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

 Remember My Information

Topics/Categories Filter?
Black Community Blogosphere Clintons Crime Cultural Marxism Culture/Society Culture War Death Of The West Demographics Donald Trump Economics Education Entertainment For Fun Future Gender GSS Hbd Health History Homosexuality Human Biodiversity Ideology Immigration IQ Islam Jews Love And Marriage Media Media Bias Politics Polling Presidential Race '08 Presidential Race '16 Race Race/Ethnicity Religion Science Self Indulgence Sex Technical Considerations The States Western Decline Western Revival White Man's Burden 1984 2018 Election 2020 Election Abortion Academia ACLU ACS Addiction Advertising Affirmative Action Africa Afterlife Age Albion's Seed Alienation Alt Right America First American Dream American Indians Anarcho-tyranny Animals Ann Coulter Anti-white Animus Antifa Arts/Letters Asians Balkanization Barbarism Beauty Because We Live Here Bernie Sanders Beta O'Rourke Bill Of Rights Biological Imperative Bizarro World Blacks Blank Slatism Boredom Branding Brexit Build The Wall Bush Family Business CAGW California Californication Capitalism Careers Catastrophe Charity Charles Murray Chicago Children China Christianity CIA Factbook Civics Clash Of Civilizations Class Climate Climate Change Clinton Coalition Of The Fringes Communism Community Conspiracy Consumerism Corporatocracy Correction Corruption COTW Crimethink Cruelty Cuckservatism Cuckservative Cultural Criticism Culturalism Marxism Culture Curmudgeonry Cynicism Dark Enlightenment Death Decadence Decline And Fall Deep State Degeneracy Democracy Demograhics Diet Discrimination Dissdence Dissidence Domestic Policy Dorkiness On Display Double Standards Drug Use Dystopia East Asia Economy Election 1992 Election 2000 Election 2004 Election 2006 Election 2008 Election 2010 Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Election 2017 Election 2018 Election 2020 Emotion End Of Nationhood? Enemy Within Energy Environment Equality Ethics And Morals Ethnic Cleansing Ethnicity Ethnomasochism Eugenics Europe Evolution Existentialism Faggotry FairTax Fake News Fallacy Family Fashion Fauxcahontas Fecundity Feminism Feminization Fertility Flight From White Food Foreign Aid Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Fraud Free Market Free Speech Free Will Freedom Frivolty Game Gen Z Generational Gap Genetics Genocide Geography God GOPe Government Government Overreach Government Waste Guns Happiness Health Care Healthcare Height Help Heritage America Hispanics Homelessness Human Condition Humor Hunting Hysteria Ideas Identity Idiocracy Immigration Disease Imperialism Inanity Income India Intelligence International Internet Iraq Isms And Ists Israel It's Not Okay To Be White It's Okay To Be White Jared Taylor Jewishness Jill Stein Justice Kamala Harris Kamala On Her Knees Kids Kris Kobach Labor Language Latin America Law Leadership Libertarianism Libertine Lifestyle Literature Local Localism Love & Marriage MAGA Marriage Masculinity Math Medicine Melancholy Memory Men Mendacity Merciless Indian Savages Merciless Savages Mexico Middle East Millennials Milo Yiannopoulos Mindset Minimum Wage Miscegenation Miscellaneous Money Moral Dimensions Morality Mormons Motivational Multiculturalism Music Musing NAEP Namingways NAMs National Question National Security Nationalism Nature Neoteny Nietzsche Nostalgia NPCs Nuclear War Numbers Obama Obama Presidency Onomastics Original Memes Orwellian Language Outdoors Pakistan Parenting Parody Parody And Satire Pathological Altruism Peace Pence Personal Personal Politics Personal Responsibility Personal Use Personality Pets Pew Philosophy POC Ascendancy Polemics Police Policy Political Correctness Political Dissolution Political Prevarication Politicians Population Populism Pornography Poverty Prediction Presidential Race '00 Presidential Race '04 Presidential Race '12 Presidential Race '20 Presidential Race '92 Privacy Private Property Procreation Propaganda Propaganda. Politics Prostitution Psychology Public Policy Purpose Quality Of Life Racialism Racism Radio Rand Paul Reality Bites Recreation Relationships Republican Party Reuters Rhetoric Rise Of The East Ritual And Tradition Rome Ron Paul Ruminations Russia Same-sex Marriage Secession Sedition Seeking Happiness Self Improvement Separationism Sexuality SJWs Slavery Sleep Social Media Socialism Society Sovereignty Speculation Speech Sports Stacey Abrams Start The World Statism Stephen Miller Stereotypes Steve Sailer Stoicism Stupid Party Supernatural Tabloids Take Action Taxation Tea Party Technology Ted Cruz Terrorism The Cathedral The Constitution The Family The Fisc The God That Failed The Great Awokening The Human Race? The Middle East The Poz The South Trade Tranzis Trends Tribalism Trump Trust Tyranny UN US Census US Military US Regionalism Victimization Violence Virtual World Vulgarity Wakanda War War With Iran? Wealth Wealth Inequality Weapons Weather Weight Welfare Wester Revival Western Revivial White White Decline White Flight White Nationalism Whiteness Whiterpeople Whites Wikileaks Work WVS Xenophilia
Nothing found
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog

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
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
🔊 Listen RSS

COTW comes from 216 in response to MikeatMikedotMike on a question I often find myself pondering–does the quotidian degeneracy of the contemporary Western world have to bust through institutions and organizations standing in opposition to it like a battering ram against a fortified gate, or does it merely lean up against rotted wooden planks and casually walk inside?

There is also a subversive political and cultural force working to reduce fertility in the US and the West in general.

Most would say that East Asia is less effected by this subversion, yet their fertility rates are even lower. Even Iran has sub-replacement fertility, and the very purpose of the Iranian government is to prevent Westoxification.

The propaganda just isn’t as effective as we think it is. Westerners are constantly bombarded with ideal sexualized imagery, but are more obese than ever. A far larger share of voters express nationalist sentiments, but don’t vote for nationalist parties.

Psychology aside, it’s never been easier to achieve peak physical condition than it is today–equipment, trainers, 24/7 gyms, supplements, food variety and availability, climate control for optimal sleep hygiene, etc and yet most people today are the fattest, least physically capable people that have ever been. That’s because psychology can’t be put aside. People know what they want, know what they have to do to get it, but won’t do it.

Regarding fertility, while America’s realized fertility has steadily declined, her ideal fertility has not. Since the GSS’ inception, the survey has asked respondents how many children a family should have. The ideal average number of children, by decade:

1970s — 2.69
1980s — 2.58
1990s — 2.46
2000s — 2.50
2010s — 2.58

After hitting an all time low in the mid-seventies, realized American fertility rebounded modestly through the nineties and oughts, but set new record lows at the end of the teens. There is no sign the decline will be arrested anytime soon. During the last fifty years, then, when ideal fertility was consistently above replacement, realized fertility was below it.

Reason views this as a cause for celebration:

Hooray! U.S. Fertility Rate Falls to 40-Year Low
Exercising reproductive freedom is a good thing.

The U.S. fertility rate has fallen to a 40-year low, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Back in 2014, I pointed out the strong correlation between women pursuing higher education and falling fertility rates. American women today earn around 60 percent of all college degrees. By age 31, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, almost 36 percent of women hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with 28 percent of men. The Census Bureau notes that women with college degrees tend to have fewer children. That’s why I concluded that the U.S. TFR probably would never again rise above the replacement rate.

Because time and money are limited, more Americans are exercising their reproductive freedom, making the tradeoff between having more children and pursuing the satisfactions of career, travel, and lifestyle. That’s a good thing.

Disclosure: My wife and I try not to flaunt our voluntarily child-free lifestyles.

The most profound thing president Trump has said during his tenure as chief executive is “the fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive”.

GSS variables used: YEAR, CHLDIDEL(0-7)

• Tags: COTW 
🔊 Listen RSS

The following results are unsurprising, especially upon realizing that “others” includes American Indians. As Steve Sailer has noted, the white man and the red man are increasingly behaving like defeated peoples, their existences characterized by rising rates of depression, directionless, substance abuse, and suicide.

Percentages who deem doctor-assisted suicide to be “morally acceptable”, by race:

Nothing happens to any man that he is not fitted by nature to bear. We get a hundred years to live if we’re lucky. Find joy in them. You have until the end of time to be dead.

If you’re going to take the easy way out, though, you may as well enlist the aid of a physician. It’s less messy than a bullet to the brain.

• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Death, Polling 
🔊 Listen RSS

In early 2017, YouGov asked about various forms of speech they thought “people should be able to talk about in public”. Five controversial subjects were evaluated–personal criticisms of the president, calls for violence, sexually explicit language, racial slurs, and religiously offensive remarks.

The following graph shows the percentages, by selected demographics, who asserted that none of these things should be permitted in public. These are people who, if they don’t want free speech snuffed out entirely, want it relegated to basements and boiler rooms:

Free speech, besides being necessary to facilitate the accumulation of knowledge–which we know to be good–is also a rhetorically profitable way of appealing to the better angels of SWPL nature.

Young, affluent, liberal white and Asian men–Silicon Valley check?–are, at least abstractly, the most resistant to the concept of silencing unpopular opinions. This discomfort is a virtue to be celebrated. To kill open expression is to murder that which has set us free:

• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Freedom, Polling, Speech 
🔊 Listen RSS

Or how over-policing is a problem over there, but not over here. Congress is bad but my congress critter is good. The police state is bad but don’t take the police out of my state.

From YouGov back in 2017, percentages who would “prefer to see in your local area” “a larger police presence”, “no change”, or “a smaller police presence”, by selected demographics. “Don’t know” responses, constituting 11% of the total, are excluded:

Anarcho-X has few friends. Order precedes liberty, especially where population densities are high. De-policing kills.

• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology 
🔊 Listen RSS

The following graphs compare the last YouGov poll taken on the eve of the 2016 election with the most recent YouGov poll in mid-January of 2020 by race. One major distinction, of course, is that the 2020 Democrat candidate has yet to be determined. We are thus making a Clintons-to-Generics comparison.

From a Trumpian perspective, things appear woeful among whites:

Better among blacks:

Happier among Hispanics:

And astonishing among others:

Trump’s point gain (loss) in 2020 relative to 2016, by race:

Seeing is believing, sure. These are merely polling prognostications. But the potential wrenches they throw in both conventional and contrarian narratives is fascinating.

🔊 Listen RSS

President Trump has focused the Republican electorate on immigration and re-calibrated its views on trade. When it comes to war, however, it looks like they still want more. The following graph is constructed using data from YouGov’s latest release. “Not sure” responses, constituting 22% of the total, are excluded:

Though it seems redundant at first blush, responses by both partisan affiliation and 2016 presidential vote are included to show that Trump voters actually express more bellicosity than self-identified Republicans do. Bill Kristol wept and so do I.

This spark didn’t catch, but the next one might. Iranian aggression, in this context, involves retaliation for assassinations against a force we’ve spent most of the last 17 years essentially on the same side as. Iraq is safe for Shiite retaliation today because we toppled the Baathists and reduced Sunnis to the status of enfeebled minority more than a decade ago. When we allowed Sunnis to breath again, ISIS was born. We then spent several subsequent years fighting alongside Solemani’s forces to destroy the caliphate we facilitated the creation of:

If American forces weren’t camped next door, there would be no Iranian aggression to confront.

We need more than just an end to the forever wars. We need to end the conditions that create more of them. Bring the troops home.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: International, Polling, War 
🔊 Listen RSS

The following table, created from results of Democrat primary survey data in the most recent Quinnipiac poll, shows the correlation in relative support by demographic group between the top seven candidates. The demographic categories considered are political orientation (very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate/conservative), sex (men, women), race (white, black), age (18-29, 30-44, 45-64, 65+) and annual income (less than $50k, $50k-$100k, over $100k). Positive correlations indicate similar demographic support profiles, negative correlations indicate dissimilar ones:

To make the information easier to digest, here is how the rest of the field compares to each candidate, from most similar to least similar.


1) Bloomberg
2) Klobuchar
3) Buttigieg
4) Warren
5) Sanders
6) Yang


1) Yang
2) Warren
3) Buttigieg
4) Bloomberg
5) Biden
6) Klobuchar


1) Yang
2) Sanders
3) Klobuchar
4) Buttigieg
5) Biden
6) Bloomberg


1) Bloomberg
2) Buttigieg
3) Biden
4) Warren
5) Yang
6) Sanders


1) Klobuchar
2) Yang
3) Bloomberg
4) Sanders
5) Warren
6) Biden


1) Sanders
2) Warren
3) Buttigieg
4) Bloomberg
5) Klobuchar
6) Biden


1) Biden
2) Klobuchar
3) Buttigieg
4) Yang
5) Sanders
6) Warren

Pairing the top three candidates up with the one most dissimilar to him/herself for a potential full ticket, with the more popular one at the top, yields the following:


A Warren/Bloomberg ticket is implausible, but the other two are quite conceivable. Though I’m still eating Harris Crow leftovers, I’ll go ahead and audaciously predict a Biden/Yang nomination now.

On the other side of things, the most demographically similar candidates stand to gain the lion’s share from said similar candidates dropping out. The progressive cannibalization from Sanders and Warren is the most salient illustration of this. Less often discussed but potentially critical in ending the nominating process in a brokered convention instead of giving it to Biden is Bloomberg’s attempt to garner high single-digit support by buying the airwaves. If Bloomberg’s primary (heh) concern is keeping the nomination away from Warren and especially Sanders, it seems as likely to backfire as it is to succeed. The voters Bloomberg buys will mostly come at Biden’s expense.

Parenthetically, the poll also shows the percentages of likely primary/caucus voters who say they’ve made up their minds on who they are going to vote for and who say they may yet change their minds before primary/caucus day. The figures have remained remarkably steady over the last several months. In September of last year, 34% had decided and 63% remained up in the air. Today, 35% say they have decided while 63% remain up in the air. The last several months of debates and campaigning have done little more than winnow away the weakest candidates.

It remains to be seen whether or not Iowa and New Hampshire provide enough anti-Biden momentum to sink him in Nevada and South Carolina, but it’s safe to expect little change between now and the Iowa caucus in three weeks.

• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Election 2020 
🔊 Listen RSS

COTW from JohnnyWalker123:

America (and probably even more so Canada) are becoming increasingly expensive, competitive, and anti-social. That has all sorts of interesting implications.

Imagine a society full of young people working long hours for low wages, deep in debt, living in tiny apartments/pods (or with parents), eating vegan, “socializing” through a smartphone, afraid of being accused of sexual harassment, staring at a screen for most of the day, and immersed in a pro-gay/lesbian/trans culture.

It’s not an environment conducive towards getting pregnant.

It doesn’t require much in the way of imagination anymore.

It is an environment conducive for electing a Democratic Socialist. though. Throw in the coming siege of the sexbots and pregnancy won’t stand a chance:

And another perfectly succinct one from SFG:

A conservative’s idea of a white supremacist is a guy with Nazi tattoos who lives in a compound by himself and stockpiles guns for the coming race war he intends to start. A liberal’s idea is a white person who doesn’t hate himself.

The latter sentence would have sounded hyperbolic even five years ago. Today, it almost sounds too tame–even whites who are ashamed of and hate themselves must be made to understand how they unwillingly work to uphold white supremacy anyway. We’re awfully close to having to drop the “who doesn’t hate himself” part.

• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: COTW 
🔊 Listen RSS

That people overwhelmingly think the general election candidate they support is going to be the one who wins the presidency raises some interesting questions, as Hypnotoad666 notes:

1. Do people support candidate X because they believe he will win, or do they convince themselves he will win because they support him?

2. Do people think candidate X is objectively best and assume others have to be able to see this as well?

3. Do people think candidate X will win because once they start to like him they only seek out bias confirming information?

4. Do people think candidate X will win because in their peer group everyone else supports candidate X, so they can’t imagine who could be voting for the other guy? (E.g., Pauline Kael’s semi-apocryphal quote: “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”)

It also sheds light on other aspects of American democracy, like why third parties are perpetually hopeless and why ‘momentum’ is a real thing.

Though the phenomenon doesn’t appear to be as strong* at the congressional level as it is at the presidential level, most people think they’ll be on the winning team, even when the odds say they’re wrong. Percentages, by partisan affiliation, who think Democrats will take control of the Senate in the 2020 elections (the current market probability of this happening is 30%):

Percentages, by partisan affiliation, who think Republicans will take control of the House in the 2020 elections (the current market probability of this happening is also 30%):

* Voters are more likely to vote outside of their party affiliation at the congressional level than they are at the presidential level, so the minority of Democrats who think Republicans will win and the minority of Republicans who think Democrats will win presumably comprise a not insubstantial number of each who will be voting against their parties at the congressional level in November.

• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology • Tags: Election 2020, Polling 
🔊 Listen RSS

The most recent YouGov poll includes a battery of questions concerning what types of behavior are perceived as constituting sexual harassment. All queried situations involve behaviors by men directed towards women who are not friends or romantic partners. They range from a man asking a woman out for a drink on the low end to a man exposing his genitals to a woman on the high end.

The following graph shows sexual harassment sensitivity scores* by various demographic characteristics. The higher the score, the more likely the group is to perceive a behavior as constituting sexual harassment:

The largest gap is partisan, followed closely by sex. Differences by age and race are modest, though non-whites and younger people (who trend more Democrat) are moderately less likely than whites and older people (who trend more Republican) to perceive behaviors indicating potential romantic interest as sexual harassment. This is in spite of the fact that Democrats are considerably more likely to judge behaviors as harassing than Republicans are.

Though cross-tabs are not available, we can reasonably deduce from this that white Democrat boomer women are the most likely of all to perceive expressions of interest as constituting sexual harassment.

Parenthetically, the gap between men and women is widest on a question that asks if “a man looking at a woman’s breasts” constitutes sexual harassment. Some 35% of women assess this behavior as “always sexual harassment”, compared to 16% of men who do the same. I suspect that something approaching 100% of heterosexual men look at breasts at some point during the course of any given day. In contemporary American society, then, around one-in-three women assume the average man they come across is a sexual harasser, at least subconsciously.

Since empirically assessing the validity (or lack thereof) of stereotypes is the blog’s raison d’etre, we’d be remiss not to point that while older women are modestly more likely than younger women to report having ever been sexually harassed, women aged 18-29 are five times more likely to report having been sexually harassed in the last five years than women aged 65 and older and twice as likely to have been sexually harassed as women aged 45-64. It seems men are more sexually aroused by young women than they are by post-menopausal matrons. It seems, too, then, that men are disgusting pigs!

* (1.5*always sexual harassment)+(0.5*usually sexual harassment)-(0.5*usually not sexual harassment)-(1.5*never sexual harassment)-20

• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Gender, Polling, Sex 
🔊 Listen RSS

Is what the vast majority of people convince themselves they are doing. A winner not merely in some abstract principled sense, but the person who is actually going to win the election. Who Americans think will win the 2020 presidential election:

Looks strikingly similar to who Americans plan to vote for in November. In fact, the correlation by demographic category between those who think the Democrat will win and who plan to vote for the Democrat is an almost perfect .97. The correlation between those who think Trump will win and who plan on voting for Trump, at .93, is nearly as perfectly correspondent.

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Election 2020, Polling 
🔊 Listen RSS

There are politicians who do not want to invite the world but who do want to invade the world. We call them conservatives.

There are politicians who want to invite the world but who do not want to invade the world. We call them liberals.

There are politicians who want to invite the world and want to invade the world. We call them moderates.

There are no politicians who do not want to invite the world nor want to invade the world. If there were, though, we’d call them racists.

• Category: Culture/Society, Foreign Policy • Tags: Death of the West 
🔊 Listen RSS

Talha, in reaction to changes over time among whites and by partisan affiliation for the favoring of close relatives marrying whites:

How do other ethnicities/races compare? 🤔

That would show whether whites are less or more in-group conscious vis-a-vis other folks.

The sample sizes are too small to break out non-white groups by year, so the following graph shows the percentages of people who favor and who oppose a close relative marrying a member of the respondent’s own race from 2012 through 2018 (note the restricted y-axis range, starting at 40% and ending at 80%):

Thus 51.0% of whites favor a close relative marrying a white person, 2.4% oppose, and the residual 46.6% (not shown) neither favor nor oppose it; 58.4% of blacks favor a close relative marrying a black person, 2.5% oppose, etc.

GSS variables used: MARWHT(1-2)(3-5), MARBLK(1-2)(3-5), MARHISP(1-2)(3-5), MARASIAN(1-2)(3-5), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), HISPANIC(1)(2-50), YEAR(2012-2018)

🔊 Listen RSS

If at first you don’t succeed, try try again:

CNN on Tuesday settled a defamation lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann over its botched coverage of a viral confrontation with a Native American elder that had portrayed the Kentucky teen as the aggressor.

Fox 19 first reported that CNN settled with Sandmann for an undisclosed amount. The $250 million defamation suit sought damages for the “emotional distress Nicholas and his family suffered” in the fallout of the network’s reporting.

A lawyer for Sandmann declined to comment on the settlement but confirmed to Fox News that lawsuits against The Washington Post and NBC were ongoing. Fox 19 also reported that Sandmann attorney L. Lin Wood told the judge they planned to sue media company Gannett, the publisher of the Cincinnati Enquirer among other newspapers, within 60 days. Gannett did not immediately comment either.

There is presumably a non-disclosure agreement in play that will keep the settled amount private. If it’s merely 2% of what Sandmann’s family asked for, Nick is set for life.

This is the dissident’s answer to virtual mobbing, canceling, and doxing. This is especially true for private persons as they are accorded greater protection under the law than public figures are. The targeted harassment involved in these things invariably includes threats of violence and often even death from scores of drive-bys. Given the nature of the harassment, the threats are often specific and potentially actionable.

To those who know someone or who are themselves at the center of such a firestorm, document everything. Screen shots, video recording, URL capture–everything. This renders the source(s) initiating the harassment potentially liable for enormous damages.

Going to trial means discovery. There is nothing corporate media and the journalists and reporters in their employ want less than for wronged parties to be able to sift through all their DMs, emails, text messages, etc. And so, like CNN, many will settle.

• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Media bias 
🔊 Listen RSS

Here’s another example of modern conservatism being little more than liberalism from ten–or in this case, six–years ago. The following graph shows the percentages of non-Hispanic whites, by partisan affiliation, who said they either “strongly favor” or “favor” a “close relative marrying a white person” over time:

The arrested decline among white Democrats since the onset of The Great Awokening is interesting. Though I’ve not heard it expressed among white leftists and it currently has no purchase in corporate media, I wonder if whites marrying non-whites will at some point be seen as a sort of cultural appropriation or even cultural imperialism whites will be shamed for doing. It sounds crazy, but the same force has been working against international adoptions, cross-cultural fashion, and gentrification. Imitation has gone from being the sincerest form of flattery to being deplorably racist and insulting.

That half of white America still openly–at least openly enough to tell someone conducting a public survey–expresses a preference for bringing on extended family members with whom they have a broadly shared racial and cultural identity rather than those they do not is surprising. Most of the residual responses are “neither favor nor oppose”–vanishingly few whites, just 2.1% of all whites from 2000 to 2018, “oppose” or “strongly oppose” a white relative marrying another white person.

GSS variables used: MARWHT(1-2)(3-5), RACECEN1(1), HISPANIC(1), YEAR, PARTYID(0-1)(2-4)(5-6)

🔊 Listen RSS

Why did Bernie Sanders win New Hampshire in 2016 and why is he favored to do so again in 2020?

The primary (heh) reason is because unlike Iowa and–crucially for Biden’s chances–Nevada, New Hampshire is effectively an open primary. Participating voters must be registered Democrats when they cast their votes, but they are allowed to register or change their party registration the day of at the polling stations.

Sanders does best among unaffiliated voters:

These independents make up around 20% of the total votes cast through the primaries but 40% of those cast in New Hampshire.

🔊 Listen RSS

COTW is originally from SSC but made it’s way here via Anatoly Karlin, the silver standard in journalism on human intelligence. Scott Alexander wrote this in the Fall of 2016:

One more warning for conservatives who still aren’t convinced. If the next generation is radicalized by Trump being a bad president, they’re not just going to lean left. They’re going to lean regressive, totalitarian, super-social-justice left.

Everyone has already constructed the narrative: Trump is the anti-PC, anti-social-justice candidate. If he wins, he’s going to be the anti-PC, anti-social-justice President. And he will fail. First of all, because he doesn’t really show much sign of knowing what he’s doing. Second of all, because all presidents fail in a sense – 80% of Americans consistently believe the country is headed the wrong direction and the president is the natural fall guy for this trend. And third of all, because even if by some miracle Trump avoids the first two failure modes, the media will say he failed and people will believe them. And when the anti-PC, anti-social-justice President fails, the reaction will be a giant “we told you so” from the social justice movement, and a giant shift of all the disillusioned young people right into their fold.

Trump is all set to be the biggest gift to the social justice movement in history. They thrive on claims of persecution, claims that they’re the ones fighting a stupid hateful regressive culture that controls everything. And people think that bringing their straw man to life and putting him in the Oval Office is going to help?

Maybe. From someone who spends an inordinate amount of time combing through surveys and polling, though, there is a glaring problem–the Great Awokening began years before Trump announced his candidacy, let alone won the presidency. It’s detectable in the GSS in 2012 and definitely by 2014. Did Trump send SJWs into high tension mode or was he made possible by it?

Trump also thrives on claims of persecution. Almost uniquely among Republicans, he instinctively understands that we are in neither an honor culture nor a dignity culture. We are in a victim culture. “So unfair!”, “Presidential harassment!”, “Witch hunt!”. Wokeists claim they’re being persecuted, but so does Trump–and it works.

At some point very soon, those on the right will have to start responding to accusations of racism, etc not with impotent denials or lame accusations about how it’s really the Democrats who are racist against non-whites, but by firing back that the left hates white people. There are fairly mainstream black figures who’ve been quite successful doing this–Candace Owens, Jesse Lee Peterson, Jon Miller–and mainstream white conservatives will start doing the same.

• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: COTW, Donald Trump, Election 2020 
🔊 Listen RSS

Hey, hey, I don’t give a good damn, I’m just pointing it out, bigot! I do facts, not feelings, okay? You got that, you garbage human beings?! I’m done talking now. Can’t you see I’m with my family?

• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Culture 
🔊 Listen RSS

From YouGov’s latest, the demographic distribution of primary voter support among the top tier candidates follows.

By sex:

Though Biden is likely Trump’s toughest matchup, there is something satisfying about how his candidacy’s continued apparent success is a thumb in the eye of the Wokeists. He continues to maintain a wide lead in the national polls because of his strong black support. More specifically, he continues to lead because of his strong black female support. More specifically still, because of his strong elderly black female support (cue Charles Pewitt referencing a beloved Quaker Oats icon).

Non-whites aren’t supposed to go for the old white racist and women aren’t supposed to go for the handsy old white pervert, yet here we are.

By race:

Biden also does well among Hispanics. While his Carolinian firewall is acknowledged, his consistent lead in Nevada doesn’t receive much attention, but it precedes South Carolina. If Biden wins Nevada, he’ll dominate South Carolina and the race will effectively be over. If Sanders goes three for three, on the other hand, South Carolina will be Biden’s last stand.

By age cohort:

Sanders’ weak support among older voters is a real challenge for his candidacy. It helps generate organic social media enthusiasm and large campaign crowds, but a voter base that skews youthful is electorally suboptimal. Ask Ron Paul who, despite plenty of organic enthusiasm and big crowds, could not win a single state primary in either 2008 or 2012. In his ode to malarkey, Biden is forsaking the whippersnappers and instead doubling down on the electorally reliable senescent.

By income:

Warren is the bourgeoisie version of Sanders, the safe progressive for those with more money and more status than the Bernie bros.

• Category: Culture/Society, Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Election 2020 
🔊 Listen RSS

Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria were costly blunders. They cost America lots of men, money, and prestige. A war with Iran could cost the US more of all of these things than the other elective regime change wars did. Iran has many more people and is much larger than the other theaters are:

The US won’t be fighting against a Sunni or Alawite minority, either. It will be fighting against a Shia majority while presumably continuing to simultaneously occupy another Shia-majority, Iranian-friendly Iraq.

Donald Trump was not elected to extend forever wars, he was elected to end them.

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Donald Trump, Middle East, War