Asian “Natural Republicans” Vote 75% Democratic

[Grasshopper]

It's better to go to the link for more links within the article.

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/050522_asian.htm

May 22, 2005

Asian “Natural Republicans” Vote 75% Democratic—Any More Bright Ideas?

By Steve Sailer

Is immigration good for the Republican Party?

The second-largest heavily immigrant ethnic group, after Hispanics, are Asian-Americans. Immigration enthusiasts often claim they are "natural Republicans" because they are thought to be prosperous, law-abiding, family-oriented etc. etc.

The only problem with this theory: these natural Republicans have been voting Democratic.

The results of a massive multilingual Presidential election exit poll conducted last November in eight languages of almost 11,000 Asian voters, 82 percent of them immigrants, have finally been released by the liberal Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

The findings are exceptionally bad for the GOP.

Among these Asian voters, Kerry drubbed Bush 74-24.

This is not a perfectly representative sample, so the real figure probably wasn't quite so awful. The AALDEF exit poll was conducted in 23 cities in 8 states east of the Mississippi, only one of which (Virginia) voted for Bush.

Still, no less than 76 percent of Asians do live in “blue”—Democratic—states. And the dominant Asian state missing from the poll, California, where one out of every three Asian-Americans lives, went solidly Democratic. In the already-reported Edison-Mitofsky exit poll, Kerry won California's Asians 66-34. So Bush wouldn't have done all that much better if the whole country had been surveyed in this new poll.

Previously, the most publicized 2004 figure for Asian-Americans was from the troubled "national" version of the Edison-Mitofsky exit poll. It showed Kerry winning by a mere 56-44.

However, merely a few hundred Asians filled out the long questionnaire used in the national Edison-Mitofsky poll. Edison-Mitofsky's own data shows that among the much larger (and thus more reliable) sample who filled out either the short form or the long form, Bush captured only 39 percent.

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times' national Exit Poll showed Bush carrying only 34 percent of Asians.

Conclusion: although the exact figure isn’t quite clear, Bush lost the Asian vote by a landslide.

Yet the President's father won a majority of Asians in 1992—even while losing the race. And Bob Dole appears to have edged Bill Clinton in 1996 among Asians.

So, although the GOP likes to imagine that immigrants will move toward them over time, the historical trend with Asians appears to be in the opposite direction.

And the future looks even worse. Among first-time voters in the AALDEF poll, Kerry won 78-20. Among American-born Asians, who are presumably more assimilated, Kerry was victorious 80-18. Among 18 to 29-year-old Asians, Kerry won 84-14.

Of particular interest to GOP strategists should be Bush's performance among South Asian voters (mostly Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis). They are the wealthiest, best educated, and, due to their English-language skills, the most articulate of the Asian immigrant nationalities. And, thus, increasingly the most influential.

While the Chinese and other East Asian immigrants come from reserved cultures that value harmony and tend to dislike electoral politics, the Asian Indians are more loquacious and opinionated. Thus we're seeing more South Asians in the American opinion media, such as Ramesh Ponnuru, Dinesh D'Souza, and the pseudonymous founders of the Gene Expression blog, just to name a few on the right. They won't be the last.

GOP strategists from Richard Nixon onward have focused on Jewish voters more than their small numbers might appears to warrant, because of the strong Jewish role in the media and campaign finance. Now they also need to start thinking hard about Indians.

Little data has been available before on South Asian voting, so the 2,700 South Asian participants in the AALDEF exit poll offer an important first look.

The result: among South Asians, Kerry clobbered Bush—90-9!

Maybe this is not nationally representative because Indians are more spread out across the country than other Asians, who cluster in blue states.

Still …

Milton Himmelfarb famously observed in the 1960s that Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans. If the AALDEF poll is at all accurate, South Asians live like Jews but vote like blacks.

This is terrible news for the GOP.

Why have Asians deserted the GOP? After the 2000 election, John Derbyshire wrote an insightful article for VDARE.com on the topic. I'd like to add another perspective drawn from my "affordable family formation" hypothesis.

In the last two Presidential elections, inland Republican states have been distinguished by lower housing costs and, not surprisingly, higher rates of being married and having babies among their white populations.

Two processes are going on: 1) The more family-oriented people tend to move to regions with affordable housing and good public schools, and they make those states more Republican because they vote on family values issues. And, 2), for people on the margin in their desire for marriage and family, the affordability of housing influences whether or not they start down the path toward marriage, children…and Republicanism.

Asian immigrants tend to prefer more expensive (and thus Democratic-voting) parts of the country. For example, the cost of living in California is now 51 percent above the national average—in large measure because housing costs are 130 percent higher.

High home prices are not as much of a deterrent to Asian immigrants because, on average, they don't feel they need for as many square feet per family member. With their tendency toward extended families living together, they more often have three, four, or even five paychecks per household. They can outbid native-born American nuclear families with only one or two paychecks.

And this Asian influx, such as in the San Gabriel Valley east of Los Angeles, drives home prices up even higher.

The difficulty of affording a house puts added financial pressure on the natives to wait longer to marry—four of my seven closest friends from high school in L.A. didn't marry until after their fortieth birthday—and have fewer children.

This in turn makes them less likely to become Republican family-values type voters.

As the Asian immigrants become citizens and begin to vote, they look around for guidance from the native voters. My theory: not being particularly excited about politics, but highly sensitive to status signals, they notice that in their region, the Democrats are the prevailing party. So they join the crowd.

But what about the Asian immigrants’ "strong family values"? Why don’t they make Asians vote Republican?

The little-understood paradox is that many Asian immigrants cocoon their children within such all-enveloping extended families that they don't need much help from the government in insulating their kids from anti-family cultural threats.

They don't need laws to help them raise their children because they have such a strong web of customs.

For example, the West Asian immigrant family that lives on my block has lived within an insulated Old Country social world during their quarter-century in America. They entertain countless relatives, but never their neighbors.

(A study by Harvard political scientist Robert D. Putnam of Bowling Alone fame showed that a city's level of ethnic diversity is negatively correlated with its sense of community.)

In contrast, American-born nuclear families rightly feel more at risk from a corrosive culture. They therefore want their elected officials to validate the norms helpful in raising their children.

In every way, current mass immigration isn’t helping them.

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.

[Yeahman]

Does this really have anything to do with immigration? It's my theory that the AA's move to the left is due mostly to the growing 2nd+ generation voting population. If that's the case, then the GOP would benefit from increased immigration, at least in the short run. It would only hurt them a generation later.
That would be an interesting study. The political gap between 1st and 2nd generation AAs. But then again do we even need a study to confirm that American born AAs are more liberal than their immigrant parents?
It may also be an international trend. I know that at least the younger generation Koreans and Indians in Korea and India and more liberal than their parents.

[haplesshobo]

I suspect that any such liberal voting among asians is a reflection of the importance of education in the asian community. Not exactly sure of the breakdown, but I think if you've got higher education past a basic college education, you're more likely to vote liberal.

Not exactly sure what all the polls prove, except that asians preferred kerry to bush. maybe, there was just an issue that was very important to asians which kerry supported.

[Yeahman]

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

I suspect that any such liberal voting among asians is a reflection of the importance of education in the asian community. Not exactly sure of the breakdown, but I think if you've got higher education past a basic college education, you're more likely to vote liberal.

What level of education did you achieve that you are able to talk out of your ass?
Republicans have, on average, more education than Democrats. More specifically, conservative Republicans, on average, receive more schooling than moderates or liberals.
It's pretty obvious, I thought. Who do you think is more likely to vote Republican; a high school drop out flipping burgers at McDonald's or an Ivy League educated CEO?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally Posted by ye110man

What level of education did you achieve that you are able to talk out of your ass?
Republicans have, on average, more education than Democrats. More specifically, conservative Republicans, on average, receive more schooling than moderates or liberals.
It's pretty obvious, I thought. Who do you think is more likely to vote Republican; a high school drop out flipping burgers at McDonald's or an Ivy League educated CEO?

ye110, stop being a rude-ass fuckstick to people who aren't saying anything offensive. Also, those are INCOME measures, not educational measures, to which you're referring to. Do you think a guy with a 12th-grade education who tends ranch in Arizona is more or less likely to vote Democrat than a famous Ivy-league actor or journalist? What about a Greenpeace volunteer making $18k a year and a guy running an autobody shop making $50k? (And an Ivy League education is a LOT more useful for breaking into cliquish industries like publishing or showbiz, or for that matter, for becoming a professor --- a famously leftish profession --- than it is for becoming a CEO).

The middlebrows votes for the rightist party, and the two educational tails vote for the leftist party. While income has basically a linear correlation with voting rightist. This is a fairly standard left-right division anywhere in the modern world. To put it in a compact form, the more over-educated you are relative to your income level, the more likely you are vote for e leftist party. Don't believe it, look at the data:
http://www.isteve.com/04NovA.htm#votesmart

Originally Posted by Steve Sailer

let's put education credentials on a 1 to 5 scale with:

No high school degree = 1
High school degree, no college = 2
Some college, no degree = 3
College graduate = 4
"Postgrad study" = 5

In 2000, Bush's voters had almost higher levels of education, with an average of 3.29 to 3.28 for Gore voters ... Gore did best with high school dropouts and those with postgrad study, and Bush did best in-between.

In the 2002 midterms, GOP candidates for the House attracted a particularly brainy bunch of voters, garnering a 3.37 to the Democratic House candidates' voters' 3.21. GOP house candidates carried college graduates by a 58-40 margin, and even won a majority among those with post-graduate study. (Please note that the post-grad category gets inflated by Democratic-voting public school teachers with advanced degrees in Education.)

In 2004, however, Bush went slightly down-scale, with an average voter educational level of 3.24 to Kerry's 3.32. Bush did much better among high school dropouts in 2004, attracting 49% of their vote, compared to only 35% in 2000.

Or how about CNN's exit poll for the 2000 election, if Steve Sailer is too much of a paleo for your centrist tastes:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/res...ex.epolls.html

Vote by Education All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
No H.S. Degree 5 % 59 % 39 % 1 % 1 %
High School Graduate 21 % 48 % 49 % 1 % 1 %
Some College 32 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
College Graduate 24 % 45 % 51 % 0 % 3 %
Post-Graduate Degree 18 % 52 % 44 % 0 % 3 %

Vote by Income All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Under $15,000 7 % 57 % 37 % 1 % 4 %
$15-30,000 16 % 54 % 41 % 1 % 3 %
$30-50,000 24 % 49 % 48 % 0 % 2 %
$50-75,000 25 % 46 % 51 % 0 % 2 %
$75-100,000 13 % 45 % 52 % 0 % 2 %
Over $100,000 15 % 43 % 54 % 0 % 2 %

[Yeahman]

Originally Posted by AliBabaIncorporated

ye110, stop being a rude-ass fuckstick to people who aren't saying anything offensive.

"Conservatives are stupid" is offensive and a stupid thing to say considering the data.

Originally Posted by AliBabaIncorporated

The middlebrows votes for the rightist party, and the two educational tails vote for the leftist party. While income has basically a linear correlation with voting rightist. This is a fairly standard left-right division anywhere in the modern world. To put it in a compact form, the more over-educated you are relative to your income level, the more likely you are vote for e leftist party. Don't believe it, look at the data:
http://www.isteve.com/04NovA.htm#votesmart

What kind of analysis is that? A 1 to 5 scale? You can get any result you want by playing with the scale.

There is an even larger disparity in the type of education received. Conservatives are more likely to pursue professional degrees with financial payoffs (ie. MBAs). Liberals are more likely to pursue academic degrees (ie. PhDs) which explains why academia tends to be more liberal.

[haplesshobo]

Originally Posted by ye110man

What level of education did you achieve that you are able to talk out of your ass?
Republicans have, on average, more education than Democrats. More specifically, conservative Republicans, on average, receive more schooling than moderates or liberals.
It's pretty obvious, I thought. Who do you think is more likely to vote Republican; a high school drop out flipping burgers at McDonald's or an Ivy League educated CEO?

