NOM BLOG

LSN: Exit Polling Data Suggest Breakdown of the Family Favors the Rise of Liberal Politics

 

LifeSiteNews:

As the dust settles around last night’s election, the conventional wisdom is that Obama claimed the nation’s female vote. Some analysts, however, are pointing out that marital status appears to have been a more significant factor in the voting booth than gender.

According to polling data released by MSNBC, Obama carried the majority of the female vote over-all, at 55%. However, of the married women polled, 53% voted for Romney and 46% for Obama. In contrast, unmarried women favored Obama over Romney by a huge margin of 67% to 31%.

According to Brad Wilcox, Director of the National Marriage Project and Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Virginia, the data suggests that the President’s message resonates specifically with those women living the consequences of family breakdown.

“Single mothers are more likely to depend on a generous welfare state and therefore to identify with the expansive governmental vision of the Democratic Party,” Wilcox told LifeSiteNews. “By contrast, married mothers are less likely to depend on the welfare state and therefore to identify with the limited government philosophy of the Republican Party.”

He added: “Married women are more likely to have a pro-life worldview, and unmarried women are more likely to have a pro-choice worldview.”

Wilcox’s analysis is consistent with a candid strategy memo released by the liberal-leaning Greenberg Quinlan Rosser research firm just before the 2008 election that landed Obama the Presidency.

“Unmarried women represent one of the most reliable Democratic cohorts in the electorate,” the memo read.

16 Comments

  1. CuriousGeorge
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Huh?

    How do you jump from "Unmarried woman" to "Unmarried mothers?".

    Wow! What a way to grasp at straws at understanding the dynamics of this election.

  2. Posted November 9, 2012 at 11:23 am | Permalink

    It's so amazing how the wheels must be spinning in the heads of these people that run this site. ALL OVER THE MAP. Try re-focusing on how gays are "sinners" and therefore un-worthy of obtaining marriage licenses.

  3. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 11:32 am | Permalink

    "Destroy the family, and you destroy society." (V. I. Lenin)

  4. FemEagle
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    It's like Ann Coulter said - Obama gets support from the "stupid single women who want the government to be their husbands" and pay all their bills. LOL!

  5. Ash
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    A lot of people think that the Republican problem with young, female voters is over the issue of abortion. But family structure is also a major factor.

    Bill O'Reilly was discussing this the other night. He couldn't figure out why the political inclinations of two, 33 year old women would differ because of marital status. He should have an expert like Brad Wilcox on the show to discuss this.

    It's very important. The more liberals are able to discourage family formation and encourage family disintegration the more democratic voters you will have.

  6. indorri
    Posted November 9, 2012 at 11:31 pm | Permalink

    Funny how you complain about family structures as you attempt to tear apart loving ones. Hypocrites.

    (Btw, "unmarried women" to "single mothers"? Your bias is showing. This is why unlearned people should not do statistics.)

  7. Ash
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    No one is trying to tear anyone's "family" apart.

  8. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    Oh, but Ash, NOM does try to tear families apart. Any family that doesn't fir NOMs narrow definition is somehow unworthy of support and, from many posters views, should be eliminated. Please go to some of the more professional sites such as the American Academy of Pediatrics or the American Academy of Family Practice for definitions of family.

  9. Zack
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:10 pm | Permalink

    @MarkOH

    "Oh, but Ash, NOM does try to tear families apart. Any family that doesn't fir NOMs narrow definition is somehow unworthy of support and, from many posters views, should be eliminated."

    Oh boy, you have really gone off the deep end with this one. NOM believes just as I do that Marriage is between a man and a woman. That does not translate into "tearing" families apart. NOM doesn't believe they should be oppressed, persecuted, or as you put it "eliminated".

  10. Zack
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    NOM, I have tried to make several postings on your blogs and none of them seem to be making it through moderation. They contain no slander, no bashing nor anything negative.

  11. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    From the AAFP - definition of family: "The family is a group of individuals with a continuing legal, genetic and/or emotional relationship. Society relies on the family group to provide for the economic and protective needs of individuals, especially children and the elderly."

    The narrow definition of family that you and NOM support only represents, from Census data, only comprises 10% of families. SO, when you and NOM attempt to prevent marriage equality, you are tearing apart families.

  12. Fitz
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    The cultural left has drove family breakdown and ignored it the consequences of family breakdown since it began its sexual revolution 40 years ago.

    The idea that the same people who cant even define the family are suddenly interested in "marriage" when it comes to gay people only is absurd.

    The most stark and obvious example of this is the black family... Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out the breakdown of the black family 40 years ago in his famous report. He was labled a bigot.

    Anyone who knows anything about the left knows that they see marriage as archaic and patriarchal and oppresive particularly to woman. Indeed they see marriage as the origins of private property and the state.

    They believe as a matter of dogma and ideology, against all evidence... that "all family forms are inherently equel" ... that "their are no differences between men & woman that matter" that all such differences between men & woman and between different family arangments are "social constructs" and not based in human nature.

    The have a reductionist veiw of sexual ethics that cannot posit any rules beyond "consent & adults"

    Thereby elliminating the kind of sexual restraint that channels young men & woman into marriage..instead they encourage promisciousness in order to currupt peoples charachter, leading to easy divorce and child abandonment.

    The illigitamacy rate is 70% amoung African Americans, 50% amoung hispanics and 48% amoung the population at large.

    Does any rational person really think that the left has suddenly abandon its distain for marriage and the family?

  13. MarkOH
    Posted November 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    You are right Fitz, I guess, according to your logic, we should go back to a time when a wife and children were the property of the husbands. The break down of the family has NOTHING to do with poverty or the inability of the father to provide for his family. Let's blame gays and women it's easy and simple.

    Better yet, let's go back to the Roman times and Biblical times when a father could kill his children if he saw fit. That would keep kids in line.

  14. Zack
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    @Fitz

    "The break down of the family has NOTHING to do with poverty or the inability of the father to provide for his family."

    But poverty has to do with the break down of the family.

    "Let's blame gays and women it's easy and simple."

    In many ways, it was the sexual revolution and counter-culture movement that started the cultural conflicts we are having today. However, for the time the arbiters of those movements actually stood for something...now it's nothing more than a power grab.

  15. Zack
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 12:31 pm | Permalink

    Sorry Fitz...I meant to replace your name with MarkOH.

  16. MarkOH
    Posted November 11, 2012 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    Zack, I guess I should made it more clear that I was being sarcastic about the poverty comment.

    And, it's funny that Fitz mentioned Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan because his theories were based on writings from the 1930's, a tad before the sexual revolution and counter-culture movement.