Another Catch-Up To! The CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR (Grudgingly) Admits White Working Class Could Give Trump Victory
Print Friendly and PDF

H/T map Occidental Dissent

If you are of a somewhat sadistic turn of mind it is amusing to hear the gritting of teeth and growls of anguish when reading Can white working class voters carry Donald Trump to White House? By Peter Grier The Christian Science Monitor June 7, 2016

That is because the answer is YES – and the CSM HATES saying that!

Filtering out all the (extensive) negative wishful thinking with which this conclusion is camouflaged, the article says

Trump…might win by flipping Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and other Rust Belt states from red to blue. They have populations that are whiter and less prosperous than the coastal Democratic strongholds.
After dutifully listing several reasons why this might not happen Grier goes on
Trump’s focus on whites, and particularly working class whites, to the exclusion of other demographic groups is an approach with a low probability of success.

But “low” isn’t the same as “zero.” It remains possible for Trump to win despite his current lack of appeal to minorities. His path to victory is narrow and rocky, but it is there.

It depends on expanding the electorate by increasing turnout. In short, Trump has to rouse white people who usually stay home on Election Day to get off the couch and vote. emphasis. This shows an impressive understanding of the situation. Yes, Trump can win by getting a large share of the white vote, most easily done by getting more whites to vote. I reported the statistical basis for this in Hitler's Revenge: Why Romney Failed With Northern Whites in 2012 and Steve Sailer discussed it in “Slippery Six” Mid-West States Doom Romney—Because Of Low White Share in the same year.

The essay continues

It’s happened before. In 1992, bucking the long-term demographic trend, the white share of the electorate actually bumped up, increasing by two percentage points. Why? One letter and two words: H. Ross Perot. The Texas billionaire’s eccentric third-party run attracted many whites who hadn’t bothered to vote in previous elections.
Steve Sailer advanced precisely this hypothesis last year in North-Central Whites Are Main Bloc of Swing Voters Remaining

Of course it was in the North-Central States (with the peculiar anomaly of Wisconsin) that Trump demonstrated decisive superiority over Ted Cruz: he speaks like they do.

Grier makes a debatable assertion in saying

There’s one big caveat here, though. The missing white voters are disproportionately grouped in red states Trump is already the favorite to win, according to FiveThirtyEight data. White turnout hasn’t dropped that much in key battleground states, including the Rust Belt of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.
but balances this with
There are enough missing white voters in Florida, and possibly Nevada and Ohio, to tip these battlegrounds to Trump if he can get them to the polls.
and finishes with eminently judicious conclusion that a Trump victory using this path is
…not impossible. It’s improbable, but many pundits figured that Trump’s nomination victory was anywhere from unlikely to unthinkable. In this election campaign the unforeseen has already occurred. It could happen again.
It has been a refreshing day for This morning James Fulford was able to post Kevin Drum On The Myth Of Prop 187: “This Is The Conventional Wisdom, And I’ve Never Questioned It” discussing a Mother Jones essay catching up with our analysis of California, and now here is The Christian Science Monitor echoing our contentions regarding the white vote, especially regarding turnout.

It has only taken half a generation!

Print Friendly and PDF