The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Electoral Who? Whom?
🔊 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
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

Remember when having misgivings about the results of an American election was the mark of a dangerous lunatic?

From a recent YouGov survey, the percentages of respondents who have only a little or no confidence at all in the legitimacy of the outcome of the 2020 US presidential election, with respondents who were either “not sure” or did not plan to vote–together comprising 20% of the total survey sample–excluded:

Post-Epstein, everyone is a conspiracist. I guess that means everyone is a racist as well, since there is no spelling “conspiracist” without “racist”.

Incidentally, I’d include myself among these distrustful cohorts, albeit for reasons exactly opposite those of most of these distrustful people.

The Establishment made an enormous mistake by failing to rig the vote count enough in 2016. There wouldn’t have been any real pushback irrespective of how clumsily heavy-handed the effort had been (remember Detroit? No one else does). It certainly would not have hurt the Establishment’s credibility as much as the Russia Hoax did. The Supreme Court, today the only elite institution left standing in the way of progressive totalitarianism, would have been firmly in the Establishment’s control. The door would have been forever closed on the presence of Republicans in the White House.

That vote-counting is a state function means actually rigging the results isn’t as easy as fabricating a lie about how the Russians rigged them is. This is why so many blue states are now pushing to circumvent the Electoral College. Pledge your state’s EC votes to the winner of the national popular vote, watch California manufacture an infinity-billion Democrat ballots, and control the White House forever. Nebraskans simply don’t have it in them to compete with the corruption of big blue cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York.

• Category: Culture/Society • Tags: Donald Trump, Election 2020 
Hide 43 CommentsLeave a Comment
43 Comments to "Electoral Who? Whom?"
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. 216 says: • Website

    GOP High-Trust legacy Boomers

    Conservatives are not mentally equipped for Third World politics.

  2. Thomm says:

    The door would have been forever closed on the presence of Republicans in the White House.

    1) Most Republicans pre-Trump were uniparty RINOs. Many still are (and are ‘NeverTrump’).
    2) Once Democrats have unassailable power, they will fracture into two since the coalition they have now will no longer hold. Hence, only the political center of all positions matters. Not the change in party names.

  3. Look, the very much larger issue:

    The Democratic Party is nullifying the votes of millions of Working Class Native Born White Americans….

    And the Democratic Party has been very open about how they have been doing this since 2000:Importing millions of nonwhite LEGAL IMMIGRANTS….

    The Scale of the nullification of the Native White Vote:NONWHITE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS+THE NONWHITE US BORN GENELINE of nonwhite Legal Immigrants…..The Scale of Nullification is Monumental…….THE GREAT REPLACEMENT IS VERY REAL….VERY REAL….

  4. The National Popular Vote Compact (NPVC) you refer to isn’t about to become law anytime soon. Per an article I recently read from the Harvard Law Review it raises many serious constitutional issues. Voters in a red state, for example, will not be very happy to see their votes nullified by their own state legislators if the democrat wins the popular vote. They will take it to state courts (and I think some already have), where NPVC will be either struck down entirely or be tied up in court for years. We are supposed to be a Republic with States Rights, after all, not a totalitarian democracy where California, by hook or crook, will decide every presidential election in favor of the dumbocrats.

    • Agree: Sbaker
    • Replies: @Marty T
  5. pae says: • Website

    @audaciousepigone: It’s been a while since you’ve blogged about the 2020 Dem. primaries, what are your thoughts?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  6. Thanks to AE I now see that:

    There is no spelling ‘conspiracist’ without ‘racist’


    “You know, comrades,” says Stalin, “that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this – who will count the votes, and how!”

    – Joseph Stalin, quoted in ‘Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary’ (1992), by Boris Bazhanov (the apparently authentic version of the common Stalin quote)

  7. @216

    Thus the necessity of separating from our third-world population.

  8. Abolishing the winner take all system of the EC is good. Right now the EC serves the interest of Florida not rural Arkansas or Nebraska

    A lot of the electoral reform the Democrats mention would be disastrous, the electoral college is designed to prevent states to band together to decide a close popular election and thus destabilization issues

    The US electorate is actually quite right-wing compared to most other developed countries for a lot of long-term political economy reasons. Leftists misattribute this the two party system, but US policy would be more right-wing if we had PR or STV.

    Politics in American cities is largely driven by racial group cleavages, and voting in urban elections is polarized along racial lines. Several cities have implemented a relatively new reform to urban elections called ranked-choice voting (RCV), which eliminates the plurality run-off election by giving voters the option to rank-order several vote preferences. This article examines whether the expanded preference choices associated with ranked-choice voting reduce the level of racially polarized voting in mayoral elections. In the first stage of analysis, precinct-level election results from Oakland, CA, and San Francisco, CA, are used to explore variation in racially polarized voting before and after the implementation of RCV. The second stage of analysis uses a difference-in-differences design to analyze racially polarized voting in RCV cities compared to non-RCV cities. The results indicate that racially polarized voting did not decrease due to the implementation of RCV. Rather, the results show that RCV contributed to higher levels of racially polarized voting between white and Asian voters.

    New interest in “multi-winner ranked-choice voting” raises old questions about effects on party cohesion. Earlier scholars thought this single transferable vote (STV) rule was net-problematic for parties. This paper consults the roll-call and electoral records in Cincinnati (1929-57) and Worcester, Mass. (1949-60), two of three American STV implementations that produced conventional wisdom. First, I show how party cohesion could be high or low. Then I show how low-cohesion terms followed elections in which candidates campaigned for themselves over their parties. Finally, I show that parties endorsed such candidates when they needed the votes to expand their seat shares. In sum, the data suggest a strategic environment in which majority-seeking parties reach beyond their traditional bases – potentially at the expense of legislative cohesion. Whether that is good or bad depends on the value we give to cohesion.

    The Maine gubernatorial primaries are being played under ranked-choice voting rules; the results being reported are first-place votes only. Among those first-place votes, the Democratic primary is breaking down as Janet Mills 32 percent, Adam Cote 30 percent, Betsy Sweet 14 percent, Mark Eves 14 percent, Mark Dion 4 percent, Donna Dion 4 percent and Diane Russell 2 percent. That looks like a Mills-Cote instant runoff to me, which is interesting, because they were the two moderate candidates. Progressives (most prominently, Sweet and Eves) right now don’t look like they even have enough votes combined to avoid elimination in an instant runoff.

    • Disagree: Cloudbuster
  9. @Thomm

    I predict a fracture forming between the three Democrat coalitions particular among the black coalition in the South and White College leftist

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  10. Anon[724] • Disclaimer says:

    No way! Vote rigging is what the Russians do. They also use violence against political gatherings, censor their media, and kill their Epsteins with

  11. The Establishment made an enormous mistake by failing to rig the vote count enough in 2016.

    Agreed. They didn’t know they had a problem.

    But hey. Israel is happy. The war profiteers are happy. The third world is still streaming in. Maybe they didn’t have a problem after all?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  12. Republicans 11% — Extremely disappointing stat. But we could optimistically interpret this as Republicans are confident in a Trump victory.

    Vote fraud will be at epic levels in 2020. This is the biggest challenge Trump faces. Should have been the easiest thing to address, but, oh well.

    Does the GOP even do any form of vote fraud at all? Every republican knows full well that naked cheating is SOP for dems, but says “well we’re better than that”. Totally embarrassing. But, the problem of trust. If I suggested this at my county GOP meeting, the higher ups would at best assume entrapment and strongly disavow, more likely they would report me to the FBI.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  13. Rejecting the Electoral College requires rejecting the Senate, of course, another supremely un-democratic institution where California and Wyoming both have two votes apiece. You don’t hear calls for that, however.

    But this, like every single project of the worshippers of Progress, is not about what it appears to be about.

    It is only one more nail in our coffin.

    And by our, I mean the Whites, the White Males especially. Those who actually have designed, created and maintained America.

    Their envious resentment against us is the only glue holding their bizarre crew together: feminists and Mohammedans, LGBTQs and the notoriously gay-hating Blacks, etc.

    Pro-White or Anti-White.
    There is only one issue.
    There are only two sides.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  14. “The Establishment made an enormous mistake by failing to rig the vote count enough in 2016. ”

    Yep. That’s what I have been saying ever since the results were announced. The media push was on, with every talking head saying that Hillary was a shoo-in, so that most people wouldn’t have questioned her fake victory. They all were truly shocked that she lost. The number of fake votes needed was underestimated.

    Watch the same geniuses screw it up again next year.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  15. @216

    Maybe, but then again, nobody is. There is no mental component to Third World politics.

  16. Christo says:

    The real fraud in the next election will be through the Electoral College, given the recent ruling in Colorado by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yes the ruling was in favor of a thrown out republican cast vote but can’t trust the Chamber of Commerce RINO’s or almost any of the US Judiciary branch one damn bit. That ruling will benefit the Democrat PC/anti-white Marxists much more in 2020.

  17. Mr Puroik says:

    An independent researcher recently blew the whistle on the REAL election interference in 2016: Google. He has of course been lambasted in the Fake News Media and a lot of flaccid attempts to non-argue his statistics have been floated around, however Google execs openly stated (with little controversy) that they were more or less responsible for Obama’s re-election in 2012. Social media and the internet may in the future neutralize the need for actual electoral fraud, as millions of low-information voters (and a growing number of ‘naturalized’ immigrants) will more than make up for the resistance of the American working class. Of course, a candidate like Andrew Yang could totally screw up the algorithm by making the woke elites unwilling to pick a side, much as happened in 2017 in the UK election when the Labour party nominated a wrong-think, anti-Israel populist and saw the Guardian and other corporate-leftists completely abandon their cause.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  18. Nebraskans simply don’t have it in them to compete with the corruption of big blue cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York.

    Nebraska is one of only two states that allows its EC state to be split; the other is Maine. Both use the district system. It’s possible to win Nebraska while losing two of her three districts, leaving the state with a net vote of one.

    In a state with four districts, this net could be zero; with five, minus one; and so on. No state with four or more districts would, or should, take the district system seriously.

    What causes these states to adopt a law that further weakens their already tiny influence? When did the Goo-Goos take over?

    Don’t blame the big states, though. For related reasons, they are also forced to award all their electors to the winner. The last large states to split their slates were New York and Maryland– in the 1820s.

  19. @Oblivionrecurs

    I predict a fracture forming between the three Democrat coalitions particular among the black coalition in the South and White College leftist

    Change “predict” to “work to engender”.

  20. 95Theses says:

    As I remember from my American History classes at OSU, one of the principal reasons the Electoral College came about (along with a bicameral legislature) was in order to work out a compromise between large and small states (population-wise). Elsewise there wasn’t going to be a union of 13 states.

    So I doubt that similarly situated smaller states like Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc., might have something to say about remaining in the union if dispensing with the Electoral College dilutes their votes to nothing.

    No, I seriously doubt that Liberals–Progressives are going to be able to pull it off. Nor should it be.

  21. Talha says:

    It’s over, the pieces are left for those who will be willing to pick them up. It is now time to start thinking about how this will all be divided in the aftermath.

    For instance, it is imperative that a name is wisely chosen for whatever emerges from the ashes:


  22. 216 says: • Website


    Update, DE lander elections, Sachsen

    An interesting trend here, voters are hedging away from the Greens, after the initial surge earlier this year. My guess is that “floating voters” that prefer the open cuckoldry of the Greens are shifting back to the CDU for fear of seeing the AFD come in first. Sachsen is the AFD’s strongest lander, they got 27% in the national elections.

