One of the great ironies of what Peter Brimelow calls the “Sailer Strategy”—the idea that to win, to the GOP should expand its support within White America and not worry about the much-hyped “new demographic”—is that it is already working, in spite of the designs of the Republican leadership.
Every year, the GOP falls over itself with “outreach” efforts to Blacks and Latinos, each new program more embarrassing than the last. And yet at election time, the GOP relies on White, Middle America to send its gaggle of cowards, sociopaths, neocons, and used-car salesmen back to Washington.
This irony leads me to conclude that the phenomenon Peter and Steve describe bodes quite poorly for White America. As the White vote—particularly the White, male vote—becomes more and more reliable, the Republican Party (as it’s currently constituted) would seemingly become less and less likely to do anything on White people’s behalf, like halt mass immigration. “Taking back America” will essentially mean the opportunity to hoot and howler at the TV set as a FOX News blonde announces the latest round of Republican victories; it will not mean White Protestant hegemony, or even smaller government.
At any rate, today The National Journal published a study that documents the (ironic) Triumph of Sailerism. Ronald Brownstein has analyzed “[p]reviously unreleased results from the 2010 exit polls [that] show a stark gap between whites and minorities and a smaller but still significant difference between blue- and white-collar whites”:
By any standard, white voters’ rejection of Democrats in November’s elections was daunting and even historic.
Fully 60 percent of whites nationwide backed Republican candidates for the House of Representatives; only 37 percent 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the extent of the white flight from the Democratic Party, according to a National Journal analysis of previously unpublished exit-poll data provided by Edison Research.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.
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. These polls provide an unusually valuable lens through which to assess such attitudes, because surveyors interview many more respondents (17,504 in the national survey this year) than in a typical poll.
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.
Here are the numbers.
The data I find most striking are the responses to the question, “Do you expect life for the next generation to be better than today?” A majority of minorities say yes. Three quarters of Whites say no. Both might be right.