June 23, 2013

Trende: "The Case of the Missing White Voters, Revisited"

At Real Clear Politics, Sean Trende returns to the subject of the lousy white turnout in the 2012 election using the recent Census Bureau results from its post-election survey of who voted. His analysis is much like mine in VDARE.com, although he attempts to correct for "over-response bias" of people who lied that they voted when they didn't. (My hunch would be that blacks are most likely to boast they voted when they didn't actually get around to it, but nobody seems to have anyway to prove any theories like this, so I just use the Census Bureau's unadjusted shares of the total vote as the most respectable numbers.)
"The Case of the Missing White Voters, Revisited" 
As I noted earlier, if you correct the CPS data to account for over-response bias, it shows there were likely 5 million fewer whites in 2012 than in 2008. When you account for expected growth, we’d find 6.5 million fewer whites than a population projection would anticipate. ...
2. These voters were largely downscale, Northern, rural whites. In other words, H. Ross Perot voters. 
Those totals are a bit more precise and certain (and lower) than my estimates from November of last year. With more complete data, we can now get a better handle regarding just who these missing white voters were. ... 
For those with long memories, this stands out as the heart of the “Perot coalition.” That coalition was strongest with secular, blue-collar, often rural voters who were turned off by Bill Clinton’s perceived liberalism and George H.W. Bush’s elitism. They were largely concentrated in the North and Mountain West: Perot’s worst 10 national showings occurred in Southern and border states. His best showings? Maine, Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Minnesota. 
We can flesh this out a bit more by running a regression analysis, which enables us to isolate the effects of particular variables while holding other variables constant. We’ll use county-level data ...

In his regression analysis, he's looking at total change in turnout (all ethnicities) by county from 2008 to 2012. I would prefer instead to use total change in turnout from 2004 (the recent peak of white people's participation) to 2012.
For those who didn’t click over to the chart, we’re pretty confident that the voters were more likely to stay home if they resided in states that were hit by Hurricane Sandy, that were targeted by a campaign in 2008, that had higher foreign-born populations, and that had more Hispanic residents. The latter result probably suggests a drop-off in rural Hispanic voters, who are overrepresented in an analysis such as this one. 

Texas has 254 counties, with an average population of about 100,000, each of which weigh in this analysis, while Los Angeles County, for instance, has about 10,000,000 million people.
We’re also pretty confident that the voters were more likely to turn out if they resided in counties with higher median household incomes, high population growth, a competitive Senate race in 2012, or that were a target state in 2012. 
Counties with higher populations of Mormons, African-Americans, and older voters also had higher turnout, all other things being equal. None of this is all that surprising. 
Perhaps most intriguingly, even after all of these controls are in place, the county’s vote for Ross Perot in 1992 comes back statistically significant, and suggests that a higher vote for Perot in a county did, in fact, correlate with a drop-off in voter turnout in 2012. 
What does that tell us about these voters? As I noted, they tended to be downscale, blue-collar whites. They weren’t evangelicals; Ross Perot was pro-choice, in favor of gay rights, and in favor of some gun control. You probably didn’t know that, though, and neither did most voters, because that’s not what his campaign was about. 
His campaign was focused on his fiercely populist stance on economics. He was a deficit hawk, favoring tax hikes on the rich to help balance the budget. He was staunchly opposed to illegal immigration as well as to free trade (and especially the North American Free Trade Agreement). He advocated more spending on education, and even Medicare-for-all. Given the overall demographic and political orientation of these voters, one can see why they would stay home rather than vote for an urban liberal like President Obama or a severely pro-business venture capitalist like Mitt Romney.

I wasn't that impressed by the notion of Ross Perot as President (only Saturday Night Live pointed out that he was clearly going through a major manic depressive cycle in 1992, when he disappeared for the summer muttering about the CIA trying to ruin his daughter's wedding by claiming she was a lesbian). But I am impressed by Perot voters, whose reasonably coherent and patriotic economics scared the Establishment into making some decisions that contributed to the rising wage prosperity of the later 1990s.
3. These [missing white] voters were not enough to cost Romney the election, standing alone. 
But while this was the most salient demographic change, it was probably not, standing alone, enough to swing the election to Obama. After all, he won the election by almost exactly 5 million votes. If we assume there were 6.5 million “missing” white voters, than means that Romney would have had to win almost 90 percent of their votes to win the election. 
Give that whites overall broke roughly 60-40 for Romney [the Reuters poll showed 57.1 to 41.1 for Romney], this seems unlikely. In fact, if these voters had shown up and voted like whites overall voted, the president’s margin would have shrunk, but he still would have won by a healthy 2.7 percent margin. 
At the same time, if you buy the analysis above, it’s likely that these voters weren’t a representative subsample of white voters. There were probably very few outright liberal voters (though there were certainly some), and they were probably less favorably disposed toward Obama than whites as a whole. Given that people who disapprove of the president rarely vote for him (Obama’s vote share exceeded his favorable ratings in only four states in 2012), my sense is that, if these voters were somehow forced to show up and vote, they’d have broken more along the lines of 70-30 for Romney.

Okay, but in addition, in an election where white people who were apathetic in 2012 about Romney were fired up to vote, almost certainly the GOP would have won some marginal Obama voters.
This still only shrinks the president’s margin to 1.8 percent, but now we’re in the ballpark of being able to see a GOP path to victory (we’re also more in line with what the national polls were showing).

In this scenario, boosting the GOP share of the white vote from 58% to 60% percent, say, gives the GOP candidate the national popular vote victory. And there are obvious Electoral Vote opportunities where a lot of whites held their noses and voted for Obama in the north-central Slippery Six, each of which Romney lost narrowly because he didn't get a high enough share of the white vote: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. These states are not likely to be flooded with newly voting Hispanics by 2016, either.
In fact, if the African-American share of the electorate drops back to its recent average of 11 percent of the electorate and the GOP wins 10 percent of the black vote rather than 6 percent (there are good arguments both for and against this occurring; I am agnostic on the question), the next Republican would win narrowly if he or she can motivate these “missing whites,” even without moving the Hispanic (or Asian) vote. 
4. The GOP faces a tough choice. 
Of course, it isn’t that easy. Obama won’t be on the ticket in 2016, and the likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, could have a greater appeal to these voters (current polling suggests that she does). But there are always tradeoffs, and Clinton’s greater appeal to blue-collar whites, to the extent it holds through 2016, could be offset by a less visceral attachment with young voters, college-educated whites and to nonwhites than the president enjoys. 
But the GOP still has something of a choice to make. One option is to go after these downscale whites. As I’ll show in Part 2 [not yet published], it can probably build a fairly strong coalition this way. Doing so would likely mean nominating a candidate who is more Bush-like in personality, and to some degree on policy. This doesn’t mean embracing “big government” economics or redistribution full bore; suspicion of government is a strain in American populism dating back at least to Andrew Jackson. It means abandoning some of its more pro-corporate stances. This GOP would have to be more "America first" on trade, immigration and foreign policy; less pro-Wall Street and big business in its rhetoric; more Main Street/populist on economics. 
For now, the GOP seems to be taking a different route, trying to appeal to Hispanics through immigration reform and to upscale whites by relaxing its stance on some social issues.

By the way, economic populism isn't a bad way to not turn off Hispanic voters. In contrast, the conventional wisdom among the Republican Brain Trust that Romneyism plus amnesty equals success with Hispanics is the kind of thing that makes sense only if your main Hispanic friend is former Commerce Secretary-turned-amnesty-advocate Carlos "Hidalgo-American" Gutierrez.

67 comments:

Justin said...

Populism is always an almost winner. Populists create cross-party appeal (representing the masses), and they are therefore mercilessly destroyed by the establishment (representing the elites).

Every single populist is always smeared with the exact same slander: CRAZY. What is the first thing that comes to mind (i.e. the elite-created meme) when you think about the following figures: Jerry Brown, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Robert Kucinich, Mike Huckabee. Those are the popular populists that come to my mind, there are probably others.

Populism is the only true threat to the elite, and the one that is therefore smashed down most ruthlessly.


anony-mouse said...

As someone who reads Charles Murray, are you absolutely sure that Fishtown Whites would vote GOP? Why would a population heavily made up of welfare recipients, even White ones, vote for a party, all of whose major candidates want to cut such expenditures? Is there a tariff-raising GOP candidate out there, a la Perot?

If the Hispanic=naturally conservative meme is wrong, why is the White=naturally GOP meme correct?

Anonymous said...

Jerry Brown I think Linda Ronstadt so hardly a populist at all. His dad was Governor of California Justin. It adds some charm to your list though because you quite obviously just thought the the six craziest politicians you could think of and then assumed they were populist. Not very accurate but kind of endearing in that look how hard the kook tries way. Honestly, Huckabee got about as favorable a showing from the entertainment elites a Republican can expect, including a very favorable appearance on Saturday Night Live and Pat openly courted the crazy label by carrying around a freaking pitchfork at rallies. I understand that he did that to diffuse some elite criticism, but that's the thing about embracing labels you own them then.

When I think of Robert Kucinich I think of the Kebler Elf and then I remember Justin you crazy guy the Kebler Elf's first name is Dennis.

anony-mouse said...

Populism is almost always a loser in Presidential politics, starting with Bryan who holds the all-time losingest record for a major party presidential candidate, beating out Clay, Dewey and Stevenson. (The 1908 GOP slogan was "Vote for Taft today. You can always vote for Bryan later").

Brown, Buchanan, (Dennis, not Robert) Kucinich and Huckabee lost their party's nod for President, some repeatedly, and Perot and Buchanan lost when going alone.

Anonymous said...

Treme: The Case of the Missing Black Voter- Oh wait found them they are in Houston.

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

The real problem is whites elites are against whites, and white lowlites(at least in northern states) have been whiggarized. So, GOP has the middle class and southern rednecks left.
But rednecks are tired of neocon Wall Street trickery, and middle class kids are turning 'liberal' once they go to college... or switch on the TV and find stuff like Will and Disgrace.

That said, I think white interests can be served by both parties. Vermont is Democratic but doing well as a white state. So is Washington.

Certain things we must realize.

It was stupid for white cons to be anti-socialist. Anti-radical-socialism is good, but anti-socialism hurts your side. Why? Socialism means 'big government' and big government means power. If cons reject government, libs fill the vacuum. With such power, even big business has to cower to the power of big government as government can penalize any business. (Only the very rich can afford to control aspects of government by donations.) Even a petty bureaucrat can cause lots of havoc. So, big business must collude with big government.
GOP thought it could attack big government and side with big business for support and protection... but lost both. Big business went with big government for contracts, favors, protection, and bail outs. Wall Street Journal, which had been bitching about big government, sure didn't mind Obama bailing out Wall Street.

So, whites need to embrace national socialism(with little 'n', not the Nazi kind). Irish in big cities understood this, which is why they practiced tribal socialism in places in Boston and Chicago. You gotta control the government if you want the power and if you aren't as good at business as other groups. If Jews are better at business, then white gentiles must be use government to keep the power. Wasps used to rule business, and so Irish in big cities fought back by gaining control of local governments. We must turn Irish-Chechen.

Also, socialist policies are expensive and thus help to limit immigration and diversity. Notice that the states with most regulations are most white. The regulations in CA are driving out poor folks while attracting more rich folks, mostly whites.

As Coulter and Hanson have pointed out, the cons must stop relying on the rich. Rich don't like us. They only used us. We voted for their interests, but once they got richer and more powerful, they sided with globalists and Obama. (This is what Thatcher and Reagan totally failed to see.) Middle America bought all those Star Wars tickets, but Lucas gives us RED TAILS.

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

So, we need some class warfare tactics on the Right, and this can be played in both parties. Dems and Repubs. (Class warfare rhetoric can also make vast majority of whites into 'victims' of globalist elites, something Hanson and Coulter are beginning to play on. As 1% get richer and richer and more anti-white, conservative class warfare on behalf of middle class whites under attack by globalists and from stuff like affirmative action--which hurts poor whites most--can moralize white interests. This is why Jim Webb left the GOP. Good for him. He got disgusted with globalist elites fooling poor whites that serving the rich is what conservatism is all about.)
Just like Jews spread their influence across both parties: tag team match of lib Jews in Democratic Party and neocon Jews in GOP, white interests must be used in both parties. Whites made a big mistake in putting all the eggs in one basket. But northern white Dems instinctively understand that the Democratic Party is better for their own white interests. Regulations and high costs in northern states keep minorities out as it's tougher to set up business hiring low wage workers in the North. Mexicans in Texas don't go to CA, but Mexicans in CA go to Texas.

Also, we must distinguish between Old Rich and New Rich. Old Rich used to be solidly wasp and conservative on a whole host of issues. New Rich is largely Jewish, homo, and liberal Wasp, and they hate us. New Rich is richer than Old Rich. For us to be mindlessly pro-rich is crazy. We must use national socialism through both parties to take on the New Rich.

David Davenport said...

Populism is almost always a loser in Presidential politics ...

Then how did Clinton,Carter, Kennedy, Truman, and Frankfurter D. #oosevelt as well as the Muhammedan Manchurian candidate win, since they were all more to the Left on economics and therefore were more Populist than their Republican opponents?

A worthwhile question is, "What districts in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa did Reagan win that Mittens lost?"

sunbeam said...

anony-mouse wrote:

"As someone who reads Charles Murray, are you absolutely sure that Fishtown Whites would vote GOP? Why would a population heavily made up of welfare recipients, even White ones, vote for a party, all of whose major candidates want to cut such expenditures? Is there a tariff-raising GOP candidate out there, a la Perot?

If the Hispanic=naturally conservative meme is wrong, why is the White=naturally GOP meme correct?"

I don't know what to say about the Plains and Mountain states. But I do think I can tell you about the South.

If Blacks weren't so strongly associated with the Democratic Party, the South would still be solidly Democratic.

My take is the corporate/free trade/interventionist/tax-cuts-for-the-rich is a non starter almost everywhere as far as popular support goes.

But as long as the Democrats are perceived the way they are, they will not be a factor in the South.

If the South weren't so solidly Republican, the Republican Party wouldn't really exist. They are dead in the Northeast, the West Coast, and the Atlantic Seaboard down to Virginia already. And if it weren't for the backlash reaction of the 60's Civil Rights campaign, they probably wouldn't be squat in the Dixie states.

Anonymous said...

Well David now that you mention it Kennedy wasn't in any sense to the left on Nixon on economics. His big economic policy was a tax cut.

Secondly, populism does not equal leftist economics it equals etatist economic and social restrictions. Who do you think hated commies more George Wallace of George McGovern? Who do you think was more populist?

Anonymous said...

I love how crypto-leftist like sumbeam have to keep up a constant stream of this you Republicans are dead you just don't know it yet huck and jive. I don't remember the Republicans in 2002 talking this kind of trash and they truly were convinced the Republicans were becoming the natural governing party. Sunbeam's comments invigorate me because I can see that even the democrats are terrified that a couple white kids die at the annual Milwaukee County Fair riot and Democrats will be reduced to the demographically dying east and West.

David Davenport said...

You gotta control the government if you want the power and if you aren't as good at business as other groups. If Jews are better at business, then white gentiles must be use government to keep the power.

In other words, you are saying that the ends justify the means. Very Democrat.

Wasps used to rule business, and so Irish in big cities fought back by gaining control of local governments. We must turn Irish-Chechen.

I tend to sympathize with 19th century and 1920's opponents of Catholic emigration to the USA.

Show us some proof that all the Irish, Italians, and whatnots who immigrated here improved the place, on net.

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

"Populism is almost always a loser in Presidential politics ..."

"Then how did Clinton,Carter, Kennedy, Truman, and Frankfurter D. #oosevelt as well as the Muhammedan Manchurian candidate win, since they were all more to the Left on economics and therefore were more Populist than their Republican opponents?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hphgHi6FD8k

Huey Long learned how to win.

Use populism for the rubes and use panderism for the rich.
Serve as a bridge between the rich and the masses. That way, the poor get a bit more from the government but also come under greater control from government... which is what the rich want.

Initially, the rich saw Long as leader of the masses but then saw him as a tool that can be used to control the masses. Things aint much different today. Obama is just a slicker version of it for the globalists.

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

I think the best way to freak out the northern liberals is for some con to pose as a do-goody liberal who makes a documentary about how blacks in the South should move to places like Vermont and Conn.

The documentary should point out how awful the southern rednecks are and how little southern states spend on the poor. It will then show how generous, liberal, and welcoming northern states are, and therefore, southern blacks should flock to places like Iowa and Vermont and wins lots of prizes.

ATBOTL said...

The man I knew who was the biggest Perot supporter was a very interesting guy. I guess I would say he was a kind of populist, un-politically correct liberal. From what I saw, Perot voters were somewhat better informed than average. That's the exact opposite of the idea the media tried to push.

"As someone who reads Charles Murray, are you absolutely sure that Fishtown Whites would vote GOP?"

Yeah, hipsters and yuppies aren't big GOP boosters.

"The real problem is whites elites are against whites, and white lowlites(at least in northern states) have been whiggarized."

Poor whites are very heavily wiggerized in the South now. The South is a stronghold of old fashioned, 90's style wiggers. The ones who take their fashion cues from the young, inner city black men of 15 years ago.

Anonymous said...

The only way to derail Hillary (she is on schedule to win overwhelmingly the women's vote only because women will think, "Hey, the blacks got their guy and it's our turn now") is to keep digging on Benghazi and yell loudly and without let-up that out of sheer personal ambition, both she and the POTUS conspired to let several Americans die or risk mortal wounds (recall many Americans wounded seriously in the Benghazi episode are still in the hospital or not that long ago released.

This notion of Hillary as being "deserving" of the Presidency just because she's been around forever and just because she's a woman has to be shot down by attacking her character. As the First Lady, it could be argued she was off-limits. The first time someone jumps at the notion of a full frontal attack on Hillary as being anti-female, all guns need to blaze. She is not off-limits as Secretary of State who screwed up big time and who accomplished nothing of worth.

The youth vote, Steve? Try telling a bunch of Sandra Flukes-in-training that they shouldn't vote for Hillary. Try telling the twenty-something girl who never follows politics beyond seeing the headlines of the news feed on her Facebook page (pro-Hillary, of course)that she shouldn't participate in The Happening of electing the first woman POTUS.

She has to be revealed for what she is by ripping her to shreds over her treachery. When will the GOP learn they have to go the Full Monty on the opposition?

Feminists have been willing to overlook Clinton's and their own hypocrisy (they only feel contempt for trashy white women whose men humiliate them) and they've managed to bring along other females who aren't so interested in politics. Hell, the young in this country don't even know who Monica L. is, and frankly, those who'll vote in the 2016 election don't know anything about Bill.

peterike said...

Populism is the only true threat to the elite, and the one that is therefore smashed down most ruthlessly.

Back in the good old days, the elites would just have you killed if you tried to counter them, like Huey Long was killed, or for that matter Presidents Garfield and McKinley, both offed for defying the banksters.

Now, however, we have the media to do the dirty work. Look what they did to Sarah Palin, the most likely true "populist" (i.e. white working class) candidate in recent memory.

Far as Obama's big win goes, let's also not forget the rampant vote scamming that went on. We'll never know just how big it was, but I'm betting it was many times larger than even the largest estimates. That enormous black "turnout" was just a little too convenient. I'd say it was less about voters turning out and more about "votes" just turning up.

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

In 2008, Obama won by making whites vote FOR him. In 2012, he won by making whites not vote for Romney.

His massive war chest and MSM allies suppressed the white vote for making Romney out to be a rich sonabitch who sucks up to rich sonsabitches.

Worst thing is Romney is just that... as are other whores of GOP.

But the populist right, with its Creationism, anti-intellectualism and anti-culturalism, its anti-abortionism, and etc. aint exactly winning material. How can such dodos ever rise to elite status?

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

"Far as Obama's big win goes, let's also not forget the rampant vote scamming that went on."

Affirmative voting. Dream Voting Act.

Let Negroes vote three times.

sunbeam said...

Anonymous wrote:

"I love how crypto-leftist like sumbeam have to keep up a constant stream of this you Republicans are dead you just don't know it yet huck and jive."

Okay I'll bite. WTF is a crypto-leftist? I seen the word crypto tossed around, does that mean I'm talking leftism in code? I guess I'll have to be more blunt.

Ok:

crypto- or crypt- pref. - Hidden; secret:

Ah, I get it now. This doesn't apply because I am to the left of most of the posters here, but I am not hiding.

"I don't remember the Republicans in 2002 talking this kind of trash and they truly were convinced the Republicans were becoming the natural governing party."

I never brought that argument when I read it from Karl Rove. Even Lindsay Graham had some musings on this subject back about 2005 or so.

"Sunbeam's comments invigorate me because I can see that even the democrats are terrified that a couple white kids die at the annual Milwaukee County Fair riot and Democrats will be reduced to the demographically dying east and West."

If they are dying, they are dying slow. And from where I sit, the population increase is the South is due in large part to:

1) Mexicans
2) Blacks returning to the South after the Great Migration.
3) Some immigration of white people from other parts of the country.
4) Some natural increase of the inhabitants. The birthrate doesn't seem to be as moribund as some other parts of the country.
5) A very few immigrants from countries other than Mexico, like Europe and Asia.

But I'd wager a guess that the demographic increase is due largely to the group known as "NAMS."

Counting Texas as a world of it's own, is there a growing area in the whole rest of the country besides the South and Northwest?

I didn't think California was growing too put population wise even with immigrants, due to emigration (explains NW growth).

The Midwest and Plains states don't really seem to be growing. One day all the economic gas to frack will have been fracked, and that does it for the Dakotas. Colorado is growing, but it seems more like eastern California to me.

Most of the growth in Texas is due to Hispanics, whether by birth or immigration.

In short you may be correct about demographic decline and rump states, but the increase in the areas you discuss are due to the growth of non-white minorities.

A Working Class American said...

sailer wrote:
"By the way, economic populism isn't a bad way to not turn off Hispanic voters."

Better watch out, steve. You are going to offend your core readership by speaking well of economic populism. Or, maybe, your core readership does not understand the term....

Ed said...

" It means abandoning some of its more pro-corporate stances. "

There is a huge gap in the electoral marketplace here, left by both the Democrats and the Republicans having positioned themselves as essentially pro-cheap labor, though being pro-immigration and pro-free trade.

The Republicans are usually perceived to be to the right of the Democrats on economic issues, but that is mainly a legacy of the New Deal and Great Society programs pushed through by Democratic administrations and congresses in the 1930s and the 1960s. To a large extent this hasn't been true since I was born (in 1970). Yes, there was a half-hearted Republican attempt to go after Social Security in 2005, and then there is Obamacare, though this is shaping up more as a bailout of the insurance industry than as an expansion of Medicaid (which anyway was done by the Bush administration and a Republican congress recently).

Since working-class white voters who vote now vote Republican overwhelmingly anyway, there is an opening for the Republicans to outflank the Democrats on the left, which would also pull in some white working class non-voters and even a few working class non-whites.

Likewise, its not too late for the Democrats to shore up their fading New Deal/ Great Society brand, given the Republican unwillingness to exploit this opening.

But this assumes the two parties are locked in competition for votes, at least to the extent that they are willing to embrace policies popular with the general public that would piss off potential and actual wealthy donors. And that is the problem.

Anonymous said...

http://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/2000-syrian-refugees-already-in-the-pipeline-on-the-way-to-us/

I'm kinda liking this. Maybe we'll have more Dzhokar types.

Settle them in Boston!

Melendwyr said...

I didn't bother voting in the last Presidential election. Why? Because I didn't believe that either candidate deserved my vote.

There's something to be said in favor of voting for the lesser evil, but the lesser evil still needs to be sufficiently good to do the job. Once all (both) options no longer meet my minimum standards, other considerations begin to become relevant - the opportunity cost for me to go out and vote, the symbolism of supporting the existing system by participating in it, etc.

I concluded that it wasn't worth my time to vote, and that the most important thing I could do was signal my dissatisfaction in the voting statistics by not participating.

As long as we keep falling for the "vote for us because the other side is worse" trick, no party will be motivated to develop or improve. We'll never stop the degenerative slide into totalitarian statism.

Anonymous said...

If Obama's slogan was HOPE, Bush II's was HOME.

Both were bogus.

Anonymous said...

Buchanan's western/non-western distinction deserves a little more attention, with the focus of immigrationism being the import of tens of millions of non-westerners (70 million or so to this point, including children and grandchildren--cancel my vote at wounded knee!). Authoritarian genetics apparently worked best in tribal conflict environments, like China's warring states period, with dissenters presumably being executed out of the population over the years, and the gene pool left with those who dominate, submit to authority, or manage both (we celebrate the president, and we turn the screw in you!). I think it was John King, the convert, who indiscretely marvelled on air about election 2012 reflecting a coalition of minorities electing a black president, "what they've been working for all this time" or words to that effect. "They" are presumably the chigurs floating above your door, menancing, but you can't find them sherriff.

Anonymous said...

The crucial and way more interesting numbers:the number of eligible Native Born White American voters who did not vote in 2012...the number of Native Born White American voters who voted Democratic not out of love for the Democrats, but out of intense hatred of the Repubican Party because it is percieved as beig viciously anti-Native Born White American Labor.

Bill Kauffman wrote a very interesting essay recently about getting rid of the Presidency, and about how in the past there was a poltical movement to get rid of the Presidency. We should also get rid of the Senate.

A member of the Irish Parliament-Mary Daly-called Obama a vicious War Criminal and called Michelle and Bono parasites.

Whiskey

Please spare us your rant about White Women Voters. Only a very small percentage of eligible Native Born White American Women Voters voted for the Kenyan.

Bill Blizzard and his Men

Anonymous said...

Steve, there is enough evidence to suggest massive Black voting fraud. Not old Black grannies turning out to protect Obama, but vote-for-cash schemes in places like Detroit and Indianopolis. Courtesy of ACORN and outfits like it.

Next, I think the statistical criticism leveled against both you and Trende is ignoring the 2010 White turnout, and the IRS scandals of Jackboot-the-Tea-Party. That even Peggy Noonan acknowledged.

The 2010 White turnout was IIRC, higher than the 2012 White turnout. How is it that Whites turned out in greater numbers to vote against Obama in protest for some congressman, and in lesser numbers only two years later against Obama himself?

You argue that he perfect Candidate needed to exist to harness White dissatisfaction with Obama. That Romney was too statist and corporate to attract White voters who ... only two years before voted against Obama with imperfect, and unknown Congressional candidates. Against welfare-government goodie handout Democrats in many cases.

That does not even make sense. It makes as much sense as Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Lance Armstrong winning all those records clean. Out of nowhere.

The missing White voters, the Occam's Razor explanation, is that the Tea Party leadership was crippled by IRS, FBI, OSHA, and EPA coordinated action to keep leaders out of the vote organizing business they had done just two years earlier.

President Asterisk indeed.

That is the missing voters, Obama using the power of the Feds to crush any get out the vote by White working/middle class people against him. Perfectly legal too, under our current legal system of enhanced rights for non-Whites and reduced ones for Whites.

ATBOTL said...

GOP bigwigs know Hispanics who aren't CEOs and cabinet secretaries. There is Juan who mows their lawn, Guadalupe who cleans their house and Gerardo who parks their car at the steakhouse.

These people are super polite and always agree with everything the boss man says. That proves that Hispanics are in agreement with the GOP's economic policies. After all, if they weren't in agreement, Florinda and Felixberto would speak up and say something, right?

Whiskey said...

Steve the comment about IRS/Tea Party missing whites was me (Whiskey). Dang browser. My Nook HD + has a better one.

[Dear Obama/NSA, since your're reading this, you both suck.]

The way Obama crushed the Tea Party IMHO and total guess, is by using the NSA data carted over to a few analysts loaned by Google, in the usual Chicago manner entirely consistent with his career, to identify key leaders within the Tea Party by node analysis using metadata, and then unleashing the IRS, OSHA, EPA, and FBI upon them.

What is different and scary about Obama vs. Nixon is that Nixon (and Clinton) targeted a few elites who were political enemies, using the power of the Presidency and Executive Branch: CIA, FBI, IRS, etc.

What Obama did was go after the masses of grassroots Tea Party people, who formed a critical vote-turnout threat. This was only possible IMHO from data dumps from NSA PRISM intercepts and call meta data, and using advanced analysts from Google who could be relied upon to keep quiet, instead of say NSA workers who would like a big fat paycheck from say, Russia Today, or the South China Morning Post.

If you were looking for those people, look to see who got at Google (or possibly Microsoft) large stock options suddenly, or some other grant that relied upon their company prospering under Government benevolence of some sort.

This mode of operation is consistent with Obama, who was as you note rejected as inauthentic by Bobby Rush's voters but propsered by disqualifying his mentor from the ballot and unsealing divorce papers of Jeri Ryan.

Which brings to a larger question. You and Trende argue that the GOP can only prosper by using government to benefit White working/middle class "missing" voters. My view is that the voters were not missing but discouraged by a sabotaged IRS Jackboot method on the Tea Party, and that furthermore complete capture by the elite/Multicultural non-White class guarantees only two options: 1. A government predicated on extracting the maximum amount of money and groveling of the White working and middle class to non-Whites and Elites; or 2. "Burn down the House" of big government that has been captured completely and absolutely by the Sandra Flukes, Louis Farrakhans, Valerie Jarretts, Eric Holders, and Hillary Clintons.

In this you will find most average White people rejoicing, for they would have the freedom to do and think as they please, mostly, would not be subject to Paula Deen style PC purges, and would not have to be shook down to provide health care, jobs, money, etc. to a massive and growing non-White population.

Whiskey said...

Let me add in case my other comment was nuked by the browser/Google or the NSA, the appropriate measure for Trende to use would be White turnout 2010, and 2012.

If 2010 was a referendum by Whites on Obama, why would not 2012 an actual election with him on the ballot, be another referendum?

If you see decreased White voting from 2010 to 2012, is not the simplest explanation that Obama used his government to crush Tea Party vote organizers? Is not that Occam's Razor? Is not Occam's Butterknife that Mormon Mitt was too corporate to get Tea Party voters who detested and voted against Obama in proxy to vote against him for real in 2012, just two years later?

My sense is that you are arguing that the perfect candidate has to be the enemy of the Good. Mitt ran as Mr. Fixit to get the economy going again. As a reasonable least common denominator for trendy Sandra Flukes who still have to grocery shop and working class guys wanting more money.

My guess is that White votes were suppressed by the power of the FBI, OSHA, EPA, in mass rollout against key leaders and organizers. So the extra surge of 2010 was suppressed. Not that people were disgusted with Corporate Mitt, since most America happily shops and buys corporate stuff like Iphones, uses Google, Bing, goes to Walmart, etc.

Rather that people driving folks to the polls, calling, providing absentee ballots, were too busy fighting the IRS audits, FBI charges, EPA charges, OSHA charges, as already documented, to do anything else.

And if Obama could do that, using a willing and compliant federal workforce, that means that any argument for White goodie handouts by the feds is effectively dead. Multiculti PC anti-White behavior is fully accepted as the "correct" way of thinking among the federal workforce, itself largely non-White particularly in key areas.

Arguing that a federal workforce comprised of Eric Holder, and people just like him, will do nothing but abuse and punish ordinary White people for the crime of being born White is frankly Steve a non-starter. A logical dead end.

Burn it down. All of it.

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

Telling a lib the truth about race is like telling a kid that Santa doesn't exist.
The lib doesn't just disagree but panics and can't believe his or her fairytale about race isn't true. He or she wants to cry and throw tantrums.

Waaaah, I'm gonna tell mommy on you!

Anonymous said...

The GOP needs to do a lot better with northern whites than it currently does.

Either the country and the party can be saved, or they can't.

If they can be saved, then the most plausible electoral path to that outcome would be for the GOP to meet the working class halfway and sweep the Big Ten swing states.

If they can't be saved, then the American nation needs to start thinking about how to extricate itself from the post-national state. It would be necessary and desirable at that point for the nation to have a political vehicle that is not narrowly Southern, evangelical, etc. but rather regionally and ideologically inclusive.

Not only are the more northerly white states more demographically cohesive than, say, Texas, but they also tend to have cultural values that complement those of the South (e.g., strait-laced Scandinavians vs. don't-tread-on-me Scots-Irish).

Put differently, a party (or a nation aspiring to renewed independence) that can't appeal to both South Carolina and Iowa is not viable, and probably doesn't deserve to be.

countenance said...

But while this was the most salient demographic change, it was probably not, standing alone, enough to swing the election to Obama. After all, he won the election by almost exactly 5 million votes. If we assume there were 6.5 million “missing” white voters, than means that Romney would have had to win almost 90 percent of their votes to win the election.

Trende missed American Civics 101: We choose Presidents by Electoral College, not national popular vote. If all the missing whites 2012 over 2008 would have showed up and voted Romney in the 60-40 margin that whites in general voted, then this probably would have gotten Romney the extra 700k votes in four states he would have needed to swing the EC his way.

A Working Class American said...

ed wrote:
"Since working-class white voters who vote now vote Republican overwhelmingly anyway, there is an opening for the Republicans to outflank the Democrats on the left, which would also pull in some white working class non-voters and even a few working class non-whites.

Likewise, its not too late for the Democrats to shore up their fading New Deal/ Great Society brand, given the Republican unwillingness to exploit this opening.

But this assumes the two parties are locked in competition for votes, at least to the extent that they are willing to embrace policies popular with the general public that would piss off potential and actual wealthy donors. And that is the problem."

=========================

oh, you mean that maybe the GOP should mix elements of the right and left?? Um, that is forbidden. Anyone who does will be attacked and ousted by the politic of their political tribe: just as antibodies surround and attack an invading virus, so too will the other members of the political tribe mercilessly attack such a renegade. You can see examples of this on every political forum on the internet. Such mixing of Right and Left will get your comments deleted or even get you banned. You cannot go on a GOP forum and call for raising taxes on the rich with risking a deleted comment or a ban, for the most part. And you cannot go on a Democrat forum and call for stopping affirmative action or immigration without risking the same. We educated americans are nothing if not well programmed.

This ideological apartheid is enforced by the top of the societal institutions. That is how the rich win under both parties.

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

"I concluded that it wasn't worth my time to vote, and that the most important thing I could do was signal my dissatisfaction in the voting statistics by not participating."

What you must do is find your Inner Chechen.

Anonymous said...

is to keep digging on Benghazi

Nobody gives a damn about Benghazi, it's just another phony bloody shirt waved by establishment Conservative con men who refuse to deal with the issue of race in American politics, particularly as it pertains to immigration. Immigration causing cultural anarchy and dissolution and importing millions of votes for the destructive far left? Issue. Benghazi? Non-issue, but relatively safe, PC-wise. The left will snarl but it won't get you kicked out of the country club. It's pathetic. Surely these swindlers are nearing the end of their crime spree.


For Benghazi to matter it would have to be seen as a grave insult to national honor. The trouble with that is we have no honor and we're no longer really a nation, we're a polyglot empire whose subjects no longer really care what happens to the representatives of the empire. You think white leftists, blacks, Hispanics, or Asians care about the ambassador to Libya? (That's more than half the population right there.) The only ones still pretending to care about the Empire's fun and games overseas are the conservative con men at the top hoping to make money from it, and the rank and file conservatives they lead who are desperate to grasp any straw that allows them to deny the reality of their dispossession. It will have no impact on the election.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure the GOP's white voter base will be extra enthusiastic to turn out in droves in 2014, after getting sold down the river with the immigration bill. That's ok, the new Hispanic voters eager to vote GOP will replace them.

Anonymous said...

ATBOTL said...
GOP bigwigs know Hispanics who aren't CEOs and cabinet secretaries. There is Juan who mows their lawn, Guadalupe who cleans their house and Gerardo who parks their car at the steakhouse.


Yes, but the Democrats also know these same Hispanics too. And feel the same way.

For all out there soooo worried about HIllary. Think on this one: the hip YOUNG vote also doesnt want to vote for what they perceive as "too old" She will be pushing 70 and has already had a minor stroke (or health issue) which reminds others of her increasing age/senility.

Benghazi of course plays a role as well as the fact that younger voters were royally screwed by Obama adminstration, fewer of them working now than when he took office. Hillary would be seen as tied to the adminstration and thus would receive the brunt of the blame that many didn't feel they could go after Obama for (for obvious personal reasons)

Translation: If she runs, she'll be seen as the Bob Dole of the Democrats: An old, semi-senile, white gal who's already had a health issue. (minor stroke or heart ailment).

The Key: GOP has to keep together the older voters, baby boomer from voting for her. However, one advantage, the baby boomers have long memories and remember not liking her when she was first lady. So that could even out.

X factor in all this: Women. Why would they actually vote for another woman over a man when they've never shown any inclination to do so before? When push came to shove, they voted for OJ's innocence. GOP could exploit and divide this demographic pretty easily by running the right candidate: A younger (and fairly younger loooking) candidate compared with Hillary (who's starting to show her age and health issues) one who's competent on the issues, one who exudes testosterone, and....IS NOT TOO PERSONALLY WEALTHY.

Let her run in '16. She wont win. Wouldn't even be close. 54%-46% vs her.

countenance said...

Anonymous above:

I, too, don't think HRC is as inevitable as conventional wisdom makes her out to be. She was supposed to be inevitable in 2008, too. How'd that work out?

The taboos of gender sociology (queen bee syndrome et al.) and nobody wanting to watch an already upper middle aged woman grow really old really quickly in public view will ruin her candidacy even if she does run. My own mother has said that no woman should ever be President as long as the American military is so powerful.

Biden's a doofus, Andrew Cuomo is too scary looking.

Democrat nominee in 2016?

Watch out for Mark Warner.

A Working Class American said...

sunbeam said...
But as long as the Democrats are perceived the way they are, they will not be a factor in the South.

If the South weren't so solidly Republican, the Republican Party wouldn't really exist. They are dead in the Northeast, the West Coast, and the Atlantic Seaboard down to Virginia already. And if it weren't for the backlash reaction of the 60's Civil Rights campaign, they probably wouldn't be squat in the Dixie states.
========================


my reply:
yup, and the only reason the GOP even has a real voter base is because the so called liberal culture in this nation is basically based on demonization of the white male, especially the blue collar male of the South.
White male hatred/demonization by the Dems drives white males into the arms of the GOP. They "got nowhere else to go," to quote Officer Candidate Mayo, from AN OFFICER AND A GENTLEMAN.

How fortunate for the rich upper class that the Democrat base hates white males so. Because if it were not for that hatred, the GOP would be a political after-thought, and Dems would be dominant in america, and the Dems would then raise taxes on the rich and increase worker benefits. Theoretically, anyway.

Say, you don't think maybe the rich upper class had anything to do with creating the current anti-white liberal subculture, do ya?

If you look deeper into how this current liberal subculture was created, you find its genesis in academia. In particular, the role of the white redneck male as the Ultimate Evil was born of a particular understanding of History. This particular understanding might be called "The Narrative," to quote our host, Mr Sailer.

Recall now the most important phrase ever put to paper: "who controls the past controls the future." Courtesy of George Orwell, of course.

The current liberal subculture, which centers around demonization of the Southern White Male is based on certain facts of history. In particular, enslavement of blacks in the South by white males.

However, certain other facts are ignored or shoved down the memory hole. Fact 1--white southern males are typically descended from slaves, white slaves. This truth of white slaves has been hidden by The Narrative. But they were not indentured servants, but slaves in just about every. Forced into slavery and typically sold at auction.

Fact 2: only 1.5% of all white americans were slaveowners in 1860, according to the census. And slaves cost about $400 or thereabouts at that time, and that was when most white males in the south earned maybe 150 to 250 dollars a year. So how many people have disposable savings amounting to 2.5 years of income. And you could not get credit without collateral back then. So, for all practical purposes, slaveowners were the upper class. The upper 2 or 3 percent in wealth.

Yet, somehow, the southern white male became the ultimate demon, the slaveowner. Funny how the rich upper class pulled that off. Remember that today's academic subculture was born of the subculture of elite colleges from about 100 years ago or so. The ivy league etc. And 100 years ago, the ivy league was the bastion of ....wait for it...the upper class.

Ah, another "just so" story. All is right in the world and in america....

ben tillman said...

Secondly, populism does not equal leftist economics it equals etatist economic and social restrictions.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyone else know what he means?

A Working Class American said...

Justin said...

Populism is always an almost winner. Populists create cross-party appeal (representing the masses), and they are therefore mercilessly destroyed by the establishment (representing the elites).

Every single populist is always smeared with the exact same slander: CRAZY. What is the first thing that comes to mind (i.e. the elite-created meme) when you think about the following figures: Jerry Brown, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Robert Kucinich, Mike Huckabee. Those are the popular populists that come to my mind, there are probably others.

Populism is the only true threat to the elite, and the one that is therefore smashed down most ruthlessly.


===================


my reply:

and economic populism requires mixing elements of the American Left and American Right. And the elite prevent this from happening by enforcing an unwritten code of ideological apartheid.

Anonymous said...

"Clinton’s perceived liberalism and George H.W. Bush’s elitism"

Author is most likely a liberal. Clinton was only a "perceived" liberal, when in actual fact he was something else. Of course, everyone knows that GHW Bush was an out and out elitist.

Anonymous said...

Steve wrote:
Los Angeles County, for instance, has about 10,000,000 million people.

Ten thousand billion people? Feel free to delete this comment.

peterike said...

Think on this one: the hip YOUNG vote also doesnt want to vote for what they perceive as "too old"

The hip young vote cares about two things: queers and vagina issues. Period. And everyone knows Republicans want to burn gays at the stake and sew up everyone's vaginas (while simultaneously forcing them to have babies). These are known facts in the world of the young and hip.

The hip young will vote for ANYBODY that has a D after their name and won't even vote for a gay black dude if he's a Republican.

Anonymous said...

The "CIA" visit to Perot was a dirty trick by the Bush campaign. It played right into the "Perot is a nut" story. It worked. Dirty tricks abound surrounding the Bushes, like the push polls in 2000 suggesting McCain had a black baby out of wedlock.

I would almost prefer Hillary to another Bush in 2016. Forced to choose between the two, I would stay home.

Anonymous said...

Perot didn't do so hot in the South, no surprise there. They do what their Baptist mullahs and plutocrats tell 'em to do, even though the white underclass hates their elites and has always hated their elites.

The resentment/mindless service of lower class Southern whites in the interests of their elites reminds me of Tolkien's description of orcs to their master/creator Melkor. They hated everyone, but they hated him most of all. He took them, twisted them into what they were. In the same way the Southern elites took European peasants and made 'em into white trash.

Alt Right and Paleocons take note. If you are hoping against all hope to recreate this country as "the best working man's country" or to make a bourgeois- mono-cultural state, Southerners are not your allies. They never will be. They don't know how to be. Their leaders will never sacrifice their position, which trumps everything. If keeping their wealth and position means sitting a top a Brazilian style h%ll-hole as opposed to Wisconsin, so be it.

irishman said...

Sorry Steve, populism in America is a fantasy.

You can talk all you want about policies to help the 99%, but unless they don't infringe on the 1%, they won't happen. The big problem with populism is where's the money going to come from for the political movement? Nowhere so far as I can see.

This is why the republicans will never adopt anything other than the superficial populism that will probably fool few who don't want to be fooled.

The future of American politics will go this way as far as I can see.

America will continue to become more democratic, the republicans will drop their socially conservative positions and repudiate and therefore defund the occasional one who gets through. It won't make any difference. The Democrats will just continue to grow on the strength of minorities who are increasingly organised and agitated and who feel ownership in the political process the way whites used to, this will lead to a durable Democratic majority in the congress. Whites will continue to drop out, feeling the disenfranchisement that the Perot voters currently feel.You may get Republican presidents still for the same reason Romney got elected in Mass., to put manners on the Democrats.

Rates of poverty will continue to increase as America's door remains open. As the Democrats are perfectly comfortable with the rich their biggest means of sating their base will be through schemes similar to Black Economic empowerment in South Africa. But as America's human capital and it's economy degenerates to Latin American levels so will it's politics. This will lead to the rise of a new party of the radical left along the lines of Chavez in Venezuela. The prospect of this party will cause the republicans to finally implode as their support rushes to buttress the Democrats. This will be America's new political system. It will be unstable, corrupt and disastrous. Just like everything else in America's future. Sorry about your loss.


P.S. It doesn't matter what Hillary did in Benghazi because the people trumpeting the controversy are so awful people won't want to listen to them.

David Davenport said...

Nobody gives a damn about Benghazi*, it's just another phony bloody shirt waved by establishment Conservative con men who refuse to deal with the issue of race in American politics, particularly as it pertains to immigration. ... Benghazi? Non-issue, but relatively safe, PC-wise. ... The only ones still pretending to care about the Empire's fun and games overseas are the conservative con men at the top hoping to make money from it, and the rank and file conservatives ...

If Benghazi is a non-issue, PC-wise, why is the Muslim Manchurian candidate trying so hard to dodge and cover up the events there?

And why can't patriotic Americans be simultaneously concerned with Benghazi as well as other issues?

Your rant is objectively pro-Obama.

//////////////

"Secondly, populism does not equal leftist economics it equals etatist economic and social restrictions."

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyone else know what he means?


"Etatist" -> pseudo French for "stateist."

What he means is, he doesn't like people such as Pat Buchanan.

"Social restrictions" -- not pro-homosexual.

"Economic restrictions" -- skeptical about free free free trade.

* Wikipedia says: During the actions of Operation Compass during World War II, Benghazi was captured by the Australian 6th Division on 6 February 1941.

It was recaptured by Axis powers, led by General Erwin Rommel of the German Africa Corps, on 4 April.[21] It was taken again during Operation Crusader by the British on 24 December only to change hands again on 29 January 1942 in the Africa Corps's push to Egypt and the fateful Battle of El Alamein – 106 kilometres (66 miles) from Alexandria, Egypt – in which British troops** led by General Bernard Montgomery defeated the Africa Corps in the decisive battle of the North African portion of World War II; the Africa Corps remnants then made a long steady retreat across Libya passing through Benghazi for the final time.

On 20 November, Benghazi was captured by the British Eighth Army ...


I have seen a circa 1942 photograph of a building in Benghazi with a sign saying "Kino Benghazi" and National Socialist Workers' Party soldiers lined up and loitering about in front. OK, most weren't Party members.

Wonder what movie was showing?

Benghazi is a seaport and was a German base of operations, albeit a base with meager supplies.

** Commonwealth troops at El Alamein included the Indian Division, which was mostly Sikh and Muslim. Some of the Muslims of the Indian Division were probably Pashtuns --> Afghans.

jody said...

2004 is not a good data point because it is not representative of a normal state of affairs in the US. it had just been attacked, in the most serious terrorist event in american history. things like that almost never happen.

62 million votes is not the baseline republican vote tally. that's the "go george bush, go!" vote tally from millions of people showing up to support the president as he goes after osama bin laden, and saddam hussein, back when people were still operating under the WMD premise. bush had previously garnered only 50 million votes a mere 4 years earlier. this is a colossal jump of 12 million votes in only 1 election cycle. that's all bin laden. that's zero percent bush. bush actually lost the public vote in 2000.

2004 is also not a good data point because it is an incumbent election. i've seen people throwing around the 1984 election a lot. "If only Romney had gotten the votes Reagan did in 1984..." it's an apples to oranges comparison. that was an incumbent versus a new guy. always go apples to apples. compare new guys to new guys. reagan didn't do those numbers in 1980.

Anonymous said...

"Populism is almost always a loser in Presidential politics"

"Almost" is a nice weasel word to slip in there, so you can sidestep Andrew Jackson. LOL.

A Working Class American said...

irishman said...

Sorry Steve, populism in America is a fantasy.

You can talk all you want about policies to help the 99%, but unless they don't infringe on the 1%, they won't happen.
=======================

my reply:

Boy, aint that the truth, though? Good to see some other people know what is going on. I thought I was the only one.




irishman wrote:
The big problem with populism is where's the money going to come from for the political movement? Nowhere so far as I can see.
==============================

my reply:
Yup, neither party will (or has to) do what the majority of americans want to do--raise taxes on the rich.




irishman wrote:
This is why the republicans will never adopt anything other than the superficial populism that will probably fool few who don't want to be fooled.

====================
Yup, exactly. Populism will be granted by the GOP as long as it doesn't matter--guns, abortion, religion, etc. And the Dems will only implement the desired populism of their base in limited measures--very small increases in taxation on the rich, obamacare instead of universal healthcare....etc.


irishman wrote:
Rates of poverty will continue to increase as America's [mass immigation] door remains open. As the Democrats are perfectly comfortable with the rich their biggest means of sating their base will be through schemes similar to Black Economic empowerment in South Africa. But as America's human capital and it's economy degenerates to Latin American levels so will it's politics. This will lead to the rise of a new party of the radical left along the lines of Chavez in Venezuela. The prospect of this party will cause the republicans to finally implode as their support rushes to buttress the Democrats.
===================

my reply:
Yup, whites will hold their noses regarding the anti-white animus of the Dem base and vote Dem because it will finally get them some real and meaningful economic populism, but only when mass immigration has pumped in so many nonwhites that their descendants have become voters and are old enough that they actually vote. And as others have pointed out here, the "wiggerization" of white youth means that future white voters will be have little race-consciousness.


irishman wrote:
This will be America's new political system. It will be unstable, corrupt and disastrous. Just like everything else in America's future. Sorry about your loss.
=========================

my reply:
Ah, the end game. As Truman Burbank asked, "how's it all going to end?" I've been wondering that, too. Breakup of the federal union via bankruptcy. That will leave the states on their own. The small white states will be functional replicas of the Scandanavian nations, and the populous states will become third world banana republics.


irishman wrote:
P.S. It doesn't matter what Hillary did in Benghazi because the people trumpeting the controversy are so awful people won't want to listen to them.

====================

correct....

Hunsdon said...

AWCA squawked: Better watch out, steve. You are going to offend your core readership by speaking well of economic populism. Or, maybe, your core readership does not understand the term....

Hunsdon said: We iz teh dummies here, AWCA. Thank G-d you are here to enlighten us. Also, elementary courtesy dictates capitalization of proper names (like "Steve").

Ed said: But this assumes the two parties are locked in competition for votes, at least to the extent that they are willing to embrace policies popular with the general public that would piss off potential and actual wealthy donors. And that is the problem.

Hunsdon said: Word to the streets, brother.

AWCA said: White male hatred/demonization by the Dems drives white males into the arms of the GOP.

Hunsdon said: Better.

AWCA continued: Remember that today's academic subculture was born of the subculture of elite colleges from about 100 years ago or so.

Hunsdon said: Bzzzzt, I beg to differ. A touch later, please. More Frankfort School than Woodrow Wilson.

Peter the Shark said...

why is the Muslim Manchurian candidate trying so hard to dodge and cover up the events there?

He's not spending much time on Benghazi at all, from what I can see. If anything Obama is a master of picking pseudo-scandals that whip the GOP base into a frenzy and that 75% of the US thinks are just stupid - the birth certificate, SAT scores, ghost written memoirs, and Benghazi, among others. Sometimes I wonder if the Obama campaign doesn't come up with those pseudo-scandals on purpose. The end result is that Obama's opponents end up looking like paranoid mouthdroolers to most moderate Americans, and the leftists laugh all the way to the next election. For some reason the GOP is afraid to touch the real scandals like immigration, the decline in morale and competence of our military, Obama's ties to the CIA, the administration's caving to Wall Street on finance regulation, etc.

gubbler, champion of all things checheny(except criminality, corruption, and bride-stealing) said...

"The way Obama crushed the Tea Party IMHO"

TP became useless once it was usurped by Wall Street and Neocons. It began as "don't bail out Wall Street" and "reduce big government", but soon turned into "kill Muslims for Israel" and "defend Wall Street from Obama."

Never mind Wall Street played a big role in putting Obama in office and Obama repaid the favor by bailing it out.

Anonymous said...

Four factions:
- globalist left
- conservative left
- conservative right
- globalist right

As the two globalist factions have broken away from the Left and Right the natural alliance has become the conservative left + conservative right hence why both the globalist left and globalist right do everything they possibly can to prevent it happening.

Anonymous said...

"ben tillman said...
Secondly, populism does not equal leftist economics it equals etatist economic and social restrictions.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyone else know what he means?"

Protectionism.

.

Clinton

The Democrats aren't going to have another White Presidential candidate ever. They may have a "white" one taking turns with Hispanics etc but not a White one.

They'll ditch her one way or another - my guess is they'll use all the lesbian rumors.

ATBOTL said...

"The ivy league etc. And 100 years ago..."

...was a bastion of self-described "white supremacy" and Anglo-Saxon triumphalism. During that era, racialism was taken for granted and the South was seen favorably by much of the Northern elite.

It was during the 20's and 30's that communist sympathy and such started to creep into the establishment.

David said...

The two political parties are a Punch and Judy show. Never mind who is Punch and who Judy; the hands in their rear ends belong to the same puppetma$ter.

The show bemuses the groundlings, but it's meaningless.

Power's halls are full of people to whom the toys that preoccupy the children - such as free enterprise, God and country, terrorism, socialism, abortion, Benghazi, racism - are not more than an occasion for sniggering. And they're right about that.

The only thing gives them pause is the thought that the distracted faction might get out of hand. But they sleep easy in their beds anyway, secure in the knowledge that in the surveillance police state, no defenestrations will occur until after the last drop of oil is gone.

A Working Class American said...

ATBOTL said...

"The ivy league etc. And 100 years ago..."

...was a bastion of self-described "white supremacy" and Anglo-Saxon triumphalism. During that era, racialism was taken for granted and the South was seen favorably by much of the Northern elite.

It was during the 20's and 30's that communist sympathy and such started to creep into the establishment.
======================


it is unbelievable to me that anyone could think that the american system of mass immigration and the use of affirmative action to cram more workers into the american workplace has ANYTHING to do with communism.

Astonishing.

Communism is about no private property, public ownership of the means of production. No wealthy. etc

Communism has nothing to do with affirmative action!


affirmative action is about capital vs labor, and Capital is the side that wants affirmative action!

Steve Sailer said...

'Ten thousand billion people?'

Just at rush hour.

Hunsdon said...

AWCA squawked: it is unbelievable to me that anyone could think that the american system of mass immigration and the use of affirmative action to cram more workers into the american workplace has ANYTHING to do with communism.

Hunsdon said: Here, I think, "communist sympathy" refers more to hostile Ashkenazi Eastern Europeans than to, you know, doctrinaire Marxists.

Funny you never engage with my arguments. Almost Whiskers like.

ATBOTL said...

it is unbelievable to me that anyone could think that the american system of mass immigration and the use of affirmative action to cram more workers into the american workplace has ANYTHING to do with communism.

Astonishing.

Communism is about no private property, public ownership of the means of production. No wealthy. etc

Communism has nothing to do with affirmative action!


affirmative action is about capital vs labor, and Capital is the side that wants affirmative action!

----------------------------------
Communist sympathizers and the open borders crowd were largely one and the same during that era. The Bolshevik regime in Russia used an early form of AA, in which ethnic Russians from upper and middle class backgrounds excluded from universities and good jobs, so that certain other people would have less competition.

The intellectual framework for AA and other anti-white policies barrows heavily from Marxism-Leninism, with whites the "class enemy" and nonwhites the proletariat.

Anonymous said...

Well, the Tea Party got a lot of their early money from the Koch brothers, so they have ties to the guest worker and legalization schemes. The baed of the Tea Party doesn't like it but if anyone read 24ahead, Whiskley you will find the connections on amensty schemes with folks like Rand Paul and so forth.

Anonymous said...

As someone who reads Charles Murray, are you absolutely sure that Fishtown Whites would vote GOP? Why would a population heavily made up of welfare recipients, even White ones, vote for a party, all of whose major candidates want to cut such expenditures? Is there a tariff-raising GOP candidate out there, a la Perot?

If the Hispanic=naturally conservative meme is wrong, why is the White=naturally GOP meme correct?

6/23/13, 10:32 AM
I agree, the only states that vote republican and collect a lot of food stamps are Kentucky and Arknasas and West Virginia. It has to do with the fact that Rpeublicans favor mining of coal and in the case of Arknasas it could be the social issues. Remember Charles Murray didn't go into detail but the Texas burbs of Houston and Dallas or Suburban Counties next to them have income averages similar to whites in Orange County Ca. So, Texas whites that vote Republican are not lower middle class.

Anonymous said...










































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































Its kind like Pat Buchnana description of Orange County Ca in his book, Whites have not been heavily involved in Manufactoring there for sometime. If they are, they are engineers, sales people, managers many are no longer even machinsts. Most of them are Mexicans or sometimes Asians. In fact whites got some much into the real estate fraud there since they could earn a 6 figure income selling estate. Now, the midwest whites did work in factories and in the south white and black women did garment work unlike the OC were garment work was done mainly by Mexicans or sometimes Vietnmese, you got to know the facts and Pat Buchnana didn't know the facts about Orange County in his book.