The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersiSteve Blog
/
2016 Election

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

The NYT and FiveThirtyEight forecasts have split, with NYT thinking a Trump victory is highly likely, but 538 has gone back to giving Hillary a small lead in the chances of winning. But in case the NYT model turns out to be right …

From iSteve back in February:

Harry Baldwin has put together a Trumpified version of the headlines that supposedly appeared in the French government’s official newspaper Le Moniteur in March 1815 when Napoleon Bonaparte escaped Elba and astonished Europe by retaking the throne via courage and charisma, setting off his 100 Days that ended with his own personal Waterloo:

March 9, 1815 : The Monster has escaped from his place of banishment.

March 10: The Corsican Ogre has landed at Cape Juan

March 11: The Tiger has shown himself at Gap. The Troops are advancing on all sides to arrest his progress. He will conclude his miserable adventure by becoming a wanderer among the mountains.

March 12: The Monster has actually advanced as far as Grenoble

March 13: The Tyrant is now at Lyon. Fear and Terror seized all at his appearance.

March 18: The Usurper has ventured to approach to within 60 hours’ march of the capital.

March 19: Bonaparte is advancing by forced marches, but it is impossible he can reach Paris.

March 20: Napoleon will arrive under the walls of Paris tomorrow.

March 21: The Emperor Napoleon is at Fountainbleu

March 22: Yesterday evening His Majesty the Emperor made his public entry and arrived at the Tuileries. Nothing can exceed the universal joy.

Note: I’ve read these a million times, but I can’t vouch they’re really real.

Commenter Harry Baldwin writes:

February 24, 2016 at 3:06 am GMT • 300 Words (Edit-1334638)

If been thinking about a “Trump Marches on Washington” version of the “Napoleon Marches on Paris” piece Steve runs occasionally. Insulting names for Trump courtesy of Karl Rove, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, Steve Hayes, John Sununu, Rich Lowry, and Fred Barnes.

April 2015: The Complete Idiot announces he’s seriously considering running for the Republican presidential nomination. On Fox News, George Will looked forward to watching him crash and burn.

June 2015: The Al Sharpton of the Republican Party declared his candidacy in a rambling speech full of racist attacks on Mexican immigrants intended to rile up the teabaggers.

June 2015: The Bloviating Ignoramus has taken a lead in the polls, but it’s still the silly season. Voters haven’t yet taken a look at the more plausible candidates.

July 2015: The Bane of Humanity has insulted the war hero John McCain. He’s gotten away with his gaffes, insults and vulgarity so far, but this time he’s gone too far.

August 2015: The Clown described our champion as “a low-energy person.” Rather than join Trump in the gutter, Jeb understands voters will quickly tire of Trump’s childish banter.

August 2015: The Dancing Bear draws a crowd of 30,000 in Alabama.

September 2015: The Most Fabulous Whiner in All of American Politics continues to hold his lead in the polls. Fox New analysts are confident that Republican voters will soon get serious.

February 2016: The One-Man Wedge Issue said that George W. Bush lied to get us into Iraq. He’s done it now. Veterans, who revere the former president, are a major bloc in South Carolina.

February 2016: Trump wins New Hampshire and South Carolina, but if all candidates but Rubio drop out and he gets their votes, Trump can be stopped.

November 2016: Donald J. Trump has won the election. National Review publishes a special issues congratulating President Trump, featuring highlights of brilliant campaign. Fox All Stars offer him their counsel and assistance in instituting a true conservative agenda.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, American Media, Donald Trump 
🔊 Listen RSS

Here’s my presentation at the early 2013 VDARE.com symposium, transcribed and then translated from spoken Sailerese into actual written English.

Hi, I’m Steve Sailer, and it’s a real pleasure to address our symposium. I’m going to talk about some overlooked aspects of the 2012 election.

As we get to the data, we’re going to focus on voting by state because that is, more or less, how Electoral Votes are counted. For Republicans to ever take back the White House, they will have to figure out more states they can win.

In the interest of simplicity, all the percentages are going to be for Romney’s share of the two-party vote. I’m leaving out Libertarian voters, write-ins, and so forth. I apologize for ignoring non-two party voters (I saw recently that Tom Wolfe wrote in Ron Paul’s name in 2012), but this expedient will allow us to think about just one number at a time: Romney’s share. Thus, if you want to know what Obama got, just subtract Romney’s percentage from 100.

I’m working with a huge poll that almost nobody’s talked about. It was conducted online by Reuters-Ipsos throughout the election year. This particular edition features a sample size of 40,000 two-party voters who responded immediately after voting.

Now, the Reuters-Ipsos panel has advantages and disadvantages versus the better-known Edison exit poll, which had a sample size of only about 25,000. I haven’t noticed any systematic differences in results reported by the two polls, but Reuters-Ipsos has a number of strengths for the serious analyst.

For example, the more celebrated exit poll wasn’t even conducted in 20 states, including Texas. If you want to know something about the future of American politics, you better know something about Texas. The Reuters-Ipsos poll had a sample size of 2,403 respondents in Texas. In summary, we’ve got a decent sample size on almost every state, not just 30 favored states.

Most importantly, Reuters lets anybody make any crosstabs they want of their results, while the Edison exit poll only lets subscribers who pay tens of thousands of dollars get their hands dirty with the data. So, the quality of discussion of the exit poll numbers has been constrained.

Below is something nobody has seen before, a table of Romney’s share of the vote by race in each of the 50 states.

The first column of percentages is Romney’s final share of the actual two-party vote. Nationally, Romney only got 48.0 percent to Obama’s 52.0 percent. (After all the votes were counted, Obama’s victory margin turned out wider than almost all polls had predicted. The Reuters’ poll has Romney at 48.5 percent, so it was a half-point too high.)

National, Romney won 58.1 percent of the white vote which, unsurprisingly, was not enough. He lost 97-3 among blacks and 72-28 among Hispanics.

Actual Reuters Whites Blacks Hispanics Other
National 48.0 48.5 58.1 3.0 28.3 39.0 17.7
Alabama 61 61 82 7 na 38 10
Alaska 57 60 72 na na na na
Arizona 55 56 66 na 26 31 26
Arkansas 62 62 69 6 na na 22
California 38 39 49 5 25 38 25
Colorado 47 48 52 na 27 26 22
Connecticut 41 42 45 6 na na 20
Delaware 41 41 52 na na na 8
D.C. 7 0 8 0 na na 0
Florida 50 50 61 4 35 38 22
Georgia 54 54 79 3 25 43 7
Hawaii 28 20 56 na na 0 15
Idaho 66 67 67 na na na na
Illinois 41 42 51 1 30 34 12
Indiana 55 55 60 2 na 38 13
Iowa 47 47 48 na na 31 21
Kansas 61 61 64 na na na 31
Kentucky 62 62 66 3 na na 17
Louisiana 59 60 84 0 na na 0
Maine 42 42 42 na na na na
Maryland 37 38 56 1 na 32 4
Massachusetts 38 37 40 4 27 23 19
Michigan 45 46 53 2 32 35 13
Minnesota 46 46 47 na na 18 25
Mississippi 56 56 88 0 na na 0
Missouri 55 55 62 8 na 34 17
Montana 57 56 55 na na na na
Nebraska 61 62 65 na na na na
Nevada 47 47 57 1 na 46 17
New Hampshire 47 48 48 na na na na
New Jersey 41 41 52 0 24 36 15
New Mexico 45 45 52 na 27 na 41
New York 36 36 46 2 18 24 10
North Carolina 51 51 67 2 22 38 9
North Dakota 60 55 57 na na na na
Ohio 48 49 54 13 25 33 18
Oklahoma 67 67 74 na na 71 41
Oregon 44 46 48 na 22 33 23
Pennsylvania 47 47 54 0 13 31 5
Rhode Island 36 36 39 na na na na
South Carolina 55 56 78 0 na na 0
South Dakota 59 59 58 na na na na
Tennessee 60 60 71 1 na 33 10
Texas 58 58 76 2 37 41 25
Utah 75 75 75 na 31 33 30
Vermont 32 32 34 na na na na
Virginia 48 48 60 3 26 38 13
Washington 42 44 46 3 29 30 29
West Virginia 64 64 66 na na na na
Wisconsin 47 47 49 7 na 31 21
Wyoming 71 67 74 na na na na

Unfortunately, Reuters just lumps together American Indians with Asians and whoever else feels like calling themselves “Other.” Romney garnered only 39 percent of the Other, although that’s better than what the exit poll reported for Romney among Asians (26 percent, down a purported 9 points from 2008), and 38 percent among “Other” mostly American Indians (up 7 points from 2008). There was a fair amount of theorizing based upon the exit poll about why Romney did so much worse than McCain among Asians (although none about why he did so much better among American Indians).

The Reuters poll, however, suggests these sharp swings didn’t actually happen.

Which poll is right about the Other? Beats me. Mostly, the exit poll and Reuters are pretty similar, so when they disagree, I’d just recommend taking the average of the two surveys.

The Reuters-Ipsos Polling Explorer interface won’t display any breakdowns where the sample size is less than 100. But I managed to get around that cautious limitation by lumping together in huge California with each small state’s sample, then doing the math. That worked out fairly well. Rather than a minimum sample size of 100, I chose an aggressive minimum of merely 15. That’s quite small, so don’t trust each number above too much. Since it’s so hard to get these numbers, I felt it better to err on the side of giving my readers more rather than less information.

We’ll start our analysis with minority electorates, then give the white vote the careful inspection it requires. Yes, I know that white voters are out fashion, but they are still numerous and much more of a swing vote from state to state than are the trendier minorities.

The black share of the vote is routine almost all the way through. Traditionally, California blacks vote a little more Republican than the national blacks, and, sure enough, Romney hauled in a full 5 percent of California blacks versus 3 percent nationwide.

The one black figure that’s unexpected is Ohio, where Reuters reports that Romney get 13 percent of the black vote. That’s from a moderate sample size of 92 black panelists. A vast amount of money was spent on advertising in the battleground state of Ohio, so maybe Romney’s strategists can pat themselves on the back for buying a few extra black votes. Or maybe this 13 percent figure is just a fluke due to limited sample size.

