Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
Several months ago, at Mindweapons, I posted a comment how Barak Obama handily beating Mitt Romney was causing big ripples in the District of Corruption. Or should I say, the real reason Obama beat Romney was causing greater interest in D.C. than we ever imagined; especially when it was noted that it was not the changing demographics instituted by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that caused more voters to trend Democrat.
There’s a cavernous gender gap I this country that’s hindering a party’s electoral potential, threatening its ability to win in November.
This is a common refrain about the Republican Party’s deep-rooted problem with women. But it could just as easily be applied to the Democrats and their disconnect with men.
The male drift from the Democratic Party, particularly white males, isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. Reagan Democrats were comprised largely of men who felt the party had abandoned them, and not the other way around.
In fact, the last Democratic candidate for the White House to win the white male vote was President Lyndon B. Johnson – 50 years ago.
Republicans won men by 14 points in their banner 2010 midterm year, and this off-year Democrats could face a similar staggering deficit. But largely, their focus remains on increasing their margins with women rather than attempting to persuade men.
“You don’t need to,” says Benenson, dismissing the importance of carrying the male vote. “They won men in the presidential election and they lost. They win white voters in the presidential election and they lost. There’s no absolute rule that you have to win this group or that group.”
To hell with men, goes one line of thought.
So, naturally, the Republicans followed suit, actively courting women and minorities and ignoring White men after dog whistling to them for all they were worth.
The Republicans were supremely confident that shunned Ron Paul supporters vote for Mitt Romney with four more years of “Hope and Change” looming ahead of them as the alternative. In fact, Mrs. Romney was no doubt picking out new curtain and china patterns for the White House as Karl Rove and Dick Morris declared victory.
As an aside, this Republican arrogance has been more than justified on their parts in view of the re-election of John “Build the Dang Fence” McShamnesty in 2008 by Arizona and that of Lindsey “No Angry White Men” Grahamnesty by South Carolina. Until their constituency reviews their ABCs (Anybody But that Clown), there is no reason for the Republiscam to listen to them.
Naturally, Republicans were perplexed when an estimated six to sixteen million White voters chose not to show up at the polls in 2012. The Republiscum started crying fraud. And they would know all about fraud, after the way they pulled all kinds of fraud to shut Ron Paul out of the process.
However, the Democrats who had simply resorted to relying on their traditional voter base from the cemetery and bussing in minority voters to “vote brown all the way down” and to “vote early, vote often,” were just as rocked by the number of MIA MARS as they were, even though the actual turnout across the races was lower than projected except for the Hispanic demographic which exceeded expectations but not enough to swing elections, indicating NO racial demographic re-alignment to the Democrat camp.
As it stands, the bigger puzzle for figuring out the path of American politics is who these non-voters are, why they stayed home, and whether they might be reactivated in 2016 (by either party). http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106-2.html
According to this second article by Sean Trende, the MIA voters turned out to be largely down-scale, working class and rural Northern Whites.
The drop in turnout occurs in a rough diagonal, stretching from northern Maine, across upstate New York (perhaps surprisingly, turnout in post-Sandy New York City dropped off relatively little), and down into New Mexico. Michigan and the non-swing state, non-Mormon Mountain West also stand out.
For those with long memories, this stands out as the heart of the “Perot coalition.” That coalition was strongest with secular, blue-collar, often rural voters who were turned off by Bill Clinton’s perceived liberalism and George H.W. Bush’s elitism. They were largely concentrated in the North and Mountain West: Perot’s worst 10 national showings occurred in Southern and border states. His best showings? Maine, Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Minnesota.
Even though there is strong evidence that Ron Paul supporters contributed sizable numbers who shunned the 2012 elections, for some strange reason, Trende chooses to adhere to the Republican Party’s policy of completely ignoring them. I suspect that it has much more to do with the fact that the author agrees more with the Perot Coalition pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and less non-interventionist values.
What does that tell us about these voters? As I noted, they tended to be downscale, blue-collar whites. They weren’t evangelicals; Ross Perot was pro-choice, in favor of gay rights, and in favor of some gun control. You probably didn’t know that, though, and neither did most voters, because that’s not what his campaign was about.
His campaign was focused on his fiercely populist stance on economics. He was a deficit hawk, favoring tax hikes on the rich to help balance the budget. He was staunchly opposed to illegal immigration as well as to free trade (and especially the North American Free Trade Agreement). He advocated more spending on education, and even Medicare-for-all. Given the overall demographic and political orientation of these voters, one can see why they would stay home rather than vote for an urban liberal like President Obama or a severely pro-business venture capitalist like Mitt Romney.
It wasn’t a rainbow coalition of Blacks, Mestizos, Asians, Jews, Promiscuous Sluts, and Gays who kept a fairly competent Republican from unseating the most divisive, incompetent, and corrupt Democrat in recent history. It appears that it was a large group of downscale, blue-collar, working class Whites! Even if one is inclined to completely dismiss the Ron Paul supporters as Trende did. They were still White! It didn’t take long for Trende’s findings to invite a firestorm of criticism from some of the Usual Suspects (Alan Abramowitz, Ruy Texeira, and Paul Krugman who called Trende’s articles “A Whiter Shade of Fail”) that kept insisting the only way for the Republicans to remain “relevant” to Amurrikwa’s future La Raza voters from Azatlan is to pass amnesty and throw those borders wide open.
In 2012, turnout declined by 3.4 percentage points according to Michael McDonald’s US Elections Project. Plugging in his figures on votes cast and using Census data on eligible voters plus exit poll data on shares of votes by race, we calculate that turnout went down by about equal amounts among white and minority voters (3.4 and 3.2 percentage points, respectively).
Not surprisingly then, Trende’s own data show a substantial number of missing minority voters — 2.3 million compared to 6.1 million whites. There are more missing white voters despite the roughly equal declines in turnout simply because they are a larger group and more voters are knocked out of the voting pool for any given decline in turnout.
“GOP, phone home! Your missing white voters have been found, and it turns out they weren’t really missing,” an argumentative Abramowitz and Texeira jeered. It was not an epidemic of dispossessed, disenchanted, and disgruntled White voters boycotting the elections; it just seems like more Whites, because gosh darn it; they still comprise the dominant population. It was across the board; it was a low turnout election – a low, turnout presidential election! That’s all. There’s nothing to see here, Republicans; drive on and pass Comprehensive Immigration Reform while you do it.
Like any exercise in reading exit polls and census data, Trende’s assumptions (which he lays out explicitly) can be critiqued by people who are serious about understanding the issue; there are no definitive answers in this area other than final vote counts. But the vehemence directed at Trende’s number-crunching suggests a Democratic establishment that fears honest debate intruding in its narrative of an inevitable, permanent Democratic majority built on a permanently racially polarized electorate.
But Texeira and Abramowitz based their arguments on the way they themselves manipulated the Current Population Survey (CPS) data to prove that turnout was down equally across all groups. They clumped together all People of Color and they mixed and matched the CPS data with other sources, like exit polls.
For all the heat over Trende’s computations, it should not be forgotten that the “missing white voters” are only the difference in turnout patterns between 2008 and 2012 – both elections in which uninspiring and poorly-organized GOP campaigns faced off against Barack Obama (a uniquely inspiring figure to non-white voters due to his status as the first non-white President), and the first of which – the baseline – already involved a uniquely bad political environment for Republicans.
There was another reason for the hysteria coming from Texeira and Abramowitz. Something that was only alluded to when Rush Limbaugh urged his listeners to vote for Hillary Clinton in Democrat Primaries. The Democrat’s Rainbow Coalition is much more fragile than we imagine with each group fiercely fighting for its own ethno-racial interests making a Big Tent Compromise Party impossible.
Samantha Powers, an Obama aide, called Hillary Clinton a “monster” who would do anything to win even as Geraldine Ferraro was forced to apologize for to those who thought it racially insensitive for her to suggest that Obama wouldn’t be the Democratic front-runner if he were not black. But she then declared: ‘It wasn’t a racist comment. It was a statement of fact’.”
The Wall Street Journal reports groups that for months have energized the Democratic campaign – like blacks, women and young voters – are “increasingly sniping” at each other. They point out that more Republicans now say they’re satisfied with John McCain than Democrats are with either Clinton or Obama. This is a big change from January, when many more Democrats were satisfied with their choices.
Some Democratic activists insist that this is normal, and after the convention, “we will all come together.” But not everyone is convinced. Strategist Donna Brazile says, “I am fearful; we are heading into uncharted territory”, adding that the mood and tone of the campaign have shifted in the past few weeks.
Behind the entire Clinton campaign has lain a huge negative assault, some of which can be traced back to the campaign itself and some of which cannot. It includes robocalls (pre-recorded automated messages) to voters mentioning Obama’s middle name of ‘Hussein’ and websites set up to publicize Obama’s tenuous links to a corrupt Chicago businessman.
Obama rejected campaign convention and explicitly mentioned Clinton by name as he accused her of using ‘Washington speak’ to mislead voters. ‘Senator Clinton says Barack is peddling false hopes. She says I’m a talker not a doer… there is nothing false about hope,’ he said after he listed numerous examples of Clintonian political slipperiness.
After winning the primary, Obama supporters wasted no time in purging White Clinton supporters from key party positions and replacing them with Black Obama supporters. The Obama administration pretty much phased out anyone who had previously been involved with the Clinton administration, including Rahm Emmanuel who thought the Chicago climate would be warmer than Washington.
The hard feelings between the Obamas and the Clintons and their supporters remain, especially since it is clear that Obama plans to renege on his promise to support Hillary’s 2016 presidential bid if Bill Clinton endorsed his own 2012 re-election bid.
There was a point where Hillary Clinton came up swinging from behind to catch up with Obama and was even gaining momentum until Party Leaders forced her to stand down; her rousing defense of the people who Obama had dismissed as “bitter clingers.”
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Hmmm. These “bitter clingers” sound remarkably like the Ross Perot Coalition, don’t they? Maybe, it was because many of their own trade policies had irreparably hurt these people, these apoplectic Progressive Democrats weren’t the only folks misreading the tea leaves.
After Election Day, the conventional wisdom was that the GOP needed to make gains among Hispanics to win in 2016. Fox News’ Brit Hume and Sean Hannity, for instance, quickly assessed the GOP needed to cave on immigration reform. Half a year later, Hume and Hannity have flipped. Hannity doubts that immigration will help Republicans, while Hume says the demographic arguments are “baloney,” since the Hispanic vote is “not nearly as important, still, as the white vote.” Hannity and Hume aren’t alone. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, says white voters stayed home because the Republican Party didn’t stay conservative enough.
Trende’s case is so appealing to conservatives because it implies that Republicans don’t need to make any compromises whatsoever to make additional gains among white voters. To be clear, Trende believes the GOP needs to change, especially on economic issues. But it seems that Trende still thinks that white voters will trend Republican with respect to the country, regardless of whether they embrace his proposed reforms. And even if I have misunderstood Trende on this point, many conservatives still seem to assume that they can do better with whites while pressing their existing conservative message.
There is indeed room for the GOP to improve among white voters, but there’s no reason to think it won’t be painful, too. If Republicans don’t want to compromise on immigration reform, they will probably need to do something else to make up ground. It could be moderating on social issues or economics—or a little bit of both. Either way, the GOP will have to pick its poison.
If the GOP really wants to win elections instead of throwing part of them to the Democrats, they need to institute a platform that keeps FEDGOV out of people’s marital and reproductive choice and protect American jobs, withdraw our troops from overseas and divert them to the Coast Guards, National Guards, and Border Patrols to protect our borders from infiltrators. Oh yes, and as a bow to Ron Paul supporters, institute a policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs and tighter control over the Banksters. None of which the GOP wants to do for reasons known only to their big money supporters, like Sheldon Adelson.
Though I think it’s stupid to ignore that many angry Ron Paul supporters filled their ranks, for shits and giggles, I will play along. These articles all focus around the idea that these missing White voters were conservative Republicans who stayed away, because Republicans weren’t as ardent as they could have been about pressing for tax cuts for the rich and endless schemes that cut the financial ground out from under working class Whites by shipping production plants overseas when they were not in- and out-sourcing American jobs to brown foreigners!
These Whites were the voters who had kept Democrats in power for sixty years because populist FDR-Truman Democrats had protected their interests from rapacious big businesses and banks. They were the same folk who only became Reagan Democrats, because Marxist Progressives had used Snivel Rights and the Anti-War movement to push out the populists, further alienating their core White voter base from the Democrat Party. These pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-protectionist people weren’t conservative Republicans; they were populist Democrats, but that fact completely eludes the Democrats! Or does it?
BABY, COME BACK
Democrats generally win the votes of fewer than four in 10 white men. But they win eight of 10 minority voters and a majority of women, who have been a majority of the national electorate since 1984, while white men have shrunk to a third, and are still shrinking.
White male voters have been crucial in some past midterms, most clearly in 1994, when they helped Republicans take control of the House for the first time in 40 years, and again in 2010.
And this year, Democrats, hobbled by Mr. Obama’s sagging popularity, are defending many red-state Senate seats, including some in places with few members of minorities, like West Virginia. A big reason for Democrats’ emphasis on raising the minimum wage is the polling proof that the issue resonates with all groups, including white men. In Michigan, Mr. Houston is leading an effort to place a minimum-wage increase on the November ballot and said it “really polls well with white men.”
What discourages Democrats is that men’s attitudes shaped over generations — through debates over civil rights, anti-Communism, Vietnam, feminism, gun control and dislocations from lost manufacturing jobs and stagnant wages in a global economy — are not easily altered.
For reasons known only to their big-money donors like George Soros, Democrats see winning their traditional voting base of working class White men back is an insurmountable challenge rather than easy as going back to the traditional populist policies that always resonated with White men from the days of Andrew “Kill the Bank” Jackson all the way to FDR and Harry S “Ball Buster” Truman; populist policies that resonated not only with White men but ALL working people across the racial spectrum and gender divide. Nope, for some strange reason, it’s better to yammer about the need to have one endless “conversation” about race after another.
Still those voters remain just tantalizingly out of their reach. Can Democrats take a page out of the Republican playbook and just dog whistle to them?
93% of Democratic Senate or Governor Candidates Are White
Not So Diverse
The Democrats or Democrat-backed candidates in these 71 races break down as:
53 white male candidates 13 white female candidates 2 black male candidates 2 black female candidates 1 Asian male candidate 0 Hispanic candidates 0 South Asian candidates
The GOP’s 72 candidates in the same races are not a notably diverse bunch, but there are a few more non-white candidates, more of whom are running real campaigns. Republicans are running:
58 white male candidates 6 white female candidates 1 black male candidate 1 Hispanic male candidate 1 Hispanic female candidate 2 Asian male candidates 1 South Asian male candidate 1 South Asian female candidate
It seems that the clueless “Red State” Republitards are crowing that the GOP is more racially diverse than Democrats in the hope that it will encourage blacks and browns to vote Republican in the belief that this will help them win. Win what? The contest to see which token non-White “Republican” candidate will keep the most of their White constituents at home during the elections while being snubbed by their own people?
Still, the fact that the purportedly “Anti-White” Democrats are running mainly Whites for Senate and State Office is a heartening indication that a subtle shift is taking place within the thinking in their ranks.