Demographic Compositions of Clinton and Trump Voters in 2016
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
If the Republican party is to remain politically viable at the national level, the country must remain majority-white.
At what point will a Republican in an official capacity at the national level admit the obvious? What’s the over-under on it happening before the country becomes majority-minority? Sure, it’ll happen at sometime after the demographic flip, when acknowledging it no longer matters, but that’s unremarkable.
Paralleling the fundamental question of our time, the fundamental political question of America in the next several Current Years is whether or not the Republican party has the will to survive.
(Republished from The Audacious Epigone by permission of author or representative)
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Persian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Alternatively, the GOP will count on gerrymandering, reactionary voting restrictions, and the poverty and alienation of younger generations, who are very non-white and hate crony capitalism no matter their race, to indefinitely enhance the voting power of old people, rural whites, and white middle-high income voters with moderate to little education.
Demographics is destiny? Nah, Texas is destiny. Endless suburban growth, no zoning laws, a numerous but largely apathetic and/or disfranchised population of Hispanics and immigrants, etc., all of which serve to stop whites from becoming more liberal and non-whites from becoming more restless. This is what the older class of still dominant Republicans want; that might not be something that many of them admit, but just look at the GOP's patron class of greedy business and farm owners, who want endless supplies of cheap labor and couldn't care less about demographic and cultural stability.
Appealing to large segments of Americans with common sense progressive reforms would be possible in a better era, but we're stuck in a lousy one. Like many Americans, esp. the non-elite ones, I couldn't care less about either party at this point. Being that neither side wants to do what should be done, at this point I'm basically checked out. So what if the GOP does better, or if this country stays whiter? We're still stuck with "leadership" that's abysmal, and no social consensus that we've got to exert great effort to eliminate greed, selfishness, and corruption from all walks of life.
I'd bet a number of them have admitted it. They haven't admitted it PUBLICALLY, but that's a different matter. There is zero reason for any working politician, or for that matter any mainstream pundit, to say it. They'd be idiots if they did.
The blunt reality is that for millions upon millions of normies, racism is still the greatest possible evil this side of child molestation. You can be sad about that, mad about it, but it is the reality. It isn't gonna change anytime soon. You're simply not going to attract normies by being explicitly pro-white.
What you CAN do, though, and what is already happening, is point out that the other party is explictly anti-white. People on the dissident right like to slag on "Dems are real racists," type arguments, but the fact is that kind of line can be effective.
The oldest rule in politics is to never attack your opponent when he's in the process of destroying himself. The hard left is in the process of alienating millions of mainstream white people, and even a few non-whites. It would be stupid to get in the way of that.
That doesn't mean the wall shouldn't be built, or immigration stopped; but the arguments for those need to be presented as race-neutral.
The blunt reality is that for millions upon millions of normies, racism is still the greatest possible evil this side of child molestation.
I was just awakened to that a short time ago by an unsolicited statement from a C-store clerk.
Omar Thornton was absolved from first-degree murder because the people who fired him for stealing merch from his employer were "racist" thereby.
the arguments for those need to be presented as race-neutral.
We need to attack the "anti-racists" as apologists for murder, because truth.
My version of this: "If the Republican party is to remain politically viable at the national level, the demographic transition of the country must take place under the cultural leadership of Republicans and under conditions and a timeline favorable to the Republican party."
Some very good comments here.
It is very true that the Republican electoral 'strategy' (sarcasm quotes) at the moment to deal with demographic change seems to rely on a combination of insane gerrymandering for the House and statehouses and the fact that small rural states are overrepresented in the Senate and therefore the Electoral College. Sure, it is effective at the moment, but it is in a vicious race to the death with the competing Democrats' electoral 'strategy' (sarcasm quotes) of simply flooding purple states and purple counties with imports, both foreign and domestic.
Isn't that nuts?? We have a crazy, perhaps unprecedented situation in the history of human electoral politics, where in general neither party is actually looking to grow their appeal! Rather they are both only playing at competing demographic games, hoping to win the AI arms race first in order to either draw district lines or direct migration flows maximally.
The ultimate cause is that both parties are constrained by their fat cat donors and rabid base from pursuing things that could appeal to voters beyond these demographic games. The Republicans have been captured for decades by the Chamber of Commerce, Ag interests, and the energy extraction interests, which all want the cheap labor, and the religious lobby which only cares about getting Darwin=Hitler into the textbooks, so they can't tackle the issue of immigration or anything else. The Democrats of course are beholden to Silicon Valley, finance, and the education-industrial complex on one end and penned in by their radical identity activists on the other, none of which will tolerate an honest discussion of policies and their effects, immigration or otherwise.
It’s probably the case that the Repubs will just have to disappear (some to become the Right of the Dems, others to become Libertarians) in order for a White party to emerge.
MBlanc,
The two party nature of the FPTP system makes that outcome unlikely. The collapse of the GOP, as has occurred in California and Hawaii, has resulted so far in inter-ethnic divisions within the dominant Dem Party. Occasionally there is a splinter that runs as an independent. If CA and HI were their own country(ies), a new two party system would emerge with DSA becoming its own party, or a proportional electoral system would be adopted. White liberals would migrate to a Green Party.
The South African example bodes ill for anyone thinking that the destruction of the mainstream conservative party would allow for a more radical option to emerge. The proportional system gives the VF Afrikaner party a paltry 4 seats out of 400.
The mainstream left (PS) and right (RPR-UMP-LR-MDR) also collapsed last year, and that didn't result in an FN (now RN) victory.
"It is very true that the Republican electoral 'strategy' (sarcasm quotes) at the moment to deal with demographic change seems to rely on a combination of insane gerrymandering for the House and statehouses and the fact that small rural states are overrepresented in the Senate and therefore the Electoral College. Sure, it is effective at the moment, but it is in a vicious race to the death with the competing Democrats' electoral 'strategy' (sarcasm quotes) of simply flooding purple states and purple counties with imports, both foreign and domestic."
I don't think either of those are so much a strategy as just the way things have worked out naturally. Pols aren't thinking ahead.
But either way, the relative power of rural areas in the senate/EC is an inherent structural advantage that won't go away and should be exploited. As our politics become more explicitly racial, they will make Florida unwinnable and turn Texas into a swing state … but they'll also drive the great lakes and northern New England toward the GOP. Those states aren't getting flooded with foreign imports, and aren't likely to be.
You must address the fact that legal immigration in the US is not stopping. Last year (2017) the US took 700k migrants, the most since Obama 2013. Most of them came from Latin America, China and India. Trump and the reps are not stopping the legal immigration.
Only a full stop of non-white immigration, including legal, could fix the problem, but no one has the balls to do it.
Feryl: Hard to get oldschool Republicans to change their mind when Will Hurd, David Valadao and Devin Nunes are cruising to victory in November in majority Hispanic districts while suburban and Midwestern GOPers fight for their lives.
"Only a full stop of non-white immigration, including legal, could fix the problem, but no one has the balls to do it."
Even if they stopped all immigration tomorrow, that wouldn't fix the problem.
Simply based on birthrates of people already here, the majority-white USA is over. The question going forward is how to work with that reality.
Anon,
Accounting for the UN's plans for the African population bomb, there won't be a single white majority country on this planet. And lets' not kid ourselves that 51% white is sufficient, Jews would never accept a ridiculous standard of a simple majority for Israel.
Yep-
What is happening in USA (and the West in general) is literally historically unprecedented-caused, I believe, by ease of transportation (i.e. airplanes).
Nations have changed. Populations have come and gone. The early history of the United States (100% Indian to essentially 90% white in about 280 years: 1620-1900) is evidence of that. But the change of a large nation's population in today's timescale (90% white in 1970: 60% white or so in 2020: this drop in 50 years) has literally never happened before. Wipe out a small Greek city state and replace it? Sure. Import a bunch of immigrants into a region (of say, 500,000) and call it a 'country'? Scour out part of the Ukraine, and import a few thousand German immigrants? Sure. But to replace the population of the third largest country on the planet (of 300 million) has literally never happened before.
I'm sure, barring a return of 1850-level racial identity by whites, the West is gone. Literally gone-probably in the next 50 years. Paris, New York, London: they are all essentially Rio De Janiero, or Beirut, today (without the violence-for now). The future of white countries is what we already see in formerly white countries: South Africa, nicer parts of South America, Detroit, cities already mentioned, formerly civilized Levant, etc etc.
Long term? Whites will either be wiped out/assimilated, or big nations (USA, etc) will go away-and small regional governments, isolated by race, (say, Ireland, Appalachia, Montana, Poland, and so on) will replace them-think of the city states/smaller organizations that made up Germany before it was Germany. Or, as mentioned, whites will become explicitly racist/racially aware. I don't think they will-if they will put up with what they're putting up with in South Africa, they will put up with it elsewhere, too.
anon
Anon,
Part of what is holding off a reckoning in South Africa is that the white (and other) middle class lives in gated communities. Thus they don't experience the street crime that creates "liberals mugged by reality".
The rural Boer is an outlier, literally as well as socioeconomically. The government puts up restrictions on self-defense, and disbanded the collective self-defense "Commando system" because several farmers were linked to the Boeremag terrorist group. This is why elements of the ANC/EFF give tacit support for the targeted killing of farmers. The farmers typically can't afford security guards, and black security guards could presumably be threatened/bribed/infiltrated if the target is a white farmer.
Another lesser reported item from South Africa is that whites and the other minorities (about one-fifth the population) vote in higher percentages than blacks. Blacks abstaining (sadly not in the other sense of the word) in 2016 allowed the fake opposition DA party to win the elections for Mayor in the large cities. I also suspect that white anger is mollified by generous helpings of Poz to please the white liberal elite, despite the average ANC voter being a nominally social conservative Protestant, the government is in legalistic terms far more pozzed than even most Western European countries.
Part of the equation is also the opportunity to exit, rather than be put into Sun Tzu's death ground. If the leaders forbid us from fighting, and the option for flight is available, then flight will be chosen. If flight is no longer an option, I suspect vigilantism would eventually result in the emergence of militias as occurred in Lebanon and Yugoslavia.
If Bolsonaro is elected President of Brazil, that might change the calculations in South Africa. He's been an enemy of the local version of the "land reform" movement, so his pressure at the BRICS forum could force Ramaphosa to back off. It's a pattern of a particularly African mindset to insist on seizing land without compensation (in order to humiliate whites), its not as if their patrons at the IMF and the PRC could not arrange to simply pay off the Boers. Given that Ramaphosa is said to have created the "boiling frog" plan, he could easily triangulate at the last minute to approve an IMF/PRC paid seizure, basking in the international image of a great peacemaker.
relevant: to above
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKGzw8GROf0
Strange to see that VICE once wasn't so blindly partisan
"Isn't that nuts?? We have a crazy, perhaps unprecedented situation in the history of human electoral politics, where in general neither party is actually looking to grow their appeal! Rather they are both only playing at competing demographic games, hoping to win the AI arms race first in order to either draw district lines or direct migration flows maximally."
No, none of this that strange. In almost all times and all places, "democracy" has scarcely existed. While today's Guilded Age conservatives get boners pushing the meme that the US was never supposed to be that democratic, in reality the US constitution was an extremely progressive document for it's time, that was inspired by British and French efforts to improve society and humanity by lending greater dignity and freedom to everyone. But this was localized to British, and the French, and the US born people. In wholesome eras, elites take care of natives. In corrupt eras, they are more likely to romanticize the foreign.
Today's elites are Talmudically trying to use legal, financial, and political legerdemain to continue to get their way. As opposed to inspiring broad layers of the population to vote for a given candidate based on his ability to achieve useful and popular reforms. Bill Maher whines that California voters are disfranchised by the EC….Uh, dude, the GOP would have long ago made CA a priority if every voter their counted. But the state is the most culturally liberal in America, and is the seat of the tech industry and the eco. movement, so the GOP come pres. election time just writes the state off and tries to make up ground elsewhere. And Maher doesn't seem to realize that the whole point of the EC is to insure that America, a geographically, culturally, and economically diverse place, doesn't have it's national elections get monopolized by New York and California. Junking the EC would probably spark a revolt by highly rural and/or culturally conservative states (such as most of the interior Western states, The South, and the Plains states).
In today's sore loser climate, the losers will cling to any excuse or conspiracy to explain why they sucked. And will try and re-write the rules so that they don't have to put in as much honest work.
"Hard to get oldschool Republicans to change their mind when Will Hurd, David Valadao and Devin Nunes are cruising to victory in November in majority Hispanic districts while suburban and Midwestern GOPers fight for their lives."
Who's doing the voting, there? I suspect it's the typical GOP'er demographic I mentioned above (white, well into middle age or elderly, financially secure but not particularly wealthy, and likely to have minimal to moderate high ed experience). Young people don't generally vote, lower income people generally don't vote (exception: blacks), and NWNBs generally don't vote (Not white, not black)….And this is all amplified in local elections.
The Dems ought to be counting on well educated people of all ages and races, and affluent people in their 30's and earlier 40's (who are VERY Democratic), to keep their chances up.
Midwestern voters, esp. in the older and more Eastern part of the region, generally don't buy too much into LOLbertarian crap and fundie stuff, whereas Southerners buy into both to some degree. Some Northeastern conservatives buy into the LOLbertarian stuff, albeit not to the reckless degree that Southerners and esp. Westerners do. Remember also that much of the Midwest can't rely on ski resorts, or trendy industries, or large construction booms like the South and West do. The Midwest want's to bring America's old-school economy back; failure of either party to do so will be cause for alienation, and there's a reason why, dating back to Reagan, the Great Lakes Midwest in particular has become known for crossing over from one party to another.
I think that absent a serious make-over, the GOP is fucked because white people born after the mid-1970's did not grow up idolizing Reagan. We generally don't have ANY political heroes from the 80's, 90's, or other recent decades. We're fed up with corruption and neo-liberalism. Many white people born in the 50's and 60's sincerely think that Republicans are the "good guys". E.g., FDR and the New Deal were actually a monstrous liberal imposition on America, and the turn toward anti-government sentiment, union busting, and tax cuts for the wealthy in the 70's and 80's reflect what America ought to be.
Feryl,
Texas is still better than California. But both are bad. One represents the Democrat vision of the future (CA) and the other the Republican vision of the future (TX).
Anon,
DemsRRealRacist is fine if the emphasis is on Dems being anti-white. It's stupid and futile if the emphasis is on Dems being anti-black, etc.
Mr. Rational,
They aren't anti-racists, they're anti-white. That's what needs to be emphasized.
IHTG,
It won't look anything like the Republican party of today–even less like it than Trump republicanism does. Substantially less so.
Jig,
It is crazy. By default, though, Democrats will win. Republican strength is, due to gerrymandering, wide but not particularly deep. When it breaks, it's going to start breaking everywhere. Will it take more than a decade for Republicans to go from being nationally competitive to being in the perpetual political minority (or change so drastically to as be unrecognizable as they are currently)?
MBlanc46,
Trump Republicanism is a chance for reformation. Trump won't do it–he's transitional at best–but pols following in his wake, like Kris Kobach and Brian Kemp, might. Odds are still long on that though I think. More likely it will have to be burned down.
216,
Of course it has happened before–but it's been well over a century, so it may as well have happened in another country, never here.
Passer by,
Right. We can't even stop illegal aliens or the worst kinds of legal immigration, refugees/asylum-seekers.
IHTG,
A few are winning that way. A lot of others are losing because of it, though. A decade ago, Kemp would be up by double-digits in Georgia.
Anon,
The US is too big not to fail at this point. Break it up!
"Midwestern voters, esp. in the older and more Eastern part of the region, generally don't buy too much into LOLbertarian crap and fundie stuff, whereas Southerners buy into both to some degree. "
Disagree, Southerners (white, and white-aligned others) are not libertarians by nature. They love rampant military spending and adventurism. They also are rather fond of state incentives to business relocation. The government spending they oppose is increased social services and education spending to underclass blacks. Opposition to minimum wages and unionization is somewhat justified in a historical sense for an economically backward region that needed to catch up to the rest of the country. In modern times, the GOP would do well to gain black and other voters by switching tack on the unions and turning against the corporations.
Agree wrt to the GOP facing "generational eclipse". The removal of our self-determination must meet with resistance or we shall deserve everything that happens to us.
AE (wrt Jig),
The GOP, in terms of the institutional party, does actually have a strategy but the nature of our electoral system (federalism, 2 year house elections, direct primaries) makes it rather hard to pull off.
In short, they don't expect to get any higher a percentage of non-white voters than the Conservative Party in the UK or Canada does. Doing so requires moving the party to the left on fiscal matters.
What they do believe, is that if the party engages in mega-pandering (mass immigration, A/A quotas, shaming their own base) then liberal whites will start voting for the center-right party. The Sailer-strategy-in-reverse.
Every candidate in the UK or Canadian system is for all intents and purposes selected by the party leader, so imagine if Paul Ryan chose your House candidate instead of a primary. This is why there are so many gay and non-white MPs in these countries, even though there are few of them among actual party members.
In the macro-terms of 100+ years, it cannot possibly work unless an unforeseen trend emerges of rising white fertility and an tendency of mixed-race individuals to start identifying with their white ancestry.
"Disagree, Southerners (white, and white-aligned others) are not libertarians by nature. They love rampant military spending and adventurism. They also are rather fond of state incentives to business relocation. The government spending they oppose is increased social services and education spending to underclass blacks. Opposition to minimum wages and unionization is somewhat justified in a historical sense for an economically backward region that needed to catch up to the rest of the country. In modern times, the GOP would do well to gain black and other voters by switching tack on the unions and turning against the corporations."
Yes, issue by issues there's a diversity of ideology. For example, many Northeastern conservatives (yes, they do exist) are actually more authentically libertarian than the South and West, because the Northeast is not as dependent on the military as those regions are. Also, the government has to go to great lengths to make some of the South (frequently hit by tornadoes and hurricanes) and much of the West (mountains, arid climates) livable. The geography and climate of the Northeast requires less government upkeep.
But that's just size of government. On cultural matters, the Western US is by far the most libertarian. The South is the least libertarian, and the Northeast is between the two. Economically, you have to divvie up the South along geo. and cultural lines; the lowland plantation heavy regions, settled by aristocratic Cavaliers with black slaves in tow, have the least populist attitude imaginable toward welfare and so forth. Meanwhile, Appalachia has historically been whiter, and more pro-labor; that being said, distrust between Scots-Irish whites alone goes some way towards explaining why even Appalaicha has historically been less economically populist than the Northeast and Midwest (and out West, the heavily Scots-Irish contingent that settled Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado, Southern Cal., and Eastern California and Eastern Oregon, was much more resistant to economic egalitarianism compared to the puritans and Nords of the Northeast, Midwest, Northwest Cali, and the Pac. NW coast). BTW, the entire historical lineage of Scots-Irish settlement provides a guide to where people brawled instead of studied. And to this day, Nordic regions within, or near, the Scots-Irish belt do much better on basic measures of behavior and (non-military) accomplishment. Although Texas, for whatever reason, seems to have much better whites than is the norm in the Western and Southern US.
Texas is still better than California. But both are bad. One represents the Democrat vision of the future (CA) and the other the Republican vision of the future (TX).
The two differences between the two are:
1) Texas still has a heavy residue of the Scots-Irish (and redneck Germans) who built the "anglo" edition of the state. California's once influential Okie population has been driven to the margins of the state, or left the state altogether, or been completely overwhelmed by the white and immigrant transplants who will not tolerate Scots-Irish white culture (see: the state, in the 1980's and esp. 90's, leading the way on environmentalism and such things as smoking bans). Also, the death of the cold war substantially reduced the military presence in CA, which further diminished the importance of Celtic whites in the state.
2) Texas' mid-upper classes can still comfortably build their way out of the diversity dystopia. The state still has effectively no restrictions on land use and development compared to other states. Whereas a particular bigger city in CA recently voted to restrict building heights of new apartments/condos. CA won't even let people build up that high, let alone build out further. And obviously, it's literally impossible in CA to build outward in some places, what with the large mountains and the Pacific.
216 –
No, that's not what they actually believe; if they actually wanted to win over upper-middle-class whites they would move left on cultural issues like guns, gay marriage and (by far the most important) abortion. That's what the UK and Canadian Tories have done, and they do in fact do much better with the UMC twits (and worse with the working class) than the GOP does. It's also the standard messaging the GOP adopts in blue states, with some success. FWIW, the UK Tories are quite a bit more immigration-restrictionist than the GOP, and the Canadians are more so than the pre-Trump GOP if not the current GOP.
What the Ryan wing of the GOP believes is a combination of
• Hispanics are "natural conservatives."
• Immigrants increase GDP and are therefore good.
• We need immigration because Americans are lazy.
• Even if it would be to our electoral advantage, supporting immigration restriction would be racist, and therefore beyond the pale.
• Hispanics will eventually consider themselves white, just like the Dagos and Polacks eventually considered themselves white.
• Minorities won't listen to us because they think we're racist; if we prove we aren't racist by supporting immigration, diversity and criminal justice reform, then they will finally be able to hear our compelling message of DRRR, School Choice and Opportunity Zones.
• Fatalism: Amnesty will happen anyway, so we might as well be the ones to do it so the amnestied illegals will like us better.
• Fatalism: (As mentioned above) even if we stopped immigration entirely, America will still become majority-minority, so we have to focus on appealing more to minorities.
snorlax: One of the salutary trends of recent times is that younger, smarter GOP moderates have begun to realize that they can split the difference. Do Bush-style outreach to Hispanics AND oppose further immigration. Trump proved that the Hispanics just don't care! They didn't vote for him in lesser numbers than other Republicans, and they're not particularly excited about these midterms either.
IHTG –
True, and entirely predictable of course. Unfortunately the blackpill is that while Hispanics don't care, Nice White Ladies do care, and they vote. The whole SEPARATING CHILDREN!!!! controversy probably cost us the midterm.
The "family seperation" and "catch and release" exposes the power of the Procedure. The unelected bureaucracy can mutiny, and tie the cases up in court for years. The UK bureaucracy is also doing this to Brexit.
The only real way around this is consecutive election victories, which reduces the other side's leverage, and leads to the courts being filled with your appointees. But the catch-22 is that absent "action", interest declines and political support is subject to attrition.
We have no power to halt the exploitation of asylum without Congress, and Congress is full of Ryans, Yoders and Pelosis. The only immigration that can be reduced without the consent of Congress is refugee resettlement, but instead political capital was wasted on the travel ban.
Immigration enforcement must be targeted at the least politically popular groups: sex trafficking gangs and wealthy white business owners that employ/exploit illegals.
@ 216:
The reason that the Canadian and British conservative parties are more popular with UMC whites than the GOP in America is not because they are pro-minority. It is that they are very secular and don't thump all day about abortion, creationism, or gays like the US GOP. They are actually more immigration restrictionist relative to the mean of their country than the GOP is relative to the mean of the US.
As I commented above, the US GOP can't pivot to that stance because they are fully captured by the Chamber of Commerce and the Ag lobby on one side (cheap labor!) and the mega churches on the other. So they are left with the Paul Ryan bind, which is to implausibly argue that mass immigration and demographic change are good for the conservative side because magic.
@ Jig:
Do you see hope, that mega-churchgoers will be moved by the Kav hearings orgy, to unite with the UMC whites on identity (incl. immigration and manosphere) issues, at the expense of the antisecularist stuff that has so put off the white UMC?
The Left's increasing fanaticism on *gender-race* identity issues may get the mega-churchgoers to see that they've no choice, but to bury the hatchet with, e.g., the gays (like Trump did in his Acceptance speech in Cleveland).
Seeing as the Kav hearings were about an attack upon basic standards of innocent-until-proven-guilty justice, I'll guess that, somehow or another, they may bring on a seismic turn in US political culture.
What, exactly, is the GOP supposed to do about it? Force all of these people to leave?
Well, bates, we could offer enough cash to entice (some of) them to leave.
If some left, that would buy us time, to stave off the demographic wave that the Dems are banking on.
@aNanyMouse:
It is a great question. Right now the Sarah-Jeong-ification of the Democratic party and formerly functional center-left institutions is still relatively new, so the effects have yet to even begin to shake out. But I am more optimistic than I have ever been that we are possibly headed toward a major political realignment. The Left's new ever morphing identity-based political and cultural blitzkreig is very off-putting, and very unstable.
I don't know if Kavanaugh in particular was a major wake-up call or not. In the SWPL circles that I run in, some people were clearly troubled by the abandonment of the presumption of innocence, and knew it could be turned on them or their loved ones at the drop of a hat, but comforted themselves by saying "It was a job interview, not a trial" (heard that multiple times, so they must have picked that up from somewhere) and they went back to watching John Oliver. But, as people say, "drip drip" so you never know – a few more Kavanaugh-like circuses might be what it takes. As for the religious right specifically, they are far and away the #1 barrier to the Republicans and conservatism in general making better inroads with UMC whites. Can they be convinced to tone it down about abortion and "mah granddaddy wasn't no dern monkey" in order to take one for the team? So far they haven't.
Another thing to watch for that could be YUGE is this Asian lawsuit against Harvard. If Harvard plays their cards wrong it could make it to the new 5-4 SCOTUS and serve as a legal precedent against race-based preferences in education as a whole, or even anywhere! As AE has shown, affirmative action is actually unpopular with everyone (it was even voted out by popular referendum… in California), so the ensuing freakout of the megaphone Left could really push along the realignment away from them.
"What, exactly, is the GOP supposed to do about it? Force all of these people to leave?"
Only if they want to win.
Picture the whole globe from a God-like perspective-instead of people, we have different colors of ants (white, black, red, yellow). For a few hundred years, the white ants expanded into other ants' territory, and succeeded in transplanting their bodies as well as their culture: South Africa, Israel/Syria, Northern coast of Africa, South America, California (Detroit, New York, Atlanta, Washington D.C., and so on and so on). All were distinctly 'white' places and cultures.
Today, that is no longer true. The French were driven out of Northern Africa in the 1960's. South Africa is no longer 'white'. British out of India through a combination of expulsion and violence. California, Detroit, New York, South America, Atlanta. Sometimes it was simple demographic decline (usually in the USA). Sometimes it was war or violence (Middle East, Northern Africa, South Africa). But the result is the same: the white areas are shrinking, the non-white growing.
Again: sometimes it was peaceful demographic change. But sometimes it was outright war (The Algerian War, the collapse of Beirut, South Africa). Similar things have happened within races in the past as well (expulsion of Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII, for instance).
So: do you want a white, and white cultured, USA? Two choices: make more babies, or fight for it. The only third choice is to not have a white/white cultured USA.
Look at the globe as a giant Civilization game. Whites were winning for a few hundred years, now they're losing. The rest is just details.
anon
@ Jig
Great stuff, esp. on prospects for a major political realignment.
When they comfort themselves by saying "It was a job interview", attack this comfort with:
"No, he was a known quantity, seeking a promotion.
And, trying to avoid being driven from a college campus (by feminazi "rape" charges) is not like seeking a job. Rather, such charges could easily cost you the job (or other position) you already have.
So, if you're seeking a promotion, or trying to not be driven from campus, and you don't toe their Line, expect feminazis to gin-up anything against you, regardless of your prior record of decent conduct."
Moreover, Lefty rhetoric (incl. from Biden) made clear, that Ford's "courage" warranted her being *believed*, job interview or no.
The point almost certainly is, to drive men from all but the least desirable places.
Men's first response can hardly be other than MGTOW.
Things are changing, slowly.
216,
If the plan is to swing liberal and moderate affluent whites over to the GOP side, it's failed miserably–with McCain, with Romney, and with Trump.
Jig,
Trump is a step in that direction. He's obviously not hostile towards Christianity, but no one thinks he's other than Mr. Secular, interests-over-principles in everything he does. It's another illustration of him as the transitional rather than transformational figure (if he is to be either).
AE,
The "2012 Autopsy" was in effect never implemented, as the RNC Chairman has nowhere near the power of a Westminster system party leader.
Jon Huntsman Jr was so blindingly arrogant that he didn't campaign in the Iowa caucus in 2012. But he was probably the only Republican that could have won that year.
@ AE:
Yes exactly – Trump cannot be the one who makes the realignment happen but he can be the one who sets it up to happen under the next guy. Trump is too much of a decisive figure and too easy to mock. But that aspect of him is also exactly what is allowing him to do an end run around the ossified institutions. He has set up the conditions for the GOP to be -possibly- a more secular, moderate nationalist, classical liberal party, which would move them toward the mold of the British, Canadian, Australian etc. conservatives. If they could combine the way that the Canadian and British conservatives get UMC whites and successful Asians with Trump's knack with prole whites and select proles of other races (Kanye!) that's a solid majority of voters for at least a generation. I predict that it may be there for the taking, because Sarah Jeongification is so repulsive to most normal people.
On the other hand, it is -possible- that the "grown ups" in the Democratic Party will regain control. I know you are sure that that is impossible and it's Kamala/Sarsour 2020 but I'm not convinced that's certain. The Tom Steyers of the world might say enough and start to throw serious weight around, both in political races and by, say, buying the NY Times. I'm not saying it -will- happen, but it could. So if it's Biden/Northam 2020, then the realignment is put on ice for a while.
@ aNanyMouse
Unfortunately, where we are as a society now it is basically impossible to change someone's mind on an issue unless it is a long one-on-one conversation with a good friend. So in my various circles in most situations I mostly just drop nuggets of independent thought but don't push too hard, and keep my ears open for insights into the zeitgeist.
AE…
"Trump is a step in that direction. He's obviously not hostile towards Christianity."
Let's carefully parse what you said. Yes, he is not "hostile" towards people practicing that faith. But he clearly is hostile toward its central beliefs when it comes to his own conduct. Trump stated that he is unsure that he ever asked God for forgiveness, as he does not "bring God into that picture." Like clockwork, he backtracked when pressed. The fact of the matter is that asking God for forgiveness is a central aspect of Christianity. We also know that he is a famed narcissist. The most important moral principle, according to Jesus in the Gospels, is to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. And, of course, he routinely breaks several of the Ten Commandments.
"One of the salutary trends of recent times is that younger, smarter GOP moderates have begun to realize that they can split the difference. Do Bush-style outreach to Hispanics AND oppose further immigration. Trump proved that the Hispanics just don't care!"
This. There are many non-illegal hispanics just as unhappy with the illegal invasion as whites are, and willing to vote GOP. Probably not a majority, but a solid 20-40%.
This is one of the reasons rebranding the party as explicitly pro-white would be so dumb. The Dems are already driving moderate whites away, and moderate hispanics with them. Plenty of Puerto Ricans and Cubans would love to build the wall.
@ Jig:
"drop nuggets of independent thought but don't push too hard".
Sounds right, esp. since, as you said above, "Sarah Jeongification is so repulsive to most normal people".
Let the Left continue the hard pushing, and let us be seen as the main Open-Minded, but Rigorous Thinking, alternative.
Let our nuggets of independent thought be dead-on nuggets, e.g. vs. "It was a job interview, not a trial".
Jig,
Sarsour is a bridge too far! I know you were joking with that… well, I assume you were. I'd give her until 2028 or so.
I've not been able to put out of my mind how Sanders folded in Seattle early on in the last presidential campaign. Moderates in the Democrat party simply have no way to push back against the POC ascendancy screamers. The best they are able to do is run moderate white guys in purple states where there isn't POC ascendancy domination. But they can't pull that off in blue states. Feinstein and Pelosi are dinosaurs. De Leon and Harris are the future of that state and increasingly with other majority-minority states.
My qualifier to the Harris-as-nominee is that I could see her being the VP alongside one of the old white guys like Biden or Sanders. That casts the net as widely as possible on the left–northeast and southwest, young and old, white and non-white, socialist and socially liberal, etc–and is symbolic of the torch being passed from white men to the POC ascendancy.
Corvinus,
He's culturally Christian and he's not hostile to Christians. Seems to me that he is indifferent towards Christianity, or has positive sentiments towards it without thinking it applies to him.
Anon,
Hispanics have pretty much voted the same for open borders McCain, squishy Romney, and 'hard-liner' Trump. Hispandering is a really, really dumb electoral strategy.
I disagree with the people saying the GOP shouldn't become explicitly pro-white. While the democrats are explicitly anti-white, there is no need for the GOP to become explicitly anti-non white. Also a lot of the black pills here are depressing. "We've already lost, time to get over it." If you think that, why are you still around? Think of every conservative white kid like an extension on the time we have left to fixing things, and get around to applying for those extensions.
Also, becoming pro-white might drop the GOP a bit in the minority department numbers(doubtful), but when you're getting less than 10% of the black vote, that means absolutely nothing. Blacks don't vote for the GOP because they ALREADY CONSIDER IT THE WHITE PARTY. Hispanics I'm not sure about. We could get 30% because that 30% consider themselves white (cubans, etc), and the remaining 70% behave like blacks. I think AE's numbers help prove this. It isn't about issues, it's about identity.
Hispanic voters won't leave because the GOP becomes increasing pro-white because the ones who vote for us already consider themselves part of 'that group.'
You think a brown person is going to look at cameron diaz and think 'ah, a mestizo like myself?' You think blondes from some southern american shithole put themselves on the same level as isabella from tijuana? Puh-lease. The ~35% of south america that considers themselves white is on par with the vote the GOP already gets.
Anon,
Seems likely to me that political dissolution is in the future, so giving up on the thing as currently contrived shouldn't necessarily be seen as a black pill, though I understand the sentiment.
My sense is being explicitly pro-white would be electorally devastating in The Current Year but aggressively pegging the left as anti-white is not only viable, but necessary. We were groping at it with It's Okay to be White. Kobach, to his great credit, accused the Obama administration of being anti-white around 2012. Lots of normy whites, when they see a Kamala Harris or a Stacy Abrams or a Maxine Waters shrieking, want someone to call them on their animosity for whites.
is possible for the GOP to be viable in presidential election until let's say 2050 , if they get about 65 – 70 % of the white vote?
AE…
"He's culturally Christian…"
You mean he is a Fake Christian, a Cuck.
"and he's not hostile to Christians."
But he is hostile to its tenets, which is the point.
"Seems to me that he is indifferent towards Christianity…"
If Trump is indifferent to Christianity, then evangelicals are hypocrites for supporting him considering his clearly anti-Christian conduct as I outlined. I would say he relishes the power he has over his "Christian" followers.
"or has positive sentiments towards it without thinking it applies to him."
That's pure Cuck talk on your part. Trump mooches on the goodies that his "faith" brings him. Look at who he in part brought in on his inauguration day to "pray" for him. Pastor Paula White, a televangelist and exponent of the “health, wealth and prosperity” movement, preaches the “prosperity gospel”, an unorthodox approach to Christianity that says God wants people to be rich, and that He makes them wealthy as a sign of his blessing. So the richer you are, the more obvious it is God loves you, and the stronger your faith.
Word on the street is that God told him to grope her by the rose garden, but there were too many cameras, and she was privy to his handiwork, so she remained a good distance from him.
AE,
It seems to me that you can say nearly anything you want as far as pro-white comments are concerned in the republican party, and you'll get away with it… but only if you're already relevant and known.
For example, the difference between Steve King in the house of reps and James Allsup is that one was already a very, very high up office holder (only the senate and executive office of president/vp is higher, really), and the other was a no-name who ran unopposed for a minor functionary position.
Sure we can't -run- on a pro-white platform. People care more about other things. But who said we couldn't -rule- with one?
@ AE
There is plenty of evidence that they are headed toward Sarah Jeong land, such as De Leon, Occasio-Cortez, the illegals riot against Pelosi, the brother-marrying Somali state legislator in Minnesota who defeated a nice white lady incumbent, etc.
However the 'Bernie in Seattle' debacle was actually not really evidence of that or anything bigger – it is just a manifestation of a peculiarity of Sanders himself. Sanders is an aspie who can only hold one thought in his head – that rich people and corporations are bad. Everything he is confronted with must be shoved into that box – hence he can visit the Soviet Union in the 1970s with all of its drab poverty and think it was just peachy, because no evil rich people or corporations. He even attributed some ISIS atrocity to global warming, because how could something other than rich people or corporations be at fault! Unlike most politicals, for Sanders these aren't really lies – they are untruths that he actually believes to his core. To allow that some – any – problem or misbehavior in the world was not the fault of rich people or corporations would make his head explode. So… when confronted with two obnoxious, misbehaving, morbidly obese black lesbians, he was mentally powerless to even mentally process it, let alone do anything about it. In the footage you could see his neurons almost shutting down right there on stage.
@ AE:
"being explicitly pro-white would be electorally devastating…, but aggressively pegging the left as anti-white is not only viable, but necessary."
Indeed. The major risk of being explicitly pro-white isn't about driving off PoCs, it's about normie whites, who probably aren't ready *yet* for the GOP being *explicitly* pro-white.
These normies won't be ready for this explicitness, until it's become utterly obvious to them, that the Dem brass have become immersed in their animosity for whites (and males).
Some Dem pols are well along on this Animosity Road, so that it won't be very long before this animosity indeed becomes utterly obvious to normies, esp. if the GOP aggressively pegs them as anti-white, and anti-male.
The anti-male part (of SJWism) is really important here, esp. after the Kav orgy rubbed people's noses into this part.
For every white female who is lost (from the GOP) by emphasis on this part, I'll guess that at least one black or Hispanic male will be gained.
What is happening in USA (and the West in general) is literally historically unprecedented-caused, I believe, by ease of transportation (i.e. airplanes).
Nations have changed. Populations have come and gone. The early history of the United States (100% Indian to essentially 90% white in about 280 years: 1620-1900) is evidence of that. But the change of a large nation's population in today's timescale (90% white in 1970: 60% white or so in 2020: this drop in 50 years) has literally never happened before. Wipe out a small Greek city state and replace it? Sure. Import a bunch of immigrants into a region (of say, 500,000) and call it a 'country'? Scour out part of the Ukraine, and import a few thousand German immigrants? Sure. But to replace the population of the third largest country on the planet (of 300 million) has literally never happened before.
I'm sure, barring a return of 1850-level racial identity by whites, the West is gone. Literally gone-probably in the next 50 years. Paris, New York, London: they are all essentially Rio De Janiero, or Beirut, today (without the violence-for now). The future of white countries is what we already see in formerly white countries: South Africa, nicer parts of South America, Detroit, cities already mentioned, formerly civilized Levant, etc etc.
Long term? Whites will either be wiped out/assimilated, or big nations (USA, etc) will go away-and small regional governments, isolated by race, (say, Ireland, Appalachia, Montana, Poland, and so on) will replace them-think of the city states/smaller organizations that made up Germany before it was Germany. Or, as mentioned, whites will become explicitly racist/racially aware. I don't think they will-if they will put up with what they're putting up with in South Africa, they will put up with it elsewhere, too.
anon
Replies: @Anonymous
Leave Ireland off the list. Engaged in full scale attempt to catch up with the UK in enrichment.
Dreameater,
Yes, with 70% of the white vote and a presumed reduction in immigration that would flow from that.
Corvinus,
How different is the prosperity gospel from the Weberian "Protestant work ethic", where people were to get so rich that they could live off the interest of the interest of their net worths?
Jig,
Good points. Even his supporters pushed back in the form of some heckling and the like.
aNonyMouse,
Nothing to rub normie faces in it than a Kamala Harris general election campaign!
AE…
"How different is the prosperity gospel from the Weberian "Protestant work ethic", where people were to get so rich that they could live off the interest of the interest of their net worths?
They both take sociological, rather than strict religious, approaches.
From the actual Protestant work ethic, one achieves wealth through humility, integrity, and simplicity. He or she prospers from the faith in material form in order to bless the community. It is rooted in the notion of the divinity of God and the priority of community over individual. In other words, if you could correctly channel your spiritual energy, you could harness its material results for HIs purposes.
From the prosperity gospel, one is rewarded wealth by way of donating money to the clergy. God will then ensure he or she prospers from their generosity with potential, future riches. It is rooted in the notion of the divinity of the individual human being and the priority of mind over matter. In other words, if you could correctly channel your mental energy, you could harness its material results for your purposes.
Let's carefully parse what you said. Yes, he is not "hostile" towards people practicing that faith. But he clearly is hostile toward its central beliefs when it comes to his own conduct. Trump stated that he is unsure that he ever asked God for forgiveness, as he does not "bring God into that picture." Like clockwork, he backtracked when pressed. The fact of the matter is that asking God for forgiveness is a central aspect of Christianity. We also know that he is a famed narcissist. The most important moral principle, according to Jesus in the Gospels, is to love God with all of your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. And, of course, he routinely breaks several of the Ten Commandments.
As a Jew, Trump's answer that 'eye for an eye' was his favorite verse in the Bible was the absolute pinnacle of awesomeness that I ever expect to hear from a politician. The moment when he burst a million bubbles of bulls**t by pointing out that obviously if you actually think abortion is bad and want to stop it you have to punish the mother was a close second.
I think a lot of flyover Christians are really Noahides who don't know it yet. Trump is a sort of non-observant Noahide so it's natural that they should get on at a basic level. Obviously if you're a real Christian and believe in meditating on Christ's wounds, celibacy, turning the other cheek and gay stuff like that, then you won't like Trump.