« There’s not going to be a Republican candidate in 2016 as good as Romney | Main | Romney lost Ohio because of high black turnout and low support from whites »

November 08, 2012

Comments

The reason Romney lost those states, is that whites who don't live near blacks don't have to worry about Diversity. They accept the view of Critical Race Theory that if black opportunities were equalized, then black behavior would mirror white's. It's the whites that live around blacks (and low-education Latinos) that are overwhelmingly Republican.

"Based on the idea that whites vote Republican"

No, whites exposed to NAMs vote R. Low-NAM states vote D BECAUSE they're extremely white, SWPL-hipster-infested states, a state of affairs that exists only because of their blissfully NAM-free existence.

Introduce some NAMs and they'll stop voting D.

"Based on the idea that whites vote Republican"

No, whites exposed to NAMs vote R. Low-NAM states vote D BECAUSE they're extremely white, SWPL-hipster-infested states, a state of affairs that exists only because of their blissfully NAM-free existence.

Introduce some NAMs and they'll stop voting D.

_____________
except CA and NM.

Also, the types of whites who live in states HS listed are more the higher IQ SWPL kind than the lower IQ prole kind found in the south.

Half Sigma,

Here is a great post by Andy McCarthy on National Review's "The Corner":

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332988/immigration-delusion-andrew-c-mccarthy

It's not just people in the HBD-sphere that recognize the idiocy of the WSJ open borders crowd.

Its kind of clear that in national elections Democrats have perfected the billion dollar ad campaign to shake the trees of every idiot and send them to the polls.

On a district by district basis however its clear that the GOP is able to win races in the majority of the country.

I think the next step is to wait for a casus belli, such as Obamacare causing a lot of jobs to be reclassified as part-time, and use that as a motivation behind a state-initiated constitutional amendment to reign in federal power. The GOP controls a super majority of the States and State legislatures and would be easily able to roll up 20+ States on a new admendment to limit federal power. I am thinking along the lines of a more definite definition of the Commerce Clause.

The remaining States needed for a super majority can be scheduled for referendums for off-year primary cycles when low-information Obama-bots are too busy making up new has tags to fall in line.

Even if you just rolled up 30 states and stalled out it would be a useful check on Federal power because it would serve as a shot across the bow.

"except CA and NM."

53% of CA whites pulled for Romney, one of the deepest of deep blue states.

the awakening is begun.

Why do you think Romney was a great candidate? He wasn't. He didn't have Reagan's charm and sense of humor (hell even Bush had more than Romney). Yeah he had some funny lines at that dinner speech he gave, but he was unable to convey that outside of that effectively.

Secondly, he lacked vision. It was all vague cut taxes lower spending BS. What kind of America did he want aside from the standard Republican boiler plate. Where do people from all socioeconomic backgrounds fit into his vision? He didn't articulate any of that. He had no good story to tell, and you need to tell a good story.

Finally, he was inconsistent. Sure all politicians changes views, it's endemic. But he made it epidemic.

I think a lot of blue collar whites in the upper midwest also blame Republicans for the decline of manufacturing jobs. Also, RandyB's comment about exposure to NAMs shouldn't be ignored. I wonder how whites in Detroit vote?

"The answer is abortion."

Nonsense. The answer is, they are Democrats and liberals. They would not have voted for Romney no matter what his position on abortion was (and indeed, Romney's position was very moderate).

I live around these people, though not in one of those states. They can always find a way to rationalize voting D no matter what the actual positions of the candidates. Possibly some of them are saying now that abortion was a key issue, but it wasn't. That's just how they rationalized it this time. Next time, it'll be something else. The idea that their votes are genuinely "for sale" and could be bought with a pro-abortion position is a chimera.

It's not just abortion HS, it's the whole War on Women thing, and it worked perfectly for the Dems.

It's not abortion. It's class and status, as you of all people should know. SWPLs hate rich white guys that aren't rock stars or actors. The NPR crowd has been groomed to retch when encountering people like Romney. Blue collar whites saw him as a union buster and a free trader.

One interesting thing about the morning-after "GOP needs to suck up to minorities" meme is that it somewhat implies HBD. It says that the minorities are a permanent underclass and will need the government to smooth out the competition forever. Of course this doesn't account for Asians, but they are voting against the GOP since they want more of their family to come here and want whatever little favors they can get from being labeled a minority.

Did the GOP use Obama's 2008 pro-free trade remarks at Billionaire's Row in San Francisco in campaign spots? I'm guessing no.

"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Drole Prole,

You should look up test scores of whites in those northern states and compare them to the test scores of whites in the southern states. What is amazing is how badly schools in many of those northern states. the idea that the whites in Maine or Rhode Island are smarter than the whites in Oklahoma or Texas is not only wrong but it is laughable.

The probably for the Republicans is that for many of the whites in the northern states, being a Democrat is a stylist choice to off set to stupidity and incompetence of the Bush Administration and the failures of the Republicans in Congress.

When the Republicans put social issues ahead of the economy, the Republicans were writing off winning in the northern states.

I love Paul Ryan, but his selection was very damaging.

Romney was already going to get the vote of those who truly cared about fiscal responsibility in this election, so selecting someone so vehemently anti-abortion was a critical mistake.

Even Rubio would have been better.

Whites in CA and NM voted Republican by a healthy margin.

It is pretty amazing about California at least, because I was there last summer and it was like another world. If Republicans won whites in a state where the marijuana lifestyle and gay marriage are very popular, then clearly they were voting Republican because they are tired of diversity above all else.

@Superdestroyer: Your specific examples of Maine and Texas are correct about test scores. Overall though, the lowest-scoring white students are in the South.

http://nationsreportcard.gov/science_2009/g8_state.asp?subtab_id=Tab_4&tab_id=tab1#tabsContainer

This is a major problem with advocating HBD -- keeping it distinct from the beliefs formerly advocated by the least intelligent whites.

I stand corrected on my assertion that a large majority of whites in CA voted democrat. It seems CA is solidly blue only most the LA area and SF Bay area plus some other tiny coastal areas. Nearly everywhere else is either moderate or red. Much of the Central and Eastern half of the state plus Orange and San Diego counties are republican. The inland whites are more similar to southern and midwestern blue collar types who are more 'traditional religious right' Republican. While many San Diego and OC whites are more like angry wealthy libertarians tea party whites.

As a left leaner, what really did it in for the Republicans was twofold.

Their prescription for fixing the economy was wrong and dangerously wrong, austerity doesn't work in a recession. Making the fed raise interest rates during a recession would be idiotic. All you have to do is look at Europe, austerity during a recession has not worked, it's not working in Greece and it's not working in Britain. Every cut the governments have made has reduced their revenues by more than the cuts themselves! The Germans have been forcing higher interest rates in favor of their own economy and at the expense of the periphery.
I know the idiots/ignorant on the right love to say look to Europe for why we need austerity, which is absolutely disgusting double-think because Europe is a clear indication of why we shouldn't be doing austerity during a recession. Yes we need to reduce the government, yes we need to pay down the deficit but show some sensibility about doing it.

The second issue is social issues. The Republican party is archaic on social issues and this pushes away a lot of people who would otherwise favor smaller government. They see the Republicans saying we want smaller government but we want to force our religious views on the rest of the country. What? 20% of the country is fundamentalist and actually favors those views strong enough to vote on them? But you have a rising 50+% of the country that supports gay marriage and abortion and see it as an issue of tyranny against minorities.

The idea that their immigration policies is what lost them the election is wrong. They are not going to get the Hispanic vote by just favoring softer immigration. That might win them Florida, maybe.

It doesn't seem like there is any easy path for the Republican party. With the policies they support now it would be difficult for them to do 180s on some of their unfavorable policies. Their reputation is very damaged.

"Reagan won ALL of those states in 1980 and 1984."

America was not as liberal then.

And the liberals were not as insane and partisan.

It's time to seriously think about splitting the nation into a around 3 separate nations. Western CA (minus OC and San Diego county), OR and WA can become one liberal nation. The western states (including Eastern CA, OC and Sand Diego county), Tornado Ally, Midwest minus IL and the South can become one Conservative super nation. And the NE another liberal nation. So basically so smaller liberal nations and one big conservative one. Each nation would have a lot less gridlock and would be able to get things done quickly. It would be interesting to see how each of these separate nations would fair. This nations is way too divided down the middle, which leads to massive gridlock and compromises that really suck for everyone.

Every single poll shows the the economy is people's #1 concern. Republicans are the party of union busting and offshoring. How is Mitt Romney going to help a manufacturing worker in Ohio?

As long as Republicans have the stated economic goals of an Ayn Rand novel (yes, they are plutocrats in practice, but those are their stated goals) they are never going to win over working class whites.

"But you have a rising 50+% of the country that supports gay marriage and abortion and see it as an issue of tyranny against minorities."

Opposition to abortion has actually been increasing, and more than 50% of Americans identify as pro-life. Your claim is only valid for gay marriage.

[HS: The actual EXIT POLL showed that 59% of voters think abortion should be legal.]

Getting rid of the abortion issue and the anti-gay marriage push would definitely help them win in Northern states, but that would seriously rile the base. I just don't see how they could do it without turning off their voters in the South.

"As a left leaner, what..."

You have to say is totally fucking irrelevant. You are motivated by helping leftism, so why the hell would anyone listen to your "advice" for the Republicans?

I've said on Steve Sailers and here, I don't believe policy shift can save the GOP. Whatever the GOP says will be characterized as extremist and anti-woman (implicitly anti casual sex).

I'm from L.A.'s eastern suburbs, and it's definitely true that people there trend moderate or conservative. There are even a handful of straight-up Republican districts, and towns with Republican mayors. Most are working or middle class whites and Hispanics who fled Los Angeles itself, and thus understand the dangers of . . . err . . . the "vibrancy" of urban decay. The Hispanics who live out this way tend to be the 'social conservative' Hispanics who elsewhere are a myth. Because, again, these are Hispanics who specifically left the city for the burbs so they could raise their kids in a relatively safe, gang-free environment. (Although there's still plenty of gang violence in San Bernardino and Pomona, it's not as ubiquitous as, say, Compton or Southgate.)

53% of California whites voted for Romney, at least in part, because they know that the diversity agenda is no good. They've seen it up close. Almost all suburban and rural Cali residents have lived in a heavily NAM-populated area at some point in their lives. However, the other major factor is the marriage gap: most of these suburban whites are married. Same goes for the suburban Hispanics, who, if they voted for Romney, are probably the Hispanics who just put 'white' on all their paperwork anyway.

Half Sigma makes a good point. He lists twelve states in his post. Ford won six of them in 1976 with 49% of the national popular vote, just a little better than Romney got. GHW Bush won eight of them in 1988, with 53% of the popular vote.

However, the South has solidified behind the Republicans (though Obama still won two states in the ex-Confederacy). But it seems that a party that dominates the South starts to struggle in the other regions.

However, speaking as a non-Republican, I think you guys are freaking out about this. The popular vote margin was close, about 2%, and the national popular vote for Congress was also close. Americans have tended to give a party the White House for more than four years, and then to dump them after eight or twelve years. The Republicans are definitely favored in 2016.

Second, I agree that Romney was a terrible candidate, the Republican version of John Kerry, and I have such a hard time seeing where this insistence that he was a great candidate comes from that I have a hard time even engaging the argument. They actually tried to look for alternatives in the primary but it was a very weak field. It won't be that hard to find a better candidate.

Third, if I were a Republican what I would worry about is the generational split that showed up in the exit polls, which is much more lopsided than usual.

RI, NH, VT, ME, MA are all packed with elitist SWPLs and there's nothing they hate more than a religious white guy. In these states Romney being mormon (and a leader in the church/ temple no less) definitely hurt him even among the semi-SWPLs. In addition to the SWPLs these states have a fair amount of fundies and conservative Catholics and for them too mormonism would have caused hesitation.

Dubrock - "It's not just abortion HS, it's the whole War on Women thing, and it worked perfectly for the Dems."

I agree with that. The Republicans were so psycho. Talking about rape cant get you pregnant and it's gods will if it does. Deeply insane.

Abortion was a different issue back in Reagans time. Relatively speaking it was a new thing. The overturn of Roe V. Wade would be the end of the Republican party.

"Getting rid of the abortion issue and the anti-gay marriage push would definitely help them win in Northern states, but that would seriously rile the base. I just don't see how they could do it without turning off their voters in the South. "

Though southerners are pro-life generally, I don't think they actually care that much about the abortion issue as much as people assume. Even conservative southerners don't agree with the extreme "no exceptions" abortion position espoused by many Republican party leaders. In Mississippi they defeated a personhood amendment that would have made abortion and IVF illegal in the state. Additionally, I've seen more pro-life signs in the upper south like Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri than in places like Alabama and Georgia. Gay marriage would probably turn off southern voters, however. It was unreal how the Chick-fil-a support day backed up traffic in major southern suburbs. However I don't think they would start voting Democrat over it.

"The Republicans were so psycho. Talking about rape cant get you pregnant and it's gods will if it does. Deeply insane."

You moron, that was not "the Republicans" it was TWO unknown and insignificant candidates.

Whites who have to live near blacks vote Republicans. Whites who can avoid blacks become idealistic hipsters, and vote Democrat.

Whites in the north move to the suburbs, knowing that blacks in the north stay in the city centers.

In the south, blacks live in cities, suburbs, and rural areas; the whites keep moving. Maybe this explains why poor southern whites live in trailers; they can move quickly.

@ JP, one of those "insignificant" candidates defeated Richard Lugar in the primary, and turned a safe Republican seat into a Democratic one.

@BlogRaju: If that were true, wouldn't hipster/yuppie whites in mixed Brooklyn neighborhoods vote Republican?

Will a "come to Jesus moment" lead them to believe that they need to support abortion?

I don't think abortion had much to do with Romney's loss. I think the main factor in his loss was low voter turnout among the white working class particularly in rural areas. They tend to see the Republicans as the party of the rich. If the GOP wants to win in 2016 they will have to develop economic policies that benefit the white working class as much as the rich.

Becoming a bit more competitive among Latinos (71% Obama) and a lot more competitive among Asians (73% Obama) could make the difference in such states as California, Illinois and Virginia.

The South is not the most anti-abortion region of the country among whites. In fact, before Roe v Wade, it was the most liberal region of the country on abortion because they saw it as a way of controlling the black population.

It is the Midwest and Great Plains where there are lots of people who are militant about being against abortion. Think Kansas and the Dakotas.

"This is a major problem with advocating HBD -- keeping it distinct from the beliefs formerly advocated by the least intelligent whites." - RandyB


They weren't dumb. They knew what would happen to their communities and schools and much of that materialized. I do agree though that people care a lot about status and more often than not your "racist" prole uncle is disregarded because he's "the wrong sort of white". What he believes is called "folk HBD"

A few suggestions...

Abortion. Rowe v Wade isn't going away. So the GOP should thread the needle by changing their platform to the following: "Everyone agrees that abortion is a terrible thing. But the best way to be prolife is through values, education and personal responsibility not more laws." Then they should warn prolife politicians against saying things that would alarm people in prochoice states. That allows the GOP to remain prolife while reassuring women that abortion is a non issue.

SSM. The solution is to give both sides what they want. Homos say they want legal status for inheritance, taxes, etc. While the biggest objection others have is that they just don't want it called "marriage". The GOP should take the initiative by passing a civil union bill. They're already parading their naked asses in parades down mainstreet. We might as well take away their legitimate gripes. That way we'll take away a Dem issue and make the other side look petty for not being satisfied.

War. End large scale campaigns and replace them with smaller CIA based campaigns using special ops, air strikes and proxies. We already are but we still have too big of a footprint. We should also have the Saudis, Koreans & Japanese pay part of the costs for defending them.

Unions. I'm not a fan of unions. But the best bet for the GOP is to distinguish between private and public sector unions. And then try to win over the trade unions. The trade unions are mostly white proles who are already moving to the GOP. Plus, trade unions are very popular in the Great Lakes and Northeast where it would make a difference. Unions aren't going away so they might as well be for the GOP.

Taxes. Reduce marginal tax rates 20% across the board and eliminating capital gains tax for the middle class. Then make it revenue neutral by eliminated and capping deductions for the rich. That was Romney's plan and I liked it.

Social security. Reduce obligations by raising the retirement age by 1 month for every year away from eligibility. That sounds small but it's actually huge. Then require working age people to save at least 5% of their income in an IRA / index fund. In a few years, people will see the money in their IRA and demand the option to privatize part of their social security, too.

Obamacare. Adopt the Bloomberg approach of banning unhealthy stuff like smokes, sodas, etc. I hate the idea of a nanny state but if I'm going to have to pay for someone's healthcare then the least they can do is not smoke or weigh 400 pounds. Plus, SWPL'S will love it.

let’s look at some of the actual STATES that Romney lost:

Maine: 94% white
Vermont: 94% white
New Hampshire: 92% white
Iowa: 89% white
Minnesota: 83% white
Wisconsin: 83% white
Ohio: 81% white
Pennsylvania: 79% white
Oregon: 78% white
Michigan: 77% white
Rhode Island: 76% white

------------------------------------------


Why don't you take the obvious step of looking at the actual white VOTES in these states? If you do that, you'll see that in Ohio, for instance, Romney carried the white vote by a whopping 16 points. In Pennsylvania, Romney carried the white vote by 15 points. Those are very big margins. Romney even carried the white vote in New Jersey(!) by 13 points.

Those are Reaganesque numbers. The only problem is, we don't have the demographics of Reagan's day any more.

The idea that there exist large numbers of voters in the North-East who are fiscally conservative but who support abortion is an absurd fiction. I live in the North-East. If these voters existed then the state governments would reflect those views. People who favor smaller government but support abortion would run for state Senator and other state office, and be elected by that alleged multitude of NE voters who feel the same way.

They don't exist. You're better off searching for unicorns than for a fiscally conservative majority in the North East states.

>"Reagan won ALL of those states in 1980 and 1984."

And Reagan (who was much more vociferously anti-abortion than Romney, by the way) would have lost all those states, plus California, in 2012. While carrying the same percentage of the white vote.

What are the percentages of black in those states? In states with a black pop>white pop, is the white vote still heavily democratic? I have doubts that democratic economic policies are viable once the black population reaches a tipping point. White liberal democrats think they can have a European style safety net and 5 week vacations given the large and ever increasing NAM population. I think they live in a world with unlimited resources; or heavily white populations.

Racially conscious peoples, especially in the West, have always looked at abortion with horror. The hyperatomism which leads to "choice" is a hallmark of dying civilizations reverting to barbarism. Who would want his daughter-in-law to snuff out his grandchild?

Fetus=canary. Womb=coal mine.

Severn: Reagan won 64% of the white vote in 1984. That would have put Romney in office in 2013, and even carried Minnesota, which didn't have a native on the other ticket.

But no, 64% won't do in 2020, and maybe not even 2016. Unless you depress the white Democratic vote at the same time. Hint: Third parties, attack the Dems first. That did wonders for Jesse Ventura.

>"Reagan won 64% of the white vote in 1984."

And 55% in 1980, which also put him in the WH but would not have done so in 2012.

"And 55% in 1980, which also put him in the WH but would not have done so in 2012."

55% is astounding for a challenger in a three-way race where the third candidate was a Swede who got 7% of the total vote, every last one of them from whites.

Were John Anderson on the ballot this year-- he's a robust 90-- Romney would be planning his inauguration.

Romney was challenging the incumbent President in 2012, as Reagan was in 1980. According to the CNN exit poll Romney won the white vote by twenty points, 59% to 39%. That's a stunning amount and in Reagan's day it would have guaranteed victory regardless of any third party spoilers. I'm not sure why you're so determined to argue a losing point.

The problem with this is that it assumes that the hard line anti-abortion types in the Republican party would stay in the Republican party if the abortion issue was off the table. A lot of them might actually conclude that, apart from that issue, they sort of like the Dems. If I remember correctly, the overwhelming movement of more fundamentalist Christians to the Republican party came after Roe and, in large part, as a consequence of Roe (and Reagan's staunch opposition to abortion). The term "Religious Right" didn't exist back before Roe (and maybe not even before Reagan).

Who's arguing? What "losing point"? I disagreed with one stat, which you haven't defended.

Shift 5% of the total white vote from Obama to Romney in every state, and see if that doesn't put Romney over 270. If it doesn't, you're right. If it does, I am. (Peter Brimelow's threshold was just over 60%, and Steve Sailer's was similar if not as explicit.)

I once calculated that had every single Anderson vote gone to Carter, Reagan would still have won. But add Ed Clark's Libertarian vote (inconceivable as that is; I was one of them and you couldn't pay me enough to vote for Carter), and Jimmy would have been reelected with just over 270, even though more voters still would have chosen Reagan.

HS,

You are right in you're diagnosis of the problem (sort of) but way off-base on your solution.

Romney did win the White vote, but lost the turnout fight. Romney won somewhere around 2.5 million fewer votes than McCain. It's not that he didn't get a high enough percentage of White voters who turned out, not enough of them turned out. There were somewhere around 7 million (Sean Trende's estimation) and 10 million (Jay Cost's estimation) who did not show up because Obama's "Bain Capital eats babies" campaign worked. (Romney won a slighter smaller portion of the Mormon vote than John McCain in 2008; think about that for a minute.)

It's a deeply cynical tactic (realizing you can't up your vote total, so make the other guy toxic) but has a long and successful track record. Most of those who stayed at home were working to lower-middle class to middle class Whites. For the first time that I can remember, voters with "some college" were outnumbered by college graduates. Those with post-graduate degrees (disproportionately employed in govt., law, etc. and voting their econ and cyultural interest, i.e., Dem) were roughly 20&. Obama's share of the under $50,000 a year vote, makes it clear that this cohort was less White than the general population of under $50,000 a year are. Per Sean Trende, the White vote should have been 74% of the electorate (it was 75% in 2008). Instead, it was 72%.
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/11/08/the_case_of_the_missing_white_voters_116106.html)
Changing demographics were the least of it.

As for your policy suggestion, adopting some sort of pro-choice position would have done nothing to draw in those voters who are disproportionately pro-life and simply never connected with some rich dude who (they were told) wanted Detroit to go bankrupt and didn't give a shit about them.

As for single women, they do not vote on "abortion" or "access to birth control," regardless of what their hamster-wheel minds say. Polls show they are consistently more pro-government and rely on Big Daddy government. More importantly, "the issues," per se, are less important to voters than you seem to realize.

As for the rest of your SWPL buddies, like most voters, they don't vote because of "issues." Sorry, but most voters vote their "identity" and someone who cares about "people like them." Obama won on that question by a margin of almost 9-1 ("cares about people like me"). Exit polls showed people want smaller government and did not want tax increases. Yet, they had no interest in voting for this Republican (and most of them had no interest in voting for any Republican). Veering "left," "right," etc. has nothing to do with it.

@ XVO "As a left leaner, what really did it in for the Republicans was twofold.

Their prescription for fixing the economy was wrong and dangerously wrong, austerity doesn't work in a recession. Making the fed raise interest rates during a recession would be idiotic. All you have to do is look at Europe, austerity during a recession has not worked, it's not working in Greece and it's not working in Britain. Every cut the governments have made has reduced their revenues by more than the cuts themselves! The Germans have been forcing higher interest rates in favor of their own economy and at the expense of the periphery.
I know the idiots/ignorant on the right love to say look to Europe for why we need austerity, which is absolutely disgusting double-think because Europe is a clear indication of why we shouldn't be doing austerity during a recession. Yes we need to reduce the government, yes we need to pay down the deficit but show some sensibility about doing it."

I don't think you understand what austerity is. It isn't some alternate economic policy, and Romney/Ryan wasn't advocating anything like that. Even under Ryan's original and much tighter budget plan, the deficit still would have run 6 billion more dollars over the next 10 years. That doesn't sound like austerity to me. And the second budget wasn't nearly as restrictive as that.

"That's a stunning amount and in Reagan's day it would have guaranteed victory regardless of any third party spoilers."

Let's assume the 1984 electorate was 87% white, 11% black and 2% other. Let's also assume blacks went 85% Mondale and 15% Reagan and others broke 2 to 1 for Mondale.

Under that model Reagan won ~65% of the white vote in 1984 to win 58.9% of the popular vote.

Also, the exit polls may be underestimating the white percentage of the vote for 2004, 2008 and 2012.

According to CNN's 2004 exit poll the 2004 electorate was 77% white, but Steve Sailer has written the actual number was in the low 80's.

The comments to this entry are closed.