Friday, July 06, 2018

Front and center

A decade ago, immigration was a fringe issue, even among Republican voters. The following graph shows the percentages of registered voters in 2008 and today, by partisan affiliation, who identified (or identify) "immigration" as the most important issue facing the country:


The poll from 2008 (N = 1,100) includes eleven possible responses. Among Republicans, immigration was tied for eighth, ahead of just "energy" and "don't know".

The ongoing Reuters-Ipsos poll (N = 8,997) includes sixteen possible responses. Among Republicans, immigration is the single most important issue of all.

The National Question is becoming THE question. No Republican presidential aspirant is going to be able to secure the nomination by ignoring immigration anymore. Recall that both Trump and Cruz took harder restrictionist lines than any other GOP presidential candidate had save for Tom Tancredo's hapless campaign in 2008 and Pat Buchanan's noble defeats in the early- and mid-nineties. 

Tancredo never got above 1% in popular support. Buchanan won fours states. Trump and Cruz together picked up 70% of Republican primary votes and won all but two states between them.


Keep the pressure on. And let's provide the invaders and their anti-white allies all the rope they need to hang themselves with:


via

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

Buchanan won both the Alaska and Louisiana caucus in 96, but only senator Gramm from tx was involved in the LA race. He narrowly lost Iowa to dole and probably would not have it Alan keys had not taken evangelical votes away. I suspect he also won in arizona, but there was some interesting vote counting taking place.

The main difference is the gop and media could destroy Buchanan much easier than they did trump because the internet was a tiny fraction of what it was in 2016 for allowing the general public to get info. Trump not having to worry about money also helped, but I think the public being able to read the truth on Facebook or see videos on youtube countering and exposing media lies was the main difference.

Anonymous said...

My post above was minor trivia and a comment on how access to info has changed, but I completely agree with your post.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Oops, thanks. Fixed it in the body of the post.

Anonymous said...

this change isn't a change in attitudes, however. the attitude of the american people towards invasion has always been the same.

what has changed is that people are now aware of the problem's scale. it has been hid from them by the cabal. that's the entirety of the cause for what the graphs show.

even now, after the sea change, it's bleedin' obvious that the lack of reporting of certain facts is a yuge portion of controlling the narrative. the scale of legal immigration, the scale of RAPEfugee resettlement, the scale of illegal alien invasion. the crime rates. etc. other examples include the tamping down of the beheading incident in germany last week, the lack of reporting on paki rape gangs in britain, even the suppression of reporting in the us of negro crime. ever heard of the "bunny friend park shooting" or the "mother's day second line shooting"? think if the races were different, would we know about them?

recognizing the scale at which the narrative is controlled is the final redpill. at least, i HOPE it's the final one. recently it's come to light that most of our positions as /pol/acks are actually mainstream and normal, it's only the compression of the allowable discussion, and the lack of knowledge given to the normies, that prevent them from (ironically of course) advocating a thorough delousing of certain persons.

Zagg said...

It’s likely the case that no Repub who supports mass immigration can win the party’s nomination. But what will the nomination be worth? The donor class are committed to cheap labor via mass immigration. Can the Repubs win anything withoit the donor class? Is the emergence of immigration as a major issue likely to lead to the fracturing of the Repubs? If so, would that be a good thing?

DissidentRight said...

We've come a long way since Obama.

The donor class are committed to cheap labor via mass immigration. Can the Repubs win anything withoit the donor class?

First of all, yes. Second, the donor class will figure out that their interests are much better served by funding MAGA candidates than by making MAGA candidates their enemies.

Is the emergence of immigration as a major issue likely to lead to the fracturing of the Repubs?

No, quite the opposite. Conservatives will all find some reason to keep voting Republican (even if they're "holding their noses"). The genuine cuckservatives (who switch parties) are an irrelevant minority. Meanwhile, immigration will bring over many whites from the Democratic Party. The Sailer Strategy!

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Trust in all the Derp State institutions are in decline. Red pills dissolve quickly once ingested--too quickly to be vomited back up. To mix metaphors, when the scales fall from normies' eyes, the scales aren't growing back.

Zagg,

Trump was able to. We may need those who have a unique combination of massive wealth, a contrarian streak, and a desire to enter politics to continue to lead the way before the groundswell really starts at lower levels. Trump is an early trendsetter, I hope.

Even the donors will start to realize what their money is able to buy and when it is simply being squandered. I sound like a broken record, I know, but it's hard to understate just how important it is that two immigration hardliners (in a relative political sense) utterly dominated the GOP nomination process. And immigration has only become more important to Republicans in the interim.

DissidentRight,

Your last paragraph is why I felt compelled to spend several posts refuting Agnostic's disastrous call for Trump voters to try and get in on the ground floor of the budding socialist movement on the left. I guess there is one obvious way the donor class will be able to firmly reassert its control of the GOP--have all the restrictionists leave the GOP!

Jim Bowery said...

Should it be:

#OpenBordersBeginAtHome

or

#OpenBordersBeginsAtHome

?

I understand the grammatical argument for the former, but "Open Borders" has become a supreme, singular concept.

Ja D said...

Whitepill.

Joe Suber said...

My anecdotal memory of fundraising for Buchanan was that his hard line against abortion was more important to his small donors back then than anything else; I was annoyed by that, but sometimes you just sell the features they want. It is possible that people were just not willing to come out against immigration when it was taken for granted we would forever be a white majority nation. The Poor-Huddled-Masses meme ran deep, and still must be overcome.

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim Bowery,

Probably the former for the sake of maximal effectiveness. There will be some spergy types who've never much thought about the National Question who will get caught up on the second and think it a grammatical error.

Ja D,

Indeed. It's easy to get discouraged with a a six month time horizon. But then I remember back to a decade ago when the GOP was a futile fight between the neocons (John McCain) and the insurgent libertarians (Ron Paul) to see which faction would get massacred by the Magic Negro. It was open borders as far as the eye could see. It's different now. We have a fighting chance.

Joe Suber,

Ronald Reagan gets taken to the woodshed on the Alt/Dissident Right over the nation-wrecking 1986 amnesty. Peter Brimelow, who has a party number in the single digits--Sobran, Buchanan, Jared Taylor, and Sam Francis come before him, but that's about it--regularly responds to this in defense of Reagan, pointing out how the National Question had very little salience in the eighties.

Anonymous said...

Major Immigration reform in 1965. By the 1970s, one can make a very good case that citizens were electing any President who sounded like they were going to do two things; reduce spending and control immigration.

Reagan is the obvious example. He got played like a old guitar. But the undercurrent of that conversation has been roiling ever since.

There are qualifiers. Obama got elected b/c black. The quality of the candidate matters. The media used to control the narrative (and therefore the perceived issues) better than it does now.

Feryl said...

"Major Immigration reform in 1965. By the 1970s, one can make a very good case that citizens were electing any President who sounded like they were going to do two things; reduce spending and control immigration.

Reagan is the obvious example. He got played like a old guitar. But the undercurrent of that conversation has been roiling ever since."

I don't get it. The 1965 immigration act no matter it's origins was first taken advantage of.....By the GOP. Starting in 1968, California (then a much more conservative state highly dependent on the Pentagon and agribusiness, also with a business lobby which wanted foreigners for sweat shops and union busting) and Texas (self-explanatory) received the great majority of the immigrants coming into America. How do I know? Nearly all Northern states in the 1970's remained monolithically white and native born, outside of NYC. By the late 1980's, other areas were beginning to see more immigrants (Minneapolis had a mosque by 1990). Which was a prelude to the 2000's when immigration under Bush 2 soared to ludicrous heights and moreover by this point the immigrants of the 70's and 80's had reproduced. CA and TX in the 70's and 80's became rapidly less white, being canaries in the coal mine. Funny thing is that Sun Belters bitterly complain about Northerners not tasting diversity. Uh, who in the FUCK welcomed all those people into the fields, lawns, and garment factories (which still existed back in the 70's and 80's) of CA and TX? Sun Belt elites, of course, not Northerners intent on giving cheap labor to Sun Belt whites who didn't want to roast in the sun.

