Those of you familiar with my enthusiasm for making predictions might be able to guess what conclusion I came up with.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Second: You can make a tax deductible contribution via VDARE by clicking here. (Paypal and credit cards accepted, including recurring "subscription" donations.) UPDATE: Don't try this at the moment.
Third: send money via the Paypal-like Google Wallet to my Gmail address (that's isteveslrATgmail.com -- replace the AT with a @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.
You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.
Or you can send money via credit card (Visa, MasterCard, AmEx, Discover) with the industry-standard 2.9% fee. (You don't need to put money into your Google Wallet Balance to do this.)
Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).
Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here's how to do it.
(Non-tax deductible.)
Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)
Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)
Posts
16 comments:
Steve Sailer: As it happens, new Pew Research Center study (for the full PDF of U.S. Population Projections 2005-2050, click here) suggests that, through government policy, America is well on its way to importing a Third World majority population of its own. Assuming a slightly lower immigration rate than we've seen over the last 20 years, the Hispanic population, according to Pew, will triple in the 45 years from 2005 until 2050. The population projections are quite staggering. Here they are in millions:
White, 2005: 198
White, 2050: 206
Asian, 2005: 15
Asian, 2050: 39
This is a little off-topic, but the Asian-American numbers are surprising to me because the Asian-Americans are making even fewer babies than are the Caucasian-Americans.
Cf Table 8, Page 11, and Table 9, Pages 12 & 13, in:
2008 Statistical Abstract of the United States
Section 1, Population
WARNING: PDF DOCUMENT
census.gov
I've uploaded Table 8, in JPG form, to Photobucket:
pop_TABLE-8_PAGE-11.jpg
Now it is true that, in each of the age groupings [five year segments], the Asian-Americans gained from 100K to 200K between 2000 and 2006.
Yet they retained their very ugly Baby Boom bulge, with a much-lower-than-replacement-level fertility rate which is even worse than the lower-than-replacement-level fertility rate of Caucasian-Americans.
So we seem to be in a bizarre situation where our Asian-American population is growing - not because our own Asian-Americans are making babies, but because we are importing Asian immigrant families, and, furthermore, while those Asian immigrant families come with [presumably foreign-born] children, those [presumably foreign-born] children reflect a much-lower-than-replacement-level fertility rate.
Does anyone have any statistics on who these Asian families are which we are importing?
Are they primarily from China? India? Pakistan? Indonesia?
[I would guess that Filipinos fall into the Census Bureau's "Native Hawaiian, Other Pacific Islander" category, although I'm not sure about that.]
Have Muslims come to dominate our "Asian" immigration, as they do in Europe?
How does e.g. immigration by Muslims to Dearborn, Michigan, compare to immigration by Pacific Rim PhD's to Silicon Valley?
Steve I don't understand why you say Obama must win 2 out 5 white votes to win. I would assume he'd have to get more than that. Given the paucity of the Black vote and Latinos splitting at least.
Second, Obama's gun-grabbing proposals are likely to have the NRA roll out the mother of all get-out-the-vote for McCain. Obama's on record for ban/confiscation of all handguns and semi-auto rifles.
Third, Biden's pushing Obama's "Global Tax" on Americans for billions in foreign aid. In a recession. Giving money to foreigners is never popular. Nor are his Kyoto (job killing, and white union job killing at that) proposals a winner.
I think you lump "whiterpeople" into one big bin. The Apple-obsessed yuppies crowding the Apple Store still have not pushed Macs to more than IIRC 3% of all PCs and Laptops. Obama is likely to lose massively Southern and Western Whites (Republicans anyway). Along with Union white workers in the Mid West and NE. Also white Catholic voters (Irish, Poles, Italians etc.). The Post-ethnic/regional "Friends" votes yes he'll get. But that's a boutique vote.
Finally, Iran. You don't have to like or endorse GWB to realize America has enemies, who really do go out of their way to try and kill us. Obama's against the (reasonable to me) bill that would not require a court order to listen in on foreigners who's comms happen to pass through the US.
Never figured the Constitution applied to foreigners in foreign countries. Probably not a winner there either.
Don't rule out Iran doing something monumentally stupid and/or aggressive due to internal politics. During first a threat of war (with Saddam and Soviet Backing) then actual war Iran went out of it's way to threaten to try/execute our hostages.
McCain "bomb Iran" would be popular. No one cared much when Clinton bombed Serbia for less cause. Don't mistake rejection of Bush's "ME safe for Democracy" for Carter-style appeasement.
Most voters would figure (tribally) that Iran had it coming and it was payback. Clinton actually went up when he bombed Serbia. No one cared then either.
I don't see McCain beating Obama. I don't think the American people are prepared to vote a septugenarian into office. He has all the charm of Bob Dole, but without the sense of humor. Bob Dole, as you may remember, ran on the stirring slogan "Bob Dole....because it's my turn, damn it!".
I think McCain will fare far worse, given that most conservatives who pay attention despise him, and he will be carrying the baggage of Bush's two terms in office. He has essentially pledged to be like Bush, but more so. Not a winning strategy.
All Arabs, Persians, Turks etc. are "white" in the Census.
Steve,
You need to get your own TV show. Even with the internet around, most people still seem to watch and believe the stuff coming over the tube. The Obama hype shows how much power the MSM still wields. Or is it the screen?
Whichever way, you need to get a larger audience than the few geeks hanging around your site. I have a suspicion many tv consumers would actually enjoy your show.
A lot of white trade unionists in the Midwest will not vote for Obama. They'll walk into the poll booth with their union endorsements on hand, but they just won't be able to bring themselves to vote for a black guy.
Second that on the TV show idea.
Obama support does seem to have an anti-Boomer undercurrent. Well, Boomers are here to stay for a good long while, and I bet many Boomers would find Steve's style personable and relevant.
If a lot of white trade unionists in the Midwest walk into the voting booth and can't make themselves vote for Obama, it is less likely that it is because of his race than because of his open-borders mania. The head-honchos-in-charge of organized labor may be spouting "bring them out of the shadows" rhetoric but the rank and file know better.
The slaughter house & meatpacking industries used to be some of the best paying industrial jobs in the country. Now, after the surge of illegal aliens that took over this industry from the 80's on, it is largely poorly paid, incredibly dangerous, high turnover work with few benefits.
Third the TV show.
Great article. I think Obama stands to lose more white votes for being black than he will gain. However, McCain and Hillary, with their warmongering, are driving people away.
I'm pretty sure it's more than a few people who think the "War on Islamofascism" is a sham, and that's just about all McCain talks about.
If white people were really so stirred by the need to crush Islamofascism, you'd think having Hussein as a middle name might be more of a liability than it's turned out to be.
Obama is getting the anti-war protest vote. Ron Paul got a good chunk of it, too, and was even the favorite soldiers' candidate. Hillary and McCain don't even talk about ending the war. Whenever they discuss it, it appears both want more of it.
People really think Obama will end the war. That's his best asset. Being black helps him with, I'd assume, about 20% of whites. It probably hurts him with somewhat more than that.
Republicans have won the white vote for 12 of the 13 last elections. The idea that whites would suddenly lose their mind and vote for an untested black liberal instead of a popular "maverick" white guy is difficult to take seriously. He hasn't yet even gotten white Democrats to vote for him in a primary, so he's going to get white Republicans? That's a big "not likely".
Hispanics don't seem likely to vote for him in big numbers, either, and the combination should be deadly. Given that Asians and Hispanics aren't voting for him, and assuming he loses some percentage of white swing voters to McCain, Obama as the Dem nominee puts California in some degree of danger. Add in the Jewish distaste for his pro-Palestinian advisers to the other two, and Florida is a near certainty to go Republican. And he doesn't bring anything to the table in terms of red states--which he won by virtue of caucus, not because of some notion that whites in white states are friendlier to blacks. Caucuses go liberal.
If Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania don't show a big growth in those two groups, I think the Dems will figure out a way to give it to Hillary, probably by bringing in Michigan and Florida.
BTW, Steve, here's a nice blast from the past showing how little value anyone should place in polls or supposed independent support for Democrats.
Hint: there's no ex-President Dukakis.
Sen. Clinton's chance now lies in positioning herself further to the right of Obama on immigration, to mine the motherload of working class white male votes. Irony of ironies. What she'd lose in Latino votes she'd make up for in white male votes.
She's a little to the right of him on this now, but she needs to play it up. It's her big chance, her last chance. Watch this start to happen in the next few days.
I've always thought that the creation of majority minority districts which made the surrounding districts whiter and more Republican was a big reason for the GOP winning Congress in 1994.
Amit
Conservatives have been betrayed by neocon liars who have taken control of conservative instutions and the republican party. People no longer trust the republican party as the party of national security and fiscal prudence after the Iraq war and Bush's profligate spending.
Steve --
In your VDARE article, you estimate the percentage of the white vote that Obama has won by multiplying the percentage of the white vote that goes to Democrats during a general election by the eprcentage of white Dem primary voters he has won.
Is this statistically valid? We know that there are many fewer voters during the primaries than during the general. We also know that primary voters are not "representative" of who votes in the general. So how can you simply multiply these numbers and obtain meaningful results? Especially given the great unknown of how the country as a whole is going tor eact to a black presidential nominee?
^^^In response to the previous post...
"In your VDARE article, you estimate the percentage of the white vote that Obama has won by multiplying the percentage of the white vote that goes to Democrats during a general election by the eprcentage of white Dem primary voters he has won.
Is this statistically valid?"
I wholeheartedly agree. Very very messy math by Steve Sailer by all means. Just because a candidate gets a small percentage of the democratic vote in the primaries does not mean that he will win only "16%" of the white vote. Steve Sailer being as idiotic as usual.
Post a Comment