Obama V. Romney Demographics: Draw Your Own Conclusions

Steve Sailer, iSteve, October 29, 2012

[Editor’s Note: The graph below was produced by Steve Sailer. His methodology and analysis can be found here.]

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • JackKrak

    That 2% of black single mothers for Romney is surely due to their inability to properly read & understand a voting ballot…….

    •  I wonder how many Black Women are married to White Men? Maybe 2%?

      • Anan7

         That’s still 2% too many.

        • JohnEngelman

          That’s for them to decide, not you. 

          • Anan7

             Did I say it was for me to decide?

            Condescension not appreciated.

          • He’s a bit sensitive on the topic of interracial carrying-on.

        • Wish I could find a black woman like Rihanna. I would surely marry her;and face the inevitable tragic consequences. But you gotta live baby!

    • Elroch

      I can’t determine if this poster is a racist, sexist (and whatever word means “prejudice against single parents”) Romney supporter, or pointing out that people would need to have no sense to vote for Romney!

  • Puggg

    Steve Sailer’s point is that other than race, the biggest gap and determinant to voting habits is marriage status…except for blacks.

    • The__Bobster

      No, his point is that Romney is supported by the core of America, not a bunch of crazy fringe groups.

  • IKantunderstand

    This is an absolutely terrifying bar graph. Particularly the purple.

  • Gypsies weren’t polled??

  • Gotta court that single Jewish women vote

  •  I was thinking the same thing, how many people are just saying they will vote for obama to save face around the office/family/friends but in actuality will be voting for Mittens?

    • NM156

      That was the case with polling just before the ’80 Reagan-Carter election, which had Carter leading by a fair margin.

  •  Exactly I am reasoning that the 2% Black Women in the single category are in a relationship with White Men.

  • Detroit_WASP

    Is it just me….or are “married blacks” not listed in the graph?  I see married Hispanics and Whites and Jews.  But no married blacks????  I guess they couldn’t find any! 

    • ” married blacks ” that’s in the science fiction category.

  • Looks like he’s got Utah wrapped up.

  • IstvanIN

     She didn’t answer the phone.

    • mutt3003

      Couldn’t find her obamaphone.

  • Defiant White

    Great chart.  Helps clarify the target zone.

  • Wil

    Obama is helping economically the Muslims and seems to be anti-Israel.  Republicans defend
    Israel but the Jews are going to vote for Obama. I don’t get it. Even the
    Hispanics have a greater % for Romney. Are the Jews blind?

    • JohnEngelman

      The New York Times “Who Threw Israel Under the Bus?” by EFRAIM HALEVY
      whenever the United States has put serious, sustained pressure on Israel’s leaders — from the 1950s on — it has come from Republican presidents, not Democratic ones…
      no Democratic president has ever strong-armed Israel on any key national security issue. In the 1956 Suez Crisis, it was a Republican, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who joined the Soviet Union in forcing Israel’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula after a joint Israeli-British-French attack on Egypt…
      Efraim Halevy was the director of the Mossad from 1998 to 2002 and the national security adviser to the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, from October 2002 to June 2003.

      • Wasnt that the attack in that was ignited by the typical(of YOUR people)false flag incident?  The heroic jews drssed up like Egyptinas and murdered some innocents,and then cried,”OY! We must invade. They started it! OY!OY! How we jews suffer!!” Thank God Ike had the stones to stand up to the,er,Israelis. Would Mittens  defy his Sheldon Adelson and stand up to Izrael??

    • JohnEngelman

      Harry S. Truman recognized Israel’s existence 11 minutes after its birth in 1948, the first world leader to do so…        

      Barack Obama doubled funding for Israel’s missile defense system.
      SEYMOUR D. REICH New York, Oct. 24, 2012
      The writer is a former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.

      • Wil

        Now I understand you, The Jews have a higher intelect in their genes but  control anything in the US  are proud to vote for the black man who doubled funding for Israel in a similar proportion to the Hispanics.  

    • NO! The jews are not blind,not misled,not naive,not nothin’!!! They tell you up front:We are a people apart. Everything ELSE they say is an unmitigated lie,but like some mythological phantasm,they can NOT lie about their identity. Its the stupid,naive blind white christians,and their blubbering love for the brave,long suffering poor dear jew, that is the problem. Theyre not our friends,capice??

  • bubo

    A 19 percent difference between single white women and married white women.  This follows what I’ve always believed.   That a lot of white women don’t understand the ramifications of things like affirmative action,  school desegregation and other anti-white policies of the left until they see the effect it has on their husbands and their white children.  

    The left has been working for years to divide white women from white men.  To see white men as their oppressors rather than their natural partners.   

  • JohnEngelman

    There is a partisan logic to the Republican hostility to higher education: the well-educated — a reliable source of conservative support as recently as the 1980s — have been moving steadily toward the Democratic Party. In a head-to-head contest, a March 26 McClatchy-Marist Poll shows Romney ahead of Obama 47-42 among those without college degrees, while Obama leads Romney 51-42 among those with them. Similarly, those without college degrees lean toward voting for Republican congressional candidates 49-40, while those with them lean toward Democrats 46-44…         
    In the 1970s and 1980s, the defection of Reagan Democrats gave the Republican Party a clear edge in national contests; by the 1990s and 2000s, the once reliably Republican affluent suburbs surrounding cities like New York and Philadelphia had moved in the opposite direction, empowering the Democratic Party to win the White House in 1992, 1996, and 2008http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/the-politics-of-going-to-college/

    • The above is true;I wonder why,really???? Maybe the absurdity of the Republicans adherence to trickle down,which has resulted in an expanding plutocrat class and a severe drop in wealth and opportunity for..everybody else. Still,I could have 3 PhD’s and wouldnt vote for that rat in the White House…

  • JohnEngelman

    Cultural Marxists exist in the imaginations of angry, frightened white men. 
    During the McCarthy Era there actually were Communist Party members, but they were very few, and had little prominence. None of them were in the State Department. Nevertheless, a lot of Americans were scared half to death that the mail man, the milk man, or maybe their next door neighbor was a stark raving Communist.
    Cultural Marxists do not even exist, but people are afraid of them. 

    • MissBonnie123

      Cultural Marxists do exist. Today in America they call themselves liberals or Progressives.

      • JohnEngelman

        Liberals and progressives are what they call themselves, which is “liberals” and “progressives.” 
        I am unaware of anyone with any prominence self identifies as a “Cultural Marxist.” If you know anyone, please tell me.
        Jared Taylor has said that the noun “racist” lacks value because it is used to defame points of view that deserve a hearing. I agree with him, and say the same of the noun “Cultural Marxist.” 

        • HamletsGhost

          Snakes don’t identify themselves as snakes. In fact, they don’t identify themselves at all. By your retarded logic, snakes don’t exist.

          (Eye roll)

        • Although I would agree with you that there is nothing specifically “Marxist” in US elites’ anti-white policy of mass immigration, black adoration & media censorship, still:

          * the only ideological – perhaps unacknowledged- predecessors of current policy were Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm and a few other writers from Frankfurt school, albeit marginally (Adorno, Horkheimer, the leaders, did not participate). Here, one must be careful- those “Marxists” have been ueber-European & had disliked racial minorities. Only Marcuse would qualify, with his antipathy towards real working class & exaltation of racial minorities and sexual “liberation”

          * serious thinkers who could be connected to contemporary ruling ideology, apart from Gunnar Myrdal- I find hard to locate. Burnham ? Hayek ?
          Von Mises ? .. Hardly.

          So, I’d say that contemporary multiculturalism is not strictly “Marxist”, but is an evolution of 1970s counterculture which had had some quasi-Marxist ideological element combined with weird “ideologies” like Tantric sex, Wilhelm Reich and deep ecology and whatnot …

    • HamletsGhost

      Good grief. Your ignorance is astounding. And to see you parading it around here is truly pathetic. Empty barrels really do make the most noise.

      No commies in the State Department? Ever heard of Alger Hiss?

      If Cultural Marxists don’t exist, what do you call the spawn of the Frankfurt School?

      • JohnEngelman

        Alger Hiss was not a member of the American Communist Party. 
        He was probably a Communist sympathizer, but he and the Rosenbergs are about all the cold warriors can name when it comes to pointing to Communists who did anything significant to help the Soviet Union. 

        • JohnEngelman

          Name me one Cultural Marxist of any prominence who calls himself a “Cultural Marxist.” 

        • HamletsGhost

          Who cares? Just because someone is not a card-carrying commie, does that make him harmless. 
          You’re just playing word games. You think you’re clever, but you’re just a clown.

          Hiss and the Rosenbergs were the only two fish that got caught, but there were many more bigger fish that never paid for their treason. One salient example is Harry Hopkins, who gave the very secret of the Manhatten Project directly to Stalin on his many visits to Moscow.

        • JohnEngelman

          Harry Hopkins, who gave the very secret of the Manhattan Project directly to Stalin on his many visits to Moscow. 

          – HamletsGhost
          Hopkins was the top American official charged with dealing with Soviet officials during World War II and spoke with many Russians, from middle ranks to the very highest. He often explained to Stalin and other top Soviets what Roosevelt was planning, in order to enlist Soviet support for American objectives. As a major decision maker in Lend Lease, he expedited the sending of material to the Soviet Union, as Congress had ordered, in order to end the war as quickly as possible. This included accepted shipments of uranium and offered shipments of “ferro-uranium from Latrobe”.[11] George Racey Jordan, a lend-lease major in the Air Force, accused Hopkins of passing nuclear weapons plans to the USSR, but a congressional committee stated the charges were dubious.[12]             

           It is likely that Soviets who spoke to Hopkins would have been routinely required to report the contact to the NKVD, the Soviet national security agency. Mark (1998) says that some Soviets such as master-spy Iskhak Akhmerov thought he was pro-Soviet while others thought he was not.[13] Verne W. Newton, author of FDR and the Holocaust, said that no writer discussing Hopkins has identified any secrets disclosed, or any decision in which he distorted American priorities in order to help Communism.[14] As Mark demonstrates, Hopkins was not in fact pro-Soviet in his recommendations to FDR, he was anti-German and pro-U.S. Any “secrets” disclosed were authorized. Mark says that at this time any actions were taken specifically in order to help the American war effort and prevent the Soviets from making a deal with Hitler.[15]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hopkins

        • David Ashton

            It may be futile to note again print or on-line information contradicting obstinate “Engelmania” about the amiability of (A) American Communists and the non-existence of (B) Cultural Marxism, but here is a minimal list:
             (A.)  1. [House] Committee on Un-American Activities, “Report on the CPUSA as an Advocate of the Overthrow of Government by Force and Violence” (1948).  2. Aron, Raymond, “The Opium of the Intellectuals” (1957).  3. Kubek, Antony, “How the Far East was  Lost” (1963/ 1972).   4. Klehr, Harvey, J. E. Haynes & F. I. Firsov, “The Secret World of American Communism” (1995).   5. Haynes, John Earl, Harvey Klehr & Alexander Vassiliev, “Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America” (2009).   6. Evans, M. Stanton, “Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy” (2007).
             1. Cranston, Maurice (ed), “The New Left” (1970).
             2. Neil McInnes, “The Western Marxists” (1972).
             3. Kellner, Douglas, “Western Marxism”, in Austin Harrington (ed), “Modern Social Theory” (2005).
             4. Bidet, Jacques & Stathis Konvelakis  (eds) ,”Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism” (2007).
              “Cultural Marxism” is a term for “Critical Marxism” in cultural studies and activism applied correctly by its critics, such as Pat Buchanan and Bill Lind.
               “It is possible to conquer the more powerful enemy…by taking every advantage of every, even the smallest, opportunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional.  Those who do not understand this fail to understand even a grain of Marxism and of scientific  modern socialism in general” (Lenin).

      • JohnEngelman

        There is nothing mysterious about being a member of the American Communist Party. There are an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 members. I am sure that the F.B.I. knows who they are, and that most are as decent and law abiding as the members of the C.P.U.S.A. that I have known and liked.
        Moreover, there is a critical distinction between passing classifieds information to the Soviet Union and believing as I do that after the Second World War the U.S. government and most Americans overestimated the danger of Communism, and that the United States could have behaved unilaterally in ways that would have reduced tensions with the U.S.S.R. and Communist China. 
        After the Second World War many Americans blamed traitors in the United States for the fact that the Soviet Union occupied Eastern Europe, and that a Communist government had been established in China. 
        The truth is that the Soviet Army had conquered the countries of Eastern Europe as an ally of the United States following a devastating German invasion. The Communists won a civil war in China on their own because the government of Chiang Kai Shek had been unpopular and incompetent. The help of Communist Party members and Communist sympathizers in the United States had not been necessary for these things to happen.

        • vladdy1

          People that lecture on this site do not have success in changing minds. From what I’ve obersved, people come heree with conclusions based on years of observation, experience and study. Anyone who comes on with “the truth is…” is asking to have their head handed to them. Just sayin’.

    • “…a lot of Americans(NOTE:angry frightened white men,I guess) were scared…the milk man was a stark raving Communist.” What a dumb comment.

    • vladdy1

      Woah There’s too much evidence to sweep it away and say “never existed, never have, never will.”

    • The Frankfurt School doesn’t exist ????

      • JohnEngelman

        Some in the Frankfort School considered themselves to be Marxists, but I do not believe any of them claimed the term “Cultural Marxist” to describe their school of thought. 
        The term “Cultural Marxism”seems to be used as a way to derogate social liberalism. Social liberalism consists of quite a few attitudes, including several I do not share. These include acceptance of sex outside of marriage, acceptance of interracial marriage, support for legal abortion, acceptance of pornography, support for equal rights for blacks and homosexuals, indifference to religion, and so on. 
        Many who are conservative to reactionary on economic issues are also social liberals. They are called “libertarians.”
        The spread of social liberalism throughout Europe, the British Commonwealth, and the United States did not happen because of a conspiracy fomented by the Frankfort School. What did happen was that because of various causes many people in the West began to feel differently about many aspects of living. 

        • So the decliner of the West is due to Western Europeans feeling differently, not due to Frankfurt subversion then.
          The Frankfurt school Marxists had no influence on the West, mmm, I see. So the decline of the West is due to Westerners, not due to Marxists from the Frankfurt school subverting, or undermining the pillars of Western civilisation.

          Cultural Marxists wouldn’t admit to being cultural marxists anymore than paedophiles would admit to being paedophiles.
          There are a lot of university academics who don’tr agree with you, just type cultural marxism into Youtube or google.

        • JohnEngelman

          I have known quite a few Marxists and liked many of them. They were proud to call themselves “Marxists.” If Cultural Marxism existed as a self conscious variant of Marxism, like Trotskyism, Cultural Marxists would call themselves “Cultural Marxists,” the way that Trotskyists call themselves “Trotskyists.” 
          Two writers who had a considerable effect in popularizing social liberalism were Hugh Hefner and Helen Hurley Brown. (For the record I disagree with both of them, and deplore their influence.)   
          I doubt that either made a study of the writings of Karl Marx. I am sure neither called themselves “Cultural Marxists.” 

  • Wil

    Those who hate Israel, hate all the Jews everywhere in the World. Some types of “patriotism” area a kind of blindness or other serious problem.

    In the 1930s, most German Jews were “patriotic “Germans and many Jews supported the NSDAP or the Nazi  party in the early days. They even made campaigns to convince the German public they identified themselves as culturally German, not culturally Jewish. A few years later the Nazis killed several million Jews. 

    • IstvanIN

      Actually the majority of relocation camp victims died because the Allies bombed the rail lines bring supplies to the camps, which in turn resulted in starvation and disease.

      Regardless of what happened in Germany several generations ago the US has been the best country in the world for Jews, bar none.  They are wealthy, elected to public office way out of proportion to their numbers in the population.  They control most major media, which they even admit to, yet they try to portray themselves as a powerless, discriminated against minority.  Their organizations work feverishly to undermine the US, its traditional people, culture and religion

      • JohnEngelman

        Jews do not “control” anything in the United States. They have prominence out of proportion to their numbers in fields requiring superior intelligence because of their high average intelligence. 
        To say that, ” Their organizations work feverishly to undermine the US, its traditional people, culture and religion,” is the same kind of lie Hitler told about them in Germany. 
        The United States cannot have too many people with genius level IQs. 

    • Nonsense. You’re living in a dream world.

  • JohnEngelman

    The relation between higher education and support for the Democratic Party is very simple. People who are intelligent and well informed are better able to see through what the Republican Party stands for. 
    What the GOP stands for is making the rich richer regardless of what happens to the rest of the country. 
    Many posters on this website think the United States has been in decline for the last fifty years. The United States has been dominated by the Republican Party since at least the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. 
    If we assume that the United States has declined since 1962, why has the GOP not arrested the decline? However one measures this “decline,” the leaders of Republican Party have not reversed it because the people they care about, those in the richest ten percent of the country, and especially the richest one percent, have been doing better and better. They haven’t declined at all. 

    •  White people have turned to the Republicans not in enthusiasm for what they stand for–whites at the sites I read,like iSteve,Stormfront,(yes I do)this one,SBPDL,Mangans,Whiskey,Pat Buchanan,and many others–desPISE the Repubs! What are we gonna do genius? Vote for the Democrats?? PS:It was REAGAN,the hero,who amnestied 3 million and directly caused the immigration catastrophe of today. he was no doubt influenced by business leaders as well as Jew neo-cons. Who would idolize the lousy Republicans? And you,my friend,make me suspicious. You’re not one of those guys hired by the ADL or some other such lowlife group to join white sites,are ya?

      • BTW I see that John Engleman likes to troll a dating site for lovelorn males seeking Chinese girls. LOL!

    • vladdy1

      It’s important to remember, as i’m sure most of us do, that politics is about ideology. Anyone who spews insults toward one party is drunk on the koo-aid.
      You can be a collectivist, an individualist, an anarchist, a libertarian, a marxist, a traditionalist, a Constitutionalist, a fascist, etc., but the labels our two parties go by make it easy to turn this into a battle where people don’t even know why they’re on the side they are.

      There are lots of fine, small government constitutionalists in the Republican party that I’m proud to vote for. If one runs as a Democrat, I’ll vote for him then, too.

  • HamletsGhost

    You’re confused. Concentration camps were distibuted all over the territory of the Third Reich. Ask anyone who lived in Europe during the war, and they’ll tell you that food was in short supply everywhere.

    The horrific images shown on newsreel footage in the spring of 1945 to shocked audiences around the world were the results of the collapse of the German rail network that spring. No food got into the camps, but due to the evacuation of the eastern camps like Auschwitz, the western camps like Belsen were terribly overcrowded. The result was a typhus epidemic that raged out of control and killed thousands. Anne Frank was one of the more famous victims, dying in the last weeks of the war. Interestingly, Anne Frank was shipped to Auschwitz first and spent two months there, but left the camps without being gassed. Hmmmm.

    Where do you get the notion that survival rates for Jews were lower than for Gypsies or other groups?

  • So the feckless and irresponsible can have more fun?

  • You all are aware that “gassing” people was invented by the Stalin regime;presumably it was the jews that invented gassing. It was used in small quarters.This was copied by some Germans but it was a notoriously ineffective way to kill people. The JEWS built the “gas chamber” at Auschwitz in 1947,while the camp was being used to hold Germans. It WAS a death camp then. The torture and death that the jews inflicted upon Germans(men & women–civilians) was monstrous. I accept the “holocaust” as a fraud,as there were NO gas chambers.(Til the jews built them)

  • vladdy1

    I don’t get the Hindus. Don’t they know BO’s a muslim? 

  • vladdy1

    “a little hardship” ?
    We’ll be the capital of the caliphate if he gets 4 more years.

  • .

    Where were the Amish?

  • JohnEngelman

    In a recent column Ramesh Ponnuru, who is a is a Bloomberg View columnist and a senior editor at National Review, has written, “For the most part, though, closing the fiscal gap is a question of how much to raise middle-class taxes, how much to reduce the growth of middle-class benefits.”
    If Mitt Romney is elected president, and if the Republicans achieve majorities in both houses of Congress this is probably what they will try to do. Such a move will show white blue collar Republican voters that the GOP does not have their economic interests at heart. 

  • HamletsGhost

    In 1945, every German camp was deemed an “extermination camp”. Every one was supposedly a place where Jews and other undesirables were gassed. By the 1960s, it was quietly determined that camps in the Western Zone of Germany were NOT extermination camps, and the vaunted “gas chambers” were simple disinfection rooms to control for typhus-bearing lice.

    The only camps thereafter referred to as extermination camps were all in Poland, in the Soviet zone. Where no forensic experts from the West were allowed to examine.

    Basically, the official Holocaust story is one based on evidence supplied by Stalin’s secret police. Perhaps you can understand why I and others are skeptical of taking anything that came out of that blood-drenched regime at face value.

    As for examples of post-Hitler German Jews, I give you Field Marshall Erhard Milch, who was the operational brains behind the Luftwaffe during WWII. Milch’s Jewish origins were well known to Goering and Hitler, but they kept him on anyway. Funny how this doesn’t accord with official historical account of mindless Jew-hate that the Nazi regime was supposedly infected.

  • JohnEngelman

    There were no card carrying members of the American Communist Party in the State Department. To the best of my knowledge no members of the State  Department passed classified information to the Soviet Union.
    There were many in the State Department who agreed with me that the United States overestimated the danger of Communism as a movement, and of Soviet and Communist Chinese military aggression. If what they had to say had been listened to there would have been of less a danger of a nuclear war, the War in Vietnam would have been avoided, and military expenses would have been quite a bit less. 
    The legitimate concern here is espionage, rather than opinion. During the Cold War government employees, school teachers, college professors, journalists, those working in Hollywood, and others had every right to hold sympathetic attitudes toward the Soviet Union, other Communist countries, and the Communist movement in general. They had the right to express their opinions. They had the right to belong to the American Communist Party.