The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Gene Expression BlogTeasers
The End of the Long 20th Century, 1915-2016
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Screenshot 2016-11-09 21.41.13

51PboR9SpFL._SY344_BO1,204,203,200_ I do not spend much time thinking about politics at this point in my life. Therefore I have little to say that is very important or interesting, though I take a passing casual interest. The map above is very curious. Donald Trump did not simply ride on a wave of expected gains. He changed the map. Yes, he was solid in core Republican regions (except Mormon America), but he really gained in more “purple” areas of the Midwest and Middle Atlantic. Trump crushed it in West Virginia and lost Virginia. That would be very peculiar in the 1990s. More relevantly, the Driftless went for Trump, despite being the most prominent area of rural white America outside New England to support Obama in 2008 and 2012 (the area also favored Democrats in 2000 and 2004). In the near future, when I have more time, I will be looking at the county-level data.

Second, the exit polls are interesting. One has to be careful here with these sorts of results, but it does not look as if Trump lost with minorities and gained with whites nearly as much as the press would have you believe. Granted, disaggregation is important here. Trump lost among wealthier and more educated whites, but made up for it with the downscale. Anyone trying to sell a simple story is probably taking you for a ride.

There are many stories here. Though you can probably go elsewhere for most of them. I plan on focusing on science and history, which I find more fascinating than politics.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Politics, Trump 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I don’t think Trump won. I think Hillary lost.

    Look at the following table of popular votes in the last four Presidential elections. I took the 2016 numbers from the NYTimes.com page, and they will be subject to change for a few days.

    2016 Clinton 59,582,654 Trump 59,343,508
    2012 Obama 65,915,795 Romney 60,933,504
    2008 Obama 69,498,516 McCain 59,948,323
    2004 Kerry 59,028,444 Bush 62,040,610

    Notice two things. First, Hillary received more vote than Trump did. She lost because she ran up huge super majorities in a few places, mostly big cities, but slumped over much of the rest of the Country.

    Second, Trump received fewer votes than did any of the last 3 Republican. Contrary to his boasts, he did not attract any new or hidden voters. He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.

    Hillary OTOH, ran way behind Obama. It was Hillary’s race to lose and she did it. Exit the Clinton’s from American life. The only real question is whether Obama will pardon her. She would be well advised to push for it, and to have Bill included too.

    Further to the above:

    In the 5 states that moved from D to R in 2016 and gave Trump his victory (Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida) all had senatorial elections. Those elections provide an interesting contrast to the Presidential vote totals.

    Iowa

    Trump 798,923
    Clinton 650,790

    Grassley 923,280
    Judge 546,974

    Wisconsin

    Trump 1,409,467
    Clinton 1,382,210

    Johnson 1,479,262
    Feingold 1,380,496

    Ohio

    Trump 2,771,984
    Clinton 2,317,001

    Portman 3,048,467
    Strickland 1,929,873

    Pennsylvania

    Trump 2,912,941
    Clinton 2,844,705

    Toomey 2,893,833
    McGinty 2,793,668

    Florida

    Trump 4,605,515
    Clinton 4,485,745

    Rubio 4,822,182
    Murphy 4,105,251

    In each of those states, other than PA, the Republican Senatorial candidate ran ahead of Trump. And, in PA, Toomey was only slightly (less than 1%) behind.

    My conclusion is that Republican is a better brand than Trump, and that Trump won because Hillary lost, not because Trump did especially well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Throughout the campaign the pundits kept saying that any decent Republican candidate would be in position to defeat Clinton.

    Do we want to turn that around now and say that any decent Democratic candidate could have defeated Trump?

    , @Difference maker
    Framing the narrative through media and other channels is an important factor that would've boosted his numbers and that we need to control, to keep leftism from flourishing ever again and to avoid having to rely on one man.

    And cucks gonna cuck. People have different personalities and inclinations, a natural result of genetic variation, and no one person will agree 100% with another.

    If people can't be bothered to avert potential ww3 and their own slavery, it's better after all if they don't vote
    , @colm
    No one was crazy enough to fight against Queenlary other than the Donald. Any 'decent' Rep candidate would have done as well as - Romney.
    , @Unladen Swallow
    Being from one of the states you mention ( Ohio ), I would say Trump would have won the state easily regardless, the Democrats have whiffed badly on the last two state wide elections ( 2014 and 2016 ) by fielding horrible candidates in the most recent gubernatorial and senate races. The Senate race this year was a rout because our last Democratic governor ran for the Senate and he had a terrible track record here, which is why he was a one term governor running against a moderately popular incumbent GOP senator.

    Also remember Ohio went Democratic the last two presidential elections, so Trump winning it was something of a turnaround. In 2014, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee got caught with a woman not his wife in a parked car in the middle of the night and also had a driver's license that was long expired, this effectively killed him against Kasich who was actually somewhat vulnerable coming up for re-election at the beginning of the campaign cycle. Additionally, both Michigan and Pennsylvania had not gone GOP in a presidential election since 1988 and Wisconsin since 1984, so this was pretty big turnaround for the Republicans.

    , @Sean
    A man came from nowhere to beat Hillary with Dems in 2008.

    He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.
     
    Palin surely cost McCain some votes. Dems made hay in 2008 thinking that Palin's personal qualities and experience disqualified her, but should have drawn the lesson that her sex was a real factor, and choosing any woman for pres candidate, no matter how well qualified,would be a risky choice. There are a lot of factors of course but Democratic voters being unenthusiastic about a woman is something that is not being given enough weight.
    , @AnotherDad
    Walter, you're grabbing first post--and Razib isn't even interested in the political detail, just the big trend--and this is what you serve up?

    --> Yes, Clinton is a crappy candidate--openly corrupt, bought by Wall Street and incapable of truth telling. But Trump has some obvious negatives, even beyond the liberal\establishment\Jewish media hysteria.

    --> You're comparing incomplete 2016 popular vote totals to 2012.
    Turnout was actually up a notch--so toss that out.

    --> Senate ... geez where to start:
    -- Every one of the guys you list is an *incumbent*, Trump is not.
    -- Senators are inherently local (to state) and can tailor their policy positions appropriately for the state in a way presidential candidates do not. They will *usually* run ahead of the presidential candidate of their party in states their party usually doesn't carry for the presidency.
    -- All these guys had the advantage that the average voter thought Hillary would win, so they get some votes from independent minded voters who didn't like Trump, but didn't want Hillary to have a compliant Senate.

    --> Razib showed you the map.
    Yes, Hillary sucks, but if it's just "Hillary sucks", then you'd expect a "redshift" everywhere. That's not the case. The redshift has a very strong localization to the Midwest and upper South.
    The "Republican" brand may indeed by a better brand than "Trump", but Romney--accomplished, reasonable political background, high competence, not corrupt, very respectable personal life--had been unable to give a bunch of these working and middle class voters any reason to vote for him and had been unable to carry any "Great Lakes" Midwestern state beyond Indiana.
    Obviously rather than just "Clinton sucks", Trump was able to convince a fair number of Midwestern working\middle class whites that he was offering them a better alternative.


    Whether this is truly the beginning of an "end of the Century!" nationalist politically realignment--where we sane nationalists can rip our nations back from the globalist "good white" nuts--hard to say. But clearly there's more going on here than just "Clinton sucks".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/gnxp/the-end-of-the-long-20th-century-1915-2016/#comment-1643372
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. I disagree on your century periodization.

    The 19th Century began with the end of the battle of Waterloo. It was the time of European dominance lead by Great Britain.

    That century ended after 99 years at the beginning of the Great War (a/k/a WWI). The time that followed was a period of war and bloodshed, and political and economic chaos, characterized by “ideologies”. WWI, the Russian Revolution, The Fascist takeovers, the Great Depression, the Japanese invasions, WWII, the Chinese Revolution, the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The denouement was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of Communism in China around 1990.

    The new era began not later the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It is characterized by Civilizational collapses in the West and Middle East. Neurasthenia and voluntary extinction in the West, collective suicide in the Middle East.

    Read More
    • Agree: Pseudonymic Handle
    • Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
    I came to the same conclusions you did independently. Of course, votes by mail are still being counted in a few places (particularly California) so it's not beyond question that Trump's vote total may surpass McCain, or even Romney. The downballot races are also interesting. If this was really realignment, you'd expect to see something similar to West Virginia, where the Democratic candidate for governor won by about 7% despite the state going for Trump by around 40%. Instead you saw straight-ticket voting, by and large - meaning it's more likely the swing was due to Democratic base turnout collapsing than any major realignment. At least in the Rust Belt - in Florida both Democratic and Republican turnout were up, but Republican turnout was up more.

    Regardless, I think the lesson learned is not that Trump has a durable governing coalition, but that Clinton couldn't form a governing majority. Upper-middle class neoliberal educated professionals, low income people of color, and socialist-leaning young people cannot form a governing coalition by themselves. While none of them were really in contention to be part of Trump's coalition, the option to either vote third party or sit out voting entirely was there, and it appears enough of the latter two did (along with the working-class white remnants in the party) that it was unworkable. Or maybe it's just that Clinton was a wonk without charisma similar to Kerry and Gore - it does seem like since Reagan charisma is basically a requisite to winning the general election (G.H.W. Bush's first run being the sole exception).

    I've long been of the opinion that the 2016 presidential election is something of a poisoned chalice however, no matter who wins. First, it's likely that there will be a recession in the next four years, which could impact the 2018 midterms or the 2020 presidential campaign. Secondly, no one in either party is dealing with the fundamental problem of increasing automation of lower-wage jobs. If Trump really mass deports undocumented immigrants it will raise wages, but I don't think middle aged people in depressed rust-belt communities will see leaving their hometown to become a gardener in LA to be a good solution for their problems. Third, 2002 not withstanding, the first round of midterm elections are usually pretty bad for the President's party. Due to the map, Democrats are sure to lose some seats in the Senate, and won't make up much ground in the House. But a ton of Republican governors who were elected first in 2010 will be term limited out. if Dems win these governorships, the 2020 congressional and legislative maps will have less Republican-drawn gerrymanders and more court-drawn maps, which will make the 2020s significantly less dominant for the Republicans.

    I'm going to avoid directly criticizing Trump - in part because I know he has many fans on this site, but also because I frankly have not a clue what he will do once he is in office, since he's been on both sides of just about every major issue. But given his coalition did not even win a plurality of the vote (although it won the electoral college) and it is reliant upon older voters, Trump supporters better hope his governance is indeed realigning, because (absent Democratic turnout cratering even more) there is nowhere to go but down.

    , @El Dato
    This!

    > Neurasthenia

    "a virtually obsolete term formerly used to describe a vague disorder marked by chronic abnormal fatigability, moderate depression, inability to concentrate, loss of appetite, insomnia, and other symptoms. Popularly called nervous prostration. "


    Ah yes. I first encountered the word in the Moebius comic "L'Incal" in the chapter where the oppressive establishment is forcefully attacked by cultists, humanoid undergound dwellers and several different crazed splinter groups at the same time while "normal" citizens are watching the "official news" on TV.

  3. Trump crushed it in West Virginia lost Virginia.

    WV: Blue Dog Democrats are finally gone – and completely.

    VA: Most of rural VA is still extremely conservative. However, Northern Virginia has gained a massive amount of population in the last decade mostly from the Northeast and outside the country (Hispanic and Asian immigrants). And the Hampton Roads/Tidewater area is heavily transient (military-government) and black. Those areas increasingly overwhelm the rest of Virginia in presidential and state-wide politics. However, the state legislature is still under control of the GOP.

    Read More
  4. What are you basing your periodisation on? (Apart from Hobsbawm). Seems to me you could say 2016 could signify an end to the period from 1945, or 1989, of liberal globalisation, but can’t see how you could fit in the national and imperial conflicts of 1915 – 1945 into the period.

    Read More
  5. I would say that we had a short ideological century 1914-1989 and then the new era of globalization from 1989-2016(globalization began earlier but became dominant paradigm in 1989) and now we are entering a new era.

    Read More
  6. Why 1915-2016? I’ve heard the term “short 20th century” (1914-1989), but “long 20th century” is new to me…did you coin that term? And why 1915 as starting point?

    Read More
  7. @Walter Sobchak
    I disagree on your century periodization.

    The 19th Century began with the end of the battle of Waterloo. It was the time of European dominance lead by Great Britain.

    That century ended after 99 years at the beginning of the Great War (a/k/a WWI). The time that followed was a period of war and bloodshed, and political and economic chaos, characterized by "ideologies". WWI, the Russian Revolution, The Fascist takeovers, the Great Depression, the Japanese invasions, WWII, the Chinese Revolution, the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The denouement was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of Communism in China around 1990.

    The new era began not later the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It is characterized by Civilizational collapses in the West and Middle East. Neurasthenia and voluntary extinction in the West, collective suicide in the Middle East.

    I came to the same conclusions you did independently. Of course, votes by mail are still being counted in a few places (particularly California) so it’s not beyond question that Trump’s vote total may surpass McCain, or even Romney. The downballot races are also interesting. If this was really realignment, you’d expect to see something similar to West Virginia, where the Democratic candidate for governor won by about 7% despite the state going for Trump by around 40%. Instead you saw straight-ticket voting, by and large – meaning it’s more likely the swing was due to Democratic base turnout collapsing than any major realignment. At least in the Rust Belt – in Florida both Democratic and Republican turnout were up, but Republican turnout was up more.

    Regardless, I think the lesson learned is not that Trump has a durable governing coalition, but that Clinton couldn’t form a governing majority. Upper-middle class neoliberal educated professionals, low income people of color, and socialist-leaning young people cannot form a governing coalition by themselves. While none of them were really in contention to be part of Trump’s coalition, the option to either vote third party or sit out voting entirely was there, and it appears enough of the latter two did (along with the working-class white remnants in the party) that it was unworkable. Or maybe it’s just that Clinton was a wonk without charisma similar to Kerry and Gore – it does seem like since Reagan charisma is basically a requisite to winning the general election (G.H.W. Bush’s first run being the sole exception).

    I’ve long been of the opinion that the 2016 presidential election is something of a poisoned chalice however, no matter who wins. First, it’s likely that there will be a recession in the next four years, which could impact the 2018 midterms or the 2020 presidential campaign. Secondly, no one in either party is dealing with the fundamental problem of increasing automation of lower-wage jobs. If Trump really mass deports undocumented immigrants it will raise wages, but I don’t think middle aged people in depressed rust-belt communities will see leaving their hometown to become a gardener in LA to be a good solution for their problems. Third, 2002 not withstanding, the first round of midterm elections are usually pretty bad for the President’s party. Due to the map, Democrats are sure to lose some seats in the Senate, and won’t make up much ground in the House. But a ton of Republican governors who were elected first in 2010 will be term limited out. if Dems win these governorships, the 2020 congressional and legislative maps will have less Republican-drawn gerrymanders and more court-drawn maps, which will make the 2020s significantly less dominant for the Republicans.

    I’m going to avoid directly criticizing Trump – in part because I know he has many fans on this site, but also because I frankly have not a clue what he will do once he is in office, since he’s been on both sides of just about every major issue. But given his coalition did not even win a plurality of the vote (although it won the electoral college) and it is reliant upon older voters, Trump supporters better hope his governance is indeed realigning, because (absent Democratic turnout cratering even more) there is nowhere to go but down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seth Largo
    I frankly have not a clue what he will do once he is in office

    This has been the most maddening aspect of the last 24 hours. Trump is all over the map on almost every issue except his precious Wall. Looking at the full context of everything he's said on most issues, no coherent ideas or even ideology comes through. Yet I've never seen so many people so absolutely positive about a president-elect's first 100 days in office. I hope the emoting dies down soon. Maybe Netflix can expedite the new season of Stranger Things.
  8. @Walter Sobchak
    I don't think Trump won. I think Hillary lost.

    Look at the following table of popular votes in the last four Presidential elections. I took the 2016 numbers from the NYTimes.com page, and they will be subject to change for a few days.

    2016 Clinton 59,582,654 Trump 59,343,508
    2012 Obama 65,915,795 Romney 60,933,504
    2008 Obama 69,498,516 McCain 59,948,323
    2004 Kerry 59,028,444 Bush 62,040,610

    Notice two things. First, Hillary received more vote than Trump did. She lost because she ran up huge super majorities in a few places, mostly big cities, but slumped over much of the rest of the Country.

    Second, Trump received fewer votes than did any of the last 3 Republican. Contrary to his boasts, he did not attract any new or hidden voters. He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.

    Hillary OTOH, ran way behind Obama. It was Hillary's race to lose and she did it. Exit the Clinton's from American life. The only real question is whether Obama will pardon her. She would be well advised to push for it, and to have Bill included too.

    Further to the above:

    In the 5 states that moved from D to R in 2016 and gave Trump his victory (Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida) all had senatorial elections. Those elections provide an interesting contrast to the Presidential vote totals.

    Iowa

    Trump 798,923
    Clinton 650,790

    Grassley 923,280
    Judge 546,974

    Wisconsin

    Trump 1,409,467
    Clinton 1,382,210

    Johnson 1,479,262
    Feingold 1,380,496

    Ohio

    Trump 2,771,984
    Clinton 2,317,001

    Portman 3,048,467
    Strickland 1,929,873

    Pennsylvania

    Trump 2,912,941
    Clinton 2,844,705

    Toomey 2,893,833
    McGinty 2,793,668

    Florida

    Trump 4,605,515
    Clinton 4,485,745

    Rubio 4,822,182
    Murphy 4,105,251

    In each of those states, other than PA, the Republican Senatorial candidate ran ahead of Trump. And, in PA, Toomey was only slightly (less than 1%) behind.

    My conclusion is that Republican is a better brand than Trump, and that Trump won because Hillary lost, not because Trump did especially well.

    Throughout the campaign the pundits kept saying that any decent Republican candidate would be in position to defeat Clinton.

    Do we want to turn that around now and say that any decent Democratic candidate could have defeated Trump?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
    I do think Bernie probably could have done it, absent a third-party challenge by Bloomberg. He would have won enough additional votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to swing them. Arguably he might have had some issues in Nevada, but union turnout won the state for Hillary more than the Latino vote, and Bernie has a better record on labor. Virginia is the only state that Hillary won which arguably Bernie would have lost.

    As for a "decent Democratic candidate" in a more general sense, I think it's hard to point to many. It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top in terms of insider support result in zero-charisma candidates who lack mass appeal. It's worth considering that Obama, Clinton, and even Carter were all outsiders who were given little chance of winning when the presidential campaign begun (similar to Trump actually). Every single time an insider won the nomination because it was "their turn" they lost. Maybe the Democrats should start trawling for down-ticket political candidates at TEDtalks or something.
    , @Walter Sobchak

    Do we want to turn that around now and say that any decent Democratic candidate could have defeated Trump?
     
    Yes. My view is that Trump and Clinton were both terrible candidates. Hillary just cratered harder than Trump. Also. Trump did his collapsing earlier in the campaign.

    Here is my matrix of the match ups.

    Trump v Hillary: you saw what happened.

    Decent R v Hillary: Decent R wins by a substantial margin. Country breaths sigh of relief.

    Trump v Decent D: Decent D wins. Country breaths sigh of relief.

    Decent R v Decent D: Close, D has demographic advantage, but it is very hard in our system for a party to hold the White House more than two terms in a row
  9. “it does not look as if Trump lost with minorities and gained with whites nearly as much as the press would have you believe.”

    My guesses about this seemingly counterintuitive result, which the Narrative was so incapable of countenancing:

    1) Most minorities long ago picked up on the basic idea that the Republicans are the white party, and avoid voting for them on the national level, particularly the presidency. Thus, Trump actually had little to lose by running an openly populist campaign, since low minority numbers are already baked into Republican results. On the margins, some minorities might have thought Trump was an interesting, charismatic, or compelling character and voted out of curiosity, just as some whites did.

    2) Black turnout was much, much lower without a black person on the Democratic ticket. I saw someone on twitter attribute lower turnout in Mississippi to “voter suppression”, and was amused.

    Here in Seattle, the fallout of this felt something like simultaneous barbarian raids upon all the major cities of America. As a new person to the city, with kinsfolk among the barbarians, I have noticed that it is increasingly hard for each side to see the other as human, and am more and more persuaded by Peter Turchin’s dire predictions.

    (I am not for Trump, but like most people on this site, I loathe the politically correct establishment and want to see them weakened.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl Zimmerman
    Obviously, I have biased viewpoints, but I think the falloff in minority turnout (and even dem support) can be explained by something simple: You need to give people something to vote for, not merely against.
  10. @Karl Zimmerman
    I came to the same conclusions you did independently. Of course, votes by mail are still being counted in a few places (particularly California) so it's not beyond question that Trump's vote total may surpass McCain, or even Romney. The downballot races are also interesting. If this was really realignment, you'd expect to see something similar to West Virginia, where the Democratic candidate for governor won by about 7% despite the state going for Trump by around 40%. Instead you saw straight-ticket voting, by and large - meaning it's more likely the swing was due to Democratic base turnout collapsing than any major realignment. At least in the Rust Belt - in Florida both Democratic and Republican turnout were up, but Republican turnout was up more.

    Regardless, I think the lesson learned is not that Trump has a durable governing coalition, but that Clinton couldn't form a governing majority. Upper-middle class neoliberal educated professionals, low income people of color, and socialist-leaning young people cannot form a governing coalition by themselves. While none of them were really in contention to be part of Trump's coalition, the option to either vote third party or sit out voting entirely was there, and it appears enough of the latter two did (along with the working-class white remnants in the party) that it was unworkable. Or maybe it's just that Clinton was a wonk without charisma similar to Kerry and Gore - it does seem like since Reagan charisma is basically a requisite to winning the general election (G.H.W. Bush's first run being the sole exception).

    I've long been of the opinion that the 2016 presidential election is something of a poisoned chalice however, no matter who wins. First, it's likely that there will be a recession in the next four years, which could impact the 2018 midterms or the 2020 presidential campaign. Secondly, no one in either party is dealing with the fundamental problem of increasing automation of lower-wage jobs. If Trump really mass deports undocumented immigrants it will raise wages, but I don't think middle aged people in depressed rust-belt communities will see leaving their hometown to become a gardener in LA to be a good solution for their problems. Third, 2002 not withstanding, the first round of midterm elections are usually pretty bad for the President's party. Due to the map, Democrats are sure to lose some seats in the Senate, and won't make up much ground in the House. But a ton of Republican governors who were elected first in 2010 will be term limited out. if Dems win these governorships, the 2020 congressional and legislative maps will have less Republican-drawn gerrymanders and more court-drawn maps, which will make the 2020s significantly less dominant for the Republicans.

    I'm going to avoid directly criticizing Trump - in part because I know he has many fans on this site, but also because I frankly have not a clue what he will do once he is in office, since he's been on both sides of just about every major issue. But given his coalition did not even win a plurality of the vote (although it won the electoral college) and it is reliant upon older voters, Trump supporters better hope his governance is indeed realigning, because (absent Democratic turnout cratering even more) there is nowhere to go but down.

    I frankly have not a clue what he will do once he is in office

    This has been the most maddening aspect of the last 24 hours. Trump is all over the map on almost every issue except his precious Wall. Looking at the full context of everything he’s said on most issues, no coherent ideas or even ideology comes through. Yet I’ve never seen so many people so absolutely positive about a president-elect’s first 100 days in office. I hope the emoting dies down soon. Maybe Netflix can expedite the new season of Stranger Things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    It will be Brexit plus times 2356.

    My God that's ... I don't even know what that is.

    Nobody does.

    , @Roger Sweeny
    Looking at the full context of everything he’s said on most issues, no coherent ideas or even ideology comes through. Yet I’ve never seen so many people so absolutely positive about a president-elect’s first 100 days in office.

    Which makes him remarkably similar to Barack Obama in 2008. Lots of people from libertarians to socialists thought he was actually sympathetic to them. Perhaps part of the requirement to being elected president is to be vague enough and empathetic enough that a majority of people think you're "with them" whether you are or not.
    , @Difference maker
    If he achieves all that he promised, it will be a golden age
    , @Antonymous
    I disagree. The media told us he had no firm stances but his website, speeches, and 30 years of interviews suggest otherwise. He's been against lopsided trade deals since Japan's protectionism in the 80's, NAFTA in the 90's, China's entry into WTO in 2000, and now TPP. Very consistent as well against needless foreign intervention, including Iraq, Libya, and Syria. I don't take a non-committal "I guess so" on Howard Stern as proof of support -- more an ambivalent "let's change the subject," especially in light of every other interview he gave that year.

    He's more recently against illegal immigration and H1B abuse. He read Adios America and recognized the forces behind bad trade and foreign policy again screwing the working class with mass low-wage immigration. Jeff Sessions and his staff have been key advisors to Trump throughout his campaign.

    He's generally against centralizing power, preferring to give states powers not explicitly given in the Constitution to the feds (per Amendment 10). His Supreme Court picks reflect that strict constructionism, as does his opposition to the ACA mandate, Common Core, and Obama's executive orders.

    He's against the deep corruption and influence peddling in DC, and his campaign's financing reflects it (nearly 100% himself and small donors).

    In his Gettysburg speech, Trump laid out his 100 day plan: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-delivers-groundbreaking-contract-for-the-american-vote1

    In his transition website, he lays out his general policies: https://www.greatagain.gov/ [Making America Great Again tab]
  11. Well if what this marks is the end of American hegemony, 1941-2016 makes a lot of sense.

    Read More
  12. You can write about how fucked we are in terms of stopping climate change.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Walter Sobchak
    Not to worry. We were never going to do anything, besides, and more importantly, Chin and India were not going to do anything either.
  13. @iffen
    Throughout the campaign the pundits kept saying that any decent Republican candidate would be in position to defeat Clinton.

    Do we want to turn that around now and say that any decent Democratic candidate could have defeated Trump?

    I do think Bernie probably could have done it, absent a third-party challenge by Bloomberg. He would have won enough additional votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to swing them. Arguably he might have had some issues in Nevada, but union turnout won the state for Hillary more than the Latino vote, and Bernie has a better record on labor. Virginia is the only state that Hillary won which arguably Bernie would have lost.

    As for a “decent Democratic candidate” in a more general sense, I think it’s hard to point to many. It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top in terms of insider support result in zero-charisma candidates who lack mass appeal. It’s worth considering that Obama, Clinton, and even Carter were all outsiders who were given little chance of winning when the presidential campaign begun (similar to Trump actually). Every single time an insider won the nomination because it was “their turn” they lost. Maybe the Democrats should start trawling for down-ticket political candidates at TEDtalks or something.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top

    The black vote has king making and veto power in the Democratic primaries.

    The last of the Reagan democrats have moved permanently into the Republican party.

    This happened much more quickly in the Southern states. It would likely graph with the % of the black population, the first states to flip were SC and MS.

    It remains to be seen whether working class whites can maintain veto power in the Republican primaries.
    , @notanon

    It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top in terms of insider support result in zero-charisma candidates who lack mass appeal.
     
    I find it interesting to think about PC in terms of selective environment.

    What kind of politician can slip through the minefield unscathed and also attract donor funding?

    1) politicians so bland and charisma less people strain to pay attention so don't notice if they make slip ups?

    2) sociopaths like Trudeau or Bill Clinton who have no problem lying?

    #

    This is on top of a more general selection for politician sociopaths caused by the need to balance what the voters want with what the big donors want.

    Not looking good.
  14. @Yudi
    "it does not look as if Trump lost with minorities and gained with whites nearly as much as the press would have you believe."

    My guesses about this seemingly counterintuitive result, which the Narrative was so incapable of countenancing:

    1) Most minorities long ago picked up on the basic idea that the Republicans are the white party, and avoid voting for them on the national level, particularly the presidency. Thus, Trump actually had little to lose by running an openly populist campaign, since low minority numbers are already baked into Republican results. On the margins, some minorities might have thought Trump was an interesting, charismatic, or compelling character and voted out of curiosity, just as some whites did.

    2) Black turnout was much, much lower without a black person on the Democratic ticket. I saw someone on twitter attribute lower turnout in Mississippi to "voter suppression", and was amused.

    Here in Seattle, the fallout of this felt something like simultaneous barbarian raids upon all the major cities of America. As a new person to the city, with kinsfolk among the barbarians, I have noticed that it is increasingly hard for each side to see the other as human, and am more and more persuaded by Peter Turchin's dire predictions.

    (I am not for Trump, but like most people on this site, I loathe the politically correct establishment and want to see them weakened.)

    Obviously, I have biased viewpoints, but I think the falloff in minority turnout (and even dem support) can be explained by something simple: You need to give people something to vote for, not merely against.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You need to give people something to vote for, not merely against.

    Supposedly Clinton made this decision over advice from advisors. She never put forth a positive message; all the chips put on Trump is much worse than me.
  15. @Karl Zimmerman
    I do think Bernie probably could have done it, absent a third-party challenge by Bloomberg. He would have won enough additional votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to swing them. Arguably he might have had some issues in Nevada, but union turnout won the state for Hillary more than the Latino vote, and Bernie has a better record on labor. Virginia is the only state that Hillary won which arguably Bernie would have lost.

    As for a "decent Democratic candidate" in a more general sense, I think it's hard to point to many. It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top in terms of insider support result in zero-charisma candidates who lack mass appeal. It's worth considering that Obama, Clinton, and even Carter were all outsiders who were given little chance of winning when the presidential campaign begun (similar to Trump actually). Every single time an insider won the nomination because it was "their turn" they lost. Maybe the Democrats should start trawling for down-ticket political candidates at TEDtalks or something.

    It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top

    The black vote has king making and veto power in the Democratic primaries.

    The last of the Reagan democrats have moved permanently into the Republican party.

    This happened much more quickly in the Southern states. It would likely graph with the % of the black population, the first states to flip were SC and MS.

    It remains to be seen whether working class whites can maintain veto power in the Republican primaries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl Zimmerman

    It remains to be seen whether working class whites can maintain veto power in the Republican primaries.
     
    What exactly would the agenda of the working-class white base be in the Republican party? What would they veto?

    From what I have read, on economic issues other than trade, Trump plans to govern as a pretty conventional Republican. If repeal of the ACA goes forward, 21 million people will lose access to affordable health insurance - many of them working class whites. Potential reforms to entitlements or social services will affect both lower-income nonwhites and whites. And it looks like a full-on assault on labor is planned (Trump reportedly offered Scott Walker a job as Secretary of Labor, which he turned down). His tax plan actually increases taxes on some middle-class earners with children and no child-care costs.

    If you like all of that, more power to you, although we obviously don't share the same moral priors. But it's mostly bog-standard Republicanism. For Trump to actually articulate a "working-class Republicanism" I would think he'd have to co-opt a few issues of the left which would be broadly popular (like say price controls for prescription drugs, or federally mandated vacation requirements for employees), which seems pretty unlikely given the composition of congress, whatever his private inclinations.

    , @Bill

    The last of the Reagan democrats have moved permanently into the Republican party.
     
    Depends a lot on what "Reagan Democrats" means here. Most Democrats who voted for Reagan were Southern whites. The South was still solidly Democratic at all levels below the Presidency throughout Reagan's terms. Southern whites are in the GOP now. So in that sense you are right. In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party. That shift is pretty much finished there.

    But if you are using "Reagan Democrat" to mean non-college-educated whites in the Northeast and/or Midwest, then you are wrong. There are still tons of those guys who vote Democrat. There is enormous room for the GOP to become more the white party and the Democrats to become the not white party. I doubt the percentage of whites who are genuinely part of the Democrats' new base is much higher than 10%. College professors, investment bankers, and government employees just isn't that big a constituency group. And in states where the state government is solidly GOP, white government employees may not even be a safe constituency group for the Democrats.
  16. @Karl Zimmerman
    Obviously, I have biased viewpoints, but I think the falloff in minority turnout (and even dem support) can be explained by something simple: You need to give people something to vote for, not merely against.

    You need to give people something to vote for, not merely against.

    Supposedly Clinton made this decision over advice from advisors. She never put forth a positive message; all the chips put on Trump is much worse than me.

    Read More
  17. @Karl Zimmerman
    I do think Bernie probably could have done it, absent a third-party challenge by Bloomberg. He would have won enough additional votes in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to swing them. Arguably he might have had some issues in Nevada, but union turnout won the state for Hillary more than the Latino vote, and Bernie has a better record on labor. Virginia is the only state that Hillary won which arguably Bernie would have lost.

    As for a "decent Democratic candidate" in a more general sense, I think it's hard to point to many. It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top in terms of insider support result in zero-charisma candidates who lack mass appeal. It's worth considering that Obama, Clinton, and even Carter were all outsiders who were given little chance of winning when the presidential campaign begun (similar to Trump actually). Every single time an insider won the nomination because it was "their turn" they lost. Maybe the Democrats should start trawling for down-ticket political candidates at TEDtalks or something.

    It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top in terms of insider support result in zero-charisma candidates who lack mass appeal.

    I find it interesting to think about PC in terms of selective environment.

    What kind of politician can slip through the minefield unscathed and also attract donor funding?

    1) politicians so bland and charisma less people strain to pay attention so don’t notice if they make slip ups?

    2) sociopaths like Trudeau or Bill Clinton who have no problem lying?

    #

    This is on top of a more general selection for politician sociopaths caused by the need to balance what the voters want with what the big donors want.

    Not looking good.

    Read More
  18. @iffen
    It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top

    The black vote has king making and veto power in the Democratic primaries.

    The last of the Reagan democrats have moved permanently into the Republican party.

    This happened much more quickly in the Southern states. It would likely graph with the % of the black population, the first states to flip were SC and MS.

    It remains to be seen whether working class whites can maintain veto power in the Republican primaries.

    It remains to be seen whether working class whites can maintain veto power in the Republican primaries.

    What exactly would the agenda of the working-class white base be in the Republican party? What would they veto?

    From what I have read, on economic issues other than trade, Trump plans to govern as a pretty conventional Republican. If repeal of the ACA goes forward, 21 million people will lose access to affordable health insurance – many of them working class whites. Potential reforms to entitlements or social services will affect both lower-income nonwhites and whites. And it looks like a full-on assault on labor is planned (Trump reportedly offered Scott Walker a job as Secretary of Labor, which he turned down). His tax plan actually increases taxes on some middle-class earners with children and no child-care costs.

    If you like all of that, more power to you, although we obviously don’t share the same moral priors. But it’s mostly bog-standard Republicanism. For Trump to actually articulate a “working-class Republicanism” I would think he’d have to co-opt a few issues of the left which would be broadly popular (like say price controls for prescription drugs, or federally mandated vacation requirements for employees), which seems pretty unlikely given the composition of congress, whatever his private inclinations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    What would they veto?

    Candidates in the primaries, that was the subject. They could veto the Rubios and Romneys if they stayed together. Also any candidates pushing immigration amnesty or injurious trade policies.


    we obviously don’t share the same moral priors

    I will defer to you here as you seem to think that you know more about mine than I do about yours. Which is, of course, not hard to do as I don't know anything about yours.
  19. @Walter Sobchak
    I don't think Trump won. I think Hillary lost.

    Look at the following table of popular votes in the last four Presidential elections. I took the 2016 numbers from the NYTimes.com page, and they will be subject to change for a few days.

    2016 Clinton 59,582,654 Trump 59,343,508
    2012 Obama 65,915,795 Romney 60,933,504
    2008 Obama 69,498,516 McCain 59,948,323
    2004 Kerry 59,028,444 Bush 62,040,610

    Notice two things. First, Hillary received more vote than Trump did. She lost because she ran up huge super majorities in a few places, mostly big cities, but slumped over much of the rest of the Country.

    Second, Trump received fewer votes than did any of the last 3 Republican. Contrary to his boasts, he did not attract any new or hidden voters. He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.

    Hillary OTOH, ran way behind Obama. It was Hillary's race to lose and she did it. Exit the Clinton's from American life. The only real question is whether Obama will pardon her. She would be well advised to push for it, and to have Bill included too.

    Further to the above:

    In the 5 states that moved from D to R in 2016 and gave Trump his victory (Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida) all had senatorial elections. Those elections provide an interesting contrast to the Presidential vote totals.

    Iowa

    Trump 798,923
    Clinton 650,790

    Grassley 923,280
    Judge 546,974

    Wisconsin

    Trump 1,409,467
    Clinton 1,382,210

    Johnson 1,479,262
    Feingold 1,380,496

    Ohio

    Trump 2,771,984
    Clinton 2,317,001

    Portman 3,048,467
    Strickland 1,929,873

    Pennsylvania

    Trump 2,912,941
    Clinton 2,844,705

    Toomey 2,893,833
    McGinty 2,793,668

    Florida

    Trump 4,605,515
    Clinton 4,485,745

    Rubio 4,822,182
    Murphy 4,105,251

    In each of those states, other than PA, the Republican Senatorial candidate ran ahead of Trump. And, in PA, Toomey was only slightly (less than 1%) behind.

    My conclusion is that Republican is a better brand than Trump, and that Trump won because Hillary lost, not because Trump did especially well.

    Framing the narrative through media and other channels is an important factor that would’ve boosted his numbers and that we need to control, to keep leftism from flourishing ever again and to avoid having to rely on one man.

    And cucks gonna cuck. People have different personalities and inclinations, a natural result of genetic variation, and no one person will agree 100% with another.

    If people can’t be bothered to avert potential ww3 and their own slavery, it’s better after all if they don’t vote

    Read More
  20. @iffen
    Throughout the campaign the pundits kept saying that any decent Republican candidate would be in position to defeat Clinton.

    Do we want to turn that around now and say that any decent Democratic candidate could have defeated Trump?

    Do we want to turn that around now and say that any decent Democratic candidate could have defeated Trump?

    Yes. My view is that Trump and Clinton were both terrible candidates. Hillary just cratered harder than Trump. Also. Trump did his collapsing earlier in the campaign.

    Here is my matrix of the match ups.

    Trump v Hillary: you saw what happened.

    Decent R v Hillary: Decent R wins by a substantial margin. Country breaths sigh of relief.

    Trump v Decent D: Decent D wins. Country breaths sigh of relief.

    Decent R v Decent D: Close, D has demographic advantage, but it is very hard in our system for a party to hold the White House more than two terms in a row

    Read More
  21. @Cpluskx
    You can write about how fucked we are in terms of stopping climate change.

    Not to worry. We were never going to do anything, besides, and more importantly, Chin and India were not going to do anything either.

    Read More
  22. @Seth Largo
    I frankly have not a clue what he will do once he is in office

    This has been the most maddening aspect of the last 24 hours. Trump is all over the map on almost every issue except his precious Wall. Looking at the full context of everything he's said on most issues, no coherent ideas or even ideology comes through. Yet I've never seen so many people so absolutely positive about a president-elect's first 100 days in office. I hope the emoting dies down soon. Maybe Netflix can expedite the new season of Stranger Things.

    It will be Brexit plus times 2356.

    My God that’s … I don’t even know what that is.

    Nobody does.

    Read More
  23. @Karl Zimmerman

    It remains to be seen whether working class whites can maintain veto power in the Republican primaries.
     
    What exactly would the agenda of the working-class white base be in the Republican party? What would they veto?

    From what I have read, on economic issues other than trade, Trump plans to govern as a pretty conventional Republican. If repeal of the ACA goes forward, 21 million people will lose access to affordable health insurance - many of them working class whites. Potential reforms to entitlements or social services will affect both lower-income nonwhites and whites. And it looks like a full-on assault on labor is planned (Trump reportedly offered Scott Walker a job as Secretary of Labor, which he turned down). His tax plan actually increases taxes on some middle-class earners with children and no child-care costs.

    If you like all of that, more power to you, although we obviously don't share the same moral priors. But it's mostly bog-standard Republicanism. For Trump to actually articulate a "working-class Republicanism" I would think he'd have to co-opt a few issues of the left which would be broadly popular (like say price controls for prescription drugs, or federally mandated vacation requirements for employees), which seems pretty unlikely given the composition of congress, whatever his private inclinations.

    What would they veto?

    Candidates in the primaries, that was the subject. They could veto the Rubios and Romneys if they stayed together. Also any candidates pushing immigration amnesty or injurious trade policies.

    we obviously don’t share the same moral priors

    I will defer to you here as you seem to think that you know more about mine than I do about yours. Which is, of course, not hard to do as I don’t know anything about yours.

    Read More
  24. @iffen
    It really seems like the Democrats have built up a system where the traits needed to claw your way to the top

    The black vote has king making and veto power in the Democratic primaries.

    The last of the Reagan democrats have moved permanently into the Republican party.

    This happened much more quickly in the Southern states. It would likely graph with the % of the black population, the first states to flip were SC and MS.

    It remains to be seen whether working class whites can maintain veto power in the Republican primaries.

    The last of the Reagan democrats have moved permanently into the Republican party.

    Depends a lot on what “Reagan Democrats” means here. Most Democrats who voted for Reagan were Southern whites. The South was still solidly Democratic at all levels below the Presidency throughout Reagan’s terms. Southern whites are in the GOP now. So in that sense you are right. In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party. That shift is pretty much finished there.

    But if you are using “Reagan Democrat” to mean non-college-educated whites in the Northeast and/or Midwest, then you are wrong. There are still tons of those guys who vote Democrat. There is enormous room for the GOP to become more the white party and the Democrats to become the not white party. I doubt the percentage of whites who are genuinely part of the Democrats’ new base is much higher than 10%. College professors, investment bankers, and government employees just isn’t that big a constituency group. And in states where the state government is solidly GOP, white government employees may not even be a safe constituency group for the Democrats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    There are still tons of those guys who vote Democrat.

    Not this year, and these are exactly the ones that are Reagan Democrats. The shift in the South accelerated in 1964. Democrats in the South below the presidential level held on for many years by strategies such as shifting all state office elections to off presidential election years. There were still enough white Democrats in the South to elect Carter and Clinton, but it failed at Al "Lockbox" Gore. It will not come back. The South is complete now except for exceptions like WV where there are no blacks. The white working class in the North shifted this year and depending upon what Trump and the Republicans do, it could be permanent and come to completion.

    In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party.

    Yes, and this election accelerates that transformation in the north.
  25. @Walter Sobchak
    I don't think Trump won. I think Hillary lost.

    Look at the following table of popular votes in the last four Presidential elections. I took the 2016 numbers from the NYTimes.com page, and they will be subject to change for a few days.

    2016 Clinton 59,582,654 Trump 59,343,508
    2012 Obama 65,915,795 Romney 60,933,504
    2008 Obama 69,498,516 McCain 59,948,323
    2004 Kerry 59,028,444 Bush 62,040,610

    Notice two things. First, Hillary received more vote than Trump did. She lost because she ran up huge super majorities in a few places, mostly big cities, but slumped over much of the rest of the Country.

    Second, Trump received fewer votes than did any of the last 3 Republican. Contrary to his boasts, he did not attract any new or hidden voters. He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.

    Hillary OTOH, ran way behind Obama. It was Hillary's race to lose and she did it. Exit the Clinton's from American life. The only real question is whether Obama will pardon her. She would be well advised to push for it, and to have Bill included too.

    Further to the above:

    In the 5 states that moved from D to R in 2016 and gave Trump his victory (Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida) all had senatorial elections. Those elections provide an interesting contrast to the Presidential vote totals.

    Iowa

    Trump 798,923
    Clinton 650,790

    Grassley 923,280
    Judge 546,974

    Wisconsin

    Trump 1,409,467
    Clinton 1,382,210

    Johnson 1,479,262
    Feingold 1,380,496

    Ohio

    Trump 2,771,984
    Clinton 2,317,001

    Portman 3,048,467
    Strickland 1,929,873

    Pennsylvania

    Trump 2,912,941
    Clinton 2,844,705

    Toomey 2,893,833
    McGinty 2,793,668

    Florida

    Trump 4,605,515
    Clinton 4,485,745

    Rubio 4,822,182
    Murphy 4,105,251

    In each of those states, other than PA, the Republican Senatorial candidate ran ahead of Trump. And, in PA, Toomey was only slightly (less than 1%) behind.

    My conclusion is that Republican is a better brand than Trump, and that Trump won because Hillary lost, not because Trump did especially well.

    No one was crazy enough to fight against Queenlary other than the Donald. Any ‘decent’ Rep candidate would have done as well as – Romney.

    Read More
  26. @Walter Sobchak
    I don't think Trump won. I think Hillary lost.

    Look at the following table of popular votes in the last four Presidential elections. I took the 2016 numbers from the NYTimes.com page, and they will be subject to change for a few days.

    2016 Clinton 59,582,654 Trump 59,343,508
    2012 Obama 65,915,795 Romney 60,933,504
    2008 Obama 69,498,516 McCain 59,948,323
    2004 Kerry 59,028,444 Bush 62,040,610

    Notice two things. First, Hillary received more vote than Trump did. She lost because she ran up huge super majorities in a few places, mostly big cities, but slumped over much of the rest of the Country.

    Second, Trump received fewer votes than did any of the last 3 Republican. Contrary to his boasts, he did not attract any new or hidden voters. He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.

    Hillary OTOH, ran way behind Obama. It was Hillary's race to lose and she did it. Exit the Clinton's from American life. The only real question is whether Obama will pardon her. She would be well advised to push for it, and to have Bill included too.

    Further to the above:

    In the 5 states that moved from D to R in 2016 and gave Trump his victory (Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida) all had senatorial elections. Those elections provide an interesting contrast to the Presidential vote totals.

    Iowa

    Trump 798,923
    Clinton 650,790

    Grassley 923,280
    Judge 546,974

    Wisconsin

    Trump 1,409,467
    Clinton 1,382,210

    Johnson 1,479,262
    Feingold 1,380,496

    Ohio

    Trump 2,771,984
    Clinton 2,317,001

    Portman 3,048,467
    Strickland 1,929,873

    Pennsylvania

    Trump 2,912,941
    Clinton 2,844,705

    Toomey 2,893,833
    McGinty 2,793,668

    Florida

    Trump 4,605,515
    Clinton 4,485,745

    Rubio 4,822,182
    Murphy 4,105,251

    In each of those states, other than PA, the Republican Senatorial candidate ran ahead of Trump. And, in PA, Toomey was only slightly (less than 1%) behind.

    My conclusion is that Republican is a better brand than Trump, and that Trump won because Hillary lost, not because Trump did especially well.

    Being from one of the states you mention ( Ohio ), I would say Trump would have won the state easily regardless, the Democrats have whiffed badly on the last two state wide elections ( 2014 and 2016 ) by fielding horrible candidates in the most recent gubernatorial and senate races. The Senate race this year was a rout because our last Democratic governor ran for the Senate and he had a terrible track record here, which is why he was a one term governor running against a moderately popular incumbent GOP senator.

    Also remember Ohio went Democratic the last two presidential elections, so Trump winning it was something of a turnaround. In 2014, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee got caught with a woman not his wife in a parked car in the middle of the night and also had a driver’s license that was long expired, this effectively killed him against Kasich who was actually somewhat vulnerable coming up for re-election at the beginning of the campaign cycle. Additionally, both Michigan and Pennsylvania had not gone GOP in a presidential election since 1988 and Wisconsin since 1984, so this was pretty big turnaround for the Republicans.

    Read More
  27. @Bill

    The last of the Reagan democrats have moved permanently into the Republican party.
     
    Depends a lot on what "Reagan Democrats" means here. Most Democrats who voted for Reagan were Southern whites. The South was still solidly Democratic at all levels below the Presidency throughout Reagan's terms. Southern whites are in the GOP now. So in that sense you are right. In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party. That shift is pretty much finished there.

    But if you are using "Reagan Democrat" to mean non-college-educated whites in the Northeast and/or Midwest, then you are wrong. There are still tons of those guys who vote Democrat. There is enormous room for the GOP to become more the white party and the Democrats to become the not white party. I doubt the percentage of whites who are genuinely part of the Democrats' new base is much higher than 10%. College professors, investment bankers, and government employees just isn't that big a constituency group. And in states where the state government is solidly GOP, white government employees may not even be a safe constituency group for the Democrats.

    There are still tons of those guys who vote Democrat.

    Not this year, and these are exactly the ones that are Reagan Democrats. The shift in the South accelerated in 1964. Democrats in the South below the presidential level held on for many years by strategies such as shifting all state office elections to off presidential election years. There were still enough white Democrats in the South to elect Carter and Clinton, but it failed at Al “Lockbox” Gore. It will not come back. The South is complete now except for exceptions like WV where there are no blacks. The white working class in the North shifted this year and depending upon what Trump and the Republicans do, it could be permanent and come to completion.

    In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party.

    Yes, and this election accelerates that transformation in the north.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    White non-college-graduates went 2:1 for Trump. It's normal for whites (overall) to go 5,6,7 or 8 to 1 for the GOP in the South. There's lots of room still to increase percent white for the GOP. If what we saw this year was the *end* of the movement of Reagan Democrats into the GOP, then the Sailer/Trump strategy was an abject failure. What we saw this year will not be good enough in ten years. Maybe not in four.
    , @Thirdeye

    In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party.

    Yes, and this election accelerates that transformation in the north.
     
    We saw some unexpected results with the black vote this time around. Hillary saw the role of an energized black and Hispanic electorate in Obama's success and did everything she could, pander-wise, to try for a three-peat. It backfired. Her talk of "white privilege" etc. alienated whites who are less-than-privileged and less concerned with virtue signalling than Hollywood limo-libs. Referring to those who felt alienated by the white guilt card as "deplorables" certainly didn't help. But there was not a corresponding pickup of black and Hispanic support to offset her loss of white support. According to the Philadelphia Tribune, black turnout decreased 11% nationally between 2012 and 2016, and within that black voter turnout the percentage for the Republican ticket went from 7% to 12%. There was also, contrary to all expectations, a slight rise in the Republican share of the Hispanic vote between 2012 and 2016.

    There's another wrinkle in the story of the black vote. Within the old Confederacy the black vote is indeed monolithically Democratic. The Republicans have never lived down their identity as the party of the backlash to the Civil Rights movement in those states. According to Dick Morris, Republican ticket's pickup of the black vote was in northern states. That means the increase of the black vote for the Republican ticket was in some areas significantly more than the 5% indicated by the national figures. Clinton's underperformance in metro Detroit and other urban areas of the Great Lakes states turned out to be a key element of her demise.

    The rise of the Republican vote among working class whites and blacks in northern cities has an interesting resemblance to the rise of the old FDR Democratic coalition in the north, in which the "white" party picked up black support to form a solid power base. That's of course assuming the Republicans don't blow it all out their collective ass in the next four years.
  28. @iffen
    There are still tons of those guys who vote Democrat.

    Not this year, and these are exactly the ones that are Reagan Democrats. The shift in the South accelerated in 1964. Democrats in the South below the presidential level held on for many years by strategies such as shifting all state office elections to off presidential election years. There were still enough white Democrats in the South to elect Carter and Clinton, but it failed at Al "Lockbox" Gore. It will not come back. The South is complete now except for exceptions like WV where there are no blacks. The white working class in the North shifted this year and depending upon what Trump and the Republicans do, it could be permanent and come to completion.

    In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party.

    Yes, and this election accelerates that transformation in the north.

    White non-college-graduates went 2:1 for Trump. It’s normal for whites (overall) to go 5,6,7 or 8 to 1 for the GOP in the South. There’s lots of room still to increase percent white for the GOP. If what we saw this year was the *end* of the movement of Reagan Democrats into the GOP, then the Sailer/Trump strategy was an abject failure. What we saw this year will not be good enough in ten years. Maybe not in four.

    Read More
  29. If you are looking at who wins the long game for the nature of American society, then how much does the Supreme Court nominee matter? What will the makeup of the court be?

    I am thinking about laws pertaining to abortion, gay rights, evolution in state schools and, I assume, other matters as well. There is also constitutional interpretations regarding church and state.

    In addition there is the issue of electoral boundaries and laws around voter registration. Laws and executive action regarding minorities and immigration may also be important. I am not only thinking about what Trump does in the next term or two, but what things will be like twenty or thirty years out.

    Also what will the makeup of his cabinet be?

    Read More
  30. Sometime ago, Razib commented (on the Secular Right) on Noah Smith’s article “Why America needs more Asians” of how, contra Smith, multicultural and polyethnic states don’t “get over” race and ethnicity but become weave them as essential part of their political life.

    Couldn’t help think of that with the results, with (lower class) Northern White deciding to break for Trump and acting like another ethnic bloc. Will it last? I don’t know. I think if he really does “build” The Wall which is a effective at slowing down Latin American migration, maybe that will arrest the decline of White America enough to make a Sailer/Trump strategy effective for year to come. But there are many “if ” there.

    I plan on focusing on science and history, which I find more fascinating than politics.

    Does that include political history? Because this election has made me interested in this, particular of multicultural states. Does anybody know of any books on the politics and political history of ethnic relations in polyethnic states, either in general or in particular (sorry for overly broad description)? When it comes to multiculturalism, I feel like debates around revolves around worn out tropes that don’t really fit reality. For example, pro-multiculturalists will point to the success of Canada and Australia as examples of “diversity” and multiculturalism in action; while anti-multiculturalists say that it enviable that they will collapse into anarchy and civil war like Lebanon and Yugoslavia. Yet I think this misses how the “modern” multiculturalism of the post-war era is very different from countries where the ethnic groups are long settled. There’s are large difference between the Indians and French of Canada, which saying that Canada is a “community of communities” doesn’t say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    For example, pro-multiculturalists will point to the success of Canada and Australia as examples of “diversity” and multiculturalism in action; while anti-multiculturalists say that it enviable that they will collapse into anarchy and civil war like Lebanon and Yugoslavia.
     
    The experience of blue collar areas tends to be erased from public discourse so it's not quite as clear cut as you think.

    (which may hint at where the problem lies)
  31. @Seth Largo
    I frankly have not a clue what he will do once he is in office

    This has been the most maddening aspect of the last 24 hours. Trump is all over the map on almost every issue except his precious Wall. Looking at the full context of everything he's said on most issues, no coherent ideas or even ideology comes through. Yet I've never seen so many people so absolutely positive about a president-elect's first 100 days in office. I hope the emoting dies down soon. Maybe Netflix can expedite the new season of Stranger Things.

    Looking at the full context of everything he’s said on most issues, no coherent ideas or even ideology comes through. Yet I’ve never seen so many people so absolutely positive about a president-elect’s first 100 days in office.

    Which makes him remarkably similar to Barack Obama in 2008. Lots of people from libertarians to socialists thought he was actually sympathetic to them. Perhaps part of the requirement to being elected president is to be vague enough and empathetic enough that a majority of people think you’re “with them” whether you are or not.

    Read More
  32. @Seth Largo
    I frankly have not a clue what he will do once he is in office

    This has been the most maddening aspect of the last 24 hours. Trump is all over the map on almost every issue except his precious Wall. Looking at the full context of everything he's said on most issues, no coherent ideas or even ideology comes through. Yet I've never seen so many people so absolutely positive about a president-elect's first 100 days in office. I hope the emoting dies down soon. Maybe Netflix can expedite the new season of Stranger Things.

    If he achieves all that he promised, it will be a golden age

    Read More
  33. Perhaps not all, yet if he can rein in the bureaucracy it may let Elon give us the Moon and Mars as well. Automation can not and should not be stopped yet still there is much that can be done to restore to my bad white relatives a place they can contribute and take pride in. The same is true for those not of my clan trapped in America’s collapsed inner cities. Both these were significant contributors to building a great America, and they can be yet again.

    Read More
  34. @Seth Largo
    I frankly have not a clue what he will do once he is in office

    This has been the most maddening aspect of the last 24 hours. Trump is all over the map on almost every issue except his precious Wall. Looking at the full context of everything he's said on most issues, no coherent ideas or even ideology comes through. Yet I've never seen so many people so absolutely positive about a president-elect's first 100 days in office. I hope the emoting dies down soon. Maybe Netflix can expedite the new season of Stranger Things.

    I disagree. The media told us he had no firm stances but his website, speeches, and 30 years of interviews suggest otherwise. He’s been against lopsided trade deals since Japan’s protectionism in the 80′s, NAFTA in the 90′s, China’s entry into WTO in 2000, and now TPP. Very consistent as well against needless foreign intervention, including Iraq, Libya, and Syria. I don’t take a non-committal “I guess so” on Howard Stern as proof of support — more an ambivalent “let’s change the subject,” especially in light of every other interview he gave that year.

    He’s more recently against illegal immigration and H1B abuse. He read Adios America and recognized the forces behind bad trade and foreign policy again screwing the working class with mass low-wage immigration. Jeff Sessions and his staff have been key advisors to Trump throughout his campaign.

    He’s generally against centralizing power, preferring to give states powers not explicitly given in the Constitution to the feds (per Amendment 10). His Supreme Court picks reflect that strict constructionism, as does his opposition to the ACA mandate, Common Core, and Obama’s executive orders.

    He’s against the deep corruption and influence peddling in DC, and his campaign’s financing reflects it (nearly 100% himself and small donors).

    In his Gettysburg speech, Trump laid out his 100 day plan: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-delivers-groundbreaking-contract-for-the-american-vote1

    In his transition website, he lays out his general policies: https://www.greatagain.gov/ [Making America Great Again tab]

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherGuessModel
    Trump is a coherent big-picture thinker, but a lot of his policy ideas come across as contradictory and unclear. This article from September follows a similar line of thought to your title, Razib, at least from what I understand.

    If you listen closely to Trump, you’ll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.

    These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-ideas-2016-214244

  35. @Christopher
    Sometime ago, Razib commented (on the Secular Right) on Noah Smith's article "Why America needs more Asians" of how, contra Smith, multicultural and polyethnic states don't "get over" race and ethnicity but become weave them as essential part of their political life.

    Couldn't help think of that with the results, with (lower class) Northern White deciding to break for Trump and acting like another ethnic bloc. Will it last? I don't know. I think if he really does "build" The Wall which is a effective at slowing down Latin American migration, maybe that will arrest the decline of White America enough to make a Sailer/Trump strategy effective for year to come. But there are many "if " there.

    I plan on focusing on science and history, which I find more fascinating than politics.
     
    Does that include political history? Because this election has made me interested in this, particular of multicultural states. Does anybody know of any books on the politics and political history of ethnic relations in polyethnic states, either in general or in particular (sorry for overly broad description)? When it comes to multiculturalism, I feel like debates around revolves around worn out tropes that don't really fit reality. For example, pro-multiculturalists will point to the success of Canada and Australia as examples of "diversity" and multiculturalism in action; while anti-multiculturalists say that it enviable that they will collapse into anarchy and civil war like Lebanon and Yugoslavia. Yet I think this misses how the "modern" multiculturalism of the post-war era is very different from countries where the ethnic groups are long settled. There's are large difference between the Indians and French of Canada, which saying that Canada is a "community of communities" doesn't say.

    For example, pro-multiculturalists will point to the success of Canada and Australia as examples of “diversity” and multiculturalism in action; while anti-multiculturalists say that it enviable that they will collapse into anarchy and civil war like Lebanon and Yugoslavia.

    The experience of blue collar areas tends to be erased from public discourse so it’s not quite as clear cut as you think.

    (which may hint at where the problem lies)

    Read More
  36. It is interesting to note that Trump will likely be running for re-election not too long after the first detailed race and genes studies are published. Fun times.

    Read More
  37. More relevantly, the Driftless went for Trump, despite being the most prominent area of rural white America outside New England to support Obama in 2008 and 2012

    I believe this is historically a white ethnic demographic area (Cornish, Czech, Danish, German, Irish, Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, Swiss & Welsh). The predominant strain is Norwegian. Major migration btw/ 1850 and 1880. Lutheran and Catholic.

    A number of the small cities identify with a specific ethnic group (or in the case of the Norwegians, a fjord), and many of those actually migrated together as a community. For example, when the Canton of Glarus, Switzerland, faced too many years of crop failures, the community raised money to send the excess population to found the city of New Glarus in Wisconsin. The geography of hills and steep valleys made large cities difficult away from the Mississippi River and probably insulated them from assimilating with other ethnics.

    I suspect what we have here is similar to urban white-ethnics — a sort of betweener status in American politics and this region is starting to follow the pattern their urban counterparts began with Reagan.

    Read More
  38. @Antonymous
    I disagree. The media told us he had no firm stances but his website, speeches, and 30 years of interviews suggest otherwise. He's been against lopsided trade deals since Japan's protectionism in the 80's, NAFTA in the 90's, China's entry into WTO in 2000, and now TPP. Very consistent as well against needless foreign intervention, including Iraq, Libya, and Syria. I don't take a non-committal "I guess so" on Howard Stern as proof of support -- more an ambivalent "let's change the subject," especially in light of every other interview he gave that year.

    He's more recently against illegal immigration and H1B abuse. He read Adios America and recognized the forces behind bad trade and foreign policy again screwing the working class with mass low-wage immigration. Jeff Sessions and his staff have been key advisors to Trump throughout his campaign.

    He's generally against centralizing power, preferring to give states powers not explicitly given in the Constitution to the feds (per Amendment 10). His Supreme Court picks reflect that strict constructionism, as does his opposition to the ACA mandate, Common Core, and Obama's executive orders.

    He's against the deep corruption and influence peddling in DC, and his campaign's financing reflects it (nearly 100% himself and small donors).

    In his Gettysburg speech, Trump laid out his 100 day plan: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-delivers-groundbreaking-contract-for-the-american-vote1

    In his transition website, he lays out his general policies: https://www.greatagain.gov/ [Making America Great Again tab]

    Trump is a coherent big-picture thinker, but a lot of his policy ideas come across as contradictory and unclear. This article from September follows a similar line of thought to your title, Razib, at least from what I understand.

    If you listen closely to Trump, you’ll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.

    These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-ideas-2016-214244

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.

    My opinion is that this is what put him over the top with the white working class. It was very clear to me that he absolutely refused to let the MSM make him say uncle. Even when he said something that he otherwise would have retracted, he held his ground and was not intimidated into groveling for forgiveness.
    , @Miguel Madeira

    (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.
     
    "Identity politics" is common in many countries of the world, without PC speech (look to perhaps most african e asian countries who have something similar to a democracy - usualy the main criteria to form political parties is religion or ethnicity, more than real ideology); even (or specially?) in the US "identity politics" were common decades ago, much before PC speech (what was the old alignment jews+catholics+southerns+northern blacks →D, white non-southern protestants → R, with "liberals" and conservatives in both parties, if not "identity politics"?)
  39. @Walter Sobchak
    I disagree on your century periodization.

    The 19th Century began with the end of the battle of Waterloo. It was the time of European dominance lead by Great Britain.

    That century ended after 99 years at the beginning of the Great War (a/k/a WWI). The time that followed was a period of war and bloodshed, and political and economic chaos, characterized by "ideologies". WWI, the Russian Revolution, The Fascist takeovers, the Great Depression, the Japanese invasions, WWII, the Chinese Revolution, the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The denouement was the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of Communism in China around 1990.

    The new era began not later the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. It is characterized by Civilizational collapses in the West and Middle East. Neurasthenia and voluntary extinction in the West, collective suicide in the Middle East.

    This!

    > Neurasthenia

    “a virtually obsolete term formerly used to describe a vague disorder marked by chronic abnormal fatigability, moderate depression, inability to concentrate, loss of appetite, insomnia, and other symptoms. Popularly called nervous prostration. ”

    Ah yes. I first encountered the word in the Moebius comic “L’Incal” in the chapter where the oppressive establishment is forcefully attacked by cultists, humanoid undergound dwellers and several different crazed splinter groups at the same time while “normal” citizens are watching the “official news” on TV.

    Read More
  40. @Walter Sobchak
    I don't think Trump won. I think Hillary lost.

    Look at the following table of popular votes in the last four Presidential elections. I took the 2016 numbers from the NYTimes.com page, and they will be subject to change for a few days.

    2016 Clinton 59,582,654 Trump 59,343,508
    2012 Obama 65,915,795 Romney 60,933,504
    2008 Obama 69,498,516 McCain 59,948,323
    2004 Kerry 59,028,444 Bush 62,040,610

    Notice two things. First, Hillary received more vote than Trump did. She lost because she ran up huge super majorities in a few places, mostly big cities, but slumped over much of the rest of the Country.

    Second, Trump received fewer votes than did any of the last 3 Republican. Contrary to his boasts, he did not attract any new or hidden voters. He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.

    Hillary OTOH, ran way behind Obama. It was Hillary's race to lose and she did it. Exit the Clinton's from American life. The only real question is whether Obama will pardon her. She would be well advised to push for it, and to have Bill included too.

    Further to the above:

    In the 5 states that moved from D to R in 2016 and gave Trump his victory (Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida) all had senatorial elections. Those elections provide an interesting contrast to the Presidential vote totals.

    Iowa

    Trump 798,923
    Clinton 650,790

    Grassley 923,280
    Judge 546,974

    Wisconsin

    Trump 1,409,467
    Clinton 1,382,210

    Johnson 1,479,262
    Feingold 1,380,496

    Ohio

    Trump 2,771,984
    Clinton 2,317,001

    Portman 3,048,467
    Strickland 1,929,873

    Pennsylvania

    Trump 2,912,941
    Clinton 2,844,705

    Toomey 2,893,833
    McGinty 2,793,668

    Florida

    Trump 4,605,515
    Clinton 4,485,745

    Rubio 4,822,182
    Murphy 4,105,251

    In each of those states, other than PA, the Republican Senatorial candidate ran ahead of Trump. And, in PA, Toomey was only slightly (less than 1%) behind.

    My conclusion is that Republican is a better brand than Trump, and that Trump won because Hillary lost, not because Trump did especially well.

    A man came from nowhere to beat Hillary with Dems in 2008.

    He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.

    Palin surely cost McCain some votes. Dems made hay in 2008 thinking that Palin’s personal qualities and experience disqualified her, but should have drawn the lesson that her sex was a real factor, and choosing any woman for pres candidate, no matter how well qualified,would be a risky choice. There are a lot of factors of course but Democratic voters being unenthusiastic about a woman is something that is not being given enough weight.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Palin surely cost McCain some votes."
     
    Really? The only time McCain led Obama in the polls was right after he picked Palin as VP.
  41. @AnotherGuessModel
    Trump is a coherent big-picture thinker, but a lot of his policy ideas come across as contradictory and unclear. This article from September follows a similar line of thought to your title, Razib, at least from what I understand.

    If you listen closely to Trump, you’ll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.

    These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-ideas-2016-214244

    (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.

    My opinion is that this is what put him over the top with the white working class. It was very clear to me that he absolutely refused to let the MSM make him say uncle. Even when he said something that he otherwise would have retracted, he held his ground and was not intimidated into groveling for forgiveness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon

    It was very clear to me that he absolutely refused to let the MSM make him say uncle.
     
    Yes, the post-war media priesthood are "them" to that demographic so not bending the knee to "them" is more important than the actual words.
  42. @iffen
    (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.

    My opinion is that this is what put him over the top with the white working class. It was very clear to me that he absolutely refused to let the MSM make him say uncle. Even when he said something that he otherwise would have retracted, he held his ground and was not intimidated into groveling for forgiveness.

    It was very clear to me that he absolutely refused to let the MSM make him say uncle.

    Yes, the post-war media priesthood are “them” to that demographic so not bending the knee to “them” is more important than the actual words.

    Read More
  43. Out of Africa is the “Trump can’t win” of science.

    Not merely false, but an active deception.

    Read More
  44. @iffen
    There are still tons of those guys who vote Democrat.

    Not this year, and these are exactly the ones that are Reagan Democrats. The shift in the South accelerated in 1964. Democrats in the South below the presidential level held on for many years by strategies such as shifting all state office elections to off presidential election years. There were still enough white Democrats in the South to elect Carter and Clinton, but it failed at Al "Lockbox" Gore. It will not come back. The South is complete now except for exceptions like WV where there are no blacks. The white working class in the North shifted this year and depending upon what Trump and the Republicans do, it could be permanent and come to completion.

    In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party.

    Yes, and this election accelerates that transformation in the north.

    In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party.

    Yes, and this election accelerates that transformation in the north.

    We saw some unexpected results with the black vote this time around. Hillary saw the role of an energized black and Hispanic electorate in Obama’s success and did everything she could, pander-wise, to try for a three-peat. It backfired. Her talk of “white privilege” etc. alienated whites who are less-than-privileged and less concerned with virtue signalling than Hollywood limo-libs. Referring to those who felt alienated by the white guilt card as “deplorables” certainly didn’t help. But there was not a corresponding pickup of black and Hispanic support to offset her loss of white support. According to the Philadelphia Tribune, black turnout decreased 11% nationally between 2012 and 2016, and within that black voter turnout the percentage for the Republican ticket went from 7% to 12%. There was also, contrary to all expectations, a slight rise in the Republican share of the Hispanic vote between 2012 and 2016.

    There’s another wrinkle in the story of the black vote. Within the old Confederacy the black vote is indeed monolithically Democratic. The Republicans have never lived down their identity as the party of the backlash to the Civil Rights movement in those states. According to Dick Morris, Republican ticket’s pickup of the black vote was in northern states. That means the increase of the black vote for the Republican ticket was in some areas significantly more than the 5% indicated by the national figures. Clinton’s underperformance in metro Detroit and other urban areas of the Great Lakes states turned out to be a key element of her demise.

    The rise of the Republican vote among working class whites and blacks in northern cities has an interesting resemblance to the rise of the old FDR Democratic coalition in the north, in which the “white” party picked up black support to form a solid power base. That’s of course assuming the Republicans don’t blow it all out their collective ass in the next four years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "The Republicans have never lived down their identity as the party of the backlash to the Civil Rights movement in those states."
     
    The Democrats were the ones who backlashed against the "Civil Rights" movement in the South. Democrats supported slavery, Jim Crow and opposed the "Civil Rights" movement. Republicans supported abolition. George Wallace was a Democrat. MLK was a Republican.

    Granted, the media and academy have been pretty effective at retconning the story to portray the Democrats as the opposite of what they were, and most voters have bought the con job because they don't know any history. But that doesn't mean we should forget history too.

    , @iffen
    The rise of the Republican vote among working class whites and blacks in northern cities has an interesting resemblance to the rise of the old FDR Democratic coalition in the north, in which the “white” party picked up black support to form a solid power base.

    It wouldn't take a lot of votes to solidify the coalition. The margins in the rust belt are in the .05% to 3% range.

    Don't forget FDR's solid south vote. New Dealers at every level in the South didn't get ejected until the 60's and the rise of the primacy of race.
  45. 2016 = unintended consequence of New Left success.

    New Left translated class arguments of traditional Left, where both sides were white, into divisions according to immutable differences- your race, your gender, you sexual orientation – solving the failure of the Left to retain their foot soldiers. When standards of living rose, poor whites moved up into middle class, losing revolutionary fervor. Divisions by race or sex however can never be lost, despite improving fortunes.

    Problem we saw, is that this anti-coalition solidified opposition in who they were attacking. The mass of white people that voted Obama in didnt become racist. They did see the New Left agenda in power though. And New Left hadnt yet transformed demographics enough.

    New Left ideology is dominant in all of our institutions. Your information sources are useless. You can’t evaluate Trump on anything other than moral grounds because moral imperative is ethos of New Left. The glue is access to tax dollars and at that point the coalitions have divergent interests. Black unemployment vs record high legal immigration, both vs environmentalism, etc.

    To see what Trump is about view-
    - Charolette 10-26-16 speech. I select this one because it was one of few where he wasn’t speaking / entertaining 8-15k people. Those were loud and improvisational- all the clips you heard, but never saw size of crowd, that felt like commercials too loud for your living room.
    - 2013 CPAC speech. Significant because he’s telling conservative crowd things that depart almost 180 degrees from “establishment” positions planned and pursued.
    - There’s a video titled “This video will get Trump elected”, I think produced by infowars, but otherwise is just collection of interviews back to 80s. Again, not in line with “official” GOP.
    - Skim Wikipedia page “Paleoconservative vs Neoconservative”. Trump is closer to old industrialists and not ideological. But that rules him out from “Neoconservativism”, which is highly ideological. His instincts probably align more with Paleos.

    Read More
  46. @AnotherGuessModel
    Trump is a coherent big-picture thinker, but a lot of his policy ideas come across as contradictory and unclear. This article from September follows a similar line of thought to your title, Razib, at least from what I understand.

    If you listen closely to Trump, you’ll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.

    These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989.

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/donald-trump-ideas-2016-214244

    (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.

    “Identity politics” is common in many countries of the world, without PC speech (look to perhaps most african e asian countries who have something similar to a democracy – usualy the main criteria to form political parties is religion or ethnicity, more than real ideology); even (or specially?) in the US “identity politics” were common decades ago, much before PC speech (what was the old alignment jews+catholics+southerns+northern blacks →D, white non-southern protestants → R, with “liberals” and conservatives in both parties, if not “identity politics”?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    “Identity politics” is common in many countries of the world

    This may well be true, but this was the first Presidential election in modern times where one of the major party candidates explicitly repudiated the American ideal that we could come together on the bases of common economic, political and social concerns. This was the first election where one candidate explicitly denounced most white voters and supported by the MSM made it very clear that their support was not wanted nor needed. This was the first election in which the supposedly professional journalists explained that the campaign could not be (and was not) covered in a professional manner because to do so would favor one candidate (Trump) over the other.
  47. @Miguel Madeira

    (6) PC speech—without which identity politics is inconceivable—must be repudiated.
     
    "Identity politics" is common in many countries of the world, without PC speech (look to perhaps most african e asian countries who have something similar to a democracy - usualy the main criteria to form political parties is religion or ethnicity, more than real ideology); even (or specially?) in the US "identity politics" were common decades ago, much before PC speech (what was the old alignment jews+catholics+southerns+northern blacks →D, white non-southern protestants → R, with "liberals" and conservatives in both parties, if not "identity politics"?)

    “Identity politics” is common in many countries of the world

    This may well be true, but this was the first Presidential election in modern times where one of the major party candidates explicitly repudiated the American ideal that we could come together on the bases of common economic, political and social concerns. This was the first election where one candidate explicitly denounced most white voters and supported by the MSM made it very clear that their support was not wanted nor needed. This was the first election in which the supposedly professional journalists explained that the campaign could not be (and was not) covered in a professional manner because to do so would favor one candidate (Trump) over the other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Razib Khan
    This may well be true, but this was the first Presidential election in modern times where one of the major party candidates explicitly repudiated the American ideal that we could come together on the bases of common economic, political and social concerns. This was the first election where one candidate explicitly denounced most white voters and supported by the MSM made it very clear that their support was not wanted nor needed. This was the first election in which the supposedly professional journalists explained that the campaign could not be (and was not) covered in a professional manner because to do so would favor one candidate (Trump) over the other.



    history is important. the bolded part is just wrong. please don't engage in hyperbole if you want to persuade or inform, as opposed to engage in rhetorical flourishes.
  48. @iffen
    “Identity politics” is common in many countries of the world

    This may well be true, but this was the first Presidential election in modern times where one of the major party candidates explicitly repudiated the American ideal that we could come together on the bases of common economic, political and social concerns. This was the first election where one candidate explicitly denounced most white voters and supported by the MSM made it very clear that their support was not wanted nor needed. This was the first election in which the supposedly professional journalists explained that the campaign could not be (and was not) covered in a professional manner because to do so would favor one candidate (Trump) over the other.

    This may well be true, but this was the first Presidential election in modern times where one of the major party candidates explicitly repudiated the American ideal that we could come together on the bases of common economic, political and social concerns. This was the first election where one candidate explicitly denounced most white voters and supported by the MSM made it very clear that their support was not wanted nor needed. This was the first election in which the supposedly professional journalists explained that the campaign could not be (and was not) covered in a professional manner because to do so would favor one candidate (Trump) over the other.

    history is important. the bolded part is just wrong. please don’t engage in hyperbole if you want to persuade or inform, as opposed to engage in rhetorical flourishes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen

    Fourth Estate

    Why the Press Can’t (and Shouldn’t) Quit Trump

    By Jack Shafer
    | December 14, 2015

    Ever since Donald Trump appeared on Campaign 2016’s horizon, journalists have been imploring other journalists not to cover him. This began, amazingly, five months before he announced he was running for president, when Conor Friedersdorf laid down the dictum in the Atlantic. Just last week, former CNN anchor Campbell Brown bookended Friedersdorf’s argument with a piece in POLITICO Magazine, calling upon TV news to stage a one-week Trump moratorium because TV coverage was only making him stronger.

     

    Atlantic, CNN

    There's plenty more.

  49. @Walter Sobchak
    I don't think Trump won. I think Hillary lost.

    Look at the following table of popular votes in the last four Presidential elections. I took the 2016 numbers from the NYTimes.com page, and they will be subject to change for a few days.

    2016 Clinton 59,582,654 Trump 59,343,508
    2012 Obama 65,915,795 Romney 60,933,504
    2008 Obama 69,498,516 McCain 59,948,323
    2004 Kerry 59,028,444 Bush 62,040,610

    Notice two things. First, Hillary received more vote than Trump did. She lost because she ran up huge super majorities in a few places, mostly big cities, but slumped over much of the rest of the Country.

    Second, Trump received fewer votes than did any of the last 3 Republican. Contrary to his boasts, he did not attract any new or hidden voters. He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.

    Hillary OTOH, ran way behind Obama. It was Hillary's race to lose and she did it. Exit the Clinton's from American life. The only real question is whether Obama will pardon her. She would be well advised to push for it, and to have Bill included too.

    Further to the above:

    In the 5 states that moved from D to R in 2016 and gave Trump his victory (Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida) all had senatorial elections. Those elections provide an interesting contrast to the Presidential vote totals.

    Iowa

    Trump 798,923
    Clinton 650,790

    Grassley 923,280
    Judge 546,974

    Wisconsin

    Trump 1,409,467
    Clinton 1,382,210

    Johnson 1,479,262
    Feingold 1,380,496

    Ohio

    Trump 2,771,984
    Clinton 2,317,001

    Portman 3,048,467
    Strickland 1,929,873

    Pennsylvania

    Trump 2,912,941
    Clinton 2,844,705

    Toomey 2,893,833
    McGinty 2,793,668

    Florida

    Trump 4,605,515
    Clinton 4,485,745

    Rubio 4,822,182
    Murphy 4,105,251

    In each of those states, other than PA, the Republican Senatorial candidate ran ahead of Trump. And, in PA, Toomey was only slightly (less than 1%) behind.

    My conclusion is that Republican is a better brand than Trump, and that Trump won because Hillary lost, not because Trump did especially well.

    Walter, you’re grabbing first post–and Razib isn’t even interested in the political detail, just the big trend–and this is what you serve up?

    –> Yes, Clinton is a crappy candidate–openly corrupt, bought by Wall Street and incapable of truth telling. But Trump has some obvious negatives, even beyond the liberal\establishment\Jewish media hysteria.

    –> You’re comparing incomplete 2016 popular vote totals to 2012.
    Turnout was actually up a notch–so toss that out.

    –> Senate … geez where to start:
    – Every one of the guys you list is an *incumbent*, Trump is not.
    – Senators are inherently local (to state) and can tailor their policy positions appropriately for the state in a way presidential candidates do not. They will *usually* run ahead of the presidential candidate of their party in states their party usually doesn’t carry for the presidency.
    – All these guys had the advantage that the average voter thought Hillary would win, so they get some votes from independent minded voters who didn’t like Trump, but didn’t want Hillary to have a compliant Senate.

    –> Razib showed you the map.
    Yes, Hillary sucks, but if it’s just “Hillary sucks”, then you’d expect a “redshift” everywhere. That’s not the case. The redshift has a very strong localization to the Midwest and upper South.
    The “Republican” brand may indeed by a better brand than “Trump”, but Romney–accomplished, reasonable political background, high competence, not corrupt, very respectable personal life–had been unable to give a bunch of these working and middle class voters any reason to vote for him and had been unable to carry any “Great Lakes” Midwestern state beyond Indiana.
    Obviously rather than just “Clinton sucks”, Trump was able to convince a fair number of Midwestern working\middle class whites that he was offering them a better alternative.

    Whether this is truly the beginning of an “end of the Century!” nationalist politically realignment–where we sane nationalists can rip our nations back from the globalist “good white” nuts–hard to say. But clearly there’s more going on here than just “Clinton sucks”.

    Read More
  50. @Razib Khan
    This may well be true, but this was the first Presidential election in modern times where one of the major party candidates explicitly repudiated the American ideal that we could come together on the bases of common economic, political and social concerns. This was the first election where one candidate explicitly denounced most white voters and supported by the MSM made it very clear that their support was not wanted nor needed. This was the first election in which the supposedly professional journalists explained that the campaign could not be (and was not) covered in a professional manner because to do so would favor one candidate (Trump) over the other.



    history is important. the bolded part is just wrong. please don't engage in hyperbole if you want to persuade or inform, as opposed to engage in rhetorical flourishes.

    Fourth Estate

    Why the Press Can’t (and Shouldn’t) Quit Trump

    By Jack Shafer
    | December 14, 2015

    Ever since Donald Trump appeared on Campaign 2016’s horizon, journalists have been imploring other journalists not to cover him. This began, amazingly, five months before he announced he was running for president, when Conor Friedersdorf laid down the dictum in the Atlantic. Just last week, former CNN anchor Campbell Brown bookended Friedersdorf’s argument with a piece in POLITICO Magazine, calling upon TV news to stage a one-week Trump moratorium because TV coverage was only making him stronger.

    Atlantic, CNN

    There’s plenty more.

    Read More
  51. iffen, you are being stupid or uncertain. my point is not that the press was NOT biased. it’s that it was, but that this has happened in the past. ‘objective’ press really evolved in the 20th century.

    your comment is enlightening like liberals who are saying that trump election is the WORST THING to ever happen in american history. like they don’t know what happened in the past (well, they probably don’t).

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    iffen, you are being stupid or uncertain.

    I want it to be the 2nd one because it is said that there is no cure for the first one.

    One last comment and I will stop.

    I know that professional journalism came into its own in the 20th century. I know that in the past everything was along the lines of FOX or MSNBC or much worse.
    My point is that in spite of the biases of the media there was a core ideal of professional objective journalism, and that with few exceptions they put that aside this cycle and told themselves that they could pick it back up after this election. I don’t think that it works like this. Some things are lost forever.
  52. @Afterthought
    Out of Africa is the "Trump can't win" of science.

    Not merely false, but an active deception.

    That’s what They want you to think. ;)

    Read More
  53. @Razib Khan
    iffen, you are being stupid or uncertain. my point is not that the press was NOT biased. it's that it was, but that this has happened in the past. 'objective' press really evolved in the 20th century.

    your comment is enlightening like liberals who are saying that trump election is the WORST THING to ever happen in american history. like they don't know what happened in the past (well, they probably don't).

    iffen, you are being stupid or uncertain.

    I want it to be the 2nd one because it is said that there is no cure for the first one.

    One last comment and I will stop.

    I know that professional journalism came into its own in the 20th century. I know that in the past everything was along the lines of FOX or MSNBC or much worse.
    My point is that in spite of the biases of the media there was a core ideal of professional objective journalism, and that with few exceptions they put that aside this cycle and told themselves that they could pick it back up after this election. I don’t think that it works like this. Some things are lost forever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Some things are lost forever.
     
    I don't believe in "the permanent decline." I think a lot of "alt-right" types do, because it gives them an excuse to be destructive, rather than to be constructive.

    I remember "the morning again in America" after Reagan's election, I remember "the adults are back in charge" after GWB's election, and I don't find "Trump is going to make America great again" euphoria (on the hard right) after his election all that different.

    Things are rarely as bad as the seem; they are rarely as good as they seem either. So far I am cautiously optimistic about the incoming Trump administration.

    And I write this as someone who opposed Trump during the GOP primary, but supported him wholeheartedly for the general election and was ecstatic when Penn. was called in his favor in the wee hours of that Wednesday morning. Because - as you are - I am unhappy with the political status quo in this country, I supported and voted for a bit of disruption, and I dearly hope it turns out to be a constructive kind of disruption.
  54. @iffen
    iffen, you are being stupid or uncertain.

    I want it to be the 2nd one because it is said that there is no cure for the first one.

    One last comment and I will stop.

    I know that professional journalism came into its own in the 20th century. I know that in the past everything was along the lines of FOX or MSNBC or much worse.
    My point is that in spite of the biases of the media there was a core ideal of professional objective journalism, and that with few exceptions they put that aside this cycle and told themselves that they could pick it back up after this election. I don’t think that it works like this. Some things are lost forever.

    Some things are lost forever.

    I don’t believe in “the permanent decline.” I think a lot of “alt-right” types do, because it gives them an excuse to be destructive, rather than to be constructive.

    I remember “the morning again in America” after Reagan’s election, I remember “the adults are back in charge” after GWB’s election, and I don’t find “Trump is going to make America great again” euphoria (on the hard right) after his election all that different.

    Things are rarely as bad as the seem; they are rarely as good as they seem either. So far I am cautiously optimistic about the incoming Trump administration.

    And I write this as someone who opposed Trump during the GOP primary, but supported him wholeheartedly for the general election and was ecstatic when Penn. was called in his favor in the wee hours of that Wednesday morning. Because – as you are – I am unhappy with the political status quo in this country, I supported and voted for a bit of disruption, and I dearly hope it turns out to be a constructive kind of disruption.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I think a lot of “alt-right” types do, because it gives them an excuse to be destructive

    Yes, as smarter people than me have pointed out the extreme right and extreme left support chaos so as to give themselves a better chance to seize power.

    I remember “the morning again in America” after Reagan’s election

    I remember intense discussions by adults about what could be done to counter the directives of the Pope to the new President. I remember preparations being made to close school districts (actually happened in a few places).

    I don’t believe in “the permanent decline.”

    I hope you are right and I am wrong.

    Because – as you are – I am unhappy with the political status quo in this country, I supported and voted for a bit of disruption, and I dearly hope it turns out to be a constructive kind of disruption.

    If I thought that I still had any influence, I would take time to send the best prayer of my life for this.
  55. @Twinkie

    Some things are lost forever.
     
    I don't believe in "the permanent decline." I think a lot of "alt-right" types do, because it gives them an excuse to be destructive, rather than to be constructive.

    I remember "the morning again in America" after Reagan's election, I remember "the adults are back in charge" after GWB's election, and I don't find "Trump is going to make America great again" euphoria (on the hard right) after his election all that different.

    Things are rarely as bad as the seem; they are rarely as good as they seem either. So far I am cautiously optimistic about the incoming Trump administration.

    And I write this as someone who opposed Trump during the GOP primary, but supported him wholeheartedly for the general election and was ecstatic when Penn. was called in his favor in the wee hours of that Wednesday morning. Because - as you are - I am unhappy with the political status quo in this country, I supported and voted for a bit of disruption, and I dearly hope it turns out to be a constructive kind of disruption.

    I think a lot of “alt-right” types do, because it gives them an excuse to be destructive

    Yes, as smarter people than me have pointed out the extreme right and extreme left support chaos so as to give themselves a better chance to seize power.

    I remember “the morning again in America” after Reagan’s election

    I remember intense discussions by adults about what could be done to counter the directives of the Pope to the new President. I remember preparations being made to close school districts (actually happened in a few places).

    I don’t believe in “the permanent decline.”

    I hope you are right and I am wrong.

    Because – as you are – I am unhappy with the political status quo in this country, I supported and voted for a bit of disruption, and I dearly hope it turns out to be a constructive kind of disruption.

    If I thought that I still had any influence, I would take time to send the best prayer of my life for this.

    Read More
  56. @Thirdeye

    In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party.

    Yes, and this election accelerates that transformation in the north.
     
    We saw some unexpected results with the black vote this time around. Hillary saw the role of an energized black and Hispanic electorate in Obama's success and did everything she could, pander-wise, to try for a three-peat. It backfired. Her talk of "white privilege" etc. alienated whites who are less-than-privileged and less concerned with virtue signalling than Hollywood limo-libs. Referring to those who felt alienated by the white guilt card as "deplorables" certainly didn't help. But there was not a corresponding pickup of black and Hispanic support to offset her loss of white support. According to the Philadelphia Tribune, black turnout decreased 11% nationally between 2012 and 2016, and within that black voter turnout the percentage for the Republican ticket went from 7% to 12%. There was also, contrary to all expectations, a slight rise in the Republican share of the Hispanic vote between 2012 and 2016.

    There's another wrinkle in the story of the black vote. Within the old Confederacy the black vote is indeed monolithically Democratic. The Republicans have never lived down their identity as the party of the backlash to the Civil Rights movement in those states. According to Dick Morris, Republican ticket's pickup of the black vote was in northern states. That means the increase of the black vote for the Republican ticket was in some areas significantly more than the 5% indicated by the national figures. Clinton's underperformance in metro Detroit and other urban areas of the Great Lakes states turned out to be a key element of her demise.

    The rise of the Republican vote among working class whites and blacks in northern cities has an interesting resemblance to the rise of the old FDR Democratic coalition in the north, in which the "white" party picked up black support to form a solid power base. That's of course assuming the Republicans don't blow it all out their collective ass in the next four years.

    “The Republicans have never lived down their identity as the party of the backlash to the Civil Rights movement in those states.”

    The Democrats were the ones who backlashed against the “Civil Rights” movement in the South. Democrats supported slavery, Jim Crow and opposed the “Civil Rights” movement. Republicans supported abolition. George Wallace was a Democrat. MLK was a Republican.

    Granted, the media and academy have been pretty effective at retconning the story to portray the Democrats as the opposite of what they were, and most voters have bought the con job because they don’t know any history. But that doesn’t mean we should forget history too.

    Read More
  57. @Sean
    A man came from nowhere to beat Hillary with Dems in 2008.

    He did hold on to the basic republican vote which was established by McCain in 2008.
     
    Palin surely cost McCain some votes. Dems made hay in 2008 thinking that Palin's personal qualities and experience disqualified her, but should have drawn the lesson that her sex was a real factor, and choosing any woman for pres candidate, no matter how well qualified,would be a risky choice. There are a lot of factors of course but Democratic voters being unenthusiastic about a woman is something that is not being given enough weight.

    “Palin surely cost McCain some votes.”

    Really? The only time McCain led Obama in the polls was right after he picked Palin as VP.

    Read More
  58. @Thirdeye

    In the South, the GOP is the white party, and the Democrats are the black party.

    Yes, and this election accelerates that transformation in the north.
     
    We saw some unexpected results with the black vote this time around. Hillary saw the role of an energized black and Hispanic electorate in Obama's success and did everything she could, pander-wise, to try for a three-peat. It backfired. Her talk of "white privilege" etc. alienated whites who are less-than-privileged and less concerned with virtue signalling than Hollywood limo-libs. Referring to those who felt alienated by the white guilt card as "deplorables" certainly didn't help. But there was not a corresponding pickup of black and Hispanic support to offset her loss of white support. According to the Philadelphia Tribune, black turnout decreased 11% nationally between 2012 and 2016, and within that black voter turnout the percentage for the Republican ticket went from 7% to 12%. There was also, contrary to all expectations, a slight rise in the Republican share of the Hispanic vote between 2012 and 2016.

    There's another wrinkle in the story of the black vote. Within the old Confederacy the black vote is indeed monolithically Democratic. The Republicans have never lived down their identity as the party of the backlash to the Civil Rights movement in those states. According to Dick Morris, Republican ticket's pickup of the black vote was in northern states. That means the increase of the black vote for the Republican ticket was in some areas significantly more than the 5% indicated by the national figures. Clinton's underperformance in metro Detroit and other urban areas of the Great Lakes states turned out to be a key element of her demise.

    The rise of the Republican vote among working class whites and blacks in northern cities has an interesting resemblance to the rise of the old FDR Democratic coalition in the north, in which the "white" party picked up black support to form a solid power base. That's of course assuming the Republicans don't blow it all out their collective ass in the next four years.

    The rise of the Republican vote among working class whites and blacks in northern cities has an interesting resemblance to the rise of the old FDR Democratic coalition in the north, in which the “white” party picked up black support to form a solid power base.

    It wouldn’t take a lot of votes to solidify the coalition. The margins in the rust belt are in the .05% to 3% range.

    Don’t forget FDR’s solid south vote. New Dealers at every level in the South didn’t get ejected until the 60′s and the rise of the primacy of race.

    Read More
  59. @Almost Missouri

    "The Republicans have never lived down their identity as the party of the backlash to the Civil Rights movement in those states."
     
    The Democrats were the ones who backlashed against the "Civil Rights" movement in the South. Democrats supported slavery, Jim Crow and opposed the "Civil Rights" movement. Republicans supported abolition. George Wallace was a Democrat. MLK was a Republican.

    Granted, the media and academy have been pretty effective at retconning the story to portray the Democrats as the opposite of what they were, and most voters have bought the con job because they don't know any history. But that doesn't mean we should forget history too.

    So Dems are the real racists??

    Read More

Comments are closed.