My new VDARE article is the first to reveal how the white electorate voted in 2012 in each of the 50 states. (The widely publicized exit poll last November ignored 20 states, including giant Texas.)
On the lessons of the 2012 vote:
The message you’ve heard ever since the election is that the Republicans lost because of the amnesty issue and therefore they must agree to amnesty and a path to citizenship. You know, the New York Times and the POTUS have all been explaining to the Republican Party how they need to pass amnesty right now for their own good. And, as I said earlier, if Republicans can’t trust the leadership of the Democratic Party to look out for their partisan interests, who can they trust?
Yet the states in which Romney came close to winning are typically ones where he just did not get enough of the white vote.
Consider Ohio, where Romney lost 52-48 overall by only getting a grand total of 54 percent of the white vote. Almost anywhere in modern America, Republicans have to win more than 54 percent of whites to win.
Here are some other north central states where Romney came fairly close:
Pennsylvania: 54 percent of the white vote
Iowa: 48 percent
WI 49 percent
Minnesota 47 percent
Michigan 53 percent
Romney couldn’t get the job done in these northern states, not because of the tidal wave of Hispanics, but because he just didn’t get enough whites to show up and vote for him.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
57 comments:
Pennsylvania: 54 percent of the white vote
Iowa: 48 percent
WI 49 percent
Minnesota 47 percent
Michigan 53 percent
Romney couldn’t get the It looks like Republicans could have done better with the white vote in Oh, or Pennsylvania and Michigan Mittens might have won. In Florida it was so closed they might have been cheating on Obama's side and Mittens just needed a few thousand white votes.
Hunter Wallace is right- Northeastern and Upper Midwestern whites are liberals and supporters of the system. If more turned out the results would not change.
I have no idea if the following idea is bad economics.
But it's great politics.
Tax "too-big-to-fail" banks into breaking up into multiple smaller banks. Slap a whopping great big excise tax on bank revenues above some enormous threshold.
Presto, no more too-big-to-fail banks. No enormous thousand-page bills necessary.
Now, like most simple economic ideas, it's either transcendently brilliant or cataclysmically stupid.
--Discordiax
This is true but Republicans will not spend time in Oh, Pa, to flip it around, those states the Republicans seem to have a chance and even in Florida a few more white votes might have swing it.
A large percentage of the midwestern white vote were union members, who evidently thought they were preserving their jobs by voting for Obama: the anti-coal, anti-traditional-energy president.
What can you even say about such stupidity?
well, isn't the point that his platform with its anti-immigration component not all that attractive to whites? How can it be assumed that a harder line on immigration would have attracted more whites than it repelled?
I posted this months ago. The election was lost in the industrial heartland, and amongst white voters. The GOP has been on an upswing in OH, WI, MI, all of which were easily winnable. Romney totally destroyed his chances there early on, with foolish WSJ editorials and the like.
I think the chart "Romney's Percentage of the Two-Party Vote" illustrates pretty well the naivete of white nationalism.
Take South Carolina and Vermont. In the former, 78% of the white electorate voted for Romney; in the latter, only 34% did.
What we are dealing with here are intractable cultural differences.
The South and the North have been at each other's throats---metaphorically as well as literally---for a very long time now. It is simply wishful thinking to expect them to put aside these very deep and very significant differences in favor of some abstract "racial consciousness".
Many of the states where Romney came close elected Republican governors. The interventionist Republican foreign policy really isn't popular but Republican governor candiates don't need to make themselves unpopular by promoting that policy. They can stay silent in that area. They can also tailor their views on social issues to local beliefs. A Republican presidential candidate should promote federalism and leaving crime, immigration and social issues to the states and run as the peace and prosperity candidate. What they've been doing hasn't been working at the national level so they need to look at what works at the lower levels where they do win.
"resent the white married people of America, the ones who own their homes,"
I did not see any ads criticizing people for being white, married or owning a home. I saw a lot of ads resentful of Romney because he helped send jobs to China and criticizing the GOP for only looking out for the wealthy. The GOP's obsession on Obama's "you didn't build that" comment reinforced the latter critique and was additionally reinforced by the leaked %47 comment.
The election results suggest to me that the GOP can get lower class whites in the South with symbolic rhetoric but elsewhere the GOP will have to advocate economic policies other than upper income tax cuts and Randian wealth worship to win.
Lowering legal immigration to help workers could be part of a solution but GOP leaders are too much under the spell of supply side voodoo to change.
I posted this months ago. The election was lost in the industrial heartland, and amongst white voters. The GOP has been on an upswing in OH, WI, MI, all of which were easily winnable. Romney totally destroyed his chances there early on, with foolish WSJ editorials and the like.
2/18/13, 8:49 AM True, if the Republicians were smart they could have supported the tax increase on 250,000 to preserve military spending. The industrical-military complex provides factory jobs. Reagan won California on being a pro military spender since So Calif in his time period had a lot of aerospace jobs. It would have made the tea party mad but might have pick up votes in the midwest.
The Republicans are weak on energy messages. They usually use stats from Texas, so they could have tailored the boom to energy in Texas to higher income for whites without referrring to whites. Palin was more into the energy message than Ryan was.
Those states have lots of white working class voters who have been hammered by outsourcing and immigration. Since the GOP does not propose to do anything about either, they cannot expect to increase their voting percentage among these people?
You paleocons are just like neo cons no one cares about foreign policy. Especially not mid west whites because none of them join the military.
Anon is right Romney due to outsourcing, that op Ed, and being very affluent simply had no chance in the Midwest. Santorum, Huckabee, maybe even Perry if the back was ok by the time of the debates would be president today.
White people are not united. The descendants of the Danelaw, the Puritans, the White people in the Northeast, MidWest, and West Coast, believe themselves a tiny group of light against total darkness, and would like to annihilate all other Whites as evil and doomed to be destroyed anyway.
Oregon's White people are the Lena Dunhams who lacked connections and money to make it in NYC. So moved to Portland. NO NONE NADA Republican would EVER win them.
So NO NADA NONE ZERO Republican will ever win. The balance is already tipped. Republicans can NEVER win socially liberal, anti-White elites and want to be elites. Look at Wyoming vs. Oregon and Washington State voting. Both heavily White states, the type of White person in Wyoming is vastly different from that of Oregon or Washington. The latter heavily urban, liberal, young, unmarried, dependent on the corporatist big-ness of government, major corporations, NGOs, Media etc. all intertwined. While Wyoming is filled with small farmers, small landholders, etc.
The time for politics is over, rather political action (ala ACT UP!, the Civil Rights movement, Greenpeace, the Suffragettes, etc) is now. Making life and daily activities for the elite so miserable by action and disruption within legal boundaries that change happens. That needs to be fairly wide in scope: LA, NYC, DC in particular, focused on the elites, and personal (picketing their homes, children's schools) and aimed at the soft underbelly of elites: shame, social pressure.
Yes this sucks, but ordinary Married White people are the fringe. Not the center. Lena Dunham has her own HBO show. Oprah has billions from her shows. Jay-Z is worth half a billion and is the President's friend. Ordinary middle class married White people are the weird fringe who have to pay for the center of power. That's reality and any attemp to change this much acknowledge it.
Yauco • Percent Unemployed: 16.3%
• No. Unemployed: 5,800
Puerto Rico • Percent Unemployed: 13.2%
• No. Unemployed: 167,300
This shows that the Republicans message that tax cuts will bring a good economy can be overdone. Puerto Rico gets nice tax breaks for a company to locate there but still high unemployment.
Well, there is difference between North and South among whites but even in the same Stae. Obama won big in California mainly because of Los Angeles County haveing a whopping population over 9 million. Probably Romeny only won 45 percent of whites in LA County and only probably 18 to 20 percent of Hispanics and maybe 18 to 20 percent of Asians. In nearby Orange where whites have incomes similar to Los Angeles Romeny probably won about 63 to 65 percent of white vote while only 28 percent of Hispanics and 45 percent of Asians. Now in the Bay Area whites voted even less for Romeny proabably around 25 to 31 percent and Asians probably 18 percent and lower. I agree that the social issues are a factor since Orange County has more megarchurches and La and the Bay area less so.
There's a .49 correlation between the percentage of whites voting for Romney and the percentage of black residents (2011) in the state.
I know white women (both single and married) who voted against the Republicans due to the perceived anti-abortion and birth control message of the social conservatives.
Voting Democrat is not really such a bad idea for non-affluent whites.
Democrats support a higher minimum wage, unions, Obamacare, more government services, taxes on the wealthy, more regulations on business, less money on defense and war, more redistribution of wealth, and (at least in theory) are skeptical of outsourcing and guest worker immigration.
Yes, Democrats support affirmative-action, amnesty, mass immigration, and other policies which are anti-white..... but so do Republicans.
As a middle/working class white guy, both parties are screwing you through their support of globalization and both parties view white men negatively.... but at least Democrats will let you form unions and redistribute some of your boss's wealth to you. What do the Republicans offer? Tax cuts to make your boss richer........ Deregulation to let your company screw you harder......... Voucherizing your medicare........... and, on top of all that, the Republican amnesty plan includes a larger guestworker program the Democratic plan.
A better question is why southern whites vote Republican, despite earning low wages and often being uninsured/underinsured. Confederate flag? Confederate flag doesn't pay the bills.
"A large percentage of the midwestern white vote were union members, who evidently thought they were preserving their jobs by voting for Obama: the anti-coal, anti-traditional-energy president."
"Hunter Wallace is right- Northeastern and Upper Midwestern whites are liberals and supporters of the system. If more turned out the results would not change."
Comments like that are just idiotic. Michigan - of all places - just passed right to work. If you don't get, I can't explain it to you. Romney was an unappealing candidate.
i'm gonna make a couple really big jody posts on this. sorry, i know you guys hate wall of text.
Ignorant NZ reader here wondering why it's such a self-evident fact that a Romney win would have been better for whites in your country (other than the fact that the other guy is a brown). Genuine question.
Here in NZ, a win either way ("left" or "right" - bearing in mind that our spectrum in NZ is so skewed that our right resembles something not far from your left), means about as much as the dump I just took. It was a stinker too.
Is a rep/dem win one way or another really such a big deal your way, but for symbolism? Seems to me, down here, that these people are bent on self-destruction either way.
The party name is just a bumper sticker.
The liberals the expansionist side works with — well, let’s just say “well-being of the American people” is not the first thing a lot of them think of when considering a policy issue. For example, the flyer I linked to was distributed by one Mario Lopez, president of a lobbying group called the Hispanic Leadership Fund, which includes on its board Mel Martinez, Grover Norquist, Linda Chavez, George P. Bush, and others — conservatives and libertarians all, even if they’re all wet on immigration. But the flyer Lopez distributed at Grover’s meeting was actually produced by the leftist National Immigration Forum (it says so on the flip side), an open-borders umbrella group funded by the Ford Foundation and George Soros. Actually Soros that Helped Obama win organization is helping the Con-Libertarina cheap labor right as well. The Republicians who had ties to this could not point Obama's connections to Middle America on this.
So what change in Republican policy is more likely to win these voters/states to the GOP: passing an amnesty bill, or finally supporting some working class initiatives, like an increase in the minimum wage, and thus showing that the GOP actually gives a shit about poor, working class types?
But we know where the GOP is headed: they'll support an amnesty while continuing to oppose a minimum wage increase and trying to convince the middle class that what we really need are more tax cuts for the rich and more wars for Israel.
Yeah, the GOP had a chance in the Midwest, and it bombed in a big way. Romney and Ryan couldn't even convince their home states of Michigan and Wisconsin to vote for them.
"Take South Carolina and Vermont. In the former, 78% of the white electorate voted for Romney; in the latter, only 34% did. What we are dealing with here are intractable cultural differences."
And yet in 1984 Reagan managed to win 49 states and could've won all 50 if he'd bother to contest Minnesota, which he lost only very narrowly.
Yes, we are more divided now than then, for reasons which may to some degree be intractable. But there are still ideas and leaders who can unite us to a degree you might not suspect based on the Mississippi/Vermont disparity. The Democratic Party has shifted far to the Left since 1984 and taken many of the voters with them, while they have made once perfectly rational ideas, like immigration enforcement, sound racist and hateful. Meanwhile Republicans, while not really moving all that far right, pander a bit too much to the fundies, the neocons, and the neofeudalists on the right.
The Republican party is very dumb, but it is truly amazing how the media can generate "facts" and "popular wisdom" simply by saying the same dumb thing over and over again.
1. The Republicans lost because they don't support amnesty. But Hispanics don't vote for them anyways. What did they gain from the 1986 one? Amnesty would just make it even harder for the Republicans to win.
well, isn't the point that his platform with its anti-immigration component not all that attractive to whites? How can it be assumed that a harder line on immigration would have attracted more whites than it repelled?
Romney was only "anti-immigration" during the primary, which if you remember he won. He etch-a-sketched for the general election, bringing in Rubio and hinting support for comprehensive amnesty.
Mark,sage advise.
"GOP’s Problem Is Low White Share"
White conservative problem is refusal to deal with the Jewish problem, and Sailer's piece is a good example of it.
Sailer goes on and on about Mexican mediocrity--to his credit, he doesn't go on and on about the 'Muslim threat'--, but Mexicans have no say in what happens in American politics. Some Hispanic leaders simply have been enabled by Jews. We have to look at Jewish power among both Dems and Republicans.
1. Why are so many educated whites so 'liberal', 'progressive', and PC? Because of leftist Jewish control of the media and academia.
2. Why are so many whites so worshipful of blacks and guilt-ridden? GOP is no different. Read the first chapter of Ann Coulter's MUGGED and she lays the blame for the cultural pathology among blacks purely on Scotch-Irish tradition.
Both lib and con whites are slavish toward the Noble Negro because such creature has been created by popular culture controlled by Jews. Jews were behind the MLK, Oprah, and Obama cult.
And gay stuff wouldn't be so powerful without Jewish backing either, and of course, GOP has been trending toward sucking up to gays too. Why not? If GOP serves the Jews, why not gays as well? A bunch of cowards.
3. GOP takes it pointers on foreign policy from neocon Jews. It takes it pointers on economics from Wall Street Jews.
The really funny thing is American conservatives sucks up to the superrich, but most superrich go with Dems. American conservatives suck up to Jews more than any other group, but most Jews are Democratic. Even 'conservative' Jews go with GOP only for Zionist reasons, not for white reasons.
American cons totally suck up to the very group that is doing most to undermine white unity and power.
That is pathetic.
4. Why did Romney play nice while Obama was able to trash him? Because the double standard rules by the Jewish-controlled media. Whites must be the 'model majority'. Whites must be mindful of their 'privilege' and be compassionate. But non-whites, Jews, gays, and leftists can be as hateful as they want. Who made such rules? The Jews who control law firms, media, and etc.
Why can an avowed communist like Cornel West get a gig on TV but Sailer can't? Because Jews say so.
So, why is Sailer so gentle with Jews? Sailer goes on and on and on and on about Mexicans, but he dares not say anything negative about Jews. He will point out Jewish influence but express no anger about it. Is it because Sailer wants to be appreciated by smart brilliant Jews like Noah Millman?
Now, I'm not saying all Jews are the enemy, but it's a fact that the greatest threat and hostile power against whites are the Jews. Just look at Jewish financial contribution to the elections. Just look at Jewish control of media and academia. It was the Jewish media that gloated about dying old white America.
Yet, Sailer gets more worked up over Rubio and Mexicans than about Jews.
Rubio is just a puppet boy of neocons like Obama is a puppet of liberal Zionists.
Steve help me out with this issue. I tried to figure out what the percentage of the black turnout was in Ohio. I know the exit poll said 15 percent of voters were black, but what I want to know is what percent of the potential black vote actually voted.
My own estimate is that 95 percent of all blacks 18 years old and up voted. That seems an impossible number absent fraud. I got that number by estimating 33 percent of blacks in Ohio were under 18 years old (the national average) and guessing that one percent of blacks were in jail or had a felony conviction that prevented a legal vote.
"mittens, eh anonymous? how superior a human being must you be. let me ask, what have you accomplished in your life that comes anywhere close to what Mr. Romney has accomplished in his?
Many of the GOP elites could care less about improving their standing among White voters, because many in the GOP are even embarrassed to have their party being linked with White voters.
There are people in the GOP who wished that the demographic of their party was as "vibrantly diverse" as the demographics of East Los Angeles and Compton.
Many of the GOP elites act like SWPL types, when it comes to being embarrassed of all things White.
The SWPL Republicans are the RINO's.
well, isn't the point that his platform with its anti-immigration component not all that attractive to whites?
Did you sleep through the campaign and read about it in the New York Times afterwards? What anti-immigration component? Romney spewed the same "immigrants are our strength" and "fix the system" pablum that they always do, and the closest he came to anything new was to suggest that we slant things more toward high-tech workers. No one on the right believed any bones he threw to immigration patriots about securing the border or sending people to the back of the line (which the Democrats say too), and no one on the other side who believed them was going to vote for him anyway.
We still have no idea how an immigration patriot candidate would do as the GOP front-runner, when not kept under wraps by the party and ignored by the media.
Remember all that post-election yammering about how Republican presidential candidates couldn't win anymore by "maxing out the white vote"?
Looks like Rommney didn't even max out the white vote - didn't even come close, really.
Also, what Mercer said at 10:34.
So what change in Republican policy is more likely to win these voters/states to the GOP: passing an amnesty bill, or finally supporting some working class initiatives, like an increase in the minimum wage, and thus showing that the GOP actually gives a shit about poor, working class types?
Right. I think I figured after the election that Romney would have won if he'd gotten about 65% of the white vote in those Midwest battleground states. I'm not sure why that's considered impossible, when bumping the typical Hispanic vote up from 25% or so to over 50% is thought to be a reachable goal. (And if I remember correctly, Romney would have needed something like 75% of the Hispanic vote to give him the same boost that getting whites up from 60% to 65% would have done.)
The Democrat gets 90% of the black vote and 75% of the Hispanic vote, and that's just considered normal. But suggest that the GOP could get 65% or more of the white vote, and people think you're crazy.
I don't know if pushing a minimum wage is the best option, but there have to be ways to reach out to people whose wages have stagnated for 40 years while they watch everyone else take a bigger slice of the pie along the way.
The Democrat gets 90% of the black vote and 75% of the Hispanic vote, and that's just considered normal. But suggest that the GOP could get 65% or more of the white vote, and people think you're crazy.
I don't know if pushing a minimum wage is the best option, but there have to be ways to reach out to people whose wages have stagnated for 40 years while they watch everyone else take a bigger slice of the pie along the way.
Since most of the people hurt by a higher minimum wage would be low IQ Democratic voters, anyway, it may make electoral sense for the GOP to vote for it, thereby burnishing their credentials as men of the people.
A better question is why southern whites vote Republican, despite earning low wages and often being uninsured/underinsured. Confederate flag? Confederate flag doesn't pay the bills.
Because they can do the math and understand TANSTAAFL. Trying to get other people to pay your way through life never ends well.
"So what change in Republican policy is more likely to win these voters/states to the GOP"
Immigration outweighs everything else for simple supply and demand reasons.
"A better question is why southern whites vote Republican"
You hadn't noticed white, blond, southerners getting bayoneted in one Hollywood film after another?
Creating a cohesive society out of a balkanized mess requires a scapegoat.
Sine someone brought up the "Scots-Irish", here's an interesting 1981 study:
http://pascasher.the-savoisien.com/2009/08/le-pouvoir-sioniste-aux-etats-unis-dapres-ce-quen-disent-des-sources-juives.html
(...)
WHAT JEWISH LEADERS BELIEVE . . .
The most important study of the younger [Jewish community activists] leadership is Brandeis professor Jonathan Woocher’s “The ‘Civil Judaism’ of Communal Leaders”, in the 1981 American Jewish Year Book. He looked at 309 middle and upper middle-class participants in leadership development programs of the United Jewish Appeal and the community federations. According to the professor . . . “[N]early 65 percent deny that Jewish values are basically the same as those of all religions, and more than three-quarters acknowledge a ‘special’ Jewish responsibility to work for justice in the world …
“Nearly 60 percent … view the Jewish contribution to modern civilization as greater than that of any other people … 70 percent … claim that they feel more emotion listening to ‘Hatikvah’ (Israel’s anthem) than to ‘The Star Spangled Banner’ … a majority reject the proposition that an American Jew owes his/her primary loyalty to the United States.
“Further, while all but a handful … are glad to be Americans, only 54 percent are strongly so, compared with 86 percent who strongly assert that they are glad to be Jews … 63 percent … explicitly affirm that Jews are the chosen people (and only 18 percent actually disagree).”
(...)
as a minority, i have to give credit to sailer for this superb analysis. Quite well done.
Hunter Wallace is right- Northeastern and Upper Midwestern whites are liberals and supporters of the system. If more turned out the results would not change.
Romney and the Republican leadership are also liberals and supporters of the system, even more so than the voters you're talking about.
"The way the Obama campaign turned out their base was to whip up feelings of resentment toward core Americans—toward those people whose ancestors had built the country, who largely keep it running today and who in their personal lives have done a pretty good job of keeping their act together."
Wow, that's an absurd statement. I read your blog to get insights, but sometimes you just make absurd statements without legit evidence. Like you're trying to demagogue.
Why do you think Perry would have done better with them. Perry lost because he hispanized in Texas. He gave illegal kiddies state intuition. Perry is even less effective than Dana Ronabacher or Tom Tancredo who know a lot more about blue collar jobs since Dana lived in the area of aerospace in California and oppose some of the trade deals on national security and Tancredo was oppose to some of the free trade deals as well for security. Both are much harder on illegal immirgation than Perry, or Huckabee and Santarium. Santarium just came out for a legalization for illegal immirgants.
"The way the Obama campaign turned out their base was to whip up feelings of resentment toward core Americans—toward those people whose ancestors had built the country, who largely keep it running today and who in their personal lives have done a pretty good job of keeping their act together."
"Wow, that's an absurd statement."
You haven't been paying much attention for the last 40 years, I take it, and have been lucky enough to have avoided being on a college campus during this period. See the gestalt. It's not hard. Unless perhaps you're demonstrating the willful ignorance of the anti-core. The folks that hijacked the 68 Democratic convention seemed pretty explicit about this. Down with the Man!
Everybody voting by race means voting is blind and dumb, not a smart way to solve problems. An expensive casualty of diversity and the anti-core. I like that term, it's appropriate.
Great article, Steve, good to see stats. Any ideas on how we help more supposedly conservative politicians see this?
Vermont is only 1% black?
So much for diversity.
Red states ought to guilt-bait blue states for their lack of diversity. If Vermonters are really liberal, they need to embrace more diversity.
Just as America should have saved more Jews during WWII, Vermont should save all those modern black slaves trapped in southern states. Call for a second great migration to the North. I mean there's lots of blacks being lynched in the south today.
And conservatives should push for this. Southern whites should tell blacks that blue states love blacks and a lot more generous with government programs.
Also, it will be good for places like Vermont that suffer diversity deficit.
Two kinds of blue states.
Blue because of too many non-whites--New Mexico and California--and blue because of too many whites--Vermont and Maine.
Dark blue and light blue.
Well, Whiskley is wrong here, get conservatives whites to moved to the interior of Oregon and Washington. There are a lot of whites that did, the only problem is the job based. Lots of whites are tired of Texas or the South. They are tired to have to go to another high Hisapnic state or a state with a lot of blacks. Its cold in the rural parts of Washington and Oregon and Mittens did good there but the South is humid. Pushed Conservatives to the Northwest interior and start a lot of online business.
Blue because of too many non-whites--New Mexico and California--and blue because of too many whites--Vermont and Maine.
Same with Red States, the highest percentage that Romeny did were in the red States with less minoriteis, Oklahoma, Kentucky, nand West Virginia. Granted, whites in Ms voted high for Republcians but black vote brings the total down. As far as large city aras ROmeny did the best In Maricopia Arizona, White and then Hispanic, few blacks or Asians.
That's true, the blue states that have been blue the longest have higher than average minority populations like New York, New Jeresey. Reagan is the only Republican since Eisenthower to win them. Minority up your state changed California from a swing state. Vermont matters little since it has few votes but New York and California matter a lot.
But we know where the GOP is headed: they'll support an amnesty while continuing to oppose a minimum wage increase and trying to convince the middle class that what we really need are more tax cuts for the rich and more wars for Israel.
Yeah, the GOP had a chance in the Midwest, and it bombed in a big way. Romney and Ryan couldn't even convince their home states of Michigan and Wisconsin to vote for them The amnesty is going down in flames, most of the Texas Republicans got a lot of complains from whites, so Smith, Cruz and even Poe who wanted a guestworker program are going against it. Labor and busines are agruing against what they want. Business wants a lot of guestworker programs that labor doesn't. Obama has his plan and the gang of 8 there plan.
Nixon won 49 states in 1972, not Mass. but NJ and all the rest. Without the Neocons Repubs were doing very well at national elections.
well, isn't the point that his platform with its anti-immigration component not all that attractive to whites? How can it be assumed that a harder line on immigration would have attracted more whites than it repelled?
I don't think his immigration policy was what led to slack white turnout for him. This argument is constantly put forth by the lamestream media, but it's a logical fallacy.
Also, in reply to Whiskey: liberal whites have much lower birth rates than conservative whites, so the percentage of whites voting GOP will constantly increase.
You paleocons are just like neo cons no one cares about foreign policy. Especially not mid west whites because none of them join the military.
Anon is right Romney due to outsourcing, that op Ed, and being very affluent simply had no chance in the Midwest. Santorum, Huckabee, maybe even Perry if the back was ok by the time of the debates would be president today.
I'm sorry, but the neocon Iraq War was the No. 1 reason Bush and the GOP got creamed in 2006 and 2008. Romney undoubtedly lost a lot of votes because people simply didn't trust him that he wouldn't start a war with Iran. He did, after all, pack his foreign policy advising team with Bush-era neocons.
That's true, the blue states that have been blue the longest have higher than average minority populations like New York, New Jeresey. Reagan is the only Republican since Eisenthower to win them. Minority up your state changed California from a swing state. Vermont matters little since it has few votes but New York and California matter a lot.
The red states were either rural Western or heavily black. Red states in the 1970s had a higher percentage of minorities (blacks, at the time) than blue states, but the blue states have since then caught up and passed the red states.
The white population percentage in a couple of southern red states like Alabama has only dropped a few points since 1970. OTOH, many formerly all-white blue states have now fallen into the 70s% white.
I know white women ... who voted against the Republicans due to the perceived anti-abortion and birth control message of the social conservatives
You've got to learn to distinguish between what people say motivates them, and what's actually driving them. Do you really think the masses of over-40 Prius-driving female voters are still worried about abortion? That was 1988. Listen to Whiskey. What they're concerned with now is not losing their nice-paying social service-media-NGO jobs. Life is expensive, man.
"You've got to learn to distinguish between what people say motivates them, and what's actually driving them...not losing their nice-paying social service-media-NGO jobs"
Exactly - just look at the jobs they do and you'll see the true story.
Post a Comment