The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Ctrl + F "Immigra"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Commenter bjdubbs draws our attention to the NYT’s Nate Silver replacement’s mea culpa, in which the text string “immigra” only appears once:

What I Got Wrong About Donald Trump
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn MAY 4, 2016

The NYT’s mini-Nate says that Trump won despite his position on immigration:

“These are voters who showed a surprising tolerance for Mr. Trump’s extreme comments on immigration, women and other issues.”

A “tolerance”! And Rubio would have won had he not malfunctioned and split his support with the formidable Kasich. It’s almost as if the RNC/NRO approved storyline is also the NYT approved storyline.

 
88 Comments to "Ctrl + F "Immigra""
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. G Pinfold says:

    What part of normal do these people not understand?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    What part of normal do these people not understand?
     
    A lot.

    My bet would be little Nate grew up in a Jewish left\liberal bubble. All the people he knows and associates with think the way he does. Questioning his people's mythology--which is pervasive--is simply beyond his ken. In his heart he knows he's right. As I've said before we have the most parochial "cosmopolitans" in the world.

    Smarter, less ethnocentric, Jews are at least *aware* that most people in the world don't think like they do. Most people in the world don't expect to be part of elite parasite class. Most people like living with people of their same race and culture. For example for most Americans seeing more Mexicans show up doesn't mean "oh, more help", it means "more competition" or "great, a barrio in town" or "more mediocrity in my kids' schools" or "more drunk driving and more litter" or simply "more people yakking away in a language I don't understand".

    The really smart Jews realize that they are safe in the West, and that in fact no nation in the world has rolled out the welcome mat for the Jews like the United States--flat out letting them take over their institutions. (In fact, some Bible believing American Protestants seem to suffer from battered wife syndrome, with a pathological love for the Jews who have nothing but contempt for them.) And those really smart Jews--unfortunately too few, too quiet--understand that further balkanizing the West to settle old scores and feel comfortable is not actually "good for the Jews".

    Nate Cohn--whatever his IQ--is clearly not any sort of smart Jew, but complacent "bubble Jew" happy with his ignorance. Nate strikes me as an advertisement for the existence of ethnic nepotism.
    , @Nicky Waterworth
    2016-10-31 11:28:26
    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
    /isteve/ctrl-f-immigra/#comment-1409029
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. frizzled says:

    I would like to draw your attention to Paul Treanor’s comments at

    http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/02/the-allure-of-donald-trump/

    Trump has clear policies, which certainly on immigration correspond to the positions of populist parties in Europe….

    He does not have a full policy platform, but that is not necessary for a populist party to be successful. It only needs to address the issues which anger its electorate. And that is the reality which needs to be considered: a section of the population is angry at mainstream politics, in Europe we would say ‘the political class’, for ignoring their concerns and fears. The denialist position which Neil Levy advances, in effect tells the political class that they can continue to ignore these voters. I think that is a dangerous strategy…

    I suspect this kind of explanation [Trump voters being stupid and easily influenced] is popular, because it lets everyone else off the hook. Trump is seen a a jester leading the gullible peasants. No-one has to rethink their own positions and policies, which might be an uncomfortable exercise.

    In reality, the primary explanation for the success of Trump, is that he is a competent representative of a section of the population, that is currently unrepresented in the party spectrum. By ‘competent’ I mean that he has an organisation, is seen as potentially electable, and accurately reflects the concerns of his own voters. This is also the primary explanation for the rise of UKIP, the Front National, the Dansk Folkeparti, the AfD, Geert Wilders’ PVV, and so on. Their success is essentially a restructuring of the party landscape, to conform more closely with the attitudes and aspirations of the electorate… Two-party systems tend to exclude new parties, but if enough voters are dissatisfied, then sooner or later there will be a shift in the political spectrum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for the pointer. It was also interesting to read Neil Levy's responses. I wonder if Neil thinks he was persuasive. Does Paul Treanor write elsewhere? The parts you excerpted are one of the better explanations of the Trump phenomenon I have seen and he wrote them in February.
  3. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Nate Silver crashed and burned in this election. He is now as laughable as Karl Rove.

    Here’s an opinion by a top Wall Street guy that Trump will be the next President: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/04/jeff-gundlach-donald-trump-will-win.html

    From Wikipedia:

    Bond guru Jeffrey Gundlach (born October 30, 1959) is the founder of Doubleline Capital, an investment firm. He was formerly the head of the $9.3 billion TCW Total Return Bond Fund, where he finished in the top 2% of all funds invested in intermediate-term bonds for the 10 years that ended prior to his departure. … He is a native of Amherst, New York[3] and a graduate of Dartmouth College;[1] he went to Yale University for a Ph.D. in theoretical mathematics before dropping out.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Gundlach

    Read More
    • Replies: @prole
    Gundam is one of the best minds in finance. He is often ahead of the curve, and has been mostly correct concerning the bond markets over the last decade.
    , @res
    I'm not sure Nate Silver's reputation has taken as big of a hit as I would have expected from his Trump prediction failures.
    While reading his mea culpa at http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-republican-voters-decided-on-trump/
    I was surprised how little heat he was taking in the comments--especially since I think that post indicates he is likely to be equally blind in the general, but will come out of all of this with reputation intact if Hillary does win (by even the slightest of margins). The problem for me is after Nate's failure with Trump I feel like I can't trust him to analyze situations which have a most likely outcome which he dislikes.

    This is a fun compilation of his Trump predictions:
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/
    I'm disappointed they left out the overly pessimistic posts 538 made about Trump's path to 1237 delegates (e.g. for a long time totally ignoring PA's unbound delegates).
  4. neutral says:

    Sorry but I am the type who likes to find and preach optimisations, doing ctrl-f “imm” is faster and the chance of finding a clash is very low.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "Sorry but I am the type who likes to find and preach optimisations, doing ctrl-f “imm” is faster and the chance of finding a clash is very low."

    I prefer "migra" because it includes migrants, another entry on the Left's euphemism carousel.
  5. Bad news Trump fans. According to his doctor Trump is soon going to die:

    You see his medical tests “show only positive results”. Therefore he must be disease-ridden.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/14/the-donald-s-trumped-up-medical-report.html#pq=peoXsZ

    Read More
  6. Bad news Trump fans. According to his doctor Trump is soon going to die:

    You see his medical tests “show only positive results”.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/14/the-donald-s-trumped-up-medical-report.html#pq=peoXsZ

    Read More
    • Replies: @Richard Steele
    Would you just stop with your shit. It's really annoying.
  7. @anony-mouse
    Bad news Trump fans. According to his doctor Trump is soon going to die:

    You see his medical tests "show only positive results".

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/14/the-donald-s-trumped-up-medical-report.html#pq=peoXsZ

    Would you just stop with your shit. It’s really annoying.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anony-mouse
    This blog features a function that allows you to ignore certain commenters (see 'commenters to ignore' above). If you don't like what I write, use it.

    Or you can complain to the management.

    Or you can ignore what I write.

    Or you can...

  8. kihowi says:

    Nate Silver is a scam. His posts are full of assertions that couldn’t possibly come from any data, like “yah he’s high in the polls but people are going to tire of him pretty quickly” or “Trump will devastate the conservative movement” or “he doesn’t have any strategy”.

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you’ll notice he’s just anti Trump. He didn’t get anything wrong, he’s just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others. With one difference: he’s managed to convince millennial s that his daily show type snark is SCIENCE.

    Read More
    • Replies: @prole
    So True. Nate allowed his anti-Trump ideology to corrupt his blog and caused his analysis to be poor . So many of his articles were misleading, biased and dishonest. But I suppose his readers want a biased perspective to support their ideology.
    , @Anonym
    I think the implosion of Nate Silver, and people such as manlet Ben Shapiro, are educational for many. In time, millenials will draw some useful conclusions.
    , @TomSchmidt
    Did Steve ever publish his review of Superforecasting? What a great book that is. I literally couldn't put it down. Tetlock would have a thing or two to say about Silver. You can be a superpredictor, or a pundit. Silver is now shown as a pundit.

    Just Googled it. He did. This is the book that should be the foundation of every approach to soothsaying. Simply superb.
    , @(((Owen)))

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you’ll notice he’s just anti Trump. He didn’t get anything wrong, he’s just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others.

     

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?

    You could make a nasty passing attack on Silver for being a homosexual or a New Yorker. Or you could just focus on his being biased and dishonest. But instead it's always hating on the Jews.

    You're undermining the ideas you supposedly favor. No intellectual movement succeeds without Jewish interest because Jews are the heart of the high-IQ West.
  9. Okie says:

    I read a article just b4 Wisconsin primary where Cruz effectively and sanely refuted a open borders dairy farmer. He was clear and plain speaking on immigration but either it never spread which would be his own canpaign’s fault or a clear rational explanation that immigration needs to be reduced is not what the voters wanted, they want impossible bombast

    Read More
    • Replies: @The most deplorable one

    I read a article just b4 Wisconsin primary where Cruz effectively and sanely refuted a open borders dairy farmer.
     
    Seems you forget your articles quite a lot.

    Sometimes literally, sometimes just the location of them.
    , @Anonym
    Maybe if El Rato was less ratlike, we'd be looking at a contested convention now. But in terms of thinking strategically, Cruz is no Nixon. Frankly, I don't know enough about Nixon to evaluate how strategic a thinker he was, but Cruz is manifestly so poor at avoiding tactically excellent strategic blunders, I have no doubt that Nixon was his superior in that regard.
  10. Mr. Anon says:

    Despite the continuing economic depression, Franklin Delano Roosevelt beat Herbert Hoover in a landslide.

    Read More
  11. Luke Lea says: • Website

    Dear Nate Cohn, Or maybe it really is just about trade and immigration? We’re going to find out in the fall.

    Read More
  12. @Richard Steele
    Would you just stop with your shit. It's really annoying.

    This blog features a function that allows you to ignore certain commenters (see ‘commenters to ignore’ above). If you don’t like what I write, use it.

    Or you can complain to the management.

    Or you can ignore what I write.

    Or you can…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Smitty
    What a chicken response... "If u don't like it don't read it nyah nyah nyah"-- you must be the toast of the 4th grade.

    Also Steve screwed up the blockquote above, turns out Cohn didn't say odd/funny things about "NYT-RNC-NRO" (approx. 9 million mentions of NR ago, i.e. a couple years, Steve asked if anybody still reads NR, which I'd thought was rhetorical, not a sincere personal ad looking for connections with other obsessives)
  13. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer

    Trump’s virtue is honesty, not usually legal tender where the Political Class does its shopping. http://www.postcardsfromtraumaville.blogspot.com

    Read More
  14. prole says:
    @Anonymous
    Nate Silver crashed and burned in this election. He is now as laughable as Karl Rove.

    Here's an opinion by a top Wall Street guy that Trump will be the next President: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/04/jeff-gundlach-donald-trump-will-win.html

    From Wikipedia:

    Bond guru Jeffrey Gundlach (born October 30, 1959) is the founder of Doubleline Capital, an investment firm. He was formerly the head of the $9.3 billion TCW Total Return Bond Fund, where he finished in the top 2% of all funds invested in intermediate-term bonds for the 10 years that ended prior to his departure. ... He is a native of Amherst, New York[3] and a graduate of Dartmouth College;[1] he went to Yale University for a Ph.D. in theoretical mathematics before dropping out.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Gundlach

    Gundam is one of the best minds in finance. He is often ahead of the curve, and has been mostly correct concerning the bond markets over the last decade.

    Read More
  15. prole says:
    @kihowi
    Nate Silver is a scam. His posts are full of assertions that couldn't possibly come from any data, like "yah he's high in the polls but people are going to tire of him pretty quickly" or "Trump will devastate the conservative movement" or "he doesn't have any strategy".

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you'll notice he's just anti Trump. He didn't get anything wrong, he's just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others. With one difference: he's managed to convince millennial s that his daily show type snark is SCIENCE.

    So True. Nate allowed his anti-Trump ideology to corrupt his blog and caused his analysis to be poor . So many of his articles were misleading, biased and dishonest. But I suppose his readers want a biased perspective to support their ideology.

    Read More
    • Agree: (((Owen)))
    • Replies: @MSP
    Back when Nate was just using data analytics to crunch the poll numbers the site was excellent. If you look at his "polls only" projections they've been very accurate. It's his "polls plus" where he strays away from pure statistics where he got into trouble. Most of his "analysis" was based around reasons why the polls were wrong; his own biases were clearly evident there. He's a statistician; not a political analyst.
  16. Felix. says:

    This blog has convinced me of the fractal nature of our world. In the comments, we have otherwise reputable commentators madly chomping at every troll post thrown their way, no matter how obviously trollish. I can’t count the number of times I open up the comments section to Steve’s article only to audibly groan when I see the first comment is some variation of “white people are evil” and 30 of the remaining 60 posts are replies to that first troll post. Makes me question some people’s sentience on here.

    What does this have to due with the world being fractal? Well, there is Steve’s obsession with reading the NYT and triumphantly pointing out their logical failures. No shiite. The NYT is an enemy propaganda organ, just acknowledge it once and move on with your life. Copying and pasting NYT articles and pointing out how little sense they make is just feeding the troll. They’re not supposed to make sense. They’re propaganda. And you’re not supposed to read them, let alone spread them to another audience. The modus operendi with trolls is to ignore them, and that is something both Steve and his commenters seem to have an awfully hard time doing.

    Read More
  17. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:
    @Okie
    I read a article just b4 Wisconsin primary where Cruz effectively and sanely refuted a open borders dairy farmer. He was clear and plain speaking on immigration but either it never spread which would be his own canpaign's fault or a clear rational explanation that immigration needs to be reduced is not what the voters wanted, they want impossible bombast

    I read a article just b4 Wisconsin primary where Cruz effectively and sanely refuted a open borders dairy farmer.

    Seems you forget your articles quite a lot.

    Sometimes literally, sometimes just the location of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @okie
    Huh, I i mot interested in a flame ware but this makes no sense, are you implying i am making things up? I was sitting this morning waiting for a co worker and dashed off a quick reply that Immigration wasn't solely Trump's province. he makes the extreme statements but the limited amount he actually has proposed policies are not nearly as extreme, and he has a history of using illegal labor on his construction sites.
    now that i am at a pc here is a account of that town hall, not the one i read, but it gives both Cruz's and Trumps replies to similar questions

    http://www.agweb.com/article/trump-cruz-cant-avoid-ag-issues-at-cnn-town-hall-naa-wyatt-bechtel/

    Cruz replied that a restriction of illegals would raise wages and gave examples, Trump responded with bombast and generalities. Now as i said if Cruz didn't press this in his paid or public appearances that is his fault, because it is a fair rational and to my mind winning argument for immigration restriction. I haven't seen an ad since March being in OK, and watch no news channels because of the paucity of actual news there. but the idea that only Trump addressed immigration is demonstrably false.
  18. keypusher says:

    Here’s a 1+ hour discussion focused largely on white working class economic insecurity between Robert Putnam and Charles Murray, in which immigration is never mentioned, except that moderator David Gergen says how CEOs tell him Mexican men work much harder than white men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    Before watching this "Are we really coning apart" 1-hour clip, I was of much better opinion about Robert Putnam. Following commentaries by Sailer and by Derbyshire, I read his book "Bowling alone". You have to know, what to see there, to be able to see his {not 100% politically correct} statements. Here he devoted half of his 24 minute talk to description, who good and caring his family is. "In our family we read them "Goodbye Moon" much more thoroughly." Not a hint about genes. Ahem ... .
    Murray, whose books I read in full, is much deeper.
    In particular, in the "Real Education" he wrote:

    "An elite already runs our country, whether we like it or not. [ ... ]
    The task is not to give them more advanced technical training, but to give them an education that will make them into wiser adults; not to pamper them, but to hold their feet to the fire."
     
    From that I conclude that our kids will not be in elite. My wife and I, we tried to give them as much technical education as we could.
  19. res says:

    I was surprised to see this comment as a NYT pick:

    Tom Honolulu 23 hours ago

    You also underestimated the popularity of Trump’s position on immigration, his number one issue. There seems to be a huge gap between how many of the political/media/business elite view immigration and how many working people view immigration.

    I also agree that Trump’s media savvy is a big part of his success. Someone on Bill Maher’s show recently noted the parallels with FDR in the 1930s who utilized the new technology of radio, and with JFK who utilized TV in 1960. Trump understands reality TV and social media in an intuitive way that the other candidates cannot match.

    Read More
  20. res says:
    @frizzled
    I would like to draw your attention to Paul Treanor's comments at

    http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2016/02/the-allure-of-donald-trump/

    Trump has clear policies, which certainly on immigration correspond to the positions of populist parties in Europe....

    He does not have a full policy platform, but that is not necessary for a populist party to be successful. It only needs to address the issues which anger its electorate. And that is the reality which needs to be considered: a section of the population is angry at mainstream politics, in Europe we would say ‘the political class’, for ignoring their concerns and fears. The denialist position which Neil Levy advances, in effect tells the political class that they can continue to ignore these voters. I think that is a dangerous strategy...

    I suspect this kind of explanation [Trump voters being stupid and easily influenced] is popular, because it lets everyone else off the hook. Trump is seen a a jester leading the gullible peasants. No-one has to rethink their own positions and policies, which might be an uncomfortable exercise.

    In reality, the primary explanation for the success of Trump, is that he is a competent representative of a section of the population, that is currently unrepresented in the party spectrum. By ‘competent’ I mean that he has an organisation, is seen as potentially electable, and accurately reflects the concerns of his own voters. This is also the primary explanation for the rise of UKIP, the Front National, the Dansk Folkeparti, the AfD, Geert Wilders’ PVV, and so on. Their success is essentially a restructuring of the party landscape, to conform more closely with the attitudes and aspirations of the electorate... Two-party systems tend to exclude new parties, but if enough voters are dissatisfied, then sooner or later there will be a shift in the political spectrum.
     

    Thanks for the pointer. It was also interesting to read Neil Levy’s responses. I wonder if Neil thinks he was persuasive. Does Paul Treanor write elsewhere? The parts you excerpted are one of the better explanations of the Trump phenomenon I have seen and he wrote them in February.

    Read More
    • Replies: @frizzled
    Treanor has written some really interesting, provocative pieces. He changes writing venue frequently, and these days seems to mostly write in the comments section of that ethics blog.

    I've often wondered what the iSteve clientele would make of him.

    His "Political Aspects" blog - some excellent articles: https://politicalaspects.wordpress.com/

    His main site containing longer essays: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/

    His defunct "State Ethics" blog - contains some great entries on nationalism and xenophobia: https://web.archive.org/web/20100808023404/http://state-ethics.blogspot.com/

    And just for comedy, his declaration of war against the United States of America: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html

  21. keypusher says:

    One thing Cohn stressed was that there were too many candidates in the race for too long for fire to be concentrated on Trump.

    Expect the Republican Party to try to fix this “problem” for 2020.

    Read More
  22. res says:
    @Anonymous
    Nate Silver crashed and burned in this election. He is now as laughable as Karl Rove.

    Here's an opinion by a top Wall Street guy that Trump will be the next President: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/04/jeff-gundlach-donald-trump-will-win.html

    From Wikipedia:

    Bond guru Jeffrey Gundlach (born October 30, 1959) is the founder of Doubleline Capital, an investment firm. He was formerly the head of the $9.3 billion TCW Total Return Bond Fund, where he finished in the top 2% of all funds invested in intermediate-term bonds for the 10 years that ended prior to his departure. ... He is a native of Amherst, New York[3] and a graduate of Dartmouth College;[1] he went to Yale University for a Ph.D. in theoretical mathematics before dropping out.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Gundlach

    I’m not sure Nate Silver’s reputation has taken as big of a hit as I would have expected from his Trump prediction failures.
    While reading his mea culpa at http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-republican-voters-decided-on-trump/
    I was surprised how little heat he was taking in the comments–especially since I think that post indicates he is likely to be equally blind in the general, but will come out of all of this with reputation intact if Hillary does win (by even the slightest of margins). The problem for me is after Nate’s failure with Trump I feel like I can’t trust him to analyze situations which have a most likely outcome which he dislikes.

    This is a fun compilation of his Trump predictions:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/

    I’m disappointed they left out the overly pessimistic posts 538 made about Trump’s path to 1237 delegates (e.g. for a long time totally ignoring PA’s unbound delegates).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Because a good number of his readers are baseball stats geeks who followed him from Baseball Prospectus and are quite used to him being wildly wrong.
    , @tbraton
    Back on April 13, I posted a message on Derbyshire's blog giving my analysis of the remaining 16 Republican primaries and offering my predictions about each of the "six stages" in which I broke down the race according the dates of the primaries, starting with New York (alone) in Stage 1 on April 19. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1385822 I predicted that Trump would easily exceed the magic number of 1237 delegates required to get the nomination. The next day I saw a "538" piece by Nate Silver on RCP in which he did the same thing I did and predicted Trump would fall short of the required 1237 by nearly 80 delegates. I posted an analysis of Silver's predictions on Derbyshire's blog on April 14. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1387552 In the latter message, I stated in part:

    "Indiana—Silver projects 9 to 22 while I give Trump all 57. (Silver draws an analogy between Indiana and Wisconsin, even though Indiana has voted Republican in every election since 1940 but for 1964 (LBJ v. Goldwater) and 2008 (Obama v, McCain) while Wisconsin has voted Democratic in every election since 1988.)

