No Problems Here

28 08 2016


Note that the record for white Evangelicals voting Republicans is 79%, for Romney in 2012 and Bush in 2004.

Miss You Not

14 03 2016

Your Blogmeister’s Hotel Room

Ben Shapiro and Michelle (Corey didn’t assault me) Fields are leaving Breitbart.

Good for Breitbart.

Shapiro, one of the bigger Trump haters in the the neo-to-lamer right universe, was singing a different tune five years ago.


Excuse You

3 03 2016

Salt Lake City

We don’t need someone who, when he was running for President, deceitfully used Kris Kobach and immigration patriotism in order to scam his way into the nomination, then ditching both after he effectively won it, lecturing us about how another Presidential candidate is a phony and a fraud.


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.