[Rushtalk] GOP's 2012 Problem Was Not Enough White Votes

Carl Spitzer cwsiv at juno.com
Tue Nov 8 07:39:46 MST 2016


GOP's 2012 Problem Was Not Enough White Votes
Steve Sailer
• November 6, 2016
• 4,300 Words
• 187 Comments
• Reply
RSS  

Here’s my presentation at the early 2013 VDARE.com symposium,
transcribed and then translated from spoken Sailerese into actual
written English.

Hi, I’m Steve Sailer, and it’s a real pleasure to address our symposium.
I’m going to talk about some overlooked aspects of the 2012 election.

As we get to the data, we’re going to focus on voting by state because
that is, more or less, how Electoral Votes are counted. For Republicans
to ever take back the White House, they will have to figure out more
states they can win.

In the interest of simplicity, all the percentages are going to be for
Romney’s share of the two-party vote. I’m leaving out Libertarian
voters, write-ins, and so forth. I apologize for ignoring non-two party
voters (I saw recently that Tom Wolfe wrote in Ron Paul’s name in 2012),
but this expedient will allow us to think about just one number at a
time: Romney’s share. Thus, if you want to know what Obama got, just
subtract Romney’s percentage from 100.

I’m working with a huge poll that almost nobody’s talked about. It was
conducted online by Reuters-Ipsos throughout the election year. This
particular edition features a sample size of 40,000 two-party voters who
responded immediately after voting.

Now, the Reuters-Ipsos panel has advantages and disadvantages versus the
better-known Edison exit poll, which had a sample size of only about
25,000. I haven’t noticed any systematic differences in results reported
by the two polls, but Reuters-Ipsos has a number of strengths for the
serious analyst.

For example, the more celebrated exit poll wasn’t even conducted in 20
states, including Texas. If you want to know something about the future
of American politics, you better know something about Texas. The
Reuters-Ipsos poll had a sample size of 2,403 respondents in Texas. In
summary, we’ve got a decent sample size on almost every state, not just
30 favored states.

Most importantly, Reuters lets anybody make any crosstabs they want of
their results, while the Edison exit poll only lets subscribers who pay
tens of thousands of dollars get their hands dirty with the data. So,
the quality of discussion of the exit poll numbers has been constrained.

Below is something nobody has seen before, a table of Romney’s share of
the vote by race in each of the 50 states.

The first column of percentages is Romney’s final share of the actual
two-party vote. Nationally, Romney only got 48.0 percent to Obama’s 52.0
percent. (After all the votes were counted, Obama’s victory margin
turned out wider than almost all polls had predicted. The Reuters’ poll
has Romney at 48.5 percent, so it was a half-point too high.)

National, Romney won 58.1 percent of the white vote which,
unsurprisingly, was not enough. He lost 97-3 among blacks and 72-28
among Hispanics.



Actual
Reuters
Whites
Blacks
Hispanics
Other

National
48.0
48.5
58.1
3.0
28.3
39.0
17.7
Alabama
61
61
82
7
na
38
10
Alaska
57
60
72
na
na
na
na
Arizona
55
56
66
na
26
31
26
Arkansas
62
62
69
6
na
na
22
California
38
39
49
5
25
38
25
Colorado
47
48
52
na
27
26
22
Connecticut
41
42
45
6
na
na
20
Delaware
41
41
52
na
na
na
8
D.C.
7
0
8
0
na
na
0
Florida
50
50
61
4
35
38
22
Georgia
54
54
79
3
25
43
7
Hawaii
28
20
56
na
na
0
15
Idaho
66
67
67
na
na
na
na
Illinois
41
42
51
1
30
34
12
Indiana
55
55
60
2
na
38
13
Iowa
47
47
48
na
na
31
21
Kansas
61
61
64
na
na
na
31
Kentucky
62
62
66
3
na
na
17
Louisiana
59
60
84
0
na
na
0
Maine
42
42
42
na
na
na
na
Maryland
37
38
56
1
na
32
4
Massachusetts
38
37
40
4
27
23
19
Michigan
45
46
53
2
32
35
13
Minnesota
46
46
47
na
na
18
25
Mississippi
56
56
88
0
na
na
0
Missouri
55
55
62
8
na
34
17
Montana
57
56
55
na
na
na
na
Nebraska
61
62
65
na
na
na
na
Nevada
47
47
57
1
na
46
17
New
Hampshire
47
48
48
na
na
na
na
New
Jersey
41
41
52
0
24
36
15
New
Mexico
45
45
52
na
27
na
41
New York
36
36
46
2
18
24
10
North
Carolina
51
51
67
2
22
38
9
North
Dakota
60
55
57
na
na
na
na
Ohio
48
49
54
13
25
33
18
Oklahoma
67
67
74
na
na
71
41
Oregon
44
46
48
na
22
33
23
Pennsylvania
47
47
54
0
13
31
5
Rhode
Island
36
36
39
na
na
na
na
South
Carolina
55
56
78
0
na
na
0
South
Dakota
59
59
58
na
na
na
na
Tennessee
60
60
71
1
na
33
10
Texas
58
58
76
2
37
41
25
Utah
75
75
75
na
31
33
30
Vermont
32
32
34
na
na
na
na
Virginia
48
48
60
3
26
38
13
Washington
42
44
46
3
29
30
29
West
Virginia
64
64
66
na
na
na
na
Wisconsin
47
47
49
7
na
31
21
Wyoming
71
67
74
na
na
na
na

