Marriage is good for society … and the GOP (Married voters back Romney by 13 points)

Hotair ^ | 07/15/2012 | Rob Bluey

[SeekAndFind]

Marriage plays a key role in strengthening civil society and reducing poverty. Families of married couples, for example, are approximately six times less likely to be poor than single-parent families. That suggests marriage is one way to reduce the growing dependence on government welfare programs.

It also turns out that married couples think about the world quite differently from their single counterparts. When it comes to their political preferences, married couples tend to back Republicans while single men and women support Democrats. That was the case in 2008 and it's once again shaping up to be a dividing line in 2012.

Pollster John Zogby noted the distinction in a recent piece on the "marriage gap," which he called more dramatic than the gender gap. Zogby runs through the numbers:

In an analysis provide by my colleagues at Gallup after the 2008 election, all married voters supported Senator John McCain over his Senate counterpart Barack Obama by a 12 point margin – 56% to 44%. Single voters favored Obama overwhelmingly by 30 points – 65% to 35%. But the gender characteristics of voter patterns were nearly canceled out by the marriage gap. In 2008, married men gave McCain a 16 point advantage over Obama – 58% to 42% — while single men pounded the Arizona Senator by 26 points – 63% to 37%. Married women supported McCain by 6 points, 53% to 47%, but it was Obama’s 32 point margin among single women – 66% to 34% — that provided him with a comfortable margin of victory.

We see every indication thus far that married voters will turn out and we see pretty much the same patterns as in 2008 in our 2012 polling. Thus, Romney leads Obama among married voters by 13 points – 50% to 37% — which is about the same as McCain’s margin in 2008. But Obama’s 18 point lead among all single voters – 52% to 34%– is far short of his performance four years ago. Again the Republican leads among married men by 18 points – 51% to 33% — even better than McCain’s margin. Obama’s margin in our poll of 27 points (56% to 29%) among single men is also on the mark with 2008. Romney leads among married women this time by 10 points (50% to 40%), better than McCain’s 6 point margin. But, while Obama leads among single women by 21 points – 50% to 29% — this does not match his 32 point margin in 2008. Even worse for Obama, at this point in time, is that 21% of single women are undecided. This is a strong suggestion that they may not even vote.

These numbers paint a sharp contrast between married and single voters. And while married couples don’t think monolithically about policy issues, there’s clearly something that draws more of them to conservative ideas. Even more striking, however, is the larger number of single men and women who come down on the other side.

With marriage on the decline among the poor and middle class, this should be a wake-up call for conservatives. Leaving politics aside, the benefits of marriage are so significant — for personal success and educational attainment — that it’s worth focusing on ways to strengthen and promote marriage.

[BenLurkin]

Unfortunately, Government hasd become the Daddy for far too mamny voters.

[gorush]

We've been married so long, we don't even look both ways before crossing the street anymore.

I haven't spoken to my wife in over three months...we're not fighting, I just don't like to interrupt.

[txrefugee]

Employers should tell these pie-in-the-sky single nitwits that if Obama wins, they will be out of a job because the establishment will close. There is no reason for a business to stay open if the Marxist intends to take the profits in order to enrich his cronies and buy special-interest votes in the next election.

Even the stupid university crowd might get the picture.

[the invisib1e hand]

(Married voters back Romney by 13 points)

and why not? if it's good for a man to find a wife, it must be really good for him to find a bunch of them.

[LibertarianLiz]

You know, when Romney was running for president in 2008, the question of Mormonism and polygamy came up at one debate. He pointed out that he was the only candidate on that stage that had only had one wife.

[strider44]

the lesson, as always, is that women ruin everything.

[the invisib1e hand]

must be her money.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: He pointed out that he was the only candidate on that stage that had only had one wife.

Mike Huckabee was married more than once? What about Ron Paul? What about Duncan Hunter?

This guy is exaggerating.

[Gay State Conservative]

Good for the GOP? Barney Frank and Ellen Degenerate are “married” and neither of *them* will be voting Republican.

[Lady4Liberty]

1.) "Husband" and "Wife" has been replaced by "Party A" and "Party B".
2.) Justices of the Peace are required to "solemnize" these marriages or be fired, as ordered by Gov. Mitt Romney on April 25, 2004. "We're just following the law," said Mitt Romney.
3.) Male/Female checkoffs for both Party A and Party B now on marriage license.
None of this was required by any law passed by the Legislature, or even ordered by the court. Governor Mitt Romney did this on his own, in cooperation with the ruling: "We're just following the law."

***

[kearnyirish2]

“Unfortunately, Government hasd become the Daddy for far too mamny voters.”

Also, with the marginalization of white men in the workforce, marriage and raising a family are off the table - so breeding has almost stopped altogether. That is contributing to our demographic nightmare in a big way.

While there is no shortage of stories of women unable to find men to settle down with, there are NO stories explaining this obvious reason for it. Affirmative action is economic warfare against whites (specifically against the men, with the aforementioned collateral damage for women), and it is paying off in a big way for their enemies.

[LibertarianLiz]

I’ m sorry but this was 2008, and I remember distinctly that the people on stage with him were John McCain, Fred Thompson, Rudi Guiliani. The others weren’t there. I can’t remember exactly where this debate took place, it was very informal.