November 7, 2012

The undying myth of Bush's 44% of the Hispanic vote

From the New York Times:
But not everyone was urging the party to run to the center. “No doubt the media will insist that Republicans must change, must sprint to the center, must embrace social liberalism, must accept that America is destined to play a less dominant role in the world,” Fred Barnes wrote on the blog of The Weekly Standard. “All that is hogwash, which is why Republicans are likely to reject it. Their ideology is not a problem.” 
“But there is also a hole in the Republican electorate,” he continued. “There aren’t enough Hispanics. As long as two-thirds of the growing Hispanic voting bloc lines up with Democrats, it will be increasingly difficult (though hardly impossible) for Republicans to win national elections. When George W. Bush won a narrow re-election in 2004, he got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. If Romney had managed that, he would have come closer to winning. He might even have won.”

No, the exit poll company later admitted the actual figure was more like 40%. And Bush and Rove had ginned up a housing bubble to get to that number.

83 comments:

Anonymous said...

Romney sucked up to Jews more than Obama did. So, why did most Jews still go with Obama?

Model majority trope: Whites must make ever so nice to appeal to anti-white groups. Thank you, Jews.

DCThrowback said...

I am trying really hard to think if there is anyone more consistently wrong, all the time, than Kristol and Barnes are at the Weekly Standard.

Was anything more beltway conventional wisdom bullflop than those paragraphs? The GOP ideology (invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world) is flawed beyond measure. Their winning issues (curtailing fiscal overreach, ending immigration, ending state sponsored discrimination) are ignored. They don't understand who votes for them and why and seemingly have no idea how to grow that pie. Who is paying these people? (Probably a large part of the problem, actually.)

These guys (+ @jrubinblogger) are the worst.

Anonymous said...

Steve in the last thread, it was asked ... Are white americans desperate to commit suicide ?

I think that there are certain powerful memes that do capture white groups and led to suicide.

I have a lot of respect for the many people who post here that blame thr "scotts irish" for these memes but overall that seems silly. Look at it this way, the white elite of republican rome made a decision to reduce their birthrates dramatically and to invite in massive numbers of culturally alien immigrants. Essentially they committed suicide

More recently the shakers an all white cultural group made a decision to reduce their birthrate to zero and essentially commit suicide

So it is quite possible for whites to develop suicidal memes ... Likely that is what has happened in the usa.

Anonymous said...

Nativism just can't win anymore; there aren't enough natives.

Anonymous said...

We all agree that the republicans are doomed

Wouldnt the best thing be for the republican party to disband immediately and voluntarily?

Within a year of the republican party disbanding, the democratic party would split in half


For demographic reasons the repubs will of corse never win the presidency

But once the republicans are permanently gone from the scene the democratic party will split in to a pro immigrtion party and an anti immigration party.

Anonymous said...

Someone kind gets it:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/49722937

"Back in August, Graham had said: 'The demographics race we’re losing badly. We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.'"



Anonymous said...

Obama has "sucked up to Jews" since he entered politics. He simply told them not to worry, that he would just be modifying his language in public; then, these Jews, mostly those in the entertainment business, but a few others, wrote him checks.

Anonymous said...

Look, the leadership of todays democrat party and the leadership of todays republican party are strongly in favor f massive immigration of people with genetically low iq

Be honest. There is no hope of an end to all low iq immigration while the current two party system is in place

If the republicans disappear, the cleavage in the democrat party will produce one party that is against low iq immigration

Anonymous said...

If any pundit was right, it was David Duke. But whim bans comments about him him while mainstream liberals brazenly and openly support a member of Wright's hate church to be president and allows new black panthers to guard polling stations.

Whim tries to play 'nice'. Other side fights to draw blood.
Same thing with how it's wrong for the right to be mccathyite with comminists but it's ok for the left to be foxmanite with 'homophobes', 'racists', 'sexists', 'xenophobes', etc.

Anonymous said...

"We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term."

And angry white guys give birth to grungy white boys addicted to interracist porn and rap.

Brendan said...

For national elections, it's true that the Republicans are done. The demographics are too daunting even now and will only get worse. Not just hispanics, but also indoctrinated college grads as well. The shift is huge and permanent I think.

I suspect that rather than disbanding, however, the GOP will have a civil war and will need to decide between moving to the left (the center I guess) to remain "relevant", staying where it is and conceding national elections to the democrats for the most part, or splitting itself into two parties, a moderate one and a conservative one.

The GOP can still win locally and on the state level, of course. But that's also something with a timeframe on it, just a longer one than for the national level. On the national level, however, conservatism appears to be done. What's likely to emerge as the alternative on the national level to outright statist left-wingism is a more pragmatic centrist approach that abjures social issues and ties to religious groups and focuses instead on purely fiscal and small(er)-state type issues. Even this will have a great challenge winning, but a better one than any party that is associated with white men, or religion, or conservative social values -- all three of these things (white men, religious voting, social conservatism) are dead on the level of national politics.

This wasn't a "critical election" because it really just preserved the status quo. Nevertheless it is a watershed election, because this is the election that will be remembered in the future as the watershed that revealed the permanent end of conservative white guys politically.

But, hey, there's always video games and internet porn, right?

Anonymous said...

"Within a year of the republican party disbanding, the democratic party would split in half."

No, into 5 or 6 pieces.

And whites can form alliances with hispanics against rich Jews. Make them eat their own cake. Whites must start thinking in terms of being a minority. Majority thinking leads to complacency and resting on laurels. Jews and gays got creative by working in underdog-minority mode. Gop cannot win,and so, its goal should be to undermine the current ruling elites--
jews and wasp liberal elites--by any means necessary.

Jim Webb strategy: ditch gop and fight for white interests from within the dem camp.

Besides, gop is just a neocon toy anyway.

Anonymous said...

I think those idiots writing about the browns being the saviors of teh GOP and thus the nation, ought to look at the stats of browns on welfare, browns having babies out of wedlock.

Catholic in name only. They baptize their kids, they go to Mass on Christmas Eve (some years) but this notion that browns are religious is a bunch of crap. That began happening years ago in places like CA.

Look in any local paper that still lists births at their local hospital and you'll see the babies born to non-wed mothers.

And someone thinks the message of hard work, being a small business owner, family function, etc. is going to appeal to this huge demographic?

To get a sense of the behavior of this growing class, go to any Food 4 Less.

Look, white trash has grown right along with black and brown trash.

The demographic that is killing the country is one that simply finds a way not to work since they see that there's a way to get a check, free health care and all the goodies w/out working, and knowing this, they don't give a damn about doing well in school either.

Someone needs to make THAT the demographic that is the enemy: forget race. Go after the "I'll be happy getting my disability or welfare check and food stamps" crowd. The girls who don't mind if the baby is out of wedlock and the guy who screwed her and doesn't pay for rearing the kid but makes you have fewer kids in order to pay for his.

We have to have at least one damn politician who'll talk aloud about this NOW. We need a young, perhaps less red-in-the-face-he-gets-talking Pat Buchanan.

You know, for all the grief the social conservatives have caused the party and for all the fun the rest of us have at their expense, their "values"--have some manners, get married, have kids, take care of them, don't screw around,take care of your family and home and donate time to your community--these are indeed what make a country functional, yet they are the ones people who come here attack.

Anonymous said...

I meant to add to my post that it's the country I want to save, not any party.

What the hell good would it do to have two democratic parties handing out freebies while I pay for them?

Anonymous said...

Juan Galt does not exist

http://20committee.com/2012/11/07/election-2012-a-wrap-up/

SoCal Philosopher said...

"We all agree that the republicans are doomed

Wouldnt the best thing be for the republican party to disband immediately and voluntarily?

Within a year of the republican party disbanding, the democratic party would split in half


For demographic reasons the repubs will of corse never win the presidency

But once the republicans are permanently gone from the scene the democratic party will split in to a pro immigrtion party and an anti immigration party."

Yes, but you see, even if the Republicans disband, the anti-immigration party will have to disband because they'll never be able to win Hispanics!

Anon87 said...

Amazing how wrong so many right leaning analysts were. I can get Romney's "internal polling" overstating his totals, but Coulter, Morris, Noonan, Barnes, etc. etc. completely mis-read the election. Blinded by optimism???

I'm now leaning towards the Rep party bailing on 1/3 of the government and just focus locally on the House and Senate. Let the Dems take the presidency and be paralyzed trying to keep their cobbled together factions happy.

Anonymous said...

I just surfed the web, looking at snippets of punditry from writers and pols. God, it makes me sick.

One saying now it's Rubio's turn, Huckabee saying the GOP has done a pathetic job of reaching out to minorities, and on and on and on.

They only care about putting someone in office of the other party, not in solving any of the country's problems.

So what if Marco Rubio go into office on the tails of brown votes?How would that change the mess the country is in?

The Real Vince said...

Fred Barnes is smaht, kid! He had five thoughtful, well-reasoned points for why Romney was certain to win. Which explain why, uh, Romney won.

Anonymous said...

Was anything more beltway conventional wisdom bullflop than those paragraphs? The GOP ideology (invade the world, invite the world, in hock to the world) is flawed beyond measure.

Is good for the Scotch-irish...

gumm said...

You know what's funny?

GOP was all for free trade and globalism. The main beneficiaries of globalism were the superrich(especially Jews and guys like Bill Gates), and the main victims were working class.

So, isn't it amusing that BOTH the main winners and main losers are for the Democrats? Rotfl.

DJF said...

And Puerto Rico voted sort of to become a State. That will be another 4 million Hispanic voters, two Senators and a few in the House

gumm said...

Lots of angry Jews like Tim Wise and Frank Rich. Rich must be celebrating. He said 'you whites cannot take back your country anymore', and this election really proved it. With Hillary or hispanic running in 2016, dems will win again.

Angry Jews win all. Anyway, it goes to show quality beats quantity. Demography is not necessarily destiny. After all, Mexico has relatively few whites but they control elite power. Same with most Latin American nations.

White cons relied too much on the quantity of white vote. They failed in the quality of power. Gop is not so much the party of whites as the party of white mediocrity.

Anonymous said...

Stating the obvious here - but even if the 44% number were true, that means 56% were not voting Bush. In what warped reality would that ever be a success?

Anonymous said...

Neocon nitwit Fred Barnes ought to say there is a hole in Republican policy. Republicans ought to favor more government spending and bigger deficits to attract Hispanice voters.

Anonymous said...

"No, the exit poll company later admitted the actual figure was more like 40%. And Bush and Rove had ginned up a housing bubble to get to that number"

Does Steve Sailer really think that Hispanics are more aware of a candidate's policy on housing than they are on his immigration policy? I knew Bush was for amnesty in 2004, I knew nothing about housing. I doubt the average Hispanic voter is more sophisticated. Quibbling over whether Bush got 40 or 44% is silly when Romney, according to CNN's exit poll, got 27%.

The more likely explanation is that Bush's immigration policy is what led to his advantage among Hispanics, while Romney's position taken during the Republican primary killed him.

jody said...

hey steve -

puerto rico voted to become the 51st state yesterday.

if accepted by obama and congress, that is the CERTAIN end of the united states as we know it, is it not? not to mention the certain end of the republicans.

David Davenport said...

Wouldnt the best thing be for the republican party to disband immediately and voluntarily?

Within a year of the republican party disbanding, the democratic party would split in half


Didn't that happen before, back in the 1850's ? [American] Whig party dithered and went out of business. Democrats split into Northern Dems. and Confederates.

For demographic reasons the repubs will of corse never win the presidency

Then why expect your "conservative" Democrats to win elections, outside of anti-immigration bastion states? How would anti-Hispanic Dems win national elections?

But once the republicans are permanently gone from the scene the democratic party will split in to a pro immigrtion party and an anti immigration party.

As I said, Northern "Copperhead" Democrats and New Confederates. ( Copperheads -- poisonous snakes. )

Another angle on why Romney lost: his vaunted organizational competence may have been fake:

The Charlatans

By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | November 7th, 2012 at 01:45 AM | 28

The GOP spent a ton of money through a bunch of organizations, including Super PACs, that was flat out wasted. The Newt Gingrich Super PAC was just a sign of things to come it seems.

...

The outside groups need to have a serious accounting. For months they touted their get out the vote efforts, ground game, ad operations, polling operations, voter contact, etc. and they really were full of b.s. for the most part. From national tea party groups that have mostly been infighting to some of the major 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) groups, much was donated and much was squandered with little to no oversight.

...

There must be a reckoning for how the GOP does business with groups that fundraise off the names of politicians and use all the money for overhead that includes luxurious travel and hotels.

Additionally, the Romney team objectively failed to put on a decent ground game and the supposedly supplemental ground game from outside groups was ephemeral. In 2008, one of the smartest things Barack Obama did was keep his staff in Chicago and use his team, not the Democrats’ usual hucksters.


The GOP spent a ton of money through a bunch of organizations, including Super PACs, that was flat out wasted.

Seriously, I agree with your basic sentiment re Republican Party:

Wouldnt the best thing be for the republican party to disband immediately and voluntarily?

Go go go, New Confederates!

Richard A. said...

Steve,
A no vote on California's prop 30 (about raising taxes) was important to Republicans but it appears to have passed thanks to big support from Hispanics. If Hispanics are a natural Republican constituency, why do they vote like Democrats?

Why Hispanics Don’t Vote for Republicans
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald

snapperhead soup said...

40% or 44% is not the issue. The problem is Illegalism, and by that, I don't just mean illegal immigration. I mean in order for parties to appeal to minorities, it's no longer about equality under the rule of law but favors(over whites)beyond the law.

No matter how much the GOP offers Hispanics, Dems will offer MORE. If GOP offers Hispanics everything Dems offers, Dems will up the ante with 'FREE 10,000 FOR EVERY HISPANIC'. Hispanics take the better deal.

Discard said...

Fred Barnes has never really left The New Republic, where he was one of the most talented sabbath goys. He's not on our side, and his opinions are without merit.

Anonymous said...

Neocons must be purged from the GOP. Unlimited immigration and endless wars are the cause of Republican defeat.

Anonymous said...

Off-topic, but Puerto Rico has, for the first time, voted for statehood. And both parties have pledged to honor Puerto Rico's wishes. This means 5 congressional seats and 2 Senate seats.

Anonymous said...

Adding to my earlier question about white Americans being suicidal.

Seriously, even leaving aside the fact Obama is bankrupting America even quicker than Dubya could (a staggering feat) some of Obama's white voters ought to ask themselves some basic questions:

If they don't like affirmative action now, do they think things will improve after Obama has packed the Supreme Court with Quota Queens like Sotomayor?

Do these union workers in Ohio actually believe they've made their jobs and wages more secure by voting for a president who will, through amnesty, flood this nation with unskilled workers? Do they really believe the next surge of illegal immigrants who will flow in after the amnesty will represent no threat to their livelihoods?

Do they think a president who appoints someone like Eric Holder as attorney general (which would be like a Republican president appointing Pat Buchanan to the job) really believes they are entitled to anything resembling justice?

Do these (mostly white) seniors and retiring baby boomers really believe a bankrupt nation can maintain social security, never mind a vast welfare state?

Look, I expected African Americans and Hispanics to vote for Obama -- it's in their best interests. But white Americans?

What was in it for them?

Severn said...

As long as two-thirds of the growing Hispanic voting bloc lines up with Democrats, it will be increasingly difficult (though hardly impossible) for Republicans to win national elections.


Sounds like a clever Republican talking head might suggest that the GOP should stop trying to increase the size of a demographic which it consistently loses by 2 to 1 or 3 to 1. But then, "clever" does not intersect with either Barnes or the Standard.

It's worth pointing out that Reagan would have lost this election. The electorate which put him in office no longer exists.

You have to tip your hat, to a extent, to the left. They have been very successful in replacing the demographics which do not support them with ones which do. In the long term that's brutally bad for the country, because their preferred demographic groups are all a drain on the polity.

But they've been helped by their opponents. To a large extent the GOP simply refuses to the play the game of attempting to grow married people or the white vote. The sole foray of the Republican Party into playing group politics has rebounded to the advantage of the Democrats - that would be the Bush/Rove notion of rolling out the national welcome mat to Hispanics in the misguided belief that they are "natural conservatives".

If the Republicans insist on being the Washington Generals, it's easy for the Dems to look like the Globetrotters.

Anonymous said...

Did Sandy save Obama or the media's coverage of Sandy?

Sandy Fluke.

Golden Bear said...

Steve:

I do not see the Republican Party surviving as it is currently constituted.

I believe that the White conservative so-called Christian, Scots-Irish and English heritage citizens in the former Confederacy (and states like WV, UT, IN, MT, etc.) are inextricably wedded to their identity as a separate people apart from so-called people of color.

In the face of the demographic winter that some of this group have highlighted (and the browning of our country), look for the formation of a hard right Conservative party to serve these people's interest. The Republican party will become the domain solely of big business, which will join with the Conservative party in order to take power.

Of course the Wall St. puppeteers/White conservative Main St. puppet combination is how the Republican party is currently constituted. However, the White folks I referenced above will need the comfort of their own party to feel as if they actually have a voice.

Anonymous said...

Hard not to lose hope. White people are looking more and more like dodo birds.

Perhaps when they see Obama unthrottled in his second term a few of them will wake up. But it won't be enough.

Skeptical Economist said...

See http://faculty.washington.edu/mbarreto/papers/2004vote.pdf for a paper on the Hispanic vote in 2004. Yes, it was around 39-40%. Other sources such as http://www.pewhispanic.org/files/reports/48.pdf agree.

Paul Mendez said...

This morning, I attended a post-election briefing held by the National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable and BIPAC. Ballroom at the Ritz-Carlton was packed with hundreds of corporate and association government affairs people.

The consensus of this Uber Country Club Republican gathering was that the key to future GOP success is more Latinos, fewer Tea Party "extremists" and doing a better job of explaining the benefits of free market capitalism to the voters.

It's less than 24 hours after the election, so I have not yet digested things, but I'm suspecting I saw the final death rattle of the GOP last night. If it can't defeat Obama, who can it defeat?

If economy recovers by 2016, Obama will be the 21st Century's FDR and the national will vote Democratic for a generation. If the economy hasn't recovered by 2016, the people will turn on both parties like villagers in a Frankenstein movie.

Paul Mendez said...

Nativism just can't win anymore; there aren't enough natives.

That was Teddy Kennedy's plan all along.

Anonymous said...

The problem is fairness and idealism.

Look at poll after poll, White Americans are overwhelmingly like to call themselves just "Americans". Most minorities hedge their identity with a national or a racial prefix. (Asian America, African America, Mexian-American etc etc).

This idealism, this willingness to look out for the country's best, and not just the narrow interests of their own racial group, means that white voters are truly the only real swing voters in town, when looked through a racial prism.

Asians now vote 74% for Obama, more than Jews. Latinos are almost at 70%.

Blacks are at 97%.

Only whites cling on to the, apparently outdated, notion of truly giving both parties a look.

If white would vote for, say, Republicans in the same numbers as the others do for Democrats, the GOP would win election after election for decades ahead.

My guess is that white Americans won't do that, because they've been told all their life that looking out for their interests is only okay for minorities and it's racism when they do it.

That, plus the idealism I mentioned before. It's the kind of overarching idealism that is necessary to sustain a nation, and is now quickly fading as the Tower of Babel grows ever larger.

One final note: those slamming white voters for a "suicide" wish or whatnot.

Consider that Romney would have won California this election if only the white vote counted. Republicans had more than a shot in California at least before the 1980s and certainly before 1990s before the Demographics that is now changing the nation at large changed California.

So stop spamming and attacking white America in misguided ways. A National Journal (not exactly Fox News of print) analysis recently pointed to this in this electoral map:

http://nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/electoral-maps-results-indicate-deepening-racial-divide-among-voters-20121107

Nationally, Obama won just 39% of all whites. There is no way he could have gotten even close to an electoral win based on those numbers in a pre-1965 electorate before it was warped with immigration, affirmative action etc. As I said, even California would have been a solid red state if the white vote actually counted.

What will happen now is that the GOP will keep the house for this decade. So Obama won't do a lot, except, with tons of insider help, persuade the GOP to accelerate it's assisted suicide via a massive amnesty push "to get the Hispanic vote" which of course won't happen.

Can't blame the Dems for trying to do this, the GOP is stupid enough for fall for it. If the best you can get is 40% from hispanics nationally(which Bush got) then repeat after me: California is now the Nation.

gummics said...

High unemployment, sluggish economy, continuing recession, mountains of debts, Obama comes out for 'gay marriage', Obama pushes amnesty for illegal youths, Obama got entangled with Fast and Furious and Benghazi cover-up, he nominated anti-white Sotomayor and Kagan. He appointed radical gays galore. Blacks brazenly attack whites all over America. Obama called for REVENGE. And Obama still won handily. America is really over.

snapperhead soup said...

One good thing about this election is it can finally 'radicalize' the white community. When you got nothing to lose, you tend to more bold. Since America is lost, whites no longer have anything to lose. They should fight now for the hell of it. No need to worry about losing since we lost already. NO MORE MR. NICE GUY!

snapperhead soup said...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/five-ways-mainstream-media-tipped-scales-in-favor-obama/

This is all very true, but conservatism must be blamed for failing to produce more owners and controllers of media.
I mean of course liberal media are gonna be biased.
Just like liberal Hollywood is biased.
But why can't conservatives create their own mass media or entertainment networks?

Anonymous said...

"Nativism just can't win anymore; there aren't enough natives."

But how does demographics explain the 'Canadian' blue states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, etc?
Gilbert P.

Anonymous said...

This seems to be an easy and sure trick for one party to stay in power. Just let in lots of immigrants of a certain race who will vote for YOUR party and not the OTHER one. The Labour party does it in Britain and the Liberals do it in Canada. What I can never figure out is WHY the other party doesn't try to stop this undermining of its demographic base?

Cail Corishev said...

"The consensus of this Uber Country Club Republican gathering was that the key to future GOP success is more Latinos, fewer Tea Party "extremists" and doing a better job of explaining the benefits of free market capitalism to the voters.

"It's less than 24 hours after the election, so I have not yet digested things, but I'm suspecting I saw the final death rattle of the GOP last night. If it can't defeat Obama, who can it defeat?"


It's probably too soon to tell. We knew that would be the reaction of the crony capitalists who run the top end of the party. But it remains to be seen how many of the rank and file will revolt against it. The people standing in the unemployment lines can see who's taking their jobs. As the economy worsens and unemployment rises further, whites getting squeezed in the middle are going to get peeved, and what's the point of fighting for the GOP when it won't even put your welfare above that of a lawbreaker from another country? If some third party starts picking up traction on immigration restriction and some mild protectionism, it could have an effect.

I don't know if we're there yet, though. Americans have so much faith in their country, thinking that things are bound to turn around any day now just because, that things may have to get a lot worse before a critical mass of people get fed up. After all, as bad as things are now, and as unacceptable as many people found both candidates, how much of the vote did third parties get? 2%, maybe? Did any party crack the level needed to get some state funding?

It's also questionable whether the GOP would take white defectors seriously. They're so blinded by their quest to be seen as non-racist that they've been willing to lose the last two elections rather than attack a black man on any of his vulnerable points. They may let their party die rather than change it to appeal to middle Americans in a way that might offend the wrong kind of people.

Anonymous said...

What happened to white America.

Anonymous said...

"But how does demographics explain the 'Canadian' blue states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, etc?
Gilbert P."

Good point. Even so, if white share of the population were bigger, GOP would have won.

Anonymous said...

I still say trying to win over Jewish support was more damaging to the GOP than trying to win over the Latin vote. Also, more fruitless.

Great power need to be countered and critiqued. Jews did this to wasps all along. With rising Jewish power, GOP should have been the power to take on Jewish power, which has been overwhelmingly liberal. But GOP sucked up to Jews even though most Jews spit on conservatives. Bush, McCain, and Romney were the biggest whores of Zionism in the world, yet just look at their fate. Lesson learned? I doubt it. But then, major parties run on money, and when so much money to the GOP comes from neocon Jews, I mean... what do you expect?

Anonymous said...

The problem is less 'electing a new majority' as 'the elevation of a new elite minority'.

Anonymous said...

"Neocons must be purged from the GOP."

How can you purge them when they are the party?

Anonymous said...

From a previous post: the shakers -an all white cultural group made a decision to reduce their birthrate to zero and essentially commit suicide

So it is quite possible for whites to develop suicidal memes ... Likely that is what has happened in the usa.

__

Hasn't it been proven all over Europe that the "traditionalism" advocated by Larry Auster and advocated by the "Thinking Housewife" always leads to a massive collapse in the white birthrate?

In other words, in every country where traditional motherhood is embraced, women refuse to become mothers.

In every country where a more modern conception of motherhood is in place, there is a high white birthrate.

I am thinking of Scandanavia and France where there is a celebration of mothers in the work force and free unlimited government paid child care. In Scanadanavia and France whites have many many more children than whites do in the traditionalist European countries.

In some ways, Thinking Housewife and Larry Auster are advocating white suicide similar to the Shakers.

Anonymous said...

Its already too late for Republicans to win by being anti-immigration. The only option now is to just embrace full-blown open borders (which has the added benefit of bankrupting the welfare state, allowing Republicans to abolish it).

There is no significant anti-immigration constituency. When Republicans played up immigration in 2006 and 2008, they lost. When Tom Tancredo ran for Governor, he cost Tea Partier Ken Buck a seat in the Senate.

Republicans also need to relegate social issues to the states and take no positions nationally. Gay marriage is now winning at the ballot box in many states. Abortion is now being used as a wedge issue by Democrats just like Republicans used to use guns. By relegating these issues to the states and reducing the federal government, Republicans are still the preferred party of social conservatives, but also gain votes from people who are fiscally conservative but scared away by social conservatives.

Republicans also need to change on foreign policy. Warmongering loses elections in today's America. Republicans need to favor national defense, but not nation-building or promoting democracy abroad.

A libertarian GOP probably draws a few more percentage points from the unmarried voters and a few percentage points from minorities. I agree that Republicans should be against affirmative action and I think that is a political winner for them because voters inclined to vote Republican are against affirmative action.

I agree that the idiots in the Beltway are leading the GOP in the wrong direction. RINOs simply can't win regardless of how "electable" they supposedly are. Yet, we've had RINOs foisted upon us as presidential candidates repeatedly. Fiscal conservatives need to clean up the party and then we need to make sure we don't make any more Akin or Mourdock style mistakes. We live in a different country now and the Republican Party needs to have a broader appeal to win nationally. Fiscal conservatism appeals across most of the country and is the solution. The social conservatives, hawks and RINOs (actually the last 2 are usually one and the same) just keep finding ways to lose elections that we should win.

Anonymous said...

Certain memes are suicidal.

It can't be made any more simple than that.

Norwegians are the most anti scotts irish people in all of Western Europe, Indeed a great % of the young male Norwegians volunteered for the SS.

Yet Norwegians have eagerly embraced the need for massive immigration of NAMs. Google it, more than 90% of the rapes in Oslo are caused by NAMs and yet Norwegians are pushing hard to increase the immigration of NAMs to Norway.

It's not the Scotts Irish. It is a suicidal meme.

Same exact thing in Finland. Google Club Swagga

Anonymous said...

Puerto Rico has, for the first time, voted for statehood. And both parties have pledged to honor Puerto Rico's wishes. This means 5 congressional seats and 2 Senate seats.

Another nail in the Republican Party's coffin.

Frankly it deserves to die...

agraves said...

I just watched Fox News with Brett Baier. Krauthammer has called for Amnesty for illegals, everyone else, Kristol, etc are for Amnesty since Romney lost the Hispanic vote. This is what they really want, Republicans to become Democrats, then maybe they will win. Liberal jews faking being conservatives.

Roland said...

I'm so sick of hearing about how Republicans need to pander to Hispanics. Anyone who can get into the country now appears to have equal or greater rights than natives. You'd almost think that foreigners are the only people who matter. The immigration tail is wagging the dog.

Americans are so demoralized by the "nation of immigrants" propaganda and the fear of being called racist that they have given up resistance as the country is transformed for the worse. I can't recall the last positive story (from a restrictionist point of view) about immigration -- with the ironic exception of the ones about how the bad economy has slowed it.

The "huddled masses" crap has indeed become a suicide cult. The thing that really gets me is that there's no objective way that mass immigration from Latin America can be shown to have benefited the country.

I give up; I'm going to try to think about something else for a while.

Anonyia said...

"Do these union workers in Ohio actually believe they've made their jobs and wages more secure by voting for a president who will, through amnesty, flood this nation with unskilled workers? Do they really believe the next surge of illegal immigrants who will flow in after the amnesty will represent no threat to their livelihoods?

Do they think a president who appoints someone like Eric Holder as attorney general (which would be like a Republican president appointing Pat Buchanan to the job) really believes they are entitled to anything resembling justice?

Do these (mostly white) seniors and retiring baby boomers really believe a bankrupt nation can maintain social security, never mind a vast welfare state?"

They don't have to believe all of it. All they have to believe is that in the short term they are taken care of, long term effects on their own children be damned.

Maxwell said...

Surprised you didn't do an article on what was the second biggest news of the day- Puerto Rico declares itself to desire statehood.

This is pretty huge, and already a major negative change that Obama is going to bring to this country, as he has stated he will support it.

As it stands there are 8-10 million Puerto Ricans btwn the island and the US mainland population. They can't vote currently unless they are citizens, but they probably don't tend to bother with citizenship since they can freely move and work btwn there and the states. If they become citizens, we will suddenly have a significant increase in the population with the vast majority supporting the left. Even a modest shift of about 2 or 3% or so in the voters for the democrats will have a serious impact. It basically shifts us several more years down the road in terms of demographic conquest by Hispanics in one fell swoop. I think these things may be the biggest impact.

They may consume more tax dollars, but this is balanced by the fact that they will finally have to contribute some- previously, they received money from the gov't without owing taxes. However, they are not expected to be major tax dollar contributors.

Anonymous said...

Amazing how wrong so many right leaning analysts were. I can get Romney's "internal polling" overstating his totals, but Coulter, Morris, Noonan, Barnes, etc. etc. completely mis-read the election.


What are you talking about? It looks (pending all the counting being finished) as if Romney carried the nationwide popular vote. As for what happened on a state by state basis, I think that will come out over time.

Severn said...

Republicans also need to relegate social issues to the states and take no positions nationally. Gay marriage is now winning at the ballot box in many states. Abortion is now being used as a wedge issue by Democrats just like Republicans used to use guns. By relegating these issues to the states and reducing the federal government, Republicans are still the preferred party of social conservatives, but also gain votes from people who are fiscally conservative but scared away by social conservatives.


Banning all Anonymous posters would greatly increase the quality of the commenting around here.

Here's a news flash for you, Einstein - the "social conservative" position which you want to boot from the GOP is that abortion should be returned to the states. In order for that to happen, Roe v Wade has to be overturned. It was that decision by the Supreme Court which "federalized" abortion.

Social liberals, of the left or right, are congenitally stupid people.

Anonymous said...

"Nativism just can't win anymore; there aren't enough natives."

But how does demographics explain the 'Canadian' blue states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Wisconsin, etc?
Gilbert P. "


Because the dirty little secret is that economic conservatism is a joke.

Look at Scandinavia. Up until very recently, those countries were monolithically white (and are still about as white as America was in the 1970s).

Maine, Vermont and other states are over 90% white. Social democratic policies work when you have a homogenous population where most people are intelligent and fair minded.

That's why it is popular in Minnesota too among whites.

Remember, California, when it was very white, used to have tons of social democratic-leaning whites who believed in public school funding and high taxes.

Why? Because they knew that their tax dollars went to good use. Not so much anymore, that's why California whites have become Republicans.

The problem is that a lot of conservatives don't have a very deep understanding of why the GOP rose to power. It was a response in the racial transformation of America, to safeguard resources by cutting it for everyone, rather than an affirmation of the (white) public's belief in Republican economic theories.

Besides, the Republican party was much more moderate in the 1950s, for example, than it is today.

If America was made 97% white tomorrow morning, you'd see a steady and gradual shift towards the same kind of high tax, unionzed economic system that you see in Scandinavia or you had in California in the 1950s.

There would still be cultural conservatism, but it would be a moderate kind.

The problem isn't left-wing economic policies(as long as they are kept in check). WASPs/Germanics actually favour them if, and only if, they are guaranteed that their tax dollars go to their own people.

If there is no such guarantee, the support drops strongly.

Maine and Vermont still support these policies because their states are a microcosm of 1950s America demographically.

If they had tons of new minorities, the whites there would go Republican.

But again: don't confuse defensive racial politics with genuine affirmation of the pro-1% policies of the plutocrats of the Republican variety.

Severn said...

This morning, I attended a post-election briefing held by the National Association of Manufacturers, Business Roundtable and BIPAC. Ballroom at the Ritz-Carlton was packed with hundreds of corporate and association government affairs people.

The consensus of this Uber Country Club Republican gathering was that the key to future GOP success is more Latinos, fewer Tea Party "extremists" and doing a better job of explaining the benefits of free market capitalism to the voters.



I think it's rather obvious that these people would not recognize free market capitalism if it bit them. Their notion of free market capitalism is that it involves them making more money.

Severn said...

Its already too late for Republicans to win by being anti-immigration. The only option now is to just embrace full-blown open borders


I missed the part where you explained how letting in more people who will vote Democratic is "the only option" for the GOP. How is that supposed to work, exactly?

I'm not impressed at being told that the only remedy for our mistake in embracing libertarian open-borders nonsense in the past is to make the same mistake but more-so in the future.

Roland said...

A few predictions, in no particular order:

1) It's going to get worse before it gets better, but as more Americans experience vibrant diversity, they might not be too happy with the situation.

2) To paraphrase Newton, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

3) People become more conservative (in the sense that they want to keep what they have and not give it away to strangers) as they get older.

4) The current crop of "new Americans" may find that they don't like having their jobs taken by unauthorized interlopers.

5) The USA is a continent-sized nation and thus inherently unstable. The creed that kept us together is breaking down, and may be replaced by a new one, not necessarily a bad thing.

6) Utopian court rulings -- i.e., unfunded mandates predicated on the idea that all people are essentially the same -- may be overturned.

Feel free to tear my humble thoughts to shreds, as your erudite interlocutors are so well equipped to do.

Severn said...

The problem isn't left-wing economic policies(as long as they are kept in check). WASPs/Germanics actually favour them if, and only if, they are guaranteed that their tax dollars go to their own people.


More silly libertarian myths. The reality is that the welfare state was quite small when this was a 90% white country, and it has grown rapidly as the country has become more diverse. You can see the exact same thing taking place on the state level.

Libertarians are always so in love with their theories about how they think the world should work that they never pay attention to the way it actually does work.

jody said...

"Catholic in name only."

i agree. other than actually hating homosexuals, with a visceral level of hate that almost no euro americans genuinely harbor, mexicans are catholic in name only. i observed this over and over, from hundreds of mexicans, when i lived in the southwest and dated mexican women.

at least half of them regard it the same way a casual sports fan would regard becoming a cowboys fan or yankees fan for social convenience. join the biggest team as a fairweather fan, now you're part of something. cheer for them once a year. "Go team Catholic! That's right, I'm a Catholic!" and that's about it.

most of them don't even go to church. like, ever. and plenty of them are on birth control.

although, this is true for all non-europeans. their fealty to any particular religion is often...how shall we say, flexible. subject to whatever whims come into their low IQ mind at the moment. this makes the abject religious nuttery of africans in the US somewhat humorous. they never heed the teachings of their various brands of the christian religion, yet show up every sunday to sing hallelujah for 2 hours and thank god openly and seriously whenever something good happens to them personally.

"Look in any local paper that still lists births at their local hospital and you'll see the babies born to non-wed mothers."

perhaps single moms is the new demographic story. a coming tsunami of them. hey, the president came from one. lead by example. no more of this stupid mitt romney stuff, getting married, staying married, raising a family. that's dumb stuff, stupid stuff. that's the obsolete stuff from the stuffy white america past.

jody said...

"They only care about putting someone in office of the other party, not in solving any of the country's problems."

well, sure. but why should that burden fall solely on them? isn't this what the democrats have been doing for 50 years? and more vigorously for sure within the last 30 years. i remarked before, you'll never see a guy like jimmy carter in the democrat party again at the national level. jim wasn't up to the task of being president, but he was a good american. he was pro america. he was a veteran. he had an undergraduate science degree. he was friendly and amicable. he wanted good things for america and saw the democrat party (at the time) as being a little better than the republican party at providing a future for that.

yes, he's become nutty in his old age, but 40 years ago he wasn't. he was a decent democrat like so many others. now there are almost none. 2012 democrats only care about getting and maintaining power for themselves, or destroying the existing US, or both.

"You know what's funny? GOP was all for free trade and globalism."

i've argued against that continously since 1999 and got called many a name by friends, family, and self identified republicans on the web.

i actually used to argue viciously with guys on freerepublic.com back in the 1999 to 2002 time frame about how incredibly important it was to keep the mexicans out, and got into many raging battles. the pro GW bush republicans caused me to smash my head into the wall several times. listening to how brain dead they were on the invasion of iraq and the mexican invasion of the US was very frustrating.

what's extremely frustrating to the point of being demoralizing though, is that i considered joining the border partrol. to actually do something about the invasion. but what i learned when investigating that bold career move...was that the federal government would be working against me every step of the way. my own government would be trying to stop me from stopping the invasion.

jody said...

"No matter how much the GOP offers Hispanics, Dems will offer MORE."

correct. and this is the general principle on the topic for any group. not just for mestizos coming up from mexico. you can't outdemocrat the democrats. it will be a nice little waltz with everybody stepping to the left in time with the music, democrats always 2 steps ahead.

"Neocons must be purged from the GOP."

well, sure. but they're in control. and they're the ones who have been doing the purging. of the paleocons. there isn't going to be a civil war in the republican party. the neocons like it just fine and are gonna stick with this for now.

"Do they think a president who appoints someone like Eric Holder as attorney general (which would be like a Republican president appointing Pat Buchanan to the job) really believes they are entitled to anything resembling justice?"

no, it would be like mitt romney appointing david duke to the position of attorney general. by the way, getting eric holder out of there was probably the single most important reason to get obama out of there. astonishingly, i heard "conservative" pundit after after pundit say "There's not much difference whether Obama or Romney wins". these people were hilariously wrong, and have no idea what they're talking about. sorry john derbyshire, but you got this one spectacularly wrong. especially for a guy who wrote a column about africans being dangerous which he thought was so important he was willing to get fired over it.

instead, now we're in very, very serious trouble. DOJ is their weapon hand. that's what they use to attack us. that's even more important than the supreme court justices, who don't attack, just interpret. mitt romney would probably not help us much, but he wouldn't ATTACK US. that's what obama and holder will continue to do daily. that's one of the things which preoccupies their minds, one of the only things they actually think hard about and enjoy working on. attacking and destroying european americans through the hulking legal apparatus provided for them by white liberals and built up over the previous 50 years.

David said...

>Look, I expected African Americans and Hispanics to vote for Obama -- it's in their best interests. But white Americans? What was in it for them?<

What was in it for them to vote for Bush Sr., Dubya, McCain, or Mitt?

Nothing.

If you're going to be raped (illegitimately, of course), it's probably less emotionally hurtful to have it done by a stranger than by your own damn kin.

From 1999 to 2008 was a GIGANTIC fall for most regular folks. That was on Dubya's watch. From late 2008 to 2012 hasn't been as precipitous. Face it: a decisive number of whites think that between the Dems and the GOP, the Dems are the lesser of two evils. (That will go down hard among the Karl Rove types, but it's true.) Not unless Sheldon Adelson directs his checks to someone who can smuggle a suitcase nuke into a major US city will the butthurt from Obama exceed the butthurt from Bush.

Anonymous said...

Does Steve Sailer really think that Hispanics are more aware of a candidate's policy on housing than they are on his immigration policy?

Er, I dont know, because they ended up owning a house?

OK, only temporarily but still.

Anonymous said...

Gay marriage is now winning at the ballot box in many states.


In two states Ive heard. Two very white states.

TGGP said...

Yglesias is surprisingly sensible on the GOP and Hispanics:
"To do better, Republicans don’t need a different immigration policy or better Hispanic outreach strategy, they need an overall policy that’s more compelling to the middle class and will help them do better with voters of all kinds. In fact, endorsing immigration reform now might make things worse for them, by enlarging an electorate that’s fundamentally hostile to their worldview."

ben tillman said...

Look at it this way, the white elite of republican rome made a decision to reduce their birthrates dramatically and to invite in massive numbers of culturally alien immigrants. Essentially they committed suicide

Mere assertion.

More recently the shakers an all white cultural group made a decision to reduce their birthrate to zero and essentially commit suicide

No, someone else made that decision for us.

So it is quite possible for whites to develop suicidal memes ... Likely that is what has happened in the usa.

No, you have not cited any suicidal memes or demonstrated that they were developed by Whites.

Anonymous said...

When Calif was very white actually it had a lot of right wingers in so calif, so Calif was more white than Oakland and San Farn in the 1950's and 1960's. Oakland had more blacks than La and San Fran more asians and blacks than Orange and San Diego. San Diego was already the second largest county by the 1960's and was considered pretty rightwing in those days over 90 percent white, the only tax higher in that period was property tax, today income tax is higher and so is sale taxes.

Anonymous said...

Its true that Bush that won Orange County and San Diego and the inland counties has destroyed any Republicians in California. The last two elections show only Orange or Frenso or Riverside or Kern going for Mccain or Romney. Pricing up the housing so Mexicians could own houses caused people that were Repubician to leave Orange County and San Diego in droves because of high housing costs to other states like Texas or Arizonia,thank you Bush.

ben tillman said...

It's not the Scotts Irish. It is a suicidal meme.


First, you don't know what a meme is. Second, you haven't supported your assertion about suicidal Norwegians and their "memes". And you won't, because you can't.

It's not the Scotts Irish. It is a suicidal meme.

Just so. That doesn't cut it.

Anonymous said...

One thing that might sour Republicans on Mexicans more younger Mexicians whether brought here as kids or born here are more liberal on the social issues and Obama planning on transferring the money from the burbs to the cities. Whites in Texas will resent having money transferred from a nice white suburb to Houston or Dallas . Whites even in California will resent transferring money from Torrance toLos Angeles. Whites in Mission Viejo will resent transferring money from there town to Santa Ana.

Anonymous said...

Also,whites vote more democratic in California now that they are more asians and hispanics even in the 1950's the state went for Ike and when Orange County was over 90 percent white in the 1960's it would voted for Barry Goldwater that why the more minority theory doesn't work in Ca Steve can tell you whites in the La area are more liberal now.

Anonymous said...

Well,Heather MacDonald stated they are the 47 percent. She stated that hispanics use welfare about 2 times the non-hispanic rate in Ca and many may be the children and grandchildren of those that Reagan legalized. Most illegal immirgants receive a free and reduce lunch program for their kids even in a state like Texas.

Anonymous said...

Another false exile poll by Fox news is the hispanics only voted 51 to 49 on prop 30 to rise taxes. That exile poll is incorrect since people in California thpught it was data on a poll coming in from back east. Also prop 30 to increase taxes won 59 to 40 in La county and La county has more hispanics qalified to vote and whites in California went against prop 30 more than minorties so hispanics are more likely to have supported 30 at least 59 to 40.