January 17, 2011

Ronald Brownstein's "White Flight" article in National Journal

From the VDARE.com column I wrote before the press whipped itself into a frenzy nine days ago:
Veteran centrist reporter Ronald Brownstein’s "White Flight" article in National Journal, a trade magazine for political professionals, had begun to get a lot of attention, until the political class went berserk over that psycho shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. ...

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Brownstein’s article was left more implied than explicit:
“The Hispanic vote for Democrats in House races slipped to 60 percent, compared with about two-thirds for Obama in 2008 … Meanwhile, Republicans, with their 60 percent showing, notched the party’s best congressional result among white voters in the history of modern polling.”

Let me spell this out more clearly than Brownstein does. In 2010, whites voted slightly more as a bloc for Republican House candidates (60-37) than Hispanics did for Democrats (60-38).

...Still, it’s fascinating that after endless pronouncements in the MSM about how Republicans were dooming themselves in November by supporting the Arizona immigration law, it turns out that the GOP did fair to middling among Hispanic voters.

The unspoken reality: immigration is not that important an issue to Hispanic voters—certainly not anything like as important as it is to would-be Hispanic leaders.

Read the whole thing there.

29 comments:

Let's! said...

It would be nice if some other conservative-majority states would be Spartacus and follow Arizona's lead, so the LSM wouldn't find it so easy to isolate and polarize that one state.

adfasdfsdf said...

Can 2010 be explained by Sailer Strategy? Or was it because of the economic downturn? Suppose economy turned around in 2009. Would GOP still have retaken the House?

At any rate, unless we can talk about Jewish power, nothing can be done. But even Steve skirts around this issue by talking of MSM without mentioning who really controls it.
Best weapon against Jews. Hold them to the same standards. Bring up the history of Jewish crimes. Jewish wealth and privilege. Need for affirmative action for gentile whites against Jews who control too much.

Anonymous said...

I think the MySpace to Facebook white flight is equally fascinating.

Anonymous said...

URL - the MySpace to Facebook white flight

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Republicans should make an effort to reach out to some of the white ethnics (Italian, Irish, Polish) in the northeast. A lot of these people vote Democrat, but may have an interest in turning Republican.

Mel Torme said...

No, you whipped yourself up into a frenzy*, Steve. I told you about this article over a weak ago, before you wrote about 10 posts on the media whipping itself into a frenzy**. Of course, I don't pay you, so what can I say, really? ;-}


*based on the media being whipped up in a frenzy (due to whip-its, maybe (NOx cylinders) ? )

** oh, and a few more posts about a domineering Chinese mother who was whipping her two girls up into a frenzy (no, there's no you-tube on that. yes, I checked, of course)

Mel Torme said...

Oh, I see now, you say you wrote this for VDare some time back. Sorry for my snide remarks, than. I only saw something on VDare about it today. Either they held it up to publish more stuff about this Arizona thing, or I missed it before.

Anonymous said...

Re: Gelman's findings, I may have misread you, but I believe it's not the case that the more elite rich Democratic state voters are, the more Democratic voting. It's that "elite" rich states voters are more likely to vote Democratic, but still less likely than poor rich state voters and that this pattern holds for poor states but with a much larger rich-poor difference.

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/worlds.png

In other words, what elites (or at least dumb pundits and bloggers) from expensive Democratic states do is twofold:

i) they *wrongly* project the relative lack of income association with voting in their own states onto poor states.
ii) they *wrongly* assume that the richer and more elite a person is, the more likely he is to vote Democratic.

Note this is all about voting, which is what we're talking about here. Richness may well be associated with Liberal ideology in expensive Democratic states but associated with Conservative ideology in poor Republican states, but that's a separate issue and doesn't match up with the votes in any case.

JerseyGuy said...

Steve,
I thought you would find this piece by Joel Kotkin pretty interesting....

http://www.newgeography.com/content/001994-rise-hans

Anonymous said...

I like the question, "Why do we insist on importing poverty?"

I read it a few days ago. (On a blog? On your blog, Steve? Can't recall)

I've "used it" on three people this week. I think it works!

Jack said...

As a white ethnic from the northeast I can say white ethnics are a potential imporovement area for Republicans. Guys like Scott Brown and Chris Christie, no doubt, had huge support from this group of people in their wins. Of course, Republicans, to win their votes, might not want to sue the FDNY to force them to be more "diverse" - something which I only heard about here on this site, and which i think is utterly shameful.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Republicans should make an effort to reach out to some of the white ethnics (Italian, Irish, Polish) in the northeast. A lot of these people vote Democrat, but may have an interest in turning Republican.

The Italians have been fairly strong GOP-ers for a good 75 years or more, but I fear that the Poles & the Southern Irish are a lost cause.

Face it: If Roe -v- Wade couldn't get them to vote GOP, then nothing will.

Also: Do NOT misunderestimate the importance of union pensions to these folks - they will sell their own grandmothers to keep that pension check coming.

Anonymous said...

Places like New York and Chicago are trying to diversify their police and fire departments, which hits ambitious Italian and Irish guys pretty hard. Why not have Republican politicians go to places like south Staten Island and campaign aginst AA preferences? It'd seem a good way to pick up support.

Of course, knowing the GOP, they'll probably end up deciding to campaign harder in Spanish Harlem or south Texas. You know, places with lots of "natural Republicans."

eh said...

"White Flight"

Maybe that's why we have all that "racial harmony" the NYT was talking about.

Anonymous said...

Hispanics seem to have, overall, have a better work ethic than blacks. They also, like Asians, tend to follow in the direction of whites. Because of innate IQ differences they will never be predominantly Republican or conservative, and will always look more to government handouts than whites. But generally I think a larger portion of them would prefer to earn their keep. This means that any policy that improves their individual conditions, even if at the expense of immigration by their co-ethnics, will move them a bit to the right. Cut off the supply of new economic competitors - their own Latin American cousins - and they will vote more conservative.

ANd if they won't vote more conservative? Then cutting off immigration still benefits conservatives. All-in-all, there is NO conservative argument for pandering to Hispanics through non-enforcement/greater immigration

Anonymous said...

Interesting idea - implicit communities. Its like when hyper liberal whites move to certain neighborhoods cause the schools are better there. Pay no attention to the fact that they're acting just like Southern *rascists* (ahem) from back in the day. No no! It's totally different.

Anonymous said...

"..immigration is not that important an issue to Hispanic voters-certainly not anything like as importantas it is to would-be Hispanic leaders."

Well come on now Steve! Who wants to be a chief when you haven't got any Indians?

Shouting Thomas said...

The candidate around whom this all coalesces is none other than Sarah Palin.

Jack said...

Republicans already do well in Staten Island. But increases with Catholics could help them significantly in PA, NJ and CT. NY's probably too far gone for any kind of statewide race.

Anonymous said...

It really doesn't make sense for Hispanic-American citizens (or any other hyphenated American group) to be supporting immigration. After all, that's simply more competition for jobs.

Severn said...

The unspoken reality: immigration is not that important an issue to Hispanic voters—certainly not anything like as important as it is to would-be Hispanic leaders.

It's also extremely important to Chamber of Commerce type Republicans. If the only people cheerleading for immigration were would-be Hispanic leaders, we' wouldn't have a problem.

Severn said...

The Italians have been fairly strong GOP-ers for a good 75 years or more, but I fear that the Poles & the Southern Irish are a lost cause.


I don't know what the source of this idiocy is, but since it gets repeated endlessly here in the "Sailersphere", let me address it.

A) The Italians have not "been fairly strong GOP-ers for a good 75 years". They're currently somewhat less Republican than the Irish. And they were never, ever, strong Republicans.

B) White Catholics, which basically means Irish, Italians, and Poles, have been shifting to the GOP for the past 40 years. In the recent House elections white Protestants voted for the GOP by 59% to 38%. White Catholics voted GOP by 54% to 44%.

C) The bulk of the white Catholic vote in America is made up of Irish Americans. They outnumber the Italians and Poles combined. They are also better educated, more affluent, and more likely to reside in the suburbs rather than urban areas. In short, they're more Republican than the other white Catholics.

This is good news for people here. The GOP is becoming more and more the "white peoples party" and the Dems are becoming more and more the "non-white peoples party". Gratuitous shots from the right at certain segments of white people is one of the things which can arrest this process.

So cut it out.

Anonymous said...

RE: Hispanics are not very hung up on the immigration issue.

I'm not positive it's as true as some may think, but it certainly makes sense within the context of human nature.

Once you're in a social grouping/club, free clear and safe, you suddenly become considerably more opposed to anyone else joining and your opposition increases over time. If it's true many Hispanics are lukewarm on the immigration issue, it's a sign that they are absorbing into America and are reaching a position where they feel threatened by newcomers the way they once threatened others by joining.

An individual's personal well being, real or imagined, often trumps the well being of their nearest (non-familial) collective, in this case, race. If you risk loosing a perceived personal advantage (ie income) by helping out a collective to which you belong/belonged, the odds are good you'll be lukewarm with your support for them.

American whites are the most anti-immigration because they got here second (but think they got here first) and have been here for a long time. Even white newbies feel like they've been here for a long time because their race is the dominant race in the American collective. Both new and old whites form a quick bond for their mutual benefit. Whites have no ties to the group they conjure up in their minds when they say "immigrants". So, all they can see is the potential for personal/white collective loss at the hands of some other race.

This is why most whites resist immigration and that resistance will increase the closer to the southern border you get because the threat is perceived as greater there.

Meanwhile, a Hispanic's reaction to the issue depends on how well they've been accepted into America and how strong their connection to the "old country" is. The longer they've been there and the weaker the ties are to the folks back home, the less they care and vice-versa.

Left-right, legal-illegal, and even the actual impact of the immigration itself are just minor details in comparison to the 300 million personal calculations of "What might I lose by letting them in?" verses "How close am I to them?"

No political or legal system is built to properly handle this irrational and emotional debate over this extremely complex issue. That's why I would put my money on the resulting policies getting it wrong.

Hail said...

Shouting Thomas wrote:
The candidate around whom this all coalesces is none other than Sarah Palin.

Oh, God...no.

Anonymous said...

Basically, American politics is just one great big Jesse Jackson style shake-down, with blacks being its beneficiary.
A remarkable achievement for a group that's only 12% of the population, I take my hat off to them.Seriously.
You see, since JFK started to play the 'race game' the Democrat Party (formerly the counterpoint to the Republicans in that it represented, largely, the class interest of the working class, especially the 'ethnics' and the Irish), has become little more than the sectional political wing of black self-interest, but with, oh, a few other rag-bag 'oppressed' special interests thrown in (ie women, hispanics), and the Jews still get a good deal out of it, despite the Republicans being their real home in terms of class interest.
So the Democrats pissed off the white working class bigtime, by tearing them from the teat and givng blacks sucking rights instead.
So what does working class whitey do instead?, why he is seduced by the evil embraces of the Republicans - his class enemy.Notwithstanding the fact that the Republicans have done damn-all to repeal AA (in fact Tricky Dicky instituted it), delivered whitey's final coup-de-grace (Reagan amnesty), and yankee frat boy Geoge W. expened every last ounce of energy trying to get a new amnesty in, the beefy winbreaker wearers still vote for the people who destroyed their lives ana livelihoods to fatten themselves ('free trade' with low cost China), and only hae contempt and hatred for them.
You can almost hear their sniggering insults from the country club bar "Heavy duty New Jersey!", "Fly over country!".
Two cheeks of the same ass indeed.
Anyway, fo all those hear who sneer at a supposed black low IQ, I just say this - 'never has such a limited political hand been played so skillfully and effectively".

Anonymous said...

If Staten Island is an Italian stronghold and votes Republican, that might be a sign of things to come. Italians are very unSWPL and tend toward machismo. They also haven't had the best relations with NAMs, who they've tried to keep out of their neighborhoods (Morris Park in the Bronx, Bensohurst in Brooklyn, south Staten Island, etc.), with some level of success.

Italians are pretty territorial and are suspicious of outsiders, so I'd think they'd want an immigration restrictionist platform. A lot of the big names in the restrictionist movement (Tancredo, Lou Barletta, John Tanton, Sheriff Arpaio) are Italian. That can't be a coencidence.

Mayor Rizzo of Philadelphia was Italian and pretty conservative. Giuliani is Italian. Paladino is Italian. Sylvester Stallone, Italian, backed Reagan back in the day.

Severn said...

If Staten Island is an Italian stronghold and votes Republican, that might be a sign of things to come.

NYC is a minority white city - only 35% of its population is non-Hispanic white. Staten Island by contrast is 75% white, so it's an island of whiteness in a non-white city.

Of the white Staten Islanders, 35% call themselves Italian, 13% Irish, 6% German, 4% Polish, and the rest are below four percent.

In the most recent Presidential election Staten Island voted for MCain over Obama by 77,977 to 76,558. Essentially a tie. Staten Island and it's white Catholic population are pretty conservative, by the skewed standards of NYC. But they're to the left of white Catholics in the US as a whole.

Italians are very unSWPL and tend toward machismo.

You could say the same about Hispanics. Or blacks, for that matter.


A lot of the big names in the restrictionist movement (Tancredo, Lou Barletta, John Tanton, Sheriff Arpaio) are Italian. That can't be a coencidence.

It pretty much is a coincidence. Nancy Pelosi is Italian as well. I looked up all the members of the Italian American Congressional Delegation. It's made up of ten Republicans and twenty Democrats.

I don't know about his mom's side, but John Tanton is a pure Olde English name.

Giuliani is Italian.

And a well-known open borders zealot. Italian-American members of the ruling class, like all other members of the ruling class, are much more globalist in their thinking than are either Italian Americans or Americans in general.

Anonymous said...

Basically, American politics is just one great big Jesse Jackson style shake-down, with blacks being its beneficiary.

You're forgetting about their puppeteers, who always seem to make off like, uh, bandits.

David said...

Severn said

>"Italians are very unSWPL and tend toward machismo." You could say the same about Hispanics. Or blacks, for that matter.>

But Italians are white. So their unSWPL-ness and machismo tends in a different direction from that of the groups you mentioned, doesn't it?

>American whites are the most anti-immigration because they got here second (but think they got here first)<

No - Iberia not Siberia. Google Clovis. There have been many migrations and many genocides.