Exit polls paint a different picture. White voters who are 71% of the voters voted for Trump (55% vs 43% for Kamala). Every other racial demographic group including Hispanics voted for Kamala. Only 12% of blacks, 38% of Asians, 45% of Latinos voted for Trump. So, if we were a country where white voters were not an overwhelming majority, a Republican would never be elected nationally.
Secondly, in Hispanic majority districts the Republican house members elected have always been of low quality - someone like Anna Paulina Luna. There is a reason, only Anglo-Saxon countries like USA, Canada, NZ and Australia have been successful in the new world while countries like Brazil, Mexico and other Latin countries have not been successful. High levels of immigration from Latin America and other third world countries will not bode well for America. Demography is indeed destiny.
There is no way the Republican Party would be half as conservative as it is today if not for immigration. It's given them an issue to run on, which allows them to do the pro-market stuff that voters never want.
How do you know that the GOP will permanently remain the pro-market party if it will also permanently remain the prole party? After all, proles could eventually elect more and more anti-market Republicans in primaries, no? Or would pro-market Republicans *always* produce better vibes?
"Only 12% of blacks, 38% of Asians, 45% of Latinos voted for Trump."
This is true, but I know at least the Latino % increased compared to 4 years ago. That's Richard's argument. You can't simply get the 'right' number of certain ethnicities then assume they'll forever vote for you in the same percentages forever. Trump won because he ate into traditional Democratic demographics - he didn't need to win them, just not lose them as badly as 4 years ago. Mission accomplished.
"So, if we were a country where white voters were not an overwhelming majority, a Republican would never be elected nationally."
Again, these percentages are not static. The momentum over the past few elections suggests that Republicans may continue to improve their results with these demographics. And with a lot of whites continuing to vote GOP, where will Democrats make up the votes they are continually bleeding from minorities over to the GOP? If the Democrats are going to win minorities by smaller and smaller margins each cycle, then they need to do better and better with whites to just break even.
That is simply not true, Bush won 45% of Hispanics in 2004. In 1980, 54% of Hispanics voted for Jimmy Carter, similar to 54% of Hispanics who voted for Kamala this election. There has not been a trend where Hispanic voters back Republicans. Raegan won 56% of white voters in 1980 and 58% of white voters in 1984, winning a landslide election with 500+ electoral votes. Trump won 55% of white voters, which is not vastly different from Raegan , but whites were 88% of electorate in 1980 vs 71% today.
An interesting statistic would be the graph of the delta between the percentage of Latinos voting republican and the percentage of white voting republican. That would eliminate the candidate strength from the equation.
Well if the demographics were similar to 1980s, with exact same voting patterns among different racial groups, Trump would have won in a landslide like Raegan. However, that is not possible today as white voters are 70% of electorate vs 88% in 1980.
Interesting how responders don’t criticize the specific point you made but complain with cope and seethe and alternate scenarios which we can never test.
This. A figure like trump emerges once every few generations at most. Its unreasonable to base your immigration policy on the frequent emergence of a similar charismatic caudillo who shares your ideology
I think most of that can just be explained by lots of Republican candidates being jerks to immigrants and non-whites. If Republicans didn't keep running on xenophobic platforms they'd probably do much better. In a country where white voters were not an overwhelming majority, Republicans would wise up and stop being jerks in national elections, so they'd still win frequently.
Conflating illegal aliens with lawful long term legal immigrants again.
America owes foreign nationals nothing.
Only in the West do people expect the majority ethnicity/race to voluntarily and willingly become a minority. Want to hear you tell Mexico it should become majority SE Asian and see how they respond.
You can decide that you don't owe foreigners anything. So far, the US has accumulated a whole lot of goodwill from people around the world. But if they do take Trumpism/xenophobia as the prevailing American attitude, they may decide they don't owe anything to the US either. At which point, you'll have few friends around the world, and the rest will be ganging up on you.
It'll be a fun experiment. Try it. WW3 will be inevitable.
That aside, nobody is asking for anybody to become something else. That's a caricature you've painted. Immigration to countries like the US benefits far more people (hosts and immigrants both) than it hurts. There's absolutely no way you can maintain your standard of living or keep maintaining your infrastructure with a shrinking population sans some immigration. Plus if you burn your trade links with other countries, there's only so much commerce that an aging population can conduct within its own group. And when Elon succeeds in building his Mars vehicle, no American will volunteer to go.
Republicans are not just opposed to illegal immigration, they also take action to restrict legal immigration as well. Please alert me if there are any Republican politicians that I haven't heard of that simultaneously want to pass laws to increase legal immigration and reduce legal immigration.
Trade isn't charity. Allowing foreign nationals to immigrate isn't paying them something we owe them, it is allowing them to contribute to American society. The main reason they don't contribute more now is that we have a worst-of-both worlds messed up asylum system where people whose application is still under consideration aren't allowed to work, but don't have to go back either. Furthermore, restrictions on immigration aren't just restrictions on foreign nationals, they are restrictions on American citizens. Why should an American be barred by the government from hiring or renting to anyone they want, regardless of where that person is a citizen of?
There is, in fact a country, that became a majority SE Asian country recently, the United Arab Emirates. The majority of its population are Southeast Asian guest workers. As a result it is a giant economic powerhouse. It seems like it would be a good thing if Mexico was more like Dubai. Mexicans might oppose that, but that would be an example of how democracy sometimes magnifies our irrational impulses.
Yeah I know. Worst thing ever. Imagine the massive fraud of every 2nd and 3rd worlder coming here for community colleges all so they could get a green card. Then the chain migration . . .
Trump is no savior. Just hopefully the beginning of a new era.
You speak solely of economics. There are cultural reasons to oppose immigration too. You think plug and play works as if human groups are interchangeable culturally, socially and politically. They are not.
Immigrants also take out of the system. Look at NYC and the billions going towards migrants. Even with working permits, many would never be able to support themselves or their families. You just ignore the indirect costs because it’s convenient.
We just fundamentally disagree here. I believe a nation has the right to say no to immigration, even if it were a net positive. You believe a nation does not have the right to say no to immigration, even if it were a net negative.
NYC is an example of the stupidity of our system, where migrants can't work to support themselves because of labor restrictions, but aren't being sent home either. I agree that a half-assed system where immigrants aren't sent back, but also aren't allowed to contribute to society, is worse than both a system of more open migration and a system of strict border enforcement. It's the worst of both worlds.
