Patterson’s First Axiom

22 12 2015


Buckle up; I’m about to prove why Nicholas Stix calls me the country’s greatest living political scientist.

While I think Trump has way more support among blacks than the typical Republican Presidential candidate, resist the temptation to interpret this to mean that just because Trump’s percentage is highest in “minority center counties” means that Trump is actually getting that support from the minorities in minority center counties, read:  blacks in the Dixie black belt.  In reality, because of Patterson’s First Axiom, it is white voters in minority center counties that’s driving the Trump support.  Even this article tries to warn us of this:

The idea of Mr. Trump doing well in counties with large minority populations may seem counter-intuitive, but, remember, we’re focusing on a specific set of voters that live in those places: Republican primary voters. With that group, we are focusing almost solely on white voters who live in those counties. Even in states with large minority populations, the Republican primary electorate is more than 90% white.

However, there is some hidden good news in this fact:

Moreover, the analysis suggests that Mr. Trump has pockets of strength that could prove valuable in states, some of them beyond the South, that award delegates to the top vote-winner in each congressional district. Districts with a large minority population may not include large numbers of Republicans, but they award delegates, nonetheless. Winning those districts could yield Mr. Trump a sizeable cache of delegates in states such as South Carolina and California.

There’s another reason why Trump’s popularity among Southern whites who are surrounded by blacks is a good omen for Trump elsewhere in the country.  The white Republican primary voter in the Deep South is a very very good leading indicator of how working middle class whites outside the South will be able to warm up to a Republican nominee on general election day.  You may not remember this because of the conventional wisdom, but Mitt Romney didn’t win a single Deep South state during the primary season when the race was competitive; in fact, in some of them, he finished in third behind both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.  I’m reminding you of this because the CW ever since November 2012 is that Romney had to take “extreme” positions to win Deep South primaries and this in turn hurt him in November, when in reality Romney didn’t win competitive Deep South primaries.  You saw sort of the same thing present in 2008, when the only two viable candidates left were John McCain and Mike Huckabee; the latter beat the former in some Southern primaries and caucuses after everyone else dropped out.  I interpret this to mean that a Republican candidate who can win over whites in Alabama in the spring has a chance to win over working-middle class whites in Michigan in the fall, and, vice-versa.  McCain and Romney could not, so they did not, respectively, and therefore lost the election.  This point will become relevant in a moment.

You can see a map of all the 2016 county types as designed by the communities project here. Note the green Minority Center counties running through North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. Many of those states vote on March 1; South Carolina votes even earlier. March 5 brings Kentucky and Louisiana. On March 8 is Mississippi.

This paragraph has caused me to figure out two mysteries.

First, why the RNC set up 2016 so that events before March 15 award delegates proportionately while events after March 15 award delegates winner take all.  That’s because just about all of the Southern primaries and caucuses go before March 15; what this means is that, on the margins, the RNC wants Dixie to have less influence in choosing the nominee or influencing the ultimate nominee than it would have if their contests were winner take all.  Post March 15 contests tend to be big delegate prizes outside the South, and, at least when the RNC enacted this provision, they thought those would be Jeb! friendly.  That way, the establishment-conservative split pre-3/15 would not mean that the conservative(s) who might win those states would get all the delegates from those states; Jeb! or whoever the party brass wants would get delegates proportional to their vote percentages.  But after 3/15, Jeb! wins Jeb! style states and win all of their delegates. Also, if Jeb! didn’t have to worry about actually finishing in first place in Alabama to get any delegates from Alabama, he wouldn’t have to try to appeal to enough of the kind of white voters that make Alabama Alabamay just to finish in first; he could RINO it up, finish in third, (even Alabama has its share of Republican establishment flunkies), and get some delegates anyway. He could walk away with delegates but also be able to brag to the media that he didn’t have to bother pandering to knuckledragging troglodytes, either.  The reason why I think the RNC wanted to cock block the South was because it buys into, and in fact, has helped to peddle, the post-Romney conventional wisdom I wrote about and refuted above.

Second, and in turn, this solves the mystery to why Jeb! said this inexplicable thing late last year; he knew (or he thought, at the time) that the RNC rigged the schedule and the game to make that possible.

The Myth of Four Million

29 11 2015


Relax, I said four, not six.

Turns out the “four million missing Republicans” line isn’t true.

Even when “four million” was believed and believable, the difference between your blogmeister and them is that I never believed the missing Republicans were doctrinaire conservatives who stayed home to punish Romney for his not being conservative enough, especially since we were told that these four million actually did show up to vote for the even less conservative John McCain in 2008.  Considering which EC-crucial states Romney only won slight majority but not landslide margins among whites and not enough to overcome the record high 45+ black women turnout, I figured even then that the whites in those states who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Romney, and stayed home, were independent Republican leaning but not loyal blue and gray collar whites.  Sean Trende’s later analysis of 2012 non-voters confirmed my suspicion.

However, the reality is that Romney got a million more votes than McCain got in 2008, while Obama got 3.5 million fewer votes than he himself did four years prior.  That said, I still think Trende’s analysis is valid, considering what doomed Romney in states like Ohio were not big enough white margins.  What it also shows is that since Obama lost 3.5 million voters, but 45+ black women turnout was even higher than it was in 2012, is that Obama’s big data microtargeting strategy, which even I credited at first, was a big flop.

Brunner Is In, Officially

5 10 2015


For GOV-R.

He better have a platform beyond “Muh Handwipe” and “I’m against ObamaCare” if he wants to win this primary, otherwise, for me, it will feel like that I’m partying like it’s very early August 2012.

Of course, I have to say again, neither he nor any of the other Republicans have a chance versus Koster November next unless they openly disavow RTW.

Coming Around

14 07 2015


The Cook organization is finally coming around to understanding what Steve Sailer figured out more than two years ago:

Hispanics, not that important, very little political and Electoral College leverage. Blacks, very important, lots of political and Electoral College leverage, in fact, the difference maker in 2012 bar none.

However, I don’t think that blacks and the decisive role they play are “overlooked.”  I think a whole lot of important people have known this all along.  But it gave the Republican oriented donor class and the consultants who ride herd for them the opportunity to concoct a self-serving political myth that Hispanic voters are ultra-crucial and ultra-important, they want amnesty and open borders, and the way to win elections is to give the Republican donors the amnesty and open borders they want.

If blacks and their leverage weren’t well understood, the names Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown would have never become nationally known, and you’d be hearing nothing about Confederate flags today.

Citizen United

14 04 2015

Monticello, Iowa






The question above of why HRC needs $2.5 billion or even $2.5 thousand is a very good one.  First off, she already has the media on her side, NBC most of all, because they hired Chelsea Clinton in order to buy access to Hillary Clinton, and even though the younger Miss Clinton didn’t last long at NBC, Comcast is going to have to protect their investment by making sure HRC wins.  And by eschewing all that money, HRC can lead by example, or at least put on a front like she is.

Give and Take

13 04 2015


PowerLine, quoting Rubio’s announcement:

Both of my parents were born to poor families in Cuba. After his mother died when he was nine, my father left school to go work. My mother was one of seven girls raised by a disabled father who struggled to provide for his family.

When they were young, my parents had big dreams for themselves. But because they were not born into wealth or power, their future was destined to be defined by their past. So in 1956 they came here, to the one place on earth where the aspirations of people like them could be more than just dreams.

My father became a bartender. My mother a cashier, a maid and a Kmart stock clerk. They never made it big. But they were successful. Two immigrants with little money or education found stable jobs, owned a home, retired with security and gave all four of their children a life far better than their own.

My parents achieved what came to be known as the American Dream. But now, too many Americans are starting to doubt whether achieving that dream is still possible.

The 2012 Republican National Convention in Tampa had one speech after another after another like this.  The speakers, a lot of them non-white, spouted their Horatio Alger stories.  Marco Rubio was one of them, as a matter of fact.  Others like that included New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, and now Congresswoman Mia Love from Utah.

The reason why that convention turned out to be a big flop was that those speeches and those that gave them were appealing to an audience and a class of voters that doesn’t want to work for anything, doesn’t want to pay their dues to be a real success if they ever will be, doesn’t want to climb the ladder slowly and one step at a time.  They want it all, they want it now, and they want it given to them without obligation.  And that’s where Baracka Claus and the Democrats come in.

That’s what tends to happen when you try to be Democrat lite to compete with Democrat classic for the gibsmedat Democrat voter.

Maybe next time they’ll speak to the people that actually do vote for their crummy party or maybe the people who actually might but don’t quite.  Or do I wish for too much?

Needless to Say, I Don’t Agree

7 04 2015

Washington, D.C.

Paul Bedard, in the WE:

Norquist book: IRS assault on Tea Party saved Obama’s presidency

The administration-ordered persecution of Tea Party groups shut down the movement in time to save President Obama’s reelection and starve Republican Mitt Romney of the 4,262,296 votes needed to take the White House, according to an explosive new book from tax foe Grover Norquist.

Okay, now it’s time for that inside-the-box thinking that I’m famous for.

1.  Establishment Republicans were as much of a driving force behind IRSgate was were Democrats-Obama.

2.  The TPM was never hot for Romney.  Even if they were at full strength, they would not have wanted to mobilize in favor of Willard.  Besides, the hundreds of millions of dollars budget Romney campaign had enough money and people to do its own GOTV such that it never needed to rely on the nickel and dime budget TPM groups’ pavement pounding operations.  That the Romney campaign didn’t and couldn’t is its own fault entirely.

3.  The 4,262,296 people who did not vote for Romney who did vote for McCain four years earlier would not have been more likely to vote for Romney even if the TPM was at full strength and all in for Romney.  About two weeks ago, I wrote as a comment in this space:

It all comes down to this: There were around 4 million people who did vote for John McCain in 2008 who did not vote for Mitt Romney in 2012. These are the famous “four million missing Republicans” that lamestream conservative talking heads talk about and go on and on about.

And it is the severe misinterpretation of who they are, where they are, why they are, and why they didn’t vote in 2012, that’s going to drive the Republicans into yet another loss in 2016.

The conventional wisdom among lamer con talking heads is that the four million missing Republicans were lamer cons who gave Mitt Romney a lamer con purity test which he somehow failed, so they stayed home. Therefore, the “solution” is merely to run a more “pure,” more articulate, better credentialed lamer con up the flagpole, and everything will be fine. And that’s why Ted Cruz thinks he can win this whole shooting match.

Except for? Well, everything.

First off, John McCain was even less conservative than Romney, so it’s strange for people doing lamer con litmus tests to think that McCain passed it but Romney didn’t.

Second, Sean Trende already did the difficult leg work (or rather, finger work) and found out who the 4 million missing Republicans are. As it turns out, on a county by county basis, there is a very very strong correlation between the percent of voters in the county that consists of these missing Republicans and the county’s percent vote for Ross Perot in 1992. Meaning the missing “Republicans” aren’t doctrinaire conservatives, not even strong Republicans. They’re working-middle class white independents, once upon a time they were called “Reagan Democrats.” Their non voting means that Romney couldn’t win the Great Lakes states’ white voters by the landslide margins he needed to to overcome the black elderly women deluge. And it should be no surprise now that working-middle class whites in the Great Lakes had no desire to turn out for someone who, if he had never gone into politics, would be a hedge fund multi billionaire by now.

Back to Norquist’s theory:

First, he cited a study on the Tea Party movement that found it pushed up to 5.8 million extra Republican voters to the polls in 2010 when the GOP took control of the House, essentially shutting down Obama’s agenda.

I have no doubt about the veracity of that.  But, “extra Republican voters in 2010” compared to what?  It can’t be compared to 2008, because Prez years have bigger turnouts than midterms.  It has to be 2010 delta 2006, the previous midterm.  And if that’s the case, then of course it would be much easier to motivate Republicans to turn out, because 2006 was the sixth year of a Republican President, and the second midterm of a two-term President is almost always great for the “opposition” party.  While 2010 was the first midterm of what turned out to be a two-term Democrat President.  What I’d like to know, but what only God Himself knows, is how many of those 5.8 million Republicans 10 delta 6 would have voted anyway even if the TPM never existed, that they did just out of pure partisan reaction, and how many were actually a result of TPM pavement pounding.




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,653 other followers