Trump's 2016 primary campaign (not the general) had an ethnic angle that went largely untalked about. It revealed a cultural split in the American Midwest between the descendants of Germanic immigrants who hated his boastfulness and the descendants of Old Americans who loved it.

After the Iowa cacucus I fiddled around with a NCSS spreadsheet of Iowa counties and discovered that the % of county who identified as Dutch in the census was the best negative predictor of Trump’s vote count, more important even than the % of bachelor’s degrees.
There aren’t many Dutch people in America. Their highest concentration by far (57.7%) is in ultra-religious Sioux County Iowa which also gave Trump his lowest shared of the vote (10.9%, his average was 24.3%). Others have noticed the same thing: https://t.co/NSLd43H101

More from All

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?