The two dimensions of US household patterns and the link between the Second Demographic Transition dimension and the outcomes of the Presidential elections from 1968 through 2016 , analysis by state and counties

1. The Two Dimensions of American Household and Family Demography
and the Presidential Elections, 1968 -2016
An Analysis of Spatial Patterns.
Ron Lesthaeghe * and Lisa Neidert**
*Em. Prof. Free University Brussels (VUB), **Sr. Research Associate, University of Michigan Population
Studies Center.

2. Indicators of the 2 demographic dimensions, USA 1990s
Second Demographic Transition ( SDT )
• 1. postponement of Marriage
• 2. Postponement of Fertility
• 3. Acceptability of Abortion
• 4. Presence cohabiting partners
• 5. Same sex households
Pattern of Disadvantage ( POD )
• Children living with grandparents
• Single mother households
• Teenage fertility
• Out of wedlock fertility
• Divorce

3. Loading = correlation with: Factor1
SDT
Factor 2
POD
 % non-Hisp white women 25-29 without children in household, 2000 .933 -.186
 % non-Hisp white women never married, 2000 .905 -.370
 % non-Hisp white ever married women without own children in
household, 2000
.902 -.097
 Abortions per 1000 live births, 1992 .887 .057
 % non-Hisp white women 30-34 never married, 2000 .882 -.326
 Abortion rate per 1000 women 15-44, 1996 .836 .136
 Fertility postponement ratio (fert.30+/ fert.20-29), 2002 .794 -.411
 Same sex households per 1000 households, 2000 .754 .191
 Non-Hisp white total fertility rate, 2002 -.725 .009
 Non-Hisp. white fertility rate 15-19, 2002 -.675 .633
 % households that are “families”, 1990 -.642 .328
 % households with same or different sex cohabitors, 2000 .517 -.148
 Divorce rate per 1000 population, 1990 -.457 .548
 Total fertility rate, all races, 2002 .338 -.155
 % non-marital births, 1990 .329 .803
 % teen births, 1986 -.303 .875
 Divorce rate per 1000 population, 1962 -.277 .462
 % population 30+ living with and responsible for grandchildren,2000 -.189 .886
 % non-marital births, 2000 .182 .851
Table 1: Two dimensions (“factors”) emerging from a Principal Components Analysis of 19 indicators of family and household demography;
50 states, 19 indicators 1986-2002. (Lesthaeghe & Neidert 2006)

4. Item factor 1
(SDT)
factor 2
(POD)
% never married females, 25-29 [WNH]2000 .837 -.018
% age at first birth= 28+ in 1988 [WNH) 2000 .812 -.293
Mean age at first birth in 1988 [WNH] .792 -.410
% childless women, 25-29 [WNH] 2000 .787 -.091
% never married females, 30-34 [WNH] 2000 .780 .074
Fertility postponement ratio, 1988 - 30+/20-29 [WNH] .733 -.329
% cohabiting households [WNH] 2000 .652 .284
% cohabiting households [Total] 2000 .606 .461
% teen births, 1988 [WNH] -.556 .613
% same sex cohabiting households [Total] 2000 .517 .364
Total Fertility Rate, 1999 [WNH] -.503 -.143
% same sex cohabiting households [WNH] 2000 .495 .263
% pop 30+ living with and responsible for grandchildren [WNH] 2000 -.449 .646
% pop 30+ living with grandchildren [WNH] 2000 -.318 .699
% children living in married couple family [WNH] 2000 -.273 -.609
% children living in married couple family [Total] 2000 -.245 -.746
% pop 30+ living with and responsible for grandchildren [Total]2000 -.227 .641
% births by unmarried mothers, 1988 [WNH] .164 .479
% currently divorced women, 35-44 [WNH] 2000 .127 .530
% pop 30+ living with grandchildren [Total] 2000 -.101 .657
% female-headed families/households [Total] 2000 .069 .706
% female-headed families/households [WNH]2000 .031 .649
Table 2: Two dimensions (“factors”) emerging from a Principal Component Analysis of 22 indicators of family and household composition;
3141 counties, mostly 2000.