Unfortunately, Reuters just lumps together American Indians with Asians
and whoever else feels like calling themselves “Other.” Romney garnered
only 39 percent of the Other, although that’s better than what the exit
poll reported for Romney among Asians (26 percent, down a purported 9
points from 2008), and 38 percent among “Other” mostly American Indians
(up 7 points from 2008). There was a fair amount of theorizing based
upon the exit poll about why Romney did so much worse than McCain among
Asians (although none about why he did so much better among American
Indians).

The Reuters poll, however, suggests these sharp swings didn’t actually
happen.

Which poll is right about the Other? Beats me. Mostly, the exit poll and
Reuters are pretty similar, so when they disagree, I’d just recommend
taking the average of the two surveys.

The Reuters-Ipsos Polling Explorer interface won’t display any
breakdowns where the sample size is less than 100. But I managed to get
around that cautious limitation by lumping together in huge California
with each small state’s sample, then doing the math. That worked out
fairly well. Rather than a minimum sample size of 100, I chose an
aggressive minimum of merely 15. That’s quite small, so don’t trust each
number above too much. Since it’s so hard to get these numbers, I felt
it better to err on the side of giving my readers more rather than less
information.

We’ll start our analysis with minority electorates, then give the white
vote the careful inspection it requires. Yes, I know that white voters
are out fashion, but they are still numerous and much more of a swing
vote from state to state than are the trendier minorities.

The black share of the vote is routine almost all the way through.
Traditionally, California blacks vote a little more Republican than the
national blacks, and, sure enough, Romney hauled in a full 5 percent of
California blacks versus 3 percent nationwide.

The one black figure that’s unexpected is Ohio, where Reuters reports
that Romney get 13 percent of the black vote. That’s from a moderate
sample size of 92 black panelists. A vast amount of money was spent on
advertising in the battleground state of Ohio, so maybe Romney’s
strategists can pat themselves on the back for buying a few extra black
votes. Or maybe this 13 percent figure is just a fluke due to limited
sample size.

A few anomalies like this are actually reassuring about the authenticity
of the Reuters poll. The results fit my model of how the world works, of
how various factors interact so well that occasionally I break into a
cold sweat over the thought that maybe Reuters just made up the results!
I mean, if you hired me to create a model of how demographic and
regional factors work together, it would spit out numbers very much like
these. But, the occasional unpredictable result, like Romney supposedly
getting 13 percent of the black vote in crucial Ohio, is, in a way,
confidence-inducing.

With Hispanics, you can see that Puerto Rican Hispanic states like New
York (Romney got 18 percent of New York’s Hispanic vote) and
Pennsylvania (13 percent) are a little bit further to the left than
Mexican Hispanic states such as California (25 percent). But, most of
the Hispanic vote falls within a relatively narrow band. Rather than
swing voters, these look like solid Democrats who drift a little right
if their white neighbors are conservative..

Ever since the election, we’ve been told constantly that the main thing
Hispanic voters care about is amnesty for illegal aliens, and the only
way for Republicans to ever win the White House again is to grant
amnesty (and, while you’re at it, throw in “a path to citizenship”). If
you doubt this is the right course for the GOP, just ask any Democrat
and they’ll tell you.

If there is any state where this logic shouldn’t apply, it ought to be
Florida, which Obama won by a hair. The two main groups of Hispanic
voters in Florida are Cubans and Puerto Ricans, neither of whom care
about “immigration reform.” The Puerto Ricans are born citizens, and yet
they still vote overwhelmingly Democratic. You might almost think
Democrats are pulling Republicans’ legs over amnesty …

The Cubans, as described in Tom Wolfe’s Back to Blood, have their own
special immigration law that applies to any Cuban who can set foot on
American soil. The Cubans used to vote heavily Republican, but Florida
Hispanics now went overall 65-35 for Obama, suggesting younger Cubans
are trending Democratic. In Wolfe’s novel, even the conservative cops
among the Miami Cubans resent the Anglos as competitors who get on their
nerves by thinking of Florida as part of America. And the Democrats are
the natural home for the resentful.

There is a small difference between the Mexican American voters in
California (25 percent for Romney) and Texas Hispanics (37 percent).
That 37 percent sounds pretty good – it must be the pro-amnesty role
models of the Bush family, while, as we all know, California Latinos
were alienated by Proposition 187 — until you notice that Romney got an
astonishing 76 percent of the white vote in Texas versus only 49 percent
in California. So, relative to whites, Romney may have performed better
with Hispanics in California where there is only a 24-point gap, not the
39-point gap in Texas. Or if you look at it proportionally, California’s
25/49 is almost identical to Texas’s 37/76. So maybe the Bushes and
Prop. 187 don’t really matter, and what really matters is that Mexican
Americans mostly vote Democratic because they find it to be in their
self-interest for old-fashioned tax-and-spend reasons?

What about the white vote?

This graph below shows Romney’s share of both the total vote (in dark)
and white vote (in red). The states are sorted in order of how well
Romney did overall, with Utah at the top and Hawaii at the bottom.

It started out as a bar graph, but I had 100 bars (50 states times two),
which seemed excessive, so I made the bars invisible and just left the
values of the bars. If you look at Utah, you can see that Romney got 75
percent of the total vote and 75 percent of the white vote in the state.
In Wyoming, 71 percent of the total vote and 74 percent of the white
vote.

Seminar1

So, for Romney to do really well, he needed two things: states that are
almost all white and whites that are almost all Republican.

Now, as you get further down, you see outliers where the GOP’s share of
the white vote is far higher than the GOP’s overall performance, such as
Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. These are states typically in the
deep south with large black populations where there’s a strong degree of
white solidarity to keep blacks from taking over the state. For example,
the state of Mississippi went for Romney 56-44, and the way he won was
by getting 88 percent of the white vote. Why did he get 88 percent of
the white vote? Well, Mississippi has the largest black population of
any state and according to this Reuters-Ipsos poll, blacks in
Mississippi voted 100 percent for Obama (sample size = 38)

So that’s kind of what diversity gets you in the long run. As Lee Kwan
Yew of Singapore says, in a multicultural democracy, everybody ends up
voting on race.

Probably the two most interesting states that Romney won are not in the
deep south: Texas (76 percent of white vote) and Arizona (66 percent).

Texas is not really an old deep south state by any means. It has had a
huge influx of Americans since oil was first discovered in 1901, and it
has its own culture. It shows the possibilities of what a state could do
in terms of going heavily toward Republicans as a bloc vote: 76 percent
is a pretty amazing number, but that’s what it took to keep
rapidly-Hispanicizing Texas handily Republican. If whites in Texas don’t
vote consistently Republican, then the state, with its 38 Electoral
Votes, will go Democratic in some future presidential election. And that
would end the chances of the Republican Party as we know it ever
regaining the White House. So, GOP, you better hurry up and put all
those illegal aliens in Texas on the path to citizenship!

One thing to keep in mind about Texas is that its formidable degree of
white solidarity is the result of generations of white Texans
indoctrinating each other in the superiority of Texas over the rest of
the country (as I noticed while a student at Rice U. in Houston). This
solidarity has some real payoffs. For example, back in the 1980s Texas
had a hugely successful anti-littering campaign featuring the slogan
“Don’t Mess with Texas.” Politically, it turns out that Texas pride
among whites keeps Mexicans discouraged. (Mexicans are not terribly hard
to discourage.) On the other hand, the braggadocio of Texans has not
necessarily endeared themselves to the rest of the country.

As you may have observed, the demonization of Arizona in the national
press over the last few years has been virulent. The front page of the
New York Times routinely featured articles about horribleness of white
people in Arizona and how something needs to be done about them.

That’s because by the standards of Western states without many blacks,
there was strong solidarity among Arizona whites, with 66 percent voting
Republican. That frustrated Democratic efforts to register and turnout
as many Mexican Americans as possible.

The most interesting states on the graph are the ones where Romney came
close to 50 percent. These are the states future Republican candidates
must improve in to have a shot at the White House.

The message you’ve heard ever since the election is that the Republicans
lost because of the amnesty issue and therefore they must agree to
amnesty and a path to citizenship. You know, the New York Times and the
POTUS have all been explaining to the Republican Party how they need to
pass amnesty right now for their own good. And if Republicans can’t
trust the leadership of the Democratic Party to look out for their
partisan interests, who can they trust?

Yet, the states in which Romney came close to winning are typically ones
where he just did not get enough of the white vote. Consider Ohio, where
Romney lost 52-48 overall by only getting a grand total of 54 percent of
the white vote. Almost anywhere in modern American, Republicans have to
win more than 54 percent of whites to win.

Here are some other north central states where Romney came fairly close:

Pennsylvania: 54 percent of the white vote

Iowa: 48 percent

WI 49 percent

Minnesota 47 percent

Michigan 53 percent

Romney couldn’t get the job done in these northern states not because of
the tidal wave of Hispanics, but because he just didn’t get enough
whites to show up and vote for him.

Let’s see where we could make the amnesty argument. Florida was close.
And, as we know ever since the infamous 2000 election, Florida has been
ripe for people with an ax to grind to claim that their particular
panacea would have determined who won the Presidency. For example, I got
a press release during the 2000 vote counting in Florida from a Sikh
lobby. The Sikhs hate laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets
because they muss up their turbans. Traditionally, helmet laws are the
Sikhs’ hot-button issue. The press release announced that if Al Gore had
come out against helmet laws, the Sikhs of Florida would have made him
President. I checked their math, and, yeah, they had a point.

But the larger point is that this logic is mostly nuts.

But the Republicans don’t get it. At the moment, they think that all
they have to do to get back to the White House is turn the party over
completely to Marco Rubio. Let him negotiate amnesty with the Democrats.
(What could possibly go wrong?) Mexicans must love the guy, right? After
all, both his name ends in vowels.

Yet, do Mexican Americans even like Cubans, such as Sen. Rubio? (One of
the hidden messages of Back to Blood is that Cubans don’t care at all
about Mexicans.) Nobody seems to have checked.

Virginia is another interesting state. It’s an example of how the
Republicans are beginning to shoot themselves in the foot with legal
immigration. The Washington DC suburbs are home a large number of
well-educated legal immigrants, and, it turns out, they like to vote
Democratic. Even if they’re making a lot of money and it’s going to cost
them in taxes, these legal immigrants just find the Democrats more to
their taste.

Then there are what I call the Clean Green states such as Colorado
(where Romney won 52 percent of whites), New Hampshire (48 percent),
Oregon (48 percent), and Washington (46 percent). Amnesty isn’t going to
win them those states.

There’s New Mexico, with its large Hispanic population, but once again
the GOP lost there because they only won 52 percent of the white vote.
New Mexico is interesting as a view into the future of Hispanicized
America. Hispanics have been in the Upper Rio Grande Valley for 400
years, yet the state that does not attract many illegal immigrants. How
come? Because there aren’t many jobs in New Mexico. Why not? Because it
has been filled up with Hispanics for its entire history, and they don’t
create a lot of jobs.

What about California? Surely, that’s a state where whites have been
crushed under the rising tide of Hispanics? Actually, Romney only won 49
percent of the white vote there. Kind of hard for a Republican to win
that way.

As we all know from having heard it over and over that Republicans were
doing fine in California until they shot themselves in the foot with
Proposition 187 in 1994. What they don’t tell you is that George H.W.
Bush won less than 33 percent of the total vote in California in 1992,
two years before Proposition 187. But who has time to fact-check The
Narrative?

Nevada might be the closest thing to an example supporting the
amnesty-uber-alles narrative. Romney won a mediocre but not terrible 57
percent of white votes there, but lost due to Hispanics (and Filipinos)
voting heavily Democratic. Unfortunately, the Reuters-Ipsos poll only
has a Nevada sample of 14 Hispanics, so we’re flying kind of blind here.

My impression of Nevada Hispanic voters is that the big issue for them
is not amnesty, it’s that they were just hammered by the mortgage
meltdown of 2007-2008. Nevada long led the country in foreclosures.
Nevada Latinos were flying high during the Bush Bubble, but haven’t
forgiven Republicans since for their defaulting. How amnesty will cure
that for Republicans is a mystery.

Let’s briefly look at the national level. A one-word characterization of
Mitt Romney’s campaign would be bloodless. He stressed serious,
respectable issues involving entitlements and taxes. He avoided any
mention of anything ungentlemanly. Unfortunately for Romney, he’s living
in a time that our leading man of letters calls the age of Back to
Blood.

In contrast, coming out of the 2010-midterm elections, Obama saw he had
a real problem. The Obamamania of 2008 had carried him to a large
victory over a wounded and already flawed Republican candidate. But how
was he going to re-mobilize his base, which largely consists of the
margins of American society, without the Hope and Change piffle of 2008?

The Obama base is, to be blunt, the fringes. The epitome of Romney’s
base is the married white father, while the essence of Obama’s base is
the single black mother. Obama’s base hadn’t bothered to show up to vote
in 2010, so how was he going to motivate them in 2012? The former are a
lot more likely to vote out of a sense of civic duty, while the latter
need some emotional motivation.

Here’s a table of data I published on VDARE.com just after the election
that clearly shows the Core v. Fringe distinction:

Reuters-Ipsos Exit Poll
Romney’s Share
Sample Size
Mormons
86 percent
766
Married white Prot.
74 percent
11,761
White Protestants
70 percent
15,732
Married white men
65 percent
7,001
Married whites
63 percent
24,176
Married white women
62 percent
17,175
White Catholics
57 percent
8,173
Whites
58 percent
34,446
Married men
58 percent
7,910
Marrieds
57 percent
27,106
Homeowners
55 percent
31,163
Married women
55 percent
19,196
Single white men
51 percent
3,383
Married other races
48 percent
958
Men
51 percent
12,002
All Voters (2 candidate)
48 percent
40,000
Single whites
48 percent
10,270
Women
47 percent
27,997
Single white women
44 percent
6,886
Other races
39 percent
1,642
Married Hispanics
35 percent
928
Single men
39 percent
4,092
Married Jewish men
40 percent
419
Hispanics
28 percent
1,584
Singles
35 percent
12,894
Renters
33 percent
8,835
Single Jewish men
30 percent
163
Married Jewish women
34 percent
652
Bisexuals
25 percent
616
“Other orientations”
31 percent
229
Single other races
28 percent
684
Single women
31 percent
8,801
Single Hispanics
21 percent
656
Hindus
23 percent
101
Single Jewish women
23 percent
328
Gays/lesbians
16 percent
976
Blacks
3 percent
2,087
Black single women
2 percent
925

At the top are Mormons at 86 percent for Romney. Now, obviously, Mormons
are a minority, but they’re increasingly the only minority group in
modern American that still tries to act like they’re part of the core.

Then come married white Protestants (74 percent), then white
Protestants, married white men, married whites, married white women,
white Catholics, whites, married men, marrieds of both sexes,
homeowners, married women, single white men, married other races and men
in general.

At the bottom are black single women at 2 percent for Romney. Then
blacks, gays and lesbians, single Jewish women, Hindus, single
Hispanics, single women, single other races, other orientations. I’m
going to stop there. “Other orientations” comes from the sexual
orientation question. They gave you four choices: heterosexual,
homosexual, bisexual; and for those who didn’t find those adequate,
“other” was a choice. The Other Orientation folks went strongly for
Obama.

Obviously, this turned into an election based on identity, on whether
people felt themselves in the core of America or in the fringe of
America. The core versus fringe can be defined in a couple of ways. For
example, over multi-generational periods, do you come from people who
settled this country a long time ago, or are you, say, an immigrant from
Somalia who is now going to gift us with all the lessons that Somalis
have developed over the eons on how to run a successful country?

Or, on a personal level, are you somebody who is married, has stayed
married, has children, owns a home, and is employed? Or are you somebody
who’s single, renting, who basically doesn’t find your life satisfactory
and is looking for somebody to blame?

The way the Obama campaign turned out their base was to whip up feelings
of resentment toward core Americans, toward those people whose ancestors
had built the country, who largely keep it running today and who in
their personal lives have done a pretty good job of keeping their act
together.

Obama did a spectacular job of taking those two kinds of people from the
fringe, and telling them that they should resent the white married
people of America, the ones who own their homes, the ones whose
grandparents helped make this country, and that there’s something
shameful, unfair, or at least uncool, about coming from the core of
America.

It was a brilliant strategy. Obama ran a really ugly, nasty campaign
full of subliminal hatred. The Obama campaign did a good job keeping the
stew of ill will they were brewing somewhat under wraps until after the
votes were counted. But in the days following the election, out came
pouring the chest-beating Suck-It-White-Boy exultation, the mindless
fury at the losing white male bogeyman for being old and white, but,
mostly, for losing.

The Republican Brain Trust now assumes that the way to solve this
problem is via amnesty, just like their good friends the Democrats keep
telling them. Amnesty, however, will be seen as white America’s
surrender declaration, as an official invitation to kick the former top
dogs while they’re down. And who can be expected to resist that?






-- 
----CWSIV----

 ,= ,-_-. =. 
((_/)o o(\_))
 `-'(. .)`-' 
     \_/     

America works when American citizens work.
Freedom and open source the GNU paradigm.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20161108/de3ff983/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list