October 28, 2012

The Gender Gap v. the Marriage Gap and Obama's Fringe v. Romney's Core

Over at VDARE.com, I have a sizable new article that begins by comparing the infinitely discussed Gender Gap in the 2012 election to the much larger but barely mentioned Marriage Gap, and then goes on from that example to propose a reductionist theory of the identity politics of the entire election. It has two graphs that show the demographics of the upcoming vote (i.e., who is voting for whom) in some detail. I think you'll find it interesting. It's much like an exit poll analysis, only done before the election.

It always seems like a good idea to present data graphically, but always ends up taking quite a few hours per graph to do them right. I think these finally came out worth the effort.

83 comments:

FredR said...

"And that leads to a broader conclusion: Obama's support lies in the fringes of American society, while Romney's is found in the core. (Peter Brimelow has called this polarization Anti-America vs. America)."

I think the Democratic party has been doing this for a long time. In Kleppner's "The Third Electoral System," for instance, it seems pretty clear that for the late 19th century, Republican was the party of the ethnocultural majority, Democrat of the various minority identity groups.

Whiskey said...

Bravo Steve, one of your best yet. The graphical representation was stunning. And yes good point about Single Jewish Women, something that had eluded me. Sarah Silverman is likely a good example of that cohort, which is small but loud outside its numbers.

HOWEVER, what you did not point out is that marriage rates are declining, and the age of first marriage is increasing, and so are divorce rates. What Roissy/Heartiste and others have pointed out is that the younger cohort (basically White men/women in their early forties and down) are not getting married much, certainly not to the degree that they had before. And that this is largely independent of "affordable family formation."

After all, Hispanics and Blacks have defined "family" as a single mother, absent Dad(s), and the government. And Hispanic fertility with far lower median income and net worth levels than Whites dwarfs Whites (and Asians who tend to be higher than Whites in income and net worth median values).

It isn't money. It is not land. It is not schools. That's the message that many have tried to put forward. People can move to places like Austin. Or Portland. Or Seattle. White, still affordable, still with good schools. Heck half the White single twenty somethings in the US moved to Portland in the last ten years.

Rather, it is the sexiness of the men that decides if a woman will have kids with him, and then marry him. [Yes this is inverted from times past. Steve that's the norm now for many Whites, it shifted in the 1990s.] If a guy is sexy enough, a woman will have kids with him. If she's sexy enough, he'll marry her among his other options. Then they'll move. And yes this is moving to middle class Whites as Murray himself pointed out in his AEI talk.

Whiskey said...

I liked your characterization of Obama as being the fringes of American society. But if you look at mass media, the "fringes" are shown as the center. Gays are vastly over-represented on TV, and shown not as well, actual gays in San Francisco but sedate but funny middle class guys with repressed sexual urges. Which does not exactly mirror gay behavior on average, repressed they are not. So too are NAMs, single Black mothers, lesbians, Muslims, Wiccans, and other fringe groups shown on TV as the norm.

Since TV is basically the creature of White women, this to me is an arrow, not a cause, of how much White women have changed. From seeing themselves as part of the "normal" and part and parcel of White guys, to being at war with them as part of the army of the fringe. Wars don't happen for no reason, there's always a grudge. Or grudges. I suspect the core grudge of White women against White men is the lack generally of sexiness among White men. Hence the alliance with the fringes.

Here's the tragedy. In order to have peace, security, happiness, and wealth, the West since 1945 has made White guys ever more cooperative, agreeable, dutiful, and sociable, and all that has made them absolutely repellent and unsexy. Yet the West's wealth and security rests on the "guys with pocket protectors" (tm Steve Sailer) not sexy Alpha males. Nerdy NASA guys beat a Russell Brand any day for wealth creation.

Anonymous said...

"Obama's support lies in the fringes of American society, while Romney's is found in the core."

I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. Obama's support lies in the fringes of American society, and in the very mainstream position that accommodating these fringes must be our national mission to the exclusion of everything else.

Clyde said...

Whiskey: "And yes good point about Single Jewish Women, something that had eluded me."

Put that one down as 'running interference makes you stoopid'.

Truth said...

Introducing; your RNC 2016 presidential nominee!

2Degrees said...

Excellent post.

I'd say your analysis is pretty well true of every Western country. The MSM is New Zealand mock the National Party for having too may white guys (and gals) in suits. They apparently don't represent our increasingly "South Pacific" nation, but a Labour Prty get-together looks like a nightmare inspired by the Island of Doctor Moreau. If I try to think what they represent, I get the urge to chunder.

Enoch Powell said...

Wow Steve, that's one of the best things I've ever read concerning the American vs. UnAmerican.

Speaking of UnAmerican, I've been thinking about hippies a lot lately. I was a part of that generation and I remember hearing so many White kids who self-identified as hippies wishing out load that they had been born Black. They meant it.

Certainly we have a huge problem with nonWhites, but a significant number of the boomer generation still teams of being Black and Cool.

Anonymous said...

Bitter much? Anyway, if you ask an elite foreigner what they respect about America much more likely to be something from Silicon Valley, LA, or New York vs. something from Arkansas or the Confederacy, no matter how white & wholesome it is. American heartland culture has very little outside appeal and is destined to lose against cosmopolitan America. Conservatism lost the elite in the 60's, and the masses have been catching up ever since.

