April 2, 2016

The Pro-Life Movement (TM): Just another branch of victimhood feminism

Once I heard that Trump made some controversial statements about abortion in a town hall, before it was aired, I knew I'd have to turn off the TV news for the following week. So far, this election has shifted decisively away from culture war topics, but that doesn't mean there won't be the occasional pebble on the road. Just like they played the racism card 24/7 a few weeks ago, and then the violence card within the past couple weeks, and now the war on women card -- which will evaporate in its turn within a week or so.

Little did I know, until foolishly clicking on an article about it, that the controversy was actually on "both sides" of the abortion issue -- obviously the pro-choice folks weren't happy that Trump said that if abortion were to become illegal, a woman who got one should be punished somehow. But why did the pro-life crowd get its panties in a wad? Because he was BLAMING THE VICTIM. In their view, only the person performing the abortion ought to be punished, not the hapless victim who brings them the fetus to be aborted.

Not to get all 2016, but wow, seriously? I literally can't even.

Certainly if you believe that abortion is murder, then the pregnant woman is at least an accessory to murder. Perhaps you wouldn't punish the woman as much as the doctor, but to not only let her off scot-free, to righteously command everyone to look the other way about what she did, is sacrilege.

Not being part of the Pro-Life Movement, I'd always figured that they had similar views to my own -- that the woman was behaving selfishly ("uggh, accidentally pregnant -- well, sucks to you, fetus, mommy comes first"), in a deliberate way that harmed another person's life. Therefore she's guilty of something, and that kind of behavior ought to be considered shameful, with that shame serving as a deterrent to those considering abortion, as well as retribution for those who have chosen to get one already.

But it's The Current Year, and shaming people hurts their self-esteem and makes them feel excluded, so everyone who does something wrong is actually a victim of circumstances and only needs our compassion, not our attempt to guide their behavior in a better direction.

Christians are not even allowed to appeal to Jesus' command to "Go and sin no more" -- sinners aren't really sinners, but victims of someone else's plots. We're supposed to feel sorry for the pure innocent victims, and try to foil the plots of the truly wicked. That is actually a far more primitive worldview, akin to one where all bad things are due to witchcraft, rather than our own inner sinful nature.

If you look deeper, you see this phony victimhood feminism all over the Pro-Life Movement. They coined the term "abortionist" to demonize the performer of the abortion, but they didn't coin a term for the pregnant woman who brings the true victim before the abortionist. They also throw around the term "baby-killer" for the doctor, yet they don't refer to the pregnant woman as a "baby-killer supplier" or a "fetus pimp". And they refer to the whole class of abortionists, their places of work, and their PR / lobbying groups, as "the abortion industry" -- but not to the whole class of pregnant women who seek out their services as the "mommy before fetus brats," etc.

Aside from the remarks of the Pro-Life Movement, here are a couple of illustrative statements from the largest Protestant denomination in America, and the largest non-Christian religion, Mormonism.

Southern Baptist Convention, "On The Sanctity Of Human Life" (Columbus, OH 2015):

RESOLVED, That we call on Southern Baptist churches and entities to show the love of Christ through appropriate means to those women most vulnerable to the victimization of the abortion industry, and to show grace and mercy to those individuals who grieve with repentance over past abortions...

Mormon Church, LDS Perspective on Abortion and Human Life:

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to...such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

The Mormons are more passive-aggressive, so they refer to pregnant women not as seeking out an abortion, but "submitting to" an abortion, as though it were pushed upon her -- like there's some creepy moustache-twirler in a trenchcoat who pops out from the corner of a dark alley, aggressively hawking his service to college girls: "Pssst, you look like you hooked up this weekend and didn't use protection. Step into my office before anybody finds out, unless you want me to let your parents know..."

The Southern Baptists are more hot-blooded, so they go all-out in referring to the octupus-like "abortion industry" that victimizes vulnerable women.

So, victimhood feminism infects the views on abortion of both the back-East evangelicals as well as the out-West apocalyptic cults, not to mention the abortion-specific organizations.

Beyond the rhetoric, you see this attitude among the hardcore activists who take to property destruction and violence. They only target the doctors and buildings where abortions are done. They don't spray red food coloring onto the women going into the buildings, or do anything at all toward those on the demand side rather than the supply side of abortion. It's the same kind of lazy Leftoid thinking that says consumers can only be victims, and only producers may be blamed.*

The fact that the Pro-Life Movement is fundamentally an identity politics group explains why they have never accomplished much on a practical level. The whole point of identity politics is to signal your moral superiority over the members of a different identity group. And since victims are morally superior to their assailants, you just need to convince the point-awarders that so-and-so are the victims of such-and-such assailants.

Most of the Pro-Life Movement is not women who have had an abortion, but those speaking out on their behalf, a la the do-gooder white people who drone on about protecting saintly and defenseless blacks against evil white institutional racism, or the Sodomite marriage movement that is mostly made up of fag hags rather than fags themselves.

The men in the Pro-Life Movement are therefore male feminists, and as elsewhere in feminist organizations, are subject to the accusation of being well-meaning misogynists who just don't get it, and whose misogyny is no less harmful and dangerous because of its ignorance. In fact, Donald Trump found that out the hard way this week -- try to stick up for the "female victims of the abortion industry," and you'll still get hanged as a woman-hater if you suggested that the women bear even one iota of responsibility.

Unlike other victimhood feminist groups, the Pro-Life Movement has an unusual share of its members being men. I attribute this to the women in the Movement being emotionally more stable than their pro-choice counterparts, and more tolerant of well-meaning yet bumbling male allies. Still, if you step outside of the victimhood narrative and suggest that the so-called victims bear any individual responsibility, you're out in the doghouse.

If you considered yourself pro-life but have not had much contact with the Pro-Life Movement, you would have known that they were a culture war group, but I always figured their moral superiority angle was standing for life rather than death/murder. I figured it plugged into the other culture war groups who stress individual responsibility and not pretending that every bad act we do is because we're victims of powerful oppressors. And I figured it would be part of the culture war that grandstanded about putting others before yourself.

But nope, the Pro-Life Movement turns out to be just another branch of victimhood feminism.

I don't want to dwell on these culture war topics, now that the Trump phenomenon has finally given us a way to be productive in our political movements. But it's worth dissecting some of the cases, just to appreciate how useless and counterproductive they have been -- for decades. Here we have an example of the movement being impotent not only in the way that most culture war causes have been -- being obsessed with symbolic rather than concrete victories -- but also because its central claim, that "abortion is murder," was flatly contradicted by their total pardon of the pregnant women who seek out abortion.

When victimhood is the foundation of your identity, you won't bother trying to effect real change. Then you'd no longer be a victim, and would not get to preen about your superior moral value against your evil oppressors. That goes for feminists toward the patriarchy, as well as religious minorities like apocalyptic cults toward the majority of traditional church members and the non-religious. It also goes for ironic hipster types who want to keep the Rust Belt in the dumps economically, otherwise we couldn't score coolness points for dwelling among the ruins of steel mills and glass factories.

And that goes also for those who are the self-appointed saviors of a class of victims -- the Pro-Life Movement, animal rights activists, and the rest of them.

* We blame consumers of pornography, as well as the producers, but then it's hard to sell men as a victim group. (That doesn't keep segments of the anti-pornography movement from being an identity politics group based on a narrative about the male consumers being victims.)

29 comments:

  1. advancedatheist4/2/16, 9:08 AM

    You have to wonder why progressives don't criticize white women who abort racially mixed fetuses. Wouldn't that show racism or white privilege or something?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just found your site from "wild thing" on twitter.

    Awesome.

    Been reading your analyais nonstop. Great job.

    Good comments.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "but also because its central claim, that "abortion is murder," was flatly contradicted by their total pardon of the pregnant women who seek out abortion."

    "They only target the doctors and buildings where abortions are done. They don't spray red food coloring onto the women going into the buildings, or do anything at all toward those on the demand side rather than the supply side of abortion."

    Marking those to be shamed implies physical ownership or at least a common community ownership that implies a right to do such things. This is where sensible everyday logic fails and you have to pull up Jim's blog for the more nuanced view:

    "In actual practice, we tend to treat fertile age women as children, as their bad behavior does not have the legal and social consequences it would have for adult, but whereas a badly behaved child will be hauled off to the responsible adult, and the responsible adult asked to keep him in line, the badly behaved female is not hauled off to her father or her husband."

    Because America is cucked and that includes the churches and pro-life people, who have to rely on projection and transference to vaguer and more legally palatable targets in order to placate any desire to affect change. Neither feminists nor traditionalist patriarchs will ever run on a platform of "Women should take responsibility for their own actions" though we're theoretically supposed to believe it, this is simply one of the quirks and weaknesses of individualistic liberal democracy that leads to its degeneration and downfall. Women aren't generally "responsible" in the individual or aggregate experience. Admitting this is career suicide, living by it is extremely profitable.

    Abortion, like careerism, getting fat, or watching Sex and the City, is mainly felt as a sin by women against her own feminine psyche and the people in her life that the woman has to deal with personally, and the common feminine culture.

    None of those excellent things are seen as things worth defending or preserving, so the most the pro-life movement can pick up are the people who saw the pictures of live babies in Life Magazine and dead babies among the older protestors who actually did believe in Ending Abortion Soon. Until women are re-subordinated, it will continue to generate endless difficulties for anyone who steps into it, and thus is preserved among Republicans as a common 'safe issue' for misdirecting what could otherwise be effective outrage. "Well, at least we don't support BABY KILLERS...can we have your money and votes now?"

    ReplyDelete
  4. No one is ever held accountable for anything in this country. What an awful, shitty place.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Until women are re-subordinated..."

    Don't be gay.

    Women weren't subordinate to their husbands in the 1950s, they were both subordinate to each other / to the family / to God.

    As women have become more selfish about "mommy comes before fetus," men have become more selfish about "baby daddy comes before baby." The equivalent of women getting an abortion is the father being a deadbeat who doesn't fulfill his role in making sure his kid does fine.

    Women who see the fetus as a parasite are like the men who see their child-support-sucking kid as a parasite.

    Yet the MRAs who talk about subordinating or owning women don't talk about wives subordinating and owning their husbands, so that they'll bring home the bacon for their children -- even if they're not a part of the household. (No different from an unattached pregnant woman having an abortion, whether or not the father is part of the household or what his desires are.)

    And the MRAs talk about child support LAWS and child support REQUIREMENTS the way that women itching to get an abortion talk about how onerous and totalitarian it is to be forced to carry their baby to term.

    The MRAs who hate child support are no different from the abortion-seekers -- an identity politics group that is looking for a quick dirty way out of having to support a child that they conceived, and to have the rest of society and its institutions rationalize, accept, and condone such an abdication of parental responsibility.

    But again, it's hard to sell men as a victim group, so why bother, aside from being a shameless counterpart of an abortion-seeker?

    ReplyDelete
  6. The Pro-Life Movement is like the veganism of the Cultural Right. They compete and keep score over how extreme their restrictions are.

    Vegans -- no meat, no eggs or dairy either, no leather, no wool, no honey, no plants, no dirt... "I only eat salads made of julienned nylon."

    Pro-Life Movement -- no late-term abortions, no abortions of any term except for rape / incest / mother's health, no abortions except mother's health, no abortions period, no abortions period plus no giving up for adoption after birth... checkmate, "pro-life" posers!

    To hell with all these status-striving culture war faggots.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Everyone knows gangsters like to get teardrop tattoos for each person they murder. I think the ideal punishment for a woman who gets an abortion would be a small fetus tattoo near the eye or maybe on the sclera (make it hard to hide with hair or makeup) for each trip to Dr. Forcepstein. Put a mark on her ID as well in case she's a fan of sunglasses. The tattoo would have all the usual exceptions for rape and health of the mother etc. Tattoos for aborting genetic accidents would be up for debate.

    Every time the slut with womb slaughterhouse conversion was out on errands she would feel immense dread as people's eyes subtly shift to focus on the mark of shame. They would know she's a monster. She would know she's a monster. To any woman this would be far worse punishment than being stuck with dykes for any length of time.

    It would probably put an end to all the diseases she spreads too. Conjuring up images of abortion is a boner killer for all but the horniest dudes.

    This simple shitlord proposal would expose the lie that it's just a medical procedure. People have all sorts of visible medical scars and besides being a little ugly none would feel anywhere near the shame of being marked with an abortion because even most leftists know it's a much bigger deal than a colonoscopy. They are okay with abortion as long as they can pretend the women around them aren't the ones getting them.

    I don't think the abortion stuff hurt Trump at all. The harpies and cucks I know were basically, "Trump being Trump." The hatred isn't any more intense and surprisingly most understood the logic of punishing bad behavior even if that's not what they'd call it. Trump's statements seem to have grown support among conservatives, even those who don't really care too much about abortion. Probably because people know when he says something he means it whereas Cruz calling for Roe vs. Wade to be repealed is something they've heard hundreds of times.

    ReplyDelete
  8. if Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb. My position has not changed – like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions.”- Trump

    That sounds a bit like this articles description of pro-lifers feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Trump just wrote that to shut up the braindead and disingenuous Pro-Life Movement types, rather than give them culture war red meat that would only distract from the main issues of the campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "the slut with womb slaughterhouse conversion"

    More disingenuous arguments from the hardcore pro-lifers... you sound like a vegan describing McDonald's as a slaughterhouse of holocausted animal carcasses.

    You know you're off-base if your slogans sound like the name of a death metal band.

    If they really felt that way, they would have a sinking, disgusted sensation every time they walked by an abortion clinic, possibly vomiting. The same as a vegan should feel walking by any given McDonald's.

    But they don't -- they don't get that visceral reaction, as though it were infants or toddlers being terminated.

    The more forcefully they try to score those rhetorical points (about murder), and the longer the audience sees them not puke their guts out when they walk by an abortion clinic, the more convinced they become that the Pro-Life Movement is just into emotionally masturbatory linguistic posturing.

    It is unnatural, an abomination against nature and God, and an abdication and perversion of parental responsibility. Pro-life arguments ought to appeal to our sense of purity and taboo -- twisting the natural course in an unholy way.

    Making it about harm and murder is actually a liberal argument -- everything reduces to providing care and minimizing harm.

    It's also a sleight-of-hand that displaces blame from the pregnant woman herself to the abortion technician. The purity/taboo argument puts it back onto her (warping natural motherhood), while the harm-reduction argument puts it onto the one performing the abortion, and the institutions sustaining such procedures.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rather than portray abortion-seekers as baby killers, it's more accurate and disturbing (and therefore more moving to those on the fence) to portray them as selfish careerists or selfish life-is-a-playground types who see this gestating fetus as an obstacle in the way of realizing their grand dream of completing their communications degree and writing blog posts for a Gawker-owned website.

    Or some ghetto rat who doesn't want to let taking care of a baby get in the way of her twerkin' her thang up in da club erry Saturday night. "Aw hail naw, abort dat muhfugga!"

    See, that's called motivation -- it falls right out from the normal person's take on abortion. What's the motivation in the view of the Pro-Life Movement who talk about baby killers and murder?

    "It's utterly senseless, a culture of death"...

    No motive for the doctor to be hell-bent on killing so many babies? No motive for the woman to find her way into his office, other than "economic pressures"? Weak explanation that convinces nobody that wasn't already into the Movement's emotional masturbation appeal.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I think the ideal punishment for a woman who gets an abortion would be a small fetus tattoo near the eye"

    More emotional masturbation. All human beings need is to spread the shameful person's reputation for having done whatever shameful thing it was. She won't need to wear a symbol when everyone will already know.

    True, in large cities, fewer of those around her would know, but everyone who matters to her -- those in her social circles -- would know about it, in a world where abortions were considered shameful.

    Ditto for being divorced. In a large city, few would know -- but it would be known by everyone whose views of you influenced your behavior, i.e. your social circles. If it were frowned on, fewer divorces. If it's accepted, more divorces.

    Ditto adultery, being a deadbeat dad, and so on.

    People just have to be convinced that such things are shameful (many are open to the idea), and be willing to gossip about such things within their social circles.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The purity/taboo argument also sidesteps the pointless, tedious, and unconvincing squabbling on both sides about when life begins -- or when personhood begins, or when ensoulment takes place, etc. If you're debating whether or not it's murder, you're forced into such unproductive arguments.

    But talking about the perversion, corruption, warping, and twisting of natural pregnancy doesn't require any arcane arguments about when something begins. Pregnancy begins when the man gets the woman pregnant -- everyone agrees.

    And there's a largely deterministic process afterward that ultimate results in a live birth. Everyone agrees.

    So the debate is not factual -- when does such-and-such condition of the natural world begin? -- while sidestepping the moral argument -- everyone agrees that murder is wrong, only arguing over when this rule would apply to a fetus/baby.

    In the commonsense approach, there is no factual debate (pregnancy begins with conception, and leads mostly deterministically toward a baby in mommy's arms). The debate is moral -- under what conditions ought she be allowed to alter, pervert, or terminate this natural process, once it's begun? And how shameful ought we to make her feel if she altered the course in this way, or that way, or some other way?

    No more nerdy debates about "scientifically speaking" when does life / personhood / ensoulment begin? The natural process of pregnancy begins at conception, now we're going to have a genuine moral debate about whether and how that natural process could be allowed to be corrupted by mankind meddling with Mother Nature's / God's intended course.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BTW, I don't claim originality on this re-orientation of the pro-life debate -- not about whether or not it's taking a life, but whether/how a woman ought to be allowed to warp a natural process like pregnancy (perhaps part of a broader approach that discusses disrupting natural processes).

    Someone who's unfortunate enough to have studied "bioethics" can tell us if this is a well known school of thought in the field.

    Somehow I doubt it, though, since philosophers tend to have liberal brains and don't get what purity/sanctity/disgust/taboo is all about. And they are more autistic and prefer factual arguments -- what are the boundaries of "life" -- rather than value-based ones.

    ReplyDelete
  15. BioCultBeamDelta4/2/16, 6:32 PM

    You really hit this one out of the park. This might be one of your best articles yet. You expressed my own frustrations that had being growing with the pro-life movement over the last nine months, independent of Trump, better than I ever could.

    I don't think Trump has strong beliefs on abortion, but he once again showed that his strength is going with his gut, even when being ambushed by Chris Matthews. He semi-unintentionally told the truth, albeit an unpopular one. Too bad he walked things back, I'll have to take your word for it that it was a tactical sidestep, rather than cucking.

    What is your response to the 1488ers who praise abortion because it ostensibly prevents the numbers of negros and spics from growing even faster?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Only woman I ever knew who had an abortion really wanted the child, her partner didn't think they were at the right stage in their lives, and she forced herself to go through it to save the relationship (which it didn't). Really messed her up for ages afterwards, and she feels really strong guilt, even though no one ever did any primitive shame culture stuff to her for it, as she loves children, really wanted one, and is a humble and very other centered person with a really strong connection with life. Sad stuff to me, and I guess that's what abortion feels like it's all about to me.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Had to re-read this piece. You nailed it, bro.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Women weren't subordinate to their husbands in the 1950s, they were both subordinate to each other / to the family / to God."

    Is that one of the reasons the 1950s were such a prototype for the Millenial AntiSocial Careerist Faggot Age? We can at least say that the wife network, Family, and God have been removed as the abstract and distance substitutes for Loyalty, Community, and Submission since then.

    ""As women have become more selfish about "mommy comes before fetus," men have become more selfish about "baby daddy comes before baby."

    Number and proportion of "deadbeat dads" does not and never has matched number of unrepentant sluts, so equivocating between 'women' and 'men' on this issue because OMG MRAS is...dumb.

    "Yet the MRAs who talk about subordinating or owning women don't talk about wives subordinating and owning their husbands, so that they'll bring home the bacon for their children -- even if they're not a part of the household."

    Okay, let's get a few things straight.

    1. MRAs, at least if we're talking about the Paul Elam types, are Males Using Feminist Tactics Equivalently. They're declared equalitarians.
    2. They therefore would be perfectly happy with your equalitarian argument that women should be punished the same as men for the same things.
    3. Cuckservatives recognize that there isn't really an moral equality between men and women on this issue but gloss over it with the least damaging emotional equivocation they can think of.

    "(No different from an unattached pregnant woman having an abortion, whether or not the father is part of the household or what his desires are.)"

    'Unattached' kind of implies whether or not the father is part of the household and additionally a moral judgment on women being without a word that starts with "pat..."

    "And the MRAs talk about child support LAWS and child support REQUIREMENTS the way that women itching to get an abortion talk about how onerous and totalitarian it is to be forced to carry their baby to term."

    The MRAs are simply going all-in on the identity politics rules of the age and can be safely ignored until they actually try to block a real restoration. And when the fuck did I say anything about child support?

    "The MRAs who hate child support are no different from the abortion-seekers -- an identity politics group that is looking for a quick dirty way out of having to support a child that they conceived"

    This is, of course, assuming that they conceived the child in the first place, and aren't simply playing cuck for someone else's kid simply because they have a prior relationship and a job that can be pinned on them.

    "But again, it's hard to sell men as a victim group, so why bother, aside from being a shameless counterpart of an abortion-seeker?"

    Because shamelessness is socially and evolutionarily selected for in The Current Year, and according to the logic of liberal legalisms.

    But then again, I'm arguing for the subordination of women and the Leadership of Men, not their Equalization in Victimization. The antidote to feminism and pro-choicers is not pro-lifers and meninism, it's Patriarchy and an anti-choice attitude. How the men choose to accomplish is is up to them. This hot new 'ownership paradigm' (really thousands of years old and reappearing consistently whenever it isn't consciously acknowledged) avoids both the MRA wankery and cuckservative sadomasochism.

    It does require actually saying that women are not and will not be treated as equal out loud, though, so fans of unspoken sort-of-working social contracts of past ages probably won't be fans.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've long thought that most outspoken "right wing women" are the equivalents of women who (supposedly) care about sports or videogames, or other traditionally male pursuits: they see a niche they can fill and easily get unlimited male attention and adulation. Leftist identity politics women are too repulsive for that to even be on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  20. BioCultBeamDelta4/4/16, 9:57 AM

    The friend of mine enamoured with Cruz has changed his tune subtly. He's now insisting that Trump and Cruz should team up and that he would support them both, regardless of which one held the VP spot. Obvious the idea of a Cruz/Trump ticket is delusional. This is noticeably different from when he was bragging about Cruz's turnout, "ground game" and allegedly superior poll numbers in the November election. This is an even further cry from when he insisted that they should have nominated Ted Cruz in 2012...When Cruz was still a nobody. Does my friend merely see the writing on the wall, and is trying to save face, or is he doubling down? He's now talking about what a tag team Trump and Cruz would make, but at this point, Cruz is so nauseating, that I don't want him anywhere near the ticket. Any thoughts? Is the doomsday cult crumbling for my friend, or is he still desperate to cling on?

    Further, what is this noise about Cruz using the party machinery to snag delegates Trump already won in states like Arizona and Louisiana? How can anyone call this guy an outsider/anti-establishment at this point? I want nothing more to see Cruz HumilaTED at this point. Giving the scumbag the VP slot would be a bigger mistake then Reagan giving the spot to Bush Sr.

    ReplyDelete
  21. He is in the bargaining phase of the steps of denial.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Heads up regarding Wisconsin. It's NOT a pure winner take all state. The 15 at large delegates are WTA, while each of the eight congressional districts award 3 delegates to whoever wins a given district. So yes, the winner gains a lot but the loser won't be totally left out unless the loser gets outvoted heavily. Yet Wisconsin is worth just 42 delegates of which Trump will likely get at least a few.

    Indiana and California are worth a lot of delegates and also apportion delegates like Wisconsin. Trump can make up some lost ground here.

    Trump will also likely do well in New York, which is 50% WTA for state delegates and WTA in each district if a candidate gets over 50% in a district. I'd bet that Trump will won just about everything, getting him near to or over the 95 delegates up for grabs.

    The MSM (and the sell-out alternative outlets masquerading as a legit counterpart to the MSM) is prepping everyone for a "Cruz is riding high" narrative to undermine and misprepresent the fact that enthusiasm for Trump is considerably higher everywhere except among mountain misanthropes and plains cultists. Unless Trump wins Wisconsin decisively, the media is gonna pass the results off as a death blow to Trump.

    Lastly, most Wis. polls are not surveying many people. The most comprehensive poll, done about 2 weeks ago, showed Trump with an edge. The media is acting like 2 polls that dealt with 800 Reg. Republicans are a big deal. If I'm not mistaken, it's an open primary anyway (hopefully the octopus isn't shuttling in thousands to vote against Trump).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BioCultBeamDelta4/4/16, 11:27 PM

      I'm not too worried either way about Wisconsin. Things have been feeling a little low energy the last week or so, though, and you're right that it's partially due to the media. I hope he does well tomorrow, just so that Cruz has to eat crow, and Trump looks good going into New York (which he's already going to do great in, regardless).

      What about New Jersey? That's a highly populated state, so I'm imagining it has a healthy delegate count. Surely Trump will crush it there, too.

      Delete
  23. Cruz is a total useful idiot. The party is going to hang him out to dry if it comes to a contested convention (he's burned too many bridges). He's hung in the race to fuck Trump over which the party has gotten behind in the absence of other candidates. Kasich's doing the same thing. The GOP needs splitter candidates, and Kasich served his purpose by denying Trump Ohio's 66 delegates.

    Should Trump fall short of 1237, and should he be outwitted after the 1st ballot, The GOP will see to it that Kasich or Paul Ryan will get the nom. Maybe somebody else, but certainly not Cruz who defied the GOP too many times over the last several years. Why would the elites trust him now to not be an obnoxious theocratic ideologue?

    ReplyDelete
  24. BioCultBeamDelta4/4/16, 11:20 PM

    More on topic with a original post. A pro-life Jewish girl talks about her "poignant" discussion about abortion with a pro-choice Jew, and how it relates the Holocaust. Natch.

    http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/blog/2015/04/16/never-again

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'll bet there's a identical discussion out there between two Jews debating the ethical merits of eating animal meat, and how it relates to the Holocaust.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Things have been feeling a little low energy the last week or so, though, and you're right that it's partially due to the media."

    The media and hack insiders are shamelessy underplaying Trump's momentum. One party hack said that every "credible" poll showed Cruz ahead. Baloney. Several polls from March/April done by legit (legit enough for Realclearpolitics.com) show Trump with a lead in Wisconsin.

    The enthusiasm for Trump matches the '08 Obama campaign albeit with less breadth. Thing is, the media was burying every unflattering thing about Obama (some of which was kindly written in his own autobiography!). Now they're cornering Trump on everything but in particular culture war crap since Trump's trade and immigration stance are so durably effective.

    A saw an article today that pointed out the irony of the GOP being much harder on Trump than it ever was on Obama. The GOP would've dominated in 2012 if it would've called out Obama as a subversive other. But nooooo. They didn't want to be branded as racist. God forbid.

    ReplyDelete
  27. New Jersey is a pure Winner take all state. You need only get the most votes for all 51 delegates. For what it's worth, NJ isn't technically a closed primary but NJ still does not allow registered Dems. to vote.

    http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/assessing-trumps-path-to-1237/
    This a great site for tracking the procedures of each state.

    http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2016-republican-delegate-allocation-by.html
    This also is useful, click on the state name in the chart to see more details.

    http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

    This has detailed info about each state and each county/district in a state.

    http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin
    The ny times gave breakdowns by demos (like Evangelicals, whites, etc.) for some of the previous states. Hopefully they'll add it to Wisconsin too.

    ReplyDelete
  28. http://frontloading.blogspot.com/2016/03/2016-republican-delegate-allocation_26.html

    Enjoy the arcana. And the GOP is grooming everyone to accept "the rules" that put gloss on election fraud and theft. If Trump is jewed we've gotta make a stand to both send a message in general but also to inspire Trump to not cave in and let this happen to him and us. Regardless, denying Trump and Cruz would likely destroy the GOP with many retaliating by not voting for any Republicans at all in the current and near future elections. The Globalist wing that's gathered strength since the early 80's would finally expel every ounce of populism from the party thereby rendering the party a pitiful imitation of the Dems with no reason to exist.

    Neil Howe has said that the 2000's and beyond would put the Boomers and Gen X-ers to the test. Would Boomers finally grow up and would Gen X-ers quell their mercenary cynicism? If we can't get Trump or Sanders the election, it would likely be the final judgement on a wretched era beyond redemption. The only time something similar happened in American history was during and after the civil war. A failure of leadership.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."