Monday, January 22, 2018

California's illiberal arts colleges

Some interesting observations from a SurveyUSA poll on Californians (N = 909):

- Trump's approval rating in California is 30% approve, 60% disapprove. That compares unfavorably to his putative national approval rating of 37% approve, 58% disapprove. Trump's approval is only 9 points worse in a state he lost by 29 points than it is in the entire country? He lost the national popular vote by 2. Something doesn't add up.

I think this is indicative of the country being so disunited, those living in it so antagonistic towards so much of the rest of the population, that we've now reached a point where it's conceivable that no elected national politician ever cracks the 50% approval mark. With a couple of brief exceptions in 2012 and after Trump won the 2016 election, even the lord savior Obama couldn't manage it after his first few months in office in 2008. Until hard political dissolution occurs, every president is facing the prospect of being underwater from the outset and remaining there for the duration of the presidency.

Reelections will still be able to occur within that framework, though. The upside is that Trump's low reported approval rating will not preclude a second term.

- Of the seven hypothetical 2020 presidential election matchups presented, Trump fares better in every one of them than he ended up faring against Hillary in the state in 2016. His toughest opponent is Tom Hanks (!), followed closely by Oprah. The matchups against politicians Kristen Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Eric Garcetti are all tighter. A couple of Current Years ago, we couldn't elect Trump because he wasn't qualified, he didn't have the political experience! How expediency times change.

Some will see this as a slide towards idiocracy, others as a refreshing rejection of the quotidian political establishment. I lean towards the latter. Your mileage will vary.

- Speaking of Oprah, she gets the strongest stated black support at 81%, while the Becky Gillibrand garners the least black support of any Trump challenger, at 61%.

- The following graph shows the percentages who say "certain speech is okay to silence" subtracted from the percentages who say free speech is an "absolute right", by selected demographic characteristics:

As goes California so goes the country? It is often said that leftists are the new authoritarians, but survey data pretty consistently shows liberals as the strongest proponents of free speech, at least in an abstract sense. This is the first quantitative treatment of free speech I've seen where conservatives come off as stronger proponents of free speech than liberals (and moderates) do.

Even more jarring is the inverse relationship between educational attainment and support for free speech. That definitely indicates a break from the past. The idea that academia is a place for the open exchange of ideas is an anachronism. It has become a place of intellectual indoctrination, not of intellectual exploration.

The relatively strong Hispanic showing is curious, as free speech has historically been a white thing. Middle American whites are an endangered species in California, so it's hard to extrapolate to the rest of the country from this.

Black and female opposition to free speech is par for the course, however.

- By a 3-to-1 margin, white respondents who have an opinion on the wall--it's worth noting that half of respondents think a wall would make no difference one way or another--say it would make them feel safer. Blacks and Asians are also slightly more likely than not to say they'd feel safer with a wall. Hispanics, in contrast, say they'd feel less safe, presumably because said wall would presage a step up in deportations as well. If only!

- Diversity is strength... it's also idleness. The percentages of respondents who have never been employed, by race:

The WASP work ethic is so 1950s.

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Gen Z backing a coup against Trump?

tcjfs slips a black pill into the Gen Z martini. From Survey Monkey:

Reuters-Ipsos similarly shows less satisfaction with Trump among younger Republicans than among older cohorts (N = 9,124):

R-I is suboptimal in that it doesn't allow 18-24 year-olds--that is, actual Gen Zs--to be separated out from millennials. Those currently aged 25-34 represent, as best I can tell, peak SJWism. The cresting was apparent in the Alabama Senate race, for example (keep in mind that the 18-24 cohort is the least white one--Moore won big among white Zs, but just barely if at all among white millennials):

It's conceivable that this is an indication, at least in part, of less patience among younger Republicans than among older ones. My sense is it is much more a case of younger Trump voters accusing the god-emperor of being co-opted by the tribe into pushing a bellicose Israel-First foreign policy, compromised by the deep state, cucking on this or that, etc than it is older Trump voters doing so. President Trump is closer to GOPe business-as-usual than candidate Trump was. 

A couple of potentially contrasting data points to keep in mind, in any case.

Saturday, January 20, 2018

American misandry!

From Reuters-Ipsos, the percentages of people, by selected demographic characteristics, who think America would be better off with fewer men more women in politics. "Don't know" responses are excluded (N = 5,250):

In a zero-sum game like politics, when one group gains power it is necessarily at the expense of another group. Normal people tend not to think beyond obvious first-order effects, though. The logical conclusion of a response favoring more women in politics is that said response simultaneously--and necessarily--favors fewer men in politics.

It's both a reminder of how much influence wording can have on polling results and also how Western countries have managed to promise ever increasing future benefits while running national debts and unfunded liabilities to the tune of infinity trillion dollars.

Overall, 7% of respondents said that "America would be worse off with more women in politics". Among Trump-voting white men over the age of 35, 14% said as much. In what is becoming a recurring pattern, young white MAGAMEN are dissenting from the anti-male #MeToo feminization that has settled over our sick civilization at rates unmatched by any other segment of the population. Some 28% of Trump-voting white men under the age of 35 asserted that more women in politics is bad for America:

The sample size wasn't quite large enough to show results for Trump-voting white men under 30, but for all Trump-voting men under 30, it was a couple ticks higher still, at 30% saying America would be worse off with more women in politics. Here's to yet another encouraging sign from Gen Z's fine young white men!

Friday, January 19, 2018

Modest brown slowdown

++Disclaimer++The 2015 data assigns a racial/ethnic classification to 99.7% of all recorded births, while the 2016 data only assigns one to 97.0% of all recorded births. I am unsure why the discrepancy is so large between the two years, but it creates the appearance of a larger decline in births by race/ethnicity across the board than actually exists in terms of total births. There was a 0.9% decline in the absolute number of births between 2015 and 2016.


The following table and graph show the change in Hispanic births from 2015 to 2016, by state (for whites see here and for blacks see here). Mixed-race births are not included in these counts:

1) West Virginia+14.5
2) South Dakota+13.4
3) New Hampshire+9.1
4) Alabama+6.7
5) Ohio+6.4
6) Kentucky+4.5
7) Connecticut+4.2
8) South Carolina+3.9
9) Mississippi+3.3
10) Washington+2.9
11) Florida+2.8
12) Massachusetts+2.7
13) Tennessee+2.7
14) Rhode Island+2.6
15) Missouri+2.3
16) Colorado+2.1
17) Pennsylvania+2.1
18) Oklahoma+2.0
19) Iowa+1.5
20) District of Columbia+1.5
21) North Carolina+1.5
22) Arkansas+1.4
23) Nevada+1.3
24) Utah+1.1
25) Maryland+1.1
26) Wyoming+1.0
27) North Dakota+0.9
28) Virginia+0.8
29) Georgia+0.7
30) Nebraska+0.7
31) Michigan+0.5
32) Minnesota+0.4
33) Alaska+0.1
34) Kansas+0.0
35) Hawaii(0.3)
36) Oregon(0.6)
United States(0.7)
37) Idaho(0.8)
38) Arizona(0.9)
39) Wisconsin(1.5)
40) Texas(1.8)
41) New York(2.0)
42) California(2.3)
43) Indiana(2.5)
44) Louisiana(2.7)
45) New Jersey(2.8)
46) Vermont(2.9)
47) Illinois(3.7)
48) Montana(4.4)
49) Maine(5.2)
50) New Mexico(6.1)
51) Delaware(6.6)


Most states saw a year-over-year increase, but nationally the number of Hispanic births in 2016 declined modestly from 2015 on account of both California and Texas, together containing nearly half the country's total Hispanic population, experiencing larger birth declines than the rest of the US.

A couple of noticeable trends are visible--fewer births in the highly Hispanic Southwest and more births in the South. While white and black births in Alaska and Hawaii are in free fall, Hispanic births are steady in the country's non-contiguous states.

Wednesday, January 17, 2018

The dark decline

++Disclaimer++The 2015 data assigns a racial/ethnic classification to 99.7% of all recorded births, while the 2016 data only assigns one to 97.0% of all recorded births. I am unsure why the discrepancy is so large between the two years, but it creates the appearance of a larger decline in births by race/ethnicity across the board than actually exists in terms of total births. There was a 0.9% decline in the absolute number of births between 2015 and 2016.


The following table and graph show the change in non-Hispanic black births from 2015 to 2016, by state (for whites, see here). Mixed-race births are not included in these counts:

1) South Dakota+10.7
2) North Dakota+6.8
3) Massachusetts+0.6
4) Connecticut+0.3
5) District of Columbia+0.1
6) Florida(1.3)
7) Iowa(1.6)
8) Georgia(2.3)
9) Texas(2.6)
10) Minnesota(3.1)
11) Alabama(3.2)
12) Mississippi(3.3)
13) Maryland(3.5)
14) Louisiana(3.8)
15) Tennessee(4.9)
16) North Carolina(5.0)
17) Delaware(5.2)
United States(5.3)
18) Nevada(5.3)
19) Indiana(5.5)
20) Virginia(5.6)
21) Illinois(5.7)
22) Ohio(5.9)
23) Michigan(6.0)
24) New York(6.4)
25) Arkansas(6.8)
26) Kentucky(7.1)
27) South Carolina(7.1)
28) Wisconsin(7.5)
29) Missouri(7.6)
30) New Jersey(9.4)
31) Idaho(9.6)
32) Pennsylvania(9.8)
33) Nebraska(10.1)
34) Arizona(10.9)
35) Maine(11.2)
36) California(11.3)
37) Oklahoma(12.0)
38) New Hampshire(12.2)
39) Kansas(12.6)
40) Colorado(12.9)
41) West Virginia(15.9)
42) Washington(16.3)
43) Rhode Island(17.8)
44) Utah(19.1)
45) Hawaii(19.9)
46) Alaska(24.4)
47) New Mexico(25.6)
48) Wyoming(27.6)
49) Oregon(29.2)
50) Montana(36.0)
51) Vermont(46.6)


Eighteen states show double-digit percentage decreases in births in 2016 compared to 2015. None of those states are heavily black, nor are they on their way to becoming so. Nationwide, the black fertility rate per capita is still about 20% higher than the white fertility rate is, but the gap has been narrowing for decades. At the current rate, white and black fertility will have reached parity in a couple of decades, and the total fertility rate before that. Can't wait to see the major media celebrate the elimination of that gap!

The east-west divide in changes in fecundity is even starker with black births than it is with white births. As Feryl will undoubtedly notice, the hot, swampy tropical South suits blacks.

The energy boom in the Dakotas have attracted a lot of younger people from all of the country. Americans will do jobs Americans won't do if the wages are right, and while they've receded some from their peaks a few years ago, it's a laborer's market in both those states. Black births are up considerably there.