6. Table 3: Correlation between the percent voting for the Republican
candidate or Republican+ Conservative candidates 1968-2016 and the
SDT-dimension of the 1990s, 50 states.
Pre 1990 elections Post 1990 elections
Year Candidate r with SDT Year Candidate r with SDT
1968 Nixon -.149 1992 Bush Sr. -.553
1968 Nixon +Wallace -.550 1992 Bush+Perot -.550
1972 Nixon -.464 1996 Dole -.710
1976 Ford -.244 2000 Bush Jr. -.880
1980 Reagan -.546 2004 Bush Jr. -.871
1980 Reagan+Anderson -.264 2008 McCain -.839
1984 Reagan -.557 2012 Romney -.889
1988 Bush Sr. -.486 2016 Trump -.830
2016 Trump+McMullen -.909

7. -1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Correlationcoefficientr Correlation Coefficient between the SDT dimension and vote Republican or Republican +
Conservative 3rd candidate,
presidential elections 1968-2016
SDT-Rep
SDT+3rd
Nixon +
Wallace
Reagan+
Anderson
Trump+ McMullen
Bush+Perot

8. -0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Correlationcoefficientr
Date elections
Correlation Coefficient between the POD dimension and the vote Republican or Republican+3rd
Conservative Candidate, presidential elections 1968-2016
POD-Rep
POD+3rdNixon+Wallace
Reagan+Anderson
Bush+Perot
Trump+McMullen

13. Three structural variables:
Disposable personal income 2001 I ncome
% population 25+ with BA, 1990 E duc
% population metropolitan, 2000 U rban
Ethnicity
% black, 2000
% Hispanic, 2000
Religion
% Evangelical/Mormon
% Catholic
Control Variables, States.

14. 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016a 2016b
Zero Order (no
controls) -0.710 -0.881 -0.871 -0.839 -0.889 -0.830 -0.910
3 Structural IEU -0.684 -0.787 -0.812 -0.761 -0.847 -0.696 -0.851
3 Struct. +
Relig.+Ethnic -0.778 -0.841 -0.853 -0.816 -0.866 -0.716 -0.852
3 Struct + Religions -0.576 -0.734 -0.742 -0.654 -0.784 -0.617 -0.807
Religions only -0.463 -0.788 -0.755 -0.699 -0.798 -0.732 -0.851
Table4: 50 States. Zero order correlation between the SDT-dimension (around 2000) and the
Republican vote (presidential elections 1996-2016).
Partial correlation coefficients controlling for structural and cultural variables.
Note: 2016b includes votes for the independent Mormon candidate in 2016 (see Utah outlier).

15. Mainland Counties
Controls 2004 2008 2012 2016*
Zero order (no controls) -0.573 -0.656 -0.662 -0.773
3 Structural IEU -0.450 -0.531 -0.509 -0.493
Religion only -0.475 -0.512 -0.538 -0.649
3 Struct+Relig.+Ethnic -0.538 -0.604 -0.622 -0.648
3 Struct + Religion -0.341 -0.366 -0.357 -0.368
3Struct+Foreign Born -0.453 -0.531 -0.508 -0.490
3Struct+Born in State -0.477 -0.553 -0.530 -0.499
Mainland Counties, Population 25,000+
Controls 2004 2008 2012 2016
Zero order (no controls) -0.666 -0.728 -0.730 -0.791
3 Structural IEU -0.550 -0.603 -0.581 -0.541
Religion only -0.533 -0.577 -0.591 -0.702
3 Struct.+ Relig.+Ethnic -0.616 -0.663 -0.678 -0.670
3 Structural + Religion -0.397 -0.411 -0.400 -0.395
3Structural+Foreign Born -0.548 -0.600 -0.578 -0.538
3Structural+Born in State -0.559 -0.609 -0.596 -0.540

16. Conclusions: Spatial patterns of SDT and Presidential Election Outcomes
• Spatial patterns (States, counties) of SDT and Presidential election results
strongly converge since 1996, and SDT becomes a very strong predictor
of elections since 2000.
• Correlation SDT- Republican+Conservative vote strongest in 2016, both
at state and county levels.
• Spatial pattern of social disadvantage (POD) is NOT a predictor of spatial
election patterns anymore since 2000.
• The spatial “SDT- Republican vote” correlation is NOT linked to dominant
election issues in the debates.
• “SDT- Rep. Vote” correlation at state level robust for all controls used
here (Urbanity, Education, Family income, %Evangelical+Mormon,
%Catholic, %Black, %Hispanic, %born in State, %Foreign born)
• This correlation weakens at county level, mainly due to SDT and
Democrat voting both being concentrated in Urban Metropolitan
counties. But the zero order “SDT-Rep.vote” correlation is NOT
obliterated by controls.