Tag Archives: Hispanics

Obama's Useful Idiots are less happy than 2 years ago

elections have consequences
Useful idiots (df): Supporters for a cause whose goals they do not understand, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause.
Racial “minorities” and young people were among the biggest supporters and voters for President Lucy. But a recent survey found that those groups are the least happy of Americans.
A Harris Poll of 2,345 U.S. adults surveyed online April 10-15 by Harris Interactive found that only a third of U.S. adults say they are very happy. Certain groups, such as minorities, recent graduates and the disabled, show particularly pronounced declines in the past two years.
The Harris Happiness Index is calculated by asking Americans if they agree or disagree with a list of statements, some positive and others negative. Those who say they strongly agree with all of the positive statements, such as “my relationships with friends bring me happiness”, ” I rarely worry about my health” and “at this time, I’m generally happy with my life”, and strongly disagree with all of the negative ones, such as “I frequently worry about my financial situation” and “I rarely engage in hobbies and pastimes I enjoy,” are considered very happy.
Among the survey’s findings:

  • Minorities show particularly pronounced declines in happiness in the two years since the Happiness Index was last measured, with especially low happiness levels observed among the Hispanic American population. Fewer than 3 in 10 Hispanics (28%) are very happy — a decline from 2011’s 35%.
  • African-Americans appear to be less happy than in 2011, with 36% qualifying as very happy – down from 44% in 2011. However, though happiness is down among them, they remain roughly as happy as whites (34%).
  • Among Americans with disabilities, the percentage of those very happy has dropped from 34% to 31%.
  • College graduates’ likelihood to qualify as very happy has dropped since 2011 (from 35% to 32%), a possible casualty of a challenged job market and increasing questions of whether a college degree in this day and age is returning on the time and monetary investment.
  • Americans earning under $50,000 per year are also less likely to qualify as very happy than in 2011 (from 33% to 29% among those earning <$35,000; from 35% to 32% among those earning between $35,000-$49,999).
  • Younger Americans are less happy: Those 50 and older (36% ages 50-64, 41% ages 65+) are more likely to be very happy than their younger counterparts (31% ages 18-24, 30% ages 25-29, 28% ages 30-39, 30% ages 40-49).

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Obama Injustice Dept blocks Texas voter ID law

A more fitting name for the Obama administration’s Justice Department is the U.S. Department of Injustice.

Just as it had done with a similar law in South Carolina, the Obama Injustice Department is blocking a new photo ID law for voters in Texas, on the grounds that the law would be “discriminatory by design” against Hispanic voters.

Thomas Perez


FoxNews.com reports, March 12, 2012, that Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, head of the civil rights division of Obama’s Injustice Dept., wrote a a 6-page letter to Texas’ director of elections saying that Texas has not “sustained its burden” under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the new law will not have a discriminatory effect on minority voters. About 11% of Hispanic voters in Texas reportedly lack state-issued identification.
Perez wrote that the number of people lacking any personal ID or driver’s license issued by the state ranges from from 603,892 to 795,955, but of that span, 29-38% of them are Hispanic. “According to the state’s own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5%, and potentially 120%, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification.”
Perez also opined that while Texas’ lawmakers offered to make election identification certificates available to protect low-income voters who don’t already have any ID, the documents are not free, and it creates the additional burden of traveling to a driver’s license office, undergoing an application process that includes fingerprinting and finding supporting documentation to prove one’s identity. Obama’s Injustice Department argued that the Texas law creates an undue hardship on Hispanic populations that don’t have the means to get a vehicle, live extremely far from a driver’s license office or can’t make it during the offices’ limited operating hours.
Texas is the second state to have its voter ID law challenged.
Obama’s Injustice Department already blocked a similar law from taking effect in South Carolina — the first time a voter ID law was rejected by the department in nearly 20 years. South Carolina sued Eric Holder in response, arguing that enforcement of its new law will not disenfranchise any voters.
Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Texas law was based on an Indiana law that was upheld by the Supreme Court:
“Voter ID laws help ensure the integrity of our elections and protect the rights of lawful voters. If citizens are required to show ID in order to open a bank account, cash a check, drive a car or board a plane, how much more important is it to show ID in order to exercise one of our most valuable democratic rights? This is an abuse of executive authority and an affront to the citizens of Texas. It’s time for the Obama administration to learn not to mess with Texas.”

Notwithstanding his contorted reasoning, Perez has not explained why a voter photo ID law would be “discriminatory” specifically against Hispanics.
The Obama administration effectively is saying that, among the many races and ethnic groups in America, only Hispanics would have a problem producing photo ID proof of their U.S. citizenship and voting eligibility. (Dang, there’s that “eligibility” word again!)
Isn’t that another way of admitting that some or many Hispanic “voters” are not U.S. citizens but illegal aliens who should not be voting?

H/t beloved Grouchy

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Newt Gingrich's women problem

…or rather women have a problem with Newt Gingrich, and I don’t mean his two ex-wives, Jackie and Marianne.

Newt and Wife #2, Marianne, in happier times


Newt enjoyed a surge of popularity immediately after he chastised the newsman at a GOP debate for asking him about Wife No. 2 Marianne’s claim that Newt had wanted an open marriage so that he could continue his 6-year adulterous affair with self-professed lifelong Catholic, Callista Bisek (who later became Wife No. 3).
But that surge was short lived. Either that, or the surge of popularity is confined only to men.
The AP reports, Jan. 30, 2012, that although there was relatively little gender difference in Republican voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, exit polling data of yesterday’s GOP primary election in Florida show that women — Republican, not Democratic, women — abandoned Gingrich in droves, which helped fuel Mitt Romney’s win.
While Florida men narrowly preferred Romney, the message from women is striking:

Women voted for Romney (over Gingrich) 52% to 28% — and this held true across every category of education and income.

The exit poll data suggest that many women’s votes were influenced more by a personal distaste for Gingrich than by liking Romney. Asked their views of Gingrich as a person, men said they generally viewed him favorably by 62% to 34%, but women were about evenly divided. Among all voters on Tuesday, 55% expressed favorable views of Newt personally, compared to 77% who said the same about Mitt.
Don’t say I hadn’t warned you about Newt’s high unfavorability ratings! See my post, “Newt wins South Carolina but is widely disliked.”

Newt with Wife #1, Jackie, his former hi-school math teacher whom he later dumped for Marianne


Exit polls also found that:

  • Hispanics, who comprised about 1 in 7 GOP primary voters yesterday, preferred Mitt, 54% to 29%.
  • Older voters (65 or older) preferred Mitt, 51% to 34%.
  • Those most worried about the economy, around 6 in 10 Florida GOP voters, preferred Mitt 52% to 30%.
  • Those concerned about electability — the nearly half of Florida voters yesterday who said they most wanted a candidate who can beat Obama this November — preferred Mitt 58% to 33%.
  • Mitt enjoyed a slight advantage among higher-income voters, although he won among every income category overall.
  • Newt had a small 4-3 margin over Mitt only among voters who identify themselves as very conservative and strong supporters of the Tea Party.  Mitt had a decisive edge among everyone else.

~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Obama's Attack-Dogs Go After Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Joe Arpaio, the maverick sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County, has a reputation as “the toughest sheriff in America” — a well-earned reputation because of his tough-on-crime approach. Arpaio jails inmates in tents, dresses them in pink underwear, and strictly enforces the laws on illegal immigration which the federal government refuses to enforce. For that, last July a Mexico drug cartel offered a $1 million bounty for Arpaio’s head.
It is because of his tough reputation as a law enforcer that a Tea Party group, frustrated by judge after judge throwing out lawsuits that challenged Obama’s eligibility, turned to Sheriff Arpaio for help. On August 18, 2011, they met with Arpaio to ask him to investigate the authenticity of Obama’s birth certificate, an image of which Skippy had disclosed with great fanfare on April 27, so as to determine his eligibility for Maricopa Ccounty’s 2012 election ballot. As his county’s chief law enforcement officer, Arpaio is obliged to investigate.
In late October, Arpaio said his Cold Case Posse would deliver “surprises” in their eligibility investigation, and that the investigation was extending to the possibility that Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number. Sources close to the investigation say the posse has decided it needs to see Skippy’s original birth records — not an electronic file, an online image, or scanned copies — before it can conclude whether Obama should be eligible for the presidential ballot in 2012.
I was wondering when Obama would set loose his attack dogs on the sheriff.
Sure enough, in early November came news that Arpaio had received death threats for his eligibility investigation. Undeterred, Arpaio told WorldNetDaily that “Getting death threats is nothing new for me” — the Mexico drug cartel having offered a bounty for his head — but he was puzzled by the major media’s virtual silence about his decision to investigate Obama’s eligibility to run for re-election. He pointed out that “usually the media is all over me, but when I decided to investigate Obama, the media has suddenly gone missing in action.”
Now Eric Holder, Obama’s Heinrich Himmler, is siccing his Department of Justice (DOJ) attack-dogs on the sheriff — the same Eric Holder and the Department of Justice that refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for their voter intimidation at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008.
Fox News reports that yesterday, Dec. 15, 2011, the DOJ released a report of its 3-year investigation of Arpaio’s Maricopa County office. The report alleges that Arpaio and his office have carried out a blatant pattern of discrimination against Latinos. The DOJ report claims:

  • Arpaio’s office, MCSO (Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office), has committed a wide range of civil rights violations against Latinos, including a pattern of racial profiling and discrimination and carrying out heavy-handed immigration patrols, known as “sweeps,” based on racially charged citizen complaints — that Latinos were merely gathering near a business without committing crimes.
  • Arpaio and his MCSO have no clear policies to guard against the civil rights violations, even after he changed some of his top aides earlier this year. Thomas Perez, who heads the DOJ’s civil rights division, wrote: “Arpaio’s own actions have helped nurture MCSO’s culture of bias. MCSO is broken in a number of critical respects. The problems are deeply rooted in MCSO’s culture.”
  • Arpaio and some top staffers tried to silence people who have spoken out against the sheriff’s office by arresting people without cause, filing meritless lawsuits against opponents and starting investigations of critics.
  • Arpaio’s office treated Latinos as if they are all in the country illegally, resulting in Latinos being 4 to 9 times more likely to be stopped in traffic stops in Maricopa County than non-Latinos, as well as arrested without good cause. Deputies are encouraged to make high-volume traffic stops in targeted locations. There were Latinos who were in the U.S. legally who were arrested or detained without cause during the sweeps, according to the report.
  • During the sweeps, deputies flood an area of a city — in some cases, heavily Latino areas — over several days to seek out traffic violators and arrest other offenders. Illegal immigrants accounted for 57% of the 1,500 people arrested in the 20 sweeps conducted by Arpaio’s office since January 2008.
  • Police supervisors, including at least one smuggling-squad supervisor, often used county accounts to send emails that demeaned Latinos to fellow sheriff’s managers, deputies and volunteers in the sheriff’s posse. One such email had a photo of a mock driver’s license for a fictional state called “Mexifornia.”
  • Arpaio’s jails display a pattern of language-based racial discrimination against Latinos:
  • Latino inmates with limited English skills were punished for failing to understand commands in English by being put in solitary confinement for up to 23 hours a day or keeping prisoners locked down in their jail pods for as long as 72 hours without a trip to the canteen area or making nonlegal phone calls.
  • Some jail officers used racial slurs for Latinos when talking among themselves and speaking to inmates.
  • Detention officers refused to accept forms requesting basic daily services and reporting mistreatment when the documents were completed in Spanish and pressured Latinos with limited English skills to sign forms that implicate their legal rights without language assistance.
  • The agency pressures Latinos with limited English skills to sign forms by yelling at them and keeping them in uncomfortably cold cells for long periods of time.

Perez, the DOJ’s expert on racial profiling, calls Arpaio’s office the most egregious case of racial profiling in the nation that he has seen. He claims that federal investigators had interviewed more than 400 people, including Arpaio, reviewed thousands of documents and toured county jails as part of its probe.
The DOJ report requires Arpaio to set up effective policies against discrimination, improve training and make other changes that would be monitored for compliance by a judge. Arpaio faces a Jan. 4 deadline for saying whether he wants to work out an agreement. If not, the federal government will sue him and let a judge decide the complaint.
If the sheriff’s office doesn’t turn around its policies and practices, the federal government could pull millions of dollars of federal funding.
Apart from the DOJ civil rights probe, a federal grand jury also has been investigating Arpaio’s office on criminal abuse-of-power allegations since at least December 2009 and is specifically examining the investigative work of the sheriff’s anti-public corruption squad.
Meanwhile, the DOJ vows they will continue their investigation of Sheriff Arpaio in other areas as well: complaints of excessive force against Latinos; botched sex-crimes cases; immigration efforts “that have hurt the agency’s trust with the Hispanic community”; whether the sheriff’s office has limited the willingness of witnesses and victims to report crimes or talk to Arpaio’s office.
For his part, Arpaio has long denied the racial profiling allegation, saying people are stopped if deputies have probable cause to believe they have committed crimes and that deputies later find many of them are illegal immigrants.
UPDATE:
Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) is defending Sheriff Joe  against Justice Department charges. More Republicans should come forth to support Arpaio. It’s time to circle the wagons!
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlSM1oJpvmA&feature=player_embedded]
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

La Raza: Racist Hispanic group funded by taxpayers


La Raza (in English, The Race) or the National Council of La Raza calls itself “a non-profit and non-partisan advocacy group in the United States, focused on improving opportunities for Hispanics” — Americans of Mexican descent.
But as its name “La Raza” implies, it is actually a racist organization. La Raza denies it’s racist, insisting instead that its name “La Raza” actually means the innocuous, non-race-specific, warm-and-fuzzy “The People.” That is political sophistry. Go to any Spanish-English dictionary and search for the English translation of “raza.” I did, and this is what I found:

Google English Spanish Translation for raza:

Dictionary – View detailed dictionary

  1. noun
    1. race
    2. breed
    3. strain
    4. colorcast

In other words, La Raza is a racist Latino, mainly Hispanic, organization that champions the “rights” of illegal immigrants aliens, as well as advocates open borders and the return (Reconquista) of the southwestern US to Mexico.

The territory in red represents radical Hispanics’ fantasy and goal of Aztlan – the mythic homeland of the “brown race” (their term, not mine).


Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor was a 6-year member of La Raza.
This racist organization receives funding from philanthropic organizations, such as the Ford Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as corporations such as Citigroup and Wal-Mart. La Raza also receives some $5 million of our tax dollars each year — when America is more than $14 trillion in debt.
Ask yourself this question: Would the US government ever provide funding to a group that champions the rights of the “white” race or the rights of any other outlaw group? But our feral gubbmint is doing just that, pouring our hardearned dollars into this rat hole that champions the rights of ILLEGAL immigrants. For those who are language-challenged, illegal means OUTLAW!
Ralph Alter writes in the American Thinker, Stop government funding of La Raza,” March 11, 2011:

As we observe the baby steps being taken by the newly elected budget-cutting Congress of 2010, we are coming to realize how absurd the old Washington political approach of throwing money at our problems is. The remarkable capitalist engine driving our free republic had become so incredibly powerful that for decades politicians have been able to shovel billions of dollars toward our foreign allies and adversaries, developed a safety net that assured food and medical care for nearly all U.S. citizens (and millions of non-citizens) and funded crackpot studies of no use and political causes of nearly every stripe.
The funding for one such political group seems particularly inappropriate considering our current fiscal dilemma. Mike Piccione at Human Events pulled the tax returns from 2006 to 2009 for the radical Latino group, the National Council of La Raza, and discovered that our federal government shelled out nearly $12 million to help the controversial group promote open borders and amnesty for illegals during that period.
La Raza translates from the Spanish to “the Race.” The group has been associated with the motto: “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza, nada.” This translates as “For The Race, everything, outside The Race, nothing.” The group publicly rejects it’s link to this motto as well as any connection to the popular Mexican concept of “reconquista” (Mexico) or taking back the southwestern United States by overwhelming demographics.
The details of La Raza’s use of those federal funds includes generous compensation to 17 foundation officers and board members ranging from $119,675 to $378,446. The tax returns also itemize a total of $800,787 for expenses “to lobby the U.S. government for money.”
Apparently at one time this made sense. A similar donation to a white supremacist group would never had gotten out of the gate. Paying special interest groups in order to enable them to lobby the government to pay them to lobby doesn’t seem like a very good investment, especially to a group promoting the continuation and extension of billions of dollars in payments for the welfare, education and medical payments for non U.S. citizens.
Call or write your congressman and insist that all funding to La Raza be ended.


~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Whites to Become a Minority in Texas

This pic of illegal migrants at a water tank was taken by a motion-activated night-vision camera on a Texas ranch


Texas demographer: ‘It’s basically over for Anglos’
By Gary Scharrer – Texas Politics – Feb 24, 2011
Looking at population projections for Texas, demographer Steve Murdock concludes: “It’s basically over for Anglos.”
Two of every three Texas children are now non-Anglo and the trend line will become even more pronounced in the future, said Murdock, former U.S. Census Bureau director and now director of the Hobby Center for the Study of Texas at Rice University.
Today’s Texas population can be divided into two groups, he said. One is an old and aging Anglo and the other is young and minority. Between 2000 and 2040, the state’s public school enrollment will see a 15 percent decline in Anglo children while Hispanic children will make up a 213 percent increase, he said.
The state’s largest county – Harris – will shed Anglos throughout the coming decades. By 2040, Harris County will have about 516, 000 fewer Anglos than lived in the Houston area in 2000, while the number of Hispanics will increase by 2.5 million during the same period, Murdock said. The projection assumes a net migration rate equal to one-half of 1990-2000.
Most of the state’s population growth is natural, Murdock told the House Mexican American Legislative Caucus today. About 22 percent of the growth comes from people moving to Texas from other states. About 6 percent of the state’s population is not documented, he said.
B y 2040, only 20 percent of the state’s public school enrollment will be Anglo, he said. Last year, non-Hispanic white children made up 33.3 percent of the state’s 4.8 million public school enrollment.
Of the state’s 254 counties, 79 recorded declining population during the past 20 years. All are rural. An additional 30 Texas counties, he said, would have also lost population had they not experienced Hispanic growth.
The state’s future looks bleak assuming the current trend line does not change because education and income levels for Hispanics lag considerably behind Anglos, he said. Unless the trend line changes, 30 percent of the state’s labor force will not have even a high school diploma by 2040, he said. And the average household income will be about $6,500 lower than it was in 2000. That figure is not inflation adjusted so it will be worse than what it sounds. “It’s a terrible situation that you are in. I am worried,” Murdock said.
~Posted by Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

White Americans Abandon Democratic Party

In the 2010 midterm elections, a trend that’s been happening for some time now accelerated.
There is a growing gap between how whites and non-whites vote, and among white voters, between the working class and the college-educated, between men and women, between the older and the young, and between the heartland and the coasts.
In each contrasting pair, the latter group (college-educated, women, young, coasts) is mainly Democratic, pro-Obama and pro-big government, whereas the former group (working class, men, older, heartland) is abandoning the Democratic Party, increasingly skeptical of government as the solution, and turning conservative.
It is now clear that the Democratic Party of old is no more. The party’s new base is a coalition forged of non-whites, and white women, college-educated, young, and coastal. Conservatives won on November 2 because typically there’s a low voter-turnout among non-whites and young people in mid-term elections. The bad news is that America’s demographic trend is on the side of the Democratic Party’s new coalition, due to legal and illegal immigration, as well as the leftwing propaganda that is fed to college students. 
This is sobering news, with troubling implications for race, class, and gender relations. America’s politics will get even nastier.
~Eowyn

Here are excerpts from Ronald Brownstein‘s White Flight,” National Journal, January 7, 2011:

By any standard, white voters’ rejection of Democrats in November’s elections was daunting and even historic.
Fully 60% of whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives; only 37% supported Democrats, according to the National Election Poll exit poll conducted by Edison Research. Not even in Republicans’ 1994 congressional landslide did they win that high a percentage of the white vote.
Moreover, those results may understate the extent of the white flight from the Democratic Party, according to a National Journal analysis of previously unpublished exit-poll data provided by Edison Research.
The new data show that white voters not only strongly preferred Republican House and Senate candidates but also registered deep disappointment with President Obama’s performance, hostility toward the cornerstones of the current Democratic agenda, and widespread skepticism about the expansive role for Washington embedded in the party’s priorities. On each of those questions, minority voters expressed almost exactly the opposite view from whites.
…These results, however, could carry profound implications for 2012. They suggest that economic recovery alone may not solve the president’s problems with many of the white voters who stampeded toward the Republican Party last year. “It comes down to that those voters are very skeptical of the expansion of government,” says Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams, a veteran strategist. “The voters who went with Obama in 2008 did not know what they were going to get with that vote. Now that they’ve seen the health care bill, the stimulus bill, the bailout, the cap-and-trade proposal—issue after issue, they don’t like what they see.”
That resistance could, in turn, increase the pressure on Obama to accelerate the generation-long transformation of the Democratic electoral coalition that he pushed forward in 2008. With so much of the white electorate, especially working-class whites, dubious about the president’s direction, to win a second term he will likely need to increase turnout and improve his showing among the groups that keyed his 2008 victory—minorities, young people, and white-collar white voters, especially women….
THE NEW COLOR LINE
After Election Day, several media outlets released exit-poll data breaking down the contrasting level of support among white and minority voters for Republican and Democratic congressional candidates. But they did not publish results that separated by race the responses to questions that measured attitudes about Obama’s performance, the state of the economy, the national agenda, and the way voters described their own ideology. It was those additional race-specific results that National Journal recently purchased from Edison Research, the organization that conducts the exit surveys…. From every angle, the exit-poll results reveal a new color line: a consistent chasm between the attitudes of whites and minorities. The gap begins with preferences in the election.
After two years of a punishing recession, minority support for House Democrats sagged in this election to the lowest level recorded by exit polls in the past two decades, according to calculations that Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, provided to National Journal. The Hispanic vote for Democrats in House races slipped to 60%, compared with about two-thirds for Obama in 2008 (although some Hispanic analysts say that other data indicate a better showing for Democrats last year). But even so, a solid 73% of all nonwhite voters—African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and others—backed Democratic House candidates in the midterm election, according to the new analysis.
Meanwhile, Republicans, with their 60% showing, notched the party’s best congressional result among white voters in the history of modern polling. Media exit polls conducted by Edison Research and its predecessors have been tracking congressional elections for about three decades. In no previous exit poll had Republicans reached 60% of the white vote in House races….
November’s gap between the voting preferences of whites and minorities was at the wider end of the range over the past two decades but it wasn’t the absolute widest. More striking was the disparity between the two groups’ views on other questions with implications for the 2012 election.
First among those was Obama’s performance. Exactly 75% of minority voters said they approved; only 22% said they disapproved. Among white voters, just 35% approved of the president’s performance, while 65% disapproved; a head-turning 49% of whites said they strongly disapproved. (Those whites voted Republican last fall by a ratio of 18-to-1.)
The racial gulf was similar when voters were asked whether they believed that Obama’s policies would help the nation in the long run. By 70% to 22%, minorities said yes; by 61% to 34%, whites said no…. The vast majority of minority voters said they wanted lawmakers to expand the health care law (54%) or maintain it in its current form (16%), while only 24% said they wanted Congress to repeal it. Among white voters, the sentiments were almost inverted: 56% said that lawmakers should repeal the law, while much smaller groups wanted them to expand it (23%) or leave it alone (just 16%).
The gap was also wide in attitudes about two fundamental tenets. Minorities were almost exactly twice as likely as whites to say that life would be better for the next generation than for their own; whites were considerably more likely to say that it would be more difficult. And on a question measuring bedrock beliefs about the role of government, the two racial groups again registered almost mirror-image preferences. 60% of minorities said that government should be doing more to solve problems; 63% of whites said that government is doing too many things that would be better left to businesses and individuals….
SLIVERS OF SUPPORT
Measured both geographically and demographically, these new exit-poll results show that Democrats maintained openings in only slivers of the white electorate. In House elections, the bottom fell out for Democrats in both the South (where they won just 24% of whites) and the Midwest (37%). The party remained relatively more competitive along the coasts, capturing 46% of white voters in the East and 43% in the West….
Democrats have been losing support among blue-collar white voters since the 1960s, but in this election, they hit one of their lowest points ever. In House campaigns, the exit poll found, noncollege whites preferred Republicans by nearly 2-to-1 with virtually no gender gap: White working-class women—the so-called waitress moms—gave Republicans almost exactly as many of their votes as blue-collar men did.
These blue-collar whites expressed profound resistance to Obama and his agenda. Just 30% of them said they approved of the president’s job performance (compared with 69% who disapproved). Two-thirds of them said that government is doing too many things. An approximately equal number said that Obama’s agenda will hurt the country over the long term. Only about one-fifth of these voters said that the stimulus had helped the economy, and 57% wanted to repeal the health care law—even though they are uninsured at much higher rates than whites with more advanced education.
In Senate races, the story was no better for Democrats: They won majorities of white voters who don’t have a college education in just three states and garnered at least 45% in only two more. Even Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer of California and Michael Bennet of Colorado, each of whom ran well among upscale whites, won only about one-third of working-class white voters. In Wisconsin, those blue-collar whites doomed Democratic Sen. Russell Feingold: He carried most minority voters and a thin 51 percent of college-educated whites, but he was crushed among working-class whites, who gave him only 40% of their votes.
Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University, says that blue-collar disaffection from Democratic candidates reflects not only immediate economic distress but also a longer-term process of alienation from the party. “The noncollege whites … see themselves as a declining minority within the national Democratic Party, where they have very little control or influence on the policies,” he says. “The party is controlled by the coastal elites and nonwhites, and that is a very different kind of Democratic Party” than a generation ago.
Compared with 2008, Democrats lost ground among college-educated whites as well, but they maintained more support in this group than among blue-collar whites. Democratic Senate candidates won at least half of the votes of college-educated whites in 10 races and at least 45% in two others. Almost all of those states are along the East or West coasts or in the Upper Midwest, the regions that have been the foundation of the Democrats’ Electoral College map since Bill Clinton’s time. In heartland states such as Arkansas, Missouri, Ohio, and even Illinois, Democratic support cratered among college-educated whites.
White-collar men and women also parted ways much more significantly than their blue-collar counterparts did. College-educated white men backed Republican House candidates and registered negative views of Obama’s job performance as overwhelmingly as blue-collar whites did. College-educated white women, though not immune to these trends, displayed more resistance. Although traditionally the most liberal portion of the white electorate, even these women cooled toward Democrats last year. In contrast to the majority support they provided Obama in 2008, they voted 55% to 43% for Republicans in 2010 House races. In the exit poll, most of them agreed that government was trying to do too much, and a slim majority of them said they wanted Congress to repeal the health care law.
In key Senate races, however, especially in culturally more liberal states, these women backed Democrats in substantial numbers. Both Bennet and Boxer, for instance, carried about three-fifths of this bloc, which proved essential to their victories. Obama’s popularity among these college-educated women deteriorated, but in the exit polling, 45% of them still said they approved of his performance, far higher than the rate among most other whites.
Even in the tide of discontent that propelled almost all voters toward Republican candidates, relatively more of well-educated white women remained loyal to Democrats. The same was true among all young white voters. Fewer of them backed Democratic congressional candidates than voted for Obama in 2008, but whites under 30 gave Democrats a much higher share of their vote than did older whites. Those two groups—young people and college-educated women—are the splintering foundations on which Obama will likely have to build any hope of a recovery in the white electorate for 2012.
THE NEW COALITION
These emphatic 2010 results represented another shovel of earth on the grave of the New Deal electoral coalition, centered on working-class whites, that long anchored Democratic politics. But the decline of that coalition began long before Obama or House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. No Democratic presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976 has captured as much as 45% of white voters, according to exit polls. And not since 1992 have whites given half or more of their votes to Democratic congressional candidates. The erosion has been especially pronounced among the white working class: No Democratic presidential nominee since 2000 has won more than 40% of its votes.
Despite that decline, Democrats have survived, and at times thrived, by building a new coalition. They have won the overall popular vote in four of the past five presidential elections, and they recaptured Congress in 2006 with a coalition that now revolves primarily around young people, minorities, and college-educated whites, especially women. That so-called coalition of the ascendant offers Democrats long-term advantages because all of those groups are growing as a share of the population.
Minorities, most important, more than doubled their share of the vote from 12% in 1992 to 26% in 2008. In his victory that year, Obama won only 43% of the white vote (and merely 40% among noncollege whites). Yet he captured a larger share of the overall popular vote than any Democratic nominee since Lyndon Johnson in 1964 by winning 80% of that growing pool of nonwhite voters, along with majorities among whites under 30 and college-educated white women.
But if 2008 demonstrated the possibilities of that new alignment, the 2010 election demonstrated its limits. It has proven to be a boom-and-bust coalition because turnout in midterm elections usually declines modestly among minorities and sharply among young people; both groups fell off even more than usual in 2010, producing an older and whiter electorate that compounded the GOP’s advantage. “We have gotten to the point where we have two different electorates: presidential and nonpresidential,” says veteran Democratic consultant Bill Carrick of California.
Equally significant, although racial diversity is spreading and education levels are rising, these trends are not evenly distributed across the country. As a result, the Democrats’ coalition of the ascendant is much more potent in coastal states than in most interior states still dominated by white voters, many of them older and working-class. In 137 House districts, at least 80% of the population is white; after November, Republicans control a crushing three-fourths of those seats. And, as Feingold discovered, there are not enough minority and well-educated white voters to win Senate races in many interior states if Democrats cannot remain competitive among blue-collar whites….
Partly because the minority share of the vote will almost certainly rise again in 2012, Obama probably won’t need to match his 2008 percentage of the white vote to win a second term. But all of these considerations suggest that he and the party’s congressional candidates must nonetheless improve on their historically low 2010 showing to avoid further losses in 2012. “At the levels of [white discontent] you are talking about, no amount of surge voting [from minorities and young people] is going to overcome that,” says Mike Podhorzer, deputy political director of the AFL-CIO.
So one critical question is how much of the white disaffection from Democrats evident in 2010 is rooted in irrevocable ideological alienation and how much will dissolve if the economy improves. According to veteran conservative strategist Jeff Bell, all signs suggest that Obama has permanently antagonized much of the white electorate (nearly half of which this year identified itself as conservative in the exit poll). “The significance of the tea party is that it is not a situational vote,” says Bell, the policy director at the American Principles Project, a right-leaning advocacy group. “They are going to be militant even if, or when, the economy improves.… It’s significant if you have more voters who are willing to vote with the conservative coalition regardless of what’s going on with the economy.”
…To the extent the economy rebounds, that would also boost Obama with some of the white voters who embraced the GOP in 2010. But short of a roaring financial recovery, many analysts in both parties believe that Obama will find it difficult to fully reconnect with most of the white voters who have drifted away from him. “I think a large majority of those voters are gone for good; I don’t know what he can do to change their impression of his view of government,” Wadhams, the Colorado GOP chairman, says. But Wadhams quickly adds that Obama might be able to persuade some of those voters to support him anyway in 2012 if Republicans select a nominee they find unacceptable, particularly on social issues….
Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

What James Madison Would Say to Obama


Obama tries to foment a race war on illegal immigration, while speaking to Hispanics on the Spanish-language television network Univision, October 25, 2010:

Well, here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to see how well we do in this election. And I think a lot of it is going to depend on whether we still have some support, not only from Democrats but some Republicans. …if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder. And that’s why I think it is so important that people focus on voting on November 2.


James Madison, a Founding Father and the 4th President of the United States (1809–1817); principal author of the US Constitution, often called the “Father of the Constitution”; in 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, the most influential commentary on the Constitution:

“It may be considered as an objection inherent in the principle, that as every appeal to the people would carry an implication of some defect in the government, frequent appeals would in great measure deprive the government of that veneration which time bestows on every thing, and without which perhaps the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.”
-Federalist No. 49, 1788

VOTE ON NOVEMBER 2!
Vote as if you life depends on it.
It does.
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0
 

Obama Foments Race War in America


This is just plain freakin’ UNBELIEVABLE. I never thought — never ever even imagined — that I would live to see a President of the United States actually calling the American people “enemies.”
That’s what Barack Dajjal Obama did the other day.
In a radio interview that aired on the Spanish-language television network Univision on Monday, October 25, Obama assured Hispanics he would push an immigration overhaul amnesty for illegal aliens after the midterm elections, despite fierce opposition from as many as 63% of American voters. Here is the transcript of what he said:

Well, here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to see how well we do in this election. And I think a lot of it is going to depend on whether we still have some support, not only from Democrats but some Republicans.
But they’re going to be paying attention to this election, and if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” If they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s gonna be harder. And that’s why I think it is so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

In other words, Obama is encouraging a RACE WAR, pitting Hispanics and Latinos against the majority of Americans who, in poll after poll, consistently oppose amnesty for illegal “immigrants” and for illegal “immigration” itself, which is nothing other than an invasion of sovereign America. (See “Most Americans Against Illegal Immigration.” See also our page on Illegal Immigration for more.
Listen to him for yourself. Here’s the audio of what Obama said:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeYOA1sVWu0]
Obama is doing exactly what his fellow road-traveller, former CEO of the criminal syndicate ACORN, Bertha Lewis had done — fomenting a race war in America over illegal immigration.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fxA8Vz7Hss&feature=player_embedded]
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0