Keep crapping out those kids if it makes you happy, though. The smart, ambitious ones will join our side anyway.

Anonymous said...

An odd piece at National Review.


don’t let Obama’s tactical failures distract you from the vaulting ambition of his strategy. Obama isn’t just going for a win. He’s shooting for a “realignment.” Obama is trying to shape a new kind of electorate, creating a long-term Democratic majority that would allow him and his successors to stop catering to the center and finally govern decisively from the left.


Ya think?

Over at The Nation, Richard Kim gets it. Writing about the Lena Dunham “first time” ad controversy, he speaks of it as part of an effort “to realign the electorate towards the Democratic Party for a generation.” But the best place to read about Obama’s larger strategy is “Hope: The Sequel,” the New York magazine piece by John Heilemann that got attention last May but bears rereading now.


Sounds serious.

Obama’s strategy, says Heileman, is built around the idea that he can win with a coalition of the “demographically ascendent,” African Americans, Hispanics, women, and young people ... don’t underestimate the extent to which this strategy is a deliberate decision that could have gone otherwise, as the behind-the-scenes opposition of some Democrats indicates. Obama is clearly willing to abandon centrist voters and place his own likeability at risk for the sake of creating a socially and economically liberal Democratic coalition that would allow him to govern securely from the left.


Are those the same Hispanics who the Republican "leadership" have been insisting are "natural conservatives"?

Maybe if we had some non-libertarians and non-necons running the GOP, we could adapt the obvious strategy of cultivating the white vote.

Anonymous said...

The smart, ambitious ones will join our side anyway.


So what made you on your side? Not smarts or ambiition, obviously. You're dumb as a box of hammers. Tribalism, I'm pretty sure.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of UnAmerican, I've been thinking about hippies a lot lately. I was a part of that generation and I remember hearing so many White kids who self-identified as hippies wishing out load that they had been born Black. They meant it.


Yup, I've met those losers too.

jody said...

"if you ask an elite foreigner what they respect about America"

who cares what they think. they have no idea what they're talking about, and their nations are inferior to what conservative europeans created in the united states.

TH said...

Arthur Jensen has died. RIP. He was one of the greatest behavioral scientists to ever live.

2Degrees said...

"Keep crapping out those kids if it makes you happy, though. The smart, ambitious ones will join our side anyway."

1). You should worry more about your own country than what elite foreigners think. Believe itor not, foreigners have their own priorities and worshipping you for the indefinite future might not be one of them.

2). I am a moderately wealthy, pro-American foreigner and even I think that America's stock has plummeted in the world. Look at the trade deficit. People don't buy so much of your stuff any more. Having a caramel coloured president may, superficially be cool, but many Asians are not as enamoured of all things multiculti as you. They really don't do diversity. America is widely despised as a global bully bombing people on borrowed money.

3). You may think you have evolved into some kind of spiritual super-being, but you're still flesh, blood and shit like the rest of us. No kids = no future.

4). The culture wars are not over and the West is losing. Been to Paris, London or San Diego recently? If the West falls, we might just hang in there. Your side won't and your skills at "public relations, pop fashion and rewriting sociological paradigms" will be revealed for what they really are - hot air.

Hugh said...

I loved this article!

For a long time I've been wondering about the double-counting apparent in so many commentaries on the electorate; this post cleared up many of my questions.

It also sends a clear challenge to the many posters over at "American Conservative" who seem to think that a vote for Romney or for Obama is one and the same thing....well no it's not!

Anonymous said...

Hmmm.

A lot of stock Steveisms about the Republcans being the 'solid, beefy yeoman stock' that 'built America', and veiled appeals to patriotism. The closer the Bama boy looks to re-election, the more jumpy commentators on the right get.
Anyway, why the Hell the loyalty toward the Republicans from middle America?
What of their dark, horrible side? The neoconnery, the sucking up to plutocrats, the free trade dogma, the Bush amnesty, Bush's destroying of the economy etc etc.
For the life of me I cannot understand the loyalty and affection a lot of dupes of working stiffs have for these horrible, horrible people.
Perhaps deep down certain people (mistakenly) think of the Republicans as a bulwark against NAMs. I honestly cannot think of any other reason.

Florida resident said...

One of the best research articles by Mr. Sailer.
Bravo indeed.
Your F.r.

Fun said...

Half of American voters really stretches the definition of "fringe".

Republican voters are a much more homogenous bunch than Democrats, but we already knew that.

Maya said...

"Here's the tragedy. In order to have peace, security, happiness, and wealth, the West since 1945 has made White guys ever more cooperative, agreeable, dutiful, and sociable, and all that has made them absolutely repellent and unsexy. Yet the West's wealth and security rests on the "guys with pocket protectors" (tm Steve Sailer) not sexy Alpha males. Nerdy NASA guys beat a Russell Brand any day for wealth creation."

Yeah, but in the real world, outside of the television comedies and fictional adventures of blog characters, isn't the vast majority of all astronauts, NASA scientists, engineers and math professors married? I mean the men, of course, although, those of them who are lesbians also trend towards long term, stable relationships. And don't engineers and optometrists boast the lowest divorce rates after clergy?

DaveinHackensack said...

