Since the most action during primary season was on the Republican side, we didn't hear much about the cracks that were already beginning to split apart the Democrat coalition, which has now turned into a full-on civil war.
The parallels drawn between the Bernie movement and the Trump movement focused mostly on their being anti-Establishment and oriented toward economic populism rather than the usual topics. That made it clear that the Left populists were breaking away from the mainstream of their party, but there was actually a far broader range of reliable Democrats who were starting to get fed up with the direction of their party toward identity politics uber alles.
Not conservative Democrats, who have already switched over to Republican or not involved.
They're not even moderates on social-cultural issues -- they support gay marriage, they hate religion, and they want increased gun control. They make a point of saying that racism, sexism, etc. exist, and that we should call it out and shame people for it.
Their distinguishing traits are atheism and skepticism, which doesn't mean that's their main cause, only that it separates them from other liberals. Stressing reason, logic, and facts, they bristle at identity politics, which stresses unthinking tribalism, airing of grievances rather than productive debates, and generally a more emotionalist approach to politics. It rejects the obsession with victimhood and oppression, and takes a more constructive engineering approach to fixing problems.
Demographically, they're mostly white, educated, under-40, living in major metro areas, both male and female. In other words, like the populist and environmentalist progs who supported Bernie in such large numbers. Sure enough, most of these non-progs were big on Bernie, too, even if they didn't care what the TPP was all about.
Bernie was not speaking to their major concerns -- boo religion, yay gays, etc. Of the economic topics he focused on, probably the only one that really got their attention was student debt. It was simply the fact that he wasn't making an emotional appeal to tribal identity (race, sex, or whatever), nor trying to win by having the biggest chip on his shoulder.
As an example, consider YouTuber Jaclyn Glenn, who has half a million subscribers, along with 100K each on Twitter and Instagram -- someone who resonates with enough people to make it worth studying just one person's output. And her videos go back to 2010, so there's plenty to study about how she has changed.
She's an early Millennial, college-educated, female, atheist, pro-gay, crazy cat lady, transplant to Los Angeles. Aside from being white, she checks the boxes for being a loyal Democrat. Sure enough, lots of her videos focus on how stupid, evil, etc., Republican voters and politicians are. Going through the titles of videos in her archive, and listening to a random sample, it was the same ol' predictable crap that you'd expect from her demographic background in the political scene of the 2010s.
In 2014, she did express exasperation at how easily offended the third-wave feminists were, but she didn't really stick with this, or turn against feminist identity politics per se. Just, "Wow, settle down -- we're fighting for the same thing ultimately."
On her twitter the term "feminists" shows up a few times in 2014, provoked by GamerGate. She was against the feminazis like Anita Sarkeesian, but also not on board with the anti-feminists. That was the first major time when she felt like there was no middle ground, and you had to pick which side you were on. GamerGate may have opened up young people not only to the future Alt-Right, but also to the future "Shut it, feminazis" strain within the Bernie movement.
That disappeared once the controversy died down by the end of 2014. It's not until primary season began late last year that she really starts sounding off against the identity politics mainstream of her party. The Democrat civil war was just warming up.
Here is her response to the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris. She all but says, "Hey Trump may have a point with his Muslim ban." It's not being an atheist that primes her to say that, since plenty of atheists apologize for Islamic terrorism. She knows they're the only ones who do this shit (despite a half-hearted reference to the Christian crusades nearly 1000 years ago). There's no room in the Democrat mainstream today for someone who is unapologetic about the danger that Islam uniquely poses to us here and now, and the need to do something about it.
Here is her explicit rejection of feminist identity politics, surrounding the denunciations by older feminazi types that women must vote for other women, or otherwise behave as mere drones in a hive serving the queen bee (that bitch). Wearing a Bernie t-shirt.
Here is an even better rejection of identity politics, reacting to some uppity black girl SJW whining about white privilege, and trying to shame white women for even having to ask what it is, as though they deserved an answer. (The uppity SJW actually demands that white women allies ought to pay her for droppin' dat knowledge on dere melanin-deficient ass.) Her response is pretty angry for a supposed ally. Sounds like she's this close to saying, "Well we don't need you dumb ghetto trash anyway."
Here she is parodying a hardline feminazi while interviewing pedestrians about inane SJW crap at Venice Beach of all places, underscoring what party-poopers the feminists are. During the past couple months, she's put out quite a few of these anti-feminazi videos.
Here is her "get over it" message to all of the #NotMyPresident complainers (she voted Hillary, too). And she was the one who made that not-really-anti Trump song during the summer, "Hump Trump". She isn't freaking out about his election bringing about the apocalypse, even if she doesn't like where it'll go.
The situation looks dire if the Democrat leadership can't even hold onto someone who was a stereotypical Democrat before primary season. She's not a populist / anti-war activist, showing that the Sanders supporters were drawing more broadly than just the progs. But she's not a rabid SJW or bound by the spell of tribal identity politics, so how can she still be a reliable Democrat?
Of course, she's not going to defect to the other side (unless she marries a Trump supporter). But the intense dissatisfaction with the party leadership means a deeply divided party for the foreseeable future.
November 24, 2016
Enough 50-D chess analysis: Be thankful for 80% perfect
Now that there are a lot of major decisions by Trump that are compressed into a brief time period, his decision-making ability is a hot topic again, and again too many in the Trump movement have the same response as before -- every big decision he makes is a 50-dimensional chess move whose brilliance may not be apparent to us mere mortals, but will become visible through Trump's instruction by example.
In this worldview, Trump is a guru who reveals esoteric wisdom to the cloudy-minded masses, the better to lift them up into a higher state of enlightenment -- not into the nature of the world, but into the nature of (organizational) leadership. His book The Art of the Deal is a sacred text in this tradition, a reverence that Trump does everything to encourage among his fans. "My second-favorite book, after the Bible."
The basic idea behind the worldview is that what appear to be trade-offs that require Trump to do something good and something bad in order to get things done, hopefully more good than bad, aren't really trade-offs after all. When your consciousness ascends to a higher dimension and looks down on the situation, there really is no trade-off at all, and Trump pulls off the job with (nearly) optimal outcomes on all relevant domains. He is the supreme squarer of circles.
The trouble with these Panglossian analyses is that they are always made after the fact, and have the quality of just-so stories. Why couldn't they have predicted what Trump would do? Because only he possesses the higher awareness to see through the 50-D moves, and we mere mortals are only able to describe its brilliance after he has carried it out. It reeks of excessive flattery.
And these describers will describe it as 50-D chess genius whether Trump does X or whether Trump does Not-X. Pick Romney as Secretary of State? Here's the 50-D chess brilliance behind that decision. Instead, pick Anyone But Romney? Here's the 50-D chess brilliance behind that decision. There's no independent way to evaluate how brilliant of a move it was, if it's always necessarily a masterstroke.
Moreover, if Trump's big decisions are win-win-win-win-win... he could never make a major misstep, and would never need any major course correction. A little wobble here, and little counter-balancing there, but nothing substantially different from what he intended to do.
Trump is undoubtedly better at this stuff than any of us are, but was it a 50-D chess move to skip the GOP debate before the Iowa caucus? He lost that race to Cruz, and saying that he would have lost by even larger margins had he participated in the debate, is just more post hoc rationalization. Was it a 50-D chess move to say that a pro-life stance leads toward punishing the seeker rather than the provider of abortion? Or to camp out in Wisconsin during the primary? He lost that primary by double digits. And was it a 50-D chess move to not only double down on the La Raza judge feud, but to instruct his surrogates to jump into the brawl as well? That was a time of dropping in the polls.
The point here is not to blackpill Trump supporters by desanctifying the image of Trump-as-guru. It is to keep us realistic: not every choice he makes is going to be optimal in all important respects. Sometimes he'll be able to correct the mistake (sidelining culture war questions after the abortion brou-ha-ha), and sometimes he -- and we -- are just going to suffer a blow and try to do as well as we can with that wound (the attempted coup by the GOPe that disrupted party unity just weeks before the election).
It is more accurate to say that Trump is good at surviving, or "winning," despite the blows that have been landed against him. And I don't just mean the antifragile strength that comes from, say, the media attacking him for not having served as a politician before -- that's a good thing in today's climate! I mean even the true blows like that "grab the pussy" tape. He is robust.
No matter what the context is, we'll always know that he's the least likely President to even consider selling out. He took money from no one and is a billionaire himself already. He's not from the political system, so they can't try shame / blackmail / etc. to police a member of their own network. And he's stated his goals boldly, publicly, and repeatedly, so that there won't be any double-talking wiggle room when it comes to trying to implement them. And he's fortunate to belong to the party that also controls both houses of Congress, along with most state and local government functions. And with his Supreme Court picks, he'll have that body's backing as well.
But that doesn't mean he won't ever have to compromise.
Some of it to heal the deeply divided nation, which he has always spoken out against. His most heartfelt indictment of Obama was that he thought at least Obama would be a bringer-together and a cheerleader for the nation, and then Obama turned out to stoke the divisions to polarize the population even further.
And some of it we may have no clue about because only the inner circles know about it. How do we know he hasn't been threatened by the Deep State already -- wanting certain boundaries to be respected, no matter if he was elected through a populist revolt. Trump is not an ideologue: in some such cases, he may decide it's worth the fight against the system (e.g., exposing and shutting down the elite pedophile rings), while in others he may decide it's more trouble than it's worth (cases we may never know about).
We would be foolish to believe that he, or we, have a mandate to do whatever the hell we see fit about cleaning up our government, economy, population, and culture. His theme song has been "You Can't Always Get What You Want" by the Rolling Stones -- not "Invincible" by Pat Benatar. He is a courageous warrior, not a teenager who has unlocked god mode on a video game.
The danger in spinning all these just-so stories is that we'll turn into a cult of the guru Trump, unable to recognize when the movement is heading in the wrong direction on some issue at some time. His is shaping up to be the greatest presidency that any of us has ever experienced, and there's nothing wrong with that representing an 80-90% compromise from what we truly have our hearts set on.
Let's be thankful for that.
In this worldview, Trump is a guru who reveals esoteric wisdom to the cloudy-minded masses, the better to lift them up into a higher state of enlightenment -- not into the nature of the world, but into the nature of (organizational) leadership. His book The Art of the Deal is a sacred text in this tradition, a reverence that Trump does everything to encourage among his fans. "My second-favorite book, after the Bible."
The basic idea behind the worldview is that what appear to be trade-offs that require Trump to do something good and something bad in order to get things done, hopefully more good than bad, aren't really trade-offs after all. When your consciousness ascends to a higher dimension and looks down on the situation, there really is no trade-off at all, and Trump pulls off the job with (nearly) optimal outcomes on all relevant domains. He is the supreme squarer of circles.
The trouble with these Panglossian analyses is that they are always made after the fact, and have the quality of just-so stories. Why couldn't they have predicted what Trump would do? Because only he possesses the higher awareness to see through the 50-D moves, and we mere mortals are only able to describe its brilliance after he has carried it out. It reeks of excessive flattery.
And these describers will describe it as 50-D chess genius whether Trump does X or whether Trump does Not-X. Pick Romney as Secretary of State? Here's the 50-D chess brilliance behind that decision. Instead, pick Anyone But Romney? Here's the 50-D chess brilliance behind that decision. There's no independent way to evaluate how brilliant of a move it was, if it's always necessarily a masterstroke.
Moreover, if Trump's big decisions are win-win-win-win-win... he could never make a major misstep, and would never need any major course correction. A little wobble here, and little counter-balancing there, but nothing substantially different from what he intended to do.
Trump is undoubtedly better at this stuff than any of us are, but was it a 50-D chess move to skip the GOP debate before the Iowa caucus? He lost that race to Cruz, and saying that he would have lost by even larger margins had he participated in the debate, is just more post hoc rationalization. Was it a 50-D chess move to say that a pro-life stance leads toward punishing the seeker rather than the provider of abortion? Or to camp out in Wisconsin during the primary? He lost that primary by double digits. And was it a 50-D chess move to not only double down on the La Raza judge feud, but to instruct his surrogates to jump into the brawl as well? That was a time of dropping in the polls.
The point here is not to blackpill Trump supporters by desanctifying the image of Trump-as-guru. It is to keep us realistic: not every choice he makes is going to be optimal in all important respects. Sometimes he'll be able to correct the mistake (sidelining culture war questions after the abortion brou-ha-ha), and sometimes he -- and we -- are just going to suffer a blow and try to do as well as we can with that wound (the attempted coup by the GOPe that disrupted party unity just weeks before the election).
It is more accurate to say that Trump is good at surviving, or "winning," despite the blows that have been landed against him. And I don't just mean the antifragile strength that comes from, say, the media attacking him for not having served as a politician before -- that's a good thing in today's climate! I mean even the true blows like that "grab the pussy" tape. He is robust.
No matter what the context is, we'll always know that he's the least likely President to even consider selling out. He took money from no one and is a billionaire himself already. He's not from the political system, so they can't try shame / blackmail / etc. to police a member of their own network. And he's stated his goals boldly, publicly, and repeatedly, so that there won't be any double-talking wiggle room when it comes to trying to implement them. And he's fortunate to belong to the party that also controls both houses of Congress, along with most state and local government functions. And with his Supreme Court picks, he'll have that body's backing as well.
But that doesn't mean he won't ever have to compromise.
Some of it to heal the deeply divided nation, which he has always spoken out against. His most heartfelt indictment of Obama was that he thought at least Obama would be a bringer-together and a cheerleader for the nation, and then Obama turned out to stoke the divisions to polarize the population even further.
And some of it we may have no clue about because only the inner circles know about it. How do we know he hasn't been threatened by the Deep State already -- wanting certain boundaries to be respected, no matter if he was elected through a populist revolt. Trump is not an ideologue: in some such cases, he may decide it's worth the fight against the system (e.g., exposing and shutting down the elite pedophile rings), while in others he may decide it's more trouble than it's worth (cases we may never know about).
We would be foolish to believe that he, or we, have a mandate to do whatever the hell we see fit about cleaning up our government, economy, population, and culture. His theme song has been "You Can't Always Get What You Want" by the Rolling Stones -- not "Invincible" by Pat Benatar. He is a courageous warrior, not a teenager who has unlocked god mode on a video game.
The danger in spinning all these just-so stories is that we'll turn into a cult of the guru Trump, unable to recognize when the movement is heading in the wrong direction on some issue at some time. His is shaping up to be the greatest presidency that any of us has ever experienced, and there's nothing wrong with that representing an 80-90% compromise from what we truly have our hearts set on.
Let's be thankful for that.
November 23, 2016
Splitting Dem women away from SJWs: Class-based praise of family formation
Now that the Democrat civil war has already split the race warriors apart from the class warriors, it's time to focus on splitting apart the feminist SJWs from liberal women who don't resonate with gender identity politics.
How did the schism open up over the race vs. class divide?
It was the class side siding more with Trump than Hillary on economics, whether they wanted to admit it or not. Since Trump won, the class-oriented Dems can say "I toldja so" about the impotence of identity politics, and the importance of class. When the race baiters snap back about the class Dems being crypto-Trump supporters, both sides have exchanged fire.
Because they're a crumbling empire rather than an inchoate insurgency, there's a positive feedback loop between the two warring factions, which will split them farther and farther apart.
How could this be re-created over gender identity politics vs. class?
See this earlier post about the common ground that the populist nationalist movement shares with the Jill Stein and Bernie crowd regarding family formation. The old GOP framed family formation in natalist terms, where having children is a moral good per se and ought to be pursued to make the world a more moral and good place.
The populist take, from the Jill and Bernie people, is materialist -- forming a family is one of those normal things that normal people do, so if a majority are not, then either a majority are abnormal or there are other obstacles in their path. These are shaky income prospects and shifting residence patterns for fertile-aged women and their husbands, as they hunt for good-paying stable jobs in what feels like a wild goose chase.
In this video (at 7:15), Emma Vigeland from The Young Turks: Politics discusses this topic with her interview subject, a working-class black woman from suburban Cleveland. Vigeland takes it for granted that getting married and starting a family is a desirable thing, but feels financially uncertain and therefore hesitant to get started right away in her early 20s. She's clearly from an affluent family herself, so it hits on the theme of downward class mobility. Gen X-ers and Millennials may not want to admit it, but delaying marriage and having small or no families is yet another sign of their downward mobility.
The old GOP stance was the extremist conclusion -- that more and more young people are abnormal, as shown by their lack of interest in forming a family. This personalized and moralized their childlessness, as though it were a deliberate statement or a decision, rather than a situation they'd rather not find themselves in.
Trump, with Ivanka's help, is making this issue a materialist one again, seeking to make childcare more affordable so that young people can do what they want to do, which is get married and start having children. It's just one of those normal things everyone wants to get around to doing, not some higher good.
There is a waiting schism among Democrat women between those who are anti-natalists -- morally indignant at the idea of family formation being a good thing -- and normal women who want to start a family when they're able to afford it. We can help to ignite the war between them like we have with the race vs. class war.
The more the Trump movement discusses -- in a neutral, non-moralistic tone -- family formation as something that most normal people want to get around to, and are only putting it off because they're in an uncertain economic situation, the more we will force Democrat women to reveal which side they're on, and then go to war against each other.
The class-oriented ones will say, "Y'know, I hate to admit that Trump is right about anything, but he has a point." That will provoke the feminists into denouncing the normal ones for "judging" women who don't want a husband and/or children. The response by normals: "No, we don't mean those women are, like, morally bad or anything -- but shrinking family formation is a bad sign of economic stagnation." Oh, so you're one of those "economics is everything" women who doesn't care if she gets turned into a baby factory by her husband? "Excuse me? 'Gets turned into?' What if I want the children myself?" You see! -- she admits to internalizing patriarchal norms!
The end result is the SJWs waging a crusade to shame their fellow Democrats for having normal priorities, whether it's wanting to bring back good-paying jobs or make family formation affordable for all people and not just the rich. Normal people will resent being shamed for having normal priorities, which causes the SJWs to splinter off from the coalition, into their own purity cult, all hermetic and misanthropic.
It wasn't too long ago that Republican activists tried to shame Democrats and Independents as abnormal for not wanting to live under a Christian Zionist theocracy. Now the shoe is on the other foot, with Democrats becoming the party of alienating cultural extremists.
Hopefully Trump and Ivanka will start bringing up the topic again, but why wait? We can start sowing the seeds of discord with memes directed at normal women, from feminazi women. It's hardly a false flag when this is truly what they already believe, in substance and in tone. Put something like this over a picture of Elena Kagan looking maximally smug.
How did the schism open up over the race vs. class divide?
It was the class side siding more with Trump than Hillary on economics, whether they wanted to admit it or not. Since Trump won, the class-oriented Dems can say "I toldja so" about the impotence of identity politics, and the importance of class. When the race baiters snap back about the class Dems being crypto-Trump supporters, both sides have exchanged fire.
Because they're a crumbling empire rather than an inchoate insurgency, there's a positive feedback loop between the two warring factions, which will split them farther and farther apart.
How could this be re-created over gender identity politics vs. class?
See this earlier post about the common ground that the populist nationalist movement shares with the Jill Stein and Bernie crowd regarding family formation. The old GOP framed family formation in natalist terms, where having children is a moral good per se and ought to be pursued to make the world a more moral and good place.
The populist take, from the Jill and Bernie people, is materialist -- forming a family is one of those normal things that normal people do, so if a majority are not, then either a majority are abnormal or there are other obstacles in their path. These are shaky income prospects and shifting residence patterns for fertile-aged women and their husbands, as they hunt for good-paying stable jobs in what feels like a wild goose chase.
In this video (at 7:15), Emma Vigeland from The Young Turks: Politics discusses this topic with her interview subject, a working-class black woman from suburban Cleveland. Vigeland takes it for granted that getting married and starting a family is a desirable thing, but feels financially uncertain and therefore hesitant to get started right away in her early 20s. She's clearly from an affluent family herself, so it hits on the theme of downward class mobility. Gen X-ers and Millennials may not want to admit it, but delaying marriage and having small or no families is yet another sign of their downward mobility.
The old GOP stance was the extremist conclusion -- that more and more young people are abnormal, as shown by their lack of interest in forming a family. This personalized and moralized their childlessness, as though it were a deliberate statement or a decision, rather than a situation they'd rather not find themselves in.
Trump, with Ivanka's help, is making this issue a materialist one again, seeking to make childcare more affordable so that young people can do what they want to do, which is get married and start having children. It's just one of those normal things everyone wants to get around to doing, not some higher good.
There is a waiting schism among Democrat women between those who are anti-natalists -- morally indignant at the idea of family formation being a good thing -- and normal women who want to start a family when they're able to afford it. We can help to ignite the war between them like we have with the race vs. class war.
The more the Trump movement discusses -- in a neutral, non-moralistic tone -- family formation as something that most normal people want to get around to, and are only putting it off because they're in an uncertain economic situation, the more we will force Democrat women to reveal which side they're on, and then go to war against each other.
The class-oriented ones will say, "Y'know, I hate to admit that Trump is right about anything, but he has a point." That will provoke the feminists into denouncing the normal ones for "judging" women who don't want a husband and/or children. The response by normals: "No, we don't mean those women are, like, morally bad or anything -- but shrinking family formation is a bad sign of economic stagnation." Oh, so you're one of those "economics is everything" women who doesn't care if she gets turned into a baby factory by her husband? "Excuse me? 'Gets turned into?' What if I want the children myself?" You see! -- she admits to internalizing patriarchal norms!
The end result is the SJWs waging a crusade to shame their fellow Democrats for having normal priorities, whether it's wanting to bring back good-paying jobs or make family formation affordable for all people and not just the rich. Normal people will resent being shamed for having normal priorities, which causes the SJWs to splinter off from the coalition, into their own purity cult, all hermetic and misanthropic.
It wasn't too long ago that Republican activists tried to shame Democrats and Independents as abnormal for not wanting to live under a Christian Zionist theocracy. Now the shoe is on the other foot, with Democrats becoming the party of alienating cultural extremists.
Hopefully Trump and Ivanka will start bringing up the topic again, but why wait? We can start sowing the seeds of discord with memes directed at normal women, from feminazi women. It's hardly a false flag when this is truly what they already believe, in substance and in tone. Put something like this over a picture of Elena Kagan looking maximally smug.
Dear faux-feminist women:
Starting a family is one of your life goals?
Seriously, baby factory much?
Your internalized misogyny is disgusting.
And, btw, makes you look weak and pathetic.
Sincerely,
The real independent women
November 21, 2016
Where Trump won youth: The future of the re-alignment
In all the talk about the reversals of Democrat dominance in supposedly safe groups, I haven't noticed people talking too much about young voters. According to the exit polls in several states, Trump didn't just improve over the typical Republican, he won them outright.
These just so happen to be key states that flipped from blue to red, and although the flip of the youth vote is not the main factor, it's still part of a broader shift in these former blue states.
This ought to put in serious doubt the comforting mantra that the Bernie people tell themselves: "We're the future". Not in these states, you're not. Where young people are rabid Trump fans, do not count on "winning back the college kids," even with Bernie, and certainly not with pandering crap like Katy Perry and Jay Z concerts.
In de-industrialized, forgotten areas, young people face a rough and bleak-looking future, made even worse if their formerly homogeneous communities are becoming disrupted by immigration. They are willing to ignore the old nostrums that seem to have gotten them into this mess, and are willing to take a risk on the populist and nationalist direction that the Trump movement wants to take the country in.
Nationally, the exit polls show Trump losing the 18-24 year-old vote by about 20 points, the 25-29 year-old vote by about 15 points, and the 30-39 year-olds by about 10 points. Only starting with 40-somethings do the numbers switch to favor Trump.
The expected exceptions are in deep red states, where all age groups vote red. Even in some red states, though, it is the middle-aged and older groups that carry the state red, while young people vote blue (like Georgia).
In two usually blue states, Pennsylvania (now red) and New Hampshire (narrowly blue), Trump performed according to the national numbers among the 25-29 and 30-39 group. Although he didn't win the 18-24 group, he lost them by a much narrower margin than nationally -- 5 points in PA and just 2 points in NH. It's unusual for him to do better among the youngest age group, which suggests the beginning of a generational shift in the populist / nationalist direction.
There's more of a youth surge in Maine. Although Trump lost the 18-24 and 25-29 groups by 8 and 2 points, that's well above the national numbers. And he actually won the 30-39 group by 10 points, even better than his support among older voters. As these 30-somethings enter the numerically heavy middle-aged group, they could push Maine entirely into the red column, and not just in the one Congressional district.
The most interesting exceptions, however, are in the Upper Midwest. Wisconsin voted Republican for the first time since 1984, when the whole country voted Republican. Among the 18-24 group, Trump actually won by 2 points, and only lost by 9 points among the 25-29 group -- both far above the national numbers.
In Minnesota, too, Trump actually won by 5 points among the 18-24 group, and lost by 11 with the 25-29 group. He didn't do as well with older voters as he did in Wisconsin, so he didn't take the state, but it's staggering to see the youngest age group in the most reliably blue state vote for Trump (it famously did not fall during either of the Reagan landslides).
Rounding out the Lutheran Triangle, Iowa showed the greatest youth support for Trump. Although he lost the 18-24 group by 9 points, that's still well above the national numbers, and he won the 25-29 group by a whopping 24 points, as well as the 30-39 group by 10 points. That's even greater support than the 50-and-over voters showed him.
Most people forget the regional cultural breakdown of support for the Nazis in Germany -- it was greatest in the Lutheran dominant regions in the north and east, lying in the low farmland plains. Those people take it and take it and take it -- until they don't, and then they snap. In addition to the rural Lutherans turning their conformism in a nationalist direction, the Upper Midwestern plain is now also seeing the emergence of the Trumpenjugend.
"The cosmopolitans always used to take advantage of our Minnesota niceness. They used to think it was a joke. They are not taking advantage anymore."
These just so happen to be key states that flipped from blue to red, and although the flip of the youth vote is not the main factor, it's still part of a broader shift in these former blue states.
This ought to put in serious doubt the comforting mantra that the Bernie people tell themselves: "We're the future". Not in these states, you're not. Where young people are rabid Trump fans, do not count on "winning back the college kids," even with Bernie, and certainly not with pandering crap like Katy Perry and Jay Z concerts.
In de-industrialized, forgotten areas, young people face a rough and bleak-looking future, made even worse if their formerly homogeneous communities are becoming disrupted by immigration. They are willing to ignore the old nostrums that seem to have gotten them into this mess, and are willing to take a risk on the populist and nationalist direction that the Trump movement wants to take the country in.
Nationally, the exit polls show Trump losing the 18-24 year-old vote by about 20 points, the 25-29 year-old vote by about 15 points, and the 30-39 year-olds by about 10 points. Only starting with 40-somethings do the numbers switch to favor Trump.
The expected exceptions are in deep red states, where all age groups vote red. Even in some red states, though, it is the middle-aged and older groups that carry the state red, while young people vote blue (like Georgia).
In two usually blue states, Pennsylvania (now red) and New Hampshire (narrowly blue), Trump performed according to the national numbers among the 25-29 and 30-39 group. Although he didn't win the 18-24 group, he lost them by a much narrower margin than nationally -- 5 points in PA and just 2 points in NH. It's unusual for him to do better among the youngest age group, which suggests the beginning of a generational shift in the populist / nationalist direction.
There's more of a youth surge in Maine. Although Trump lost the 18-24 and 25-29 groups by 8 and 2 points, that's well above the national numbers. And he actually won the 30-39 group by 10 points, even better than his support among older voters. As these 30-somethings enter the numerically heavy middle-aged group, they could push Maine entirely into the red column, and not just in the one Congressional district.
The most interesting exceptions, however, are in the Upper Midwest. Wisconsin voted Republican for the first time since 1984, when the whole country voted Republican. Among the 18-24 group, Trump actually won by 2 points, and only lost by 9 points among the 25-29 group -- both far above the national numbers.
In Minnesota, too, Trump actually won by 5 points among the 18-24 group, and lost by 11 with the 25-29 group. He didn't do as well with older voters as he did in Wisconsin, so he didn't take the state, but it's staggering to see the youngest age group in the most reliably blue state vote for Trump (it famously did not fall during either of the Reagan landslides).
Rounding out the Lutheran Triangle, Iowa showed the greatest youth support for Trump. Although he lost the 18-24 group by 9 points, that's still well above the national numbers, and he won the 25-29 group by a whopping 24 points, as well as the 30-39 group by 10 points. That's even greater support than the 50-and-over voters showed him.
Most people forget the regional cultural breakdown of support for the Nazis in Germany -- it was greatest in the Lutheran dominant regions in the north and east, lying in the low farmland plains. Those people take it and take it and take it -- until they don't, and then they snap. In addition to the rural Lutherans turning their conformism in a nationalist direction, the Upper Midwestern plain is now also seeing the emergence of the Trumpenjugend.
"The cosmopolitans always used to take advantage of our Minnesota niceness. They used to think it was a joke. They are not taking advantage anymore."
November 19, 2016
Democrats abandon policy focus, reduced to calling people evil
If you thought the end of the election would see the Democrat Establishment shifting their critiques away from superficial things that might sway emotional voters, and toward the policy wonk issues that are more fitting now that Trump is about to start implementing the Trump agenda -- you'd be surprised to see how much their obstructions still boil down 100% to "the people on the other side are evil".
That could be racist, sexist, Islamophobic, or whatever else. The focus is on individuals rather than policies, and these individuals are evil. Most of the accusations are being thrown at the Cabinet picks, but it'll be someone else once they're all set. The hysteria is also directed broadly at Trump voters or sympathizers. The policies are not bad and in need of correction by good policies -- people are evil, and they are in need of moral redemption.
This substance-free sanctimony will guarantee us even greater wins during Trump's re-election, but the liberal crusaders don't care. Their job, as they see it, is to convert the wicked -- and if that's a longer-term project that may have to overcome several electoral setbacks in the meantime, then so be it. They have to be on the side of the angels, fighting the good fight -- not trying to win certain outcomes in certain political domains.
They did not react this way toward the Gingrich Revolution in Congress during the mid-1990s, or to the W. Bush presidency, or even to the Tea Party movement. In all those cases, of course they hurled their obligatory charges of Republicans being racist / sexist / bla bla bla. But that was more of a finishing flourish to policy-oriented charges that the Republicans wanted to gut the social safety net, pursue the Iraq War, give tax cuts only to the rich, overlook police brutality, and so on and so forth.
Now, they're abandoning any mention of Trump's policies and why they don't like them -- why we ought to have open borders, a de-industrialized economy, regime change in the Middle East, Supreme Court Justices who are fine with partial-birth abortions, and everything else he's promised action on. Some are disingenuously trying to criticize the Paul Ryan agenda, but everyone knows he's a non-entity and that President Trump will kick his ass so hard if he tries to privatize Social Security, it'll make ya head spin.
Now, charges of this or that individual being evil are not just a finishing rhetorical touch, they are the main argument -- the Chief Strategist, the Attorney General, whoever, is evil, therefore anything he does will be bad for the country, and we don't even have to know what that would be.
Moralizing the character of individuals rather than arguing for or against certain policies or general approaches sounds a lot like the Republicans from the '90s and the 21st century (before Trump). In both cases, they had won on the issues for so long: for the GOP, free marketeer-ism during the winding down of Soviet Communism, and for the Democrats, values liberalism during the culture wars. They took their superiority for granted, rested on their laurels, and then got a rude awakening when the primary issues shifted to something else (GOP caught unaware of liberal culture war, Democrats caught unaware of populism and nationalism).
If you assume that you'll win forever on the issues, then a yuge upset loss could not have happened due to your failure on the issues, but only because the other side had individuals with powerful dark evil magic that they used to cheat their way to victory. Typical witchcraft hysteria.
If those losses continue time after time, you'll become even more convinced that issues don't matter -- otherwise you would've won all those times! -- and that their powerful evil magic keeps growing stronger and more hopeless to counteract. So you double down on the strategy of waging a moralistic crusade against evil individuals, rather than study what the new set of important issues is, what positions on them are desired by voters, and finding and fielding candidates who best offer that to the electorate.
It's not as though the Democrats are completely blind to issues, only in the context of explaining their losses to Trump and Congressional Republicans. When it comes to the Democrat civil war, they are hyper-sensitive of what the various camps of issues are -- the main ones being identity politics (race, sex, gayness), and class / anti-war / environmentalism.
To explain why their side lost, the two factions are going to accuse each other of having an inferior set of issues that voters don't care that much about. Issues that don't motivate enough of Us to turn out, and that alienate too many of Them to cross over at the ballot box.
They are not accusing specific individuals on the opposing camp of being evil, and of bad politics stemming from being evil. Sure, the ID politics people hurl accusations of racism, gender privilege, etc., but it's more of a flourish than the main critique, which is instead based on the issues. Such as, "Who cares about breaking up Wall Street banks, when that wouldn't end racism, sexism, and homophobia?"
For the next generation, most of their focus on issues will be channeled into the Democrat civil war, and their only attacks against the Republicans will be that they're fundamentally evil. While this will help to re-shape the issues, platform, and coalition that makes up the party, it will take them out of the running in most Presidential elections, where their only arguments will be that if you vote for that other guy, you're evil and need to be redeemed by liberal crusaders before being allowed to vote.
If this reversal of fortunes seems abrupt, welcome back to 1992. The Republicans had occupied the White House from 1968 to 1992, with only Jimmy Carter interrupting. George W. Bush was our Jimmy Carter -- barely squeaked through a close race, unpopular / embarrassing, and galvanized voters to choose Anybody But That-Guy. I think he was also meant to be a single-term interruption (winning in 2004), with the Florida recount from 2000 still making it unclear that he truly won.
Earlier posts in the series documenting the Democrats becoming the party of moral panic crusaders during this election season: one, two, three, four.
That could be racist, sexist, Islamophobic, or whatever else. The focus is on individuals rather than policies, and these individuals are evil. Most of the accusations are being thrown at the Cabinet picks, but it'll be someone else once they're all set. The hysteria is also directed broadly at Trump voters or sympathizers. The policies are not bad and in need of correction by good policies -- people are evil, and they are in need of moral redemption.
This substance-free sanctimony will guarantee us even greater wins during Trump's re-election, but the liberal crusaders don't care. Their job, as they see it, is to convert the wicked -- and if that's a longer-term project that may have to overcome several electoral setbacks in the meantime, then so be it. They have to be on the side of the angels, fighting the good fight -- not trying to win certain outcomes in certain political domains.
They did not react this way toward the Gingrich Revolution in Congress during the mid-1990s, or to the W. Bush presidency, or even to the Tea Party movement. In all those cases, of course they hurled their obligatory charges of Republicans being racist / sexist / bla bla bla. But that was more of a finishing flourish to policy-oriented charges that the Republicans wanted to gut the social safety net, pursue the Iraq War, give tax cuts only to the rich, overlook police brutality, and so on and so forth.
Now, they're abandoning any mention of Trump's policies and why they don't like them -- why we ought to have open borders, a de-industrialized economy, regime change in the Middle East, Supreme Court Justices who are fine with partial-birth abortions, and everything else he's promised action on. Some are disingenuously trying to criticize the Paul Ryan agenda, but everyone knows he's a non-entity and that President Trump will kick his ass so hard if he tries to privatize Social Security, it'll make ya head spin.
Now, charges of this or that individual being evil are not just a finishing rhetorical touch, they are the main argument -- the Chief Strategist, the Attorney General, whoever, is evil, therefore anything he does will be bad for the country, and we don't even have to know what that would be.
Moralizing the character of individuals rather than arguing for or against certain policies or general approaches sounds a lot like the Republicans from the '90s and the 21st century (before Trump). In both cases, they had won on the issues for so long: for the GOP, free marketeer-ism during the winding down of Soviet Communism, and for the Democrats, values liberalism during the culture wars. They took their superiority for granted, rested on their laurels, and then got a rude awakening when the primary issues shifted to something else (GOP caught unaware of liberal culture war, Democrats caught unaware of populism and nationalism).
If you assume that you'll win forever on the issues, then a yuge upset loss could not have happened due to your failure on the issues, but only because the other side had individuals with powerful dark evil magic that they used to cheat their way to victory. Typical witchcraft hysteria.
If those losses continue time after time, you'll become even more convinced that issues don't matter -- otherwise you would've won all those times! -- and that their powerful evil magic keeps growing stronger and more hopeless to counteract. So you double down on the strategy of waging a moralistic crusade against evil individuals, rather than study what the new set of important issues is, what positions on them are desired by voters, and finding and fielding candidates who best offer that to the electorate.
It's not as though the Democrats are completely blind to issues, only in the context of explaining their losses to Trump and Congressional Republicans. When it comes to the Democrat civil war, they are hyper-sensitive of what the various camps of issues are -- the main ones being identity politics (race, sex, gayness), and class / anti-war / environmentalism.
To explain why their side lost, the two factions are going to accuse each other of having an inferior set of issues that voters don't care that much about. Issues that don't motivate enough of Us to turn out, and that alienate too many of Them to cross over at the ballot box.
They are not accusing specific individuals on the opposing camp of being evil, and of bad politics stemming from being evil. Sure, the ID politics people hurl accusations of racism, gender privilege, etc., but it's more of a flourish than the main critique, which is instead based on the issues. Such as, "Who cares about breaking up Wall Street banks, when that wouldn't end racism, sexism, and homophobia?"
For the next generation, most of their focus on issues will be channeled into the Democrat civil war, and their only attacks against the Republicans will be that they're fundamentally evil. While this will help to re-shape the issues, platform, and coalition that makes up the party, it will take them out of the running in most Presidential elections, where their only arguments will be that if you vote for that other guy, you're evil and need to be redeemed by liberal crusaders before being allowed to vote.
If this reversal of fortunes seems abrupt, welcome back to 1992. The Republicans had occupied the White House from 1968 to 1992, with only Jimmy Carter interrupting. George W. Bush was our Jimmy Carter -- barely squeaked through a close race, unpopular / embarrassing, and galvanized voters to choose Anybody But That-Guy. I think he was also meant to be a single-term interruption (winning in 2004), with the Florida recount from 2000 still making it unclear that he truly won.
Earlier posts in the series documenting the Democrats becoming the party of moral panic crusaders during this election season: one, two, three, four.
November 16, 2016
They didn't "get it wrong" -- the goal was propaganda and emotionalism
Trump's decisive win on election night did not "burst the bubble" of so many people who thought they had "gotten it right". That assumes their goal was accuracy, insight, forecasting, and so on.
If their audience came to them for this reason, then their catastrophic failure would have rendered them invisible in the media. Instead, there they still are, rolling on with whatever BS they've been peddling the whole time.
Having tuned out the media for the past 10-15 years, I didn't know quite what the 21st-century media were about until tuning in here and there during the first election that has actually mattered in my lifetime. The old knock against them is that it's just propaganda -- outlining a narrative favorable to those with wealth and power, filling in details from one day to the next, etc. It's informational warfare by The Powers That Be against the people.
That's somewhat true, but only for CNN, whose anchors affect a sober and "just the facts" demeanor, and whose presentation is mostly pumping out key factoids and talking points from the Establishment (liberal wing). Of course CNN has been in decline over the years, and certainly during this election season and likely into the near future.
The other approach is emotional button-pushing and ego validation for the audience. The anchors speak and act with zero emotional restraint (not always spazzing out, but allowing bursts and long rants). They're trying to work up the emotional energy of the viewer, and build them up to a climactic release of ego validation -- this one quick proof of why your side is superior, or the other side is inferior. It's not the Establishment vs. the people, but one side vs. another in a culture war.
That's the approach of the older Fox News (which has mellowed out somewhat), MSNBC, and The Daily Show and its imitators. This is the genre that has gradually taken over news on cable TV since the medium began in the 1990s, when CNN was the only game in town and Fox and MSNBC effectively did not exist just yet. The CNN propaganda genre belonged more to the three-network era of TV news. I guess viewers figure they can get "the facts" from ordinary sources, and cable TV ought to provide more of an emotional high for what you're paying.
With that framework in mind, it's easy to see what role the punditry and the polls played in the election season. For the propaganda genre, they were meant to push the Establishment narrative that Trump and his platform were doomed, since what the American people truly wanted was Clinton. For the emotionalist genre, they were meant to pump you up about why your candidate was a great savior, and the other candidate was a vicious monster. During the primaries, Fox provided emotional highs to the anti-Trump viewers, while MSNBC hyped up its anti-Bernie liberal audience.
Now that those ends no longer apply, the pollsters and pundits can go right on making appearances in these media because the propaganda and emotionalist goals have changed to the post-election environment. Now the goal is to obstruct the Trump administration and amp up support for his political opponents.
So now we might get phony polls about how 90% of Americans want Syrian refugees to settle right next door to them, or pundits weighing in on how impossible it will be for Trump to get his way on re-industrializing the American economy by threatening tariffs on manufacturers.
True, these pollsters and pundits were liars and failures during the election, but we're not judging them anymore by the standard of forecasting election results. We're judging them by how well they manage to obstruct Trump from accomplishing his campaign promises -- and their performance there remains to be seen, so let's cut them some slack for awhile.
This applies to the usual and intended audience for the media, the ones who look to CNN for "the facts" or who crave ego validation and hook up Fox or MSNBC to their veins during primetime.
However, given the wide-ranging interest among the public for this most momentous of all elections, a large chunk of the non-news-watching public just got a rude awakening about how biased and abjectly clueless the media is. At a gut level, they already did not trust the media, but now they have something they can consciously articulate as the reason why they are not to be trusted -- look at how badly they fucked up everything about the election! Whadda buncha geniuses these guys are!
Having conscious reasons to defend your gut-level intuitions makes it all the more easy to stick with your convictions. Before, the general public (not the niche audience of cable news) might have felt awkward admitting to not trusting the media, as though they would be thought anti-factual, post-truth, etc. Now they can behave that way all they want, because they're convinced by real-world proof -- the pathetic failure of the polls and pundits about the most important election they'll ever experience.
Before, taunts against the media were unspecific ("CNN sucks"), whereas now I wouldn't be surprised if real-life trolls started walking by reporters shouting, "Who won the election, dumbass? Hahahaha."
Once Trump begins breaking up the media monopoly, ordinary people will be not just glad because they hate the media, but also vindicated to see total failure punished by going out of business. Sadly for them, the media still think they have high status ("Fourth Estate"), and are doubling down on how important, serious, and totally on-the-right-track they are, after having their credibility vaporized overnight in front of literally the entire world.
That haughty attitude will only make normal people cry louder for Trump to go "off with their heads!" rather than show any mercy. And it will help to solidify Trump's position in the recently blue Rust Belt region of flyover country. Will Minnesota go red in four years? It can if the media keep whining about Trump ditching his press detail while going out for dinner, rather than apologizing and showing humility in the wake of the biggest blow-up the media has ever lived through.
Please, keep it up, media!
If their audience came to them for this reason, then their catastrophic failure would have rendered them invisible in the media. Instead, there they still are, rolling on with whatever BS they've been peddling the whole time.
Having tuned out the media for the past 10-15 years, I didn't know quite what the 21st-century media were about until tuning in here and there during the first election that has actually mattered in my lifetime. The old knock against them is that it's just propaganda -- outlining a narrative favorable to those with wealth and power, filling in details from one day to the next, etc. It's informational warfare by The Powers That Be against the people.
That's somewhat true, but only for CNN, whose anchors affect a sober and "just the facts" demeanor, and whose presentation is mostly pumping out key factoids and talking points from the Establishment (liberal wing). Of course CNN has been in decline over the years, and certainly during this election season and likely into the near future.
The other approach is emotional button-pushing and ego validation for the audience. The anchors speak and act with zero emotional restraint (not always spazzing out, but allowing bursts and long rants). They're trying to work up the emotional energy of the viewer, and build them up to a climactic release of ego validation -- this one quick proof of why your side is superior, or the other side is inferior. It's not the Establishment vs. the people, but one side vs. another in a culture war.
That's the approach of the older Fox News (which has mellowed out somewhat), MSNBC, and The Daily Show and its imitators. This is the genre that has gradually taken over news on cable TV since the medium began in the 1990s, when CNN was the only game in town and Fox and MSNBC effectively did not exist just yet. The CNN propaganda genre belonged more to the three-network era of TV news. I guess viewers figure they can get "the facts" from ordinary sources, and cable TV ought to provide more of an emotional high for what you're paying.
With that framework in mind, it's easy to see what role the punditry and the polls played in the election season. For the propaganda genre, they were meant to push the Establishment narrative that Trump and his platform were doomed, since what the American people truly wanted was Clinton. For the emotionalist genre, they were meant to pump you up about why your candidate was a great savior, and the other candidate was a vicious monster. During the primaries, Fox provided emotional highs to the anti-Trump viewers, while MSNBC hyped up its anti-Bernie liberal audience.
Now that those ends no longer apply, the pollsters and pundits can go right on making appearances in these media because the propaganda and emotionalist goals have changed to the post-election environment. Now the goal is to obstruct the Trump administration and amp up support for his political opponents.
So now we might get phony polls about how 90% of Americans want Syrian refugees to settle right next door to them, or pundits weighing in on how impossible it will be for Trump to get his way on re-industrializing the American economy by threatening tariffs on manufacturers.
True, these pollsters and pundits were liars and failures during the election, but we're not judging them anymore by the standard of forecasting election results. We're judging them by how well they manage to obstruct Trump from accomplishing his campaign promises -- and their performance there remains to be seen, so let's cut them some slack for awhile.
This applies to the usual and intended audience for the media, the ones who look to CNN for "the facts" or who crave ego validation and hook up Fox or MSNBC to their veins during primetime.
However, given the wide-ranging interest among the public for this most momentous of all elections, a large chunk of the non-news-watching public just got a rude awakening about how biased and abjectly clueless the media is. At a gut level, they already did not trust the media, but now they have something they can consciously articulate as the reason why they are not to be trusted -- look at how badly they fucked up everything about the election! Whadda buncha geniuses these guys are!
Having conscious reasons to defend your gut-level intuitions makes it all the more easy to stick with your convictions. Before, the general public (not the niche audience of cable news) might have felt awkward admitting to not trusting the media, as though they would be thought anti-factual, post-truth, etc. Now they can behave that way all they want, because they're convinced by real-world proof -- the pathetic failure of the polls and pundits about the most important election they'll ever experience.
Before, taunts against the media were unspecific ("CNN sucks"), whereas now I wouldn't be surprised if real-life trolls started walking by reporters shouting, "Who won the election, dumbass? Hahahaha."
Once Trump begins breaking up the media monopoly, ordinary people will be not just glad because they hate the media, but also vindicated to see total failure punished by going out of business. Sadly for them, the media still think they have high status ("Fourth Estate"), and are doubling down on how important, serious, and totally on-the-right-track they are, after having their credibility vaporized overnight in front of literally the entire world.
That haughty attitude will only make normal people cry louder for Trump to go "off with their heads!" rather than show any mercy. And it will help to solidify Trump's position in the recently blue Rust Belt region of flyover country. Will Minnesota go red in four years? It can if the media keep whining about Trump ditching his press detail while going out for dinner, rather than apologizing and showing humility in the wake of the biggest blow-up the media has ever lived through.
Please, keep it up, media!
November 15, 2016
Final proof Kasich rigged Ohio primary
This will be the third and final proof that Kasich rigged the Ohio primary by coercing hundreds of thousands of Democrats to vote for him in the open primary.
The first proof compared turnout size in the Dem and GOP primaries this year. The usually blue northeastern region went heavily red, which would only make sense if Trump won those counties -- he, not Kasich, had massive crossover appeal among de-industrialized Rust Belt places. Instead, Kasich won them. Conclusion: those were not crossovers but partisan Democrats who were coerced by the Governor into saving his ass in the primary, likely state workers.
The second proof compared turnout in the GOP primary this year to the general turnout last time. Some of those counties in the northeast actually had more Republican voters in the primary this time than Romney got in the general election last time. Primary turnout must be smaller than general turnout -- unless they weren't really Republican primary voters this time, but partisan Democrats who had voted for Obama last time and should have been participating in the Dem primary this time. Except they were threatened with their jobs, or something, by Kasich.
The third proof comes now that the general is over, and the results for Ohio were a blowout for Trump. From all sorts of polling (e.g., Emerson), we know that the Kasich primary voters were the least likely to vote Trump in the general, including in Ohio -- at best 50% would go Trump, and a large chunk were going to vote for Crooked Hillary. This was unlike the other GOP primary voters, like those who chose Rubio or Cruz, who were much more than 50% likely to vote Trump in the general.
Now, if the Republican primary voters in Ohio were so overwhelmingly in favor of Kasich (he "won" by 11 points), then Trump should have collapsed among GOP partisans in the general, drawing no more than half of them. A big chunk would've gone to Clinton, and a small chunk to Johnson. And although he would have gotten some crossovers from the Democrats, the vast majority would have voted for their party's candidate.
Because Trump crushed Clinton rather than the other way around, we were mistaken in assuming that those "GOP primary voters" who delivered the "win" for Kasich were actually Republicans. Some were, but a double digit percentage were partisan Democrats coerced by the Governor into voting on the GOP side during the primary.
Similarly, we can compare Ohio to other states. Kasich only won Ohio, and his voters were the least friendly toward Trump, so Ohio should have done much more poorly than other states, compared to their baseline of 2012. In fact, Ohio swung from blue to red by over 10 points -- one of the largest changes of all.
Although this is the final major piece of evidence (barring future smoking-gun evidence), I won't let this matter go, and will keep reminding people of what a scheming traitor Kasich has been all along, going so far as to rig an election. We can never let that kind of scum anywhere near office again -- and be doubly suspicious if he comes to us wearing a "gee golly gosh" disguise.
Kasich is term-limited and will be gone in 2018. Here's to hoping that President Trump deports the Syrian etc. refugees during his first two years, so he can make a display of dominance in Kasich's backyard of Columbus, where they're being dumped, and remind Ohioans what a petty backstabbing rat their Governor is, as a warning against picking someone connected to him as a successor.
In fact, before the GOP primary for Ohio Governor really gets going, Trump should weigh in to some degree and play king-maker. Hold rallies, tweet, send surrogates like Eric (who traveled a lot in the Rust Belt), whatever it takes. No more rats!
The first proof compared turnout size in the Dem and GOP primaries this year. The usually blue northeastern region went heavily red, which would only make sense if Trump won those counties -- he, not Kasich, had massive crossover appeal among de-industrialized Rust Belt places. Instead, Kasich won them. Conclusion: those were not crossovers but partisan Democrats who were coerced by the Governor into saving his ass in the primary, likely state workers.
The second proof compared turnout in the GOP primary this year to the general turnout last time. Some of those counties in the northeast actually had more Republican voters in the primary this time than Romney got in the general election last time. Primary turnout must be smaller than general turnout -- unless they weren't really Republican primary voters this time, but partisan Democrats who had voted for Obama last time and should have been participating in the Dem primary this time. Except they were threatened with their jobs, or something, by Kasich.
The third proof comes now that the general is over, and the results for Ohio were a blowout for Trump. From all sorts of polling (e.g., Emerson), we know that the Kasich primary voters were the least likely to vote Trump in the general, including in Ohio -- at best 50% would go Trump, and a large chunk were going to vote for Crooked Hillary. This was unlike the other GOP primary voters, like those who chose Rubio or Cruz, who were much more than 50% likely to vote Trump in the general.
Now, if the Republican primary voters in Ohio were so overwhelmingly in favor of Kasich (he "won" by 11 points), then Trump should have collapsed among GOP partisans in the general, drawing no more than half of them. A big chunk would've gone to Clinton, and a small chunk to Johnson. And although he would have gotten some crossovers from the Democrats, the vast majority would have voted for their party's candidate.
Because Trump crushed Clinton rather than the other way around, we were mistaken in assuming that those "GOP primary voters" who delivered the "win" for Kasich were actually Republicans. Some were, but a double digit percentage were partisan Democrats coerced by the Governor into voting on the GOP side during the primary.
Similarly, we can compare Ohio to other states. Kasich only won Ohio, and his voters were the least friendly toward Trump, so Ohio should have done much more poorly than other states, compared to their baseline of 2012. In fact, Ohio swung from blue to red by over 10 points -- one of the largest changes of all.
Although this is the final major piece of evidence (barring future smoking-gun evidence), I won't let this matter go, and will keep reminding people of what a scheming traitor Kasich has been all along, going so far as to rig an election. We can never let that kind of scum anywhere near office again -- and be doubly suspicious if he comes to us wearing a "gee golly gosh" disguise.
Kasich is term-limited and will be gone in 2018. Here's to hoping that President Trump deports the Syrian etc. refugees during his first two years, so he can make a display of dominance in Kasich's backyard of Columbus, where they're being dumped, and remind Ohioans what a petty backstabbing rat their Governor is, as a warning against picking someone connected to him as a successor.
In fact, before the GOP primary for Ohio Governor really gets going, Trump should weigh in to some degree and play king-maker. Hold rallies, tweet, send surrogates like Eric (who traveled a lot in the Rust Belt), whatever it takes. No more rats!
November 14, 2016
Ricky Vaughn now DatRickyVaughn on Twitter
Faggots at Twitter banned his account again, but he must have dozens in reserve.
New one: DatRickyVaughn.
New one: DatRickyVaughn.
Girls still pouting because all hot guys are Trump supporters
An earlier post drew attention to the phenomenon of hot guys and girls uniformly being Trump supporters (or Bernie supporters way back in the primaries). Don't take my word for it: everyone on Twitter agrees. People with good genes are repulsed by half-dead Hillary and the former Chair of the DNC who looks like an inbred Medusa (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz).
With more and more time for this pattern to sink into people's minds, some of them are now moving beyond a single anecdotal observation, and drawing the broad conclusion that "every" hot guy they come across inevitably turns out to be a Trump supporter.
Make no mistake: they are absolutely fantasizing about that guy, and probably going to wind up fooling around with him -- they just hate the fact that he has "bad (boy) politics". He's their problematic fave in bed.
Here's a sample (the best is the girl at the end, an SJW with crayon hair and problem glasses):
With more and more time for this pattern to sink into people's minds, some of them are now moving beyond a single anecdotal observation, and drawing the broad conclusion that "every" hot guy they come across inevitably turns out to be a Trump supporter.
Make no mistake: they are absolutely fantasizing about that guy, and probably going to wind up fooling around with him -- they just hate the fact that he has "bad (boy) politics". He's their problematic fave in bed.
Here's a sample (the best is the girl at the end, an SJW with crayon hair and problem glasses):
Every hot guy in my school is a straight trump supporter I'm kms— king kesha 🏳️🌈 (@Frecklesha) September 30, 2016
Now every hot guy I see I'm wondering if they voted for trump bc then I change my mind #ElectionDay— Allie Ehrhart (@alliehearts) November 10, 2016
Every time I see a hot guy on tinder he just HAS to be a trump supporter. 😭 #Imwithher— emma❄️ (@emma_linthicum) November 7, 2016
how is it that every time a cute boy or one that seems at least remotely sane tries to talk to me, THEY END UP BEING A TRUMP SUPPORTER....— tay (@taygavs) June 24, 2016
Why is it that every time I meet a cute boy he's a trump supporter 😕😕— Myah (@MyahFreeman) August 20, 2016
why does every cute boy I talk to support trump???? what did I do to deserve this @god— Jaclyn Humphrey (@JackieSue0224) September 2, 2016
Every time I drive by a cute boy and make flirty eye contact he has a freakin trump sticker on the back of his car. Every damn time.— Lizz (@_slickjimmy_) November 7, 2016
November 13, 2016
Prosecute pedophile rings to delegitimize Hollywood: Winning the culture war without warring over culture
The social-cultural Right has fought a losing battle against the degenerate morality and normlessness promoted by Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general.
They tried to argue why conservative positions on a given issue were better than the liberal positions pushed by the entertainment industry. They did so across a variety of issues. But to be persuaded about the whole sweep of their criticisms, you'd have to evaluate every argument -- too much work that the average person doesn't want to waste on debates.
A far more efficient use of time, money, and energy is not to attack all the myriad weirdnesses that Hollywood produces, but to attack the source from which they spring. If what produced them is rotten, polluted, and corrupted, the average person is willing to believe that the fruits themselves are rotten, polluted, and corrupted.
It doesn't have to be anything in particular, but as it happens, pedophilia is widespread throughout Hollywood. It's an open secret, and former victims who became stars (like Corey Feldman) keep threatening to name names, but they're afraid of the power that the perpetrators wield in their industry, social circle, and local government.
It's also an open secret that director Bryan Singer (X-Men) hosts parties where gays have sex with underage boys. Again, nobody wants to expose let alone prosecute such an influential player in the industry.
That's where the DoJ under President Trump ought to intervene. It is already likely to blow the lid off of a similar culture of pedophilia among the DC Establishment insiders. Why not make it a mission to expose and prosecute these forms of elite deviance and exploitation no matter what subset of the elite it is? -- political, financial, cultural.
Our culture may be growing more and more tolerant or numbed-out about degradation of varying degrees, but there's still one taboo left that everyone recoils in disgust at, and it's pedophilia. When it involves trafficking children and/or pimping them out, it's one of the few things that voters would beg to see publicly punished in the cruelest way possible. When evidence surfaces of their attempts to hide their crimes and intimidate their victims, it makes the mob howl louder for vengeance.
When such networks of behavior are exposed, they tie three things together in the public's mind -- pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality, all of which are correlated in reality, but whose interrelations tend to be hidden from public view by the wealthy and powerful who participate in and enable them. Any cultural product that was fashioned by a group associated with homo-pedo-rape is stained in any normal person's mind.
The entertainment industry's claim to moral superiority over "the bigots" will be dashed to pieces when the evidence of their sick crimes come to light. Ditto the claims to moral authority from the political, financial, media, and academic elites.
Not all of the cases have to pan out with guilty verdicts. The fact that a high percent of them will uncover pedo abuse by the power players will damn the whole damned industry among the general public. The ongoing nature of the investigations will also get people used to the idea that such things are so common in that industry that they will keep the case workers busy investigating forever.
The natural comparison here is the Catholic Church's loss of moral credibility in the wake of the revelations about widespread homo-pedo abuse during the 1970s and '80s, only brought to light in the 21st century. It was not only those who were already anti-religion who wrote off the Catholic Church or organized religion in general -- it disturbed a large share of those who were religious, spiritually inclined, even Catholics themselves.
Although they have tried to rehabilitate their image in the meantime, they will never be free of that association until those who heard the news when it broke around 2000 die off.
The Boy Scouts faced a similar hit to their moral credibility.
Pretty soon, the shoe could be on the other foot, with Attorney General Giuliani going after these open-secret pedo groups within elite circles. Only this time, it will not be traditional or conservative institutions that have their moral credibility put in jeopardy, but those of the experimental and liberal Left.
Taking a purely justice-minded, "protect the children" approach to elite deviance would do far more to win the culture war against them than an attack from the realm of culture itself, such as publishing conservative critiques of liberal Hollywood products, or trying to make conservative cultural products to compete against the liberal ones.
After the wave of prosecutions for disturbing taboo crimes, any time that a Hollywood power player gets on their high horse about some moral or political topic, they will be instantly shouted down by all normal people as a sick pedo faggot with no right to weigh in on morality.
They tried to argue why conservative positions on a given issue were better than the liberal positions pushed by the entertainment industry. They did so across a variety of issues. But to be persuaded about the whole sweep of their criticisms, you'd have to evaluate every argument -- too much work that the average person doesn't want to waste on debates.
A far more efficient use of time, money, and energy is not to attack all the myriad weirdnesses that Hollywood produces, but to attack the source from which they spring. If what produced them is rotten, polluted, and corrupted, the average person is willing to believe that the fruits themselves are rotten, polluted, and corrupted.
It doesn't have to be anything in particular, but as it happens, pedophilia is widespread throughout Hollywood. It's an open secret, and former victims who became stars (like Corey Feldman) keep threatening to name names, but they're afraid of the power that the perpetrators wield in their industry, social circle, and local government.
It's also an open secret that director Bryan Singer (X-Men) hosts parties where gays have sex with underage boys. Again, nobody wants to expose let alone prosecute such an influential player in the industry.
That's where the DoJ under President Trump ought to intervene. It is already likely to blow the lid off of a similar culture of pedophilia among the DC Establishment insiders. Why not make it a mission to expose and prosecute these forms of elite deviance and exploitation no matter what subset of the elite it is? -- political, financial, cultural.
Our culture may be growing more and more tolerant or numbed-out about degradation of varying degrees, but there's still one taboo left that everyone recoils in disgust at, and it's pedophilia. When it involves trafficking children and/or pimping them out, it's one of the few things that voters would beg to see publicly punished in the cruelest way possible. When evidence surfaces of their attempts to hide their crimes and intimidate their victims, it makes the mob howl louder for vengeance.
When such networks of behavior are exposed, they tie three things together in the public's mind -- pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality, all of which are correlated in reality, but whose interrelations tend to be hidden from public view by the wealthy and powerful who participate in and enable them. Any cultural product that was fashioned by a group associated with homo-pedo-rape is stained in any normal person's mind.
The entertainment industry's claim to moral superiority over "the bigots" will be dashed to pieces when the evidence of their sick crimes come to light. Ditto the claims to moral authority from the political, financial, media, and academic elites.
Not all of the cases have to pan out with guilty verdicts. The fact that a high percent of them will uncover pedo abuse by the power players will damn the whole damned industry among the general public. The ongoing nature of the investigations will also get people used to the idea that such things are so common in that industry that they will keep the case workers busy investigating forever.
The natural comparison here is the Catholic Church's loss of moral credibility in the wake of the revelations about widespread homo-pedo abuse during the 1970s and '80s, only brought to light in the 21st century. It was not only those who were already anti-religion who wrote off the Catholic Church or organized religion in general -- it disturbed a large share of those who were religious, spiritually inclined, even Catholics themselves.
Although they have tried to rehabilitate their image in the meantime, they will never be free of that association until those who heard the news when it broke around 2000 die off.
The Boy Scouts faced a similar hit to their moral credibility.
Pretty soon, the shoe could be on the other foot, with Attorney General Giuliani going after these open-secret pedo groups within elite circles. Only this time, it will not be traditional or conservative institutions that have their moral credibility put in jeopardy, but those of the experimental and liberal Left.
Taking a purely justice-minded, "protect the children" approach to elite deviance would do far more to win the culture war against them than an attack from the realm of culture itself, such as publishing conservative critiques of liberal Hollywood products, or trying to make conservative cultural products to compete against the liberal ones.
After the wave of prosecutions for disturbing taboo crimes, any time that a Hollywood power player gets on their high horse about some moral or political topic, they will be instantly shouted down by all normal people as a sick pedo faggot with no right to weigh in on morality.
November 11, 2016
Full steam ahead, against divided Dems
We already took over the Republican wing of the Establishment during the primaries, and now that Trump has the bully pulpit and millions of pumped up supporters who can turn out in force when needed, the remaining elected GOP Congressmen will either honor the will of the people or get publicly bullycided from both ends (Pres and voters).
After knocking down the Clinton column, the rest of the Democrat wing of the Establishment is coming crashing down, too. Their credibility and influence has been vaporized, the Obamas never did have an extensive network of cronies to support them, and there is nobody else to take their place. Pocahontas? Biden? They're less hated by the public, but they have no crony network to back them up, and no base to mobilize against us. The Democrat party has been swiftly and utterly decapitated.
Now, if there were a cohesive counter-Establishment movement among Dems, they could take over the party as the Trump movement has. But the entire primary season has revealed them to be more at civil war with each other, and the spectacular failure of their side in all three branches of the federal government has only made them turn more angrily on each other in the blame game.
For a laugh I tuned into CNN for a few minutes last night, and Michael Moore was explaining to Don Lemon what was wrong with the Clintons and why Bernie would have been better. Once he was done, Lemon immediately gets in a passive-aggressive dig that Bernie damaged Hillary during the primaries, and that was a major source of her downfall in the general. They can't even present a united front against Trump on the Clinton News Network!
In fact, Moore wrote a list of five key things the libs and progs must start doing in order to obstruct Trump and win back the government. And one of those five is a tirade against the DNC for rigging the primary against Bernie, using superdelegates to overwhelm the popular vote, and so on. He can't even list five items on the agenda without making one of them another volley in the Democrat civil war!
The leadership is decapitated, the pundits and influencers are turning on one another -- what about the actual voters? As of now, the Democrats officially have no demographic base to turn out -- at the ballot box, at protests, at the media audience, at anything.
Blacks stayed home on Election Day in record numbers, feeling that the leaders have taken them for granted, abandoned them, and only used them to get elected. Both Bernie and Trump spread that message, and the leaders did nothing to prove the charges false. Blacks are not going to switch over to the Trump side en masse, but neither are they an energized base for the Democrats.
So, the identity politics wing of the party has a base, but it is unwilling to act.
The other major numbers that the Dems used to be able to rely on came from the white working class and white ethnics, who have defected in droves to Trump. How in the hell did they lose the Italians of Staten Island, the Poles of Wilkes-Barre, and the diverse ethnics of Macomb County? How in the hell does Rhode Island go from the 4th bluest state to the 11th?
They realized that the Democrat leaders no longer care about the blue-collar Ellis Island enclaves anymore, and that there's no room for a Bobby Kennedy in the multi-racial 21st century. If the party doesn't want to work on class issues, and only anti-white identity politics or fruity environmentalism, then vaffanculo, capisci?
So, the Bernie and O'Malley progressives have lost their base to Trump.
Therefore, not only is there no broad demographic base to mobilize, the various blocs within the old base are beginning to feel and perhaps soon even act hostile toward each other, as Balkanization picks up pace.
Gentlemen, the Democrats have absolutely zero cohesion at any level of power -- party leadership, movement managers and media professionals, or demographic bases. They are thoroughly divided and mutually antagonistic, and can now be easily conquered. It's time to put the pedal to the metal and take our hands off the wheel to let them know we're not going to swerve.
After knocking down the Clinton column, the rest of the Democrat wing of the Establishment is coming crashing down, too. Their credibility and influence has been vaporized, the Obamas never did have an extensive network of cronies to support them, and there is nobody else to take their place. Pocahontas? Biden? They're less hated by the public, but they have no crony network to back them up, and no base to mobilize against us. The Democrat party has been swiftly and utterly decapitated.
Now, if there were a cohesive counter-Establishment movement among Dems, they could take over the party as the Trump movement has. But the entire primary season has revealed them to be more at civil war with each other, and the spectacular failure of their side in all three branches of the federal government has only made them turn more angrily on each other in the blame game.
For a laugh I tuned into CNN for a few minutes last night, and Michael Moore was explaining to Don Lemon what was wrong with the Clintons and why Bernie would have been better. Once he was done, Lemon immediately gets in a passive-aggressive dig that Bernie damaged Hillary during the primaries, and that was a major source of her downfall in the general. They can't even present a united front against Trump on the Clinton News Network!
In fact, Moore wrote a list of five key things the libs and progs must start doing in order to obstruct Trump and win back the government. And one of those five is a tirade against the DNC for rigging the primary against Bernie, using superdelegates to overwhelm the popular vote, and so on. He can't even list five items on the agenda without making one of them another volley in the Democrat civil war!
The leadership is decapitated, the pundits and influencers are turning on one another -- what about the actual voters? As of now, the Democrats officially have no demographic base to turn out -- at the ballot box, at protests, at the media audience, at anything.
Blacks stayed home on Election Day in record numbers, feeling that the leaders have taken them for granted, abandoned them, and only used them to get elected. Both Bernie and Trump spread that message, and the leaders did nothing to prove the charges false. Blacks are not going to switch over to the Trump side en masse, but neither are they an energized base for the Democrats.
So, the identity politics wing of the party has a base, but it is unwilling to act.
The other major numbers that the Dems used to be able to rely on came from the white working class and white ethnics, who have defected in droves to Trump. How in the hell did they lose the Italians of Staten Island, the Poles of Wilkes-Barre, and the diverse ethnics of Macomb County? How in the hell does Rhode Island go from the 4th bluest state to the 11th?
They realized that the Democrat leaders no longer care about the blue-collar Ellis Island enclaves anymore, and that there's no room for a Bobby Kennedy in the multi-racial 21st century. If the party doesn't want to work on class issues, and only anti-white identity politics or fruity environmentalism, then vaffanculo, capisci?
So, the Bernie and O'Malley progressives have lost their base to Trump.
Therefore, not only is there no broad demographic base to mobilize, the various blocs within the old base are beginning to feel and perhaps soon even act hostile toward each other, as Balkanization picks up pace.
Gentlemen, the Democrats have absolutely zero cohesion at any level of power -- party leadership, movement managers and media professionals, or demographic bases. They are thoroughly divided and mutually antagonistic, and can now be easily conquered. It's time to put the pedal to the metal and take our hands off the wheel to let them know we're not going to swerve.
November 10, 2016
Did Bernie help Trump win Michigan and Wisconsin?
Normally when Democrats lose, they'll first try to assign blame on defectors from their own party. It may be hard to see them if they've switched to Republican, because they're mixed in with the vast majority who are Republican partisans. But when they remove their vote to a liberal / progressive third party, it's unmistakable that they came from the Democrat column, at least by affiliation.
In 2000, they blamed Nader voters in Florida and New Hampshire for losing those states to Bush, each being necessary for him to just barely cross the finish line.
Now they're going to go after the Stein voters in narrowly lost states. Once their minds recover from shell-shock, and they are able to process numbers again, they will discover that Michigan and Wisconsin fit the profile. Each was lost by less than 1 point, and the Stein vote in each state was just over 1 point.
Trump would still be at 280 without those, but Democrat partisans cannot help but blame defectors even if it doesn't matter. They are petty and vindictive to the core.
Not only will they go after Stein, they will go after Bernie and his supporters who soured Michigan and Wisconsin on the warmonger of Wall Street during the primaries, winning both states for Bernie. With such a bad taste in their mouths, these Bernie supporters were among the least likely to convert to Clinton in the general, giving Stein a larger chunk than in other close states.
Michael Moore himself lambasted Clinton's record on war, trade, and the like -- thanks for the help with Michigan, Mikey!
Of course the Bernie people will blame the Clinton machine for neglecting the needs of the blacks, and taking them for granted. The serious downturn among blacks alone could have cost her Michigan.
So goes the ongoing civil war among Democrats. Feel free to fan both sides of that fire.
In the other direction, Trump would have won Minnesota if there had not been a third party protest vote for McCuckin -- Trump lost it by 1.4 points, and McCuckin got 1.8. So if we're playing the "restore the protest vote" game, we'd pick up another 10 votes and wind up at 290.
Your initial instinct might be to kill McCuckin and his failed neo-con sponsor Bill Kristol, but they're already going to drop dead from adrenal fatigue and heart attacks after such a decisive Trump victory (and such a publicly humiliating out-ing of the Mormon candidate as a homosexual). I don't see the Trump movement getting bogged down in the blame game. Just write off the holier-than-thou people who would go so far as to protest vote, do just marginally better to convert Dems and Indies, or ramp up turnout among existing bases, and problem solved.
The Johnson voters are going to be harder to blame since they were a mix of Bernie supporters and moderate Republicans. Since Clinton out-performed the estimates of the best polls by a couple points, I think most of the Dem-leaning Johnson supporters wimped out at the last minute and licked Crooked Hillary's boot. The remainder are mostly stubborn cuckservatives.
If that's true, the cuck protest vote cost us Maine, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota (aside from the separate McCuckin protest vote). Johnson only got 1% in these states last time, but 3-5% this time. The increase is mostly due to cucks sitting out the two-party race, and that amount could have swung these states our way.
Again, no need to get bogged down in blaming spineless cucks (do it, just don't get bogged down and vindictive like the Dems will do). We need to convert a marginal number more of people who aren't currently with us, or ramp up turnout of people who already are.
There seems to be little in the way of civil war among Republican voters. There used to be a vertical conflict between base and leadership, but now that Trump has taken over the top, and helped the Congress to stay red, there will be less and less strife between the top and the bottom. (Otherwise: you're fired!)
Looking good for advancing our program, Trump team. Looking very good indeed.
In 2000, they blamed Nader voters in Florida and New Hampshire for losing those states to Bush, each being necessary for him to just barely cross the finish line.
Now they're going to go after the Stein voters in narrowly lost states. Once their minds recover from shell-shock, and they are able to process numbers again, they will discover that Michigan and Wisconsin fit the profile. Each was lost by less than 1 point, and the Stein vote in each state was just over 1 point.
Trump would still be at 280 without those, but Democrat partisans cannot help but blame defectors even if it doesn't matter. They are petty and vindictive to the core.
Not only will they go after Stein, they will go after Bernie and his supporters who soured Michigan and Wisconsin on the warmonger of Wall Street during the primaries, winning both states for Bernie. With such a bad taste in their mouths, these Bernie supporters were among the least likely to convert to Clinton in the general, giving Stein a larger chunk than in other close states.
Michael Moore himself lambasted Clinton's record on war, trade, and the like -- thanks for the help with Michigan, Mikey!
Of course the Bernie people will blame the Clinton machine for neglecting the needs of the blacks, and taking them for granted. The serious downturn among blacks alone could have cost her Michigan.
So goes the ongoing civil war among Democrats. Feel free to fan both sides of that fire.
In the other direction, Trump would have won Minnesota if there had not been a third party protest vote for McCuckin -- Trump lost it by 1.4 points, and McCuckin got 1.8. So if we're playing the "restore the protest vote" game, we'd pick up another 10 votes and wind up at 290.
Your initial instinct might be to kill McCuckin and his failed neo-con sponsor Bill Kristol, but they're already going to drop dead from adrenal fatigue and heart attacks after such a decisive Trump victory (and such a publicly humiliating out-ing of the Mormon candidate as a homosexual). I don't see the Trump movement getting bogged down in the blame game. Just write off the holier-than-thou people who would go so far as to protest vote, do just marginally better to convert Dems and Indies, or ramp up turnout among existing bases, and problem solved.
The Johnson voters are going to be harder to blame since they were a mix of Bernie supporters and moderate Republicans. Since Clinton out-performed the estimates of the best polls by a couple points, I think most of the Dem-leaning Johnson supporters wimped out at the last minute and licked Crooked Hillary's boot. The remainder are mostly stubborn cuckservatives.
If that's true, the cuck protest vote cost us Maine, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Minnesota (aside from the separate McCuckin protest vote). Johnson only got 1% in these states last time, but 3-5% this time. The increase is mostly due to cucks sitting out the two-party race, and that amount could have swung these states our way.
Again, no need to get bogged down in blaming spineless cucks (do it, just don't get bogged down and vindictive like the Dems will do). We need to convert a marginal number more of people who aren't currently with us, or ramp up turnout of people who already are.
There seems to be little in the way of civil war among Republican voters. There used to be a vertical conflict between base and leadership, but now that Trump has taken over the top, and helped the Congress to stay red, there will be less and less strife between the top and the bottom. (Otherwise: you're fired!)
Looking good for advancing our program, Trump team. Looking very good indeed.
November 8, 2016
Return of the forgotten men, forgotten cities, and forgotten states
First things first: GET OUT AND VOTE. No matter where you live, it adds to Trump's national popular vote, and in this re-alignment election you never know whether your state will turn out to be a surprise.
For awhile Trump has been talking about taking care of the forgotten man and woman in America, and it's not only because he feels it's the right thing to be doing. It's also because, how else are you going to win over a large enough chunk of the other party's voters?
The ones who are hardcore partisans wouldn't defect in a million years. But the ones who have been taken for granted, abused, and told to shut up if they ask for anything in return for their votes, are more than open-minded -- they have been keeping their eyes peeled for something better to come along. Once Trump showed up, they knew -- he was it.
This far into the liberal vs. conservative culture war, the needs of the white working class had fallen by the wayside. Corporate raiders melt down their deeply rooted companies and ship the jobs abroad? Too bad: that's cheap foreign labor, and boosts the stockholders' bottom line. Immigrants (legal and illegal) are swarming the job market, the housing market, and the school market? Too bad: that's cheap labor, and extra demand for housing, schools, goods, etc., which means higher prices commanded by the sellers.
To harmonize with the identity politics orientation of the Democrat Establishment, the de-industrialization of the American economy is rationalized as a necessary part of multiculturalism.
Trump comes along and says, "The hell with multiculturalism, and the hell with de-industrialization."
Suddenly the Independents and Democrats in the white working class are going to vote Republican for president perhaps for the first time in their lives -- the first time since Reagan or H.W. Bush, at least.
Why does this particular group of forgotten people allow Trump to win the election? Because they live in places that were recently industrialized, and therefore large in population size. Maybe down from their peak circa 1970, but still large urban metro areas.
Trump is not flipping a handful here and a handful there in the rural parts of Michigan, but potentially the counties with the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th largest electorates from 2012 -- and the 4th already went to Romney then, leaving only Detroit itself still in the blue column.
In Ohio, he won't win the largest cities of Cleveland or Columbus, but Cincinnati is a definite possibility, along with the largish cities such as Toledo, Youngstown, and others. Throughout urban northeastern Ohio, traditionally a stronghold for Democrats, he will be flipping very large numbers of people in the dense formerly industrial region.
Likewise in Pennsylvania, it's not the great swath of sparsely populated red counties that he's gaining numbers in. In every good poll with regional breakdown (Axiom, Emerson, Trafalgar), Trump dominates northeastern PA -- Allentown, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, etc. This is the third-most populated region in the state, after Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and also a de-industrialized region with lots of people still hanging on and looking for someone to rescue them.
We could even see the residents of the Philly suburbs give more to Trump than they did to Romney, although as overly educated suburbanites, they are not going to turn to Trump en masse like the white working class to their north. Still, we don't need to flip those counties -- just do better than before, so we don't get drowned there.
And something tells me that the people from the Philly area are in their own way a forgotten people -- the forgotten ACELAs. Philly has never had any glamor to its image, not even after crime rates began plummeting during the 1990s. Even if you've never been to New York, you've heard of which neighborhoods used to be bad but are now luxury-only. You've heard of the status prestige from residing "inside the Beltway" in the DC area. And all the striver parents dream of sending their kids to the great schools -- public or boarding -- of the Boston metro.
But who the hell in the yuppie suburbanite class sets their sights first and foremost on Philly? "Uh, well, the Liberty Bell is there, and uh..." No one knows any of the neighborhoods, the suburbs, the schools (even strivers forget there's an Ivy there), or the regional culture aside from the cheese steak (prole chow anyway).
Being at the bottom of the ACELA totem pole must give them more grievances against the DC - New York - Boston wings of the Establishment (political, financial, academic). What is Philly's special wing of the Establishment? Worse, up until 2000 they hosted a major Naval Shipyard -- military, violence, guns, brawn... ugh, so not ACELA. So of any major cluster of suburbs along the East Coast, they would be the most likely to resonate with Trump's anti-Establishment message. And they are a very large chunk of the state's population.
Up until now, the most glaring difference between who voted blue or red was population density. As the culture war ground on, it looked like either the rural, small-town, and minor-suburban people would invade the cities and major suburbs, looting and sacking them, or that the cities would keep gentrifying the land farther and farther away from the urban core, while still packing people in very densely in these exurban rings.
Trump's re-alignment involves saving the cities, to the extent they have been de-industrialized. From now on, perhaps the divide will not be between higher-density and lower-density, but industrialized and re-industrialized vs. non-industrial cities that rely on finance, IT, higher ed, and other airy-fairy bubble-prone sectors that do not require a solid base of working class employees.
Right now, Pittsburgh and San Francisco are in the same blue boat -- perhaps before too long, it will be Pittsburgh and Scranton in red, against San Francisco and Denver still in blue.
Keep this in mind during the re-alignment -- contrary to red state chauvinism that only sees forgotten men in rural Plains counties, there are legions of forgotten men in blue-state cities that used to power the nation's industrial economy. They too have been chewed up and spit out by the Establishment, and they are far larger in number than suburbanites in Nebraska. Leaving them on the table was not only suicidal in the numbers game of winning elections, but in the greater project of putting our broken country back in working order.
Tonight, these legions are going to defect from the Democrats (at the top of the ticket, anyway) in a stinging rebuke of decades of being taken for granted, robbed of middle-class dignity, and chastised for piping up about the corporate globalist trade deals that are sacrosanct among the party's elites.
By breaking the cuckservative taboo against courting any urban voters (aside from preening attempts to get ghetto blacks to worship Milton Friedman), Trump has made it possible and even likely to flip entire "safe" blue states in the Rust Belt and trans-Bostonian New England.
Tonight the forgotten men, cities, and states will all be remembered by the elites -- too little, and too late.
For awhile Trump has been talking about taking care of the forgotten man and woman in America, and it's not only because he feels it's the right thing to be doing. It's also because, how else are you going to win over a large enough chunk of the other party's voters?
The ones who are hardcore partisans wouldn't defect in a million years. But the ones who have been taken for granted, abused, and told to shut up if they ask for anything in return for their votes, are more than open-minded -- they have been keeping their eyes peeled for something better to come along. Once Trump showed up, they knew -- he was it.
This far into the liberal vs. conservative culture war, the needs of the white working class had fallen by the wayside. Corporate raiders melt down their deeply rooted companies and ship the jobs abroad? Too bad: that's cheap foreign labor, and boosts the stockholders' bottom line. Immigrants (legal and illegal) are swarming the job market, the housing market, and the school market? Too bad: that's cheap labor, and extra demand for housing, schools, goods, etc., which means higher prices commanded by the sellers.
To harmonize with the identity politics orientation of the Democrat Establishment, the de-industrialization of the American economy is rationalized as a necessary part of multiculturalism.
Trump comes along and says, "The hell with multiculturalism, and the hell with de-industrialization."
Suddenly the Independents and Democrats in the white working class are going to vote Republican for president perhaps for the first time in their lives -- the first time since Reagan or H.W. Bush, at least.
Why does this particular group of forgotten people allow Trump to win the election? Because they live in places that were recently industrialized, and therefore large in population size. Maybe down from their peak circa 1970, but still large urban metro areas.
Trump is not flipping a handful here and a handful there in the rural parts of Michigan, but potentially the counties with the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th largest electorates from 2012 -- and the 4th already went to Romney then, leaving only Detroit itself still in the blue column.
In Ohio, he won't win the largest cities of Cleveland or Columbus, but Cincinnati is a definite possibility, along with the largish cities such as Toledo, Youngstown, and others. Throughout urban northeastern Ohio, traditionally a stronghold for Democrats, he will be flipping very large numbers of people in the dense formerly industrial region.
Likewise in Pennsylvania, it's not the great swath of sparsely populated red counties that he's gaining numbers in. In every good poll with regional breakdown (Axiom, Emerson, Trafalgar), Trump dominates northeastern PA -- Allentown, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, etc. This is the third-most populated region in the state, after Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and also a de-industrialized region with lots of people still hanging on and looking for someone to rescue them.
We could even see the residents of the Philly suburbs give more to Trump than they did to Romney, although as overly educated suburbanites, they are not going to turn to Trump en masse like the white working class to their north. Still, we don't need to flip those counties -- just do better than before, so we don't get drowned there.
And something tells me that the people from the Philly area are in their own way a forgotten people -- the forgotten ACELAs. Philly has never had any glamor to its image, not even after crime rates began plummeting during the 1990s. Even if you've never been to New York, you've heard of which neighborhoods used to be bad but are now luxury-only. You've heard of the status prestige from residing "inside the Beltway" in the DC area. And all the striver parents dream of sending their kids to the great schools -- public or boarding -- of the Boston metro.
But who the hell in the yuppie suburbanite class sets their sights first and foremost on Philly? "Uh, well, the Liberty Bell is there, and uh..." No one knows any of the neighborhoods, the suburbs, the schools (even strivers forget there's an Ivy there), or the regional culture aside from the cheese steak (prole chow anyway).
Being at the bottom of the ACELA totem pole must give them more grievances against the DC - New York - Boston wings of the Establishment (political, financial, academic). What is Philly's special wing of the Establishment? Worse, up until 2000 they hosted a major Naval Shipyard -- military, violence, guns, brawn... ugh, so not ACELA. So of any major cluster of suburbs along the East Coast, they would be the most likely to resonate with Trump's anti-Establishment message. And they are a very large chunk of the state's population.
Up until now, the most glaring difference between who voted blue or red was population density. As the culture war ground on, it looked like either the rural, small-town, and minor-suburban people would invade the cities and major suburbs, looting and sacking them, or that the cities would keep gentrifying the land farther and farther away from the urban core, while still packing people in very densely in these exurban rings.
Trump's re-alignment involves saving the cities, to the extent they have been de-industrialized. From now on, perhaps the divide will not be between higher-density and lower-density, but industrialized and re-industrialized vs. non-industrial cities that rely on finance, IT, higher ed, and other airy-fairy bubble-prone sectors that do not require a solid base of working class employees.
Right now, Pittsburgh and San Francisco are in the same blue boat -- perhaps before too long, it will be Pittsburgh and Scranton in red, against San Francisco and Denver still in blue.
Keep this in mind during the re-alignment -- contrary to red state chauvinism that only sees forgotten men in rural Plains counties, there are legions of forgotten men in blue-state cities that used to power the nation's industrial economy. They too have been chewed up and spit out by the Establishment, and they are far larger in number than suburbanites in Nebraska. Leaving them on the table was not only suicidal in the numbers game of winning elections, but in the greater project of putting our broken country back in working order.
Tonight, these legions are going to defect from the Democrats (at the top of the ticket, anyway) in a stinging rebuke of decades of being taken for granted, robbed of middle-class dignity, and chastised for piping up about the corporate globalist trade deals that are sacrosanct among the party's elites.
By breaking the cuckservative taboo against courting any urban voters (aside from preening attempts to get ghetto blacks to worship Milton Friedman), Trump has made it possible and even likely to flip entire "safe" blue states in the Rust Belt and trans-Bostonian New England.
Tonight the forgotten men, cities, and states will all be remembered by the elites -- too little, and too late.
November 7, 2016
Remember: The hard part was the primaries
The historical models of Norpoth and Lichtman suggest that this year the incumbent party would lose control of the White House, meaning the true battle was actually the Republican primaries.
That's not all there is to winning the White House, though, as both models penalize a candidate who came out of an evenly contested primary and therefore has a shaky hold on their own party's members.
If Trump had not been in the GOP race, Jeb would have been neck and neck with at least Cruz and probably also Rubio. Given the fracturing of the Republican party since the Bush vs. Buchanan primary of 1992, there's no reason to think that 2016 would have produced a more cohesive coalition than 2012 or 2008. The general election would have been theirs to lose -- and they would have lost it.
Thankfully Trump showed up at the right time, dominated the primaries (20 points above 2nd place), and has united just about all of the Republican coalition, minus a handful of useless neo-cons who might only affect the race in Virginia.
At this point, we have all the red states lined up to vote red again, and enough crossover appeal to win the swing states of Ohio and Florida, and blue states like Iowa and Michigan.
We have constant rallies, around $100 million to spend, Trump's social media presence of 20 million followers, signs hats and shirts galore, tens of millions of early votes already cast, and tens of millions more ready to vote on Election Day itself. The RNC is nominally, and even somewhat actually supporting him.
Remember how iffy most people thought the primary campaign was?
He spent very little money, operated with a barebones staff, a small hardcore fan base, and no proof that anyone would cast a single vote for him at the polling stations. The RNC was hostile throughout.
There was months and months of speculation about whether anyone would turn out for him, or whether his high poll numbers were just people expressing a preference that they would not act on. After a close 2nd-place finish in Iowa, everyone was gloating about how he was finished. It would not be the first time.
As tiresome as it was to hear Crooked Hillary nag and blather on in three debates, do you remember how insufferable it was to sit through the other candidates at the Republican debates? So many candidates, so many debates... ay ay ay, these people. Trump was so undisciplined, and would never recover from talking about the size of his hands, remember?
Then there was going to be a contested Convention, a delegate revolt, rival candidates bolting the party, etc. That was a big obstacle -- no nomination, no major-party run -- and he does not face a similar threat in the Electoral College if he legitimately wins enough states to get, say, 300 EC votes. There are not going to be dozens of faithless electors.
And Lord knows the media is still biased, but remember back when even Fox News was 24/7 rabid anti-Trump BS?
When you look back at how rigged the system was during the primaries, it's all the more miraculous that we got through it. It'll make the general election look, like, a baby.
That's not to say that the Establishment might not try to steal an election here or there, but it's easier to challenge and defeat that now that Trump is a major-party candidate, rather than one of many lowly candidates for nomination.
The real time to be pulling your hair out was during the primaries -- and we got through that relatively unscathed. The paranoids said the Establishment, with trillions of dollars at stake, would never allow Trump to rise in the polls (they would be cooked), never give Trump a win in any state (they'd heist it), never allow the Convention to proceed smoothly and fairly, and certainly never allow Trump to actually receive the nomination.
But the Establishment did ultimately relent on all of those nevers, and here we are, poised to defeat another series of nevers -- never allowed to lead any national poll, never allowed to win a swing or blue state, never be declared the winner, never be chosen by the Electoral College, and never be inaugurated.
A political climate that allows Trump to receive the nomination is not hell-bent on nipping the populist problem in the bud. They've let it go this far because they know we'll burn down the whole system if they try to steal our election in broad daylight.
The ideologues may want to crush us at any costs, but those with actual wealth and power do not want to go extinct overnight. They'd rather concede something, even a big something, if it means they continue to profit and control things, just at a lower (perhaps much lower) level than before.
Make some profit and stay alive, or double-down on upward wealth transfer and provoke the mob into burning it all down? So far, signs point to basic sanity and self-preservation among those with true wealth and power.
The ideologues who yammer impotently about immediately impeaching President Trump, and the like, will get their plug pulled by their paymasters for injecting all that volatility back into the system, when they prefer things to operate more smoothly.
Knock on wood for a relatively peaceful transition of power to the populist-nationalist movement.
That's not all there is to winning the White House, though, as both models penalize a candidate who came out of an evenly contested primary and therefore has a shaky hold on their own party's members.
If Trump had not been in the GOP race, Jeb would have been neck and neck with at least Cruz and probably also Rubio. Given the fracturing of the Republican party since the Bush vs. Buchanan primary of 1992, there's no reason to think that 2016 would have produced a more cohesive coalition than 2012 or 2008. The general election would have been theirs to lose -- and they would have lost it.
Thankfully Trump showed up at the right time, dominated the primaries (20 points above 2nd place), and has united just about all of the Republican coalition, minus a handful of useless neo-cons who might only affect the race in Virginia.
At this point, we have all the red states lined up to vote red again, and enough crossover appeal to win the swing states of Ohio and Florida, and blue states like Iowa and Michigan.
We have constant rallies, around $100 million to spend, Trump's social media presence of 20 million followers, signs hats and shirts galore, tens of millions of early votes already cast, and tens of millions more ready to vote on Election Day itself. The RNC is nominally, and even somewhat actually supporting him.
Remember how iffy most people thought the primary campaign was?
He spent very little money, operated with a barebones staff, a small hardcore fan base, and no proof that anyone would cast a single vote for him at the polling stations. The RNC was hostile throughout.
There was months and months of speculation about whether anyone would turn out for him, or whether his high poll numbers were just people expressing a preference that they would not act on. After a close 2nd-place finish in Iowa, everyone was gloating about how he was finished. It would not be the first time.
As tiresome as it was to hear Crooked Hillary nag and blather on in three debates, do you remember how insufferable it was to sit through the other candidates at the Republican debates? So many candidates, so many debates... ay ay ay, these people. Trump was so undisciplined, and would never recover from talking about the size of his hands, remember?
Then there was going to be a contested Convention, a delegate revolt, rival candidates bolting the party, etc. That was a big obstacle -- no nomination, no major-party run -- and he does not face a similar threat in the Electoral College if he legitimately wins enough states to get, say, 300 EC votes. There are not going to be dozens of faithless electors.
And Lord knows the media is still biased, but remember back when even Fox News was 24/7 rabid anti-Trump BS?
When you look back at how rigged the system was during the primaries, it's all the more miraculous that we got through it. It'll make the general election look, like, a baby.
That's not to say that the Establishment might not try to steal an election here or there, but it's easier to challenge and defeat that now that Trump is a major-party candidate, rather than one of many lowly candidates for nomination.
The real time to be pulling your hair out was during the primaries -- and we got through that relatively unscathed. The paranoids said the Establishment, with trillions of dollars at stake, would never allow Trump to rise in the polls (they would be cooked), never give Trump a win in any state (they'd heist it), never allow the Convention to proceed smoothly and fairly, and certainly never allow Trump to actually receive the nomination.
But the Establishment did ultimately relent on all of those nevers, and here we are, poised to defeat another series of nevers -- never allowed to lead any national poll, never allowed to win a swing or blue state, never be declared the winner, never be chosen by the Electoral College, and never be inaugurated.
A political climate that allows Trump to receive the nomination is not hell-bent on nipping the populist problem in the bud. They've let it go this far because they know we'll burn down the whole system if they try to steal our election in broad daylight.
The ideologues may want to crush us at any costs, but those with actual wealth and power do not want to go extinct overnight. They'd rather concede something, even a big something, if it means they continue to profit and control things, just at a lower (perhaps much lower) level than before.
Make some profit and stay alive, or double-down on upward wealth transfer and provoke the mob into burning it all down? So far, signs point to basic sanity and self-preservation among those with true wealth and power.
The ideologues who yammer impotently about immediately impeaching President Trump, and the like, will get their plug pulled by their paymasters for injecting all that volatility back into the system, when they prefer things to operate more smoothly.
Knock on wood for a relatively peaceful transition of power to the populist-nationalist movement.
November 6, 2016
Trump out-performing Bush in major demographics
The depressive cucks and glib libs who constantly harp on the doom-and-gloom (or baseless enthusiasm) about how "demography is destiny" will be pleasantly surprised by Trump's performance in a number of major demographic groups. (All Bush data from the General Social Survey, using most recent year after the election.)
Race
George W. Bush got in the high 50s with whites, and the USC poll shows Trump already there. Bush got in the low 40s with Hispanics, and Trump is already there too. Among blacks, Bush got about 10%, and although Trump is currently around 5%, he was around 15% for an entire month recently. He does well in the Emerson polls with blacks, so I take the 15% to be the ceiling he'll reach.
In any event, the non-white electorate this year will be more Hispanic and less black than it was in 2000 and '04, so we'll do better than Bush did overall.
Age
Bush only got 48% of voters 65+ in '00, and 53% of them in '04. Trump is currently at 55% and surging -- hammering home the word "Watergate" is working wonders to remind older voters just how corrupt, ungovernable, and shameful a hypothetical Clinton White House would be. Since the electorate skews older, this group matters most -- Bush himself actually won the popular vote in '04 because he improved his numbers with old people by 5 points.
Among 35-64 year-olds, Bush got in the mid-50s both times, while Trump is topping out in the high 40s, maybe low 50s if enough cucks switch from Johnson. This is the only age group that he may not do as well as Bush with, because the helicopter parents are concerned with their children rather than the broader community and nation, and Trump hasn't been pushing "family values" at all. He's still winning this group, just not by as much as Bush did.
Among 18-34 year-olds, Bush got around 47% each time. Trump is currently in the mid-40s and steadily rising, so he'll probably do as well in the young group.
Given how much older this electorate will be than before, and how much greater he's doing with the older groups, Trump is easily going to do better than Bush.
Sex
Bush got in the high 40s with women both times, while Trump is in the low 40s and steadily rising. He could get to where Bush was, but I'm thinking in the mid-40s is looking more realistic. However, the would-be First Female President is not getting as much of the womens vote as Gore or Kerry did -- they got in the high 40s, while Crooked Hillary is at 48% and falling. The third party vote among women will be much greater this time.
Among men, Bush got 55% both times, and that's right where Trump is. Perhaps he could go up another point or two, but his ceiling has consistently been 55-56%. Gore only got 38% of men, which is where Hillary is now -- and her long-term ceiling is 40%. Kerry did even better at 43%, and he still lost.
Education
This is by far the biggest shift since the Bush wins. He got in the low 50s with people who had a H.S. degree or less, whereas Trump is going to end up at least 5 points higher.
For those with some college, Bush got 54% in '00 and 51% in '04, and Trump will get 51% as well.
For college degree-holders, Bush got around 50% both times, and the Democrats a few points lower, with not much third party support. Now, Hillary is getting 50%, with Trump's ceiling at 40%. That assumes 10% of the college-educated will vote third party, and I don't see that happening. So Trump could end up getting into the mid-40s, though still losing this group.
Summing up
The demographics that are relevant for the national popular vote are age and sex, which don't vary so much across the states. Trump is doing much better than Bush on both of these dimensions.
The relevance of race varies a lot by state, although here too Trump is poised to do as well or slightly better than Bush.
Education also varies in importance a lot by state, since some metro areas attract most of the college grads, while other entire states are not so heavily burdened with credentialist strivers. This is what makes Colorado the hardest to get for a Republican among the white Mountain states (excluding NM), or the West Coast, or the ACELA corridor along the East Coast.
Not as much of a problem in the Rust Belt, however, which is where the blue states that Trump is actually fighting for are located. Losing the post-grad vote will not deprive him of Michigan, although it would Massachusetts.
The Rust Belt also tends toward the whiter side and the older side (younger people leave in search of greener pastures, and there's not enough of a local boom to attract replacements from outside).
So not only is Trump going to do better in the popular vote, he's going to do better in the Electoral College than the last Republican President. No one can look at the numbers, and the geography, and conclude that Trump will do worse than Bush. And Bush won, so Trump will win -- even more big-league.
Race
George W. Bush got in the high 50s with whites, and the USC poll shows Trump already there. Bush got in the low 40s with Hispanics, and Trump is already there too. Among blacks, Bush got about 10%, and although Trump is currently around 5%, he was around 15% for an entire month recently. He does well in the Emerson polls with blacks, so I take the 15% to be the ceiling he'll reach.
In any event, the non-white electorate this year will be more Hispanic and less black than it was in 2000 and '04, so we'll do better than Bush did overall.
Age
Bush only got 48% of voters 65+ in '00, and 53% of them in '04. Trump is currently at 55% and surging -- hammering home the word "Watergate" is working wonders to remind older voters just how corrupt, ungovernable, and shameful a hypothetical Clinton White House would be. Since the electorate skews older, this group matters most -- Bush himself actually won the popular vote in '04 because he improved his numbers with old people by 5 points.
Among 35-64 year-olds, Bush got in the mid-50s both times, while Trump is topping out in the high 40s, maybe low 50s if enough cucks switch from Johnson. This is the only age group that he may not do as well as Bush with, because the helicopter parents are concerned with their children rather than the broader community and nation, and Trump hasn't been pushing "family values" at all. He's still winning this group, just not by as much as Bush did.
Among 18-34 year-olds, Bush got around 47% each time. Trump is currently in the mid-40s and steadily rising, so he'll probably do as well in the young group.
Given how much older this electorate will be than before, and how much greater he's doing with the older groups, Trump is easily going to do better than Bush.
Sex
Bush got in the high 40s with women both times, while Trump is in the low 40s and steadily rising. He could get to where Bush was, but I'm thinking in the mid-40s is looking more realistic. However, the would-be First Female President is not getting as much of the womens vote as Gore or Kerry did -- they got in the high 40s, while Crooked Hillary is at 48% and falling. The third party vote among women will be much greater this time.
Among men, Bush got 55% both times, and that's right where Trump is. Perhaps he could go up another point or two, but his ceiling has consistently been 55-56%. Gore only got 38% of men, which is where Hillary is now -- and her long-term ceiling is 40%. Kerry did even better at 43%, and he still lost.
Education
This is by far the biggest shift since the Bush wins. He got in the low 50s with people who had a H.S. degree or less, whereas Trump is going to end up at least 5 points higher.
For those with some college, Bush got 54% in '00 and 51% in '04, and Trump will get 51% as well.
For college degree-holders, Bush got around 50% both times, and the Democrats a few points lower, with not much third party support. Now, Hillary is getting 50%, with Trump's ceiling at 40%. That assumes 10% of the college-educated will vote third party, and I don't see that happening. So Trump could end up getting into the mid-40s, though still losing this group.
Summing up
The demographics that are relevant for the national popular vote are age and sex, which don't vary so much across the states. Trump is doing much better than Bush on both of these dimensions.
The relevance of race varies a lot by state, although here too Trump is poised to do as well or slightly better than Bush.
Education also varies in importance a lot by state, since some metro areas attract most of the college grads, while other entire states are not so heavily burdened with credentialist strivers. This is what makes Colorado the hardest to get for a Republican among the white Mountain states (excluding NM), or the West Coast, or the ACELA corridor along the East Coast.
Not as much of a problem in the Rust Belt, however, which is where the blue states that Trump is actually fighting for are located. Losing the post-grad vote will not deprive him of Michigan, although it would Massachusetts.
The Rust Belt also tends toward the whiter side and the older side (younger people leave in search of greener pastures, and there's not enough of a local boom to attract replacements from outside).
So not only is Trump going to do better in the popular vote, he's going to do better in the Electoral College than the last Republican President. No one can look at the numbers, and the geography, and conclude that Trump will do worse than Bush. And Bush won, so Trump will win -- even more big-league.
November 5, 2016
Trump's effect on the Left: Revealing true progressives vs. moralistic posers
Democrats are becoming resigned to the inevitability of a Trump administration. Are the progressives among them at least cautiously optimistic about the major gains that could be made in all the areas where Trump is "to the left" of Crooked Hillary? These include:
- Cleaning up corruption
- Ending the revolving door between lobbying and working for the government
- Trade, tariffs, bringing back manufacturing base
- Anti-interventionism, especially in Middle East
- Detente with Russia
- Leaving major entitlements alone
You'd think that the re-alignment under way would bring most of the progressive Democrats over to the Trump side, even if they didn't accept the label Republican or indeed vote for any other R aside from Trump. Hillary and the Establishment Democrats are simply too "far right" on all of these major issues, and are not any better on issues where Trump is not worlds apart from Clinton, such as climate change and environmental policy. (All of the enviro-inspired DNC platform items were squashed in committee by the Clintonites.)
Trump will get about 20% of the Bernie primary voters, but something tells me most of them would not identify as "progressive". What about the Bernie sympathizers who do identify as progressive?
There are a handful of exceptions like Slavoj Zizek and Michael Tracey (cautiously optimistic), and Cassandra Fairbanks (Bernie-to-Trump supporter), but for the most part the progressives are striving to distance themselves from Trump -- and therefore, from the issues where he commands the high ground over the Dem Establishment.
Jordan Chariton and Emma Vigeland from The Young Turks: Politics, the regular Young Turks crew, David Sirota, Rania Khalek, Nomiki Konst, etc. -- I've looked into where they're at, and their general response is embarrassment. They're embarrassed that Trump and the Trump supporters now own their pet issues.
For awhile, they tried to deny that their issues were now Trump's issues, like maybe he wasn't really going to gut NAFTA, or terminate the program of regime change, or demote Saudi Arabia from high-ranking ally to hostile terror state. By now they've accepted that he means to do those things.
Now they're in the bind of a teenager who thinks they're cooler than everyone else, who suddenly learns that their parents are really into the same music they are -- and worse, the prole neighbors are into their favorite bands too! They can no longer maintain their counter-cultural affectation by railing against the TPP, protesting against pointless wars in the Middle East, and decrying how mega-donors and Wall Street lobbyists control the White House.
So just like the try-hard teenager who frantically searches for a new band that their parents and neighbors haven't heard of, suddenly the progressives are 100% focused on climate change, environmentalism, and specifically the Dakota Pipeline and the protests there. Finally, a set of issues where Trump -- and those lowly Trump supporters -- are nowhere to be seen! At last we can relax together in our little progressive purity circle and resume our counter-cultural poses against President Drumpf and his anti-progressive environmental policies.
The fact that just about all of these people are converging on the same solution, without any of them orchestrating it or handing out talking points (or even commenting on it), shows that it springs organically from the mindset of the average progressive.
If their mindset were concerned with certain issues, they would at least be cautiously optimistic. "Sure, Trump may not be great on environmentalism, but at least we're finally going to see an end to NAFTA. Awesome sauce!" They would be treating him as a strategic ally rather than a 100% fellow traveler, but not as an enemy.
No: it turns out their main concern was affecting a counter-cultural persona for status points within their peer group of professional progressives. If the Trump movement champions the existing set of pet topics for progs, they will simply dump them and pick up a new set that the Trumpians will not touch with a 10-foot pole. Right now that means hardcore environmentalism, but if Trump takes that up, too, they'll drop that as well and move on to yet another topic, like opening the prisons -- let's see Mr. Law-and-Order take over that policy.
No matter what, the over-arching stance toward Trump is that he is the enemy, and can never be a strategic ally. These people are not interested in achieving goals, which will usually require allying with others who share those goals, but in maintaining (counter-)cultural purity. It's not ideological purity, else they'd be in the cautiously optimistic mindset.
This divide is longstanding within the progressive / activist / radical world. The most recent polemic to highlight the divide and tell the persona-obsessed side to either wake up or GTFO, was Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm by Murray Bookchin (1995). He was an old-school left-anarchist whose goal was organizing federations of workers' councils, while the '90s flavor of anarchist was more concerned with living the change you want to be.
That meant: Don't work for The Man, don't associate with non-revolutionaries (sheeple), follow a radical diet (vegetarian or vegan), and so on and so forth. It was therefore a movement focused on purity of daily routines and rituals, sealed off from the polluting normal world, akin to the Essenes during the time of Jesus. They changed absolutely nothing, and neither will today's persona progressives, although they might at least leave behind some equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Back in the '90s, it was understandable if neither kind of radical or progressive wanted to support a major political party or candidate. Who was there? Now that Trump is offering them so many of the policies that they have been clamoring for over the last 20-30 years, they can no longer claim that both major party candidates for president are the enemy, and equally so.
Something tells me that if Murray Bookchin were alive today, he would be strategically supporting Trump like Zizek is, without being a hardcore fan of course. Although Zizek is Slavic (pro-Trump) and Bookchin was Jewish (anti-Trump), so perhaps not.
At any rate, I think the progs' gut-level reflex to demonize a Republican president will make them even more irrelevant in the near-to-middle term. For awhile it looked like they might stage their own takeover of their party, akin to the Trump movement taking over the GOP. Then in future elections we would have something like Bernie vs. Trump -- a worthy fuckin' adversary, for both sides.
But if the progs' main goal was just to pose as counter-cultural superiors, they will flee into the desert since the Trumpians have taken over their supposed major issues. In the desert, they will complain about increasingly more radical and off-putting topics, to ensure that the normies never ideologically overlap with them ever again.
Rather than the corporate globalist elitists getting shoved out of the Democrat party, they will more fully take it over. Bernie himself has already surrendered long ago and shilled for everything he stood against. The next tier down are abandoning their major issues entirely. Taking their cues from what the professional progs are doing, the grassroots progs will do anything to keep Trump framed as the enemy. There will be no base for progressive policies in the Democrat party.
That's not to say that it'll stay that way forever -- maybe just 30-40 years, like the original Progressive Era when the Republicans dominated the White House. During that time, the Democrats were still dominated by Tammany Hall -- only when the corrupt Establishment lost a fight against FDR did it disappear.
For the next generation, then, we won't have any business making allies with the average progressive. The ones who are policy-oriented we can work with, and may even convert. But it's being revealed that a larger and larger majority of progs are just persona-oriented posers who view our brand as toxic to theirs.
Hey, that's OK: we're going to Make America Great Again, and we don't need the permission of airheads obsessed with the radical lifestyle.
- Cleaning up corruption
- Ending the revolving door between lobbying and working for the government
- Trade, tariffs, bringing back manufacturing base
- Anti-interventionism, especially in Middle East
- Detente with Russia
- Leaving major entitlements alone
You'd think that the re-alignment under way would bring most of the progressive Democrats over to the Trump side, even if they didn't accept the label Republican or indeed vote for any other R aside from Trump. Hillary and the Establishment Democrats are simply too "far right" on all of these major issues, and are not any better on issues where Trump is not worlds apart from Clinton, such as climate change and environmental policy. (All of the enviro-inspired DNC platform items were squashed in committee by the Clintonites.)
Trump will get about 20% of the Bernie primary voters, but something tells me most of them would not identify as "progressive". What about the Bernie sympathizers who do identify as progressive?
There are a handful of exceptions like Slavoj Zizek and Michael Tracey (cautiously optimistic), and Cassandra Fairbanks (Bernie-to-Trump supporter), but for the most part the progressives are striving to distance themselves from Trump -- and therefore, from the issues where he commands the high ground over the Dem Establishment.
Jordan Chariton and Emma Vigeland from The Young Turks: Politics, the regular Young Turks crew, David Sirota, Rania Khalek, Nomiki Konst, etc. -- I've looked into where they're at, and their general response is embarrassment. They're embarrassed that Trump and the Trump supporters now own their pet issues.
For awhile, they tried to deny that their issues were now Trump's issues, like maybe he wasn't really going to gut NAFTA, or terminate the program of regime change, or demote Saudi Arabia from high-ranking ally to hostile terror state. By now they've accepted that he means to do those things.
Now they're in the bind of a teenager who thinks they're cooler than everyone else, who suddenly learns that their parents are really into the same music they are -- and worse, the prole neighbors are into their favorite bands too! They can no longer maintain their counter-cultural affectation by railing against the TPP, protesting against pointless wars in the Middle East, and decrying how mega-donors and Wall Street lobbyists control the White House.
So just like the try-hard teenager who frantically searches for a new band that their parents and neighbors haven't heard of, suddenly the progressives are 100% focused on climate change, environmentalism, and specifically the Dakota Pipeline and the protests there. Finally, a set of issues where Trump -- and those lowly Trump supporters -- are nowhere to be seen! At last we can relax together in our little progressive purity circle and resume our counter-cultural poses against President Drumpf and his anti-progressive environmental policies.
The fact that just about all of these people are converging on the same solution, without any of them orchestrating it or handing out talking points (or even commenting on it), shows that it springs organically from the mindset of the average progressive.
If their mindset were concerned with certain issues, they would at least be cautiously optimistic. "Sure, Trump may not be great on environmentalism, but at least we're finally going to see an end to NAFTA. Awesome sauce!" They would be treating him as a strategic ally rather than a 100% fellow traveler, but not as an enemy.
No: it turns out their main concern was affecting a counter-cultural persona for status points within their peer group of professional progressives. If the Trump movement champions the existing set of pet topics for progs, they will simply dump them and pick up a new set that the Trumpians will not touch with a 10-foot pole. Right now that means hardcore environmentalism, but if Trump takes that up, too, they'll drop that as well and move on to yet another topic, like opening the prisons -- let's see Mr. Law-and-Order take over that policy.
No matter what, the over-arching stance toward Trump is that he is the enemy, and can never be a strategic ally. These people are not interested in achieving goals, which will usually require allying with others who share those goals, but in maintaining (counter-)cultural purity. It's not ideological purity, else they'd be in the cautiously optimistic mindset.
This divide is longstanding within the progressive / activist / radical world. The most recent polemic to highlight the divide and tell the persona-obsessed side to either wake up or GTFO, was Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm by Murray Bookchin (1995). He was an old-school left-anarchist whose goal was organizing federations of workers' councils, while the '90s flavor of anarchist was more concerned with living the change you want to be.
That meant: Don't work for The Man, don't associate with non-revolutionaries (sheeple), follow a radical diet (vegetarian or vegan), and so on and so forth. It was therefore a movement focused on purity of daily routines and rituals, sealed off from the polluting normal world, akin to the Essenes during the time of Jesus. They changed absolutely nothing, and neither will today's persona progressives, although they might at least leave behind some equivalent of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Back in the '90s, it was understandable if neither kind of radical or progressive wanted to support a major political party or candidate. Who was there? Now that Trump is offering them so many of the policies that they have been clamoring for over the last 20-30 years, they can no longer claim that both major party candidates for president are the enemy, and equally so.
Something tells me that if Murray Bookchin were alive today, he would be strategically supporting Trump like Zizek is, without being a hardcore fan of course. Although Zizek is Slavic (pro-Trump) and Bookchin was Jewish (anti-Trump), so perhaps not.
At any rate, I think the progs' gut-level reflex to demonize a Republican president will make them even more irrelevant in the near-to-middle term. For awhile it looked like they might stage their own takeover of their party, akin to the Trump movement taking over the GOP. Then in future elections we would have something like Bernie vs. Trump -- a worthy fuckin' adversary, for both sides.
But if the progs' main goal was just to pose as counter-cultural superiors, they will flee into the desert since the Trumpians have taken over their supposed major issues. In the desert, they will complain about increasingly more radical and off-putting topics, to ensure that the normies never ideologically overlap with them ever again.
Rather than the corporate globalist elitists getting shoved out of the Democrat party, they will more fully take it over. Bernie himself has already surrendered long ago and shilled for everything he stood against. The next tier down are abandoning their major issues entirely. Taking their cues from what the professional progs are doing, the grassroots progs will do anything to keep Trump framed as the enemy. There will be no base for progressive policies in the Democrat party.
That's not to say that it'll stay that way forever -- maybe just 30-40 years, like the original Progressive Era when the Republicans dominated the White House. During that time, the Democrats were still dominated by Tammany Hall -- only when the corrupt Establishment lost a fight against FDR did it disappear.
For the next generation, then, we won't have any business making allies with the average progressive. The ones who are policy-oriented we can work with, and may even convert. But it's being revealed that a larger and larger majority of progs are just persona-oriented posers who view our brand as toxic to theirs.
Hey, that's OK: we're going to Make America Great Again, and we don't need the permission of airheads obsessed with the radical lifestyle.
November 4, 2016
Child sex rings run by Clinton world? If so, Establishment is finished
This is about as fucked up as it can get.
Right now there's too much work across too many sites to sum up efficiently, but here is one post at TheDonald on Reddit, and re-tweeted by WikiLeaks. The Clintons are connected to a child trafficker who tried to smuggle some pre-pubescent kids out of Haiti in the wake of the earthquake. Hillary negotiated her release, and the attorney involved is a convicted sex trafficker.
It looks like part of a broader child sex ring that Clinton world, and perhaps the broader political Establishment, is involved in. See the various posts at /pol/ that are linked in the top comment in the Reddit post above.
There is a lot to comb through, but there is a lot of damning evidence. Coded language in WikiLeaks emails about child pornography and child prostitution (pizza, cheese, meat, egg, bacon, other food terms), as well as snuff-like video ads for the child sex bordellos operating as pizza parlors (in one for Comet Ping-Pong [CP] Pizza, the manager reassures the customer that they can trust him to protect their interests -- odd thing for a pizza parlor manager to say).
Trump made a bizarre remark at the Al Smith dinner, about how Hillary once said it takes a village... "like in Haiti, where you've taken a number of them." I thought he meant she'd taken a number of villages, like taken them for a ride and split with the charity money. But he meant she'd tried to take a number of children -- literally, as her connection to the child trafficker in Haiti reveals.
Many, many more are implicated than just the Clintons themselves -- Podesta, Brock, Obama, and scores of others. It would be remarkable if no Republicans were involved -- so they are too, just operating out of a different ring of non-existent orphanages, pizza parlors, pizza parties with no pizza served, that are described as "pizza extravaganzas".
The other angle is that one of the women involved is a dark arts performing artist, although I don't think the occultist side is the really disturbing stuff. Just some weird flake from the art world trying to out-goth the others.
The truly Satanic activity is the operation of these child sex rings by the political Establishment.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is planning to bring down the many pedo rings that operate with impunity in Hollywood.
Not only does it fit into the larger plan of draining the swamp, it exposes the hypocrisy of the moralistic Left that puts out the endless attack ads against Trump about "What will our pure innocent children think when they hear Trump say a curse word?"
The Catholic Church is still reeling from the early 2000s airing of its history of underage sexual abuse during the 1970s and '80s. Now the shoe will be on the other foot, with the Establishment liberals being exposed, prosecuted, jailed, and even executed for far greater sexual crimes against children.
With Attorney General Preet Bharara in charge, no one, Democrat or Republican, will be spared.
And after such horrifying crimes come to light, no one even remotely connected to the politicians, lobbyists, and donors will ever be able to play a role in politics again. Just as Catholicism and Christianity per se came under suspicion after the sex scandals came to light, the whole brand of turn-of-the-century liberalism will become permanently stained and will have to be thrown out.
That ought to make it easier for the Bernie Sanderses and the Tulsi Gabbards to re-shape the Democrat Party into one based on populism rather than liberal identity politics. In the public eye, they will not be part of the guilty.
Likewise the corporate globalist Republicans who have any blood on their hands will be immediately swept into the dustbin of history, and the Trump voters' takeover of the GOP will proceed even faster and more smoothly.
It's sad that this is what it takes to bring about the rapid collapse of the Establishment, but in an age that is so decadent and corrupt, it was never going to be something minor and stomach-able that brought the whole rigged system down.
Right now there's too much work across too many sites to sum up efficiently, but here is one post at TheDonald on Reddit, and re-tweeted by WikiLeaks. The Clintons are connected to a child trafficker who tried to smuggle some pre-pubescent kids out of Haiti in the wake of the earthquake. Hillary negotiated her release, and the attorney involved is a convicted sex trafficker.
It looks like part of a broader child sex ring that Clinton world, and perhaps the broader political Establishment, is involved in. See the various posts at /pol/ that are linked in the top comment in the Reddit post above.
There is a lot to comb through, but there is a lot of damning evidence. Coded language in WikiLeaks emails about child pornography and child prostitution (pizza, cheese, meat, egg, bacon, other food terms), as well as snuff-like video ads for the child sex bordellos operating as pizza parlors (in one for Comet Ping-Pong [CP] Pizza, the manager reassures the customer that they can trust him to protect their interests -- odd thing for a pizza parlor manager to say).
Trump made a bizarre remark at the Al Smith dinner, about how Hillary once said it takes a village... "like in Haiti, where you've taken a number of them." I thought he meant she'd taken a number of villages, like taken them for a ride and split with the charity money. But he meant she'd tried to take a number of children -- literally, as her connection to the child trafficker in Haiti reveals.
Many, many more are implicated than just the Clintons themselves -- Podesta, Brock, Obama, and scores of others. It would be remarkable if no Republicans were involved -- so they are too, just operating out of a different ring of non-existent orphanages, pizza parlors, pizza parties with no pizza served, that are described as "pizza extravaganzas".
The other angle is that one of the women involved is a dark arts performing artist, although I don't think the occultist side is the really disturbing stuff. Just some weird flake from the art world trying to out-goth the others.
The truly Satanic activity is the operation of these child sex rings by the political Establishment.
I wouldn't be surprised if Trump is planning to bring down the many pedo rings that operate with impunity in Hollywood.
Not only does it fit into the larger plan of draining the swamp, it exposes the hypocrisy of the moralistic Left that puts out the endless attack ads against Trump about "What will our pure innocent children think when they hear Trump say a curse word?"
The Catholic Church is still reeling from the early 2000s airing of its history of underage sexual abuse during the 1970s and '80s. Now the shoe will be on the other foot, with the Establishment liberals being exposed, prosecuted, jailed, and even executed for far greater sexual crimes against children.
With Attorney General Preet Bharara in charge, no one, Democrat or Republican, will be spared.
And after such horrifying crimes come to light, no one even remotely connected to the politicians, lobbyists, and donors will ever be able to play a role in politics again. Just as Catholicism and Christianity per se came under suspicion after the sex scandals came to light, the whole brand of turn-of-the-century liberalism will become permanently stained and will have to be thrown out.
That ought to make it easier for the Bernie Sanderses and the Tulsi Gabbards to re-shape the Democrat Party into one based on populism rather than liberal identity politics. In the public eye, they will not be part of the guilty.
Likewise the corporate globalist Republicans who have any blood on their hands will be immediately swept into the dustbin of history, and the Trump voters' takeover of the GOP will proceed even faster and more smoothly.
It's sad that this is what it takes to bring about the rapid collapse of the Establishment, but in an age that is so decadent and corrupt, it was never going to be something minor and stomach-able that brought the whole rigged system down.
Did the FBI jailbreak Julian Assange before the CIA got him?
A few weeks ago Julian Assange had his internet cut off in the Ecuadorean embassy in London, and many were worried that US government forces hostile to his WikiLeaks activity had gotten him somehow -- locked him up somewhere, tortured him, killed him off, something.
Those fears got worse as the WikiLeaks twitter began making cryptic psy-ops kinds of remarks, obviously not in Assange's voice, in fact not in the voice of anyone sympathetic to his organization.
After awhile, though, things seem to have returned to normal there, with anti-Hillary stuff coming out all the time, both from their own leaks and from articles that they re-tweet. No more dark cryptic remarks.
An emerging theme in this electoral battle is the opposing stances of the FBI and other government agencies like the CIA, the DoJ, the White House, and so on. In particular FBI agents, rather than the top brass like Director Comey, were the ones pushing to re-open the Clinton email server investigation, making everyone aware of the Clinton Foundation being under investigation for corruption, and pointing the public toward anti-Hillary documents via their FBI Records Vault twitter.
The CIA Directors have come out strongly against Trump and pro-Clinton, attempted spoiler Evan McCuckin is ex-CIA, and of course the #NeverTrump Bush clan has roots in the CIA with H.W. being its former Director.
Given Assange's crucial role on the anti-Hillary side of the battle, both the FBI and CIA would have known that it was only a matter of time before one of them tried to help or harm him. The FBI has proven to take the initiative more decisively in the battle, and they are more cohesive as a group. The best that the CIA has come up with so far is to try to deprive Trump of Utah's six votes with McCuckin, who is trailing pathetically in the polls and will fail at his brazenly anti-democratic mission.
So perhaps, rather than the CIA getting to Assange ahead of a potentially damning release from WikiLeaks, it was the FBI who got to him -- not to harm him, but to make sure he was safe. Unless they stationed their own men inside a foreign embassy in a separate foreign country, that would have meant smuggling him out to safe obscurity.
Ecuador is glad to finally be rid of what was becoming a greater liability, with the White House and Secretary of State breathing down their neck to do something about him. Assange is happy to no longer be a sitting duck in a known location, after hearing that Hillary had joked about droning him, and after someone scaled the embassy walls and tried to break in before being chased away. And the FBI is happy to have their brother in arms safely hidden from the searchlight.
And yes, the FBI does have international agents at the US embassy in London.
The only obstacle would have been the British government / intelligence agencies, who have been waiting to arrest Assange. But the main reason for them to arrest him is to extradite him to the US. So perhaps the FBI agents put one over on the Brits, making it seem like they were going to extradite him themselves, and that he would get his comeuppance back in America. British intelligence gives them a wink and a nod, unaware that the arrest is actually a jailbreak.
During a transition period, Assange lies low in the new and different hide-out, while the FBI directly or indirectly posts the dark cryptic tweets on the WikiLeaks twitter, to fool the White House, DoS, CIA, etc. The anti-Assange forces rest assured that someone somewhere has gotten him, and thank God that that particular threat has been neutralized (for the time being, or for good, who cares?).
As the globalist forces begin to pack it up after an apparent victory, Assange, WikiLeaks, and the FBI resume normal activity to stop Crooked Hillary -- just as before, only now with Assange under far greater security.
Call it just a crazy conspiracy theory, but in 2016 nothing sounds inconceivable anymore.
It's also possible that the FBI helped Assange's mentor / WikiLeaks founder Gavin MacFadyen fake his own death. He would have been a natural target of the globalists, not only for his own role, but for the value he would have to Assange -- they torture his mentor, Assange becomes more willing to cooperate if they leave his mentor alone. Remove MacFadyen (apparently) from the picture, and the globalists have no reason to pursue him anymore.
Of course it's still possible that the CIA killed both MacFadyen and Assange, and that the FBI and WikiLeaks are continuing the battle without those two leaders. Or that they killed only MacFadyen as an initial warning, and that triggered the FBI to swoop in and spirit Assange away from the embassy.
Of the two groups, the FBI has proven more competent, cohesive, and aggressive. So as crazy as it sounds, I think Assange is safe and that the FBI is actively looking out for his safety. This is the year of the insurgents tackling the decadent corrupt incompetent Establishment, and it just wouldn't fit the narrative if the CIA bumped off Assange right when the WikiLeaks sub-plot was getting good.
And if this is all off-base, someone still needs to make this movie! "Inspired by true events..."
Those fears got worse as the WikiLeaks twitter began making cryptic psy-ops kinds of remarks, obviously not in Assange's voice, in fact not in the voice of anyone sympathetic to his organization.
After awhile, though, things seem to have returned to normal there, with anti-Hillary stuff coming out all the time, both from their own leaks and from articles that they re-tweet. No more dark cryptic remarks.
been hearing for weeks anecdotally about the CIA-FBI divide over this election.— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) November 4, 2016
An emerging theme in this electoral battle is the opposing stances of the FBI and other government agencies like the CIA, the DoJ, the White House, and so on. In particular FBI agents, rather than the top brass like Director Comey, were the ones pushing to re-open the Clinton email server investigation, making everyone aware of the Clinton Foundation being under investigation for corruption, and pointing the public toward anti-Hillary documents via their FBI Records Vault twitter.
The CIA Directors have come out strongly against Trump and pro-Clinton, attempted spoiler Evan McCuckin is ex-CIA, and of course the #NeverTrump Bush clan has roots in the CIA with H.W. being its former Director.
Given Assange's crucial role on the anti-Hillary side of the battle, both the FBI and CIA would have known that it was only a matter of time before one of them tried to help or harm him. The FBI has proven to take the initiative more decisively in the battle, and they are more cohesive as a group. The best that the CIA has come up with so far is to try to deprive Trump of Utah's six votes with McCuckin, who is trailing pathetically in the polls and will fail at his brazenly anti-democratic mission.
So perhaps, rather than the CIA getting to Assange ahead of a potentially damning release from WikiLeaks, it was the FBI who got to him -- not to harm him, but to make sure he was safe. Unless they stationed their own men inside a foreign embassy in a separate foreign country, that would have meant smuggling him out to safe obscurity.
Ecuador is glad to finally be rid of what was becoming a greater liability, with the White House and Secretary of State breathing down their neck to do something about him. Assange is happy to no longer be a sitting duck in a known location, after hearing that Hillary had joked about droning him, and after someone scaled the embassy walls and tried to break in before being chased away. And the FBI is happy to have their brother in arms safely hidden from the searchlight.
And yes, the FBI does have international agents at the US embassy in London.
The only obstacle would have been the British government / intelligence agencies, who have been waiting to arrest Assange. But the main reason for them to arrest him is to extradite him to the US. So perhaps the FBI agents put one over on the Brits, making it seem like they were going to extradite him themselves, and that he would get his comeuppance back in America. British intelligence gives them a wink and a nod, unaware that the arrest is actually a jailbreak.
During a transition period, Assange lies low in the new and different hide-out, while the FBI directly or indirectly posts the dark cryptic tweets on the WikiLeaks twitter, to fool the White House, DoS, CIA, etc. The anti-Assange forces rest assured that someone somewhere has gotten him, and thank God that that particular threat has been neutralized (for the time being, or for good, who cares?).
As the globalist forces begin to pack it up after an apparent victory, Assange, WikiLeaks, and the FBI resume normal activity to stop Crooked Hillary -- just as before, only now with Assange under far greater security.
Call it just a crazy conspiracy theory, but in 2016 nothing sounds inconceivable anymore.
It's also possible that the FBI helped Assange's mentor / WikiLeaks founder Gavin MacFadyen fake his own death. He would have been a natural target of the globalists, not only for his own role, but for the value he would have to Assange -- they torture his mentor, Assange becomes more willing to cooperate if they leave his mentor alone. Remove MacFadyen (apparently) from the picture, and the globalists have no reason to pursue him anymore.
Of course it's still possible that the CIA killed both MacFadyen and Assange, and that the FBI and WikiLeaks are continuing the battle without those two leaders. Or that they killed only MacFadyen as an initial warning, and that triggered the FBI to swoop in and spirit Assange away from the embassy.
Of the two groups, the FBI has proven more competent, cohesive, and aggressive. So as crazy as it sounds, I think Assange is safe and that the FBI is actively looking out for his safety. This is the year of the insurgents tackling the decadent corrupt incompetent Establishment, and it just wouldn't fit the narrative if the CIA bumped off Assange right when the WikiLeaks sub-plot was getting good.
And if this is all off-base, someone still needs to make this movie! "Inspired by true events..."
November 3, 2016
November 2, 2016
Ricky Vaughn back on Twitter after suspension
UPDATE: he's back at ReturnofRV. Fags.
Once again the censors at Twitter have shut down Ricky Vaughn's account, probably related to lighthearted remarks about having traitors swinging from ropes.
He has a Facebook page (Deplorable Vaughn) and a "fan account" on Twitter (Ricky Feed). Watch there, and here, for updates.
Ricky, I'd say the easiest thing is to switch over to RickyFeed, which already has over 2000 followers, and the rest of us will get the word out ASAP.
In the meantime, don't give the gay Jews at the censor boards a flimsy pretext for banning again -- they don't care about racial slurs, bullyciding cuckservatives, revealing corruption, etc.
It's the "incitement to violence" that they always fall back on. You can get people righteously angry without calling for traitors to be swinging from the ropes (your fans can make those calls in the comments).
It's a gay bind to be in, but with less than a week until the big night, we'll have to save the #StringThemUp hashtag until President Trump is inaugurated.
Just let us know where the new place to be is, and we'll be there.
Onward!
Once again the censors at Twitter have shut down Ricky Vaughn's account, probably related to lighthearted remarks about having traitors swinging from ropes.
He has a Facebook page (Deplorable Vaughn) and a "fan account" on Twitter (Ricky Feed). Watch there, and here, for updates.
Ricky, I'd say the easiest thing is to switch over to RickyFeed, which already has over 2000 followers, and the rest of us will get the word out ASAP.
In the meantime, don't give the gay Jews at the censor boards a flimsy pretext for banning again -- they don't care about racial slurs, bullyciding cuckservatives, revealing corruption, etc.
It's the "incitement to violence" that they always fall back on. You can get people righteously angry without calling for traitors to be swinging from the ropes (your fans can make those calls in the comments).
It's a gay bind to be in, but with less than a week until the big night, we'll have to save the #StringThemUp hashtag until President Trump is inaugurated.
Just let us know where the new place to be is, and we'll be there.
Onward!
It's officially over for Crooked Hillary
USC panel poll for 11/1: Trump 48, Clinton 42.
This is the third time that Trump's lead has placed clearly outside of the 95% confidence interval (gray area), the earlier times being his Convention bump, and the wicked witch's collapse on 9/11 making people think that she would die before hypothetically taking office.
Notice that her lead, even when she's had it, has never placed outside of the 95% CI, although it came close during her post-Convention bump. She has quite simply never been the decisive favorite in the race.
Now with the re-opening of the FBI investigation into her email server, and the public awareness that the FBI is also investigating the Clinton Foundation -- and by extension, everyone connected to Clinton world -- people are again thinking that she'd be effectively dead on arrival.
The historical models (Norpoth, Lichtman) had already predicted a win for the opposition party, so what these key events do -- Convention, collapse, FBI investigations -- is give people a rationalization to latch onto, in order to consciously justify their gut-level intuition that they don't want four more years of the incumbent party and its failures (Obamacare, ISIS, TPP, etc.).
This latest development could be making things worse than just providing a rationalization for pre-existing anxieties, though, as it is bringing to light a catastrophic failure that people had not even been aware of over the past four years -- the corruption galore at the highest levels of government, with the incumbent party's nominee herself being at the very center of it all.
After the last surge relating to Clinton's collapse, there was a correction when people saw her somewhat out-and-about and not on life support in a hospital bed. Will people correct their initial panic this time? It seems hard to believe that it will come back down to where it was, since Clinton -- and Clinton Inc. -- will be under FBI investigation indefinitely, and any news will be bad news.
This time there's no way they can just shoot her up full of drugs and parade her around in public for a debate to assuage the fears of the voters. She's been knocked down, and she won't be getting back up anytime soon (if at all).
It's also hard to believe there won't be any recovery -- don't underestimate the extremely partisan polarization that exists in the electorate today, where her supporters could wave away Hillary going on a shooting spree in a mosque using bullets smeared in bacon grease.
Still, this latest disaster may have shaved a full point off of her ceiling of 45%.
The best part lately has been all of the pouty exasperated pleas for civility and decorum from the side that has been running the dirtiest, foulest, emptiest campaign in history.
Welcome to the jungle, baby -- you're gonna DIIIIIEEEEE
This is the third time that Trump's lead has placed clearly outside of the 95% confidence interval (gray area), the earlier times being his Convention bump, and the wicked witch's collapse on 9/11 making people think that she would die before hypothetically taking office.
Notice that her lead, even when she's had it, has never placed outside of the 95% CI, although it came close during her post-Convention bump. She has quite simply never been the decisive favorite in the race.
Now with the re-opening of the FBI investigation into her email server, and the public awareness that the FBI is also investigating the Clinton Foundation -- and by extension, everyone connected to Clinton world -- people are again thinking that she'd be effectively dead on arrival.
The historical models (Norpoth, Lichtman) had already predicted a win for the opposition party, so what these key events do -- Convention, collapse, FBI investigations -- is give people a rationalization to latch onto, in order to consciously justify their gut-level intuition that they don't want four more years of the incumbent party and its failures (Obamacare, ISIS, TPP, etc.).
This latest development could be making things worse than just providing a rationalization for pre-existing anxieties, though, as it is bringing to light a catastrophic failure that people had not even been aware of over the past four years -- the corruption galore at the highest levels of government, with the incumbent party's nominee herself being at the very center of it all.
After the last surge relating to Clinton's collapse, there was a correction when people saw her somewhat out-and-about and not on life support in a hospital bed. Will people correct their initial panic this time? It seems hard to believe that it will come back down to where it was, since Clinton -- and Clinton Inc. -- will be under FBI investigation indefinitely, and any news will be bad news.
This time there's no way they can just shoot her up full of drugs and parade her around in public for a debate to assuage the fears of the voters. She's been knocked down, and she won't be getting back up anytime soon (if at all).
It's also hard to believe there won't be any recovery -- don't underestimate the extremely partisan polarization that exists in the electorate today, where her supporters could wave away Hillary going on a shooting spree in a mosque using bullets smeared in bacon grease.
Still, this latest disaster may have shaved a full point off of her ceiling of 45%.
The best part lately has been all of the pouty exasperated pleas for civility and decorum from the side that has been running the dirtiest, foulest, emptiest campaign in history.
Welcome to the jungle, baby -- you're gonna DIIIIIEEEEE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)