Choose Your Own The Who Reference

A new Democracy Corps survey indicates that young people (i.e., those aged 18-29) hate the Republicans. Or, at least, the GOP is massively unpopular. Some non-obvious things I gleaned from the report:

• White young people like the GOP just fine; the GOP has a two point advantage. The issue is that black and hispanic youth loathe Republicans and the younger demographic has disproportionately few non-Hispanic whites.
• Democrats have an edge among college graduates, but it's small at +6 compared to the advantage with less educated groups.
• Young people don't really like John Edwards. He gets a negative six net rating, similar to John McCain (negative eight), but way worse than Clinton (+10), Giuliani (+11), or Obama (+18)

When you think it through, none of that is actually all that surprising, but it's worth keeping in mind. The internet features a lot of young, college educated white male liberals (oftentimes big John Edwards fans!) and it is true that young people are pretty liberal these days. Nevertheless, it's not true that the young college educated white male liberals of the blogosphere are typical of the youth cohort. The Democratic leanings of young people are driven by giant advantages among women (+28), people with no college education (+28), Hispanics (+42), and blacks (+76). Your typical twentysomething white male college graduate seems, just like a typical thirtysomething (or fourtysomething, or...) white male college graduate to be a Republican.

Comments

Won't Get Fooled Again.

the only time people's voting preferences count is when they vote.

Posted by cleek | July 27, 2007 2:54 PM

"Choose Your Own The Who Reference"

You think we look pretty good together
You think my shoes are made of leather

But I'm a substitute for another guy
I look pretty tall but my heels are high
The simple things you see are all complicated
I look pretty young, but I'm just back-dated, yeah

Substitute me for him
Substitute my coke for gin
Substitute you for my mum
At least I'll get my washing done

-----

On second thought, I think you need to give us more detailed guidance. I didn't choose a very good The Who reference at all, considering the topic.

Posted by Petey | July 27, 2007 2:58 PM

So in other words, the dhimmicrats only hope is to abet the country's slide into a race of mongrels.

Odorono.

This part is surprising:
"Nevertheless, it's not true that the young college educated white male liberals of the blogosphere are typical of the youth cohort."

Looking around the blogosphere, I would have said that my demographic was getting more and more solidly anti-Republican. Bad sample, I guess. Looks like there are plenty of *other* white male college grads that are not reading the blogs they should be reading....

Posted by Count Cant | July 27, 2007 3:05 PM

White young people like the GOP just fine; the GOP has a two point advantage

I find that depressing and pathetic at the same time. It reminds me of what Billmon said after looking over the results and voter breaksown of the 2006 election when the republicans were shown to have carried the 'white' vote at 51%. What the hell does it take for my tribe to turn its back on these people? Murder and canabalism in the streets?

Posted by Northern Observer | July 27, 2007 3:08 PM

"Your typical twentysomething white male college graduate seems, just like a typical thirtysomething (or fourtysomething, or...) white male college graduate to be a Republican."

And, given the high percentage of these kind of people in the media, you'd expect the media bias to skew Republican - as it reliably does. Like the Sunni in Iraq, this faction is eventually going to find out it is in the minority. And it won't like it. Or believe it.

Posted by roger | July 27, 2007 3:12 PM

When someone can provide me evidence that the young actually vote maybe this will mean something. Unfortunately its the old fogeys like me who vote, and I'll wager that once more the old fogeys like me will decide the election.

Posted by Doubting Thomas | July 27, 2007 3:16 PM

As a young white male liberal college student, I'm quite skeptical that polls of young people in any way accurately predict what my generations' political views and party allegiances will be 20 or 30 years down the line. Many people tend to drift toward conservative views as they age, particularly as they enter certain professions (e.g. banking/finance) or if they reach a certain level of affluence. Imagine trying to extrapolate from similar data collected in the Sixties - would anybody see the modern conservative movement or the strength of the contemporary GOP coming? What about the rise of evangelical Christianity? To me, young peoples' comments about their political views are much less telling than the demographic shifts Matt mentions.

Posted by delsol | July 27, 2007 3:16 PM

Oh, and Doubting Thomas, you've missed the point entirely. The young people who don't vote today are the old fogeys like you who vote tomorrow!

Posted by delsol | July 27, 2007 3:19 PM

Report should have been titled: "White people mostly stupid."

Posted by goethean | July 27, 2007 3:20 PM

I’m a 20 something white male college graduate surrounded by 20 something white male college graduates at work and they skew overwhelmingly Democratic. And this is working for a defense contractor.

I wonder if that’s really highly atypical or a result of some other variable, such as living in the northeast.

Posted by DJ | July 27, 2007 3:22 PM

It's unforunate that they didn't include a geographic component in the results. As trite as it is, there's a reason the whole red state/blue state thing started. George Bush was racking up big victories in certain states, and fueled by 70% plus of the white vote in the South.

Posted by AJ | July 27, 2007 3:29 PM

why don't you all f-f-f-fade away

Posted by David | July 27, 2007 3:30 PM

Pace delsol, I thought the growth of the White conservatives stemmed from those who came of age between 1975 and 1990--the post-Viet Nam, post-Watergate generation. I seem to recall a chart of party identification showing a huge swell of GOP support in the 35-45 year old cohort (this from 2004, so adjust accordingly) with Democratic majorities both older and younger.

I mean, I'm sure there are some hippies turned fundies and all. But I think the bulk of conservatives who came of age in the late 1960s are like President Bush, Cheney, Giuliani, Trent Lott, and so on, who were conservatives from the start.

Posted by jlw | July 27, 2007 3:36 PM

I wonder if that’s really highly atypical or a result of some other variable, such as living in the northeast.

I think this might be it, though I wonder if the white Southern vote overwhelms more than just the Northeast.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 27, 2007 3:41 PM

JLW,
Rudy wasn't originally a conservative. At least not as regards the social issues.

I don't know about everyone else, but most of the people I know despise the Rethuglicans. And I never had to try to convince them.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | July 27, 2007 4:03 PM

Honestly Matt.

A measly two point advantage among whites for the GOP is disastrous.

Please check the recent election results for the current GOP advantage among whites to find the clue.

Sheesh. You are having an very off day today.

Posted by Armando | July 27, 2007 4:05 PM

"White young people like the GOP just fine; the GOP has a two point advantage."

Even that sounds like bad news for the GOP to me. If they can't post a solid majority - as opposed to a two point advantage - in what is the future of their 'base' then they're in bigger trouble I thought. If this groups shifts a few points (say 2-3%) in a few key races, it could crush GOP hopes in '08.

Of course, that shift depends on the Dems crafting a coherent message, staying on that message, and having a presidential candidate capable of delivering that message, so...........

Posted by Shawn | July 27, 2007 4:15 PM

I think this one is most fitting:

Helpless Dancer

When a man is running from his boss
Who hold a gun that fires "cost"
And people die from being cold
Or left alone because they're old
And bombs are dropped on fighting cats
And children's dreams are run with rats
If you complain you disappear
Just like the lesbians and queers
No one can love without the grace
Of some unseen and distant face
And you get beaten up by blacks
Who though they worked still got the sack
And when your soul tells you to hide
Your very right to die denied
And in the battle on the streets
You fight computers and receipts
And when a man is trying to change
But only causes further pain
You realize that all along
Something in us going wrong

You stop dancing.

Posted by Njorl | July 27, 2007 4:22 PM

A few years back some survey found that an alarming percentage of these same kids feel the government should have some kind of say about what newspapers can print.

It sounds like to me like one of these kewl mayor types is their kinda man.

Posted by Linus | July 27, 2007 4:23 PM

"As a young white male liberal college student, I'm quite skeptical that polls of young people in any way accurately predict what my generations' political views and party allegiances will be 20 or 30 years down the line. Many people tend to drift toward conservative views as they age, particularly as they enter certain professions (e.g. banking/finance) or if they reach a certain level of affluence. Imagine trying to extrapolate from similar data collected in the Sixties - would anybody see the modern conservative movement or the strength of the contemporary GOP coming? What about the rise of evangelical Christianity? To me, young peoples' comments about their political views are much less telling than the demographic shifts Matt mentions."

The difference is that the white majority among our generation is smaller and shrinking than among other generations. Young black Americans know that the Republican Party hates them, Trent Lott and all. Young (non-Cuban) Latinos know that the only use the Republicans have for them are as cheap labor or lying to Congress. 52% of Asian-American voters voted for Kerry in 2004. Our generation tends to look more favorably on things like interracial relationships and gay rights and less favorably on the drug war. The Republican Party will either have to moderate its views on race, gay rights, drugs and probably immigration to stay competitive among our generation or do an even better job of making sure minorities can't vote.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 4:44 PM

1. "White young people like the GOP just fine; the GOP has a two point advantage."

That's hardly just fine from the GOP point of view. The GOP needs a very big advantage among white males to win.

2. What makes people vote more conservative is home ownership, marriage, and children. The Republican family values platform does better among people with families to value.

If you want to understand the red state - blue state divide, google "affordable family formation."

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 27, 2007 4:59 PM

Related to Sailer's point above, Frank Luntz has pointed out that a significant percentage of white women switch to voting Republican after they get married and have kids.

Posted by Fred | July 27, 2007 5:14 PM

My recollection of voting behavior studies over the years is that the contention that people become more conservative with age is largely myth. The vast majority of people are pretty constant in their political allegiances from age 25 on.

Obviously there are large scale upheavals that can transform some behaviors, i.e. the Great Depression, Vietnam and the Civil rights era, but the notion that a mortage and kids radically transforms political allegiance is not really borne out by anything I've seen. (I say this as a white middle aged man with a kid and a big ass mortgage who remains as liberal in most respects as I was when I was 20.)

The possibility of the long term dilution of the white male vote, the fact that the GOP seems to have largely thrown in with the nativist on immigration, the embrace of the social conservatism of the evangelicals, will I think in the long run put the Republicans on very shaky demographic ground. That, coupled with the veniality and ineptitude of this administration, will hopefully lead to better days for liberals (and progressives too).

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 27, 2007 5:15 PM

I find it very interesting how poorly Edwards is doing among young people. He just doesn't seem able to inspire people. He thinks of himself as the next Robert Kennedy, but he's not and he isn't going to be the Democratic nominee.

Posted by Ron | July 27, 2007 5:24 PM

Re: Many people tend to drift toward conservative views as they age

In regards to financial matters and possibly foreign policy this is likely true. It does not seem true at all in regards to social issues. At least no generation has yet turned away from the reforms it championed in its youths. However it's not clear that a conservatrive-as-aging trend aids the GOP, which is no longer a "conservative" party. The term "radical right" is more appropriate these days for most of the GOP.

Posted by JonF | July 27, 2007 5:26 PM

Less education = More Democrat appeal

A friend of mine's (white )seven year old thought Jesse Jackson was spellbinding back in 84 and 88.

I can understand small children and even teenagers falling for Dems, but when people say we are dumbing down our society, it really shows.

And minority youth are by and large the most obviously moronic segment of our society. Wouldn't people who can't speak proper english, are functionally illiterate and unemployable (even though some technically have jobs) and dress like clowns (baggy clothing and silly headgear) hate the most successfull, bright, well spoken among us?

Posted by Jozef | July 27, 2007 5:30 PM

So, let me see if I get this correct. Kerry won 56% of the vote among that age cohort in 2004. And Obama would get 55% of that age cohort against Rudy, if those were the two 2008 nominees.

Why, again, should this be perceived as a disaster for Republicans? It seems to me that it could be interpretted as no change whatsoever from 2004. You know, 2004, when a Republican won the White House?

Posted by Al | July 27, 2007 5:49 PM

And minority youth...Wouldn't people who can't speak proper english, are functionally illiterate and unemployable (even though some technically have jobs) and dress like clowns (baggy clothing and silly headgear) hate the most successfull [sic], bright, well spoken among us?

Absolutely. And for all those reasons, minority youth should love Chimpy McFlightsuit(TM)!

Posted by agum | July 27, 2007 5:49 PM

And minority youth are by and large the most obviously moronic segment of our society. Wouldn't people who can't speak proper english, are functionally illiterate and unemployable (even though some technically have jobs) and dress like clowns (baggy clothing and silly headgear) hate the most successfull, bright, well spoken among us?

Yes, Jozef, certainly are the most bright among us. It's all those minorities who hate you, as evidenced by their disgusting insults against you and your ilk.

I don't generaly go in for ad-hominim attacks, but you really should examine your thinking here a little bit. You are clearly an unreconstructed racist.

Oh, and I also thought Jesse Jackson was spellbinding in 1988, even though I was 19 and not 7. I guess I must've been functionally illiterate cos thanks to Jozef I now know that anyone who ever supported Jackson is rilly rilly stoopid.

It's good to occasionally have idiots like Jozef make it clear that the Republican Party is the party of racism. Not that all Republicans are racist mind you. It's just that all racists are Republicans.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 27, 2007 5:51 PM

Wait, I thought we were the party of Ivy League snobs and latte-sipping hipster elitists who hate the salt-of-the-earth NASCAR dads. Now we're the party of uneducated baggy-pantsed slobs who hate the brightest and most successful people?

I'm starting to grow confused about which side I'm supposed to take in the Straw Man Class War. Where's Tom Frank when we need him?

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 27, 2007 6:01 PM

Why, again, should this be perceived as a disaster for Republicans? It seems to me that it could be interpretted as no change whatsoever from 2004. You know, 2004, when a Republican won the White House?

Off the top of my head, maybe because a larger share of the populace is within that age bracket now than in 2004.

Posted by Tom Hilton | July 27, 2007 6:03 PM

I think that Karl Rove has shown that it's possible to base a winning political strategy on a declining sector of the population. In Rove's case, there's rural people and also fundamentalist Christians. If you can energize them, and stay competitive enough among more mainstream groups, you can win elections. And, over time, as your base shrinks, you can alter your stance to take in more of the growing pieces of the electorate.

I am really dismayed that 20-something white people still like the Repubs. I fear that they are more likely to vote than 20-something blacks or hispanics.

Billmon was right on target -- what does it take for my tribe to wake up? Cannibalism?

Posted by Hal | July 27, 2007 6:04 PM

I miss Billmon a lot.

Posted by Hal | July 27, 2007 6:08 PM

I'll the young adults I see around nowadays are fat.

Posted by chris | July 27, 2007 6:41 PM

I Can't Explain

Posted by Gregorio | July 27, 2007 7:07 PM

Pictures of Lily White Kids

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 27, 2007 7:16 PM

did I mention fat? Among youth, yes

thanks for pointing that out Chris

and, unfortunately, minority youth are also off the charts on that scale as well

Reality is shocking and being a gliberal means you must deny reality every freakin day

Posted by Jozef | July 27, 2007 7:42 PM

People don't become more conservative as they age. The previous commenter is right. A person's opinions stay the same, but in the context of the time he's living in, he may be regarded as liberal when he's young and conservative when he's old for holding the exact same opinion.

By the way, for my Who reference, the one that popped into my head's from their best album.

Inside, outside
Leave me alone
Inside, outside
Nowhere is home

Posted by Dan W. | July 27, 2007 8:23 PM

"And minority youth are by and large the most obviously moronic segment of our society. Wouldn't people who can't speak proper english, are functionally illiterate and unemployable (even though some technically have jobs) and dress like clowns (baggy clothing and silly headgear) hate the most successfull, bright, well spoken among us?"

This minority youth who can actually spell "successful" has a big bag of "fuck you" for you.

Posted by Reality Man | July 27, 2007 8:37 PM

jlw and delsol, many things go on at the same time. In regard to the 60's, I still have a rather bitter letter my father sent me in 1966 blaming the campus conservatives of my generation for driving Reagan to victory over Pat Brown, the last great governor of California.

Ironically, Reagan later appointed the old boy a judge, although I suspect he still continued to prefer Pat Brown. Which was probably one more democrat than Bush ever appointed a judge.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | July 27, 2007 8:56 PM

If we choose "Who's Next", do the kids in the picture pee on the wall in the picture?

Posted by Wrongshore | July 27, 2007 9:07 PM

Reality Man

I know concepts like "by and large" and even speaking of groups "tending" to be a certain way are anethema here (Look what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard for merely suugesting that women were not as inclined to science and math)

So you can spell "succesful". Good for you. You do not undo the horrific trend of the group you're in of fat, incoherent, ridiculous minority youth. I am free to generalize, and both demographics and a walk down the streets of New York only confirm my contention.

The kids aint all right (rap that motherfucker)

Posted by Jozef | July 27, 2007 9:33 PM

Oh, and I'm not a Repub - an Independent

I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for half of the Repub field (she's not half as bad as you left wing NUTS seem to imply, she was right on the War at least)

It's just these mendacious leftists and gliberals I can't stand...

Posted by Jozef | July 27, 2007 9:45 PM

"Less education = More Democrat appeal"

Sure and the most education = "Democrat" appeal as well.

"I'll the young adults I see around nowadays are fat."

Their dominatrixes won't let them out to play.

