July 23, 2016

Landslide: Trump now up 49-33 on West Coast (Reuters)

In the mother of all Convention bumps, Trump is now polling at 49-33 among residents of the Far West region in the Reuters tracking poll. This graph shows the results from May 1 through July 22, and look at how sharp the rise has been over the past week (click to enlarge):


Trump has risen from roughly 10% to 50%, as Crooked Hillary plummets from roughly 60% to 30%. And generally Reuters tends to underestimate how well Trump does against Clinton, compared to other polls.

Only catch -- these respondents include unregistered / unlikely voters as well as registered and likely voters. Among registered or likely voters, Clinton is still up 25-30 points, although that itself is quite a narrowing from just before the Convention.

If the campaign and volunteer groups can spend the next several months finding these disaffected voters, registering them, and staying in touch to get out the vote on Election Day, the Trump movement can win back the historically deep red states of the Pacific, before the culture wars turned them off during the 1990s.

California has one of the lowest turnout rates in the nation, so it should not be hard to find disaffected voters there -- spin around and throw a stone. With its 55 electoral votes, California cannot be written off, especially when we're exploding in popularity after the Convention. They appreciate the drama and spectacle of showbiz! Can you imagine how boring, conformist, and pro-Establishment the Dems' Convention is going to be, especially when they see Bernie reduced to toadie status before Her Royal Highness?

Oregon had Trump up 42-40 in mid-May, so that would be the easiest place to convert.

Washington would be more difficult, but between blue-collar populism, bettering IT workers by ending work visa abuse, non-interventionist foreign policy, and helping Bernie / Greens to drive voters away from Crooked Hillary (perhaps just staying home), there just might be a "grungers and Microsoft" coalition for Trump.

I'm not plugged into the campaign or political orgs of any kind. If you are or know someone who is, get the word out and let's mobilize the West Coast for Trump! Landslide = mandate!

18 comments:

  1. The leaks about the DNC and their dirty dealings have also helped.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A friend of mine recently ‘came out’ publicly as a staunch Trump supporter (I’ve been to rallies together with him and his wife), causing a raucous in the office. He got into it with one of the femcunt libtard female assistants, who eventually backed down and apologised to him. Apparently there are some male Hillary supporters in the office. WTF?!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Random Dude on the Internet7/23/16, 8:57 AM

    Ironically enough, Karl Rove wrote an op/ed in the Wall Street Journal this week about how pointless it is for Trump to target New York and California.

    The Republicans are much better off leaving behind the Jeb Bushes and Karl Roves of the party.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The state that's not mentioned on here that needs to be targeted is Illinois.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Space Moose7/24/16, 1:47 AM

    The campaign in California was bare bones during the primary, which I respect since it shows Mr. Trump is not a wasteful spender. After the Fresno rally I was trying to buy thousands of the "Farmers For Trump" and pass them out to friends, family, and all the people with "Congress Created Drought" signs but it went nowhere. No one could tell me where to buy them. Those signs get tons of eyes on the way to LA or SF so I'll make my own.

    After the primary any emails to the California campaign staff went unanswered and a few weeks later the local paper said they had been shuttered.

    I'm putting up signs and giving away hats on my own but probably not making too big of a difference without targeting and helping unregistered voters. I've done many hours on the campaign's Callfire but it's tedious reading a script and annoying just having to take abuse over the phone because trolling in response would make the campaign look bad. Plus I feel like an asshole. I hate telemarketers. I'm more productive unscripted face to face.

    I got excited when I saw my first Trump bumper sticker Today driving to Yosemite. Surprisingly didn't see any at the rallies I went to and I went to all the rallies in CA and NV. Considering what happened in San Diego and San Jose people are justified not displaying bumper stickers.

    If you have a message for the state or local coordinators I'd be happy to pass it along but I don't know if they'll read it. The contact link on Mr. Trump's site definitely is read even if they don't always respond. I set up a few small things like connections to local GOP operatives with the campaign using it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Misanthropist7/24/16, 3:16 AM

    Presumably voter turnout tends to be low in California as it has for some time not been a competitive state in presidential elections, and seldom has competitive statewide races for other important offices such as governor or senator in presidential election years. Competitive races at the top of the ballot tend to drive up voter turnout. People have less incentive to bother to vote if all the important races are a foregone conclusion. And there is less incentive to organize large scale get-out-the-vote efforts if there are no important competitive statewide races (particularly in a state like California which is extremely expensive to run statewide campaigns in).

    If California becomes more competitive in presidential elections again, it is wishful thinking to believe that Democrat voter turnout will just stand still while the Republicans ride over the top of them. The Democrats will obviously throw more resources into getting out their own vote in a state they previously took for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  7. A friend works in the fashion industry in LA and on her morning commutes on the 405 she regularly sees the "Trump truck," a large van festooned with pro-Trump slogans and images.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Trump is going to get smashed this November

    His own party doesn't even like him

    The demcrats are very unified. the emails don't matter

    ReplyDelete
  9. GOP: Voters united, party insiders divided

    Dem: Voters fractured, party insiders united

    I wonder which side is going to wipe out the other side in November?

    Too bad Crooked Hillary won't have superdelegates to save her ass in the general!

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I got excited when I saw my first Trump bumper sticker Today driving to Yosemite. Surprisingly didn't see any at the rallies I went to and I went to all the rallies in CA and NV. Considering what happened in San Diego and San Jose people are justified not displaying bumper stickers."

    How are other regions doing in terms of visible support? Maybe the West in general feels let down after 40-50 years of being pandered to. Hell, with Kaine as Dem VP we've now settled on each ticket being all Eastern. Trump proved his cunning by seizing on Ted Cruz's weird origin, going as far as implicating his Cuban dad in the JFK murder. Do we want several generations of productive East coast businessmen in the White House or Cuban/Canadian/Texan hucksters?

    In addition to Westerners feeling slighted, going back to your original point, maybe the more immigrant friendly climate out West makes even natives (let alone immigrants themselves) uncomfortable with a strictly nativist/traditionalist candidate. I guess in the East, it's more likely that Trump supporters will be nervous about getting shit from blacks and white liberals.

    Outside of maybe Appalachia, are there any regions right now where it's safe to show support for Trump? Who wants there mailbox or car window smashed? In heavily brown/Millennial/liberal California, we saw how easily the hordes were triggered into a chimpout. Since we're in a highly decadent period, we can't even rely on our "leaders" (like the execrable spic chief in California who told officers to not protect Trump supporters) to protect regular Americans from abuse. Mayor Dailey, Bull Connor etc. could sic dogs on and use firehoses and night sticks on annoying and frequently dangerous protesters in the 60's. Compare that to how violent protesters are ironically, for all and intents and purposes, defended by law enforcement these days.

    The Rodney King riots proved to alienated irregular Americans that the authorities were now more interested in pandering to them than cracking down on them.

    Per Wiki: In 1948, Connor's officers arrested U.S. Senator from Idaho, Glen H. Taylor, the running mate of Progressive Party presidential candidate and former Democratic Vice President Henry Wallace. Taylor, who had attempted to speak to the Southern Negro Youth Congress, was arrested for violating Birmingham's segregation laws. Connor's effort to enforce the law was sparked by the group's reported communist philosophy, with Connor noting at the time, "There's not enough room in town for Bull and the Commies."

    In the mid-Century, outsider busy bodies were told to go to hell.

    "The day after the April election, civil rights leaders, led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., began "Project 'C'" (for "confrontation") in Birmingham against the police tactics used by Connor and his subordinates (and, by extension, other Southern police officials). King's arrest during this period would provide him the opportunity to write his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail. The goal of this movement was to cause mass arrests and subsequent inability of the judicial and penal systems to deal with this volume of activity."

    Note that, contrary to the PC nostalgia about "senseless" beatings of noble protesters, 60's agitators were in fact deliberately provoking civil instability and forcing cops to take action. Also, King and the other civil rights pushers picked on Birmingham since they knew that the whites of the area were hardasses who would push back. What good would it do to cause trouble in an area with pussies who would cave in right away? Nobody would've cared if King and his comrades instantly got their way.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I see that Connor was a Lost, born in the late 1800's. Kind of figures, they were hardened and no-nonsense as they got older. And they were born into a fucked up America that was in the process of being cleaned up. The subsequent generation of that type, the Gen X-ers, had the misfortune of coming into an America that was screwed up but hadn't decided to begin the clean-up. X-ers better stop with the cynicism, the excuses, the torpor. Time to get your hands dirty. We cleaned the scum up in the 1st half of the 20th century, and we need to do it again in the 1st half of the 21 century. Hopefully Gen X soon emulates the middle aged/elderly Lost model of being care takers of a world that didn't care for them and indeed was often hard to care about.

    It sucks that we now have 4 more years worth of Millennials eligible to vote. And shame on the Boomers and late Silents for not having more kids in the late 60's-early 80's. Between the flood of immigrants that intensified after 1986 and native birth rates spiking in the 90's (anyone born in this era is the product of PC), the Millennials are hopeless. Neil Howe has said that later Millennials will probably be in the driver's seat if for no other reason than their massive numbers. Bad news, since 90's births are even more pozzed and cucked than the 80's cohort. Gen X-ers are much more likely to be, ethnically speaking, regular Americans. But there just aren't that many Gen X-ers. Furthermore, way too many are deracinated and flippant pseudo intellectuals who constantly rag on the 50's and 80's. Knock it off, the survival of America may rest on you. The Boomers aren't going to be around forever. Trump needs us.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Feryl,

    I am not worried about it. Right now, Boomers are still firmly in control of all leadership positions. Naturally they haven't groomed their successors, because that would require (1) acknowledging their own mortality; (2) thinking about the institutions of our society, rather than about themselves; and (3) taking on a parental role; and (4) making the sacrifices associated with mentoring, like ceding some measure of responsibility and giving some of the credit to one's underlings instead of hoarding it for oneself.

    What this means is that we don't have any public examples of how Gen-Xer's will behave when they advance into leadership positions. But that WILL happen, the Grim Reaper will visit the Boomers eventually.

    Once the younger generations take power, the first thing we will see is...chaos. That's because, again, most of the young people haven't been trained and mentored and aren't ready to take charge. When the Boomer who has been in the same job for the past 30 years suddenly retires, the Gen Xer or Millenial who steps up won't know the ropes. Mistakes will be made.

    But the Darwinian chaos will also allow natural leaders to emerge. Folks who haven't had a chance to show what they can do because the Boomers were clinging to the levers of power will suddenly appear on the scene and do well.

    The other thing that will result is pragmatic behavior. When the new CEO/CFO/VP is struggling to keep the company in business, there will be no time for diversity, TED talks, and all of that bullshit. It'll be all about hitting the numbers and selling products, if you want to keep your job.

    Finally, when this happens you will finally see Gen-X'ers real attitudes on display. In my experience most of us are pragmatic and compassionate people. We'll make a lot of mistakes because we'll move up the ranks too quickly once the Boomers exit en masse, but we will not bother with so much of the Boomers' BS and moral preening. in the end the institutions of our society will start to operate pragmatically instead of ideologically and that will solve a lot of problems.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'Finally, when this happens you will finally see Gen-X'ers real attitudes on display. In my experience most of us are pragmatic and compassionate people. We'll make a lot of mistakes because we'll move up the ranks too quickly once the Boomers exit en masse, but we will not bother with so much of the Boomers' BS and moral preening. in the end the institutions of our society will start to operate pragmatically instead of ideologically and that will solve a lot of problems."

    No matter how hypocritical, or moralistic, or indulgent you think the Boomers are, there's a reason society has paid attention to them for so long. They're always pushing to make things better. In the 60's and 70's it was about expanding awareness and authenticity. In the 80's and beyond it became more about moral campaigns primarily designed to make the world more conducive to guiding their own kids (and also keeping tabs on Gen X siblings and their own Gen X kids who were having the Millennial/Homeland grandkids of the Boomers).

    Gen X-ers grow disillusioned with the perceived/actual busy body judgemental excesses of Boomers and keep a low profile, though regardless of their reservations they ultimately just go on with the guidelines established by the Boomers albeit doing it in a more prosaic and self-effacing way. Kinda like how Gen X artists have mostly copied Silent and Boomers artists but stripped away much of the shiny ornament lest they be accused of making anything too pretty or portentous. Compare the unironic ambitious power of Metallica to the self aware insouciance of Nirvana, who constantly goofed on Boomer metal bands.

    With domineering prophets above and eager heroes below, the Gen X type generation typically ages into the role of crotchety caretaker as prophets remain in the collective conscious even in death. Meanwhile the younger hero generation is too treasured, has seen too much investment, for Gen X--ers to get in their way. Look at the real Terminator movies; a Boomer struggles to tame life in a harsh world. She gives birth and then is pre-occupied with guiding (but not sheltering, that's more what Gen X parents do) a child/teen hero who has a vital destiny of virtue ahead.

    If you look at election history, you see that the Lost Generation repeatedly tried but mostly failed to win elections while Missionaries like FDR dominated in the early 1900's after which G.I.s were handed the baton. The cycle has continued with Silents performing pitifully after having their icons like RFK and MLK slain. The baton got handed from G.I.s to Boomers.

    Society seems to prefer alternating between a visionary/charismatic prophet and a steady/virtuous hero at the helm.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Feryl,

    I think Gen-X can expect to be in the WH, as well as in leadership in Congress, during most of the new "High" era, as Truman and Ike (The Nomads) were. Then the next iteration of JFK The Hero comes in to much acclaim. This may be the period JS is referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That interpretation of the boomers is far too charitable, Feryl. Everyone wants to "make things better", but it takes self-centeredness bordering on narcissism to think that reorganizing society to fit your ideals won't have unforeseeable second-order effects. Their lasting legacy won't be "civil rights", it will be their enthusiasm to flood the country with immigrant labor and to offshore manufacturing so that they can more cheap garbage. It's shocking how much they've been willing to sell out their country to get more cheap shit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Guys, you're letting other generations off the hook. In 1965, the oldest Boomers were barely drinking age. What exactly spurred immigration changes, the weakening of wage workers, the growing distaste for manufacturing? What caused crime to explode in the later 60's?

    Teddy Kennedy (a young Silent) as well as an old Lost Jew were the primary champions of the '65 immigration act. Literally no Boomer was in power at that point. The Boomers didn't ascend to power until the 90's, at which point plenty of Boomers were bashing liberals and PC.

    Boomers flocked to 70's and 80's movies that disdained Silent Gen judges and politicians. The G.I.s took some crap too, but at least they acted forcefully even if the outcome wasn't always the best (and by the early 70's, it was obvious that some G.I.s had bit off more than they could chew). But Boomers were absolutely merciless toward Silents, the generation that as kids and young adults never seemed to make waves. When the culture turned, Silents decided that it was time to shake things up a little. Not that they didn't mean to hurt anyone or alienate anyone as Silents always prided themselves on giving everyone a fair shake. It was this neurosis that gummed up the ability of Silents to make judgements and get things done. By the 70's it seemed like (especially to Boomer youth) that there was too much talk, too much detail, and not enough action and clarity. Stallone made a career out of standing up to ineffectual or neurotic Silent authorities. I mean, the ending of Rambo 2 pretty much sums up what Boomers felt about Silent authority. Their really was rage towards corruption and incompetence, and Boomers didn't feel like society needed more therapy or discussions. We needed to kick more ass and to hell with the rules or protocol.

    We've always had Boomer champions. The fact that some are assholes, parasites, and traitors doesn't change that. There's only one generation type that's virtuous anyway (the hero kind). In the tumult of the 60's/70's, a lot of Silents and Boomers became perps. But G.I.s never succumbed to crime. We're in a transition period right now. Instead of griping about annoying Boomers we need to be focusing on championing the good ones (like Trump) who have the vision and energy to right the ship.

    ReplyDelete
  17. BTW, a lot of G.I. and Silent figures earnestly believed in the '85 immigration act too. The primary architects were early Silent Gen. Again, the Boomers were 20-40 at the time. Trying to start families, or protect their existing families. Do ya think they were thrilled about California becoming the most diverse place on Earth after the mid 80's? It simply makes no sense to attribute most, let alone all, of the blame to Boomers for the wretched state of post 1970 governance.

    Oh, and Gen X-ers are now 31-51 years old. It's safe to say at this point that if they were really THAT great, society ought to have done a 180 from the shit conditions of the last 40 years. But we haven't yet done it. All of the generations can do better. Instead of pitting different gens against each other (which a lot of younger smug liberals are doing), let's focus on quitting the culture war, throwing the bums out, and getting natives back to work.

    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."