From my new column in VDARE.com:
Ever since last November’s election, we’ve been hearing that Hispanics comprised a record 10 percent of the vote—which therefore obliges Republican Congressmen to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” right now.
For example:
National exit polls showed that 10 percent of the electorate was Hispanic, compared with 9 percent in 2008 and 8 percent in 2004. … A growing perception of hostility toward illegal immigrants by Republican candidates is driving many Latinos to the polls.[Growing share of Hispanic voters helped push Obama to victory, By Donna St. George and Brady Dennis, Washington Post, November 7, 2012]
But what if these nice, round turnout numbers provided by the Edison exit poll company weren’t true? What if the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” clamor is based on exit poll error? ...
It turns out that the official federal government estimate of the Latino share of 2012 voters isn’t 10 percent—but merely 8.4 percent:
So the standard story you’ve been hearing in the MSM for almost seven months is indeed inflated by 19 percent.
Read the whole thing there.
Posts
21 comments:
Lets put the black turn out numbers in perspective. The typical black turnout in Massachusetts is 39 percent and in Mississippi it is about 50 percent. So a number like 66 percent overall or 72 percent in Ohio is way out of the norm.
Does that include all those "white hispanics."
YOU WROTE:
..the Democrats would want to cheat at least enough to cause Republicans to react to their cheating by proposing legislation to protect the validity of the vote.
----
Interesting sentence there. One could say the Republicans put in all these anti-voter measures because they wanted to win and keep power. But you didn't go that way. Instead, you attributed the noble motive of 'protecting the validity of the vote' to the Republicans.
There is a scene in the excellent Irish crime movie I WENT DOWN: The protagonist is chatting up a girl in a nightclub. The girl sticks her thumb up in the air and says 'Squeeze my thumb as hard as you can, first with your right hand then with your left hand.' Our protagonist does. And the girl says 'Now I know something about you.' 'What's that?' he asks. She replies: "Now I know which hand you wank with."
And now we know something about you, Steve.
Ah, the self-interest. Does that explain why the media has been on this unprecedented campaign for 6 months? Uh, money?
you WROTE:
The GOP has dug itself quite a hole by its complacency about immigration.
-----
Ah, that's it. The GOP is just being complacent. That's why they sold their white voters down the river. Just complacency.
you WROTE:
....simultaneously increasing legal immigration from its already record level—is a transparent Democratic Electing-A-New-People ploy that persuades only the innumerate (or corrupt) among the Republican Brain Trust.
----
Lemme see, them Dems want to elect a new people cuz that helps the Democratic party down the road, years and decades down the road. Politicians and Democratic party leaders, they think long term. Cuz they're just like that. Selfless. They don't care about being re-elected or keeping employment this year. THey care about the longterm viability of the Democratic party. Yeah.
I think Democratic and GOP party politicians and party leaders care more about their own short term self interest. I think they want to win, and they know that if they are against immigration they will be targeted by...powerful and monied interest groups and their political action committees (PACs) in the very near short term. These interest groups want more immigration because....wait for it....immigration makes them money.
What interest groups make money off immigration? Um...corporations that sell things! THe more people there are in america to buy things, the more customers they have, and the more revenue they earn. Also, corporations make more profits when wages are lowers. Mass immigration drives down wages.
And guess what? The more revenues from selling things and the more profits from lower wages, the more money corporations have to purchase advertising. And who makes money from ads? Uh, the mass media?
you quoted brimelow:
"Although immigration doesn’t benefit Americans in aggregate, it does benefit some Americans—at the expense of others. It does this by increasing competition for jobs and thereby depressing wages.
....
The accepted estimate is that immigration redistributes some 2 to 3 percent of GDP from labor to the owners of capital.
So when you hear that immigration will “spur economic growth,” read: Permit more plutocrat plundering of America’s middle and working class.
-----
Ah, so maybe the GOP aint just some friendly, noble and perhaps complacent organization, but instead just plain evil and corrupt (kinda like the Dems!).
Yes, money is why the GOP is selling out its white base, after promising for so many years and decades to do the will of the white majority.
Money.
Capital.
Labor.
The eternal struggle between Capital and Labor. Just like the law of demand and supply. Never really goes away, but a lot of people like to hide it. Forget about it. Pretend other things are the real reasons. But the foundation bedrock of it all is usually the fundamental stuff. Demand and supply. Labor and Capital. Squeeze my thumb, Steve.
In 2008, blacks were 11% of the electorate in Ohio. In 2012, they were 15% of the electorate. Thats too much of an increase, more than a 30% increase. It is fishy. This is why they do "voter registration" drives. Put the names on the voter rolls and vote them.
Michigan had an out-of-line increase in the black share, too.
Theres a story out there. Black share of the vote did not go up in every state. What does money in politics buy? When Corzine ran the first time here in NJ, there were stories about how they got black turn-out, giving drunks and homeless cigarettes to go down to the polls and vote. Probably got the same drunk to vote a couple dozen times, at every election district in Newark.
The lack of vote fraud prosecutions is a lame excuse. How would it be investigated? What kind of resources would you have to spend to investigate it? And then all you'd hear would be that its racist.
When Christine Todd Wittman won the first time, the story was that Ed Rollins had paid black ministers to "suppress" the black vote. In other words, he gave them a bit more than the Democrats gave them so they didn't load up their buses to the polls as aggressively as usual.
Wow, 8.4% of the electorate. And everyone is hoo hawing over them.
Meanwhile, all Romney needed was 700,000 more votes in four states.
Ann Coulter keeps citing the stat that 20% of black men under 30 voted Romney. (Big whoop, that means that 80% voted Obama). So what? Young black men hardly vote. Like you said in your V-Dare article, confirmed by both my observation and the observation of people I trust, black voters are heavily and disproportionately older black women. It hearkens to the matriarchial nature of black African societies.
True, Hispanics are exgerrated, in Orange County lots of people were removed from the voter registation and they were mainly Hispanic in ciites like Santa Ana or Stanton. Obama won on the black vote or states were whites are more liberal like Vermont and so forth.
Probably blacks vote in higher numbers in the midwest since their states are swing states since whites vote less Republcian. In the South were black population are higher they probably vote less for their numbers since whites vote high for the Republicans.
"Probably blacks vote in higher numbers in the midwest since their states are swing states since whites vote less Republcian. In the South were black population are higher they probably vote less for their numbers since whites vote high for the Republicans." - If the whites in the north voted the way whites in the south voted not only would the republicans would have handily won, but it wouldn't have been such "unmotivating" candidates like Romney getting up there.
AWCA croaked: And now we know something about you, Steve.
Hunsdon said: Sir, do you wake up in the morning with the goal of being an tool, or does it come natural?
Don't these two polls indicate that blacks cheated in massive numbers. That's my suspicion. I heard blacks at the local Safeway bragging about voting twice (not that it mattered because this in CA) -- mail in + at the polls= one black, two votes. This was probably repeated throughout the battleground states. Convenient that Eric Holder is not investigating his people for stealing the election.
Remember that famous NYT slider scale? It was the scale with which someone at a lamestream conservative blog figured out that Romney would have needed 73% of the Hispanic vote to win the Electoral College, ceteris paribus. Now we know that that NYT toy was based on the overstated-Hispanic-turnout data.
I think it's entirely possible that that Romney could have gotten 100% of the Hispanic vote and still would have lost the election, again, ceteris paribus.
Also, these things don't happen in a vacuum. Ceteris paribus isn't reality. Whatever Romney would have done to get more of the Hispanic vote, he would have lost far many more white voters.
So Romney had the demographics to win. Chris Matthews was saying on election night when the exit-poll data came back with a sub 74% White electorate he knew Obama won. But 73.7 is basically 74. Wow.
BTW, the link to the CBS Schumer story had a link to this story:
"China city plans to fine unmarried women for having babies"
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57587292/china-city-plans-to-fine-unmarried-women-for-having-babies/
The future belongs to China.
Don't these two polls indicate that blacks cheated in massive numbers.
Or that white Democrats cheated in their names. Didn't we all know they would? The fact that Republicans don't get serious about preventing this predictable cheating or investigating it afterwards just shows how they don't really want to win that badly -- not badly enough to risk being called bad names, anyway.
"Ann Coulter keeps citing the stat that 20% of black men under 30 voted Romney"
Where did she get that exit polling data? Is it reliable? I don't know alot of blacks to be fair, (live in a rural area) but I find that statistic a bit hard to believe.
"The fact that Republicans don't get serious about preventing this predictable cheating or investigating it afterwards just shows how they don't really want to win that badly -- not badly enough to risk being called bad names, anyway."
Agreed. My memory of the details is hazy but I want to bring something up. I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but after Mittens lost last November there was some talk on some conservative blogs that back in the '80s there was some incident (a crew of GOP lawmakers somewhere tried to crack down on vote fraud, or a GOP candidate who lost an election sued somebody, I can't remember) which resulted in either an out of court settlement or some unofficial deal between the Dems and the Reps where the Dems threw the Reps a bone and in exchange the Reps agreed vote fraud allegations wouldn't be seriously contested. Anybody else remember this talk?
Why is it that increasingly almost half the posters on this site are either economic or sexual marxist? Honestly, like the old Mark Steyn jibe that China is going to get old before it gets rich, the paleosphere runs the risk of getting so marginal and disgruntled that its window to influence mainstream conservatism will close.
The obvious alternative explanation is that a whole lot more blacks bothered to register and vote when there was a black guy running for president. I think it's easy to underestimate how big a deal having a black president is to a whole lot of blacks. On the other hand, that fact also may be giving cover to vote fraud.
Steve, the games with percentages are a bad idea, IMO. Our side deserves to win because we'ree right. Misleading stuff like your 19% number goes against that. I know its common in journalism (because most journalists are innumerate and headlines are always written to grab eyeballs), but it's still misleading as hell.
"Steve, the games with percentages are a bad idea, IMO. ... Misleading stuff like your 19% number goes against that."
What games, what misleading stuff. The 10% share conventional wisdom overstates the government's 8.4% share by 19%:
10.0/8.4 = 1.19
The obvious alternative explanation is that a whole lot more blacks bothered to register and vote when there was a black guy running for president.
No, it would mean that a whole lot more blacks bothered to register and vote when a black guy was running the second time. So we're supposed to believe that a whole bunch of black people didn't come out for Obama in 2008 when the racial frenzy surrounding his candidacy was the highest, but suddenly they did four years later -- but only in battleground states.
QUOTE: So we're supposed to believe that a whole bunch of black people didn't come out for Obama in 2008 when the racial frenzy surrounding his candidacy was the highest, but suddenly they did four years later -- but only in battleground states. UNQUOTE
I think this is exactly the point. The re-election doesn't pass the smell test.
Post a Comment