Anon @ 11:02 has sharp elbows (as does Steve in his piece), but he makes a valid counterpoint.

Steve's right about the natural Republican core -- the middle aged white guy managing your local Applebee's, or the one dragging his Tumi bag through the airport on the way to Dallas or Minneapolis to make the deals that get products on shelves around the country -- these folks run much of America, and, by and large, they vote Republican.

Steve's also right that there are some bitter and alienated folks on the fringe who are part of the Dem coalition. But Steve left out key parts of the Dem coalition in his piece, parts that anon touched on: Silicon Valley, New York, and Hollywood elites.

The Dem coalition isn't just sad single Jewish women, it's Sarah Silverman, who's funny and cool. It's not just black single mothers, it's hip and pretty WASP actresses like Elizabeth Banks. It's cutting edge and cool Silicon Valley geniuses like Paul Graham.

Those elites are important not just because of their impact as donors, but because they give a patina of "win" to the whole coalition. They make it look less absurd. The single Jewish women and the single black moms may not have much in common, but at least their phenotypes are represented among the Dem elite: smart Jewish comediennes, sassy black actresses, etc.

Rank & file versus rank & file, the comparison favors the GOP. But at the Dems have more of the stars. And the stars keep their rank & file members from dissipating in despair.

DaveinHackensack said...

"Introducing; your RNC 2016 presidential nominee!"

She looks like a black Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. And if she (or Condi Rice, or some other black Republican) every ran as a GOP presidential candidate, best case scenario, she'd increase the GOP share of the black vote by about 5%, which seems to be about the extra percentage Obama captured in '08 versus what a white Dem would have captured.

Maya said...

"others have pointed out is that the younger cohort (basically White men/women in their early forties and down) are not getting married much, certainly not to the degree that they had before. And that this is largely independent of "affordable family formation.""

The latest stats show that marriage rates among the young cohort OVERALL fell by almost 10 percent. However, young Whites are still a lot more likely to get married than the NAMs. And since we had a large influx of NAMs in the past decade, consisting of mostly younger people, it's easy to see how they would skew the overall stats.

Also, I'm not sure if you've heard, but economy hasn't been so hot in the past decade, and people who counted on entering the work force at that time (young people, mostly) were hit especially hard. When economy sinks, marriage rates sink and fertility declines. It has everything to do with affordable family formation.

Oh, and if you think that Austin, Portland and Seattle are affordable cities for an average white couple to start a family, you're insane. City schools there are better than those in Atlanta or Chicago, but nowhere near good. They are still dangerous and filled with low performing populations. Modest family size housing in the nearby good suburban school districts tends to be VERY expensive considering typical earning power of an average young white couple.

"After all, Hispanics and Blacks have defined "family" as a single mother, absent Dad(s), and the government. And Hispanic fertility with far lower median income and net worth levels than Whites dwarfs Whites (and Asians who tend to be higher than Whites in income and net worth median values)."

It's strange that you hang out on HBD blogs, yet you think that all populations and all of their layers have the same values and are motivated by the same things. People who care for their future children don't give a damn about how the Nams have redefined family. Overall, only the lower class whites have kids out of wedlock. It's still very rare for a college educated white woman to have a baby without being married first.

eah said...

My view: Blacks tend to see voting for Obama as a sign of racial self-respect.

How nice of you to put it this way. However, I find the juxtaposition of voting and "self-respect", racial or otherwise, to be odd.

Instead, I prefer my usual characterization: Obama gets the 'stick it to Whitey' vote. This makes it clear that the fact Blacks go for Obama nearly unanimously (for all practical purposes) goes more in the direction of racial animosity (perhaps also to belligerant feelings of entitlement due to historical wrongs), and so has relatively little to do with "racial self-respect" (whatever that is).

As usual this piece was very nonjudgmental -- i.e. it's not clear whether you think it's a good idea or not that 'fringe' elements exert such outsized political influence.

And it is too bad you no longer seem to write the feature piece for Vdare on Monday, which for a long time was true.

Anonymous said...

Interesting article, but Romney and Ryan have no interest in helping the core of the nation. How does taking away the Medicare they paid for help regular Americans?

bluegrass said...

"You're dumb as a box of hammers. Tribalism, I'm pretty sure."

I fail to see the idiocy in tribalism when America is increasingly become nothing more then a landscape of various aggravated and isolated tribes.

Its like the steppes warfare of central Asia, and whites are the current nomadic tribe getting licked. The only modern distinction is that we run away on cars instead of horses.

Anonymous said...

There was a recent rally for Scott Brown, with John McCain as his guest, in my town. A few supporters of Elizabeth Warren were holding signs near the event, and I commented to my friend that Warren's campaign slogan should be Fags & Hags, 2012.

The most bitter, unhappy part of society indeed. It informs their entire worldview.

Troofie, I'd vote for Mia Love. She's one of the Talented Tenth.

Black Death said...

Steve -

This column is excellent - one of your best ever.

peterike said...

Introducing; your RNC 2016 presidential nominee!

I like how Truth points out Mia Love. Attractive, smart, accomplished... and married to a white guy.

Keep crapping out those kids if it makes you happy, though. The smart, ambitious ones will join our side anyway.

What Anonymous here means to say, is that the "status obsessing, media and education system brainwashed ones will join our side anyway."

And he's right about that. I keep making this point every time somebody says "Conservative white people will out-breed Liberal whites." Maybe, but they are nowhere near being more influential.

Liberals are just as much made as they are born. How often do you see conservative parents with liberal kids? All the time. And how often do you see it go the other way? Rarely. Because there is zero media or social impetus to move Right, and an endless, 24x7 force wave pushing Left (perhaps after today we can all that wave Sandy, as Sandy is making a giant left turn).

Anonymous said...

America is now run by blacks, mexicans, gays, jews, and single mothers. That's just the way it it. A true kakistocracy.

Truth said...

Ann Coulter knows how to get YOUR
vote!

Anonymous said...

Boy, all those words and pretty graphs only to affirm Romney's 47 percent analysis.

As to "The smart, ambitious ones will join our side anyway." Don't be so sure, sunshine. The miserable, unbalanced ones will certainly join your side, but the children of the hard-working "white core" tend to be less and less unbalanced and less and less interested in anything your side has to offer. Partly this has to do with their exclusion from the elite institutions your side controls and partly it will have to do with the growing racial consciousness among whites as their percentage of the population continues to decrease. Hilarious that your side has created this growing white solidarity at the core. It should frighten you that solidified whites with a purpose will soon be your implacable foes. Which leaves the infertile, effeminate and homosexual elites of your side with what, exactly? A ridiculous echo chamber of squealing and naughtiness. How exciting! And do you think your non-white foot soldiers will be terrible reliable protecting you as it all unwinds.

ben tillman said...

Bitter much? Anyway, if you ask an elite foreigner what they respect about America much more likely to be something from Silicon Valley, LA, or New York vs. something from Arkansas or the Confederacy, no matter how white & wholesome it is.

And why are you telling us this? It's not relevant to the topic at hand, and we're already aware of this fact. And what kind of misanthrope are you to mock the victims of aggression?

ben tillman said...

So what made you on your side? Not smarts or ambiition, obviously. You're dumb as a box of hammers. Tribalism, I'm pretty sure.

He's gay, and he considers people to be literal pieces of crap.

ben tillman said...

Anyway, why the Hell the loyalty toward the Republicans from middle America?

What of their dark, horrible side? The neoconnery, the sucking up to plutocrats, the free trade dogma, the Bush amnesty, Bush's destroying of the economy etc etc.


That's not THEIR dark side; that's the dark side of the people manipulating them. And they vehementy opposed the Bush amnesty, by the way.

Anonymous said...

peterike - Liberals are just as much made as they are born. How often do you see conservative parents with liberal kids? All the time.

Agreed but "all the time" is a thing of the past (ended about early 2000). When liberalism becomes the default view of a society, it ceases to be rebellious and becomes THE "Establishment". I don't see all children of conservative parents becoming liberal. If anything some of them are becoming part of the "extreme far-right" lol.

Sheila said...

I concur with so many others here - one of your best columns, Steve. It really does boil it down to those who identify as classically "all American" and those who identify as a member of their special interest group (race, sex, religion, ethnicity). Or, despite relative overall percentages (49 and 52), the traditional White core and the fringe. Unfortunately, the fringe keeps growing primarily through race replacement and immigration, and the U.S. is soon to be majority "fringe" just as it is soon to be "majority-minority." Sucks for those of us who despise the fringe, but that's the way it's going to be.

Anonymous said...

In Kleppner's "The Third Electoral System," for instance, it seems pretty clear that for the late 19th century, Republican was the party of the ethnocultural majority, Democrat of the various minority identity groups.


Interesting how white Protestant in the South (who voted Democrat until the 1980's) go from being a "minority identity group" to part of "the ethnocultural majority"!

Severn said...

Steve left out key parts of the Dem coalition in his piece, parts that anon touched on: Silicon Valley, New York, and Hollywood elites.


Yeah. I just don't share your (still less that pathetic Anon's) sky-high opinion of Silicon Valley, New York, and Hollywood. To a large extent these people are moochers, like the poorer sections of the Dem base. It's just that they are successful and very well-connected moochers.

Anonymous said...

There really is no comparison. One one side, young people are seeing Jon Stewart, funny and not transparently ideological in his mockery of conservatives. Not just Stewart, but all of their favorite comedians, writers, and musicians are supporting lefty causes and politicians. They may not appeal to YOU, but what YOU think has never mattered less.

On the other side, you see a sad melange of outright crazy people like Glenn Beck, pathetic dimbulbs like Sarah Palin, and some accomplished but way-past irrelevant folks like Clint Eastwood and Meat Loaf. Their standard-bearer this election doesn't drink, wears magic underwear, and spent his youth going door-to-door convincing Frenchmen to join his cult. What young person with self-respect would rush to identify with all that?

I am in my mid 20's working in the tech industry in San Francisco. There are few things more stigmatized here than cultural conservatism, and very little of it is based on jealousy of heartland America, or resentment of white people (we are mostly white ourselves, by a slim majority). There are a few smart, impressive people who are conservative by temperament, but they are universally libertarians who are just as pro-immigration as the most hardcore leftist. Everybody's got at least a few close friends with immigrant/non-white roots, and that informs our politics a lot more than a bunch of angry Midwestern white guys do.

Gene Berman said...

peterike:

Education, most of which is not only tax-funded but compulsory, has been a fiefdom of the left for many yearS--back to long before I was born (I'm 76).

It was far from apparent when I was in school. Teachers with whom I had any contact could certainly be characterized as "liberal" but not in any obligatory or leftist sense.

I lived in a relatively affluent area in the Philly suburbs. I wasn't in any way political--but frequently heard people--adults, in the main, express political thoughts or opinions. And, in all that time, I heard no expression but Democrat or "liberal." Local officeholders were Democrats but people spoke of Republican politi-cal "bosses." Conservatives were maligned in those days as corrupt, money-grubbing, evil, stupid--in almost the same way as now. I was 15 years old, a h.s. junior before i heard a single person describe himmself as conservative or his political leaning as Republican (in the far-fetched context that a life-long Democrat, Eisenhower, might be persuaded to run for the presidency as a Republican).

Education in the U.S. has been "organized" for a very long time. What that means, as a practical matter, is that the predominantly socialist elite in that field have had at least 3 generations to have massaged as much of the educational "content" as well as the personnel along lines of which they approve. The overwhelming left influence you (and everyone else) observes is not recent but has been going on for a very long time.

In the '60s occurred moderately violent "sit-ins" and "takeovers" of college buildings and campuses and faculty and administration accession to various parts of the "student demand." These cases were actually more akin to "mau-mauing the flak-catchers," faculty and administrations (or at least some of them) aware of their roles--as they had encouraged the "mau-mauing").

The purpose all along has been the entrenchment (even if not outright victory) of socialism.

The result has not been a victory of socialism but certainly an entrenchment beyond any existing force which might be mustered toward its defeat.

Our present (and continuing) decline is analogous to the collapse of the USSR==failure due to the inability to "calculate economically." In the case of the Soviets, their entire productive apparatus was directly subject to this inability--thus the overnight collapse. In our case, only the government is (necessarily) thoroughly socialist; productivity (and the assessment of profit and loss) in private enterprise is, however, so penetrated by various regulatory measures that waste and malinvestment are increasingly common. We'll end up the same way--it'll just take longer.

William said...

An excellent article, certainly one of the best that have been written about this election.

It's obvious that this is what some writers at National Review are trying to say, but that they are prevented from doing so by their adherence to the "prevailing structure of taboo".

BB said...


Troofie, I'd vote for Mia Love. She's one of the Talented Tenth.
If she were a lesbian, she´d be perfect.

Difference Maker said...

Bitter much? Anyway, if you ask an elite foreigner what they respect about America much more likely to be something from Silicon Valley, LA, or New York vs. something from Arkansas or the Confederacy, no matter how white & wholesome it is. American heartland culture has very little outside appeal and is destined to lose against cosmopolitan America. Conservatism lost the elite in the 60's, and the masses have been catching up ever since.

Keep crapping out those kids if it makes you happy, though. The smart, ambitious ones will join our side anyway.


I did not join them, and I will bring them down!

Difference Maker said...

The Dem coalition isn't just sad single Jewish women, it's Sarah Silverman, who's funny and cool. It's not just black single mothers, it's hip and pretty WASP actresses like Elizabeth Banks. It's cutting edge and cool Silicon Valley geniuses like Paul Graham.

Those elites are important not just because of their impact as donors, but because they give a patina of "win" to the whole coalition. They make it look less absurd. The single Jewish women and the single black moms may not have much in common, but at least their phenotypes are represented among the Dem elite: smart Jewish comediennes, sassy black actresses, etc.

Rank & file versus rank & file, the comparison favors the GOP. But at the Dems have more of the stars. And the stars keep their rank & file members from dissipating in despair.


Conservatives get all the girls, so it doesn't matter. Hence how we are able to have children.

It is truly a battle of the elites. Fat fools like bitter Anon are inconsequential

helene edwards said...

if you ask an elite foreigner

what they'll say is the U.S. has "too much freedom." What they mean is they'd like to take all the neo-hippies and Occupy types, dry-shave them, and put them into hard labor camps with blacks. Ask any Persian in Brentwood, for example.

Five Daarstens said...

Steve:

You should look into the "R" programming language. It can do alot of the number crunching and has extensive graph support. With all the hype about "Big Data", I have though about learning it myself.

Mr. Anon said...

"Yet the West's wealth and security rests on the "guys with pocket protectors" (tm Steve Sailer) not sexy Alpha males. Nerdy NASA guys beat a Russell Brand any day for wealth creation."

I have never claimed to understand women or to know what women want. But is Russel Brand really an example of a "sexy alpha male"? He looks like the kind of guy one used to find behind a counter at Tower Records. According to his IMDB page, he is 27 years old, and childless. There are plenty of square, white engineers who have married and fathered kids by that age.

Mr. Anon said...

"Anonymous said...

Keep crapping out those kids if it makes you happy, though."

That one sentence tells me everything I need to know about you: that you are an odious swine.

Noah172 said...

It also sends a clear challenge to the many posters over at "American Conservative" who seem to think that a vote for Romney or for Obama is one and the same thing....well no it's not!

I happen to be a frquent commenter over there.

