October 14, 2020

Which groups are most dissimulating about Trump support, and which DGAF about elite media pressure?

Part 1 and part 2 on the brokenness of the polls in predicting the outcome of the upcoming election. Now we'll look inside the cross-tabs of the IBD poll to see who feels the strongest pressure to appease the elite media inquisitors by responding "don't know," "third party," or "Biden," when in fact they're voting Trump. We'll also see who feels the weakest pressure to disguise their voting intention.

Supposedly, Trump is trailing among so many groups, perhaps doing worse than last time among some (like whites). It's easier to look at which groups show an increase in support, compared to the 2016 exit polls. They are most definitely not hiding their support, if it's even greater than during the last election. Dissimulation is only compatible with falling support in poll responses.

Trump is winning those with only high school education by 60-38, widening his lead from last time of 51-46. Among those making less than $30K in income, he's losing 44-50, but that's only half the gap from last time, 40-53, and light-years beyond what you'd expect for a Republican in the Reagan era. He's losing urban residents 36-59, but that too is a small improvement over losing them 34-60 last time. And he's losing Hispanics 39-54, but that's dramatically better than losing them 28-66 last time.

All it took for the GOP to win nearly half the Hispanic vote was a nuclear neg from the presidential nominee -- calling them murderers, rapists, and drug dealers, and threatening them with deportation. "Ey mang, I ain't no bad guy, I'm a good guy, let me prove it to you, mang." Trump has overseen skyrocketing immigration and border crossings from the south, far more than under Obama, so by now they assume he was just bluffing, negging, or empty dog-whistling, or that the party / the rest of the government over-rode his orders.

If you haven't noticed, there are hardly any Hispanics at the psycho libtard marches, protests, riots, etc. They know first-hand that Trump is not "rounding up minorities" or whatever the affluent white liberals are getting hysterical about. They can see directly that their kids are not in cages. Their gangs kept out would-be rioters in Chicago by chasing away any black person who entered their neighborhoods -- hardly a group that's on board with "Black" Lives Matter, let alone white Antifa.

The major open question about them is their turnout. Hispanics show the least civic engagement, including voting in elections. Their lack of participation in the libtard protests is part of that pattern -- even the liberals among them are too apathetic to get psyched up with the white and black long-term base of the Democrat party. They aren't that deeply incorporated into its patronage networks, so why should they invest so much in the party?

This shift among Hispanics pretty much secures Florida for Trump, and puts Nevada and (to a lesser extent) New Mexico in play for the GOP (both have voted GOP several times in the Reagan era). It definitively removes any Sun Belt state from flipping blue (Arizona, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, or whatever else the delusional Dems are imagining). It doesn't have much influence over the Rust Belt, since it's the least Hispanic or immigrant region in the nation. But if those races are close for other reasons, a little increase in Hispanic support could help him eke out another narrow win in one of those states.

As an aside on the Electoral College, a new path has opened up through the Southwest. Namely, the Romney states, the swing states of Ohio and Florida, the Southwestern states of Nevada and New Mexico, and only his widest-margin flip in the Midwest from 2016, Iowa. That's exactly 270, and allows him to lose Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and the one district in Maine. It's a close race, so the party is likely not switching tracks to throw the big states that they've already won in the Rust Belt and rely solely on their reach goals in the Southwest. But it's worth pointing out a new path this time, or a way for his 2016 map to expand.

Trump's support from poor people and those without degrees -- "I love the poorly educated," he ad-libbed in 2016 -- is a further consolidation from last time. It's not that the GOP is a working-class party, it's that they're a party of elites and commoners, while the left / Democrats have alienated themselves into a party of managers without subjects.

This is not a steady-state, though, but nearing the end of the pendulum swing in the direction it's headed for decades. It will swing around when the Dems realign by competing for the Deplorable vote with material goodies and an end of cultural shaming. Libtards have delayed realignment at least until 2024, but could go until 2028 if they keep up their puritanical polarization when they're the opposition party of their era.

What do these demographics have in common? They're the least likely to be locked in the elite media bubble, or to be striving their way toward the elite stratum. Whatever pressures would be put on them in order to be accepted among respectable elite circles, do not faze them. They don't care if some yuppie prick from the media thinks they're evil for voting Trump, they'll tell him so anyway.

