The Case of the Missing White Voters, Revisited

Sean Trende, Real Clear Politics, June 21, 2013

With a cloture vote on the Senate’s immigration reform bill expected next week, countless commentators have expressed the view that if Republicans don’t sign on for reform, the party is doomed at the presidential level for a generation.

This is the first in a two-part series explaining why this conventional wisdom is incorrect. Signing on to a comprehensive immigration package is probably part of one way for Republicans to form a winning coalition at the presidential level, but it isn’t the only way (for more, I’ve written a book about this, as well as countless articles here at RCP). Today I’ll re-examine what was really the most salient demographic change in 2012: The drop-off in white voters. Next time, we’ll confront some of the assumptions embedded in the “GOP has to do this” argument head-on.


1. The most salient demographic change from 2008 to 2012 was the drop in white voters.

Let’s start with the basics: Just what were the demographic changes in that four-year span? {snip}

Using the most commonly accepted exit-poll numbers about the 2008 electorate*, we can roughly calculate the number of voters of each racial group who cast ballots that year. Using census estimates, we can also conclude that all of these categories should have increased naturally from 2008 to 2012, due to population growth.

From mid-2008 to mid-2012, the census estimates that the number of whites of voting age increased by 3 million. If we assume that these “new” voters would vote at a 55 percent rate, we calculate that the total number of white votes cast should have increased by about 1.6 million between 2008 and 2012.

The following table summarizes these estimates for all racial groups, and compares the results to actual turnout.

Now, the raw exit-poll data haven’t come out yet, so we can’t calculate the 2012 data to tenths: The white vote for 2012 could have been anywhere between 71.5 percent of the vote or 72.4 percent (with 26,000 respondents, analysis to tenths is very meaningful). So the final answer is that there were 6.1 million fewer white voters in 2012 than we’d have expected, give or take a million.**

The Current Population Survey data roughly confirm this. As I noted earlier, if you correct the CPS data to account for over-response bias, it shows there were likely 5 million fewer whites in 2012 than in 2008. When you account for expected growth, we’d find 6.5 million fewer whites than a population projection would anticipate.

This is the real ballgame regarding demographic change in 2012. If these white voters had decided to vote, the racial breakdown of the electorate would have been 73.6 percent white, 12.5 percent black, 9.5 percent Hispanic and 2.4 percent Asian–almost identical to the 2008 numbers.

2. These voters were largely downscale, Northern, rural whites. In other words, H. Ross Perot voters.

Those totals are a bit more precise and certain (and lower) than my estimates from November of last year. With more complete data, we can now get a better handle regarding just who these missing white voters were.

Below is a map of change in turnout by county, from 2008 to 2012. Each shade of blue means that turnout was progressively lower in a county, although I stopped coding at -10 percent. Similarly, every shade of red means that turnout was progressively higher, to a maximum of +10 percent.


The drop in turnout occurs in a rough diagonal, stretching from northern Maine, across upstate New York (perhaps surprisingly, turnout in post-Sandy New York City dropped off relatively little), and down into New Mexico. Michigan and the non-swing state, non-Mormon Mountain West also stand out. Note also that turnout is surprisingly stable in the Deep South; Romney’s problem was not with the Republican base or evangelicals (who constituted a larger share of the electorate than they did in 2004).

For those with long memories, this stands out as the heart of the “Perot coalition.” That coalition was strongest with secular, blue-collar, often rural voters who were turned off by Bill Clinton’s perceived liberalism and George H.W. Bush’s elitism. They were largely concentrated in the North and Mountain West: Perot’s worst 10 national showings occurred in Southern and border states. His best showings? Maine, Alaska, Utah, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Montana, Wyoming, Oregon and Minnesota.

We can flesh this out a bit more by running a regression analysis, which enables us to isolate the effects of particular variables while holding other variables constant.*** We’ll use county-level data, which is granular enough that we can feel more comfortable that we avoided ecological fallacy problems. You can see the overall results here. Almost all of the variables are significant; only the population density variable is of no value.****

For those who didn’t click over to the chart, we’re pretty confident that the voters were more likely to stay home if they resided in states that were hit by Hurricane Sandy, that were targeted by a campaign in 2008, that had higher foreign-born populations, and that had more Hispanic residents. The latter result probably suggests a drop-off in rural Hispanic voters, who are overrepresented in an analysis such as this one.

We’re also pretty confident that the voters were more likely to turn out if they resided in counties with higher median household incomes, high population growth, a competitive Senate race in 2012, or that were a target state in 2012. {snip}

Perhaps most intriguingly, even after all of these controls are in place, the county’s vote for Ross Perot in 1992 comes back statistically significant, and suggests that a higher vote for Perot in a county did, in fact, correlate with a drop-off in voter turnout in 2012.

What does that tell us about these voters? As I noted, they tended to be downscale, blue-collar whites. They weren’t evangelicals; Ross Perot was pro-choice, in favor of gay rights, and in favor of some gun control. You probably didn’t know that, though, and neither did most voters, because that’s not what his campaign was about.

His campaign was focused on his fiercely populist stance on economics. {snip}

3. These voters were not enough to cost Romney the election, standing alone.

But while this was the most salient demographic change, it was probably not, standing alone, enough to swing the election to Obama. After all, he won the election by almost exactly 5 million votes. If we assume there were 6.5 million “missing” white voters, than means that Romney would have had to win almost 90 percent of their votes to win the election.

Give that whites overall broke roughly 60-40 for Romney, this seems unlikely. {snip}


* Ruy Teixeira has mostly convinced me that the correct final exit numbers for 2008 were 74.3 percent white, 12.6 percent black, 8.5 percent Hispanic, 2 percent Asian and 2.6 percent “other.”

**I also note that Hispanic participation probably exceeded projections when you consider that a disproportionate chunk of the Latino population growth consists of non-citizens who are therefore ineligible to vote. Also note the disproportionately large drop-off in “other”; I suspect this is mostly a function of the “rounding issue” I describe above.

***As my independent variable, I used the percentage change in turnout in each county from 2008 to 2012. Since we have over 3,000 observations using this technique, we can run a large number of variables. I went with 13. Five of them were meant to control for basic external effects: population growth, whether the county was in a state targeted in 2008 or 2012, whether it was in a state affected by Hurricane Sandy, whether there was a competitive Senate race in 2012 (the states that had competitive Senate races in 2008 were almost all swing states).

I ran a variety of demographic controls: the percentage of the county that was above age 65, that was African-American, that was foreign-born, and that was Mormon. I also included population density and median household income.

Finally, I included the percentage of the vote cast for Ross Perot in 1992.

**** The r-square is a bit low at 0.3, but we’re trying to explain a vast amount of data that probably relied on thousands of variables (local weather, differing amounts of money spent, other statewide contests). Moreover, a lot of these counties are so small that “quantum effects” — random individual decisions — can start to skew things. An extended family afflicted with food poisoning at Sunday dinner can materially affect turnout in some counties in western Kansas. If you exclude the 29 worst outliers (in geek speak, the ones whose standardized residuals exceed 3), the r-square jumps to 0.4.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • This is wrongy wrongenstein:

    3. These voters were not enough to cost Romney the election, standing alone. But while this was the most salient demographic change, it was probably not, standing alone, enough to swing the election to Obama. After all, he won the election by almost exactly 5 million votes.

    Electoral college, not popular vote. Romney would have needed 700k votes in four states to be President. The missing whites 2012 over 2008 voting Romney over Obama in a 60-40 margin probably would have done it.

    2. These voters were largely downscale, Northern, rural whites. In other words, H. Ross Perot voters.

    IOW, working class whites outside the South, who didn’t want to vote Obama (again), but don’t have enough Patterson’s First Axiom daily experience with blacks to be scared enough of them to hold their noses and vote Romney.

    • BonusGift

      Nail, meet hammer. Is it me or do most ‘journalists’ begin with a conclusion and then work back from that conclusion (in this case, “resistance is futile.” – i.e., you must vote for your genocide because it is the popular thing to do)?

      • robinbishop34

        “…do most ‘journalists’ begin with a conclusion and then work back from that conclusion”

        It’s called circular reasoning.

        • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

          Pretzel Logic.

    • evilsandmich

      I know that was the case in Ohio where working class whites saw Romney as nothing more than white-Obama. A ‘tell’ that I’ve mentioned in the past is at a Romney rally where the crowd cheered while a video played of various well known Repubs endorsing Romney, but went uncomfortably silent when Rubio appeared in the video. There’s that and the Paul voters who never forgot the pointless slamming of them by Romney’s crew at the convention. I had forgotten about it myself, but the Paul voters hadn’t.

  • Johnny Clay

    Too many potential anti-Obama voters either stayed home or voted third party. I don’t know if there were enough to sway the election, but defeating Obama were Priorities 1, 2, and 3, and the effort should’ve been there. Voter fraud, also, may have negated the Romney vote. Personally, I would’ve voted for Bozo the Clown, just to get Obama out of office.

  • The__Bobster

    …..countless commentators have expressed the view that if Republicans don’t sign on for reform, the party is doomed at the presidential level for a generation.

    Countless libtard commentators, you mean. If the Repbublicans sign on to this monstrosity, they’ll never win another election again. Of course, the commentators know this.

    • NM156

      Yes, Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer want you to win future elections Republicans, so vote for tens of millions of Democrats to be given visas.

      • Erasmus

        Schafer, Durbin, Obama and others are going to be regaling and back-slapping each other for decades to come with how they flimflammed Marco Rubio into championed into legislation that not only sank his own political career but the entire republican party.

        • Beetlejuice

          Like Ted Kennedy with the 1965 Immigration Flood Bill, Rubio is the Front Man for Amnesty. His name will be forever linked to the 2013 Amnesty as Kennedy’s is to the 1965 bill.
          Rubio, as was Ted Kennedy, is too dumb to see this, but unlike Kennedy, as you pointed out, Rubio’s political career is over.
          Good call.

        • OlderWoman

          Glad that Rubio won’t be seriously considered as a candidate.

  • The__Bobster

    For those with long memories, this stands out as the heart of the “Perot coalition.”

    I seem to remember that Der Schlickmeister won in 1992 because Perot took votes away from 41. So if this coalition sat on their hands because of the “47%” comment that the MSM used to smear Romney, it would result in another Democrat winning

  • In one ear, and out the other for the GOP. They still feel like the illegal alien vote is where their future lies.

    I’m actually worse for the republicans than these apathetic white voters who stayed home. All they did was cost the GOP one vote. I, on the other hand, took my list of sell out republicans who ever mentioned nay key phrases similar, and not limited to, “We need a guest worker program”, “We need to increase minority turn out for us”, and were absolutely silent on the issue of Affirmative Action.

    I took that list and voted for the democrat who was running against the spineless republican.
    Essentially, I took two votes away from the Republican Party.
    Next time, it’s going to be harder. Previously, I only marked the sell outs for defeat, then voted straight ticket republican. Now, I have to mark the hard core right wingers for victory, then vote straight ticket democrat.

    This Republican Party has turned into an even bigger poison than the democrats. For those of you living in Arizona, John McCain has got to go!.

    • Erasmus

      They still feel like the illegal alien vote is where their future lies.

      The only way they can even win the illegal alien vote is to become big-spending lefties, and at that point, the GOP becomes so much like the democrats that there’s really no good reason for them to even any more exist.

    • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

      They are willing to risk losing the votes of 30-40 million American CITIZENS for the potential gain of may 2.3% “unregistered Americans”… the epitome of insanity and cultural suicide.

  • Hal K

    The drop in white votes from 2008 to 2012 was all on Obama’s side. No one has written about this. Why wouldn’t Real Clear Politics want to point this out?

    • NM156

      How could they be on Obama’s side if they didn’t vote for Obama?

      • Hal K

        The decrease in white votes going from 2008 to 2012 approximately equals Obama’s decrease in white votes going from 2008 to 2012. Romney got about as many white votes in 2012 as McCain got in 2008.

  • libertarian1234

    I don’t see where he factored in the Ron Paul voters who stayed home for the most part. They consist of many young voters, and I imagine very few of them are blue collar.

    Somebody estimated his supporters to be about 5 million people.

    Too it looks like whites amounted to 93 million voters and non-whites numbered about 35 million.

    “Given that whites overall broke roughly 60-40 for Romney, this seems unlikely.”

    Other data has shown the voters that stayed home were overwhelmingly conservatives . If that’s true, they would have broken much more than 60% for Romney.

    I’m thinking if Romney reached out for the hard nosed conservatives and the Ron Paul voters he would have easily won. And it looks like that is going to be the case for quite some time now, but the GOP establishment erroneously believes they should court Hispanics instead.

    Incidentally they have Rush speaking against them nowadays. They’re a sorry bunch of opportunists whose only concerns are money and power. They have no real principles.

    The bottom line appears to be that, if it weren’t for the white weenies who are helping the enemy destroy us, whites would hold a vast voting majority for quite a long time.

    • Xerxes22

      Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as v.p. hurt him especially with senior citizens. It was no secret that Ryan wanted to chop up and privatize social security and medicare no matter how much he tried to deny it.

      • The raw numbers don’t support that contention.

        Another common theory is Mormon hurt, but the only kind of people who would have held it against him, so goes the conventional wisdom, white evangelical Christians, voted Romney at the same percentage and turnout intensity they voted Bush in 2004, which was a record high.

        You and I and everyone else can come up with theories, but the hard truth of the matter and the Occam’s Razor explanation is that incumbent politicians from President down to dog catcher are very hard to beat. Incumbency means publicity.

    • Johnny Clay

      Like I said, defeating Obama was all that mattered. 2012 was not the time to get into a snit because Ron Paul wasn’t the nominee or that Romney wasn’t conservative enough, or to vote third party in order to “send a message.” This wasn’t 1992. Obama makes Bill Clinton look like a right-winger, and stopping the damage was the main priority. Nothing else mattered!

  • The demographics are getting such that the only kind of Republican that can actually win the Presidency going forward is someone who makes immigration patriotism an open and obvious centerpiece of his or her campaign. If the Stupid Party nominates an open borders type or a mushy moderate who doesn’t want to take a clear consistent position, he or she will lose to the Democrat.

    Now, will an open borders traitor (read: Jeb Bush) win the Republican nomination in 2016? Remember, at the Presidential level, the Republican Party is a “it’s my turn” party — Going back a very long time, the person who has won the Republican nomination has had a very high level of name recognition, and almost always has run for President at least once before. Coming out of nowhere to win the Presidential nomination is far more a Democrat thing. Too, the Republican-oriented establishment and the Barnacle Class (Karl Roverrated et al.) that ride herd for them are so covetous of EL CHEAPO labor that they’d rather have an open borders Democrat win than an immigration patriot Republican.

    I would say that now, the odds are favorable for such a person to win the Republican nomination in 2016.

    • Sick of it

      I’m having a hard time seeing a decent Republican presidential candidate for 2016. It will be, at best, a vote for the lesser of many evils.

    • dd121

      If they nominate Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio open borders types I’ll either vote Libertarian or not at all. Unfortunately, anything resembling a conservative Republican probably will never be elected again. When the history books look back on this period, the Reagan years will be considered our high-water mark. The shameful institutionalized corruption that is taking place now, will only grow in the future with one-party rule. It’s all very sad.

  • JohnEngelman

    In addition to looking at the Ross Perot voters Sean Trende should have looked at the demographic of those who voted for Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996. These were the white, and largely male blue collar workers who were hurt by the social changes of the 1960s, and the economic changes since 1980.

    When the crime rate tripled from 1960 to 1970, and when they were driven from the neighborhoods they and their friends and relatives had grown up in by black crime and black ghetto riots, liberal Democrats told them the real problem was their racism.

    When their pay checks began to buy less during the stagflation of the 1970s the Republicans touted the benefits of tax cuts for the rich. Those benefits did not reach them. They still have not.

    Neither party advances the social and economic interests of white blue collar workers. Between the elections of 2008 and 2012 a larger number of them realized it.

  • Eddie Lutz

    The GOP is a rich old boy network, catering to executives with offshore bank accounts, hardly representative of most whites today. Democrats are bleeding hearts for open borders and multiculturalism. So I see no point in voting. The only way out of this cultural death spiral is through total economic collapse and Balkanization. A complete reboot of America.

    • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading


  • Are Evangelicals larger,in fact the Southern Baptists are losing members, its the mega churches which have taken up the smaller churches. In Texas Evangelicals have lost ground to Catholics because of immigration.

    • OlderWoman

      The plan is to Catholicize America. The Jesuits are behind amnesty for their Catholic Mexicans. Turning Protestant America into Catholic America. This is the counter-Reformation.

    • Joseph

      Didn’t/doesn’t the SBC have a black president? Not that this is bad per-se but seems to me to portend the fate of the church overall as what was once among the most conservative becomes the habitation of gay/diversity reformer operatives like everything else in the country. The real conservatives will just bail out for non-denominational evangelical churches and only the dross will be left to “own” the Southern Baptist Convention just like all of the mainstream protestant churches. The Catholics are already a lost cause to diversity and immigration plus the obvious homosexual element.

  • OlderWoman

    I know people who were strong Republicans but had come to the truthful knowledge that Republicans are just as corrupt as Democrats. One in particular is a blue collar worker. He was so disgusted with the choices that he didn’t vote at all. I have been a lifelong Republican but there’s no way I’m voting for them with the lineup they are currently pushing.

    • Sick of it

      I know staunch Republicans who are fed up with both parties now. Their corruption is just too obvious and too overwhelming.

  • OlderWoman

    What sunk Romney in my opinion is that he didn’t stand up to obama in the speeches. He also had supporters like Susana Martinez who complimented obama at Red Rocks. The fact that he was Mormon also affected his votes.

  • JohnEngelman

    This may have had something to do with it:

  • anarchyst

    As much as I detest the o’bama and his lawless attitude towards basic Constitutional issues, there are two situations in which we are indeed fortunate that the o’bama was (questionably) elected “president”.
    First is the failure to enact any “meaningful” (read unconstitutional) restrictions on lawful gun owners. If Romney had been elected, we would have seen some type of “compromise” between Republicans and Democrats concerning “gun control” changes–expanded background checks or the outlawing of certain weapon “features” would have most certainly been enacted. The o’bama galvanized the resolve of gun owners and Second Amendment supporters, the likes of which have not been seen in a century. The public outcry was deafening.
    The o’bama’s second situation is his refusal to kowtow to Israel. While this may be a somewhat unpopular view on this board, the fact remains–Israel has been “chomping at the bit” to get it’s “big brother (USA) involved in middle-east affairs–involving U S military action. To the o’bama’s credit, he has resisted calls from Israel to get involved with Iran.
    I am aware of the o’bama’s sympathies for Islamic countries, getting involved in their affairs (which is not a good thing, either).

    • I don’t know how much you’ll be an advocate of the second situation when we’re on the ground in Damascus. Hell, we might be there already and most of the media are keeping it hush hush.

      As for the first situation, you’re totally right. Romney was in his “heart,” for “gun control” all along. Proof of that is the number of times he used the leftist weasel phrase “gun lobby” in debates with other Republicans in 2011 and early in 2012.

      • anarchyst

        As far as I am concerned, we have no business in the middle east . . . Sarah Palin has it right–she advocates letting the muslims kill each other . . . we should stay out of it . . .

        • There’s another thing. Who is this imposter, and what has she done with the somewhat invade-the-world invite-the-world neocon lite Sarah Palin that I knew and despised? Come to think of it, I haven’t heard her “standin’ with Israel” in a long time.

          Straight up, her problem is that for all her talk about “Mama Grizzly,” she seems to go with whatever flow she’s around instead of forcing the flow on her own. When she’s around neos, she’ll be a neo. When she gets out of the spotlight and away from Neo-Babylon, she talks more sense.

          • anarchyst

            In order to get ahead politically, Palin will have to do AIPACs bidding. Sad, but true . . .

          • anarchyst

            I see that mentioning the influence that AIPAC has on MY country’s “foreign policy” will result in one’s post being deleted by the moderator . . . I mentioned that Sarah Palin would have to defer to that foreign (influence) lobby in order to achieve political office . . .

  • anarchyst

    The democrats push illegal immigration for votes while the republicans push illegal immigration for cheap labor.
    BOTH major political parties are un-American to the core . . .
    We need to “reboot” the country . . .

  • Triarius

    Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society. — Aristotle

    • ZeitTrash

      That’s a valid statement but Aristotle never said it.

  • anarchyst

    The so-called “mainstream media” has always had an “agenda”. From walter duranty extolling the virtues of communism (communist-engineered “famine” in Ukraine) to walter cronkite’s declaration that the Tet offensive was a U S military defeat, the “mainstream media” has always had an agenda contrary to American values . . .

  • AllSeeingEyeSpy

    “if Republicans don’t sign on for reform, the party is doomed at the presidential level for a generation”.

    Is this a sarcastic comment or a facetious one? Because this sounds like leftist SOP, extortion. Do what we say or suffer.

  • Joe Sewell

    A useless discussion since every election beginning with Reagan has been completely rigged. The last President who stood up to the upcoming neocons, israel, cia, jewish banksters, etc. was Jimmy Carter. He is the most vilified today, meaning he was effective.

  • redfeathers

    Not that my Republican vote means anything in NYC, but I figured it would be better to have a Republican president pick Supreme Court justices and federal judges. Sure, we got burned with Souter (and maybe Roberts, let’s wait for the affirmative action decision).

  • anarchyst

    Let’s not forget the rampant voter fraud that is endemic to the democrat party. Reports of voter precincts with over 100% “participation” with NO votes for republican candidates, voters voting in multiple precincts multiple times, ballots being brought out of car trunks when the “preferred” candidate was in danger of losing, and other such shenanigans are but some examples of rampant voter fraud. In fact, foreign vote observers were surprised at how lax American voting procedures were (and still are).
    We haven’t had an “honest” federal election in a long time . . .

    • All the other examples are indicative of voter fraud, but the fact that there were zero Romney votes in some ghetto precincts of Philadelphia, Cleveland, St. Louis and other cities isn’t and cannot be an example of voter fraud. First off, the ballot boxes are almost hermetically sealed. Second, even if it was possible for ordinary poll workers to get into them, it wouldn’t be worth their limited time to cheat to rummage through all the ballots to find the scant few votes cast for Romney and take them out. The more effective and real forms of fraud are as you stated.

      Zero votes for Romney in a precinct is not evidence of fraud, it’s evidence of ghetto.

      • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

        The problem with these ghetto enclaves is they are located in what are known as “spigot cities.” They have the effect of completely undermining and negating what would be the true majority vote(from whites) in the counties state wide.

  • Bobbala

    Who would vote for a politician that spoke the truth?

  • OTOH, each time a Bozo the Clown leftist Republican loses, the official explanation is that he or she was “too right wing.” Therefore, the next one they run up the flagpole is even more left wing.

  • WR_the_realist

    Blue collar whites correctly concluded that neither candidate represented their interests.

  • IstvanIN

    I voted for Romney on the, probably not realistic, hope he would put a constitutionalist on the supreme court.

  • Ella

    I think the problem with Republican Party that they assume automatic votes from conservatives. Many conservatives just voted against these foolish, Dem candidates (Gore; Kerry; Dukakis) in past elections. Rarely, the Repub candidates were ever worth the votes -lesser of two evils. I did quit voting for 12 yrs.. in presidential races due to the flop candidates. No one really represents the taxed Middle Class. I did vote against Obummer twice….

    • IstvanIN

      Well, they shouldn’t. I always vote but not always for Republicans. I voted for Pat Buchanan in 2000, couldn’t stand Bush. In 2004 I voted Kerry, any thing to get rid of Bush. I am not a Bush Jr. fan. I voted for low-life McCain over even lower-life Sotero, not exactly an endorsement of McCain I voted for Romney, even though he didn’t give me a reason to. I am getting tired of voting for the lessor of two evils. Maybe I should give up on national elections.

      • Ella

        Maybe the most important votes are really for the House and Senate. So I have some hope to vote out the cronies but many voters keep re-electing McCain types, so the impact of “new people” are minimal and out-voted. Voters should be smart enough NOT to have career politicians.

  • Johnny Clay

    I was just as frustrated with the GOP nominee as a lot of people. Romney was about fourth or fifth on my list of favorites. I would’ve supported anyone who ran against Obama, because at least with them, you’d get at least half of what you want, whereas with Obama, you won’t get any.

  • HJ11

    The GOP no longer represents Whites or White interests. The head of the RNC promises to use [White] dollars to reach out to Hispanics. What this means is that Whites are being asked to give money so they can be replaced. It’s nuts.

    We really need a viable third party–one that won’t just run a candidate in the presidential election (think Perot) and then disappear. Such a party needs to build from the ground up by running as many candidates as possible in local elections. Once there are a few successes, they can be built on.

  • ravitchn

    I remain convinced that his Mormon religion did Romney in.

  • ravitchn

    Mormonism offends traditional Christians, people with education, people with ordinary common sense, and ALSO PEOPLE PUT OFF BY THE Mormon GOSPEL OF PROSPERITY. HE WON THE SOUTH DESPITE HIS RELIGION BECAUSE OBAMA’S RELIGION WAS EVEN WORSE, WHETHER IT WAS PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN agitation a la jeremiah wright or islam.

  • Johnny Clay

    41’s heart wasn’t in it, I believe. I think he was running because he felt he had to.

  • ricpic

    I blame no one but Romney and the Establishment GOP that gave him the nomination. He and they are far more uncomfortable with bitter clingers than they are with the marxist agenda. If bitter clingers, i.e. traditional whites, had been given even one piece of red meat by Romney they would have turned out. He couldn’t do it, he couldn’t bring himself to stand unequivocally with them and against Hussein.

    Since the Tea Party cannot take control of the Republican Party I see no hope politically. The country will continue down the path it is presently on, which must lead to a massive economic implosion. Only that catastrophe will give whites a chance to breakaway from the devouring central state.

  • HJ11

    I keep getting phony surveys from the GOP that would be insulting to the intelligence of a gopher.

    The surveys are apparently based on the sales technique that you want the mark to say yes to a series of questions and then when you pop the request for money, the mark is already conditioned to say yes again.

    Here’s the reality, GOP suits (and I know you read these comments), you’ll not get a single penny from any member of my family until you start representing White interests.

    At a minimum, I want to see a White Congressional Caucus, and I want to see all third world immigration stopped, and I want to see the percentage of Whites in our population rise to levels we once had. I also want to see an end to all affirmative action, and I want to see non-White criminals arrested for hate crimes against Whites instead of these crimes being hidden by the elites.

  • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

    And people wonder where all these “jobs that Americans are no longer willing to do”, come from?

    Most Americans are no longer willing to do them because the influx of illegals being hired for them have driven down the wages… the wages themselves aren’t “bad” until you consider an “American” doing those jobs would still be taxed for the wages earned…the “dreamers” keep every dime.

  • Keep Honkin I’m Reloading

    Safe bet