Posted on 11/26/2004 12:51:08 PM PST by Utmost Certainty
Found this pretty interesting, thought I'd share. Comment away.
ping
Bush voters got balls?
Good article.
"...highly unionized Michigan being the one blue exception to the rule..."
Could it be: "it is not in my job description?"
Share what?
Steve Sailer: Total White Fertility Best Predictor Of Bush Vote
White total fertility correlates at an incredibly strong 0.86 with Bush's share of the vote in each state.
States, however, differ significantly in white fertility. The most fecund whites are in heavily Mormon Utah, which, not coincidentally, was the only state where Bush received over 70 percent. White women average 2.45 babies in Utah compared to merely 1.11 babies in Washington D.C., where Bush earned but 9 percent. The three New England states where Bush won less than 40 percent -- Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island -- comprise three of the four states with the lowest white birth rates, with little Rhode Island dipping below 1.5 babies per woman.
Bush carried the 19 states with the highest white fertility (just as he did in 2000), and 25 out of the top 26, with highly unionized Michigan being the one blue exception to the rule...
In sharp contrast, Kerry won the 16 states at the bottom of the list, with the Democrats' anchor states of California (1.65) and New York (1.72) having quite infertile whites.
Among the fifty states plus Washington D.C., white total fertility correlates at a remarkably strong 0.86 level with Bush's percentage of the 2004 vote. (In 2000, the correlation was 0.85). In the social sciences, a correlation of 0.2 is considered "low," 0.4 "medium," and 0.6 "high."
You could predict 74% of the variation in Bush's shares just from knowing each state's white fertility rate. When the average fertility goes up by a tenth of a child, Bush's share normally goes up by 4.5 points.
This result can not be explained away by the effects of lower IQ people having more children than higher IQ people (even though that is really happening). In spite of left-liberal imaginings to the contrary Bush did well in many states that have higher average IQs.
The Democrats do well in less egalitarian states where the middle class is smaller and both the lower and upper classes are larger.
Democrats, however, tend to be more inegalitarian, with higher highs and lower lows than the more middling Republicans.
This is clearly visible in the biggest blue state of them all, California.
Census Bureau figures show that California, traditionally America's trendsetter, is pioneering a new kind of class structure—ominously like that of highly unequal Latin American countries like Brazil or Mexico.
...
The Golden State is now one of only three states with above average percentages both of people who never got past elementary school and of holders of graduate degrees. (The other two are New Mexico and Rhode Island). In California, 10.7 percent of grownups have no more than elementary schooling, compared to only 6.4 percent in the other 49 states.
Of all the states in the Union, California now has the lowest percentage of its population with a midlevel education consisting of at least a high school diploma or some college, but not a bachelor's degree from a four-year college.
California's educational inequality is driven by both foreign immigration and domestic migration. The state has attracted the top and the bottom of the schooling pyramid, while repelling the middle.
These upper-middle-class newcomers tend to be liberal, especially on cultural issues.
In contrast, Mexican immigrants supply much of California's huge number of less-educated people. According to a 2000 Census Bureau survey, 65 percent of America's Mexican immigrants never finished high school versus only 9.6 percent of natives.
Highly egalitarian yet highly Republican Utah is closer to the egalitarian ideals that the Democratic Party quite falsely claims to champion. But unegalitarian California represents the future for America as a whole. The flood of Hispanic lower class immigrants will increase the size of the lower classes and the resulting greater inequality bodes well for the Democratic Party in the voting booth.
Utah, the destination of so many disgruntled ex-Californians, is emerging as the anti-California. It leads the country with only 2.4 percent of its residents never having attended high school.
Paradoxically, this staunchly Republican state, where Bush won 71 percent in 2004, exemplifies some of the supposed egalitarian ideals of the Democratic Party. A 2000 study by the Economic Policy Institute found Utah to have the most equal income distribution of any state.
Still, Utah is more likely to be the anomaly and California the harbinger of the United States' future.
The Republicans are committing political suicide by trying to curry favor with Hispanics by offering amnesty programs, worker permit programs, and lax immigration law enforcement. The United States of America is going to become like Latin America.
Before Steve posted his explanation of total white fertility as an incredibly strong correlation with Bush's vote A gnxp.com post started an interesting list of speculations on what might yield such a strong correlation with a pro-Bush vote. Check it out.
My own thoughts: Is the fertility rate a proxy for something else? For instance, my guess is that white women who have more children tend to be married longer than white women who have fewer children. At the same time, there is a huge gap (which I'm in too much of a rush to find a link for) between voting patterns of single and married women. Married women vote Republican in much larger numbers (I think the difference is about 20% to 30% - a big swing) than do single women. I would be very curious to know what the correlation is between ratio of white men to white women voting for Republicans versus total Republican vote in each state. Did the Red states swing more Republican because the male-female pro-Republican voting gap is narrower in Blue states than in Red states?
Of course, the kinds of women who have more children have different values on average from women who do not have as many children. For instance, they assign a higher relative value to having children. Either that or they find it easier to find men who they think make suitable partners.
In a related vein divorce rates are an imperfect measure of family values. One reason for this is that marriage rates are higher in Red states. So the Red states have more marriages to be at risk of breaking up in the first place.
Then there is the evolutionary biological angle to the differences in fertility rates of white women in different states: Will white fertility rates eventually start rising as the women who have the strongest genetically-caused instinct to reproduce have more children than women who have weaker instincts to reproduce? A few months ago I was watching a C-Span broadcast from a Washington DC demographics thinktank (and if anyone can find this report I'm about to describe please tell me - dummy me I forgot to write down the thinktank name and I can't find this report after many hours searching). The thinktank had just released a new study where they reported that in some African countries the fertility rate has stopped dropping and has even increased in some cases. My interpretation is that natural selection is selecting for women who will have more children in spite of the influences of modernity. This does not bode well for the optimistic view that problems will come from human population growth will eventually be solved by massive numbers of voluntary individual decisions to have progressively fewer children.
By Randall Parker at 2004 November 26 03:18 AM
Yeah, sorry about that. In my excited anticipation of making a post to FR, I forgot to excerpt the article lol.
interesting.
bookmarking.
thanks for the full transcript.
bump to save for future liberal weaponry
America's obsession with inane racial bean-counting, of which this article is yet another example, is really starting to annoy me. Racists both on the political left and right are positively neurotic about each and every obscure detail related to racial statistics they can come up with.
My observation on post election demographics is that the majority of Bush voters seem to be in the demographic (late 30's to mid 50's) that are about to send a new wave of voters into the voting booth.
Most conservatives I know have pretty large families (ourselves being the exclusion...we had an only). But the staunchly conservative families I know have at least 3 children and sometimes many more.
In terms of voting blocs, at least for the next generation, conservatives will "outgrow" liberals in terms of offspring.
For example, my sister has 5 children, in this election 3 of those children voted for Bush, plus their spouses, and by the next election, the last 2 of her kids will be of voting age.
So she and her husband will have multiplied their 2 conservative votes into 7 conservative votes (if you don't count the children's spouses) by the next election. That's a pretty good return in terms of percentages, LOL!
Another thought regarding IQs and their relation to heredity. Why does the white population of Utah have a median IQ 17 points higher than that of West Virginia? The white population of both states is dominated by persons of British descent, although Utah's Mormon majority has a strong English component, due to the Yankee roots of the LDS church and the fact that early missionaries heavily evangelized England. West Virginia, OTOH, is dominated by the Scots-Irish. I don't imagine there is much genetic difference between the two groups.
RATS, Libs and Leftists are fighting against a ghost. They don't realize they are causing their own numerical Achilles Heel.
By aborting future Libs and engaging in sexual practices that nullify future voters, they are essentially shoveling themselves into the ash heap of history.
This seems to be another way of saying that those who are pro-Life tend to have more children and vote for Bush.
it may be because of the higher than average emphasis on education in Utah -
Lot of fancy word-work here that could be written in one sentence: those that practice abortion as their absolute right - have fewer children, which has nothing to do with "fertility rate."
Lot of fancy word-work here that could be written in one sentence: those that practice abortion as their absolute right - have fewer chilren, which has nothing to do with "fertility rate."
A Republican future looms.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.