The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
How the Marriage Gap Painted the Map Red or Blue from 2000 Thru 2012
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Here’s my February 28, 2013 article in VDARE summarizing the crucial role of the marriage gaps in explaining the red state – blue state maps of the 2000 through 2012 elections. We’ll soon see if 2016 follows this patterns I discovered in late 2004. (At minimum, Utah should be different due to the personality differences between Donald Trump and Mitt Romney).

MarriageMatters1

Happy White Married People Vote Republican, So Why Doesn`t The GOP Work On Making White People Happy?

by Steve Sailer

February 28, 2013

Above is the single most extraordinary graph for explaining the results in the recent Presidential election.

It’s widely assumed in the press that victory in the Electoral College is determined by the Gender Gap or by the Rising Tide of Hispanic Voters or whatever. Yet, the relationship between these demographic factors and whether a state votes Republican or Democratic in the four Presidential elections of this century has been relatively weak.

Despite the increasing importance of nonwhite voters, what still determines Presidential elections is a fundamental divide among whites over the very basics of life. Thus, an extremely obscure statistic measuring marriage among younger white women that I debuted here on VDARE.com in December 2004 correlates sensationally with Electoral Votes.

Remarkably, this metric of average years married among white women ages 18 to 44 on the 2000 Census (what I’ll call “Years Married” for short) had its best won-loss record yet in 2012. Mitt Romney carried 23 of the 24 highest ranked states, while Barack Obama won 25 of the 26 lowest ranked states.

Above is the graph. The length of each state’s bar indicates the average number of years that a white woman would expect to be married in the between ages 18 and 44. Romney’s states are colored in the now traditional Republican red and Obama’s in Democratic blue, with Romney’s share of the two-party vote next to the name of the state.

At the top of the chart is Utah, where white women average 17.0 Years Married and Romney won 75 percent. At the bottom are Massachusetts and California.

In Massachusetts, white women average only 12.2 Years Married and Romney was beaten roughly 5 to 3. (I left off the District of Columbia, a nonstate that gets three Electoral Votes. White women only average 7.4 Years Married there, and Romney won merely 7 percent in the capital.)

The sole anomalies were Obama capturing Iowa (which is 21st in Years Married) and Romney taking Arizona (41st).

Republicans need to ask themselves seriously why they didn’t win Iowa. Don’t ask: “What’s the Matter with Iowa?” Instead, ask: “What’s the matter with the GOP that they can’t win a respectable state like Iowa?

I suspect that Arizona is culturally an exurb of Hollywood, while politically it’s an exurb of Orange County. This may help explain the virulence of the New York Times’ long-running war on Arizona: the Grand Canyon state is supposed to turn into California Jr., not into something new.

Please note that this Years Married statistic is not a measurement of white people getting married in that state. Otherwise, Nevada, with its 24-hour wedding chapels, would be near the top of the list.

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.

To demonstrate how stunningly sorted into red and blue this Years Married graph is, let’s compare it to a more celebrated demographic statistic: Percent Nonwhite. Lately, everybody has been talking about how the growing nonwhite share of the population hurts the GOP (Peter Brimelow has been talking about this for 16 years). And, that’s true. It does.

Yet, when you graph it out state by state, the red-blue divide isn’t as clear. At the top of the chart are the whitest states, Maine and Vermont, which Romney lost in landslides. Then West Virginia, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Iowa. Not much of a pattern.

MarriageMatters2

If you look at this chart very carefully, you can see a little more Republican red toward the top and a little more Democratic blue at the bottom, but nothing like the Years Married graph.

This is not at all to say that Percent Nonwhite is unimportant to election results, just that the real world is complicated. Percent Nonwhite correlates with Romney’s share of the vote in the fifty states at -0.32: a low to moderate negative correlation. (It’s stronger if Washington D.C. is included.) This is the kind of hodge-podge you normally see when you graph a single factor that impacts voting.

As I pointed out back in 2000, having a lot of blacks in a state tends to drive whites to the Republicans, while having a lot of Asians seems to make whites more liberal, with Hispanics in-between.

You might think, reasonably enough, that this 2012 Years Married result must be a one-time fluke. Maybe it was the result of the personal characteristics of Mitt Romney, a philoprogenitive Mormon who had 43 years married and 23 descendants?

But in 2008, John McCain carried 19 of the top 20 states on this same metric, while Obama captured the 25 of the bottom 26. Here’s the 2008 graph:

Marriage Matters3

I discovered Years Married right after the 2004 election. Hence, unsurprisingly, it worked really well then, too, with George W. Bush winning the top 25 states and John F. Kerry 15 of the bottom 18:

Marriage Matters4

And, finally, there’s 2000, when Bush took the top 25 states and Gore 14 of the bottom 17.

MarriageMatters5

You may be wondering: Why white people? Why not measure Years Married for everybody? The short answer is: that’s what works best.

There is a higher correlation with the Republican candidates’ performance and Years Married among whites than with Years Married among the entire population. Conversely, Years Married among whites correlates better with the GOP’s share of the overall vote than with its share of the white vote.

You could accuse me of “data dredging,” trawling through many possible correlations looking for whatever turns out highest by random luck. But when I dreamed up my Years Married statistic in late 2004, it worked amazing well for two elections. (Yet, it didn’t project all that well farther back into the past due to Ross Perot’s third party runs in 1992 and 1996.). And it has since worked well for two subsequent elections. What more can we ask of a statistic?

It took me a long time to find the single measurement that best correlated with voting by state. Way back in July 2000, I noted here at VDARE.com that the most liberal state, Vermont, had the lowest total fertility while the most conservative state, Utah, had the highest. After the 2000 election, I explained for UPI that Bush had carried the 19 states with the highest white birthrates.

Immediately following the 2004 election, I pointed out in my “Baby Gap” article The American Conservative that the “total fertility rate” among whites was an uncanny predictor of overall voting by state.

Over the next couple of weeks in late 2004, I worked out how to create an age-adjusted measurement of being married. I reported in VDARE.com in “The Marriage Gap” on 12/12/04 that the rate of being married among white women 18-44 in the 2000 Census had the highest single correlation with voting GOP.

I then fortified my theory by including the impact of geography on home prices — “The Dirt Gap” – which, in turn, determines the “Mortgage Gap.” In places where family formation is more affordable, the “family values” party does better.

Recently, political scientist George Hawley of the U. of Houston has confirmed my state-based theory at the county level in a study published in the academic journal Party Politics: Home affordability, female marriage rates and vote choice in the 2000 US presidential election: Evidence from US counties.

After a lengthy review of academic articles on voting, Hawley writes:

“The possible relationship between home affordability and aggregate voting trends has largely been ignored up until now by the political science literature, though the topic has been considered by the political journalist Steven Sailer (2008). Sailer hypothesized that ‘affordable family formation’ – which he argued was closely related to housing costs – was a key difference between majority-Republican states and majority-Democrat states. Sailer went on to conclude that the relative affordability of housing accounted for the differing typical political behavior within various large cities. Sailer suggested that the relative costliness of owning a home in America’s large coastal cities, such as Los Angeles, led to later family formation, which partially explained the greater support for Democratic politicians in those cities and regions. In contrast, inland American cities like Dallas are able to expand outward all-but indefinitely, which keeps housing costs low and subsequently [makes] such cities more attractive to young families.”

Hawley went on to find a statistically significant effect at the county level in the 2000 election. In all likelihood, other scholars would find similar county results in the three subsequent elections. (In other words, if you are an academic social scientist searching for an important result to publish, check out 2004, 2008, and 2012.)

It’s worth looking at my scatter plots of the correlations. First, here’s Romney’s share of the two-party vote on the vertical axis vs. the 2002 total fertility rate for white women on the horizontal axis. The isolate in the lower left corner is Washington D.C., while Utah is in the upper right corner.

MarriageMatters6

The federal government doesn’t go around calculating for every state, total fertility for white women very often, so I’m using 2002 numbers. They’re ten years out of date, but this is still a pretty good correlation: including D.C., the correlation coefficient is 0.83.

Psychometrician Linda Gottfredson likes to say that in the social sciences, a correlation of 0.2 can be thought of as “low,” 0.4 as “moderate,” and 0.6 as “high.” So, anything above 0.8 must be very high.

MarriageMatters7

The scatter plot for Years Married is even tighter.

The correlation is 0.88.

If we exclude Washington D.C. as an outlier, the correlation is still 0.84.

The correlations between the 2000 Years Married and the GOP’s share of the vote has been very high since 2000. Including Washington D.C. pumps up the correlations to stupendous levels, but they’re still jaw dropping without D.C.:

MarriageMatters8

Let’s explore the interplay of marriage and fertility for each state, calculating a ratio versus the national average of 100. It’s not easy to put each state on a graph, so I’ve come up with a Bar Chart Without the Bars that just displays the numbers in the appropriate locations.

Yes, that sounds odd, but check it out and I think you’ll see that it’s usable. The states are sorted in descending order of Romney’s share. Romney’s best state was Utah, where the white Years Married rate (dark type) is 121 percent of the national mean and the white Total Fertility Rate (red type) is 134 percent.

MarriageMatters9

It’s easy to spot that the only states with exceptionally high white fertility are Mormon Utah and empty Alaska. Strong Republican states tend to have higher white marriage rates than fertility rates. This is especially apparent in deep southern states such as Alabama. Strong Democratic states tend to have low white fertility.

California, the leading prize in the Electoral College, is down toward the bottom at 89% of the national white average for marriage and 90% for fertility. It is therefore not that surprising that what used to be the keystone to Republican success in the electoral college, voting Republican 9 out of 10 times between 1952 and 1988, has now gone solidly liberal, with Obama winning the white vote in California. In the Narrative, California is always about Proposition 187, but it had already switched to Democrat in the 1992 Democratic election, two years before.

And Republicans can’t exactly expect to carry any state where they lose the white vote.

California used to be the paradise for the common man. Housing was no more expensive than in the rest of the country and the public schools were good. Inevitably, there was a huge influx from the other states, driving up real estate prices. But, quite evitably, there was gigantic illegal immigration into California, which devastated the public schools.

That all makes people wonder, well, if I can’t afford a house should we really bother to get married, and even if we can afford a house can we afford one in a good school district like Los Virgenes? Or are our kids going to be stuck in classrooms overwhelmed by the children of illegal immigrants?

And if we can’t really afford private school, or a house in an expensive school district, then what’s the point of having kids? And if we’re not going to have kids, what’s the point of getting married at all? And if we’re not married, then don’t those Republican politicians get on your nerves with all their family values talk?

In summary, what all this suggests is, that rather than try to manipulate voting the way Bush and Rove did through boosting subprime loans to Hispanics, what Republicans need to study is what makes white people get married, stay married, and want to have children.

I suspect that what the government can influence comes down to affordability: the cost of real estate and satisfactoriness of public schools. What the Years Married measure implies is that the people who vote Republican tend to be happy white people.

Therefore, it’s in the self-interest of Republican politicians to try to make white people happy.

 
    []
  1. Kyle says:

    We need to embrace oppressive totalitarian feminism. I was thinking about this today, feminism is the survival method of the white power structure. We could focus societal aggression on threats to women, and it would all be still righteous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lurker
    Feminism is there to divide and demoralise whites. A white feminist power structure will only endure while white political power does. Once non-whites are the majority, feminism becomes redundant and unworkable.
    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/how-the-marriage-gap-painted-the-map-red-or-blue-from-2000-thru-2012/#comment-1637631
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Jason Liu says:

    Today’s Steve = Confucius with graphs

    Single, childless women are a danger to society. Some of the most hardline, butthurt SJWs are single white women. Single men aren’t great either, but their dysfunction is mostly inward and less likely to manifest as ideology.

    Big, traditional families are more conservative, and single people tend to be more childish with immature views of the world. The way of the world. This is true for non-whites as well, except most express their racial conservatism by voting Democrat.

    I believe the solution is to reform academia. College education has very negative impact on birth rates and family formation. If Trump gets in, he needs to defund/gut the colleges of humanities/social justice courses (many of which attract naive young women). Without them, there would either be fewer women in college, or fewer indoctrinated college women. And definitely fewer leftists.

    Read More
    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @Flip
    Cutting back on student loans would help a lot.
    , @biz

    College education has very negative impact on birth rates and family formation.
     
    I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm sure if you compared the out-of-wedlock and single parent birth rates of people who never attended college versus those with a bachelors degree the former would be overwhelmingly larger than the latter.

    College as it is currently construed is a problem because of the generally lax academic standards, the waste of time and money, and promotion of immaturity in behavior and thought, but I don't think it contributes to anti-family pathologies - the data points to the opposite.
    , @Olorin

    Single, childless women are a danger to society. Some of the most hardline, butthurt SJWs are single white women.
     
    Single white women happen when single white men don't wife them up.

    I'd say a much bigger danger is single men who think they're too good for the available marriage/breeding pool and think that every last one of themselves deserve a top 10 percenter woman, and look on the other 90 with disdain.

    But then a certain kind of man will make excuses for his choices, lacks, or failures...and project them onto others. Which I know it's hard to believe, but is related to why women don't want them.

  3. benjaminl says:

    Not OT:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/opinion/sunday/the-post-familial-election.html?_r=0

    Not having kids makes white people grumpier about transferring tax $ to the coalition of the fringes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ed
    Great article to read after Steve's fine analysis. Of course it's not being well received by the liberal readers of the NYT.
    Liberals really do come off as unbalanced.

    I love the comments from the post-childbearing age women steadfastly defending their choices by pointing to the richness of the relationships with friends. Or concern for the planet, a concern the people of Niger don't share.
    , @Clyde
    From the fourth highest rated comment at Russ Dothat's piece (NYT) "invest tax dollars in green energy instead of collieries" and
    "As it happens, Hillary wants to do just that: retrain workers for the jobs of today instead of the ones that disappeared yesterday"
  4. Mark Caplan says: • Website

    A statistic of marriage duration that lumps together 18-year-olds with 44-year-olds doesn’t make sense to me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CK
    The statistic measures how many years a woman would be married out of the 26 years she could be married during that interval. The maximum is 26 years. ( 44 - 18 =26 )
    Statistics does not have to " make sense" it just has to be accurate.
    , @Anonymous
    My question too. I wondered if the correlation factor wasn't the number of years spent in college which, of course, delays marriage.
    , @Flip
    It seems like it make more sense to look at how long 44 year olds in each state have been married.
    , @Ed
    Since the chart or purpose of the chart is to find the relationship between families & voting. It makes sense to base the chart from the perspective of women. The age corresponds with the typical adult woman's child bearing years. The duration of a 60 year old woman's marriage wouldn't tell you anything because chances are she's not caring for children younger than 15.
  5. Ed says:
    @benjaminl
    Not OT:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/opinion/sunday/the-post-familial-election.html?_r=0

    Not having kids makes white people grumpier about transferring tax $ to the coalition of the fringes.

    Great article to read after Steve’s fine analysis. Of course it’s not being well received by the liberal readers of the NYT.
    Liberals really do come off as unbalanced.

