July 12, 2012

All I know is what I read in the papers

We heard over and over again that Obama's Administrative Amnesty was a political masterstroke, but now the polls are finally in and the Washington Post reports "No Immigration Bounce for Obama." It turns out that -- What do you know? -- immigration is a bad issue for Obama, especially in swing states (in red above -- and, no, I don't know what the right half of the graph means.)

What does make a difference is the sheer racial change created by immigration. If the U.S. still had the demographics of 1980, Obama would likely lose as badly as Carter. As brilliant GOP strategic thinkers like Rove, Bush, and McCain argued, therefore the Republicans should speed up demographic change.


Anonymous said...

But... Obama decrees that there is no requirement to enforce immigration laws (on moral grounds). So... If immorality triumphs at the ballot box, what requirement to enforce will of people? Possession of White House nine tenths of law.

Gilbert P.

NOTA said...

The question Obama cares about is how this changes his likely votes. Disapprovals among dedicated Republicans don't matter unless they help Romeny get *his* voters to come out, disapprovals among people who won't bother voting siimilarly don't matter. My guess is that this is still a bad issue for Obama, and that he'd have been better off to run on his record, which is actually pretty tough on illegal immigration. But I don't think we can tell whether this is a good or bad issue for Obama just based on these charts.

Anonymous said...

Most of the Republican party intelligentsia is made of cultural marxists.

Anonymous said...

Ah, but Steve, you don't understand.
The Republican party Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business, coming under the particular purview of Big Agra (TM). It's big business that pays the lobbyists, that pays the fees, that pays for the dirty politicians' little dirty weekend in Honolulu, they pull the strings and call the shots, and boy how successful has that wholly owned little susidiary been for them - paid back seed capital a thousand fold, what with the lowest executive tax rates in the western world, freedom to import as any widgets as possible from China and take your mark-up too, hot and cold running Mexicans and all the rest of it - it's almost like the Republican Party was designed to fit this little niche by a writer from central casting, never has a hand slipped into a glove so comfortably before.
Well, the Repubs have done their job (and most admirably well too, as I say they did it like a dose of salts through a goose), and now that the games's over (yes folks, free wheeling, free trading Brasil Del Norte is here to stay, plus wholly owned Chinese industry as a side bonus), they can be 'spunked and dumped' (if Steve will let me use that horrible little Aussie vulgarism, and tossed aside just like all the other chumps before them.
'The business of America is business', Darwin never said that, but boy, would he appreciate a super-predator if he saw one. As the saying goes it's all about survival of the fittest, and any trick or strategem will do as long as the execs can continue to scoop up 99% of the loot and the chumps (even those who thought they were better than the chumps like the Repubs)continue to scrabble for the crumbs.
Shark's feedig frenzy, but the trickiest,duplicitous and selfish shark, not the meanest, ends up with the fat belly and spitting out the shark fins, at the end of the day. A poker game where you sell off your 'buddy's' granny once
he's screwed. Sentimentality's strictly for the chumps. This is Dawkins selfish DNA in action.

Conatus said...

In Alabama where their motto is "We dare to defend our rights", white people still have round things between their legs. They are 73% of the state's population yet routinely vote 70% Republican whereas most nice white people in the rest of the country routinely split their vote in the low fifties and high forties, independent thinkers you know.

Democrats haven't carried more than 43% of Alabama's vote since 1996, when Bill Clinton won re-election against Republican Bob Dole but lost in Alabama.

Obama received but 10 percent of the white votes in Alabama, compared with the 19 percent that John Kerry received there in 2004.

Perhaps the whites in Alabama are taking their cue from their moral betters, the blacks, who are routinely portrayed on TV and movies and big newspapers as suffering, wise and good.
Blacks voted 96% for Obama. In their greater wisdom they voted their skin color.
Perhaps the whites in Alabama are trending toward that brand of wisdom.

Anonymous said...

We all know it wasn't a political masterpiece whatever the CW is. It was good political theater but that's something different.

Anyone who can do the math knows that the whole idea blows. Except for one tiny detail the MSM will never mention. Motor voter and same day no id registration means that the illegal votes now are counted and matter. The trouble will be motivating them to vote.

But again how tough will it be to pull up in front of a 'Lowes' or 'Home Depot' and take every guy to the polls at once? It's not going to happen everywhere but I can see it happening anywhere there is a Soros selected Secretary of State and lax voter registration.

Anonymous said...

No joke a vast chage to hispanic or asian in a purple state means vicoties for the dems.

Anonymous said...

If the U.S. still had the demographics of 1980, Obama would likely lose as badly as Carter.

DRUDGE: Michelle O Tells Supporters To 'Multiply'...

During a campaign stop for her husband in Miami, Fla., on Tuesday, first lady Michelle Obama urged grassroots volunteers to find unregistered voters and "shake 'em," reminding them that President Obama has predicted this election "will be even closer than the last one." Obama also told voters to "multiply" themselves to help get the president reelected.

"He needs you to keep making those calls, doing that hard work. Knocking on those doors. Treacherous work, right? Tiring work. He needs you to keep registering those voters. You know, the ones, you know, that aren't registered and you gotta get 'em and shake 'em. Find them, get them registered," Michelle Obama said at the campaign event.

"And even more important, he needs you to multiply yourselves," Obama said to supporters. "Think about it like that. Multiply yourselves..."

BTW, Slashdot is covering Melinda Gates's initiative to mask population control as 'feminism'.

Jim Bowery said...

For Obama, immigration is sort of like casting is for Hollywood:

Who cares about the market you're supposedly serving when your central agenda is at stake? So what if you sacrifice a few votes or a few dollars when the payoff is so direct?

Anonymous said...

No, if the us population had the demographics of 1980, whites would be more left wing and the parties would be in rough balance, just like they usually are. Also the left would be more united, less diverse, and more effective politically.

More minorities means whites vote more for conservatives. This is because they think they are better on racial issues, and because tax and spend policies hit whites so disproportionately the more NAMS there are.

In places like nearly all white eastern Europe and states like Maine, the raping of the middle class by the rich is justly a top issue and large blocks of whites vote for regulation and redistribution. Nothing is worse for socialism than waves of low skill immigrants, one of many reasons the savvy elites at the WSJ are far far to the left of Obama and mainstream dens on immigration. In Alabama middle class whites don't have the ability to vote for socialism, so they are stuck with the elite-run GOP, now run by a guy who got rich shutting factories and bankrupting companies with debt to pay his investors huge "special dividends."

In addition to economics, NAMS mean crime is a bigger issue, and the pernicious low time orientation culture of NAMS induces whites to resist with traditional cultural conservatism.

Anonymous said...

As stated above, the Republicans are really just the party of big business and the rich. So massive immigration, legal or otherwise, is OK with them.

Yes, in the long run the Republican Party won't benefit, but Rich Republicans will.

Whiskey said...

As a commenter on Larry Auster's site noted, what the people want does not matter. What the elites want is what we get, no matter how unpopular. This has been the case since 1945, with say China, that the FT yesterday noted is run by 100 families, being different only to a degree to the nations in the West. Hence Ray LaHood musing about how awesome it is in China that "three people" make decisions whereas in the US it is 3,000.

The elites AS A CLASS are fairly united, whatever trivial ideology separates them between Democrat and Republican. Complicating things is the rise of the Tea Party and the slow-motion takeover of the Republican Party expelling elites (though slowly) from party and elected leadership.

As a Conservative this is my preferred method, because revolutions almost always empower the worst thugs instead of making things better. King Idris was better than Khadaffi, and Khadaffi will no doubt be fondly remembered by people under Islamist rule.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of WSJ here is an brilliant example of foreign policy analysis from Ann Marlowe, who has more egg on her face than fellow jackasses Max Boot and Gerecht.

A Triumph for Democracy in Libya
Libyans embraced American ideals and rejected political Islam at the ballot box..


Anonymous said...

Obama decrees that there is no requirement to enforce immigration laws (on moral grounds).

Where did Obama ever say that?

Anonymous said...

Well, California, New York and New Jeresey have high immirgaton populations are the Dems come out on top. Actually, Maine is less Dem than New York and New Jeresey not a red that though. Only Vermont and Oregon and Washington fit the high white vote. And people get turn on to regulation and wanting to transfer from the wealthy to the poorer happens more in California than poor West Virginia and even Texas has acorn folks in El Paso and Dallas and Houston that want to take away the income from rich whites and give it to poor hispanics. David Horwitz has a list of Acorn like groups even in red states so the greater inequality breeds resentment and as the white population goes down and the minority goes up as Pat Buchnan stated Texas will be the left of Vermont in 2050.

Anonymous said...

Another thing the European countries are not as white as they use to be. In fact probably in a lot of western european countries the population is now between 10 to 20 percent foreign born. Even those on the left among whites who usually work more than the immirgant population resented foreigners living on the dole in their country but their poliicans are smilar to ours. Britian has a lot of asians, and some Africans which caused the riots. Maybe having a lot of minorties may changed the mind of whites but California is an example where whites have not tried to rid of the Mexican population since prop 1987 which is near 20 years ago.

Matthew said...

The key to the report really lies at the end: "Polls in specific swing states indicate that Obama’s shift on immigration policy, while widely popular, could be a net vote loser come November. More than twice as many voters said the policy made them less rather than more likely to support Obama in June Quinnipiac University polls in Ohio and Pennsylvania — despite the fact that over half of all voters in those states support the policy."

The truth is that a very large fraction of poll respondents will change their answers based on how the question is posed. There's also the problem that respondents often respond to how a policy is supposed to work in theory rather than how it will work in reality. In reality, "youths" means thirty-year-olds, and "educated" means barely earning a high school diploma.

Like many other issues - abortion, mandatory contraception coverage, support for Israel, ag subsidies - immigration is an issue which only a minority of voters will base their votes on. The real question is what the net effect is in swing states. Stricter immigration policies will gain more votes, on net, than support for mandatory contraception coverage, but the latter has (ridiculously, but not surprisingly) been treated far more seriously than immigration.

If I ever meet a woman who votes for Obama based purely on his support for mandatory contraception, I very well may punch her in the face.

Matthew said...

"Well, California, New York and New Jeresey have high immirgaton populations are the Dems come out on top"

The white vote in those states is increasingly a combination of rich liberals unaffected by diversity and public sector workers who support more government spending. Upstate New York whites and non-coastal California whites are still mostly Republican.

ben tillman said...

The key to the report really lies at the end: "Polls in specific swing states indicate that Obama’s shift on immigration policy, while widely popular, could be a net vote loser come November...."

Widely popular? As far as I know, there aren't any polls that have even asked about Obama's policy; the widely touted poll found majority support for a policy that is vastly different from Obama's actual policy.

Anonymous said...

Inland counties are less Republican too. Obama won almost all of them except Placer and Kern and a few small ones. Orange County which is coastal he lost by 4. He did better in inland Fresno than Coastal OC. OC and Swing San Diego and some small places up the coast he didn't win that much. Past Oakland there are a few rural areas which he barely won or lost. Humboldt is a poor pot growing place and he wins that. As for Kern, white vote is the only thing keeping it Republican but its demographics in the long run favor the Democratic since Hispanics vote Democratic. Don't be fool if the Inland counties don't lose some of their Hispanic populations in 20 years they will look like La,