Polls Show Widening Racial Gap

October 26, 2012 Hunter Wallace BRA Politics 87

BRA

If this is true, O is a goner for sure:

“The 2012 election is shaping up to be more polarized along racial lines than any presidential contest since 1988, with President Obama experiencing a steep drop in support among white voters from four years ago.

At this stage in 2008, Obama trailed Republican John McCain by seven percentage points among white voters. Even in victory, Obama ended up losing white voters by 12 percentage points, according to that year’s exit poll.

But now, Obama has a deficit of 23 percentage points, trailing Republican Mitt Romney 60 percent to 37 percent among whites, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News national tracking poll. That presents a significant hurdle for the president —and suggests that he will need to achieve even larger margins of victory among women and minorities, two important parts of the Democratic base, to win reelection…..”

R is at 60 percent with Whites. He will probably win a greater margin on election day when undecideds break for the challenger.

I’m guessing this is why MSNBC suddenly can’t shut up about Richard Mourdock. O’s team wanted to balkanize and polarize the electorate. It looks like they have succeeded!

About Hunter Wallace 12392 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

50 Comments

  1. Yeah–and Harry Reid’s a goner, too. Oh, wait, that was 2010.

    I trust, by the way, that when Dixie establishes itself as an independent wonderland of Southern values, its anti-egalitarian, anti-feminist Constitution will declare, Mourdock-like, that the impregnation of a white woman by a black slave is something that God intended to happen.

  2. Either way, we’re in for the conclusion to what will later be called the “catholic century,” (as the jewish century ended awhile back)— from Busby Berkeley swim confections to Tarantino’s Kill Bill and Django Unchained— onward!

  4. The racial gap isn’t widening, it’s just that northern liberals have started to notice it. The wide gap between black and white has always been there.

    Their rose colored glasses must be slipping of their noses. I’m sure they’ll snapback soon and resume their negro worship when the “gap” narrows again.

    Unless you are a negro (Obama) or anti-white (Romney), voting this year is an easy decision.

    Vote white. Vote Goode.

    Deo Vindice

  5. Why did the pollsters cover this up?

    Two theories are atractive and not incompatable with one another.

    One they were hoping to keep the nigs quiescent over the summer to prevent widespread rioting as Romney’s real advantage was masked.

    Two they were hoping to foul up Romney. No wonder Romney has looked so relaxed and made so few errors. He knew all alOng he was winning.

  9. Why did the pollsters cover this up?

    Two theories are atractive and not incompatable with one another.

    One they were hoping to keep the nigs quiescent over the summer to prevent widespread rioting as Romney’s real advantage was masked.

    Two they were hoping to foul up Romney. No wonder Romney has looked so relaxed and made so few errors. He knew all alOng he was winning.

    I don’t think it’s either. I think it’s just political correctness; you always have to give the black guy a boost, and you never get into trouble for doing same. It’s safer politically for them to err on the side of the incumbent black; if they’re wrong, they’d rather be wrong in favor of the incumbent, the black, the vengeful party (can anyone really picture an organized Republican backlash against the pollsters if Romney wins, the way they’d face an organized Democrat backlash if they predict a Romney victory and 0bama squeezes out a win?).

    That’s my guess, anyway. I mean, if you read battlegroundwatch.com it becomes obvious that these pollsters are totally out to lunch in their expectations, which is translating to a bias of 2-4 or even more points in the polls for the zero.

    But, believing their own lying eyes, the Dems and Republicans both are now looking to expand into “leans blue” territory all over the map.

  11. Liberal Denial Will Only Get Worse

    In the last week, he has caught and passed the president in most national polls, especially those without samples that are not overestimating the number of Democrats who will turn out to vote.

    […]

    Evidence that the Obama campaign thinks it is trailing is everywhere, as the president swings away at his rival as if he were the challenger not the incumbent. Even more telling is, as I wrote yesterday, the first evidence that some influential people within the president’s re-election team are starting to plant stories in the media alleging that an impending defeat isn’t their fault.

    […]

    Feeding this denial is the widespread oversampling of Democrats in polls that still show the president leading the race. The assumption that the turnout of the president’s supporters will match or exceed those that lifted him to a historic victory in 2008 seems to be based more on a leap of liberal faith than evidence, but it is statistical tricks like that that are keeping Obama’s head above water in the polls.

    […]

    Just as misleading is the fact that the heavy turnout in early voting states, like Ohio, of Obama’s supporters may be skewing likely voter formulas in the president’s favor. As Josh Jordan writes in National Review today, given the emphasis the Democrats have placed on getting their base out to vote early while Republicans count on theirs to turn out on Election Day, the president’s ability to stay ahead or tied in Ohio polls may be a statistical anomaly that won’t be corrected until the ballots are counted.

    The Republican press has started to catch up to where I was over a week ago.

  16. “37 percent among whites,”

    This is probably about right. As I have been pointing out on these threads and what many elsewhere more or less point out from time to time, many whites who vote Democrat do so simply because they are going to vote Democrat because of labor and job reasons, NOT because of liberal ideological reasons. This group without doubt probably comprises at least 20 or 25 percent of that 37 percent of whites, maybe even more. Many of that percentage are NOT liberal at all and many hold racial attitudes. ANYONE who actually lives near or knows this 37 percent of white Democrat voters well knows this.

    The remaining 20 or less percent, and as I said, probably less, is the actual true number and percent of white liberal ideological fanatics. They are a small minority and depend totally on a multi-billion dollar media apparatus to “bullhorn” their point of view and doctrinal beliefs into a projection of seeming significance. It is the media’s and the relatively small cadre of academia workers unique placement only that allows the illusion of mass conformity and belief of the soundness of liberal doctrines. The entire edifice of “progressive liberalism” is held up by only a small number of strategically placed white morons and fanatics. It is long overdue that people see and realize this state of affairs.

  17. Hunter, go and read the last couple of weeks worth of battlegroundwatch.com posts, and all the comments. They’ve got all kinds of nuggets, like the one you ask about.

  19. A great and assumed question, the one that’s still floating out there, is what exactly happened when Mr. Obama did himself in? What led to it?

    Was it the catastrophic execution of an arguably sound strategy? Perhaps the idea was to show the president was so unimpressed by his challenger that he could coolly keep him at bay by not engaging. Maybe Mr. Obama’s handlers advised: “The American people aren’t impressed by this flip-flopping, outsourcing plutocrat, and you will deepen your bond with the American people, Mr. President, by expressing in your bearing, through your manner and language, how unimpressed you are, too.” So he sat back and let Mr. Romney come forward. But Mr. Romney was poised, knowledgeable, presidential. It was a mistake to let that come forward!

    The man has spent his entire life coasting upwards, and this broad wants to know “what happened” when the winner and leader strolled into the room and bodyslammed him in front of the world? Nothing “happened,” sweetie. It’s what always “happens” when merit goes up against credentials.

  20. The polls are flawed because they are assuming a massive Democratic advantage in party ID that no longer exists:

    http://www.redstate.com/2012/10/26/swingometer-gallup-party-id-figures-predict-solid-romney-win/

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/158399/2012-electorate-looks-like-2008.aspx

    “For example, the largest changes in the composition of the electorate compared with the last presidential election concern the partisan affiliation of voters. Currently, 46% of likely voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, compared with 54% in 2008. But in 2008, Democrats enjoyed a wide 12-point advantage in party affiliation among national adults, the largest Gallup had seen in at least two decades. More recently, Americans have been about as likely to identify as or lean Republican as to identify as or lean Democratic. Consequently, the electorate has also become less Democratic and more Republican in its political orientation than in 2008. In fact, the party composition of the electorate this year looks more similar to the electorate in 2004 than 2008.”

    “Now Gallup is in the game, and the numbers are brutal. In 2008, the Democrats had a 39-29 (D+10) advantage in hard party ID, and a 54-42 (D+12) advantage with leaners. In 2012 though, we’re in the post-TEA party era. Republicans now show a 36-35 (R+1) hard party ID advantage, and a 49-46 (R+3) lead with leaners. This gives us a range of party ID swings from 2008, from R+11 to R+15.”

  21. Jew Nate Cohn’s headline: Obama’s Road to Victory in Ohio

    Yeah sure, Jewboy. The zero has a clear road to victory: lose in 11 days, then retire to Mauia and cash in big on the lecture circuit. He’s going to make the Clintons look like bathroom attendants.

  22. “Now Gallup is in the game, and the numbers are brutal. In 2008, the Democrats had a 39-29 (D+10) advantage in hard party ID, and a 54-42 (D+12) advantage with leaners. In 2012 though, we’re in the post-TEA party era. Republicans now show a 36-35 (R+1) hard party ID advantage, and a 49-46 (R+3) lead with leaners. This gives us a range of party ID swings from 2008, from R+11 to R+15.”

    I don’t think the Dems even achieved +10 in 2008. I forget what the national spread was, but I don’t think it was nearly that high. Probably more like +7, tops. And a lot of these state polls are sampling at D+9. This is with Independents breaking heavily for Romney when you look at the internals. The pollsters have all come down with PC disease. They’re oversampling Democrats and minorities.

  24. They’re not just believing their own bullshit on party ID, they’re also believing that 0bama can somehow meet or exceed his 2008 turnout, which is just freakin’ nuts.

    Everything the candidates have done has reflected my take from a week ago. Barry’s still playing entirely to his base in a desperate bid to overwhelm the national consensus with high Democrat turnout in battleground states. That’s how they played the debates after the first one turned the worm, too. It smacks of surrender to me.

  25. Dunce caps and cheap shots will fire up the Dem base, but it will turn off the middle and energize the right. But the zero knows he’s already lost the middle and the right, so he’s doing what little he can.

  26. http://www.sunshinestatenews.com/story/mitt-romney-tops-50-percent-florida-lead-president-barack-obama-5-clear-points

    Florida and its important 29 electoral votes are all but in the Romney camp, according to Sunshine State News poll of likely voters taken mostly following the third and final presidential debate.

    But the parties still have a big challenge ahead in their ground games. Early voting begins Saturday in Florida.

    Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney pushed above the 50 percent mark in the poll conducted between Oct. 22 and Oct. 24 by Harrisburg, Pa.-based Voter Survey Service.

  27. Romney’s got Florida, Virginia, North Carolina (Lulz @ RCP using PPP, a push-poller in the dem tank to move NC into “toss-up” status, toss-up my ass), and Colorado. And probably New Hampshire, unless it’s just a Yankee Lucy with the football scenario.

    He’s at least tied in Iowa and Ohio, and he’s probably going to win Ohio. He’s probably also tied in Wisconsin. Nevada might be the only swing state R loses to the zero.

    Michigan is now on the table, and maybe Pennsylvania, too.

    Stick a fork in the zero, he be done. He be one and done, yo.

  28. Has anyone written anything on why Nevada’s proving so stubborn? Is it the degenerate gamblers fearing a straight-edge Mormon candidate?

  29. Oh yeah, I forgot Minnesota. Romney’s expanding into that state, too. I guess that’s a “head fake” too, lol. With all the time he’s spending “head-faking,” one wonders how he has any time left to run a campaign.

  30. “Has anyone written anything on why Nevada’s proving so stubborn? Is it the degenerate gamblers fearing a straight-edge Mormon candidate?”

    See my posts of the last few days. Same reason. It’s not the gamblers, who come from everywhere, it is all the casino WORKERS. Why? Again, see my posts.

  31. Political discussion and potential movements aimed at building a white base and that do not discuss labor front and center are like physics lessons that do not involve mathematics or a chemistry textbook that does not mention the periodic table of the elements.

  32. I find it incredible that people on this website, of all places, are buying into the lame mainstream “conservative” movement bullshit. The President still looks very, very likely to prevail on Election Day.

    I suppose if one is in the South or the East, Obama’s stance on Black matters is the real issue and you simply don’t understand how Romney’s stance on fast-tracking over 250,000 Mexicans for U.S. citizenship within 3 months of taking office plays with the rest of us.

    I’m guessing if Romney was planning on bringing in 250,000 Nigerians, though, you would get it.

    The funny thing is we are in absolutely no danger of being taken over by Negros, while it is beyond clear (correction: should be beyond clear) that we are in real and present danger of becoming a Latin American country in our lifetimes.

  33. In the previous cabinets we have had uncomfortably large numbers of blacks. And now the most powerful political office in the world is beshitted by a coon.

  35. See my posts of the last few days. Same reason. It’s not the gamblers, who come from everywhere, it is all the casino WORKERS. Why? Again, see my posts.

    That’s what I meant by “degenerate gamblers.”

  36. I find it incredible that people on this website, of all places, are buying into the lame mainstream “conservative” movement bullshit. The President still looks very, very likely to prevail on Election Day.

    I suppose if one is in the South or the East, Obama’s stance on Black matters is the real issue and you simply don’t understand how Romney’s stance on fast-tracking over 250,000 Mexicans for U.S. citizenship within 3 months of taking office plays with the rest of us.

    I’m guessing if Romney was planning on bringing in 250,000 Nigerians, though, you would get it.

    The funny thing is we are in absolutely no danger of being taken over by Negros, while it is beyond clear (correction: should be beyond clear) that we are in real and present danger of becoming a Latin American country in our lifetimes.

    I find it incredible how few race-realists are able to watch a presidential election without projecting their own, marginal-to-the-point-of-absurdity views onto the electorate.

    Immigration isn’t even on the radar. It’s the economy, stupid.

  37. Well, that’s exactly my point: the latino-ization of our country is not on the candidate’s radar and also not on yours.

  38. Obama’s “Fuzzy Math” in Ohio Early Voting

    Obama’s fuzzy Ohio early vote math

    In today’s column, Gray outlines the egregious mischaracterizations and misrepresentations in the campaign memo as only a veteran campaign operative would know:

    At this point in an election cycle, many campaign staffers are busy fighting the press on what they call “process stories.” The candidates and their staffs want to talk about their plans and policies while reporters covering them find their audiences demand a play-by-play of the horse race. The result is constant overstuffing of campaign metrics and polling that only serve to muddy the waters for most political observers. In a close race, such as we have today, there is often plenty of data for both sides to use to their favor. One poll says this, another says that.

    Obama memo

    This makes it especially surprising to see the piece put out by President Barack Obama’s field director this week on early voting in Ohio. When things are ugly for a campaign, these types of memos can start flying. It is troubling for the president’s supporters that they could not come up with at least a handful of positive data points in Ohio. I worked as director of strategy at the Republican National Committee during the difficult 2006 election cycle — I know firsthand how hard it it is to come up with positive data in a negative cycle.

    The takedown

    There are normally three signs you know a campaign metrics memo is purely spin.

    1. Anecdotes: “We have seen groups as big as 100 voters going to vote in Athens, Ohio.” Only 604 democrats have voted in person in the entire county and no more than 40 in a single precinct (that would be Athens 3-5, for those scoring at home).

    2. Unverifiable Data: “Precincts that Obama won in 2008 are voting early at a higher rate”: This is unverifiable and misleading because there is no such thing as an “Obama precinct.” Every ten years, the entire country rebalances its voting districts based on a constitutionally mandated census. In 2010, this process redrew the lines of reportable voting areas that were used in 2008. So this year, we have entirely new precincts, thereby making it impossible to validate their claim.

    3. Cherry-picking random sub-poll data: “Time poll shows the President up 60-30” among early voters. That sub-sample was asked of 145 people and was one of many of similar ilk (with a huge variation in results). Their central data argument is that 43 more people told Time’s pollster over a two-day window they supported Obama. If that is their best claim to a lead in Ohio, it is a troubling picture for the president.

    The reality of Ohio early voting

    I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.

  39. Well, that’s exactly my point: the latino-ization of our country is not on the candidate’s radar and also not on yours.

    No, you predicted an 0bama win based on immigration, dumbass. Own your own statements.

  40. Hunter, you need to keep track of IPs for me, so no one can change names on me; I want to know who’s a congenital gloom-and-doomer, going forward post-election. I mean, if you’re still clinging to the “the zero’s gonna win” myth at this point, you’re a congenital gloom-and-doomer.

  41. Not saying an 0bama win is impossible, but if by now you can’t acknowledge the good chance Romney has of taking the WH, you’re a congenital gloom-and-doomer.

  42. “Well, that’s exactly my point: the latino-ization of our country is not on the candidate’s radar and also not on yours.”

    Welcome to planet earth! Hell of a place, ain’t it? Nobody said it was logical or rational. But one thing is certain, the way it is is the way anyone who seeks to influence or guide it will have to go about doing it.

    Now, since the latino-ization and all of that MUST not be too high up on the list of what is on many people’s radar screens, then politicians and movement leaders must use what IS on the public’s radar screens to get elected or to get power and THEN deal with what things like BRA and the latino-ization problems.

    The economy and labor issues are what people are interested in. So politicians and would be leaders will have to work towards their own hobby horses by way of and in terms of economy and labor issues.

    Standing on street corners and haunting websites shouting nigger and Jew and talking about the glory of the Aryan race is not going to sell very well. Regardless of how much YOU think those issues should be paramount in the public’s mind. They just ain’t, and unless you got a magic wand that can be waved and make it so, then we are going to be forced to work with what sells. At least in the beginning and in order to build a coalition.

    That simple fact evidently is apparently past the understanding of at least 90 percent of pro white commentators and advocates.

  43. Self deportation via slashed benefits would do much of this in an ostensibly race neutral way. Internallly pushing out blacks can also be done on the sly.

  44. Svigor: excellent post! You hit the nail on the head and see the 3000 gorilla in the room that Brutus ignores.

    Brutus: you can tell what issues scare the establishment not by what they discuss, but what they DON’T DARE bring up.

  45. I’ve been enjoying Brutus’ posts. His point about labor-democrats vs. liberal-democrats is both interesting and inspiring (there’s no reason the right can’t steal the labor-democrats).

  46. What’s breaking our infrastructure? What’s taking our jobs? What’s consuming our assistance programs? What’s replacing us and our culture? Not jobs and the economy, it’s the legalized invasion!

  47. Well, that’s exactly my point: the latino-ization of our country is not on the candidate’s radar and also not on yours.

    Ah, sometimes I forget how many asshats post here. I mean, how did I let the second part of that slide?

    Immigration ain’t on my radar. MY fucking radar? Dude, just piss off.

  48. Just last night I read in a book about one of the top executive vice presidents of one of the Big Three automakers back in the early 70s who said about one of the best selling, money maker cars that was ever produced and sold in America: He said that if it had been totally up to him in the beginning that not only would he had rejected the idea and sketches of the car in question, he would have fired all involved with bring the idea and design. At least two other top executives felt the very same way. A large number of people in the company thought similarly. They all thought the car in question was too ugly, among other things.

    But the public did not think so.

    The vice president mentioned above admitted that the folks in design and marketing obviously knew more about what pushed the public’s buttons than he did. But underneath the ugly body the vehicle got JUST WHAT that vice president and the others company men wanted. They got their way, the car just had to be packaged differently.

    The point here should be obvious.

  49. Hunter, on political movements, have you worked out how we’re going to move just left enough to run all the shitbird cranks out of it? Preferably without actually moving leftward (except in the minds of the shitbird cranks)?

  50. Many of us regard the election of Romney with plenty of gloom. I take the return of the Neocons who gave us the Iraq Disaster to the White House with gloom. I take Romney “opening” up Latin America (he means unifying America and Canada with Latin America into one market and eventually one state) with doom and gloom.

    I take Romney’s “school choice” (putting niggers into good suburban white schools) with doom and gloom. I take the increase in legal immigration quotas that Romney has promised with a fair amount of gloom. I take Romney’s promised non-enforcement of immigration laws on illegals with doom and gloom. I find the fact that Romney has never ever uttered the phrase “affirmative action” in this campaign with gloom. (This from a guy who would be elected by the white working class if he wins)

    I realize that for many the optics of seeing the “nigger President” lose is too good to resist but seriously Romney is going to f!@# you hard after he wins. (If he does)

Comments are closed.