GOP’s “White Guy” Problem

Simon Maloy, Salon, January 8, 2015

One of the big unknowns heading into the 2016 election cycle is the degree to which shifting population demographics will screw over whichever white guy the Republicans nominate for president. Rising shares of black, Latino and Asian voters have tilted once-reliable swing states slightly toward the Democrats, and turned a few red states into genuine toss-ups. {snip}

This week, the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a study on how shifting demographics could affect the 2016 presidential election, and it should scare the hell out of any Republican who still believes he has a lily-white path to the presidency.

First, a bit of background. The high watermark for Republican share of the minority vote in a presidential election belongs to George W. Bush, who won reelection in 2004 with somewhere between 40 and 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, 44 percent of the Asian vote, and 11 percent of the black vote. Since then minority support for Republican presidential candidates has plummeted–in 2012, Mitt Romney took 27 percent of the Hispanic vote, 26 percent of the Asian vote, and a barely perceptible 6 percent of the black vote. In that same time period, the overall share of white voters fell from 77 percent to 72 percent, while the percentages of Hispanic, Asian and black voters all ticked upward.

{snip}

{snip} CAP’s next simulation was to grant the Republicans’ 2016 candidate the same level of support from racial and ethnic groups that George W. Bush drew in 2004. This obviously improves the Republican’s chances, but not by as much as you might think. Florida, for example, tilts back into the Republican column, but by less than 1 percent (compared to the 5-point win Bush scored in ’04). Ohio, on the other hand, remains blue, and comfortably so. “For Republicans,” the report concludes, “simply repeating the history of 2004–obtaining significant support among voters of color–will not necessarily mean a win in many swing states, including Ohio and Nevada.”

There are, of course, a bunch of caveats and grains of salt to be had, and the Washington Post’s Aaron Blake lays them all out. And, obviously, elections are not decided by demographics alone. But as it stands, the electoral map already allows for Democrats to lose a few key states and still take the presidency (Obama could have lost Ohio and Florida in 2012 and still been reelected), owing in part to the shift in voter demographics and preferences over the last few election cycles. {snip}

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.
  • MekongDelta69

    “GOP’s ‘White Guy‘ Problem”

    How about:
    Salon‘s mental problem?

    • John Ambrose

      There’s a Twitter account which parodies the lunatics over at Salon called salondotcom. Here are some of their latest faux “headlines”

      -What your reaction to the Saints fan stealing the Bengals fan’s football says about your white privilege.

      -The case for making gender free gluten free gingerbread people cookies.

      -Racism is an important subject to deal with. People who think congress ought NOT to deal with the Redsk*ns name should shut up.

      -We taught our son to be gender neutral. It’s a shame bathrooms aren’t made the same way.

      • Paleoconn

        Excellent!

      • BlueSonicStreak

        The first one. I would immediately believe that one to be real.

      • RationaliseThis

        Satire exposes paradoxes and flaws. In our honesty its a tool we have neglected.

        • Julius Caesar

          Ramzpaul does it well. One of my favorite videos of him is where he pretends to be a high school teacher in a diverse school…or maybe it was superintendent.

  • logwarrior

    Whites are moving towards the GOP. If the GOP can bump up white female numbers there will be no threat from minorities.

    • connorhus

      YA that’s where the White problem really is, not the minority vote it’s the White Female vote that sinks us in racial politics. Although I will sing praise where it is due and the Married White Female vote went mostly for Romney this last time around.

    • Brady

      Asians many follow. Last congressional elections the GOP got the larger share of the Asian vote. In the 80s and 90s Asians voted more Republican than whites did. Those days may be coming back.
      The Dems are going to have demographic problems of their own, because they won’t be able to be all things to all people except whites forever. The only reliable racial demographic the Dems have is blacks, and they’re not even the largest minority anymore. They’re making a terrible PR image for themselves too.

      • DonReynolds

        Very good point.
        The more the Democrats favor blacks (mostly out of habit) the more difficult it will be to keep the even larger pool of minority voters that are hispanic. Jews and Asians are already feeling the sting of party favoritism, college admissions, financial aid, promotions and affirmative action hiring. Since they tend to do well in school, they have a difficult time taking a back seat and settling for less to create “opportunities” for less gifted blacks and hispanics.

        • Kenner

          Asians voted 51% Republican in the midterms, albeit a low turnout.
          After years of implicit anti-Israel leanings by Obama, Jews still voted 65% Democrat.
          Alan Grayson just went on a tear about Republicans being ‘a party of white, Christian men’, dredging up the specter of the dreaded goyish enemy, which seems more real to them than the stats that show their own being mugged, raped and murdered by Obama’s core constituency.
          The Jews will stay left.

    • bilderbuster

      The GOP would get the White vote if they actually had a Pro-White policy and planned on enforcing it!

      • Laura Dilworth

        And wasting time and resources on minority outreach

  • The only “white guy problem” (“white guys” are a problem?) the feckless gop has is that it gets landslide margins from white guys yet does disappointingly little for them.

    • TL2014

      Touché!

  • JackKrak

    If the GOP is the “white party”, doesn’t that by definition make the Dems the “non-white party”? Why does no one label them with that tag?

    • Kenner

      They’re the ‘Black Party’.

      • LACountyRedneck

        The black, brown, Jewish party based on their voters.

  • superlloyd

    Wishful thinking from Salon.

  • Cheri Rodriguez

    After 8 years of Obama, most people in the U.S. (even blacks) are going to be praying for a White guy back in The White House.

    • WR_the_realist

      Don’t bet on it. Blacks will vote for a black Democrat no matter what his policies are. Look at all those black politicians in majority black cities who drive the city into the ground — but they still get elected.

    • ejXinMI

      I’m not so sure. The new mayor of Detroit is white, but it is hard to believe he came by it fair-and-square. Detroit blacks freely elected a white guy as mayor? Not likely. Somebody cooked the books. But, I do not think it will be possible to repeat that on a national level. There are just too many blacks, and they vote solidly Democrat. (Good thing prisoners don’t vote, eh?)

      • John R

        Detroit is a special case. Blacks in that city just got so desperate by conditions that they were willing to vote for anybody for a change. They probably would have voted for the Grand Wizard in that city.

    • TL2014

      You are quite naive, my friend. Quite naive. Recent Rasmussen poll numbers show 51 percent approval!

      • Cheri Rodriguez

        Maybe. But how many black governors have there been in U.S. history? Three? Four? Blacks can get mayors in and maybe a president once every 225 years, but when it comes to the state level it seems that the country still wants Whites running the show.

    • See The Future

      The mostly white Congress and Senate could remove Obama if they wanted to.

    • D.B. Cooper

      No, blacks will always vote for one of their own, no matter how bad it becomes for them. I guess you haven’t learned a thing from Marion Barry, Ray Nagin, etc.

      • Lkoehn

        2 black Detroit mayors went to prison. Blacks are big on ex-convicts as it is a community norm.

  • TruthBeTold

    If you followed the lead up to the last elections you could tell the left was celebrating the end of the white voter. Only they were a bit premature and they were honestly shocked that whites still had a say in the outcome of the election.

    The left is still hoping for the white mans’ ‘last hurrah’.

    • WR_the_realist

      All I have to do is watch MSNBC to see how much the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party hates white people.

    • antiquesunlight

      Yes, I remember clearly. The few non-white people I have on my Facebook were positively floating on a cloud of glee. One of them posted a link to a website called WhitePeopleMourningRomney dot com. It was disgusting.

  • dd121

    This is all the result of the left’s dishonest implementation of identity politics who’s main attribute is hatred for white America.

  • Easyrhino

    The hypocrisy of the media never ceases to astound.

    Every election cycle we hear about what is needed to earn:

    The black vote
    The Jewish vote.
    The Hispanic vote
    The women’s vote
    Etc.

    But if anyone mentioned what it would take to earn the White vote, that person would need to enter the witness protection program.

    For some reason, White’s are denied group interests.

    • anony

      For some reason? Pick from among many.

    • DonReynolds

      It really pains me to see Republican candidates shoot themselves in the foot with their own party base (of white voters) by pandering and begging the politically correct pecksniffs in the media. A good example of this is the willingness of the Republican candidates to step over the Religious Right wing of his own party trying to win the gay and lesbian voters, which he never gets anyway. Another good example are those candidates who pander to blacks and hispanics at the price of many times more voters in their own party, and still fail to win the votes of minorities anyway. John McCain spat in the faces of his own supporters when running for president over the issue of border security and the hispanics did not come to his rescue. Madness.

      • bilderbuster

        McCain never had any intention of winning.

      • BlueSonicStreak

        Wait, when have Republican candidates ever tried to win the gay vote? Baffled here and drawing a blank – in all my years of being a liberal, I don’t recall a Repub making a significant effort in that direction even once. If that happened, nobody gay was actually notified.

        • DonReynolds

          Maybe you have not noticed but there are a surprising number of gay Republicans who have served in Congress. I realize it may seen counter-intuitive to you, but not all gays are Liberal, not all Liberals are Democrat, some blacks are both gay and Republican, and not many Republicans are actually part of the Religious Right.

          We usually only hear about it when one gets arrested, like the one busted by an undercover cop in a truckstop mens room. I believe he was a senator from Nebraska. You can probably do a Yahoo or Google search to read about SOME of them from the past, but they do not tend to advertise their hobby. But I would also say, they are well enough known in the LGBT community as a friendly face. When their vote matters, they will vote on the gay issues….. for which they collect a great deal in campaign contributions.

          • BlueSonicStreak

            The ones that get busted in truck stops have never been out that I’ve noticed, though – have, in fact, usually been shame-faced closet cases – and have typically voted AGAINST gay issues. Not exactly friendly faces to be counted upon. I also don’t think you realize how much the gay community actually disdains those guys.

          • DonReynolds

            I do not think you realize how many of the gay community was exactly the same way (especially the older ones) before they came out of the closet or were outed. Yes, they had rather all gays come out, but they also know that some cannot (for a variety of reasons), and for them there is more understanding than disdain.

          • BlueSonicStreak

            Oh, but there’s a difference between “closeted gay for personal reasons” and a closet case that secretly whores around in bathrooms and then votes anti-gay in public.

      • See The Future

        John McCain is one of the greatest examples of what is wrong with the politicians in this country.

  • WR_the_realist

    That’s why Democrats are even bigger advocates of immigration, both legal and illegal, than Republicans are. When the electorate wouldn’t vote for them, they voted in a new electorate.

    That’s why, as much as I despise many Republicans, I despise the Democrats even more.

  • LeonNJ

    I don’t like Jeb Bush at all, but as of right now, he does seem to be the only one who could win with Hispanics and women by his side.

    • DelmarJackson

      Yes, his brother was our first Mexican president. Jeb will be our first Democrat Lite Mexican president.

    • But then lose the election because millions upon millions of those “problematic” white guys stay home.

    • DonReynolds

      Jeb Bush is a fat white guy. Chris Christie is a fat white guy.
      The women are not impressed by fat white guy politicians.
      If you want the women vote, it has to be someone they could imagine dating.
      We have not had a fat white guy president since the women starting voting in 1920. The last one was Howard Taft, handpicked by another fat white guy, Theodore Roosevelt. Yeah, they were both Republicans.
      (Ever notice how women hate Rush Limbaugh?)

      • Cheri Rodriguez

        I hope this doesn’t mean that all those White women who voted for Obama secretly wanted to date him (a disgusting thought). As for White guys, who gets left out of the “Chicks Only Vote For Potential Boyfriends” theory? Gay guys? Bald guys? Unemployed guys who live at home with mom? Disabled guys? Eh, with that last one I suppose they could pull the sympathy vote.

        • DonReynolds

          I can tell you would be surprised (and disgusted) to learn that a certain amount of the Obama vote was exactly that.

          Bald guys, especially fat bald guys, like Karl Rove, are especially bad for winning the women vote.
          Short guys? You already know about that one.
          Disabled guys? You saw that in the Texas governor race last time. (No sympathy vote, they stayed with Wendy Davis to the end.)
          Unmarried presidents are a rarity in US history, with or without women voting. But even if he is married, he can still act available…. which was the case with Bill Clinton and JFK.

          • Cheri Rodriguez

            Good points. And who knows…maybe back in 1932/1936/1940 there were a lot of women looking at FDR and saying–“Damn, that guy in the wheelchair and leg braces is hot!”

          • DonReynolds

            The American people were not permitted to know about FDR having leg braces or a wheelchair. The press was not permitted to photograph him as being disabled in any way. Some people never knew. But aside from his health problem, he was a tall, good looking man….who was very physically active before he got sick. The press did not report on such things in those days.

          • Cheri Rodriguez

            “Some” people never knew. Most did. As for being physically attractive…uh, no. Not with glasses and a cigarette holder in his mouth.

          • In the age of video, one needs to be relatively photogenic to win.

      • LHathaway

        You forgot Bill Clinton. A lot of women seem to marry fat white guys. I don’t see how they do it. If I were gay, not sure I could. They almost seem to prefer fat guys over more normal guys. Perhaps they feel he will throw his weight around on her behalf? Perhaps they see them as closer to being black, the perfect specimens in their eyes. They are substitute blacks. Then again, a lot of guys get divorced. Who knows why they marry them?

        You made a quite interesting analysis.

        • DonReynolds

          Dear, I would never forget Bill Clinton. I did not mention him because he is not a fat white guy. He is a tall, handsome man who has been popular with the women for decades. I worked for him in his first administration as medical economist. He may still remember my name. He did the last time I met him.

          People marry for all kinds of reasons. We could probably write a multi-volume book series or even a Book-of-the-Month Club offering of the reasons people get married. Could also have a similar series for why people get divorced. Probably just as varied. But it is not often about looks. Some have beautiful money.

        • MikeofAges

          Yes, but. Clinton successfully was able to pretend like he wasn’t fat.

    • hastings88

      Jeb will be a greater traitor to Whites than his brother. He will try even harder to merge Mexico with the U.S., like his own family.

  • Caucasoid88

    Kinda hilarious how Salon and other hysterical finger-wagging liberal rags imply it’s pathetic that the GOP may or may not seek the white vote when Obama received over 90 percent of the black vote, in his second election. How do these frothing children live with such gross hypocrisy and myopia?

  • Pax Romana

    Wasn’t that the plan all along? To turn the country into an anti-white 3rd World Socialist Cesspool, and keep traditional American values from ever seeing the light of day again.

    • TL2014

      Success achieved.

  • DelmarJackson

    I think they are whistling pass the graveyard. Sure, demographics favor democrats long term due to immigration. They overlook what is happening to white voters beginning to vote in blocs the way non whites do. In parts of Philadelphia, you had 100% of blacks vote for Obama, and in some southern states, you have 85% whites vote for Romney. if whites vote in blocs the way non whites do and reduce immigration, and define the democrats as the non white party the way democrats have foolishly tagged the GOP as the white party, then the GOP may survive for a while longer. Frankly, I think the GOP will never be able to understand it can have the voters, or the billionaire globalist donors, not both. I think voters will go to a 3rd party from independents and GOP and democrats if a credible 3rd party forms that is willing to stand up for traditional America.

    • DonReynolds

      If you will look at those states with a significant percentage of non-white population (basically black and hispanic), the first thing you notice is nearly ALL of the whites vote Republican and the Democrat voters tend to be black and hispanic. It is tough to generalize, but I will be so bold as to say that as a state becomes less overwhelmingly white, a greater percentage of the white voters end up in the same party. You can probably come up with any number of good reasons why this is true.

  • Reynardine

    We don’t have a “White Guy” problem. Trying to fix a “White Guy” problem by making a milquetoast white party less white will only lead to faster and greater white displacement. This is not a better endgame than having the GOP become less relevant over time.

    Soon we’ll have to choose from Republican or Democrat angry coloured person. If you vote Republican, they’d chip away at your economy, sending jobs to their “real” country. If you choose Democrat, they’ll chip away at your social standing, giving entitlement to the “real” people they represent. All in the name of “progress” and “fairness.”

  • TL2014

    Is thee any way that demographic decline can be reversed in-house? If us whites suddenly started frenetically making children, at what point would this demographic disaster be averted? How many kids per woman? Has anyone figured this out? Just curious.

    • DonReynolds

      The future of this country is not going to be decided by who has the most children. Our survival is not tied to being able to breed like rabbits. The reason this country is being invaded and pillaged is because the Third World has done precisely that and our leaders (who used to warn of a population bomb) have refused to stop the invasion because they want cheap labor. Why? Because we have actually achieved the Zero Population Growth that everybody said would save the world from starving, and preserve the environment. They did this with contraceptives and abortion, when that does not work. Only the state of Utah has a white birthrate that exceeds the replacement rate, thanks only to the Mormon women.

      • TL2014

        I would say that doing some serious baby making can have a demographic impact. No?

        • DonReynolds

          In the absence of a census, the demographers used to estimate population as fifty times the number of births in a year.
          As recently as 100 years ago, American women AVERAGED 13 births in their lifetime. Some did few or none, so that means there were quite a few that had considerably more than 13. I like to think this would be the natural average for a varied population, living in a rural setting, with an uneven diet and very limited health care services. Sorta like what you might find post-SHTF for many years.
          But to answer your question….no, I do not believe their will be any serious demographic impact without some dramatic changes in our circumstances. No one, certainly not very many, white couples are going to suddenly try to make up for fifty years of low birthrate, thinking they are offsetting the black and hispanic birthrate. That is simply not part of our ethos or lifestyle. Besides, relations between men and women are the worst I have seen in my lifetime.

          • See The Future

            Agreed.

          • Ella

            Both men and women enjoy their freedoms after the invention of birth control pill. The classic question by men in the 80’s seem to be, “Are you taking the pill?” Also, post industrial age has a large impact on size of families leaving farm life.

          • RationaliseThis

            Have you heard of the MGTOW phenomena or men going their own way movement? Makes feminists mad. These men will not commit or invest in women at all. They use celibacy and perhaps internet porn or other means. They just want to enjoy their life. Modern women are just too difficult, costly and hurtful so they avoid contact.

            Traditionally perhaps only half of men got a chance to reproduce.

            In Australia 25% of women never have children whereas in cities it is 34%.

            Men were just as behind the pill as women but I do blame feminism for its antenatalism, anti family, anti male nature.

          • Ella

            No, I have not heard of MGTOW. You have to recall that feminists support “conflict between the sexes” theory and are creating a socially-engineered split, which destroys mating chances.

            To add more problems, both men and women are creating single lifestyles and societies by shrugging off social responsibilities and hard work of raising families. When they figure out the basic purpose of life, in many cases it becomes too late to change their own histories and overall life goals.

      • See The Future

        Very well stated.

    • LHathaway

      No continued Russian bride syndrome or eastern european immigration can prop us up at this point. Whites world wide are stretched thin. The decline cannot be averted in North American, imo. The good news is we’re already overpopulated There are some mid-sized cities in the north west that may be relatively unaffected. Otherwise, it might take us hundreds of years to fully recover. Men and boys have not even begun their marriage strike fully-yet. The most amusing thing might be white women emigrating from the north west when we have a white reservation there. They might have to in order to find husbands.

      • hastings88

        “White reservation”? Gawd, are you some black, militant, white-genocidist? Why do you come to this site, troll?

        • LHathaway

          Face reality. I haven’t seen this much avoidance of reality since hearing of Adolph Hitler giving orders to imaginary armies in the last days of the third reich. Build a time machine. You’d feel right at home.

          • hastings88

            Take your own advice. “White reservations” are not a reality, or a likelihood. It is what you hope for, an imaginary projection of your hatred for whites. We are much more likely to fight–and win our own homeland–than be put on reservations. Then we won’t be feeding parasites like you anymore.

          • LHathaway

            Personally, I hope for racial separation and not reservations for whites (it is interesting to note the very, low, low percentage of non-white population in both Scotland and Wales). I hope for separation in part so as to be able to give a big raspberry salute good-bye. Your attitude about it is your own. I trust most ‘white supremacists’ about as far as I can throw them ( I weight about 80lbs)? You certainly sound like a ‘white supremacist’. It must take a fair amount of work pretending to be stupider than you are. Actually, it was Mark Twain who said, “any dang fool can pretend to be intelligent. It takes someone intelligent to pretend to be stupid”.

    • The Dude

      If we were to bring the fertility rate to 4 children per woman, then our numbers would double in the span of two generations.

      3 children/woman may give us a grace period of many decades, provided that: 1) Hispanic birthrates remain stable or decline; 2) the slow but steady Third-World decline in birthrates continues.

      • RationaliseThis

        I regard a generation to mean less than 20 years, the period a woman’s uterous is fertile.

  • Evette Coutier

    For republicans to win they must take the white female vote. But considering what lying, backstabbing, pitiful excuses for humans they have become, there is no real difference between them and the democrats. It’s all symbolism without substance. Let them go the way of the dodo. They’ve earn the political Darwin award as far as I’m concerned.

    • ViktorNN

      Republicans consistently win the white female vote in national elections.

      • Evette Coutier

        Not in the presidential elections.

        • ViktorNN

          Yes they have. You’re wrong.

          I would post links but Amren doesn’t allow it.

          All you have to do, however, is run a simple search.

          Google, for example, “2012 presidential election white women” and here is what you will find:

          2012
          GOP 56% of white female vote

          2008
          GOP 53% of white female vote

          2004
          GOP 55% of white female vote

          2000
          GOP 50% of white female vote

          1996
          Dems won the white female vote

          1992
          GOP won the white female vote

          1988
          GOP won the white female vote

          1984
          GOP won the white female vote

          1980
          GOP won the white female vote

          Sorry to deflate your “lying, backstabbing, pitiful excuses for humans” description of them. It just doesn’t hold up when it comes to national elections.

          • Evette Coutier

            You are correct. I read the figures for women overall and not specifically white women. We can agree that white women voted between 53 and 56 percent for republicans against Obama. However, those numbers show far too much support among white women for Obama. My characterization of white women who support Obama, just shy of half, is still accurate. They are sad excuses for human beings. But you feel free to defend black loving white women, or men for that matter. You’ll never hear that kind of talk from my lips.

          • ViktorNN

            I think it’s important to point out that a majority of white women vote for the GOP, just as white men do.

            It’s important because in conservative circles there seems to be an assumption that white women are all liberal feminists and “lost” which is plainly not true, just as there seems to be an assumption amongst liberals that white women are allies with non-whites against evil white men – also not true.

            The fact is that white men and white women are already voting in their racial self-interest, at least implicitly. Our goal as racial nationalists is to move this implicit racial connection into explicit and open racial consciousness, pride and solidarity. The majority of white men and white women are already half the way there. These people aren’t our enemies – they’re us!

          • Evette Coutier

            I think that’s a fair statement. I’d be more encouraged if white women voted against Obama at 65 to 70 percent instead of 53 percent. Plus, when Obama was first elected he had a 70 some percent approval rating. Let’s hope those who have lost their faith in Obama have done so for the right reasons.

            I’m still going to disagree with you on one count. Our real enemies are not minorities. They are the whites who have sold our their own for the benefit of minorities. I do some writing for fun. I’m in a writer’s meetup group. We read and critique each other’s writings when we meet. The next setup we will be discussing a woman’s writing who wants to be black. She is writing an autobiography of her life and the core premise is she prefers blacks, wants to marry a black, and wishes she was black. She also notes how she hates whites because of their racism. An intelligent educated white represents a far greater threat to us than your typical stupid and uneducated black slob. The $PLC is an example of how problematic they can be.

            Just an fyi I will not kowtow to this woman at the meetup review because it is politically correct. When she makes her anti-white remarks, I will politely destroy her bull even if it means I am asked to leave the group. We whites should be ashamed for not standing up for ourselves, for allowing ourselves to be subjugated by interiors, and accepting a passive roles in the promotion of our own people.

          • RationaliseThis

            The question is why are White women voting conservative in lower proprtion to White males?

            My estimates
            1 women when young are prone to offering and seeking supportive social networks. This makes sense in that during her fertile years a woman perceives a need for community support.

            2 the feminist movement is essentially left wing and has targeted woman for indoctrination and white men for vilification.

            3 in an all white world social democracy, progressivism and welfare are not particularly hatful but in a mixed race nation these ideas lead to a significant transfer of resources from White to Black and Hispanic.

            3 my opinion only: women tend less to seperate emotion from logic. This is a good thing in thst they are often emotionally more competent but also renders them more vulnerable to emotionalised propagandistic appeals. By about 35 both men and women converge. The emotional competance of the male improves the objectivity of the female improves.

          • Evette Coutier

            I think you are correct with one exception. I don’t see women being as objective as men at any age. All people are emotional. Objectivity is not the norm of human psychology. Women have to fight with a more complex set of hormones up until the pass menopause. Please, male brains on average are more dominant in the frontal cortex, which does not process emotions. It’s a simple fact of biology. It’s also why women make moms, but dad’s can’t. Their brains are not wired to do so. It’s an evolutionary reality that women retain infantile traits so that males will feel protective of them. Women retain infantile voices, weaker body structures, and more emotional brains. This evolved so men would feel protective and they’d be adapted to taking care of babies.

            I’m going to add one more item to your list. Young women voted more for Obama than older married women. It is true that they have a stronger drive to be protected by the state because they don’t have a man at home. But also two other issues are in play. Black males are frequently large and violent. Many young women are attracted to this because it represents alpha male characteristics. They see large violent men as males who can protect them. They often don’t see that it is also these same males will abuse them because they are immature and inexperienced. Also, many women feel motherly towards black because they have been lead to believe that mean old white men have abused them. This incites their materialism.

            I hope this understanding helps you. To get women to break away from their emotionalism concerning blacks, the need to identify them as a personal threat and not alpha male protectors. Additionally, they must not view blacks as victims. So long as they see blacks as victims of white males, mommy will kick in and you will never get them back. No amount of reason or emotional plea will supersede their materialism.

          • See The Future

            I think the point is that 50-60 percent does not cut it. 80-90 percent is what is required.

    • See The Future

      Getting out a large percentage of elegible white women will be key.

      • DonReynolds

        Not if they are going to vote liberal…..which has often been the case.

        • See The Future

          Agree.

  • NoMosqueHere

    Whites are divided; the third worlders are united.

  • Paleoconn

    Fielding a Jeff Sessions, Kris Kobach or even a Rick Santorum (anybody see his recent gem of a speech on immigration?) could be the road back to respectability for the GOP. Among its increasingly impatient White base, at least. A sensible GOP doesn’t need hispanic votes to win. See Sailer, Steve.

    • If Jeff Sessions doesn’t run and if there’s no great ace-in-the-hole candidate, then it looks like my preferred candidate, albeit not enthusiastically, is going to be Rick Santorum. Yes, I did see that, and also I saw the responses that various Republican purported contenders gave to the DC after Obama’s executive order, and Santorum’s came off as the best of the bunch. That said, I think he’s got some issues that he’s got to address. Even then, it would be a big uphill climb.

      • Paleoconn

        At this point, I’m willing to forgive slight Zio leanings of a candidate if they also exhbit true immigration patriotism. Ted Cruz is another. That said Sessions-Kobach would be a dream ticket. KK is a brilliant man. Steve King would be great too. David Brat seems new to the scene, but he looks like president material. Young and photogenic too.

        In a sane country with a patriotic GOP that didn’t risk to railroad such superstars, I’d be a very optimistic voter. But I have hope. And my hope is not in the camps of Christie, Jindal, Rand, Jeb, and other frauds.

        • I’m weird like that. If Jeff Sessions “stands with Israel” all day long, I don’t care, just as long as he stands with the American border more. Jeb Bush’s “standing with Israel” bothers me more even if it’s the same level of “standing with Israel,” because of all the other issues.

    • See The Future

      The MSM has already appointed Jeb Bush.

      • Paleoconn

        The MSM is losing its deathgrip. The dissident right will anoint the next conservative president. The White base is getting fed up of the elites picking their Manchurian candidates for them. It may not happen in 2016, but I’m very hopeful for 2020.

  • DonReynolds

    According to the last Census, 71% of the US population is white and most of the whites vote Republican. But there enough whites in the Democrat party to combine with a majority of black and hispanic voters to (sometimes) win elections. Sometimes does not mean all of the time, there is no permanent Democrat majority, and neither party seems to have candidates that excite even a majority of eligible voters to show up on election day. What does this mean? Elections are won or lost depending on who shows up to vote, not demographics, and not race blocks.

    The Republican party since FDR has been a minority party, meaning that the only way Republicans won elections was if enough Democrats voted for them. (Yes, party unity is a constant problem for Democrats.) The bigger the tent, the more likely it will include people who simply refuse to agree with each other. Right now, the Republicans have their own big tent and party unity problem, specifically…..how to hold together a rough coalition of people who actually despise each other. Libertarians cannot abide the Religious Right wing, open borders Business Roundtable cannot stand the nativists, the NeoCons wear everyone else to a frazzle with their bloodthirsty foreign wars while the ordinary Republican is not interested in Empire and had rather just be isolationist.

    • TL2014

      Good summary!

    • Americaandthewestshouldbewhite

      71% wow, whites better start having pure white babies. That is why I like the Duggars that have 19 pure white kids.

    • lib1

      Non-Hispanic whites made up 62.6% of the population in 2013. I think now that share is down to 61.8%. The Census projects non-Hispanic whites will be a minority in 25-30 years and it’s scary. It doesn’t matter if the GOP has a white guy problem or not. We have a declining population problem and we’re slowly losing our land, culture and values.

      • DonReynolds

        I agree on many of your points, but the white population is not declining. Every year we get a new crop and many of them survive. But our natural increase cannot keep up with the millions of new foreign breeders that the government invites, brings, or allows to remain. We have more whites than ever in history, we just cannot keep up with the invasion, so the percentage of white declines. That can be remedied.

        • lib1

          The Census has said that by 2020-2024 white deaths will outpace white births. We will continue to be a plurality but our share of the population is dropping. I live in a state where whites make up less than 60% of the population.

          What remedies are you implying?

          • DonReynolds

            Thanks for asking.
            If the purpose is to keep this country from being swamped with Third Worlders, then obviously there are two remedies that would work.

            First, stop bringing in Third World populations from all over the world. That means stop the re-settlement of “refugees” (for no other reason) in this country by NGOs and the friggin State Department. These are not illegal aliens. They are brought here with full documentation and automatic benefits.

            Second, those Third World populations in the country illegally must be removed. We can do it the nice way by deporting them or they can be driven out at bayonet point or they can be “encouraged” to self-deport. All three methods would be a good combination.

            If you want more measures, we could start a moratorium on naturalization, boycott those businesses that hire illegal aliens, enforce the current immigration laws, secure the border with a fence or a ditch or minefields to limit access to certain bridges.

          • lib1

            A thorough plan indeed.

          • RationaliseThis

            Fertility rates in the west are very low. For European Whites around 1.2 to 1.6 per woman. The replacement rate is obviously greater than 2.0.

            The period of average practical fertility of a female is less than 20 years: say 16-36.

            Hence a fertility rate of 1.3 (Italy, Germany). Means that only 1.3/2 = 65% remain after 20 years. The only thing that counts is the number of White females of fertile age and how many children they are having. This isn’t ben counting miscegenation.

            I’m thinking we need to get the fertility rate up, and fast. Rad Feminism is highly anti natal and higly liberal/left. It is possibly the lefts greates anti White methodology.

          • DonReynolds

            I very much appreciate your clear thinking.
            What we do not need is a contest with savages over reproduction, and I seriously doubt the white women would be good sports about it anytime soon. We cannot change that part nor should we try to.
            The reason the Third World is HERE is because they got a big head start, overcrowded their own countries, and started dumping their surplus population over our fence.
            I really do not know what would increase the white birthrate in any of the fifty states or even worldwide, nor do I think the solution to overcrowding in the world is to deliberately add more to it.
            The alternative, which is entirely achievable, is some ethnic cleansing, deporting those who we can, and shoot it out with those we cannot deport.
            It does not matter to me if the foreign nations become overcrowded, due to unchecked population growth, until they insist on invading and occupying the land I live on.
            Then we will fight and it will be a fight for survival.
            We need to understand now that everyone will not agree but we do need to do it anyway.

          • RationaliseThis

            While I agree with all of your measures, they are absolutely essential, I have long had an interest in fertility. If we can boost this rate even slightly we buy time. Young girls (younger teenagers, small girls) when surveyed express an interests in having a considerably larger number of children than they actually have. At some point they become discouraged and demoralised. The demoralisation is in part an product feminist ideolgy which quite frankly disparages women who vhoose to focus on family and motherhood instead of carear. In part it is the result of the problem in finding a stable relationship and men with the appropriate attitudes. Feminism is profoundly left wing and profoundly anti White male (hence anti white) and very influential.

            There remain few positive role models of functional families or mothers happy with their brood.

            The high immigration rate has of course lowered wages and the welfarism, affirmitive action had transfered vast resources from White to Hispanic & Black. It has reduced productivity per worker and the quality of US and European products. It has raised the cost of housing and land. Blacks and Hispanics have togethernearly trebled the crime rate. Immagine 1/3rd the cops needed.

            These costs of “diversity” must be enormous. Immagine a country in which the welfare bill, crime rate, income, tax revenue matched that of a Whites rather than black/hispanics.

            Whites coukd and would be able to start a family earlier and have more children. There would be no need to move from unsafe neighbourhoods.

            However my interest is the effect of anti White ideologues on White men and women. Remember some religious grups retain high fertility.

          • DonReynolds

            Yes, the only state where the white birthrate is above replacement is Utah and that being due to Mormon women.

            Any boost in the white birthrate today, merely puts us on the road to nurturing and raising those same children, which could take 20 to 25 years, for those born 9 months from now, and longer for the siblings that follow. We simply do not have that much time to grow another cohort of whites in this country.

            Our opponents have zero delays in their program, opening up the country to invaders who are ALREADY full-grown, yet still young enough to begin dropping fresh new ones (with American citizenship) every nine months. We simply cannot do that, no matter how interesting it might be.

            This is not a fertility contest, it is a foreign invasion and we need to turn back the invaders by every available means.

  • Ed

    Political analysis from Salon, whatever next.

  • D.B. Cooper

    If white guys are a problem GOP, then I will oblige by not voting for you. YOU will tell me that you want my vote the way you think you need the minority vote. Otherwise, you WILL lose…again.

    • See The Future

      Your vote in this country is worth absolutely nothing. It matters not which party is pulling the strings. The result is the same. We are as much communist as the old USSR but most people don’t realize it.

  • John R

    This article has me worried. Maybe it is already too late. Our only hope is for all Whites to become a voting bloc just as blacks are.

  • Vito Powers

    The jacka*s GOP aren’t attracting the aging baby boomers with their calls for Entitlement Reform aka scaling back Social Security and Medicare.

    Of course, we know Republicans are too spineless to criticize programs like the Earned Income Tax credit or the Child Care Tax Credit. No, they truly seem to have a death wish when it comes to white voters. They seem completely unresponsive to White People concerns, especially on Immigration.

  • MikeofAges

    The issue for the Democrats is slippage, that’s what I term. A small decline in the reliable Democratic vote among white voters, a small decline among black voters, a small decline among Hispanics and a small decline among Asian means disaster for the donkey party.

  • The popular governor of an important swing state will probably be able to make a lot of noise. But he’ll be making it without my help. He was one of a foursome of 2016 contenders who went to Vegas to kiss Sheldon Adelson’s ring late last year, the others being Scott Walker, Krispy Christie and Jeb Bush. Which means no borders, open immigration.

  • Lkoehn

    Is this referring to the DemoRATZ importing millions of illegals to live on the DemoRATZ slave plantation where they get benefits for voting for DemoRATZ? They fear blacks leaving the plantation as more and more become educated and educate their children and have to replenish those lost votes. Who better then ignorant, poor, poorly educated foreigners? If only they can make them citizens.

  • Burt Wonderstone

    White Republicans in Red States are the Biggest Food Stamp “Moochers” in the Country…

    The city holding the most beneficiaries of the SNAP program is 99.22% white
    and 95% Republican. Owsley County, Kentucky earns the lowest median
    household income in the country, but they are the most prolific
    government-takers in U.S. existence.

    • Robert Smith

      What is the violent crime rate? We are a nation of moochers. Look at our national debt.

    • Dave West

      No they’re not, only 13% of people on means tested welfare identify as Republican.

      Nearly one-third of all blacks are on welfare, about 20% of hispanics, and 5% of whites.

      White people (republican or democrat) are not even the largest group of welfare users in raw numbers. Go back to your liberal fantasy.

    • OS-Q

      Pew Research found that Democrats are twice as likely to have used food stamps in their lifetimes. I don’t have as much of a problem with food stamps as other welfare types, but you shouldn’t make claims based on a impoverished low-population rural county that is actually about closer to 80% Republican

  • This claim and the numbers used are patented nonsense – at least not yet. Add the wives of Blue Collar White Men, and, at a minimum, 20 million votes are available. My count is closer to 40 million. These families do not vote and blame both parties for abandoning them – by not ending affirmative action, and other race laws, that inordinately impact them. They also lack the money to garner political attention. They are the last considered in EEOC employment and college admissions – if they are considered at all.

    Most elections are won by <5 million. If these families were courted and promised an end to AA and other race laws that defy Constitutional liberties, a large number of them would vote. That might off-put some Progressive Republicans, but the voting gains, permanently, favor conservatives. A mandate from 20 million new voters would terrify Democrats and the press. They would face a perpetual political insignificance if they refused to end their operating tactic – buy votes with give-aways. Programs like Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback" – would have large support.

    From wiki – "…1954: Teams were focused on quick processing and deportation, as
    planes were able to coordinate ground efforts more quickly and increase
    mobility… "

    "…While the operation would include the cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago, its main targets were border areas in Texas and California. Overall, there were 1,078,168 apprehensions made in the first year of Operation Wetback, with 170,000 being captured from May to July 1954. The total number of apprehensions would fall to just 242,608 in 1955, and would continuously decline by year until 1962."

    Today's technology would increase identification and deportations. The message sent by adopting these actions would encourage other illegals to leave. The same critics who opposed the Un-American House actions criticized the program – but it worked.

    Moving these men to employment will add competence to American businesses and government agencies. The votes added by this group will strengthen the Political Will of the spineless. Ending programs that assure incompetence and reward mediocrity will elevate efficiencies and output. Repealing 50 years of counterproductive, vote buying, government policies becomes a viable option. This must happen soon, otherwise the outcome predicted @ Salon gains weight.

  • RationaliseThis

    Yes, they are controlling both sides of the debate. It’s a guided Hegellian process: thesis, antithesis leading to synthesis.