March 4, 2016

Catholics (and Muslims?) for Trump in Michigan: End-times ahead for Cruz cult, as race moves to white ethnic states

A brand new poll out from Michigan shows Trump far in the lead with 42%, vs. Cruz 19%, Rubio 15%, Kasich 14%, and Carson 5%. It was taken after the Super Tuesday results were in, although the numbers look pretty stable over the past month.

One finding that jumped out was on religion. We've already seen that Cruz does well with evangelicals in the apocalyptic Plains and Mountain states, but gets clobbered by them back East of the Mississippi River. In Michigan, Trump and Cruz are tied among evangelicals (about 30%).

Among Catholics, however, Trump leads by a yuge margin, far above his statewide average -- 52%, vs. Rubio 16%, Kasich 14%, and Cruz 11%. That's more than 40 percentage points separating first-ranked Trump from bottom-ranked Cruz among Catholics.

Now that the race is more or less past the Bible Belt states in the South, and has covered the lion's share of votes from the Plains (Texas), the religious angle to the race is going to tilt far more heavily in Trump's favor. In the Michigan sample, about half the respondents were Protestant and one-third were Catholic. Evangelicals also made up one-third, making them equal in size to Catholics for the first time in the race.

Throughout the Midwest, the Northeast, and the Mid-Atlantic, Catholics are going to play a much bigger role, compared to the South and the Plains. And these states have larger delegate pools to win. It only bodes well for Trump, who is not even a Catholic ("I'm Protestant, just so you understand, Presbyterian to be exact"), and who got into a spat with the Pope himself not too long before the poll was taken.

This shifting religious landscape is not lost on Cruz, Mr. Big Data Geekout, who dropped the "prayerful" talk last night at the debate in Detroit, and larded up his non-answers with secular blue-collar references to truck drivers and calloused hands. He could not have looked any more phony unless he'd worn a pair of Carhartt overalls on the debate stage.*

It's not clear whether Trump's majority of the Catholic vote is due to religious or ethnic differences compared to evangelicals. I'm inclined to attribute it to religious differences per se, with Catholics being more traditional in their religious beliefs and practices, while the evangelicals have a much more recent collection of beliefs and practices. And even then, it's more the practices, rituals, and habits that most clearly distinguish the more traditional Catholics and the more innovating evangelicals (who nevertheless rationalize them as a back-to-basics move to undo the false teachings of all historical churches).

If anything, evangelicals make a point of rejecting religious traditions -- at least the apocalyptic ones who are drawn into the Cruz cult. Apocalypticism implies a radical break with the failed traditions of the past, since the literal end of the world as we know it is upon us.

The message of the Trump movement -- Make America Great Again -- denies the pessimistic, apocalyptic doom of the Cruz cult. Rather, we're hopeful that we can restore health to what has been falling into degradation, that government can be saved and redeemed, and does not need to be utterly annihilated (a la Cruz's refrain "Abolish the IRS").

A final observation on geographic differences:

Trump does well all over Michigan, but his lead is narrowest in West Michigan, centered around the second-largest city in the state, Grand Rapids. He gets 33% of their vote, vs. 25% for Cruz and 9% for Carson (far above his statewide average). Perhaps the closer to the Plains you are, even in a non-Plains state, the more cult-like the voters will be.

In this most cucked region in Michigan, it's not surprising to find that it has the largest share of the population that is Hispanic -- 16% in 2010, compared to around 5% in the other large cities, aside from the capital of Lansing (13%). (Race did not influence the religious differences, since 97% of the respondents were white.)

Grand Rapids is nowhere near the Mexican border, and is not a great big ghetto target like Chicago. So how else did the population reach 16% Hispanic (and perhaps closer to 20% by now), except by the upper-middle class cucks welcoming them in, wanting to convert them from Catholicism and grow the numbers of their evangelical church, use them as cheap labor for their kitchen remodel, and hire them at low wages for their small business?

That crowd will not resonate with Make America Great Again -- they have been perfectly content with transforming America in the current direction so that they can have a cushier individual status position. In the eastern part of the state, around Detroit, no such exponential surge in immigrants.

There is a large Arab population in Dearborn, but that's been there since the early 20th century (the last period of mass immigration), and a good chunk are Levantine Christians rather than Muslims. Interestingly, although only 5% of the sample said their religion was Muslim / Jewish / Unsure, 60% of them wanted Trump, with the rest scattered around the other candidates. If that holds at a larger level, that would be amazing for groups who you'd think would be put off by Trump's call to temporarily freeze Muslim immigration, and to not take sides in the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Come to think of it, maybe the Muslims are willing to overlook the Muslim immigration freeze -- the respondents are already here, after all -- if Trump is going to be more neutral toward Israel, rather than rabidly pro-Israel, and if Trump was fiercely against the Iraq War and adventurism in the Middle East generally. By promising a sane Middle Eastern foreign policy, he may be winning the "moderate Muslim" vote, for what it's worth.

* In Iowa, the sociopathic chameleon wore plaid flannel shirts, then in the well-to-do Southern suburbs he sported a blue blazer, dress shirt (no tie), jeans, and boots. He has no identity of his own, and only tries to mimic the locals in order to escape detection as a weasel. Contrast with Trump, who wears his Manhattan business suit and tie no matter where he goes.


  1. I have to say, Trump disappointed me last night. I didn't watch the debate but he started to waffle on H1B visas didn't he? Still voting for him though, nowhere else to go.

  2. Cruz even looks douchey, I guess. With some of my interest in color theory/aesthetics and hearing about how elites/yuppies are advised to dress, i do notice how pres. candidates dress. Sure enough, they usually wear white or pale colored (often blue) shirts. The tie is sometimes red. Orange and purple are big no-nos, even in terms of ties.

    Trump is just doing what he's used to. He plainly doesn't care about changing who he is, thus why he's risen so dramatically. People are hungry for sincerity after decades of PC cloaked masquerading and cynical posturing.

    Meanwhile, Mr. Career Politician, Teddy Cruz, dons jeans and flannels. If Al Gore got shit for supposedly being advised to wear earth tones in 2000, why does Ted Cruz get a pass now?

    Also, Trump get bludgeoned for his nationalist immigration/econ. policies being supposedly racist, but nobody sounds the alarm regarding Ted Cruz's religious rhetoric only being effective to the most fatalistic, zealous, and gullible weirdos. We've seen what Clinton and Obama's directives do to impressionable young blacks (Bill Clinton's term and Obama's term coincided with PC spikes and general tension/unrest); how would Cruz incite his flock?

    Trump is brow beaten over his KKK connections and dictator comparisons (the fatuous media is still chained to identity politics and is either unwilling/unable to consider Trump as a unique individual or make more flattering references to more obscure figures).

    Ted Cruz's mania, unctuous pleas, and moralistic fire goes unnoticed. He merely appeals to god-fearing decent folk, right?

  3. The, uhh, good news, is that in the event of sabotage the powers that be would probably not favor Cruz, cuz, they'd have to be insane to favor Cruz. The dude might be legit crazy, not just engaging in empty posturing to appeal to nuts. If we get, say, a brokered convention brought about by either openly changing rules, or a legitimate lack of votes for Trump, or rigged voting cheating Trump, hopefully we'll get stuck with bland puppet Rubio if we can't salvage things for Trump.

    Cruz does scare me, and if that many people really are voting for Cruz we deserve destruction from enemies within and without. I do suspect massive fraud happened in Texas due to the number of delegates, Cruz's obvious presence in the area, and the importance of a face saving home win. In spite of likely cheating, Ted still got just 44%. The media of course is reticent about how someone ought to do much better in their home state.

    And we're not hearing anytime soon about Sun-belt candidates getting a contrived advantage.

  4. Quit contemplating suicide you emo wuss. He doesn't have to win any particular state to get it.

  5. Western Michigan is home to the MLM pyramid scheme known as Amway.

  6. Odd sight at Orlando rally -- 3 queers, including an Aztec-looking one, with flaming whoosh hair-do's, in the stands behind Trump.

  7. People should be very skeptical of polling that shows Trump with a lead. He had a lead in Oklahoma and Kansas in the polls, and he won Oklahoma and is projected to win Kansas today.

    It doesn't matter what Trump's support is in polls, it doesn't quite materialize in the primaries.

  8. Use your eyes -- only in the apocalyptic Plains states. Not back East where the votes are.

    Free advice for Millennials -- eat more meat, it'll alleviate your fatalistic paranoid depression.

  9. Turnout is up. Trump is responsible for that.

  10. "Come to think of it, maybe the Muslims are willing to overlook the Muslim immigration freeze -- the respondents are already here, after all"

    Translation: Hello, Yugoslavia.

  11. The ridiculous debate on Thurs. showed Trump's main weakness, which is his inability to respond to personal (or professional, for that matter) criticism with anything other than schoolyard taunts or dismissive statements ("It's a minor case," etc.). Most of us have known that about him all along. He's INCREDIBLY insecure and craves attention probably even more than Bill Clinton, which is really saying something. As long as he's surrounded by yes-men, he appears confident. It's a common personality type, and certainly not rare among politicians and CEO types, but Trump exhibits it in pretty extreme fashion. But I agree with Feryl here, Cruz is downright scary. Luckily he is so disliked that there's no way the Republican establishment will rally behind him in a brokered convention. I don't count out Kasich in such a scenario, he did rather well in the last debate, coming off as the only adult on stage. If it's him or Rubio as the candidate, that will be a tough battle for Clinton.

    This ain't "cuck" analysis (and man your increasing use of Trump-like insults to any analysis counter to your own really illustrates the man's affect on his supporters). That said, you could very well be right and Trump will end up the nominee, in which case I think Clinton will have an easier time of it. This is gonna be interesting.

  12. Trump is right to swat away the petty criticisms because they're just that -- petty.

    If he gave thoughtful responses, he would be legitimating what are baldfaced lies ("Trump is pro-choice"), non sequiturs ("hands," "spray-tan"), and non-issues ("Trump U," which is a pending civil case which has been mostly won, and was led by ambulance-chasing class action shysters).

    Substantive criticisms would have included:

    "Why do you propose a 35% tariff on off-shored manufactured goods? Don't you know that violates free trade principles?"

    "How can you propose building a giant wall on the Mexican border, when we are a nation of immigrants and need to move beyond appealing solely to white Americans?"

    "Why would you want to stay neutral in a negotiation between Israel and Palestine? Shouldn't we support Israel more or less no matter what, given who the other side is?"

    "You want to impose a 10% tax on the profits of the oil that would flow through the Keystone Pipeline, if it gets built. Surely you know that's against free market principles?"

    "You want to seek further rapprochement, and perhaps even cordial relations, with Russia in geopolitics. Aren't you aware that he is seeking to remake the Soviet Union, take over the world, and annihilate America?"

    And so on and so forth.

    Trump has put out no shortage of substantive issues and positions, almost all of which cut radically against the Republican orthodoxy of the past 30-odd years, hence his old-guard opponents should have no trouble debating him on these issues.

    Only trouble is that they've either written those positions off as a fantasy, and not worth dignifying with a response, or have come to read the writing on the wall about where the voters stand, and know that they'd get slaughtered by arguing for libertarian / neocon policies before the voters of 2016.

    So they revert to lies, non sequiturs, and personal non-issues.

  13. You ought to watch his rallies on YouTube -- there are probably over a hundred by this point.

    He's the opposite of a self-aggrandizing fame whore. Those types relish in getting fame even, or especially, when they don't deserve it. They don't mind being famous just for being famous. That may even be better in their minds than deserving it.

    Trump's recitation of his successes is to remind folks that he's actually accomplished a lot in his life, and is not an all-talk / no-action politician who doesn't understand economics, negotiation, etc., on a real-world level -- only having studied them theoretically and borne no consequences of their failures.

    I'd like to see you take a $1 million loan and turn it into $10 billion -- and without speculation or other forms of gambling. Trump built his company, he didn't play the stock market (never has, and likes to warn people about what a big fat bubble the stock market is in).

    Aside from deserving the fame he receives, he's also generous in putting others in the spotlight. He brings people up on stage at rallies, showcases the police / football team / local politicians, and steps aside to let them have their moment.

    And he has been saying for a long time now that he isn't enjoying such high poll numbers, vote counts, and press coverage because he's such an awesome individual -- but because he's "just the messenger" for "our movement". He says over and over, "It's not about me, it's about us, it's the whole movement".

    If he were such a self-centered egomaniac, he wouldn't be advocating for restoring the manufacturing industries. He does real estate and construction -- he wouldn't get any richer having those jobs brought back. If anything, he might be paying higher costs for all the goods that go into his buildings (TV sets, air conditioners, etc.).

    What's his trademarked message? Make "America" Great Again -- nothing to do with Trump (unlike Cruz's message of "Trust Ted"). He's disgusted at what a degraded state that the GROUP has fallen into. Obviously he himself is sitting pretty at over $10 billion, prime real estate all over the world, supermodel wife, and wonderful children.

    When his critics aren't even aware of how ignorant they are about these things, they deserve nothing more than dismissive remarks about being cucks.

  14. Tonight Ted bleated about the glory of the free market, the need to unchain small businesses, abolishing the IRS. The usual liber. playbook. Uhh, Ted, the mighty manufacturing base dominated by several big companies that's been hollowed out got that way BECAUSE of the gov. getting out of the way. These Big Gov haters never deign to notice that in the 1940's-1960's, everybody did just fine with progressive tax policies and protectionist trade policies.

    Trump isn't promising to torch vitally important institutions (and yes, gov. is one of them) and validate the cynicism of fatalists, pious rubes, and twitchy desperados. He's warning people that we need to be strong as a team; united we stand, divided we fall. It's about motivation and positive action. A dark future lies ahead for all but the toughest and most pious few, says the zealous Cruz. Love thy neighbor? More like hunker down 'til Armageddon comes.

    The MSM is obliquely noticing this by saying that Cruz is a tough sell in a general election. But they won't get into ominous implications of his persona, instead acting like the "wholesome" evangelical belt ought to be flocking to him (funny, East of the Mississippi he somehow alienated many).

  15. What do you make of Cruz winning Maine, it has the third lowest church attendance in in country if someone other than Trump won I tought it would have been Rubio or Kasich.

  16. Maine went for RONPAUL in 2012. There is some of that west of the Mississippi Libertarian feel there.

    It could also have been the GOP machine sent out the batsignal for anti-Trump voters to consolidate around Cruz in that state, the same way they will for FL (Rubio), OH and Michigan (Kasich). But the first explanation is probably the best default.

  17. Maine has been an outlier back East during the past two primaries:,_2012.png

    Since they aren't religious, I'd liken them to Alaska and the Mountain states, more than the Plains states.

    People in Maine are about as rooted as they are in the rest of New England, but my hunch is that they've moved out into Maine to escape society. That's Cruz's main appeal -- blow up society before it blows you up, and you can survive on your own, with your nuclear family, and maybe a handful of other families who you know.

    But no thriving, rich, interconnected society with a productive economy.

    In other words, the same kind of person who, west of the Mississippi, runs off to Montana to escape society, runs off to Maine back East.

    Just a hunch, but when I get a hunch, it's usually right. (If I'd be wrong, I don't feel a hunch in the first place and keep silent.)

  18. When there's variation within a state -- meaning, where Cruz doesn't sweep more or less everywhere -- he tends to do poorly in cities and rural areas, and does best in suburbs and exurbs around major cities.

    That may play out on a larger scale up -- he does well in the state-level version of an exurb, like Maine is to Massachusetts, or like Idaho and Montana are to Washington, or like Utah has become to California.

    Cruz appeals to the paranoid anti-society gated-community helicopter parent type, who runs away from what they see as imminent unconquerable doom (an apocalypse). If they would be wiped out by the enemy, they simply run away and go into hiding, hoping to just survive.

    The Trump people may see the same enemy, but view it as conquerable if they put in enough effort. So they stay closer to where they are, and fight it -- right away, or at least waiting for the day when they can. But not running off like a coward and going into hiding.

    Cruz appeals to the self-centered wusses of the country.

  19. "[Trump]'s warning people that we need to be strong as a team; united we stand, divided we fall."

    Good point. He's rallying the group-minded people and writing off the self-minded wusses who will go for the weasel.

    Anyone who is in or just outside of a city or town that isn't doing too well, senses how easy it would be to fix *if* the collective will were there. They've been waiting for awhile, and now that Trump showed up, it was all-aboard. Working as a team, we'll ship those immigrants outta here so fast, ya HEAD will spin.

    The egocentric fatalist coward who has resigned himself to his isolated fate, distant from any real community, doesn't believe anything can be made great again.

    That plays out on a national level, too, with the more neglected and run-down regions of the country believing that they can be made great again -- not that we all have to abandon ship and move out to Arizona, Colorado, or Montana.

  20. This is getting away from geography, but continuing the "stay and fight" vs. "flee and hide" strategies.

    Trump's people are for enforcing norms when they're violated, while Cruz's people are for running away from any possible norm-violators and living in an intentional community where having to enforce norms won't be necessary.

    "Gee, I was getting worried that I might have to confront somebody sometime!" Fucking wuss.

    Who's going to mandate English-only laws? Trump.

    Who's going to round up and deport immigrants rather than lower taxes to make it cheaper to move away from them? Trump.

    Who's going to make sure that every department store says "Merry Christmas"? Trump.

    The Trump army is optimistic because they're active and willing to engage rule-breakers.

    The Cruz cult is pessimistic because they're passive and afraid of confrontation.

  21. Random Dude on the Internet3/6/16, 12:31 AM

    I'm disappointed by the margins that Trump won tonight: low-mid single digits in areas where polls had him winning 10-20 points regularly. Now there is a poll that came out today that has John Kasich of all people up by two points in Michigan. I'm hoping its an aberration and a weak point that has been otherwise a very strong campaign.

  22. The polls aren't wrong -- so far all of the primaries and caucuses on Super Saturday were closed, meaning that voters were required to register as a Republican in advance of voting. (Usually weeks in advance, depending on the state.) Trump is bringing in tons of disaffected whites from both sides of the aisle, especially those who traditionally stayed home on election day because none of the candidates reflected their interests.

    Remember that the polls count everybody who expresses interest in voting (repubs, dems, independents, etc), not just registered party members. The latter two don't count for the primaries, not just yet, although they will for the general election.

    All you doom and gloom naysayers need to shut up and just pay attention to the changing political zeitgeist. Any discrepancy between polling averages and primary results ought to be accepted as a boon to the Trump train. Who else in the republican party has this level of crossover appeal? I've never witnessed an election this exciting in my entire life. Big change is a coming, whether or not you chronic pessimists and prophets of doom are willing to acknowledge it.

  23. @agnostic

    I don't know Maine that well, but I don't think that analysis holds. The more Republican areas of Maine tend to have more people of French background (i.e. LePage and ME CD-2 Poliquin) and the French are definitely not apocolyptic. That's one of the reasons why its so strange that Trump would win Louisiana in large part due to the French/Cajun Catholic areas, but lose in Maine with Cruz getting 46%. It is hard not to suspect fraud there.

    @Random Dude

    Trump underperformed in terms of victory margins, but not the actually vote. He was polling around 43% in Louisiana and got 41-42%. In Kentucky Trump was polling at 35% and that's what he got. Maine had not been polled in months, and Kansas was only polled this last week with Trump in the lead, but Cruz raptured his people to the polls.

  24. HBS Maine is like the Least Catholic part of New England, least Catholic part of North East. It is weird though that Cruz won, very strange I would think Rubio would win if anyone other than Trump. Also HBS French are relatively small part of Maine compared to British and the majority French areas in the north of state don't have that many people in them.

  25. My best guess, besides what I said in the post above, is the fact that Maine was a closed caucus hurt him a lot. Trump does best in open primaries, both caucuses and closing the vote to Republicans only hurts him. Cruz benefits from closed contests, and probably caucuses as well hence iowa.

  26. Great post from an Istever:

    "Kansas is a farm state that has been relatively prosperous in recent years and has limited experience with Open Borders inspired anarchy. Lots of Christian Zionists/Dispensationalists who are still deeply concerned about Israel and bombing Iran on its behalf. Also its one of few states where abortion is still a huge issue.

    In fact Cyrus Scofield and John J. Ingalls who came up fraud which is the Scofield Study Bible, the foundation of Christian Zionism, were from Kansas.

    Kansas was always going to be a tough road for Trump.

    Hell, Kansas keeps reelecting the Open Borders loon Sam Brownback, first as a Senator and now as Governor.

    Not as many potential independents, “Reagan Democrats” and disillusioned Republicans who been spent the last couple of decades disgusted with both parties and who would have been motivated to go out and vote for Trump.

    Still if Trump has raised the turnout at all I think you can not deny the Trump effect.

    “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” indeed!!!

    Last, Steve keeps making the mistake of refering to Ted Cruz as just an Evangelical. I think it is far more accurate to call Ted Cruz and his father Christian Zionists, a seriously deluded minority of the overall Evangelical movement. "

    Cruz is a fruitcake, and he's doing best in the flakiest states. The media might as well start talking about a flake belt. So far they've been shamefully ignorant about the essential differences between the stable East and the wild West. And not just in terms of geography as much as culture. Maine and Florida have more contrarians/transients/strike it rich schemers and dreamers than other places east of the Mississippi.

    Nevertheless, Trump's sanguine livin' large persona plays well in hedonistic Florida, whereas plains folk (as well as the hermits/drifters of Maine) are too grumpy, pious, and paranoid to get on board with Trump.

    Also, the elites have been so ensconced in the Sun-belt and the Bos-Wash matrix that some of them are still clueless about the heartland. Big gubermint is disdained in the cultural and geographic West. The elites act as though a Texas flame thrower should be storming through the South; but this election isn't about God, guns, and gays. It's about rooted and optimistic Vs transient and paranoid.

  27. By the way, people seem to be harping on Cruz's lack of attractiveness. At first glance, Cruz does seem a bit soft/bloated and he doesn't have the best proportioned features. But I think people are really detecting, perhaps subconsciously, that what really makes him ugly is his smarmy and paranoid affect. The obligatory references to "we" (which Cruz and Hillary seem to compulsively overuse) gross people out. Who is we? We the zionists? We the religious zealots? We the free marketers in an era of corporate excess? We the ammo stockpilers?

    Even Alex Jones has gone all in on supporting Trump. Let that sink in. You know that a libertarian is a nutcase when even Jones has reservations.

  28. Cruz also is stoking the fires of individualism that have been burning bright over the last 30-40 years. Detached, cynical, and self-absorbed people don't want strong institutions. Chaos suits them just fine.

    Meanwhile, Trump is declaring that the party is gonna be over. It's time to start policing both our own behavior and the conduct of others. It takes many to get things back on track, encouraging people to just keep their head down and whistle past everything might seem customary at this point but soon enough that indifference to your fellow man will be seen as a relic of a decadent era.

  29. Kansas is a farm state that has been relatively prosperous in recent years and has limited experience with Open Borders inspired anarchy.

    There are lots of Mexicans in Kansas Dodge City is about 60% Mexican by now

  30. Re: Maine, just look at the primary maps from 2008 and 2012 -- it has been an outlier that prefers the same unusual candidates that the Plains / Mountain states do. This time around, the only remaining choice for that kind of voter is Cruz -- could have been Paul, Huckabee, or Walker earlier on, but now only Cruz.

  31. Kansas' experience or lack of experience with immigration does not matter. Texas has been flooded for decades -- did they vote Trump or Cruz?

    Alabama has little experience with immigration, only 4% being Hispanic -- did they vote Trump or Cruz? Will West Virginia, with no Mexicans or Indians or Chinese or even blacks, vote Trump or Cruz?

    When people are in culture war mode, concrete reality makes no difference. Texas, Oklahoma, and now Kansas may be experiencing exponentially more immigrants, but that's a real-world matter, and they're in airy-fairy culture war mode.

  32. About closed primaries, I think the angle there is class. Middle and upper-middle class people are going to have their voter registration in order well ahead of the deadlines. Working class, much less so.

    We know that Trump does best with working class, and we know that the most fervent culture warriors are middle and upper-middle, while the working class are concerned more with real-world matters.

  33. Christian Zionism is apocalyptic -- their only interest in Israel is its role in the end of the world as we know it.

    It's also anti-traditional -- erasing centuries of Christianity to uncover the "original" "Judaeo"-Christian values, before they became over-encrusted by the corruptions and deviations of the historical churches.

    This makes it hard for people to appreciate just how wacko a lot of the Plains states folks are -- they look and act mostly normal. They aren't the obvious tin-foil hat loonies.

    But when they go to church every Sunday, in the front of their minds, or at most in the middle part, is all this bizarre stuff about Judaeo-Christianity, Israel, historical (traditional) churches being of the Devil, and so on.

    It's no different from Mormons looking and acting normal, but belonging to a legit apocalyptic cult.

    "What, you mean you Methodists aren't storing months worth of food and water around the home to prepare for the coming apocalypse? Now who's being naive?"

  34. "Now there is a poll that came out today that has John Kasich of all people up by two points in Michigan."

    I hope that's just a temporary response to the off-putting debate. That poll was the only one conducted entirely after the debate. The other ones, up to and including that date, all have Trump comfortably in the lead with 40%, Cruz 20-25%, Rubio 15-20%, and Kasich 10-15%.

    Even in the Kasich-favored poll, Trump is still within the margin of error compared to his numbers in an earlier poll by the same polling group. The main difference was Kasich stealing numbers from the other also-rans and the undecideds.

    I think Trump will do all right, the only change is who is going to grab 2nd. Or that debate will have left a lingering bad taste into Tuesday. At least the Saturday voters in nearby Kentucky had gotten over it. Hopefully the Michiganders will go in with clearer heads after the weekend.

  35. Trump should really start demystifying Kasich, BTW. Probably too late for Michigan, but Ohio and the rest of the Rust Belt lies ahead, and he could be a regional spoiler / splitter.

    Don't go off on his personality, since he's the gee-golly-gosh-folks type. Reveal how this seemingly nice guy still wants to endanger our national security by starting 50 wars all over the world, flood our nation with more immigrants and give amnesty to the over 10 million already here, turn North America into one great big EU style market -- NAFTA on steroids -- send more manufacturing jobs overseas, refuse to slam tariffs on off-shored companies, etc.

    1. "Don't go off on his personality, since he's the gee-golly-gosh-folks type."

      Funny, I always think of him as the "Aw shucks" guy. Does that head bouncing thing, and, "can't we all just get along and love one another?" Very disconcerting when he combined that affect with saying, "You gotta bake the cake" and advised if one felt strongly against gay marriage to "say a prayer for them instead."
      Hard to have good answers, but that was a beauty.

    2. BTW, I perceive him as threatening, too, thought it seems nobody else does.

      Regardless of why Cruz has risen, I believe he'll soon peak and go down. Outside of TrueCons and a some truly gullibles wanting a "nice" version of Donald Trump, he's simply too repulsive to everyone else. It's truly a cult as what they see and everyone else sees are two very different things...
      So, if you're leaving Rubio now, or you're starting to come to your senses after knee-jerkingly choosing Cruz, what are you left with? Second look at guy whose globalist and socially liberal ways haven't been scrutinized in a looooooong time. And didn't he look so presidential at that last debate?
      Kasich hasn't risen and he's twice been lifted up, but only just prior to heading into socially conservative territory (after NH 2nd; strong Super Tuesday debate) so he couldn't capitalize.

  36. Thanks for all your posting on the primaries. Consistently great and interesting stuff.

    Extra props for constantly swatting down the low-energy paranoid concern-troll types. We've been seeing this ever since Carly Fiorina was supposed to be the RISING THREAT after the 2nd or 3rd debate: "I dunno guys, I think Trump has peaked, I think the novelty has worn off and the competition is rallying". Every time Trump performs short of perfection these depressives come out of the woodwork, and assuming they're not legit trolls they should shut up and pop some Vitamin D or something, because it's grating and dumb.

    Trump swatted away an early surge from Carson. He utterly obliterated Jeb, the establishment's Plan A candidate. Despite a soft start in Iowa Trump came roaring back with multiple massive victories. Rubio, the establishment's backup, is all but toast now. Despite some putzing around by Romney it's now all but certain that no other late-game spoiler candidate is going to enter the race.

    Bottom line: it hasn't been flawlessly smooth, but Trump has fought hard and mostly crushed the cucks. Cruz will probably be the last domino to fall but he's a lying weasel who only appeals to a very specific wing of the party and has zero crossover appeal. So: have faith & be patient. Vote when your state is up. Buy a hat or a sign. Troll Rick Wilson and JPod. And shut the hell up about "I'm getting worried, opposition may hypothetically be consolidating and some polls have been inaccurate I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE ANYMORE", unless you want to be confirmed for a Kruz Kult shill.

  37. Batsource is either a depressive emo on permanent suicide watch, or a cuck shill. The fact that we can't tell doesn't matter.

    You're banned, old comments deleted, and don't bother trying to concern troll anymore.

    But do post pics of you with slit wrists when Trump becomes President!

  38. I noted earlier:

    "Odd sight at Orlando rally -- 3 queers, including an Aztec-looking one, with flaming whoosh hair-do's, in the stands behind Trump."

    After reading this post at Conservative Treehouse, I don't think it's accidental if there's something so attention-grabbing placed directly behind Trump:

    Trump strategically placed a man behind him in the stands who was standing up, clapping, laughing, smiling, and doing the most he could to get attention without looking phony. I remember that guy too, but didn't know who he was.

    Turns out he is the lawyer who defended an insurgent Republican during the Mississippi race for Senator in 2014, when the insurgent was robbed through vote fraud and smear campaigns paid for by the Establishment.

    By placing him squarely within the camera frame, he sent a message to the local and national Establishment that he knew what they'd try to do to him, and that he was prepared. It showed that he knew minute details about local politics, and that he wasn't just some clueless outsider ready to walk right into a trap.

    Back to those flaming homos at the Orlando rally -- I thought at first that they'd start to disrupt, either for Bernie or for somebody. You just don't see three twinks with severe whooshy hair-do's, including a Hispanic one, in the good seats at a Trump rally.

    Bubba wearing a camo hat? Yes. Trio of twinks? No.

    This was a massive rally (25,000), was held during Super Saturday, and was broadcast on live TV. It was held at Orlando, leading up to the state's yuge winner-take-all primary coming up, where Rubio is on his last legs in his home state.

    Trump is not going to waste the space behind him during such a crucial moment...

    I wonder if those three are rent boys or randos from the gay scene in Miami or elsewhere, who have either gotten down with Foam Party Robot or at least seen him at their clubs and bars.

    They could have been easily found by having Trump's opposition research team put out a reward for gays with real-life experience with Rubio. They wouldn't need to say or imply anything -- just be willing to be staged conspicuously behind Trump during the Orlando rally. That would be all the warning he would need to give Little Marco about opening up his closet.

    They weren't cheering, laughing, or otherwise engaged. Not fans, not people who would trek for miles and stand in line for hours. Just standing there, kind of bored, looking around, mostly chatting with each other, clearly out of place.

    It was not subtle at all, I just don't know exactly who it's meant to be a warning shot against. All signs would point to Rubio, though. Trump is the friggin' man.

  39. Here's a still photographer's shot:

    They appear in the bottom left (on the video, they're on the right side of the frame). The Amerindian guy and the white guy. You can see the flaming whoosh on the darker one, and the white guy's is no less severely shaved around the sides and back, just hard to see from this angle.

    They're staring down at their phones, disconnected from Trump's speech, unlike everyone around them. Probably checking Grindr to see if Rubio himself is nearby.

    Here's one that shows the third guy, to the left of the Hispanic, also with a gay whoosh and neotenous face, and totally disengaged despite being right behind Trump at a 25,000 person rally:

    Someone with better tech skills than me might be able to use still image shots or screengrabs from the video feed, and do a reverse image search to find out what rent boy website Rubio found them on.

  40. Let's not forget that Trump has already brought up Hillary and Huma being dykes in front of an audience, and dog-whistling that Lindsey Graham and John McCain are not only gay but gay for each other ("they're like the Bobbsey twins," always joined at the hip).

  41. I'll get even more speculative, and say I wouldn't be surprised if Trump has already conspicuously placed someone damaging to Hillary at one of his massive and highly covered rallies.

    Some woman who Bill molested, who perhaps isn't even known to the media. Perhaps someone who was underage. Or maybe one of Hillary's old lesbian partners, perhaps also underage at the time. Someone nuclear. Just standing there the whole time, right in frame, behind Trump.

    Given how corrupted and perverted the Clintons both have been for 40-odd years, there would be no shortage of people to find, especially after they moved into Trump's backyard in New York.

    He does keep saying, "And I haven't even started on her yet," and "The LAST person Hillary wants to run against is Trump, that I can tell you." All he has to do is lock up the nomination for himself, rather than nuke Hillary on behalf of one of the also-rans or a usurper.

  42. I’m guessing that the pre-1960’s Arab immigrants were almost entirely Arab Christians. My parents and grandparents used to refer to Lebanese Christian families that lived in their neighborhoods. Do you have any data on this?

  43. I think IS(IS) and related groups are Islam's version of apocalyptic sects: wanting to wipe out all traditions that have developed over time to uncover the "pure" original lifestyle, fight the end-times battle, etc.

  44. @ HBS, Louisiana (especially as you go further west) is kind of a blend of the western and southern outlooks, there was a lot of anti-Trump media campaigning here and I think local party leadership is quite unhappy. The collapse of oil prices has hurt us pretty hard though, and most people won't care about the establishment line.

  45. lol

  46. Remember, most of those weird religious beliefs and practices of the American Protestants originated back East.

  47. And only resonate out West.

  48. The "cultural" West (basically anything east of the Mississippi, as well as Florida and a few other scattered pockets of transients and hermits in the geographic East) is way flakier. The Mormons got chased further and further from regular America 'til they set up shop in a basically uninhabited area. The plains, especially the heavily developed areas near the Mississippi, aren't far enough removed from the East for the comfort of such a cult.

    Granted, there are strains of flakiness. Some Californians might balk at being lumped in with Texans, but both states are flaky to the same degree. Just flaky in a somewhat different way.

    Each part of the West has developed a certain kind of character depending on what kind of transients ended up there. Florida and California attracted a lot of amiable but dopey sun baked hedonists who lacked the grit to deal with the below zero winters and blazing summers of the plains. Plains folk are notoriously grumpy, probably due in large part to the weather being a year round menacing pain in the ass.

    The mountains attract a lot of snotty lifestyle enthusiasts with pretensions of ruggedness. "I'M wearing better skiing/climbing/kayaking/hiking gear than YOU." These "tough" types, being individualistic, don't actually want to put in the effort of truly building venerable communities worth living in; they want a ex-urban McMansion to double as a beach head from which to assault the landscape.

    Again and again, Western individualism thwarts any kind of widespread camaraderie, good-will, and self-discipline. That's why the cultural West is so lax towards "victim-less crimes". When you're so detached from those around you, why care about the effects of drugs, prostitution, and abortion?

    In the biggest sin cities (LV, LA, SF, pretty much any larger city in Florida) many people are simply too mired in hedonism to even care about their own dignity, much anyone else's

  49. FYI, So-Cal raised Steve Sailer bitches endlessly about how screwed up California is. So why does he stay there? Well, he did grow up there, and he found the weather of other places to be intolerable. Think about that.

    A reasonably smart and successful guy can't extricate himself from the basket case that is modern So-Cal because, well, I don't want to wear a mid-weight or heavy weight jacket unless I'm goin' up into the mountains. Sheesh.

    I've lived in Minnesota my whole life, and honest to God, it's not unheard of to keep 3-5 jackets handy throughout October-March since it can be anywhere from -20 degrees to +60 degrees. Sometimes within several days. And you can't escape it if it gets really bad, you just hope it goes away in a few days. I guess people in Cali get spoiled.

    No offense to anyone lucky enough to read this blog, but it sure seems like California didn't get the hardy folks.

  50. The "race" is beginning to resemble a sloppily programmed beat-em up video game, with our player controlled character (Trump) getting worked over by a gang of hoodlums. It's not coincidence that every remaining candidate hails from a state with Winner-Take-All status and/or lots of delegates.

    The octopus has commanded Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz to protect their home turf so as to deny Trump the necessary delegates. There will be no-one dropping out of the race, let alone a ceremonial "let's get behind one guy" to steer a candidate to outright delegate victory.

    That leathery queen Kasich is openly boasting about gaining the nomination at a brokered convention. A "moderate" or "nice guy"? No frikkin' way. Kasich and Cruz are truly deluded if they are looking forward to a convention. Trump undoubtedly will get the lion's share of delegates and win the popular vote.

    A brokered convention that screws Trump will, I guarantee, lead to protracted lawsuits at the very least (Trump and many of his associates will not accept losing due to chicanery of all kinds, e.g. fraudulent voting, rigged machines, massaged or altered delegate apportioning etc.). Protests and rioting will occur (lower class underemployed white guys have been waiting to blow off steam for a long time) with Boomers and Gen X-ers also motivated by the knowledge that they failed to act when the authorities pulled this shit several times already (Perot, Buchanan, the 2000 election). The more populist early boomers will be too old and relatively comfortable to literally brawl but they will no doubt be involved on a legal and political level.

    We might see mass violent opposition to an installed nominee/president .If America's racial demographics were at 1960's levels I'm sure that whites would be even more united in opposition. Diversity really has divided us further.

    Given the level of elite corruption and the sheer money involved, the stop Trump effort far surpasses what was done to Goldwater or Buchanan. The ruling class of the 1960's and even earlier 1990's weren't quite as wretched as what we have now. Populism has been dead for 20 years among 99% of the elite while the most craven Silents and Boomers, in the total absence of G.I.s, have largely ejected and marginalized what few populist elites we've had.

    Let's not forget that in the early days of neo-con influence, the C.I.A. of the 1980's advised Reagan and his right hand men that there was no reason to cease hostility towards the Soviets; allegedly the Soviets had no desire to negotiate or compromise, and even if the Soviets agreed to anything it would be done in cynicism and would backfire against the U.S. anyway.

    Reagan ignored the C.I.A. and had his trusted non neo-cons look into the CIA's claims. Sure enough, the CIA reports was riddled with distorted nonsense intended to keep the war machine humming and propel mostly Jewish careers and grudges.

  51. That's kind of weird that you would use Methodists as the example of what Plains states would find weird, agnostic, considering that the two states with the highest percentage of Methodists are Kansas and Oklahoma, and that Texas has the most Methodists by far in an absolute sense.

  52. I do think that Trump will rack up tons of delegates. He did fairly well in Kentucky and Louisiana, though far too many cucks have defected from Rubio to Cruz. This "ground game" culture of Cruz has a sinister vibe to it. How are they "motivating" the cuck army anyway? The media hasn't really explained how and why so many Cruz supporters swamp the caucuses. Assuming that officials and equipment aren't outright cheating the actual Trump voters who do show up. The primaries are tougher to game, at least, and we're mercifully into the stage where nearly every state has a primary.

    I'm skeptical of any "bombshells" emerging. They managed to dig up the Polish worker nonsense of the early 80's. 15+ states in, they would no doubt have pushed more scandalous stories had they found any. With nothing emerging, we can relax that they haven't and won't find anything else to club him with.

    Look, they even brow beat him over the oh so awful KKK nonsense when Trump has never said a positive thing about racism or racists in his life. Or had a sustained relationship with a racist figure. Is that really the best that they could do?

    Hillary is on a high crimes and misdemeanors watch; what can compete with that? And given the number of bribed and coerced politicians, especially the pervert homos and pedos among the elite, it's hillarious to see the media froth at the mouth over complete non-issues like the KKK thing and ancient slight missteps like the Polish workers.

    How many of the dirt bags fear that the decadent and hedonistic reign of the last 30 years will finally be exposed and appreciated for what it is by Trump and those who follow him? They can't stop us, but they won't go gently away.

  53. "considering that the two states with the highest percentage of Methodists are Kansas and Oklahoma, and that Texas has the most Methodists by far in an absolute sense."

    I know about the Circuit Riders. Methodists are outnumbered by far by Southern Baptists in Texas and Oklahoma (also by Catholic Mexicans along the border in Texas).

    They're still scattered around Kansas, although by 2010, they're not really dominant in the big population centers around Kansas City / Topeka / Lawrence -- here and there, along with Catholics and Lutherans -- and even less so around Wichita.

    I'm also guessing that they're a lot older farther away from the origin back East, where it's more of a tradition. Not that the "traditional service" of the UMC is young back East either, but they'll have a packed room next door with the "contemporary service".

    Out West, more mega-church types, and more Christian Zionism (which is centered in Houston).

  54. It looks like the gay boys made it to the front page of Reddit:

    This seems more sinister than Rubio. I'm getting a big waft of Hillary Stank on this.

    By the way, did you see the blind on Hillary yesterday? Supposedly the reason she wears those unflattering mumus is due to having adorned a bulletproof vest. It seems like she's really afraid of being assassinated.

  55. @Feryl Plenty of middle class California pepo have been leaving over the past two decades: to the mountain states or Texas or whatever. I remember when I was in Colorado, our hosts (who had relatively deep roots there) complained about this influx.

  56. "No offense to anyone lucky enough to read this blog, but it sure seems like California didn't get the hardy folks."

    Depends on how you define hearty. Takes some gumption to up and leave your home and strike out on your own. There are, of course, pros and cons to that, just as there are pros and cons of never leaving the area you grew up in. But I'd hardly categorize people who like temperate climates as inherently weak or un-hearty. And you know, California has been a state for quite some time now, millions of people have multigenerational roots here, myself included, so it's kind of silly to keep harping on about the "rootless" West. We just don't vote the way you want us to.

  57. I think anyone would rather live in California than Minnesota, where there's even worse liberal dipshit-ism, worse weather (not just cold winters but humid summers), soon to be giving the Southwest a run for their money in immigration, and perhaps less of a productive economy.

    Minnesota's key sectors are food, banking / finance / insurance, and retail. Not apparel, furniture, industrial, automotive, electronics, etc.

    I'd much rather live in Wisconsin than California, though. Weather is obviously similar to Minnesota's, but less dipshit-ism, less passive-aggressive hectoring, and a richer and more diverse economic base.

    Also, more Catholics than Lutherans, so you're getting the Germans from the western highlands and southern mountains, rather than the Nordic types of the north or the crypto-Slavs of the east.

    Just contrast Red Letter Media with Mystery Science Theater 3000. The Mississippi River makes all the difference.

  58. From outsider perspective, the differences between Minn. and Wisc. do seem pretty staggering, just one example: latter is always one of the unhealthiest states, former one of the fittest. You don't have that kind of variation between Southern states, for example.

  59. I'd rather live with Asians and Mexicans over Somalis, so California is definitely better a trade than Minnesota.

  60. "It looks like the gay boys made it to the front page of Reddit"

    Wow, I didn't notice that move. They're clearly there to get the viewer's attention, making a spectacle while both staring right into the camera.

    I'm convinced now that it's a warning to out the Foam Party Robot. Perhaps that move was recreating what they did with Rubio -- "remember this? remember us? hi there foam boy!"

    I've also seen this GIF shared on Facebook. So the warning is out not only over TV broadcast, but forever in internet meme space.

  61. Also a shitload of Hmong in Minnesota, the most despicable Asian immigrants, remember that Hmong hunter from Minnesota who shot a bunch of (presumably White) Wisconsin hunters in the back? Microcosm of the two states I guess.

  62. Yeah, MN's really screwed itself with these invaders nobody else wants. Still, MN is a much whiter state than Cal.

    "From outsider perspective, the differences between Minn. and Wisc. do seem pretty staggering, just one example: latter is always one of the unhealthiest states, former one of the fittest. You don't have that kind of variation between Southern states, for example."

    Marcus, people west of the Mississippi are bigger lifestyle snobs. And abstaining from cigs and staying in shape is part of that. East of the big river, people are more concerned about being neighborly and honoring their ancestors than in getting worked up over who has a better body. It's jaw dropping; don't smoke and don't be fat, but it's not our business to scorn fag sodomy.

  63. "Just contrast Red Letter Media with Mystery Science Theater 3000. The Mississippi River makes all the difference."

    Mike Nelson and Kevin Murphy (2/3 of MST3K for most of it's run) did not grow up in MN (mostly or totally Illinois if memory serves). Though simply living in MN as adults probably had some effect. Murphy has complained about MN passive aggressiveness, and his loquacious celtic guy from the rust belt persona has never really fit MN.

    Joel Hodgson, who did create the show, is indeed from Minnesota. But his approach was very laid back (often interpreted as a stoner/slacker) and fairly gentle. Then again, maybe this fits into the idea that Westerners are bigger flakes. M. Nelson was way more aggro and seems pretty grumpy in both the show and in real life.

    Also, the '89-'92 seasons are more aggreeable and feature voices that are softer and more likely to have that sort of "disassociative" state thing going on since cocooning hadn't set in yet. The snarking and affected voices thing got worse as the 90's went on.

  64. Also, all of the MST3K people are Boomers. RLM is totally Gen X. Though some "experts" would claim that Joel Hodgson's (a '64 birth) creation is a Gen X cornerstone. In fact, even some early Gen X-ers would not get some of the references that are clearly from Boomer childhood/adolescent culture.

  65. I'm going to sacrifice some coolness points by sharing that the only time I've been to Minnesota was for an MST3K convention, during the summer between 8th and 9th grade.

    What can I say? -- it was 1996. We were desperate for anything remotely cool in such a painfully lame decade.

    I don't remember too much of the panel discussions, other than spotting some guy wearing a Residents eyeball t-shirt a few seats down, and chatting with him about the band. (Hey, we already said it was the '90s.)

    Turns out the most fun thing to do there was watching the older / classic episodes projected in the convention rooms, about as big as the small movie theaters from way back, with the lights down and an actual crowd around you.

    Watching people in a theater, while finally in a theater yourself, maxed out the meta-meter. (It was the '90s.)


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."