The depressive cucks and glib libs who constantly harp on the doom-and-gloom (or baseless enthusiasm) about how "demography is destiny" will be pleasantly surprised by Trump's performance in a number of major demographic groups. (All Bush data from the General Social Survey, using most recent year after the election.)
George W. Bush got in the high 50s with whites, and the USC poll shows Trump already there. Bush got in the low 40s with Hispanics, and Trump is already there too. Among blacks, Bush got about 10%, and although Trump is currently around 5%, he was around 15% for an entire month recently. He does well in the Emerson polls with blacks, so I take the 15% to be the ceiling he'll reach.
In any event, the non-white electorate this year will be more Hispanic and less black than it was in 2000 and '04, so we'll do better than Bush did overall.
Bush only got 48% of voters 65+ in '00, and 53% of them in '04. Trump is currently at 55% and surging -- hammering home the word "Watergate" is working wonders to remind older voters just how corrupt, ungovernable, and shameful a hypothetical Clinton White House would be. Since the electorate skews older, this group matters most -- Bush himself actually won the popular vote in '04 because he improved his numbers with old people by 5 points.
Among 35-64 year-olds, Bush got in the mid-50s both times, while Trump is topping out in the high 40s, maybe low 50s if enough cucks switch from Johnson. This is the only age group that he may not do as well as Bush with, because the helicopter parents are concerned with their children rather than the broader community and nation, and Trump hasn't been pushing "family values" at all. He's still winning this group, just not by as much as Bush did.
Among 18-34 year-olds, Bush got around 47% each time. Trump is currently in the mid-40s and steadily rising, so he'll probably do as well in the young group.
Given how much older this electorate will be than before, and how much greater he's doing with the older groups, Trump is easily going to do better than Bush.
Bush got in the high 40s with women both times, while Trump is in the low 40s and steadily rising. He could get to where Bush was, but I'm thinking in the mid-40s is looking more realistic. However, the would-be First Female President is not getting as much of the womens vote as Gore or Kerry did -- they got in the high 40s, while Crooked Hillary is at 48% and falling. The third party vote among women will be much greater this time.
Among men, Bush got 55% both times, and that's right where Trump is. Perhaps he could go up another point or two, but his ceiling has consistently been 55-56%. Gore only got 38% of men, which is where Hillary is now -- and her long-term ceiling is 40%. Kerry did even better at 43%, and he still lost.
This is by far the biggest shift since the Bush wins. He got in the low 50s with people who had a H.S. degree or less, whereas Trump is going to end up at least 5 points higher.
For those with some college, Bush got 54% in '00 and 51% in '04, and Trump will get 51% as well.
For college degree-holders, Bush got around 50% both times, and the Democrats a few points lower, with not much third party support. Now, Hillary is getting 50%, with Trump's ceiling at 40%. That assumes 10% of the college-educated will vote third party, and I don't see that happening. So Trump could end up getting into the mid-40s, though still losing this group.
The demographics that are relevant for the national popular vote are age and sex, which don't vary so much across the states. Trump is doing much better than Bush on both of these dimensions.
The relevance of race varies a lot by state, although here too Trump is poised to do as well or slightly better than Bush.
Education also varies in importance a lot by state, since some metro areas attract most of the college grads, while other entire states are not so heavily burdened with credentialist strivers. This is what makes Colorado the hardest to get for a Republican among the white Mountain states (excluding NM), or the West Coast, or the ACELA corridor along the East Coast.
Not as much of a problem in the Rust Belt, however, which is where the blue states that Trump is actually fighting for are located. Losing the post-grad vote will not deprive him of Michigan, although it would Massachusetts.
The Rust Belt also tends toward the whiter side and the older side (younger people leave in search of greener pastures, and there's not enough of a local boom to attract replacements from outside).
So not only is Trump going to do better in the popular vote, he's going to do better in the Electoral College than the last Republican President. No one can look at the numbers, and the geography, and conclude that Trump will do worse than Bush. And Bush won, so Trump will win -- even more big-league.
-- the helicopter parents are concerned with their children rather than the broader community and nationReplyDelete
At face-value that is a natural and proper attitude. That said, concern with one's own children ought to take the future condition of those children's broader community into account. It's penny-wise, pound-foolish to make a big deal out of vague lip-service to family values when your children are going to be stuck living in a corrupt multiracial country in which they are the focal point of mud-envy.
A related clarification: no normal White parent needs give a fuck about "community and nation" if we're talking about a multikult empire.
Good breakdown of the momentum shown by the USC/LA times poll. Clinton's only major advantages are with the most educated and blacks.
The MSM is carefully tiptoeing around Trump's Hispanic support that is at least on par with prior GOP candidates. Demonizing Trump's base as redneck white males is only possible by hiding the reality of his diverse supporters. Cultural Marxists are anxious to guilt trip the GOP into greater racial pandering and PC by claiming that the GOP is the whites-only party with no future. In reality, blacks are the only demo that votes entirely as a racial bloc in one election after another. Paranoid and surly blacks have hitched their wagon to the Dems, to the point that it probably alienates other minorities to a degree. Outside of California, anyway.
The main demo. development this time has been the degree to which yuppies reject populism and the continuing black territoriality. But that doesn't stop the media (like David Brooks the other day) from claiming that Trumpism is about aging white guys rejecting immigration, feminism, and PC. The good liberals would be mighty embarrassed to realize that many Hispanics and women prefer a man of strength and integrity over a women who is literally the worst human being to ever run for president.
Also revealing is the absence of discussion regarding who benefits from globalism. Allegedly women and minorities are doing better (they're not, the lower class ones can't pay the bills any easier than lower class whites). It's the salaried class (in addition to obviously the super rich) who've most benefited from the last 30 years while wage workers see declines and most investors get little to no gains. Productivity (a polite word for exploitation) has risen to insane levels since the 80's.
At this point the strivers in the MSM simply do not care about economic justice issues (not to be confused with flaky "social" justice). If they did, they'd skip past race/gender identity and go straight to economic identity (the 1% globalist class, the yuppie riddled salary class, the investor class, and the wage worker class). But that would entail self-awareness and shame, since non-freelance reporters and columnists don't work by the hour or by their piece production.
With helicopter parents, it's not just that they aren't taking the future conditions into account -- it's more that they want the President (Senator, Governor, etc.) to be the CEO of Surrogate Parents, Inc.ReplyDelete
Today's parents don't want to raise their own kids -- teach them how to sew, how to change a fuse, make friends, work for wages. Or just be "minding" the children.
They want all of that stuff to be outsourced to coaches, tutors, and teachers of various kinds. Paying dearly to live in a "good school district" is partly about avoiding darkskins, but also about buying access to the top-of-the-line surrogate parents.
Mommy and Daddy are too busy pursuing their careers and status-striving in other ways even if they're stay-at-home.
They want the President to be the ultimate *symbol* of surrogate parents, regardless of what functionally gets done.
That's a major change in what parents want out of the President, and why parents are less Republican-leaning this time with Trump than with a cosplay surrogate dad like Romney or Bush.
It shouldn't be underestimated but Clinton ads often target "the children." Clinton is portraying herself as a good parent and Trump as a bad parent. That has an affect on those parents who see the government as fulfilling a bit of that role.ReplyDelete
Much of the rest of her attacks have been of a neo-Puritan bent, in style if surely not substance. Trump's comments on women have no impact on whether Clinton would do well in office, they just portray him as 'unclean,' or 'unholy.'
I dunno why Sailer is re-printing stuff from the 2012 election. It's totally irrelevant. Muh family values types were more likely to vote Republican in the previous elections. They felt that they were getting stability and sobriety that for one thing made them feel better about their conformist-to-the-current-era attitude and choices, and for another would ideally shame lower class (as in prole affect more than low-income per se) types into putting more effort into keeping up appearances.ReplyDelete
The cuck brigade's neurosis about having a gosh-darn nice man representing the party is easier to grasp when you realize that cultural elites (of whom some are conservative) disdain prole champions.
And yeah, it's remarkable how little time Trump spends on think of the children BS. He wants beaten and forgotten adults to pick themselves up with a level of sincere encouragement and help that's been missing for decades. No, condescending and smarmy pious conservative elites telling the masses that the "blame game" is beneath True Conservative values has done nothing to reverse the wave of policies and trends that make it so tough for so many to make a decent living.
It seems like the cultural elite (whether it's the right or left wing element) fixates on providing good role models for their kids out of narcissism. They just don't have empathy (and some just don't care) about prole adults. It kinda all makes sense now. I'm better than everyone, and I need to make sure my kids aren't tainted by proleness.