Conversely, those who are most insecure in their economic and cultural status are most susceptible to appeasing the pollsters, while eventually voting Trump like last time. These are somewhat above-median income earners (not the rich), suburbanites, with some college but not a bachelor's or more, whites, and women.

This is not the AWFL / wine mom demographic, despite being white suburban women who are not poor and who have attended college classes. The key difference is that they are "lower-middle" income and have only "some college" education.

The AWFLs were already bitterly anti-Trump last time, and no more blood could be squeezed from that stone -- only ginning up a higher turnout, not a higher percent opposition to Trump. Hence the pussy hat marches, flipping a handful of House districts, and so on. But that does not scale up to the level of a state, which is why the "blue wave" mid-terms saw Dems losing Senate seats. By catering to the agitated yet tiny pool of pussy hat marchers, to narrowly win back the House, they alienated the rest of the state that these AWFL districts were in.

Naturally that means they won't be a path to flipping a single state in the Electoral College, when they will also get swamped by normie participation in a presidential election year, unlike the fringe mid-terms for obsessives. They may pad the margin for Biden in the pseudo-popular vote, though.

The lower-middle class women with only some college classes, are the ones who the AWFLs were ruthlessly castigating during the pussy hat marches. "How dare white women give Trump the edge he needed!" Four years of relentless cultural pressure on them, and they're now unwilling to openly state their views to their cry-bully frenemies above them on the class pyramid. They know they'll just get yelled at some more, and lose any shot at climbing higher on the respectability ladder.

But that doesn't mean the propaganda campaign has altered their voting behavior. It was AWFLs and other wealthy educated elites who flipped the House in 2018. If the lower-middle / some-college suburban women had succumbed to the pressure once inside the voting booth, the Dems would've flipped dozens more districts, and would've at least held or even gained seats in the Senate.

Women value security more than men, especially if they're not wealthy and elite enough to afford living far from violent areas or hiring private security. So these taqiya Trump voters are really not going to resonate with the BLM / Antifa riots that have burned down the cities that they live right on the edge of. They might not say so openly to pollsters, but like hell they're going to vote for the party responsible for setting off and sustaining the most destructive riots in 50 years.

Some of the huge swing away from Trump in polls of white suburban women is real, if the women do not have families to ground them (not necessarily husbands or children, but their own non-marital family). Then their only source of social pressure is the media stream that they beam into their brain for a simulation of belonging to a solid respectable middle class, rather than struggling lower-middle. But that's not as common as women who are still involved in their family's activities -- especially in the Rust Belt where residents are deeply rooted, and there are few transplants.

At any rate, it's hard to see even the true shift among lower-middles overwhelming the dramatic increase in support from the no-college group.

In all likelihood, the true shift among white suburban women -- the AWFLs getting ginned up in turnout, and a minority of lower-middle ones decreasing their preference for Trump -- just means that the coastal elite states will vote even more strongly for the Democrat, without affecting the election. That's where these psycho strivers and their status-insecure followers are concentrated -- not in flyover country, and not in the unglamorous Rust Belt.

Anyone from flyover country who would be susceptible to such pressure has already moved out to the coastal elite states, making the composition of their home states more stubbornly anti-elite (as any of the bitter Midwestern transplants in coastal mega-cities will endlessly complain about, near family-time holidays).

How many over-produced elites do the over-produced elites think there are in the Rust Belt? Hint: Wisconsin ranks 35 out of 50 in advanced degree-holders per capita, identical to South Carolina and Texas. And Ohio is only a tad higher. So much for all of that "revenge of the nerds" triumphalism -- the poorly educated are about to shove the elite strivers into the smelliest locker they've ever been stuffed into.

If Trump's first victory made them hysterical, his re-election will leave them shell-shocked. Inshallah, we can get back to a normal climate if the libs descend into Trump Catatonia Syndrome. Rather like the late 2000s when Bush Jr. got re-elected, compared to the deranged early 2000s.

RAWR-ing Twenties, here we come. xD


  1. I see a neo-Twenties too...if the plague goes away.

    The radicalism of the late 1910s and early 1920s is largely forgotten today given the greater salience of what came before (WWI) and after (the Roaring Twenties). However, it was intense: anarchist bombings, red bombings, race riots, bohemian radicalism, near-revolution in several non-Russian countries (Bavaria, Hungary, Italy, etc).

  2. California as also rapidly transitioning into the techno-hive society of books like "The Machine Stops" (1909)


  3. "YMCA" being a campaign theme fits with the step-dance mania of the restless warm-up phase of the 15-year excitement cycle, which we've entered as of this year. It's a neo-neo-neo-disco zeitgeist, so naturally it's tapping into the original disco era.

    In 2016 the staples were more vulnerable -- "Tiny Dancer" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want".

    Also, heard "Kings and Queens" by Ava Max in a Midwestern Kroger during normie hours the other day. The dance craze energy is there, it's just being hindered by the exogenous shock of the coronavirus pandemic shutting down crowded indoor heavy-breathing spaces.

  4. It doesn't make me feel good to make these observations, btw. I've hated the Trump admin, overall, since summer 2017, and was hoping this disjunctive phase would only last 1 term as usual. I'd rather see Trump losing to a realigner Democrat like Tulsi.

    Our highly polarized climate is like the 1850s, before the Civil War, so the disjunctive phase is lasting longer due to the oppo party not wanting defectors from the dominant party (Whigs blowing themselves up in 1856 rather than accept Jacksonian defectors).

    Still, that doesn't mean I'm going to play the role of the doomsaying prophet, and declare Trump DOA for election day, in an attempt to steer him or the party back onto what I consider the righteous path, just because his admin has done basically nothing that distinguished him in 2016 (has actually made things worse).

    "You didn't heed my warnings, now you will suffer the consequences!" Yeah right, you and what army?

    If his support were cratering among non-college voters, among Rust Belt voters, etc., then I'd say so, and add "I know how you feel, feels bad man."

    The silver linings are:

    1. Libtard heads are going to explode even more than in 2016, although I think they'll get over it quicker (or will effectively remove themselves from society by going catatonic). Four years after Trump's re-election will look better than four years after his first election.

    2. Realignment will not be further delayed as it would be if a status quo opposition-party candidate (like Biden) won the election. Then we'd need yet another disjunctive Republican after Biden (say, Hawley), and only after that, a realigner Democrat like Tulsi or whoever.

    Given that a realigner is not on the ballot in 2020, a Trump win will still be the fastest path toward realignment.

  5. Do state/local libtards really think a 6-3 GOP SCOTUS is going to let any potential electoral shenanigans just play out?

    I know the dopamine cycle of the take junkies means they forget everything before their last neurochemical reset a few hours ago, but... do they remember the Florida recount from 2000? The Supreme Court was only 5-4 GOP back then, and they shut that down in one month, declaring the Republican the winner.

    Ballot harvesting, whatever else they may think of trying -- it's not sacrosanct just cuz the governor sez so. In 2000, they overturned the decision of the supreme court of one of the largest states.

    Libtards can bend or break the rules all they want, and litigate it afterward all they want -- until the buck stops at a 6-3 GOP Supreme Court. "Oh, right... that."

    Reaganite justices don't defend the flag, heterosexual norms, or any other social-cultural conservative stuff -- but they most definitely will fight to get more Republicans into high offices, especially the White House. That benefits the GOP elites, not commoners, which they're fine with.

  6. The online dissident Right has the same empirical outlook as the libtard media. They're pretty sure to absolutely certain that a first-term incumbent from the dominant party of his era is going down in flames -- and also that a 6-3 GOP Supreme Court is going to allow all sorts of shady electoral practices from state/local Democrats if the outcome hangs in the balance.

    Most polls show that people think Trump is going to win. How can online right-wingers not agree?

    Because they locked themselves in the cyber-room with the libtard media in order to single-mindedly troll them. Unfortunately, that means they have little contact with the real world. They know they're a minority, and the libtard majority is gung-ho for Biden, so Biden must be cruising to victory, perhaps from Dumbocrap governors stealing their state's election while the Supreme Court refuses to intervene.

    They were like that last election, too. I know because I was one of the few portals to the real world that they had, and they endlessly cited me as a dispenser of white pills (i.e. that Trump was going to win). They said they were convinced he was going to lose until the very end -- just like Trump and his campaign, btw, who also locked themselves in the room with the fake news media.

    The two demographics who are most marinating in the stew of fake news polls and other views from the media, are online take junkies from both the Left and Right. They both get gaslit by the media far more than any group of normies, and they only differ from each other in the emotional valence they attach to their shared outlook (libs cheering the inevitable Hillary win, cons doomposting the unbreakable blue wall, both assuming it's due to demographic change away from whites, bla bla bla).

    If you make your main goal to troll the media, you make them your evil twin who you have an endless sibling rivalry with, but who you ultimately become a clone of.

    You should only look at political stuff online if you are not that emotional about it. If you are, you get sucked into a vortex of hate-views and hate-clicks, and become one with the abyss.

    If you still have the need to yell at the internet, watch somebody stream Among Us and backseat quarterback their strategy. Emotionally draining, but not warping of your worldview.

    Then graduate to watching cuties playing Manic Pixie Dream Girl roles on TikTok, and re-join the human race.

  7. On top of all this, Biden seems to have received his October Surprise (even in the legacy and social media are trying to suppress it).


  8. This is potentially the most impactful article I've read of yours since your essay on College as part of lifestyle competition. I highly recommend turning your work into a book with a focus on class. You seem to see how class affects our society more than others. I loved Paul Fussell's book on class and have been waiting for a good follow up ever since. Thank you for your writing.

  9. Avril Lavigne may be the only big musician to not tweet about BLM, ACAB, etc. since the George Floyd death.

    Just picked up her first two albums at thrift stores for a buck apiece, and at one of them, the cashier said "Oh, this one's a goodie".

    She was Millennial, working-class (not a temporarily embarrassed post-grad), not fully white (maybe 1/4 Af-Am, or MENA, hard to tell with the mask).

    Somehow Avril could sense that her relatively more downscale fan base DGAF about affluent hysterias like burning down cities in order to whip votes for Mr. NAFTA / Iraq War / Brain Leakage.

    Not that they're hardcore conservatives, not that she's law & order, or anything. Just that the riots etc. were not what they claimed to be, and were typical wealthy libtard hysterics that ordinary people have no interest in, or are outright turned off by.

    Every other music celeb I checked back in late May / early June had at least one tweet about white supremacy, police brutality, bla bla bla. "Meh, typical lib bias of the entertainment industry -- doesn't mean their music's bad, though."

    Glad to finally find one who resisted the libtard herd when the conformist pull was immense.

    That sums up the main taqiya Trump voter -- Avril Lavigne's fanbase from not too long ago, who did not get into indie or other upper-middle-class genres.

  10. He was a Naz, she was a Bol -- can I make it any more obvious?

  11. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/my-fling-with-a-proud-boy/

    mpdg in the wild?

  12. Oooh oooh, is a dearly departed poster about to haunt the house of Twitter? (Still wish the person would start a fun-loving blog rather than get sucked back into social media... baby steps.)

    No stalking here, just got curious about their whereabouts and typed their name into Twitter, and got a totally new @. Don't bother now, it doesn't suggest this new @ anymore. Must've been serendipity, struck by curiosity probably the very same day they created it, after which it didn't show up under the old search.

    I know someone remembers that episode of Star Trek TNG where Geordi and Ensign Ro make their "ghosts" appear for a split-second in the most crowded place they can find, and Data puts the clues together, that they're not really dead but merely "unphased" or whatever.

    How did they know I'd be searching their name on the very day they created the new account? Telepathy. (I think they're the same zodiac sign as me, IIRC.)

    Anywayyyy, just a semi-buzzed heads up that there may be some good news to unveil sometime soon. I'm guessing after the election craziness is over, and people can get back to posting about cool stuff again.

  13. Synchronicity alert: the TNG episode I ref'd was highlighted on RedLetterMedia's new video of Mike & Rich gabbing about Star Trek, uploaded only hours before my comment.

    Episode title: "The Next Phase". Because we're shifting from the vulnerable to the restless phase of the excitement cycle? The next phase of that poster's writing? Whatever it is, someone's trying to tell us something with all this.

    And like most TNG episodes, it's in a 15-year cyclical echo with the current zeitgeist, since most were made in the first half of the '90s, another restless phase like ours today.


You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."