Saturday, May 19, 2018

Support for secession by state

The following map and subsequent table show percentages by state who, according to a 2014 Reuters-Ipsos poll, support "the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government" ("don't know" responses are excluded; N = 12,734):

1) Alaska58.3%
2) New Mexico45.2%
3) Texas40.4%
4) Illinois38.9%
5) District of Columbia38.1%
6) Alabama38.0%
7) Utah37.6%
8) Louisiana37.5%
9) Montana37.2%
10) Rhode Island36.9%
11) Nebraska36.2%
12) Delaware36.1%
13) West Virginia35.4%
14) Georgia35.3%
15) Vermont35.1%
16) Wyoming34.8%
17) Oregon33.9%
18) Virginia33.8%
19) Kentucky33.0%
20) South Carolina32.7%
21) Idaho32.5%
22) Florida32.2%
23) Colorado32.2%
24) New York32.1%
25) Arkansas32.0%
26) Oklahoma31.6%
27) North Dakota31.6%
28) Mississippi31.5%
29) California30.0%
30) Maine29.8%
31) Kansas29.8%
32) Nevada29.7%
33) Tennessee29.7%
34) Arizona29.0%
35) New Hampshire28.8%
36) South Dakota28.4%
37) Maryland27.9%
38) Washington27.5%
39) Ohio27.3%
40) Hawaii27.2%
41) Michigan26.9%
42) Pennsylvania26.0%
43) Missouri25.9%
44) North Carolina25.7%
45) Iowa24.5%
46) Indiana24.3%
47) New Jersey23.4%
48) Wisconsin22.3%
49) Massachusetts21.2%
50) Minnesota20.6%
51) Connecticut19.2%

Just under 13,000 people across 51 states and the Imperial Capital comes to 250 people per, some with fewer and some with more, so bear in mind the limited sample sizes.

Speaking of the Imperial Capital, the 38% figure strains credulity more than any other result does. The sample is the poll's smallest, though, at just 70, so take it with a grain of salt.

The mountain states, the Southwest, and the Deep South show the greatest support for secession. The Upper Midwest shows the least appetite for it, though Illinois--a financially dysfunctional Midwestern state held captive by ultra leftist Chicago--is a notable exception.

It's not particularly surprising that Alaska, with its petroleum dividend, libertarian streak, and minimal association with the rest of the country in terms of culture and politics, shows the greatest support for breaking away. It is the only state where a majority of respondents favor secession.

One thing I inexplicably failed to bring attention to in the previous post is the political split among whites:

White Democrats express a lot more opposition to secession than white Republicans and independents do. But non-whites, who of course vote overwhelmingly Democrat, are more supportive than white Republicans are. There's a gaping chasm between white Democrats and their non-white political allies when it comes to political self-determination. And the non-white enthusiasm for political dissolution expressed in this poll was captured during Obama's more explicitly anti-white second term.

R-I should run the poll again today. I suspect non-white support for breakup now exceeds 50%. Sure, political dissolution will threaten the gibs, but identity is more powerful than economic well-being. That reality is something WEIRDOs have a lot of difficulty understanding. Everyone else takes it for granted and acts accordingly.

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

US political dissolution a question of when and how, not if

Revisiting a poll from a few years ago reinforces my belief that the US is headed for political dissolution within the lifetimes of most people reading this. In the latter part of 2014, Reuters-Ipsos asked a huge number of respondents (N = 16,668) if they supported or opposed "your state peacefully withdrawing from the USA and the federal government".

The following graph shows the percentages, by selected demographic characteristics, who supported the idea. "Don't know" answers, which constituted 23.5% of all responses, are excluded in the graph which presents the results dichotomously:

At 87, the Muslim sample size is small, so don't read it conclusively. Instead, take it suggestively--suggestive of exactly what you assumed to be the case. And the 2%? Maybe they should've thought twice about destroying the nation that was the greatest thing that ever happened to them.

This poll was conducted during Obama's presidency, nearly a year before Donald Trump shocked the world by announcing his candidacy. Even during the Obama administration large numbers of non-whites--especially "new Americans"--liked the idea of getting out. Imagine what those figures would look like in 2018.

The warning that secession will lead to civil war has always struck me as highly unlikely. That  nearly half of the country's armed forces support political dissolution further confirms it.

If Texas goes, blue states cheer because the presidency indefinitely becomes theirs while red states begin planning on how to follow Texas' lead. If California goes, red states cheer because the presidency indefinitely becomes theirs while blue states begin planning on how to follow California's lead.

One reason secession strikes many as practically unthinkable at first blush is because the political zeitgeist is still overwhelmingly shaped and controlled by boomers. The generational divide is actually starker than the racial divide is. When the boomers exit the stage, the possibility will suddenly seem all too real.

To people who grew up in a country of 150 million that was 90% white with a minority that had been here from the beginning, the thing made sense. To people trying to survive inside an empire of over 330 million people who are religiously, ethnically, financially, linguistically, racially, politically, and culturally divided--bitterly divided--it makes no sense. About the only thing keeping the it together now is a mix of inertia and economic expediency.

Political dissolution is an idea whose time has come. Support for it exists all over the dissident right--Heartiste, Z-Man, Vox Day, Julian Langness, Jared Taylor. Our favorite septuagenarian is even thinking it over. It's not just gaining traction out here on the political frontier, though. The Federalist recently carried a column in support of the idea. Even the NYT is dipping a toe in the water.

Sunday, May 13, 2018

Stefan Molyneux on the GSS and free speech absolutism

Regular readers who watch this presentation will recognize that it is strikingly similar to this post. It also draws from this one.

This is not on account of Molyneux being a plagiarist. He contacted me and I subsequently worked with his producer, Michael, who had seen the post and found the topic fascinating. Over the course of several e-mail exchanges, I helped Michael understand how to navigate the GSS in general and how to replicate the results from that post specifically.

Michael was extremely cordial and complimentary. He offered to compensate me for my time. I refused and made it clear that no attribution was necessary. There are posts on this blog that delve into things Molyneux understandably doesn't need to get tangled up in. While I know the data presented are always reliably and precisely pulled from primary sources, it's easy to imagine a large portion of his audience questioning the validity of his presentation upon seeing the blog as the source. Pointing to the GSS directly is a better way to go.

Oh, and now we have a guy with nearly one million subscribers giving a detailed presentation based on the GSS, one of the most underutilized data sources in the world of social science. Three cheers!

Molyneux is doing civilizational-saving work. So far as I'm aware no one else is doing as much to spread realism about race and IQ as he is. Charles Murray gave the relationship salience with The Bell Curve, and other psychometricians and evolutionary psychologists have conducted research on it, but no one with a platform approaching the size of Molyneux's has weaved it into discussions of every topic it applies to (which is just about every topic there is).

Understanding IQ differences as an abstract concept is one thing. Actively applying it to everything aspect of existence is another. The latter is what will change the zeitgeist, and no one is doing as much to realize that change as Molyneux.

Parenthetically, Molyneux (or Michael) didn't apply the BORN filter when tracking free speech absolutism by intelligence (the relevant portion of the presentation takes place around the 31 minute mark). Since intelligence in this context is estimated based on the English vocabulary of respondents, it's an imprecise proxy if people who are not native English speakers are included. Consequently, my figures--which exclude respondents born outside the US--are modestly higher at all ranges of intelligence.

Saturday, May 12, 2018

Trump's 2016 white vote share by state

Reuters-Ipsos' interactive polling explorer site has just added state filters back into the mix after pulling them a couple of years ago. This finally allows a look at non-Hispanic white vote share by state for the 2016 US presidential election. The sample size is huge, with 84,210 whites who either voted for Trump or Clinton included. The following map and subsequent table shows Trump's white voter share by state in a two-way race:

1) Mississippi81.5
2) Alabama77.2
3) Louisiana74.4
4) Wyoming71.4
5) Arkansas71.4
6) South Carolina70.8
7) Georgia 70.4
8) South Dakota70.3
9) Tennessee70.2
10) West Virginia68.7
11) Alaska67.6
12) Texas66.5
13) Idaho65.9
14) Oklahoma65.5
15) North Dakota64.7
16) Missouri62.3
17) North Carolina62.2
18) Montana61.6
19) Utah60.7
20) Indiana60.5
21) Kentucky60.4
22) Florida60.1
23) Nebraska60.0
24) Arizona60.0
25) Kansas59.6
26) Virginia57.9
27) New Mexico56.5
28) Pennsylvania56.1
29) Nevada55.2
30) Ohio54.4
31) Colorado53.4
32) Michigan52.8
33) Maryland51.9
34) Delaware51.3
35) Wisconsin50.8
36) New Jersey50.4
37) Iowa50.2
38) Maine49.9
39) Minnesota49.1
40) New York48.9
41) Illinois48.1
42) Connecticut48.0
43) Washington47.8
44) California46.7
45) New Hampshire44.9
46) Oregon43.4
47) Rhode Island43.1
48) Massachusetts40.8
49) Vermont39.4
50) Hawaii36.8
51) District of Columbia36.3

Reuters has a pretty consistent left-leaning bias in its polling. Nationally, it shows Trump getting 56.8% of the two-way white vote compared to the 61.0% reported by the officially commissioned exit poll on election night. Add a compensating four points to Trump's state shares and he picks up Maine, Minnesota, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, Washington, and California. Just an extra 137 electoral votes--no big deal!

The exact hypothetical margin of victory in the 2016 ethnoUnited States presidential election isn't as important as the fact that the Republican victory would be overwhelming both in the popular vote and in the electoral college.

Keep in mind that McMuffin's presence in Utah filches a lot of Trump's margin of white victory from him and that in this rendering McMuffin probably also steals Minnesota from Trump to give to Clinton.

The white vote in the Imperial Capital seems too pro-Trump. The two-way white sample size is only 391 there so make of it what you will.

If the vote were restricted to white men (forgive my not taking the time to shade accordingly--this is purely winner-take-all fantasy fun):

Thursday, May 10, 2018

Oy vey, the edge slips away

A recurring observation in the discussion based on IQ estimates for American Jews (among others) in the GSS was that the chosen ones, to quote Sid "come across as above average in intelligence today, but not terrifyingly brilliant the way they did 100 years ago".

The commenters here are invaluable. The following graph shows the IQ advantage Jews enjoy over non-Hispanic white gentiles by decade when the surveys were conducted. To avoid language confounding, responses are restricted to those born in the US. IQ estimates are based on Wordsum scores with a mean white gentile of 100 and a standard deviation of 15 (N = 9,599):

The most obvious reason for this move towards convergence is out-marriage. The overall intermarriage rate for Jews in the US is 58%. It's an astounding 71% among non-Orthodox Jews. With fertility below replacement, most Jews marrying non-Jews, and little Jewish immigration into the US, the 2% is on its way to becoming the 1% is on its way to becoming the 0.X%.

Here are the converted IQ estimates for Jews and white gentiles that were used to construct the preceding table:


GSS variables used: WORDSUM, BORN(1), ETHNIC(2,6-11,13-15,18,19,21,23-27,36), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1980-1989)(1990-1999)(2000-2009)(2010-2016)