« Half Sigma calls election for Barack Obama | Main | Scalia and Kennedy are old »

November 07, 2012

Comments

We all know what SHOULD be done to get more Whites: Drop the radical anti-abortion stuff and do something for working class Whites.

We are in a transition period. It will take time for this to happen, indeed Whites may have to fall to a lower percentage before they are properly scared. And, the silly states like Minnesota may need to taste some real Diversity up close to get their heads right.

GOP can't become a second pro-abortion party, as that would alienate the half of the country that find it immoral. Abortion isn't a problem for the GOP (barring the rape-talk idiots). Wasn't a problem for Reagan.

GOP also can't outbid Dems for Hispanic votes.

So what can GOP do? Offer a non-divisive, common sense set of economic policies:

- Limited immigration to tighten labor markets (key to present it that way).

- Balanced trade to bring back manufacturing jobs.

- Common sense energy & environmental polices to allow drilling and mining, which create more high-paying blue collar jobs and lower energy costs for everyone.

- Common sense mortgage and education policies to lower the cost of both, not through increasing fed-guaranteed credit but reducing it. Dems will demagogue, but Republicans can easily point out that throwing federal money at both has made housing and education more expensive.

- As an added bonus of the last one, lower housing prices will mean companies can pay workers a little less while workers will still have higher living standards. That will attract more companies to set up shop here and hire Americans.

- Greater emphasis on tracking and vocational ed in k-12. Also on Direct Instruction which will drive lefty teachers batty and, as a bonus, improve education somewhat.

- No more ground wars, unless they are tiny, quick jobs like Grenada or Panama.

Great blog Semi Sigma,

Really wanted Romney to win but his victory may not have been in my self interest. Simplifying the tax code would be great but I only pay 30 dollars a year to do my taxes now. Paying another 2 trillion to the military will only make the necessary domestic cuts that much more steeper. Drove through Iowa last Saturday and noticed many generic pro life signs. They weren't tied to a campaign or a party which set them apart from the many signs(mostly Romney) I saw. I thought they were powerful. Romney was a class act. I'm bummed but how about Rand Paul 2016.

LOL you mean to tell me Latinos are now more a dependable Republican voting bloc than all other minorities??? Is this the "Zimmerman Effect?"

If the GOP cant unite whites by being opposed to abortion then they also cant unite all whites by being for it. On a national level being opposed to abortion means allowing the states and local democracy to determine their own laws. On the national level being pro abortion means opportunistically discovering phantom rights in the constitution.

I think if the parents are unmarried than it should default to abortion and only go further if both parents agree. I wouldn't want to force this view on the country and I dont think its too much to expect the same from pro and anti abortion groups. It should be left to the states.

Heres a combination of a post made by "map" and myself:

1) Protectionism. All off-shore outsourcing must end. Global free trade does not exist and does not work in theory or in practice. Tariffs should be put up to compensate workers who have suffered losses. Republican mantra: if you want to sell it in the United States, then you will build it in the United States, using American workers.

2) No more immigrants. No more immigration and the existing immigrant population is to be removed. Protectionism should benefit American workers. If you can send remittances or benefit from family reunification, then you can go back to your own country.

3) Our young people are suffering from crushing school debt. They should be allowed to discharge their debts, either in bankruptcy or not. The use of college as an artificial indicator of competence needs to end and the best way to start is to peel away the youth vote in something tangible.

4) Republicans have to start going back and supporting building trade unions. Unions in coal, oil and other businesses.

5) The great thing about this policy is that it allows an end-run around climate change. You can denounce climate change as nonsense but, once American manufacturing is brought back under American legal control, you can give the option of regulating business sometime in the future.

6) People are being exploited, gouged, and killed by the medical profession. It needs extensive safety regulation at all levels and where there cannot be open and transparent price competition (such as in emergency care) there needs to be price controls

7) People need democratic control over their neighborhoods and the people and businesses that move into them. Relying purely on prices to judge admission into a community only benefits the people rich enough to afford exclusive areas. People have a right to control the destiny of their neighborhoods and shouldnt be forced to rely on the whims of the market.

8) Schools should not be tied to address or ability to afford tuition. People should be allowed to form government funded schools and be given wide berth in forming their own admissions standards. If college educated parents in stable education encouraging families want their kids to go to a school where the other students come from the same background they shouldn't have to be gouged either by private school tuition or property taxes.

I have to wonder what makes *ASIANS* vote so heavily Democratic. Asians are constantly harmed by Democratic policies across the board, punishing them in schools and in the workplace for their achievements and work ethic.

@Anon E. Mouse:

"1) Protectionism"

This is a terrible idea. Tariffs just make Republicans pay more for imported goods to protect Democrat voters' jobs.

@faffy:

Asians vote Democrat because the Democrats are the "multicultural" party.

Also, Asians are very keyed up about social status. They're not going to risk voting anything but D.

I'm so depressed suddenly.

I feel like all the fight has been taken away from me.

On abortion, the GOP doesn't need to be pro-abortion, no one is saying that. We are saying drop the radical no-exceptions junk. No more politicians who say, in effect, "if your mother is raped, I'm gonna make her have that baby".

This isn't rocket science. Tone it down. Where else can those voters go?

There's has been a great schism within the Republican party. One side is the self-proclaimed 'true' Republicans who are basically libertarians. They've hit critical mass sometime around mid-2000s after many people started to pay attention to Ron Paul and his message. They leans towards survivalism, eating a primal diet, believing in various conspiracies and having knee-jerk reactions against any tax or regulations. The other side is the more 'traditional' heavily leaning towards religiosity and authoritarianism. The problem is the elite don't like libertarism and stifle their progress by slandering them in the media and not giving them air time during debates.

As other people (e.g. Whiskey) have pointed out, "libertarianism" is the modern white identity politics. As the white share of the population shrinks, libertarianism will become less and less attractive.

If Louisiana keeps improving, I think we will see a Bobby Jindahl-Marco Rubio ticket in 2016. Who will the democrats have, the mayor of San Antonio?

"On abortion, the GOP doesn't need to be pro-abortion, no one is saying that. We are saying drop the radical no-exceptions junk. No more politicians who say, in effect, "if your mother is raped, I'm gonna make her have that baby"."

Romney did not run on the "radical no-exceptions" platform. That was just a couple of guys in state races.

Romney was ALREADY the "moderate on abortion" GOP candidate, and failed anyway. Not seeing how further retreat on this issue is possible or politically desirable. The fact is that the Dems are going to trot out the "Republicans want to take away your right to choose!" scare talk *no matter what* the actual GOP platform is.

In Canada the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper has broken into many ethnic communities. They're a party of "values" but are not explicitly Christian - instead of stressing being "pro-life" and anti-gay they go for more majoritarian themes such as hard work, the importance of family, etc.

They've succeeded with many Asian communities. I see in the US Asians -a growing minority - have swung Democrat recently.

Did Jews go 83% for Obama in '08? I heard it was 74 or 78%.

[HS: Just went by the CNN exit poll on their website.]

@JP:
"Not seeing how further retreat on this issue is possible or politically desirable."

The US population is becoming less pro-abortion anyway (I think Pew surveys this), so I don't see why it's such a dire problem.

It's probably a big deal for the Democratic base, but that's not a demographic the right tries to win.

This election is pretty much a referendum on the power of the media. Not just TV, but celebrities + Facebook + Social Media.

Conservatives & Realists need to get with the program and get their message out there on these platforms. They need to massively get on these places, because right now the Left is considerably overrepresented in these places and they shape and define culture.

Young people in general hate Republicans. Guys like Mitt Romney are why. Mitt looks like something from a black and white tv show from the 1950's. He'll send you to jail for getting an abortion and smoking weed and who the hell uses bryl creme? He's a religous wacko and a shill for corporations.

Perfect candidate for the Republicans. I'd suggest disbanding the party completely. It's over.

I think the bottom line is that the economy sucks for a lot of people and the Republicans don't really have a believable strategy for doing something about it- Romney's going to just cut more taxes... or increase confidence or something like that. Put yourself in the place of somebody who's just getting by- does that sound like a winner to you? Obama wasn't offering much himself, but he's president and that's worth a few points right there- it's not like he won by 20%. And if you're worried you're going to need help in the next few years who would you rather have in charge?

For Republicans, there's a lot of reflexive anti-government, low tax rhetoric, but there isn't much thinking behind it. And how is that supposed to motivate people? The point of governing should be making government better, not forwarding the latest Cato newsletter about how we don't actually need to have public roads.

Better government may mean smaller in many cases, but it could also mean bigger in others. Is there anybody on the planet who honestly believes that the financial crisis was caused by too much regulation or that the biggest banks are overly burdened? Why is it such a crazy idea to say, for example "paying people not to work isn't a good policy, but looking for ways to help people into the job market is" or "you know, these big corporations have a bit too much power, lets look for ways to even things up a bit without destroying companies".

It shouldn't be too hard for a republican to be against stupid things the government does, but to have some ideas about how to make government work better. Libertarians are going to enjoy jumping all over the idea that gov't can be better, but other than maybe Somalia, everybody has one and more people will want you in charge if you're committed to making it the best it can be.

"I don't see why it's such a dire problem."

How could Romney have been more moderate than he already was?

"Conservatives & Realists need to get with the program and get their message out there on these platforms."

The Republicans did not fail to get their message out. Their message simply did not appeal to enough voters.

"The Republicans did not fail to get their message out. Their message simply did not appeal to enough voters."

I wasn't talking about Republicans. What's needed is something to counter the massive levels of incredible idiocy that permeate media of all forms from barely-intelligible leftist drones.

GOP doomsaying is premature. The party ran what I consider to be a poor candidate against an incumbent who hadn't done anything that the average uninformed voter would consider shockingly incompetent. The result was a loss that, with a few percentage points going the other way in a few swing states, would have been a victory. The incumbent will always win unless he's an obvious fuckup, or if the opposition party has a truly impressive candidate, and neither was true in this election.

That said, I do think the first priority of the GOP should be bringing Hispanics into the fold, likely via a U-turn on immigration reform, which is something the GOP business elites support anyhow. Being the party of white conservatives in a country growing less white and less conservative is not a recipe for future viability.

"How could Romney have been more moderate than he already was?"

Exactly. It wasn't abortion that did Romney in.

"What's needed is something to counter the massive levels of incredible idiocy that permeate media of all forms from barely-intelligible leftist drones."

We have to fight celebrity culture, but proles (particularly she-proles) love celebrity crap. Most English-speaking countries are the same.

Charles Krauthammer and Thomas Friedman write about what an Obama win means for the future of the GOP and country. Krauthammer says this could be an inflection point kind of like FDR's New Deal or Reagan's conservatism.

http://www.postbulletin.com/news/stories/display.php?id=1514019

Friedman says there will be a civil war in the GOP to decide its future. Of course, he advises the GOP to kick out the Tea Part and move toward the center. In other words, capitulate. Somehow I doubt he has our best interests in mind.

http://www.postbulletin.com/news/stories/display.php?id=1514022

But we have to do something. Or do we? Maybe not. The last election had a really bad candidate (McCain) who was saddled with two wars and a recession that was blamed on Bush. This election was against an incumbent and it was really, really close. That doesn't necessarily mean we need to make major changes. But we do need some really smart political experts to think about this and map out a long term strategy.

"The point of governing should be making government better"

Yes, it _should_ be, but you'll notice that government just gets worse and worse regardless. The moral of the story is making government "better" or "more efficient" isn't a winning platform.

JP, It just becomes an unnecessary distraction to defend some goofball saying raped Moms need to be forced to carry those babies to term. There is no logic in the anti-abortion position.

Those two clowns cost us at least two senate seats. But I suspect all the goofy anti-abortion talk drives at least one or two percent away. And it is horrible policy anyway.

@Chris -

Asians vote Democrat because they receive Minority Disadvantaged Business loans. They are heavily subsidized and they imagine Democrats will continue that policy.

Do not reason by connotation. Protectionism is necessary because international trade is a shell game. There is no real savings from trade. Costs are just shifted elsewhere, like the taxes that go up or the debt that is incurred providing social services for people thrown out of work.

I agree with soem of what Anon E. Mouse says and I appreciate the shout out.

More importantly, Republican policies need to drive wedges among the Democrat constituency.

Just how the heck to you people expect the GOP to "get more Hispanics"? By putting a couple of Latinos on some ticket? Even I don't think they are that dumb.

Only a little over half of Latinos graduate from high school and they are very unskilled with low earnings. They will remain natural Democrats. They want handouts from richer Whites (rich in this context is a White person with 10 grand in the bank and a modest house he is paying on).

I am so sick of this "let's put Condi and Rubio on the ticket" as if that is the solution. The Latinos and blacks will just dismiss them as sellouts, especially given that the Dems offer to make direct payments to Hispanics.

Going forward, the only real alternative is for Whites to organize as Whites. Sorry, the age of Moral Cowardice is over.

HS,

There is no future for a conservative party in the U.S. In a country where less than 50% of the children in first grade are white and 40$ of the children born in the U.S., there is no way that a conservative party can continue to exist in the U.S.

What conservatives have to decide is how they plan on surviving in the coming one party state. My guess is that tax cheating will become massive as conservatives realize that there is no way to control government at the ballot box.


I'll pick someone to blame -- Grover Norquist.

Drawing a line in the sand on taxes among those who can afford them was neither effective governance nor winning political strategy. He convinced Boehner, Ryan and Cantor that if they just obstructed over the issue for two years, the American people would hand them the keys to making it permanent. Wrong. Defeating certain winners like Richard Lugar to replace him with a core nutjob, only made the party look out of touch.

RandyB,

Raising taxes makes the Democratic Party stronger because it gives them more money to pass out to groups that favor Democrats. The idea that the Republicans can become the Democratic-lite party and win more elections is laughable.

The U.S. just needs to face the fact that almost 50% of the voters are automatic Democratic Party voters and there is nothing that the Republicans can do about it.

The Republican Party not only wants to prohibit abortions for any reason, it would like to prohibit all forms of artificial birth control too, as well as the vaccine against cervical cancer.

Romney vowed to destroy Planned Parenthood. When he was governor of Massachusetts, he vetoed a bill to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

To Republicans, the Rapture and the Second Coming are real, but science is hilarious and ridiculous.

Prole whites are nationalist and like being American. Even the more liberal ones. This is an advantage the Republicans used to have over Democrats but have abandoned.

Romeny is a guy who comes off as the guy willing to sell out Americans and Americans jobs to people overseas in order to personally enrich himself.

No wonder he doesn't do better with prole whites.

Just think if reliable birth control had never been invented, and there had never been a green revolution. Whites would have had too many children to feed to be able to send food to the third world. In 1900, a third of all the people in the world were white. Without reliable birth control and a green revolution, whites would probably be two thirds of world population by now because whites would have increased and the rest could not have increased because whites would not starve their own kids to feed the world. There would probably be lots of fairly thin white people though. Just a thought.

If the Republicans pushed access to and proper use of contraceptives (hormonal OCPs, condoms, etc.) as a means of reducing and preventing abortions, they might be able to get back a few white women voters (but most likely not). The strict pro-life stance has lost them the SWPLs, and will lose them more conservative white women as well (including several I know).

Too, the plank pushing for permanent tax cuts for the wealthy is another big turn-off. With a low capital gains rate, all the extra money is going to trickle down in another malinvestment-fueled banking crisis. Pushing for lower payroll taxes and raised income and capital gains taxes on individuals would likely stimulate job growth. Banks need to be subject to considerably more oversight, or we need to let them fail. Government bailouts for losses but no socialization of profits is not healthy or sustainable in the long run.

Running on rolling back executive power could've been a powerful wedge issue for the GOP, as well; assassinating or indefinitely detaining American citizens could've been recognized as a thoroughly unconstitutional step. Pushing Obama on the War Powers Act would've been another wedge issue.

With immigration, the Republican Party really needs to aggressively take aim at illegal aliens. A meaningful strategy other than repeating Reagan's amnesty needs to be articulated. Mass deportations are expensive, as are fences, but with a double-digit unemployment rate, I expect that issue had a lot of play in it.

If the GOP does not give up its anti-abortion stand, it will never have another presidential election win. It is not simply that the majority of Americans have supported the legal right to abortion in all or most cases since Roe v Wade was decided, whether or not they think abortion is moral. That right is about more than abortion. It is about recognizing that no one has the right to use human law and the police violence that underpins human law enforcement to control the sex organs of a person and to affect a person's immune system adversely against that person's individual will, conscience, and freedom of religion. It is about recognizing individual human dignity for ever person. How is an embryo such a person when it cannot live individually, but has to be biologically attached to a live individual person? Yet every woman is such a person. Deny this dignity to women and you do not just alienate most women: you alienate many fathers of daughters,husbands, etc.

This disgusting disrespect for 51% of the population may pass muster in parochial Congressional districts, but it has proved anathema in many states in Senate races, and at the level of the presidency, it is unacceptable. It is not about small government, but about rape government. It is not about individual rights, liberty, and property - it is about nationalizing women's sex organs.

If the Republican Party wants to be viable at the presidential level, it should go back and see its history. In 1992, pro-choice Republican Ross Perot ran as an independent and drew 16% of the vote, and not away from Clinton. In 1996, the anti-choice Republican lost. Bush, Jr., did not win the popular vote in 2000, and the win he managed came after saying, "Roe v Wade is the law of the land" and "We need to develop a culture of life," not saying, "I will overturn Roe v Wade," "I will sign a personhood/human life bill," "I am against abortion" with or without exceptions. McCain and Palin lost in 2008. Now Romney and Ryan have lost in 2012. Wake up.

"That said, I do think the first priority of the GOP should be bringing Hispanics into the fold, likely via a U-turn on immigration reform"

Like a dumb European aristocrat who thinks that throwing a few golden coins at peasants will earn him their eternal gratitude and loyalty? No, it won't.

Hispanics will gladly take amnesty and then they will vote Democratic because Democrats offer them government services.

Unless immigration is stopped or severely curtailed, Republicans will be a minority party forever.

I'm just amazed how succesful the Dems "War on Women" strategy was. For all the talk about minorities pushing whites aside, the real story was women breaking heavily for Obama. Just anecdotally, I've been amused, or bemused, seeing how many women I know on facebook kept posting things like "hands off my reproductive rights!" over the last month, and how much support from other women these posts get. Keep in mind, these are mostly women in their 30s and 40s who already have children - it's already too late for anyone to impinge on their reproductive rights, they're not getting any abortions and they can afford contraception (to the extent they're actually bothering to have sex anymore). Clearly this is a crazy emotional issue even for middle aged women in a way men don't understand. The GOP has to abandon "pro-life" to survive. The Democrats basically gave up on gun control in the 90s, I think the GOP has to accept that the US is never going back to 1950s sexual morality.

Peter A,

If the Republicans become the second pro-abortion party, they lose all of the social conservative woters while gaining almost none of the women that you think would switch. The marriage gap is bigger than the gender gap. Chasing a few upper middle class white married women who view being a liberal as a luxury good is a losing idea for the Republicans.

The real problem for the Republicans is that they are a minority party that will lose more support than it gains with any change that it makes. The U.S. has become a natural one party state and there is nothing the Republicans can do about it. If the Republicans try to maintain some form of a conservative party, it will be overwhelmed demographically. If the Republicans change to being Democratic-lite, they blur the line with the real Democratic Party and lose more votes than they gain.

More than 50% of the voters want a high level of government spending and a high level of entitlements. There is no reason for a conservative party to exist in the U.S.

"It just becomes an unnecessary distraction to defend some goofball saying raped Moms need to be forced to carry those babies to term. There is no logic in the anti-abortion position."

Romney (or any Republican Presidential candidate) could never ensure that EVERY dumbass Republican candidate in the country never said anything stupid.

Romney did not lose because he got blamed for what those two clowns said.

The "rigid" anti-abortion position is perfectly logical intellectually and morally. It is just not a political winner. It is the *moderate* anti-abortion position that is not logical! If you think something is bad, you must logically argue that it should not be permitted. If you think something should be permitted, you must logically argue that it is not bad.

Everyone who thinks the GOP needs to stop or limit immigration is living in a dream world. They *might* have been able to do that if Romney had won. This is *impossible* now that they do not have the White House.

Being pro-life works great for Republicans as long as there's no real chance that they'll be able to implement their rhetoric. The best hope for Republicans would be for Obama to shift the balance on the supreme court, and for the court to solidly reaffirm Roe v. Wade (e.g. by striking down anti-abortion laws that Republicans have passed at the state level over the last few years). This will drive the Jesus Freaks absolutely batshit crazy (as if they weren't already :-)), but it will make it "safe" for pro-choice women to vote Republican again.

(Of course there would be all sort of other negative consequences from a more liberal supreme court -- I'm just saying that it would take abortion off the front burner.)

I had an Asian girlfriend once. She was terrified of the south and never wanted to travel there. This wasn't based on an actual bad experience in the south, just on a perception that a bunch of racist rednecks lived there and would give her trouble.

The stereotype of the white, southern, racist redneck strikes fear into the hearts of ALL racial minorities, and this stereotype is also very closely associated with the Republican party. That's a serious problem.

@JP: "If you think something is bad, you must logically argue that it should not be permitted. If you think something should be permitted, you must logically argue that it is not bad."

That's very simplistic thinking, and most adults are capable of more nuanced thought. I don't know anybody who thinks abortion is a Good Thing, but I know lots of people who don't believe government should force women to remain pregnant against their will.

@ John,

It is *already true* that there is no real chance that Republicans would repeal or limit "choice". But the Democrats successfully convinced women that Republicans wanted to do so. The Democrats will *always* argue that it is unsafe for pro-choice women to vote Republican.

Tactically, the Democrats would be smart NOT to have the courts "solidly reaffirm Roe v. Wade". This would keep the false and stupid idea that "the Republicans want to repeal your reproductive rights!" alive and well.

The only hope for the Republicans is if the free money comes to an end. I'm no economic wiz, but I don't see how we can rack up trillion dollar deficits year after year with no adverse effects. Maybe someone could enlighten me. Once the free money comes to an end, and people have to fight over high taxes and ridiculous spending levels, Repubs would benefit. Somehow the Repubs have got to get the money lenders to cut us off.

"Everyone who thinks the GOP needs to stop or limit immigration is living in a dream world."

The above might be in response to what I wrote. Realistically, the last time GOP had the will and the enough votes in Congress to do it was in the 1994-1996 Congress (they passed some useful laws back then, for example they made it impossible for those already illegal to get a green card through marriage.) Under George W. Bush they had the votes but no will. Now they have neither.

Republicans painted themselves into a corner because Democrats had a long term strategy on immigration, while GOP did not.

While there are still some ballots left to be counted, as of now it looks like the reason Romney lost was because he didn't get enough Republican turnout.

In 2008, McCain got 59.9 million total votes and Bush got 62 million in 2004. Obama's total votes also fell sharply from 2008. It looks like the electorate in general was depressed rather than swinging to any one candidate.

So, while the GOP obviously needs close down on any talk of making abortions in the case of rape illegal, we do still need to get conservatives enthused to turnout.

I think Romney was a pretty good candidate. The problem was he ran against the elite's Messiah. People who don't live in the cities don't understand how many people worship the guy. Remember, these are people who have no spiritual or religious life. Obama is a god incarnate to them.

If Hillary had won in '08 and governed over the same economy that Obama did, she would have been crushed last night.

However, while it's quite possible for the GOP to correct GOP turnout in the short term, there is still the long term problem of demographics.

The only way to handle demographics is to market HBD race realism into the mainstream of Republican thinking, especially younger, higher IQ Republicans and libertarians that HS tends.

There's no way to win to the minority vote and it was encouraging to see ordinary Republican voters on GOP blogs explicitly blame changing American demographics for the debacle, even though low turnout seems to have been the problem, because low turnout can be fixed more easily than demographics.

It's especially important for us to build on HBDs current foundation of high IQ Republican and libertarian leaning bloggers to convert more libertarians to incorporate HBD into their thinking because the smart fraction of the GOP and libertarians would be a very formidable political force if we can only get more libertarians, preppies, and GOPers to join us.

Converting mainstream libertarians (like myself) is one of Half Sigma's best accomplishments because libertarian-Republicans and more yuppies Republicans are higher IQ and having gen-X and gen-Y high IQ Republicans adopt HBD will help set the stage for future race realist policies.

We have a good base of young bloggers who, frankly, have commenters that are orders of magnitude more informative and have better minds for politics than either mainstream Republican or Democrat bloggers. We just need to market ourselves more aggressively to get more of the libertarians and preppy demographic.

The HBD demographic needs to appeal to the types on this GNXP reader demographic survey (which I'd bet matches Half Sigma's reader demographic pretty closely). These are the high IQ gen-Xers and gen-Yers we need to get on board:

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2009/02/gnxp-survey-results.php

Highest Educational Level Attained
Answer Count Percentage
No answer 11 2.22%
Less Than Secondary 5 1.01%
Secondary 12 2.42%
Some Post-Secondary 43 8.69%
University 187 37.78%
Graduate 237 47.88%

Asians vote for the dems because of the threat of the immigration policies of the GOP. There is a significant Filipino population that want to come to the US. However, I beleive what is having the most effect is the MEDIA. If the GOP cannot lure a major media source, like fox news, they are doomed forever.

"I had an Asian girlfriend once. She was terrified of the south and never wanted to travel there. This wasn't based on an actual bad experience in the south, just on a perception that a bunch of racist rednecks lived there and would give her trouble.

The stereotype of the white, southern, racist redneck strikes fear into the hearts of ALL racial minorities, and this stereotype is also very closely associated with the Republican party. That's a serious problem."

This likely to be the result of Hollywood (probably not fully aware of what they're doing, relying mainly on dimly recalled tribal legends)still seeking revenge for the lynching of Leo Frank.

http://archive.org/details/ArgumentsOfHughM.DorseyInTheLeoFrankMurderTrial
(...)
"Fulton County Grand Jury Indictment for Leo Frank

More than a dozen police, detectives, and employees testified during the Fulton County Grand Jury. Monteen Stover told the Jury that when she went to collect her pay envelope from Leo Frank at the National Pencil Company, he was not in his office on April 26, 1913, between the designated time between 12:05 pm and 12:10 pm.

After reviewing the facts, evidence and testimony with thorough and serious deliberation, Leo M. Frank was indicted unanimously by a Grand Jury of 21 men (including 4 Jewish members) on Saturday, May 24th 1913. The unanimous vote of 7 to 0 by the Coroners Inquest and Jury, plus the unanimous vote of the Grand Jury of 21 to 0, put Leo Frank at a distinct disadvantage with a total of 28 to 0 against him going into his capital murder trial."
(...)

The stereotype of the white, southern, racist redneck strikes fear into the hearts of ALL racial minorities, and this stereotype is also very closely associated with the Republican party. That's a serious problem".

"How is Mitt Romney, or even Rudy Guiliani associated with Southern rednecks? It's really a party for Proles to say the least. Republican candidates usually come from less stellar schools, instead of the Ivy Leagues, this alone signifies prolishness. Mitt is an exception, and a SWPL turncoat, because he went to Stanford and later Harvard. George W is a stiff redneck HYP guy, and that's an oxymoron.

Drop the anti-abortion stance since women voters really do put abortion as one of their top concerns.
I'll be very disappointed if GOP retreats in immigration policies and not abortion/gay-right that will do almost no harm to the country.

And guaranteed the Republicans can win the election once it's NOT seen as the socially conservative party that's trying to hold America back.

"Economic Conservative" + "Social Liberal" is the only way to go for a striving GOP.

@JP: "It is *already true* that there is no real chance that Republicans would repeal or limit "choice"."

The Republicans most definitely HAVE passed many anti-abortion laws at the state level.

@JP: "But the Democrats successfully convinced women that Republicans wanted to do so."

Republicans say they want to do it. Loudly and often.

In many states, Republicans actually did it when they were elected.

I don't think the Democrats needed to do much convincing. The Republicans did it all by themselves.

The problem is that the election was *close*. That means that the Republican Party will tinker at the edges of its policies to try to capture the missing 2%. Had the election been a blowout, then the party might engage in some serious re-thinking, but when it's a matter of just getting a little bit here and a little bit there, there won't be a wholesale re-think.

"George W is a stiff redneck HYP guy, and that's an oxymoron."


George W Bush is not a redneck by any stretch of the imagination. What are you smoking. His family are yankee elites. Yeah, they moved to Texas, but rednecks are the lower classes like Rick Perry. That man, I am sure, spent many hours for many years working in the hot sun and earned his red neck. George W Bush went to Kinkaid!

If its true that turnout was lower for Romney, then part of the problem was having a stuffed shirt liberal/moderate from the Northeast. Which most of us knew already.

There are some great comments in here today.

@superdestroyer:

****The real problem for the Republicans is that they are a minority party that will lose more support than it gains with any change that it makes. The U.S. has become a natural one party state and there is nothing the Republicans can do about it. If the Republicans try to maintain some form of a conservative party, it will be overwhelmed demographically. If the Republicans change to being Democratic-lite, they blur the line with the real Democratic Party and lose more votes than they gain.

More than 50% of the voters want a high level of government spending and a high level of entitlements. There is no reason for a conservative party to exist in the U.S.****

This is the terrible, awful truth. The issue is demographics. A lot of you guys are bandying about "solutions", saying the GOP needs to do this or that to recover "next time" - well, it's over. I think 2012 proves definitively that the demographic future is now. Not in 2016 or 2020; there's no "some time in the future white conservatives will be outnumbered but not quite yet"; it's *now*, today. A traditionally conservative white guy can no longer win in America. You are not part of a majority anymore.

Peter A's comment above this one is dead-on, too:

****I'm just amazed how succesful the Dems "War on Women" strategy was.... I've been amused, or bemused, seeing how many women I know on facebook kept posting things like "hands off my reproductive rights!" over the last month, and how much support from other women these posts get... Clearly this is a crazy emotional issue even for middle aged women in a way men don't understand.****

Yes, everything you've said here is just the sort of thing that can make me sit and simply boggle at reality. I'm Canadian, but election coverage was on at work last night and I heard the nurses make similar comments. How is it possible that a human being thinks this way?

I wonder if there is a lingering need to rationalize past choices. You mention that it's women in their 30s and 40s repeating this stuff - well, we are living in a time when women of that age range definitely engaged in plenty of premarital adventures. The issue may not be directly relevant to them anymore, but they remember a time when it was, and need to rationalize their pasts, if not the present. There's my hypothesis, at least.

Anyway, there are two lessons, I think:

Firstly, women are not able to make rational evaluations, and should not enjoy political power. They should not be able to vote. Obviously their franchise isn't going away, so this is just hypothetical talk, but I'd like men to understand that this isn't something we're kidding about: really, truly, women should not have the right to vote. I hope that this idea will gain real traction among a subset of reactionary male subcultures, aided by the internet, although obviously it won't fly in the wildest dreams of mainstream conservatism.

Secondly, other commenters have mentioned the power of the mass media, and why the GOP needs to harness it. This is true. This election was basically decided by a small (but very important) number of SWPL women who think gays are wonderful and religious white guys are icky because TV told them so. Conservatives *have* to retake some of the media and use it to shape opinion about whether or not conservatism is "cool". Hitler and Leni Riefenstahl proved that conservatism can be made "cool", an illustration that I hope doesn't bother our host too much (I use it because it's true).

@ s l mccoy

****It [abortion] is about recognizing individual human dignity for ever person.****

Um, *not the dignity of the baby*. You have nothing to say.

@AugustSpoos

****The strict pro-life stance has lost them the SWPLs, and will lose them more conservative white women as well (including several I know).****

If she disliked Romney over his extremely soft pro-life views, then she ain't any kind of "conservative" that I'm interested in. Anyway, I need to understand this, because I can't - I just can't. It's easy to understand why people who actually think abortion is murder are so fired up about it. But why is the reverse true - why do people who think abortion is just fine also care SO MUCH about it? I can understand caring a little about it, amongst other things, but why SO much? What is WRONG with these people whose MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE is that women be allowed to kill their babies?

I wonder if the answer is touched on at this blog:

http://super-economy.blogspot.ca/2012/11/why-democrats-are-winning_3.html

****the salience of social issues is rising. As Samuel Huntington pointed out the central struggle for our society is no longer economic philosophy, its cultural identity. The cold war is further over (as is its short post 9/11 echo), reducing the traditional Republican advantage and at any case making the foreign policy dimension less prominent.****

In short, in the post-Cold War era of extreme demographic change, people are looking for identities, and many people are finding answers in making it clear that they are NOT "one of those religious freaks." I'm really open to other answers on this.

@Lloyd:

****In Canada the Conservative Party of Stephen Harper has broken into many ethnic communities. They're a party of "values" but are not explicitly Christian - instead of stressing being "pro-life" and anti-gay they go for more majoritarian themes such as hard work, the importance of family, etc.****

I saved this important comment for last, because it's worth a post, in fact a book, in and of itself. I don't know if you are Canadian or not, but if you are, you know as I do that Canada and Canadian politics are more interesting than they seem (how's that for damning with faint praise!). For a raft of cultural and demographic reasons, it's not clear that lessons from Canadian politics are always relevant in America, but I think they very well could be. The GOP really should try and learn from Harper.

For instance, let's re-emphasize what this commenter (correctly) notes: the Conservative Party in Canada has actually made real inroads into ethnic communities, including Asian communities. I know a lot of Asian men who like Harper. Why?

Well, for one thing, they are smart enough (as they are in America) to see that Harper's economic policies are the best for them. There's less tribal identity here, because *all* the parties are "gibsmedat" parties. You may object that you don't want the GOP to go down that road, but I reiterate that it's over. Small fiscal government is not possible in America anymore.

Secondly, the commenter has it right: the Conservative Party is indeed the "values" party, but the "values" they promote are more generic and less overtly divisive (read: Christian). A lot of Asians (for example) really are attracted to these values, but in America, as we see, there's too much status to be lost by being (gasp!) one of *them*, a *Republican*. Harper has successfully rehabilitated the Conservative brand - so that it's no longer un-cool to advocate personal responsibility and restraint, for instance. True social conservatives can take some solace from Harper's emphasis on personal freedom (because when SoCons are the minority, *they* are the ones who need freedom to live their lives the way they want).

Some Canadian Christians argue that this soft-pedaling of social issues has been tantamount to a betrayal of real values, and sometimes I feel like that's true. But I tend to take the view that Harper is navigating these treacherous shoals as best he can, knowing that one false move can sink the ship. He has really done it expertly..

To address something noted by other commenters: I say this through gritted teeth, given my strongly pro-life stance (and also with a caveat, that it may not be true, considering the important US evangelical vote, something not present in Canada) but it seems likely that the GOP really does need to tone down the culture war rhetoric. Not abandon it or flip-flop on it, but tone it down to be more like the Canadian version: start emphasizing individual freedom not to participate. Emphasize that it should be left to the states.

There are lots of reasons Canadian politics doesn't have all the answers for US conservatives - importantly, we don't have the black, Latino and evangelical blocs that you have. But the one-line lesson from Canada is this: Republicans are going to have to get a lot more savvy.

The Republican party is over as long as it's the de facto Caucasian Christian male party.

Why?

Amnesty to 11-20 million illegals and increased welfare state that will help African-Americans, Hispanics, women and LGBTQ.

Democrats don't really want a strong economy or workforce, they need more dependents on government programs and supporters. As society moves to the left or toward egalitarian socialism, conservatives will slowly need to abandon outdated ideas even if it was "good" to traditional society. They will need to recruit more successful Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans, while abandoning any say on female issues. Majority of voters are female after all, who use modern contraception and hate listening to beta male logic.

@faffy - AA here. I, and all of my family voted for Bush the first and last time. Now I certainly don't speak for any other Asian American aside from myself - the BIGGEST problem I see with Republicans is their love of foreign wars and excessive military spending (we still need to worry about Russia? really?), which we simply can't afford. So as much as it pains me inside, I will vote democratic because I'd rather the government blow money on welfare for NAMs than to bomb and agitate Muslims. Aside from foreign interventions, I will support anyone who ends all quotas/affirmative action and just SPEND LESS MONEY.

@fnn - your ex-gf is just an ignorant woman who probably use the fact that she's Asian to rationalize her support for the left. Also, as she was dating you - chances are she's a banana who's no different from any SWPL white girl. I've lived for ten years in the South, and ten years in the North, and in both cases, I've only had physically assaulted by NAMs. My biggest problem with Southern Whites is that they're so fat - but otherwise I don't have an issue with them.

"George W Bush is not a redneck by any stretch of the imagination. What are you smoking. His family are yankee elites. Yeah, they moved to Texas, but rednecks are the lower classes like Rick Perry".

A guy who speaks with a Texan drawl, owns a ranch and acts like an idiot in public, falls under the defination of a low class uneducated hick. He's also married to a native Texan, and that's enough to say he is, despite his Northeastern Yankee roots.

@Pokie Filipino are Asian proles. How they think cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the Asian American population.

"The Romney alpha-male advantage

Reported at USA Today:

"In every poll, we've seen a major surge among women in favorability for Romney" since his strong performance in the first debate, veteran Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says. "Women went into the debate actively disliking Romney, and they came out thinking he might understand their lives and might be able to get something done for them."

I was so right about Romney’s appeal to women."

-Half Sigma

You were so wrong about this Half Sigma.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/exit-polls-independents-siding-romney-key-swing-states/story?id=17656990#.UJqEccUxp8E

"If white women had stayed in Romney's camp, those swing states -- Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire -- might have moved into his column. Instead, Obama led among women by 12 points, nearly identical to his lead among women four years ago."

I wonder how white guys (including you Half Sigma) feel that white women has stuck by Obama over the very embodiment (and according to Half Sigma, a very good looking) alpha-male whiteness? Do you feel betrayed? Just a thought.

Alcibiades said:

"That said, I do think the first priority of the GOP should be bringing Hispanics into the fold, likely via a U-turn on immigration reform, which is something the GOP business elites support anyhow. Being the party of white conservatives in a country growing less white and less conservative is not a recipe for future viability."

Wonderful advice Alcibiades. What else would you suggest? Should we invade Syracuse? We shall all have fun working in the salt mines.

"the BIGGEST problem I see with Republicans is their love of foreign wars and excessive military spending (we still need to worry about Russia? really?), which we simply can't afford. So as much as it pains me inside, I will vote democratic because I'd rather the government blow money on welfare for NAMs than to bomb and agitate Muslims."

Dude... haven't you been paying attention since 2008? Obama's policy on foreign wars was EXACTLY the same as Dubya's. He loves foreign wars so much he STARTED some new ones, and he has bombed and agitated the crap out of Muslims for four straight years. There is no reason to think this won't continue for another four. And yet somehow, people like you will close their eyes and insist that the GOP is the "war party". Sheesh.

According to Open Secrets, defense lobbyists gave $986K to Obama and $1,062K to Romney - basically identical, indicating that defense thinks their prospective policies from 2013-16 were identical.

@JP - I agree with you. Which is why I didn't bother voting this year.

@JP - apropos, I loaded up on a few hundred shares of GD and it's taking a beating after the Obama victory.

Several great comments here. I'd like to add my voice in support for those who identify the mass media as one of the main problems. Not "the media" in the sense that CNN is in the tank for Obama (probably not something that affects long-term voting patterns), but the real media that young people slavishly follow every day: TV, movies, popular music, sports, and (to an extent) trashy fiction. Many teenage white people get virtually ALL of their information about the world from TV, especially in all-white areas like Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and middle-class suburbs everywhere. And what they're learning is simply incorrect.

If you were to watch a lot of TV, you'd think that young black men are afraid to walk around in many neighborhoods, because there are large groups of angry white rednecks looking to chase an beat them. If you were to say "actually, it's young black men themselves who are the most violent, and who cause others to walk in fear(including middle-aged, law abiding black people)" a white teenager raised on TV would think, no way is that true.

If you were to watch a lot of TV, you'd think that young girls are constantly being told how they aren't allowed to do what boys do, and that their teachers are more critical and dismissive of them. If you were to say "actually, most school systems have been completely recalibrated to make sure that girls succeed, and fostering self-esteem in girls is apparently the main point of our public education system," a white teenager raised on TV would think, no way is that true.

If you were to watch a lot of TV, you'd think that people from India and Japan are at a horrible disadvantage in the job market, and that there's an "old boys' network" that loves to give good jobs to lazy and unqualified white people. If you were to say, "actually, employer LOVE bringing in cheap Indian workers on H1-B visas, and once they get here they find jobs for all of their Indian friends, regardless of whether they're good enough" a white teenager raised on TV would think, no way is that true.

Like it or not, white American teens and 'tweens watch TV and movies every. Fucking. Day. That's what's raising them. As long as they aren't getting any actual relevant facts from TV, you shouldn't struggle to understand why they grow up to be confused and idiotic adults.

If you're walking down the street and you hear footsteps behind you, and you turn around and see that the person behind you is a black male between the ages of 15 and 26, your chances of getting beaten, raped, or robbed at gunpoint just went up several times. Without knowing any other factors, just "black male of a certain age." That's a statement of mathematically verifiable fact. But that's not a fact that's reflected on prime time TV dramas and quirky comedies, in popular movies, in music, or in any of the places where young white people get their information. So they literally will not believe it. Numbers, figures, and even personal accounts won't convince them. They believe that what they see on (fictional) TV programs is real. Therefore, controlling what's shown in such programming is of vital importance.

If conservative political parties and figures, whether they call themselves Republican or not, can't figure this out, then I don't want to hear them whine when they lose. What they appear to be saying is "I'm not willing to do or say anything that would be considered rude of controversial, but I'm still demanding that people understand why it's best to support me."

"Drop the anti-abortion stance since women voters really do put abortion as one of their top issues." - KOH


Abortion is mostly reserved for the underclass of society. This fixation on abortion from well off white females is due to their deep disgust at the thought of being knocked up by a beta male.


"Economic Conservative" + "Social Liberal" is the only way to go for a striving GOP." - KOH


Can't happen because economics are also tied to social policy. If you're a "social liberal" then diversity is good and more section 8 housing is good. Saying "we can't afford it" = unhip SWPL.


"Going forward, the only real alternative is for Whites to organize as Whites. Sorry, the age of Moral Cowardice is over."


Agreed.

@MKP - did you ever work for the hedge fund of the same name?

@leptokurtic - Nope, just my initials.

You want to offer me a job?

@MKP - Just curious, that's all - I'm just an office drone - no ability to hire/fire.

Damned good analysis though. Just think of SP's Asian ex-gf - never been to the South, but thinks all Southerners are racists; so many people are willing to take whatever the media feed them at face value.

In fact, I posit that liberals are far more racist than conservatives - conservatives may be slightly more ignorant about other cultures, but liberals often speak with forked tongues. If Hollywood loves quotas so much, why don't we have affirmative action and quotas only for actors/directors in Hollywood? They're the idiots who keep replacing Asians characters with white ones - e.g., replacing the Asian kid in Bringing Down the House with a limey in the film adaptation...

@Conquistador - I think "Economic Conservative" + "Social Liberal" = "as long as it doesn't harm others, do what ever you want, but don't use the public purse to subsidize your activities"

"As society moves to the left or toward egalitarian socialism, conservatives will slowly need to abandon outdated ideas even if it was "good" to traditional society. They will need to recruit more successful Hispanics, Asians and African-Americans, while abandoning any say on female issues."

They need to do this... why? To have political power? What good is that if they have abandoned the conservative ideas that they need to have power to implement? What good is this if they have embraced the liberal ideas that they need to have power to frustrate?

If conservative politicians abandon conservative ideas, who gives a damn if they're elected or not?

@ leptokurtic

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any political market whatsoever for that mentality, in practice.

In theory, a lot of people like the idea. On a personal level, I can tell you that a lot of people I know who are moderates/undecideds/low-information voters say things like "I'm an economic conservative, but a social liberal!"

But consider your slogan (eloquently phrased, and one that I personally agree with):

"As long as it doesn't harm others, do what ever you want, but don't use the public purse to subsidize your activities"

"Do whatever you want" means "have unprotected sex with some random person you hardly know." And "don't use the public purse to subsidize your activities" means "your children will starve to death in the gutter if you can't feed them."

Personally, I'm entirely on board with that formula. But that puts me in a group with MAYBE 8 percent (at most) of people in the USA. The necessary and immutable outcome of "do whatever you want" appears to be fat, snaggle-toothed single moms with a bunch of kids they can't feed. No one - not even the most right-wing members of Congress, from the reddest districts - appears to be willing to say "well, you knew where babies come from. Your problem now."

Look into past political debates and races in which school lunches, school breakfasts, SNAP, Section 8 housing, and other government handouts are at issue. Anyone proposing that poor people - even the stupidest, most disgusting poor people - should be left to do without will lose any election in a massive landslide.

Without the necessary corollary of "your children will starve to death in the gutter if you can't feed them," the first part of the formula, "do whatever you want," is impossible.

JP: Romney made promise after promise to increase "defense" spending. While Obama continued a meddlesome foreign affairs policy, he did not put boots on the ground to invade any more countries. He supported real coalitions abroad (though I agree with Kucinich that he did so illegally). Romney would be more likely to invade Iran, which would have been a disaster.

In the final debate, Romney tried to dispel fears that he was a war candidate by agreeing with almost everything Obama said, but status quo bias makes the topic a non-starter for him (except nut-jobs who think a Kenyan born Obama went on a world-wide apology tour). Generally speaking, people will go with the devil they know. Bin Laden's dead, troops were withdrawn from Iraq as per Bush's time-table, Guantanamo remains open. In the next four years, Obama's biggest problem is his "surge" in Afghanistan.

In International News:

I was reading the Chinese reactions to the election here: http://weibo.com/1893801487/z44pk3uwG

One user (每一次看看) wrote: 好消息。美国完了 (Good news. America is doomed.)

The user (阿泷豫滴) wrote: 完了,美国老百姓又得受四年苦啦。 (Uh oh, America’s ordinary common people must suffer another four years.)

The user (如果我问你) wrote: 该买金了 (need to buy gold)

The user (豆丁包包子) wrote: 经济再也无法复苏了[泪] (the [US] economy will never recover - [crying])

The user (懒小mo桃子) wrote: 没什么好开心的,为毛这么多人支持奥巴马 (There’s nothing to be happy about, why the hell do so many people support Obama?)

Mind you, there are anti-Romney comments, mostly because he called China a currency manipulator... but still, I'm surprised Romney was so popular over there.

Interestingly, before the election, Obama was favored in every other country except China: http://news.uk.msn.com/us-elections-2012/entire-planet-supports-obama-except-china/

So, HS, you stopped using "NAM" because it sounds like a racial slur, but you continue to use the disgusting and insulting "prole"? There are things about you that are really sickening and upsetting.

Jayne

@Jayne: "prole" is just a shortening of the word "proletariat". Why is that sickening?

What libertarians never get asked is how they're actually going to cut welfare spending. The 47 percenters aren't going to vote for less welfare, so how are libertarians actually going to get into government?

To what majority is the "less welfare" libertarian message supposed to appeal? Because if there's a majority for Ron Paul's message (as Ron Paul's fans assiduously assure us), I sure as hell can't see it.

"They *might* have been able to do that if Romney had won. This is *impossible* now that they do not have the White House."

Nah, it would have been a struggle to get Romney to move moderately against illegal immigration.

What we need is to build a consensus among higher IQ Republicans and libertarians (who form the smart fraction of the Republicans voters and leaders) to adopt HBD.

If we can get enough high IQ preppy Repubs and more Gen-Y/Gen-X libertarians to join us then we will be in a position to push HBD policies into the mainstream electorate.

But we will be fighting on the defensive until we can convert a broader libertarian and Republican.

The good though, is that if we succeed in converting other intelligent gen-Yers and Gen-Xers, it would be easy to implement HBD policies because minorities would be helpless to oppose the agenda of organized high IQ whites. We are also fortunate to have a very strong nucleus of younger preppy and libertarian HBD bloggers to work off of. We just need to bring convert more of us.

The GNXP demo, where 47% have graduate degrees, is what who we need to politically appeal to:

Highest Educational Level Attained
Answer Count Percentage
No answer 11 2.22%
Less Than Secondary 5 1.01%
Secondary 12 2.42%
Some Post-Secondary 43 8.69%
University 187 37.78%
Graduate 237 47.88%

@Peter A:

The War on Women meme is a great example of how the media controlled the election and manipulated female voters. There was never any indication that Romney had any intention of rolling back Roe vs. Wade or, for that matter, any meaningful imposition on female privilege whatsoever. However, there's an extremely vocal and active feminist group which pushed the idea that not granting females even more unearned privileges constitutes a "War on Women." Since college is essentially mandatory these days, and since women in general are inculcated into this feminist ideology through media throughout their lives (and particularly in college) they were quite receptive to this message even though it is absurd.

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/11/07/no-regrets-no-apologies/

Why did we lose then?

Let’s start with the media. You don’t have to take my word for it. Go look at videos of the conventions. The Republicans’ reasonable convention, reasonable concentrating on the economy, made not a dent. But the Democrats abortionpalooza where we were told we belonged to the government, that became the great convention of the century.

The media kept the Republicans in a cone of silence, when they weren’t amplifying Obama’s attacks.

A science fiction editor posted on Facebook yesterday that we must make sure that we voted for Obama, or we’d be back in the fifties with segregation and without women’s rights.

How can they even believe that? What part of the Republican platform had anything to do with that?

And all of my libertarian friends who think the problem is that Romney didn’t say he was okay with contraception and abortion — since when was contraception and abortion part of the campaign? The Republicans campaigned on the economy. Contraception and abortion were the media’s theme, introduced in the Republican primary. It was never in doubt that it wouldn’t be outlawed — a president can’t do that.

And yet even our side thinks that’s what it was about, and tears into each other over it.

"Interestingly, before the election, Obama was favored in every other country except China"

Not surprising - China has high genotypic IQ, strong work ethic, and low welfare spending.

@ntk: Hong Kong also has high IQ, good work ethic, low welfare spending, and yet 85% of the population supports Obama. Similar numbers for the ROC/Taiwan. We need a different explanation.

Hmm. Maybe it's the British influence in Hong Kong - it could be that they're more westernised. No idea about Taiwan though.

Maybe it's democracy? China isn't a democracy, Taiwan is, and China tolerates some amount of democracy in the HK SAR.

So it could be that western influence (e.g. celebrity culture and all that mind-rotting prole crap that the west exports to the rest of the world) and democracy (allowing morons to vote, etc) combined have a powerful toxic effect on people.


"In fact, I posit that liberals are far more racist than conservatives - conservatives may be slightly more ignorant about other cultures, but liberals often speak with forked tongues. If Hollywood loves quotas so much, why don't we have affirmative action and quotas only for actors/directors in Hollywood? They're the idiots who keep replacing Asians characters with white ones....."

Dream on, Liberals never liked Asians and never will!

Asians with liberal leanings tend to hate their own.

@Just Speculating: "Dream on, Liberals never liked Asians and never will!" - that was exactly my point, that liberals are the real racists.

@ntk: Here's a theory: maybe because most Chinese truly believe that a businessman can better handle the economy than a government apparatchik?

If the US economy collapses, the Chinese has a lot to lose after all and over 3 trillion reasons to wish the economy well. This is also supported by the Chinese twitts on Weibo saying effectively, "fuck, the US economy is finished, I'm going to cry/buy gold".

Hong Kong and Taiwan doesn't hold nearly as much USD.

Japan does hold lots of USD, but they do have high government spending, and since they have a relatively homogenic population, can't imagine why a "diverse" culture as the US might not be the best place to have high levels of welfare.

"that was exactly my point, that liberals are the real racists".

American Asian women are usually liberals. What does this tell you?

@Just Speculating: Asian American women are usually self loathing SWPL wannabes with shit for brains.

Samson J: Harper won the Chinese vote because they are generally very pro-business, support tough on crime measures and because his party doesn't engage in ultra-nationalist and xenophobic rhetoric about China taking over everything, Chinese spies, etc. He won the Filipino vote because of social conservatism. While his party is not explicitly socially conservative - the Conservative is 50/50 split between social liberals and social conservatives - they as you say make enough overtures in the personal freedom to realm out and not engage in culture war rhetoric.

Cracking the larger Latino vote is a different nut, but I think suburban Asians could make a difference in states like California and New Jersey.

The Electoral College probably "ghettoizes" the GOP to heartland social conservatism. If the GOP needed to win votes everywhere and didn't feel that New York was in the bag for the Democrats so why bother, things could change.


"American Asian women are usually liberals. What does this tell you?"

They are conformist status seekers?

@Lepto, "@Jayne: "prole" is just a shortening of the word "proletariat". Why is that sickening?"

Because anyone except for an insensitive clod can see that it drips with contempt. A phrase that HS likes is "mean-spirited."

Yeah, it's short for proletariat the way nigger is a derivation of the Latin word for black. It's a hate word. HS should stop using it. And so should everyone here.

[HS: The liberal elite hates white proles themselves. The word was coined by Paul Fussell, liberal Ivy League professor (or maybe by George Orwell). So it's not "racist" to use it.]

@jay: It doesn't drip with "contempt" - the word was first popularized by the 1983 book "Class: A Guide Through the American Status System" by Paul Fussell. The class system described in the book is linked here: http://wesclark.com/am/class.html

It's not a hate word - in fact, some of my family are high proles, and frankly I think it's nothing to be ashamed of. Being a prole just means that they do manual labor - and there's no shame in a good honest day's work.

In fact, your assertion that it is a "hate word" makes me suspect that you yourself are a condescending SWPL.

Mitt Romney did a couple of things that doomed him, first of all he let Obama define him negatively all summer long, particularly in the Midwest. I live in Ohio, and Obama and his affiliated PACs drove the Romney is Ebenezer Scrooge meme from June to the conventions with nary a peep from Mitt and the GOP. I didn't see or hear on radio or TV a single Romney ad for the beginning two-thirds of the summer. All that I heard were Obama ads and they were without exception, all negative, portraying Romney as the Factory Closer Millionaire, which has a lot of traction in the Rust Belt. When he finally did get around to running ads, they were still being overwhelmed by the Obama stuff by 3 or 4-1 and that pretty much lasted up until the conventions were over. This meant even the bump he got from the first debate only got him back into a competitive race, whereas if he had been going into the debate where he had been back in May it would probably given him a big lead. I posted this last night on Sailer's blog, and this morning, Frank Luntz, the GOP super pollster basically said the same thing. The debate only made it possible for Romney to climb out of a deep hole he was in and making it competitive instead of putting Obama in trouble. The debate undid some of the damage, but not all of it. To give people in other parts of the country some idea of the magnitude of the advertising gap, I began to wonder if Romney had written off Ohio like Illinois and New York because I didn't see a single ad until maybe the end of July or the beginning of August, whereas I already seen dozens of Obama TV ads by then. There was finally some during the Olympics, but still two or three Obama ads would often bracket one Romney ad during commercial breaks.

Ryan also did nothing for him, he was vastly better than Palin, but that isn't saying much. Ryan didn't help in Wisconsin because he isn't known there state-wide and his talk on entitlements may have cost Romney Florida. Rob Portman could have counteracted some of the damage over the summer in Ohio with his strength in the southern and central parts of the state, and he is Spanish fluent without being Marco Rubio, which would have helped in Florida. Portman has already been elected statewide in Ohio back in 2010 when he obliterated his Democratic opponent from up north in my part of the state by nearly 700K votes. In addition to being a Senator he was also a Congressman and a former USTR and director of OMB. He is considered one of the best debaters in Washington while also being a bipartisan guy who can get things done. He has stood in for Democratic nominees in mock debates since 1996 and is a Dartmouth and Michigan Law grad who I think Joe Biden would have thought twice about treating with disdain the way he did Ryan in the Veep debate. In fact Biden would probably have played it safe against him because he is known for being such a strong debater, and Biden is considered to be a loose cannon, which may have built still more momentum for Romney. Romney may have also looked better in debates two and three with Portman to prep him. Lastly, tying into the first point, was Rick Santorum. His pointless challenge went on for far too long, and thereby forced Romney to spend money he couldn't afford to spend for a nomination that was already decided. In addition, he forced Romney to parrot his social conservatism in GOP debates in ways that ensured the " War on Women " narrative that the Democrats wanted would be broadcast in ads all election cycle long, ensuring that Romney would lose even more votes among women, particularly single ones. Now, surprise, surprise, Santorum is blaming Romney's defeat on a lack of pandering to Hispanics/Latinos/Latinas whatever the term is today. Santorum is apparently oblivious to the fact he never stood a chance of getting the nomination, and even if he had, would have had no chance in the general election. So goes the GOP, thanks Rick.

The comments to this entry are closed.