VDARE
Here’s a link to an excellent analysis of the 2012 election by Steve Sailer:
“Here are some other north central states where Romney came fairly close:
Pennsylvania: 54 percent of the white vote
Iowa: 48 percent
WI 49 percent
Minnesota 47 percent
Michigan 53 percentRomney couldn’t get the job done in these northern states, not because of the tidal wave of Hispanics, but because he just didn’t get enough whites to show up and vote for him.”
Bingo.
If Whites in the Lower North and Midwestern states (48% to 54%) voted Republican at the same rate as Whites in Upper South states (66% to 71%), then Mitt Romney would have easily won the 2012 election.
Romney barely won North Carolina. He lost Virginia and Florida. That’s because he only got a pathetic 61% of the White vote in Virginia, 61% of the White vote in Florida, and 68% of the White vote in North Carolina.
The Republican share of the White vote in these three Southern states is their lowest share of the White vote anywhere in the South – unless you count Maryland as a Southern state, where Romney only got 56% of the White vote.
Romney lost the 2012 election because Northern White transplants in NOVA/Hampton Roads, the Research Triangle, and the I-4 Corridor in Central Florida are turning Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida into another Maryland. He also lost because he couldn’t get White voters in Pennsylvania and the Midwest to vote like Whites in Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
The most important reason Romney lost the 2012 election though is because the Northeastern phalanx delivered all 112 of their electoral votes to Obama within minutes of each other on election night. The “Hispanic vote” is a sideshow compared to the Yankee vote in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and the West Coast and the enclaves (think Boulder, Asheville, Austin, Missoula, Jackson (WY), Cary, etc.) it has established in the South and West.
The Yankee vote is why states like Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania vote Democrat where there are lots of White rural conservatives there who otherwise vote like the Whites in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Western Iowa, Pennsyltucky, and Southern Illinois and Southern Ohio are reliably and predictably Republican because Yankees aren’t predominant in those areas in contrast to Eastern Iowa, Philadelphia, Chicagoland, and Cleveland and the Western Reserve.
If you look at the county level map of the Western states, you can see a massive divide between the Whites who live in the coastal and inland Pacific Northwest and those who live in coastal and inland California. Once again, the Whites who live in the coastal areas are responsible for tipping those states into the Democrat column.
This division in the White vote, not the “Hispanic vote,” is why the Democrats are winning presidential elections – the effect of minorities is simply to augment and nullify White Republican voters, but it is not sufficient by itself to, say, to elect non-Whites to statewide offices outside of extreme cases like Hawaii.
American politics can be summed up as one group of Whites based in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and West Coast aligning themselves with non-Whites to gain an electoral advantage over a rival group of Whites who are based in the South, Interior West, and the Lower North.
54% state-wide (in the 90’s around here) was shocking, though a few of us saw it coming. Lots of older, mostly retired folks were so angry at Romney around here that they decided to stay at home, in some cases the first time they had done so in years. Turnout in Republican-dominated precincts around here was very light, and there are still MANY blue collar senior citisens in the “coal regions” towns who continue to vote straight ticket Democrat “against the rich” and “in memory of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the Molly Maguires.” In some towns whole blocks came out and voted straight ticket as usual, without a single Republican dissenter. Yes, there WERE trained Tea Party activist poll watchers on duty.
Sailer and the VDare crowd show little awareness of dynamics between white groups. Beyond blaming everything on the Irish, Italians and Jews they don’t understand national and cultural origins and how they play out in current politics.
Democrats need minority votes to win just like they do White liberal vortes, and there is no breakdown here that I am seeing of gender. How many of those votes are White female votes? Give it a few more years and White liberal votes will not be needed for Liberal victories either.
This data doesn’t support your anachronistic and antagonistic “Yankee vs. Confederate” narrative at all. It fits a narrative wherein a growing share of Whites are becoming alienated from the GOP leadership, with White Southerners showing up anyway because their (valid, learned) fear of Black rule outweighs their contempt for and frustration with the GOP leadership.
This rift is a macrocosm of the rift within the White Advocacy community, with those in the South soft-pedaling the JQ and seeking ways to influence mainstream conservatives and local Republican leaders in their direction while non-Southerners are radicalizing and dropping out of the mainstream political process. Time will tell which direction is more advisable, but what’s definitely not happening is non-Southerners becoming more enamored with Obama, multiculturalism, and leftism in general.
I think your analysis in this post is more refined and accurate than others. I generally agree with it. But there are irregularities that don’t fit the general pattern of voting behaviour, such as the otherwise-conservative, moral, church-going, old coal regions straight-ticket diehards mentioned in my previous comment. I also think the VAST majority of those “Yankee” voters who you think “want to dominate” other voters (mostly south of the Line) really do not have ANY such desire or intention, neither consciously nor unconsciously! When the vast majority of those liberals think of “the South,” it’s only about MOVING THERE — for greater prosperity, and because it’s currently “the thing to do,” and because the climate below the Line is “not so harsh” (thanks to air conditioning).
“American politics can be summed up as one group of Whites based in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and West Coast aligning themselves with non-Whites to gain an electoral advantage over a rival group of Whites who are based in the South, Interior West, and the Lower North.”
Excellent summary. Describes the situation to a tee.
White Southerners face a dilemma: continued domination and eventual extinction at the hands of hostile “antiracist” whites, or eventual separation and survival? While it seems more the former these days, perhaps the latter may yet come to pass.
Deo Vindice
Our quarrel is with the Jews only insofar as they are the current masters of the yankee house. A house of cards, in my view, of which Jewish control will ensure the destruction.
Is it good for Southerners? That is all I ask.
Deo Vindice
One glaring problem with the Reuters-Ipsos exit polls that Sailer cites are the Hawaiian numbers. Supposedly Romney won the white vote there 56-44. But in 2008, Obama’s strongest performance among white voters (aside from in DC) was in Hawaii, where he won 70% of the white vote. Are we supposed to believe that Obama’s vote cratered by 26 points in his (alleged) home state among white voters? Especially when he more or less maintained the same share of the white vote almost everywhere else, with Maryland being the only notable exception where his share fell by 12 points. So with regards to Hawaii, either the 2008 or, more likely, the 2012 exit polls must be wrong.
Overall, the Reuters numbers show Romney winning the white vote 58-42 (with the third party vote eliminated), compared to the Edison exit polls which show him winning 59-39. Making it hard to compare the two sets of numbers is the fact that Edison has no exit polls for 19 states plus DC. Making it even harder is the fact that there are two sets of Edison exit polls floating around: the original numbers which can be seen at the Fox News website, and the revised numbers at CNN.com.
The original set of Edison data shows Romney winning the white vote in New York and tying Obama in Connecticut, while the revised numbers show Obama winning in Connecticut and tying Romney in New York. If we split the difference, then Edison shows Romney winning the white vote in New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota and California, while Reuters shows Obama winning those states. Both sets of exit polls show Obama winning the white vote in all 6 New England states, DC, Iowa, Oregon and Washington. Edison has no data for Hawaii, but it seems highly unlikely that Obama would fall from 70% of the white vote in 2008 to less than 50% in 2012, no matter what the Reuters numbers say.
But regardless of who won the white vote in the 4 contested states (NY, WI, MN, CA), Hunter’s conclusion that…
American politics can be summed up as one group of Whites based in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and West Coast aligning themselves with non-Whites to gain an electoral advantage over a rival group of Whites who are based in the South, Interior West, and the Lower North.
…is undoubtedly the correct one.
One group of whites aligning themselves to gain advantage over another group of whites is different and more accurate than saying “damnyankees” join with non-whites to drive down “southrons.” I’m still not convinced that the liberal voters’ intention or motivation is to dominate the other group. Rather, I think many of them simply believe they are voting for the best position, and there are other reasons, other than DOMINATION of another group of white voters.
