G.L.Piggy [at] gmail.com
Recent Comments
- Tori on The Myth of Male Hideousness
- Mohammed Chang on This is not The Jungle
- dan on The guns that killed Tamerlan Tsarnaev weren’t illegal
- dan on The guns that killed Tamerlan Tsarnaev weren’t illegal
- Woodshed_rabbit on This is not The Jungle
- Woodshed_rabbit on This is not The Jungle
GLP Approved
- Captain Capitalism
- Dalrock
- Dennis Mangan
- Econ Log
- Elusive Wapiti
- Foseti
- Hawaiian Libertarian
- HBD Bibliography
- Heartiste
- Lion of the Blogosphere
- Marginal Revolution
- Matt Forney
- Randall Parker
- Razib Khan
- Reihan Salam
- Roosh V
- Simon Grey
- SOBL
- Steve Sailer
- The Last Psychiatrist
- The Spearhead
- Thrasymachus
- Ulysses
- Vox Day
Tweet Tweet
Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.
Here’s my prediction.
49.3% – Romney
49.0% – Obama
My states go against conventional wisdom
Romney wins OH, IA, and CO.
Romney loses VA, WI, NH, PA.
Obama wins 270-268.
I’ve seen some of the early voting numbers and it makes me a little more hopeful about OH and a little less hopeful about VA… plus there are many on the right just counting VA as automatic even though the polls show him down there too recently that it makes me worry.
Before I calculate a final prediction, I’m still trying to decide whether Paul Ryan’s recent comment (“Obama would compromise Judeo-Christian values”) will rally apathetic whites. His comment is totally in line with the Sailer Strategy, but I just don’t know if that Strategy actually works or not.
Obama at 271 (maybe 275 if NH swings to him due to sandy on the brain), Romney wins PV by full 1% point.
If Romney loses the Repubs should just pass the entire liberal platform: university admissions must reflect the demographics of the country (call Harvard and Brandeis’ bluff, they’d hate it), no more energy from oil, coal, or natural gas (the people would throw a fit), business hiring must reflect national demographics (destroy the private sector). More public unions and welfare (destroy the public finances). More transsexuals in girls bathrooms, more aid for single moms. Just burn the sucker down.
His comment is totally in line with the Sailer Strategy, but I just don’t know if that Strategy actually works or not
Blogger Whiskey has a long recent post arguing that Sailer Strategy (an appeal to whites’ desire for living space for purposes of family-formation) will not work because white women, single white women in particular, are antagonistc to interests of white family formation due to their hypergamy-imperative (family-formation being implicitly a “one beta – one woman” impediment on womens’ unleashed pleasure principle.). He further elaborates that women love the natrual alpha above their own material self-interest, and this natural alpha is personified in blacks and other dark-skinned non-whites.
As I’ve been saying for a while now, Whiskey is one part insight, nine parts ridiculous extrapolation. There is somethign to his assertion of female hypergamy (and young white women’s unleashed hedonism in particular) overrides their solidarity with their men. This is an insight that Heartiste has long articulated as “five minutes of alpha trumps five years of beta,” and that’s what Whiskey hangs his argument on. Where Whiskey is in error is when he takes a leap into interpreting white women’s redistributive, pro-Obama voting as an expression of love for black alpha. In reality, young white women’s pro-Obama leanings are a factor of their feminine/nurturer pity for a omegas for which “poor blacks,” “inner city single moms” and other such are a stand-in in their minds.
Since I have nothing to lose by being wrong and will look smart if correct: Romney. Blowout. 300+ EVs for Romney.
I like JS’s idea; people would hate the liberal platform if it were truly implemented. Liberals would hate the liberal platform more the conservatives.
I’m voting for Gary Johnson. My state is voting for Mitt Romney.
I think Barack Obama will win. He will get 300 electors. In a way, I want him to win. Mitt Romney would not be effective, and would make the Republicans look bad.
Mitt Romney would not be effective, and would make the Republicans look bad.
Romney won’t put fruits and nuts on the Supreme Court, though. That’s reason enough to vote for him.
I predict Gary Johnson takes it with 272 3/4 electoral votes.
Yes but this is a danger present in every election. Every election is the most important yet. There is never a safe time to break away from the allegedly lesser evil of the GOP, no matter how awful they are.
Similar to what I said a few days ago, my prediction is Obama will get between 275 and 290 EVs. Breaking it down, my more specific prediction on the swings is that Romney will win FL, VA, NC and CO, and Obama will win the rest, making it a 281-257 election.
It’s quite possible, as soren points out, for Obama to win VA — I agree that too many people have been assuming it’s in the bag for Romney. A key when watching the VA returns, which will be among the earliest to become available, is to see what the voting is like in places like Loudoun and Fairfax counties. Fairfax will go for Obama, but the issue is by how much. If Romney can win Loudoun county, things look much better for him in Virginia than otherwise.
It’s theoretically possible for Romney to win under that scenario if he flips OH, which would lead to a 275-263 win for Romney — but I don’t think he has a chance in hell of winning in Ohio because the unions are going to get out the vote like mad there and in WI. “Revenge” and all that. There are other scenarios whereby Romney could win without OH, but he would basically have to run the table in places like IA and WI, and I don’t see that happening if he doesn’t win OH. So, to me, it’s all about OH. In looking at OH, I think a key is looking at what the turnout rates are in Cleveland vs what they are in Cincinnati area, but in reality I am pretty skeptical that the Republicans can win OH from the union vote.
PV will be very tight, but wouldn’t be surprised to see Romney win the PV, especially since turnout in NY and places nearby will be depressed due to lack of power and fuel, and generally having many more pressing things to do than vote in a safely dem state.
=======
The Sailer Strategy doesn’t work because whites are divided. That’s the essence of our politics in 2012. Blacks vote almost in lockstep as an ethnic group (moreso with a black candidate running, but even without it’s remarkably homogeneous politically). Latinos less so than blacks (especially if you take into account the Florida Latinos), but still lean very heavily dem. Whites are divided between dems and repubs, because whites are divided against each other generally — rich v poor, town v country, management v workers, religious v secular, etc, etc, etc. Whites don’t generally see whites as political allies on the basis of their whiteness like blacks and latinos typically do in their own groups. That may change as whites become increasingly close to being outnumbered, and it seems fairly clear that an obviously anti-white person like Obama can rally the white vote to some degree (as we saw in ’10 and to a lesser degree here in ’12 due to less anger and less enthusiasm for Romney) — so it’s possible that at some point in the future, the combination of being on the brink of demographic minorityhood combined with aggressively non-white and anti-white politicians running *could* make a Sailer Strategy more effective in the years ahead. Time will tell.
Camlost –
The “Supreme Court” argument was invalidated when Roberts upheld Obamacare. At this point there really is no difference between the two parties.
I wouldn’t say there is no difference, but that the difference is smallish. The democrats are aggressively anti-straight-white-guy, full stop. Their entire political agenda is built around furthering the interests of everyone other than straight white guys at the expense of straight white guys. The republicans are not aggressively anti-white-guy but have stupid policies that have a negative impact on average white guys anyway (immigration, trade policy etc). The difference in impact is not that great, but it’s still a difference. You won’t see repubs initiating garbage like the Ledbetter Act or a repub controlled Sec of Educ bullying universities to reduce the burden of proof in rape cases on college campuses or having special WH councils set up to benefit women and not men and so on. But, you will have repubs passing laws based an a set of ideological principles that hurt white guys indirectly in other ways — not because they have an animus towards straight white guys like the dems do, but because they are wedded to certain ideological positions that have a negative impact on white guys — that is, the dems are motivated by clear anti-white, anti-straight, anti-male bias, whereas the repubs are motivated by a blinkered ideological approach which can, in effect, be very harmful to the same people.
As between the stupid ideologues who unintentionally hurt me and the guys who hate me and are out to get me at all costs because I am a straight white guy, I will choose the former every single time, to be honest.
R-Money 297-241 with 52% of the pv.
The “Supreme Court” argument was invalidated when Roberts upheld Obamacare.
Well, I wasn’t happy with Roberts on that, either.
But Roberts will uphold free speech, at least. Obama’s attacks on free speech at Harvard and close association with Cass Sunstein show that he’s perfectly ready to take PC to a new level.
Whoever Romney can add to the court will certainly be better than the 1-2 additional radical lesbian feminists that Obama would like to add.
I was on a fence up until the last moment between voting Romney or writing in a protest vote. Final decision: Romney. The reason: say no to BRA.
PA: “In reality, young white women’s pro-Obama leanings are a factor of their feminine/nurturer pity for a omegas for which “poor blacks,” “inner city single moms” and other such are a stand-in in their minds.”
There is this. In actuality, I think it is a confluence of three psychological factors that pushes a huge majority of single white women into the arms of Dem pols. (Single NAM women follow the gibsmedat principle almost exclusively.)
