« IQ by region and the 2004 election | Main | The real political story of America »

June 26, 2006

Comments

The Democrats are gaining votes because the groups that overwhelming vote for them (black, Hispanics, and Asians) are growing at a much faster rate than whites. High IQ whites are shrinking as a percentage of US population. Not may votes to be found there.

You could also spin your numbers that since manufacturing jobs and agriculture have decreased and retail has gone low wage, that the growth in jobs is in government services, legal profession, and education (all higher IQ and all overwhelming Democrat)

If you run the demographics 30 to 50 years into the future, most of the US will have the politics of the District of Columbia (a few high IQ whites and a large number of minorities living in a single party state).

Yeah, I think long term demographics do favor the Democrats. Of course if Hispanics assimilate enough they could be like Catholics and start voting Republican.

Another reason to shut down immigration--too large a population and there will be no need to assimilate.

Really I think the whole 'let's help people assimilate' might work better politically than 'these people are bad'. It takes the whole 'we've always had waves of immigrants' and turns it to our advantage--yes, and they assimilated! Nice piece of jujitsu. What think you guys?

You certainly do paint a depressing picture. Maybe the moon will be a viable living space by then, and Heinlein's dream will become reality. There's certainly no place left on Earth for individual sovereignty, and a couple of A-10 Warthogs would make short work of any kind of Galt gulch.

"I discovered that people with high IQs are more religious. "
HS, you made a typo.

Does anyone have in-depth information about East Asian voting patterns? Fiscal and social positions?

SciFiGeek, while that MAY be a better argument politically, the other argument (say comparing statistics of immigrants with native whites) is more substantive and presuasive. And besides, the statistics may not be so amenable to your argument. I read of Tyler Cowen using assimilation statistics to defend Hispanic immigration (specifically primary language), while ignoring all of the negative statistics.

The Democrats are gaining votes because the groups that overwhelming vote for them (black, Hispanics, and Asians) are growing at a much faster rate than whites. High IQ whites are shrinking as a percentage of US population. Not may votes to be found there.

5 seconds of googling for exit polls suggests that whites went from 83% of the presidential vote in 1996 to 77% in 2004. whether that is fast decline is a subjective percpetion, but, i suspect that some people who seem inclined to make generalizations in a vacuum of facts didn't know the exact percentages :)

thank god people like this exist steve, otherwise you wouldn't have columns derivable from 6th grade math!

Libertarians choosing between Dems and Republicans would be well-advised to choose Democratic. Tax-and-spend is a lot closer to the libertarian ideal (albeit still far) than borrow-and-spend. Starving the beast has proven not to work. If you want to throw your vote away making a (very small) statement by voting for a Libertarian candidate, though, that continues to be your prerogetive.


Sigma,

I think the gay marriage/civil union issue has disillusioned a lot of high-IQ former Republicans. I have a (very high-IQ) friend who was a hard-core (fiscal) Republican who was simply incredulous about their position on gay marriage. Obviously, it's hard to tease this issue out from the religious ones, but the gay marriage issue really lays out for all to see how far the Republican Party is willing to go to appease the religious right.

Starving the beast has proven not to work.

No it hasn't. It's quite possible that spending would have been even higher if there had never been any tax cuts. Starving the beast doesn't "work" in the sense of keeping spending down to whatever comes in, but it may effectively keep spending down to, say, 3-4% of GDP greater than revenues.

I think the gay marriage/civil union issue has disillusioned a lot of high-IQ former Republicans. I have a (very high-IQ) friend who was a hard-core (fiscal) Republican who was simply incredulous about their position on gay marriage.

fiscal conservatives have always been able to accept social conservatism as the price of small gov. but bush republicanism isn't a big constrast with democratic dirigiste. so social issues are harder to swallow, and many have stopped.

Razib,

All it takes to win is 50% of the vote. If blacks make up 12% of the population and vote 95% for Democrats and Hispanics make up 12% of the population and vote 80% for Democrats. That gives Democrats about half the votes to win a national election. Thus all the Democrats have to do to win is get about 1 in 3 white voters. (25% of the voters or a litte more 1/3 of that 77% voters who are white. Considering that school age children are only 66% white, the future looks very bleak for Republicans and very good for a one party state in the US (once again see DC or NYC). The only way Republicans can keep winning is to keep getting a larger share of the whites.

JA

I wonder how Gay marriage polls with black voters who have the highest church attendance rate of virtually any demographic group or with Hispanic Catholics? The elite, highly educated left pushes Gay marriage with the assumption that even though blacks and hispanics are, on average, not supportive of gays, they will continue to support Democrats.

We have moved from a era of The Party of Government vs. The Party of Limited Government to an era of The Party of Government vs. The Party of Larger Government. The End of History is upon us. Government won.

The only way Republicans can keep winning is to keep getting a larger share of the whites.

LOL, steve sailer is a friend of mine, don't need to quote me chapter and verse. you response didn't speak to my critique of your points, but if you now wield only data, then it's all good.

Superdestroyer:

I wonder how Gay marriage polls with black voters who have the highest church attendance rate of virtually any demographic group or with Hispanic Catholics? The elite, highly educated left pushes Gay marriage with the assumption that even though blacks and hispanics are, on average, not supportive of gays, they will continue to support Democrats.

You are of course correct that Blacks don't support gay marriage. Maybe that's why the Dems have been so waffly on the subject. I'm deeply disappointed in the way that so many Democrats have failed to speak up in defense of gay marriage.

"You are of course correct that Blacks don't support gay marriage."

Blacks don't support ANY of the leftist libertarian positions. Blacks are opposed to abortion, more hostile to free speech compared to whites, support prayer in public schools, etc.

However I doubt that Democratic leaders care what blacks think because they have their votes locked up. Democrats are worried about losing more of their poor white base.

Superdestroyer, the tendency to vote varies positively with IQ. I suspect that voting Republican is just not an option for blacks, and less so Latinos, so if they are sufficiently angry at the left about gay marriage, they will stay home, just as some conservatives stayed home in 2004.

Either way, I cannot see gay marriage affecting my life much. I'm against it mostly because it reeks of gays begging for society's approval. Also, it may indirectly lead to more anti-discrimination law. I remember seeing on GNXP a gay community in Chicago (Shoreland?) in which 43% of those polled said they had had 60 partners or more over their lifetime.

I remember seeing on GNXP a gay community in Chicago (Shoreland?) in which 43% of those polled said they had had 60 partners or more over their lifetime.

*rolls eyes*

Clearly, preventing gay marriage from being legal will stop such promiscuity.

"SciFiGeek, while that MAY be a better argument politically, the other argument (say comparing statistics of immigrants with native whites) is more substantive and presuasive. And besides, the statistics may not be so amenable to your argument. I read of Tyler Cowen using assimilation statistics to defend Hispanic immigration (specifically primary language), while ignoring all of the negative statistics."

Could be. Here on the left the big charge is 'racism'. Try to talk about immigration and it's racism, racism, racism. Never mind that this is awful for poor people. And whatever Ted Kennedy says, I know quite a few of my (less) liberal urban friends are worried about this immigration thing.

If we can neuter the racism charge, we could get a bipartisan movement going, which would have the potential to do something because it would threaten both parties. Right now what's going to happen is either (a) the immigration-restrictionists steal enough votes from Republicans to cost them the election, and the Democrats win, or (b) they don't, and Bush goes on importing cheap labor.

Trust me, guys, this is important.

JewishAtheist,
I have no wish to have gay promiscuity reduced. Neither do I believe that gay marriage will do so significantly. I merely hope that gays practice their business privately and not repulse the rest of us. Which ties into my other misgiving about gay marriage - if it encourages anti-discrimination law, it may well force us to tolerate repulsive mannerisms. (Not that all gays are repulsive, but the small fraction thereof that churns my stomach.)

SFG, another problem of my method is that the liberal reading it may say to himself, hey, aren't these patterns are also true of blacks? Is he suggesting that we deport the blacks too? or some such line of thought. Too bad, as I really think there is no meat to the alternate method. The 'it hurts the blue collars' argument seems apt, but then again that's too old-fashioned for today's liberal(ism).

Regarding blacks, gay marriage, and the democrats, a group often retains its party despite strong disagreement on an issue or two. Examples: Blacks and vouchers, environmentalists and immigration (increasing U.S. pop. and even world pop. because immigration increases immigrant fertility), Jews and affirmative action. Probably because the group considers it unconsciable to vote for the opposition. Perhaps only because ours is a two party system.

The Superfluous Man:

So the United States should now adopt laws based on what turns your stomach? Say I hate liver and am repulsed when people eat it in public. Should we make it illegal?

Keep your homophobia out of our laws.

(And as a Jew, I never heard of a Democratic Jew against affirmative action.)

Jewish Atheist:

For better of for worse, we have lots of laws against actions that simply offend our sensibilities, though usually at a local level. Theoretically, this may be objectionable from a libertarian perspective, but I really wouldn't want to live in a city where I periodically saw people having sex on the sidewalks or in the parks (and if it was legal, people would do it, as part of advertising if for no other reason), and while vanilla sex wouldn't upset me that much, I'm sure that Matt Stone and Trey Parker could come up with something that would, and I'm also sure that there are more sensitive people who would be horrified by things that wouldn't faze me. Various acts of pure self-mutilation are even more aversive from my perspective. There are even activities that we allow on prime time network TV (to some people's dismay) but which we probably wouldn't tolerate on a street corner, such as "Fear Factor" style feats of repulsive consumption (live cockroaches etc). People can, after all, easily change the channel.

The key point is that laws against the repulsive or stomach turning only apply, or only should apply, in public spaces. They are also egalitarian in nature. Attractive couples kissing in public may create positive externalitites while hideous couples kissing creates negative externalities, but we permit both, ane while we permit both we do or should also permit gay couples to kiss in public. This is basically "rule of law 101". Those who object can easily either a) move somewhere with stricter PDA laws, b) spend time in neighboorhoods where such displays are uncommon, or c) grow up and learn to appreciate the right to walk the streets without a burka and all the iscomorphic rights that come with it.

Anyway, on a different topic, it's my impression that MANY Democratic Jews disapprove of affirmative action. Any legal discrimination, and discrimination in favor of any one group is logically discrimination against some other group, offends the sensibilities of the secular libertarians half sigma mentioned, a group that includes most Jews, although less than it probably bothers members of other secular libertarian market dominant minorities. In fact, I would probably consider that to have been the best of the three examples, as support for vouchers among blacks has been shown in studies to be higher than support among whites and the majority of environmentalists are definitely pro-immigration, as they should be given that technologically advanced countries can support more people at a given standard of living and a given ecological footprint than technologically primitive countries, and as mostly urban Americans are less of a threat to pristine ecosystems than substantially rural developed world inhabitants.

The comments to this entry are closed.