Sunday, January 31, 2016

Iowa cucks

Some 99%--and that's not hyperbole--of Iowa's Republican caucus-goers are white. Here are candidate favorability percentages among Iowa Republicans from the last poll to be released before voting takes place tomorrow:


Do not underestimate the implicit self-loathing of even the most outwardly patriotic, traditionalist pink skins. The inchoate identitarianism that seemed so salient in 2015 is still a long, long way from maturity.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Sanders now holds slight edge among white Democrats while Hillary leads substantially among non-whites

I've predicted that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination because non-whites, especially blacks, won't vote for a carpetbagging Jew from lily white, rural Vermont who appeals to white college kids, and white Democrats won't vote for a candidate that black Democrats don't like.

That prediction is looking more precarious by the day (but hey, I do this for fun, while Nate Silver makes a living doing it, so cut me more slack than you cut him!). The first part is holding up--that non-whites won't back Sanders--but the second part--that liberal whites won't contradict non-whites--appears tenuous. Support among white Democrats in the latest Reuters/Ipsos five-day national tracking poll:


The same, among non-white Democrats:


The Clinton campaign's criticism of Bernie Sanders' implicit whiteness is drawn into sharper focus.

If having my powers of prognostication humbled is collateral damage in the process of the Coalition of the Fringes tearing itself apart, I'll suffer those slings every day!

Buggers for Bernie?

Pumpkin Person writes:
Meanwhile gay men who attacked my candidate in 2007-2008, are also now attacking my bro Bernie Sanders. Hillary’s gay attack dog David Brock has viciously accused this wonderful man of being a racist simply because his recent ad included too many whites.Meanwhile gay men who attacked my candidate in 2007-2008, are also now attacking my bro Bernie Sanders. 
Brock was a hardcore right-wing wacko until he became so impressed by the Diva who wont back down, that he threw his own party under the bus to become a Clinton shill, accusing prominent conservatives like Matt Drudge of being secretly gay.
This assessment is not one I'd have assumed to be the case. Hillary crushes Sanders among black and Hispanic Democrats, and those groups, especially the former, treat homosexuality with much less reverence than whites do, let alone liberal whites. Homosexuality, especially male homosexuality, is characterized by neotenous cognitive, behavioral, and emotional traits. As Bernie appeals to college kids, so I'd expect him to appeal to gays.

Reuters/Ipsos polling appears to lend credence to my skepticism. Support among Democrat homos, bisexuals, and those identifying their sexual orientations as "other" in the latest Reuters/Ipsos five-day national tracking survey:


The same among Democrat heteros:


That doesn't imply that high profile, self-appointed gay spokespeople support Sanders, though. Virtually no one in the Democrat establishment does, after all.

Friday, January 29, 2016

Trumping the conventional wisdom on ground game?

Effective "ground game" is considered crucial for presidential candidates to find success in state caucuses. A recent Monmouth poll included a question that serves as a clean, quantitative measure of this rather nebulous term. It asked likely caucus voters if they had been personally asked to vote for a candidate (through neighborhood canvassing, being contacted by a candidate's phone bank, etc).

In Iowa, the percentages of likely voters who reported having been contacted by each candidate's campaign and that candidate's Real Clear Politics' polling support averages:

Candidate%Contacted%IAsupport
Cruz2525.2
Rubio1714.4
Trump1331.4
Carson128.2
¡Jabe!93.8
Paul93.6
Fiorina81.8
Huckabee72.6
Christie52.6
Santorum50.6
Kasich42.2
Gilmore40.0

It's immediately apparent that ground game and polling performance are strongly related. Indeed, they correlate at .79 (p-value = .002). Vigorous though that relationship is, once trend-bucking Trump is removed, the correlation increases to a nearly perfect .98 (p-value = .00000001). In other words, ground game--quaint though it may seem in a country of 330 million where mass communication is free, instantaneous, and almost infinitely scalable--appears to be deserving of the attention it receives.

The caucus process is tediously time-consuming. Consequently, turnout is much smaller than in comparable primaries, where the process mirrors that of general election voting. In 2012, just over 120,000 people--a mere 5% of Iowa's adult population--participated in the Republican caucuses. Cruz has been working the state for years. Historically, that pays dividends on caucus day.

But Trump has overcome seemingly insurmountable odds from the get-go. While Cruz and Rubio have pestered more individual Iowans than Trump has, Trump's message and mannerisms resonate with middle American radicals more viscerally than anything that comes out of the mouths of the political puppets.

The prediction markets for Iowa now have Trump at 70% and Cruz at 29%, suggesting that the smart money is on Trump to defy yet another allegedly ironclad rule of presidential campaigning. Cruz needs the snow expected in Iowa on Tuesday to turn out to be a blizzard that arrives a day earlier than the meteorologists are predicting it will. Des Moines' five-day forecast:



Thursday, January 28, 2016

Trump racks up another Establishment casualty

Several reasons why Trump doesn't show tonight:

- He has made his campaign about showing the Republican establishment how impotent they are. He's not just doing what typical Republican puppets do, talking about how bad the "mainstream media" is while exempting awful neocon outfits like Fox News and National Review in the process. Trump is going for their jugulars, too. That a Republican would not only stand toe-to-toe with but then proceed to punch Fox News between the eyes and still carry the nomination will be a huge point of appeal in the general election. No one else in the Republican field would dare say anything bad about Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, or any other major Republican, Inc entity.

- This is Trumpian deal-making 101. Trump's stump regarding the Iran deal goes like this: Day one, we demand the prisoners back. If we don't get this concession immediately, we walk. In 48 hours, Iran will tell us we have the prisoners back because it's for Iran to keep them and they stand to lose too much by killing negotiations over it.

So it is with the Fox News debate. While Fox News gets to feign toughness by refusing to yield to Trump's demands, it's going to hang their advertisers out to dry. And it's not like Trump owes Fox News for any of that. To the contrary, they owe him for the tens of millions of dollars in advertising that he has earned them so far.

- It provides some cover for Iowa if he loses. As an aside, it's funny that Trump is considered the Iowan favorite. Prior to the last couple of weeks, Trump's position in Iowa had been tenuous from the beginning. The caucus process is tedious and confusing and Iowa's participating Republicans are among the most religious in the country. Trump, of course, doesn't need to win Iowa--he is almost certainly going to win New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada in the coming weeks. If he wins Iowa, it's over. If he doesn't, Cruz stays alive, but still as the underdog.

- This gives Trump even more leverage with a hostile media in the future. The ratings for the debate are going to be poor compared to the previous FNC debate. Greta van Susteren's viewers were polled and 87% of them said they weren't going to watch the debate without Trump in it. Roger Ailes apparently called Trump's wife and his daughter (because Trump refused to speak from anyone below Rupert Murdoch) pleading with them to get Trump to reconsider. Leverage indeed!

- Trump doesn't owe FNC anything. He makes the networks hosting the debates several millions of dollars more than they'd make without him participating. By opting out, he is essentially freezing primary support in place, because no one is going to watch the debate now. In 2012, the GOP presidential debates brought in between 3-6 million viewers. The first FNC debate, in contrast, drew 24 million viewers.

- Cruz and Trump came to blows in the last debate and Trump got the better of the exchange. But he did so surprisingly--even Trump was surprised--with the New York values attack from Cruz and Trump's perfect response to it. Cruz ended up clapping awkwardly at Trump's riposte to the attack Cruz himself launched! It was fun to see:



In other words, Trump got lucky because nine times out of ten Cruz will get the better of the polemical back-and-forth (at least on verbal substance--Trump is the undisputed master of non-verbal communication). Cruz is a career politician and a trained lawyer. He has a sharp mind, he's loquacious, he can keep an enormous amount on the top of his head and the tip of his tongue. This format, in contrast, is new to Trump, who is almost 70 years old. Those are tough odds.

- While squaring off with Cruz would be neutral for Trump at best and harmful to him at worst, Cruz now stands to actually lose some ground. He's going to be the main target on stage. There will be some attacks on Trump at first, but that won't be enough to carry the entire debate, and Cruz is the only person even remotely close to Trump nationally (although he is still way behind, with only about half the support of Trump has among Republicans and even less than that among "likely voters").

- The debate is allegedly going to include questions from an illegal immigrant living in the US and a Muslim on record comparing Trump to Hitler. These were obviously traps laid to try and snare Trump, yet another blatant example of bad faith on the part of the Republican party leadership. It is not cowardly to avoid walking into an ambush, it's prudence.

Finally, while Trump's judgment here is probably sound (and who the hell am I to second-guess it?), I wish he would've responded to the border-hopping scofflaw with, "I'll use our leverage with Mexico to urge your country--your country [signature Trump finger raise]--to enforce its laws just like we will begin enforcing ours. Your country needs to fix its own problems rather than sending them to us."

To the Saracen: "There are 50 majority-Muslim countries to choose from. What is so bad about all those Muslims that makes you to want to get away from them so badly to come live here?"

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Trump answers Derb (sort of)

The Derb writes:
The Donald Trump campaign is particularly big on “making America great again.” But does the Donald mean the same thing by that phrase that I mean? Yo, Mr. Trump: We have 50,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen stationed in Japan; 38,000 in Germany; 28,000 in South Korea; 12,000 in Italy for crying out loud. You OK with those numbers, Mr. Trump? Hello? I wish someone would ask him.
It's not a full-fledged answer to his questions, but in Trump's campaign book, Crippled America, he writes (p34/35):
We defend Germany. We defend Japan. We defend South Korea. These are powerful and wealthy countries. We get nothing from them.

It's time to change all that. It's time to win again.

We've got 28,500 wonderful American soldiers on South Korea's border with North Korea. They're in harm's way every single day. They're the only thing that is protecting South Korea. And what do we get from South Korea for it? They sell us products--at a nice profit. They compete with us.

...

How stupid are we?!

...

We're spending trillions of dollars to safeguard other countries. We're paying for the privilege of fighting their battles. It makes no sense to me.
To put these excerpts in context, Trump doesn't necessarily call for a draw down in overseas deployments, but strongly insinuates that if the US isn't compensated an amount commensurate with what it costs us to maintain those overseas deployments, they aren't worth it.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Shemale Olympiad Equality!

New guidelines for Olympic competitions will now allow transgenders who are females pretending to be males to compete against men without restriction. It's tempting to write this off as entirely ideological without any realized consequences in actual competitions, since a reasonable working assumption may be that women can't compete with men in any Olympic competition at an elite level. But while there aren't any Olympic competitions that women are distinctly better at than men are, in things like equestrian competitions and archery, approximate sex parity can and has existed at the top. Perhaps yoganidrasana competitions can be introduced to the Olympics in 2020.

Far more remarkable is the declaration that it is permissible for males putatively identifying as females to compete in women's competitions. There is a testosterone restriction (for now), but sex reassignment surgery isn't even required.

Last June, I wrote:
What happens when the next Jenner comes along at, say, the 2016 Olympics? Granting for the sake of argument that what he identifies as now is what he has always felt himself to be, this next Jenner decides to compete in women's track competitions. He wins golds in everything he competes in, and sets several world records (for women) in the process. This new Jenner single-handedly has the capacity to destroy women's sports as the world knows it, at least in the parts of the world where World War T has been won. There is, of course, no reason that he'd be acting alone in this regard. Lots of biological men newly minted as women would flock after him, and the Ladybugs phenomenon would come to dominate everything.
Speaking of Jenner, his 400m time in 1976 is still faster than any woman, Olympiad or otherwise, has ever run the 400m in. This even though it wasn't the top time among men then and certainly isn't now.

If Jenner had identified as a woman in the seventies, you might imagine that he would hold the women's world records in just about everything he competed in. But of course there'd be a bunch of other males identifying as transgender women who'd be vying for those same world records, too. Once participants in physical competitions are no longer segregated by sex, males win everything, and the question of which gender each man identified as when he wins becomes little more than a semantic one, or akin to identifying who the best rushers in the NFC and AFC are.

I've long since given up on there ever being a "jumping the shark" moment for the risible absurdity of cultural Marxist beliefs. Don't fool yourself, tomorrow will be even more ridiculous than yesterday was.

Saturday, January 23, 2016

Nate the slippery Silverfish

++Addition++Jason Malloy points out that today (1/25/16) a Slate writer picked up on the same thing we've been chronicling here. From the darkness comes light, and a blinkered, blinking Silver is stultified, mouth agape.

---

In November, Nate Silver put Donald Trump's chances at the GOP nomination thusly:
For my money, that adds up to Trump’s chances being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent.
In the interim, Trump's performance in national polls has climbed 10-15 points higher than Silver thought they would ever reach. From the aforementioned November post:
Right now, he has 25 to 30 percent of the vote in polls among the roughly 25 percent of Americans who identify as Republican. (That’s something like 6 to 8 percent of the electorate overall, or about the same share of people who think the Apollo moon landings were faked.) As the rest of the field consolidates around him, Trump will need to gain additional support to win the nomination. That might not be easy, since some Trump actions that appeal to a faction of the Republican electorate may alienate the rest of it. Trump’s favorability ratings are middling among Republicans.
Additionally, he asserted that Trump's poll numbers were probably inflated because a majority of the polls conducted were of registered voters rather than of likely voters, the thought being that, come primary day, those Republicans unlikely to vote will be overrepresented among Trump supporters. (Silver apparently extrapolated this from insights he gleaned at some point showing an inverse correlation between attending political rallies and participating in the electoral process!)

Fortunately, Reuters-Ipsos interactive polling explorer allows us to test Silver's assertion, as the organization polls all Republicans as well as drilling down further to those who say they are likely to vote in the Republican primaries. The latest five-day rolling national tracking poll (through January 22nd) shows that while Trump only gets 38% support among Republicans who are not likely primary voters, he gets 44% among those who are likely primary voters. In other words, Silver's implausible-sounding assertion is contradicted by the actual data now available to test it.

Undeterred by his awful predictions in November, Silver shifted to talking about Trump's putative looming problems with general election appeal last week. I suspect the primary motivation here is to get Republican Trump backers to second-guess their support, since, as Silver knows, only a fraction of voters have started paying attention to the presidential election ten months out.

Hillary Clinton, a known political entity, is likely closer to her ultimate support ceiling than Trump, a less well known political entity, is. Indeed, in the month that Reuters-Ipsos has tracked Trump's favorability rating among likely general election voters, it has risen from 42.2% on December 20th to 46.2% on January 21st.

Silver didn't stay there for long. Just three days later, he put out a post entitled "One Big Reason To Be Less Skeptical Of Trump", referring to Trump's presidential chances. Rather than cutting through anecdotes, hype, and talking-head blather to give us the true story based on cold, hard empirical data, Silver sounds like any of the other punditry clowns who have been off the mark on just about everything in the 2016 presidential election up to this point. Silver, in finally hinting at the deficiencies in his powers of prognostication thus far, offered this explanation:
The reason I’ve been especially skeptical about Trump for most of the election cycle isn’t listed above. Nor is it because I expected Trump to spontaneously combust in national polls. Instead, I was skeptical because I assumed that influential Republicans would do almost anything they could to prevent him from being nominated.
Oh, so all the reasons he gave in those previous posts about Trump's support being wide but shallow, or about how Trump's support was overstated because most voters still had yet to decide who they'd vote for, or that Trump's support had probably peaked, or that it was likely that someone would surge in the weeks before Iowa to steal Trump's thunder, or that the polling data was misleading because it was based on registered voters rather than likely voters weren't the real reasons he put Trump's chances of getting the Republican nomination at "considerably less than 20 percent". No, no, the real reason he predicted Trump's demise was because he thought "influential Republicans" would try to keep him from getting the nod!

Good grief, on the sidebar of the very post in which Silver is writing this is a link to what Silver calls "The Endorsement Primary", something he describes as "among the best predictors of which candidates will succeed and which will fail". It shows ¡Jabe! in first. Trump, along with Ben Carson, are tied in dead last, without a single endorsement from a Republican officeholder of significance. At the state level, the party is trying to handicap Trump however they are able to. The Republican response to Obama's state of the union address includes an attack on its party's own frontrunner. Leading cuckservative publications like National Review throw everything they can against him. Members of the Respectable Right say they'd vote third-party if Trump was the GOP's nominee. One wonders how different the race would be if influential Republicans actually opposed Trump!

Last month, Agnostic wrote that Big Data would be the biggest loser from the 2016 election cycle. How very right he was.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Speaking of Nate Silver

FiveThirtyEight runs an endorsement primary, with one point awarded to house endorsements, five points to senatorial endorsements, and ten points to gubernatorial endorsements. Silver's site describes this system as "among the best predictors of which candidates will succeed and which will fail". Here are the standings, as of January 20th:

¡Jabe! -- 51
Rubio -- 43
Christie -- 26
Huckabee -- 26
Kasich -- 20
Cruz -- 17
Paul -- 15
Fiorina -- 3
Santorum -- 1
Carson -- 0
Trump -- 0

This system inversely correlates (r = .21, p-value = .52) with national polling results, though the relationship isn't statistically significant.

It also marginally inversely correlates (r = .05, p-value = .90) with market-predicted outcomes, again without statistical significance.

It's all just one big dog-and-pony show. The only thing that really matters is what Susan Collins said last summer!

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Nate Silver's shifting line

Big Data is getting egg all over its face this election cycle. Agnostic has already eloquently articulated as much, so let's go ahead and pile on.

Just two months ago, Nate Silver, head proprietor of 538, wrote:
For my money, that adds up to Trump’s chances being higher than 0 but (considerably) less than 20 percent.
Contender for 2016's most 
punchable shitlib face?
To his credit, he does allow--in cowardly CYA weatherman fashion--that Trump's chances are greater than 0%!

Silver's now on to explain how Trump can't win the general election because he's unpopular with voters. If he had any shame, he'd concede that his November assurances that Trump was a long shot at best for the GOP nod is now very much the contrarian position not only based on polling data--which he discounted in favor of prediction markets--but also based on... prediction markets.

The odds as of January 20th:


Typical Trump rally
Yes, betting against ¡Jabe! offers a potential 20% annual return (if purchased now and cashed out in mid-July when the Republican national convention occurs), though the market takes 5% of a participant's withdrawals.

Bizarrely, Silver asserts that while Trump's poll numbers are high, electoral participation by his supporters will not be correspondingly impressive.

Googling images for "[candidate] rally crowd" makes it abundantly clear that Trump's rally crowd advantage dwarfs even his lead in the polls, and he's holding several of these rallies per week, sometimes even per day. The presumption that rally attendance inversely correlates with electoral participation is a curious one to say the least. "We'll drive an hour and then wait in line outside in the bitter cold to see, from the nosebleed section, a tiny figure on the dais that the jumbotron reveals is in fact Trump, but we're not swinging by the polling location at the church four blocks down the road after work to vote for him in our state's primary!"

Unsurprisingly, Silver has nothing to say about social media activity either, another front on which Trump's dominance is uncontested.

Typical Rubio rally
As pleasantly surprising as it is to be able to crush the DJIA by betting against ¡Jabe! or against Chris Christie (who was at 7% when I bought), Marco Rubio's purportedly strong showing is the one I find most puzzling. He's been relentlessly promoted by the establishment, and it's safe to presume that the residual in those 5:1 odds comes from the assumption that said establishment will do something untoward to thwart the will of the Republican electorate and destroy the spirit of the nominating process by sneaking him in by hook or crook (or brokered convention) if Trump is chosen by actual primary voters, but Rubio's polling numbers have been--and continue to be--terrible. The most recent Reuters/Ipsos five daily national tracking poll among likely Republican primary voters:


He does even worse among all self-identified Republicans, garnering just 8.1% and placing fifth (behind ¡Jabe!).

While we're doing our best to wreck desperately hoped for self-fulfilling prophecies media narratives, let's tackle the one about Trump not being popular among young people.

Republican partisan affiliation is positively correlated with age, and consequently Republicans aren't popular among young people generally, but Trump comfortably beats the rest of the bunch. Again, the most recent five day national tracking poll results for those aged 18-34 among Republicans (all Republicans, as sample sizes for likely GOP voters in the age range are too small to be reliable):


Rubio, the market's putative runner-up, gets handily beaten by "wouldn't vote". Ouch.

Monday, January 18, 2016

First they came for Michael Savage

Worth celebrating (as long as they stay out
of the office and off the payroll)
The United Kingdom's talk of banning Donald Trump is to Google's perpetual homage to diversity as the United Kingdom's failure to absorb anything more than a token of the Syrian-plus migration is to Google's failure to hire women and non-Asian minorities.

While the tactics of both the UK and Google are comprehensible, they are no less despicable for it. Those who would knife in the back someone on their own side who is more courageous than they are in the gelded hope that if they feed him to Moloch they might be able to save their own skin for awhile longer deserve nothing but contempt (and the sharp end of said knife).

UK's expressed and revealed preferences are wildly at odds. Blame Trump!


Sunday, January 17, 2016

Starry-eyed xenophilia

Heartiste points to a paper by Satoshi Kanazawa hypothesizing that "women should fear alien rule much less than men" do, but that these sex differences in attitude are specifically attributable to women under the age 50. The biological vehicle posited for driving this disparity is reproductive in nature. Nubile women want to reproduce with the strongest, smartest, most dominant and capable men they are able to. If the men they're with are to be replaced by better men, so be it.

Kanazawa's paper exists in the context of warring societies, so looking at attitudes towards immigration may not plumb the depths of sentiment deeply enough, but it's not an implausible proxy.

Reuters/Ipsos administered a great poll--with a ternary "deport most/all", "allow most/all to stay" and the regrettable but necessary "unsure" cop-out--on the question of immigration in the US. To avoid confusing putative invaders with perceived relatives among chicanos and latinas living in the US and to steer clear of racial confounding more generally, only non-Hispanic whites are subsequently considered.

On two of three fronts, the polling data lend credence to Kanazawa's hypothesis.

One, men (66.3%-25.5% for "deporting most/all"-"allowing most/all to stay", respectively) are more likely to favor deportation than women (60.4%-28.7%).

Two, women aged 50 and older (69.1%-21.9%) are far more likely to favor deportation than women under 40 (44.9%-44.0%).

Three, however, causes some uncertainty. Men aged 50 and older (73.3%-21.0%) are similarly far more likely to favor deportation than men under 40 (49.1%-38.5%). Younger men are thus more xenophilic than older women. Age is a stronger predictor of xenophilia than sex is.

Heartiste anticipates this and offers a potential explanation:
Anecdotally, I have heard far more support for rapefugees, and more generally for open borders, from young White women than I have from any other group of people. (The men I know don’t bring it up, but a few of them, when forced into a conversation about it, hemmed and hawed or meekly cosigned their girlfriends’ opinions. Even the alphas are susceptible to this inglorious path of least resistance.)
Interesting food for thought. Far, far too interesting to be discussed in the major media, of course.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Al Wilson, Donald Trump, the farmer and the viper

Not since Pat Buchanan has a competitive American presidential candidate demonstrated an understanding of a nation as anything more than the collection of propositions it putatively stands for. Not until Trump, that is:



The fable of the scorpion and the frog might have been more terse, but while it would've similarly demonstrated an understanding of human biodiversity (woman and snake have different natures; frog and scorpion have different natures), it would not have so effectively simultaneously demonstrated an understanding of the pathological altruism (or runaway universalism) at work, driving the Western world's tragic suicide. After all, when the scorpion stings the frog, the scorpion loses, too. For the snake, on the other hand, the situation is win-win.

Tangentially, he also understands that a tendency for pusillanimous prostration is not a desirable trait in anyone aspiring to be a leader of men (and women):



Standard slander

In the unlikely event that you needed a reminder of the abysmal state of journalistic standards in modern America, in this standard-length Washington Post article on Jared Taylor's robocalls in support of Donald Trump in Iowa, the WaPo writer uses the phrase "white supremacist" an astounding five times. This despite the fact that Taylor disavows the term and doesn't advocate anything that can be fairly described as "white supremacy".

Thursday, January 14, 2016

The Republican Establishment despises the will of its voters part LXXII

In a slot reserved for rebutting the opposition party's agitprop, the GOP establishment signs off on using a chunk of its time to attack its presidential front runner, and, by association attack the stated preferences of a plurality of its voters:



So eager are the Republicans to elect a new people that they put forward two differing responses, one in English and the other in Spanish. The one in English at least paid lip service to border security and getting a handle on illegal immigration. The one in Spanish didn't even make that feint. Traditionalists, conservatives, dissidents--the Republican leadership not only despises you, it thinks so little of you that it has no problem being so condescendingly duplicitous in front a national audience.

There is nothing republican about today's imperial Republican party. Fuck being a cuck. Trump 2016.

Wednesday, January 13, 2016

Beta Bernie a ladies' man?

The Woman Card isn't the ace up Hillary Clinton's sleeve. She played it against Trump. He mana drained it by throwing Bill Clinton back in her face. For someone as skilled in the art of the reframe as Trump, it was just too easy.

It wasn't Trump's only option, either. He could've pointed out how underwhelming Hillary's performance among women in her own party is. The most recent results of Reuters/Ipsos five-day national tracking poll among female Democrats:


If that's how Hillary is doing among putative natural backers, a supporter might cringe wondering how she must fare with men. However, there is no contest. Hillary crushes Bernie Sanders among male Democrats:


She is younger than him, so there's that
How to explain Sanders' female appeal (or male repulsion)? An alpha he is not, as his supine prostration in the face of a couple of squawking, fat harpies revealed to the world and as a picture of he and his homely wife confirms. An easy answer is that he's a self-described socialist, and women like socialism more than men do. It could also be that, relative to Hillary, he is a foreign policy dove and that repels men more than it does women. Or it could be a consequence of effete manlets eagerly brandishing theiir Go Grrrl! credentials.

Speaking of alpha characteristics, while they may prove irresistible in person, it's not clear that they necessarily translate into political support from afar. The same Reuters/Ipsos five-day national tracking poll shows Trump with 37% of female Republican support compared to 41% of male Republican support. Pretty boy Marco Rubio (the Robert Redford of this Heartiste post), in contrast, gets just 6% of male Republican support compared to 7.4% female Republican support (yes, the establishment's last great hope is now bumping around 7% in national polling). A lot of people like Trump, but the people who seem to like him the most are the kinds of people who are able to envision themselves working for him and his company.

Parenthetically, when among members of your own party you're getting beaten by "wouldn't vote", it's time to throw in the towel. Yeah, we're looking at you, Martin one-person-rally O'Malley.

Saturday, January 09, 2016

Trump over 50% in head-to-head against rest of Republican field

Hypothetical primary among Republicans with Trump and Cruz as the only options:


Between Trump and Rubio:


Previous data show Trump easily beating ¡Jabe! and Carson by even wider margins. And this is among Republicans--in states with open primaries, Trump's numbers will improve further still (Texas, where Cruz has a home field advantage, is an one of those open primaries).

The prospect of the field being winnowed down to Trump and a single non-Trumpian candidate no longer is enough to get the establishment there. While Trump has dominated for several months, only in the last couple of weeks has crossed the 50% threshold against the entire field. When Reuters began polling on the mano a mano match ups in mid-December, both Rubio and Cruz were beating Trump. That is no longer the case. Trump's support isn't leveling off, let alone attenuating. To the contrary, it's still growing.

The nomination is now genuinely Trump's to lose. The first week of February will see a media manufactured dethroning when Cruz probably places first in Iowa, but the faux narrative will take a one-two punch in New Hampshire and South Carolina when Trump wins both states by substantial margins. Nevada, another state Trump will win, is just a few days later. Then the results will start pouring in rapidly and Trump's national advantage will really begin to manifest itself in the delegate counts.

This presumes no successful malfeasance by party operatives, of course. There will be future attempts, but Trump has almost effortlessly frustrated the ones that have been tried so far, and the smart money says that he'll continue to do the same going forward.

For your viewing pleasure, Trump reframing protester activity at a recent rally (jump to the 25m44s mark):



Friday, January 08, 2016

Fertility by religion (United States)

The following table shows the mean number of children by religious identification. For contemporary relevance and to allow for family formation to have occurred, data are from 2004 onward and from those aged 35-65 at the time the survey was conducted*:

ReligionKids
Islam2.69
Catholicism2.28
Protestantism2.20
Judaism1.76
None1.65
Buddhism1.44

If never born, they'll never suffer!

And, using the same time period and age parameters, an updated look at the inverse relationship between grasping the biological concept of fitness and actually realizing it in practice (n = 2,967):

Evolution true?Kids
No2.30
Yes1.84

GSS variables used: RELIG(1-4,6,9), CHILDS, YEAR(2004-2014), AGE(35-65)

* Sample sizes, in the order they're presented in the table, are 45, 2115, 4530, 145, 1415, and 63.

Wednesday, January 06, 2016

Trump comfortably leads GOP field among both wealthy and well-educated Republicans

Contrary to the picture painted by outfits like FiveThirtyEight, the Republican field is not accurately characterized by a "diploma divide" in which Donald Trump getts the support of those without post-secondary educations and an establishment pick like Marco Rubio wins over college graduates.

Yes, the magnitude of Trump's advantage among the less educated is greater than it is among college grads, but he's dominating among college grads, too. The latest from Reuters/Ipsos rolling five day tracking poll:


The story is the same when it comes to income. The latest results among Republicans earning at least six figures:


If the Vikings beat the Seahawks 45-10 in the wildcard round and then in the divisional round the final score in the Vikings-Cardinals game is Minnesota 30, Arizona 21, guess what? Yep, the Vikings win that one as well.

Sunday, January 03, 2016

A conspicuous absence in Google's Year in Search 2015

Via the great magnate, Google's tribute to 2015's "year in search":



Nine search phrase inputs are highlighted in the video. Verbatim, they are:

- how can i help the refugees
- why can't women be army rangers
- what does the confederate flag stand for
- how can we overcome prejudice
- why was there a cuban embargo
- what color is the dress
- how can the world find peace
- are you born transgender
- how can we rebuild nepal

In the subsequent graph, they are shortened to the following:

- help refugees
- army rangers
- confederate flag
- overcome prejudice
- cuban embargo
- dress color
- world peace
- born transgender
- rebuild nepal

They are truncated to two key words in each of the searches to ensure the capture of multiple variations on the spirit of those searches. This allows for an apples-to-apples comparison to be made, using Google Trends, to the first mystery bar that towers above the putative top searches Google chose to shine the spotlight on in its annual agitprop compendium:


The builder and owner of that mystery tower is, of course, Trump. "Donald Trump" garnered 250% of the search interest that the other nine two-word phrases generated combined.

For those understandably unable to endure the full two minutes (implicit Core America) hate that is this year end tribute, there was no mention, reference, or allusion to Trump anywhere in the video.

Saturday, January 02, 2016

The company you keep

In 2006, the GSS asked respondents about people they trust. The percentages who said those they trust are either "almost all the same race as you" or "mostly the same race as you" among self-described liberal, moderate, and conservative whites (n = 493):

Political orientationTrust own race
Liberal78.2%
Moderate76.9%
Conservative83.3%

The differences are marginal. In the words of the late Joe Sobran, "In their mating and migratory habits, white liberals are no different than the KKK." It's critical to understand the idea of revealed preference. Moral posturing and virtue signalling often thinly veil authentic beliefs. SWPLs' actions speak louder than their words.

It is, of course, to be expected that, even granting the absurd assumption that bonds of trust form randomly among individuals across racial and ethnic lines, whites will mostly trust other whites since they still constitute a majority of the adult population in the US. But if SWPLs are singing paeans to Diversity!, is it unfair to demand they pursue the thing their exulting the putative benefits of?

How about non-whites? If trust was unrelated to racial and ethnic identity, we'd expect few non-whites to say that all or most of the people they trust are co-racialists. Among NAMs, however, that is not the case (n = 141):

RaceTrust own race
Black59.1%
Hispanic53.6%
Asian30.0%

Four centuries isn't enough time for assimilation to occur. Maybe we're simply not trying hard enough!

The pesky model minority strikes again, this time in the form of relative integration.

GSS variables used: TRTMYRAC(1-2)(3-5), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10)(15-16), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7)

Friday, January 01, 2016

Trump more popular than Jesus

Back in August, when Donald Trump was perceived as a political novelty, explaining away the enormous amount of search interest he generated--more than the other 15 Republican candidates combined--may have sounded plausible.

Fast-forward to December. Five 'debates' are in the books and perpetual campaign coverage has now run from the hottest month of the year through to the coldest. Novelty has lost its explanatory power, if it ever possessed any. Yet Trump continues to elicit information-seeking on a prodigious scale:


In fact, he is dominating even more completely than he was several months back. Through December, he drew more than twice as many search inquiries as the rest of the GOP field combined. That's right, sum the interest in the rest of the Republican field, double it, and it still doesn't match Trump on his own. Just a month out from the beginning of the primaries, one would assume that diligent Republican voters are starting to do their research on the entire field, a behavior that would presumably narrow Trump's advantage rather than widen it, but here we are.

Not only is Trump trouncing the entire Republican field, he's crushing the Democrat side as well, drawing nearly three times as much search interest as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders combined:


The Trump phenomenon is unlike anything else that has occurred in American politics during the internet age. Ron Paul peeked in January of 2008. At that point he garnered one-third the interest that Trump is currently getting. Before becoming president, Obama peaked in primary-heavy February of the same year. That peak is where Trump is now. For an apples-to-apples comparison, consider that in December of 2007 Obama garnered just one-seventh of the interest Trump did this December.

Keep in mind that this isn't a measure of news story mentions or opinion polling outcomes, it's a measure of selected search terms relative to the entire universe of searches inputted by Google users across the US. People want to read, hear, and talk about Trump.

Parenthetically, regarding the sacrilegious headline, well: