Steve Sailer posts Sunday: Bernie Sanders won another state today, his 8th in 19 contests.
Of course, Maine is the only state that is, arguably, whiter than Bernie’s own electoral fortress of whititude, Vermont. Across the first 19 states to vote or caucus, the correlation between Bernie’s share of the 2 candidate vote versus Hillary and the percentage of the state’s population that was black in 2014 is a remarkable r = -0.87.
Here’s a question: Can Bernie and his supporters even claim a moral victory? If Bernie loses because he got his ass kicked by black voters doesn’t that automatically make him not the moral winner but the immoral loser? By definition, blacks represent morality. Hence, because blacks hate him, Bernie deserves to lose.
Comments:
* BernieLand is Portlandia writ large. Could Portland exist if it had the demographics of Birmingham? The liberals in Portland think so but I’m pretty sure that even the few remaining liberals in Birmingham probably see the folly of that vision.
* “Fundamentally, Bernie’s campaign does not seem to understand how the liberalism of black democrats differs from that of their white counterparts. Specifically, culture-war issues play a much smaller role, because that is one place where black and white Democrats do not align perfectly.”
“The reality is that “black liberalism” has historically existed hand-in-hand with religious belief, whereas “white liberalism” often exists in opposition to it.”
“Black Americans perceive – with justification – that their (our) economic standing is getting better, and therefore are more willing to stay-the-course. Bernie’s pitch misses the mark because he wants to overthrow a system that is finally starting to work, in order to help us reclaim something we never had.”
* I’d feel bad for Bernie but he is a coward who lacks basic assertiveness (see: Seattle BLM) and the courage of his convictions (see: his unbelievably cucked campaign stances on race and immigration). Part of me enjoys watching sociopath Hillary tear him to shreds.
* Perhaps my imagination is just being overactive, but if it were southern whites instead of southern blacks refusing to vote for a Jewish candidate for president, wouldn’t there have been a bunch of articles about anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head in Dixie?
* Ed Rollins regularly claimed he could buy the black vote. So what you are seeing is the astonishingly well funded Clinton campaign doing what Rollins claimed he could do, basically buy votes. As whites get poorer expect to see the same. I have to wonder what Bush spent $1200 a vote on in New Hampshire. If you are wondering why vote buying works with blacks not white, maybe black voters have more integrity.
* Hillary cannot win an election where white voters are a majority. She absolutely requires the black, “Hispanic”, and Asian vote shares of Barack Obama. But she does not attract the enthusiasm that came to Obama naturally (cf. the epic fail of Martha Coakley in the 2010 MA Senate election – the bruthas just won’t turn out for the icy white b*tch).
Therefore, Hillary! and her team will need to drive the minority vote in a way that Team Obama did not have to do. This means #BLM and all the other racial signaling they can come up with.
BUT
As the first explicitly anti-white Presidential candidate in history, running against a candidate promoting white interests in a more or less open way, she may well drive the GOP (or Trump Party) white vote share to 65% or more, finally validating the Sailer Strategy.
Will Steve Sailer be the new Karl Rove?
