Israel: A Typical Southern European Country

Israel is often seen as some kind of exceptional country in U.S. discourse. And, for the Middle East, it is. But not for Europe, even Southern Europe.

Israel’s 2012 PISA score is a mere 454, 483 for Hebrew speakers and 350 (lower than in Qatar) for Arabic speakers. This makes Israeli Hebrew-speakers about equivalent in school-related test performance to Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese. Considering the fact the Jews are the most (on average) intelligent race of man, and continue to wield disproportionate influence in the West, I can only conclude that the vast majority of Jews deciding to raise their children in Israel are solidly on the left side of the Jewish IQ bell curve.

Israel’s economic performance since 1950 is also unexceptional for Southern Europe. Before 2005, it was somewhat worse than that of Greece and Portugal (though after the crash, it was clearly quite a bit better). Perhaps this is misleading, as Israel is a much more fertile country in people than either Greece and Portugal, and contains a sizeable population of comparably unproductive Arabs, but, even after the crash, Israel’s economic performance is clearly no better than that of, say, Italy, and is comparable to that of Spain. Germany it isn’t, in any respect. However, its economic leadership was clearly wise in its avoidance of the Southern European post-Great-Recession supply-side economic stagnation.

Thursday Assorted Links

1. I brilliantly timed my comment to beautifully refute Scott the Psychiatrist’s totally unpersuasive anti-Trump piece

2. Scott Sumner becomes increasingly detached from reality and moves further to the Left

3. The mythical swing voter

4. Is Clinton’s nose tapping coordinating with the moderator? Who knows?

5. Trump joins Gerald Ford in not releasing his tax returns

6. Failed attempt at Virginia voter fraud

7. Fact-checking Clinton in the debate

8. Washington state shooter was a non-citizen who voted in three elections

North Carolina Mystery Solved

Of the March 15 primary states, the only state in which the results looked a bit… odd is North Carolina. Democratic primary turnout was super-high, nearly as high as Republican, Trump did not, as in Florida, get nearly the same number of votes as Clinton, but, rather, far less, and Bernie Sanders got an unusually high percentage of the primary vote for a Black Belt state.

Turns out, in North Carolina, there were 2,052,250 registered Republicans and 2,270,395 Romney general election votes, a ratio of 1.1 Romney votes per registered Republican. There were 2,870,693 registered Democrats and a mere 2,178,391 Obama votes, a ratio of .7588 Obama votes per registered Democrat. Democrats simply have a very lopsided party registration advantage there, and it is well known that DINOs tended to vote against Hillary Clinton, but not against Bernie Sanders.

In Florida, where the results were more normal-seeming, there were 4,581,056 registered Dems and 4,237,756 Obama votes, a ratio of .925 Obama votes per registered Democrat. Meanwhile, there were 4,163,447 Florida Romney voters and 4,137,890 registered Republicans, a ratio of 1.01 Romney votes per registered Republican. So the partisan turnout gap in Florida isn’t nearly 35 points, as it is in North Carolina, but less than 8 points, thus explaining Trump’s competitive position against Clinton in the Florida primary.

Doing two-party vote shares and registration percentages by county would be a tad time-consuming, so I’m not going to bother with it. It’d be interesting, though.


In Ohio, Massachusetts Moderate Mitt, one of the founding fathers of Obamacare, won the primary against moderate conservative religious Catholic populist/nationalist Rick Santorum. Mitt won nineteen counties.

In the general election, Mitt won eight of these counties that he won in the primary. Barack Obama won the other eleven.

Mitt won all but six of the sixty-nine counties in the general election which he lost in the Ohio primary.

Running bought robots popular in elite bastions ain’t gonna work. The elites are moving to the Democratic party, and have been since 1984.

Debate Really Didn’t Hurt Trump

The LA Times poll shows Trump gained a half point while Clinton lost support by one tenth of a point. Overall, negligible in the grand scheme of things and a wash, despite Clinton winning the debate.

Trump experienced a debate bump among Blacks, the poor, millennials, the rich, the High School&less and some college demographics, while Her experienced a debate bump among Hispanics, the middle class, and women.

BTW, contrary to media wisdom, women are not a swing vote in this election. The biggest swing voters in this election are young Black men without a college degree.

Overall, not a big loss. The Breitbart/Gravis poll:
was roughly correct, though it seems pundit commentary dampened Trump’s gains.

Tuesday Assorted Links

1. Scott Sumner is going off the rails

2. RAND on Trump’s health plan is bollocks

3. Trump’s anti-establishment debate statements (Tracey; who calls the outcome of seemingly every debate a tie)

4. Clock Boy phenomenon was not a product of Islamophobia, but Islamophilia

5. Police database abuse

6. Trump is right: crime is rising

7. A PUMA’s take on what happened at the debate

8. Trump post-debate interview

Debate Really Didn’t Hurt Trump?

The Breitbart/Gravis instapoll showed Trump actually gaining support following the debate by a net of three points, despite Clinton winning the debate by five points. The poll oversamples Trump supporters by five points, so Clinton really won the debate by more like ten points. If this is so (tomorrow’s polls will make it clear), we know that the challenger-gains-in-polls effect is not due to the challenger actually winning or losing a debate.

If Trump did, in fact, gain support following the debate (meaning he’ll win Colorado and New Hampshire soon enough), that means Clinton badly failed at Her job and failed to outline a positive message for Her campaign.