June 22, 2016

Hillary no longer fag hag in chief, after Orlando

According to the Reuters tracking poll, since June 13 Hillary's poll numbers have tanked among registered voters who are not straight -- falling from 65% to nearly 40%. Slightly more of them actually said they would vote for someone else or wouldn't vote at all (42%), way up from the 20% that they started with before the Islamic terrorist attack on a gay nightclub in Orlando.


Trump has also seen increasing support from the gays, from 7% to 17%, although that is still within the range that he had been getting earlier in the race.

The major change is Hillary's cratering support from the cultural left's sacred minority group du jour -- far lower than the previous low points in the race.

Quite simply, they see how weak she is on dealing with Islamic terrorism, and they may also have become wise to how many tens of millions in bribes Crooked Hillary has taken from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries that punish homosexuality with death.

The gays have also become far more in favor of a temporary ban on all Muslims from entering the country, a more extreme position than Trump is proposing. In early June, they were over 80% against the ban, and now are only 55-60% against. More are outright in favor, and more are merely uncertain (at least being open to it, instead of closed off to it).

Since the gays only make up 1-2% of the electorate, their changing vote patterns won't directly affect the election. However, if they are making their feelings known to their "straight allies" in real life or on the internet, it could have a rippling effect throughout the left-leaning electorate.

Their allies will not hear a subtle change in opinion, but one that says they've completely changed their minds and simply won't be voting at all. That's bound to start some awkward conversations and reflections among Democrat voters.

As with other culture war topics, this election is putting a stark choice before voters -- do you want an identity politics President who will only "feel your pain," or a results guy who will protect you from those trying to harm you and threaten your way of life?

June 18, 2016

Trump slump reversing after Orlando

Every campaign goes through rising and falling phases. For the Trump movement, there was a low point leading up to and just after the Iowa caucus, which reversed itself and reached a peak on Super Tuesday. Then another slump in late March and early April, around the Wisconsin primary -- which reversed itself and reached another peak during the ACELA and Indiana primaries, and clinching the nomination.

In late May and early June, there was another slump during the controversy around the La Raza judge presiding over a civil case involving Trump. It turned into an identity politics issue -- with Trump correctly accusing the judge of reverse racism -- similar to the common-sense abortion controversy before the Wisconsin primary.

No matter how justified his comments were, they are identity politics topics from the old Republican party, and probably gave Independents and fence-sitters the idea that he was going back to Gingrich-era politics, when his appeal is about leaving behind identity politics and pushing populism and America first over corporate elitism and globalism.

But that slump appears to be reversing itself, perhaps in response to the Islamic terrorist attack in Orlando, and will reach another peak sometime in July. According to the Reuters tracking poll, Trump's numbers have been improving all week. You can see earlier rising and falling and rising-again phases.

At the rate things are going, it seems like there's a month-up and month-down rhythm to the campaign. Peaks occur in the early part of an odd-numbered month, and slumps early in even-numbered months. Fortunately, the election will be held in the early part of an odd-numbered month, favoring the apparent rhythm, although it also predicts a slump during the Republican National Convention in late July. We'll see.

And so far, the polls in battleground states and bellwether counties look favorable. Remember that we will win through the electoral college, or broad geographic appeal, rather than getting over 70% of the popular vote.

The Establishment politicians, the media, and shills on social media have been trying to hawk a narrative about Trump hitting a wall -- but we've heard that a million times already, and every time his numbers go back up. Now that he's back on-message with Islamic terrorism, immigration, and putting America first, it's only a matter of time before he's back where he was when he clinched the nomination.

And from now on, he'll be unloading on Crooked Hillary's record of corruption, which will only steadily drive her numbers down during this anti-Establishment zeitgeist. She didn't have to suffer through too many slumps of her own during the Democrats' primary because Bernie wussed out and didn't touch her record, preferring instead to debate abstract principles hypothetically.

No more kid gloves once you're in the ring with Trumpzilla. We're gonna say, "Bye-byeeee".

June 16, 2016

Growing support for Muslim ban, even among Democrats and liberals

One overlooked reason why there is such silence on Islamic terrorism when the Orlando attacks are discussed by the Establishment of both parties, their media mouthpieces, and their shills on social media, is that there is growing grassroots support for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the country -- and this growth is due mostly to Democrats and liberals beginning to change their minds.

In our age of cocooning, it can be hard to remember that real-life Democrats and Republicans are not caricatures like you see on the talking head panel for MSNBC or Fox News. In fact, if both of those channels are skeptical of a proposal, you can bet that there is actually a good deal of support for it among the flesh-and-blood Democrats and Republicans who live around you. The divide in that case is between globalist elites and America-first populists.

The Reuters tracking polls include one about a temporary ban on all Muslims entering the country, which is more extreme than what Trump is proposing -- not on all Muslims, but those from countries with a proven record of producing Islamic terrorists.

As you can see by clicking that link, being against the ban had been comfortably more popular than being for it, from May 17 when they started asking it, until June 5, when it abruptly reverses. For some reason, Reuters stopped asking the question at that point, but put it back in after the Orlando shooting, showing little change from June 6. Presumably by the end of the week, there will be even greater support.

I have no idea what took place around June 5 that reversed the popularity of "for" vs. "against," but it's worth noting that the ban had more for than against already by the time of the Orlando attack.

The other big recent change is an increase of people who say they're merely "not sure".

Putting it all together, first some of those against switched abruptly to being for it (around June 6), and one week later some of those newly "for" it decided to walk it back a bit and said they were just "not sure". The end result is unchanged, though: it's more popular than not, and those who are sitting on the fence are probably for it but just don't want to admit it, or want a slightly watered-down version of it, like Trump has actually proposed.

If you filter the data to look just at Republicans, conservatives, or those who voted for Romney, there hasn't been much change over time -- support is consistently high. The change is entirely due to Democrats, liberals, and those who voted for Obama re-evaluating how wise it is to have unchecked immigration from Muslim countries in an age when they're likely to blow up our leisure spaces because they hate the "decadent West".

Women also show a major change in favor of the ban, while men have remained about equally for and against. White Democrats show a yuge increase in being "for" the ban, while black Democrats remain unchanged. Islamic terrorism is a potential wedge to drive between white and non-white Democrats.

The common denominator of the change in sentiment is those who feel most vulnerable to violence, or who prioritize protection from violence over other matters (such as multiculturalism). That is what liberal morality usually boils down to -- avoiding harm.

But perhaps in this case they're prioritizing culture and lifestyles, and wanting to maintain those against Muslim immigrants who want to impose sharia law on Americans. Whether or not they've read the data from a Pew survey of the world's Muslims, they can tell that most of the Muslims coming here don't want to assimilate to our norms, and want the backward severe laws of their homelands. When over 70, 80, and 90% of a country wants sharia law, "moderate Muslims" are like a needle in a haystack.

Sooner or later, liberals and Democrats will realize that unchecked Muslim immigration will become their worst nightmare, as a puritanical theocracy replaces a secular society.

Disturbingly, though, there is one conservative group that is fiercely against the Muslim ban -- try to take a guess, based on which state Trump lost by the biggest margin, and who is the only lingering high-profile "Never Trump" politician. That's right -- it's the damn Mormons again. The sooner that the Trump-influenced GOP can trade the Mormons for Michigan, the better.

During the entire period of the question, Mormons were 61% against the ban, 27% in favor, and 12% not sure. Other religious groups are either evenly for and against (like the Methodists), or slightly in favor (like the Catholics). It's only the Mormons who are so bitterly opposed to the idea. It stems from their still burning sense of persecution as a religious minority by the Federal Gubmint, which refused to allow Utah to enter the Union until they ended the most backward and whackjob practices of their new-age out-West cult, like polygamy.

That's my guess as to why Romney is still so triggered and tantrum-throwing about the rise of Trump, and crying about the Muslim ban. He's not like the other Establishment Republicans, who are either falling in line or trying to appear neutral. He's a high-ranking official of the Mormon Church, with divided loyalties between it and the nation:

Romney is no run-of-the-mill churchgoer but has held responsible posts in this clergy-less denomination that’s led locally by laymen serving part-time. He has been the “bishop” (equivalent of a pastor) in his own “ward” (congregation) and president of the Boston area “stake” (akin to a Catholic or Episcopal bishop). He is an ordained “high priest,” the LDS ecclesiastical rank below patriarch, seventy, and apostle.

Jews are the other "religious" group that is far more against the ban than for it, being globalist managerial types. But even they are not as naive as the Mormons, and have a healthy minority who want to keep Muslims out of Jewish neighborhoods.

The Trump movement's goal should be to put out feelers for common-sense liberals and Democrats (not progressive activists concerned with signaling their values), and encourage their skepticism of unchecked immigration from around the world, particularly from countries whose immigrants want to impose sharia law on us at a minimum, and occasionally blow up our leisure spaces.

It's also important to distance ourselves from the old Mormon and Mormon-ish base of the GOP, which will soon defect to the Democrats or form a breakaway party, in either case siding with globalist multiculturalism rather than putting America first.

June 15, 2016

As mass murderers change from "angry white men" to bitter immigrants, discussion shifts from alienation to choice of weapons

Now that liberals are going into overdrive about gun control in the wake of another massacre, you have probably seen disingenuous charts showing statistics about "mass shootings" -- when what really matters is mass murder. We don't ignore 9/11 and the Boston marathon bombing, just because they used planes flown into buildings and pressure-cooker bombs rather than guns.

These three attacks are only a handful of examples of radical Islamic terrorism, which makes the gun control people feel anxiety not only because they tend to involve weapons far worse than guns, but because it raises problems for their agenda of ethnic and cultural pluralism.*

So, rather than address the safety problems of importing millions of Muslims into our country, they try to make it seem like Muslims are no worse than the folks in flyover country who have produced mass murderers of their own. (For the sake of argument, let's put aside the obvious objections that the per capita rate of terrorism is orders of magnitude higher for Muslims, and that we don't need to add to an existing problem by importing more trouble-makers.)

Who are these mass murderers from flyover country? It's shocking how little the phrase "Oklahoma City bombing" comes up among the gun control / "whites are just as evil as Muslims" crowd. It would seem to be tailor-made for their narrative -- two white guys from the Great Lakes region, paranoid about the Federal Gubmint, deadliest domestic terrorist attack in America and killing the most other than 9/11.

What gives? First, they made a bomb, which doesn't fit the narrative of controlling guns.

But more importantly, it would lead us to ask what the motivation was, what the psychology was, what were the sociological forces at play, and so on. Liberals don't want to go down that road because it would lead us to ask the exact same questions about radical Islamic terrorists, and come to similar conclusions -- centering around bitter alienation from society, leading them to violently lash out at an entire group that they view as their tormentors.

However, in the case of jihadists, it would lead ordinary Americans to the common sense solution to keep Muslims out of our country -- where most of them are bound to feel alienated -- which is a non-starter for white Americans of founding stock who feel alienated.

Uh-oh, different solutions for seemingly similar problems -- a big no-no, no matter how impossible it would be to attain parity (by deporting white people from America).

In order to prevent ordinary Americans from coming to the conclusion to keep most Muslims out of a country where they appear to be incompatible, liberals must first prevent them from focusing on the bitter alienation that a typical Muslim feels in America (or any other Western country).

It doesn't matter what aspects of our culture make them feel so out-of-place, the end result is that they do inevitably feel this way, to varying degrees. But it's not hard to think of several -- a more libertine code of conduct than in their more puritanical culture, adhering more to a culture of law than a culture of honor, and one that is more secular and even blasphemous than religious and pious.

This is a similar line of investigation as there used to be into the phenomenon of "angry white men" -- coming up with a basic psychological profile, demographic description, and looking at how sociological changes may be at play (declining working-class incomes, women as breadwinners, multicultural values in mainstream culture, bullying at school, and so on).

But whereas the study of angry white men led to tough questions about how they can become better integrated into society -- like the Trump program of bringing back high-paying manufacturing jobs and ending political correctness -- the study of bitter alienated Muslims leads instead to the other Trump program of "they all gotta go back". They're not rooted here, and don't need to be here. They may still be bitter back home, but that's their homeland's problem, not ours. We can help out from afar, but we won't be taking them in, which will only exacerbate their sense of bitter alienation.

It's shocking how quickly the interest in understanding mass murder has evaporated, even as it has become more common. As recently as 2002, uber-liberal director Michael Moore released Bowling for Columbine, which looked into the psychology and sociology behind mass murder by angry white men. It did touch on gun control, but that was not the main focus since he spent the other half focusing on the Oklahoma City bombers. Toward the climax, Marilyn Manson is interviewed to provide a window into the minds of alienated white youth, and he emphasizes better social integration of kids like the Columbine shooters, rather than a pat answer about gun control.

When you consider the implications for immigration, though, the blindness to social forces in mass murder makes perfect sense. We don't better culturally integrate Muslims, since they themselves feel that to be more or less impossible without America accepting governance under sharia law. We just stay here in our country, and they stay over in theirs.

And now that we aren't allowed to inquire into the human factors, we can only discuss the inanimate weapons that the mass murderers choose. Not being total morons, the liberal side doesn't try to argue against airplanes that could be hijacked, or plant fertilizer that could be used in another Oklahoma City bombing. Guns are familiar enough, and provide enough of a gray area for debate to proceed (the upside and downside of each class of firearm is not as crystal clear as it is for planes and fertilizer).

Ignoring the social and cultural alienation behind mass murder has proceeded for so long only because there hasn't been a Donald Trump to cut straight to the chase -- restoring the dignity of blue-collar white men, while keeping culturally incompatible foreigners out. Once we begin an era of America-first populism, mass murder will recede back to the levels of the Midcentury. Changing the political climate won't happen overnight, but it's the only real choice to solve these problems, not bickering back and forth about gun control.

* I'm using "liberal" rather than the more accurate encompassing term of "globalist" because we're talking about the gun control debate. Conservative globalists like Bush, Romney, Ryan, McCain, etc. have a similar agenda of forced ethnic pluralism, but they don't turn to gun control as the solution to the inevitable violence that stems from deep cultural incompatibility. Conservative globalists are more into mass surveillance of threats than literally disarming them.

Therefore, this post could be copied for the debate over mass surveillance. As with gun control, keeping out Muslims also solves the problem of having to cast such a wide surveillance net on Americans.

June 13, 2016

Less globalist propaganda defending Muslim immigration; Liberal debate shifts to domestic gun control

In the response to the gay nightclub massacre, there has been a strange decline (if not absence) of multicultural propaganda telling us not to criticize anything about Islam, that Muslims per se had nothing to do with it, and that we don't need to change our immigration policies to protect Americans from Islamic radicals.

Only the really globalist kool-aid drinkers are saying we have to admit more Muslims and just pray that they don't shoot up another gay nightclub, bomb another marathon, or fly planes into another skyscraper.

Instead, the debate seems to be focusing mostly on gun control, a debate that is always going to be with us, even if the Democrats became a populist and America-first party, a la the Bernie movement. It's an entirely domestic policy debate.

The Bernie people especially seem to have largely conceded the point about immigration from Muslim countries, by ignoring Trump's "incendiary" comments about it, when they're not the type to ignore incendiary comments. The major exceptions are Jewish and Muslim Sanders supporters -- the one being the most pro-globalist group out there, and the other being a major beneficiary of their propaganda.

I've noticed a similar response from MSNBC coverage. They are elitists rather than populists, but like the Bernie crowd, they are mostly interested in improving American society first, rather than optimally managing an interlocking global system. Of course they both have a liberal Romantic view of what the improved America looks like, but liberal vs. conservative is separate and independent from globalist vs. America-first.

"Liberal America-firsters" is a category that doesn't easily fit into the current climate, but give it a little while, and emboldened by the Bernie and Trump movements, we may see them argue more openly (if tepidly) for protecting Americans' interests against hostile foreign groups who cannot be mixed into our society without threatening American values and lifestyles.

Their response is a welcome change from the CNN / Clinton / Bush / Obama / Romney / Ryan crowd, who instead lecture us about the moral necessity of cosmopolitanism over "Islamophobia" after we've been invaded and attacked by jihadist foreigners.

There's been another change just since the San Bernardino attack last November -- do you remember liberals rushing to assure us that ISIS was not "really" Islamic? That was a transparently globalist talking point, to get us to shut up about curbing immigration from hostile cultures.

And of course that canard was nothing new, and not unique to Democrats and liberals -- in 2002, traitor-in-chief George W. Bush, who was truly a prog-tard ahead of his time, delivered this rationalization of multiculturalism, after the 9/11 attacks:

Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion. But it’s important, as we lift that veil, to remember that they are nothing but a bunch of radical terrorists who distort history and the values of Islam.

Translation: jihadists are the REAL infidels! Nothing to see here, folks.

This time around, we aren't hearing so much of these slight-of-hand arguments defending unchecked immigration from Muslim countries. Nobody is running with the narrative that the Orlando shooter wasn't a true Muslim, that he was hijacking a peaceful religion, #NotAllMuslims, etc. By now, the Trump campaign has worn away all of that PC bullshit, and given ordinary Americans permission to respond with common sense to yet another Islamic terrorist attack in our country.

In fact, that is the only angle to this attack that ignores the domestic gun control debate, and focuses on international questions -- it is the Trump movement's skepticism of globalism that is picking up steam, not the defense of open borders as a moral necessity.

June 12, 2016

Hillary isn't even playing the woman card well

The main theme of Crooked Hillary's campaign is that she's not just any corrupt Establishment next-in-line candidate -- she's the first one to also be a woman. In their lazy insulated minds, that would make her male opponent an enemy of women.

Even during the Democrats' own primary, voters showed little interest in this approach, either the "first woman" part or the part about "my enemy is a woman-hater for getting in this woman's way". During the general election, non-Democrats including independents will show even less patience for it.

Trotting out Pocahontas Warren was an even worse mistake, since doubling down on a tiresome and soon to be annoying tone will further alienate general voters. Also, it immediately deflates the tepid enthusiasm for Hillary being the "first woman" -- now that she's paired with Pocahontas, are they a first pair of women, or maybe part of a first larger movement of women? The "first woman" candidate would only stand out in stark contrast if those surrounding her were men.

The emphasis is no longer on Hillary being "first," which suggests reaching a historical milestone of fairness (for what that's worth), but rather on a broader "women vs. men" confrontation that has nothing to do with fairness but inter-group warfare. And the battle of the sexes is as old as mankind, therefore not a historical milestone, as originally billed just a few days earlier.

"Oh great, yet another brigade of nagging scolds is teaming up in the political arena -- get ready for Prohibition part 2."

The Trump movement can only rejoice at Team Hillary stepping on its own dick twice in the first week of its general campaign -- her status as "first" was immediately overshadowed by Pocahontas becoming a de facto "second," and then the "fairness milestone" thing quickly devolved into a "hostile battle of the sexes" thing.

Once Trump starts to really unload on her during his Monday speech, they're going to find out that this Republican candidate isn't the wuss that low-energy Jeb Bush would have been, sitting there and taking their "war on women" bullshit the entire time.

June 10, 2016

Blacks vs. progressives: The Bernie movement as Eugene McCarthy plus George Wallace

Since comparisons keep coming up to the 1968 election, especially the civil war among the Democrats, it's worth looking at who the major players were back then and who their modern counterparts are.

President Johnson was pulled aside by the Establishment and told that he would not be running for re-election, because his escalation of the Vietnam War and cracking down on students was threatening to blow the society apart. The elites wanted the social tensions to calm down, and Johnson couldn't stop himself from antagonizing them further. So he was out.

His VP, Hubert Humphrey, was the Establishment next-in-line. His counterpart today is the next-in-line of the Establishment bigwigs, Crooked Hillary Clinton.

Robert Kennedy was making a play for the white ethnics, immigrants, and minorities, before he was assassinated during the primaries. That faction of the old New Deal coalition has by now been thoroughly integrated into the Establishment wing. Martin O'Malley was attempting to present himself as a latter-day Bobby Kennedy, but since Kennedy's base is no longer a distinct faction of the party, O'Malley had no distinct audience to appeal to, and quickly vanished.

Eugene McCarthy represented the progressive peacenik wing, mostly popular with young people, and his counterpart is clearly Bernie Sanders.

George Wallace actually broke away from the Democrats and ran on a third-party ticket, though representing a key faction of the old New Deal coalition -- white Southerners. That demographic has left the Democrats, and so his present-day incarnation -- Jim Webb -- had no one to appeal to, and left as quickly as O'Malley.

And yet when we step back and take a look at how the contest between Hillary and Bernie has played out, perhaps the spirit of George Wallace lives on in the Bernie phenomenon after all. Not by advocating segregation, of course, but by nevertheless wanting to make national parties focus on something more important than minority identity politics.

Everyone knows how white the Bernie movement is, and how reliant Crooked Hillary has been on minorities -- particularly blacks, who have deep roots in the party, back to the '60s, unlike Hispanics or Asians, who have shallow roots, are not loyalists, and not gung-ho at the ballot box. That percolated up to the state level, where white states went to Bernie and black or minority-heavy states went to Hillary. And that has percolated further up to the national level -- the Democrats' electorate is more minority-based than the country as a whole, so the winner overall was Hillary.

The disconnect between white progressives and black Democrat loyalists is nothing new, and rears its head every time a progressive movement shows up, the last time being Nader in 2000. This time around, though, it was big news because the white progressives attempted a hostile takeover of a major party rather than run third-party and be invisible.

This recent article from Politico by a black Southern Democrat loyalist discusses the racial rift in the party. At the root of the problem is white progressives wanting to reduce racial injustice to class / economic injustice, or at most talking about criminal justice reform. They don't get identity politics ("what it's like to live as a black man in America"), and aren't interested in trying to get it.

During the New Deal era, these would have simply been two factions that didn't address the same problems but still co-existed within the larger party's coalition. Once the working class was kicked out during the status-striving and profiteering era (no later than the Go-Go Eighties), the progressives were no longer a full-fledged member of the party's coalition. Today, therefore, they have no standing to push for their agenda at the national level. The black faction has nothing to do one way or the other with Wall Street, corporate monopolization, etc., so they were allowed to stay in the coalition. Today, they do have standing to push for their racial identity politics agenda.

Normally progressives are left out in the cold by both Democrats and Republicans, and remain depressed and apathetic. That's changing, though, now that they've tasted national recognition, participation, and come so close to actually securing the nomination (in their minds, anyway -- the superdelegates would have over-ridden a Bernie victory in pledged delegates).

What was the biggest obstacle in their path? Not the Wall Street donors to Crooked Hillary, or her sprawling political machine, although those certainly paved the way. The Trump movement's hostile takeover of the GOP faced the same obstacles -- fueling even more competitors, in fact -- and yet he won big-league.

At the end of the Dem race, however, Bernie still lost in the popular vote, pledged delegate count, and state contests. And those losses all boil down to the racial composition of the Dem electorate. Trump appealed to an almost entirely white electorate, so his populist campaign took off and won victories so overwhelming that the Establishment could not over-rule his voters without setting off a bloody revolution.

Every time Bernie lost a diverse state, his supporters flipped out and came this close to blurting out, "Fucking niggers again". But that would make them evil racists, so they just bit their tongue and waited eagerly for the next whitopia state to cast its vote.

What has this done to their long-term vision of politics? Twenty-four hours a day for the past six months, they've been dreading when black people vote, and praying and celebrating when a lily-white electorate votes. Black voters sink progressivism, while white voters keep it afloat. Whether they want to admit it publicly or not, no level of "intersectional outreach" is going to bring more than a small share of the entire black voting pool over to their side.

Worse than failing to bridge the gap, they are getting mercilessly clobbered by the Establishment politicians and their media propaganda outlets -- from the lowliest troll repping Black Twitter, all the way up to the President himself. Right up until Election Day, they're going to be subjected to non-stop attacks about, "Sit cho white azz down an check yo' pribbalege, honkey-azz progressive cracka."

I can't imagine that the Sanders supporters will remain as committed to "intersectional" politics after this experience, especially those who are new to elections and are getting blind-sided by the reality of who the base of the Democratic Party is, and what they're all about (not class).

So in its own way, the Bernie phenomenon is a mix of both the Eugene McCarthy and the George Wallace wings of the 1960s-era Democrats. Anti-war, yay -- black grievance, nay.

Let's end with a fun little speculation about what it would look like if Bernie grew a pair and ran as an independent in the fall, representing a progressive movement distinct from both Clinton and Trump.

Like George Wallace, Bernie's support would be highly localized around the country, unlike Ross Perot whose message resonated everywhere -- though not at a high enough level to win any state. Wallace's message resonated in the Deep South, where he won 5 states and 46 electoral votes. Bernie's "who cares about black grievances?" message would resonate in several key areas, which also showed the highest support for Nader in 2000.

The map below is my projection for a general election between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, where Trump keeps the Romney states and adds a few swing states for a narrow victory. In reality, he'll enjoy a much larger victory, but let's keep the tension high by only allowing a narrow victory. The projections are based on primary results in 2016, as well as historic electoral outcomes for progressive parties.


Bernie would win several states in peripheral New England -- the non-elite states of Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island. He would pick up the Lutheran Belt states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. He would do well with Mountain State hippies, although there are only a large enough concentration of them in one state for him to win -- Colorado. Finally he would scoop up the Pacific Northwest states of Washington and Oregon.

I've given California to Hillary to be conservative, but in a three-way contest between her, Trump, and Bernie, I'd give even odds to each one of them.

Without California, Bernie would win 9 states and 65 electoral votes. With it, 10 states and 120 votes. Either way, an even stronger performance than Wallace in '68, the last time a third-party candidate won anything.

A cynic looking for an excuse would complain about "What's the point if he can't win the entire election?" Well, if he wants progressive causes represented in the next administration, a solid showing in the general election would be hard to ignore. In fact, if he did eke out a win in the three-way battle for California, his electoral vote count would be almost as much as Clinton's -- 120 to her 145. Suddenly the progressive movement would not look and feel so marginal.

The wimpy cynic would continue with the excuse about how "A third-party run would hand the election to Trump." First of all -- Trump is going to win this thing no matter who else does or does not run against him, just as Nixon would have won in '68 whether or not Wallace's electoral votes went back to the Democrats who normally won the Deep South. Wallace did not eat into traditional Republican states of the time, and Bernie would not eat into the red states of today.

I'm being generous in only giving Trump the Romney states plus Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, to squeak by with 273 electoral votes. Whether Crooked Hillary wins all of the remaining minority of the electoral votes in the absence of Bernie, or splits them nearly evenly with Bernie, makes no difference for who's got the majority and is heading to the White House.

The progressives had better get used to President Trump. Turnout is off the charts for Republicans, and deflated for Democrats. If they sadly line up behind the Wall Street warhawk, merely because "she's not Donald Trump," that will be the wasted vote. Instead, their choice is between voting for a losing candidate they loathe, or a losing candidate they love.

I voted Nader in 2000, so the choice seems like a no-brainer to me. Luckily this time I've got a superior populist and non-interventionist candidate to vote for -- President Trump -- but if he had not entered the race, and it were Clinton vs. Bush: The Resurrection, there's little doubt I would have voted for Bernie in the primary as well as the general (write-in, independent, or whatever).

June 9, 2016

Noam Chomsky: Trump voters are the Sanders people, only older

The discussion about the recent Ralph Nader interview got me thinking about another staple of the anti-globalization movement of the early 2000s, Noam Chomsky (who like Nader has been involved in movements for a lot longer). Heading over to a website that grew big during that same anti-globalization period, ZNet, there's an interview of him from Counterpunch in which the elections come up.

After expressing their exasperation with Bernie for not taking Hillary to the mat over her warhawk foreign policy, they give credit to Trump for his fundamentally defensive rather than offensive foreign policy stance:

Noam Chomsky: I mean I suspect [Sanders is] not going to be president. But if he were, he’d probably be a little less adventurous but I think the same is really true of Trump. Crazy as he is, he seems to wants a kind of America first, a huge military but only to protect us from all of them.

Saul Isaacson: He seems so unpredictable, Trump.

Noam Chomsky: He seems very unpredictable.

Saul Isaacson: Oddly to the left of Clinton on some issues.

Noam Chomsky: On some issues like the Social Security, Medicare. He kind of vacillates.

Both the Sanders and Trump supporters overlap a good deal, only with one group being older and whatever else that entails, like being more conservative. I can't be the only former Nader 2000 voter who's been all-in for Trump, now that I'm not a college sophomore anymore. (I've never voted other than 2000 and 2016, so my conscience is clean.)

Dan Falcone: The support that Sanders is generating in the domestic issues is coming from the young people, younger citizens, I would say that indicates a good sign. Would you agree?

Noam Chomsky: I agree.

Dan Falcone: It is often where it comes from anyway, the students.

Noam Chomsky: Well, in fact if you look at the Trump voters, you take a look at their attitudes it’s not all that different. In some respects they’re similar. They’re an older version of the Sanders people. So a lot of it is racist and you have that sort of thing, but if you look at their views on say health, education, and so on, it’s kind of the same as Sanders.

What a bizarre political climate, where a dissident on the Left blows off the mainstream attacks about Trump voters being bigoted etc. -- "Yeah, they may be casually racist, BUT..." Chomsky is from the old school, where the focus is primarily on class and power, rather than culture and identity politics.

Contrast that to the cuckservative response that Trump voters are fools for wanting to keep entitlements, and also are evil racists who must be brutally ostracized from the political sphere.

Read through the rest and be surprised at how much you find yourself agreeing with a couple of urban Jewish leftist intellectuals -- the education system is geared toward credentialism for strivers, postmodern nonsense may help academics score fashion points but it's destructive, political participation means more than touching a screen every four years, and so on.

Not that we'd agree with everything -- "state" terrorism as a concept, climate change as the ultimate danger facing us, all that the problem kids in school need is a candy bar in the morning to get normal glucose levels, etc.

But we're closer to them than either of us is to the Clinton network (globalist Establishment) and their voter base (identity politics voters). In a better world, they would be the Left, and we would be the Right, instead of the neoliberals and neoconservatives.

We're doing the best we can on our side -- and we ought to give the non-interventionist populists whatever boost we can on the other side. Otherwise, suppose worst case scenario that our Trump-like candidate loses -- do we want the winner to be like Crooked Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders? We can put the same question to them, to desensitize them to the prospect of a Trump presidency vs. Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, etc.

Related post from 3 years ago: "The Left in the 1980s: What did they focus on, if not stuff white people like?"

June 7, 2016

Crooked Hillary's publicity stunt will alienate Californians in general election

In order to minimize the damage from a probable win for Bernie in the California primary, the Clinton campaign had made it seem like they'd shift focus to New Jersey instead, and declare her the presumptive nominee once that state's large black population put her over the top in the delegate count. Their polls close three hours earlier, so she could declare ultimate victory in the primary, and should Bernie win California three hours later, nobody would care.

It turns out that this was only a head-fake. Their true plan was revealed last night when first the AP announced that an updated survey of superdelegates showed that enough had declared their support for Hillary that she now has enough to clinch the nomination. Then NBC News announced their calling it for Hillary, which was then spread to MSNBC, and several hours later to the Clinton News Network ("sometimes referred to as CNN"). This morning it's being announced by the NYT, WaPo, and others.

The Clinton campaign's last-minute bribing / blackmailing / etc. of these superdelegates was designed to demoralize the Sanders supporters in California right before the primary, and get them to stay home in resignation.

Even if they turn out enough to win, they will still feel slighted by the publicity stunt, as though their vote didn't matter, when they've expected for months now that it would.

From what I can tell from comments on Facebook posts (ones that draw thousands of comments) and Twitter responses, the Hillary and Bernie factions have moved beyond attacking each other's platforms or candidates. They are now playing the blame game about who's responsible for the inevitable triumph of the Trump movement, as the "Bernie or bust" voters will either vote third party or not vote at all, substantially reducing the turnout for Crooked Hillary when it really matters, in the general.

Since California is the most important state that Bernie will either win or tie, the Clinton campaign ought to be concerned about retaining that state's Dem primary voters more than those of any other state. Instead they are doing the best they can to cut off California's visibility by this publicity stunt right before their primary.

This stunt could wind up costing Hillary the largest electoral prize in the fall, as California's 55 votes go either to Trump or perhaps even an independent Bernie run. But in either case, not to her royal highness.

The civil war will only get aggravated throughout the day and week, as the Clinton machine and the media begin trying to pummel the Sanders supporters into pledging their support for Crooked Hillary in the fall -- after rigging the process from the outset and pulling one stunt after another against them, right up through the present.

Because most of the Sanders supporters are not Dem party loyalists, trying to cow them into becoming Hillary voters will have little effect. If the Establishment tries to scare them about Trump, they will do what disaffected voters always do, and stay home rather than vote for someone they despise maybe somewhat less than someone else.

It was always clear that factional fighting would grow even more bitter leading up to, during, and after the national Convention in July. But at first it looked like most of the antagonism would come from the losing side lashing out at the winners. So far they've only threatened to not vote for her in the general -- no big overt acts of antagonism. Now that Crooked Hillary has decided to unload so mercilessly, rather than only use threatening words, the Bernie movement will feel like it was the other side who fired the first shots in the civil war.

We keep hearing about the unified Democratic party and the divided Republican party -- but that is only among the party hacks. Among actual voters, it is the Trump supporters who are unified, while the Hillary vs. Bernie voters could not be more at war (well, just wait a month).

With the Clinton campaign burning bridges so early, a Trump victory is looking all the more likely!

June 4, 2016

Angelina for Trump

This item from Blind Gossip says that Angelina Jolie "is actually a Donald Trump supporter, and is working behind the scenes to get him elected!"

Why?

"In her opinion, electing Trump will lead to less racial divisions and better economic opportunities in the United States… as well as a safer environment for disadvantaged women and children around the world."

Supposing she takes a more public role, this could help the campaign in several ways:

- Boost support among women (especially unattached women), young people, and Californians / West Coasters. YouGov polls suggest that she's the most admired woman around the world, and probably more so among these three groups that Trump does not already have a lock on.

- Provide a surrogate to deflate Hillary's support among women, particularly over her intimidation of the victims of Bill's sexual assaults and rapes, so they wouldn't go public and ruin the Clintons' ambitions. One of her main causes is preventing sexual violence around the world. How could Hillary of all people contribute to that, especially when she takes large bribes from the worst offenders like Saudi Arabia?

- Re-focus the concern about refugees toward allowing them to stay in their homelands, rather than struggling to absorb them here. She seems to view the refugee crisis more as a wound that must be healed -- ideally, the populations would return to their roots -- rather than a ripe opportunity to diversify first-world countries in order to lower labor costs for the corporate bottom line.

Trump has said the goal is to keep their homelands safe, and Angelina knows that the main cause of destabilization has been the Establishment's wars, which warhawk Hillary would continue unabated. He's also said the goal is to set up safety zones so that they can return to their homes as soon as possible, both to keep their families together but because nobody wants to live in a strange foreign land. They want to stay connected to their roots just like we do.

Angelina Jolie is no doubt connected to the largest globalist organizations -- the UN, Council on Foreign Relations, speaker at Davos, and most disturbingly the Clinton Global Initiative. So she will not be getting a Cabinet position in the Trump administration.

But she does seem to be more of a do-gooder who wants to improve the lives of foreigners in their own lands, where they will ideally continue to live, rather than an amoral diversity manager who wants a Balkanized America filled by refugees of all the countries we bomb for no reason.

Having her as a messenger could go a long way toward introducing common sense into what is allowable to say about the refugee crisis and mass immigration before a general election audience, as long as she and Trump coordinated their message.

June 3, 2016

San Jose Trump rally: Violent mob of foreigners intimidate and assault American voters in their own election

See the two posts here and here for an overview, with many videos and tweets, of the anarchy that unfolded after last night's Trump rally in San Jose. A violent mob of several hundred were milling around outside the venue, swarming individual Trump supporters, attacking them, stealing their hats, and sucker-punching them to the ground. The police stood by and did nothing.

My comments...

- - - - -

The dishonest media cut their live feeds once it became clear how violent it was getting. Wouldn’t want the truth to get out about how barbaric much of our cities are becoming, and how anti-white and anti-American the immigrants are.

They covered the Alburquerque etc. protests for hours and hours, since it “only” reached the level of Mexican gangbangers screeching their tires.

Now that a mob of several hundred dark-skinned thugs is surrounding nice law-abiding white people, shoving them, and attacking them — well, er, uh, we’ll just cut the feed and show the re-run of the earlier primetime shows.

Pay no attention to the violent brown mob we were broadcasting just moments ago.

Good thing we’ll have all the video evidence we need from Twitter, YouTube, etc. The media is so damn dishonest.

- - - - -

Make sure you show these videos to any conservative or libertarian who has wet dreams about getting the government out of our lives.

We see what happens when the government is weak — anarchy.

And something tells me that the thugs are not going to spare the limpwristed conservatives and libertarians just because they, too, are against “authoritarianism”.

- - - - -

Police Chief named Garcia… folks, this is what you can expect when the so-called police ethnically identify more with the rioters than the victims.

The SJPD weren’t “holding back” — they were protecting their own.

- - - - -

Military occupation of California cannot come soon enough. Then knock out Chicago on the way back East.

Trump has said repeatedly that his only flaw is that he never forgets and never forgives. All of this chaos will be remembered and punished.

Once Trump is in office, they should re-brand the show C.O.P.S. to focus on the imposing of order, deportation, etc., in lawless cesspools like San Jose. Now that’s entertainment!

- - - - -

It’s only a matter of time before one of these female reporters becomes the next Lara Logan. No need for it to take place in the third world, if the third world is already here in America.

That’s why Katy Tur had an honest moment there and admitted how awful the rioters are — she knows they wouldn’t leave her alone just because she said that she hates Trump, too. “Hey dere, preedy leedle white gurl….”

I was actually surprised that Hallie Jackson didn’t get raped on live TV during the Albuquerque riot, once it was dark and there were only the gangbangers left. She and Sara Murray are so naive about their surroundings.

Let’s face it: the media won’t truly turn on the rioters until it’s one of their own who gets victimized by the mob.

- - - - -

Wow, major credit to MSNBC for honest coverage and zero spin. Sounds like how we would have written it.

Unlike the obfuscation of CNN, this article said mobs, violence, swarm, surrounded, punched, cornered, spit at, threw eggs food and water bottles, attacked… readers get a good idea of the true nature of what happened.

And the key to the anarchic atmosphere: “police in riot gear largely stood by”.

- - - - -

In contrast to the zero-spin article from MSNBC, look at this victim-blaming garbage from CNN that makes it sound like the two sides were evenly matched and that both sides started fights, or that they materialized out of nowhere with no responsibility. They even let the thugs get in their message that voting for Trump is voting for fascism.

Absolutely disgusting.

- - - - -

At the next riot, the Trump supporters should point at Jeremy and Sara, and tell the mob that those two white people just said “Get the Mexicans out of America!” And don’t believe them when they deny it — that’s what all racists do when confronted about it!

I’m boycotting CNN until I get to see their scumbag reporters surrounded, harassed, and/or beaten up by an angry brown mob.

MSNBC may be elitist like CNN, but they’re not nearly as pro-globalist. I’m sure they support roughly the same policies, but when a violent mob of illegals surrounds peaceful rally attendees, they aren’t so globalist that they’ll spin it as the white Americans deserving it.

CNN is so globalist (also having an international channel) that even a violent mob of foreigners trying to intimidate American voters in their own election, must be desperately re-framed as “a vote for Trump is a vote for fascism”.

May 30, 2016

Battle for blue states helped by Hillary's insulated cluelessness

Trump has begun making a serious play for not only the swing states of the recent past (Florida, Ohio), but also those that would be beyond all hope for the Republicans of the recent past (Michigan, California).

He's said that he plans to put 15 blue states into play, an announcement that is mostly designed to set the media abuzz with speculation about which 15 they are, how likely each one is to turn red for Trump, and so on. This allows him to stay in the news cycle for several more weeks.

More importantly, the announcement will have the same effect on Hillary's campaign, who will have to go into panic defense mode as they try to figure out which 15 they are, how to prevent him in each state, how much to spend doing so, etc.

So while the media gets to indulge its addiction for speculation, Team Hillary will suffer disorientation as their tried-and-true playbooks must all be thrown out the window.

Or will they? So far they appear to be stuck in the Clinton-Bush-Obama climate, where the main faultlines are between liberals and conservatives in the Culture Wars. This earlier post detailed how tone-deaf and wide-of-the-mark Hillary's attacks have been on both Bernie and Trump.

For example, polling data shows that Hillary's woman card angle has somewhat widened her lead among women, but has shrunken it by an even larger magnitude among men. And in 2016, the electorate is going to be a lot more male than it has been in recent history, given Trump's galvanizing of white working-class men, who are usually more likely to stay home on election day.

Hillary has seriously misread this change in the electorate -- her team should be able to forecast how much more male the voters will be this time, and done their best to pick off men from Trump. Instead they've chosen the exact opposite -- alienating the group that will be more important in this election.

Ditto for her alienating white voters, when the electorate will be much more white than in recent elections, given Trump's galvanizing of whites.

And ditto her alienating the working class by promoting the globalist trade deals like TPP (and NAFTA during her husband's administration), during an election that will have a more working-class electorate, given Trump's galvanizing them around tariffs, bringing back manufacturing jobs, disentangling America from the globalist bloodsuckers, and so on and so forth.

So, on each of the three major demographic changes in the electorate this year -- sex, race, and class -- she has read the changes completely backwards, and has doubled-down on the alienating strategies. She and everyone on her team are convinced that the voters who turn out during a Trump election are going to be more non-white, more female, and more elite than usual. Random error is one thing, but to assess the situation totally backwards, is a fatal mistake -- especially once those biases are put into action.

What does this mean for her defense of the "blue wall" of "guaranteed" Democrat states?

Quite simply, it means that she will take the wrong steps in every direction, and leave herself vulnerable to everything Trump says and does.

She thinks that California's voters will be more female, more non-white, and more elite -- and she will be blindsided when a YUGE bloc of white working-class men turn out, who usually would be sitting it out. California has had one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the nation (even among those who are eligible), and it is disproportionately white working-class men -- those who see little point in leaving the house to pull the lever for one elite-slurping globalist sell-out or another. They represent a massive reservoir of untapped voters who will be eager to vote for Trump.

The same is true for Oregon (where Trump and Hillary are already tied in a recent poll), and to a lesser extent Washington.

The whole complacency about the "blue wall" has insulated Democrats from having their finger on the pulse of the voters there, including which large untapped reservoirs there may be. Illegal immigrants don't get to vote in our country's elections, so that large pool of non-voters is out -- yet is the group that Hillary would tailor her message to if she had to defend California. "Let's see, Trump wants to build a wall and deport immigrants, so I'll pander to the illegal immigrants! The ads will even be written and spoken in Spanish!" Great strategy to turn out zero additional voters on your behalf.

In fairness, the typical Republican candidates -- the ones running on stale Conservatism Inc. values from the 1970s and '80s -- would be just as out-of-touch with Californian voters. What's the point in getting a feel for a population that you would never win over?

Trump, however, is the nemesis and conqueror of both the Republican and Democratic wings of the Establishment, who both push for an elite-centered globalist agenda, while offering different flavors of Culture War red meat to distract the voters with. The main barrier to Republicans campaigning in the West Coast is the cultural liberalism of the residents, who will never approve a candidate running on a platform of Conservatism (of any sub-genre).

But since Trump is running on a separate and unrelated platform of America-first (vs. globalism) and populism (vs. elitism), while sidelining the Culture War topics, he and his army have passed right through the barrier. They may not be liberals, but they're not official conservatives either, and they have tossed aside their Culture War weapons before approaching the metal detector at the gates.

Once inside, they will brutalize Team Hillary on the decline of manufacturing in California ("Apple will make their product here in the United States"), the depressed incomes of American IT workers due to both off-shoring to India and China, as well as the tsunami of foreigners who come to Silicon Valley on visas, and so many other economic issues that the Democrats never imagined would be brought up.

Picture it: the rank-and-file IT workers in Silicon Valley giving Trump a serious hearing, as he dismisses Culture War topics and focuses like a laser on how low their incomes are because of their immigration-hungry oligarch bosses looking to cut labor costs, no matter how. And how high the cost of living is because of immigration sending the demand for housing through the roof. It would be so much more affordable without all those immigrants -- which in turn drives up the demand for nice housing that lies safely away from immigrant neighborhoods.

True, Crooked Hillary has a lock on the latter-day plantation owners of Silicon Valley -- but they only get one vote per person. Opposed by their resentful rank-and-file workers, and with no Democrat votes possible from their ineligible immigrant workers, they will be swept aside in the general election.

This is just one example of how much more in-touch the Trump campaign is with the pressing issues facing real-life Californians, and not some liberal caricature from 20 years ago. They may still be mostly liberal, but that's not the faultline in this election, so lots of luck reminding them that Trump is neutral in the Culture War, while you want to drive them further into high-tech indentured servitude. Something tells me they'll vote for the candidate who will make their jobs and standard of living better, while allowing their state to determine its own culture and lifestyles.

In summary, it is not just a matter of Hillary having to "fight harder" to hang on to the West Coast. That suggests that it's the same terrain, same opponents, same weaponry, and same rules of engagement, and only having to dial up the intensity level on what has "always" worked (reminder: California voted almost exclusively Republican from 1860 until 1992). In their minds, if the Clintons had to play the woman card at level 5 to win California in the '90s, play it to level 10 to hold onto the state in 2016.

By taking the "blue wall" for granted for so many election cycles, the Democratic Establishment is no longer in touch with what voters truly want. Just throw them the liberal Culture War crumbs, and they'll happily eat that over what is, to their taste buds, poisonous conservatism. This time around, the war for the West Coast will be fought on fundamentally unfamiliar terrain, with an unfamiliar opponent wielding unfamiliar weapons, and with unfamiliar rules of engagement.

A campaign that faces such daunting unpredictabilities with such a lackadaisical attitude is going to come out of the battle with more than just a bloody nose. Bones will be broken, limbs severed -- whether or not Team Trump ultimately wins California, Crooked Hillary is going to have to exhaust massive resources in defending supposedly safe states. And there is no way she can defend them all, not with her level of insulated cluelessness and Trump's instinctive savvy and unforgiving aggression.

Perhaps worst of all for the other side is that Hillary is not just any old Culture War Democrat, any of whom would be unable to stop Trump, but some of whom might be humble enough to try adapting to the demand for America-first populism. This particular Democrat is such a grandiose narcissist that she will never admit to needing to adapt her entire campaign to the utterly alien arena she is about to enter. She views the entire process as a great big boring formality before her eventual anointment and coronation. Even worse that you can't teach an old dog new tricks (ARF ARF ARF).

She is going to stride smugly into the ring with Trumpzilla and get pounded into submission, never to walk again in the political world. It's gonna be epic, and we've all got ringside seats.

May 29, 2016

Democrats' Tea Party already happened -- the Obama coalition

[This is the second of two posts comparing the 2016 and 2008 electoral climates. First post here]

Who is left as the parallel for the Tea Party of the Democrats, if not the Bernie movement, which is more like the Trump phenomenon? As far away as it seems now, it was the Obama coalition -- which was contemporaneous with the failed Ron Paul movement, and two years ahead of the successful Tea Party movement.

We're hearing lots of lazy and lame comparisons of the Hillary-Obama competition in 2008 to the Hillary-Bernie contests today. But Obama was not an anti-Establishment candidate, either at the time or once he took office. He wasn't railing against Wall Street, corruption of campaign finance, widening inequality, the selling out of the American economy through globalist trade agreements, endless foreign wars, and other staples of progressive complaints. And he certainly was not openly at war with the leadership of his own party.

Just as Ron Paul represented the junior partner in the longstanding GOP coalition (the Cultural Right), while McCain represented the senior partner (Wall Street), so did Obama represent the Cultural Left as opposed to Crooked Hillary who represented the neoliberal Wall Streeters, both factions of the longstanding coalition of Democrats. Just as the Ron Paul supporters felt sick of being marginalized so long for the benefit of the neoconservative economic and governmental policies, so the Obama supporters felt sick of being marginalized for so long for the benefit of the Clintonite neoliberals, who have identical policies with the neocons on matters of economics and government.

Obama built his entire campaign around the theme of being a Social Justice Warrior in Chief, having cut his political teeth as a community organizer in Chicago. Much attention was devoted to his two books which are both masturbatory identity politics memoirs. And a large amount of his appeal was the potential to elect the First Black President -- that appealed most to the identity politics of blacks themselves, but also to Cultural Left white people, whose identity crucially includes a bullet-point about having cool minority friends and generally wanting to elevate ethnic minorities and debase their own ethnicity.

Hillary, on the other hand, tried to appeal to the more upper-middle-class white suburban soccer moms and doofus dads. Her campaign tried to portray Obama as a foreigner and a Muslim in contrast to the nice white lady (it was the origin of the birther movement), and as a radical in contrast to the reliable moderate who will be there to answer the "call at 3 AM" (unless it's coming from Benghazi). Her goal was to continue her husband's Presidency, with whatever NAFTA v.2.0 turned out to be, while making token gestures to the Cultural Left (mostly on feminist issues).

Obama winning the Democratic primaries over Hillary was like if Ron Paul had won over McCain. Both his Presidency and the Tea Party counter-reaction to it mark the high-point, or rather the low-point, of the Culture Wars, when the globalist elites have gotten their economic and governmental agendas pushed through without any opposition, while the electorate is distracted by social and cultural topics.

Obama representing the Tea Party of the Democrats becomes even more eerie if we compare him not to Ron Paul but to Mr. Tea Party himself, Lyin' Ted Cruz. Both entered the primaries as unknown freshman Senators in their 40s, plagued by doubts about being natural-born citizens, post-racial symbols who were half-white and half-Other, ostentatiously faking their religion to pander to cultural voters ("black church" and holy rollers), in general being sociopathic chameleons who grandstand to please a crowd, and promoting themselves as cultural saviors of demi-god status (magical wise Negro, Judeo-Christian theocrat).

Really the only difference is that Cruz's adultery has been with women rather than men.

And just as a hypothetical Cruz Presidency would be defined by ramming through the Wall Street globalist elite agenda, while putting on one cultural-right spectacle after another, so has the Obama administration been defined by ramming through that very same agenda, only putting on one cultural-left spectacle after another to distract the people from the wars, the corruption, and the disintegration of their economy and nation. This distraction works whether the citizen is on the Left or Right, all that differs is whether they're cheering or boo-ing while distracted.

The other major difference is that the Obama coalition voters won the Presidency, while the Tea Party voters won the Congress. But we shouldn't ignore the similarities just because the Democrats' version of the Tea Party didn't win Congressional influence -- Presidential influence is far greater. The size of the turnout for the Obama coalition was larger than for the off-year elections that brought the Tea Party to prominence, and were no less geographically widespread. And both intensely energized their demographic bases like never before -- blacks and evangelicals -- rather than being a lukewarm "go-ahead" to the Wall Street elite's preferred choices.

Everyone loves to point and laugh at how crazy the Tea Party movement looked, but it was no less of a nutjob affair than that which elected Obama to the Presidency for two terms. American voters had turned politics into such a culture war contest that only these two clown cars were the possible end-points. Their extremist nature has over-excited the populace, which is now eager to get back to basics by focusing on the government itself and its interaction with the economy.

It is no coincidence that Trump and Bernie took off against all odds during the same season, much as Obama and Ron Paul were unexpected insurgent sensations eight years ago. Only this time, the shoe will be on the other foot.

May 28, 2016

Bernie is not Ron Paul of the left (he's the Trump of the left)

[This is the first of two posts comparing the 2016 and 2008 electoral climates. Second post here]

What role does the Bernie phenomenon play in the current party re-alignment? The obvious, and correct, parallel is to the Trump phenomenon -- anti-Establishment, at war with their own party, bringing in loads of new voters, yuge rallies, against foreign interventionism, not beholden to Wall Street, and not in favor of globalist trade agreements.

But some on the right and the left have tried to draw parallels to the Ron Paul movement of 2008, and (if they're on the left) asking if the Dems need a Tea Party movement of their own. They point to a group of activists who despite losing the nomination process, still try to pack their own delegates into the state and national conventions, who feel betrayed by their own party's leaders, and who are treated heavy-handedly by those leaders when they act up.

Yet the Republican Tea Party movement was not anti-Establishment like the Sanders supporters are. It represented one faction of the longstanding GOP coalition feeling slighted by the other faction -- the junior partner going rogue against the senior partner.

As detailed in this earlier post, it was a civil war between the Cultural Right and the Wall Street puppets. They were not opposed to Wall Street's overall agenda -- they were content to allow that agenda as long as the Wall Street-funded power brokers allowed the Cultural Right's agenda to go forward. Since only the Wall Street agenda was actually being promoted, the Cultural Right voters rebelled and elected a wave of supposedly hardline candidates on cultural and social issues, against the RINOs.

These Tea Party politicians were all Wall Streeters in disguise, only going the extra mile to put on a convincing performance as hardline right-wingers to fool the gullible cuck voters. Ted Cruz is the epitome of this type of co-opted pseudo-conservative elected on the rise of the Tea Party voters.

The Trump movement is at war with both of those factions of the old GOP coalition, sidelining the identity politics concerns of the Cultural Right (where the identity group is natalist apocalyptic cults), while taking square aim at the globalist and elitist agenda of the Wall Streeters. Hence Trump's two main rivals being Bush early on and Cruz after that.

Sanders supporters are clearly more similar to the Trump supporters than to the Tea Party. They're largely uninterested in cultural and social issues (although they are generally liberal, just like Trump people are generally conservative). Identity politics on the Dems' side is based on racial and ethnic minorities, feminists, and homosexuals. Bernie rarely touches on those topics, other than to discuss how many blacks are locked up in jail for minor drug offenses -- but then that is really a matter of how the government works (law enforcement), rather than a matter of identity politics per se (like "being culturally marginalized in the mass media").

And certainly the Bernie crowd is taking square aim at the Wall Street donors and their legislative agenda (TPP, campaign finance, etc.). That puts them at war with both factions of the longstanding Dem coalition -- the Cultural Left and the Wall Street neoliberals.

Anyone who thinks the Cultural Left loves Bernie Sanders just has to remember those lardasses from Black Lives Matter hijacking Bernie's rally in Seattle last summer, sanctimoniously berating the whole Bernie crowd for white privilege and bla bla bla. Or the endless scolding of "Bernie bros" for not voting for the First Woman President. If Hillary were not in the closet, her supporters would also be castigating Bernie people for supporting the heterosexual candidate over the dyke.

Just like Trump is returning the Republican Party to the Progressive era of McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt, so Bernie is doing his best to return the Democrats to the era of the New Deal. Race, religion, sex, and sexuality played little or no role in defining the bases of the parties in those eras, when the focus was strictly on economic and governmental matters.

Sure, the progressives in the Bernie movement identify more with the Cultural Left, just as the Trump movement identifies more with the Cultural Right. But Bernie and Trump are both emphasizing the economy and government at the expense of social and cultural issues, which is felt as a provocation by the Cultural Left and Right, who have now turned on the class-oriented movements within each of their parties.

May 25, 2016

Will Trump get anti-Hillary special shows on Fox, in return for Megyn Kelly interview?

Trump is really starting to "go there" on all the topics Roger Stone promised he would -- Hillary intimidating Bill's sexual assault and rape victims so the news wouldn't thwart the Clintons' political ambitions, and the Clinton Foundation being a slush fund for grifters whereby American government access was for sale at high levels.

He's brought these topics up in rallies, interviews, internet ads, and perhaps soon his Twitter feed. This is getting them to trickle into the news cycle, although there hasn't been a full-on attack just yet.

That got me thinking how much more of a spectacle he could make out of them. We know that Stone has started a PAC that will begin hitting Hillary on her intimidation of Bill's sexual assault victims, probably including commercials at some point. Nothing at the moment suggests commercials about the Clinton Foundation.

Still, commercials only reach so many eyeballs and only have so many seconds to make an impression.

Trump could devote an entire rally to either or both of the topics, but again how to make sure that the media covered the entire thing? If they broadcast the beginning of it, they'd soon realize where he was going, and then mute his audio, and rush to the talking head panel.

I was thinking something more like the hour-long interview that he had with Hannity last week, where he launched the first warning shot about Bill being a rapist, not only a consensual adulterer.

Imagine it -- an interviewer or moderator introduces all of Bill's sexual assault victims for a general discussion of the nature and scope of what Hillary did to them to shut them up so that their political path would be clear, and then five or six specific individuals giving in-depth accounts of what happened to them first by Bill and then by Hillary, wrapping up with the take-home message that Hillary is a sociopathic bitch driven by overweening ambition, who would rather ruin the life of a rape victim than accept a rockier road to political office.

Then another special on the Clinton Foundation, and how Crooked Hillary did the bidding of various domestic and foreign interests as a Senator and then Secretary of State, in return for their contributions to the Foundation, very little of which is spent on actual charity work, and mostly serves to line the pockets of the Clintons and their various hangers-on. Some of these toadies would be profiled specifically, and specific incidents of misuse of funds would be highlighted (luxury air travel, doing nothing to help Haiti). Wrap up with the take-home message that if she was that corrupt as a Senator and member of the Cabinet, just imagine how much she'd sell out the country if she became President.

Trump made a large donation to the Clinton Foundation, and therefore has legal standing to sue their asses for charity fraud. Stone mentioned that awhile ago, and Trump himself floated that fact during his West Virginia rally. If the lawsuit has been launched at the time of the TV special, this could be worked in as well.

But how would he get such a TV special produced and broadcast, since it wouldn't be his usual monopoly over the media where he earns it by making speeches and doing interviews? That would be one expensive buy.

I'm thinking he asked for something along these lines in the negotiations with Fox where he agreed to give Megyn Kelly an exclusive 30-minute interview, ending their feud and hopefully lifting her career upward. Unfortunately it didn't work out for her, since the thing flopped with audiences, but not for want of her trying -- it even aired on Fox, not Fox News, so you didn't need cable to see it.

What does Trump get out of that deal? Not "mending his numbers with women," which he knew were already getting much better by that point, and would get better with or without some throwaway interview with Rachel Maddow's bottle-blonde sister. He didn't get access to an audience he otherwise could not have reached -- who doesn't know by now who he is and what he's about?

Part of what he asked for was clearly fairer treatment from everybody at Fox News. They aren't as nakedly hostile toward the Trump phenomenon as they used to be.

But really, what is that worth to Trump winning? The audience itself had already written off Fox News, whose ratings and profits have plummeted in the wake of their Trump-hating programming. Aside from Kelly's ambitions being served, Fox desperately hoped to restore its failing reputation among its target audience.

Something that meant that much to Fox and Megyn Kelly is worth far more than just fair treatment. It had to be something they could make happen that he couldn't do on his own, or could only do at tremendous cost -- produce and broadcast one or more TV specials aimed at Hillary's weakest vulnerabilities, to be aired when the pressure really turns up in the fall, and perhaps re-run a number of times for good measure.

Whatever it turns out to be, one thing is obvious -- a desperate Fox did not get their Megyn Kelly special from one of the greatest negotiators alive without offering something YUGE in return. I can't wait to see what it is.

May 24, 2016

Trump's VP will be Jeff Sessions (reminder, and further analysis)

With the topic reaching a fever pitch lately, let's just make it clear. I've been saying off and on since late February that Trump's criteria for VP, which he has repeatedly gone through to interviewers, lead toward Jeff Sessions.

He's the most similar to the future President on policy, and Trump has said that's the most important thing -- to be a faithful back-up, just in case.

He has decades of experience in the Senate, which experience Trump wants in order to hit the ground running on passing legislation.

He's been working with Trump for over a year, before the campaign was formally announced, meaning they have history and loyalty, something Trump requires.

He doesn't pick up any swing states, but voters are choosing Trump at any rate, not the VP.

He does provide geographic balance, and personality balance, being a soft-spoken Southerner.

Many people thought this as well, so it did not take any brilliance on my part -- just putting two and two together. This recent tweet by Roger Stone would seem to confirm it.

These clues are based on substance (who stands where on which policies), but you could also have figured it out from the showmanship that Trump is also an expert at. Back in late February when Sessions formally endorsed Trump, he was brought out to a massive rally in his home state of Alabama.

Most folks at home aren't political junkies, and would have had little idea who he was or what he stood for. So why was Trump shining such a spotlight on him, and at such an early stage? He wanted us to get familiar with him, something that he's enhanced over the months by naming him as a top policy advisor (gets him into the news cycle), and sending him to do interviews on the cable news circuit.

Why else would Trump want us to get so familiar with Sessions? He wants the VP announcement to be somewhat of a surprise -- hence feeding the gullible media all sorts of red herrings -- but he doesn't want that person to be an unknown, which would disorient the voters and perhaps start us worrying about who this guy is and what he stands for.

Come the Convention in Cleveland, voters will have seen and heard enough from Sessions himself, to feel familiar with the choice.

Trump knows how to tell a proper story and put on a good show, so he made sure to set up the announcement of Sessions as VP way back during the early primary stage, like Chekhov's gun. Notice that the other major endorsements did not receive as much fanfare, and the endorsers have not been a recurring presence in the media to stump for Trump. They have been important additions to the story, but not absolutely crucial like the role of Sessions.

May 23, 2016

The most insightful commercial

 The personification of persistent diarrhea is a stereotypical Millennial:



May 21, 2016

Clinton machine's attacks on Bernie aren't working (bodes well for when Trump faces it)

The schism within the Democrats began to visibly widen last weekend at the Nevada Convention where the Establishment marginalized the Sanders supporters, who raised a great hue and cry at the Convention itself and during the past week.

The DNC and the Clinton machine responded by attacking the Bernie movement on cable news, political websites, and social media. His supporters went too far, they're inciting violence and intimidation, the process is not rigged by Hillary's surrogates, they need to beg forgiveness for acting so horribly, etc etc etc.

Sanders supporters gave the obligatory empty denunciations of violence (who will condone?), and stood their ground against the Dem Establishment. They aren't being transparent, they use arcane procedural rules to circumvent popular participation, they're treating the primaries as a coronation of Crooked Hillary, the major controllers of the process have been in favor of Clinton ever since the beginning, and so on and so forth.

This fight has been going on all day, every day for the past week, with unrelenting media propaganda boosting Hillary and telling Bernie to be quiet, lest the contest damage Hillary too much before she even goes one-on-one against Trump.

What has been the effect of all this anti-anti-Establishment "messaging" on those involved in the primary? Zero -- if anything, it has helped Bernie's numbers.

Reuters polling for the Democratic primary shows no down-turn for Bernie over the past week. In fact, from Monday through Friday his numbers rose day after day, standing now at 44%. Crooked Hillary's numbers have steadily fallen to 38%. Those saying they wouldn't vote for either of them have fallen as well, so the Clinton machine's propaganda has provoked some sitting on the sidelines to choose Bernie.

The past week's trends are part of a longer pattern over all of May, of Sanders rising and Clinton falling. So we can't say that the media shaming blitz backfired and caused his numbers to go up. That was already happening. Still, it does show that it didn't have much of a negative impact, although they didn't totally unload on him, let alone take out attack ads.

Trump will face a higher level of intensity from the Clinton propaganda machine when it's just the two of them. But if they are having zero effect on one anti-Establishment candidate, a higher intensity of zero will still equal zero on the other anti-Establishment candidate. Certainly that was the outcome of all the Trump-hating propaganda during the Republican primary season, much of which did not come from his Republican rivals but from the Clinton-friendly cable news channels and major newspapers and websites.

Trump keeps taunting Team Hillary that they still can't put Bernie away and close the deal. He's making a larger point, though, aside from demoralizing them -- they've proven to be weak and ineffective against a weaker opponent than they will face in Trump.

Trump may have a lot of work to do to persuade voters around the country that he's not the typical Republican candidate, a job he's been working on since the beginning (most notably on trade issues). But he will not have much to worry about from the Clinton machine, who are already proving how inept they are. One less major danger to worry that much about.

Now he can focus more on appealing directly to the voters in each of the states, and not have to do much defense. Onward to victory.

May 20, 2016

Trump would win even if third-party cuck sent election to House of Representatives

The Never Trump crowd is finding out just how small it will be by November. But that isn't stopping some of the more autistic and delusional ones from playing with their electoral tinker-toy sets to show how their Rube Goldberg device just might become reality and send a hardcore right-wing nutjob into the Presidency.

Typical is this recent post by a resident genius from The Federalist:


Heh, you Trumpkins underestimate this 19 year-old
closeted Young Republican at your peril...

We can ignore the quantitative part of his argument, since he can't count (e.g., assumes that all non-Trump voters in early primaries won't vote for Trump in general, despite a complete consolidation by the Convention -- witness the capitulation of Nebraska voters, who are in the heart of the Cuck Belt yet voted Trump at over 60% once he was the only candidate left running).

Instead, let's just grant that by a miracle, no single candidate gets 270 electoral votes in a three-way race between Clinton, Trump, and Cuckenheimer. The election goes to the House of Representatives, where the Representatives vote as a single state bloc, and where 26 states are needed to win. Highly blue states make up a little under 20, in the House.

So, Cuckenheimer might receive as many as 10 states during the first ballot, Trump 20, and Clinton 20. No majority, go to second ballot -- where the 10 cuck states gradually, or all at once, capitulate and vote Trump. No cuck state is going to be instrumental in sending Crooked Hillary to the presidency.

The reason that the House of Representatives would never choose a hardcore right-wing nutjob third party candidate, just because they technically could with a solid Republican majority of states, is that there would be bloody revolution all throughout the land -- beginning with the Representatives themselves. Cuckenheimer would have hardly any electoral votes, few states, and a pitiful share of the popular vote. Everyone would be agin' 'im, and no one fer 'im. To parachute him in through technicalities would trigger our sense of injustice, and we would put an end to it.

Only an insulated nerd like the Federalist cuck can believe in these outlandish scenarios. They live in a "revenge of the nerds" fantasy land, where they never get punched in the face for taunting a crowd while hiding behind legal technicalities.

The only viable solution left for them is to prove how not-racist and principle-driven they are, and relocate en masse to Mexico, where they can assimilate into their "natural conservative" neighbors. Vaya con dios, faggots!