On a not-yet-smoldering topic such as same-sex
marriage, the author, George B. Lewis, manages to take an impersonal look
at the dynamics and idiosyncracies which constitute the American presidential vote in 2004. While much of the article constitutes a dry explanation of the models included in the article, the study is nonetheless interesting. What exactly caused the American people to vote the way they did - not asa group
ultimately seeking to re-elect the incumbent president, but as individuals seemingly reaching the same decision? What caused the construction worker, the stay at home mom, the business tycoon andthe college student - all with unique issues, to vote the way they did? Was it in factthe hot-bed, divisive topic of same-sex
marriage?
Lewis' answer might surprise you. Lewis considers both individualviews and circumstances in his models, such as being African American, Latino, a Born Again Christian or an Iraq war supporter and also what he considered state-level variables such as the unemployment rate, and whether or not a particular state faced a direct impact from the terror attacks. Lewis would ultimately find that although same-sex marriage was a hot-bed state issue (facing ballots in thirteen states), it wasdid not reign supremeon the American peoples' list of concerns. Factors such as the economy, terrorism, and the war made stronger impacts.
A dry and perhaps too concise synopsis (even for a political science journal) of what turned out to be one of the mostpassionate elections of our times, that passion seems to be lost on Lewis. While it is ideal that Lewis remained neutral on all topics in his written piece, his writing style is curious at best, and painful at worst. Lacking among other things was an in-depth explanation of such curious states as Ohio and Florida and what ultimately proved important to those voters. One could only wonder, given the role these states played in the election, just why they weren't given the attention they deserved.