2004 December 22 Wednesday
Steve Sailer Finds Another Strong Correlation With Republican Voting

Small increases in housing prices joins years married and total fertility as major predictors of votes for the GOP.

Note that, tellingly, in second place as an indicator of GOP predilection, in between Years Married and Total Fertility, is

  • the growth in housing prices between 1980 and 2004. The coefficient is -0.82.

The negative sign means that the more housing prices have risen, the more Democratic the state was.

Steve says immigration works against family formation of natives and thereby drives natives toward the Democrats.

Expensive housing retards family formation, which helps the Democrats. Rising housing prices transfer wealth from young people to old people.

Importing more foreigners, as the Bush Administration suicidally wants to do, drives up the price of homes by increasing demand.

That makes it harder for young voters to start down the road to homeownership, marriage, babies—and committed Republicanism.

See this link for a larger list of factors correlated with voting.

Also see my previous posts Steve Sailer: Time Married Best Predictor Of Pro-Bush Voting and Steve Sailer: Immigration Restriction Will Move Hispanics Toward GOP.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2004 December 22 01:17 AM  Politics American Domestic

John S Bolton said at December 22, 2004 1:38 AM:

The correlation of the three of these closely intertwined predictors, taken together, is so high that it looks like identity minus measurement error, or within a few points of that. One could expect the same pattern to hold for another presidential election, and perhaps many. These are deep-seated factors which could guide parties to success. The right should legislate on compensation for land-use restriction, environmental deregulation relevant to building, and whatever else would force land into development. Republicans should be for builders' liberation, and let the left have neo-feminism. NCLB should be ditched, it gives every incentive to suppress the white children's school performance. Two of the correlations are racial, and apparently have to be; disadvantaged minorities with their unspeakable illegitimacy rates are not in the family values camp. Should they facilitate the growth of trailer developments even, or do these correlations only work with owner-occupied housing for families with children?

John S Bolton said at December 22, 2004 2:02 AM:

Another way to look at this is to characterize the Republican vote as being in flight from the experimental society where illegitimacy rates of 70% are not considered outside of human breeding practices, where equalizing races in terms of progressive retardation is seen as a vicious attack on their children, where violent crime is not considered an understandable response to inequality of result, and more. We don't hear about it from the professoriate or public commentators, because such have long since become Marcusian leftist race-baiters, who can't see the legitimacy of these voters drive to make refugees of themselves, when nearly all the sholars have expressed their wish to experiment in such manner.

John S Bolton said at December 22, 2004 3:14 AM:

It takes an unusual degree of provocation, with most people, before they will rebel against the official view of the most learned of their society. By moving away from the zones of especially intense commitment to destruction of community of values, the above voters seem to have been provoked into defiance by their seeing that it is their children which officialdom, professoriate and many disadvantaged minorities want to do evil to. It would be unnatural for parents raisng white children not to react to official anti-caucasianism, when they see that the targets are their own children. The political and cultural leaders have lost the trust of the majority; the government schools have become an alien blight on the land, and race-baiting has been put in the place where higher civilization should be.

Kurt said at December 22, 2004 11:09 AM:

I think Steve Sailor is correct (once again) on this one. I believe that one of the factors that affects birthrates is the cost of housing. If you look at housing prices through out all of the industrialized world, only the U.S. actually has affordable housing with room enough to have a family. Countries such as the EU and much of East Asia are highly urbanized where most people live in flats.

Only the U.S. has the kind of suburbia that is conducive to having families. The "blue" regions of the U.S. are developing real estate prices and urbanization patterns that are more analogous to Europe and East Asia. This sugggests several long-term trends:

1) As the developing world (China, India, Brazil, etc.) develop economically, they will become much more urbanized (like Shanghai and Sao Paulo) with corresponding drops in their birthrates to become more like the E.U. and Japan. China already has a birht rate lower than that of the U.S. India is headed in the same direction.

