October 29, 2012

Obama v. Romney demographics: Draw your own conclusions

From my recent article:



Feel free to pass this graph around and see what conclusions people come up with.

They can read up on the methodology here.

128 comments:

Anonymous said...

Someone will need plagiarise this, or the MSM will need to reference Sailer.

Gilbert P.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, okay, so let's so Romney actually pulls this thing off. It's 50-50 right now.

What then?
His administration is filled to the brim with neocons. Here's what his very likely chief of staff, Dan Senor(proud neocon), has said about immigration:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/25414/hypocrite-of-the-day-islamic-immigration-enabler-dan-senor-upset-about-grd-zero-mosque/

In an interview on Israel(while he was in Israel and being interviewed), he slammed America's immigration policies, decrying what he saw as "nascent nativism"(where has this guy been?).

He then went on, amazingly, and praised Israel's immigration policies. He mustnn't have seen the race riots in Tel Aviv, or Bibi's fearmongering about the "Demographic Timebomb" or the 50,000 detention centers spread around Israel where illegal immigrants can be housed - indefinitely and without warrant. Or the massive wall that is soon being completed against Egypt.

Or the fact that only Jews can immigrate in large numbers. Or that non-Jewish worker migrants have to, I am not making this up, sign a pledge of promising not to procreate with Jewish women.

I could go on. Dan Senor ain't stupid. Yet this tells you all you need to know about the double standards of the modern day 'conservative' party elite of the GOP.

Yet this guy is Romney's top choice for chief of staff and their most trusted senior advisor?

Remember, chief of staff deals mainly with domestic issues. So we haven't even talked about foreign issues.

And then the issue of affirmative action, crime and other important areas. Immigration reducation is, of course, off the table. You'll see large scale amnesty.

Remember, the last major amnesty was under Reagan. Bush tried to do it on a massive scale in 2007. The record is clear: it is when the GOP is in power that the push comes, and it either happens or is very close to happening.

I have seen some suggesting that if Obama wins it will be good because it will become clear that demographics have finally become destiny for everyone to see except the statistics nerds who saw it decades ago. And that this will shake white America out of its doozy.

Well, if Romney wins he will win with a very high white vote percentage and very low percentages of everyone else.

What will the media do? Well, they will whine enormously. How will 60% of the white electorate feel when their choice for president is delegitimized by the mass media because his voters have the wrong skin color?

So in this sense, I think no matter who wins, America will become more and more racial.

Of course, Romney will be blamed for his lack of minority voters(it is always the white people's fault in everything) for "not reaching out" and so on.

But even if it's very possible that Romney will buy this bullcrap, his voters will not.

It is sometimes claimed here that U.S. is becomming Brazil. Well, we're not Yugoslavia(yet) but I don't think we will go down even nearly as peacefully as Brazil has been historically.

It's going to be pretty nasty as the credit card is maxed out and I've seen the IMF projections. We're looking at 115-120% of debt to GDP even with happy days growth scenarios and 5 years straight without any recession.

It is very possible that America will have a debt-to-GDP ratio of over 140% by 2016. Those are levels where Greece was in 2011 and much higher than Spain or Italy are at today.

Charles Murray wrote a book called 'Coming Apart at the Seams' about White America. Well, he will do a sequel soon, covering all of America.

Anonymous said...

He then went on, amazingly, and praised Israel's immigration policies. He mustnn't have seen the race riots in Tel Aviv, or Bibi's fearmongering about the "Demographic Timebomb" or the 50,000 detention centers spread around Israel where illegal immigrants can be housed - indefinitely and without warrant. Or the massive wall that is soon being completed against Egypt.

Why is that amazing? Why would Dan Senor be opposed to those things in Israel?

Orthodox said...

Muslims and Jews united behind Obama. GOP should dump neocons and try to eat into Obama's Jewish-Muslim base.

The Hindus is odd, most Indians I've met are Republican because the GOP is more pro-India/anti-China and domestically, most of them are small business owners.......

Peter A said...

The only real conclusion is that white men, like everyone else, are mostly idiots who vote race over their own interests. Romney is going to be a disaster for white American protestants - he's going to be more pro-immigration than Obama, and he's going to run the economy to benefit insiders. Obama has proven surprisingly strict on immigration controls for a Democrat - maybe he actually realizes black men are the main victims of large scale latino immigration.

Norville Rogers said...

Good graph.

It's fun to mentally compare your two extreme fringe/non-fringe categories since the uppermost demo exceeds in both number and ideological conformity (not without reasons) its opposite demo tab.

The media-perpetrated wisdom stretches this contrast like a funhouse mirror, i.e. LDS are mindless bees in a monolithic hive, while every unwed black mother is a kind of amateur-philosopher folk heroine who's seen it all.

Norville Rogers said...

Someone will need plagiarise this, or the MSM will need to reference Sailer

Get Douthat on it

Anonymous said...

The media-perpetrated wisdom stretches this contrast like a funhouse mirror, i.e. LDS are mindless bees in a monolithic hive, while every unwed black mother is a kind of amateur-philosopher folk heroine who's seen it all.

Actually Mormons consciously took bees and the beehive as a model and symbol for themselves:

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Beehive_Symbol

Norville Rogers said...

The Hindus is odd, most Indians I've met are Republican because the GOP is more pro-India/anti-China and domestically, most of them are small business owners

Why wouldn't they be Democrats? There's no tradition pulling them either way. My hometown near L.A. is now S. Asian or Chinese "moderate" Democrats fighting centrist white gentile/Jewish GOP, with Armenians as wildcard. There's an ex-physician of So. Asian descent running by me up near the capital, against the local white Republican crony of long standing (was Wilson's AG). I think this Indian fella is on his 3rd or 4th try at it, too

Anonymous said...

It means that instead of a blog dedicated to the hatred of white single women ala Roissy...(a lie is best hid between two truths which is what his blog is doing)

You need a blog dedicated to the hatred of Finnish women.

But that won't happen because it's easier for white men to bash their own women, and find excuses for being immoral fuck heads then actually dealing with the problem.

Thank you Steve, Vdare, and all the others who have mindlessly promoted that blog.

But this comment won't make a difference, because your all 'man buddies' LOL! How many men have been brought down by the veil of cordial friendship.

Anyone who promotes anything other than 'Man get married to his one and only as early as possible' is not your friend.


Norville Rogers said...

Thanks, Wikipedia Man! I have driven through Utah a couple of years ago and seen some of their road signs. Isn't it great that we have a fine Manhattan/Beltway inbred press establishment, so careful of not falling into such pseudo-literary cliches as the comparison of throwback/prosperous denominations to hive-mind racist sleeper cells, with dispensations of course for the occasional anti-hero like a Udall or Reid

Fun said...

The Hindus is odd, most Indians I've met are Republican because the GOP is more pro-India/anti-China and domestically, most of them are small business owners

Every non-white racial group NAM or otherwise votes majority Democrat.

WMarkW said...

The Republican party is made of white men and their wives. The Democratic party is the ones who think the former owes them stuff.

Anonymous said...

"Anyone who promotes anything other than 'Man get married to his one and only as early as possible' is not your friend."

Part of the solution is going to have to be to change divorce laws so that women can't divorce for frivolous reasons and get the children, house, alimony, child support, and family assets. Marriage is supposed to be a contract, and if you break the contract for no good reason, you should suffer consequences. Why should I commit to a woman who can use the power of the state to destroy my life when I've held up my end of the bargain?

sunbeam said...

That graph could have been greatly improved by having each horizontal bar in two colors (maybe 3 for undecided or other) for each grouping.

Like Mormons: 87% Red for Romney, 13% Obama (or whatever).

That way you could size each bar relatively so the biggest groups have proportionally the biggest bars.

It wouldn't account for the effects of the electoral college though.

I'd also like to see something like Intrade here. You know, put everyone on the record so they can be mocked pitilessly post election for their lack of insight.

SFG said...

Fun article and great analysis, but have you thought about breaking it out into a multivariate linear model? Most of us are smart enough to get that and it might help you discover something else.

Anonymous said...

Surprisingly high support for Romney among Jews, Hispanics, women and Catholics.

Steve Sailer said...

Don't take every number on faith. The sample size of 7,500 is quite good, but it's a little under half of the usual full sample exit poll. Plus, who knows about representativeness.

The numbers all make directional sense (i.e., if you put another condition upon the sample, it almost always changes in the expected direction -- i.e., let's just look at Protestant Hispanics, oh, Romney does better than among all Hispanics; let's just look at married Protestant Hispanics, oh, Romney does even better). So, I have a lot of respect for this database for the purposes I'm interested in, which is to get a rank-order sense of what matters.

But I don't know if the magnitudes of the directions are terribly trustworthy. Will Romney get 37% of Hispanics or 29%?

That probably depends upon getting a truly nationally representative sample, which can be hard to do. For example, the 2004 exit poll screwed up the Hispanic percentage by sending pollsters to a few too many Cuban precincts.

bjdubbs said...

OT This is sort of OT, but I wonder how oppositional Jews are. For instance, why are there no Jewish universities equivalent to Notre Dame or Morehouse? Brandeis is only 50% Jewish, Yeshiva is essentially a seminary school. From this list, 33% appears to be the upper limit. Jews don't want to attend a school that's more than 1/3 Jewish. Jewish enough, but not too much.

http://www.hillel.org/about/news/2011/aug/31AUG11_Top60.htm

Steve Sailer said...

At the K-12 level, there are now a lot of private Jewish schools. It used to be a point of pride among non-Orthodox Jews that they always sent their kids to public school. But that's over now.

However, it takes an extremely long time to build up a college compared to a K-12 school.

Steve Sailer said...

So, while I would think that a lot of Jews today would kind of like to send their kids to a Jewish college, they didn't get around to building many of them long enough ago for them to be prestigious now.

Anonymous said...

Obviously these numbers have a 4% error because zero percent of blacks support Romney.

Anonymous said...

having young children around you changes the brain--makes you more conservative. This chemical, as yet undiscovered by science, explains much of the statistical results in the graphic above. Kids most likely secrete a chemical that makes people conservative. Secretion of this chemical almost certainly arose as a result of natural selection.
Now of course other concerns, such as racial solidarity and monetary advantages and social status acquisition concerns can override the effects of this chemical, which explains some other aspects of the graphic above.

Oh, that's right--I am with internet commentators here. I need to toe the line. Obama suxs! IQ! Red vs Blue! yadda yadda yadda etc....

Anonymous said...

"The Hindus is odd, most Indians I've met are Republican because the GOP is more pro-India/anti-China and domestically, most of them are small business owners"

It's not odd. The majority of Indians come to the US on family reunification visa, not talent visas. And many of them end up as government employees. Also, big government is a mind bogglingly rich but incredibly stupid customer happy to give billions worth of contracts to Hindu businessmen because of their brown skin and political connections. To Hindus, what's not to like about big government?

Steve Sailer said...

"having young children around you changes the brain--makes you more conservative"

I certainly wouldn't rule that out, but statistically marriage dominates children in these correlations.

Cail Corishev said...

It'll be interesting to see how Catholics vote this time. Moderate Catholics went along with liberals as usual in leaning Democrat in 2008, with Notre Dame even giving Obama that stupid honorary degree. Then he thanked them by shoving abortion via health care down their throats (with the help of a few prominent apostates), taking away the usual conscience exceptions, and appointing the most extreme apostate Catholics to judicial and other positions. Even fairly liberal Catholic bishops have started talking about how we may be called to suffer for the faith. (The more traditional ones are openly preparing to be thrown to the lions.)

I go to a traditional parish myself, so I don't know how much the modernist rank-and-file have caught on that Obama sees them as the enemy, but surely some have. Ordinarily, they wouldn't be excited about voting for a Mormon, but strange bedfellows and all that. At least Romney doesn't appear to hate them.

Cail Corishev said...

"Kids most likely secrete a chemical that makes people conservative."

Yeah, because black single mothers are never around children.

Anonymous said...

"A physical abilities test the city is using to hire African-American firefighters in settlement of a race discrimination lawsuit is discriminatory against women, a suit filed Friday in U.S. District Court charges."


http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15986856-418/another-discrimination-lawsuit-filed-over-chicago-firefighters-exam.html

Anonymous said...

"So, while I would think that a lot of Jews today would kind of like to send their kids to a Jewish college, they didn't get around to building many of them long enough ago for them to be prestigious now. "

However, Jews think long term and must be preparing for the catastrophic slide in American wealth and influence. And as America goes, so goes the influence of its prestigious universities. A hundred years from now expect 30% of the graduating class of Beijing University to be Jewish.

Actually, UC Berkeley is an interesting test case for what happens to a prestigious university when the society in which is embedded turns from rich to poor.

Anonymous said...

Someone remind me again why we should care if Romney wins or not?

I've not seen any indication he would address the concerns of this blog or of any true conservative. I have seen many indications Romney is a liberal, pro-immigration, war-mongering neoconservative in the mold of a smarter George Bush, and even more pro-Israel (i.e., "zero daylight" between Israel and America's foreign policy).

eah said...

OT (a bit anyway)

Missed this somehow:

NYT editorial: Barack Obama for Re-election

The economy is slowly recovering from the 2008 meltdown, and the country could suffer another recession if the wrong policies take hold. The United States is embroiled in unstable regions that could easily explode into full-blown disaster. An ideological assault from the right has started to undermine the vital health reform law passed in 2010. Those forces are eroding women’s access to health care, and their right to control their lives. Nearly 50 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, all Americans’ rights are cheapened by the right wing’s determination to deny marriage benefits to a selected group of us. Astonishingly, even the very right to vote is being challenged.

It's been a long time since I've seen such ridiculous hyperbole. But then I don't read the NYT very often.

BTW, didn't they just report poor financial results?

Hacienda said...

Do these Protestants understand that Mormons are Anti-Protestant?

And Protestants historically have hated Mormons????? AND STILL DO?

In school I learned there is "6th" Sense that is inwardly perceptive. I gauges the emotional state of a person. It allows us to know what we feel- anger, happiness, sadness. etc. And we can connect these emotions to the external world.

I believe the Protestant ability to connect emotion to external world is busted. Ruined.

LOL. We need a Korean president. Me. Elect me. Next. ME!

W Baker said...

"However, Jews think long term and must be preparing for the catastrophic slide in American wealth and influence. And as America goes, so goes the influence of its prestigious universities. A hundred years from now expect 30% of the graduating class of Beijing University to be Jewish."

Haha. They have and will be subsumed in China. It is extremely difficult to maintain any tradition while rubbing shoulders with the global genetic default.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_China

Anonymous said...

Well evangelicals in the mega church movement that support Romney are not poor but are boring when it comes to religion.

Anonymous said...

The only real conclusion is that white men, like everyone else, are mostly idiots who vote race over their own interests. Romney is going to be a disaster for white American protestants - he's going to be more pro-immigration than Obama, and he's going to run the economy to benefit insiders. Obama has proven surprisingly strict on immigration controls for a Democrat


Lot's of dishonest Obama shills here. Another week and they'll all be gone.

Anonymous said...

It'll be interesting to see how Catholics vote this time. Moderate Catholics went along with liberals as usual in leaning Democrat in 2008


"Moderates", so-called, always vote Democrat. But Obama lost the white Catholic vote by nine points in 2008 and will lose it again by a bigger margin this year.

x said...

single black women - 3%

rofl

Anonymous said...

Obama has proven surprisingly strict on immigration controls for a Democrat

Can you name a single Democratic President in history who has been more pro-immigration than Obama?

No, you can't.

Anonymous said...

How are single women society's 'marginalia' but single men are not? The second half of Steve's piece basically just descended into whining about how nobody who wasn't a married white person should be allowed to vote.

Good job on putting together the numbers though. Basically, voting is based around racial identity politics rather than actual interests -- which is bad for everybody.

I wonder how oppositional Jews are.

not particularly. (Why should they be?). But a certain breed of right-winger needs an alien super-race of evil geniuses to explain everything that non-Jewish whites do wrong, so they are ideologically dependent on the hypnotic powers of the Jew.

With that said, the Jewish support for Israel is not an 'oppositional' position but it really has affected U.S. foreign policy for the worse. There is diversity even on this issue among younger jews, older jews are extremely locked in to it though.

Truth said...

"The Republican party is made of white men and their wives. The Democratic party is the ones who think the former owes them stuff...."


Yeah, like, statistically other white men and their wives.

DJF said...

“”””Orthodox writes

The Hindus is odd, most Indians I've met are Republican because the GOP is more pro-India/anti-China and domestically, most of them are small business owners.......”””’

Are most Hindu's in America business owners, or are they working for their Hindu cousin, the business owner, for very long hours and very little pay?

For every Hindu business owner that owns a convenience store or a motel, there are more Hindu workers in the US working at that business? Plus they are probably hoping for some sort of program from the government so they can get a cheap loan or grant to open up their own business or to get into a profession so they no longer have to work 12 hours a day at their cousin’s convenience store

Anonymous said...

Serious, hardworking people tend to vote for Republicans, but the GOP is not the party of seriousness or probity in government. That would be such a wrong impression to take from that graph. They're the party of neocon wars and Wall Street speculators. Even if lots of Wall Streeters are Democrats, it's the Republicans who always want to lower capital gains taxes and deregulate gambling in stocks.

I'm not saying that the Democrats are the party of probity. They're not. There's actually little difference between the parties on that. But someone looking at that graph might assume that there is a big difference.

Tim said...

Any chance there will be new stories in the NY times, WPost, CBS,NBC and ABC decrying Obama's failure to close the racial gap. Or stories about Obama and the democrats alienating white voters.

NOTA said...

Anon 157:

"Get married early" isn't all that good advice if it's taken to mean getting married when you're 18. It seems to me the right advice is more like "don't put off getting married and starting a family." The problem isn't waiting till you graduate college to tie the knot and start having kids, it's waiting till you and she both make partner or get tenure, and then waiting till she's 43 to start the expensive and unpleasant fertility treatments that will get you, $30K later, one lavishly raised child aimed at the Ivy League from preschool.

NOTA said...

Steve 621:

There are several excellent almost-all-Jewish colleges to choose from, but they're in Israel. My guess is that their availability is enough to sap any great drive within the US to build competing institutions. Though I don't know how big a hassle it is to go there as a US citizen. I'd assume not all that much--there is a big pool of Americans who spend a few years in Israel, or go back and forth, so it's probably not all that hard ro manage.

as said...

I find it hard to believe that 25% of Hindus would vote for Romney.

Republican Hindus are a rare and distinctive type.

The norm is to be gung ho for Obama.

Anonymous said...

OT:

"There's A Conspiracy Theory That The Minnesota Timberwolves Are Hoarding White Players To Boost Ticket Sales"

http://www.businessinsider.com/black-leader-says-timberwolves-white-players-is-calculated-2012-10

Anonymous said...

Steve, jews do indeed want to send their children to all hewish colleges because college is where assortive mating takes place

That being said, the higher iq non jews aggressively try to get their daughters in to jewish colleges so they can marry ashkenazi males

I am not sure why this is so. It could be due to knowledge of hbd and higher iq genetic material from ashkenazi men.

On the other hand there could be other ashkenazi traits that high iq non jewish parents seek for their daughters.

Famously, the clintons encouraged their daughter to marry ashkenazi and donald trump did the same.

Anonymous said...

Founding stock americans face two separate trajectories

As i think has been pointed out, founding stock americans with low iq sons increasingly see those low iq sons marry hispanic females

Founding stock americans with high iq daughters who go to the ivies see the high iq daughters marry ashkenazi.

But the relative size of these two effects is very very different.

However the unmistakable pattern is among non religious people in america fertility is dysgenic Ie the more years of education the lower the fertility.

Anonymous said...

The most recent Gallup poll of likely voters has Romney 51%, Obama 46%.


And those undecided at this stage are very unlikely to break for Obama.

Aaron Gross said...

I second what SFG said: multivariate analysis! "Draw your own conclusions" is nice, but with a graph like this there's a good chance you'll draw inaccurate conclusions. This has been a perennial problem here - you're multivariate-phobic!

Socio-economic status (including education) and geography (urban, rural, etc.) at the very least. Otherwise it's pretty misleading.

Lugash said...

But that won't happen because it's easier for white men to bash their own women, and find excuses for being immoral fuck heads then actually dealing with the problem.

Thank you Steve, Vdare, and all the others who have mindlessly promoted that blog.


They're on the same page w.r.t. immigration and HBD, but Steve seems to be highly skeptical of 'game'.

Anonymous said...

"Why should I commit to a woman who can use the power of the state to destroy my life when I've held up my end of the bargain?"

B.S. Excuse.

The only man I know headed towards divorce court is a guy stupid enough to marry a North African looking for a US passport.

If you marry a woman who is unlike yourself then you deserve to get divorced.

For white Christians the divorce rate is incredibly low. You guys are averaging all the races + interracial marriage divorce rates in that statistic. Very misleading.

Bullshit Excuse to act immoral.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it has something to do with the humiliation of colonialism but Indians have an anti white bent similar to blacks. and Hispanics and Asians don't strongly have this same attitude.

Evil Sandmich said...

No one else is amazed that two out of every 100 single black mothers is voting for Romney? I'd expect '2', not '2%'.

Davani said...

FYI - there seems to be a wave of white liberal pundits abandoning Obama.

In the past week, we got 3 op-eds by 3 liberal white commentators at the NY Times and Washington Post, who, after inserting the obligatory disclaimer "We'll still vote for him, but...", then proceed to throw Obama under the bus:

1. Frank Bruni (NY Times).

2. Maureen Dowd (NY Times)

3. Richard Cohen (WashPost).

A coincidence? In my view, this may reflect the white vote shifting away from Obama, which has been noted in recent surveys.

Anonymous said...

My own conclusions drawn: a lot of married people and whites aren't smart enough to vote for their own economic interests.

Anonymous said...

Steve,

You said:
"The correlation between being an Obama supporter and personal unhappiness, alienation, or dysfunction is not coincidental."

On what do you base this? Is it just intuition or is there something you can link to? I don't disagree with this but am just looking for something concrete to support it.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

My own conclusions drawn: a lot of married people and whites aren't smart enough to vote for their own economic interests.


You think that it is in the interests of white people and married people to vote for the Democratic party?

You cannot be serious, as John McEnroe was known to exclaim.

Mercer said...

The graph is missing people with no religion. They are a much bigger block than Muslims or Hindus.

My interpretation is the GOP's strongest voters are married, white and Protestant. All three groups are declining. This can't be good for the GOP.

Michael Barone seems to be channeling Steve in this column:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/331888/changing-demographics-and-gop-michael-barone

My comment on Barone is that if the GOP wants to get a higher percentage of white votes it should support policies that benefit non wealthy whites instead of only caring about the wealthy and big business.

Anonymous said...

Famously, the clintons encouraged their daughter to marry ashkenazi and donald trump did the same


"Famously"? I don't think some anonymous internet commenter claiming something counts as "famously"?

Anonymous said...

How much of the marriage gap is an age gap?

Anonymous said...

To find out if (middle class) whites are smart enough to vote for their own economic interests there would have to be someone running who would advance them.

Anonymous said...

I'm not saying that the Democrats are the party of probity. They're not. There's actually little difference between the parties on that.


You're wrong. There is a lot less probity in the Democratic party than in the Republican.

Steve Sailer said...

"How much of the marriage gap is an age gap?"

Surprisingly little. This Reuters website lets you breakout any group you want, such as, for example, white 30-39 year olds. The marriage gap was 17 or 18 points among them. I'm not saying age is not a factor, but it sure shows up within each cohort.

NOTA said...

Lugash:

My first guess is that there are surely techniques to make you better at picking up girls in bars, and I imagine Heartiste/Roissy knows a lot about them. But if you're looking for a rewarding adult life, I don't think that's the sort of thing that helps you out much.

ben g said...

For a "Citizenist", you sure seem comfortable devaluing a good portion of the United States.

Anonymous said...

For a party that is dependent on the vote of white people, especially married white people, the GOP is ridiculously inimical to their interests.

sunbeam said...

How does being divorced figure into things?

Anonymous said...

"For a "Citizenist", you sure seem comfortable devaluing a good portion of the United States."

A good portion of the US has no value.

Anonymous said...

I'm dying here. Such great data mining, Steve, and I would love to post this graphic on my Facebook or on my university department's discussion list. But I know that just by pointing this stuff out, I'll be branded all sorts of __ists.

Prophet said...

"My first guess is that there are surely techniques to make you better at picking up girls in bars, and I imagine Heartiste/Roissy knows a lot about them. But if you're looking for a rewarding adult life, I don't think that's the sort of thing that helps you out much."

What if a rewarding adult life includes getting laid regularly by different women?

That's what I hate about the religious nuts (aka conservatives): the don't understand that different people have different interests. They want everybody to lead the same boring, sexless lives they do.

In fact, it reminds me of a saying I once heard: liberals want to socialize the market economy and conservatives want to socialize the sexual market.

Anonymous said...

I'm a White married 60 year old male. I voted for Obama in 2008; in fact, I am a registered Democrat. This year I'm voting for Romney? Why? Eric Holder and the Zimmerman case. I'm not a racist, but I've come to the conclusion that the first concern of Black politicians is the welfare of Black people. I've seen it happen time and again. Wherever Blacks take control (a city, a State, a Board of Education), the primary focus of government shifts to the welfare and interests of Black people. I think government should be neutral. We live in a multiracial society that includes Whites and Asians. Everyone deserves equal treatment and consideration. White politicians are generally capable of objectivity and care about everybody. Blacks seem to care mostly about Blacks and seem incapable of genuine reflection and self-criticism. So, I am reluctantly abandoning Obama. Romney seems like a decent person who can govern the entire country - not just members of his in-group.

Anonymous said...

"Yeah, because black single mothers are never around children." - And black women don't often advance the interests of non-blacks either.

"Someone remind me again why we should care if Romney wins or not?" - How the democrats will respond will be atleast as important as how Romney will govern(poorly from our perspective). Maybe they'll put up someone who won't suck, if the republicans are going to be America's choice for open borders globalism.

"Maybe it has something to do with the humiliation of colonialism but Indians have an anti white bent similar to blacks. and Hispanics and Asians don't strongly have this same attitude." - Don't forget their low IQ preventing them from realizing that we were ultimately the ones that ended colonialism.

"To find out if (middle class) whites are smart enough to vote for their own economic interests there would have to be someone running who would advance them." - There is that one 3rd party candidate...

At the state level republicans tend to be better on these issues, and want to solve these problems, but the power of the federal government restrains them.

helene edwards said...

any indication he would address the concerns of this blog

Just read the comment directly below yours. The essential concern of this blog, over and above discrete political issues, is mendacious reportage and argument.

not a hacker said...

For a party that is dependent on the vote of white people, especially married white people, the GOP is ridiculously inimical to their interests.


That would have been a weightier claim pre-Holder.

Matthew said...

"Why should I commit to a woman who can use the power of the state to destroy my life when I've held up my end of the bargain?"

Because what is the alternative? Dying childless and alone?

Marry a woman worth marrying, who wants children, who you feel you can trust, and take that risk.

Steve Sailer said...

"Single" includes Never Married, Cohabitating, Divorced, and Separated.

"Married" includes Married and Widowed.

Including the Widowed slightly reduces the Marriage Gap because the widowed lean Romney less, about 52-48, than the Marrieds. But, widowhood is a natural consequence of marriage, so I grouped them together.

Anonymous said...

Someone remind me again why we should care if Romney wins or not?


Who's this "we", Kemo Sabi? You'll be voting for Obama once again.

Matthew said...

From that Richard Cohen column someone linked to: "Much of [a movie about RFK] consisted of Kennedy-family home movies, but also film of RFK in Appalachia and in Mississippi among the pitifully emaciated poor. Kennedy brimmed with shock and indignation, with sorrow and sympathy, and was determined — you could see it on his face — to do something about it. I’ve never seen that look on Barack Obama’s face. Instead, I see a failure to embrace all sorts of people, even members of Congress and the business community."

Here Cohen seems to be expressly referencing poor white people, whose votes the Obama campaign famously gave up trying to win. No, we have never seen that look on Obama's face. Obama ran for president so he could feel important, ride on Air Force One, and earn $20 million/year in "speaking fees" for the rest of his life.

Anonymous said...

For a "Citizenist", you sure seem comfortable devaluing a good portion of the United States


The portion which is in fact less valuable.

Anonymous said...

"They're on the same page w.r.t. immigration and HBD, but Steve seems to be highly skeptical of 'game'."

The one useful reminder a lot of guys may get from "game" is to have some fucking self-respect. Most of the rest is disturbing, materialist, anti-procreative, and misogynist.

Anonymous said...

When Republicans move left, do the Democrats move further left to differentiate themselves?

Steve Sailer said...

Aaron says:

"I second what SFG said: multivariate analysis!"

I encourage anyone out there who is interested to use this Reuters-Ipsos website to do their own high-end analysis. I may get around to it someday, as I did in 2004 when I developed a 2 factor model of the Republican vote by states (white fertility and white women years married between 18 and 45) that generated spectacular r-squareds.

But, my strength is not in doing formal multivariate analyses, which are time consuming, but in rapidly generating multivariate hypotheses for the Stata wizards to laboriously follow up on. I have a better multivariate intuition than most people out there. For example, this graph may not look multivariate at first glance, but upon inspection you'll notice that the categories were chosen to illustrate the effects of multiple factors on the vote. I'm good at coming up with examples to illustrate underlying multivariate processes.

Anonymous said...

The Republican party is made of white men and their wives. The Democratic party is the ones who think the former owes them stuff.


Nothing says white privilege like a white wife.

Cail Corishev said...

How the democrats will respond will be at least as important as how Romney will govern(poorly from our perspective). Maybe they'll put up someone who won't suck, if the republicans are going to be America's choice for open borders globalism."

If the Democrats took the side of the working class against the globalists, stopped making free and unfettered abortion their #1 dealbreaker issue (they almost lost health care again due to their refusal to compromise on it), and stopped trying to disarm law-abiding citizens, they'd never lose another election. They wouldn't have to switch sides on the last two; just declaring themselves neutral on them would be enough.

Truth said...

" I'm not a racist, but I've come to the conclusion that the first concern of Black politicians is the welfare of Black people. I've seen it happen time and again."

Barry's done less for black people than either Nixon or Regan; look it up, Jr.

Anonymous said...

If the election is decided on Tuesday, November 6th, then it sure will nice to come back to this blog on November 7th, when all the astroturfers have departed.

God forbid that we should get another Bush/Gore Florida-esque debacle, however - then we'll never get rid of 'em.

Sherpa said...

"If the election is decided on Tuesday, November 6th, then it sure will nice to come back to this blog on November 7th, when all the astroturfers have departed."

Not so fast.

If Obama wins, I am definitely coming back to gloat for at least a few days.

Severn said...

What if a rewarding adult life includes getting laid regularly by different women?

It doesn't, sonny. Some of us have already tried that.

liberals want to socialize the market economy and conservatives want to socialize the sexual market.

So, you don't know what the words "market economy", "socialize", "liberal", or "conservative" mean. And you're probably a little unclear about "want" as well.

That's a truly impressive degree of stupidity to cram into a short sentence.

Whiskey said...

Even among married White men and women, there is a gap of four points. For single White men and women the gap is IIRC 8 points. That's significant.

As far as Romney goes, he knows he will get bounced if he does not deliver an economy. The easiest way is with actual immigration enforcement to tighten the labor market. Notice Romney laid down repeated markers of wage rises. You have to bounce people out of the market to do that, and as a business guy he knows supply and demand. Its women-bait for SWPL. Because they swing on economic issues.

My criticism of the Roissy haters is what do you offer? Really? Getting married is pretty difficult, for most guys. About 90% of all White guys have the sex appeal of a cold bowl of oatmeal; meanwhile only 10% of White guys are sexually attractive to women. Roissy offers a way, that costs (knowledge of what women really desire in men rather than pretty lies, the same way that Steve offers at cost the truth instead of pretty racial lies about absolute equality of talent/behavior). But you can use that knowledge to be sexually attractive to a woman your attractiveness/status pair, and keep attractiveness not lose it. Vital in at-will marriage contracts.

Roissy and others offer "learned charisma" which in today's world is vital to make and keep a marriage.

Whiskey said...

At last count, Obama is involved in a war in Afghanistan, one in Yemen, one in Libya, one in Syria (Benghazi is now confirmed as the meeting between Stevens and the Turkish Ambassador to run heavy weapons to jihadis through Turkey to Syria), one in Mali, and one in Tribal Pakistan. That makes, lets see ... Six. Six wars. Oh they're called "Kinetic Military Action" not wars, and they're "leading from behind." But people are still killing and dying. For no real advantage to the US. At least Iraq has a LOT of oil, cheap and easy to get out, and offered a way to rely less on the House of Saud and hedge our bets. But no, we had to have a lot of moralizing and status-posturing instead of acting like adults and realizing we run on oil. For everything.

As far as no daylight between Israel and us, a good idea! We have no ally in Egypt anymore (thanks to Obama's idiot "hug the Muslim Brotherhood" strategy) and Egypt is an open ally of our enemy Iran (we fight over the price of oil).

That leaves the House of Saud, Jordan, and Israel as our only significant allies with significant militaries and significant intelligence assets to protect the Gulf oil and the current level of production.

Do you want to pay the current market price of around $115 a barrel (Brent) or $150 as a "floor" as Iran has suggested?

Kudos to Anon who posited the need for some super-secret conspirator to explain the massive failure conservatives had in stopping cultural change. Reality check: Derb found that change even in coastal China, among young women there, suggesting it is massive, technology related, and thus a global phenomena like the death of most martial arts after Samuel Colt's revolver.

Whiskey said...

If you don't like the drone use by the President, at will, able to kill anyone, with the President selecting who lives or dies, then vote Romney. The pundits, press, NGOs, SWPL, peace activists, celebrities, and the like will demand that be taken away from him. As will much Presidential power.

So vote Romney, and take that power away. The danger of Obama and the marginal as the majority is that they want the Presidency unfettered by any limits, questioning, and balances. Their aim is to destroy the majority, they've made no secret about it. So if you don't like the President deciding who lives or dies, vote Romney, those folks will do anything they can to take it away.

As far as PUA and Roissy/Heartiste goes, they are evidence based. They teach what works in the field (and much of their stuff is based on encounters at coffee houses, supermarkets, etc). You can use it to pick up lots of women, or be attractive ... AND MAINTAIN attractiveness, to just one woman. Your choice. It is not 1950 any more. There are no intermediary institutions or matchmaking people to pair people up. "Quality" women: low partner count, positive experience with men, not hung up one Alpha male, are in very short supply, doubly so in most urban areas with higher paying jobs (places like Chicago, Dallas, and Portland would qualify). Guys like Roissy give Joe Average the ability to mimic and maintain the attraction that natural Alpha males have with women. It is the equivalent of make-up, gyms, and flattering clothing for women.

Bottom line, if 90% of all White guys were attractive to White women, you would not see them put up with this anti-White stuff in the media or politics for a second. You would not see "White guy" as a generic insult.

Cail Corishev said...

"Obama has proven surprisingly strict on immigration controls for a Democrat"

Go peddle your nonsense where people haven't been paying attention for the last four years. New York Times readers might be a good place to start. You're wasting your time here.

Cail Corishev said...

"My first guess is that there are surely techniques to make you better at picking up girls in bars, and I imagine Heartiste/Roissy knows a lot about them. But if you're looking for a rewarding adult life, I don't think that's the sort of thing that helps you out much."

You'd be surprised. Game for dating is old news. The latest and most interesting conversations are about Game in marriage, and how a man can attract and keep a good woman by internalizing and/or projecting masculine qualities.

Anonymous said...

I get the impression we might have hit "peak negro" in the U.S.

You know the top of the bull market right before the crash when their influence has peaked.

Hard to say for certain but it is starting to look that way.

Just like the German's approach to Stalingrad was the top of Hitler's bull market and Dinkins was the top of the bull market for Black politicians in NYC.

After the peak ... it is all... down... hill. Even if it is a slow grind down with minor peaks and valleys.

Why do I suspect this?

There seems to be a growing resistance to the Left PTB taste makers and also some growing evidence of important intellectuals defecting from the Leftist fold.

For example, there is a news report with videos on youtube of Madonna getting booed this week by her fans at a concert in New Orleans for telling her fans they should vote for Obama.

In retrospect, Oprah was very smart to come out way early in the election cycle and say she wouldn't be endorsing a candidate this time around (savy lady that Oprah...small wonder she is so wealthy).

Also this week authoress Camilia Paglia, author of Sexual Personae and leftist style maker and icon to young SWPL, stated in a video interview available on the web that she will not be voting for Obama as she did last time.

Why? Because instead of racially healing the nation as she had hoped when she voted for him in 2008 he has created racial divisions that will take years to undo. According to her the Gates case (she could just as welll have cited the Zimmerman case) is an example of his injecting himself into race cases and inflaming attitudes (she also mentions the Libya fiasco which she blames on Hillary and Powers whom she alludes are O's incompetent Lady Macbeths).

I think the tide is turning...

Shame that Powell wasn't the first Black president or Tom Bradley. They would have done a much better job is my guess... but it looks like O possibly ruined it for other Blacks.

I guess there is some truth to the old expression once you go Black you can't go back...

Given Blacks decreasing electoral importance or relevance vis a vis Hispanics and the growing Asian population a bear market for Black politicians looks inevitable...