    New York—Silver projects 83 to 85 while I give Trump 90.

    Connecticut—Silver projects 23 to 24 (up from the original 19) while I give Trump all 28.

    With re to PA, Silver allocates 17 while I have allocated all 71 to Trump (while recognizing that is not possible under PA’s rather unusual rules.) Overall, Silver estimates that Trump will wind up with 1155 to 1159 delegates after all the primaries are finished. I would note that Silver clearly has a bias against Trump, but his very detailed and sophisticated analysis is certainly worth reading."

    I subsequently posted an update showing Silver's predictions compared to the actual results after the first two stages. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1401217 The bottom line is that he missed NY by 7 delegates (compared to my precise and accurate prediction of 90 delegates, which nailed it) and by more than 50 delegates after the "second stage" of five Eastern states (PA, CONN, RI, DEL and MD), where Trump swept every county in five separate states. That doesn't even take into account Indiana (the "third stage") where Silver predicted Cruz would win and Trump would get anywhere from 9 to 22 delegates, compared to my prediction of a 57-delegate sweep.

    Whereas he started off by predicting that Trump would fall short after the primaries ended on June 7 by roughly 80 delegates, my comparison after the first two weeks (before Indiana) showed that his predicted shortfall had already been pared to 8 delegates even assuming his remaining predictions proved accurate. Indiana eliminated that remaining shortfall and increased it to a substantial cushion for Trump in terms of delegates. As I noted in my first post on Silver's predictions, I believe he allowed his clear dislike of Trump and Trump's political positions to sway his judgment about the race. It also appeared to me that Silver, having achieved a degree of fame over his past "predictions," tried to turn himself into a "wise" political pontificator spouting gross generalities and completely forgot what his fame was based on. Nothing else explains his disregard of the polls which showed Trump leading the other Republican candidates as early as August 2015, just as the Republican debates were getting started and a large audience of viewers were seeing Trump for the first time.
  23. AndrewR says:

    Everyday Feminism is the most pozzed out site on the internet. They are having a breakdown over the Trumpening. And guess whom they blame?

    I imagine anthropologists in other countries do their dissertations on the almost inexplicable phenomenon of whites of north-central Euro descent endlessly subjecting themselves to the most vile abuse at the hands of their colored masters. Talk about natural selection.

    https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1036894563012825&id=392570397445248&fs=5

    Read More
  24. Since it’s now de rigeur to celebrate the nationalistic holiday of a foreign country, I’m cracking open a cold one and wishing everyone Happy Kyrgyzstan Constitution Day.

    Read More
  25. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    At least the Stop Trump PAC is clear about what it does not like:

    http://archive.is/wr2nX

    Read More
  26. Whiskey says: • Website

    Trump’s hidden strength is math.

    There will be no social security or medicare for people in a very few years with open borders and the obligations that each immigrant brings (factoring in family reunification, etc.)

    Its as simple as that — people adding the numbers up and figuring they’ve paid into Social Security and Medicare their working lives to see the money used for Third World moochers.

    AND that is the strength of all those other parties, UKIP, National Front, AfD, etc.

    The big weakness of Social Democrats is that people LIKE and NEED social welfare, and don’t like the money going entirely from them to the Third World moving in. That’s it.

    Read More
  27. Anonym says:
    @kihowi
    Nate Silver is a scam. His posts are full of assertions that couldn't possibly come from any data, like "yah he's high in the polls but people are going to tire of him pretty quickly" or "Trump will devastate the conservative movement" or "he doesn't have any strategy".

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you'll notice he's just anti Trump. He didn't get anything wrong, he's just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others. With one difference: he's managed to convince millennial s that his daily show type snark is SCIENCE.

    I think the implosion of Nate Silver, and people such as manlet Ben Shapiro, are educational for many. In time, millenials will draw some useful conclusions.

    Read More
  28. Anonym says:
    @Okie
    I read a article just b4 Wisconsin primary where Cruz effectively and sanely refuted a open borders dairy farmer. He was clear and plain speaking on immigration but either it never spread which would be his own canpaign's fault or a clear rational explanation that immigration needs to be reduced is not what the voters wanted, they want impossible bombast

    Maybe if El Rato was less ratlike, we’d be looking at a contested convention now. But in terms of thinking strategically, Cruz is no Nixon. Frankly, I don’t know enough about Nixon to evaluate how strategic a thinker he was, but Cruz is manifestly so poor at avoiding tactically excellent strategic blunders, I have no doubt that Nixon was his superior in that regard.

    Read More
  29. Smitty says:
    @anony-mouse
    This blog features a function that allows you to ignore certain commenters (see 'commenters to ignore' above). If you don't like what I write, use it.

    Or you can complain to the management.

    Or you can ignore what I write.

    Or you can...

    What a chicken response… “If u don’t like it don’t read it nyah nyah nyah”– you must be the toast of the 4th grade.

    Also Steve screwed up the blockquote above, turns out Cohn didn’t say odd/funny things about “NYT-RNC-NRO” (approx. 9 million mentions of NR ago, i.e. a couple years, Steve asked if anybody still reads NR, which I’d thought was rhetorical, not a sincere personal ad looking for connections with other obsessives)

    Read More
  30. Smitty says:

    I love how they worked in an old photo of McCain on a gurney there, it’s so bush-league. Always, always prominently present the holy relics for the edification of the peasantry.

    Read More
  31. Anonym says:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-republican-voters-decided-on-trump/

    What Silver fails to mention is that everyone has embraced identity politics and racial bloc voting, it’s just that whites are late to the party. It looks like the uppity goyim are revolting, despite all our soft power efforts (as the article alludes to). The other thing is that Trump supporters aren’t just aggrieved by immigrants, it’s the intentional flooding of our country with non-whites for the intent of diluting our power and our unity permanently that pisses a lot of us off.

    Take a leaf from (((Brin))) and (((Page))). Adopt a “Don’t be evil” philosophy. The pogrom you prevent may be your own.

    Read More
  32. whorefinder says: • Website

    So long as their paymasters make money off unchecked immigration, the media whores will never talk about immigration restriction as a serious or good thing.

    They are under strict orders not to mention it unless absolutely necessary.

    Fuck those whores.

    Read More
  33. Correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t Nate Silver’s big claim to political fame, that he accurately predicted the 2012 Presidential race? Leaving aside the fact I did too (I thought Romney would carry the very close race in Florida, otherwise I was 100 percent correct), I’m pretty sure my dog could’ve made a fairly accurate prediction of the 2012 race. Only delusional cases seriously thought Romney was going to win that thing on Election Day (I can forgive an optimist a few weeks out, but by the end, anyone who still thought Romney was gonna win that thing, was engaged in a mentally crippling degree of wishful thinking). Nate Silver’s chief accomplishment is pretty weak tea.

    Read More
  34. @kihowi
    Nate Silver is a scam. His posts are full of assertions that couldn't possibly come from any data, like "yah he's high in the polls but people are going to tire of him pretty quickly" or "Trump will devastate the conservative movement" or "he doesn't have any strategy".

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you'll notice he's just anti Trump. He didn't get anything wrong, he's just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others. With one difference: he's managed to convince millennial s that his daily show type snark is SCIENCE.

    Did Steve ever publish his review of Superforecasting? What a great book that is. I literally couldn’t put it down. Tetlock would have a thing or two to say about Silver. You can be a superpredictor, or a pundit. Silver is now shown as a pundit.

    Just Googled it. He did. This is the book that should be the foundation of every approach to soothsaying. Simply superb.

    Read More
  35. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “Trump won despite his position”

    Anyone notice that Mr. Cohn’s piece shows how enduringly hospitable the NYT is to writers steeped in the Butterfield Effect?

    Read More
  36. scrivener3 says: • Website

    I was reading Scott Adams (Dilbert) blog posts about The Donald as a great persuader and I commented:

    It looks like he stumbled onto the immigration restriction idea and became immensely popular. He ran for President before (or tried to) and his persuasion abilities didn’t get him very far.

    If the right wins on anything it is due to the unique abilities of the messenger (Reagan, Trump). If the left screws up results, it the failed individual conduit of the one true ideal.

    Read More
  37. Svigor says:

    Bad news Trump fans. According to his doctor Trump is soon going to die

    No big. Clinton will be dead or in jail before then.

    Sorry but I am the type who likes to find and preach optimisations, doing ctrl-f “imm” is faster and the chance of finding a clash is very low.

    “Migr” seems to have less chance of clash, and can also catch “migrate,” “migrant,” and “migration.”

    Read More
  38. Jefferson says:

    9 percent of Republicans voted for Barack Hussein Obama in the last presidential election.

    Obama won a higher percentage of the Republican vote than Mitt Romney did from the Black vote. Even the GOP has a less monolithic voting pattern than the African American community.

    Can Hildabeast attract the same percentage of Republican voters that Obama did?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    Hillary can count on the votes of the Fox All Star Panel.
  39. MC says:

    Megan McArdle’s lengthy post mortem also fails the CTRL+F “immigr” test:

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-05-04/the-four-horsemen-of-the-republican-apocalypse

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    It is still unbelievable, no matter how many times I observe this failure.
  40. frizzled says:
    @res
    Thanks for the pointer. It was also interesting to read Neil Levy's responses. I wonder if Neil thinks he was persuasive. Does Paul Treanor write elsewhere? The parts you excerpted are one of the better explanations of the Trump phenomenon I have seen and he wrote them in February.

    Treanor has written some really interesting, provocative pieces. He changes writing venue frequently, and these days seems to mostly write in the comments section of that ethics blog.

    I’ve often wondered what the iSteve clientele would make of him.

    His “Political Aspects” blog – some excellent articles: https://politicalaspects.wordpress.com/

    His main site containing longer essays: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/

    His defunct “State Ethics” blog – contains some great entries on nationalism and xenophobia: https://web.archive.org/web/20100808023404/http://state-ethics.blogspot.com/

    And just for comedy, his declaration of war against the United States of America: http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/warusa.html

    Read More
  41. I’ve recently formulated a theory of Trump that pisses off every leftist that hears it. Now I want to branch out and piss off alt-right people too.

    Trump is like Obama. For the lion’s share of his support, he relies on a vague message (“make America great again”/”change”) that invites people to imagine he’s saying whatever they themselves believe. While for another group, smaller in numbers but greater in enthusiasm, he dogwhistles a harsher message (immigrants are bad/whitey must die).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "I’ve recently formulated a theory of Trump that pisses off every leftist that hears it. Now I want to branch out and piss off alt-right people too.

    Trump is like Obama. For the lion’s share of his support, he relies on a vague message (“make America great again”/”change”) that invites people to imagine he’s saying whatever they themselves believe. While for another group, smaller in numbers but greater in enthusiasm, he dogwhistles a harsher message (immigrants are bad/whitey must die)."

    Donald Trump is now saying nice things about Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. They are no longer Lying Ted and Little Marco.

    Donald Trump could choose a Cuban to be his VP pick, but that certianly will do nothing to help him win votes from Mexicans. Mexicans tend to be to the political Left of the average Cuban in The U.S.
  42. Jefferson says:

    The pro-Angela Merkel and pro-Hildabeast Feminazis all feel an extreme hatred for the late Margaret Thatcher.

    Dr. Ben Carson once said during one of his paid public speeches that the majority of his harshest critics are other Blacks.

    The Coalition Of The Fringes believe that all women and People Of Color should be to the political Left of Hugo Chavez.

    Read More
  43. “the formidable Kasich”?

    [Insert unending whoops of laughter here]

    Read More
  44. Jefferson says:
    @International Jew
    I've recently formulated a theory of Trump that pisses off every leftist that hears it. Now I want to branch out and piss off alt-right people too.

    Trump is like Obama. For the lion's share of his support, he relies on a vague message ("make America great again"/"change") that invites people to imagine he's saying whatever they themselves believe. While for another group, smaller in numbers but greater in enthusiasm, he dogwhistles a harsher message (immigrants are bad/whitey must die).

    “I’ve recently formulated a theory of Trump that pisses off every leftist that hears it. Now I want to branch out and piss off alt-right people too.

    Trump is like Obama. For the lion’s share of his support, he relies on a vague message (“make America great again”/”change”) that invites people to imagine he’s saying whatever they themselves believe. While for another group, smaller in numbers but greater in enthusiasm, he dogwhistles a harsher message (immigrants are bad/whitey must die).”

    Donald Trump is now saying nice things about Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. They are no longer Lying Ted and Little Marco.

    Donald Trump could choose a Cuban to be his VP pick, but that certianly will do nothing to help him win votes from Mexicans. Mexicans tend to be to the political Left of the average Cuban in The U.S.

    Read More
  45. okie says:
    @The most deplorable one

    I read a article just b4 Wisconsin primary where Cruz effectively and sanely refuted a open borders dairy farmer.
     
    Seems you forget your articles quite a lot.

    Sometimes literally, sometimes just the location of them.

    Huh, I i mot interested in a flame ware but this makes no sense, are you implying i am making things up? I was sitting this morning waiting for a co worker and dashed off a quick reply that Immigration wasn’t solely Trump’s province. he makes the extreme statements but the limited amount he actually has proposed policies are not nearly as extreme, and he has a history of using illegal labor on his construction sites.
    now that i am at a pc here is a account of that town hall, not the one i read, but it gives both Cruz’s and Trumps replies to similar questions

    http://www.agweb.com/article/trump-cruz-cant-avoid-ag-issues-at-cnn-town-hall-naa-wyatt-bechtel/

    Cruz replied that a restriction of illegals would raise wages and gave examples, Trump responded with bombast and generalities. Now as i said if Cruz didn’t press this in his paid or public appearances that is his fault, because it is a fair rational and to my mind winning argument for immigration restriction. I haven’t seen an ad since March being in OK, and watch no news channels because of the paucity of actual news there. but the idea that only Trump addressed immigration is demonstrably false.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Cruz had a very good ad about how if it were lawyers and journalists illegally immigrating it would be considered an apocalyptic crisis by elites.
  46. @okie
    Huh, I i mot interested in a flame ware but this makes no sense, are you implying i am making things up? I was sitting this morning waiting for a co worker and dashed off a quick reply that Immigration wasn't solely Trump's province. he makes the extreme statements but the limited amount he actually has proposed policies are not nearly as extreme, and he has a history of using illegal labor on his construction sites.
    now that i am at a pc here is a account of that town hall, not the one i read, but it gives both Cruz's and Trumps replies to similar questions

    http://www.agweb.com/article/trump-cruz-cant-avoid-ag-issues-at-cnn-town-hall-naa-wyatt-bechtel/

    Cruz replied that a restriction of illegals would raise wages and gave examples, Trump responded with bombast and generalities. Now as i said if Cruz didn't press this in his paid or public appearances that is his fault, because it is a fair rational and to my mind winning argument for immigration restriction. I haven't seen an ad since March being in OK, and watch no news channels because of the paucity of actual news there. but the idea that only Trump addressed immigration is demonstrably false.

    Cruz had a very good ad about how if it were lawyers and journalists illegally immigrating it would be considered an apocalyptic crisis by elites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Cruz had a very good ad about how if it were lawyers and journalists illegally immigrating it would be considered an apocalyptic crisis by elites."
    https://youtu.be/q-SC1uUiT9s
    , @a Newsreader
    One of Cruz's problems was that he operated on a logical intellectual level. For instance, that ad required people listening to the voiceover and understanding a metaphor. Trump uses pure imagery: build a wall, deport them all, murderers and rapists, etc.
  47. OT: But since Trump’s win, I’ve been really disappointed with a few blogs I like or somewhat liked. Ace of Spades, Legal Insurrection and Pajamas Media (with a few exceptions) seem to be fairly unhinged about this.
    Why in the world would anyone in their right mind, or at least people who either write for or comment at these websites even consider something as short sighted and stupid as either voting third party or even for Hillary?
    I remember having to suck it up and vote for McCain and Romney because the alternative was untenable to me. Why can’t they do the same?
    Oh wait. I know. Because they’re a bunch of spoiled upper-class poofs from the North that our current immigration (un)policy, and trade policy hasn’t affected yet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Hillary Republicans!
    , @dr kill
    I am also confused by the truculence of my man Ace. I suppose everyone can miss one now and then. I comfort myself with the 2012 memory of 12 of the 13 seers at AoS were so horribly wrong about Romney too. I would like to know how Gabe Malor sees the race. He was the only man correct.
    , @Brutusale
    I feel about Reynolds and the rest of them at PJM (excepting Richard Fernandez, a treasure) the same way I felt about NPR back in 2008: you were OK when you were able to mask your silliest tendencies, but you've now gone full lunatic, indulged your worst impulses and jumped the shark.
  48. @keypusher
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eB5kQ2XDbAg

    Here's a 1+ hour discussion focused largely on white working class economic insecurity between Robert Putnam and Charles Murray, in which immigration is never mentioned, except that moderator David Gergen says how CEOs tell him Mexican men work much harder than white men.

    Before watching this “Are we really coning apart” 1-hour clip, I was of much better opinion about Robert Putnam. Following commentaries by Sailer and by Derbyshire, I read his book “Bowling alone”. You have to know, what to see there, to be able to see his {not 100% politically correct} statements. Here he devoted half of his 24 minute talk to description, who good and caring his family is. “In our family we read them “Goodbye Moon” much more thoroughly.” Not a hint about genes. Ahem … .
    Murray, whose books I read in full, is much deeper.
    In particular, in the “Real Education” he wrote:

    “An elite already runs our country, whether we like it or not. [ ... ]
    The task is not to give them more advanced technical training, but to give them an education that will make them into wiser adults; not to pamper them, but to hold their feet to the fire.”

    From that I conclude that our kids will not be in elite. My wife and I, we tried to give them as much technical education as we could.

    Read More
  49. Jefferson says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Cruz had a very good ad about how if it were lawyers and journalists illegally immigrating it would be considered an apocalyptic crisis by elites.

    “Cruz had a very good ad about how if it were lawyers and journalists illegally immigrating it would be considered an apocalyptic crisis by elites.”

    Read More
  50. @South Texas Guy
    OT: But since Trump's win, I've been really disappointed with a few blogs I like or somewhat liked. Ace of Spades, Legal Insurrection and Pajamas Media (with a few exceptions) seem to be fairly unhinged about this.
    Why in the world would anyone in their right mind, or at least people who either write for or comment at these websites even consider something as short sighted and stupid as either voting third party or even for Hillary?
    I remember having to suck it up and vote for McCain and Romney because the alternative was untenable to me. Why can't they do the same?
    Oh wait. I know. Because they're a bunch of spoiled upper-class poofs from the North that our current immigration (un)policy, and trade policy hasn't affected yet.

    Hillary Republicans!

    Read More
  51. @Jefferson
    9 percent of Republicans voted for Barack Hussein Obama in the last presidential election.

    Obama won a higher percentage of the Republican vote than Mitt Romney did from the Black vote. Even the GOP has a less monolithic voting pattern than the African American community.

    Can Hildabeast attract the same percentage of Republican voters that Obama did?

    Hillary can count on the votes of the Fox All Star Panel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Hillary can count on the votes of the Fox All Star Panel."

    I can see a majority of Republicans who live in the suburbs of Washington DC voting for Hildabeast. Not a lot of real Conservatives live in the suburbs of Washington DC.
  52. Svigor says:

    Trump is like Obama. For the lion’s share of his support, he relies on a vague message (“make America great again”/”change”) that invites people to imagine he’s saying whatever they themselves believe. While for another group, smaller in numbers but greater in enthusiasm, he dogwhistles a harsher message (immigrants are bad/whitey must die).

    I said Trump was the Republican party’s Obama several times, months ago. So, you won’t hear any teeth-gnashing from me. More like an anti-Obama, though. Where Obama used his skin color, Trump used his charisma. Where Obama used empty platitudes, Trump used populism. Where Obama lulled people to sleep, Trump shook them awake. Where Obama was an empty suit, Trump was an accomplished businessman. Where Obama mobilized the coalition of the fringes, Trump mobilized the core. They both relied heavily on the outsider card.

    Read More
  53. Svigor says:

    Forgot an obvious one: where Obama clung to the teleprompter, Trump winged it.

    Read More
  54. Jefferson says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    Hillary can count on the votes of the Fox All Star Panel.

    “Hillary can count on the votes of the Fox All Star Panel.”

    I can see a majority of Republicans who live in the suburbs of Washington DC voting for Hildabeast. Not a lot of real Conservatives live in the suburbs of Washington DC.

    Read More
  55. dr kill says:
    @MC
    Megan McArdle's lengthy post mortem also fails the CTRL+F "immigr" test:

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-05-04/the-four-horsemen-of-the-republican-apocalypse

    It is still unbelievable, no matter how many times I observe this failure.

    Read More
  56. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It amazes me that Prince abused opioids for decades despite the euphoria they consistently caused.

    Read More
  57. dr kill says:
    @South Texas Guy
    OT: But since Trump's win, I've been really disappointed with a few blogs I like or somewhat liked. Ace of Spades, Legal Insurrection and Pajamas Media (with a few exceptions) seem to be fairly unhinged about this.
    Why in the world would anyone in their right mind, or at least people who either write for or comment at these websites even consider something as short sighted and stupid as either voting third party or even for Hillary?
    I remember having to suck it up and vote for McCain and Romney because the alternative was untenable to me. Why can't they do the same?
    Oh wait. I know. Because they're a bunch of spoiled upper-class poofs from the North that our current immigration (un)policy, and trade policy hasn't affected yet.

    I am also confused by the truculence of my man Ace. I suppose everyone can miss one now and then. I comfort myself with the 2012 memory of 12 of the 13 seers at AoS were so horribly wrong about Romney too. I would like to know how Gabe Malor sees the race. He was the only man correct.

    Read More
  58. MSP says:
    @prole
    So True. Nate allowed his anti-Trump ideology to corrupt his blog and caused his analysis to be poor . So many of his articles were misleading, biased and dishonest. But I suppose his readers want a biased perspective to support their ideology.

    Back when Nate was just using data analytics to crunch the poll numbers the site was excellent. If you look at his “polls only” projections they’ve been very accurate. It’s his “polls plus” where he strays away from pure statistics where he got into trouble. Most of his “analysis” was based around reasons why the polls were wrong; his own biases were clearly evident there. He’s a statistician; not a political analyst.

    Read More
  59. @neutral
    Sorry but I am the type who likes to find and preach optimisations, doing ctrl-f "imm" is faster and the chance of finding a clash is very low.

    “Sorry but I am the type who likes to find and preach optimisations, doing ctrl-f “imm” is faster and the chance of finding a clash is very low.”

    I prefer “migra” because it includes migrants, another entry on the Left’s euphemism carousel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    “Sorry but I am the type who likes to find and preach optimisations, doing ctrl-f “imm” is faster and the chance of finding a clash is very low.”

    I prefer “migra” because it includes migrants, another entry on the Left’s euphemism carousel.
     

    Good point.
  60. @Ozymandias
    "Sorry but I am the type who likes to find and preach optimisations, doing ctrl-f “imm” is faster and the chance of finding a clash is very low."

    I prefer "migra" because it includes migrants, another entry on the Left's euphemism carousel.

    “Sorry but I am the type who likes to find and preach optimisations, doing ctrl-f “imm” is faster and the chance of finding a clash is very low.”

    I prefer “migra” because it includes migrants, another entry on the Left’s euphemism carousel.

    Good point.

    Read More
  61. Parsifal says:

    He is wrong even about things he gets wrong. That is, in a way, quite impressive.

    Read More
  62. @kihowi
    Nate Silver is a scam. His posts are full of assertions that couldn't possibly come from any data, like "yah he's high in the polls but people are going to tire of him pretty quickly" or "Trump will devastate the conservative movement" or "he doesn't have any strategy".

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you'll notice he's just anti Trump. He didn't get anything wrong, he's just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others. With one difference: he's managed to convince millennial s that his daily show type snark is SCIENCE.

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you’ll notice he’s just anti Trump. He didn’t get anything wrong, he’s just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others.

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?

    You could make a nasty passing attack on Silver for being a homosexual or a New Yorker. Or you could just focus on his being biased and dishonest. But instead it’s always hating on the Jews.

    You’re undermining the ideas you supposedly favor. No intellectual movement succeeds without Jewish interest because Jews are the heart of the high-IQ West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Ok, let me fix it for you:

    "he’s just an angry New York homo pundit like all the others"

    Better?
    , @kihowi
    "Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?"

    Among other things, because of this kind of reaction. The moment the subject stops getting treated like a religious taboo, I'll stop mentioning it. Until then, I'll know there's something up.
    , @AnotherDad

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?

    You could make a nasty passing attack on Silver for being a homosexual or a New Yorker. Or you could just focus on his being biased and dishonest. But instead it’s always hating on the Jews.
     

    Owen, why do you persist with this idiocy?

    This is iSteve, where one of the key insights is that contra conventional wisdom, stereotypes are stereotypes because they are in fact--generally, statistically--true.

    Jews are wildly over-represented in pushing immigration, in immigration romanticism and in "nativist", "xenophobia", "Hitler" name calling. There are very good--and very obvious--reasons for this. Jews have lived as a minority since what 70AD? and are explicitly anti-native, anti-majority--separate, endogamous and non-associating by religious ideology. If the native majority is balkanized, disorganized, weak, then its easier for Jews to penetrate it and exploit it. If the native population is united, coherent and strong, then Jews can't exploit it as easily and can be frozen out--or pushed out or massacred. Not rocket science to figure out these motivations.

    These Jewish predilections are obvious grist for the mill, when some Jewish pundit shows this complete incapacity to even acknowledge the immigration issue. This isn't anti-Semitic it's ... observing reality. In contrast, calling out Silver's homosexuality--and note, this isn't Silver, but Nate Cohn--seems mostly irrelevant for the immigration discussion. Homos simply aren't notably the drivers of this immigration insanity. (Though I will say that homosexuals, often divorced form the most important aspect of passing on one's race, culture, nation are not to be trusted on these issues--no skin in the game.)

    There's been plenty of discussion of the behavioral characteristics of other ethnic groups on iSteve--blacks, Mexicans, Asians. In fact, differences in behavior among various white gentile groups are openly discussed. The David Hackett Fisher four folkways stuff has gotten a lot of play. Trump's problems with the Dutch and with my Germanics--like my Iowa relatives--have been discussed. This nation may well go down the tubes because Germanics are so darn orderly, obedient and annoyingly nice, that they won't stand up and rebel and rebellion is exactly what's called for right now. (It pisses me off to see folks from this strand of my ancestry being obedient idiots ... but that doesn't make it not so.)

    Seriously grow up.


    You’re undermining the ideas you supposedly favor. No intellectual movement succeeds without Jewish interest because Jews are the heart of the high-IQ West.
     
    I'd love to have the Jews on board with saving the West. It's the Jews that have engaging is destroy-the-West politics for the last 100+ years. Those that want to fix that--can work to fix it.

    But your "heart of the high-IQ west" ... c'mon! Jews punch way above their weight. But they aren't the "heart" of anything but ... Judaism.

    One would have to say that the British were--overall--the most successful of the European peoples, with their leading the industrial revolution, their Empire and the dominance of English in the world. Edward I expelled the Jews in 1290 and in the 350+ years the Jews were banned, England went from an insignificant backwater to a major European power punching well above its weight, and on the way to maritime dominance and empire. Jews, of course, showed back up and British Jews have been around, but they are pretty much irrelevant to incredible success--political, scientific, industrial, military--of Britain.

    I don't think this is an accident. Where Jews have been most dominant--Poland, Russia--development has lagged. Jews dominating the trading and bureaucratic niches, impedes the development of the native population. Essentially Jews are sucking off a bunch of selection genetic and cultural that should be going on in the native population. (I'd argue having a lot of Jews around is bad for the development of natives. It's not zero sum, but it's not a wildly positive sum either.)

    In any case, it's quite clear that white people do just fine--like the Brits--without Jews. Jews punch above their weight. Maybe 1% of whites they are perhaps (generously) 10% of significant movers and shakers in the West. If Jews suddenly disappeared tomorrow white people would be just fine. Our societies would roll and continue to be outstandingly prosperous and (relatively) free, because whites make them that way. In fact, absent the continual Jewish agitation for whites to commit immigration induced suicide, whites would probably be better off.

    , @ben tillman

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?
     
    Because it's always anti-Gentilism everywhere else.
  63. BB753 says:
    @(((Owen)))

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you’ll notice he’s just anti Trump. He didn’t get anything wrong, he’s just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others.

     

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?

    You could make a nasty passing attack on Silver for being a homosexual or a New Yorker. Or you could just focus on his being biased and dishonest. But instead it's always hating on the Jews.

    You're undermining the ideas you supposedly favor. No intellectual movement succeeds without Jewish interest because Jews are the heart of the high-IQ West.

    Ok, let me fix it for you:

    “he’s just an angry New York homo pundit like all the others”

    Better?

    Read More
  64. kihowi says:
    @(((Owen)))

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you’ll notice he’s just anti Trump. He didn’t get anything wrong, he’s just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others.

     

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?

    You could make a nasty passing attack on Silver for being a homosexual or a New Yorker. Or you could just focus on his being biased and dishonest. But instead it's always hating on the Jews.

    You're undermining the ideas you supposedly favor. No intellectual movement succeeds without Jewish interest because Jews are the heart of the high-IQ West.

    “Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?”

    Among other things, because of this kind of reaction. The moment the subject stops getting treated like a religious taboo, I’ll stop mentioning it. Until then, I’ll know there’s something up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Ford
    "Because of the Jews" is a pretty good answer to most questions about social change in the West.

    From a Torah perspective, everything that happens in the world is a result of the Jews.

    From a Nazi perspective, much of what happens in the world is because of the Jews.

    What major social changes in the West in the past 100 years have not been dominated by Jews? In every instance, you will find Jews siding with the fringe against the core. You will never find a large number of Jews in any movement to aid the core against the fringe.

    The net effect of Jews in America (and I guess the West generally) has been to push the political spectrum well to the left. Neo-cons have taken over the Republican party and neutered its conservative instincts.

    The net effect of Jews in culture in America (and much of the West) has been to take control of it from the WASPs and push it in directions subversive of traditional Christian morality.

    As Maj. Kong said: "Anti-Semitism is as natural to Western civilization as anti-Christianity is to Jewish civilization, Islamic civilization and Japanese civilization."

    Different groups have different interests and are in constant competition for scarce resources.

  65. Brutusale says:
    @res
    I'm not sure Nate Silver's reputation has taken as big of a hit as I would have expected from his Trump prediction failures.
    While reading his mea culpa at http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-republican-voters-decided-on-trump/
    I was surprised how little heat he was taking in the comments--especially since I think that post indicates he is likely to be equally blind in the general, but will come out of all of this with reputation intact if Hillary does win (by even the slightest of margins). The problem for me is after Nate's failure with Trump I feel like I can't trust him to analyze situations which have a most likely outcome which he dislikes.

