Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Miscellany of exit polling items

If you haven't, see Steve Sailer's and Heartiste's reactions to the Reuters-Ipsos detailed exit poll data.

First, Heartiste notes a commenter at Steve's pointing out what I should've emphasized:
Which of these things is not like the others?

Single white women: 39.0
Married white women: 61.4
Single white men: 59.0
Married white men: 61.0
A couple of clarifying comments. Steve's subsequent post looked at work from professor George Hawley who asserted that "the relationship between marriage and voting declined" in 2016 from 2012.

Maybe--Trump was more Fishtown and less Belmont than Romney--but the correlation he looks at is at the state level, not at the level of individual voter. I've not run the numbers, but I suspect that at the state level the relationship between IQ and voting Republican increased between 2012 and 2016. The upper Midwest states, where Trump outperformed Romney the most, do pretty well on measures of intelligence.

Given Trump's much stronger performance with working-class whites, modestly stronger performance with non-whites, and poorer performance with professional whites relative to Romney's, however, it's almost certain that the average IQ of Republican voters decreased between 2012 and 2016 even though the average IQ of the states that went for Trump was higher than the average IQ of states that went for Romney (clever sillies aren't going to save the West, Alt Knights will).

The officially commissioned exit poll released on election night shows a marriage gap that is narrower than what the R-I results show. I wish I'd saved all the initial releases on November 9th. I did happen to screen shot a few in the course of doing a little post-election analysis before they were changed again and again and again, presumably to adjust to official electoral results as those trickled in for several weeks after the election. Of the four exit poll tables captured in this post from November 12th, the results for every single one subsequently changed.

In other words, there's reason to be skeptical of the commissioned exit poll. In any event, R-I's results provide another similar but not identical data set.

Heartiste, pointing out Trump's strong performance among married Jewish men, cautions that this might more accurately be described as a strong performance among married Orthodox Jewish men on the presumption that a lot of secular, irreligious ethnic Jews identify as having "no religion" rather than "Jewish".

It's hard to know how things shake out precisely from survey to survey, but the GSS--when asking "What is your religious preference? Is it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, some other religion, or no religion?"--shows that only 36.1% of those who identify as Jewish say they "know God exists". The corresponding figures for Protestants and Catholics are 74.9% and 62.2%, respectively.

In other words, barely one-third of self-described Jews--self-described in response to a question about religion rather than ethnicity or cultural heritage, no less--are firm theists. Some number of secular ethnic Jews do not identify with any religious tradition, but a not insubstantial number of them--the majority if I had to guess--identify as Jewish.

GSS variables used: RELIG(1,2,3), YEAR(2000-2014), GOD(6)

6 comments:

Random Dude on the Internet said...

A big role that we're seeing play out are those who are forward thinking vs. the #YOLO degenerate crowd. There is the marriage gap that gets discussed but we see single white men voting for Trump in similar to numbers as the married white men. I think that is important because white men are more forward thinking. They want to eventually get married and raise a family. White women may think similar things but when they are single, they are more driven by their tingles and the #YOLO lifestyle. They may want to get married "someday" but only after they've had enough rides on the cock carousel. That may be when they are 28, 31, or 36. You never know. Most single white women aren't done riding the carousel.

There's nothing about Trump's platform that would appeal to these women. Trump's all about bringing high paying blue collar jobs back; single white women openly cringe about the idea of dating a man who has a blue collar job. Trump wants to reform immigration and most single white women don't know or care except sending third world detritus back sounds mean so therefore they are against it. Also single white women go on international trips and essentially become sex tourists as they "sample" the local men. Single white women don't want Obamacare repealed because that means they no longer get free birth control. Common core, what's that?

Anyway I can go on. Trump's platform is designed for those who are thinking ahead 10, 20, 30 years from now. Single white women have been encouraged and conditioned to not think past the next few days. When they get married and start thinking about families, they will start thinking more about the future but until then...

Feryl said...

Women are def. the more conformist sex. In terms of the married ones, well, there's already selection for feminine traits, and they tend to adopt the views of their husbands who tend to be more persuasively masculine than unmarried dudes. End result? Well-adjusted people who highly represent sexual dimorphism vote for the conservative party.

Unmarrieds are much more likely to still be in desperate/unhappy striver mode. Unmarried dudes (esp. if they're heartland proles) decided to vote GOP in '16 because they feel the sting of de-industrialization, foreign import HR competition, and AA. Whereas unmarried women, as RDI points out, are still conforming to the post-Carter mood of hedonism and race-to-the-bottom competition, since the pro-prole stance is associated with "losers" rather than elites. And the sting of this era has never been as painful for women because of the rise of makework/AA/government jobs given to women, as well as the fact that industries involving verbal and interpersonal skills haven't been as affected as male prole jobs.

In the last decadent period (the early 1900's), before feminism, there famously was a lot of pressure applied by women to get men out of the bars and red light districts. These days, after 50 years of intense "you go girl" propaganda, many women are showing signs of too much indulgence (fat epidemic, alcohol abuse complications, bogus rape allegations deriving from embarrassing casual sex, etc.). In the name of "equality" and "rights", being a heathen is supposed to be a-ok. Thousands of years enforced gender roles and standards existed for the greater good of everyone. Since males are proven to undergo a stage of moral development involving sacrifice that women never go through, well, that's why female behavior used to be so controlled. They need, as Sailer would say, stricter moral guidance since they just don't know any better at least until settling down with a decent guy. Absent pressure/rules to settle down early and have kids, they get bogged down in unhealthy dependence on female "friends" (women never bond with same gender people the way men do), Uncle Sam, and enabling of their most narcissistic behaviors (sometimes by platonic beta male friends).

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Great analysis. There's little point in trying to appeal to YOLO single white women. The best approach is to discourage them by talking Democrat corruption, anti-white bias, highlighting violent attacks on women--these vehicle attacks in Nice and now London seem to get their attention--etc.

Feryl,

There still seems to be an urge in feminists to control male behavior but the intent isn't to keep the on the straight and narrow, it's to humiliate them.

Great point regarding employment changes and how much harder it's hit men than women--and that's before even taking the HR-culture that has invaded virtually every industry to some degree or another into account--which is also bad for men and good for women.

Feryl said...

http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-flight-from-white-3/

Deranged nonsense by a NY Times Jew about how all white groups should be thrown together. Since circa 1990, they've tried to blur all whites together to make them an easier target for non-whites. Seems like a transparent attempt to make Leftists ignore white ethnic groups so that NAMs in particular don't feel any qualms about hating whitey.

Also, saying that America has a generic white culture is absurdly ignorant. Spain, or Greece, or Russia, didn't give America it's culture.

As Sailer is fond of pointing out, Catholics and Jews would rather ignore the intrinsically Anglo/Dutch/Gaelic/Teutonic roots of America to make themselves feel better and more powerful. Certainly, they don't want to admit that they displaced America's original ethnic stock and tilted the country in a direction that the founding fathers never intended. See also the non-stop promotion of America's only "true" value, that we're a nation of immigrants. Not a nation founded on the principles of Protestant white dudes anxious to keep America out of the hands of opposing cultures.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Great analysis. There's little point in trying to appeal to YOLO single white women. The best approach is to discourage them by talking Democrat corruption, anti-white bias, highlighting violent attacks on women--these vehicle attacks in Nice and now London seem to get their attention--etc.

These women are hard to reach because Democrats appeal to them based on pure degeneracy alone. Single white women couldn't care less about Obamacare so to make sure they did care, they threw in the free birth control. Democrats are skilled to where they can directly appeal to the degeneracy of urban white single women (and other demographics of course) where their priority is absolution of responsibility. Trump is the opposite: he wants everyone to step up and Hillary wanted to see these women roll around in the slop as long as they can go to the polls and vote for her. Which by the way, very few young white women did.

By appealing to the YOLO degeneracy, single white women have no sense of civic responsibility so they didn't bother to vote. Democrats have tried for decades to get their pet demographic groups to show up in greater numbers and can't because they did too good of a job appealing to their desire for a lack of responsibility. The elastic white voters often had to fill in and step up to vote for these YOLO degens. I like to consider these the white middle: they're middle of the road and are taught to feel sorry for the "disadvantaged" which are groups who are too dumb or lazy to vote themselves.

So my proposal is to keep targeting the white middle and make them inelastic Republican voters. The people who come out to vote if they vote for their interests instead of feeling sorry for the YOLO degenerates, then the Democrats get washed out. That is why Democrats have been trying so hard to push anti-white narratives: discourage white people from talking about white issues. I think that narrative is cracking apart so if Trump can keep appealing to the white middle then the single white woman who only cares about her tingles and the next party no longer gets a voice.

At this time I would prefer to just do whatever we can to reduce the impact of single white women because unless it appeals directly to them, then they're not going to follow along. A sad byproduct of the gimmedat approach to social welfare. It's less about who needs what and more about how you can buy off voters by just handing them free stuff. Social pressure should be increased to push more women to marriage at younger ages. Once they start thinking about the future instead of their tingles, we can start listening to what they have to say.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

To the contrary, they see the continuation of open immigration as a validation of their own ancestors' experience. It's cheap grace.

Random Dude,

Right, while simultaneously disapproving of the YOLO lifestyle, not in a paternalistic religious way, but by instilling dread ("you're going to be miserable", "I hope you like cats", etc).