Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children

Religions > Bible > Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Gactimus"
Date:	13 Dec 2004 10:26:14 AM
Object:	Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children

There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The
movement is "maritalism."
Okay—that's pretty silly.
But if demographic trend impresario David Brooks can use my
number-crunching in his Dec. 7th New York Times op-ed "The New Red-Diaper
Babies" to claim:
"There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The
movement is 'natalism'"
then can't I cash in with my own buzzword too?
Brooks declared "natalism" to be A New Trend in part because of me. He
wrote:
"So there are significant fertility inequalities across regions... You can
see surprising political correlations. As Steve Sailer pointed out in The
American Conservative, George Bush carried the 19 states with the highest
white fertility rates, and 25 of the top 26. John Kerry won the 16 states
with the lowest rates."
Of course, in reality, there's no organized "natalist movement." But it's
a marketable catchphrase on which Brooks can hang articles and lucrative
lectures.
So, needing the money more than he does, I'm going to coin the term
"maritalist movement" even though there's no Movement with a capital M
either—just people who are married.
This article is a sequel to my cover story, "Baby Gap: How Birthrates
Color the Electoral Map" in the Dec. 20, 2004 American Conservative. I can
now reveal on VDARE.COM some new and improved insights into the two
underlying demographic factors that molded, to a quite astonishing degree,
the last two Presidential elections.
Two factors, because being married turns out to be even more important
than having babies.
Let me fill in the recent history. My AmCon piece has been getting a lot
of attention because it's the first major conceptual breakthrough in
understanding the much-discussed divide between "red states" (Republican)
and "blue states" (Democrat).
Here's a scatter plot illustrating my original correlation in "Baby Gap"
between voting by state and the expected number of babies per white woman
over her lifetime.

http://www.isteve.com/BabyGap-scatterplot2-WV-fixed.gif
Red dots represent the red states and blue dots the blue states. The
correlation coefficient of Bush's share of the total vote in a state and
the number of babies per white woman is r = 0.86, meaning that this
relationship "accounts for" 74 percent of variance (r-squared = 74
percent).
To help you visualize the geography of my 2004 correlation, Ethan Herdrick
has graciously constructed a nifty map.
http://www.herdrick.com/coloredmaps/bushvote-tffr-pregs-births-aborts-birthsperabort.html
This is an extraordinarily close connection. But it's no one-time fluke.
As I pointed out on VDARE.COM back in 2001, Bush carried the 19 states
with the highest white fertility in 2000.
And the strength of the relationship has been growing with time. Back in
1988, the correlation between white fertility and George H.W. Bush's share
of the vote by state was r = 0.71 (r-squared = 51%). That was only about
70 percent as powerful as the correlation with George W. Bush's share in
2004.
Why do voters follow these patterns? Because blue regions tend to be more
densely populated and racially diverse—which raises the cost of both
capacious housing and safe schooling. This makes children harder to
afford. Bigger families make red staters more open to voting on the GOP's
"family values" issues. (My American Conservative article explains the
mechanisms in detail.)
Do Democrats want to learn the secrets underlying voter behavior and
figure out how to beat the Republicans?
Or do they just want to congratulate themselves on their morally superior
ignorance...and keep losing?
Answer: the latter, judging by liberals' reaction to my discovery so far.
A frenzy of Democrats' denunciations of my finding have rained down, all
predicated on the assumption that they can ignore what I discovered
because ... I'm evil.
There's a classic example of anti-Sailerism over at TAPPED, the blog of
the liberal American Prospect, by Garance Franke-Ruta. She is in a tizzy
that Brooks defiled the pages of the New York Times by citing me.
The defining characteristic of anti-Sailerist diatribes like Franke-Ruta's
is multitudinous quotations from my writings with no attempt at refutation
of their truth. The reader is simply supposed to be shocked, SHOCKED that
anyone would dare write such politically incorrect things.
A few times, Franke-Ruta gets so worked up she can't even be bothered to
quote me out of context. I was particularly amused that she included my
AmCon article's concluding paragraph in full:
"Nobody noticed that the famous blue-red gap was a white baby gap because
the subject of white fertility is considered disreputable. But I believe
the truth is better for us than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking. At
least, it's certainly more interesting."
Apparently, by revealing that I believe that the truth is better for us
than ignorance, lies, or wishful thinking, I've condemned myself in the
eyes of all of polite society.
No refutation of my shocking faux pas is needed. All bien-pensants can
instantly see how much better it is to bask in reputable ignorance.
In 1942, George Orwell famously observed of this manner of thinking:
"Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as 'the truth'
exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as 'Science.' There is only
'German Science,' 'Jewish Science,' etc... This prospect frightens me much
more than bombs—and after our experiences of the last few years that is
not such a frivolous statement."
Democrats, of course are not Nazis--they are the only organized American
opposition to the Bush dynasty. But if they prefer to wallow in
self-congratulatory bigotry, they simply won't be able to provide the
effective competition our country needs.
Enough of the past. Here's what I've found that's brand new.
There is another demographic factor that correlates at the state level
even more tightly than white fertility with Bush's share: being married.
And, when years married is teamed with fertility in a two-factor multiple
regression model, the correlation becomes stratospheric.
The more years of their young adulthoods that the white people in a state
spend in wedlock on average, the more Republican the state is overall.
I figured out how to estimate by state the expected number of years
between the ages of 18 and 44 that a woman will be married (to be precise,
married with her husband present).
For example, white women in Utah, where Bush had his best showing with 71
percent of the total vote, led the nation by being married an average of
17.0 years during those 27 years from age 18 through 44.
In contrast, in Washington D.C., where Bush only took 9 percent, the
average white woman is married only 7.4 years. In Massachusetts, where
Bush won merely 37 percent, her years married average just 12.2.
California is next at 12.5. That coincides with my observations: four of
my seven best friends from my Los Angeles high school's class of 1976 did
not get married for the first time until this millennium, when they were
in their forties.
Marriage in L.A. is increasingly reverting to what it was in Jane Austen's
novels: a luxury that many cannot currently—and some may never—afford.
(For The Onion's satirical views on the increasing age of marriage, click
here.)
Indeed, there is much more diversity among states in years of marriage
than in years of education—a factor that is frequently discussed although
it is less politically significant.
Leaving anomalous Washington D.C. aside, the range between the state with
the most-educated whites (Hawaii with 14.2 years of schooling on average)
and the worst (West Virginia with 12.2) is only 42% as large as the
Utah-Massachusetts gap in years married.
Overall, Bush carried the top 25 states ranked on years married for white
women. The correlation coefficient with Bush's share of the vote is 0.91,
or 83 percent of the variation "explained." That's extremely high. Years
married also correlates with the 2000 election results at the 0.89 level
(80 percent). So it's no fluke.
The r-squared when years married and fertility are combined in a multiple
regression model is improves to 88 percent. (Small-sounding change,
perhaps, but actually an important (30%) reduction in the unaccounted
variation - from 17 percent to 12 percent.)
In other words, both years married and fertility play statistically
significant roles, with years married somewhat more important.
Not surprisingly, years married and number of babies per woman is highly
correlated (r = 0.80, r-squared = 65 percent). On both measures, Utah is
first and D.C. last.
However, there are some differences.
Southern states tend to have quite early marriage, but only somewhat above
average fertility. That's probably because years married is negatively
correlated with years of schooling (-0.72, 52 percent), and the Southern
states tend to be a little below average in white educational level.
In case you are wondering, five out of the ten states with the
most-educated white populations gave their Electoral Votes to Bush.
Strikingly, the most socially conservative state, Utah, has the seventh
most-educated whites, ahead of even educationally haughty archliberal
Massachusetts.
However, nine out of the bottom ten least-educated white populations are
in red states—mostly in the South.
Despite the notorious Red State-Blue State IQ Hoax with which so many
millions of Democrats consoled themselves after November's election, exit
poll data shows that, across all races, the two parties' voters are
virtually identical in years of schooling. They were tied in 2000, the GOP
was slightly ahead in 2002, and the Democrats were up in 2004, but only by
only about 0.15 years of classwork per voter.
However, white Democrats tend to be somewhat more educated than white
Republicans (who are what white Democrats are thinking about when they
obsess about their superiority).
In contrast, black and Hispanic Republicans average more years of
schooling than their Democratic co-ethnics.
While limited schooling correlates clearly with early marriage, the
negative correlation between years of education and babies per woman is
surprisingly weak (-0.38, 14 percent). The states that have relatively
late marriage combined with relatively high fertility are led by Arizona,
Nevada, and New Mexico.
My guess is that these states receive many educated refugees from
California looking for a place where they can afford to raise several
children.
What lessons can the GOP learn from this trove of information?
The most obvious: Republicans do best when younger adults can afford to
get married and have children. (Women are especially likely to be
converted from Democrat to Republican by marriage and children.)
Young white people are most inclined to marry and procreate if housing is
cheap because of low population density and if the public schools are
undamaged by ethnic diversity.
That may sound shockingly blunt to see in writing. But, let's be honest,
that's how everybody talks in private when buying a home.
In increasingly expensive and diverse California, white fertility fell 14
percent from 1990 to 2002.
Not surprisingly, although George H.W. Bush carried California by four
points in 1988, his son lost it by nine points in 2004.
What is the single most effective way Republicans can avoid
Californicating the rest of the county?
What is the simplest way to keep population density under control and
public school quality up—thus allowing more young people to afford the
Republicanizing blessings of marriage and children?
Cut back on immigration.
[Steve Sailer is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie
critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.com features
site-exclusive commentaries.]
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/041212_secret.htm
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Terrorism and murder	13 Dec 2004 11:23:13 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The
movement is "maritalism."

You spelled it wrong. It's "militarism".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "John Savard"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Terrorism and murder	13 Dec 2004 11:58:36 PM

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 05:23:13 GMT,

(Ray Fischer)
wrote, in part:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:

There is a little-known movement sweeping across the United States. The
movement is "maritalism."

You spelled it wrong. It's "militarism".

I think if he _only_ spelled it wrong, instead of choosing the wrong
word, it would be "martialism".
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.

User: "Elf M. Sternberg"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	13 Dec 2004 12:26:43 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:

Here's a scatter plot illustrating my original correlation in "Baby Gap"
between voting by state and the expected number of babies per white woman
over her lifetime.

What a fascinating obsession with "whiteness". Hmm... do I
detect an agenda here?
Elf
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	13 Dec 2004 12:30:35 PM

"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in
news:87acsiuk9o.fsf@drizzle.com:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:

Here's a scatter plot illustrating my original correlation in "Baby
Gap" between voting by state and the expected number of babies per
white woman over her lifetime.

What a fascinating obsession with "whiteness". Hmm... do I
detect an agenda here?

White people tend to vote Republican.
.

User: "Xenophile"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 01:47:31 AM

"Gactimus" wrote:

"Elf M. Sternberg" wrote:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:

Here's a scatter plot illustrating my original correlation in "Baby
Gap" between voting by state and the expected number of babies per
white woman over her lifetime.

What a fascinating obsession with "whiteness". Hmm... do I
detect an agenda here?

White people tend to vote Republican.

Not this white boy!
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	13 Dec 2004 04:31:58 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	13 Dec 2004 04:30:38 PM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:
Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	13 Dec 2004 04:42:06 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?
you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size.
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 07:02:07 AM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB410F48Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?

you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size.

13,660 is a valid sample size.
It looks like I was right as usual. That is, unless your cowardly self can
provide evidence to the contrary.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 08:27:30 AM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103029327.7d7a4c9bb9ab9921eac5ae9f275487e0@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB410F48Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.

0.html

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?

you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size.

13,660 is a valid sample size.

prove your sample is greater than 2.
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 08:30:43 AM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BF6036765AEkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103029327.7d7a4c9bb9ab9921eac5ae9f275487e0@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB410F48Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?

you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size.

13,660 is a valid sample size.

prove your sample is greater than 2.

Your answer is in the link above.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 09:02:41 AM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103034643.7b60e2d92dd1bda0dca38de104e345ff@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BF6036765AEkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103029327.7d7a4c9bb9ab9921eac5ae9f275487e0@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB410F48Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epoll

s.0.html

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?

you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample
size.

13,660 is a valid sample size.

prove your sample is greater than 2.

Your answer is in the link above.

no it isn't but it's nice of you to lie so badly
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 08:57:11 AM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BF662D899keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103034643.7b60e2d92dd1bda0dca38de104e345ff@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BF6036765AEkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

prove your sample is greater than 2.

Your answer is in the link above.

no it isn't but it's nice of you to lie so badly

"13,660 Respondents"
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
What more proof do you want?
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 09:09:18 AM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103036231.7ef348a2ba152fa692a83392cb437be6@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BF662D899keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103034643.7b60e2d92dd1bda0dca38de104e345ff@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BF6036765AEkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

prove your sample is greater than 2.

Your answer is in the link above.

no it isn't but it's nice of you to lie so badly

"13,660 Respondents"

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.
html

What more proof do you want?

kid, the sample size you cite is a sample of 1. if you want to pretent
you're just dumb rather than blatantly lying, i'll accept that.
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 09:10:52 AM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BF674C3E3A6keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103036231.7ef348a2ba152fa692a83392cb437be6@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BF662D899keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103034643.7b60e2d92dd1bda0dca38de104e345ff@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BF6036765AEkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

prove your sample is greater than 2.

Your answer is in the link above.

no it isn't but it's nice of you to lie so badly

"13,660 Respondents"

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

What more proof do you want?

kid, the sample size you cite is a sample of 1.

How so?
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 07:12:20 PM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BFC0ED610A3keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103064366.9093650266c9c973ff4c02f911a6f578@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BFB58FBD75Ckeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103063753.3e65cef5320f3c5163583b711775b850@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BFB3D326C71keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Why is it only a sample size of one?

that is the only dats you submitted.

The data I submitted was from a poll

exactly. you need several thousand such polls.

Over 13,000 people were polled.

in ONE poll. your sample was ONE. to make your case you need a
valid set of samples over a valid period of time.

does anyone think you can back your seemingly false claim?

Do you have evidence that whites tend to not vote Democrat?

does this question signify the withdrawal of the allegation you
made?

i see you ran away from your allegation

here, i'll replace it for you.

"White people tend to vote Republican."
--Gactimus<gactimus@xrs.net>
Message-ID:
<1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews>

No.

then you demonstrate blatant dishonesty, since you can not support
hyour statement with credible evidence.

"Jay Arekere, associate research scientist and associate director of
Texas A&M University's Race and Ethnic Studies Institute (RESI) said
Monday that based on his research of voting behaviors along racial
lines, he predicts that President Bush will win the presidential
election.

Arekere determined his prediction by studying voting patterns among
non-whites and whites, which showed that whites tend to vote
Republican, while non-whites tend to vote Democratic."

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/11/02/News/Am.Research.Scientist.Predicts.Bush.Will.Win-789609.shtml

why did you just repeat your claim you already agreed you could not
support with credible evidence?

This is the third time I've supported it.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 07:40:35 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103073140.39d4fc382bca821bc1000244d4057eca@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BFC0ED610A3keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103064366.9093650266c9c973ff4c02f911a6f578@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BFB58FBD75Ckeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103063753.3e65cef5320f3c5163583b711775b850@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BFB3D326C71keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Why is it only a sample size of one?

that is the only dats you submitted.

The data I submitted was from a poll

exactly. you need several thousand such polls.

Over 13,000 people were polled.

in ONE poll. your sample was ONE. to make your case you need a
valid set of samples over a valid period of time.

does anyone think you can back your seemingly false claim?

Do you have evidence that whites tend to not vote Democrat?

does this question signify the withdrawal of the allegation you
made?

No.

then you demonstrate blatant dishonesty, since you can not support
hyour statement with credible evidence.

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2004/11/02/News/Am.Research.Scientist.Pre

dicts.Bush.Will.Win-789609.shtml

why did you just repeat your claim you already agreed you could not
support with credible evidence?

This is the third time

and still you cannot support it with credible evidence.
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 07:45:47 PM

Your admission that you can't counter my claims is accepted.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 08:03:28 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103075147.9c861145333eb6bad565c735a6a2fe65@bubbanews:

Your admission that you can't counter my claims is accepted.

i am amazed how easy it was to make you post that blatant lie, kid
apprently, you're one of the results of the gop's ongoing education cuts.
"White people tend to vote Republican."
--Gactimus<gactimus@xrs.net>
Message-ID: <1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews>
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 07:59:39 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103075147.9c861145333eb6bad565c735a6a2fe65@bubbanews:

Your admission that you can't counter my claims is accepted.

i am amazed how easy it was to make you post that blatant lie, kid
apprently, you're one of the rults of the gop's ongoing education cuts.
"White people tend to vote Republican."
--Gactimus<gactimus@xrs.net>
Message-ID: <1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews>
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	13 Dec 2004 04:46:35 PM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB410F48Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?

Demographics change over time. The most recent election is the best
indicator, but since I am not a coward like you, I have provided results of
the 2000 election.

you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size.

2000 has the same conclusion as 2004: The Republican got more of the white
vote than the Democrat. Do you have some evidence that points otherwise?
Gore 42%
Bush 54%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	13 Dec 2004 05:04:16 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977995.407596f917ccabd524149c3f4a584edd@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB410F48Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?

Demographics change over time. The most recent election is the best
indicator, but since I am not a coward like you, I have provided
results of the 2000 election.

you have just demonstrated your illiteracy again.

you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size.

2000 has the same conclusion as 2004: The Republican got more of the
white vote than the Democrat. Do you have some evidence that points
otherwise?

Gore 42%
Bush 54%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

"you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size."
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	13 Dec 2004 06:37:44 PM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB7D347026keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977995.407596f917ccabd524149c3f4a584edd@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB410F48Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?

Demographics change over time. The most recent election is the best
indicator, but since I am not a coward like you, I have provided
results of the 2000 election.

you have just demonstrated your illiteracy again.

you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size.

2000 has the same conclusion as 2004: The Republican got more of the
white vote than the Democrat. Do you have some evidence that points
otherwise?

Gore 42%
Bush 54%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

"you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size."

What evidence do you have that American whites are more likely to vote
Democrat?
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	13 Dec 2004 08:11:11 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102984664.a81c676719a7a7e5a0dd648a4cccc846@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB7D347026keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977995.407596f917ccabd524149c3f4a584edd@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB410F48Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?

Demographics change over time. The most recent election is the best
indicator, but since I am not a coward like you, I have provided
results of the 2000 election.

you have just demonstrated your illiteracy again.

you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample
size.

2000 has the same conclusion as 2004: The Republican got more of the
white vote than the Democrat. Do you have some evidence that points
otherwise?

Gore 42%
Bush 54%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

"you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample
size."

What evidence

"you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size."
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 07:02:09 AM

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BED78429F11keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102984664.a81c676719a7a7e5a0dd648a4cccc846@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB7D347026keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977995.407596f917ccabd524149c3f4a584edd@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB410F48Ekeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102977038.c2935558ebf90e98433374cbd7d82c2a@bubbanews:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in
news:Xns95BEB259AA401keegannycaprrcom@24.24.2.165:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1102962635.13eda2ad2c91954771c43b5de2dc159d@bubbanews:

White people tend to vote Republican.

naturally you have verifiable evidence to back that up, right?

White vote for president 2004:

Bush - 58%
Kerry - 41%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

are you claiming that one presidential election makes your claim,
illiterate boy?

Demographics change over time. The most recent election is the best
indicator, but since I am not a coward like you, I have provided
results of the 2000 election.

you have just demonstrated your illiteracy again.

you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample
size.

2000 has the same conclusion as 2004: The Republican got more of the
white vote than the Democrat. Do you have some evidence that points
otherwise?

Gore 42%
Bush 54%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html

"you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample
size."

What evidence do you have that American whites are more likely to vote
Democrat?

"you better do some reasearch on on the concept of valid sample size."

13130 is a valid sample size.
It looks like I was right as usual. That is, unless your cowardly self can
provide evidence to the contrary.
.

User: "james g. keegan jr."
Title: Re: Democrats Recoil From GOP's Electoral Secret: Marriage Plus Children	14 Dec 2004 08:27:56 AM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:1103029329.c40c68edf327a48eb644e09afe710734@bubbanews: