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

John Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Tue Nov 8 19:44:17 MST 2016


*/Not a problem today! In my precinct alone, there were 708 voters - 
more than twice the amount who showed up in 2012. I'm Judge of Elections 
and I got the final tally!/*


On 11/8/2016 9:39 AM, Carl Spitzer wrote:
>
> *GOP's 2012 Problem Was Not Enough White Votes* *Steve Sailer 
> <http://www.unz.com/author/steve-sailer/>* *• November 6, 2016* 
> *• 4,300 Words* *• 187 Comments 
> <http://www.unz.com/isteve/gops-2012-problem-was-not-enough-white-votes/#comments>* 
> *• Reply 
> <http://www.unz.com/isteve/gops-2012-problem-was-not-enough-white-votes/#respond>* 
> <http://www.unz.com/xfeed/rss/isteve/>*RSS 
> <http://www.unz.com/xfeed/rss/isteve/> ***
> /*Here’s my presentation at the early 2013 VDARE.com symposium 
> <http://www.vdare.com/articles/gop-s-problem-is-low-white-share-and-comprehensive-immigration-reform-won-t-help>, 
> 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 
> <http://elections.reuters.com/?title=Selection+for+president+in+the+2012+presidential+election++%28collapsed+to+three+answers%29> 
> 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 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/>, 
> 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 
> <http://elections.reuters.com/?title=Selection+for+president+in+the+2012+presidential+election++%28collapsed+to+three+answers%29> 
> 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 
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-exit-polls/> 
> 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 
> <http://elections.reuters.com/?title=Selection+for+president+in+the+2012+presidential+election++%28collapsed+to+three+answers%29> 
> 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 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don>.” 
> 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 
> <http://www.vdare.com/articles/tom-wolfe-s-back-to-blood-a-confederate-looks-at-miami-s-cubans>/**.*
>
> *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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rushtalk mailing list
> Rushtalk at csdco.com
> http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kalos.csdco.com/pipermail/rushtalk/attachments/20161108/07eb8063/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list