tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post7067781136087501757..comments2024-03-28T16:22:14.888-07:00Comments on Steve Sailer: iSteve: NYT: "Assessing How Pivotal the Hispanic Vote Was to Obama’s Victory"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-26425676093078313642012-11-26T00:34:20.951-08:002012-11-26T00:34:20.951-08:00"by the way, it looks like mitt romney will e..."by the way, it looks like mitt romney will end up with more votes than john mccain. mccain got 59.9 million votes in 2008, and romney is at 59.9 million votes and still climbing as the counting goes on. so much for the meme about voters staying home." - Population growth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-29112797677658411792012-11-24T16:21:44.438-08:002012-11-24T16:21:44.438-08:00A number of people have commented on my post about...A number of people have commented on my post about just having a direct vote for the president. To me the general viewpoint that it can't be done because vote-counting is too corrupt in America is very disturbing and a very poor augury for the country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6455173638528219492012-11-23T20:42:36.279-08:002012-11-23T20:42:36.279-08:00"The MSM supports Obama or Clinton style libe..."The MSM supports Obama or Clinton style liberalism, but not, say, the kind you see/hear on Democracy Now or from Dennis Kuchinich or Alan Grayson."<br /><br />You can be a bit of a goof at your worst, Buddy, but you hit the nail right on the head AGAIN here.Truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17286755693955361308noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-56950341593780411592012-11-23T11:25:55.593-08:002012-11-23T11:25:55.593-08:00As a funny reflection of Steve's anecdote abou...As a funny reflection of Steve's anecdote about winning the critical Sikh vote in Florida in 2000, <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/gay-vote-seen-as-crucial-in-obamas-victory/" rel="nofollow">this article</a> talks about Obama's 3:1 advantage among the 5% or so of the voters who self-identify as gay, and talking about how critical this group is for getting elected. <br /><br />Of course, if we can just get these gays and lesbians to marry, have kids, and buy houses, they will presumably start voting Republican. (And I'm only half kidding there--a married lesbian couple raising a couple of kids probably shares a lot of the same concerns I have, perhaps more than a childless two-income family living in the city.)<br /><br />NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24462755985675734712012-11-23T11:15:04.945-08:002012-11-23T11:15:04.945-08:00Mr Anon:
I think it's more accurate to say th...Mr Anon:<br /><br />I think it's more accurate to say that the media is mostly drawn from the establishment. That means they are liberal in some ways (pro gay marriage, say) but not in others (they're usually pretty pro-war, at least until things start turning sour or dragging on a long time.). In some ways, they are arguably pretty conservative--the MSM is mostly quite hostile to drug legalization, about as dismissive of Occupy type protesters as Tea Party type protesters, both news coverage and popular entertainment spins things heavily in favor of trust in the cops and prosecutors, etc. <br /><br />The MSM supports Obama or Clinton style liberalism, but not, say, the kind you see/hear on Democracy Now or from Dennis Kuchinich or Alan Grayson. NOTAnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-24121214200127310502012-11-23T03:27:15.383-08:002012-11-23T03:27:15.383-08:00Mr Anon - I wasnt really arguing with you, your po...Mr Anon - I wasnt really arguing with you, your points are valid, I was just expanding my media theory - that GOP advertising is maybe a counter-productive fish in a liberal media sea.<br /><br />Dems still need to promote their candidates, its not enough to manipulate the feelings of the voters, they still need to remind them who to vote for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23173845027290095122012-11-22T19:52:18.197-08:002012-11-22T19:52:18.197-08:00"Anonymous said...
Much TV output is blatant..."Anonymous said...<br /><br />Much TV output is blatantly anti-Republican, pro-liberal."<br /><br />Yes, I am quite aware of that. The Democrats get enormous amounts of publicity for free; just about every sitcom, every cop show, every episode of SNL, is an advertisement for the Democratic party. Even then, however, the Democrats still feel the need to spend on politicial advertising, and not a little. At the very least, they have to broadcast the names of their candidates so that their voters know whom to vote for. All that would become a lot easier for them, if they only had to worry about the large population centers / media markets that they easily dominate.<br />Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-72118788696389850092012-11-22T13:46:56.773-08:002012-11-22T13:46:56.773-08:00Obama is not significantly different from Bush, an...<i>Obama is not significantly different from Bush, and Romney wouldn't have been significantly different from Obama. <br /><br />I don't give a rat's ass about who wins these elections ..</i> <br /><br /><br />The people who don't vote are not really up for grabs.Severnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-87632284595928702802012-11-22T11:20:08.001-08:002012-11-22T11:20:08.001-08:0011/22/12 12:16 AM
Anonymous Anonymous said...
