January 18, 2018

A Pathway for Republican Victory

The GOP has a better chance of winning by NOT pandering to non-whites

It’s a new day for the Republican party and for conservatism. Trump showed a path for Republican victory going forward; and the fact that he himself was such a weak candidate who otherwise probably would have lost is testament to just how strong the Trump strategy was.

The GOP has for so long been weak on immigration, deferential to a hostile press, and unwilling to stop the democrats even after they win. This has had to do with false beliefs about demographics in the US. They have been gaslight so hard, imagining that the hispanic birth rate was unstoppable, and that angering this bloc would doom the GOP in the long run.

1. Republicans have an Internal Demographic Advantage

Using General Social Survey data, I was able to find the fertility rate of whites based on their political views. White Republicans have 1.92 children per couple, White Democrats only 1.63, and White Independents have 1.78.

White Conservatives have 1.97 children per couple, White Moderates have 1.82, while White Liberals have 1.38. We can compare this to the fertility rate of other races:

Fertility Rate by Group in 2014

Group Fertility Rate
Foreign-born Hispanics 2.46 (2013)
Hispanics 2.13 (2.15 in 2013)
Native-born Hispanics 1.98 (2013)
Conservative Whites 1.97
Republican Whites 1.92
Blacks 1.87
Whites 1.76
Asians 1.72
Democrat Whites 1.63
Liberal Whites 1.38
Native Americans 1.29

So while many decry or celebrate the “demographic collapse of whites”, not only is it massively overblown, but from a political standpoint the Republicans have an internal demographic advantage – so long as they CLOSE THE BORDERS.

Now it may seem like this internal demographic advantage will some day be eliminated by the Hispanic subgroup of the democrat coalition. That is, Republican and Conservative whites outbreed blacks and every other democrat coalition group but Hispanics, and so if Hispanics increase in number enough, eventually the Hispanics will be the majority of the democrat coalition and will outbreed the white conservatives.

There’s reason to think this won’t happen:

In 2010, the fertility rate of hispanics was 2.350, which collapsed to 2.13 in 2014. This decline in hispanic fertility is on-going.

I know there is this bug in people’s brains that brown-skinned people just breed and breed and breed no matter what, but that’s not some axiomatic truth. It’s certainly not the case among Native Americans, and racially, hispanics are mostly hybrids of Spanish and Mesoamericans, and Mesoamericans are just Native Americans further south. And blacks, who are people with so much brown melanin that their skin looks black, aren’t much higher than whites in total fertility and are lower than conservative whites.

In 2013, the overall hispanic fertility rate was 2.149, while the fertility rate for foreign-born hispanics was 2.46. Foreign-born hispanics were 35.2% of the hispanic population in 2013. This would mean that the native-born hispanic fertility rate was 1.98 in 2013.

I don’t have any direct evidence for this, but I predict the native-born hispanic fertility rate will fall further, certainly below that of conservative and republican whites (if it isn’t below that already). This is because I think that the drop-off in fertility doesn’t happen all at once. The native-born hispanic fertility rate is just an average, which includes first-generation native-born, second, third. And I suspect that, in addition to a drop-off from foreign-born to first generation native-born, there’s also probably a drop-off from first to second to third generation.

And once Trump closes the borders and we get to the later generations of hispanics, the native-borns will more and more be later generations which, persumably, have lower fertility rates.

Moreover, from 2013 to 2014, the white birth rate increased. And what a lot of people don’t know is that the white birth rate, right now, is higher than it was in the 1980s:

Certainly the Republian Party can benefit from getting a certain percentage of hispanics and asians, and even a few blacks. But a strategy based on pandering to these groups is a dead-end, because with the exception of asians, there’s no evidence that any of them will vote in majority for Republicans. And asians have fewer kids than ALL whites, and they’re clustered in California which will never go Republican, so there’s really no point at all in taking asians into consideration about anything.

But people have been gaslight so hard on this, that they imagine that the brown people are demographically burying whites and that the Republican Party had better “get right with minorities” or be finished.

But it’s simply not true. The Republicans can win with a strategy that focuses on the white vote and on keeping out immigrants.

Electorally this is done with the Redwall.

2. The Redwall

There has been a vocal minority within the Republican party telling the GOP to go after the white working class, go after Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, even Minnesota. It’s no longer brave to say that these states being part of the “blue wall” that Democrats had locked up no matter what – was an illusion. And this illusion was perpetuated by the Republican political class themselves.

And if you believe that Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are off the table, well, how can the Republicans possibly win? Well, they could try to win Virginia, which means appealing to DC / Beltway style “Republicans” who think Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are the wisdom of the Conservative movement.

Or they can try to win Colorado and Nevada, which means appealing to a large number of hispanics, but to do that they probably have to be very soft on immigration just to get 40% with hispanics so they can win those states. But that means going soft on immigration, which means bringing in more hispanics which would make this strategy harder to pull off each election cycle. It’s a sucker-play that the “smart set” in the GOP fell for.

If you imagined that Republicans could never win the rust belt, and that Republicans had to win Virgina OR Colorado and Nevada, then it makes sense to think that Republicans must cuck HARD on immigration, support neocon foreign policy, support free trade and NAFTA and TPP in order to get northern Virginia, and hope the south and the rural west still supports you after doing this.

And of course this is exactly what the GOP has been doing, because their plan for victory involved Virginia and Nevada-Colorado. It’s a very tortured path, and while Trump was actually a very bad candidate, he broke this frame. The significance of the Redwall and what it means for the Conservative movement cannot be understated.

The fact that Trump was, in all other respects, a horrifically bad candidate, is no mark against this strategy. In fact, the fact that Trump had higher negatives than Hillary and still won with the Redwall strategy testifies to its soundness.

Bye-bye Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, no more need to bow to their ridiculousness and alienate the base in the hopes of clawing our way to 270 for one last time.

3. Holding the Redwall

This is where I get a bit thin, but Trump’s economic policies should be designed to help first the Rust Belt, then the reliable Republican states.

The truth is that two things that Trump wants to do – reduce the corporate tax and have a massive regulation audit – are probably going to help the economy of the US in total. As regulatory burden and the corporate tax are the two things most strongly correlated with economic growth. It’s almost as if Trump did some research on that. They won’t help the Rust Belt in particular, but frankly most of what’s going to help the Rust Belt are the things that are going to help the US economy in general.

The next thing Trump is doing is removing regulations specifically on coal mining, which is popular in West Virginia – solid GOP, Ohio – probably solid GOP going forward, and western Pennsylvania – that’s important. So that can help shore up support in the most important of the 3 or 4 “Redwall” states.

The use of government funds for infrastructure, however, can be much more easily targeted to the Rust Belt, up into Michigan and Wisconsin and Minnesota if the GOP wants to make a play for that. Infrastructure funds should be given fairly to loyal GOP states, zeroed out for solid Dem states, and the funds from the zeroed-out dem states poured into the Redwall.

Tariffs are a more dubious strategy. It’s dubious because it will raise the price of cars on everyone and the news media will make a giant stink about that, and will on net probably hurt the US, and there’s no guarantee that if the car factories come back that they would be heading to Michigan anyway. Why wouldn’t they go to Tennessee instead?

I wouldn’t raise tariffs at least until after I had gutted the media, and possibly not even then. I have defended tariffs theoretically and some empirically based on historical impact, but most tariffs are harmful, and there’s a lot more that can go wrong with manufacturing tariffs than can go right.

While there’s a bit of romanticism for manufacturing jobs, the focus should not be on bringing those jobs specifically back, but on any kind of economic growth in those states.

4. Immigration and Deportation

And since the Republican strategy is now dependent on the Redwall, the Republican short-term and long-term strategy are aligned with each other. Blocking immigration to the US from non-European countries not only will help to turn out the base and maintain the Redwall, but will reduce the number of enemy voters in the long run as well.

Mass deportations are probably not politically possible with a normal president. The only way I could see this happening is if the President created a clandestine political army loyal to him and not the constitution, couped the military and became a dictator.

But barring this happy fantasy, building a wall, and more importantly stopping all immigration to the US would benefit the GOP, and the GOP would then just be gaining from their internal demographic advantage. And that’s really all that’s absolutely needed for immigration. The GOP doesn’t HAVE to deport anyone to win.

But it should, because fewer enemy voters gives more cushion. What if the Dems run a particularly good candidate and the Republicans get involved in some particularly bad scandal? You want a cushion for that, and so you should deport as many enemy voters as you can get away with.

Forcing states to have e-verify, defunding sanctuary cities, and deporting all criminal illegals is a great start. And send them back no matter what the country they’re from says. If need be, literally put them on a barge that’s set on autopilot to sail into the beach of whatever country they’re from, and then those governments can do whatever they feel they need to do with those people.

The next important thing to do is to try to end birthright citizenship. Stacking the supreme court with 2 new judges plus filling Scalia’s slot makes that a possibility. This would cut off how ever many illegals are currently in the country as potentially producing enemy voters in the long run.

5. Standardization of Elections

We don’t know for sure, but democrats probably commit more voter fraud than Republicans. This can be eliminated so easily. First, you have voter ID, and both a computer and some sort of analog database. The analog database can be a voter card given to each individual voter. So to vote twice, you’d have to both hack the computer and create a second voter card.

For voting itself, make it both paper AND computer, and the paper count and the computer count must match up. So to fake the votes, you have to both hack the voting machines and stuff the ballot boxes, and they must be done to the same degree in each precinct. I’m not saying this wouldn’t be doable, but defrauding both systems and making sure the results line up is an order of magnitude more difficult than just defrauding one system.

Also have the purple dye for voters. It’s not fool-proof, I’m sure there’s a way to easily remove that dye, but it’s just another thing that you have to do in order to vote more than once.

And finally, make the punishments for voter fraud punitive and scary. 20 year minimum with no possibility of parole. The punishment for voter-fraud should be life-destroying, people should be terrified of doing it.

If regular voters who have no intention of fraud are a little bit nervous because they think they might accidentally do something that seems like fraud, that’s a good sign.

Standardizing elections may also enable mass deportation of illegals, since some illegals may not know that the elections have been standardized, and will try to vote, and then get caught and the President would have an easy excuse to deport them.

In fact the GOP should run operations to organize illegals to vote, saying they have a fool-proof way through the system, and as Federal Agents they can do things to evidence this that a private activist couldn’t.

Then all of the illegals vote, their votes get marked, and then they all get rounded up and deported AFTER the election. And since these aren’t US Citizens, they don’t have protections against entrapment.

And for the illegals that don’t vote because of the standardization, well, them not voting is also an improvement.

6. Destroy the Universities

Step 1: Move research grants away from Universities and toward private organizations and government entities. Make the “research university” a thing of the past. This massively reduces the money and prestige of Universities like Duke and Stanford.

Step 2: Promote alternative technical schools that don’t have a “core curriculum” or any “social science”. This is done by funding those schools, but more importantly giving companies tax credits for employing people trained in technical schools, putting them at an advantage over University-educated people.

Perhaps to make this politically viable, one should apply the tax credit to all people with STEM degrees after a certain year in the past, so as to include those who went to Universities to get STEM degrees before the law was passed.

And only stop applying the tax credit to STEM-majoring University grads AFTER, say, 2018.

Step 3: Remove federal funds for college, move all future scholarships to technical schools.

Also this isn’t really a step, but try to encourage the new media (see below) to not hire anyone who came from University journalism schools, and in fact explicitly bar them, so that Universities become an impediment to being a professional journalist as opposed to a stepping stone. Perhaps only bar those who went to a journalism school after 2018, so that people don’t get retroactively punished for something they did 10 years ago.

7. Impose Conservative History on the High Schools, then Eliminate the Dept. of Education

One problem with imposing a curriculum is, of course, that if the Democrats take power, they can then go back to using the DoE to impose “liberal” history on the high schools. Also the GOP has a bunch of “principled” idiots who are unwilling to fight as dirty as their enemies do against them.

So what you want to do is impose conservative history – focus on the founding, on the constitution, on economic development, and point out that blacks in the US had it better than most people on the planet even as slaves, present pro-segregationist arguments, criticism of the results of the”New Deal”, point out that the founders were essentially white nationalists, focus on Europeans ending barbarous practices in Africa, India and the Middle east. Remove “tolerance” and “diversity” from any teaching of history.

Of course you have to present these things in a very sterile, detached way, like “here’s what the segregationists said” and present their arguments in as strong a way as possible.

And then, after making this the standard curriculum for 10 years or so, THEN eliminate the DoE, so that that conservative curriculum becomes just the thing the states are doing, and for the democrats to change it they would have to re-create the DoE.

Of course if the Democrats win while the DoE still exists, the GOP would want to try to destroy the DoE as quickly as possible and try to pass some bills to block its re-creation.

And certainly states, especially states like California, will quickly reverse the curriculum once the DoE is destroyed, but not all states will, and few will totally reverse it, and some won’t reverse much at all.

The idea is then to stop this stupid thing where younger whites are more “liberal” than older whites. What a pointless, stupid thing; “you know you’re going to agree with me when you get older? Why not just skip this crap? You’re going to outgrow it eventually anyway, why not now?”

8. Modify Child Tax Credit

Change the Child Tax Credit to only be a reduction in taxes, and to not give anything to people who don’t already pay taxes. And ensure that the credit applies to an income range that is designed to benefit rural whites – no adjustments for cost of living.

9. Media Changes

Remove White House access for CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.

Only give access to media organizations, possibly new media organizations, that you want to promote. “Breitbart”, “Drudge TV”, “Trump TV” for example. Promote a media that is hostile to the democrats and soft on republicans, and use any government trick you can to punish the enemy press and promote your own.

Control the opposition: only respond to the stupidest and most extreme “liberal” criticism, and elevate those voices. Promote and fund weak and extreme democrat candidates, promote purity spiraling in the democrat party. Purge purity spiralers in the GOP. This will be difficult at first, the legacy media will still be large, but as the legacy media is starved and dwindles, you can ignore them more.

For persuasive (though not necessarily correct) arguments made by “liberals”, don’t give them air time, but respond on their turf. Don’t bring them onto Breitbart TV, you don’t want swing voters or republican voters being exposed to persuasive arguments from the opposition. This means sending surrogates to appear on THIER media outlets, nothing more.

Reverse the party colors. With the new media outlets (Breitbart, Drudge, Trump TV or whatever they are), get them to make the GOP blue and the democrats red. This is because blue is the most common favorite color.

10. Raise the Voting Age

This is something that is much more difficult. This is because you need 34 of the 50 state legislatures to pass an amendment. And raising the voting age would obviously benefit Republicans.

However, currently the Republicans control 32 of the 50 state legislatures. And currently there are split legislatures in Colorado and Maine. But also the states Washington, Oregon and Connecticut are close enough that, if Trump is a popular president, those could flip. But really you only need Colorado and Maine.

Surely this is a bit of a long shot, but the Republicans are really close to being able to do something that would destroy the democrats for a very long time.

A New Hope

If someone like John Kasich won the presidency, I would have zero faith that any of this would be done. People like Kasich, McCain and Bush (any Bush) seem like they would rather lose than fight back. This kind of behavior should be named and shamed and voted out. They are utterly pathological about it, they will bend to the democrats, praise a press which hates them, and worship hispanics even as those very activities guarantes their defeat. As Ann Coulter asks on a regular basis, “don’t you want to win?”.

While Trump had a harder time being elected than Cruz or Rubio would have, I have more faith that Trump will do what needs to be done to win in the future than Cruz or Rubio would have.

Moreover, the Trump victory has shown that the GOP can win the rust belt, that the Democrats do not have an electoral chessboard advantage – in fact if the Redwall can be held, the GOP will now have a decisive electoral advantage and many more paths to win the presidency going forward.

No longer wedded to winning Nevada, Colorado and Virginia, no longer having to make nice with the legacy media, which Trump has already started to snub, and having a candidate with whom strong immigration control is a winning message, has made the chance that the GOP will actually take up the FIGHT against the enemy more likely than ever before.

I’m extremely optimistic. If Trump wins reelection, the transformation of the GOP from the timid wimps who seem resigned to defeat into a party that FIGHTS and does everything needed to DEFEAT the democrats and defeat the will of democrat voters, to take away their voice in the media and take away their say at the ballot box – will finally happen.

The hell of it is is that the GOP could have done this in 2012 – if they unified behind a Trumpian populist candidate, but one who wasn’t as horrifically bad of a candidate as Trump. I also believe that if they unified behind Trump this cycle, Trump would have won more comfortably.

But the GOP had no such candidates because the whole party was geared toward the Bush-McCain hispanic pander strategy, which ensured long-term defeat in exchange for a tortured and narrow path to one or two more presidential victories.

And the path to victory of gutting the media, smashing the universities, banning the importation of enemy voters, and making a play for the rust belt as a second electoral firewall, could have been done in 2000.

The GOP had a bug in their brain about having to get hispanics, and that the rust belt was untouchable. And there is good reason to believe, substantive hope, that this is over and the GOP can finally work for victory.

Facebook Comments
  • JasonVoothees

    I hope someone like Bannon gets to read this. By the way do you know why Illinois is so solidly Democratic while being surrounded by states sympathetic to the new GOP? Also regarding focusing infrastructure spending on the Red states, that could lead to liberals immigrating there and voting Dem; ideally you would squish every liberal voter into New York and California. Also it would be a great idea to create new states from Northern California and rural New York for bonus electoral points.

    • PostConservative


      Outside of Cooke County, Illinois is solidly Republican.

  • Jeff

    This will only work if the establishment corporatist Democrats stay in power. If grass roots progressives are able to take it over, the Republican party is finished. The rust belt would have gone to Bernie Sanders if he was the nominee. There’s already a lot of buzz in progressive circles who are pissed off at the Democrat party for supporting Hillary and are determined to take it over. I guess we’ll see what happens.

    • They’re apt to nominate another shrill harpy like Warren. Anyway, Bernie sold out…

      • Jeff

        The Democrat party is probably going to treat Warren the same as Bernie. Warren would probably win the rust belt and the presidency if she got nominated. Bernie only sold out because he really didn’t like Trump and saw Hillary as a lesser evil.

        • You have more faith in her ability to relate to the masses than I do. You may be correct if the economic performance under Trump for these areas continues to be dismal, although that is assuming voters buy into her ability to rectify it. It’d be an awful outcome. There is the possibility that Trump will tailor his policies accordingly, to deal with this threat, to the extent that they’re not already geared to do so.

          As for Bernie, that doesn’t speak very well to his clarity of thought. Why not just back out of it rather than harming his credibility?

          • Kris Polk

            I too am extremely skeptical that the Democrats will learn their lesson at all.
            Maybe some of them privately suspect that they have messed up big, but I talk to some people involved in the Democrat politics world pretty regularly, and it’s clear that anyone who deviates from the “it was the racists, scream ‘racist’ louder next time,” line runs a serious threat of losing status.
            I also realized that only a small minority of liberals, such as myself when I was one, actually really cared very much about globalization or trade policy. Most are much more guided by social issues the general idea that we are ‘open’ to different types of people. I even recall people saying, “I’m all for globalization, just not CORPORATE globalization,” and I now know what they mean in retrospect.

        • PostConservative

          They’ll nominate a “moderate” white male from the Rust Belt next time. Guaranteed.

    • John Tyler

      The Dems seem keen on nominating Keith Ellison. The core driving the party cares about Bernie/Warren’s soft-core socialism and signalling really hard. They don’t understand middle America at all and won’t capitalize on economic populism; they will push soft-core economic socialism which will be rejected. Especially if liberals begin to call out economic populism/soft-socialism as white and historically tied to Southern agrarianism in this country. If Trump takes the above strategy, Democrats will continue to put forward neoliberals until they crash in a fire of anarcho-syndicalists and Black/muslim socialists

      • Jeff

        If you look at the polls, most of the population, including Republicans, embrace soft core socialism. So no, it definitely won’t be rejected. However, it is possible that nominating Keith Ellison will cause some trouble since he’s a Muslim. Like I said, we’ll see what happens.

      • Jim

        The dems are currently giving every signal that they will double down on (minority) identity politics in 2018 and 2020. If they do so they are doomed in every state that doesn’t have a large minority population. Even Minnesota might go red if they run Ellison, who is a former member of the Nation of Islam. H*ck, even a lot of blacks aren’t a fan of NoI.

  • Alt-Lite

    I doubt the Dems could have won this election unless someone as anaemic as Jeb Bush was the GOP candidate. If Sanders had stood, the GOP war-chest would have massively expanded with businesses (especially banks) rallying behind them in unison. Trump would have been able to massively outspend the Dems (whereas it happened the other way because Clinton was able to maintain corporate support, being no more opposed to them than the GOP) and they would have a massive financial advantage for a long time.

    Things will just worsen for the Dems as they double down on accusations of “privilege”, “racism”, etc. and the usual radicalism as it’s the only option they have left. They are already losing their remaining members who seem reasonably sane (e.g. Jim Webb), leaving them with crackpot leftists and a corrupt establishment, neither of which are electable. There’s nothing that they can do about this as any attempt to reincorporate Whites would be “racist”, “selling out”, etc., and they would lose their existing voters (far-left/ethnomasochists, immigrants, etc.) in droves.

    • This is my view too on their predicament, and why I consider Warren a weak candidate. She also has the same shrill, cold demeanour as Hillary. Whilst they could ape populist points, the issue is making the relevant demographic believe they’d act in a way to benefit it. With specific reference to whites, that’ll be a tall order absent a radical ideological shift on the part of sort of candidate fielded by the Dems.

  • Ghost of Virtve

    Do you have any strategy to get important eyes on articles like this or are you relying on memetic percolation? It would help if anyone unfamiliar with the site had some way of quickly knowing your previous predictions were correct too.

  • Colbert

    building the red wall !

  • Colbert

    secessonist movements in IL, NY, CA, OR, WA for creating new states should be strongly encouraged.

  • Mailinated

    “Mass deportations are probably not politically possible with a normal president.”

    Why though? We already have the institutions to do deporation, and if we stop actively hindering them we’ve just released lots of extra capacity at no cost. We can also expand by hiring more ICE agents. Or did you refer to deportations of citizens in this case?

  • curious george

    yeah… i dunno. The white pill on declining non-white birth rates (why isn’t this talked about more on the alt-right?) is nice but a lot of this stuff is really LARPy. Abolishing the dep’t of education? telling the media which journalists they can or cannot hire? This is stuff you saw in the Soviet block, or in 3rd world shithole dictatorships today… not America. Why even stop there, then? Why not just outlaw opposition parties and make all media state controlled?

    • Ryan Faulk

      “telling the media which journalists they can or cannot hire?”

      pls improve reading comprehension.

      • curious george

        what does “encourage” mean?

  • Winston Smith

    This is insanity

  • PigglyPig

    Wow, I had no idea that the fertility rates were that close. If abortion was free in liberal states (states with more non-whites), I’m guessing that the fertility rates would be even closer.

  • NickMane

    Why is silicon valley so progressive?

  • MBlanc46

    The problem with getting the Repubs to become the party of the white working class is that they have always (back to the days of their Whig predecessors) been the party of the employer class. To the employer class, the Repubs winning elections is less important than the Repubs representing the interests of the employer class. Trump succeeded in capturing the Repub presidential nomination; he did not change the nature of the Repub party.