More election observations from my inbox:
I added points 12 - 16
12. Jim Pinkerton points out that the Republicans have now lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections. Whatever is wrong with the Republican brand isn't new, and can't be explained away as a consequence of changing demographics. The Republicans did win the popular vote in 2004 with 9-11 echoing loudly. Of course, you can argue that the Republicans might have won the popular vote in 1992 without Perot in the race. However, the polling data from 1992 appears to show that Clinton got most of the Perot voters when he (Perot) left the race in July of 1992. Conversely, when Perot reentered the race in October of 1992, Clinton appear to have lost more support than Bush.
13. Some folks argue that Republicans can prevail by running more minority candidates. This theory was actually tested this year in Texas. Romney carried Texas 57.2% to 41.4%. Ted Cruz got 56.6% of the vote versus 40.5% for Sadler. I think it is wrong to suggest that Ted Cruz lost votes because he is Hispanic. However, it surely didn't gain him any votes. The obvious inference is that Rubio won't save the Republicans in 2016. They need to save themselves.
A reader points out that Cruz did a little better than Romney in heavily Hispanic South Texas and Romney did a little better than Cruz in white rural counties. Not a big effect, though.
As you know, the so called national exit poll didn't bother sampling enough people in Texas in 2012 to report demographics on that giant and fascinating state. Fortunately, my big upcoming VDARE.com article analyzing the election's demographics includes a brief analysis of Texas voting by ethnicity from an exit poll source that nobody else seems to have noticed.
14. Few people are mentioning it, but Citizens United was a big winner on Tuesday. Not the Citizens United won anything. Far from it. However, the failure of the outside spending organization to influence the outcome speaks louder than all of the dollars spent. Henceforth it will be rather hard for the Democrats to claim that Citizens United poisoned the electoral well for them. ...
Yeah, but, still ... Just because it will be hard for Democrats to complain doesn't mean the Democratic media won't have enough gumption to man up and whine incessantly each time some backwoods millionaire takes time off from buying cars for cornerbacks to donate one ... million ... dollars to some Republican PAC.
However, somebody should try to estimate what percentage of all the money raised by pro-Republican groups was wasted or stolen via stupid ad buys, bad commercials, or get out the vote software that failed miserably.
My impression is that Democratic donors get a bigger bang for their buck right now. A Democrat giving a million bucks that goes to, say, walking around money in the 'hood in Philly is buying some serious results. In contrast, a Republican giving a million bucks will often wind up with some killer Powerpoint presentations, some fun team-building bonding experiences for the PAC staff after golf at Hilton Head, a big cut goes for the consulting firm's overhead, and then there's ... ?
15. Romney did much worse with Asians compared to any other group. He lost 9% of the Asian vote compared to McCain He lost the Asian vote by a larger margin 73% to 26% than the Hispanic vote. This raises some interesting (and disturbing) questions (for Republicans). Illegal immigration isn't the key topic in the Asian community, that it supposedly is among Hispanics. Romney and Republicans strongly embraced higher levels of skilled immigration (which means Asians in practice). Asians are not generally poor, welfare dependent, and family stability is high. Why then? At some level it would appear that Asians are voting like Jews ("Jews live like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans" is an old quip). However, this doesn't reveal as much as you might think. As late as 1996, Republicans captured a majority of the Asian vote. Starting with Bush 43, Republicans starting losing the Asian vote and are now losing the Asian vote by a margin of 47%.
I look into the Asian vote a little more in my upcoming VDARE.com article, using my second source that nobody else is looking at.
16. Overall, Obama's winning margin was smaller in 2012 (2.6%) than in 2008 (7.27%). However, the shift towards Romney was highly variable by state. In 47 jurisdictions, Romney closed the gap versus 2008 (winning some but not all of them). In 4 jurisdictions, the gap actually widened (AK, LA, MS,. NJ). Romney's greatest gain was in Utah (no surprise there). Romney's greatest loss (while still winning) was in Alaska. The other large shifts towards Romney were mostly in resource extraction states (IN 11.53%, KY 6.47%, MT 11.24%, ND 11.17%, WV 13.68%).
Heavily Latino states actually don't show any pattern at all. Romney gained share in AZ and CA, but less than the national average. NV and NM were above the national average. Texas was slightly below the national average. If Latino backlash was a major influence on the election, it would have presumably shown up in states with high Latino turnout. It didn't.
Posts
52 comments:
If you think Asians are "natural Republicans" you need to look at Hawaii. Its a reliable Liberal Democrat state. Several points about Asians. First, Asians aren't social conservatives - period. Like Jews, they believe in strong family unit, learning, hard work, etc. but politically they are social liberals.
Second, Poor Asian immigrants, vote Democrat as do Asian Government workers. Why? They aren't stupid.
Third, the Asians naturally gravitate to the Democrats as they are considered the natural party of immigration and minorities.
Fourth, the appeals to Patriotism which tug at heart strings of many white Americans (God Bless America, lets support our boys overseas, etc.) mean nothing to Asians. Attacks on Obama for being a "muslim" mean nothing to them.
Bottom Line: Asians will continue to vote Democrat unless their economic self-interest *Obviously* requires it.
People keep focusing on the "Hispanic" vote but what about the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest. Does any remember that Iowa and Oregon used to be "rock ribbed Republicans"? As for the Upper Midwest the Republicans have screwed the pooch by their obsessive love of "Free-trade" and constant talk of cutting Social Security. The truth is Romney agreed with Obama that these Workers in the Midwest are a bunch of "losers" who "cling to their God, Guns and Religion" - he just didn't say it out loud.
All of the Asians that I know are abnormally interested in fitting in and doing what's popular.
I suspect that Asians are even more influenced by endorsements by entertainment figures and the general tenor of media coverage than other ethnic groups are.
Does any remember that Iowa and Oregon used to be "rock ribbed Republicans"?
I live in rural Oregon. They are still rock ribbed Republicans. On food stamps (of course they wouldn't be poor if they could, oh, log and stuff). Oregon is carried blue by Lane County (University of Oregon), Benton County (OSU), and the counties surrounding Portland. Two college towns and the hipster capital of the West Coast.
The state just isn't populated enough to overcome that. I would imagine most of Oregon will continue to vote Republican, but I don't see any hints that there will be substantial economic growth outside of the blue team domains to overcome their advantage.
You see the same thing in say Montana or Idaho around the universities (Missoula, for instance, was overwhelmingly for Obama). But those states don't have a big population center like Portland that also draws liberal types. So they're safe--they just aren't cool enough. Billings isn't going to be the next hip town.
Missouri was another big swinger to Romney, 9.5% more than four years ago. It was 12% redder than the country as a whole, a disparity I've never seen.
"People keep focusing on the "Hispanic" vote but what about the Upper Midwest and the Pacific Northwest. Does any remember that Iowa and Oregon used to be "rock ribbed Republicans"? As for the Upper Midwest the Republicans have screwed the pooch by their obsessive love of "Free-trade" and constant talk of cutting Social Security. The truth is Romney agreed with Obama that these Workers in the Midwest are a bunch of "losers" who "cling to their God, Guns and Religion" - he just didn't say it out loud."
The Midwestern wing of the GOP were the "isolationists." No surprise that it didn't survive the purge of such elements from the party.
Oregon was long regarded as the least religious state. No big shock that a party that panders to creationists would't appeal the them.
I think the real reason why the party elite is jumping on the amnesty bandwagon is that Hispanics are the only reason they can claim to have lost that doesn't undermine a powerful interest in the party.
Billionaires aren't going to agree to raise capital gains taxes. The neocons aren't going to give up endless wars. The fundamentalists aren't going to admit that the earth is more that six thousand years old. Something has to give.
All of the Asians that I know are abnormally interested in fitting in and doing what's popular.
I suspect that Asians are even more influenced by endorsements by entertainment figures and the general tenor of media coverage than other ethnic groups are.
Exactly! (East) Asians tend to be pretty socially-conformist relative to most other groups, those of a relatively recent immigrant background probably even more so.
The Asian numbers really didn't much surprise me all that much. Remember, over half of all Asians live either on the West Coast, in the greater NYC area, or in Hawaii, all very liberal places. They also tend to be affluent and well-educated. I'd guess that they voted roughly the same as all their affluent, well-educated white neighbors.
all this talk about the g.o.p needing to appeal to minorities more is just the world's most artful dodge for the much more obvious answer that the g.o.p need to reduce the number of minorities in the u.s in the future via immigration reform.
"Jim Pinkerton points out that the Republicans have now lost the popular vote in 5 out of the last 6 presidential elections. Whatever is wrong with the Republican brand isn't new, and can't be explained away as a consequence of changing demographics."
why not? i think it can be explained easily. "normal" issues, which change from election to election, could have been deciding those elections, while in the meantime, changing demographics and bloc voting could have been slowly and steadily becoming more and more important over time.
so this election was the tipping point where the demographic change has rendered bloc voting more important than "normal" issues. now any 1 or 2 "normal" issue matters a lot less than bloc voting. it probably takes 3 or 4 "normal" issues combined to match the effect of bloc voting.
which seems like what happened in 2012. under "normal" circumstances (america with the demographic profile it had for the previous 220 years or so) the "normal" issue of the terrible economy would have been bad enough that an incumbent coming into a re-election with the year 2012 economy would have automatically lost.
this time, he didn't lose, he won. because the demographics change is now the biggest single determining factor, outweighing several of the "normal" issues combined.
Tuesday's election brought some religious firsts for Congress, with a victory for Tulsi Gabbard, who will be the first Hindu congresswoman, and Mazie Hirono, the first Buddhist senator. Both are Democrats from Hawaii.
During the campaign, Congresswoman-elect Gabbard took some heat for her religion. In an interview on CNN, her Republican opponent said her beliefs don't align with the U.S. constitution
Neither could get a Republican nomination without converting, and Tulsi's Republican opponent had nothing better to oppose her than her non-Christian religion
" Romney did much worse with Asians compared to any other group. He lost 9% of the Asian vote compared to McCain He lost the Asian vote by a larger margin 73% to 26% than the Hispanic vote. "
Yet, Chinese in China (the 800 lb gorilla of Asia) preferred Romney over Obama by about 10%- in fact this was one of the few significant countries where Romney was favored over Obama. In most European countries he would have lost by an enormous margin. In most Asian countries, he would have lost, but by less than in Europe. Either the US MSM propaganda plays bigger in Europe than Asia, or Romney looked better to them for another reason- maybe they have a more realistic view of the worldwide economic consequences in Asia than what the PC driven Eloi swill in European and American media is spewing out.
Someone mentioned that the number of independents voting this time around was significantly lower than 2008. If true, why? Because neither candidate seemed worth voting for, would be my guess.
Interestingly, Chinese in prefers Romney more than the US. And vastly more than Europeans. Perhaps the Chinese are permitted a more realistic view of the worldwide economic consequences of Obama in office than we in the west under the heel of the MSM.
http://news.xin.msn.com/en/world/storyviewer.aspx?cp-documentid=251044810
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/berger/2012/11/07/creationism-on-capitol-hill/
party of dumb
The problem with the rise of big money does not stem from it buying electoral results, it comes with the demoralizing effect it has on ordinary people who want to become involved in the political process. Heinlein, in Take back your government, strongly advised volunteer activists to never, ever accept the offer of money which will nearly always be made to a volunteer who sticks at it and scores a few victories. Money produces cynicism, erodes the will and reduces independence of mind.
No great mystery why Asians voted Republican through the mid-90s. It's the same reason Republican used to win those massive landslides in the 80s. When Democrats came to power they raised taxes. So voting for a Democrat could cost you real money, as in dollars and cents.
The Democrats (Clinton) had learned a lesson, and so there hasn't been a tax increase in a generation. If you are under 40 years (or weren't yet in this country then) you have no memory of what a tax raise is like. You are free to vote on such issues as gay marriage, creationism, or ethnic identity because your wallet is safe (in a visible way).
However, it looks like the Democrats are gradually unlearning Clinton's lesson. Let them raise the taxes again, and you'll see the Asians (and many SWPL and others) vote for GOP in droves again.
...and can't be explained away as a consequence of changing demographics.
It can't? Maybe not. But counting back, and including 2012, the 6th election took place in 1992. And as I recall (I was living there at the time), the 2000 census showed that one third of the adults living in the San Francisco Bay Area were born in another country.
Contemplate that for a moment.
While change of that magnitude is perhaps extreme, and indicative more of urban California than the US in general, it also tells me that "changing demographics" shouldn't be so easily dismissed as a huge factor.
I suspect that the factors moving whites with grad degrees to the Dems are in large part the same ones moving Asians towards the Dems - a perception that the Republican base is ignorant, racist, and full of fundamentalists. It's a reaction - every block looks to the group to the left of them on the bell curve and says "I don't want to be like them."
Many Asians have also been radicalized in the wake of 9/11. In their own countries the Hindoos and the Mohameddans may be at each other's throat, but in this country they make common cause against the white oppressors.
Oregon was long regarded as the least religious state. No big shock that a party that panders to creationists would't appeal the them.
There are some real Grade A morons commenting here. I'd ask what exactly the GOP has ever done to pander to creationists, but let's be realistic.. the points of dopy remarks like yours is to sneer and feel superior, not to convey information.
"During the campaign, Congresswoman-elect Gabbard took some heat for her religion. In an interview on CNN, her Republican opponent said her beliefs don't align with the U.S. constitution"
I don't dispute that this is unacceptable, or that non-Christians should be more welcome in the GOP, but...Gabbard's opponent, Kawika Crowley, was a homeless guy living out of his car who was a GOP sacrificial lamb in a safe Dem district. Gabbard won 81-19.
This was not a real contest, never would have been a real contest, and I would (almost) give you 1000-to-1 odds that the NRCC gave Crowley no funding whatsoever.
I've finally found the hispanic vote in Texas!
Mark Jones, the political science chair for Rice University has the best data I've seen so far for this election cycle and he estimates that Texas hispanics broke for Obama by 70-30.
Mind you, McCain got 35% last year.
So basically, Texas is no more 'conservative' than the national average for hispanics as a whole.
Their share of the voting population also increased from 20% in 2008 to 25% in 2012.
At most in 10 years before Texas is solidly blue. We'll start to see some real changes in the balance by the end of this decade. Then Texas can complete its transformation into a new California. And after that, the nation as a whole. Because even if there are large numbers of whites in both California or Texas, they are by that point demographically irrelevant, unless you think local politics will save you, which it won't.
This also shows that the shift is starting to become permanent. Cubans voted for Romney by about a 50-50 margin, and young Cubans broke for Obama quite heavily.
Matt Yglesias, a man who I do not agree with on a lot, was nonetheless correct to say that a few symbolic gestures on illegal immigration etc won't do it.
Hispanics are not conservative. Period. More than 50% of them are born out of wedlock. A majority of them now approve of gay marriage. Only 10% of their immigrants hold a college degree, compared to 36% of whites and about 50% of Asian immigrants.
They are not socially conservative and they will be dependent upon government for decades to come in economic terms.
Still, what can the Republican party do? All parties, organizations etc try to survive. If the GOP has to commit heresies, it will. It will not materially change the outcome, but the amnesty will come. It will fail and California will become the nation at large by the end of this decade at the latest.
After that, it will be up to enterprising people to bury and destroy the Republican party as we know it. If that cannot be done, if no viable alternative is provided, then the California model will truly stay with us in the sense that the GOP will be the only - and useless - alternative in town.
Now the Dems have a supermajority in both the lower California house and in the California Senate.
The GOP in California can now not even use vetoes on anything, not filibuster, not a single measure to stop anything.
California has become all but a one party state. It's coming, people, near you in a not too distant future.
Some notes about Hawaii:
Give Kawika Crowley some credit. He's a homeless house painter living in a van and he still got nearly 20% of the vote (including mine). He didn't make Gabbard's religion an issue at all during the campaign, though he had nothing to lose (or gain) in doing so. He's out waving signs year round for various things by my house, so one of these days I'm gonna drop by and give him a box of cigars.
About Gabbard; she's got an interesting history. Her dad is Mike Gabbard, who is creepy perennial political gadfly in the local political system. He's a former Republican who switched to Dem awhile back when he figured out he was unelectable. Tulsi gets her charisma from him. He was the founder and leader of a Hare Krishna splinter group, but he has nominally reaffiliated himself with his birth religion of Roman Catholicism while still being a leader of the group. The heads of the Catholic Church in Hawaii are pretty much okay with that political subterfuge because he was their main ally in getting out the vote against gay marriage back in the 90s. There's an old political commercial with teenaged Tulsi comparing gay marriage to marrying your dog... it disappeared from Youtube around the time Tulsi ran for her first office. Suffice to say she's been very evasive when asked about her stance on gay rights and the reason why it hadn't become a huge issue was because her primary opponent (Mufi Hanneman) is a Mormon who is even less fond of gays. It's gonna be interesting to see how it plays out now that she's in office. Other than the whole gays and abortion thing, she's pretty much your bog standard liberal Democrat, though.
The Dems here are so predominant that they are pretty much divided into two wings:
http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y&id=178319511
How it breaks down is that one wing (led by Say) champions the interests of Honolulu and the unholy coalition of property and public works developers and unions and the other coalescing around Souki is centered on neighbor island concerns, NIMBYism and other issues beloved by transplanted SWPLs. Both of 'em spend like drunken sailors, the fight is over who gets the money and what it goes to. Of the two wings, Say's is more socially conservative, which is why he had a tough fight against the Green Party opponent in his district (the Green Party doesn't win much here, but uses their spoiler effect to great advantage in getting what concerns them to be addressed by the left wing of the Dems). Either way the infrastructure of the islands is in decay with exploding sewer pipes in Waikiki, pot-holed roads that resemble third world nations, empty multi-million dollar housing tracts and apartment buildings, teeming masses of homeless on the beaches and in the public parks and an incipient multi-billion dollar monorail to nowhere.
It ain't Detroit, but demographics is destiny, right? Either way, it's looking into the future of America...
Meanwhile, I'll go to Iolani Palace and sigh heavily. C'est la vie.
"California has become all but a one party state. It's coming, people, near you in a not too distant future."
In a petri dish bacteria stop multiplying and start dying when they start to run out of a food source.
Tell me about this neverending Hispanic growth. Granted, they have grown far too large already, but how many more have been able to come here under the Obama economy? How many more will come here when the unemployment rate goes back up to 9-10-11%, or when welfare bennies are cut, perhaps as part of the balanced budget deal?
The Hispanic population grew rapidly because we a) had a fast-growing economy with, ya know, jobs; and b) w egave them lots of great free benefits.
We're out of money, Sport. You have yet to see how lousy the economy can get under Obama.
I don't dispute that this is unacceptable, or that non-Christians should be more welcome in the GOP, but...Gabbard's opponent, Kawika Crowley, was a homeless guy living out of his car who was a GOP sacrificial lamb in a safe Dem district. Gabbard won 81-19.
Ironic that his name was Crowley.
"I'd ask what exactly the GOP has ever done to pander to creationists"
I was wondering that too. Have Republicans introduced bills to replace the teaching of evolution and the Big Bang with young-earth theories in schools? Have they tried to defund scientists who think the universe is more than 6000 years old? Did Romney promise to start a search for the Ark?
I can't figure out what "pandering to creationists" would look like, but I'm pretty sure I haven't seen it yet. Even if it were true, how how does it get put on a level with actual fears like losing your job or health care? That may be the dumbest of a bunch of really dumb strawmen offered by the media in this election.
There's always a lot of gloom and doom on Steve's blog.
Megan McArdle offers seven reasons why the Democrats may run into problems down the line...
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/07/is-demography-destiny.html
Before we mock creationists, consider that they (though not always their spokesmen) are far more likely to agree with us on the reality of HBD than any modern pseudoliberal or tenured academic. They just posit a different cause.
And I don't remember any of them being rude to Drs Jensen, Rushton or Watson.
Asians vote democrat because there is a long history of white people getting tired of Asian success and passing laws that discriminate against Asians.
I hate liberals and laws like affirmative action that disproportionately hurt Asians. But I doubt liberals would stick asians in FEMA camps.
Republicans have shown no one a compelling reason to vote for them unless you are a rich old money white family. That's it.
When you think about it what reason is there to vote republican? Are republicans for limited government? For lower taxes? Against crony capitalism?
Asians conform more than white people. So what? White people conform more than black people.
So it is no surprise that whites think their level of conformity is the proper level, but if you really want true individualism, then I guess we should all be like blacks.
If you want to know why Asians vote for Democrats, here are some examples why.
Rush Limbaugh on the air making Ching-chong noises over the tape of a speech by the Chinese premier.
An ad by a Republican congressional candidate in Michigan featuring an Asian woman on a bicycle, speaking pidgin English and thanking the Democratic candidate for sending jobs to China.
These send the message that the Republicans do not care about the Asian vote. Not one iota.
"the points of dopy remarks like yours is to sneer and feel superior, not to convey information."
Dude, I HATE that.
In 08 I went to the polls knowing McCain was a loser and that didn't bother me much as I wrote in Barry Goldwater. In 2012 I thought along with millions of others that Romney at least had a shot maybe not 50/50 or even 30/70 but a shot at a winning this thing. Yet, McCain will still probably get more votes then Romney. McCain/Palin really did a much better job of actually getting people to vote for them then the full of cash Romney machine. Seriously, how many people didn't vote in 08 or went third party because it looked hopeless. Romney got many of those votes this time and he still is behind McCain.
What happened? I actually think some independents watched at least, some of the Republican debates and liked Ron Paul. No Ron Paul, no vote and Romney does seem like a raving NeoCon and socialist next to Ron Paul. I am not advocating positions here, I am just speculating on what the debates looked like to some people.
Asians vote democrat because there is a long history of white people getting tired of Asian success and passing laws that discriminate against Asians. --anonymous (of course)
You left out the part about how fairly white immigrants are treated in Asian countries.
This is also the first time I've heard Republicans held responsible for the affirmative outreach programs and the SAT "surcharge" that hold many Asians back from this success. Do you have a source for this claim?
Yes, Asians are so angry at Republicans for pushing Prop. 209 and giving them all those places at Berkeley and UCLA.
Steve's chart derived from Reuters polls showed that "white married men" were voting 67% for Romney, in a two-way match-up. Anyone have a figure for white married men with children? With boys?
Parents of white boys would be very interested... It may be somewhere around the Mormon percentage. (Hell, the Mormons probably produce half the white boys in the country.)
"Rush Limbaugh on the air making Ching-chong noises over the tape of a speech by the Chinese premier.
An ad by a Republican congressional candidate in Michigan featuring an Asian woman on a bicycle, speaking pidgin English and thanking the Democratic candidate for sending jobs to China."
I'm skeptical that this sort of thing is behind it. I have a non-trivial number of Asian friends in California and Texas. Chinese, Viet, Thai, Korean, Japanese--it runs the spectrum of their home continent. Anecdotally, politics almost never comes up in conversations with them. Going by their social media posts (e.g. Facebook), I don't see the investment in politics, nor have I seen any outrage posts about the issues you bring up, nor any other issues. My white friends, of course, go into hysterics at any minor slip up by a Team R pundit or candidate. Asians, nope. Don't care. They post about work, school and eating. That's it.
I know there is a small subset of Asians who have been through the liberal brainwashing machine at our universities who are invested in politics like white liberals. But since most Asians tend to go into practical majors, they don't get the liberal brainwashing, and, hence, the knee-jerk faux outrage over all things Republican.
So I can't really answer why they all voted for Obama since, well, it never seems to come up amongst the Asians I'm acquainted with. If I had to guess anything, it would be less with outrage over Republicans, and more being resistant to change. Everything is going fine for them (maybe not among the Hmong or Laotians, but for Han Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and many Viets). They're genetically and culturally natural conformists. An inherent inclination towards conformity and statism is all it takes to explain it (and the previous swing towards Republicans can be explained away similarly by the conformity to the social winners at the time).
Well, looks like the feminist voters of Massachussetts are finally going to get the infinitely wise Native American female senator whom they've been getting wet anticipating their whole lives:
http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view.bg?&articleid=1061173343&format=&page=1&listingType=politics#articleFull
I think the Asian thing was a pure cultural thing. And that the republicans could win the a lot more of the asian vote with simple outreach. A lot of the asians here escaped communist regimes. They're hard working, they take care of their families. It would help to shut up the anti-science wing of the republican party. No educated person wants to be associated with a party that believes the world was created 6000 years ago and that gays create hurricanes.
Romney's plan for the deficit was cut taxes and let the economy grow. We already tried that. The republicans talk a good game about balanced budgets, and then when they get into office they spend as much as democrats *and* cut taxes. "Deficits don't matter" Dick Cheney is going to haunt the party for some time to come. There's a trust issue at this point.
So it is no surprise that whites think their level of conformity is the proper level, but if you really want true individualism, then I guess we should all be like blacks.
Armenians!
These send the message that the Republicans do not care about the Asian vote. Not one iota.
Aren't "Asians" quite a large and diverse group themselves? I don't see why someone originally from Japan would be turned off to the GOP over mocking the Chinese. They don't exactly get along. And are Indians including in the totals?
Eventually the republicans will learn that playing chicken with Reagan Democrats isn't working. Right?
"I'd ask what exactly the GOP has ever done to pander to creationists" - The same way they pander to whites. by not being vehemently anti-American.
mark sed:What happened? I actually think some independents watched at least, some of the Republican debates and liked Ron Paul. No Ron Paul, no vote and Romney does seem like a raving NeoCon and socialist next to Ron Paul. I am not advocating positions here, I am just speculating on what the debates looked like to some people.
Same thing is happening here in Germany. For decades Merkel and the CDU's platform have been that the Socialists/Greens/Communists are worse, so you better vote for us. There being no alternative, because it is massively being suppressed by the state, the CDU thought it had the "conservative" vote locked, and Merkel has been pushing liberal shit down conservatives throats for almost years now. I got to the point now where I do not care if we get a really socialist government, because I can no longer get over my feelings of disgust when I observe the hypocrisy of these people.
I think it was the same thing for many whites in the US. Many whites there have begun to realize that the GOP is as bad for them as the DEMs. Ron Paul had a lot to do with it, because it was so obvious how bad the average GOP Politician is when you have Paul talking and then the PC crap from the others.
"California has become all but a one party state. It's coming, people, near you in a not too distant future."
One party state is good for whites. All white cons vote with white mods and white libs to keep blacks and browns down.
Rantastrubaong-
Why don't the Free Democrats (FDP) draw more votes? From what I read, they sound like a somewhat libertarian/free market oriented party. Why are they not viewed as an alternative to the CDU?
"I hate liberals and laws like affirmative action that disproportionately hurt Asians. But I doubt liberals would stick asians in FEMA camps."
During WWII Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps by FDR, a Democrat and a liberal icon.
Gloria
Because it is commoney perceived among those of East Asian descent in this country that most whites do not understand the difference between different Asian groups, nor do they care. When a Korean gets called a "Chink", the fact that they are not Chinese does not make it any less hurtful (and Im speaking from personal experience). When one Asian group is mocked and denigrated, all Asians are.
Aren't "Asians" quite a large and diverse group themselves? I don't see why someone originally from Japan would be turned off to the GOP over mocking the Chinese. They don't exactly get along.
Possible explanation, someone originally from Japan or a descendant of such might remember a time when white conservatives indiscriminately* attacked all Asians under an anti-Chinese banner. Asians have very little of the famous WASPish rose-colored historical amnesia.
* Again, note the correct use of "discrimination", and the fact that in this case, white bigots are bigoted because they lack discrimination.
During WWII Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps by FDR, a Democrat and a liberal icon.
Good point about FDR, the good old Democrat, liberal, anti-fascist ally of Stalin.
Why don't the Free Democrats (FDP) draw more votes? From what I read, they sound like a somewhat libertarian/free market oriented party. Why are they not viewed as an alternative to the CDU?
They're seen as big business special interest, and considered anti-working class. In Germany most labourers are qualified and do not like to be looked down on.
"Possible explanation, someone originally from Japan or a descendant of such might remember a time when white conservatives indiscriminately* attacked all Asians under an anti-Chinese banner. Asians have very little of the famous WASPish rose-colored historical amnesia."
When did "white conservatives indiscriminately attacked all Asians"?
When did "white conservatives indiscriminately attacked all Asians"?
Yellow Peril?
Most Asians aren't yellow, and that wan't an attack. Try again.
Post a Comment