    Some reports are that this lander’s CDU has a poor relationship with the Greens, so it may be remotely possible that a CDU-FDP minority government is installed with AFD votes.

    An irritant to AFD expansion is the FW, the Free Voters party, a pseudo-populist party that spools away protest votes.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  23. After my absentee ballot was rejected on a technicality in 2000, I decided to schedule business meetings in the US to coincide with elections so I could vote in person: After doing that a couple times and seeing unusual results that didn’t line up with the ballot I cast and what I understood to be the political views of my US neighbours, I now wonder as the trusty Diebold swallows my ballot for whom I really voted.

  24. @216

    An interesting trend here, voters are hedging away from the Greens ….

    Among many economy-killing proposals, the Greens recently proposed that all domestic airline flights be banned and people should use rail travel instead. Anyone who has ever used Deutsche Bahn for anything more than an occasional short haul trip knows it is fairly unreliable and domestic trips can take two to four times the time to go by air.

    The only reason Deutsche Bahn is better than auto on any given day is that nearly every Autobahn has long stretches currently under repair works, and on top of that, the Greens want to dissuade people from driving by higher fuel taxes, bans on diesel autos in cities, outright bans on all autos in cities, and projects that take auto lanes out of service for use as bike lanes, which only sounds great if you don’t commute more than a couple miles.

    Despite having their lives made hellish by the Greens, at least half the Germans I meet think these things are good. It will be interesting to see if the Greens continue to pick up votes.

    • Replies: @216
  25. 216 says: • Website
    @The Alarmist

    I understand the German fast trains use the same track as the slow trains, unlike the TGV or the Shinkansen. Akin to the Amtrak Acela in the Northeast.

  26. Hopscotch says:

    Suspect there will be three main avenues, aside from immigration, for undermining the Electoral College:
    (1) Chetty “magic dirt, tragic dirt” arguments that involve moving highly fertile NAM’s to low population white, swing states.
    (2) Undermining the popular inertia of US Federalism. See the 1619 project, smearing Jefferson, founding fathers are evil, removing civics/classics/western civ from education (since they’re not “useful”), etc.
    (3) A pact among states, where electors agree to respect the national popular vote, like the National Popular Vote initiative. This is mainly meant to force the issue in front of a liberal Supreme Court. If Ginsburg kicks and Trump is reelected, suspect there will be less emphasis on this, and more on (1), (2) and immigration, where in 20-30 years, the demographics will be favorable to a constitutional amendment abandoning the Electoral College.

    Any white person who says things like, “Well, actually the electoral college is an anachronism” is oblivious to western civilization and willing to snuff the candle of Anglo-Western thought. Once that goes, it’s permanent darkness.

    • Replies: @Feryl
  27. Marty T says:

    No purple or red state will vote to remove its relevance in elections. Even bluish Maine and Nevada didnt pass the compact this year.

    Cali took a month? to count votes in 2016. So yeah, the popular vote would just come down to Cali democrats finding the number of votes they need to win.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  28. 216 says: • Website

    We are not allowed even one…single…professor…

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  29. 216 says: • Website

    Magnitsky Act

  30. “Remember when having misgivings about the results of an American election was the mark of a dangerous lunatic?”

    I remember those days . . . laughing.

    I have to admit, I am suspicious of the Epstien passing. If the system was looking to have any credibility — they would have ensured his safe keeping.

    As for the rest, I agree. The electoral college was really a deft near brilliant insightful mechanism into representative government.

  31. What if we don’t even have an election in 2020?

    Anybody following the markets last Friday would have seen some incredibly unusual things. The president kicked off a 600-point tank job in the Dow Industrials by unleashing a series of bombastic tweets which included, among other gems, the line that “all American companies are hereby ordered to search for alternatives to China.”

    Just think about that: hereby ordered. When was the last time an American president affected to order corporations around like that? And to get out of China in this globalist economy? That is very serious. If the markets understood at all the implications of this, the 600-point drop would have been more like 6,000.

    On the one hand, this is a lot more like the Candidate Trump we elected. On the other hand, it’s also consistent with the notion that Trump is starting to unravel.

    I can no longer dismiss the possibility that if Trump sees himself losing “bigly” in 2020, he might just decide to go nuclear, cancel the elections, declare a state of emergency, and govern as tyrant. Strange things are afoot, and these are very interesting times.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
  32. @Thomm

    There is a lot of talk, understandably, about how Trump’s improbable 2016 victory is going to be difficult to repeat just on account of the actuarial tables alone.

    But there is one demographic Trump has shored up his support with since 2016–moderate Republicans, including a subset of them, the Never Trumpers.

  33. @pae

    Biden most likely. Harris and Warren both possibilities. I don’t think anyone else has a chance save for a POC with street cred entering late (Michelle Obama, Oprah Winfrey, etc).

    Harris was my hot take a couple of years ago, but she’s an staggeringly bad campaigner and candidate. Now I’m pretty depressingly conventional in my outlook. Sorry!

  34. @WorkingClass

    Ginsburg isn’t surviving through 2024. The GOP is likely going to keep the Senate after 2020. The SCOTUS consequence of the 2020 election is real and it’s important.

  35. @216

    Another Jewish white supremacist, that Amy Wax!

    She is definitely one of the good guys, er, gals out there.

  36. @Intelligent Dasein

    Ha, and all the fevered dreams of the TDS sufferers come true!

    I think it’s more likely the Steinbrenner approach–Trump loves constantly creating chaos and outrage and then trying to find various points of leverage within the chaos and outrage.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
  37. Feryl says:
    @Dr ExCathedra

    Well, blacks actually have higher rates of homosexuality than American whites do. The “anti-gay” sentiments of American blacks is just phony machismo and deceptive non-sense; real men are tough, they don’t act tough with empty bravado. Ever notice how black athletes dramatically writhe around and scream when they get even a moderate injury, let alone a severe injury? Tough my a$$.

  38. Feryl says:
    @Twodees Partain

    Most of the voting cock-ups happen in minority run urban precincts. Remember the goofy “re-count” that the Green party or something asked for in 2016? It ended up showing that some Detroit precincts reported more total votes than there were ballots scanned. Under Michigan law this actually would’ve invalidated the precinct results, and none of these votes would’ve counted if the state-wide recount results were to be used in a “re-adjustment” of the 2016 election results*. Given that this was a deep blue metro area, the adjusted results would’ve actually helped Trump’s margin of victory.

    But since the 1950’s, many Americans have not lived in bigger cities in the first place. So I do think that usually the election results are an accurate indicator of how the average American voted. Look, in 2016 Hilary ran up massive margins, legitimately so, in urban areas, though no doubt there was a little bit of tinkering going on. She also was overwhelmingly popular on the West Coast, no surprise given that the West Coast/Hawaii have all trended very liberal since 1988. But Trump did so well in small to moderate sized cities (relative to a generic Republican) in the Northeast, Midwest, and South that his appeal proved to be much more effective at winning elections than Hilary’s narrow-minded approach of pandering to the converted while ignoring moderates and the heartland working class. Trump also cleaned up in the Plains states, and the northern interior West; if “fraud” was really that wide-spread than a Democrat should’ve won Wyoming, Idaho, Oklahoma etc at some point over the last 40 years. But these are the most dyed in the wool Reaganite Republican states, and our voting system isn’t as lousy as some skeptics make it out to be. It could be a lot better, I know (just look at the British vote system that decided Brexit; all paper ballots, and all counted at the same facility, rather than the……dubious American practice of letting local precincts do the tallying, sometimes without even a paper trail) but it also could be a lot worse.

    The skeptics ought to be reminded that candidates generally perform to the expected level in various regions and with various demographics. A true pro-Hilary fraud effort would’ve had Hilary getting a lot more votes small towns and red states. At the end of the day, yuppies, Puritans, and airheads in places like Boston and Denver (and much of the surrounding environs) did not want Trump. Period. People can stop deluding themselves that Trump should’ve had a 1984 style land-slide, or he “won’t be allowed to win again” because of chicanery. Plenty of valid surveys and known preferences of voters ought to make you realize that plenty of Americans did not want to vote for someone like Trump. And Trump is still not popular among the American electorate, because Trump’s proven Reaganism turns off most Americans under the age of 45 (BTW, Trump the 2016 candidate was a New Dealer, Trump the president is a Reaganite, down to the immediate tax cuts enacted after he took office (every Republican president since 1981 has done that, except GHW Bush who was pilloried for doing the responsible New Deal thing and raising taxes to pay for the ever growing expenditures by the government). Had Trump acted like a New Dealer, he’d have gained more support, certainly in the industrial Midwest and the upper Northeast; in the current diseased climate, renewed support for American manufacturing and blue collar unions would be too much to ask of the big city yuppies who don’t care about anyone but the upper class.

    *The preliminary re-count results in PA, WI, and MI did not reveal any large scale irregularities that benefited Trump, so ultimately the re-count results were never incorporated into the official 2016 vote totals.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
  39. @Audacious Epigone

    Trump loves constantly creating chaos and outrage and then trying to find various points of leverage within the chaos and outrage.

    It’s almost like he has a gift for it.

    He was on this 20 years ago.

  40. Feryl says:
    @Mr Puroik

    “that they were more or less responsible for Obama’s re-election in 2012. ”

    So, are we going to absolve the GOP of running Mitt Romney (!!!!!????!!!!!WTF)? Might as well have had Micheal Douglas run as Gordon Gekko. Romney represents everything loathsome about post-Reagan America; the greed, the shallowness, indifference toward the future stability of the country, and the selling out of the vulnerable. Gee, after the 2008 crash let’s run a candidate who’s an asset stripper and the architect of the insurance company approved “healthcare” system that became the model of Obamacare.

  41. Feryl says:

    (1) Chetty “magic dirt, tragic dirt” arguments that involve moving highly fertile NAM’s to low population white, swing states.

    Nobody in America is having kids anymore. Black birth rates have been declining since Clinton’s welfare reform of the mid-90’s (“workfare”). Hispanic birth rates began declining after 2007.

    A major reason for the push for open borders is that the business lobby sees the writing on the wall: all of the 1st world countries would be going down the road of Japan if immigration was halted. 1st worlders go to college, focus on career and personal development, play video games, etc. They no longer have kids, and many of them barely even have sex.

    “Teen pregnancy” was a massive problem in the early 90’s (teen Gen X-ers had sex at a younger age than any other recent generation), while many Millennials have come to terms with with being unmarried and under-sexed.

    You don’t have to be a genius to figure this stuff out. Yer George Soros’s see Western fertility collapsing in decades like the 1970’s and 2010’s, and voila, the scumbag corporate lobby starts whining about an aging and stagnant population. And thus we admit tons of foriegners to prevent the worst horror known to man, a stable and aging population.

  42. dfordoom says: • Website

    just look at the British vote system that decided Brexit; all paper ballots, and all counted at the same facility, rather than the……dubious American practice of letting local precincts do the tallying, sometimes without even a paper trail)

    We use paper ballots in Australia. And the various parties appoint scrutineers to watch the counting (a job I’ve done myself). And, amazingly, we don’t let illegal immigrants vote. They can’t get on the electoral roll so there’s no way they can vote. It’s pretty much fraud-proof. Organising honest elections is surprisingly easy.

  43. Voter ID would be nice

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS