November 4, 2008

Tomorrow's conventional wisdom debunked yesterday

From yesterday's VDARE.com column (which is where you can find all the documenting links):
We’re going to hear all over again about how crucial the Hispanic vote was to Obama’s win. It’s bunk.

You know—how the GOP killed itself by not favoring open borders abjectly enough, and so forth and so on. Hysterical pundits will announce that the Hispanic tidal wave accounted for 8 or 9 or even 10 percent of the vote!

Then, a year from now, the Census Bureau will quietly announce the results of its huge post-election survey of voting, the gold standard of ethnic voting shares. It will show that the Hispanic share of the vote, which was 5.4 percent in 2000 and 6.0 percent in 2004 actually was only 6.9 percent in 2008, or whatever.

And nobody will pay any attention at all because the fallacious conventional wisdom (10 percent!!!) will already be carved into everybody’s brains.

Moreover, you’ll hear all about how the GOP share of the Hispanic vote dropped from 44 percent in 2004 to, say, 30 percent on Tuesday.

First, as I’ve shown repeatedly, it wasn’t 44 percent in 2004. The exit poll company admitted the mistake several months later. It was about 40 percent.

Second, the reason the GOP even got 40 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004 was because Bush and Rove bought the Hispanic vote via the Great Hispanic Housing Bubble. In part due to Bush’s jihad against down payments on home loans, mortgage dollars borrowed for home purchases by Hispanics increased an insane 691 percent from 1999 to 2006. In 1999, less than 7 percent of first time buyers in California, the black hole of the Bubble, put no money down. By 2004, it was 33 percent, by 2006 a ludicrous 41 percent.

Democrats appealed to Hispanics by being the Tax and Spend party. Bush and Rove resolved that Republicans would win Hispanics over by being the Borrow and Spend party.

And debauching credit standards for Hispanics debauched them for everybody. So there was a huge amount of unneeded construction and remodeling, carried out in large part by Hispanics workers, making Hispanics unusually pleased with the Republican incumbent in 2004.

In 2008, though, as made clear by a recent LA Times article on how Hispanic voters in Las Vegas are trending toward Obama because so many have defaulted on their mortgages, the firehose of Other People’s Money has finally been turned off. And Latinos are returning to their natural political home. [Economic strife drives Latino vote, By Marjorie Miller, October 26, 2008]

The Mortgage Minority Meltdown. The Diversity Recession. And landslide losses anyway. How did the Bush-Rove experiment work out for the GOP—let alone America?

(Cheerful footnote: To combat all this confused thinking, I’ve written a new book about Obama’s life story. As the two parts of the title imply, it contrasts the recent Axelrodian hagiography of Obama as the biracial transcender with the man’s own evasively written but ultimately quite clear autobiography. Thus I call it, in tribute to the upcoming Harry Potter movie, America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s "Story of Race and Inheritance."

If McCain loses (and I'm writing before any of the polls close), the main demographic reason will be that his share of the non-Hispanic white vote (which will make up 3/4ths or more of the total vote) will have fallen versus the GOP's 58 percent in 2004. Bush lost the overall popular vote in 2000 because he only got 54% of the white vote. He won the overall popular vote in 2004 fairly easily because he got 58% of the white vote.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

African electoral practices bring breath of fresh air to America's moribund voting system!

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/213313.html

beowulf said...

Nicole Wallace was just on NBC (8:45 EST) blaming McCain's poor showing among Hispanics to the tone of Republicans in the immigration debate. Which Wallace though was ironic because McCain was "a bright shining star" in the Republican party on immigration.

Hmm, wasn't she one of Rove's WH drones before she went to McCain's campaign? McCain deserved to lose for hiring Bush/Rove hacks to staff his campaign.

Is there any particular reason that Mike Murphy, McCain's sharpest aide in the 2000 GOP race, wasn't back for the 2008 race?

Anonymous said...

Steve let me crunch a few numbers.

In your October 10th article you state that Hispanics were given $29b in purchase mortgages in 1999 and in 2006 they were given $163b. That means that there was about $134b in excess lending to Hispanics during 2006. How many extra votes did that net Bush in 2004? According to this there were 122,267,553 votes cast in the general election in 2004, with your blogpost stating that 6% of those were cast by Hispanics. You also state that Bush pulled 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004 so:

.06*122,267,553=7,336,053 Hispanic votes cast in 2004.

.40*7,336,053=2,934,421 total Hispanic Bush votes.

In 2000 there were 105,405,100 votes cast. In this article you state that Bush won 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000, five points less than he did in 2004. You state in this post that of the votes 5.4 were cast by Hispanics, so:

.054*105,405,100=5,691,875 Hispanic votes cast in 2000

5,691,875*.35=1,992,156 total Hispanic Bush votes in 2000

Bush's increase was:

2,934,421-1,992,156=942,265 extra votes

Now lets's calculate the amount of excess lending to Hispanics for every vote he purchased.

$134b/942,265=$142,210.52 per vote

That means Bush/Rove pushed an extra $142k in excess lending for every extra Hispanic vote they received. I am using 2006 mortgage numbers for the 2004 election, so if you have better numbers please post them.

Please, please recheck my numbers before you quote me. My mind seems very scrambled tonight and I may have made a minor error that may have major consequences. Maybe I drink too much diet soda. Maybe its' late for me, I don't know.

WhiteLiberal said...

Cheer up steve. All is not lost.

One thing that the election of Obama might bring to the forefront, is a more open dialogue in regards to race. Somethings that haven't really been permissible to discuss may be approachable now.

阿牛 said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463690372357037.html

Sebastian said...

Say what you want about Hispanics, McCain's problem was Bush. And Palin.

Anonymous said...

What could have McCain run on anyway though? He was the same, if not worse on immigration. Most people dont like the war and are losing there portfolios or their jobs. What could have helped him? Alaskan Oil Drilling? Thats no way to win the election.

Cest la vie. The Republicans have been stupid. Try something different next time guys.

Reg Cæsar said...

Say, 阿牛... how is the mortgage situation over there in Taiwan?

And is the real reason for Canada's missing out on the worldwide meltdown the Chinese domination of the immigrant housing market?

Mr. Anon said...

"Sebastian said...

Say what you want about Hispanics, McCain's problem was Bush. And Palin."

Palin helped more than she hurt. McCain's problem was.....McCain.

Anonymous said...

WhiteLiberal said...

Cheer up steve. All is not lost.

One thing that the election of Obama might bring to the forefront, is a more open dialog in regards to race. Somethings that haven't really been permissible to discuss may be approachable now.

Why would the Left ever grant 'permission?' The Left wins by constantly suppressing the truth about race and crime. Hell, the Left wins by suppressing reality itself, and getting millions of impressionable young minds captive in indoctrination factories called schools. The Left here in America is probably more effective at getting people to deny reality than the Soviet Union was. At least in the SU they knew that they were not free and were being lied to. No one ever expected that the voters would lie to themselves, so as to bring about 'change.'

Of course this is why we lost the Cold War, we failed to defeat the enemy within.

America 1776-2008, it was an amazing 232 years.

We're fu*ked.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

We’re going to hear all over again about how crucial the Hispanic vote was to Obama’s win. It’s bunk.

No, it's not bunk. It was important to Obama's win. The problem being that outside of doing some really brilliant things, like, say, completely debasing lending standards, there's nothing the GOP could have done to win that vote.

Just look at Arizona. John McCain only won his home state - now less than 60% white - 54-45. In the coming years when an Arizonan is not on the ballot, it - like Nevada and Colorado - will no longer be a reliably conservative state.

The only chance we have of turning this around is when white voters finally wise up to the game that blacks and Hispanics are about. Southerners have known about this for years, but the rest of the nation has yet to catch on.

42% of Nebraskans, for example, voted for affirmative action. In Colorado affirmative action may yet remain in place.

David Davenport said...

Steve, you should comment on the Democrats getting the Asian-American vote.

Glaivester said...

Why would the Left ever grant 'permission?'

I think the point is that more and more people won't care if the left gives them "permission."