June 6, 2008

Guess who's leading among Hispanic voters?

Over on the VDARE.com blog, I have a post up on the new Gallup poll results of whom Latino voters favor in November.


My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

23 comments:

jody said...

wow. that is incredible, considering mccain is almost as racist as obama.

he is a major la raza supporter and has been for 10 years at least. he even speaks at their meetings. in fact he plans to attend the national la raza convention AGAIN in july. is this not mind boggling stuff? a nominee for president who supports political seperatists?

at least this explains his agressive pursuit of amnesty and intense hostility toward anybody who doesn't want to be overrun by mexicans.

which makes me wonder, just how many mexicans does america need? how many is enough? does the US really need 50 million mexicans? aren't there enough here already? legal immigration alone is running half a million a year i would guess.

Film Critic said...

Clint Eastwood tells Spike Lee to "shut is face"

Dennis Dale said...

The best part is the unintentionally comedic logic of the Republican response thus far: The Hispanics keep voting for the Democrats, so we must increase their numbers, or we'll lose their votes to the Democrats.
How can anyone lament the demise of the GOP at this point? Drag it into a shallow body of water and stand on its head until ten minutes after it stops squirming.

Ron Guhname said...

Based on my data analyses, I don't know how important povery is as a predictor of voting patterns. Most educated, wealthy Mex-Ams vote Democrat, as do many rich whites. And many poor whites vote Republican. It seems to be much more about culture and racial politics now.

Pundits of all stripes emphasize that the winner in November will need the Reagan Democrats. It's a major weakness for Obama that McCain needs to exploit.

Hispanics are, and always were a lost cause. If McCain wants to win, he needs to win over white blue collar voters, and a tougher stance on immigration (and softening his bullheaded free trade position) will help.

El Jefe said...

The only thing that would be more awesome than McCain narrowly losing the GE and losing the Hispanic vote by 33 points would be for McCain to actually win a majority of the Latino vote, but lose the GE anyway because he underperforms among whites.

Richard A. said...

"The numbers suggest that McCain’s image has suffered after a competitive GOP primary in which he renounced some of the moderate views on immigration popular among many Latinos."

This is classic L.A. Times bias. Poorly educated poor, regardless if they are white, black, or Hispanic vote overwhelming for Democrats.

William said...

The best part is the unintentionally comedic logic of the Republican response thus far: The Hispanics keep voting for the Democrats, so we must increase their numbers, or we'll lose their votes to the Democrats.

Karl Rove has said himself that he thinks Arizona is moving towards a purplish state because of its rising Hispanic population. Yes, that Karl Rove - "Bush's brain" - the author of the Bush amnesty plan thatw as going to win Hispanics eternally for the GOP (how much good did the Reagan amnesty do again?)

I think the Obama/McCain difference is thus: Obama supports amnesty knowing exactly what he's doing - screwing the white working class, moving this country to the left and towards the day when whites will be a minority.

McCain's just plain damn stupid. And it's sad because he truly is an honest-to-goodness believer in the "dying for your country" stuff. He doesn't understand that people are only willing to die for their country because it's their country - which, when you think about it, explains why Hispanics are enlisting disproportionately relative to their (legal) numbers - because we're in the process of handing it over to them.

Truth be told when 9/11 happened, and even up until a few years after, I was several times on the verge of taking a massive pay cut and joining the Guard or even active duty. The reason I ultimately nixed the idea was that I won't die for a country that we're giving away to foreign governments and to a bunch of post-American businessmen.

In 1985 (70 million people ago) we had no problem maintaining a high-quality, acitve duty force of 2.2 million people. Today we're struggling to keep 1.5 million in uniform.

Anonymous said...

Don't look now or it will break your heart, but James Webb was spotted giving the "Black Power" salute next to Barack Obama:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/010771.html

Anonymous said...

Hispanics went overwhelmingly for McCain during the Republican primary and it isn't carrying over for him at all in the general. Dick Morris just wrote recently where he posited a similar scenario. He believes that the Scots-Irish voters who so overwhelmingly went for Clinton in Kentucky, West Virginia, etc. likely would have backed McCain being that she was a woman and McCain is actually one of most closely related presidential candidates to this group to come along in a long time.

"And it's sad because he truly is an honest-to-goodness believer in the "dying for your country" stuff. He doesn't understand that people are only willing to die for their country because it's their country - which, when you think about it, explains why Hispanics are enlisting disproportionately relative to their (legal) numbers - because we're in the process of handing it over to them."

True, but I'm beginning to believe that he is older and set in his ways, which is not quite the same as being stupid. Of course, most people his age don't share his liberal views, but *politicians* and intellectuals his age are mostly of that stripe. When you have Ron Paul making a huge splash, and prominent neoconservatives blaming the likes of Pat Buchanan for conservatives' malaise and even uttering the word "paleocons" (remember, Sailer, Auster, etc. were unpeople)... well, I think the intellectual fervor is with our side.

There are many minds to be changed, but for many, like McCain, they are too old to change.

Anonymous said...

Jody doesn't get it.

Juan McCain is simply a carbon copy of Bush. That's why he supports La Raza. He has a sense of entitlement, so he will do what the elites want. And the elites want to destroy the nation-state.

For more, see my letters on VDARE.com, especially the one showing George Bush's new neighbors here in Dallas.

William said...

How will the GOP respond when Obama wins thanks to the "growing Hispanic vote" and theyget slaughtered in Congressional races thanks to their demoralized base?

I'd like to think they'll respond Newt Gingrich-style, and come out fighting in 2010 with a platform (e.g., immigration enforcement) that brings back the voters. They'll have a chance to make that decision rather quickly because I'm sure the Democrats will want to secure their future by granting almost instant citizenship to 15 million (no make that 20-30-50 million) illegals. Making it almost instantaneous will give the voters no chance at retribution - the votes of the angry will be offset by the votes of the recently amnestied.

But looking at the GOP's aging and out-of-touch lineup and my two 70-something senators I'm guessing they'll revert to Rockefeller Republicanism - or stick with it, I should say.

I mean, look at this face. Not an encouraging sign.

simon newman said...

Republicans seem unable to grasp that Hispanic _voters_ want state-provided health care, welfare, and other government services, not uncontrolled Hispanic immigration. Hispanics who want uncontrolled Hispanic immigration are (1) illegals or (2) political activists seeking to increase their nominal base.

simon newman said...

william:
"explains why Hispanics are enlisting disproportionately relative to their (legal) numbers"

I was just reading some RAND Corp numbers on this yesterday. Hispanics are actually under, not over, represented in enlisteds, very under in officers (3%). Blacks by contrast are over represented in enlisteds; under represented in officers, but have twice the Hispanic total (6%).

Hispanics may ancedotally be over represented in Iraq casualties, but this seems more to do with which service arms they recruit into - eg army truck drivers and infantry are much more likely to become casualties than are Navy or Air Force recruits.

Lucius Vorenus said...

William: In 1985 (70 million people ago) we had no problem maintaining a high-quality, acitve duty force of 2.2 million people. Today we're struggling to keep 1.5 million in uniform.

simon newman: I was just reading some RAND Corp numbers on this yesterday. Hispanics are actually under, not over, represented in enlisteds, very under in officers (3%). Blacks by contrast are over represented in enlisteds; under represented in officers, but have twice the Hispanic total (6%).

Most people don't seem to be aware that the USA has experienced a collapse in the absolute numbers of Caucasians [again, not in the relative numbers of Caucasians, but in the ABSOLUTE numbers of Caucasians]:

Statistical Abstract of the United States
Section 1, Population
[see especially Table 8 & Table 9, pages 11-13]
PDF FILE: pop.pdf

JPEG IMAGE: Table 8, page 11

As of 2006, the USA Caucasian population peaks at 16 million, in the 45-49 age group, and then plummets down to a mere 11 million in both the 5-9 age group and the 0-4 age group.

Back in the 1980s, the big 16 million bubble was in its late teens and early twenties, and they were the people Reagan drew on to rebuild our Armed Forces.

But they [and especially their Blue State brethren] failed to reproduce at replacement-rate levels, and the Caucasian population collapsed, so that, circa 2020, we will be trying to field an Army, a Navy, and an Air Force on the backs of a mere 11 million Caucasians.

Fat lotta luck.

[Blacks and Hispanics, even if they were patriotic peoples, have average IQs* which are far too low to be of any use in deploying modern weapons systems.]

By the way, if you look at the numbers [as in that JPEG above], then you will see that there is a "Baby Boom" [a fertility swell followed by a fertility lapse - i.e. a peak in absolute numbers followed by a diminishing trailing edge] ONLY in the Caucasian [& Asian] communities.

There is no "Baby Boom" in the Hispanic or Black communities BECAUSE THEY NEVER STOPPED MAKING BABIES.

The "Boomers" are strictly a Caucasian [and Asian] phenomenon - sort of a demographic "Stuff White People Like" statistical artifact: White people like to make a bunch of babies, then become all nihilistic and decide it was a big mistake and apologize for their existence and go extinct. The End.



*Although I guess I should be charitable enough to acknowledge that a career in the armed forces is an excellent opportunity for Blacks & Hispanics who are way out to the far right end of both their bell curves for intelligence and for patriotism. The problem is that there just aren't all that many of them who fit those two criteria.

RobertHume said...

The black power salute has long since morphed popularly into a generic "We're winning, I'm happy" gesture. I expect that most people don't even know that black power folk started it. Maybe not even Webb, he's pretty young.

So I don't think Webb should be tarred with this.

Martin said...

"William said.....

I think the Obama/McCain difference is thus: Obama supports amnesty knowing exactly what he's doing - screwing the white working class, moving this country to the left and towards the day when whites will be a minority. McCain's just plain damn stupid."

I agree. McCain is probably just not that bright. Add to that, he's old, and he's a fighter-pilot. Strike Three. We've got about as much chance changing his mind as we would of changing Mr. Magoo's.

Notice how the LA times refers to Magoo's - excuse me, McCains'- views on immigration as moderate. Moderate? What's moderate about welcoming 12 million trespassers?

I guess latinos view Obama as just another stick with which to beat the Uncle-Sam shaped pinata, formerly known as the United States. They (mexicans) will vote for a black guy - but they'll still push black people out of their neighborhoods.

I don't think the republicans can be counted on to do anything. Not even a Ginrich-style "revolution", which was actually pretty ineffective, as you may recall. That picture of Mitch McConnell, that William posted, says it all. This guy is not a leader of men.

I recently went to the movies, and saw one of those tiresome commercials they now show (at the movies, no less!) - it featured James Carville and Bill Frist selling Coke. That's what the former Republican senate leader is now doing. Well, at least when he's not lobbying.

P.S. Am I the only one who finds McCains voice really annoying? It sounds uncannily creepy - like Bruce Dern doing an impression of Ronald Reagan.

William said...

qgefp
I was just reading some RAND Corp numbers on this yesterday. Hispanics are actually under, not over, represented in enlisteds, very under in officers (3%).

Hispanics are underrepresented relative to their total numbers, but illegals are not allowed to enlist, so I don't know how they're represented relative to their legal numbers.

Did the RAND report say anything with regards to the ratio of legal Hispanics joining?

Not even a Gingrich-style "revolution", which was actually pretty ineffective, as you may recall.

I think most of the cretins in Congress thought that 1994 was just a one-off caused by a bunch of dumb angry rednecks riled by Rush Limbaugh. What matters WRT a real revolution is what happens to the economy: is this yet another short downturn or are we in for a protracted slide?

If America's economic fortunes continue to fall then our governments will be forced to find ways to save money. Either way we'll see that one way or another mass immigration will eventually come to a halt: either people will demand it end just because, or it will end due to market forces or it will end because market forces finally cause a naive public to see the light.

That picture of Mitch McConnell, that William posted, says it all. This guy is not a leader of men.

He could have a face like that and still be the biggest badass the US Senate has ever seen. To me his face seems to represent his leadership style perfectly, which is why I linked to it.

Half Sigma said...

If McCain loses, we have 8 years of Obama (who has a nearly perfect liberal voting record) appointing our nation's judges and implementing policies in all of our government's executive agencies.

Anonymous said...

If McCain loses, we have 8 years of Obama appointing our nation's judges and implementing policies in all of our government's executive agencies.

Since when have presidential terms been 8 years?

National elections are every two years. If you're dissatisifed with both candidates, and think both will support bad policies, such a samnesty, which party do you want getting blamed?

If Obama's in office the Democrats will get blamed, and the Republicans can pick up the pieces in the 2010 elections. If McCain wins the congressional GOP will probably lose 3 elections in a row - 2006, 2008, 2010.

Anonymous said...

You guys are idiots judging a man by his appearances. McConnell has arguably been the most effective U.S. Senator over the last two years. He's been what has been standing between you and some of the worst ideas of the Democrats. He has stymied them at every turn.

KlaosOldanburg said...

hey steve, check out Stuff White People Like About Obama

William said...

McConnell has arguably been the most effective U.S. Senator over the last two years. He's been what has been standing between you and some of the worst ideas of the Democrats. He has stymied them at every turn.

Mitch McConnell was behind the one policy that has single-handedly demoralized the Republican base: amnesty. He could be a genius in every other way, but it wouldn't matter, both as a measure of what's best for the country and what's best for the party, McConnell got it wrong.

FYI: Why haven't I see much mention of the possibility that the OPEC countries are using higher oil prices in a bid to swing the election? Have I missed it, or is it just not happening?

simon newman said...

William - as I recall the Hispanic enlistment % was single-digit, well under their % of the legal population (ca 14%?).

Here's a RAND paper on Hispanic enlistment:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/2005/RAND_DB484.pdf