The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Census Bureau on 2014 Voter Turnout: Hispanic Righteous Racial Rage Over Immigration Peters Out Yet Again
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Screenshot 2015-07-17 00.53.17

In 2013-2014, we were informed over and over that if the Republicans in the House didn’t pass the Gang of Eight’s amnesty comprehensive immigration reform, the tidal wave of Hispanic electoral rage would sweep away the stale pale male GOP.

But then that didn’t happen in the November 2014 election.

The Census Bureau has finally gotten around to releasing the data from its biennial survey of voter turnout, which shows just how much Hispanic-American citizens cared about the immigration issue: only 27.0% of potential Hispanic voters bothered to show up at the polls last November. (Asian-American turnout was even worse at 26.9%).

Screenshot 2015-07-17 01.06.00

Hispanics made up 7.3% of all voters in 2014, up from 5.3% in the 2002 midterm election, but down from the 8.4% in more glamorous 2012 Presidential election.

 
Hide 59 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    The facts of this trend need to be drawn out further. Odd-year gubernatorial and municipal elections get even lower overall turnout than congressional midterms, which get lower overall turnout that presidential elections. For example, the recent New York City mayoral elections in November 2013 attracted about 24% overall turnout, while the same year’s statewide elections in New Jersey attracted overall turnout of about 38.5%. So do the demographic trends identified in Steve’s posting extend further for these odd-year elections? I would assume so, and suppose that turnout would skew even more in favor of literate, well-informed, disciplined and future-oriented types of people.

    I would also suppose that there are like-minded people who currently sit out some of the smaller elections, but who could be persuaded to turn out by an appeal to reason, with a little math and statistics to show the disproportionate effect that small numbers of voters may have in such circumstances, and the reduced chances of the irresponsible classes of people turning out to vote — for the wrong candidates — in such an election.

    This might not work in a few places, like true-blue New York City or San Francisco, but it worked for Chris Christy in New Jersey and I can imagine plenty of other places where it works, and I’m sure there are marginal seats where it could be extended with some effort. Perhaps a few cities could roll back “sanctuary city” laws on their books if a few council seats changed hands during elections taking place this November, and a few lives could be saved if more felonious illegal aliens were further detained and deported, in accordance with law, rather than turned loose.

    So, Steve, I urge you to look out for a few of those races as we get into August and September and bring them to our attention here. Local readers could get the hint and turn out. Out of town readers could provide whatever moral or practical support they feel is appropriate and legal. Think of it as a public service.

    • Replies: @Gato de la Biblioteca
    The only problem with this reasoning is that both parties still suck balls. So Republicans took back Congress last year - just I'm time to rubber stamp Obama's executive amnesty orders. Good job, Republican voters!

    Show up at the polling station & hand in a blank ballot. Or vote for the most minor office available if necessary to make sure it's counted, just so they can see that you care enough to take the time to vote and still choose "None of the Above".

    Vote BLANK in 2016.
  2. The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?
     
    他们不感兴趣
    , @Anonymous

    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?
     
    Asians don't care about civic duty. They care about using what American citizens have built to better themselves.


    They're "good citizens" in that they pay taxes and don't commit crimes. But they don't care about anything except striving for themselves and their family.
    , @Retired
    They were working.
    , @Anymouse
    Because they don't consider themselves Americans? Because they want yellow candidates before they turn out?
  3. The conventional wisdom is that a Donald Trump nomination would drive masses of otherwise apathetic Hispanics to the polls to vote Democrat.

    I strongly disagree.

    In the wake of the post internet bubble and the Clinton/Dubya flood of H1Bs in the early aughts, I found the need to take a delivery job during ever lengthening periods between IT jobs in Chicago.

    Worked with lots of Hispanics, both legal and illegal. The “CW” is the ,yes over exaggerated but real, increase in Hispanics votes for Dubya were because of his pro amnesty stance. From talking to some of the Hispanics who voted for Bush, I found this not necessarily to be the case.

    I think that much of the Dubya’s relative appeal to Hispanics was that compared to both the metrosexual Gore and Kerry was that he was perceived as winner of the “Quien Es Mas Macho?” question.

    Lots of Hispanic men and women will find the fact that Columba wears the pantalones in the Jeb family to be a huge turn off for “No Heuvos”.

    On the other hand Donald Trump’s alpha male status, machismo and way with the ladies will prove wildly appealing. Also lots of who Hispanic men desire to own their own family business, preferably in a “White Van” trade will find Trump attractive.

    The Democrats and Conservative Inc want to appeal to Hispanics as victims and peons. Trump might be able to tap into the psyche of more assimilated Hispanics, who besides resenting having their wages hammered down by illegals, actually have aspirations beyond a life of peonage that can not be filled by naked pandering.

    Granted the majority of Hispanics are natural supporters of Big Government, certainly the ones back in Mexico are and the ones living most Spanish speaking US barrios.

    But the idea that Hispanics are going show up in mass to vote for anyone but Trump is mistaken.

    • Replies: @Area Man
    If that is indeed the criteria, that would explain why Reagan is the Republican candidate with the second highest share of the vote after W.:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2958571/posts
    , @countenance
    I think Donald Trump as the Republican nominee could get 45-50% of Hispanic men. They like macho, and Trump has it in spades.

    But this speaks to another point: We know why pro-amnesty pro-open borders billionaires don't like him, because his proposed or purported policies threaten their constant flow of cheap labor. But another group of people that Trump threatens are the beltway Republican consultant class. Largely based on the money and suasion of the donors, the consultants have concocted a political myth that: (A) Hispanic voters are ultra-crucial, ultra-important, and ultra-decisive, and (B) Their prime political concern is amnesty and open borders.

    If Trump wins the R nomination then the Presidency and does as bad or worse than Romney did among Hispanics, this ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class. If Trump wins the R nomination and then the Presidency and stays with his immigration patriotism platform and wins and wins with close to a majority of Hispanic men, this also ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class. Because both of the lies they have been peddling at the behest of the donors, ever since Romney lost, will have been borked.
    , @Ivy
    White Van is often equated to Rape Van by younger people, according to my kids. Perhaps there are too many TV and movie images of that stereotype.

    While no true Hispanic would want to be associated with that, and would have noble ambitions about self employment, maybe a nice shade of beige would be a better van paint choice.
  4. The GOP failed to motivate its base, and the swing voters in 2014. If white turnout had been at 2010 levels, Al Franken and Mark Warner might no longer be Senators.

    The biggest long term threat to the GOP, is the risk of an American UKIP/FN. It could probably never win on the national level, but might control a few states, and render the Democrats invincible in the Midwest. (Imagine if Ross Perot had been serious about starting a real political party)

    I’d love to see a Trump/Sanders matchup.

    • Replies: @countenance
    Minnesota is Minnesota; I don't think Franken was in danger even with a slightly higher white turnout. Because Minnesota.

    As far as Warner-Gillesipe in VA, Gillespie was one of the worst RINOs ever. The only reason he got within 1% was because he struck the Redskins iron while it was hot. Mark Warner should have blown Gillespie out of the water, back into the water, then out of the water again.
    , @Clyde

    One wonders if Xi Jinping and Putin call each other up and just laugh at us.
     
    Obama admin=comedy gold! Never has an administration been so traitorous right in plain sight. The American people remain unmoved/////
  5. This shows how racist our elected hacks in DC are. They see more brown faces and get spooked that they are about to be driven from office. They are too stupid to look at the voting statistics. Of course these hacks live in lilly white neighborhoods in the greater DC region.

    So they hire a Latina community liaison and start babbling, “pathway to citizenship”

  6. Taking off-year 2006 election as the baseline, since Fig. 5 goes back that far:
    * White non-Hispanic was 80.4% of the voters who actually voted
    * Black non-Hispanic was 10.2%
    * Hispanic was 5.8%
    * Other was 3.6%

    Off-year 2014 election:
    * White non-Hispanic was 76.3%, down 5.0% (76.3/80.4 – 1 = -5.0%)
    * Black non-Hispanic was 11.7%, up 14.7%
    * Hispanic was 7.3%, up 18.4%
    * Other was 4.7%, up 30.6%

    Estimating from Fig. 3:
    * White non-Hispanics eligible, 52% voted in 2006 and 45.8% voted in 2014, down 12%
    * Black non-Hispanics, 42% voted in 2006 and 40.6% voted in 2014, down 3%
    * Hispanics, 32% voted in 2006 and 27.0% voted in 2014, down 18%

    (2010 figures are intermediate between 2006 and 2014 in almost all cases.)

    So, over that eight year span, Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics all were less motivated to go to the polls if there’s no Presidential race (-12%, -3%, -18% respectively). Notwithstanding the decline in interest portrayed by that -18%, the Hispanic share of voters grew to 7.3%, a rise of 18.4%.

    Electing a new people.

  7. This settles the debate. You thought Republicans did better at the voting booth than the polls suggested because people fibbed to the pollsters; I thought black and Hispanic turnout was way down in 2014 over 2010, and that the pollsters were using 2010 turnout numbers then adding more blacks and Hispanics assuming all the race agitprop would work.

    What Figure 5 shows is that you were right.

  8. Ed says:

    On Democratic blogs, there is the argument that since Democrats rely more on low information voters (yes, this argument is being made on Democratic blogs), they do well in Presidential elections but can’t get their voters to show up in off year elections. This is superficially plausible, but falls apart when you look into the details. I think a better explanation is that this is a Republican nation, but the Republicans ran a really unpopular presidential candidate in 2012.

    • Replies: @Travis
    True, the Republicans ran weak candidates in 2012 and 2008

    but they still won more of the white vote than Ronald Reagan....the demographics of America are making it more difficult for Republicans to win, but I suppose it would be possible with a very strong candidate who is willing to stand up to the media and avoid pandering to the PC elites
  9. Notice the falling white rate. How do you explain that?

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    I'd suggest the following explanation: Whites - particularly conservative white males - have become so disenchanted by the contempt in which they are held by both parties that they are choosing to remove themselves from the political process altogether. This was certainly my primary motivation when during the last presidential election I registered as an independent for the first time and began refusing to contribute in any way to any politician or either of the two major parties. I'm hunkering down and waiting for the revolution.
  10. Gato de la Biblioteca [AKA "Icepick"] says:
    @Anon
    The facts of this trend need to be drawn out further. Odd-year gubernatorial and municipal elections get even lower overall turnout than congressional midterms, which get lower overall turnout that presidential elections. For example, the recent New York City mayoral elections in November 2013 attracted about 24% overall turnout, while the same year's statewide elections in New Jersey attracted overall turnout of about 38.5%. So do the demographic trends identified in Steve's posting extend further for these odd-year elections? I would assume so, and suppose that turnout would skew even more in favor of literate, well-informed, disciplined and future-oriented types of people.

    I would also suppose that there are like-minded people who currently sit out some of the smaller elections, but who could be persuaded to turn out by an appeal to reason, with a little math and statistics to show the disproportionate effect that small numbers of voters may have in such circumstances, and the reduced chances of the irresponsible classes of people turning out to vote -- for the wrong candidates -- in such an election.

    This might not work in a few places, like true-blue New York City or San Francisco, but it worked for Chris Christy in New Jersey and I can imagine plenty of other places where it works, and I'm sure there are marginal seats where it could be extended with some effort. Perhaps a few cities could roll back "sanctuary city" laws on their books if a few council seats changed hands during elections taking place this November, and a few lives could be saved if more felonious illegal aliens were further detained and deported, in accordance with law, rather than turned loose.

    So, Steve, I urge you to look out for a few of those races as we get into August and September and bring them to our attention here. Local readers could get the hint and turn out. Out of town readers could provide whatever moral or practical support they feel is appropriate and legal. Think of it as a public service.

    The only problem with this reasoning is that both parties still suck balls. So Republicans took back Congress last year – just I’m time to rubber stamp Obama’s executive amnesty orders. Good job, Republican voters!

    Show up at the polling station & hand in a blank ballot. Or vote for the most minor office available if necessary to make sure it’s counted, just so they can see that you care enough to take the time to vote and still choose “None of the Above”.

    Vote BLANK in 2016.

  11. Are we sure they are measuring citizens as a base?

    What the R needs is a better framing on immigration. Remove asylum. Tighten family reunification rules to a rules-based approach. create more worker permits. And the ultimate issue would be remove nationality from children born in the US to immigrants.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    create more worker permits.

    Yes, the Chamber of Commerce dream come true. Flood the workforce with people who will work for nothing but can't vote. The only thing missing is press gangs to make them fight in our wars. Well that can be handled by all the underemployed Americans, I guess.

    The best approach to immigration is stop it completely, the country is full.

  12. This is why Obama has been talking about mandatory voting. They just can’t get their new population to vote, so they are going to make them vote by law.

  13. @charlie
    Are we sure they are measuring citizens as a base?

    What the R needs is a better framing on immigration. Remove asylum. Tighten family reunification rules to a rules-based approach. create more worker permits. And the ultimate issue would be remove nationality from children born in the US to immigrants.

    create more worker permits.

    Yes, the Chamber of Commerce dream come true. Flood the workforce with people who will work for nothing but can’t vote. The only thing missing is press gangs to make them fight in our wars. Well that can be handled by all the underemployed Americans, I guess.

    The best approach to immigration is stop it completely, the country is full.

  14. Are the numbers discussed above for Hispanics, or citizens of Hispanic Origin?

  15. @Luke Lea
    Notice the falling white rate. How do you explain that?

    I’d suggest the following explanation: Whites – particularly conservative white males – have become so disenchanted by the contempt in which they are held by both parties that they are choosing to remove themselves from the political process altogether. This was certainly my primary motivation when during the last presidential election I registered as an independent for the first time and began refusing to contribute in any way to any politician or either of the two major parties. I’m hunkering down and waiting for the revolution.

    • Replies: @simeon
    "Whites – particularly conservative white males – have become so disenchanted by the contempt in which they are held by both parties that they are choosing to remove themselves from the political process altogether"

    Ain't that the truth. Neither party is going to do anything about immigration so I've become a small issue voter. Democrats care about preserving public land for SWPL activities, so I vote for them.
  16. the 2002 midterm election

    They’re not “midterm” elections, they’re just as full-term as the ones two years either side.

    How many times do I have to nag you guys on this? Corrupting language corrupts the mind, and vice versa. Those who insist on using the term should be prepared to defend it. If possible.

  17. @jon
    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?

    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?

    他们不感兴趣

    • Replies: @carol
    It's as if Hispanics and Asians weren't all that invested in this country.
    , @Nathan Wartooth
    为什么不呢
    , @athEIst
    他们不感兴趣.
    Hysterical!
  18. @anonymous-antimarxist
    The conventional wisdom is that a Donald Trump nomination would drive masses of otherwise apathetic Hispanics to the polls to vote Democrat.

    I strongly disagree.

    In the wake of the post internet bubble and the Clinton/Dubya flood of H1Bs in the early aughts, I found the need to take a delivery job during ever lengthening periods between IT jobs in Chicago.

    Worked with lots of Hispanics, both legal and illegal. The "CW" is the ,yes over exaggerated but real, increase in Hispanics votes for Dubya were because of his pro amnesty stance. From talking to some of the Hispanics who voted for Bush, I found this not necessarily to be the case.

    I think that much of the Dubya's relative appeal to Hispanics was that compared to both the metrosexual Gore and Kerry was that he was perceived as winner of the “Quien Es Mas Macho?” question.

    Lots of Hispanic men and women will find the fact that Columba wears the pantalones in the Jeb family to be a huge turn off for "No Heuvos".

    On the other hand Donald Trump's alpha male status, machismo and way with the ladies will prove wildly appealing. Also lots of who Hispanic men desire to own their own family business, preferably in a "White Van" trade will find Trump attractive.

    The Democrats and Conservative Inc want to appeal to Hispanics as victims and peons. Trump might be able to tap into the psyche of more assimilated Hispanics, who besides resenting having their wages hammered down by illegals, actually have aspirations beyond a life of peonage that can not be filled by naked pandering.

    Granted the majority of Hispanics are natural supporters of Big Government, certainly the ones back in Mexico are and the ones living most Spanish speaking US barrios.

    But the idea that Hispanics are going show up in mass to vote for anyone but Trump is mistaken.

    If that is indeed the criteria, that would explain why Reagan is the Republican candidate with the second highest share of the vote after W.:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2958571/posts

  19. Combining the 2014 racial voter composition in Figure 5 with the Republican vote by race split from the 2014 exit polls, we come up with 51.8% Republican overall. I know that the Congressional generic vote was 52.6% R, and the Senate generic vote was 51.7% R. I think that there were a percentage of white people that lied to people doing exit polling just as we now know they lied to telephone pollsters.

