The demographics of 2012, with and without amnesty for illegals
Michael Medved outlines an interesting game plan for President Obama’s re-election, given the demographic conditions that are projected for 2012. As we discuss below, it is even more interesting if the President creates millions of new voters by fiat. WSJ:
the “non-Hispanic white” electorate will likely slip to 70%, or perhaps slightly lower. If the president performs as poorly in the white community as current polls indicate, he will still win an electoral majority as long as he commands the same percentage of nonwhite voters (83%) that he won in 2008. This seems entirely possible, and based on current polls, it looks likely.
The Quinnipiac survey indicates that Mr. Obama still enjoys huge popularity among people of color, winning his trial heat against an unspecified Republican 44 to 1 among blacks (87% to 2%) and nearly 2 to 1 among Latinos (49% to 26%). In other words, the president maintains his near unanimous support in the black community and has dipped only slightly among Hispanics, where he drew a commanding 67% of the vote in 2008.
Only 65% of Latino voters expressed a candidate preference in the survey’s trial heat. That means if Mr. Obama can sway the bulk of the 35% of Latinos who say they “don’t know” or are currently uncommitted, the president will replicate his victory formula from 2008. Undecided Hispanic citizens, representing as many as three million votes in the next election, may hold the balance of power in a competitive race.
These numbers help to explain the president’s current position on immigration reform and his efforts to block Arizona’s tough new immigration law. That legislation is overwhelmingly resented among Latino voters: 66% of Hispanics say they disapprove of it, and 71% say they don’t want a similar law in their own states.
It’s a potentially a good game plan — and perhaps could be made even more compelling if the President could create millions of extra voters for him by selective law enforcement policies or perhaps simply by fiat. The phrase “President for life” has such a nice ring to it. But this is just a fantasy. After all, things like this could never happen in America, could they?
August 14th, 2010 at 3:00 am
If the economy doesn’t turn around, the more likely scenario is Jimmy Carter redux.
BasH Bush all you like, and I do, but the economy was fine until the Democrats took Congress.
August 14th, 2010 at 5:16 am
Perhaps MarkD is right, but I believe that folks who still think in terms of political paradigms from the 1970s are woefully mistaken. After all, one of the most telling pieces of trivia from the 2008 election was that if the country had the same demographic profile now as it did in 1980, McCain would have won. It doesn’t, so he didn’t.
Immigration, coupled with multiculturalism, has forever changed the face of this country. There is no longer a “silent majority” of white working- and middle-class voters who can “throw the bums out” when sufficiently riled up. Unless white liberals, especially professionals and women, realize that their own culture is at risk by the “browning” of America, there is no hope for any meaningful “conservative” political movement.
True conservatives — folks committed to limited government, strong defense, and a majority white (i.e., traditional American) culture — represent an ever-shrinking percentage of the population. Indeed, most so-called conservatives have been so deeply brainwashed by multiculturalism that they find the idea of a “majority white culture” to be distasteful, offensive, and downright evil (racist). Hence, the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
Barring a full-scale collapse, which is highly unlikely, it will take more than tough economic times to persuade a majority of American voters that their “idealistic” experiment in an “affirmative action” presidency was a mistake. I hope I’m wrong, of course, but I don’t think so.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:46 am
As for Steve’s statement, you’re assuming that McCain was a conservative. He was not. Our country had a choice between two left leaning politicians, both Senators, and the Conservatives did not come out to vote. In addtion to that fact, the reason many young voted for Obama were on issues such as heavy spending, bad economic conditions, etc. that were attributed to Bush/Republicans in general. Now, these young have come to realize that those attributes are really part of the Democrat platform. I’m willing to bet that if a real conservative steps up in 2012, it’ll be 1980 all over again. I’m also willing to bet that if the Republicans put McCain back up, he’d be lucky to win against Obama, even in a rematch.
According to the polls, the majority of our country is still made up of Conservatives and only the combination of the left and the centrists can overcome them.
August 16th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Part of Obama’s victory was contingent on a Black surge for the 1st black president. Unless people are clamoring for more Obamanomics, I doubt the thrill will still be there. Kiss Florida, Indiana, etc. bye.
What was the black vote in 2008 as a percentage compared to 2004, 2000 btw?
August 16th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Also, Obama’s victory was hardly a surprise in the final weeks to the pollsters.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/08/obama-romney-palin-gingrich-2012.html
A bit early, but plenty of polls have Obama losing to “random GOP opponent”. Demographics are hardly destiny.
August 16th, 2010 at 5:56 pm
Perhaps Michael Medved assumes turnout similar to previous elections. Could a greater turnout among conservatives and independents offset the Hispanic and black vote for Obama?