberate meanness on our part (meaning those of us whose ascension has not been prevented of) would say to or about such folks that they don’t deserve our respect and, more tangibly, the dignity of at least some modicum of support.

    If collectively (though certainly not intentionally) we’ve conducted ourselves in such a way as to give our ‘equal’ an uneven playing field, then collectively and intentionally we owe it to ourselves to walk in a manner that is consistent with a right definition of entitlement, not a politically charged one. So whether it is to the affirm (or otherwise naturally disadvantaged) or to the provenly hard-working citizen who strove but failed to make progress (and thus artificially disadvantaged), some measured form of entitlement is the only truly moral response to their inability to acquire at least some of the comforts all the rest of us have come to enjoy.

    A social philosophy which has dominated the fundamentally entrepreneurial Western world for several hundred years has it, of course, that the surest way to ‘prompt’ in people the will to work smart and to work hard and thus, by extension, to instill in them the means by which to ascend, is to knowingly strap them with as little entitlement as possible, confident that personal hardship will motivate them to change their ways, remedy their course, and generally just “get with the program” to some adequate degree. I say that works just fine for the lout who just needs a swift kick in the seat for lack of fundamental character. But even this presumes of said citizen that upon having such an aha moment he/she steps into an arena which gives him/her as fair a shake as the next. So let’s not cloud the matter at hand by imagining that either of these two things is at issue here. The stated metric already establishes that they are not.

    So while, yes, plenty today trumpet the same traditional call for “tough love” with the misguided belief that all who fail to ascend simply don’t try hard enough, the fallacy of this approach assails us generation after next in the form of one stark, incontrovertible piece of fact: the poor are with us and ever more so. The solution hasn’t worked, primarily because it was never a comprehensive one. It warred against one social ill (lack of personal character) and yet cemented another (lack of reasonable hope). Many who are substantially affirm cannot prosper. Many who are disfranchised neither can. Tightening the belts of either group in order to properly motivate them is equally misguided.

    In resisting the obvious purity of my stated social philosophy, much less its acutely religious underpinnings, it is not at all uncommon for citizens to cry out that they do not owe anyone a “handout”. This is a particular sad commentary because it so thoroughly well misses the larger point. The idea is not so simply just to shore up the life circumstances of another faceless citizen. The idea is to walk in clarity and integrity as a people. So it’s nowhere near enough to think in terms of what we may or may not owe the straggler or the struggler, and every bit as important to think in terms of what we owe ourselves. The irony is not lost. To properly define the terms, properly frame the context, and then take action that is in keeping with the both is something we owe our own national conscience.

    There’s no “making up for” past wrongs. But there is preventing of further ones. Meanwhile the highly charged banter between imagined mortal enemies is as sure as anything to block of clear and meaningful dialogue on this all-important front and, by consequence, pin perpetually into place a great, collective immorality. So no, by being systematically clear about who deserves what in the way of financial support and then doing what needs to be done to make it happen, the greatest of all beneficiaries are those of us who while enjoying the fruits of our considerable labors also get to enjoy knowing that we’re good. Knowing it.

    1. Tom Raywood4 years ago

      Yes, “infirm” rather than “affirm” where context dictates.

  10. Jamie Lechner4 years ago

    My Mother had only two daughters and is fully Democratic. I have a son and two daughters myself and I am also fully Democratic. I find this poll to be useless and fully nonsensical. You can “prove” anything with a poll that only allows for results that support your cause. *smh

    1. Jambu Shambu4 years ago

      I don’t drive a Honda Accord. Yet I keep reading that Honda Accord is the best selling car in America. Conclusion: everyone is lying about auto sales numbers.

  11. TD4 years ago

    Polls are worthless unless they agree with my philosophy. Don’t bother me with facts, like girls are more likely to get prematurely pregnant.

    1. RoughAcres4 years ago

      “… girls are more likely to get prematurely pregnant.”

      More likely than whom? Boys?

      uh… yeah.

  12. Tom Raywood4 years ago

    Either that or, well, overly constricted social valuations interfere needfully, lol, with the production of male offspring!

  13. Sam4 years ago

    Yound idealists in general support the donkeys until reality sets in (they grow up) and they realize there really is no free lunch except maybe in prison. Send your money to Washington and they turn around and give it to people you don’t even know, but whose votes can be bought.

  14. Thomas4 years ago

    I am vey disappointed that Pew puts something like this into their newsletter. I have a lot of respect for Pew but this is simply nothing at all.
    The study is a great example of what you should not do. Not only is the result – “14% more likely to …” not very convincing, but the statistical basis is also pretty poor. What about the sample for example. Is it representative for any goup and why? How was it selected? A sample size of 661 cases also is not very convinving.
    The statistical significance we hear about also does not mean very much. It simply is a technical indicator for a correlation. But correlations are only one aspect which may indicate a cause and effect relationship. To really formulate a hypotheses and substantiate it you need much more than just one correlation. There are so many correlations in empirical research which do not mean anything at all. So to make your point you should have more to show than what is presented here. if yoou want to know more, have a look here:…
    Hence, no wonder that the researchers can’t even explain what they found. But if you cannot explain it, it is nothing more than just a minor observation. Because this is so you should be very aware about the other studies which indicate something totally different.
    Please PEW, next time be more critical about what you publish.

  15. Paul4 years ago

    I am giving up on subscribing to these PEW email updates. I was of the opinion that people who subscribed and were interested in things like PEW and Fact Check were primarly thinking people, rather than the mud slinger trolls I find on Yahoo news blogs, guess I was wrong. Rereading what I just said sounds like lowering myself to the level of those I am speaking of. Why I am better living in my own little borrow.

  16. Paul4 years ago

    If I read correctly this survey was based on 1994 data. Data collected pre Tea Party is certainly not relevant today. Data collected pre GWB does not connect today.

    If we are going to draw conclusions about anything political it must be based on current data.

  17. melissa4 years ago

    True? 🙂

  18. Barbie4 years ago

    You didn’t talk to me: 5 daughters…..12 granddaughters and left of the Kennedys.

  19. Goldie4 years ago

    I am a retired lawyer with 3 daughters. Except for Eisenhower I never voted for a Republican. I wanted my daughters to succeed in professions not be locked in kitchens. They all became college graduates, post graduate degrees ,professionals and parents. What are you smoking?

  20. Tom4 years ago

    What if the ones who were on the fence to begin with, got the idea that their grandchildren were less likely to be aborted if the Republicans took over?

    1. Paul4 years ago

      Is this relevant to the subject? How many years ago did Roe Vs Wade become the law of the land?

  21. Steve4 years ago

    I think the name of the survey house, PEW, says all that is needed about this survey. Woman support the Dem party by over 57%, they are concerned about issues that effect their rights, don’t own guns, don’t support the NRA and are much more liberal than men. Once they have children they are even more liberal. Pew on this survey

    1. Windy Tuesdays4 years ago

      I think that’s an over-generalization. Right now, Democratic Party support is at a significant low across the board, among both genders and all ages and all socio-economic levels. Many of us as women are more concerned with political issues that will affect our children and grandchildren than we are about feminist issues. I’m a woman, and I’m definitely leaning right at this point. I want stability for my kids, not monumental national debt for them to carry and a drift toward socialism. To me, the Republican Party represents stability, and the Democratic Party represents too much change. Volatility is not appealing to women.

      1. RoughAcres4 years ago

        … but that’s not “over-generalizing.”

      2. Eric A4 years ago

        So you are saying a sample size of 1 is more significant than a sample size of about 1000, which is the usual sample for political preference polls? If this kind of thinking leads you to the Republican Party, what does this say about the Republican Party?

  22. Twain4 years ago

    Assuming for the moment that this study has any validity, are men genetically predisposed to certain social values? If so, could the reason for such predisposition (say a higher testosterone level) also be related to the sex of their children?

    Also, if subjects changed party affiliation during child bearing years, did those changes reflect the sex of their children?

  23. David4 years ago

    I don’t have a lot of experience with this. My wife and I have 1 child, a daughter, and we are both strongly Liberal/Democrat. But, our daughter is very strongly Republican – and has three sons. Go figure! ☺

    1. slk4 years ago

      she did her homework!!!

    2. Joe Bob4 years ago

      Better hope she never needs contraception or an abortion or an equal wage or any other thing that makes her choices equal to men.

      1. Suzanne3 years ago

        -Contraception is available to ALL women everywhere either for free via insurance or for $10 if you don’t have insurance
        -Abortion is legal in all 50 states and has been for 40 years.
        -Equal pay is a law and has been for 50 years. Single women with degrees currently make more money than their male counterparts. It’s married women with children who make less… gee I can’t imagine why.

        Thanks for playing though.

  24. Joe Altschule4 years ago

    I suppose the study simply failed to question the respondents about the terrible adverse effects GOP anti-women policies would surely have on their daughters as they grew to adulthood. Maybe there should be a study on that specific question and then see how it turns out.
    Here’s a sample question: Would you favor and support a Republican Party that intrudes on your daughter’s privacy and freedom and dictates to her how to make her own personal and medical choices?

    1. Melchiah4 years ago

      That wouldn’t be a valid survey question. It’s biases would pervert responses. A proper survey question would ask about something like abortion restrictions without any prejudicial language implying a morally right or wrong answer.

    2. Windy Tuesdays4 years ago

      I’m a Republican woman and I am always astonished at how narrow-minded some Democratic men can be. It is insulting to have my intelligence questioned, as if I cannot possibly be educated and informed and still be a Republican woman. I am earning my Ph.D. in Literary Theory, am very happily married (17 years) to an awesome, considerate man who puts our children and I first–and who also happens to be a Republican–and I wonder how can it be that Democrats really believe that being a Republican means “no rights for women?” It’s so astonishing to me, that I rarely know how to respond. You don’t live in a Republican household, and you obviously don’t know what it is really like. It might be time to become better acquainted with a Republican as a friend and find they aren’t what you think they are. No one has ever intruded on my privacy, my freedom, my personal, or my medical choices, but I am constantly marginalized by Democratic men who think I must not have a brain. Please. A little more respect for women might be in order. Must you tell us what political opinions we should have, or do we get to choose our own? Feminism 101

  25. Joe4 years ago

    This is an unbelievable study in my opinion. Having daughters has made me reaffirm even more so my affinity for the Democratic Party as the defender of women and their rights to equal pay, reproductive rights, voting rights and access to jobs. The more reactionary the GOP agenda gets the more it focuses on an anti-female arc. This can be seen in the results of the last few elections and in observing society in general. I do not believe this study!

    1. slk4 years ago

      people love “free stuff”!!! at what point do you say we’ve hit the ceiling on debt!!! “eventually, you run out of other peoples mony” – margaret thatcher!!!

    2. Melchiah4 years ago

      Other people aren’t you. The political inclinations of a great many people who have daughters may vary tremendously from that of an individuals. There’s always odd men out.

  26. . Woolsey4 years ago

    U of KS ?

  27. Canus Maximus4 years ago

    Correlation is not causation necessarily.

    This headline caught my attention because we have two daughters and tend to be fiscally conservative and socially more libertarian.

    I think this is nothing but a curious correlation from a small data set. I suspect political affiliation is more related to sub-culture, education (or lack of), income and wealth — and ownership of private property or business interests, and employment sector (if employed).


    1. Milo Schield4 years ago

      Spurious correlation due to chance is plausible. Nowhere does this Pew FACTANK story say that the observed difference is statistically significant. If the 95% margin of error were 6 percentage points and if 30% of families with no daughters voted Republican, it would require at least 36% of families with all daughters to vote Republican (a 20% increase) in order for the difference to be statistically significant. The study found an 11% increase.

  28. Jane4 years ago

    Well, liberals have no problem with sex-selection abortion.

    Who benefits? Boys. All over the world, girls are stacking up in orphanages – that is, the ones who were lucky enough to survive the womb.

    Are these naturally-born girls, or perhaps orphan adoptions? In my little sphere I know a lot of Christian, Republican families who have adopted girls from Chinese orphanages.

    Perhaps having girls first just makes a person appreciate them more as human beings.

    1. a D turned R4 years ago

      African Americans are being disenfranchised by abortion.
      Look up the statistics of young black women who abort. Perhaps we could have had
      the first black female president, or the first black vice president, but she was aborted.

      Freedom of choice is not freedom to kill.

      There are groups that will support women through a pregnancy and if they choose…….. help them place the child for adoption.

      1. person3 years ago

        Why would you (wrongly) assume that “liberals have no problem with sex-selection abortions. Why?

        p.s. The “recorded safe” abortion rate is lower than it has been since Roe V Wade was passed. This is all thanks to education provided by concerned pro-choice “liberals. Ironic? No. We’re pro-life as well, and news flash: nobody actually wants an abortion.

  29. Julie Holmans4 years ago

    I really don’t think this is valid or credible… I think someone fell asleep while attempting to produce a study that might show GOP in a more favorable light… and when they woke up they realized they needed to put something to paper quickly…. So they pulled this story out of thin air…. I just read a repost and not one father of daughters agreed with this…. this is a very poor study…. It is so very wrong…. It has to be fake.

    1. slk4 years ago

      the whole administration is!!!

    2. Melchiah4 years ago

      Anecdotes aren’t a reliable form of contradictory evidence.

  30. Chris Cage4 years ago

    I recall another study in which men were more likely to father a daughter when under stress.

    Perhaps those men who are frightened by GOP scare tactics are producing those little females. In the 60’s they would have us believe that there was a communist under every bed. And today the GOP claims that Democrats want to tax us into oblivion, most Muslims are thought to be radicalized and Obama supposedly wishes to end religion and capitalism.

    There’s poetic justice in the likelihood that those girls will choose to be Democrats and independents!

  31. Iles Minoff4 years ago

    I have a hard time with this. Seems more like a spurious correlation to me. You know if you run 100 random tests for statistical significance, by chance 5 of those will be shown to be significant to the 5% level. Is that what’s going on here? I think so so since there is no plausible explanation. Unfortunately, I’m sure this will be all over the media, if it isn’t already. C’mon you social researchers out there. Don’t let them get away with this nonsense.

  32. Yesterdays Wine4 years ago

    An uncontrolled study is worse than meaningless. It’s misleading and a piece of charlatanism. The casting of the phrase, 14% less likely to be a Democrat doesn’t, for instance mean what it appears to say. You would think that this means those less likelies are Republicans. It could be that they are primarily Independents. No one knows. The study, even if taken at face value, seems off. Women are by far more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. That means men would have to be taking up the slack. Yet, there are many more Democrats than Republicans. A true study would have correlated sex of child with actual voting behavior, which in the end is all that matters. Such a study should also be broken out geographically, either by state or region.

    1. Milo StatLit.org4 years ago

      “14% less likely to be Democrat” is an incomplete comparison. It could mean either “Parents with all girls are 14% less likely to be Democrat than [to be] Republican” or “”Parents with all girls are 14% less likely to be Democrat than [are] parents with all girls.” The latter controls for any differences in the size of the two groups, so that is normally expected.

  33. Kim4 years ago

    There are studies showing that in times of greater stress, a woman is more likely to have a girl (evolutionary explanation = need more women for reproduction). Other research shows that increased cognitive load (including stress, and inebriation) makes people (at least temporarily) more conservative.

    Taken together, might it be more likely that stressed people (more vigilant and worried) are more likely to have girls and more likely to be Repubs? So the causal arrow goes the other way?

  34. Nancy4 years ago

    This makes no sense to me. I grew up in a Republican household and became a Democrat AFTER I had three daughters (no sons). I AM a Democrat because of my girls and my support for women’s rights. I honestly don’t know how you can have daughters and be a Republican!

    1. Cornfed4 years ago

      That’s strange. I don’t know how you can have daughters and be a Democrat! Liberals seem to think that women’s rights begin and end with their genitals. Why is that? It’s creepy. I am raising my girls to be strong, smart, self-reliant, confident, and responsible for their own success or failure in life. Democrats seemingly would have me raise them as victims, dependents of the state, and grievance-mongers.

      You tell me: which approach implies that women are strong and capable, and which one implies they are weak and incapable? Then tell me why it is Democrats are supposedly the ones that have more respect for women.

      1. South Side4 years ago

        To further support your argument, come to Chicago where women are the pawns of the Democrats. Those who support Democrat’s and “women’s rights” should do a little research in how the Democrat’s progressive agenda has dismantled the black family, destroying the strong parent/nuclear family necessary to raise children in a healthy, supportive environment. Blacks do not marry because it would disrupt the welfare benefits. Blacks and Hispanics have been enslaved by the Democrats using the Cloward-Piven strategy of keeping them totally dependent on cradle-to-grave welfare benefits.

        Of the 500 murdered in Chicago last year, (more Americans killed in the Chicago war zone here than in Afghanistan,) 75% were black and almost 20% Hispanic, two groups that vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Here’s the kicker: Of the known offenders, more than 70% were black and another 22% Hispanic.
        All of this in a State and City run by Democrats.

  35. Barry Hollander4 years ago

    Interesting given the whole “war on women” label Dems love to slap on Republicans. Maybe Dems should go instead with a “war on your own daughters”?

    I’d test whether the underlying variable explaining this effect is concern about public safety, which tends to be higher among Republicans.

    1. Yesterdays Wine4 years ago

      Of course, it’s all lip service. Republican states in general are much more dangerous for everyone living in them. Murder, rape, suicide, drunken driving, all social quotient factors. Led by who else? The Deep South.

      1. Thomas R4 years ago

        There are Republican states outside the South. Although looking it up I have to concede most non-Southern “red states” look to have above average rates of rape. (I might be tempted to speculate that Midwestern alcoholism plays a role, but Utah also looked to be above average)

      2. slk4 years ago

        i didn’t realize that nyc, chicago, la, detroit etc, were in red states in the south!!!

      3. Mitchell Young4 years ago

        Did you control for race — there is a disproportionate percentage African-Americans in the South, but they don’t vote GOP.

  36. Laura Lee4 years ago

    I have read that people who have children later in life are more likely to have female children. Is it possible that there is no cause and effect here but correlation– that the same group of people are more likely to delay starting a family and to vote Republican? Perhaps a person with a strong focus on financial security is both likely to have children later and to vote Republican.