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

John Quayle blueoval57 at verizon.net
Tue Nov 8 19:52:33 MST 2016


/*Red, Steve......should be solid red! With an hour and ten minutes 
left, there were 250 people lined up to vote in a nearby community 
called "North Strabane Township." CNN did several pieces on them all day. */


On 11/8/2016 9:46 PM, Steven Laib wrote:
> What do you think will happen in Penn's woods, John?
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 8:44 PM, John Quayle <blueoval57 at verizon.net 
> <mailto:blueoval57 at verizon.net>> wrote:
>
>> */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 <http://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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rushtalk mailing list
>> Rushtalk at csdco.com <mailto:Rushtalk at csdco.com>
>> http://kalos.csdco.com/mailman/listinfo/rushtalk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ef39df9d/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list