I don't really see what the cultural reasons to oppose immigration are. I live in an area with a lot of immigrants and the effect they have on the culture is to make it even better. The people who seem most culturally opposed to immigration are the sort of people that J.D. Vance describes in his memoir, "Hillbilly Elegy." I have read that memoir and it seems to me like it would be a vast improvement if their culture learned to imitate the culture of the hardworking immigrants that come here and make a living for themselves. The best way to preserve a culture is to work to make it worth preserving.
America has room for plenty of culture. Is it really such an imposition on you if your local theater occasionally shows Bollywood movies, a new Thai restaurant moves in, or your child makes friends with a classmate with a weird name? It's all part of the greater American universal superculture.
My main issue with the kind of nationalist ideas you are talking about is that there is not a well-agreed upon set of norms to prevent nations from acting immorally for their self-interest the same way their is for individuals. For instance, most people agree that we owe our family more than we owe strangers, but we also have norms against things like nepotism. We understand that even though we normally pursue our self-interest and family interest more often than the general good, there are limits to how far we can go. Nationalism has far fewer limits.
"It's all part of the greater American universal superculture."
I actually value diversity and don't seek to flatten all differences between peoples and their cultures by imposing our American universal super culture onto the rest of the world, nor do I want to import every other culture and graft it onto the American tree.
What you are is a proponent of the Global American Empire. If we're going to export out culture around the world, import immigrants from around the world, why not just make every state an American vassal and govern them too? Imagine the prosperity! Open borders and free movement of goods everywhere because America rules it all.
I want a national America, not a universal global America.
It’s a good thing for a deeply flawed democracy like Mexico to become more like a monarchy that is Dubai because Dubai has no issue with importing slave labor from abroad to which it flat out denies any chance of getting local citizenship?
The UAE has a lot of oil, while Mexico does not. Though the human capital in South Asia probably wouldn't be inferior to that of Mexico, at least in a comparable environment. It might even be a bit superior, especially the ones from India.
They can if they want to. I suspect the overwhelming majority of Mexicans want to remain a majority Mexican country and don’t want to import large numbers of immigrants that fundamentally change their country, even if they bring wealth and prosperity. I don’t actually know but as a fact so happy to hear otherwise.
However, I do recall an article in the NYT about Mexicans complaining about the influx of American remote workers and their impact on Mexico’s City. They hated it despite those workers being legal, temporary, wealthy, free spending and not taking Mexican jobs or using Mexican welfare. Not to mention they weren’t demanding citizenship or rights.
You're not looking at the trend though. Republicans always win with white voters. The exit polls show Trump's margin with them shrinking this year. In 2016 white men went for Trump by 31 point margin and it went down in 2020 and down even further this year, to 20 points. White women's Trump margin is half what it was previously.
Latino men shifted 41 points towards Trump since 2016. That is huge and basically unprecedented for any group to move that much that fast. If exit polls end up being accurate it looks to me like Latinos basically decided this election. Well, that and Trump lost ground with seniors and gained it with those under 30, about 10 points in each case, but that may very well just reflect the racial composition in those age categories and the fact that there are way more young Latinos.
Yes, in 2004 the country was in full-on warmonger mode and enthusiastic about foreign wars to go slaughter the jihadists who took down the towers. Hispanics are far more likely to enlist in the military, far more Christian and religious, and Bush spoke Spanish and was a born again Christian....it was basically a perfect year to win them. However they were also a much smaller share of the electorate and the actual eligible voters were far older and had generally been here for a while. Now they have more than doubled in size demographically and their voters are many of the children of the waves of the legal and illegal immigrants that we've had for 30 years now. It's the younger Hispanic voters that voted more for Trump. They're now voting just like whites, which is to say there's a huge education and class divide, along with a gender/age divide, and Trump wins the working class and non college degreed. The prototypical Trump voter is a 50 year old guy with no college degree who makes $45k a year and is married with kids. That's also your prototypical Hispanic man, so they're well suited.
The GOP of today isn't the GOP of Bush times. It was pretty pro-immigration back then. Trump increasing his share of votes among hispanics while being anti-immigration is remarkable.
“Heheh… Only almost half of Asians and Latinos voted Trump!”
The cope man! The sheer cope!
And considering how GOP share of those voters keep voting, you’re making even less sense.
I look forward to the Vance victory in ‘28 and how “ACKSHUALLY only 20% of blacks, 48% of Asians and 51% of Hispanics voted GOP. Something something white supremacy!”
Except in 2004, 44% of Hispanics voted for Bush vs 45% today. In 1984, 40% of Hispanics voted for Raegan. Raegan won in a landslide because white voters were 90% of electorate. Maybe instead of trusting your feelings, you should look at historical exit poll data.
It is evident that without white voters being a majority, Republicans cannot win. California was a place where republicans won until 1990s (70% white in 1990 vs 41% in 2020), when White voters were still a majority. Today, California is a deep blue state. It would be hard to believe Raegan was once a governor of California. It is the Anglo-Saxon way to look at data and logic instead of ad-hominem attacks claiming cope.
Is there data in dissent white groups? I’m curious about how Eastern and Southern Europeans vote. White is helpful but still broad. Would be interesting to read about the breakdown of different white groups.
The whole “demographics is destiny” narrative pushed by race-obsessives on both left and right was largely due to them seeing black voting patterns and extrapolating it to all non-white groups.
Only black voters vote bloc-like for one party, and even that’s changing among black male voters.
It is actually due to looking at all the voting patterns, and looking at other countries. It is absurd to argue that life does not profoundly change if you completely change the people who constitute the country. It already has.
We are not a nation of immigrants but a nation of settlers. America had to be settled and its wilderness had to be tamed. Our values, institutions and legal system are built in the image of settlers from Western Europe ( mainly Britain). With high levels of immigration, US could be rebuilt in the image of third world immigrants. That is not very promising when one looks at the state of such countries.
Most of the third world immigrants in question are from Latin America, which are also nations of settlers from Western Europe.
That being said, it seems pretty obvious that you can just plug people from other places into American values, institutions, and legal systems, and they will run just fine. Instead of rebuilding in the image of third world immigrants, the immigrants are rebuilt in the image of America. This has been the way it worked in past generations of immigration, and seems to be the way it is working today.
Some third world immigrants from South America have some European ancestry. That’s not the same as English settlers in the new world.
There is no plug and play for immigrants. This is the libertarian view that individuals are solely economic actors. Different input does not lead to same output.
The libertarian view is close enough to the truth that it can basically be treated as correct for most economic purposes. Humans are not solely economic actors, but all humans care enough about economic matters that modeling them as such isn't that far from the truth.
Furthermore, immigrants assimilate really quickly. If you read articles about groups like the Haitians in Springfield, it is clear that a lot of them understand and appreciate American values better than the average American (a lot of them seemed confused by how un-American Trump and Vance's behavior was, and had an adorably naïve idea that they couldn't possibly mean it). So how different they are from Americans in their home country doesn't really seem that relevant. They adopt American values soon enough.
The Haitians point is just laughable. Your standard for Haitians to assimilate to americanism consists of them being offended by criticism of their coethnics. A majority of Haitians use welfare. They are net fiscal drains. This remains true of subsequent generations
It's not that they were offended by criticism of their coethnics, it was that they used a framework of American ideas to talk about that offense. They have a good understanding of the civic virtues that America is built on, and are confused as to why national figures like Trump and Vance fail to embody those virtues. Remember that most immigration and naturalization programs try to educate incoming people about American values. This often makes them confused when they hear about Trump and his supporters, who actively hate American values and work tirelessly to erode them.
The majority of Haitians in Springfield are hardworking individuals who are net fiscal assets. The statistic that most Haitians use welfare is a nation-wide statistic, not for Springfield specifically. Why would Haitians move halfway across the country, if they just want welfare they could have stayed in the parts of America where they first arrived (which is mostly Florida)?
The difference being Rossi, O'Connor, Braun or Smith do not visit their extended family in Europe every summer like the Singhs, Zhangs or Ramirezs visit India, China or Mexico. Rossi, O'Connors, Brauns and Smiths are integrated into the larger WASP culture - culturally Christian, speaking only English, having similar mannerisms , food etc. while Singhs, Zhangs or Ramirezs still maintain their identity - they speak their native language, cook their own native food, practice their native religion etc.
Consider a 25 YO Californian with four grandparents born in China and both parents born in the US.
What are the chances this person will marry endogamously? Low.
What are the chances this person reads Chinese? Low.
What are the chances this person is in touch with their second cousins in Sichuan? Very low to zero.
As a non-American this always strikes me when I visit. First generation holds on moderately to atavistic customs, second generation become very American. Third generation has an entirely Hollywood-mediated view of the homeland. Ireland full of leprechauns, Japan full of anime, France full of snooty people (okay well that may be accurate), but you get my drift.
America is a tremendous factory for MAKING AMERICANS!
Have you met any of these people? I live in a pretty diverse neighborhood. Everyone there speaks English without an accent and eats a wide variety of food. Some of them do occasionally visit their extended family in the old country, but that's nice, Americans don't visit their extended families enough even if they live in the same country. They don't seem particularly religious, but if they do practice their native religion that is their right as an American, since America has no established religion.
Maybe it's just because I live in an area that looks like all those commercials on TV now full of multiracial families, but it has become really easy to see just how overblown fears of ethnic division in America are. To the extent that they exist at all, nativists seem to be the ones that cause them.
Nothing about this applies to the 2nd or 3rd generation of Asian American or Latin American immigrants i.e. children and grandchildren.
Your viewpoint ignores the parts of American and American Christian culture that were once White Ethnic: Catholicism/Popery, Pine Trees for Christmas, Pasta/Pizza/Paczki etc.
I have always had a different interpretation of "demographics is destiny".
Not: "Third-world immigrants will make politics more left-wing"
But: "Third-world immigrants will make politics more third-worldy"
Which country is more leftist? Sweden or Ecuador? I couldn't tell, but what I do know is that the Swedish left is more about organizing free daycare and investing in renewables, and less about industry nationalization and handing out refrigerators. The Swedish right is more about debottlenecking the process for business registration, and less about military parades in colorful costumes.
I fear that mass immigration will make Western politics more like that of Ecuador. Ironically, Trump is the most third-world right-winger the US has ever seen, and it works greatly on Latinos.
The correct polls to watch would not be to see whether immigrants identify with the left or right bloc, but what their positioning is within these blocs.
Given the title I was surprised to see the focus on conservative fallacies. I don’t recall immigration being a particularly important part of the republican platform prior to Trump. In fact, as the pro-business party, Republicans have often been accused of being pro-immigration (see Koch Bros) in order to restrain labor costs. Trump’s anti-immigrant stance is looks more reactive rather than demographically strategic. He doesn’t play chess; he merely identified and capitalized on growing resentment from the working class about the (real or imagined) impact of increasing immigration numbers on jobs and white culture (see South Park: they took our jobs!). Rather, it seems that democratic leadership has pursued loose border policies, despite the preferences of the majority of Americans per survey data, in order to augment demographics. It may indeed be time to retire Demographics is Destiny, but largely bc the Hispanic population apparently is not voting as the democratic party expected.
This hardly shows that 'demographics is destiny' is not accurate. It merely shows that the usual understanding of immigrant culture and politics ("demographics") is extremely simplistic - they are not forever D voters. But Immigrants do bring their culture with them, including their political culture, and that will alter American culture and politics. We are not just assimilating to your ways.
Also:
"Trump more than they loved Romney not because Trump gave them any new policies, but because he curses a lot and has gold toilets, while Romney talks in complete sentences and looks like he might have once read a book in his life."
This is completely false on top of an ugly thing to say. People love Trump because he is very funny (stand-up comedy level) and, in his personal interactions with people, comes across as genuinely warm and curious. He asks really good questions and gives genuine, uplifting compliments. In contrast, Romney comes across as fake and calculating, a bit nerdy and anal, ambitious with an edge of desperation, and not a real people person. There are other reasons why people like Trump but cursing and gold toilets do not make top 100.
I responded yesterday that third worldization of politics is more than just things moving left of right.
Yesterday night in the city where I live, Amsterdam, an Israeli football team was visiting, playing Ajax. Moroccan "youngsters" in all black chased Israelis down the city center, threw them in canals, hit them with cars, forced them to say "Free Palestine" while kicking them when on the floor. There are 10 Israelis in the hospital, 2 missing.
Being publicly Jewish in Amsterdam, let alone visibly Israeli, or pro-Israel, is increasingly become dangerous. The thugs, apparently, own the streets. Don't think they don't own the high schools... This kind of violence and administration enforces a consensus: support Palestine or be silent, don't be publicly Jewish. It's not an election, but it's politics...
In terms of electoral politics, of course, it is triggering a massive backlash, which only benefits the nationalist right... The kind of party that wants to limit high-skilled migration, has been friendly with Putin, etc..
I don't want these kind of Middle Eastern ethnopolitics in my country. Talking GDP, I would happily sacrifice a couple % of my income to get rid of this.
Manhattan results are pretty funny - extreme barbell. Trump got best results in the wealthiest family friendly areas (Tribeca, super wealthy parts of UES, Central Park South, Battery Park) and also the poorest areas (government housing in Chinatown and East Village).
EHC hasn't always favored the personalities of bumbling goofballs like Tim Walz. And with Trump apparently improving his margins with Asians, Jews, the tech sector, young people, and you: crudeness might be back en vogue
Demographics matters to some degree. The Scot-Irish will always support the populist over the northern elites... But what the populist actually does can change.
can I ask you a question I read something from PolitiFact that claimed that immigrants are a net loss in the first generation but make up for it in the second generation is that true or not here's what they claimed Economic and fiscal consequences report
The National Academies found that first-generation immigrants (who were born outside of the United States) cost governments more money than the native-born population. The costs are largely taken on by state and local governments that educate the immigrants’ children.
But members of the second generation "are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population," the report said, with tax contributions greater than their parents and the native-born population.
In the long term, the immigrant impact is "generally positive" at the federal level but remains negative at state and local levels, varying significantly across states.
"To characterize that one number as the cost to current native-born taxpayers, is absolutely a case of cherry-picking one result out of a very detailed report," said Gretchen Donehower, an academic specialist at the University of California at Berkeley and consultant who contributed to the report.
Donehower gave us three caveats to the White House’s message:
The government runs on a deficit, so on average, taxpayers, including the native-born, benefit more than they pay in taxes. While members of the first, second, and third generations on average all cost more than they pay, we are all pushing a substantial amount of debt onto future generations — and immigrants and their descendants will also be "on the hook" for that debt.
Some costs won’t go away even if immigrants do. If all of the first-generation immigrants suddenly left the country, the government wouldn’t immediately have its expense burden reduced by $279 billion. Calculations in the study included defense costs and interest on the existing public debt, which would not go down without the 55.5 million immigrants. If those costs were excluded, the total fiscal burden for the first generation and dependents would go down to $43 billion, and the per capita burden would be more for the native-born population than for the first-generation immigrants.
The overall effect of immigration on economic growth was positive. Whatever costs immigrants might present now will be "paid back" by overall economic growth that will lead to more tax revenue on average for the government and less demand for need-based benefit programs. "The $279 billion calculation does not include any estimate of this effect and so is an upper bound on total fiscal impact," Donehower said.
The study analyzed fiscal impacts using assumptions under different scenarios, which led to varying outcomes, said Chris Mackie, a study director with the Committee on National Statistics at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The $279 billion impact stems from the combination of worst-case assumptions, he said. Under other assumptions, the fiscal burden was $43 billion.
can I ask you a question I read something from PolitiFact that claimed that immigrants are a net loss in the first generation but make up for it in the second generation is that true or not here's what they claimed Economic and fiscal consequences report
The National Academies found that first-generation immigrants (who were born outside of the United States) cost governments more money than the native-born population. The costs are largely taken on by state and local governments that educate the immigrants’ children.
But members of the second generation "are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population," the report said, with tax contributions greater than their parents and the native-born population.
In the long term, the immigrant impact is "generally positive" at the federal level but remains negative at state and local levels, varying significantly across states.
"To characterize that one number as the cost to current native-born taxpayers, is absolutely a case of cherry-picking one result out of a very detailed report," said Gretchen Donehower, an academic specialist at the University of California at Berkeley and consultant who contributed to the report.
Donehower gave us three caveats to the White House’s message:
The government runs on a deficit, so on average, taxpayers, including the native-born, benefit more than they pay in taxes. While members of the first, second, and third generations on average all cost more than they pay, we are all pushing a substantial amount of debt onto future generations — and immigrants and their descendants will also be "on the hook" for that debt.
Some costs won’t go away even if immigrants do. If all of the first-generation immigrants suddenly left the country, the government wouldn’t immediately have its expense burden reduced by $279 billion. Calculations in the study included defense costs and interest on the existing public debt, which would not go down without the 55.5 million immigrants. If those costs were excluded, the total fiscal burden for the first generation and dependents would go down to $43 billion, and the per capita burden would be more for the native-born population than for the first-generation immigrants.
The overall effect of immigration on economic growth was positive. Whatever costs immigrants might present now will be "paid back" by overall economic growth that will lead to more tax revenue on average for the government and less demand for need-based benefit programs. "The $279 billion calculation does not include any estimate of this effect and so is an upper bound on total fiscal impact," Donehower said.
The study analyzed fiscal impacts using assumptions under different scenarios, which led to varying outcomes, said Chris Mackie, a study director with the Committee on National Statistics at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The $279 billion impact stems from the combination of worst-case assumptions, he said. Under other assumptions, the fiscal burden was $43 billion. and reason why I reached out to you is because of this question I'm not an expert
Exit polls paint a different picture. White voters who are 71% of the voters voted for Trump (55% vs 43% for Kamala). Every other racial demographic group including Hispanics voted for Kamala. Only 12% of blacks, 38% of Asians, 45% of Latinos voted for Trump. So, if we were a country where white voters were not an overwhelming majority, a Republican would never be elected nationally.
Secondly, in Hispanic majority districts the Republican house members elected have always been of low quality - someone like Anna Paulina Luna. There is a reason, only Anglo-Saxon countries like USA, Canada, NZ and Australia have been successful in the new world while countries like Brazil, Mexico and other Latin countries have not been successful. High levels of immigration from Latin America and other third world countries will not bode well for America. Demography is indeed destiny.
There is no way the Republican Party would be half as conservative as it is today if not for immigration. It's given them an issue to run on, which allows them to do the pro-market stuff that voters never want.
How do you know that the GOP will permanently remain the pro-market party if it will also permanently remain the prole party? After all, proles could eventually elect more and more anti-market Republicans in primaries, no? Or would pro-market Republicans *always* produce better vibes?
"Only 12% of blacks, 38% of Asians, 45% of Latinos voted for Trump."
This is true, but I know at least the Latino % increased compared to 4 years ago. That's Richard's argument. You can't simply get the 'right' number of certain ethnicities then assume they'll forever vote for you in the same percentages forever. Trump won because he ate into traditional Democratic demographics - he didn't need to win them, just not lose them as badly as 4 years ago. Mission accomplished.
"So, if we were a country where white voters were not an overwhelming majority, a Republican would never be elected nationally."
Again, these percentages are not static. The momentum over the past few elections suggests that Republicans may continue to improve their results with these demographics. And with a lot of whites continuing to vote GOP, where will Democrats make up the votes they are continually bleeding from minorities over to the GOP? If the Democrats are going to win minorities by smaller and smaller margins each cycle, then they need to do better and better with whites to just break even.
That is simply not true, Bush won 45% of Hispanics in 2004. In 1980, 54% of Hispanics voted for Jimmy Carter, similar to 54% of Hispanics who voted for Kamala this election. There has not been a trend where Hispanic voters back Republicans. Raegan won 56% of white voters in 1980 and 58% of white voters in 1984, winning a landslide election with 500+ electoral votes. Trump won 55% of white voters, which is not vastly different from Raegan , but whites were 88% of electorate in 1980 vs 71% today.
An interesting statistic would be the graph of the delta between the percentage of Latinos voting republican and the percentage of white voting republican. That would eliminate the candidate strength from the equation.
“Trump, a widely detested candidate won the popular vote, but just wait guise! It’s actually bad and stuff!”
Need a copium refill friendo?
Well if the demographics were similar to 1980s, with exact same voting patterns among different racial groups, Trump would have won in a landslide like Raegan. However, that is not possible today as white voters are 70% of electorate vs 88% in 1980.
Interesting how responders don’t criticize the specific point you made but complain with cope and seethe and alternate scenarios which we can never test.
This. A figure like trump emerges once every few generations at most. Its unreasonable to base your immigration policy on the frequent emergence of a similar charismatic caudillo who shares your ideology
I think most of that can just be explained by lots of Republican candidates being jerks to immigrants and non-whites. If Republicans didn't keep running on xenophobic platforms they'd probably do much better. In a country where white voters were not an overwhelming majority, Republicans would wise up and stop being jerks in national elections, so they'd still win frequently.
Conflating illegal aliens with lawful long term legal immigrants again.
America owes foreign nationals nothing.
Only in the West do people expect the majority ethnicity/race to voluntarily and willingly become a minority. Want to hear you tell Mexico it should become majority SE Asian and see how they respond.
You can decide that you don't owe foreigners anything. So far, the US has accumulated a whole lot of goodwill from people around the world. But if they do take Trumpism/xenophobia as the prevailing American attitude, they may decide they don't owe anything to the US either. At which point, you'll have few friends around the world, and the rest will be ganging up on you.
It'll be a fun experiment. Try it. WW3 will be inevitable.
That aside, nobody is asking for anybody to become something else. That's a caricature you've painted. Immigration to countries like the US benefits far more people (hosts and immigrants both) than it hurts. There's absolutely no way you can maintain your standard of living or keep maintaining your infrastructure with a shrinking population sans some immigration. Plus if you burn your trade links with other countries, there's only so much commerce that an aging population can conduct within its own group. And when Elon succeeds in building his Mars vehicle, no American will volunteer to go.
Republicans are not just opposed to illegal immigration, they also take action to restrict legal immigration as well. Please alert me if there are any Republican politicians that I haven't heard of that simultaneously want to pass laws to increase legal immigration and reduce legal immigration.
Trade isn't charity. Allowing foreign nationals to immigrate isn't paying them something we owe them, it is allowing them to contribute to American society. The main reason they don't contribute more now is that we have a worst-of-both worlds messed up asylum system where people whose application is still under consideration aren't allowed to work, but don't have to go back either. Furthermore, restrictions on immigration aren't just restrictions on foreign nationals, they are restrictions on American citizens. Why should an American be barred by the government from hiring or renting to anyone they want, regardless of where that person is a citizen of?
There is, in fact a country, that became a majority SE Asian country recently, the United Arab Emirates. The majority of its population are Southeast Asian guest workers. As a result it is a giant economic powerhouse. It seems like it would be a good thing if Mexico was more like Dubai. Mexicans might oppose that, but that would be an example of how democracy sometimes magnifies our irrational impulses.
Trump promised green cards for almost anyone with a pulse when he was on the All-In Podcast.
Yeah I know. Worst thing ever. Imagine the massive fraud of every 2nd and 3rd worlder coming here for community colleges all so they could get a green card. Then the chain migration . . .
Trump is no savior. Just hopefully the beginning of a new era.
I suspect that this proposal of his was just for show and that he actually wants to significantly restrict legal immigration, as in his first term.
You speak solely of economics. There are cultural reasons to oppose immigration too. You think plug and play works as if human groups are interchangeable culturally, socially and politically. They are not.
Immigrants also take out of the system. Look at NYC and the billions going towards migrants. Even with working permits, many would never be able to support themselves or their families. You just ignore the indirect costs because it’s convenient.
We just fundamentally disagree here. I believe a nation has the right to say no to immigration, even if it were a net positive. You believe a nation does not have the right to say no to immigration, even if it were a net negative.
NYC is an example of the stupidity of our system, where migrants can't work to support themselves because of labor restrictions, but aren't being sent home either. I agree that a half-assed system where immigrants aren't sent back, but also aren't allowed to contribute to society, is worse than both a system of more open migration and a system of strict border enforcement. It's the worst of both worlds.
I don't really see what the cultural reasons to oppose immigration are. I live in an area with a lot of immigrants and the effect they have on the culture is to make it even better. The people who seem most culturally opposed to immigration are the sort of people that J.D. Vance describes in his memoir, "Hillbilly Elegy." I have read that memoir and it seems to me like it would be a vast improvement if their culture learned to imitate the culture of the hardworking immigrants that come here and make a living for themselves. The best way to preserve a culture is to work to make it worth preserving.
America has room for plenty of culture. Is it really such an imposition on you if your local theater occasionally shows Bollywood movies, a new Thai restaurant moves in, or your child makes friends with a classmate with a weird name? It's all part of the greater American universal superculture.