2) The birth rate in the US will remain "exceptional" as long as there are large regions in the U.S. (the "red" regions) with lots of open land and affordible housing. As urban regions in the "red" states develop (Dallas, Atlanta, Phoenix) their housing prices will go up as well. This will drive the development of currently unpopulated regions in the U.S. (Wyoming, Nevada ?) such that they evolve in to metro regions as well. The U.S. population will probably stabilized at around 750 million or so around 2100 (this assumes an annual growth rate of 1%).

3) The wild card in the demographic projections is SENS (the elimination of aging and death) which will most certainly happen by 2100.

4) All of the above points asks a basic question: Do we really want a country with 750 million people in it? Do we want Austin, Nevada to be as developed as, say Seattle or Phoenix? Is there more to life than just having kids and living the "patterned life cycle"? What about starting s software company in Singapore for 5 years, or doing a biotech start-up in China? Or just hanging out in Bali or Boracay for months at a time, scuba diving and sailing alot? or partying it up in the Roppongi?

These are all issues that the pro-birth rate people fail to consider.

Steve Sailer said at December 22, 2004 1:34 PM:

Lots of good ideas here.

One thing to keep in mind is that government or cultural measures that encouraged marriage among blacks and, perhaps, Hispanics would probably work to the Republicans advantage since more stable black families presumably translate into lower crime which lessens the cost to whites of insulating their children from crime, which encourages marriage and families. On the other hand, measures that increase the fertility of blacks and Hispanics without increasing their marriage rates probably lower the white marriage and fertility rates and drive up the cost of safe housing.

The limiting factor on population growth in the Great Basin could be water. Republicans should start looking into massive water projects that could bring water from Manitoba or British Columbia.

TangoMan said at December 22, 2004 3:19 PM:


Water projects like that aren't going to happen. Water was specifically excluded from both Free Trade agreements between US & Canada. The Canadians are quite worked up right now about the plan to divert North Dakota's rising waters in Devil's Lake into the Red River. Two different watersheds, salinity approaching that of the Dead Sea, and new organisms that could impact the ecosystem in Manitoba's lakes has the Canadians all hot under the collar and they've lost in US court actions, so the plan proceeds to dump the water into their ecosystem.

I watch the Canadian scene quite closely and sovereignty over water is near religious. I'd go so far as to say that the underlying assumption is that if you're stupid enough to build a megopolis in the desert (Las Vegas and maybe even Los Angeles) then water scarcity is the resident's problem. If people want water they can move to Canada and bring economic wealth generating assets and their spirit for hard work with them. Water is a strategic resource that can be used to bolster Canada's attractiveness. Bring your company to Canada and you and your employees won't ever be thristy and you can have a green lawn too! LOL.

The better plan is to tap the Northwest or have water tankers coming from Alaska, but I think even the Alaskans are dead set against water exports (little fuzzy about my recollection though) but in terms of interstate commerce I don't think that the Alaskans can legislatively prevent companies from proceeding with the trade.

TangoMan said at December 22, 2004 3:33 PM:

Oops. Forgot to include some links. Here, and here.

New slogan :) Hey all you Yankees. Don't like all that Rocket Fuel and Gasoline Additives in your water cocktail, then come to the land of rainforest and glacier water, if not for you then at least your kids won't be thirsty, cancerous and malformed!

It's a joke. But as a supplemental thesis to your existing work, if people move to locales that are best for their families, then water has to trump open spaces and sunny weather. With a massive enough population shift, like what we saw as people moved from the rustbelt to the sunbelt, even the political demography of Canada would change. All the wags and the JesusLand jokes could actually have it 180 degrees wrong. If the families, who disproportionately favor Republican values, start moving from the sunbelt to the wetbelt, then you may see Canada shifting to the right. With a smaller population than the US, seismic political and demographic shifts are easier to effect. Sure the trendsetting family values Republicans who go first may be strangers in a strange land but soon they'll have others following them.

TangoMan said at December 22, 2004 3:45 PM:

Here's a few more. One, two, and three. Here's the Wikipedia entry on the topic:

The situation between Canada and the US illustrates some of the complexities of importing water.

