Also, I disagree with Brimelow's characterization of the vote as tribalistic--I think "identity politics" is a better phrase. Trend-bucking young bucks are more likely to vote for trend-bucking old bucks. White women for other women, but white male Democrats more likely to side with Obama than Hillary. Military vets with the military man, McCain. Then again, black women went with race over gender by huge margins. So perhaps we should split the baby--whites are more into the "identity" game, as they are, on average, most able to see themselves in a person of another ethnic/racial group or even gender, and other groups, especially blacks, as tribalistic.
Scrolling through the exit poll results from South Carolina and Nevada, I made an observation that is hardly novel--identity politics have a lot of explanatory power. And as the US continues on the road to an increasingly diverse demographic mix, the trend will only be accentuated.
- In South Carolina, among Evangelicals and born-again Christians, Huckabee took McCain, 43%-27%. In uncompetitive Nevada, Huckabee's proportion of the Evangelical/born-again vote was more than seven times his proportion of the rest of the vote.
- Among those who have served in the military, McCain took Huckabee, 36%-29%. That's not an enormous gap, and it represented just one-fourth of primary voters. But among the three-fourths who have never served in the military, McCain and Huckabee drew, at 32% a piece. Looking at it from this perspective, the military vote gave McCain the win.
- In Nevada, among women, Hillary took Obama, 51%-38%.
- Among blacks, Obama took 83% of the vote.
- In an epigone's attempt at autodidact-ism, awhile back I tried to understand the OJ Simpson murder trial that I'd been in elementary school during. Steve Sailer provided a lot of help with a quick comment:
Johnnie Cochran was a lot smarter than Marcia. He wanted to stack the jury with blacks, she wanted to stack it with women, so they ended up with a disproportionate number of black women. Johnnie was right.Black women went just as strongly for Obama as black men did. Thus, of the major gender/racial groups, white women and black women were the most disparate duo. Relative to white women, black women were ten times as likely to 'ditch' gender in favor of something that struck closer to home.
- Also in Nevada, with Bill Richardson out of the race, among Hispanics, Hillary took Obama, 64%-26%. Despite the 'solidarity' of racial interest group leaders, Hispanics and blacks have a rocky relationship. Democrats have worried Hispanics will not vote for a black candidate. That concern is apparently well-founded.
There are a couple of other points of interest:
- In a mock Republican Presidential debate I participated in (as Ron Paul), Jack Cashill, playing Mitt Romney, fielded a question from a serious Christian who was concerned about his Mormonism. Jack (who is actually Catholic) responded not with an apologetic about the faith, but by pointing out that 'we' (Mormons) have the most kids and vote the most heavily Republican. Nevermind what we believe, the important thing is that we get it done!
Mormons are one of the few significant (the only?) non-WASP demographic groups that consistently and overwhelming vote Republican. In Nevada, 3% of those who voted on in the Democratic contest were Mormon. For the GOP, they comprised 26% of the total (of which a staggering 95% backed Romney). In 2004, President Bush performed better in Utah than any other state.
- The political future of the US is in the hands of old fogies. In each of the three contests (SC for the GOP, Nevada for each party), those 60 years and older made up more than one-third of the voting participants. On the Republican side in Nevada, they comprised 45% of the total.
Privatized accounts? Index SS benefits to inflation instead of wages? Raising the 401(k) and IRA penalty-free withdrawal ages? And I thought 'protecting Social Security' was a 'populist' issue now!