The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Romney Voters Smarter Than Obama Voters
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Albeit modestly so.

The 2014 GSS data are out. Converting wordsum results to IQ scores with an average wordsum of 6.11 and a standard deviation of 1.83 wordsum points, the mean IQ of 2012 presidential election voters by who they voted for (n = 988):

Voted for IQ
Obama 99.0
Romney 100.8
3rd party 105.3

SWPLs can take some pride in how things look if only white voters are considered:

Voted for IQ
Obama 103.6
Romney 101.2
3rd party 106.0

Implicit pride, of course. Pointing out that NAMs depress the average IQ scores of Democrats is only something the wrong kind of white people would ever do. SWPLs are too intelligent to do anything as crass and uncouth as that!

GSS variables used: RACECEN1(1), PRES12(1-3), WORDSUM, BORN(1)

(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: GSS, IQ, Presidential Race '12 
Hide 11 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    I went third party (Virgil Goode) because I can't stand the Democrats and I can't stand most members of the Republican party. I do identify as a SWPL though. Of my friends (all SWPLs), one went for Obama, one went for Romney, one went for Jill Stein, and one went for Gary Johnson. That's a 60% third party voting rate if you count me.

  2. Third party voters skew pretty heavily intelligent, white, and male.

  3. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    @Audacious Epigone

    If you are responding to my comment, yes, we are all heavily intelligent (We all met at a private school for intellectually gifted children where everybody got their IQ tested; none of us scored below 115). Almost all of my friends are White (one is Jewish). Half of my friend group is male and half is female.

  4. That damn high-low coalition. Is that common internationally?

    Communism is sort of a high-low coalition.

    The UK doesn't strike me as having the same high-low coalition if you consider that (in my understanding) upper classes tend to be Tory. On the other hand, if you take Tory and Labor together against UKIP then there sure is a high-low coalition.

  5. Seems moronic. If white traditional males asserted their interests rather than make a philosophical dissent in voting a third party, then this country likely would not have attained third-world status so quickly. But like white people are so well known for, taking for granted the (non-existent) morality of non-Europeans.

  6. On sciencedirect there was an Oxford study called Cognitve Ability and Party Identification in the United States (or very simarly titles).
    Stated that republicans are smarter than democrats, Spawktalk found that the same held true for white republicans but it was very slight.

  7. "John said…
    Seems moronic. If white traditional males asserted their interests rather than make a philosophical dissent in voting a third party, then this country likely would not have attained third-world status so quickly. But like white people are so well known for, taking for granted the (non-existent) morality of non-Europeans."

    Please explain how voting for the GOP, a party that strongly supports de-facto open borders for third-worlders, pointless wars overseas, and tax cuts for billionaires is in the "interests of traditional males."

  8. Bob Arctor – easy. I don't like Republicans lying down on immigration issues, but it's not "open borders," not anywhere close. One might easily believe that recent wars have been a net loss, but "pointless" is a rhetorical excess that is similarly ridiculous. "Tax cuts for billionaires" is they same thing. They pay lots of taxes, more than the rest of us, both proportionally and objectively.

    You clearly think you're smarter than the rest of us poor fools.

    I'm hoping you don't actually believe the crap you wrote and are just having a grouchy day.

  9. Kang & Kodos: 'GO AHEAD, THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY MUAHAHAHAHAHA"

    Meanwhile. Obama is a disappointment like most presidents, but Republicans have only themselves to blame by nominating nightmarish & disastrous alternatives. They may do it yet again next year, and then we'll have Hillary who is even more of a Horror Show.

  10. John says: • Website

    Bob Arctor- I'm not convinced that that's a settled issue among Republicans. A Republican like Ron Paul or Greg Abbott, Texas Republicans do not represent that wing. I think the problem is the National Republican party is a corporate entity that represents the interests of corporations and retirees who want to bankrupt the country with their own pensions, but also want to engage in class warfare against he have-nots. I wouldn't want a person voting Republican indiscriminately. i.e. John Boehner does not represent middle class white Americans interests, whereas Ron Paul does (did).

  11. John says: • Website

    Assistant Village Idiot – Of course billionaires do not pay their fair share. But you can't write a law for it. Billionaires have an ease in working around laws and you can't just raise their taxes. Their money is off shore. They'll pay capital gains 15% and that's it, and their secretaries will pay 35%. That's not going to change.

    The laws have to be written with a different purpose to affect a different result that makes it desireable for a billionaire to change his practice. Seems to me billionaires love high taxes, because it whittles down people that can make it into the billionaires club and it advantages their companies.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS