Wednesday, December 07, 2016

Trump's net favorability on track to surpass Obama's by inauguration day

Trump's shattering expectations.

I got on the Trump Train back in July 2015 for three primary reasons:

1) Immigration -- his candidacy was a referendum on a wall.

2) Political correctness -- any other political figure who'd said one-tenth of the things he did would've been toast. Instead of groveling, he doubled down. Rather than shedding support, his level of support increased.

3) Messianic democracy -- he offered a reorientation of Republican foreign policy from neocon interventionism to America First nationalism to such an extent that the 2016 election was one in which the Democrat was the hawk and the Republican was the relative dove.

Trump's positions on trade and corporate taxation were encouraging to hear but I figured they would at best amount to small effects on the margins.

Was I ever wrong about that. The news of foreign investment heading into the US and of manufacturing already here staying here as a direct consequence of Trump's election continues daily--Ford (hyperbole aside), Carrier, Trans-Lux, SoftBank, to name the biggest and most conspicuous ones so far.

There is nothing more valuable than access to the US market. That can be leveraged to the hilt. Wal-Mart didn't become the world's largest brick-and-mortar retailer by focusing on reciprocity and equitability with its suppliers. That sort of principled cuckery is the reason the phrase "nice guys finish last" exists.

Parenthetically, don't think I've lost my grounding here. Despite the recent surge, the markets are headed for a serious downturn in the relatively near future, on the order of a double-digit percentage decline over the course of a single year. That was going to happen irrespective of who was elected. I'd put it at 5% before Trump takes office, 80% during his first-term, 10% between '20-'24, and 5% that it'll happen after that.

Anyway, Trump's net favorability has gone from -29.2 to +5.2 in a mere six weeks. He's now within striking distance of Obama. The markets need to open an over/under on whether Trump will be more popular than Obama by inauguration day:


Trump is now far more popular among whites (+21.6) than Obama (-8.7) is, and Trump has closed his own NAM gaps considerably, from -50 to -16 among Hispanics and from -85.8 to -64.0 among blacks.

Sunday, December 04, 2016

Liberty, if you can keep it

As a follow up to the previous post showing how free speech is a white thing, note that free speech is an American thing. The US is still as good as it gets when it comes to speaking freely.

The subsequent graph shows the percentages of people, by whether they were born in the US or were born outside the country and subsequently settled stateside, who do not believe representatives of the following groups should be allowed to speak in public. For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Sample sizes are 9,807 for natives and 1,313 for the foreign-born:


The color commentary from the preceding post is as relevant in the case of native-vs-foreign-born as it is in the case of white-vs-non-white, so with the objective of making each capable of standing on its own, indulge me this... reiteration.

Whether the speaker in question is 'far right'--as in the case of an avowed racist--or 'far left'--as in the case of a communist--native-born Americans are more open to discussion of controversial topics than immigrants are.

This is of course a feature rather than a bug from the perspective of the Cloud People. It's one of the reasons they've been working so hard to elect a new people. Independent thoughts should not be coming from the peasantry!

Not only does multiculturalism make members of all races and cultures hunker down more than they otherwise would if their societies were homogeneous, the specific kind of diversification we're suffering from is accelerating this process even more than heterogeneity in general would. As the white population declines, free speech will decline along with it.

The more diversity we take on, the less liberty and equality we will enjoy. These things are mutually exclusive.

GSS variables used: BORN, SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKCOM, SPKATH, SPKMIL, YEAR(2000-2014)

Saturday, December 03, 2016

Diversity is Strength! It's also... opposition to free speech

The subsequent graph shows the percentages of people, by race, who do not believe representatives of the following groups should be allowed to speak in public. So in the first set of bars we see that 36.4% of whites do not think racists should be allowed to speak in public. For blacks, Hispanics, and Asians the figures are 41.4%, 55.2%, and 47.8%, respectively.

For contemporary relevance, all responses are from 2000 onward. Sample sizes by race are 7,751 for whites, 1,445 for blacks, 535 for Hispanics, and 297 for Asians:


Free speech is a white thing. Whether the speaker in question is 'far right'--as in the case of an avowed racist--or 'far left'--as in the case of a communist--whites are more open to discussion of controversial topics than non-whites are. Hispanics are especially hostile towards freedom of expression.

This is of course a feature rather than a bug from the perspective of the Cloud People. It's one of the reasons they've been working so hard to elect a new people. Independent thoughts should not be coming from the peasantry!

Not only does multiculturalism make members of all races and cultures hunker down more than they otherwise would if their societies were homogeneous, the specific kind of diversification we're suffering from is accelerating this process even more than heterogeneity in general would. As the white population declines, free speech will decline along with it.

The more diversity we take on, the less liberty and equality we will enjoy. These things are mutually exclusive.

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1,2,4-10,15-16), SPKRAC, SPKHOMO, SPKCOM, SPKATH, SPKMIL, YEAR(2000-2014)

Friday, December 02, 2016

California dreaming

In the previous post it was noted that according to exit polling data the entire increase in Hispanic turnout in the 2016 election compared to the 2012 election was accounted for--and then some--by an increase in California's Hispanic turnout.

Pithom doesn't buy it:
Though the effect of Loretta Sanchez on the ballot may have helped Hispanic turnout in California, the numbers I saw before election day from early voting in North Carolina showed "other race" and "multi-racial" turnout up reasonably strongly ...

I suspect Florida and Nevada had higher Hispanic turnout, as well, though that Hispanic turnout was also more pro-Trump than it was pro-Romney in 2012, at least, in Nevada.
I didn't make it clear enough that I'm skeptical of the veracity of the conclusion. While it's unavoidable given the data, it presumes that the data is accurate. There are reasons for skepticism. For example, nationally the percentage of voters without a college degree apparently declined by 25% between 2012 and 2016. That strikes me as almost literally incredible.

On election day, I heard, read, and saw several reports about huge lines at voting locations. All the people I talked to who voted on election day, though, said the lines and the wait times were minimal or nonexistent. Given that turnout was flat from 2012 and down from 2008 and that a record number of ballots were cast before election day, I suspect this anecdotal evidence scales better than the media accounts do.

Parenthetically, exit polls show North Carolina's electorate was 70% white this time around, unchanged from 2012. Hispanic turnout in Florida and Nevada was flat to 2012 (up 1 point and down 1 point, respectively). For what it's worth, the state exit polls mesh with the story that the national exit poll appears to tell.

Speaking of the California senate race (still another reason for Calexit!), it was nice to see that Loretta Sanchez, the candidate who was beaten decisively, actually won among Hispanics. It was also nice to see the winner, who is black, won the black vote by a 4-to-1 margin. When there isn't a badwhite to unite the Coalition of the Fringes, the various parties comprising that precarious coalition turn on each other in a flash. Diversity is a wonderful thing! Lee Kuan Yew knew.

And speaking of Hispanics, Steve Sailer has noted that, relative to their IQs, Hispanics tend to be underachievers. They're less likely to go to college or vote than blacks are, for instance. They're also less likely to read. From Pew, the percentages of people, by race, who have not read a single book in any format in the last year:

Hispanics -- 42%
Blacks -- 31%
Whites -- 24%

Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Another reason to support Calexit

With the caveats about the reliability and precision of exit polling data kept in mind, consider that Hispanics went from 10% to 11% of the national electorate between 2012 and 2016, an increase of about 10%. In California, Hispanics went from 22% to 31% between 2012 and 2016, an increase of about 40%. Some 30% of the nation's total Hispanic population lives in California.

That means that California alone accounted for the entire increase in nationwide Hispanic turnout between 2012 and 2016. Solely accounted for it and then some, to be precise--the numbers actually suggest that Hispanic turnout in the other 49 states modestly declined between 2012 and 2016.

We have seen the future and it is, without a significant change of course, California.

Here's to hoping that the golden state acts as a window into the future on another thing--secession.

The most probable path I'd conceived of up to this point was through Texit. Texas exits the union, the electoral college immediately becomes unwinnable for Republicans, and a secession cascade is triggered.

Well, a similar dynamic is in play with a Calexit except that the blue states are the ones that start bailing. Hasta la vista, baby.