Thursday, September 21, 2017

How the foreign-born vote in the United States

Here's one to file neatly under the blog's tagline.

The following graph shows the electoral behavior of foreign-born voters--mostly voting legally--in US presidential elections since 1992*:


Bringing in ringers. Electing a new people. Choose whatever metaphor you'd like to describe the disenfranchisement of Heritage America.

We have to go back to 1988 to find an election where the Republican candidate won the foreign-born vote.

That was a different era.

Those foreigners are not today's foreigners. The ink on the amnesty legislation Reagan eagerly signed was still drying and the massive chain migration it set in motion only just beginning.

The Cold War, when many of those the US took in were Soviet dissidents, was ongoing.

Hyper-partisanship hadn't reached the point it has today. Now landslide victories are nearly impossible. In 1988, Bush senior beat McGovern 426-111 in the electoral college. There has not been a margin of victory so wide since, and until the political dissolution of the US begins, there won't be again.

Begrudgingly, it must be admitted that the Bushes have done less poorly among the foreign-born than other Republicans have. I suppose if the well-being of the Republican party matters more to you than the well-being of the country your grandchildren will inherit, that's something to celebrate.

On the other hand, losing by a narrower margin is still losing. To celebrate as much is to be like Lisa and Marge as they're shoveling down Grandma Plopwell's government-sponsored pudding:
Lisa: This pudding's pretty good.

Marge: I can feel the pounds just melting off!
GSS variables used: PRES88(1-2), PRES92(1-2), PRES96(1-2), PRES00(1-2), PRES04(1-2), PRES08(1-2), PRES12(1-2), BORN(2)

* Data come from the GSS for elections from 1988 through 2012. The 2016 results come from the officially commissioned media national exit polling.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

It's so PC it's killing me

From Reuters-Ipsos, a poll on the following:


The subsequent graph shows, by selected demographics, the percentages who agree. "Neither agree nor disagree" responses, which 17.6% of those sampled answered with, are excluded (n = 4,670):


Notice the y-axis begins at 50%. That's because even among gays, the group expressing the least concern about political correctness, a slim majority view it as a threat to liberty. This is great news.

Tempering it a bit is the realization that the public is, in general, 'better' on the abstracts than on the specifics. We say we want fewer wars of choice and less policing of the world, but ask about whether or not bombing Syria is a good thing and everyone is on board. We want less political correctness, but discussions about group differences in behavioral traits? Man, the air sure got thick in here. At least the tops of my shoes are fascinating!

Clever sillies are at work here.

Trump voters are even more anti-PC than Republicans in general, while Clinton voters are less so than Democrats in general. Self-identified Democrats who voted for Trump come in at 79.8% while self-identified cucks Republicans who voted for Clinton do so at 71.4%.

Heartiste, the world's most astute observer of human nature, offered counsel the other day that is of particular relevance to the subject at hand:
Alt-Righters should be hitting this free speech angle HARD. Every rally should feature the defense of free speech and assembly as its unifying theme, because free speech permits the expression and exposure of every other theme that energizes the pro-White counterculture. Freedom to express ideas without getting fired or purged or blacklisted means that there’s a chance those ideas percolate into mass consciousness and the needle moves away from the Lies and Ugliness of Equalism and toward Truth and Beauty.

Free speech is the first right enunciated in the Bill of Rights for a reason. Without it, all other rights are effectively voided. Given its importance to a republic, the default defense of free speech should always err on the side of absolutism.

Codified free speech is uniquely American. It’s what sets us apart from the rest of the benighted world, and from our ancestral homelands in Europe. It’s why when we’re kids learning about the Bill of Rights, we feel pride in our 1A heritage. It’s as American as apple pie and imported chinese junk. The Wild-Right needs to own free speech and assembly, and hang the smelly albatross of speech criminalization on the Leftoid Fuggernaut. Champion 1A, and the rest of your revolutionary pro-White agenda starts to look more A-1 to normies.
Pair that salient support for free speech with opposition to political correctness. These terms, like "amnesty", are among the precious few we have at our disposal that send shitlibs scurrying away in fear. They're our "nazi" and our "white supremacist".

Sunday, September 17, 2017

The Deplorable Doctor Pol?

The totalitarian instinct on display:


In the way of background, "The Incredible Doctor Pol" program is a reality show based in rural central Michigan that follows the professional activities in doctor Jan Pol's veterinarian office and of members of his staff as they're doing field visits. The county Pol operates in, like the state itself, went for Trump.

My wife loves the show and I occasionally watch it with her. Pol is an eminently likable character. His work is real. It doesn't involve a hint of the virtue-signaling dreck that gives shrikes like this woman away from a mile out:



Footage in the episode "Happy Birthday Moo" briefly showed a few members of the Pol family wearing shirts that said "Keeping America Great" during a Labor Day walk in Michigan. The episode aired in July of 2017, so the footage was presumably from 2016, prior to Trump's election. It was thus more likely anti- than pro-Trump, but it's unclear what political statement, if any, was being made:


The shirts were custom designed so they could've just been meant as a generic celebration of working Americans.

Whatever the intention, it's incidental to this woman's reaction and the window into the mind of the cultMarx id it provides. That 99% of everything on network, cable and streaming services is implicitly--if not explicitly--cultMarxist isn't enough for zealots like her. An innocuous nod in the other direction is an intolerable intrusion into their ever-expanding intellectual safe spaces dead zones.

Notice the insinuations in her puritanical post. Trump supporters--most white Americans, in other words--favor "racism" and oppose "human rights". The Dutch doctor--who has the most watched show in NatGeo Wild's history--is a disappointment to his homeland.

This woman is a great illustration of why Gen Z is turning away from the SJWism that defines so many neurotic, nihilistic millennials and burned out boomers alike. Spending all of one's energy scouting for things about which to scold people with a stern "This is NOT okay" is an immiserating, soul-crushing way to live. It's not a formula for human flourishing, which is why many SJWs are such miserable creatures.

Saturday, September 16, 2017

Why the nineteenth was not in the original

On Pew's most recent news IQ quiz, the tendency for men to be better informed was confirmed for the umpteenth time. Men outscored women by double-digit percentages on all but two of the ten questions. Take the quick quiz here to see the questions and to remind yourself that, as someone reading this blog, you're far more informed than the average person is. I suspect most American readers will ace it easily.


The two where women held their own with men were predictably health-related--one on the water supply issue in Flint, Michigan and the other on the Zika virus.

Women are naturally focused on the hearth rather than on political maneuverings taking place on the other side of the world. As such, they're susceptible to demographically drowning their unborn grandchildren on account of seeing pictures of someone else's kid washed up on the beach. Modern technology allows our nurturing circuitry to be hacked. The Cloud People know this and exploit it relentlessly.

The question with the lowest rate of correct answers given is the one on the federal government's unemployment rate. It's the only quantitative question of the bunch. People think in terms of narratives, emotions, and relationships, not in terms of numbers.

Pew doesn't break out the results by race for obvious reasons. It's surprising they continue to be broken out by sex since doing so reliably reflects 'poorly' on women. The sex breakdown doesn't even appear in the body of the report Pew released, it has to be discovered by actually taking the test as a user. I suspect at some point educational attainment will be the only reported on demographic characteristic of the test takers.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Make Amnesty Die Again! #MADA

The 2016 presidential election utterly destroyed the aura of augury he'd enjoyed since 2012, but Nate Silver is learning. Via Steve, one of Silver's recent posts is entitled "Trump's Hardline Immigration Stance Got Him To The White House".

He's come along way from mocking Trump's campaign as a gag on account of it detailing a position on just one issue, immigration.

Silver essentially argues now that while most people are 'moderates' on immigration, a contingent of mostly Republicans are vociferous restrictionists and they scare congress critters away from amnesty whenever it is attempted.

As for the part about restrictionism polling poorly, that's an intended artifact crafted by the wording of the questions asked and the answers permitted. A couple of years ago Reuters-Ipsos conducted a refreshingly straightforward poll about whether all or most illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay or should be deported. The latter won by nearly 20 points overall and by 35 points among whites.

With regards to scaring congress, I couldn't agree more. Join in the terror by contacting your House member here and your senators here.

