Sorry Drudge, The Unidos Estados Has Been Cancelled

OMG! The US is being overrun by brown people! Drudge screamed last week: “Hispanics to be majority within 25 years” and “Illegals pour into US”! Is he right? Hardly. Let me point out a few things, like some recent “inexpiable” changes in demographics.

Let me start by reminding you that Drudge, like his talk radio fellow travelers, is a fear monger who maintains his white, angry, scared audience by telling them that the gays, the browns, the blacks, the atheists, the Muslims, and the feminists are quickly securing the country and will soon be coming for them. But it's all garbage. So what about his headline: “Hispanics to be majority within 25 years”? is Drudge right? Well, no. If you followed the link on this headline, you would not have found an article discussing demographic trends. You would not have found an article from the Census or some new study. What you would have found is an article about a GOP candidate who claims that Hispanics will be the majority ethnicity in Texas in 25 years. In making that claim, he cites to a Gallop poll, which doesn’t say anything of the sort. It says instead that Hispanics favor Democrats. That's it.

So you tell me: was Drudge's use of the headline fair? Well get to the other one in a moment.

The idea of an Hispanic takeover of the US has been popular among racially-conscious talk radio and their opposite numbers in the Democratic Party for some time. The problem is that reality doesn’t cooperate with their thinking. Here’s the problem. They have taken a couple data points at their most extreme and then extrapolated that as a permanent thing. It’s like realizing that I gave you a dollar at noon, two dollars an hour later and four dollars an hour after that and then extrapolating that to tell the world that I will be giving you $256 in ten hours and millions by morning. Good luck with that.

What has happened is this. Hispanics have been the fastest growing group in the US because of two factors: immigration combined with a higher birth rate than everyone else. Taking this higher growth percentage than everyone else and projecting it into the future unchanged eventually leads to Hispanics becoming the majority.

But that’s not how humanity works. It also ignores the inputs, as I’ve written about before. Indeed, I’ve mentioned twice that the first big problem with this is that the majority of the growth rate for Hispanics has been immigration from Mexico, and that is coming to an end. Mexico’s economy is recovering and their birthrate has plunged well below ours. The end result is that there just aren’t enough Mexicans to go around anymore and they are choosing to stay home rather than come here. Because of this, Mexican immigration peaked in the 1990s and has been falling since. The last several years have actually shown a net ZERO in terms of Hispanic immigration. In other words, for every Mexican who came here, one left... yet Drudge says “Illegals pour into US!”

The result of this is that the same doomsday demographers who were sure we would become the Unidos Estados are now putting off that day. But never fear, they say, it’s still coming because those dirty browns breed like cockroaches!!

Only, they aren’t doing that in Mexico anymore. In fact, the birthrate in Mexico crashed from 6.7 in 1970 to 2.2 in 2012 and is approaching the same level as white European or even northern-Asian levels. Similar declines are taking place in Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador – the biggest contributors to Hispanic immigration to the US.

What’s more, the Hispanic birthrate in the US has been plunging. In the 1990s, when Mexican immigrants first began to arrive in record numbers, the Hispanic birthrate in the US was about 3.0. At the same time, the black birth rate was 2.1 and the white birthrate ranged from 1.7 to 1.9 depending on the year. But these numbers don’t remain constant. By 2008, the Hispanic birthrate had fallen to 2.7. Then in 2008, something dramatic began. The Hispanic birthrate began to crash. By 2012, it fell to 2.19... just above the replacement rate of 2.1. Birth rates for Hispanics stayed the same in 2013, while whites and blacks both showed a slight increase, while Asian births fell by 2%.

In other words, these el cucarachas that were going to breed us out of existence suddenly were only turning out just enough kids to keep their population level. Moreover, Hispanic immigration had gone to net zero. That means no growth.

Hispanics are currently about 15% of the population. Based on everything we know, they are likely to top out at 17% of the population. And as we’ve pointed out before, they tend to meld into the white population fairly easily.

So much for Democratic dreams and talk radio fears.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Some Interesting Polls

So there were a couple of interesting polls while you were gone. I don’t put a lot of faith in polls because they are non-committal -- polls force answers to issues people may not care about without being prompted and they don’t require any sort of action. So polls should always be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, these two polls are enlightening.


● Poll One: Racism. The first poll comes from Rasmussen, and it’s about racism. Check out these numbers:

● 37% of Americans think “most blacks are racist.”
● 18% of Americans think most Hispanics are racist.
● 15% of Americans think most whites are racist.

Further, conservatives are more likely to see blacks as racist (49%) and more likely to see whites as racist (18%). Liberals are more likely to see whites as racist (27%) and less likely to see blacks as racist (21%). Surprisingly 31% of blacks also think that most blacks are racist, while only 24% consider most whites racist. These are fascinating numbers.

First, it’s interesting that so few people see “most” people as racist. If you listen to the liberals in the MSM or in Hollywood or in the Democratic Party, you hear a constant drumbeat that all whites are racist and that everything is about race. Based on the numbers above, only two in ten Americans buy that garbage. Even among liberals only three in ten buy this stuff. That’s a strong indication that we’re headed toward a colorblind society. Why? Because it shows that very few people see the various racial groups as monoliths who are or should be motivated by race, and it shows that few people see the issue of race being wrapped into everything. Without that, the institutions of racism and race baiting die.

Secondly, it’s fascinating that blacks not only see blacks as racist, but actually see them as more likely to be racist than whites. This again flies in the face of race-baiter rhetoric which holds that blacks cannot be racist because they are an oppressed minority. It is even more fascinating that they see more racism in the black community than the white community. This is another good sign because it suggests that the public is holding the black community accountable for the open racism many within the community have displayed and it suggests an understanding that whites are not the problem black leaders have tried to sell them as. That is a necessary step to fixing race relations in this country, when everyone is held equally responsible for their attitudes toward everyone else and no one is excluded from acting properly.

● Poll Two: Rubio-ism. The second poll involves Latino support and the immigration bill. According to a poll from Latino Decisions, 54% of Latinos would back Rubio in 2016 because of his efforts to pass immigration reform. That would include half of the Latinos who voted for Obama. That goes away, however, if the immigration reform bill doesn’t pass. In that event, Rubio gets only 30% support -- 3% more than Romney and 1% less than McCain. It is also worth nothing that Romney and McCain both lost each of the following increasingly-blue, increasingly-Hispanic “swing-states”: New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Florida and Virginia. Bush, on the hand, won 40% of Latino voters in 2004 and he carried each of those states. Unlike McCain and Romney, Bush tried to fix the immigration system... like Rubio.

And lest you think we can make up the difference with white turnout, as talk radio continues to claim, several groups have studied the last election and they have found that it would have been impossible for Romney to win merely through white turnout because he would have needed 90% of the “missing” whites. Want proof? Ok, think of it this way. There were an estimated 4-6 million “missing” white voters. Romney lost by 5 million votes. IF there are the full six million and IF they all showed up AND IF they were ALL conservatives, he might have won. But they aren’t all conservatives. In fact, there’s no reason to think they don’t mirror the population at large. In that case, consider that Romney won whites by 59% to 40%. To make up the 5 million vote difference at the rate that Romney won whites would require that 26 million more whites vote -- four times the maximum pool of “missing” whites. The idea of winning with a white party is a delusion.

● Poll Three: More Debunking. While we’re at it, let’s debunk a myth Sarah Palin and talk radio are pushing hard all of a sudden. They are telling their followers that “the overwhelming majority” of Americans oppose the path to citizenship. Palin even claimed that Hispanics oppose the path to citizenship and that it was somehow insulting to suggest they didn’t. Oh, you betcha! Only, as is so often the case these days with conservative talkers, this is total bullship.

Exit polling data from November 2012 (reported by Fox News) found that 65% of Americans (and 77% of Hispanics) believe illegal immigrants should be given a path to citizenship. Only 29% opposed that. Similarly, a Wall Street Journal poll from April 2013 found that 64% of Americans (and 82% of Hispanics) favor a path to citizenship. Three in ten is not an overwhelming majority... unless you’re dealing with the new math. So don’t believe this when you hear it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Outlanders Raus, Comrade!

Hmm. This is interesting. As I’ve pointed out before, the GOP is doomed if they can’t make inroads with minorities. Frankly, this is indisputable. So what are we to make of this doozy of an article from a Harvard Professor in the Washington Post (LINK)?

The article in question accepts the conventional wisdom that: (1) minorities will become the majority soon, and (2) minorities will keep voting for the Democrats in record numbers. It seems to assume that being a minority makes one prone to becoming a Democrat. It then notes that because of these fact, people believe this will result in the Democrats becoming the majority party in the US. However, the article warns, this is not necessarily true. Oh my! To the contrary, this professor frets that this may actually result in Republican majorities.

Uh.

Ok, first, I’ve debunked the idea that minorities will soon become the majority. As I’ve noted, this assumes a massive, steady influx of Mexicans and there ain’t no more Mexicans to ship north. Indeed, Mexico’s birthrate is so low that they are experiencing a people shortage, so there won’t be another wave of them as the “demography-is-destiny”ers assume. Moreover, the Hispanics who settle here have the same birth rate as whites. So they are about topped out already. . . nowhere near a majority. Also, the idea that minorities are inherently Democratic is false. This wrongly assumes the recent trend of an ever increasing gap means there is something inherently Democratic in these groups. That’s disproven by Texas, however, where the Texas GOP gets around 40% of Hispanic votes compared to the 20% national average. Basically, conservatives are at fault for turning these people off. . . there is not something that automatically makes these people Democrats. So the premise of the article is wrong. But that’s not what interests me. What interests me is what this guy is trying to achieve.

According to our professor, the reason the GOP will end up with majorities if more minorities come to the US is that whites become less liberal when they encounter minorities. Essentially, he claims that everyone is racist and will actively vote against the interests of people of other races. To prove this, the professor claims he ran various tests which showed that when people come face to face with other ethnic/racial groups, their voting patterns change and they become Republican.

This is an interesting theory, but I have to say that his studies reek of inadequate controls. He claims to have found evidence of racism in voting patterns after conducting “experiments” like sending two Spanish-speakers on a train and then watching voting patterns even though he has no way to even know if anyone witnessed the Spanish-speakers. Nor does it appear he could rule out other factors that are much more likely to influence voting patterns. So basically, I’m calling bullship on his studies. BUT, it is an interesting theory, and there may be proof in the population. If you look at our country, the most conservative areas are also the most mixed racially. States like Georgia and Texas with large mixed populations tend to be quite conservative. By comparison, places like Minnesota, which are awash in Euro-socialists like Norwegians and Germans vote overwhelming for the Democrats. So maybe there is something to this.

So why does this Harvtard raise this issue? What is he hoping to achieve? I think what this guy is worried about can be summed up best by realizing that the most socialist places are also the most homogenous. Thus, while it would seem to make sense to the Democrats to import minorities because they tend to vote for the Democrats, he may be right (though he doesn’t say this directly) that they are actually dooming their long term dream because diversity leads to competition rather than cooperation and that will kill any attempt to create a socialist country.

I’m not saying the theory is right, but it will be interesting to see if this leads to a rethink on the left about immigration. That would actually make sense since the left’s interest groups (blacks, poor, unions) are most hurt by immigration, and since liberal impulses tend to be racist. Studies like this could well form the core of a “new approach” (read: “ban”) by the left to immigration. I guess we’ll see.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Obama's Strange Stance On Immigration

I’ve been scratching my head about this whole “path to citizenship” debate on illegal immigration. Everything seems to be inside-out in terms of how this issue is being presented and I’ve been trying to figure out why. Consider this.

● Point One: The Republicans have a serious problem with illegal immigration. Our side has been so openly angry and offensive on the issue that we’ve basically lost all but the most hard-core right-wing Hispanics in the country. We even lost the Cubans.

● Point Two: One of the oldest rules of tactics is that when the other side is self-destructing, you let them. . . or you help them along. Obama has followed this perfectly until now. Indeed, he has largely stayed out of the immigration debate during his entire time in office except to poke conservatives with a stick. Conservatives have responded like Pavlov’s dogs and foamed at the mouth on command.

So far so good.

● Point Three: Then came Rubio. Marco Rubio figured out the problem with this and he proposed a way to fix this problem. He’s proposing a GOP-created path to citizenship which would undermine the idea that the Republicans are a bunch of racists and would, in a single stroke, end the issue so that conservatives stop reopening the wound day after day. This could actually go a long way to repairing the damage done by conservatives.

Ok, now it gets tricky.

● Point Four: The proper response by Obama should have been to claim Rubio’s bill and shove him aside so the Democrats could continue to claim the issue. Angry conservatives would then do the rest to reinforce the idea that Hispanics should always vote for the Democrats by tearing Rubio apart.

BUT that’s not how this is playing out. To the contrary, Obama has walked away from Rubio’s bill. He’s taken a few shots behind the scenes and offered vague imaginary counter-proposals, but by and large he’s abandoned the issue to Rubio. The MSM too has focused on Rubio’s bill as “the bill.” They have even run articles about how this is Rubio’s bill (and a Republican idea) and they criticized the bill for not being “tough enough.” This is very strange. Hispanic groups too have actually spoken about GOP “gains.” Because of these choices, this bill belongs to Rubio and the Republicans in the mind of the public. They are seen as the creators of the bill. They are seen as the people who need to make this happen. They are seen pushing this bill voluntarily and without Democratic support. That means they get the credit/blame, an opinion confirmed by the Hispanic groups talking about “gains.”

This is all very interesting.

Indeed, until now, the two ways the immigration debate seemed destined to play out was either (1) an amnesty gets passed over the GOP’s angry objections and Hispanics get permanently alienated (just like blacks were permanently alienated after GOP opposition to the Civil Rights Act) with no chance for the GOP to ever mend fences, or (2) the GOP continues to stand in the way of amnesty, alienating Hispanics until the issue finally gets resolved one way or another. But the Rubio effort, and the response by the left, has actually created an entirely new scenario, one in which the GOP gets full credit with Hispanics and essentially redeems itself. That could be a massive victory for the GOP and it’s not something I would have seen as possible until now.

But I’m left scratching my head as to why this is happening. Why would the Democrats play it this way? They are normally smarter than this. Then it hit me.

As I’ve said before, the Democrats are a collection of single issue groups held together by their common desire to get their stuff. But this type of structure is unstable because once a group gets what they want, they have no reason to stick around because they have no inherent loyalty to the rest of the party and there is no ideology for them to latch onto. Thus, the party cannot grant the groups what they want or the collective will collapse as a party.

This puts the Democrats in a bind. They love the immigration issue because it gives them a chance to frame the Republicans as racist and because it lets them use the promise of amnesty to win Hispanics by a 70% margin. But if they actually grant amnesty, then Hispanics have no reason to stick around anymore and they could fall back to the 20% margin they had in the 1980s and 1990s. That would mean a loss of about twice as many Hispanic votes as the Democrats would gain even if every single illegal alien started voting Democratic out of gratitude. That’s not good for the Democrats.

What this means is that the Democrats don’t actually want this thing to pass. BUT, they also can’t be seen to be opposing it or sabotaging it, because that would alienate Hispanic groups who would happily switch sides if the GOP embraced them. This creates a real dilemma for the Democrats: how do you stop something you can’t actively oppose?

I think the answer can be found in Obama’s behavior. By not embracing the bill and by promising an alternate bill which will never arrive, he keeps the Democrats from needing to support this bill for the moment. That gives them time to let conservatives destroy Rubio and his bill. To encourage them, Obama and the MSM have begun this campaign of attacking the Rubio bill for not being tough enough. The hope is that conservatives rise up and destroy Rubio. Then Obama can claim that if the Republicans won’t even pass Rubio’s bill, then there’s no hope for his bill either... “too bad, so sad, keep voting for us and maybe someday you’ll get what you want, senor.” This explains the articles about the bill being too free with citizenship, why Obama seems to be bidding to the right of Rubio on the issue, and why the Democrats seem to be dragging their feet suddenly: they’re baiting conservatives to do their dirty work for them. Indeed, I suspect that right now, the White House is thinking: “Crap! They might get this done and then we’ll lose our issue! Where the hell are those whiny conservatives when you need them!”

These are interesting times indeed.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Census Reads Commentarama (Finally)

Remember how Hispanics were going to overwhelm the US and turn us into the Unidos Estados? Remember how I told you that wasn’t going to happen? Perhaps, you recall this brilliant article ==> LINK or this one ==> LINK. Well, other people like the Census and Pew are finally starting to figure this out.

Here’s the deal. Liberals have long believed that Hispanics would become the majority racial/ethnic group in the country. This idea is based on the following faulty reasoning:

1) If you take the number of Hispanics today and compare that to 1980, you get a growth rate.

2) If you project that growth rate into the future, then Hispanics eventually become the majority.

BUT, that “reasoning” is nonsense. For one thing, the growth rate is not constant and won’t rise forever. Like every other rate in the known universe, it rises until it spikes and then it falls. Liberals are wrongly assuming this number will keep growing forever. But guess what? It’s already spiked in the 1990s and it’s been falling ever since.

Moreover, the growth rate consists of two groups – locals and recent immigrants. The locals actually have a birth rate at or below the white birth rate. Yet, the Census people have been applying the whole growth rate to every Hispanic as if the ones here for a while keep having massive numbers of kids. They aren’t. What is happening is that the growth rate is entirely because of illegal immigration. Factor that out and you’re looking at no change. And here’s the thing about immigration: it’s coming to an end. Hispanic immigration is drying up because Mexico is running out of people.

Basically, this theory depends on Mexico sending another 15 million people in the next two decades and then another 18 million after that and then another 20 million after that. But those people don’t exist. Mexico’s birthrate is far below ours and they are running out of young people. Without those young people coming our way, the Hispanic population in the US population will stagnate at around 14%.

So what makes me discuss this again?

Well, the Census is starting to agree with me. First, their new numbers show that the number of illegals dropped to 11.1 million from 12 million. That’s a significant drop. Moreover, the number of new immigrants has dropped significantly. In fact, last year was the first year since 1910 when new Asian immigrants outnumbered new Hispanic immigrants. That’s right, more Asians came to the US last year than Hispanics. And the Census now expects the number of Hispanic immigrants to remain low because, get this, Mexico has run out of young people to send our way. Gee, where have you heard that before?

Anyway, because of this, the Census has gone from predicting that Hispanics will become the largest racial group in 2023 to moving that back to 2042 officially to now saying privately it will be much later than that. . . if ever. Yeah, no duh.

This matters for several reasons. First, it is clear that Asians will likely grow from their 3% of the population to something a good deal larger. This is something we must consider now. According to Pew, Asians are not particularly loyal to either party at this point and their primary concerns are: jobs, education and healthcare. They do prefer government solutions, but that can be faked with the right rhetoric. We need to get in on the ground floor of the Asian boom that will soon be hitting.

Secondly, maybe we can stop talking about building a wall. With more illegal immigrants coming from China than Mexico, it should be obvious that a wall will not solve this problem.

Finally, before talk radio gets a hold of this and tells you to ignore Hispanics and just focus on being hateful, let me point out that this does not mean Republicans can pretend their Hispanic problem doesn’t exist. Like it or not, Hispanics will probably top out somewhere above where they are today, maybe in the 12-16% range. And if we keep losing them by 70%, then we will never win another election. The good news, however, is that this reinforces the fact that Republicans only need to win more Hispanics, not a majority, as would have been the case if they became 50%+ of the population. Fortunately, what appeals to them tends to appeal to other ethnic groups as well.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hispanics and the GOP

Over the past week or so, there's been lots of soul-searching among conservatives, from our homey little blog all the way up to National Review and other outlets, about how to create a working coalition, and in particular, how to get Hispanics to join it. Obviously, the party's stance on illegal immigration is a part of that discussion. But I think our problems with Hispanics go deeper than that.

Now, it's probably obvious by this point that I'm not a fan of offering amnesty or letting the whole immigration issue slide. I never have been, and I don't see that changing. Some would say that's because I'm a misanthropic bitter-ender who hasn't been taking his meds since Election Day.* I do have actual reasons, though.

I'm no expert on this (not that that ever stops me), but I've frequently wondered whether part of the problem in how we approach Hispanics is our tendency to treat them as one homogenous group--which of course doesn't conform to reality. Some Latinos have been here longer than others; they are of varying income levels; maybe most importantly, they have different nationalities. Mexicans are not Cubans are not Puerto Ricans are not Hondurans. These differences may erode a great deal once all these groups arrive here, but certainly those who identify as, say, Cuban-Americans won't necessarily look at immigration issues the same way as those who identify as Mexican-Americans.

I bring this up because of my broader point: I also wonder sometimes if, when we talk about amnesty and related flashpoints, we're going on the assumption that Hispanics are a naturally conservative group, and would be significantly more loyal to the GOP if not for how we approach immigration. It's something to consider, but there's a lot of evidence suggesting that's not exactly the case. (Besides which, if the immigration debate was driving Hispanic voting patterns, why would they have gone so strongly for Obama this time? In 2008 I could have seen that, in the aftermath of the DC amnesty bill, or in 2010 when the Arizona legislation was all up in the air, but it's been eclipsed by other issues--i.e. the economy--for well over a year now, and we know what a short-term memory voters of all races have. But I digress.)

Actually, from the GOP's point of view, a lot of data coming from Hispanics is fairly alarming. Last year, a poll of California Latinos asked what parts of the Republican platform they objected to. The number who said immigration policies were the big thing? Seven percent. A whopping 29 percent said the deal-breaker for them was the economic platform, because "Republicans don't represent the average person," Republicans only care about the rich, blah blah blah--the same mindless drivel you hear from people of all backgrounds. Now granted, this is California; unfortunately, the Golden State tends to set new national trends. For proof of that, we have a recent survey from the pollsters at Pew Research, which found that among the general U.S. population, 48 percent prefer a smaller government with fewer services, with 41 percent wanting the opposite. Not a bad split. Among Hispanics, however, that figure is 75 percent in favor of bigger government with more services, and only 19 percent against. One Latino businessman explained it this way: "What Republicans mean by 'family values' and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things...We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping other people." Well, that's promising.

And despite being overwhelmingly Catholic and probably more family-oriented, Hispanics don't appear to be that socially conservative, either. Another Pew survey found that this year, the number of Latinos supporting gay marriage rose to 52 percent, with only 34 percent now opposing it. Returning to the Left Coast, Hispanics as a group favored the infamous Gavin Newsom for lieutenant governor over the Republican candidate--who himself happened to be Hispanic. Make of all this what you will, but clearly, dropping opposition to illegal immigration and broadcasting our conventions on Telemundo isn't going to help bring over this group.

So is this a signal that we should all slit our wrists now and get it over with? Well, no. Of course, there are things the GOP can do to try and win over Hispanics, many of which have been discussed here before. We probably don't need to throw a fit over bilingualism, and should also make sure to scrap the racial stereotypes. For example, I decided not to put up a picture of Speedy Gonzalez with this post, because Andrew would have yelled at me that would be divisive and wrong. But I see these as Band-Aids. Deeper solutions are needed, solutions similar to what we need to do to gain traction with the black community. For example, there's education. In many areas (southern California, etc.), the high-school graduation rate for Hispanics is about as bad as it is for inner-city majority-black neighborhoods. Promoting vouchers, charter schools, and other paths to self-improvement would show that the GOP is serious about increasing the quality of life for minorities.

Also, there's this glimmer of hope from the Pew survey cited earlier. Although that 75-19 split on the government question is gruesome, it should be noted that first-generation Hispanics are most supportive, with an 81-12 split. That falls to 72-22 in the second generation and only 58-36 for the third generation and afterwards. This suggests Latinos do come to support small government and free enterprise the more time passes since arrival, which is grounds for optimism. But it also means further illegal immigration has to be cracked down on before we can start to crawl our way out of this pit. We need a strategy and a concerted effort to work on all this, preferably before the country blows up in our faces.

*(Which of course is not true. I stopped taking my meds back around Halloween. It's not a good party without some groovy hallucinations.)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Necessary Changes To The Republican Party

Back in 2009, I did a series called Rebuilding the Republican Party in which I explained what the GOP needed to do to survive. They didn’t listen. And exit polling shows the GOP suffering from the exact same problems this time. Romney lost because of singles, youths, and minorities. This needs to change or forget ever winning again. It’s time to return to our ideological roots and promote the individual and individual freedom.

Let’s start by highlighting the problem. There is a belief in conservative circles that the country is much more conservative than liberal and we just need to win over conservative independents. This belief comes from polling which shows the country as 38% Democrats, 32% Republicans and 29% Independents, with independents leaning right. But “independents” turns out to be a meaningless category. Indeed, Romney won independents yet lost the election. What really matters are “moderates.”

In that regard, we find 35% conservatives, 25% liberals and 41% moderates. BUT, 60% of the “moderates” broke for Obama, meaning they are liberals. When you break this down, you find that 50% of Americans are conservatives and 50% are liberals. In other words, we're a 50/50 country. So forget the idea of tapping into a pool of hidden conservatives. If we want to move the needle, we need to look at the groups we lost overwhelmingly and we need to figure out ways to win back their more centrist members. Here's how...

● The Gender (read: “Single”) Gap: Women account for 53% of the electorate and Obama carried them by 11%. Romney carried men by 7%. But that doesn’t tell us what’s really going on. The real key is single people.

Romney won married men by 20% and married women by 6%. These two groups made up 29% and 31% of the electorate (60% in total). So how did he lose? He got blown away among singles. Indeed, Romney lost single men by 20% and single women by 40%! These two groups made up only 18% and 23% of the electorate, but the huge gaps made up the difference.

If the Republicans ever want to win again, they need to win more single people, particularly single women. To do that, we need to understand the problem. So realize this. First, Reagan won both groups (he won men by 28% and women by 10%). So there is nothing inherently “wrong” with singles being Republicans. Nor was there something wrong with Romney. McCain didn't face a “war on women” attack or smears about his father being a bigamist, and he did 3% worse with women than Romney. What this means is that the party has a structural problem which developed after Reagan.

When you look at polls or talk to these people, what you will hear is outrage/terror about the Republican Party’s various stances on social issues. This is particularly true with single women who are turned off by the party’s attacks on gays, its obsession with abortion and contraception, and its rhetorical attacks about “family values” which imply that only married people with kids and church-goers are moral.

The Solution: If the GOP wants to win singles, particularly single women, it needs to stop hating gays, it needs to stop conflating going to church or being married with being a good American, and it needs to stop obsessing over abortion. I recommend removing abortion from the platform or stepping it back to “safe, rare, restricted, and no government funding.” Leave the rest for churches to push, not government policy. And shoot the first person to talk about restricting other forms of contraception. . . Rick Santorum. I recommend making gay marriage a question of individual conscience (so as not to interfere with religious freedom) while putting support for civil unions and anti-discrimination laws in the platform. I recommend removing talk of the party believing in God and instead shifting to talking about protecting everyone's right to believe... in any religion or no religion. And I recommend eliminating all talk of constitutional amendments on any social issues -- that's pointless and whacky. Also stop signing those stupid fringy pledges! They're a trap.

● The Youth Vote: Romney won old people, but got crushed with the young. 19-29 year olds favored Obama by 26%. Even 30-44 year olds favored Obama by 10%. Together, they made up 46% of the electorate. The next 38% of the electorate were tied. Then Romney won oldsters by 12%. So there is a youth problem which the seniors don’t make up for.

The youth problem can be attributed to several things. On the one hand, the youth vote is the direct result of GOP stodginess and intolerance on issues like gays and abortion, and its lack of visible minorities. But more importantly, another huge turnoff is the GOP’s rhetorical attacks on college education and seeming unwillingness to help young people leave college without crushing levels of debt, i.e. without making them slaves to banks. The GOP’s attacks on internet freedom don’t help either. Nor does the GOP’s image as the party of Big Business. Indeed, many of these young people drifted to Ron Paul and then Gary Johnson and finally back to Obama because the GOP seemed to offer no hope that it cared about people rather than corporations.

The Solution: It’s time to understand that these are issues of economic freedom. I recommend the GOP come up with a genuine plan to (1) help every American go to college while (2) reducing the cost of college so young people aren’t enslaved for the first 20 years of their economic lives. Don't forget, government caused this problem. I recommend supporting total internet freedom and fighting censorship in any form. That means dropping the heinous idea of regulating the internet to promote morality (i.e. “protecting children”) or doing the bidding of corporate America through anti-piracy laws. I also recommend that conservatives stop defending big companies. Talk about people, not companies. Fight cronyism in any form. Talk about the American dream!! Our party should be focused on helping average people strive to make their lives better, to build a business, buy a house, send their kids to college... not protecting the balance sheets of multinational corporations. All of these are conservative values, so why aren't we doing them already?

● The Minority Gap: The minority gap is beyond critical. Obama won Hispanics by 44%, Asians by 45%, blacks by 88% and Muslims by 70%. Muslims and Asians only make up 2% and 3% of the public, but blacks make up 13% of the electorate and Hispanics make up 11% of the electorate, and growing. There are several glaring problems here.

● Asians are generally industrious, business-minded and education-minded, which should make them natural GOP allies, especially as liberal affirmative action is hurting Asian students in California. How did we lose them by 45%? Because the party comes across as hostile to non-whites. Moreover, the party has offered nothing in the way of education and its focus on “business” has been on oil companies, not small businesses.

The Solution: Court these voters. Also, we need to rediscover the American dream. We need to protect the little guy and not worry about the big guy. Warren Buffett and Wall Street can take care of themselves, and they don't like us anyway.

● For a party that claims to cherish religious freedom, Muslims should be natural allies. But they aren’t. Why not? Because of open bigotry by conservatives, be it accusing all Muslims of being terrorists, to careless talk about bombing the Middle East, to paranoid freak-outs about the appointment of a single Muslim judge to a meaningless municipal judgeship.

The Solution: It’s time to start mentioning Islam along with other religions when talking about religious freedom, and it’s time to stop pushing symbolic ideas like banning sharia law (which can’t be put in place under our constitution in any event).

● Blacks and Hispanics should be much closer to 50/50, but they aren’t. Again, the problem is the appearance of bigotry. Conservatives treat blacks and Hispanics like unpleasant neighbors who need to be humored every four years. They do not treat them like part of the family. They use hyperbolic speech, they are afraid to speak the truth and they talk down to these people as if they are children. They even make bizarre racial-tinged attacks on things like rap music and “ghetto culture.” When they conduct outreach, it’s a token appointment of the whitest black/Hispanic guy in the room to a meaningless position, or it’s an attempt to go along with some Democratic plan to buy loyalty.

On Hispanics, conservatives have created a serious problem with talk of deportation. Polls show that 60% of Hispanics know someone who is here illegally. That makes deportation a personal danger to them. Making this self-inflicted wound worse, talk of deportation is just gratuitous because it won’t happen. Moreover, conservatives talk in racist terms about Hispanics. They imply that all Hispanics are here illegally. They imply that all Hispanics are criminals. And they imply that all Hispanics are the same.

The Solution: Fixing the Hispanic problem will require a radical change in thinking. We need to realize that deportation isn’t going to happen, so learn to accept the idea that these illegals are here to stay. The GOP needs to go on a “listening tour” in the Hispanic community (so they get credit for acting) and then propose an amnesty – don’t wait for Obama. AND conservatives need to shut the hell up about it. The more they whine, the less credit conservatives will get for having changed. Until we do this, we are just delaying the inevitable and we’re making the wound bigger.

The GOP also needs to conduct real outreach. Every Congressman should hire Spanish-speaking staffers whose job would be to do what they do for everyone else, i.e. meet with Hispanic constituents every day of the year and help them get benefits, get permits, and get through the immigration system. They need to actively court Hispanic business owners and hook them up with their other donors. They need to encourage their friends in the banking industry to make loans to these people. They need to court mothers with children by telling them about the educational reforms they want. Start winning them over, one vote at a time, day after day in a thousand districts across the country.

They need to do the same with blacks. Even a 5-10% shift would be seismic.

Finally, they need to appoint a LOT of Hispanic, black, young and female Republicans to prominent positions. Right now there are basically none. I also think the next Republican presidential ticket must include a dark-skinned Hispanic and a youngish woman. This will help with minorities, with single women and with the young.

Conclusion

The GOP can turn this around, but they need to take decisive action. I'm not saying to become libertarians. Their obsession with drugs, conspiracies and their inability to recognize a proper role for government make them too far gone. But we need to offer people something better than the message of: (1) we fear minorities, (2) we want to control single women, (3) we only like married Christians, (4) we hate college kids, and (5) the American dream is to be a slave of corporate America.

Conservatism needs a reboot. It’s time to talk about personal economic freedom, the freedom to build the American dream on a level playing field. It’s time to fully include minorities in that dream. And it’s time to stop undercutting that message by acting like the morality police. It’s time to give people a reason to support us, not fear us.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Republican Minority Report

The Democrats are cranking up the “Republicans are all white” theme to get their convention started. The point man for this effort has been Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, whose liberal city is facing new allegations of LA cops beating black residents. This weekend, Villaraigosa ran into MSNBC host Chuck Todd, who finally did what journalists are supposed to do and pointed out some inconvenient facts. What facts you ask?

Get a load of this question by Todd:

“Let me ask you though, this one question, why is it that the Republicans have elected more women governors and have two Hispanic governors and the Democrats don’t . . . don’t have as many women governors and don’t have Hispanic governors, why do you think that is?”

Wow, he’s acting like a real journalist! MSNBC won't be happy. Keep in mind, MSNBC cut to commercial or commentary during every single speech by a minority at the GOP convention except Condi Rice. (Yes, FOX did too, but FOX did that to everyone and FOX wasn't pimping the “Republicans are all white” theme while hiding the minorities.)

Villaraigosa certainly wasn’t expecting an MSNBC fellow traveler to question the Democratic propaganda, and he ended up sputtered his way through claiming the Democrats have more minority mayors and members of Congress. The logic of this is, of course, ridiculous. How does the GOP having more minority Governors but not as many minority mayors support the claim that the GOP is hostile to minorities?

In any event, this gives us a good opportunity to mention some of the rising minority players in the GOP. These are only those with national prominence at the moment, or recent fame, so don't even think this list is close to complete.

● Justice Clarence Thomas: Second black on the Supreme Court, and my favorite Justice.

● Gen. Colin Powel: First black Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and first black Secretary of State.

● Condoleezza Rice: First black female Secretary of State. . . second black Secretary of State after Gen. Colin Powell and second female Secretary of State after Madeline Albright.

● U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez: First Hispanic Attorney General.

● Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA): First non-white (Indian) governor of Louisiana since Reconstruction.

● Gov. Nikki Haley (SC): First female and first Indian governor of South Carolina.

● Gov. Susana Martinez (NM): First female governor of New Mexico (also Hispanic).

● Gov. Brian Sandoval (NV): First Hispanic governor of Nevada.

● Gov. Mary Fallin (OK): Second woman elected to Congress from Oklahoma and first female Governor of Oklahoma.

● Gov. Jan Brewer (AZ): Fourth female governor of Arizona.

● Gov. Luis Fortuno (PR): First Republican governor of Puerto Rico since 1969.

And here is a list of prominent Senators:

● Sen. Marco Rubio (FL)
● Sen. Kelly Ayote (NH)
● Sen. Lisa Murkowski (A)
● Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
● Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
● Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX)

And let’s not forget Rep. Allen West, and Presidential candidate Herman Cain, both of whom were Tea Party favorites. Not to mention this list doesn’t include state Supreme Court justices, state attorneys general (e.g. Ted Cruz (TX)), state legislators, or mayors (e.g. Mia Love), or anyone not currently active in politics. Nor does this include talk radio hosts or other talking heads (e.g. Thomas Sowell).

Here are two Wikipedia pages with much longer lists: Black Republicans and Hispanic Republicans.

Despite Democratic efforts to smear the Republican Party as hostile to minorities and as all white, there are a great many minorities in prominent positions within the party. Moreover, with few exceptions, the people listed above are up and comers who are or will soon be leaders of the party. And with Romney's continuing outreach efforts, look for the racial-political mix to change significantly before 2020, with many more minorities abandoning the Democratic Party, which offers little except divisiveness.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Smell of Disaster

Ya know, you take a week off to give the world time to refill its collection of news stories and then you come back to find nothing is going on. What the heck? Did the world get lazy? . . or sane? Well, no, not quite. There are a few things worth discussing. It seems things aren't going well on the left.

● Uh, Whoops (Part 52): Once again, Team Obama has stepped up to the plate with a new attack on Romney. And once again, it’s failing miserably. This attack involves calling Romney an outsourcer of jobs. The only problem? No one cares. . . if they’re even listening. Moreover, Romney has once again turned Obama’s attack back against Obama and made him look stupid. This time, Romney made the obvious counterattack by calling Obama the nation’s “Outsourcer in Chief” and pointing out that Obama’s policies have encouraged jobs to be sent oversees and resulted in taxpayer money being paid to overseas companies. Indeed, let’s not forget that the president of Obama’s President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, Jeffry Immelt of General Electric, sent 25,000 American jobs overseas in the two years before Obama appointed him. Whoops.

● Carolina Dreamin’: Speaking of Obama, here’s proof he’s going to lose North Carolina even though the polls show a neck and neck race. Democratic Representatives Larry Kissel and Mike McIntyre will both be joining the Republicans in voting to repeal ObamaCare this week. Neither will endorse Obama. And Kissel voted to impeach Eric Holder. Neither would be doing any of that if they didn’t think their constituents hated Obama.

● Uh. . . no: Carolina isn’t the only place either where Obama has problems. Consider this. Obama has decided to play a little class warfare before the election. Specifically, he’s calling for letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire for anyone making more than $250,000. Sounds like a no-brainer for the Democrats, right? Well, not so fast. Several House and Senate Democrats are freaking out and want to raise that number to $1,000,000. Senators from Florida, Missouri, Nevada, Nebraska and Virginia all have taken this position. Interestingly, three of those are considered “battleground” states, and apparently, Obama is losing the battle.

● Turning Up The Hate: With Democratic frustrations mounting, they and their allies are starting to turn up the hate. A former Media Matters executive just put out a racist youtube video in which he says Romney is “too white” to meet with the NAACP, something Romney is doing this week. The ad features an actor pretending to be the man who created the Willie Horton ad, and he says this to Romney about trying to meet with the NAACP:

“You are so white, you are extremely white, you make Wonder Bread look like pumpernickel.”

He then tells Romney to “get all Mormon, Martin Luther King” on the audience. Is anybody really surprised by this? I doubt it. Not when James Earl Jones became the latest celebrity to label the Tea Party “racist.” Joy Behar says it regularly. Also this week, Biden said this to minorities: “Republicans have changed the law so you get arrested if you vote.” He claims he was joking, but how is race-baiting funny? Not to mention, he also told the National Council of La Raza, a race hate group: “Romney wants you to show your papers.” At the same time, Rep. Jim Clyburn called Republican attempts to trim the food stamp program, which exploded since 2008 through an administrative change, an “abomination” and implied Republicans want to starve poor children. David Letterman joked that Romney wants to put gays back in the closet. Barney Frank said something similar. And so on.

It’s amazing how consistently the Democrats try to bait minorities with false claims of racism or other –isms. It makes you wonder how they sleep at night spreading so much hate?

● Lost Faith: Finally, the MSM has hit another all-time low. In the days of Edward R. Murrow, the MSM was the undisputed arbiter of the truth. If they said it, Americans believed it. But like anything else liberals infest, the MSM has lost its way. And as alternative methods of staying informed have become available, people have started discovering just how biased our liberal friends in the MSM have been. That, in turn, leads to a huge erosion of trust.

That brings us to Gallup. Gallup has been asking people about their level of confidence in the MSM for years now. And surprise surprise, this year’s result shows that the American public’s confidence in the MSM is at an all-time low. How low? In 1993, 46% of the public said they trusted the nightly news. In 2012, only 21% trust the nightly news. In 1979, their peak year, newspapers were trusted by 51% of the public. In 2012, only 28% trust newspapers.

A lot of this is the result of liberals, whose trust in the news and newspapers fell from 30% last year to 19% this year. But even leaving that aside, it’s clear that something is very wrong with the MSM if only one in five Americans trust them. But maybe the better question is, what’s wrong with the one in five?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Fixing Immigration

A couple weeks ago an issue came up in the comments, which I think should be officially raised in an article: how to fix immigration. This may be the most pressing issue of our time for a number of reasons and fixing the problem will prove to be incredibly difficult. But it can be done. Here’s what I recommend.

For starters, let me point out that there is no silver bullet to resolve this problem. Sealing the borders won’t work as most illegal immigrants find other ways here (plus the real problem is those who are already here). It’s a logistical near-impossibility to deport eleven million people. Big business wants workers and will fight anything which reduces illegal immigration, so will the Democrats who want voters. The public no longer trusts the political class because they’ve lied about this too much. Hence, an amnesty won’t work because no one trusts the promises that will be made to justify it.

All in all, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t and no one. . . no one is going to let you try anything.

That sounds bleak. But it doesn’t mean we can’t fix the problem, it just means it requires a more careful plan. Indeed, any effective plan will need to be done quietly at first, so people don’t freak out, and the goal must be to build the trust needed to implement the harder parts to come.

With that in mind, I think the best strategy would be this. . . spread over two Romney terms:

Step One: In the first week in office, Romney (and the Republican Congress where needed) should slash the number of legal immigrants allowed into the US each year in half. This shouldn’t be too difficult as Obama raised the number and Romney can explain he is simply reversing that, giving new immigrants time to join the melting pot, and preventing the environmental problems of importing enough people to populate Denver each year. He can also use high unemployment as a reason. The idea here is to reduce the number of immigrants who would otherwise be in the country over the next four years by about two million. I’ll explain why in a moment.

Step Two: As soon as possible, end all payroll deductions for any business which doesn’t use the eVerify system. This would provide a strong incentive for businesses to use the system, but wouldn’t freak out big business by making it a criminal offense to hire illegals. This “voluntary compliance” would go a long way to making it harder for illegals to find work and many will leave.

Step Three: Fix Mexico. This would take several years, but the idea would be to provide military and police assistance and heavy financial aid in exchange for more libertarian economic policies along with deregulation and the busting of massive corporate empires. The idea here would be to get Mexico on its feet and turn it into a magnet for workers from all over the Americas, i.e. instead of us. If this works, and it should, then Mexico could become the destination of choice for Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants and it could draw back a large chunk of the eleven million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Step Four: Fix the guest worker program. One of the problems which has arisen is that with American paranoia over 9/11 and the border with Mexico, it has become increasingly risky for guest workers to leave the country again because there is a significant chance they won’t get back in come the next season (they are mainly farm workers). As a result, many of them have left Mexico permanently, even though they don’t want to, and brought their families here so they don’t need to run that risk. We need to make sure these people understand that they will be able to return to the US each season when needed. That way they have no reason to stay here illegally. Moreover, fixing this program will be essential to getting Big Business to stop fighting the other reforms because they can get the labor they need through this program.

If everything goes right, by the end of Romney’s first time, this program would have born the following results:

1. A reduction in the number of legal immigrants on the order of two million from those who would have otherwise been here.

2. A reduction in the number of illegal immigrants because of reduced job opportunities because of the eVerify system, improving conditions in Mexico, and the clean up of the guest worker program. Judging on the effects of the last recession, this could be anywhere from (rough guess) one to two million.

3. The pacification of Big Business as an opponent.

This means Romney can tell the public that his policies have reduced the number of “immigrants by up to four million” in his first term. This should buy him some good will with the public, for what is to come. Moreover, he can then show how the eVerify system worked, and he can make the case that those who are left likely are here for reasons other than just economics and probably have ties to the country. Thus:

Step Five: At the beginning of the second term, Romney makes the use of eVerify mandatory and imposes criminal punishments for employers who hire illegals.

Step Six: Romney proposes a long-term amnesty as follows: (1) Illegals will be required to report themselves within a month. Anyone who fails to report will be ineligible for the amnesty, as will anyone who arrives after the amnesty date (and those with criminal records). Those people will be deported immediately and local police will be required to report them to ICE. (2) For those who did report themselves, they will be issued a new “green card” which lets them act like citizens, except voting. They may work and must pay taxes. They can get drivers licenses, insurance, report crimes to the police, etc. (3) If you recall in Step One, we cut the number of legal immigrants in half. Now we do that again and allocate one half of those slots for legal immigrants and one half for converting illegals into legals, who can then apply for citizenship just like other legal immigrants. The goal would be to make them all legal over a decade long period.

Step Seven: Follow through and deport everyone who didn’t register.

Honestly, I think this is the only solution. Whether conservatives like it or not, there needs to be some way to make these people legal. Right now they can’t report crimes, can’t get car insurance (making them a road menace), and don’t pay taxes. And there just is no way to deport them. Making them legal fixes all of that -- it might also endear them to the Republican Party for making that happen. Not to mention, it will let them get on the social ladder to become property owners and stakeholders in the community, which will lead them toward conservatism.

Who would be upset by this? The left would be upset at the drop in immigration numbers, but the public won’t have a problem with that. The left will certainly be upset by the stepped-up, zero-tolerance deportations program, but they won’t have a leg to stand on since this will be given in exchange for making millions of illegals legal. The public be upset at the amnesty, but not as much as you might think because this method softens the blow considerably by reducing the number of immigrants overall to offset this amnesty. Indeed, at the end of his second term, Romney could report a “drop” (non-increase) of four million immigrants plus whatever illegals left because of eVerify and the stronger pull of Mexico. That should reduce the opposition to amnesty because it shows the public good faith that the political class is finally doing the hard part first.

Thoughts?


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Democratic Wedge Issues

I said a long time ago that the Democratic Party really isn’t a political party anymore. It’s become a collection of tribes held together by some common interests. The thing is, their common interests are really quite narrow and they glossed over significant disagreements in forming the coalition. Recent events, such as Obama’s embrace of gay marriage against the wishes of blacks and Romney’s discussion of education with Hispanics highlight this more than ever. It’s time for conservatives to start driving wedges into this coalition.

Conservatives need to spot the disagreements that were glossed over and start pointing those out relentlessly. The idea would be to cause enough friction within the Democratic alliance that the party ruptures into ineffective smaller groups. Here are some thoughts on where those disagreements might be and how to attack them.

1. Gays v. Feminists: At one point, gays should have been natural allies of conservatives. Conservatives believe in less government and individual rights, and the problems gays faced until the mid-1980s were sodomy laws, which made gay relationships criminal. But now that those laws have been struck down, the gay agenda has switched to forcing others to accept their lifestyles. That puts gays at odds with conservatism. Feminists similarly are at odds with conservatives because they too favor big government schemes to reshape society. So neither groups is likely winnable for conservatives. But that doesn’t mean we can’t drive a wedge between them.

The big issue for feminists is abortion. And as I mentioned the other day when discussing sex selection (something Planned Parenthood just got caught promoting), abortion means the end of homosexuality once genetics locates the “gay gene.” It would behoove conservatives to keep pushing this idea to the gay community that abortion = gay-genocide, and suggesting they seek to limit abortion.

2. Blacks v. Feminists: Blacks have very much tied themselves to the Democrats by making themselves wards of the state. Through either direct money transfers to poor blacks or race-based preferences in loans, housing, schools and jobs for middle and upper-class blacks, blacks as a group have come to rely on the government. So they are unreachable as a group. But as I pointed out the other day, abortion is killing blacks in massive numbers compared to all other races. Conservatives need to beat this drum that abortion = black-genocide to separate them from feminists. It would also be smart of conservatives to start pointing out that affirmative action has by far benefited upper-to-middle class white women more than it has blacks. This has the potential to set up a bloody fight between feminists and blacks over how to divide the spoils of affirmative action.

3. Blacks v. Gays: Blacks as a group are socially conservative when it comes to gays. Conservatives should push the message to blacks that the Democratic Party, which is dominated by the gay lobby, is looking to force the gay agenda on them and their churches.

4. Hispanics v. Everyone: Hispanics are an odd group to be jammed into the Democratic coalition. They are socially conservative and largely Catholic, yet the Democratic Party hates religion (atheists) and is dominated by the gay lobby (gay marriage) and feminists (contraception). Moreover, they are the second biggest victims of abortion, so they should be uneasy with that too (feminists). Unions have worked hard to keep them out of the country, to keep them from getting jobs, and have kept them out of the well-paying union jobs. Further, as Romney noted, the teachers unions are hurting their kids. They run a large number of small businesses, who find themselves attacked by unions, who are unable to obtain financing from the Democrats’ Wall Street friends, and who are crushed by environmental and labor regulations. Each of these issues should be made clear to them.

5. Bankers v. Socialists: By and large, the Democratic rank and file hate business, hate capitalism, and HATE banks. They despise Wall Street. Yet, most of the money the Democrats get comes from that very same Wall Street. And right now, Wall Street is upset at being vilified by the Democrats. Conservatives should keep pushing the Democrats on this point. They should force elected Democrats to make a choice, support Wall Street or do the bidding of the rank and file, by bringing up legislation which splits this coalition, such as elimination of banking fees. The more the Democrats are made to dance, the greater the chance they will lose one group or the other.

6. Environmentalists v. Farmers/Miners/Workers: Since the days of FDR, the Democrats have done their best to buy farmers, coal miners, and skilled-labor workers with government handouts. But in the past thirty years, as ivory tower intellectuals and white-collar professionals have come to dominate the Democratic Party, they’ve adopted environmentalism as a religion, and with it they’ve put in place insane rules which cripple farmers, miners and workers. It’s time for Republicans to push this issue hard. They need to point out to auto-workers in Detroit and coal miners in West Virginia how much regulation the Democrats have imposed on their fields and what the cost is and why this lets China steal their jobs. Also point out how Democratic friends like GE are shipping their jobs overseas. Similarly, Republicans need to become fluent in the regulatory burden imposed on farmers and they need to go farm by farm explaining to these people how the Democratic agenda is crushing them.

7. The Elderly v. the Poor: The elderly are abandoning the Democrats already, and Republicans need to help push that along. Republicans specifically need to talk about Medicare. Fewer and fewer doctors are willing to take Medicare because it doesn’t pay enough. Despite this, Obama plans to steal another $500 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare and its subsidies to the poor. Republicans need to make this clear that the Democrats are stealing from the elderly to hand out the money to other groups.

8. Jews: The Republicans have had little success winning over Jews. There are two reasons for this. First, many Jews are simply scared of the Religious Right starting a second inquisition. I know that specific outreach has begun on this issue and that needs to continue. More importantly, as I mentioned with Hispanics the other day, Republicans have wrongly been treating Jews as a single-issue people, with that issue being Israel. But Israel clearly isn’t that strong of a pull. A better approach would be to talk to them about issues like Medicare (which resonates in Florida), the attacks on Wall Street (which resonate in New York), and this: the Republicans need to establish a counterpart to the Anti-Defamation League to focus exclusively on all the anti-Semitism coming from the left these days. We’ve seen this at Media Matters, at OWS and just generally from the left.


If Republicans do these things right, they can create tremendous friction within the Democratic alliance, perhaps even enough to shatter the party. The way to do this is to relentlessly point out the issues above. Do that through targeted advertisements, in speeches, on webpages/blogs and through media stunts by having our talking heads demand explanations from the Democrats on these wedge issues. Further, the Republicans should start crafting legislative proposals which put the groups above on opposing sides and forces the Democrats to pick sides.

At the same time, as I said the other day, Republicans needs to start reaching out to each of these groups on the issues that we have in common. Even taking away 5% of Democrats would guarantee a permanent Republican super-majority.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hispanic Outreach Done Right

Romney is really impressing me. Last week, he gave a speech to The Latino Coalition at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. In this speech, Romney showed that he understands two vital points for the future of conservatism in America: Hispanic outreach and education.

Before I get into what Romney did, let me remind you of a post I did in 2009 (LINK) in which I criticized the Republican Party for its pathetic Hispanic outreach efforts. I pointed out that the problem with the way Republicans do outreach is that they buy into liberal group-identity theory. Republicans think of Hispanics as a monolithic, single-interest bloc, and they go about trying to woo them in the same ways the Democrats do. Specifically, they try to pass the occasional bill aimed at issues the Democrats claim Hispanics care about and then they try to be seen around election time at the occasional political rally with some well-known Hispanic person. This is pathetic.

By buying into the liberal view of Hispanics as a bloc, Republicans end up reinforcing the idea to Hispanics that they are a bloc and should not try to think independently outside their group. This all but guarantees that they will see themselves as inherently liberal. Moreover, being seen once every couple years with a famous Hispanic only reinforces the idea that Republicans see Hispanics as “other people” who must be approached now and then, but who clearly are not welcome otherwise.

A real Hispanic outreach program would treat Hispanics like any other voters. Republicans wouldn’t try to appeal to them on “Hispanic issues” but would instead try to appeal to Hispanics who happened to find particular issues of interest. For example, Republicans would try to attract Hispanic parents by improving the schools their children attend. Or they would try to attract Hispanic businessmen by making conditions better for small businessmen. Etc. The idea is to appeal to different groups of Hispanics on the issues that matter to them as individuals rather than trying to appeal to “Hispanics” as a group.

In light of that, what Romney did last week was very encouraging. Rather than going to the Latino Coalition and talking about immigration, affirmative action, tuition for illegals, or trade with South America, Romney spoke about education reform. Indeed, he never once brought up immigration. Instead, he said this:

“Here we are in the most prosperous nation, but millions of children are getting a Third World education. And America’s minority children suffer the most. This is the civil rights issue of our era. And it’s the great challenge of our time.”

Then he outlined his proposals, which mimic the things done by Republicans governors who have done strong work in reforming schools, such as increasing the availability of charter schools and tying federal funding to students “so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school of their choice.” He also included private schools, though this had to be clarified later.

He also noted that he supports the No Child Left Behind Act, but wants its accountability rules replaced by state rules -- very 10th Amendmenty. About this, he said:

“Parents shouldn’t have to navigate a complicated and cryptic evaluation system to figure out how their kids’ schools are performing. States are going to have to provide a simple-to-read and widely available public report card that evaluates each and every school. These report cards will provide accurate, easy-to-understand information about student and school performance. States will continue to design their own standards and tests, but the report cards will provide information that parents can use to make informed choices.”

Then he blasted teacher’s unions for blocking school reforms, calling them “the clearest example of a group that has lost its way” and he linked them to the Democratic Party:

“The teachers unions are one of the Democrats’ biggest donors — and one of the President’s biggest campaign supporters. So, President Obama has been unable to stand up to union bosses — and unwilling to stand up for kids.”

Finally, he pointed out that these same unions have stood in the way of vouchers, which have proven successful, because “success anywhere in our public schools is a rebuke to failure everywhere else. That’s why the unions oppose even the most common-sense improvements.”

So let’s break this down. First, Romney rejected the liberal idea that Hispanics are a bloc and he instead appealed directly to Hispanic parents on an issue that is dear to them. In fact, Hispanic voters regularly place education among their top issues, even higher than immigration, and they generally support vouchers and stricter school standards. Even Raul Gonzalez of race-hate group National Council of La Raza, said Hispanics consider education a civil rights issue and Romney’s push for vouchers “likely will play well.” This means, Romney stands to peel away Hispanic parents from the Democratic Party, and he is doing it without pandering, i.e. by treating them as Americans rather than Hispanics.

Secondly, notice how he drives a wedge between Hispanics and unions by pointing out that the unions are standing in the way of Hispanic children getting quality education. Given all the fights unions have undertake to keep Hispanics out, this pokes right at a source of antagonism within the Democratic coalition which makes Hispanics ripe to be pulled away. Finally, note that he then tells Hispanic parents that the Democrats and the teachers unions are the same thing, i.e. they won’t help you.

What Romney has done here is brilliant. He has finally started genuine outreach by finding issues which actually matter to a large group of Hispanics and he has addressed those without reinforcing the liberal propaganda that they are a voting bloc. Moreover, he’s told them point blank that if they wish what is best for their children, then voting for the Democrats is a horrible idea. This is how it needs to be done, not showing up at parades and promising to make immigration kindler or gentler. Start winning these people over on issues after issue and by treating them as Americans.

It should also be noted that this is an interesting position politically for several reasons. First, it suggests that Romney is not moving left for the general election as conservatives feared. Attacking teacher’s unions and advocating a national voucher scheme is deeply conservative. Secondly, this tells us that Romney really has a broad reform plan for all of government, not just for budget matters. Indeed, he could have easily ignored education and just stuck with economic matters. The fact he didn’t and is pushing this issue is a great sign. And the fact his plans mimic those of reforming Republican governors is an even better sign.

All of this continues to raise my hopes that Romney may prove to be a special president and that he may leave the country in a much better shape than it’s been in a long, long time.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Media Finally Spots Flaw In Democrat's Hispanic Strategy. . . Sort Of

We at Commentarama like to keep you ahead of the curve. So while others are worrying about things that will never happen or missing both forest and trees, we’re busy trying to let you know exactly what is going on and what the world will look like in the near future. And that brings me to the issue of immigration. It turns out, the Mexican invasion is over. And while you knew this already two years ago (Link), the public is only now getting hints of this. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to panic?

The idea that Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) will take over the United States has become an article of faith on the left. Indeed, the Democrats are counting on it. Their electoral strategy involves pandering to minorities and trying to get overwhelming support among them to offset their near-total collapse of support among whites. To achieve that level of support, they are working hard to scare these groups with claims of racism and to enslave them with poor education and by ingraining hobbling ideas like group rights.

But this whole idea relies on a faulty premise. Indeed, it depends on immigration from Mexico remaining at the same levels it was during its peak period in the 1980s/1990s. In 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority group shortly after.

Sounds simple, but here’s the problem. That growth has nothing to do with births of Hispanics in the United States. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was purely illegal immigration. And the vast majority of that comes from Mexico. Ergo, if immigration from Mexico slows, then the minority take over of America is over.

And guess what? Immigration from Mexico has all but stopped. Starting in 2007 (before the recession), immigration from Mexico began dropping. Within the last few years, it’s actually reversed itself, as the number of Mexicans returning to Mexico has exceeded the number of Mexicans who have come to the United States. How much? Well, according to Pew and the Census Bureau, the number of illegal immigrants in the US fell by one million in the last five years while the number of legal immigrants rose only by 200,000.

Why is this happening? Partially it is the sad state of our economy. But even more importantly, it’s because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 births per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico’s birth rate is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. And that means Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades because they can find the jobs they want at home. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

I told you about this in May 2000 and again last year. The LA Times first hinted at this yesterday. Neither the Times nor others on the left have yet fully grasped the meaning of this, but it will come as they realize what this means for the Democratic strategy.

And falling numbers aren’t the only problem. Look at the concentration of Hispanics in the United States. That is not a map which affords Hispanics political power. As California has learned, anything above 50%+1 is a waste in our system. So piling millions upon millions of Hispanics into the same 3-4 states means their influence will always been small compared to their numbers.

Further, there is this point I mentioned last year. According to the Census, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black. And American- born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.” This means Hispanics are doing what every other ethnic group except blacks has done -- they are joining the melting pot.

The Democratic dream of an angry racist Hispanic majority which supports their socialist ways is over. This wave of Hispanics is not coming, they are not going to the right states, and those that are here are leaving the race-reservation. The LA Times has finally put its finger on this, but hasn’t grasps the full implications yet. But that will come as the Times article is now getting widespread publication. Any guesses what the Democrats will do about their mistake. . . or if they'll put this together?


And don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site!
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Hispanics Foil Democratic Race Dreams

You’ve all heard America is destined to become an Hispanic country, right? The Democrats are in fact counting on that to stay relevant. They’re hoping to get Hispanics to buy into racial identity politics and then vote exclusively for their race-hustling party. But there are three flaws with this plan.

Flaw One: Bad Demographics

The argument works like this: in 1980, there were 30 million Hispanics in the US. By 2000, there were 45 million. If you draw a straight line between those points and extend it to the future, there will be 104 million in 2040 and they will be the new majority. But as I first mentioned in May of last year (LINK), there are serious flaws with this.

First, this assumes Hispanics are having huge numbers of children. The truth is that most of the population growth in Hispanic ranks has been the result of illegal immigration, not from births. Indeed, 12 million of the 15 million growth in the last twenty years was pure illegal immigration. So it’s immigration that matters.

But illegal immigration can’t continue at this rate because Mexico is running out of Mexicans. Mexico accounts for most illegal immigrants. But Mexico’s birthrate is in free fall. In the past decade alone, it has fallen 20% (from 24 birth per 1,000 persons to 19), and it keeps right on falling. Mexico, like Europe, is starting to suffer from a birth shortage and, consequently, a worker shortage. That means there won’t be waves of millions of Mexicans sneaking across the border in each of the next 3-4 decades. So instead of having 104 million Hispanics in 2040 as expected, the US is more likely to have 60 million -- which won’t be anywhere near a majority in a country of 350 million people.

Flaw Two: The Race Baiting Ain’t Working

But even beyond the pending illegal-immigrant-supply shortage, something interesting just happened with the last Census. To the race industry’s horror, “whites” suddenly jumped by 12.1 million people (to 223.6 million or 72% of the population). What could account for this?

What happened is the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as Hispanic went down 5% and the number of Hispanics who identified themselves as “white” increased 5%. Overall, 53% of Hispanics now identify themselves as “white,” while 37% identify themselves as “some other race” (the choice on the form) with the rest selecting other races such as black.

What this means is that Hispanics are doing what the Irish, the Jews, the Polish, and everyone else who is now considered “white” did -- they are identifying with the larger group and trying to fit in. They are joining the melting pot. And American-born children of Hispanics are even more likely to identify themselves as “white.”

This is horrible news for the Democrats, because the whole idea behind racial identity politics is to make people think they are part of an oppressed group. If people see themselves as black, white, Hispanic, etc., then it’s easy to get them believing in group rights. But Hispanics aren’t buying it.

Flaw Three: Escape The Plantation

Finally, there have been a number of articles lately by shocked journalists who can’t understand where all these conservative blacks have come from? It turns out the racist Tea Party got them all elected. Oh my! In fact, these articles have pointed out that in each case where a black (or minority) candidate won a Republican primary, it was with Tea Party backing over an establishment Republican honkey.

In effect, genuine diversity has finally arrived on the right and it’s the Tea Party that caused it because. . . imagine this. . . Tea Party people vote for people whose ideas they like, not people whose color they like! The Democrats are shocked.

This is a huge step toward smashing the idea of racial identity politics in this country. As more and more conservative blacks, Asians, Indians and Hispanics get elected into office, the idea that you need to be a Democrat if you are one of these people will simply fall apart. And that will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democratic Hispanic-America strategy.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Forget The Minority Take Over Of America

You’ve all heard how there will be more minorities in the United States by 2050 than there will be whites, right? Forget it. It’s not happening. Moreover, expect the illegal alien problem to start going away soon all on its own. Why? Because demographics don’t move in a straight line.

If you do as the left does, and you look at demographics as a straight line, then you see that 30 million Hispanics in 1980 turned into 45 million Hispanics in 2000 and will turn into 67 million in 2020 and 104 million in 2040. That, combined with blacks and Asians (groups that are not experiencing growth), results in about 50% of the population by 2050.

But that’s not how demographics work, and recent developments have shown the problem with this assumption. First, when the recession hit the United States, large numbers of Hispanics left the United States. So many in fact, that the Census Bureau had to revise its estimates downward for the future take over of the United States by a decade. They now estimate that there will be only 105.1 million Hispanics by 2050 -- a full decade later than expected.

But there’s another problem with this that hasn’t been considered yet. The key to Hispanic growth has been Mexico. Indeed, almost all of the growth in the Hispanic population in the United States has been the result of Mexicans coming to the United States. When Reagan granted an amnesty in the 1980s, there were about five million Mexicans illegally in the United States. By 2000, we’d added another 12 million. That seventeen million is more than one-third of the forty-five million Hispanics in the United States today, and it represents almost the entire growth in the Hispanic population since the 1980s.

Indeed, if you look at the map to the right, you’ll see that consistent with this, Hispanics are almost entirely concentrated along the border with Mexico.

So why does this matter? Because things are changing dramatically in Mexico.

Mexicans first started coming to the United States in vast numbers in the 1980s. There were two reasons for this. First, with the end of the oil boom, Mexico’s economy tanked. At the same time, the American economy boomed. Thus, with few jobs south of the border and large numbers of jobs north of the border, people fled Mexico for the United States. This was made even worse by the fact that Mexico’s economy was almost entirely dependent on the oil industry and that its government is one of the most corrupt in the world -- leading to a lack of opportunities and huge disparities in income, which creates a large underclass.

The second reason was that Mexico’s collapse coincided with a baby boom that began in the 1950s, similar to that experienced by the United States. Indeed, in the 1960s, Mexico had the highest birth rate in the world, with Mexican mothers having on average seven children each. Thus, in addition to its economic collapse, Mexico was awash in young people, who are by-their-nature more willing to emigrate to find work. These were the people who began coming in the 1980s.

So what’s changed? Mexico’s birth rate has plummeted. It is now just over 2 children per mother, almost identical to the birth rate in the United States, and it’s still falling -- it will soon be at European levels (around 1.4). Because of this, Mexico’s population is estimated to peak in 2043, though I suspect that will happen much sooner, as it has in other countries. That means that the supply of people to head north is quickly running out.

Moreover, because of this change, the population is aging much quicker, which will accelerate the decline in the number of people willing to go north. Not only is an older population less interested in emigrating, but this also means that there will be more opportunities for Mexico’s young to find solid, long-term employment. Also, a smaller, older population tends to lead to greater personal wealth because the competition for employees drives up wages. This again, reduces emigration because it makes it more profitable to remain in Mexico. It also may draw people back to Mexico, just as this recession has done, because they can do better in Mexico.

What all of this means is that there will be fewer Mexicans very soon, and fewer of them will want to come to the United States to find work. That means that American Hispanics will no longer be receiving the mega-demographic boost that illegal immigration has been providing. When you exclude those numbers, the rest of Hispanic America is growing at about the same pace as white America.

Thus, the Hispanic growth rate will soon start to fall from 50% every twenty years to around 4%, about the growth rate of everybody else.

Hence, reports of the minority take over of America have been greatly exaggerated.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...