Inductivist

 

According to a new Harris poll, 86% of Republicans and even 60% of Democrats believe sex education for young children under 10 should be left to the parents. This is a winning issue for the GOP even if most parents feel their personal rights are not being violated (left panel). 

Ross Douthat wrote in the NYT recently that the declining appeal of the GOP is the fault of Rush Limbaugh. He claims that Republicans were a 55% proposition during the Reagan Era because the message of conservatism was preached by well-bred men like William F. Buckley. Rush came along and turned conservatism into something angry and strident and that only appeals to 45% of voters. 

If Ross is correct, we should see greater support for Reagan among racial minorities--the groups we have a hard time winning over. After all, Buckley was a leading advocate for conservatism during that time and Rush was unknown.

Using the General Social Survey, we can compare minority deficits over time. I calculate this as the percent of a racial minority voting for the GOP presidential candidate minus the percent of all voters who cast a vote for the Republican candidate.

Minority deficit

1980
Blacks  -39.2
Mexicans  -18.2

1984
Blacks  -48.3
Mexicans  -19.5

Damn, impressive: under Buckley and Reagan sophistication, Blacks and Mex-Ams supported the GOP by only 18 to 48 points less than the general population! The power of positivity!

And since then? Bush Sr. wasn't strident. Perhaps he did better.

1988
Blacks  -41.9
Mexicans  -26.2

1992
Blacks  -34.6
Mexicans  -18.1

1996
Blacks  -26.2
Mexicans  -12.1

The numbers are slightly less bad with grumpy Dole. 

2000
Blacks  -42.5
Mexicans  -6.5

It looks like angry Rush didn't chase away Mex-Ams in 2000.

2004
Blacks  -37.6
Mexicans  -11.7

2008
Blacks  -34.7
Mexicans  -15.3

2012
Blacks  -33.3
Mexicans  -17.8

2016
Blacks  -38.2
Mexicans  -19.7

The Republicans did no better among minorities before strident Rush became influential in the early 1990s. 

Douthat ignores the obvious: the GOP is struggling because there were fewer than 20 million Hispanics during the Reagan Era. In 2021, there are more than 60 million--and this perennially poor group likes generous social programs and is susceptible to anti-white propaganda like all non-white groups. And probably will be for a very long time. 

President Trump told the audience at CPAC today that the economy is so strong, we need legal immigrants to fill certain jobs, but it should be based on merit. Unless the GOP wants to become the next Dodo bird, "merit" should be the type of immigrants who vote conservative.

What kinds of immigrants are likely to vote that way?  The General Social Survey asked people which candidate they voted for in 2012.  I looked at immigrants to see what predicted voting for Romney over Obama (sample size = 192).  I looked at sex, age, race, education, IQ, income, religion, and religious attendance.  Only two factors were statistically significant: being white and religious.  Immigrants who are white and go to church often are more likely to have voted for Romney, and being white was the more important predictor.

So if the GOP wants a future, they had better stop the mass immigration of nonwhites and the irreligious.

UPDATE: 62.5% of white immigrants who attend church more than once a week voted for Romney.  By contrast, 96.3% of black immigrants and 75.0% of other non-white immigrants voted for Obama.

In this video, Senator Hirono explains that Democrats have a difficult time connecting to voters because, like the worst math teacher you ever had, they are simply too smart.

Ms. Hirono with her enormous brain should be able to understand this: According to the General Social Survey (GSS) data, those of us who vote Republican have higher average IQs than those pull the lever for Democrats.

The most recent data we have is for 2012. GSS participants are given a 10-question vocabulary quiz, which is a serviceable measure of IQ. I converted the vocab scores to IQ scores, setting the mean at the US average -- 98 (Did I just hear the fish from SpongeBob say, "WAH, Wah, wah"?).  More than 2,000 people were also asked about their 2012 vote.

The results? The mean IQ score for those who voted for Obama was 97.0. For Romney, it was  99.1. Not even close.

UPDATE: Even more depressing news: The actual mean IQ in the US is more like 97 than 98, so we can adjust the Dem mean down to 96.0, and the GOP mean down to 98.1. And if current immigration trends continue, we can all look forward to those numbers continuing to drop over the next few decades.
  

