Why is Romney Losing? Because Immigration Is Electing A New People

A very interesting post from www.Vdare.com about why Mitt Romney could lose. This follows this post about elections in Texas.This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read this very interesting book HERE.

Why is Romney Losing? Because Immigration Is Electing A New People


http://www.vdare.com/articles/why-is-romney-losing-because-immigration-has-elected-a-new-people

By Peter Bradley
Ominously, although national presidential polls show a neck-and-neck race for the Presidency, or even a slight lead for GOP presidential nominee-presumptive Mitt Romney, the Electoral College maps tell a much grimmer story. According to the CNN electoral map projections, Obama leads the race by 247 to 206, with 270 delegates needed to win. Karl Rove’s electoral map shows Obama up 194 to 101 for Romney.

The fact that formerly deep red states like North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado are now up for grabs indicates that Romney has an uphill battle ahead of him.

But how can this be? Unemployment has been over 8 percent for 41 straight months and stands at 8.2%. The economy is growing at an anemic 1.5 percent. Deficits and debt are at an all time high with no end in sight. The price of gas routinely hits over $4 a gallon.

By any fair measure, Obama has been a failure on the economy. And don’t Americans vote primarily on the basis of the economy?

This simplistic argument gives hope to conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. He expects (or perhaps just hopes for) a 1980-like scenario where Reagan vaulted ahead of Carter in the final days of what had been a close race.

But the American electorate has changed quite a bit in the last 32 years.

Some pundits still don’t realize how much. Thus National Review’s Jim Geraghty starts off his 1980 vs. 2012 column (July 25, 2012) promisingly by noting “It’s a demographically different country.”

But he then informs us that the country was 79.5 percent white in 1980 while it is 72 percent white today. He concludes: “So if the racial demographic change amounts to only a small shift in favor of the Democrats, what societal trend has helped them?”

From there it is all downhill, as Geraghty [Email him] stresses the lack of a foreign policy crisis and the spread of early voting in sealing Romney’s doom.

Of course, non-Hispanic whites were actually down to 63.7% in the 2010 Census and are certainly less in 2012.

I went through the bother of registering for NRO’s online comments section and sent in a polite correction on Geraghty’s elementary error. Of course, it was never posted.

Far from causing a “small shift” to the Democrats, the racial transformation of the U.S. caused by over-immigration is the only major reason why the GOP is sailing into oblivion.

In 2008, McCain won 55 percent of the white vote and lost by a near-landslide. In 2000, Bush won 55 percent of the white vote and squeaked by with a win. Shouldn’t that tell Geraghty and other Conservatism Inc. operatives that something is going on?

The racial breakdown of the 2008 presidential race was as follows:



Whites 55% to 43% for McCain

Blacks 95% to 5% for Obama

Hispanics 67% to 31% for Obama

Asians 62% to 35% for Obama

The most recent polls show the same fatal trend in 2012: only whites support Romney in great numbers. Almost 90 percent of Republican votes come from whites. And Romney has yet to crack the 61% support of whites he likely needs to win. (It’s eminently doable—the GOP got 60% in its Congressional sweep in 2010).

Geraghty’s ignorance of the impact of demographics is unforgiveable, given that the magazine for which he writes once (pre-purge!) published a cover story that accurately predicted what would happen to Republican electoral prospects given unchecked immigration:

Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein presented the facts about the declining GOP majority in a National Review cover story in June 1997 [Electing a New People]. They crunched the numbers and predicted that 2008 would be the first year in which the demographic wave would catch up with Republicans. After that the prospects for electing Republican presidents would just get worse. They wrote:



Demography is destiny in American politics. This point was made brilliantly almost exactly thirty years ago, by Kevin Phillips in The Emerging Republican Majority (1968). In the shadow of the Democrats' long-dominant "Roosevelt coalition," and amid the wreckage and recrimination of the disastrous Goldwater defeat, Phillips boldly predicted a generation of Republican victories based on the persistent but dynamic pattern of ethnic politics. He has been triumphantly vindicated.

But the Republican hour is rapidly drawing to a close. Not because the "Phillips Coalition" of the West and the South, of the middle class and urban blue-collar voters, is breaking up in the traditional manner. Instead, it is being drowned—as a direct result of the 1965 Immigration Act, which ironically became effective in the year Phillips's book was published. Nine-tenths of the immigrant influx is from groups with significant—sometimes overwhelming—Democratic propensities. After thirty years, their numbers are reaching critical mass. And there is no end in sight.



The fact that so few conservative and Republican pundits even know the facts of the demographic revolution is remarkable, given how thoroughly VDARE.com and others have documented this issue for over a decade.

The conservative rank and file seem to be even worse. Comments to Geraghty’s article hardly mentioned demographics. Most responders just bickered back and forth about whether Romney could be another Reagan.

But the blinders may be lifting. Last week, Rush Limbaugh approvingly read Pat Buchanan’s entire column to his audience on how immigration has swept away the GOP in California and promises to do the same thing nationwide.

Buchanan was as incisive as ever. He wrote:



Race, age and ethnicity are at the heart of the problem. And they portend not only the party's death in California, but perhaps its destiny in the rest of America.

Consider. Almost 90 percent of all Republican voters in presidential elections are white. Almost 90 percent are Christians. But whites fell to 74 percent of the electorate in 2008 and were only 64 percent of the population. Christians are down to 75 percent of the population from 85 in 1990. The falloff continues and is greatest among the young.

Consider ethnicity. Hispanics were 15 percent of the U.S. population in 2008 and 7.4 percent of the electorate. Both percentages will inexorably rise.

Yet in their best years, like 2004, Republicans lose the Hispanic vote 3-to-2. In bad years, like 2008, they lose it 2-to-1. Whites are already a minority in California, and Hispanics will eventually become the majority.


Say goodbye to the Golden Land.

The only serious counter to the demographic deluge facing Republicans: the Sailer Strategy—which is basically that the GOP should rally to its white base by appealing to its interests. Central to the Sailer Strategy: a time-out on immigration to stop the demographic displacement of whites.

Of course, the GOP elite has ignored this advice. It continues blindly pandering to Hispanics and others--who will not vote for it in significant numbers no matter what it does.

In a 2008 article for VDARE.com called “End of the Party?” I wrote:



Here is a scary thought: even if Obama turns out be as inept as Jimmy Carter, we might be stuck with him for 8 years.



Obama has indeed turned out to be inept, but he may be reelected anyway. If he gets a second term, Republicans, Conservatism Inc. and conservatives (not the same thing) will finally have to confront the demographic tidal wave that demoralized (if not destroyed) them in California and is now is spreading nationwide.

The only alternative will be partisan (and national) extinction.

Peter Bradley (email him) writes from Washington D.C.

All I know is what I read in the papers about immigration

A very interesting post from http://isteve.blogspot.com/ about Barack Obama's polling numbers after his amnesty edict. This follows this post about Arizona's 1070. . This follows this post about Barack Obama's Amnesty Edict. This follows this post about the Black Caucus hurting Black Americans with their immigration stand. This follows this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! For more that you can do to get involved click HERE and you can read this very interesting book HERE!

All I know is what I read in the papers




We heard over and over again that Obama's Administrative Amnesty was a political masterstroke, but now the polls are finally in and the Washington Post reports "No Immigration Bounce for Obama." It turns out that -- What do you know? -- immigration is a bad issue for Obama, especially in swing states (in red above -- and, no, I don't know what the right half of the graph means.)





What does make a difference is the sheer racial change created by immigration. If the U.S. still had the demographics of 1980, Obama would likely lose as badly as Carter. As brilliant GOP strategic thinkers like Rove, Bush, and McCain argued, therefore the Republicans should speed up demographic change.

Forget the TEA Party- the DEMOCRATS are having the CIVIL WAR!!!!!

A timely post from www.vdare.com  about the Civil War in the DEMOCRATIC PARTY as opposed to the much covered one on the Republican side. This follows this post about the border with Mexico and the Falcon Lake murder and this post which shows that there are 30,000 openly illegal immigrants in the border town of El Paso. For more interesting stories like this click here to follow this blog.



Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…A Lot Of Problems For Democrats (Richly Deserved)

By Steve Sailer




[Also See: The Balkanization of Barack's Party, by Patrick J. Buchanan]



Fifty two weeks ago, I pointed out that the Democrats’ winning 2008 strategy–positioning Barack Obama to blacks as the black candidate, to Asians and Hispanics as the minority candidate, and to whites as the postracial candidate–did not make for a long-term stable political strategy. To quote me: "A black-led four-race coalition is an inherently fragile thing." [Sailer Strategy Supplement: Rebrand Democrats As The Black Party, October 04, 2009]



Now I have to congratulate me. Subsequent electoral events in the heart of the political universe–the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia–are proving these inherent fragilities.



I was recently asked by a political savant: How could the Republicans survive in the future when the electorate is significantly more nonwhite? I replied: "How do they survive in the South today?" The answer, of course: by winning a larger share of the white vote–just as Democrats win a huge share of the black vote all across the country.



He briefly expressed surprise at this concept, then conceded that this, indeed, is how things work in the largest region of the country.



But how enthusiastic, he asked, will the growing number of non-black minority voters be about a Republican Party that wins a large fraction of white votes?



"How enthusiastic will Asians and Hispanics be about a Democratic Party over which blacks feel increasingly proprietary?" I responded.



What we might laughingly call the Republican brain trust has been terrified that, in the competition for Asian and Hispanic votes, the GOP might be seen as the White Party. But the downside for the Democrats of being seen as the Black Party are less discussed, although they are potentially much worse. After all, immigrants had their reasons for moving to a white-run country like the U.S. rather than to a black-run country like Haiti.



No doubt immigrant ethnic elites will align with the Democrats. But that doesn’t mean their putative followers will vote the way they are told. With Asians and Hispanics, there’s always a high likelihood that they just won’t bother to vote.



Case in point: Political trends in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area–of special interest since it represents a Best Case Scenario for Obama Era Democrats.



As imperial and economic power has been consolidated in the federal government since the 1930s, the Washington metropolitan area, long reviled by foreign ambassadors as a humid, dull backwater, has grown vastly in wealth and talent. For example, the DC Metro Area now leads the country in percentage of residents with college degrees (47 percent), well ahead of Silicon Valley with 43 percent. (Riverside, CA is last in the U.S. with 19 percent.)



In theory, the region should be a Democratic electoral utopia. Almost everybody is either a government employee or the relative or neighbor of a government employee. There’s a large, politically sophisticated black population, including one of the country’s biggest black middle classes. Wealth has attracted a large number of immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.



Moreover, the economy has been relatively strong in the Washington area. (See the September 30, 2010, article in the Washington Business Journal, Washington job growth third-best in nation. by Jeff Clabaugh) So the Democrats’ current all-purpose excuse that they are just experiencing a little in-flight turbulence is less applicable here.



And yet … things aren’t working out quite so well in the Washington area as Democratic strategists would figure.



The first regional symptom appeared in November 2009. The state of Virginia, which had given 53 percent of its vote to Obama the year before, suddenly elected Republican Bob McDonnell governor with 59 percent. The white share of votes went up from 70 percent in 2008 to 78 percent in 2009, and their devotion to the GOP increased from 60 percent to 67 percent. Non-black minorities dropped from 10 percent to 6 percent of the votes.



Well, okay, that’s Virginia, a traditionally Republican state. But what about enlightened Maryland?



A reader recently alerted me to trends in Montgomery County, Maryland, just north of D.C., home to Chevy Chase and other elegant suburbs. It’s the eighth wealthiest county in the country and perhaps the best educated: 29 percent of adults claim advanced degrees. Obama won 71.5 percent of the vote in 2008. By 2009, the population was down to 52 percent non-Hispanic white (It’s 18 percent black, 16 percent Hispanic, 14 percent Asian).



Montgomery County is Democratic Nirvana.



Or it ought to be–except that as it gets more diverse, it gets less engaged with public affairs. The reader pointed me to a September 16, 2010 post in the Maryland Political Watch blog, On Montgomery County’s Plummeting Turnout. Even in this extremely politicized locale, turnout in the September 14th Maryland primary dropped to a new record low of only 15 percent of voting age residents. Montgomery County Democrats just couldn’t be bothered to turn out and vote in 2010–especially in nonwhite districts.



Finally, there’s the District of Columbia itself, where the recent mayor’s race disillusioned many white liberals. And there sure are a lot of them in D.C. The 2008 exit poll had Obama winning 86-12 in Washington … among whites!



So Washington D.C. features the most liberal whites in captivity. Yet, as the acrimonious D.C. mayoral election of September 14th illustrated, the white-black political division within the city is rising to another peak.



First, some background: the Constitution makes Congress the ultimate authority in the District.



During the Kennedy Administration, Alabama governor George Wallace would taunt Jack and Bobby for demanding more black electoral power in Southern states than the Kennedys were willing to allow in D.C., where they lived. Wallace challenged JFK:



"I think the American people should have a right to look at the city of Washington bein’ controlled by its local inhabitants, and therefore, because I would just like to see what would happen, I think you ought to have home rule."[Wallace, By Marshall Frady(1968) P. 167]



The federal leadership, which had to work in D.C., however, was in less of a hurry to carry out that experiment. Congress didn’t take Wallace up on his challenge until December 24, 1973 when it passed the District of Columbia Home Rule Act allowing for limited local governance. The first District of Columbia mayor was the aptly named Walter Washington, who took office on January 2, 1975.



Generally, the first generation of black mayors in black majority cities tended to be cautious, respectable souls, like Tom Bradley of Los Angeles (1973-1993). But they were soon followed by the "race men", most famously Marion Barry, who was elected mayor of D.C. in 1979.



Barry was prevented from running for a fourth term by his 1990 arrest for smoking crack. He had been set up by the FBI and local police who got it all on videotape.



Whether this notorious event could be considered a coup by the federal government to rid itself of a troublesome mayor is one of those questions that isn’t discussed in polite circles. D.C. voters, however, felt strongly enough about it to return Barry to the Mayor’s office in 1994.



The Feds put in place a financial control board in 1995 to keep Barry from running amok. Moreover, federal agencies have long been expanding their departmental police forces, especially after 9/11 in the name of fighting terrorism. The number of uniformed men with guns on the streets of D.C. increased and crime started to fall.



The crack wars have died down and the crime rate has dropped since Barry’s heyday. So the white share of the D.C. population began to rise again. Blacks with good government jobs had long been leaving for the suburbs. Immigrants, including Africans, whom hospitality employers found generally more amenable than African-Americans, increasingly squeezed out D.C.’s black underclass. (Compare the trajectories of Washington and Baltimore in recent years.)



By the last decade, D.C. was becoming among the most fashionable destinations for young white singles. But, once they stopped being single, who could afford to stay in D.C. rather than move to Montgomery or another suburban county?



The central complaint of young white liberals became D.C.’s schools, which were not only full of black students, but were administered by black bureaucrats for the benefit of black bureaucrats. D.C. whites compared the local black-run public school system to Chicago and New York, where Mayors Richie Daley and Michael Bloomberg had seized control of the schools and installed dynamic white administrators, Paul Vallas and Joel Klein, respectively, to shake up the systems. Publicly, nobody ever quite put it in terms quite that blunt—everybody hand-waved about "bad schools"—but it was hard to avoid thinking that way.



Let’s do the math. Say you are typical nice white engaged couple in D.C., one with a federal job, the other with a media job. You wouldn’t dream of sending your future kids to a mostly black school after puberty, but you think that public education ought to get them through K-5. If D.C., however, can’t provide even decent public elementary schools, though, that comes right out of your net worth. Now, Sidwell Friends, where the Obamas send their children, costs $31,000 per year. But, say, you could find a low end private school charging only $12,000 annually. Well, six years times two children times $12,000 equals $144,000.



Ouch.



Yet if D.C. public elementary schools improved enough so that lots of other nice white people like you become willing to send their kids to them, not only would you save $144,000 in private school tuition, but your property would appreciate in value–because now your condo comes with "good schools"!



Not surprisingly, the national press was excited in 2007 when new D.C. mayor Adrian Fenty, a yuppie black, appointed as school chancellor the energetic and ambitious Korean-American Michelle Rhee. (She’s the heroine of the current much-lauded documentary Waiting for "Superman.") If Rhee could actually clean out the Augean Stables of the D.C. schools, she could literally provide many in the national press with a financial windfall. So when she fired a large number of teachers for underperforming, the white press was ecstatic.



Black voters were not ecstatic with Rhee, however. According to Paul Schwarzman and Chris L. Jenkins of the Washington Post in How D.C. Mayor Fenty lost the black vote - and his job [September 18, 2010]:



"...blacks also see the school system as a primary employer, providing jobs to thousands of teachers, school bus drivers, administrators and secretaries. When Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee laid off hundreds of teachers, many blacks saw … an assault on economic opportunity."



So in the 2010 Democratic primary, Fenty was defeated by veteran black city councilman Vince Gray 54-44:



"Fenty won 53 of the city's majority-white census tracts but only 10 of those that are predominantly black. Gray, in contrast, captured 108 majority-black census tracts and just five that are majority-white…"



The Washington Post asked its readers on September 16: "Should she stay or should she go?" A commenter calling himself kentonsmith vividly expressed the black community’s attitude:



"Rhee got her overrated fame. Now...scam!!! Scat!! …



"She's a consultant, folks. Nothing more....she just happens to be Asian; something we haven't seen before, and folks think that means she has created the "Suzuki Method" or something. It's amazing how much credit a person can get for firing Black professionals. I mean...the chick fires Black folks and ends up on the cover of TIME magazine as courageous?"



This black-led four-race coalition idea … it’s still got a few kinks to work out, doesn’t it?



The Republicans should despair less over how they can survive and think more about how they deserve to survive.



[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]

GOP Strategy?

Here is a potential strategy for the GOP proposed by Steve Sailer of www.vdare.com! Comment if you'd like!!

Even If Immigration Continues, The Sailer Strategy Could Still Win It For The GOP In 2050
By Steve Sailer
The central question about the long-term future of the Republican Party is—does the Republican Party have a future?
The demographic changes unleashed by post-1965 immigration policies inexorably work to benefit Democrats, as Peter Brimelow and Ed Rubenstein pointed out in their National Review cover story Electing a New People back in1997. (Those were the days! After William F. Buckley purged the magazine of patriotic immigration reformers, Brimelow and Rubenstein updated their analysis in the Hudson Institute’s magazine American Outlook in 2000.)
Brimelow and Rubenstein made three points:
a static point: in American politics, race is destiny—the races vote systematically differently and these differences are very slow to change;
a dynamic point: the major parties’ share of the overall vote sways back and forth according to political conditions, and the proportion they get of each race’s vote sways back and forth in parallel (but the differences between the races remain roughly the same);
an immigration point: immigration policy is shifting America’s racial balance toward minorities, and therefore the ability of the Republican Party to win national elections is being steadily reduced.
Brimelow and Rubenstein’s conclusion in 1997: the GOP should move to cut off immigration.
Instead, under George W. Bush, the GOP did exactly the opposite, although Bush’s amnesty efforts ultimately failed.
Nevertheless, the trend that Brimelow and Rubenstein identified was undeniable. Thus, according to the gold standard Census Bureau survey of more than 50,000 households immediately after each election, the non-Hispanic white share of the vote declined slowly from 84.9 percent in 1988 to 79.2 percent in 2004.
Then the white share fell off a cliff, down to 76.3 percent in 2008.
The reason for this sudden slump: turnout. In 2008, minorities surged to the polls to vote for Obama. Simultaneously, white turnout as a share of white adult citizens was down from the level of 2004.
Not surprisingly, the black turnout rate as a share of eligible black voters was up from 60 to 65 percent. But even more interestingly, other minorities, who are less politicized than blacks, were excited by Obama’s candidacy too. Among citizens, Asian turnout was up from 45 to 47 percent of eligible Asian voters, and Hispanic turnout increased from 47 to 50 percent of eligible Hispanic voters.
The more marginal white voters tend to vote Republican if they get motivated enough to show up at the polls. The opposite is true for the more marginal minority voters—they tend to vote Democratic.
At a conceptual level, there are two ways the GOP can stay alive:

The conventional wisdom says that the GOP must start converting a fast-growing immigrant group, such as Hispanics—by, say, promoting amnesty for illegal immigrants and zero down payment mortgages to boost minority homeownership.
Oh, wait, that has been the strategy of George W. Bush, Karl Rove and John McCain. How’s that working out, by the way?

But there is an alternative, more obvious strategy that hasn’t been widely discussed:
The GOP could raise white turnout and win a larger share of the white vote.
Of course this means the GOP would have to advocate (and then perhaps actually implement) policies that, you know, do something for its natural (white) base.
The obvious example: cutting immigration. This would not merely benefit whites by, for example, reducing workplace competition, but it would also (whaddya know) halt the immigration-driven demographic deterioration in the GOP’s electoral position.
It’s so rational that it apparently can’t be discussed in respectable Beltway circles.

VDARE.COM calls strategy #2 the “Sailer Strategy”.
How The Sailer Strategy Could Win California
GOP Wins With Sailer Strategy!
GOP’s Southern (=Sailer) Strategy Rises Again. Actually, It’s Never Been Down.
Sailer 1, Stupid Party Strategists 0
Jesse Helms: The Sailer Strategy Victorious

Even before the Supreme Court handed George W. Bush the 2000 election, I pointed out in VDARE.com: GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote.
“If Dubya had garnered 57% instead of just 54% of whites, he would have cruised to an Electoral College landslide of 367 to 171.”
Despite all the subsequent hogwash from Karl Rove about his minority outreach strategy, the plain albeit unreported fact was that the GOP triumphs in 2002 and 2004 followed this game plan. GOP House candidates won 59 percent of the white vote in the 2002 off year election and Bush took 58 percent in the Presidential election of 2004.
However, the Republicans' relatively strong showings among whites in those two elections were driven much less by any coherent platform intended to benefit the base than by post-9/11 appeals to their patriotism. My analysis of the lost 2002 exit poll results showed that:
“Whites were more interested in foreign-affairs issues than blacks or Hispanics. One out of five whites said the issue that mattered most in determining their votes was either terrorism or Iraq, compared to one out of ten Hispanics, and one out of 25 blacks.”

By 2006, though, the Bush-Rove-McCain Grand Strategy of
Invite the World
Invade the World
In Hock to the World

was running out of gas. And, in 2008, the Housing Bubble inflated by Bush’s 2002 plan to win over Hispanic voters by creating 5.5 million more minority homeowners via debauching traditional credit standards backfired catastrophically.
In 2006 in California, 56 percent of all home purchase mortgage dollars had gone to minorities. And in the subsequent mortgage meltdown, minorities accounted for the great bulk of defaulted dollars in California. A study by economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve of 239,101 mortgages issued in California during the Housing Bubble reported:
“We also find that race has an independent effect on foreclosure even after controlling for borrower income and credit score. In particular, African American borrowers were 3.3 times as likely as white borrowers to be in foreclosure, whereas Latino and Asian borrowers were 2.5 and 1.6 times respectively more likely to be in foreclosure as white borrowers.”[ Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California:The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown,by Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, November 26, 2008]
In other words, the Republican Establishment wasted eight years, while the party’s position was deteriorating demographically because of mass immigration, on minority outreach programs like tacitly encouraging illegal immigration and bad borrowing.
The result of all this cleverness was that the GOP was in even worse shape going into the 2008 election. Add in well-deserved blame for economic collapse and McCain’s themeless and politically correct campaigning, and Obama unsurprisingly won 365-173 in the Electoral College.
As I’ve shown above, McCain’s share of the white vote, 55 percent, was relatively weak, and white turnout was down.
Worse, in terms of the Electoral College, white Republican voters were over-concentrated in Great Plains, Great Basin, and Southern states.
But I’ve built the same kind of Electoral College model as I did in 2000. This time, it shows McCain could have eked out a 271-267 victory if he had gotten just five more percentage points of the white vote in each state—and if whites had showed up at the polls at the same rate as in 2004.

With just those two changes, McCain would have picked up Florida, Indiana, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.
It’s striking that one can even dream up a path to victory for a candidate as feckless as John McCain was in 2008!

Recently, the bloggers Cold Equations and One STDV looked at the Census Bureau’s 2050 population projections, and in effect tried to update the 1997 Brimelow-Rubenstein forecast of the partisan tilt of the playing field in the 2048 and 2052 Presidential elections, assuming the GOP garners the same share of the vote within each race as in this decade. Upon that base, I built a model with a few more factors, such as age and citizenship differences.
The result: If—as in some time-loop nightmare—we just refought the 2008 election over and over, mere demographic change alone would propel the Democrats from 53 percent last year to 59 percent by mid-century.
That is, if the GOP keeps doing what it did in 2008, the country will become a more or less one-party regime—just like the President’s chosen hometown of Chicago. And that might be the best case scenario. Think Detroit. Or New Orleans.
And yet the GOP’s plight is not hopeless. Looking at my statistical model of the 2048-2052 elections: if
the GOP’s share of the white vote grows from 55 percent to 70 percent; and
white turnout returns to the level seen in 1992 (during Ross Perot’s insurgent run),
then, all else being equal, GOP candidates would still win in the middle of the 21st century. The party would get a 50.5 percent to 49.5 percent majority in the popular vote in 2052.

To put that in current perspective, about one third of Obama’s white voters would have had to switch to Republican by 2052.
That certainly wouldn’t be easy.
But does anybody have a better plan? (Other than an immigration moratorium NOW?)
In future columns, I will examine how it can be done.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His new book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S "STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE", is available here.]