October 5, 2016

No signs of third-party cuck victory in Mountain states

An earlier post looked into the nature of the American two-party system, where each party is really a coalition of various groups that would form their own separate parties in Europe. Here, we form the coalition before the election rather than after. That seems to make actually governing proceed more swiftly here once the election is done, although it does make for more grand-scale politics leading up to the election, since each party is a great big coalition rather than a smaller party fending for itself.

But that doesn't mean the coalition holds together forever. When there is enough friction, one member group may break off into a protest party of its own:

Third parties do occasionally achieve national success, but they are short-lived reactions by defectors from one of the two parties, intended to punish the other members of the coalition who have betrayed the defecting group. They realize they will not win the general election as a break-off faction of one of the two parties -- the point is to punish past wrongdoing within the party, and serve as a credible threat against any future betrayal within the party.

Importantly, they are swift responses against the incumbent party -- not delayed grudges.

That's an important point because third parties do not split off from a party that is already the opposition -- only from the incumbent party. Being taken for granted, abused, etc., stings more when you're part of the incumbent party because you aren't enjoying the fruits of victory like the other member groups are.

Once the Trump movement takes office, there could come a time after four or eight years when some of the older and now lesser elements of the coalition will feel slighted, taken for granted, and so on. We need to do our best to keep every group happy so that nobody pulls out -- at least, to the extent that they would jeopardize victory. If only one small state pulled out, and we would otherwise win by a large margin, we'd still win, just by a slightly smaller margin.

But if it's part of a broader discontent, then the coalition could be in serious trouble. For example, the Deep South punishing the Democrats in 1968 for cutting against white Southerners' interests by going whole-hog on the Civil Rights movement.

For the Trump movement, the weakest members are the apocalyptic Judaizers in the Plains and Mountain states, particularly the Mormons. So let's take a look at Utah and see if there are any signs already visible of a splinter movement there.

Right now, Trump is comfortably ahead of not only the Democrat but also the various third-party candidates, of which there are many. That is their main problem -- they are voting against Trump out of a sense of being holier-than-thou, but in what way are they holier-than-thou? There could be any number of traits that they draw that contrast on.

According to polls by PPP, Salt Lake Tribune, and Dan Jones & Assoc., Trump's support is in the high 30s, and Clinton's in the mid 20s. Normally the Republican would go on to win the state with well over 60% of the vote, but Trump is NOT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE.

And yet there is no single candidate who is running away with the 30 points left between Trump and the typical conservative Republican. Libertarian Gary Johnson is polling at 13%, while movement conservative Mormon McCuckin is polling at 10%, and Darrell Castle is at 2% (Constitution Party -- paleocon, theocratic). That still leaves about 10% who are undecided, too.

This is a microcosm of the primaries, where the non-Trump voters were too concerned with tailoring their non-Trump vote to their personal tastes, yielding over a dozen challengers to cater to as many different ideological and personality niches. If they wanted to break away, they had to overlook their personal differences and unite behind just one non-Trump candidate.

At least for now, then, Utah and the region is safe. But it's still something to keep an eye on, and to head off by giving them something in the new Republican Party -- like promising conservative Supreme Court Justices. They may want a more theocratic President, though, not just conservative influence in the courts. They may want weekly performances by a cosplay conservative President (a la Glenn Beck in his cargo cult Oval Office), rather than specific policy changes.

In the event that they did vote for a single third party in the future, that would only remove 13 EC votes. If the re-alignment made Michigan a permanent member of the coalition, that would offset the loss in the Mountain states by 3 votes. To clear 270, we'd need other members in the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, or New England. It wouldn't be the end of the world. See this earlier post on trading the Mormons for Michigan.

The only big loss that would be hard to make up for if they voted third-party is Texas, but they seem to be a lot less likely to splinter. They seem to want to punish Lyin' Ted rather than encourage him as in Utah. Trump is polling about 5 points higher in Texas than in Utah, and the main enemy is Democrats rather than a motley crew of cuck candidates. After deporting the illegals and anchor babies and their extended families, that ought to pad our margin better still.

It is exciting to be bringing in all sorts of new voters, demographic groups, states, and even regions into the Republican Party -- at least for Presidential races. But we need to be mindful of not letting the older groups feel marginalized, lest they abandon ship. And even if that proves inevitable, we need to be doubly aware of it and begin making up for it elsewhere.

16 comments:

  1. I have always wondered whether the Mormons have sort of seized upon this moment to ostentatiously support Democrats - or at least publicly repudiate Trump - because they sense that the demographic and ideological winds are blowing against them. They are hoping that by publicly renouncing Trump, they'll gain some favor with the left and will save themselves from future persecution, just as Agnostic predicts.

    There is some logic to this. Unlike other religious sects, the Mormons have had several violent run-ins with the state and federal governments, so they are probably concerned about the possibility that it could happen again. Also, right now the left seems to think of Mormons as symbols of everything that leftists hate about conservatives - patriarchal, anti-gay, overwhelmingly conservative, etc. The "Book of Mormon" musical and the Mormons' opposition to gay marriage are important parts of leftist intellectual culture.

    So the Mormons are in a tough position. If Trump can't pull it off, they really can expect to be targeted and persecuted. So my guess is that they are preparing to do a modern-day version of their 1890 renunciation of polygamy, or the 1978 admission of blacks to the Mormon priesthood - they are going to make some kind of public concession to leftist ideology in the hope that this will cause the liberals to leave them alone. The leaders of the Mormon church have probably been planning something like this for a long time. So now they are choosing to publicly disavow Trump because (1) they genuinely don't like his demeanor; and (2) it doesn't cost the Mormons much -- it's easy to disavow Trump, it's far better than admitting women to the Mormon priesthood, extending the sacrament of marriage to gays, etc.

    Of course this is madness. The left will never interpret a concession by the Mormons as a good faith gesture of compromise. They'll interpret it as weakness and will double down, just like they have done with every other concession by right-wing institutions -- the military, Boy Scouts, etc. It's true that the Mormons are in a difficult position. But, well, that's reality. You can't rationalize it away. I hope the Mormons stand strong but it's easy to imagine their leaders making some kind of cucky gesture toward the left. We'll see.

    As Agnostic predicts, they'll probably CONTINUE doing stuff this even during the Trump administration. Just as the 80 year-old leaders of the LDS church don't understand that you can't compromise with the left, they also don't understand the populist rebellion that is happening. The Mormon subculture is so insulated that they simply don't understand the level of dissatisfaction and anger with elites that is out there. So they'll probably keep on cuckin' even as we begin to make America great again; they won't even realize that things are getting better for them, and they'll continue to look for opportunities to repudiate Trumpism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "So they'll probably keep on cuckin' even as we begin to make America great again"

    That's the crux of the matter -- how would they respond even after Trump won, not now when it's still up in the air and they may be hedging their bets.

    There's already going to be some kind of showdown over open borders, and it's beyond the non-confrontational nature of theirs that they share with Minnesotans.

    The Mormon Church is a pyramid scheme to enrich the elites, and as of roughly 1990 their growth has been negative among Americans. All of their growth has come from converting foreigners -- a good chunk of whom immigrate to be Mormons in America rather than Mormons in their homelands.

    Mormon recruiters also look at the hordes of illegals in the Southwest, including Utah, as a source of converts. They generally have success in their homelands, so why not when they move here? And once they get them, that's another income stream because they tithe.

    Salt Lake City is a sanctuary city, home not only to lots of Mormons but also the majority of shitlibs in the region (gayest city). With that as the enemy, what are the chances that shutting down their sanctuary policies go without a hitch?

    I have a bad feeling that the Mormons are going to interpret all of that as yet another persecution against their religious freedom, and an attempt to limit their growth as a church in America.

    If it touches an identity politics nerve like that, it could easily provoke a splinter movement -- not joining the Democrats, but voting for a Romney / McCuckin candidate to deprive the Republicans of their Electoral College votes, while staying ideologically pure (Democrat-free).

    I'd really like to lock down Michigan, one or two states in New England, and at least turn Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Wisconsin into toss-up states. We're going to need a reserve army if the Mormons defect, which could take away Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hilarious that rocky mountain cultists will vote for a liberal masquerading as libertarian like Johnson to prove a point

    ReplyDelete
  4. And for those who don't know anything about the Mormons, their history of "religious persecution" has always been caused by their polygamy. That's why their leaders got tarred and feathered back East, why their printing press was destroyed (spreading propaganda for a polygamous cult), and why the federal government sent in troops, and why they were not allowed statehood for decades.

    Once they gave up polygamy, their persecution ended.

    If there's a future showdown with the federal gubmint, they will be trying to protect another outrageous practice -- importing hordes of third-world converts without any vetting. Muh congregation growth rates!

    And once they accept the end of open borders, there will be no more friction with the feds.

    It's revealing how, time and again, their paranoia about persecution is always related to their subversion of normal Western norms. Don't believe any propaganda about it being secular vs. religious, or atheist vs. Christian. It's whackjob pyramid scheme church vs. governmental regulation toward normality.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That's the fascinating thing about all this. The Mormons were originally marginalized because they were a cult, but today the persecution is due to their adherence to orthodox religious doctrine like opposition to gay marriage.

    It's true that in the past, the "persecution" experienced by the Mormons has been caused by their deviant practices. Picture yourself as a farmer in Central Illinois in 1845, minding your own business, raising your own family and working the land. When you got to Illinois you had to fight off attacks by the Blackfoot Indians as a member of the local militia. Like most people of that era, you are deeply religious; so much so that it's difficult for modern secular Americans to understand your worldview and motivations. There are about 2,000 like-minded people in the entire county and most of them are deeply religious Christians farmers like you.

    Suddenly, 4,000 members of a cult move into your town. They immediately outnumber the local residents. They practice a perverted version of Christianity and practice polygamy. They start trying to convert you, and your relatives, to their cult. The pressure is intense and unrelenting.

    Due to their numbers, the Mormons immediately dominate local commerce. But they are clannish and only do business with one another. They start a newspaper, run their own slate of candidates for Mayor and the other elected offices, and begin plotting to win seats in the state legislature. Suddenly you find yourself living in some insane theocracy. These people are not only practicing a Satanic religion -- now they are taking over the economy and the government? What do you do? Call the Governor for help, and have him get rid of these cultists. The Mormons respond by organizing their own militia and preparing for armed conflict with the lawful authorities of the state. What do you do? Arrest Joseph Smith, hang him, and crush the rebellion. Expel them from your community. Let them trek across the mountains and desert tot Utah, whatever. But get them OUT.

    That is basically the history of Mormon "persecution" in a nutshell. They push people too far and it provokes a backlash. Interestingly, Mormons are the only religious group in American history to test the limits of the First Amendment in that manner.

    But as with everything else involving Mormons, they can also be extremely admirable people. Today, the Mormon church actually is being persecuted for its beliefs by liberals. They've resisted almost all of the cultural changes that he left has been pushing -- a female ministry, gay marriage, etc., etc. -- and are still a deeply conservative institution. And they're organized and serious about their faith, so today -- ironically -- the persecution of Mormons by liberals is based on their religious doctrine, not on dysfunctional practices like polygamy.

    We'll see how the Mormons handle this. Sadly, I expect the leaders to cuck. I don't think the church is just a pyramid scheme, there's a lot to admire about it. Sometimes I even wonder if God is working through a church like that. It's not that I believe in their doctrine, it's nuts; Joseph Smith was just a 19th century patent medicine salesman. But when you see the decency, the dedication, and the large, happy Mormon families. It makes me wonder whether God is somehow working though that strange cult, even though it's imperfect maybe it is still touched by the divine in some way. But sadly, I suspect that the ultimate answer is that the church is a cult, and it's leaders will cave to social pressure for that reason. If they really had balls they'd choose persecution and martyrdom, but part of me expects them to endorse gay marriage, repudiate Trump, and try to cut some sort of ultimately fruitless "deal" with the left instead.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wow the sanctuary city status of SLC provoking a showdown between the Mormons and the Trump administration is a fascinating scenario. A really fascinating scenario.

    As you say, Latin American converts are important to the church. I think that Latin Americans even figure into their theology, the Latin Americans are supposedly the descendants of the Laminites or whatever. So the Mormons have a major incentive to come out in favor of Hispanics for that reason. This would also earn the Mormons a lot of credibility with the globalist left -- so much so that there would almost have to be a quid pro quo.

    The Mormons would say that they originally came to Utah as refugees to escape persecution, that for this reason they cannot turn their backs on modern-day refugees, etc. The Mormons walked across the mountains and the desert with handcarts, the illegals made a similar journey, etc. All of this fits in so neatly with Mormon religious beliefs and culture that I can actually envision the leaders of the church getting their otherwise conservative parishioners to go along with it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Random Dude on the Internet10/5/16, 7:24 PM

    Making America Great Again means Mormons working with gentiles instead of exploiting them. They have no interest in going down that road.

    I expect nothing less than total hostility towards Trump in the eight years he's in office from the Mormon community. If things get really bad, I suspect there will be a sizable movement among Mormons to secede from the US and organize an independent Deseret. That way they can import Polynesians to their heart's content.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Mormons aren't "conservative". The most basic element of conservatism (the blood and soil real kind, not the anti-gov. paranoia kind, the cultural striver kind, or the nerdy supply side kind) is looking out for one's immediate family and one's extended family (aka your race). The Mormon's flooding the land with non-whites is as liberal as you can get. Note too that both Lutheranism and Mormonism are heavily influenced by naive Nordic civic culture in which everybody gets the benefit of the doubt no matter your heritage or origin. Nords establish productive (but bland) communities but are woefully timid at defending them from interlopers.

    The Mormon emphasis on "good behavior" is basically a product of two things. Western striving culture, for one thing. Secondly, a genetic inclination towards discipline. Compare that superficially conservative culture to say, Scots-Irish Southern culture, in which the emphasis is on defending one's honor at almost any cost. Old-stock Southerners don't care about status totems like hardcore devotion to a lifestyle/religion (as is common in any state granted statehood after 1840) or high society trappings (more common in pre 1840 states). Nords, puritans, and those out West certainly would question the notion that the South represents any kind of divine guidance or purity, but that's because their conception of virtue is driven by notions of restrained behavior and/or ostentatious striving totems.

    It's gets pretty old being surrounded by wussies more concerned with looking good/committed to some trendy cause than they are with kicking ass. For somebody like me, there's not much you can do to fight back, regionally speaking, since you have no strength in numbers. There's a pre-occupation with "fairness" and sobriety. All ice, no fire.

    Funny how modern conservatism became compulsively devoted to the notion of the sacred "family" while doing so little to preserve the demographics of founding stock America. So often rhetoric was imbued with individualist/anti-statist paranoia as though a collection of neat little nuclear families somehow could effectively form a nation. This Western cultural striver friendly crank stuff really weakened institutions of all kinds over the last 40 years, thus causing much of the rust-belt, the Northeast, and the Pacific to swear off Republicans not named Reagan (a lot of Dems didn't vote for NAFTA, after all).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do you think Pence's performance could mark the end of the most recent Trump slump?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm a Mormon and I live in Utah.

    The Latin American missions produce more baptisms than the European missions, but the converts suck. They almost immediately go inactive, and even the active ones are too poor to produce much tithing.

    The Church's bread and butter is still middle-class white families in Utah, descended from the pioneers. Although the Church leadership wants to avoid alienating potential new markets, they know where the real value lies.

    A lot of my friends, neighbors, and relatives are complaining about Donald Trump now, but they'll come around if he wins. We tend to be pragmatic and risk-averse about this sort of thing.

    P.S., I hope this isn't too pedantic, but the church's printing press was not destroyed for publishing pro-polygamy propaganda. Rather, as mayor of Nauvoo, Joseph Smith ordered the Nauvoo Expositor destroyed because it was publishing anti-Church propaganda. This act is what led to his arrest and eventual murder while in prison awaiting trial.

    ReplyDelete
  11. They may be pragmatic now, while the Republicans are not the incumbent party and therefore every member in the coalition has to stick together or else lose forever.

    But once they're the incumbent party for awhile, they won't feel the same need to stick together. And the direction that the party is heading toward is away from what they'd like to get out of it.

    There's a precedent for this in the 1912 election. The Republicans had become the leaders of the Progressive Era, beginning with McKinley, then Teddy Roosevelt. Taft succeeded Roosevelt, and was from a more Old Guard background than the Progressive TR.

    In 1912, after holding the White House for 16 years, the Republicans split over who to nominate. Taft wanted to run for re-election, trying to revive the Old Guard, while Roosevelt wanted back in the White House to pursue a more Progressive plan.

    The party leaders chose Taft, and Roosevelt ran on his own ticket (Progressive). In that sense, Taft was the nominee of one of the two major parties, and TR was a third party candidate.

    But by the outcomes, it turned out TR was the second party -- he far out-scored Taft on the popular vote, number of states won, and Electoral College votes.

    Taft only won two states -- Utah and Vermont (linked by being the birthplace of Joseph Smith). Roosevelt won Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota, Washington, and California.

    None of the TR states has ever voted third-party. Utah never has either, although in 1892 the surrounding states did (Idaho, Nevada, Colorado for the Populists), and it's likely that Utah would have too if they were a state.

    Usually third parties are geographically clustered (Populist in 1892, various segregationist parties in the Deep South). The Progressive states in 1912 ran from coast to coast, including both rural and urbanized flyover states in between.

    I think that's more consistent with TR / Progressive being the second major party in 1912, and Taft / GOP being the third party.

    So, there's a precedent for Utah splintering off from the mainstream and going with a third-party candidate who's conservative / Old Guard, against a major-party candidate who's from the Progressive wing of their usual party.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Also worth noting that Taft just barely won Vermont -- less than 2 points ahead of TR, with Wilson more than 10 points behind either one. Not exactly a sign of Old Guard dominance in Vermont or New England.

    In Utah, though, Taft scored a solid victory for the conservative Old Guard -- 5 points ahead of Wilson, and 16 points ahead of Roosevelt. They really didn't want the Progressive Republican there.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To close up the historical comparison -- the Democrats won in 1912 because of the rift in the incumbent Republican party. If not for the split, the Republicans would have won a majority of the popular vote, and the EC as well.

    Instead, the White House went to the Democrat (globalist Woodrow Wilson), who only won because so many states were split between GOP and Progressive, so he won them by plurality.

    We can't let that happen again. Thankfully we have a primary system that they did not, so the next Teddy Roosevelt will not lose the GOP nomination to the next Taft. But you never know about delegate revolts, brokered conventions, etc.

    If the party leaders try to re-set the Trump movement and try to revive the Conservative Inc. party of the Reagan-Bush era, they will hand the White House over to the Democrats. And given incumbent advantage, that would likely last for 8 years, as it did under Wilson.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "It's true that in the past, the "persecution" experienced by the Mormons has been caused by their deviant practices. Picture yourself as a farmer in Central Illinois in 1845, minding your own business, raising your own family and working the land. When you got to Illinois you had to fight off attacks by the Blackfoot Indians as a member of the local militia. Like most people of that era, you are deeply religious; so much so that it's difficult for modern secular Americans to understand your worldview and motivations. There are about 2,000 like-minded people in the entire county and most of them are deeply religious Christians farmers like you.

    Suddenly, 4,000 members of a cult move into your town. They immediately outnumber the local residents. They practice a perverted version of Christianity and practice polygamy. They start trying to convert you, and your relatives, to their cult. The pressure is intense and unrelenting.

    Due to their numbers, the Mormons immediately dominate local commerce. But they are clannish and only do business with one another. They start a newspaper, run their own slate of candidates for Mayor and the other elected offices, and begin plotting to win seats in the state legislature. Suddenly you find yourself living in some insane theocracy. These people are not only practicing a Satanic religion -- now they are taking over the economy and the government? What do you do? Call the Governor for help, and have him get rid of these cultists. The Mormons respond by organizing their own militia and preparing for armed conflict with the lawful authorities of the state. What do you do? Arrest Joseph Smith, hang him, and crush the rebellion. Expel them from your community. Let them trek across the mountains and desert tot Utah, whatever. But get them OUT.

    That is basically the history of Mormon "persecution" in a nutshell. They push people too far and it provokes a backlash."

    Shit like this convinces me that the Demshits are right sometimes: you guys really need to get the Stalin treatment.

    How on EARTH do you write persecution in scare quotes? That IS persecution, no ifs and buts.

    More importantly, at no point in your little scenario did the Mormons do anything wrong, as in, violecne or initiation of force. "Deviant" religious practices are not just cause for violence.

    Now choke.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Mormons were a nutjob polygamist cult that threatened to spread its polygamist nutjob cultishness throughout the local community.

    They deserved to get run out of town more than the Cherokee Indians on the Trail of Tears.

    More proof that the Mormons are an incubating form of Wahhabi Islam in America.

    "We didn't initiate aggression against you, so what's the big deal if we're spreading sharia and polygamy throughout the culture you guys spent so long cultivating here?"

    The Trump movement would have won the White House without the Mormon vote -- do not forget that. No more theocrat LARP-ing in the GOP.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The secular and Mainline Anglos and Scandis of the Lutheran Triangle managed to uncuck themselves, while their blood brothers in theocratic Utah went double digits *down* in vote share going to the Republican.

    Normal religion is perfectly fine. Once it mutates into Wahhabism, it leads the people on a downward spiral into cuck-blivion.

    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."