Saturday, August 26, 2017

Generation Identitaire, American edition

The support distribution of high school students by race among those who voted for Republicans and among those who voted for Democrats according to the Hispanic Heritage Foundation's huge presidential primary poll conducted in 2016 follows.

For example, the five columns above "white" in the first graph shows how white Republicans distributed their votes, the next set of five columns above "black" shows how black Republicans distributed their votes, etc. Third-party and "no answer" responses are excluded:



Though it was a wide field, Trump managed to capture just over half of white Republican students. He was unable to get to one-fourth of Republican NAMs, however.

Cruz, a "white Hispanic", bested Rubio, a more authentic Hispanic, among whites and blacks. But among Hispanics, Rubio had the edge.

Identity is primarily racial and ethnic rather than sexual in nature, as Johnnie Cochran knew and Marcia Clark found out. With boys, Sanders beat Clinton 76%-24% among those who supported a Democrat. With girls, he beat her 69%-31%. Not much to see there.

Parenthetically, yes of course Sanders and Clinton are both white. But Clinton's husband was fondly referred to as "the first black president". Her electoral strategy in 2016 was to appeal heavily to non-whites, especially blacks, by making racism, racial inequalities, and perceived racial inequities centerpieces of her campaign. She learned from her defeat by Obama in 2008.

In contrast Sanders focused on a sort of raceless economic populism until he was dragged reluctantly into racial and gender politics. It is this reluctance to wholeheartedly embrace victimization ideology that has made BernieBros relatively ripe for Alt Right picking.

16 comments:

Sid said...

Whites who supported Hillary usually did so begrudgingly. The only enthusiasm for her I saw from whites were careerists who wanted to get ahead in DC or maybe New York.

My mom and my aunt were huge Hillary supporters in 2008 and never really cared for Obama all that much, and my mom even toyed with voting for McCain before her Boomer partisanship took over. But in 2016, neither of them cared for Hillary and my mom even voted for Bernie in the primaries. My mom voted for Hillary in the general and she absolutely despises Trump, but that says a lot that not even my mom and aunt, who were quintessential members of Hillary's base in 2008, had little enthusiasm for her in 2016.

The thing is, Hillary has never been a good campaigner, but she at least tried in 2008. In 2016 she was too old and impaired, and just coasted off the fact that Bill Clinton had secured unanimous support from the DNC and NAMs. What's funny is that white Democrats only seemed to want Hillary after she lost - really, I've seen more zest and passion from Democrats for her after the election than during her campaign.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Hillary, Jeb, and Marco were machine candidates at a time when people were vehemently against machine politics. Can you get excited for a candidate who only seems to be conscious due to a cocktail of medication? Hillary barely campaigned. She had the media carry the water for her but she did little of her own work, probably because her health was in such poor shape that she just was not capable of it. I am surprised she did three debates, I figured she would just do one, declare victory, and be done with it.

Sadly these people never learn so it will be the same thing for 2020. Which is good for us because that means four more years of Trump.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

There is probably a contingent of people with whom that is true, although Hillary's stock hasn't risen on the whole. To the contrary, she's hitting new lows!

Random Dude,

PredictIt is opening a market for the 2020 democrat nominee later this week. There will be easy money against Warren and Sanders to be made. I suspect Harris or Booker will open as the most likely on account of most people with skin in the game admitting that there is no way the Dems will run anything other than a POC puppet that the establishment is comfortable controlling.

Audacious Epigone said...

If they think another white woman will placate non-whites, they're nuts.

If I am incorrect, it'll be Warren as prez and Booker as VP, but that strikes me as highly unlikely.

Sid said...

Oh, I agree that most people are glad to not see her, but a lot of Democratic partisans now remember her with rose-colored glasses. Among them, it's now passe to bring up her email scandal, when that issue once frustrated those selfsame partisans:

https://i.redd.it/v63yl48yq6vy.png

Bernie and Biden are too old to run in 2020. Elizabeth Warren won't necessarily be disqualified because of her age, but it doesn't matter how much she harps about racism: black primary voters hate genuine democratic socialism because it means having to share the gibs with poor whites and young unemployed hipsters. Same problem Bernie faced.

Julian Castro is just too bland and mediocre to secure the nomination. I agree that Cory Booker and Kamala Harris are the most likely prospective nominees. Cory Booker is a better speaker so I bet he will resonate more with black voters, but Kamala Harris pushes the intersectionality further because she's black, East Indian AND a woman, so that should ingratiate her to online SJWs and the DNC.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Booker has had more time to build personal connections with the Washington establishment, too. It's not inconceivable that the two of them share a ticket. Maximizes the Diversity! points, even gets ones for geography.

Feryl said...

Obama was near his mid 40's when he kicked off his campaign in the 2000's; Harris is near her mid-50's already and we're still at least a year away from the circus that promises to be the 2020 Dem nominee process. Harris looks haggard for a presumably healthy person, I haven't heard her talk but she might have a ragged voice to boot.

It's worth keeping in mind that a lot of Millennials (even black ones) are at risk of being perpetually disillusioned by what happened to Bernie. The DNC could get away with wimp candidates for ages because the climate was different in the 90's, 2000's, and the earliest part of the Obama era. These days there is too much thirst for populism that the DNC is unwilling to sate. The Bernie/DNC schism isn't at all analogous to what the party went thru with Obama. Obama was pushed over the line by many different demo. groups. Whereas Bernie appealed primarily to young people and populist whites, while HIllary was offensively timid and conformist to these groups. Obama still gets something of a free pass since he made it in a much different era; populists weren't demanding much at the time Obama was elected.

The black youth opinion about 2016 ought to alarm Democrats, as it indicates that the youngest people in particular want real change and are tired of elitist sell-out policies. I don't think the zeitgeist will be much different 2-3-4 years from now. Wounds can take a long time to heal. Even if Bernie sits out the next several years (due to age, cowardice, bribery, etc.) his followers will expend their energy on some rebellious cause or candidate. It's really a matter of the degree to which a Leftist is willing to go against the combined power of The Great Elders who've arrogantly been running the Dems since Clinton's 1990's presidencies which have been erroneously passed off as a glorious period of acceptance of the Centrist brand. In reality;

- Clinton never won more than 50% of the vote
- his economics were Reaganomics with higher taxes and less protectionism and anti-trust enforcement (which were already under attack in the late 70's and 80's)
- crime would've diminished no matter who the president was (people got out less often in the 90's, which amplified as time went on)
- As with Reagan, he never started a large and lengthy war. Stupid wars can and often do entomb presidents (LBJ and Vietnam, Bush and Iraq/Afghanistan)

Since we're indisputably in a transitition era, The Dems have to adjust (as does the GOP power elite, which currently is risking alienating independent Trump supporters by trying to stave off a full reformation of our political culture). Bland Dem careerists won't do anymore, neither will obsessively focusing on identity politics which are pushed primarily by middle aged and/or cowardly Leftists trying to extinguish the flames of economic populism.

Sanders could still win in 2020, but he's been browbeaten into not dissing the Democrats anymore. Warren has an extremely grating personality and like Trump and Clinton, represents the worst personality characteristics of the early Boomer affect.

Feryl said...

Booker offers no spark, he's not going to be the first black president, he's not physically attractive and is nearing 50. Sure, he'd do better than Clinton (who wouldn't?). We'd just have to see if enough whites in MN, PA, and MI can uncuck themselves to off-set greater black turnout in Minneapolis, Philly, and Detroit. I'm pretty confident that the 3rd party vote will diminish among conservatives in the next election, being that some True-con fence sitters will be happy with a lot of what Trump did. Also, his aggressive confrontations with Democrats and the media chum the waters, and that's what a lot of conservatives have been wanting for quite some time. Again though, you do wonder if 50,000 Johnson/McMullin voters (or whatever the number was) in MN defecting to Trump in 2020 will off-set possibly higher urban turnout in 2020.

Lastly, it's clear that blacks over 40 are the most enthusiastic about brand/party loyalty. That was evident on the last campaign trail. Older blacks fought hard (in their opinion) to gain lots of clout in the party, with each passing decade the party has shed more of the ideas and personnel who appealed to prole whites. And the urban focus is obviously appealing to blacks. Whites of all ages have been alienated by both party's elites.

Older blacks are still stuck in the 60's-90's; most whites are ready to move on.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

My fantasy scenario is that the Democrat nominees will be Biden, Warren, Harris, Booker, and maybe a couple other white people who haven't quite figured out that their party will never go for a white guy again. Could be Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, etc. People who will be lucky to get 1% in a primary and will just leave after Iowa or New Hampshire.

Biden will try to bank hard on Obama nostalgia. He will chuckle about being white and how problematic that is but hey, who better to vote for than the guy who Obama picked to be the veep? Warren will try to siphon the Bernie Bro vote but will struggle because Trump has shot down any chance of her pretending to be non-white. So Fauxcahontas will cringingly pretend to be the most #woke candidate, which will make for some funny times. Harris will go full Shaniqua, which will make Warren try out her best "oh no you di'int" routine, again to the amusement of the country. Booker will bank hard on his connections with left wing darlings like Mark Zuckerberg.

The Democrat debates will be the progressive stack in action. Harris has the most intersectional multipliers so she gets the softballs and the easy wins. Booker will try his hardest to LARP as Obama. Warren will out-black Harris. Biden will have his "aw shucks" routine down pat. It will be a circus.

Obama will shockingly give his endorsement to Biden, much to the chagrin of Harris and Booker for obvious reasons. The primaries become a disaster as both Harris and Booker underperform while Diamond Joe wins Iowa and Warren wins New Hampshire. Superdelegates announce that they will no longer give their vote to white candidates, which rubs voters the wrong way. If Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are still alive, they come out in favor of Harris who has more intersectional multipliers than Booker. Warren turns her campaign into an apology tour where she apologizes for taking votes away from black candidates. She won't drop out though.

Diamond Joe becomes a problem as he picks up lots of victories, particularly in white states which causes a freakout in the DNC about how racist whites in flyover country still are. Booker loses momentum and funding as Harris appears to be the right POC candidate. It comes down to Biden vs. Warren. Biden gets more votes than her but Harris wins due to superdelegates, creating a huge rift in the party. The DNC proceeds to give the middle finger to white people and nominates a latino/a for the VP role. Some useless doofus like Antonio Villaraigosa.

DNC has their Dream POC Team but they are too blatant about it, which turns off the white middle. After some disastrous performances by Harris in the debates, Trump slides into a bigger victory than in 2016. Trump wins 61% of whites, enough to swing a few more states to his column. The DNC decides to blame Joe Biden and says that they are done with white candidates. The DNC continues to lose any district that isn't a large urban area and continues to suffer electoral defeats for the foreseeable future.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

A double post but unfortunately it looks like Ryan Landry/Son of Brock Landers has decided to hang it up: http://28sherman.blogspot.com/

There are only a few blogs I like to read since many other political blogs on the dissident right tend to wallow in their own esoteric constructions for how they see the world. So please stick around, AE! It's pretty much down to your blog, Steve Sailer, and Z Man for me.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Fending off the Sanders-wing of the Democrat base is easy to do. They were slapped down, told to shut up, and then mostly fell in line pretty obediently. Their fatal weakness is (though they don't emphasize it as much as the Dem Establishment does) the victimization game. They can't say "no" to it. There's no winning the nomination without it. The Dem Establishment, therefore, just needs to put someone out there who will talk about all the -isms and that person will drag the Sanders-wing candidate into doing the same.

Hillary Clinton was about as bad a candidate as is imaginable. Anyone else will be able to do better, especially one who is younger and non-white.

Feryl said...

