Agnostic regularly offers unique insights that are not found elsewhere. With thought-provoking takes so often unconventional, he can be forgiven for not bowling 300.
But I’m compelled to take issue with his reading of the DACA showdown. Several months ago he asserted matter-of-factly that DACAmnesty was a foregone conclusion and that it would be bad for Democrats but good for Republicans. As I pointed out at the time, that looks foolish. Increasingly foolish. Odds are DACA expires in a month.
No Democrat will be able to vote for legislation that includes border wall funding and an end to chain migration. Nancy Pelosi was humiliated by illegal aliens for merely planning on discussing immigration with Trump. And now she’s going to rally members of her party to give him what he wants?
Stephen Miller–heaven preserve him–knows this. He’s working the optics now. It’s why he sprung Tom Cotton, David Purdue, and himself on unsuspecting Democrats and open borders Republicans who thought they were going to be able to monopolize Trump’s attention in a televised bipartisan meeting on immigration.
Miller is aware that–as can be verified by referencing the indispensable NumbersUSA grade cards–that virtually no Democrats ever vote on anything that has any immigration restrictionism of any kind included in it. Of the 242 congressional Democrats currently in office, 239 of them earn an “F” (two get a “D”, and one gets a “C”), and 232 of them get a score of 0%!
Trump is able to strike a reasonable, tough-but-fair pose secure in the knowledge that the Democrats are completely incapable of giving up any ground on anything at all:
Trump wins if nothing happens, and the Democrats lose if anything happens. GG, faggots.
There is no saving face for the venerable Agnostic by falling back on the fact that they’ll get de facto amnesty, either. It’s not the same thing. All but the very worst of the 11 to 30 million illegal aliens currently in the country already have de facto amnesty. They’ve had it from the moment they set foot on US soil.
It’s the de jure amnesty that we’ve pulled off successful rearguard actions again and again. This one must not end any differently. We are not passive spectators in this. Contact your congress critters and the White House if you’ve not done so already (or even if you have, do so again). Send messages to all four of them in less than four minutes total here.
More recently, Agnostic audaciously wrote:
The least insightful way to analyze politics is focusing on race and ethnicity.
There are several points that need addressing, so here it goes.
California is one of the states where Democrats win the presidential vote even among white voters only.
The reason California is settling into a deeper and deeper blue hue is revealed not by the figures from the last four presidential elections that are circled in red and blue but by those that are circled in green:
In 2004, two-thirds of California voters were white. Today, fewer than half of them are.
A white California would still be a politically competitive California. A non-white California–just like a non-white anywhere–is not.
That’s not to dismiss changes in the composition of the white population. White Californians were more right-leaning a couple of generations ago because the Mexican migration into the state, the ignoring of proposition 187, and the subsequent immigrant deluge propped up the top, swelled the ranks of the bottom, and pushed out the middle. The non-white bottom welfared their way out of regulations and zoning restrictions and plastic bag taxes while the top gladly accepted these nuisance expenses in return for uncontested dominion over some of the most prized real estate in the hemisphere.
Agnostic also puts too much emphasis on the shifting of various industries that putatively drive white voting patterns, namely finance, tech, and the media, for Democrats and agriculture, natural resources, and the military for Republicans. A glaring problem with this template for understanding electoral trends is that Vermont, which contains none of the Democrat industries and a couple of the Republican ones, has the most Democrat-voting whites in the country (save for the Imperial Capital itself).
To reiterate, this is not to deny any impact of cultural changes among whites. It is, however, to point out that what takes place within various white sub-groups only matters when the country is mostly white. As goes California, so goes the country.
Contemporary California is still mostly the country’s future rather than the country’s present. It’s certainly not the country’s past. In beating Carter by 10 points in the popular vote and 440 votes in the Electoral College, Ronald Reagan garnered 56% of the white vote. In losing to Clinton by 2 points in the popular vote and winning by ‘just’ 77 votes in the Electoral College, Trump garnered 58% of the white vote.
Yes, in his first landslide victory, Reagan performed worse among whites than Trump did in his relatively narrow Electoral College win in 2016.
The shift is virtually entirely attributable to the growth in the Hispanic (and to a lesser extent, Asian) population(s) over that period of time. In 1980, Hispanics and Asians comprised 2% of the electorate. The November before last, they made up 15%. What a difference a generation–and a disastrous 1986 immigration bill–makes!
The place where shifting demographics matter most is within the Democrat party itself. Agnostic wants Bernie Sanders to get the Democrat nomination (and presidency) in 2020. That will only happen if Bernie is able to win the party’s non-white voters.
Sanders narrowly beat Hillary Clinton among whites in the Democrat primaries in 2016. He lost the nomination because she beat him among Hispanics and crushed him among blacks.
She’d learned a valuable lesson from 2008, when she beat Obama among both whites and Hispanics in the Democrat primaries but lost the nomination because Obama crushed her among blacks.
The takeaway is that the Democrat nomination now runs through non-whites, and specifically through blacks. Blacks vote nearly monolithically, not just in general elections but also in primaries. White Democrats will not vote overwhelmingly against the candidate blacks have chosen. If they did, it would signal a drastic change in the American landscape.
In light of this, it seems delusional to think Sanders will beat Oprah Winfrey if she pursues the nomination in 2020 (something I doubt she will do, but if she doesn’t monopolize the blacks vote, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, maybe even Michelle Obama, or some other thus far unforeseen brown person probably will).