R-I also maintains a poll querying respondents on which issue from a list of twelve is most important to them. Healthcare and the economy always come out on top with polls like this. With that in mind, the following graph shows the percentages of Democrats, Republicans, independents, Clinton voters, and Trump voters who identify immigration as "the most important problem facing the US today" (n = 57,027):


There is a lot of overlap among Trump voters and Republicans and among Clinton voters and Democrats, of course. Among Democrats who voted for Trump, 10.0% chose immigration as the nation's biggest problem! That's where a lot of his crossover support came form. The issue really did put Trump into the White House.

The above comes to over 8 million Trump voters (current company included) who put the National Question ahead of the economy, healthcare, unemployment, terrorism, war, crime, morality, the environment, education, energy, or any other issue. 

If one in every ten of those voters--800,000-plus, or more than one for every "Dreamer"--demand their congress critters oppose DACA amnesty, it will die a deserved legislative death. Make amnesty die again!

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

An opportunity for heroism

A politically ambitious (or genuinely courageous representative of Heritage America) attaches a 'poison pill' amendment to the forthcoming DACA amnesty legislation Paul Ryan, his quisling band of cucks, and Democrats are currently working together to craft. This poison pill amendment expands amnesty to family members of "dreamers".

It immediately bumps the estimated number of amnesty recipients from 800,000 to multiple millions, which will become multiple millions more if the legislation is enacted.

Why not go all the way and amnesty all 11+ million illegals?

Because that's a bridge too far. Democrats will be able to convincingly tell their voters that the amendment was intended to make the bill fail as they vote against its inclusion. Cucks will jump at the opportunity to position themselves as stately moderates who just want to help the poor kiddies--many of whom are older than I, a father of two, am--without rewarding millions who broke the law, and so they too will vote against the amendment.

Additionally, House rules require that riders be relevant to the legislation under consideration. Dealing with family members of those directly effected will meet that requirement. A blanket amnesty may not.

Limiting it to the family members of dreamers will make it too risky for Democrats to vote against the amendment. Juan's parents, who risked so much to give him a shot at the American Dream, are going to be deported just as he's achieving it?! That's a record begging for a primarying, disqualification from aspirations of higher office, the ire of activist groups, unions, celebrities, etc.

Moreover, many Democrats will think the congressman who attached it too clever by half and think the expanded amnesty will pass. A vulnerability of the left is its tendency to overextend itself. That's begging to be exploited here.

Cucks supporting the amnesty already having thrown in with their donors and against their voters will find it difficult to reject the inclusion of such an amendment that promises to "keep families together". Some will vote it down anyway, but it won't matter because the combination of Democrats and immigration patriots voting to include it will be enough to override them.

A veteran of over ten years in these amnesty fights, I'm cautiously optimistic that the DACA amnesty will be snuffed out as is. More than double the numbers eligible for it and that optimism becomes totally unguarded.

Contact your House member here and your senators here. Tell them you oppose DACA amnesty.

Parenthetically, the word "amnesty" is one of the few incantations the right has at its disposal that strikes fear into the hearts of congress critters, especially those with Rs next to their names. Cast it freely in the coming months.

To provide some motivation to get your asses in gear, here's Republican speaker of the House Paul Ryantifa's twitter cover photo:


We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies. No DACA amnesty.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Only you can prevent DACA amnesties

Agnostic wonders if a DACA amnesty is suicide for Republicans... or if it is actually suicide for Democrats. He is one of the most original and perspicacious thinkers out there. It would be folly not to take him seriously here.

That said, there are some questionable assumptions in the argument he makes:
Most immigrants, legal or illegal, are heavily concentrated in safe states -- mostly deep blue ones like California and New York, but also deep red ones like Texas and Utah. Millions more newly legalized citizens with voting rights in California will be no big loss to the GOP there, as the party effectively no longer exists in that state.
Of the 30 states Trump won in 2016, his margin of victory was wider in 21 of them than it was in Texas. It was narrower in just eight. Texas is still reliably Republican for now, but it is hardly a "deep red" state.

It can't be dismissed as a one off instance, either, the consequence of a socially moderate, non-traditional Republican candidate. Iowa, too, is a tradcon state--and generally considered a toss-up in 21st century presidential elections--and Trump won it more decisively than he won Texas.

Romney's Texas margin of victory of 16 points was larger than Trump's 9 points, but it too was among the more narrow of red state wins. In 2008, McCain's Texas margin was 12 points.

Compare California, which a generation ago was a reliably red state, too. As demographics have turned it reliably blue, its remaining whites have not jointed together to form a Republican bloc. On the contrary, they have become more supportive of Democrats over time.

Agnostic:
The more that demographics change toward non-white, the more whites will vote as a bloc.

Who are the most reliable non-white Democrat voters? Blacks. Where are blacks the largest share of the population? In the South. What region is completely off the table for Democrats? Also the South, because whites said "fair is fair" and began voting as a bloc like the blacks.

Texas would do the same thing if Hispanic immigrants poured in enough to make them a near-majority.
Putting aside that the cavaliers and highlanders in the South are not the Puritans, Quakers, and Teutons out West, Texas' whites already strongly vote Republican, at about 75%-25%. That's far and away the most Republican-skewed white population among states with large Hispanic populations in the country.

It's possible white Texans will move towards an Alabama or Mississippi levels of white electoral solidarity, but as the Austinization--Hillary won Travis county by a margin of more than 2-to-1 even though non-Hispanic whites make up half the population--of the state continues, that may not be the way to bet.

Agnostic again:
Now that the DACA people are going to be amnestied, the next move by globalists will be to broaden it to other groups who are slightly lower on the sympathy scale, potentially including all 20 million illegals by the final round.
Immigration hardliners argue that mass amnesty is suicide for the GOP, since immigrants lean so heavily Democrat. They are trying to argue to Republican party leaders that, even if they despise their voters, they should at least back off of amnesty in order to ensure their own survival as a major party.

This is a naive argument, which explains why it is never listened to by the GOP.
Every legislative amnesty that has been attempted in the last couple of decades has been stopped by Republican congressmen. Things go the way they do until they don't, but why should we expect this time around to be different?

In 2007, Democrats controlled both houses of congress--and amnesty got crushed. In 2013, Republicans controlled both houses of congress--and amnesty got crushed.

Throughout 2015 the GOPe thought the idea Trump had any chance at the nomination, let alone the presidency, was--to put it very mildly--naive. It's called the stupid party for a reason.

There is no 4D chess being played here. Republican congressmen are pushed by their donors to support amnesty and pulled by their voters to oppose it. The donors are proactive, the voters reactive. The donors make the marionette congressmen dance a furious jig in favor of amnesty. Seeing this, the congressmen's voters go for the scissors and cut the strings before the amnesty dance can work its magic.

This has been the case since 1986. At some point it will cease to be the case, but America's demographics in 2017 are not that different from 2013 or even 2007, and we have a president who--whatever the exact nature of his true feelings--is less receptive to amnesty than Bush or Obama were.

We also now have a vastly interconnected virtual network with tens of thousands of nodes that reach hundreds of millions of people in aggregate. If we can get guys like Stefan Molyneux and Mike Cernovich imploring people to light up the congressional switchboards, we can stop a DACA amnesty.

Agnostic's fatalism is irritating because we need not be passive observers as this plays out. Trump is positioning himself well politically no matter how things turn out--he's rescinded DACA as promised and now has kicked it to the 'people's elected representatives'. The people will decide, you see, and that's democracy in action!

If we, the voters who have gently rested the tips of our spears on the backs of our congressmen so they have no choice but to face forward, let our guard down here, our front lines will break and we'll be routed by the forces of amnesty.

It's not hard to see why Trump isn't eager to die on this hill alone. If we don't join him to storm it, he'll wave the other side by instead of engaging them.

Contact your house member here and your senators here. Feel free to cut and paste this message to send to them:
DACA is an unconstitutional executive action enacted against the will of the American public and without the consent of our elected representatives. It should never have taken effect and should never go back into effect again.

Illegal aliens must not be rewarded for violating the laws of the land, whether they're sixteen or sixty years old. We have our own problems to deal with. We do not need to be creating more. America first!
Call, write, email, fax, whatever. Keep it even simpler if you'd prefer--"No DACA amnesty. It's time we stopped forgetting about our own children. America first!"

Agnostic on why the chances for this amnesty are better than the full-blown amnesty attempts of the past:
Amnesty this time is more likely b/c it's not comprehensive but just for the DACA people -- say 1 million max, vs. the 10-20 million total -- and they're chosen to be the most sympathetic cases, vs. any illegal no matter how awful.
The more I think about it, the more the conclusion becomes unavoidable that this battle is huge, the most monumental one of the Trump presidency thus far. If a DACA amnesty is stopped, the least objectionable variation of amnesty will have been stopeed by the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature.

If it passes in congress, the judicial and executive stops are negated and reversed, respectively. A new precedent will be set, one that hasn't existed in a generation. The thin end of the wedge will be in and attempts at more expansive amnesties will trail close behind.

Saturday, September 09, 2017

No longer living the lie or surviving themselves

Since 2008 the GSS has explicitly asked respondents about their sexual orientations. About one-in-seven homosexual men (13.8%) report having at least one biological child (among men over thirty years old to allow the chance for procreation to have occurred).

Homosexuality is a Darwinian death sentence. About the only thing worse from a reproductive standpoint is failing to make it out of adolescence at all (something Agnostic has anyway argued gay men don't do):

n = 7,603
Female sexuality is more 'fluid' than male sexuality is. Some women allegedly experience changes in sexual orientation over their lifetimes. Men rarely do. It is not therefore suprising to see that lesbians have higher fertility than gay men do.

The gay male mean presented above is lower than historical estimates of homosexual male reproductive fitness by about one-third. The normalization and then salient celebration of homosexuality has reduced the social pressure that used to keep queers in the closet. They aren't on just on Castro street at night anymore--they're out there in broad daylight now, too.

One consequence of gays becoming who they are is that they spawn less than the fruitcakes who came before them did. Were he living today, Oscar Wilde wouldn't shackle up with a woman for the sake of keeping up appearances, and so Milo were he living today, he wouldn't be producing any direct descendants, either.

GSS variables used: SEXORNT(1)(2)(3), AGE(30-89), CHILDS, SEX

Thursday, September 07, 2017

In Trump approval polling, Clinton's popular vote edge more than twice the size of her edge in actual votes cast

It's previously been pointed out here that Reuters-Ipsos--among other polling organizations--has a history of oversampling self-identified Democrats at the expense of independents and sometimes Republicans.

In the case of presidential approval polling, the 'trick' is to poll the adult population rather than "likely voters". Likely voters skew more Republican than the adult population does, in part because of non-white electoral inertia and also because adults in the US who are ineligible to vote skew much more heavily Democrat than the population of eligible voters does. While Kate Steinle's killer can't vote against Trump (we hope!), he can drag down Trump's approval rating.

R-I's interactive polling explorer site allows for various filters to be used to analyze the data it releases. Since June of this year, the presidential approval poll (n = 23,055) has sampled a two-way distribution of respondents that breaks 52.6% voted for Clinton, 47.4% voted for Trump. The poll asks respondents who they voted for in 2016, not who they would vote for now.

The official popular vote distribution in a two-way contest was 51.1% for Clinton, 48.9% for Trump.

So among actual votes cast in 2016, Clinton won by 2.2 points. Among the current R-I presidential approval poll, however, Clinton won by 5.3 points.

The discrepancy is only 3 points, so it can't explain away Trump's current -18 net disapproval rating in the poll. On the other hand, the polling gap is more than twice the size of the actual voter gap, so its severity is in the eye of the beholder.

It could be a consequence of some respondents being apprehensive to say they voted for Trump when they actually did so. Or it may be another instance of a thumb being placed on the anti-Trump side of the scale.

I can't know for certain, but those are what the numbers show.

Wednesday, September 06, 2017

Destroying DACA

This is causing a lot of grumbling among immigration patriots:

It shouldn't. Congress is an amnesty killing field. The bipartisan swamp attempted it in 2007. Middle America grabbed the pitchforks, surrounded the palaces of their congressional Cloud People, and demanded the McCain-Kennedy be destroyed. It was. 

The bipartisan swamp made another major attempt in 2013, when Marco Rubio partnered with bosom buddies McCain (viva la brain cancer), Graham (viva la physiognomy), and Jeff Flake (viva la Kelli Ward) and four Democrats to bring amnesty back to life. Middle America went for the pitchforks again, and the resurrection attempt was snuffed out.

There have been other congressional amnesty attempts over the last couple of decades that have garnered less attention--because they didn't make it as far--while meeting similar fates.

Trump is taunting his bipartisan congressional opposition here. He's daring them to express their true intentions with the 2018 mid-terms looming. And he's framing the issue in a way that puts the concerns and well-being of American citizens first:


He's setting a trap for the swamp dwellers to walk into. It's not 4D chess, it's checkers. He's playing it well. 

This is our cue to act. Ping your congress critters. Find your house member here and your senators here. It only takes a couple minutes. Their aids tally the "fors" and "againsts". Make your opposition known. Don't overthink it. Feel free to cut and paste the following that I sent to my trio:
DACA is an unconstitutional executive action enacted against the will of the American public and without the consent of our elected representatives. It should never have taken effect and should never go back into effect again.

Illegal aliens must not be rewarded for violating the laws of the land, whether they're sixteen or sixty years old. We have our own problems to deal with. We do not need to be creating more. America first!
The only thing necessary for the triumph of demographic replacement to prevail is for good people to do nothing. Act!

Sunday, September 03, 2017

The real Rainbow Coalition

In 2016, non-Hispanic whites continued to comprise a majority of all Democrat presidential candidate votes, albeit narrowly so:


The Hispanic Heritage Foundation's poll shows that will not be the case for much longer, maybe another election cycle or two:


The Democrat party's elite whites are ancient. Non-whites are the party's future at the bottom, the top, and everywhere in between. The state of PredictIt's 2020 Democrat presidential nominee market is illustrative: 


In the coming years SWPLs will be presented with a stark choice: Either learn to sit down and shut up or come back home with hope that the good people you've spent so much time spitting on will welcome you back into the fold. 

Saturday, September 02, 2017

Contra Pat Buchanan, northern and southern Republicans united in opposition to Confederate statue removal

Pat Buchanan on the perceived impending dissolution of the Republican party:
The coming clash over statues of Confederate soldiers and statesmen is likely to split Northern and Southern Republicans.
As is always the case with Pat, the column is full of evidence supporting a dissolution, but this excerpt isn't an instance of as much. At least it needn't be.

The Cloud People do not understand how overwhelming public opposition to the removal of these statues is. Blacks and a vociferous minority of Antifa-type white leftists do. Nobody else does. Moderates don't. Even white Democrats, in general, don't.

Parenthetically, some may object that they do understand it and that said understanding pushes their disdain for the Dirt People to new heights. Could be.

Anyway, the sentiments of Republicans from New England, the mid-Atlantic, and the South on whether Confederate statues should remain or be removed follow. "Don't know" responses are excluded (n = 812):


Opposition to removal is even stronger in the confederacy than in the union, but support for keeping historical monuments in place is unquestionably the dominant position among Republicans everywhere. Well, among Dirt People who vote for Republicans, anyway--I suspect there is bipartisan support for statue removal among our political overlords. Different moral universes, you see.

Friday, September 01, 2017

Gen Z distrusts the political class

The Hispanic Heritage Foundation's 2016 presidential primary survey asked participants about their "attitude[s] towards politicians". Other than the no opinion/don't know answers, there were five possible responses.

Three fit into one bucket. The remaining two fit into another. They've been separated accordingly below.

The distribution of high school student responses on attitudes towards politicians in general, by race, follow. They are treated as exhaustive here:


Zs' expressed lack of trust in politicians shows that loss of faith in America's institutions is unlikely to reverse as the next generational cohort comes of age. To the contrary, it looks to be accelerating. While non-whites are modestly more trusting of the political class than whites are, lack of trust is the rule across the board.

While the newly elected people are a bit more favorably inclined towards the political class, that's probably neutralized on account of electing said new people accentuates the distrust legacy Americans feel towards the political class.

The distribution of high school student responses on the trustworthiness of local politicians relative to national ones, by race, follow. They are treated as exhaustive:


The political dissolution of the US is a question of "when?" and of "how?", not of "if?".