Reagan in the 80's faced very little pushback WRT amnesty. America was booming and confident (barring some who had misgivings about Reaganomics). The late 1980's is when elites (first the GOP leaners) really started to knife everyone in the back, and they knew what they were doing and much of the public ate it up (what's not to love? Just pay lip service to God, family, and patriotism, while working your butt off to climb the status ladder). How else do you explain the GOP (which had always resented to some degree New Deal America with it's amply protected workers and restricted opportunities for elite power) gaining a degree of power in mid-1990's America that it had not had since around 1930? This was was after traditional Democrats had been facing increased opposition in the 70's and 80's, while "Rockefeller" Republicans were leaving the GOP in droves after Boomer conservatives started demanding purity tests in the early 90's.

If the middle class really hated Reagan (they didn't), then the Democrats should've been able to go back to thier 1930's-1960's level of power and popularity. Didn't happen. Actually, working-class opposition towards Reaganite economic policy as well as the social liberalism and economic conservatism of the DLC/Clintonite Left was becoming so pronounced that the 1990's would see falling levels of voting and growing cynicism about politics. But upper income people (who tend to vote more often esp. in periods of rising corruption) overwhelmingly approved of Reaganite cheap labor policies (including high immigration levels to break unions and drive down wages and create wider suburb belts).

Feryl said...

"Alt/Dissident Right over the nation-wrecking 1986 amnesty"

It was a working class wrecking amnesty in the 80's and 90's (part of a panoply of measures in the 70's and 80's to power down the working class after said class was treated like royalty in the 1940's-60's), over which many Americans were consciously enthusiastic (if you were a professional or a sociopath) or if of a lower class, you naively cheered for these things as being necessary for greater "freedom" (to lie, cheat, and steal with less accountability).

In the 2000's and 2010's, high immigration levels came to be seen as one part of the nasty formula to screw most people over, though conservatives became more hostile out of the belief that high immigration levels were threatening their power. Whereas in the 80's and 90's conservatives welcomed immigrants as a nice change of pace from sour and ever unionized American workers.

216 said...

Feryl,

Often forgotten is the 1990 Immigration Act, that's how we got H-1B and the Lottery. The Lottery replaced a previous system that was gamed to allow in more Irish, presumably without the 1990 change it would have resulted in the Polish wave that went to Western Europe moving to the US.

H-1B is an understated reason for why the GOP lost control of the Western states. The jobs filled by foreigners would have either been filled in foreign countries or by native migrants that were dissuaded from STEM.

The Southwest building boom from illegal labor might still have happened anyways, with displaced Midwestern whites/blacks taking the jobs instead.

It would be interesting to see an economics model on how much white fertility was lost due to the competition introduced in 1986/1990.

The 1980s model of "immigrant" was an anti-Communist refugee from Southeast Asia, not much of a surprise why contemporary GOPers would have loved them. The generals fight the last war.

Changing the GOP model away from hating unions will be impossible as long as the voter base is made up of Boomers that don't want their assets redistributed. Our median voter isn't a Millenial/Zed ex-BernieBro with an azn qt gf.

---


Why do you think Japanese/Korean business elites haven't been able to push the same level of invasion in their countries? I can't imagine they are more patriotic than our oligarchs, and I doubt they fear violence from angry native workers. Are immigrants perceived as less pliable than the conformist natives?

Audacious Epigone said...

The GSS asked respondents about the top problem facing the US back in 2010. Of ten possible answers, immigration got a whopping 4%. The economy, healthcare, and education all crushed it in importance, at 37%, 23%, and 18%, respectively. How things have changed!