GOP lean of parents vs. non-parents is staggering

[bagelman]

https://twitter.com/toad_spotted/status/1520151706872553475

There are so many things so wrong with this.

Are eye roll inducing lectures on diversity and inclusiveness (always mandatory, never necessary, never helpful) going to help take away rights from grown men and women by empowering a reaction? Is childcare so completely unaffordable these days that only the rich can have kids? Are loony hard-right evangelicals who think it's the will of God that gays be legally punished for existing the only people in America having kids?

The last of these possibilities is the scariest to me. It suggest a prelude to idocracy.

In any event we have a parenting crises in America today. Violence against referees in juvenile sports is a symptom of a greater problem with American parents, and we remain in the midst of a deep baby bust. 

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

The crosstabs in that poll are a bit sus

Source + crosstabs: https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_202204271123.pdf

SAMPLE SIZE: n = 1377 + 3.4%. Poll sample is slightly younger, less well-off, more Latino, and more Southern/less Western than the overall electorate.

[Vosem]

Are eye roll inducing lectures on diversity and inclusiveness (always mandatory, never necessary, never helpful) going to help take away rights from grown men and women by empowering a reaction? Is childcare so completely unaffordable these days that only the rich can have kids? Are loony hard-right evangelicals who think it's the will of God that gays be legally punished for existing the only people in America having kids?

The last of these possibilities is the scariest to me. It suggest a prelude to idocracy.

In general, there's a decently large and growing gap between Republicans and Democrats on fertility, though I don't think self-identified evangelicals really differ from self-identified Republicans in this regard.

Wealth is only a predictor of fertility among self-identified Republicans (where it is a very strong predictor, though). Among Democrats and independents, household income plays no role in predicting someone's fertility. Among Republicans, it is a fairly strong predictor.

https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1419697952822636548?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ct...

Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

[Unelectable Bystander]

Are eye roll inducing lectures on diversity and inclusiveness (always mandatory, never necessary, never helpful) going to help take away rights from grown men and women by empowering a reaction? Is childcare so completely unaffordable these days that only the rich can have kids? Are loony hard-right evangelicals who think it's the will of God that gays be legally punished for existing the only people in America having kids?

The last of these possibilities is the scariest to me. It suggest a prelude to idocracy.

In general, there's a decently large and growing gap between Republicans and Democrats on fertility, though I don't think self-identified evangelicals really differ from self-identified Republicans in this regard.

Wealth is only a predictor of fertility among self-identified Republicans (where it is a very strong predictor, though). Among Democrats and independents, household income plays no role in predicting someone's fertility. Among Republicans, it is a fairly strong predictor.

https://twitter.com/ryanburge/status/1419697952822636548?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ct...
Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

This is interesting. It would seem to imply that among whites, democrats are much richer than republicans without their own religion

[SInNYC]

That graph is very interesting since the prevailing belief on the right is that POC have lots of children and will outgrow whites, or among the more overtly racist of them, the "browning" of America.

But that graph implies the exact opposite, and its right wing whites of all Christian denominations that are most likely to have kids (yeah, I know thats not necessarily the same as most number of kids).

[Tintrlvr]

This is interesting. It would seem to imply that among whites, democrats are much richer than republicans without their own religion

I don't think that's surprising at all given the geographic and education distributions of white Democrats vs. white Republicans. The Democrats are the party of wealthy, highly educated white people, as well as minorities, who are disproportionately poorer and less educated (although wealthy/more educated minority voters are also Democratic), while the Republicans are the party of middle-to-low income, middle-to-low education white people.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

This is interesting. It would seem to imply that among whites, democrats are much richer than republicans without their own religion

I don't think that's surprising at all given the geographic and education distributions of white Democrats vs. white Republicans. The Democrats are the party of wealthy, highly educated white people, as well as minorities, who are disproportionately poorer and less educated (although wealthy/more educated minority voters are also Democratic), while the Republicans are the party of middle-to-low income, middle-to-low education white people.

I find it interesting that nonwhite R evangelicals are slightly less likely to have children under 18 in their household than their D counterparts, which is the opposite of what we see with nonwhite Catholics. Their median household income is similar to that of nonwhite D Catholics at a similar age.

Nonwhite evangelical Protestants have a larger D-R household income gap, but nonwhite Catholics have a larger D-R "living with children under 18" gap.

[Tintrlvr]

This is interesting. It would seem to imply that among whites, democrats are much richer than republicans without their own religion

I don't think that's surprising at all given the geographic and education distributions of white Democrats vs. white Republicans. The Democrats are the party of wealthy, highly educated white people, as well as minorities, who are disproportionately poorer and less educated (although wealthy/more educated minority voters are also Democratic), while the Republicans are the party of middle-to-low income, middle-to-low education white people.

I find it interesting that nonwhite R evangelicals are slightly less likely to have children under 18 in their household than their D counterparts, which is the opposite of what we see with nonwhite Catholics. Their median household income is similar to that of nonwhite D Catholics at a similar age.

Nonwhite evangelical Protestants have a larger D-R household income gap, but nonwhite Catholics have a larger D-R "living with children under 18" gap.

You're talking pretty small sample sizes when you're discussing non-white evangelicals broken down by party affiliation.

[Ferguson97]

Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

So what is it about having kids that causes people's brains to melt?

[Del Tachi]

Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

So what is it about having kids that causes people's brains to melt?

Parenting makes people more risk-averse.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

So what is it about having kids that causes people's brains to melt?

(2013) Study finds lack of sleep contributes to prejudice and stereotyping

(2016) Why contemplating death changes how you think

But why does death make us more punitive, conservative and religious? According to many theorists, reminders of death compel us to seek immortality. Many religions offer literal immortality, but our secular affiliations – such as our nation states and ethnic groups – can provide symbolic immortality. These groups and their traditions are a part of who we are, and they outlive us. Defending our cultural norms can boost our sense of belonging and being more punitive against individuals who violate cultural norms – such as prostitutes – is symptom of this.

[DC Al Fine]

I'm a bit amused by some of the framing here. A large segment of the population is struggling with family formation, due to cost of living or cultural values or whatever (I tend to agree with Averroes that this is overdetermined), but the segments that don't struggle with it are the ones that are being treated as the oddballs.

This is a serious issue that progressives should be looking at fixing as much as possible.

Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

So what is it about having kids that causes people's brains to melt?

Parenting makes people more risk-averse.

To push back a bit here, risk aversion is frequently invoked to explain the tendency of women, particularly unmarried women, to vote Democrat. How would you reconcile that with your explanation for parents trending right wing-Evangelical?

Or do you reject the hypothesis that women vote Dem due to risk aversion?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Conservatives have far more children than liberals, and as such it is natural to expect parents of children to be a conservative-leaning demographic. This is a phenomenon that has been noticed for years, though the exact cause of this is unknown.

[Person Man]

    Conservatives have far more children than liberals, and as such it is natural to expect parents of children to be a conservative-leaning demographic. This is a phenomenon that has been noticed for years, though the exact cause of this is unknown.

It has been going along long enough that most people my age or younger would be Republican, not Democratic. Just because your parents have a certain set of beliefs doesn't mean that you do. For example, all of my sister in laws come from very Republican families (one family are wealthy Coptic Christians, another are crazy border patrol people from the only conservative/moderate area in Vermont, and the last one from rural Central Nebraska) even though they are all liberals of varying degrees.

[Associate Justice PiT]

    Conservatives have far more children than liberals, and as such it is natural to expect parents of children to be a conservative-leaning demographic. This is a phenomenon that has been noticed for years, though the exact cause of this is unknown.

It has been going along long enough that most people my age or younger would be Republican, not Democratic. Just because your parents have a certain set of beliefs doesn't mean that you do. For example, all of my sister in laws come from very Republican families (one family are wealthy Coptic Christians, another are crazy border patrol people from the only conservative/moderate area in Vermont, and the last one from rural Central Nebraska) even though they are all liberals of varying degrees.

     Kind of a non sequitur. This thread is about parents and why they lean Republican. I never suggested that their children would also lean Republican.

[afleitch]

Interesting that such conservative parents are having such identity diverse children.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

So what is it about having kids that causes people's brains to melt?

They achieve true happiness.

And a little early #tbt

Conservatives have grand/children to worry about unlike Democrat activists and thus are far motivated by the issue. They have more leeway to overextend locally where it may not visibly impact those who oppose it.

Lol do you think only conservatives have children?

“The political Right is having a lot more kids than the political Left,” he explained. “The gap is actually 41 percent.” Data on the U.S. birth rate from the General Social Survey confirms this trend—a random sample of 100 conservative adults will raise 208 children, while 100 liberal adults will raise a mere 147 kids. That’s a massive gap.

[coloradocowboi]

I have nothing smart to add, except that’s it’s hilarious that parents are flocking to vote for the party whose agenda would guarantee their children live in a polluted wasteland and possibly through the end of human civilization, but still think “mama bear would do anything for my baby!”

Anything except vote in their interest lol.

[Senator Incitatus]

Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

So what is it about having kids that causes people's brains to melt?

Parenting makes people more risk-averse.

    Conservatives have far more children than liberals, and as such it is natural to expect parents of children to be a conservative-leaning demographic. This is a phenomenon that has been noticed for years, though the exact cause of this is unknown.

It has been going along long enough that most people my age or younger would be Republican, not Democratic. Just because your parents have a certain set of beliefs doesn't mean that you do. For example, all of my sister in laws come from very Republican families (one family are wealthy Coptic Christians, another are crazy border patrol people from the only conservative/moderate area in Vermont, and the last one from rural Central Nebraska) even though they are all liberals of varying degrees.

     Kind of a non sequitur. This thread is about parents and why they lean Republican. I never suggested that their children would also lean Republican.

I will suggest it. Politics are highly heritable, and we understate this fact because the rebellious types are both louder and disproportionately interesting people. (e.g., Politicians themselves are more likely to have politics independent of their parents.) But in the vast majority of cases (i.e., the ones that matter in a popular election), children will vote as their parents did, at least relative to the national average. The fact Republicans out-breed Democrats will be highly significant.

[Person Man]

    Conservatives have far more children than liberals, and as such it is natural to expect parents of children to be a conservative-leaning demographic. This is a phenomenon that has been noticed for years, though the exact cause of this is unknown.

It has been going along long enough that most people my age or younger would be Republican, not Democratic. Just because your parents have a certain set of beliefs doesn't mean that you do. For example, all of my sister in laws come from very Republican families (one family are wealthy Coptic Christians, another are crazy border patrol people from the only conservative/moderate area in Vermont, and the last one from rural Central Nebraska) even though they are all liberals of varying degrees.

     Kind of a non sequitur. This thread is about parents and why they lean Republican. I never suggested that their children would also lean Republican.

In a vacuum, I agree but various columnists and think tank professors has used this argument to claim that society was going to become homogenously conservative in the future because of how unsuccessful liberals are in propagating themselves.

It's kind of up there with the notion that white people are going to go extinct because 1) there's more opportunities for different types of people to have children, and 2) white genes are recessive and all based on the fact that it's three times likelier that a child won't be white if only one of their parents is white. White people aren't going extinct.

If you are willing to separate it from its implications, sure.

[Ritz]

(Sources: CCES, AP Votecast)

People really shouldn't use crosstabs from random polls to make inferences like this. The margin of error is usually gigantic.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

(Sources: CCES, AP Votecast)

People really shouldn't use crosstabs from random polls to make inferences like this. The margin of error is usually gigantic.

Usually yes but 3517 is a pretty solid number for any poll.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

Interesting. What's the cause?

[Person Man]

Interesting that such conservative parents are having such identity diverse children.

That's what I am saying.

[Former President tack50]

Also, studies have generally hinted that the causation here goes the other way: if you have kids, you are likelier to become a loony hard-right evangelical. You don't necessary start out that way.

So what is it about having kids that causes people's brains to melt?

Parenting makes people more risk-averse.

To push back a bit here, risk aversion is frequently invoked to explain the tendency of women, particularly unmarried women, to vote Democrat. How would you reconcile that with your explanation for parents trending right wing-Evangelical?

Or do you reject the hypothesis that women vote Dem due to risk aversion?

I mean, I don't think that's contradictory at all? I would imagine young unmarried women skew less risk averse than older, married women; and therefore they would skew more left wing. Indeed risk averseness would to me imply some degree of small-c conservatism after all!

Though tbh I do believe that women are more risk averse than men on average and that can show in their politics. But it sould not show on left vs right terms but rather on "extremism" terms. Both the far left and far-right would be heavily male while more moderate candidates would receive more female support.