An earlier post showed that Trump only lost the Ohio primary because Kasich, using some mix of the carrot and the stick, managed to corral hundreds of thousands of Democrats to turn out for him.
Because the Democrat primary was fairly boring, these voters would likely have stayed home altogether, and yet not only do they go out to the polling stations, they voted in the other party's primary, and even then for Kasich rather than Trump, Rubio, etc. This makes no sense since the only Republican with crossover appeal has been Trump, and Kasich had no other successes like this one, as though the Democrats in every state were bound to turn out on his behalf just to stop Trump. Democrats were only prepared to stop Trump in the general, not by screwing around with the other party's primary so early on.
The basic finding of that post is that the counties that were deep blue for Obama vs. Romney, suddenly became majority Republican for the 2016 primary. Now, if the outcome were a Trump victory, that would make sense -- all the excitement has been for Trump, and none for Crooked Hillary. Higher Republican than Democrat turnout in the primary stage would simply mean that, as elsewhere, it was the Republican contest that motivated its voters to get involved at the early stage, while the more boring Democrat contest would have left most of its voters sitting at home early on.
But if the beneficiary of the massive turnout for the Republican primary was not Trump but Kasich, who had zero excitement or interest during the primaries anywhere, then it's proof of shenanigans. The chief executive of the state pressured Democrats to turn out to save his ass, since he could not win among Republicans and Independents. Indeed, when you remove the phony voters, Trump would have won Ohio by about 45% to 35% for Kasich.
Now I've uncovered an even more damning piece of evidence. In Summit County, home to Akron and part of the blue northeastern region of Ohio, the Republican primary turnout was greater by far than even the general election of 2012. Turnout in 2012 for Romney in the general was about 100,000 -- and for the Republican primary in 2016, over 150,000. No other county that I've looked at around the nation has shown a higher turnout for this year's primary than last year's general.
No primary is so exciting that it not only captures every single Republican voter from the previous general election, but a further 40-50% increase due to either crossover voters or infrequent voters (who rarely show up for primaries, even when they do come out of the shadows). And this gigantic percentage increase was also large in absolute numbers -- 40-50,000. That's nearly 10% of the entire voting eligible population, and therefore closer to 20% of the regular pool of voters.
Obviously these crossover voters did not show up of their own volition, but because they were pressured by Kasich and the state government, which has control over state employees, contractors, employees for contracting companies, welfare beneficiaries, and so on and so forth. "You're going to turn out to vote for me, or you're going to be out of luck with your job and benefits."
For historical perspective, since 1960 Summit County has only gone red for the re-elections of Nixon and Reagan -- not the original Reagan Democrats who helped him out in 1980, or the blue-collar Nixon voters of 1968. If they couldn't even get on board with those phenomena, they are certainly not going to turn uber-Republican today -- let alone for Kasich of all people! Maybe for Trump's general re-election, but not for Kasich in a measly primary.
I keep re-visiting this topic for two reasons. First, to remind everyone that, during the primary stage, Ohio was Trump country. Second, and more seriously, that Kasich has interfered with the statewide election to stop Trump before -- so what's to say he won't repeat this in the general? Especially considering his continued hostility toward Trump and the Trump movement, and his seemingly veiled threat that "I don't think Trump can win Ohio". What ever could make you so certain of that, AIDS-face? It better not be because you're planning on rigging the election.
All signs point to favorable conditions for Trump among the people of Ohio, but the campaign has to plan on winning other states to make up for a possible rigging of the Ohio election. I know Trump would challenge it, but you don't want it to all come down to a contested election. Best to work on building a greater buffer by camping out in Michigan, Pennsylvania, etc.
What states might be the most vulnerable to vote rigging? Besides Ohio.
ReplyDeleteYeah something hinky is going on with those areas. Still, presumably the majority of ringers brought into the GOP primary were going to vote Dem. in the general election anyway. So in terms of rigging in November, I suppose we've got absentee tomfoolery, the felon vote, multiple voters, and various forms of E-fraud (depending on the nature of Ohio's elections). Christ, some states actually accept e-mails as valid votes!
ReplyDeleteAmerica's sheer cultural, ethnic, and political diversity, along with it's size, make election monitoring a chore. Besides, nobody wants to really sound the alarm on fraud since both sides are guilty and they don't want to further damage what little credibility they have left. We just have to keep our fingers crossed that Trump can fight back, deter some of this crap, and vows to seek justice if it costs him the election.
I've said before that Trump, as much as anyone else, understands what it takes to keep his enemies at bay. He's already muscled his way through a lot of tough places in the cutthroat climate of the last 40 years. I think the twink stunt to unnerve Rubio is just the beginning. He and his goons aren't going to burn through their best material too early. God knows how much sleaze the Dems have been drowning in. We'll get a better idea as we near the finish.
Let's not forget the Ted Cruz Indiana massacre, either. Even a lizard like Cruz was reduced to a sputtering mess after Trump waited until just before the Indiana primary to tighten his grip on Cruz by implicating his dad in the JFK assassination (even if it's not true, it still reinforced how alien and sleazy the Cruz family is).
Alas, Team Hillary has decade's worth of experience playing these games. It wouldn't make any difference if we weren't in a decadent climate. But we're still long overdue for a clean-up.
Sailer's got a post about California demos/the white vote. Lotsa speculation and finger pointing. Did white people get more liberal in the 90's? Did conservative whites flee?
I'd say we're overdue for reforming the electoral system. We can't let these hives have so much influence on the outcome of general elections. What incentive do the Democrats have to enforce immigration laws as long as waves of browns and their descendants will make sure that California never goes Republican again? Let's junk the electoral college altogether. Just use the popular vote. Why should California's Mexicans have way more influence than people in the 40 or so states with minimal electoral power?
Per wiki, the electoral college has been defended by small states frequently. During the low striving late 60's, a pretty serious effort was made to abolish the EC. It cleared some hurdles but the objections of small or Southern states deep sixed the reform. Ironically, highly populated and heavily liberal and immigrant dominated California at this point wields by far the most power in elections due largely to massive levels of immigration from which many Dem voters are drawn. This becomes even more insidious as many conservative whites flee the area thereby reducing any incentive to curtail immigration.
Also in the irony category is that Southern states were the biggest boosters of the EC since it allowed them to remain politically relevant without giving blacks more voting rights. A state would retain a static number of electors regardless of that state's turnout. In the absence of the EC, a state that denied the vote to many of it's people (e.g., a old-school Southern state) would have little influence.
Interesting how what was once used to keep non whites down is now beneficial to a brown basket case like California. Fuck that. Abolish the system. Right now the white conservative vote is utterly silenced in California and New York, with Illinois almost as screwed.
Hate to be a downer, but it looks like a depressing mixture of America's striving individualism (which is at a peak right now), inertia and sentiment, and whites leaving behind any notion of racial solidarity (with the possible exception of Appalachia and non carpet bagger areas of the South) is threatening to gang rape an America that's already on life-support as it is.
ReplyDelete4 more year's worth of pussy Millennial voters isn't going to help the cause, either. We ought to remind late Boomer and Gen X parents that they need to face the reality that America is continuing to import rapists, drug dealers, killers, and terrorists who threaten us all. And come November, they've got to tell their kids that a vote for Hillary means more foreign policy disasters and more dangerous immigration policies.
I'm getting frustrated with glib Gen X-ers being total sellouts and pussies when it comes to dangerous darkies. Ya think it's still cool to continue the cultural Marxist BS? To shove the pictures of white offenders in everyone's face while demurring from even acknowledging the race of non-white people who are far more likely to inflict damage relative to their numbers. Fuck you. The nineties are over. If you're going to hate yourself and your ancestors that much, go do a Cobain. Right now. We don't need people who have absolutely no sense of connection to tradition or their ancestors. Who welcome their greatest enemies with open arms and unconditional support.
Of course, I'm not exactly getting much inspiration from the Nordic Belt in which I'm stuck.
The Electoral College makes it possible to win with a minority of the popular vote -- could be for better or worse, depending on who's in the minority.
ReplyDeleteIt also lets less-populated states have a minimum weight to apply -- if it were strictly popular, they wouldn't count at all.
And the browns don't vote in California or elsewhere. Rather, immigration drives up the number of residents, which gives them greater representation in the House of Representatives, and therefore more Electoral College votes.
But it's the same old white liberal Americans winning California -- it's just that with all those browns residing there (illegally or legally on visas), their vote has a force multiplier behind it, compared to how many EC votes they'd have without a large non-citizen population.
The solution is to pass a law that clarifies what the 14th Amendment means by who counts toward Congressional apportionment -- it needs to be clarified to mean "citizen" rather than any old generic resident. That was the intention, and they didn't have large illegal populations to have to clarify further.
Then, even if magically the non-citizens remained in California, they would have their EC votes diminished by about 10, and they would be given back to states with lower non-citizen populations -- Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, etc.
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/02/huge-non-citizen-populations-give.html
A majority of Californian whites consistently vote Republican, it's the blacks, Hispanics and Asians that keep it a blue state. Yes their turnout is lower, particularly the latter two, and if Californian whites voted republican by as wide a margin as Texan whites do (Texas having similar demographics) it would still be a reliably red state but it's just not accurate to lay all the blame on them. 55% of those who bothered to vote still trudged to the polls four years ago to vote for a deeply uninspiring Mormon plutocrat despite knowing he hadn't a chance of carrying the state.
ReplyDeleteAside from the electoral vote implications, the presence of all those Mexicans makes it that much harder for Californian whites to get married, buy a house, have kids and proceed to start voting republican. It's no coincidence it started turning blue after the 87 amnesty.
The 2012 electorate for the West Coast (mainly reducing to California) was 71% white, slightly above their 69% share of the population overall. Blacks were 10%, above their 8% share overall. "Other" races (Mexican, Asian, etc.) were *under*-represented, at 19% of voters vs. 23% of citizens overall.
ReplyDeleteTurnout rates were 59% for whites, 74% for blacks, and 49% for "other" races.
Voted for Obama -- 62% of whites, 98% of blacks, 70% of "other" races.
So, whites are the main factor, blacks are a little thorn in the side, and "other" races generally don't bother to show up, and even then vote closer to the white norm than the black norm.
Data from the General Social Survey.