Posted by Linus | July 27, 2007 10:05 PM

The Republicans only win nationally when they crush the Democrats among white men and pick off substantial numbers of minorities. This happened in 2004 when whites voted about 57% for Bush, and 44% of Latinos joined in. As a bonus, they did unusually well among white women - especially religious women. If the white vote drops to 51% for the Republicans, and the Latino vote drops to 30% - as happened in 2006 - then the Republicans will get crushed. The GOP is the White Man's Party. Without dominating among white men, the GOP is powerless.

Posted by Elrod | July 28, 2007 12:18 AM

Millenials are liberal on social policy but not necessarily on economics. They are also less concerned with constitutional rights and are more trusting of large organizations (gov't and corporations)
One Strauss and Howe prediction:
"Class (and money) will rise above gender or race as a flashpoint for student political argument. Dating across racial and ethnic lines will be more common, while dating across class lines will become less so."

Doesn't the whole Fourth Turning put a kibosh on an era of progressive reform?
http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/fourthturning.htm

Posted by GennY | July 28, 2007 1:26 AM

All the demographic trends are against the Republicans. However, no one here has taken it to is logical conclusion. What happens to politics in the U.S. when the U.S. becomes a defacto one party state.

Look at the cities and states that are current one party states. Are they more successful or do they provide better services. Or will a one party state lead to much higher levels of corruptions and more failures in the government.

Also, will hispanics and blacks gain or lose power as the U.S. becomes a one party state? If there is no republican party to oppose and moderates and conservatives begin to vote in Democratic primaries, do groups like the Congressional Black Caucus lose influence.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 28, 2007 5:51 AM

News Flash!

Young people are more liberal!!

Film @ 11:00

Posted by Fred Jones | July 28, 2007 7:04 AM

To use the word "gliberal" seriously is insane: it's a contrived political marketing word. Using a purely surface word to decry shallow liberalism ought to be ironic enough -- and not in a good way -- to make one's head explode. That it doesn't -- I'm looking at you, Jozef -- is enough of an indication of insanity to warrant a conservancy hearing on your behalf.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 28, 2007 8:02 AM

Oddly, Sailer showed up, and then the hardcare racists followed.

When new posters show up in a thread following a Sailer appearance, get ready to start dousing crosses.

Posted by DivGuy | July 28, 2007 9:26 AM

There is one incontrovertible fact about young people;..... they grow up.

Posted by Fitz | July 28, 2007 10:55 AM

Seems from these numbers that support for the Republicans is positively correlated to IQ. But as the % of minorities continues to grow and the Flynn effect has gone into reverse, it doesn't bode well for the GOP.

Posted by Kes | July 28, 2007 7:21 PM

Is a hardcare rcist one who believes in tough love?

Posted by Poison Prince | July 28, 2007 7:25 PM

Wow, it's very weird to run into all of these hardcore racists on a liberal blog.

The notion that intelligence and GOP affiliation go together is amusing as hell. These are guys who go to cross burnings and think they discovered fire.

You might want to check the voting behavior of people with advanced degrees before making this assertion or in the states with the highest levels of educational achievement.

As for long term trends I've got two words for you -- Pete Wilson. What he wrought in California is what the genius Rove is going to do for Goopers across the nation.

On, and Jozef, fuck you.

Posted by klein's tiny left nut | July 28, 2007 7:56 PM

Typical liberal, they will not acknowledge their spelling mistakes!

And as for advanced degrees (there are unadvanced ones?!), I think you'll find liberals are hugely over-represented in namby-pamby, girly subjects of little use to man and beast.

Broadly speaking, Republicans are life's achievers, aspirants and wealth creators. Democrats fall into two classes: wealth distributors and welfare recipients.

Another useful distinction:

A white racist is someone who believes that white civilisation is superior to black civilisation, and is happy about it. A black racist is someone who believes white civilisation is superior to black civilisation, and is furious about it.

Posted by Von Hepplewhite | July 28, 2007 8:15 PM

Von Hepplewhite,

You're killing me with this -- "life's achievers." Life's legatees more like it. Bush is your poster child -- stupid, shallow and privileged.

If you really think "white civilization" -- is the U.S. an example of white civilization? because it's pretty hard to imagine American culture without the contribution of black Americans -- is "superior" then you are both a racist and a nitwit.

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | July 28, 2007 8:49 PM

Re: All the demographic trends are against the Republicans. However, no one here has taken it to is logical conclusion. What happens to politics in the U.S. when the U.S. becomes a defacto one party state.

That won't happen. The GOP (if it does not self-destruct on the rocks of Bushism first) will ultimately move to the near right side of where the majority of voters are at. That will mean dropping anti-gay politics, embracing some degree of enviornmentalism, foreswearing wars of choice and getting on board for some form of universal healthcare and some other policies to palliate the upheavals of globalism. If the GOP does self-destruct because the wingnut fringe has too strong a chokehold on it to let it evolve as it must, then it will be replaced by some new party as the GOP itself replaced the Whigs.

Posted by JonF | July 28, 2007 8:50 PM

If you want to see an example of white vs black civilisation, take a trip to Zimbabwe. A one way trip, preferably.

Posted by Kilbo | July 28, 2007 8:58 PM

There are also two types of white racist, i.e., those who believe white civilisation is superior to the black - those whose acknowledge it, and those who don't.

Yglesias would be an example of the latter. He and his blond girlfriend are as whitebread as they come. Their cultural tastes are exclusively honkey-tonk. It's painfully onvious that he only posts about basketball here as a means to putting a few black faces on board.

Posted by Ronnie Chesterton | July 28, 2007 9:08 PM

Wow -- the boys must all be in washing their white sheets tonight.

Posted by klein's tiny left nut | July 28, 2007 9:21 PM

I'm going to sleep now. That'll give you 7 hours to think up a wittier retort. Good night and good luck!

Posted by Fessinghausen | July 28, 2007 9:24 PM

Holy cow, I had to check and see if I wasn't accidentally on LGF!

Von Hepplewhite's post should be bronzed. A fantastic example of the typical self-absorbed egoism typical of people who think the difference between 'torture' and 'enhanced interrogation techniques' is relevant.

Posted by Sigh | July 29, 2007 1:16 AM

JonF,

I do not think that there is any political strategy or political positions that will ever get any Republican votes from blacks, hispanics, jews, or asians. The Republicans could come out for Reparations tomorrow and all it would do would be to lose white middle class votes without picking up a single black voters.

Look at states like Mass. or Maryland. Have they gravitated to becoming more two party or are the state Republican parties irrelevent. It is much more likely that the U.S. will become a one party state like Mass. than for the Republicans to become Democratic-lite enough to stay relevent.

Posted by superdestroyer | July 29, 2007 6:00 AM

Von Hepplewhite's post should be bronzed. A fantastic example of the typical self-absorbed egoism typical of people who think the difference between 'torture' and 'enhanced interrogation techniques' is relevant.

Another witless tyro with nothing to say, but who thought he'd say it, anyway.

Now, returning to the subject, at hand. White conservatives should be the natural party of government because, to put it plainly, they're breeding quicker than white liberals. The two mitigating, indeed overriding factors, however, are i)the country is being inundated by brown people who vote for their own group interests, hence Democrat, and ii)the Republican party is hardly conservative in anything, but name, so white conservatives have no proper representation.

Posted by Kismet | July 29, 2007 8:14 AM

There is really no sense in engaging in debate with overt racists. It affords them a respect to which they are not entitled. Run away l'il white boys -- run away. LGF or Free Republic are always looking for a few new goose steppers.

Posted by Klein's tiny left nut | July 29, 2007 9:28 AM

What Kismet hasn't figured out yet is that it's not really possible to have a fruitful discussion with somebody who says that "white conservatives have no proper representation."

Posted by Sigh | July 29, 2007 12:19 PM

Rather than try and smother debate, maybe Klein could tell us what sense there is in engaging debate with covert racists? Or would excluding 80% of the population be too burdensome?

I enjoyed that recent Putnam Bowling Alone study that Sailer publicised, because it showed how the deleterious effects of ethnic diversity on individual behaviour crossed all demographic and political boundaries. In other words, the youngish, white liberals who make up the majority of this forum's readership were exposed for the closet racists they really are.

Posted by Freddie Flintstone | July 29, 2007 2:15 PM

Freddie,

Fuck off. Really. You're not a respectable human being and you don't belong here. Go hang with the CSA folks or something.

Posted by klein's tiny left nut | July 29, 2007 3:18 PM

Thanks for the suggestion, pal, but I think I'll linger just a while longer. BTW, did Yglesias blog about the Putnam study? No!?

Posted by Big Steve Harmison | July 29, 2007 3:26 PM