Blacks, Hispanics, Young & Women Still Reliably Liberal

SellwynThumbby Selwyn Duke   11/14/14
2014 Election Results  •  The best predictor of future voting patterns is past voting patterns, to use a twist on a famous maxim. This is probably even truer of groups than individuals, and, despite some wishful thinking to the contrary, this election cycle was no exception. As to this, Silvio Canto at American Thinker recently asked “What Happened to ‘Demographics’?” in a piece in which he says that “people of color…don’t automatically vote Democrat.” Perhaps this means they manually vote Democrat, but, whatever the case, this person “of no color” is here to tell you three things:

They are voting Democrat.

They will continue voting for liberals.

This is also true of women and the young.

Let’s now analyze the numbers. Please examine the chart below from Pew Research.


The black vote has been quite consistent through all three election cycles. The 2014 Hispanic vote did swing six points in the Republican direction from 2012, but the GOP actually did slightly better in 2010. Now let’s examine the rest of the Democrat phalanx.

Below is a chart from a Pew Research article titled “As GOP celebrates win, no sign of narrowing gender, age gaps.”


As you can see, Republicans actually did better among women in 2010 than this year, while the numbers among the youngest demographic remained virtually unchanged.

So what really accounted for this month’s GOP wave election? For sure, the widespread sense that our country is declining and the unpopularity of Barack Obama caused that sliver of the electorate known as swing voters (a.k.a. confused), governed by emotion as much as anyone, to feel the Republicans were a better choice.

The rest was turnout. Being generally lower in midterm elections, which minimizes the idiot vote — and with Obama ennui further depressing Democrat-constituency turnout (which, uh, minimizes the idiot vote) — the electorate was older and whiter this time around. The age-group turnout reflected 2010. And relative to 2012, the share of the electorate represented by voters

  • 65-plus increased 6 points.
  • 45-64 increased 5 points.
  • 30-44 decreased 5 points.
  • 18-29 decreased 6 points.

In general, voters over 60 constituted 37 percent of the turnout; those under 30 just 12 percent.

I should also mention that, true to form, Republicans received approximately 90 percent of their votes from whites.

Some may now point out that the GOP did better among non-whites in certain places and races; an example is that Texas governor-elect Greg Abbott won 40 percent of the Hispanic vote. Yet it’s also true that Democrat senatorial candidates in Oregon, Mississippi and Minnesota improved their standing among whites. These are outlier races, and focusing on them can prevent one from seeing the forest for the trees.

And the forest is this: 2014 did see the election of more GOP candidates who are younger, female and non-white. But same as usual, they were elected by those “old white guys.”

The problem with much election analysis is that pundits are overly impressed with what invariably prove to be transitory swings toward one party or the other. But it’s not how people vote that determines a civilization’s destiny — it’s what makes them vote how they vote that does. In 2008 and 2012, for instance, the problem was not that the majority of the electorate voted for Obama.

It was that they were the kind of people who could vote for an Obama.

Better leadership is only born of fundamental change in the electorate. And what is such a thing? When we hear a political conversion story — such as that concerning writer and editor Adam Bellow, the late Ron Silver or anyone we know with the brains to transition from being a liberal at 20 to a conservative at 30 — does the person say, “You know, I walked into that there voting booth and my hand, my hand…it…it, it was like an alien was controlling my body! It just pulled that GOP lever like it had a mind of its own. Now, ’scuse me, pal, I need to go renew my ACLU membership”? Nor does the person say, “I just woke up one day and realized how much more attractive the R is than the D. The D just looks sorta’, you know, obese. This repulses my vegan self, and that’s why I support Michelle Obama right down the line.”

A real conversion is one of heart and mind. The person has had a flash of insight, an epiphany, and he actually changes at least some of his beliefs.


That’s where the rubber hits the road. Civilizations rise and fall, prosper or perish, due to ideas that come to imbue people’s emotional realm and then shape their words and actions.  This means that to secure tomorrow, you must win their hearts and minds for Truth.

And what can we say about the Democrat constituencies in question here? It’s not just that their voting habits haven’t changed. It’s that:

  • Blacks and Hispanics haven’t given up their affinity for big government and redistributionist appeals.
  • Millennials haven’t given up their love affair with the homosexual agenda and, more generally speaking, their adherence to what G.K. Chesterton called “the next great heresy”: the attack on morality in general and, in particular, sexual morality.
  • Women haven’t given up their loyalty to feminism and relative propensity for sacrificing liberty for security, which draws them toward demagogues spouting specious wage-gap, safety-net and equality rhetoric.

By the way, you don’t have to write me saying indignantly that you’re a woman, a young person or a minority and you don’t embrace the above. I know you’re out there. But just as individuals have characteristic qualities, so do groups. And my above characterizations are, lamentably, spot-on.

In other words, this election was not a repudiation of liberalism. It was a reaction to the status quo, which people tend to associate with the president.

Of course, the fantasy that this election means something more is understandable. People want to relish the victory, enjoy the champagne, without a party pooper raining on their parade. Republicans also see the demographic writing on the wall. With the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 ensuring that 85 percent of our immigrants hail from the Third World and Asia — and with even conservatives taking this importation of socialist-leaning peoples as a given — they, echoing the X-Files, say “I want to believe.” So they enthusiastically say that Hispanics are natural-born conservatives.

Left unexplained is why these natural-born conservatives vote for socialist-oriented candidates in every Hispanic nation on Earth (the “conservatives” in such countries would occupy our political left).

We also hear about how Republicans just need to “reach out” to the black community.

Left unexplained is how this is going to work when, reflecting a wider phenomenon, a robustly conservative black man such as Tea Party stalwart Lloyd Marcus cannot even convince his own father to embrace the GOP.

It’s also said, as Forbes contributor Sabrina Schaeffer put it, Republicans need “to rebuild a coalition of women who understand and value limited government.” Since a group of such women already exists, we can assume she means a majority of them. However….

Left unexplained is how you can “rebuild” something that never existed. Women vote for big government all over the Western world. And as research scientist John Lott outlines here, statism’s birth in the US directly coincides with women’s suffrage, and the growth of both the female vote and big government perfectly correspond with each other. This is at least partially because, as explained here, women are the Security Sex.

We lastly hear that the young will come around when they graduate from college and find no jobs waiting.

Left unexplained is how this one hardship will change hearts marinated in leftism from birth via the schools, media and entertainment arena. Note that Lincoln pointed out, “The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow.” Also note that people in Weimar Germany and Tsar Nicholas II’s Russia had it far worse economically. They reacted by empowering Hitler and Lenin.

Speaking of demagogues, we can talk about “outreach,” framing our message and finding appealing candidates all we want. But if women, non-whites and the young are still voting for de-facto socialists after six years of the train wreck that is our first lazy, low-info, anti-American, affirmative-action, crypto-fascist president, it should be clear that our problems extend far beyond the political.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to • (2511 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Blacks, Hispanics, Young & Women Still Reliably Liberal

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    One should note, first of all, that the numbers vary from group to group. Blacks are nearly unanimous in their support for the Donkey ticket, Hispanics much less so, and women are nearly evenly split (and white women and married women are much more likely to vote Republican, which is one reason Democrats seek to destroy marriage). In addition, young voters do change over time (Romney did much better among the older millennials who had experienced Obamanomics personally than among the younger ones, still over-influenced by the far-left intelligentsia).

    As for outreach, some blacks etc. among the Donkey voters are reachable, and can be persuaded by campaigning among them. There is plenty of evidence that this can happen, and that the number of votes gained is often large enough to reverse a close election. Jesse Helms did this in his 1984 Senate race, and without pandering to racial issues. (In his last 2 races he faced Harvey Gantt, a Charlotte black, so he didn’t bother with such an effort again.)


    Excellent piece, Selwyn! (I’m glad I’m not alone in realizing that women are more likely than men to be taken in by politicians offering security in exchange for liberty). As an aside, if there’s hope for our “women problem” it’s that married women, who are more secure financially and probably emotionally, are more Conservative and single women. This is one of the reasons marriage matters to society, by the way, and why it’s under attack by the Left.

    But the main thrust of your article is that nothing has really changed these past two years (and I would say from what I remember of the 2004 exit polling, probably not changed much in 10 years). Democrats still have strong support among their traditional constituencies, and at dangerous levels – their base is undoubtedly larger than the Republican one. As I mentioned in a short piece during the run-up to the election, the Republican strategy was to get a small lead in the polls they hadn’t earned and then sit on it. This worked because some of the usual Democratic supporters – the chronically lazy and the low-information voters – stayed home this time.

    So Republicans won a big, if temporary, victory. As for Conservatives, our picture is a little less bright since some of the Republican victors are pretty far to the Left. (For example, here in Illinois “Republican” Bruce Rauner, supporter of gay “marriage” and good friend of Rahm Emanuel, narrowly defeated Chicago Democratic Machine candidate and current Governor Pat Quinn. By trimming union benefits slightly, it’s possible that Rauner will be marginally better than Quinn was. But the political reality of Illinois – that it’s a fiefdom ruled by Chicago Democrats – isn’t going to change very much.

    And the political reality of this country is that it’s not going to become more Conservative unless Conservatives get a platform from which to express our ideas and confront the Democratic Left. Nor will it become more Conservative if we continue to import the very same Mexicans who kept the socialist PRI Party in power in Mexico for 70 years – these people do not suddenly become more Conservative when they cross the Rio Grande.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Ditto, Nik. And Selwyn certainly speaks for me. There’s nothing wrong with a little optimism. But is it really three strikes and you’re out for Progressivism as J.R. Dunn thinks? In my opinion, the gateway drug to Establishment Republicanism/RINOism is this kind of misplaced optimism.

      Can we shave a few points here from the monolithic black or Hispanic vote by “reaching out”? Sure. But then “reaching out” is the substance of politics, and applies to whites or any other group. I always get a kick out of the RINOs and others who play to this “reaching out” meme . . . as if there is a conservative Republican anywhere in the country who espouses insularity as a winning strategy. Such words as “reaching out” are just another false paradigm, a way of accepting the Left’s tenets, one of which is that conservatives and Republicans are not for the little guy.

      Well, it’s arguable in this day and age that neither party is for the little guy. They seem to spend more and more resources trying to appeal to the aggrieved, the twisted, and the anti-social guy. And the electorate is not much further behind in their truly selfish and ignoble wishes. The word on the street that I’ve heard is that wherever a candidate goes these days, every group (including old-timers who knew first-hand a time when there was more than “me me me”), asks “What can you give me?”

      Every single individual, including myself, has a stake in Big Government, if only because of the collection of Social Security. It is a corrupting influence and one not corrected by the mad ravings of Libertarians and their anarchistic, asocial, amoral ways. The answer to our problems isn’t to destroy government but to reform it.

      And that means reforming the people. And that is where Selwyn’s article gets down to brass tacks. The people being produced by this culture are generally an unwise bunch, to put it mildly. We are producing a people who are no longer capable of self-government, which especially includes making hard choices and controlling one’s own appetites. The idea of hard choices has become unfashionable, replaced by the idea that all human actions should be therapeutic, should make us feel better, and that it is the upholding of standards that is the real problem of society.

      I was reminded by this lately by a school board member who noted how much time and energy is now put into the “gender” issue of school bathrooms. Washington State had passed a law a while back that required schools to address this. Little Johnny can’t read or write but a lot of energy is being spent by stupid liberals and other low-brow ignoramuses regarding what urinal little Johnny can piss in and under what circumstances. (And, as one well-planted agitator mentioned at a school board meeting, it’s not enough to have any set policies regarding such things, for one must also take into account gender that is “fluid.”)

      As I’ve mentioned many times before, we’ve turned into a silly people. Under the guise of “nice” we are doing all sorts of silly and destructive things. Aside from the intrusion of Communism (under various names), the common denominator seems to be the refusal of adults to act like adults. We seem to be trying to construct a Utopia where no one ever has to fail, feel bad, face moral choices, or simply try hard. This is all done under the banner of “nice” or “tolerant.” But the end effect is to create an emasculated society, one that is certainly in line with the corrosive feminist cause which is one of the other main driving influences.

      It’s a sad fat that there are so many stupid influences in our culture and so very few that are ennobling. And it is in regard to this electorate that both parties must assemble campaign strategies and craft messages. I know it is all the rage to be outraged at Jonathan Gruber for admitting that Obamacare was a scam from the get-go. But one can understand why the Democrats hold the electorate in such contempt. They consistently feed them the most outrageous bullshit, and the electorate keeps eating it up. Should they therefore stop?

      Good god, no. Their formula is working to enrich themselves at the expense of the common man. And we see assembling before us a truly archaic two-class system of the Governing Class and the Plebeians (or, more aptly, the Eloi and the Morlock). To suppose that some kind of conservative/American renaissance is fashioning itself from the corrupted, Progressive soil that is America is a fanciful, if understandable, wish. One election can’t reverse this trend.

      We can also have some sympathy for the disingenuous (and sometimes outright stupid) Republicans who move Left while pretending they have done no such thing. Surely they have seen the cultural trends and feel safe denouncing conservatives to be “Wacko Birds” as they play the part of Democrat Lite. And as we have seen of late, they will actively go on the offensive against conservatives to the benefit of Leftists. They, too, have had to have witnessed the remarkable gullibility and stupidity of what Rush Limbaugh politely calls “low information voters.”

      And can you blame these Republicans for veering Left any more than you can blame some small-town pastor for adopting the “therapeutic” form of Christianity? I had a conversation yesterday with a local pastor who was trying to “re-brand” his church. Some of his reasons for doing so made sense (because of name confusion). But otherwise much of Christianity has taken on the vibe of the Left. Don’t ask anything of anyone. Just make them feel comfortable doing whatever they are doing now…with a nice soundtrack beneath it all.

      Integrity and truth are no longer Republican Party values, and as Dennis Prager has long noted, truth is certainly not a Leftist values. Instead, both parties treat the electorate like weak-minded adolescents. And until we prove ourselves otherwise, who can blame them?

      • Rosalys says:

        “Every single individual, including myself, has a stake in Big Government, if only because of the collection of Social Security. It is a corrupting influence and one not corrected by the mad ravings of Libertarians and their anarchistic, asocial, amoral ways. The answer to our problems isn’t to destroy government but to reform it.

        And that means reforming the people.”

        Yup! The reason that these evil people are in the positions they are is because “we the people” put them there. We simply allow to take place everything that is happening. We bitch, complain, scream, and holler – but in the end we do nothing to meaningfully reverse the trend. Because we like the Stuff too much? Because we feel powerless? Because we are fast approaching the place where being able to meaningfully reverse the trend means doing some very nasty things (because we have let it go too far?)

        The word on the street that I’ve heard is that wherever a candidate goes these days, every group… asks “What can you give me?”

        We need candidates who will answer that query with, “I will do my best to give you the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution – freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, equal protection under the law, the right to free association, the right to private property, the liberty to go about your own business as you see fit without the interference of busy bodies who are so miserable and unfulfilled that they only way they can experience any pleasure is to tell everybody else what to do, etc.”

        • Timothy Lane says:

          That’s a good start, but in the end it means nothing until we have an electorate that will elect such candidates.

          • Rosalys says:

            Gotta start somewhere.

            This means that to secure tomorrow, you must win their hearts and minds for Truth.

            To win hearts and minds for the truth you have to speak the truth. And you have to speak it a lot! Have you ever had someone accuse you of only reading right wing stuff, only listening to Rush Limbaugh, blah blah, blah! I have and my answer to them is, “I don’t have to! The left world view is ubiquitous! I can’t get away from it, ignore it or keep it from invading my psyche.” If I listen to Rush, Sean, and Glenn, visit web sites (like Stubborn Things!) it is to keep me balanced and sane. It’s like Rush says when he is accused of not giving the left equal time, “I am equal time!”

            Because the nuttiness of the left is so ubiquitous there are people out there who have never heard anything else. Ever tell someone something which a mere two decades ago was seen for the truth that it is and they look at you like you’re crazy. I told a niece a while ago that homosexuality was abnormal, unnatural, and unhealthy. She looked at me like I suddenly grew another head! So we have to keep telling the truth and we must keep preaching the Constitution (as it is written – not as it has been reinterpreted by the left!) until it begins to not sound strange to the ignorant.

            You may not win an election telling the truth, but if you stand for the truth at least you lose for the right reason – not because the other guy promised more stuff. If you win by playing according to the destroyers’ rules you haven’t won anything.

            • Timothy Lane says:

              Quite so. One way to respond would be to ask when they ever allow themselves to be exposed to a conservative viewpoint — and, especially, when they ever seriously consider it. I suspect we all know what answer you will get.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Ditto, Rosalys. Well said. That is the American ideal very well expressed.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    Josh Gelernter has an article on NRO dealing with this issue. He points out that there certainly is potential for using the issue of jobs (which blacks and Hispanics haven’t been getting with liberal policies) and education (on which liberals value the unions over the children, to the detriment of the latter) to win additional black and Hispanic votes. Any gain “expands the map” of territory the GOP can hope to win — and this can be done without diluting conservatism by racial pandering. He suggest that some of the Super PACs might run between-campaign ads pointing out the flaws in the Democrats’ record, and even getting some playback. (After all, which was the party of slavery, the Klan, and Jim Crow? And which party still wants them uneducated and dependent on welfare benefits for survival?)

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Here’s an interesting article by Myra Adams outlining the electoral reality of today’s Amerika: Breaking the Blue Barrier

      Here’s that Gelernter article.

      In theory, pushing for “jobs” sounds good. In practice, the eyes of the electorate glazed over at Romney’s emphasis on “jobs” while re-electing a man whose emphasis was on “the vision thing.” (And it may be a Communist vision-thing, but it is, at least, a vision.)

      Certainly Reagan won, in part, by stressing the economic ineptitude of Jimmy Carter. But he was strongest on that “vision thing.” He articulated a positive vision of America, one of hard work, self-sufficiency, a can-do attitude, and freedom from government intrusion. It was a message that still resonated as late as 1980.

      Would that message resonate today? That is the problem. The electorate is a different one from the one in 1980. Its expectations of government are now far different. Its attitudes regarding morality are almost 180 degrees opposite to core conservatism, at least in regards to how such attitudes effect the growth of government.

      And to suppose that the issue of “jobs” will help the Republicans is to suppose that anyone who commonly votes for the Left doesn’t think this is the Left’s purview already. And the difference in approaches, by and large, is that the Republicans (in theory, if not in actual practice) promise jobs by getting government out of the way. The Left promises jobs by government action.

      And people are increasingly choosing the latter, fostered (as Selwyn notes, and as I have noted often) by the female propensity to choose security over risk. Thus to make “jobs” an issue is to show the cultural blindness of the typical GOP technocrat. They need to first promote the “vision thing” about America being the land of opportunity, not of guaranteed jobs and unemployment that lasts for years. And it could be that this argument is well past its sell date. I acknowledge that possibility (what we call “the tipping point”). But unless some kind of contrasting choice is offered, why would anyone break out of their own well-ingrained prejudices about “the right” (the fat-cats who only care about “the rich”) and suppose they would do better at creating jobs? (The Establishment Republican answer would be, of course, “We can run the existing bureaucracy better.” And perhaps they can.)

      And regarding the hispanics, as Nik said, good luck getting their vote. These are the people who have kept the socialist PRI Party in power. It’s a fanciful dream that many conservatives and Republicans have that these hispanics are really conservatives. But they are not, at least according to their expectations of government. And if Republicans are going to make any advances, they have to understand that there are millions of people out there living a conservative lifestyle (married, run a small business, stay out of trouble with the law, are involved in local charities) but who always and reflexively vote Democrat. Thus there is much more going on here than mere topics of “jobs” or “education.”

      The GOP has a brand image (to go along with its identity crisis). It does not have a credible “vision thing.” Speaking of “jobs” and “education” will have little effect because that is also a primary emphasis of the Democrat Party. They just do it differently. But it is not for jobs and education the people vote for the Democrats. Obviously the Democrats and the Left are lousy at both. But that doesn’t matter. There are other intangibles that matter much more to the people who vote for Democrats. (This is a highly ironic state of affairs given the Marxist “false consciousness” that underpins the Left’s belief about the middle class’s support of capitalism.)

      And here’s the kicker: To the extent the “Republicans” are effective in their “jobs” and “education” platforms, such platforms are little more than what the Democrats were offering in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s. It’s Retro RINOism. The core point to understand is that it is still government being forwarded as a solution to the most intimate and important details of our lives. What we are seeing is the Republican Party turn into statists/liberals (arguably what the Democrats were at one time) while the Democrat Party becomes thoroughly authoritarian Marxist/Leftist.

      Yes, it’s nice to have a Ted Cruz here and there. But they are a dying breed. The faux conservatives, such as Scott Walker and Susana Martinez, are hailed as the new brand of “conservative” who know how to “reach out.” (And, we must add, “reach out” means “Hand out” in some way, large or small.) But whatever electoral gains they make, except in rare cases (and Scott Walker has some cases to his credit), is still an appeal to the same paradigm: Government will do for you what you will not, or choose not to, do for yourself.

      We’re watching a vast Orwellian clusterfuck of subterfuge, disinformation, and confusion brought about by the fact that we are becoming like Europe. And as Mark Steyn notes, it really doesn’t matter which party is in power. The game is rigged. They’re both for massive government. They simply share turns holding the reigns of power. But both, more or less, have similar outlooks on the electorate: They are to be ruled by those who know better how to run their lives.

      We can too easily let our good sense be steered with words such as “reach out” or with momentary electoral swings. But the trend is clear: The era of America as a land of opportunity is being replaced, brick by brick, with the era of Amerika as the land of authoritarian socialist Utopia. And right now the children have not yet shown any desire for a backlash or temper tantrum, regardless of the jobs situation. This generation knows only how to destroy or complain, not how to build. They are putty in the hands of both parties. And these parties will continue to use the condescending language of that of an adult speaking to children. Gruber should not be condemned for merely stating the obvious. Only a fussbudget, silly, and degenerate culture could take seriously the many claims of the Left.

      But they do. And that is our downfall. And we will continue to be “managed” by a class who has little but contempt for people who allow themselves to be so easily deceived and manipulated.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        One reason why racial minorities have such positive associations with the Democrats is because they never hear anything else. If one seeks to provide a different viewpoint on the media that they pay attention to, some will learn better — perhaps enough to make a difference, because in many cases it doesn’t take many to do so.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          If one seeks to provide a different viewpoint on the media that they pay attention to, some will learn better — perhaps enough to make a difference, because in many cases it doesn’t take many to do so.

          There are two aspects to this subject:

          1) What should we do?

          2) What are they doing?

          I try not to confuse the one with the other. I’m all for going out there in the trenches, looking blacks in the face, and asking “If your schools are so bad, your neighborhoods so crime-ridden, your families so broken, is it possible that the Democrats really don’t care much about you other than your vote?”

          I share the same attitude as Rush Limbaugh. There would seem to be enormous possibilities for Republicans (or even dissenting Democrats) to make huge political hay out of the failures of the Democrats. The interesting question then is, “Why are they not doing so? Why do they remain so fraid-cat, milquetoast, and pansy?”

          The attempt to answer such a question would make for a riveting symposium or forum topic for this site. I believe there are people here who can answer that. Perhaps we should do so.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *