A reader sends me an email asking me to write an article on last week's elections, but then proceeds to do all the work for me, so here it is:
Perhaps the GOP is indeed turning into the Covert Non-Black Party. But, will they eventually need to, you know, deliver some policies that actually help their voters?
I know you must be busy, but if you get a chance, I would ask that you write an article discussing the racial implications of the various 2009 elections. I would love to hear your thoughts. There really seemed to be a lot of what could only be described as "bloc voting" by whites, and I wonder if you think the election of Barack Obama, and the triumphalism of the mainstream media ("new era," etc.) may have had something to do with it.I don't have much to add other than here's a press release from an interest group claiming that the GOP gubernatorial candidate got 58.5% of the Asian vote in Virginia.
In the race for Virginia Governor, the mainstream media keeps declaring it an "issues" oriented race, focusing on "pocketbook" issues, that McDonnell did better on than his opponent Creigh Deeds. As a Virginia resident who followed the elections, this doesn't explain it well enough for me. There has to be another angle. Yes, every ad for McDonnell I saw focused vaguely on "jobs." But other than ads attacking McDonnell for his 20-year old Master's thesis, every ad Creigh Deeds ran focused vaguely on "jobs." Everybody knew McDonnell's conservative positions on social issues, and that should have hurt him in what is (although still moderately conservative) becoming a more socially liberal state. Yet they still gave him a landslide victory, with 67% of the white vote and 54% of women of all races (the results weren't broken down by race and gender).
McDonnell's ads, and I think I saw most of them, in no way ever actually mentioned any details as to what his "jobs" plan was, how it would create jobs, and how it was different from his opponent's plan, almost like Nixon's secret plan to get out of Vietnam. His ads almost seemed to be providing explanatory cover, rather than trying to convince voters, basically having a hidden subtext of "Vote for me for racial reasons, and if a white liberal neighbor asks you...say you voted for me for 'jobs'."
I don't know much about New Jersey politics, but the reasons offered for the Republican win in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, corruption and taxes, just do not seem plausible. To begin with, New Jersey politicians have always been corrupt, many more so than John Corzine, yet always get re-elected. And as far as taxes, the only candidate who really seemed to have a solid tax-cutting platform, independent Chris Daggett, only received 6% of the vote. In addition to this, Chris Christie, although touted as a "moderate" post-election, always identified as "pro-life" in a dogmatically "pro-choice" state, and even proposed modest restrictions on abortion. Added to this, the Corzine campaign's focus on Christie's refusal to pay for mammograms, and you would think this would have hurt him with white female voters, but it couldn't have hurt too much, because Christie won 59% of the white vote (with 6% for Daggett), and still won 45% of women of all races (results weren't broken down by race and gender together).
67% of the white vote in Virginia and 59% in liberal New Jersey (65% if you gave Christie Daggett's votes)...these are ethnic bloc voting percentages comparable to those of Hispanics or Asians. And Barack Obama, personally, couldn't explain the defeats, since his approval rating outperformed the Democratic share of the vote. Even though the Republican Party is horrible on racial issues for whites, they are still, as you have noted, the party of white racial identity.
Four other results of note were:
-Wake County, NC school-board elections, where candidates pledging to end busing and forced racial integration won a majority for the first time in an "easy victory"
-Westchester County, NY, a liberal upper-income New York suburb, where the long-time County Executive, who supported a federal lawsuit settlement to purchase homes in upper-income white neighborhoods, and use them as "affordable housing" for lower income blacks and Hispanics, was soundly defeated by his Republican opponent, who pledged to oppose the settlement and fight the lawsuit, by a margin of 58-42
-Atlanta, GA mayoral race, now headed to a runoff, where whites appear to have voted as a bloc for the white candidate (just another liberal in a field of liberals)
-New York mayoral race, where blacks appear to have voted as a bloc (unsurprisingly) for the black candidate, and whites appear to have NOT turned out in large numbers for mayor Michael Bloomberg, who still won, but narrowly
If you get a chance, I would really like to read your view on these events. Either way, keep up the great work and take care.
Perhaps the GOP is indeed turning into the Covert Non-Black Party. But, will they eventually need to, you know, deliver some policies that actually help their voters?
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
16 comments:
I think it is simpler than that. Christe was elected to clean up the mess in NJ (ever increasing taxes and rampant corruption) She rolled back some taxes, did little else, and was thrown out of office. The crats got NJ and ran wild, Corzome ran on a particular platform that his Wall St experience would allow him to fix the messed up finances (leading people to believe that they would get some tax relief). His selling state assets for a cash rush failed in legislature and he had nothing. Now, NJ don't trust the repub, don't trust the demo. have to elect someone so it is Christie. He specified nichts of what he would do. Democracy is not guaranteed to give you good choices or even to work towards the better.
I wrote a post about this:
'Obama Voters' Absent in NJ/Virginia Elections
Actually, I'd argue that the main factor was "anti-incumbent partyism", which explains the disparate results across VA, NJ, NYC, and elsewhere.
Given all the ongoing economic and political disasters, and Obama's slavish following of the Bush line on War and Wall Street (while actually keeping on the top Bush people like Gates and Geither in most cases), this seems a pretty understandable sentiment.
Still, it wouldn't totally surprise me if there were indeed an early hint of the Republicans becoming viewed as the "non-black party."
However, from what I've read, the top RNC officials are doing absolutely everything they can to counteract this perception, from their choice of Chairman and "Republican heroes" on down.
Clearly, a country like America needs not one, but two major "black political parties"...
But, will they eventually need to, you know, deliver some policies that actually help their voters?
Yes.
The GOP keeps its promises to only one two parts of its coalition: business conservatives and neocons - and the latter hardly delivers any votes at all. Social conservatives, religious conservatives, and paleoconservatives all get diddly.
The cost of NOT delivering to social and paleoconservatives on issues such as immigration, affirmative action and government spending (and perhaps even school choice) is increasingly making it impossible for the GOP to deliver on its promises to business conservatives.
Here in NJ, it was taxes. Pure and simple. Middle class whites are being strangled, and Corzine simply exudes the smell of a rich bastard. From his association with Goldman Sachs to his aborted plan to lease our highways and raise tolls and then his subsequent closing down of hospitals across the state last year when he couldn't, to his dating the head of the public employees' union he should have been negotiating with and then going to court to hide his emails, he just came off as a scumbag, and no amount of billboards with him and Obama beneath the words "Keep it going!" can erase that stench. It wasn't about race, or about Obama: it was a referendum on rampant liberal policies in general.
"McDonnell's ads, and I think I saw most of them, in no way ever actually mentioned any details as to what his "jobs" plan was, how it would create jobs, and how it was different from his opponent's plan, almost like Nixon's secret plan to get out of Vietnam. His ads almost seemed to be providing explanatory cover, rather than trying to convince voters, basically having a hidden subtext of "Vote for me for racial reasons, and if a white liberal neighbor asks you...say you voted for me for 'jobs'."
I agree that his ads were vague about how he would create jobs. He was clear that he would not raise taxes and said that Deeds would. I think that is the issue he ran on.
I didn't see any racial undertones in his ads. I saw regional undertones.
Virginia is divided between a urban/suburban east and a less populous rural/small town west.
McDonnell highlighted the fact that he grew up and lives in the east. I think his ads subtext were: "Vote for someone from Alexandria rather then a hillbilly".
I heard no discussion of immigration in the governor or Lt. governor race.
The attorney general race was a different matter. I read a sharp attack by a Washington Post writer on the winning candidate for - among other things - wanting to get rid of citizenship for anchor babies.
Readers can go to www.cuccinelli.com to see some of the immigration stands that the Post finds so offensive.
Women aren't really that pro-choice.
People keep voting loyally for parties and insisting the other is too terrible to be allowed into office despite the miniscule differences between them. So delivering for your voters may not really be necessary (overturning Roe v. Wade might actually cost the GOP pro-life votes).
Wake County, NC school-board elections, where candidates pledging to end busing and forced racial integration won a majority for the first time in an "easy victory"
Kinston, NC, which is 62.6% black, just elected their first GOP mayor since reconstruction [more here].
This is a post I put up somewhere else, but which I think maybe sheds a little light on VA - the 2008 Obama election/electorate resulted in part from a HUGE effort in the Dem jurisdictions in the north part of the state to turn out absentee voters. There are criteria which absentee voters are supposed to meet (absence from County, illness, etc.) and which have within living memory been enforced - or at least you had to lie about meeting them before the lady at the courthouse would give you a ballot. In the Obama 08 election, it was Katy bar the door, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. We were all told how dreadful the lines would be election day, were nearly dragooned out of the subway to vote early. Obama's margin for the state was I think around 150000 and that was a whole lot like the number of absentee ballots cast in the NoVa burbs. It was a huge effort with a number of folks full time running poll stations in the runup to the election, and the Reep leaning jurisdictions in south state had nothing like it, nor had they relaxed standards from what the law called for. There was nothing like that this time from FFX-ARL in facilitating votes, nor would it have worked, really, since all of us voters had no realistic fear of long lines on voting day!
This is probably not replicable, and particularly now with the Reeps in charge they will make sure that there is a uniform standard for absentee voting across the state.
What I'm saying is, that the 2009 change in the electorate is probably from a one-time thing to something more like the base state, here in VA. dave.s.
"I don't know much about New Jersey politics, but the reasons offered for the Republican win in the New Jersey gubernatorial race, corruption and taxes, just do not seem plausible."
Damn straight this clown doesn't know much about NJ politics. I live in NJ. Christie won because people were sick of Corzine's corruption and the high taxes. That's it. It was nothing at all to do with race or anti-incumbent feelings.
In the VA race, at least among whites, there wasn't a gender gap: two thirds of both (white) males and females voted for McDonnell
Cute. Mystery Reader, whoever you are, thanks for a great article.
The Democrats did something very smart when the elected Obama. They started collecting $5, $10, $100 donation from rank and file which made them less dependent upon corporate donors and DNC influence. As a result, they actually have elected someone who is a liberal.
I think Republicans need to take the cue and do the same thing. As long as they are bound to the Ag Lobby (like in California), the Club for Growth, US Chamber, etc., they will never dare really tackle immigration.
Well, it doesn't seem like racial harmony was enhanced by Obama's election, and if anything he's made it worse. Maybe some whites feel like a false bill of goods was sold.
I think back to the Derrion Albert beating video and I'm stunned that sort of thing still goes on, especially in the presidents home city. If we have high social spending and the black population is regressing, why spend more? Why spend more if it will benefit elites like Obama and not the people that need it?
Maybe some whites feel free to vote their interest since the election of a black president proves racism is a non-factor in American society.
Personally, the government in Washington is embarassing, and there needs to be a check of some sorts.
One thing to keep an eye on is low black turnout, even in racially charged elections like the Atlanta mayors race. With the goal of a black president achieved, there is nothing for blacks to look forward or work for. The idea of working to elect a black mayor, governor, or senator is boring compared to the feeling of November 4th.
The real question is, is there anything Obama and Congress could have done differently to avoid this backlash, or was this inevitable?
I'm in VA. Did not see it as a racial reaction to Obama, especially considering the state went for him last year. The main issue is that the electorate is deeply concerned at a conscious and subliminal level about the economy (and well they should be). The bailouts were INCREDIBLY unpopular and the socialization of the private sector has created an industrial recession rather than a walloping for WS banks. The GOP has not figured out a good message and given that Bush did the bailouts and McCain/Palin endoresed them, they will have a hard time giving a clear voice to what the public really wants. And in this environment, there is a deep, visceral concern about more government programs. It's not even the typical conservative versus liberal, but just a subliminal feeling that we can't afford more and more government spending.
McDonnel did not exactly articulate this (and really few other than Ron Paul can...even Palin kneecapped herself). But he still tapped into the sentiment, with a forward looking campaign emphasizing being business friendly. He also DID articulate often (perhaps not on TV ads, but so what...he did in interviews) how he expects to do this. He had a read rap discussing less regulation, no new taxes, privitizing state stores, and a couple other things like that. That may not be a detailed action plan...but it was good enough. He also sidestepped all the kerfuffle on the thesis and social issues and just stuck to his economy message. And he was much more monotrack on this than Creigh. Creigh spent MORE time on the thesis than on jobs...
I like that Christie won, but disappointingly, he visited a Newark "charter school" the day after the election. The real issue in NJ isn't charter schools; it's that the Supreme Court controls school funding. There's tons of money, TONS, going to low-IQ dead ends in Newark, Camden, etc., paid for by the upper middle class whites who voted for Christie. The election results show Corzine killed in the urban and close suburban areas, while Christie ran up huge totals in exurban NW NJ and at the shore. White voters in Northwest NJ and in Monmouth/Ocean voted for Christie. These voters want to keep more of their hard earned money and avoid sending their kids to ghetto schools. What will Christie do for them? Blacks in Newark are not his base. Exurban whites are.
Btw, while NJ is mostly pro-choice, there are many Catholics and Christie won them almost 2-1.
Post a Comment