    I love the comments from the post-childbearing age women steadfastly defending their choices by pointing to the richness of the relationships with friends. Or concern for the planet, a concern the people of Niger don’t share.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    To paraphrase The Big Chill: rationalization is more important than sex: ever get through a day without one?
    , @benjaminl
    NYT commenters are funny. Douthat seems to attract the worst of the worst, who aren't even able to understand or engage his argument because his non-progressivism is so triggering.

    On the other hand, when they run "news" articles on the Plight of the Migrants who might be racistly denied the full benefits of US taxpayer subsidization, from time to time the list of readers' most-liked comments looks straight out of iSteve.

    Maybe NYT news articles have a different reader profile than op eds.

  6. Happy White Married People Vote Republican, So Why Doesn`t The GOP Work On Making White People Happy?

    Why?

    Maybe, just maybe, because the Lords of the Fringes, whose real name is never to be mentioned, immediately start to shriek: “Bright light, bright light!”- whenever they encounter something like this:

    Noticing Bonus:

    Which village, according to 2010. Census, had the highest poverty rate in the nation with 62 percent of families living below poverty level and relying heavily on public assistance ?

    Which village, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, has the youngest median age population in the United States at 13.2 years old ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @biz

    Which village, according to 2010. Census, had the highest poverty rate in the nation with 62 percent of families living below poverty level and relying heavily on public assistance ?
    Which village, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, has the youngest median age population in the United States at 13.2 years old ?
     
    I assume you are referring to Kyriat Joel, NY, which is home to the Satmar sect of Hasidic Jews.

    Now before everyone here gets their conspiracy panties in a bunch, please note that the Satmar sect is extremely anti-Israel. They do not recognize the state of Israel at all, believing that it is against their religion. The Satmar leader Joel Tietelbaum was one of the most prominent anti-Israel voices among religious Jews, and the community has only grown more hostile to Israel since then.

    Please also note that the Satmar avoid contact with and shun secular Jews, believing them to be a worse influence than non-Jewish mainstream culture.

    So no, this is not a case of "hurr hurr look at those hypocritical Joooz trying to drive down the birthrate for hwytes while having lots of kids themselves and supporting Izzreel bein' an ethnic state." I know you were getting a chubby about that - sorry to disappoint again.
  7. CK says:
    @Mark Caplan
    A statistic of marriage duration that lumps together 18-year-olds with 44-year-olds doesn't make sense to me.

    The statistic measures how many years a woman would be married out of the 26 years she could be married during that interval. The maximum is 26 years. ( 44 – 18 =26 )
    Statistics does not have to ” make sense” it just has to be accurate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    Statistics does not have to ” make sense” it just has to be accurate.
     

    Exactly. As long as the statistic is calculated in a consistent manner from one state to another, it serves its purpose. In this case, as a fair measure of the propensity of young to middle-aged women to get married and stay married.

    What is astonishing to me, aside from the correlation, is the very large range in the number of years married across states. I hadn't quite realized that something as fundamental in our culture and society as marriage could vary so much regionally.

    The effect of the cultural divide in our society that "progressives" started opening up 50 years ago is pretty starkly illustrated by this single statistic, I think. I speculate, but daresay that before the 1960s, the variation would have been very small.

  8. Can we get the Years Married numbers from the 2010 census? I am sure the overall trend will be downward, but have there been any changes in the ranking of the states?

    Read More
    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @res
    I'd like to echo this request. It might also be interesting to see trends from earlier censuses. Steve, if you have published your procedure for generating the 2000 number I'd be happy to do some legwork on the others.

    On another topic:

    California used to be the paradise for the common man. Housing was no more expensive than in the rest of the country and the public schools were good. Inevitably, there was a huge influx from the other states, driving up real estate prices. But, quite evitably, there was gigantic illegal immigration into California, which devastated the public schools.
     
    I don't think you can ignore the role of Proposition 13 here (have you done an analysis of that anywhere?). By petrifying much of the CA real estate market it has driven up real estate prices and limiting the source of school funding has an obvious impact.
  9. Dr. X says:

    It’s a great article with excellent data, but I disagree with this:

    That all makes people wonder, well, if I can’t afford a house should we really bother to get married, and even if we can afford a house can we afford one in a good school district like Los Virgenes? Or are our kids going to be stuck in classrooms overwhelmed by the children of illegal immigrants?

    And if we can’t really afford private school, or a house in an expensive school district, then what’s the point of having kids? And if we’re not going to have kids, what’s the point of getting married at all? And if we’re not married, then don’t those Republican politicians get on your nerves with all their family values talk?

    And if we can’t really afford private school, or a house in an expensive school district, then what’s the point of having kids? And if we’re not going to have kids, what’s the point of getting married at all? And if we’re not married, then don’t those Republican politicians get on your nerves with all their family values talk?</blockquote

    I don't think a lot of the liberal feminist types in Manhattan, D.C., San Francisco and Berkeley make this kind of overt economic calculation, particularly while they're young. It's not as if they're all a bunch of aspiring June Cleaver-in-waiting types, and would be home "baking cookies," (as Hillary Clinton put it so disdainfully) if only they could afford middle-class housing.

    Rather, they gloatingly eschew marriage and child-rearing and regard careerism as a morally and intellectually superior lifestyle during most of their fertile years while they chase partnerships in the law firm and tenured professorships in dog-eat-dog, high priced markets. Then, when their biological clock starts screaming that they're 36 and haven't had any kids yet, they begin to bitch and moan about the costs of doing so and relocate to the suburbs and cut back on work.

    Read More
  10. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Mark Caplan
    A statistic of marriage duration that lumps together 18-year-olds with 44-year-olds doesn't make sense to me.

    My question too. I wondered if the correlation factor wasn’t the number of years spent in college which, of course, delays marriage.

    Read More
  11. Flip says:
    @Mark Caplan
    A statistic of marriage duration that lumps together 18-year-olds with 44-year-olds doesn't make sense to me.

    It seems like it make more sense to look at how long 44 year olds in each state have been married.

    Read More
  12. Flip says:
    @Jason Liu
    Today's Steve = Confucius with graphs

    Single, childless women are a danger to society. Some of the most hardline, butthurt SJWs are single white women. Single men aren't great either, but their dysfunction is mostly inward and less likely to manifest as ideology.

    Big, traditional families are more conservative, and single people tend to be more childish with immature views of the world. The way of the world. This is true for non-whites as well, except most express their racial conservatism by voting Democrat.

    I believe the solution is to reform academia. College education has very negative impact on birth rates and family formation. If Trump gets in, he needs to defund/gut the colleges of humanities/social justice courses (many of which attract naive young women). Without them, there would either be fewer women in college, or fewer indoctrinated college women. And definitely fewer leftists.

    Cutting back on student loans would help a lot.

    Read More
  13. Lurker says:
    @Kyle
    We need to embrace oppressive totalitarian feminism. I was thinking about this today, feminism is the survival method of the white power structure. We could focus societal aggression on threats to women, and it would all be still righteous.

    Feminism is there to divide and demoralise whites. A white feminist power structure will only endure while white political power does. Once non-whites are the majority, feminism becomes redundant and unworkable.

    Read More
  14. @Ed
    Great article to read after Steve's fine analysis. Of course it's not being well received by the liberal readers of the NYT.
    Liberals really do come off as unbalanced.

    I love the comments from the post-childbearing age women steadfastly defending their choices by pointing to the richness of the relationships with friends. Or concern for the planet, a concern the people of Niger don't share.

    To paraphrase The Big Chill: rationalization is more important than sex: ever get through a day without one?

    Read More
  15. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Happy White Married People Vote Republican, So Why Doesn`t The GOP Work On Making White People Happy?

    Because it is led by non-Whites, and Whites who are given to the degenerate post-modern cosmopolitan life style?

    Read More
  16. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    By the way, the graph sheds some light on to why the Ruling Class on the left are so firm in debasing traditional family and marriage – which doesn’t mean they aren’t also collapsing on their own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "By the way, the graph sheds some light on to why the Ruling Class on the left are so firm in debasing traditional family and marriage..."

    They're definitely into that. Can't turn on the TV without nearly all the characters either divorced, divorcing, or single. Btwn that and the fact that they send the message that the only innocent white men are gays, no wonder so many whites are not having kids.
  17. res says:
    @Weltanschauung
    Can we get the Years Married numbers from the 2010 census? I am sure the overall trend will be downward, but have there been any changes in the ranking of the states?

    I’d like to echo this request. It might also be interesting to see trends from earlier censuses. Steve, if you have published your procedure for generating the 2000 number I’d be happy to do some legwork on the others.

    On another topic:

    California used to be the paradise for the common man. Housing was no more expensive than in the rest of the country and the public schools were good. Inevitably, there was a huge influx from the other states, driving up real estate prices. But, quite evitably, there was gigantic illegal immigration into California, which devastated the public schools.

    I don’t think you can ignore the role of Proposition 13 here (have you done an analysis of that anywhere?). By petrifying much of the CA real estate market it has driven up real estate prices and limiting the source of school funding has an obvious impact.

    Read More
  18. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    D*&&^%^n Steve, you wrecker, next thing you know, if you’re not careful, you’ll be writing subversive stuff like “government for the people, by the people”!

    Read More
  19. Ivy says:

    Dems noticed what Steve did, in their own way. That may be why they looked for ways to undermine the marriage effect. One way to do that was to roll out Miss Universe as part of their divide-conquer-destroy strategy when they had so many negatives (corruption, et al) and didn’t have substantive policy issues to address.

    Read More
  20. biz says:
    @bored identity


    Happy White Married People Vote Republican, So Why Doesn`t The GOP Work On Making White People Happy?


     

    Why?

    Maybe, just maybe, because the Lords of the Fringes, whose real name is never to be mentioned, immediately start to shriek: "Bright light, bright light!"- whenever they encounter something like this:

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CwhPh-yXgAADX6M.jpg

    Noticing Bonus:

    Which village, according to 2010. Census, had the highest poverty rate in the nation with 62 percent of families living below poverty level and relying heavily on public assistance ?

    Which village, according to the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, has the youngest median age population in the United States at 13.2 years old ?

    Which village, according to 2010. Census, had the highest poverty rate in the nation with 62 percent of families living below poverty level and relying heavily on public assistance ?
    Which village, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, has the youngest median age population in the United States at 13.2 years old ?

    I assume you are referring to Kyriat Joel, NY, which is home to the Satmar sect of Hasidic Jews.

    Now before everyone here gets their conspiracy panties in a bunch, please note that the Satmar sect is extremely anti-Israel. They do not recognize the state of Israel at all, believing that it is against their religion. The Satmar leader Joel Tietelbaum was one of the most prominent anti-Israel voices among religious Jews, and the community has only grown more hostile to Israel since then.

    Please also note that the Satmar avoid contact with and shun secular Jews, believing them to be a worse influence than non-Jewish mainstream culture.

    So no, this is not a case of “hurr hurr look at those hypocritical Joooz trying to drive down the birthrate for hwytes while having lots of kids themselves and supporting Izzreel bein’ an ethnic state.” I know you were getting a chubby about that – sorry to disappoint again.

    Read More
  21. biz says:
    @Jason Liu
    Today's Steve = Confucius with graphs

    Single, childless women are a danger to society. Some of the most hardline, butthurt SJWs are single white women. Single men aren't great either, but their dysfunction is mostly inward and less likely to manifest as ideology.

    Big, traditional families are more conservative, and single people tend to be more childish with immature views of the world. The way of the world. This is true for non-whites as well, except most express their racial conservatism by voting Democrat.

    I believe the solution is to reform academia. College education has very negative impact on birth rates and family formation. If Trump gets in, he needs to defund/gut the colleges of humanities/social justice courses (many of which attract naive young women). Without them, there would either be fewer women in college, or fewer indoctrinated college women. And definitely fewer leftists.

    College education has very negative impact on birth rates and family formation.

    I’m too lazy to look it up but I’m sure if you compared the out-of-wedlock and single parent birth rates of people who never attended college versus those with a bachelors degree the former would be overwhelmingly larger than the latter.

    College as it is currently construed is a problem because of the generally lax academic standards, the waste of time and money, and promotion of immaturity in behavior and thought, but I don’t think it contributes to anti-family pathologies – the data points to the opposite.

    Read More
  22. Well marriage has always been a tough road. Every relationship rests on promises and faith–faith in the institution and the traditions handed down from family, culture, and the church. Without this big picture view, marriage just boils down to “does he or she make me happy?” And when they don’t, well it’s time to pack up and leave.

    The left has been steadily destroying our traditions (along with the help of many on the right) and undermining out institutions. Without these foundations marriage doesn’t have a chance.

    You have to look deeper than affordable housing and good schools, as important as those are. We don’t just need people to get married and have kids, we need them to stay married and raise those kids. Divorced people are bitter and their kids are bitterer, and bitter people more often vote for Democrats.

    Read More
  23. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I’ve always believed there’s a hidden biological imperative that governs our behavior even if the brain upstairs denies it. For example, there are plenty of single white women out there who are angry as hell at white males, and virulently pro-immigration if it means Latinos and Middle Easterners are let in. They tend to be a lot more quiet about about the immigration rights of Asians and African blacks.

    It’s as if these single white women, having been unable to make a marriage to a white male and frothing with rage about it, are pushing as hard as they can to flood the country with ‘the best thing,’ namely Latino and Mideast guys–who are classified as white–so they can nail down one of these men as a mate.

    Articles like this fit my theory and don’t surprise me at all:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-volunteers-sex-refugees-allegations-facebook-care4calais-a7312066.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    Forum needs a "Wat?" tag.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson

    I’ve always believed there’s a hidden biological imperative that governs our behavior even if the brain upstairs denies it.
     
    Does your belief originate with a hidden biological imperative? And if you do not think that it does, i.e. if,

    the brain upstairs denies it
     
    how can you resist it?

    You have succumbed to materialist superstitions. Your assertions are self refuting.

    If you can shake off the conjuring that has caused you to take leave of your reason, you should rethink your suppositions. But if you continue on the path you describe above you are nothing more than an animal, reactive, unthinking and unable to progress. Because without reason humanity would be swinging from African trees, or extinct.
  24. benjaminl says:
    @Ed
    Great article to read after Steve's fine analysis. Of course it's not being well received by the liberal readers of the NYT.
    Liberals really do come off as unbalanced.

    I love the comments from the post-childbearing age women steadfastly defending their choices by pointing to the richness of the relationships with friends. Or concern for the planet, a concern the people of Niger don't share.

    NYT commenters are funny. Douthat seems to attract the worst of the worst, who aren’t even able to understand or engage his argument because his non-progressivism is so triggering.

    On the other hand, when they run “news” articles on the Plight of the Migrants who might be racistly denied the full benefits of US taxpayer subsidization, from time to time the list of readers’ most-liked comments looks straight out of iSteve.

    Maybe NYT news articles have a different reader profile than op eds.

    Read More
  25. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Anonymous
    By the way, the graph sheds some light on to why the Ruling Class on the left are so firm in debasing traditional family and marriage - which doesn't mean they aren't also collapsing on their own.

    “By the way, the graph sheds some light on to why the Ruling Class on the left are so firm in debasing traditional family and marriage…”

    They’re definitely into that. Can’t turn on the TV without nearly all the characters either divorced, divorcing, or single. Btwn that and the fact that they send the message that the only innocent white men are gays, no wonder so many whites are not having kids.

    Read More
  26. ic1000 says:

    Steve, those first three graphs with the bars colored Blue or Red are still impressive — but less so on re-examination.

    You’re looking at the correlation of two things (Years Married for white women 18-44, and % of vote to Repub candidate) in 50 locations.

    You order the 50 bars by Years Married, size the bars by Years Married, note Years Married on the right, and then (subtly) note the % Repub vote on the left.

    It would be more informative to order the bars by % Repub and size them by Years Married. Or vice versa. Or, keep the organization of the graphs as they are, but replace blue/red with shades of purple.

    The key thing isn’t whether a state went for the Repub 49.9% (blue bar) or 50.1% (red bar). 50% is arbitrary for this analysis. The important thing, that you get at with some of your dot-plots, is the extent to which an area voted Repub.

    Years Married could influence voting behavior directly (those women, their families and friends) or indirectly (the community as a whole). Indirect is plausible, for example, high levels of street crime affect not only the perpetrators and the victim, but also much larger numbers of potential victims in the community.

    But the Sailer theory is that it’s direct — “if I can’t afford a house should we really bother to get married… and if we can’t really afford private school, or a house in an expensive school district, then what’s the point of having kids?”

    That implies that white % Repub vote should yield a higher correlation to Years Married than what you use, total % Repub. This datum is available from the Reuters exit poll, you’ve said.

    It also implies that moving to smaller, more uniform geographies will yield better correlations than states do (given the internal lumpiness of most, e.g. urban/suburban/rural precincts). This is presumably what John Hawley found when he looked at county-level data (it’s paywalled).

    We’ll know in a few days if 2016 is conforming to the pattern.

    Read More
  27. Clyde says:
    @benjaminl
    Not OT:

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/opinion/sunday/the-post-familial-election.html?_r=0

    Not having kids makes white people grumpier about transferring tax $ to the coalition of the fringes.

    From the fourth highest rated comment at Russ Dothat’s piece (NYT) “invest tax dollars in green energy instead of collieries” and
    “As it happens, Hillary wants to do just that: retrain workers for the jobs of today instead of the ones that disappeared yesterday”

    Read More
  28. Whiskey says: • Website

    Ah Steve, excellent BUT you overlook the non economic, sexual marketplace aspect of White family formation. White women decide, not men. And they increasingly are deciding NOT to have kids with beta males on offer, and if they DO have kids, have them as single moms with various bad boys around to be absentee fathers at best.

    There, for women it is the best of all worlds. They get sexy men, in and out of their lives but not hanging around for too close inspection (and thus perhaps revealing themselves as unsexy); and kids by said sexy men. Beta males work to pay for everything. And they get to pose as the champions of the resentful against the “real” enemy — beta males asking them for a coffee date in an elevator.

    Feminism is not some hypnotism by evil masterminds subverting otherwise pure and innocent White women like out of some Marvel Comic Book (or the Netflix series “Jessica Jones”). Rather it is the rebellion, open and evident for all to see, by women on the need for monogamy and marriage to some boring beta male when she can have enticing sex with some bad boys her entire sexual life.

    The ironic thing about modernity is that it principally is focused on enabling ordinary White women to live like debauched Countesses.

    This suggests that getting White people to marry early and STAY MARRIED is a fool’s game. White women are not going to go for Beta Male Bob when Bad Boy Slim is just around the corner.

    A far, far BETTER option is to “embrace the suck.” Get more beta males to become bad boys and absentee father various kids. White women will thank them. Then, make the case that more goodies for White women depends on deporting money-sucking non-Whites out of the country. Because caring for say, Vibrant Somalis means less for their kids, and themselves.

    Tie say, College Loan forgiveness to DIRECTLY LOWER EXPENSES on welfare and AFDC, SNAP, etc. to mass deportation of foreigners. Also H1-Bs raising their wages.

    Read More
  29. @Anon
    I've always believed there's a hidden biological imperative that governs our behavior even if the brain upstairs denies it. For example, there are plenty of single white women out there who are angry as hell at white males, and virulently pro-immigration if it means Latinos and Middle Easterners are let in. They tend to be a lot more quiet about about the immigration rights of Asians and African blacks.

    It's as if these single white women, having been unable to make a marriage to a white male and frothing with rage about it, are pushing as hard as they can to flood the country with 'the best thing,' namely Latino and Mideast guys--who are classified as white--so they can nail down one of these men as a mate.

    Articles like this fit my theory and don't surprise me at all:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-volunteers-sex-refugees-allegations-facebook-care4calais-a7312066.html

    Forum needs a “Wat?” tag.

    Read More
  30. @CK
    The statistic measures how many years a woman would be married out of the 26 years she could be married during that interval. The maximum is 26 years. ( 44 - 18 =26 )
    Statistics does not have to " make sense" it just has to be accurate.

    Statistics does not have to ” make sense” it just has to be accurate.

    Exactly. As long as the statistic is calculated in a consistent manner from one state to another, it serves its purpose. In this case, as a fair measure of the propensity of young to middle-aged women to get married and stay married.

    What is astonishing to me, aside from the correlation, is the very large range in the number of years married across states. I hadn’t quite realized that something as fundamental in our culture and society as marriage could vary so much regionally.

    The effect of the cultural divide in our society that “progressives” started opening up 50 years ago is pretty starkly illustrated by this single statistic, I think. I speculate, but daresay that before the 1960s, the variation would have been very small.

    Read More
  31. Ed says:
    @Mark Caplan
    A statistic of marriage duration that lumps together 18-year-olds with 44-year-olds doesn't make sense to me.

    Since the chart or purpose of the chart is to find the relationship between families & voting. It makes sense to base the chart from the perspective of women. The age corresponds with the typical adult woman’s child bearing years. The duration of a 60 year old woman’s marriage wouldn’t tell you anything because chances are she’s not caring for children younger than 15.

    Read More
  32. @biz

    Which village, according to 2010. Census, had the highest poverty rate in the nation with 62 percent of families living below poverty level and relying heavily on public assistance ?
    Which village, according to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, has the youngest median age population in the United States at 13.2 years old ?
     
    I assume you are referring to Kyriat Joel, NY, which is home to the Satmar sect of Hasidic Jews.

    Now before everyone here gets their conspiracy panties in a bunch, please note that the Satmar sect is extremely anti-Israel. They do not recognize the state of Israel at all, believing that it is against their religion. The Satmar leader Joel Tietelbaum was one of the most prominent anti-Israel voices among religious Jews, and the community has only grown more hostile to Israel since then.

    Please also note that the Satmar avoid contact with and shun secular Jews, believing them to be a worse influence than non-Jewish mainstream culture.

    So no, this is not a case of "hurr hurr look at those hypocritical Joooz trying to drive down the birthrate for hwytes while having lots of kids themselves and supporting Izzreel bein' an ethnic state." I know you were getting a chubby about that - sorry to disappoint again.

    You’re the one who brought up Israel.

    Read More
  33. @Anon
    I've always believed there's a hidden biological imperative that governs our behavior even if the brain upstairs denies it. For example, there are plenty of single white women out there who are angry as hell at white males, and virulently pro-immigration if it means Latinos and Middle Easterners are let in. They tend to be a lot more quiet about about the immigration rights of Asians and African blacks.

    It's as if these single white women, having been unable to make a marriage to a white male and frothing with rage about it, are pushing as hard as they can to flood the country with 'the best thing,' namely Latino and Mideast guys--who are classified as white--so they can nail down one of these men as a mate.

    Articles like this fit my theory and don't surprise me at all:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/calais-jungle-volunteers-sex-refugees-allegations-facebook-care4calais-a7312066.html

    I’ve always believed there’s a hidden biological imperative that governs our behavior even if the brain upstairs denies it.

    Does your belief originate with a hidden biological imperative? And if you do not think that it does, i.e. if,

    the brain upstairs denies it

    how can you resist it?

    You have succumbed to materialist superstitions. Your assertions are self refuting.

    If you can shake off the conjuring that has caused you to take leave of your reason, you should rethink your suppositions. But if you continue on the path you describe above you are nothing more than an animal, reactive, unthinking and unable to progress. Because without reason humanity would be swinging from African trees, or extinct.

    Read More
  34. Olorin says:
    @Jason Liu
    Today's Steve = Confucius with graphs

    Single, childless women are a danger to society. Some of the most hardline, butthurt SJWs are single white women. Single men aren't great either, but their dysfunction is mostly inward and less likely to manifest as ideology.

    Big, traditional families are more conservative, and single people tend to be more childish with immature views of the world. The way of the world. This is true for non-whites as well, except most express their racial conservatism by voting Democrat.

    I believe the solution is to reform academia. College education has very negative impact on birth rates and family formation. If Trump gets in, he needs to defund/gut the colleges of humanities/social justice courses (many of which attract naive young women). Without them, there would either be fewer women in college, or fewer indoctrinated college women. And definitely fewer leftists.

    Single, childless women are a danger to society. Some of the most hardline, butthurt SJWs are single white women.

    Single white women happen when single white men don’t wife them up.

    I’d say a much bigger danger is single men who think they’re too good for the available marriage/breeding pool and think that every last one of themselves deserve a top 10 percenter woman, and look on the other 90 with disdain.

    But then a certain kind of man will make excuses for his choices, lacks, or failures…and project them onto others. Which I know it’s hard to believe, but is related to why women don’t want them.

    Read More

  35. Well, I never “wifed [one] up” because as I observed my friends who did, I saw that marriage is a temporary emotional commitment for a woman but a permanent financial commitment for a man.
    I didn’t want a “10″ that I knew was out of reach – I just wanted a reasonably-attractive, not fat, white woman who wasn’t looking for what she could extract from my wallet. I nearly married a divorcee with a young child – probably would have done, if she’d had sole custody. But there was no way I’d raise another man’s child with him still in the picture. If you want to increase the rate and stability of marriage, fix the insane divorce and child-custody laws.

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
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?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored