Monday, November 12, 2012

2012 electoral maps by sex, race, and income

Upon realizing that for cost-cutting reasons there were insufficiently sized exit polling operations carried out in 19 safe states and the District of Columbia, I'd resigned myself to the actualization that it wouldn't be possible to create hypothetical electoral maps based on select demographic characteristics for the 2012 Presidential election. Damn.

But the media consortium didn't conduct detailed polling in the excluded states because they are among the most predictable, and as Steve Sailer has pointed out countless times, people only care about prognosticating about coin tosses. Consequently, with a couple of exceptions that will be noted below, it's obvious how the demographic groupings considered here broke in those states.

Much is made about the gender gap in US politics. While there is a gap more than twice as wide by marital status as there is by sex, the male and female electoral maps look a lot different from one another. Various thinkers on the right have explored how female suffrage has steadily pushed the US leftward. Men and women vote similarly by ancestry, geographic position, and station in life, but the latter are shifted five or six points to the left, movement that is more than enough to tip the scales in one direction or the other in the tight national elections that have been the norm in the country for over a decade now.

First, if only women voted:


Obama wins reelection in an even more convincing fashion than was actually the case, trouncing Romney 347-185 (6 undetermined).

This time, with a little sense and no 19th Amendment:


Under this scenario, Romney wins by nearly the same margin that Obama actually won by.

During the 2008 campaign, Half Sigma doggedly complained that the Sarah Palin wing of the GOP was turning away wealthy, upper class whites who didn't want to be associated with the instincts and concerns of 'prole' whites. Despite the perpetual claims of Republicans being the party of the rich, Obama beat McCain among voters making over $200,000 a year. Romney reversed that in a substantial way, swinging the $200k+ vote 16 points back in the Republican party's favor in 2012. If an income threshold for voting existed, setting it at six figures would be more than enough to give the White House to the Republican party:


Among those making $100k+ annually, Romney obliterates Obama, 372-166. I guess that's a silver lining for guys like HS.

We're repeatedly told how crucial it is for the Republican party to 'reach out' to the one-fourth of the public that is largely hostile towards it at the expense of the nearly three-quarters of the country that more-or-less shares its values and objectives. Knowing that this guarantees the perpetual diminution of the contemporary GOP, those on the left eagerly and disingenuously urge the party to embrace this favorite tactic of the Establishment.

Pandering to and working towards increasing the size of the non-white vote has helped put the Republican party in the spot it now finds itself in, of course. As Ann Coulter puts it, "If Mitt Romney cannot win in this economy, then the tipping point has been reached. We have more takers than makers and it’s over. There is no hope." She dances delicately around the race/ethnicity issue, but she is unique among popular pundits on the right in realizing that there is more to the makers-takers dichotomy than just W-2s.

Before heeding the Establishment's advice and running off the electoral cliff, Republicans should consider how favorable things look for them when the white folk are asked what they think:


Even the two big blue strongholds of California and New York abandon the multiculti party as Romney--compared to Reagan by some boosters during the campaign--enjoys a Reaganesque victory, winning 470-61 (7 undecided). Upping the ante even more, some sense along with revocations of both the 15th and 19th Amendments:


Oh what hideous cartography! Romney wins the electoral college among white men 490-41 (7 undecided). Parenthetically, Rhode Island, one of the states excluded from serious exit polling this time around, gave 48% of it's white male vote to McCain in '08. Given that Romney garnered the support of 62% of white men to McCain's 57%, it's certainly conceivable that Romney won among white guys in Rhode Island this time, but without being able to definitively make that call, I gave it to Obama in the above. If Romney won it, the electoral score becomes 494-37 (7 undecided).

If the US looked like Nebraska, it wouldn't necessarily follow that we'd have a two-party system consisting of a perpetual majority and an ever-defeated opposition. Instead, general election campaigns would be as competitive as they are today. Gauging public sentiment has come a long, long way from Dewey beats Truman, and campaigns on both sides are able to calibrate the message precisely enough to reliably get, at a minimum, say 45% of the vote. The difference would be that general elections would look like Republican primaries do now, and the typical Republican primary would resemble a debate between Sailer, Auster, Buchanan, Barone, Raimondo, and Reynolds. The demographic transformation the US is currently undergoing is driving a stake through the heart of political conservatism. Indeed, we are doomed.

With all this reclinating back towards the good 'ole days, it feels like we're forgetting something far more relevant for the future. How does the electoral map look when we consider non-whites exclusively? Well, despite representing the driving force behind the nation's demographic changes, it looks exactly the same as it did in 2008. Rather than recreate it here, I'll just ask you to take a look at the original.

24 comments:

asdf said...

Romney was our generations Reagen, it just doesn't matter anymore.

Aeoli Pera said...

Audacious Epigone,

These maps beg a line of reasoning that will need especial emphasis a few years from now:

If, as we often assume, white men are truly superior in the mean, it would be disastrous if they voted/acted strictly in self-interest the way women and minorities do. Sure, liberalism has taken us too far in that direction (and I'm quite familiar with the prisoner's dilemma), but I sense an overcorrection in the works. I think we all do, with varying degrees of excitement or dread.

Once the superior group has the reins, it is imperative that they rediscover noblesse oblige. It is disastrous when genuinely superior people interminably self-identify as victims, giving them carte blanche to exploit their "oppressors" (think of Jews in 21st century America).

In a concrete sense, if you (reader) are smarter than your coworkers you have a proportional moral obligation to keep their interests in mind. It's the only way civilization can work. And this isn't a repudiation of laissez faire either. It is only a recognition of the fact that you can trick an idiot into permanent debt peonage to you (legally), but you sacrifice the benefits of comparative advantage in the meantime.

tl;dr If the strong (or high IQ) enslave the weak, then you lose the benefits of civilization.

Anonymous said...

I don't think you have to assume the superiority of the white race, the evidence based on invention and accomplishment speak for themselves.

That said, whites need to understand that the minorities (soon to aggregate to majority) of the US are very much more tribal than whites, and that the only strategy that can preserve our people is to recognize that we indeed are a people. Yes, whites must become tribal.

I talk with various thinkers about genetic engineering fostering cognitive equality. Maybe, but it seems to me such facility will exacerbate tribal preference as the non-white tribes will not need the cognitive skills of whites, and will do business internally to themselves.

My two cents.

Aeoli Pera said...

The point I'm making is that there's a correct way to treat inferior people, both from a personal perspective and from a societal perspective.

But once superiority is acknowledged it doesn't take much rationalizing to get to slavery, manifest destiny, and the like. The danger in such immoral ideas is that they are based mostly on truth. All it takes is one little misdirection and noblesse oblige becomes slavery.

Hal K said...

Obama's white vote plummeted relative to 2008, while Romney's white vote total was about the same as McCain's. I posted an article about this at 2008 and 2012 Election Vote Totals by Race.

Who were these ~7 million white former Obama voters who stayed home this time? Were they mostly men or women? What issues do they care about? If they had voted for Romney instead of staying home it would have been a landslide for Romney.

Anonymous said...

Off topic here, but does anyone know what happened to The Inductivist blog? The last post there was October 19th.

M said...

Thanks, Jews.

jeppo said...

There are a couple problems with your whites-only electoral map. According to the exit polls, whites in Connecticut voted 51-48 for Obama, while whites in New York voted 49-49. So Connecticut should be colored blue instead of beige, and New York beige instead of red.

As you pointed out, there is no exit polling data from 19 states and DC. Therefore we have to make educated guesses about the white vote in all these places. I believe you guessed correctly in all of them except Delaware, which you colored blue.

Delaware as a whole voted for Obama 59-40, while neighboring Maryland voted for him 62-37. But only 43% of white Marylanders voted for him, down from 56% in 2008. Whites in Delaware voted 55% for Obama in 2008.

Maryland is 55% white and 29% black, while Delaware is 65% white and 21% black. So it's quite possible, IMO highly probable, that Obama's white vote collapsed in Delaware this year just like it did in Maryland, and that Obama's big victory there was entirely due to the votes of blacks and other non-whites.

Anyway, there's no evidence that a majority of whites in Delaware voted for Obama, and in all probability they in fact likely voted for Romney. So you should change Delaware from blue to red, or at the very least to beige.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

The Inductivist has said that his personal research has really picked up lately so he's been away from the blog. It's a hiatus, though, not an end.

Jeppo,

Are you looking at the Reuters' poll? I haven't looked at that one yet and am using the consortium edison data (I was in the dark about it, too--Steve got me excited though). I double checked to make sure I didn't make a data entry error: New York is 50%-48% Romney and CT split 49%-49%.

jeppo said...

I thought all the news agencies used the same consortium data, but according to CNN, whites voted for Obama 51-48 in CT and 49-49 in NY.

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/CT/president

Who should we believe, Fox or CNN?

Assistant Village Idiot said...

This is excellent data to know, but as the demographic trends are not going to reverse, it starts to come under the category of "well, we would govern the country better, if only someone would let us." True, but ain't gonna happen.

That whole white males/married white males/white people/married people set of advantages, however one wants to emphasize the breakouts, needs a coalition partner. The strategy of convincing enough people from all the other groups that they share enough of our values to prefer us, and we really would run the place better, gets us slightly over 50% at our best. We need 55% consistently with gusts up to 60% to fix things.

We need a coalition partner, even European-style, to succeed. Whether ideological or demographic, a group which we can agree to disagree, but have givebacks in terms of cabinet positions or specific issues. Trying to get a few more Catholics, and few more single women, and few more union guys is not working.

rjp said...

asdf said...
Romney was our generations Reagen, it just doesn't matter anymore.


You are a fucking idiot.

rjp said...

Romney would have been the exact same policies but just less TRILLIONS of DOLLARS of garbage payouts to green and garbage payouts to blacks.

Aeoli Pera said...

Assistant Village Idiot,

What's your take on the secession movements?

Aeoli Pera said...

You are a fucking idiot.

That's the problem, isn't it? They keep poppin' out more of 'em. I'm beginning to think "eugenics" was an oxymoron to begin with.

Audacious Epigone said...

Aeoli Pera,

Haha, clever.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

AP - I don't see how secession movements gain steam unless people see pretty solid long-term economic possibilities. People will go far and put up with a lot, especially when young, to get ahead. Secession is a form of going somewhere without moving. You can preach to folks that they are going to save money in the long run because they won't have to pay for x or y. But they'll have to believe it's true, or only the few will try.

Technology has the mixed effect of taking your privacy but enlarging it. I think most people who believe that America isn't America anymore will secede in smaller ways.

I've told my sons to teach their kids to be interested in space travel.

Matt said...

Other interesting ones would have been white and black only (i.e. filter out post-65 immigrants), white men with property, and those who collect no government money, either directly via welfare or obliquely by e.g. working for a defense contractor.

The last two would probably be impossible to produce though.

rjp said...

The more I look at your maps, Iowa really is a cesspool of idiots wanting to lead the nation.

Anonymous said...
Off topic here, but does anyone know what happened to The Inductivist blog? The last post there was October 19th.

I noticed that too.

Richard Silva said...

QUOTE: Anonymous said...
**I don't think you have to assume the superiority of the white race, the evidence based on invention and accomplishment speak for themselves.

That said, whites need to understand that the minorities (soon to aggregate to majority) of the US are very much more tribal than whites, and that the only strategy that can preserve our people is to recognize that we indeed are a people. Yes, whites must become tribal.

I talk with various thinkers about genetic engineering fostering cognitive equality. Maybe, but it seems to me such facility will exacerbate tribal preference as the non-white tribes will not need the cognitive skills of whites, and will do business internally to themselves.**

I think Whites are becoming more Tribal. Maybe NOT quite as much as Hispanics / Blacks... How about the High Hispanic/Asian + White Inter-Marriage rate, nearly 50% for US Born Hispanics and Asians... surely that complicates the situation.

Also without a doubt White/Europeans have contributed quite considerably the most to Global Civilization, in terms of Technology / Development and Trade.

The media or the race/ethnic baiters would NEVER except this fundemental fact.

The more Hispanic/Black America (parts of America Get) - the MORE Chaotic / Poor and Disorganized they get. Most Hispanic Communities are replicating their homelands, but just a little bit richer.

Finally being of Jewish Origin myself. I will never understand why the Left Wing Jewery want to destroy the West. Ultimately ISRAEL IS FAILING AS A STATE, so IF (Hope to god it never happens) - Europe becomes Eurabia and America Becomes a Thirds world crap hole, with Squabbling Nationalities and 3rd World Poveryty/Chaos and Crime, I really can't figure out how this will help Jews or Anyone!

Thanks

Anonymous said...

I would like to remind everyone that racism is a sin.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=9J2nUPXdCKyMyAHZ8YHoDw&id=1DqYoMRNdBAC&dq=the+biblical+offense+of+racism&ots=ZiX7JFx89w&jtp=1

If you think that the reason the US is now in trouble is that we abandoned a sin (allowing black people to vote, and allowing people of color to *legally* immigrate to the US, etc), then you are just another part of the problem in America. God is judging us right now - probably for abortion. Don't make it worse by being a racist.

John In So-Cal said...

**QUOTE: I would like to remind everyone that racism is a sin. **

Will you still this that when America is a 2nd World Chaotic sh*thole or even worse a 3rd World Nightmare?

Is racism really a sin if certain groups can be racist towards the majority. Just look at inter-racial violent attacks and rapes. The vast majority are black on white, followed by Hispanic on White.

We need to reduce our tribalistic tendencies and focus on our Americaness (From many to One)... Becuase if Many Remain Many and Tribal/Seperate, it will be an absolute mess.

Having Lived in South California all my life, I can tell you how much we are divided as a nation, and the Federal Gov, is deliberately focusing on our differences to "Control" us (Divide and Conquer). if someone wants to come to the US. They need to Assimlate. At the end of the day their culture and values are failed values and cultures, which is why they have fled their countries.

Ending EBT /Welfare / AA and the Hypenated American would help with integrating and uiting ALL Americans of differnt races and creeds/backgrounds!

Diversity and Multicult is nothing more than Marxist Divide and Conquere!

Justin Black said...

this really proves how flawed the electoral system is..

Master Dogen said...

Jesus. I need to get out of Washington State. No wonder this place drives me crazy.