Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Why Democrats need fringe voters

Steve Sailer notes:
The message you’ve heard ever since the election is that the Republicans lost because of the amnesty issue and therefore they must agree to amnesty and a path to citizenship. ...
He analyzes the 2012 election exit polls in all 50 states, and convincingly argues that amnesty would not have helped the Republican vote. This week's Phyllis Schlafly column also makes a similar argument. Sailer goes on the explain the demographic factors that decided the election, and concludes:
The Obama base is, to be blunt, the fringes. The epitome of Romney’s base is the married white father, while the essence of Obama’s base is the single black mother. Obama’s base hadn’t bothered to show up to vote in 2010, so how was he going to motivate them in 2012?

The former are a lot more likely to vote out of a sense of civic duty, while the latter need some emotional motivation. ...

Obviously, this turned into an election based on identity, on whether people felt themselves in the core of America or in the fringe of America.

The core versus fringe can be defined in a couple of ways. For example, do you come from people who settled this country a long time ago? Or are you, say, an immigrant from Somalia who is now going to gift us with all the lessons that Somalis have developed over the eons on how to run a successful country?

Or, on a personal level, are you somebody who is married, has stayed married, has children, owns a home, and is employed? Or are you somebody who’s single, renting, who basically doesn’t find your life satisfactory and is looking for somebody to blame?

The way the Obama campaign turned out their base was to whip up feelings of resentment toward core Americans—toward those people whose ancestors had built the country, who largely keep it running today and who in their personal lives have done a pretty good job of keeping their act together.

Obama did a spectacular job of taking people from the fringe and telling them that they should resent the white married people of America, the ones who own their homes, the ones whose great-great-grandparents helped make this country, and that there’s something shameful, unfair, or at least uncool, about coming from the core of America.

It was a brilliant strategy. Obama ran a really ugly, nasty campaign full of subliminal hatred. The Democrats did a good job keeping the stew of ill-will they were brewing under wraps until after the votes were counted. But in the days following the election, out came pouring the chest-beating Suck-It-White-Boy exultation, the mindless fury at the losing white male bogeyman for being old and white, but, mostly, for losing.
Sailer is right. As noted below, expanding certain demographic groups is critical to the success of the Democrat party. Republicans are more likely to get the voter who is married, has stayed married, has children, owns a home, is employed, and has a future time orientation. So the Democrats gain by making those people a declining share of the population.

No comments:

Post a Comment