“Other” and “Amerindian” probably cannot be trusted to be meaningful in any data.
“Racial Polarization”, I would like to add, seems to correlate somewhat with mean IAT scores of Whites, which itself correlates with % White. Texas is the exception. White people become more racist when more exposed to minority behavior, but one might expect that minorities become less racist when exposed to white behavior. Because white people are, you know, nice people
I think it has to do with rural-urban patterns. Basically what I need to do to prove this is look at the total non-white population, and then look at the non-white population in cities, and figure out the concentration of non-whites in the cities. When non-whites are hyper-urbanized, it creates racial polarization (Indiana?), but when they are evenly distributed throughout the landmass, there is low racial polarization (Texas)? This is because the rural-urban divide is more electorally significant than race. As I say that, it clearly isn't true for blacks as much as it is for Hispanics. Rural blacks do vote more Republican than urban blacks, but so do whites, and we're talking about the relative change per the gap, not absolute change. My attempt to prove this would first look at Indiana, Ohio, Texas, and New Hampshire. Without looking I would just refer to south Texas as an example of how less urbanized Hispanics vote Republican. The state I was really surprised with was Wisconsin, where blacks shifted 13%+ GOP, and whites barely voted for Trump around 53-55%.
LGBTQ+ identification nowadays is becoming more of a woke identity marker than anything so I'd question its value as a predictor of future trends. Someone who identifies that way is increasingly doing so because of pre-existing woke beliefs.
Religion is a reliable indicator of voting habits, especially as the mainline denominations continue to die off and are replaced by the more identitarian evangelicals and charismatics/pentecostals. Though again, one could argue that people become religious in conformity to pre-existing political beliefs.
Education is an interesting one: I feel like it probably has the most actual predictive power. This is because college professors overwhelmingly have woke beliefs and students spending a lot of time under their instruction are likely to end up with similar views. It's surprising the Democrat party doesn't put more resources into this.
Analogously it makes sense for Republicans to defund higher education. This could be so even if it's politically unpopular, since the effect of higher education on whites is so profound. Another approach would be to privatise the system, enabling conservatives to set up their own colleges with more anti-woke or even hereditarian values.
It was interesting to me that gender wasn't actually as relevant as I thought it would be in the election. Men and women trended in similar directions, even if their actual voting habits differed to some extent. I wonder if it will stay that way or whether we'll see a shift in future elections. Particular with women shifting to the left over time and men increasingly giving up on college as an institution.
“This implies that over the next 30 years, whites are going to shift, overall, 13% in favor of Democrats.”
This is really pointless speculation. We have no idea what the political landscape will look like in decades from now, aside from the fact that people tend to vote more conservative the older they get.
Dems have been coping for years about their “demographic advantage” and what the end of a white majority would mean. Surprise! It turns out that Hispanics are almost just as likely to vote GOP with the right issues and the right candidate.
I wouldn't say it's pointless, but as the parties shift in ideology, they can blunt this shift. I would say it's more accurate to say that Republicans in 30 years are going to shift ideologically 13% toward Democrats on issues like gay marriage, sexuality, and abortion.
I’ve noticed in a lot of maps and other things related to national trends, Minnesota stands out as a state that is often more similar to the coasts compared with other inland states. Why might this be?
In the Midwest, four groups of whites are layered in different proportions in different places -- Yankees, Germans, ethnic whites (Irish, Polskis, Italians, etc.), and Southerners. You know you're in Yankeeville when you see a plain church with a white steeple; Germans often selected a Gothic design. Germans, especially Protestants, tend to agree with the Yankees but have a mind-your-own-business attitude that is more pragmatic, consensus-oriented, and less moralizing. Both put a premium on education. Southern migration to the Midwest was larger than most people realize and happened at a 2:1 white-to-black ratio. Where there are ethnic whites and southerners, the GOP has a menu of different backlash issues to work with. Also, where ethnic whites already exist in large numbers (sometimes they don't), Hispanics often go to the same churches, following the pattern of earlier Catholics. This explains some of the different assimilation patterns in Michigan (many ethnic whites) versus Indiana.
Minneapolis began as a logistics hub and attracted Yankees and Germans, but has always lacked the heavy industry to attract too many ethnic whites and Southerners, so it defaults left. Wisconsin had some heavy industry and, therefore, more ethnic whites, so there is more for the GOP to work with on stuff like abortion that aligns with rural voters.
In contrast, Indiana is probably the most Anglo-coded state in the Midwest. It is temperamentally and culturally conservative. Think Mike Pence. While it has a history and culture of literacy, it also never had heavy industry, except in the northwest corner. It had a lot of Southern migration, so the combined Yankee / Southern influence outweighs the German influence. (Drive south of Indianapolis, and you even cross the pop / Coke divide.) Obama won it in 2008 but not in 2012.
To finish the idea -- Illinois and Iowa aren't as liberal and conservative as people think. (Obama won Iowa twice.) These used to be purple states, but when the parties exchanged suburbia and rural areas, Iowa turned red and Illinois blue. White flight a few decades ago merged the Yankee, Germanic, Southern, and the very large ethnic influences in Chicago's large suburban ring. Iowa, in contrast, is like Minnesota but with a much smaller urban center, so the cultural divide cuts differently.
i think a big thing to think about here too is the remnants of early 1900s scandinavian social democrat immigration to the state. i would assume that the democratic stronghold in the superior shore and iron range has a lot to do with this. im pretty sure in the early 1900s, it was one of the most heavily communist areas of the county, so a lot of that industry was filled by scandinavians and finns. (sorry for deleting and resending the comment, i accidentally sent it before i was done writing it)
given the trends of education-based polarization, pro-urban development policy in MN, and migration to the sun belt, would you think that MN would keep its status, would you think its current state as a democrat enclave will be maintained?
Urban development generally helps Democrats. Emigration from a state generally helps Republicans. Democrats did lose some support in Minnesota in 2024, but I expect New York to flip before Minnesota does. This is because the white vote is more stable than the non-white vote.
do you think that this racial trend would be stronger than the human-capital concentrating economic conditions in the long term? i feel like in the short term, i would largely agree. i guess when you project for long enough, though, it would be hard to say if this kind of polarization will be maintained. also, i think there’s a bug going on where text in replies seem to be cut off. have you or anyone else noticed this too?
I could go back to earlier elections to see what historical racial polarization was, and check how much it is narrowing, and project when it will cease. I've sort of done this by projecting that Republicans can win blacks in 2040. Maybe not in all states, but in rural counties in red states maybe.
The rural-urban divide has been fairly strong going back to the 19th century. Democrats have dominated with urban immigrants since the 1820s. I think the divide of the future is going to hinge much more on education than urbanism, although the two are correlated because educated people move to cities.
The number I found for Asians in Nevada was 57% for Trump
Data suggests them being primarily filipinos, probably working in healthcare. Curious about California.
Based on how counties votee, it looks like Asian Californians went heavily for Harris other than Vietnamese in Orange County
“Other” and “Amerindian” probably cannot be trusted to be meaningful in any data.
“Racial Polarization”, I would like to add, seems to correlate somewhat with mean IAT scores of Whites, which itself correlates with % White. Texas is the exception. White people become more racist when more exposed to minority behavior, but one might expect that minorities become less racist when exposed to white behavior. Because white people are, you know, nice people
I think it has to do with rural-urban patterns. Basically what I need to do to prove this is look at the total non-white population, and then look at the non-white population in cities, and figure out the concentration of non-whites in the cities. When non-whites are hyper-urbanized, it creates racial polarization (Indiana?), but when they are evenly distributed throughout the landmass, there is low racial polarization (Texas)? This is because the rural-urban divide is more electorally significant than race. As I say that, it clearly isn't true for blacks as much as it is for Hispanics. Rural blacks do vote more Republican than urban blacks, but so do whites, and we're talking about the relative change per the gap, not absolute change. My attempt to prove this would first look at Indiana, Ohio, Texas, and New Hampshire. Without looking I would just refer to south Texas as an example of how less urbanized Hispanics vote Republican. The state I was really surprised with was Wisconsin, where blacks shifted 13%+ GOP, and whites barely voted for Trump around 53-55%.
Astute observation. Although, I’d think Deep South blacks are fairly rural. Are they not?
Good analysis!
LGBTQ+ identification nowadays is becoming more of a woke identity marker than anything so I'd question its value as a predictor of future trends. Someone who identifies that way is increasingly doing so because of pre-existing woke beliefs.
Religion is a reliable indicator of voting habits, especially as the mainline denominations continue to die off and are replaced by the more identitarian evangelicals and charismatics/pentecostals. Though again, one could argue that people become religious in conformity to pre-existing political beliefs.
Education is an interesting one: I feel like it probably has the most actual predictive power. This is because college professors overwhelmingly have woke beliefs and students spending a lot of time under their instruction are likely to end up with similar views. It's surprising the Democrat party doesn't put more resources into this.
Analogously it makes sense for Republicans to defund higher education. This could be so even if it's politically unpopular, since the effect of higher education on whites is so profound. Another approach would be to privatise the system, enabling conservatives to set up their own colleges with more anti-woke or even hereditarian values.
It was interesting to me that gender wasn't actually as relevant as I thought it would be in the election. Men and women trended in similar directions, even if their actual voting habits differed to some extent. I wonder if it will stay that way or whether we'll see a shift in future elections. Particular with women shifting to the left over time and men increasingly giving up on college as an institution.
“This implies that over the next 30 years, whites are going to shift, overall, 13% in favor of Democrats.”
This is really pointless speculation. We have no idea what the political landscape will look like in decades from now, aside from the fact that people tend to vote more conservative the older they get.
Dems have been coping for years about their “demographic advantage” and what the end of a white majority would mean. Surprise! It turns out that Hispanics are almost just as likely to vote GOP with the right issues and the right candidate.
I wouldn't say it's pointless, but as the parties shift in ideology, they can blunt this shift. I would say it's more accurate to say that Republicans in 30 years are going to shift ideologically 13% toward Democrats on issues like gay marriage, sexuality, and abortion.
I’ve noticed in a lot of maps and other things related to national trends, Minnesota stands out as a state that is often more similar to the coasts compared with other inland states. Why might this be?
>Minnesota stands out
In the Midwest, four groups of whites are layered in different proportions in different places -- Yankees, Germans, ethnic whites (Irish, Polskis, Italians, etc.), and Southerners. You know you're in Yankeeville when you see a plain church with a white steeple; Germans often selected a Gothic design. Germans, especially Protestants, tend to agree with the Yankees but have a mind-your-own-business attitude that is more pragmatic, consensus-oriented, and less moralizing. Both put a premium on education. Southern migration to the Midwest was larger than most people realize and happened at a 2:1 white-to-black ratio. Where there are ethnic whites and southerners, the GOP has a menu of different backlash issues to work with. Also, where ethnic whites already exist in large numbers (sometimes they don't), Hispanics often go to the same churches, following the pattern of earlier Catholics. This explains some of the different assimilation patterns in Michigan (many ethnic whites) versus Indiana.
Minneapolis began as a logistics hub and attracted Yankees and Germans, but has always lacked the heavy industry to attract too many ethnic whites and Southerners, so it defaults left. Wisconsin had some heavy industry and, therefore, more ethnic whites, so there is more for the GOP to work with on stuff like abortion that aligns with rural voters.
In contrast, Indiana is probably the most Anglo-coded state in the Midwest. It is temperamentally and culturally conservative. Think Mike Pence. While it has a history and culture of literacy, it also never had heavy industry, except in the northwest corner. It had a lot of Southern migration, so the combined Yankee / Southern influence outweighs the German influence. (Drive south of Indianapolis, and you even cross the pop / Coke divide.) Obama won it in 2008 but not in 2012.
To finish the idea -- Illinois and Iowa aren't as liberal and conservative as people think. (Obama won Iowa twice.) These used to be purple states, but when the parties exchanged suburbia and rural areas, Iowa turned red and Illinois blue. White flight a few decades ago merged the Yankee, Germanic, Southern, and the very large ethnic influences in Chicago's large suburban ring. Iowa, in contrast, is like Minnesota but with a much smaller urban center, so the cultural divide cuts differently.
i think a big thing to think about here too is the remnants of early 1900s scandinavian social democrat immigration to the state. i would assume that the democratic stronghold in the superior shore and iron range has a lot to do with this. im pretty sure in the early 1900s, it was one of the most heavily communist areas of the county, so a lot of that industry was filled by scandinavians and finns. (sorry for deleting and resending the comment, i accidentally sent it before i was done writing it)
Education!
given the trends of education-based polarization, pro-urban development policy in MN, and migration to the sun belt, would you think that MN would keep its status, would you think its current state as a democrat enclave will be maintained?
Urban development generally helps Democrats. Emigration from a state generally helps Republicans. Democrats did lose some support in Minnesota in 2024, but I expect New York to flip before Minnesota does. This is because the white vote is more stable than the non-white vote.
do you think that this racial trend would be stronger than the human-capital concentrating economic conditions in the long term? i feel like in the short term, i would largely agree. i guess when you project for long enough, though, it would be hard to say if this kind of polarization will be maintained. also, i think there’s a bug going on where text in replies seem to be cut off. have you or anyone else noticed this too?
Don't notice a bug.
I could go back to earlier elections to see what historical racial polarization was, and check how much it is narrowing, and project when it will cease. I've sort of done this by projecting that Republicans can win blacks in 2040. Maybe not in all states, but in rural counties in red states maybe.
The rural-urban divide has been fairly strong going back to the 19th century. Democrats have dominated with urban immigrants since the 1820s. I think the divide of the future is going to hinge much more on education than urbanism, although the two are correlated because educated people move to cities.
That isn't true at all. Increasing enrollment does not increase price per student -- it decreases it.