If ...11/22/12 12:16 AM<br />Anonymous Anonymous said...<br /><br />If nominating a Latino candidate would allow the GOP to get 75% or so of the Latino vote without losing too much of the White vote, then they could pick up California and Pennsylvania and win the next election. It sounds to me like you guys are more afraid of the fact that this might actually work, and that your fantasy of the Republican party as the great defender of White America would finally be dashed for good, than anything else."<br /><br />You don't seem to understand - I don't give a s**t about the well-being of the Republican party. I don't root for them to win like they were a college football team. It's not a damned game. I only want them to win in so far as they are able to do something for white interests. If they can't, or won't, screw them.<br /><br />A latino presidential candidate would signal the GOP's whole-hearted endorsement of "immigration reform", i.e. amnesty. The only way the GOP could appeal to a majority of latinos would be by doing things that are hostile to the interests of whites.<br /><br />The way to have someone represent you is by having someone who represents you, not who takes your vote for granted and then screws you over. If the Republicans don't want to be a white party, the white party, then to Hell with them.Mr. Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21165455319055788022012-11-22T08:22:57.726-08:002012-11-22T08:22:57.726-08:00Jody,
"in presidential elections however, pe...Jody,<br /><br /><i>"in presidential elections however, pennsylvania always votes for the democrat now. please, spare me the numbers. how is it that if the numbers are kind of close, the state goes democrat 6 times in a row? statistically, wouldn't it have gone red once by now if the numbers were kind of close?<br /><br />flip a coin 6 times, odds of it coming up tails 6 times in a row is 1 in 64. so what you're saying is that if we flip this pennsylvania coin one more time in 2016, it will come up heads? nah. it's gonna come up tails again."</i><br /><br />Your analogy is flawed.<br /><br />Labeling Pennsylvania a swing state does not mean it has an equal chance to vote for either of the two candidates in every election. There are right-leaning swing states (North Carolina) and left-leaning swing states (Nevada).<br /><br />Nor does labeling Pennsylvania a swing state in 2008 mean it was a swing state in 1996. The political tendencies of a state electorate are subject to constant change. Look at California, which does not at all resemble the state it was in 1992.Pincher Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-31217087319974165522012-11-22T08:05:21.095-08:002012-11-22T08:05:21.095-08:00Jody,
"wrong. i've posted about this sev...Jody,<br /><br /><i>"wrong. i've posted about this several times now. i'm from pennsylvania, so i'm pretty sure i know this stuff. when i was considering west point, my senator endorsement was going to be from arlen specter. i saw rick santorum speak in person over 10 years ago, before anybody here heard of him."</i><br /><br />Since Santorum was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1994, and to the U.S. Congress four years before that, your discovery of him over a decade ago doesn't exactly make you Ferdinand Magellan.<br /><br />*****<br /><br />You're from Pennsylvania? Congratulations. I'm from California. So when you say your state votes "exactly" the same as my state, I know you don't know what you're talking about.<br /><br />* My state hasn't had a GOP senator since 1992 - two years before your state elected Santorum to the first of two consecutive terms.<br /><br />* My state has less than 30 percent of the electorate registered as Republicans.<br /><br />* My state has had three Republicans elected to the eight state offices (governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, insurance commissioner, etc.) over the last decade, and only one of those was for a major office. Not one Republican currently serves in any of those eight offices. <br /><br />* My state's Democratic Party has a two-thirds super majority in the state legislature, giving them effective and total control of the state.<br /><br />Those are just a few of the details. I could go on. But I shouldn't need to. You're simply wrong to say that our states vote exactly the same.Pincher Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-34708880068992944252012-11-22T07:47:20.221-08:002012-11-22T07:47:20.221-08:00Why not just have a direct vote for the president?...<i>Why not just have a direct vote for the president?</i> --anonymous (i.e., no voter ID)<br /><br />They do. Right now. In France. Which is where those who make this suggestion really belong.<br /><br /><i>The electoral college is badly flawed and distorts the voting process.</i><br /><br />Whereas fake voters in Chicago and Philadelphia don't. That's what you're assuming when you mix everyone's vote together.<br /><br />We have a federal system. F-E-D-E-R-A-L. And the president already has too much power, and you want to elect him God!<br /><br /><i>Take California for example. Say one candidate gets ONE SINGLE MORE VOTE then his opponent, he wins all 55 of them.</i><br /><br />It works the same way for the governor's office, and nobody questions his legitimacy.<br /><br />What "reformers" never stop to consider is that under direct election, <i>every state's voting laws</i>-- or lack thereof--<i> must be identical</i>. So there goes voter ID, and any other (higher) standards your state may have instituted.<br /><br />A national electorate is an un-American idea. If that's what you want, again, <i>move to France</i>.Reg Cæsarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-14703234108613338832012-11-22T06:58:15.346-08:002012-11-22T06:58:15.346-08:00Well Bush and REagan were the worst on immirgantio...<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Well Bush and REagan were the worst on immirgantion since they were border state presidents. The MExican government have worked with Texas and California to have their people sneaked into those states for decades and send money home. Oddly enough I like Romney who was not border state but who wasn't perfect on the issue. But the Republican base like Bush more because of the social issues and the fact that he spend a lot and gave big tax cuts.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-50427752089319084122012-11-22T06:46:51.262-08:002012-11-22T06:46:51.262-08:00Well, the only soluation for California was the so...Well, the only soluation for California was the so-called Southern California state without LA. Orange, San Diego, Kern Riverside wanted to have and all the inland countries wanted their own state. The federal government went against that and so did the rest of the state. Actually the Southern Califr state would have went for ROmeny since Kern and Orange and Riverside would have flipped it over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-59114334126731431602012-11-22T06:32:51.134-08:002012-11-22T06:32:51.134-08:00If nominating a Latino candidate would allow the G...<i>If nominating a Latino candidate would allow the GOP to get 75% or so of the Latino vote...</i> --anonymous<br /><br />Short rebuttal: Alan Keyes.<br /><br /> <i>without losing too much of the White vote...</i><br /><br />Capitalizing 'white' is so ghetto, so... wigger.Reg Cæsarnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-78656387952767581022012-11-22T03:52:02.255-08:002012-11-22T03:52:02.255-08:00"If nominating a Latino candidate would allow..."If nominating a Latino candidate would allow the GOP to get 75% or so of the Latino vote..."<br /><br />Let's just stop right there. I think the whole point of the analysis is that there's nothing the Republicans can do, short of out-Democratting the Democrats, that would win even a majority (much less 75%) of the "latino" vote. I don't think anyone here believes that nominating a "latino" candidate like Rubio or Cruz would win Republicans a majority of "latinos" any more than nominating Herman Cain would cause blacks to vote majority Republican. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-6885479980742138732012-11-22T02:52:26.699-08:002012-11-22T02:52:26.699-08:00"If nominating a Latino candidate would allow..."If nominating a Latino candidate would allow the GOP to get 75% or so of the Latino vote without losing too much of the White vote, then they could pick up California and Pennsylvania and win the next election. It sounds to me like you guys are more afraid of the fact that this might actually work, and that your fantasy of the Republican party as the great defender of White America would finally be dashed for good, than anything else."<br /><br />It's <b>you</b> who are living in a deluded fantasy land; minority GOP candidates don't appreciably increase the Republicans' share of the minority vote by any more than a point or two. Running a Republican Hispanic for President would, at best, net the GOP 36% or perhaps 37% of the Latino vote instead of the average 35%.<br /><br />Look at Ted Cruz vs Rick Perry in Texas in 2012, Michael Steele vs Bob Ehrlich in Maryland in 2006 and Ken Blackwell vs Mike DeWine in Ohio in 2006; the minority Republican did hardly any better than the white Republican did among voters of his ethnicity. <br /><br />Thinking that the Latino on the top of the ticket will earn the GOP a 40 point improvement shows your ignorance - nothing like this has <b>EVER</b> remotely happened before and it probably never will.Bob Arctornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57343348510722239862012-11-22T02:51:52.019-08:002012-11-22T02:51:52.019-08:00Mr Anon - And those concentration of population ar...Mr Anon - <i>And those concentration of population are also the major media markets, meaning it would be relatively cheap and easy for the Democrats to buy advertising that would reach their voters - much more expensive for the Republicans to reach theirs.</i><br /><br />Much TV output is blatantly anti-Republican, pro-liberal. Thus Democrats dont have to overtly outspend at all. In fact my pet theory is that since many shows espouse racial egalitarianism, the wonders of immigration, the stupidity of white men, the wonders of gay marriage, the stupidity of Christians etc etc that pro-Republican TV ads appearing in the midst of that are actually counter-productive, the jarring dissonance is so great. And as a bonus Democrats get to bleat about those rich Republicans trying to buy votes.<br /><br />Seriously, think about it like that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-57099956715995904162012-11-22T02:40:57.442-08:002012-11-22T02:40:57.442-08:00If you think the number of Hispanics in the US is ...<i>If you think the number of Hispanics in the US is about equal to the number of Eskimos, then you must not get out much.</i><br /><br />If you the concept of irony goes over your head, then you must not get out much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-67037885807295783972012-11-22T00:37:47.907-08:002012-11-22T00:37:47.907-08:00If the GOP makes more of an effort to win the whit...If the GOP makes more of an effort to win the white striving classes (small business owners, working class, middle class), then I would expect to see more Hispanic GOP votes too. Let's not forget that there are also Hispanic strivers - just maybe not that many.Hughnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-23254226980176854262012-11-22T00:36:45.806-08:002012-11-22T00:36:45.806-08:00Another way to divert our attention from the real ...<i>Another way to divert our attention from the real pivotal power in America: Eskimos.</i><br /><br /><br />If you think the number of Hispanics in the US is about equal to the number of Eskimos, then you must not get out much.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-80498790744442584632012-11-22T00:36:36.843-08:002012-11-22T00:36:36.843-08:00Several posters read my comment on the importance ...Several posters read my comment on the importance of the Hispanic vote to mean I supported a Republican push for Hispanic votes. No, I was just saying the Republican position is increasingly hopeless. I don't entertain any fantasies of the next candidate being able to swing a lot of Hispanic voters to the Republican party, not unless the party itself swings dramatically to the left.<br /><br />The big question is not whether the Republicans should try to win x percent of the Hispanic vote, but what effect the growth in Hispanic voters, whose political opinions are fairly well set to the Left, has on Republican prospects. In this election, Hispanic voters were necessary for wins in Nevada, Florida, New Mexico, and Colorado, or 49 of the 73 electoral votes that Obama needed to secure in addition to his secure base of 197 votes. In the next election, Hispanic votes will be an even greater share of the votes in these states, meaning, they become even harder for Republicans to win. <br /><br />More importantly, any talk of a strategy to win more whites must still take into account the hurdle Republicans have to overcome in the Hispanic vote. Let's say Republicans significantly increase their share of the white vote, putting Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia into play. Well that dramatically increases the likelihood of Hispanics becoming the deciding votes in those states.<br /><br />Look at it this way. In each election, it is likely that the Hispanic vote will only prove decisive in a few states, however, with Democrats already having so many votes secure, even swinging a few states has a decisive impact. In 2008 and 2012, the Hispanic vote secured most of the extra electoral votes that the Democrats needed, but the Democrats got even more than they needed – so we say that the Hispanic vote wasn't "decisive". But let's say 2016 is tougher year for Democrats, and that Republicans win an even higher percentage of the white vote. Well then the Hispanic vote will likely prove critical in New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Virginia - which are 56 votes out of the 73 Democrats need from their secure base. The Democrats can then win the election by just winning Florida (which will have even more Hispanic voters in the next election) or a couple of these other states – Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado.<br /><br />To talk about the difference between 60 or 70 percent of the Hispanic vote is relatively unimportant. The important point is that if such large numbers of Hispanics weren't in the country in the first place, the Democrats wouldn't be nearly as likely to win the elections. As the Hispanic population grows, Republican prospects get dimmer and dimmer, and the likelihood of a Sailer strategy proving successful smaller and smaller. David M.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-76406039887060631272012-11-22T00:36:20.797-08:002012-11-22T00:36:20.797-08:00mexicans flooding into nevada helped flip it. i kn...mexicans flooding into nevada helped flip it. i know because i was there from 2002 to 2006, during the peak of the housing bubble.<br /><br />the increase in brazen mexicans during the GW bush "flood america with mexicans!" years was staggering. this is when illegal aliens hit me and gave me a concussion and an $18,000 hospital bill. for 12 hours in the hospital. because that's what they have to charge now to try to recoup the losses from the bottomless waves of mexicans using the ER.<br /><br />that wasn't the only thing which flipped nevada though. people escaping los angeles were coming into vegas by the thousands, every month. anybody living in a state adjacent to california knows what that means.<br /><br />nevada is well run by republicans, harry reid aside, and has no state income tax.jodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-49434868283185474372012-11-22T00:25:57.805-08:002012-11-22T00:25:57.805-08:00if such a thing were possible, i'd bet BIG, BI...if such a thing were possible, i'd bet BIG, BIG money that pennsylvania will vote for the democrat again in 2016. i'd bet 100,000 dollars, easily. that's how confident i am that PA is not a swing state and that a republican will never win it again.<br /><br />here's how a money line would look for pennsylvania in the 2016 election, if there was a book that took bets on such things:<br /><br />votes for the republican +700<br />votes for the democrat -1500<br /><br />something like that. a colossal spread, approaching but not quite reaching the limit of betting lines. it's a bet they still might take if they thought they could get fools, er, i mean, republican political strategists, to deliver action. the house wouldn't take bets on california, new york, illinois.<br /><br />pennsylvania is going blue in 2016 NO MATTER WHAT. no matter what magical candidate you guys think the republicans should run, no matter what magical issues you think the republicans should drop or pick up.<br /><br />20 electoral votes in the democrat candidate's pocket. book it, bank on it, bet the house on it.jodynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9430835.post-21927854758643957732012-11-22T00:18:22.947-08:002012-11-22T00:18:22.947-08:00If nominating a Latino candidate would allow the G...If nominating a Latino candidate would allow the GOP to get 75% or so of the Latino vote without losing too much of the White vote, then they could pick up California and Pennsylvania and win the next election. It sounds to me like you guys are more afraid of the fact that this might actually work, and that your fantasy of the Republican party as the great defender of White America would finally be dashed for good, than anything else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com