WaPo, Sailer, Election 2010's White Vote—and Treason
Print Friendly and PDF

Steve Sailer's austerely principled stand against doing what editors want, which I whined about in my introduction to his brilliant book on Obama, can make him exasperating to deal with. But I don't see one darned thing in today's WaPo analysis of the election results—Political divide between coasts and Midwest deepening, midterm election analysis shows, by T.W. Farnam, Washington Post, November 21, 2010—that wasn't in Steve's November 4 VDARE.COM article Election 2010 And The Unmentionable Sailer Strategy: White Vote Still Key. WaPo even alludes to Republican strength in "the less-dense areas of the country"—about which Steve has developed one of his many theories: Republicans win in areas with "Affordable Family Formation".

Both Steve and WaPo agree on the key point about Election 2010: the GOP dramatically improved its standing among white voters—including working class "Reagan Democrats".

But it's obvious that, as usual with the MSM, WaPo assumes somehow that white voters don't (or shouldn't) count.

In fact, there seems to be a developing meme/ theme among Democrats that they don't have to worry about whites at all. Here's James Carville:

Carville said any GOP presidential candidate would be forced to "double-down on older whites - a strategy that becomes less reliable each cycle.
"When you get into a presidential electorate, it decidedly favors Democrats, and every year it's going to decidedly favor them more and more," Carville said. "Demographics don't do anything but get better for Democrats. Every election becomes less white."

(Dem strategists: Obama bungled 2010, By David Catanese, Politico.com, November 18 2010).

In fact, of course, Steve has already shown that focusing on the white vote will be a "reliable" GOP strategy for a suprisingly long time to come. People who say this kind of thing can't, or won't, count.

And that's "reliable" without doing anything about immigration—a word completely unmentioned by WaPo's Farnam (but not, of course, by VDARE.COM's Steve Sailer). Or about reforming birthright citizenship—which VDARE.COM's Ed Rubenstein has estimated would halve the pace of the GOP's drift to disaster.

An immigration moratorium would not only help solve the unemployment problem—it would benefit the GOP politically. Which is no doubt why the GOP Establishment won't do it. It's not called "the Stupid Party" for nothing. Hence this quote from the WaPo article: "'The challenge for Republicans is to present a more multi-ethnic image to the country at large,' said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster." [Link added].

Conventional claptrap like this may help Ayres in his role as President of what his website boasts is the "bipartisan" American Association of Political Consultants. (Ask him). But it is hardly calculated to appeal to white Reagan Democrats, already on the front line against Affirmative Action.

A final point: until the disaster of the 1965 Immigration Act, the group Carville disparages as "white" would have been called..."American".

To gloat that "Demographics don't do anything but get better for Democrats. Every election becomes less white" is to gloat because Americans are being overwhelmed by foreigners.

That is why immigration enthusiasm is ultimately treason.

Print Friendly and PDF