Now if we can just reach "peak Jew" maybe we can save the country...

Sigh

Hunsdon said...

Prophet said: That's what I hate about the religious nuts (aka conservatives): ... They want everybody to lead the same boring, sexless lives they do.

Hunsdon replied: You are dumber than Whiskey, sir.

Silver said...

I'm dying here. Such great data mining, Steve, and I would love to post this graphic on my Facebook or on my university department's discussion list. But I know that just by pointing this stuff out, I'll be branded all sorts of __ists.

If you want to discuss facts and they want to call you names, then why don't you just wonder out loud in your defense whether they're really being "anti-racist" or whether they're merely being anti-white? Try it out. Go on, be a devil.

Sherpa said...

"Now if we can just reach "peak Jew" maybe we can save the country..."

"peak Jew" sounds so funny! I can't stop laughing. Bravo.

That why I keep coming back to isteve.

I mean, I initially came to troll but stayed for the lulz.

Silver said...

For single White men and women the gap is IIRC 8 points. That's significant.

And yet, and yet... compare the rate that these White women, who Whiskey loves to imagine are the cause of all conservative woes, appear set to vote Republican to the rate at which Jews will. As Whiskey says, "that's significant."

Why? Because instead of racially healing the nation as she had hoped when she voted for him in 2008 he has created racial divisions that will take years to undo.

Incredible how such a smart chick could be so delusional to think that a president who attended an anti-American, white-hating black-power church, a man who grew up bristling with racial resentment, would have any interest in "racial healing." (Unless this is just some angle or "wedge" to help others along in changing their minds about racial issues.)

Cail Corishev said...

"Because instead of racially healing the nation as she had hoped when she voted for him in 2008 he has created racial divisions that will take years to undo."

Strange, I never thought Paglia was either naive or stupid, but you had to be one or the other to buy the ridiculous "racial healer" meme they peddled. Or ignorant, but I doubt she'd want to claim that either.

NOTA said...

Whskey:

That is the best argument I know for Romney, to be honest. The MSM would be more skeptical of his power grabs. They would still go along with them, as they did with Bush, but they would at least pretend to care about the death squad and killer robot foreign policy we have, with its explicit claim that the president, like some tinpot dictator in Corruptistan or La Republica Banana, has the unquestioned power to disappear or kill anyone his goons can lay their hands on.

But what is the probability that Romney would fight to eliminate those powers and programs? The same as the probability that a Democratic congress would actually end them. And that's why this is such a depressing political race to watch.

NOTA said...

Steve,

There are two things that are still hard to get from your charts:

a. How big a fraction of the voters each of these groups is. ("Married" has a lot more people in it than "Other Sexual Orientation").

b. A nice way to see how the smaller groups make up the bigger ones. Married includes married blacks, whites, and hispanics, and each of those includes married Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, atheists, etc.

hailtoyou said...

It seems that Reuters queried about support for third-parties, "don't knows", "wouldn't votes" (total ~12%). As I try to reproduce these results, I see that Mr. Sailer already accounted for this.

One possible other factor to account for: the Gay/Lesbian (8-1 for Obama) metric is not mutually exclusive with other metrics, surely. Specifically, "White-Protestants: 70%" would include some homosexuals. Factor them out, and the Romney-Support figure bumps up a few.

This means that White-Protestants favor Romney about 3-to-1, nationally. In Non-Diverse (racially naive) areas, White support seems to be more even, as in 2008.

hailtoyou said...

From the VDARE article:
"Obama’s is an absurd coalition. It can be motivated only by exacerbating the bitterness of its members toward people fortunate enough to be closer to the heart of America." [Strike those last three words for political-correctness, and replace with "the cancer of human history".]

Relatedly, N/A at Race/Hist recent wrote: "There does exist an ethnic core in America...".

This was taken for granted even in open, public discourse until sometime in the middle of the 20th century, and still implicitly understood until the end of the 20th century. Nixon understood it well, and wanted to be an active partisan on behalf of the ethnic-core, to the extent the situation allowed (which by January '69, when he took office, was lessening by the day). Nixon was the last president like this.

Today, there is still a deeply-implicit understanding of this, but mentioning or discussing the Ethnic-Core-American Question may quickly be fading into the murky terrain of HATE CRIME. The Honorable Justices Sotamayor and Kagan would favor making it a hate crime, I guess.

David said...

So about 2 out of 5 whites will vote for Obama.

About 1 in 3 married white men will.

About 1 in 2 married white women will.

Among the groups leaning Mitt's way (excepting Mormons), he maxs out at three-quarters of one of them (married white Protestants).

Does this mean that even among the GOOD people, the 53%, roughly a third are commie traitors to their race who oppose cheap labor and an aggressively pro-Israel foreign policy? Who are these people - Swedes?

Severn said...

My criticism of the Roissy haters is what do you offer?

Why do I have to "offer" you anything? You sound like just another Democrat looking for a hand-out.

Getting married is pretty difficult, for most guys.

No, it is not. Which is why most guys get married. Try it yourself sometime, you loser.


About 90% of all White guys have the sex appeal of a cold bowl of oatmeal

That's why I despise you goofball game boys - at the end of the say, as much as you look down on women, you have an even lower opinion of men.

Anonymous said...

Game for dating is old news. The latest and most interesting conversations are about Game in marriage, and how a man can attract and keep a good woman by internalizing and/or projecting masculine qualities.


There seem to be more different definitions of "game" than grains of sand on the beach.

Silver said...

About 90% of all White guys have the sex appeal of a cold bowl of oatmeal

Two points on this. First, it's just another example of the extreme permissibility of making anti-white statements whose major purpose is not to represent reality but to denigrate whites. That's clear. However sexually unappealing the majority of white men may be, 90% is ludicrously high, as is the ludicrous lack of sex appeal claimed for them by the comparison to cold oatmeal.

Secondly, you have to wonder whether it isn't a tacit admission of a white superiority of sorts that such statements raise so few eyebrows, since a similar statement like "90% of blacks have all the sex appeal of a dog turd" would cause quite some alarm, most probably because, despite it also being a ludicrous exaggeration, it nevertheless hits a little too close to home in the minds of many.

Truth said...

"Roissy and others offer "learned charisma..."

Whiskey, four words: "Ask for a refund."

Aaron Gross said...

Steve, fair enough, I guess you can't just turn to your team of research assistants and say, "Run some linear regressions on...."

In lieu of multivariate analysis, how about just a caveat? "This graph is misleading because...."

I did catch the bivariate nature of your graph - marital status and ethnicity/religion as predictors - but that's not really what I meant, and probably not what SFG meant either. I was thinking of the possibility of aliasing, and I think that ethnicity (to take one factor) is a much stronger alias for socio-economic status than for marital status.

Lately, people like Robert Putnam have been claiming that SES is now a better predictor than race for various responses that, in the past, were predicted better by race. That is, SES after factoring out race is now better than race after factoring out SES, unlike in the past. If something like that's true for this case, then your graph is extremely misleading.

Multivariate analysis looking at ethnicity and SES together as predictors(plus geography, maybe, among other stuff) would be interesting. I'm not suggesting that you should invest the time to do that, but somebody should. I'm not a statistician, by the way, so I don't claim to know about this stuff.

Steve Sailer said...

Aaron says:

"SES after factoring out race is now better than race after factoring out SES, unlike in the past. If something like that's true for this case, then your graph is extremely misleading."

If Putnam is talking about voting, he's definitely wrong in 2012. Obama is at least at 50% among retired black Republican Secretaries of State: Back to Blood, indeed.

As I explained in my article, SES is a pretty good gauge of Hispanic vote. The problem, unfortunately, is that Hispanicity is a pretty good predictor of SES, which is an extremely relevant correlation when thinking about immigration policy.

As for Asians, East Asians vote more Democratic than their SES would predict, and South Asians much more so.

Steve Sailer said...

Dear Hailtoyou:

Yes, the Reuters-Ipsos American Mosaic site allows you to finetune your crosstabs to an impressive degree. Unfortunately, it doesn't give you control over the time element presented. If it feels your demographic slice has a big enough sample size, it will give you a week by week trend line. If the sample size is modest, it will give you month-by-month, and if small the whole year in one data point. It's a really good system but it would be nice in four years if they let you specify the time period to get pure apples to apples.

Aaron Gross said...

Putnam wasn't talking about voting. I just heard him mention that factoid in a spoken interview, so, frustratingly, he didn't give any sources or any specifics. He did suggest that it was a well-known fact among social scientists which was overlooked in public discourse.

I don't think that SES is stronger than ethnicity when it comes to voting for Obama. But your graph compares different ethnies, confessions, and so on, and I suspect some of the differences in that graph would be narrowed pretty much by accounting for SES (education and income), geography, etc.

Anonymous said...

This year I'm voting for Romney? Why? Eric Holder and the Zimmerman case. I'm not a racist

In another four years you will have come to realize that the terms 'racist' and 'racism' mean nothing other than a concept to delegitimize the interests of white people. Im glad you've begun the journey - welcome aboard.

JSM said...

"About 1 in 2 married white women will."

Did you look at the same graph I did?

63% of married White women will vote for Romney. That means only 37% will vote for zero. 37% is NOT 1 in 2 (that would be 50%). 37% is closer to 1 in 3.

Anti-White-women MRAs love to blame America's turn left on White women, but fail to note that *married* White women are more conservative than single White men! (The single White male vote breaks 52% ote for Romney, meaning 48% vote for zero).

JSM said...

"Do you want to pay the current market price of around $115 a barrel (Brent) or $150 as a "floor" as Iran has suggested?"

No. I want to spend the money you'd waste on your neoconning -- supposedly to keep the price of oil low (which it doesn't)-- on building safe liquid flouride thorium reactors "LFTR".

Then we wouldn't NEED Middle Eastern oil and could tell them all, including our supposed "unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East" (which we've NEVER used), Israel, to go pound sand.

http://energyfromthorium.com/

Evil Sandmich said...

If the election is decided on Tuesday, November 6th, then it sure will nice to come back to this blog on November 7th, when all the astroturfers have departed.

I noticed that on the local news site too. Some are real head scratchers where the 'turfer is writing carefully scripted comments based on talking points that the MSM won't be pushing until the evening. Getting paid to make comments would seem to take the fun out of it?

Anonymous said...

In general, what trait(s) would predict singleness?

Anonymous said...

What does "other orientations" mean?

Anonyia said...

"My criticism of the Roissy haters is what do you offer? Really? Getting married is pretty difficult, for most guys. About 90% of all White guys have the sex appeal of a cold bowl of oatmeal; meanwhile only 10% of White guys are sexually attractive to women. "

Where are you getting this, Whiskey? That must be why all the teen idols and hollywood hunks are white, and why the few that aren't white still mostly have predominately European features. That must be why women of all races make positive comments about men with blue and green eyes....

NOTA said...

Prophet:

Who's trying to make you do anything?

My best guess, not the result of deep research or anything, is that you are likely to find marrying someone you love and respect and then having kids with her a lot more rewarding, ultimately, than hanging out in bars trying to pick up girls. I won't try to stop you hanging out in bars, and for all I know that is a better life for you. But that's sure not the way I'd bet.

Anonymous said...

"Matthew said...
"Why should I commit to a woman who can use the power of the state to destroy my life when I've held up my end of the bargain?"

Because what is the alternative? Dying childless and alone?.."

Nice argument. Heads up Matt - your gonna die. Have as many kids and wives as you want, that won't stop it. (Also, kind of heads up here - Your kids and wives might end up wishing for your death, particularly if you view them as totems against the inevitable as opposed to actual human beings.

Your welcome.

Moby #9 said...

If Obama wins, I am definitely coming back to gloat for at least a few days

Stay on script, you damn fool! Remember, we're conservatives who don't find Romney to be conservative enough, and we don't like Obama!

Anonymous said...

In general, what trait(s) would predict singleness -- music taste, pre-iPhone interest in computers, ability to follow incoherent sci-fi-fantasy storylines, lack of career ambition

Anonymous said...

Whiskey is a troll. Some of you still don't know that. He should be ignored.

David said...

>63% of married White women will vote for Romney. That means only 37% will vote for zero. 37% is NOT 1 in 2 (that would be 50%). 37% is closer to 1 in 3.<

I stand corrected. I was looking at "married women" but should have been looking at "married white women," which is indeed about 1 in 3.

My question is still valid, though - and still unanswered.

Anonymous said...

Why are Hindus going for Obama? I thought the "Dr. Veraswami" phenomenon meant whites and Indians were somewhat allied. Also, I like Indians, so what's up?