Friday, 9 November 2012

"The slow death of Native America: How will the great melting pot adapt to the millions of white, black and Hispanic voters who swept Obama back to power?"

From The Daily Mail:

For Native Americans struggling to understand their defeat at the polls, the most chilling statistic in this week’s presidential election was this: Mitt Romney won the biggest share of the white vote that any Republican White House contender ever has — and even he still lost.

In an election battle that was defined as much as anything by race, Mitt Romney won the support of 59  per cent of whites, but just 27  per cent of Latinos, 26  per cent of Asian-Americans and 6  per cent of African-Americans - but only a handful of votes from Native Americans. The Native American candidate, while winning the support of nearly all Native American voters, failed to carry a single state.

Four or five centuries ago, being unpopular with immigrant minorities would hardly have stopped a candidate from one of the larger tribes or groupings from trouncing a white or a mixed-race candidate. But back then, people of European, African or Latin-American descent accounted for only 1 per cent of the population. Now they make up nearly 99  per cent of the electorate, and that figure is predicted to remain unchanged.

8 comments:

A K Haart said...

Neatly done. That's the message - adapt or die.

Bill Quango MP said...

if he wanted to remain in power instead of attacking the Middle East Bush Should have just occupied Canada.

Mark Wadsworth said...

AKH, yup. No doubt in fullness of time, the African-Americans and Hispanics will expropriate white-owned land and make whitey live on reservations.

BQ, why? He'd done his two terms and then he had to step down. Those Are The Rules.

harleyrider1978 said...

Atually th only way the democrats were able to do it was having a higher population of minorities in key cites or counties in battle ground states. This was accomplished thru the 1970s to today by building hud projects within these key areas and redrawing distict lines over the years. Then you control the voting precincts and the voting population via population manipulation. Just load em up and transport to the next polling place. Quite a plan and it works!

harleyrider1978 said...

You might say these welfare recipients voted for job security!

Mark Wadsworth said...

HR78, and it is well known that no Republican President has ever done anything underhand during an election campaign, bribed voters with unaffordable promises or otherwise Gerrymandered.

We never heard any stories about Gore votes in Florida were given to Bush by mistake, or automated voting machines counting an Obama vote as a Romney vote or anything, no sir.

And no Republican president has ever warned about the dangers of allowing the biggest welfare recipients, the "military-industrial complex" to accrue too much money and power. Well apart from Dwight D Eisenhower, of course.

mombers said...

Republican control of the house of representatives can arguably be attributed to gerrymandering. Such a large majority is peculiar given the popular vote.

Mark Wadsworth said...

M, that puzzles a lot of people, including me. Even states which regularly elect a Rep governor vote Dem in presidential elections.