The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Marriage, Happiness, and Voting Republican: Pick 3
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

David Leonhard writes in the Upshot section of the NYT:

Republicans Say They Are Happier With Their Marriages
AUG. 17, 2015
David Leonhardt

@DLeonhardt

W. Bradford Wilcox, a sociologist, has written two recent papers noting that children in conservative parts of the country are more likely to grow up with both parents than in liberal ones. In both articles, he challenged the view that blue states are more conducive to stable family life than red states.

Now Mr. Wilcox, a professor at the University of Virginia, has published an analysis of data about individual families rather than geographical areas. And he argues this data continues to support his case that the so-called blue-state family model is overrated.

Self-identified Republicans are more likely to be married and less likely to be divorced than self-identified Democrats, write he and Nicholas H. Wolfinger, based on an analysis of the General Social Survey, an oft-studied national poll. Republicans also report being more satisfied with their marriages on average than Democrats.

Among married people between the ages of 20 and 60, 67 percent of Republicans report being “very happy” with their marriages. Among Democrats, the share was 60, as it is among independents, write Mr. Wilcox and Mr. Wolfinger, a professor at the University of Utah.

That gap shrank when the researchers factored in demographic differences between parties. Whites and the religiously observant are both more likely to be Republicans and more likely to report having happy marriages.

But the gap did not disappear. Even among people with the same demographic profile, Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to say they are happily married. The seven-percentage-point gap that exists between Republicans and Democrats without any demographic controls shrinks to three percentage points with those controls.

The findings are broadly consistent with previous work, also based on national surveys, finding that Republicans are happier with their lives than Democrats on average and also more likely to be married.

The VDARE headline on one of my analyses of the 2012 presidential election results was:

Happy White Married People Vote Republican, So Why Doesn’t The GOP Work On Making White People Happy?

Screenshot 2015-08-17 21.11.39

 

 
Hide 103 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Lot says:

    Sanders up from 22 to 30% in latest poll, Trump still has a commanding lead, Bush falls to #4, Walker to #6, Rubio to #9. Rubio is down to 4 points after peaking at 13/first place in April.

    While Sanders might not have the best record, his record is better than about 80% of his fellow democrats on immigration issues (and better than 90% of non-southern democrats), and he showed some balls in the Ezra Klein interview.

    If HRC had been asked the same question, rather than give an intellectual defense of the idea of national borders like Sanders did, she would have ducked the question with mealy BS about how immigration enriches America.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/14/fox-news-poll-sanders-gains-on-clinton/

    Read More
    • Agree: TWS, slumber_j
    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I like Sanders for 2 reasons.

    1. He also helps shift the overton window on the left. He makes it acceptable for left-wing Democrats to be anti-immigration. If Trump takes the Whitehouse, Sanders could help him pass a bill to end H1b permanently.

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.

    While Trump is the best candidate overall, Sanders is far better than any of the other Republicans and highly preferable to Clinton.

    , @SPMoore8
    The Onion "went there" with Trump's immigration plan, and worked in a reference to golf at the same time:

    This week, Donald Trump unveiled his plan for addressing immigration as president, a series of core principles that specify his heretofore generalized statements about America’s relationship with immigrants. Here are the items detailed in Trump’s outline:

    Construction of world-class border wall featuring hundreds of miles of sand traps and water hazards
    Improved visa application will require immigrants to declare if they are rapist thugs
    Creates robust Border Beauties division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Concierge and personal valet service across border for Mexicans with net worth of over $5 million
    Clause allowing Trump to deport any current American citizens he deems pathetic and classless as well
    U.S. citizenship application process to require recommendation letters from current notable U.S. citizens
    Establishes long-term, forward-looking plan to find new nationality to scapegoat for America’s problems by 2035
    Admission that U.S. economy will suffer quite a bit
     
    http://www.theonion.com/graphic/details-donald-trumps-immigration-plan-51112
    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.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/voting-republican-marriage-and-happiness-pick-3/#comment-1073034
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. > Happy White Married People Vote Republican, So Why Doesn’t
    > The GOP Work On Making White People Happy?

    My instantaneous reflex is to cite stupidity, but I suspect that the influence of the media is a better independent variable.

    Nevertheless Trump has breached the unspeakable subject of immigration. The way Trump’s laesae majeststatis crimen has played out will undoubtedly affect the political calculations of the GOP.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. This helps explain the Democrats war on marriage and normalcy.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jeff77450
    • Replies: @rod1963
    They are dying out. Same thing is happening in Europe. They are quite well aware of it too. It may be the reason they are so motivated to take down what remains of traditional Western society before they end up extinct.

    There's something about liberalism that sucks the life out of people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Possible Trump campaign song:

    YouTube, Brad Neely: America, Now – Topic: Open Mic

    Build a wall around us all, let’s build a wall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Via Korea
    At his Arizona rally he used the Hulk Hogan theme song. Classic Trump
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Retired says:

    Clinton is toast and the dem chances are not looking good. Rubio has lost me on immigration. I am favoring Walker/Cruz.
    Trump has his 20-25% (h/t Dr. K.) and will not expand beyond that because he is manifestly unqualified. Can’t win with 25%. No more narcissists with no governing experience for Potus. And no more A-holes. The oppo research will wipe out Trump and the Socialist. With their own quotes.
    Walker/Cruz are as close as we can get to electable anti immigration conservative candidates.
    Trade out the unrealistic mass deportation (that one will lose the election) for a 99% moratorium on all immigration and student visas until all 2,000 miles of fence are built and e-verify is enforced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Hume
    Trump found and listened to Sessions on immigration. So maybe he knows how to get good advice on governing. He has administrative experience. And negotiation experience. It's not clear to me that in today's donor dominated politics that that experience in governing is a plus.
    , @MKP
    Walker/Cruz, hmm? Sorry, I'm behind the guy who DIDN'T support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    Don't care what party's ticket he's on, don't care who says "you're gonna give us Hillary!"

    Can't stump the Trump.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Walker/Cruz are as close as we can get to electable anti immigration conservative candidates.
    Trade out the unrealistic mass deportation (that one will lose the election) for a 99% moratorium on all immigration and student visas until all 2,000 miles of fence are built and e-verify is enforced."

    So a guy (Walker) who used to support amnesty, then came out against it when he was running for President, and then hinted to a private gathering of Republican party donors this year, don't worry, I'm really for it, or a guy (Cruz) who has proposed tripling or quadrupling the number of H1-B visas - these are our "anti-immigration conservative candidates"?

    No thanks. I'll wait for better ones.

    And who says that deportation is poison at the polls? The American people support drone-striking wedding parties in Afghanistan. You think they wouldn't be cool with putting some crying kids on a bus back to Oaxaca? When it comes to deportation, just be positive: Yes, we can!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Wilkey says:

    I once read a column by some famous left-wing pundit bragging that left-wing states like Massachusetts have lower divorce rates than a lot of conservative states. Turned out that left-wing states have lower divorce rates mostly because so many people who live in them never get married at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    And the lesbian couple who were the plaintiffs in the case that brought gay marriage to the People's Commonwealth, Mrs. and Mrs. Goodridge, had a marriage pledge of eternal bonds that lasted all of 2 years.

    Lesbian bed death didn't even get a chance!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. WGG [AKA "World's Greatest Grandson"] says:

    Most single people are disgruntled and unhappy, and therefore willing to try anything to fix their profound unhappiness. And if those wild attempts fail, they will accept the consolation prize of ruining others’ happiness. Flood the country with third-world criminals? Sure, why not, maybe a future lover is flushing in amongst the refuse. And if not, well then at least they will ruin the neighborhoods of those smiling suv-driving @rseholes and their oh-so-precious children.

    Married people, especially who have children, are not unhappy- they are anxious and nervous. They have found what “works” for their household and society and wish to sink all other competition. There was a study making the clickbait rounds a while back about oxytocin making people more in-group oriented (or “racist” as the clickbaits paraphrased) and I definitely think it’s true, and also perfectly natural.

    The seething, single, envious friend has been a trope in books and movies forever, but I think Kevin Bacon and Alec Baldwin portrayed the difference well in John Hughes’ She’s Having A Baby.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. @Lot
    Sanders up from 22 to 30% in latest poll, Trump still has a commanding lead, Bush falls to #4, Walker to #6, Rubio to #9. Rubio is down to 4 points after peaking at 13/first place in April.

    While Sanders might not have the best record, his record is better than about 80% of his fellow democrats on immigration issues (and better than 90% of non-southern democrats), and he showed some balls in the Ezra Klein interview.

    If HRC had been asked the same question, rather than give an intellectual defense of the idea of national borders like Sanders did, she would have ducked the question with mealy BS about how immigration enriches America.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/14/fox-news-poll-sanders-gains-on-clinton/

    I like Sanders for 2 reasons.

    1. He also helps shift the overton window on the left. He makes it acceptable for left-wing Democrats to be anti-immigration. If Trump takes the Whitehouse, Sanders could help him pass a bill to end H1b permanently.

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.

    While Trump is the best candidate overall, Sanders is far better than any of the other Republicans and highly preferable to Clinton.

    Read More
    • Agree: Nico
    • Replies: @Nico
    I couldn't vote for Sanders. He's too much of a left-wing ideologue for me to be comfortable with giving him my voice. But I could be happy for him if he won, and I can't say that of any other Democrat in the field.
    , @WhatEvvs
    At least he's honest. That's his great quality. I'm talking about Sanders.

    I think that Sanders is actually less electable than Trump. What is electable? Ask David Brooks because it's a quality that the media made up. Bill Clinton by rights should have been unelectable. What a scoundrel.
    , @Muse
    In a Sanders candidacy, the Democratic nominee for VP will be a big deal..
    , @AnotherDad

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.
     
    Not me bro. While i take great delight in seeing Hillary melt down--kinda like i did when i was eight at the end of the Wizard of Oz--if we aren't going to elect an actual nationalist who is going to *stop* the demographic disaster, then ... bring the witch on!

    Hillary is a smart gal, who is ugly, tedious, slimy, obnoxious. She's the perfect human embodiment of the hectoring nanny super-state.

    Hillary's presidency will wake up huge numbers of heterosexual men to what they've lost by surrendering their natural leadership, of their families, their communities, their schools, their institutions, their nations, and allowing women--conformist, tedious, hectoring, concerned with "feelings" and unconcerned with freedom--to boss them around. Heck, i think it will wake up a fair number of *women* to the reality that don't really want to be leaders--and don't want to be led by the strident, bossy women. That what they really want is to be led by competent, thoughtful, foresighted men who will protect and preserve a better future for their children.

    Hillary's presidency will do the work that conservatives won't do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anonym says:

    Shouldn’t that be ‘Marriage, Happiness, voting Democrat, pick any 2′?

    Although… are the single Dems happy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @tformation

    Shouldn’t that be ‘Marriage, Happiness, voting Democrat, pick any 2′?

    Although… are the single Dems happy?
     
    Well, if by "happy" you mean "I get to complain incessantly which makes me happy in a sick way," then, you're allowed to pick happiness in that list.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Chuck says:

    Yet another reason why recreational drugs should be legalized.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. rod1963 says:
    @Percy Gryce
    This helps explain the Democrats war on marriage and normalcy.

    They are dying out. Same thing is happening in Europe. They are quite well aware of it too. It may be the reason they are so motivated to take down what remains of traditional Western society before they end up extinct.

    There’s something about liberalism that sucks the life out of people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    There’s something about liberalism that sucks the life out of people.
     
    Yeah, it's their relationship with Leftists.

    Leftists believe they are entitled to commit aggression.

    Liberals believe they (themselves) deserve to be aggressed against.

    It's a match made . . . well, somewhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Does this study take into account socio-economic status?

    In most western countries a fair number of working class whites still vote for centre left parties for economic reasons, and these working class whites probably have less stable marriages on average than middle class liberals.

    To truly compare if conservatives have more stable marriages than liberals you would need to compare liberals and conservatives with the same income levels. Class and race usually trump ideology when it comes to positive social outcomes.

    Also liberals suffer higher rates of mood disorders, are more likely to be introverts, and tend to have lower self-esteem, so their self-reporting is likely to be more negative than more extroverted, upbeat conservatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nico
    Actually it did:

    But the gap did not disappear. Even among people with the same demographic profile, Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to say they are happily married. The seven-percentage-point gap that exists between Republicans and Democrats without any demographic controls shrinks to three percentage points with those controls.
     
    Double-blind tests are useful but it is important to remember that often, in real life, "all other things" are NOT equal. What does it say about leftist ideology that it appeals mostly to the pathological?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Back in the early 80s, I had to take a sociology class. The big meme was ‘wife battering’ and how those married men were constantly beating wives.

    So then the internet provides access to data from law enforcement, the CDC, etc. to actual other than stuff ‘provided’ by feminist professors. I remember male students objecting to the data and the female prof would say “emperical data”.

    And it turns out that the absolute safest place for a woman was at home with her husband.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Via Korea says: • Website
    @Hippopotamusdrome
    Possible Trump campaign song:

    YouTube, Brad Neely: America, Now - Topic: Open Mic


    Build a wall around us all, let's build a wall.

     

    At his Arizona rally he used the Hulk Hogan theme song. Classic Trump

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Nico says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    I like Sanders for 2 reasons.

    1. He also helps shift the overton window on the left. He makes it acceptable for left-wing Democrats to be anti-immigration. If Trump takes the Whitehouse, Sanders could help him pass a bill to end H1b permanently.

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.

    While Trump is the best candidate overall, Sanders is far better than any of the other Republicans and highly preferable to Clinton.

    I couldn’t vote for Sanders. He’s too much of a left-wing ideologue for me to be comfortable with giving him my voice. But I could be happy for him if he won, and I can’t say that of any other Democrat in the field.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Nico says:
    @unpc downunder
    Does this study take into account socio-economic status?

    In most western countries a fair number of working class whites still vote for centre left parties for economic reasons, and these working class whites probably have less stable marriages on average than middle class liberals.

    To truly compare if conservatives have more stable marriages than liberals you would need to compare liberals and conservatives with the same income levels. Class and race usually trump ideology when it comes to positive social outcomes.

    Also liberals suffer higher rates of mood disorders, are more likely to be introverts, and tend to have lower self-esteem, so their self-reporting is likely to be more negative than more extroverted, upbeat conservatives.

    Actually it did:

    But the gap did not disappear. Even among people with the same demographic profile, Republicans are slightly more likely than Democrats to say they are happily married. The seven-percentage-point gap that exists between Republicans and Democrats without any demographic controls shrinks to three percentage points with those controls.

    Double-blind tests are useful but it is important to remember that often, in real life, “all other things” are NOT equal. What does it say about leftist ideology that it appeals mostly to the pathological?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. The Trumpening, has landed. It is, strong, and powerful, and, unwavering, The Trumpening is.

    The matrix, has been, breached, and, is being, exposed, at this moment, exposed, more, and more each day, exposed. By The Trumpening, exposed.

    Elites, hostile, have, defecated on what is pure, and clean, good, right. The Trumpening has come. It will not, go, will stay, and, grow. The matrix, shattering.

    America will, no longer, be, a, sucker, and a whore, from within, or without. The Trumpening is, real, the, expression of, not one, but a people, blood, soil, nation. Boiling frog awakens, a nation does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TWS
    This brings me to my second point; don't smoke crack.
    , @JSM
    I like your post, but could I help you clean up your comma explosion? I am, after all a member of the Volunteer Punctuation Improvement Squad. (Because the old ways are best: National borders, marriage to one opposite-sex person for life, stay-at-home-mothering, and following the rules of correct grammar.)
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The Trumpening, has landed. It is, strong, and powerful, and, unwavering, The Trumpening is.

     

    Damn you! Now I'll have Diana Ross and Herb Alpert on my mental stereo all night:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Happening_(song)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Retired
    Clinton is toast and the dem chances are not looking good. Rubio has lost me on immigration. I am favoring Walker/Cruz.
    Trump has his 20-25% (h/t Dr. K.) and will not expand beyond that because he is manifestly unqualified. Can't win with 25%. No more narcissists with no governing experience for Potus. And no more A-holes. The oppo research will wipe out Trump and the Socialist. With their own quotes.
    Walker/Cruz are as close as we can get to electable anti immigration conservative candidates.
    Trade out the unrealistic mass deportation (that one will lose the election) for a 99% moratorium on all immigration and student visas until all 2,000 miles of fence are built and e-verify is enforced.

    Trump found and listened to Sessions on immigration. So maybe he knows how to get good advice on governing. He has administrative experience. And negotiation experience. It’s not clear to me that in today’s donor dominated politics that that experience in governing is a plus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. SFG says:

    Confounding factor: age of marriage.

    The younger you are when you’re married, the more years you will have been married when the survey comes. Blue states also tend to have late ages of marriage.

    (BTW, you are almost certainly right that happy, stable married people will tend to vote Republican.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. @Anonym
    Shouldn't that be 'Marriage, Happiness, voting Democrat, pick any 2'?

    Although... are the single Dems happy?

    Shouldn’t that be ‘Marriage, Happiness, voting Democrat, pick any 2′?

    Although… are the single Dems happy?

    Well, if by “happy” you mean “I get to complain incessantly which makes me happy in a sick way,” then, you’re allowed to pick happiness in that list.

    Read More
    • Agree: Percy Gryce
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. MKP says:
    @Retired
    Clinton is toast and the dem chances are not looking good. Rubio has lost me on immigration. I am favoring Walker/Cruz.
    Trump has his 20-25% (h/t Dr. K.) and will not expand beyond that because he is manifestly unqualified. Can't win with 25%. No more narcissists with no governing experience for Potus. And no more A-holes. The oppo research will wipe out Trump and the Socialist. With their own quotes.
    Walker/Cruz are as close as we can get to electable anti immigration conservative candidates.
    Trade out the unrealistic mass deportation (that one will lose the election) for a 99% moratorium on all immigration and student visas until all 2,000 miles of fence are built and e-verify is enforced.

    Walker/Cruz, hmm? Sorry, I’m behind the guy who DIDN’T support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    Don’t care what party’s ticket he’s on, don’t care who says “you’re gonna give us Hillary!”

    Can’t stump the Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    To be fair, Trump has been liberal on immigration in the recent past.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. WhatEvvs [AKA "Aamirkhanfan"] says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    I like Sanders for 2 reasons.

    1. He also helps shift the overton window on the left. He makes it acceptable for left-wing Democrats to be anti-immigration. If Trump takes the Whitehouse, Sanders could help him pass a bill to end H1b permanently.

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.

    While Trump is the best candidate overall, Sanders is far better than any of the other Republicans and highly preferable to Clinton.

    At least he’s honest. That’s his great quality. I’m talking about Sanders.

    I think that Sanders is actually less electable than Trump. What is electable? Ask David Brooks because it’s a quality that the media made up. Bill Clinton by rights should have been unelectable. What a scoundrel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about "electability" being a fabricated term. It's 100% content-free.

    My guess is that it was coined by the political class, probably by consultants, as a way to (a) divert big donations toward a small coterie of client pols, (b) protect incumbents, and (c) exclude attractive insurgent candidates. True to form, the media would have picked up on the term because it seemed like "insider" jargon, and aping it made them feel smart and worldly-wise.

    I agree, too, about Clinton being a scoundrel. It's obvious, I know; but nothing illustrates that description better than the fact that we're still stuck with him, jockeying for attention and notoriety 15 years after he left office. An ex-president of any gravity would have faded away into contemplative retirement; one with even a shred of decency would have slunk away into obscure hedonism, in penance for his malign cultural effect on the society.

    Instead, we have the grotesque spectacle of the celebrity ex-president--with another one surely on deck (assuming he deigns to leave office).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. WhatEvvs [AKA "Aamirkhanfan"] says:

    Wilcox has worked with Eric Kaufmann, demographer of religiosity:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2014.00662.x/abstract

    It’s interesting because Kaufmann is a Haidt/Jussem type liberal who agrees with conservatives on quite a lot. The anti-marriage pro-sexual revolution ideology is crumbling in academe, as it wreaks havoc on the general public. (Tinder, which is Grindr for straight people.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Mark Krikorian said this?!

    “If we could get 12 million people to leave, why don’t we just do that now? This idea that we’re going to get ’em all to leave, and we’re going to get the good ones back, it’s a fairy tale,” said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks to reduce illegal immigration. “It’s just not the way that government could function. It’s dopey. It’s a gimmick.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-trumps-rise-hard-line-immigration-ideas-take-hold-in-gop/2015/08/17/85dbbf3e-4506-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html?tid=HP_lede?tid=HP_lede

    Read More
    • Replies: @GW
    Yeah pretty weak. Obviously the Obama administration gets some of the blame for why mass deportations aren't occurring. What's next, is Krikorian going to point out that obese people bear no responsibility for their fatness because if they could lose the weight they'd have done so already?

    Now obviously it is logistically impossible to get all 12 (20-30?) million to leave, but if Trump got even half of them to leave that'd be light years ahead of our current de facto amnesty policy. Half the anchor babies, half the ESL classes, half the medical costs for emergency room visits for insurance-less illegals, half the drunk driving arrests, half the rapes, etc. I'm guessing a committed president could get somewhere around 80-90% deportation rate, particularly if he was willing to ignore any appeals court issues that will inevitably come up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Actually, the only lesson we can draw from this is that it found no evidence that political affiliation matters one way or another. As you say, once demographics were taken into account. the measured difference was only 3% — and it is hard to believe that that wasn’t within the statistical margin of error of the study. Even if by some miracle it wasn’t, it’s such a trivial difference that the smallest difference in methodology would render it moot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Actually, the only lesson we can draw from this is that it found no evidence that political affiliation matters one way or another. As you say, once demographics were taken into account. the measured difference was only 3% — and it is hard to believe that that wasn’t within the statistical margin of error of the study.
     
    I basically agree--though i doubt very much the demographically adjusted 3% difference is noise.

    The much more important observation is the reverse one--that Steve's made hay with: Who is more likely to actually be *in* a happy marriage. It's not that Democrats are incapable of having happy marriages--i know of several--it's that Republicans--a proxy for white conservatives--are so much more likely to *be* happily married. While the Democratic voting base--beyond its core support in of parasitic rent-seekers, government employees, grantees, welfarees--is largely made up of the unhappy singles and divorced who haven't got their life together.

    Or, flipped around, that when people--people who can--actually *get* their lives together and get on with having mature, productive, happy lives, they are more conservative and vote Republican. (An admittedly poor vehicle right now for expressing a mature conservative viewpoint.)

    As Steve's pointed out, the "marriage gap" dwarfs the much hyped "gender gap", shows up even across racial lines and dwarfs all other demographic voting gaps except the racial ones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    could it be that Republicans, unlike most Democrats, are more socially conservative and traditional which might cause them to remain in unhappy marriages ? I also suspect many folks tend to fudge the truth about their private lives, especially when it comes to marriage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    could it be that Republicans, unlike most Democrats, are more socially conservative and traditional which might cause them to remain in unhappy marriages?
     
    Fred, you're no doubt correct here. Indeed Democrats are more likely to divorce. But your point doesn't diminish the significance, rather it makes it stronger. Because these happiness numbers are for the *married*--i.e. the still married.

    In other words, Republicans are happier even though a certain number are no doubt in your shouldda-been-divorced-unhappy-marriages.

    Republicans are more likely to be married, less likely to divorce. I.e. a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats are in marriages. In other words more of the marital "fringes"--people who might not have been married if they were Democrats (living together, broken up already, gotten abortion instead of marrying) and people who would have been divorced if they were Democrats--are in this Republican sample. And yet the sample is still happier than the Democrat sample.

    You can toss around a bunch of possible causal factors:
    -- religiosity
    -- race
    -- class
    -- traditionalism
    -- masculinity and femininity (less feminism)
    -- IQ
    -- conscientiousness
    and i'd argue probably a key factor
    -- loyalty

    But bottom line here even after controlling for race and religiosity Republicans still have somewhat happier marriages, even though more of their cohort is married, and fewer of their marriages are scratched by divorce.

    Some set of traits that leads to Republican voting also leads happier marriages. Maybe simply not being a utopian.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    This is the sort of sociological research that seems to come from aliens who aren’t from this planet, or at least from the USA. It’s not merely possible that conservative/religious people have more respect, in fact, reverence, for the idea and practice of marriage, it is an obvious fact. If couples believe that their marriages are unions “blessed” by the benevolent and loving creator of the universe and that said creator wants those unions to be sacred and inviolable, who can be surprised that such couples take more pleasure in, and have more, yes, reverence for, marriage? DUH!

    At the same time, my own long and sad experience is that religious (and very conservative) people will often pretend and claim to anyone and everyone that they are happy in their marriages – they feel that they must do this for a variety of reasons – when the reality is that they are utterly miserable. This is one of the many ways that religious faith promotes unreason and outright dishonesty – even to the self.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce

    my own long and sad experience
     
    Ahh, the scientific approach.
    , @Formerly CARealist
    Yes, very religious people do sometimes have miserable marriages, just like very secular people and all those in between. What makes the difference is that people believe that their marriage is bigger than themselves, and that their happiness isn't the big goal of marriage. But with lots of unselfish behavior, and some good examples from the long-term couples around them, married partners can find plenty of joy and beauty in each other.

    Happiness isn't the cause, it's the effect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. ChrisZ says:
    @WhatEvvs
    At least he's honest. That's his great quality. I'm talking about Sanders.

    I think that Sanders is actually less electable than Trump. What is electable? Ask David Brooks because it's a quality that the media made up. Bill Clinton by rights should have been unelectable. What a scoundrel.

    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about “electability” being a fabricated term. It’s 100% content-free.

    My guess is that it was coined by the political class, probably by consultants, as a way to (a) divert big donations toward a small coterie of client pols, (b) protect incumbents, and (c) exclude attractive insurgent candidates. True to form, the media would have picked up on the term because it seemed like “insider” jargon, and aping it made them feel smart and worldly-wise.

    I agree, too, about Clinton being a scoundrel. It’s obvious, I know; but nothing illustrates that description better than the fact that we’re still stuck with him, jockeying for attention and notoriety 15 years after he left office. An ex-president of any gravity would have faded away into contemplative retirement; one with even a shred of decency would have slunk away into obscure hedonism, in penance for his malign cultural effect on the society.

    Instead, we have the grotesque spectacle of the celebrity ex-president–with another one surely on deck (assuming he deigns to leave office).

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    There is a tiny grain of truth in this mostly BS term.

    The thing is no one is electable until they get elected. Then allofasudden it's different. So who gets to decide? In the unlikely event that Sanders gets elected, suddenly you'd see how electable he was. (For the record and for the nth time, I think that the Dems will draft Biden/Warren, in desperation -- because Hillary is unacceptable [grin] and Bernie will fade.)

    Anyway according to this silly standard, I think Trump is more "electable" than Bernie.

    If you didn't know it was Trump, you would say here that he has a fine Scottish politician's face:

    http://hirportal.sikerado.hu/images/kep/201508/donaldtrump_fiatalon.jpg

    (His mother was Scottish.)

    I saw Trump on the street once. He's a big guy who radiates alpha energy.
    , @Reg Cæsar


    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about “electability” being a fabricated term. It’s 100% content-free.

     

    I don't know about 100%. It seemed to have plenty of content when Ron Reagan applied it to himself.
    , @ben tillman

    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about “electability” being a fabricated term. It’s 100% content-free.
     
    It seems to mean that the mass media will not attempt to destroy the candidate to prevent his election, which would mean that the mass media are in the best position to judge who is and isn't electable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Mr. Anon says:
    @Retired
    Clinton is toast and the dem chances are not looking good. Rubio has lost me on immigration. I am favoring Walker/Cruz.
    Trump has his 20-25% (h/t Dr. K.) and will not expand beyond that because he is manifestly unqualified. Can't win with 25%. No more narcissists with no governing experience for Potus. And no more A-holes. The oppo research will wipe out Trump and the Socialist. With their own quotes.
    Walker/Cruz are as close as we can get to electable anti immigration conservative candidates.
    Trade out the unrealistic mass deportation (that one will lose the election) for a 99% moratorium on all immigration and student visas until all 2,000 miles of fence are built and e-verify is enforced.

    “Walker/Cruz are as close as we can get to electable anti immigration conservative candidates.
    Trade out the unrealistic mass deportation (that one will lose the election) for a 99% moratorium on all immigration and student visas until all 2,000 miles of fence are built and e-verify is enforced.”

    So a guy (Walker) who used to support amnesty, then came out against it when he was running for President, and then hinted to a private gathering of Republican party donors this year, don’t worry, I’m really for it, or a guy (Cruz) who has proposed tripling or quadrupling the number of H1-B visas – these are our “anti-immigration conservative candidates”?

    No thanks. I’ll wait for better ones.

    And who says that deportation is poison at the polls? The American people support drone-striking wedding parties in Afghanistan. You think they wouldn’t be cool with putting some crying kids on a bus back to Oaxaca? When it comes to deportation, just be positive: Yes, we can!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lugash
    I have to laugh at Walker. He probably thought he was so clever, moving juuuust slightly to the right of everyone else on immigration. Then Trump comes in and yanks the Overton Window so far to the right he's in no-man's-land.

    Maybe if Walker had gone after Wisconsin's sanctuary cities with a tenth of the effort that he went after its unions things would have been better for him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It should be noted that it is not just Democrats but Independents as well. Many Republicans I know (certainly not all) hold very rigid values and do not see shades of gray in life. There lives are much more rule driven. As long as both parties in a marriage agree there is less conflict. Many accept the idea that the man is the master of the household. As long the woman agrees with that there is much less conflict.

    Liberals who often call themselves progressive. Want to create a better life for not just themselves but others. This has the potential for a lot more internal conflict. A couple may want to share child raising and housework equally. This is a good goal for a liberal but is not easy to accomplish given the stresses of work and other responsibilities.

    A large percentage of Democrats and Independents live in urban environments. Urban life is more exciting and economically more advantageous but it is also much more stressful. Riding the subway is more stressful than driving down a country road. Many Democrats and Independents are on the lower end of economic scale. Money is known to be an major stress factor in a marriage.

    The results of the study don’t surprise me. But the study is a little shallow many more factors should be considered than political affiliation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Mr. Anon says:

    Is Trump taking campaign advice from Steve? Trump makes Mark “Weasel Boy” Zuckerberg the face of immigration:

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/news/companies/donald-trump-mark-zuckerberg-immigration/index.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Maybe through one degree of separation? My upcoming Taki's Mag column will riff a little on who I think Trump is channeling.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Mr. Anon
    Is Trump taking campaign advice from Steve? Trump makes Mark "Weasel Boy" Zuckerberg the face of immigration:

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/17/news/companies/donald-trump-mark-zuckerberg-immigration/index.html

    Maybe through one degree of separation? My upcoming Taki’s Mag column will riff a little on who I think Trump is channeling.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    When I heard about Trump's plan to restrict H1-B's and abolish J-1's in favor of an inner city job bank, I immediately thought about you and your idea of citizenism. It may very well be that Trump's thinking--which has been subject to much debate--may be citizenist? Then it'd be pretty funny that a citizenist candidate is at 25% and in the lead, while Rand "The Libertarian Moment has Arrived" Paul is at 2%.
    , @WhatEvvs
    Churchill? He's doing this funny thing with his lower lip, pursing it to look like the last lion.
    , @Jason Roberts
    My money is on George Borjas as a counterweight to Raj Chetty.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. GW says:
    @International Jew
    Mark Krikorian said this?!

    “If we could get 12 million people to leave, why don’t we just do that now? This idea that we’re going to get ’em all to leave, and we’re going to get the good ones back, it’s a fairy tale,” said Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, which seeks to reduce illegal immigration. “It’s just not the way that government could function. It’s dopey. It’s a gimmick.”
     
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/with-trumps-rise-hard-line-immigration-ideas-take-hold-in-gop/2015/08/17/85dbbf3e-4506-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html?tid=HP_lede?tid=HP_lede

    Yeah pretty weak. Obviously the Obama administration gets some of the blame for why mass deportations aren’t occurring. What’s next, is Krikorian going to point out that obese people bear no responsibility for their fatness because if they could lose the weight they’d have done so already?

    Now obviously it is logistically impossible to get all 12 (20-30?) million to leave, but if Trump got even half of them to leave that’d be light years ahead of our current de facto amnesty policy. Half the anchor babies, half the ESL classes, half the medical costs for emergency room visits for insurance-less illegals, half the drunk driving arrests, half the rapes, etc. I’m guessing a committed president could get somewhere around 80-90% deportation rate, particularly if he was willing to ignore any appeals court issues that will inevitably come up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @International Jew

    Now obviously it is logistically impossible to get all 12 (20-30?) million to leave
     
    All we have to do is make it hard for them to get work (by fining their employers) and they'll self-deport. As Arizona was well on its way to proving...

    http://newamericamedia.org/2010/07/long-before-sb-1070-arizona-put-squeeze-on-immigrants.php

    ...when Obama smacked it down.

    There'll be no need to round anyone up, no need even for a wall.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @MKP
    Walker/Cruz, hmm? Sorry, I'm behind the guy who DIDN'T support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

    Don't care what party's ticket he's on, don't care who says "you're gonna give us Hillary!"

    Can't stump the Trump.

    To be fair, Trump has been liberal on immigration in the recent past.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MKP
    Trump has doubtless said liberal, illogical, or downright stupid things before. But right now, he's standing up in front of a worldwide audience and saying "massive illegal immigration is wrong, and is harming Americans. We need to stop it, and to send illegal immigrants home."

    I dont think I can be blamed for getting excited about a legitimate contender saying this for literally the first time in my lifetime.

    Just my opinion, though. Everyone's got to figure out their own take.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    Maybe through one degree of separation? My upcoming Taki's Mag column will riff a little on who I think Trump is channeling.

    When I heard about Trump’s plan to restrict H1-B’s and abolish J-1′s in favor of an inner city job bank, I immediately thought about you and your idea of citizenism. It may very well be that Trump’s thinking–which has been subject to much debate–may be citizenist? Then it’d be pretty funny that a citizenist candidate is at 25% and in the lead, while Rand “The Libertarian Moment has Arrived” Paul is at 2%.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis, Dahlia
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Tom_R says:

    REPUBLICAN PARTY SHOULD CHANGE ITS NAME TO THE WHITE PARTY;
    DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO BLACK-MEXICAN-JEWISH-FEMINIST-INDIAN-CHINESE-LGBT-ILLEGAL ALIEN PARTY.

    Thanks for the excellent research. It should be a no-brainer for the Republicans to openly and unabashedly serve white agenda—ban immigration and openly support white ideas. That is what they are supposed to do, in a democracy.

    Even change the name to “the white party”, so the stupid republicans should forget about the big tent.

    Even the local pizza man knows this. Most of his customers like pepperoni pizza, so that’s what he makes all day and openly calls his #1 selling pizza—pepperoni. He is not ashamed of admitting and marketing to his biggest customers, the Peppornists, so why are the Republicans?

    The Democratic party should change its name to reflect its diversity to the above name.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. TWS says:
    @The Trumpening
    The Trumpening, has landed. It is, strong, and powerful, and, unwavering, The Trumpening is.

    The matrix, has been, breached, and, is being, exposed, at this moment, exposed, more, and more each day, exposed. By The Trumpening, exposed.

    Elites, hostile, have, defecated on what is pure, and clean, good, right. The Trumpening has come. It will not, go, will stay, and, grow. The matrix, shattering.

    America will, no longer, be, a, sucker, and a whore, from within, or without. The Trumpening is, real, the, expression of, not one, but a people, blood, soil, nation. Boiling frog awakens, a nation does.

    This brings me to my second point; don’t smoke crack.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Anonymous
    This is the sort of sociological research that seems to come from aliens who aren't from this planet, or at least from the USA. It's not merely possible that conservative/religious people have more respect, in fact, reverence, for the idea and practice of marriage, it is an obvious fact. If couples believe that their marriages are unions "blessed" by the benevolent and loving creator of the universe and that said creator wants those unions to be sacred and inviolable, who can be surprised that such couples take more pleasure in, and have more, yes, reverence for, marriage? DUH!

    At the same time, my own long and sad experience is that religious (and very conservative) people will often pretend and claim to anyone and everyone that they are happy in their marriages - they feel that they must do this for a variety of reasons - when the reality is that they are utterly miserable. This is one of the many ways that religious faith promotes unreason and outright dishonesty - even to the self.

    my own long and sad experience

    Ahh, the scientific approach.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anm says:

    Ann Coulter just retweeted a blog post filled with hatefacts.

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. @Anonymous
    This is the sort of sociological research that seems to come from aliens who aren't from this planet, or at least from the USA. It's not merely possible that conservative/religious people have more respect, in fact, reverence, for the idea and practice of marriage, it is an obvious fact. If couples believe that their marriages are unions "blessed" by the benevolent and loving creator of the universe and that said creator wants those unions to be sacred and inviolable, who can be surprised that such couples take more pleasure in, and have more, yes, reverence for, marriage? DUH!

    At the same time, my own long and sad experience is that religious (and very conservative) people will often pretend and claim to anyone and everyone that they are happy in their marriages - they feel that they must do this for a variety of reasons - when the reality is that they are utterly miserable. This is one of the many ways that religious faith promotes unreason and outright dishonesty - even to the self.

    Yes, very religious people do sometimes have miserable marriages, just like very secular people and all those in between. What makes the difference is that people believe that their marriage is bigger than themselves, and that their happiness isn’t the big goal of marriage. But with lots of unselfish behavior, and some good examples from the long-term couples around them, married partners can find plenty of joy and beauty in each other.

    Happiness isn’t the cause, it’s the effect.

    Read More
    • Agree: Percy Gryce
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. anowow says:

    1. Both parties are happier when gender roles are clearly defined.

    2. This issue involves three different groups: conservatively inclined sorts, liberals and leftists. The GOP is made of the first two groups, and the Dems of the latter two groups.

    I’d say it’s the leftists, which group contains a large amount of very damaged people, makes the Democratic figures worse. One only has to go back several decades to find examples of liberals with normal gender relationships.

    Liberals aren’t unhappy, angry people. They are just dangerously naive, muddled in their thinking and inclined towards a bien pensant world view.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. I think the arrow of causality runs the other way. It’s not conservatism that makes a person happy. Rather, a predisposition to seek out life satisfaction in marriage and family means less interest in seeking satisfaction in grand schemes to perfect society.

    Read More
    • Agree: carol
    • Replies: @Muse
    Finding a mate and having children is a test of fitness. Not having completed that task by a certain point in life indicates that there might be problems with the individual. People with more problems are more unhappy. It is axiomatic if they are not crazy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Maybe through one degree of separation? My upcoming Taki's Mag column will riff a little on who I think Trump is channeling.

    Churchill? He’s doing this funny thing with his lower lip, pursing it to look like the last lion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @ChrisZ
    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about "electability" being a fabricated term. It's 100% content-free.

    My guess is that it was coined by the political class, probably by consultants, as a way to (a) divert big donations toward a small coterie of client pols, (b) protect incumbents, and (c) exclude attractive insurgent candidates. True to form, the media would have picked up on the term because it seemed like "insider" jargon, and aping it made them feel smart and worldly-wise.

    I agree, too, about Clinton being a scoundrel. It's obvious, I know; but nothing illustrates that description better than the fact that we're still stuck with him, jockeying for attention and notoriety 15 years after he left office. An ex-president of any gravity would have faded away into contemplative retirement; one with even a shred of decency would have slunk away into obscure hedonism, in penance for his malign cultural effect on the society.

    Instead, we have the grotesque spectacle of the celebrity ex-president--with another one surely on deck (assuming he deigns to leave office).

    There is a tiny grain of truth in this mostly BS term.

    The thing is no one is electable until they get elected. Then allofasudden it’s different. So who gets to decide? In the unlikely event that Sanders gets elected, suddenly you’d see how electable he was. (For the record and for the nth time, I think that the Dems will draft Biden/Warren, in desperation — because Hillary is unacceptable [grin] and Bernie will fade.)

    Anyway according to this silly standard, I think Trump is more “electable” than Bernie.

    If you didn’t know it was Trump, you would say here that he has a fine Scottish politician’s face:

    (His mother was Scottish.)

    I saw Trump on the street once. He’s a big guy who radiates alpha energy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    I saw Trump on the street once.

    I once saw former NYC mayor John Lindsay coming out of the Waldorf Astoria. I was across the street and couldn't resist rudely shouting "The Tower of Jelly!" That was the nickname radio host Bob Grant gave him for his spinelessness.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @rod1963
    They are dying out. Same thing is happening in Europe. They are quite well aware of it too. It may be the reason they are so motivated to take down what remains of traditional Western society before they end up extinct.

    There's something about liberalism that sucks the life out of people.

    There’s something about liberalism that sucks the life out of people.

    Yeah, it’s their relationship with Leftists.

    Leftists believe they are entitled to commit aggression.

    Liberals believe they (themselves) deserve to be aggressed against.

    It’s a match made . . . well, somewhere.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "Yeah, it’s their relationship with Leftists.

    Leftists believe they are entitled to commit aggression.

    Liberals believe they (themselves) deserve to be aggressed against.

    It’s a match made . . . well, somewhere."

    I think there are two basic parties which supersede left and right...

    One party thinks that politics was invented to give you an excuse to kill people...
    And then the other party thinks that politics was invented to get things done without having to kill people...obviously conventional left and right both have killers and harmlessites...I think those parties are a genetic doom, you are born trending to one or the other
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Muse says:
    @JohnnyWalker123
    I like Sanders for 2 reasons.

    1. He also helps shift the overton window on the left. He makes it acceptable for left-wing Democrats to be anti-immigration. If Trump takes the Whitehouse, Sanders could help him pass a bill to end H1b permanently.

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.

    While Trump is the best candidate overall, Sanders is far better than any of the other Republicans and highly preferable to Clinton.

    In a Sanders candidacy, the Democratic nominee for VP will be a big deal..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. JSM says:
    @The Trumpening
    The Trumpening, has landed. It is, strong, and powerful, and, unwavering, The Trumpening is.

    The matrix, has been, breached, and, is being, exposed, at this moment, exposed, more, and more each day, exposed. By The Trumpening, exposed.

    Elites, hostile, have, defecated on what is pure, and clean, good, right. The Trumpening has come. It will not, go, will stay, and, grow. The matrix, shattering.

    America will, no longer, be, a, sucker, and a whore, from within, or without. The Trumpening is, real, the, expression of, not one, but a people, blood, soil, nation. Boiling frog awakens, a nation does.

    I like your post, but could I help you clean up your comma explosion? I am, after all a member of the Volunteer Punctuation Improvement Squad. (Because the old ways are best: National borders, marriage to one opposite-sex person for life, stay-at-home-mothering, and following the rules of correct grammar.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Muse says:
    @International Jew
    I think the arrow of causality runs the other way. It's not conservatism that makes a person happy. Rather, a predisposition to seek out life satisfaction in marriage and family means less interest in seeking satisfaction in grand schemes to perfect society.

    Finding a mate and having children is a test of fitness. Not having completed that task by a certain point in life indicates that there might be problems with the individual. People with more problems are more unhappy. It is axiomatic if they are not crazy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcite
    Where have you been the last 60 years? Bad breeders and bad maters are what most of our problems are about. They are as ubiquitous as the trash I see everywhere on the metro in the last 15 years since the area became heavily hispanic (that's the only answer--the area has always had a lot of blacks and the metro looked ok for a long time.)
    "Finding a mate" is as easy as pinning a tail on a donkey for those of the right age. "Having children" (i.e. conceiving) is biologically effortless for most people of the right age. Neither is any test of fitness. Traditionally in European/American society, 90% of all people did it, and it was a test of, if anything, willingness to conform to society, to care what people thought of you, and to raise another generation. You didn't get a metaphorical medal for doing what came naturally, but did get tacit approval for getting married before the naturalness commenced.
    In Asian and African societies, such participation was 100%. Options in such activities, especially for females, was a trait that distinguished European, Christian culture, and caused us to evolve and develop in ways other peoples never imagined. One might kiss the ground as soon as one's date drops one off, because one is glad to be by oneself again. Politics are the last thing I would think of in relation to that. Some people are happy single. But it should not be the default for society.

    Finding a mate (for how long?) and having children (only takes a few seconds really) is not a test of "fitness." Maintaining a working relationship with a mate over a long period of time, and taking full responsibility for children for many years, is a test of fitness. Now that deserves a metaphorical medal. And many Democrats, Repubicans, and Independents should get one.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Lugash says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "Walker/Cruz are as close as we can get to electable anti immigration conservative candidates.
    Trade out the unrealistic mass deportation (that one will lose the election) for a 99% moratorium on all immigration and student visas until all 2,000 miles of fence are built and e-verify is enforced."

    So a guy (Walker) who used to support amnesty, then came out against it when he was running for President, and then hinted to a private gathering of Republican party donors this year, don't worry, I'm really for it, or a guy (Cruz) who has proposed tripling or quadrupling the number of H1-B visas - these are our "anti-immigration conservative candidates"?

    No thanks. I'll wait for better ones.

    And who says that deportation is poison at the polls? The American people support drone-striking wedding parties in Afghanistan. You think they wouldn't be cool with putting some crying kids on a bus back to Oaxaca? When it comes to deportation, just be positive: Yes, we can!

    I have to laugh at Walker. He probably thought he was so clever, moving juuuust slightly to the right of everyone else on immigration. Then Trump comes in and yanks the Overton Window so far to the right he’s in no-man’s-land.

    Maybe if Walker had gone after Wisconsin’s sanctuary cities with a tenth of the effort that he went after its unions things would have been better for him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. HA says:

    According to Wikipedia, “Wilcox… held research fellowships at Princeton University, Yale University, and the Brookings Institution before joining the faculty of the University of Virginia, where he is an associate professor and director of graduate studies.”

    It appears that Assoc. Prof. William Bradford Wilcox does not have tenure yet. Is he simply lacking in self-awareness, or is this some kind of academic death wish?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Percy Gryce

    It appears that Assoc. Prof. William Bradford Wilcox does not have tenure yet. Is he simply lacking in self-awareness, or is this some kind of academic death wish?
     
    Oh, he's got tenure. It's the rare associate professor who doesn't have tenure--it usually comes along with the promotion from assistant professor. The fact that he is "associate professor" simply means he hasn't been promoted to full professor yet.
    , @quoted at CH
    I wonder if the other co-author, Wolfinger, is the son of a Berkeley Pol. Sci. Prof of the 1970's, Ray Wolfinger. He famously said, "politics is the art of who hates who."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. MKP says:
    @Anonymous
    To be fair, Trump has been liberal on immigration in the recent past.

    Trump has doubtless said liberal, illogical, or downright stupid things before. But right now, he’s standing up in front of a worldwide audience and saying “massive illegal immigration is wrong, and is harming Americans. We need to stop it, and to send illegal immigrants home.”

    I dont think I can be blamed for getting excited about a legitimate contender saying this for literally the first time in my lifetime.

    Just my opinion, though. Everyone’s got to figure out their own take.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "I dont think I can be blamed for getting excited about a legitimate contender saying this for literally the first time in my lifetime."

    The other thing that Trump has done, and it is unprecedented as far as I know, is to break with the collegial BS that the other guys in the race are the loyal opposition acting in good faith. Both in the debate, and in subsequent interviews, Trump has all but said that they are on the take - that they sell their influence for money. He said that Jeb Bush is "owned" by the people who donate money to him. That is a significant thing for a candidate from a major party to say about the other candidates.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Anonymous
    Actually, the only lesson we can draw from this is that it found no evidence that political affiliation matters one way or another. As you say, once demographics were taken into account. the measured difference was only 3% -- and it is hard to believe that that wasn't within the statistical margin of error of the study. Even if by some miracle it wasn't, it's such a trivial difference that the smallest difference in methodology would render it moot.

    Actually, the only lesson we can draw from this is that it found no evidence that political affiliation matters one way or another. As you say, once demographics were taken into account. the measured difference was only 3% — and it is hard to believe that that wasn’t within the statistical margin of error of the study.

    I basically agree–though i doubt very much the demographically adjusted 3% difference is noise.

    The much more important observation is the reverse one–that Steve’s made hay with: Who is more likely to actually be *in* a happy marriage. It’s not that Democrats are incapable of having happy marriages–i know of several–it’s that Republicans–a proxy for white conservatives–are so much more likely to *be* happily married. While the Democratic voting base–beyond its core support in of parasitic rent-seekers, government employees, grantees, welfarees–is largely made up of the unhappy singles and divorced who haven’t got their life together.

    Or, flipped around, that when people–people who can–actually *get* their lives together and get on with having mature, productive, happy lives, they are more conservative and vote Republican. (An admittedly poor vehicle right now for expressing a mature conservative viewpoint.)

    As Steve’s pointed out, the “marriage gap” dwarfs the much hyped “gender gap”, shows up even across racial lines and dwarfs all other demographic voting gaps except the racial ones.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Travis
    so true about the "marriage gap" explaining what drives men and women to vote republican.

    unfortunately the feminist agenda continues to convince many females, especially those who graduate from college, that a career is more fulfilling than marriage and children..

    In 1992, 78 percent of women graduating from college planned to have or adopt children. In 2012, that number dropped to 42 percent. In his book, “Baby Bust,” Wharton professor Stew Friedman aims to explain this trend.

    Just 26% of the Millennial generation is married today. When they were the age that Millennials are now (18-34), 36% of Generation X, and 48% of Baby Boomers were married.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Whiskey says: • Website

    Steve, I think like a fish failing to see water, you’re missing the most obvious point of the data. As a natural Alpha, its hard for you: women find more Alpha males as prospective husbands among conservatives.

    What makes women happy? A marriage and kids with an Alpha male. Alphas are in short supply. You won’t find them among say, Matt Yglesias, Chris Matthews (as the tingle up his leg showed), or among the other, non-masculine, non-dominant, non-rockstar provider, non-arrogant, non-cocky, non-Alpha White male populations in Blue States. Outside of no-go Blue Collar White males who simply won’t do for Middle and aspiring Upper Middle Class White women.

    On the other hand, a man owning his own trucking, window cleaning, landscaping, roofing, or other business bossing around and employing lots of other men, hiring, firing, well that’s Alpha. He’ll also likely be into amateur sports, rather than solitary non-Alpha stuff like rock climbing or “spinning classes” or “hot yoga.”

    This just in: women HATE HATE HATE Beta Males. Not the least that it reminds most average women of their real life mate prospects. The statistical difference is likely just a function of more White Male Alphas in Red State or Red Areas for women to marry.

    Given that the GOP is filled with money-grubbing corruptocrats, just like the Democrats, and that the payoff for capturing the White House is HUUUUUGGGGEEEEE! (Donald Trump voice) because of all the cronies you can stick in and all the policies the President can unilaterally decide (like Affirmatively Destroying the Suburbs to make Urban Developers Rich or whatever he calls it), very definitively the GOP wants to capture the White House. Who wouldn’t want to be Undersecretary of Defense and help decide which contractor gets the next goodie handout and be set for life therefore?

    They can’t go against their donor class on immigration and such, but say getting 75% of the White vote would make them set for life, so they obviously have incentives. Its just that making White people married means that White women who make the choices must WANT TO GET MARRIED. And mostly they don’t save to Alpha Males. Most White women are average. But have inflated egos, unrealistic expectations (due to Alpha Males slumming it with occasional liasons), and media driven particularly social media driven flattery often by Beta Male orbiters they openly despise. The hard message average women need to hear: that their choice is between cruel single motherhood and struggling, spinsterhood, or semi-happy with a Beta male they settle for, is not one any woman really wants to hear. “War on Women!”

    Hence the media worship and female obsession with various princesses, the real kind in the Royal family or the trash kind of the Kardashian Klan. The GOP very likely knows this. So they are content to be the Washington Generals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "This just in: women HATE HATE HATE Beta Males."

    Women hate beta males who are broke. But most women have no problem dating/marrying a beta male who tons of money in the bank. An example of this is the beta male on steroids Jeb Bush who has a personal net worth of $2o million dollars.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Jefferson says:

    Off topic, but I notice that some Female escorts on the internet make it explicitly clear that they do not serve Black men. I wonder why that is? Do Black men often get violent with Female escorts or are known for running out and not paying after sex?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. And those are the people who are married. Single women are for lack of a better expression, now married to the state. Steve, you have written eloquently on how the GOP needs to turn the Democrats into the black party. I think we need to do something similar by turning the Democrats into the single mommy party.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. @HA
    According to Wikipedia, "Wilcox... held research fellowships at Princeton University, Yale University, and the Brookings Institution before joining the faculty of the University of Virginia, where he is an associate professor and director of graduate studies."

    It appears that Assoc. Prof. William Bradford Wilcox does not have tenure yet. Is he simply lacking in self-awareness, or is this some kind of academic death wish?

    It appears that Assoc. Prof. William Bradford Wilcox does not have tenure yet. Is he simply lacking in self-awareness, or is this some kind of academic death wish?

    Oh, he’s got tenure. It’s the rare associate professor who doesn’t have tenure–it usually comes along with the promotion from assistant professor. The fact that he is “associate professor” simply means he hasn’t been promoted to full professor yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "Oh, he’s got tenure."

    In that case, I suppose his ever-resourceful "colleagues" will have to satisfy themselves with merely ensuring that none of the graduate students he directs ever finds work in their chosen field again. Or else, see to it that his funding dries up. Where there's a will, there's a way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Travis says:
    @AnotherDad

    Actually, the only lesson we can draw from this is that it found no evidence that political affiliation matters one way or another. As you say, once demographics were taken into account. the measured difference was only 3% — and it is hard to believe that that wasn’t within the statistical margin of error of the study.
     
    I basically agree--though i doubt very much the demographically adjusted 3% difference is noise.

    The much more important observation is the reverse one--that Steve's made hay with: Who is more likely to actually be *in* a happy marriage. It's not that Democrats are incapable of having happy marriages--i know of several--it's that Republicans--a proxy for white conservatives--are so much more likely to *be* happily married. While the Democratic voting base--beyond its core support in of parasitic rent-seekers, government employees, grantees, welfarees--is largely made up of the unhappy singles and divorced who haven't got their life together.

    Or, flipped around, that when people--people who can--actually *get* their lives together and get on with having mature, productive, happy lives, they are more conservative and vote Republican. (An admittedly poor vehicle right now for expressing a mature conservative viewpoint.)

    As Steve's pointed out, the "marriage gap" dwarfs the much hyped "gender gap", shows up even across racial lines and dwarfs all other demographic voting gaps except the racial ones.

    so true about the “marriage gap” explaining what drives men and women to vote republican.

    unfortunately the feminist agenda continues to convince many females, especially those who graduate from college, that a career is more fulfilling than marriage and children..

    In 1992, 78 percent of women graduating from college planned to have or adopt children. In 2012, that number dropped to 42 percent. In his book, “Baby Bust,” Wharton professor Stew Friedman aims to explain this trend.

    Just 26% of the Millennial generation is married today. When they were the age that Millennials are now (18-34), 36% of Generation X, and 48% of Baby Boomers were married.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. OT, but so much for the theory that George Soros is shielding Hillary from the Black Lives Matter protesters. Apparently, earlier this month, she had a meeting with several of them and it was recorded on a cell phone. BLM activist Julius Jones held Hillary partly responsible for black incarceration because her husband signed the Violent Crime Control and Law of 1994, for which he has subsequently apologized. Despite Hillary’s acknowledging all of America’s sins, the Jones is not satisfied, at which point Hillary gets testy. Where’s that 55-gallon drum of KKKrazy glue when you need it?

    Activist Julius Jones told Clinton that mass incarceration hasn’t worked in this country, a sentiment with which Clinton agreed. He then went on to note several policies that haven’t worked, including the war on drugs: “America’s first drug is free black labor and turning black bodies into profit and the mass-incarceration system mirrors the prison plantation system.”

    “Your analysis is totally fair. It’s historically fair. It’s psychologically fair. It’s economically fair,” Clinton said, in response to a question that blamed her in part for mass incarceration. “But you’re going to have to come together as a movement and say, ‘Here’s what we want done about it.’ Because you can get lip service from as many as white people as you can pack into Yankee stadium and a million more like it, who are going to say, ‘Oh, we get it, we get it. We’re going to be nicer.’ That’s not enough — at least in my book. That’s not how I see politics.”

    “If you don’t tell black people what we need to do, then we won’t tell you all what to do,” Jones said. “What I mean to say is, this is and has always been a white problem of violence. There’s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us.”

    “Respectfully, if that’s your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with … very real problems,” Hillary replied.

    Jones tries to clarify his point. “But what you just said was a form of victim-blaming,” he says. “You were saying what the Black Lives Matter movement needs to do to change white hearts is to…”

    Clinton interjects [testily], “Look, I don’t believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart. You’re not. But at the end of the day, we can do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them.”

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/08/watch_black_lives_matter_activists_confront_hillary_clinton.html

    I’d like to see a transcript of the whole exchange.

    If a Republican candidate wants to get the jump on Trump, I suggest he be the first to tell Black Lives Matter to STFU and clean up their own nest before presuming to lecture others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    Part of Black America's new found uppityness is that they now know that white liberals cannot do anything without them. Cannot do anything with them either, but things like dedicated bicycle lanes and open space only matters to people who actually care about that stuff to begin with. The environment will be to liberals what the space program was to conservatives, something that had to be sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.
    , @Dahlia
    I think this is a little naive. Black Lives Matters came into existence long, long before anyone was thinking Bernie Sanders jumping into the race. Soros gave 33 million to BLM in one year, likely the vast majority of its budget.

    He is a supporter of Clinton, but his support of her seems more tepid than BLM. 2 million is what he gave to her recently (someone check me on this) which is peanuts.

    How much is Soros pulling the strings? Therein lies the intrigue...

    Personally, I think he's a very busy man and that he cares more about BLM, and maybe even Black Nationalism, than he does the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. There is major brand repair that needs to be done. Liberals, Democrats, Black Left, etc. all have vested interests in seeing Black Lives Matter be seen as successful and attractive. They aren't stupid and could hear the deafening criticism after Bernie was abused.

    If I could get one, just one, question answered, it would be who was behind the "Black Lives Matter" astroturf protest of Jeb Bush. It was completely different in every conceivable way from the others, yet was well-organized and classic.
    , @International Jew

    If a Republican candidate wants to get the jump on Trump, I suggest he be the first to tell Black Lives Matter to STFU

     

    That would be fun.

    “Respectfully, if that’s your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with … very real problems,” Hillary replied.
     
    She was in the full cringe by that point!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @HA
    According to Wikipedia, "Wilcox... held research fellowships at Princeton University, Yale University, and the Brookings Institution before joining the faculty of the University of Virginia, where he is an associate professor and director of graduate studies."

    It appears that Assoc. Prof. William Bradford Wilcox does not have tenure yet. Is he simply lacking in self-awareness, or is this some kind of academic death wish?

    I wonder if the other co-author, Wolfinger, is the son of a Berkeley Pol. Sci. Prof of the 1970′s, Ray Wolfinger. He famously said, “politics is the art of who hates who.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @HA
    "I wonder if the other co-author, Wolfinger, is the son of a Berkeley Pol. Sci. Prof of the 1970′s, Ray Wolfinger."

    Apparently he was. Good catch.

    http://www.nicholaswolfinger.com/uncategorized/obituary-for-my-father-the-political-scientist-ray-wolfinger/

    I suppose if one does not have ideological purity to lean on, a little nepotism is a good fallback.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Harry Baldwin
    OT, but so much for the theory that George Soros is shielding Hillary from the Black Lives Matter protesters. Apparently, earlier this month, she had a meeting with several of them and it was recorded on a cell phone. BLM activist Julius Jones held Hillary partly responsible for black incarceration because her husband signed the Violent Crime Control and Law of 1994, for which he has subsequently apologized. Despite Hillary's acknowledging all of America's sins, the Jones is not satisfied, at which point Hillary gets testy. Where's that 55-gallon drum of KKKrazy glue when you need it?

    Activist Julius Jones told Clinton that mass incarceration hasn't worked in this country, a sentiment with which Clinton agreed. He then went on to note several policies that haven't worked, including the war on drugs: "America's first drug is free black labor and turning black bodies into profit and the mass-incarceration system mirrors the prison plantation system."

    "Your analysis is totally fair. It's historically fair. It's psychologically fair. It's economically fair," Clinton said, in response to a question that blamed her in part for mass incarceration. "But you're going to have to come together as a movement and say, 'Here's what we want done about it.' Because you can get lip service from as many as white people as you can pack into Yankee stadium and a million more like it, who are going to say, 'Oh, we get it, we get it. We're going to be nicer.' That's not enough — at least in my book. That's not how I see politics."

    "If you don't tell black people what we need to do, then we won't tell you all what to do," Jones said. "What I mean to say is, this is and has always been a white problem of violence. There’s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us."

    “Respectfully, if that’s your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with … very real problems,” Hillary replied.

    Jones tries to clarify his point. "But what you just said was a form of victim-blaming," he says. "You were saying what the Black Lives Matter movement needs to do to change white hearts is to..."

    Clinton interjects [testily], "Look, I don't believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You're not going to change every heart. You're not. But at the end of the day, we can do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them."

     

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/08/watch_black_lives_matter_activists_confront_hillary_clinton.html
    I'd like to see a transcript of the whole exchange.

    If a Republican candidate wants to get the jump on Trump, I suggest he be the first to tell Black Lives Matter to STFU and clean up their own nest before presuming to lecture others.

    Part of Black America’s new found uppityness is that they now know that white liberals cannot do anything without them. Cannot do anything with them either, but things like dedicated bicycle lanes and open space only matters to people who actually care about that stuff to begin with. The environment will be to liberals what the space program was to conservatives, something that had to be sacrificed on the alter of political correctness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. HA says:
    @Percy Gryce

    It appears that Assoc. Prof. William Bradford Wilcox does not have tenure yet. Is he simply lacking in self-awareness, or is this some kind of academic death wish?
     
    Oh, he's got tenure. It's the rare associate professor who doesn't have tenure--it usually comes along with the promotion from assistant professor. The fact that he is "associate professor" simply means he hasn't been promoted to full professor yet.

    “Oh, he’s got tenure.”

    In that case, I suppose his ever-resourceful “colleagues” will have to satisfy themselves with merely ensuring that none of the graduate students he directs ever finds work in their chosen field again. Or else, see to it that his funding dries up. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @JohnnyWalker123
    I like Sanders for 2 reasons.

    1. He also helps shift the overton window on the left. He makes it acceptable for left-wing Democrats to be anti-immigration. If Trump takes the Whitehouse, Sanders could help him pass a bill to end H1b permanently.

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.

    While Trump is the best candidate overall, Sanders is far better than any of the other Republicans and highly preferable to Clinton.

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.

    Not me bro. While i take great delight in seeing Hillary melt down–kinda like i did when i was eight at the end of the Wizard of Oz–if we aren’t going to elect an actual nationalist who is going to *stop* the demographic disaster, then … bring the witch on!

    Hillary is a smart gal, who is ugly, tedious, slimy, obnoxious. She’s the perfect human embodiment of the hectoring nanny super-state.

    Hillary’s presidency will wake up huge numbers of heterosexual men to what they’ve lost by surrendering their natural leadership, of their families, their communities, their schools, their institutions, their nations, and allowing women–conformist, tedious, hectoring, concerned with “feelings” and unconcerned with freedom–to boss them around. Heck, i think it will wake up a fair number of *women* to the reality that don’t really want to be leaders–and don’t want to be led by the strident, bossy women. That what they really want is to be led by competent, thoughtful, foresighted men who will protect and preserve a better future for their children.

    Hillary’s presidency will do the work that conservatives won’t do.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ozymandias
    • Replies: @Tony
    I highly doubt it. They were saying the same thing eight years ago about obama.
    , @Lugash
    Yeah, Boehner, Graham and McCain are each going to grow a pair and finally start looking out for white men and enforcing immigration laws. Right. Sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Dahlia says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    OT, but so much for the theory that George Soros is shielding Hillary from the Black Lives Matter protesters. Apparently, earlier this month, she had a meeting with several of them and it was recorded on a cell phone. BLM activist Julius Jones held Hillary partly responsible for black incarceration because her husband signed the Violent Crime Control and Law of 1994, for which he has subsequently apologized. Despite Hillary's acknowledging all of America's sins, the Jones is not satisfied, at which point Hillary gets testy. Where's that 55-gallon drum of KKKrazy glue when you need it?

    Activist Julius Jones told Clinton that mass incarceration hasn't worked in this country, a sentiment with which Clinton agreed. He then went on to note several policies that haven't worked, including the war on drugs: "America's first drug is free black labor and turning black bodies into profit and the mass-incarceration system mirrors the prison plantation system."

    "Your analysis is totally fair. It's historically fair. It's psychologically fair. It's economically fair," Clinton said, in response to a question that blamed her in part for mass incarceration. "But you're going to have to come together as a movement and say, 'Here's what we want done about it.' Because you can get lip service from as many as white people as you can pack into Yankee stadium and a million more like it, who are going to say, 'Oh, we get it, we get it. We're going to be nicer.' That's not enough — at least in my book. That's not how I see politics."

    "If you don't tell black people what we need to do, then we won't tell you all what to do," Jones said. "What I mean to say is, this is and has always been a white problem of violence. There’s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us."

    “Respectfully, if that’s your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with … very real problems,” Hillary replied.

    Jones tries to clarify his point. "But what you just said was a form of victim-blaming," he says. "You were saying what the Black Lives Matter movement needs to do to change white hearts is to..."

    Clinton interjects [testily], "Look, I don't believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You're not going to change every heart. You're not. But at the end of the day, we can do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them."

     

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/08/watch_black_lives_matter_activists_confront_hillary_clinton.html
    I'd like to see a transcript of the whole exchange.

    If a Republican candidate wants to get the jump on Trump, I suggest he be the first to tell Black Lives Matter to STFU and clean up their own nest before presuming to lecture others.

    I think this is a little naive. Black Lives Matters came into existence long, long before anyone was thinking Bernie Sanders jumping into the race. Soros gave 33 million to BLM in one year, likely the vast majority of its budget.

    He is a supporter of Clinton, but his support of her seems more tepid than BLM. 2 million is what he gave to her recently (someone check me on this) which is peanuts.

    How much is Soros pulling the strings? Therein lies the intrigue…

    Personally, I think he’s a very busy man and that he cares more about BLM, and maybe even Black Nationalism, than he does the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. There is major brand repair that needs to be done. Liberals, Democrats, Black Left, etc. all have vested interests in seeing Black Lives Matter be seen as successful and attractive. They aren’t stupid and could hear the deafening criticism after Bernie was abused.

    If I could get one, just one, question answered, it would be who was behind the “Black Lives Matter” astroturf protest of Jeb Bush. It was completely different in every conceivable way from the others, yet was well-organized and classic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dahlia
    One other thing.

    Liberals and all the vested parties keep eliding what has happened to Bernie Sanders with the question, "Why are they *targeting* Bernie?"
    The real question is, "Why are they being so "abusive* to Bernie?" Targeting is part of it, but doesn't capture it.

    It's the hostility, and in the case of the two women, hatred, that has caught everyone's attention, not that they question him. I do believe many Black Nationalists have real grievances with white progressives in part because, in their own way, BNs are actually conservatives.

    Steve thinks, if I've read him correctly, that these are the chances you take when empowering, funding Blacks with grievances. I think there is definitely some merit to this. How much, just not sure... A mishap from empowering, to me, though, looks more like the incident with the woman driver trying to get through a BLM road blockade only to have two black female protesters come up and slug her in the eye.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Jefferson says:

    ““If you don’t tell black people what we need to do, then we won’t tell you all what to do,” Jones said. “What I mean to say is, this is and has always been a white problem of violence. There’s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us.”

    So the biggest problem facing the African American community today is White violence towards Black bodies? Hahahahahahahhahaha. Diabetes for example kills way more Black Americans per year than White gun owners of both the law enforcement kind and the ordinary civilian kind combined.

    http://www.cdc.gov/minorityhealth/populations/REMP/black.html

    Also if White violence towards Black bodies is a major problem than Black violence towards White bodies is a Holocaust.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. Jefferson says:

    I have watched enough Watters World to know that the majority of Millennials in this country do not belong anywhere near a voting booth. They can not name the current vice president of The United States but they can name every Black guy the Kardashian sisters have ever dated. No wonder this retarded uninformed demographic skews heavily Democrat. Reality television has really dumbed down the youth masses. They can name more Youtube stars than they can name past U.S presidents. They do not know how many senators there are in this country, but they can name every character on the television show Empire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. Dahlia says:
    @Dahlia
    I think this is a little naive. Black Lives Matters came into existence long, long before anyone was thinking Bernie Sanders jumping into the race. Soros gave 33 million to BLM in one year, likely the vast majority of its budget.

    He is a supporter of Clinton, but his support of her seems more tepid than BLM. 2 million is what he gave to her recently (someone check me on this) which is peanuts.

    How much is Soros pulling the strings? Therein lies the intrigue...

    Personally, I think he's a very busy man and that he cares more about BLM, and maybe even Black Nationalism, than he does the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. There is major brand repair that needs to be done. Liberals, Democrats, Black Left, etc. all have vested interests in seeing Black Lives Matter be seen as successful and attractive. They aren't stupid and could hear the deafening criticism after Bernie was abused.

    If I could get one, just one, question answered, it would be who was behind the "Black Lives Matter" astroturf protest of Jeb Bush. It was completely different in every conceivable way from the others, yet was well-organized and classic.

    One other thing.

    Liberals and all the vested parties keep eliding what has happened to Bernie Sanders with the question, “Why are they *targeting* Bernie?”
    The real question is, “Why are they being so “abusive* to Bernie?” Targeting is part of it, but doesn’t capture it.

    It’s the hostility, and in the case of the two women, hatred, that has caught everyone’s attention, not that they question him. I do believe many Black Nationalists have real grievances with white progressives in part because, in their own way, BNs are actually conservatives.

    Steve thinks, if I’ve read him correctly, that these are the chances you take when empowering, funding Blacks with grievances. I think there is definitely some merit to this. How much, just not sure… A mishap from empowering, to me, though, looks more like the incident with the woman driver trying to get through a BLM road blockade only to have two black female protesters come up and slug her in the eye.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Tiny Duck says:

    So, Republicans lie about happiness in marriage?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @ben tillman

    There’s something about liberalism that sucks the life out of people.
     
    Yeah, it's their relationship with Leftists.

    Leftists believe they are entitled to commit aggression.

    Liberals believe they (themselves) deserve to be aggressed against.

    It's a match made . . . well, somewhere.

    “Yeah, it’s their relationship with Leftists.

    Leftists believe they are entitled to commit aggression.

    Liberals believe they (themselves) deserve to be aggressed against.

    It’s a match made . . . well, somewhere.”

    I think there are two basic parties which supersede left and right…

    One party thinks that politics was invented to give you an excuse to kill people…
    And then the other party thinks that politics was invented to get things done without having to kill people…obviously conventional left and right both have killers and harmlessites…I think those parties are a genetic doom, you are born trending to one or the other

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Steve Sailer
    Maybe through one degree of separation? My upcoming Taki's Mag column will riff a little on who I think Trump is channeling.

    My money is on George Borjas as a counterweight to Raj Chetty.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Harry Baldwin
    OT, but so much for the theory that George Soros is shielding Hillary from the Black Lives Matter protesters. Apparently, earlier this month, she had a meeting with several of them and it was recorded on a cell phone. BLM activist Julius Jones held Hillary partly responsible for black incarceration because her husband signed the Violent Crime Control and Law of 1994, for which he has subsequently apologized. Despite Hillary's acknowledging all of America's sins, the Jones is not satisfied, at which point Hillary gets testy. Where's that 55-gallon drum of KKKrazy glue when you need it?

    Activist Julius Jones told Clinton that mass incarceration hasn't worked in this country, a sentiment with which Clinton agreed. He then went on to note several policies that haven't worked, including the war on drugs: "America's first drug is free black labor and turning black bodies into profit and the mass-incarceration system mirrors the prison plantation system."

    "Your analysis is totally fair. It's historically fair. It's psychologically fair. It's economically fair," Clinton said, in response to a question that blamed her in part for mass incarceration. "But you're going to have to come together as a movement and say, 'Here's what we want done about it.' Because you can get lip service from as many as white people as you can pack into Yankee stadium and a million more like it, who are going to say, 'Oh, we get it, we get it. We're going to be nicer.' That's not enough — at least in my book. That's not how I see politics."

    "If you don't tell black people what we need to do, then we won't tell you all what to do," Jones said. "What I mean to say is, this is and has always been a white problem of violence. There’s not much that we can do to stop the violence against us."

    “Respectfully, if that’s your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with … very real problems,” Hillary replied.

    Jones tries to clarify his point. "But what you just said was a form of victim-blaming," he says. "You were saying what the Black Lives Matter movement needs to do to change white hearts is to..."

    Clinton interjects [testily], "Look, I don't believe you change hearts. I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You're not going to change every heart. You're not. But at the end of the day, we can do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them."

     

    http://www.theroot.com/articles/news/2015/08/watch_black_lives_matter_activists_confront_hillary_clinton.html
    I'd like to see a transcript of the whole exchange.

    If a Republican candidate wants to get the jump on Trump, I suggest he be the first to tell Black Lives Matter to STFU and clean up their own nest before presuming to lecture others.

    If a Republican candidate wants to get the jump on Trump, I suggest he be the first to tell Black Lives Matter to STFU

    That would be fun.

    “Respectfully, if that’s your position, then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with … very real problems,” Hillary replied.

    She was in the full cringe by that point!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. Svigor says:

    The most interesting part of Hillary’s “confrontation” with B(L)M was that it was preceded by a private meeting between the two parties minutes before. As in, they showed up, Hillary met them in a back room, and then they staged their “confrontation.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. Svigor says:

    Ai mami!

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/must-see-black-woman-rips-council-over-illegal-aliens/

    Frickin’ hilarious. Coalition of the fringes at each others’ throats again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Svigor says:

    Clinton is toast and the dem chances are not looking good. Rubio has lost me on immigration. I am favoring Walker/Cruz.
    Trump has his 20-25% (h/t Dr. K.) and will not expand beyond that because he is manifestly unqualified. Can’t win with 25%. No more narcissists with no governing experience for Potus. And no more A-holes. The oppo research will wipe out Trump and the Socialist. With their own quotes.
    Walker/Cruz are as close as we can get to electable anti immigration conservative candidates.
    Trade out the unrealistic mass deportation (that one will lose the election) for a 99% moratorium on all immigration and student visas until all 2,000 miles of fence are built and e-verify is enforced.

    Your advice sucks. Trump may or may not deliver on his promises, but a Trump victory has a chance of setting a good precedent of free men running for the presidency on the Republican ticket and winning, and that’s a chance worth taking, IMO. If we un-clog the GOP bowels, it could pay off down the road. Puts the fear of God into the R establishment, and sends a message to free men that they can swoop in and eat the R establishment’s lunch if the latter aren’t taking care of business.

    Let the Dems worry about and pay for the negative consequences of Hussein’s election. They nominated and elected him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Svigor says:

    Hillary Clinton is Rooting for Jeb Bush

    There is an obvious subtext to the panicked effort to purge the GOP of Donald Trump: to allow the party’s true hero to emerge to vanquish Hillary Clinton and restore peace and justice throughout the land. To most GOP elites, of course, the savior is Jeb Bush, complete with the Clark Kent glasses and aw-shucks good guy demeanor. The Chamber of Commerce crowd is so convinced that Jeb is the man that it (so far) has placed a bet of more than $100 million on that proposition.

    There’s just one problem—the Clintons want Jeb Bush to be the GOP nominee, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    Even if Hillary were to win a Trump / Clinton match up, she would be so bruised and diminished that she would never recover. She should step aside and groom Chelsea for an eventual run against George P.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @The Trumpening
    The Trumpening, has landed. It is, strong, and powerful, and, unwavering, The Trumpening is.

    The matrix, has been, breached, and, is being, exposed, at this moment, exposed, more, and more each day, exposed. By The Trumpening, exposed.

    Elites, hostile, have, defecated on what is pure, and clean, good, right. The Trumpening has come. It will not, go, will stay, and, grow. The matrix, shattering.

    America will, no longer, be, a, sucker, and a whore, from within, or without. The Trumpening is, real, the, expression of, not one, but a people, blood, soil, nation. Boiling frog awakens, a nation does.

    The Trumpening, has landed. It is, strong, and powerful, and, unwavering, The Trumpening is.

    Damn you! Now I’ll have Diana Ross and Herb Alpert on my mental stereo all night:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Happening_(song)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Better Diana Ross and Herb Alpert than Highlander Three: The Trumpening!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Sailerbait in Gawker today re coalition of the fringes: Straight out of Compton overlooks Dre’s penchant for beating women.

    http://pastebin.com/b64dPxKa

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. Svigor says:

    Haaretz:

    It’s Time to Admit It. Israeli Policy Is What It Is: Apartheid

    What I’m about to write will not come easily for me.

    I used to be one of those people who took issue with the label of apartheid as applied to Israel. I was one of those people who could be counted on to argue that, while the country’s settlement and occupation policies were anti-democratic and brutal and slow-dose suicidal, the word apartheid did not apply.

    I’m not one of those people any more. Not after the last few weeks.

    Not after terrorists firebombed a West Bank Palestinian home, annihilating a family, murdering an 18-month-old boy and his father, burning his mother over 90 percent of her body – only to have Israel’s government rule the family ineligible for the financial support and compensation automatically granted Israeli victims of terrorism, settlers included.

    I can’t pretend anymore. Not after Israel’s Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, explicitly declaring stone-throwing to be terrorism, drove the passage of a bill holding stone-throwers liable to up to 20 years in prison.

    The law did not specify that it targeted only Palestinian stone-throwers. It didn’t have to.

    Just one week later, pro-settlement Jews hurled rocks, furniture, and bottles of urine at Israeli soldiers and police at a West Bank settlement, and in response, Benjamin Netanyahu immediately rewarded the Jewish stone-throwers with a pledge to build hundreds of new settlement homes.

    This is what has become of the rule of law. Two sets of books. One for Us, and one to throw at Them. Apartheid.

    Read More
    • Agree: SPMoore8
    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    An article by some Haaretz correspondent rending his garments over the policies of the Israeli government happens at least once a year. Then there's a brief spark, and then it goes away. It's been like this ever since 1967. But I think the guy's right, and so was the late Tony Judt when he wrote his article for the NYRB 12 years ago. But nothing will ever change.
    , @Anonym
    They say it like it's a bad thing...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Tony says:
    @AnotherDad

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.
     
    Not me bro. While i take great delight in seeing Hillary melt down--kinda like i did when i was eight at the end of the Wizard of Oz--if we aren't going to elect an actual nationalist who is going to *stop* the demographic disaster, then ... bring the witch on!

    Hillary is a smart gal, who is ugly, tedious, slimy, obnoxious. She's the perfect human embodiment of the hectoring nanny super-state.

    Hillary's presidency will wake up huge numbers of heterosexual men to what they've lost by surrendering their natural leadership, of their families, their communities, their schools, their institutions, their nations, and allowing women--conformist, tedious, hectoring, concerned with "feelings" and unconcerned with freedom--to boss them around. Heck, i think it will wake up a fair number of *women* to the reality that don't really want to be leaders--and don't want to be led by the strident, bossy women. That what they really want is to be led by competent, thoughtful, foresighted men who will protect and preserve a better future for their children.

    Hillary's presidency will do the work that conservatives won't do.

    I highly doubt it. They were saying the same thing eight years ago about obama.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Ivy says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    The Trumpening, has landed. It is, strong, and powerful, and, unwavering, The Trumpening is.

     

    Damn you! Now I'll have Diana Ross and Herb Alpert on my mental stereo all night:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Happening_(song)

    Better Diana Ross and Herb Alpert than Highlander Three: The Trumpening!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Svigor says:

    Kerry Reminds Congress Netanyahu Advised U.S. to Invade Iraq

    But, but but…the Israelis all oppooooooosed the Iraq war!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. Lugash says:
    @AnotherDad

    2. If the Trump candidacy collapses, Sanders could be our go-to guy.
     
    Not me bro. While i take great delight in seeing Hillary melt down--kinda like i did when i was eight at the end of the Wizard of Oz--if we aren't going to elect an actual nationalist who is going to *stop* the demographic disaster, then ... bring the witch on!

    Hillary is a smart gal, who is ugly, tedious, slimy, obnoxious. She's the perfect human embodiment of the hectoring nanny super-state.

    Hillary's presidency will wake up huge numbers of heterosexual men to what they've lost by surrendering their natural leadership, of their families, their communities, their schools, their institutions, their nations, and allowing women--conformist, tedious, hectoring, concerned with "feelings" and unconcerned with freedom--to boss them around. Heck, i think it will wake up a fair number of *women* to the reality that don't really want to be leaders--and don't want to be led by the strident, bossy women. That what they really want is to be led by competent, thoughtful, foresighted men who will protect and preserve a better future for their children.

    Hillary's presidency will do the work that conservatives won't do.

    Yeah, Boehner, Graham and McCain are each going to grow a pair and finally start looking out for white men and enforcing immigration laws. Right. Sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Yeah, Boehner, Graham and McCain are each going to grow a pair and finally start looking out for white men and enforcing immigration laws. Right. Sure.
     
    Just two days ago, Lindsey came out (ha ha!) against birthright citizenship.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-birthright-citizenship
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. SPMoore8 says:
    @Svigor
    Haaretz:

    It's Time to Admit It. Israeli Policy Is What It Is: Apartheid

    What I’m about to write will not come easily for me.

    I used to be one of those people who took issue with the label of apartheid as applied to Israel. I was one of those people who could be counted on to argue that, while the country’s settlement and occupation policies were anti-democratic and brutal and slow-dose suicidal, the word apartheid did not apply.

    I’m not one of those people any more. Not after the last few weeks.

    Not after terrorists firebombed a West Bank Palestinian home, annihilating a family, murdering an 18-month-old boy and his father, burning his mother over 90 percent of her body – only to have Israel’s government rule the family ineligible for the financial support and compensation automatically granted Israeli victims of terrorism, settlers included.

    I can’t pretend anymore. Not after Israel’s Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, explicitly declaring stone-throwing to be terrorism, drove the passage of a bill holding stone-throwers liable to up to 20 years in prison.

    The law did not specify that it targeted only Palestinian stone-throwers. It didn’t have to.

    Just one week later, pro-settlement Jews hurled rocks, furniture, and bottles of urine at Israeli soldiers and police at a West Bank settlement, and in response, Benjamin Netanyahu immediately rewarded the Jewish stone-throwers with a pledge to build hundreds of new settlement homes.

    This is what has become of the rule of law. Two sets of books. One for Us, and one to throw at Them. Apartheid.
     

    An article by some Haaretz correspondent rending his garments over the policies of the Israeli government happens at least once a year. Then there’s a brief spark, and then it goes away. It’s been like this ever since 1967. But I think the guy’s right, and so was the late Tony Judt when he wrote his article for the NYRB 12 years ago. But nothing will ever change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Anonym says:
    @Svigor
    Haaretz:

    It's Time to Admit It. Israeli Policy Is What It Is: Apartheid

    What I’m about to write will not come easily for me.

    I used to be one of those people who took issue with the label of apartheid as applied to Israel. I was one of those people who could be counted on to argue that, while the country’s settlement and occupation policies were anti-democratic and brutal and slow-dose suicidal, the word apartheid did not apply.

    I’m not one of those people any more. Not after the last few weeks.

    Not after terrorists firebombed a West Bank Palestinian home, annihilating a family, murdering an 18-month-old boy and his father, burning his mother over 90 percent of her body – only to have Israel’s government rule the family ineligible for the financial support and compensation automatically granted Israeli victims of terrorism, settlers included.

    I can’t pretend anymore. Not after Israel’s Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, explicitly declaring stone-throwing to be terrorism, drove the passage of a bill holding stone-throwers liable to up to 20 years in prison.

    The law did not specify that it targeted only Palestinian stone-throwers. It didn’t have to.

    Just one week later, pro-settlement Jews hurled rocks, furniture, and bottles of urine at Israeli soldiers and police at a West Bank settlement, and in response, Benjamin Netanyahu immediately rewarded the Jewish stone-throwers with a pledge to build hundreds of new settlement homes.

    This is what has become of the rule of law. Two sets of books. One for Us, and one to throw at Them. Apartheid.
     

    They say it like it’s a bad thing…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Jefferson says:
    @Whiskey
    Steve, I think like a fish failing to see water, you're missing the most obvious point of the data. As a natural Alpha, its hard for you: women find more Alpha males as prospective husbands among conservatives.

    What makes women happy? A marriage and kids with an Alpha male. Alphas are in short supply. You won't find them among say, Matt Yglesias, Chris Matthews (as the tingle up his leg showed), or among the other, non-masculine, non-dominant, non-rockstar provider, non-arrogant, non-cocky, non-Alpha White male populations in Blue States. Outside of no-go Blue Collar White males who simply won't do for Middle and aspiring Upper Middle Class White women.

    On the other hand, a man owning his own trucking, window cleaning, landscaping, roofing, or other business bossing around and employing lots of other men, hiring, firing, well that's Alpha. He'll also likely be into amateur sports, rather than solitary non-Alpha stuff like rock climbing or "spinning classes" or "hot yoga."

    This just in: women HATE HATE HATE Beta Males. Not the least that it reminds most average women of their real life mate prospects. The statistical difference is likely just a function of more White Male Alphas in Red State or Red Areas for women to marry.

    Given that the GOP is filled with money-grubbing corruptocrats, just like the Democrats, and that the payoff for capturing the White House is HUUUUUGGGGEEEEE! (Donald Trump voice) because of all the cronies you can stick in and all the policies the President can unilaterally decide (like Affirmatively Destroying the Suburbs to make Urban Developers Rich or whatever he calls it), very definitively the GOP wants to capture the White House. Who wouldn't want to be Undersecretary of Defense and help decide which contractor gets the next goodie handout and be set for life therefore?

    They can't go against their donor class on immigration and such, but say getting 75% of the White vote would make them set for life, so they obviously have incentives. Its just that making White people married means that White women who make the choices must WANT TO GET MARRIED. And mostly they don't save to Alpha Males. Most White women are average. But have inflated egos, unrealistic expectations (due to Alpha Males slumming it with occasional liasons), and media driven particularly social media driven flattery often by Beta Male orbiters they openly despise. The hard message average women need to hear: that their choice is between cruel single motherhood and struggling, spinsterhood, or semi-happy with a Beta male they settle for, is not one any woman really wants to hear. "War on Women!"

    Hence the media worship and female obsession with various princesses, the real kind in the Royal family or the trash kind of the Kardashian Klan. The GOP very likely knows this. So they are content to be the Washington Generals.

    “This just in: women HATE HATE HATE Beta Males.”

    Women hate beta males who are broke. But most women have no problem dating/marrying a beta male who tons of money in the bank. An example of this is the beta male on steroids Jeb Bush who has a personal net worth of $2o million dollars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    the beta male on steroids Jeb Bush
     
    Steroids? More like soporifics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Mr. Anon says:
    @MKP
    Trump has doubtless said liberal, illogical, or downright stupid things before. But right now, he's standing up in front of a worldwide audience and saying "massive illegal immigration is wrong, and is harming Americans. We need to stop it, and to send illegal immigrants home."

    I dont think I can be blamed for getting excited about a legitimate contender saying this for literally the first time in my lifetime.

    Just my opinion, though. Everyone's got to figure out their own take.

    “I dont think I can be blamed for getting excited about a legitimate contender saying this for literally the first time in my lifetime.”

    The other thing that Trump has done, and it is unprecedented as far as I know, is to break with the collegial BS that the other guys in the race are the loyal opposition acting in good faith. Both in the debate, and in subsequent interviews, Trump has all but said that they are on the take – that they sell their influence for money. He said that Jeb Bush is “owned” by the people who donate money to him. That is a significant thing for a candidate from a major party to say about the other candidates.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. SPMoore8 says:
    @Lot
    Sanders up from 22 to 30% in latest poll, Trump still has a commanding lead, Bush falls to #4, Walker to #6, Rubio to #9. Rubio is down to 4 points after peaking at 13/first place in April.

    While Sanders might not have the best record, his record is better than about 80% of his fellow democrats on immigration issues (and better than 90% of non-southern democrats), and he showed some balls in the Ezra Klein interview.

    If HRC had been asked the same question, rather than give an intellectual defense of the idea of national borders like Sanders did, she would have ducked the question with mealy BS about how immigration enriches America.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/08/14/fox-news-poll-sanders-gains-on-clinton/

    The Onion “went there” with Trump’s immigration plan, and worked in a reference to golf at the same time:

    This week, Donald Trump unveiled his plan for addressing immigration as president, a series of core principles that specify his heretofore generalized statements about America’s relationship with immigrants. Here are the items detailed in Trump’s outline:

    Construction of world-class border wall featuring hundreds of miles of sand traps and water hazards
    Improved visa application will require immigrants to declare if they are rapist thugs
    Creates robust Border Beauties division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    Concierge and personal valet service across border for Mexicans with net worth of over $5 million
    Clause allowing Trump to deport any current American citizens he deems pathetic and classless as well
    U.S. citizenship application process to require recommendation letters from current notable U.S. citizens
    Establishes long-term, forward-looking plan to find new nationality to scapegoat for America’s problems by 2035
    Admission that U.S. economy will suffer quite a bit

    http://www.theonion.com/graphic/details-donald-trumps-immigration-plan-51112

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Brutusale says:
    @Wilkey
    I once read a column by some famous left-wing pundit bragging that left-wing states like Massachusetts have lower divorce rates than a lot of conservative states. Turned out that left-wing states have lower divorce rates mostly because so many people who live in them never get married at all.

    And the lesbian couple who were the plaintiffs in the case that brought gay marriage to the People’s Commonwealth, Mrs. and Mrs. Goodridge, had a marriage pledge of eternal bonds that lasted all of 2 years.

    Lesbian bed death didn’t even get a chance!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. dcite says:
    @Muse
    Finding a mate and having children is a test of fitness. Not having completed that task by a certain point in life indicates that there might be problems with the individual. People with more problems are more unhappy. It is axiomatic if they are not crazy.

    Where have you been the last 60 years? Bad breeders and bad maters are what most of our problems are about. They are as ubiquitous as the trash I see everywhere on the metro in the last 15 years since the area became heavily hispanic (that’s the only answer–the area has always had a lot of blacks and the metro looked ok for a long time.)
    “Finding a mate” is as easy as pinning a tail on a donkey for those of the right age. “Having children” (i.e. conceiving) is biologically effortless for most people of the right age. Neither is any test of fitness. Traditionally in European/American society, 90% of all people did it, and it was a test of, if anything, willingness to conform to society, to care what people thought of you, and to raise another generation. You didn’t get a metaphorical medal for doing what came naturally, but did get tacit approval for getting married before the naturalness commenced.
    In Asian and African societies, such participation was 100%. Options in such activities, especially for females, was a trait that distinguished European, Christian culture, and caused us to evolve and develop in ways other peoples never imagined. One might kiss the ground as soon as one’s date drops one off, because one is glad to be by oneself again. Politics are the last thing I would think of in relation to that. Some people are happy single. But it should not be the default for society.

    Finding a mate (for how long?) and having children (only takes a few seconds really) is not a test of “fitness.” Maintaining a working relationship with a mate over a long period of time, and taking full responsibility for children for many years, is a test of fitness. Now that deserves a metaphorical medal. And many Democrats, Repubicans, and Independents should get one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @WhatEvvs
    There is a tiny grain of truth in this mostly BS term.

    The thing is no one is electable until they get elected. Then allofasudden it's different. So who gets to decide? In the unlikely event that Sanders gets elected, suddenly you'd see how electable he was. (For the record and for the nth time, I think that the Dems will draft Biden/Warren, in desperation -- because Hillary is unacceptable [grin] and Bernie will fade.)

    Anyway according to this silly standard, I think Trump is more "electable" than Bernie.

    If you didn't know it was Trump, you would say here that he has a fine Scottish politician's face:

    http://hirportal.sikerado.hu/images/kep/201508/donaldtrump_fiatalon.jpg

    (His mother was Scottish.)

    I saw Trump on the street once. He's a big guy who radiates alpha energy.

    I saw Trump on the street once.

    I once saw former NYC mayor John Lindsay coming out of the Waldorf Astoria. I was across the street and couldn’t resist rudely shouting “The Tower of Jelly!” That was the nickname radio host Bob Grant gave him for his spinelessness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. HA says:
    @quoted at CH
    I wonder if the other co-author, Wolfinger, is the son of a Berkeley Pol. Sci. Prof of the 1970's, Ray Wolfinger. He famously said, "politics is the art of who hates who."

    “I wonder if the other co-author, Wolfinger, is the son of a Berkeley Pol. Sci. Prof of the 1970′s, Ray Wolfinger.”

    Apparently he was. Good catch.

    http://www.nicholaswolfinger.com/uncategorized/obituary-for-my-father-the-political-scientist-ray-wolfinger/

    I suppose if one does not have ideological purity to lean on, a little nepotism is a good fallback.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Anonymous
    could it be that Republicans, unlike most Democrats, are more socially conservative and traditional which might cause them to remain in unhappy marriages ? I also suspect many folks tend to fudge the truth about their private lives, especially when it comes to marriage.

    could it be that Republicans, unlike most Democrats, are more socially conservative and traditional which might cause them to remain in unhappy marriages?

    Fred, you’re no doubt correct here. Indeed Democrats are more likely to divorce. But your point doesn’t diminish the significance, rather it makes it stronger. Because these happiness numbers are for the *married*–i.e. the still married.

    In other words, Republicans are happier even though a certain number are no doubt in your shouldda-been-divorced-unhappy-marriages.

    Republicans are more likely to be married, less likely to divorce. I.e. a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats are in marriages. In other words more of the marital “fringes”–people who might not have been married if they were Democrats (living together, broken up already, gotten abortion instead of marrying) and people who would have been divorced if they were Democrats–are in this Republican sample. And yet the sample is still happier than the Democrat sample.

    You can toss around a bunch of possible causal factors:
    — religiosity
    — race
    — class
    — traditionalism
    — masculinity and femininity (less feminism)
    — IQ
    — conscientiousness
    and i’d argue probably a key factor
    — loyalty

    But bottom line here even after controlling for race and religiosity Republicans still have somewhat happier marriages, even though more of their cohort is married, and fewer of their marriages are scratched by divorce.

    Some set of traits that leads to Republican voting also leads happier marriages. Maybe simply not being a utopian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "and i’d argue probably a key factor
    — loyalty"

    Loyalty is an interesting and important trait. Has anybody studied it scientifically?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @ChrisZ
    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about "electability" being a fabricated term. It's 100% content-free.

    My guess is that it was coined by the political class, probably by consultants, as a way to (a) divert big donations toward a small coterie of client pols, (b) protect incumbents, and (c) exclude attractive insurgent candidates. True to form, the media would have picked up on the term because it seemed like "insider" jargon, and aping it made them feel smart and worldly-wise.

    I agree, too, about Clinton being a scoundrel. It's obvious, I know; but nothing illustrates that description better than the fact that we're still stuck with him, jockeying for attention and notoriety 15 years after he left office. An ex-president of any gravity would have faded away into contemplative retirement; one with even a shred of decency would have slunk away into obscure hedonism, in penance for his malign cultural effect on the society.

    Instead, we have the grotesque spectacle of the celebrity ex-president--with another one surely on deck (assuming he deigns to leave office).

    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about “electability” being a fabricated term. It’s 100% content-free.

    I don’t know about 100%. It seemed to have plenty of content when Ron Reagan applied it to himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WhatEvvs
    90% content free.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Jefferson
    "This just in: women HATE HATE HATE Beta Males."

    Women hate beta males who are broke. But most women have no problem dating/marrying a beta male who tons of money in the bank. An example of this is the beta male on steroids Jeb Bush who has a personal net worth of $2o million dollars.

    the beta male on steroids Jeb Bush

    Steroids? More like soporifics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @GW
    Yeah pretty weak. Obviously the Obama administration gets some of the blame for why mass deportations aren't occurring. What's next, is Krikorian going to point out that obese people bear no responsibility for their fatness because if they could lose the weight they'd have done so already?

    Now obviously it is logistically impossible to get all 12 (20-30?) million to leave, but if Trump got even half of them to leave that'd be light years ahead of our current de facto amnesty policy. Half the anchor babies, half the ESL classes, half the medical costs for emergency room visits for insurance-less illegals, half the drunk driving arrests, half the rapes, etc. I'm guessing a committed president could get somewhere around 80-90% deportation rate, particularly if he was willing to ignore any appeals court issues that will inevitably come up.

    Now obviously it is logistically impossible to get all 12 (20-30?) million to leave

    All we have to do is make it hard for them to get work (by fining their employers) and they’ll self-deport. As Arizona was well on its way to proving…

    http://newamericamedia.org/2010/07/long-before-sb-1070-arizona-put-squeeze-on-immigrants.php

    …when Obama smacked it down.

    There’ll be no need to round anyone up, no need even for a wall.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @AnotherDad

    could it be that Republicans, unlike most Democrats, are more socially conservative and traditional which might cause them to remain in unhappy marriages?
     
    Fred, you're no doubt correct here. Indeed Democrats are more likely to divorce. But your point doesn't diminish the significance, rather it makes it stronger. Because these happiness numbers are for the *married*--i.e. the still married.

    In other words, Republicans are happier even though a certain number are no doubt in your shouldda-been-divorced-unhappy-marriages.

    Republicans are more likely to be married, less likely to divorce. I.e. a larger percentage of Republicans than Democrats are in marriages. In other words more of the marital "fringes"--people who might not have been married if they were Democrats (living together, broken up already, gotten abortion instead of marrying) and people who would have been divorced if they were Democrats--are in this Republican sample. And yet the sample is still happier than the Democrat sample.

    You can toss around a bunch of possible causal factors:
    -- religiosity
    -- race
    -- class
    -- traditionalism
    -- masculinity and femininity (less feminism)
    -- IQ
    -- conscientiousness
    and i'd argue probably a key factor
    -- loyalty

    But bottom line here even after controlling for race and religiosity Republicans still have somewhat happier marriages, even though more of their cohort is married, and fewer of their marriages are scratched by divorce.

    Some set of traits that leads to Republican voting also leads happier marriages. Maybe simply not being a utopian.

    “and i’d argue probably a key factor
    — loyalty”

    Loyalty is an interesting and important trait. Has anybody studied it scientifically?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Loyalty is an interesting and important trait.

     

    Gratitude is another one. It's pretty easy to link feeling grateful to tending toward conservatism, and being grateful seems also to make one more likely to stick with, and perhaps be more happy with, a spouse.

    I think it can be argued that there's a pretty fundamental split between progressive/conservative worldviews that begins with a visceral reaction at 3:00 in the morning, when you can't fall asleep, and you can't get the circumstances of your life out of your head: do you feel essentially grateful for what you've got, or are you consumed by the unfairness of it all (especially in comparison to others).

    Sounds simplistic, I know, but this basic parting in the path of life potentially explains long subsequent strings of beliefs and actions . . . .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Svigor
    Hillary Clinton is Rooting for Jeb Bush

    There is an obvious subtext to the panicked effort to purge the GOP of Donald Trump: to allow the party’s true hero to emerge to vanquish Hillary Clinton and restore peace and justice throughout the land. To most GOP elites, of course, the savior is Jeb Bush, complete with the Clark Kent glasses and aw-shucks good guy demeanor. The Chamber of Commerce crowd is so convinced that Jeb is the man that it (so far) has placed a bet of more than $100 million on that proposition.

    There’s just one problem—the Clintons want Jeb Bush to be the GOP nominee, too.
     

    Even if Hillary were to win a Trump / Clinton match up, she would be so bruised and diminished that she would never recover. She should step aside and groom Chelsea for an eventual run against George P.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Steve Sailer
    "and i’d argue probably a key factor
    — loyalty"

    Loyalty is an interesting and important trait. Has anybody studied it scientifically?

    Loyalty is an interesting and important trait.

    Gratitude is another one. It’s pretty easy to link feeling grateful to tending toward conservatism, and being grateful seems also to make one more likely to stick with, and perhaps be more happy with, a spouse.

    I think it can be argued that there’s a pretty fundamental split between progressive/conservative worldviews that begins with a visceral reaction at 3:00 in the morning, when you can’t fall asleep, and you can’t get the circumstances of your life out of your head: do you feel essentially grateful for what you’ve got, or are you consumed by the unfairness of it all (especially in comparison to others).

    Sounds simplistic, I know, but this basic parting in the path of life potentially explains long subsequent strings of beliefs and actions . . . .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. WhatEvvs [AKA "AamirKhanFan"] says:
    @Reg Cæsar


    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about “electability” being a fabricated term. It’s 100% content-free.

     

    I don't know about 100%. It seemed to have plenty of content when Ron Reagan applied it to himself.

    90% content free.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @ChrisZ
    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about "electability" being a fabricated term. It's 100% content-free.

    My guess is that it was coined by the political class, probably by consultants, as a way to (a) divert big donations toward a small coterie of client pols, (b) protect incumbents, and (c) exclude attractive insurgent candidates. True to form, the media would have picked up on the term because it seemed like "insider" jargon, and aping it made them feel smart and worldly-wise.

    I agree, too, about Clinton being a scoundrel. It's obvious, I know; but nothing illustrates that description better than the fact that we're still stuck with him, jockeying for attention and notoriety 15 years after he left office. An ex-president of any gravity would have faded away into contemplative retirement; one with even a shred of decency would have slunk away into obscure hedonism, in penance for his malign cultural effect on the society.

    Instead, we have the grotesque spectacle of the celebrity ex-president--with another one surely on deck (assuming he deigns to leave office).

    Great point, Aamirkhanfan, about “electability” being a fabricated term. It’s 100% content-free.

    It seems to mean that the mass media will not attempt to destroy the candidate to prevent his election, which would mean that the mass media are in the best position to judge who is and isn’t electable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Lugash
    Yeah, Boehner, Graham and McCain are each going to grow a pair and finally start looking out for white men and enforcing immigration laws. Right. Sure.

    Yeah, Boehner, Graham and McCain are each going to grow a pair and finally start looking out for white men and enforcing immigration laws. Right. Sure.

    Just two days ago, Lindsey came out (ha ha!) against birthright citizenship.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-birthright-citizenship

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. […] fertility? One way to tease this out is something that Steve Sailer did after the 2012 election. He looked at how white women voted, relative to their marriage habits. In places where white women can and do marry, stay married and […]

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?