top of page

Election 2019: How Political Assassins Took Virginia without Mandate (Part 3)

Updated: Jan 23, 2021

In the first part of this series, we reviewed the actual court documents for democrat gerrymandering, and some organizational and strategic failures of the Republican Party of Virginia (RPV). In the second part, we focused upon the civil war within the RPV, and explored the 2019 election financing in depth.

In this article, we will review:

  1. The ex-felon vote (points 18 – 21)

  2. Voter turnout (points 22 – 25)

  3. Demographics and the role of youth, minority, and female identity politics (points 26 – 29)

Calling All Sex Offenders

18. Ardent democrats love pointing out that infinitesimal and insignificant groups of white racist radicals support Republicans. The fact is that there are many more totalitarian communists, Islamist subversives, misandrists, and anti-white racists who support Democrats. The Democrats also enjoy preference from the worst criminals in our society.

If a citizen favors democrats, they’d be wise to avoid “guilt by association” propaganda against Republicans, lest they get a quadruple dose of the same from anyone who is aware of these facts. Scumbags and destroyers living in the fringes of America overwhelmingly support Democrats – ex-felons, communists, Islamists, misandrists, and anti-white racists. What a fitting modern following, considering the sociopaths of previous generations were also democrats - Ku Klux Klan and eugenicist progressives included.

19. To wit, the ex-felon vote gave a minor boon in 2019 to Democrats. Virginia Democrats linked hands with murderers, child molesters, armed robbers, and other ex-felons as the Democrat Imperial Governor overrode the Virginia constitution to grant voting rights to hundreds of thousands of ex-felons. Some journalists even mislead the public to believe that ex-felons have not been voting simply by omitting the actions of these Democratic governors.

20. A study indicated that 73% of ex-felons would vote for Democrats. Another showed a typical 16% voter turnout for registered ex-felons. In one state, the ex-felon block gave 48,000 votes to democrats (0.25%).

If we apply this estimate to Virginia, presuming linear registration since Governor McAuliffe linked arms with the ex-felons, we would expect 16% of 60,000 registered ex-felons to vote, and 73% of those votes would go to democrats. After subtracting the 27% of Republican ex-felon votes, it gives the Democrats a 4,416 ex-felon advantage in 2019. That is 0.2% of the vote in Virginia, which is consistent with the other state analyzed.

Even if the ex-felon vote can’t singularly win elections for Democrats, it adds up for them as part of a larger strategy. Some local elections were even decided with less than a 0.2% margin of victory.

21. The Orwellian aspect of the ex-felon vote in Virginia is how Democrat strategists know they get the minor boon from ex-felon votes, and when they used executive fiat to override the will of Virginians, they preached “compassion for reformed criminals” as an altruistic motive.

I suppose the same democrats, and all of their overpaid liars lawyers haven’t checked the felon recidivism rate lately. Who wouldn’t want an innocent citizen’s vote to be cancelled out by the interests of murderers and child molesters? What impressive electoral integrity the Democrats are seeking! Very compassionate!

Demographic Shift & Voter Turnout

22. Virginia voting demographics have shifted rapidly in the past few years. In 2013, 69-75% of millennials and 80% of non-whites voted for Democratic candidates. Although Republicans won college-educated whites at 55-58% from 2012-2016, they lost them with 49% of their votes in 2017. In the same year, non-college educated whites and evangelical Christians voted for Republicans at 72% and 80% respectively.

Contrary to the anti-Trump propaganda, that voters are so stupid they can’t separate Trump from local Republicans, the 6 – 9% falloff of college-educate whites from Republican support is most likely an artifact of two items:

  1. The non-diverse, ideologically-uniform, millennial leftist-indoctrinated young adults entering the prime voter age (30-69)

  2. Immigration from deep blue states, mostly young and middle-age adults. 140,000 democrat voters have moved to Virginia from New York alone in the past few years. They apparently didn’t learn anything from how democrats destroyed New York, California, Michigan, and Illinois’ labor markets, housing, industry, and social cohesion. They remain oblivious to how their home states were insufficient to keep their residency. They might be educated enough to separate Trump from a local Republican, but very few are educated on economics and culture. They carried their engrained sociopolitical visions – and voting habits – to Virginia.

23. There is a pernicious idea that female candidates are more competitive because of gender voter demographics. If surveys from 2018 are indicative, then 53,000 more Virginian women voted than men in 2019. Why would this be surprising to anyone? Women lived 6.6% longer than men in 2019. People who live longer, have more healthy years to vote.

The small margin of 2.4% can make a difference, but we shouldn’t presume that women are so bigoted and egocentric that they will only vote for female candidates. Women have been involved in the Republican Party since the days of Lincoln, as the party was the first to adopt equal rights for women. Female politicians like Sarah Palin, Condoleezza Rice, and Michele Bachmann do not automatically gain the approval of all women. In fact, they are often derided by many women. Like religious fervor, political fanaticism produces tribalism that pierces the phony veil of gender favoritism.

24. Just like running female candidates for “diversity” at the podium, running ethnic minority candidates with “diversity” motives is a losing tactic, for the same reasons. In 2019, Republicans seemed to think that cheap identity politics could impact their competitiveness at the polls.

These political operatives do not follow scholarship on the topics. It has been proven time and time again, that candidates who share the same ethnicity of their voters are not even correlated to minority voter turnout.

25. More generally, the RPV strategy is confused about what motivates voters. Conceptually, voter turnout is a function of:

  1. P: The PROBABILITY that a voter’s choice will impact the election

  2. B: The perceived BENEFIT that the voter will obtain if their candidate wins

  3. D: Civic DUTY & personal gratification a person gets from voting

  4. C: The time, effort, and financial COST of voting

If PB + D > C, then the person will vote. When we think critically, we easily understand why candidate ethnicity does not motivate voters. A person’s visions of governance, culture, economy, and humanity itself fill the B & D variables of voter turnout. Immigrants, women, and minorities are pummeled with influence that produces visions favorable to Democrats, blinding them to the devastating real outcomes for women and minorities in Democrat-run urban areas.

What are Republicans doing to challenge those visions long before Election Day? They must fight a constant barrage of influence from leftwing:

  1. Entertainers (music, movies, TV, sports culture)

  2. Journalists

  3. Technocrats who control perceptions with information superiority

  4. Educators who selectively filter curriculum

We would think that Republicans would be financing brilliant companies like Alvarism to create software, media production, data science, and mobilization that they have been denied by leftwing technocrats. Instead they are dumping $37 million into the hands of incompetent Republican political operatives, in a single year, to lose Virginia in a shameful slaughter at the polls.

Many religious conservatives respond to the complexity of voter motivation with calls to prayer. Praying is easy. Making faith come alive with blood, sweat, and toil is hard. If Republicans taught religious conservatives how they can work meaningfully, like the unions and leftist nonprofits do for their members – their prayers would have a higher chance of manifestation.

26. Beyond conceptual models, empirical research explains the motivations for voting. It corroborates the conceptual formula presented above. The following criteria have shown encouragement (positive) or discouragement (negative) for voting:

  1. Living in the South and a few other specific states (highly negative)

  2. Age, education, length of residency, church attendance, religious group membership, marital status, home ownership, strength of party identification, and candidate differential (highly positive)

  3. Ending voter registration early (moderately negative)

  4. Income (moderately positive)

  5. Increased number of parties & caucuses (highly negative)

  6. Population decline for age 30 – 69, young adults and retirees are less likely to vote (highly negative)

  7. Increase in college degrees (highly positive)

  8. Union membership and density (moderately positive)

  9. Increase in racial diversity (highly negative)

  10. Campaign expenditure – associated, but insignificantly positive. It costs $500 in campaign expenditure to bring a single previously-abstaining voter to the polls.

  11. Election year, race (more whites), same-day registration, mail-in votes, and age (30-69) were the greatest predictors of voter turnout. Campaign expenditure ranked twelfth.

There are many takeaways from this research. Demographically:

  1. Facilitating youth, minority, and elderly voting will increase turnout

  2. Running youth, women, and minority candidates will not increase minority, female, or youth turnout at the polls

  3. Increasing campaign expenditure will not increase turnout – dollars can influence moderates and independents to flip votes, but cash is a losing utility otherwise

  4. Increasing racial diversity will not increase turnout

  5. Increasing caucus synergy and clarity will increase motivation

  6. Engaging civic culture with effective explication of political visions long before campaign season will secure votes

27. As we can see, basic observation of demographics is insufficient to actually understand the complex workings of political visions beneath the demographics.

28. Podium mantras about demographics, and banal pandering to identity politics is not only contradicted by research, it is a losing tactic. Identity politics in caucuses only works to make cohesive PR and communications – nuanced messages to access people with similar sociopolitical visions. Pursuing discriminatory political operation in any other way will degrade candidate competitiveness – including favoring minority and women candidates simply because of their faces.

29. Conflating demographics with the utility of identity politics, carries the degrading presumption that minority and women voters are so egocentric that they will put the face of a candidate above their sociopolitical visions. Some may operate on this “diversity and inclusion” bigotry. Most are more reasonable and pragmatic, which is why the research shows insignificant impact of same-identity-candidates on voter turnout.

Conclusion Ahead…

In the next and final article of this series, we will review:

  1. Subversive nonprofits involved in this election

  2. Information & tech superiority of democrats

bottom of page