Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Killing instinct

Trump, on more of the same in Afghanistan:
My original instinct was to pull out, and historically I like following my instincts, but all of my life I heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.
Remember when the Establishment's licentious left and cowardly cucks made a big fuss over candidate Trump questioning the advice of "the generals"? Well, congratulations to them for having committed America to pouring another decade or three's worth--if she lasts that long--of her blood and treasure into that miserable graveyard of empires.

The Establishment nipped the insurgent force on one side in the bud. The other is made of sterner stuff, but it looks like he, too, is being worn down.

If the president fails, it will be post-election Trump who fails, not Trumpism. Trump's failure, to the extent that it occurs, will be due to the Trumpism that got him elected being cast by the wayside. This episode is a particularly stark illustration of exactly that occurring.

Slamming the lid back on the pot isn't going to stop the boiling underneath, though. Gen Z's vote share between establishment and anti-establishment candidates*:


To the Cloud People on high, we say this:



* Anti-Establishment candidates are defined here as Trump, Carson, Sanders, and Cruz. The latter's inclusion is debatable, but that is how he has positioned himself and how he has generally been viewed by his supporters. Establishment candidates include Clinton, O'Malley, Christie, Rubio, and ¡Jabe!.

"Other" candidates, who garnered 13% of the high school primary vote, are excluded entirely because the category is not broken down further than that. In the general election survey, 9% voted for third-party candidates, so most of this excluded portion is anti-Establishment but since it's can't be gauged precisely, it's not included here.

"No answer" responses are also excluded.

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Even San Fransicko supports freedom of assembly

There's a group on the West Coast called "Patriot Prayer", headed by a guy named Joey Gibson. He could pass as Puerto Rican. His group heavily utilizes traditional patriotic aesthetics--the American flag, the Gadsden flag, etc--and is now prominently signalling the "no nazis, no antifa" thing.

While my knowledge of the organization is admittedly limited to the research I've done in the last hour, it looks to be a mild flavor of Alt Lite, less 'objectionable' than even someone like Mike Cernovich. The group has a free speech rally planned in San Francisco in a week. It may get the Boston treatment.

Here's to hoping it does. The more normies see mobs of bloodthirsty thugs from antifa and BLM clashing with cops, the better.

When there's a sacrificial contingent from the right to target, the optics end up being bad for us. When that sacrificial contingent turns the other cheek, they look like pathetic losers. When they respond tit-for-tat, the public has to dig through alternative media outlets to find the tats while the major media reports on and shows the tits (!) again and again without proper context.

When that contingent is a phantom one, however--as was the case in Boston and Dallas this weekend--the maniacs end up attacking the police and one another:





Those optics are great. The assertion that they are somehow speaking "truth to power" is strained to the breaking point. It starts dawning on normies that the mob is actually speaking power to truth.

There is still a Silent Majority out there who dislikes the stifling intellectual--and increasingly, physical--totalitarianism of the cult Marxists. They're skittish, sheepish, and when confronted, supine. But they're out there, apparently even in California!

A recent SurveyUSA poll germane to this discussion confirms as much. It was conducted days after Charlottesville and a week after the Damore Affair, but prior to Boston and Dallas. The poll was conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area--not exactly fertile ground for the ideas on the dissident right. On the question of whether or not the Bay Area is becoming more or less tolerant of differing opinions ("not sure" responses are excluded, n = 500):


It's worth disclaiming that I'm operating on the assumption that most people polled, even in San Francisco, think intellectual tolerance is a virtue rather than a vice. That may be a naive assumption.

On whether or not Patriot Prayer group should be allowed to hold its scheduled rally:


There's little difference by race. Blacks are modestly less supportive of allowing the rally than non-blacks are, but not by much. The larger gap is by sex. The poll doesn't provide information on marital status, but it's a safe bet that most of that blue bar for women is coming from those without rings on their fingers:


Women are more conforming than men. Win the Chads and the Thots will follow.

As Z-Man lays out in his most recent podcast, we have to be smart in the way we appeal to normies, but now is not the time to let up.

Saturday, August 19, 2017

Overwhelming bipartisan support for sanctions on new axis of evil

An understandably exacerbated Dan:
It's all so easy. Populism is a winning concept. Trump can just tell the Republicans what to say and they only have to follow.

But no, they have to have more third world poor, more stupid wars, more deficits, and some tax cuts for the rich.

The sanctions on Russia in Congress were unanimous. Is there anyone who cares a fig about that?

Dear God, I must be living in a simulation. Such desire to lose continuously cannot be possible.
To leftist plaudits, Evil in 2017 includes welcome white face
My sentiments being in general agreement with Dan's, it must be pointed out that sanctions--at least against the new axis of evil--are populist!

From Reuters-Ipsos polling, the percentages of Americans, by partisan affiliation, who support and who oppose sanctions on North Korea, Russia, and Iran. The balance of respondents said they "don't know" (n = 4,033):


The identical "oppose" figures for Republicans and Democrats isn't a transcription error. There is grassroots bipartisan opposition to, well, opposition to sanctioning countries whose combined annual military spending is 14% that of the US.

Even those aged 18-29 are broadly in favor, with 56% supporting to 17% who oppose.

The physical infrastructure of the American Empire may have to come crumbling down before popular support for maintaining it does.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Reconfiguring the American political landscape

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has occupied the upper chamber for as long as I've been alive. Every six years, Kentucky Republicans dutifully return him to office, and his colleagues have honored him as the ultimate Establishment Republican by awarding him the position of majority leader.

For those who want to see the Stupid Party burned to the ground and replaced by what Trump was groping for during the presidential campaign, the following graph should be heartening. It shows the percentages of Reuters-Ipsos poll respondents, by partisan affiliation, who approve* of president Trump and of senator McConnell (n = 26,772 and 5,127, respectively):


Their overall approval ratings are nearly equal, with Caesar enjoying an edge of less than 3 points on Brutus. Trump gets there on the backs of Republicans. In contrast, while nearly half of McConnell's support comes from non-Republicans, scarcely half of Republicans support him.

Trump is no longer a novelty. He's been in office for eight months and he's been the most talked about person in the world for years now. For all his trials and tribulations, his political vision is replacing that of McConnell and his coterie among the red deme's rabble.

Some of those who called themselves Republicans five years ago no longer do so even though their high opinion of McConnell hasn't wavered. And many of those who couldn't stand McConnell and wouldn't wear a scarlet R five years ago, still can't stand McConnell today but do now consider themselves Republicans on account of their president.

* The Trump poll asks about "approval", the McConnell poll about "favorability". "Mixed feelings" responses are excluded.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Gen Z Trump supporters were far more enthusiastic than Clinton supporters (and slightly more so than Sanders supporters)

As we wrap up with the Hispanic Heritage Foundation's surveys of high school students in 2016 (a sincere thanks again to Sid for pointing it out), we'll look beyond the strong preference for Trump over Clinton among non-Hispanic whites and look at the enthusiasm gap among those expressing a preference.

There's nothing edgy about being a pawn of the power structure, every major branch of which supported Clinton without reservation. The choice is between defiance, self-confidence, and reclamation on the one hand and perpetual, humorless tsk-tsking on the other. How many young people want to devote all their creative energies into finding different ways of saying "that is not okay"?

The primary survey asked students about their voting plans for the 2016 general election. Most chose the option "not eligible" on account of not being eighteen by November 8. There were 14,712, however, who would be of age on election day.

The following graph shows the distribution of votes among whites who either supported Trump or Clinton by how they described their voting plans:


It's worth reiterating how uninspiring Clinton was. The distribution among those who supported either Clinton or Sanders by the same:


Trump still revved the engine even harder than Sanders did. The same among those who supported either Trump or Sanders:


That Sanders wins across the board is a little misleading here, since preferences for Republicans were spread across several candidates while preferences for Democrats were theoretically spread across three but in actuality between just two (O'Malley's support is reported as "0%" at all levels of intention--even Christie and ¡Jabe! do better than that!).

Unfortunately the survey doesn't offer any insight into how Gen Z would've voted if the contest was between Trump and Sanders.

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Deus Vult


The Nazism and the swastika have to go. A modest suggestion for a replacement:
- The Nazis mostly killed Europeans. The Crusaders mostly did not. Repelling Saracens is relevant. Conquering Celts is not.

- Many of those who make up the Alt Right's prime recruitment base had grandfathers and great-grandfathers who fought the Nazis. Vanishingly few are descended from those who fought the Crusaders, and those who are have to go back anyway.

- The Crusades were about reclamation. The Nazis were, after a short time, about conquest. Effective ethnostates work. Colonial societies, not so much. The Crusades fit into a framework of white nationalism and the "14", but not one of white supremacy and the "88". The latter fits a Nazi framework, and it's a disaster.

- While the martial aspect of the Alt Right is masturbatory--at least for now--the combative imagery is still important. Warfare in the 12th century lends itself much better to the virile virtues--strength, honor, courage, mastery--men are grasping for today than warfare in the 20th century does. This is awe-inspiring. This is nauseating.

- Christianity is fecund. Vague spirituality or outright atheism is not.

- The Crusades evoke a sort of pan-Europeanism. The Nazis evoke civilization-destroying European civil war.

- The Templars' ultimate undoing was the work of an Establishment power structure--both the Church and the State--that putatively had the same objectives as the Crusaders while in reality had been working to destroy them for decades. There's a sharp resonance in that.

Saturday, August 12, 2017

Many young BernieBros defected to Trump

As it turns out, the Hispanic Heritage Foundation also conducted a massive nationwide poll during the primaries in 2016.

Looking at non-Hispanic whites (n = 57,196), Sanders obliterates Clinton among students who support a Democrat,84%-16% in a two-way race. Trump gets three times the support Cruz--who runs a distant second among Republicans--does.

Where this gets interesting is in the transition from the primaries to the general election, specifically with regards to what those Sanders supporters did once he was out. We're doing algebra with two separate variables on each side of the equation, so we have to make an assumption about one of them.
The results of a few of those possible assumptions follow.

If we assume students supporting a non-Trump Republican broke 25% for Clinton, 50% for Trump, and 25% either sitting out or voting third-party and 25% of Sanders supporters sitting out or voting third-party, we get Trump beating Clinton by an astounding 76%-24% among whites who supported Sanders in the primary.

If we assume students supporting a non-Trump Republican broke 10% for Clinton, 80% for Trump, and 10% either sitting out or voting third-party and 10% of Sanders supporters sitting out or voting third-party, we still get Trump beating Clinton 60%-40% among whites who supported Sanders in the primary.

Even if we assume every single non-Trump Republican backed Trump, we get Sanders supporters splitting almost exactly evenly between Trump and Clinton in the general election assuming corresponding full general election participation among Sanders supporters.

If we take it to a risible extreme and assume that every single non-Trump Republican backed Trump while half the Sanders supporters sat out the general election, we end up with a sizable minority of those former Sanders supporters who do vote in the general backing Trump, with Clinton winning them 70%-30% in this scenario.

No matter what assumptions are made, a staggering percentage of Sanders supporters end up going to Trump. Many of us, myself included, hoped we'd see more of that from the actual electorate but assumed--accurately, as it turned out--that most adults are too stuck in the partisan loyalty trap to crossover to someone with the wrong letter next to his name.

The left-right/Democrat-Republican/liberal-conservative paradigm ("boomer politics") is on the way out. A cosmopolitan-identitarian/globalist-localist paradigm is the best bet to replace it. That transition will occur as the boomers die off and generation Z comes of age.

Alternatively--or more likely, simultaneously--it's hard to overstate just how bad a candidate Hillary Clinton was, especially in the eyes of adolescents.

On one hand, an uncharismatic, scolding lesbian schoolmarm with the most unfashionable sartorial signature imaginable who spends half her time tsk-tsking about the forbidden things Trump has said and done.

On the other, a god-emperor catching nuclear bombs fired at him from the Vatican, the White House, Hollywood, and Brussels, mocking those who deployed them, and then throwing them back to detonate on the places from whence they came, while grabbing HBs by the pussy during his down time.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

How Gen Z 'voted' relative to adults in 2016

There are a couple more miles yet to get out of the Hispanic Heritage Foundation's huge presidential preference survey administered to high school students across the US in the Fall of 2016.

The following map* shows, by state, how much more (less) Trumpish Gen Z 'voters' were than the actual electorate was. The subsequent table shows Trump's share among Zs and adults in a two-way race for those expressing a preference (that is, if Trump's share is 56%, then Clinton's is 44%, etc):


StateAdult%Z%Z%+/(-)
Colorado477124
Oregon446724
Pennsylvania517423
Missouri608121
Minnesota496920
Maryland365418
Maine486618
Montana617817
Illinois415817
Iowa557117
Nebraska637916
Kansas617615
Wyoming759015
Georgia536715
Idaho698112
Kentucky667812
Virginia475912
Oklahoma698011
Vermont344511
Ohio546410
West Virginia738210
Indiana60699
Arizona52608
Wisconsin51598
Massachusetts35427
North Carolina52586
Tennessee64696
Texas55605
Michigan51554
Washington41454
District of Columbia473
New York39412
South Dakota66671
North Dakota70711
Alabama65650
Louisiana6059(1)
Arkansas6463(2)
Mississippi5955(4)
New Mexico4540(5)
Connecticut4337(6)
Florida5044(6)
California3422(12)
South Carolina5745(12)
Delaware4425(19)
Nevada4924(25)
Utah6335(28)

The correlation between how Zs and adults voted in a two-way race is .75 (p = .00) at the state level. This, again, suggests a broad plausibility to the poll's findings--or at least indicates that if there are flaws, they occur in the same general direction across the board.

Through the Southwest and in much of the South, where the children are a lot Sunnier than the elderly Ice People are, there are reasons to be bearish on the America First's prospects. If the rift between California and Core America feels large now, just wait another a decade or two. Irreconcilable differences are what separate countries are for.

Georgia is a salient outlier. It stems from the poll finding Georgia's whites going 95%-5% for Trump in a two-way race. That looks implausible on the face of it, and it probably is, though the poll sampled 867 white students in the state.

Speaking of Core America, its children are based. If we were feeling nefarious we could almost carve out a future rump state from that map--stretching from the northern mountain states, the great plains, the upper Midwest, and finally through Appalachia--for Core America to call its own.

Minnesota almost got there this time. It's a question of "when", not "if"--unless of course the Vikings fall and the former state becomes the Somaliland of the western hemisphere.

Parenthetically, while McMuffin is a confounder in Utah, there is something else going on there. The poll sampled 528 students in the state. Just under 60% are non-Hispanic white, while over one-quarter are Hispanic. Is Utah undergoing Nevadization that rapidly? If Mormons invite the whole world... well, you know how that story ends.

* No data was collected from Hawaii, Alaska, or New Jersey, and Rhode Island's total student sample is a whopping 55, of which only 26 expressed a desire to vote if able. That figure is far smaller than that of other states. Consequently, it has also been excluded here.

++Addition++From commenter Halvorson, who is skeptical of the findings:
I don't believe these numbers. I've done some homework looking at the results of the Minnesota mock election, which showed a tie, and its sample seems representative. The 70 largest schools in the state have 50.7% of all students and 47.9% of voters in the mock. Trump's rural base is not under sampled.

In Iowa's mock high and middle school election Trump won 45.6-35.6, which closely mirrors the actual result.

Both of these states have rising minority populations, so just to break even Trump has to be doing a little better than white teenagers than their parents. But it's not by a gargantuan amount.
A healthy dose of skepticism is recommended. As he notes, even if these results are overstated, there are signals from every direction that the current crop of high schoolers isn't the same self-loathing, SJW-aping emo cohort that millennials are.

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.

Sunday, August 06, 2017

Generation Z's white guys favored Trump over Clinton by a 6-to-1 margin

The Hispanic Heritage Foundation's poll conducted on over 80,000 high school students in the fall of 2016 found non-Hispanic whites overwhelmingly favored Trump over Clinton. The poll also found white Gen Zers to be substantially more pro-Trump than any other co-racial generational cohort. While I have plenty of anecdotes to place alongside some major cultural events that lend credence to the result, it still struck me as almost literally incredible.

The methodology as described is vague, though the sample is huge--nearly 30,000 whites were polled at the time the results were publicly released, and by the time the numbers were finalized in mid-November, 45,954 white students had been surveyed across the 48 contiguous states (Alaska and Hawaii were not included). And the results for non-whites pass the smell test:


Tens of thousands of blacks and Hispanics were surveyed, as were thousands of Asians.

Hillary Clinton, scolding, sexless schoolmarm, probably doesn't appeal much to high school guys. Grabbing HBs by the pussy, in contrast, likely does, so it's conceivable that these results stem in large part from the personalities of Trump and Clinton more than they do the wider worldviews associated with each side of the political divide. Cynically, Trump's antics appeal to adolescence while Hillary's cerebral affectations do not.

Those potential wet blanket qualifiers out of the way, this is tremendously encouraging news. Jjbees calls the generational distribution the world's second most important graph. Time will tell how apt that description turns out to be. He may be right.

Friday, August 04, 2017

Most black men hold O. J. Simpson in high regard

More evidence supporting Ben Shapiro's assertion that skin color doesn't matter--it's ideology that does! Opinions of O.J. Simpson (n = 2,988):


That black support for Simpson is more than three greater than white support for him has nothing to do with skin color per se. It's the consequence of an unfortunate belief--ideology, if you will--in the acceptability of killing white women that just happens to afflict blacks more than it does whites, you see!

The poll portal is accompanied by text describing the sex differences in favorability. It notes that men have a more favorable opinion of Simpson than women do.

The black-white gap is 2.5x the sex gap. Simpson is obviously bad news, though, so pointing out that blacks are fonder of him than whites are would be poor form. Better to portray women as the ones with good sense and men as the troglodytes.

While 2 out of 3 black women view Simpson unfavorably, a majority of black men like him. Pointing out that most black guys approve of a Big Man who pounds a mudshark before murdering her is doubleplus poor form. As such, I sure as hell won't mention it here!

Thursday, August 03, 2017

Lies about Lazarus rise

Is Jim Acosta ignorant, mendacious, or both? This is embarrassing:



The Lazarus poem was drawn up among a hodgepodge of other efforts to raise money to complete the construction of the statue a decade after it began. The poem was the brainchild of a wealthy Jewess putatively inspired by the statue to pen it. The statue wasn't inspired or influenced by the poem. It's housed inside the base of the statue and is not observable from the outside.

The statue commemorates America's freedom from foreign domination. The tablet in lady liberty's arm bears an inscription that, unlike the Lazarus poem, was actually part of the statue's design. It reads (in Roman numerals) "July 4, 1776".

The statue isn't a celebration of immigration, it's a celebration of this:
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.
Did the men who signed that declaration of independence conceive of America as a "nation of immigrants"?

No. That phrase first appears in the 1920s, a century after the last of the founding fathers had gone to the grave.

To see what the founders thought about the composition of the country, we need to look at the law they actually passed regarding it.

The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited immigration to "free white persons of good character". It explicitly noted that the right of citizenship did "not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

CNN isn't just fake news, it's fake history (or "fake olds", if you like).

The RAISE Act will face an uphill battle in congress. There's bipartisan opposition to it, helpfully described by USA Today thus:
Critics, including many members of Congress, said the plan calls for allowing immigration based on ratios of applicants and a points-based system of approvals, not hard numbers.

That means it will wind up reducing legal immigration, whether applicants are skilled or not.

"The Perdue-Cotton bill does exactly what President Trump has indicated he does not want to do, and that is massively restrict legal immigration," said political consultant Liz Mair, who describes herself as a Republican immigration advocate.

Mair disputed Perdue's comparisons of his plan with those of Canada and Australia, saying, "both of those countries admit massively more legal immigrants relative to their population than the U.S. ever could if this bill became law."
But there's a lot of bipartisan populist support for it. This is one where we have to do more than offer our moral support in the silent comfort of our own homes. Contact your congress critters and tell them to support the thing. Find your house representative here and your senators here.

Something as simple as "Please support the RAISE Act put forward by Senators Cotton and Perdue. It is time we have an immigration system that puts Americans first!" will do perfectly fine. The aids just tally the "for"s and "against"s they receive.

Tuesday, August 01, 2017

Gen Z is the West's last great hope!

In a post discussing the potential generation Z holds, a poll of said generational cohort by the Hispanic Heritage Foundation, a non-profit DC outfit "that works to increase the number of Latina and Latino leaders in society", found Trump crushing Clinton among white high school students (n = 16,275*). The poll was conducted in October of 2016, a month before the election, and nearly all the participants were too young to actually vote.

The following graph shows the results alongside those derived from Reuters-Ipsos polling for other generational cohorts in a two-way race. The R-I figures are from those aged 18-34 (n = 9,740), aged 35-49 (n = 9,087), aged 50-64 (n = 10,137), and aged 65+ (n = 6,600), roughly corresponding to millennials, Xers, baby boomers, and silents, respectively. The age ranges don't match the generational cohorts exactly but it's as close as R-I allows us to get. The results for Gen Z show how they reported they would've voted rather than how they actually voted, as most were too young to do so:


This is incredible, almost literally so. It does however mesh with what I saw last weekend and other observations made of late. Z-Man points out that while there were lots of event attendees who could barely pass as legal adults, the protesters were largely comprised of "extremely ugly old women, wearing shirts with feminist slogans." He continues:
I was standing in front of the big glass windows watching the Antifa loonies, when I turned and looked at the young AmRen guys taking pics and selfies, laughing and enjoying themselves. On one side of the glass were grotesquely out of shape people in grubby clothes, smoking and gesticulating. On the other were young men in suits, well groomed and composed. It was one of those times when you can stand on the timeline of your life and see the past and the future at the same time.
Maybe meme warfare and the radioactive lameness of the wicked witch explains some of this away, and it won't be replicable in the future. Gen Z whites were mixed on approval of Obama (37% disapproved, 31% approved, 32% had no opinion). Even if Trump's advantage over Clinton is half of what's shown above, though, it portends a seismic shift in the orientation of the next generation of whites.

Julian Langness thinks millennials will have to save the West. My money is on the next generation, the one with its back against the wall.

Parenthetically, the poll found the expected strong advantage for Clinton among non-whites. She beat Trump 7-to-1 among blacks, 3-to-1 among Hispanics, and 3-to-2 among Asians. The battle lines are being drawn.

Thanks to Sid for pointing to the Hispanic Heritage poll.

* The methodology is tough to nail down with confidence. The major report findings show a sample of 50,000 for all races. The link to details on methodology lead to an interactive map with a reported total sample of 83,298, of which 45,954 are white. To arrive at 16,275 I took the percentage of non-Hispanic whites from 83,298/45,954 figures and multiplied it by the percentage, 59%, of high school white students voting for either Trump or Clinton.