Canada has 20% of the world's fresh water and the US has a great need for additional fresh water supplies. The two nations share bodies of water like the Great Lakes so water could be easily transferred from Canada to the US. Although the US would seem to be a natural market for its water, Canada refuses to export any fresh water to the US, except as bottled water.

Under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), for any commodity that is normally traded between Canada, Mexico and the US, all the nations must be treated the same as the nation that produces the commodity. If Canada were to start bulk water exports to the US, it would lose control of the exports and would be unable to limit American purchases of additional supplies. In effect, Canadians would end up having to compete with the wealthier Americans for access to their own fresh water supply. The only way to avoid this is to stop any attempt to export fresh water in bulk. Even tanker trucks of fresh water are not allowed to cross the Canadian border.

Although Canada has 20% of the world's fresh water, it only receives 7% of the precipitation. Most of Canada consists of rock (the Canadian Shield) or permafrost. Water cannot sink into these impermeable materials but sits on top. The water collects in every hollow to form Canada's innumerable lakes and rivers. Canada's northern latitude means that little water is lost to evaporation before each reaches the sea and this accounts for Canada's vast supply of fresh water. Canadians are afraid that, if allowed, Americans would “mine” Canada's fresh water by taking more than is replaced each year.

The waters shared by the two nations are controlled by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. This treaty prevents the US from, say, just pumping all the water that it wants out of the Great Lakes.

Engineer-Poet said at December 22, 2004 4:24 PM:

If Los Angeles wasn't able to divert fresh water, they'd probably turn to making it.

This isn't as difficult as it once was.  "Water makers" for ocean-going boats are fairly cheap, claim to be reliable and don't consume a lot of power.  If you didn't mind flushing toilets with saltwater, you could probably take care of all your drinking, cooking and washing needs with a water-maker powered by a solar panel.

The ability to take care of power and water needs via solar means the elimination of barriers to building out into the surf, on stilts or pontoons.

How does this relate to real estate prices and affordable family housing?  I dunno, but it might take some of the pressure off in sunny coastal areas.  It certainly would not help Las Vegas much if at all (let it dry up and blow away).

(Will someone PLEASE put some sanity in the #$*&!! content filter?  It wouldn't let me type real hyphen estate, fercrissakes.)

TangoMan said at December 22, 2004 4:39 PM:


Yeah, desalinization plants would become more attractive on the margins, as would parallel water main infrastructure for seawater, but the big issue here is going to be volume of water consumed. The small plants for boats, on a $/gallon basis make water much more expensive when you're consuming 500 liters/day. Interesting link here where the OECD is criticiszing Canada for its wasteful use of water.

Randall Parker said at December 22, 2004 4:58 PM:


Regards the content filters and hyphens: If you ever have problems posting something let me know in email and I'll try to adjust the filters.

My problem is that literally tens of thousands of attempts to post spam are made aimed at this blog and at FuturePundit every month. See the size of the attempts going up by maybe as much as ten thousand a month. I have about 2500 filter patterns at this point and some are kinda complicated.

Hyphens are a real problem because hyphens are used in URLs (and used in spammer URLs far more than in non-spammer URLs) whereas spaces are not used in URLs. I just changed my filter so that plain real-estate shouldn't cause a problem.

John S Bolton said at December 22, 2004 6:43 PM:

From these correlations, one might expect that highway projects, not excluding toll roads, joining undeveloped districts with their adjacent urbanized regions, would do more for the Republicans than urban improvements of almost any kind. They might enact a tax deduction several times the current one, for additional children. It would be wise to also prevent subsidization of suburban mass transit. Politicians on the right seem to be playing to a gallery of media and academic types, trying to prove that they're not racists, and seem to not yet have learned who and what their constituency is. Now the discovery of these correlations leaves them defenseless if they say that no one provided them the relevant information.

crush41 said at December 22, 2004 7:39 PM:

To those who take the position that Bush is committing political suicide by allowing unchecked immigration through acquiescence and granting amnesty to illegals, how do you respond to the position that such moves help the Republican Party (at the ballot box), as most of the growth is in the Southwest and South? The trend will be for states in these areas to continue to steal electoral votes from the "blue" states, especially in the Northeast. Is it the seemingly obvious answer that those states will soon be lost? Only New Mexico seems in danger from that perspective, at least in the short term.

Randall Parker said at December 22, 2004 9:50 PM:


Hispanic immigration is going to turn Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado into Democratic Party states. Yes, New Mexico will go first. But the others will be lost as well.

As for Bush's Hispandering: Opposition to immigration restriction will be unpopular with Hispanic political activists and those activists are loud. But it will be popular among those Hispanics who will see it as leading to higher demand for them in the job market and higher salaries as a result.

John S Bolton said at December 23, 2004 1:38 AM:

If the right were to process this information, they would probably look at how to cheaply and innocously raise the white fertility in the cheaper states, which are also politically liable to go either way, like Michigan or Ohio. They would make commercials in which a woman is contrasted with another. One is sitting in a squalid back room of a business, doing basic bookkeeping, while someone she knows goes through and says 'how uncreative' with disdain and reproach. The other woman is married with four or more children, and she is shown engaging them in arts and crafts projects, going to museums and classical concerts out in the country, and has a helpful husband but is not rich. The conclusion is to ask whether you can have a more creative project than raising children. They run these in the lower cost media markets which are appropriate. Even though they avoid the expensive cities, there would be a malicious howling from the feminists, which is all to the good. In the din of liberal gender outrage, no one would care to say much about the racial aspect, which would consist only of having attractive white actors for appropriate settings. I don't know if such a campaign would work, but one might guess that one like the above would have the best chance.

Engineer-Poet said at December 23, 2004 5:39 AM:

One problem with that commercial, John:  museums and classical concerts are more typically features of urban areas, not suburbia and exurbia.

Dan said at December 23, 2004 9:18 AM:

As a true democrat (except on immigration) I am not totally convinced by all these ideas of John Bolton. All it would take, would be a swing of 2% to change the election. what happened in the last election is Democrats got too far ahead of the country on social issues. Hopefully this can be corrected. IMHO gay marriafe was the deciding issue, especially when paired with abortion. I have family in Indiana. Illinois and Iowa , mostly blue collar. (Im a UAW legacy.) The demise of factories, not just the gig ones but the ones that employed 75-100 people has devastavatted the economic landscape, almost every family has an adult child living with them. Home prices are stagnant $65,000 for my mothers house

Dan said at December 23, 2004 9:30 AM:

Sorry I diDnt end the last post correctly.
This will eventually change as the mid west becomes solidly democrat, The amount of rural white poverty in this country has beem grossly underestimated. In my family the young people are noticing the lack of oppertunity and are slowly turning democrat.Much of the current wealth is leagacy wealth. Money. houses, pensions etc, left over from the era of good factory jobs. When this runs out it's $7.60 at Wal Mart and back thome to the trailer park. This will eventualy change politics.

John S Bolton said at December 23, 2004 6:30 PM:

In order to raise wages at the low end, we have to cause a labor shortage or something close to it, on a very broad scale. This reqires essentially zero immigration of those who are not themselves net employers, and the removal of more than a million illegal aliens a year, and a major shift of women out of employment and into child-raising. The correlations of this topic indicate that the democrats have every reason not to do any of the above. The republicans have every reason to try such approaches, but not the inclination, since they cower before the media and professoriate, who would say racism, selfishness, xenophobia, intolerance, ungenerosity and so on. When the crime wave rose up very high and peaked in the early 90's, though, the popularity of strictness against crime overcame the leftist rhetoric about racism, compassion for the welfare cases, and tolerance for diversity of behavior. Today, we have millions in prison, and the left's ad hominem style is utterly helpless to keep these totals from increasing.

Kurt said at December 23, 2004 10:41 PM:

I agree that the way to increase the market value of low-skill work is to reduce its supply. This can only be done by drastically reducing low-skill immigration into the U.S. It is also worth considering that much of the low-skill work cannot be outsourced because it is inherently local in nature.

I also agree that the dems have no motivation in reducing the supply of low-skill labor. Ensuring the economic security of the people on the left-end of the IQ spectrum would effectively destroy the need for the democratic party. The smarter and more evil dems know this and, therefor, have a vested interest in preventing people from attaining the economic security that is necessary to having a truly functional, sucessful society.

This is why the democrats are the evil party and the republicans are the stupid party.

You can also see why many people (such as myself) voted for Bush, even though we hate his guts. The dems are simply not an acceptable alternative.

James Bowery said at December 24, 2004 1:42 PM:

Hispanics (as well as blacks) tend to rely on public goods for their fertility rates more than whites. Both populations have rural contingents.

Therefore it may not be in the best interests of the Republican Party to enhance fertility through public goods such as the rural infrastructure projects discussed here.

A more effective route for the Republicans (especially given their willingness to consider radical tax overhauls such as a national sales tax) would be to instead switch to a national land value tax with a per-household subsistence exemption. The subsistence exemption should be similar to the level of assets protected by bankruptcy protection. The exemption should be treated as an appropriate compensation for the fact that families provide sons (and possibly now daughters) for service in times of emergency -- and that historic compensation of these populations has been vastly under-valued.

This would alienate much of the more parasitical Republican elite, of course, but the question is whether they want not only a strong Republican party or do they want a nation with an increasing incentive and justification to violate their private property rights?

John S Bolton said at December 24, 2004 8:11 PM:

You're the one with the correlation site that was used to compare the above predictors with several hundred others? That was intriguing, your correlation between susceptible groups and possible vectors of autism or its components, by means of percentage of immigrants from several nationalities. You could use such links to find candidate infectious agents. One that jumps out immediately is leprosy; that is, not the disfiguring virulent kind, but the milder tuberculid form. Vitiligo has associations with autism, and with leprosy. Compare the map of leprosy incidence with your immigration data. Nepal, Tanzania, and several other countries, including India are high for that pathogen. Will our public health officers run such correlations; as for example percent immigrants from Nepal, Finland, autism; then Laos, Finland, autism; and so on for the most likely to have leprosy against the groups considered susceptible by your account. Today our public health professionals might be more concerned with avoiding the possibility of getting some foreigners marked as undesirable aliens, than the protection of the citizenry.

James Bowery said at December 25, 2004 9:22 AM:

First I should emphasize that I described my autism result as being so strong not on the basis of topping a list with hundreds of other variables, but topping a list with _thousands_ of 2 variable combinations (susceptibles*vectors) where those variables were limited to biologically relevant demographies. Although the resulting correlation was "only" about 60%, one has to be aware that the standards for diagnosing "autism spectrum disorders" are so bad that even if one were to know the specific pathogen that caused the disease in a specific susceptible population, applying present diagnostic standards might very well result a correlation that was not much higher than 60%.

Secondly, if I had to guess, I'd say the pathogen involves intestinal conditions and is being primarily passed through lower cast Indian immigrants -- most probably cooks at Indian restaurants.

Finally, it is almost certainly the case that the reason public health professionals will give credence to hypotheses such as Bryna Siegel's, that the recent large increases in autism are a result of large increases in inbreeding, despite her having NO DATA showing increased inbreeding let alone correlation between autism and such hypothetical inbreeding, is because they are operationally acting as extended phenotypes of the pathogenic agents. Not only are they incapable of looking at certain classes of hypotheses and not only are they are incapable of looking at the demographic data, they are actively looking for hypotheses that are positively supportive of the very public policies that are causing the problem. It's the big lie theory applied at the level of population immuity.

There is an additional possibility, of course. And that is that they know very well that these diseases are being brought in by certain classes of immigrants and that certain classes of citizens are suceptible, but they "feel" a "responsibility" to avoid discussing things like this as it is "dangerous knowledge". Quoting from:


Almost 25 years ago I witnessed up close two acts of censorship practiced by no less than the National Academy of Sciences, the American Olympus of scientific distinction. A report entitled Assessing Biomedical Technologies--I, as executive secretary, had drafted it for the National Research Council's Committee on Life Sciences and Social Policy--was censored by the Academy's Report Review Committee, largely on the grounds that its publication might frighten Congress into cutting off all funds for biomedical research. At the very same time, an ad hoc committee of the Academy, chaired (if I remember rightly) by the eminent geneticist, Theodosius Dobzhansky, decided that the Academy should not commission a study--called for by Nobel laureate and Academy member, William Shockley--into the relation between race and intelligence. Nothing such a study might discover, the ad hoc committee argued, could, if known, possibly do anybody any good.

Though I was appalled at the cowardly censorship of our, in truth, very bland document, and though I was amused to see this double-barreled suppression of thought and inquiry by a collegium that had only scorn for the Church's suppression of Galileo, I remember being very impressed by the prudent and statesmanly report of Dobzhansky's committee, with whose conclusions I then agreed. It seemed to me then that a society founded on the self-evident truth of human equality--the equal dignity of each human being--had no business ranking racial groups, especially on the basis of alleged "scientifically measurable differences" in the powers that most make us human.

John S Bolton said at December 26, 2004 3:40 AM:

Since the early 80's, when refugees were brought in without screening for diseases, and the courts gave encouragement to illegal immigration(also unscreened) by offering free public education to their children, infectious disease has again become a problem. The epidemics of HIV and drug resistant TB are only the best known of these. It is alarming that our scientists put openness to diseases from abroad ahead of the public health; this shows a basic disloyalty. If the public turns against them, these scientists could see their unemployment rate go up several times over. It seems that the scientists are loyal to an international community of their fellows, and possibly to the extent that they would maintain an ~omerta~ on immigrant causation of public health hazards, of many descriptions. There are exceptions, though, as , for example, those medical scientists who are asking that there be developed a test for latent TB which can be used to screen those entering the country. Government officials don't want to admit that their program of third world immigration has caused many disasters, which were entirely avoidable. Scientists depend on officials for a large part of their funding, and this explains how many would fear to give offense. Moving back towards the topic, urban fertility, as population density increases, may be lower than each outer surrounding ring of urban or exurban land use, also because of a pathogenic environment which is worsened by third world immigration. Some of the correlations discussed above may be tied in with an effect of this kind: infectious disease on differential fertilities by population density of residential districts.

James Bowery said at December 26, 2004 10:42 AM:

"Moving back towards the topic, urban fertility, as population density increases, may be lower than each outer surrounding ring of urban or exurban land use, also because of a pathogenic environment which is worsened by third world immigration. Some of the correlations discussed above may be tied in with an effect of this kind: infectious disease on differential fertilities by population density of residential districts."

Look again at the best correlation (.47) with population density -- suburban percapita:


Note the fact that the 3 highest white fertility states (Utah, Alaska and Idaho) don't simply depart from the model, they form a _reversal_ of the population density model.

Indeed, Utah, with the highest white fertility rate ranks 35th of 50 states in suburban population percapita. Moreover, it is #45 in rural population percapita and #8 in inner city. Utah defies its stereotypes of population density.

If not population density, then what is this other model that explains the _highest_ levels of white fertility? We can't just go on years married for this extreme white fertility sub-model because Alaska departs too far from it.

This group of 3 states is interesting enough to deserve some scrutiny.

John S Bolton said at December 26, 2004 8:02 PM:

'Inner city' and suburban have different meanings in different metropolitan areas, both in terms of population density and racial components, not to mention immigration peculiarities. Salt Lake City, though it now has a majority of disadvantaged minorities in its public schools, is also an 'inner city' which has suburban house lots extending to within blocks of its downtown. Alaska is probably much less strict sexually, yet the environments relative to transmission of infectious agents depend on the population density and the source regions of immigrants' public health standards, or not?

Nelse Ostlund said at September 28, 2005 12:08 AM:

I'd like to know the correlation between population density per county and voting trends for Republicans. This would seem simple. Looking at red/blue maps for the 2000 election seems to show this trend, but I'd like to see some actual statistics.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©