November 10, 2016

Did Bernie help Trump win Michigan and Wisconsin?

Normally when Democrats lose, they'll first try to assign blame on defectors from their own party. It may be hard to see them if they've switched to Republican, because they're mixed in with the vast majority who are Republican partisans. But when they remove their vote to a liberal / progressive third party, it's unmistakable that they came from the Democrat column, at least by affiliation.

In 2000, they blamed Nader voters in Florida and New Hampshire for losing those states to Bush, each being necessary for him to just barely cross the finish line.

Now they're going to go after the Stein voters in narrowly lost states. Once their minds recover from shell-shock, and they are able to process numbers again, they will discover that Michigan and Wisconsin fit the profile. Each was lost by less than 1 point, and the Stein vote in each state was just over 1 point.

Trump would still be at 280 without those, but Democrat partisans cannot help but blame defectors even if it doesn't matter. They are petty and vindictive to the core.

Not only will they go after Stein, they will go after Bernie and his supporters who soured Michigan and Wisconsin on the warmonger of Wall Street during the primaries, winning both states for Bernie. With such a bad taste in their mouths, these Bernie supporters were among the least likely to convert to Clinton in the general, giving Stein a larger chunk than in other close states.

Michael Moore himself lambasted Clinton's record on war, trade, and the like -- thanks for the help with Michigan, Mikey!

Of course the Bernie people will blame the Clinton machine for neglecting the needs of the blacks, and taking them for granted. The serious downturn among blacks alone could have cost her Michigan.

So goes the ongoing civil war among Democrats. Feel free to fan both sides of that fire.

In the other direction, Trump would have won Minnesota if there had not been a third party protest vote for McCuckin -- Trump lost it by 1.4 points, and McCuckin got 1.8. So if we're playing the "restore the protest vote" game, we'd pick up another 10 votes and wind up at 290.

Your initial instinct might be to kill McCuckin and his failed neo-con sponsor Bill Kristol, but they're already going to drop dead from adrenal fatigue and heart attacks after such a decisive Trump victory (and such a publicly humiliating out-ing of the Mormon candidate as a homosexual). I don't see the Trump movement getting bogged down in the blame game. Just write off the holier-than-thou people who would go so far as to protest vote, do just marginally better to convert Dems and Indies, or ramp up turnout among existing bases, and problem solved.

The Johnson voters are going to be harder to blame since they were a mix of Bernie supporters and moderate Republicans. Since Clinton out-performed the estimates of the best polls by a couple points, I think most of the Dem-leaning Johnson supporters wimped out at the last minute and licked Crooked Hillary's boot. The remainder are mostly stubborn cuckservatives.

If that's true, the cuck protest vote cost us Maine, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota (aside from the separate McCuckin protest vote). Johnson only got 1% in these states last time, but 3-5% this time. The increase is mostly due to cucks sitting out the two-party race, and that amount could have swung these states our way.

Again, no need to get bogged down in blaming spineless cucks (do it, just don't get bogged down and vindictive like the Dems will do). We need to convert a marginal number more of people who aren't currently with us, or ramp up turnout of people who already are.

There seems to be little in the way of civil war among Republican voters. There used to be a vertical conflict between base and leadership, but now that Trump has taken over the top, and helped the Congress to stay red, there will be less and less strife between the top and the bottom. (Otherwise: you're fired!)

Looking good for advancing our program, Trump team. Looking very good indeed.

32 comments:

  1. Random Dude on the Internet11/10/16, 6:20 AM

    Yeah I think it's good to be optimistic about flipping states like Minnesota and New Hampshire for 2020. They came down to a thin margin of losses for Trump to where his supporters should be emboldened instead of disappointed. Nobody ever thought that Minnesota would be as close as it was.

    2018 is the next goal. We need to start purging cuckservatives who will just get in the way of Trump's agenda as there definitely will be some.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fahq, the Gen-X liberals are beating the muh children crap to death. Van Jones having a meltdown about "How do I explain this to my kids at breakfast? How did such a mean SOB become president?

    NY Times/Frank Bruni: Something bubbled up in my sister, too.

    Adelle is 45, juggles a high-powered job with raising two teenagers, and frequently makes the point that if women are considered dexterous and smart enough to take principal charge of something as precious as the brood, why not the nation?

    She trudged to the polls on Tuesday morning more in opposition to Trump than in support of Clinton, who is, in her eyes, “the epitome of a career politician” and too often “puts her own ambitions ahead of what’s right.”

    But she discovered an unexpected thrill in casting that ballot, “a sense of sisterhood in putting the first woman in the presidency,” she told me. “It’s long overdue. It’s crazy how long overdue it is.”

    [...]

    It’s huge for all five of my nieces, who are inheriting, in some crucial regards, a fairer world. It’s huge for all four of my nephews, including Adelle’s son, and for their fathers as well as their mothers.

    As if the Boomer mommmy wars and "think of the children" stuff of the 80's/90's weren't enough, we're now seeing Gen X-ers neurotic about "this isn't who we (or our kids) are. Funny, in places where people actually, ya know, do real work and aren't concerned about status or prissy decorum, people aren't so terrified about having a "poor" role model in chief.

    Inheriting a fairer world? Huh? I guess he means the urban striver globalist world in which Americans and Westerners in general should not have any sense of tradition or kinship with their blood or camaraderie with neighbors (see R. Putnam and diversity/trust levels). The kinda world with a permanent underclass hooked to the government and the Dems, a tiny middle class, and a highly elitist and smug "intellectual" class up to their eyes in BS and narcissism.

    The modern leftists have this grandiosity regarding their "right" to control everyone's opinion. Those who defy their orthodoxy are a threat to not just their worldview and power, but even more importantly are a threat to their ongoing ability to shape younger and future generations with cultural Marxism. We don't have a comrade in chief anymore (Obama is the biggest seller of liberal ID politics in pres. history who doesn't give a damn about old-school liberal economic issues).

    J. Hait actually said that "better" control of internet discourse (read: censorship of conservative rebels) would make civility easier. As usual, leftists are obsessed with controlling thought and communication. We're a long ways from the 60's when liberals rebelled against the staid conformity of the mid century.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's hard to overstate what a total victory this is. House and Senate kept. Dems in shambles and openly drawing knives on each other. Clinton and Obama brands shredded for all time. Cucks likewise BTFO. Trump ascendant with YUGE electoral victory. Twitter has basically been pornography for the last 36 hours, and we still have all kinds of glorious cabinet appointments, policy announcements, etc to come in the next few weeks.

    STILL NOT TIRED OF WINNING!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. "2018 is the next goal. We need to start purging cuckservatives who will just get in the way of Trump's agenda as there definitely will be some."

    When it's not possible to displace a cuck from the GOP race, the Trump voters and Dems -- at least the Bernie types -- should converge on a unity candidate nominally running as a Dem.

    They would need us to get that person through a primary race, and we would need both sides to get them through the general.

    Someone like that Solen guy who was running against Paul Ryan. We tried to displace him in the primary with Nehlen -- didn't work. OK, so we just vote for the Bernie-leaning Solen in the general.

    We get rid of a major obstacle, and get a Dem with substantial common ground (and no machine behind him to allow him to rival Trump).

    ReplyDelete
  5. "the Gen-X liberals are beating the muh children crap to death."

    If the Millennials were having kids, they'd be saying this too.

    I hope the new news networks and websites that dominate the Trump era are a mixture of young alt-right trolls and old uncle shitlords. The delicate sensibilities of parents raising small children will be marginalized (without being ridiculed), and conservadad-ism will become painfully uncool to the Gen Z audience that would rather see Ricky Vaughn force a live meltdown from Rick Wilson.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It's hard to overstate what a total victory this is."

    There's also a lot more cohesion at the grassroots level on the Republican side.

    My cousin (older evangelical Gen X-er with wife and four kids, Ohio) was not just nervous but fearful of a Trump presidency during the late stage of the primaries. Wanted Cruz instead.

    By Labor Day, he and other evangelicals at a family reunion had warmed up to Trump, "well at least we can unite against Hillary Clinton," etc. Must've been over the moon when Trump said during a debate that his Supreme Court appointments would be pro-life, and that's just the way it's going to be.

    By now he's back to gleefully taking potshots at liberal wimps and the like on Facebook. Doesn't sperg out about "what if Trump doesn't maximize free market commerce?" or the inane shit you hear from professional conservatives. Just happy to be allowed to promote social/cultural conservatism without getting hassled by the White House, Courts, etc., and doesn't care if the Pres is a hardcore values conservative himself.

    The big-tent GOP is back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are still a few bitter TrueCon holdouts. I checked RedState for the first time in nearly a year. The top article was called "Trump is the Antichrist". Now that he won I can laugh at that instead of getting upset.

      Delete
  7. What do you make of the commentators saying he'll follow a conventional GOP course? If he has Sessions and Lind that seems he's not going to sell out completely.

    ReplyDelete
  8. He's not going to sell out at all -- he has the historic against-all-odds mandate, and the GOPe types who campaigned on disloyalty to the Trumpian will of the people lost their pathetic little battles (Ayotte, Kirk, Heck).

    On the other hand, he's not a cosplay politician, so there won't be any more trolling on Twitter or leading chants of "Lock her up!" at mega-rallies.

    Those served their purpose -- to get into office and institute certain policies. He's going to work around the clock every day of his administration to get that work done, not LARP for the amusement of his supporters.

    He'll hold a brief press conference afterward, and before if it won't endanger the mission.

    He'll use the bully pulpit only when he needs to apply leverage to a recalcitrant Congress, biased media, etc. -- get the mob riled up to make the enemy shit their pants.

    Especially because the Establishment has no dirt to blackmail him with, and because he's rich enough not to need dirty donor money, Trump has total free rein to advance the populist and nationalist agenda.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At this point, even if we assumed he was a complete sellout hack, every worst case scenario we can think of, the entire establishment squandered all of its social and political capital in an irrationally desperate attempt to bring him down. He owes them nothing, has nothing to gain from them now that they are discredited, and they have outed themselves as implacable threats to him. The occamite way to look at it is that it is in his interests to follow up aggressively and consolidate his victory. Trump has always wanted glory, his name on things in big all caps gold letters. Even if perfectly selfish, he will understand this once in a century mandate is his ticket to the A-list of the history books and he will therefore guard it jealously and exercise it vigorously. This is it. A new age begins.

      Delete
  9. And for the last time, TURN OFF THE DAMNED COMMENTATORS.

    You are not turning to them for accuracy, otherwise you would've shut them off a long time ago when they started racking up their neverending string of wrong calls.

    You are turning to them to get your emotional buttons pushed. OK -- so read Breitbart, Drudge articles, Ricky Vaughn's still very active Twitter account. Accurate, button-pushing, and NOT defeatist Establishment propaganda to depress your optimism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That's the thing -- I'm a social conservative, and while in an ideal world we might not have a thrice-married casino gambling magnate in the White House who publicly cheated on his first wife while he had young children at home, I KNOW that Trump isn't going to actively go to war against Christianity, the traditional family, and standards of common decency. You won't see Trump appointing the first transgendered Secretary of Defense or the like. And I'm sure that Trump will quietly do away with things like pushing to have female Navy SEALS. A Clinton administration, OTOH, would have continued the left's unrelenting assault on common decency and religion.

    Second, while Trump's past isn't exemplarily on paper, I strongly sense that he is, at bottom, a decent person. He is very close to his kids; that's obvious. He may claim to support LGBT crowd, but I know that's not true. I'm sure he bears no ill-will toward them -- just like most of us. But he doesn't see himself as a champion of the LGBT who is just dying to appoint the first openly gay Supreme Court Justice or whatever, and generally shove the LGBT agenda down everyone's throat and go out of his way to convince us that guys who have based their entire self-image around their hunger for anal sex are the "new normal." I sense that Trump is a live-and-let live sort of person who ultimately respects and cherishes religious faith, traditional values, and the family. The Democrats, OTOH, are actively hostile to those things.

    Also, it is kind of interesting to note that while Hillary Clinton has a clean personal life, at least on paper, she sure seems to surround herself with seedy and sleazy people. Bill Clinton, Hugh Rodham, Anthony Weiner, Chelsea's father-in-law the ex-con -- there are a TON of morally compromised snakes in the Clintons' personal and professional circles. I'm sure that Trump surrounds himself with relatively wholesome people. Maybe one of Trump's cronies has a drinking problem, the other one has a mistress, whatever -- but they are not pathological freaks and hustlers like Anthony Weiner. I think this says something too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Also, most social conservatives aren't controlling. I know that I'm not. Are we preachy? Yeah, sure, because we are trying to spread the good news, as it were. We're evangelicals, so we evangelize. (Well, I'm Catholic, but you get the idea LOL.)

    But we do this to help people, not to force them to bend to our will or to condemn them. It breaks my heart to see people strung out on drugs and alcohol, so I preach against those things. I warn my kids to stay away from them. Girls who lead promiscuous lives generally aren't happy and have trouble forming relationships. And the fact is that the overwhelming majority of women find mothering babies a whole lot more fulfilling that working in some cubicle as an assistant manager of HR.

    But most of us don't want to force people to do anything. We preach, but we don't coerce. Abortion is a little different, because it's murder -- we do want to ban it. But even then, we don't want to force women to be barefoot and pregnant in order to subjugate them; we just want to stop them from murdering babies. There's a big difference between those two things.

    A lot of the issues that people have with social conservatives are just projection. If I publicly take the position that for the most part women are happier as mothers, for sure some childless 55 year-old Boomer HR director will say "how dare you judge me! You are a Neanderthal who wants women to stay in the kitchen!" But she's really just projecting. The truth is that she regrets never having kids and is lashing out. I'm not trying to "subjugate" her and she knows it.

    There are a couple of things that I, as a social conservative, do want the government to actually stamp out. Porn is one of them, drugs and gambling are the others. But I don't want to stamp these things out to deprive people of choices and fun -- I want to stamp them out because they are so destructive and harmful.

    Right now the government is doing a decent job with drugs and gambling, but it has totally dropped the ball on porn. I actually think that in the near future, there will be a GOLDEN opportunity for the far right to team up with the far left to finally do something about the porn industry. I can easily envision someone like Rick Santorum or Michelle Bachmann teaming up with someone like Elizabeth Warren or Kirsten Gillibrand to co-sponsor legislation that essentially regulates the porn industry out of existence. The time isn't ripe for this yet, and I don't expect President Trump to lead the charge on something like this, but I think we will be able to do it in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The original Progressive era stamped out their version of widespread sexual deviance -- the brothels and red light districts that polluted every major, and minor, city. People today don't realize how commonplace they were, especially out in the Wild West, but including New York too.

    That took out most of the gambling outlets, too. The anti-gambling movement got so big that La Guardia banned pinball in the 1940s because it was robbing them of their money for nothing. A little over-reach, but that's how popular the movement was.

    The Prohibition movement over-reached too, but it was quickly corrected.

    Basically, though, society changed from the laissez-faire morality of Pottersville to the wholesome morality of Bedford Falls.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Prohibition was also revenge of bitter WASP shrew feminists who resented a) men spending time away from home and b) recent immigrants for whom wine and beer were big part of culture. I'm more of a laissez-faire guy, but I find most cultural conservatives don't bother me, cultural libs do.

    ReplyDelete
  14. BTW Agnostic - MAGNIFICENT job!!!!! Your insights are always original and valuable and you've really helped me keep my spirits up during the election. Congratulations on your magnificent work!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Trump's working-class base isn't going to go for restrictions on gambling, porno or anti-pot stuff.

    The most I could see him doing for SoCon types is to provide more protections against new forms of lifestyle deviancy by letting states go their own way on more. The stuff that's in place like gay marriage I don't see a rollback.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "...but Democrat partisans cannot help but blame defectors even if it doesn't matter. They are petty and vindictive to the core."

    This pettiness and vindictiveness is a real thing with a lot of these people... what's behind that? There's one guy, smart as a whip, but my God he is the worst gaslighter I've ever seen. Started out very genial at the beginning of the election, but turned hateful and hurtful as the election wore on... I somehow got caught up in this (very) platonic relationship that turned abusive (no hyperbole), though I had not changed.
    ========
    Commentators... Just subscribed to People's Pundit Daily; continuing to wean self away from MSM, especially and above all the vindictive Journolist crowd.

    Related, my local news provided better election coverage than the Fox News I was watching at my Mom's on election night; had to return home just as the drama was heating up, but little kids to be put into bed and all that. It was exciting all the polish and bells and whistles on Fox News, but the gaslighting and fluff was 'bout unbearable. I get home and watch the local affiliate and get to watch their "election coverage" guy tackle with far greater numeracy the Florida ballots still out and calling it for Trump while being perplexed at the national media for holding off, "the math just isn't there for Hillary, I'm not guessing!"
    And then they turned away from the horse race now and then to focus on local races important to us. No fluff.

    ReplyDelete
  17. One thing to keep in mind about vices: During low striving eras, people are more well-adjusted and upbeat (meanwhile, check out the sullen and glowering faces that have become more and more common over the last 40 years). And conscientious. People look out for each other and think twice before they do something.

    As striving intensified over the last 45 years, people became so selfish and cynical. They give up not only on stewardship of the commons but even concern for their own long term well being (which of course affects others in the long run too).

    It's worth keeping mind that the high out-goingness and reduced striving period of 1900-1930 actually saw a lot of effort towards combatting vice and restoring virtue in spite of criminals having greater opportunities and people in general being more impulsive and bold. It was a much more morally sound time than what we've see with the libertine/hedonistic waves of the 70's and beyond that have ripped through the social and moral fabric of society, creating utterly miserable places throughout America where nihilism reigns. Striving elites and "leaders" have opted to simply let these wounds hemorrhage blood, at the most collecting the blood from time to time instead of acknowledging the fact that the wound can't be healed until we get rid of the me-first culture that benefits a handful of (frequently foreign born) elites while offering nothing but degrading jobs, drugs, crime, broken families, and condescending "advice" from "experts".

    Gambling indeed has become heavily destigmatized since the early 90's. Why? Society has done a miserable job of rewarding painstaking care and restraint over the last 30 years. And has also failed to hold greedy fortune and thrill seekers accountable (see: Wall Street being enabled) So why get bent out of shape about any particular person literally rolling the dice? A lot of cool and successful people seem to do it. Why not me?

    The think of the children (MY children) brigade is worthless. They aren't interested in measures that truly improve everyone's well-being. What really drives them is narcissistically desiring their kids to be huge winners in the striving sweepstakes. If the parents really wanted to inculcate virtue in their kids, they'd drop the Ivy League stuff, the career stuff, etc. and instead just tell their kids that they aren't that special after all. Competing to elevate oneself is ultimately a desensitizing and empty approach to life that produces 20 losers for every winner. Gloating about one's elevation ought to be shamed more often too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's a great point about gambling. it has exploded over the past 30 years. But for some reason, it doesn't seem as bad as I thought it would be. When casinos started popping up everywhere I thought there would be an epidemic of compulsive gambling, but that doesn't seem to have happened. I know people with drinking problems and drug problems but don't know anyone with a gambling problem.

    My guess -- which is just a guess and is based on nothing empirical -- is that gambling used to be a lot more attractive - and therefore destructive - in the 1930's and 40's because there were fewer opportunities for instant gratification back then. In a time where entertainment meant waiting until 6:00 pm for your favorite radio show, and things like doing the laundry took all afternoon because you had to use a wash bucket, ringer, and a clothes line, a game of poker or dice had to seem REALLY exciting because it was so fast-paced. But today there is social media, streaming video, online shopping, etc. - there are plenty of opportunities for instant gratification. So gambling just doesn't seem as exciting as it used to, in today's world people can get an endorphin rush in lots of ways that are cheaper and even more accessible.

    As for the stuff about kids, it's true that competitive striving is a no-win scenario. I figured that out soon after I got into the legal business -- no one is ever satisfied. Your local sole practitioner who hangs out a shingle wishes he was a partner at a big law firm; the partners at a big law firm in a regional city wish they were partners at a New York City law firm; the NYC partners wish they were on the Supreme Court; Samuel Alito is unhappy because he's not the Chief Justice; Chief Justice Roberts is nervous that his name will not go down in history like Holmes, Marshall, etc. - everyone is always striving and no one is ever content.

    But I've got to tell you, I don't think the Midwestern "I'm nuthin' special, just a regular guy..." attitude is the ideal alternative. There is nothing wrong with striving and ambition. It's normal to want to screw the cheerleader and drive a nice car. What is needed is moderation. Personally, I hope that President Trump shows his voters in the Midwest that it is OK to have a little swagger. If you set your sights high it doesn't mean that think you are "better" than everyone else. It's OK for people to aim as high as they can. Not everyone will be successful, but if you've given it your all, there is no shame in failure. Those who make it have an obligation to look out for those who couldn't. But there is nothing wrong with wanting your kids to go to a good college. It's OK to want to live in a nice house and drive a nice car. If you are single-minded in your pursuit of these things, that's not healthy and it's not OK. But one of the great things about our society is that there are always opportunities to do well. Not all of us can be rich, but we can still be respected members of our communities. But it's OK for everyone to do the best they can, that's normal and healthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I lived in Las Vegas for decades. When gambling is everywhere you look, including slot machines at the supermarket, it DOES create an atmosphere of compulsive gambling. My ex sister in law makes 100K in the medical field but her kids go hungry sometimes because she gambles so much. Las Vegas is a very dysfunctional place. Now I live in a typical place with a big Indian casino nearby and a few smaller card rooms in the city. Most people don't gamble or think about gambling. Drugs, especially Meth, is a more common vice here.

      Delete
  19. Is he seriously considering John Bolton for Secretary of State? Yuck. Michael Bolton would be better.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Had the media done it's job and if the GOP had been totally on board, Trump would have won 4 or 5 more states. Expecting more people to completely ignore gutless naysayers in the establishment wasn't realistic.

    Come the 2020 election, we're going to have finished several years of digesting everything that was thrown at Trump. The shock and gotcha stuff will have lost it's novelty. And haranging middle America about it's bigotry won't be any more effective next time.

    Should Trump make good on his stated plans (starting a wall, renegotiating trade deals, forming an anti-Islamic militant alliance with Eastern Europe and Israel, etc.) we will get more fence-sitters next time. If most of the Northeast and the Pacific is still plagued by arrogant cultural liberals, blatant strivers, and New Americans unwilling to vote for Trump, well, I guess we'll have to win again without their support.

    One ominous possibility: The Dems running another black candidate to drive actual black turnout in the Rust-belt while also providing plausible deniability for artificially high Dem votes. I think an important task for Team Trump is voter ID and integrity reform. The Hag was such an awful candidate that it stopped the Dems from outright stealing PA and MI. With a presumably better Dem nominee awaiting the next election, Team Trump is going to need do something to protect the Rust-belt from the Dem urban machine. Eliminate E-voting, calibrate the ballot scanners properly, appoint an election integrity czar for MI and PA, and if the Dem machine drags it's feet or cries racism, retaliate by various means including threatening to withhold various funds for these states (like how the Fed. government refused to provide highway funds to states that weren't cooperative).

    The Dems are really smarting from what a piece of manure candidate Hillary is. Some will probably draw the conclusion that her main weakness was her whiteness. They're not necessarily wrong in that blacks are so tribalistic in their voting that any black Dem by default will get tons of black votes. What this election has really exposed is that the key region in elections is the Eastern Midwest and PA. So at the end of the day, Western survivalists, West coast hippies, Yankees, brown dreamers, etc. are irrelevant. What really matters is providing a populist economic rationale to vote Republican so as to provide a defense against accusations that Gop voters voted for the party of insular conservative culture elitists and muh free market nerds. Expecting whites of this area to go for the GOP based on racialist appeals doesn't work that well (unlike with Southern whites) while glorifying rural areas untouched by wicked humans doesn't quite work either (the Rust belt is more developed and rooted than the plains and mountain states).

    While the Dems get busy pandering to blacks so as to resume their unexpectedly disrupted march to a glorious future, the GOP needs to shed every last vestige of 80's/90's muh free market ideology while also giving more dignity to Easterners by losing the Western fetish of the last 45 years.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Is he seriously considering John Bolton for Secretary of State? Yuck."

    Roger Stone says most of the names being floated are self-promotion being "leaked" to the media by the characters themselves (Lewandowski, Priebus, etc.).

    ReplyDelete
  22. The silver lining in Trump's not winning more states is that it makes it easier for an upward trend to happen. It makes the mandate even more concrete for his second term, and could build enough momentum for his successor to win a third consecutive term.

    A la Reagan '80, then '84, then Bush '88.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah, I'm more than willing to accept that the establishment GOP types who stood with him (Gingrich, Giuliani, etc.) will get appointments, but nutter neocons like Bolton would be almost too much. Also the relieved reaction from leaders the neoliberals and shitlibs hate (Sisi, Duterte, Jinping, Putin) is heartening: they're tired of dealing with deluded Ivy League careerist idiots. It's like he's solved a bevy of international crises before even taking office.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I know people with drinking problems and drug problems but don't know anyone with a gambling problem."

    Fantasy football is gambling. You put money in and hope to "win" more. That's the, uh, tell, right there. People who actually work for money say that they "earn" money. Gambling is about getting something the cheap and quick way. Which of course is usually the dangerous way as the real costs aren't grasped for quite some time.

    There definitely is a lot of money being thrown away by gamblers right now. The aforementioned, so-called fantasy sports are ubiquitous in sports marketing. The broadcasters and even the leagues themselves either openly or tacitly support fantasy football culture as it brings more viewers to games. I remember my dad making fun of fantasy football when mainstream promotions of it first appeared in the late 90's. Neither of us really understood what it was at the time.

    What about state sanctioned lotteries? People, most of whom are low-income, get to blow what little money they have for a cheap thrill and perhaps a subconscious desire to gain money and status. These were, I believe, practically non-existent before the 80's. And even into the 80's much of Middle America wasn't interested in the gov. getting in on the act.

    I'd say that somebody who watches football all Saturday and/or Sunday and screams themselves hoarse because they've got money on the line probably has a serious problem. I heard a sports corruption investigator say that he's disturbed by how naïve people are about the "victimless" crime thing. He said that virtually all chronic sports gamblers invariably end up giving some of their money, sometimes circuitously, to organized crime. The fact that much betting is technically legal to varying degrees in much of America (in L.V., pretty much anything goes) doesn't matter.

    Sleazy activites attract sleazy people. Doesn't matter if the government permitted and monitored vice. Legalizing prostitution wouldn't keep pimps from beating hos, and legalizing drugs wouldn't keep dangerous dealers and users from mischief.

    ReplyDelete
  25. When compared to non-fantasy sports fans, team managers are significantly more likely to purchase alcohol, airline tickets, and sports magazines. They are also more likely to purchase fast food and soft drinks

    Shocking. Fantasy-ers (e.g. gamblers) are more hedonistic and less health conscious. Also according to studies, "team-managers" (the ones most invested) have a marriage rate of roughly 50% in spite of being fairly affluent. It ought to scare people that reasonably intelligent and productive people are more interested in a nerdy form of gambling than in starting or maintaining a family.

    The earliest territory for Fantasy football was Northern California in the 60's and 70's, which as we all know was the hedonism capital of the Western world at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  26. the refusal to call michigan for trump already, and incredibly slow pace of all the "vote tallying" is enraging. on top of everything else happening. how do you deal with this BS, agnostic?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Why cant the Sanders wing of the democrats form an alliance with the black wing while making an "agree to disagree" pact with the trump movement. That way a Pincer movement would put the Liberals, neocons and neolibs in a giant vise politically.

    ReplyDelete
  28. White progs have tried to court blacks for decades with minimal success.

    The stumbling block is blacks are so focused on tribal identity politics and getting their ethnic spoils / patronage. They don't care how corrupt the system has to be to give them their give-thems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. Observe how overwhelmingly they went for Hillary over Bernie. They want STRONG, ideals be damned; Bernie and his ilk are too airy-fairy for them. The ultimate pragmatists.

      Delete

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."