獨身女性是美國成長最快的族群
摘錄自：天下雜誌 經濟學人電子報 2013/12/27
2013-12-19 Web only 作者：經濟學人
 |
| 圖片來源：flickr.com/photos/yourdon/ |
結婚率緩步下滑，正逐漸顛覆美國政治版圖。在2012年總統選舉中，獨身女性佔總投票近四分之一，而且她們大多投給歐巴馬；歐巴馬在這個族群的得票率領先對手36個百分點。
你或許會認為，這個包括未婚大學生、都會單身母親和離婚專業人士的族群並沒有太多共同點。但獨身女性對民主黨極為忠誠──前提是她們有去投票，而許多人並不會投票（寡婦是個例外，和已婚女性一樣比較常投票）。總體來看，女性一向支持民主黨：歐巴馬的女性得票率領先羅姆尼11個百分點。以此觀之，「婚姻落差」超越了性別落差。
就像科學家會爭論量子物理，部分政治專家也在思考，「獨身女性」是否足以成為一個選民族群，還是說這個標籤只不過包括了各種左傾選民區塊：年輕人、窮人、較世俗派的美國人，以及非白人。要不是三大相互關聯的發展，那應該只是個有趣的形上學問題。
其一，獨身女性是美國成長最快的族群，2000年為4,500萬人，今日已增至5,300萬人──理論上，這讓她們成了最大的選民區塊，比黑人和西班牙矞加起來還要多（但實際上互有重疊）。
其二，民主黨人、特別是歐巴馬團隊，利用民調、登門造訪、商用消費者資料區等各種工具，找出了精確描繪選民的方法。在黑暗時代（亦即2008年之前），競選活動可能會地毯式地掃過黑人和民主黨支持者的主要居住區，鼓勵他們出來投票，並以付費廣告塞滿空中的電波，將時間和金錢浪費在本來就會投票、從來不會投票、可能會投給共和黨的族群身上。現在，眾人在談的是瞄準「特定族群」：將資源集中於只要稍稍說服就會投給正確候選人的人。
由結果來看，要是將婚姻狀況與性別、種族、收入、地理等因素一同考慮，就能更有效率地達成兩大競選宣傳目標，亦即說服中間選民，以及鼓動忠誠但零集散佈的支持者；在購買電視節目廣告、針對特定街道散發傳單之時，情況亦是如此。選民登記專家嘉納（Page Gardner）已製作了各種模型，可以精確地找出獨身女性；保守派在這方面仍舊處於落後。
民主黨募款者、柯林頓夫婦的親信麥克奧利菲（Terry McAuliffe）在11月的維吉尼亞州長選舉中險勝，其競選團隊中的重要人物哈爾（Michael Halle）表示，受到民主黨催票小組特別關注的選民之中，有2/3是獨身女性。麥克奧利菲在獨身女性族群的得票率，比共和黨對手古奇耐里（Ken Cuccinelli）高了42個百分點，因此，麥克奧利菲的勝利可說是來自獨身女性（古奇耐里在已婚女性族群贏了9個百分點）。
第三項重大發展或許可以解釋這個現象：共和黨擁抱的政策和口號，可能被人精巧地用來激怒並團結各種獨身女性。以古奇耐里為例，他獲得提名讓許多共和黨重要人物喪氣，也讓許多激進保守派十分興奮；他是小政府的狂熱支持者，也是反對墮胎、同志權益和無過失離婚的社會保守派。哈爾開心地回憶道，各種不同攻擊策略的測試民調顯示，古奇耐里的社會聖戰激怒了單身女性。
務實派共和黨人知道，共和黨得壓低社會保守主義的聲量才行。即使如此，共和黨可能還是難以討好單身女性；民主黨民調專家雷克（Celinda Lake）表示，不同種族、年齡、階級、宗教的女性，是為了照顧自己而團結，也讓她們比較有機會支持她們視作安全網的強大政府。共和黨希望政府「別管我們」，但那在得自立更生的女性、特別是得獨自照顧小孩的女性耳中，聽起來是另一回事。
維吉尼亞亦反映了此事。布萊思（Tawana
Bryant）為維州首府瑞奇蒙的全美有色人種協進會動員黑人選民，同時也在敬拜讚美釋放教會擔任單親媽媽的輔導人員，在墮胎議題上亦採行保守路線；過去，她會在州級和郡級選舉中投給共和黨，但經濟改變了她的看法。布萊恩表示，許多單親媽媽得長時間工作而且沒有醫療保險，連照顧小孩都有困難。由於共和黨誓言裁減食品券並對抗任何醫療補助擴增，她認為「你就是得支持民主黨」。
共和黨不會放棄父母結縭有益小孩的信念，也不會停止質疑歐巴馬的「國家丈夫」破壞了家庭健全。但有些人認為，共和黨應該更努力避免引發單身女性反感才是；共和黨顧問公司共同創立者蓋吉（Katie Packer Gage）提出了一些較為和緩的手段，例如試圖理解獨身女性眼中的世界「有些不同」。代表部分瑞奇蒙貧窮地區的民主黨州議員麥克拉倫（Jennifer McClellan），亦提出了相似的觀點：她代表的單親媽媽知道生活十分「複雜」，也希望政治人物認清這一點。至今，這種同情和務實訴求一直站在民主黨這一邊；對共和黨來說，聽聽這樣的聲音沒什麼不好。（黃維德譯）
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
The Economist
Lexington
The marriage
gap
By The Economist
From The Economist
Published: December 19, 2013
Dec 14th 2013 | From the print edition
Republicans should worry that unmarried women shun them.
THE slow decline of marriage is upending American politics. In the 2012
presidential election, unmarried women accounted for nearly a quarter of all
votes cast. Their votes went decisively to Barack Obama, by 36 percentage
points.
You might not think that a group that runs from not-yet-married college
students to inner-city single mothers and divorced professionals had much in
common. Yet unmarried women are spectacularly loyal to the Democrats—if they
vote, which many do not. (Widows are outliers, voting more like married women.)
The "marriage gap" dwarfs the sex gap, by which women as a whole have
long favoured Democrats: Mr Obama beat Mitt Romney by a less dramatic 11 points
among female voters.
Like boffins squabbling about quantum physics, some political types
wonder whether "unmarried women" amount to a discrete voter block at
all, or whether the label merely sweeps up various left-leaning slices of the
electorate: ie, younger voters, poorer ones, more secular Americans and
non-whites. That would be no more than an interesting metaphysical question,
but for three big and inter-related developments.
First, unmarried women are one of America's fastest-growing groups,
leaping from 45m in 2000 to around 53m today—making them, in theory, a larger
block of eligible voters than blacks and Hispanics put together (though in
reality the groups overlap).
Second, Democrats—notably the Obama crowd—have found ways to map the
electorate with unprecedented precision, using everything from polls and
doorstep canvassing to commercial consumer databases. In the Dark Ages (ie,
before 2008), campaigns might have blanketed majority-black city blocks or
mostly-Democratic neighbourhoods with appeals to register and vote, while
saturating the airwaves with paid advertising. That wasted time and money on
those who always vote anyway, those who never vote, and those who (gasp) might
vote Republican. Now the talk is of target "universes": focusing
resources on those who need just a nudge to come out and vote the right way.
It turns out that two principal campaign tasks—persuading swing voters,
and turning out loyal but sporadic supporters—are made far more efficient if
marital status is added to the mix, alongside such markers as sex, race, income
and geography. That holds equally true when buying advertising alongside the
right TV shows, and when leafleting selected homes in specific streets.
Nationally, Page Gardner, a voter-registration expert, has crafted models that
allow unmarried women to be found with great accuracy. Conservatives are still
playing catch-up.
In November's election for governor of Virginia—a race won narrowly by
Terry McAuliffe, a Democratic fundraiser and member of Bill and Hillary
Clinton's inner circle—fully two-thirds of voters chosen for special attention
by Democratic get-out-the-vote teams were unmarried women, says Michael Halle,
a McAuliffe campaign guru. Unmarried women voted for Mr McAuliffe by a thumping
42 percentage-point margin over his Republican rival, Ken Cuccinelli, arguably
handing him victory. (Married women backed Mr Cuccinelli by nine points.)
For an explanation, consider a third big development: the Republicans'
embrace of policies and slogans that might have been laboratory-crafted to
upset and unite different types of unmarried women. A case in point is Mr
Cuccinelli, whose candidacy dismayed establishment Republicans as much as it
excited conservative activists. He is a shrink-the-government zealot: targets
for his ire extend to municipal swimming pools (for crowding out the private
sector). He is also a social conservative who opposes abortion, gay rights and
no-fault divorce (as a state legislator, he proposed a bill to make divorce
harder if one party disagreed). Poll-testing of different attacking strategies
found single women outraged by Mr Cuccinelli's social crusades. "Divorce
was a big one," Mr Halle fondly recalls.
Pragmatic Republicans know the party needs to tone down its social
conservatism. But even so, it may struggle with singletons. Celinda Lake, a
Democratic pollster, says single women of differing races, ages, classes and
religiosity are united by a sense of fending for themselves. That makes them
more likely to favour a strong role for government as a safety net. Republican
appeals for the state to "leave us alone" sound different to women
who are in fact on their own: especially those trying to support children.
The view from Virginia
That is reflected in Virginia. Tawana Bryant mobilises black voters for
the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People in Richmond,
the state capital. Ms Bryant, who also ministers to single mothers at the Worship
and Praise Deliverance Church, takes a conservative line on abortion. That used
to prompt her to vote Republican in state and county elections. Economics
changed her mind. Many single mothers work long hours in jobs that offer no
health coverage and leave them struggling to feed their kids, Ms Bryant says.
With Republicans vowing to cut food stamps and fight any expansion of
subsidised health care, she argues, "You have to go with the
Democrats."
Republicans are not about to ditch their belief that children do better
when their parents are married, nor their suspicion that Mr Obama's "Hubby
State", as some call it, undermines strong families. But some think it
would be wise to try harder not to repel single women. Katie Packer Gage, a co-founder
of a Republican consultancy aimed at women, suggests some modest steps, among
them understanding that the world looks "a little different" for
unmarried women. Jennifer McClellan, a Democratic state legislator for some
tough bits of Richmond, makes a related point: the single mothers she
represents know that life is "complicated", and want politicians who
recognise that too. Such appeals to compassion and pragmatism have favoured
Democrats to date. It would not kill Republicans to listen too.
©The Economist Newspaper Limited 2013
沒有留言:
張貼留言