Voting data wizard Andrew Gelman has a very good post up: "Where does the Hispanic vote really matter?" reviewing the 2008 election. His conclusion: not too many places.
I said much the same things immediately after the 2000 and 2004 election. Hispanics are not a crucial "swing" vote. They're more of a "flow" vote in that they tend to go with the flow of their white neighbors, just consistently farther to the left. (For example, the high point for the GOP in share of Hispanic vote in House elections was Newt Gingrich's 1994.)
We hear much obsessing over the Hispanic vote, but some of that was a smoke screen made up by Karl Rove. Rove's two big successes -- 2002 and 2004 -- stemmed from mobilizing heavy turnout among white voters and winning a high share of whites. But you aren't supposed to talk about appealing to whites, so Rove did a lot of hand-waving about how Republicans were going to win via Hispanics, and a lot of innumerate journalists bought it.
McCain, the chief Republican spokesman for amnesty in 2006, did poorly in motivating whites to show up and vote, and did mediocre in attracting whites votes, so he lost. Having an economic crash right before the election and the pointlessness of his own campaign other than as a celebration of his vanity no doubt doomed him anyway, but one obvious lesson is that being a famous amnesty enthusiast is a net loser for a Republican candidate -- it doesn't motivate Hispanics (who aren't very excited about making illegal immigration easier, and the ones who are are going to vote Democratic anyway) and it depresses non-Hispanic whites.
In the long run, of course, due to immigration and affirmative action, it's hard to see any successful GOP strategy other than a national version of their success in the South, which is based on carrying 75 percent of the white vote. I think the country would be better off with a competitive two party system in which whites were widely distributed among the two parties, but in the long run, that's unlikely to happen due to immigration. We'll either end up with a competitive system with most whites in one party, or we'll end up with non-competitive, corrupt one-party dominance by the Democrats on the model of the Chicago Machine writ large.
I said much the same things immediately after the 2000 and 2004 election. Hispanics are not a crucial "swing" vote. They're more of a "flow" vote in that they tend to go with the flow of their white neighbors, just consistently farther to the left. (For example, the high point for the GOP in share of Hispanic vote in House elections was Newt Gingrich's 1994.)
We hear much obsessing over the Hispanic vote, but some of that was a smoke screen made up by Karl Rove. Rove's two big successes -- 2002 and 2004 -- stemmed from mobilizing heavy turnout among white voters and winning a high share of whites. But you aren't supposed to talk about appealing to whites, so Rove did a lot of hand-waving about how Republicans were going to win via Hispanics, and a lot of innumerate journalists bought it.
McCain, the chief Republican spokesman for amnesty in 2006, did poorly in motivating whites to show up and vote, and did mediocre in attracting whites votes, so he lost. Having an economic crash right before the election and the pointlessness of his own campaign other than as a celebration of his vanity no doubt doomed him anyway, but one obvious lesson is that being a famous amnesty enthusiast is a net loser for a Republican candidate -- it doesn't motivate Hispanics (who aren't very excited about making illegal immigration easier, and the ones who are are going to vote Democratic anyway) and it depresses non-Hispanic whites.
In the long run, of course, due to immigration and affirmative action, it's hard to see any successful GOP strategy other than a national version of their success in the South, which is based on carrying 75 percent of the white vote. I think the country would be better off with a competitive two party system in which whites were widely distributed among the two parties, but in the long run, that's unlikely to happen due to immigration. We'll either end up with a competitive system with most whites in one party, or we'll end up with non-competitive, corrupt one-party dominance by the Democrats on the model of the Chicago Machine writ large.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
63 comments:
" We'll either end up with a competitive system with most whites in one party, or we'll end up with non-competitive, corrupt one-party dominance by the Democrats on the model of the Chicago Machine writ large."
It would take -much- to get back the SWPLS into the GOP fold. I have predicted that the new generation of latinas that do indeed speak English will be getting officegirl, salesgirl, waitress-n-service jobs and competing directly with white women in the near future, which will make some Affirmative Action losers out of some white gals who never had a cross-thought about AA, but how many votes is that atually likely to win considering the Dems will always be the party of Big-Daddy-Gov, and married women start voting GOP anyway? Not many.
The only rationale I can think of for open-borders GOP enthusiasts who are intellectually honest and think we can win the latino vote is that they believe the new latino voters can be Jesus-mongered with religion like the working-class white churchgoers are in many circumstances. I dont see it happening because many very personally-conservative blacks sit in churches and still vote overwhelmingly for the Dems. The latter scenario as presented by Steve would seem to be the trend. M
i sometimes have conversations with white friends who vote democrat, trying to understand why.
it doesn't make sense anymore, and i'm starting to see signs that some of them are starting to get it, and are going through the no doubt painful process of racial awakening. in the past, this would just be called common sense. but european americans are brainwashed on a daily basis these days, so it takes 30 to 40 years of life experience and deprogramming to get them to see things that would be obvious to their ancestors only 100 years ago.
no doubt some white american men will continue to vote democrat until the day they die, but at least not all of them are oblivious to what the democrats have planned for them.
white women on the other hand, are probably a permanent, solid base for democrats. they'll never make the connection between how hostile the democrats are towards white americans, and what that means for their own children. perhaps some become conservative after having children, but i have my doubts after dealing with them for 30 years.
Steve, here is a suggestion for a post:
Here in California we have high state taxes, including the highest state income tax in the USA, so many people assume we have a big state government. Not so.
In fact California is right in the middle, #26, in per capita state government spending.
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=32&cat=1
What we have here, as a result of a huge immigrant underclass that is too poor to tax, is very high state taxes on the rest of the population but only an average level of government services.
And our average level of state spending is about to go below average since the state needs to make big cuts to order to balance the budget.
Vermont, which lacks California's diversity, enjoys much higher state services for its residents even though their taxes are lower than they are here.
The tipping point occurs when whites lose control of the Democratic party.
Even very Democratic and liberal areas will vote for a white Republican over a minority candidate.
Some recent examples are Giuliani and Bloomberg in NYC, Riordan in LA, and Cruz Bustamante v. Steve Poizner in the 2006 race for Cal. Insurance Commissioner.
This last race didn't get too much attention, but other than Arnold was the only race the dems lost in California in 2006, and also the only race where a Hispanic won the dem primary.
The white (plus one Chinese) Democratic candidates all won handily, but Bustamante was crushed by the Republican 47.5 to 36.0. Two left wing parties, Greens and Peace and Freedom, got a combined 5% of the vote, which probably came from whites who didn't want to vote for either a hispanic or a Republican.
The Dem machine survives in Chicago because it is run by the Daley family.
Steve,
According to a Gallup analysis, what the GOP is losing big is the college grad vote --
http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx?CSTS=alert
white women on the other hand, are probably a permanent, solid base for democrats. they'll never make the connection between how hostile the democrats are towards white americans, and what that means for their own children.
Hey iStevers,
don't go all Testing99 about how white women are politically hopeless!
According to CNN's 2004 exit polls, white women voted 55% for Bush in 2004, compared to 62% of white men voting GOP.
I see more potential conflict between white and NAM democrats than between NAM democrats and white republicans.
The reason for this is that most white republicans live in relatively homogenous places, where AA isn't such a big threat. As for white democrats, they could be impoverished by an inflexible AA regime, because they will be pushed out the growing state sector job market.
In Seattle, for example, eveyone votes democrat, but you should hear the whites here howl whenever their jobs, safety or lifestyle are negatively impacted by NAMs. It is as though there are already two democratic parties -- the middle class white one and the NAM. The republicans simply represent the rural parts of the state.
McCain didn't lose because of amnesty, or because he didn't attract enough white voters. He lost because George W. Bush was the W*O*R*S*T P*R*E*S*I*D*E*N*T E*V*E*R, and as a result a great many people weren't going to vote for anyone whose name ended in (R).
The same thing happened 40 years earlier, when Lyndon Johnson's massive unpopularity left no chance for any Democrat in the 1968 election.
Isn't the Hispanic population increasing faster than the white population? It seems likely that this population IS going to matter in the election, and probably more and more as the years go by. The GOP folks are digging their own grave by getting all hysterical about Sotomayor.
Admittedly I have very limited experience with Latinos (in Canada). On tv most of them look quite white. I often can't tell them apart from Europeans.
Does it seem that Latinos more are prone to alcoholism and drug addiction than Europeans? I ask because the aboriginal people in Canada are extremely prone to addiction. Probably more than half of them are alcoholics--perhaps considerably more. In some communities almost everyone is alcoholic. However, it is not considered acceptable to mention this fact, unless you say something about the addiction being caused by evil white people building residential schools.
There is so much addiction and so much fetal alcohol syndrome in the aboriginal population that it would be impossible to figure out what the average IQ of this population actually would be without the alcohol.
I'm wondering if the same might be true of the Latinos. I would guess, since they seem to have a lot of European genes, that the Latinos are not as prone to addiction as full-blooded aboriginals.
The thing is, it is possible that a cure for addiction can be found, and this would probably lead to a big increase in IQ and general ability to be productive, amongs aboriginals, or mixed aboriginal/European, and maybe among blacks too.
It seems to be even more taboo to talk about racial differences in addiction rates than to talk about racial differences in IQ. There seem to have been very few studies or research in this area (other than silly stuff saying alcoholism is caused by poverty and racism, when in fact more likely the opposite is true).
But I found one article about it at Scientific American. Note how the author tip-toes around the word "race", saying:
---------------------------
The coga project has been structured around families, but this type of research has also strengthened understanding of the relative importance of specific gene variants as risk factors in different ethnic groups. This is not to say that certain ethnicities are more prone to alcoholism; instead, like the ALDH1 gene version that makes many East Asians intolerant of alcohol, certain of the genetic variants that contribute to risk are much more prevalent in some ethnic groups than in others. The knowledge that such genes are likely to be influencing dependence in patients belonging to one of these populations is another tool that can be used to assess the nature of an individual's problem and to tailor treatment accordingly.
Our research group recently discovered, for example, that variation in a gene encoding a receptor involved in taste perception, known as hTAS2R16, is significantly linked to alcoholism in the COGA subjects. The risk variant, which causes decreased sensitivity to many bitter taste compounds, is uncommon in European Americans, whereas 45 percent of African-Americans carry this version, making it a much more significant risk factor in that population.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seeking-the-connections-alcoholism-and-our-genes&page=5
I put up a comment on 538 about this. I agree that Republicans' ONLY strategy in the future is to win larger and larger majorities of the white vote. Opposing amnesty, affirmative action, being slightly more populist economically, and socially federalist. I'm around lots of young white people and most don't understand that the Democratic party is completely against their interests. It may take a while for it to seep in. But it's possible Obama will hasten it with more moves like the Sotomayor pick. I mean goodness gracious, if you're white and you don't get that your control is endangered in this country by now, you might be hopeless.
For white women, white men need to begin to pressure them and subtlely shame them if they continue to vote for the Blaxican party.
"The tipping point occurs when whites lose control of the Democratic party.
...
The Dem machine survives in Chicago because it is run by the Daley family."
Yep. So the national Dem Party will be "run" by white figureheads while the real powerbrokers will be black. Oh wait a minute, that's impossible.
"I see more potential conflict between white and NAM democrats than between NAM democrats and white republicans. "
Yes. Both scenarios can co-exist at least for a while.
"In Seattle, for example, eveyone votes democrat, but you should hear the whites here howl whenever their jobs, safety or lifestyle are negatively impacted by NAMs."
Yeah but what do they DO aside from how?
"It is as though there are already two democratic parties -- the middle class white one and the NAM. The republicans simply represent the rural parts of the state."
Again, yes, but I wonder what the future will bring. I think that we are slowly stumbling our way to race realism, but by the time most whites have woken up, blacks and Hispanics will outnumber them, and NAMs will have taken the plum jobs.
As Salon said, "So Long White boy." Thing is, it'll be "so long white girl" too, only white women are too dense to see this right now.
I get a lot of people to think sensibly by pointing out the massive looming threat to the national parks.
Here's a slightly different question...
Can ANYONE---Steve or a commenter---provide a persuasive reason why "white people" should vote for the Republicans? Something a little more powerful than "those other guys are even WORSE!"
Bob said has it right, whites will become a fith wheel minority faster in the Democratic Party then anywhere else. It will be bad enough that money and jobs will be lost to less competent people but the fact is they will be getting nothing for their money. The precious environment, unions, gays, and Jews will all get booted to the side once whity ain't n control no more.
Hey, "those other guys are even WORSE!" is the single most credible campaign slogan in history.
"In Seattle, for example, eveyone votes democrat, but you should hear the whites here howl whenever their jobs, safety or lifestyle are negatively impacted by NAMs."
Yeah but what do they DO aside from how?Hire more cops, hold candlelight vigils for victims, write anonymous anti-NAM posts in local neighborhood and newspaper blogs, and occasionally throw tantrums in community meetings.
Sometimes, they also manage to arrest NAM politicians for various indiscretions (e.g. DUI, domestic violence, graft).
The precious environment, unions, gays, and Jews will all get booted to the side once whity ain't n control no more.
Ha, Ha---yes, indeedy!
Poor, poor Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod! They're merely symbolic and highly visible fig-leafs, while his Geniusitude Barack secretly pulls the strings and crafts all his nefarious plots...
testing99's claim about women's attitudes towards immigration inspired me to do some GSS spelunking here.
The only problem with scaring people about the "Daley machine" is that the city of Chicago functions quite well and it would be one of the most desirable places in America to live were it not for the bitter cold.
I have pointed out repeatedly to my liberal gay and feminist friends that they are playing with fire by blindly supporting the Democratic party in its AA and open borders policies. They have this stupid idea that they will always have a seat at the MAIN table at the feast.
That is why even though I basically support gay marriage, I was pleased to see Prop 8 in CA pass, primarily as a result of black and Hispanic high turnout as a result of Obama.
Problem is that they will likely win on a propostion to legalize gay marriage in 2010 because blacks will not be pouring out the way they did for Obama in 2008. This will lull white liberals into beliving that they still can make the magic happen.
This is very similar to what has happened to organized labor for the last 12-15 years. The Dems take their money and their voter turnout and then screw them royally in general. True, the leadership gets to go to some great parties on the Hill and get an award or two in the process, often at the same time that they give campaign money or grants of some kind to politicians and organizations that have no more interest in working class people than I do in where images of the Virgin Mary are appearing on kitchen walls.
This could go on for a while and my fear is that they will wake up too late to be of any help in reversing the trend. Looks more like a third-world disaster every day....
"white women on the other hand, are probably a permanent, solid base for democrats. "
In the upcoming Judiciary confirmation hearings, the "outs" have to simply ask, "Judge Sotomayor, what would you say to a white mother who has a white son and wishes to know if he'd stand a chance to get a fair shake from you?"
I know, I know-- the question is not about to make Ms. Sotomayor shake in her shoes, and that's the point--it's a fair, polite question, but it puts out there the question that white mothers ought to be thinking about if only it got an airing in the MSM.
You ask about white women? You have to go at them through their kids. The average woman is not thinking about Sonia Sotomayor, may not even know what this woman said in the past so if you are the Repubs you have to non-belligerently let white women know what Ms. Sotomayor has essentially said about their white sons. Rush Limbaugh's rants are great for males, but a woman prefers a more "respectful" approach.
It won't change a thing when it comes to the confirmation vote, but it will be THE question that can become the vanguard of questions to come in the next 1-4 years. That question alone CAN light a fire, change the tide, cause white women to think about AA on a personal levle. It can cause them to re-think the fairness of the policies of the Dems.
This message has to be a steady drumbeat for the next several years and it shouldn't be hard to deliver the message: White mothers--your sons are being asked to carry bags of lead.
RKU said...
Can ANYONE---Steve or a commenter---provide a persuasive reason why "white people" should vote for the Republicans? Something a little more powerful than "those other guys are even WORSE!"
First we kill the Democratic Party, or at least throw it out of most offices, then in more conservative areas like Texas we build a new party to the right of the Republicans. Just killing the electoral vehicle of the Left will make right wing opinions more acceptable in public debates.
"Admittedly I have very limited experience with Latinos (in Canada). On tv most of them look quite white. I often can't tell them apart from Europeans."
Please don't take this the wrong way, but you've just demonstrated the HUGE obstacle to getting sensible sensible laws on these issues: gullibility.
Yes, on TV the Hispanics are all tall and white. On TV the Blacks are all doctors and lawyers. On TV, the fat white guys are all married to hot, skinny blondes. On TV, the good guys always win in the end, and everybody learns a lesson.
Nobody believes everything they see on TV but it does influence our worldview. The people of Mexico, especially the people fleeing Mexico for the US, are much shorter and much browner than the ones on TV.
As Salon said, "So Long White boy." Thing is, it'll be "so long white girl" too, only white women are too dense to see this right now.I think the problem is that women especially dont seem to see the difference between an event and a process.
So, these few NAMs are OK so therefore unlimited immigration and high birth rates down the line and all that entails must be OK too. But, in fact, in some completely unexplained way they dont mean anything at all!
TGGP, I'm aware of the GSS surveys. Frankly, they contradict exit surveys on pretty much every immigration issue and certainly the well known Gender Gap for women preferring Dems to Reps.
I can't see any data on Prop. 187, but from memory it was VERY popular among men and married women, and very unpopular among single White Women.
As for Anon's comments, that's still a gap of seven points, and the notable factor in the election (with the most radical, anti-American, anti-White candidate ever) was the huge increase in unmarried women, the majority now. Plus the trend towards later and later marriage, few if any children, for White women. Including a massive increase in illegitamcy. One link here.
Support in Europe correlates highly with lots of unwed mothers (rates 66-50%). It's not shocking. Women face little competition from Latinas, Wise or Not. Meanwhile, cheap nannies.
Jody is right, single women are hopeless. They know single motherhood is bad for kids, still do it. Because it's a government playground economy for women. Heck even Madison Avenue has not had massive layoffs like Wall Street, and Advertising is a gay/female ghetto.
For this, the GOP must focus on White Men who lose in Obama's Government-everything Economy with Affirmative Action.
More links here and here. The latter, a WSJ article and editorial, notes that there is a big increase among non-College educated women having illegitimate kids. Yet College Educated women by and large support that (see the opinion survey in the article).
The Republican Party is a non-starter for most single Women because it is pro-White Guy. And no one is more anti-White guy than single women, who face both workplace competition outside government, and unwanted sexual attention (from the 90% of men who are not Alpha) from Joe Average White Guy.
It's not just a racial angle, but a Gender one as well. WHY does Salon and Dems want "So Long White Boy?" Duh. Because the entire Democratic alliance is based on anti-White guy stuff like AA and increased Government employment (No White Guys need apply). Of course like everything else, that's a strength and a weakness. But no, Republicans will never pull significant amounts of White women because they are single, and staying single for longer (delayed marriage). When they do marry, they often divorce (another aspect of delayed marriage).
[i]What we have here, as a result of a huge immigrant underclass that is too poor to tax, is very high state taxes on the rest of the population but only an average level of government services.[/i]
I think it was Bear-Stearns that came out with a study about 5 years ago that claimed that up to 30% of the workers in LA county are paid under the table for cash.
[i]Isn't the Hispanic population increasing faster than the white population? It seems likely that this population IS going to matter in the election, and probably more and more as the years go by. The GOP folks are digging their own grave by getting all hysterical about Sotomayor. [/i]
The GOP is indeed between a rock and a hard place in regard to future demographics. But they only have themselves to blame.
On a side note, I spent the day with my wife wandering around the "garment district" in downtown Los Angeles. What a zoo that was. I felt as though I had been magically transported to the bazaars on the side streets of Tijuana Mexico. In 4 hours walking, I saw perhaps 10 White people.
Melykin,
"Latino" is another one of those grossly inapt terms, like "Hispanic."
Central and South America are populated by 1) so-called indigenous peoples, direct descendants of the tribes that migrated over the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska, i.e., Aztecs, Mayans and others; 2) mestizos, mixed-breed indigenous and Spaniard descended; and 3) people who are largely Spanish descended with very little indigenous or mestizo blood.
This third group constitutes the Central and South American ruling class. They are enthusiastically exporting groups 1 and 2 here.
You talk about your low IQ, dysfunctional indigenous Canadians, well, that's basically what we're importing by the bushel from Mexico. So far any way, they've got only a bit less social pathology and a work ethic, probably thanks to Catholicism.
The phenotypes you're seeing on Univision and CNN are Spanish-descended citizens of Central and South America. The indigenous are those thick-waisted, cinammon-colored folks with jet black hair who are about five to five-and-one-half feet tall.
I swear, the Northern US and Canada are in for the shock of their lives when they see what's headed their way from the Sun Belt. They'll be spluttering and spitting all over themselves, "But, but ... you never TOLD us!"
Consider yourself told.
>I get a lot of people to think sensibly by pointing out the massive looming threat to the national parks.<
Indeed. If the topic of immigration happens to come up among friends and acquaintances, I like to mention that an Open Borders policy inevitably means that by the middle of this century we will have an extra hundred and fifty million people in this country. How do we slash greenhouse gas emissions and conserve scarce oil reserves while our population swells by fifty percent? Where will all that extra fresh water come from? And so on and so forth.
This line of argument succeeds with many people—even some liberals—in a way that talk about human biodiversity and the drawbacks of multiculturalism simply won’t. And it doesn’t get you labeled as some sort of racist ogre, either.
The USA will go the way of the Soviet Union in a few years, so this discussion is pointless.
The way to get white women to vote Republican is to marry them and have children with them. The married with kids white demo votes reliably Republican.
How it today's Neocon-controlled GOP a party worth voting for? It's hard to imagine Obama's tenure being more incompetent than Bush's. More anti-white racist sure, but that is probably not the biggest issue facing voting whites.
It's hard to imagine Obama doing something as stupid as buying the Neocon propaganda by destroying the only secular, pro-Western state in the Middle East to bring "Democracy" to the Middle East. It's hard to image the Neocon's GOP picks, first Guilliani then McCain and now Palin, being anything but a sequel of Bush or even worse (I'm looking at you Guilliani and Palin).
I think a lot of traditional conservative whites would rather see a out of power GOP opposition that is less Neocon than a GOP in power under the domination of the Neocons. The same Neocons who have led the US into the worst foreign policies of our history and are worse than the Dems in most issue (open boarders, deficit spending, PC nonsense) since they destroy any organized GOP resistence.
Right now we are set up for a political seesaw, Repubs go down, Dems go up. Dems go down, Repubs go up. However, I think the coming economic storms will wipe out the political map as we know it. When the money is gone, or devalued to crippling levels, things will be ripe for big change.
Some other factors to consider, will black people participate in great numbers if the Obama administration is a bust?
king S.
Bob's analysis of state spending neglected to factor in local spending. If that is done, for FY 2006, California ranks 4th highest among the states, according to a study by the Tax Foundation: http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/276.html
Cali probably ranked even higher in FY 2007 and FY 2008 (just ending) as Arnold and the Democrats goosed spending, but probably lower for FY 2009 (beginning July 1) as spending is cut. It still will be high.
Bob is right about the impact of poor immigrants on the state's finances. But the state's incredible weather and other amenities still attract and keep the rich and talented willing to be flogged by the 10.55% top state income tax and 9.55% cap gains tax (on top of federal taxes).
Although some jobs and businesses are being killed by the high taxes, as I detailed in a previous blog here, Steve Jobs and the Google boys ain't leaving.
Gelman probably overestimates the Hispanic vote in California. According to the Public Policy Institute of California,
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_LatinoVotersJTF.pdf
it is only 15%
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1024/exit-poll-analysis-hispanics
And the California Hispanic vote was 18%, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
Isn't the Hispanic population increasing faster than the white population? It seems likely that this population IS going to matter in the election, and probably more and more as the years go by. The GOP folks are digging their own grave by getting all hysterical about Sotomayor.Stating the obvious -- The GOP is digging its own grave by failing to stop the increase in the Hispanic population.
"Gelman probably overestimates the Hispanic vote in California."
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates are higher than the what the 2008 Hispanic voter turnout actually was by about 2 points.
steve,
is it possible that a bloodless revolution occurs in which rational whites in the upper half of the income distribution find some way to opt out of the current government? it was one thing to impose a liberal economic regime back in the 50s, and something else in the higher IQ world of today, with the benefit of the last 50 years of history. it is almost insulting to have a rehash of the 30s or 70s foisted on us by the glad democrats. wouldn't it be better to reconstitute a government, forcing judges to pass a screening for rational habits of mind, and politicians to pass an MRI screen for corruption proclivity and such like? from a police enforcement standpoint, what would happen if people just didn't pay their taxes in revolt, and certain "free banks" simply didn't report to the govt. anymore, certain state governors simply didn't imprison people with owing taxes? do achieving whites have the moxie for the showdown with the non-violent democrats? isn't a little revolution now and then a good thing?
John Seiler:
That's interesting because it seems like I get hosed by the state and don't pay much in city taxes. Property taxes are limited by prop 13, I pay 9.4% to the state, and 6.75 to the state and about 2% to the local jurisdictions.
I am suprised to hear these words come out of Meg Whitman's mouth:
"We have to prosecute illegal aliens and criminal illegal aliens in all of our cities, in every part of California"
Even better, she said this to the press at the Moscone Center in SF.
First we kill the Democratic Party, or at least throw it out of most offices, then in more conservative areas like Texas we build a new party to the right of the Republicans.
Yeah, because that's clearly the direction the electorate is headed - to the right. As the recent election result prove, younger people and well-educated people are all flocking to the conservative POV. If the Republicans can become even more associated in the public mind with the far right, then the Party will triumph for sure.
Do you live in Texas? Because I can't imagine that anyone outside that state could seriously see it as a model for how to succeed anywhere else except possibly Oklahoma.
I haven't seen any responses that address the central crisis of the Repubs right now, which is illustrated in the article Richard A. links to: Smart people have deserted the party in droves. I'm surprised that the iSteve crowd, usually so astute on matters of intelligence and social distinctions, is ignoring this obvious and critical fact.
Instead of focusing on how to lure white women back to the Republican Party, maybe it would be more productive to think about how to get more intelligent people back to the Party. One useful step would be to end the strong identification of Republicans with ignorant yahoos.
Hispanics have constituted a plurality of all school children in California since the 1996-97 school year:
Enrollment by Ethnicity in Public Schools
ed-data.k12.ca.us
Hispanics now constitute an absolute majority [roughly 51.3 %] of all second graders in California:
California Standardized Testing And Reporting (STAR) Program
star.cde.ca.gov
And the California Department of Finance projects that in 2040, the numbers will look like this:
CALIFORNIA.XLS
dof.ca.gov
0-4 years of age
Hispanic: 2,299,429
White: 777,318
Asian: 388,886
Black: 162,808
Multirace: 90,559
Pacific Islander: 19,461
American [???] Indian: 16,010
"I have pointed out repeatedly to my liberal gay and feminist friends that they are playing with fire by blindly supporting the Democratic party in its AA and open borders policies"
Nah, Latinos may mumble under their breath about homos but will team up with the liberal elite and accept them as part of the anti-white alliance. NAMs voted against gay marriage, but who got it on the ballot?
The president of Brazil called "homophobia" a "mental disease" not too long ago. In Mexico,the situation is similar to the US.In a ParametrÃa poll, respondents were asked if they would support a constitutional amendment that would legalize same-sex marriage; 17% responded yes, 61% said no and 14% had no opinion.[6] The same poll showed 28% in support of same-sex civil unions, 41% were opposed and 28% had no opinion.Despite that, Mexico City has civil unions and so does the state Coahuila. Other states are going to follow. Jose Sixpack's opinions don't matter. Latin America's elites follow the lead of the elites of the white world.
Now the Muslim population in Europe is going to be a different story...
HBD Books
I agree that Republicans' ONLY strategy in the future is to win larger and larger majorities of the white vote. Opposing amnesty, affirmative action, being slightly more populist economically, and socially federalist. -- John.
Why can't the GOP shoot for a cross-racial "anti-diversity" vote? Hispanics barely trouble themselves to hide their disdain for blacks, and probably don't think too highly of Asians either. Giving them the option to legally separate themselves and assume "ownership of their communities" could prove a winner. The same could work on blacks but would suffer from historical associations. I don't see any reason Asians would stand it its way other than suspicions about "what it's really about." Few people have much love for Muslims so that's another across-the-board anti-diversity winner.
It would be better if the Republican party just up and died. As long as it exists as an ersatz conservative party, it just sucks the air out of the room which might otherwise support a real conservative party.
It is worth bearing in mind, that the Republican party was not founded as a conservative party (Lincoln, you remember - not exactly a leave well-enough-alone sort of guy), nor has it been one for most of it's history. It really could only be called one during the period from roughly 1909 to 1952 - after the progressive era of Roosevelt, and before the internationalist, New Deal compatible era of Eisenhower and Nixon.
Republicum Delenda Est.
So PPIC says it was 15%, your source says 16%, Pew says 18%, and Gelman's source is the outlier at 22%.
The Republican Party is a non-starter for most single Women because it is pro-White Guy._________________
Bull. Shit.
In the first place, the GOP is the party of globalism and fiscal and trade deficits. In the second place, if you stood up and told the party delegates that the Republican Party was "pro-white Guy," you'd get thrown out quicker than you can say "Michael Steele."
McCain and Palin are yesterday's news. Gingrich is the neocon's new darling. Gingrich recent conversion to Catholicism is suspiciously well timed for his 2012 presidential run. The republican party cannot win without the Catholic vote. Neocon slimeballs will keep scheming to control the Republican party.
Many white people in the North are turned off by the fundamentalist/Southern/redneck bent of the modern GOP. Most of the these people are not SWPL types either. If Palin or Huckabee wins the GOP nomination in 2012, expect a historic landslide defeat.
RKU:
A good reason would be nice but still a luxury.
What it comes down to is that "but those other guys are even worse" is a damn good reason (and, maybe, most times, the only good reason).
Will the electoral prospects of white female Democratic politicians like Hillary Clinton get worse over time, and will that cause more of them to shift to the GOP?
"Will the electoral prospects of white female Democratic politicians like Hillary Clinton get worse over time,"
Absolutely! Don't expect the Bobbsey Twins of CA - and they are getting old - to be replaced by 2 more white liberal women. Won't happen. And Hispanic men are not what I'd call feminists.
"and will that cause more of them to shift to the GOP?
To the GOP? Maybe not, but away from the majority minority Democratic Party? Quite likely.
Melykin said:
Isn't the Hispanic population increasing faster than the white population? It seems likely that this population IS going to matter in the election, and probably more and more as the years go by. The GOP folks are digging their own grave by getting all hysterical about Sotomayor.
Why should the GOP remain silent on Sotamayor? To roll over and simply concede would be a mistake.
Does it seem that Latinos more are prone to alcoholism and drug addiction than Europeans? I ask because the aboriginal people in Canada are extremely prone to addiction. Probably more than half of them are alcoholics--perhaps considerably more. In some communities almost everyone is alcoholic. However, it is not considered acceptable to mention this fact, unless you say something about the addiction being caused by evil white people building residential schools. .. I'm wondering if the same might be true of the Latinos. I would guess, since they seem to have a lot of European genes, that the Latinos are not as prone to addiction as full-blooded aboriginals.
Nonsensical. One of the biggest examples of people "prone" to substance abuse are white people, namely the white Irish.
The thing is, it is possible that a cure for addiction can be found, and this would probably lead to a big increase in IQ and general ability to be productive, amongs aboriginals, or mixed aboriginal/European, and maybe among blacks too.
More nonsense.
It seems to be even more taboo to talk about racial differences in addiction rates than to talk about racial differences in IQ. There seem to have been very few studies or research in this area (other than silly stuff saying alcoholism is caused by poverty and racism, when in fact more likely the opposite is true).
If what you say is true, how do you account for the well documented pattern of substance abuse among white groups like the Irish?
JODY said:
sometimes have conversations with white friends who vote democrat, trying to understand why.
it doesn't make sense anymore, and i'm starting to see signs that some of them are starting to get it, and are going through the no doubt painful process of racial awakening. in the past, this would just be called common sense. but european americans are brainwashed on a daily basis these days, so it takes 30 to 40 years of life experience and deprogramming to get them to see things that would be obvious to their ancestors only 100 years ago.
no doubt some white american men will continue to vote democrat until the day they die, but at least not all of them are oblivious to what the democrats have planned for them.
white women on the other hand, are probably a permanent, solid base for democrats. they'll never make the connection between how hostile the democrats are towards white americans, and what that means for their own children. perhaps some become conservative after having children, but i have my doubts after dealing with them for 30 years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed that a lot of brainwashing is provided by the media and cultural elites. But two things in relation to your points:
1) Whites will continue to vote Democrat in large numbers because they find it beneficial to do so. There are numerous jobs and areas of influence created by Dem control of various areas, hence it is in the self interest of white people to continue doing so. Most schoolteachers for example are white, and they have reaped nice benefits from being associated with the Dem party. Do you think they will give up such benefits?
2) Your second point on white women relates to my first. White women will increasingly make up a large part of the Democrat governing majority. Why:
a) For one thing, the biggest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action are white women, not blacks.
b) Dems have created an attractive package of jobs and benefits for white women that make it in their self-interest to keep voting Democrat. As in my example above, school-teachers, most of whom are whit women, benefit nicely from Dem control.
Bill said:
I see more potential conflict between white and NAM democrats than between NAM democrats and white republicans.
The reason for this is that most white republicans live in relatively homogenous places, where AA isn't such a big threat. As for white democrats, they could be impoverished by an inflexible AA regime, because they will be pushed out the growing state sector job market.
AA is not that much of a threat to whites as a whole, because the biggest beneficiaries are white women. White males are the ones in trouble primarily, but not from the much ballyhooed bogeymen of Blacks or Hispanics. White women are doing well also in many fields. They outnumber men on college campuses and ern more degrees. They are concentrated in sectors of the economy like eudcation, government and service industries less affected by the economic downturn. White men have comparatively little to fear from blacks and hispanics, compared to white women in terms of jobs and education.
Anon said:
Anonymous said...
Bob said has it right, whites will become a fith wheel minority faster in the Democratic Party then anywhere else. It will be bad enough that money and jobs will be lost to less competent people but the fact is they will be getting nothing for their money. The precious environment, unions, gays, and Jews will all get booted to the side once whity ain't n control no more.
Who said " money and jobs will be lost to less competent people"? In fact Asians may be doing a better job with much better qualifications on a number of fronts than whites.
And who says white people arent getting a lot for their money? To the contrary they are. Dem rule has created quite profitable areas for white people- education and government for example. And these areas will be getting even bigger in the future.
And you say unions, the environment and gays booted to the side under this mythical Hispanic/Black takeover? Very dubious...
Testing99 says:
As for Anon's comments, that's still a gap of seven points, and the notable factor in the election (with the most radical, anti-American, anti-White candidate ever) was the huge increase in unmarried women, the majority now. Plus the trend towards later and later marriage, few if any children, for White women. Including a massive increase in illegitamcy. One link here.
Support in Europe correlates highly with lots of unwed mothers (rates 66-50%). It's not shocking. Women face little competition from Latinas, Wise or Not. Meanwhile, cheap nannies. Jody is right, single women are hopeless. They know single motherhood is bad for kids, still do it. Because it's a government playground economy for women. Heck even Madison Avenue has not had massive layoffs like Wall Street, and Advertising is a gay/female ghetto.
For this, the GOP must focus on White Men who lose in Obama's Government-everything Economy with Affirmative Action.
-------------
Agreed as to female influence. that's why I earlier said that those who posit a massive black/hispanic threat are missing the more subtle point. Its white women that are more relevant competitors. But " Obama's Government-everything Economy with Affirmative Action" is hardly Obama's. It has been around long before Obama, and put in place by white people. Also to consider, that while white men will take their hits, Dem hegemony also opens up other areas that benefit white men, as in many union situations for example.
The Republican Party is a non-starter for most single Women because it is pro-White Guy. And no one is more anti-White guy than single women, who face both workplace competition outside government, and unwanted sexual attention (from the 90% of men who are not Alpha) from Joe Average White Guy.
It's not just a racial angle, but a Gender one as well. WHY does Salon and Dems want "So Long White Boy?" Duh. Because the entire Democratic alliance is based on anti-White guy stuff like AA and increased Government employment (No White Guys need apply). Of course like everything else, that's a strength and a weakness. But no, Republicans will never pull significant amounts of White women because they are single, and staying single for longer (delayed marriage). When they do marry, they often divorce (another aspect of delayed marriage).
Agreed as to it not being the much ballyhooed racial angle. bUT also to consider, its not just single white women that are the problem. A lotof married white women benefit from Dem hegemony. Most schoolteachers for example are white, married females and they overwhelmingly vote Dem. As to single women being anti-white guy, since you mention sexual attention, this is questionable, at least on the romantic front. Indeed the call "on the market" is for even more white guys, so as to increase the pool of prospects that single women draw from. But politically, there is much to agree with in some of your arguments.
John says:
John said...
I put up a comment on 538 about this. I agree that Republicans' ONLY strategy in the future is to win larger and larger majorities of the white vote. Opposing amnesty, affirmative action, being slightly more populist economically, and socially federalist. I'm around lots of young white people and most don't understand that the Democratic party is completely against their interests. It may take a while for it to seep in. But it's possible Obama will hasten it with more moves like the Sotomayor pick. I mean goodness gracious, if you're white and you don't get that your control is endangered in this country by now, you might be hopeless.
Overstated I think. I doubt fundamental white control overall is endangered. SOME whites, particularly those at lower socio-economic levels may be, but overall the "blaxican" threat may not be all that. For one thing, whites themselves are the ones that put many of the above measures in place, including AA or ammnesty. AA quotas for example were first implemented under the Republican Nixon Regime. And illegal amnesties are often strongly supported by white businessmen. Indeed some many argue that ordinary blacks on the street are much more opposed to illegal immgrants than many better off whites, despite the utterances of assorted black "leaders."
Furthermore, AA can and has been manipulated to benefit whites as well- thus the main beneficiaries of AA are white women. Furthermore a large amount of government programs have benefitted white women quite nicely. These women will keep voting Dem without a compelling reason to switch. "Takeover by minorities" is just not a credible enough reason to them, compared to the tangible benefits they are reaping now. Sotomayor indeed may be a more sympathetic figure to them, because she is a woman. that trumps the "minority" card.
A third point is that the culture is changing, and white people are themselves in the forefront of that change. The rise of "gay" rights and same-sex marriage for example is largely driven by white people. SSM will fundamentally alter one of the basic institutions that make US society strong, yet a massive amount of white people in all-important California went along with it. It took significant turnout by blacks and Hispanics to tip the balance back towards traditional marriage.
So it is not the "blaxican" threat that is most pressing. It is white people themselves that are leading the charge towards the abyss in numerous areas.
All racism is sad.
The age-old pesky U.S.-Mexico border problem has taxed the resources of both countries, led to long lists of injustices, and appears to be heading only for worse troubles in the future. Guess what? The border problem can never be solved. Why? Because the border IS the problem! It's time for a paradigm change.
Never fear, a satisfying, comprehensive solution is within reach: the Megamerge Dissolution Solution. Simply dissolve the border along with the failed Mexican government, and megamerge the two countries under U.S. law, with mass free 2-way migration eventually equalizing the development and opportunities permanently, with justice and without racism.
http://tlwinslow.weebly.com/megamerge-the-dissolution-solution.html
anonymous said...
All racism is sad.
Tell that to Blacks.
Simply dissolve the...failed Mexican government
The Mexican government is a creation of the Mexican people, so if we let them in they can change our government to be more like theirs. The border prevents, or really slows the progress of the rot emanating from that country.
Second, our rulers have wanted to merge the US, Canada and Mexico for a long time and suddenly you pull this idea from the air and claim it as your own. Pffft, go think on something else where you can claim to be original.
with justice and without racism.
Justice is a term that has been so completely warped by the Left as to have no meaning. whenever they have a protest they claim they want justice. Leftist unions talk about "jobs with justice". The term is meaningless now.
The thing is, it is possible that a cure for addiction can be found, and this would probably lead to a big increase in IQ and general ability to be productive, amongs aboriginals, or mixed aboriginal/European, and maybe among blacks too.
A cure for addiction likely does (will) exist, and is likely to be genetic in nature. But the tribal leaders of thre abovementioned ethnic groups - the groups to benefit the most - will be the first to cry "racist". Add to that the Jesus freaks for whom any life-enhancing scientific discovery is an "abomination to God".
Testing99 says
The exact same crap he says on every single thread, regardless of topic. I'm starting to wonder if he is a real person or just an automated spambot.
Post a Comment