Continuing on the theme of how the foreign-born vote, I used the General Social Survey (GSS) to go back as far as we can on presidential elections. Here are estimates of what percent of them voted for the Republican presidential candidate. I divided it by sex since the GSS over-samples women:


Percent voting for candidate--Men

2012 Romney 26.7
2008 McCain  31.2
2004 Bush  38.3
2000 Bush  41.2
1996 Dole  26.2
1992 Bush  37.4
1988 Bush  70.6
1984 Reagan  56.6
1980 Reagan  43.2
1976 Ford  35.8
1972 Nixon  60.0


Percent Voting for Candidate--Women

2012 Romney  28.9
2008 McCain  23.1
2004 Bush  50.4
2000 Bush  43.6
1996 Dole  19.2
1992 Bush  35.8
1988 Bush  71.1
1984 Reagan  60.6
1980 Reagan  43.2
1976 Ford  42.7
1972 Nixon  57.5

The numbers for the last two cycles are pathetic. You might argue that Republicans did well in the past with immigrants, at least during certain elections, but you'll notice that even though it's a roller coaster, there is an overall tendency towards smaller numbers over the past 40 years. Based on previous analysis, I'll wager that the decline, at least some of it, is due to the browning of immigrant voters. Third Worlders and their descendants love Big Government. The vast majority of immigrants eligible to vote in the 70s and 80s were white, I bet, but much less so now. I'll look at that in the next post.

If you claim that immigrants would vote for Republicans if the candidates were pro-immigrant, then the only bad year should arguably be 2012 with Romney saying illegal immigrants should self-deport. Yet no matter what Republicans do, the immigrant vote has generally stayed well under 50% for more than two decades.

Man, it's weird dusting this thing off.  I still don't have time for a blog, but the Presidential election cycle always gets me jazzed up and wanting to see what the data have to tell us about interesting questions, often political questions.

With the Trump phenomenon, the old "Republicans are stupid people" is back with a vengeance, but the politically correct twist I've heard more of lately is that they are "uneducated."  So is that true?

The General Social Survey asked people who they voted for in 2012.  Here's is the mean vocabulary score--a decent proxy for IQ--for the two groups:

Mean Vocabulary Score

Voted for Romney (n = 421): 6.45

Voted for Obama (n = 615): 6.23


Romney voters were slightly smarter than Obama voters. Now, let's look at mean education:


Mean Years of Education

Voted for Romney (n = 421) 14.45

Voted for Obama (n = 615) 14.23

Again, Romney voters are slightly more educated. It's pretty clear that Trump fans are more working-class than others planning to vote Republican, but liberals constantly make the mistake of thinking that "no more Muslims" is a sign that someone is dumb, when in fact it is a sign that a person happens to not be part of the crowd that is convinced that liberal ideas are a signal of intelligence and enlightenment, and therefore must be adopted. Liberals think these people are sheep, but as Noam Chomsky once said, no group is more sheepish than liberals.

According to this article, the following Tea Party candidates seem interventionist:

Interventionist
Angle
Rubio


And these, non-interventionist.


Non-Interventionist
Paul
Raese
Buck
Miller

The quotes of the second group are very refreshing. I hope they win and don't change their tune.

Republican leaders are willing to let Hispanic immigration destroy the long-term prospects of the party, and for what?  So their fellow elites won't think they're bigots. They'll be unemployed, but at least they won't get called names.  

A word on ethnocentrism: With all of the fuss over the comments of Sotomayor and leading Republicans, along with the exchange over at Taki's concerning white nationalism, I cannot resist a comment. Long-term, I think America will adopt one of two systems: a stable one with minimal ethnocentrism for everyone, or an unstable one where group loyalty is the rule, even for whites. White ethnocentrism is currently on the fringes, but it was taken for granted for most of American history (as were many ethnicities within the white race), and trust me, it will easily return as soon as whites feel surrounded.

As Jared Taylor writes, there is nothing inherently immoral with having affection for one's ethnic group. It's irrational, but natural. If America were 100% white today, I would probably be in favor of keeping it that way. (The United States can at least claim naivete; Europe's turn to multiculturalism makes me question Lynn's claim that whites have an above average IQ). But one-third of the country is non-white, and those folks own this soil as much as I do.

To make America work better, all citizens need to give up the luxury of ethnocentrism. Rush and Newt have caught a lot of heat for calling Sotomayor on her racialism, but this is exactly what responsible citizens need to do. Whites and everyone else treat non-whites like children by indulging their ethnocentrism. Message to minorities: You are equal to me, so the rules that apply to me apply to you. If I act illegitimately when I root for my race, then so do you.

Nobody calls non-whites on this, and it's high time we did. I've felt plenty of distance from the Republican Party for several years, but the comments from prominent conservatives like Gingrich and Limbaugh, and the more diplomatic words from leaders like Graham make me respect the party a little more. They are acting like grown-ups, while liberals are fighting to keep us on a road of non-white racialism and eventual white racialism and social instability.

From Rasmussen:

Seventy-three percent (73%) of U.S. voters believe that a police officer should automatically check to see if someone is in this country legally when the officer pulls that person over for a traffic violation. Only 21% disagree, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Sixty-seven percent (67%) of voters also say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal immigrants. Twenty-four percent (24%) oppose surprise raids.

The Republican Party should capitalize on the strong anti-illegal immigration sentiment that is still felt in the country, and that should grow as long as the economy is in the tank. Steele sounds okay here--I don't see why a black Republican would have any special reason to take the open borders view--but so far, my overall impression of him is mildly negative.

Parker's brilliant strategy for the GOP: Kathleen Parker actually gets paid for this stuff? In her piece today, she claims the Republicans are such losers now because born-agains make up the base. In other words, we lost the election, not because her elite Republican friends combined liberal ideas about minority home ownership with Wall Street greed, but because of those damn Jesus freaks.

Do all country club Republicans think like tards? Her argument reminds me of the reaction after 9/11: "Al-Qaeda has attacked us. Let's get Saddam!"

Here are quotes from her column and my responses:

"In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle."

Yes, surveys clearly show that moderates went for Obama because the GOP panders to born-agains. The prospect of The Great Depression 2.0 had nothing to do with it. And don't give me the "Palin Screwed It Up For Us" argument. If there are people who decided against the Republican ticket because of Palin, it was because they perceived her as being stupid. They never got past that. The lesson there is to pick candidates who instill confidence, not that evangelical candidates are losers.

"Anyone watching the two conventions last summer can't have missed the stark differences: One party was brimming with energy, youth and diversity; the other felt like an annual Depends sales meeting."

Right, nursing home residents speak in tongues, but young people have nothing to do with all that stuff. All those born-again clubs I see on campus are just anomalies. Here are the percentage of people who say they are born again by age group (GSS):


Percent who are born again
18-29 33.9
30-44 37.2
45-59 36.2
60 plus 35.9

That's 18 million born-again young adults. The only young people Kathleen is aware of are the ones she reads about in the New York Times.

"The young will get older, of course. Most eventually will marry, and some will become their parents. But nonwhites won't get whiter."

Exactly, all those black and Hispanics reject the GOP because it's too religious and anti-science. And evangelism is a wacky, white thing:

Percent who are born again

Blacks 60.1

Hispanics 31.8

Parker calls for a new Republican base. Perhaps secularists? A whole 20.6% of those who never attend church voted for that famous holy roller Bob Dole. All we have to do is kick out the oogedy-boogedy Christians, and the secularists will come running.

New York City Republicans should become the center of the party. That there are six of them and 100 million born-agains isn't the point; the NYC-ers are way cooler.

(By the way, I'm not an evangelical. Not even close.)

Should Republicans give priority to born-agains or moderates? The short answer is the former. Here are the reasons.

Reason number one: Looking at NYT exit polls, we see that 57% of them voted for McCain, and the share voting for the Republican has ranged from 56 to 74 since 1980. A majority of them reliably support our side and thus should be rewarded with the party's loyalty. Democrats reliably get moderate majorities (with the exception of 1984) so we owe the middle nothing.

Reason number two: You might counter that since BAs are the base, they can therefore be taken for granted. The fact is that this group swings about as much as moderates. The range of the swing for born-agains since 1980 is 18 points; it's 22 points for moderates (and the low end of the swing for the latter was caused by the anomaly of Perot). Not only do BAs swing alot, they are notorious for staying home if they are unenthusiastic, and they can decide elections if they get fired up (as in 2004).

Reason number three: Once again, you might respond that, unlike moderates, they are a small group. In 2008, they are 38% of the electorate versus 44% for moderates. Yes, I know that some of the BAs are blacks, but so are some of the moderates. Add to this that BAs are growing. In 2004, white BAs were 23% of the electorate; now they are 26%.

Reason number four: The Republican track record is better when we put up non-moderates. Reagan garnered 59% of the vote in 1984. A weak candidate, Bush II was elected two times. Moderates are losers: Ford, Dole, McCain. Bush I was a one-termer who owes his victory to the non-moderate Reagan.

2008 and 2004 exit polls: I'm probably wasting my time comparing 2008 and 2004 exit polls because, as Karl Rove says, they're trash. But I cannot resist:


Republican 2004-2008 losses--percentage points

Men -7
Women -5

Dick Morris claims that these number show that Palin helped rather than hurt McCain by losing fewer women.

White -3
Black -7
Hispanic -13
Asian -9

Asians and especially Hispanics turned away from McCain more than whites. Is this evidence that angry immigration restrictionists like me turned of non-white voters? Maybe.

18-29 -13
30-44 -7
45-59 -2
60 plus -3

Obama pulled away more young people and not many older voters.

Northeast -3
Midwest -7
South -4
West -9

Midwesterner Obama gained more from the West Coast--whiterpeople effect? More Hispanic voters?

Less than high school -14
High school -6
Some college -7
College graduates -4
Postgraduates -14

Obama attracted the bottom and the top more than the middle.

White Protestants -2
White Catholics -4
Jews -4
Evangelicals -8
Attends church at least weekly -5

More evangelicals and frequent churchgoers abandoned the Republicans. Religious blacks? Idealist whites? No evidence here that evangelical whites are racists. By the way they are a HUGE share of the electorate (38%). We need them like oxygen.

Less than 15k -11
15-29k -5
30-49k -6
50-74k -7
75-100k -7
200+ -17
100+ -9

Once again, the bottom and the top liked Obama. Maybe many of the poor are blacks. Whiterpeople disease is prevalent among rich people, and perhaps some were turned off by Palin? It's a big loss.

Over 500,000 population -11
50-500,000 -10
Suburbs -4
10-50,000 +3
Rural -6

People in towns of populations between 10,000 and 50,000 were one of the few groups to increase their numbers voting for the Republican.

First time voters -15

A large turn toward the Democrat this time around.

Whites, 18-29 -11
Whites, 30-44 -5
Whites, 45-59 -1
Whites, 60 plus -1

Same age trend for whites only.

White men -5
White women -2
Black men -8
Black women -7

Once again, women were not drawn away from McCain as much as men. Palin effect? Security concerns?

Whites, Northeast -3
Whites, Midwest -5
Whites, South -2
Whites, West -6

Northeasterners liked Kerry. Southerners liked Obama least.

Now let's look at changes in the distribution of the electorate. Let's do it in this form: subtract the 2004 share from the 2008 share:

Men 47-46=1
Women 53-54=-1

Not much change here. The conservative instinct is to be manly, but women seem to like optimism and positive messages. To become popular, hard conservative truths have to be packaged very carefully. Republicans should always be looking for a Reagan--conservatism with a smile. Women like security, both the tough type and the helping type.

White 74-77=-3
Black 13-11=2
Hispanic 9-8=1
Asian 2-2=0

Whites are still the prize that nobody ever talks about. As Sailer tells us, the Hispanic numbers are inflated, but it's probably constant over the two elections, so we can conclude that the Latino share has grown a bit and will continue to grow a bit every four years. To save their long-term prospects, Republicans need to keep fighting illegal immigration in the name of security and law and order, as well as an emphasis on more quality immigrants and less family reunification. White and/or Christian immigrants are most likely to vote Republican.

The message should reassure Hispanic and other non-white citizens that immigration concerns are not about them. I publish a lot of hard facts on this blog, and interested people need to know about them, but the race-hysterical general public must be met where they are at.

18-29 18-17=1
30-44 29-29=0
45-59 30-30=0
60 plus 23-24=-1

Obama IS the new Messiah. He managed to increase the youth share by... ONE WHOLE PERCENT!! I AM impressed.

Less than high school 4-4=0
High school 20-22=-2
Some college 31-32=-1
College grad or more 45-42=3

The American public is gradually getting more educated. Republicans cannot afford to look like the anti-science party.

Pop. over 500k 11-13=2
50-500k 19-19=0
Suburbs 49-45=4
10-50k 7-8=-1
Rural 14-16=-2

The suburbs are huge and grew in the past 4 years. Once again, conservatism needs to be principled, but it has got to pick Reaganesque people, not old grumps like Dole or McCain. Myself, I love a real ass-kicker like Buchanan, but the squishy burbs can't handle it.

First time voters 11-11=0

Little things like facts won't get in the way of the inspiring story of Barack Obama, America's greatest president (who is going to get his own holiday before he's even inaugurated) who, like a modern-day Moses, led tens of millions of citizens out of the bondage of indifference and cynicism to the freedom of hope and change.

Does Hispanic immigration help Republicans in unexpected ways? Republican "strategists" tell us that immigration from Latino countries is good since these people, under all their liberal voting, are natural conservatives who embrace hard work and family values. People like me who actually consult the data know better, but what about the idea that a greater Hispanic presence drives whites to the right?

California is a great place to test this hypothesis since the Latino population is high but varied. I examined data from the 2000-2001 California Workforce Survey, where white residents were asked their party affiliation as well as the percentage of their community that is Hispanic. The sample size was 211, so I split the group roughly by forming one group of those who said that the Latino presence was somewhere between 1 and 3 out of 10; the other group was 4 to 10 out of 10. In the low-Hispanic group, 21% of whites said they were Republicans; for the high-Hispanic group, the number was 30%. Not a huge difference, but noteworthy.

It is also surprising, given that wealthy people can most easily select themselves out of high-Hispanic (poor) areas, and since wealthy people are more likely to vote Republican, this should decrease the Republican presence in Hispanic communities.

I would not be surprised at all to see whites grow increasingly race conscious and turning to the Republicans to deliver pro-white policies, as the country diversifies. The recent defeat of immigration amnesty is probably a sign of this.