Yankee-stani
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2018
- Messages
- 8,100
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
POSTED BY: HUNTER WALLACE FEBRUARY 19, 2020
Colin Woodard is back with a very fascinating article in Politico on non-voters and how activating or deactivating blocs of non-voters could tip the 2020 election.
Politico:
“Conventional wisdom is that those who stayed home in 2016 cost Hillary Clinton the election, and if Democrats can just increase turnout in 2020, they’ll defeat President Donald Trump in November. That assumption is likely wrong.
Report after report has shown that nonvoters nationwide prefer Democrats over Republicans. But new data from the Knight Foundation suggests that if every eligible adult voted in 2020, Democrats would likely increase their popular vote lead from the 2016 presidential election—but still lose the electoral college. …”
Politico:
“On Wednesday, the Knight Foundation released the results of “The 100 Million Project,” the largest survey of chronic nonvoters in history, and the most robust attempt ever to answer some of the questions that have long bedeviled political scientists. More than 13,000 people were polled across the country, with special emphasis on 10 battleground states, followed by in-depth focus-group conversations with thousands of them. They were asked about their political preferences, media diets, social networks, income levels, general life satisfaction, and about their demographic characteristics and social connectivity, their reasons for not voting, and their assessments of electoral and political institutions. The result is the most comprehensive survey of the politically disengaged to date, with lessons political consultants, candidates and civic educators won’t want to miss. …
Nonvoters are an eclectic faction with distinctive blocs that support Democrats and Republicans—but don’t show up to cast their ballots—and an even larger group that is alienated from a political system it finds bewildering, corrupt, irrelevant or some combination thereof. These blocs are so large that when a campaign is able to motivate even a portion of one, it can swing an election, which may have been what allowed Trump to bust through the “blue wall” in the Great Lakes region in 2016 and Barack Obama to flip North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Indiana in 2008. What these blocs do in November could well decide the 2020 presidential election. …
More surprisingly perhaps, and potentially more consequential for November, these numbers gently tilt in the opposite direction in many battleground states, with nonvoters choosing Trump over the as-yet-undetermined Democratic nominee 36%-28% in Pennsylvania, 34%-25% in Arizona and 30%-29% in New Hampshire. Wisconsin and Michigan mirror the national average, favoring the Democrat 33%-31% and 32%-31%, respectively, while in Georgia the margin is 34%-29%. This data challenges many long-standing assumptions of political experts. …
These “passive liberals” stand in stark contrast to a larger mass of nonvoters who are far more profoundly disengaged from and disinterested in politics. More in Common calls this tribe the “Politically Disengaged,” a group comprising 26 percent of Americans, who are almost invisible in local politics and community life. As a group, they’re much poorer and less educated than the average American and much more likely to say that “being white” is important to being an American—20 percent, rather than 11 percent—to say people of other religions are morally inferior and to say that a “strong leader willing to break the rules” is needed to fix America, 57 percent to 45. They are much more eclectic of a group than More in Common’s other “tribes,” like Progressive Activists and Devoted Conservatives. …”
TL;DR.
This isn’t because of our numbers though. It is because the so-called “Far Right” is excluded from representation in politics by the gentlemen’s agreement that exists between the leadership of both parties to demonize and police people who are pro-White. Both parties are owned by Jewish donors like Michael Bloomberg and Sheldon Adelson which is why it seems like nothing ever changes and our people are so cynical about politics. If everyone who is pro-White were to move and concentrate in a single state, it would be between the size of Florida and Texas. What’s more, people who are pro-White swing voters are more likely to live in the swing states. There are far more of us in America, but a tiny cabal of Jewish oligarchs own Conservatism, Inc.
It actually matters a great deal whether we are dialed in or tuned out in election cycles especially at times when other blocs of left-leaning non-voters – the sort who believe the system is rigged and want to blow it up – are likely to come off the sidelines to vote for Bernie Sanders. If we didn’t matter and we were totally irrelevant in American electoral politics, there wouldn’t be any need for dog whistling and baiting and switching and gay ops in election season. The GOP could win purely on the basis of the popularity of the Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk platform. These people lost the 2016 election, but weaseled their way into controlling the Trump administration.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/02/19/could-the-dissident-right-swing-the-2020-election/
Colin Woodard is back with a very fascinating article in Politico on non-voters and how activating or deactivating blocs of non-voters could tip the 2020 election.
Politico:
“Conventional wisdom is that those who stayed home in 2016 cost Hillary Clinton the election, and if Democrats can just increase turnout in 2020, they’ll defeat President Donald Trump in November. That assumption is likely wrong.
Report after report has shown that nonvoters nationwide prefer Democrats over Republicans. But new data from the Knight Foundation suggests that if every eligible adult voted in 2020, Democrats would likely increase their popular vote lead from the 2016 presidential election—but still lose the electoral college. …”
Politico:
“On Wednesday, the Knight Foundation released the results of “The 100 Million Project,” the largest survey of chronic nonvoters in history, and the most robust attempt ever to answer some of the questions that have long bedeviled political scientists. More than 13,000 people were polled across the country, with special emphasis on 10 battleground states, followed by in-depth focus-group conversations with thousands of them. They were asked about their political preferences, media diets, social networks, income levels, general life satisfaction, and about their demographic characteristics and social connectivity, their reasons for not voting, and their assessments of electoral and political institutions. The result is the most comprehensive survey of the politically disengaged to date, with lessons political consultants, candidates and civic educators won’t want to miss. …
Nonvoters are an eclectic faction with distinctive blocs that support Democrats and Republicans—but don’t show up to cast their ballots—and an even larger group that is alienated from a political system it finds bewildering, corrupt, irrelevant or some combination thereof. These blocs are so large that when a campaign is able to motivate even a portion of one, it can swing an election, which may have been what allowed Trump to bust through the “blue wall” in the Great Lakes region in 2016 and Barack Obama to flip North Carolina, Virginia, Florida and Indiana in 2008. What these blocs do in November could well decide the 2020 presidential election. …
More surprisingly perhaps, and potentially more consequential for November, these numbers gently tilt in the opposite direction in many battleground states, with nonvoters choosing Trump over the as-yet-undetermined Democratic nominee 36%-28% in Pennsylvania, 34%-25% in Arizona and 30%-29% in New Hampshire. Wisconsin and Michigan mirror the national average, favoring the Democrat 33%-31% and 32%-31%, respectively, while in Georgia the margin is 34%-29%. This data challenges many long-standing assumptions of political experts. …
These “passive liberals” stand in stark contrast to a larger mass of nonvoters who are far more profoundly disengaged from and disinterested in politics. More in Common calls this tribe the “Politically Disengaged,” a group comprising 26 percent of Americans, who are almost invisible in local politics and community life. As a group, they’re much poorer and less educated than the average American and much more likely to say that “being white” is important to being an American—20 percent, rather than 11 percent—to say people of other religions are morally inferior and to say that a “strong leader willing to break the rules” is needed to fix America, 57 percent to 45. They are much more eclectic of a group than More in Common’s other “tribes,” like Progressive Activists and Devoted Conservatives. …”
TL;DR.
- Half the electorate sits on the sidelines because they don’t like the candidates, believe their votes don’t matter and that the system is rigged against them.
- If the non-voters all voted, Trump would win the swing states.
- EIGHT PERCENT of Americans are “progressive activists,” i.e., Left Twitter, who are more than twice as likely to say than the average American that politics is a hobby.
- A QUARTER of Americans are the “politically disengaged” swath of eligible non-voters. 20% of those people are White working class non-voters who believe that being White is more important than being American. This is about 16 million Americans. Donald Trump got 62 million votes in the 2016 election and barely won several swing states.
- 11 PERCENT of Americans think being White is more important to them than being American. This is about 29.7 million people. There are are upper class, middle class and working class people in our community.
- We’ve seen other polls in the past that suggest anywhere from 3 to 11 percent of Americans are racially conscious Whites. This means that we are an even larger share of White America and a still larger share of right-leaning voters.
- In the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton depressed the Democratic base and these occasional left-leaning swing voters while Trump activated these occasional right-leaning swing voters in record numbers in the primary and the general election.
This isn’t because of our numbers though. It is because the so-called “Far Right” is excluded from representation in politics by the gentlemen’s agreement that exists between the leadership of both parties to demonize and police people who are pro-White. Both parties are owned by Jewish donors like Michael Bloomberg and Sheldon Adelson which is why it seems like nothing ever changes and our people are so cynical about politics. If everyone who is pro-White were to move and concentrate in a single state, it would be between the size of Florida and Texas. What’s more, people who are pro-White swing voters are more likely to live in the swing states. There are far more of us in America, but a tiny cabal of Jewish oligarchs own Conservatism, Inc.
It actually matters a great deal whether we are dialed in or tuned out in election cycles especially at times when other blocs of left-leaning non-voters – the sort who believe the system is rigged and want to blow it up – are likely to come off the sidelines to vote for Bernie Sanders. If we didn’t matter and we were totally irrelevant in American electoral politics, there wouldn’t be any need for dog whistling and baiting and switching and gay ops in election season. The GOP could win purely on the basis of the popularity of the Ben Shapiro and Charlie Kirk platform. These people lost the 2016 election, but weaseled their way into controlling the Trump administration.
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2020/02/19/could-the-dissident-right-swing-the-2020-election/
