A study of 38,000 noted the vehicle preferences of republicans and democrats.
(NyTimes) — Are some vehicle models more popular with Democrats, and others with Republicans? That is the suggestion of a study conducted by Strategic Vision, a marketing research and industry forecasting firm.
Beginning in December 2011, the survey authors contacted 100,000 purchasers of new cars through direct mailings and e-mail. Among roughly 38,000 responses, they found trends that followed somewhat predictable patterns, with self-identified Republicans opting for bigger and pricier models, while Democrats chose smaller, more affordable ones.
[…]
[T]he most popular vehicle among Republicans was the Ford Mustang convertible, followed by the Audi A8 sedan, Mercedes GL-Class, Ford Expedition and Ford F-150 pickup truck. Of Ford Mustang convertible owners surveyed, nearly 89 percent were Republicans.
[…]
Among Democrats surveyed, the top picks were the Honda Civic Hybrid, Volvo C30, Nissan Leaf, Acura TSX Sport Wagon and Ford Fiesta. Of Civic Hybrid owners, 60.94 percent identified as Democrats, and most lived in San Francisco or New York.
The study makes official what common knowledge has knows for decades: Republicans are tough, cool, and sporty. And Democrats are wimpy, nerdy, and soft.
This beast doesn't plug into a wall
Sifting Reality 
So what do you drive, John?
I drive a 2002 Nissan maxima.
Democrats are responsible about safety, money, and the environment. Republicans are wasteful, aggressive, and materialistic.
Smaller cars are less safe, and electric cars are less friendly to the environment, not to mention more expensive.
wrong, wrong, wrong.
Highway safety statistics show larger rather than smaller injury claims for larger vehicles, although the claims are pretty standard across all sizes: http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/fact_sheets/default.html
The determination is really based on the safety options in the vehicle rather than the size of the vehicle. Unfortunately I find star-based safety ratings to be a meaningless bunch of statistics. For example, they’re all based on type of vehicle, as if safety is relative to size of vehicle rather than the safety of the passengers. The IIHS claims research is the best available.
Electric cars are not less friendly. You may bring up the carbon footprint of the battery, but that’s a shaky argument compared to the oil industry. And the gas-guzzlers in the Republican list are not even fuel-efficient gas cars (eg, Ford Fiesta), so there is obviously no concern for the environment.
There may be more expense for better vehicles in some cases, and not in others, but the price tag isn’t always representative of materialism. (The entire Dodge line is based on the idea that people will pay less for lower quality as long as they look cool, imho.) The republican list was muscle car, luxury car, luxury SUV, luxury SUV, truck. An F150 is a working vehicle, but the others are just gas-guzzling ego-boosters. The Democrat list was green car, hatchback, green car, wagon, and economy car. Not a one built to boost an ego, unless one wants to protect the environment or transport the family.
Sorry, smaller cars are less safe. The “carbon footprint” of making an electric car is more than making a real car. And a “green” car is more expensive than a comparable size and type of gas car.
As far as ego goes, I will post something for you that shows otherwise when I get home.
I think the survey is guilty of overgeneralization. The only only Republicans who have the gas hogs are those in the upper income bracket. Most I know all have some sort of minivan for their families and the second car is usually something very modest. I personally but what is practical for my needs – and super small cars are uncomfortable and death traps if hit.
Democrats like the so-called green cars because it makes them feel like they are doing something important – makes them feel good about themselves. Touchy-feely.
Also, I would guess that a huge percentage of Democrats are low income, which is why they vote Democrat – seeking government handouts. So they buy cheap, small death-traps.
One must compare the cars of today with those of yesteryear and when doing so one finds that apples to apples, today’s cars are less safe. The tanks one used to drive in the 1940’s were far less likely to result in deaths or serious injuries in collisions at speeds that will disintegrate most cars today. The push for fuel efficiency has led to designs employing lightweight materials that will not protect anyone in a crash. If given the choice without regard to cost, I’d take a big car over a small one any day.
All vehicles are more fuel efficient than the cars of yesteryear. So what? Fuel efficiency doesn’t equate to saving the environment as much as one would prefer to believe. But putting that aside, today’s vehicles emit less pollution regardless of fuel efficiency. But fuel efficiency is not an issue if fuel isn’t so incredibly high priced thanks to onerous regulations that place artificial barriers to fulfilling demands.
I want a big car that won’t become dust upon impact, has room to ride comfortably and fuel that doesn’t require I work a week to purchase.
Check this out
Smaller cars are less safe
Smaller cars are “less safe” because there are bigger and bigger cars out there. If everyone is riding a bike with the exception of some small cars, then it would not be right to say that “bikes aren’t safe” because bicyclists sometimes got injured by cars, it would be the cars that weren’t safe. If a few people bike and a few people have small cars and most people have big cars, it would not be right to say that small cars and bikes aren’t safe because they get damaged by big cars…
and on and on it would go. This line of reasoning would have us all driving supersized tanks, because they are the “safest.”
Walking is safest. Period. Bikes are probably the second most secure societally and upwards from there, from a rational point of view.
Dan, trees and tractor trailers don’t get smaller as passenger cars do. It doesn’t matter if all cars get small, speed + crash in a small flimsy car = major injury.
@John Barron, the size of the car as a safety measure is really not even considered widely in Europe. The fact that we have many medieval cities with small streets has a lot to do with that too. But we also have a lot of roads with big trees planted beside them. It is easy to argue that the colour of the car has more to do with the safety of the vehicle, that the size, not just to the passangers, but also to other people in traffic. Trees are immobile objects and tractor trailers rarely move with extreme speed, so they should be easy to avoid with moderate speeds, but sportscars speeds often exeed the ability of the driver, even if the road regulations would demand much lower speed. Hence, they are not unsafe only to the passangers, but also to other people in traffic. Are they not, in other words, the cars of irresponsible people?
If safety is the actual reason for buying bigger engines, why then are bigger and bigger motorcycles so popular?
A coworker once said to me that men make more rational desicions than women, and I replied, really, like when they buy a car. Women choose a car based on the needs of the family size, a low cosumption, ecology, easy parking and colour. Men often choose a car by the brand connected to it, engine power, and outer appearance. I know, at least that is how I once chose my car. Oh, I admit this is a sexist generalization, but I think he had it coming. Don’t you?
Now I am a pedestrian, because my home town has an ample public traffic system. I rarely need a car, and if I do I can borrow, or rent one. In addition I do not have to feel any guilt for my carbon footprint. If I lived in the countryside I would propably buy a polluting utitility vechile, such as a small Japanese diesel van. Cities and towns should be organized so that people there do not need cars. Oil could be used for what it is good for, like polymerics and not madly burned as a polluting fuel.
Real men walk…
(posted as a good natured jibe, understand…)
Well, I am a very conservative man, and I have always chosen my cars based on practicality. I have needs for specific transportation types, figure in what will give me good economy while still being safe, and how inexpensive can I get what I need! I don’t care about brand names, flashy styles, etc. I just want to meet my needs and to heck with all the extras.
@Dan Trabue, you know what they say: “If you have ridden a horse, or a tank no car can ever match it.” And I’ve done both. ;) Hence, I am a footslogger.
“When mankind invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments. Here was a machine of precision and balance for the convenience of man. And (unlike subsequent inventions for man’s convenience) the more he used it, the fitter his body became. Here, for once, was a product of man’s brain that was entirely beneficial to those who used it, and of no harm or irritation to others. Progress should have stopped when man invented the bicycle…”
But walking is certainly cool, too.
Vive le independence!
As to the horse thing, rautakyy, that must be an acquired taste…
Jason
Check out this study http://www.trisexton.com/TriSexton/Follow/Entries/2011/4/22_Conspicuous_conservation_files/Prius.pdf which shows how “green” people like to show it off, and how they are willing to pay more to be able to show off how green they are. Not only that, they are more likely to buy solar panels and put them on shadier sides of the house just so people can see them.
@Dan Trabue. Right, you are. The tank thing on the other hand was not a matter of a choise. One does some crazy stuff without question, simply when ordered to, when one believes in the authority of the one giving the orders, like rides a tank, or even crawls under one while it is charging forwards.
Sorry, about the deviation from the topic, John.