Seriously, WTF, Yellowman.

Has that ever prevented you from talking 'out of your ass' when you made all those assertions about stem cell research? Geez, I didn't know you were a specialist in that field, with a phD in it? After all, you were making some pretty bold statements, and pretty much discounting what a lot of scientists specializing in that field are doing.

Then again, maybe, you just simply don't like facts that challenge your views.

Setting aside your ad hominem attacks, your straw man argument is skewed because you're really comparing income levels.

I simply suggested a link between asian's push for higher education and the fact that people who had a post grad eduction were more likely to vote democratic.

Its a fact that in 2004, 55% of the people who had a post grad education voted for Kerry while 44% voted for Bush. You can find it in this link: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag.../epolls.0.html

You posted an article where the writer complains about how she didn't change, but the Democratic Party did. Well, you know what? So did the Republican Party! Its been taken over by religious zealots who've pushed their own agenda. Back in the day, Republicans used to stand for limited government and pushed for lower taxes as a way to limit the growth of government.

Instead, now we have these restrictions on basic research that threatens our future economic superiority. The whole premise of creative destruction that it doesn't matter if old jobs and industries are lost as long as something better comes along. You're as bad as those liberals who want to tear down Wal-Mart for being succesful and pass laws aimed specifically at it. I suspect you have more in common with those who push for big government than you think.

[Yeahman]

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

Seriously, WTF, Yellowman.

Has that ever prevented you from talking 'out of your ass' when you made all those assertions about stem cell research? Geez, I didn't know you were a specialist in that field, with a phD in it? After all, you were making some pretty bold statements, and pretty much discounting what a lot of scientists specializing in that field are doing.

Then again, maybe, you just simply don't like facts that challenge your views.

Setting aside your ad hominem attacks, your straw man argument is skewed because you're really comparing income levels.

I simply suggested a link between asian's push for higher education and the fact that people who had a post grad eduction were more likely to vote democratic.

Its a fact that in 2004, 55% of the people who had a post grad education voted for Kerry while 44% voted for Bush. You can find it in this link: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag.../epolls.0.html

My bad. I didn't see the "college" part. I read "I think if you've got higher education past a basic education, you're more likely to vote liberal."
My mistake. Your arguement still fails since Republicans have, on average, more education than Democrats.
But what stem cell facts did I discount?

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

You posted an article where the writer complains about how she didn't change, but the Democratic Party did. Well, you know what? So did the Republican Party! Its been taken over by religious zealots who've pushed their own agenda. Back in the day, Republicans used to stand for limited government and pushed for lower taxes as a way to limit the growth of government.

That's one of the reasons why I'm not Republican.

Originally Posted by haplesshobo

Instead, now we have these restrictions on basic research that threatens our future economic superiority. The whole premise of creative destruction that it doesn't matter if old jobs and industries are lost as long as something better comes along. You're as bad as those liberals who want to tear down Wal-Mart for being succesful and pass laws aimed specifically at it. I suspect you have more in common with those who push for big government than you think.

I don't want jobs in murder.
What does this have to do with big government?

[SunWuKong]

alright, let's all stop being a "rude ass fuckstick" to each other...

anyway, instead of reading an article written by an author that seems to materialise from thin air generalised assumptions about how Asian people live, and that freely uses terms such as "anti-family cultural threats" and "corrosive culture" to describe anything that doesn't resemble a sheltered white American family living in the 1950s, i suggest we take the time to go to the source itself. here's the report that AALDEF published.

http://www.aaldef.org/images/04-20-0...oll_report.pdf

at first glance, what i noticed was that:

1) the people they polled were disproportionally Chinese - 46% surveyed were Chinese, while the Chinese makes up 23.8% of the Asian American population in 2000.

2) the people they polled were disproportionally foreign-born - 82% surveyed were foreign-born, while the foreign-born makes up 68.9% of the Asian American population.

these two facts make me wonder if they basically spent most of their time surveying in Manhattan's Chinatown. AALDEF is based in NYC, after all.

Originally Posted by ye110man

Does this really have anything to do with immigration? It's my theory that the AA's move to the left is due mostly to the growing 2nd+ generation voting population. If that's the case, then the GOP would benefit from increased immigration, at least in the short run. It would only hurt them a generation later.
That would be an interesting study. The political gap between 1st and 2nd generation AAs. But then again do we even need a study to confirm that American born AAs are more liberal than their immigrant parents?
It may also be an international trend. I know that at least the younger generation Koreans and Indians in Korea and India and more liberal than their parents.

if AALDEF's study is correct, it seems that US-born Asians and the recently naturalised Asians gave Kerry a large majority portion of their support. the interesting thing is that the longer Asians have been naturalised, the more likely they voted for Bush instead. it seems that the assimilation of the foreign-born Asians did make them become more likely to vote Bush, while Asians that were born assimilated were still very likely to vote Kerry.

[lethal]

Originally Posted by SunWuKong

these two facts make me wonder if they basically spent most of their time surveying in Manhattan's Chinatown. AALDEF is based in NYC, after all.


if AALDEF's study is correct, it seems that US-born Asians and the recently naturalised Asians gave Kerry a large majority portion of their support. the interesting thing is that the longer Asians have been naturalised, the more likely they voted for Bush instead. it seems that the assimilation of the foreign-born Asians did make them become more likely to vote Bush, while Asians that were born assimilated were still very likely to vote Kerry.

I was an AALDEF surveyist. There were about 5 sites in the greater NYC area, Chinatown, Flushing, Edison, Jersey City, and Palisades Park. Each of those areas are heavily foreign born Asian with 3 being Chinese, 1 Korean, and 1 Filipino/Indian.

Take that for what its worth.

[VV o n g B a]

the report mentioned the site gene expression. alibaba, didn't u blog for this site? i didn't realize it was so well known. i'm impressed by the collection of minds there as most of the posts there are sharp as a needle.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by VV o n g B a

the report mentioned the site gene expression. alibaba, didn't u blog for this site? i didn't realize it was so well known. i'm impressed by the collection of minds there as most of the posts there are sharp as a needle.

correction: Steve Sailer mentioned Gene Expression. AALDEF's report did not.

[thaite]

Originally Posted by Steve Sailer

For example, the West Asian immigrant family that lives on my block has lived within an insulated Old Country social world during their quarter-century in America. They entertain countless relatives, but never their neighbors.

Sounds like an Asiaphile bitter over never getting invited to the Asian parties.

Actually, this whole article sounds like an argument against immigration; "The Asians won't vote for us, don't know why, so we need to slow/stop immigration."

The GOP has a love/hate relationship for Asians. While it loves to take advantage of it's industry, the GOP at the same time beats the drum warning of the Yellow Peril and upcoming future war with China. Gee, you think Asians want to vote for people like that, despite any similarities like "Uh, we both love our families." Well, duh.

[SunWuKong]

Originally Posted by thaite

Actually, this whole article sounds like an argument against immigration; "The Asians won't vote for us, don't know why, so we need to slow/stop immigration."

yeah, it's funny to me that Mr. Sailer didn't choose to write on any possible inaccuracies of the report, but instead uses the report to write an anti-immigration rant. it seems like half of his article didn't even have any relevance to Asian American voting trends.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally Posted by thaite

Sounds like an Asiaphile bitter over never getting invited to the Asian parties.

Yeah, but they're West Asians. (I'm not even clear who that is. Azerbaijanis?) Next Azerbaijaniphile I meet would be the first.

But I think he's kinda grasping at straws. First he's claiming Asians get their political preferences from their neighbours, but then that they're so insulated that they don't even have any contact with those neighbours in the first place. Not to mention that the 2nd and 3rd-generation kids, with a lot less of the ultratraditionalist all-encompassing old-country-style extended family backing them up, seem to be even more leftist than the immigrants.