The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
George Hawley: "In 2016, the Relationship Between Marriage and Voting Declined"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

George Hawley, a professor of political science at the U. of Alabama, writes:

In 2016, the relationship between marriage and voting declined
March 16, 2017

Although you wouldn’t know it based on which elements of my research agenda get media attention, the subject I have worked on more than any other since grad school is the relationship between family formation and partisan politics. Specifically, I argued in my dissertation, my first peer-reviewed article, and my first two books that the GOP benefits when people form family units at an early age.

But since the 2016 presidential election upended so many of the normal rules of politics, I thought it was worth checking if this rule also no longer applied.

It turns out that marriage age and voting were still correlated in 2016, but the relationship was much weaker. …

However, when it comes to the median age at first marriage and vote choice at the state level in presidential elections, you haven’t recently needed to include that caveat. To my knowledge, no variable has ever had such a strong, linear connection to state-level vote choice in presidential elections than the median age of first marriage for women. In 2012, this simple two-variable regression had a ridiculous R-squared of 0.72. That’s a number you simply don’t see in political science with such a simplistic model.

The 2016 election was a little different, however. The relationship was still there (if it totally disappeared, then the world really had been turned upside-down), but it was weaker. The R-squared dropped to 0.57. That’s still really good, but not amazing.

Part of this is due to Trump’s poor performance in Utah, which has, by far, the youngest median marriage age.

And here’s Hawley’s 2011 paper testing my Affordable Family Formation theory of Presidential voting.

Here’s my 2013 VDARE article on the 2012 election.

 
    []
  1. Luke Lea says:

    So what does it mean? Trump appealed to wider variety of voters?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Or to wider voters?
    , @res
    I would interpret it using conservative as a mediating variable. So the correlations look something like:

    low median marriage age -- conservative -- vote for Trump/Romney

    Given this, clearly the latter correlation would be lower for Trump giving results like we see.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/george-hawley-in-2016-the-relationship-between-marriage-and-voting-declined/#comment-1803258
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Read More
    • Replies: @Romanian
    "They found Saddam in a hole in f***ing Iraq, Tupac was killed in Vegas![...] More people saw Tupac get killed than the last episode of Seinfeld."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWviiw2KZHI

    I bet Chris Rock isn't too happy about the special snowflakes ruining his special brand of social commentary.
    , @Old fogey
    Is there any way to read articles on 4chan without "agreeing" that pornography is one of God's better creations and all the other rigamarole that they demand you are OK with? Never in a million years would I say that I agree with any of that garbage. . .
  3. If Utah’s skewing the results, why not not include them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Peter Johnson
    It would be a bad idea to delete an observation because it does not conform to the model. Doing so would generate "sample selection bias," as it is called.
  4. George Hawley uses median age at first marriage. In your posts on this topic, Steve, you used expected number of years a white woman is married between the ages of 20 and 45. The most obvious way Hawley’s number differs from Sailer’s is that Sailer’s number deducts family formation points from populations with youthful weddings and high divorce rates, while Hawley’s seems to neglect the frequency of women who never marry at all. So which number is a better predictor in 2016?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Good question.

    My number, Years Married, is hard to replicate since the Census Bureau has not published anything from which it is calculable since 2002, as far as I know. I last checked in 2013 and I couldn't find anything from the 2010 Census that would let me calculate Years Married for more recent years. So I just kept on using 2002. (I forget whether that data is from the 2000 Census or if it was a separate survey in 2002.)

    Utah does very well in Years Married since it is both an early marriage and low divorce state for white people. Southern states and Oklahoma tend to be early first marriage but high divorce states.

    As I wrote in 2013:

    Years Married is a measurement of white people being married. Thus, states with high rates of both marriage and divorce, such as Oklahoma (unofficial state song: George Strait’s “All My Exes Live in Texas”), don’t perform quite as well as stable Utah.

    The best predictor of Republican performance isn’t the rate of getting married—because if you have a state where a lot of people get married and then they turn around and get divorced, that doesn’t do the Republicans as much good. Divorced white people vote Republican less than 45 percent of the time, while over 63 percent of married white people go GOP. In short, Republicans do well among people who get married and stay married.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/happy-white-married-people-vote-republican-so-why-doesnt-the-gop-work-on-making-white-peopl

    But I haven't calculated 2016 based on my 2002 numbers.

    My prediction all along was that 2012 would be a high water mark for this technique I invented right after the 2004 election. Romney as the monogamous paterfamilias with a couple of dozen grandchildren meant he'd be at one extreme.

    And then Trump probably appealed more on a personal level to people with less stable biographies.

  5. @Weltanschauung
    George Hawley uses median age at first marriage. In your posts on this topic, Steve, you used expected number of years a white woman is married between the ages of 20 and 45. The most obvious way Hawley's number differs from Sailer's is that Sailer's number deducts family formation points from populations with youthful weddings and high divorce rates, while Hawley's seems to neglect the frequency of women who never marry at all. So which number is a better predictor in 2016?

    Good question.

    My number, Years Married, is hard to replicate since the Census Bureau has not published anything from which it is calculable since 2002, as far as I know. I last checked in 2013 and I couldn’t find anything from the 2010 Census that would let me calculate Years Married for more recent years. So I just kept on using 2002. (I forget whether that data is from the 2000 Census or if it was a separate survey in 2002.)

    Utah does very well in Years Married since it is both an early marriage and low divorce state for white people. Southern states and Oklahoma tend to be early first marriage but high divorce states.

    As I wrote in 2013:

    Years Married is a measurement of white people being married. Thus, states with high rates of both marriage and divorce, such as Oklahoma (unofficial state song: George Strait’s “All My Exes Live in Texas”), don’t perform quite as well as stable Utah.

    The best predictor of Republican performance isn’t the rate of getting married—because if you have a state where a lot of people get married and then they turn around and get divorced, that doesn’t do the Republicans as much good. Divorced white people vote Republican less than 45 percent of the time, while over 63 percent of married white people go GOP. In short, Republicans do well among people who get married and stay married.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/happy-white-married-people-vote-republican-so-why-doesnt-the-gop-work-on-making-white-peopl

    But I haven’t calculated 2016 based on my 2002 numbers.

    My prediction all along was that 2012 would be a high water mark for this technique I invented right after the 2004 election. Romney as the monogamous paterfamilias with a couple of dozen grandchildren meant he’d be at one extreme.

    And then Trump probably appealed more on a personal level to people with less stable biographies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Highlands
    1. I was wondering about the chronology as it did feel like a long time. 2004 ?- well done, Steve.

    2. Hawley states that outlier UT even by itself skews the 2016 results and we can certainly see its change in position on the two charts. Outliers are outliers for good reasons, and the very Mormonism that skewed it so heavily for Romney became something of a liability for Trump: Kristol and his proxy look a little smarter in this light.

    3. The range of median 1st marriage age shifted from 23.5-28.5 to 24.5-30.0 in only four years, and the trend is against stable young marriage even in UT.

    4. This whole notion of stability is interesting. As you suggest, Trump appeals to a fair number of what could be called the 'stabilizable unstable.' For Trumpism to succeed in the long run, it is vital to stabilize social institutions around patriarchy, eg in 'family' (anti-family) law. Tall order.

    , @res
    Steve, any chance of you putting together a scatterplot of the two metrics by state? I think looking at the outliers on that would be interesting. If not, maybe reply here and I'll make one and send it to you?
  6. @Chrisnonymous
    If Utah's skewing the results, why not not include them?

    It would be a bad idea to delete an observation because it does not conform to the model. Doing so would generate “sample selection bias,” as it is called.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Still would be useful to have a before and after.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    If Utah's an outlier and there's reason to believe there's some other factor like religion that swamps all other voting effects there and is applicable to this election only and not to general voting trends, it seems sensible to get a number without them included.
    , @Ted Bell
    McMullin siphoned off a huge number of votes from Mormons who couldn't bring themselves to pull the lever for someone with Trump's personal baggage. Without him, Trump would have done considerably better in Utah and Idaho. Very few of his voters, if any, would call themselves liberal. His candidacy was a challenge to Trump from the right, not the left. Instead of discarding Utah as a freak outlier, it would probably be more reasonable, for the purposes of this analysis, to simply combine McMullin's vote totals with Trump's.

    As a side note, McMullin is one of the most devout neverTrumpers, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker, and he was a surprisingly high level CIA officer, for his age. (Do CIA agents ever really leave the Company?) He admitted from the start that his only goal in running for president was to keep Trump out of office, and he currently runs a political organization devoted to fighting Trump. With his connections, he's probably up to his neck in the deep state resistance. He's too young to be running it, but he probably reports directly to whomever is. If Trump ends up being impeached, look for McMullen on the short list to replace Pence as VP, then as unelected president, a la Ford.
  7. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Hilarious stuff

    https://tinyurl.com/k938ukl

    So divorced from nature and sense.

    Revolutionaries are fantasists.

    Better to be an Evolutionary grounded in biology and science.

    Read More
  8. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Next prog frontier.

    Against Genital Privileging.

    All this talk of Gender Politics privileges sexual organs above other organs.

    What about identity based on fingers, toes, nose, lips, knees, belly buttons, ears, armpits, etc?

    Instead of gender studies, why not organ studies? All organs should define identity.

    Academia privileges the brains and groins above all else.
    Academia favors the brains because it thinks and the genitals because they are pleasure zones.
    But should thought and pleasure be privileged over other bodily functions?
    Besides, who’s to say other body parts don’t think? Maybe they just think differently. Maybe one’s neck thinks. Or one’s thighs or feet.
    And maybe we need to expand the meaning of ‘orgasm’ to include any body part.
    And maybe some organs should rebel against other ones that are favored.
    Body Politics will consider the ways in which the body is in revolutionary struggle with itself, and a dialectical understanding is necessary to understand the nature of the conflict.

    Maybe we should go even further. When we think of ‘oneself”, we tend to differentiate between the cellular body and things co-mingling with it but not innately of it. So, we talk of the body and germs as if germs are something apart from the body. We don’t consider feces or urine as part of the body but as ‘waste material’. We don’t consider booger and snot as part of the body. We don’t consider abscess and puss as part of the body. But that is xeno-body-phobic, making a distinction between oneself and the Other.

    Also, the notion of diseases and parasites are judgmental and exclusionary. Why should hookworms be considered a foreign element feeding on the body than as part of the body?
    Why should cancer be considered a disease instead of as an alternative biology?
    Indeed, the very notion of health vs disease must be stamped out because ‘health’ denies and exterminates the kinds of life elements and/or processes that are deemed to be ‘harmful’ to the body.

    Read More
  9. watson79 says:

    My lying eyes indicated the following for the election. The single women where I work seemed to think Trump was the Devil’s black sheep brother. The married ones kept their heads down while the cat ladies howled.

    At businesses I visited, the men were very quietly for Trump, even if the M/F ratio was 8/1.

    Read More
  10. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Abuse of Statistics, case #63489174.

    - You move UT up to where it was for Romney and boom, R^2 approaches the 2012 value.
    - You plot Democrat vote share vs. average age and I bet the curves are nearly indistinguishable.
    - Note the axes: the x-axis is 30% bigger in 2012. I bet if you squished the 2016 plot by 33% they’d look pretty similar.

    What does it all mean? Two words: Evan McMullin. *snooze*
    (What is interesting is that median marriage age seems to have gone up almost 2 years across the board…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ted Bell
    That last part caught my eye, too. Median age for first marriage went up almost 2 years, in only four years. That's an utterly insane rate of change. If that number represents the median ages of women who were married for the first time in each respective year, the shift is something we should all be worried about. If it represents the median age at which all American women were first married, (i.e. it includes 60 year old women, who were first married 40 years ago) it's borderline apocalyptic. It implies that young people have simply stopped marrying. I firmly believe that civilization only became possible because of the institution of marriage. Can civilization survive it's disappearance?

    But remember everyone, birth control is no threat to marriage. Divorce on demand is no threat to marriage. Feminism is no threat to marriage. Welfare is no threat to marriage. Secularism is no threat to marriage. Homosexual "marriage" is no threat to marriage. While all these things were being put in place, marriage just fell out of fashion, completely on it's own. You'd have to be deplorable to believe there's any connection.
  11. This is just making a graph with two variables. You can make one with number of Harley Davidsons per capita and get a similar number. At the very least add a control for race.

    Read More
  12. Women — Dames — Gals — Broads — Ladies. The GOP needs more White women voters. One way to win the favor of the White lady voters is to destroy the Chamber of Commerce faction of the GOP.

    Turnabout is fair play. The Chamber of Commerce faction of the GOP — or the Globalizer GOP — has used a simple strategy to neutralize the political power of the pro-sovereignty — or Patriotic GOP. The Globalizer GOP has counted on their being no alternative for the Patriotic GOP voters at election time. The Patriotic GOP voter is presented with a choice between the Democrats, the Globalizer GOP or not voting. President Trump has changed that state of affairs.

    White women voters want to see someone fighting for them. It’s as simple as that. I don’t care how dainty these distaff bastards appear to be, they want someone to fight over them. It doesn’t matter whether they are married or not. The Patriotic GOP must expressly do battle with the Globalizer GOP.

    The Globalizer GOP supports open borders mass immigration and multiculturalism. The Globalizer GOP pushes endless overseas war. The Globalizer GOP pushes job-killing trade deal scams. The Globalizer GOP must be targeted and destroyed. White women voters will respond positively to this development.

    The Patriotic GOP must promise low housing costs, high wages, more cultural tranquility and more patriotic pride. The Patriotic GOP will be vilified and attacked by the plutocrats and their corporate propaganda apparatus. The ability to take a punch and keep fighting — as President Trump has done — will impress the White lady voters.

    Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are the face of the Globalizer GOP. White women voters are ready to reject the weak cowards in the Globalizer GOP. The Patriotic GOP must bang it out bravely against both the Globalizer GOP and the Democrat Party.

    Read More
  13. Jasper says:

    I’d like to see this comparison with the same scale for both the before and after graphs.

    Read More
  14. @Steve Sailer
    Good question.

    My number, Years Married, is hard to replicate since the Census Bureau has not published anything from which it is calculable since 2002, as far as I know. I last checked in 2013 and I couldn't find anything from the 2010 Census that would let me calculate Years Married for more recent years. So I just kept on using 2002. (I forget whether that data is from the 2000 Census or if it was a separate survey in 2002.)

    Utah does very well in Years Married since it is both an early marriage and low divorce state for white people. Southern states and Oklahoma tend to be early first marriage but high divorce states.

    As I wrote in 2013:

    Years Married is a measurement of white people being married. Thus, states with high rates of both marriage and divorce, such as Oklahoma (unofficial state song: George Strait’s “All My Exes Live in Texas”), don’t perform quite as well as stable Utah.

    The best predictor of Republican performance isn’t the rate of getting married—because if you have a state where a lot of people get married and then they turn around and get divorced, that doesn’t do the Republicans as much good. Divorced white people vote Republican less than 45 percent of the time, while over 63 percent of married white people go GOP. In short, Republicans do well among people who get married and stay married.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/happy-white-married-people-vote-republican-so-why-doesnt-the-gop-work-on-making-white-peopl

    But I haven't calculated 2016 based on my 2002 numbers.

    My prediction all along was that 2012 would be a high water mark for this technique I invented right after the 2004 election. Romney as the monogamous paterfamilias with a couple of dozen grandchildren meant he'd be at one extreme.

    And then Trump probably appealed more on a personal level to people with less stable biographies.

    1. I was wondering about the chronology as it did feel like a long time. 2004 ?- well done, Steve.

    2. Hawley states that outlier UT even by itself skews the 2016 results and we can certainly see its change in position on the two charts. Outliers are outliers for good reasons, and the very Mormonism that skewed it so heavily for Romney became something of a liability for Trump: Kristol and his proxy look a little smarter in this light.

    3. The range of median 1st marriage age shifted from 23.5-28.5 to 24.5-30.0 in only four years, and the trend is against stable young marriage even in UT.

    4. This whole notion of stability is interesting. As you suggest, Trump appeals to a fair number of what could be called the ‘stabilizable unstable.’ For Trumpism to succeed in the long run, it is vital to stabilize social institutions around patriarchy, eg in ‘family’ (anti-family) law. Tall order.

    Read More
    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right.

    Romney ran up too big of a margin in Utah for his Electoral College chances, whereas Trump got the job done in Utah and made major progress over Romney in what I called on 11/12/2012 the "Slippery Six" north central states that Romney lost because he didn't appeal well to blue collar white men.

  15. Romanian says: • Website
    @Anon
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-ABXvbMSc4

    “They found Saddam in a hole in f***ing Iraq, Tupac was killed in Vegas![...] More people saw Tupac get killed than the last episode of Seinfeld.”

    I bet Chris Rock isn’t too happy about the special snowflakes ruining his special brand of social commentary.

    Read More
  16. Old fogey says:
    @Anon
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-ABXvbMSc4

    Is there any way to read articles on 4chan without “agreeing” that pornography is one of God’s better creations and all the other rigamarole that they demand you are OK with? Never in a million years would I say that I agree with any of that garbage. . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    No.

    Its 4chan. Demographically, its a huge percentage of lonely and unhappy young men, who among other things, rather enjoy having a source of joy in a world that has denied it otherwise to them. The popularity of anime(which portrays an supportive emotional world), and pornography(which offers release and an imagined partner) is evident.

    Essentially, its their fraternity tradition. They hold onto it very much, as a source of identity in a time where atomized individuality is the norm.

    The world you refer to sometimes is gone for most young men. Its difficult enough these days to even have a male-only fraternity, and in no small part, 4chan is simply an effort to have something clannish at all, and a sense of family when young males have been otherwise denied.

  17. @Peter Johnson
    It would be a bad idea to delete an observation because it does not conform to the model. Doing so would generate "sample selection bias," as it is called.

    Still would be useful to have a before and after.

    Read More
  18. res says:
    @Luke Lea
    So what does it mean? Trump appealed to wider variety of voters?

    I would interpret it using conservative as a mediating variable. So the correlations look something like:

    low median marriage age — conservative — vote for Trump/Romney

    Given this, clearly the latter correlation would be lower for Trump giving results like we see.

    Read More
  19. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I wonder what Erdogan knows about affordable family formation.

    https://www.samaa.tv/international/2017/03/have-5-kids-not-3-erdogan-tells-turks-in-europe/

    “From here I say to my citizens, I say to my brothers and sisters in Europe… Educate your children at better schools, make sure your family live in better areas, drive in the best cars, live in the best houses,” said Erdogan.

    “Have five children, not three. You are Europe’s future.”

    Read More
  20. Not Raul says:

    What’s the R-squared without Utah? What’s the R-squared with PctMormon thrown in?

    I bet it goes up a bit, closer to the 2012 level.

    Read More
  21. @Old fogey
    Is there any way to read articles on 4chan without "agreeing" that pornography is one of God's better creations and all the other rigamarole that they demand you are OK with? Never in a million years would I say that I agree with any of that garbage. . .

    No.

    Its 4chan. Demographically, its a huge percentage of lonely and unhappy young men, who among other things, rather enjoy having a source of joy in a world that has denied it otherwise to them. The popularity of anime(which portrays an supportive emotional world), and pornography(which offers release and an imagined partner) is evident.

    Essentially, its their fraternity tradition. They hold onto it very much, as a source of identity in a time where atomized individuality is the norm.

    The world you refer to sometimes is gone for most young men. Its difficult enough these days to even have a male-only fraternity, and in no small part, 4chan is simply an effort to have something clannish at all, and a sense of family when young males have been otherwise denied.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    Thank you very much for taking the time to reply, Mr. Chieh. After seeing the material about the flag chase, which was intriguing in a general way, I thought that there must be much more of interest to me on the site - especially since my grandson views it and so does another young man whom I respect. Obviously, from what you say, it is not geared for old fogies like me.
  22. @Jack Highlands
    1. I was wondering about the chronology as it did feel like a long time. 2004 ?- well done, Steve.

    2. Hawley states that outlier UT even by itself skews the 2016 results and we can certainly see its change in position on the two charts. Outliers are outliers for good reasons, and the very Mormonism that skewed it so heavily for Romney became something of a liability for Trump: Kristol and his proxy look a little smarter in this light.

    3. The range of median 1st marriage age shifted from 23.5-28.5 to 24.5-30.0 in only four years, and the trend is against stable young marriage even in UT.

    4. This whole notion of stability is interesting. As you suggest, Trump appeals to a fair number of what could be called the 'stabilizable unstable.' For Trumpism to succeed in the long run, it is vital to stabilize social institutions around patriarchy, eg in 'family' (anti-family) law. Tall order.

    Right.

    Romney ran up too big of a margin in Utah for his Electoral College chances, whereas Trump got the job done in Utah and made major progress over Romney in what I called on 11/12/2012 the “Slippery Six” north central states that Romney lost because he didn’t appeal well to blue collar white men.

    Read More
  23. @Peter Johnson
    It would be a bad idea to delete an observation because it does not conform to the model. Doing so would generate "sample selection bias," as it is called.

    If Utah’s an outlier and there’s reason to believe there’s some other factor like religion that swamps all other voting effects there and is applicable to this election only and not to general voting trends, it seems sensible to get a number without them included.

    Read More
  24. Old fogey says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    No.

    Its 4chan. Demographically, its a huge percentage of lonely and unhappy young men, who among other things, rather enjoy having a source of joy in a world that has denied it otherwise to them. The popularity of anime(which portrays an supportive emotional world), and pornography(which offers release and an imagined partner) is evident.

    Essentially, its their fraternity tradition. They hold onto it very much, as a source of identity in a time where atomized individuality is the norm.

    The world you refer to sometimes is gone for most young men. Its difficult enough these days to even have a male-only fraternity, and in no small part, 4chan is simply an effort to have something clannish at all, and a sense of family when young males have been otherwise denied.

    Thank you very much for taking the time to reply, Mr. Chieh. After seeing the material about the flag chase, which was intriguing in a general way, I thought that there must be much more of interest to me on the site – especially since my grandson views it and so does another young man whom I respect. Obviously, from what you say, it is not geared for old fogies like me.

    Read More
  25. Ted Bell says:
    @Peter Johnson
    It would be a bad idea to delete an observation because it does not conform to the model. Doing so would generate "sample selection bias," as it is called.

    McMullin siphoned off a huge number of votes from Mormons who couldn’t bring themselves to pull the lever for someone with Trump’s personal baggage. Without him, Trump would have done considerably better in Utah and Idaho. Very few of his voters, if any, would call themselves liberal. His candidacy was a challenge to Trump from the right, not the left. Instead of discarding Utah as a freak outlier, it would probably be more reasonable, for the purposes of this analysis, to simply combine McMullin’s vote totals with Trump’s.

    As a side note, McMullin is one of the most devout neverTrumpers, a former Goldman Sachs investment banker, and he was a surprisingly high level CIA officer, for his age. (Do CIA agents ever really leave the Company?) He admitted from the start that his only goal in running for president was to keep Trump out of office, and he currently runs a political organization devoted to fighting Trump. With his connections, he’s probably up to his neck in the deep state resistance. He’s too young to be running it, but he probably reports directly to whomever is. If Trump ends up being impeached, look for McMullen on the short list to replace Pence as VP, then as unelected president, a la Ford.

    Read More
  26. Ted Bell says:
    @anon
    Abuse of Statistics, case #63489174.

    - You move UT up to where it was for Romney and boom, R^2 approaches the 2012 value.
    - You plot Democrat vote share vs. average age and I bet the curves are nearly indistinguishable.
    - Note the axes: the x-axis is 30% bigger in 2012. I bet if you squished the 2016 plot by 33% they'd look pretty similar.

    What does it all mean? Two words: Evan McMullin. *snooze*
    (What is interesting is that median marriage age seems to have gone up almost 2 years across the board...)

    That last part caught my eye, too. Median age for first marriage went up almost 2 years, in only four years. That’s an utterly insane rate of change. If that number represents the median ages of women who were married for the first time in each respective year, the shift is something we should all be worried about. If it represents the median age at which all American women were first married, (i.e. it includes 60 year old women, who were first married 40 years ago) it’s borderline apocalyptic. It implies that young people have simply stopped marrying. I firmly believe that civilization only became possible because of the institution of marriage. Can civilization survive it’s disappearance?

    But remember everyone, birth control is no threat to marriage. Divorce on demand is no threat to marriage. Feminism is no threat to marriage. Welfare is no threat to marriage. Secularism is no threat to marriage. Homosexual “marriage” is no threat to marriage. While all these things were being put in place, marriage just fell out of fashion, completely on it’s own. You’d have to be deplorable to believe there’s any connection.

    Read More
  27. res says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Good question.

    My number, Years Married, is hard to replicate since the Census Bureau has not published anything from which it is calculable since 2002, as far as I know. I last checked in 2013 and I couldn't find anything from the 2010 Census that would let me calculate Years Married for more recent years. So I just kept on using 2002. (I forget whether that data is from the 2000 Census or if it was a separate survey in 2002.)

    Utah does very well in Years Married since it is both an early marriage and low divorce state for white people. Southern states and Oklahoma tend to be early first marriage but high divorce states.

    As I wrote in 2013:

    Years Married is a measurement of white people being married. Thus, states with high rates of both marriage and divorce, such as Oklahoma (unofficial state song: George Strait’s “All My Exes Live in Texas”), don’t perform quite as well as stable Utah.

    The best predictor of Republican performance isn’t the rate of getting married—because if you have a state where a lot of people get married and then they turn around and get divorced, that doesn’t do the Republicans as much good. Divorced white people vote Republican less than 45 percent of the time, while over 63 percent of married white people go GOP. In short, Republicans do well among people who get married and stay married.

    http://www.vdare.com/articles/happy-white-married-people-vote-republican-so-why-doesnt-the-gop-work-on-making-white-peopl

    But I haven't calculated 2016 based on my 2002 numbers.

    My prediction all along was that 2012 would be a high water mark for this technique I invented right after the 2004 election. Romney as the monogamous paterfamilias with a couple of dozen grandchildren meant he'd be at one extreme.

    And then Trump probably appealed more on a personal level to people with less stable biographies.

    Steve, any chance of you putting together a scatterplot of the two metrics by state? I think looking at the outliers on that would be interesting. If not, maybe reply here and I’ll make one and send it to you?

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored