NYT Lobs a Bomb on Chris Koster’s Campaign for Governor

30 10 2014

Jefferson City

Read all about it.

I would be cheering, except that, barring a miracle, the Republicans will be nominating Peter Kindercare.

You Forgot Two Words

27 10 2014



Why House Republicans Alienate Hispanics: They Don’t Need Them

Political analysts keep urging the Republican Party to do more to appeal to Hispanic voters. Yet the party’s congressional leaders show little sign of doing so, blocking an immigration overhaul and harshly criticizing President Obama for his plan to defer deportation for undocumented migrants.

House Republican leaders want amnesty legislation badly, but they can’t find a way to con the back benchers into voting for it.  They might “harshly criticize President Obama for his” potential executive order amnesty in public to save face, but in private, they’re hoping he does.  If he does, the Republican establishment is going to throw a really big party in a soundproof room.

The fact that the Republican House majority does not depend on Hispanic voters helps explain why immigration reform has not become law, even though national Republican strategists believe the party needs additional support among Hispanic voters to compete in presidential elections. It’s true that Republicans would stand little, if any, chance of winning the presidency in 2016 if they lost every Hispanic voter. If anything, the Republicans probably need to make gains among Hispanic voters to compete in states like Florida and Nevada.

The fact that members of Congress face election every two years and are more likely to face pissed off voters if their paw prints were actually on an amnesty bill is a better explanation.

But Congressional elections are different. Although the young, urban and racially diverse Democratic coalition has won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections, that coalition has not delivered House control to the Democrats. Gerrymandering isn’t the only cause, either. It’s the way the population is distributed.

That last sentence is crucial, because I’ll have a link to another story below.

The Upshot analysis found that if not one of the eight million Hispanic voters supported the Republican candidate, Republicans would lose about a dozen House seats, especially in Florida and California. The loss of those seats would make the Republican House majority more vulnerable if Democrats made gains elsewhere in future years. But given the Republicans’ current strength across rural areas and in conservative suburbs, the loss of every Hispanic every voter would not be enough to cost them the 17 seats that would flip House control.

And this analysis is a bit faulty because it relies on two Latin words:  Ceteris Paribus.  They just fiddle with the Hispanic vote without fiddling with the white vote or any other vote.  In the real political world, Ceteris Paribus does not exist.  Everything you do to get one person to vote for you will cost you statistically speaking some decimal number of voters, hopefully for your sake it’s a decimal less than 1.00.  I think that Republican attempts to appeal to Hispanics yields a higher than 1.00 decimal, i.e. they lose far many more white votes with their Hispandering than Hispanic votes they gain, in fact I think the ratio is way way way higher than 1.00.

The Republican lead in the race for control of the Senate, on the other hand, does not include such a cushion. A percentage point could make the difference in several of this year’s crucial contests, and winning every Hispanic vote might be worth a point to the Democrats — even in states with a small Hispanic population. Hispanic voters will represent about 3 percent of the electorate in the Senate battlegrounds.

We did a special run of our Senate model, Leo, imagining that the Republicans lost every Hispanic voter. In this situation, the odds flip — precisely, as it happens. Republicans would have just a 31 percent chance of retaking the Senate, compared with the current chance of 69 percent on Monday. Without any Hispanic votes, Republicans would lose a bit of ground everywhere, but become decided underdogs in Colorado and find themselves in a tight race in Texas.

Yet the Republicans would still have a plausible path to victory — as plausible as the actual Democratic path — because they could pick up the six Democratic seats they needed elsewhere. In South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Iowa, Alaska, North Carolina and New Hampshire, there are very few Hispanic voters.

Thom Tillis in North Carolina, sizable Hispanic population, has a better than even chance to lose next Thursday precisely because he’s a Hispanderer and open borders all the way.  He won’t win very many Hispanic votes by doing it (they already have Kay Hagan), and he’ll drive away white votes.  Because Senate races are statewide affairs, the opposite of ceteris paribus being true becomes statistically more crucial, and because Hispanics punch well under their demographic weight even in Presidential cycles and are even less than that in midterms, white voters become all the more crucial with their marginal leverage.

Perhaps most remarkable is that we’re even entertaining this notion. In reality, the Republicans will win millions of Hispanic votes this November. But the House Republican majority does not depend on those votes. Indeed, it could even withstand losses far beyond reason.

Republicans in general this season will do better among the scant few Hispanic voters than the 27% that Mitt Romney did among Hispanics in 2012, precisely because Republicans this season are generally in a stronger position.

To win the White House in 2016 or any future year, the Republicans will need a substantial number of Hispanic votes.

No they will not.  This same newspaper did this same kind of analysis of Presidential votes and the Electoral College in 2012, and found that, ceteris paribus, Romney would have needed to get 73% of the Hispanic vote to win.  No Republican Presidential candidate in my lifetime has ever gotten anywhere near 50% of the Hispanic vote, much less 73%.  The high water mark was Bush’s 40% in 2004.  Then there’s the fact again that ceteris paribus does not exist in the real world.  The more the Republicans try to get Hispanic votes, the way more white people they will run off.

But the fact that the party doesn’t need many of those votes to hold the House makes the Republican effort to appeal to Hispanic voters far more challenging. The Republican Congress has few, if any, immediate incentives to reach a compromise on immigration reform or otherwise reach out to Hispanics.

Hispanic voters don’t have “immigration reform” (amnesty, open borders, border surge) as their huge priority.  They’re mainly social welfare and government giveaway voters.

Now, for the second article:

Early voting has started in states nationwide, and Election Day is drawing near. And when the votes begin to be counted, the Republican Party will have a built-in advantage as it seeks to keep control of the House of Representatives.

The reason? A years long plan by Republican strategists to take advantage of the 2010 census and reshape congressional districts in key states to pack large numbers of Democrats into relatively few House districts, while GOP voters are spread out more evenly.

Gerrymandering, as it is called, has a long history in the United States, ardently pursued by both Democrats and Republicans. But the Republicans’ success was unprecedented and largely out of the public eye.

However, you can read a hint above that this is off base.  In fact, last year, the NYT did a big computer analysis of the 2012 Congressional (House) candidate vote.  Democrat House candidates got slightly more votes than Republican House candidates, but the winners based on those votes were 233 R to 202 D.  Everyone, including me, just assumed that the 2011-2012 redistricting, largely done in state legislatures that were based on state legislature elections of the 2010 red wave, was the only thing that kept the House Republican in spite of a slight Democrat generic voter win.  However, the NYT fed the actual 2012 House two-party voting data into hundreds of possible national House district configuration maps, ranging from seemingly insanely pro-Democrat maps to seemingly insanely pro-Republican maps, and also the current real world map.  It found that only a scant few of the craziest Democrat-favorable maps would have resulted in a Democrat majority based on actual 2012 votes, meaning that almost all of the pro-Democrat maps, all of the neutral maps and all of the Republican maps would have resulted in what we actually got, that is, a Republican majority.  They also found that the real world map is not a wacky crazy pro-Republican map, that it’s about in the middle ground of hypothetical Republican-friendly maps.  That makes sense, because there were some state legislatures that were in Democrat hands in 2011 and 2012 that gerrymandered in favor of the blue team, such as Illinois and California.

The reason is what this first NYT article says above.  As long as Democrat voters willingly clump into tight geographical areas, they will be at a natural disadvantage in Congressional politics.  Not Republican gerrymandering, Democrat self-ghettoization.

Besides, what this AP advisory forgets is that Republicans have a blue team political ally when they do gerrymandering:  Black Democrats and the NAACP.  The Missouri map for this decade which means a 6-2 Republican majority save some sort of drastic turn of events was a map that black politicians in the General Assembly voted for twice, both to implement and to override Nixon’s veto, the NAACP in St. Louis and Kansas City approved, and the then and still two black Congressmen from Missouri, Lazy Clay and Beaver Cleaver, also endorsed.

If the AP is trying to manufacture an excuse for what is pretty much a foregone conclusion, that Republicans will hold onto the House and probably gain a few more seats, something else they’re forgetting is that this year, unlike two years ago, Republicans will almost certainly win the generic House candidate vote, too.

Hillary Doesn’t Have a Hispanic Problem

8 10 2014


Luis Gutierrez?

First off, HRC can bash his knees in before he starts the race just through discretely broadcasting to the right people that Julian Castro will be her running mate.

Second, this whole notion, which is little more than the media trying to create a story for the media’s benefit, is based on HRC’s supposed insouciance on immigration.  When we all know that she’s as open borders as any Democrat.  She’ll enforce immigration law about as much as her husband did, which is to say, not at all, for all intents and purposes.

I guess what is meant here by “inaction” is that mainstream Democrats have to do their Hispandering as quietly as possible, so that crucial white Democrat voters in crucial swing states aren’t pissed off.  As compared to bombastic open borders loudmouths like Gutierrez and other Razatards, who don’t have the political sophistication that God gave a slug, and don’t realize that the ZOMG GREAT HISPANIC VOTER TIDAL WAVE LOL~!!!!!1 is a paper tiger.

Grasping At Straws

28 09 2014

Washington, D.C.

Ho hum.  Another month, another Republican Presidential straw poll.

Want proof about how useless those things are?  Consider the straw poll of straw polls, the Ames Straw Poll held in the month of August before what is expected to be a competitive Republican primary and caucus season.  (It was not held in 2004, e.g., because President Bush was running for re-election and therefore had no serious primary challengers.)  Who won Ames in 2007?  2011?  Where did the eventual nominees finish in Ames in 2007 and 2011?  That you don’t know right away proves how relevant Ames is to reality, and like I said, Ames is the top dog of all straw polls, so all the rest of them are even more useless.

But then I realized something else.  Where are all the Democrat Presidential straw polls?  Are there any?  I can’t think of any offhand, and certainly none are as “serious” as Ames is on the Republican side.  So why are all the Presidential straw polls only on the Republican side?  It’s like these panoply of candidate pledges:  All Republican, never Democrat.  If I had to hazard a guess, the reason there are a lot of Republican straw polls but never any Democrat ones is that I think that at a subconscious level, the typical “serious conservative” Republican voter knows that Republican primaries and caucuses are, especially nowadays, a rigged establishment game.  Everyone knows that barring some once in an a several generation anomaly, the Republican nominee in 2016 is going to be Jeb Bush, because name recognition and donors.  So all these “serious conservatives” do all these useless meaningless straw polls that “serious conservatives” almost always win in order to grasp at straws to try to ease their troubled subconsciouses which are telling them the truth, so they can at least live in the blissfully ignorant comfort of denial for a little while longer.

One other thing I have to get off my chest about this conference where this straw poll was held.  You can’t have family values unless you have families, and you can’t have white families if white people can’t afford to start them, and white people can’t afford to start them thanks in no small part to corporate and ruling class greed.  Social conservatives (“religious right”) have done a pretty good job at least addressing and somewhat fighting half the problem, that being the social radicalism of the left, but what is holding them back from really hitting political paydirt and also accomplishing their goals is their being wedded to the Republican Party meaning that they’re hobbled by the opiates of economic libertarian ideology and general all-around Lincolnian egalitarianism, racial and otherwise.  How can you denounce the very corporate greed that is helping to ruin the social fabric of the traditional nuclear family structure if libertarian ideology precludes your mind from thinking that it’s bad?  Satan’s most clever trick was convincing the world that he didn’t exist, and likewise, evil flourishes when it’s able to pass itself off as some sort of virtue — Libertarianism accomplishes this for greed.  I also think that the religious right’s dispensationalism (“stand with Israel”) also hobbles them because it neutralizes their ability to denounce the havoc that Israel’s diaspora causes to their own agenda and goals, because you can’t denounce the chosen people.  If Jews do it, then God must want it, because chosen people.  Until they break out of those three self-imposed ghettos, all their political energy is going to accrue to the benefit of people, groups and forces that don’t want them to succeed and in fact hate them.

BTW, Mitt Romney won Ames in 2007, and the eventual nominee, John McCain, finished in tenth place.  Michele Bachmann won it in 2011, and the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, finished in seventh place.

Gag If You Must

18 09 2014


He’s taking a lot of grief for this tweet, when he should be getting a lot of grief for exiling immigration patriotism from Red State.

Not only is he right that Jeb Bush is going to run, if the post-WWII history of Republican Presidential politics holds, Jeb Bush will be the nominee.  One either has to have a lot of stored up name recognition or run a credible Presidential campaign before in order to win the Republican nomination.  The only exception was Barry Goldwater in 1964.  Point is, hardly anyone comes out of nowhere to win the Republican nomination; that’s more of a Democrat thing; that party’s nominees in 1952, 1960, 1976, 1992 and 2008 were considered long shots when those years’ Presidential political seasons began.

The British books have Jeb Bush anywhere from 4.5 to 6.8 to win the Republican nomination; inexplicably, averaging things out, they think Marco Rubio is the favorite, and Rand Paul is only a slightly longer shot than Bush.  Really, neither Rubio nor Paul have a prayer.  If you legally can, please go and make yourself some easy money.

Jack Kemp Plus John Kerry Equals…

15 09 2014

Bowling Green, Kentucky

…Rand Paul.

A lot of people are starting to catch on to what I realized awhile back, that Rand Paul has taken so many positions under the sun that if he runs for President in 2016, his biggest problem is that he will be 2016’s answer to Flip Flop John Kerry, not just 2016’s answer to Jack Kemp.  Notice neither Kerry nor Kemp actually became President.

But I don’t think his flip flopping is really a mystery.  Jack Ryan of Occidental Dissent has a pretty good theory that applies to both Rand Paul and his father, that they’ll say whatever they think they have to say in order to get whoever is in the room at the time to like them, then turn around and justify whatever it is they said in some sort of libertarian terms.

Tip Over The Table

3 09 2014


RNC jiggering the 2016 primary and caucus schedule and delegate apportionment rules to guarantee that Jeb Bush an establishment-blessed and -funded candidate wins the nomination.

If you’re playing poker with five people and you find out that the other five are holding all 20 aces in the deck, there’s only one thing you can do.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,716 other followers