Obama's and Romney's coalitions are not the same thing as the policies which each man is offering. Romney's voters may be, for the most part, regular middle-class white Christian Americans, but that does not mean that his agenda -- and, more importantly, the agenda of his financiers and courtiers, who are mostly Jewish and/or very rich and/or liberal on social issues and/or warmongers and/or Bush/Rove/McCain fake conservatives -- is beneficial to those supporters.

Obama, love him or hate him (I'm no acolyte by any means), has delivered for his factions, which cannot be said of his predecessor. Some of Obama's policies are in fact quite bad for his core supporters (e.g. mass immigration has been disastrous for blacks), but they are either too ignorant or too blinded by down-with-the-White-Man resentment to realize it.

A vote for Romney is not a vote for sane, Sailer/Buchanan/Paul government.

Anonymous said...

Further adding on to Whiskey's Idea is that most mens status has been lowered relative to womens(hence the value of alternative means of obtaining status), and no one is going to starve if they wait to get married, so fewer marriages.

Truth said...

"America is now run by blacks, mexicans, gays, jews, and single mothers. That's just the way it it. A true kakistocracy."

Really? than how is it that white guys own everything?

Truth said...

Oh, wait, YOU don't own shit, so it must not be true. Forgot the rule, sorry.

Anonymous said...

Them why is fringe winning?

as said...

Fantastic graph.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of UnAmerican, I've been thinking about hippies a lot lately. I was a part of that generation and I remember hearing so many White kids who self-identified as hippies wishing out load that they had been born Black. They meant it.


Another thing Elizabeth Warren could not get right?

Svigor said...

Steve, as I pointed out a few minutes ago in the zero excuses thread (before I saw this post, btw), the zero is now appealing exclusively to his base because he's given up on independents. That's not just business as usual, it's a new strategy. He certainly didn't do this in 2008, when he won the independent vote.

Svigor said...

A lot of stock Steveisms about the Republcans being the 'solid, beefy yeoman stock' that 'built America', and veiled appeals to patriotism. The closer the Bama boy looks to re-election, the more jumpy commentators on the right get.

Lol, go to Nate Silver's blog. Xanax city.

They were MUCH happier a month ago.

Anonymous said...

What does it say about the nation that the Obama strategy might actually work?

DaveinHackensack said...

"Yeah. I just don't share your (still less that pathetic Anon's) sky-high opinion of Silicon Valley, New York, and Hollywood. To a large extent these people are moochers, like the poorer sections of the Dem base. It's just that they are successful and very well-connected moochers."

I think that's the wrong tack for conservatives to take, honestly. If you want to use the Randian term "moochers" to describe the 47%, you can't use it also to describe net taxpayers who are successful in highly competitive and largely meritocratic fields, but happen to vote Dem. It rings hollow.

A better approach for the right would be to highlight the Republican-leaning elite. For example, the oil industry engineers designing robotic drilling equipment that works miles under water are as impressive or more than any Silicon Valley software engineers. They are invisible, though: the only time that industry gets any mainstream media attention is when there's a disaster.

This is where conservative media could play a role. There are reality shows about crab fisherman working in dangerous arctic waters. Why not about oil industry workers doing the same? Bloomberg TV has a daily show about Silicon Valley companies. Why not one on a conservative cable channel about industrial companies?

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Peterike makes good points.

The overwhelming fear of liberals is that they will be considered yahoos because they are white and respectable, so they find ways to distance themselves from that. This is why they like to contrast the pathologies of MS vs MA, thinking that the former are hillbillies and the latter are PhD candidates and jazz fans. Yet when you break down the MS (37% AA) badness and MA (6% AA) goodness by race, you find that there isn't that much difference between the two.

Uncomfortable truth.

Svigor said...

Oh, wait, YOU don't own shit, so it must not be true. Forgot the rule, sorry.

You seem a bit on edge, T. There's no reason for a rock-ribbed black Republican like yourself to worry. Romeny's going to win the election.

Matthew said...

"A vote for Romney is not a vote for sane, Sailer/Buchanan/Paul government."

Neither is a vote for Obama.

We can vote for Romney now and choose not to blindly follow him after elected - expect conservative governance in exchange for our support. There is no chance - NONE - that Obama will do anything to reverse the decline this country is in. Romney, based on his own history, at least seems like the kind of guy who will risk support of his backers to do the right thing. There's a solid chance he'll do whatever it takes to turn this country around.

We've had four years of Obama, and that is long enought o know that he is wrong for the US.

DaveinHackensack said...

There's a good reason why even a centrist Democrat who cares about good governance should want Romney to win: with Romney in the White House, the press would go back to being a watchdog and a check on government excesses.

Anonymous said...

"Liberals are just as much made as they are born. How often do you see conservative parents with liberal kids? All the time. And how often do you see it go the other way? Rarely. Because there is zero media or social impetus to move Right, and an endless, 24x7 force wave pushing Left (perhaps after today we can all that wave Sandy, as Sandy is making a giant left turn)."

How often do you see liberals with kids, period?

These days it is not very difficult to collate your own video library of conservative entertainment. That goes a long way to fostering conservative views in your own children. Homeschooling is getting easier, too.

The big thing to realize is that conservatives have children and liberals don't, as a general rule. The conservative/liberal divide has really only been existent for a couple of generations, but a lot of the Euro DNA for liberalism is now either not being passed on or is in mixed-race offspring, hence no longer in the white DNA pool.

Thus, pro white DNA and culture is getting harder and harder to eradicate, with diminishing returns for doing so. You've also got the natural racial solidarity that comes from familiarity with non-whites.

You've also got the huge and relatively unheralded contribution to Euro DNA from Jewish outmarriage, something that has been happening for decades. Within a generation or two, these offspring are virtually indistinguishable from white people because Ashkenazi Jew DNA is really not that distant from Euro DNA to begin with. This demographic is going to be elite, both in terms of monetary and cultural influence.

At first glance, Hollywood appears to be a leftist monoculture, but if you look closer it is not. There are still movies being made that serve as very effective fables for us, or at least allow us to imagine living among our own. Perhaps increasingly so. The LOTR movies, Mel Gibson's work, the recent "The Adjustment Bureau", Tangled - all would not have been made if Hollywood truly were a monoculture. Instead, there is a new establishment and a new rebellion against it.

Things are definitely changing, but if you lived in San Francisco it's not going to be evident. San Francisco will continue to be a mecca for homosexuals to flock to, and hence liberalism.

JSM said...

"Everybody's got at least a few close friends with immigrant/non-white roots, and that informs our politics a lot more than a bunch of angry Midwestern white guys do."

AWESOME! You agree. We're incompatible. Let's separate.

One caveat, though. When your wonderful immigrant / non-White BFFs discover their own vast reservoirs of latent tribalism and choose to side with their own relatives who want to toss you into the stewpot, DON'T expect us to let you come crawling, battered and bloody, into our Midwest White Angry Man's ethnostate.

Anonymous said...

How long until immigration makes white conservatives the "fringe"?

Hell, the only reason the GOP is still able to win elections is because of the aging, white boomers.

What happens in 10 - 15 years when the white boomers start dying in droves?

Noah172 said...

We can vote for Romney now and choose not to blindly follow him after elected

You mean like when Bush was in charge? Conservatives (honorable exceptions such as Ron Paul aside) did not push back against his excesses until the Harriet Miers brouhaha in October 2005, 57 months into the Bush administration. Bear in mind that conservatives rebelled against Miers only after the public had soured on Iraq, the Katrina debacle, the Bush/Rove Social Security reform flop, and Bush's poll numbers sinking to 40 percent, never to reach 50 again. Even long after this point, many Republicans remained loyal to Bush through the worsening Iraq situation, the amnesty battles, the Abramoff and other scandals, and the financial crash (TARP was passed, with GOP COngressional leadership backing, at the nadir of Bush's approval ratings).

I don't trust today's tribal-minded Republicans to keep Romney honest -- not if he saved America from the Kenyan Anti-Colonial Muslim Marxist Black Power Anti-Christ.

There is no chance - NONE - that Obama will do anything to reverse the decline this country is in

Agreed. I'm not an Obama supporter. Still, if the economy weakens in the next few years (which I expect no matter who is in power), I would rather Obama and the Left get the blame. (Imagine how Democrats would be kicking themselves if John Kerry had been President during the crash of '08). Moreover, since Romney is more likely than Obama to lead this country into a calamitous Zionist jihad against Iran, Romney is really quite dangerous to the GOP's future prospects (just as Bush wrecked the party's reputation with his failures). If Obama is foolhardy and wicked enough to do Netanyahu's bidding (a distinct possibility, whatever the stupid Republicans say about abandoning Israel, blahblahblah), then he and his camp will get the blame for the inevitable disaster that would come from such an endeavor.

Svigor said...

What happens in 10 - 15 years when the white boomers start dying in droves?

Party? Long, thankful prayers?

Truth said...

"Party? Long, thankful prayers?"

Or you smart enterprising white men could just inconvenience yourselves a bit, get real wives and girlfriends, make commitments, and use your microbrew, word music collection and World of Warcraft money on a few sons and daughters....






....BAAAAAW-HAAAAWWW-HAAAWWW-HAAAWW..heeee-heeee-heee-ho-ho that was the funniest one yet; sometimes I slay me!

Golden Bear said...

Hey, Truth, glad to see you are holding the fort. i have vowed to come here daily for now on and provide you with support against these yahoos.

Steve's article at vDare was not all that insightful.

Obama's coalition consisting of Blacks, Latinos, women and other "marginalia" would also include progressive and centrists White men who tire of southernized Whites and the pluocrats who control them.

Thus, Obama's coalition is, in fact, the MAJORITY of the American population.

Silver said...

I am in my mid 20's working in the tech industry in San Francisco.

Say no more, kid. Precisely ten years ago someone rebuked me by describing himself as "idealist at 25, realist by 35." (Lol, I could probably even dig up the post. What an age we live in.) Turned out to be quite true for me too, and I bet it will for you as well. You're already further along than I was at your age. You don't come here screaming racist, racist, RACIST; you just claim it's 'too late' and it's mostly good anyway. My guess is that as you age you'll find your admonitions ringing more and more hollow.

Then again, I could be wrong, in which case you'll be a fool to the day you die.

Anonymous said...

I say this with utmost compassion: it would really be better for all of you to give up your hatred of immigrants. There is really no politically feasible way to make America 90% white again (besides accepting Latinos and Eurasians as white, which seems likely). The (heinous) Breivik path is even worse for your cause. Life is too short to nurse useless grudges and resentments against strangers.

It gets better. Crime is decreasing. Technology makes things cheaper every day. Aging laid-off manufacturing workers will get a better safety net if Obama's re-elected. Educated non-whites are pretty much culturally indistinguishable, except they have better taste in food. Gay people don't want anything to do with you anyway.

Just try being nice.

Silver said...

Just try being nice.

Friend, anti-white bullshit is anti-white bullshit, no matter how much lipstick you slap on that pig.

Truth said...

Hey Golden Bear, welcome back. Good to have the support. These guys here, I think their nice guys, they just need a little more..well...reality in their lives.

The Lightworker said...

"Anyway, why the Hell the loyalty toward the Republicans from middle America?"

White people are growing aware that they will be a minority, and that the emerging majority is anti-White.

The natural consequence of that is an undercurrent of fear.

The herd wants to stay together, even if it is being driven over a cliff.

In mundane terms, even though the Republican Party is objectively anti-White, it is also the mass party of the White race, and every White should be in it (and trying to take it over and redirect it to the benefit of Whites) unless they have a good reason why not (such as being committed to an explicitly pro-White party such as A3P).

The practical benefit of this is potential, not immediate. If the party can be captured for pro-Whites (or at least Whites who are not out and out anti-Whites), Whites will be in a much better position to coordinate defensively, virtually everybody already being in the same party.

Right Guy on Left Coast said...

"I am in my mid 20's working in the tech industry in San Francisco. There are few things more stigmatized here than cultural conservatism...There are a few smart, impressive people who are conservative by temperament... Everybody's got at least a few close friends with immigrant/non-white roots, and that informs our politics a lot more than a bunch of angry Midwestern white guys do.'

And living in San Francisco you don't see any blacks - they're all in Oakland or Visitacion Valley or out by Hunter's Point. And the Mexicans you deal with are mostly subservient busboys. So like any other anti-white liberal, you have no visibility into the consequences of your naive views. By the way, having lived in the Bay Area for 15 years (San Francisco proper for 8 of them) I can assure you there are way more people with conservative views than you think. They (we) mostly keep our views to ourselves - San Francisco being one of, if THE MOST, intolerant city in the nation.

Otis McWrong said...

Truth said..."Oh, wait, YOU don't own shit, so it must not be true. Forgot the rule, sorry."

Truth, I've said this before. I want to like you and admire that you at times will engage thoughtfully. But 90% of the time your responses are just idiotic trash talk. You really can do better.

To the extent you actually want to move people's opinions/sterotypes about blacks, being a jive-talking wise-ass probably isn't the best tack. To the extent you don't want to shift anyone's opinion, then proceed on course.

Truth said...

" But 90% of the time your responses are just idiotic trash talk."

Ten percent OK? That would put me in the all star game on this blog.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Hey Golden Bear, welcome back. Good to have the support. These guys here, I think their nice guys, they just need a little more..well...reality in their lives."

Yeah .... reality .... provided by the guy ("Truth") who believes in water fueled cars, that men never walked on the moon, seeks medical advice from Deepak Chopra, and who defends any hoodlum, as long as he's black.

A note Steve: given that every single post by "Truth" is nothing but an attack on your work, an implied insult to almost everyone here, including you, and that his oeuvre of stupid snarkiness amounts to nothing but one long extended sneer, which enlightens nothing and informs no one, perhaps I am not alone in thinking that you ought to ban him. I used to send in money to this site. I haven't recently, and I won't, as long as this vandal is given as much time on the soapbox as he likes. To be quite honest. We, your loyal readership, can find the kind of crap he posts anywhere - everywhere, in fact. We come here for something different.

Truth said...

"and who defends any hoodlum, as long as he's black."

I take SERIOUS offense to that remark, grasshopper, those are almost FIGHTING WORDS.

The truth is I defend white hoolums too. I have an autographed pair of Jordan Van Der Sloot's sneakers on my fireplace mantel!

Truth said...

"A note Steve: given that every single post by "Truth" is nothing but an attack on your work, an implied insult to almost everyone here, including you, and that his oeuvre of stupid snarkiness amounts to nothing but one long extended sneer, which enlightens nothing and informs no one, perhaps I am not alone in thinking that you ought to ban him. I used to send in money to this site. I haven't recently, and I won't, as long as this vandal is given as much time on the soapbox as he likes. To be quite honest. We, your loyal readership, can find the kind of crap he posts anywhere - everywhere, in fact. We come here for something different."

Geez, touchy, touchy, Sport. Why are you so hostile to everyone all the time. It's not just me?

BTW Steve, don't worry, I'll make up the 2$ a year.

Mr. Anon said...

"Truth said...

Geez, touchy, touchy, Sport. Why are you so hostile to everyone all the time. It's not just me?"

Not everyone. Just you, and it's because you're a s**thead.

"BTW Steve, don't worry, I'll make up the 2$ a year."

Considerably more than that. But I guess we now know how much you think is an appropriate contribution, cheapskate. Such good tippers, you black guys. That's why your reputations proceed you with restaurant staffs.