Romney's White Share Fell Short Of 2010, So He Lost

A very interesting post from www.VDare.com analyzing the election. This follows this post about looting in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.  This follows this post about a race hoax at U.T. Austin. This follows this post about free phones for welfare recipients. This follows this post about Emmit Till. This follows this post about the likelihood of urban warfare in the U.S. and this about violent Flash Mobs which can result in activities such as Knockout King. You can read a very interesting book HERE.

Romney's White Share Fell Short Of 2010, So He Lost




http://www.vdare.com/articles/romney-white-share-falls-short-of-2010

 By Peter Brimelow on November 7, 2012
Only one metric really matters in the close 2012 Presidential race: according to CNN's exit polling (scroll down), Mitt Romey's share of the white a.k.a. American vote was just 59%, for a twenty-point lead over Obama among whites. That's at the high end of the mediocre post-Reagan range, and four points above the hapless John McCain in 2008, but just not enough—as VDARE.com repeatedly remarked during the campaign as we prised white share data out of relectant MSM polls. (Counting is not complete as I write this, and the Pacific Coast results may reduce Romney's white share and some other details).



In comparison, the Congressional GOP got a 60% white share in 2010. Ronald Reagan got a 64% white share in 1988. George W. Bush won, narrowly, with a 58% white share in 2004, but of course the electorate is shifting a point or two against the GOP each election cycle because of America's ongoing post-1965 immigration disaster, supported by Bush, McCain—and Romney. (More white share comparisons here).



While we're on the subject, CNN is estimating that Latinos, about whom we will be hearing so much, cast just 10% (probably high) of the vote in 2012—vs. 72% for whites. Romney reportedly got 27% of Hispanics, which is at the low end of the long-established traditional GOP range. But note the high end is only 40% i.e. the difference is just over one percent of the overall votes cast. The MSM fixation on the Hispanic vote makes no sense, except as deliberate disinformation. The real target in American politics: the white vote, especially the Northern working class.



This is all too clear in the case of Ohio, whose loss was the death blow to Romney. CNN reports he lost the state by just two percentage points, 50-48. But he only got 57% of the white vote, for a mere fifteen point lead over Obama among whites. And whites were 79% of the Ohio electorate. Simply by reaching his national average among Ohio whites, Romney would have won.



Even more absurdly, CNN reports that Romney lost Iowa 47-52—and that he only got 51% of the white vote, for a mere four-point lead over Obama. Whites constitute 93% of the Iowa electorate.



For immigration patriots, there is disappointing news in the Senate results, but Numbers USA's ever-cheerful Roy Beck is pointing out that key immigration patriots in the House survived, including Reps. Steve King and Lou Barletta.



And the fact is that if Mitt Romney had been elected he would probably have gone for some form of amnesty and certainly for an increase in skilled immigration—and the craven GOP Congressional leadership would probably have gone along.



I suggested last week that this would ultimately have discredited the GOP and led to the creation of a truly patriotic Third Party. But it would have been a very painful few years. Now the instinct of the GOP will be to oppose.



You would think, also, that the instinct of the GOP (in its role as "Generic American Party") would be to save its own skin, and of course the country, by abandoning its bland economism and acting to end the mass immigration of non-traditional, hostile groups who now amount to an "Anti-America" that threatens to displace the historic American Nation.



You would think this, but the GOP has been very slow to get the message. The 2012 Election is another step on a long road.