My big article is up at VDARE.com analyzing the demographics of the election.
You've been reading a huge amount about the exit poll with a sample size of 25,000 conducted by Edison, but virtually nothing about the poll with a sample size of 40,000 conducted by Reuters-Ipsos.
They're both pretty decent, but Reuters' American Mosaic Polling Explorer website has one huge advantage: it allows the general public to crosstab the data anyway they want.
Two weeks ago, I previewed the Reuters-Ipsos demographics using a sample size of 7,500 from October (which showed Obama ahead by 2 points). Now I'm back with a much larger sample size.
Read the whole thing there.
They're both pretty decent, but Reuters' American Mosaic Polling Explorer website has one huge advantage: it allows the general public to crosstab the data anyway they want.
Two weeks ago, I previewed the Reuters-Ipsos demographics using a sample size of 7,500 from October (which showed Obama ahead by 2 points). Now I'm back with a much larger sample size.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
120 comments:
The contradictions will not hold:
Ethnic Minorities dislike White people on racial grounds, including the ones who vote Democrat.
Liberal Whites have little contact with the majority of Hispanics or blacks and know they could not even walk through certain neighbourhoods.
The Republican Party has bent over backwards to get the Ethnic vote and has got nothing. They have nowhere to go.
Too many Minorities are dependent on the state. The workers, of all colors will get sick of paying for them.
Obamacare will be ruinously expensive.
The USA has done Europe a a favor by showing them the future. We can stop our calamity. And we will.
What about this Fiscal cliff? Will the US fall off the edge or will there be a compromise?
I had a brain-wave about how the Republicans could stay in business for a while longer. Sailer-mander Illinois and New York.
Up-state New York(north of Rockland and Westchester counties)has a population which voted by 53%-47% for Obama in 2008 and swung big-time to the Republicans in 2010. It is 86% white and has a population of about 7.1 million. 12 winnable Electoral college votes. A very big downside would be that it would really screw the NYC and Long island Republicans. They have some power now when they win the state senate. Without upstate, it's over for them.
You have two options in Illinois, one safe and one aggressive. The safe option is down-state Illinois minus Cook, Will, DuPage, McHenry and Lake counties. It has a population of 4.5 million and is 86% white. It voted by 51%-48% for Obama in '08 and swung big-time to the republicans in 2010. The Collar counties of Chicago which have a Republican reputation are 72% white, 6% black and 15% Hispanic. They voted by 56% to 43% for Obama in 08 but also swung Republican in 2010. They have a population of 3.1 million. If were to combine the two into a state of Illinois minus Cook county, you would have a state of to 7.66 million with 13 electoral college votes that is 80% white and voted in '08 by 53%-46% for Obama. Keep in mind he had home field advantage.
If I were some Republican like Karl Rove except not a discredited idiot, I would go tap one of my billionaire buddies for a few tens of millions and get to work stirring shit up. Chicago and New York city both have lots of liberals, lots of minorities and lots of problems. It can't be that hard. Both down-state Illinois and Upstate New York have some oil gas and coal. Maybe the environmentalists can be inspired to wage war on them as they do in California.
There is a long history of proposals to split New York state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_New_York
Here is a story of Republican who wanted to kick Chicago out of Illinois.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1210/Proposal-to-make-Chicago-a-state-shows-Illinois-divide
I got my voting and demographic information from Dave's redistricting app. Endless fun for nerds. http://gardow.com/davebradlee/redistricting/launchapp.html
more reason to let only homeowners vote!
A fact that I haven't seen stated baldly, or at least harped on enough:
Obama won seven of the eight largest states (except of course TX).
When you lose CA (55), NY (29), FL (29), PA (20), IL (20), OH (18), and MI (16), you're down 187 electoral votes right there.
It doesn't matter if you take the second, ninth and tenth largest states, (TX, GA, NC with 38, 16 and 15 respectively; total of 69).
'Did they have much cause for hope that he’d take a strong stand against legal and illegal immigration? Affirmative Action?'
If poorer whites hate aa and ii, why go with obama who's worse on those issues?
and no mention of Jewish money and media control.
Interesting article but it doesn't really cheer me up too much. The implication is that Republicans have to all but sweep these states, which they lost by an average margin of about 6 points this year, and which include Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, which to put it mildly, aren't traditional Republican stalwarts. What's more, they have to do this even while overcoming negative trends - 1) dying out of older voters, 2) rise in Hispanic populations (already at 6% in Pennsylvania) and 3) growth in single women voters. And don't think Democrats haven't also figured out the importance of these states. They will be sure to slather them with lots of goodies over the next four years to remind them of the rewards of loyalty.
Meanwhile, if the Democrats flip North Carolina (margin of Romney victory in 2012 of 2.2%), which has a fast rising Hispanic population, the Republicans won't be able to lose even one of the small Slippery Six states, such as Iowa.
This is a really tall order. If the economy is in shambles in the next election or there is some other disaster, then I think Republicans have a chance to win one or two more elections, but after that, the numbers just stop working without some drastic change in the make up of the parties or of the country. I really think some sort of impending collapse or economic disaster will be the only thing that can threaten the coming Democratic ascendancy. Of course that's not an outlandish scenario anymore.
Eh, the big piece of exit poll data that nobody is talking about is the absolute massacre Obama took in young white voters.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president#exit-polls
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
Vote by Age and Race
White 18-29 (11%)[same in both polls]
Obama: 54% – MCain: 44%
Obama: 44% – Romney: 51%
I think Palin may have been a few point drag in 2008 though.
Talking about the "youth" vote doesn't make much sense... ethnic identity overtakes "youth" identity except with whites... but white youths are now a swing electorate which I think is a new phenomenon(though I could be wrong).
I have to wonder if there are some white Dem strategists tore up inside with what they're doing. The GOP should try to consistently win the white youth vote if for no other reason than to build inner conflict in white Dem strategists, consultants, and activists.
"Other orientations" gave Romney as much of their vote as single women; gave him more of their vote than Hispanics. Is that good news for Democrats or good news for Republicans? Of course I guess single women overlap a lot with black and Hispanic women.
It's not really shocking to me. I've known honest-to-goodness gay and lesbian conservatives. Their beef with the GOP is mostly about gay marriage and acceptance, and if that issue ever dies they will vote Republican in somewhat larger numbers.
I'm not the guy to do it, but sometime very soon someone needs to write a book analyzing the history of the Hispanic vote, and Republican efforts to win it. Maybe Charlie Krauthammer and George Will and John Boehner could eventually get around to reading it and finally convince themselves that amnesty isn't the cure.
Where are Catholics?
Where are Catholics?
Changing mental habits is not easy, but once overcome we can greet the new day.
Thus far, whites had a majority-mentality. Paradoxically, this sense of power weakened us since we took our majority clout for granted. We were like the hare(vs the tortoise). It also us magnanimous and generous since we felt so big and powerful.
It's like a dog may kindly look upon a small tiger cub since the latter, for the time being, is small, cute, and cuddly.
The tiger cub has grown big.
We must make the mental break. We must take on the MINORITY mentality. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more playing 'fair' and sticking to principles while all others play tribalistics. We need EXPLICITLY white organizations and groups. We need to fiercely agitate for them--but by keeping neo-nazi and kkk types at bay.
Paradoxically, white power will increase in minority mode. Cornered cat is a lot more fierce. When survival is at stake, we fight harder and with greater anger.
We also need to define the idea of the NON-ELITE WHITE. White elites betrayed us. They get richer in the NWO while we keep slipping.
"When I asked whether Cruz’s Latin surname was enough for him to win over Hispanics, one of Martinez de Vara’s friends, Gina Castañeda, a political activist who manages local campaigns, interrupted us. She said, “In the Hispanic or Mexican community, there’s some—” She hesitated. “How can I say it nicely? They don’t like Cubans. Or Puerto Ricans.” Martinez de Vara agreed. “Even within Mexico, they look down upon Caribbean Hispanics,” he said.
Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/11/19/121119fa_fact_lizza#ixzz2C1Lewrdk
Is there a "with children" breakout? Married, having raised two children to the age of eight, must be an overwhelmingly Republican demo. I suspect "one spouse" would be even stronger, though I'm just waving my hands here.*
If the franchise were limited to such adults, the Democratic Party would cease to be viable. Conservatives who didn't fit that description would wave it off with a smile once the saw the numbers.
*The studies claiming that red states have higher divorce rates and illegitimacy despite evangelical posturing do not ever break that out by race at the same time. They want you to have the impression that its fundamentalist crackers and hillbillies driving those numbers. (See also obesity and other health stats).
Steve, I have to take issue with something that Richard Brown said at the start of this thread:
"Liberal Whites have little contact with the majority of Hispanics or blacks and know they could not even walk through certain neighbourhoods"
the liberal whites that I know seem to have plenty of contact with a broad selection of NAMs. For example, most liberal whites in NYC ride the subway. They get up close and personal with NAMs and obviously vote democratic.
Another example... Amy Biehl's parents are founding stock Americans ... probably even colonial stock Americans... their daughter was murdered by NAMs in the most brutal and violent way you can imagine, and yet they continue to vote for Obama and encourage others to vote for Obama.
One more example, Matt Yglesias was beaten by NAMs in a racially motivated polar bear hunt attack. But Yglesias famously remains liberal and voted for Obama.
It used to be true that "a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged" but that is no longer true. Evidence is that today in America, liberals who are attacked violently by NAMs remain liberals
Anyone else surprised that there was actually such a relatively HIGH number of single black women who did vote for Romney?
I get so tired of these doom and gloom posts. Its like that time snapperturtle made his eighteenth annoying simile of the day. Like when he first started making them it was ok, but now they are in every post and its like get a job.
The Republicans might have the chance to turn the tables in 2016 if Hillary Clinton runs and if they have the balls (both big ifs, especially the last one). They could try to get as close to 100% of the male vote and 100% of the married women's vote as possible while abandoning the single women's vote. The David Axelrod model of playing off the ends against the center might actually work in the conservatives favor against a female candidate because the reservoir of resentment against Clinton will be gigantic and cross all party and ethnic lines.
One thing the graph does not break down is who has children. The single mommy vote will skew heavily towards NAMs, a demographic that will never vote Republican anyway so in effect they will be hitting two birds with one stone. They could aim all of their pro-woman efforts towards married women and cut the support towards single women. Granted, this could backfire if women unite which is bound to happen at some level but the distinction would be clear. If you are female, single with children, and vote Democratic you will not get our resources (call it the Whiskey Strategy!).
For the Republicans to get out of the pickle they are in they will need to break a few eggs. That is either going to be NAMs or Women. Rather than just trying to be nice guys and be friendly to everyone, they need to let the other racial and sexual interest groups know that there will be a severe price to pay for their explicitly anti-white coalition and that the penalty does not have to be shared equally. As they say, "Every once in a while, you have to kill a chicken in front of the monkey's to keep em' in line". What is their coalition's weakest link and what does it take to break it?
"Ethnic Minorities dislike White people on racial grounds, including the ones who vote Democrat."
But whites aren't a race. There been a revolution in population genetics. It clearly shows this. E.Asian admixture in whites is significant.
Whites are also "tweener" race between blacks and Mongoloids. And blacks are really mulatto.
I guess the only "pure" race in this lot is us. Asians. But we don't hate whites. Why should we?
Nice analysis. Working class whites have been the swing vote for many years. Luckily for the GOP, the Democrats' horn tooting about demographic change is going to alienate this group that they just spent hundreds of millions of dollars to court. Working class whites in Ohio probably didn't vote FOR Obama with any enthusaism. They voted AGAINST the private equity CEO and Medicare dismantler. Democrats will pay a price in the 2014 midterms again if they go out of their way to spit on these voters, and unfortunately the GOP will then have no incentive to reform.
I don't really understand political orientation. I have never read a book, article, or blog that had much to say about it that was very convincing.
It feels to me like there is a genetic component. I mean that literally. For me it's about feelings. At some point I may know enough to reason it out based on facts, but not yet.
I am an obligate heterosexual. I certainly don't think I ever arrived at that orientation through any sort of reasoning process. This is the tragedy of gay bashing. These fools talk about people choosing homosexuality. Sheer nonsesnse. There is no free will or rational decision making about sex. You do what you feel - or you suffer from acting contrary to your feelings.
Similarly I'm a standard political conservative. I used to be a liberal but just as I suddenly got interested in girls at puberty through a maturational process, I started to go conservative from some kind of internal process. It happened to me from the inside. I don't think it had much to do with my personal experiences.
It feels like I learned that conservatism was better but I think that's an illusion. The illusion of free will. I think I was 'cut out' to be a conservative all along. When I was a young liberal I was not a typical liberal at all. People were always incredulous that I could have ever been a social worker.
I think this is true for David Horowitz too, or Ronald Reagan. All three of us were very liberal but broke with liberalism at some specific incident.
Horowitz wrote about how he had to change sides when he realized that his leftist friends killed a woman he knew. I was a member of the Vietnam Day Commitee when one day I saw how cruel and nasty my compatriots were. I think Reagan saw how the communists operated as opposed to how they talked.
But of course others saw the same actions and did not turn. They just dialed up their rationalization mechanisms.
I think all three of us were always fated to be conservatives and eventually we ran into an illuminating incident. We emerged from our liberal chrysalis.
This is not a theory. It isn't even solid enough to be called a working hypothesis. It's closer to a hunch.
I would like some one smarter than myself to work on this problem.
Albertosaurus
The "married other races" at 47.5% is the most thought-provoking statistic to me. Roughly a 20% increase over the average minority vote percentage. It implies that the most future oriented individuals, probably the best citizens, even among minorities are also "natural Republicans" and can be expected to vote for Republicans. It substantially removes the stigma from Whites being inclined to vote for Romney.
It would be interesting to know their opinions on immigration issues. Perhaps they also can look into the future and realize that massive unskilled immigration is bad for everyone, especially including minorities.
We don't hear much from these folk perhaps a bias of MSM? But also it takes a lot of courage to go against the prevailing opinion of your race.
How best to approach publication of this statistic?
Robert Hume
The white majority will restore itself because Hispanics and the lower half of whites are marrying at high rates. 20 years from now pretty much all Hispanics and half-Hispanics will be marrying whites. The children of those people will be thought of as white in 2050.
Really underexplored issue here.
Steve, I have to take issue with something that Richard Brown said at the start of this thread:
"Liberal Whites have little contact with the majority of Hispanics or blacks and know they could not even walk through certain neighbourhoods"
the liberal whites that I know seem to have plenty of contact with a broad selection of NAMs. For example, most liberal whites in NYC ride the subway. They get up close and personal with NAMs and obviously vote democratic.
Another example... Amy Biehl's parents are founding stock Americans ... probably even colonial stock Americans... their daughter was murdered by NAMs in the most brutal and violent way you can imagine, and yet they continue to vote for Obama and encourage others to vote for Obama.
One more example, Matt Yglesias was beaten by NAMs in a racially motivated polar bear hunt attack. But Yglesias famously remains liberal and voted for Obama.
It used to be true that "a conservative is a liberal that has been mugged" but that is no longer true. Evidence is that today in America, liberals who are attacked violently by NAMs remain liberals
Blaming the Germans, eh Steve?
steve, why do you keep pretending that there is some sort of barrier that prevents GOP politicians and officials from pandering to the hispanics in every way possible and thereby winning an ever increasing share of their votes?
is there a moral barrier that would keep the GOP from pandering to hispanics? Don't make me laugh?
Is the GOP going to lose hispanic votes because they are against affirmative action? Don't make me laugh.
here is what is probably going to happen: the GOP will become even more politically correct and start pandering to hispanics, talking up affirmative action even more than they do, adopting the cult of The Sacred Immigrant, just like the GOP does.
Where is the white vote going to go? To the Dems? Have you missed the bloodthirsty post-election onslaught against whites and in particularly white males by the Dem base? The Dem base are being propagandized to demonize whites and white males more than ever now. That white-hating subculture of the Dem base will keep that majority of white pushed away from the Dems. As long as that anti-white subculture of the Dem-liberal base is going strong, then the lower middle class white have nowhere else to go.
What is really the interesting part of all this is that both the Dem and GOP punditocracy (including the fauxpopulist paleocons) all ignore this dynamic--they all pretend that the Dem anti-white subculture is not the thing that keeps the white middle lower class driven away from the Dem party and keeps them safe in the GOP.
Why do you ignore the fact that the GOP would have very little base without the self-loathing, anti-white hatred on the part of the white liberal Dem base? A huge portion of your online writing is directing toward pointing out the fact that the white liberals hate whites. I of course agree. But why is it that you never seem to point out that without this dynamic, a huge the lower middle class whites would be over on the side of the Dems?
One problem I always have with these kind of analyses is that I wonder if other conservatives are conservatives the same way that I'm conservative. Does the category really describe similar people or is it just a grab bag of convienient and temporary allies?
Take the issue of marijuana for example. I have a prescription for 'medical marijuana'. I got it for my arthritis. I don't think it does much if anything for arthritis but it does help with the nausea I get from statin drugs.
I don't favor legalizing marijuana because I'm a conservative. I take a conservative approach. I think marijuana should be reclassified from a Schedule I drug to something lower. Heroin is Schedule I. Cocaine is Schedule II. Hydrocodone is Schedule III. Codiene cough syrup is Schedule V.
Marijuana is a drug but certainly it is a lot less dangerous than heroin. It's current classification cannot be justidied medically or pharmacologically. Put it down where it belongs and most aspects of the issue just disappear. No judge would lock up someone for cough syrup.
Maybe marijuana should be legalized altogether but if we reclassified it we could consider that question at our leisure. Give it a couple decades.
This is a conservative position not a libertarian one. The libertarians are ideological. They know complete personal freedom for everyone is best. I don't know how they know that, but they say they do.
Being a conservative is like being a car racer. You don't want to just drive fastest. That might be called the Sterling Moss error. The winner is the driver who drives the slowest - and still wins. That's the Fangio approach.
Conservatives wants the least change possible that still does the job. Many Republicans are too activist for my taste. They want to overthrow Roe vs. Wade now and get boots on the ground ASAP. These are not conservative impulses. Similarly I would like to cut back on PBS not eliminate it entirely. Get rid of the political news shows and keep the kiddie shows and the home repair shows. The whole controversy would collapse if we did that. There are still areas in televison that the private market doesn't adequately cover. If you see someone welding - that's commercial TV. If you see someone sawing wood - that's PBS.
Albertosaurus
*The studies claiming that red states have higher divorce rates and illegitimacy despite evangelical posturing do not ever break that out by race at the same time. They want you to have the impression that its fundamentalist crackers and hillbillies driving those numbers. (See also obesity and other health stats).
Preaching to the choir here I know but isnt that how almost all negative social science stats are spun? Or perhaps the question should be: which ones arent?
Steve is saying the things that need to be said as far as how Republicans can win over the blue collar white vote, but the point can be taken further. It helps to look at how many nonwhite and white votes each candidate received in 2008 and 2012. I wrote about this in a blog entry, 2008 and 2012 Election Vote Totals by Race. Romney received about as many white votes as McCain did, but Obama's white vote plummeted by about 7 million. These are the votes that are in play, and the Republicans have to figure out how to win them over. Like Steve said, Republican pandering to nonwhites isn't going to help.
Quite fab. I wonder how many mainstream political junkies and pundits are secretly examining your analysis as we speak? Do you suppose some campaign consultants already knew about all this but refrained from talking about it in public in order to guard their trade secrets?
Another question is why did Romney do well with the white working class in Texas and not well with the white working class in Ohio.
It is not easy to unite the white people. Southerners know that Washington DC is their enemy, that the Feds turned on them in the 1960's, and that the Feds are basically trying to destroy them.
White working class Midwesterners view the Feds much more favorably and see unions as the solution to the low-wage problem.
I know that when I heard Romney promising 12 million new jobs, I was thinking, "12 million lousy new jobs like at Staples." Midwestern working class whites are not impressed with promises of a lot of crappy $9/hour jobs, even if they believed Mitt's promise, which they didn't.
Mitt also promised in his ads to crack down on China's cheating on trade deals. But then Obama countered that Mitt had moved a lot of jobs to China himself. So all the Mittmentum Romney had on that issue was lost.
Mitt did not credibly explain how he would bring back high-paying jobs, which are the only kind of jobs Midwesterners want, and which Midwesterners are still grieving the loss of. One key element in a plan to do that must be to cut off immigration.
Paradoxically, white power will increase in minority mode. Cornered cat is a lot more fierce. When survival is at stake, we fight harder and with greater anger.
And maybe nationalistic whites will finally jettison Christianity as the crippling dysfunctional millstone of self-hate it really is, and find some real religion. Maybe they will rediscover shamanism and magic and the hidden powers of the body, mind, and spirit. Three thousand years of Abrahamic robotism have suppressed all these as sinful mostly because they are elitist. I am not talking about people throwing lightning bolts like in X-Men or Harry Potter - but I really do believe there are human potentials negated by both the moralistic doomsaying of Abrahamic religion and the anti-scientific materialism infecting modern science.
The exit polls show a 65-28 split in favor of immigration reform
My apologies - White Catholics are wedged in there between two other categories.
Is there any reason why the only religious group that merited no less than four breakouts was Jews?
Vote by Age and Race
White 18-29 (11%)[same in both polls]
Obama: 54% – MCain: 44%
Obama: 44% – Romney: 51%
----------
Real power is not without numbers but with elites.
Look at young white elites, and I'll bet it was 80 for Obama.
If Republicans want to "go for" a particular group, and they can't bear to pick whites, the next best would be the unions, not Asians or some other racial group. With the Democrats having become total globalists and open borders pushers, they really don't offer union members anything except nostalgia. Many unions have memberships that are fairly conservative anyway; it's the leaders that are consistently leftist.
A GOP that was willing to be more populist and give up some of its rich corporate donors and libertarian think-tankers might be able to make some inroads with the unions, especially the private sector ones, and it could do that without caving in on everything the way we're told it must to satisfy non-whites.
As a bonus, the membership of non-government unions (and even some government ones, like cops and firefighters) are predominantly white, so it's a way to approach that demographic without having to admit it.
It wouldn't work overnight, because there's a lot of inertia there. (It's like with some elderly people I know who are personally conservative on every issue, but they still vote Democrat because FDR ended the Depression and won the war.) It'll take a while to get people to support the party they've been taught to picture as Rich Uncle Pennybags from the Monopoly board game. But inertia can be overcome. The resentment of non-whites for white success, and the desire to loot it, isn't inertia; it has deep roots.
Maybe there is tax factor in this. Southern working class whites live in low tax regions, and that attracts business and means more jobs.
Northern white working class live in blue states with lots of regulations and high taxes, and that drives away factories. Though blue state policies undermine white working class interests in the North, the working class in the North still think in terms of unions vs big business.
Ironically, though red states attract more businesses, many owners and managers of those businesses are white liberals.
The new carpetbeggery.
So how to encourage marriage? Perhaps greatly increase the tax deduction for children. Poor single people already are very strongly supported when they have children, even out of wedlock. This discourages marriage. A large deduction would encourage marriage of two people, especially if each of them could take a large exemption even when filing jointly, for example, and even if they have high incomes.
Perhaps also they could deduct a higher proportion of the local taxes they pay for education if they privately educate their children.
Both these ideas need thinking through in detail.
Would Democrats be inclined to oppose these measures if they realize it would help turn Democrat voters into Republican voters? But wouldn't this opposition be extremely unpopular with their Democrat voters?
Robert Hume
Wait, Steve, what Are the "other races" in "married other races"? I took it to mean other than white, but I see above the "other" categories, blacks, Hispanics, Hindus, and Jews are mentioned. So is it substantially only "other Asians"? If so most of my comments in my previous suggested postings are not nearly so interesting. If you don't post them I won't object at all, and perhaps I'll submit again after you clarify who the "other races" are.
Robert Hume
One great moral agenda the white right must take up: End the Hogocaust.
"Where are Catholics?"
Priest celibacy destroyed Catholicism. No healthy guy will join such an order, and so the church took in a lot of freaks, gays, and perverts who ruined church reputation from within. This is how dogmatism ruins any organization.
Latin American Catholicism is strongly mixed with Marxist tradition. Same in Italy. Christian Liberation Movement ideology is pervasive in many Latin churches, and the message is 'gringo capitalist muy mal'.
Half of the Catholics who voted went for Obama. Barry knew he could pick a fight with the Catholic Church because everyone knows how badly divided Catholics are amongst themselves. The bishops are mostly Democrats by temperament and their heart wasn't really in the fight over the HHS mandate about contraception. There might be a few firebrand holdouts like Cordileone, Chaput, and Jenky, but their excellencies will close ranks and say maybe Obama isn't so bad after all once he promises them amnesty for all of the illegals in the pews.
Time to expose the truth on BOM, the bouncer of the mall, aka MLK.
We should call for immediate release of FBI files on the punk.
What i don't get is how this conventional 'logic' being formed is 'right'. Hispanics don't vote for the Republicans. So the Republicans need to support things like amnesty to create more Hispanics, who will then vote for their opponent, the Democrats? Wouldn't the logical thing be to try to limit or even reduce the number of Hispanic voters, rather then to increase it?
"There is a long history of proposals to split New York state."
When's the last time a state has been split? W.VA and VA during the Civil War? Seems like a huge long shot.
Slightly less of a long shot would be to get New York to allocate electoral votes by district, rather than winner-take-all. I think a couple of states already do that. But what would be the incentive of Democrat-controlled states to agree to give up their winner-take-all electoral vote allocations?
Wait, Steve, what Are the "other races" in "married other races"? I took it to mean other than white, but I see above the "other" categories, blacks, Hispanics, Hindus, and Jews are mentioned. So is it substantially only "other Asians"? If so most of my comments in my previous suggested postings are not nearly so interesting. If you don't post them I won't object at all, and perhaps I'll submit again after you clarify who the "other races" are.
Robert Hume
This chart would be enormously more valuable if it included, perhaps in the category names, the fraction of the voters this category accounts for.
Though I'm quite curious about the 31% of "other sexual orientations" who voted for Romney--is there a big pool of transexual neocons or hermaphrodite graduates of GMU's econ department? Are they counting celebacy as a distinct sexual orientation, and thus capturing a lot of Catholic priests and religious orders? (Surely it's mainly an artifact of errors filling in the forms--maybe fifty to a hundred people intentionally and honestly responding that way, and several times that many responding that way as a joke or by somehow misunderstanding the question. Still, you've got to love statistics on a category of people who would like to put "It's Complicated" as their gender on Facebook.)
Observations:
1.) Romney won 57 percent of white Catholics, but 70 percent of white Protestants. If Republicans can increase his white Catholic share up to that level, that'll represent a major gain.
2.) Earlier polls showed 93 percent of blacks voting for Obama. 97 percent makes more sense.
3.) Single white women only slightly favor Democrats (contrary to the nonstop ravings of our friend "Whiskey"). However, married whites are very strongly Republican. This suggests to me that a pro-marriage, pro-affordable family formation platform would be beneficial to creating more Republican voters. It'd also lead to more owners (over renters), who tend to lean Republican.
4.) Gays will continue to be a sore spot.
5.) If 37 percent of Hispanics in Texas vote Republican, that's pretty good. It tells me that the Republican party can win a fair chunk of Latino votes while running on a conservative/restrictionist platform.
Where are Catholics?
You'd have to break out Catholics into whites and Hispanics. White Catholics voted 59% for Romney.
If 37 percent of Hispanics in Texas vote Republican, that's pretty good.
I'm not sure how losing a large (in Texas, very large) constituency by a two to one margin is "pretty good".
My observations:
1. The vast majority of union members are not private sector unions but Public Employee unions which are tied to massive expansion of the public sector, massive AA preferences, massive loot Whitey policies. Democrats.
2. The Marriage Gap is an age gap. Most women today are unmarried, the average age of (first) marriage among White middle class women is in the thirties IIRC.
Policies don't matter, as much as the sexiness of men. This is the insight that Heartiste/Roissy has that Steve lacks -- White women don't delay marriage because they and their partners don't earn enough to form a family, they delay marriage to pursue the top 10% of men, who are desirable. Think David Petraeus, and his two married girlfriends fighting over him. That's the model.
No policy can make your average White guy, (which is btw an insult and implies sexless useless eunuch) desirable enough for his female peer to choose THAT guy over potential sex with Alphas. And moreover, marriage per Stanley Kurz is now moving towards the gay definition: a big fabulous party for "me" and then sleeping with who you want. Unsustainable but that's the point.
3. The "normal" people are in aggregate, losers and the functional minority already. The marginal people who don't contribute to wealth creation functionally (with the media in their pocket and widespread voting fraud) dominate the high-trust, cooperative "normal" and wealth creators.
You can see this culturally, where "the New Normal" (that's the name of a TV show) features a gay couple and their surrogate mother of their IVF child. A favorite of women, given that TV is a near total feminine wasteland.
If TV is a window into the culture, then it features women known for being the transient girlfriends/wives of Black celebrities/athletes (the Kardashians), singing contests, gays everywhere, and Oprah. That's not a sign of a culture that values the "normal" wealth creators.
"Is there any reason why the only religious group that merited no less than four breakouts was Jews?"
Because it was called the American Mosaic, dummy.
This is confusing so let me try to make it clearer:
The Edison poll that everybody else has been writing about has five ethnoracial categories:
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Other
The Reuters-Ipsos poll that only me and Reuters are using has, unfortunately, only four categories:
White Only
Black
Hispanic
Other Races
Presumably, American Indians go into Other in both polls, while American Indians and Asians both go into Other Races in Reuters. (Who knows who else self-identifies into Other?)
Edison reported Asians flocking away from Romney, but Other moving toward Romney. Reuters, which I don't believe had a 2008 poll of this magnitude, reported a combined Other Races number for 2012 that wasn't well into the 30s. Perhaps, their Asians moved left and their American Indians right, too, or maybe Edison's report of a big move left for Asians was exaggerated.
We're down in the realm of small sample sizes here, especially for Edison, so I'm just urging caution that the celebrated Asian number everybody has been talking about is a little unreliable.
In contrast, among Jews, Romney got a 21% in 2008 in Edison, but a 30% on Edison in 2012 and a 34% in Reuters, so the evidence of a moderate improvement for Republicans among Jews seems pretty reliable.
In my view, the GOP ought to realize the closeness of the demographics, and respond with what Democrats do:
VOTING FRAUD.
It is clear (and has been since JFK won with the dead voting in Chicago) that Democrats are strategically committed to fraud, through ACORN and other organizations. Obama quite likely won through fraud because the vote was close enough for him to do that.
Whites are too divided on diversity, on AA, on PC, on Multiculturalism, for say, 75% of the White vote to be possible. Elites and those who yearn to be elites or feel they have a chance to be elites, and work for Public Employee unions, NGOs, government, health care, media, and benefit from AA (almost all White women and all single White women) will never go for the "White guy vote" because that's hostile to their interests.
However, if its close you can cheat. The Republican version of ACORN ought to be set up, with the same goals. Registering as many "conservative" voters as possible, being living or a real person optional. Arms length if possible, just like ACORN. Embrace the rejection of voter ID, etc.
Here's the thing. The "normal" wealth creator ordinary Whites have to dump living in a high trust, "ordinary" society, and assume everything is crooked, a scam, and hostile to their well being. Because it is. Globalization and the growth of non-Whites (who decisively reject the values of honesty, civic duty, anti-corruption, etc. -- just look at the City of Bell, City of Industry, etc.) insure that a massive, widespread, global corruption gets wired into America. Both by global connections and lots of the Third World right here.
You can't beat corruption with honesty. It never works. The only way to do it is to escalate, until the cost (Dems start losing "safe" places like Chicago due to massive Republican vote fraud) becomes so costly a truce is declared. Like with Chemical and Bio Weapons. It won't last forever but will buy space and time.
However I don't think this will happen, no recognition of reality or guts on the part of Republicans and most Whites, instead we'll see Catalonia/Scotland types of secession, bloodily suppressed, and America run defacto by corrupt elites allied with all sorts of criminal organizations. In other words, Mexico or Venezuela.
Breaking Jews out into single and married by sex was a holdover from my pre-election article which focused much on the Republican War on Women propaganda. I argued that Romney wasn't doing too badly for a Republican among married Jews or single male Jews, but was, as expected, getting killed among single female Jews, where much of the animus in the media on the supposed War on Women was coming from.
I kept as many categories as possible from the pre-election graph (sample size 7,500) to the post-election graph (sample size 40,000) so that you could check up on how valid my earlier graph turned out to be.
Love Whiskey's insight. Always spot on.
Also, I don't get why Heartiste/Roissy is so demonized by the commenters on this site. He is right-wing and has some very valuable insights.
Is it because a lot of the commenters on this site are from bible-belt/religious-nut parts of the country?
Where are disabled people?
"The vast majority of union members are not private sector unions but Public Employee unions which are tied to massive expansion of the public sector, massive AA preferences, massive loot Whitey policies."
That's true, but it's less true in the Midwest and Ohio where the GOP has the most to gain. In my own small Midwestern town, several unions march in one of our parades every year, and they just keep coming and coming. These are primarily private sector unions: machinists, pipefitters, carpenters, etc.
We still have those here in the Midwest where people grow and make things, and they hunt and fish and go to church on Sundays. They're exactly the kind of people Obama was talking about when he derided them for clinging to God and guns. They have nothing in common with the public sector unions except a desire for a larger paycheck and more benefits. In every other way, they're opposites: while it's in the best interests of a public sector worker to bring in more immigrants to improve his job security, it's in the private sector worker's best interest to deport as many as possible and build a fence. High taxes on the middle class take money from the private sector union worker and give it to the public sector one. And so on.
"Evidence is that today in America, liberals who are attacked violently by NAMs remain liberals."
A possible explanation for this (and one I wish guys like Steverino would touch on more) is that political disposition is partly inherited. A slew of studies have been coming out in recent years pointing to a possible gene-ideology connection. Now this is not to say the genetic angle is deterministic -- only that some guys, like yglesias, may have so many "leftie alleles" that even a polar bear mugging isn't enough to fright them right.
PS As I predicted, single white women voted for Obama by a fairly substantial margin. As the single white mom population grows, GOP chances dwindle even more.
Most women today are unmarried, the average age of (first) marriage among White middle class women is in the thirties IIRC.
Life is so much simpler when you can just make up your own statistics out of thin air.
(I'm being polite with that "thin air" remark - I think we all know which orifice Whiskey pulls his numbers from)
@heartiste
There's an essay written by some black feminist professor who was raped by a black man. The essay is basically an apology for the rapist, saying that he only raped her because of white power structures and whatnot. She writes about how she tried to "reason" with him (black to black) during the rape, but that white hegemony had kept him from realizing it was whitey he should be raping yada yada.
I can't it find the essay, but I'll post a link if I do. It's an excellent example of how 'environment' and 'experience' doesn't always change one's political beliefs. The woman was effing raped by a black man, but she still blames whitey.
"Where are disabled people?"
Whaddya talking about? Who do you think voted for dubya but the mentally challenged?
I must be doing something wrong. When I go there and select "Selection for president in the 2012 presidential election" and filter on White and Catholic, I get Romney with 49% and Obama with 40%. How are people getting 57% or 59% for Romney?
"In my view, the GOP ought to realize the closeness of the demographics, and respond with what Democrats do:
VOTING FRAUD."
Ballots are now managed like food stamps.
From voter suppression of old days to voter inflation today.
As I predicted, single white women voted for Obama by a fairly substantial margin
That's some really impressive prognostication there, sport.
"The exit polls show a 65-28 split in favor of immigration reform"
It should really be called INVASION SURRENDER.
"If 37 percent of Hispanics in Texas vote Republican, that's pretty good."
Pretty good for whom? You do realize that 100 minus 37 equals 63, and that 63 is greater than 37, right?
"Liberal Whites have little contact with the majority of Hispanics or blacks and know they could not even walk through certain neighbourhoods"
"the liberal whites that I know seem to have plenty of contact with a broad selection of NAMs. For example, most liberal whites in NYC ride the subway. They get up close and personal with NAMs and obviously vote democratic."
yes, you're right, but by 'liberal whites', we mean the really affluent ones with the real power.
looking back, what Giuliani did for NY was bad. I wish dems ran NY and ran it to the ground. then, more of NY would have turned conservative.
Lesson of NY. Republicans, don't do libs any favors.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
""If 37 percent of Hispanics in Texas vote Republican, that's pretty good.""
I'm not sure how losing a large (in Texas, very large) constituency by a two to one margin is "pretty good"."
Yes, this is something that Karl Rove never seemed to understand. What do you call somebody who consistently wins 40% of the vote?
The loser.
These exit-poll results clearly indicate that the Republican party needs to reach out more to black lesbians.
"Anonymous said...
Priest celibacy destroyed Catholicism. No healthy guy will join such an order, and so the church took in a lot of freaks, gays, and perverts who ruined church reputation from within. This is how dogmatism ruins any organization."
The Episcopalian Church is even more squishy-liberal than the Catholic Church, and their priests can and do marry.
"pat said...
No judge would lock up someone for cough syrup."
He might if the syrup containes Ephedrine.
Yes, Alpha Dog at least that's why I oppose him. But here's the deal white Christians are about the only non-elite whites that can politically organize at this point so I'd say it's best to keep the thought to yourself.
"steve, why do you keep pretending that there is some sort of barrier that prevents GOP politicians and officials from pandering to the hispanics in every way possible and thereby winning an ever increasing share of their votes?" - John McCain.
"Where is the white vote going to go?" - Home.
"But why is it that you never seem to point out that without this dynamic, a huge the lower middle class whites would be over on the side of the Dems?" - This dynamic(or hardened structural feature if you will) comes from deep within the democrat party and won't be changing any time soon. there ain't enough white taxpayer dollars to cover the unlimited reach and grasp of the non-white tax consumer. Scarcity 101. The Republicans meanwhile have to balance on the razors edge of getting the white vote, and not getting called a racist for getting the white vote.
Do you have the numbers for white women as a group (i.e., single and married combined)? Just curious.
37 percent of Hispanics is good enough to win election if combined with an overwhelming percentage of the white vote. If Hispanics ever start to vote like blacks, then it's all over, but at 37 percent the game is competitive.
37 percent of Hispanics is good enough to win election if combined with an overwhelming percentage of the white vote.
Well, no. You're assuming that the proportion of the electorate which is Hispanic is small, and that it is constant. In that case it is possible for the GOP to win by taking an overwhelming percentage of the white vote. But if the Hispanic vote is steadily growing (which it IS) then the task for the GOP becomes steadily more difficult over time.
"37 percent of Hispanics is good enough to win election if combined with an overwhelming percentage of the white vote."
No one's really this dumb, are they? Look, for every Hispanic vote that Republicans get,the Democrats get two. Yes, 37-63 is better than 7-93 like they get from blacks. But it's still losing. If Republicans double the number of Hispanic voters, they give the Democrats 2 votes for every 1 they gain. If there were no Hispanic voters at all, Republicans wouldn't need an "overwhelming share of the white vote." Why put yourself in a hole in the first place, especially when you refuse to grab the rope that could pull you out?
If Republicans could somehow increase their percentage of the Hispanic vote without increasing the number of Hispanics, that might be worth doing. But that's not what anyone's talking about. The only way they're told they can increase their Hispanic take is by amnesty and opening the border further. The only way that makes sense is if you think that Hispanics will be so grateful that they'll switch sides, but we already have plenty of evidence from previous amnesties and Hispanderers like McCain and the Bushes that that doesn't happen.
If anything, amnestying the kind of people who are illegal will skew the numbers even further Democrat, because you're not talking about middle class business owners here. The kind of people "living in the shadows" are the ones with the most incentive to vote for the party pushing the biggest welfare state.
Love Whiskey's insight. Always spot on.
Proving that if you repeat a lie often enough, some people will believe it. The fact is that the great majority of Whiskey's claims which can be factually evaluated are factually wrong.
People like you are why Obama is President of the United States - you are willing to believe anything, no matter how self-evidently preposterous, as long as it's something you wish to be true.
" Jeff W. said...
Another question is why did Romney do well with the white working class in Texas and not well with the white working class in Ohio."
The NE is unionized as hell.
Does this mean that 7.53 out of every 1000 blacks who are also bisexuals, broke for Romney?
Surely a crucial emerging demographic for the GOP.
Anon.
Professor Woland: They could try to get as close to 100% of the male vote and 100% of the married women's vote as possible while abandoning the single women's vote...
I know I'm not the only one who's noticed it, as Steve has made some vague references to "marriage gap" vs. "gender gap", but it seems that some of the commenters here are so deep into their whiskeyology studies that they fail to notice that almost half of single white men went for Obama.
>If TV is a window into the culture<
It isn't. It's a fun house mirror that's being more and more twisted in order to keep an increasingly jaded populace watching through the ads. Its purpose is to sell overpriced or unnecessary vehicles, drugs, and financial products. If you believe or take seriously anything on TV that plays between the ads (much less the ads themselves), you're a fool.
'Other orientations' is an interesting term. There's really no way to sugar coat how truly weird and off the path of what is natural and normal these people are. Its truly sick that the education dems push for this shit to get taught to young kids as merely 'alternate lifestyle' against the wishes of the majority of parents.
"The exit polls show a 65-28 split in favor of immigration reform"
You ever see those Pew civics/current events surveys they run about once a year? Republicans do better than independents who do better than Democrats, but even the average Republican score is downright pathetic - maybe 60% correct on a multiple choice quiz with 4 possible answers each.
Anyway my point is: just about every one of the 28% who say "no" know exactly what is meant by "immigration reform." A large fraction of those who answer "yes" haven't a clue. Hell, ask me that question and even I'll pause a second before remembering I have to translate from the original Orwellian.
Aside from that, people don't know jack about what economic policies will actually improve their lives. The ignorance of the voting population - the voting population - is stunning.
The savior for small towns is..........wait for it.....immigration. I guess Bloomberg's Detroit revitalization plan is catching on. Heartland Draws Hispanics to Help Revive Small Towns
"To expand, we'll need to attract an outside workforce—and it will likely be Hispanic," - you can translate that into what they want to pay employees yourselves
"Mayor Uehling invited town officials, business leaders and the sheriff to form a "diversity task force," which began to convene each month to address community concerns and challenges related to the absorption of the newcomers. Extending bus service to the meat plant and hiring bilingual staff for hospitals and clinics were among the early achievements." - At no cost to the current taxpayers I'm sure
"Some street gangs from Texas, California and Chicago showed up, and a spate of shootouts and fights alarmed Ottumwans." - How vibrant!
The plot on page 2 of "Growth in Hispanic Population, 2000-10" shows how the GOP will lose the last hold out for the party, the South.
And more charming news: As immigration turns red states blue, how can Republicans transform their platform?
“By 2040, you’d have to get over a hundred per cent of the Anglo vote,” he said.
“Over a hundred per cent is not possible,” I offered.
“That’s my point!”
For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage
The forces rearranging the family are as diverse as globalization and the pill. I don't think they are following the directions.
Just putting this out there but it seems to me that at the end of the day, dems had a better ground game. Reps should have won. Orca was a bust and Rodney's numbers guys got there asses handed to them.
Just putting this out there but it seems to me that at the end of the day, dems had a better ground game. Reps should have won. Orca was a bust and Rodney's numbers guys got there asses handed to them.
"Does this mean that 7.53 out of every 1000 blacks who are also bisexuals, broke for Romney?"
Who might they be? I'm curious.
"37 percent of Hispanics + 70 percent of whites = victory.
"27 percent of Hispanics + 58 percent of whites = loss.
"Republicans need to drive up their percentages of Hispanics (to the Texas 37 percent)"
Math is hard.
The Reuters website is ipso facto raciss as it allows the easy aggregation of hate facts.
"The studies claiming that red states have higher divorce rates and illegitimacy despite evangelical posturing do not ever break that out by race at the same time."
You know what increases divorce rates? Marriage. People who don't get married don't have to get divorced. I'll bet blacks have pretty damn low divorce rates. I'll bet gays have pretty damn low divorce rates - so long as the denominator is population (which it usually is) rather than total married couples.
"Priest celibacy destroyed Catholicism. "
You have to have a hell of a lot of faith to commit yourself to celibacy for a religion. Increasingly, people don't. Monasticism appears to be dying out, also.
I remember reading an article in my dad's Atlantic back in the early '90s about the decline in the quality of people going into the clergy of all faiths - Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism. Increasingly these were second careers for men and women who hadn't really had very succesful first careers. Increasingly the things they were learning in seminary/rabbinical school were destroying their faith. But they stuck with jobs they didn't believe in because, among other reasons, their financial livelihoods depended upon it.
One solution: follow the Mormons. Except at the top, they don't have a professional clergy, and they sure as hell don't have celibacy. It's all done in the spare time of men who mostly have jobs in the private sector. Growing up Mormon, my bishops ("priests") were professors, dentists, engineers, real estate developers, and insurance salesmen. The LDS Church won't let men who have been divorced be bishops. They also don't feel any remorse "firing" bishops who misbehave, since their liveihood does not depend upon their being a bishop.
Really, you guys get depressed too easily. There's a natural antidote to Democratic election victories - it's called The H1N1 Tax Increase Vaccine.
How much did the first four years of the Obama Spendfest cost us? Nothing, because he just charged it on the credit card.
To cut the trillion dollar deficit by even a neglibile amount - say 1/3rd - he will have to raise taxes and/or cut spending by over $300 billion, or $1,000 per person.
Pretty soon those enlightened Yankee whites will come to realize that Obama's socialism has a cost. The GOP could easily pick up a dozen-plus Sennate seats in 2014.
Math is indeed hard.
Pat / Albertosaurus:
I don't favor legalizing marijuana because I'm a conservative. I take a conservative approach. I think marijuana should be reclassified from a Schedule I drug to something lower. Heroin is Schedule I. Cocaine is Schedule II. Hydrocodone is Schedule III. Codiene cough syrup is Schedule V.
Marijuana and its politics are fascinating, and worthy of a full thread on iSteve. You are entitled to your opinion; I'm more for full legalization. But as a conservative you seem more rational and open to discussion than most conservatives - some of which have nothing short of a superstitious terror about certain drugs especially the psychedelics. Religion is partly to blame, but there are other factors too, which I will tabulate.
BTW, I consider myself more a libertarian plus magickal reactionary. I am definitely not a conservative.
Marijuana is a drug but certainly it is a lot less dangerous than heroin. It's current classification cannot be justidied medically or pharmacologically. Put it down where it belongs and most aspects of the issue just disappear. No judge would lock up someone for cough syrup.
Like all drugs, cannabis affects different people differently. That's a no brainer. But race, class, and intelligence are more a factor for pot than (say) tobacco, alcohol, and ritalin. Cannabis was the original "smart drug", used to enhance creativity, and for smart people, it works that way.
Blacks and Mexicans have the most tolerance for marijuana, suffer the fewest bad effects. For whites, tolerance depends on many factors including intelligence, creativity, openness to new experiences, genetics, and maybe just dumb luck. For the less intelligent whites, pot is poison, just like alcohol for Native Americans. It causes addiction, bad trips, depression, demotivation and the like.
It is no surprise that the lower IQ whites who make the rank and file of the conservatives and Christian right are the ones who are, or would be, most adversely affected by pot. No wonder they hate it so much! Many of the most vehement anti-DRUG types are also alcoholics or recovering alcoholics. This really isn't conscious hyprocrisy at all. Pot and alcohol are opposites in a way. Their effects are radically different; their preferred users polar opposites in personality. Timothy Leary locked on to a hidden truth with his overly polemic rant, "Chemical Warfare: The Alcoholics vs. the Psychedelics"
Maybe marijuana should be legalized altogether but if we reclassified it we could consider that question at our leisure. Give it a couple decades.
The Baby Boomber generation will have to die off first. They truly have a love-hate relationship with marijuana, and are incapable of any clear judgement of it. The "Reefer Madness" generation has already gone. Wait for the "Easy Rider" one to go. A new blinder-less generation will then make some better laws.
This is a conservative position not a libertarian one. The libertarians are ideological. They know complete personal freedom for everyone is best. I don't know how they know that, but they say they do.
More and more I believe that complete freedom is not best for everyone. Some can handle certain freedoms, others can not, and in a fair world what everyone will get is the freedoms they deserve. I don't mean deserve in a moral sense, but in sense of intellectual capability.
One solution: follow the Mormons. Except at the top, they don't have a professional clergy, and they sure as hell don't have celibacy. It's all done in the spare time of men who mostly have jobs in the private sector.
Islam is much the same.
from the last election
Hindus 4 Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9oyAOMoFpc
Rohan,
I did not say a male / married female coalition would be easy or risk free but nothing worth having is. It is certainly feasible. Do I think 100% of men would vote for a man running against Hillary Clinton? Ask Barak Obama that question. He ran a black / male (although never advertised as such) coalition against white women in the Democratic primary and won.
The Republicans can do nothing and keep losing or they can rebuild their base and try and pick off one of their opposition's core constituent groups, Democratic men of all colors being high on that list. You can also try and be nice to feminists by giving them things in hope that they will be nice to you but that probably won't get you very far.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqCrdRjunTM
The 'most advanced race'.
Ugh.
What with all the Afrophilia, isn't 'guys with small dick' joke a big thing among liberals and shows like SEX AND THE CITY?
Since Asian men have smaller dingalings, isn't this a joke on them? So, why are Asians for libs when lib media go wild with small whanker jokes?
Are Asian guys angry at white guys for taking asian girls?
Republicans need to drive up their percentages of Hispanics (to the Texas 37 percent) and white Catholics (to the 70 percent among white Protestants). You can't build a majority on white Protestants alone.
Interesting tacit admission that the old dominant, Protestant population should never have allowed anyone except those most like themselves to immigrate.
Alpha Troll said - I don't get why Heartiste/Roissy is so demonized by the commenters on this site. He is right-wing and has some very valuable insights.
Is he? Some people denigrate him, some dont, you're trolling.
Is it because a lot of the commenters on this site are from bible-belt/religious-nut parts of the country?
Pure trolling bull jive. I suspect most here live in SWPL strongholds.
Professsor Woland: You can also try and be nice to feminists by giving them things in hope that they will be nice to you but that probably won't get you very far.
Point out that the difference in single white female and single white male voting patterns doesn't really support the Whiskey TOE, and that the high level of support among SWMs for Obama warrants some attention. Have this interpreted as a suggestion to "be nice to feminists". By a guy who thinks that getting 100% of the male vote is "feasible".
You a member of that "Republican Brain Trust" some guy was just talking about a minute ago?
We must make the mental break. We must take on the MINORITY mentality. No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more playing 'fair' and sticking to principles while all others play tribalistics.
And no more referring to non-Whites as "minorities".
But whites aren't a race. There been a revolution in population genetics. It clearly shows this. E.Asian admixture in whites is significant.
Whites are also "tweener" race between blacks and Mongoloids. And blacks are really mulatto.
"Whites aren't a race."
Yet, "Whites are also 'tweener' race."
Do you see the problem?
37 percent of Hispanics + 70 percent of whites = victory.
27 percent of Hispanics + 58 percent of whites = loss
You're one pf those Republicans who has trouble with numbers. 37 percent of X + 70 percent of Y does not equal anything other than 37 percent of X plus 70 percent of Y. In order to come up with an answer you need to know the size of X and Y.
Here's a news flash for you: X and Y are not constants. The absolute and relative size of the Hispanic vote (X) is increasing rapidly and the relative size of the white vote (Y) is decreasing steadily.
The time is not unimaginably distant when getting 70% of the white vote plus 37% of the Hispanic vote in Texas will result in a Republican loss in that state.
Anonymous said..."The fact is that the great majority of Whiskey's claims which can be factually evaluated are factually wrong. People like you are why Obama is President of the United States"
I find some of Whiskey's post to be amusing, some to be ridiculous, some to be sort of interesting, etc. But as far as I can tell every single one of them is prefaced by "Whiskey said". Not "Anonymous" said. I get that people don't want their identities clearly identified for all sorts of reason, but it doesn't take long to MAKE UP a name and stick with it (I'm assuming Whiskey does not appear on Whiskey's birth certificate).
I find some of Whiskey's post to be amusing, some to be ridiculous, some to be sort of interesting, etc. But as far as I can tell every single one of them is prefaced by "Whiskey said".
Really, that's where you set the bar? Everything he says is a lie, but a lie prefaced by "Whiskey said ..", and that makes it all OK?
And to add insult to injury you don't even give yourself a name, though that is supposedly the one thing you find of value in comments!
Rohan,
I am going to pay you a left-handed compliment by saying you are being cute rather than just obtuse. Getting 100% of the male vote is a goal, but you knew that. I also said that a Male / married Female coalition was feasible. It is. The other thing you did not seemingly pick up on but did is that the possibility opens up to gain a greater share of the men's vote when running against a polarizing battle axe like Hillary Clinton. Things will evolve. The only question is in which direction and by how much. What we do know is that if the Republicans continue to run as Manginas and White Knights they will be destined to perpetually come in second in a two sex race. Just ask the Red Queen.
Otis McWrong said...
Padishah said...”Marijuana and its politics are fascinating…most conservatives - some of which have nothing short of a superstitious terror about certain drugs…’
How old are you?
I was born in 1955. I have a house and family. I am well travelled, having been to quite a few states and other countries for that matter. And I don't mean the resorts of Mexico and sex clubs of Thailand.
Were you born in 1889 by any chance? :)
I'm guessing you're an Indian in his/her early 20's.
No, I'm white, and so white that I actually worship white European gods. How about you?
What makes you think that I'm an Indian?
Here’s a suggestion kid
Here's a suggestion, undead ayatollah: stop the ad hominem attacks. Try refuting the actual points that I have made. Then we can get to the discussion. Right now I am laughing so hard that I can hardly type.
And why did you bring up India at all?
Voland: I am going to pay you a left-handed compliment by saying you are being cute rather than just obtuse.
Why can't I be both?
Getting 100% of the male vote is a goal, but you knew that.
Yes, you did say that.
I also said that a Male / married Female coalition was feasible. It is.
Yes, you said that too. (Is this copy/paste exercise going somewhere?)
The other thing you did not seemingly pick up on but did is that the possibility opens up to gain a greater share of the men's vote when running against a polarizing battle axe like Hillary Clinton.
Nah. Even obtuse people like me don't really have much trouble "picking up on" the content of simple declarative sentences. Other kinds of obtuse people, on the other hand...
Where's the bar for the dead?
Padishah said...”Were you born in 1889 by any chance? :)
No.
"What makes you think that I'm an Indian?"
It was just a guess. Having worked with countless Indians over the years, your post had just the right mix of sweeping generalizations and the highly confident assertions of nonsense that seems to afflict them. I call it the "confidence of the idiot". Anyway, my mistake.
"Here's a suggestion, undead ayatollah: stop the ad hominem attacks. Try refuting the actual points that I have made."
As far as I could tell your points, to the extent you had any, was that marijuana affects low-IQ whites lots more than it does blacks and mexicans, or something like that. And that conservatives have "superstitious terror" of drugs. So okay, I'll address your points: beyond how marijuana affects you in particular, the rest of it was baseless nonsense. If you still smoke weed, I'd suggest you knock it off or at least cut way back. Its really showing.
"And why did you bring up India at all?"
See above.
Among Whites in the South and Southwest, it seems that the gender gap is either non-existent or actually favors Republicans. Florida is a big exception, but most in most southern states, Reuters shows that if anything, white women were more likely to vote for Romney than were white men.
The two states where this trend appears to be strongest:
Tennessee
White men: Romney 64% - Obama 34%
White women: Romney 74.1% - Obama 24.3%
South Carolina
White men: Romney 72% - Obama 26%
White women: Romney 81% - Obama 18.3%
Having worked with countless Indians over the years, your post had just the right mix of sweeping generalizations and the highly confident assertions of nonsense that seems to afflict them. I call it the "confidence of the idiot".
Are Indians the only idiots in the world?
You are right Swee. You are just too clever for me.
Otis McWrong:
(Aptly named, 100% wrong so far about everything)
It was just a guess. Having worked with countless Indians over the years, your post had just the right mix of sweeping generalizations and the highly confident assertions of nonsense that seems to afflict them. I call it the "confidence of the idiot". Anyway, my mistake.
Oh Praise the Lord, he finally admits he made one. So let's stop talking about Indians, and sweeping generalizations (whether about them or me), and stay on the topic.
As far as I could tell your points, to the extent you had any, was that marijuana affects low-IQ whites lots more than it does blacks and mexicans, or something like that.
Prove me wrong, then. Publish your research, formal or informal, on that subject, preferably without any sanctimonious arrogance. Just saying, "Dat's the fact, sonny boy", ain't gonna cut it.
And that conservatives have "superstitious terror" of drugs.
Not all conservatives, SOME, especially of a certain generation. Do some research about drugs and their prohibition, and common conservative attitudes towards them. Start with the tyrannical Harrison Act. Find out about Hearst, Dupont, and movies such as "Reefer Madness".
Enlighten me with your wordly conservative wisdom, then. Tell me what attitude conservatives have towards drugs, especially certain drugs, and WHY.
So okay, I'll address your points: beyond how marijuana affects you in particular,
How do you know I smoke the stuff, much less regularly? I don't. Not at all. DING! WcWrong wrong again.
I am just giving marijuana a fair cop. Did God or Satan or whoever grant you psychic powers to make you know so much about me? If I was like you, maybe I could say you got your amazing powers while on a murderously violent drunken rampage common to alcoholics.
If you still smoke weed, I'd suggest you knock it off or at least cut way back.
You've already made up your mind about that, so cut out the IF. You have good chance of winning your argument by making me die laughing.
Don't worry about punctuation problems. Stay on top of the scientific literature in population genetics. Read Razib Khan or even Dienekes "the Wretched."
You contradicted yourself in a ridiculously obvious fashion, and you think I'm talking about punctuation? You're loony.
Post a Comment