Education .02 (.05) .02 (.07) -.02 (.09) -.24* (.09) .37** (.12) .25 (.20) .05 (.09) Income -.02 (.02) -.03 (.02) -.00 (.02) .03 (.02) -.03 (.05) -.34 (.19) -.03** (.01) Age .01 (.01) .01 (.01) .01 (.01) -.01 (.01) .01 (.01) -.03 (.02) -.01 (.02) Church Attendance -.06 (.06) -.03 (.07) -.32** (.08) -.35** (.13) -.16 (.10) -.18 (.16) -.28** (.04) Deep South -.50* (.21) -.43* (.20) -.10 (.25) .01 (.30) -.70* (.34) .36 (.49) -.36 (.25) Intercept 4.96** (.96) 2.48* (1.01) 5.61** (1.49) .49 (1.44) 4.24* (1.84) 10.89** (2.69) 5.37** (1.32) Pseduo-R2 .51 .47 .56 .58 .61 .78 .71 N 1024 994 930 587 764 526 2478 *p<.05, **p<.01 All dependent variables coded as 2 party vote 1984 to 2000: Analysis of American National Election Study data. The white identity measure is the dichotomous “Feel close to Whites” measure. 2008: Cooperative Congressional Election Study Data. See Appendix A for white identity wording. 2012: American National Election Study data. See Appendix A for white identity wording. 1984 standard errors clustered on counties; 1988 and 1992 on census tracts; 1996 and 2000 counties; 2008 and 2012 Congressional Districts Starting with 1992, all models employ sample weights Deep South: Respondents in former Confederacy states of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina.
Table C2: White Racial Identity among Whites, Democratic Vote Choice and Candidate Preference for Massachusetts Governor in 2010 among Whites, Logistic Regression Variable Patrick Candidate Preference 2010 Patrick Vote 2010 White Identity -.38** (.14) -.27* (.13) Massachusetts Right Direction 1.46** (.36) 1.61** (.51) Republican Party ID -1.27** (.10) -1.39** (.19) Education -.00 (.08) -.25 (.14) Income .23 (.27) .11 (.56) Female -.68** (.27) -.78 (.57) Age .04 (.15) .20 (.25) Intercept -.26 (.77) .77 (1.51) N 390 204 Pseudo R2 .42 .47 **p<.01, *p<.05 Data source: 2010 Massachusetts State Survey. Results incorporate sample weights for gender, age, and race. Models cluster standard errors on counties. Table C3: White Racial Identity among Whites and 2010 U.S. Congress Candidate Preference among Whites, Logistic Regression Variable Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Preference Democratic U.S. House Candidate Preference U.S. Congress Interactions White Identity X Black Democratic U.S. Congressional candidate -1.37** (.47) -2.34** (.86) Interaction Effect Components Black Democratic U.S. Congress candidate 2.08* (1.04) 2.18** (.63) White Identity .00 (.22) -.04 (.25) Political and Economic Evaluations
Deep South .08 (.14) .08 (.14) -.09 (.06) -.09 (.06) Church Attendance -.01 (.03) -.01 (.03) -.04** (.02) -.04** (.02) Face to Face Interview Mode .07 (.05) .07 (.05) Intercept 10.16** (.47) 10.16** (.47) 3.85** (.25) 3.85** (.25) R2 .68 .68 .68 .68 Democratic Congressional Voting President Obama Approval .04** (.01) .33** (.11) 1.00** (.18) .51** (.08) Republican Party ID -.09** (.01) -.17** (.06) -.05 (.04) -.26** (.05) Conservative Ideology ID -.01 (.01) -.13 (.08) -.12 (.08) -.11 (.06) Negative Democratic Legislative Agenda Evaluations -.14* (.06) Negative Economic Stimulus Evaluations -.04** (.01) Positive Current National Economic Evaluations -22* (.10) Positive Retrospective National Economic Evaluations Positive Prospective National Economic Evaluations Not available Not available Not available Not available -.12* (.06) -.06 (.06) Income .02 (.02) -.02 (.02) .00 (.01) .01 (.01) Age .00 (.01) .01 (.01) .03 (.02) .07** (.02) Female -.01 (.03) -.05 (.22) -.07 (.10) .11 (.09) Education .02 (.02) .05 (.12) .10 (.06) .05 (.06) Deep South -.12** (.03) -.51* (.22) -.26 (.19) .01 (.20) Church Attendance -.01 (.01) .02 (.04) -.11** (.04)