@Hunter
How come you stopped linking the essays/articles to twitter? Big mistake, if you want to grow the website!
Glad you are running this Sailer story. Will have more to say when I have time.
Sure it does.
Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan lost every single county in Massachusetts and Vermont. They even lost their own towns – Janesville, WI and Belmont, MA – while winning 89% of the White vote in Mississippi and every county in West Virginia.
In Mississippi, White voters overwhelmingly voted against Johnny DuPree in the Mississippi gubernatorial election while the Whites in Massachusetts reelected Deval Patrick. Someone like Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank couldn’t win an election in a White Southern electorate.
It is easier for Northern WNs to “name the Jew” than to name their own grandparents, their parents, their aunts and uncles, their brothers and sisters, their friends and neighbors for voting for anti-White pro-amnesty Democrats because they are in a labor union.
The same movies and television programs that alienate Whites in Kansas and Louisiana are supposedly “brainwashing” the Whites who live in Minnesota and Vermont. The “Jewsmedia” can’t explain why 90% of Northerners in Congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 while 90% of Southerners filibustered it.
Being a separate people, White Southerners have a much longer memory. Most of the Jews weren’t even in America when Yankees waged war against us for the sake of the negro, made him an American citizen, and then used their military to impose “civil rights” on the South for a decade.
Yankees have been agitating for insane causes since at least the 1830s. It wasn’t until the 1920s and 1930s that Yankee radicalism began to merge with Jewish radicalism into the Judeo-Yankee ruling class that now controls America.
Earl,
I didn’t know that. I will fix the problem.
West Virginia and Kentucky are two of the whitest states in America. Yet neither state votes like Iowa, Ohio, or Vermont.
The “System” produces a different type of politician in San Francisco and rural Wyoming because the culture of the White people who live there is very different.
Your observations are all accurate, Hunter, but I think your conclusions drawn from them (based on preconceptions?) about “two different peoples” and the “intention to dominate” are wrong. Vermont, Massachusetts and a few other states seem to fit your model or theory fairly well, though.
Clearly it’s still about “southrons” and “damnyankees.”
This rift is a macrocosm of the rift within the White Advocacy community, with those in the South soft-pedaling the JQ and seeking ways to influence mainstream conservatives and local Republican leaders in their direction while non-Southerners are radicalizing and dropping out of the mainstream political process.
I have more faith that the world will end tonight than anyone in Vermont or Mass. ever “waking up” in any significant numbers and radicalizing for their own race.
Having said that, im still for radicalizing over mainstream in the sense that I think Conservative Inc. in DC is bad for the South. Conservative Inc. is another Yankee project based in DC and New York that many Southerners have faith in. That must change imo.
“The ‘System’ produces a different type of politician in San Francisco and rural Wyoming….”
The party machines give the voters in different areas the kinds of candidates they will accept? Or the career politicians make themselves sound and appear suitable for their constituents?
I still think its mostly a rural versus metrocosmopolitan, and Christian versus secular conflict, overall. Not really north versus south. But rural New England and a few other rural areas in some states really are anomalous.
I lost a post in which I explained the same process in terms of the effect on transplants on Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. See Jackson, Missoula, and Boulder. It is the same thing that happened to Austin, Raleigh-Durham-Cary, Asheville, Tampa, Orlando, Northern Virginia, etc.
The people who live in Oregon and Washington are fully aware of how the liberals in Portland and Seattle align with the non-Whites. In Pennsylvania, it is the White liberals in the Philadelphia suburbs.
If we could explore what goes on in the minds of those white Vermonters with 90% Anglo-Celt genetic heritage….
When Southerners rail against the “damnyankee,” they are not thinking of Nebraska or Idaho or Utah. They have in mind the type of Yankee that lives in a place like Duluth, MN and who identifies non-Whites – blacks, in particular – with moral authority.
It is not the entire North. It is about 40% to 60% of the Whites who live there. Especially in the Northeast.
The people who actually work for Conservatism Inc. are heavily drawn from the Blue States and went to Ivy League schools.
Ulfric wrote:
I have more faith that the world will end tonight than anyone in Vermont or Mass. ever “waking up” in any significant numbers and radicalizing for their own race.
But I keep hearing that all these white liberals in the Boston-Washington corridor are right on the vestibule of becoming white nationalists or ethnonationalists, but the one and only thing that’s keeping them from doing so is because there’s a white Christian in Alabama opposed to aborticide and embryonic stem cell research who is also an ethnonationalist.
Those are the people who come out and say “worse is better” in every election and the result is that the Northeast becomes more radical and more insane and more liberal while it does piss off and alienate people in other parts of the country.
HW wrote:
Those are the people who come out and say “worse is better” in every election and the result is that the Northeast becomes more radical and more insane and more liberal while it does piss off and alienate people in other parts of the country.
I don’t know if that was a response to me, but if it was, I just happen to think it’s desperation thinking on the part of blue state WN/RR/HBD. Sailer, for as brilliant as he can be, falls into this trap.
“American politics can be summed up as one group of Whites based in the Northeast, Upper Midwest, and West Coast aligning themselves with non-Whites to gain an electoral advantage over a rival group of Whites who are based in the South, Interior West, and the Lower North”
I strongly disagree. I’m a Yankee and that’s not what I see up here. We lean towards liberal policies, but we’re still mostly independents. The problem is the GOP is making it a liberal vs. conservative contest instead of a White vs. non-White contest. If the GOP would actually rally their base and go after White issues things would be much different. Stopping immigration, dismantling affirmative action, dismantling the welfare state, lowering taxes, etc. If they jumped on these issues, I guarantee they would sweep the White vote coast to coast. Since the GOP refuses to tackle “White issues” coastal whites vote Democrat because they prefer liberal policies, not because the hate Southerners or love Blacks.
I don’t know where you get the idea that Yanks still have something against the South. I’ve heard the expression “damn Yanks” plenty of times, but I’ve never heard anyone up here say “damn Southerners”.
In my view, Romney didn’t deserve white votes since he was not a particularly pro-white candidate. The fact that he did as well as he did should make him happy. Beaten by a negro, with 40% of his own race voting against him. Good going, Republicans.
It would surprise me if we ever have another traditional Majority member for president. This does not mean that another white might not be elected, but if so, he/she/it will not be traditional in any sense of the word.
White people have become very strange creatures. At least those living in the cities. They treat their dogs like little children, and are wont to adopt a negro from Ethiopia before they have real children of their own.
Well, I agree.
I didn’t even vote for him myself. Most people around here who voted for Romney did so out of fear of the Democrats.
I guess I need to widen my circle. I had no ideas VDARE was blaming Italians and Irish, although it doesn’t surprise me. And if VDARE is blaming Jews for anything, I’ll believe it when I see it.
countenance,
But I keep hearing that all these white liberals in the Boston-Washington corridor are right on the vestibule of becoming white nationalists or ethnonationalists, but the one and only thing that’s keeping them from doing so is because there’s a white Christian in Alabama opposed to aborticide and embryonic stem cell research who is also an ethnonationalist.
Out of curiosity, where are you hearing this line of argument? Just curious.
Lew:
Certain regulars on AmRen, mainly based in or around New York City and California.
Certain regulars on AmRen, mainly based in or around New York City and California.
I might have known given it’s the dumbest hypothesis I’ve heard in a long while.
“But I keep hearing that all these white liberals in the Boston-Washington corridor are right on the vestibule of becoming white nationalists or ethnonationalists, but the one and only thing that’s keeping them from doing so is because there’s a white Christian in Alabama opposed to aborticide and embryonic stem cell research who is also an ethnonationalist.”
