Today, Donald Trump takes his oath of office as President of the United States. While this is a victory for the alternative Right, a look at demographic changes in America will remind us that the struggle is far from over.
At noon EST today, Donald Trump will begin his first term as President of the United States. Nearly two years of rallies, memes and debunking have borne fruit in the election of a president who, if not explicitly, is at least implicitly pro-White, giving us time to depose the globalists who are turning our nations into cultural and genetic mud soup. President Trump’s victory comes with near-total GOP control of American government: both houses of Congress, the vast majority of governorships and state legislatures (including total control of half of all state governments), and soon, the Supreme Court. This gives Trump tremendous power to remake the U.S., not unlike how Fidesz’s landslide victory in Hungary in 2010 allowed them to rewrite the constitution.
It’s a power we need to urge him to exercise. While Trump’s victory is a triumph for the alternative Right, if we don’t use it properly, it could easily turn into the one winning battle in a losing war. Given how fed up Americans were with eight years of anti-White Marxism and economic collapse under Obama, Trump should have gotten 65+ percent of the popular vote. Hell, by all rights, Obama should have been defeated in 2012, even considering how weak and untrustworthy Mitt Romney was as a candidate. Yet despite everything working in our favor, Trump only managed to scrape in by a whisker.
The most glaring issue with Trump’s victory is that he lost the popular vote. Granted, Hillary Clinton’s vote margin was almost certainly due to voter fraud in California and other blue states, and as pedants are wont to remind us, the popular vote is technically irrelevant for the purposes of electing the president. The popular vote has also functioned as a nice idiot trap, keeping Leftists from engaging in any honest discussion as to why they got shellacked. But Trump’s popular vote loss still stands as a reminder that demographics are against us in the long run.
Using exit poll data, I created a map showing how the election would have unfolded if only Whites voted. Keep in mind that exit poll data is not available for all states: Edison Research apparently decided to be cheap and not bother polling voters in small, safe blue or red states like Massachusetts or Montana. For those states, I chose to assume that they would have voted the same way even without non-Whites voting:
In contrast to his electoral vote count of 306 in the actual election, Trump wins in a landslide with 416 votes in this alternate reality, taking all swing states as well as the true blue strongholds of New York, New Jersey and Illinois. It almost entirely matches up with my (incorrect) prediction of how the election would unfold back in November. Apparently, I was dead-on when it came to the White vote, but I failed to estimate how non-White many states have become.
Having said that, simply analyzing the White vote isn’t enough to see how demographic changes are weakening the Right. Blacks have been present in the U.S. since its founding, and their percentage of the population has remained relatively stable despite globalist demographic warfare against Whites, so their votes need to be included.
Therefore, I analyzed exit poll data in several states to approximate how the election would have unfolded if only Whites and Blacks voted, excluding what Lawrence Murray refers to as “Hart-Celler Americans“: non-White immigrants or descendents of those immigrants who were only allowed to come here due to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. To do this, I cross-referenced racial exit poll data for each state with Census data showing the number of Whites and Blacks in said state. In instances where there weren’t enough Blacks in individual state exit polls (such as Minnesota), I substituted national poll data where necessary; an imperfect method, but the best I had given the circumstances. My model also doesn’t account for Democratic voter fraud, simply because there’s no way to quantify it.
The results I found were eye-opening:
- Both Minnesota and New Hampshire, narrowly won by Clinton, would have been won by Trump were it not for non-White immigration. In the case of Minnesota, Trump would have won with 48.2 percent to Clinton’s 45.0 percent (in the actual election, she got 46.4 percent to Trump’s 44.9 percent). In the case of New Hampshire, Trump would have squeaked by with 47.6 percent to Clinton’s 46.5 percent (in actuality, she got 46.8 percent to Trump’s 46.5 percent). Given how overwhelmingly White both states are, this shows how a small number of non-Whites can swing a state to the Left, permanently.
- In a number of strong blue states, Clinton goes from winning with landslide margins to barely squeezing by absent the Hart-Celler vote. In Illinois, Clinton edges out Trump with 49.8 percent to his 44.4 percent, a mere 5.4 percent margin of victory compared to her 17 point victory in the actual election. New Jersey, seemingly a bastion of East Coast Leftism, would have only given Clinton a 3.9 percent margin of victory (she gets 50.1 percent to Trump’s 46.2 percent) compared to 14 points in reality. This basically makes them swing states that would be winnable for a Republican were it not for Latinos and other non-Whites.
- Narrow swing state victories for Trump in the South become landslides without the non-White immigrant vote. North Carolina, where Trump secured a slim 3.6 percent margin of victory, becomes a 11.1 percent victory (Trump 53.9 percent, Clinton 42.8 percent). Georgia goes from a 5.1 percent margin of victory to a 9.3 percent victory (Trump 53.0 percent, Clinton 43.7 percent). Florida goes from a razor-thin 1.2 percent margin of victory to a whopping 12.1 percent margin (Trump 53.7 percent, Clinton 41.6 percent). While Virginia would have still been won by Clinton without the Hart-Celler vote, her margin of victory would have been cut from 5.4 percent to 0.5 percent (Clinton 47.6 percent, Trump 47.1 percent).
- Somewhat unsurprisingly, the absence of the non-White immigrant vote doesn’t affect Trump’s victory margins in Rust Belt swing states as significantly. For example, in Ohio, Trump only goes from an 8.1 percent margin of victory to a 12 point victory (Trump 54 percent, Clinton 42 percent). Michigan goes from a 0.3 percent Trump margin of victory to a 3.2 percent margin (Trump 48.5 percent, Clinton 45.3 percent). Pennsylvania goes from a 0.7 percent Trump margin of victory to a 4.9 percent margin (Trump 50.6 percent, Clinton 45.7 percent). This validates Trump’s strategy of targeting White working class voters in the Midwest as opposed to the GOP(e) strategy of cucking for minority voters.
- While calculating data for Southwest states is difficult due to the presence of pre-1965 Latino populations in New Mexico and other states that need to be factored in (and the fact that data on their historical numbers is hard to come by), the absence of the Hart-Celler vote doesn’t appear to make a huge difference. For example, Whites in Colorado nearly split evenly between Trump and Clinton (he got 47 percent, she got 45 percent), while Trump would have still won Arizona and Utah handily. Again, this squares with the observation that Trump’s nationalist platform won him Midwestern Whites at the cost of some Western Whites, who are more libertarian.
- Non-White immigration is eroding the electoral viability of third parties. In every state I looked at, virtually all votes for Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Evan McMullin were from Whites. In many cases, the number of minority votes for third-party candidates was so small that they couldn’t be statistically measured. The more non-White the American electorate becomes, the fewer votes that third party candidates will receive, which makes McMullin’s and Johnson’s attacks on Trump’s “racist” immigration policies all the more hilarious. Third-party candidates such as George Wallace and Ross Perot who had a major effect on presidential races are increasingly unlikely in our Rainbow Nation.
The takeaway from all this is that President Trump pulled off a remarkable victory by unifying Whites from all corners of America, which no candidate since Ronald Reagan has accomplished. However, it’s clear that demographic trends are still working against us. Every year, more elderly Whites are dying and are being replaced with Latinos and other non-Whites who monolithically support Leftism. Without a plan to curb non-White immigration, Trump’s triumph may become an Agincourt for the White race.
Remember: the Left didn’t win the battle of ideas in the West. They merely replaced the people. While Trump’s victory will ricochet throughout the West in the form of increased White birthrates and rejuvenated European nationalism, it’s incumbent on us to hold him accountable and make sure he fulfills his campaign promises. While today is a day of celebration, tomorrow the struggle begins anew.