A few anomalies like this are actually reassuring about the authenticity of the Reuters poll. The results fit my model of how the world works, of how various factors interact so well that occasionally I break into a cold sweat over the thought that maybe Reuters just made up the results! I mean, if you hired me to create a model of how demographic and regional factors work together, it would spit out numbers very much like these. But, the occasional unpredictable result, like Romney supposedly getting 13 percent of the black vote in crucial Ohio, is, in a way, confidence-inducing.

With Hispanics, you can see that Puerto Rican Hispanic states like New York (Romney got 18 percent of New York’s Hispanic vote) and Pennsylvania (13 percent) are a little bit further to the left than Mexican Hispanic states such as California (25 percent). But, most of the Hispanic vote falls within a relatively narrow band. Rather than swing voters, these look like solid Democrats who drift a little right if their white neighbors are conservative..

Ever since the election, we’ve been told constantly that the main thing Hispanic voters care about is amnesty for illegal aliens, and the only way for Republicans to ever win the White House again is to grant amnesty (and, while you’re at it, throw in “a path to citizenship”). If you doubt this is the right course for the GOP, just ask any Democrat and they’ll tell you.

If there is any state where this logic shouldn’t apply, it ought to be Florida, which Obama won by a hair. The two main groups of Hispanic voters in Florida are Cubans and Puerto Ricans, neither of whom care about “immigration reform.” The Puerto Ricans are born citizens, and yet they still vote overwhelmingly Democratic. You might almost think Democrats are pulling Republicans’ legs over amnesty …

The Cubans, as described in Tom Wolfe’s Back to Blood, have their own special immigration law that applies to any Cuban who can set foot on American soil. The Cubans used to vote heavily Republican, but Florida Hispanics now went overall 65-35 for Obama, suggesting younger Cubans are trending Democratic. In Wolfe’s novel, even the conservative cops among the Miami Cubans resent the Anglos as competitors who get on their nerves by thinking of Florida as part of America. And the Democrats are the natural home for the resentful.

There is a small difference between the Mexican American voters in California (25 percent for Romney) and Texas Hispanics (37 percent). That 37 percent sounds pretty good – it must be the pro-amnesty role models of the Bush family, while, as we all know, California Latinos were alienated by Proposition 187 — until you notice that Romney got an astonishing 76 percent of the white vote in Texas versus only 49 percent in California. So, relative to whites, Romney may have performed better with Hispanics in California where there is only a 24-point gap, not the 39-point gap in Texas. Or if you look at it proportionally, California’s 25/49 is almost identical to Texas’s 37/76. So maybe the Bushes and Prop. 187 don’t really matter, and what really matters is that Mexican Americans mostly vote Democratic because they find it to be in their self-interest for old-fashioned tax-and-spend reasons?

What about the white vote?

This graph below shows Romney’s share of both the total vote (in dark) and white vote (in red). The states are sorted in order of how well Romney did overall, with Utah at the top and Hawaii at the bottom.

It started out as a bar graph, but I had 100 bars (50 states times two), which seemed excessive, so I made the bars invisible and just left the values of the bars. If you look at Utah, you can see that Romney got 75 percent of the total vote and 75 percent of the white vote in the state. In Wyoming, 71 percent of the total vote and 74 percent of the white vote.

Seminar1

So, for Romney to do really well, he needed two things: states that are almost all white and whites that are almost all Republican.

Now, as you get further down, you see outliers where the GOP’s share of the white vote is far higher than the GOP’s overall performance, such as Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. These are states typically in the deep south with large black populations where there’s a strong degree of white solidarity to keep blacks from taking over the state. For example, the state of Mississippi went for Romney 56-44, and the way he won was by getting 88 percent of the white vote. Why did he get 88 percent of the white vote? Well, Mississippi has the largest black population of any state and according to this Reuters-Ipsos poll, blacks in Mississippi voted 100 percent for Obama (sample size = 38)

So that’s kind of what diversity gets you in the long run. As Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore says, in a multicultural democracy, everybody ends up voting on race.

Probably the two most interesting states that Romney won are not in the deep south: Texas (76 percent of white vote) and Arizona (66 percent).

Texas is not really an old deep south state by any means. It has had a huge influx of Americans since oil was first discovered in 1901, and it has its own culture. It shows the possibilities of what a state could do in terms of going heavily toward Republicans as a bloc vote: 76 percent is a pretty amazing number, but that’s what it took to keep rapidly-Hispanicizing Texas handily Republican. If whites in Texas don’t vote consistently Republican, then the state, with its 38 Electoral Votes, will go Democratic in some future presidential election. And that would end the chances of the Republican Party as we know it ever regaining the White House. So, GOP, you better hurry up and put all those illegal aliens in Texas on the path to citizenship!

One thing to keep in mind about Texas is that its formidable degree of white solidarity is the result of generations of white Texans indoctrinating each other in the superiority of Texas over the rest of the country (as I noticed while a student at Rice U. in Houston). This solidarity has some real payoffs. For example, back in the 1980s Texas had a hugely successful anti-littering campaign featuring the slogan “Don’t Mess with Texas.” Politically, it turns out that Texas pride among whites keeps Mexicans discouraged. (Mexicans are not terribly hard to discourage.) On the other hand, the braggadocio of Texans has not necessarily endeared themselves to the rest of the country.

As you may have observed, the demonization of Arizona in the national press over the last few years has been virulent. The front page of the New York Times routinely featured articles about horribleness of white people in Arizona and how something needs to be done about them.

That’s because by the standards of Western states without many blacks, there was strong solidarity among Arizona whites, with 66 percent voting Republican. That frustrated Democratic efforts to register and turnout as many Mexican Americans as possible.

The most interesting states on the graph are the ones where Romney came close to 50 percent. These are the states future Republican candidates must improve in to have a shot at the White House.

The message you’ve heard ever since the election is that the Republicans lost because of the amnesty issue and therefore they must agree to amnesty and a path to citizenship. You know, the New York Times and the POTUS have all been explaining to the Republican Party how they need to pass amnesty right now for their own good. And if Republicans can’t trust the leadership of the Democratic Party to look out for their partisan interests, who can they trust?

Yet, the states in which Romney came close to winning are typically ones where he just did not get enough of the white vote. Consider Ohio, where Romney lost 52-48 overall by only getting a grand total of 54 percent of the white vote. Almost anywhere in modern American, Republicans have to win more than 54 percent of whites to win.

Here are some other north central states where Romney came fairly close:

Pennsylvania: 54 percent of the white vote

Iowa: 48 percent

WI 49 percent

Minnesota 47 percent

Michigan 53 percent

Romney couldn’t get the job done in these northern states not because of the tidal wave of Hispanics, but because he just didn’t get enough whites to show up and vote for him.

Let’s see where we could make the amnesty argument. Florida was close. And, as we know ever since the infamous 2000 election, Florida has been ripe for people with an ax to grind to claim that their particular panacea would have determined who won the Presidency. For example, I got a press release during the 2000 vote counting in Florida from a Sikh lobby. The Sikhs hate laws requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets because they muss up their turbans. Traditionally, helmet laws are the Sikhs’ hot-button issue. The press release announced that if Al Gore had come out against helmet laws, the Sikhs of Florida would have made him President. I checked their math, and, yeah, they had a point.

But the larger point is that this logic is mostly nuts.

But the Republicans don’t get it. At the moment, they think that all they have to do to get back to the White House is turn the party over completely to Marco Rubio. Let him negotiate amnesty with the Democrats. (What could possibly go wrong?) Mexicans must love the guy, right? After all, both his name ends in vowels.

Yet, do Mexican Americans even like Cubans, such as Sen. Rubio? (One of the hidden messages of Back to Blood is that Cubans don’t care at all about Mexicans.) Nobody seems to have checked.

Virginia is another interesting state. It’s an example of how the Republicans are beginning to shoot themselves in the foot with legal immigration. The Washington DC suburbs are home a large number of well-educated legal immigrants, and, it turns out, they like to vote Democratic. Even if they’re making a lot of money and it’s going to cost them in taxes, these legal immigrants just find the Democrats more to their taste.

Then there are what I call the Clean Green states such as Colorado (where Romney won 52 percent of whites), New Hampshire (48 percent), Oregon (48 percent), and Washington (46 percent). Amnesty isn’t going to win them those states.

There’s New Mexico, with its large Hispanic population, but once again the GOP lost there because they only won 52 percent of the white vote. New Mexico is interesting as a view into the future of Hispanicized America. Hispanics have been in the Upper Rio Grande Valley for 400 years, yet the state that does not attract many illegal immigrants. How come? Because there aren’t many jobs in New Mexico. Why not? Because it has been filled up with Hispanics for its entire history, and they don’t create a lot of jobs.

What about California? Surely, that’s a state where whites have been crushed under the rising tide of Hispanics? Actually, Romney only won 49 percent of the white vote there. Kind of hard for a Republican to win that way.

As we all know from having heard it over and over that Republicans were doing fine in California until they shot themselves in the foot with Proposition 187 in 1994. What they don’t tell you is that George H.W. Bush won less than 33 percent of the total vote in California in 1992, two years before Proposition 187. But who has time to fact-check The Narrative?

Nevada might be the closest thing to an example supporting the amnesty-uber-alles narrative. Romney won a mediocre but not terrible 57 percent of white votes there, but lost due to Hispanics (and Filipinos) voting heavily Democratic. Unfortunately, the Reuters-Ipsos poll only has a Nevada sample of 14 Hispanics, so we’re flying kind of blind here.

My impression of Nevada Hispanic voters is that the big issue for them is not amnesty, it’s that they were just hammered by the mortgage meltdown of 2007-2008. Nevada long led the country in foreclosures. Nevada Latinos were flying high during the Bush Bubble, but haven’t forgiven Republicans since for their defaulting. How amnesty will cure that for Republicans is a mystery.

Let’s briefly look at the national level. A one-word characterization of Mitt Romney’s campaign would be bloodless. He stressed serious, respectable issues involving entitlements and taxes. He avoided any mention of anything ungentlemanly. Unfortunately for Romney, he’s living in a time that our leading man of letters calls the age of Back to Blood.

In contrast, coming out of the 2010-midterm elections, Obama saw he had a real problem. The Obamamania of 2008 had carried him to a large victory over a wounded and already flawed Republican candidate. But how was he going to re-mobilize his base, which largely consists of the margins of American society, without the Hope and Change piffle of 2008?

The Obama base is, to be blunt, the fringes. The epitome of Romney’s base is the married white father, while the essence of Obama’s base is the single black mother. Obama’s base hadn’t bothered to show up to vote in 2010, so how was he going to motivate them in 2012? The former are a lot more likely to vote out of a sense of civic duty, while the latter need some emotional motivation.

Here’s a table of data I published on VDARE.com just after the election that clearly shows the Core v. Fringe distinction:

Reuters-Ipsos Exit Poll Romney’s Share Sample Size
Mormons 86 percent 766
Married white Prot. 74 percent 11,761
White Protestants 70 percent 15,732
Married white men 65 percent 7,001
Married whites 63 percent 24,176
Married white women 62 percent 17,175
White Catholics 57 percent 8,173
Whites 58 percent 34,446
Married men 58 percent 7,910
Marrieds 57 percent 27,106
Homeowners 55 percent 31,163
Married women 55 percent 19,196
Single white men 51 percent 3,383
Married other races 48 percent 958
Men 51 percent 12,002
All Voters (2 candidate) 48 percent 40,000
Single whites 48 percent 10,270
Women 47 percent 27,997
Single white women 44 percent 6,886
Other races 39 percent 1,642
Married Hispanics 35 percent 928
Single men 39 percent 4,092
Married Jewish men 40 percent 419
Hispanics 28 percent 1,584
Singles 35 percent 12,894
Renters 33 percent 8,835
Single Jewish men 30 percent 163
Married Jewish women 34 percent 652
Bisexuals 25 percent 616
“Other orientations” 31 percent 229
Single other races 28 percent 684
Single women 31 percent 8,801
Single Hispanics 21 percent 656
Hindus 23 percent 101
Single Jewish women 23 percent 328
Gays/lesbians 16 percent 976
Blacks 3 percent 2,087
Black single women 2 percent 925

At the top are Mormons at 86 percent for Romney. Now, obviously, Mormons are a minority, but they’re increasingly the only minority group in modern American that still tries to act like they’re part of the core.

Then come married white Protestants (74 percent), then white Protestants, married white men, married whites, married white women, white Catholics, whites, married men, marrieds of both sexes, homeowners, married women, single white men, married other races and men in general.

At the bottom are black single women at 2 percent for Romney. Then blacks, gays and lesbians, single Jewish women, Hindus, single Hispanics, single women, single other races, other orientations. I’m going to stop there. “Other orientations” comes from the sexual orientation question. They gave you four choices: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual; and for those who didn’t find those adequate, “other” was a choice. The Other Orientation folks went strongly for Obama.

Obviously, this turned into an election based on identity, on whether people felt themselves in the core of America or in the fringe of America. The core versus fringe can be defined in a couple of ways. For example, over multi-generational periods, do you come from people who settled this country a long time ago, or are you, say, an immigrant from Somalia who is now going to gift us with all the lessons that Somalis have developed over the eons on how to run a successful country?

Or, on a personal level, are you somebody who is married, has stayed married, has children, owns a home, and is employed? Or are you somebody who’s single, renting, who basically doesn’t find your life satisfactory and is looking for somebody to blame?

The way the Obama campaign turned out their base was to whip up feelings of resentment toward core Americans, toward those people whose ancestors had built the country, who largely keep it running today and who in their personal lives have done a pretty good job of keeping their act together.

Obama did a spectacular job of taking those two kinds of people from the fringe, and telling them that they should resent the white married people of America, the ones who own their homes, the ones whose grandparents helped make this country, and that there’s something shameful, unfair, or at least uncool, about coming from the core of America.

It was a brilliant strategy. Obama ran a really ugly, nasty campaign full of subliminal hatred. The Obama campaign did a good job keeping the stew of ill will they were brewing somewhat under wraps until after the votes were counted. But in the days following the election, out came pouring the chest-beating Suck-It-White-Boy exultation, the mindless fury at the losing white male bogeyman for being old and white, but, mostly, for losing.

The Republican Brain Trust now assumes that the way to solve this problem is via amnesty, just like their good friends the Democrats keep telling them. Amnesty, however, will be seen as white America’s surrender declaration, as an official invitation to kick the former top dogs while they’re down. And who can be expected to resist that?

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Screenshot 2016-09-16 01.45.01

Hillary Clinton and her affiliated media, such as The Economist (whose board includes Hillary’s great friend Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild), have gone to war against Pepe the Frog.

To be fair, the frog started it.

Still, why is the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party doing this?

Is it because during Hillary’s bizarre “alt-right” speech, some guy in the crowd shouted out “Pepe?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z30y78SQo14

I dunno.

One possibility is that Hillary remains locked into an obsession with fundraising, even though she probably has vastly more money than she could need compared to Trump.

Last Friday, for example, even after Hillary was supposedly diagnosed with pneumonia, she harangued an LGBT fundraiser at 55 Wall Street in the grandiose former home of the New York Stock Exchange about how a quarter of American voters belong in a “basket of deplorables.” This followed Barbra Streisand singing a funny update of Stephen Sondheim’s “Send In the Clowns” about Trump’s dubious net worth:

Is he that rich?
Maybe he’s poor?
‘Til he reveals his returns
Who can be sure?

Tickets for this fundraiser ranged from $1,200 to $250,000, with the $1,200 ducats immediately selling out a month ahead of time. The well-heeled audience found Streisand’s lyrics about Trump’s doubtful wealth to be hilarious.

After physically collapsing 36 hours later on 9/11/16, Hillary had to beg off flying to Hollywood for two more fundraisers:

2nd UPDATE, 7:19 PM: Suffering from pneumonia, Hillary Clinton will not be coming to Hollywood for fundraisers at Seth MacFarlane and Barry Diller’s homes, her campaign said tonight. No word on when or if the deep-pocket September 13 events will be rescheduled.

Why was Hillary ruining her health still pursuing rich gay donors, when she had a huge fundraising lead stockpiled (e.g., Goldman Sachs banned employees from donating to Trump) when she could be appealing to ordinary voters?

A few reasons seem apparent:

- First, Hillary really, really likes money. She is pretty obsessive about it. Back in the 1980s when she was First Lady of Arkansas, she used to declare on her and Bill’s joint tax returns that they had donated all of Bill’s used underwear to charity, itemizing Bill’s briefs at $1 or $2 each. When I read this in The American Spectator decades ago, I tried to be scandalized, but I ended up thinking, “Wow, Hillary’s really thorough. I bet Chelsea will appreciate the ample size of the estate she is left. I hope our kids forgive their parents for not being so diligent.”

Smug Pepe

- Second, Trump’s strategy is to use Free Media, despite its fervent hostility to him, to get his message out to the nation. Hillary’s natural strategy would be to spend heavily on advertising and get-out-the-vote drives in crucial Electoral College states such as Pennsylvania to thwart Trump’s appeal to the nation.

- Third, Hillary is the rare candidate who draws bigger crowds at four figure fundraisers than at free rallies. She seems to give ordinary Americans the creeps. So it’s more fun for Hillary to preen before a packed house of rich gay Wall Streeters than in some half-full depressing high school gym somewhere in the middle of nowhere.

Moreover, Hillary’s message is more fine-tuned to appeal to rich gay Wall Streeters than to average voters:

“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?,” she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. “Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”

So, then, what is the Democratic nominee’s jihad against the cartoon frog about?

President Harambe

(And will Hillary turn next against the dead gorilla?)

The Economist’s article “Pepe and the Stormtroopers” offers some clues:

That is why the term Alt (short for “alternative”) Right is misleading. Mr [Jared] Taylor—whom Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, a watchdog, describes as the movement’s “intellectual leader”—says it represents an alternative to “egalitarian orthodoxy and to neutered ‘conservatives’.” That characterisation elevates a racist fixation into a coherent platform. And, if the Alt-Right is not a viable political right, nor, in the scope of American history, is it really an alternative. Rather it is the latest iteration in an old, poisonous strain of American thought, albeit with new enemies, such as Muslims, enlisted alongside the old ones.

“Fifty years ago these people were burning crosses,” says Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League, a venerable anti-racist group. “Today they’re burning up Twitter.”

The SPLC and the ADL, of course, are world class fundraisers.

Their specialty is terrifying affluent elderly Jews into fearing that, unless they write big checks, the New Czar’s Cossacks will be riding again.

Perhaps Hillary figures that Pepe the Frog, in all his baffling inscrutability, can horrify semi-senile rich people in Shaker Heights into a final paroxysm of donating to the Clinton campaign to stop the new pogroms?

Smug Harambe

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2016 Election, Alt Right, Hillary Clinton 
🔊 Listen RSS

The first 2016 general election poll of September is also the first poll to show Trump beating Hillary. From May through July, Hillary was up by anywhere from 12 to 24 points over Trump. He’s now up by five points, continuing a trend in Trump’s direction in August:

Poll Date Sample MoE Clinton (D) Trump (R) Spread
RCP Average 8/11 – 9/3 45.8 43.4 Clinton +2.4
SurveyUSA 9/2 – 9/3 900 RV 3.3 40 45 Trump +5
PPP (D) 8/28 – 8/30 1254 RV 2.8 46 44 Clinton +2
Quinnipiac 8/20 – 8/25 1563 RV 2.5 45 41 Clinton +4
CNN/ORC 8/13 – 8/16 897 RV 3.5 51 45 Clinton +6
FOX News 8/11 – 8/13 1008 RV 3.0 47 42 Clinton +5

The demographics in this new SurveyUSA poll are interesting, although the sample sizes are small.

They are pretty much the opposite of the conventional wisdom. Relative to traditional Republican candidates, Trump is doing very well among blacks (down only 25-59) and Asians (leading 41-39) and doing reasonably well among Hispanics (down 31-50). Among whites, however, Trump is leading Hillary only 51-34, which might be a little under what would be expected for a Republican up 5 points.

Trump is winning heavily (54-36) among those who say they pay a lot of attention to politics, and is winning 48-40 among college graduates.

Trump’s strongest region is the Midwest, where he is up 49-31.

The news that Trump, who tends to strike hip-hop fans as having the kind of style that they’d want to have if they were a rich old white guy and whose positions on immigration and trade sound more likely to help black Americans earn a living than just about anybody else’s, is on track to win, say, 30% of the black vote will likely start to panic Democratic strategists, especially if it holds up in additional polls.

Expect to see a concerted effort to demonize Trump among blacks. Obama carried the Great Lakes Rust Belt (outside of Indiana) in 2012 by running up huge margins among blacks while the Romney-Ryan ticket kept whites in the region depressed and divided. A Republican who is strong in the upper Midwest is an Electoral College nightmare for the Democrats.

One thing that’s going on is that Trump is benefiting from the Revolt of the Comedians. Awhile ago, beloved elder statesman Jerry Seinfeld spoke up against comedy-killing campus conformity, citing his friend Chris Rock as support. Some people wondered why I wrote a Taki column recently quoting at length the somewhat obscure comedian Colin Quinn. But he’s an old friend of Seinfeld, Rock, and some other well-known comedy names, and I suspect Quinn articulates in public how a lot of comedians feel in private.

Trump is not himself hugely funny (except in a meta sense, in which he’s hilarious), but he exemplifies an American value that we feel slipping away: liberty. Americans used to say, “Well, it’s a free country.” They don’t anymore. The Statue of Liberty once stood for an American’s right to say what he felt was true. Now the Statue of Liberty has been repurposed as an icon of how Americans had better shut up about immigration and diversity.

Donald J. Trump is the living embodiment of the First Amendment.

On the other hand, there are a lot of foreign policy issues on which the President really shouldn’t mouth off. For example, the official stance of the United States government since February 1972 has been that China and Taiwan are one country that should be under one government; we just won’t say which one.

Granted, that’s ridiculous, but, at least so far it has worked. And therefore the President shouldn’t say it’s ridiculous even though everybody knows it is.

A low energy guy like Obama, who more or less was raised to be some kind of Foreign Service diplomat, is probably not going to tell an interviewer that of course China and Taiwan are separate countries: everybody knows that. But a President Trump might.

In contrast, domestic policy (e.g., immigration policy) should be far more of a free for all than it is under the current rules of what’s respectable. Obama’s diplomatic Blank Screen approach where nobody is supposed to get the joke about why we elected this guy President has been a slow-moving disaster. I suspect that deep down Obama feels bad about how his Administration has, in effect, agitated blacks to murder each other, all in the name of #BlackLivesMatter. But “personnel is policy” and a lot of Obama’s appointees, such as Eric Holder, have been too dim to figure out what they are doing to America.

When it comes to domestic policy, Congress and the courts have huge says, so the President using his bully pulpit is a good thing: the embodiment of democracy.

But much of foreign policy, perhaps too much, is handed over to the President under the guise of the National Security state. So the President has less freedom to spout off his opinion about whatever comes to his attention, such as, say, the division of Cyprus into Greek and Turkish spheres. Trump the Dealmaker might just be able to spitball aloud some wacky Cyprus innovation he dreamed up that actually improves that less-than-optimal but 4-decade long stable situation. But Trump the President could also destabilize it by sounding off about how everybody on the island would be better off if only they’d work out a deal and the U.S. wants change.

Did, say, Obama blow up the Arab world (with the present dire consequences) by going to Cairo in 2009 and making an ambiguous speech? Perhaps.

Trump has a little under a year and a half to grow into the job. It’s a challenge, but not impossible. Mostly, he needs to get across that he’s not going to upset settled foreign policy just for fun.

There are two sides to Trump:

- The no-publicity-is-bad-publicity-as-long-as-they-spell-”Trump”-right TV time hound

- The expert negotiator who plays his cards close to the vest

The good news is that Trump likely doesn’t care much about foreign policy, especially areas like Taiwan and Cyprus where sleeping dogs can probably be let lie a few years longer. Moreover as President, Trump would hardly be in pressing need of more publicity by stirring up unneeded foreign policy controversies beyond the ones in which he has a carefully decided upon strategy for making a deal on his terms.

 
🔊 Listen RSS
At The Passing Parade, David, an acerbic commenter on the Scots-Irish culture of his home state of Tennessee, offers an unusual perspective on Mitt Romney’s 47% comment:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney isn’t “dog-whistling” about race when he writes off 47% of the American electorate. Blacks are only 12% of the US population, not 47%. Much of the shortfall is white troops, teachers, vets, unemployed, students, retirees. This means Romney is bundling them with the fewer than 12% of people who are crack-dealers etc. who are on welfare. Finally, a Republican who doesn’t see race. 

Perhaps the GOP can stress that in campaign ads. “Lost your job? Received unemployment checks? Chances are, you’re white, but Mitt isn’t racist. He thinks YOU’RE scum, too.” 

Such an ad would probably play well in red states such as Tennessee, despite this state’s being a net taker of federal funds and much of its employment’s being government employment. 

Which leads your seldom blogger to his point. Don’t give up yet on Romney’s presidential bid. For American voters are as reliable as Pavlov’s dogs, if certain bells are rung. We all know that “strong defense” works, but “hard work” works even better. “Useless eaters” gives many a disabled vet a tingle. They will climb mountains and swim rivers to get to vote for more outsourcing, fewer government services, and higher taxes on themselves or their families. “I’m not a victim,” they will assert even as they take up residence in their American-flag-festooned cars and Mitt goes to China on a junket.

By the way, David has attempted to translate Benjamin Franklin’s crucial but difficult 1751 essay Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind into 21st Century English here. Seems like it needs a better opening paragraph, but it’s pretty useful after that. I wouldn’t mind seeing side-by-side versions, original and modernized.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: 2016 Election, Romney 
🔊 Listen RSS
What lessons should Republicans draw?

What lessons will Republicans draw?

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: 2016 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS
During the Democratic convention you heard from various commentators that the Democrats have a weak bench. My guess is, that’s intentional for two reasons:

- Obama’s vanity, insecurity, and lack of relationships with other politicians

- To set Hillary up in 2016. As we saw last week with Bill Clinton’s star turn, Obama needs the Clintons. That gives them leverage.

For example, whatever happened to Howard Dean, small-town doctor turned six-term governor of Vermont? As you’ll recall, Dean was the Democratic frontrunner for all of 2003 due to his opposition to the Iraq war, but when he finished 3rd in Iowa and gave his supporters a high school coach-style war whoop to keep them motivated, he was immediately discarded in favor of the big stiff John Kerry. As a consolation prize after Kerry lost, the Democrats made Dean chairman of the party for 2005-2009, where he did, by all accounts, an excellent job, bringing his campaign’s Internet sophistication to the party in the service of tying the liberal base to the Democratic brand and helping the Democrats win the House in 2006 and 2008.

To me, Dr. Dean looks like the natural leader of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. I suspect other people think so, too, which may be why he’s on the shelf.

Dean is currently 63, younger than Hillary and younger than Romney. As far as I can tell, he’s unemployed. (Or, maybe, he’s cashing in big time doing whatever it is ex-politicians do.) He was at the Democratic convention last week, giving loyal Go Team interviews, but the biggest speech he was asked to give was a talk to the Oregon delegation. 

My guess is that Dean’s unforgivable sin is that he was right about Iraq and Hillary was wrong.

Also, here’s 28 Sherman’s post on the many reasons Occupy Wall Street, despite a huge press push, was so much less effective than the Tea Party, which played a huge role in the GOP winning back the House in 2010.

One of many things the country needs is a better left. 28 Sherman implies that Dean would make an ideal public face for liberals trying to rein in Wall Street. A Yankee (with a Jewish wife) who grew up on Park Avenue because his father made good money on the Street sounds like somebody who would seem trustworthy when he’d say his mission was to reform Wall Street, not wreck it. But, nobody is too interested …

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: 2016 Election 
🔊 Listen RSS
The Des Moines Register reported on potential Presidential aspirations of Newark mayor Cory Booker and Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is the chairman of the Democratic convention:

Booker tried to connect with Iowa’s Democratic activists by saying his grandmother was born in Iowa. 

“I want to be described as a son of New Jersey, but a grandson of Iowa – because my grandmama back in 1918 was born in Des Moines, Iowa,” he said, acccording to Radio Iowa. 

Booker described trips through Iowa in a recreational vehicle, going to family reunions. His grandmother’s siblings got their college educations in Iowa, he said, as reporters from Politico, the Associated Press, NBC.com and others listened.
When reporters tried to catch him after his speech, he dodged – straight into his SUV, said Radio Iowa’s O. Kay Henderson.  …

Villaraigosa will be the keynote speaker for the Iowa Democratic Party’s big fundraiser on Oct. 20 – the Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner, Iowa Democratic Party Chairwoman Sue Dvorsky said. Prominent Democrats have historically used the JJ dinner as a spring board for competition in the Iowa caucuses. 

Villaraigosa deflected questions about his own presidential aspirations by saying he’s “looking to finish my job the way I started, with a bang. I’m working ’til 11:59:59 on June 30 and then I’m riding into the sunset for a while.”

And from Yahoo News:

Is Antonio Villaraigosa poised to be America’s first Latino president?

I don’t know, do Presidents get free Lakers tickets? If not, I don’t really see what’s in it for him.

In case you are wondering, the picture of Booker illustrates the following article in Politico:

Cory Booker loves late-night mani-pedis 

It’s 3 a.m., do you know where Newark Mayor Cory Booker is? Possibly getting a mani-pedi. The rising Democratic star dishes in the September issue of Dujour magazine about one of his guilty pleasures: getting his nails done late at night. 

“I had an ex-girlfriend who ruined me in terms of my macho, ex-football-player self—she turned me on to mani-pedis,” he said. “Being a public figure, people talk smack about you, so I found this 24-hour mani-pedi place and go in the middle of the night. It’s this guilty pleasure I have. Look, manis are good, but pedis—there’s something…transformative.” 

Booker also talked about gaining weight recently: “I’m literally at my worst health right now; you can write that,” he said. “I crossed a barrier that I’d never crossed before—a certain weight—which I won’t even tell you ’cause it’s embarrassing. I was so grossly overweight, which is total hypocrisy because I’m Michelle Obama’s co-vice chair for the campaign against obesity.” 

So, is it going to be Hillary v. Andrew Cuomo in 2016? A reader writes that with the spread of high-def TV, Hillary’s going to need Barbara Walter’s vaseline covered lens by then: “My filter, please.” She looked fine in 2008, a good facelift.

Cuomo’s resemblance to Moe the Bartender on the Simpsons will also likely only grow over the next four years.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
• Tags: 2016 Election 
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?