Tuesday, August 08, 2017

High school hypothetical electoral maps, 2016

Last November lots of people in my social media network were consoling themselves with an electoral map showing how badly Trump would've been smashed by Clinton if the election had been restricted to millennial voters. Even if the present is out of reach, the future is theirs!

2016 presidential election results (millennials only)

The rather tepid response to those unwelcoming of such a future ran along the lines of people tending to move to the right as they age. 

If the huge Hispanic Heritage Foundation poll of high school students across the country in the Fall of 2016 is any indication, generation Z may offer a far more devastating rejoinder to the SJW-dreams of neotenous, basement-dwelling emo-llennials. With the latter we may have reached Peak Madness.

In the spirit of the hypothetical electoral map presented above, here are three from the Gen Z poll. First, results among students of all races, nearly half of whom are non-white:


No data was collected in Alaska, Hawaii, or New Hampshire.

In Vermont, "a write-in candidate"--presumably Bernie Sanders, though it's not specified--beat both Trump and Clinton. In Utah, "a write-in candidate"--presumably McMuffin--tied with Clinton in the top spot, so mentally turn that state gold like Vermont if you'd like. I'll cut those Utahan kids a little slack--there's something laudable about being proud of someone with whom you share an identity, and McMuffin offered many of these striplings a chance to express some Mormon pride.

How do we end up with an electoral victory for Trump more decisive than the one that actually occurred? By way of whites voting even more strongly for Trump (78%-22% in a two-way race) than non-whites voted for Clinton (69%-31% in a two-way race), that's how. If adolescent whites grow up voting like white adults in Texas or Alabama do today, the non-white vote in national elections will be irrelevant for decades to come.

The results, this time restricted only to whites:


Delaware split evenly among whites and Vermont again went with a write-in. Clinton wins outright in Utah because girls primarily broke between her and McMuffin, while boys did so between Trump and the cuck.

Most encouragingly for those of us on the Alt Right, the results for white male high school students:


A massacre. Even California joins in. Only the Cloud Children of the Imperial Capital throw in with the wicked empress.

As Richard Spencer is fond of saying, we live in interesting times.

30 comments:

krustyk91 said...

I'm skeptical. If I remember right in 2008 McCain won the under 30 vote in Georgia with 52% while in 2016 Clinton won the under 30 vote in Georgia with 63%. It's harder to corroborate voting by age than it is by race.

szopen said...

In Poland since times immemorial there is one ultra controversial candidate ("wokest eu deputy", korwin-mikke.) In polls he gots up to 1/5 of the youngest. However his support in real election topped at 5%

chris said...

It seems like the younger generation is adapting to the new culture/environment and developing a resistance to the maladaptive progressive ideology.

This bodes well for whites in America. Even if the white population drops to 50%. That 50% will have the will the increase it back to what it was.

The fat is boiling off from the white race with each generation. TFR's for the win.

The Z Blog said...

Millennials came of age in the Clinton years. As an X'er, I was always put off my the frivolousness of the 90's generation, but I understood it. If you were born in 1980, you hit adulthood never having known tough times. From 1982 to 2000 was a pretty sweet run in many respects.

I always assumed that reality would beat some sense into the Millennials, but that has not happened, at least not yet. That person born in 1980 still feels like the system works for xim so it makes sense to cling to the old order, I guess. If that reality changes, then we will see the Millennials turn on the system with a vengeance.

Anonymous said...

Hello. Could you tell us the source for the top map (the blue map)? Thank you.

Feryl said...

". From 1982 to 2000 was a pretty sweet run in many respects."

Da fuq? The crack wars? The destruction of the middle class/FIRE taking over? Clinton, Janet Reno, and the FBI/ATF incinerating and shooting peaceful Americans in Waco and Ruby Ridge? America incarcerating almost as many people as China? Immigration soaring?

Those who entered the workforce after 1990 have done far worse than earlier generations.

Silents and Boomers were the primary beneficiaries of the 1990's mirage economy, shamelessly built on a rotten foundation built to last less than a decade.

Only in hindsight do the 90's look more attractive, given how that period's mistakes were never corrected and were if anything intensified under Bush and Obama (with the added fiasco of worse foreign policy)

This discussion about being spoiled really should start and end with Silents, who largely were spared from WW2, entered the workforce in the 40's and 50's when there was little domestic or foreign labor to compete with, were given tremendous entry level wages and pensions, were too old to be hit hard by the hedonistic excesses of the 70's, and are likely going to be the longest lived Western generation (adjusted for racial demographics and the archaic medicine/technology of the past).

Feryl said...

"I'm skeptical. If I remember right in 2008 McCain won the under 30 vote in Georgia with 52% while in 2016 Clinton won the under 30 vote in Georgia with 63%. It's harder to corroborate voting by age than it is by race."

Hopefully the next GSS helps out here, though we have to go by region rather than state. And I've never cared for how they organize the Northeastern and Southern states.

As I recall, white Millennials in the Upper Midwest were much more amenable to the GOP in 2016 than they were in the 2000-2012 elections. Also, we ought to understand that to Millennials, the GOP was defined by Bush in the 2000's. Bush was (and still is) hated by a lot of people, and he inflicted tons of damage on the brand. 80's Reagan defines the GOP to Gen X-ers, and if Trump wins another term we'd expect 2010's Trump to define the GOP to Gen Z. (while SJW paladins represent the Dems to Gen Z)

Boomers grew up with horrible presidents representing both parties (LBJ, Nixon, Carter), while JFK, MLK, and RFK got snuffed out before their time. Boomers are sometimes lumped in with Silents as the politically active 60's generation, but the reality is that only applies to any extent with the earliest Boomers. Later born Boomers at a young age and even in older age have been pretty detached from politics and civics, in comparison to G.I.s and Silents. Strauss and Howe said that for all the protests and campus furor of the late 60's, most Boomers were too hedonistic and narcissistic to get too involved in activism (esp. when protest culture wound down by 1974, though even in the classic 60's period Boomers were as likely to be debating their favorite rock groups as they were politics.

Audacious Epigone said...

Krusty,

Being skeptical is fine, encouraged actually since this is a single data source and the methodology is murky. The samples are huge, though--far, far larger than comparable age ranges from any of the official exit polls.

Szopen,

Because people don't actually vote for him, or because his support comes mostly from the young?

Chris,

For over a decade I've felt like this *should* happen but the evidence for it has been scant. I became cautiously optimistic during Trump's campaign and the explosion in interest in the Alt Right. I no longer think it implausible.

Z/Feryl,

I think what Z's saying is that millennials grew up in affluence, and many of them are still living in that affluence. It's just not affluence they've earned, it's the affluence of their parents.

There are people in my high school and college circles who are currently living with their parents--most moved out and then moved back in, though some like a cousin never moved out at all--and while they don't own anything (and don't have any bills beyond phone and car) they live pretty well, traveling regularly, buying new crap, etc. It's not that they make a lot of money, it's that virtually all the money they make is discretionary income because of their parents foot all the cost-of-living bills for them, often including food. The parents of Zers aren't as loaded as a lot of the parents of millennials are.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

From here.

Anonymous said...

has anyone else noticed that the progressives have always touted the youth vote .... genX the millenials .... blah blah blah ...... genZ on the other hand the progressives are NOT touting ... it's like they have been about the youth vote in every election I can remember the progressives always tout the youth vote BUT ...... NOT so much with these kids in genZ

I found this blog on welcomebackamerica.wordpress.com which is a branch of heartiste.wordpress.com I try to post under traitorsfirst when I can get through the mod

PA said...

I'll defer to Szopen on Poland's politics but one reason for Korwin-Mikke's limited success might be his eccentric persona.

As to the last map... such a generation will not likely put up with sharing a “democracy” with a gibsmedat electorate that outnumbers them at the ballot box.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Right. They're still touting millennials. Some of the PewDiePie generation is voting and a lot more will be doing so soon. How long before they're talking about the ignorance and immaturity of youth?

When we're finished turning this thing around there will be statues of Heartiste built in town squares.

PA,

Interesting times are coming, indeed. Things can't continue on the current trajectory. Something is going to give.

Anonymous said...

Audacious Epigone,

Actually I think they're going to try to just ignore genZ at first because they most definitely do not follow the narrative. Then they may come around to the ignorance of youth which is going to be just as big of a mistake as trying to censor social media. We're the party of freedom, do anything you want, say anything you want, but don't dare use social media if you aren't following the narrative and most definitely don't use hate speech (which is speech we don't like at this particular point in time which is constantly changing). This will be followed with amazement when they lose the youth vote, astonished that after years of telling people do anything you want, say anything you want that those same people will not like being told what to think say or do.

szopen said...

Audacious Epigone, PA (on Korwin-Mikke)

I was ardent JKM supporter in one point of my life. I tend to say, that if not JKM, I would turn to be socialist. However, if not JKM, I would still be far more right-wing that I am now. He IS crazily eccentric, loving to argue for the most absurd positions just for the sake of argument. I'd say youth are fascinated by his views and the rhetorics (I was, for sure!) but then turn to be less radical when they age. In the last poll, his newest incarnation ("The Freedom" party) has support from 8% to 19% amongst youngest (depending on who carried the poll and how the "youngest" were defined: 18 to 24, or 15 to 24), while his support hovers currently around 4% in all age groups. With the young males 15 to 24, an astonishing 25% would vote for JKM. In context of US politics, it's as if VoxDay would decide to establish his party and he would get 1/4 of the youngest votersl because JKM is radical even by our standards (and remember our standards are far, far more to the right than in US or western Europe).

The optimistic thing: 2/3 of young Poles defines themselves as "right-wing" or "right-centre", and support for UE goes down with the youngsters.

Anyway, the thing is that the declared support amongst the youngest may not translate into the real support when they will start to vote; unfortunately.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> Actually I think they're going to try to just ignore genZ at first because they most definitely do not follow the narrative.

They do something similar to Generation X. It's as if that generation no longer exists.

As a millennial, it's unfortunate that many of us are still unable to shake off the Boomer-Marxist indoctrination, even though the failures of the mentalities of both are obvious. I don't see some great HTFU moment happening either. We're going to be the new boomers: a group of people that can't stop patting ourselves on the back even though we're actively destroying society.

Feryl said...

RDU:

There's a wave of detached/cynical people, born from the mid-late 50's thru early-mid 80's, who never "got involved" that much in politics/civics compared to those born earlier and later. Going to college in the LBJ/Nixon era, and going to college in the 2010's, creates a sense of urgency about politics. In the 60's, Silents and some liberal G.I.s used post-WW2 prosperity to do a lot of tinkering, and quite a few early Boomers soaked up the changing values and have never been shy about boasting how "they" changed society (even though such changes would not have happened without the previous two generations getting the ball rolling).

Millennial born around 1987 and later went to college during peak cultural Marxism, which happened during the last 3/4 of Obama's reign and will probably take a few more years to get out of our system. I just read an election voter study which said that over 50% of the electorate was very socially conservative; Sander's soak the rich ideas were not as offensive as Hillary's BLM/tranny bathroom/kill Christian bakers platform.

Esp. if we can turn off immigration and black birth rates remain low, as time goes by the Dems will probably lessen the cultural communism if they want to survive electorally. BTW, many blacks were born in the late 80's and early 90's. White birth rates were much higher in the late 80's and 90's than they were in the early 80's. Similar to how a youth bulge gave everyone a headache in the late 60's and 70's, we're seeing the same thing right now. Attention paid to Millennials really soared in the 2010's, which coincides with the biggest birth cohorts going to high school and college.

Cavalier said...

This isn't evidence of "things looking up". It isn't evidence that the Republicans are fated to victory. It isn't evidence that the Republicans are a meaningful power. It isn't evidence that the masses are relevant. It's evidence that a sufficiently large talent pool is ready and eager for a Trumpenreich, should it come, should Trump sweep the state and clear the detritus and drain the swamp, and then be succeeded by his sons.

jjbees said...

The fight isn't over, it hasn't even begun!

Corvinus said...

One must carefully consider that 1) Trump is not a Republican nor a conservative, 2) Hillary was a monumentally weak candidate, and 3) voters had to select the lesser of two evils.

In addition, Generation Z is liberal-moderate on social issues, but moderate-conservative on fiscal and security issues, fitting the mold of (gasp) a moderate Republican, or cuck. Generation Z support for marriage equality and civil rights--there goes the Alt Right platform, and moderate-conservative with fiscal and security issues. They tend to lean independent, but their inclinations generally fit moderate Republicans. Perhaps Generation Z will be more conservative than Millennials, but they are not actively seeking out the GOP unless it takes steps to conform to their social views.

Corvinus said...

"AE--When we're finished turning this thing around there will be statues of Heartiste built in town squares."

Considering that young Gen Z'ers boys are already showing signs of being "cucked" by the girlfriends, that event is highly unlikely.

"PA--As to the last map... such a generation will not likely put up with sharing a “democracy” with a gibsmedat electorate that outnumbers them at the ballot box."

Gen Z'ers love diversity. They are more than willing to share with the blacks, browns, yellows, and reds. You are out of touch with reality.

"Cavalier--It's evidence that a sufficiently large talent pool is ready and eager for a Trumpenreich,"

Only if there are subsequent Trump-like candidates running for political office. I am sure you have a list of those individuals handy. So, who are those individuals?

chris said...

@ Corvinus

I have seen surveys that suggest the opposite of what you are saying.

Where is your evidence for your assertions?

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Is ~1990 or so the peak birth year for cultmarx internalization? That feels about right to me.

Szopen/Cavalier,

We are entering uncharted territory now, Diversity + Proximity + Instant access = ? That more than half of high school students are willing to say if they voted it would be for Trump shows that, at the least, their natural inclination is not to prostrate themselves when the going gets tough.

Corvinus,

GWAS is progressing and these kids are going to be raised with it as a real thing, and the meme war sends cucks running for the hills but the Zyklons love it.

Agree that the Ted Cruz-style of on-the-sleeve social conservative evangelism isn't going to connect. The first candidate who makes the jump from implicit identitarian to explicit identitarian--that will surprise a lot of people, I think.

PA said...

I banned Corvinus on my blog last year because he would make those plodding, resentful-sounding arguments that other commenters and I would refute, and he came right back with the same dull argument. I suspect he's a curry Indian.

Corvinus said...

"I banned Corvinus on my blog last year because he would make those plodding, resentful-sounding arguments that other commenters and I would refute and he came right back with the same dull argument. I suspect he's a curry Indian."

You banned me because you got your ideological clock cleaned by a "normie".

Listen, you speak the "plain truth" from your own vantage point. It is YOUR reality. This red pill-blue pill narrative is simply a tool to advance the foolish pride notion that a certain group of whites are vastly superior to another group of whites who offer cogent analysis that challenges your worldview. In the end, the Lord possesses the ultimate truth. You could definitively learn a thing or two from Him.

Proverbs 6:16-19
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

People look down on others for different reasons; it might be related to their education, their accomplishments, their obedience...OR THEIR BACKGROUND! Pride has many different faces: some people are “holier than thou” while others are “worldlier than thou”; one person is proud of being so well-read while another person say, “I’m not book smart; I’m street smart”; one person is proud of being fashionable while another person is proud of being oblivious to fashion. Pride is an insidious, pervasive thing, especially if it is related to one's whiteness, blackness, or redness.

Deuteronomy 10:17-19--God loves the orphan, the widow, and the stranger.

One is able to infer from this simple, beautiful passage that regardless of a person's station in life, God commands his disciples to be dignified and show dignity.

John 4:1-42

Jesus broke with societal and religious customs to honor the dignity of the Samaritan woman. He associated with a woman of mixed origins, a moral and social outsider, in public and asked her for a drink of water. He demonstrated dignity of the most highest degree-every person is precious.

God has commanded his disciples to love all of humanity. When God communicates Himself, when He fills us with Himself, He fills us with His Divine Life, with His infinite Love, for He is Love. He confirms that we must share in this Divine nature for God to attract us to Himself because sharing His Grace is His nature.

All men are equal in their natural dignity; human beings are NOT superior or inferior in this regard. Moreover, God created us in His likeness. As the children of God, we are redeemed by Christ, and bear witness to His divine calling and destiny, regardless of one's group identity and locality on this Earth. To deny these truths is to deny the authority of God. God has identified His people as those who adhere to His ways, the brotherhood of humankind. God unifies humanity under His banner.

From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church's members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."

Corvinus said...

AE--GWAS is progressing and these kids are going to be raised with it as a real thing, and the meme war sends cucks running for the hills but the Zyklons love it.

Assuming that these studies prove the theories touted by the human biodiversity community. Again, Gen Z is racially and socially diverse. They were born and raised on multiculturalism steroids.

Fascinating how HBD’ers label their observations without taking into account confirmation bias. All traits are heritable’ is different from ‘all traits are ineluctably inherited’. ‘Heritable’ implies that the converse ‘not heritable’ is somewhat likely, if not equally so. There are mathematical processes where initial conditions restricting the set of outcomes does not necessarily imply determinism. Actually, the reverse can be true as well: apparent randomness can conceal deterministic processes.

Given HBD’s relatively recent endeavor to link to genetic causation, with behavioral psychology obtained primarily through correlations between observed traits and gene networks (if that), one would have thought that ‘conjectures’ or at best ‘ strong conjectures’ would better suit the case.

Feryl said...

"Agree that the Ted Cruz-style of on-the-sleeve social conservative evangelism isn't going to connect. The first candidate who makes the jump from implicit identitarian to explicit identitarian--that will surprise a lot of people, I think. "

Cruz put the cart before the horse. Trump made his stand on populist issues that most people intuitively agree with even if they don't like the messenger (cracking down on immigration, keeping jobs in America, judicious foreign policy). Then Trump made some at times half-hearted efforts to appeal to social conservatives, though eventually it seems like he and his handlers wisely stuck to standard GOP positions on a few key cultural issues (abortion, primarily) while eschewing overtly pompous and pious moral rhetoric that dragged the GOP down in the 80's and 90's. The GOP could talk up a storm about being holier than thou, but that didn't translate into local success in the Rust-belt/Appalachia in the 80's and 90's. Why? Because the GOP supported econ. policies that annihilated much of the northeastern quadrant of America (the Midwest, the Northeast, and the upland/colder/whiter South).

If whites in the Northern and Western US racially bloc-voted like Deep Southern whites, the GOP could be free to purse the most decadent economic policies. As things stand right now, white Boomers/X-ers/Millennials outside the Deep South want economic populism from both parties. If the GOP doesn't get this by now, they never will and it's off to Whig-land (White Gen Z is too young and small to rescue the party).

Feryl said...

BTW, in terms of social issues, the losertarians alienate even more people by whining about the war on drugs. Reagan and Bush had nothing to lose by promising to go after drugs in the crack era (the mid 80's-early 90's). In keeping with this, Trump and Sessions treat drugs as a dangerous pathology. Granted, people in the 80's weren't cocooned so they had a better understanding of how shitty drugs are. All the same, the primarily middle aged demographic of contemporary voters, who had grown up in the 60's-80's, was hardly going to be offended by war on drugs rhetoric.

Oh, and just for the record, there's a lot of prescription drug abuse going on, obviously. But how many people out there smoke pot, let alone do the harder illegal stuff? And they lean to the Left, anyway. Why the hell should the Right care about offending drug users? Agitating for pot legalization is a niche issue that has no urgency to the vast majority of people.

Feryl said...

"They do something similar to Generation X. It's as if that generation no longer exists."

I dunno about earlier eras, but in terms of post-1960 culture, the Left has madly tried to make every youth cohort an activist generation, and they want every decade to be another 1960's. Thing is, people born in the 40's and early 50's became so obnoxious that it spooked late Boomers, X-ers, and early Millennials away from going down the same path. And the Left idealizes the 60's and early 70's, almost always rationalizing and even concealing how traumatic that period was, especially for conservatives and older people (then again, that's what Marxists set out to do, isn't it?).

Like late Silents/early Boomers, later Millennials were children during a highly cocooned period of relative order and stability. They were too young to understand that older generations had fought hard to build and maintain the comfort that contemporary youth took for granted. If you didn't earn or build something, it's a lot easier to tarnish it or throw it away.

Put another way, cohorts seem to either be pro-active or reactive. Those who grow up privileged are more pro-active and idealistic to the point of being fools, those who grow up in a more distressing environment are more reactive and pragmatic. Born in the late 30'-early 50's: spoiled, arrogant, preachy. Born in the late 50's-mid 80's: Realistic, self-effacing, grateful for what they've got.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

It's still speculative at this point, but becoming less so. I'm confident that we're waiting for the rest of the puddles to dry up, and that once they do what we find in the grooves is what those of a like mind expect we'll find.

Corvinus said...

When reading the tea leaves, Gen Z'ers will be in the majority conservative lite camp. In other words, millions and millions of cucks. Some will stray off the path into SJWville or Alt-Rightdom, but I think you are hoping beyond hope that they will transform into radical righters.