An analysis by the University of Virginia Center for Politics and Ipsos, a market research firm, found that white women in the D.C. suburbs helped lift Gillespie to victory on Tuesday night.
White voters are divided into two non-equal groups – Republican (white) vs Democrat ((not white)), or R/D. The article is about how White Women vote compared to other demographics within the group of all White Male Voters, but I’ll leave it to more competent people to discuss this topic. Such as Steve Sailer’s blog .
Instead, I want to focus on the term used in the title: ” propelled.” Propel means : 1 : to drive or urge forward 2 : cause (a vehicle) to move forward by a force or power applied to the rear.
Since I doubt that a group of white women were forcing Ed Gillespie’s car to move forward, let alone had enough women to do so, consider this definition from Merriam-Webster: 1 : impel 2 : to cause (as a person) to take action especially by arousing enthusiasm or conviction Even less plausible. The evidence is clear that it was all those angry racist white men who propelled him. But note how Newspeak makes it all sound more reasonable and not bigoted at all – just the opposite, don’t you know?
This isn’t a new phenomenon. In last year’s presidential election, there was a noticeable gender gap among voters — with President Trump winning among white women while Hillary Clinton won the support of women of color.
It’s true that Trump did better with white women than Romney, but he lost both white men and non-White men . The reason why was because Clinton did even worse – she packed Blacks into 90-percents, while getting less than half of Obama’s Hispanic vote share . If more Whites voted, she would have lost.
This year in Virginia, the gender gap between voters was smaller — Gillespie actually did better with male voters than female ones. But there was still a notable difference in how different groups cast their ballots Tuesday night: Trump won among all male voters in 2016 by 11 points; Northam won among all female voters by points this year. What moron wrote this? It’s like he thinks men and women are two different species or something.
All of this is very illuminating, until you actually try to make sense of it. Sure, Trump won more votes among men than Clinton did among women, but she still got less than half of his vote share . We all know why that is – because there are far more White Men in the electorate. If 100% of White Males voted for either candidate at 55-45 ratio, then Trump would have destroyed Hillary by over 5 million votes – 60-40!
So how come Gillespie was able to pull out a victory despite getting fewer female voters compared to Northam? Because he had more white male voters. And how do we know that? Because Northam got less votes than Clinton.
See how this works? The people who write the news are too dim to figure it out, but Steve Sailer is not.
The white women of Virginia made history Tuesday night — by helping to elect Republican Ed Gillespie as their next governor. Research conducted after Election Day found that white female voters in Virginia supported Northam by a 9-point margin (51 percent vs. 42 percent), according to exit polls . That was smaller than the 17-point advantage that Hillary Clinton had among the demographic last year .
A point or two victory for Democrats is always described as ” w i n n i n g” – consider how often you’ve heard “winning” used when discussing 2012 presidential election results . But Northam’s margin was actually far less than Clinton’s, which means – by Newspeak logic – that he lost. Instead of this headline : “Democrats suffer another stunning defeat”, the authors are trying to obfuscate what happened by playing games with language.
But the biggest drop-off came among non-white female voters . White women voted for Gillespie over Northam by a 13-point margin (55 percent vs. 42 percent), while non-white women backed Northam by an overwhelming 66-point spread (79 percent vs. 13 percent). Non-white voters preferred Northam as well, but only by 12 points, according to exit polls . The results highlight … blah blah blah…. gender gap …. yawn…
The article is also overloaded with pretty irrelevant details, such as the fact that exit polls showed Gillespie getting less of the Hispanic vote than Ed last time. Newsflash: that is because he lost by a landslide. A total moron could figure that out just from reading it in his own words but most people won’t even bother and instead take what they read at face value. Which means they aren’t really reading:
But the Republican did worse this year with Hispanic voters than he did four years ago — when Republican Ken Cuccinelli lost to McAuliffe by 2 points — despite running against a candidate who has advocated protecting the rights of undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities . Gillespie received support from 21 percent of Hispanics Tuesday night, compared to 25 percent for Cuccinelli in 2013. But as usual, the article completely misses the point. The real story is not what happened this year but what happened to Ken Cuccinelli four years ago. In both cases, a racist Republican had an overwhelmingly White electorate as his base and was expected to win big – only to lose by 2 points!