GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote.

GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote.

By Steve Sailer

Readers React: Sailer v Unz

Readers React: Sailer v. Wanniski

Here at VDARE, we’ve discussed repeatedly http://www.vdare.com/people.htm how dire will be the long-term impact of immigration on the Republican Party. It’s crucial to understand, however, that the long-term has not quite arrived. The GOP is not yet held hostage. It still has a window of opportunity – definitely stretching through the next recession but maybe not to the recession after that – to save itself by changing the immigration laws. This can be seen by examining the 2000 election results closely.

The reason George W. Bush struggled so much to eke out a 271-267 win in the Electoral College (assuming that he can hold on to it) is not that he got crushed in the minority vote 77% to 21%. No, it’s that he commanded only a measly 54% of the white vote.

To test this theory, I created a huge state-by-state spreadsheet of election results and Voter News Service exit poll numbers [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html]), which allows me to play what-if games, such as:

  • What if Bush II had won 57% of the white vote? That’s hardly an outlandish figure since Bush I had taken 59% in 1988. If Dubya had garnered 57% instead of just 54% of whites, he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171. (Technically, I’m modeling this by raising Bush’s share of the white vote by three points in every state.)

Why? Because whites remain by far the dominant bloc in the U.S. They count for 81% of all votes cast. Despite all of Bush’s support for diversity, illegal immigrants, bilingualism, “affirmative access,” and the like, an overwhelming 92% of his votes came from whites.

  • What if in upping his share of the white electorate from 54% to 57%, Dubya had alienated more minority voters, causing his share of the nonwhite vote to fall by 8 points from 21% to 13%?

A disaster, right? Wrong. Bush still would have won 310 to 228.

  • What if in winning those three additional white share points, Dubya had lost every single nonwhite vote in the USA?

Incredibly, he still would have won. Bush would have tied 269-269 in the Electoral College and been elected President by the House of Representatives.

This remarkable finding stems from the sizable advantage the Republicans enjoy in the Electoral College. In this case, Al Gore would have won the popular vote by more than 3 million, but still lost the election because Bush’s strength is in small states. Since every state, no matter how small the population, gets three Electoral Votes for having two Senators and a Representative, the Republican dominance of the Great Plains and Great Basin provides a striking advantage.

By the way, this is the flip side of the Republican catastrophe in California. When cultural conservatives flee California for the interior West, the GOP picks up cheap Electoral Votes and Senate seats in small states.

  • Now, let’s turn it around. What if instead of Bush adding three percent of the white vote (for which he would have gained 96 Electoral Votes), he had instead boosted his nonwhite vote by three points, from 21% to 24%?

He would have picked up five more Electoral Votes. Big deal.

  • If Bush had doubled his share of the nonwhite vote, from 21% to 42% and somehow avoided losing any white votes, he still would have gained only 52 Electoral Votes.

So where could Bush have picked up an additional 3 percent of the white vote? The most obvious source: white union families. The 26% of the electorate with a union member in their households voted 59% to 37% for Gore. For the time being, most union families are still white. So if Bush could have won enough white labor families to raise his total labor vote from 37% to about 46%, that would have done the trick of lifting his share of the white vote from 54% to 57%.

What could persuade more white union families to vote Republican when the current AFL-CIO leadership is so leftist? Here’s a suggestion.

The labor bosses are selling out their old time members’ interests in order to try to pad their membership with immigrants, legal and illegal. That’s why the AFL-CIO supremos recently called for another amnesty for illegal immigrants. [http://www.vdare.com/afl-cio.htm] Immigration should be the perfect issue for the GOP to use to split the rank and file from their Democratic bosses.

Since union efforts cost Bush Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (at a minimum), you’d think that the GOP would be hot to win back the Reagan Democrats.

Don’t count on it, though. It’s just so much more fashionable to continue to chase futilely after Hispanics.

In summary: the GOP could win more elections by raising its fraction of the white vote minimally than by somehow grabbing vastly higher fractions of the minority vote.

I said “could.”

Note: This model is based on election results as of 11/15/2000 and the VNS exit polls, as reported on the CNN website. I also made minor objective statistical adjustments to account for the slight disagreements between the actual results and the exit polls. So, while your mileage may vary, this model looks quite robust.

Recent post:

Barack Obama: Radical or Windbag?
By Ian Jobling  11/17/08

More of a windbag than a radical.

Barack Obama has filled racial right writers, as well as many commenters on this website, with dire foreboding. Steve Sailer has called Obama a “man of the radical left, driven by racial animosity against the American majority,” and has written a whole book to prove his point. Pat Buchanan predicts the passage of amnesty within Obama’s first 100 days, as well as universal health insurance that would cover illegal aliens. Michael Hart thinks Obama “hates whites” and is favorable to communism.
I agree that Obama’s election is a disturbing and possibly disastrous event, and I will no doubt find many occasions to rail against him in the future. However, what we need now is a sober assessment of what the man actually believes and how he will try to change America. I have not found evidence to support the claim that Obama is a radical leftist driven by a lust for racial vengeance. Certainly, Obama’s association with the appalling Jeremiah Wright, his past work as a community organizer and civil rights lawyer, and the college radicalism described in Dreams of My Father prove that he possesses a profound sense of racial identity and was steeped in academic leftism in his youth. However, these aspects of Obama’s history should not be exaggerated. The Obama of The Audacity of Hope, the campaign, and the transition is a moderate center-left politician, not a firebrand leftist, on issues of race and welfare. Moreover, the circumstances of Obama’s presidency will make it difficult for him to pass even a moderate leftist agenda into law.
The memory of the Republican landslide in the congressional elections of 1994 haunts the Democrats. They will be wary of provoking a conservative backlash by pressing for unpopular liberal policies, as the Clinton administration did after it came in 1992. There is, after all, no evidence that American public opinion is shifting to the left. Rather, Americans appear to have voted Democrat out of discontent with an unpopular president rather than eagerness for radical change. Voters in 2008 were much more likely to call themselves conservatives than liberals, and the percentages were almost exactly the same as in 2004. Voters chose the conservative option on most ballot initiatives dealing with issues of race, immigration, and culture.
Obama undoubtedly favors amnesty and other forms immigration liberalization, although not as passionately as John McCain does. However, Mark Krikorian, the foremost expert on American immigration issues, has convincingly argued that the new administration recognizes the unpopularity of amnesty and will not push for it in the foreseeable future. The incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said that amnesty has “emerged as the third rail of American politics” and once told a Hispanic activist that “there is no way this legislation [comprehensive immigration reform] is happening in the Democratic House, in the Democratic Senate, in the Democratic presidency, in the first term.” Many of the incoming Democrats ran on an anti-amnesty platform; in fact, the next Congress will not move substantially to the left on immigration.
Besides, the rationale for any kind of immigration liberalization will be even weaker for the foreseeable future than it was during the Bush years, when all such initiatives failed. America is entering a recession that will probably last for years. It would be suicidal for any politician to back legislation friendly to foreign workers in a time of high unemployment.
When it comes to affirmative action, Obama is hardly a radical. Rather his position is vague and cautious to the point of incoherence. In The Audacity of Hope, he makes it clear that he thinks blacks still suffer from widespread discrimination and endorses racial preferences as a correction. He even calls for “goals and timetables for minority hiring” for corporations, trade unions, and government agencies that are insufficiently diverse.1
On the other hand, Obama says that he thinks policies designed to help the poor in general will do more for minorities than racial preferences. For example, he writes, “a plan for universal health-care coverage would do more to eliminate health disparities between whites and minorities than any race-specific programs we might design.”2 When Obama addressed the NAACP in July, he didn’t mention affirmative action at all, but spoke of the need to help out all of the poor, “whether they live in Anacostia or Appalachia.” Finally, Obama thinks poor white applicants to college deserve preferences more than his own daughters, which would be an odd position for anyone who hated white people to take.
Obama will face considerable resistance if he tries to implement affirmative action policies or stock the courts with judges who are racial preference radicals. Affirmative action has never been popular among Americans, and Obama’s very success has convinced even more people that it is obsolete. An October poll found that 68 percent of whites and even 43 percent of blacks believed blacks and whites have an equal chance of getting ahead today, which was up considerably from 1997 and even from earlier this year. Moreover, suspicions that Obama is a race-baiting demagogue, stoked by his association with Jeremiah Wright, almost sunk his campaign. Since Obama will be eager to avoid reviving these suspicions, he may actually be less aggressive in promoting racial preferences than a white liberal president would be.
Moreover, we don’t need to worry that Obama is a socialist or a Marxist or any such thing. Yes, Obama believes in greater government investment in and regulation of business; yes, he supports an increase in welfare spending, particularly for health care; yes, he wants to raise taxes on the wealthy. However, Obama believes in government as a supplement and partner to the free-market system, not as a replacement for it. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama speaks of the “bankruptcy of socialism and communism” and praises America’s “business culture,” which has resulted in “a prosperity that’s unmatched in human history.”3
There is good reason to believe, moreover, that Obama’s plans to increase welfare spending will founder. The government has already spent trillions on the bailout of the American financial sector, and now the Democrats want to bail out the automakers too. It will be difficult for the Democrats to justify increasing the size of the welfare state after this orgy of spending. Democrats will also find it hard to convince Americans that businesses should spend more on employee health insurance during a recession when business will be struggling. Finally, fiscal conservatives will be able to make a strong case that tax increases of any kind will retard economic recovery by lowering investment.
All predictions about the course of a presidency are unreliable, of course. A single event can push a president in an unexpected direction, as 9/11 did Bush. All bets about the Obama presidency are off if the worst forecasts for the economy—those that call for an outright depression—come true. If unemployment reaches 20 percent, America may enter strange and turbulent times, when radical changes, whether for good or evil, become possible. Moreover, only a rapid Republican recovery can contain the left. The Democrats will grow more frightening the longer they retain the presidency and their congressional majority.
The interpretation of Obama as a radical racialist and leftist mistakes the man’s basic motivations. As he made clear in his March speech on race, Obama thinks of himself not as an avenger, but a healer. As Obama sees it, blacks, whites, Hispanics, all of us are angry. We all need to come together and learn to understand each other’s anger so that we can forgive it and be healed, and Obama himself is the miraculous being who will make this transcendence possible.
Obama’s image of himself is not just pompous and hackneyed, but downright insulting. After all, whites are suicidally indulgent to minorities already—how much more understanding and forgiving do we have to be? However, Obama’s vanity is less likely to result in hate-whitey legislation than in windy speechifying about a “the fierce urgency of now” and “unyielding hope” and such. So stay strong, keep the faith, and make sure your remote has a functioning mute button!

We’ve Got Karl Rove to Kick Around Some More!
By Steve Sailer
You might think that Karl Rove would be taking a bit of a break. After guiding the GOP to its disastrous 2006 campaign, and having his protégé Steve Schmidt run John McCain’s clueless 2008 campaign into the ground, doesn’t he want to think things over—to lie low until he figures out where he went so terribly wrong?
After all, the Republican President whom Rove guided to narrow victories in 2000 and 2004 has presided in recent weeks over the wholesale nationalization of sizable chunks of the economy—the biggest victory that socialism has ever won in the history of the United States.  And he has managed to get himself succeeded by a man of the radical left, driven by racial animosity against the American majority. (See my new book America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story Of Race And Inheritance”!). Isn’t that kind of a downer?
But you would be wrong. Rove is bustin’ out all over. According to his biography in The Wall Street Journal:
“Karl writes a weekly op-ed for The Wall Street Journal, is a Newsweek columnist and is now writing a book to be published by Simon & Schuster. Email the author at Karl@Rove.com or visit him on the web at Rove.com.”
Rove is still pushing the Political Big Idea of the Bush Administration: converting Hispanics to the GOP. In his November 13 WSJ column, History Favors Republicans in 2010 he asserted:
“One of the most important shifts was Hispanic support for Democrats. John McCain got the votes of 32% of Hispanic voters. That’s down from the 44% Mr. Bush won four years ago. If this trend continues, the GOP will find it difficult to regain the majority.”
C’mon, Karl—give it a rest! Your boy George did not get 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. You know perfectly well that Edison-Mitofsky, the exit poll company, admitted in January 2005 that they had botched up the methodology. The real number was around 40 percent—firmly in the GOP’s historically horrible Hispanic range.
More importantly, the main reason Bush reached 40 percent in 2004 was because the two of you bought a few percentage point increase in the Hispanic vote with the Housing Bubble.
The Bush Administration tried to turn Latinos into home-owning Republicans, using no down payment subprime adjustable rate mortgages. In 2002-2004, Bush campaigned against down payments on home loans as the chief impediment to his goal of adding 5.5 million minority homeowners.
Hispanics, on average, are natural tax-and-spend Democrats. Rove tried to turn them into Republicans through a policy of borrow-and-spend. Home purchase mortgage dollars flowing to Hispanics increased 691 percent from 1999 to 2006. In California, the black hole of the mortgage meltdown, the fraction of first-time home purchasers in California who didn’t put any money down grew from 7 percent in 2000 to 33 (!) percent in 2004 to 41 (!!) percent in 2006.
Although the Bush Administration was most interested in wooing Hispanics with easy credit, the lax lending standards applied to everybody—further fueling the Bubble.
Now, though, Hispanics are defaulting in huge numbers on mortgages they never should have gotten in the first place. And they are being laid off from their construction jobs building homes we didn’t need and couldn’t afford.
And we’re all paying the ghastly economic price for Rove’s political gambit.
It’s important to fully understand why the lessons the two Texans, Rove and Bush, learned in their home state didn’t apply in other heavily Hispanic states.
So far, the mortgage meltdown hasn’t been as bad in Texas as in the four “Sand States” (as they were known on Wall Street during the Bubble): California, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. These are home to half of the foreclosures and a large majority of the defaulted mortgage money.
Partly this is due to the Oil Bubble, which now appears to be ending. Oil prices over $100 per barrel kept the Texas economy strong in 2008, allowing debtors to avoid foreclosure.
Also, the enormous amount of land and the lack of environmental restrictions on home development in Texas means that when the federal government stimulates demand, the supply of housing increases quickly as well, keeping housing prices reasonable.
Finally, what Rove and Bush missed was how different the economic and immigration history of Texas over the last three decades was relative to the seemingly similar Sand States. Due to OPEC’s oil price increases in the 1970s, Texas experienced a huge construction boom thirty years ago. That mostly attracted construction workers from the rest of the U.S. rather than from Mexico, because Mexico was simultaneously experiencing its own oil boom following massive new discoveries.
When oil prices collapsed in 1982, the economies of Texas and Mexico slumped simultaneously. The big wave of post-1982 unemployed illegal aliens therefore headed for California rather than for Texas.
That’s why San Antonio had “surprisingly low levels” of immigration from 1965 to 2000, according to the important new book quantitatively comparing Mexican-Americans in San Antonio and Los Angeles in 1965 and 2000, Generations of Exclusion, by sociologists associated with the UCLA Chicano Studies Program.
The 2000 Census found that California’s foreign-born population (26 percent of all residents) was almost twice as large as Texas’s (14 percent).
As Texans, Rove and Bush apparently just couldn’t understand the quantity and quality of the immigration situation in the other heavily Hispanic states. In 2000, Texas had a large but fairly well-rooted, stable, and assimilated Mexican-American population that had a reasonable potential to make enough money in resource-extraction or other blue-collar jobs to afford to buy Texas’s cheap houses.
In sharp contrast, California had a huge and mostly new, ill-educated, and unassimilated Mexican-American population that didn’t have even a chance of making enough money in Silicon Valley or Hollywood to afford California’s already expensive houses.
And Nevada, Arizona, and Florida were more like California than they were like Texas.
The Rove-Bush policies weren’t directly disastrous in Texas, the state they understood. But in other heavily Hispanic states, they were like trying to put out fire with gasoline.
Lately, there has been much talk about what the GOP needs to do in the future. An overlooked necessity is that the Republican Party must shed the Rove-Bush trick of appealing to Ronald Reagan’s alleged philosophy of optimism to justify bad policies.
In the long run, what wins elections is not optimism or pessimism, but realism. Reagan triumphed less because he was optimistic than because he was realistic. He came to office in 1981 after a long period in which America had gotten kicked around. In a climate of gloom, he correctly assessed that, given some encouragement, America’s business and military were capable of doing a much better job than the conventional wisdom of the time believed.
In contrast, Rove and Bush arrived in Washington 20 years later, following the enormous triumphs of the Reagan Era. When you’re already on top of the world, it’s implausible that the only way you can go is up.
Worse, while Reagan bet on Americans, Rove and Bush placed some of their biggest bets on foreigners. They guessed that all that was holding Iraqis back from democracy was Saddam Hussein. And they bet that Mexicans could earn enough to afford the American Dream of home ownership—if the government could only do something about those pesky down payments.
What should the Republican Party do in the future? After Rove’s years of what I call Marketing Major postmodernism—the belief, often acquired through osmosis while studying public relations or advertising in college, that some egghead over in Europe proved that there’s no such thing as truth or reality, so spin away!—the first priority must be to remake the GOP as the party of realism.
The Rove-Bush strategy of Invade the World/ Invite the World/ In Hock to the World reflected an unfounded faith not in Americans but in, respectively, the reasonableness, competence, and benevolence of non-Americans.
Now, we need to begin the long task of rebuilding with a clear, cold eye.

Mexicans Get The Message, Even If GOP Doesn’t—Race Is Destiny In American Politics
You can’t tell from the MSM, but the best way to look at the recent election is from a demographic point of view. McCain won the white vote, but not by a big margin. At 96%, Obama carried the black vote. In both the Asian-American vote and the Hispanic vote, Obama beat McCain 2 to 1.
Furthermore, among Latin American immigrants  who voted, McCain was shellacked. While Hispanics in general went 67-31 for Obama, among foreign-born Latinos the margin was 78 to 22.
Yes, the future looks great for the GOP, doesn’t it? Today’s mass immigration is, in essence, a Democratic Voter Importation System. It’s completely understandable that the Democrats support it. But why do Republicans?
Nevertheless, we’re already being lectured that the problem is that Republicans didn’t pander enough to Hispanics. Which is amazing when you consider how much McCain has pandered to Hispanics throughout his political career. And this is the thanks he received!
The demographic aspect of election ’08 did not go unnoticed south of the border. El Universal, Mexico’s paper of record, ran articles entitled Emerge Coalición de Minorías en EU [Coalition of Minorities Emerges in the U.S.] and Cambio Demográfico Impulsó a Obama, [Demographic Change Propelled Obama] both by Wilbert TorreEnviado, November 6, 2008.
Yeah, they get it—even if many of our people don’t.
The Mexican government, ever attentive, is gearing up for a new round of meddling. On November 7th, Foreign minister Patricia Espinosa announced that, upon Obama’s assumption of the presidency, “Mexico will again take up the agenda that includes the migratory accord as a priority”.
As reported by El Universal:
“In a press conference, she said that President Felipe Calderon is confident that with the arrival of Obama to the presidency of the United States, a migratory accord that permits both nations a legal, safe and orderly migratory flow, will finally be achieved. She also said that ‘the government of Mexico hopes that the president-elect of the United States will change his position on the construction of the border wall’.”
“According to the Foreign Minister, ‘the government of Felipe Calderon will continue proposing in a respectful but firm manner, that the border wall is not compatible with the relation of friendship and the character of partnership that exists between Mexico and the United States ‘.” [Replanteará México ante Obama Acuerdo Migratorio, El Universal, Nov. 7th 2008]
Well, that’s not exactly surprising, now is it?
El Universal also ran stories highlighting people who are pinning their hopes on Barack Obama. One was a celebrity illegal alien, Flor Crisóstomo, a Mexican Zapotec Indian “in resistance”, to whom the recent elections “meant so much”:
“Barack Obama is her hope, and [the hope] she says, of at least 12 million ‘indocumentados’ in that country.” [EU: Migrantes en Resistencia (U.S.: Migrants in Resistance), Carolina Rocha, El Universal, November 9, 2008]
The article explains how Flor, arrested in 2006 as an illegal alien, has become an activist in the U.S. fighting for the rights “of the undocumented People”.
If Flor was arrested, why wasn’t she deported? On the recommendation of the Mexican consulate in Chicago, she refused to sign her deportation order.
Neat trick that. Somebody ought to try it in Mexico!
Eventually, after being given a deportation date, Flor found her way to the same Methodist church that sheltered the famous Elvira. There Flor continues her high-profile activism while making jewelry to sell, and sending money to her kids (whose dad is never mentioned) in Mexico.
Another article related the hopes of Mexican-Americans in Arizona, John McCain’s state, who voted for Obama. It quotes a lady who believes that the Virgin of Guadalupe  won it for Obama:
“The Virgin of Guadalupe performed a miracle for Bernadina Chavez, a Mexican-American of Mesa, Arizona. Yesterday, with an enormous smile on her face, she said she asked [it of] the image that she brought from Mexico. She had never felt such happiness , of knowing that her candidate Barack Obama won the presidency of the United States. “
As I reported this past summer, John “The Panderer” McCain visited the Basilica of the  Virgin of Guadalupe , apparently hoping it would win him Mexican-American votes. Guess what?—it didn’t.
Anyway, back to Bernadina Chavez in Arizona:
“She and her family voted for Obama, seeking change for all the Hispanics in the United States, because she has seen how in the last year her neighbors that had work lost it, entire families have been separated due to the raids that they carry out in Arizona, that parents are deported and their children stay because they are Americans [that is, anchor babies], that businesses are disappearing and that they are offended on the street just for being of Mexican origin. ‘All that is going to change now. It has already changed today because the people went out happy to the street because they have hope, because now we can be more secure here and those who don’t have papers can get them and they don’t have to think about returning where they came from ‘.” [La Guadalupana nos hizo el milagro, By Doris Gomora, El Universal, November 6, 2008]
So despite all of John McCain’s eager betrayal of American sovereignty in order to please Latinos, the candidate 1) lost the Hispanic vote by a wide margin; 2) is not popular in Mexico; and 3) still lost the election.
Time for a change of strategy. The GOP has no choice but to adopt the Sailer Strategy instead.

GOP Can Play By “McCain Rules” And Lose, Or “Sailer Rules” And Win
By Steve Sailer
Well, that election sure was exciting, wasn’t it?
First, let’s start with John McCain.
Before the general election campaign started, the MainStream Media presented McCain as an ideal candidate: the kind of straight-shooting Scots-Irish war hero that Americans have voted for over and over since Andy Jackson’s time. (Indeed, just about the only region in which the pugnacious McCain performed well last Tuesday was the Scots-Irish heartland from West Virginia to Oklahoma.)
Not surprisingly, McCain actually turned out to be a pretty awful candidate. That he still got 46 percent of the vote attests more to the value of the brand than to his performance.
McCain’s was essentially a vanity candidacy, driven by little more than his assumption that his own personal awesomeness entitled him to be President.
As a candidate, he was fairly similar to Bob Dole in 1996: a partly-crippled war veteran 72-year-old Senator who was a regular guest on the Sunday morning talk shows. Not surprisingly, he ended up losing by about the same margin.
Until they deserted him for Obama, the press had liked McCain because he reacts emotionally to issues, and thus often disagrees with other Republicans. But, McCain’s idiosyncratic positions don’t point to some higher wisdom, just to McCain’s inability to think systematically.
Thus, given almost nothing pressing to do from the Super Tuesday primaries on February 5 until the convention on Labor Day weekend, he could barely come up with any issues to run on in this election.
In contrast, Obama promised everything to everybody. Granted, Obama’s enormous platform was a fraud (I sure hope you haven’t already gone out and spent the tax cut Obama promised you), but, you have to admit, at least it was a methodical fraud.
Senator McCain has neither executive experience not inclination, and it showed in 2008. He outsourced the management of his campaign to a bunch of empty suits, who had him lurching about trying to one-up his opponent over each 24-hour news cycle on some trivial distraction. His handlers seemed more intent on furthering their own careers by impressing other Washington insiders than to get a coherent message out to the electorate.
Most disastrously, as the MainStream Media’s favorite Republican, McCain played by the rules of political correctness and, inevitably, lost by them. As I document from Obama’s own writings in my new book America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance,” Obama was long devoted to the far left fringe of American politics. But McCain couldn’t persuasively explain that to the public. Why not? Because Obama’s leftism is inextricably intertangled with his “race and inheritance,” his need to prove his “racial credentials” by being far enough left. Yet, McCain had ruled out of bounds any mention of the abundant evidence for this. For example, Senator Obama’s donations of $53,770 to Reverend Jeremiah “White Folks’ Greed Runs a World in Need” Wright in the years 2005-2007 was off limits. This left McCain with only the few and random-sounding examples of Obama’s leftism that didn’t have any apparent connection to race, such as Obama’s vague connection with the white terrorist Bill Ayers.
The Republicans played by the rules of diversity sensitivity and forfeited the election. Are they going to do the same?
Second, let’s look at who voted and for whom.
I’ve been covering elections since 2000. After every election, hundreds of autopilot articles are published attributing whatever happened to the tsunami of new Hispanic voters, which then is presumed to prove that the GOP’s only salvation is to embrace Open Borders.
This conventional wisdom is unfalsifiable: If the GOP win, as in 2004, it’s because its Presidential candidate is so enthusiastic about illegal aliens. If the GOP loses, it’s because Republicans other than its Presidential candidate aren’t enthusiastic enough about illegal aliens.
After each election, I then patiently debunk both the premise and the conclusion. No, while Hispanics voters are increasing in number, their growth isn’t as fast as is widely assumed. And, Hispanic voters, who are, after all, citizens, don’t care as much about illegal immigrants as their self-proclaimed leaders trumpet they do.
Moreover, by not taking a strong stand against illegal immigration, the GOP leaves more non-Hispanic votes on the table than it would lose from Hispanics. Think about it. What else other than immigration did the Republicans have to run on in 2008? The economy? Foreign policy?
Unfortunately, exit polling is becoming less reliable each election. Its history in this decade has been ignominious.
In the 2002 midterm elections, the exit polls weren’t published because of a software foul-up. (In 2003, I purchased the raw data and crunched the 2002 numbers so they wouldn’t be lost to history.)
In 2004, the exit polls predicted a narrow Kerry victory. In addition, they initially reported that Bush had garnered 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. After I pointed out how unlikely that was, the polling company announced later the number should have been about 40 percent. (And keep in mind that Bush only got to 40 percent via his Housing Bubble, which poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the pockets of Hispanic homebuyers and construction workers.)
In 2008, the lone exit poll predicted an Obama landslide. Karl Rove complained right after this election:
“We can’t be precise, because for the third election in a row the exit polls were trash. The raw numbers forecast an 18-point Obama win, news organizations who underwrote the poll arbitrarily dialed it down to a 10-point Obama edge, and the actual margin was six. [Actually, closer to seven than to six, it looks now.]”[How the President-Elect Did It , by Karl Rove, WSJ, November 6, 2008]
Why are exit polls so bad in this decade?
One problem is that there is more early voting and mail-in voting each election. In 2008, there was also likely to be a large Bradley Effect in which Republican voters offer politically correct answers to the young, Democratic-looking pollsters who accost them after voting.
Nevertheless, the most fundamental problem is one that’s common in the marketing research industry, where I worked for many years: it has become a monopoly.
There’s an old saying in the marketing research business that in any viable industry segment, there’s only room for 1.5 firms. You’ll notice, for example, that Nielsen doesn’t have any competition for TV ratings and Arbitron doesn’t have any competition for radio ratings. They could enter each other’s field, but then they’d both lose money in both fields. Why ruin nice little monopolies? In contrast, in the supermarket sales data field, there have long been two competitors, with rapid technological advancements resulting. That little industry has been notorious among investors for generating terrible profit margins.
Back in 2000, there were three national exit polls, one sponsored by a group of media outlets (which I’ll call the CNN poll for the convenience of its website), one by the New York Times, and one by the Los Angeles Times. They came up with different figures for the GOP share of the Hispanic vote: 31 percent according to the NYT, 35 percent according to CNN and its colleagues, and 38 percent according to the LAT.
This fuzzy math had the dual benefits of keeping you from being too stridently confident about the results (“Well, all we can say is the real number was likely somewhere in the 30s”) while letting you triple-check your numbers  (“Yes, although we can’t be sure, 35 percent sounds like a reasonable estimate.”)
Over the course of the decade, unfortunately, the individual newspapers dropped out of the business. The cartel’s poll has wound up as a monopoly, with the usual results in terms of quality and reliability. Without competition to spur them on, they usually do a bad job.
It’s particularly important to understand that exit polls are not a very good way to determine an ethnic group’s share of the vote. There are all sorts of articles exulting over the huge turnout of Hispanics last Tuesday, but they all seem to reference the exit poll rather than real world results. A huge chunk of Hispanic voters are in California and Texas, both states in which there was little campaigning, advertising, or canvassing because they were all wrapped up.
The CNN exit poll has a long history of exaggerating the Hispanic share of the vote in contrast to the gold standard Census Bureau phone survey of 50,000 households that is conducted immediately after each election but not released until the following year:
Year    CNN Exit Poll     Census Phone Survey
2000    7%    5.4%
2004    8%    6.0%
2008    9%    NA until 2009

I’m guessing, based on trends going back to the 1970s, that the Census Bureau will eventually report the 2008 Hispanic fraction as a little under 7.0 percent. For your edification, here are Census Bureau figures for midterm elections. Both minority groups’ shares of the vote have been growing, but not exceptionally fast.
It’s worth noting that this year’s much-publicized 9 percent figure for Hispanic’s share of the vote is from the exit poll’s smaller “national sample.” The blogger Audacious Epigone toted up the figures from the exit poll’s much larger “state sample” and came up with 7.54 percent, which sounds more plausible.
In general, exit polls aren’t very good at figuring out turnout shares. If you stop and think about what’s involved in running a national exit poll, you can grasp why.
Only a tiny fraction of all the polling places in the country are covered, so the polling company has to decide ahead of time where to send their pollsters. That isn’t a big problem for calculating, say, the female share of the vote, because males and females generally live in the same neighborhoods. However, racial groups frequently don’t live in the same neighborhoods. The polling firm has to choose carefully which neighborhoods to survey.
Therefore, first, long before the election, the polling company must come up with an estimate of each group’s expected share in order to decide which polling stations to cover. This prediction tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The firm’s thinking may go something like this: “Okay, we said the Hispanic share last time was 8 percent, and everybody knows they are growing, so we’d better report Hispanics as 9 percent this time, or we’ll look bad. So, let’s figure out which neighborhoods to send pollsters to in order that 9 percent of the voters they interview are Hispanic.”
The monopoly exit poll is asserting that the black share in 2008 (goosed upward by Obama’s presence on the ballot) was 13 percent, the Hispanic share was 9 percent, and the white share 74 percent. My guesstimate is that the definitive Census Bureau numbers will be more like 12 percent black, 7 percent Hispanic, and 77 percent white. But the white share could be as low as 75 percent white because McCain did so little to motivate whites to turn out.
Overall, the white share seems to be falling a couple of points per four-year election cycle, which means, among other things, that white voters are hardly powerless in the near-term.
Demographic change is combining with political change, however.
I’m not sure how trustworthy the exit polls are, but here are the GOP Presidential candidate’s share of the vote in the last two elections:
2004    2008    GOP Decline
Whites    58%    55%    -3%
Blacks    11%    4%    -7%
Hispanics    40%    31%    -9%
Asians    44%    35%    -9%
Others    40%    31%    -9%

The interesting thing is how consistently large the non-white defections to the Democrats were in 2008. Amusingly, the GOP lost fewer percentage points among blacks than among the other three minorities listed. (Of course, that’s mostly just an example of diminishing marginal returns in action.)
To win the popular vote, McCain needed either 59 to 60 percent of the white vote, or to expand the number of white voters by raising issues of interest to the unmotivated, such as, say, immigration.
So, what’s the future going to look like?
A crucial question is which party will recruit the best political talent.
Consider the Los Angeles shopping mall developer Rick Caruso, age 49, whose superbly detailed mega-malls, The Grove (a faux-Italian hilltop city) and The Americana (a loving tribute to the prosperous small American cities of the early 20th Century), have been wildly successful with the public, making him the most popular Republican in Los Angeles.
When I heard that Caruso might run for mayor of Los Angeles against Antonio Villaraigosa, I immediately thought to myself, “I have no idea what his politics are, but I’d vote for him because he gets big things done, and with a level of quality that’s rare in Southern California these days.”
But, two days after McCain’s loss, Caruso announced he wasn’t going to challenge Mayor Villaraigosa.
To understand the prospects for the two parties in recruiting younger talent, think about the question of which party to join from the point of view of a next-generation Rick Caruso:
Say, you’re a 32-year-old white guy who has made a bundle putting up shopping malls. You’re good looking, a charismatic speaker, you like shaking hands and remembering people’s names, and, as the popularity of your malls attests, you’ve got a knack for understanding what the average person likes. In other words, you’re a natural political talent. And, unlike a lot of politicians (such as, say, John McCain), you’re a proven manager.
You figure the real estate business is going to be slow for awhile, so maybe it’s time to go into politics like you always said you would. You’ve donated to and schmoozed with most of the politicians in your state, Republican and Democrat, in your battles for land use permits. You know you’re better than most of them. They know it, too. Both parties have been recruiting you to run for office.
You’ve got a little timetable in your head: county supervisor, state senator, state treasurer, governor, and finally President in the 2032 election, when you’ll be 56. Maybe it’s crazy, but maybe it’s not.
You just don’t know which party to commit to. You’ve kept your politics vague while you’ve made your fortune.
Maybe you should run as a Democrat. They’ve got the demographic trends on their side.
The state Democratic chairman keeps telling you that you’re the next Bill Clinton. But, you watched Obama deftly play the race card on the Clintons. Soon, half the Democrats in the country were denouncing Bill Clinton as a racist.
Who needs that?
Is there all that much of a longrange future in the Democratic Party for a white guy like you? Are you going to just end up losing primary after primary to minority candidates who get a free pass on their backgrounds the way Obama did? Mrs. Clinton couldn’t publicly make an issue out of Obama’s Rev. Wright because her party has so many blacks and so many politically correct whites.  Therefore, she lost.
Why risk a lifetime of frustration in the Democratic Party?
The Republicans definitely need some young blood. The road to winning primaries looks more open to a white guy in the Republican Party. So, precisely because the GOP is down now, it’s more attractive to new talent like you looking to move up in a hurry.
But, are you just going to lose general elections to minority Democrats because they’ll be untouchable due to their race the way Obama was? Will you be expected to take a dive like McCain did?
Who needs that?
That’s the key question: Are you going to have to play by the McCain Rules because the GOP will disown you if you go to the mat against the Democrats and do what it takes to win, the way George H.W. Bush did in 1988? Will the Republicans have your back if you play to win? Or are you going to be expected to be good loser like John McCain in 2008—and still get smeared as a racist by the media in the bargain?
If the GOP doesn’t want candidates who play to win, well, then, you’ve already got a career, a family, and charitable interests, a rich life without politics.
The GOP needs you more than you need them. So, forget going into politics.
The MainStream Media are telling the GOP that even though they ran a candidate of obsessive political correctness and he still got killed among minorities, the Republicans’ only hope are to become even more politically correct. And the only way they can prove their devotion to diversity, to remove the suspicion of racism, is by opening the borders even wider to invite in more nonwhites.
Maybe that will work. Maybe not.
The logical alternative for Republicans is to stop playing by the rules of political correctness, the McCain Rule, which, after all, were constructed by your political opponents for their own advantage.
Instead, play by the Sailer Rule: tell the truth.
As the Democrats become ever more the party of minorities, the Republicans would naturally become the party that welcomes the chance to defend the interests of what will remain the majority of the electorate well into the second half of the century.
F.E. Smith, Winston Churchill’s best friend, once remarked, “The world continues to offer glittering prizes to those who have stout hearts and sharp swords.”
But the glittering prizes are only available to those with more courage than the old jet pilot showed in 2008.

GOP Wins With Sailer Strategy!
By Steve Sailer
Right after the GOP’s tepid showing in the 2000 election, I wrote an article “GOP Future Depends on White Vote” that got VDARE.COM in general and me in particular banned from FreeRepublic.com, the self-proclaimed “Premier Conservative News Forum.”
JimBob and his enforcers apparently thought it was “racist” of me to point out the indisputable fact that whites cast 81% of the 2000 vote. I heinously added:
“Here at VDARE, we’ve discussed repeatedly how dire will be the long-term impact of immigration on the Republican Party. It’s crucial to understand, however, that the long-term has not quite arrived. The GOP [can] save itself by changing the immigration laws. This can be seen by examining the 2000 election results closely. The reason George W. Bush struggled so much to eke out a 271-267 win in the Electoral College…is not that he got crushed in the minority vote 77% to 21%. No, it’s that he commanded only a measly 54% of the white vote.”
In 2002, I estimate that voters chose Republican over Democrats last Tuesday by a 53%-47% margin in the two-party vote.  But the meltdown of the Voter News Service exit polling monopoly left us without national demographic breakdowns. So there’s a lot of 99% fact-free spinning aimed at establishing the conventional wisdom.
Here’s what really happened: the Republicans, perhaps in spite of themselves and no doubt benefiting from 9/11, followed the Sailer Strategy. They raked in the white votes.
All the official talk about the necessity of GOP minority outreach was in effect a smokescreen for the Strategy that Dare Not Speak Its Name.
Now start banning Dubya, JimBob.
Here’s what I’ve pieced together.
Fortunately, the Los Angeles Times conducted a full scale exit poll in California. It explains, as I reported at length for UPI, why, after Democrat Gray Davis crushed popular Republican Dan Lungren by 20 percentage points in the 1998 gubernatorial race, the hapless Bill Simon lost by only five in 2002.
The key to this surprising near-miss, in the LA Times’ words:
“Extrapolating from the exit polls, the number of votes cast by minority voters in California plummeted almost to half of their 1998 level, from 3 million down to what should turn out to be 1.7 million or 1.8 million when all the absentee and provisional ballots are counted. Meanwhile, the total number of white votes probably will roughly equal the 5.4 million cast in 1998. The minority share of the California electorate dropped from 36 percent in the 1998 to 24 percent this year. In turn, the white share rose from 64 percent to 76 percent.”
The Hispanic share reportedly fell from 13% to 10%.
Further, Lungren lost to Davis in the 2000 election by 6 percentage points among whites. But Simon beat Davis among whites by 3 points.
The Republicans picked up no ground among Hispanics, despite George W. Bush’s much-vaunted popularity with them. Lungren won 23% of Hispanic voters. Simon won 24%.
In the rest of the country, there’s only anecdotal data. But it provides clear evidence that whites turned out in large numbers and voted enthusiastically for the GOP, while minority turnout was down.
Thus the New York Times (November 7) reported that in Georgia,
“the rural white voting base was mobilized this year as never before….
“While 13,000 fewer voters turned out in the county with the most black voters, suggesting problems with the Democratic base, Republicans in Georgia piled up insurmountable leads in predominantly white rural and suburban counties. Mr. [Ralph] Reed said Republicans had to overcome an enormous spending advantage by [Democratic Governor Roy] Barnes, who spent more than $19 million, and turned to a huge grass roots effort. He said the party had enlisted 3,000 volunteers and 500 paid workers who knocked on 150,000 doors in 600 target areas around the state.”
(Significantly, this turnout was largely because of a National Question issue – the Confederate battleflag.)
In the rest of the South, the New York Times recounted
“In [Alabama and South Carolina], Democrats had counted on reprising the heavy black voter turnout that carried [Governor] Siegelman and Gov. Jim Hodges of South Carolina to victory in 1998. But…while blacks voted at about the same rate this time in South Carolina, Democrats said, white voters came out in greater numbers than expected in suburban and rural areas for Representative Mark Sanford, the victor in South Carolina’s gubernatorial contest. “We got 4 out of 10 white votes in 1998,” said Dick Harpootlian, the South Carolina Democratic chairman. “Yesterday, we got 3 of 10 white votes….
“[In Texas] Democrats had predicted that minority voters would turn out in droves for their diverse ticket. Minority turnout was up, but turnout in largely white, Republican suburbs were even higher…
“[Republican Governor Perry] also aired two controversial advertisements about a 1980’s scandal in which a savings and loan controlled by Mr. Sanchez was used by men later identified as Mexican drug dealers to launder money. Another commercial, released in the final days of the campaign, linked those drug dealers, and implicitly Mr. Sanchez, to the murder of a federal drug agent. Hispanic political leaders and Democrats assailed the advertisements as racially motivated and too extreme, but the Perry campaign defended them as factual. And today, Ms. Weddington, the party chairwoman, said Mr. Perry’s willingness to be so “aggressive” late in the campaign helped energize core Republican voters.”
Similarly, the Associated Press said:
“Tony Sanchez and Ron Kirk carried heavily Hispanic regions of South Texas in Tuesday’s elections, but unfortunately for the Democrats’ so-called Dream Team, they were routed by Republicans everywhere else. Some analysts said minority turnout fell below Democrats’ expectations but that the party’s strategy of appealing to minority voters is still valid because of the fast-growing Hispanic population in Texas. Others, however, warned that Democrats are having an increasingly difficult job winning white voters. … The Democratic candidates “were attractive to black and brown voters, there just weren’t enough of them,” [Professor Stein of Rice University] said.”
In Florida, according to the New York Times -
“Voter turnout…was remarkably high for a midterm election: 42.9 percent, up from 36.5 percent in 1998 and 41.5 percent in 1994, according to the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, a research group based in Washington. ‘Turnout was higher among Republicans and much lower among Democrats,’ [Jim] Kane, [director of the Florida Voter Poll] said.”
This triumph for the Sailer Strategy makes it even more important for Republican mouthpieces to exude flapdoodle about how huge a help Hispanics were.
Thus Ellen Sorokin, writing in the Beltway-oriented Washington Times reported credulously that
“…Hispanic voters were a driving force behind the Republicans’ historic win of both chambers of Congress, party officials and political analysts said yesterday. … Republicans won their seats, with a lot of help from the Hispanic community.”
[“Disillusioned blacks hurt Democrats” By Ellen Sorokin, Washington Times, November 7, 2002]
Sorokin’s article goes on to feature some of the most egregious attempts to deceive I’ve seen recently. Republican officials must be desperate if this is the best they can come up with:
(1) “Republican Sen. Wayne Allard, of Colorado, won El Paso County, which has about 58,400 Hispanics, by 53,445 votes.”
This is silly. Of course Allard won by a mile in El Paso County. It’s home to Colorado Springs, one of the most Conservative Christian cities in the country. El Paso County is in Colorado’s 5th Congressional district, in which Republican Representative Joel Hefley was re-elected with 83% of the vote in 2000. Only 11.3% of the population is Hispanic, according to the Census, and maybe they cast 5% or 6 % of the votes in El Paso. You can’t possibly draw the conclusion that because a Republican won big there, that Hispanics had much to do with it.
(2) “In Georgia, Rep. Saxby Chambliss won Gwinnett County, which has the largest Hispanic population, by 39,346 votes.”
Look, Gwinnett County, in suburban Atlanta, is one of most famously white Republican counties in America, the home of Newt Gingrich. Its Republican Congressman John Linder ran unopposed for reelection in 2000. It was only 10.9% Hispanic by population in the 2000 Census. Most of the Hispanics in the South are new immigrants — few are citizens. I’d be surprised if 3% of the votes in Gwinnett were cast by Hispanics.
(3) “In North Carolina, Elizabeth H. Dole won Wake County, the county with the state’s second-largest Hispanic population by 22,405 voters, the RNC numbers show.”
C’mon! Wake is only 5.4% Hispanic. Almost all of them are newcomers. I doubt if Hispanics cast 2% of the votes in Wake.
Then the Washington Times’ Sorokin listed three more substantive possibilities – but they’re still wrong:

(4) “In Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush was re-elected with more than 60 percent of the Latino vote.”
My comments: (a) Who knows? We are being asked to take this on faith. (b) Florida has many middle class, anti-Communist, Republican Cuban Hispanics. There’s nothing unusual about Republicans doing well there. (c) If that 60 percent figure is true, Jeb did about eleven points over George W.’s share of Florida Hispanics in 2000. But he did over 13 points better than Dubya among Florida voters overall. So his Hispanic performance was still weaker.
(5) “In New York, Gov. George E. Pataki was re-elected with nearly 50 percent of the Hispanic vote.”
“Nearly”? Subsequent estimates put it closer to a third. (NYT Nov 9)
And remember this: Pataki ran so far to the left that he was endorsed by the New York Times!
Is that what Beltway “conservatives” (and JimBob) want?
(6) “In Texas, Gov. Rick Perry was re-elected with more than one-third of the Latino vote, according to figures compiled by the Republican National Committee [RNC].”
Oh yeah?  The William Velasquez Institute’s exit poll of 800 Hispanic voters in Texas found Perry getting only 13%.
Obviously, both sides are biased. I wouldn’t trust either. That said, Perry must have garnered close to 70% of the white vote. So the gap between whites and Hispanics in Texas is still huge.
So the Sailer Strategy worked. All it took was an imminent war – to which whites responded more patriotically. (Interestingly.)
In the longer term, I am uncomfortable with the idea of the two major parties splitting into racial blocs.
But there’s a simple solution. If you don’t want whites to act like a minority group – e.g. racially-conscious, bloc-voting, biased, prickly, led by racial racketeers constantly proclaiming their group’s victimization – then the government should stop making whites a minority through mass immigration.

GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote.
By Steve Sailer
Readers React: Sailer v Unz
Readers React: Sailer v. Wanniski
Here at VDARE, we’ve discussed repeatedly http://www.vdare.com/people.htm how dire will be the long-term impact of immigration on the Republican Party. It’s crucial to understand, however, that the long-term has not quite arrived. The GOP is not yet held hostage. It still has a window of opportunity – definitely stretching through the next recession but maybe not to the recession after that – to save itself by changing the immigration laws. This can be seen by examining the 2000 election results closely.
The reason George W. Bush struggled so much to eke out a 271-267 win in the Electoral College (assuming that he can hold on to it) is not that he got crushed in the minority vote 77% to 21%. No, it’s that he commanded only a measly 54% of the white vote.
To test this theory, I created a huge state-by-state spreadsheet of election results and Voter News Service exit poll numbers [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html]), which allows me to play what-if games, such as:
What if Bush II had won 57% of the white vote? That’s hardly an outlandish figure since Bush I had taken 59% in 1988. If Dubya had garnered 57% instead of just 54% of whites, he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171. (Technically, I’m modeling this by raising Bush’s share of the white vote by three points in every state.)
Why? Because whites remain by far the dominant bloc in the U.S. They count for 81% of all votes cast. Despite all of Bush’s support for diversity, illegal immigrants, bilingualism, “affirmative access,” and the like, an overwhelming 92% of his votes came from whites.
What if in upping his share of the white electorate from 54% to 57%, Dubya had alienated more minority voters, causing his share of the nonwhite vote to fall by 8 points from 21% to 13%?
A disaster, right? Wrong. Bush still would have won 310 to 228.
What if in winning those three additional white share points, Dubya had lost every single nonwhite vote in the USA?
Incredibly, he still would have won. Bush would have tied 269-269 in the Electoral College and been elected President by the House of Representatives.
This remarkable finding stems from the sizable advantage the Republicans enjoy in the Electoral College. In this case, Al Gore would have won the popular vote by more than 3 million, but still lost the election because Bush’s strength is in small states. Since every state, no matter how small the population, gets three Electoral Votes for having two Senators and a Representative, the Republican dominance of the Great Plains and Great Basin provides a striking advantage.
By the way, this is the flip side of the Republican catastrophe in California. When cultural conservatives flee California for the interior West, the GOP picks up cheap Electoral Votes and Senate seats in small states.
Now, let’s turn it around. What if instead of Bush adding three percent of the white vote (for which he would have gained 96 Electoral Votes), he had instead boosted his nonwhite vote by three points, from 21% to 24%?
He would have picked up five more Electoral Votes. Big deal.
If Bush had doubled his share of the nonwhite vote, from 21% to 42% and somehow avoided losing any white votes, he still would have gained only 52 Electoral Votes.
So where could Bush have picked up an additional 3 percent of the white vote? The most obvious source: white union families. The 26% of the electorate with a union member in their households voted 59% to 37% for Gore. For the time being, most union families are still white. So if Bush could have won enough white labor families to raise his total labor vote from 37% to about 46%, that would have done the trick of lifting his share of the white vote from 54% to 57%.
What could persuade more white union families to vote Republican when the current AFL-CIO leadership is so leftist? Here’s a suggestion.
The labor bosses are selling out their old time members’ interests in order to try to pad their membership with immigrants, legal and illegal. That’s why the AFL-CIO supremos recently called for another amnesty for illegal immigrants. [http://www.vdare.com/afl-cio.htm] Immigration should be the perfect issue for the GOP to use to split the rank and file from their Democratic bosses.
Since union efforts cost Bush Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (at a minimum), you’d think that the GOP would be hot to win back the Reagan Democrats.
Don’t count on it, though. It’s just so much more fashionable to continue to chase futilely after Hispanics.
In summary: the GOP could win more elections by raising its fraction of the white vote minimally than by somehow grabbing vastly higher fractions of the minority vote.
I said “could.”
Note: This model is based on election results as of 11/15/2000 and the VNS exit polls, as reported on the CNN website. I also made minor objective statistical adjustments to account for the slight disagreements between the actual results and the exit polls. So, while your mileage may vary, this model looks quite robust.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s