The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Democrat Debates
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The night was clearly Kamala’s. “As the only black person on stage, I would like to speak on the issue of race.” And then she tossed and gored Biden, who, being a pale white male, had no way to counter. A prediction made here several months ago has held up well:

Biden, whose POC cred comes exclusively from holding the vice-presidency during Obama’s time in office, isn’t even trying to maneuver towards more favorable terrain. He is charging up the hill into a fortified opposition that is waiting for him. During the primary debates, Biden is going to make a sorry contrast to Kamala Harris when the subjects are waaaaycism, misogyny, and the other assorted forms of putative badwhite bigotry in America–and on the left, those subjects crowd out almost everything else. The optics, as they say, are going to be bad for Biden.

On at least one occasion, Biden referred to the “Obama-Biden administration”. Yeah, the Obama-Biden administration–said no one, ever… until last night, in desperation.

If Buttigieg moves into the top position as a result of Biden’s takedown, it’ll be short-lived. Harris will be able to dispatch him just as easily as she did Biden in the next debate. Though several candidates made appeals to the LGBTQ community–and that’s the only version of the acronym I recall hearing, five letters, no symbols, so I guess it’s the officially approved designation again–they have nothing like the electoral clout blacks do.

Yesterday morning, Harris was a distant fifth in the betting markets. She has now edged ahead of Biden to take the lead:

Despite getting shafted badly on speaking time, Andrew Yang dominated online polling on who won the second debate. Tulsi Gabbard similarly dominated online polling from the first night.

This is a phenomenon that extends all the way back to 2008, when Ron Paul regularly won online polls by large margins. He did it again in 2012, and then Trump did so in 2016. Now it’s Tulsi’s turn (when she and Yang share the stage in the future, she is likely to win because though Yang is anti-war, it’s a side issue for him while it’s Tulsi’s centerpiece).

The virtual support anti-war candidates receive is embarrassing for the bipartisan War Party, so it’s sloughed off as being unscientific and therefore meaningless–fair-ish, and credible enough with Ron Paul but made less so with Trump–or, more recently, as being attributable to malevolent Russian bots.

Though more than half of the twenty Democrat candidates who took stage this week are white men, only three of the candidates shown above with any chance of winning are white men. Biden and Sanders are relics, only in contention because of time served. If they were a generation younger, they’d be bumping along at the bottom of the market alongside the other forgettable white men who are down there now. Buttigieg has a workaround on account of being gay, but I suspect that is largely due to the novelty factor. Now that it has been done, it’s not going to be enough to climb more than a step or two up the oppression pyramid in the future.

I’ve long predicted that John Kerry will turn out to be the last white man nominated as a Democrat presidential candidate of the United States (as currently constituted). After this election cycle completes, I think that assessment will seem obviously correct to nearly everybody and 2024–or 2028, if a Democrat wins in 2020–will confirm it to be the case.

 
• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Election 2020 
Hide 105 CommentsLeave a Comment
105 Comments to "Democrat Debates"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Your bet was not bad per se, Kamala was always going to be the ZOG candidate in case Biden failed she ticks the right intersectional pokemon point boxes and she is, crucially, married to a Zionist Jew and canvassed for Israel as a youngster. She is a classic career-climber.

    That said, some humility is in order at this stage of the race.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Yang is the closest thing to 2016 Trump right now, in terms of policy proposals breaking from the party's favored norms. Yet GOP voters were eager to advance beyond their own Bush era, whereas Dem voters wish to return to the neo-liberal doldrums offered by Clinton and Obama (remember, Obama didn't even arrest any major wall street crooks; that's how safe and meek he was). In the 2010's, nobody on any side wanted to re-live the Bush years; delusional Dems have now convinced themselves that Trump ruined every wondrous thing about the Obama years, so we have to get facsimile of Obama back in there and bring balance and justice to the universe. The Dem's neo-liberal primary winner will either lose, or just barely win in 2020 and then lose in 2024, which will finally convince the Dems that the ideology of neo-liberal corporatism is damaged goods, and the 80's and 90's are never coming back.
    , @Hail
    That tweet is not accurate. (Typical Twitter-fare: source obscure at best, wrong info circulates widely.)

    Trump had a 10%+ solid base as soon as he declared (literally the day he declared, June 15, 2015; on name-recognition, celebrity, and fans of his TV show and of his decades-long personality and 'brand'). That 10-15% base put him firmly in the first tier right away. I believe he was never anything but 1st or 2nd even in the first days and weeks.

    See comparison of twenty June/July 2015 national polls before and after Trump declared (comment-88).

    His eventual base, the MAGA coalition of American nationalism with ethnonationalist overtones, was not yet present, except a few very early-adopters. Most of us spent a period remaining skeptical, wary of what we perceived as a likely political conman on the scene (I remember feeling this but giving in by late August 2015). Many/most of us have returned to that view.

    Best case for 2015-16 would have been Scott Walker.

  2. After the first debate, though, Trump took the lead and never looked back.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Trump: "Jeb is low energy!"
    Jeb: (Yelling a lot.)
    Trump: "That's what I like! More energy!"
  3. All the leading candidates are Silents and Boomers. Not for any particularly character traits, but rather, because those who graduated from college before the Cold War ended can reassure nervous and cowardly Democrats that we aren’t going to completely discard the neo-liberal era that began in the 80’s. Some are more “woke” than others, but the general theme is the older candidates and their peers built the Reagan and Clinton era, which Trump threatened to end totally. Trump didn’t succeed, of course, but anxious modern Dems still think he’s horrible for ever praising the idea of populist isolationism. Clinton and Obama are being retro-actively evaluated as gosh darn nice upholders of civility and calm, who made people feel nice and comfy. So basically, the Dem base wants an aging conformist to the system, not a young candidate with different values and ideas. This is the route that a party goes down when it’s been taken out of power, but doesn’t realize that the times are changing, so they select a predictable and tired conformist, rather than a young and brave reformer. Bernie campaigned mostly as a reformer in 2016, but he came up short, and now that reformer Trump has turned out to be such a bad guy, well, even Bernie is now sounding predictable and safe so as to avoid being mistaken for orange Hitler.

    Not until the Dems get their ass kicked repeatedly will they start to be more open to reform and populism.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Not until the Dems get their ass kicked repeatedly will they start to be more open to reform and populism.
     
    LOL, Dems have been getting their ass kicked repeatedly for a while now. They will never change. The Democratic party exists only to frustrate real authentic populist movements. Think about it. The Democratic party serves as a vehicle to provide false-hope, their slogan should be "there's always next election." All the energy and work that could go to a populist movement is being wasted by the Democratic party. The Republican party will never change because democrats never win and thus there will never be a populist movement working through the two-party system.
  4. @Curious
    https://twitter.com/Anthony/status/1144269915693768704

    Your bet was not bad per se, Kamala was always going to be the ZOG candidate in case Biden failed she ticks the right intersectional pokemon point boxes and she is, crucially, married to a Zionist Jew and canvassed for Israel as a youngster. She is a classic career-climber.

    That said, some humility is in order at this stage of the race.

    Yang is the closest thing to 2016 Trump right now, in terms of policy proposals breaking from the party’s favored norms. Yet GOP voters were eager to advance beyond their own Bush era, whereas Dem voters wish to return to the neo-liberal doldrums offered by Clinton and Obama (remember, Obama didn’t even arrest any major wall street crooks; that’s how safe and meek he was). In the 2010’s, nobody on any side wanted to re-live the Bush years; delusional Dems have now convinced themselves that Trump ruined every wondrous thing about the Obama years, so we have to get facsimile of Obama back in there and bring balance and justice to the universe. The Dem’s neo-liberal primary winner will either lose, or just barely win in 2020 and then lose in 2024, which will finally convince the Dems that the ideology of neo-liberal corporatism is damaged goods, and the 80’s and 90’s are never coming back.

  5. Harris could win, since she so closely resembles Obama:

    1)Exotic heritage
    2)Sorta “black”
    3 )From the Pacific states
    4) Nearly the same age
    5) Has a legal background
    6 ) Superficially “woke” on ID politics, but overall a corporate squish
    7) Unlike him in a good way….She’s, well, a she

    Biden is ideologically similar to Obama, in recent times (with his 70’s and 80’s positions representing what white middle class people felt at the time, but that stuff doesn’t matter anymore….Maybe). But his white guy-ness is a let down after the Obama era. Kamala can be more convincingly “woke”, too, unlike that panderer Biden. Kamala and Obama both have the benefit of being true CultMarx believers, who also conveniently have no general anger* at the neo-liberal era; true to the sell-out Left, there real beef is with the cultural conservatism of the New Deal, and anyone who wants it back.

    *Sanders and Warren “suffer” from being loud critics of at least some parts of modern capitalism, which will spook the cowards who will do most of the voting in the primaries.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Sanders is clearly done. He sounds even angrier than I remember.
  6. Hail says: • Website
    @Curious
    https://twitter.com/Anthony/status/1144269915693768704

    Your bet was not bad per se, Kamala was always going to be the ZOG candidate in case Biden failed she ticks the right intersectional pokemon point boxes and she is, crucially, married to a Zionist Jew and canvassed for Israel as a youngster. She is a classic career-climber.

    That said, some humility is in order at this stage of the race.

    That tweet is not accurate. (Typical Twitter-fare: source obscure at best, wrong info circulates widely.)

    Trump had a 10%+ solid base as soon as he declared (literally the day he declared, June 15, 2015; on name-recognition, celebrity, and fans of his TV show and of his decades-long personality and ‘brand’). That 10-15% base put him firmly in the first tier right away. I believe he was never anything but 1st or 2nd even in the first days and weeks.

    See comparison of twenty June/July 2015 national polls before and after Trump declared (comment-88).

    His eventual base, the MAGA coalition of American nationalism with ethnonationalist overtones, was not yet present, except a few very early-adopters. Most of us spent a period remaining skeptical, wary of what we perceived as a likely political conman on the scene (I remember feeling this but giving in by late August 2015). Many/most of us have returned to that view.

    Best case for 2015-16 would have been Scott Walker.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Trump used Implicit White Identity Politics to win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination and the presidency. Explicit White Identity Politics is on its way.

    Trump used the IMMIGRATION issue to bash the Hell out of the GOP ruling class and the GOP politician stooges.

    Trump jumped into the lead in July and stayed there.

    Tweet from 2015:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/621443359652057088

    Trump was pump priming the IMMIGRATION issue in 2014 too. Trump had used the IMMIGRATION issue as Perot and others had for decades before that.

    Tweet from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/487247432862801921
  7. Horizontal Harris is a despicable human being, a rabid anti-white bigot, and she would be the perfect Dem nom.

    But the demographics for her to win are about……10 years out.

    She’s every bit as rotten and hateful as AOC, but has a 20 point IQ bump that makes her far more dangerous.

    • Agree: 216, Hail
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    Chapeau ! At least somebody here realizes just what reprehensible, malicious, leftist POS she is.

    Of course all democrat politicians are turds, not one of them has the well being of the American people in mind rather they are lunatics who will not be satisified until Karl Marx rules.

    Authenticjazzman " Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz performer.
    , @Random Dude
    Wouldn’t shock me that Harris sees 2020 as a warmup for 2024 and beyond. Her future is bright and will likely keep running until she gets elected. She has about 20 years of opportunity ahead of her. If she crashes and burns this go around, she has at least five more elections to try out.

    Harris sleeping her way to the top won’t hurt her either, it appeals to the thots and jaded feminists who believe a woman is required to sleep around to get power. The only thing is her record as AG but not to worry, the media, weakened as it is, can help run interference for her on that.
  8. imo for the big money donors the winning card Biden (and in theory Beta) had before the debates was “electability” i.e. the need to pacify white voters

    but the debates have shown this advantage probably (and in Beta’s case definitely) won’t outweigh their personal flaws.

    however if the money reluctantly accepts Harris as their candidate who will be the Left’s contender
    – Sanders
    – Warren
    – Gabbard?

    if it comes down to Sanders vs Harris with Harris well ahead and Sanders hints at Sanders-Gabbard as VP in the general i think it could be close.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    The Democratic power brokers need someone, anyone to beat Sanders.

    Harris is a world-class hooker, and that makes her the most likely winner of the race to the bottom.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    It won't matter. Progressives won't favor a white over a POC, even if the white is progressive and the POC is viewed as a corporate shill. This is the fundamental insight that led me to believe years ago that Harris would likely be the nominee. Corporate money is perfectly fine with her.
  9. I don’t understand how any white person could not be enraged by those two debates. The entire time they were speaking Spanish, embracing militant Latino and black nationalism, calling for open borders and the redistribution of wealth to non-whites, demonizing whites (even Biden!) as racist oppressors, and spitting all over our ancestors. Every single one of those candidates is calling for the Third World conquest and colonization of America and most white people don’t even care. Many probably like it.

    It’s clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate. Here are a few reasons why:

    1.) Whites must have self-determination and independence. We don’t want to be a minority without the ability to determine our own future. Other stateless minorities like the Gypsies and Jews that have had to rely on the goodwill of others haven’t fared well historically. That’s why Zionism was born. The oppression that the white minority in South Africa now faces threatens its long term well-being and survival. America is well on its way to becoming the next South Africa with the increasing demonization of whites as oppressors and ever greater calls to abolish so-called white privilege and redistribute wealth to non-whites.

    2.) Ethnic nationalism is a human universal and part of our intrinsic nature. Diversity is not our strength, but a cause of endless group struggle. Only with separate ethnostates can we bring peace to ethnic and racial conflict.

    3.) There can never be perfect racial equality. Even if a perfect balance could be achieved it wouldn’t last long. Non-whites will always advance their own interests and push for the advantage even if whites refuse to. One group will always have more power and influence than other groups. Replacing a white majority with a non-white majority doesn’t end racial inequality it just changes who the dominant group is. The only truly egalitarian solution to racial inequality is separation.

    4.) Whites are a very small and declining minority of the global population and could easily be submerged. The National Policy Institute has projected that whites will be less than 10 percent of the global population by 2060. Northern European-descended whites will be an even smaller endangered minority. We must preserve and expand our population and reverse our decline.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I don’t understand how any white person could not be enraged by those two debates. The entire time they were speaking Spanish, embracing militant Latino and black nationalism, calling for open borders and the redistribution of wealth to non-whites, demonizing whites (even Biden!) as racist oppressors, and spitting all over our ancestors. Every single one of those candidates is calling for the Third World conquest and colonization of America and most white people don’t even care. Many probably like it.

    It’s clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate.
     
    Of course.
    Now, the hard part: HOW?

    Any ideas?

    See, 80 % of Whites don't even want it. Or, better, they don't think about these things.
    Of 20 % Whites who do think about these things around...say....15 % know how to do it. That their method hasn't been working so far doesn't bother them. For now. It' s all just about "but...the NEXT time it will be good". Trump related.
    And, that tiny minority of minority , say....5%, well, they actually do not know how to do it.

    After, with huge effort, suppressing the urge to get abusive here, calling me names... you....5 %....any ideas, again?
    Even vague would work, for a starter.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The closest thing you might get is a de facto ethnostate-lite following the dissolution of the US in part of the country as currently defined--something like the upper mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho operating a far more modest welfare state than the US currently operates now.

    Beyond that, it's extremely unlikely. As Iffen alludes to below, the practical considerations immediately become overwhelming. We can't even stop people from invading the country in blatant violation of federal laws.
  10. You guys really live in a strange fantasy world.

    • Replies: @216
    The Blank Slate is over that way, hanging out with Root Causes.
    , @Twodees Partain
    That's rich coming from an upper middle class white dude pretending to be black in the UR comments section.
  11. @Truth
    You guys really live in a strange fantasy world.

    The Blank Slate is over that way, hanging out with Root Causes.

    • Replies: @iffen
    The Blank Slate is over that way, hanging out with Root Causes.

    You are correct. I'm standing over there right now.

    BTW, it's really an odd vantage point; I can see Signs of the Zodiac from here.
  12. how do you know oprah won’t jump in later this year? or some other celebrity.

    then all your carefully considered political wonkery work that you spent a year on just gets blown out of the water in one day.

    exactly like trump jumping in.

    • Replies: @notanon
    sure - these predictions could change any day

    it used to be the case that candidates represented ideological factions within a party and each faction would have an internal competition to choose who would be the best champion of their *ideas* and the final 2 or 3 would emerge to do battle.

    this meant campaigns were more predictable but that is no longer the case.

    nowadays campaigns require so much money the acceptable ideas are decided in advance by what the oligarchs providing the funding want and the candidates are simply actors auditioning for a role.

    that's why there are so many candidates with the same ideas and the campaign becomes all about their relative performance which unlike a fixed ideology can vary a lot from day to day.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Shamelessly quoting myself from a month ago:

    The field is ripe for a fully fledged POC like Stacey Abrams or Oprah Winfrey to jump in and immediately shoot to the top of the polls. It’s worth noting that at this point in the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump had not yet even announced his candidacy.
     
    The time for that to happen was probably prior to the first debates, though. It really would be seen as poor form by a lot of Democrat voters at this point for someone new to jump in.
  13. Said the debates would be when Gabbard could breakthrough the Zionist silence on her campaign, not sure it will be enough but she has had a decent start. Still too many candidates and many still a mystery to voters.

  14. I think the entire crop of Democratic Candidates , just like the DNC itself, has lost nearly all its credibility, since the 2016 Hillary/ Bernie DNC fiasco.

    They have not recovered ……because they have not changed.

    That “something is rotten in Denmark “stink has not gone away, it has just fully recirculated itself through the HVAC system known as the Lying Corporate Media.

    They are all the exact same corporate tools, they have zero moral character, they stand for absolutely nothing but what their paymasters tell them to…..which , in this case ,is MORE perpetual war and MORE heinous debt.

    Bernie can still zing the system. His critiques are, quite often, spot on….but his capitulation to voter fraud, by standing right behind Hillary after the DNC debacle , left everyone wondering …WTF.

    It has tarnished his reputation more than most realize….How can progressives go all in for a candidate who says ” Hey…your votes really DON’T matter.”

    There is one exception.

    Tulsi Gabbard.

    If the concept of “integrity” is in short supply these days……Tulsi has got it, in spades !

    She is more of a warrior, …. and more of a peacemaker…. than the rest of the entire pack combined .

    She is REAL…and the people SENSE it !

    She is the dark horse with the monster gallop,… with nary a whiff of “Denmark” …..on her.

    She is the “world peace/surfer dude” who is going to ride her ALOHA Tsunami…right into the White House !

    • Replies: @alexander
    Oorah !
    , @Twodees Partain
    "She is the “world peace/surfer dude” who is going to ride her ALOHA Tsunami…right into the White House !"

    Seek help before you snap and kill us all.
  15. Anonymous[236] • Disclaimer says:
    @Feryl
    All the leading candidates are Silents and Boomers. Not for any particularly character traits, but rather, because those who graduated from college before the Cold War ended can reassure nervous and cowardly Democrats that we aren't going to completely discard the neo-liberal era that began in the 80's. Some are more "woke" than others, but the general theme is the older candidates and their peers built the Reagan and Clinton era, which Trump threatened to end totally. Trump didn't succeed, of course, but anxious modern Dems still think he's horrible for ever praising the idea of populist isolationism. Clinton and Obama are being retro-actively evaluated as gosh darn nice upholders of civility and calm, who made people feel nice and comfy. So basically, the Dem base wants an aging conformist to the system, not a young candidate with different values and ideas. This is the route that a party goes down when it's been taken out of power, but doesn't realize that the times are changing, so they select a predictable and tired conformist, rather than a young and brave reformer. Bernie campaigned mostly as a reformer in 2016, but he came up short, and now that reformer Trump has turned out to be such a bad guy, well, even Bernie is now sounding predictable and safe so as to avoid being mistaken for orange Hitler.

    Not until the Dems get their ass kicked repeatedly will they start to be more open to reform and populism.

    Not until the Dems get their ass kicked repeatedly will they start to be more open to reform and populism.

    LOL, Dems have been getting their ass kicked repeatedly for a while now. They will never change. The Democratic party exists only to frustrate real authentic populist movements. Think about it. The Democratic party serves as a vehicle to provide false-hope, their slogan should be “there’s always next election.” All the energy and work that could go to a populist movement is being wasted by the Democratic party. The Republican party will never change because democrats never win and thus there will never be a populist movement working through the two-party system.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    LOL, Dems have been getting their ass kicked repeatedly for a while now.
     
    The GOP hasn't won almost any major metro area since 1984; The Dems only really began to suffer a lot of blows in 2012 and 2016, due to the excesses of the Obama era. But if the GOP sticks to the tired Reagan agenda of tax cuts for the rich, union-busting, pork for the energy industry/military/agriculture, and opposition to all regulation (even of the healthcare industry, big tech, and Wall Street), there's no reason to think that the Dems are totally finished. It is true that propping up the Obama era indefinitely is going to continue to alienate many of the suburbs, and small towns/exurbs; like I've said, either the Dems recognize that authentic populism needs to supplant wokeness, or they will continue to lose presidential elections. Lower class people who live in or near 2nd and 3rd tier Midwestern, interior Western, and Southern metro areas don't give a shit about "wokeness"* (ok, some blacks do, but then again a lot of Midwestern Millennial blacks didn't even bother voting in 2016). And a fair amount of upper class (but not too elite) people in these areas don't care for stuff like BLM causing riots, either.

    *Downscale areas of the Northeast, like much of Maine and Western PA, will also continue to be alienated by the Dems in general elections, should the Dems keep fielding major candidates who are too Woke.

    If given the option of Reaganite neo-liberalism (which at least makes token attempts to keep society safe and sane) or Obama/Woke neo-liberalism (which will jack up civil unrest, agitate "minorities", and create even more deficit growing boondoggles), society will probably opt for the former more often than not. The far Left's attempts at "wokeness" in the late 60's allowed Nixon to win a land-slide in '68 and '72, as America's middle aged and elderly cohorts of the time hated the increase in civil unrest; Obama's later years also saw a big spike in civil unrest.

    They will never change. The Democratic party exists only to frustrate real authentic populist movements. Think about it.
     
    After the Dems began dominating pres. elections in the 1930's, the GOP managed to win w/Eisenhower and Nixon, both of whom left the New Deal intact. New Dealism was the dominant ideology of the 1930'-early 1970's, and as such, even the GOP had to conform to it in order to electorally survive.

    Cultural Revolution style Wokeness is never going to appeal to more than 1/4 of the electorate (unlike mid-century New Dealism); as such, the Dem's continuing refusal to back off the Wokeness will hurt them a lot until they finally accept that Trump's election signaled a turn away from neo-liberalism, in any form (including the Woke variant)

    The Democratic party serves as a vehicle to provide false-hope, their slogan should be “there’s always next election.” All the energy and work that could go to a populist movement is being wasted by the Democratic party. The Republican party will never change because democrats never win and thus there will never be a populist movement working through the two-party system.
     
    The "two party" system conforms to the dominant ideology of the era, in order to survive. Rich people and powerful interests may throw lots of money at a given party or candidate, but that doesn't mean that they control the public's ideological leaning. The public embraced big government and tight regulation in 1930 (after the Great Depression), but became increasingly tired of it in the 70's and 80's, putting us on the Reaganite neo-liberal course of pandering to multi-national corporations and complaining about regulation. Trump's rise in the mid-2010's signaled a shift away from neo-liberalism, though not everyone is on board yet (just like how we began to shift towards New Dealism in the 1920's, but not everyone was on board until 1930).
  16. @216
    The Blank Slate is over that way, hanging out with Root Causes.

    The Blank Slate is over that way, hanging out with Root Causes.

    You are correct. I’m standing over there right now.

    BTW, it’s really an odd vantage point; I can see Signs of the Zodiac from here.

  17. @prime noticer
    how do you know oprah won't jump in later this year? or some other celebrity.

    then all your carefully considered political wonkery work that you spent a year on just gets blown out of the water in one day.

    exactly like trump jumping in.

    sure – these predictions could change any day

    it used to be the case that candidates represented ideological factions within a party and each faction would have an internal competition to choose who would be the best champion of their *ideas* and the final 2 or 3 would emerge to do battle.

    this meant campaigns were more predictable but that is no longer the case.

    nowadays campaigns require so much money the acceptable ideas are decided in advance by what the oligarchs providing the funding want and the candidates are simply actors auditioning for a role.

    that’s why there are so many candidates with the same ideas and the campaign becomes all about their relative performance which unlike a fixed ideology can vary a lot from day to day.

  18. @notanon
    imo for the big money donors the winning card Biden (and in theory Beta) had before the debates was "electability" i.e. the need to pacify white voters

    but the debates have shown this advantage probably (and in Beta's case definitely) won't outweigh their personal flaws.

    however if the money reluctantly accepts Harris as their candidate who will be the Left's contender
    - Sanders
    - Warren
    - Gabbard?

    if it comes down to Sanders vs Harris with Harris well ahead and Sanders hints at Sanders-Gabbard as VP in the general i think it could be close.

    The Democratic power brokers need someone, anyone to beat Sanders.

    Harris is a world-class hooker, and that makes her the most likely winner of the race to the bottom.

    • Replies: @notanon
    i think that's ultimately true but i think a lot of politics revolves around "fighting the last war" (or in this case the last election) so i think the big donors wanted both
    - a safe corporate shill
    and
    - a safe looking white candidate to pacify white moderates
    and Biden was perfect but it seems he got too old - two years ago he could have handled Harris' attack a lot better imo.

    Harris ticks the corporate shill box and they may have no choice now but i still think they would have preferred a white candidate.
  19. @Feryl
    Harris could win, since she so closely resembles Obama:

    1)Exotic heritage
    2)Sorta "black"
    3 )From the Pacific states
    4) Nearly the same age
    5) Has a legal background
    6 ) Superficially "woke" on ID politics, but overall a corporate squish
    7) Unlike him in a good way....She's, well, a she

    Biden is ideologically similar to Obama, in recent times (with his 70's and 80's positions representing what white middle class people felt at the time, but that stuff doesn't matter anymore....Maybe). But his white guy-ness is a let down after the Obama era. Kamala can be more convincingly "woke", too, unlike that panderer Biden. Kamala and Obama both have the benefit of being true CultMarx believers, who also conveniently have no general anger* at the neo-liberal era; true to the sell-out Left, there real beef is with the cultural conservatism of the New Deal, and anyone who wants it back.

    *Sanders and Warren "suffer" from being loud critics of at least some parts of modern capitalism, which will spook the cowards who will do most of the voting in the primaries.

    Sanders is clearly done. He sounds even angrier than I remember.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    I don’t blame him. He’s among the very few leftists worthy of any kind of respect. Perhaps before he draws his last breath he’ll realize the categorical error made by he and his fellow travelers in letting the worthies of the current year off their leash.
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    Can't expand the base outside young white males, POCs might have strong favourables towards him, but they wont vote for him
    , @follyofwar
    Sanders may be too angry, but Anchor Baby Kamala is clearly too obnoxious. How will Americans like that holier-than-thou school marm, a darker hued Hillary, lecturing them for four years? Like a brown shirt with black pants, she will not wear well. Plus, she is, at most, 1/4 black, and not American black at all, though no one dare say it. Ask Donald Trump Jr.

    I predict there will still be another candidate or two announcing shortly, maybe even a well-known self-funding billionaire who will run as an independent. This current crop, except for Tulsi, isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.
  20. @notanon
    imo for the big money donors the winning card Biden (and in theory Beta) had before the debates was "electability" i.e. the need to pacify white voters

    but the debates have shown this advantage probably (and in Beta's case definitely) won't outweigh their personal flaws.

    however if the money reluctantly accepts Harris as their candidate who will be the Left's contender
    - Sanders
    - Warren
    - Gabbard?

    if it comes down to Sanders vs Harris with Harris well ahead and Sanders hints at Sanders-Gabbard as VP in the general i think it could be close.

    It won’t matter. Progressives won’t favor a white over a POC, even if the white is progressive and the POC is viewed as a corporate shill. This is the fundamental insight that led me to believe years ago that Harris would likely be the nominee. Corporate money is perfectly fine with her.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @notanon
    i think that's 100% true of the new identity politics red guard type progressive but only 60% true of old school progressives and moderates and in terms of wokemon points who would win in a match up between:

    sanders+gabbard progressive vs semi-brown corporate shill

    (or warren+gabbard as it looks like Sanders may be too old now)

    Sanders: -10 (white) - 10 (male) +5 (old school progressive) = -15
    Gabbard: +5 (female) +5 (brown) +5 (old school progressive) = +15
    Sanders+Gabbard: (-15 +15)/2 = 0

    Harris: +5 (brown not black) +5 (female) -5 (corporate shill) = +5

    Warren: -10 (white) +5 (female) +5 (old school progressive) = 0

    Warren+Gabbard: (0+15)/2 = +7.5

    i think you're probably right about Harris but looking at it purely in terms of wokemon points then it's maybe not entirely certain.

    also wild card
    +10 (black) +5 (female) +5 (old school progressive) = +20
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    She had the most nonwhite donations. I see her pulling a Gillum and winning South Carolina despite polls saying otherwise, beginning her ascendancy before super Tuesday blowout in California, Georgia, and Virginia
    , @Feryl
    Right now most committed Dems are in an awful place:

    1) They don't want anti-neoliberal reform (since Obama and the SJWs never really cared about populism, and Trump is said to be the inevitably disagreeable product of populism, just like how they've convinced themselves that Hitler was a "populist" when in reality Hitler was a desperate attempt at maintaining German Hegemony during the German expansion of the 19th and early 20th century*).

    2)They want to a send a message that they still believe in Woke ID politics; ergo, electing another white guy would be a betrayal of the Obama era and the SJW trend-setters.

    *FDR, De Gaulle, Churchill, Franco etc. were all more authentically populist than Hitler. The mid-20 century's best and most beloved leaders were quite populist, in comparison the leaders of the Guilded Age, or the Reagan/Thatcher age. Also, Hitler represented the declining phase of an Empire, just like how Bush and Obama represented the increasingly feeble attempts to maintain American hegemony, which Trump isn't changing either (Russia and China have been winning a lot lately, hell American threats can't even stop continental Western Europe from growing closer to Russia). Trump on the campaign trail said that our empire was failed, that we needed to withdraw from globalist wars and trade systems to better take care of things that have neglected for too long. But America's elites are delusional, and think that Trump almost singlehandedly ruined America's potential (note that Dem leaders and Never Trumper type Neo-con Republicans are both in agreement that America has a moral prerogative to meddle in other countries).
  21. @prime noticer
    how do you know oprah won't jump in later this year? or some other celebrity.

    then all your carefully considered political wonkery work that you spent a year on just gets blown out of the water in one day.

    exactly like trump jumping in.

    Shamelessly quoting myself from a month ago:

    The field is ripe for a fully fledged POC like Stacey Abrams or Oprah Winfrey to jump in and immediately shoot to the top of the polls. It’s worth noting that at this point in the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump had not yet even announced his candidacy.

    The time for that to happen was probably prior to the first debates, though. It really would be seen as poor form by a lot of Democrat voters at this point for someone new to jump in.

    • Replies: @Mr. XYZ
    Doesn't Kamala strike you as being a bit smarter than Stacey, though? I mean, they both appear to be pretty smart, but Kamala's black ancestry is elite black ancestry and her Indian Brahmin ancestry has to count for something.

    Interestingly enough, though, both Kamala and Stacey symbolize a problem for the black community--specifically black female dysgenics. Both of them are childless and rapidly approaching the end of their reproductive cycles.
  22. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    An interesting note is the shift away from black people. There are no real black people running. Kamala is an Indian, who grew up in Montreal. There's a couple Hispanics; one fake and one real. The rest are all lunatic white/Jewish liberals.

    The Dems are clearly the party of the rich, white guilty, or Jewish haters of America.

    Where are the black people? Have they forgotten them? Are they no longer part of the coalition? Are they simply so locked into the Dem vote that they feel no need to pander?

    Anyways, compare the diversity of that field to the diversity of the GOP field. 2 real Hispanics, and a black from the hood in Detroit (not half Indian and from Westmount Quebec). An orange man too.

    The Democrats follow the rules of their slave-holder forefathers–the light skinned blacks get all the privileges.

  23. @Justvisiting
    The Democratic power brokers need someone, anyone to beat Sanders.

    Harris is a world-class hooker, and that makes her the most likely winner of the race to the bottom.

    i think that’s ultimately true but i think a lot of politics revolves around “fighting the last war” (or in this case the last election) so i think the big donors wanted both
    – a safe corporate shill
    and
    – a safe looking white candidate to pacify white moderates
    and Biden was perfect but it seems he got too old – two years ago he could have handled Harris’ attack a lot better imo.

    Harris ticks the corporate shill box and they may have no choice now but i still think they would have preferred a white candidate.

  24. Aft says:

    waaaaycism

    An entire ninety minute debate on waaaaycism would be nice.

    Kamala, do you think your race has help or hurt your political ambitions?

    Joe, do you think Obama would have been elected if he were white? Do you consider this racism?

    Liz, do you think jail time for mail fraud is an appropriate punishment for white people who defraud affirmative action regimes? Or do you encourage all white people to rise up and fight the system?

  25. @Audacious Epigone
    It won't matter. Progressives won't favor a white over a POC, even if the white is progressive and the POC is viewed as a corporate shill. This is the fundamental insight that led me to believe years ago that Harris would likely be the nominee. Corporate money is perfectly fine with her.

    i think that’s 100% true of the new identity politics red guard type progressive but only 60% true of old school progressives and moderates and in terms of wokemon points who would win in a match up between:

    sanders+gabbard progressive vs semi-brown corporate shill

    (or warren+gabbard as it looks like Sanders may be too old now)

    Sanders: -10 (white) – 10 (male) +5 (old school progressive) = -15
    Gabbard: +5 (female) +5 (brown) +5 (old school progressive) = +15
    Sanders+Gabbard: (-15 +15)/2 = 0

    Harris: +5 (brown not black) +5 (female) -5 (corporate shill) = +5

    Warren: -10 (white) +5 (female) +5 (old school progressive) = 0

    Warren+Gabbard: (0+15)/2 = +7.5

    i think you’re probably right about Harris but looking at it purely in terms of wokemon points then it’s maybe not entirely certain.

    also wild card
    +10 (black) +5 (female) +5 (old school progressive) = +20

  26. @Hail
    That tweet is not accurate. (Typical Twitter-fare: source obscure at best, wrong info circulates widely.)

    Trump had a 10%+ solid base as soon as he declared (literally the day he declared, June 15, 2015; on name-recognition, celebrity, and fans of his TV show and of his decades-long personality and 'brand'). That 10-15% base put him firmly in the first tier right away. I believe he was never anything but 1st or 2nd even in the first days and weeks.

    See comparison of twenty June/July 2015 national polls before and after Trump declared (comment-88).

    His eventual base, the MAGA coalition of American nationalism with ethnonationalist overtones, was not yet present, except a few very early-adopters. Most of us spent a period remaining skeptical, wary of what we perceived as a likely political conman on the scene (I remember feeling this but giving in by late August 2015). Many/most of us have returned to that view.

    Best case for 2015-16 would have been Scott Walker.

    Trump used Implicit White Identity Politics to win the 2016 GOP presidential nomination and the presidency. Explicit White Identity Politics is on its way.

    Trump used the IMMIGRATION issue to bash the Hell out of the GOP ruling class and the GOP politician stooges.

    Trump jumped into the lead in July and stayed there.

    Tweet from 2015:

    Trump was pump priming the IMMIGRATION issue in 2014 too. Trump had used the IMMIGRATION issue as Perot and others had for decades before that.

    Tweet from 2014:

  27. Trump’s use of the IMMIGRATION issue and the TRADE DEAL SCAM issue knocked the Hell out of Ted Cruz’s campaign. As I remember, Ted Cruz and Trump had a non-aggression pact going for a while until campaign dynamics forced Trump and Cruz to clash.

    I gave Ted Cruz the business with a Trumpy Subtext question at a town hall in New Hampshire, it was great fun to verbally hammer Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is reported to be a fancy pants Ivy League debater? I popped Teddy good that day!

    President Trump has betrayed us on IMMIGRATION and I won’t vote for him, but Trump was great fun for a while!

    Article about Ted Cruz presidential town hall from 2015– portions relevant to Trump Subtext:

    Cruz took one tough question from one audience member, who accused the senator of hurting the country’s future by supporting “mass legal immigration” and supporting trade policies that favor global trade deals over American workers.

    Cruz differed with the man’s immigration beliefs, saying “illegal, bad, legal, good,” but backtracked somewhat on the TPP, saying that “if it undermines our sovereignty I’ll oppose it” and adding that he has to read it closely before taking a position.

    The questioner was Charles Pewitt, who often engages criticizes those who support mass immigration legal or illegal on Twitter. He told The Federalist after Cruz’s remarks that he identifies as a “European, Christian American” and looks up to anti-immigration French politician Marine Le Pen, past presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, and late key white nationalist figure Sam Francis. Pewitt said Cruz is nothing but a “huckster” who won’t really stand up for white Americans or their economic interests, but appeared gleeful at Trump’s prospects in the GOP race.

    Pewitt brings up the interesting topic of what factors are driving the Trump phenomenon as discussed in Ben Domenech’s recent piece: “Are Republicans for Freedom or White Identity Politics?”

    https://thefederalist.com/2015/09/01/ted-cruz-praises-trump-says-grassroots-army-is-key-to-victory/

    WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS RISING

    WHITE CORE AMERICA ON THE MARCH

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    That felt more accurate at the time it was written than it does now.
  28. @Robert Dolan
    Horizontal Harris is a despicable human being, a rabid anti-white bigot, and she would be the perfect Dem nom.

    But the demographics for her to win are about......10 years out.

    She's every bit as rotten and hateful as AOC, but has a 20 point IQ bump that makes her far more dangerous.

    Chapeau ! At least somebody here realizes just what reprehensible, malicious, leftist POS she is.

    Of course all democrat politicians are turds, not one of them has the well being of the American people in mind rather they are lunatics who will not be satisified until Karl Marx rules.

    Authenticjazzman ” Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz performer.

  29. @Audacious Epigone
    Sanders is clearly done. He sounds even angrier than I remember.

    I don’t blame him. He’s among the very few leftists worthy of any kind of respect. Perhaps before he draws his last breath he’ll realize the categorical error made by he and his fellow travelers in letting the worthies of the current year off their leash.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I suspect he has on some level, but what is he going to do about it?
  30. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    An interesting note is the shift away from black people. There are no real black people running. Kamala is an Indian, who grew up in Montreal. There's a couple Hispanics; one fake and one real. The rest are all lunatic white/Jewish liberals.

    The Dems are clearly the party of the rich, white guilty, or Jewish haters of America.

    Where are the black people? Have they forgotten them? Are they no longer part of the coalition? Are they simply so locked into the Dem vote that they feel no need to pander?

    Anyways, compare the diversity of that field to the diversity of the GOP field. 2 real Hispanics, and a black from the hood in Detroit (not half Indian and from Westmount Quebec). An orange man too.

    Blacks are not locked in during the primaries–far from it. They are the key to winning the primaries. Kamala is very fortunate that no other legitimately black candidates are running. So fortunate, in fact, that in a Harris administration I wouldn’t be surprised to see nice cabinet appointments for Stacey Abrams and Deval Patrick.

    • Replies: @Steve in Greensboro
    Sincere questions: what is the black participation rate in primary elections? Mexicans?

    People O'Color are the key to the Dems winning in the general, but getting them to turn out it is difficult and I would guess twice as hard in the primaries.

    It seems to me that the DNC will need to rig the 2020 nomination process to nominate Harris and avoid having the Antifa base of the Democrat party (the people for whom politics is their church and who certainly will vote in the primary) nominate an unelectable non-POC leftist.
  31. @Charles Pewitt
    Trump's use of the IMMIGRATION issue and the TRADE DEAL SCAM issue knocked the Hell out of Ted Cruz's campaign. As I remember, Ted Cruz and Trump had a non-aggression pact going for a while until campaign dynamics forced Trump and Cruz to clash.

    I gave Ted Cruz the business with a Trumpy Subtext question at a town hall in New Hampshire, it was great fun to verbally hammer Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz is reported to be a fancy pants Ivy League debater? I popped Teddy good that day!

    President Trump has betrayed us on IMMIGRATION and I won't vote for him, but Trump was great fun for a while!

    Article about Ted Cruz presidential town hall from 2015-- portions relevant to Trump Subtext:

    Cruz took one tough question from one audience member, who accused the senator of hurting the country’s future by supporting “mass legal immigration” and supporting trade policies that favor global trade deals over American workers.

     


    Cruz differed with the man’s immigration beliefs, saying “illegal, bad, legal, good,” but backtracked somewhat on the TPP, saying that “if it undermines our sovereignty I’ll oppose it” and adding that he has to read it closely before taking a position.

     


    The questioner was Charles Pewitt, who often engages criticizes those who support mass immigration legal or illegal on Twitter. He told The Federalist after Cruz’s remarks that he identifies as a “European, Christian American” and looks up to anti-immigration French politician Marine Le Pen, past presidential candidate Pat Buchanan, and late key white nationalist figure Sam Francis. Pewitt said Cruz is nothing but a “huckster” who won’t really stand up for white Americans or their economic interests, but appeared gleeful at Trump’s prospects in the GOP race.

     


    Pewitt brings up the interesting topic of what factors are driving the Trump phenomenon as discussed in Ben Domenech’s recent piece: “Are Republicans for Freedom or White Identity Politics?”

     

    https://thefederalist.com/2015/09/01/ted-cruz-praises-trump-says-grassroots-army-is-key-to-victory/

    WHITE IDENTITY POLITICS RISING

    WHITE CORE AMERICA ON THE MARCH

    That felt more accurate at the time it was written than it does now.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    That felt more accurate at the time it was written than it does now.

     

    Trump's civic nationalism croaks with the baby boomers.

    The GOP will go explicit White Core American or it goes dodo.

    Kamala Harris will increase the salience of White Identity Politics if she attempts to use the Aunt Jemima Strategy to win Black Lady Voters, especially in the South.

    Hillary Clinton used the Aunt Jemima Strategy to fend off Bernie Sanders in 2016.

    The Aunt Jemima Strategy is to win the votes of lovely and sweet Black lady voters, especially in the South. The Aunt Jemima Strategy obviously plays in other areas of Black population concentration, too.

    Kamala Harris could be the Accelerationist candidate for motivating the rise of White Core America politics. She is particularly nasty and she is not one of our Blacks. I hope Blacks see us as "our" Whites. I think many Blacks do. Old stocker American Blacks descended from slaves and old stocker Whites might not love each other so much, but we see each other as being here a long time and we have a sense of each other. Kamala Harris has no ancestral ties to the USA, and many old stocker Blacks know it.

    Mulatto Obama looks more Black than does Mulatto Kamala Harris. Obama was half White; Kamala Harris is half South Asian. Obama had some sense of the USA -- Kamala Harris does not.

    What will the lovely and sweet Black lady voters with their beefy upper arms and their handbags and their church going ways think of Kamala Harris?
  32. Demographics, or the weapon against the USA, combined with the Obama presidency has made my prediction of 2015 come true:

    NO ORDINARY WHITE GUY COULD EVER HOPE TO WIN THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IN 2016 AND MAYBE NEVER AGAIN.
    http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/2015/11/no-ordinary-white-guy-could-ever-hope.html

    The Dems never will nominate an ordinary white male. White males are done in the Democratic Party.

    Also, Harris is an illegal candidate:
    http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/2019/01/kamala-harris-is-latest-illegal.html

    as is Gabbard:
    http://truedollarjournal.blogspot.com/2019/06/illegal-candidate-tulsi-gabbard-beat.html

  33. anon[264] • Disclaimer says:

    I don’t get it.

    Kamala Harris, daughter of two highly educated professionals one of whom is Tamil Indian, attributes her success in life to “bussing.”

    If bussing was such a great success, why aren’t Blacks doing stupendously well?

    And if bussing evened the score, making it possible for “little Black girls” like Kamala (Sanskrit for Lotus Flower) to play on a leveled field, then – – – – What’s all the fuss? Hasn’t that problem been solved?

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    "If bussing was such a great success, why aren’t Blacks doing stupendously well?"

    There is riding the school bus to school, and then there is busing. Komodo Harris is conflating the two.

    I'm still not convinced she takes the nomination, but I guess it will depend somewhat on who ends up being her top 2-3 rivals in the primaries.

    It will also depend on whether or not anyone else is willing to push back against her one maneuver - implying her opponent is racist. If Biden had even a microscopic trace of testicles left, he could have easily deflected her weak sauce implication: "I stood faithfully by the first African American president dutifully for 8 years, as vice-president. I think that alone precludes any attempt to suggest I hold racist or racial animus towards African Americans or any other minority group. Further, I fully resent and reject your implication that I might be, and it seems clear that your want to slander me as racist is a shallow attempt to avoid addressing real issues that we confronted with today."

    Also, her (((white))) husband, her mentor, her lack of children, the real possibility that her maternal ancestry made use of servants, plus the fact that she is just comes off as unlikable, are going to become liabilities for her, especially if any other candidates are smart enough to address them.

    , @Mr. Rational

    If bussing was such a great success, why aren’t Blacks doing stupendously well?
     
    You have had too much to think.  The field thoughtfulness test shows that you have dangerous levels of Knowing.  I'm taking you in.
    , @Twodees Partain
    I suppose you mean "busing", but you made a valid point there.
  34. Yang only got to talk for 3 minutes in a 120 minutes debate, that was the least of all including the 3 candidates who polled lower than him. Yet the attraction of Universal Basic Income is so strong he was crowned the winner of the debate by the poll at Drudge. He will get to talk more in the coming debates. Let’s see what happens. At the very least he will be remembered by history as the first presidential candidate with UBI as an integral pillar of his platform. UBI is inevitable so Yang will be seen as ahead of his time.

    First time I heard Buttigieg speak and he is impressively articulate in a fresh original way. No cliches or claptraps.

    Sanders will have to hand his baton to Warren.

    Biden looks and sounds amazing for a 76 year old. Trump and Biden must be inspiring to the senior citizens.

    Kamala is too emotional.

    After watching all the candidates the one I find the most formidable, the only one who could intimidate Trump on the same stage, is Bill de Blasio, Mayor of NYC, Trump’s hometown, by far the biggest city in America, with a population larger than over half the states. It is long overdue for the Democratic Party to go back to being the wage worker’s party, in the FDR mold. Blasio is the only one who has walked the talk: from universal pre-kindergarten to free college, from $15 minimum wage to universal guaranteed healthcare he has done more for the forgotten working class than any of the others.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    Di Blasio is a "sanctuary city" mayor--that undercuts all working class wages. The minimum wage does not help when many illegal aliens work under the table.
    , @Marty T
    I though DeBlasio at least made an impression. He probably has no shot...but cannot be completely counted out because of what we saw during the debate. He's tall, aggressive and a good speaker. Other candidates would be wise to hope he gets no traction. He's a wild card.
    , @Feryl
    DeBlasio, like virtually all modern Democrats, is too invested in toxic ID politics/wokeness to be a true populist and reformer. The obligatory recitation of how society has been too racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic and thus we need to further the Woke cultural revolution, is tiring to most ordinary people, and gets in the way of reforms that would be useful to everyone.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    De Blasio is quite possibly the least liked politician in the entire country. And he's a white male to boot. No chance.
  35. @Bliss
    Yang only got to talk for 3 minutes in a 120 minutes debate, that was the least of all including the 3 candidates who polled lower than him. Yet the attraction of Universal Basic Income is so strong he was crowned the winner of the debate by the poll at Drudge. He will get to talk more in the coming debates. Let’s see what happens. At the very least he will be remembered by history as the first presidential candidate with UBI as an integral pillar of his platform. UBI is inevitable so Yang will be seen as ahead of his time.

    First time I heard Buttigieg speak and he is impressively articulate in a fresh original way. No cliches or claptraps.

    Sanders will have to hand his baton to Warren.

    Biden looks and sounds amazing for a 76 year old. Trump and Biden must be inspiring to the senior citizens.

    Kamala is too emotional.

    After watching all the candidates the one I find the most formidable, the only one who could intimidate Trump on the same stage, is Bill de Blasio, Mayor of NYC, Trump’s hometown, by far the biggest city in America, with a population larger than over half the states. It is long overdue for the Democratic Party to go back to being the wage worker’s party, in the FDR mold. Blasio is the only one who has walked the talk: from universal pre-kindergarten to free college, from $15 minimum wage to universal guaranteed healthcare he has done more for the forgotten working class than any of the others.

    Di Blasio is a “sanctuary city” mayor–that undercuts all working class wages. The minimum wage does not help when many illegal aliens work under the table.

  36. @Bliss
    Yang only got to talk for 3 minutes in a 120 minutes debate, that was the least of all including the 3 candidates who polled lower than him. Yet the attraction of Universal Basic Income is so strong he was crowned the winner of the debate by the poll at Drudge. He will get to talk more in the coming debates. Let’s see what happens. At the very least he will be remembered by history as the first presidential candidate with UBI as an integral pillar of his platform. UBI is inevitable so Yang will be seen as ahead of his time.

    First time I heard Buttigieg speak and he is impressively articulate in a fresh original way. No cliches or claptraps.

    Sanders will have to hand his baton to Warren.

    Biden looks and sounds amazing for a 76 year old. Trump and Biden must be inspiring to the senior citizens.

    Kamala is too emotional.

    After watching all the candidates the one I find the most formidable, the only one who could intimidate Trump on the same stage, is Bill de Blasio, Mayor of NYC, Trump’s hometown, by far the biggest city in America, with a population larger than over half the states. It is long overdue for the Democratic Party to go back to being the wage worker’s party, in the FDR mold. Blasio is the only one who has walked the talk: from universal pre-kindergarten to free college, from $15 minimum wage to universal guaranteed healthcare he has done more for the forgotten working class than any of the others.

    I though DeBlasio at least made an impression. He probably has no shot…but cannot be completely counted out because of what we saw during the debate. He’s tall, aggressive and a good speaker. Other candidates would be wise to hope he gets no traction. He’s a wild card.

    • Agree: Bliss
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " He's a wild card"

    Bullshit, he is a fricking moron, a phoney non-plus-ultra, a tax dollar squanderer, and a fork-tongued scum-bag such as all Democrat thieves.

    AJM
  37. @Audacious Epigone
    Sanders is clearly done. He sounds even angrier than I remember.

    Can’t expand the base outside young white males, POCs might have strong favourables towards him, but they wont vote for him

  38. @Audacious Epigone
    It won't matter. Progressives won't favor a white over a POC, even if the white is progressive and the POC is viewed as a corporate shill. This is the fundamental insight that led me to believe years ago that Harris would likely be the nominee. Corporate money is perfectly fine with her.

    She had the most nonwhite donations. I see her pulling a Gillum and winning South Carolina despite polls saying otherwise, beginning her ascendancy before super Tuesday blowout in California, Georgia, and Virginia

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Feryl
    How many times will the winning Democrat use Black Wokeness in order to run the table among middle aged black church ladies in the South, only to have this become the baggage that sinks them in the general election? The civil unrest, and "angry minority" ID politics mood of the late 60's and 70's* became embarrassing and electorally toxic to the Democrats in the pres. elections of that era (had Nixon not been forced out, the GOP could very well have been in the White House for 24 straight years (1968-1992).
  39. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    An interesting note is the shift away from black people. There are no real black people running. Kamala is an Indian, who grew up in Montreal. There's a couple Hispanics; one fake and one real. The rest are all lunatic white/Jewish liberals.

    The Dems are clearly the party of the rich, white guilty, or Jewish haters of America.

    Where are the black people? Have they forgotten them? Are they no longer part of the coalition? Are they simply so locked into the Dem vote that they feel no need to pander?

    Anyways, compare the diversity of that field to the diversity of the GOP field. 2 real Hispanics, and a black from the hood in Detroit (not half Indian and from Westmount Quebec). An orange man too.

    Also, I think the “birtherism” helps the Harris campaign and does two things

    1. force all the other candidates to defend her
    2. “blackifies” her

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Yes, that approach--irrespective of the merits--is only going to help her.
  40. @alexander
    I think the entire crop of Democratic Candidates , just like the DNC itself, has lost nearly all its credibility, since the 2016 Hillary/ Bernie DNC fiasco.

    They have not recovered ......because they have not changed.

    That "something is rotten in Denmark "stink has not gone away, it has just fully recirculated itself through the HVAC system known as the Lying Corporate Media.

    They are all the exact same corporate tools, they have zero moral character, they stand for absolutely nothing but what their paymasters tell them to.....which , in this case ,is MORE perpetual war and MORE heinous debt.

    Bernie can still zing the system. His critiques are, quite often, spot on....but his capitulation to voter fraud, by standing right behind Hillary after the DNC debacle , left everyone wondering ...WTF.

    It has tarnished his reputation more than most realize....How can progressives go all in for a candidate who says " Hey...your votes really DON'T matter."

    There is one exception.

    Tulsi Gabbard.

    If the concept of "integrity" is in short supply these days......Tulsi has got it, in spades !

    She is more of a warrior, .... and more of a peacemaker.... than the rest of the entire pack combined .

    She is REAL...and the people SENSE it !

    She is the dark horse with the monster gallop,... with nary a whiff of "Denmark" .....on her.

    She is the "world peace/surfer dude" who is going to ride her ALOHA Tsunami...right into the White House !

    Oorah !

  41. @L Woods
    I don’t blame him. He’s among the very few leftists worthy of any kind of respect. Perhaps before he draws his last breath he’ll realize the categorical error made by he and his fellow travelers in letting the worthies of the current year off their leash.

    I suspect he has on some level, but what is he going to do about it?

  42. @anon
    I don't get it.

    Kamala Harris, daughter of two highly educated professionals one of whom is Tamil Indian, attributes her success in life to "bussing."

    If bussing was such a great success, why aren't Blacks doing stupendously well?

    And if bussing evened the score, making it possible for "little Black girls" like Kamala (Sanskrit for Lotus Flower) to play on a leveled field, then - - - - What's all the fuss? Hasn't that problem been solved?

    “If bussing was such a great success, why aren’t Blacks doing stupendously well?”

    There is riding the school bus to school, and then there is busing. Komodo Harris is conflating the two.

    I’m still not convinced she takes the nomination, but I guess it will depend somewhat on who ends up being her top 2-3 rivals in the primaries.

    It will also depend on whether or not anyone else is willing to push back against her one maneuver – implying her opponent is racist. If Biden had even a microscopic trace of testicles left, he could have easily deflected her weak sauce implication: “I stood faithfully by the first African American president dutifully for 8 years, as vice-president. I think that alone precludes any attempt to suggest I hold racist or racial animus towards African Americans or any other minority group. Further, I fully resent and reject your implication that I might be, and it seems clear that your want to slander me as racist is a shallow attempt to avoid addressing real issues that we confronted with today.”

    Also, her (((white))) husband, her mentor, her lack of children, the real possibility that her maternal ancestry made use of servants, plus the fact that she is just comes off as unlikable, are going to become liabilities for her, especially if any other candidates are smart enough to address them.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It is a testament either to his dotage or to his lack of preparation (or both) that he seemed unprepared for what was very obviously coming. How could his handlers have not thought Harris would make race an issue with him? Yet it seemed like he was stumbling to find words.

    No one is going to attack her for any of that. They will go after her for being a former prosecutor, that's it.
    , @follyofwar
    It seems that most whites don't pay much attention as to whether candidates have children, but I think they should. Those without children have no personal stake in the country's future. Just look at Europe, with Merkel, May, Macron, and EU Head Juncker all childless. They haven't done much good for the Old Continent, have they? Unfortunately, the darling of the anti-war crowd, Tulsi Gabbard, joins Harris in being childless.

    I agree that Kamala is most unlikeable, and that's putting it mildly. But, then again, most of that wretched field is as well.

    , @Justvisiting
    This is the Democratic Party. Any rational response by Biden would have been dismissed as Whitesplaining--proving he is a racist!
  43. @Anonymous

    Not until the Dems get their ass kicked repeatedly will they start to be more open to reform and populism.
     
    LOL, Dems have been getting their ass kicked repeatedly for a while now. They will never change. The Democratic party exists only to frustrate real authentic populist movements. Think about it. The Democratic party serves as a vehicle to provide false-hope, their slogan should be "there's always next election." All the energy and work that could go to a populist movement is being wasted by the Democratic party. The Republican party will never change because democrats never win and thus there will never be a populist movement working through the two-party system.

    LOL, Dems have been getting their ass kicked repeatedly for a while now.

    The GOP hasn’t won almost any major metro area since 1984; The Dems only really began to suffer a lot of blows in 2012 and 2016, due to the excesses of the Obama era. But if the GOP sticks to the tired Reagan agenda of tax cuts for the rich, union-busting, pork for the energy industry/military/agriculture, and opposition to all regulation (even of the healthcare industry, big tech, and Wall Street), there’s no reason to think that the Dems are totally finished. It is true that propping up the Obama era indefinitely is going to continue to alienate many of the suburbs, and small towns/exurbs; like I’ve said, either the Dems recognize that authentic populism needs to supplant wokeness, or they will continue to lose presidential elections. Lower class people who live in or near 2nd and 3rd tier Midwestern, interior Western, and Southern metro areas don’t give a shit about “wokeness”* (ok, some blacks do, but then again a lot of Midwestern Millennial blacks didn’t even bother voting in 2016). And a fair amount of upper class (but not too elite) people in these areas don’t care for stuff like BLM causing riots, either.

    *Downscale areas of the Northeast, like much of Maine and Western PA, will also continue to be alienated by the Dems in general elections, should the Dems keep fielding major candidates who are too Woke.

    If given the option of Reaganite neo-liberalism (which at least makes token attempts to keep society safe and sane) or Obama/Woke neo-liberalism (which will jack up civil unrest, agitate “minorities”, and create even more deficit growing boondoggles), society will probably opt for the former more often than not. The far Left’s attempts at “wokeness” in the late 60’s allowed Nixon to win a land-slide in ’68 and ’72, as America’s middle aged and elderly cohorts of the time hated the increase in civil unrest; Obama’s later years also saw a big spike in civil unrest.

    They will never change. The Democratic party exists only to frustrate real authentic populist movements. Think about it.

    After the Dems began dominating pres. elections in the 1930’s, the GOP managed to win w/Eisenhower and Nixon, both of whom left the New Deal intact. New Dealism was the dominant ideology of the 1930′-early 1970’s, and as such, even the GOP had to conform to it in order to electorally survive.

    Cultural Revolution style Wokeness is never going to appeal to more than 1/4 of the electorate (unlike mid-century New Dealism); as such, the Dem’s continuing refusal to back off the Wokeness will hurt them a lot until they finally accept that Trump’s election signaled a turn away from neo-liberalism, in any form (including the Woke variant)

    The Democratic party serves as a vehicle to provide false-hope, their slogan should be “there’s always next election.” All the energy and work that could go to a populist movement is being wasted by the Democratic party. The Republican party will never change because democrats never win and thus there will never be a populist movement working through the two-party system.

    The “two party” system conforms to the dominant ideology of the era, in order to survive. Rich people and powerful interests may throw lots of money at a given party or candidate, but that doesn’t mean that they control the public’s ideological leaning. The public embraced big government and tight regulation in 1930 (after the Great Depression), but became increasingly tired of it in the 70’s and 80’s, putting us on the Reaganite neo-liberal course of pandering to multi-national corporations and complaining about regulation. Trump’s rise in the mid-2010’s signaled a shift away from neo-liberalism, though not everyone is on board yet (just like how we began to shift towards New Dealism in the 1920’s, but not everyone was on board until 1930).

  44. @Oblivionrecurs
    She had the most nonwhite donations. I see her pulling a Gillum and winning South Carolina despite polls saying otherwise, beginning her ascendancy before super Tuesday blowout in California, Georgia, and Virginia

    How many times will the winning Democrat use Black Wokeness in order to run the table among middle aged black church ladies in the South, only to have this become the baggage that sinks them in the general election? The civil unrest, and “angry minority” ID politics mood of the late 60’s and 70’s* became embarrassing and electorally toxic to the Democrats in the pres. elections of that era (had Nixon not been forced out, the GOP could very well have been in the White House for 24 straight years (1968-1992).

  45. @Bliss
    Yang only got to talk for 3 minutes in a 120 minutes debate, that was the least of all including the 3 candidates who polled lower than him. Yet the attraction of Universal Basic Income is so strong he was crowned the winner of the debate by the poll at Drudge. He will get to talk more in the coming debates. Let’s see what happens. At the very least he will be remembered by history as the first presidential candidate with UBI as an integral pillar of his platform. UBI is inevitable so Yang will be seen as ahead of his time.

    First time I heard Buttigieg speak and he is impressively articulate in a fresh original way. No cliches or claptraps.

    Sanders will have to hand his baton to Warren.

    Biden looks and sounds amazing for a 76 year old. Trump and Biden must be inspiring to the senior citizens.

    Kamala is too emotional.

    After watching all the candidates the one I find the most formidable, the only one who could intimidate Trump on the same stage, is Bill de Blasio, Mayor of NYC, Trump’s hometown, by far the biggest city in America, with a population larger than over half the states. It is long overdue for the Democratic Party to go back to being the wage worker’s party, in the FDR mold. Blasio is the only one who has walked the talk: from universal pre-kindergarten to free college, from $15 minimum wage to universal guaranteed healthcare he has done more for the forgotten working class than any of the others.

    DeBlasio, like virtually all modern Democrats, is too invested in toxic ID politics/wokeness to be a true populist and reformer. The obligatory recitation of how society has been too racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic and thus we need to further the Woke cultural revolution, is tiring to most ordinary people, and gets in the way of reforms that would be useful to everyone.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    You'd think in a field of 20 candidates that a second- or third-tier could be propelled forward by striking a decidedly Wokeless tone. Andrew Yang looked like he might be the one who'd do that, but then he went just as all-in on it as the rest of them in the debate. Jim Webb was the only Wokeless Dem candidate of the five in 2016 and he polled at... 1% support.
  46. @Audacious Epigone
    It won't matter. Progressives won't favor a white over a POC, even if the white is progressive and the POC is viewed as a corporate shill. This is the fundamental insight that led me to believe years ago that Harris would likely be the nominee. Corporate money is perfectly fine with her.

    Right now most committed Dems are in an awful place:

    1) They don’t want anti-neoliberal reform (since Obama and the SJWs never really cared about populism, and Trump is said to be the inevitably disagreeable product of populism, just like how they’ve convinced themselves that Hitler was a “populist” when in reality Hitler was a desperate attempt at maintaining German Hegemony during the German expansion of the 19th and early 20th century*).

    2)They want to a send a message that they still believe in Woke ID politics; ergo, electing another white guy would be a betrayal of the Obama era and the SJW trend-setters.

    *FDR, De Gaulle, Churchill, Franco etc. were all more authentically populist than Hitler. The mid-20 century’s best and most beloved leaders were quite populist, in comparison the leaders of the Guilded Age, or the Reagan/Thatcher age. Also, Hitler represented the declining phase of an Empire, just like how Bush and Obama represented the increasingly feeble attempts to maintain American hegemony, which Trump isn’t changing either (Russia and China have been winning a lot lately, hell American threats can’t even stop continental Western Europe from growing closer to Russia). Trump on the campaign trail said that our empire was failed, that we needed to withdraw from globalist wars and trade systems to better take care of things that have neglected for too long. But America’s elites are delusional, and think that Trump almost singlehandedly ruined America’s potential (note that Dem leaders and Never Trumper type Neo-con Republicans are both in agreement that America has a moral prerogative to meddle in other countries).

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Before America's post-WW2 attempt at empire expansion, America was generally in isolationist country, which didn't do much meddling in foreign countries. "Smaller" isolationist regimes are going to be more populist than arrogant empires, since increasing attempts at building an empire will result in neglect of the natives*; most Germans were not happy in the early 20th century, because they were in the twilight of their own empire-building, and they realized how inept and greedy their leadership had become..

    *Since 1980, all Western countries have been neglecting infrastructure and middle to working class safeguards, but the trend has been most pronounced in America, because America invests so much into being the world's cop, and "nation-building" in foreign lands (Reagan made the Pentagon the most valued and protected institution in America). Interestingly, the UK has also done very poorly, probably because it is the biggest Western ally of the US. So you neither want to be an empire, nor a big support of one.

    , @Authenticjazzman
    " Hell American threats can't even stop continental europe from growing closer to Russia"

    Total bullshit. VP , a couple of days ago issued a scathing critique of the "leader" of continental Europe AM, regarding her refugee policies.

    The continental leftist Europeans are, same as the leftist Americans, pissed regarding VP's stance on gay issues, which is the central theme and concern of the "Intellectual" crowd in both Europe and the US.
    Poland, plus several other eastern European countires are most certainly moving towards the US, and away from the western European "Leftist/green", "Woke" mind-set.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet and pro jazz performer.

  47. @anon
    I don't get it.

    Kamala Harris, daughter of two highly educated professionals one of whom is Tamil Indian, attributes her success in life to "bussing."

    If bussing was such a great success, why aren't Blacks doing stupendously well?

    And if bussing evened the score, making it possible for "little Black girls" like Kamala (Sanskrit for Lotus Flower) to play on a leveled field, then - - - - What's all the fuss? Hasn't that problem been solved?

    If bussing was such a great success, why aren’t Blacks doing stupendously well?

    You have had too much to think.  The field thoughtfulness test shows that you have dangerous levels of Knowing.  I’m taking you in.

  48. @Feryl
    Right now most committed Dems are in an awful place:

    1) They don't want anti-neoliberal reform (since Obama and the SJWs never really cared about populism, and Trump is said to be the inevitably disagreeable product of populism, just like how they've convinced themselves that Hitler was a "populist" when in reality Hitler was a desperate attempt at maintaining German Hegemony during the German expansion of the 19th and early 20th century*).

    2)They want to a send a message that they still believe in Woke ID politics; ergo, electing another white guy would be a betrayal of the Obama era and the SJW trend-setters.

    *FDR, De Gaulle, Churchill, Franco etc. were all more authentically populist than Hitler. The mid-20 century's best and most beloved leaders were quite populist, in comparison the leaders of the Guilded Age, or the Reagan/Thatcher age. Also, Hitler represented the declining phase of an Empire, just like how Bush and Obama represented the increasingly feeble attempts to maintain American hegemony, which Trump isn't changing either (Russia and China have been winning a lot lately, hell American threats can't even stop continental Western Europe from growing closer to Russia). Trump on the campaign trail said that our empire was failed, that we needed to withdraw from globalist wars and trade systems to better take care of things that have neglected for too long. But America's elites are delusional, and think that Trump almost singlehandedly ruined America's potential (note that Dem leaders and Never Trumper type Neo-con Republicans are both in agreement that America has a moral prerogative to meddle in other countries).

    Before America’s post-WW2 attempt at empire expansion, America was generally in isolationist country, which didn’t do much meddling in foreign countries. “Smaller” isolationist regimes are going to be more populist than arrogant empires, since increasing attempts at building an empire will result in neglect of the natives*; most Germans were not happy in the early 20th century, because they were in the twilight of their own empire-building, and they realized how inept and greedy their leadership had become..

    *Since 1980, all Western countries have been neglecting infrastructure and middle to working class safeguards, but the trend has been most pronounced in America, because America invests so much into being the world’s cop, and “nation-building” in foreign lands (Reagan made the Pentagon the most valued and protected institution in America). Interestingly, the UK has also done very poorly, probably because it is the biggest Western ally of the US. So you neither want to be an empire, nor a big support of one.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Countries that are in the declining phase of their empire will have the most bad ju-ju WRT politics and squabbling over ideology. There are three camps, none of whom can see eye to eye until the empire has collapsed:

    1)The pro-empire camp wants to stay the course with no alterations (The Reaganites)

    2)Another camp is still pro-empire, but wants to produce a slight variation of it (the Woke Reaganites)

    3) The third camp is tired of trying to be an empire, and wants to get out of the empire business before we lose more blood and treasure (the isolationists). The isolationist crowd believes that military force is best used for last resort defense; critics say that we want to enable other empires and evil regimes, but pragmatic folks like us realize that it's not politically or logistically feasible to run the entire world. Better to let things take their course, and only get involved when absolutely necessary (as Americans believed before the 1950's).

    The Third Reich is a cautionary tale not about populism, or even "racism", but rather, the dangers of a declining empire. Let's not forget that Hitler, and much of the German ruling class, thought that they were the intellectual and spiritual heirs to the Ancient Roman Empire which was exalted as Western Civ. at it's best (in reality, Rome declined as it became mired in more and more globalist schemes regarding immigration, war, and trade).
  49. @Feryl
    Before America's post-WW2 attempt at empire expansion, America was generally in isolationist country, which didn't do much meddling in foreign countries. "Smaller" isolationist regimes are going to be more populist than arrogant empires, since increasing attempts at building an empire will result in neglect of the natives*; most Germans were not happy in the early 20th century, because they were in the twilight of their own empire-building, and they realized how inept and greedy their leadership had become..

    *Since 1980, all Western countries have been neglecting infrastructure and middle to working class safeguards, but the trend has been most pronounced in America, because America invests so much into being the world's cop, and "nation-building" in foreign lands (Reagan made the Pentagon the most valued and protected institution in America). Interestingly, the UK has also done very poorly, probably because it is the biggest Western ally of the US. So you neither want to be an empire, nor a big support of one.

    Countries that are in the declining phase of their empire will have the most bad ju-ju WRT politics and squabbling over ideology. There are three camps, none of whom can see eye to eye until the empire has collapsed:

    1)The pro-empire camp wants to stay the course with no alterations (The Reaganites)

    2)Another camp is still pro-empire, but wants to produce a slight variation of it (the Woke Reaganites)

    3) The third camp is tired of trying to be an empire, and wants to get out of the empire business before we lose more blood and treasure (the isolationists). The isolationist crowd believes that military force is best used for last resort defense; critics say that we want to enable other empires and evil regimes, but pragmatic folks like us realize that it’s not politically or logistically feasible to run the entire world. Better to let things take their course, and only get involved when absolutely necessary (as Americans believed before the 1950’s).

    The Third Reich is a cautionary tale not about populism, or even “racism”, but rather, the dangers of a declining empire. Let’s not forget that Hitler, and much of the German ruling class, thought that they were the intellectual and spiritual heirs to the Ancient Roman Empire which was exalted as Western Civ. at it’s best (in reality, Rome declined as it became mired in more and more globalist schemes regarding immigration, war, and trade).

  50. Kween Kamala is the ideal pick by the establishment but the demographics aren’t there yet.

    Biden ran because it seemed like no candidate was able to take on Trump and was clear about that weeks up until his official announcement. If there’s an establishment approved candidate who does well, I could see Joe backing out. I have my doubts that Biden will be the one who makes it to the end.

    It’s hard to say who will last. In the clown car primary, it might give some candidates a chance to shine who may not otherwise. I’m not making any predictions at this point. I suspect by the end of the year, half of the candidates will drop out. Then half of that will drop out after the first primary. So in the end, you have 4-6 candidates who stick it out.

  51. @Audacious Epigone
    Sanders is clearly done. He sounds even angrier than I remember.

    Sanders may be too angry, but Anchor Baby Kamala is clearly too obnoxious. How will Americans like that holier-than-thou school marm, a darker hued Hillary, lecturing them for four years? Like a brown shirt with black pants, she will not wear well. Plus, she is, at most, 1/4 black, and not American black at all, though no one dare say it. Ask Donald Trump Jr.

    I predict there will still be another candidate or two announcing shortly, maybe even a well-known self-funding billionaire who will run as an independent. This current crop, except for Tulsi, isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " The current crop except for Tulsi, isn't worth a bucket of spit"

    She is a fricking Democrat and no better or different than the rest of donkies. She talks a different game so as to pull in naive fools who fall for her BS, but at the end of the day she is nothing but a Trojan horse for the lunatic Democrats and still a Democrat herself, and she will act accordingly, period.

    Never trust anything a Democrats says, basta.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    A serious independent would be a gift from heaven for Trump. For all his faults and all the Never Trumper/neocon efforts against him, Republican voters are overwhelmingly supportive.
  52. @Robert Dolan
    Horizontal Harris is a despicable human being, a rabid anti-white bigot, and she would be the perfect Dem nom.

    But the demographics for her to win are about......10 years out.

    She's every bit as rotten and hateful as AOC, but has a 20 point IQ bump that makes her far more dangerous.

    Wouldn’t shock me that Harris sees 2020 as a warmup for 2024 and beyond. Her future is bright and will likely keep running until she gets elected. She has about 20 years of opportunity ahead of her. If she crashes and burns this go around, she has at least five more elections to try out.

    Harris sleeping her way to the top won’t hurt her either, it appeals to the thots and jaded feminists who believe a woman is required to sleep around to get power. The only thing is her record as AG but not to worry, the media, weakened as it is, can help run interference for her on that.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  53. @follyofwar
    Sanders may be too angry, but Anchor Baby Kamala is clearly too obnoxious. How will Americans like that holier-than-thou school marm, a darker hued Hillary, lecturing them for four years? Like a brown shirt with black pants, she will not wear well. Plus, she is, at most, 1/4 black, and not American black at all, though no one dare say it. Ask Donald Trump Jr.

    I predict there will still be another candidate or two announcing shortly, maybe even a well-known self-funding billionaire who will run as an independent. This current crop, except for Tulsi, isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

    ” The current crop except for Tulsi, isn’t worth a bucket of spit”

    She is a fricking Democrat and no better or different than the rest of donkies. She talks a different game so as to pull in naive fools who fall for her BS, but at the end of the day she is nothing but a Trojan horse for the lunatic Democrats and still a Democrat herself, and she will act accordingly, period.

    Never trust anything a Democrats says, basta.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

  54. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    An interesting note is the shift away from black people. There are no real black people running. Kamala is an Indian, who grew up in Montreal. There's a couple Hispanics; one fake and one real. The rest are all lunatic white/Jewish liberals.

    The Dems are clearly the party of the rich, white guilty, or Jewish haters of America.

    Where are the black people? Have they forgotten them? Are they no longer part of the coalition? Are they simply so locked into the Dem vote that they feel no need to pander?

    Anyways, compare the diversity of that field to the diversity of the GOP field. 2 real Hispanics, and a black from the hood in Detroit (not half Indian and from Westmount Quebec). An orange man too.

    The talent pool of blacks is wide but shallow. It’s one thing to run in a deep blue district where 90% of the population shares your skin color, it’s another thing entirely to run for the highest position in the land. As overconfident as blacks tend to be, even Maxine Waters and Al Green know they don’t have the right stuff to make a run for it.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Steve Sailer has written about how the heavily racialized districting means really blackety black candidates are the ones who can win House seats but they are not the types of blacks who can appeal to broader, more diverse electorates--the kind of candidates required to win at the national or even state level. Black congress critters are common but black senators are rare.
  55. @Feryl
    Right now most committed Dems are in an awful place:

    1) They don't want anti-neoliberal reform (since Obama and the SJWs never really cared about populism, and Trump is said to be the inevitably disagreeable product of populism, just like how they've convinced themselves that Hitler was a "populist" when in reality Hitler was a desperate attempt at maintaining German Hegemony during the German expansion of the 19th and early 20th century*).

    2)They want to a send a message that they still believe in Woke ID politics; ergo, electing another white guy would be a betrayal of the Obama era and the SJW trend-setters.

    *FDR, De Gaulle, Churchill, Franco etc. were all more authentically populist than Hitler. The mid-20 century's best and most beloved leaders were quite populist, in comparison the leaders of the Guilded Age, or the Reagan/Thatcher age. Also, Hitler represented the declining phase of an Empire, just like how Bush and Obama represented the increasingly feeble attempts to maintain American hegemony, which Trump isn't changing either (Russia and China have been winning a lot lately, hell American threats can't even stop continental Western Europe from growing closer to Russia). Trump on the campaign trail said that our empire was failed, that we needed to withdraw from globalist wars and trade systems to better take care of things that have neglected for too long. But America's elites are delusional, and think that Trump almost singlehandedly ruined America's potential (note that Dem leaders and Never Trumper type Neo-con Republicans are both in agreement that America has a moral prerogative to meddle in other countries).

    ” Hell American threats can’t even stop continental europe from growing closer to Russia”

    Total bullshit. VP , a couple of days ago issued a scathing critique of the “leader” of continental Europe AM, regarding her refugee policies.

    The continental leftist Europeans are, same as the leftist Americans, pissed regarding VP’s stance on gay issues, which is the central theme and concern of the “Intellectual” crowd in both Europe and the US.
    Poland, plus several other eastern European countires are most certainly moving towards the US, and away from the western European “Leftist/green”, “Woke” mind-set.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet and pro jazz performer.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    The US has much less credibility, good will, and power than it had in the 1990's, let alone the 1950's when fresh off World War 2, we were the "good guys". Once the Soviet Union folded in the early 90's, the US was free to pursue it's imperial ambitions, whether they made any sense or not (hint: since the Iraq war, they clearly haven't).

    In the Middle East, Russia has gotten it's way on several counts recently, to the horror of the US neo-liberal ruling class (even though the US clearly has no idea what it's doing anymore, being that it's a declining and decadent empire, whereas Russia has a leader who is merely protecting basic Russian interests, rather than trying to deepen an empire).

    I dunno what refugees or homosexuality have to do with whether the US can successfully exert influence/impose it's will on any particular country. It can't anymore; it's never had absolute power, regardless, but what power it once had is fading. The desperate American globalists/imperialists are going bat-shit crazy, trying to sell the public on intensifying aggression towards Iran, Russia, China, N Korea, etc. Other countries caught "between" the US and it's "enemies" are losing confidence in America's strength, while the American public has been increasingly suspicious of US foreign policy since Vietnam (worth noting also is that the post-Soviet generations, Millennials and Gen Z, are more likely to say that the US doesn't have a right to dictate policy to other countries; the generations who grew up in the Cold War have a knee-jerk patriotism regarding America's empire that they can't let go of).
  56. @Authenticjazzman
    " Hell American threats can't even stop continental europe from growing closer to Russia"

    Total bullshit. VP , a couple of days ago issued a scathing critique of the "leader" of continental Europe AM, regarding her refugee policies.

    The continental leftist Europeans are, same as the leftist Americans, pissed regarding VP's stance on gay issues, which is the central theme and concern of the "Intellectual" crowd in both Europe and the US.
    Poland, plus several other eastern European countires are most certainly moving towards the US, and away from the western European "Leftist/green", "Woke" mind-set.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet and pro jazz performer.

    The US has much less credibility, good will, and power than it had in the 1990’s, let alone the 1950’s when fresh off World War 2, we were the “good guys”. Once the Soviet Union folded in the early 90’s, the US was free to pursue it’s imperial ambitions, whether they made any sense or not (hint: since the Iraq war, they clearly haven’t).

    In the Middle East, Russia has gotten it’s way on several counts recently, to the horror of the US neo-liberal ruling class (even though the US clearly has no idea what it’s doing anymore, being that it’s a declining and decadent empire, whereas Russia has a leader who is merely protecting basic Russian interests, rather than trying to deepen an empire).

    I dunno what refugees or homosexuality have to do with whether the US can successfully exert influence/impose it’s will on any particular country. It can’t anymore; it’s never had absolute power, regardless, but what power it once had is fading. The desperate American globalists/imperialists are going bat-shit crazy, trying to sell the public on intensifying aggression towards Iran, Russia, China, N Korea, etc. Other countries caught “between” the US and it’s “enemies” are losing confidence in America’s strength, while the American public has been increasingly suspicious of US foreign policy since Vietnam (worth noting also is that the post-Soviet generations, Millennials and Gen Z, are more likely to say that the US doesn’t have a right to dictate policy to other countries; the generations who grew up in the Cold War have a knee-jerk patriotism regarding America’s empire that they can’t let go of).

    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " I donno what refugees or homosexuality have to do with whether the US can successfully exert/impose it's will on any particular country"

    You are mixing elements up to the point of irrationality. Just were did I state that gay issues have anything to do with the US's ability to influence other countries?

    The Gay issue in Russia is a major sour point amongst European and US leftists.

    You are all over the map with your depictions, and I really don't have the gumption to break each and every point down to achieve some kind of simplicity and coherance.

    AJM
    , @Mr. Rational

    the generations who grew up in the Cold War have a knee-jerk patriotism regarding America’s empire that they can’t let go of
     
    Once again I realize that I was either born 30 years too late, or 30 years too soon.
  57. @Feryl
    The US has much less credibility, good will, and power than it had in the 1990's, let alone the 1950's when fresh off World War 2, we were the "good guys". Once the Soviet Union folded in the early 90's, the US was free to pursue it's imperial ambitions, whether they made any sense or not (hint: since the Iraq war, they clearly haven't).

    In the Middle East, Russia has gotten it's way on several counts recently, to the horror of the US neo-liberal ruling class (even though the US clearly has no idea what it's doing anymore, being that it's a declining and decadent empire, whereas Russia has a leader who is merely protecting basic Russian interests, rather than trying to deepen an empire).

    I dunno what refugees or homosexuality have to do with whether the US can successfully exert influence/impose it's will on any particular country. It can't anymore; it's never had absolute power, regardless, but what power it once had is fading. The desperate American globalists/imperialists are going bat-shit crazy, trying to sell the public on intensifying aggression towards Iran, Russia, China, N Korea, etc. Other countries caught "between" the US and it's "enemies" are losing confidence in America's strength, while the American public has been increasingly suspicious of US foreign policy since Vietnam (worth noting also is that the post-Soviet generations, Millennials and Gen Z, are more likely to say that the US doesn't have a right to dictate policy to other countries; the generations who grew up in the Cold War have a knee-jerk patriotism regarding America's empire that they can't let go of).

    ” I donno what refugees or homosexuality have to do with whether the US can successfully exert/impose it’s will on any particular country”

    You are mixing elements up to the point of irrationality. Just were did I state that gay issues have anything to do with the US’s ability to influence other countries?

    The Gay issue in Russia is a major sour point amongst European and US leftists.

    You are all over the map with your depictions, and I really don’t have the gumption to break each and every point down to achieve some kind of simplicity and coherance.

    AJM

  58. @Feryl
    The US has much less credibility, good will, and power than it had in the 1990's, let alone the 1950's when fresh off World War 2, we were the "good guys". Once the Soviet Union folded in the early 90's, the US was free to pursue it's imperial ambitions, whether they made any sense or not (hint: since the Iraq war, they clearly haven't).

    In the Middle East, Russia has gotten it's way on several counts recently, to the horror of the US neo-liberal ruling class (even though the US clearly has no idea what it's doing anymore, being that it's a declining and decadent empire, whereas Russia has a leader who is merely protecting basic Russian interests, rather than trying to deepen an empire).

    I dunno what refugees or homosexuality have to do with whether the US can successfully exert influence/impose it's will on any particular country. It can't anymore; it's never had absolute power, regardless, but what power it once had is fading. The desperate American globalists/imperialists are going bat-shit crazy, trying to sell the public on intensifying aggression towards Iran, Russia, China, N Korea, etc. Other countries caught "between" the US and it's "enemies" are losing confidence in America's strength, while the American public has been increasingly suspicious of US foreign policy since Vietnam (worth noting also is that the post-Soviet generations, Millennials and Gen Z, are more likely to say that the US doesn't have a right to dictate policy to other countries; the generations who grew up in the Cold War have a knee-jerk patriotism regarding America's empire that they can't let go of).

    the generations who grew up in the Cold War have a knee-jerk patriotism regarding America’s empire that they can’t let go of

    Once again I realize that I was either born 30 years too late, or 30 years too soon.

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @Feryl
    Look on the bright side; you won't be blamed for a collapsing empire, since American Civ. peaked in the 1950's, and the generations who inherited so much (Silents and Boomers) proceeded to cut each other's throats open in the subsequent decades. We've been wracked by toxic levels of competitiveness and infighting under the dubious "leadership" of Silents and Boomers. Gen X and Millennials (who mostly had Silent and Boomer parents) were dealt a lousy hand, culturally, economically, and foreign-policy wise.

    My suggestion to X-ers is to get rid of lingering Stockholm Syndrome WRT your parent's generation. Boomer canards about "freedom", "hard work", and "opportunity" are glib and dated non-sense. Us younger folks were born too late to benefit from either the New Deal, or the Great Neo-lib capitalist gang-bang of the 80's and 90's. There's no sense in hanging on to the Neo-liberalism that today's oldest voters welcomed w/ open arms over the last 40 years.

  59. @Separatist
    I don't understand how any white person could not be enraged by those two debates. The entire time they were speaking Spanish, embracing militant Latino and black nationalism, calling for open borders and the redistribution of wealth to non-whites, demonizing whites (even Biden!) as racist oppressors, and spitting all over our ancestors. Every single one of those candidates is calling for the Third World conquest and colonization of America and most white people don't even care. Many probably like it.

    It's clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate. Here are a few reasons why:

    1.) Whites must have self-determination and independence. We don't want to be a minority without the ability to determine our own future. Other stateless minorities like the Gypsies and Jews that have had to rely on the goodwill of others haven't fared well historically. That's why Zionism was born. The oppression that the white minority in South Africa now faces threatens its long term well-being and survival. America is well on its way to becoming the next South Africa with the increasing demonization of whites as oppressors and ever greater calls to abolish so-called white privilege and redistribute wealth to non-whites.

    2.) Ethnic nationalism is a human universal and part of our intrinsic nature. Diversity is not our strength, but a cause of endless group struggle. Only with separate ethnostates can we bring peace to ethnic and racial conflict.

    3.) There can never be perfect racial equality. Even if a perfect balance could be achieved it wouldn't last long. Non-whites will always advance their own interests and push for the advantage even if whites refuse to. One group will always have more power and influence than other groups. Replacing a white majority with a non-white majority doesn't end racial inequality it just changes who the dominant group is. The only truly egalitarian solution to racial inequality is separation.

    4.) Whites are a very small and declining minority of the global population and could easily be submerged. The National Policy Institute has projected that whites will be less than 10 percent of the global population by 2060. Northern European-descended whites will be an even smaller endangered minority. We must preserve and expand our population and reverse our decline.

    I don’t understand how any white person could not be enraged by those two debates. The entire time they were speaking Spanish, embracing militant Latino and black nationalism, calling for open borders and the redistribution of wealth to non-whites, demonizing whites (even Biden!) as racist oppressors, and spitting all over our ancestors. Every single one of those candidates is calling for the Third World conquest and colonization of America and most white people don’t even care. Many probably like it.

    It’s clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate.

    Of course.
    Now, the hard part: HOW?

    Any ideas?

    See, 80 % of Whites don’t even want it. Or, better, they don’t think about these things.
    Of 20 % Whites who do think about these things around…say….15 % know how to do it. That their method hasn’t been working so far doesn’t bother them. For now. It’ s all just about “but…the NEXT time it will be good”. Trump related.
    And, that tiny minority of minority , say….5%, well, they actually do not know how to do it.

    After, with huge effort, suppressing the urge to get abusive here, calling me names… you….5 %….any ideas, again?
    Even vague would work, for a starter.

    • Replies: @iffen

    It’s clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate.

    Of course.

    Now, the hard part: HOW?

    Any ideas
     

    ?

    No! It is absolutely not clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate!

    You want me to give up my son's best friend who married a Peruvian? You want me to give up my niece's children by the jungle Asian? You want me to give up my best friend's mulatto grandson? You want me to give up my black co-workers of 30 years? You want me to give up my Internet BFF Twinkie?

    Not gonna happen.

  60. @peterAUS

    I don’t understand how any white person could not be enraged by those two debates. The entire time they were speaking Spanish, embracing militant Latino and black nationalism, calling for open borders and the redistribution of wealth to non-whites, demonizing whites (even Biden!) as racist oppressors, and spitting all over our ancestors. Every single one of those candidates is calling for the Third World conquest and colonization of America and most white people don’t even care. Many probably like it.

    It’s clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate.
     
    Of course.
    Now, the hard part: HOW?

    Any ideas?

    See, 80 % of Whites don't even want it. Or, better, they don't think about these things.
    Of 20 % Whites who do think about these things around...say....15 % know how to do it. That their method hasn't been working so far doesn't bother them. For now. It' s all just about "but...the NEXT time it will be good". Trump related.
    And, that tiny minority of minority , say....5%, well, they actually do not know how to do it.

    After, with huge effort, suppressing the urge to get abusive here, calling me names... you....5 %....any ideas, again?
    Even vague would work, for a starter.

    It’s clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate.

    Of course.

    Now, the hard part: HOW?

    Any ideas

    ?

    No! It is absolutely not clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate!

    You want me to give up my son’s best friend who married a Peruvian? You want me to give up my niece’s children by the jungle Asian? You want me to give up my best friend’s mulatto grandson? You want me to give up my black co-workers of 30 years? You want me to give up my Internet BFF Twinkie?

    Not gonna happen.

    • Replies: @peterAUS

    No! It is absolutely not clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate!
     
    I know. Well, at least for 100% of non-Whites there and around 95% Whites too.
    For now....hehe.We'll see...we'll see.
    The only interesting part there is: when around 40 % of Whites do realize they must have it will it be too little too late.

    You want me to give up my son’s best friend who married a Peruvian? You want me to give up my niece’s children by the jungle Asian? You want me to give up my best friend’s mulatto grandson? You want me to give up my black co-workers of 30 years? You want me to give up my Internet BFF Twinkie?
     
    Worse.
    I want you to give up your fascination for black NFL/NBAplayers. Ah, yes, rappers too. Asian food.
    And the WORST and where it matters: abysmally cheap labor.

    Not gonna happen.
     
    It shall. The belief in the need I mean. I'd give it ....say...next.....seven years. Something like that.
    That's for the belief.
    As...hehe...for realizing that belief, now there I could agree. When a lot of people do realize that the "environment" will be locked down hard.

    But, as always in human affairs, there is that X factor.
    So, we'll see.

    In meantime, it would be good to see is there anyone on this site thinking, in the most vague terms, as to how to do that.
  61. @iffen

    It’s clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate.

    Of course.

    Now, the hard part: HOW?

    Any ideas
     

    ?

    No! It is absolutely not clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate!

    You want me to give up my son's best friend who married a Peruvian? You want me to give up my niece's children by the jungle Asian? You want me to give up my best friend's mulatto grandson? You want me to give up my black co-workers of 30 years? You want me to give up my Internet BFF Twinkie?

    Not gonna happen.

    No! It is absolutely not clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate!

    I know. Well, at least for 100% of non-Whites there and around 95% Whites too.
    For now….hehe.We’ll see…we’ll see.
    The only interesting part there is: when around 40 % of Whites do realize they must have it will it be too little too late.

    You want me to give up my son’s best friend who married a Peruvian? You want me to give up my niece’s children by the jungle Asian? You want me to give up my best friend’s mulatto grandson? You want me to give up my black co-workers of 30 years? You want me to give up my Internet BFF Twinkie?

    Worse.
    I want you to give up your fascination for black NFL/NBAplayers. Ah, yes, rappers too. Asian food.
    And the WORST and where it matters: abysmally cheap labor.

    Not gonna happen.

    It shall. The belief in the need I mean. I’d give it ….say…next…..seven years. Something like that.
    That’s for the belief.
    As…hehe…for realizing that belief, now there I could agree. When a lot of people do realize that the “environment” will be locked down hard.

    But, as always in human affairs, there is that X factor.
    So, we’ll see.

    In meantime, it would be good to see is there anyone on this site thinking, in the most vague terms, as to how to do that.

  62. @Separatist
    I don't understand how any white person could not be enraged by those two debates. The entire time they were speaking Spanish, embracing militant Latino and black nationalism, calling for open borders and the redistribution of wealth to non-whites, demonizing whites (even Biden!) as racist oppressors, and spitting all over our ancestors. Every single one of those candidates is calling for the Third World conquest and colonization of America and most white people don't even care. Many probably like it.

    It's clear that white Americans must have an ethnostate. Here are a few reasons why:

    1.) Whites must have self-determination and independence. We don't want to be a minority without the ability to determine our own future. Other stateless minorities like the Gypsies and Jews that have had to rely on the goodwill of others haven't fared well historically. That's why Zionism was born. The oppression that the white minority in South Africa now faces threatens its long term well-being and survival. America is well on its way to becoming the next South Africa with the increasing demonization of whites as oppressors and ever greater calls to abolish so-called white privilege and redistribute wealth to non-whites.

    2.) Ethnic nationalism is a human universal and part of our intrinsic nature. Diversity is not our strength, but a cause of endless group struggle. Only with separate ethnostates can we bring peace to ethnic and racial conflict.

    3.) There can never be perfect racial equality. Even if a perfect balance could be achieved it wouldn't last long. Non-whites will always advance their own interests and push for the advantage even if whites refuse to. One group will always have more power and influence than other groups. Replacing a white majority with a non-white majority doesn't end racial inequality it just changes who the dominant group is. The only truly egalitarian solution to racial inequality is separation.

    4.) Whites are a very small and declining minority of the global population and could easily be submerged. The National Policy Institute has projected that whites will be less than 10 percent of the global population by 2060. Northern European-descended whites will be an even smaller endangered minority. We must preserve and expand our population and reverse our decline.

    The closest thing you might get is a de facto ethnostate-lite following the dissolution of the US in part of the country as currently defined–something like the upper mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho operating a far more modest welfare state than the US currently operates now.

    Beyond that, it’s extremely unlikely. As Iffen alludes to below, the practical considerations immediately become overwhelming. We can’t even stop people from invading the country in blatant violation of federal laws.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    something like the upper mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho operating a far more modest welfare state than the US currently operates now.
     
    That would be akin to the status afforded to formerly strong but now much smaller ethnic groups (who sometimes pre-dated the current and most dominant ethnic group in these countries) in Russia and the New World. Imagine an America in which whites only demographically dominated the more remote areas of the Desert, the Mountains, the Plains, and the Great Deciduous Forests of New England and the Upper Midwest.

    Whites pushed most of the Indians out to the then-mostly undeveloped Western Midwest and Western US, as the country's white population grew and developed more regions. The indigenous tribes of Central and South America, to the extent that they survive at all, are often found in the jungles and mountains.

    The pattern is clear; once strong but increasingly marginalized ethnic groups develop a rural character (whereas say, American blacks and Jews have never been dominant overall, but rather, are "allowed" to be dominant in some not so rural regions, the former getting much of the Deep South and the urban East, the latter getting many elite neighborhoods of the Northeast and California). There's a pretty clear desire by America's current over-class to effectively cleanse whites from many metro areas*, see also the growing urban and rural voting split since the late 80's, that tracks the rise in globalist multi-culturalism and the fear among many whites that they are being abandoned, or perhaps, "cast out".

    *TX and CA are doing just fine, in some ways maybe better now than they were in 1970, before the demographic transformation. So why no reproduce this elsewhere? That's what our current leadership class believes.
  63. @Bliss
    Yang only got to talk for 3 minutes in a 120 minutes debate, that was the least of all including the 3 candidates who polled lower than him. Yet the attraction of Universal Basic Income is so strong he was crowned the winner of the debate by the poll at Drudge. He will get to talk more in the coming debates. Let’s see what happens. At the very least he will be remembered by history as the first presidential candidate with UBI as an integral pillar of his platform. UBI is inevitable so Yang will be seen as ahead of his time.

    First time I heard Buttigieg speak and he is impressively articulate in a fresh original way. No cliches or claptraps.

    Sanders will have to hand his baton to Warren.

    Biden looks and sounds amazing for a 76 year old. Trump and Biden must be inspiring to the senior citizens.

    Kamala is too emotional.

    After watching all the candidates the one I find the most formidable, the only one who could intimidate Trump on the same stage, is Bill de Blasio, Mayor of NYC, Trump’s hometown, by far the biggest city in America, with a population larger than over half the states. It is long overdue for the Democratic Party to go back to being the wage worker’s party, in the FDR mold. Blasio is the only one who has walked the talk: from universal pre-kindergarten to free college, from $15 minimum wage to universal guaranteed healthcare he has done more for the forgotten working class than any of the others.

    De Blasio is quite possibly the least liked politician in the entire country. And he’s a white male to boot. No chance.

    • Replies: @Bliss
    He’s an imposing white male with a black family. Who has a track record of implementing the progressive agenda.
  64. @gman
    Also, I think the "birtherism" helps the Harris campaign and does two things

    1. force all the other candidates to defend her
    2. "blackifies" her

    Yes, that approach–irrespective of the merits–is only going to help her.

  65. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "If bussing was such a great success, why aren’t Blacks doing stupendously well?"

    There is riding the school bus to school, and then there is busing. Komodo Harris is conflating the two.

    I'm still not convinced she takes the nomination, but I guess it will depend somewhat on who ends up being her top 2-3 rivals in the primaries.

    It will also depend on whether or not anyone else is willing to push back against her one maneuver - implying her opponent is racist. If Biden had even a microscopic trace of testicles left, he could have easily deflected her weak sauce implication: "I stood faithfully by the first African American president dutifully for 8 years, as vice-president. I think that alone precludes any attempt to suggest I hold racist or racial animus towards African Americans or any other minority group. Further, I fully resent and reject your implication that I might be, and it seems clear that your want to slander me as racist is a shallow attempt to avoid addressing real issues that we confronted with today."

    Also, her (((white))) husband, her mentor, her lack of children, the real possibility that her maternal ancestry made use of servants, plus the fact that she is just comes off as unlikable, are going to become liabilities for her, especially if any other candidates are smart enough to address them.

    It is a testament either to his dotage or to his lack of preparation (or both) that he seemed unprepared for what was very obviously coming. How could his handlers have not thought Harris would make race an issue with him? Yet it seemed like he was stumbling to find words.

    No one is going to attack her for any of that. They will go after her for being a former prosecutor, that’s it.

  66. @Feryl
    DeBlasio, like virtually all modern Democrats, is too invested in toxic ID politics/wokeness to be a true populist and reformer. The obligatory recitation of how society has been too racist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic and thus we need to further the Woke cultural revolution, is tiring to most ordinary people, and gets in the way of reforms that would be useful to everyone.

    You’d think in a field of 20 candidates that a second- or third-tier could be propelled forward by striking a decidedly Wokeless tone. Andrew Yang looked like he might be the one who’d do that, but then he went just as all-in on it as the rest of them in the debate. Jim Webb was the only Wokeless Dem candidate of the five in 2016 and he polled at… 1% support.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    Given the questions and the moderators asking them, when would a Wokeless candidate have a chance to stand out? As the debates have unfolded so far, a Wokeless approach only makes one look weak and/or evasive.
    , @Feryl
    None of them want to be seen as truly "populist", because (hat tip to Agnostic) that word has been bastardized by the mainstream Left (and cuck Right) into meaning inchoate Nazism.

    It was cute when Bernie ran as a New Dealer in 2016, but he kinda sorta enabled Trump, by both undermining Hilary and sounding too spiritually similar to Trump.

    The Dem base wants absolutely nothing to do with old-school populist Leftism, because it would resonate too much with Neo-Nazi Trump voters* (whose pragmatic views on econ. and foreign policy are hopelessly tainted by early 20th century cultural conservatism, which as well all know will surely bring about the rise of another Third Reich**).

    The non Neo-lib candidates (Sanders, Yang, and Gabbard) have to offer at least token Wokeness to ameliorate concerns that Trump's social conservative base is being dog-whistled to.

    *Every time the media specifies a modern conservative as a "neo-Nazi", they therefore are implying that most reasonable people ought to consider any non-woke person a de-facto Nazi. The establishment never identifies any modern Woke Leftist as belonging to any historical ideology which automatically causes revulsion, and would make people more likely to question those who preach Woke Leftism. Also, populist Right figures are expected to constantly explain why they attract "Nazi" support, while Woke Leftists are seldom asked to explain the disagreeable people associated with the movement.

    **Social conservatism was widely preached by the establishment in the early-mid 20th century, it just so happens that every leader (good or bad) of every country (good or bad) supported it back then. BFD. But we aren't getting a new New Deal unless Leftists put the woke hysteria to rest; most normal people are never going to care for weirdo ID politics.

    , @Feryl
    I heard an old-school Dem say that Webb's foray into the early 2016 debates was decidedly.....Awkward. Sander's sucked up all the populist energy with his emotional approach and pointed attack on elites, making someone like Webb look too conventional and timid for the current era. Webb may have worked better in the New Deal era, or the 80's and 90's, but now's not the time for playing things safe.
  67. @follyofwar
    Sanders may be too angry, but Anchor Baby Kamala is clearly too obnoxious. How will Americans like that holier-than-thou school marm, a darker hued Hillary, lecturing them for four years? Like a brown shirt with black pants, she will not wear well. Plus, she is, at most, 1/4 black, and not American black at all, though no one dare say it. Ask Donald Trump Jr.

    I predict there will still be another candidate or two announcing shortly, maybe even a well-known self-funding billionaire who will run as an independent. This current crop, except for Tulsi, isn't worth a bucket of warm spit.

    A serious independent would be a gift from heaven for Trump. For all his faults and all the Never Trumper/neocon efforts against him, Republican voters are overwhelmingly supportive.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    A serious independent would be a gift from heaven for Trump. For all his faults and all the Never Trumper/neocon efforts against him, Republican voters are overwhelmingly supportive.

     

    Trump is in big trouble because he might lose 5 or ten percent of his support on the Trump Immigration Backstab.

    Trump says he wants foreigners to flood into the USA "in the largest numbers ever."

    If Trump loses 5 or ten percent of his White voters in the Great Lakes states and Florida and Texas, Trump is done. Trump is toast.

    A Sam Francis/Pat Buchanan independent candidate could easily take 5 or 10 percent of the White vote in key states.

    I won't vote for Trump nor any GOP candidate that supports mass legal immigration and illegal immigration.
    , @Oblivionrecurs
    This is from the CNN Poll

    Harris gained 20 points among blacks

    Harris may have additional growth with black Democratic voters. More than 20% cannot form an opinion of her. Less than 10% cannot form an opinion of Biden. More black voters (29%) trust her on race relations than trust Biden (23%)

    http://magaimg.net/img/8cs8.jpg
  68. @Audacious Epigone
    De Blasio is quite possibly the least liked politician in the entire country. And he's a white male to boot. No chance.

    He’s an imposing white male with a black family. Who has a track record of implementing the progressive agenda.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    "Imposing"? He's the butt of a thousand jokes.
  69. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "If bussing was such a great success, why aren’t Blacks doing stupendously well?"

    There is riding the school bus to school, and then there is busing. Komodo Harris is conflating the two.

    I'm still not convinced she takes the nomination, but I guess it will depend somewhat on who ends up being her top 2-3 rivals in the primaries.

    It will also depend on whether or not anyone else is willing to push back against her one maneuver - implying her opponent is racist. If Biden had even a microscopic trace of testicles left, he could have easily deflected her weak sauce implication: "I stood faithfully by the first African American president dutifully for 8 years, as vice-president. I think that alone precludes any attempt to suggest I hold racist or racial animus towards African Americans or any other minority group. Further, I fully resent and reject your implication that I might be, and it seems clear that your want to slander me as racist is a shallow attempt to avoid addressing real issues that we confronted with today."

    Also, her (((white))) husband, her mentor, her lack of children, the real possibility that her maternal ancestry made use of servants, plus the fact that she is just comes off as unlikable, are going to become liabilities for her, especially if any other candidates are smart enough to address them.

    It seems that most whites don’t pay much attention as to whether candidates have children, but I think they should. Those without children have no personal stake in the country’s future. Just look at Europe, with Merkel, May, Macron, and EU Head Juncker all childless. They haven’t done much good for the Old Continent, have they? Unfortunately, the darling of the anti-war crowd, Tulsi Gabbard, joins Harris in being childless.

    I agree that Kamala is most unlikeable, and that’s putting it mildly. But, then again, most of that wretched field is as well.

  70. @Audacious Epigone
    You'd think in a field of 20 candidates that a second- or third-tier could be propelled forward by striking a decidedly Wokeless tone. Andrew Yang looked like he might be the one who'd do that, but then he went just as all-in on it as the rest of them in the debate. Jim Webb was the only Wokeless Dem candidate of the five in 2016 and he polled at... 1% support.

    Given the questions and the moderators asking them, when would a Wokeless candidate have a chance to stand out? As the debates have unfolded so far, a Wokeless approach only makes one look weak and/or evasive.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting
    You get it.

    I am surprised to see that many posters here are not up to speed on the new paradigm (ideology) of the billionaires that run the Democratic Party (and the Republicans as well, but that is not the topic here).

    They are controlling the narrative (using their ownership of legacy media, Internet media, and Democratic politicians):

    The sainted royalty (blacks, hispanics, illegal immigrants, LGBT, new group to be named any day now)

    vs.

    The evil subterranean deplorables (whites, legal citizens with nuclear families who work for a living, straight people) that have oozed out of the slime and must be stopped at all costs.

    There is nothing to debate--good is good and evil is evil!

    C'mon folks. You can't play the new game if you don't know the rules!
    , @Audacious Epigone
    When a question comes about discrimination, answer "I do believe in discrimination. I believe in discriminating in favor of American citizens. Democrats once believed in that and it's time we believe in it again." Something like that is doable and it would generate massive media attention.
  71. @Bliss
    He’s an imposing white male with a black family. Who has a track record of implementing the progressive agenda.

    “Imposing”? He’s the butt of a thousand jokes.

  72. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "If bussing was such a great success, why aren’t Blacks doing stupendously well?"

    There is riding the school bus to school, and then there is busing. Komodo Harris is conflating the two.

    I'm still not convinced she takes the nomination, but I guess it will depend somewhat on who ends up being her top 2-3 rivals in the primaries.

    It will also depend on whether or not anyone else is willing to push back against her one maneuver - implying her opponent is racist. If Biden had even a microscopic trace of testicles left, he could have easily deflected her weak sauce implication: "I stood faithfully by the first African American president dutifully for 8 years, as vice-president. I think that alone precludes any attempt to suggest I hold racist or racial animus towards African Americans or any other minority group. Further, I fully resent and reject your implication that I might be, and it seems clear that your want to slander me as racist is a shallow attempt to avoid addressing real issues that we confronted with today."

    Also, her (((white))) husband, her mentor, her lack of children, the real possibility that her maternal ancestry made use of servants, plus the fact that she is just comes off as unlikable, are going to become liabilities for her, especially if any other candidates are smart enough to address them.

    This is the Democratic Party. Any rational response by Biden would have been dismissed as Whitesplaining–proving he is a racist!

  73. @Oleaginous Outrager
    Given the questions and the moderators asking them, when would a Wokeless candidate have a chance to stand out? As the debates have unfolded so far, a Wokeless approach only makes one look weak and/or evasive.

    You get it.

    I am surprised to see that many posters here are not up to speed on the new paradigm (ideology) of the billionaires that run the Democratic Party (and the Republicans as well, but that is not the topic here).

    They are controlling the narrative (using their ownership of legacy media, Internet media, and Democratic politicians):

    The sainted royalty (blacks, hispanics, illegal immigrants, LGBT, new group to be named any day now)

    vs.

    The evil subterranean deplorables (whites, legal citizens with nuclear families who work for a living, straight people) that have oozed out of the slime and must be stopped at all costs.

    There is nothing to debate–good is good and evil is evil!

    C’mon folks. You can’t play the new game if you don’t know the rules!

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    I am surprised to see that many posters here are not up to speed on the new paradigm (ideology) of the billionaires that run the Democratic Party (and the Republicans as well, but that is not the topic here).

     

    Most of us on Unz Review see it as plain as day. The billionaires and corporate America and other groups buy the politician whores and tell them what to do.

    The corporate media is silent on Shelly Adelson buying the Republican Party. Why?

    Why does the corporate media focus on the Koch boys instead of Adelson?

    White Core Americans must remove the billionaire oligarchs and the ruling class of the American Empire from power.

    Trump has backstabbed White Core America and he has crawled into bed with the billionaire oligarchs and the ruling class of the American Empire.

    Trump has abandoned White Core America and White Core America will abandon Trump.

    Tweet from 2014:

    https://twitter.com/CharlesPewitt/status/453264307397332992
  74. @Audacious Epigone
    A serious independent would be a gift from heaven for Trump. For all his faults and all the Never Trumper/neocon efforts against him, Republican voters are overwhelmingly supportive.

    A serious independent would be a gift from heaven for Trump. For all his faults and all the Never Trumper/neocon efforts against him, Republican voters are overwhelmingly supportive.

    Trump is in big trouble because he might lose 5 or ten percent of his support on the Trump Immigration Backstab.

    Trump says he wants foreigners to flood into the USA “in the largest numbers ever.”

    If Trump loses 5 or ten percent of his White voters in the Great Lakes states and Florida and Texas, Trump is done. Trump is toast.

    A Sam Francis/Pat Buchanan independent candidate could easily take 5 or 10 percent of the White vote in key states.

    I won’t vote for Trump nor any GOP candidate that supports mass legal immigration and illegal immigration.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    Is there any realistic possibility of a candidate, third party or otherwise, who's not a civnat "Proposition Nation of Immigrants" disaster?
  75. @Audacious Epigone
    That felt more accurate at the time it was written than it does now.

    That felt more accurate at the time it was written than it does now.

    Trump’s civic nationalism croaks with the baby boomers.

    The GOP will go explicit White Core American or it goes dodo.

    Kamala Harris will increase the salience of White Identity Politics if she attempts to use the Aunt Jemima Strategy to win Black Lady Voters, especially in the South.

    Hillary Clinton used the Aunt Jemima Strategy to fend off Bernie Sanders in 2016.

    The Aunt Jemima Strategy is to win the votes of lovely and sweet Black lady voters, especially in the South. The Aunt Jemima Strategy obviously plays in other areas of Black population concentration, too.

    Kamala Harris could be the Accelerationist candidate for motivating the rise of White Core America politics. She is particularly nasty and she is not one of our Blacks. I hope Blacks see us as “our” Whites. I think many Blacks do. Old stocker American Blacks descended from slaves and old stocker Whites might not love each other so much, but we see each other as being here a long time and we have a sense of each other. Kamala Harris has no ancestral ties to the USA, and many old stocker Blacks know it.

    Mulatto Obama looks more Black than does Mulatto Kamala Harris. Obama was half White; Kamala Harris is half South Asian. Obama had some sense of the USA — Kamala Harris does not.

    What will the lovely and sweet Black lady voters with their beefy upper arms and their handbags and their church going ways think of Kamala Harris?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    What will the lovely and sweet Black lady voters with their beefy upper arms and their handbags and their church going ways think of Kamala Harris?

    That's the million dollar question in South Carolina.
  76. @Justvisiting
    You get it.

    I am surprised to see that many posters here are not up to speed on the new paradigm (ideology) of the billionaires that run the Democratic Party (and the Republicans as well, but that is not the topic here).

    They are controlling the narrative (using their ownership of legacy media, Internet media, and Democratic politicians):

    The sainted royalty (blacks, hispanics, illegal immigrants, LGBT, new group to be named any day now)

    vs.

    The evil subterranean deplorables (whites, legal citizens with nuclear families who work for a living, straight people) that have oozed out of the slime and must be stopped at all costs.

    There is nothing to debate--good is good and evil is evil!

    C'mon folks. You can't play the new game if you don't know the rules!

    I am surprised to see that many posters here are not up to speed on the new paradigm (ideology) of the billionaires that run the Democratic Party (and the Republicans as well, but that is not the topic here).

    Most of us on Unz Review see it as plain as day. The billionaires and corporate America and other groups buy the politician whores and tell them what to do.

    The corporate media is silent on Shelly Adelson buying the Republican Party. Why?

    Why does the corporate media focus on the Koch boys instead of Adelson?

    White Core Americans must remove the billionaire oligarchs and the ruling class of the American Empire from power.

    Trump has backstabbed White Core America and he has crawled into bed with the billionaire oligarchs and the ruling class of the American Empire.

    Trump has abandoned White Core America and White Core America will abandon Trump.

    Tweet from 2014:

  77. @Marty T
    I though DeBlasio at least made an impression. He probably has no shot...but cannot be completely counted out because of what we saw during the debate. He's tall, aggressive and a good speaker. Other candidates would be wise to hope he gets no traction. He's a wild card.

    ” He’s a wild card”

    Bullshit, he is a fricking moron, a phoney non-plus-ultra, a tax dollar squanderer, and a fork-tongued scum-bag such as all Democrat thieves.

    AJM

  78. @Audacious Epigone
    You'd think in a field of 20 candidates that a second- or third-tier could be propelled forward by striking a decidedly Wokeless tone. Andrew Yang looked like he might be the one who'd do that, but then he went just as all-in on it as the rest of them in the debate. Jim Webb was the only Wokeless Dem candidate of the five in 2016 and he polled at... 1% support.

    None of them want to be seen as truly “populist”, because (hat tip to Agnostic) that word has been bastardized by the mainstream Left (and cuck Right) into meaning inchoate Nazism.

    It was cute when Bernie ran as a New Dealer in 2016, but he kinda sorta enabled Trump, by both undermining Hilary and sounding too spiritually similar to Trump.

    The Dem base wants absolutely nothing to do with old-school populist Leftism, because it would resonate too much with Neo-Nazi Trump voters* (whose pragmatic views on econ. and foreign policy are hopelessly tainted by early 20th century cultural conservatism, which as well all know will surely bring about the rise of another Third Reich**).

    The non Neo-lib candidates (Sanders, Yang, and Gabbard) have to offer at least token Wokeness to ameliorate concerns that Trump’s social conservative base is being dog-whistled to.

    *Every time the media specifies a modern conservative as a “neo-Nazi”, they therefore are implying that most reasonable people ought to consider any non-woke person a de-facto Nazi. The establishment never identifies any modern Woke Leftist as belonging to any historical ideology which automatically causes revulsion, and would make people more likely to question those who preach Woke Leftism. Also, populist Right figures are expected to constantly explain why they attract “Nazi” support, while Woke Leftists are seldom asked to explain the disagreeable people associated with the movement.

    **Social conservatism was widely preached by the establishment in the early-mid 20th century, it just so happens that every leader (good or bad) of every country (good or bad) supported it back then. BFD. But we aren’t getting a new New Deal unless Leftists put the woke hysteria to rest; most normal people are never going to care for weirdo ID politics.

  79. @Audacious Epigone
    The closest thing you might get is a de facto ethnostate-lite following the dissolution of the US in part of the country as currently defined--something like the upper mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho operating a far more modest welfare state than the US currently operates now.

    Beyond that, it's extremely unlikely. As Iffen alludes to below, the practical considerations immediately become overwhelming. We can't even stop people from invading the country in blatant violation of federal laws.

    something like the upper mountain states of Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho operating a far more modest welfare state than the US currently operates now.

    That would be akin to the status afforded to formerly strong but now much smaller ethnic groups (who sometimes pre-dated the current and most dominant ethnic group in these countries) in Russia and the New World. Imagine an America in which whites only demographically dominated the more remote areas of the Desert, the Mountains, the Plains, and the Great Deciduous Forests of New England and the Upper Midwest.

    Whites pushed most of the Indians out to the then-mostly undeveloped Western Midwest and Western US, as the country’s white population grew and developed more regions. The indigenous tribes of Central and South America, to the extent that they survive at all, are often found in the jungles and mountains.

    The pattern is clear; once strong but increasingly marginalized ethnic groups develop a rural character (whereas say, American blacks and Jews have never been dominant overall, but rather, are “allowed” to be dominant in some not so rural regions, the former getting much of the Deep South and the urban East, the latter getting many elite neighborhoods of the Northeast and California). There’s a pretty clear desire by America’s current over-class to effectively cleanse whites from many metro areas*, see also the growing urban and rural voting split since the late 80’s, that tracks the rise in globalist multi-culturalism and the fear among many whites that they are being abandoned, or perhaps, “cast out”.

    *TX and CA are doing just fine, in some ways maybe better now than they were in 1970, before the demographic transformation. So why no reproduce this elsewhere? That’s what our current leadership class believes.

  80. @Mr. Rational

    the generations who grew up in the Cold War have a knee-jerk patriotism regarding America’s empire that they can’t let go of
     
    Once again I realize that I was either born 30 years too late, or 30 years too soon.

    Look on the bright side; you won’t be blamed for a collapsing empire, since American Civ. peaked in the 1950’s, and the generations who inherited so much (Silents and Boomers) proceeded to cut each other’s throats open in the subsequent decades. We’ve been wracked by toxic levels of competitiveness and infighting under the dubious “leadership” of Silents and Boomers. Gen X and Millennials (who mostly had Silent and Boomer parents) were dealt a lousy hand, culturally, economically, and foreign-policy wise.

    My suggestion to X-ers is to get rid of lingering Stockholm Syndrome WRT your parent’s generation. Boomer canards about “freedom”, “hard work”, and “opportunity” are glib and dated non-sense. Us younger folks were born too late to benefit from either the New Deal, or the Great Neo-lib capitalist gang-bang of the 80’s and 90’s. There’s no sense in hanging on to the Neo-liberalism that today’s oldest voters welcomed w/ open arms over the last 40 years.

  81. @Audacious Epigone
    You'd think in a field of 20 candidates that a second- or third-tier could be propelled forward by striking a decidedly Wokeless tone. Andrew Yang looked like he might be the one who'd do that, but then he went just as all-in on it as the rest of them in the debate. Jim Webb was the only Wokeless Dem candidate of the five in 2016 and he polled at... 1% support.

    I heard an old-school Dem say that Webb’s foray into the early 2016 debates was decidedly…..Awkward. Sander’s sucked up all the populist energy with his emotional approach and pointed attack on elites, making someone like Webb look too conventional and timid for the current era. Webb may have worked better in the New Deal era, or the 80’s and 90’s, but now’s not the time for playing things safe.

  82. @Truth
    You guys really live in a strange fantasy world.

    That’s rich coming from an upper middle class white dude pretending to be black in the UR comments section.

    • Replies: @Truth
    I take that as a compliment, Twerp.
  83. @alexander
    I think the entire crop of Democratic Candidates , just like the DNC itself, has lost nearly all its credibility, since the 2016 Hillary/ Bernie DNC fiasco.

    They have not recovered ......because they have not changed.

    That "something is rotten in Denmark "stink has not gone away, it has just fully recirculated itself through the HVAC system known as the Lying Corporate Media.

    They are all the exact same corporate tools, they have zero moral character, they stand for absolutely nothing but what their paymasters tell them to.....which , in this case ,is MORE perpetual war and MORE heinous debt.

    Bernie can still zing the system. His critiques are, quite often, spot on....but his capitulation to voter fraud, by standing right behind Hillary after the DNC debacle , left everyone wondering ...WTF.

    It has tarnished his reputation more than most realize....How can progressives go all in for a candidate who says " Hey...your votes really DON'T matter."

    There is one exception.

    Tulsi Gabbard.

    If the concept of "integrity" is in short supply these days......Tulsi has got it, in spades !

    She is more of a warrior, .... and more of a peacemaker.... than the rest of the entire pack combined .

    She is REAL...and the people SENSE it !

    She is the dark horse with the monster gallop,... with nary a whiff of "Denmark" .....on her.

    She is the "world peace/surfer dude" who is going to ride her ALOHA Tsunami...right into the White House !

    “She is the “world peace/surfer dude” who is going to ride her ALOHA Tsunami…right into the White House !”

    Seek help before you snap and kill us all.

  84. @anon
    I don't get it.

    Kamala Harris, daughter of two highly educated professionals one of whom is Tamil Indian, attributes her success in life to "bussing."

    If bussing was such a great success, why aren't Blacks doing stupendously well?

    And if bussing evened the score, making it possible for "little Black girls" like Kamala (Sanskrit for Lotus Flower) to play on a leveled field, then - - - - What's all the fuss? Hasn't that problem been solved?

    I suppose you mean “busing”, but you made a valid point there.

  85. @Audacious Epigone
    A serious independent would be a gift from heaven for Trump. For all his faults and all the Never Trumper/neocon efforts against him, Republican voters are overwhelmingly supportive.

    This is from the CNN Poll

    Harris gained 20 points among blacks

    Harris may have additional growth with black Democratic voters. More than 20% cannot form an opinion of her. Less than 10% cannot form an opinion of Biden. More black voters (29%) trust her on race relations than trust Biden (23%)

  86. @Random Dude
    The talent pool of blacks is wide but shallow. It’s one thing to run in a deep blue district where 90% of the population shares your skin color, it’s another thing entirely to run for the highest position in the land. As overconfident as blacks tend to be, even Maxine Waters and Al Green know they don’t have the right stuff to make a run for it.

    Steve Sailer has written about how the heavily racialized districting means really blackety black candidates are the ones who can win House seats but they are not the types of blacks who can appeal to broader, more diverse electorates–the kind of candidates required to win at the national or even state level. Black congress critters are common but black senators are rare.

  87. @Oleaginous Outrager
    Given the questions and the moderators asking them, when would a Wokeless candidate have a chance to stand out? As the debates have unfolded so far, a Wokeless approach only makes one look weak and/or evasive.

    When a question comes about discrimination, answer “I do believe in discrimination. I believe in discriminating in favor of American citizens. Democrats once believed in that and it’s time we believe in it again.” Something like that is doable and it would generate massive media attention.

    • Replies: @Oleaginous Outrager
    "I believe in discriminating in favor of American citizens. "

    The Woke piranhas would skin someone for that statement in seconds. The big winner of ideas on the night was free lifetime healthcare for illegal immigrants. "Discriminating in favor of American citizens" is a death sentence in that arena.
  88. @Charles Pewitt

    That felt more accurate at the time it was written than it does now.

     

    Trump's civic nationalism croaks with the baby boomers.

    The GOP will go explicit White Core American or it goes dodo.

    Kamala Harris will increase the salience of White Identity Politics if she attempts to use the Aunt Jemima Strategy to win Black Lady Voters, especially in the South.

    Hillary Clinton used the Aunt Jemima Strategy to fend off Bernie Sanders in 2016.

    The Aunt Jemima Strategy is to win the votes of lovely and sweet Black lady voters, especially in the South. The Aunt Jemima Strategy obviously plays in other areas of Black population concentration, too.

    Kamala Harris could be the Accelerationist candidate for motivating the rise of White Core America politics. She is particularly nasty and she is not one of our Blacks. I hope Blacks see us as "our" Whites. I think many Blacks do. Old stocker American Blacks descended from slaves and old stocker Whites might not love each other so much, but we see each other as being here a long time and we have a sense of each other. Kamala Harris has no ancestral ties to the USA, and many old stocker Blacks know it.

    Mulatto Obama looks more Black than does Mulatto Kamala Harris. Obama was half White; Kamala Harris is half South Asian. Obama had some sense of the USA -- Kamala Harris does not.

    What will the lovely and sweet Black lady voters with their beefy upper arms and their handbags and their church going ways think of Kamala Harris?

    What will the lovely and sweet Black lady voters with their beefy upper arms and their handbags and their church going ways think of Kamala Harris?

    That’s the million dollar question in South Carolina.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    The above study shows that blacks when faced with a non-black candidate will almost always vote for the Black one

    She is the most searched for candidate in the black belt of the South, far eclipsing Biden.

    And on polling her ascendancy is clear as day

    New Quinnipiac National Poll (6/28 - 7/1):
    Biden 22%
    Harris 20%
    Warren 14%
    Sanders 13%
    Buttigieg 4%
    Booker 3%
    All the rest at 1% or less

    Key number in that Q-poll: Black voters.

    Biden - 31%
    Harris - 27%
    Sanders - 16%
    Booker - 5%
    Warren - 4%

    Harris gained 20 points with black voters in the CNN Poll

    Harris may have additional growth with black Democratic voters. More than 20% cannot form an opinion of her. Less than 10% cannot form an opinion of Biden. More black voters (29%) trust her on race relations than trust Biden (23%)
  89. @Twodees Partain
    That's rich coming from an upper middle class white dude pretending to be black in the UR comments section.

    I take that as a compliment, Twerp.

  90. @Audacious Epigone
    Blacks are not locked in during the primaries--far from it. They are the key to winning the primaries. Kamala is very fortunate that no other legitimately black candidates are running. So fortunate, in fact, that in a Harris administration I wouldn't be surprised to see nice cabinet appointments for Stacey Abrams and Deval Patrick.

    Sincere questions: what is the black participation rate in primary elections? Mexicans?

    People O’Color are the key to the Dems winning in the general, but getting them to turn out it is difficult and I would guess twice as hard in the primaries.

    It seems to me that the DNC will need to rig the 2020 nomination process to nominate Harris and avoid having the Antifa base of the Democrat party (the people for whom politics is their church and who certainly will vote in the primary) nominate an unelectable non-POC leftist.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Black turnout rates are pretty near parity with white rates. Adjusting for SES, black turnout rates are higher. More than half the Dem electorate in South Carolina will be black. Hispanics and Asians are much lower, though maybe they'll be a little higher this time around since California got moved way up and will actually influence who the Dem nominee is for the first time in roughly ever.
  91. @Audacious Epigone
    When a question comes about discrimination, answer "I do believe in discrimination. I believe in discriminating in favor of American citizens. Democrats once believed in that and it's time we believe in it again." Something like that is doable and it would generate massive media attention.

    “I believe in discriminating in favor of American citizens. ”

    The Woke piranhas would skin someone for that statement in seconds. The big winner of ideas on the night was free lifetime healthcare for illegal immigrants. “Discriminating in favor of American citizens” is a death sentence in that arena.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Even for a second- or third-tier candidate in a field of twenty?

    But not a single one came anywhere close to doing what I hypothetically proposes, so it's hard to argue with you.
  92. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    That's why white flight is a terrible idea.

    As long as immigrants are coming in by the millions you will be pushed further and further away.

    Moving to the middle of nowhere buys you 20 years. But what are you going to do when a section 8 goes up across the street in a field?

    I'm sure the Indians thought they would be free of the white man in the plains too. Stay and fight, don't run.

    Moving to the middle of nowhere buys you 20 years. But what are you going to do when a section 8 goes up across the street in a field?

    That is why radical environmentalism (stupid as it is) is our friend.

    But–it is only buying time.

    Demography _is_ destiny, and the battle over illegal and legal immigration is the battle for survival.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Western Europe mostly forbids the construction of expansive exurbs (or land acquisition is just too difficult), the end result being that Europeans since the 1960's have basically stopped having kids*. The only way Western Europe can "hang on" is to completely block immigration, Japan style. Western Europeans and the Japanese were the first to the "lets stop having kids" party, and others appear to be joining them** (except SS AFricans); problem is, a lot of people want into countries with declining birth rates, and many of these countries are run by traitorous elites who won't stop the invasion.

    *Europeans don't like to rear children in dense urban areas (esp. with lots of "vibrant" diversity lurking); this isn't as big a deal in America with it's sprawling suburbs and exurbs, however Europeans don't really have the same option. Western Europe has it's classic large cities, and it's quaint smaller towns, neither of which have added all that many suburban or exurban rings over the last 50 years.

    **American Millennials of all races are basically not having kids relative to what the older generations did , though fertility is still much higher here than it is in Western Europe or Japan.
  93. @Charles Pewitt

    A serious independent would be a gift from heaven for Trump. For all his faults and all the Never Trumper/neocon efforts against him, Republican voters are overwhelmingly supportive.

     

    Trump is in big trouble because he might lose 5 or ten percent of his support on the Trump Immigration Backstab.

    Trump says he wants foreigners to flood into the USA "in the largest numbers ever."

    If Trump loses 5 or ten percent of his White voters in the Great Lakes states and Florida and Texas, Trump is done. Trump is toast.

    A Sam Francis/Pat Buchanan independent candidate could easily take 5 or 10 percent of the White vote in key states.

    I won't vote for Trump nor any GOP candidate that supports mass legal immigration and illegal immigration.

    Is there any realistic possibility of a candidate, third party or otherwise, who’s not a civnat “Proposition Nation of Immigrants” disaster?

  94. @Audacious Epigone
    What will the lovely and sweet Black lady voters with their beefy upper arms and their handbags and their church going ways think of Kamala Harris?

    That's the million dollar question in South Carolina.

    The above study shows that blacks when faced with a non-black candidate will almost always vote for the Black one

    She is the most searched for candidate in the black belt of the South, far eclipsing Biden.

    And on polling her ascendancy is clear as day

    New Quinnipiac National Poll (6/28 – 7/1):
    Biden 22%
    Harris 20%
    Warren 14%
    Sanders 13%
    Buttigieg 4%
    Booker 3%
    All the rest at 1% or less

    Key number in that Q-poll: Black voters.

    Biden – 31%
    Harris – 27%
    Sanders – 16%
    Booker – 5%
    Warren – 4%

    Harris gained 20 points with black voters in the CNN Poll

    Harris may have additional growth with black Democratic voters. More than 20% cannot form an opinion of her. Less than 10% cannot form an opinion of Biden. More black voters (29%) trust her on race relations than trust Biden (23%)

    • Replies: @iffen
    We needed Abrams to get into this race.

    The black whale among all those white moby dicks.

    God should be so generous to those he loves.
  95. @Oblivionrecurs
    The above study shows that blacks when faced with a non-black candidate will almost always vote for the Black one

    She is the most searched for candidate in the black belt of the South, far eclipsing Biden.

    And on polling her ascendancy is clear as day

    New Quinnipiac National Poll (6/28 - 7/1):
    Biden 22%
    Harris 20%
    Warren 14%
    Sanders 13%
    Buttigieg 4%
    Booker 3%
    All the rest at 1% or less

    Key number in that Q-poll: Black voters.

    Biden - 31%
    Harris - 27%
    Sanders - 16%
    Booker - 5%
    Warren - 4%

    Harris gained 20 points with black voters in the CNN Poll

    Harris may have additional growth with black Democratic voters. More than 20% cannot form an opinion of her. Less than 10% cannot form an opinion of Biden. More black voters (29%) trust her on race relations than trust Biden (23%)

    We needed Abrams to get into this race.

    The black whale among all those white moby dicks.

    God should be so generous to those he loves.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Just like Georgia wasn't (quite) ready for her, the US isn't either. Not quite.
  96. @Oleaginous Outrager
    "I believe in discriminating in favor of American citizens. "

    The Woke piranhas would skin someone for that statement in seconds. The big winner of ideas on the night was free lifetime healthcare for illegal immigrants. "Discriminating in favor of American citizens" is a death sentence in that arena.

    Even for a second- or third-tier candidate in a field of twenty?

    But not a single one came anywhere close to doing what I hypothetically proposes, so it’s hard to argue with you.

  97. @iffen
    We needed Abrams to get into this race.

    The black whale among all those white moby dicks.

    God should be so generous to those he loves.

    Just like Georgia wasn’t (quite) ready for her, the US isn’t either. Not quite.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    She'll be a powerful endorsement though
  98. @Audacious Epigone
    Just like Georgia wasn't (quite) ready for her, the US isn't either. Not quite.

    She’ll be a powerful endorsement though

  99. @Steve in Greensboro
    Sincere questions: what is the black participation rate in primary elections? Mexicans?

    People O'Color are the key to the Dems winning in the general, but getting them to turn out it is difficult and I would guess twice as hard in the primaries.

    It seems to me that the DNC will need to rig the 2020 nomination process to nominate Harris and avoid having the Antifa base of the Democrat party (the people for whom politics is their church and who certainly will vote in the primary) nominate an unelectable non-POC leftist.

    Black turnout rates are pretty near parity with white rates. Adjusting for SES, black turnout rates are higher. More than half the Dem electorate in South Carolina will be black. Hispanics and Asians are much lower, though maybe they’ll be a little higher this time around since California got moved way up and will actually influence who the Dem nominee is for the first time in roughly ever.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    That raises the question of just how much the Dems want to keep hitching their wagon to blacks, whose median age is sure to grow in most regions (since Millennial blacks don't have kids like their parents did) and whose proportion of the pop. has been exceeded by Hispanics, and will eventually be near the future proportion of Asians.

    Moving the CA primary up is perhaps symbolic of the demographic and cultural shift underway (as is Andy Yang's candidacy), though the shift is being delayed by the older generations (Silents, Boomers, early X-ers) who represent America's traditional demographics (and who vote much more often than younger people). Though younger generations would never admit it, they probably are eagerly awaiting the day that we can have more discussions (and policies) not fixated by blackety blackety black.

    The lower turn-out of recently arrived ethnic groups I think says a lot about age, national origin, and voting. Older, American born whites and blacks vote a lot, whereas Asians and Hispanics over the age of 50 are mostly immigrants who don't vote, and their kids are too young to care about voting yet.
    , @Feryl
    Isn't the number 1 factor in turn out age? Old people vote, young people don't. Nativity is important, also. Natives vote, immigrants generally don't. Among whites, higher status is important to voting, but there just aren't that many highly successful blacks, probably explaining why so many prole blacks opt to vote; the black status mean is much lower than it is for whites.
  100. @Audacious Epigone
    Black turnout rates are pretty near parity with white rates. Adjusting for SES, black turnout rates are higher. More than half the Dem electorate in South Carolina will be black. Hispanics and Asians are much lower, though maybe they'll be a little higher this time around since California got moved way up and will actually influence who the Dem nominee is for the first time in roughly ever.

    That raises the question of just how much the Dems want to keep hitching their wagon to blacks, whose median age is sure to grow in most regions (since Millennial blacks don’t have kids like their parents did) and whose proportion of the pop. has been exceeded by Hispanics, and will eventually be near the future proportion of Asians.

    Moving the CA primary up is perhaps symbolic of the demographic and cultural shift underway (as is Andy Yang’s candidacy), though the shift is being delayed by the older generations (Silents, Boomers, early X-ers) who represent America’s traditional demographics (and who vote much more often than younger people). Though younger generations would never admit it, they probably are eagerly awaiting the day that we can have more discussions (and policies) not fixated by blackety blackety black.

    The lower turn-out of recently arrived ethnic groups I think says a lot about age, national origin, and voting. Older, American born whites and blacks vote a lot, whereas Asians and Hispanics over the age of 50 are mostly immigrants who don’t vote, and their kids are too young to care about voting yet.

  101. @Justvisiting

    Moving to the middle of nowhere buys you 20 years. But what are you going to do when a section 8 goes up across the street in a field?
     
    That is why radical environmentalism (stupid as it is) is our friend.

    But--it is only buying time.

    Demography _is_ destiny, and the battle over illegal and legal immigration is the battle for survival.

    Western Europe mostly forbids the construction of expansive exurbs (or land acquisition is just too difficult), the end result being that Europeans since the 1960’s have basically stopped having kids*. The only way Western Europe can “hang on” is to completely block immigration, Japan style. Western Europeans and the Japanese were the first to the “lets stop having kids” party, and others appear to be joining them** (except SS AFricans); problem is, a lot of people want into countries with declining birth rates, and many of these countries are run by traitorous elites who won’t stop the invasion.

    *Europeans don’t like to rear children in dense urban areas (esp. with lots of “vibrant” diversity lurking); this isn’t as big a deal in America with it’s sprawling suburbs and exurbs, however Europeans don’t really have the same option. Western Europe has it’s classic large cities, and it’s quaint smaller towns, neither of which have added all that many suburban or exurban rings over the last 50 years.

    **American Millennials of all races are basically not having kids relative to what the older generations did , though fertility is still much higher here than it is in Western Europe or Japan.

  102. @Audacious Epigone
    Black turnout rates are pretty near parity with white rates. Adjusting for SES, black turnout rates are higher. More than half the Dem electorate in South Carolina will be black. Hispanics and Asians are much lower, though maybe they'll be a little higher this time around since California got moved way up and will actually influence who the Dem nominee is for the first time in roughly ever.

    Isn’t the number 1 factor in turn out age? Old people vote, young people don’t. Nativity is important, also. Natives vote, immigrants generally don’t. Among whites, higher status is important to voting, but there just aren’t that many highly successful blacks, probably explaining why so many prole blacks opt to vote; the black status mean is much lower than it is for whites.

  103. @Audacious Epigone
    Shamelessly quoting myself from a month ago:

    The field is ripe for a fully fledged POC like Stacey Abrams or Oprah Winfrey to jump in and immediately shoot to the top of the polls. It’s worth noting that at this point in the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump had not yet even announced his candidacy.
     
    The time for that to happen was probably prior to the first debates, though. It really would be seen as poor form by a lot of Democrat voters at this point for someone new to jump in.

    Doesn’t Kamala strike you as being a bit smarter than Stacey, though? I mean, they both appear to be pretty smart, but Kamala’s black ancestry is elite black ancestry and her Indian Brahmin ancestry has to count for something.

    Interestingly enough, though, both Kamala and Stacey symbolize a problem for the black community–specifically black female dysgenics. Both of them are childless and rapidly approaching the end of their reproductive cycles.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I wouldn't be confident venturing a guess as to who is smarter. Abrams is very intelligent, though, and it's an unforced error for those on the right to think she isn't.
  104. @Audacious Epigone
    After the first debate, though, Trump took the lead and never looked back.

    Trump: “Jeb is low energy!”
    Jeb: (Yelling a lot.)
    Trump: “That’s what I like! More energy!”

  105. @Mr. XYZ
    Doesn't Kamala strike you as being a bit smarter than Stacey, though? I mean, they both appear to be pretty smart, but Kamala's black ancestry is elite black ancestry and her Indian Brahmin ancestry has to count for something.

    Interestingly enough, though, both Kamala and Stacey symbolize a problem for the black community--specifically black female dysgenics. Both of them are childless and rapidly approaching the end of their reproductive cycles.

    I wouldn’t be confident venturing a guess as to who is smarter. Abrams is very intelligent, though, and it’s an unforced error for those on the right to think she isn’t.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS