Table 3.

Logistic regressions predicting 1183 voting in 2012.

	Predicting Voted versus Didn’t Vote				Predicting Voted For vs. Against1
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2
	OR	95% CIs	OR	95% CIs	OR	95% CIs	OR	95% CIs
Year (vs. 2014)
2015	1.02	(0.76, 1.36)	1.02	(0.76, 1.37)	0.96	(0.73, 1.26)	1.00	(0.76, 1.31)
2016	0.89	(0.67, 1.18)	0.90	(0.68, 1.19)	1.03	(0.79, 1.35)	1.06	(0.81, 1.38)
Gender (Male vs. Female)	0.83	(0.67, 1.04)	0.83	(0.67, 1.04)	1.38	(1.12, 1.69)**	1.30	(1.06, 1.61)*
Age (vs. 18–29)
30–49	2.02	(1.49, 2.75)***	2.00	(1.47, 2.72)***	0.91	(0.61, 1.36)	0.94	(0.63, 1.41)
50+	5.80	(4.27, 7.88)***	5.64	(4.15, 7.67)***	0.68	(0.47, 0.99)*	0.69	(0.48, 1.01)ƚ
Education (vs. HS grad or less)
Some college	1.97	(1.51, 2.58)***	1.94	(1.48, 2.53)***	0.95	(0.71, 1.28)	0.95	(0.71, 1.28)
College grad	2.67	(1.94, 3.68)***	2.64	(1.91, 3.64)***	1.21	(0.88, 1.66)	1.20	(0.87, 1.65)
Grad school	2.77	(1.99, 3.86)***	2.71	(1.94, 3.78)***	0.82	(0.59, 1.13)	0.81	(0.58, 1.12)
Race (Non-white vs. White)	0.60	(0.45, 0.79)***	0.60	(0.45, 0.79)***	0.77	(0.57, 1.05)ƚ	0.78	(0.57, 1.06)
House income (vs. ≤ $30 k)
31 k-80 k	1.96	(1.49, 2.57)***	1.92	(1.46, 2.52)***	1.34	(1.00, 1.78)ƚ	1.34	(1.00, 1.79)ƚ
>80 k	2.04	(1.43, 2.91)***	2.04	(1.43, 2.92)***	1.43	(1.00, 2.05)ƚ	1.37	(0.95, 1.97)ƚ
Missing	1.15	(0.79, 1.65)	1.15	(0.79, 1.67)	1.18	(0.78, 1.79)	1.19	(0.78, 1.80)
Employment (Not full-time vs. full)	0.79	(0.61, 1.01)ƚ	0.79	(0.62, 1.02)ƚ	1.08	(0.86, 1.36)	1.11	(0.88, 1.39)
Spirits status (vs. Non-drinkers)
Non-spirits drinkers	1.09	(0.79, 1.50)	0.97	(0.63, 1.49)	1.80	(1.31, 2.47)***	1.33	(0.86, 2.06)
Spirits drinkers/non-buyers	1.15	(0.84, 1.58)	1.07	(0.65, 1.76)	2.01	(1.43, 2.83)***	1.20	(0.75, 1.92)
Spirits drinker/buyers	1.90	(1.42, 2.52)***	1.76	(0.98, 3.16)ƚ	3.01	(2.29, 3.95)***	1.48	(0.89, 2.48)
12mo Volume – spirts (log)			0.96	(0.85, 1.09)			1.06	(0.95, 1.18)
12mo Volume – all beverages (log)			1.05	(0.95, 1.15)			1.10	(1.002, 1.20)*

ƚ P < 0.1, *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.

¹Among those who had voted only.