Politics of Same Sex Marriage: Overview Gary M. Segura PS: Political Science and Politics April 2005; 38, 2.

Same Sex Marriage and 2004 Election Did Kerry Lose Because of Same Sex Amendments? Bush was reelected and 11 states passed amendments banning same sex marriage.

Analysis Greg Lewis: Same sex marriage may have had an influence, but it was less than most observers claimed. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd Sheilds: Same sex marriage “played no role among independents in battleground states, and even in states where the issue was on the ballot.” …

Overview Concepts Reviewed: 1. Research Questions 2. Hypothesis Design (Independent and Dependent Variables) 3. Falsification 4. Selection Bias 5. Correlational Research Designs 6. Polling Wording …

“Same Sex Marriage and the 2004 Presidential Election” Gregory Lewis PS: Political Science and Politics April 2005; 38, 2.

Lewis: 2004 Election and Same Sex Marriage Research Questions: Question: Did Gay Marriage and moral issues bring Bush’s base out? Question: What role did incumbency, terrorism and “character” have in the election outcome? …

Findings: Effect of Gay Marriage Research Design: Effect of Gay Marriage: To analyze effect of Gay Marriage at state and individual level, Lewis controlled for other issues likely to have effected voters since 2000 (911, terrorism, Iraq, changes in the economy). At the individual level, he also controlled for party affiliation, ideology (his data source was a March 2004 LA Times Poll).

Findings: Effect of Gay Marriage Findings: 1. Evangelicals and voters in states with a Gay Marriage ban did not disproportionately increase their numbers or their preference for Bush. 2. Other issues matter more, but attitudes toward same sex marriage had a statistically significant and meaningful impact on both individual voters and state vote totals. 3. Civil Union supporters voted more like Civil Union Opponents than Marriage supporters, once these other variables are accounted for. Hence, support for Gay Marriage was not a deciding factor in voter behavior. …

Individual Level Analysis In 2004, the issue of Gay Marriage mattered less than some issues but more than most. The election largely replayed an election where gay rights, especially same- sex marriage played little role.” Other Issues: Also Important The War (Iraq), the economy and terrorism all had larger impacts on voter choices.

Correlational Models Hypothetical 1: Same Sex Marriage Rep, white women, middle-income, supports SSM (IV), lives in the north → % supported Bush (DV)? Rep, white women, middle-income, opposes SSM (IV), lives in the north → % supported Bush (DV)? Controlling For: Party, Race, Gender, Class and Region Testing: Effects of Same Sex Marriage

Correlational Models Hypothetical 2: Iraq Rep, white women, middle-income, opposes Iraq war (IV), lives in the north → % supported Bush (DV)? Rep, white women, middle-income, supports Iraq war (DV), lives in the north → % supported Bush (DV)? Controlling For: Party, Race, Gender, Class and Region Testing: Effects of Iraq War

Correlational Models Hypothetical 3: Party Affiliation Rep (IV), white women, middle-income, opposes SSM, lives in the south → % supported Bush (DV)? Dem (IV), white women, middle-income, opposes SSM, lives in the south → % supported Bush (DV)? Controlling For: Race, Gender, Class and Region Testing: Effects of Party Affiliation

“Moral Issues and Voter Decision Making in the 2004 Presidential Election” D. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd Shields PS: Political Science and Politics April 2005; 38, 2.

Bush Wins, and Republicans Gain in Congress Bush victory, and Republicans gains in Congress led many journalists and pundits it attribute to “values voters” after exist polls recorded voters citing “moral values” and the success of a push to ban gay marriage in 11 states. “It seemed that the president rode to victory on a wave of values voters who…” …

SSM, Abortion and Values in the 2004 Election How significant were “values” issues (SSM, abortion) on “individual voter choice” in the 2004 Election in relation to other issues: partisanship, economy, Iraq. Findings: Using a national post-election poll, authors found that SSM was not the most important issue. It was not the most important predictor of vote choice. It had no effect on Independents, respondents in battleground states, or even those with bans on SSM. …

Exit Polls and Bans on SSM Observers inflated the importance of “moral values” (See table 1). Exit Poll One poll found “moral values” to be the most important issue for largest number of respondents, 80% whom voted for Bush. Bans on SSM: 11 states passed them, and they passed by wide margins (between 57 and 86%), even in so-called blue states like Oregon.

Criticisms Problems with prevailing interpretations of the role of SSM and the 2004 election: 1) Wording of the poll: 2) “Moral Values” is poorly defined 3) % supporting MV (22%) is not significantly higher than the number that ranked the econ (20%), terrorism (19%) or Iraq (15%) as the most significant. 4) Is MV related to SSM?: 59% voted on the same poll supported Civil Unions. …

What did Motivate Voters? If not SSM, what did shape Voter Behavior? More than any particular, or single issue (including abortion) what shaped or determined voter choice was partisanship. In 2004, voters very loyal to their parties, regardless of their policy positions. Even when they disagreed with their parties candidate they voted for them. …

Partisanship (Party Affiliation) and the 2004 Election

Review: Levels of Analysis Theory: SSM (Concept 1) and 2004 Election (Concept 2). Hypothesis: State bans on SSM (IV) aided Bush’s reelection (DV) in Falsification: Only look at one election (2004) and one candidate (Bush). We do not attempt to make claims about how SSM may have effected multiple candidates or multiple elections. Operational Definitions: IV: (SSM): States with SSM bans on the ballot (Sec of State). DV: (Bush Reelection): Bush Won/Increase Repub. Voting % by state (Exit Polls/Sec of State).

Review: Levels of Analysis Hypothesis: State bans on SSM (IV) aided Bush’s reelection (DV). Operational Definitions: IV: (SSM): States with SSM bans on the ballot (Sec of State). DV: (Bush Reelection): Bush Won/Increase Repub. Voting % in state (Exit Polls/Sec of State) Selection Bias: Variation on DV DV: (Bush Win): Increase Rep. Voting % in state with SSM Ban DV: (Bush Win): Increase Rep. Voting % in state without SSM Ban DV: (Bush Loss): Decrease Rep. Voting % in state You cannot limit your analysis only to states where there was a ban on SSM and where Bush won (or the Rep % increased). You need consider the possibility that there where state where SMM passed and Bush lost or states where Bush won and there was no SSM ban or where the percentage of Republican voters did not increase.

Essay Outlines Introduction: Topic: SSM and 2004 Election Question: How did State bans on SSM impact 2004 presidential election? Thesis: Bans on SSM helped Bush win reelection in several key states Hypothesis: In states where bans on SSM (IV) were passed, Bush was reelection (there was an increase in Rep Voting %) (DV). Literature Review: What have other said about the topic? Argument/Analysis: (Operational Definitions): How do you plan to test/demonstrate your argument: IV: (SSM): States with SSM bans on the ballot DV: (Bush Win): Increase Rep. Voting % in state with SSM Ban DV: (Bush Win): Increase Rep. Voting % in state without SSM Ban DV: (Bush Loss): Decrease Rep. Voting % in state