Posted On: Thursday - November 5th 2020 2:42PM MST
In Topics:   Elections '16 - '20  Pundits  Race/Genetics
(Continued from Part 1.)
NOTE: I noticed one big mistake here and a couple of small ones. so I redid the numbers. The large mistake was my multiplying/subtracting of the under-18 percentage from only the white non-voters. Obviously, it should have been taken off all voters. How much of the under-18, or conversely 18 and over population is white/non-white is another story.
Take a state like Minnesota, please! (Never gets old.) From the US Census (estimates for 2019), 79.1% of Minnesotans (just for example, but a good example because it shows dark blue right now) are white non-hispanic. There are 5.6 million Minnesotans total ( everything here is 2019 numbers), making 4.43 million white Minnesotans. Of those, if we take the 23.1% that the census page above says are under 18 y/o off (with an assumption that this percentage holds throughout all races/ethnicities, we get 3.41 white Minnesotans able to vote, age-wise.
From the vote total from Minnesota of 3.19 million on the Fox News site map, one can calculate that 57% of Minnesotans voted and 74% age-eligible voters did come out (big assumption here is no cheating. Yeah, right.) If the people who did vote are also equally weighted equally by race/ethnicity, then that'd be 2.52 million white people that voted. That leaves right at 2/3 of a million white people who didn’t come out but could have.
Would at least 35% of those white people able to vote have gone on-line to register, and spent an hour to vote early, if Trump had been at least giving some good speeches that didn’t tout all he could do for everybody BUT White people? Who knows? If that many had gotten enthusiastic from some Trump enthusiasm* showing he at least was working a teensiest bit to help them and understood they’ve been getting screwed over and disparaged for years, well, that’d have been a 230-odd thousand, the amount that would have put him over the top.**
OTOH, there were only 6% Hispanics in Minnesota (legal that is) in 2019, per that Census estimate. Of the 77% age-eligible (and that is generous, as they are likely younger) and taking into account that they are not very politically active, I estimate that they represent 1/4 million votes TOTAL in the state. If you double a 20% Hispanic Trump vote to 40%, it's only 50,000 more votes.
Sure, Texas and California have an order-of-magnitude more Hispanics. Their votes do matter, but still, they should not be sought at the expense of the white people who just stay home out of disgust, in large numbers.
Those are the numbers, from just one State picked as an example, that I think are what one needs to understand the Sailer Strategy. I only pulled out the one paragraph’s 35% by back-calculation, but you see that white vote numbers can still be overwhelming, were they to vote like a bloc even half-assedly compared to blacks.
To get back off the numbers for this conclusion, let me say this. People's expectations of the Hispanic and black vote for Trump were greatly exceeded (at least on the former). Of course we are happy about that and somewhat surprised. However, the numbers are still below a majority, and for a more conservative guy, even if he does pander to them, if doing that better than Trump is even possible, there won't be a majority. You can't make it up in volume, people. OK, so visit Hispanic areas on the campaign, eat some #2 meals (usually that's 2 tacos and one enchilada) with the amigos. Fine. Just don't blow off the white vote by doing things like giving $500,000,000,000 of mostly white people's money*** for a "Platinum Plan" for blacks because, they were really upset for a while. People remember that sort of thing and stay home. I don't blame them one bit, really.
I added a whole lot to this post, but this one more point ought to have been written before. Even those who do not agree with the Sailer Strategy may still very well be anti-immigration-invasion. I get that. The "make it up in volume" thing is a moot point if you just state that we are trying to work with what we've already got. It's still easier to win by going after the votes of discouraged, disaffected, and rightly pissed-off white people than Hispanics.
The Hispanic vote for Trump was encouraging. That in no way debunks the Sailer Strategy.
* I am not saying that President Trump has been at least as good as anyone else who was in any kind of running, in terms of white interests. He just didn't try hard, and he didn't campaign on it. He's a great campaigner, so bringing up some red meat for the white people would have gotten him elected, in my opinion.
** Of course, I back-calculated to get the 35% for this example.
*** That's 1/2 a Trillion, STILL not
[UPDATED Morn., 11/06:] Redid the numbers. I had taken that % under 18 numbers off only the non-voters, which was well, stupid. I took it off everyone, but I am pretty sure, the way US demographics are, that the under-18 percentage consists of a lower number of whites, but a higher number of non-whites. OTOH of the people who voted, would more be white, since they are older in general.
Another thing is that I had seen "white alone", thinking that meant non-Hispanic, but whites/non-Hispanic is shown below that, at 79.1%.
While I was at it, I added more general ranting. ;-}
Lastly, I had forgotten the link to the Census Bureau 2019 numbers.