    This is a fun compilation of his Trump predictions:
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/
    I'm disappointed they left out the overly pessimistic posts 538 made about Trump's path to 1237 delegates (e.g. for a long time totally ignoring PA's unbound delegates).

    Because a good number of his readers are baseball stats geeks who followed him from Baseball Prospectus and are quite used to him being wildly wrong.

    Read More
  66. Brutusale says:
    @South Texas Guy
    OT: But since Trump's win, I've been really disappointed with a few blogs I like or somewhat liked. Ace of Spades, Legal Insurrection and Pajamas Media (with a few exceptions) seem to be fairly unhinged about this.
    Why in the world would anyone in their right mind, or at least people who either write for or comment at these websites even consider something as short sighted and stupid as either voting third party or even for Hillary?
    I remember having to suck it up and vote for McCain and Romney because the alternative was untenable to me. Why can't they do the same?
    Oh wait. I know. Because they're a bunch of spoiled upper-class poofs from the North that our current immigration (un)policy, and trade policy hasn't affected yet.

    I feel about Reynolds and the rest of them at PJM (excepting Richard Fernandez, a treasure) the same way I felt about NPR back in 2008: you were OK when you were able to mask your silliest tendencies, but you’ve now gone full lunatic, indulged your worst impulses and jumped the shark.

    Read More
  67. Svigor says:

    You’re undermining the ideas you supposedly favor. No intellectual movement succeeds without Jewish interest because Jews are the heart of the high-IQ West.

    Flatter yourselves much?

    Read More
  68. @G Pinfold
    What part of normal do these people not understand?

    What part of normal do these people not understand?

    A lot.

    My bet would be little Nate grew up in a Jewish left\liberal bubble. All the people he knows and associates with think the way he does. Questioning his people’s mythology–which is pervasive–is simply beyond his ken. In his heart he knows he’s right. As I’ve said before we have the most parochial “cosmopolitans” in the world.

    Smarter, less ethnocentric, Jews are at least *aware* that most people in the world don’t think like they do. Most people in the world don’t expect to be part of elite parasite class. Most people like living with people of their same race and culture. For example for most Americans seeing more Mexicans show up doesn’t mean “oh, more help”, it means “more competition” or “great, a barrio in town” or “more mediocrity in my kids’ schools” or “more drunk driving and more litter” or simply “more people yakking away in a language I don’t understand”.

    The really smart Jews realize that they are safe in the West, and that in fact no nation in the world has rolled out the welcome mat for the Jews like the United States–flat out letting them take over their institutions. (In fact, some Bible believing American Protestants seem to suffer from battered wife syndrome, with a pathological love for the Jews who have nothing but contempt for them.) And those really smart Jews–unfortunately too few, too quiet–understand that further balkanizing the West to settle old scores and feel comfortable is not actually “good for the Jews”.

    Nate Cohn–whatever his IQ–is clearly not any sort of smart Jew, but complacent “bubble Jew” happy with his ignorance. Nate strikes me as an advertisement for the existence of ethnic nepotism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Most people like living with people of their same race and culture. For example for most Americans seeing more Mexicans show up doesn’t mean “oh, more help”, it means “more competition” or “great, a barrio in town” or “more mediocrity in my kids’ schools” or “more drunk driving and more litter” or simply “more people yakking away in a language I don’t understand”.
     
    Or, better yet, a bunch of cuckoo's eggs hatching in my nest.
  69. TheJester says:

    It is hard to understand those who call Trump’s opposition to massive immigration in general and Muslim immigration in particular “extreme” given the facts.

    Britain has had a large Muslim population for years, which has won the right to use Sharia Law in domestic matters as well as establish de facto “no-go” zones in major cities. Moslems are now taking it to the next level. As reported by RT, new rules published by Muslim organizations and associations across the UK have ordered Muslim women to stop wearing trousers, leave the house without permission from their husbands, or use Facebook.

    https://www.rt.com/uk/342116-british-mosques-ban-women-/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

    This is a treat that the rest of Europe will soon get to experience … as well as the United States if it opens the gates to Muslim immigration. The Muslim way of life (a.k.a. culture and customs) is incompatible with the European/American way of life. Even though living in the West, for Muslims at the community level there is no such thing as integration into Western society or accepting Western values. Their religion forbids it. As a fundamental tenet of their religion, Islam and the state are one in the same.

    Read More
  70. @(((Owen)))

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you’ll notice he’s just anti Trump. He didn’t get anything wrong, he’s just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others.

     

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?

    You could make a nasty passing attack on Silver for being a homosexual or a New Yorker. Or you could just focus on his being biased and dishonest. But instead it's always hating on the Jews.

    You're undermining the ideas you supposedly favor. No intellectual movement succeeds without Jewish interest because Jews are the heart of the high-IQ West.

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?

    You could make a nasty passing attack on Silver for being a homosexual or a New Yorker. Or you could just focus on his being biased and dishonest. But instead it’s always hating on the Jews.

    Owen, why do you persist with this idiocy?

    This is iSteve, where one of the key insights is that contra conventional wisdom, stereotypes are stereotypes because they are in fact–generally, statistically–true.

    Jews are wildly over-represented in pushing immigration, in immigration romanticism and in “nativist”, “xenophobia”, “Hitler” name calling. There are very good–and very obvious–reasons for this. Jews have lived as a minority since what 70AD? and are explicitly anti-native, anti-majority–separate, endogamous and non-associating by religious ideology. If the native majority is balkanized, disorganized, weak, then its easier for Jews to penetrate it and exploit it. If the native population is united, coherent and strong, then Jews can’t exploit it as easily and can be frozen out–or pushed out or massacred. Not rocket science to figure out these motivations.

    These Jewish predilections are obvious grist for the mill, when some Jewish pundit shows this complete incapacity to even acknowledge the immigration issue. This isn’t anti-Semitic it’s … observing reality. In contrast, calling out Silver’s homosexuality–and note, this isn’t Silver, but Nate Cohn–seems mostly irrelevant for the immigration discussion. Homos simply aren’t notably the drivers of this immigration insanity. (Though I will say that homosexuals, often divorced form the most important aspect of passing on one’s race, culture, nation are not to be trusted on these issues–no skin in the game.)

    There’s been plenty of discussion of the behavioral characteristics of other ethnic groups on iSteve–blacks, Mexicans, Asians. In fact, differences in behavior among various white gentile groups are openly discussed. The David Hackett Fisher four folkways stuff has gotten a lot of play. Trump’s problems with the Dutch and with my Germanics–like my Iowa relatives–have been discussed. This nation may well go down the tubes because Germanics are so darn orderly, obedient and annoyingly nice, that they won’t stand up and rebel and rebellion is exactly what’s called for right now. (It pisses me off to see folks from this strand of my ancestry being obedient idiots … but that doesn’t make it not so.)

    Seriously grow up.

    You’re undermining the ideas you supposedly favor. No intellectual movement succeeds without Jewish interest because Jews are the heart of the high-IQ West.

    I’d love to have the Jews on board with saving the West. It’s the Jews that have engaging is destroy-the-West politics for the last 100+ years. Those that want to fix that–can work to fix it.

    But your “heart of the high-IQ west” … c’mon! Jews punch way above their weight. But they aren’t the “heart” of anything but … Judaism.

    One would have to say that the British were–overall–the most successful of the European peoples, with their leading the industrial revolution, their Empire and the dominance of English in the world. Edward I expelled the Jews in 1290 and in the 350+ years the Jews were banned, England went from an insignificant backwater to a major European power punching well above its weight, and on the way to maritime dominance and empire. Jews, of course, showed back up and British Jews have been around, but they are pretty much irrelevant to incredible success–political, scientific, industrial, military–of Britain.

    I don’t think this is an accident. Where Jews have been most dominant–Poland, Russia–development has lagged. Jews dominating the trading and bureaucratic niches, impedes the development of the native population. Essentially Jews are sucking off a bunch of selection genetic and cultural that should be going on in the native population. (I’d argue having a lot of Jews around is bad for the development of natives. It’s not zero sum, but it’s not a wildly positive sum either.)

    In any case, it’s quite clear that white people do just fine–like the Brits–without Jews. Jews punch above their weight. Maybe 1% of whites they are perhaps (generously) 10% of significant movers and shakers in the West. If Jews suddenly disappeared tomorrow white people would be just fine. Our societies would roll and continue to be outstandingly prosperous and (relatively) free, because whites make them that way. In fact, absent the continual Jewish agitation for whites to commit immigration induced suicide, whites would probably be better off.

    Read More
  71. Luke Ford says: • Website
    @kihowi
    "Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?"

    Among other things, because of this kind of reaction. The moment the subject stops getting treated like a religious taboo, I'll stop mentioning it. Until then, I'll know there's something up.

    “Because of the Jews” is a pretty good answer to most questions about social change in the West.

    From a Torah perspective, everything that happens in the world is a result of the Jews.

    From a Nazi perspective, much of what happens in the world is because of the Jews.

    What major social changes in the West in the past 100 years have not been dominated by Jews? In every instance, you will find Jews siding with the fringe against the core. You will never find a large number of Jews in any movement to aid the core against the fringe.

    The net effect of Jews in America (and I guess the West generally) has been to push the political spectrum well to the left. Neo-cons have taken over the Republican party and neutered its conservative instincts.

    The net effect of Jews in culture in America (and much of the West) has been to take control of it from the WASPs and push it in directions subversive of traditional Christian morality.

    As Maj. Kong said: “Anti-Semitism is as natural to Western civilization as anti-Christianity is to Jewish civilization, Islamic civilization and Japanese civilization.”

    Different groups have different interests and are in constant competition for scarce resources.

    Read More
  72. tbraton says:
    @res
    I'm not sure Nate Silver's reputation has taken as big of a hit as I would have expected from his Trump prediction failures.
    While reading his mea culpa at http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-republican-voters-decided-on-trump/
    I was surprised how little heat he was taking in the comments--especially since I think that post indicates he is likely to be equally blind in the general, but will come out of all of this with reputation intact if Hillary does win (by even the slightest of margins). The problem for me is after Nate's failure with Trump I feel like I can't trust him to analyze situations which have a most likely outcome which he dislikes.

    This is a fun compilation of his Trump predictions:
    http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/04/7-times-nate-silver-was-hilariously-wrong-about-donald-trump/
    I'm disappointed they left out the overly pessimistic posts 538 made about Trump's path to 1237 delegates (e.g. for a long time totally ignoring PA's unbound delegates).

    Back on April 13, I posted a message on Derbyshire’s blog giving my analysis of the remaining 16 Republican primaries and offering my predictions about each of the “six stages” in which I broke down the race according the dates of the primaries, starting with New York (alone) in Stage 1 on April 19. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1385822 I predicted that Trump would easily exceed the magic number of 1237 delegates required to get the nomination. The next day I saw a “538″ piece by Nate Silver on RCP in which he did the same thing I did and predicted Trump would fall short of the required 1237 by nearly 80 delegates. I posted an analysis of Silver’s predictions on Derbyshire’s blog on April 14. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1387552 In the latter message, I stated in part:

    “Indiana—Silver projects 9 to 22 while I give Trump all 57. (Silver draws an analogy between Indiana and Wisconsin, even though Indiana has voted Republican in every election since 1940 but for 1964 (LBJ v. Goldwater) and 2008 (Obama v, McCain) while Wisconsin has voted Democratic in every election since 1988.)

    New York—Silver projects 83 to 85 while I give Trump 90.

    Connecticut—Silver projects 23 to 24 (up from the original 19) while I give Trump all 28.

    With re to PA, Silver allocates 17 while I have allocated all 71 to Trump (while recognizing that is not possible under PA’s rather unusual rules.) Overall, Silver estimates that Trump will wind up with 1155 to 1159 delegates after all the primaries are finished. I would note that Silver clearly has a bias against Trump, but his very detailed and sophisticated analysis is certainly worth reading.”

    I subsequently posted an update showing Silver’s predictions compared to the actual results after the first two stages. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1401217 The bottom line is that he missed NY by 7 delegates (compared to my precise and accurate prediction of 90 delegates, which nailed it) and by more than 50 delegates after the “second stage” of five Eastern states (PA, CONN, RI, DEL and MD), where Trump swept every county in five separate states. That doesn’t even take into account Indiana (the “third stage”) where Silver predicted Cruz would win and Trump would get anywhere from 9 to 22 delegates, compared to my prediction of a 57-delegate sweep.

    Whereas he started off by predicting that Trump would fall short after the primaries ended on June 7 by roughly 80 delegates, my comparison after the first two weeks (before Indiana) showed that his predicted shortfall had already been pared to 8 delegates even assuming his remaining predictions proved accurate. Indiana eliminated that remaining shortfall and increased it to a substantial cushion for Trump in terms of delegates. As I noted in my first post on Silver’s predictions, I believe he allowed his clear dislike of Trump and Trump’s political positions to sway his judgment about the race. It also appeared to me that Silver, having achieved a degree of fame over his past “predictions,” tried to turn himself into a “wise” political pontificator spouting gross generalities and completely forgot what his fame was based on. Nothing else explains his disregard of the polls which showed Trump leading the other Republican candidates as early as August 2015, just as the Republican debates were getting started and a large audience of viewers were seeing Trump for the first time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "As I noted in my first post on Silver’s predictions, I believe he allowed his clear dislike of Trump and Trump’s political positions to sway his judgment about the race. It also appeared to me that Silver, having achieved a degree of fame over his past “predictions,” tried to turn himself into a “wise” political pontificator spouting gross generalities and completely forgot what his fame was based on. Nothing else explains his disregard of the polls which showed Trump leading the other Republican candidates as early as August 2015, just as the Republican debates were getting started and a large audience of viewers were seeing Trump for the first time."

    Agreeing with an observation I first made months ago (back in January I made the skeptical comparison of Nate Silver to one-hit wonders who attained brief fame as a result of an astute stock market prediction), this is what John Cassidy says about Nate Silver in the current issue of the New Yorker:

    "From what I’ve read of his coverage of the G.O.P. primary, which is quite a bit, he didn’t rely too heavily on polling figures or fall victim to misleading data. To the contrary, his basic error was to downplay the incoming evidence from the pollsters, whose business is based on talking to voters, and to assume that Trump’s steady lead wouldn’t result in his winning the nomination. Not doing traditional reporting wasn’t the issue: the slipup was analytical. Ultimately, Silver fell victim to a flawed supposition, widely shared, that a major political party would never select a candidate as extreme as Trump. . .But he maintained his skeptical attitude toward Trump’s candidacy even as evidence accumulated that Trump was extending his support well beyond the stereotypical angry blue-collar guys who ride Harley-Davidsons. . .Paradoxically, though, the third conclusion to be drawn from this episode is that data, and particularly polling data, can be invaluable. If Silver had paid more heed to Trump’s early polling numbers and less attention to his prior beliefs about how the Republican Party selects candidates, he would have fared better." http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trump-nate-silver-and-the-value-of-data-journalism
    , @res
    Your posts were one of the main things that convinced me 538 was off course with its delegate analysis (you'll notice I responded to your first post mentioned). Thanks for all the insightful analysis!
  73. @(((Owen)))

    If you read through the last few months in his Twitter you’ll notice he’s just anti Trump. He didn’t get anything wrong, he’s just an angry Jewish pundit like all the others.

     

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?

    You could make a nasty passing attack on Silver for being a homosexual or a New Yorker. Or you could just focus on his being biased and dishonest. But instead it's always hating on the Jews.

    You're undermining the ideas you supposedly favor. No intellectual movement succeeds without Jewish interest because Jews are the heart of the high-IQ West.

    Why is it always anti-Semitism around here?

    Because it’s always anti-Gentilism everywhere else.

    Read More
  74. @AnotherDad

    What part of normal do these people not understand?
     
    A lot.

    My bet would be little Nate grew up in a Jewish left\liberal bubble. All the people he knows and associates with think the way he does. Questioning his people's mythology--which is pervasive--is simply beyond his ken. In his heart he knows he's right. As I've said before we have the most parochial "cosmopolitans" in the world.

    Smarter, less ethnocentric, Jews are at least *aware* that most people in the world don't think like they do. Most people in the world don't expect to be part of elite parasite class. Most people like living with people of their same race and culture. For example for most Americans seeing more Mexicans show up doesn't mean "oh, more help", it means "more competition" or "great, a barrio in town" or "more mediocrity in my kids' schools" or "more drunk driving and more litter" or simply "more people yakking away in a language I don't understand".

    The really smart Jews realize that they are safe in the West, and that in fact no nation in the world has rolled out the welcome mat for the Jews like the United States--flat out letting them take over their institutions. (In fact, some Bible believing American Protestants seem to suffer from battered wife syndrome, with a pathological love for the Jews who have nothing but contempt for them.) And those really smart Jews--unfortunately too few, too quiet--understand that further balkanizing the West to settle old scores and feel comfortable is not actually "good for the Jews".

    Nate Cohn--whatever his IQ--is clearly not any sort of smart Jew, but complacent "bubble Jew" happy with his ignorance. Nate strikes me as an advertisement for the existence of ethnic nepotism.

    Most people like living with people of their same race and culture. For example for most Americans seeing more Mexicans show up doesn’t mean “oh, more help”, it means “more competition” or “great, a barrio in town” or “more mediocrity in my kids’ schools” or “more drunk driving and more litter” or simply “more people yakking away in a language I don’t understand”.

    Or, better yet, a bunch of cuckoo’s eggs hatching in my nest.

    Read More
  75. For iSteve readers who use Twitter:

    Ctrl F “immigra” should be a #hashtag on Twitter.

    I don’t know what the actual hashtag should be. Maybe

    Ctrl+F_immgra

    CtrlFImmgra

    Ctrl+Fimmgra

    Somebody can think of a good one…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    the "+" doesn't work in a hashtag, but "CtrlF_immigra" is okay...

    https://twitter.com/_chrisnonymous/status/728931990473314304
  76. @Chrisnonymous
    For iSteve readers who use Twitter:

    Ctrl F "immigra" should be a #hashtag on Twitter.

    I don't know what the actual hashtag should be. Maybe

    Ctrl+F_immgra

    CtrlFImmgra

    Ctrl+Fimmgra

    Somebody can think of a good one...

    the “+” doesn’t work in a hashtag, but “CtrlF_immigra” is okay…

    Read More
  77. tbraton says:
    @tbraton
    Back on April 13, I posted a message on Derbyshire's blog giving my analysis of the remaining 16 Republican primaries and offering my predictions about each of the "six stages" in which I broke down the race according the dates of the primaries, starting with New York (alone) in Stage 1 on April 19. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1385822 I predicted that Trump would easily exceed the magic number of 1237 delegates required to get the nomination. The next day I saw a "538" piece by Nate Silver on RCP in which he did the same thing I did and predicted Trump would fall short of the required 1237 by nearly 80 delegates. I posted an analysis of Silver's predictions on Derbyshire's blog on April 14. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1387552 In the latter message, I stated in part:

    "Indiana—Silver projects 9 to 22 while I give Trump all 57. (Silver draws an analogy between Indiana and Wisconsin, even though Indiana has voted Republican in every election since 1940 but for 1964 (LBJ v. Goldwater) and 2008 (Obama v, McCain) while Wisconsin has voted Democratic in every election since 1988.)

    New York—Silver projects 83 to 85 while I give Trump 90.

    Connecticut—Silver projects 23 to 24 (up from the original 19) while I give Trump all 28.

    With re to PA, Silver allocates 17 while I have allocated all 71 to Trump (while recognizing that is not possible under PA’s rather unusual rules.) Overall, Silver estimates that Trump will wind up with 1155 to 1159 delegates after all the primaries are finished. I would note that Silver clearly has a bias against Trump, but his very detailed and sophisticated analysis is certainly worth reading."

    I subsequently posted an update showing Silver's predictions compared to the actual results after the first two stages. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1401217 The bottom line is that he missed NY by 7 delegates (compared to my precise and accurate prediction of 90 delegates, which nailed it) and by more than 50 delegates after the "second stage" of five Eastern states (PA, CONN, RI, DEL and MD), where Trump swept every county in five separate states. That doesn't even take into account Indiana (the "third stage") where Silver predicted Cruz would win and Trump would get anywhere from 9 to 22 delegates, compared to my prediction of a 57-delegate sweep.

    Whereas he started off by predicting that Trump would fall short after the primaries ended on June 7 by roughly 80 delegates, my comparison after the first two weeks (before Indiana) showed that his predicted shortfall had already been pared to 8 delegates even assuming his remaining predictions proved accurate. Indiana eliminated that remaining shortfall and increased it to a substantial cushion for Trump in terms of delegates. As I noted in my first post on Silver's predictions, I believe he allowed his clear dislike of Trump and Trump's political positions to sway his judgment about the race. It also appeared to me that Silver, having achieved a degree of fame over his past "predictions," tried to turn himself into a "wise" political pontificator spouting gross generalities and completely forgot what his fame was based on. Nothing else explains his disregard of the polls which showed Trump leading the other Republican candidates as early as August 2015, just as the Republican debates were getting started and a large audience of viewers were seeing Trump for the first time.

    “As I noted in my first post on Silver’s predictions, I believe he allowed his clear dislike of Trump and Trump’s political positions to sway his judgment about the race. It also appeared to me that Silver, having achieved a degree of fame over his past “predictions,” tried to turn himself into a “wise” political pontificator spouting gross generalities and completely forgot what his fame was based on. Nothing else explains his disregard of the polls which showed Trump leading the other Republican candidates as early as August 2015, just as the Republican debates were getting started and a large audience of viewers were seeing Trump for the first time.”

    Agreeing with an observation I first made months ago (back in January I made the skeptical comparison of Nate Silver to one-hit wonders who attained brief fame as a result of an astute stock market prediction), this is what John Cassidy says about Nate Silver in the current issue of the New Yorker:

    “From what I’ve read of his coverage of the G.O.P. primary, which is quite a bit, he didn’t rely too heavily on polling figures or fall victim to misleading data. To the contrary, his basic error was to downplay the incoming evidence from the pollsters, whose business is based on talking to voters, and to assume that Trump’s steady lead wouldn’t result in his winning the nomination. Not doing traditional reporting wasn’t the issue: the slipup was analytical. Ultimately, Silver fell victim to a flawed supposition, widely shared, that a major political party would never select a candidate as extreme as Trump. . .But he maintained his skeptical attitude toward Trump’s candidacy even as evidence accumulated that Trump was extending his support well beyond the stereotypical angry blue-collar guys who ride Harley-Davidsons. . .Paradoxically, though, the third conclusion to be drawn from this episode is that data, and particularly polling data, can be invaluable. If Silver had paid more heed to Trump’s early polling numbers and less attention to his prior beliefs about how the Republican Party selects candidates, he would have fared better.” http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/donald-trump-nate-silver-and-the-value-of-data-journalism

    Read More
  78. res says:
    @tbraton
    Back on April 13, I posted a message on Derbyshire's blog giving my analysis of the remaining 16 Republican primaries and offering my predictions about each of the "six stages" in which I broke down the race according the dates of the primaries, starting with New York (alone) in Stage 1 on April 19. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1385822 I predicted that Trump would easily exceed the magic number of 1237 delegates required to get the nomination. The next day I saw a "538" piece by Nate Silver on RCP in which he did the same thing I did and predicted Trump would fall short of the required 1237 by nearly 80 delegates. I posted an analysis of Silver's predictions on Derbyshire's blog on April 14. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1387552 In the latter message, I stated in part:

    "Indiana—Silver projects 9 to 22 while I give Trump all 57. (Silver draws an analogy between Indiana and Wisconsin, even though Indiana has voted Republican in every election since 1940 but for 1964 (LBJ v. Goldwater) and 2008 (Obama v, McCain) while Wisconsin has voted Democratic in every election since 1988.)

    New York—Silver projects 83 to 85 while I give Trump 90.

    Connecticut—Silver projects 23 to 24 (up from the original 19) while I give Trump all 28.

    With re to PA, Silver allocates 17 while I have allocated all 71 to Trump (while recognizing that is not possible under PA’s rather unusual rules.) Overall, Silver estimates that Trump will wind up with 1155 to 1159 delegates after all the primaries are finished. I would note that Silver clearly has a bias against Trump, but his very detailed and sophisticated analysis is certainly worth reading."

    I subsequently posted an update showing Silver's predictions compared to the actual results after the first two stages. http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/demography-is-electoral-destiny-will-midwest-niceness-be-a-problem-for-trump/#comment-1401217 The bottom line is that he missed NY by 7 delegates (compared to my precise and accurate prediction of 90 delegates, which nailed it) and by more than 50 delegates after the "second stage" of five Eastern states (PA, CONN, RI, DEL and MD), where Trump swept every county in five separate states. That doesn't even take into account Indiana (the "third stage") where Silver predicted Cruz would win and Trump would get anywhere from 9 to 22 delegates, compared to my prediction of a 57-delegate sweep.

    Whereas he started off by predicting that Trump would fall short after the primaries ended on June 7 by roughly 80 delegates, my comparison after the first two weeks (before Indiana) showed that his predicted shortfall had already been pared to 8 delegates even assuming his remaining predictions proved accurate. Indiana eliminated that remaining shortfall and increased it to a substantial cushion for Trump in terms of delegates. As I noted in my first post on Silver's predictions, I believe he allowed his clear dislike of Trump and Trump's political positions to sway his judgment about the race. It also appeared to me that Silver, having achieved a degree of fame over his past "predictions," tried to turn himself into a "wise" political pontificator spouting gross generalities and completely forgot what his fame was based on. Nothing else explains his disregard of the polls which showed Trump leading the other Republican candidates as early as August 2015, just as the Republican debates were getting started and a large audience of viewers were seeing Trump for the first time.

    Your posts were one of the main things that convinced me 538 was off course with its delegate analysis (you’ll notice I responded to your first post mentioned). Thanks for all the insightful analysis!

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Indeed, I do remember your response, and I thank you for focusing on PA, which really had me scratching my head because of the 54 unbound delegates. But I think I figured it out, and thanks to the later article by Steve Kornacki of Slate, I was able to get a firm handle on the potential outcome of PA. As I stated at the time, I think the biggest flaw of Silver's analysis was his comparing Indiana to Wisconsin (where Cruz had scored his "major" victory a few weeks before NY) and not to neighboring states like Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Kentucky, where Trump had either won or done reasonably well under the circumstances (Ohio). He let his hopes sway his judgment there.

    BTW I take it you live in PA. East or west? What do you think of Trump's chances of taking PA in the general election? I'm counting on Trump taking PA, Ohio and Michigan, states that have traditionally gone Democratic (except for Ohio).
  79. @Steve Sailer
    Cruz had a very good ad about how if it were lawyers and journalists illegally immigrating it would be considered an apocalyptic crisis by elites.

    One of Cruz’s problems was that he operated on a logical intellectual level. For instance, that ad required people listening to the voiceover and understanding a metaphor. Trump uses pure imagery: build a wall, deport them all, murderers and rapists, etc.

    Read More
  80. tbraton says:
    @res
    Your posts were one of the main things that convinced me 538 was off course with its delegate analysis (you'll notice I responded to your first post mentioned). Thanks for all the insightful analysis!

    Indeed, I do remember your response, and I thank you for focusing on PA, which really had me scratching my head because of the 54 unbound delegates. But I think I figured it out, and thanks to the later article by Steve Kornacki of Slate, I was able to get a firm handle on the potential outcome of PA. As I stated at the time, I think the biggest flaw of Silver’s analysis was his comparing Indiana to Wisconsin (where Cruz had scored his “major” victory a few weeks before NY) and not to neighboring states like Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Kentucky, where Trump had either won or done reasonably well under the circumstances (Ohio). He let his hopes sway his judgment there.

    BTW I take it you live in PA. East or west? What do you think of Trump’s chances of taking PA in the general election? I’m counting on Trump taking PA, Ohio and Michigan, states that have traditionally gone Democratic (except for Ohio).

    Read More
    • Replies: @res

    BTW I take it you live in PA. East or west? What do you think of Trump’s chances of taking PA in the general election?
     
    I'm actually not in PA. I just have deep connections with eastern PA and find it an interesting state--both with respect to its current characteristics and its historical role in the US--so I pay extra attention when I see its oddities (I had not known about the 54 unbound delegates until this election).

    I don't have a feeling for PA in the general beyond thinking Trump has a better chance than other recent Republican candidates, but I think that's hardly news.

    It will be fascinating to watch this campaign season play out. I'm curious how much of Trump's timing during the primary was accidental and how much intentional. In particular, the mid-campaign lull/stumble and the strong finish. I think the general will clarify my perception of Trump's skill/luck balance.

    Your focus on Indiana made me look at it closely, and that combined with your analysis was what convinced me Silver was overly pessimistic towards Trump even in his formal analysis (his rhetorical bias has been evident since the beginning). Looking forward to your future posts!
  81. res says:
    @tbraton
    Indeed, I do remember your response, and I thank you for focusing on PA, which really had me scratching my head because of the 54 unbound delegates. But I think I figured it out, and thanks to the later article by Steve Kornacki of Slate, I was able to get a firm handle on the potential outcome of PA. As I stated at the time, I think the biggest flaw of Silver's analysis was his comparing Indiana to Wisconsin (where Cruz had scored his "major" victory a few weeks before NY) and not to neighboring states like Ohio, Michigan, Illinois and Kentucky, where Trump had either won or done reasonably well under the circumstances (Ohio). He let his hopes sway his judgment there.

    BTW I take it you live in PA. East or west? What do you think of Trump's chances of taking PA in the general election? I'm counting on Trump taking PA, Ohio and Michigan, states that have traditionally gone Democratic (except for Ohio).

    BTW I take it you live in PA. East or west? What do you think of Trump’s chances of taking PA in the general election?

    I’m actually not in PA. I just have deep connections with eastern PA and find it an interesting state–both with respect to its current characteristics and its historical role in the US–so I pay extra attention when I see its oddities (I had not known about the 54 unbound delegates until this election).

    I don’t have a feeling for PA in the general beyond thinking Trump has a better chance than other recent Republican candidates, but I think that’s hardly news.

    It will be fascinating to watch this campaign season play out. I’m curious how much of Trump’s timing during the primary was accidental and how much intentional. In particular, the mid-campaign lull/stumble and the strong finish. I think the general will clarify my perception of Trump’s skill/luck balance.

    Your focus on Indiana made me look at it closely, and that combined with your analysis was what convinced me Silver was overly pessimistic towards Trump even in his formal analysis (his rhetorical bias has been evident since the beginning). Looking forward to your future posts!

    Read More
  82. […] Another complicated reference: Steve Sailer link points out that one of his commenters points out that: […]

    Read More
  83. @G Pinfold
    What part of normal do these people not understand?

    2016-10-31 11:28:26

    Read More
  84. […] Cherry doesn’t even mention the possibility of demand-related drops. If you could CTRL-F the conversation, as Steve Sailer says, “immigra” would return a “not […]

    Read More

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored