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.

39 comments:

  1. I think you underestimate white liberal's devotion to poz. It's their religion, their way of life, their replacement for their aborted offspring. They sacrifice their normal human instincts and their entire people upon its altar willingly. They offer up their own genetic future because muh climate change. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that substantial percentage would literally kill themselves before willingly voting for someone they believed to be a racist.

    Perhaps I'm wrong. But the rot runs deep, especially in California. Digging it out would be a hard task even for Trump. But, if there is a man who could do it, it would be him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hillary is such a bad campaigner, this is going to be an epic election to watch. The Left is in complete denial openly about how bad she is at campaigning, and the Media in particular keep saying things like she's "battle hardened" campaigner, ignoring how the only tough race she had - 2008 - she got smoked by a closeted first term senator. They will be in denial on election night as well, when Trump takes the landslide.

    That said, Trump is saying this now because he wants to see how Hillary will react to this. Brilliant: he's forcing Hillary's campaign to reveal their inner workings, before he even tries something new. Only one of two things will happen:

    -Hillary's team won't react or do anything, showing Trump that he can blitzkreig those 15 states and Hillary will be on her heels dealing with it. He'll pull even or ahead of her before she can counteract.

    -Hillary does something to counter it, in a very public way, and makes it obvious. The D's might have a political expert or two in her campaign that might react to this and try to counter him. Then Trump gets to see (1) who's really in charge of her strategy; (2) what he's up against; and (3) what their tactics will be against him....before he does ANYTHING.

    It's like the Germans threatening generally to invade France, and France saying, "No way, here's a detailed map and blueprint for all of our Maginot defenses, you think you can overcome that?"---and then the Germans invade through the Low Countries.

    Trump's opponent is now about to play his game by his rules. Brilliant move. Loving it.

    Bring on the debates!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I think you underestimate white liberal's devotion to poz."

    You'd say the same about Oregon voters (Portland), yet a recent poll shows Trump and Hillary tied there:

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/05/29/splodey-head-alert-oregon-poll-donald-trump-53-hillary-clinton-26-independents/

    There will be a decent cross-over from Democrats (maybe 15%), but the major source of Trump's victory is winning over Independents. In Oregon, Trump won half of them, vs. a quarter of them for Hillary.

    In California, Hillary has plummeted from a 30-point lead to a 10-point lead, just in the last two months:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_trump_vs_clinton-5849.html

    Romney lost California by 23 points -- Trump has already effectively cut that to single digits. It's definitely in play for Trump -- not "Republicans" or conservatives, but for the populist-nationalist candidate who's running as a Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're correct that liberals, who make up most of the West Coast, would never vote for a conservative. But Trump is not running as a conservative.

    He says outright, "I happen to be conservative, but who cares?" and "It's called the Republican Party, not the Conservative Party". He mocks Jeb Bush for leveling the charge of "Donald Trump is not a true conservative" like it means jackshit. And during a rally in Indiana, he was rhetorically asking why the Supreme Court or some high-up body was doing such awful things for the country. He begins to answer, "I think it's because they're..." and in that pause to look for the right word, someone in the audience shouted out, "LIBERALS!" He half-chuckled but quickly corrected the audience member and said it doesn't matter about liberal or conservative. They're incompetent at best, and bought-and-paid-for at worst.

    So let's be clear about what Trump winning California would mean -- NOT that he converted them to conservative values, after seeing the error of their liberal ways. Rather, that he got them to agree to a truce in the Culture Wars while we straighten out our economy and government, which is plagued by incompetent and corrupt politicians, to whom Trump will say YOU'RE FIRED! and begin putting the common people's interests above the Wall Street lobbyists, and America over the global network.

    If California being liberal depresses you, then go missionize to them and win them over organically. You can never impose an alien set of social and cultural values on some other group from above, a la government or economic policy (theocracy).

    ReplyDelete
  5. "You're correct that liberals, who make up most of the West Coast, would never vote for a conservative. But Trump is not running as a conservative."

    This is true.

    "
    So let's be clear about what Trump winning California would mean -- NOT that he converted them to conservative values, after seeing the error of their liberal ways. Rather, that he got them to agree to a truce in the Culture Wars while we straighten out our economy and government, which is plagued by incompetent and corrupt politicians, to whom Trump will say YOU'RE FIRED! and begin putting the common people's interests above the Wall Street lobbyists, and America over the global network."

    Here's the thing: most of them are rich and well insulated from the brown hordes, whom they (electorally) prefer over other whites anyway. Virtue signaling ranks way higher in the average progressive's mind than the well-being of anyone who isn't brown and gay. And Hillary is a virtue-signaler extraordinaire. The sincere economic left is basically dead at this point, as Bernie Sanders getting casually slaughtered in the popular vote and delegate count by an inept lesbian proves. The Dems are the brown party now, gringo.

    Don't get me wrong, I think Trump will take this thing. I just don't think he'll take California.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What chunk of Californian citizens are "rich and well insulated"? They're not all stars of the Real Housewives shows.

    Sure he'll lose that elite chunk, but those suckers are going to get out-numbered by the middle and working classes whom Trump is galvanizing.

    Turnout for the 2012 general election was only 55% in CA -- way below the standard liberal/progressive states. It was 65% for WA, 66% for MA, 70% for CO, 73% for WI, and 76% for MN.

    Part of that is that those states are whiter than CA, but a big part of the non-white population in CA is immigrant (legal visa or illegal) and hence not part of the voting-eligible population to begin with.

    So the main reason for such low turnout in CA is the disaffected white working class. And guess who is the main demographic support for the Trump phenomenon?

    The white working class in CA is not conservative either, so that will be a group of liberals he'll be winning over -- just not the elite globalist liberals who run the state.

    And Bernie is not getting casually slaughtered in CA -- they're neck and neck, and the minority population (mostly Hispanic and Asian, not the black firewall of the South) is disproportionately young (anchor babies or their children), which favors Bernie.

    Elsewhere on the West Coast, Bernie was the one doing the slaughtering -- Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii were yuge wins over Crooked Hillary, since there aren't many blacks out West.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "What chunk of Californian citizens are "rich and well insulated"? They're not all stars of the Real Housewives shows."

    The trendsetters. The elite. The ones who yank the puppet strings of idiot millennial shitlibs and room temperature IQ brown people.

    "Part of that is that those states are whiter than CA, but a big part of the non-white population in CA is immigrant (legal visa or illegal) and hence not part of the voting-eligible population to begin with."

    ...You seriously think every authority in California won't turn a blind a eye to illegals voting? Multiple times, if need be. The only thing holding them back would be laziness. Brown party now, remember? South American style elections will be used as desired.

    "
    And Bernie is not getting casually slaughtered in CA -- they're neck and neck, and the minority population (mostly Hispanic and Asian, not the black firewall of the South) is disproportionately young (anchor babies or their children), which favors Bernie.

    Elsewhere on the West Coast, Bernie was the one doing the slaughtering -- Oregon, Washington, and Hawaii were yuge wins over Crooked Hillary, since there aren't many blacks out West."

    So what? She's beaten him by over 3.000,000 votes has an even bigger delegate advantage. He could win 100% of California's vote and the outcome would still be the same. Economic leftism as it once was has been thoroughly thrashed by identity politics. Hell, Hillary's even won more votes than Trump himself so far (admittedly because of a far more divided field).

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I think you underestimate white liberal's devotion to poz."

    Sorry, what's "poz"? I checked urbandictionary, but it's not helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're looking for excuses for why we should just give up on the West Coast -- too many Millennial shitlibs and too many browns.

    Guess what: Millennial shitlibs will not be voting for Crooked Hillary. They'll probably stay home, or write in Bernie, or vote Green. But definitely not Hillary. And they were never in the Trump camp. So their behavior is of no consequence to the Trump vs. Hillary contest.

    As for browns, the die-hard Hillary voters are blacks, and they only make up 6% of the population in California. About 15% are Asian, and Asians mimic white people, although not to the full level. If they sense that white people are gunning for Trump, they'll swing enough his way.

    Hispanics are the toss-up. Right off the bat, 15% of them in California are illegals and won't be voting. And in 2012, they only had a turnout of 38% (that's for the whole Pacific region, but they're mostly concentrated in CA). In short, Hispanics don't vote -- they're the most apathetic group out there.

    They have shallow roots at best in the Dem party, unlike blacks who have been core members since the Civil Rights / Great Society era. Of course that doesn't mean they have roots in the GOP either. So rather than try to get involved with either party, they mostly stay home on election day.

    Again, most of the Hispanic population is young in CA because they're anchor babies or their children, who came in after the 1986 amnesty. Unlike the black vote which is older, the Hispanic vote in CA will be younger, and that inclines them more toward Bernie -- not Hillary. Some may choose to turn out for her in the fall, but not many.

    That leaves a handful of hardcore Dems in the older Mexican-American group. Big deal -- we turn out the white working class, and they're outnumbered.

    If illegals had been enough to change elections, Texas would have gone Democrat since 1992. Ditto Arizona (Bill Clinton only won it because the Republican vote was split by Perot). And anyway, do you think Donald Trump and the GOP are going to sit idly by if they suspect illegals voting? Think again.

    It doesn't matter if Bernie is losing to Hillary overall. Most of that margin comes from her cleaning up in the South, which she will never win in the general.

    Bernie is killing her on the West Coast, and that's where it matters. It proves she has weak support even in the primary stage.

    There's more risk in going after California, but 1) it's not nearly as risky as you're making it out to be (with Trump running), and 2) the reward will be well worth it -- 55 electoral votes. Talk about a mandate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "what's "poz"?"

    Short for "positive," as in HIV+ -- social-cultural AIDS.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "You're looking for excuses for why we should just give up on the West Coast -- too many Millennial shitlibs and too many browns."

    I'm stating why I think taking California is too optimistic. I still think Trump will win.

    "And anyway, do you think Donald Trump and the GOP are going to sit idly by if they suspect illegals voting? Think again."

    Donald Trump? No. The GOP? Possibly. The GOPe? Hell yes. They'd much rather have a President Hillary. And with California's election machinery so thoroughly locked down by the left, I have little doubt they'll cheat to whatever extent they have to. The establishment and media will do their damnedest to make sure they get away with it, if it comes to that.

    She ain't called Crooked Hillary for nothing.

    "There's more risk in going after California, but 1) it's not nearly as risky as you're making it out to be (with Trump running), and 2) the reward will be well worth it -- 55 electoral votes. Talk about a mandate."

    The only thing that worries me is overinvesting in California and missing other states as a result.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fortunately for us, the GOPe has been all but neutered. They can't stand in the way of shit, let alone in California where they have no influence.

    Trump will personally fund efforts to police the elections, sue the bastards afterward, etc.

    And anyway, you're thinking that the Dems have the GOTV apparatus for illegals, like they do for blacks. Remember these people live "in the shadows" -- hard to track down, speak to, and especially to persuade. Illegals like to keep their activity on the down-low. Getting a driver's license is one thing -- a means to an end. But voting in another country's elections that serves no goal to them personally? They won't do it.

    If the Dems' GOTV was so effective for Hispanics on the West Coast, why did they only have a 38% turnout in 2012?

    "The only thing that worries me is overinvesting in California and missing other states as a result."

    It would be hard to over-invest in CA, if he's already cut her lead to single digits. No other battleground state will come close to 55 votes. It would require converting at least 3 separate solid-blue states to equal the same win in CA.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Fortunately for us, the GOPe has been all but neutered. They can't stand in the way of shit, let alone in California where they have no influence.

    Trump will personally fund efforts to police the elections, sue the bastards afterward, etc."

    I hope you're right. That does seem a very Trump-esque thing to do.

    "Getting a driver's license is one thing -- a means to an end. But voting in another country's elections that serves no goal to them personally? They won't do it."

    This election is different. The goal would be to continue the train of gibsmedats from the gringos and ensure their fifty relatives could continue to cross the borders unimpeded. And, of course, to avoid deportation themselves. That could provide so actual impetus - perhaps enough to offset Trump's advantages.

    Bottom line, a majority nonwhite state is always shaky territory at best.

    "It would be hard to over-invest in CA, if he's already cut her lead to single digits. No other battleground state will come close to 55 votes. It would require converting at least 3 separate solid-blue states to equal the same win in CA."

    That's a good point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'd be more worried about over-investing in the Lutheran Belt states -- Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

    At least Hillary lost them (or tied, in IA), so we know they don't prefer her. But Trump lost them, too, so we know they don't prefer him either.

    And there's not that many votes to be won -- 26 if he did the impossible and won all three, 16 if he lost MN, and 6 if he only won IA.

    It will be harder for Trump to win Wisconsin than California, and WI only has 10 votes vs. 55 for CA. That means rather than worry about over-investing in California, it's laying siege, getting dug in, and attacking her from so many different angles she won't be able to keep focus.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Random Dude on the Internet5/31/16, 4:55 AM

    A big factor that needs to be discussed is that Trump has invigorated his base but Hillary has not done the same. If you want to be a sadist and inflict pain on yourself, ask a Hillary supporter why they're for Hillary. It's rarely about how great her policies are and more about how they want to stop Trump. Obama she ain't.

    It's much easier and more motivating to vote for something than it is to vote against something. I think Hillary is hoping that Trump's comments are so outrageous that people (women and minorities) will be motivated to vote against him (aka a vote for her) but if people are that demoralized, they will probably stay home.

    The political pundit class assumes that the voter turnout demographics will remain as they did in 2012. The Nate Silver model (and his career) depends on it. If there is a surge in working class white men, it completely shatters their model. Rather than crowing about permanent majorities by the 2040s, it might be the 2060s if not later than that. They will smugly assure themselves that non-whites will soon replace whites but the country is still 2/3s white and as mentioned, the non-white turnout is low. If Republicans tap into populist sentiment, they might be able to peel off a decent chunk of non-white voters who don't want gibs. Not enough for a majority. So if it ends up being whites + working minorities, the Democrats may be the ones locked out of the White House instead of Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Remember the fun days of playing Warcraft 3, common strategy an aggressor would usually commit to some "harassment" of the opposing enemy's areas and base, the fewer resources committed the better, while the aggressor's own base would invest/setup/"tech" for more advanced units and upgrades making for a rapidly while the defender is forced to go out of his way and drain resources to deal with the non-stop incursions to the detriment of being able to properly build up more advanced units.
    Watching Trump's 15 state strategy reminds me a lot of something like that. As long as he still cheaply and efficiently runs his campaign, just spreading the battlefield further and broader weakens the opposition in the more attainable battleground states. Just forcing some previously unattainable states into single digit territory can do enough damage to Hillary's campaign as she diverts away from say Ohio or Florida.
    All Hail the Trumpening as I have been saying.

    ReplyDelete
  17. New Jersey: Clinton 38 vs Trump 34

    Barely outside the m.o.e.

    Fist-pumpers for Trump!

    ReplyDelete
  18. We're also forgetting the Diebold Factor: deliberate or "accidental" hacking and reprogramming of voting machines. That is likely to give Hillary an increase of D% that Trump will have to overcome with real votes. I will estimate the Diebold factor (D) to be 5% in Hillary's favor.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Your reasoning is convincing, but you imply that Trump will face Hillary and not Sanders. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  20. The primary system is rigged against Bernie, from the very beginning. Unfortunately for the Sanders supporters, they were not able to overcome the rigging like the Trump movement did against its own rigged system. Trump voters turned out in such massive numbers...

    Or it could have been simply due to that National Enquirer story about Lyin' Ted's father being connected to Oswald during the time of the JFK assassination. He pulled out right away, when it had always looked as though he'd be in until the end of a nasty Convention.

    Either way, the Sanders supporters haven't had as large of victories, and/or their operatives were not willing to leak damning stories to the National Enquirer and force Crooked Hillary to pull out.

    Even if Hillary were to be forced out, the Dem Establishment would never in a million years appoint Bernie as her replacement.

    Like the RNC, the DNC is not in the business of winning elections -- else they'd never let Hillary (Jeb) run. Rather, they're in the business of personally feeding at the trough of donor money that goes around for analysts, consultants, pollsters, commentators, delegates, politicians, etc.

    With the Clinton machine powering the primary season, there is billions of dollars to go around.

    If Bernie became the nominee, the spigot would get shut off to these Establishment parasites (he said he'd dump Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as chair of DNC). Just like Trump is shutting down the gravy train to all these worthless hacks in the GOP (Karl Rove, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh my the hacks! They have not been getting under my skin like they have much of alt-Right twitter or Trump supporters in general, but that has started to change. I'm not even bothered by the potential harm they could cause.

      It's the constant navel-gazing articles. The world revolves completely around them. Dozens of articles about their principles and how the personal impact of sticking to their principles and also how their actions regarding their principles effect change.

      Principles. Must feel good about self. Principles. Must be honest with one's self. More principles. Took a week-long break from writing my memoirs to think more deeply about my principles. Principles while sitting by the fireplace enjoying some tea. Principles for breakfast.

      A guy named Caleb Howe, never heard of him and can't remember what he even said, but I came across something he was proud of and, "What on God's green earth is wrong with you?"

      Delete
  21. I'm skeptical of Bernie supporters voting Trump in any numbers. They are, on the while, limp dick cucks who will in the end obediently toe the party line, just like their leader. Staying home, I can buy, but we all know Sanders will cave and endorse Hillary come convention time. He's too weak to stand up to a pair of fat retards in the middle of a crowd of his own supporters. Hillary will make him her bitch easily, and he'll do the "we've got ta come tagether ta stop Trump" line as instructed.

    Yes, I'm aware of the West Virginia poll, but that state is disproportionately white and blue collar. Not to mention reliably red anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  22. BioCultBeamDelta5/31/16, 7:05 PM

    Hey, Agnostic, any thoughts on Kevin O'Leary, the guy who is trying to position himself as the Canadian Donald Trump. Here are some videos.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ADOdsG3HaOk
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QIIqwQdDsrA
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9QCK5E92eyc
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t0dC7O1nhGc

    Seems pretty weak to me. As though he did exactly what you warned politicians not to do when emulating Trump. He thinks the "loud business man" part is what appeals to people who like Trump, not his nationalist-populist policies.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Random Dude on the Internet5/31/16, 9:03 PM

    Sanders and his supporters were not aggressive enough at the beginning. It wasn't until March when his campaign started kicking it into high gear. He was never going to do well in the Dixie states but if he was more aggressive, he could have flipped a few more states like Iowa, the New England region, Ohio, etc. The superdelegates still would have put Hillary over the top but would turn the pledged delegates into a dead heat or may have given Sanders a little bit of an edge.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Agnostic,

    I believe strongly that we'll have our populist in 4 years, but for 2016 I'm worried about whether the nation is ready and that it's going to be very close.
    The Republicans, as we've discussed before, are ahead of the curve with shifting toward nationalism. We got our populist, but the Democrats did not...
    Doesn't this point to a 50/50 nationalist/globalist split in the country?
    One thing that gives me hope is that we will continue as a nation in that direction: We'll be more populist in November than we are today.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "I'm skeptical of Bernie supporters voting Trump in any numbers. They are, on the while, limp dick cucks who will in the end obediently toe the party line, just like their leader."

    You're in for a pleasant surprise, then, not that it'll do anything to cheer you up.

    Obviously Trump will not win over the progressive activists like Van Jones, Nomiki Konst, etc. Or their crowd of followers who attend the rallies.

    Fortunately for us, they aren't a drop in the bucket of Bernie voters.

    In Michigan, Bernie won despite the black bloc in Detroit. Moreover, he won due to a turnout that was a 100% increase from 2008. If those newcomers had stayed home, Crooked Hillary would have swept the state.

    Do you think there are enough progressive activist types to account for the size of the Dem primary electorate DOUBLING over eight years? In Michigan no less? It's impossible.

    Instead, those are mostly working and middle-class people who are drawn to his populist economic policies, anti-corruption in the government, and non-interventionist approach to foreign policy. Remind you of any other candidate you know?

    Why yes, that would be the guy who won Michigan in the GOP primary, who makes no bones about heavy protectionist measures to keep auto manufacturing jobs in Michigan if the management is intent on slashing costs just to line their pockets.

    The avalanche of newcomers in the Dem primary are going to need somewhere to go, and they will naturally go to Trump in Michigan.

    Now, in Vermont, the population is more progressive-oriented and shitlibby to begin with. So I don't think Trump will take Vermont. Ditto Minnesota.

    It doesn't matter if "only" 20% of Bernie supporters go to Trump -- that will be very uneven around the country, because Bernie's constituency was different in different places. In states where it was shitlibby, like Vermont, we will get a lot less than 20%. In economically depressed states, we will get a lot more than 20% -- enough to put us over the top.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "Sanders and his supporters were not aggressive enough at the beginning."

    The biggest mistake has been not attacking her on her private email server, which she used to secretly conduct her business of selling out American state favors to foreign mega-donors to the Clinton Foundation.

    Bernie emphatically gave it up at the first debate, and he continues to insist on not going there. Most of his surrogates I see in the media don't go there either. And the supporters on Twitter, who get interviewed at rallies, etc., don't raise it either.

    I see it as a failure to be relevant to the news cycle. Sure, Hillary voting for the Iraq War when Bernie didn't is a major distinction and a damning mark on her record. But the Iraq War is not in the news cycle, unless you tie it to the power vacuum left by toppling Iraq's leader, and therefore the growth of ISIS.

    That's how a media-savvy guy like Trump brings up the Iraq War -- tie it to ISIS, which is often in the news cycle, even though the war itself is over.

    Likewise, those hefty "speech" fees that she got from Wall Street in exchange for big-bank-friendly policies -- it's not in the news cycle. There's no independent ongoing story about Wall Street corruption, too big to fail, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc.

    You'd have to tie it to something similar in the news cycle, like the ongoing investigations over her corruption while Sec of State. Wall Street, foreign governments -- she'll take big bucks from anyone willing to fatten the Clinton Foundation coffers, and she feels no compunction doing whatever favors in return.

    Make the people see the broader pattern of her corruption, not just that isolated case that is not relevant to the news cycle.

    "Taking the high road" on these issues is really just an excuse not to have to engage people who aren't already on board with the program.

    I'm sure her phone-bankers and door-knockers went the extra mile to make their criticisms of Hillary relevant to what a randomly-dialed person would already know about her from the news cycle.

    But most of them want to stand apart from the media world, issue their denunciations, and then those who are good and wise will hear and follow their call.

    Trump knows that that's a failing strategy, apart from being on the misanthropic side. Get into the news cycle and stay relevant as much as possible. Trump can also drive the cycle on his own, which Bernie could not do at will. Still, if you want to reach people, you can't stand aloof and unsullied by the media world.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "We got our populist, but the Democrats did not...
    Doesn't this point to a 50/50 nationalist/globalist split in the country?"

    It's only 50-50 among the parties, not among the voters. Folks are pretty united around Trump on his side, and a big chunk of the Bernie people will not be voting for Crooked Hillary in the fall.

    So maybe more like 70-30 in favor of populism and nationalism, among voters.

    Something like 45% of the public supported Trump's temp ban on Muslims, if it was worded without mentioning Trump's name. And most people believe that the globalist trade deals are bad for American workers.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "any thoughts on Kevin O'Leary, the guy who is trying to position himself as the Canadian Donald Trump."

    Kevin O'Leary sounds like a typical libertarian -- boo taxes, yay goat-fucking.

    I'm skeptical about a Canadian Donald Trump existing. Canada is not as Celtic as America, especially the early settlers who laid the cultural foundation. I could easily see an Australian Trump coming around -- they're Celtic and Border English (i.e., Anglophone Celts).

    The hotbed of nationalism in Canada is Quebec, so if anything, he'd come from there -- although he might be more interested in disentangling Quebec from the rest of Canada and the world.

    Quebec was the earliest settled region in Canada, just like Trump country is the earliest settled places in America. They have a strong sense of cultural and genetic identity. And they also have the extension of the Appalachian chain.

    ReplyDelete
  29. So glad my Francophone ancestors left Canada. The formerly French Acadie became Nova Scotia, and I think the Maritime region of Canada in general is heavily Scottish and close to Canada's equivalent to Appalachia.

    ReplyDelete
  30. What gives with Bernie's shyness about the E-mails and the Clinton cash/foundation/bribery? Bernie will make fairly generic attacks on the Dem establishment and Hilary's character but he mostly doesn't get into specifics. He has brought up Hilary's Wall Street speech content/fees to which there's a definite whiff of sleaze but not the same kind of stench we're getting from the E-mails and the Clinton foundation.

    Bernie it seems is fairly easy to push around and is lacking Trump's wealth/power as well as Trump's sheer tenacity. Bernie would cave a lot quicker, and perhaps the Dems told him "we'll let you hang around and fire up Millennials, maybe even let you and your supporters have a token presence at the convention, just don't be too hard on Hilary please".

    Did the Dems intimidate (maybe even bribe)Bernie into aiding the cover-up of the big scandal? That is, the Clinton's decades long reign producing many decadent figures of whom many are still in government or important "private" institutions. The most incendiary corruption involves high level operatives either actively committing espionage or at least just looking the other way often with a tactit understanding that silence would be rewarded.

    The media is a joke. The Ken Starr fiasco, and the other tomfoolery regarding Bill's adventures, doesn't scratch the real problem. The media has had decades to blow up the Clinton's. But instead of bothering with real investigation, they explain to everybody that these "rumors" surrounding the Clintons are just that. Rumors, "unsubstantiated" per the Gov.'s official reports.

    In the 60's and 70's, the media prided itself on unmasking G.I.'s and Silents. Funny how the Boomer dominated media since the 90's has basically become an elite country club that doesn't dirty it's hands with investigations.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I lol'd at Takei trying to shepherd Bernie voters to Hillary, typical milquetoast boomer queer

    ReplyDelete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I stand corrected, maybe he's also influenced by the Japanese shikatai ga nai outlook.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Agnostic

    By targeting New York and Pennsylvania, Trump by default also targets New Jersey as well as Delaware and to a lesser extent Connecticut. I hope Trump does have success in the Northeast so as to show the GOP how to win in the Northeast. Republicans in these states have long been hampered by the cuckservative's cousin, the pozerate.

    The Pozerate globalist Republican thinks that in order to win in these states they must have a similar agenda as progressives, SJWs, and PC culture except when it comes to taxes and crime. They want an SWPL GOP free of blue collar voters and the like. The current VP candidate of Libertarian party, Bill Weld, is an example of this.

    When it comes to the midwest, Iowa would probably be the state most favorable to Trump out of the Lutheran belt. Obama is very unpopular there. I wouldn't read too much into the increased turnout for Democrats in Michigan from 2008. The DNC temporarily stripped Michigan as well as Florida of their delegates for holding their primaries before a certain date. Thus turnout was not as high as it would have been.

    ReplyDelete
  37. NJ was historically more Republican than NY. During the New Deal era, states touching the Great Lakes shifted toward solid blue or purple states, overturning their solid red status when Republican meant Northern.

    PA doesn't have much population near Lake Erie, and NJ has none. So they weren't really part of the New Deal blue states. They only turned solid blue in 1992.

    The Philly suburbs in PA are Trump country, and a big chunk of New Jersey lives in the Philly metro. I'm sure the NYC metro in NJ is worse, but there are also a lot of old-timers there who will vote like Long Islanders and Staten Islanders, who will go big-league for Trump.

    I think Trump will play well in NJ if there's little to no emphasis on Culture War topics. I'm glad he got the Supreme Court picks out of the way, so they won't be news in the fall -- no one will care about old news by that point.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "The DNC temporarily stripped Michigan as well as Florida of their delegates for holding their primaries before a certain date. Thus turnout was not as high as it would have been."

    Not enough to neutralize the 100% increase in turnout... maybe it's "only" 90%. Boatloads more Michiganders turned out this time, and as elsewhere, that was to the benefit of the Bernie movement.

    Not a group that resonates with Hillary "NAFTA" Clinton.

    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."