Interesting question, first I am going to answer it, second, I am going to explain why my answer is wrong and why it cannot easily be answered. Like a true historian...

So, political sentiments depended on which colony we are talking about and when. For instance, if you lived in colonial New England during or immediately after the English Civil War, you were most likely to be a supporter of the Parliament. Not just for the obvious Puritan connections, but also because the region disliked Crown interference. This is best highlighted with the colonial dislike for Governor Edmund Andros and his Dominion of New England. Sources: Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible: The Northern Seaports and the Origins of the American Revolution (abridged ed., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986); Jack P. Greene, Pursuit of Happiness: The Social Development of Early Modern British Colonies and the Formation of American Culture. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988).

However, if you lived in Virginia during the same period, you would identify more with the Anglican and Royalist cause and would be a loyal Tory. Not just because of the aforementioned socio-religious connections, but also because of the necessary connections required for Transatlantic Trade networks with Tobacco Merchant Houses. Sources: Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, & the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999);

Despite regional differences, there was consensus on some aspects of colonial politics. Most middle and upper class colonials were very fond of "English Country Thought," a form of political expression after the Glorious Revolution that feared the expanding power of the state, the permanent army, and the large bureaucracies that ran the empire. So after the Glorious Revolution, you see increased appeal of the Whigs in North America, though again, it depends on when and where. Sources: Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967): vi-vii, 283; Bernard Bailyn & Jane N. Garrett, ed., Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750-1776: Volume 1, 1750-1765 (Cambridge, MA, 1965); Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969); Gordon S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution. (New York: Random House, 1991).

These broad outlines are further complicated as we switch to the era of the imperial crisis (1763-1775). Support for representation and dissatisfaction with the Imperial relationship occurred in areas that suffered the most from the imperial conflict, especially in the aftermath of the French and Indian War. For instance, Boston's population shrunk and the city declined as a direct result of the preceding three imperial wars (King William, Queen Anne, and King George's Wars, respectively), which in turn gave rise to the power of Philadelphia and New York. This explains Boston and New England's radicalism in comparison to the Middle Colonies and why they might identify more with the Whigs. Sources: Jesse Lemisch, Jack Tarr vs. John Bull: The Role of New York’s Seamen in Precipitating the Revolution (New York: Garland Publishing 1997); Pauline Maier, From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776 (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1972); Gary B. Nash, The Urban Crucible: The Northern Seaports and the Origins of the American Revolution (abridged ed., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).

Even areas affected by the imperial wars had further complications. For instance, most colonies and later states had East/West splits, typically over Indian and land policy. So western portions of PA, VA, etc. were extremely dissatisfied with the Proclamation Line of 1763 that prevented further immigration into Indian lands. Combine that with the desire of wealthy speculators in the Tidewater of VA and big cities of the Northeast to buy up land in the newly acquired western lands and you had more support for the Whigs. Source: Colin Calloway, The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995); James H. Merrell, "Amerindians and the New Republic" Jack P. Greene & J. R. Pole eds. A Companion to the American Revolution (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, 2003): 413-418; Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, & the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999).

So in those ways, that is how various factors affected American's identification with politics. But here is the kicker, politics in North America was far more localized and you would care a hell of a lot more about the local elections for city council or church leadership than about the goings on in London. In Concord, MA for instance, local affairs were the major sources of political participation and disagreement. Even up to the Battle of Lexington and Concord, local events still held sway. (This has been contested by various historians, but I like the interpretation). Furthermore, the idea of parties was new. English Country Thought and Enlightenment thinking scorned political parties as sources of corruption. Political parties were viewed wish suspicion and few identified themselves by party affiliation. That is a phenomena of the Second American Party System. But that is a story for another day. Sources: Robert A. Gross, The Minutemen and Their World (New York: Hill and Wang, 1976); Nash, The Urban Crucible; Hofstadter, Richard. The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840.

So, to sum up, political party affiliation was pretty much non-existent prior to the Glorious Revolution and then only suspiciously viewed in its aftermath. Colonials were more concerned with local politics and factions, rather than the Whig v. Tory debates in London. However, various factors like religion, region, class, proximity to Natives, and connectedness to the Empire, played a role in shaping people's embrace of the Whigs, particularly because the Whigs were so strongly connected to "English Country Thought."