The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

 TeasersiSteve Blog
Republican Party

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

[ note: Adapted from Steve Sailer’s presentation to’s first-ever Webinar, January 19, 2013. For other presentations, seehere and here. Recordings will be available in a few days—or information when available, email with “Webinar recording” in subject line]

Hi, I’m , and it’s a real pleasure to address the first webinar. I’m going to talk about some overlooked aspects of the 2012 election.

I’m going to focus on voting by state because that is how Electoral College Votes are counted. For the GOP (or a GAP, “Generic American Party”) to ever take back the White House, it will have to figure out how to win more states.

I’m working with a huge poll that almost nobody’s talked about, the American Mosaic Poll. It was conducted online by Reuters-Ipsos throughout the election year. This particular edition features a sample size of 40,000 two-party voters who responded immediately after voting.

Now, the Reuters-Ipsos panel has advantages and disadvantages versus the better-known Edison exit poll, which had a sample size of only about 25,000. I haven’t noticed any systematic differences in results reported by the two polls, but Reuters-Ipsos has a number of strengths for the serious analyst.

For example, the Edison exit poll wasn’t even conducted in 20 states—including Texas. But if you want to know something about the future of American politics, you better know something about Texas. The Reuters-Ipsos poll had a sample size of 2,403 respondents in Texas.

In summary, we’ve got a decent sample size on almost every state, not just 30 favored states.

Most importantly, Reuters lets anybody make any crosstabs they want of their results, while the Edison exit poll only lets subscribers who pay tens of thousands of dollars get their hands dirty with the data. So the quality of discussion of the exit poll numbers has been constrained.

Below is something nobody has seen before, a table of Romney’s share of the two-party vote by race in each of the 50 states.

Note carefully: in the interest of simplicity, all the percentages here and in the rest of this article are going to be for Romney’s share of the two-party vote. I’m leaving out Third Parties—Libertarians, the Constitution Party, write-ins, and so forth. I used this approach in my post-election articles on the Marriage Gap (here and here) and on Romney’s fatal failure among Rust Belt whites.

I apologize for ignoring non-major party voters—I saw recently that Tom Wolfe reportedly wrote in Ron Paul’s name in 2012! But this expedient allows us to focus on just one issue: Romney’s share vs. Obama’s share. (If you want to know what Obama got, just subtract Romney’s percentage from 100).

In 2012, about 1.7 percent of the actual national Presidential vote went Third Party—about one percent for the Libertarian Party alone. This Third Party vote appears to have been heavily white. As a result, Romney’s actual white share is generally about a percentage point lower than I report it here. (I will post in a separate article a table reporting Romney’s actual white share, along with my reflections on the Third Party impact, shortly).

The first column of percentages is Romney’s final share of the actual two-party vote. Nationally, Romney only got 48.0 percent of the two-party vote to Obama’s 52.0 percent.

(After all the votes were counted, Obama’s victory margin turned out wider than almost all polls had predicted. The Reuters’ poll has Romney at 48.5 percent, so it was a half-point too high.)

National, Romney won 58.1 percent of the two-party white vote which, unsurprisingly, was not enough. He lost 97-3 among blacks and 72-28 among Hispanics.

Romney’s Percentage Share of the 2-Party Vote

Unfortunately, Reuters just lumps together American Indians with Asians and whoever else feels like calling themselves “Other.” And Romney garnered only 39 percent of them. Still, that’s better than what the Edison exit poll reported for Romney among Asians (26 percent, purportedly down a 9 points from 2008), and 38 percent among its “Other” category, mostly American Indians (up 7 points from 2008). [Exit polls 2012: How the vote has shifted, Washington Post, November 6, 2012.]

There was a fair amount of theorizing based upon the exit poll about why Romney did so much worse than McCain among Asians (although, typically, none about why he did so much better among American Indians).

The Reuters poll, however, disagrees with Edison. If it’s right, these sharp swings may not actually have happened—although the GOP performance is still poor.

Which poll is right about the Other? Beats me. Generally, the exit poll and Reuters are pretty similar, so when they disagree, I’d just recommend taking the average of the two surveys.

The Reuters-Ipsos Polling Explorer interface won’t display any breakdowns where the sample size is less than 100. But I managed to get around that cautious limitation by lumping together California’s sample size with each small state’s sample, then doing the algebra. That worked out fairly well.

Rather than a minimum sample size of 100, I chose an aggressive minimum of merely 15. That’s quite small, so don’t put too much faith in the details. However, since it’s so hard to get these numbers, I felt it better to err on the side of giving my readers more rather than less information.

We’ll start our analysis with minority electorates, then give the white vote the careful inspection it deserves.

(Yes, I know that white voters are out fashion. But they are still numerous and much more of a swing vote from state to state than are the trendier minorities).

Romney’s share of the black vote is pretty much the same almost all the way through. Traditionally, California blacks vote a little more Republican than the national blacks, and, sure enough, Romney hauled in a full 5 percent of California blacks!—versus 3 percent nationwide.

The one figure that’s unexpected is Ohio: Reuters/Ipsos reports that Romney got 13 percent of the black vote there. That’s from a moderate sample size of 92 black panelists. A vast amount of money was spent on advertising in the battleground state of Ohio, so maybe Romney’s strategists can pat themselves on the back for buying a few extra black votes. Or maybe this 13 percent figure is just a fluke due to limited sample size.

A few anomalies like this are actually reassuring about the authenticity of the Reuters poll. The results fit my model of how the world works, of how various factors interact, so well that occasionally I break into a cold sweat over the thought that maybe Reuters just made up the results! I mean, if you hired me to create a model of how demographic and regional factors work together, it would spit out numbers very much like these. But, the occasional unpredictable result, like Romney supposedly getting 13 percent of the black vote in crucial Ohio, is, in a way, confidence-inducing.

With Hispanics, you can see that Puerto Rican Hispanic states like New York (Romney got 18 percent of New York’s Hispanic vote) and Pennsylvania (13 percent) are a little bit further to the left than Mexican Hispanic states such as California (25 percent). But, most of the Hispanic vote falls within a relatively narrow band. Rather than swing voters, these look like solid Democrats who drift a little right if their white neighbors are conservative.

Ever since the election, we’ve been told constantly that the main thing Hispanic voters care about is amnesty for illegal aliens, and the only way for Republicans to ever win the White House again is to grant amnesty. (And, while you’re at it, throw in “a path to citizenship”).

If you doubt this is the right course for the GOP, just ask any Democrat. They’ll tell you!

Well, if there is any state where this logic shouldn’t apply, it ought to be Florida, which Obama won by a hair. The two main groups of Hispanic voters in Florida are Cubans and Puerto Ricans, neither of whom care about “immigration reform.”

The Puerto Ricans are American citizens, and yet they still vote overwhelmingly Democratic. You might almost think Democrats are pulling Republicans’ legs over amnesty…

The Cubans, as described in Tom Wolfe’s Back To Blood, have their own special immigration law that applies to any Cuban who can set foot on American soil. The Cubans used to vote heavily Republican, but Florida Hispanics now went overall 65-35 for Obama, suggesting younger Cubans are trending Democratic.

In Wolfe’s novel, even the conservative cops among the Miami Cubans resent the Anglos as competitors who get on their nerves by thinking of Florida as part of America. And the Democrats are the natural home for the resentful.

There is a small difference between the Mexican American voters in California (25 percent for Romney) and Texas Hispanics (37 percent).

That 37 percent sounds pretty good—it must be the pro-amnesty role models of the Bush family, while, as we all know, California Latinos were alienated by Proposition 187! Until you notice that Romney got an astonishing 76 percent of the white vote in Texas, versus only 49 percent in California.

So, relative to whites, Romney may have performed better with Hispanics in California where there is only a 24-point gap, than in Texas, where there is 39-point gap. Or if you look at it proportionally, California’s 25/49 is almost identical to Texas’s 37/76.

So maybe the Bushes and Prop. 187 don’t really matter—Mexican Americans mostly vote Democratic because they find it to be in their self-interest for old-fashioned tax-and-spend reasons.

What about the white vote?

This graph below shows Romney’s share of both the total vote (in dark) and white vote (in red).

The states are sorted in order of how well Romney did overall, with Utah at the top and Hawaii at the bottom.

It started out as a bar graph, but I had 100 bars (50 states times two), which seemed excessive, so I made the bars invisible and just left the values of the bars. If you look at Utah, you can see that Romney got 75 percent of the total vote and 75 percent of the white vote in the state. In Wyoming, 71 percent of the total vote and 74 percent of the white vote.


So for Romney to do really well, he needed two things: states that are almost all white and whites that are almost all Republican.

Now, as you get further down, you see outliers, where the GOP’s share of the white vote is far higher than the GOP’s overall performance: for example, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. These are states typically in the Deep South, with large black populations. Obviously, there’s a strong degree of white solidarity to keep blacks from taking over the state.

For example, Mississippi went for Romney 56-44—and the way he won was by getting 88 percent of the white vote. Why did he get 88 percent of the white vote? Well, Mississippi has the largest black population of any state and according to this Reuters-Ipsos poll, blacks in Mississippi voted 100 percent for Obama (sample size = 38)

This is what “diversity” gets you in the long run. Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore says, in a multicultural democracy, everybody ends up voting on race.

But probably the two most interesting states that Romney won are not in the Deep South: Texas (76 percent of white vote) and Arizona (66 percent).

Texas is not really an old Deep South state by any means. It has had a huge influx of Americans from all over the country since oil was first discovered in 1901, and it has its own culture. It shows the possibilities of what a state could do in terms of going heavily toward Republicans as a bloc vote: 76 percent is a pretty amazing number, but that’s what it took to keep rapidly-Hispanicizing Texas handily Republican.

If whites in Texas don’t vote consistently Republican, then the state, with its 38 Electoral Votes, will go Democratic in some future presidential election. And that would end the chances of the Republican Party as we know it ever regaining the White House.

So, GOP, you better hurry up and put all those illegal aliens in Texas on the path to citizenship!

One thing to keep in mind about Texas: its formidable degree of white solidarity is the result of generations of white Texans indoctrinating each other in the superiority of Texas over the rest of the country (as I noticed while a student at Rice University in Houston). This solidarity has some real payoffs. For example, back in the 1980s Texas had a hugely successful anti-littering campaign featuring the slogan “Don’t Mess with Texas.”

Politically, it turns out that Texas pride among whites keeps Mexicans discouraged. (Mexicans are not terribly hard to discourage.) On the other hand, the braggadocio of Texans has not necessarily endeared themselves to the rest of the country.

Arizona, as you may have observed, has been demonized in the national Main Stream Media over the last few years in a way that can only be described as virulent. The front page of the New York Timesroutinely featured articles about the horribleness of white people in Arizona and how something needs to be done about them.

That’s because, by the standards of Western states without many blacks, there was unusual solidarity among Arizona whites, with 66 percent voting Republican. That frustrated Democratic efforts to register and turnout as many Mexican Americans as possible.

Of course, the most interesting states on the graph are the ones where Romney came close to 50 percent. These are the states that future Republican candidates must improve in to have a shot at the White House.

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 American, 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.

Let’s see where we could make the amnesty argument. Florida was close. And, as we know ever since the infamous 2000 election, Florida has been ripe for people with an ax to grind to claim that their particular panacea would have determined who won the Presidency.

For example, I got a press release during the 2000 vote counting in Florida from a Sikh lobby. The Sikhs hate laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets because helmets muss up their turbans. Traditionally, helmet laws are the Sikhs’ hot-button issue. The press release announced that if Al Gore had come out against helmet laws, the Sikhs of Florida would have made him President.

I checked their math, and, yeah, they had a point.

But the larger point is that this logic is mostly nuts. It depends on holding all other voting blocs constant.

But the Washington D.C. GOP Establishment doesn’t get it. At the moment, they think that all they have to do to get back to the White House is turn the party over completely to Marco Rubio. Let him negotiate amnesty with the Democrats. (What could possibly go wrong?) Mexicans must love the guy, right? After all, both his name ends in vowels.

Yet, do Mexican Americans even like Cubans, such as Sen. Rubio? (One of the hidden messages of Back to Blood is that Cubans don’t care at all about Mexicans.)

Nobody seems to have checked.

Virginia is another interesting state. It’s an example of how the Republicans are beginning to shoot themselves in the foot with legal immigration. The Washington DC suburbs are home a large number of well-educated legal immigrants—and, it turns out, they like to vote Democratic. Even if they’re making a lot of money and it’s going to cost them in taxes, these legal immigrants just find the Democrats more to their taste.

Then there are what I call the Clean Green states: for example, Colorado (where Romney won only 52 percent of whites), New Hampshire (he lost the white vote, getting only 48 percent), Oregon (48 percent), and Washington (46 percent).

Amnesty isn’t going to win the GOP those states.

There’s New Mexico, with its large Hispanic population. But, once again, the GOP lost there because it only won 52 percent of the white vote.

New Mexico is interesting as a view into the future of Hispanicized America. Hispanics have been in the Upper Rio Grande Valley for 400 years, yet the state that does not attract many illegal immigrants. How come? Because there aren’t many jobs in New Mexico. Why not? Because it has been filled up with Hispanics for its entire history, and they don’t create a lot of jobs.

What about California? Surely, that’s a state where whites have been crushed under the rising tide of Hispanics?

Actually, Romney only won 49 percent of the white vote there. Kind of hard for a Republican to win that way.

As we all know from having heard it over and over, the Republicans were doing fine in California until they shot themselves in the foot with Proposition 187 in 1994.

What you don’t hear is that George H.W. Bush won less than 33 percent of the total vote in California in 1992—two years before Proposition 187. But who has time to fact-check The Narrative?

Nevada might be the closest thing to an example supporting the amnesty-uber-alles narrative. Romney won a mediocre but not terrible 57 percent of white votes there, but he lost due to Hispanics (and Filipinos) voting heavily Democratic.

Unfortunately, the Reuters-Ipsos poll only has a Nevada sample of 14 Hispanics, so we’re flying kind of blind here. My impression of Nevada Hispanic voters is that the big issue for them is not amnesty, it’s that they were just hammered by the mortgage meltdown of 2007-2008.Nevada long led the country in foreclosures. Nevada Latinos were flying high during the Bush Bubble, but haven’t forgiven Republicans since for their defaulting.

How amnesty will cure that for Republicans is a mystery.

Let’s briefly look at the national level. A one-word characterization of Mitt Romney’s campaign would be bloodless. He stressed serious, respectable issues involving entitlements and taxes. He avoided any mention of anything ungentlemanly. Unfortunately for Romney, he’s living in a time that our leading man of letters calls the age of Back to Blood.

In contrast, coming out of the 2010-midterm elections, Obama saw he had a real problem. The Obamamania of 2008 had carried him to a large victory over a wounded and already flawed Republican candidate. But how was he going to re-mobilize his base, which largely consists of the margins of American society, without the Hope and Change piffle of 2008?

The Obama base is, to be blunt, the fringes. The epitome of Romney’s base is the married white father, while the essence of Obama’s base is the single black mother. Obama’s base hadn’t bothered to show up to vote in 2010, so how was he going to motivate them in 2012?

The former are a lot more likely to vote out of a sense of civic duty, while the latter need some emotional motivation.

Here’s a table of data I published on just after the election that clearly shows the Core v. Fringe distinction:

The largest bar (at the bottom) is Mormons at 86 percent for Romney. Now, obviously, Mormons are a minority, but they’re increasingly the only minority group in modern American that still tries to act like they’re part of the core.

Then come married white Protestants (74 percent), then white Protestants, married white men, married whites, married white women, white Catholics, whites, married men, marrieds of both sexes, homeowners, married women, single white men, married other races and men in general.

At the top(smallest bar) are black single women at 2 percent for Romney. Then blacks, gays and lesbians, single Jewish women, Hindus, single Hispanics, single women, single other races, “Other orientations.”

I’m going to stop there for a moment. “Other orientations” comes from the sexual orientation question. They gave you four choices: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual; and for those who didn’t find those adequate, “other” was a choice.

The “Other Orientation” folks went strongly for Obama.

Obviously, this turned into an election based on identity, on whether people felt themselves in the core of America or in the fringe of America.

The core versus fringe can be defined in a couple of ways. For example, do you come from people who settled this country a long time ago? Or are you, say, an immigrant from Somalia who is now going to gift us with all the lessons that Somalis have developed over the eons on how to run a successful country?

Or, on a personal level, are you somebody who is married, has stayed married, has children, owns a home, and is employed? Or are you somebody who’s single, renting, who basically doesn’t find your life satisfactory and is looking for somebody to blame?

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.

Obama did a spectacular job of taking people from the fringe and telling them that they should resent the white married people of America, the ones who own their homes, the ones whose great-great-grandparents helped make this country, and that there’s something shameful, unfair, or at least uncool, about coming from the core of America.

It was a brilliant strategy. Obama ran a really ugly, nasty campaign full of subliminal hatred. The Democrats did a good job keeping the stew of ill-will they were brewing under wraps until after the votes were counted. But in the days following the election, out came pouring the chest-beating Suck-It-White-Boy exultation, the mindless fury at the losing white male bogeyman for being old and white, but, mostly, for losing.

The Republican Brain Trust, having elected President Romney, now assumes that the way to solve this problem is via amnesty—just as their good friends the Democrats keep telling them.

Amnesty, however, will be seen as white America’s surrender declaration, as an official invitation to kick the former top dogs while they’re down.

And who can be expected to resist that?

Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative and writes regularly for Takimag. His features his daily blog. His book,AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here and here (Kindle)

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

Following the collapse of the Bush Administration’s chief domesticobsession over the last six and a half yearsamnesty for illegal aliens—the President’s electoral strategist and policy advisor Karl Rove is leaving the White House.

Although Rove is now widely perceived as a failure, he was long credulously proclaimed the “Boy Genius” by the press…with the exception of us here at

As we’ve pointed out before, the Grand Strategy of the BushAdministration has been:

  • Invade the world
  • Invite the world

It’s not surprising that this has failed both as policy and as politics.

Even at this late date, many of Rove’s Establishment friends and enemies still see his push for more Latino immigration as inspired. Last week, Democratic warhorse pundit E.J. Dionne opined on what Rove did right back in the good old days.

“He laid heavy stress on education reform, stealing one of the Democrats’ best issues, and spoke warmly of Latino immigrants. Just as McKinley appealed to the new immigrant groups of his time, so did Rove and Bush understand the urgency of winning a significant share of the growing Hispanic vote.”[Waiting for the Republican Majority, August 14, 2007]

But simple arithmetic shows that even if the GOP did increase its share of the Hispanic vote (and I have shown that it did not) the increasing number of Hispanics would still have meant Bush & Co were, inabsolute terms, deeper in the hole.

Dionne’s account makes as much sense as the shop that intended to lose money on every item it sold but make up for it by increasing volume!

Similarly, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson writes from his new perch as an op-ed columnist for the Washington Post on August 17:

“We can’t be the party of America,” [Rove] says, “and get 13 percent of the African American vote.”

Actually, you can. Ronald Reagan got 9 percent of the black vote in 1984 … and was re-elected in a landslide.

(Hey, whatever happened to the Reagan coalition—after 11 years of Bush Dynasty rule?)

Amazing as it may seem to readers of the Main Stream Media, the law still counts a white person’s vote the same as anybody else’s. You might think from all the attention paid in the press to minority blocs that their votes count double. But it’s not true.

Gerson gurgles on:

“Looking back at his career, Rove is particularly proudthat ‘when we ran in Texas in 1998, among the statewide Republican ticket, a minority of the candidates were white men.’”

One example of Rove’s minority-mindedness: As long ago as 1989, Rove was already promoting the career of the Alberto Gonzales, the Bush consigliere who has risen all the way to being Attorney General on the strength of his beige skin and little else.

Minor minority detail: Gonzales has been a disaster.

Rove’s rationale was contained in a 1985 memo he wrote to his then-candidate for governor of Texas, Bill Clements:

“The purpose of saying you gave teachers a record payincrease is to reassure suburban voters with kids, not to win the votes of teachers. Similarly, emphasizing your appointments of women and minorities will not win you the support of feminists and the leaders of the minority community; but it will bolster your support among Republican primary voters and urban independents.”

Maybe. And Rove probably visualized his illegal alien amnesty likewise: as a way to reassure nice people that Bush was nice.

But the problem with Rove’s amnesty, though, is that immigration is not a micropolicy, like consultant Dick Morris’s 1996 brainstorm of having Bill Clinton advocate uniforms for public school students or even teacher salaries. Immigration is the macropolicy—one that has as much long term impact on the nation as anything.

Of course, even merely as a short-term political manipulator, Rove completely botched the immigration issue. And it’s not as if ourcriticism of the electoral logic of the Bush-Rove dream of increasing Mexican immigration was only recently validated. Instead, Bush and Rove advanced their desire for more Mexicans in 2001, 2004, 2006, and 2007. And each time Congressional Republicans rejected it as bad for the country and bad for the GOP.

As I wrote back on September 10, 2001 (!!!) in the wake of strongCongressional resistance to the Administration’s immigration mania:

“So why did Karl Rove and the rest of the Bush braintrustmisread the political situation? Why did the White Housefail to anticipate Congressional Republicans’ concernsthat amnesty would undermine the GOP? The Bush teamappears to have been the victims of residing in an echochamber with a mainstream media corps that—for reasons of innumeracy, fashion, self-interest, self-image and fear—failed to challenge the Bush advisers’ sloppythinking about immigration.” [Analysis: Why Bush blundered on immigrants By Steve Sailer, United Press International September 10, 2001]

Luckily for Rove and Bush—there’s no other way to put it—3,000 Americans were murdered the next day. So the massive public humiliation of having Republicans in Congress decisively crush their dreams of a Hispanicized polity that would elect future generations of the Bush dynasty was postponed for six long, wasted years.

Rove’s immigration strategy, along with the assumption in the press that it was a political masterstroke, was always based on theinteraction of political correctness, smugness, and sheer laziness.

David Frum wrote recently in the New York Times:

“In my brief service as a speechwriter inside the Bushadministration, I often wondered why it was thatskeptical experts on issues like immigration could neverget even a hearing for their point of view. We took theself-evident brilliance of our plans so much for grantedthat we would not even meet, for example, withconservative academics who had the facts and figures todemonstrate the illusion of Rovian hopes for abreakthrough among Hispanic voters.” [Building a Coalition, Forgetting to Rule, August 14, 2007]

The real problem for the GOP is less Hispanic voters than Hispanic leaders—92 percent of all elected Hispanic politicians are Democrats.

The reason is obvious if you stop and think about it (which apparently nobody does): since most Hispanic citizens vote Democratic, mostHispanic-majority districts in the country are Democratic. And those are the ones in which Hispanics are most probable to get elected. So, it makes all the sense in the world for politically ambitious young Hispanics to join the party that’s more likely to get them elected to office: the Democrats.

So, what Bush and Rove have been doing by not enforcing the immigration laws is helping create a new Democratic Latino elite that will plague the GOP for decades.

As politics, Rove’s immigration ploy was negligent at the levels of simple logic and numeracy. Seldom discussed, in either the White House or the press, was the fundamental question of how big theHispanic vote actually was. Pundits influenced by Rove, like Michael Barone, routinely overestimated the number of Latino voters, claiming they “could be 9 percent in 2004.” (Actual figure: 6.0 percent, according to the Census Bureau’s authoritative survey).

The implication was that only opening the borders even wider would assuage the onrushing hordes of Hispanic voters. Like Kent Brockman said in the Simpsons: “And I for one welcome our new immigrant overlords.”

Rove’s thinking was just, well, stupid. Sure, the Hispanic (Democratic) elite wanted more immigration—because adding more Hispanic warmbodies makes them more powerful. But there was little evidence that more immigration was a burning demand among typical Hispanic voters. They instead tend to be traditional tax and spendDemocrats. (Which is bad enough, from the GOP’s point of view.)

Even more embarrassingly, the actual number of Hispanic voters was quite small. And a sizable fraction of that 6.0 percent are Cubans and Puerto Ricans who don’t much care about immigration.

And now the Pew Hispanic Center has crunched the Census Bureau’s numbers for 2006 and discovered that the total Latino share of the vote last year fell—to 5.8 percent. According to Pew:

“while Latinos represented nearly half the total populationgrowth in the U.S. between 2002 and 2006, the Latinoshare among all new eligible voters was just 20%. Bycomparison, whites accounted for 24% of the populationgrowth and 47% of all eligible new voters.”

Overall, whites cast almost 12 ballots for every one ballot cast by a Hispanic.

The rise and fall of Karl Rove demonstrates, once again, that incompetence is rife among the Washington elites.

Rove is finally paying a price for his ineptitude. But will those in the press that he so easily hornswoggled about immigration ever be called to account?

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

In all the many discussions of Red (Republican) states and Blue (Democratic) states since the 2000 Presidential election, the most striking finding that emerged has been that the GOP share of the vote correlates extremely closely with affordable family formation for non-Hispanic whites.

In states where young white couples make enough money to buy a house with a yard in a neighborhood with a decent public school, they are more likely to get married and more likely to have more children.

And where you find lots of white married couples with lots of children, you’ll find lots of Republican voters.

So you might think that the Bush Administration would promote policies making family formation more affordable for its political base. But the latest government data suggest that it is not.

As I pointed out in a series of articles last winter, in the 2004 election Bush carried—

  • The 26 states with the least housing price inflation since 1980: That’s what I call The Mortgage Gap.
  • The 25 states in which white women from 18 through 44 average the most years married: I call this The Marriage Gap.
  • And 25 of the top 26 states in total lifetime fertility among younger white women: I call this The Baby Gap.

In contrast, single people, especially single mothers, vote Democratic.

For example, California voted Republican in nine of ten Presidential elections, from 1952 through 1988. As recently as 1990, non-Hispanic white women in California averaged 1.93 babies.

Over the next dozen years, though, as immigrants poured in, California’s white fertility rated dropped 14.4 percent to 1.65 babies. And the Democrats have carried the state easily four times in a row.

If the Bush Administration had the long-term interests of the GOP at heart, it would limit immigration to allow native-born Americans to better afford marriage and children.

Cutting immigration would raise America’s employment and wages, keep housing prices in check, and make public schools better in quality by not overloading them with children from families that don’t speak English and don’t put a high value on education.

But instead, incredibly, the President has encouraged illegal immigration—actually goading Mexicans to sneak across the border by saying“You’re going to come here if you’re worth your salt…”

We could call this “Bushicide”—for the GOP, and for the American nation.

Now the National Center for Health Statistics has released its Preliminary Births for 2004 report. And it’s more apparent than ever that the demographic trend is not the GOP’s friend.

For example, illegitimate births grew 3.8 percent in just one year to a new record of 1,470,000 in 2004. That’s 35.7 percent of all births, up from 34.6 percent in 2003.

Among non-Hispanic whites, the illegitimacy rate rose to 24.5 percent, which is even higher than the notorious black illegitimacy rate that so alarmed Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his famous 1965 report to LBJ The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.”

Among African-Americans, there had been some hope that the illegitimacy rate was starting to go down from its catastrophic level of recent decades. But in 2004 it bumped back up to 69.2 percent.

The President has repeatedly assured us, “Family values don’t stopat the Rio Grande River.” Yet the U.S. Hispanic illegitimacy rate rose from 45.0 percent to 46.4 percent.

Sure, Latinos are assimilating—but they are assimilating toward African-American norms. The illegitimacy rate is actually higher for American-born Hispanics than for immigrant Hispanics. (Which doesn’t bode well for the future crime rate.)

The GOP won 58 percent of the white vote in 2004. It gets about nine out of every ten of its votes from whites.

So it’s not good news for Republicans that the number of babies born to white women dropped by 18,000 last year to 2.303 million.

It’s not good news for two reasons:

  • Having babies (legitimately) encourages whites to vote Republican.
  • Judging from past elections, white babies are about twice as likely to grow up to vote Republican as are nonwhite babies.

White women accounted for only 56.0 percent of all births in the U.S. last year, down from 56.7 percent in 2003.

The total fertility rate, or expected lifetime number of babies, among white women in their childbearing years fell from 1.87 to 1.85.

That’s about 1/4th below the replacement rate at which ademographic group can maintain a stable size.

In contrast, the number of babies born to Hispanic women grew by 33,000 (or 3.6 percent in one year) to 945,000, or 23.0% of all births. (Latinos make up only about 14 percent of all residents.)

The Hispanic total fertility rate rose from 2.79 to 2.82.

The high Hispanic fertility is driven upwards by illegal immigration. A recent analysis of 2002 data by Steven A. Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies suggests that the total fertility rate for illegal Mexican immigrants is above 3.5 babies per woman. That compares to only 2.4 for Mexican women in Mexico.

Keep in mind that Latinos also tend to have children at an earlier age (their teen birth rate is more than triple the white rate). So theirgrowth rate relative to whites is even faster than the total fertility numbers would suggest—because their average generation time is shorter.

As we’ve seen in California, immigration is crowding out marriage and childbirth among American citizens by making family formation less affordable.

This will spread to the rest of the country—unless something is done, i.e., current government policies are reversed.

During the last, disastrous, week, many Republicans have finally woken up to realize that the Bush apparatchiks are not the political geniusesthat they’ve claimed to be.

If it is to survive, the Republican Party can no longer afford to mortgage its future to George W. Bush’s extraordinary obsession with, in effect, abolishing the Rio Grande.

Nor can America.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

The Bush Administration is currently imploding on multiple fronts.

Well, either that or make them all legal aliens. Or something. Thedetails haven’t all been revealed yet. But, after all, if you can’t trust George W. Bush to enforce the immigration laws …

Having burned his base on border security for nearly five years—and for over four years since 9/11!—nobody seems willing to give Bush any more credence.

  • The President clearly wants to start a wag-the-dog war with Syria and/or Iran over their failure to control their borders (while desiring to reward Mexico for the same thing). But the public’s patience with Bush’s grand strategy of Invite-the-World-Invade-the-World is at an all time low.

Bush’s approval rating continues its natural course downward, now descending into deeply negative territory.

  • Karl Rove, the alleged brains of the operation, and Scooter Libby, for 15 years a lawyer for international conman Marc Rich and for the last five years chief-of-staff for Vice President Cheney, are sweating out the possibility of indictment.
  • Bush’s attempt to elevate his undistinguished former personal lawyer Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has been greeted with derision even by many of his most sycophantic supporters at outlets like National Review .

Here at we’d like to take this opportunity to mention:

We told you so.

For years, since well before 9/11, we’ve been a rare independent voice telling you that George W. Bush, Karl Rove, and the whole gang were men of both poor character and poor judgment.

We knew that they were interested neither in what was good for the American people, nor knowledgeable about what was what was good for the Republican Party.

Why? Because their immigration policy has always been ludicrous.

But the mainstream media was too biased on the topic to notice.

The Washington press corps wants cheaper nannies, pool guys, and busboys. And if the laws of the land have to be spit upon and the American working class pauperized to get them, well, that’s a sacrifice the media class is willing to make.

Here at, we immediately pointed out that Bush’s Open Borders plan of January 7, 2004 was not just an amnesty for current illegal aliens, but an invitation to all six billion foreigners on Earth tomove to America if they could obtain a job offer at $5.15 per hour. (The minimum wage…for now.)

But the rest of the media barely mentioned the most radical plan to social engineering this nation ever proposed by a United States President.

The Bush Administration has presided over an unprecedented four consecutive years of increases in the poverty rate. But you’ll almost never see the word “immigration” appear in articles about the economy. Ed Rubenstein of has been alone in documenting that a ridiculous fraction of the all the new jobs in the economy have gone to illegal immigrants.

And just wait for Bush’s taxpayer-financed dollar rebuilding of New Orleans by illegal immigrants. That iconic American city will become a permanent outpost of Mexico.

But don’t expect Bush to learn any lessons form his current travails. Even if he is forced to kick Rove to the curb, Bush’s personal obsession with Mexicanizing America will continue.

The AP reported Friday:

“The consulting firm jointly headed by one possible Rove replacement, GOP strategist Ed Gillespie, has begun considering how Gillespie’s clients might be reassigned if he were tapped for a White House assignment and how to handle the other ramifications of a White House move.”

Gillespie is one of the chief bagmen for the campaign Bush launched this summer to shake down big corporations for up to $250,000 to fund his open borders campaign.

The Bush family has long been on terms of intimacy with their counterparts in Mexico’s corrupt power elite.

Like many of us, they look to Latin America and see America’s future.

Unlike the rest of us, the Bushes seem to like what they see.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

The 2002 elections might seem like a long time ago. But in vital ways they still provide the best guide to the rapidly approaching 2004 elections.

Unfortunately, no national demographic results were available in 2002, because the Voter News Service exit poll’s computer systems crashedon Election Day. But pollsters eventually mailed in 17,872 completed interviews. The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research inspectedthem, pronounced the data as reliable as ever, and recently put the raw results on sale. I bought them and laboriously crunched through it for a multi-part series for United Press International.

So finally we can test definitively who was right about thedemographics of victory: establishment Republican figures such as Karl Rove, Matthew Dowd, and Michael Barone or… me.

This is a debate of profound significance for the future of the Republican Party—and of the Republic itself.

The opening round came in 1997, when Peter Brimelow and Edwin S. Rubenstein published a National Review cover story entitled “Electing a New People.” Brimelow and Rubenstein demonstrated statistically that the long-term impact on Republican candidates of continuing to import millions of low-skilled people would be dire. (Click here for their 2000 update.)

Needless to say, there was little overt response. Barone simply ignored the argument in succeeding editions of his allegedly definitive Almanac of American Politics.

But, by early in this decade, the new mainstream of Republican consultants and publicists aligned with George W. Bush had accepted a caricature of the Brimelow-Rubenstein thesis: that immigration has already changed the electorate so radically that it would be political suicide to try to limit it. Instead, like a man with a hangover having more of “the hair of the dog that bit him,” they argued that the GOP’s only hope was to speed up the transformation of the electorate by passing an amnesty for illegal aliens in the hope that this would curry favor.

In late November of 2000, while the Bush vs. Gore recount in Florida was still going on, I wrote an article for—“GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote”—that added a new level of refinement to the demographic discussion bydistinguishing between the short and long terms. I said:

“Here at VDARE.COM, we’ve discussed repeatedly how dire will be the long-term impact of immigration on the Republican Party. It’s crucial to understand, however, that the long-term has not quite arrived. The GOP is not yet held hostage. It still has a window of opportunity—definitely stretching through the next recession but maybe not to the recession after that—to save itself by changing the immigration laws. This can be seen by examining the 2000 election results closely. The reason George W. Bush struggled so much to eke out a 271-267 win in the Electoral College (assuming that he can hold on to it) is not that he got crushed in the minority vote 77% to 21%. No , it’s that he commanded only a measly 54% of the white vote

Indeed, the basic logic of my position—increasing your party’s shareof the majority brings in more votes than increasing your share of the minority—is so obvious that I couldn’t believe that Rove actually believed his spin to the ex-English majors and other innumerates who constitute the vast majority of reporters.

As I pointed out last year, when the crunch time arrived in the nextelection, Rove dumped minority outreach and went “hunting where the ducks are.” He launched a massive get-out-the-vote drive among the Republican base. (VDARE.COM house style, to which I must modestly bow, is to call this appeal to the white majority “The Sailer Strategy.”)

Some sharper liberals noticed Rove’s ploy. Democratic pollster Ruy Teixeira came to the same conclusion. He told me, “The demographic theme of the 2002 election for the Republicans was ‘Round up the usual suspects,’ and they did a good job at it.” The results for the Republicans were excellent.

But the lack of national exit poll data has allowed many commentators to go on making up fairy tales about the GOP winning by broadening its tent.

In analyzing the Roper data, I’ll concentrate on the races in 2002 for the House of Representatives, since those are more comparable from year to year than the Senate or Governor races.

As I wrote for UPI, the actual Rove strategy (as opposed to the one that he talked about so much) brought these changes:

[The GOP's] share of the non-white vote dropped from 25 percent in 2000 to 23 percent. That mattered little, however, because its share of the white-vote segment grew from 55 percent to 59 percent. Further benefiting the Republicans, the white portion of the electorate increased from 81 percent to 82 percent [because of improved turnout], even though the total population is becoming less white each year. The result was that the GOP became more dependent upon white voters, with whites casting 92 percent of all votes for Republicans, up from 90 percent in 2000.”

Case closed.

Here are some further useful details from this trove of Election 2002 numbers:

  • The GOP’s fraction of the black vote declined, from eleven to nine percent.
  • Asians continued to move to the left, with the Republican share falling from 40 percent to 34 percent.

Conventional Republican commentators like Barone assumed that Asians, being prosperous and law-abiding—the “new Jews,” as he thinks of them—would automatically assimilate into the GOP.Unfortunately for Republicans, they are now voting like the “old Jews“!

  • Hispanics voted 38 percent Republican, up from 35percent in 2000.

But the Hispanic vote always fluctuates in parallel with the white vote, just many points further to the left. The white-Hispanic spread was 20 points in 2000 (55 v. 35) and actually rose to 21 points (59 v. 38) in 2002. In the last dozen House races going back through 1980, thiswhite-Latino “ethnic gap” has held relatively steady at 19 to 28 points.

Moreover, the GOP’s share of Hispanic ballots in 2002′s Senate andgubernatorial races was significantly worse than in the House: only 33 percent in each.

  • The GOP performed impressively among white women.

In 2000, white women gave only 50 percent of their votes to theRepublican House candidates, but in 2002 that figure reached 57 percent. Still, only eight percent of black women voted Republican (a typical result) and 37 percent of Hispanic women (there’s never been much of a gender gap among Hispanics). Result: overall, the gender gap narrowed—the GOP won 50 percent of the total female vote for the House for the first time in decades.

Click here for all the details on voting by sex—and, more importantly, marital status. Married women vote significantly more Republican. In 2002, 56 percent of married women voted for the GOP (similar to their husbands’ 58 percent) compared to 39 percent of unmarried women (and 44 percent of unmarried men). There’s an especially large partisan difference between married women with children (58 percent Republican) and unmarried women with children (32 percent).

  • The Democrats did best among young voters—but this is in part due to the higher percentage of minorities in the 18-29 cohort, due to differential birthrates and immigration. (Here are the specifics.)
  • The denominational equivalent of the famous gender gap(the “church chasm”?) widened substantially. Among white Protestants, the Republican share rose from 63 to 69 percent. But the Republican share fell among white Catholics, from 52 to 50 percent. The GOP fraction of the Jewish vote grew very slightly, from 22 percent to 29 percent— but this vote is small, at 3.3 percent of the electorate. (Details here.)

What about the much-touted Muslim vote? The best evidence againstmy assumption that Rove is a sharp cookie is the ludicrous and possibly catastrophic effort he cooked up with immigration-booster Grover Norquist to win the supposedly crucial Muslim masses in the 2000 Presidential election. Incredibly, as part of Rove’s outreach, President Bush was supposed to meet with Muslim and Arab spokesmen to announce progress in eliminating airport security profiling of Muslim and Arab passengers on…the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001. Something or other came up.

You would think that if Rove were going to expose Americans to a greater risk of terrorism, he’d at least sell out to a sizable voting bloc.

Yet it turns out that the fraction of voters who declared themselves to be Muslims in 2002 was miniscule: no more than 0.3 percent. The sample size was much too small to be reliable—but, for whatever it’s worth, the interviewees voted 90 percent Democratic.

Hmmm. Maybe Karl’s not such a “Boy Genius” after all.

In fact, not for the first time, the whole Stupid Party Establishment look, well, stupid.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Immigration, Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

Last spring, the Pew and Kaiser foundations teamed up to ask Hispanic, white, and black registered voters a long series of intriguing questions. The results were finally released earlier this month. They immediately got the big spin, with much of the media rushing to frame the results according to Karl Rove’s storyline – that Republicans are this close to making a historic breakthrough with Hispanic voters.

“Hispanic loyalty to single political party a myth, poll shows” – Tucson Citizen, October 4, 2002.

“Survey: Latino voters tough to label politically” –Sacramento Bee, October 4, 2002

“Hispanics Not Solid for Either US Party” – Houston Chronicle, October 4, 2002

“A majority of Hispanic voters identify themselves as Democrats, but they show significant ambivalence toward the party, suggesting a growing electorate that may be up for grabs, according to a survey released yesterday.”Washington Post, October 2, 2002

The Pew-Kaiser poll confirms that Latinos are inclined toward the Democratic Party, but are not strongly committed to either party. – Michael Barone , U.S. News & World Report, October 5, 2002

Baloney. Hispanic consultants working for both the Republicans and the Democrats have a financial incentive to whoop up this idea that Hispanics are a real battleground -it makes their own services appear more valuable. But what’s Rove’s or Barone’s excuse? The plain fact is that Hispanics voting patterns have been surprisingly stable since John F. Kennedy’s election. And for the GOP, they’re awful.

If you actually study the poll (you can read Pew’s commentary and see their graphs here, or inspect the raw numbers here — both require Adobe Acrobat), you’ll see that the Democrats have a solid hold on Hispanic registered voters. Some 49% identify themselves as Democrats, compared to merely 20% who say they are Republican. Incontrast, whites identify as Republicans by a 37%-24% advantage.

To make this 2.45 to 1 ratio look less dire, Barone, a fervent backer of mass immigration, argues that Hispanics are “substantially less Democratic than blacks (64 to 5 percent Democratic).

True, but so what? A lot of white Republicans like Barone seem to view Hispanic immigrants in this condescending way, as the New Improved Poor Minority whose increasing numbers somehow dilute (rather thanaugment) the problems caused by the Old Unimproved Poor Minority. Because Hispanics are somewhat less fanatically anti-Republican than blacks, Hispanic immigration is perceived as a boon to the GOP. Instead of slitting its wrists and jumping off a cliff, the GOP is just slitting its wrists.

Furthermore, the data reveals something even worse for the GOP:Hispanic Republicans aren’t terribly Republican. The official summary reports:

“Registered Latinos who identify as Republicans take a much more liberal stand on taxes and the size of government than their white counterparts. … About half (52%) of registered Latinos who identified themselves as Republicans said they would rather pay higher taxes to support a larger government, while only 17% of white Republicans stated that view.”

In fact, on the question of more taxing and spending, Hispanic Republicans are slightly more liberal than white Democrats. Indeed,Hispanic Republicans are to the left of African-Americans!

But what about social issues? Barone waxes enthusiastic:

“On cultural issues, [Hispanics ] tend to be moreconservative. More than whites, they disapprove ofabortion, homosexual sex, and divorce. Latinos bornoutside the United States are even more conservative onthese matters. This suggests that many Latino Democrats will not be entirely comfortable in a party one of whose most fervently supported positions is “choice” on abortions.”

Baloney again. If you look at the poll results, you’ll notice something really odd: Hispanics are no more socially conservative than blacks – who identify 64%-5% with the Democrats. As the Pew people report,

“Registered Latinos are somewhat more sociallyconservative than registered whites … On the other hand,Latinos seem to share social views with those ofregistered African Americans.”

Are Hispanics – or, for that matter, blacks – going to vote Republican based on these moral views? The answer is already in: no. Except when voting on rare single-issue referendums, such as California’s anti-gay marriage initiative California two years ago, the Hispanicelectorate seems far more concerned about bread and butter issues. Indeed, in their new book The Emerging Democratic Majority, (click here for my review) John Judis and Ruy Teixeira contend that inAmerican politics, social issues are essentially a luxury item that primarily interest better-off groups.

I’ll use Barone’s article to examine the typical spin-job further, because Barone is considered, quite deservedly, one of America’smost learned authorities on electoral politics. His approach is a little more cautious and allusive than that of some of the more innumerate journalists. But he’s still wrong.

Here, Barone tries to find a silver lining for Republicans among Hispanics who don’t yet vote much or at all:

“And, interestingly, young Latinos are not nearly as likely to identify themselves as Democrats as their elders: those 18 to 29 are 34 percent Democratic and 21 percent Republican. Nearly half do not identify with either party. … There is also room for growth among Latinos who are not yet voters or even citizens. Of those who are citizens but not voters, 31 percent are Democrats and 10 percent Republicans. But among Latinos who are planning on becoming U.S. citizens, the Democratic advantage is only 22 to 14 percent–not far from the statistical margin of error.”

But there’s an obvious alternative explanation for this difference:many of these people haven’t settled on the Democrats because they simply don’t know much about American politics. Most 18-29 year olds have more fun things to do with their lives than watch Meet thePress. In contrast, when you reach my age, getting out of the house in order to register to vote might be the highlight of your week.

Further, citizens who don’t vote abstain for a reason: they just don’t care. And the eventual partisan alignment of people who aren’t citizens is an irrelevant hypothetical question — that’s why only 36% even ventured an answer.

In fact, the Pew survey shows that as Hispanics go through life and getmore involved with American politics, they more and more realize which side their bread is buttered on: among Latinos 55 and up, the Democrats lead 64% to 17%.

Nor is it likely that future immigrants will swarm into the RepublicanParty. Foreign-born Hispanics actually appear to be slightly more liberal and Democrat-inclined than native-born Hispanics (although the latter may simply be more cynical and alienated).

Barone also alludes to Bush’s supposed high popularity among Hispanics:

“On the economy, Latino voters say they have moreconfidence in Democrats than Republicans by a 53 to 27percent margin … But when President Bush is mentionedthe balance changes. On the economy, 43 percent havemore confidence in Democrats in Congress, 42 percent inPresident Bush.”

Oh yeah? The poll was taken last spring when the Conqueror of Kabul’s prestige was riding high. So it’s hardly surprising that Bush sounded good compared to some faceless Congressmen. But among whites, Bush beat Congress by even more – 59% to 29%. Conclusion: his performance among Hispanics, despite the hype, was still relatively weak.

The media has been much abuzz over a Hispanic swing to the Republicans. But there’s a small problem: that swing hasn’t quite gone through the formality of actually taking place. Overall, the Pew survey suggests that if there will be any big change in alignment among Latinos over the next decade, it’s at least as likely to be a movement toward the Democrats – just as Asian-American voters slid sharply to the left between 1992 and 2000.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Hispanics, Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

The Washington Post’s political analyst Thomas B. Edsall caused a stir recently with a fairly good article: “As Nation Changes, Parties Are Warned They Need New Tactics to Woo Voters.” It’s a solid look at the dire implications for the GOP of current demographic trends, although it should have cited Peter Brimelow’s and Ed Rubenstein’s 1997 “Electing a New People” article in National Review, which made the same point four long years ago: the Trend Is Not the GOP’s Friend. [Peter Brimelow comments: Ha!]

Also, Edsall never explains where all of these new Hispanic voters are coming from. The two causes – immigration and higher birthrates – are apparently no longer fit to be discussed in polite society. Demographic changes in the electorate are now to be thought of as this vast, inexorable force, like Global Warming – only much less under human control. The notion that American voters should have a democratic say in who gets to move to America is considered hopelessly old-fashioned, on the rare occasions when it’s considered at all.

Most of the strategists quoted say that the GOP must woo minorities harder, because, as “Richard Bond, a former GOP chairman, said: ‘We’ve taken white guys about as far as that group can go’”…..!

This concept is never challenged. Why the GOP Brain Trust is satisfied to lose 40% of the white male vote and 51% of the white female vote, as Bush did in 2000, is never explained. In contrast, Gore lost only around 5% of the black female vote.

So far this year, Bush’s two big political pushes have been to appeal to Hispanics by backing more immigration and to alienate whites by backing off on environmentalism. Even leaving aside the obvious connection between immigration-driven population growth and environmental degradation, the GOP’s political calculus would appear to flunk fifth grade math. The white voting population is about an order of magnitude bigger than the Hispanic voting population.

Let’s just compare the number of citizens who voted against Bush last November to get a sense of where the GOP’s greater opportunities in 2004 lie. In 2000, 8.2 times more whites than Hispanics voted against Bush. Heck, among people who voted against Bush, white males alone were 3.4 times more numerous than Hispanics of either sex. Bush lost more votes among white guys than he did among all minorities of all sexes.

The oldest advice in politics is to hunt where the ducks are.

These kinds of calculations do not require a Ph.D. in Mathematics. You just go look up the exit poll results and mess around with them. So, why does it sometimes seem like I’m the only Republican in America with Microsoft Excel? I can guarantee you, though, lots of Democrats understand these numbers.

Most of the ideas for wooing current Hispanics that the Bush GOP has come up with so far involve mortgaging the party’s future by letting in millions more of their countrymen. Many of them will eventually become Democratic voters. But that won’t happen until after George W. Bush has retired and George P. Bush has taken his place as the Bush dynasty’s candidate.

Even in the short run, however, opening the floodgates ever wider is likely to be a losing strategy because the Democrats can always out-pander the Republicans. They’re experts at it. Republicans are amateurs. The sheer shamelessness of Bush’s sucking up to the Fox-Castaneda administration and their plans to dump more of their poor people on us may have temporarily caught the Democrats flat-footed. But the Democratic Party has not yet begun to pander!

When they do get their momentum up, watch out.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

What is the heart of conservatism if it does not include leadership in conservation? And why have conservative thinkers needlessly, and against all logic and their own self-interest, surrendered the moral high ground on this issue to the liberals?
Edward O. Wilson
Author of Sociobiology (click here for my review)
Bradley Lecture, American Enterprise Institute, 4/9/2001

As I pointed out in my last column, the Bush Administration has beenalienating what ought to be its demographic base – well-off white people – by seeming to side with industrial interests against polar bears, condors, and water drinkers. Granted, much of the brouhahagenerated by environmentalists was scientifically overblown. Yet, ultimately, so what? Image, not science, is reality in politics. The GOP’s image problem is that it has nothing to offer as positivealternative.

The modern assumption that conservatives should automaticallyoppose conservation is a fairly recent development. It dates back to the rise of the conservative think tanks in the late Seventies.

Previously, Republican Presidents had played key roles in helpingAmericans enjoy our majestic landscape. Abraham Lincoln set aside Yosemite as a public trust. Ulysses S. Grant made Yellowstone the first national park. Teddy Roosevelt glamorized conservation. DwightEisenhower built the interstate highway system that made it feasible for average families to visit the national parks. Richard Nixon signed into law the Endangered Species Act and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The new intellectual economy that emerged in the later Seventies – with corporate interests funding conservative think tanks that in turn subsidized the brightest Manhattan and Beltway intellectuals – brought many advantages to the Republican Party. One unfortunate side effect,however, was that it brought to dominance pundits who not only were beholden to industry, but who lacked the average American’s love of his nation’s beauty.

For example, neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol and his wifeGertrude Himmelfarb lived for decades in an apartment overlooking New York’s Central Park. Yet, according to Dr. Himmelfarb, never once did they set foot in Frederick Law Olmsted’s gorgeous commons.

Further, the GOP turned against conservation because it never developed a strategy for compensating its supporters in the Great Plains and Mountain Time Zone in return for land controls. (I’ll suggest one below.)

What the Republicans need is a positive, pro-humanity, pro-family conservationist program to contrast with the Democrats’ misanthropic environmentalist program.

Underlying liberal environmentalism is the assumption that the world would be paradise if every single person died tomorrow. Obviously, nobody actually believes that. What environmentalists feel deep down is that the world would be paradise if everybody died … except, of course, for them and their friends. In reality, environmentalism is essentially a form of status competition in which environmentalists demonstrate their moral superiority to the mass of humanity.

Unfortunately, the GOP’s current stance of pure negativism temperedby bouts of me-tooism can’t effectively attack the status-seeking motivation behind modern environmentalism. No, what the GOP needs is a positive conservation program that combats the social-climbingmisanthropy by siding with the only force in modern American politics stronger than the urge to demonstrate one’s cultural and spiritual superiority: the urge to help America’s children.

My suggestion, for what it’s worth, is that a winning political strategy could center on getting our increasingly pallid and pudgy youth away from their video games and out into the great American outdoors.

I’m sure a Dick Morris could come up with better ways to symbolizethis new commitment. But here are nine ideas.

1] End the Forest Service’s long crusade to slash the number of visitors to America’s most spectacular natural setting, Yosemite Valley. Documentaries have shown forest rangers lamenting that all those tawdry tourists were interfering with their personal opportunities to commune with nature in solitude. This is liberal elitism at its most noxious.

Instead, the GOP should offer to increase the camping capacity of Yosemite National Park – by making habitable again the second most beautiful valley in California, Yosemite Valley’s once lovely little sister Hetch Hetchy Valley. The city of San Francisco drowned this valley in 1913 by building a dam across its outlet, breaking John Muir’s heart.

The idea, floated in 1988 by Reagan Administration Secretary of theInterior Dan Hodel, of pulling down the dam and restoring the valley for camping still makes sense. A study projected that visitors would increase from 40,000 annually to 1,000,000.

Granted, this would force the San Francisco Bay Area to find othersources of drinking water. But the Bush Administration wouldn’texactly be losing a lot of Republican votes in San Francisco anyway. The political calculus is simple: If you force the environmental elitists of San Francisco to pay for their crime against America’s landscape, you can give Hetch Hetchy back to the American people as a whole. Is this a losing proposition for Republicans?

2] Instruct the military to turn over 10% of their most beautifulmilitary bases – such as the spectacular California coastal bases CampPendleton (17 miles of coastline between Los Angeles and San Diego) and Vandenberg Air Force Base (between Santa Barbara and HearstCastle) – to organized camping groups, such as the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts.

3] Stop violating landowners’ property rights by enforcing quite so many anti-development restrictions. Instead, the Federal Government should buy up more outstanding land on the open market.

For example, a war is brewing between the ranchers who own thebeautiful coastline west of Santa Barbara and want to sell it for development, and environmentalists, who want to keep them from doing whatever they want with their own property. Forget it. Buy up the land at a fair price and make it a National Seashore. Then put in parking lots and staircases down to the beaches so the public can enjoy them.

4] Change the Forest Service’s puritanical prejudice that backpacking is the only truly moral way to get outdoors. Merely 2.4% of the population engage in for at least five days a year. And those enthusiasts are overwhelmingly young white upper middle class males.) In reality, Americans are becoming more like Europeans, who demand a certain degree of comfort. The number of backpackers in the Sierras, for example, is down sharply compared to 25 years ago. Rather than considering this a problem, the Forest Service is congratulating itself on clearing the riff-raff out of the mountains so thechosen few can contemplate nature in seclusion.

In contrast, in the Alps you can wander for a week through the highcountry carrying just your clothes in your backpack. You make reservations to sleep each night at permanent “high camps,” sleeping on cots in cabins or waterproof tents permanently pitched on woodenplatforms, eating meals cooked by the staff. The Swiss Alps are full of hotels, pensions, youth hostels, mountain huts, cog railroads, and aerial tramways. For most people over the age of 22, this beats humping 60-pound packs and sleeping on the ground.

In the backcountry of Yosemite National Park, there is a similar network of five such camps. They are so popular that a lottery for precious reservations is held every fall. My aunt and uncle tried for many years to win the lottery, but eventually gave up. Despite this evidence that the public wants these modest but not Spartan accommodations, the federal government has refused to allow the system to expand to the rest of the Sierras. Apparently it considersthe idea too decadently European.

5] Make getting to the wild places a lot quicker. Last summer it tookme two and a half days to drive my sons from Chicago to Denver, the gateway to the Rockies.

6] Revitalize small town life so that people can continue to live closer to nature than in sprawling megalopolises.

Both problems 5] and 6] have the same solution. The interstatehighway system needs to be upgraded to German autobahn standards so that within a couple of decades Americans in the vast “red zone” on that famous 2000 electoral map can drive at German-style speeds across our land. I ought to be able to drive my grandchildren across that vast, flat expanse between Chicago and Denver in under ten hours.

Likewise, as numerous country songs have pointed out, a small townis a much more tolerable place to live if every now and then you can watch it disappearing in your rear view mirror, preferably at speeds upward of 100 miles per hour. Life in South Dakota would be far moreenjoyable if you were only a five-hour drive from both Chicago and the Grand Tetons.

Today’s cars are getting close to being able to do that. My 200horsepower sedan, which cost barely over $20,000, can certainly cruise at 100 mph. But the safety features aren’t designed for that velocity. I’d need better tires, more airbags, a somewhat wider track and so forth to make German-style speeds reasonable for a cautious family man like myself. Perhaps electronic auto-piloting will be able to play a role. For the right to drive over 100 mph, I’d be willing to paymore for safety features and put up with a special high-speed drivers’ training course and annual safety inspections. While the death rate in Germany in 1970 was substantially higher per mile driven than in theU.S., the Germans have managed to close 97% of the gap, even as their speeds have increased.

Today’s American roads are in shameful shape. I recall driving 95 mphin a rattletrap Fiat on a Brussels freeway, a feat made possible only by Belgium’s wonderfully smooth roads. American roads fall apart quickly because American politicians like handing out more road rebuilding contracts to their close personal friends, those generous folks in the road-building industry.

Interstate highways would have to be redesigned, with three lanes to accommodate cars going 70, 90, and 110+. They’d also need more sweeping curves and broader shoulders. Obviously, American autobahns are more practical in eastern Wyoming than in Vermont, much less in downtown LA. Politically, that ought to be fine with the GOP. One of the purposes of the project would be to prevent the depopulation of the Republican Great Plains and Midwest.

7] Stomp on Lyme Disease. The medical establishment is slowlystarting to realize that this is a much more widespread and serious problem than they had thought. The symptoms extend far beyond joint pains to fatigue and even cognitive problems. In the Northeast, fear of deer ticks is – not at all unreasonably – causing parents to keep their kids indoors. A friend of mine spent a fortune buying two acres in a suburb of New York City so his kids could play in the woods. His sonimmediately came down with Lyme disease. My oldest boy somehow got it too, while we were living in Chicago, where it is supposedly nonexistent. We need a better vaccine and better antibiotics.

8] Stop robotically condemning homeowners for what is disparagingly called “Not In My Back Yard” responses to proposed developments. The GOP shouldn’t view as pests homeowners who have invested a lot of money in backyards for their kids. Instead, it should view them as a constituency to be coddled.

The problem with the NIMBY impulse isn’t that homeowners want toprotect their investments in backyards. That’s only natural. What isn’t natural is how many millions more backyards there are each decade. During the Nineties, the U.S. grew by a record setting 32.7 million people. Today’s growth is almost wholly a function of the 1965Immigration Act.

Conservatives lament how hard it has become to build power plants inthe deserts and canyonlands of California due to urban sprawl. What they forget is that those NIMBY protestors are generally white Republicans who have been driven into California’s scorched interior by the immigrant tidal wave into the mellow coastal regions.

9] Fight urban sprawl. But don’t do it the anti-freedom Goreite way.Liberals want to force you to raise your kids in apartments. But the way to cut down on sprawl and NIMBY protests is by going to the root of the problem and cutting down the number of immigrants. (See my “Green Gag” for an account of how leftist environmentalists have hamstrung themselves on doing anything effective about population growth because of their terror of offending the immigration lobby.)

Okay, that’s enough ideas from me. You can probably invent betterones yourself. The point is, though, that conservatives need to think hard about inventing a patriotic, pro-family conservation program. Otherwise, the Republicans are going to continue to lose their crucial white voters.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

Conservation II…

Environmental historian William Cronon writes that [Newt Gingrich's Contract with America] “came to grief in good measure because most Americans continue to believe that protecting the environment is a good thing.” Newt now thinks so, too, and has admitted that Republicans are “malpositioned” on the environment. … Wirthlin Worldwide, a polling firmassociated with Republican causes, reports that “2 out of 3 Americans say we need to protect the environment no matter what it costs.” In 1999, Zogby International, another pollster heavily used by the GOP, surveyed probable Republican primary voters in five key states and found about as much support for “protect environment” (92.8%) as for “encourage familyvalues” (93.4%). … [I]f I were running the party, I don’t think I would tie myself closely to the losing side of a broad national argument.

The estimable John Leo U.S. News & World Report, 4/9/2001

Few things I’ve written in have proven more controversial than my article pointing out that if Bush had won 57% of the white vote, instead of only 54%, he would have had a landslide in the Electoral College – and that therefore the GOP should look for issues to shore up its demographic base.

Among other critics: Free Republic proprietor Jim Robinson, who pulled it from his chat site on the curious grounds that doing arithmetic was “promoting racism.” I criticized this silly decision, apparently irritating Robinson to the point where he has now banned VDARE altogether. Boo hoo.

Some critics objected because they believed me to be saying that white people’s votes are worth more than nonwhites’ votes. Others, who had read my essay more closely, were incensed for the opposite reason: because I had clearly presumed that everybody’s vote is of equal worth. These multi-culturally sensitive folks felt that, while thismight technically be true, everybody who is anybody knows that some votes (i.e. nonwhites’) are more morally equal than others (i.e. whites’).

In reality, I was simply noting that Republicans are much more likely to find the votes that they need to win by increasing their white share marginally than by trying to increase their minority share enormously. Note, for example, that Bush’s paltry popular vote total would have benefited more by his winning merely three percentage points more white votes than by tripling his share of black votes. After all, whites cast 81% of all votes in 2000 and more than 90% of Bush’s votes.

Still other critics chided me for speaking frankly about “white voters” in the blunt manner that campaign managers use with their candidates, rather than in those arcane euphemisms they use with the press(“middle Americans,” “the suburban vote,” “soccer moms”). These delicate souls felt that political journalism ought to avoid frank discussions of race. Instead, it should stick to talking about proxies for race, like income and education level.

But the plain fact is that you can’t think intelligently about American voters without thinking about race. Class, while useful, is hardly a substitute for descent.

For example, Jewish-Americans and Japanese-Americans tend to be highly affluent and educated. But for decades they have voted for Democrats as solid ethnic blocs. Similarly, middle class blacks are slightly more likely to vote Republican than underclass blacks – but hardly enough to matter to any political strategist.

Why is race so important in politics? Because the only usable definition of a racial group is: “an extremely extended family that inbreeds to some degree.” In other words, race starts at home, in the family. Andcultural attitudes and their accompanying political preferences start at home, too. Since people generally vote like their relatives, racial groups – which are networks of relatives – tend to vote together as well. That’s why the cultural predilections that are inculcated in children tend to follow racial lines among adults.

For example, whether or not you grow up to have an active love of the outdoors generally depends upon whether your parents dragged you out hiking and camping when you were a kid. In the U.S. today, class has less to do with this than race.

I first noticed this twenty years ago in California. A Swiss-American who had been hiking since toddlerhood, I tried to drag a Taiwanese-American girlfriend to beautiful Malibu Creek for a three-mile walk. We came from nearly identical economic classes. Both our fathers were aerospace engineers, although while I grew up on the flatlands of the San Fernando Valley, her house on the Palos Verdes peninsula enjoyeda spectacular view of Catalina Island. Yet she was profoundly disturbed that I wanted her to try an activity where she couldn’t wear high heels.

A little later, I had a conversation with a San Francisco cousin. He was making a bundle buying Victorian houses from little old ladies and selling them to Hong Kong families who always paid with suitcases full of cash. He mentioned that the one thing his buyers always insisted as a precondition of purchase was to take the home’s lovely backyard garden and pave it over with asphalt.

And East Asians are far more likely at least to pretend to care about conservation than are blacks and Hispanics.

Now, I can’t imagine that there is anything genetic about these racial differences in attitude toward nature. I’m sure they depend simply upon your upbringing. Nor will I argue over which kind of upbringing is objectively better. All I want to do is to point out three things:

1] On average white people in America currently care far more deeply about protecting the environment than nonwhites (with the exception of American Indians). For example, the Sierra Club is 93% white, even though its home state of California is less than half white. Only 1% of visitors to Yellowstone National Park are Hispanic. You can test this for yourself. The next time you go for a hike, just the look at who you pass on the trail.

2] The GOP is alienating white voters by positioning itself on the unpopular side of conservation issues that matter emotionally to its core vote. (See the John Leo quote above.)

3] There is no evidence that Republican anti-environmentalism picks up nonwhite votes to compensate for the votes it loses among whites. As far as anybody can tell, minorities tend to be apathetic toward environmentalism – not hostile. To the extent that we do succeed in assimilating immigrants into the dominant white culture, they will eventually also become environmental enthusiasts.

Thus conservation ought to be a major issue for conservatives. It’s a fine way to shore up the demographic base of the Republican Party without alienating minorities.

Instead, the Bush Administration appears to be trying to drive away its natural constituency. No doubt, there are strong scientific arguments in favor of each unpopular step it has taken. But George W. Bush lacks the outstanding communication skills necessary to turn these technical arguments into something that could connect emotionally with voters.

Now, conservatives of The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page stripe offer numerous justifications for their politically-damaging stands. They argue that environmentalism is an obsession of affluent, college-educated whites. There’s something elitist, even racist, they imply, about catering to well-to-do, well-educated white people when the issue is of no interest to, say, immigrant factory workers.

Okay. But keep in mind that the people who vote are a lot more white, well-to-do, and well-educated than the general population.

Further, the white electorate is becoming ever more wealthy and well-educated. And this trend won’t stop. In exit polls, 74% of voters of all races claimed to have attended college for at least awhile. A surprising 18% said they had a graduate degree – and only 44% of those peoplevoted for Bush. A full 15% of voters said they made over $100,000 per year – and Bush took only 54% of their votes. In other words, Bush only broke even among what ought to be his rock solid base: the upper-middle class.

This does not mean that the GOP should simply adopt a policy of me-too-ism toward every knuckleheaded environmental scheme the Democrats dream up. There’s a repulsive element of misanthropy in much of mainstream environmentalism that the GOP can profitably confront.

In a future column, I’ll outline a novel pro-family conservation philosophy that could revitalize the Republican Party’s appeal to white voters.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

VDARE: Make that counting!

The battle to spin the ethnic vote continues, with many Republican commentators arguing that George W. Bush’s resounding failure among their favorite minority constituencies only means that Republicans should redouble their efforts to appeal to that group in the next election.

One of the most far-fetched was “Wall Street Journal” editorial page columnist Seth Lipsky’s piece “No Majority Without Minorities: It won’t be easy, but Republicans need to keep courting Jewish and black voters.”

The only plausible Republican strategy for attracting significant numbers of Jews or blacks is to nominate a Jew or a black for President. And the bounce from that would be short-lived, just as regional pride enabled Jimmy Carter to carry white Southerners in 1976, but not in 1980.

An article by Ralph Z. Hallow in The Washington Times quoted a black Republican suggesting a more hard-headed tactic for the GOP: payoffs to black leaders. Former chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, William B. Allen advises targeting black politicians and ministers. “The time has come to recognize that the Republican Party has to co-opt — I may even say to buy — the black vote. … You make it too valuable for them to say no to you. … Everybody has something to offer, whether positions, whether money, you name it.”

While certainly a bracing alternative to Lipsky’s woozy wishing, Allen’s plan probably wouldn’t work. Although the Democrats have been paying “walking-around” money to black ministers for decades, it is considered scandalous when the GOP tries to match the Democrats. Recall how political consultant Ed Rollins sank his career by boasting that he’d handed out walking-around money to New Jersey ministers to get Christine Todd Whitman elected.

Further, Democrats can offer above-board policy payoffs to black leaders that Republicans just can’t match, at least not without eliminating what little difference is left between the parties.

Consider why the Bush Brothers didn’t win easily in Florida: because Governor Jeb infuriated the black elite with his One Florida plan. When Ward Connerly, the black hero of California’s anti-quota Proposition 209 campaign, came to Florida, Jeb thunk and thunk and finally came up with what he reckoned was the perfect plan to squelch Connerly.

Jeb would eliminate overt racial preferences in state university admissions, but actually increase the number of black students by guaranteeing college admission to any kid finishing in the top 20% of his high school class. Since lots of poor blacks attend schools where even the valedictorian is hard pressed to score above the national average on the SAT, this would be a boon to black college admissions.

Of course, what Jeb forgot was that black elites are not comprised of average blacks. Black leaders mostly send their kids to integrated schools, where their scions find it hard to rank in the top fifth. However, black leaders’ kids tend to outscore the poor black kids on the SAT, so One Florida would tend to make affluent black kids worse off to the benefit of their poorer brethren.

Enraged, black leaders ran a tremendous get out the vote campaign, driving the black share of the vote up from 10% in Florida in 1996 to 15% in 2000. And Florida’s African Americans votes 93% to 7% against Jeb’s brother Dubya.

Now, Mr. Lipsky might suggest that all Jeb had to do was explain to poor black Floridians why his plan was better for them than their leaders’ quota plan. Maybe … but let’s be frank about the difficulties of getting a complex logical argument across to poor blacks.

Consider this: The only reason Dubya is carrying Florida is because a sizable fraction of the black electorate there botched up their ballots. Although I implied in VDARE that the 26,000 ballots disqualified in Republican Duval County showed that Republicans could be as clueless as Democrats, I was wrong. In Duval’s black precincts, 20% of the voters had their ballots disqualified for, well, for stupidity. The get-out-the-vote workers had told inexperienced black voters “to vote on every page.” Since the ten Presidential candidates were spread across two pages, many voted for two men for President. [See the amusing New York Times account]. Similarly, The Palm Beach Post reported that the butterfly ballot baffled 16% of the voters in Palm Beach’s black districts.

In contrast to Allen’s interesting but probably impractical idea, Donald J. Devine, a veteran Republican campaign staffer suggested in TheWashington Times article that the GOP not waste party resources on blacks other than carefully selected intellectuals. “Black intellectuals, on our side at least, have made the black intellectuals on the other side listen to our arguments on school vouchers and other issues.”

Recall the old joke:

Q. What do you call a black man at a Heritage Foundation conference?

A. Keynote Speaker.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

Tomorrow: Part II – why black foreign policy strategists are good for the GOP and America; and the way out of the Republican ethnic dilemma.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

The numbers speak. Their message may be unfashionable, but hardly unpalatable. They say:

Readers React: Sailer v Unz

Readers React: Sailer v. Wanniski

Here at VDARE, we’ve discussed repeatedly how dire will be the long-term impact of immigration on the Republican Party. It’s crucial to understand, however, that the long-term has not quite arrived. The GOP is not yet held hostage. It still has a window of opportunity – definitely stretching through the next recession but maybe not to the recession after that – to save itself by changing the immigration laws. This can be seen by examining the 2000 election results closely.

The reason George W. Bush struggled so much to eke out a 271-267 win in the Electoral College (assuming that he can hold on to it) is not that he got crushed in the minority vote 77% to 21%. No , it’s that he commanded only a measly 54% of the white vote.

To test this theory, I created a huge state-by-state spreadsheet of election results and Voter News Service exit poll numbers), which allows me to play what-if games, such as:

  • What if Bush II had won 57% of the white vote? That’s hardly an outlandish figure since Bush I had taken 59% in 1988. If Dubya had garnered 57% instead of just 54% of whites, he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171. (Technically, I’m modeling this by raising Bush’s share of the white vote by three points in every state.)

Why? Because whites remain by far the dominant bloc in the U.S. They count for 81% of all votes cast. Despite all of Bush’s support for diversity, illegal immigrants, bilingualism, “affirmative access,” and the like, an overwhelming 92% of his votes came from whites.

  • What if in upping his share of the white electorate from 54% to 57%, Dubya had alienated more minority voters, causing his share of the nonwhite vote to fall by 8 points from 21% to 13%?

A disaster, right? Wrong. Bush still would have won 310 to 228.

  • What if in winning those three additional white share points, Dubya had lost every single nonwhite vote in the USA?

Incredibly, he still would have won. Bush would have tied 269-269 in the Electoral College and been elected President by the House of Representatives.

This remarkable finding stems from the sizable advantage the Republicans enjoy in the Electoral College. In this case, Al Gore would have won the popular vote by more than 3 million, but still lost the election because Bush’s strength is in small states. Since every state, no matter how small the population, gets three Electoral Votes for having two Senators and a Representative, the Republican dominance of the Great Plains and Great Basin provides a striking advantage.

By the way, this is the flip side of the Republican catastrophe in California. When cultural conservatives flee California for the interior West, the GOP picks up cheap Electoral Votes and Senate seats in small states.

  • Now, let’s turn it around. What if instead of Bush adding three percent of the white vote (for which he would have gained 96 Electoral Votes), he had instead boosted his nonwhite vote by three points, from 21% to 24%?

He would have picked up five more Electoral Votes. Big deal.

  • If Bush had doubled his share of the nonwhite vote, from 21% to 42% and somehow avoided losing any white votes, he still would have gained only 52 Electoral Votes.

So where could Bush have picked up an additional 3 percent of the white vote? The most obvious source: white union families. The 26% of the electorate with a union member in their households voted 59% to 37% for Gore. For the time being, most union families are still white. So if Bush could have won enough white labor families to raise his total labor vote from 37% to about 46%, that would have done the trick of lifting his share of the white vote from 54% to 57%.

What could persuade more white union families to vote Republican when the current AFL-CIO leadership is so leftist? Here’s a suggestion.

The labor bosses are selling out their old time members’ interests in order to try to pad their membership with immigrants, legal and illegal. That’s why the AFL-CIO supremos recently called for another amnesty for illegal immigrants. Immigration should be the perfect issue for the GOP to use to split the rank and file from their Democratic bosses.

Since union efforts cost Bush Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (at a minimum), you’d think that the GOP would be hot to win back the Reagan Democrats.

Don’t count on it, though. It’s just so much more fashionable to continue to chase futilely after Hispanics.

In summary: the GOP could win more elections by raising its fraction of the white vote minimally than by somehow grabbing vastly higher fractions of the minority vote.

I said “could.”

Note: This model is based on election results as of 11/15/2000 and the VNS exit polls, as reported on the CNN website. I also made minor objective statistical adjustments to account for the slight disagreements between the actual results and the exit polls. So, while your mileage may vary, this model looks quite robust.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Republican Party 
🔊 Listen RSS

I recently got an email from my favorite neoconservative politician. (I’m not mentioning his name since it was a private message. Butsince true neoconservative politicians are practically nonexistent – as opposed to the Joe Liebermans and Daniel Patrick Moynihans who talklike Irving Kristol but vote like Walter Mondale – you probably can guess his name.)

He asked my opinion of a House race in the Fresno farm region of California’s Central Valley. It pits Democrat incumbent Cal Dooleyagainst Republican newscaster Rich Rodriguez. Running a Mexican-American in a district that’s 60% Hispanic (40% of registered voters) has given the GOP a shot at taking a seat away from the Democrats – especially important in the incredibly close national race to control theHouse. His implication: see, Republicans can so win – with the right, ethnically-correct, candidate.

Here’s the key point, though. Even a handsome, glib, popular, well-known local Mexican-American Republican is still losing among Latinos by a margin of 48% to 30% in the last poll. If the Anglo Democrat Dooley (granted, there is something wacky about calling anybody named “Dooley” an “Anglo”) maintains this proportion in the election, he wins a landslide 62% of the Latino vote.

So 38% appears to be the upper limit of the California Latino vote that the Republicans can hope to win under ideal conditions.

In other words, the California GOP is doomed. It may win a few elections during the next decade or two. Beyond that, though, the tidalwaves of Mexican and Central American immigration sweep it down the memory hole.

I guess the long-term good news for the national GOP is that it will be winning even bigger landslides in Utah than it does now. Latin American immigration not only brings “natural Democrats” into California, it drives “natural Republicans” out of California to the Great Basin.

Somehow, though, I don’t think Utah and Idaho will provide the GOP with much consolation for their slow-motion catastrophe in California.

Of course, in theory the GOP could rally white i.e. American voters and cut off immigration, allowing assimilation to work etc. But that’s another story….

Republican Rich Rodriguez’s website:

Democrat Congressman Cal Dooley’s website:

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and

movie critic for The American Conservative. His website features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Ideology • Tags: California, Republican Party 
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.

The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?