Saturday, January 06, 2018

Foreign-born US presidential voting among whites and non-whites

An innocuous canine asks:

The strategy of electing a new people who will do a better job voting than the deplorable natives is an effective one.

But what about the dwindling number of non-Hispanic whites immigrating to the US? Do they even modestly negate the Democrat advantage in immigrant voters?

Not really, they just dilute it a little. Detailed racial and ethnic data are only available in the GSS from 2000 onward, so the following graph shows how foreign-born whites voted two-way presidential elections since then. Data for the 2016 election won't be out until the Spring of next year:

Non-whites are the ringers they're really after, and you should want them here, too, you reprllent racist filth:

The republic needs a generations-long moratorium on immigration and a repatriation of non-citizens to begin yesterday if it is going to survive. So it's not going to survive.

GSS variables used: PRES00(1-2), PRES04(1-2), PRES08(1-2), PRES12(1-2), RACECEN1(1)(2-16), HISPANIC(1), BORN(2)


Anonymous said...

"Do foreign born whites vote Republician"

Anecdotal evidence: My sister emigrated to the US with her husband worked for a large US multinational for the last thirty years, he was involved in the commissioning of industrial plant in China. The USA has been very good for them.

We are now barely on Facebook talking terms, because she was a rabid Clintonite. She and I ( a non US citizen ) were on opposite sides of the contest.

His family was Welsh working class, which was heavily Labour ( UK to the Left ), I imagine when they got to the US they assumed the colors of the nearest left wing party they found.

Audacious Epigone said...


A lot of foreign-born whites are SWPLs. The Welsh, like the Scottish, are pretty leftist generally. I wonder if, say, South African white are more nationalistically-inclined than other Anglophone foreign-born whites are.

Jig Bohnson said...

Can you tell from the data how big a factor Muslim identity is here? People from the Middle East, North Africa, and parts of West Asia are considered white by US Census categorization (as they should be since they are racially Caucasian), and may make up a substantial fraction of the white immigrants to the US in this period. It is telling that this result tracks what I recall having seen previously for Muslim-American presidential voting patterns - they apparently voted in a slight majority for Bush in 2000 and then have trended Democratic ever since.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Semi related to this:

No mentions at all of White women or Christian women. As I've said before here many times, Democrats are done with white people in general. We should do whatever we can to spread this message as far and wide as possible because white people have no future in the party except to vote in the third world hordes.

Audacious Epigone said...


Unfortunately not, the samples are simply too small (the largest year is for 2008 and it includes a whopping 13). For what it is worth--which is not much (5 votes vs 2 in 2000 for example)--the Dems do win each year.

Random Dude,

Encourage this as much as possible. The moderate white guy strategy used in Virginia and Alabama is the right's Achilles' Heel.

They couldn't even be bothered to include "married women" or "Christian women". It's 'Coexist' w/o even including the 't'.

And they put "Jewish women" in there twice! Freudian slip, anyone? Jewish women make up 1% of the US population and 6 of the 535 members of Congress, so they're slightly overrepresented in Congress already.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Will you DM your account to me on twitter (unless it's something you want to keep entirely normie-friendly).

Jim Bowery said...

Coulter's analysis of the DACA amnesty appears to be correct:

That, as with prior amnesties, the corrupt courts will be flooded with fraudulent claims of right to amnesty by new infiltrators -- already arriving in anticipation. The courts will grant those claims -- thereby causing a catastrophic increase in "legal" immigration.

That means even if Republicans win sizable majorities in both houses next year, and Trump wins a second term, the demographic fate of the US is sealed.

As far as "whites" are concerned, the continuation of war by political means has run its course.

The only question now is what will be the "plausible promise" around which a violent overthrow, by whites, of the occupation government self-organizes.

This is, of course, the question that has been on the mind of anyone who is serious.

The "Alt Right" is being "led" by people who are too immature to understand that when they create ideological blockades against certain key concepts like "muh Constitution" and "individualism" and "Boomers", they "fork the insurgency" and thereby guarantee military defeat.

These "leaders" need to grow up before serious white nationalists are forced to neutralize them. This is no joke.

Audacious Epigone said...


Agree that the generational ire is generally more cathartic than helpful. The frustration is because the boomers could've easily stopped this while it'll be hell for millennials and/or gen Z to do the same.

Jim Bowery said...

(((The Greatest Generation))) was responsible for _all_ of the most pathological government acts -- those from Brown Vs Board of Education through the 1960s -- as well as turning over the quasi-religious indoctrination of Boomers to TV and academia.

Imagine the frustration of Boomers who are accused of those crimes!

There is a need to take everyone's "frustration" and channel it into constructive morale. Generational analysis is fine toward that end. Generational polemics are a chimpout that serves the adversary.