VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow here:

Yes, I hate redesigns too, as a wordsmith and career content provider, but you have to do them with the internet because so many wonderful new options keep appearing.

We hope you enjoy VDARE.com’s new design. Without your generous support, neither it nor VDARE.com itself would be possible.

Further suggestions welcome — especially if polite.

Registration

    Affordable Family Formation–The Neglected Key To GOP`s Future


    Now that the triumphalism rampant within the GOP after last November`s election has died down, and Republicans realize that their current ascendancy is not a historical inevitability but a tenuous margin that needs careful cultivating, it`s time to review the fundamental factors making some states red (Republican) and others blue (Democratic).

    The key reason why some states vote Republican, I`ve found, can be summed up in the three-word phrase:

    Affordable Family Formation.

    In parts of the country where it is economical to buy a house with a yard in a neighborhood with a decent public school, you`ll generally find more Republicans.

    You’ll find less in regions where it`s expensive.

    It`s a stereotype that a mortgage, marriage, and babies tend to make people more conservative.

    But it`s a true stereotype.

    The arrow of causality points in both directions. Some family-oriented people move to family-friendly states, but the cost of forming a family also affects how many families are formed overall.

    That`s why it`s in the GOP`s self-interest to pursue policies that keep demand for housing down (such as limiting immigration) and the quality of public schooling up (such as, well, limiting immigration).

    The culture wars between Red States and Blue States (i.e Conservative and Liberal, in the perverse contemporary parlance) are driven in large part by objective differences in how family-friendly they are, financially speaking.

    Places that are terribly costly in which to raise children, such as Manhattan and San Francisco, unsurprisingly possess less family-friendly cultures than more reasonably priced locales, such as Nashville and Provo.

    According to Google, nobody in the history of the Web has ever uttered the phrase "Affordable Family Formation."

    So I utter it now:

    Affordable Family Formation.

    Those three words work both as a hard-headed summary of what drives voting, and as an appealing campaign theme.

    The GOP could say to voters:

    "We`re on the side of making it affordable for you, and your children and grandchildren, to form families. The Democrats are on the side of dying alone."

    Of course, Republicans could hardly say that with a straight face as long as their President refuses to repudiate his Open Borders plan. That would allow anyone in the world with a minimum wage job offer from an American employer to move here.

    Four interlocking reasons form a chain of causality explaining why Affordable Family Formation paints the electoral map red.

    I call them the Four Gaps: the Dirt Gap, the Mortgage Gap, the Marriage Gap, and the Baby Gap.

    I wrote about each of them in VDARE.com and The American Conservative following the election.

    But, unfortunately, I discovered them in reverse order of fundamentality.

    This time, however, we`ll start from the ground up:

    1. The Dirt Gap: Blue State metropolises, such as Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles, tend to be on oceans or Great Lakes. Their suburban expansion is permanently limited to their landward sides. In contrast, Red State metropolises, such as Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix, are mostly inland. Thus they tend to be surrounded almost completely by dirt—allowing their suburbs to spread out over virtually 360 degrees. The supply of suburban land available for development is dramatically larger in Red State cities.

    2. The Mortgage Gap: The Dirt Gap directly drives the Mortgage Gap. As the Law of Supply and Demand dictates, the limited availability of suburban dirt in most Blue States means housing costs more.

    Of course, Blue State cities are also more likely to use environmental and other restrictions on housing to restrict supply artificially. Portland, an inland metropolis, is famous for outlawing development of adjoining land, thereby inflating housing prices and shrinking fertility, as reported in Timothy Egan`s March 24, 2005 New York Times article on Portland, "Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children."

    According to the data gathered by the nonprofit organization ACCRA, which measures cost of living so corporations can fairly adjust the salaries of employees they relocate, Bush carried the 20 states with the cheapest housing costs, while Kerry won the 9 states with the most expensive.

    (For statheads, the amount of variation "accounted for" by the correlation between housing cheapness and Bush`s share of the vote was quite large: the r-squared =  46 percent of the total variation in the data.)

    The states with the cheapest housing are Mississippi (where Bush won an extraordinary 85 percent of the white vote), Arkansas (homestate of Bill Clinton but now solidly Republican) and the GOP`s anchor state of Texas.

    The most expensive housing is now found in—guess!—California!!!

    California was once the bastion of Phillips-coalition Republicanism, but, although GOP Presidential candidates carried California nine out of ten times from 1952 through 1988, they haven`t come close since.

    Next are Hawaii and the District of Columbia (where Bush won only nine percent).

    The Mortgage Gap has been growing. Bush was victorious in the 26 states with the least home price inflation since 1980. Kerry triumphed in the 14 states with the most (according to the invaluable Laboratory of the States website).

    Home prices rose fastest in Kerry`s Massachusetts (515 percent) and second slowest in Bush`s Texas (89 percent). The correlation between low housing inflation and Bush`s share was strong: r-squared = 52 percent.

    Despite the explanatory power of the Dirt Gap and the Mortgage Gap, these concepts have not been widely discussed.

    The problem limiting their popularity may be that they are too objective, too morally neutral.

    What people want to hear instead are explanations for why they, personally, are ethically and culturally better than their enemies.

    3. The Marriage Gap: As I first reported in VDARE.COM last December, the single best correlation with Bush`s share of the vote by state that anybody has yet found is: the average years married by white women between age 18 and 44: an astonishing r-squared = 83 percent.

    (This has to be one of the highest r-squareds for a single unexpected factor ever seen in political science.)

    Bush carried the top 25 states ranked on "years married."

    For example, white women in Utah, where Bush had his best showing with 71 percent of the total vote, led the nation by being married an average of 17.0 years during those 27 years from age 18 through 44.

    In contrast, in Washington D.C., where Bush only took 9 percent, the average white woman is married only 7.4 years.

    In Massachusetts, where Bush won merely 37 percent, her years married average just 12.2.

    Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg confirmed the partisan power of the Marriage Gap in January, reporting:

    "The marriage gap is one of the most important cleavages in electoral politics… The marriage gap is a defining dynamic in today’s politics, eclipsing the gender gap, with marital status a significant predictor of the vote, independent of the effects of age, race, income, education or gender."

    According to Greenberg, the exit poll showed Bush carried merely 44% of the single white females but 61% of the married white women—a 17 point difference.

    Among white men, Bush won 53% of the singles and 66% of the married—a 13 point difference.

    Although there are profound cultural differences among states, the Marriage Gap among whites is driven to a striking extent by the Mortgage Gap.

    The cost-of-housing index correlates with "years married" with an r-squared = 53 percent. Similarly, the housing inflation rate since 1980 and "years married" correlate at r-squared = 48 percent.

    A five-year long study of 162 white, black, and Hispanic single mothers in Philadelphia has put a human face on the relationship between the Mortgage Gap and the Marriage Gap.

    Sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas, authors of Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage, wrote an essay in the Washington Post (May 1, 2005) entitled "Unmarried Because They Value Marriage."  

    "What we discovered was surprising: Instead of a rejection of marriage, we found a deep respect for it among many young mothers, who told us that getting married was their ultimate life ambition. While they acknowledge that putting children before marriage is not the ideal way of doing things, they`re not about to risk going through life childless while waiting for Mr. Right. … Marriage, we heard time and again, ought to be reserved for those couples who`ve acquired the symbols of working-class respectability—a mortgage on a modest rowhouse, a reliable car, a savings account and enough money left over to host a `decent` wedding."

    Women in higher social classes are more likely to avoid the disasters of giving birth out of wedlock.

    But they often postpone marriage and/or children until they can afford the down payment on a house in a neighborhood with good public schools.

    And that leads to:

    4. The Baby Gap:  Bush carried 25 of the top 26 states in white total fertility (number of babies per white woman), while Kerry was victorious in the bottom 16. In Utah, for instance, white women average 2.45 babies. In the District of Columbia, white women average only 1.11 babies.

    The correlation between white total fertility and Bush`s share produced an impressive r-squared = 74 percent.

    While the Marriage Gap appeared to be somewhat more important than the Baby Gap, together they proved extraordinarily powerful in explaining Bush`s performance—their combined r-squared = 88 percent.

    (Ethan Herdrick`s Mapinator website graphically illustrates the strong correlations between Bush`s performance and the Mortgage Gap, Marriage Gap, and Baby Gap.)

    The voting patterns of both blacks and Hispanics are also somewhat affected by these factors. But both groups are shifted toward the Democrats.

    This points out a little-understood problem with the much-publicized GOP Establishment hopes of Republicanizing Hispanics while simultaneously keeping the immigration floodgates open.

    The contradiction is that immigration increases the population density, which raises land prices, which both makes non-Hispanic whites more Democratic and discourages those Hispanics who successfully assimilate to the norms of local non-Hispanic whites from becoming as Republican.

    Formerly Republican California supplies the classic example of both processes at work.

    Non-Hispanic whites became sharply less Republican as their marriage and fertility rates plummeted.

    Back in 1990, California still had a higher white fertility rate than Texas. But during the Nineties the birthrate for California white women dropped 14 percent and their years married plummeted to the third lowest in America, behind only ultra-liberal DC and Massachusetts.

    In Texas, however, which has much more available dirt and only about half as many immigrants as a percentage of the total population, white fertility rose 4 percent.

    Texas, which voted Democratic in four out of five Presidential elections from 1960 through 1976, is now the mainstay of the GOP.

    Meanwhile, those California Hispanics who succeed in assimilating fully now find themselves in a state where most role models vote for Democrats for President.

    So, Hispanics in California have stayed well to the left of Hispanics in Texas—where the white elite is fervently Republican.

    The same thing has happened to Asian-Americans, who tend to cluster in crowded Blue States.

    Although the Democrats captured only 30 percent of their vote in 1992, they`ve won near landslides in recent elections.

    Demographic analyst Arthur Hu suggests that voting patterns show that Asian Americans traditionally vote slightly more conservatively than their neighbors do—exactly as optimistic Republicans assume.

    The problem for the GOP, however, is that Asians tend to have highly liberal white neighbors.

    In 2000, 45% of all Asian-born immigrants lived in three heavily Democratic metropolitan areas: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City.

    Because of the dual effects on the voting of both whites and immigrants, the spread of immigrants into the middle of the country puts once-solid Republican states into play.

    Not only Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado are threatened, but, farther down the road, some states in the now seemingly Solid South, such as Georgia and North Carolina, will be up for grabs.

    Considering the narrowness of Bush`s victory in the Electoral College, this ought to motivate Republicans to drop their invite-the-world delusion and start promoting Affordable Family Formation for American citizens.

    But there’s no sign of it yet.

    Why not?

    [Steve Sailer [email him], is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.com features site-exclusive commentaries.]

     


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.

    “Affordable Family Formation”—The Neglected Key To GOP`s Future


    Now that the

    triumphalism
    rampant within the GOP after last
    November`s election has died down, and Republicans
    realize that their current ascendancy is not a
    historical inevitability but a tenuous margin that needs
    careful cultivating, it`s time to review the fundamental
    factors making some states red (Republican)
    and others blue (Democratic).

    I`ll add new data, better
    organization, and catchier phrases.

    The key reason why some states vote
    Republican, I`ve found, can be summed up in the
    three-word phrase:

    Affordable Family Formation.

    In parts of the country where it is
    economical to buy a house with a yard in a neighborhood
    with a

    decent public school,
    you`ll generally find more
    Republicans.

    You`ll find less in

    regions where it`s expensive
    .

    It`s a stereotype that a

    mortgage
    ,

    marriage
    , and

    babies
    tend to make people more conservative.

    But it`s a

    true
    stereotype.

    That`s why it`s in the GOP`s
    self-interest to pursue policies that keep demand for

    housing
    down (such as

    limiting immigration
    ) and the

    quality
    of

    public schooling
    up (such as, well,

    limiting immigration
    ).

    The culture wars between Red States
    and Blue States (i.e Conservative and Liberal, in the
    perverse contemporary parlance) are driven in large part
    by objective differences in how family-friendly they
    are, financially speaking.

    Places that are terribly costly in
    which to raise children, such as Manhattan and San
    Francisco, unsurprisingly possess less family-friendly
    cultures than more reasonably priced locales, such as
    Nashville and

    Provo
    .

    According to

    Google
    , nobody in the history of the Web has ever
    uttered the phrase "Affordable Family Formation."

    So I utter it now:

    Affordable Family Formation.

    Those three words work both as a
    hard-headed summary of what drives voting, and as an
    appealing campaign theme.

    The GOP could say to voters:

    "We`re
    on the side of making it affordable for you, and your

    children and grandchildren
    , to form families. The
    Democrats are on the side of dying alone."

    Of course,

    Republicans
    could hardly say that with a straight
    face as long as

    their President
    refuses to repudiate his

    Open Borders plan
    . That would allow

    anyone in the world with a minimum wage
    job offer
    from an American employer to move here.

    Four interlocking reasons form a
    chain of causality explaining why Affordable Family
    Formation paints the electoral map red.

    I call them the Four Gaps.

    I wrote about each of them in

    VDARE.com
    and The American Conservative
    following the election.

    But, unfortunately, I discovered
    them in reverse order of fundamentality.

    This time, however, we`ll start
    from the ground up:

    1.

    The Dirt Gap:
    Blue State metropolises, such as
    Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles, tend to be on oceans
    or

    Great Lakes.
    Their suburban expansion is permanently
    limited to their landward sides. In contrast, Red State
    metropolises, such as Dallas, Atlanta, and Phoenix, are
    mostly inland. Thus they tend to be surrounded almost
    completely by dirt—allowing their suburbs to spread out
    over virtually 360 degrees. The supply of

    suburban land
    available for development is
    dramatically larger in Red State cities.

    2.

    The Mortgage Gap
    : The Dirt Gap directly drives
    the Mortgage Gap. As the Law of Supply and Demand
    dictates, the limited availability of suburban dirt in
    most Blue States means housing costs more.

    Of course, Blue State cities are
    also more likely to use environmental and other
    restrictions on housing to restrict supply artificially.
    Portland, an inland metropolis, is

    famous
    for

    outlawing development
    of adjoining land, thereby

    inflating housing prices
    and shrinking fertility, as
    reported in Timothy Egan`s March 24, 2005 New York
    Times
    article on Portland,

    "Vibrant Cities Find One Thing Missing: Children."

    According to the data gathered by
    the nonprofit organization

    ACCRA
    , which measures

    cost of living
    so corporations can fairly adjust the
    salaries of employees they relocate, Bush carried the 20
    states with the cheapest housing costs, while Kerry won
    the 9 states with the most expensive.

    (For

    statheads
    , the amount of variation "accounted
    for"
    by the correlation between housing cheapness
    and Bush`s share of the vote was quite large: the
    r-squared =  46 percent of the total variation in the
    data.)

    The states with the cheapest
    housing are

    Mississippi
    (where Bush won an extraordinary 85
    percent of the white vote), Arkansas (homestate of Bill
    Clinton but now solidly Republican) and the GOP`s anchor
    state of Texas.

    The most expensive housing is now
    found in—guess!—California!!!

    Once the bastiom of
    Phillips-coalition Republicanism, but: although GOP
    Presidential candidates carried California nine out of
    ten times from 1952 through 1988, they haven`t come
    close since.

    Next are Hawaii and the District of
    Columbia (where Bush won

    only nine percent
    ).

    The Mortgage Gap has been growing.
    Bush was victorious in the 26 states with the least home
    price inflation since 1980. Kerry triumphed in the 14
    states with the most (according to the invaluable

    Laboratory of the States
    website).

    Home prices rose fastest in Kerry`s

    Massachusetts
    (515 percent) and second slowest in
    Bush`s Texas (89 percent). The correlation between low
    housing inflation and Bush`s share was strong: r-squared
    = 52 percent.

    Recently TaxProfBlog posted two
    maps to make the point that "Median
    Income Data Mirrors Red State-Blue State Divide
    ."

    These showed that Democratic states
    generally have higher

    incomes
    than Republican states.

    The negative correlation between
    Bush`s share of the vote and the median income for a
    four-person family is a moderate r-squared = 18 percent.

    That`s interesting. But it`s more
    revealing to divide each state`s median income by its
    overall cost-of-living to find its "monetary
    standard-of-living."

    The state with the highest standard
    of living (at least in the things that money can buy),
    with a cost-of-living adjusted median income that`s 17
    percent above the national average, is Blue Minnesota.

    That makes sense. Minnesota is full
    of hard-working, smart,
    law-abiding folks who wouldn`t mind some monetary
    compensation for enduring the Gopher State`s winters.

    And they reside so far from the
    Mexican border that they haven`t been inundated—yet— by
    wage-depressing illegal immigrants.

    Perhaps today`s best all-around
    state is Red Colorado.

    The monetary standard-of-living in
    Colorado is fourth highest—at nine percent above
    average. Plus the scenery is magnificent and the people

    well-educated
    and

    honest
    .

    In contrast, the lowest monetary
    standard of living, at 40 percent below the national
    average, is found in the District of Columbia.

    Apparently, DC residents get
    rewarded in other ways—perhaps by the

    security of government jobs
    and the sense of power
    they enjoy while pushing the rest of us around.

    The next worst standard of living
    is found in Hawaii. Its residents pay

    high prices
    and earn low incomes in return for
    living in paradise.

    The third worst monetary standard
    of living, at 31 percent below the national average, is

    California
    .

    The climate isn`t as fantastic as
    Hawaii, but it`s a lot better than Minnesota`s.

    Until about a generation ago,
    California was probably the all-around champ, a state
    with great weather, low costs, high wages, and good
    public schools.

    But immigration-driven overcrowding
    has undermined all that.

    There turns out to be only a low
    (but positive) correlation between Bush`s share of the
    vote and the monetary standard-of-living: r-squared = 3
    percent.

    In other words, although Red States
    tend to have lower nominal incomes, they are
    ever-so-slightly better off in monetary
    standard-of-living—due to their much lower
    cost-of-living indices.

    Blue States, though, probably enjoy
    an advantage in cultural amenities for adults—such as

    fancy restaurants
    and quaint neighborhoods.

    We can also divide median income by
    cost of housing to get a standard-of-housing index.

    With this, we find a moderate to
    high correlation with Bush`s share of the electorate:
    r-squared = 28 percent.

    The difference in correlation with
    voting between this standard-of-housing index and the
    overall standard-of-living index suggests, once again,
    that it`s housing costs, rather than other costs such as
    groceries or health care, that are crucial to voting
    Republican or Democrat.

    Despite the explanatory power of
    the Dirt Gap and the Mortgage Gap, these concepts have
    not been widely discussed.

    The problem limiting their
    popularity may be that they are too objective, too
    morally neutral.

    What people want to hear instead
    are explanations for why they, personally, are ethically
    and culturally better than their enemies.

    3.

    The Marriage Gap:
    As I first reported in
    VDARE.COM last December, the single best correlation
    with Bush`s share of the vote by state that anybody has
    yet found is: the average years married by white women
    between age 18 and 44: an astonishing r-squared = 83
    percent.

    (This has to be one of the highest
    r-squareds for a single factor ever seen in political
    science.)

    Bush carried the top 25 states
    ranked on "years married."

    For example, white women in

    Utah
    , where Bush had his best showing with 71
    percent of the total vote, led the nation by being
    married an average of 17.0 years during those 27 years
    from age 18 through 44.

    In contrast, in Washington D.C.,
    where Bush only took 9 percent, the average white woman
    is married only 7.4 years.

    In

    Massachusetts
    , where Bush won merely 37 percent, her
    years married average just 12.2.

    Democratic pollster Stanley
    Greenberg confirmed the partisan power of the Marriage
    Gap in January,

    reporting
    :

    "The
    marriage gap is one of the most important cleavages in
    electoral politics… The marriage gap is a defining
    dynamic in today`s politics, eclipsing the gender gap,
    with marital status a significant predictor of the vote,
    independent of the effects of age, race, income,
    education or gender."

    According to

    Greenberg
    , the exit poll showed Bush carried merely
    44% of the single white females but 61% of the married
    white women—a 17 point difference.

    Among white men, Bush won 53% of
    the singles and 66% of the married—a 13 point
    difference.

    Although there are profound
    cultural differences among states, the Marriage Gap
    among whites is driven to a striking extent by the
    Mortgage Gap.

    The cost-of-housing index
    correlates with "years married" with an r-squared
    = 53 percent. Similarly, the housing inflation rate
    since 1980 and "years married" correlate at
    r-squared = 48 percent.

    A five-year long study of 162

    white
    , black, and Hispanic

    single mothers
    in Philadelphia has put a human face
    on the relationship between the Mortgage Gap and the
    Marriage Gap.

    Sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria
    Kefalas, authors of

    Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood
    Before Marriage,
    wrote an essay in the
    Washington Post
    (May 1, 2005) entitled

    "Unmarried Because They Value Marriage."
     

    "What
    we discovered was surprising: Instead of a rejection of
    marriage, we found a deep respect for it among many
    young mothers, who told us that getting married was
    their ultimate life ambition. While they acknowledge
    that putting children before marriage is not the ideal
    way of doing things, they`re not about to risk going
    through life childless while waiting for Mr. Right. …
    Marriage, we heard time and again, ought to be reserved
    for those couples who`ve acquired the symbols of
    working-class respectability—a mortgage on a modest
    rowhouse, a reliable car, a savings account and enough
    money left over to host a `decent` wedding."

    Women in higher social classes are
    more likely to avoid the disasters of giving birth out
    of wedlock.

    But they often postpone marriage
    and/or children until they can afford the down payment
    on a house in a neighborhood with

    good public schools
    .

    And that leads to:



    4. The Baby Gap:
     
    Bush carried 25 of the top 26
    states in white total fertility (number of babies per
    white woman), while Kerry was victorious in the bottom
    16. In Utah, for instance, white women average 2.45
    babies. In the District of Columbia, white women average
    only 1.11 babies.

    The correlation between white total
    fertility and Bush`s share produced an impressive
    r-squared = 74 percent.

    While the Marriage Gap appeared to
    be somewhat more important than the Baby Gap, together
    they proved

    extraordinarily powerful
    in explaining Bush`s
    performance—their combined r-squared = 88 percent.

    (Ethan Herdrick`s

    Mapinator
    website

    graphically illustrates
    the strong correlations
    between Bush`s performance and the Mortgage Gap,
    Marriage Gap, and Baby Gap.)

    The voting patterns of both

    blacks
    and Hispanics are also somewhat affected by
    these factors. But both groups are shifted toward the
    Democrats.

    This points out a little-understood
    problem with the much-publicized

    GOP Establishment
    hopes of

    Republicanizing Hispanics
    while simultaneously
    keeping the immigration floodgates open.

    The contradiction is that
    immigration increases the population density, which
    raises land prices, which both makes non-Hispanic whites
    more Democratic and discourages those Hispanics
    who successfully assimilate to the norms of local
    non-Hispanic whites from becoming as Republican.

    Formerly Republican California
    supplies the classic example of both processes at work.

    Non-Hispanic whites became sharply
    less Republican as their marriage and fertility rates
    plummeted.

    Back in 1990, California still had
    a higher white fertility rate than Texas. But during the
    Nineties the birthrate for California white women
    dropped 14 percent and their years married plummeted to
    the third lowest in America, behind only

    ultra-liberal DC
    and Massachusetts.

    In Texas, however, which has much
    more available dirt and only about half as many
    immigrants as a percentage of the total population,
    white fertility rose 4 percent.

    Texas, which voted Democratic in
    four out of five Presidential elections from 1960
    through 1976, is now the mainstay of the GOP.

    Meanwhile, those California
    Hispanics who succeed in assimilating fully now find
    themselves in a state where most role models vote for
    Democrats for President.

    So, Hispanics in California have
    stayed well to the left of Hispanics in Texas—where the
    white elite is fervently Republican.

    The same thing has

    happened
    to

    Asian-Americans
    , who tend to cluster in crowded Blue
    States.

    Although the Democrats captured
    only 30 percent of their vote in 1992, they`ve won near
    landslides in recent elections.

    Demographic analyst Arthur Hu

    suggests
    that voting patterns show that Asian
    Americans traditionally vote slightly more
    conservatively than their neighbors do—exactly as
    optimistic Republicans assume.

    The problem for the GOP, however,
    is that Asians tend to have

    highly liberal white neighbors.

    In 2000, 45% of all

    Asian-born immigrants
    lived in three heavily
    Democratic metropolitan areas: San Francisco, Los
    Angeles, and New York City.

    Because of the dual effects on the
    voting of both whites and immigrants, the spread of
    immigrants into the middle of the country puts

    once-solid Republican states
    into play.

    Not only Arizona, Nevada, and
    Colorado are threatened, but, farther down the road,
    some states in the now
    seemingly Solid South
    , such as Georgia and North
    Carolina, will be up for grabs.

    Considering the narrowness of
    Bush`s victory in the

    Electoral College
    , this ought to motivate
    Republicans to drop their invite-the-world delusion and
    start promoting Affordable Family Formation
    for American citizens.

    But there`s no sign of it yet.

    Why not?


    [Steve Sailer [email
    him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


    movie critic
    for


    The American Conservative
    .
    His website


    www.iSteve.blogspot.com
    features his daily
    blog.]


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published.