Thursday, March 16, 2017

Detailed demographic breakdown of 2016 US presidential election

[This post was updated on 3/18 from its original publishing on 3/16 to include the addition of a few subgroups. Source data is here. Additional follow-up posts here and here.]

In imitation of Steve Sailer's--epigone, after all!--detailed demographic breakdown of the 2012 presidential election with Romney and Obama going head-to-head, here's a less aesthetically appealing version of the same for 2016 with Trump and Clinton squaring off.

A few brief technical notes: Reuters-Ipsos never released official exit poll results, but they have maintained a daily tracking poll on Trump's approval rating with filters including who respondents voted for in addition to all the various demographic categories presented below. The data is taken from the poll's commencement on January 20 through March 14, the latest date for which figures were available at the time of this post's creation. The total sample size among those who voted for either Trump or Clinton is 13,381*. Trump shows a modest edge, 50.6%-49.4%, in the popular vote in this sample. I have no opinion on whether this is more or less accurate than the officially reported popular vote total when it comes to legitimate ballots cast by American citizens.

The following graphs show the vote share of each demographic group Trump received in November:






The marriage gap is a bigger story than the gender gap. The gap between married and unmarried women is 29 points, and the gap between all marrieds and all unmarrieds is 19 points. It is just 6 points between men and women. In other words, marital status is over than 300% more powerful a predictor of voting behavior than gender is.

Married women were considerably more likely--by a margin of 9 points--to vote for Trump than unmarried men were. They were even marginally more likely to vote for him than married men were! While only 3% of unmarried black women voted for Trump, more than 1-in-4 married black men did (n = 284). Married Hispanics were marginally more likely to vote for Trump than unmarried whites were. Marrieds were more likely to support Trump than singles in every category examined.

While Mormons didn't come out as overwhelmingly for Trump as they did for Romney, most of the latter's co-religionists did not reveal themselves to be made of the same quisling cuckery that the GOP's 2012 nominee is made of.

I inadvertently didn't include all Jews as a single category in the visual representations, but 35.2% of them went for Trump (n = 378). That's a significantly better performance than the 24.5% figure the officially commissioned exit poll reported.

I also failed to include the non-negligible chunk of the electorate without any religious affiliation (n = 2,119). Trump got 31.9% of the heathen vote.

Among those of family formation age, Trump wins by 6 points among those with kids while losing among those without kids by 12 points. This isn't just among whites, it's among all voters. Additionally, it excludes those aged 50 and over (who lean Trump). So sans immigration, Trump gains and Clinton loses as time goes on.

If there are other demographic subgroups of interest, let me know in the comments and I'll take a look at them (and eventually revamp the graphs to include those additions).

* Sample sizes for the following demographic groups numbered less than 200: Single Jewish men (39), single Jewish women (51), Hindus (53), Muslims (67), single other races (90), Married Jewish men (102), Black single mothers (104), married Jewish women (119), married Hispanics (157), married other races (165), other sexual orientation (166), single Asians (168), and single Hispanics (192).

27 comments:

tteclod said...

I'm curious the married heathen vote percentages for Trump.

Dan said...

Mormons are based. With their magic underwear puritanism they had to grit their teeth to vote for a pussygrabber. But they got it done. Was Hillary 2nd, or third behind McMuffin among Mormons?

Dan said...

Utah mormons must've been cuckier than Mormons elsewhere. Trump didnt break 50 percent there. Or else there is something off on the mormon numbers. Because i thought half of mormons lived there.

MC said...

Dan,

Of the 7.5 million or so Mormons in the US,about 2 million live in Utah:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics/country/united-states/state/utah

The Evan McMullin thing was pretty much just a Utah thing. Partly it's the only state where he had a shot, so ppl gave jim a more serious look there. Partly it's that Utah has is a hothouse of Mormon culture, so it has its 9 we peculiarities.

akarlin said...

Maybe we've been too hard on the Mormons.

Andrew said...

McMuffin also got about 53,000 votes in Minnesota which Clinton won by 45,000 - presumably denying Trump a clean sweep of the non Chicago Midwest and the bragging rights of taking America's Sweden for the first time since Nixon.

Feryl said...

Somalis, Hmong, and Mexicans undoubtedly accounted for at least 45,000 Hillary votes (Minnesota has lost over 10+ of it's white population since 1990). And Johnson and McMullin probably did pretty good in MN because, well, ninnies who couldn't bring themselves to vote for a brash New Yorker, And also there's still a lot of die hard Dem Boomers here.

The media rarely talks about (and certainly doesn't show concern) for the marriage factor. It's cuz there's no way to make it a primarily racial or cultural issue. The media plays dumb about economic issues because conglomerates/mult-nationals are desperately trying to hide how many people have been screwed over for decades at this point. It's also generational; as long as Boomers and early X-ers set the tone for the MSM, there won't be as much interest in economic issues as there is in "sexy" (and easy to argue over) issues pertaining to religious/cultural and ethnic identity.

The media's initial focus on white religious identity in the primaries obscured the real reasons Trump did so well in the East: yearning to bring back prosperity after 50 years of Sunbelt pandering and Western fetishizing.

That being said, Protestant founding stock Americans (non-potato famine Irish Brits) and their closest allies among later arriving groups (Germans, French, Dutch) were by far the biggest Trump backers. It's precisely those who feel the most stung by the diminishing returns of centuries of diversity worship (as if Meyer Lansky, Emma Goldman, and Al Capone weren't bad enough) who have turned the most against the dystopian effects of too much immigration from the wrong places. We want our country back.

Feryl said...

BTW, East of the Rockies people are much more ethnically conscious. And Trump did much better than a normal GOP candidate in the Upper Midwest, Appalachia, and the Northeast. We'll have to wait for the GSS to see how those who self-identify as a non-founding stock American voted if they grew up East of the Rockies vs. how they voted in the Mountain and Pacific states.

Anonymous said...

What does "Other races" mean?

Anonymous said...

Great post.

And Feryl is right. Most East, more ethnically conscious. Also in Northeast -that bastion of Liberalism - White people are less apologetic or not at all. We're used to competing.

vxxc

Jokah Macpherson said...

Damn, it's amazing that the percentage for married black men is almost as high as single women. You always think of blacks as being an automatic vote for whatever Democrat is on the ballot but I guess other factors come into play.

I mean 26% is not high but at least it's not a monolithic bloc, either.

Dan said...

Is Trump making progress on exit tracking to stop visa overstays? I've been thinking about that more.

I sincerely hope his administration is quietly working hard on that. That is a much bigger problem than illegal border crossings. And putting something like that in place should help for years to come.

It so unbelievably aggravating that Trump is not permitted to take exactly the same action that Obama was able to take.


Feryl said...

Marriage may be a better measure of overall well-being than education, since, as we know, a lot of Boomers and X-ers became highly educated but don't necessarily lead a stable all-American life. Millennials are the most over-educated generation ever, but they're taking forever to get on with milestones of the traditional American life.

The quite conservative Silent Generation famously got hitched at a young age and quickly had lots of kids. Any surprise that they have more distaste for big government than subsequent generations?

It's only among male founding stock Americans (and their German/French/Dutch fellow travelers) that there's scarcely a voting gap between married and unmarried folks.

It's like there are two camps of Trump voters: male heartland volk of high and low social class, and married people of all kinds who are (quietly) fed up with the Dems encouraging street/campus turmoil, and actively destroying the economic prospects of one generation after another thereby heading off family formation that is the heart of American optimism and wholesome self-worth.

Revoking the vote of single women might be too much to ask, but it's safe to say that post-Silent single women have been injecting Uncle Sam with bureacratic growth hormone for decades at this point.

The Jewish margin is pretty stunning. Married Jews are on our side by a fair bit (even more so if you exclude women), while single Jews are hostile. Might there be a generation gap here, with well-established older Jews wary of BLM and terrorist Mohammeds, while younger Jews have been hit harder by PC cosmopolitanism than any other demo?

I haven't seen the data, but I'm assuming Trump did better among gays than perhaps all other Republican candidates in the Culture War era, You'd have to go back to Nixon to find a candidate who spent less time talking about personal morality. Agnostic has said that it was Carter who very publicly emphasized his faith and values, setting the tone for subsequent candidates. Before the later 70's, moral values were considered to be personal and discreet. A president's job was to inspire and make choices for the greater good, not ostentatiously preen about their character.

SeanF said...

@Feryl: Your terminology is idiosyncratic and confusing, reflecting possible confusion on your part. Specifically, I mean "Protestant founding stock Americans (non-potato famine Irish Brits)."

Everyone on the Alt Right is either familiar with 'Albion's Seed' terminology or should become so. If you mean the Scots-Irish, write that. If you mean the Anglo-Saxon Protestant founding groups, write that.

Feryl said...

Heavily Protestant ethnic groups from the Brit. Isles who came to America before the Irish potato famine drove tons of Irish-Catholics to America. English, Scottish, and Welsh. Plus Ulster Scots ("Scots-Irish"). Ulster Scots are founding stock Americans. Why else would they call themselves "Americans" to a greater degree than any other ethnic group?

My earlier rushed phrasing did look a little weird, sorry. In essence, though, Protestant people from the Brit. Isles were here first and their wishes ought to be respected first. Sorry Scorsese. Secondarily, West Africans, Germans, Catholic Irish, French, and Dutch. Third, Nords, Italians, Slavs, and Jews. Everybody else can take a hike. Go back to Asia, Africa, Latin America (or at least the Am. SW), the Middle East, or the Caribbean,

TangoMan said...

AE,

Kindly generate one chart, slap your name on it, and put it up on imgur or link it here. I'd love to use that chart in my travels across the interwebs.

SFG said...

Question, not sure how hard this is for you:

How closely is this approximated by a linear model? I.E., is the married woman difference from the norm equal to the married difference from the norm plus the female difference from the norm? I'm sure it isn't *exactly*, but which groups have the biggest interaction terms? That might itself be really interesting to look at!

myb6 said...

I'd be very interested to see those with children vs those without. Of any sort, not just at home. I don't think empty-nesters and singles have any political similarity even though their housing requirements are similar.

Another thing which is probably impossible: those who receive government aid or salary vs those who do not.

myb6 said...

The marriage gap is pretty stunning for every group up there except White Christians. Do we have any evidence for which way the causation runs?

Audacious Epigone said...

ttheclod,

Will include tomorrow, thanks.

Dan,

Hillary ran a distant second in Utah. Put Trump and McMuffin together and we get 66% of Utah's electorate, and then strip other third parties out (since this was just a two-way comparison), and of course not all of them are Mormons, and we're close to the 70% we see here.

MC,

Thanks, that's worth pointing out. Idaho and Oregon have lots of Mormons, etc.

Anatoly,

Several years ago I was too smitten with them--well behaved, industrious middle Americans with above replacement fertility is hard not to be impressed by. Then I overreacted on account of Utah going from uber red to reliably red in an election where the color of the state actually mattered. Hopefully I've realized a Goldilocks sweet spot now!

Feryl,

When I heard professional pundits cluelessly wondering why Trump's performance among "white Evangelicals" in Iowa diverged so much with his performance among "white Evangelicals" in South Carolina as if that's the biggest difference between Midwestern whites of German/Nordic extraction and Scots-Irish southern whites, it was clear these people don't understand ancestry and the American Nations at anymore than the most superficial level.

WRT to the GSS, I'm hoping the survey included a few questions about Trump in 2016. Yes, it would've been before the general election but maybe the ruckus from 2015 was enough. Realistically, though, we'll probably have to wait until Spring 2019 for the 2018 results to get anything from the GSS.

it's safe to say that post-Silent single women have been injecting Uncle Sam with bureacratic growth hormone for decades at this point.

Pure gold, thanks.

Anon,

Two+races, Pacific Islanders, and those who don't choose a racial identification at all.

Not Asians, which I forgot to include. Going to update tomorrow with more categories.

VXXC,

Right, those out West are the most deracinated. It's the place where our will to fight is most important and also the place where we have the least will to fight. I know how you feel wrt to that and I respect it even if for pragmatic reasons I'm not convinced it's realistic.

TangoMan,

Do you have a suggested graph maker that'll do the job? Excel, Google Docs, and some of the other options won't cut it--I can't get them to format in a way to show all y-axis categories. I'd be happy to send you the spreadsheet data for you, no need for crediting it, just use it and make something more aesthetically appealing and get it out there on those interwebs you speak of!

SFG,

I'll have to refresh myself on it but that's something I used to know how to do pretty easily.

myb6,

Yeah, the question about children is sub-optimal. I'll look at it just for those in mid-age. That'll probably make the relationship between fertility and Trump support higher. As is, there are a lot of older empty nesters who voted for Trump who are represented here as without children since their children don't live at home anymore.

Wrt to causation, Steve Sailer's written at length about it in his series of articles on the gaps, of which the Marriage Gap is one.

Anonymous said...

The position of "single Jewish women" on the graph caught my eye.

Olorin

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> The position of "single Jewish women" on the graph caught my eye.

They are likely the ultra-cosmopolitan type who will get married when she's 40 and spend $100,000+ on various fertility treatments to have one baby before she goes into menopause. The type of women who think that the space between Los Angeles and New York City is a dark, scary, and dangerous place. They are just about the polar opposite of everything Donald Trump's politics stand for.

Feryl said...

RDI-

In a World Where.....Lawyers/Lawfare, regulations on regulations, and mercenary cynicism dominate, Jews have really thrived. But even among Jews, marriage correlates with two things that are helpful to the GOP. First, older age (recent generations are getting married later), and second, emotional and financial well-being that makes you skeptical of Dem attempts to incite dumb kids and malcontents. Not to mention being against gov. wast and redistribution policies that Dems like.

Jews have generally embraced the striving climate which has made it harder to make a wholesome living but has most rewarded financial sharks and our high verbal IQ elite of which many are Jews. That being said, Silent and Boomer Jews remember what a shithole The Big City became in the 70's and 80's, and with age comes elder honesty syndrome. Some older Jews are finally admitting that liberal policies enabled the black mischief and 3rd world immigration that kills quality of life and raises the cost of living ("good areas and good schools"). Doubtless this comes easier to well-adjusted people who get married and stay married. Lamentably, younger generations have had much more difficulty paying the bills, and among non-founding stock Americans this readily translates into supporting the 3rd world party that's jealous of NW Euro accomplishments and would rather genocide us than honestly compete with us or just peacefully accept differences and let everyone be.

Bush said that Mexicans are "natural conservatives", yet the graph proves that on the most fundamentally conservative question of preserving America's original N'Western Euro identity (which Trump voters want), you have to have the maturity/good fortune to stay married. Or you have to be a founding stock American of any social status.

What's surreal BTW is Trump doing more to reform the government than any politician of the last 50 years, yet the traitor media (anything predicated on verbal IQ is gunning for Trump, the "judges" included) is making outlandish claims that he's a turn towards a 3rd world dictator and a monster. In fact, his attempts to bring American policy in line with what virtually all other countries practice is treated as outrageous. Ironically, our immigration policies are inarguably stupider and more crooked than what's practiced by most near failed states. What is about America? Is it the verbally oriented elite culture and being more legalistic than any other place in the world? Is it the individualism? Why is it so damn hard to have reasonable limits to immigration here? Even some proles and conservatives seem to buy into the idea that all it takes is one lawyer or one judge to derail anything, no matter how sensible or popular it may be.

When judges are no longer paying any attention to legal merit and focusing exclusively on treasonous activism, we've got no choice but to at the very least ignore them. This could be the catalyst for the Pacific states initiating a divorce from Jesusland, which they've never fully felt a part of anyway. Especially given that disruptive rulings keep seeming to emanate from judges who spent most or all of their lives on the Left coast (Robart is a Seattle shitlib, the Hawaiian judge has lived in CA and Hawaii most of his life).

Good luck waiting on the Supreme Court. The gears of gov. are grinding really slow under Trump. He still is several spots short of a full cabinet. Gorsuch may eventually get in but when? By the time the various processes are through, what month or year will it be? Our window of time is too short to wait for the legal process. Besides, even if we get a good ruling, what's to stop future lawfare from threatening that ruling and screwing other issues up too?

Feryl said...

"When I heard professional pundits cluelessly wondering why Trump's performance among "white Evangelicals" in Iowa diverged so much with his performance among "white Evangelicals" in South Carolina as if that's the biggest difference between Midwestern whites of German/Nordic extraction and Scots-Irish southern whites, it was clear these people don't understand ancestry and the American Nations at anymore than the most superficial level."

It seems like elite social status tends to correlate with less ethnic consciousness, especially among the whites and Jews who dominate media. Before the 90's there was greater recognition of white ethnic groups, but over the last 25 years of cultural Marxism, whites tend to be combined into an all-purpose boogeyman that's pitted against non-whites. With rising inequality there is awareness of class differences between groups of whites, but this usually does not acknowledge ethnic variation within whites.

There also is a social and intellectual prejudice against Southerners and especially Germans among Ellis Island people, heaviest of course among Jews. They don't necessarily mind sharing a room with the elite of these groups (especially charming Southerners), but there's definitely animus towards the overall culture of the South and Midwest. In our current decadent period, it seems like elites ignore the genetic roots of regional practices and instead say, with varying degrees of subtlety, that the hinterlands failed to compete, they're stupid, they're dinosaurs, they're resentful for falling behind, etc. Maybe they focus on class and "culture" (mistaken for ethnicity) because, as always, they're trying to obfuscate the success and responsibility of Jews in the current decadent period.

Maybe the real story has been overlooked: an urge among NW Euro white Americans to push back against invaders, the initial contention being with Ellis Island people who via sheer numbers overwhelmed the trad. stock in many coastal and urban areas. Then after a much needed time-out from the mid 20's-mid 60's, another and even less selective immigration wave began which tolerant NW Euro Protestants have finally had enough of. This time, though, even some Ellis Island people stood up for America, especially in the Mid-Atlantic (Trump won the whites of PA, NJ, and NY).

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

The well-educated, barren Jewess is one anti-Trump archetype I have in my head. The man of the managerial state is another, and an EBT card holding single black woman with a brood in tow is a third, and the SWPL with the wire-rim glasses and the punchable face is the fourth. Those are the major ones, anyway.

Feryl,

Maybe the real story has been overlooked: an urge among NW Euro white Americans to push back against invaders

To distill it down to its essence, "We want our country back". The phrase "Make America Great Again" is effectively almost synonymous with it.

DrAndroSF said...

The CNN exit poll indicated that 87% of Trump's voters were White (as opposed to 90% of Romney's in 2012). Any further data which adjusts this number?

Audacious Epigone said...

DrAndroSF,

85.7% of Trump's voters were white according to Reuters-Ipsos, so pretty close to what the CNN exit poll showed.