That may sound silly but it’s not too far from the truth. The culture clash between the Northern and Southern Whites is usually over dumb issues that shouldn’t even be debated on the national level. For example,I know a lot of people that voted against Romney because of his stance on planned parenthood. If issues like abortion, healthcare, stem cell research, religion and gay marriage were state-issues, you’d find Whites agreeing on more important national issues. Vermont can have all the socialized healthcare, gay marriage and atheism it wants, as long as it stays in Vermont. The neo-Communists are purposely using petty issues to keep Whites divided.
If issues like abortion, healthcare, stem cell research, religion and gay marriage were state-issues, you’d find Whites agreeing on more important national issues.
And that was largely Romney’s position, federalism on most social issues and some economic issues.
But no, there is not a throng of white Bos-Wash liberals on the verge of becoming WN/RR/HBD, because the politicians they elect in their own state and local elections is evidence of that.
While it may not be true, the fact that some are expressing those attitudes is useful information. It’s example of how common grievances are not enough to get whites to work together when they are also divided by important cultural differences.
. . . non-Southerners are radicalizing and dropping out of the mainstream political process.
How is voting for Obama an example of “radicalizing and dropping out of the mainstream political process”?
“but what’s definitely not happening is non-Southerners becoming more enamored with Obama, multiculturalism, and leftism in general.”
What planet are you from?
Southron white nationalists who talk about supporting Yankee colonisation of Dixie in the theory that it will reinforce the white population (places like Stormfront are full of such people) should pay close attention to articles like this one. Even if all other differences between us and the Yankees mean nothing to them, the fact that Yankees are far more liberal than Southrons should be reason enough to exclude them.
. . . unless you count Maryland as a Southern state, where Romney only got 56% of the White vote.
I think we should never not count Maryland as a Southron state. It is one of our oldest states, has produced some of our great heroes, and is an excellent and tragic example of what the inevitable result is of a demograhpic shift from Southron to non-Southron. There are still real Marylanders, but they are a definite minority, from what I can tell.
the reality is even more banal…
MANY whites discovered that there wasn’t enough blood on their doorway, the YT guilt wasn’t gone, they had insufficient evidence to disprove their racism and “white privilege,” so they voted for him AGAIN.
I mean, what better way to prove your own non-racism at a cocktail party than, “I voted for Obama…twice”? That’s way better than just once.
It’s hard for people to get off the hamster wheel once you submit to this label and the onus of disproving it. I have taken to ending my use of the word “white” and instead just use “racist-american,” because that’s the reality of the situation. The label was only really ever intended to apply to one group anyway, which is why all the others rightfully reject it.
It’s too scary to contemplate that values systems and moral codes aren’t universally shared. Other groups find silly what whites take as “self-evident.”
My sentiment is that Yankee versus Southerner is a backwards looking paradigm that will have little relevance to white politics going forward. Matt probably meant that many whites outside the South who didn’t vote for Romney did so out of revulsion for the national GOP, for narrow economic reasons, or both. Romney lost white support most places compared to GWB. Rejecting the GOP or voting Democrat for reasons of economic survival is not the same thing as supporting the multi-cultural agenda. There is no alternative to the multicultural agenda given the Republicans also support that agenda.
How is voting for Obama an example of “radicalizing and dropping out of the mainstream political process”?
Yeah if they were dropping out of the political process, they would have sat the election out.
There is no alternative to the multicultural agenda given the Republicans also support that agenda.
That is because there is no true Southern party representing Southern interests. Both parties are based out of DC and New York. Both are in the hands of the Yankee-Judean power structure. Both are run by Blue stare ivy league school Yanks and Jews with a few sellout Southerners as their water boys.
The South is basically a vassal state and that is the problem.
Romney got millions fewer white votes than GWB, and the data shows those white votes did not move to Obama. That looks like credible evidence to me many whites might be dropping out. What else might it suggest?
I think Matt’s comment is mostly on target. The claim whites outside the south are “radicalizing” strikes me as a bit overstated unless perhaps if you define becoming disaffected with mainstream politics as a step toward radicalization.
Lew’s hunch is consistent with the new trend in our area of older Republican white voters deciding not to vote at all, some skipping for the first time in many years. Even so, the county stayed red.
That is because there is no true Southern party representing Southern interests.
That is something that needs to change. There must be an alternative to the Party of Lincoln’s monopoly in Dixie.
Both parties are based out of DC and New York. Both are in the hands of the Yankee-Judean power structure. Both are run by Blue stare ivy league school Yanks and Jews with a few sellout Southerners as their water boys.
And both parties despise Southrons, though the Republican Party would collapse without Southron support – an ironic fact when considering the Republican Party’s history of anti-Southron policies and its failure to have Southron candidates for the US presidency.
“I think we should never not count Maryland as a Southron state. It is one of our oldest states, has produced some of our great heroes, and is an excellent and tragic example of what the inevitable result is of a demographic shift from Southron to non-Southron. There are still real Marylanders, but they are a definite minority, from what I can tell.”
Very well said, Long Live Dixie. Between that and South Florida, we can’t say we have not been warned. Mexican immigration is a less serious threat to most Southerners than yankee immigration. Too bad many Southerners refuse to see this.
They are not now, nor have they ever truly been, our countrymen. The key ingredient in their definition of utopia is that our people cease to exist. Always has been.
We don’t really have a nigger problem or even a Jew problem.
We have a yankee problem.
Deo Vindice
A digression, but I think interesting: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/01/breeding-part-quasi-neandertal-old.html
Telling why it is probably impossible to back-breed humans to real Neanderthalness from even a 2% Neanderthal genetic heritage, suggesting it may also be impossible to back-breed to real Whiteness from a thoroughly multiracial Homo sapiens mixture.
Romney got millions fewer white votes than GWB, and the data shows those white votes did not move to Obama. That looks like credible evidence to me many whites might be dropping out. What else might it suggest?
I think it suggests that the McCain/Romney Republicans had very little appeal to blue collar whites, especially in the Slippery Six states (as Steve Sailer dubs them), Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. Hundreds of thousands of these people didn’t bother showing up at the polls, and that allowed Obama, with his energized anti-white and anti-Christian base, to sweep all 6 of these states, twice. If the GOP want to remain a competitive national party, then forget the no-hope strategy of Hispanic outreach and work on a strategy of blue collar white inreach instead, especially in the Rustbelt.
Having said that, let’s not forget that Romney won the theoretical whites-only electoral college in a landslide. Obama only won the majority of white votes in part of the Northeast (definitely in 5 New England states, possibly in Connecticut and New York, but not in New Jersey or Pennsylvania), part of the Upper Midwest (definitely in Iowa, possibly in Wisconsin and Minnesota, but not in Michigan, the Dakotas or Nebraska), and part of the Pacific Coast (definitely Washington and Oregon, possibly in California and Hawaii, but not in Alaska). Romney won the white vote everywhere else.
Spin it however you want. The truth is simple.
White yankees didn’t drop out.
White yankees elected Obama. Again.
http://rolandmartinreports.com/blog/2012/11/roland-s-martin-mitt-even-the-whitest-states-didnt-support-you/
Most yankees are exactly like PGRT. They hate other white people.
Of course they will vote for a colored over a white. Every time.
People in Massachusetts reelected Deval Patrick for governor, not Mitt Romney.
Being in a political union with yankees is like being chained to a corpse.
Free Dixie and God Save the South!
Deo Vindice
Note to the South-Rise up what are you waiting for? (Didn’t think so.) Keep talking at your keyboards.
The Whites who live in places like San Francisco and the Northeast are radicalizing … if by that you mean becoming more liberal and more aggressively anti-White with each cycle of “worse is better.”