Yuppies and middle aged liberals stepped in line to vote for Hillary, but Millennial turn out in key areas (Urban rust belt blacks especially) failed to be the force it was supposed to be and they badly misjudged white women. And many white Millennials voted for Trump anyway (Neil Howe recently did a podcast where he said that Millennials on both the Right and Left are far more receptive to forceful populism than Silents, Boomers, or X-ers would've been at a young age).

The Sanders wing of the party is young and growing; they're here to stay, and the more the mainstream tries to bottle them up or refocus energy to braindead ID politics, the bloodier the eventual revolution will be. Besides, Left or Right, the biggest defenders of the establishment are mostly an aging group who've benefited from the old ways. Young people have got nothing to lose, though you'll still see some obsequious and gutless strivers among them who don't mind sucking up to the elders to gain status. On that podcast, the hosts who both sounded like they were at least 45 sounded unsettled by the notion of "authoritarianism" which Howe said was here to stay for the long-haul, since the aging defenders of neo-liberal democracy will fall of attrition while under-40 rebels change the discourse and values. It can't be emphasized enough that the "awakening" of the 60's and 70's, and the "unraveling" of the 80's and 90's, is over. Period. We can't pretend that the "old ways" of the Boomers (as represented by the culture of the 60's-90's) is set in stone, inviolable, impregnable.

The hatcheting of Sanders was a momentary set-back, but the populism represented by Trump and Sanders hasn't died because it's the sign of an era that's begun and is far from over.

BTW, how does Sanders differ from the same old neo-liberal DNC? He want's to appropriate the largely ill-gotten gains of modern elites, and make it more difficult for elites to claw more things away from others. The DNC wants business as usual, to pretend that it's still 1992.

Trump and Sanders alike represent essentially the same goal, which is forcefully reforming a decadent elite. Those who've stood to benefit from modern policies often rationalize that they've "earned" what they've got, that they're better than the deplorables who wallow in self-pity and envy. The more either side of the elite resists change that people began demanding in the 2010's, the greater the likelihood of bringing back the guillotine, The current repression of dissent (the MSM mostly not talking about the DNC lawsuit, forbidding anonymous comments or direct article comments altogether, YouTube and Google burying populist Left and Right websites and videos, etc.) indicates desperation. The dissent won't go away, dissent is motivated by frustration and discontent, and elites demanding that the populace shut up will only make the frustration greater.

Feryl said...

I've noticed recently that Leftist elites in particular are troubled by the mood we're in. Interestingly, Neil Howe's history cycles were viewed favorably by many Dems in the past, partly because according to Howe, Millennials were going to be loyal Democrats. In light of Steve Bannon being a devotee of this cycle theory, and Millennials clearly being frustrated by DNC tactics, it seems that a lot of Dems who once praised Howe and Strauss (Al Gore included) didn't get the memo that during their elder adult lifetimes, we'd go through another crisis period in which their status and power could be jeopardized, lost, and never fully returned.

Arrogant Boomer elites were looking forward to being on the throne, unchallenged, for their whole lives and presumably future generations would emulate and look up to them. Well, that's earned. You're not entitled to anything. Right now Boomer elites have to play their cards better (as do the early X-ers who form the Boomer's shadow and so far have struggled to emerge as an effective and distinct group) to upgrade the chances that history will look kindly on them.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Haha! You just need to work in some angle about accusations of Biden being a pervert being brought up and the controversy that creates on the left wrt to agism and "love wins" on one side vs male privilege and sexual objectivism on the other and it's a masterpiece. Bookmarking that comment for future reference. It may turn out to be more reality and less fantasy than you think.

Yeah, he messaged me on twitter about that. We reminisced about posting on Randall Parker's Parapundit going all the way back to 2004. It's something he's been toying with for awhile. A couple months ago he wondered if I had any plans of hanging it up anytime soon.

My answer is a resounding "no". I just turned 34. I'll be kicking for a long, long time to come. That ACLU picture and the resulting melee fanned my flames even more. The hordes that bullied the ACLU into issuing a mea culpa for daring to show a picture of a white kid viscerally reminded me of how these maniacs hate my children. They see the very existence of our kids as an obstacle. Fuck them.

Feryl,

Don't disagree regarding the frustration, only that I think it'll be manageable for the Democrats for at least a couple more election cycles. They didn't even throw a bone to the Sanders wing with the DNC head, yet the Sanders-wing is probably even more vociferously critical of Trump than the Clinton-wing is. Add on top of that the fact that both parties will work to rig the nomination processes even more than they did in 2016 and it seems to me that the Sanders-wing will be the junior partner that is expected to fall in line (and mostly will).

Feryl said...

Vice President is basically worthless in electoral dynamics. They generally have very little effect on voter's minds, and often they seem to be chosen to function as a balance to the would-be president. For example, Mike Pence is the amiable Midwesterner to Trump's brash New Yorker. Less often, but not out of the question, is both the Pres. and VP being an atonement for past mistakes. So for example, Southerners Clinton and Gore were put on the 1992 ticket after the 70's and 80's saw numerous embarrassments involving Northern Dem candidates (Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, etc.) who failed to appeal to much of the country (Southerners LBJ and Carter may have ended up being reviled by Middle America but at least they got elected in the first place).

As a side note, the VP is further downgraded by having to play defense for the president and echo just about everything the president stands for. So VP's usually are bland by design, regardless of whatever charisma or ideas they had at the outset. One of the things I remember about Pence is when he went way off the Trump script by acting hostile to Russia during a debate; it says a lot that even amid the treachery to Trump, Pence seldom deviated from Trump's stance and when he did it obviously stuck out.

Feryl said...

"yet the Sanders-wing is probably even more vociferously critical of Trump than the Clinton-wing is."

Yes, they mostly don't like Trump. Be that as it may, some of them didn't even bother voting or actually did vote for Trump! The media, like they did to Nixon too, is seizing on the overbearing personality of the current president to discredit the president and his ideas, many of which are quite popular with the public.

And for the time-being, the elites have managed to redirect frustration with Dem leadership to muh Neo-Nazi crap which they say is interchangeable with the New Right and egged on by Trump and his allies. But after Trump....What then? As we saw with the battles between the Clinton and the Sanders wing that have quieted mostly down, there's a lot of division and racial and ideological conflict within the Left that's yet to be resolved. It might have ebbed, but it's not gone, not by a long-shot.

The Clinton wing hates Trump, but it might not seem as apparent due to their older age which tempers behavior. Still, both the cuck GOP and DNC elite utterly hate Trump and want him gone. The Deep State allows terribly unflattering and hostile stories about Trump to run unabataed in the MSM, with about the only positive coverage coming from Pentagon friendly foreign policy decisions. Again, similar to what was done to Nixon.

The NY Times and WaPo sold out to the CIA ages ago, and with consolidation it gets ever harder to see anti-Pentagon stories in the mainstream press or in Hollywood (a few emerged in the late Bush era, when America had turned on him; even then, and before and since, we still see virtually all movies portraying the US's military operations as at least morally justifiable if not universally positive ).

The Deep State and MSM largely want Trump gone, no matter what Trump is doing at the moment because they know Pence or whoever can be trusted to always kneel before the Pentagon, who have clearly emerged as the number one power in the current scene. They got their hooks in Hilary, who helped pressure Obama into continuing wars and invasions, they conspired to undermine Trump and his allies during the election and after he won, and they've done so much demeaning babysitting of Trump that his little to no precedent in White House history.

McMaster and/or Kelly have got to go at some point; we've got to have the elites reined in, and I'm beginning to think that it's now or never, in terms of averting a transition that gets even bloodier than it already is. Note too that opposition to the Pentagon, which was quite high in the late 2000's, has been superceded by all kinds of distractions under Obama and even, yes, Trump. Thus dispelling the notion that many elites are morally and practically opposed to excess war. Eventually someone will emerge to capitalize on grass roots opposition to war, it's just a matter of time. But it looks like we can't count on the establishment to spark that.