Saturday, April 01, 2017

Majority of US births are to whites

The reports of white death have been slightly exaggerated!

Five years ago the US Census, in an announcement that was joyfully picked up by a host of media outlets, announced that non-Hispanic white (from hereon just "white") births constituted a minority of all births in the US for the first time ever.

The claim came from the annual population estimates the bureau produces every non-decennial year, in this instance from 2011. They announced that whites constituted 49.6% of all births that year. With estimation comes error, and the Census appeared to miss the mark by several points.

HHS, which tallies all reported live births for each calendar year and releases them in late Spring the following year, shows that the Census report from five years ago claiming that whites made up fewer than half of all births has yet to go through the formality of actually occurring.

The following chart shows the racial birth distribution for 2015, the latest year for which there is complete data:


That's 0.3 points closer to giving truth to the Census estimates than in 2014 when whites made up 54.0% of all births, and also virtually unchanged from 2007, when whites constituted 53.5% of all births. As far as natural population increase is concerned, we're nearly holding the line.

That'll be for naught in the face of a continual stream of reinforcements for the other side in the form of foreign-born settlers calling our country their own, of course.

Still, to falsely believe that things are worse than they actually are runs the risk of perpetuating an avoidable self-fulfilling prophecy. We're not licked yet.

A simple (if not easily realizable) three-part prescription to effectively treat the National Question:

1) A moratorium on immigration

2) The repatriation of non-citizens

3) An increase in native fertility to at least replacement

Of related interest, the subsequent map shows in white the states where white births make up over 50% of all births. White births make up less than 50% of all births in the states shaded brown:


Cut out California and we're close to 60% of all American babies being white. What? Just saying.

Politically, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, and especially Texas are swords of Damacles' hanging over the GOP. Effectively addressing the National Question is the preferred way to remove the blades from the rafters. Barring that, the Sailer Strategy that Trump executed successfully in 2016--flipping the mostly white upper Midwestern states red--is the only other viable alternative to permanent Democrat rule at the national level.

For those interested in the state-by-state differences, the following 51 pie charts depict the same at the state level as the graph presented above does for the country as a whole:



















































32 comments:

JT said...

Wouldn't we need to be seeing 63% of births to stay even? (Ignoring immigration, in which case we'd need need even more.)

Bill said...

In a healthy society, Maine's level of non-white births would be considered unacceptably high and have people marching in the streets. Any society that commits suicide in this way is a truly loathsome beast. I just hope the last natives metaphorically torch the place, leaving the invaders with only debts, corruption and Marxism.

Feryl said...

Alright, so here's a breakdown of each states/regions birth demos.


New England (White/Hispanic/Black)
White/Black/Hispanic
Maine
White/Hispanic/Black
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont

Mid-Atlantic (white/black/hispanic)
White/Black/Hispanic
Maryland
Pennsylvania
White/Hispanic/Black
Delaware
New Jersey
New York (big state)
Black/White/Hispanic
D.C.

Upper South (white/black/hispanic)
White/Black/Hispanic
Arkansas
Kentucky
North Carolina
Tennessee
Virginia
West Virginia

Lower South (white/black/hispanic)
White/Black/Hispanic
Alabama
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
South Carolina
White/Hispanic/Black
Florida (big state)
Missouri

Upper Midwest (white/black/hispanic/asian)
White/Black/Hispanic
Michigan
Wisconsin
White/Hispanic/Black
Iowa
White/Black/Asian
Minnesota

Lower Midwest (White/Black/Hispanic)
White/Black/Hispanic
Indiana
Ohio
White/Hispanic/Black
Illinois (big state)

Plains (white/hispanic/black/Am. Indian
White/Hispanic/Black
Kansas
Nebraska
Nevada
Oklahoma
White/Am.Indian/Hispanic-black (tie)
North Dakota
White/Am. Indian/Hispanic
South Dakota
Hispanic/White/Black
Texas (majority non-white)

Mountain (white/hispanic/Am. Indian/black/Asian)
White/Hispanic/Black
Colorado
Nevada
White/Hispanic/Asian
Idaho
Utah
White/Hispanic/Am. Indian
Arizona
New Mexico
Wyoming
White/Am. Indian/Hispanic
Montana

West Coast (white/Hispanic/Asian/Am. Indian). No blacks!
White/Hispanic/Asian
Oregon
Washington
White/Am. Indian/Asian
Alaska
Hispanic/White/Asian
California (majority non-white
Asian/White/Hispanic
Hawaii (majority non-white)

The biggest states have either whites or Hispanics ahead of blacks in births. Just 3 majority non-white states. Blacks appear to be rejecting the cold and/or dry climates West of the Mississippi. Just the same, blacks are getting electorally knee-capped by concentrating in the Southeast quadrant of America where they're over ruled by ethnically conscious whites (with the exception of yuppified Virginia). Blacks remain the greatest impediment to civilization, and if there's any silver lining to the demographic changes of the last several decades it's that due to the growth in the pop. of Asians, Hispanics, or Am. Indians, as well as the migration of blacks back to their sweaty ancestral lands, we ought to see the influence of blacks drastically diminish in the decades to come.

20% of Mich. births being black is an eyesore (blacks don't belong in far northern places). The GOP has to continue to run anti-corporate populists to have a chance here, since Upper Midwestern whites mostly don't vote on racial lines. If Midwestern whites voted like Southern/Appalachian whites, it would make the Dems shift their priorities away from the urban blacks of the North, which would be a relief to us all since appealing to whites/Asians/Hispanics/Indians is much less damaging to society.

Feryl said...

"Just 3 majority non-white states. "

What I'm saying is that in just 3 states, whites are not the leading race in births. Make sense

Also, what shall become of Texas/California when the extant population of whites, heavily comprised of Silents/Boomers/early Gen X-ers who represent the last cohorts to be both large and predominately white, die off or become infirm? Ya think these places are in trouble now? How 'bout 20-30 years down the road. Cali in particular, due to the high inequality, Left wing culture, and rugged terrain, probably will come to resemble Brazil as time goes on. An arrogant but small white elite and a vast dark underclass. Texas still has lots of land that's easy to build on, so even in the coming decades, in the absence of strict immigration controls/responsible breeding, whites will still be able to build pleasant areas to live in.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

I very much remember the excitement the left had when non-white births exceeded white births in 2011. It helped me down the road of being a shitlord because it was one of the first moments (to me) when I saw people celebrate the end of white people.

With self deportation and the idea that anchor babies doesn't mean you get to stay, here's hoping the white birth as a percentage continues to increase. Would be nice to go from 53.7% in 2015 to over 60% in 2024.

Anonymous said...

We're not holding the line.
When I was born (50 years ag0), and was a young child, the relevant statistics were white to black about 7-1. In other words, very roughly, whites were 87% of the population, blacks were 12% of the population (other minorities were so small a portion they essentially didn't count. A few Asians in the west, a few Hispanic farm workers in the west as well. In fact, when I was young, the problem of illegal immigration was related to Irish- a bunch of Irish separatists were living in Boston-it was a very small problem. Hispanic illegal immigration-rather than Hispanic guest farm workers- wasn't a thing).

Today, Hispanics have rearranged the whole balance. But that's not the whole story. What if there were no Hispanics or Asians? What if the racial split was today what it was when I was young? The ratio of white to black on that pie chart is 53.7-14.9. Converted to a 100 point scale, its about 78-22, or around 3.9-1. In other words, even without immigration (legal or illegal), whites are a steadily dropping proportion of Americans. Within less than one lifetime, the proportion of blacks in America (relative to whites) has almost doubled (from 87-12 to 78-22%).

That's not holding the line at all.

anon

pithom said...

Louisiana Purchase>>>Florida, Georgia, and the territory gained during the Mexican War.

Anonymous said...

Are Arabs, Turks, Pakistanis and Indians considered "white" or "Asian"?

Audacious Epigone said...

JT,

The symbolic line that demarcates majority status, I mean. To hold population share constant would require TFRs equivalent to that of non-whites. Whites are at ~1.7 to blacks ~2.0 and Hispanics ~2.3 (going off memory here so that's not exact). American Indians and Asians are lower than whites IIRC.

Feryl,

Four states, New Mexico is like Hawaii but with Hispanics instead of Asians.

Good points wrt to the damage catering to black culture, specifically black underclass culture, does. It's a big quality of life issue that is hard to measure but also hard not to feel.

Random Dude,

I was well on my way to the shitlord mindset but Tim Wise's open letter to whites after the 2010 'tea party' mid-terms sticks in my mind as the moment that I realized that this isn't an intellectual abstraction or some kind of game. These people are genocidal.

Anon,

Right, I meant in terms of the highly symbolic majority of all births line. The current path isn't sustainable, but the demographic replacement has actually lost momentum over the last 15 years. We're still losing ground every year, but not as rapidly as we were before. Maybe it's just a momentary pause before the route, but maybe not. The tide doesn't turn on a dime.

Anon,

However they choose to self-identify, so some mix of mostly white and Asian, with a minority choosing black. We're only talking a couple percentage points there though, in total.

Feryl said...

"I was well on my way to the shitlord mindset but Tim Wise's open letter to whites after the 2010 'tea party' mid-terms sticks in my mind as the moment that I realized that this isn't an intellectual abstraction or some kind of game. These people are genocidal."

It's a little weird that Obama would be packaged as race transcendent, yet even before his 2nd term some cultural Marxists were dancing on the grave of Historical America. As we saw, his presidency escalated racialism in terms of liberals pushing more aggressive grievance mongering and the resulting prodding of nascent white consciousness. Irony being that it was Boomer and X-er whites who vaulted Obama to victory in the Midwest, New England, and Northwest.

What seems to be the fatal miscalculation is seizing on "emerging" ethnic groups (who don't vote as often as established Americans) and young people (who tend to be more liberal as a rule) as your primary base who ought to be rewarded. The white people who once preferred Democrats in the 90's-2000's became alienated, and to add further insult, the brash far Left who shrank the Dem base had the nerve to brand ex-Dem voters "racists" after a race between two white (!) candidates. This doesn't explain how Trump did better among blacks/Hispanics than did Romney/McCain, nor does it explain why Millennials/non-whites felt so uninspired that many didn't vote.

Perhaps one of the most surreal (mis)accusations against Trump is that he's "homophobic". He understands that younger generations don't care that much about gays, made effort to appear supportive of them (unlike many often closeted GOP'ers of the past), and the mood surrounding his campaign and supporters was freewheeling and often, well, flamboyant. It was Team Hillary that became dour, morose, insecure, and obsessed with moral purity tests. Milo often points out that the emerging Trump base flips GOP stereotypes over with delight; they want leaders with common sense who pursue concrete results. They don't care about moral posturing especially since it's been the Left over the last 15 years who've gotten so prissy and humorless. Whichever side is doing the laughing is gonna win, be persuasive. The losers get longer faces which is both a cause and an effect of losing ground at too fast a rate.

Roger Stone (who did much to bolster the GOP in the 60's-80's when liberals ostensibly were winning many battles but the soon obviously terrible results of those victories alienated most of Middle America) is the kind of guy the GOP should've done more to emulate after Reagan, but it didn't happen because the Ted Cruz types were too busy telling people to strive to be more pious than the next guy.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

The argument that Obama brought in an era of post-racial relations was just a short term con to introduce the long con, racial justice. With liberals, there is usually a short con and a long con. The short con was trying to make it seem like Obama was a post-racial President. Sure he was black but ensured that he didn't give off any Jesse Jackson vibes. The long con got put into place which could have been easily thwarted by the Republicans in 2012 (remember that Obama expected to lose) but fortunately for them Mitt Romney was the GOP candidate. Once it became clear that the GOP was not a serious threat, the long con got opened up full tilt and we got Obama the Social Justice Warrior. He was never going to go full dangerhair but he wanted to provide an environment for dangerhairs to multiply to do the dirty work for him. He would just issue a pro-SJW statement and let his shock troops/red guards do the rest.

Hillary was all about letting the long con continue as long as she could run some cons herself (mostly to enrich her family). As much as people assumed she would be a radical feminist, I never got that impression in 2016. By this point in her life, she just used feminism in the 80s and 90s to get to where she wanted to be, which was getting paid millions of dollars to give speeches at Wall Street firms or gladhandling deals with international interests. I suspect she never gave a shit about social justice, feminism, or any of that: she just wanted to enrich herself and her family. However she was not above using the red guard dangerhairs to make that happen. This is pretty ironic that in the end Hillary saw them as nothing more than the useful idiots that they were. I get the feeling that Obama really believed in this crap but Hillary was much more cynical.

Feryl said...

RDI: It's proven that liberals are less virtuous in behavior than others. And that's probably why they freely excuse, ignore, or explain away terrible sins committed by their paladins. As long as that paladin pursues some retarded utopian goal, it doesn't matter how corrupt they are. Many liberals feel afraid of accountability of any kind since they themselves are afraid of punishment.

In fact, in practice, the majority of highly Left wing regimes/movements inevitably lead to a corrupt elite enriching itself while posturing to defend a particular people. There are mild exceptions (like FDR spearheading genuinely helpful policies on behalf of menial workers), but as we see with the Politburo or modern black middle/upper class, there are typically a select class of big winners while everyone else suffers more than they would in the absence of doofus hypocrite ideologues. Tom Frank, shortly before the election, basically admitted that his shtick that ignorance causes blue collar whites to vote GOP, just isn't relevant anymore in the face of widespread Dem corruption and hostility towards menial work. Also, many blue collar whites in the Eastern/Upper Midwest did vote Dem before Trump because of economic reasons. So he never really accounted for the tendency of lib-tarianism to be strongest Out West, or the tendency of Southern whites to vote as a racial bloc.

Oh, and even once beneficial Left-wing movements typically lead to great over-reach. LBJ's folly, the "Great" society (which caused crime and pathology to vastly increase) came after FDR's relatively prosaic reforms, while the commies committed their greatest atrocities in the mid-century after decades of unchecked growth in power and arrogance.

Kipling said...

Is there any data on the average ages of the parents? Clearly, if elf couples are having three children each and orcs are having three children each the math says you're still knee-deep in a WAAGH before long.

James said...

With the exception of Texas, Illinois, Minnesota, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Colorado, Virginia, Delaware, and the hypocritical New England States along with Washington and Oregon, this mirrors Trump's victory in the Electoral College. Looking at Texas' hispanic birthrate, within 8 to 12 years, Texas will go blue. The massive growth in hispanic births across the entire nation should be the real take away. Even though hispanics have turned out to be more traditional and conservative than our masters wanted, their sheer numbers will make them a formidable voting bloc.

Audacious Epigone said...

He was the post-racial, transcendent president(-to-be) from his 2004 DNC speech through his inauguration in 2009. It's hard to remember that during the '08 campaign, more emphasis was put on his multi-racialism than on his blackness. I wonder how many people under the age of 20 even know his mother was white. RD nails it with the short- and long-term cons.

Roger Stone and Ted Cruz do make stark archetypes for the major fault lines on the right from the 60s through the last few years. I think the salience of that divide will fade and be replaced by identity on one side and ideology on the other, or interests on one side and principles on the other. The Cruz piety is a thing of the past. He's quick on his fit, articulate and well-spoken, so he was able to outlast the rest of the field, but in the end that piety made him nothing more than a regional candidate who could win caucuses (i.e. 20% or less of eligible turnout) in flyover states where the pious zealously came out for him. Stone's approach, with extremes like Milo's will continue to ascend.

WRT to the left's less virtuous behavior, that reminds me of a post I did several years ago showing that those on the left are more tolerant of tax cheating than those on the right are. I should've dug it up during the height of the "Trump release your taxes!" stuff. Oh well.

WRT to Hillary's ability to manipulate the useful idiots on the left, it couldn't have been put any better. Despite--or because--she isn't much of a true believer herself, she was much better able to peg how the true believers would react to her than she was able to predict how the non-ideological would. Those non-ideological left-behinds in the Rust Belt, who voted for Obama in '08 and '12 but for whom Trump's "I am your voice" resonated far more than any of Hillary's SJW/feminist rhetoric did, are the reason she lost.

Kipling,

There's data for teen births, though those are a pretty small slice of the total. Time between generations is a huge factor in population growth, though. If one society has kids at 20 and the other waits until 40, even if both have TFRs of 2.0, the former will grow twice as fast in total numbers.

James,

I'd thought a Texas flip would be the end of the GOP, and it would still make things extremely difficult, but if Trump *lost* Texas in 2016, Hillary would've won by the narrowest possible margins, 270-268. He could've lost Texas and gained New Hampshire (or any other state, like Minnesota) and been fine.

Audacious Epigone said...

quick on his feet*

Annatar said...

The positive thing is at least since 2007, the collapse in Hispanic fertility rates have kept white births as a proportion of all births steady, in 2007, white births accounted for 53.5% of all births and in 2015, it was 53.6%, the convergence of black TFR and Hispanic TFE with white TFR means that if immigration is cut by even half, whites will remain a majority well into the 2nd half of this century. Fr example, in 2007, the TFR of the races was as follows:

White: 1.91
Black: 2.14
Hispanic 2.84

The ratio to white TFR was therefore:
Black: 1.12
Hispanic: 1.49

By 2015, the TFR of the various groups were:
White: 1.75
Black: 1.86
Hispanic: 2.12

The ratio to whites being:
Black: 1.06
Hispanic: 1.20


The major change has been in the Hispanic TFR, it has gone from being 1.49x the white level to just 1.2x, in raw terms it has dropped by more then 25% in just 8 years, a rapid demographic change which has meant total Hispanic births have declined from 1.06 million in 2007 to 920,000 in 2015 despite the population growing from 46 million to 57 million, the total rate of natural increase has dropped from 2% per annum to 1.35%.

Knights of the West said...

We will lose our country, we will be a minority, organization is our hope. www.knightsofthewest.com

Audacious Epigone said...

Annatar,

Great marshaling, thanks. Linked to in the body of the post.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Here's hoping that Trump's immigration policy continues to depress hispanic birth rates. Combine that with voluntary deportation and maybe we can see an uptick in the white population in the next few years.

Salden said...

Mestizos are the only threat to American Whites demographically. Blacks' births have went down and don't look to be getting up significantly. Asians and other non-Mestizo minorities are already too small and don't look to have any significant boosts in births.

Feryl said...

In terms of growing racial seperatism, here's some good stuff:

https://amgreatness.com/2017/04/02/what-is-the-alt-left/

"Another tenet is the age-old left wing idea that the noble ends of “fairness”—equality of result, and government mandated redistribution—justify almost any means in obtaining them. At Obama rallies in 2008 and 2016, no conservative goons stormed the assemblies and sprayed mace at the audience; at current Trump gatherings protesters in masks try to incite violence, in order to suggest that mayhem is innate to Trump’s appeal. There were no Inauguration Day obscenity-ridden protests on January 20, 2009. To have adopted such tactics to disrupt an Obama rally would have been “racist.”

And the best take down of BLM I've ever seen:

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/04/04/blm-a04.html

The Lefty authors say that BLM is a distraction from the real problem: not racism, but neo-liberal capitalism. Both the Dem establishment and the corporate world has eagerly latched onto racial grievance movements intended to transfer angst onto modern ID politics away from the biggest scourge of all: the multi-national/deep state agenda to dissolve every remaining defense of Joe Sixpack's dignity.

Obviously, I don't agree with the commie goals pushed by this site but just the same, from an economic populist standpoint, they hit the nail on the head. Great effort is exerted to bribe ostensible "leftists" into comfortably channeling opposition towards proles so as to hide the corruption and arrogance of the venal elite.

The still largely white base of Leftism in America is eventually going to get fed up with being told that their primary duty is to support programs to appease obnoxious blacks.

"The Sanders factor -

During this period, the campaign of Bernie Sanders for president began to rally unexpectedly large crowds, and the ruling elites became increasingly nervous. Fraudulently presenting himself as a socialist advocating “political revolution against the billionaire class,” Sanders won the support of large numbers of youth and workers.

It was in this context that decisions were taken to provide support to the divisive racialist agenda of BLM at the highest levels of government. This policy decision was in tandem with Clinton’s escalating drumbeat of identity politics, which she increasingly relied upon as a political counterweight to Sanders, even using the mantra “Black Lives Matter” in her campaign speeches. For their part, BLM leaders Mckesson and Packnett endorsed Clinton; Garza, while not endorsing, said she cast her vote for Clinton."

The Left is desperately trying to paper over the racial divisions exposed by the Dem Primary. In fact, their racialist angst has since been projected onto Trump and his base. Most younger and white Leftists are too busy attacking Trump's ethno-nationalist policies to realize how they themselves were divided racially and generationally, with middle-aged blacks shoving everyone else away from the helm. Wiki's article on the primary, in thousands upon thousands of words, barely mentions black (or it's variants).

"Last summer, the Ford Foundation, one of the most powerful private foundations in the world, announced that it was organizing to channel $100 million to the Black Lives Movement over the next six years.

“By partnering with Borealis Philanthropy, Movement Strategy Center and Benedict Consulting to found the Black-Led Movement Fund, Ford has made six-year investments in the organizations and networks that compose the Movement for Black Lives,” according to the Ford Foundation web site. In a statement of support, Ford called for the group to grow and prosper. “We want to nurture bold experiments and help the movement build the solid foundation that will enable it to flourish.”"

Feryl said...

I should mention that the "socialists" are wrong about one thing: tamping down on racial politics. We're seeing in older generation stubbornly refusing to acknowledge the natural and growing urge to be among your own kind.

This is why I think that The Dems are doomed to a split or outright dissolution. At the end of the day, the very reason America never went all-in on European socialism is because you can't convince THAT many white people to support lazy blacks. With the sizable power now granted to blacks, and with growing racial tensions, eventually the idea of a multi-racial party will be untenable. For the time being, the Dems are trying their damnedest to ignore the inevitable by bribing black leaders and by channeling as much venom as possible into hating Trump.

How much time do we give it? When will a mob of upset blacks beat down a white for stealing "their" party? Already, we saw black ego run amok during several Sanders' rallies, but that was limited to shouting down perceived white interests and themes. Give the latest generation (those born in the early-mid 2000's) more racial grievance programming for another half a decade. Future squabbling is gonna make the 2016 Dem primary look like a picnic.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

AmRen had a couple of articles getting into the tension between sites like ThinkProgress (which is the globohomo/Hillary/BLM side of things IIRC) and other more truly socialist/Sanders' sites as well as advice on encouraging us to sow the seeds of discord along these widening fault lines.

I noticed in 2008 that Obama won because of blacks. Hillary beat him in the primaries among whites and Hispanics but Obama won among blacks and because blacks are monolithic, that's really all a candidate has to do to win the nomination. Hillary learned that and flipped the demographic script in 2016, winning blacks but losing (or very narrowly winning, it depends on which exit polls you look at) whites and definitely losing among Hispanics.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

I think you're exactly right. Single-payer healthcare will be a pretty good real life test of it. Trump favors it, much of the left does, too, and so do a lot of Trump voters, but the vlogger Black Pigeon Speaks makes a strong argument (yours, basically) why it won't happen.

Feryl said...

This is the passage I shoulda quoted above:

"The Obama victory of 2008 had a profound effect on the Dem Party, suggesting that the power of getting elected twice gave “truth” to Obama’s polarizing brand of organizing groups based on ethnic and racially based grievances, in concert against a supposedly fading and bigoted establishment. (This axiom is in need of some postmodern revisionism after the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the loss of most governorships, state legislatures, the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court.)

The Alt-Left largely dismisses the old liberal idea of 1960s Civil Rights. Liberals once promoted integration and the goal of an American melting pot empowered by the time-honored traditions of racially blind integration, assimilation, and intermarriage. The liberal goal once was a common American culture and experience where race became subsidiary. Yet we hear little from liberals any more about non-discrimination and integration. Instead, preference, diversity, and segregated safe spaces become the new discriminatory and reparatory agendas."

Feryl said...

"I noticed in 2008 that Obama won because of blacks. Hillary beat him in the primaries among whites and Hispanics but Obama won among blacks and because blacks are monolithic, that's really all a candidate has to do to win the nomination. Hillary learned that and flipped the demographic script in 2016, winning blacks but losing (or very narrowly winning, it depends on which exit polls you look at) whites and definitely losing among Hispanics."

Eh, I'd say that the reason Obama won (especially in '12) was because the GOP failed to motivate lunch pail whites in the Northeast quadrant to turn against Obama. Especially important that they failed to reach the electorally powerful generations born in the 40's, 50's, 60's (heavily white, large in number, reliable voters). These voters felt stung by stuff like NAFTA. McCain is a doofus, Romney is quite possibly the most insultingly inappropriate candidate to run in ages (in times of lesser partisanship, and given a stronger Dem opponent, Romney would've suffered a loss on the level of a McGovern or a Dukakis).

Perhaps the biggest buried crisis for the Dems is that their primary base is so at odds with the general election turnout. As usual, to the extent that a problem is played up, it's played up.....against the GOP. So much was expended on the notion that the GOP's white base is not relevant to the general...And yet...General election demos reliably are over 2/3 white. But has the mainstream media ever gone out of it's way to note that by default, blacks cannot make up a substantial portion of general election turnout? And have they ever reconciled that reality with the black dominated Dem primaries East of the Mississippi? Besides, the Dems actually amplify this problem by weighting urban votes over other votes. Did I mention that in the general, the power of blacks is further sapped because blacks are most heavily concentrated in safely Dem or GOP states on the East Coast, the lower Midwest, and South?

Ya know, it's as if the elite are trying to talk the GOP into throwing one election after another by pointlessly pursuing demos they can't reach while alienating potential allies. The need to impress fellow elites by downplaying prole whites while muh Chicago School of economics alienates damn near everybody really says it all about how worthless most of the GOP was and to a big extent still is.

IF I was a Dem, I'd be fuming at blacks to just shut the hell up. And I'd be reminding the Dems that blacks are electorally over-rated. If Hilary had paid the slightest bit of attention to Rust-belt whites (by promising to amend or block the TPP, for example), she would've won PA and MI. Hell, that almost happened anyway because so many whites in the Northeast quadrant of America are Boomers or X-ers who think (accurately) that the GOP turned their back on them decades ago. One can only hope the ongoing race war against whites will wake more of them up. Why vote for the party that celebrates your demise?

Feryl said...

Millennials (and/or early Gen X-ers) won it for Obama? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Voter_Turnout_by_Sex_and_Age,_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png

18-24 male turnout: 41.0%
18-24 female turnout: 47.7%

25-34 male turnout: 44.0%
25-24 female turnout: 52.9%

Conveniently, in this election 45-54 fits neatly within a huge chunk of the Boomer demo (45 year olds in 2008 were born in 1963). And that's the first demo in which either gender's turnout was above 60%. This generation is:
- Heavily white
- Enormous in sheer numbers
- Electorally influential in the Rust-belt
- More engaged/reliable voters than younger generations

https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/live-births-and-birth-rates-year

1956-1961 was such a time of fecundity that to this day, not only has the rate not been equaled, the sheer numbers of birth per year (the lowest of which was 4,218,000 in '56) is not matched by any of the subsequent years through 2009! We've come closest in the early 1990's and 2000's, though. And even if we match or exceed the late Boom's numbers, we're still far below the overall rate at that time.

Winning elections (especially in the 80's/90's/2000's) is very dependent on appealing to white Boomers, though not as important as it used to be.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

I meant the reason Obama won *the Democratic nomination*, not the general election. It was roughly the same reason Hillary won the nomination in 2016.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

Wow, that's a startling fact from 1956-1961.

Right about whites being the most important electoral force by far. That said, blacks matter more than Hispanics and Asians. There are sizable black populations in the 'swing states' like North Carolina, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio. Hispanics and Asians are concentrated in electorally uncontested states like California and (just in the case of Hispanics) Texas.

Passer by said...

There are various data about this issue, according to PEW for example minority babies are the majority among the nation’s infants

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/23/its-official-minority-babies-are-the-majority-among-the-nations-infants-but-only-just/

Kike Monty said...

I would like to remind you that many Hispanics are in fact White. Not a 50% as they declare in the census, but I would say a 20% of all Hispanics. This gives us a little space to hope, specially in places like Florida, plenty of white cubans.