From: meyers@rtp.dg.com (Bill Meyers)
Subject: Women/Choice/Guns/Defense/Welfare vs. the '92 Election
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 21:44:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/I

[Posted for haga@turnip.chass.ncsu.edu (Fran Haga) --
she's still working on netnews access.  Soon ...   :-]
-------------------------------------------------------


      PREDICTING THE 1992 ELECTION, A TRUE STORY

     "She was typical of the hard bitten career women
who have come to infest the universe," he observed,
casually, seeming to surprise himself with the chill in
the word, infest.  "Yes, yes, infest," he assured
himself.
     
     I looked up sharply across the living room in the
gathering twilight, feeling suddenly like a cockroach,
but my father had soothed himself and the seams of his
analytical paragraph continued, unbroken.  He didn't
mean me.  For him, the three dozen weeks in the past
twenty-eight years that I have been unemployed marked
family crisis, not the economic disasters I had faced
in my own mind.  I relaxed.  My mother came through the
room, switching on low lights against the darkness.  He
didn't mean me, I remembered.  In my father's mind I am
a twice divorced, childless, failed flighty woman. 
Anything else I may or may not have done is incidental.
     
     This focus on reproductive capacity goes well
beyond the men I know best.  A leading feminist scholar
sat (briefly!) at my computer keyboard, but looked up
distracted by my wall.  "Jesse Helms, Inner Circle,"
she read, "what does that mean?"
     
     "That's what they send to the lists and lists of
little folk who contributed a few dollars to his
campaign" so we can upset our friends, I said.

     She tried to go on with the keyboard, but finally,
choking with confusion, she explained, "Don't you
understand?  If that man were to have his way, you
could be impregnated against your will!"

     No.  All issues are not equal.  Some principles
support everything else I might believe.  "No.  You
misunderstand.  As long as I am adequately armed,
nobody is going to do anything to me against my will." 
Without the power to protect myself, none of my values
will count.  My 1992 vote is in the bag.  

     I sketch these true encounters for you so that you
will know I set out to predict the 1992 vote in such a
way as to clearly demonstrate to conservative men -- so
smug in their family values -- the political risk they
run in shifting their private indifference to women to
the public arena.  I wanted to show you that the loss
of the support of conservative women could cost Bush
the 1992 election.   

     But I was wrong.  My prediction model ends up
supporting the tacit assumption we saw in the
Republican convention that an anti-choice stand is an
acceptable political risk.  The model cannot tell us
how many conservative women will overlook the inherent
contradictions and irrational content of the issues and
vote rationally in line with the Republican party
anyway.  The model merely tells us whether or not the
votes of conservative women matter in the long run,
even if they were all to vote for Clinton.  I wanted to
tell you that these votes matter.

     But the statistical news is that they don't.  In
plain numbers, there were certainly enough women voting
for Bush to appear to have been important in 1988: 30%
is enough to swing any election, and more women were
voting than men.    

1988 VOTES FOR DUKAKIS OR BUSH, by GENDER, AS A PERCENT
OF THE WHOLE 

                   3MALE     FEMALE
           DDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
  DUKAKIS          3  14.8  3  25.8  3
                   CDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
  BUSH             3  28.7  3  30.7  3
                   @DDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDY

Chi-Square Significance Value = .00034
Gamma = -.23843

     But the 1992 problem turns out to be the stability
of the female vote versus the potential instability of
the men.  In 1988 the women, statistically speaking,
split 50-50.  A substantial majority of the men voted
for Bush and decided the election.  These men still
hold the balance of power in 1992, even though their
votes cannot be predicted down straight party or
ideological lines.


1988 VOTES FOR DUKAKIS OR BUSH, by POLITICAL VIEWS, AS
          A PERCENT OF THE WHOLE
     
     FOR MEN:
                   3STRONG            STRONG        
                   3LIBERAL 3 WAFFLE 3CONSERVE3      
           DDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
  DUKAKIS          3   3.7  3   9.7  3   1.4  3
                   EDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
  BUSH             3   1.6  3  19.0  3   8.0  3
                   @DDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDY
Chi-Square Significance Value = .00000
Gamma = .60341

     FOR WOMEN:

                   3STRONG            STRONG  
                   3LIBERAL 3 WAFFLE 3CONSERVE3
           DDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
  DUKAKIS          3   4.3  3  19.3  3   8.3  3
                   EDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
  BUSH             3   2.0  3  22.4  3   1.0  3
                   @DDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDY
Chi-Square Significance Value = .00000
Gamma = .45620

     Is the glass half full or half empty?  I began my
modeling assuming that Clinton's "choice" appeal to
women was smart for the Democrats.  He was going after
that block of waffling women who had elected Bush.  He
had half.  He was after the other half.

     The 1991 General Social Survey of the National
Opinion Research Center at the University of Michigan
gives me a database reliably representative of national
voter opinions and responses after I selected for my
model those 938 respondents across the nation who had
actually gone to the polls in 1988 and voted for Bush
or Dukakis.  Naturally, the model does not pretend to
represent the behavior of anyone who, for whatever
reason, missed the 1988 vote and makes the polls in
1992.  Because the survey respondents answered a wide
array of opinion questions, I can arbitrarily swing
them into a Bush or a Clinton 1992 vote, based on the
respondent's position on "the issues," and my
estimation of the relative importance, or salience, of
the issue to a particular block of voters.

     These were the questions I used to predict votes
on issues:

CHOICE: "Should legal abortions be available to
pregnant women who want them for any reason?" (as
opposed to wanting an abortion in the case of rape,
fetal defect, to limit family size, etc.)  Female
respondents who said "yes," would probably be more
likely to vote for Clinton.

2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS: "Do you own a gun?" (includes
handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.) Male respondents who
said "yes," would probably be more likely to vote for
Bush.

NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET CUTS: "Do you think government
spending for the military and national defense is too
much, about right, too little?"  Respondents who said
"too much" would be likely to vote for defense budget
cuts through a vote for Clinton.

ENTITLEMENTS:  "Do you think the government should
equalize income?"  Respondents in strong agreement
would be likely to vote for Clinton, those in
disagreement, for Bush.

     When the voters swing, the outcomes change.

                              CLINTON   UNCLEAR   BUSH

SINGLE ISSUES AS PREDICTORS:
                     CHOICE:  28.5%     37.4%     34.1%
              2nd AMENDMENT:  35.7%     36.2%     28.0%
      NATIONAL DEFENSE CUTS:  13.3%     52.6%     34.1%
               ENTITLEMENTS:  32.2%     54.5%     13.3%

 USING VOTE'88 AS PREDICTOR:  40.6%       --      59.4%
and then using an opinion on a particular issue to
project a vote "swing" in '92:

SINGLE ISSUE SWING VOTE PREDICTORS:
                     CHOICE:  44.5%       --      55.5%
              2nd AMENDMENT:  50.9%       --      49.1%
      NATIONAL DEFENSE CUTS:  34.1%       --      65.8%
               ENTITLEMENTS:  52.1%       --      47.9%


ASSUMING ADDITIVE VARIETY IN SALIENCE (IMPORTANCE):

     This is how a model approaches "real life."  We
assume voters balance the influences and the issues and
ultimately cast votes in line with whatever is finally
most important to each person in the privacy of the
voting booth.  In real life, voters do "cancel each
other out," even though the individuals involved may be
concerned with entirely different issues.  I present
three scenarios.  In all three, the votes of the men
turn out to be crucial.
  
                                   CLINTON   BUSH

(1) VOTE'88 AS BASE PREDICTOR:     40.6%     59.4%
(2) SWING TO CLINTON
      WOMEN WITH CLEAR CHOICE
                      OPINION:     47.9%     52.1%
(3) SWING TO BUSH 
      MEN INVESTED IN 
      2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
             BY GUN OWNERSHIP:     42.6%     57.4%


ADDING AN ECONOMIC FACTOR, WHERE BLUE COLLAR MEN ARE
PERSUADED THAT CLINTON'S PLATFORM IS CORRECT:
                                   
                                   CLINTON   BUSH
                                   
(1) VOTE'88 AS BASE PREDICTOR:     40.6%     59.4%
(2) SWING TO CLINTON
      WOMEN WITH CLEAR CHOICE
                      OPINION:     47.9%     52.1%
(3) SWING TO CLINTON
              BLUE COLLAR MEN:     57.8%     42.2%
(3) SWING TO BUSH 
      MEN INVESTED IN 
      2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS
             BY GUN OWNERSHIP:     49.6%     50.4%

ADDING A DESERTION FACTOR, WHERE ONLY THOSE WOMEN WHO
OPPOSE LEGAL ABORTION FOR CLEAR, CONSCIENTIOUS REASONS
ARE LEFT WITH THE MEN VOTING FOR BUSH:

(1) VOTE'88 AS BASE PREDICTOR:     40.6%     59.4%
(2) SWING TO CLINTON ALL WOMEN
      EXCEPT THOSE WITH A CLEAR
           ANTI-ABORTION OPINION:  55.5%     44.7%     
(3) SWING TO BUSH
      WHITE COLLAR MEN WHO DO
        NOT SUPPORT ENTITLEMENTS:  50.2%     49.8%
(4) SWING TO BUSH 
      MEN INVESTED IN 
      2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS         
                BY GUN OWNERSHIP:  46.5%     53.5%


     I set up my models as realistically as I know how. 
Women really do seem to assign an importance to women's
issues that men do not.  Conservative women really do
feel they hold independent non-liberal views and are
quite willing to act with decorum and to carefully
conceal their feelings from men and women around them. 
Men really do behave as if they are largely indifferent
to the women in the world around them, often meeting
female accomplishments in any arena with sexual
allusions and stereotypical expectations for failure. 
To actually put these exhortations in writing may be
the exception, but the following remarks in the course
guide of a University political science professor are
typical of a pervasive hostility and stupidity that
intelligent conservative women learn early to ignore.

     After some observations about the career of Mae
West, the man writes, apparently in an attempt to
inspire his female students:  "We have high
expectations of you in this course so you should make
every effort to perform, like attending class, keeping
up with assignments and producing work on time.  Much
more is required of you than generally is expected of
southern women.  In Tennessee Williams' love scenes,
Blanche and Baby Doll only had to 'be there and
occasionally chew gum.'" 

     After all that I had hoped to spit out my gum and
show you where female opinion was not to be taken
lightly in this election.  There is only one "swing
vote" left, the vote of gun owning women in support of
2nd Amendment rights, even if not too many women claim
the sole ownership of household firearms, and even if
(female chauvinistically) most of us would be more than
happy to leave sticks and stones and bonebreaking to
the boys as long as someone comes charging to the
rescue if we scream.  Suppose at the end of that last
"desertion" scenario, where all but the anti-abortion
extremist women vote for Clinton, and the gun-owning
and white-collar men just barely squeak it out for Bush
-- suppose then the gun-owning women swing for the old
guy?  What then?

                                   CLINTON   BUSH
     
(5) SWING TO BUSH         
      WOMEN INVESTED IN 
      2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS         
                BY GUN OWNERSHIP:  36.5%     63.5%

     
     Doesn't that look like a lot safer margin?  
 
     Who did gun owning women vote for in the 1998
elections?  

1988 VOTES FOR DUKAKIS OR BUSH, by GUN OWNING WOMEN, AS 
A PERCENT OF THE WHOLE 


                   3 NO                OWN  
                   3 GUN    3 WAFFLE 3 GUN    3
           DDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
  DUKAKIS          3  10.3  3   9.9  3   5.5  3
                   CDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDDEDDDDDDDD4
  BUSH             3  12.2  3  11.3  3   7.1  3
                   @DDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDADDDDDDDDY
  
Chi Square Significance Value = .87025
Gamma = .01
  
     In other words, statistically speaking, gun owning
women saw no difference between Bush and Dukakis and
were just as likely to vote for one as the other.

     In 1992, informed votes by gun owning women and
informed support to embattled men could make a lot of
difference in the election outcome.  There is a
difference between Clinton and Bush.

Xref: sparky soc.women:16473 soc.men:16315