1. As PA states, women have an inborn disposition toward nurturance, and the pity is strong in them. I think women get off a little on feeling pity and sympathy for others, and feeling needed by the less fortunate. This is why so many women flock to work in the human despair services fields, like nursing or teaching. Married women also have this nurturance instinct, but it is redirected to their own families, which turns their moral focus inward to the center ring of the concentric rings of genetic distance and moral regard. This in effect makes them more GOP friendly, (and more sane from a societal perspective).
2. As Whiskey states (well, speaking on the record, as *I* originally stated), single women’s prime directive is to fulfill their hypergamous impulse for the highest possible status man they can coax into long-term commitment. The party that is perceived as being pro-unrestricted female sexuality, anti-male sexuality, and anti-drone beta male is going to get their vote. You would probably not be surprised to learn that not only do single white SWPL chicks just automatically ASSUME everyone in their social circle is an obama cultist (yours truly gets a pass because CHARMING BASTARD), the first thing that pops in their heads when you ask them why they’re voting for Obama is usually something along the lines of “Romney wants to take away my birth control”. Yeah, these are educated women saying this. Thanks suffrage!
The fact is, marriage advocacy (and earlier marriage) is bad for young women’s sexual market value leverage, (but good for older married women’s SMV leverage, who, it should be noted, were the original pro-monogamy constituents and advocates). A party that embodies the single and seeking alpha cock in the city lifestyle will appeal to them. The party which is perceived (facts don’t really matter in politics) as pushing women to settle down early with a reliable company man and start popping out future video gamers is anathema to the single, economically self-sufficient, white woman sensibility.
3. Finally, and perhaps most saliently, single white women see Big Daddy State as a beta provider husband substitute. This has nothing to do with pity for the downtrodden masses and everything to do with “how much money and services can I redirect my way”. The single white woman who delays family formation finds herself battling her ancient subterranean limbic rhythms which always and everywhere guide her to seek out potential mates who could provide resources for her and her children, particularly when she is burdened by pregnancy and mostly unable (at least as would have been the case in the ancestral environment) to fully provide for herself. The single white woman, lacking the beta provider hubby (ironically, mostly by her own hand) seeks to fill his absence with the alternative — the looming Big Man tribal leader, which in modern America is the federal government, and its shaman is Obama. Women are naturally redistributionist because women are naturally self-aggrandizing and self-entitled. And, more controversially, a very bad man like myself would say that women are naturally comfortable in quasi-harem arrangements, which is what the single woman concubine-government alpha provider relationship amounts to. And just like an alpha provider/protector, the government is very good at forcibly extracting tribute from the beta male masses.
On this last factor, the American growth industry of single moms is certainly pushing the country in a more redistributionist direction, because no demographic is more pro-government handout than the single mom with kids to feed and no dad around to help out.
Now, the final, and most emotionally laden, variable in this equation is the black man angle. Both sides in this long-running debate have their points. My take from ground-level recon is that the people claiming single white women love alpha black men are overstating their case, and the people claiming single white women would never think of hooking up with “lower class, less accomplished, thug” black men are overstating theirs. White women do find plenty of black men physically exciting. And smarter white women do hesitate to date black men because of a very reasonable fear that, should a kid issue from the union (this is always in the back of women’s minds, despite the easy availability of contraceptives), the black man will be less likely than the white man to stick around and care for her in her time of need.
As far as a I can tell, contra white nationalist hopes and dreams, single white women have ZERO concept of loyalty for their white men. Try to explain to your typical single white woman about the importance of loyalty to her men and of genetically preserving the white race’s unique winning attributes, and you may as well be a Martian spurting goo all over her. Now, in practice, one could argue that unmarried white women exercise a de facto loyalty to their men, because most white chicks date white men, and studies have shown that white women are the most resistant to dating outside their race. But how long will this hold? Census data shows a slow but inexorable increase in out-marrying and out-dating by white women (and white men). If there is some subconscious racial loyalty or primal preference acting to steer the tingles of single white women (and I believe there is), it is showing signs of withering under a coordinated cultural assault that has made even broaching the topic the equivalent of condemning oneself to the social gulag.
Btw, from a tingles-first perspective, a lot of white women thought Bill Clinton was way sexier than they currently think of Barack Obama’s sex appeal. This isn’t a looks or race thing… Bill just had more sensual, oozing charm than Barry. Chicks dig charming mofos.
Whites are divided between dems and repubs, because whites are divided against each other generally — rich v poor, town v country, management v workers, religious v secular, etc, etc, etc. Whites don’t generally see whites as political allies on the basis of their whiteness like blacks and latinos typically do in their own groups.
Those same divisions exist among blacks and Latinos. For some reason, blacks put racial solidarity ahead of internal division when it comes to public policy and opinion. Which is bizarre, because your average Compton resident has as much in common with Obama as your average Ozark resident has with Romney.
As Latinos become more numerous and more of a majority, I imagine you’ll see those divisions start trumping racial (or, in their case, ethnic) solidarity. You already see it in the eastern L.A. suburbs, where middle and working class Hispanics have risen to a majority. Plenty of districts on the east sides of the city are electing Republicans to the House, e.g., Chino and Montclair. (Then again, most of these middle-class Hispanics are, like me, Ibizans, not Amerinds.)
Census data shows a slow but inexorable increase in out-marrying and out-dating by white women (and white men).
Isn’t most of that out-marriage between whites and Asians? I’m okay with that. Arctic Alliance and whatnot.
Pingback: Why Single White Women Vote Overwhelmingly For Democrats « Chateau Heartiste
It all comes down to dominance for women. Black men can be dominate on an individual level, but white men are dominate at a societal level. When black men talk about how white men have dominated them for so long, all they do is make women (both black and white) more attracted to white men.
I don’t think white nationalists should dilute our cause by going beyond Western Europeans. Anglo-Saxon Protestants build civilization. The French, Spanish, and Italians can be included for good measure.
But that is Western Europe. We are the premier whites.
Slavs, Polacks, and others are lesser whites. Their economic output is much lower, and everyone in Europe knows about the huge gap between Western and Eastern Europe. It was there centuries ago (what empires did Poland produce?), and is there now.
When white nationalists get desperate and want to expand their rosters by inviting Slavs and other lesser whites, they dilute what they are fighting for.
White nationalism has jumped the shark when Slavs are a major presence in the cause.
I missed my awesome faggot hater Nikos aka old loser from 2009 CH flamewars
)))
For fun because I can’t resist:
Slavs, Polacks, and others are lesser whites.
I’m taller, stronger, better looking, smarter, and better-compensated than you.
Their economic output is much lower, and everyone in Europe knows about the huge gap between Western and Eastern Europe.
But the gap in your butthole is even bigger!
(what empires did Poland produce?)
Just THIS lil bitty one
When white nationalists get desperate and want to expand their rosters by inviting Slavs and other lesser whites, they dilute what they are fighting for.
By definition, white nationalists are inclusive-minded of all people who are white. Otherwise they’d call themselves a more specific kind of nationalist.
White nationalism has jumped the shark when Slavs are a major presence in the cause.
Has? are?
er… I am not Nikos, you loser. And I wasn’t even addressing you.
For that reason, your overreaction effectively proves my point magnificently.
I’m taller, stronger, better looking, smarter, and better-compensated than you.
I doubt it. My bet is you are 5’8″ and bench about 125. You earn about $50,000 a year (which, of course, is 10 times the per capita income in Poland, so you think you are ‘rich’, because compared to your homeland, you actually are).
Your mediocrity seeps through your posts all the time, which makes you below average even among your lesser group.
As PA’s insecure comment proved, white nationalism has no place for lesser whites who have underperformed for centuries, and continue to do so today. Giving them haven dilutes the merit of Western European excellence.
Keep whining, PA. It proves my point well.
To summarize: Nikos is butthurt and angry. PA is amused. PA winning.
it:
“white nationalism has no place for lesser whites who have underperformed for centuries”
divide and conquer troll. lemme ask you, where would you rather live: warsaw or monrovia? rhetorical, because no answer is needed. it’s self-evident.
My guess is that Anthoronymous is a female who is jealous that she is being out competed by Slavic women in physical beauty? If Anthoronymous is a man, then he is jealous that Slavic men have bigger better penisis and are better looking than him. Everyone, please try to guess who Anthoronymous is. Who is he or she?
Obama 290-248. Wish it weren’t so.
Shorter Heartiste: female hypergamy (and young white women’s unleashed hedonism in particular) overrides their solidarity with their men There is no solidarity because they’re not their men.
It’s Nikos again. At least he was man enough to insult PA directly, rather than trying to start trouble between him and Roosh.
Bureaugamy triumphs.
PA,
Again, I am not ‘Nikos’. I wasn’t even addressing you directly, until you decided to advertise your inferiority.
You think YOU are winning? You probably thought Poland was winning the war in 1942 as well. In short, I exposed you as a weak, poor, and inferior little man, and you are projecting your shame and humiliation outwards.
For this reason, lesser whites of EE have no place in the cause of White Nationalism. They have not accomplished even a fraction of what Western Europeans have.
Sorry, PA, but you are not a first-worlder, no matter how much you wish yourself to be.