Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Another reason to support Calexit

With the caveats about the reliability and precision of exit polling data kept in mind, consider that Hispanics went from 10% to 11% of the national electorate between 2012 and 2016, an increase of about 10%. In California, Hispanics went from 22% to 31% between 2012 and 2016, an increase of about 40%. Some 30% of the nation's total Hispanic population lives in California.

That means that California alone accounted for the entire increase in nationwide Hispanic turnout between 2012 and 2016. Solely accounted for it and then some, to be precise--the numbers actually suggest that Hispanic turnout in the other 49 states modestly declined between 2012 and 2016.

We have seen the future and it is, without a significant change of course, California.

Here's to hoping that the golden state acts as a window into the future on another thing--secession.

The most probable path I'd conceived of up to this point was through Texit. Texas exits the union, the electoral college immediately becomes unwinnable for Republicans, and a secession cascade is triggered.

Well, a similar dynamic is in play with a Calexit except that the blue states are the ones that start bailing. Hasta la vista, baby.

8 comments:

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Here's hoping. We would definitely need to build a wall around California of course because in a matter of a few years (if that), they will realize what a mistake it was to secede and then we will have millions of people trying to escape.

The best part of course would be the numerous virtue signalling leftists who would be proud to be a part of the California Republic. A wave of SWPLs who are utterly unemployable from across the nation flooding into the new country. Silicon Valley would make noise about not pulling out while secretly looking for the exit. The movie industry would eventually pour out as they increase the taxes to squeeze any industry that makes a profit so they can provide gibs to the 20+ million dependents who expect a comfortable standard of living on the government dime.

If SWPLs do start flooding into California, then you might be able to get Oregon to go Republican moving forward. They might like Portland but they wouldn't want to give up the opportunity to give a middle finger to Dad er I mean the United States.

pithom said...

"Solely accounted for it and then some, to be precise--the numbers actually suggest that Hispanic turnout in the other 49 states modestly declined between 2012 and 2016."

-I strongly doubt this. Though the effect of Loretta Sanchez on the ballot may have helped Hispanic turnout in California, the numbers I saw before election day from early voting in North Carolina showed "other race" and "multi-racial" turnout up reasonably strongly:
http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2016/11/further-analysis-of-ncs-2016-absentee.html
I suspect Florida and Nevada had higher Hispanic turnout, as well, though that Hispanic turnout was also more pro-Trump than it was pro-Romney in 2012, at least, in Nevada.

Black Death said...

Indeed. There were three presidential elections in the decade of the 1980's, and California went Republican in every one. When will that happen again? Try "NEVER." It is maddening to hear GOP strategists talk about "outreach" to the Hispanic community. Trump got around 28% of the Hispanic vote, about the same as Romney and McCain (the latter with maximum pandering). The high-water mark for the GOP with Hispanic voters was 2004, when Bush II got about 40%. That happy outcome was largely the result of the housing bubble, which disproportionately benefited Hispanics. The bursting of that bubble caused the worst economic crash since the Great Depression and led directly to the Republican disaster in 2008.

After this last election, about 30% of the Democrats in the House of Representatives come from just three states - California, New York and Massachusetts. Of the 49 partisan state legislatures (Nebraska is unicameral and nonpartisan), the GOP controls 31, the Democrats 11, and the rest are split. It is interesting to think what the Senate would be like if the 17th amendment had not been passed. There would be at least 62 Republican senators, at least 22 Democrats, and, if the rest were split evenly between the parties, a total of 70 Republicans and 30 Democrats. Anyway, the heavily blue states seem to be adhering to the EU model of high taxes, high regulations, open borders and economic stagnation. Let them go, if they wish - they won't be missed.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude on the internet,

A Calexit might further lead to a north-south split in the state, with Silicon Valley not wanting to shoulder the state's enormous financial burdens on itself.

As for Oregon, it wouldn't matter how it voted. The electoral college would be guaranteed for Republicans for decades without a huge realignment in political ideologies and partisan identity. Without California there is, as they say, "no path to victory" for the Democrats.

Audacious Epigone said...

Pithom,

Re-reading my post, I didn't make it very clear that I'm skeptical about the result. Something may well be off with the exit polls, either in 2012 or in 2016 (or in both). There was a lot of weird disinformation on election day--I saw several reports of record-setting lines and huge wait times at polling locations even though turnout was flat to 2012 and down from 2008 and a record number of people voted early.

Black Death,

Exactly. Demography is destiny but particular demographic profiles are not inevitable. We need to act with that truism in mind.

Anonymous said...

Might not need the whole state. Just two cities (SF and LA metro area) might be all you need to rid of by the President declaring them free cities on the Singapore model,the city-states.

Anonymous said...

Sanctuary city state

Audacious Epigone said...

Hah, sanctuary city state, perfect! Something to aspire to.