My main issue with the kind of nationalist ideas you are talking about is that there is not a well-agreed upon set of norms to prevent nations from acting immorally for their self-interest the same way their is for individuals. For instance, most people agree that we owe our family more than we owe strangers, but we also have norms against things like nepotism. We understand that even though we normally pursue our self-interest and family interest more often than the general good, there are limits to how far we can go. Nationalism has far fewer limits.
"It's all part of the greater American universal superculture."
I actually value diversity and don't seek to flatten all differences between peoples and their cultures by imposing our American universal super culture onto the rest of the world, nor do I want to import every other culture and graft it onto the American tree.
What you are is a proponent of the Global American Empire. If we're going to export out culture around the world, import immigrants from around the world, why not just make every state an American vassal and govern them too? Imagine the prosperity! Open borders and free movement of goods everywhere because America rules it all.
I want a national America, not a universal global America.
"Nationalism has far fewer limits."
Even in the UAE, where migrants and their descendants are denied citizenship and voting rights for an indefinite number of generations.
It’s a good thing for a deeply flawed democracy like Mexico to become more like a monarchy that is Dubai because Dubai has no issue with importing slave labor from abroad to which it flat out denies any chance of getting local citizenship?
The UAE has a lot of oil, while Mexico does not. Though the human capital in South Asia probably wouldn't be inferior to that of Mexico, at least in a comparable environment. It might even be a bit superior, especially the ones from India.
Without oil, the UAE would be much, much poorer.
Why shouldn't Mexico import a lot of Indians from India?
They can if they want to. I suspect the overwhelming majority of Mexicans want to remain a majority Mexican country and don’t want to import large numbers of immigrants that fundamentally change their country, even if they bring wealth and prosperity. I don’t actually know but as a fact so happy to hear otherwise.
However, I do recall an article in the NYT about Mexicans complaining about the influx of American remote workers and their impact on Mexico’s City. They hated it despite those workers being legal, temporary, wealthy, free spending and not taking Mexican jobs or using Mexican welfare. Not to mention they weren’t demanding citizenship or rights.
You're not looking at the trend though. Republicans always win with white voters. The exit polls show Trump's margin with them shrinking this year. In 2016 white men went for Trump by 31 point margin and it went down in 2020 and down even further this year, to 20 points. White women's Trump margin is half what it was previously.
Latino men shifted 41 points towards Trump since 2016. That is huge and basically unprecedented for any group to move that much that fast. If exit polls end up being accurate it looks to me like Latinos basically decided this election. Well, that and Trump lost ground with seniors and gained it with those under 30, about 10 points in each case, but that may very well just reflect the racial composition in those age categories and the fact that there are way more young Latinos.
Well in 2004, 44% of Hispanics voted for Bush. This year it was 45%. That's hardly a trend of constant increase in GOP support among Hispanics.
Yes, in 2004 the country was in full-on warmonger mode and enthusiastic about foreign wars to go slaughter the jihadists who took down the towers. Hispanics are far more likely to enlist in the military, far more Christian and religious, and Bush spoke Spanish and was a born again Christian....it was basically a perfect year to win them. However they were also a much smaller share of the electorate and the actual eligible voters were far older and had generally been here for a while. Now they have more than doubled in size demographically and their voters are many of the children of the waves of the legal and illegal immigrants that we've had for 30 years now. It's the younger Hispanic voters that voted more for Trump. They're now voting just like whites, which is to say there's a huge education and class divide, along with a gender/age divide, and Trump wins the working class and non college degreed. The prototypical Trump voter is a 50 year old guy with no college degree who makes $45k a year and is married with kids. That's also your prototypical Hispanic man, so they're well suited.
The GOP of today isn't the GOP of Bush times. It was pretty pro-immigration back then. Trump increasing his share of votes among hispanics while being anti-immigration is remarkable.
*remarkable
yep sorry i'm french. Just edited it
Immigrants to the US are selected. They vote for Kamala because they have higher IQ than the average in their native country
“Heheh… Only almost half of Asians and Latinos voted Trump!”
The cope man! The sheer cope!
And considering how GOP share of those voters keep voting, you’re making even less sense.
I look forward to the Vance victory in ‘28 and how “ACKSHUALLY only 20% of blacks, 48% of Asians and 51% of Hispanics voted GOP. Something something white supremacy!”
Except in 2004, 44% of Hispanics voted for Bush vs 45% today. In 1984, 40% of Hispanics voted for Raegan. Raegan won in a landslide because white voters were 90% of electorate. Maybe instead of trusting your feelings, you should look at historical exit poll data.
It is evident that without white voters being a majority, Republicans cannot win. California was a place where republicans won until 1990s (70% white in 1990 vs 41% in 2020), when White voters were still a majority. Today, California is a deep blue state. It would be hard to believe Raegan was once a governor of California. It is the Anglo-Saxon way to look at data and logic instead of ad-hominem attacks claiming cope.
Is there data in dissent white groups? I’m curious about how Eastern and Southern Europeans vote. White is helpful but still broad. Would be interesting to read about the breakdown of different white groups.
Patronising much?
Excellent comment. Thanks for a bit of sanity.
The whole “demographics is destiny” narrative pushed by race-obsessives on both left and right was largely due to them seeing black voting patterns and extrapolating it to all non-white groups.
Only black voters vote bloc-like for one party, and even that’s changing among black male voters.
It is actually due to looking at all the voting patterns, and looking at other countries. It is absurd to argue that life does not profoundly change if you completely change the people who constitute the country. It already has.
We are not a nation of immigrants but a nation of settlers. America had to be settled and its wilderness had to be tamed. Our values, institutions and legal system are built in the image of settlers from Western Europe ( mainly Britain). With high levels of immigration, US could be rebuilt in the image of third world immigrants. That is not very promising when one looks at the state of such countries.
Most of the third world immigrants in question are from Latin America, which are also nations of settlers from Western Europe.
That being said, it seems pretty obvious that you can just plug people from other places into American values, institutions, and legal systems, and they will run just fine. Instead of rebuilding in the image of third world immigrants, the immigrants are rebuilt in the image of America. This has been the way it worked in past generations of immigration, and seems to be the way it is working today.
Some third world immigrants from South America have some European ancestry. That’s not the same as English settlers in the new world.
There is no plug and play for immigrants. This is the libertarian view that individuals are solely economic actors. Different input does not lead to same output.
The libertarian view is close enough to the truth that it can basically be treated as correct for most economic purposes. Humans are not solely economic actors, but all humans care enough about economic matters that modeling them as such isn't that far from the truth.
Furthermore, immigrants assimilate really quickly. If you read articles about groups like the Haitians in Springfield, it is clear that a lot of them understand and appreciate American values better than the average American (a lot of them seemed confused by how un-American Trump and Vance's behavior was, and had an adorably naïve idea that they couldn't possibly mean it). So how different they are from Americans in their home country doesn't really seem that relevant. They adopt American values soon enough.
The Haitians point is just laughable. Your standard for Haitians to assimilate to americanism consists of them being offended by criticism of their coethnics. A majority of Haitians use welfare. They are net fiscal drains. This remains true of subsequent generations
It's not that they were offended by criticism of their coethnics, it was that they used a framework of American ideas to talk about that offense. They have a good understanding of the civic virtues that America is built on, and are confused as to why national figures like Trump and Vance fail to embody those virtues. Remember that most immigration and naturalization programs try to educate incoming people about American values. This often makes them confused when they hear about Trump and his supporters, who actively hate American values and work tirelessly to erode them.
The majority of Haitians in Springfield are hardworking individuals who are net fiscal assets. The statistic that most Haitians use welfare is a nation-wide statistic, not for Springfield specifically. Why would Haitians move halfway across the country, if they just want welfare they could have stayed in the parts of America where they first arrived (which is mostly Florida)?
Asians and Latinos are the White Ethnics of the 21st century.
White will one day mean "not black"
Ramirez, Zhang and Singh, will be just as American as Rossi, O'Connor, Braun and Smith
On Saint Patrick's Day everyone's Irish.
On Day of the Dead, everyone's Mexican
On Diwali, everyone's Indian
On Chinese New year, everyone's Chinese
More days to get shitfaced and overeat, the true American way
Right, and you're a woman on Tuesday and maybe not on Wednesday.
The difference being Rossi, O'Connor, Braun or Smith do not visit their extended family in Europe every summer like the Singhs, Zhangs or Ramirezs visit India, China or Mexico. Rossi, O'Connors, Brauns and Smiths are integrated into the larger WASP culture - culturally Christian, speaking only English, having similar mannerisms , food etc. while Singhs, Zhangs or Ramirezs still maintain their identity - they speak their native language, cook their own native food, practice their native religion etc.
Consider a 25 YO Californian with four grandparents born in China and both parents born in the US.
What are the chances this person will marry endogamously? Low.
What are the chances this person reads Chinese? Low.
What are the chances this person is in touch with their second cousins in Sichuan? Very low to zero.
As a non-American this always strikes me when I visit. First generation holds on moderately to atavistic customs, second generation become very American. Third generation has an entirely Hollywood-mediated view of the homeland. Ireland full of leprechauns, Japan full of anime, France full of snooty people (okay well that may be accurate), but you get my drift.
America is a tremendous factory for MAKING AMERICANS!
Have you met any of these people? I live in a pretty diverse neighborhood. Everyone there speaks English without an accent and eats a wide variety of food. Some of them do occasionally visit their extended family in the old country, but that's nice, Americans don't visit their extended families enough even if they live in the same country. They don't seem particularly religious, but if they do practice their native religion that is their right as an American, since America has no established religion.
Maybe it's just because I live in an area that looks like all those commercials on TV now full of multiracial families, but it has become really easy to see just how overblown fears of ethnic division in America are. To the extent that they exist at all, nativists seem to be the ones that cause them.
Nothing about this applies to the 2nd or 3rd generation of Asian American or Latin American immigrants i.e. children and grandchildren.
Your viewpoint ignores the parts of American and American Christian culture that were once White Ethnic: Catholicism/Popery, Pine Trees for Christmas, Pasta/Pizza/Paczki etc.
God forbid
Yes, this is already the case in latin america, "white" is a skin color denomination.
I have always had a different interpretation of "demographics is destiny".
Not: "Third-world immigrants will make politics more left-wing"
But: "Third-world immigrants will make politics more third-worldy"
Which country is more leftist? Sweden or Ecuador? I couldn't tell, but what I do know is that the Swedish left is more about organizing free daycare and investing in renewables, and less about industry nationalization and handing out refrigerators. The Swedish right is more about debottlenecking the process for business registration, and less about military parades in colorful costumes.
I fear that mass immigration will make Western politics more like that of Ecuador. Ironically, Trump is the most third-world right-winger the US has ever seen, and it works greatly on Latinos.
The correct polls to watch would not be to see whether immigrants identify with the left or right bloc, but what their positioning is within these blocs.
Given the title I was surprised to see the focus on conservative fallacies. I don’t recall immigration being a particularly important part of the republican platform prior to Trump. In fact, as the pro-business party, Republicans have often been accused of being pro-immigration (see Koch Bros) in order to restrain labor costs. Trump’s anti-immigrant stance is looks more reactive rather than demographically strategic. He doesn’t play chess; he merely identified and capitalized on growing resentment from the working class about the (real or imagined) impact of increasing immigration numbers on jobs and white culture (see South Park: they took our jobs!). Rather, it seems that democratic leadership has pursued loose border policies, despite the preferences of the majority of Americans per survey data, in order to augment demographics. It may indeed be time to retire Demographics is Destiny, but largely bc the Hispanic population apparently is not voting as the democratic party expected.
"Demographics is destiny" is not reducible to partisan labels. Nothing in this post would be convincing to Garett Jones.
People are people and quit trying to put everyone into pigeon holes. It's time for this Marxist crud to be flushed from the world.
Thank you
A cynic could, of course, say that Trump has brought Latin American-style authoritarian populism into the US.
This hardly shows that 'demographics is destiny' is not accurate. It merely shows that the usual understanding of immigrant culture and politics ("demographics") is extremely simplistic - they are not forever D voters. But Immigrants do bring their culture with them, including their political culture, and that will alter American culture and politics. We are not just assimilating to your ways.
Also:
"Trump more than they loved Romney not because Trump gave them any new policies, but because he curses a lot and has gold toilets, while Romney talks in complete sentences and looks like he might have once read a book in his life."
This is completely false on top of an ugly thing to say. People love Trump because he is very funny (stand-up comedy level) and, in his personal interactions with people, comes across as genuinely warm and curious. He asks really good questions and gives genuine, uplifting compliments. In contrast, Romney comes across as fake and calculating, a bit nerdy and anal, ambitious with an edge of desperation, and not a real people person. There are other reasons why people like Trump but cursing and gold toilets do not make top 100.
African immigration would/will still be cataclysmic
Romney's biggest problem was he reminded people of the guy who ordered the place they worked shut down.
I responded yesterday that third worldization of politics is more than just things moving left of right.
Yesterday night in the city where I live, Amsterdam, an Israeli football team was visiting, playing Ajax. Moroccan "youngsters" in all black chased Israelis down the city center, threw them in canals, hit them with cars, forced them to say "Free Palestine" while kicking them when on the floor. There are 10 Israelis in the hospital, 2 missing.
Being publicly Jewish in Amsterdam, let alone visibly Israeli, or pro-Israel, is increasingly become dangerous. The thugs, apparently, own the streets. Don't think they don't own the high schools... This kind of violence and administration enforces a consensus: support Palestine or be silent, don't be publicly Jewish. It's not an election, but it's politics...
In terms of electoral politics, of course, it is triggering a massive backlash, which only benefits the nationalist right... The kind of party that wants to limit high-skilled migration, has been friendly with Putin, etc..
I don't want these kind of Middle Eastern ethnopolitics in my country. Talking GDP, I would happily sacrifice a couple % of my income to get rid of this.
Manhattan results are pretty funny - extreme barbell. Trump got best results in the wealthiest family friendly areas (Tribeca, super wealthy parts of UES, Central Park South, Battery Park) and also the poorest areas (government housing in Chinatown and East Village).
EHC hasn't always favored the personalities of bumbling goofballs like Tim Walz. And with Trump apparently improving his margins with Asians, Jews, the tech sector, young people, and you: crudeness might be back en vogue
Demographics matters to some degree. The Scot-Irish will always support the populist over the northern elites... But what the populist actually does can change.
can I ask you a question I read something from PolitiFact that claimed that immigrants are a net loss in the first generation but make up for it in the second generation is that true or not here's what they claimed Economic and fiscal consequences report
The National Academies found that first-generation immigrants (who were born outside of the United States) cost governments more money than the native-born population. The costs are largely taken on by state and local governments that educate the immigrants’ children.
But members of the second generation "are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population," the report said, with tax contributions greater than their parents and the native-born population.
In the long term, the immigrant impact is "generally positive" at the federal level but remains negative at state and local levels, varying significantly across states.
"To characterize that one number as the cost to current native-born taxpayers, is absolutely a case of cherry-picking one result out of a very detailed report," said Gretchen Donehower, an academic specialist at the University of California at Berkeley and consultant who contributed to the report.
Donehower gave us three caveats to the White House’s message:
The government runs on a deficit, so on average, taxpayers, including the native-born, benefit more than they pay in taxes. While members of the first, second, and third generations on average all cost more than they pay, we are all pushing a substantial amount of debt onto future generations — and immigrants and their descendants will also be "on the hook" for that debt.
Some costs won’t go away even if immigrants do. If all of the first-generation immigrants suddenly left the country, the government wouldn’t immediately have its expense burden reduced by $279 billion. Calculations in the study included defense costs and interest on the existing public debt, which would not go down without the 55.5 million immigrants. If those costs were excluded, the total fiscal burden for the first generation and dependents would go down to $43 billion, and the per capita burden would be more for the native-born population than for the first-generation immigrants.
The overall effect of immigration on economic growth was positive. Whatever costs immigrants might present now will be "paid back" by overall economic growth that will lead to more tax revenue on average for the government and less demand for need-based benefit programs. "The $279 billion calculation does not include any estimate of this effect and so is an upper bound on total fiscal impact," Donehower said.
The study analyzed fiscal impacts using assumptions under different scenarios, which led to varying outcomes, said Chris Mackie, a study director with the Committee on National Statistics at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The $279 billion impact stems from the combination of worst-case assumptions, he said. Under other assumptions, the fiscal burden was $43 billion.
can I ask you a question I read something from PolitiFact that claimed that immigrants are a net loss in the first generation but make up for it in the second generation is that true or not here's what they claimed Economic and fiscal consequences report
The National Academies found that first-generation immigrants (who were born outside of the United States) cost governments more money than the native-born population. The costs are largely taken on by state and local governments that educate the immigrants’ children.
But members of the second generation "are among the strongest economic and fiscal contributors in the U.S. population," the report said, with tax contributions greater than their parents and the native-born population.
In the long term, the immigrant impact is "generally positive" at the federal level but remains negative at state and local levels, varying significantly across states.
"To characterize that one number as the cost to current native-born taxpayers, is absolutely a case of cherry-picking one result out of a very detailed report," said Gretchen Donehower, an academic specialist at the University of California at Berkeley and consultant who contributed to the report.
Donehower gave us three caveats to the White House’s message:
The government runs on a deficit, so on average, taxpayers, including the native-born, benefit more than they pay in taxes. While members of the first, second, and third generations on average all cost more than they pay, we are all pushing a substantial amount of debt onto future generations — and immigrants and their descendants will also be "on the hook" for that debt.
Some costs won’t go away even if immigrants do. If all of the first-generation immigrants suddenly left the country, the government wouldn’t immediately have its expense burden reduced by $279 billion. Calculations in the study included defense costs and interest on the existing public debt, which would not go down without the 55.5 million immigrants. If those costs were excluded, the total fiscal burden for the first generation and dependents would go down to $43 billion, and the per capita burden would be more for the native-born population than for the first-generation immigrants.
The overall effect of immigration on economic growth was positive. Whatever costs immigrants might present now will be "paid back" by overall economic growth that will lead to more tax revenue on average for the government and less demand for need-based benefit programs. "The $279 billion calculation does not include any estimate of this effect and so is an upper bound on total fiscal impact," Donehower said.
The study analyzed fiscal impacts using assumptions under different scenarios, which led to varying outcomes, said Chris Mackie, a study director with the Committee on National Statistics at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The $279 billion impact stems from the combination of worst-case assumptions, he said. Under other assumptions, the fiscal burden was $43 billion. and reason why I reached out to you is because of this question I'm not an expert