Using multiple large national surveys, we investigate how the relationship between policy-based ideology and vote choice in presidential elections differs across demographic groups. Specifically, we consider three key demographic characteristics: race, education, and gender. We find that large differences exist in the way ideology relates to presidential vote for voters from different racial groups. By contrast, we find quite small differences in this relationship when separating voters by education level. Perhaps most surprisingly, whereas men are on average more conservative than women, the relationship between ideology and presidential vote is estimated to be almost exactly the same for the two genders. The large sample sizes we employ allow for relatively precise estimation of these relationships even among our various demographic subsamples and these findings hold similarly across several recent presidential elections.
AbrajanoM. A.NaglerJ.AlvarezR. M. (2005). A natural experiment of race-based and issue voting: The 2001 city of Los Angeles elections. Political Research Quarterly, 58(2), 203–218.
2.
AbramowitzA. I.SaundersK. L. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 175–187.
3.
AchenC. H. (1975). Mass political attitudes and the survey response. The American Political Science Review, 69(4), 1218–1231.
4.
AchenC. H.BartelsL. M. (2017). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government (Vol. 4). Princeton University Press.
5.
AdamsJ. F.EngstromE.JoestonD.StoneW.RogowskiJ.ShorB. (2017). Do moderate voters weigh candidates’ ideologies? Voters’ decision rules in the 2010 congressional elections. Political Behavior, 39(1), 205–227.
6.
AdamsJ. F.MerrillS.IIIGrofmanB. (2005). A unified theory of party competition. Cambridge University Press.
7.
AldrichJ. H.McKelveyR. D. (1977). A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. The American Political Science Review, 71(1), 111–130.
8.
AlgaraC.HaleI. (2019). The distorting effects of racial animus on proximity voting in the 2016 elections. Electoral Studies, 58, 58–69.
9.
AnsolabehereS.RoddenJ.SnyderJ. M. (2008). The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. The American Political Science Review, 102, 215–232.
10.
BarnesT. D.CasseseE. C. (2017). American party women: A look at the gender gap within parties. Political Research Quarterly, 70(1), 127–141.
11.
BoudreauC.ElmendorfC. S.MacKenzieS. A. (2019). Racial or spatial voting? The effects of candidate ethnicity and ethnic group endorsements in local elections. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 5–20.
12.
CampbellA.ConverseW. E.MillerP. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
13.
CarseyT. M.LaymanG. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464–477.
14.
ChaneyC. K.AlvarezR. M.NaglerJ. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in U.S. presidential elections, 1980-1992. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 311–339.
15.
ClarkeH. D.StewartM. C.AultM.ElliottE. (2005). Men, women and the dynamics of presidential approval. British Journal of Political Science, 35(1), 31–51.
16.
ClintonJ.JackmanS.RiversD. (2004). The statistical analysis of roll call data. The American Political Science Review, 98(2), 355–370.
17.
CollingwoodL.O’BrienB. G.TafoyaJ. R. (2019). Partisan learning or racial learning: Opinion change on sanctuary city policy preferences in CA and TX. The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 5, 1–38.
18.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In NiemeR.WeisbergH. (Eds.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 322–357). Free Press.
19.
DawsonM. C. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton University Press.
20.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. HarperCollins.
EdlundL.PandeR. (2002). Why have women become left-wing? The political gender gap and the decline in marriage. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(3), 917–961.
23.
EllisC.StimsonJ. A. (2012). Ideology in America. Cambridge University Press.
24.
FedericoC. M.ScneiderM. C. (2007). Political expertise and the use of ideology: Moderating effects of evaluative motivation. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 221–252.
25.
FeldS.GrofmanB. (1991). Voter loyalty, incumbency advantage, and the benefit of the doubt. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3, 115–137.
FrymerP. (2010). Uneasy alliances: Race and party competition in America (Vol. 114). Princeton University Press.
28.
GillionD. Q.LaddJ. M.MeredithM. (2018). Party polarization, ideological sorting and the emergence of the US partisan gender gap. British Journal of Political Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123418000285
29.
GurinP.HatchettS.JacksonJ. S. (1990). Hope and independence: Blacks’ response to electoral and party politics. Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
HareC.ArmstrongD. A.BakkerR.CarrollR.PooleK. T. (2015). Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling to study citizens’ ideological preferences and perceptions. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 759–774.
31.
HotellingH. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 39, 41–57.
32.
HutchingsV. L.ValentinoN. A.PhilpotT. S.WhiteI. K. (2004). The compassion strategy: Race and the gender gap in campaign 2000. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(4), 512–541.
33.
InglehartR.NorrisP. (2000). The developmental theory of the gender gap: Women’s and men’s voting behavior in global perspective. International Political Science Review, 21(4), 441–463.
34.
JeffersonH. (2020). The curious case of Black conservatives: Construct validity and the 7-point liberal-conservative scale (Working paper). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3602209
35.
JesseeS. A. (2009). Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. The American Political Science Review, 103(1), 59–81.
36.
JesseeS. A. (2010). Partisan bias, political information and spatial voting in the 2008 presidential election. The Journal of Politics, 72(2), 327–340.
37.
JesseeS. A. (2012). Ideology and spatial voting in American elections. Cambridge University Press.
38.
JesseeS. A. (2016). (How) can we estimate the ideology of citizens and political elites on the same scale?American Journal of Political Science, 60(4), 1108–1124.
39.
JesseeS. A. (2020). Estimating individuals’ political perceptions while adjusting for differential item functioning. Political Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.47
40.
JoestenD. A.StoneW. J. (2014). Reassessing proximity voting: Expertise, party, and choice in congressional elections. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 740–753.
41.
JohnsR.ShephardM. (2007). Gender, candidate image and electoral preference. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 9(3), 434–460.
42.
KaufmannK. M.PetrocikJ. R. (1999). The changing politics of American men: Understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 864–887.
43.
KellstadtP. M.PetersonD. M.RamirezM. D. (2010). The macro politics of a gender gap. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 477–498.
44.
KnappM. S.YoonI. (2012). Social class and education. In BanksJ. A. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of diversity in education (pp. 1968–1973). SAGE.
45.
LenzG. S. (2012). Follow the leader. University of Chicago Press.
46.
LuskinR. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331–361.
47.
MarshallJ. (2016). Education and voting conservative: Evidence from a major schooling reform in Great Britain. The Journal of Politics, 78(2), 382–395.
48.
MartinA. D.QuinnK. M.ParkJ. H. (2011). MCMCpack: Markov chain Monte Carlo in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(9), 1–21.
49.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
50.
MontagnesB. P.RogowskiJ. C. (2015). Testing core predictions of spatial models: Platform moderation and challenger success. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(3), 619–640.
51.
NorranderB.WilcoxC. (2008). The gender gap in ideology. Political Behavior, 30(4), 503–523.
52.
PhilpotT. (2007). Race, republicans, and the return of the party of Lincoln. University of Michigan Press.
53.
RogowskiJ. C.TuckerP. D. (2018). Moderate, extreme, or both? How voters respond to ideologically unpredictable candidates. Electoral Studies, 51, 83–92.
54.
SchaffnerB. F.MacWilliamsM.NtetaT. (2018). Understanding White polarization in the 2016 vote for president: The sobering role of racism and sexism. Political Science Quarterly, 133(1), 9–34.
55.
SeguraG. M. (2012). Latino public opinion & realigning the American electorate. Daedalus, 141(4), 98–113.
56.
SetzlerM.YanusA. B. (2018). Why did women vote for Donald Trump?PS: Political Science and Politics, 51(3), 523–527.
57.
ShapiroR. Y.MahajanH. (1986). Gender differences in policy preferences: A summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 50(1), 42–61.
58.
ShorB.RogowskiJ. C. (2016). Ideology and the US congressional vote. Political Science Research and Methods, 6, 323–341.
59.
SimienE. M. (2005). Race, gender, and linked fate. Journal of Black Studies, 35, 529–550.
60.
SondheimerR. M.GreenD. P. (2010). Using experiments to estimate the effects of education on voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 174–189.
61.
TamW. K. (1995). Asians—A monolithic voting bloc?Political Behavior, 17(2), 223–249.
62.
TateK. (1993). From protest to politics: The new Black voters in American elections. Cambridge University Press.
TausanovitchC.WarshawC. (2018). Does the ideological proximity between candidates and voters affect voting in U.S. house elections?Political Behavior, 40(1), 223–245.
65.
WeisbergH. F.NawaraS. P. (2010). How sophistication affected the 2000 presidential vote: Traditional sophistication measures versus conceptualization. Political Behavior, 32(4), 547–565.
66.
WilsonJ. M. (2012). How are we doing? Group-based economic assessments and African American political behavior. Electoral Studies, 31, 550–561.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
