The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Is Trump Remixing the Red-Blue Map of the States?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Donald Trump enjoyed his biggest victory Tuesday in Massachusetts, where he won 49% of the vote, and his second biggest in Alabama with 43%.

Think about that for a moment.

Granted, primaries are a lot wilder than general elections, which have been extremely stereotyped by Red-Blue states ever since Ross Perot stopped running. The four Presidential elections in this century have been very consistent in terms of the states following similar rank orders from most Republican to most Democratic. For four elections in a row, the number of years the average white woman in 2002 could be expected to be married between 18 and 44 has proven a remarkably good predictor. My theory is that Red-Blue map of the states is related to what I call “A ffordable Family Formation:” states with cheaper housing relative to incomes encourage white people to get married and have kids, which makes the state likelier to vote for the Family Values party. Thus the Red (Republican) States tend to be the cheaper inland regions while the Democrats (Blue) due best where deep water limits metropolitan expansion and thus the price of real estate is higher.

One reason my 2004 discovery proved so enduring is because the GOP ran in 2012 Mitt Romney, a man with one marriage and 23 grandchildren.

Screenshot 2016-03-02 01.07.50

Trump’s appeal to Republicans, as of 12/31/15

But maybe that’s going to finally change. It’s not just Trump’s colorful family life, but that his appeal seems to tap into a different regional pattern. What Ross Douthat calls the “Trump Belt” appears to run from, say, Louisiana to New Hampshire. Granted, Trump did well in Nevada, but he’s a casino owner, so his appeal there is not inexplicable. (He lost to Cruz in the Mormon districts along the Utah border.)

If there is a Trump Belt, I don’t yet understand its causes.

Is it personal affect? As a laidback Southern Californian, Trump reminds me of the late George Steinbrenner, the extremely obstreperous owner of the New York Yankees, whom my Los Angeles Dodgers battled in the 1977, 1978, and 1981 World Series.

At that time, the Dodgers embodied the postwar corporate ethic of not airing your dirty laundry in public. The Dodger players were made to mouth to the press the boring cliches that Kevin Costner teaches Tim Robbins in Bull Durham: “We gotta play it one day at a time” and the like. Occasionally, something so lurid would happen behind closed doors, such as the 1978 locker room fistfight between Steve Garvey and Don Sutton over Sutton gossiping about Mrs. Garvey sleeping with Marvin “The Way We Were” Hamlisch, that it would leak out to the public, but that was considered bad form.

In contrast, Steinbrenner was constantly feuding in the tabloids with his own manager Billy Martin (whom he fired five times) and his stars Reggie Jackson and Thurman Munson. To Angelenos used to the O’Malley’s buttoned down operation, Steinbrenner’s verbal violence was unseemly. But that was a long time ago. So I don’t know how California will vote in June.

Still, there’s something to be said for shaking up the regional divisions of the country that have become calcified. A few individuals, such as Michael Hart, have been suggesting a division of the United States along the Red-Blue lines into separate countries so we stop getting on each other’s nerves so much.

Personally, I’m a Union man in the tradition of Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant, so I don’t much like that idea. But it would be nice for the long term stability of the United States to have some other regional dimension to organize the country’s enthusiasms and resentments around besides the Affordable Family Formation split of recent decades.

 
Hide 117 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Uniting the Yankee and Confederate heartlands. David Hackett Fisher needs to do some analysis.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Uniting the Yankee and Confederate heartlands. David Hackett Fisher needs to do some analysis.
     
    Fischer. He's a Kraut. Or Jerry, as you say in London.
    , @MEH 0910
  2. Good analysis, as always. Doesn’t it remain to be seen whether Trump victories in primaries will translate into states delivering their electoral votes for a Republican candidate like Trump? If Trump can move states such as New York and Massachusetts into the Republican camp, then there might be a fundamental transformation. If not, then we’re probably back to that seemingly intractable red state-blue state division and possible eventual national division.

  3. Chris Cillizza shared this which ties in well:

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Except: Reagan won Massachusetts in 1980 and 1984. As a Democratic governor of Arizona once said: Arizona is irrelevant to the Democrats nationally. When they win AZ, they won't NEED AZ.
  4. Keith Vaz [AKA "Sir Charles Pipkins"] says:

    What is wrong with Minnesota? It’s the ONLY state to endorse the build-a-pol Rubio. Then in the 80s it was the ONLY state that didn’t elect Reagan (so don’t blame Somalis)!

    • Replies: @e
    It's a caucus state and a strange system at that with insider party delegates controlling things.
    , @AndrewR
    Nordic lutheranism. Same reason Trump wouldnt be popular in Sweden. He's not an utter cuck.
    , @Alice
    As a transplant to MN whose precinct went over 50% for Rubio, here's what I saw:

    The Rs who caucused in St. Paul are all white, nearly all two parent families. The men have jobs. So,
    1) being farthest from the Mexican border means you don't care about the amnesty issue,
    2) the low white male unemployment rate here means they aren't resonating with Trump.

    Trump is loud and combative. Cruz is caustic. They are get-along go-along folks and Rubio is soothing when he speaks of unity.
    , @ScarletNumber
    In 1984 native son Fritz Mondale was the Democratic nominee.
  5. Scotch-Irish are strong in the South and parts of the Northeast.

  6. Trump was a sports owner as well; he owned the New Jersey Generals of the USFL and made a splash signing Doug Flutie. He was also a big boxing guy in the late 80s.

    Much in the manner that if GW Bush was allowed to be baseball commissioner he never would have been president, Donald Trump has tried to buy an NFL team and has been rebuffed. If they had let him, none of this would be happening.

  7. When you consider that some of the Republican establishment say they would prefer Hillary over Trump, you have to think they care more about maintaining our current third-world trade and immigration policies and a neoconservative foreign policy than anything else. At least that is the conclusion I draw. This political season really is all about issues. Invade the world, invite the world: are you for or against?

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    No, no, no.

    First of all, re: the establishment preferring Hillary over Trump, see "Hillary Republicans":
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/will-no-one-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-trump/#comment-1335755

    Second, these Hillary Republicans are just the result of the electorate being, basically, ignorant of everything. I'm not exaggerating. My parents are trending toward being Rubio supporters, but when I mentioned the Gang of 8 or amnesty, they had no idea what I was talking about.

    My mother is an evangelical anti-Muslim Christian who wants fewer Muslims in the country, but she's supporting the pro-diversity, pro-immigration candidate over the explicitly-anti-Muslim-immigration candidate because, basically, Trump is loud and obnoxious (he is!) and Rubio looks like a choir boy.

    The voters have no real considerations about trade or foreign policy.

    Such is the state of the union in these end times.
  8. This remix is only for Donald Trump. Though we can hope that during four years of a Trump Presidency many state level Republicans start practicing Trump style populism to get elected then following through on this. Trump successes will encourage this change within the Republican party from the bottom up. Federal level elected Republicans based in the Imperial City are corrupted beyond redemption.

  9. So, a kind of East Coast candidate? With breakout potential to the Other Coast? Or flyover appeal?

    Nothing I’d bet money on in this, the most interesting race in as long as I can remember.

    Golly, I’m enjoying this!

  10. For some reason Trump’s support is heavily concentrated in the eastern half of the country. He is 8-0 in states east of the Mississippi, but only 2-5 west of the Mississippi.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    IMO his most potent achievement so far is to absolutely monkey-wrench, train-wreck, and log-jam the usual MSM way of doing things around the POTUS cycle.

    It's upon the shoulders of everyone out east--from Boston to Atlanta and NOLA--that the MSM and its owners/propagandists have laid most heavily, especially in the past 60 years. This suggests to me that a key element of the rebellion is against the way political communication (including electioneering) is done.

    That's my hunch, based on living a long time in both halves.

    I observe often that a lot of people in Pugetopolis/the PNW are in deep denial about who owns their local newspaper and what it exists to accomplish. Out east we woke up to the powers of the consolidated corporate propaganda industry a long time ago.

    Also--if you look at the map with squinty eyes, doesn't it resemble a map of the US at the end of the "Jacksonian era"?????

    , @Anonymous
    This is something Agnostic (akinokure) has blogged a lot about recently. East coast rootedness and communitarianism vs west of the Mississippi libertarianism. Also how whites of different ethnic background think and vote.

    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/03/electoral-showdown-between-eastern-vs.html
    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/02/does-racial-insulation-make-whites-get.html

    He has other recent posts about the new populism and how people don't care about culture wars anymore, but about economics, not getting screwed over anymore.
  11. Trump’s $ cost per vote is amazingly low. He is deliberately underspending in certain areas.

    Trump knows that all of the others will not drop out at the same time. So he keeps them all hanging on. Good for Trump to avoid the head-to-head for as long as possible.

  12. This wapo article obsesses about Rubio’s strength in Virginia while completely omitting his massacre in ‘Chusetts.

    MA is the key result. Hillary/Bill are pissing their pantsuits.

    Trump is going to reset the northeast map.

    Trump will win New York and Jersey.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-owns-super-tuesday-but-cruz-and-rubio-see-glimmers-of-hope/2016/03/01/694310fc-dfb1-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @AP
    In 2012 Romney got 72% or 266,000 votes in the Mass primary and lost the state in the general election 60% to 37%. In 2016 Trump got 49% or 310,00 votes. Hillary and Bernie each got almost as many votes as all the Republicans combined. What makes you think Trump has a chance in Massachusetts in the general election?
  13. Trump seems to be most popular in states with either a lot of black people or a lot of closed factories (or where he owns casinos).

    He does not quite as well in states controlled by big oil/agriculture, but without a lot of black people.

    That’s the pattern I see so far.

  14. MKP says:

    I respect any guy who gets married to a quality woman and has kids and grandkids at an early age. But just for what it’s worth, Mitt’s count of 23 grandchildren includes the black adoptees.

    About whom Mitt, of course, proudly boasts on Twitter, as though they were his own flesh and blood grandkids.

    Just FYI.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    The about-face that Mormons have made on blacks is absolutely astounding.
  15. It’s almost a map of the USA states as of 1830.

  16. @Luke Lea
    When you consider that some of the Republican establishment say they would prefer Hillary over Trump, you have to think they care more about maintaining our current third-world trade and immigration policies and a neoconservative foreign policy than anything else. At least that is the conclusion I draw. This political season really is all about issues. Invade the world, invite the world: are you for or against?

    No, no, no.

    First of all, re: the establishment preferring Hillary over Trump, see “Hillary Republicans”:
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/will-no-one-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-trump/#comment-1335755

    Second, these Hillary Republicans are just the result of the electorate being, basically, ignorant of everything. I’m not exaggerating. My parents are trending toward being Rubio supporters, but when I mentioned the Gang of 8 or amnesty, they had no idea what I was talking about.

    My mother is an evangelical anti-Muslim Christian who wants fewer Muslims in the country, but she’s supporting the pro-diversity, pro-immigration candidate over the explicitly-anti-Muslim-immigration candidate because, basically, Trump is loud and obnoxious (he is!) and Rubio looks like a choir boy.

    The voters have no real considerations about trade or foreign policy.

    Such is the state of the union in these end times.

  17. @Dave Pinsen
    Chris Cillizza shared this which ties in well:

    https://twitter.com/thefix/status/704855497686523905

    Except: Reagan won Massachusetts in 1980 and 1984. As a Democratic governor of Arizona once said: Arizona is irrelevant to the Democrats nationally. When they win AZ, they won’t NEED AZ.

  18. “If there is a Trump Belt, I don’t yet understand its causes.”

    East coast “rootedness”? Nevada excepted, there’s definitely an East-West divide in that map. The East has longer-established communities, whereas the West was settled more recently by people striking out on their own, building (or failing to build) new communities from scratch where none previously existed. Think of the difference between a rugged individualist rancher homesteading in Montana fifty miles from the nearest person, and a North Carolina farmer who lives just down the road from the graves of his 18th-century ancestors. Mr. Trump’s lack of apparent concern for doctrinaire laissez-faire libertarianism certainly gives his campaign a communitarian vibe not usually associated with GOPers.

    • Replies: @yaqub the mad scientist
    Glad you've brought this up. An underrated point. This is why Southerners aren't like Westerners.
  19. I grew up in socal and was so bored with the bland personalities that I grew to love the loudmouth New York types I later met during my career. Their opinionating never failed to make me laugh while most everyone else hated them. I’d like to think I’m not so insecure as to feel threatened by someone so outspoken, but maybe I should. But it sure is entertaining.

    Trump does seem to have some gross Palinesque knowledge gaps though. Very disconcerting. Everyone hates lawyers but at least they know how laws are made.

  20. Trump’s “game-changer” has been to turn out a larger share of the population, rather than tweak how well he does with various demographics groups in an electorate that remains the same as before. Thus he wins big in Massachusetts , not because he convinced country club republicans to back him but because he greatly increased the number of working class whites voting in the primary. The same dynamics have been at play in many of the primaries, Trump is bringing in new voters to the Republican primaries, overwhelming the typical republican primary voters.

    in the general election Trump will have a better than even chance to win states like PA, New Jersey and New York because his moderate stance on social issues will result in more independents and moderate democrats to vote for Trump over Hillary.A significant factor will be his ability to get a larger share of the Black vote, while the black turnout for Hillary will be diminished.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    Absolutely. The NYT ran an anti-Trump editorial. They all dump on the Trump, and cannot understand why he is winning; "no one I know voted for him." But one commenter points out the implications of Trump for those gloating Democrats who think he spells coronation for Hillary:


    Lost in the shuffle of tonight's elections is the fact that in almost every single state, Republican voters outnumbered Democratic ones - sometimes by 30%. This might be passed off in the deep South as expected - but in Virginia, which went for Obama two times, GOP votes outnumbered Democratic ones by nearly 100,000.

    .
The enthusiasm gap is real and it doesn't benefit Hillary. Democrats better figure out what makes disenfranchised, marginal voters think a bloviating billionaire actually has their interests at heart and counter that message with everything they have.
     
    Do you want the man who took money from Goldman Sachs to build properties and employ workers, or the woman who took $153MM from GS for... What, exactly?
  21. Trump does appear to be changing the electoral map.

    The surprise is Trump’s winning in the South. Not surprising he will win primaries in New England and the North East, these people often vote for moderate republicans and they are more familiar with Trump and his rhetorical style. In addition Trump has never been anti-union, like most establishment republicans and the Northern states have more union workers, and even more are the children of union workers.

    Trump is actually to the left of moderate republicans like Scot Brown and Chris Christie. On social issues , which have been especially important to voters in the south (gay marriage, abortion, etc..) Trump is more left than Bill Clinton was. So it is truly shocking to see him win republican primaries in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina etc…States where unions are not strong but evangelicals are a significant factor.

    not sure if Trump changes the map, but he has shown an alternate route to the presidency is possible when one is strong on immigration. We never had such a candidate. No candidate before has ever made immigration a priority. Maybe the primary voters realize the culture wars are over, they have seen their candidates get elected and then do noting to stop the left.

    The establishment is in panic mode, not because Trump will lose to Hillary, but because he can win and thus change the republican party. Bringing in voters who oppose free trade, oppose immigration and oppose endless wars against our interests. By showing another path to victory the neo-cons will lose power in the Republican party, as a different breed of candidates will emerge with similar agenda to Trump. it would be better for the neo-cons if Trump loses to Hillary, as they can maintain their power in the party.

    • Replies: @anon

    Trump is actually to the left of moderate republicans like Scot Brown and Chris Christie. On social issues , which have been especially important to voters in the south (gay marriage, abortion, etc..) Trump is more left than Bill Clinton was.
     
    I'd say iSteve's affordable family formation is the key and they key to that is net relevance.

    Same-sex marriage doesn't help AFF but doesn't hurt it either except that combined with the absence of AFF policies it annoys AFF-priority voters because it shows wrong priorities (from their pov).

    However combined with strong AFF policies it becomes relatively less important to that (very large) segment.
    , @anonymous
    "The establishment is in panic mode, not because Trump will lose to Hillary, but because he can win and thus change the republican party."

    I hope it's not just because I'm one of those who are already awake, but every time some globalist wart like Bill Kristol spews forth the line that we can't have Trump "because he can't win" the disingenuousness rolls off them like stink from a dead fish.
    , @fish

    ....it would be better for the neo-cons if Trump loses to Hillary, as they can maintain their power in the party.
     
    It would be better if Trump loses to Hillary (after eliminating Jeb! and Marco) so she can go on to "wear" the blame for the next recession, which is likely to spectacular and oughta be starting right about the time that the inauguration is over!
  22. Trump can’t seem to win Middle America or to be more precise the middle of America.

    Interesting given this blog’s repeated affection for Iowa, where Trump first lost and affection for Scandinavians (he couldn’t even beat Rubio in MN).

    As to why he’s winning in New England or at least among people who vote in GOP primaries there you’ve already explained that repeatedly:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-hillbilly-heroin-is-heroin/?highlight=heroin

    No, Trump does not remind me of the Puritans, the transcendentalists, the quiet old Quakers or even the witch-burners (maybe Captain Ahab).

    Anyhow its nice that you like Lincoln. He’s been in for a rough, strange ride on Unz.com.

    • Replies: @syonredux

    No, Trump does not remind me of the Puritans, the transcendentalists, the quiet old Quakers or even the witch-burners
     
    Witch-hangers. Witches in both New and Old England were hanged, not burned at the stake.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Interesting given this blog’s repeated affection for Iowa, where Trump first lost and affection for Scandinavians (he couldn’t even beat Rubio in MN).
     
    Rubio's first win is highly suspicious. Kasich is the archetypal goo-goo Republican Minnesotans are attracted to, not Rubio.

    Caucuses have smaller time windows and much larger time commitments, and thus lower turnout. They're more vulnerable to organized gaming than are primaries. There was a large crowd of loud, sometimes rude, young Rubots, presumably from local colleges at my own caucus. This time, the Trump people were the polite ones.

    This needs further looking into. Watch the caucus states closely.
  23. Steve, you’re making a common mistake in your interpretation of last night’s Massachusetts results. Yes, Trump won 49% of the Republican vote there. However, he won 49% of very little. There were 1.2 million votes cast in the Massachusetts Democratic primary versus 600,000 votes in the Republican primary. Trump drew a mere 300,000 votes overall compared to Hillary’s 590,000 and Sanders’ 570,000.

    Trump has no chance to win Massachusetts in November. No way. Impossible.

    • Agree: FactsAreImportant
  24. AP says:

    It should be noted that Trump didn’t really “win” much in Massachusetts, he won almost 50% in a state where only about 10% of registered voters are Republicans. This makes it odd to claim a “Trump belt” stretching to New England.

    There is a real difference between winning a state where about 40% of registered voters are Republicans (Georgia) and one like Massachusetts. Thus there is no mixing of the red-state blue-state map. Mass isn’t voting for Trump in the general election. Romney’s 72% in the 2012 primary didn’t translate into a win in the general, nor will Trump’s 49%.

  25. “Personally, I’m a Union man.”

    Maintaining the Union is probably necessary in order to prevent foreign predation (i.e., China trying to take over parts of North America). However, I can easily imagine the Union becoming ungovernable as anything short of a tyranny.

    It is possible that America has evolved to a point where no outcome is beneficial anymore.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    There's no reason whatsoever to think that the myriad hypothetical independent American states would not unite to fight outsiders. Even the nationalists and communists in China suspended their civil war to fight the Japanese invaders.
    , @BenKenobi
    An entire nation in zugzwang.
  26. Notice Arkansas & Oklahoma seem to have flipped since December according to your NYT map. I wonder why that is.

  27. At that time, the Dodgers embodied the postwar corporate ethic of not airing your dirty laundry in public

    This is a funny audio clip from the 1977 World Series were manager Tommy Lasorda is cursing with a pitcher during a pitching change and 2nd baseman Davey Lopes tells them to talk about it in the locker room and not in public.

  28. You mentioned in a recent thread that Marge Gunderson wouldn’t like Donald Trump’s demeanor. Perhaps Marge should reconsider her views in light of this:

    Somali Only Caucus in Minneapolis

    How long before the DFL party has to change its’ name to The Democratic Farmer Labor Terrorist Pirate Welfare-scrounger party?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    They send their terrorists home, and the pirates never left. The welfare scrounging is working welfare-- WIC, Obamacare, EITC, etc-- that was designed to support growing families. Families that they're having, and we're not.

    Their welfare behavior isn't the scandal. Their location is. Get it right.

    By the way, the Brian Coyle Center where the caucus was held was named for a city councilman who died of "AIDS-related" complications in 1989. He told a television reporter it was the result of "gay anal sex without a condom" [GASWAC]. That phrase always comes to mind when I walk past the place-- always teeming with Africans.
  29. Heard a snippet of Marco Rubio speaking to his supporters after yesterday’s primary. He was exhorting Americans not to give in to fear, not to give in to anger…………

    What, is he Yoda now? Did he hire George Lucas for his speechwriter?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    "Don't be mad. Don't be scared. Just relax and welcome the flood of parasitic and predatory invaders that I want to bring into the US while simultaneously shipping your jobs overseas and engaging in costly, bloody wars that will endebt your grandchildren and increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks at home.

    Just lean back. Relax those sphincters, folks. It only hurts for a little bit..."
  30. @anony-mouse
    Trump can't seem to win Middle America or to be more precise the middle of America.

    Interesting given this blog's repeated affection for Iowa, where Trump first lost and affection for Scandinavians (he couldn't even beat Rubio in MN).

    As to why he's winning in New England or at least among people who vote in GOP primaries there you've already explained that repeatedly:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-hillbilly-heroin-is-heroin/?highlight=heroin

    No, Trump does not remind me of the Puritans, the transcendentalists, the quiet old Quakers or even the witch-burners (maybe Captain Ahab).

    Anyhow its nice that you like Lincoln. He's been in for a rough, strange ride on Unz.com.

    No, Trump does not remind me of the Puritans, the transcendentalists, the quiet old Quakers or even the witch-burners

    Witch-hangers. Witches in both New and Old England were hanged, not burned at the stake.

  31. @LondonBob
    Uniting the Yankee and Confederate heartlands. David Hackett Fisher needs to do some analysis.

    Uniting the Yankee and Confederate heartlands. David Hackett Fisher needs to do some analysis.

    Fischer. He’s a Kraut. Or Jerry, as you say in London.

    • Replies: @alcogito
    My ancestor emigrated from Germany to New Jersey in 1710. Am I a Kraut?
  32. Is Trump shifting to a more mature/presidential image?

    Take a look at his Super Tuesday press conference — lot of flags, more sober tone, very warm words about Cruz, surprisingly conciliatory words about Rubio, praise of Planned Parenthood.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Praising PP for what? Negro abortions? White abortions? Ones he might have paid for himself?

    Divisive (within the GOP) social issues should be kept on the back burner this election. He's gotten many if us to "agree to disagree" in order to concentrate on existential threats. Giving free condoms or diaphragms to a voter's 15-year-old isn't the way to win over hearts.

    Anyway, these are now judicial, not political, issues. That in itself should be an issue!
  33. Seems to correlate with African American population (diversity plus proximity), and, OTOH, Appalachia + Deep South (HBD-reasons). New England/Yankeedom because Trump is one of them + lots of immigrants. Less success with Germans and Scandinavians. Very little success with Lutherans.

    • Replies: @Venator
    Or, it's non-hispanic diversity. Loss of social capital seems to go with populism. Paging Dr. Putnam!
    , @Keith Vaz
    Is Trump a Yankee?

    His mother is a Gallic-speaker from the Hebrides. His father is a German from the Rhineland. Both areas are very Celtic. Trump has a Celtic body type - much 'tougher' than the svelt WASPish type. Temperament seems Celtic. Opposite of conformist PC Scandi.

    NYC IS NOT NE.
  34. @anony-mouse
    Trump can't seem to win Middle America or to be more precise the middle of America.

    Interesting given this blog's repeated affection for Iowa, where Trump first lost and affection for Scandinavians (he couldn't even beat Rubio in MN).

    As to why he's winning in New England or at least among people who vote in GOP primaries there you've already explained that repeatedly:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-new-hillbilly-heroin-is-heroin/?highlight=heroin

    No, Trump does not remind me of the Puritans, the transcendentalists, the quiet old Quakers or even the witch-burners (maybe Captain Ahab).

    Anyhow its nice that you like Lincoln. He's been in for a rough, strange ride on Unz.com.

    Interesting given this blog’s repeated affection for Iowa, where Trump first lost and affection for Scandinavians (he couldn’t even beat Rubio in MN).

    Rubio’s first win is highly suspicious. Kasich is the archetypal goo-goo Republican Minnesotans are attracted to, not Rubio.

    Caucuses have smaller time windows and much larger time commitments, and thus lower turnout. They’re more vulnerable to organized gaming than are primaries. There was a large crowd of loud, sometimes rude, young Rubots, presumably from local colleges at my own caucus. This time, the Trump people were the polite ones.

    This needs further looking into. Watch the caucus states closely.

  35. Leftist conservative [AKA "Trump Kills Last Mosquito, Places Tiny Make America Great Hat On ZikaHead Baby"] says: • Website

    Personally, I’m a Union man

    and a cruz man?

  36. There have only been three presidential elections this century. Since there was no year 0, the first century was 1-100 and the 20th century was 1901-2000.

  37. For those interested in what happened in the freak state of Minnesota, a summary:

    1) Trump came in THIRD in 7 out of 8 Congressional districts. (I was wrong last night; Trump managed to come in second in Duluth’s district.)

    2) Voter turnout: 185,000+ Democrats, versus 111,000+ Republicans

    3) Trump did worst in St. Paul (17 percent) and Minneapolis (16 percent)

    4) Rubio won the state with 37 percent of the vote. Sanders with 62 percent.

    5) At least one caucus in Minneapolis (photo below) was conducted in Somali:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/minnesota-dfl-caucus-candidates-speak-only-in-somali/

  38. @FactsAreImportant
    Is Trump shifting to a more mature/presidential image?

    Take a look at his Super Tuesday press conference — lot of flags, more sober tone, very warm words about Cruz, surprisingly conciliatory words about Rubio, praise of Planned Parenthood.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WCUtqw4rAs

    Praising PP for what? Negro abortions? White abortions? Ones he might have paid for himself?

    Divisive (within the GOP) social issues should be kept on the back burner this election. He’s gotten many if us to “agree to disagree” in order to concentrate on existential threats. Giving free condoms or diaphragms to a voter’s 15-year-old isn’t the way to win over hearts.

    Anyway, these are now judicial, not political, issues. That in itself should be an issue!

    • Replies: @Das
    2/3 of abortions in this country are to black and Hispanic women.

    I think conservatives need to be more cognizant of that fact before they go on these doomed crusades against Planned Parenthood. It's bad short-term politics (Nice White Ladies LOVE Planned Parenthood), and bad for the long-term future of the country.
    , @Olorin
    For having the brass balls to stand up for eugenics and recognize what unfettered and incentivized r-strategy reproduction means to this nation.

    THAT is a political issue. It can never be a judicial one. Because "equal rights."

  39. Trump dominates in Texas border town where proposed wall would be built
    Cruz may have taken the state on Super Tuesday, but Trump’s wins along border prove he hasn’t been shunned by Latinos despite controversial immigration plan

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/02/trump-wins-laredo-texas-border-wall-city

  40. @Mr. Anon
    You mentioned in a recent thread that Marge Gunderson wouldn't like Donald Trump's demeanor. Perhaps Marge should reconsider her views in light of this:

    Somali Only Caucus in Minneapolis

    How long before the DFL party has to change its' name to The Democratic Farmer Labor Terrorist Pirate Welfare-scrounger party?

    They send their terrorists home, and the pirates never left. The welfare scrounging is working welfare– WIC, Obamacare, EITC, etc– that was designed to support growing families. Families that they’re having, and we’re not.

    Their welfare behavior isn’t the scandal. Their location is. Get it right.

    By the way, the Brian Coyle Center where the caucus was held was named for a city councilman who died of “AIDS-related” complications in 1989. He told a television reporter it was the result of “gay anal sex without a condom” [GASWAC]. That phrase always comes to mind when I walk past the place– always teeming with Africans.

    • Agree: Percy Gryce
    • Replies: @anon
    You talk sense in many areas but utter **** when it comes to Somalis who (on average) are easily the worst immigrants by far (being a mix of African violence and Arab clans).

    That mix is the worst possible combo hence why their countries are so bad.

    I assume there's a personal reason for why you feel the need to do it which is fair enough but it's still utter ****.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "They send their terrorists home, and the pirates never left."

    The murderers - of whom there are many - stay, however. Anyway, your point is irrelevant. This is who these people are. The fact that they so readily are drawn to terrorism and piracy is reason enough to not want them here.

    "The welfare scrounging is working welfare– WIC, Obamacare, EITC, etc– that was designed to support growing families. Families that they’re having, and we’re not."

    In a word, bullshit. Unemployment among Somalis in Minnesota is three times the national average. WIC often goes to people who do not work, or who do not work much. And Obamacare is not "working welfare" It is welfare, period.

    "Their welfare behavior isn’t the scandal."

    It is a scandal. They are leeching off our system.

    "Their location is."

    As is thier character as a people. They are perhaps some of the worst people in the world. Somalis don't make Somalia better, they certainly won't add anything of value to America. We don't need them here.

    "Get it right."

    You get it right. Stop being a tacit apologist for them. You like Somalis? Fine. You go live there. I don't want them here.
  41. Steve:

    A few individuals, such as Michael Hart, have been suggesting a division of the United States along the Red-Blue lines into separate countries so we stop getting on each other’s nerves so much.

    Personally, I’m a Union man in the tradition of Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant, so I don’t much like that idea.

    There is a middle ground option: re-federate the country.

    My preferred method is to amend the Constitution such that, aside from Defense and elements of Justice and Treasury, funding of and participation in federal programs is severable at the state level. If, say, Texas decides it doesn’t want to participate in Social Security or be subject to HHS anymore, for example, it doesn’t have to and won’t pay any taxes to fund those programs/departments. The only catch is that Texas’s senators and representatives then don’t get to vote on bills dealing with those programs/departments. Conversely, if Massachusetts wants full metal social democracy, they can have it. If residents don’t like it, they can vote with their feet.

    All of this would require a top-to-bottom overhaul of how the federal budget works as well as the tax collection system, but that’s overdue anyway.

    I’d be perfectly content with the U.S. as essentially a federated mutual defense pact.

    What’s the point of staying in a shitty, loveless marriage full of mutual loathing and disgust?

    • Replies: @anonn
    So you want states to be able to to opt out of the things that you don't like, and force everyone to keep what you do like.

    The first thing I would opt out of would the "Defense" department. Mostly our military just seems to exist to lose wars as expensively as possible these days. The Pentagon is largely federal welfare spending, taking from the coastal states, and spending it in and on the South and the DC metro area. As a Californian, I say if the Confederate States and DC want to invade and lose a war in every single Middle Eastern country, let them do it on their own dime. If South Carolina wants 10 aircraft carriers, them figure out how to pay for them.

    As for Justice, the federal judiciary has been the most regressive and anti-democratic institution in this country's history. Sometimes its activism is for the left (Roe v. Wade) and recently its activism has been for the far right (Bush v. Gore, Hobby Lobby, Citizens United). I think it's high time you on the right as well as us on the left team up to end the tyranny of the black-robed once and for all.
  42. @Keith Vaz
    What is wrong with Minnesota? It's the ONLY state to endorse the build-a-pol Rubio. Then in the 80s it was the ONLY state that didn't elect Reagan (so don't blame Somalis)!

    It’s a caucus state and a strange system at that with insider party delegates controlling things.

  43. @Keith Vaz
    What is wrong with Minnesota? It's the ONLY state to endorse the build-a-pol Rubio. Then in the 80s it was the ONLY state that didn't elect Reagan (so don't blame Somalis)!

    Nordic lutheranism. Same reason Trump wouldnt be popular in Sweden. He’s not an utter cuck.

    • Replies: @fnn
    Since it doesn't fit the image, someone (maybe the Chinese, who seem to be interested in the JQ) should investigate why there apparently was so much anti-Semitism for so long among Scandinavian-Americans:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Minneapolis#Politics.2C_corruption.2C_anti-Semitism_and_social_change

    Minneapolis was known for anti-Semitism beginning in the 1880s and through the 1950s.[29] The city was described as "the capital of anti-Semitism in the United States" in 1946 by Carey McWilliams[30] and in 1959 by Gunther Plaut.[31] At that time the city's Jews were excluded from membership in many organizations, faced employment discrimination, and were considered unwelcome residents in some neighborhoods.[32] Jews in Minneapolis were also not allowed to buy homes in certain neighborhoods of Minneapolis.[33]
     
    , @Crawfurdmuir
    AndrewR, I think you overstate the importance of "Nordic Lutheranism" in Minnesota. It was much more significant forty or fifty years ago than today. The Scandinavian element that was once so prominent is much diminished. We have the largest concentration of Somalis anywhere in the U.S. There is also a large Hmong community in the Twin Cities. Mexican and Central American mestizos are an increasing population segment, as are American negroes. These groups are all concentrated in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the cities' politics are predictably left-wing.

    However, once outside the cities, the electoral map changes. Suburban and rural Minnesota - just where those Lutherans still live - is substantially Republican. See:

    http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/governor/minnesota/#.VteBJsfmuDc

    I live in what was, until the last reapportionment, part of the Sixth Congressional District, which was represented by Michele Bachmann, a very conservative Republican. In connection with Lutheranism, it is worth mentioning that Rep. Bachmann was, until 2011, a member of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, affiliated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The Wisconsin Synod is very conservative both theologically and socially. It adheres to the Book of Concord of 1580, which was used in attempts to embarrass Bachmann because it contains typical 16th-century Protestant execrations of the Church of Rome and the Pope.
  44. @MKP
    I respect any guy who gets married to a quality woman and has kids and grandkids at an early age. But just for what it's worth, Mitt's count of 23 grandchildren includes the black adoptees.

    About whom Mitt, of course, proudly boasts on Twitter, as though they were his own flesh and blood grandkids.

    Just FYI.

    The about-face that Mormons have made on blacks is absolutely astounding.

  45. interesting comment about Lincoln, Steve. As far as I know your’re a the only alt right blogger to take this position.
    The only other exception might be Eric Margolis. Emailed him a couple years ago on his opinion, Eric responded that he wasn’t familiar enough with the issues to comment.

  46. @Mr. Anon
    "Personally, I’m a Union man."

    Maintaining the Union is probably necessary in order to prevent foreign predation (i.e., China trying to take over parts of North America). However, I can easily imagine the Union becoming ungovernable as anything short of a tyranny.

    It is possible that America has evolved to a point where no outcome is beneficial anymore.

    There’s no reason whatsoever to think that the myriad hypothetical independent American states would not unite to fight outsiders. Even the nationalists and communists in China suspended their civil war to fight the Japanese invaders.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    The country is being invaded. Invasion has a new name now, that's all - "seeking a better life", "act of love", "fleeing persecution", etc. Why would Mexico use its military to invade the United States? Mexians can just walk in and help themselves to all the things people were seeking when they invaded countries in the old way.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "There’s no reason whatsoever to think that the myriad hypothetical independent American states would not unite to fight outsiders."

    There's no reason to think that they would win, either.

    "Even the nationalists and communists in China suspended their civil war to fight the Japanese invaders."

    Is that intended to be a hopeful example? Japan occupied parts of China for nearly 50 years. They occupied a large fraction of China for 14 years. If they hadn't been defeated by America, they might have gone on doing so indefinitely.
  47. @Mr. Anon
    Heard a snippet of Marco Rubio speaking to his supporters after yesterday's primary. He was exhorting Americans not to give in to fear, not to give in to anger............

    What, is he Yoda now? Did he hire George Lucas for his speechwriter?

    “Don’t be mad. Don’t be scared. Just relax and welcome the flood of parasitic and predatory invaders that I want to bring into the US while simultaneously shipping your jobs overseas and engaging in costly, bloody wars that will endebt your grandchildren and increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks at home.

    Just lean back. Relax those sphincters, folks. It only hurts for a little bit…”

  48. I think that Trump’s appeal arises from the fact he is addressing the three issues that Steve S. has so neatly encapsulated with his phrase, “invade the world/invite the world/indebted to the world”. The areas where Trump is doing well are precisely those areas hardest hit by these policies. He’s the only candidate who’s wholeheartedly attacked these anti-nativist, anti-middle-class, and anti-working-class policies on and suggested reasonable alternatives.

    Cruz is doing second best because he’s stealing some of the wind from Trump’s sails. It is very telling – and amusing to those in the know – how the bought and paid for dimocrat and stoopid party establishment and the MSM together with their plutocrat and Zionist owners natter on about Trump without once mentioning the issues he is addressing and his proposed policies for resolving them. To do so directly would ensure Trump’s election and defeat. Instead they generate rants portraying Trump as the harbinger and cause of some ill defined political apocalypse. (George Will is a hilarious example. His Trump columns have become more frequent and less rational over time to the point where they would not be out of place in The Onion.)

  49. @Travis
    Trump's "game-changer" has been to turn out a larger share of the population, rather than tweak how well he does with various demographics groups in an electorate that remains the same as before. Thus he wins big in Massachusetts , not because he convinced country club republicans to back him but because he greatly increased the number of working class whites voting in the primary. The same dynamics have been at play in many of the primaries, Trump is bringing in new voters to the Republican primaries, overwhelming the typical republican primary voters.

    in the general election Trump will have a better than even chance to win states like PA, New Jersey and New York because his moderate stance on social issues will result in more independents and moderate democrats to vote for Trump over Hillary.A significant factor will be his ability to get a larger share of the Black vote, while the black turnout for Hillary will be diminished.

    Absolutely. The NYT ran an anti-Trump editorial. They all dump on the Trump, and cannot understand why he is winning; “no one I know voted for him.” But one commenter points out the implications of Trump for those gloating Democrats who think he spells coronation for Hillary:

    Lost in the shuffle of tonight’s elections is the fact that in almost every single state, Republican voters outnumbered Democratic ones – sometimes by 30%. This might be passed off in the deep South as expected – but in Virginia, which went for Obama two times, GOP votes outnumbered Democratic ones by nearly 100,000.

    .
The enthusiasm gap is real and it doesn’t benefit Hillary. Democrats better figure out what makes disenfranchised, marginal voters think a bloviating billionaire actually has their interests at heart and counter that message with everything they have.

    Do you want the man who took money from Goldman Sachs to build properties and employ workers, or the woman who took $153MM from GS for… What, exactly?

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    One Republican complaint about Obama was that he was a "community organizer." Granted, not as experienced as businessman Romney. But that community organizer got together a team that got the vote out, especially in states like Ohio where financiers like Romney had ripped the guts out of white working class communities. IIRC, 10% of the people in Ohio are black, but 15% of the electorate was. That is just good ground game.

    Trump's increasing of turnout, as noted by this Democrat-leaning analyst, is a threat to Hillary. Bill Clinton, love him or hate him, is an astute politician, and knows that Trump will be a big challenge to his wife. I trust his instincts over the conventional major media.
  50. As a laidback Southern Californian, Trump reminds me of the late George Steinbrenner, the extremely obstreperous owner of the New York Yankees, whom my Los Angeles Dodgers battled in the 1977, 1978, and 1981 World Series.

    Steve, sorry to be the grammar police, but you’ve got a serious dangling modifier there. Trump is not a laidback Southern Californian–exactly the opposite. The miscue there destroys your point, which is that Trump is a high-strung New Yorker.

    The easiest fix is:

    Trump reminds me, a laidback Southern Californian, of the late George Steinbrenner, the extremely obstreperous owner of the New York Yankees, whom my Los Angeles Dodgers battled in the 1977, 1978, and 1981 World Series.

    • Agree: Bill Jones
    • Replies: @Hanoi Paris Hilton
    Gimme a friggin' break! Speaking as a high strung Noo Yawker with a degree in English from a fancy liberal arts college, I didn't see a problem with our host's sentence construction/punctuation.
    , @Kylie
    Thanks, Percy.
  51. @TomSchmidt
    Absolutely. The NYT ran an anti-Trump editorial. They all dump on the Trump, and cannot understand why he is winning; "no one I know voted for him." But one commenter points out the implications of Trump for those gloating Democrats who think he spells coronation for Hillary:


    Lost in the shuffle of tonight's elections is the fact that in almost every single state, Republican voters outnumbered Democratic ones - sometimes by 30%. This might be passed off in the deep South as expected - but in Virginia, which went for Obama two times, GOP votes outnumbered Democratic ones by nearly 100,000.

    .
The enthusiasm gap is real and it doesn't benefit Hillary. Democrats better figure out what makes disenfranchised, marginal voters think a bloviating billionaire actually has their interests at heart and counter that message with everything they have.
     
    Do you want the man who took money from Goldman Sachs to build properties and employ workers, or the woman who took $153MM from GS for... What, exactly?

    One Republican complaint about Obama was that he was a “community organizer.” Granted, not as experienced as businessman Romney. But that community organizer got together a team that got the vote out, especially in states like Ohio where financiers like Romney had ripped the guts out of white working class communities. IIRC, 10% of the people in Ohio are black, but 15% of the electorate was. That is just good ground game.

    Trump’s increasing of turnout, as noted by this Democrat-leaning analyst, is a threat to Hillary. Bill Clinton, love him or hate him, is an astute politician, and knows that Trump will be a big challenge to his wife. I trust his instincts over the conventional major media.

  52. @Reg Cæsar

    Uniting the Yankee and Confederate heartlands. David Hackett Fisher needs to do some analysis.
     
    Fischer. He's a Kraut. Or Jerry, as you say in London.

    My ancestor emigrated from Germany to New Jersey in 1710. Am I a Kraut?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yes, and you should be proud of it.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    My ancestor emigrated from Germany to New Jersey in 1710. Am I a Kraut?
     
    And one of mine, to, to NYC, in 1702.

    I don't know what you're going on about. I was just correcting London Bob's spelling, as gently and entertainingly as I could.
  53. @Venator
    Seems to correlate with African American population (diversity plus proximity), and, OTOH, Appalachia + Deep South (HBD-reasons). New England/Yankeedom because Trump is one of them + lots of immigrants. Less success with Germans and Scandinavians. Very little success with Lutherans.

    Or, it’s non-hispanic diversity. Loss of social capital seems to go with populism. Paging Dr. Putnam!

  54. If there is a Trump Belt, I don’t yet understand its causes.

    white suicide map

  55. @Anonymous
    This wapo article obsesses about Rubio's strength in Virginia while completely omitting his massacre in 'Chusetts.

    MA is the key result. Hillary/Bill are pissing their pantsuits.

    Trump is going to reset the northeast map.

    Trump will win New York and Jersey.


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-owns-super-tuesday-but-cruz-and-rubio-see-glimmers-of-hope/2016/03/01/694310fc-dfb1-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

    In 2012 Romney got 72% or 266,000 votes in the Mass primary and lost the state in the general election 60% to 37%. In 2016 Trump got 49% or 310,00 votes. Hillary and Bernie each got almost as many votes as all the Republicans combined. What makes you think Trump has a chance in Massachusetts in the general election?

  56. @Mr. Anon
    "Personally, I’m a Union man."

    Maintaining the Union is probably necessary in order to prevent foreign predation (i.e., China trying to take over parts of North America). However, I can easily imagine the Union becoming ungovernable as anything short of a tyranny.

    It is possible that America has evolved to a point where no outcome is beneficial anymore.

    An entire nation in zugzwang.

  57. Looking at the town by town results in Massachusetts, one thing that’s striking is how both Trump and Sanders did very well among the less affluent white towns, and did relatively poorly in the affluent white towns, where respectively Kasich and Clinton won instead, often by a good margin. My guess is that many of these downscale white voters, faced with a choice between Trump and Clinton, will plunk down for Trump.

  58. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Travis
    Trump does appear to be changing the electoral map.

    The surprise is Trump's winning in the South. Not surprising he will win primaries in New England and the North East, these people often vote for moderate republicans and they are more familiar with Trump and his rhetorical style. In addition Trump has never been anti-union, like most establishment republicans and the Northern states have more union workers, and even more are the children of union workers.

    Trump is actually to the left of moderate republicans like Scot Brown and Chris Christie. On social issues , which have been especially important to voters in the south (gay marriage, abortion, etc..) Trump is more left than Bill Clinton was. So it is truly shocking to see him win republican primaries in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina etc...States where unions are not strong but evangelicals are a significant factor.

    not sure if Trump changes the map, but he has shown an alternate route to the presidency is possible when one is strong on immigration. We never had such a candidate. No candidate before has ever made immigration a priority. Maybe the primary voters realize the culture wars are over, they have seen their candidates get elected and then do noting to stop the left.

    The establishment is in panic mode, not because Trump will lose to Hillary, but because he can win and thus change the republican party. Bringing in voters who oppose free trade, oppose immigration and oppose endless wars against our interests. By showing another path to victory the neo-cons will lose power in the Republican party, as a different breed of candidates will emerge with similar agenda to Trump. it would be better for the neo-cons if Trump loses to Hillary, as they can maintain their power in the party.

    Trump is actually to the left of moderate republicans like Scot Brown and Chris Christie. On social issues , which have been especially important to voters in the south (gay marriage, abortion, etc..) Trump is more left than Bill Clinton was.

    I’d say iSteve’s affordable family formation is the key and they key to that is net relevance.

    Same-sex marriage doesn’t help AFF but doesn’t hurt it either except that combined with the absence of AFF policies it annoys AFF-priority voters because it shows wrong priorities (from their pov).

    However combined with strong AFF policies it becomes relatively less important to that (very large) segment.

  59. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Trump could make a mess of the Dems’ electoral math just by winning one state in the general election that Republicans haven’t been winning recently, namely New York. The donks have always have a big leg up in the electoral college cause of the California-New York bloc, but if Trump could take New York, Hillary would be forced to make up the electoral votes elsewhere by piecing them together from other states. She cannot afford to lose a single swing state if she has to offset a New York loss, and she might not be able to do it even then.

    The key to winning New York state is the city, and the city has one very peculiar Hispanic bloc. One-third of all Hispanics in the city are Puerto Ricans. Trump can deport all he wants, and they’re not budging. Puerto Ricans are already US citizens because Puerto Rico is a US territory. What’s more, they’ll be able to take over the jobs that are being held by other Hispanic groups if Trump kicks those out, and they’ll tell all their unemployed relatives back on the island (and there are a LOT of those), Hey, come up here, there are plenty of jobs here for you now. In other words, Puerto Ricans stand to gain if they vote for Trump.

    Secondly, there’s this ‘all politics is local’ point. Not too long ago, New Yorkers elected as mayor a guy who was a blowhard, a billionaire, and who’s politics were somewhat more right-wing their their own, although he looked just moderate enough to be electable. This guy was Bloomberg. Well, guess what Trump happens to be? Thirdly, New York just went full retard and elected De Blasio, and he’s driving them up a wall. They’ve experienced a full dose of witless political correctness and inept leadership, and Bloomberg looks good by comparison. I think the city is willing to go for Trump.

    Fourth, NYC is Trump’s home base. He’s going to turn out his entire machine to get his voters to the polls in that city. His network cronies have genuine reason to stage a massive get-out-the-vote effort because they’re looking at a bunch of government jobs as the prize. It’s not just cabinet positions, it’s finance jobs at the Fed, etc.

    Fifth, the sort of people who voluntarily want to live in NYC do so because they have certain traits. They don’t want to live in the Midwest because they’re in love with being close to glitz, money, power, and glamour. They want to be near the center of the action. To them, Trump represents all those things.

    Sixth, there’s the celebrity factor. The rules are different for celebrities, and they have a tendency to win elections—if they’re Republican or Independent. Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Bono. Trump’s a guy who’s been in the public eye since the 1970s, and he’s very well known to voters. He’s getting a pass on his blather because everyone feels they already know what he’s like. He’s reached the stage of being your old blowhard uncle, but you know him too well to worry about what he might actually do. The Dems can’t demonize him and make it stick because he has this settled quality in the minds of the most of the electorate.

    There’s also the low-information voter factor. They don’t really know anything about politics or political ideas at all, they just vote for personalities. They just ask, do I want this person in charge or not? Well, Hillary sucks as a candidate. She has a ton of negatives, everyone thinks she’s a liar, and she comes across as inept on national security. She’s a turnout suppressor. Trump looks more competent, tough, and capable compared to her.

    Finally, there’s the homeboy advantage. A lot of low-information voters will vote for Trump for the same reason they root for their local sports team, and this impulse is irrational and powerful. Trump is New York’s guy, and the locals will want a win for the home team.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "I think the city is willing to go for Trump. "

    I'm not exactly an expert on the ins & outs of Empire State politics, but I believe that Trump would probably only need about, oh, say, 38 percent of the NYC municipal vote, in order to carry the state for the Electoral College. I have very high hopes for his chances in New York (and Pennsylvania). Can a Republican, one who's popular in the South, carry New York & Pennsylvania, and still lose the general election? I have a hard time envisioning it.
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    Thanks for this -- interesting, and plenty to think about.
  60. Leftist conservative [AKA "Trump Kills Last Mosquito, Places Tiny Make America Great Hat On ZikaHead Baby"] says: • Website

    Chris “Bobby Bacala” Christie rising up the ranks of the Trump crew…will too much baked ziti keep him from becoming a capo or VP?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  61. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    They send their terrorists home, and the pirates never left. The welfare scrounging is working welfare-- WIC, Obamacare, EITC, etc-- that was designed to support growing families. Families that they're having, and we're not.

    Their welfare behavior isn't the scandal. Their location is. Get it right.

    By the way, the Brian Coyle Center where the caucus was held was named for a city councilman who died of "AIDS-related" complications in 1989. He told a television reporter it was the result of "gay anal sex without a condom" [GASWAC]. That phrase always comes to mind when I walk past the place-- always teeming with Africans.

    You talk sense in many areas but utter **** when it comes to Somalis who (on average) are easily the worst immigrants by far (being a mix of African violence and Arab clans).

    That mix is the worst possible combo hence why their countries are so bad.

    I assume there’s a personal reason for why you feel the need to do it which is fair enough but it’s still utter ****.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    You talk sense in many areas but utter **** when it comes to Somalis...
     
    I speak from experience and direct observation. You claim to know more than I do. So fill us in.


    easily the worst immigrants by far
     
    Worse than Palestinians? Sirhan Sirhan, Nidal Hasan, Edward Said...

    Worse than Caribbeans? Eric Holder, Colin Ferguson, Colin Powell...

    Worse than Asians? Seung-hui Cho, Jiverly Wong, Jose Antonio Vargas...

    Africans don't belong in a white man's country-- and never did (sorry, Vice President Stephens)-- but get real. Native black neighborhoods are far more dangerous and chaotic than African immigrant ones. I live in the latter, and the main problems are litter, bad parking, and bug infestations-- to which the Asians and Latins are also prone.

    Terrorism is endemic to Islam, but the black Mohammedans aren't any more prone to it than the lighter varieties. (And, thank God, they're less competent!)
  62. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    ‘Splodgenessabounds’

    Yes, a srange word – known only to afficiandos of the darker reaches of England’s punk/pub rock scene of the early 1980s – a strange time that begat strange bands and stranger songs, most of them, to be honest, seen with hindsight to be utter, utter tripe.

    Anyhow, ‘Splodge’ as they were known – a ‘musical’ joke if there ever was one released that eponymous single ‘Michael Booth’s Musical Bum’, a ‘novelty’ record best forgotten, to say the least, and whose ‘musical’ content can be guessed from the title.
    The record ends with the enigmatic spoken – or shouted – word, ‘Pooar, who Trumped?’

  63. What Ross Douthat calls the “Trump …

    It looks like a necktie more than a belt.

  64. Keith Vaz [AKA "Hans"] says:
    @Venator
    Seems to correlate with African American population (diversity plus proximity), and, OTOH, Appalachia + Deep South (HBD-reasons). New England/Yankeedom because Trump is one of them + lots of immigrants. Less success with Germans and Scandinavians. Very little success with Lutherans.

    Is Trump a Yankee?

    His mother is a Gallic-speaker from the Hebrides. His father is a German from the Rhineland. Both areas are very Celtic. Trump has a Celtic body type – much ‘tougher’ than the svelt WASPish type. Temperament seems Celtic. Opposite of conformist PC Scandi.

    NYC IS NOT NE.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    The Rhineland is very Germanic, the 'Celts' were on the Atlantic seaboard.
  65. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Travis
    Trump does appear to be changing the electoral map.

    The surprise is Trump's winning in the South. Not surprising he will win primaries in New England and the North East, these people often vote for moderate republicans and they are more familiar with Trump and his rhetorical style. In addition Trump has never been anti-union, like most establishment republicans and the Northern states have more union workers, and even more are the children of union workers.

    Trump is actually to the left of moderate republicans like Scot Brown and Chris Christie. On social issues , which have been especially important to voters in the south (gay marriage, abortion, etc..) Trump is more left than Bill Clinton was. So it is truly shocking to see him win republican primaries in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina etc...States where unions are not strong but evangelicals are a significant factor.

    not sure if Trump changes the map, but he has shown an alternate route to the presidency is possible when one is strong on immigration. We never had such a candidate. No candidate before has ever made immigration a priority. Maybe the primary voters realize the culture wars are over, they have seen their candidates get elected and then do noting to stop the left.

    The establishment is in panic mode, not because Trump will lose to Hillary, but because he can win and thus change the republican party. Bringing in voters who oppose free trade, oppose immigration and oppose endless wars against our interests. By showing another path to victory the neo-cons will lose power in the Republican party, as a different breed of candidates will emerge with similar agenda to Trump. it would be better for the neo-cons if Trump loses to Hillary, as they can maintain their power in the party.

    “The establishment is in panic mode, not because Trump will lose to Hillary, but because he can win and thus change the republican party.”

    I hope it’s not just because I’m one of those who are already awake, but every time some globalist wart like Bill Kristol spews forth the line that we can’t have Trump “because he can’t win” the disingenuousness rolls off them like stink from a dead fish.

  66. Das says:
    @Reg Cæsar
    Praising PP for what? Negro abortions? White abortions? Ones he might have paid for himself?

    Divisive (within the GOP) social issues should be kept on the back burner this election. He's gotten many if us to "agree to disagree" in order to concentrate on existential threats. Giving free condoms or diaphragms to a voter's 15-year-old isn't the way to win over hearts.

    Anyway, these are now judicial, not political, issues. That in itself should be an issue!

    2/3 of abortions in this country are to black and Hispanic women.

    I think conservatives need to be more cognizant of that fact before they go on these doomed crusades against Planned Parenthood. It’s bad short-term politics (Nice White Ladies LOVE Planned Parenthood), and bad for the long-term future of the country.

    • Replies: @EriK

    Nice White Ladies LOVE Planned Parenthood
     
    Exactly, which is why Trump is smart to say nice things about PP while still denouncing abortions. He's already running for the general election.

    The entire jihad against PP has been boob bait. Given that abortions are going to be done by someone, what does it really matter if it's PP or someone else? And I hate PP.
  67. @Rapparee

    "If there is a Trump Belt, I don’t yet understand its causes."
     
    East coast "rootedness"? Nevada excepted, there's definitely an East-West divide in that map. The East has longer-established communities, whereas the West was settled more recently by people striking out on their own, building (or failing to build) new communities from scratch where none previously existed. Think of the difference between a rugged individualist rancher homesteading in Montana fifty miles from the nearest person, and a North Carolina farmer who lives just down the road from the graves of his 18th-century ancestors. Mr. Trump's lack of apparent concern for doctrinaire laissez-faire libertarianism certainly gives his campaign a communitarian vibe not usually associated with GOPers.

    Glad you’ve brought this up. An underrated point. This is why Southerners aren’t like Westerners.

  68. Maybe even working women and the unemployed blacks in our big blue coastal cities are realizing the downsides of unrestricted trade and immigration with the third world? Is that possible?

  69. Isn’t this exactly what you would expect to see when class starts trumping identity? Maybe this is a case when the idea of a tipping point really applies.

  70. @Keith Vaz
    What is wrong with Minnesota? It's the ONLY state to endorse the build-a-pol Rubio. Then in the 80s it was the ONLY state that didn't elect Reagan (so don't blame Somalis)!

    As a transplant to MN whose precinct went over 50% for Rubio, here’s what I saw:

    The Rs who caucused in St. Paul are all white, nearly all two parent families. The men have jobs. So,
    1) being farthest from the Mexican border means you don’t care about the amnesty issue,
    2) the low white male unemployment rate here means they aren’t resonating with Trump.

    Trump is loud and combative. Cruz is caustic. They are get-along go-along folks and Rubio is soothing when he speaks of unity.

  71. @LondonBob
    Uniting the Yankee and Confederate heartlands. David Hackett Fisher needs to do some analysis.
  72. @jeppo
    For some reason Trump's support is heavily concentrated in the eastern half of the country. He is 8-0 in states east of the Mississippi, but only 2-5 west of the Mississippi.

    IMO his most potent achievement so far is to absolutely monkey-wrench, train-wreck, and log-jam the usual MSM way of doing things around the POTUS cycle.

    It’s upon the shoulders of everyone out east–from Boston to Atlanta and NOLA–that the MSM and its owners/propagandists have laid most heavily, especially in the past 60 years. This suggests to me that a key element of the rebellion is against the way political communication (including electioneering) is done.

    That’s my hunch, based on living a long time in both halves.

    I observe often that a lot of people in Pugetopolis/the PNW are in deep denial about who owns their local newspaper and what it exists to accomplish. Out east we woke up to the powers of the consolidated corporate propaganda industry a long time ago.

    Also–if you look at the map with squinty eyes, doesn’t it resemble a map of the US at the end of the “Jacksonian era”?????

  73. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    If there is a Trump Belt, I don’t yet understand its causes.

    There was another wealthy New Yorker who appealed to populism and nationalism and greater executive authority, and who forged an electoral coalition that united the South and Northern working-class and Catholic ethnic voting blocs. That coalition got him elected 4 times and dominated much of American politics for decades until it broke apart in the late 60s and 70s.

    The Trump Belt mirrors FDR’s primary support base, and Trump’s weakest supporters among Republicans are Midwestern and Western WASPs, who also happened to be among FDR’s biggest opponents. New England WASPs were also among FDR’s primary opponents, but New England is no longer very WASP and is more similar to the more working class and Catholic areas of the Northeast that supported FDR and that now favor Trump.

    One big difference however is that Trump doesn’t have the support of intellectuals and the media, who did support FDR. But even here, to the extent that Trump has been able to dominate media coverage, and dominate it on his own terms in a way in which he can promote himself favorably, he has sort of had de facto dominant and favorable media coverage, like FDR enjoyed.

    FDR was also called a “traitor to his class”, and Trump is regarded as such for not going along with the wealthy elites’ and Republican Party elites’ plans.

    • Agree: Das
  74. I would say that Trump’s heat map is tracking the Scots-Irish settlements along the Appalachians. In fact, the Trump supporters I know like him precisely for his pugnacity and obstreperousness. They like his style and don’t particularly care that much about policy details. So, although everyone on the left is zeroing in on his German father, perhaps it is his Scottish mother’s genes that are really driving his popularity.

  75. @Reg Cæsar
    Praising PP for what? Negro abortions? White abortions? Ones he might have paid for himself?

    Divisive (within the GOP) social issues should be kept on the back burner this election. He's gotten many if us to "agree to disagree" in order to concentrate on existential threats. Giving free condoms or diaphragms to a voter's 15-year-old isn't the way to win over hearts.

    Anyway, these are now judicial, not political, issues. That in itself should be an issue!

    For having the brass balls to stand up for eugenics and recognize what unfettered and incentivized r-strategy reproduction means to this nation.

    THAT is a political issue. It can never be a judicial one. Because “equal rights.”

  76. @Percy Gryce

    As a laidback Southern Californian, Trump reminds me of the late George Steinbrenner, the extremely obstreperous owner of the New York Yankees, whom my Los Angeles Dodgers battled in the 1977, 1978, and 1981 World Series.
     
    Steve, sorry to be the grammar police, but you've got a serious dangling modifier there. Trump is not a laidback Southern Californian--exactly the opposite. The miscue there destroys your point, which is that Trump is a high-strung New Yorker.

    The easiest fix is:


    Trump reminds me, a laidback Southern Californian, of the late George Steinbrenner, the extremely obstreperous owner of the New York Yankees, whom my Los Angeles Dodgers battled in the 1977, 1978, and 1981 World Series.
     

    Gimme a friggin’ break! Speaking as a high strung Noo Yawker with a degree in English from a fancy liberal arts college, I didn’t see a problem with our host’s sentence construction/punctuation.

  77. @Travis
    Trump does appear to be changing the electoral map.

    The surprise is Trump's winning in the South. Not surprising he will win primaries in New England and the North East, these people often vote for moderate republicans and they are more familiar with Trump and his rhetorical style. In addition Trump has never been anti-union, like most establishment republicans and the Northern states have more union workers, and even more are the children of union workers.

    Trump is actually to the left of moderate republicans like Scot Brown and Chris Christie. On social issues , which have been especially important to voters in the south (gay marriage, abortion, etc..) Trump is more left than Bill Clinton was. So it is truly shocking to see him win republican primaries in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina etc...States where unions are not strong but evangelicals are a significant factor.

    not sure if Trump changes the map, but he has shown an alternate route to the presidency is possible when one is strong on immigration. We never had such a candidate. No candidate before has ever made immigration a priority. Maybe the primary voters realize the culture wars are over, they have seen their candidates get elected and then do noting to stop the left.

    The establishment is in panic mode, not because Trump will lose to Hillary, but because he can win and thus change the republican party. Bringing in voters who oppose free trade, oppose immigration and oppose endless wars against our interests. By showing another path to victory the neo-cons will lose power in the Republican party, as a different breed of candidates will emerge with similar agenda to Trump. it would be better for the neo-cons if Trump loses to Hillary, as they can maintain their power in the party.

    ….it would be better for the neo-cons if Trump loses to Hillary, as they can maintain their power in the party.

    It would be better if Trump loses to Hillary (after eliminating Jeb! and Marco) so she can go on to “wear” the blame for the next recession, which is likely to spectacular and oughta be starting right about the time that the inauguration is over!

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    This strategy of letting your opponent win and hoping there's a big recession on her watch is not a good one. First, you've let your opponent win, which isn't good. Second, a recession -- particularly if it happens early in a president's term -- doesn't guarantee the president won't win reelection. Look at Reagan, who had an awful recession in his first term, and won reelection in a landslide.
  78. @FUBAR007
    Steve:

    A few individuals, such as Michael Hart, have been suggesting a division of the United States along the Red-Blue lines into separate countries so we stop getting on each other’s nerves so much.

    Personally, I’m a Union man in the tradition of Jackson, Lincoln, and Grant, so I don’t much like that idea.
     
    There is a middle ground option: re-federate the country.

    My preferred method is to amend the Constitution such that, aside from Defense and elements of Justice and Treasury, funding of and participation in federal programs is severable at the state level. If, say, Texas decides it doesn't want to participate in Social Security or be subject to HHS anymore, for example, it doesn't have to and won't pay any taxes to fund those programs/departments. The only catch is that Texas's senators and representatives then don't get to vote on bills dealing with those programs/departments. Conversely, if Massachusetts wants full metal social democracy, they can have it. If residents don't like it, they can vote with their feet.

    All of this would require a top-to-bottom overhaul of how the federal budget works as well as the tax collection system, but that's overdue anyway.

    I'd be perfectly content with the U.S. as essentially a federated mutual defense pact.

    What's the point of staying in a shitty, loveless marriage full of mutual loathing and disgust?

    So you want states to be able to to opt out of the things that you don’t like, and force everyone to keep what you do like.

    The first thing I would opt out of would the “Defense” department. Mostly our military just seems to exist to lose wars as expensively as possible these days. The Pentagon is largely federal welfare spending, taking from the coastal states, and spending it in and on the South and the DC metro area. As a Californian, I say if the Confederate States and DC want to invade and lose a war in every single Middle Eastern country, let them do it on their own dime. If South Carolina wants 10 aircraft carriers, them figure out how to pay for them.

    As for Justice, the federal judiciary has been the most regressive and anti-democratic institution in this country’s history. Sometimes its activism is for the left (Roe v. Wade) and recently its activism has been for the far right (Bush v. Gore, Hobby Lobby, Citizens United). I think it’s high time you on the right as well as us on the left team up to end the tyranny of the black-robed once and for all.

    • Replies: @FUBAR007

    So you want states to be able to to opt out of the things that you don’t like, and force everyone to keep what you do like.
     
    Uh, no.

    The point is to enable Blue America and Red America to cut each other loose as much as possible without dissolving the country entirely.

    The first thing I would opt out of would the “Defense” department.
     
    Then you're a moron. Believe me, you do NOT want each of the 50 states devising its own defense and foreign policy. That's going to get ugly and bloody very, very fast. (That reminds me, I forgot to list State as another department that I'd still have be mandatory.)

    Besides, my proposal is agnostic as to the composition, function, and funding level of Defense.

    As for Justice, the federal judiciary has been the most regressive and anti-democratic institution in this country’s history.
     
    That's a functional problem, not a structural one. Your grievances here could be addressed with term limits on federal judges and other reforms.

    I think it’s high time you on the right as well as us on the left team up to end the tyranny of the black-robed once and for all.
     
    I'm not on the right. I'm a Nordic-style social democrat. I just don't give a rat's ass about imposing my preferred political-economic system on Red America. If they're hell bent on turning the societal clock back to 1885, let them. Let them go their way, and we'll go ours. We'll keep the country together as, if nothing else, a mutual defense pact to prevent military shenanigans between the states.
  79. How does Trump support correlate with out of work white males?

    MA had a whole bunch of dems switch parties in the last week to vote for Trump. They were Dems abandoned by the Sjw set who want the white male version of the obamaphone? Who want payback?

  80. I’m worried that dopey people in the Midwest are going to spoil this for Trump. They view Marco Rubio as “that nice polite young man with a tan” instead of “Miami Cuban machine politician who nearly destroyed the country with his obsession on increasing Latino immigration.”

    The GOP rigged its delegate allocation process so that Southern states are mostly proportional, but Northern (East and Midwest) states are winner-take-all. This is done so that an establishment candidate can easily rack up a delegate lead against an evangelical insurgent like Mike Huckabee.

    Trump does *great* in the Northeast, but so far he’s batting poorly in the Midwest. Hopefully this is just a weird Lutheran thing that applies to Iowa and Minnesota, and other parts of the Midwest aren’t going to vote for the right-wing Cuban nationalist to prove how “nice” and “polite” they are.

    Ohio, Michigan, Illinois are crucial states for Trump.

    • Replies: @Leftist conservative
    yeah, I pretty much agree--the winner take all states are for the most part states that have a lot of voters who are landowners and farmers and ranchers...the winner take all states are states that have a lot of good farmland and ranchland...with the exception of Iowa, which has some of the best farmland on this planet, and Iowa gets to set the tone for the entire campaign...
    the states with poor farmland and the states where people have to go to the big city and scratch out a living competing with everyone else, these states are put into the middle of the process and are mostly proportional delegation states.


    The establishment wants the prosperous voters to decide the race.

    The states where trump does best are states like FL and NV, which is where people go when they cannot make it where they are. And these voters are mostly unhappy. Hence Trump's success there.

  81. There seems to be a loose correlation with this and Blacks as the leading minority.

  82. The NYTimes “Upshot” email today was subject-lined “Trump’s Luck,” but no Sailer credit that I can find. Sadly, I can’t find that text on the web.

    http://www.nytimes.com/newsletters/2016/03/02/upshot?nlid=1810582

    KKKandidate Trump won a few counties in monolithically-Latino South Texas from Rafael E. Cruz.

    http://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/cruz-clinton-grab-most-votes-almost-every-county/

    JD Vance suggests that in the Southeast, “evangelical” and “Christian” might be more like tribal identifiers (my interpretation of his argument), because many of those Southeastern “evangelical” “Christians” don’t actually attend church, and hence don’t mind the Gotham vulgarian too much and see him as fighting for their folk. Whereas in the Plains, “evangelicals” are more likely to be in church on Sunday — and those people back Cruz.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431686/ted-cruz-evangelicals-churchgoers-back-him-non-churchgoers-dont

  83. @AndrewR
    Nordic lutheranism. Same reason Trump wouldnt be popular in Sweden. He's not an utter cuck.

    Since it doesn’t fit the image, someone (maybe the Chinese, who seem to be interested in the JQ) should investigate why there apparently was so much anti-Semitism for so long among Scandinavian-Americans:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Minneapolis#Politics.2C_corruption.2C_anti-Semitism_and_social_change

    Minneapolis was known for anti-Semitism beginning in the 1880s and through the 1950s.[29] The city was described as “the capital of anti-Semitism in the United States” in 1946 by Carey McWilliams[30] and in 1959 by Gunther Plaut.[31] At that time the city’s Jews were excluded from membership in many organizations, faced employment discrimination, and were considered unwelcome residents in some neighborhoods.[32] Jews in Minneapolis were also not allowed to buy homes in certain neighborhoods of Minneapolis.[33]

    • Replies: @Alice
    Catholics couldn't either. That's why all of the Catholic neighborhoods were in "nordeast", on the east side of the river, or in St. Paul, where the Catholics and Need moved in.
    Pretty typical protestant behavior.

    But then the Jewish neighborhoods in NE and N Mpls went black, as did much of St. Paul.
  84. @Das
    2/3 of abortions in this country are to black and Hispanic women.

    I think conservatives need to be more cognizant of that fact before they go on these doomed crusades against Planned Parenthood. It's bad short-term politics (Nice White Ladies LOVE Planned Parenthood), and bad for the long-term future of the country.

    Nice White Ladies LOVE Planned Parenthood

    Exactly, which is why Trump is smart to say nice things about PP while still denouncing abortions. He’s already running for the general election.

    The entire jihad against PP has been boob bait. Given that abortions are going to be done by someone, what does it really matter if it’s PP or someone else? And I hate PP.

  85. Steve:

    As a laid back Southern Californian…

    The Dude abides!

  86. @fish

    ....it would be better for the neo-cons if Trump loses to Hillary, as they can maintain their power in the party.
     
    It would be better if Trump loses to Hillary (after eliminating Jeb! and Marco) so she can go on to "wear" the blame for the next recession, which is likely to spectacular and oughta be starting right about the time that the inauguration is over!

    This strategy of letting your opponent win and hoping there’s a big recession on her watch is not a good one. First, you’ve let your opponent win, which isn’t good. Second, a recession — particularly if it happens early in a president’s term — doesn’t guarantee the president won’t win reelection. Look at Reagan, who had an awful recession in his first term, and won reelection in a landslide.

    • Replies: @fish
    Reagan was able to lay blame for that recession (quite legitimately) at the feet of Jimmy Carter. I don't think that Hill will be able to inoculate herself from what's on it's way. Obamacare has the economy in a chokehold and Hill is running as a big backer of Obamacare. I'm not a Trump supporter but in my more cynical moments have considered that government and central bank largesse may be absent should there be another 2008 like shock to the system if there is a Trump administration next term.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    I agree. I don't think there's much percentage in hoping the Democrats get blamed for something. Their voters don't blame them for anything, and among the supporters are the media, which is in charge of blame-placing. Many--maybe most--Americans still blame Dubya for the current economy despite 7 years of Obama.
  87. @Dave Pinsen
    This strategy of letting your opponent win and hoping there's a big recession on her watch is not a good one. First, you've let your opponent win, which isn't good. Second, a recession -- particularly if it happens early in a president's term -- doesn't guarantee the president won't win reelection. Look at Reagan, who had an awful recession in his first term, and won reelection in a landslide.

    Reagan was able to lay blame for that recession (quite legitimately) at the feet of Jimmy Carter. I don’t think that Hill will be able to inoculate herself from what’s on it’s way. Obamacare has the economy in a chokehold and Hill is running as a big backer of Obamacare. I’m not a Trump supporter but in my more cynical moments have considered that government and central bank largesse may be absent should there be another 2008 like shock to the system if there is a Trump administration next term.

  88. @AndrewR
    There's no reason whatsoever to think that the myriad hypothetical independent American states would not unite to fight outsiders. Even the nationalists and communists in China suspended their civil war to fight the Japanese invaders.

    The country is being invaded. Invasion has a new name now, that’s all – “seeking a better life”, “act of love”, “fleeing persecution”, etc. Why would Mexico use its military to invade the United States? Mexians can just walk in and help themselves to all the things people were seeking when they invaded countries in the old way.

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  89. “Mr. Trump’s lead is not equal among all G.O.P. groups, or across all parts of the country. His support follows a clear geographic pattern. He fares best in a broad swath of the country stretching from the Gulf Coast, up the spine of the Appalachian Mountains, to upstate New York.

    Mr. Trump’s best state is West Virginia, followed by New York. Eight of Mr. Trump’s 10 best congressional districts are in New York, including several on Long Island. North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Louisiana and South Carolina follow. …

    Mr. Trump’s strength fades as one heads west. Nearly all of his weakest states — 16 of his worst 19 — lie west of the Mississippi. Mr. Trump’s struggles in Iowa might not reflect a challenge specific to the state; it may simply be the only state from the Great Plains or Mountain West where public pollsters frequently conduct public opinion surveys. His worst is Utah, a traditionally Republican and affluent state.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/31/upshot/donald-trumps-strongest-supporters-a-certain-kind-of-democrat.html

    “Trump’s best county of the night? 69.7% in Buchanan County, VA — Heart of Appalachia.”

  90. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @jeppo
    For some reason Trump's support is heavily concentrated in the eastern half of the country. He is 8-0 in states east of the Mississippi, but only 2-5 west of the Mississippi.

    This is something Agnostic (akinokure) has blogged a lot about recently. East coast rootedness and communitarianism vs west of the Mississippi libertarianism. Also how whites of different ethnic background think and vote.

    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/03/electoral-showdown-between-eastern-vs.html
    http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2016/02/does-racial-insulation-make-whites-get.html

    He has other recent posts about the new populism and how people don’t care about culture wars anymore, but about economics, not getting screwed over anymore.

  91. Leftist conservative [AKA "Trump Kills Last Mosquito, Places Tiny Make America Great Hat On ZikaHead Baby"] says: • Website
    @Das
    I'm worried that dopey people in the Midwest are going to spoil this for Trump. They view Marco Rubio as "that nice polite young man with a tan" instead of "Miami Cuban machine politician who nearly destroyed the country with his obsession on increasing Latino immigration."

    The GOP rigged its delegate allocation process so that Southern states are mostly proportional, but Northern (East and Midwest) states are winner-take-all. This is done so that an establishment candidate can easily rack up a delegate lead against an evangelical insurgent like Mike Huckabee.

    Trump does *great* in the Northeast, but so far he's batting poorly in the Midwest. Hopefully this is just a weird Lutheran thing that applies to Iowa and Minnesota, and other parts of the Midwest aren't going to vote for the right-wing Cuban nationalist to prove how "nice" and "polite" they are.

    Ohio, Michigan, Illinois are crucial states for Trump.

    yeah, I pretty much agree–the winner take all states are for the most part states that have a lot of voters who are landowners and farmers and ranchers…the winner take all states are states that have a lot of good farmland and ranchland…with the exception of Iowa, which has some of the best farmland on this planet, and Iowa gets to set the tone for the entire campaign…
    the states with poor farmland and the states where people have to go to the big city and scratch out a living competing with everyone else, these states are put into the middle of the process and are mostly proportional delegation states.

    The establishment wants the prosperous voters to decide the race.

    The states where trump does best are states like FL and NV, which is where people go when they cannot make it where they are. And these voters are mostly unhappy. Hence Trump’s success there.

    • Replies: @Olorin
    Don't forget that those "winner take all states" are heavily welfare based. Farming and ranching are heavily subsidized by federal funds.

    Also those states tend to base a big chunk of their economies on being magnets for out of state students whose parents want to buy midwest brands for their kindern. Consider:

    Big Ten schools, out of state enrollment:

    University of Nebraska, 16% of about 25,000
    Purdue University, 35% of about 40,000
    University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 34% of about 43,000
    University of Minnesota, 27% of about 51,000
    University of Wisconsin-Madison, 36% of about 43,000
    Ohio State, 15% of about 58,000
    University of Iowa, 39% of about 31,000
    Indiana University, 29% of about 48,000

    Just an example to think with. There are many other schools in these states...but the biggest most desirable/expensive ones are brands no less than the Ivy League.

    This Ed Biz Tourism has the effect of inserting both-coast politics into otherwise-oriented landlocked states. Why do you think the Dems have been so gung-ho on organizing student voter registration drives on campuses? These schools are located in population centers that over time have become deeply at odds with what outstate/upstate people consider important.

    Thus the Ed Biz constitutes a parallel or shadow polity of young people and those who wrangle them systematically for gain.

    This is part of why higher ed seems to represent very specific, lockstep interests. I.e., it does.

    Higher ed is also heavily federal welfare based. The hot new direction for today's Ed Biz planning is how to get a share of the billions of Diversibucks for granting degrees to grievance oriented people who couldn't even get through middle school without affirmative action.

  92. @fnn
    Since it doesn't fit the image, someone (maybe the Chinese, who seem to be interested in the JQ) should investigate why there apparently was so much anti-Semitism for so long among Scandinavian-Americans:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Minneapolis#Politics.2C_corruption.2C_anti-Semitism_and_social_change

    Minneapolis was known for anti-Semitism beginning in the 1880s and through the 1950s.[29] The city was described as "the capital of anti-Semitism in the United States" in 1946 by Carey McWilliams[30] and in 1959 by Gunther Plaut.[31] At that time the city's Jews were excluded from membership in many organizations, faced employment discrimination, and were considered unwelcome residents in some neighborhoods.[32] Jews in Minneapolis were also not allowed to buy homes in certain neighborhoods of Minneapolis.[33]
     

    Catholics couldn’t either. That’s why all of the Catholic neighborhoods were in “nordeast”, on the east side of the river, or in St. Paul, where the Catholics and Need moved in.
    Pretty typical protestant behavior.

    But then the Jewish neighborhoods in NE and N Mpls went black, as did much of St. Paul.

  93. @AndrewR
    Nordic lutheranism. Same reason Trump wouldnt be popular in Sweden. He's not an utter cuck.

    AndrewR, I think you overstate the importance of “Nordic Lutheranism” in Minnesota. It was much more significant forty or fifty years ago than today. The Scandinavian element that was once so prominent is much diminished. We have the largest concentration of Somalis anywhere in the U.S. There is also a large Hmong community in the Twin Cities. Mexican and Central American mestizos are an increasing population segment, as are American negroes. These groups are all concentrated in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the cities’ politics are predictably left-wing.

    However, once outside the cities, the electoral map changes. Suburban and rural Minnesota – just where those Lutherans still live – is substantially Republican. See:

    http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/governor/minnesota/#.VteBJsfmuDc

    I live in what was, until the last reapportionment, part of the Sixth Congressional District, which was represented by Michele Bachmann, a very conservative Republican. In connection with Lutheranism, it is worth mentioning that Rep. Bachmann was, until 2011, a member of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, affiliated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The Wisconsin Synod is very conservative both theologically and socially. It adheres to the Book of Concord of 1580, which was used in attempts to embarrass Bachmann because it contains typical 16th-century Protestant execrations of the Church of Rome and the Pope.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    These groups are all concentrated in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the cities’ politics are predictably left-wing.
     
    If you look at the marriage amendment vote, the African and Asian precincts were the only ones to support it. The worst areas were the wealthiest and whitest-- the Chain of Lakes in Minneapolis, Summit Ave in St Paul. The amendment correlated quite comfortably with relative darkness of skin.

    The Hmong and East Africans voted like white folks out in the country. Imagine that.

    Of course, those people still vote DFL, defeating the purpose. Same thing happened in California in 2008.
  94. @Percy Gryce

    As a laidback Southern Californian, Trump reminds me of the late George Steinbrenner, the extremely obstreperous owner of the New York Yankees, whom my Los Angeles Dodgers battled in the 1977, 1978, and 1981 World Series.
     
    Steve, sorry to be the grammar police, but you've got a serious dangling modifier there. Trump is not a laidback Southern Californian--exactly the opposite. The miscue there destroys your point, which is that Trump is a high-strung New Yorker.

    The easiest fix is:


    Trump reminds me, a laidback Southern Californian, of the late George Steinbrenner, the extremely obstreperous owner of the New York Yankees, whom my Los Angeles Dodgers battled in the 1977, 1978, and 1981 World Series.
     

    Thanks, Percy.

  95. @Anon
    Trump could make a mess of the Dems' electoral math just by winning one state in the general election that Republicans haven't been winning recently, namely New York. The donks have always have a big leg up in the electoral college cause of the California-New York bloc, but if Trump could take New York, Hillary would be forced to make up the electoral votes elsewhere by piecing them together from other states. She cannot afford to lose a single swing state if she has to offset a New York loss, and she might not be able to do it even then.

    The key to winning New York state is the city, and the city has one very peculiar Hispanic bloc. One-third of all Hispanics in the city are Puerto Ricans. Trump can deport all he wants, and they're not budging. Puerto Ricans are already US citizens because Puerto Rico is a US territory. What's more, they'll be able to take over the jobs that are being held by other Hispanic groups if Trump kicks those out, and they'll tell all their unemployed relatives back on the island (and there are a LOT of those), Hey, come up here, there are plenty of jobs here for you now. In other words, Puerto Ricans stand to gain if they vote for Trump.

    Secondly, there's this 'all politics is local' point. Not too long ago, New Yorkers elected as mayor a guy who was a blowhard, a billionaire, and who's politics were somewhat more right-wing their their own, although he looked just moderate enough to be electable. This guy was Bloomberg. Well, guess what Trump happens to be? Thirdly, New York just went full retard and elected De Blasio, and he's driving them up a wall. They've experienced a full dose of witless political correctness and inept leadership, and Bloomberg looks good by comparison. I think the city is willing to go for Trump.

    Fourth, NYC is Trump's home base. He's going to turn out his entire machine to get his voters to the polls in that city. His network cronies have genuine reason to stage a massive get-out-the-vote effort because they're looking at a bunch of government jobs as the prize. It's not just cabinet positions, it's finance jobs at the Fed, etc.

    Fifth, the sort of people who voluntarily want to live in NYC do so because they have certain traits. They don't want to live in the Midwest because they're in love with being close to glitz, money, power, and glamour. They want to be near the center of the action. To them, Trump represents all those things.

    Sixth, there's the celebrity factor. The rules are different for celebrities, and they have a tendency to win elections—if they're Republican or Independent. Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Bono. Trump's a guy who's been in the public eye since the 1970s, and he's very well known to voters. He's getting a pass on his blather because everyone feels they already know what he's like. He's reached the stage of being your old blowhard uncle, but you know him too well to worry about what he might actually do. The Dems can't demonize him and make it stick because he has this settled quality in the minds of the most of the electorate.

    There's also the low-information voter factor. They don't really know anything about politics or political ideas at all, they just vote for personalities. They just ask, do I want this person in charge or not? Well, Hillary sucks as a candidate. She has a ton of negatives, everyone thinks she's a liar, and she comes across as inept on national security. She's a turnout suppressor. Trump looks more competent, tough, and capable compared to her.

    Finally, there's the homeboy advantage. A lot of low-information voters will vote for Trump for the same reason they root for their local sports team, and this impulse is irrational and powerful. Trump is New York's guy, and the locals will want a win for the home team.

    I think the city is willing to go for Trump.

    I’m not exactly an expert on the ins & outs of Empire State politics, but I believe that Trump would probably only need about, oh, say, 38 percent of the NYC municipal vote, in order to carry the state for the Electoral College. I have very high hopes for his chances in New York (and Pennsylvania). Can a Republican, one who’s popular in the South, carry New York & Pennsylvania, and still lose the general election? I have a hard time envisioning it.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Trump will NOT win New York (29 electoral votes) in the general election, nor is he likely to win my onetime home state of New Jersey. They'll be closer, but so what if zero electoral votes come out of them.

    But he may well win the presidency anyway, especially if he can win two large states which used to be republican but have become swing states presidentially: Florida (29 EVs) and Ohio (19 EVs).

    Romney lost both Florida and Ohio. Simply moving those two states from demos to repubs changes the outcome from 2012's Dem 332-206 to a very close 284-254. The GOP then wins by holding the Romney states and adding just one more: Michigan or Pennsylvania would do it.
  96. @Keith Vaz
    What is wrong with Minnesota? It's the ONLY state to endorse the build-a-pol Rubio. Then in the 80s it was the ONLY state that didn't elect Reagan (so don't blame Somalis)!

    In 1984 native son Fritz Mondale was the Democratic nominee.

  97. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “…Trump’s wins along border prove he hasn’t been shunned by Latinos despite controversial immigration plan…”

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/02/trump-wins-laredo-texas-border-wall-city

    “Trump dominates in Texas border town where proposed wall would be built”, The Guardian, Tom Dart, 2-Mar-2016:

    “…Yet Donald Trump was embraced on Tuesday by voters in America’s most Hispanic city. …Not that it takes a lot of GOP votes to win here – only 4,089 were cast in the race, compared with nearly 26,000 among Democrats. Laredo is 96% Hispanic or Latino…

    …Trump has not been shunned by conservative Latinos. He may even have inspired them into action: he won more votes in Webb County than were cast in its primary in total in 2012. …

    (Laredo)… is the largest inland port on the US-Mexico border, mentioned soon after Los Angeles and New York in scale of international trade. …two-thirds the size of the LA metropolitan area.

    …“He’s strong and he’s very confident,” Barroso said. “I don’t support everything he says but a lot of the things, he’s not afraid to say it. I see that as a strong characteristic.” …”

  98. @alcogito
    My ancestor emigrated from Germany to New Jersey in 1710. Am I a Kraut?

    Yes, and you should be proud of it.

  99. @Anon
    Trump could make a mess of the Dems' electoral math just by winning one state in the general election that Republicans haven't been winning recently, namely New York. The donks have always have a big leg up in the electoral college cause of the California-New York bloc, but if Trump could take New York, Hillary would be forced to make up the electoral votes elsewhere by piecing them together from other states. She cannot afford to lose a single swing state if she has to offset a New York loss, and she might not be able to do it even then.

    The key to winning New York state is the city, and the city has one very peculiar Hispanic bloc. One-third of all Hispanics in the city are Puerto Ricans. Trump can deport all he wants, and they're not budging. Puerto Ricans are already US citizens because Puerto Rico is a US territory. What's more, they'll be able to take over the jobs that are being held by other Hispanic groups if Trump kicks those out, and they'll tell all their unemployed relatives back on the island (and there are a LOT of those), Hey, come up here, there are plenty of jobs here for you now. In other words, Puerto Ricans stand to gain if they vote for Trump.

    Secondly, there's this 'all politics is local' point. Not too long ago, New Yorkers elected as mayor a guy who was a blowhard, a billionaire, and who's politics were somewhat more right-wing their their own, although he looked just moderate enough to be electable. This guy was Bloomberg. Well, guess what Trump happens to be? Thirdly, New York just went full retard and elected De Blasio, and he's driving them up a wall. They've experienced a full dose of witless political correctness and inept leadership, and Bloomberg looks good by comparison. I think the city is willing to go for Trump.

    Fourth, NYC is Trump's home base. He's going to turn out his entire machine to get his voters to the polls in that city. His network cronies have genuine reason to stage a massive get-out-the-vote effort because they're looking at a bunch of government jobs as the prize. It's not just cabinet positions, it's finance jobs at the Fed, etc.

    Fifth, the sort of people who voluntarily want to live in NYC do so because they have certain traits. They don't want to live in the Midwest because they're in love with being close to glitz, money, power, and glamour. They want to be near the center of the action. To them, Trump represents all those things.

    Sixth, there's the celebrity factor. The rules are different for celebrities, and they have a tendency to win elections—if they're Republican or Independent. Ronald Reagan, Clint Eastwood, Jesse Ventura, Sonny Bono. Trump's a guy who's been in the public eye since the 1970s, and he's very well known to voters. He's getting a pass on his blather because everyone feels they already know what he's like. He's reached the stage of being your old blowhard uncle, but you know him too well to worry about what he might actually do. The Dems can't demonize him and make it stick because he has this settled quality in the minds of the most of the electorate.

    There's also the low-information voter factor. They don't really know anything about politics or political ideas at all, they just vote for personalities. They just ask, do I want this person in charge or not? Well, Hillary sucks as a candidate. She has a ton of negatives, everyone thinks she's a liar, and she comes across as inept on national security. She's a turnout suppressor. Trump looks more competent, tough, and capable compared to her.

    Finally, there's the homeboy advantage. A lot of low-information voters will vote for Trump for the same reason they root for their local sports team, and this impulse is irrational and powerful. Trump is New York's guy, and the locals will want a win for the home team.

    Thanks for this — interesting, and plenty to think about.

  100. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "I think the city is willing to go for Trump. "

    I'm not exactly an expert on the ins & outs of Empire State politics, but I believe that Trump would probably only need about, oh, say, 38 percent of the NYC municipal vote, in order to carry the state for the Electoral College. I have very high hopes for his chances in New York (and Pennsylvania). Can a Republican, one who's popular in the South, carry New York & Pennsylvania, and still lose the general election? I have a hard time envisioning it.

    Trump will NOT win New York (29 electoral votes) in the general election, nor is he likely to win my onetime home state of New Jersey. They’ll be closer, but so what if zero electoral votes come out of them.

    But he may well win the presidency anyway, especially if he can win two large states which used to be republican but have become swing states presidentially: Florida (29 EVs) and Ohio (19 EVs).

    Romney lost both Florida and Ohio. Simply moving those two states from demos to repubs changes the outcome from 2012’s Dem 332-206 to a very close 284-254. The GOP then wins by holding the Romney states and adding just one more: Michigan or Pennsylvania would do it.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "...he may well win the presidency anyway, especially if he can win two large states which used to be republican but have become swing states presidentially: Florida (29 EVs) and Ohio (19 EVs).

    Romney lost both Florida and Ohio. Simply moving those two states from demos to repubs changes the outcome from 2012′s Dem 332-206 to a very close 284-254. The GOP then wins by holding the Romney states and adding just one more: Michigan or Pennsylvania would do it."

    This election is unlikely to be that close. Trump's not trying to replay the last two GOP defeats, by just doing a little better in order to score a win on the margins. Fundamental partisan realignment is the name of the game. Think Ronald Reagan winning 44 out of 50 states.

  101. @anon
    You talk sense in many areas but utter **** when it comes to Somalis who (on average) are easily the worst immigrants by far (being a mix of African violence and Arab clans).

    That mix is the worst possible combo hence why their countries are so bad.

    I assume there's a personal reason for why you feel the need to do it which is fair enough but it's still utter ****.

    You talk sense in many areas but utter **** when it comes to Somalis…

    I speak from experience and direct observation. You claim to know more than I do. So fill us in.

    easily the worst immigrants by far

    Worse than Palestinians? Sirhan Sirhan, Nidal Hasan, Edward Said…

    Worse than Caribbeans? Eric Holder, Colin Ferguson, Colin Powell…

    Worse than Asians? Seung-hui Cho, Jiverly Wong, Jose Antonio Vargas…

    Africans don’t belong in a white man’s country– and never did (sorry, Vice President Stephens)– but get real. Native black neighborhoods are far more dangerous and chaotic than African immigrant ones. I live in the latter, and the main problems are litter, bad parking, and bug infestations– to which the Asians and Latins are also prone.

    Terrorism is endemic to Islam, but the black Mohammedans aren’t any more prone to it than the lighter varieties. (And, thank God, they’re less competent!)

  102. @alcogito
    My ancestor emigrated from Germany to New Jersey in 1710. Am I a Kraut?

    My ancestor emigrated from Germany to New Jersey in 1710. Am I a Kraut?

    And one of mine, to, to NYC, in 1702.

    I don’t know what you’re going on about. I was just correcting London Bob’s spelling, as gently and entertainingly as I could.

  103. Catholics couldn’t either. That’s why all of the Catholic neighborhoods were in “nordeast”, on the east side of the river, or in St. Paul, where the Catholics and Need moved in.
    Pretty typical protestant behavior.

    In other words, not “anti-Semitic” at all, except insofar as it was pro-Protestant, in the way Israel is pro-Jewish (and not, say, anti-human).

    But who gives a damn about animus against non-Jewish whites, right?

  104. @Crawfurdmuir
    AndrewR, I think you overstate the importance of "Nordic Lutheranism" in Minnesota. It was much more significant forty or fifty years ago than today. The Scandinavian element that was once so prominent is much diminished. We have the largest concentration of Somalis anywhere in the U.S. There is also a large Hmong community in the Twin Cities. Mexican and Central American mestizos are an increasing population segment, as are American negroes. These groups are all concentrated in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the cities' politics are predictably left-wing.

    However, once outside the cities, the electoral map changes. Suburban and rural Minnesota - just where those Lutherans still live - is substantially Republican. See:

    http://www.politico.com/2014-election/results/map/governor/minnesota/#.VteBJsfmuDc

    I live in what was, until the last reapportionment, part of the Sixth Congressional District, which was represented by Michele Bachmann, a very conservative Republican. In connection with Lutheranism, it is worth mentioning that Rep. Bachmann was, until 2011, a member of Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, affiliated with the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. The Wisconsin Synod is very conservative both theologically and socially. It adheres to the Book of Concord of 1580, which was used in attempts to embarrass Bachmann because it contains typical 16th-century Protestant execrations of the Church of Rome and the Pope.

    These groups are all concentrated in Minneapolis and St. Paul, and the cities’ politics are predictably left-wing.

    If you look at the marriage amendment vote, the African and Asian precincts were the only ones to support it. The worst areas were the wealthiest and whitest– the Chain of Lakes in Minneapolis, Summit Ave in St Paul. The amendment correlated quite comfortably with relative darkness of skin.

    The Hmong and East Africans voted like white folks out in the country. Imagine that.

    Of course, those people still vote DFL, defeating the purpose. Same thing happened in California in 2008.

  105. @Dave Pinsen
    This strategy of letting your opponent win and hoping there's a big recession on her watch is not a good one. First, you've let your opponent win, which isn't good. Second, a recession -- particularly if it happens early in a president's term -- doesn't guarantee the president won't win reelection. Look at Reagan, who had an awful recession in his first term, and won reelection in a landslide.

    I agree. I don’t think there’s much percentage in hoping the Democrats get blamed for something. Their voters don’t blame them for anything, and among the supporters are the media, which is in charge of blame-placing. Many–maybe most–Americans still blame Dubya for the current economy despite 7 years of Obama.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "Many–maybe most–Americans still blame Dubya for the current economy despite 7 years of Obama."

    The economic woes of American society, are decades in the making, not the result of the Obama administration (or any other single administration).
  106. The American Nations are alive and well in that map of Trump’s support.

    American Nations Series

    Trump’s support is strong in the classic “red” nations Greater Appalachia, the Deep South, and the Tidewater.

    But Trump also has a nucleus of northern support. By the looks of it, it seems to correlate to areas that are heavily (Catholic) Irish.

    I’m not sure why he’s so weak in the Far West.

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))

    I’m not sure why he’s so weak in the Far West.

     

    Trump is extremely weak in Utah (and Idaho and Wyoming) because the voters there are extremely conservative. They're not nationalists or white working class or libertarians. They really hate Planned Parenthood, like free trade, are sympathetic to open borders if it lowers wages and stops unions, and are eager to pay more in taxes if millionaires can pay less. Endless war is okay with them as long as it helps defense contractors.

    The Mormons are religious and right-wing but they're not religious right. They don't have the religious right values. They're just true-believer conservatives. That's why they'll go for the far-far right candidates Cruz and Rubio.

    Arizona, on the other hand, is likely to send all its delegates for Trump. Arizona is the moderate west. Colorado and Montana are a bit harder to predict, but I expect it depends on turnout and machine politics.

    ---

    Steve suggests that the border counties of Nevada are Mormon and went for Cruz because of that. That isn't the case.

    The border counties are very sparsely populated, more like Alaska than any other contiguous state. They are hard, cold high elevation desert. The only significant industry is mining and almost all the land is owned by the federal government.

    It's beautiful country. I've spent a long time there and always enjoy it. But it's not friendly or comfortable.

    And Cruz has been pushing a long-time right-wing idea of giving the federal land to the counties. That would devastate the economy and ruin the middle class and denude the environment. But big business from the east coast has been pushing the idea with lies and propaganda as if it were good for the west for almost a century and a half now. They love the idea of our region in bondage to eastern investors and our public lands in their private fenced estates.

    And Cruz won that block. He went after them hard.

    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "I’m not sure why he’s so weak in the Far West."

    A lot of that weakness, is pretty speculative at this point. He won Nevada in a landslide, and he barely lost Alaska. Until more western contests actually transpire, its difficult to say how strong he is out there. But it does look like a potential geographic weak point.
  107. @Keith Vaz
    Is Trump a Yankee?

    His mother is a Gallic-speaker from the Hebrides. His father is a German from the Rhineland. Both areas are very Celtic. Trump has a Celtic body type - much 'tougher' than the svelt WASPish type. Temperament seems Celtic. Opposite of conformist PC Scandi.

    NYC IS NOT NE.

    The Rhineland is very Germanic, the ‘Celts’ were on the Atlantic seaboard.

  108. @anonn
    So you want states to be able to to opt out of the things that you don't like, and force everyone to keep what you do like.

    The first thing I would opt out of would the "Defense" department. Mostly our military just seems to exist to lose wars as expensively as possible these days. The Pentagon is largely federal welfare spending, taking from the coastal states, and spending it in and on the South and the DC metro area. As a Californian, I say if the Confederate States and DC want to invade and lose a war in every single Middle Eastern country, let them do it on their own dime. If South Carolina wants 10 aircraft carriers, them figure out how to pay for them.

    As for Justice, the federal judiciary has been the most regressive and anti-democratic institution in this country's history. Sometimes its activism is for the left (Roe v. Wade) and recently its activism has been for the far right (Bush v. Gore, Hobby Lobby, Citizens United). I think it's high time you on the right as well as us on the left team up to end the tyranny of the black-robed once and for all.

    So you want states to be able to to opt out of the things that you don’t like, and force everyone to keep what you do like.

    Uh, no.

    The point is to enable Blue America and Red America to cut each other loose as much as possible without dissolving the country entirely.

    The first thing I would opt out of would the “Defense” department.

    Then you’re a moron. Believe me, you do NOT want each of the 50 states devising its own defense and foreign policy. That’s going to get ugly and bloody very, very fast. (That reminds me, I forgot to list State as another department that I’d still have be mandatory.)

    Besides, my proposal is agnostic as to the composition, function, and funding level of Defense.

    As for Justice, the federal judiciary has been the most regressive and anti-democratic institution in this country’s history.

    That’s a functional problem, not a structural one. Your grievances here could be addressed with term limits on federal judges and other reforms.

    I think it’s high time you on the right as well as us on the left team up to end the tyranny of the black-robed once and for all.

    I’m not on the right. I’m a Nordic-style social democrat. I just don’t give a rat’s ass about imposing my preferred political-economic system on Red America. If they’re hell bent on turning the societal clock back to 1885, let them. Let them go their way, and we’ll go ours. We’ll keep the country together as, if nothing else, a mutual defense pact to prevent military shenanigans between the states.

  109. @AndrewR
    There's no reason whatsoever to think that the myriad hypothetical independent American states would not unite to fight outsiders. Even the nationalists and communists in China suspended their civil war to fight the Japanese invaders.

    “There’s no reason whatsoever to think that the myriad hypothetical independent American states would not unite to fight outsiders.”

    There’s no reason to think that they would win, either.

    “Even the nationalists and communists in China suspended their civil war to fight the Japanese invaders.”

    Is that intended to be a hopeful example? Japan occupied parts of China for nearly 50 years. They occupied a large fraction of China for 14 years. If they hadn’t been defeated by America, they might have gone on doing so indefinitely.

  110. @Reg Cæsar
    They send their terrorists home, and the pirates never left. The welfare scrounging is working welfare-- WIC, Obamacare, EITC, etc-- that was designed to support growing families. Families that they're having, and we're not.

    Their welfare behavior isn't the scandal. Their location is. Get it right.

    By the way, the Brian Coyle Center where the caucus was held was named for a city councilman who died of "AIDS-related" complications in 1989. He told a television reporter it was the result of "gay anal sex without a condom" [GASWAC]. That phrase always comes to mind when I walk past the place-- always teeming with Africans.

    “They send their terrorists home, and the pirates never left.”

    The murderers – of whom there are many – stay, however. Anyway, your point is irrelevant. This is who these people are. The fact that they so readily are drawn to terrorism and piracy is reason enough to not want them here.

    “The welfare scrounging is working welfare– WIC, Obamacare, EITC, etc– that was designed to support growing families. Families that they’re having, and we’re not.”

    In a word, bullshit. Unemployment among Somalis in Minnesota is three times the national average. WIC often goes to people who do not work, or who do not work much. And Obamacare is not “working welfare” It is welfare, period.

    “Their welfare behavior isn’t the scandal.”

    It is a scandal. They are leeching off our system.

    “Their location is.”

    As is thier character as a people. They are perhaps some of the worst people in the world. Somalis don’t make Somalia better, they certainly won’t add anything of value to America. We don’t need them here.

    “Get it right.”

    You get it right. Stop being a tacit apologist for them. You like Somalis? Fine. You go live there. I don’t want them here.

  111. @JayMan
    The American Nations are alive and well in that map of Trump's support.

    American Nations Series

    Trump's support is strong in the classic "red" nations Greater Appalachia, the Deep South, and the Tidewater.

    But Trump also has a nucleus of northern support. By the looks of it, it seems to correlate to areas that are heavily (Catholic) Irish.

    I'm not sure why he's so weak in the Far West.

    I’m not sure why he’s so weak in the Far West.

    Trump is extremely weak in Utah (and Idaho and Wyoming) because the voters there are extremely conservative. They’re not nationalists or white working class or libertarians. They really hate Planned Parenthood, like free trade, are sympathetic to open borders if it lowers wages and stops unions, and are eager to pay more in taxes if millionaires can pay less. Endless war is okay with them as long as it helps defense contractors.

    The Mormons are religious and right-wing but they’re not religious right. They don’t have the religious right values. They’re just true-believer conservatives. That’s why they’ll go for the far-far right candidates Cruz and Rubio.

    Arizona, on the other hand, is likely to send all its delegates for Trump. Arizona is the moderate west. Colorado and Montana are a bit harder to predict, but I expect it depends on turnout and machine politics.

    Steve suggests that the border counties of Nevada are Mormon and went for Cruz because of that. That isn’t the case.

    The border counties are very sparsely populated, more like Alaska than any other contiguous state. They are hard, cold high elevation desert. The only significant industry is mining and almost all the land is owned by the federal government.

    It’s beautiful country. I’ve spent a long time there and always enjoy it. But it’s not friendly or comfortable.

    And Cruz has been pushing a long-time right-wing idea of giving the federal land to the counties. That would devastate the economy and ruin the middle class and denude the environment. But big business from the east coast has been pushing the idea with lies and propaganda as if it were good for the west for almost a century and a half now. They love the idea of our region in bondage to eastern investors and our public lands in their private fenced estates.

    And Cruz won that block. He went after them hard.

  112. @RadicalCenter
    Trump will NOT win New York (29 electoral votes) in the general election, nor is he likely to win my onetime home state of New Jersey. They'll be closer, but so what if zero electoral votes come out of them.

    But he may well win the presidency anyway, especially if he can win two large states which used to be republican but have become swing states presidentially: Florida (29 EVs) and Ohio (19 EVs).

    Romney lost both Florida and Ohio. Simply moving those two states from demos to repubs changes the outcome from 2012's Dem 332-206 to a very close 284-254. The GOP then wins by holding the Romney states and adding just one more: Michigan or Pennsylvania would do it.

    …he may well win the presidency anyway, especially if he can win two large states which used to be republican but have become swing states presidentially: Florida (29 EVs) and Ohio (19 EVs).

    Romney lost both Florida and Ohio. Simply moving those two states from demos to repubs changes the outcome from 2012′s Dem 332-206 to a very close 284-254. The GOP then wins by holding the Romney states and adding just one more: Michigan or Pennsylvania would do it.

    This election is unlikely to be that close. Trump’s not trying to replay the last two GOP defeats, by just doing a little better in order to score a win on the margins. Fundamental partisan realignment is the name of the game. Think Ronald Reagan winning 44 out of 50 states.

  113. @JayMan
    The American Nations are alive and well in that map of Trump's support.

    American Nations Series

    Trump's support is strong in the classic "red" nations Greater Appalachia, the Deep South, and the Tidewater.

    But Trump also has a nucleus of northern support. By the looks of it, it seems to correlate to areas that are heavily (Catholic) Irish.

    I'm not sure why he's so weak in the Far West.

    I’m not sure why he’s so weak in the Far West.

    A lot of that weakness, is pretty speculative at this point. He won Nevada in a landslide, and he barely lost Alaska. Until more western contests actually transpire, its difficult to say how strong he is out there. But it does look like a potential geographic weak point.

  114. @Harry Baldwin
    I agree. I don't think there's much percentage in hoping the Democrats get blamed for something. Their voters don't blame them for anything, and among the supporters are the media, which is in charge of blame-placing. Many--maybe most--Americans still blame Dubya for the current economy despite 7 years of Obama.

    Many–maybe most–Americans still blame Dubya for the current economy despite 7 years of Obama.

    The economic woes of American society, are decades in the making, not the result of the Obama administration (or any other single administration).

  115. @Leftist conservative
    yeah, I pretty much agree--the winner take all states are for the most part states that have a lot of voters who are landowners and farmers and ranchers...the winner take all states are states that have a lot of good farmland and ranchland...with the exception of Iowa, which has some of the best farmland on this planet, and Iowa gets to set the tone for the entire campaign...
    the states with poor farmland and the states where people have to go to the big city and scratch out a living competing with everyone else, these states are put into the middle of the process and are mostly proportional delegation states.


    The establishment wants the prosperous voters to decide the race.

    The states where trump does best are states like FL and NV, which is where people go when they cannot make it where they are. And these voters are mostly unhappy. Hence Trump's success there.

    Don’t forget that those “winner take all states” are heavily welfare based. Farming and ranching are heavily subsidized by federal funds.

    Also those states tend to base a big chunk of their economies on being magnets for out of state students whose parents want to buy midwest brands for their kindern. Consider:

    Big Ten schools, out of state enrollment:

    University of Nebraska, 16% of about 25,000
    Purdue University, 35% of about 40,000
    University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, 34% of about 43,000
    University of Minnesota, 27% of about 51,000
    University of Wisconsin-Madison, 36% of about 43,000
    Ohio State, 15% of about 58,000
    University of Iowa, 39% of about 31,000
    Indiana University, 29% of about 48,000

    Just an example to think with. There are many other schools in these states…but the biggest most desirable/expensive ones are brands no less than the Ivy League.

    This Ed Biz Tourism has the effect of inserting both-coast politics into otherwise-oriented landlocked states. Why do you think the Dems have been so gung-ho on organizing student voter registration drives on campuses? These schools are located in population centers that over time have become deeply at odds with what outstate/upstate people consider important.

    Thus the Ed Biz constitutes a parallel or shadow polity of young people and those who wrangle them systematically for gain.

    This is part of why higher ed seems to represent very specific, lockstep interests. I.e., it does.

    Higher ed is also heavily federal welfare based. The hot new direction for today’s Ed Biz planning is how to get a share of the billions of Diversibucks for granting degrees to grievance oriented people who couldn’t even get through middle school without affirmative action.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  116. Two points, Steve – one for the old map, one for the new. I’ve long admired your ‘affordable family formation’ model, but I think it needs revision in light of the civilizational battle between patriarchy and unleashed female hypergamy. The red states have been those where the balance still favored patriarchy. The phrase ‘affordable family formation’ suggests most women are suited to move to a red state if their drive to reproduce takes over, but I think blue state feminists of both sexes, some with children, are too far gone into the consequences of hypergamy for that.

    As to the Trump map, one part seems reasonably clear. We race realists have long laughed at the superiority complex of Yankees over Southerners on the subject of bad black behavior. Yankees could afford to be snide since they had no practical knowledge of blacks, only wrongheaded theories. Well, time and BLM has caught up – generally, it’s the west that has little practical knowledge of blacks. The east now does, both in the north and south.

    Trump’s killer app may be immigration at the explicit level, but his implicit value is that he is lending legitimacy for us to say things we have long wished to say, but bottled up.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS