Sunday, December 17, 2017

Big Daddy Gibs

Supporting Lott’s research that found female suffrage immediately shifted American politics to the Left and enlarged the State, a recent study likewise concluded that female enfranchisement accelerated the same Leftward lurch well into the late 20th-early 21st Century, and it continues moving the country to the Left today (tradcon white knights hit hardest). Furthermore, the female compulsion to vote into existence larger and more intrusive government crosses party identification lines.
Let's recruit the GSS to pile on. The survey has a question that gets right at the heart of the growth of the state. Unfortunately it was only asked in a single year (1996) but the sample is large enough and the trend stark enough to serve our pedagogical purposes here.

It reads "If the government had a choice between reducing taxes or spending more on social programs like health care, social security, and unemployment benefits, which do you think it should do?" The following graph shows the percentages of respondents, by sex and by political orientation, who favor reducing taxes (N = 1,018):

This corroborates the results of the other research Heartiste pointed to. Women are more supportive of government spending on social programs across the political spectrum.

In fidelity to the meta-theme that everything is downstream of immigration, a few other comparisons by selected demographic characteristics:

White middle- and upper-class men are the only group the founders had in mind when they were hammering out the republic's constitutional framework. It was not designed to accommodate the political input of "the rest" and is now--rather unsurprisingly, at least in hindsight--on the brink of collapse.

GSS variables used: TAXSPEND, POLVIEWS(1-3)(4)(5-7), SEX, RACE(1)(2-3), BORN, CLASS(3-4)

Saturday, December 16, 2017

Immigration is the golden snitch

I read the first entries in the Harry Potter series in the span of a couple of weeks in the mid-2000s. My younger brother was enthralled by the books but hadn't seen any of the movies released up to that point. I thought it a nice big brother gesture to watch them with him and wanted to know the score before doing so.

Something I remember with distinct annoyance were the risibly stupid rules of the in-universe game of Quidditch. Six players per side get smashed to hell as they scramble after a big ball--the "quaffle"--that earns a team that scores with it 10 points. Each team also has a seventh player called a "seeker". The seeker exclusively chases a smaller ball--the "golden snitch"--that, once captured, gives his team 150 points and ends the game.

There is no time limit. The match concludes when the small ball is captured, and because it's worth so much, the team that captures the golden snitch virtually always wins. Infogalactic informs us that one game in the series ends with the team capturing the golden snitch losing, but in this exceptional instance it was done intentionally.

So the matches consist of six players on each side getting pounded by flying iron balls for no purpose other than the entertainment of the spectators while the outcome is decided solely by which seeker manages to capture the golden snitch.

I bring this up in the context of Ann Coulter's great column on Roy Moore's loss in Alabama last week:
Everyone who screwed the pooch on this one better realize fast: All that matters is immigration. It’s all that matters to the country, and it’s all that matters for winning elections.

“Anti-establishment” is not a winning issue. Without immigration as the GOP’s lodestar, every election will be a rerun of the Tea Party from 2010 to 2012, when Republicans lost Senate seat after Senate seat, entirely in unforced errors.

We’ll have to watch helplessly as “establishment Republicans” fight “anti-establishment Republicans” over the right to milk a he-goat. Both sides will lose, and Democrats will sweep Congress and destroy our country.

Immigration was never a top issue for Moore, though, when pressed, he gave the right answers. That’s not a good way to prioritize.

Republicans who treat immigration as a backburner issue should be required to run on the issues they consider more important—in California. See how your arguments fare in a state that’s already been transformed by immigration. That’s your new country.

How stupid do you have to be to carry on about taxes, defense spending, ISIS, abortion or the Ten Commandments while intentionally losing on the one issue that will determine the outcome of all these other issues? Too stupid to be of any real help.
Metaphorical moratorium
Taxes? Quaffle. Defense spending? Quaffle. ISIS? Quaffle. Abortion? Quaffle. Ten commandments? Quaffle.

Immigration is the golden snitch. It doesn't matter what happens with the other issues. If we don't capture the National Question, any quaffle points we accumulate will turn out to be nothing more than distractions for fans on our side to cheer about momentarily before we lose the game.

As fans, we must insist on our front office start putting everything into recruiting the best seekers (the single player on the pitch who pursues the golden snitch) and stop wasting so much time and energy on quaffle showmen. Derb essentially concludes as much in this week's broadcast, so take it's importance from him.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Bittersweet home Alabama

Paul Kersey nailed it:

This is predictably being spun as a big loss for Trump.

Indeed, Trump could not have played the state any worse than he did--endorsing the loser in the primary, withholding an endorsement and staying mum on the GOPe's not mere abandonment but opposition to Moore until the 11th hour, endorsing Moore at said 11th hour, and then seeing Moore lose in a state that gave Trump one of his largest margins last November. Sad!

These are tactical errors largely attributable to Trump playing nice with the GOPe, however. The exit polling shows that the long game looks promising for MAGA Republicanism. Among those who voted yesterday, 48% approve of Trump. By comparison, 43% have a favorable opinion of the Republican party and just 16% (!) have a favorable opinion of Mitch McConnell.

Trump is more popular than the GOP brand. Consequently, said brand is being dragged, kicking and screaming, away from both the 'bible-thumping' religiosity of Roy Moore and the Chamber of Commerce cuckery of Ed Gillespie. The two recent high-profile Republican defeats were not of populist MAGA men but of, separately, values voters and big business, two factions of the Republican coalition whose glory days are in the past and for whom the future looks grim.

Additionally, Trump's last-minute endorsement probably helped Moore. It wasn't enough to close the gap (that Fox News, to its credit, appeared to have identified), but it likely did the judge more good than harm:

Those sitting on the fence until the end broke decisively for Moore, and those who said Trump factored into their voting decisions favored Moore over Jones by a 3-to-2 margin.

Takeaway for Team Trump? Get behind MAGA men (and women) in the 2018 mid-terms.

Parenthetically, blacks were clearly a lot more enthused than whites, especially rural whites. Sparsely populated Winston county, to the northwest of Birmingham, saw turnout cut nearly in half from 2016 to 2017 (with the latter year bringing out just 55% of what last November did). In contrast, Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham, saw turnout this time around that was 76% of 2016's. I've only eyeballed figures from county to county, but this appears to be a pretty consistent pattern across the state.

Finally, to end on a positive note, we keep hearing (and hoping!) that Gen Z, the generation with its back against the wall, may just be the one that delivers us all. In that vein, then, some encouragement:

Those under 25 (the oldest Zs are currently 22) went more heavily for Moore than those in their later twenties and those in their thirties did. Keep in mind that the younger the cohort, the less white the cohort, so this suggests that the front wave of white Zs went 10+ points stronger for Moore than white millennials did, and about as strongly for him as white Xers did. And this not for a god-emperor shitlord but for a stodgy old tradcon who wore a cowboy hat and rode a horse to vote!

Monday, December 11, 2017

Clean up

A few things I committed to getting done without having gone through the formality of doing (until now!):

- With regards to the apparently heavy Jewish overrepresentation among the recently exposed high-profile harassers and perverts, GSS results from five questions measuring attitudes and behaviors towards sexual permissiveness for males exclusively, since that's who we're after here:

With the obvious exception of having paid for sex, the sex differences among both Jews and Gentiles are minor. The graph above looks similar to the one presented here. The percentage of white Gentile men who've paid for sex is 12.3%, meaning Jewish men are over 40% more likely to have rented fleshpots than white Gentiles are. By comparison, 19.9% of black men say they've paid for sex.

This may have some explanatory power.

- While it struck me as tedious and unlikely to reveal anything of interest, respected regular commenter DissidentRight wondered about the racial distributions of independents who lean left and lean right. Because of the way the GSS tracks race and ethnicity it's difficult to be precise when it comes racial distributions of particular traits unless Hispanics are grouped together with whites, but it is easy to look at trait distributions among particular demographic groups.

While I'm not sure if this is what DR had in mind, I'm glad I looked at it because it's more slanted than I'd have expected. The following table shows the partisan lean--Democrat, Republican, or neither--among self-identified political independents, by race (N = 8,970):


The subsequent table expresses this in a different way by showing how much more likely independents are to lean Democrat than they are to lean Republican:

When it comes to partisan affiliation, white independents can fairly be described as, well, independent. Non-whites not so much. That Trump beat Hillary among independents really is no mean feat.

- The idea that Twitter is a social media platform intended to freely facilitate the exchange of ideas has been a risible one for well over a year now. Despite the virtual proscription lists filled with names of those on the dissident right--December 18th is rumored to be the virtual night of the long knives--the platform still tends to function as such at present.

The following graph shows the unexciting percentages of respondents who support the right for various controversial speakers to share their views in public by whether or not they use Twitter:

According to Pew, 19% of the US population was on Twitter in 2016, a virtually identical result to the 18.9% found in the GSS for the same year.

Twitter users are modestly more supportive of free speech than non-users are.

The one exception is for anti-religionists.

Twitter users are more likely to be atheists and agnostics and less likely to say they "know God exists" than non-users are, yet they're less supportive of anti-religionist speech!

If it seems strange that the secular, progressive blue checkmarks would be marginally less supportive of free speech than non-users are for anti-religionists of all people, it's because you're not reading anti-religious in the same way they are. They are interpreting it as a reference to Islam.

Notice, too, that the largest variance* between Twitter users and non-users is the relatively strong support the former give to Muslims preaching hatred of the US compared to the tepid support non-users give the same.

* In terms of the gap as a percentage of total support, not in terms of the absolute size of the gap, for which free speech for militarists is the widest.

GSS variables used: SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKMSLM, SPKMIL, SPKATH, TWITTER, GOD(1-2)(6), PARTYID(2-4), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), SEX(1), XMARSEX, HOMOSEX, PREMARS1, TEENSEX(1), EVPAIDSX, RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), YEAR(1990-2016)

Saturday, December 09, 2017

Stomp on sanctuary cities

The percentages of bay area respondents familiar with the case who say the verdict in the Steinle case was "wrong", by race (N = 457):

In total, more than two-in-three residents (69.1%) don't like the decision.

Keep in mind this poll was taken among residents of San Francisco, where the economic and educational disparities among racial groups are larger but the political disparities narrower than in nearly all the rest of the country.

The left can gloat as much as it wants about the Steinle verdict, but trashing it is a populist issue. Trump has a knack for identifying things that are simultaneously 'controversial' and popular--very often more popular than he is:

Even in a deep blue urban SWPL stronghold like San Francisco, sanctuary accomplice city status gets mixed reviews. Nearly half of denizens don't favor subverting national sovereignty in this way ("unsure" responses are excluded; N = 650):

Soy boys and buggers though they be, San Francisco's white men still tend to be the city's least treasonous group.

If only half the population in accomplice cities support their cities being an accomplices, there's a huge vulnerability to be exploited. Hell, even Bugman (R, VA) grasped as much.

Bringing accomplice cities to heel is something the Trump administration needs to be pursuing intensely. Puttering around with half-percentage reductions in federal funding is the first step in a miles-long chase.