Movatterモバイル変換

After 1964 and the Civil Rights Act, the Solid Democratic South became the Solid Republican South. There was no sea change rearing up in any direction. It was a wholesale, pretty much instant conversion. It’s very hard to draw out any regional/political, urban/rural, conservative/liberal, Dem/GOP relationships corresponding to any election since that watershed year.

If someone in the Solid South voted Democratic prior to 1964, would it mean that they were more liberal? Or just that they were still following the Confederate mind/set which would rather die than vote Republican? If someone voted Republican in that region, would it have meant that they were conservative, or that they were voting against the Dixiecrats? Would party voting tell us anything about urban/rural differences or similarities? There would be no way to distinguish between two sorts of motivation, so no conclusions about that region could be drawn, at least not in the same way as afterwards.

Broken link:

which, as of this writing, is reaching critical levels in Spain.

https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hyJdb-8EEhBjETpyrnKh92lMQU0w?docId=af84f7d4f42d4b8e9b5b90605ce95267)

“Equally important, the effect of the shared environment appears to be zero for these traits. Children growing up in the same home (and sharing all the environmental influences such children encounter) do not resemble one another in any discernible way (especially when measured as adults, and when the effect of assortative mating in addressed). Adopted children aren’t any more similar to their adoptive families than random strangers. ”

You know that c2 means shared environment right? And that a lot of those in the table you show are greater than zero, and many are significantly so? And reproduction, social interaction, and social values are all quite high?? And these matter just a bit…

Wouldn’t the German portion of Texas be another one of these pockets?

Jayman,

Most of the original settlers of central Texas (New Braunfels and Fredericksburg) came out of Solms, an area north of Frankfurt.

Thank you, I appreciate you published and answered my tardy comment. I’m looking forward to new posts!

On the basis of the American Nations Theory, what do you make of the fact that it were precisely the most WASPY parts of New England the only ones in the whole country to soundly reject FDR and his New Deal? It doesn’t sound me very compatible with the appeal of Scandinavian-style socialism to WEIRDO people… It’s something I’ve recently asked Colin Woodard on his blog, but he hasn’t answered yet.

I would say extremely similar, not identical. I am Korean and I can trace three of my grandparents to the north in Pyongan province and further trace many ancestors back hundreds of years in these regions.

Autosomal DNA analysis shows that genes are overwhelmingly Korean. The marginal differences (less than 20-25%) are attributed to Manchurian as well as Northern Han Chinese populations, tilted more to Manchurian. I have calculated the ratio of the non-Korean ancestry to be around 60% Manchurian to 40% Chinese (using Xibo/Xibe/Sibe and Beijing Han/CHB as proxies). Keep in mind, southern Manchurian population is more gravitated to East Asian populations rather than Siberian populations (Daur and Hezhen would be intermediaries between the two, Oroqen is pulled toward Siberian). This would cause only slightly higher Siberian DNA in northern Korea than in the south. So there is only slightly more Siberian ancestry detected in me than other Koreans (less than 5%).

Still the results show that even in the north samples should register frequently with Japanese samples as in other Korean samples. I guess this is the result of undifferentiated DNA, more so than recent common descent, of which some portion of genes that read as “Japanese” would show up in one area of Korea and another portion would show up in another region of Korea.

Have you read David Pearce?

Matthew Naylor is correct. On the Canadian census, respondents can volunteer as many choices for ethnicity as they like. If one says “French Canadian,” that will be coded as both French and Canadian. If one says “Haitian Canadian,” that will be coded as both Haitian and Canadian. In Quebec, among Francophones, the single word “Canadien” is shorthand for Quebecois, or French Canadian. Obviously, for Quebec, there are far more who said Canadian/Canadien in all its forms than anything else.

The coding of your map needs more nuance to account for this.

I discuss this in my bookCanadian Politics: Riding by Riding.

Catholic ethnics, being more clannish compared to other Europeans are far more Nationalistic. You see this often if you know Irish or Italian families, they are far more likely to be outspoken about their ethnicity, they often display four leaf clovers and Italian flags, even when they’re 3rd or 4th generation Americans.

So in talking about relevance to Trump support, the key factor won’t be a liberal-conservative spectrum but rather a tendency towards Nationalism, patriotism.

The modern brand of “conservative”, like Cruz, has attempted to stoke the nationalist vote, but it has not gotten the Catholic ethnic vote because it is a fake Nationalism which has always been more focused on unfettered globalized trade, idealistic interventionist foreign policy, and token immigration enforcement. So it makes historical voting patterns of catholic ethnics in America a bit of a non-starter as they’ve never really had the option to follow a Nationalism which gives them the most fervor.

Thats my take and admittedly probably has blind spots. Besides the obvious snag (How does nationalism for co-ethnics in Italy transfer to pride in America): If nationalism appeals to catholic ethnics because of higher historical rates of cousin marriage, for instance, you may expect arabs to be the most nationalist of all. But perhaps it makes sense that they aren’t, you can overshoot the mark and be too clannish. Its possible Catholic ethnics have the inbreeding “sweet spot” for the type of nationalism that Trump is selling: Patriotic ingroup, but not too inbred that you lose all sense of nation altogether. Thoughts on that, Jayman?

But unless you have data on that one that I don’t know about, your claim isn’t actually justified.

Isn’t this a quixotic methodological purism? Some ordinary (nonscientific) knowledge is pretty secure, such as that some beliefs vary with culture.

What is the country you describe and are white children there now the minority of births country wide?

“we see Bernie is decidedly weak among White Democrats across the Dixie nations, and weak across much of the old Rust Belt (central Yankeedom/the Midlands).”

There were enough primaries in “central Yankeedom/the Midlands” to be possible to know that?

I just read an article in VOX that consulted four experts on this subject.

One expert connected it to the higher % of blacks in the Democratic total in a state.

One expert connected it to the generational divide, younger people voting for Sanders.

One expert said it was because Sanders did not campaign in the South.

One expert said they he didn’t know because there are no analyses of black voter behavior like there are for whites.

Just because the samples are nationwide doesn’t mean that the adoptions are inter-regional.

I was assuming that most adoption is local, within these “nations,” or regions. That was the qualification that I spelled out explicitly in my first comment. Is it really typical that parents adopt children born halfway across the country? The more inter-regional adoptions there are, the more powerful the test. As I said in my comment, I’d be interested in seeing an answer to the question of how many adoptions are inter-regional.

They’ve heard of him?

They (we) have as many TV’s as anyone.

I catch your drift though and I agree. It is much better to be well educated, like you, for example.

Some of my German ancestors started in PA, went to NC and then to SC. They were “swamped” and obliterated by the Scotch-Irish culture in SC. Some of their brothers and sisters who stayed in PA went on to become Pennsylvania Dutch.

Maybe photos of those who participated in exit polling would be informative. (I know that skin tone is only a rough indicator.)

I knew that was going to come up.

Right, I agree on that. But my point is that the kind of cultural effects we’re talking about—Scandinavian culture, Scotch-Irish culture, etc.—will probably also be at a much wider scale, i.e., lower resolution. That is, even if there were a neighborhood in some Appalachian city that had a higher percentage of residents who were of, say, English and German ancestry, that neighborhood would still be influenced by the Scotch-Irish culture of the region.

I think that’s really the only point on which I’m disagreeing with you. If the cultural effects workedonly at the neighborhood level or lower, then the negligible shared-environment effect from adoption studies would in fact imply no cultural effect. But I don’t think that’s the case, and I’m sure that you can’t justassume it’s the case.

Why is there a noticeable and significant difference between the % of blacks voting for Bernie in the Northern States as opposed to his % in the Southern States?

They’ve heard of him?

Our MSM has a rather different political line than that of the N. Koreans.

They do?

That’s why Korean babies adopted by American parents don’t typically grow up to worship the Supreme Leader…

Why do you conclude this is due to the influence of the American parents rather of American culture? (Our MSM has a rather different political line than that of the N. Koreans.)

I did. I don’t dispute that genes are important but obviously environment plays a role. That’s why Korean babies adopted by American parents don’t typically grow up to worship the Supreme Leader and believe in fan death.

The way people vote is a reflection of who and indeed what they are. It has nothing to do with how they were raised by their parents, where they grew up, or where they live now (except to the extent current self-interest is involved).

You make the most sweeping, outrageous and unnuanced generalizations. I have no clue why Unz lets you blog here or why anyone reads you. Your blog is a monument to arrogant ignorance, and a disgrace to this website.

Also – blacks in Michigan are probably more likely to be part white

Yeah, I can see bloc voting feeling more imperative in the South. Whereas in Northern industrial cities there is more than one set of moral-political institutions and struggle. Given this, you wouldn’t necessarily need human capital differences to account for an extra 20% vote for Sanders – though I wouldn’t rule it out either. I could see WEIRDO labor institutions and political education resonating with the subset of more WEIRDO inclined skilled black laborers, which in turn may have made up a higher percentage of certain industrial centers than down South.

That could well explain a lot.

Without checking for the actual differences, I assume that higher educational attainment would explain a portion.

Also I think it is because there are many more cities and counties in the South where bloc voting has traditionally been considered beneficial for blacks.

hilary is waaaaaay worst than donald. reason is that she isn’t fresh anymore. everything she does has been done by her countless times before. donald is new, hence his words still carry some weight. I am not holding my breath as this is just repeat of obama’s “change”

donald vs hilary = fresh liar(a huge maybe) vs known liar.

donald is being a better politician than all other politicians right now. I just hope he is different, instead of another fake.

A history of old-school labor unionism make a difference.

Very true. Dour Victorian-era Protestants (and their heirs) aren’t as much fun as Catholics.

Trump rallies are becoming increasing more violent because of stepped up opposition by left wing radicals (Move On, Black Lives Matter, and allies) who shout, throw things at Trump supporters, break the windows of cars with Trump bumper stickers, and try to cause as much trouble as possible. Then left wing media can show videos of those “violent” Trump rallies.

As I had mentioned, Toronto prior to the mid 20th century was so Protestant and so dominated by the Orange Order that to was referred to as the Belfast of Canada:

Torontonians used to escape to Buffalo for some fun. That tells you something right there.

Just watched CNN where they gave us the European perspective. It was given by an Indian female ( who else) who happens be a lecturer in a London University. What a surprise: it turns out that Europeans prefer Clinton to Trump by a large extent.

They watch 3 different Lib media outlets, and think they know the news.

You just described Hitlery.

Rallies are “love fests”.
“Protesters” cause violence.

Why?

Because Jews are disgusting liars, very simple. “Antisemitism” is a righteous, reasonable response to Jews’ creepy behavior.

Bernie Sanders is a perfect example of the loud mouthed, but dumb Jew.
All talk.

New York was always “pushy”–dating all the way back to when it was still Nieuw Amsterdam. And it was polyglot too. It was already a thriving economic center consisting of people whose prime objective was getting, spending, and getting some more.

I read Woodard’s book and as I recall many of the Yankee Loyalists spilled over into the Maritimes after the Revolution (as well as into Ontario). Indeed, the people who originally settled the Maritimes (Newfoundland, which is heavily Scots-Irish possible excepted) came from the same area of England (East Anglia) as the so-called “Pilgrims.”

No, the fact of a negligible shared-environment effect does not answer the question (with one qualification, see below). The question was, whether culture and genes can be disentangled as explanations ofbetween-regional variation, where the regions are the “nations” given here, or any other partition where genetics and culture are coextensive.

Obviously, a negligible shared-environment effectwithin regions does not, in itself, say anything about the environmental effectbetween regions. I’ll bet even you won’t try to deny that! You can’t tell about environmental effects between, say, the “Left Coast” and “Greater Appalachia” from looking at behavioral genetics studies conductedwithin those two “nations.”

And note that it’s not enough to include inter-ethnic adoption within the nations. The culture effect that you’d want to test for is “nationwide” or at least wider than the family: The idea is that if Appalachia is affected by Scotch-Irish culture, then that Scotch-Irish culture will affect non-Scotch-Irish people in Appalachia as well.

So the qualification is that if you did have a study with a significant amount of adoption across these “nations”—e.g., California parents adopting Tennessee children and vice versa—then you could draw the conclusion that you claimed. The more cross-regional adoption, the more powerful the study. It would be really interesting to see a study like that. It wasn’t clear (correct me if I’m wrong), but I don’t think the data in the table are from such a cross-regional study.

Great job Jayman! Only a tad discursive, and more self-editing (less is more) would help for a blog post.

In 1984, my Northern Ontario elementary school classroom sported a large poster titled something like, “Ontario: 200 Years of History” (repeated in French of course.) When I asked what 1984 was the anniversary of that marked the start of Ontario history, I was told 1784 was the year the loyalists arrived in large numbers. I guess that wasn’t true, since 6000 isn’t many relative to 400,000, unless they’re Syrians or something.

Trump is a Sicilianized German-Scot.

My mom’s family was German-Scot, from Queens, and could hold their own with any Sicilian. Unlike the Drumpfs, though, they were Catholic, and laid the bricks rather than owned them.

Ethel Merman was also a German-Scot mix. If you count German Jews, then so was Oscar Hammerstein II.

You could blame (downstate) New York’s pushiness on the Irish. Or the Dutch. Or even the Germans. I think they’re all guilty!

Why so much anti-Semitism in Minneapolis-and for such a long time?

Luther.

Irish (and German) St Paul was more welcoming.

Lol @ “Sicilianized”. It’s as if you haven’t read a single thing on this blog. His ancestry is perfectly capable of explaining Trump (and it isn’t as if peoples don’t massively vary within themselves either). Interestingly, his mom is from the Hebrides, a particularly Scandinavian-influenced area of Scotland.

Anyway, what I can see based on this post is that it’s primarily the white Sanders demographic that has been responsible for actually Making America Great™ which is unsurprising, whether one agrees with their general ideology (I usually don’t).

Unsurprising since Trump has a very typical pompous and crude NYC personality, and said personality is in large part due to the hundreds of thousands of pompous, crude siciliani that America inexplicably chose to allow to immigrate.

Trump is a Sicilianized German-Scot.

That is the protestors who are violent, koolaid drinker. Why don’t you ask the LSM why Rahm didn’t provide the proper police protection instead of repeating LSM lies?

Guess they knew something?

True. I had time for about a third, then moved on.

Mar 20, 2015 The Cycle of The State (by Daniel Sanchez)

Daniel Sanchez combines the theories of Robert Higgs and Hans-Hermann Hoppe to form a theory of the cycle of the state.

Video Link

Why so much anti-Semitism in Minneapolis-and for such a long time?:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Minneapolis#Politics.2C_corruption.2C_anti-Semitism_and_social_change

Minneapolis was known for anti-Semitism beginning in the 1880s and through the 1950s.[29] The city was described as “the capital of anti-Semitism in the United States” in 1946 by Carey McWilliams[30] and in 1959 by Gunther Plaut.[31] At that time the city’s Jews were excluded from membership in many organizations, faced employment discrimination, and were considered unwelcome residents in some neighborhoods.[32] Jews in Minneapolis were also not allowed to buy homes in certain neighborhoods of Minneapolis.[33] In the 1940s a lack of anti-Semitism was noted in the Midwest with the exception of Minneapolis. McWilliams noted in 1946 the lack of anti-Semitism in neighboring Saint Paul.[34]

I actually find trump super easy to understand. he is the master of pandering. he can and will tell you what you want to hear, 100 out of 100 conversations. it is the follow through I am worry about. will he be flat like all politicians? or will he actually be different.

What’s the evidence that “genetic diversity (even among whites)” is relevant at the inter-ethnic level? Yes, I know that political persuasion is heritable, but that doesn’t answer the question.

How do you know that the political difference between, say, Germans and Scotch-Irish is significantly influenced by genetics? How do you disentangle genetic and cultural causes when genetic and cultural groupings are roughly coextensive? (I haven’t read the linked articles.)

N.B. I come from Friendly and Conventional-stan, so I’m asking this question in good faith.

Gender war, nothing more.

I have an Italian friend who lives in St Louis. He has been a lifelong Democrat but now supports Trump with a tremendous passion. He’s just one person but an example of how Trump appeals to Italians.

The Delta

The plantation economy envisioned by God.

The Delta (defined by most as the alluvial plain between Memphis and Vickburg) has a lot of quirks. Black majority; whites mostly from Episcopal/Presbyterian, rather than Baptist/Pentacostal religious traditions; it also has that odd mix (Blacks, Anglos,Jews, Chinese, Lebanese, Greeks, Italians) that formed in the 19th century that I associate with certain parts of the Caribbean; party boy genteel; people there have never been hung up about alcohol, even during Prohibition.

Saw how my native Mississippi Delta was an outlier for “Friendly and Conventional”. No surprises there. It’s an outlier for, well, lots of things.

Off topic

Post traumatic disorder need neurotic disposition to express (sh)itself (because trauma is not a good thing to feel of course,

The pattern seems to go back generations:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/11911/protestant-catholic-vote.aspx

It goes back to when the share of unaffiliated voters was negligible:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_religious_demographics_of_the_United_States

Found a snippet here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Canada#Ethnic_Groups

The Great Migration from Britain from 1815-1850 has been numbered at 800,000. The population of Upper Canada in 1837 is documented at 409,000. Given the lack of detailed census data it is difficult to assess the relative size of the American & Canadian born “British” and the foreign born “British.” By the time of the first census in 1841, only

half of the population of Upper Canada were foreign born British

I don’t know why wiki states “only”. Estimated 50% of the population in Ontario being born in Britain is rather substantial.

As I had mentioned, Toronto prior to the mid 20th century was so Protestant and so dominated by the Orange Order that to was referred to as the Belfast of Canada:

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/review-toronto-the-belfast-of-canada-william-j-smyth

But yes subsequent British settlement (and other immigration) did make a demographic impact

The impact was huge. Ontario got most of Canada’s 19th century immigrants, most of whom were British Protestants. It is only a little exaggeration to say that non-Toronto Ontario is to Britain, what Quebec is to France, although its Britishness derives from the 19th century rather than the 17th-18th centuries. The towns have British architecture, British monuments (Boer War, etc.), and British settlement. Outside if heavily Chinese, Indian, Italian, and Jamaican multi-culti Toronto (an Australian friend told me it reminds her a lot of her native Melbourne – could this be said of any American Midland town?) the culture is provincial British – people drink hot tea, they have English gardens, etc.

Similarities between Ontario and Iowa or Illinois are mostly topographic and superficial: they are largely flat and have farms; if you drive on the highway from Detroit to Toronto it will look like Indiana, but that’s as far as the similarity goes. Off the highway you have towns like Stratford with its Shakespeare festival, Chatham on the Thames (70% British), etc.

Anyone know where in Britain those settlers came from?

http://www.englishtocanada.com/canada’s_english.htm

In terms of the English, everywhere – though it varied by time. Originally from the North (Yorkshire, Cornwall, Devon), the from the south, and then agricultural laborers form everywhere.

A lot of the Scots are highlanders, and Ontario has annual Highland Games in Glengarry (largest such outside Scotland).

How can you group heavily German/Scandi (Italian and Slavic in cities) upper midwest with the NE (least German region) is beyond me. Yes they’re both left of center on average, but in a different way.

As I noted above, the settlers to Ontario came from the Philadelphia area

This was true of Kingston. Other areas were not. St. Catherine’s was settled by Loyalists mostly from upstate New York. At any rate, the small numbers of Loyalist settlers in Ontario (estimated at about 6,000) were swamped by later waves of British settlement. The names of the towns (i.e., London with the Thames river, Stratford with its Shakespeare festival, Scottish Guelph), formal gardens, etc. are very British, and not at all Iowan. Prior to massive immigration in the mid 20th century, Toronto was basically 90% British and 10% Jewish and was controlled by the Orange Order. Ontario is still more British than even New England.

Demographically, Ontario’s main ethnic groups are:

English, 24.7%; Scottish, 17.5%; Irish, 16.5%; French, 11.2%; German 9.5%.

In Ohio it is: German, 26.5%, Irish 14.1%; African-American 12.2%; English 9%; Italian 6.4%.

In Massachusetts it is 22.5% Irish, 13.5% Italian, 11.4% English, 8% French.

This is great. It matches my own observations about death rate from prescription painkiller overdose and Trump/Cruz voting in Kentucky:

https://www.unz.com/isteve/primaries-open-thread-republican/#comment-1349751

One quibble, unrelated to the post’s main topic, is your lumping Ontario in with much of the Midwest. It may be the British Empire’s “Midwest” but is much more like New England than like central Ohio. Other than multicultural Toronto and Arabic/Italian Windsor, it’s very and proudly British.

“The Midlands seem to me similarly a tough sell”

I’ve not been buying this whole “nations” concept, and I realized with Random Observer’s point that the sticking point for me has been “Midland”. The region on the map even looks wrong, an incoherent mess of what looks like couldn’t plausible be fit in with “Yankeedom” or “Greater Appalachia”. But I might be able to buy the concept with some fixes.

Just put Ontario with “Yankeedom” and “Midland” looks less ridiculous, plus the eastern and western halves of “Yankeedom” are linked, and Random Observer makes a good cultural case for this.

I’m not sure how much these regions are supposed to be defined by historical settlement patterns. “Yankeedom” makes no sense on that basis. Yes, New Englanders went west, but then tended to go to northeastern Ohio, and to the Pacific Northwest. They didn’t go to Minnesota and Wisconsin, which got alot of Scandinavians and Germans. Later the Irish and Italians came to New England, pushing out the Yankees, but are nowhere to be found in the upper Midwest. Politically and culturally, there is definitely a link which has been called “liberal Puritanism”, and which includes at least Toronto as well, but whereever this comes from I don’t think it comes from 18th and 19th century settlement history.

Getting back to Midland, rural central Pennsylvania, or “Pennsyltucky” as I’ve heard it called within the state, should be assigned to Greater Appalachia. Similar landscape and culture, as well as voting patterns except during the decades when the CIO was strong. The Greater Philadelphia area doesn’t fit with neighboring central Pennsylvania, or New York, or Maryland/ Tidewater, and is probably best understood as a detached part of “Midland”. However, the main western portion of Midland should coincide essentially with the lower Midwest, it should include pretty much all of Illinois, most of Ohio (southeastern OH can stay in Greater Appalachia), more of Indiana, and probably also Milwaukee and Detroit. Missouri, apart from St. Louis and KC, is in Greater Appalachia. These changes would make Midland a much more cohesive region.

White Protestants, both Evangelical and Mainline Protestants, seem to be more Republican than white Catholics:

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/02/02/trends-in-party-identification-of-religious-groups-affiliation/

Mormons seem to be the most Republican group. I don’t know if they’re technically Protestants or not, though they tend to be descended from Protestants.

Look at this, granted it doesn’t take into account nuances of ethnicity, region, etc. Catholics in eg Louisiana not more liberal than Prot neighborshttp://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/catholics-real-liberals/

I am not a soybean farmer or a bona fide expert in Iowa, but my mom was born and raised there, and I’ve visited the state well over a dozen times. I was amazed how much of the vote Trump was able to get. Everything about his personality, the tone, the crudeness, being loud, getting in people’s faces, is about as anti-Iowa as you can get. I swear everyone who voted for him must have felt in their bones they didn’t like him, but decided to vote for him anyway.

I obviously don’t know how close people in Iowa and Ohio are genetically, but having been to Columbus a few times to visit family there, the Ohioans I’ve meet sure seem like transplants from Iowa. And at least on TV Kasich is about as Iowa a guy can get without a cornfield in his backyard.

So, prediction: Kasich wins Ohio tomorrow, by a larger margin than polling predicts.

Yeah, as a Canadian I bridled at that one too. But although they do not feel the same to me [Maritimers seem more reserved than New Englanders to me, but then my experience of New England is more Boston than Maine or even rural Mass] they do have a lot in common and parallel histories, and the cultural links between the Maritimes and New England are well known and VERY deep even now.

I was more interested in the size of Yankeedom as a whole. I’ll have to go back to your series. I never quite got the idea that New England, New York, and the Scando-German Midwest were the same nation. Though compared to their immediate neighbours, perhaps so.

The Midlands seem to me similarly a tough sell, but perhaps I’m not looking deeply enough at settlement patterns and just at superficial culture. As a transition zone between Yankeedom and the various southern nations, for sure. Perhaps even as a transition zone out west. But I’m not sure all of southern and central Ontario works in that model. The northern part maybe. But southern Ontario from Windsor to Kingston mirrors its Yankee neighbour- from Industrial Detroit’s Windsor satellite to the old farmlands of the Thames valley, through Niagara and into areas across the Lake from New York. Loyalist version of Yankeedom at the start. And still with many of the same norms- progressivism [at first just in the capitalist/technical sense but later in the ideological one], progressive religion [dominated by the United Church kind of Protestantism], statism, elitism in culture, for long a tug of war between big business orientation and farmer populism].

Anyway. Random thoughts.

This discussion in the context of the current election reminds me of “Amerika” circa 1987, as the Soviets set up an independent state of “Heartland”. It was all about the common good, you see:

Video Link

If I were observing the candidates based only on personality and style, I’d expect Trump to run the table of Italian-, Irish- and Jewish-Americans, and do much less well among Scandinavian-, German- and Anglo-Americans. And do better than any other Republican among blacks, perhaps more in the South. He could be the second black president [after Bill, natch].

Why are you so averse to to acknowledging that Catholic “ethnics” are much more leftist on average than “old-stock” Americans, it contradicts the HBD individualism of NW Europe v collectivism dogma?

Reminds me of Panem in the “Hunger Games”https://cindybiondigobrecht.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/is-the-trump-phenomena-blowback-from-our-liberal-political-correctness/

Good golly, Miss Molly- talk about a thorough analysis !
Thanks Jayman !

I am a Trump supporter, though I don’t individually fall into these categories. But my extended family and ancestry do illustrate your points. The quarter of my ancestry that came over in the 1630s, settled in Maryland, and fought in the Revolution are more unpredictable than the German Swiss quarter that came over much later, and tend to obey orders. My Scots-Irish/ English quarter are anti-Elites, while my Scandinavian quarter is predictably non-rebellious and rather passive.