With more talks about giving amnesty to large numbers of illegal immigrants, the Right is dragging out an old but wrong argument about how amnesty will turn states Democrat, relying as ever on California as the canary in the coalmine.
It is a non-starter, since California is one of the states where Democrats win the presidential vote even among white voters only. During the Bush-Obama years, these states included the entire West Coast, the Lutheran Triangle of MN, WI, and IA, and the Northeast beginning with NY.
So whatever turned the West Coast into a Democrat bastion has nothing to do with race or ethnicity. An earlier post covered this in detail: amnesty would be suicide for the Dems, not the GOP. Dems have labor unions in their electoral base who would get wiped out by cheap foreign labor, their safe blue states do not benefit from being even more blue-voting, and the purple Rust Belt states they won before Trump have almost no immigrants in them.
But let's move onto the topic of how the electoral map changes over time, not just what the cross-section looks like at a snapshot in time. Do demographic changes result in electoral changes?
Within the regions that would defect from the GOP electoral base of the Nixon-Reagan era, it was the Pacific NW states that left first in 1988, with California trailing in '92. Likewise the Lutheran Triangle states defected first in '88, followed by Illinois in '92. In the states with at least some portion lying in Appalachia, it was West Virginia to defect first in '88, followed in '92 by Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Maryland, etc.
The trend in demographic changes was the opposite -- at 60% white circa 1990, California should have fallen before Oregon and Washington, which were still 90% white. Similarly for the Lutheran Triangle states compared to Illinois, or West Virginia compared to Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc. The whitest states flipped blue first within their region.
Texas should have flipped blue decades ago, if demographics mattered. It is scarcely whiter than California in each of the Censuses from 1990 through 2010, and the percentage has declined steadily as well. And yet Texas remains one of the bastions of the GOP at all levels of government.
Turning to blacks instead of Hispanics as the non-white group, they make up the largest share of the population in the Deep South -- another bastion of the GOP at all levels.
And it's not as though all of the various shifts in the electoral maps since our nation's founding are tracking changes in racial or ethnic composition. A good theory explains as much of the data as possible, and the ethnic-oriented theory limits itself at best to the post-Civil Rights era for blacks as the non-white group, and the post-1986 amnesty for Hispanics.
A superior theory views parties as coalitions of elite factions representing the most powerful sectors of society -- banks, tech, media, military, energy, agriculture, etc. These coalitions use the party system to advance their material interests -- whichever party is controlled by the military, will push for higher troop deployments and weapons procurement, and whichever party is controlled by the banks will work harder to deregulate financial activity.
This is similar to Thomas Ferguson's investment theory of party competition, although without having read his books, I'm not sure whether he stresses non-businesses like the military (or the church, in an older time).
Currently the Democrats are controlled by finance, tech, and the media (informational, labor-insensitive), while the Republicans are controlled by the military, agriculture, and energy sectors (material, labor-intensive). It used to be different, though, with the Democrats being the militarist party for much of the 20th century, as their electoral base was the Deep South ("the Solid South") with its heavy concentration of military-related jobs.
As that example suggests, the electoral map will reflect which economic sectors are the major patrons of the local workforce. None of those sectors is uniformly distributed around the country -- there's lots of farmland in the Great Plains, but not in Rhode Island. There's a concentration of tech firms around Silicon Valley but not in Montana, banks along the Bos-Wash Corridor but not in the South, and oil fields in Texas but not in Massachusetts.
Getting back to California, what flipped it blue from 1992 to today, compared to its solid red or swing state status during the previous decades, was the evaporation of the military sector as the Cold War drew to a close. There used to be all sorts of major military installations in California, but many were shuttered by the Base Realignment and Closure program, whose targets were announced in 1988. Any work that was lateral to these bases, or downstream of them, would have dried up as well.
In place of Cold War or WWII-era military activity, the new activity in California circa 1990 and after would fall within the informational tech sector, as well as the finance sector (venture capital) that gave them their start-up funding. It's not as though these sectors provide all employment in the state, but if you're living and voting in California, you are more likely to currently have a job, or be searching for a job, in those sectors rather than at a military base or a farm.
Sure enough, these differences appear even within California -- the Bay Area is the bluest, with its concentration of tech, finance, and higher ed employment, while the red parts of the state are the agricultural plantations further inland, along with the lone major military installation of the San Diego Naval Base.
Since the shift in the electoral map around 1990, there hasn't been much of a change in which parts of the country rely heavily on agriculture or energy extraction (a little more in Ohio recently with fracking). The main change was the downsizing of military-related employment once the Cold War was over, which subtracts a lot of voters from the reliable Republican column.
But those same areas along the West Coast also saw the growth of tech firms, which were related to the former military spending -- most major R&D is paid for by the government, with the Defense Department paying the most. Without DoD-funded research laying the solid foundation, there would be no Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, or Google. These informational firms that supplanted the military bases took the West Coast states from a mere loss for the GOP to a solid gain for the Democrats. They might have turned into purple swing states if they had only lost the military work without any informational sectors to fill the void.
If Texas ever turns blue, it will be for the same reason. It will be hard to flip since it is home to all three major GOP sectors -- military bases, oil fields, and ranches and farmland. But over time, maybe some of those will fade out, and more tech firms pop up around Austin, more finance jobs pop up around Dallas, and more media outlets base themselves there for cheaper office rents. As more residents seek work in those sectors, rather than the material sectors, they will vote more Democrat in order to make a living off of its patronage network rooted in the informational sectors.
The same goes for Georgia, another state the Dems are hoping to flip. But not until there are different major employers. The South and Texas are the regions least affected by the military closures after the Cold War -- the fighting spirit of the Celtic people who settled these regions is not going to let them get rid of all their military installations. So they're reliably Republican as long as that party remains the one controlled by the military.
How strongly is the Southern vote tied to the military? In 1952 and '56, the whole country voted Republican except for the South. This was Eisenhower, not a Civil Rights crusader like Johnson in '64. Why didn't they like Ike? Since the country was enjoying post-WWII prosperity, the main campaign issue was the Korean War -- begun as usual by a Democrat (Truman), who used to be the militarist party, with their Solid South electoral base.
Eisenhower campaigned on exiting the Korean War, which he delivered on, and ended up slashing the military budget in half afterwards since they were no longer in a major war. That's not good for the military patronage flowing to the South, so they were the only region to reject him (both times).
How did Trump win back the Rust Belt for Republicans? He promised to revive a patronage network with them as the beneficiaries -- bringing their manufacturing sector back to life. He didn't have much of a record to point to, but it's not like the Democrats did either (although they do have a superior record on voting against free trade deals). Unlike the West Coast, the Rust Belt did not see a surge in tech or finance companies during the post-Cold War transition away from military employment. So they were left in purple / swing state status.
And they decided to gamble on Trump, the would-be patron of manufacturing. To the extent they notice factories returning, hiring more people, for full-time, benefit-bringing jobs, with good pay, they'll keep on betting on the GOP.
If they don't notice their factories coming roaring back to life, and if Pennsylvania doesn't notice steel rising from the grave, they will dump the GOP as failed patrons and go back to being mild blue states. They don't have much energy production or military bases (outside of Wright-Patterson AFB in swing-state Ohio), although they do have a decent level of agriculture. On the other hand, there's not a lot of tech start-ups, though there are some financial and insurance companies, and large state schools.
It will all come down to who gets the manufacturing sector voters. They ought to be protected by the material sector party, the GOP, but the greedy manufacturing employers have decided to renege on being patrons to the locals and sent their jobs out of the country to be done by cheap labor. They will vote with whichever party wants to slam enough tariffs on their employers to force them to become patrons of their state's economy again.
That would naturally be the Democrats, but we'll see if they can get their act together, while pointing out the failure of the GOP to deliver on Trump's protectionist crusade themes of the campaign.
Pennsylvania would also be helped back into the GOP column by re-opening the massive naval base and shipyard that used to be in Philadelphia -- the nation's first one, and a shame to have been put on the death list early in the post-Cold War era.
I probably shouldn't share that secret, since I've soured on the GOP and would like PA to go back to blue-under-Bernie. But it just shows how little the GOP wants to win the presidency -- destroying patronage networks for large-population states that were not deep red to begin with, and where residents have responded to the betrayal by their former patrons by voting for the other party instead.
So that's what changes a state from being for one party or the other -- changes in which sectors are patrons in the local economy, as well as changes in which party a sector finds itself in a coalition with. Both are subject to change over time.
The least insightful way to analyze politics is focusing on race and ethnicity. It's only good if the goal is anthropology, or the sociology of race and inter-racial dynamics. But not how power is wielded and toward what ends in the political realm, which is rooted entirely in economics.
As for opposing amnesty, that leaves two main arguments: 1) wanting to preserve American culture, and 2) wanting to prevent a lower standard-of-living among Americans as they compete economically with immigrants (lower wages, higher rents).
The standard losing argument is "to prevent one or more states from turning into Democrat bastions". Already you've lost the Democrats, who would be open to the working-class protection argument, as well as most Independents, who want to keep the option open of voting for either party. Plus it ignores what the Democrats stand for -- not long ago, they were the militarist party, then it changed to the non-militarist party. Obsessing over partisan victory per se marks you as an airheaded cheerleader with no vision or direction.
I say focus mostly on the economic argument -- if you can win over enough Independents and Democrats, you will get the same outcome as if you had argued on the much tougher argument about cultural preservation. As long as we keep down immigration and send back the ones already here, we will have preserved our American culture -- regardless of how we argued for it. Just get it done however it needs to get done, and enjoy the cultural benefits afterward.
"I probably shouldn't share that secret, since I've soured on the GOP and would like PA to go back to blue-under-Bernie."
ReplyDeleteSeek absolution from St. Ike for that one.
"As long as we.... (X) ...we will have preserved our American culture"
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that is going to preserve American culture is preserving Americans, as in the ones who created the USA.
It really all comes down to: Do you have the desire to preserve heritage America(ns)? There's really no other significant issue because heritage America was the most successful economically in history.
St. Ike would have tried to block re-opening a major military base just to flip a state's party affiliation -- "military-industrial complex".
ReplyDeleteBut on an objective view, that's how you would flip PA and keep it red -- re-open the naval base and shipyard, along with subsidizing steel / protecting it with tariffs like its competitors do in China, Korea, etc. Those two would synergize, with steel being used in building ships.
The point is how clueless and careless the GOP is about its survival. They're just going to ride it out until a hopefully painless death.
Rhetorically, you cannot argue in favor of "heritage Americans" because no one knows what that means, and you've got to explain who that is before getting to the real argument.
ReplyDeletePlus you've automatically turned the Ellis Islanders against you.
And those founding stock have evolved into distinct regional cultures by now anyway -- Yankees, Southerners, Appalachians, Midwesterners, etc.
Just argue based on economics (immigrants drive down wages and bid up housing prices), and you don't go down the rhetorical dead-end of ethnic arguments. As long as the heritage Americans get protected, who cares what the argument was that achieved that result?
Agnostic, I think you getting close to the truth but not saying it right. U.S.A. is not true nation state, but that does not mean focus only theoretical economics (to save it) but instead focus on the dissolution of the corporate-banking-military-secret-society-zionist entity (so-called swamp) that is called America.
ReplyDeleteFor actual ethnic-nationalists in the USA saving Merika and the Republican party (over and over again) is a dead end. We are better off letting the thing die. In this way, Trump is the at best a distraction (the last breath of civil-nationalism), worse he will turn out to be a disaster for giving false hope in electoral politics.
OK, you can go "enjoy the decline" while everyone else tries to rescue the society from the brink of extinction.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'll be on the dinghy while you and others argue about who should be captain of the sinking ship.
ReplyDeleteOddly, you inadvertently explained why American isn't a nation state, so you must know why you can't keep a political zone together forever with abstract concepts of citizenship, eventually it has fall apart. People aren't just economic units looking for an economic advantage.
People are *primarily* economically motivated, no one said "just" economically motivated.
ReplyDeleteThe only predictive models of electoral behavior take into account "fundamentals" like the economy -- not whether some candidate promises a greater sense of cultural belonging.
People start caring more about social-cultural issues when the fundamentals are all taken care of -- among wealthier people with stable employment.
No one said either that the goal is to prop up the United States polity in its current big-ness -- rather, to form successful electoral coalitions while the parties must still recruit from the entire U.S., and in a way that will do the best for the material interests of the American people.
When America breaks up into smaller regions, it will not be for cultural reasons, although some elites may emphasize those.
It will be because we've run out of common enemies to bind us all together, a la Peter Turchin's asabiya theory of ethnogenesis.
Originally it was the Indians, then the Soviet Union / Communist countries, now perhaps radical Islamic countries plus East Asian manufacturing giants who've stolen our factories. Who knows?
It will depend on how broadly radical Muslims target American regions, or how broadly the Chinese screw over American regions.
You seem to be confusing the economy and polity. When I say rescuing society, I primarily mean material welfare -- not maintaining all 50 states, regardless of how shitty everyone's lives are.
ReplyDeleteThat's what all normal people think when they hear about societal collapse and trying to save it from destruction. Maybe throw in some cultural collapse, but that is not region-specific or anti-big-ness.
Rescuing America means material welfare first, and secondarily cultural health (which will largely follow from the first). We can do that, even if the polity breaks up into smaller units -- no one will consider that a collapse, in the sense of a threat that must be protected against.
People will shrug their shoulders at the West Coast breaking off into its own economy / polity.
Even if a Dem win would work I question that economics is so swaying for voters.
ReplyDeleteThe GOP got working class former Dems by talking moral issues, abortion and family values. Then screwed them over. But that's how they won - moral arguments.
You don't have to question -- just look at the data. Working-class people vote Democrat, not Republican, so there's nothing to explain about how the GOP dupes the working class -- they don't get their vote.
ReplyDeleteWorking-class whites don't care about social-cultural issues like abortion etc. They want a prosperous stable life for themselves, their families, communities, and nation. Can't have those things if you're dirt poor, with unstable employment, and facing an uncertain future.
Oprah Winfrey is musing a presidential run.
ReplyDeleteIf she runs and wins the American media has taken over the world.
"The GOP got working class former Dems by talking moral issues, abortion and family values. Then screwed them over. But that's how they won - moral arguments."
ReplyDeleteThat's insanity. When some Great Lakes voter looked at his once great factory town having turned into a bombed out husk full of crime, drugs, poverty and no opportunity because NAFTA and other free trade measures shipped all of those jobs to Mexico or China or Malaysia or wherever you believe that his biggest concern is things like fags marrying or abortion?
Sure "bake the fucking cake" style issues might piss reasonable people off and cause them to role their eyes but culture war stuff is the domain largely of midwestern Evangelicals and might drive the base to the polls but it wasn't winning over new voters in the previous 25 years of elections.
Besides, want to take care of the social stuff? Take care of the economic stuff. Crack down on immigration (from MENA, Mexico/Central America, maybe even China and India), enact policies that make off shoring not worth the trouble and thus bringing back jobs, direct younger Americans towards emerging job fields, invest in public infrastructure (buildings, public parks, roads, bridges, maybe even passenger rail) that revitalizes American cities and gives people a greater sense of connection to where they're from, where they live and the people around them.
I'm half-convinced that the rise in things like homo and tranny stuff or general empty libertinism comes from people cut off from their society and trying to find other things to fill the existential void left in them. Improve and revitalize cities via hardline immigration and deportation of illegals, a return of jobs, a focus on infrastructure and add better wages to that too and within a generation you're going to see all of these moral ills the GOP and religious right like to yammer on about start to fall by the way side. Immigration and dying cities from jobs going away has transformed things into something that older generations don't recognize and younger generations feel no affinity for; certainly not America. Fix the economic issues and that's probably the best first step you can take towards fixing the social issues.
First, I'd like to say that when I was thinking in these terms I was also thinking in terms of the military-industrial complex, rather than just the bases. It's not fair to say that there aren't still some substantial military facilities in CA currently (i.e. beyond the facilities around San Diego there's Fort Irwin, Edwards AFB, Vandenberg AFB, Twenty Nine Palms, etc.) the major issues are that 1) a lot of them are kind of in the middle of nowhere compared to the likes of Pendleton and the other facilities around San Diego and 2) beyond the effects of BRAC what are the effects of the 'peace dividend' post-Cold War on the development of the Californian economy, especially at the medium to high end income brackets where we see the political polarization in red states that makes them red states.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, in the aerospace industry, which beyond various types of spaceflight and commercial aviation is heavily dependent on military contracting, we've gone from practically dozens of different companies capable of competing for big ticket projects to a point where due to the consolidation of firms within that sector has made it so that there are some legitimate concerns that if contracts aren't spread around enough, we might be stuck with a duopoloy or even a monopoly in certain key capabilities. Lockheed Martin, for example, is the only company currently that has competence and experience designing, building, and sustaining modern fifth generation fighter jets for example, making it far more difficult for either Boeing or Northrup Grumman to compete for future fighter programs.
Now while this trend in consolidation did happen throughout the Cold War, let’s not ignore that after the Cold War ended a lot of consolidation within the aerospace sector was encouraged by the Clinton Administration on the grounds that there wasn’t going to be enough business in the post-Cold War world to sustain half a dozen or more aerospace firms (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1997/07/04/how-a-dinner-led-to-a-feeding-frenzy/13961ba2-5908-4992-8335-c3c087cdebc6/?utm_term=.8a8488659914). Meanwhile, concurrently to these developments, you had, from my understanding, Silicon Valley and all its related companies starting to take off. Of course, nothing like Google or Facebook would exist anytime yet, but this was still the era of the dotcom bubble and the Dems beginning to embrace tech not merely on a political and economic basis, but on ideological ones too.
My thinking in short is that the bigger story is that beyond BRAC closures, the mid to high end income end of California’s economy had as a major component aerospace and assorted military-industrial industries throughout the Cold War. In these industries there were good jobs to be had, from the engineers designing whatever the company was selling to the military to the people on the factory floor putting them together. After the Cold War, these companies decline both in importance and payroll, and while the lower end of the payroll likely doesn’t find itself recovering (i.e. people who would previously find themselves in good jobs as machinists putting together planes don’t really have anywhere near the same opportunities) those on the higher end find themselves working in Silicon Valley (i.e. an engineer who might have worked at Hughes designing missile electronics a couple of decades ago now works for Apple designing electronics for iPhones). So if anything, people who would have been on the low to medium end of employment in these companies become more Democratic as they likely become poorer absent those same employment opportunities and at the medium to high end they likewise become Democratic through working in a Democratic aligned industry and knowing which way their bread is buttered.
And of course, there is the question of what were the effects on tech, politically, that so much of the basis for it made it part of the military-industrial complex initially. Even before the internet, digital computers like ENIAC were initially developed to help compute firing tables for artillery and ended up being heavily involved from an early point in time in the development of thermonuclear weapons, one of the major drivers in computer chip miniaturization was the need to fit them into ICBMs, etc. And don’t forget that the one of the East Coast’s rough and early predecessors to Silicon Valley, Route 128 in Massachusetts, very much originated to develop a whole host of electronic systems for the military. Would one be able to see a realignment in tech, where in the 1960s tech companies, being firmly enmeshed in military contracting, would at least be up for grabs if they didn’t lean towards the GOP and as the sector began to orient itself away from military contracting it became more and more firmly Democratic?
ReplyDeleteTwo key reasons my home state of PA went red for the first time in 25+ years:
ReplyDelete1. Fracking. Energy is now a key industry in PA thanks to fracking. Energy now provides a significant share of jobs in PA, particularly in the northwestern counties, and counties in the steel regions surrounding Pittsburgh; such as Beaver and Westmoreland, which were once Democratic strongholds. Allegheny County is home to big financial and health care companies in Pittsburgh, which are pro-Democrat.
2. The GE locomotive plant in Erie. Trump’s talk of infrastructure improvement means more rail traffic, which means increased demand for locomotives. Although this plant recently closed, hopes that it would reopen under the Trump administration got votes to vote for him.
There are many more reasons, but these are what I’ve seen and heard in my corner.
The GOP had already consolidated Western PA except for Pittsburgh itself, as of the 1990s and 2000s.
ReplyDeleteWhat gave Trump the state was the large counties that contain Erie, Wilkes-Barre, and Bethlehem:
http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/12/urban-areas-that-flipped-red-and-few.html
Bethlehem was home to Bethlehem Steel, the 2nd largest steel producer and largest ship-builder. Both the Philadelphia Naval Base and the steel plant in Bethlehem closed in the mid-1990s. With no ships left to build, the supplier of the steel went belly-up as well.
Wilkes-Barre is coal country, used to do more heavy industry as well. Don't know if there's a military connection to their former glory or not, though.
Lots of clueless conservatives talking about a memo from Clinton campaign staffer Palmieri saying that amnestying illegal immigrants is key to the future electoral success of the Dems.
ReplyDeleteWell, why shouldn't we take the word of the campaign that didn't know who the hell their voter base consisted of? How many illegal immigrants are there in the Rust Belt, minus Chicago? Zero.
Democrats would win the West Coast and Northeast even if they restricted the vote to whites only.
The places in the Great Lakes that go Democrat only by including non-whites -- do not have immigrants, but African-Americans playing that key role.
We obviously don't want immigrants voting in our elections, or getting citizenship and voting. But this is turning into the new right-wing conspiracy theory to rationalize why they suck at winning elections -- it was demographic replacement!
"Foreigners voted in our elections!" is the right-wing version of "foreign governments hacked our elections!"
Nope: it was because you sold out the white working class with your corporatist globalist bullshit, and they've decided to vote for the party that will at least soften the blow of growing immiseration and throw them some breadcrumbs on a material level.
"Bethlehem was home to Bethlehem Steel, the 2nd largest steel producer and largest ship-builder."
ReplyDeleteVisited here a few years ago - very beautiful place, and I was surprised, reading one of the placards, that it didn't shut down till like '97.
yes, but a lot of the white people in cali and NYC and other large metro areas vote Dem because Dems are more likely to bring in more immigration, which increases demand for housing, which raises home prices in cali, nyc and other large metro areas where home prices are high...these whites are making a fortune off their homes...but they need more immigration to increase the prices...
ReplyDeletealso, in large metro areas whites are more likely to vote Dem because they are more educated in those areas...formal education has a large anti-white/pro-nonwhite/pro-immigration propaganda component...the more exposed a white person is to this educational curriculum, the more full of white guilt and thus the more likely to vote Dem, as voting Dem assuages their white guilt
Whites began voting solid Democrat in the Pac NW -- NOT California -- and in the Lutheran Triangle -- NOT Illinois -- back in 1988. Then in '92, throughout New England, formerly a Republican bastion aside from MA.
ReplyDeleteNone of those states had large immigrant or non-white populations at the time of the shift, and most of them still do not today.
So they did not vote Democrat in order to flood their state with immigrants who would drive up home prices. Such a change never happened.
What did cause their home prices to rise in those states is the influx of Americans from other parts of the country -- though mostly affecting the Pac NW and New England, not so much the Lutheran Triangle, where home prices are still relatively affordable.
Why did Americans head to the Pac NW? For the growth in the economic sector of tech, and whatever is lateral to or downstream of tech.
Why did Americans head to New England? For the growth in tech, finance, and other informational sectors.
Since the Democrats are the patron party to these sectors, these new residents have voted more Democrat, as well as the old-time natives of the state. They vote for the party that butters their bread.
Where higher ed is a large employer, people will vote more Democrat.
White Democrats may have liberal guilt (pretty phony and superficial, though, not a deep driver of behavior), and may like multiculturalism, but they are not voting Democrat in order to increase immigration for material reasons.
If an angry mob surrounded the state capitol building, demanding all illegals be sent home, white Democrats would not be happy -- but they would surrender, because their material interests would not be affected. Sob, sob, but hey, my way of life is still perfectly safe.
If an angry mob tried that in a big-farm state like Iowa, Kansas, or Nebraska -- or a city hall in a Wisconsin dairy town -- the Republican elites who own those farms would lobby the government to send in the National Guard. Their mega-profitability depends on cheap labor, unlike urban yuppies who work for a tech or insurance company.
Why do race obsessers ignore Texas? It's heavily urbanized, no longer white, getting less and less white, and sits literally right on the southern border where it is overwhelmed by illegal Central Americans year after year.
ReplyDeleteErgo, it must be a Democrat stronghold! Oops. It's a GOP stronghold at every single level and branch of government. The main sectors are GOP sectors: oil, military, agriculture. They vote for the party that butters their bread (say that three times to remember it better). They are only changing to the extent that those GOP sectors get replaced by Democrat sectors (tech, finance, media, higher ed).
Vermont, Minnesota, and Oregon must be Democrat because of all those illegals flooding their state -- except they're the whitest states in the nation!
Do you realize how retarded that argument sounds to someone who is actually from Wisconsin, Maine, or Oregon? Let alone Texas or Arizona, where the race obsessers make the wrong prediction in the other direction?
We get it: it sucks living in a non-white Democrat area like coastal California, Florida, or the NY metro. But don't project that onto the rest of the country -- by being factually wrong and stubbornly ignorant, you repel everyone who might otherwise be sympathetic to the appeal for stopping immigration and repatriating illegals.
The uprising has failed when the sole talking point is that amnesty will turn states over to the Dumbocraps rather than the wonderful stewards of our prosperity and security, the Party of Lincoln.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations: you've made it impossible for any Democrat voter to be against amnesty -- you've promised them that their team will win more and more forever. "Sign us up!" they'll think.
Focus on the material outcomes -- lower wages, higher rents -- not partisan control. Especially when no one gives a damn about the GOP -- that's what we're being implored to save?
Tell them the goal is to save the American people's prosperity and security, not some failing moribund party hated by everybody including most of its own voters.
Romney won whites by 8 points in 2012.
ReplyDelete*California whites
ReplyDeleteAlthough Romney got 53% of CA whites in 2012, Trump only got 45% in '16, vs. 50% going to Crooked Hillary (and 5% third parties).
ReplyDeleteMcCain only got 46% in '08.
Bush got 51% in '04, but only 46% in '00.
Getting back to the question of whether it was immigration that transformed the state's voting patterns -- what percent of the white vote do you think Reagan won back in '80?
There were no exit polls by state back then, but Reagan won 53% of the total vote in CA, at a time when whites made up "only" 67% of the population.
Blacks and Hispanics voted overwhelmingly against Reagan, meaning whites must have went for him in the 60-something percent range.
That means at least a 10-point drop in the CA GOP white vote, and more like 15-20 point drop, between Reagan and Bush Jr.
What explains that? The shuttering of many DoD-related jobs for whites in California after the Cold War, and the replacement of these nice jobs by the tech, finance, and media / entertainment sectors.