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.

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

Loading = correlation with: 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) 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

% never married females, 25-29 [WNH]2000 .837 -.018 Table 2: Two dimensions (“factors”) emerging from a Principal Component Analysis of 22 indicators of family and household composition; 3141 counties, mostly 2000. 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 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

Control Variables, States. 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

Zero Order (no controls) -0.710 -0.881 -0.871 -0.839 -0.889 -0.830 Table 4: 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). 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

  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 -0.604 -0.622 -0.648 3 Struct + Religion -0.341 -0.366 -0.357 -0.368 3Struct+Foreign Born -0.453 -0.508 -0.490 3Struct+Born in State -0.477 -0.553 -0.530 -0.499 Mainland Counties, Population 25,000+ 2016 -0.666 -0.728 -0.730 -0.791 -0.550 -0.603 -0.581 -0.541 -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 3Structural+Born in State -0.559 -0.609 -0.596 -0.540

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.