June 10, 2016

Blacks vs. progressives: The Bernie movement as Eugene McCarthy plus George Wallace

Since comparisons keep coming up to the 1968 election, especially the civil war among the Democrats, it's worth looking at who the major players were back then and who their modern counterparts are.

President Johnson was pulled aside by the Establishment and told that he would not be running for re-election, because his escalation of the Vietnam War and cracking down on students was threatening to blow the society apart. The elites wanted the social tensions to calm down, and Johnson couldn't stop himself from antagonizing them further. So he was out.

His VP, Hubert Humphrey, was the Establishment next-in-line. His counterpart today is the next-in-line of the Establishment bigwigs, Crooked Hillary Clinton.

Robert Kennedy was making a play for the white ethnics, immigrants, and minorities, before he was assassinated during the primaries. That faction of the old New Deal coalition has by now been thoroughly integrated into the Establishment wing. Martin O'Malley was attempting to present himself as a latter-day Bobby Kennedy, but since Kennedy's base is no longer a distinct faction of the party, O'Malley had no distinct audience to appeal to, and quickly vanished.

Eugene McCarthy represented the progressive peacenik wing, mostly popular with young people, and his counterpart is clearly Bernie Sanders.

George Wallace actually broke away from the Democrats and ran on a third-party ticket, though representing a key faction of the old New Deal coalition -- white Southerners. That demographic has left the Democrats, and so his present-day incarnation -- Jim Webb -- had no one to appeal to, and left as quickly as O'Malley.

And yet when we step back and take a look at how the contest between Hillary and Bernie has played out, perhaps the spirit of George Wallace lives on in the Bernie phenomenon after all. Not by advocating segregation, of course, but by nevertheless wanting to make national parties focus on something more important than minority identity politics.

Everyone knows how white the Bernie movement is, and how reliant Crooked Hillary has been on minorities -- particularly blacks, who have deep roots in the party, back to the '60s, unlike Hispanics or Asians, who have shallow roots, are not loyalists, and not gung-ho at the ballot box. That percolated up to the state level, where white states went to Bernie and black or minority-heavy states went to Hillary. And that has percolated further up to the national level -- the Democrats' electorate is more minority-based than the country as a whole, so the winner overall was Hillary.

The disconnect between white progressives and black Democrat loyalists is nothing new, and rears its head every time a progressive movement shows up, the last time being Nader in 2000. This time around, though, it was big news because the white progressives attempted a hostile takeover of a major party rather than run third-party and be invisible.

This recent article from Politico by a black Southern Democrat loyalist discusses the racial rift in the party. At the root of the problem is white progressives wanting to reduce racial injustice to class / economic injustice, or at most talking about criminal justice reform. They don't get identity politics ("what it's like to live as a black man in America"), and aren't interested in trying to get it.

During the New Deal era, these would have simply been two factions that didn't address the same problems but still co-existed within the larger party's coalition. Once the working class was kicked out during the status-striving and profiteering era (no later than the Go-Go Eighties), the progressives were no longer a full-fledged member of the party's coalition. Today, therefore, they have no standing to push for their agenda at the national level. The black faction has nothing to do one way or the other with Wall Street, corporate monopolization, etc., so they were allowed to stay in the coalition. Today, they do have standing to push for their racial identity politics agenda.

Normally progressives are left out in the cold by both Democrats and Republicans, and remain depressed and apathetic. That's changing, though, now that they've tasted national recognition, participation, and come so close to actually securing the nomination (in their minds, anyway -- the superdelegates would have over-ridden a Bernie victory in pledged delegates).

What was the biggest obstacle in their path? Not the Wall Street donors to Crooked Hillary, or her sprawling political machine, although those certainly paved the way. The Trump movement's hostile takeover of the GOP faced the same obstacles -- fueling even more competitors, in fact -- and yet he won big-league.

At the end of the Dem race, however, Bernie still lost in the popular vote, pledged delegate count, and state contests. And those losses all boil down to the racial composition of the Dem electorate. Trump appealed to an almost entirely white electorate, so his populist campaign took off and won victories so overwhelming that the Establishment could not over-rule his voters without setting off a bloody revolution.

Every time Bernie lost a diverse state, his supporters flipped out and came this close to blurting out, "Fucking niggers again". But that would make them evil racists, so they just bit their tongue and waited eagerly for the next whitopia state to cast its vote.

What has this done to their long-term vision of politics? Twenty-four hours a day for the past six months, they've been dreading when black people vote, and praying and celebrating when a lily-white electorate votes. Black voters sink progressivism, while white voters keep it afloat. Whether they want to admit it publicly or not, no level of "intersectional outreach" is going to bring more than a small share of the entire black voting pool over to their side.

Worse than failing to bridge the gap, they are getting mercilessly clobbered by the Establishment politicians and their media propaganda outlets -- from the lowliest troll repping Black Twitter, all the way up to the President himself. Right up until Election Day, they're going to be subjected to non-stop attacks about, "Sit cho white azz down an check yo' pribbalege, honkey-azz progressive cracka."

I can't imagine that the Sanders supporters will remain as committed to "intersectional" politics after this experience, especially those who are new to elections and are getting blind-sided by the reality of who the base of the Democratic Party is, and what they're all about (not class).

So in its own way, the Bernie phenomenon is a mix of both the Eugene McCarthy and the George Wallace wings of the 1960s-era Democrats. Anti-war, yay -- black grievance, nay.

Let's end with a fun little speculation about what it would look like if Bernie grew a pair and ran as an independent in the fall, representing a progressive movement distinct from both Clinton and Trump.

Like George Wallace, Bernie's support would be highly localized around the country, unlike Ross Perot whose message resonated everywhere -- though not at a high enough level to win any state. Wallace's message resonated in the Deep South, where he won 5 states and 46 electoral votes. Bernie's "who cares about black grievances?" message would resonate in several key areas, which also showed the highest support for Nader in 2000.

The map below is my projection for a general election between Trump, Hillary, and Bernie, where Trump keeps the Romney states and adds a few swing states for a narrow victory. In reality, he'll enjoy a much larger victory, but let's keep the tension high by only allowing a narrow victory. The projections are based on primary results in 2016, as well as historic electoral outcomes for progressive parties.

Bernie would win several states in peripheral New England -- the non-elite states of Vermont, Maine, and Rhode Island. He would pick up the Lutheran Belt states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa. He would do well with Mountain State hippies, although there are only a large enough concentration of them in one state for him to win -- Colorado. Finally he would scoop up the Pacific Northwest states of Washington and Oregon.

I've given California to Hillary to be conservative, but in a three-way contest between her, Trump, and Bernie, I'd give even odds to each one of them.

Without California, Bernie would win 9 states and 65 electoral votes. With it, 10 states and 120 votes. Either way, an even stronger performance than Wallace in '68, the last time a third-party candidate won anything.

A cynic looking for an excuse would complain about "What's the point if he can't win the entire election?" Well, if he wants progressive causes represented in the next administration, a solid showing in the general election would be hard to ignore. In fact, if he did eke out a win in the three-way battle for California, his electoral vote count would be almost as much as Clinton's -- 120 to her 145. Suddenly the progressive movement would not look and feel so marginal.

The wimpy cynic would continue with the excuse about how "A third-party run would hand the election to Trump." First of all -- Trump is going to win this thing no matter who else does or does not run against him, just as Nixon would have won in '68 whether or not Wallace's electoral votes went back to the Democrats who normally won the Deep South. Wallace did not eat into traditional Republican states of the time, and Bernie would not eat into the red states of today.

I'm being generous in only giving Trump the Romney states plus Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, to squeak by with 273 electoral votes. Whether Crooked Hillary wins all of the remaining minority of the electoral votes in the absence of Bernie, or splits them nearly evenly with Bernie, makes no difference for who's got the majority and is heading to the White House.

The progressives had better get used to President Trump. Turnout is off the charts for Republicans, and deflated for Democrats. If they sadly line up behind the Wall Street warhawk, merely because "she's not Donald Trump," that will be the wasted vote. Instead, their choice is between voting for a losing candidate they loathe, or a losing candidate they love.

I voted Nader in 2000, so the choice seems like a no-brainer to me. Luckily this time I've got a superior populist and non-interventionist candidate to vote for -- President Trump -- but if he had not entered the race, and it were Clinton vs. Bush: The Resurrection, there's little doubt I would have voted for Bernie in the primary as well as the general (write-in, independent, or whatever).


  1. "Trump is going to win this thing no matter who else does or does not run against him"

    Um, no.

    Trump has no chance. The only people who vote for him are older white people. Plus the electoral college controls the vote and there is no way intellectuals vote for something like him. Also, Sanders supporters will now support Clinton



  2. Random Dude on the Internet6/10/16, 9:47 AM

    The same people who told us for months that Trump will fizzle out by September 2015 are now the same people who say he can't win against Hillary. What makes them credible this time?

  3. The Democrat Machine has been financing violence against Trump supporters while blaming Bernie supporters as you've discussed before.

    I'm curious what happens going forward: now that the primary is effectively over, will they continue to tar a faction of their own party? Also, will the blowback for San Jose be strong enough to stifle this in the future?

    It was very surprising to me that the Washington Post so egregiously attacked Bernie supporters for violence after Hillary sewed up the nomination (using attack of Trump supporting woman at the San Jose rally by members of Hillary's coalition). Seriously, what is that about? #NeverTrump at least doesn't seem to libel Trump supporters.

  4. Thinking out loud here and just thought of this in light of even more revelations of corruption (selling a position to donor on nuclear board: Geez, Hillary!): what if the Democrat Machine wants to render Bernie/Progressive movement toxic for when Hillary gets yanked out over corruption? They really do want him disappeared, that's for sure.

  5. Clarify: she sold a position as a "nuclear weapons advisor" to a donor to the Clinton Foundation. No expertise or reason found for him to be there other than $$$.
    Dear Lord in heaven, woman!!

  6. The disconnect between white progressives and black Democrat loyalists is nothing new, and rears its head every time a progressive movement shows up, the last time being Nader in 2000

    Echoes of that with Howard Dean in 2004

  7. You don't see Obama in 2008 as a Eugene Mccarthy progressive?

    Great analysis, btw.


  8. "Trump has no chance. The only people who vote for him are older white people. Plus the electoral college controls the vote and there is no way intellectuals vote for something like him. Also, Sanders supporters will now support Clinton"

    Tell Soros he needs to send a better troll. This one is defective.

  9. "Trump has no chance. The only people who vote for him are older white people."

    There's that magical protective incantation again -- "Trump has no chance" / "Trump will not become President" / etc. Words are not magic, no matter how frequently and intensely you chant them.

    You must have missed the NYT article showing how much whiter, older, and less-than-college-educated the electorate is than everyone thinks:


    Crooked Hillary appeals to black Boomer women, while Trump appeals to the white working class -- I wonder which group is bigger, particularly in key Rust Belt and swing states?

    "Sanders supporters will now support Clinton"

    From the available polls, whether it's public opinion firms or The Young Turks asking its audience, it looks like Crooked Hillary will pull no more than 50% of the Sanders supporters (the party loyalists), 20-30% will go to Trump (the blue-collars who are against NAFTA, TPP, etc.), and the other 20-30% will vote 3rd party, write in Bernie, or simply stay home (the progressives).

    Also remember that turnout is deflated on the Dems' side -- so "50%" of Bernie voters is not a big number. She needs more like 90% of Bernie voters to even be competitive.

    Like I said, progressives can either lose with Bernie or lose with Crooked Hillary -- their choice.

  10. "You don't see Obama in 2008 as a Eugene Mccarthy progressive?"

    He was more of a Bobby Kennedy wannabe, only being an actual black rather than a speaker-on-behalf-of-blacks. Being a young rising star was a big part of his appeal.

    His message as I remember it was more about healing racial and other social/cultural wounds, than about ending the war machine, busting up Wall Street banks, and so on.

    But maybe he put on a veneer of Eugene McCarthy to reel in the progs, and I'm not remembering.

  11. "now that the primary is effectively over, will they continue to tar a faction of their own party?"

    From what I've heard on the news channels and websites, and on social media, the Clinton voters absolutely hate the Bernie movement, and are doing whatever they can to ostracize and humiliate them.

    The main charge being "Your candidate was never a true Democrat, only an Independent," and "You guys aren't real Democrats anyway". That's what we heard against Trump supporters not being real Republicans, and Trump not being a true conservative -- true, but who gives a shit? We're the force of good, and we're bigger than you and Team Hillary, so get out of our way.

    The only people I see giving bromides about coming together are the highest-ranking politicians (Obama, Hillary, etc.). Anybody below that level is wielding the whip to get the Sanders supporters to fall in line, and anyone who balks gets salt rubbed in their wound about how "We don't need your vote anyway".

    That's basically what sellout pseudo-prog Pocahontas Warren said in her endorsement of Crooked Hillary -- other people's lives are on the line, so the Bernie voters can't in good conscience vote 3rd party, write in Bernie, or stay home. If they don't fall in line behind the Wall Street warhawk, they've got innocent people's blood on their hands. Very subtle, very persuasive.

    Progressives are not a faction within the Dems, so they won't treat them like a wayward family member. The progs, along with the mostly non-ideological Millennials who were the base of the Bernie movement, attempted a hostile takeover and lost.

    One of the complaints that Chomsky had in that recent interview where he likens the Sander supporters to the Trump voters, is that the Bernie campaign has not been building institutions and groups that will outlast the electoral effort itself.

    Now that he isn't getting the nomination, where do his people go? Not "back into" the Democrats, since they're mostly newcomers or progressives who have always been unwelcome or on the outskirts of the Dem party. But also not "back into" their regular meetings at the local rec center, church, or union hall, where they continue to work on advancing their goals.

    We'll have to see what happens. But without anything to plug into, my guess is most of the disaffected ones will just stay home on election day.

  12. "The same people who told us for months that Trump will fizzle out by September 2015 are now the same people who say he can't win against Hillary. What makes them credible this time?"

    Because now we've entered the general election phase, a magical barrier beyond which the upside-down world will be turned right-side-up.

    These morons think that the political climate is going to turn on a dime, despite being populist and anti-Establishment the whole time.

    Pray harder, Establishment worshipers.

  13. Another welcome development, aside from the progs recognizing how much black voters hate their causes and their non-black voting behavior, is that all of the pseudo-progs are unmasking themselves for all to see.

    It's waking up a lot of well-meaning progs to the fact that supposed icons like Pocahontas Warren never were progressive, but were only putting on an act -- kind of like Ted Cruz pretending to be an outsider fighting for the little guy, when his roots are in the Dubya administration and Goldman Sachs.

    The only difference is what empty culture war topics they pander to in an effort to whip up the base to go vote for the globalist Establishment agenda.

    Conservatives got wise to the ruse, and aside from the cucks, have dropped the Lyin' Ted's of the world and gone for Trump. It remains to be seen whether the progressives reject Warren, Clinton, et al., and fight on behind Bernie, Tulsi Gabbard, and other real progressives.

  14. One difference that may prevent the progs from rejecting the pseudos like Warren, is that liberals are more trusting than conservatives, hence more naive, more gullible, and easier to manipulate.

    (Data from General Social Survey on "trust" according to "polviews".)

    Liberals have a more child-like mind, and conservatives a more mature one. Who is more likely to return to someone who beats and abuses them -- a child or a spouse?

    1. I don't think this is 100% true. Conservatives of the Cruz-favoring variety have a clearly childlike mindset.


  15. The racial car wreck is something I pointed out weeks ago. The GOP was not going to have the same kind of internal tension as the Dems just because race is the single biggest agent of division. The Dems could be blase about the toxicity of blacks as long as populism was kept at bay since boutique cosmopolitan cultural liberalism can exist alongside an elite black class that sets the bitter tone for all blacks, forming a two pronged spear to be jabbed in the heart of downscale whites. They thought they had inflicted mortal wounds, that "history", was, well, history. Nope.

    To the extent that elite Dems feel any sense of noblesse oblige, it can't be expressed. To do so would aggravate black entitlement. "Wait, so you're saying that contrary to the last 50 years of modern and liberal thought, inflating black self-esteem ISN'T the most important task?" Such is the danger of hitching your wagon to the most immature and egocentric of human races.

    Blacks need to know that they don't have the tools to compete with other races. That's not such a big deal if they have realistic goals and expectations. But modern liberals just had to give them the keys to the Lamborghini. Blacks have dominated post 1970 liberal discourse, as has disdain for downscale work. The result? A huge mismatch between the kind of social and career roles needed for downscale blacks vs the kind that elites encourage and permit. The talented tenth get fairly lucrative and "respectable" careers while the rest don't get much else, often drifting into poverty/welfare/crime. The black elite and liberals bitch about why blacks as a whole do so terribly, blaming whites and excusing blacks. Gee, maybe if appropriate and decent paid work was available, and if we stopped enabling the worst tendencies of blacks (like doing whatever they please knowing they won't get a deserved beat down) we'd be better off.

    Some of this applies to downscale whites, too. Since whites are more inherently responsible, and since (American) society has never made excuses for them, whites by and large are doing better (at least psychologically) than blacks. Just the same, the swamping of America with locust like browns and yellows (who always seem creepy and ill-fitting among amiable and genteel whites and loquacious blacks) is taking it's toll. So is the battering of the social fabric that occurs when a huge chunk of white men lack the means and pedigree to be effective husbands, fathers, and keepers of the white community. It's quite striking how many late Boomer, Gen X, and Millennial white men have essentially shut themselves off, hiding behind beards and tattoos, embracing the lowest of culture (for upscale and liberal whites it's bohemian narcissism, for downscale righties it's obnoxious redneck crap). As opposed to at least attempting to find any kind of kinship with their ancestral culture. Or a will to leave this world a better place than it was when they entered.

    Trump of course aims to reverse this. We've gotta get more people on board. Do everything we can to let both sad sack downscale types as well as smug elitists know that the future will be brighter for just about everyone except for a minority of stubborn people. And the hordes of people who are or want to be unwanted guests in our house.

  16. "Another welcome development, aside from the progs recognizing how much black voters hate their causes and their non-black voting behavior, is that all of the pseudo-progs are unmasking themselves for all to see."

    The biggest irritant with blacks I feel is not their stance on any issue, it's more their incredibly entitled loud mouth personalities. The moment you give them any ground they end up pushing their way to the front. To the detriment of everything else. White liberals basically have agreed for the last 50 years to ALWAYS let them get their way (or at least, never challenging the idea that blacks come first)), to never elbow them off the adult's table.

    The result? Blacks and the liberals who kiss their asses dominate the Democrats. Democrats grow allergic to downscale whites who can't afford to lie to themselves about the horrors of blacks and who also resent blacks being given priority for decades. Also alienated are people sick and tired of PC ID politics being the engine of everything. Like the young Bernie supporters who want policies based on fairness and genuine change for equality, not feminist and racial rhetoric that is rooted in moribund modern liberal logic that has nothing to do with economics.

  17. WRT voter demos, The Dems have blacks ensconced but of course blacks make up roughly 10% of the pop. Furthermore, the felonious status of many blacks invalidates their vote. Young blacks likely have even worse issues with figuring it how to vote than young whites, though the opportunity to vote Obama led to huge efforts to register and educate black voters which still has a bearing on this election.

    Beaner wise, we all know that civic apathy is notoriously common among Latin Americans who come from nasty cultures where nobody trusts nobody. Furthermore, they don't have the same kind of voter gravitas/entitlement that you see among black voters (who look at elections as a great way to stick it to whitey). What exactly do hispanics vote for? They're just here, doing whatever is they do, no wanting to get involved like blacks and whites do.

    Ya know how most actors are black or white? Well, it's because they seem like they've got a mission (albeit not necessarily a noble one). They want things and they've got the charisma and energy to get them. What do Mexicans want? It's the problem with Asians and Mixtec type farmers; they grind, and they grind. Nothing more.

  18. Honestly I really feel like Nvada is a heavy Trump state, he was practically made for it. I have a hard time seeing Hillary win it outside of some serious dark side crap.

  19. Sure, so is Michigan and others. I'm being generous to Crooked Hillary.

    So in reality, if Bernie entered the general election, his state and electoral count would be even closer to Hillary's because Trump is going to win several of the states I've generously given to her.

    In fact, if Trump also takes Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan, and if Bernie squeezes through the three-way battle for California, it would be Trump 299, Bernie 120, and Hillary 119.

    Come on, Bernie, be a man and put Crooked Hillary in last place!

  20. Warren et all aren't fake progs, though. Only via ridiculously unprincipled exemptions can you take progressivism's central logic, "All people are equal. Some people have too much and we should take it from them.", and not immediately apply it to groups that have more (whites, males) and those that have less (blacks, females). There's just no logical way once you except prog premises.

  21. Progressives don't have a philosophy -- almost nobody follows an articulated list of beliefs, let alone seeking to apply it as consistently as possible. Conservatives, liberals, whoever. We're talking less than 1% of the population.

    Progressives are instead defined by wanting more of a social safety net -- not taking from group A and giving it to group B.

    But if someone becomes unemployed, give them a padded landing until they're working again. If someone gets sick, pad the landing until they get better.

    The unemployed and the sick are not permanent groups like blacks and women are, so it's not a transfer from one enduring group to another enduring group.

    More people are gaming the system and relying chronically on unemployment and disability benefits. That goes against the progressive idea that these benefits are serving as insurance -- but the response is not to take away those benefits and that's it.

    Why are more and more people relying on these welfare payments? Because all the decent-paying jobs have been sucked out of the country. Thanks to trade agreements, there go all the $40 per hour manufacturing jobs, and you're lucky if you can get hired for $8 an hour in retail over some illegal immigrant.

    The real solution is to keep the generous social safety net for the needy and victims of circumstance, and bring back the sources of prosperity for those who are capable of working yet are using welfare chronically. In other words, the Trump agenda.

    Railing against the social safety net in general is a losing program, aside from being wrong-minded.

    And painting progressives as a bunch of communists is going to pointlessly alienate the other side.

    Warren et al. are not progressives -- they don't give a damn about providing a more generous or secure social safety net, let alone bringing back good-paying jobs for those who are chronically relying on welfare. Instead, they only want to grandstand about their superior moral values, rather than do anything about the problem.

  22. Only via ridiculously unprincipled exemptions can you take progressivism's central logic, "All people are equal. Some people have too much and we should take it from them.", and not immediately apply it to groups that have more (whites, males) and those that have less (blacks, females).

    And yet progressives never criticize a certain (((group))) who's wealthy and influential like whites.

  23. "Ya know how most actors are black or white? Well, it's because they seem like they've got a mission (albeit not necessarily a noble one). They want things and they've got the charisma and energy to get them. What do Mexicans want? It's the problem with Asians and Mixtec type farmers; they grind, and they grind. Nothing more."

    I think both those groups know deep down that they're boring as hell. Only a few token SJW's among them try to make noise about being underrepresented.

  24. You can't make this up Mitt Romney says Donald Trump will change America with 'trickle-down racism' - CNNPolitics.com - www.cnn.com

  25. I agree with you on your views about the electorate. But I think Bernie will be going full cuck in the next few months and endorsing Hillary 100%. He already sold out entirely once on immigration and he'll do it again.

  26. Hevy Kevy said...
    "Trump has no chance. The only people who vote for him are older white people. Plus the electoral college controls the vote and there is no way intellectuals vote for something like him. Also, Sanders supporters will now support Clinton"


  27. Feryl: "Ya know how most actors are black or white? Well, it's because they seem like they've got a mission (albeit not necessarily a noble one). They want things and they've got the charisma and energy to get them. What do Mexicans want? It's the problem with Asians and Mixtec type farmers; they grind, and they grind. Nothing more."

    Re: Asian actors, I think Asians are actually close to 1:1 in their representation in Hollywood, actually - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpp8slWpFpI
    Yeah, that's less than the White and Black groupings being more represented howver actually pretty good given how many of them are FOBs who don't really even speaka the English so well, and the whole culture there frowning on doing work like acting that's not serious, how many Hollywood movies are period pieces set in the '70s and the like (best recent movie I watched from Hollywood, "The Nice Guys" had a '70s setting, written and directed by the scriptwriter from Lethal Weapon, buddy action comedy - worth watching) and are otherwise throwbacks and remakes.

    Asians are not so good at being the hot blooded charismatic type, but they've got a lot of quiet determination and grit / stoicism, and they're definitely strivers towards their goals (for good or bad). It's not like China, Japan, Korea all don't have a fuck of a lot more of a serious movie industry making movies with artistic expression than really any place outside the Anglosphere (Mainland Euros really only have art cinema and trash, Bollywood really only has trash).

    Generally also Chinese culture's full of stories about righteous bands of rebels rising up against the corrupt bureaucracy and rejection of the establishment eunuchs who try to take control and things. (Of course, the corrupt bureaucracy's a black mark against them as well).

  28. http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-sailer-gap-in-action-nyt-says-in-2016-what-i-said-in-2001-there-are-more-white-voters-than-people-think/

    Turns out that GOP "intellectuals" and "analysts" went fishing for proof of the great Latino wave beginning in the 90's. Not really finding much using rigorous methods and studies, they began seizing on exit polls (which often exaggerate the presence of young and non white voters) to "prove" that the GOP could no longer afford to be the white party.

    PC blows. The GOP was yuge in the 80's. Why turn your back on that era? It's not like demographics changed all that much in the 90's; what happened in the 90's is that sticking it to old white guys became hip. Why not go ahead and pretend that their relevance has faded because, any moment now, a massive brown surge means that the GOP must shed it's white dude material.

    Check out the blog link. It's stunning how meaningless Mexicans are. The majority live in either California (a big blue state since conservative whites fled the state after the 80's) or Texas (solid red). Why go out you're way to appeal to either irrelevant Mexicans or shameless blacks particularly if such efforts alienate populist whites who've either been inactive or pushed to the Dems by the GOP running boring shit for brains guys like McCain or Romney?

  29. The political class no longer works to win elections but to make money on the spectacle of elections -- even if their side loses, they still made out like bandits. Consultants, analysts, pollsters, commentators, propagandists, etc.

    Politicians themselves get a little more money if they win, since they can sell access. But even if they lose, they join the consultant / etc. class and settle for 7 instead of 8 figures.

    Republicans as well as Democrats. Who in the hell would run Evil Hedge Fund Mormon Man? And who in the hell would run Crooked Hillary Clinton?

    The GOP was only big in the '80s because the Dems were so out of touch, still LARP-ing as New Deal / Great Society types, when it was 20+ years out of date. After Jimmy Carter got the New Deal band back together one last time in 1976, the Dems should have been able to tell that something new was needed.

    Instead they ran Mondale and Dukakis, representing the broad-appeal states of Minnesota and Massachusetts.

    Now that the Dems are so insulated and out of touch again, Trump Republicans are going to bulldoze the opposition.

  30. In fairness to cuckservative Establishment hacks, a yuge chunk of the paleocon / alt-right / etc. crowd had also been acting all GAME OVER MAN GAME OVER about demographics.

    How did Obama win uber-white states in the Great Lakes and New England? There aren't that many blacks in Chicago and Detroit to swing the whole state. Let alone the seven black people in all of Vermont.

    The lame response was that it was blacks' fault *plus* the damn white liberals.

    OK, so the Republicans were not the white party, then. Only the white natalist apocalyptic party -- and we see how broad the base for that is.

    Trump is steering the GOP back to being the American party, and the Dems will become the party of those who don't identify culturally as Americans.

  31. When the cucks tried to reel in non-white ethnic groups, they were appealing to "natural conservatives" with "traditional family values" -- y'know, getting knocked up during your quinceanera party, or getting honor-killed by your mother for dating a boy outside of your own ethnic group.

    Not many conservatives in other ethnic groups, and guaranteed to be no conservatives among white liberals and moderates.

    If they were really the white party, they would have courted and accepted white liberals, while ignoring and shunning conservative Cubans, blacks, etc. This courtship and retention would have been reflected in their platform and policies.

    Instead they chose to alienate the 25% of whites who are liberals, and the 40% of whites who are moderates. Not to mention even larger chunks of non-white groups, who are way less conservative.

    Can the paleocon / alt-right / etc. crowd get over their hatred of liberals and moderates in order to make the Trump party the party of Americans, or white-aspiring people? We'll see.

    They had better, though, or else this country is looking at an endless reign of the Clintons and the Obamas.

    Leave your hatred of liberals at the door, and if you want to change their minds -- evangelize to them, with whatever the message is. Religious values, secular homogeneity, or whatever.

    Only some of those goals will be going through the government -- like controlling demographics through immigration / deportation policy, and giving states wide latitude to determine their own affairs so that liberal regions can't impose their values on conservative regions. The rest of it will come through grassroots organizing in social and cultural affairs.

  32. I do sense signs of change, though, with the Trump movement treating liberals, even the shittiest of shitlibs, with a more lighthearted tone, rather than seething gloom-and-doom.

    We're always going to have liberals with us, even if this country becomes 100% white. We have to at least get along with them. That will be reflected in taking more of a ribbing / roasting tone when we put down their regular fainting spells from getting triggered by inane stuff.

    What really freaks out the shitlibs is that the Trump movement doesn't get into seething apocalyptic battles with them about their pantywaisted cries of DAS RAYCISS anymore. "Trump and the media have normalized racism!" (i.e., no more witch hunts against alleged racists).

    Yeah, I guess we have -- now you get to have fun calling *everybody* a racist! Except yourself, of course, Pocahontas.

  33. Notice the difference in how intensely and successfully the media and shitlibs dragged on their witch hunt against Trump when he was saying he was a victim of non-white prejudice (the La Raza judge).

    We agree with what he said, of course, but it may have put off bystanders and neutral parties. And at any rate, Trump can fire his ass once he's President. He gave it his best shot, and knew when to let it go (in public, for now -- later, in private, La Raza is fired).

    When he does something seemingly more outrageous, he gets no witch hunt. He just declares "I am the least racist person there is" without any argument. Or at most, "Hey folks, if I were racist, then why did Don King, Iron Mike Tyson, and many other wonderful African-Americans endorse me?"

    The shitlibs are cerebral and want to get into a twisted logical argument, bickering Talmudicly back and forth forever.

    Deny them that by flat declarations with no argument or a transparently troll argument, and it deflates all of their seething anger. You can't get into an endless back-and-forth when one side refuses to argue or make sincere points.

    The media asked him about that early on. They'd ask, "How do you respond to those who say you're a racist?" "I am the least racist person there is." "Why? What evidence do you have to support that claim?" "I don't know, I just believe that I'm not a racist person."

    If he gave a reason, they'd criticize it, then he'd counter, they'd counter-counter, someone would switch to a different piece of evidence, they'd counter-counter-counter, etc etc etc.

    After he flatly said, "I just don't think I'm a racist person, I don't believe I am," they stopped pestering him about the charges. No fun to be had.

  34. Yeah, a big part of PC is belittling bigots. Demanding that they explain and defend their positions and then refusing to accept the response. Then demanding an apology, with the expectation that the offender will express solidarity with the "victims" and be charitable too.

    The spectacle (and it always is heavily publicized to add extra pressure and humiliation) concludes with the offender stripped of his backbone and dignity.

    Trump has bolstered his points by just not backing down. The media can continue to cry about Trump staying off the PC reservation but at a certain point it falls on deaf ears since the media loses credibility when Trump eludes capture. He hates to be the loser and his aversion to groveling protects his image and his freedom. He saves face and the media and PC can't gain from his not losing.

    Worth noting is that even as Trump has defended his stance, he's avoided any show of empathy for the judge himself (or the subversive groups to whom the judge has an allegiance). Thus he maintains his goal to make people aware of this traitor and his desire to eventually settle the score with him and those like him.

    Eventually the media will put the Mex. judge arrow back in the quiver and they'll find and draw more PC arrows. But the more arrows they draw and shoot, the more they find that the arrows don't have the same precision and power that they once did.

  35. I think you're being wildly optimistic about Sander's ability to actually carry states, rather than just hand them to Trump. If Trump does as well as we think/hope he will and outperforms Bush much less McCain and Romney in the likes of Oregon and Wisconsin (ie nearing 50%) then how could he possibly lose them with Sanders and Clinton splitting the remainder? Sanders would have to take a large chunk of Trumps support also, something you haven't even discussed - presumably because you consider it so unlikely.
    Realistically Sanders could only hope to carry Vermont, maybe Maine if he had Angus King as his running mate.

  36. See the turnout of D vs. R primaries, and who won them (and came in 2nd or 3rd).

    For example: Trump lost MN, the only state other than UT where he came in 3rd (fucking Scandis), while Bernie won the state 60-40, with D turnout nearly twice that for R. Also a long-time blue state, part of the Lutheran Belt that hates Trump and loves soft-spoken Scandinavian socialists.

    Wisconsin turnout was about equal for both parties, but Bernie won about 55-45, while Trump lost to Cruz about 50-35.

    The Lutheran Belt also has very high turnout (around 70% or higher), so there isn't a yuge reservoir of non-voters for Trump to tap into and mobilize.

    If Bernie had stayed in for real, rather than disappearing, he definitely would have won MN, WI, and VT, being heavily favored in IA, ME, RI, CO, and OR.

  37. Trump's gamble, and it is a gamble, is to increase White working/middle class turnout, the number of voters who have not voted. Romney got according to Steve Sailer 60% of the White vote; Obama lost there. And that percentage was better than Reagan's. Its just that Black voter turnout was MASSIVE and Obama got something like 98.99% of it; Latino turnout was also above average and Obama got most of that, in the 80s IIRC. So that analysis that the GOP was doomed already by demographics was not off the mark.

    IF and only IF the GOP stuck to the old Culture War but losing on them issues, gay marriage and the like; while flooding the nation with even more illegals and legal competitors to White (and also Latino/Black working/middle class people). Trump draws better than Romney or McCain among Blacks and Hispanics because of class issues -- decreasing the flood of labor competitors driving down wages and sucking up social spending has appeal to a non-trivial fraction of that demographic. Not enough to win. But non-trivial.

    Trump likely knows that the Cucks, the upper class people like Charles Murray (who has come out against Trump) and the like WILL NOT VOTE TRUMP. They will either vote Hillary (as the NRO crowd has stated) or stay home.

    Ace at Ace of Spades made that argument, that the party cannot win without the Romney faction and therefore must cater to it at all times. That's a static analysis, and Trump is gambling on getting all the "hidden" voters -- people who voted Reagan twice and maybe Bush 1 once, and then just withdrew. And their younger counterparts who never voted for GWB, McCain, or Romney Mr. 47 percent.

    IT is gamble. I assume Trump being a numbers guy with big real estate developments depending on time/schedule/cost to come under budget and start renting out space for his office buildings and luxury apartments has done the numbers. I would be shocked if he has not.

    You can see this as he rejects campaign consultants and "the ground game." I assume this is because Trump has largely written off the hard-core Romney types who the ground game targets, and is relying on nothing more than trolling the media to get out the hidden potential White vote (and again a non-trivial Black/Hispanic fraction larger than Romney's) who are not amenable to a call or knock on the door from their local cuckservative.

    Like everything else Trump, it certainly is bold.


  38. Let me add that it was Trump's insight that the old GOP Washington Generals trick of losing gracefully on social issues and selling out the White working/middle class was a loser no matter what. A Marco Rubio, a Jeb! or even Ted Cruz would not do anything other than lose in the general election because about 40% of Whites would vote in the opposite direction of the cultural wars, in favor of gays, Muslims, Blacks as magical racial redeemers, the like. Open Borders, gun control, feminism, "that's not who we are" etc. Not to mention that pretty much most single White women vote Dem in the Presidential race. Hillary btw still has a substantial lead in women; who vote more than men do on average.

    Trump seems like a political Napoleon or Sherman, alone in his initial insight on how the strategic and tactical position can be changed by no longer having the static assumptions of the past establishment. Which is why btw the GOP establishment hates him.

    Trump's gamble is essentially loss-less, as any Rubio esque strategy of just trotting out the old and guaranteed to lose social issues while gutting the White working/middle class economically would lose anyway.

  39. Romney only got 52% of the non-Hispanic white vote, Obama 44%, other candidates 4% (General Social Survey).

    In 1980, Reagan also got 52% of whites, Carter 41%, and Anderson 7%.

    Black turnout was not massive -- it was McCain and Romney bombing big-league with whites that cost them the elections. See recent Nate Kohn article at NYT.

    So the demographic gloom-and-doom story is dead wrong. How many blacks do the know-nothings think there are in Indiana for McCain to have lost it to Obama?

    I'm skimming the rest of the comment and seeing other red flag names like Ace of Spades, so won't respond further.

  40. Trump isn't neglecting his ground game, he's just not boasting about it. He's hired members of Obama's 2008 analytics team, and he's doubled or trebled his offices in many states, including some pretty blue ones. He doesn't tell a hostile media every little thing he does, but supporters are getting the information since we're being asked to continue volunteering for the general.

  41. I pretty much agree with your electoral map projections (though you claim Trump's victory will be by a larger margin!) There's one or two states Trump might lose though - the prime example being a state like North Carolina, which, like Virginia, has been "corrupted" by the growth it has seen in the last 20 years in places like Charlotte and Raleigh, which probably have aspirations to be the next Atlanta. Arkansas might be another "wobbly prospect, for uniquely Clintonian reasons. But damn, if he could somehow pick up Michigan or New Jersey (with a little Christie help?) Trump's prospects would be quite bright. I know I'll be up late on election night.


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."