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.

17 comments:

pithom said...

The Georgia and Texas numbers look quite a bit off. Everyone knows that Georgia's and Texas's youth are majority nonwhite.

Anonymous said...

I'm shocked--but pleased--by the Oregon results.

Audacious Epigone said...

Pithom,

Right. I Should've point out in the post (I'll update it--GA's whites reported to have gone 95%-5% to Trump. (n = 867!)

The Z Blog said...

My pet theory on Utah is that it has become a bit of a museum piece. It is what old America was like, in the 1950's and early 1960's. It is very white, very married and very SWPL. They went big for Bush because he's the sort of Rotary Club Republican that appeals to them and appealed to whites 60 years ago.

As an aside, I wonder what the opioid numbers are like in Utah relative to other parts of the country. I'd also be curious as to how drug use fits into this map: http://emerald.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2013/images/features/upinarms-map-large.jpg

Hint, hint, hint.

Dave Narby said...

What about New Hampshire?

Halvorson said...

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.
http://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/government/elections/trump-wins-iowa-in-annual-youth-straw-poll-20161101

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.





Audacious Epigone said...

Z,

I don't remember the answer, but it seems to me that "legacy" Mormons (i.e. the white ones, not the non-white recent converts) are better categorized as part of Yankeedom than as part of the Far West.

Dave,

For whatever reason, the survey didn't collect data in the state.

Halvorson,

Thanks, I've included your healthy skepticism in the body of the post.

Julian L said...

I don't think you and I disagree on the Millenial/Gen Z thing AE- I am going by Strauss/Howe definitions, and in their framework anyone who can vote now (indeed anyone over age 12) is a Millenial (1982-2004 I believe).

If the 13-18 year olds are looking more rightward than ourselves I would say that's just the latter half of the Millenial cohort demonstrating their more pronounced fashnyness/experience of K-Selection relative to the first half.

Also they are probably more likely to have had Gen X parents and teachers than the older Millenials, which might have reduced their levels of indoctrination a bit comparatively as well.

Only recently got exposed to you writings and am very much enjoying them. Great stuff.

-JL

Audacious Epigone said...

Julian Langness,

I've not looked at it in the same detail that you have, but yes, the younger end of that range largely overlaps with the definition of Gen Z I've been using, which characterizes Zs as those born in 1995 or after.

I was exposed to you for the first time in Tennessee and was thoroughly impressed. Your speech was great. The standing ovation was every bit deserved.}

I gave Justin Garcia (Master Chim) a heads-up that you mentioned him. It'd be great to hear a conversation between the two of you. Would you be interested in it?

Julian L said...

Absolutely.

MC and White Boy Pat are an impressive duo, listened to them religiously all through 2015 when they started their show and they are clearly still doing great work.

I think I actually stretched the definition of Millenial a bit to include him (and Martin Lichtmesz, who I found out was 41) but its still all 'youth culture' so I stand by their inclusions :)

Corvinus said...

"If the 13-18 year olds are looking more rightward than ourselves I would say that's just the latter half of the Millenial cohort demonstrating their more pronounced fashnyness/experience of K-Selection relative to the first half."

This demographic is "looking more rightward" when it comes to fiscal, not social, conservatism. Gen Z are liberal in areas like the legalization of pot, transgender issue, and same sex marriage. They are concerned about global warming. Gen Z will have to be coddled and prodded. A ton of propaganda will thus have to be directed their way for them to become reliable Alt Right foot soldiers.

Does anyone here truly believe that a significant number of Gen Z'ers will be drawn to Andrew Anglin who labels any white woman who has mixed-race children as a traitor, saying “It’s OUR WOMB. It belongs to the males in her society" or to Brett Stevens who clamors for a return to a monarchial form of government, with a complete deemphasis on modernity?

Regarding R-K selection theory...

http://thewaywardaxolotl.blogspot.com/2017/01/rk-selection-theory-is-bogus.html

Julian L said...

Hey Covinus,

I don't think anyone thinks r/K Selection theory is "scientifically sound", its just a good frame of reference (in my opinion) to describe alot of the things that come up in contemporary Western political discussions. I use "r-Selection" pretty interchangeably with "liberal privilege", as in those who live lives of such historically unprecedented prosperity and lack of consequence that they don't understand the basic realities of existence (gender differences, tribal thinking, the need for masculine tactical virtue, the need for shaming codes, etc). Basically I think r/K Selection theory is a good way of explaining the "liberal at 18 conservative at 38" saying, or the "a liberal is someone who hasn't been robbed yet" type of thing.

I don't know anything about Brett Stevens but I wouldn't be surprised if many white 13-18 year olds in America grow up to have beliefs relatively congruent with an alt-lite to alt-right spectrum. Indeed I would be shocked if the current SJW-doctrines that dominate our society don't die out in the next twenty years. They are by definition suicidal so they can only burn themselves out or lead to a revolt of those young people raised within them.

Audacious Epigone said...

Covinus,

Those aren't the issues that motivate the alt right. Affirmative action, immigration, Islam, political correctness--these are the "social" issues that matter, and they are the social issues that motivate the Alt Right. Richard Spencer holds all the progressive positions you point out above. He is not, however, considered a social conservative. He is, of course, reliably referred to as "far right" or some variation thereof. So it may be with a lot of Zs.

Julian,

Glad to see you expound on that. Rushton does apply r/K to human populations, and it's not a bad mental framework for conceptualizing the broad pattern differences between East Asians, Europeans, and Africans (or Mongoloids, Caucasoids, and Negroids in his parlance IIRC). r is low investment, extreme example being frogs, who lay thousands of eggs and invest zero effort in the survival of any of them, elephants being extreme K, with high parental investment, long gestation, lots of care. Well, actually humans are probably the single best K example given the unusual amount of paternal investment homo sapiens provide (though that differs by race per Rushton).

But applying that to the liberal-conservative political spectrum doesn't work very well. In the West, we increasingly have a liberal upper crust, a conservative middle, and a liberal lower class.

Liberals at the top have fewer kids, have them later, and tend to invest *more* dollars per child than conservatives do (think SWPLs sending their only child to private school to avoid having dindu classmates).

On the other hand, liberals at the bottom have less of all this, while conservatives are in between--with the exception of more paternal investment by conservatives across the board. So it just doesn't fit.

But your utilization of it does. I'm glad to see it articulated thus.

Audacious Epigone said...

Corvinus,

A joke with Trump was that the media couldn't figure out if he was an extreme moderate or a moderate extremist.

Feryl said...

"I don't remember the answer, but it seems to me that "legacy" Mormons (i.e. the white ones, not the non-white recent converts) are better categorized as part of Yankeedom than as part of the Far West."

Mormons genetically are, as I've heard, Anglo-Nordic for the most part. But while they've got the positive traits that would imply (clean living, lack of corruption, a sort of guileless straightforwardness) they've also been selected to be an extreme representation of NW Euro faults (gullibility and kindness that are easily taken advantage of).

Non-Mormon white culture in the American West has become increasingly distinct from Eastern white culture. Gen X-ers and Millennials in the Mountain states now seem to be increasingly adopting the values of the always far Left Pacific states. Boomers to a large degree still reflect the traditional values of the regions in which they were raised, but the growing trendiness of SJW liberalism seems to have hit the Western states quite hard, as though people Out West just want to glom onto the New World Order while those back East are clinging more tightly to the old ways. Witness how Trump's biggest gains relative to previous GOP candidates came in the Eastern states.

Urbanization is partly to blame; Mountain state Boomers grew up in more lightly populated regions. These states have seen a lot of growth and a big influx of transplants over the last 20-30 years, and there just doesn't seem to be that much of a sense of roots or tradition anymore among younger generations there.

Marty T said...

Clearly Georgia, Texas and Colorado look like odd results based on those states trending bluer. Georgia teenage whites, which include Atlanta suburbanites, are not 95 percent Republican obviously. But the general pattern is plausible, with whiter, red trending states like Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Missouri looking good.

Gen Z may be socially liberal...for now. It's our job to change that. Whites in gen Z can't help but see increasing anti white bigotry and not respond. Then once they're on the right track in that regard, the backlash against sexual deviant culture may not be far behind, but that's more of a long game issue.

Corvinus said...

Julian-"I don't know anything about Brett Stevens but I wouldn't be surprised if many white 13-18 year olds in America grow up to have beliefs relatively congruent with an alt-lite to alt-right spectrum."

The trends in this demographic do not support your hypothesis. They may be opposed to SJW's style liberalism, but not liberalism in general. Big difference.

A.E.--"Those aren't the issues that motivate the alt right. Affirmative action, immigration, Islam, political correctness--these are the "social" issues that matter, and they are the social issues that motivate the Alt Right."

There are competing philosophies on the Alt Right. Gen Z'ers in particular favor diversity and inclusion. They may call for limits for affirmative action and immigration, but their their calls for changes will lean moderate, not extreme right.

"Richard Spencer holds all the progressive positions you point out above. He is not, however, considered a social conservative. He is, of course, reliably referred to as "far right" or some variation thereof. So it may be with a lot of Zs."

Most Gen Z'ers find him other than desirable to serve as the recognizable figure leading the charge against SJWs and elites.

Marty T--Gen Z may be socially liberal...for now. It's our job to change that. Whites in gen Z can't help but see increasing anti white bigotry and not respond. Then once they're on the right track in that regard, the backlash against sexual deviant culture may not be far behind, but that's more of a long game issue.

So do you propose "it takes a village" style propaganda assault to cleanse Gen Z'ers for their affinity of "Jewish inspired rot gut culture"? Great luck with that endeavor. Besides, is it not the fundamental liberty of people to choose for themselves how they lead their lives?