  20. @anonymous-antimarxist
    The conventional wisdom is that a Donald Trump nomination would drive masses of otherwise apathetic Hispanics to the polls to vote Democrat.

    I strongly disagree.

    In the wake of the post internet bubble and the Clinton/Dubya flood of H1Bs in the early aughts, I found the need to take a delivery job during ever lengthening periods between IT jobs in Chicago.

    Worked with lots of Hispanics, both legal and illegal. The "CW" is the ,yes over exaggerated but real, increase in Hispanics votes for Dubya were because of his pro amnesty stance. From talking to some of the Hispanics who voted for Bush, I found this not necessarily to be the case.

    I think that much of the Dubya's relative appeal to Hispanics was that compared to both the metrosexual Gore and Kerry was that he was perceived as winner of the “Quien Es Mas Macho?” question.

    Lots of Hispanic men and women will find the fact that Columba wears the pantalones in the Jeb family to be a huge turn off for "No Heuvos".

    On the other hand Donald Trump's alpha male status, machismo and way with the ladies will prove wildly appealing. Also lots of who Hispanic men desire to own their own family business, preferably in a "White Van" trade will find Trump attractive.

    The Democrats and Conservative Inc want to appeal to Hispanics as victims and peons. Trump might be able to tap into the psyche of more assimilated Hispanics, who besides resenting having their wages hammered down by illegals, actually have aspirations beyond a life of peonage that can not be filled by naked pandering.

    Granted the majority of Hispanics are natural supporters of Big Government, certainly the ones back in Mexico are and the ones living most Spanish speaking US barrios.

    But the idea that Hispanics are going show up in mass to vote for anyone but Trump is mistaken.

    I think Donald Trump as the Republican nominee could get 45-50% of Hispanic men. They like macho, and Trump has it in spades.

    But this speaks to another point: We know why pro-amnesty pro-open borders billionaires don’t like him, because his proposed or purported policies threaten their constant flow of cheap labor. But another group of people that Trump threatens are the beltway Republican consultant class. Largely based on the money and suasion of the donors, the consultants have concocted a political myth that: (A) Hispanic voters are ultra-crucial, ultra-important, and ultra-decisive, and (B) Their prime political concern is amnesty and open borders.

    If Trump wins the R nomination then the Presidency and does as bad or worse than Romney did among Hispanics, this ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class. If Trump wins the R nomination and then the Presidency and stays with his immigration patriotism platform and wins and wins with close to a majority of Hispanic men, this also ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class. Because both of the lies they have been peddling at the behest of the donors, ever since Romney lost, will have been borked.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    If Trump wins the R nomination and then the Presidency and stays with his immigration patriotism platform and wins and wins with close to a majority of Hispanic men, this also ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class.

    I'm not sure that any Republican politician really believes in the importance of the Hispanic vote. He just believes in the importance of big donors, and the consultants tell him what he has to say in order to please them.
    , @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Trump will also do much better with blacks than your usual Republican, I'd wager.
  21. @Maj. Kong
    The GOP failed to motivate its base, and the swing voters in 2014. If white turnout had been at 2010 levels, Al Franken and Mark Warner might no longer be Senators.

    The biggest long term threat to the GOP, is the risk of an American UKIP/FN. It could probably never win on the national level, but might control a few states, and render the Democrats invincible in the Midwest. (Imagine if Ross Perot had been serious about starting a real political party)

    I'd love to see a Trump/Sanders matchup.

    Minnesota is Minnesota; I don’t think Franken was in danger even with a slightly higher white turnout. Because Minnesota.

    As far as Warner-Gillesipe in VA, Gillespie was one of the worst RINOs ever. The only reason he got within 1% was because he struck the Redskins iron while it was hot. Mark Warner should have blown Gillespie out of the water, back into the water, then out of the water again.

  22. @Reg Cæsar

    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?
     
    他们不感兴趣

    It’s as if Hispanics and Asians weren’t all that invested in this country.

  23. Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media thinks the Sailer strategy is the key to victory in 2016 for the GOP. Has he been reading this blog?

    http://www.aim.org/aim-column/how-the-republicans-plan-to-lose-to-hillary/

    • Replies: @countenance
    I bet he has. I've seen Cliff Kincaid at at least one CofCC conference. Notice in this article he cites Jared Taylor by name and the title of his latest book.
  24. @countenance
    I think Donald Trump as the Republican nominee could get 45-50% of Hispanic men. They like macho, and Trump has it in spades.

    But this speaks to another point: We know why pro-amnesty pro-open borders billionaires don't like him, because his proposed or purported policies threaten their constant flow of cheap labor. But another group of people that Trump threatens are the beltway Republican consultant class. Largely based on the money and suasion of the donors, the consultants have concocted a political myth that: (A) Hispanic voters are ultra-crucial, ultra-important, and ultra-decisive, and (B) Their prime political concern is amnesty and open borders.

    If Trump wins the R nomination then the Presidency and does as bad or worse than Romney did among Hispanics, this ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class. If Trump wins the R nomination and then the Presidency and stays with his immigration patriotism platform and wins and wins with close to a majority of Hispanic men, this also ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class. Because both of the lies they have been peddling at the behest of the donors, ever since Romney lost, will have been borked.

    If Trump wins the R nomination and then the Presidency and stays with his immigration patriotism platform and wins and wins with close to a majority of Hispanic men, this also ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class.

    I’m not sure that any Republican politician really believes in the importance of the Hispanic vote. He just believes in the importance of big donors, and the consultants tell him what he has to say in order to please them.

  25. I never found the gang of eight argument very persuasive: vote for more of my people to enter the country or my people already here will destroy you.

  26. @Ed
    On Democratic blogs, there is the argument that since Democrats rely more on low information voters (yes, this argument is being made on Democratic blogs), they do well in Presidential elections but can't get their voters to show up in off year elections. This is superficially plausible, but falls apart when you look into the details. I think a better explanation is that this is a Republican nation, but the Republicans ran a really unpopular presidential candidate in 2012.

    True, the Republicans ran weak candidates in 2012 and 2008

    but they still won more of the white vote than Ronald Reagan….the demographics of America are making it more difficult for Republicans to win, but I suppose it would be possible with a very strong candidate who is willing to stand up to the media and avoid pandering to the PC elites

  27. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jon
    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?

    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?

    Asians don’t care about civic duty. They care about using what American citizens have built to better themselves.

    They’re “good citizens” in that they pay taxes and don’t commit crimes. But they don’t care about anything except striving for themselves and their family.

  28. @jon
    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?

    They were working.

  29. @Reg Cæsar

    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?
     
    他们不感兴趣

    为什么不呢

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    为什么不呢
     
    因为
  30. I think Trump is deliberately acting like a caricature in order to make things easier for an actual moderate. I don’t think he’s real.

    The irony however is that a candidate with his economic platform could indeed win quite a few Hispanic votes, and maybe some black ones as well.

  31. @Maj. Kong
    The GOP failed to motivate its base, and the swing voters in 2014. If white turnout had been at 2010 levels, Al Franken and Mark Warner might no longer be Senators.

    The biggest long term threat to the GOP, is the risk of an American UKIP/FN. It could probably never win on the national level, but might control a few states, and render the Democrats invincible in the Midwest. (Imagine if Ross Perot had been serious about starting a real political party)

    I'd love to see a Trump/Sanders matchup.

    One wonders if Xi Jinping and Putin call each other up and just laugh at us.

    Obama admin=comedy gold! Never has an administration been so traitorous right in plain sight. The American people remain unmoved/////

  32. It is interesting to compare The New York Times‘ rage over anti-immigrationists vs. their attitude towards jihadists. They bury the lede for the Chattanooga Jihad story, emphasizing that the shooter was disturbed, and downplaying his jihad manifesto. His writings about jihad are referenced all he way down in the 16th paragraph.

    Cf. NYT‘s coverage of the Anders Breivik, the Norway shooter. In Breivik’s case, every NYT headline made reference to the contents of his anti-immigrant manifesto.

  33. Lets see how powerful AIPAC is:

    The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is setting up a new affiliate group that is expected to spend $20 million to $40 million on advertising and campaigns to moblize opponents of the deal to write or call their members of Congress, says a person familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the plan. AIPAC would not comment but said it would make “a major and significant effort to urge Congress to oppose the deal and insist on a better agreement.”

    The Republican Jewish Coalition, which also opposes the deal, is targeting 24 senators and twice as many House members seen as being on the fence. It will try to get its 40,000 members to write to lawmakers who are Jewish or who have large numbers of Jewish constituents and to attend town hall meetings held during the congressional recess.

    “If you’re a member of Congress, do you want someone to campaign against you saying here’s the man Gen. David Petraeus called evil, and we’ve just given him billions of dollars?” Block said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/jewish-groups-gird-for-epic-battle-over-iran-deal/2015/07/17/c5ff0f2c-2bf6-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    Here in Indianapolis Uber NeoCon Jeff Smulyan owner of Emmis Communications dumped Rush Limbaugh from WIBC the local talk radio powerhouse for apparently being insufficiently pro BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN!!!!

    In case you did not know, Emmis means TRUTH in Hebrew.

    Smulyan is also the force behind that psyops project know as Alex Jones that bleeds off the energies and activism of lots of rightly paranoid Americans and puts them on to red herring hunts for Bilderberg'ers, Illuminati and Black Helicopters.

    The obsession over the possibility of a nuclear Iran is to distract the rubes from being outraged over Open Borders, their demographic replacement and increasing enslavement to the agendas of TWMNBN.
    , @Whiskey
    Republicans rolled over for Obama, done deal, bc oil interests want to invest there. Iran is the last low cost oil frontier and cheaper in declining oil prices than drilling 12 mikes deep 200 miles offshore Brazil.

    So Khameni gets his nukes. I'm sure everyone will hold hands and buy each other cokes. Or was it Pepsi the choice of the nuke generation?
    , @Anonymous
    This shows what a coward Steve is for not giving Obama credit for taking a stand against the Israeli lobby.
  34. @jon
    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?

    Because they don’t consider themselves Americans? Because they want yellow candidates before they turn out?

  35. @countenance
    I think Donald Trump as the Republican nominee could get 45-50% of Hispanic men. They like macho, and Trump has it in spades.

    But this speaks to another point: We know why pro-amnesty pro-open borders billionaires don't like him, because his proposed or purported policies threaten their constant flow of cheap labor. But another group of people that Trump threatens are the beltway Republican consultant class. Largely based on the money and suasion of the donors, the consultants have concocted a political myth that: (A) Hispanic voters are ultra-crucial, ultra-important, and ultra-decisive, and (B) Their prime political concern is amnesty and open borders.

    If Trump wins the R nomination then the Presidency and does as bad or worse than Romney did among Hispanics, this ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class. If Trump wins the R nomination and then the Presidency and stays with his immigration patriotism platform and wins and wins with close to a majority of Hispanic men, this also ruins the credibility of the Republican consultant class. Because both of the lies they have been peddling at the behest of the donors, ever since Romney lost, will have been borked.

    Trump will also do much better with blacks than your usual Republican, I’d wager.

    • Replies: @Unladen Swallow
    If he gets the nomination, absolutely. Additionally there will not be a black man running against him, but an emotionally cold, uninspiring, short, old white woman. I'm guessing black men aren't going to relate to Hilary like they did to Bill, who was sometimes referred to as the first black president. Conversely, Trump has a lot Clinton qualities, only squared. He likes the ladies, he's filthy rich, he has 5 kids, he's tall, he's brazenly self-confident, he seems to get along with people from all different backgrounds personally, and although about the same age as Hilary looks noticeably younger. Also as Steve as pointed out, Hilary is really looking old since her spill, as if she has not fully recovered from it, you wonder if she will wear down physically from the campaign, especially if she has competition deep into the primaries.
  36. @Nathan Wartooth
    为什么不呢

    为什么不呢

    因为

  37. @Johann Ricke
    Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in Media thinks the Sailer strategy is the key to victory in 2016 for the GOP. Has he been reading this blog?

    http://www.aim.org/aim-column/how-the-republicans-plan-to-lose-to-hillary/

    I bet he has. I’ve seen Cliff Kincaid at at least one CofCC conference. Notice in this article he cites Jared Taylor by name and the title of his latest book.

  38. @anonymous-antimarxist
    The conventional wisdom is that a Donald Trump nomination would drive masses of otherwise apathetic Hispanics to the polls to vote Democrat.

    I strongly disagree.

    In the wake of the post internet bubble and the Clinton/Dubya flood of H1Bs in the early aughts, I found the need to take a delivery job during ever lengthening periods between IT jobs in Chicago.

    Worked with lots of Hispanics, both legal and illegal. The "CW" is the ,yes over exaggerated but real, increase in Hispanics votes for Dubya were because of his pro amnesty stance. From talking to some of the Hispanics who voted for Bush, I found this not necessarily to be the case.

    I think that much of the Dubya's relative appeal to Hispanics was that compared to both the metrosexual Gore and Kerry was that he was perceived as winner of the “Quien Es Mas Macho?” question.

    Lots of Hispanic men and women will find the fact that Columba wears the pantalones in the Jeb family to be a huge turn off for "No Heuvos".

    On the other hand Donald Trump's alpha male status, machismo and way with the ladies will prove wildly appealing. Also lots of who Hispanic men desire to own their own family business, preferably in a "White Van" trade will find Trump attractive.

    The Democrats and Conservative Inc want to appeal to Hispanics as victims and peons. Trump might be able to tap into the psyche of more assimilated Hispanics, who besides resenting having their wages hammered down by illegals, actually have aspirations beyond a life of peonage that can not be filled by naked pandering.

    Granted the majority of Hispanics are natural supporters of Big Government, certainly the ones back in Mexico are and the ones living most Spanish speaking US barrios.

    But the idea that Hispanics are going show up in mass to vote for anyone but Trump is mistaken.

    White Van is often equated to Rape Van by younger people, according to my kids. Perhaps there are too many TV and movie images of that stereotype.

    While no true Hispanic would want to be associated with that, and would have noble ambitions about self employment, maybe a nice shade of beige would be a better van paint choice.

    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    "White Van" is a term common to England and other EU countries for tradesmen and small time blue collar business men.
  39. @Ivy
    White Van is often equated to Rape Van by younger people, according to my kids. Perhaps there are too many TV and movie images of that stereotype.

    While no true Hispanic would want to be associated with that, and would have noble ambitions about self employment, maybe a nice shade of beige would be a better van paint choice.

    “White Van” is a term common to England and other EU countries for tradesmen and small time blue collar business men.

  40. Crassus, thanks, great post.

    Gonna be fun watching the Narrative form around the Chattanooga shooting. Media just spent a month hyping the Charleston shooting and creating a Narrative of Terrorism. Now they’ve already started in with the “we many never know Mohammed the Muslim from Kuwait’s motivations.”

    I suppose they’re also gearing up to attack Trump for saying God-Knows-What about the immigrant mass murdering terrorist Muslim in Chattanooga.

  41. @Clyde
    Lets see how powerful AIPAC is:

    The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is setting up a new affiliate group that is expected to spend $20 million to $40 million on advertising and campaigns to moblize opponents of the deal to write or call their members of Congress, says a person familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the plan. AIPAC would not comment but said it would make “a major and significant effort to urge Congress to oppose the deal and insist on a better agreement.”

    The Republican Jewish Coalition, which also opposes the deal, is targeting 24 senators and twice as many House members seen as being on the fence. It will try to get its 40,000 members to write to lawmakers who are Jewish or who have large numbers of Jewish constituents and to attend town hall meetings held during the congressional recess.

    “If you’re a member of Congress, do you want someone to campaign against you saying here’s the man Gen. David Petraeus called evil, and we’ve just given him billions of dollars?” Block said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/jewish-groups-gird-for-epic-battle-over-iran-deal/2015/07/17/c5ff0f2c-2bf6-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

    Here in Indianapolis Uber NeoCon Jeff Smulyan owner of Emmis Communications dumped Rush Limbaugh from WIBC the local talk radio powerhouse for apparently being insufficiently pro BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN!!!!

    In case you did not know, Emmis means TRUTH in Hebrew.

    Smulyan is also the force behind that psyops project know as Alex Jones that bleeds off the energies and activism of lots of rightly paranoid Americans and puts them on to red herring hunts for Bilderberg’ers, Illuminati and Black Helicopters.

    The obsession over the possibility of a nuclear Iran is to distract the rubes from being outraged over Open Borders, their demographic replacement and increasing enslavement to the agendas of TWMNBN.

  42. @Jus' Sayin'...
    I'd suggest the following explanation: Whites - particularly conservative white males - have become so disenchanted by the contempt in which they are held by both parties that they are choosing to remove themselves from the political process altogether. This was certainly my primary motivation when during the last presidential election I registered as an independent for the first time and began refusing to contribute in any way to any politician or either of the two major parties. I'm hunkering down and waiting for the revolution.

    “Whites – particularly conservative white males – have become so disenchanted by the contempt in which they are held by both parties that they are choosing to remove themselves from the political process altogether”

    Ain’t that the truth. Neither party is going to do anything about immigration so I’ve become a small issue voter. Democrats care about preserving public land for SWPL activities, so I vote for them.

  43. @Reg Cæsar

    The low Asian rate seems uncharacteristic. Any ideas why?
     
    他们不感兴趣

    他们不感兴趣.
    Hysterical!

  44. @Clyde
    Lets see how powerful AIPAC is:

    The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is setting up a new affiliate group that is expected to spend $20 million to $40 million on advertising and campaigns to moblize opponents of the deal to write or call their members of Congress, says a person familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the plan. AIPAC would not comment but said it would make “a major and significant effort to urge Congress to oppose the deal and insist on a better agreement.”

    The Republican Jewish Coalition, which also opposes the deal, is targeting 24 senators and twice as many House members seen as being on the fence. It will try to get its 40,000 members to write to lawmakers who are Jewish or who have large numbers of Jewish constituents and to attend town hall meetings held during the congressional recess.

    “If you’re a member of Congress, do you want someone to campaign against you saying here’s the man Gen. David Petraeus called evil, and we’ve just given him billions of dollars?” Block said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/jewish-groups-gird-for-epic-battle-over-iran-deal/2015/07/17/c5ff0f2c-2bf6-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

    Republicans rolled over for Obama, done deal, bc oil interests want to invest there. Iran is the last low cost oil frontier and cheaper in declining oil prices than drilling 12 mikes deep 200 miles offshore Brazil.

    So Khameni gets his nukes. I’m sure everyone will hold hands and buy each other cokes. Or was it Pepsi the choice of the nuke generation?

    • Replies: @Sunbeam
    "Republicans rolled over for Obama, done deal, bc oil interests want to invest there. Iran is the last low cost oil frontier and cheaper in declining oil prices than drilling 12 mikes deep 200 miles offshore Brazil."

    You are dead wrong about that. Iran is a very mature oil province. They have an assload of natural gas still (only Siberia has more), but there are no realistic areas left to drill in Iran and expect major yields. Iran has been declining as an oil producer for a long time now.

    Curiously Iraq was pretty much the only region in the world where you might expect to find major resources, and that had never been adequately surveyed.

    There was some discussion of this in the past decade. Basically when the British were kicked out in 71 or whenever it was, exploration ceased. Iraq was a producer, but it was from existing fields.

    There was real hope that the western provinces in Iraq would have major fields, the kind of large fields with light oil, without mineral deposits or acidity problems. The way it used to be in Saudi Arabia in the 50's.

    But we never have heard much about that. If there was a major field that was discovered in western Iraq after Bush War II, I never heard about it.

    And if we didn't have survey teams that went over that area with a fine tooth comb, regardless of dead enders or whatever you want to call them after Iraq fell, I'll eat my hat.

    The big question to me is how long fracking gives good yields in America. And exactly how many areas in the world could be expected to give good yields with fracking.

    Fracking is capital and manpower intensive even compared to a conventional oil field. And with the minimal yields you get from each well, you need an established distribution system close by to use it (the US has this in spades and then some).

    I'm no expert but it seems to me that oil from fracked sites is about the same importance as stripper wells.

    That sounds obtuse, but a stripper well is a well in an established field that has been "exhausted." It has that big rocker arm that pumps, and you might get 50 or 100 barrels a month from the thing. You would never drill it from scratch, but if everything is already there, why not?

    I might add that fields like Spindletop still have lots of oil left. But due to pressure drops, well ... "The spice, she does not flow."

    And like batteries, they have been working on this a long time. A long time, with scads of money thrown at the problem. The returns from enhanced recovery are welcome, but it never has been a magic bullet. It is news to some people, but you can actually use more energy recovering oil, than is contained in the oil. And that is a no go.

    Just saying that a frackable province in Bumf**k, Siberia may never be economic to develop.

    I need to take another look at this, the oil supply situation. It's been a few years, and sites like the Oil Drum don't seem to be around anymore.
  45. These brown peons don’t have to vote. They just have to exist to explain all those votes they “found” in the trunk of a Democrat operative at the last minute to elect the supremely unpopular candidate that was trailing by 20% in the polls but somehow pulled it off! Its not politics, its Xerox!
    This Gubmint is beginning to STINK like a DEAD FISH.

  46. @Sgt. Joe Friday
    Trump will also do much better with blacks than your usual Republican, I'd wager.

    If he gets the nomination, absolutely. Additionally there will not be a black man running against him, but an emotionally cold, uninspiring, short, old white woman. I’m guessing black men aren’t going to relate to Hilary like they did to Bill, who was sometimes referred to as the first black president. Conversely, Trump has a lot Clinton qualities, only squared. He likes the ladies, he’s filthy rich, he has 5 kids, he’s tall, he’s brazenly self-confident, he seems to get along with people from all different backgrounds personally, and although about the same age as Hilary looks noticeably younger. Also as Steve as pointed out, Hilary is really looking old since her spill, as if she has not fully recovered from it, you wonder if she will wear down physically from the campaign, especially if she has competition deep into the primaries.

  47. OT, but the new-media journalistic brat pack over at Gawker turned out to be a bunch of disposable corporate puppets after all…

  48. @Clyde
    Lets see how powerful AIPAC is:

    The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is setting up a new affiliate group that is expected to spend $20 million to $40 million on advertising and campaigns to moblize opponents of the deal to write or call their members of Congress, says a person familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the plan. AIPAC would not comment but said it would make “a major and significant effort to urge Congress to oppose the deal and insist on a better agreement.”

    The Republican Jewish Coalition, which also opposes the deal, is targeting 24 senators and twice as many House members seen as being on the fence. It will try to get its 40,000 members to write to lawmakers who are Jewish or who have large numbers of Jewish constituents and to attend town hall meetings held during the congressional recess.

    “If you’re a member of Congress, do you want someone to campaign against you saying here’s the man Gen. David Petraeus called evil, and we’ve just given him billions of dollars?” Block said.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/jewish-groups-gird-for-epic-battle-over-iran-deal/2015/07/17/c5ff0f2c-2bf6-11e5-a5ea-cf74396e59ec_story.html

    This shows what a coward Steve is for not giving Obama credit for taking a stand against the Israeli lobby.

  49. @Whiskey
    Republicans rolled over for Obama, done deal, bc oil interests want to invest there. Iran is the last low cost oil frontier and cheaper in declining oil prices than drilling 12 mikes deep 200 miles offshore Brazil.

    So Khameni gets his nukes. I'm sure everyone will hold hands and buy each other cokes. Or was it Pepsi the choice of the nuke generation?

    “Republicans rolled over for Obama, done deal, bc oil interests want to invest there. Iran is the last low cost oil frontier and cheaper in declining oil prices than drilling 12 mikes deep 200 miles offshore Brazil.”

    You are dead wrong about that. Iran is a very mature oil province. They have an assload of natural gas still (only Siberia has more), but there are no realistic areas left to drill in Iran and expect major yields. Iran has been declining as an oil producer for a long time now.

    Curiously Iraq was pretty much the only region in the world where you might expect to find major resources, and that had never been adequately surveyed.

    There was some discussion of this in the past decade. Basically when the British were kicked out in 71 or whenever it was, exploration ceased. Iraq was a producer, but it was from existing fields.

    There was real hope that the western provinces in Iraq would have major fields, the kind of large fields with light oil, without mineral deposits or acidity problems. The way it used to be in Saudi Arabia in the 50’s.

    But we never have heard much about that. If there was a major field that was discovered in western Iraq after Bush War II, I never heard about it.

    And if we didn’t have survey teams that went over that area with a fine tooth comb, regardless of dead enders or whatever you want to call them after Iraq fell, I’ll eat my hat.

    The big question to me is how long fracking gives good yields in America. And exactly how many areas in the world could be expected to give good yields with fracking.

    Fracking is capital and manpower intensive even compared to a conventional oil field. And with the minimal yields you get from each well, you need an established distribution system close by to use it (the US has this in spades and then some).

    I’m no expert but it seems to me that oil from fracked sites is about the same importance as stripper wells.

    That sounds obtuse, but a stripper well is a well in an established field that has been “exhausted.” It has that big rocker arm that pumps, and you might get 50 or 100 barrels a month from the thing. You would never drill it from scratch, but if everything is already there, why not?

    I might add that fields like Spindletop still have lots of oil left. But due to pressure drops, well … “The spice, she does not flow.”

    And like batteries, they have been working on this a long time. A long time, with scads of money thrown at the problem. The returns from enhanced recovery are welcome, but it never has been a magic bullet. It is news to some people, but you can actually use more energy recovering oil, than is contained in the oil. And that is a no go.

    Just saying that a frackable province in Bumf**k, Siberia may never be economic to develop.

    I need to take another look at this, the oil supply situation. It’s been a few years, and sites like the Oil Drum don’t seem to be around anymore.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Fracking doesn't pencil out, and it's absurd to use a method that requires immense volumes of water where water is scarce.
    , @anonymous-antimarxist
    EXCELLENT POST!!!

    Worked supplying market data to a major energy trading desk, a decade ago so I kept a strong interest in the subject..

    You are right, Iran's easily exploitable oil fields are drying up and needs foreign capital and technology to prevent oil production from falling off a cliff. Iran is surrounded by hostile Sunni states on all sides and has no means to export its vast natural gas reserves by pipeline. Iran also will struggle to export LNG to China and Japan which can afford to pay premium prices with competition from Russia and possibly the US. India is close by but Pakistan and Pashtun Sunni Eastern Afghanistan will do Iran no favors. Also India can not afford premium natural gas prices.

    Iran has a huge unemployment problem among it post revolution baby boom. Iran's under 35 population has some of the world's worse drug abuse problems being right next door to the world's largest exporters of hard drugs, heroin and meth. And now Iran is facing a dramatic decline in birth rates among its baby boomers to sub replacement levels. Iran's best economic hopes reside in using its vast natural gas supplies to produce finished exportable goods like fertilizer and plastics.

    Pat Buchanan has an excellent new article on why Iran has been working so hard to trade is dismal failure of a nuclear program for the removal of economic sanctions. Iran has considerable economic potential but today is a mess. Again Israel is less threatened by a nuclear Iran than an economically resurgent Iran willing to back Shite populations on its doorstep in opposition to Israeli hegemony.
    , @anonymous-antimarxist

    Curiously Iraq was pretty much the only region in the world where you might expect to find major resources, and that had never been adequately surveyed.
     
    Another excellent point!!!!

    Saddam Hussein in the early 1970s began a drain Kurdish and Shite Iraq first oil policy. This allowed him to station his fellow Sunni tribesmen on Kurdish and Shite lands so they could get rich robbing their sectarian rivals and maintain their loyalty to him.

    This required Saddam to have his fellow Sunnis risk terrorist counterattacks by Kurds and Shites that they were likely to only do if they were lead to believe that there were not any easier riches to be had in their native western Iraq.

    Western Iraq, exactly where ISIS is running amok is among the last places on earth, outside of maybe remote parts of Burma or Afghanistan, where sizable untapped reserves of inexpensive light sweet crude could be located. And by far western Iraq is the best bet. If so Sunni Iraq may be the only possible future swing producer of oil able to impact prices in coming decades.

    Today the Shite dominated Iraq and Iran in no way wants Sunni Iraq to reemerge as an independent economic and military power on the back of vast oil wealth. Nor does Israel or Saudi Arabia.

    Still the only hopes of defeating ISIS is for Sunni Iraqis who want to have reins of their own future to be willing to kick out the mostly foreign homicidal jihadist maniacs who are of ISIS's strength.
    But that would likely involve the breakup of Iraq into Kurdist, Sunni and Shite states. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Neocon globalist would prefer the current state of chaos to that.
  50. @Sunbeam
    "Republicans rolled over for Obama, done deal, bc oil interests want to invest there. Iran is the last low cost oil frontier and cheaper in declining oil prices than drilling 12 mikes deep 200 miles offshore Brazil."

    You are dead wrong about that. Iran is a very mature oil province. They have an assload of natural gas still (only Siberia has more), but there are no realistic areas left to drill in Iran and expect major yields. Iran has been declining as an oil producer for a long time now.

    Curiously Iraq was pretty much the only region in the world where you might expect to find major resources, and that had never been adequately surveyed.

    There was some discussion of this in the past decade. Basically when the British were kicked out in 71 or whenever it was, exploration ceased. Iraq was a producer, but it was from existing fields.

    There was real hope that the western provinces in Iraq would have major fields, the kind of large fields with light oil, without mineral deposits or acidity problems. The way it used to be in Saudi Arabia in the 50's.

    But we never have heard much about that. If there was a major field that was discovered in western Iraq after Bush War II, I never heard about it.

    And if we didn't have survey teams that went over that area with a fine tooth comb, regardless of dead enders or whatever you want to call them after Iraq fell, I'll eat my hat.

    The big question to me is how long fracking gives good yields in America. And exactly how many areas in the world could be expected to give good yields with fracking.

    Fracking is capital and manpower intensive even compared to a conventional oil field. And with the minimal yields you get from each well, you need an established distribution system close by to use it (the US has this in spades and then some).

    I'm no expert but it seems to me that oil from fracked sites is about the same importance as stripper wells.

    That sounds obtuse, but a stripper well is a well in an established field that has been "exhausted." It has that big rocker arm that pumps, and you might get 50 or 100 barrels a month from the thing. You would never drill it from scratch, but if everything is already there, why not?

    I might add that fields like Spindletop still have lots of oil left. But due to pressure drops, well ... "The spice, she does not flow."

    And like batteries, they have been working on this a long time. A long time, with scads of money thrown at the problem. The returns from enhanced recovery are welcome, but it never has been a magic bullet. It is news to some people, but you can actually use more energy recovering oil, than is contained in the oil. And that is a no go.

    Just saying that a frackable province in Bumf**k, Siberia may never be economic to develop.

    I need to take another look at this, the oil supply situation. It's been a few years, and sites like the Oil Drum don't seem to be around anymore.

    Fracking doesn’t pencil out, and it’s absurd to use a method that requires immense volumes of water where water is scarce.

  51. @Sunbeam
    "Republicans rolled over for Obama, done deal, bc oil interests want to invest there. Iran is the last low cost oil frontier and cheaper in declining oil prices than drilling 12 mikes deep 200 miles offshore Brazil."

    You are dead wrong about that. Iran is a very mature oil province. They have an assload of natural gas still (only Siberia has more), but there are no realistic areas left to drill in Iran and expect major yields. Iran has been declining as an oil producer for a long time now.

    Curiously Iraq was pretty much the only region in the world where you might expect to find major resources, and that had never been adequately surveyed.

    There was some discussion of this in the past decade. Basically when the British were kicked out in 71 or whenever it was, exploration ceased. Iraq was a producer, but it was from existing fields.

    There was real hope that the western provinces in Iraq would have major fields, the kind of large fields with light oil, without mineral deposits or acidity problems. The way it used to be in Saudi Arabia in the 50's.

    But we never have heard much about that. If there was a major field that was discovered in western Iraq after Bush War II, I never heard about it.

    And if we didn't have survey teams that went over that area with a fine tooth comb, regardless of dead enders or whatever you want to call them after Iraq fell, I'll eat my hat.

    The big question to me is how long fracking gives good yields in America. And exactly how many areas in the world could be expected to give good yields with fracking.

    Fracking is capital and manpower intensive even compared to a conventional oil field. And with the minimal yields you get from each well, you need an established distribution system close by to use it (the US has this in spades and then some).

    I'm no expert but it seems to me that oil from fracked sites is about the same importance as stripper wells.

    That sounds obtuse, but a stripper well is a well in an established field that has been "exhausted." It has that big rocker arm that pumps, and you might get 50 or 100 barrels a month from the thing. You would never drill it from scratch, but if everything is already there, why not?

    I might add that fields like Spindletop still have lots of oil left. But due to pressure drops, well ... "The spice, she does not flow."

    And like batteries, they have been working on this a long time. A long time, with scads of money thrown at the problem. The returns from enhanced recovery are welcome, but it never has been a magic bullet. It is news to some people, but you can actually use more energy recovering oil, than is contained in the oil. And that is a no go.

    Just saying that a frackable province in Bumf**k, Siberia may never be economic to develop.

    I need to take another look at this, the oil supply situation. It's been a few years, and sites like the Oil Drum don't seem to be around anymore.

    EXCELLENT POST!!!

    Worked supplying market data to a major energy trading desk, a decade ago so I kept a strong interest in the subject..

    You are right, Iran’s easily exploitable oil fields are drying up and needs foreign capital and technology to prevent oil production from falling off a cliff. Iran is surrounded by hostile Sunni states on all sides and has no means to export its vast natural gas reserves by pipeline. Iran also will struggle to export LNG to China and Japan which can afford to pay premium prices with competition from Russia and possibly the US. India is close by but Pakistan and Pashtun Sunni Eastern Afghanistan will do Iran no favors. Also India can not afford premium natural gas prices.

    Iran has a huge unemployment problem among it post revolution baby boom. Iran’s under 35 population has some of the world’s worse drug abuse problems being right next door to the world’s largest exporters of hard drugs, heroin and meth. And now Iran is facing a dramatic decline in birth rates among its baby boomers to sub replacement levels. Iran’s best economic hopes reside in using its vast natural gas supplies to produce finished exportable goods like fertilizer and plastics.

    Pat Buchanan has an excellent new article on why Iran has been working so hard to trade is dismal failure of a nuclear program for the removal of economic sanctions. Iran has considerable economic potential but today is a mess. Again Israel is less threatened by a nuclear Iran than an economically resurgent Iran willing to back Shite populations on its doorstep in opposition to Israeli hegemony.

  52. @Sunbeam
    "Republicans rolled over for Obama, done deal, bc oil interests want to invest there. Iran is the last low cost oil frontier and cheaper in declining oil prices than drilling 12 mikes deep 200 miles offshore Brazil."

    You are dead wrong about that. Iran is a very mature oil province. They have an assload of natural gas still (only Siberia has more), but there are no realistic areas left to drill in Iran and expect major yields. Iran has been declining as an oil producer for a long time now.

    Curiously Iraq was pretty much the only region in the world where you might expect to find major resources, and that had never been adequately surveyed.

    There was some discussion of this in the past decade. Basically when the British were kicked out in 71 or whenever it was, exploration ceased. Iraq was a producer, but it was from existing fields.

    There was real hope that the western provinces in Iraq would have major fields, the kind of large fields with light oil, without mineral deposits or acidity problems. The way it used to be in Saudi Arabia in the 50's.

    But we never have heard much about that. If there was a major field that was discovered in western Iraq after Bush War II, I never heard about it.

    And if we didn't have survey teams that went over that area with a fine tooth comb, regardless of dead enders or whatever you want to call them after Iraq fell, I'll eat my hat.

    The big question to me is how long fracking gives good yields in America. And exactly how many areas in the world could be expected to give good yields with fracking.

    Fracking is capital and manpower intensive even compared to a conventional oil field. And with the minimal yields you get from each well, you need an established distribution system close by to use it (the US has this in spades and then some).

    I'm no expert but it seems to me that oil from fracked sites is about the same importance as stripper wells.

    That sounds obtuse, but a stripper well is a well in an established field that has been "exhausted." It has that big rocker arm that pumps, and you might get 50 or 100 barrels a month from the thing. You would never drill it from scratch, but if everything is already there, why not?

    I might add that fields like Spindletop still have lots of oil left. But due to pressure drops, well ... "The spice, she does not flow."

    And like batteries, they have been working on this a long time. A long time, with scads of money thrown at the problem. The returns from enhanced recovery are welcome, but it never has been a magic bullet. It is news to some people, but you can actually use more energy recovering oil, than is contained in the oil. And that is a no go.

    Just saying that a frackable province in Bumf**k, Siberia may never be economic to develop.

    I need to take another look at this, the oil supply situation. It's been a few years, and sites like the Oil Drum don't seem to be around anymore.

    Curiously Iraq was pretty much the only region in the world where you might expect to find major resources, and that had never been adequately surveyed.

    Another excellent point!!!!

    Saddam Hussein in the early 1970s began a drain Kurdish and Shite Iraq first oil policy. This allowed him to station his fellow Sunni tribesmen on Kurdish and Shite lands so they could get rich robbing their sectarian rivals and maintain their loyalty to him.

    This required Saddam to have his fellow Sunnis risk terrorist counterattacks by Kurds and Shites that they were likely to only do if they were lead to believe that there were not any easier riches to be had in their native western Iraq.

    Western Iraq, exactly where ISIS is running amok is among the last places on earth, outside of maybe remote parts of Burma or Afghanistan, where sizable untapped reserves of inexpensive light sweet crude could be located. And by far western Iraq is the best bet. If so Sunni Iraq may be the only possible future swing producer of oil able to impact prices in coming decades.

    Today the Shite dominated Iraq and Iran in no way wants Sunni Iraq to reemerge as an independent economic and military power on the back of vast oil wealth. Nor does Israel or Saudi Arabia.

    Still the only hopes of defeating ISIS is for Sunni Iraqis who want to have reins of their own future to be willing to kick out the mostly foreign homicidal jihadist maniacs who are of ISIS’s strength.
    But that would likely involve the breakup of Iraq into Kurdist, Sunni and Shite states. Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Neocon globalist would prefer the current state of chaos to that.

  53. Asian-American turnout was even worse at 26.9%

    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, pan-Asian statistics are nearly meaningless, because they amalgamate widely divergent trends among very different peoples.

    Indians and Chinese immigrants, for example, tend to have low civic assimilation rates while Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Koreans have high civic assimilation rates: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_59.htm

    On a related note, Mexicans have absolutely the lowest level of civic assimilation among major immigrant groups. Canadians have 100% cultural assimilation but only have Indian-level civic assimilation, largely because Canadians tend not to become American citizens or serve in the Armed Forces.

  54. The weasel Bill Kristol is not attacking Trump. Does anybody know what the scheming sob is planning for a patriot led Republican party?How long will the neocons and their billionaire backers fool the Republican base by bringing up abortion, Obamacare and immigration during elections and ignoring the issues after elections. Republican leaders currently are irrationally obssessed with the Iran deal.

  55. “Mexicans have absolutely the lowest level of civic assimilation among major immigrant groups”

    Why, really, should Mexicans assimilate? They are already assimilated–to being Mexican. It might have something to do with Mexico being within easy driving distance.

  56. The Manhattan Institute is the laboratory for hatching neocon lies. Why should people who care for the truth pay attention to Manhattan Institute drivel?

    • Replies: @Twinkie
    1. You might profit from looking up "ad hominem."

    2. Is there some reason why neocons would falsely denigrate Mexicans, Indians, and Chinese and valorize Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Koreans?
  57. @Plutarch
    The Manhattan Institute is the laboratory for hatching neocon lies. Why should people who care for the truth pay attention to Manhattan Institute drivel?

    1. You might profit from looking up “ad hominem.”

    2. Is there some reason why neocons would falsely denigrate Mexicans, Indians, and Chinese and valorize Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Koreans?

    • Replies: @Plutarch
    Here is a news article which states Vietnamese have the highest rate of poverty among Asian Americans. Vietnamese americans also have highest numbers of limited English proficiency speakers. Since you have been using a Manhattan Institute study to claim Vietnamese are more assimilated than Chinese, Indians and Mexicans you have the burden of proving that studies and data which show Vietnamese have high poverty rates and high numbers of limited English proficiency speakers are wrong.


    Vietnamese Americans are as segregated as African Americans, and there has been little change in the trend in the last two decades, according to research by Brown University about the six main Asian groups in the United States.

    Census data from 1990, 2000 and 2010 were used to assess the social and economic integration of Chinese, Filipinos, Indians, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese Americans into the local communities of their adopted land.

    In an interview with the VOA Vietnamese Service, John Logan, professor of sociology at Brown University, said it is true that Vietnamese Americans are segregated from whites like most Asian nationalities, except the Japanese.

    “On average, across the country, they are almost as segregated from non-Hispanic whites as are African Americans. That’s a surprise because we think of Asians as being much more spatially integrated into communities,” Logan said.

    “There are two kinds of sources of this separation. One is presumably that there’s a lot of choice going on, that Vietnamese are choosing, for example, a good place to live in a residential enclave that’s really very Vietnamese. And so the choice to have a better life, in some respects, to support your culture – that’s got to be a big factor. The other factor simply is that in fact there are a lot of Vietnamese who don’t have as many choices about where to live, and they need to live in a community that they can afford and for many immigrants that means living in an immigrant community with cheaper housing, and possibly getting help in finding a low skill job from other people in the community.”

    Logan said the Vietnamese are one of the largest minority groups in the United States, and in the last 10 years, there was a growth of about 60 percent to 70 percent in the number of Vietnamese in the country.

    In comparison with other Asian groups in the research, Vietnamese Americans had the highest rate of poverty and receipt of public assistance.

    The influx of Vietnamese refugees into the United States after the Vietnam War is one factor explaining why they are more economically disadvantaged than other groups.

    “Compared to other Asian groups, I would say what is relevant to know, is that Vietnamese on average have lower education, lower income and higher likelihood of being unemployed than other Asian groups,” Logan said. “They’re actually doing pretty well compared to Hispanics or African Americans in the United States. But if you compare them to Filipinos, or Koreans or Chinese, they are not doing nearly as well”.
  58. @Twinkie
    1. You might profit from looking up "ad hominem."

    2. Is there some reason why neocons would falsely denigrate Mexicans, Indians, and Chinese and valorize Filipinos, Vietnamese, and Koreans?

    Here is a news article which states Vietnamese have the highest rate of poverty among Asian Americans. Vietnamese americans also have highest numbers of limited English proficiency speakers. Since you have been using a Manhattan Institute study to claim Vietnamese are more assimilated than Chinese, Indians and Mexicans you have the burden of proving that studies and data which show Vietnamese have high poverty rates and high numbers of limited English proficiency speakers are wrong.

    Vietnamese Americans are as segregated as African Americans, and there has been little change in the trend in the last two decades, according to research by Brown University about the six main Asian groups in the United States.

    Census data from 1990, 2000 and 2010 were used to assess the social and economic integration of Chinese, Filipinos, Indians, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese Americans into the local communities of their adopted land.

    In an interview with the VOA Vietnamese Service, John Logan, professor of sociology at Brown University, said it is true that Vietnamese Americans are segregated from whites like most Asian nationalities, except the Japanese.

    “On average, across the country, they are almost as segregated from non-Hispanic whites as are African Americans. That’s a surprise because we think of Asians as being much more spatially integrated into communities,” Logan said.

    “There are two kinds of sources of this separation. One is presumably that there’s a lot of choice going on, that Vietnamese are choosing, for example, a good place to live in a residential enclave that’s really very Vietnamese. And so the choice to have a better life, in some respects, to support your culture – that’s got to be a big factor. The other factor simply is that in fact there are a lot of Vietnamese who don’t have as many choices about where to live, and they need to live in a community that they can afford and for many immigrants that means living in an immigrant community with cheaper housing, and possibly getting help in finding a low skill job from other people in the community.”

    Logan said the Vietnamese are one of the largest minority groups in the United States, and in the last 10 years, there was a growth of about 60 percent to 70 percent in the number of Vietnamese in the country.

    In comparison with other Asian groups in the research, Vietnamese Americans had the highest rate of poverty and receipt of public assistance.

    The influx of Vietnamese refugees into the United States after the Vietnam War is one factor explaining why they are more economically disadvantaged than other groups.

    “Compared to other Asian groups, I would say what is relevant to know, is that Vietnamese on average have lower education, lower income and higher likelihood of being unemployed than other Asian groups,” Logan said. “They’re actually doing pretty well compared to Hispanics or African Americans in the United States. But if you compare them to Filipinos, or Koreans or Chinese, they are not doing nearly as well”.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Since you have been using a Manhattan Institute study to claim Vietnamese are more assimilated than Chinese, Indians and Mexicans you have the burden of proving that studies and data which show Vietnamese have high poverty rates and high numbers of limited English proficiency speakers are wrong.
     
    You need some remedial reading comprehension. Let's recap, shall we? I wrote:

    Indians and Chinese immigrants, for example, tend to have low civic assimilation rates while Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Koreans have high civic assimilation rates: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_59.htm
     
    The key operative word here is CIVIC.

    If you had actually bothered to read the Manhattan Institute study, you'd realize that it describes and measures three different types of assimilation, namely, economic, cultural, and civic, and then aggregates them as an index. Look at figures 5, 6, and 7 to see how the Vietnamese stacked up as of 2007 compared to other major immigrant groups (quick summary: Vietnamese have the highest civic assimilation rate among the major immigrant groups, but have low cultural assimilation rate, about the level of Mexicans and only better than Chinese and Indians; in economic assimilation they are behind Canadians, Cubans, Koreans, and Filipinos, but only slightly - you might note here that economic assimilation is not the same thing as economic high performance or success).

    I brought up only the civic assimilation aspect as that relates closely to voting, the topic at hand here.

    Next time, try reading what I actually wrote and what I linked, before you go all hyper punching straw men with ad hominem.

  59. @Plutarch
    Here is a news article which states Vietnamese have the highest rate of poverty among Asian Americans. Vietnamese americans also have highest numbers of limited English proficiency speakers. Since you have been using a Manhattan Institute study to claim Vietnamese are more assimilated than Chinese, Indians and Mexicans you have the burden of proving that studies and data which show Vietnamese have high poverty rates and high numbers of limited English proficiency speakers are wrong.


    Vietnamese Americans are as segregated as African Americans, and there has been little change in the trend in the last two decades, according to research by Brown University about the six main Asian groups in the United States.

    Census data from 1990, 2000 and 2010 were used to assess the social and economic integration of Chinese, Filipinos, Indians, Korean, Japanese and Vietnamese Americans into the local communities of their adopted land.

    In an interview with the VOA Vietnamese Service, John Logan, professor of sociology at Brown University, said it is true that Vietnamese Americans are segregated from whites like most Asian nationalities, except the Japanese.

    “On average, across the country, they are almost as segregated from non-Hispanic whites as are African Americans. That’s a surprise because we think of Asians as being much more spatially integrated into communities,” Logan said.

    “There are two kinds of sources of this separation. One is presumably that there’s a lot of choice going on, that Vietnamese are choosing, for example, a good place to live in a residential enclave that’s really very Vietnamese. And so the choice to have a better life, in some respects, to support your culture – that’s got to be a big factor. The other factor simply is that in fact there are a lot of Vietnamese who don’t have as many choices about where to live, and they need to live in a community that they can afford and for many immigrants that means living in an immigrant community with cheaper housing, and possibly getting help in finding a low skill job from other people in the community.”

    Logan said the Vietnamese are one of the largest minority groups in the United States, and in the last 10 years, there was a growth of about 60 percent to 70 percent in the number of Vietnamese in the country.

    In comparison with other Asian groups in the research, Vietnamese Americans had the highest rate of poverty and receipt of public assistance.

    The influx of Vietnamese refugees into the United States after the Vietnam War is one factor explaining why they are more economically disadvantaged than other groups.

    “Compared to other Asian groups, I would say what is relevant to know, is that Vietnamese on average have lower education, lower income and higher likelihood of being unemployed than other Asian groups,” Logan said. “They’re actually doing pretty well compared to Hispanics or African Americans in the United States. But if you compare them to Filipinos, or Koreans or Chinese, they are not doing nearly as well”.

    Since you have been using a Manhattan Institute study to claim Vietnamese are more assimilated than Chinese, Indians and Mexicans you have the burden of proving that studies and data which show Vietnamese have high poverty rates and high numbers of limited English proficiency speakers are wrong.

    You need some remedial reading comprehension. Let’s recap, shall we? I wrote:

    Indians and Chinese immigrants, for example, tend to have low civic assimilation rates while Vietnamese, Filipinos, and Koreans have high civic assimilation rates: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_59.htm

    The key operative word here is CIVIC.

    If you had actually bothered to read the Manhattan Institute study, you’d realize that it describes and measures three different types of assimilation, namely, economic, cultural, and civic, and then aggregates them as an index. Look at figures 5, 6, and 7 to see how the Vietnamese stacked up as of 2007 compared to other major immigrant groups (quick summary: Vietnamese have the highest civic assimilation rate among the major immigrant groups, but have low cultural assimilation rate, about the level of Mexicans and only better than Chinese and Indians; in economic assimilation they are behind Canadians, Cubans, Koreans, and Filipinos, but only slightly – you might note here that economic assimilation is not the same thing as economic high performance or success).

    I brought up only the civic assimilation aspect as that relates closely to voting, the topic at hand here.

    Next time, try reading what I actually wrote and what I linked, before you go all hyper punching straw men with ad hominem.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2