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
Trumping the Sailer Strategy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

In 2016, Trump did modestly worse among white voters than Romney did in 2012. That is in part attributable to Gary Johnson–in a two-way race with Clinton, Trump fared as well as Romney did in a two-way race against Obama (according to official exit polling, he technically did 0.4% better than Romney!). Trump also did modestly better among black and Hispanic voters than Romney. This reality garbles the narrative in ways inconvenient for the pundit and consultant classes, so it’s mostly forgotten or ignored.

And though we’re still more than a year out from the next presidential election, general election polling is suggesting 2020 will continue the trend from 2016. Trump is doing worse among white voters in 2020 than he did in 2016, but he’s doing better among black and Hispanic voters in 2020 than he did in 2016.

The following graph shows exit polling data from 2012 and 2016 and general election results from SurveryUSA (N = 7,000) for 2020. The 2020 figures are for Trump vs Warren, who has clearly become the market’s top choice for the nomination in tandem with the corporate media’s anointment. The trends are the same with Trump matched up against Biden, albeit shifted a couple of points worse for the president in each case:

While the total white vote remained essentially unchanged between 2012 and 2016, its composition changed substantially. Trump swapped Romney’s strong support among middle- and upper-class whites for strong support among working-class whites. Trump’s rhetorical focus on working-class issues like manufacturing and illegal immigration could account for his modest improvement among blacks and Hispanics. Obama’s absence is another potential explanation, though it doesn’t cover the apparent shift from 2016 to 2020.

 
• Category: Ideology, Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Election 2020, Polling 
Hide 99 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. losing 3% of the european voters is more than enough for trump to lose by a lot.

    i’m maintaining my prediction that trump loses handily, to any of the top 3 or 4 democrats today.

    only something unusual could stop that from happening now.

    i’d prefer to be wrong. so i’ll continue to hope for something unusual. the democrat completely blowing a winnable election. Trump having 12 great months in a row with victory after victory for his voters. none of which are likely.

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt

    losing 3% of the european voters is more than enough for trump to lose by a lot.

     

    I was thinking Trump loses between 3 and 8 percent of his White vote total from 2016 to 2020 too. 1 or 2 percent doesn't get much interest and 10 percent might be too much, but it is reasonable to suggest that Trump might lose between 3 and 8 percent of the White Core American vote that he got in 2016.

    I think an independent political party called White Core America could rack up big vote totals in states that are crucial to Trump in the Electoral College and I think that White Core Americans born after 1965 are ready and willing to pay back Trump for his mass legal immigration extremism treason and for his refusal to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invader interloper infiltrators in the USA.

    Trump and the Republican Party globalizers are highly vulnerable to a political party that EXPLICITLY advances the interests of White Core Americans.

    The Republican Party is completely and totally controlled by the mass legal immigration extremist CHEAP LABOR FACTION.

    As a matter of fact, some Trump stooge putz named Andrew Puzder says that the USA should be flooded with mass legal immigration in order to make sure that businesses and cheap labor hogs have a massive oversupply of labor to keep wages down and advantage business owners at the expense of American workers. Puzder didn't say it exactly like that, but that is exactly what his call for more and more mass legal immigration will do to the American worker.

    I ain't voting for Trump because of guys like Andrew Puzder and the scoundrels in the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION.

    Trump Stooge Putzo Puzder Pushes For Mass Legal Immigration Invasion Of The USA:

    https://twitter.com/AndyPuzder/status/1174115431633870848

  2. i’m maintaining my prediction that trump loses handily, to any of the top 3 or 4 democrats today.

    I am 100% certain that, barring massive vote fraud, this will not be the case.

    Trump wins handily. A lot of white cuckservatives who were against Trump are now for him, but no one who was for him in 2016 is going to vote for the Democrat (unless it is Bernie Sanders (the preferred WN candidate), which it will not be).

    • Agree: Kevin O'Keeffe
    • Replies: @216
    If Trump starts another war, I won't be voting for him.

    I'd consider voting for Warren as long as the running mate isn't someone odious like Abrams. I'd vote GOP for Congress in this scenario. If Andrew Yang is still in the running by the time the primary reaches Ohio, I will vote in the Dem primary for him.

    On cultural matters, Warren is the most conservative, you can sense she doesn't exactly believe all this crap; but goes along for electoral reasons. She'd have the least to prove to SJW supporters as President because she would be the "first woman", and she'd have done in in her own right.

    To the Gen Y/Z supporters, supporting Trump has come at a high cost; a cost that many simply won't carry. The GOP has become near unacceptable in the UMC suburbs, and I'd really like to have a better candidate like Hutsman that would make it socially acceptable to be vaugely right wing again.
  3. semi off-topic

    one interesting takeaway in the siena NY poll is only 4% of jewish democrats support bernie (vs. 14% in nyc and 15% statewide)

    no wonder the media is anti-bernie
    https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SNY0919-Crosstabs-091719.pdf

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Bernie support skews towards younger and Rust-beltish whites, so no surprise that the aging Ashkenazi Jewish population on either coast doesn't have much interest. +Bernie basically abandoned the coastal rat race by moving to Vermont and staying put, and rarely did Bernie try to "get with the times" (Bernie voted against NAFTA and the Iraq war) in order to gain elite status points. So nothing about Bernie excites Jews, not even on an ethno-centric level (besides Ashkenazi Jews have inter-bred with elite gentiles for 50 years, so who exactly is shocked that Jews, like white gentiles, are not exactly as tribal or provincial as they once were?)
  4. So, as it turns out the Sailer Strategy was actually WRONG (hardly surprising), and the old establishment GOP strategy of bringing more minorities into the fold is what worked. They just needed someone who wasn’t a neoliberal homo economicus douche-noodle to pull it off. The data seem to suggest that it was really neoliberalism that failed and that the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular. The Democrats stupidly abandoned a winning ticket in favor of Wokeism, while the Republicans stupidly refused to pick up the $100 bill on the sidewalk until Trump came along.

    Perhaps race just isn’t that big of a factor in American elections, at least not yet. Perhaps the class divide and the generational divide are more important after all.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Well, not necessarily.

    The Sailer Strategy is specifically about working class whites. I would bet that a large number of Trump's white supporters are from the working class, and that has been traded with the upscale "educated suburban women" and other morons who have switched to the DNC.
    , @Dieter Kief
    It looks as if over time Latinos and prospering blacks turn white = vote Trump.

    (The underlying question is: Is the siler-Strategy more about race or more about the productive part of the lower classes?)
    , @Oleaginous Outrager

    the old establishment GOP strategy of bringing more minorities into the fold is what worked
     
    How do you draw that conclusion? The differences are tiny, and the biggest ones are merely hypothetical.

    Perhaps race just isn’t that big of a factor in American elections
     
    Blacks and Hispanics are voting 70% to 90% Democrat but race isn't that big of a factor?

    the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular
     
    But it will never be as popular as breathless devotion to Israel and the House of Saud, at least among our "leaders".
    , @Bardon Kaldian

    The data seem to suggest that it was really neoliberalism that failed and that the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular. The Democrats stupidly abandoned a winning ticket in favor of Wokeism, while the Republicans stupidly refused to pick up the $100 bill on the sidewalk until Trump came along.
     
    Interesting....
    , @Mark G.
    A Republican like Trump can use pro-working class rhetoric to attract working class voters but can he really govern like that since a large part of the funding for the Republicans come from the wealthy and many Republican politicians jump over to the private sector after leaving office and therefore don't want to burn their bridges when it comes to getting a plush corporate job later on? Since getting elected, Trump seems to be following the same policies that benefit big Wall Street banks and the military-industrial complex that a Romney or McCain would have. If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party. The parties need to differentiate their brands and offer "a choice, not an echo" so you can't have both parties offering the same thing because it opens up an opportunity for an outsider to come in and capture a party nomination. Dumping the social liberalism would make the Democrats the working class party. All the upper class socially liberal whites currently residing in the Democrat party don't really fit in anyway with the poorer whites, Hispanics and blacks in the same party. If they migrate over to the Republicans, their social liberalism would fit in better with the social liberalism of the current upper class Republican voters.
    , @Athletic and Whitesplosive
    To use Trump's results as an indictment of the Sailer strategy doesn't seem very coherent to me; it's not very clear that this was his actual strategy. He certainly wasn't explicitly courting whites, and the "implicit" appeals to whites weren't terribly strong.

    Secondly, his support among whites (supposedly) went down, so how does that test the utility of stripping off more whites in winning elections? At best it might be an aborted attempt at the Sailer strategy.

    Thirdly, if it indeed WAS the Sailer strategy, then where's the failure? Last I checked he won.

    As far as him winning in 2020 I suspect he will. Just like in 2016 the polls are against him, but other metrics of enthusiasm seem high (or so I've read, I won't claim to be an expert). I imagine there's something the polls aren't capturing, even if I can't justify exactly what. All the criticisms as to his chances I see are from the perspective of political analysts; he didn't deliver Y, X alienates Z and he's polling bad with yada yada yada. The only problem with analysis like this is: if not delivering on your central campaign promises is enough to stop reelection, then how has anybody ever gotten reelected? If bad performance is enough to lose elections, then why is deeply entrenched poor governance the norm basically everywhere?

    So far he's been a bit of a lame duck, but if he wins a second term he'll probably be more of what his hard right base wants him to be, just like Obama was more of what the hard left wanted him to be his second term.
  5. Well, quite frankly, to anybody who has spent serious time with so-called “minorities” (not the top 0.001% kind like Twinkie), this is really not a surprise.

    They respect authority, decision-making, and brutality. They DO NOT respect “nice”, or “tolerant”. So, Mexicans will respect a guy like Trump more than a guy like Romney.

    White people seem to think that the whole world has the same worldview. In fact, whites’ egalitarian mindset is strange to the rest of the more hierarchical world. Outside the South, most whites are insane (yes, even conservatives). Aliens do not respect the social justice crowd, but they know that cry racism = money + attention.

    Anyways, a bit of a rambling comment, but if you have a room full of insolent aliens, the trick is not to be nice to them. You have to be authoritarian, mean, and make them fear you. Being nice is the worst possible thing you could do, if you’re trying to motivate them. When they fear the proverbial whip, then you will get some serious work done!

    Whites are a constant disappointment, in general. Unable to see how the rest of the world is. Unable to adapt to a new world, and we (they) will get raped hard. I’ve given up on trying to convince whites, either we figure it out or we don’t. No point talking to some white retard who hates himself.

  6. @Intelligent Dasein
    So, as it turns out the Sailer Strategy was actually WRONG (hardly surprising), and the old establishment GOP strategy of bringing more minorities into the fold is what worked. They just needed someone who wasn't a neoliberal homo economicus douche-noodle to pull it off. The data seem to suggest that it was really neoliberalism that failed and that the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular. The Democrats stupidly abandoned a winning ticket in favor of Wokeism, while the Republicans stupidly refused to pick up the $100 bill on the sidewalk until Trump came along.

    Perhaps race just isn't that big of a factor in American elections, at least not yet. Perhaps the class divide and the generational divide are more important after all.

    Well, not necessarily.

    The Sailer Strategy is specifically about working class whites. I would bet that a large number of Trump’s white supporters are from the working class, and that has been traded with the upscale “educated suburban women” and other morons who have switched to the DNC.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    You would be correct. The problem with most of the high power intellectuals around here is that the closest they ever get to a working class white guy is when they happen to be standing next to one in line at the DMV.

    The teamsters union I belong to saw an unprecedented shift from lifelong Democratic voters to voting Trump in 2016, despite the predictable endorsement of Hillary from the IBT. I seriously doubt my union was alone in this shift. Trump deserves credit for this, although he benefited from Hillary being the least likable candidate of all time.

    I'll also go on to say based on Trump's track record, he's unlikely to get anywhere near the same support in 2020 from this group.
  7. Ann Coulter:

    IT’S ONLY TRUMP
    March 30, 2016

    ******
    Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)

    Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

    Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states — Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-explains-why-the-sailer-strategy-worked/
  8. @MEH 0910
    Ann Coulter:

    IT'S ONLY TRUMP
    March 30, 2016

    ******
    Apparently, no one's told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)

    Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?

    Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama's white vote in other important swing states -- Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).
     
  9. Or is it really the case Hilldog did worse with the minorities rather than Trump doing better, it really was case of both candidates seeking to bring each other down.

    Not fully convinced by Trump’s purported share of the White vote in these exit polls.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    To the extent that is the case, Warren isn't going to fare any better--and probably worse. Her black support is staggeringly low.
  10. @Intelligent Dasein
    So, as it turns out the Sailer Strategy was actually WRONG (hardly surprising), and the old establishment GOP strategy of bringing more minorities into the fold is what worked. They just needed someone who wasn't a neoliberal homo economicus douche-noodle to pull it off. The data seem to suggest that it was really neoliberalism that failed and that the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular. The Democrats stupidly abandoned a winning ticket in favor of Wokeism, while the Republicans stupidly refused to pick up the $100 bill on the sidewalk until Trump came along.

    Perhaps race just isn't that big of a factor in American elections, at least not yet. Perhaps the class divide and the generational divide are more important after all.

    It looks as if over time Latinos and prospering blacks turn white = vote Trump.

    (The underlying question is: Is the siler-Strategy more about race or more about the productive part of the lower classes?)

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I think citizenism, where Steve's heart is, is more about the latter.
  11. @Intelligent Dasein
    So, as it turns out the Sailer Strategy was actually WRONG (hardly surprising), and the old establishment GOP strategy of bringing more minorities into the fold is what worked. They just needed someone who wasn't a neoliberal homo economicus douche-noodle to pull it off. The data seem to suggest that it was really neoliberalism that failed and that the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular. The Democrats stupidly abandoned a winning ticket in favor of Wokeism, while the Republicans stupidly refused to pick up the $100 bill on the sidewalk until Trump came along.

    Perhaps race just isn't that big of a factor in American elections, at least not yet. Perhaps the class divide and the generational divide are more important after all.

    the old establishment GOP strategy of bringing more minorities into the fold is what worked

    How do you draw that conclusion? The differences are tiny, and the biggest ones are merely hypothetical.

    Perhaps race just isn’t that big of a factor in American elections

    Blacks and Hispanics are voting 70% to 90% Democrat but race isn’t that big of a factor?

    the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular

    But it will never be as popular as breathless devotion to Israel and the House of Saud, at least among our “leaders”.

  12. The 2020 figures are for Trump vs Warren

    Trump’s dream ticket: Warren/Booker 2020

    The non-woke vote is up because of Warren and the black vote is down because they won’t be coming out to vote for some guy on the down low in the 2nd spot.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Cory Booker is the kind of black man white women like but black men despise.
  13. The ‘Deep State’ will win the election. Anyone dumb enough to vote in a federal election is the root cause of the country’s problems.

    Please do not vote in any Federal election. All it does is encourage bad behavior.

    Agitate at the state level for secession to kill the beast in DC. The Fed Gov is way past its sell by date and is a force for pure evil in the world.

  14. The first sentence of this article says that, 2016 Trump did modestly worse than 2012 Romney among whites but the graph shows him edging Romney by 1% point.

    What am I missing?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Trump got 57% of the white vote in 2016 compared to Romney's 59% in 2012. But in 2012, only 2% of the vote went to third-parties. In 2016, 6% did. As a consequence, Trump's two-way white share against Clinton was marginally better than Romney's two-way against Obama.
  15. @Intelligent Dasein
    So, as it turns out the Sailer Strategy was actually WRONG (hardly surprising), and the old establishment GOP strategy of bringing more minorities into the fold is what worked. They just needed someone who wasn't a neoliberal homo economicus douche-noodle to pull it off. The data seem to suggest that it was really neoliberalism that failed and that the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular. The Democrats stupidly abandoned a winning ticket in favor of Wokeism, while the Republicans stupidly refused to pick up the $100 bill on the sidewalk until Trump came along.

    Perhaps race just isn't that big of a factor in American elections, at least not yet. Perhaps the class divide and the generational divide are more important after all.

    The data seem to suggest that it was really neoliberalism that failed and that the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular. The Democrats stupidly abandoned a winning ticket in favor of Wokeism, while the Republicans stupidly refused to pick up the $100 bill on the sidewalk until Trump came along.

    Interesting….

  16. Well, the hispanic leadership of either party know as hispanics at large that Pres. Trump favors the policy of overwhelming black citizens with foreigners as part of the replacement theory.

    They are now aware that he is really weak on immigration, as such they can proceed unabated(part of the same as above but he has show weakness in so many levels – so replacement ideology is the sole factor.)

    So he is going to garner more votes.

  17. President Trump hasn’t governed too adeptly, and his delivery on his populist promises hasn’t been satisfactory. The former has permanently soured college educated whites on him, while the latter has disappointed non-college educated whites.

    That said, he hasn’t been anywhere near the dictatorial, militaristic catastrophe the Democrats in 2016 claimed he would be. I think blacks and Hispanics have seen that and some are warming up to him.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Exactly. Trump perpetually overpromises and underdelivers. For someone so putatively detail-oriented, he is incredibly sloppy about his personnel picks. He regularly leaves allies twisting in the wind and rarely follows up on anything.

    But he is a master at bringing out the absolute worst in his opponents. The left promised us a dictator who would throw gays in concentration camps. Instead we got an innocuous blowhard who has put a new sheet of paint on the old neoliberal car. Blue collar blacks and Hispanics are thinking, "Trump ain't so bad. And did you see that tweet with a Trump Tower on Greenland? Off the chain!"
  18. The democrats will never overcome their attempts to remove the president, unless they come clean about it and they haven’t and they won’t. As long as they foster conspiracies and trout HS and college recollections, the drunken tales that they are —-

    Combined with their sloppy rhetoric about diversity —

    beans and butter at home
    and no catastrophies anywhere

    The election remains the president’s to lose.

    • Replies: @Ozymandias
    "beans and butter at home
    and no catastrophies anywhere

    The election remains the president’s to lose."

    And if there were a catastrophe just in time to cost Trump the election, would you cast a suspicious eye towards the victors who've been trying to undermine him the entire time? Or would you be among those screaming "I told you all along he was a wrecker!" I strongly suspect it is the latter.
  19. @Intelligent Dasein
    So, as it turns out the Sailer Strategy was actually WRONG (hardly surprising), and the old establishment GOP strategy of bringing more minorities into the fold is what worked. They just needed someone who wasn't a neoliberal homo economicus douche-noodle to pull it off. The data seem to suggest that it was really neoliberalism that failed and that the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular. The Democrats stupidly abandoned a winning ticket in favor of Wokeism, while the Republicans stupidly refused to pick up the $100 bill on the sidewalk until Trump came along.

    Perhaps race just isn't that big of a factor in American elections, at least not yet. Perhaps the class divide and the generational divide are more important after all.

    A Republican like Trump can use pro-working class rhetoric to attract working class voters but can he really govern like that since a large part of the funding for the Republicans come from the wealthy and many Republican politicians jump over to the private sector after leaving office and therefore don’t want to burn their bridges when it comes to getting a plush corporate job later on? Since getting elected, Trump seems to be following the same policies that benefit big Wall Street banks and the military-industrial complex that a Romney or McCain would have. If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party. The parties need to differentiate their brands and offer “a choice, not an echo” so you can’t have both parties offering the same thing because it opens up an opportunity for an outsider to come in and capture a party nomination. Dumping the social liberalism would make the Democrats the working class party. All the upper class socially liberal whites currently residing in the Democrat party don’t really fit in anyway with the poorer whites, Hispanics and blacks in the same party. If they migrate over to the Republicans, their social liberalism would fit in better with the social liberalism of the current upper class Republican voters.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Since getting elected, Trump seems to be following the same policies that benefit big Wall Street banks and the military-industrial complex that a Romney or McCain would have. If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party.
     
    It's well known that the Dems started to lose some whites after the mid-1960's. However, what's less appreciated is that the Dems gained many affluent whites in the 1990's because Clinton and Gore supported NAFTA and refused to raise taxes on the wealthy. On economic issues, there is no question that the Dems retained a lot of working class white support from the 1930's-1980's, which often grated on the nerves of wealthy whites who wanted cheaper labor, weaker unions, and lower taxes.

    Well, la-de-da, the Dems still can't fully shed their New Deal past (since the GOP never fully welcomed some members of the New Deal coalition, e.g. unionized blue collar workers and ethnic minorities) in spite of the make-over they had in the 1990's. So you are right that if the Dems can get the wokeness out of their system, they ought to be in a better position to appeal to normies compared to the GOP, whose pandering to the corrupt rich and the Pentagon rightly grosses most people out. Trouble is, the Left wokeness disease is managing to make the GOP look relatively sane, which if you think about it, is quite the accomplishment given how Republican driven attempts to open up the border, off-shore good jobs, and decimate our financial system over the last 40 years have all been an embarrassing mess.

    Should both parties run candidates who can't get on the right track, that means that choosing the Republican will insure welfare for arrogantly corrupt elites, while choosing the Dems means accepting crappy ID politics and culture-war overreach.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    With all due respect, it is staggering to me that people still think there is a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. The Democrat electorate DOES NOT WANT IT AT ALL. Jim Webb got 1%. Hickenlooper got 1%. Bennett got 1%. Delaney--who spoke as forthrightly and directly as any Democrat in the last five years about the need to drop the Wokeism and reorient towards working-class, middle American concerns got heckled for his trouble... and then got 1%.

    This is not a case of the pols hoodwinking the voters who want something else. This is the pols giving the voters what they want--extra helpings of Woke--in the hopes of being able to do what the pols really want to do.

    , @dfordoom

    If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party.
     
    The U.S. doesn't have political parties in the sense that the term is understood in Britain and Australia. U.S. parties seem to be alliances of interest groups forced together by the rigid two-party system. And they don't have political bases - they have collections of political bases. If you look at 2016 there was not much overlap between Bernie Sanders' base and Hillary's.

    Logically the parties should split but they can't because of the two-party system. The Democrats can't be recreated as a working class party because they're stuck with the identity politics loons who loathe the working class. The Republicans can't win the working class vote (except occasionally on a temporary basis) because they're dominated by corrupt corporate whores and neocon scum.

    An Australian-style preferential voting system would fix all that but it's not going to happen.
  20. While the total white vote remained essentially unchanged between 2012 and 2016, its composition changed substantially. Trump swapped Romney’s strong support among middle- and upper-class whites for strong support among working-class whites. Trump’s rhetorical focus on working-class issues like manufacturing and illegal immigration could account for his modest improvement among blacks and Hispanics. Obama’s absence is another potential explanation, though it doesn’t cover the apparent shift from 2016 to 2020.

    Blacks and Hispanics(Mestizos, Amerindians and other mixed race Latinos) had no compelling reason to vote for New Englander old stocker WASP Whitey Willard Mitt Romney.

    Trump is going to lose substantial numbers of Whites Without College Degrees votes in the Great Lakes states and Trump is going to lose substantial numbers of Whites With College Degrees votes because of Trump’s anti-worker push to flood the USA with foreigner visa workers and mass legal immigration “in the largest numbers ever.” Trump has refused to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    If Joe Biden wins the Democrat Party nomination for president the Green Party will get millions of votes.

    Both the Democrat Party and the Republican Party will have big splits in the vote totals, and I can see a scenario where the presidential winner wins with 43 or 42 percent of the vote like Bill Clinton did in 1992.

  21. @prime noticer
    losing 3% of the european voters is more than enough for trump to lose by a lot.

    i'm maintaining my prediction that trump loses handily, to any of the top 3 or 4 democrats today.

    only something unusual could stop that from happening now.

    i'd prefer to be wrong. so i'll continue to hope for something unusual. the democrat completely blowing a winnable election. Trump having 12 great months in a row with victory after victory for his voters. none of which are likely.

    losing 3% of the european voters is more than enough for trump to lose by a lot.

    I was thinking Trump loses between 3 and 8 percent of his White vote total from 2016 to 2020 too. 1 or 2 percent doesn’t get much interest and 10 percent might be too much, but it is reasonable to suggest that Trump might lose between 3 and 8 percent of the White Core American vote that he got in 2016.

    I think an independent political party called White Core America could rack up big vote totals in states that are crucial to Trump in the Electoral College and I think that White Core Americans born after 1965 are ready and willing to pay back Trump for his mass legal immigration extremism treason and for his refusal to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invader interloper infiltrators in the USA.

    Trump and the Republican Party globalizers are highly vulnerable to a political party that EXPLICITLY advances the interests of White Core Americans.

    The Republican Party is completely and totally controlled by the mass legal immigration extremist CHEAP LABOR FACTION.

    As a matter of fact, some Trump stooge putz named Andrew Puzder says that the USA should be flooded with mass legal immigration in order to make sure that businesses and cheap labor hogs have a massive oversupply of labor to keep wages down and advantage business owners at the expense of American workers. Puzder didn’t say it exactly like that, but that is exactly what his call for more and more mass legal immigration will do to the American worker.

    I ain’t voting for Trump because of guys like Andrew Puzder and the scoundrels in the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION.

    Trump Stooge Putzo Puzder Pushes For Mass Legal Immigration Invasion Of The USA:

    • Replies: @Feryl

    As a matter of fact, some Trump stooge putz named Andrew Puzder says that the USA should be flooded with mass legal immigration in order to make sure that businesses and cheap labor hogs have a massive oversupply of labor to keep wages down and advantage business owners at the expense of American workers. Puzder didn’t say it exactly like that, but that is exactly what his call for more and more mass legal immigration will do to the American worker.
     
    Headline: Drug dealers complain that America isn't creating enough drug addicts anymore.

    Gee, we might as well be living in Robocop (1987), where there is absolutely no shame about greed and corruption.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    What a splash that piece made, too! Four likes, no comments, no retweets. Tens and tens of people are thrilled!
  22. Excuse the add on here —-

    And fully grant that machinations now occurring the ME may very well be the opening to some very poor choices in which he mat think he has no choice.

    ————————————————-
    “I ain’t voting for Trump because of guys like Andrew Puzder and the scoundrels in the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION.”

    I agree with your concerns. I don’t think we need a single new comer. But unless there are candidates who support restraining immigration until we can get our policy under control — I am left with few alternatives, unless I vote for myself or not at all.

  23. In 2016, Trump did modestly worse among white voters than Romney did in 2012. That is in part attributable to Gary Johnson–in a two-way race with Clinton, Trump fared as well as Romney did in a two-way race against Obama (according to official exit polling, he technically did 0.4% better than Romney!).

    This is idea is based on the false premise that third party candidates actually cause one of the “major party” candidates to do worse. It’s a false dichotomy because it rarely comes down to only two choices in an election. I don’t believe asking people who they would have voted for in a theoretical presidential race without one of the candidates produces anything like accurate results. Furthermore, Johnson was also a “third party” candidate in 2012. You can’t compare the results of the two elections in this way; it’s wrong on so many levels.

    • Replies: @216
    Trump hasn't done *anything* to win over Gary voters.

    I mean, you don't even see "Gary voters" covered as a topic in the news.
  24. While the total white vote remained essentially unchanged between 2012 and 2016, its composition changed substantially. Trump swapped Romney’s strong support among middle- and upper-class whites for strong support among working-class whites. Trump’s rhetorical focus on working-class issues like manufacturing and illegal immigration could account for his modest improvement among blacks and Hispanics. Obama’s absence is another potential explanation, though it doesn’t cover the apparent shift from 2016 to 2020.

    John Derbyshire recently summed up a good explanation of the re-alignment: Cosmopolitans vs. Communitarians.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    I'm a big booster of the term "cosmopolitan". Not sure about "communitarian", though. It sounds too much like "communist".
  25. I am not a big fan of polling this early in a Presidential race for a lot of reasons.

    One big factor is that turnout is very difficult to poll–and people really do not know if they will show up to vote a year from now.

    Low turnout of black voters doomed Hillary in 2016 in big cities in several key states that Trump won (PA, Wisconsin, Michigan).

    Another factor is that the electoral college determines who wins in a reasonably close election, and state-wide numbers are even less reliable than national numbers a year in advance.

    A third factor is that a year is forever in politics–just about _anything_ could happen between now and then–and that includes how chaotic the Democratic nominating process will be, and how the Democratic nominee will perform in the Presidential debates.

    Traditionally incumbent presidents win re-election during periods of “normalcy” (no war, no major recession). Whether that will hold this time, or whether “normalcy” remains in place for the next year are just unknowable imho.

  26. The 2020 improvement is all about JOBS.

    Not only does working give someone more money, gainful employment itself is fulfilling and rewarding. Those who work see themselves as having value. One may be able to live off the dole, but it’s not mentally healthy. Ending the years of Barack Obama’s jobless recession is popular among Main Street voters.

    PEACE

  27. “Trump’s rhetorical focus on working-class issues like manufacturing and illegal immigration could account for his modest improvement among blacks and Hispanics.”

    I don’t think this demographic takes the president seriously given his performance. On one end you have those who support no borders or illegal immigration and on the other you have hispanics that favor legal immigration. Either way — its more foreigners wanting to take the country for everything they can get.

    Of course blacks who supports this are in my view just nuts.

    ———————————-

    I am cautious with the Black Pidgeon rhetoric but this video aside from the overblown fecal matter to the plague references and the cutting Ca loose contend. The immigration issues are serious.

    http://www.unz.com/video/blackpigeonspeaks_california-america-s-first-third-world-state/

    • Replies: @iffen
    more foreigners wanting to take the country for everything they can get

    At least they will be on the same page as many (most?) Americans.
  28. @EliteCommInc.
    "Trump’s rhetorical focus on working-class issues like manufacturing and illegal immigration could account for his modest improvement among blacks and Hispanics."


    I don't think this demographic takes the president seriously given his performance. On one end you have those who support no borders or illegal immigration and on the other you have hispanics that favor legal immigration. Either way -- its more foreigners wanting to take the country for everything they can get.


    Of course blacks who supports this are in my view just nuts.


    ----------------------------------

    I am cautious with the Black Pidgeon rhetoric but this video aside from the overblown fecal matter to the plague references and the cutting Ca loose contend. The immigration issues are serious.

    http://www.unz.com/video/blackpigeonspeaks_california-america-s-first-third-world-state/

    more foreigners wanting to take the country for everything they can get

    At least they will be on the same page as many (most?) Americans.

  29. @EliteCommInc.
    The democrats will never overcome their attempts to remove the president, unless they come clean about it and they haven't and they won't. As long as they foster conspiracies and trout HS and college recollections, the drunken tales that they are ----

    Combined with their sloppy rhetoric about diversity ---


    beans and butter at home
    and no catastrophies anywhere

    The election remains the president's to lose.

    “beans and butter at home
    and no catastrophies anywhere

    The election remains the president’s to lose.”

    And if there were a catastrophe just in time to cost Trump the election, would you cast a suspicious eye towards the victors who’ve been trying to undermine him the entire time? Or would you be among those screaming “I told you all along he was a wrecker!” I strongly suspect it is the latter.

  30. @gman
    semi off-topic

    one interesting takeaway in the siena NY poll is only 4% of jewish democrats support bernie (vs. 14% in nyc and 15% statewide)

    no wonder the media is anti-bernie
    https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/SNY0919-Crosstabs-091719.pdf

    Bernie support skews towards younger and Rust-beltish whites, so no surprise that the aging Ashkenazi Jewish population on either coast doesn’t have much interest. +Bernie basically abandoned the coastal rat race by moving to Vermont and staying put, and rarely did Bernie try to “get with the times” (Bernie voted against NAFTA and the Iraq war) in order to gain elite status points. So nothing about Bernie excites Jews, not even on an ethno-centric level (besides Ashkenazi Jews have inter-bred with elite gentiles for 50 years, so who exactly is shocked that Jews, like white gentiles, are not exactly as tribal or provincial as they once were?)

  31. OT

    All hope is not lost. We have a VP that recognizes a missile strike as an act of war.

  32. @Mark G.
    A Republican like Trump can use pro-working class rhetoric to attract working class voters but can he really govern like that since a large part of the funding for the Republicans come from the wealthy and many Republican politicians jump over to the private sector after leaving office and therefore don't want to burn their bridges when it comes to getting a plush corporate job later on? Since getting elected, Trump seems to be following the same policies that benefit big Wall Street banks and the military-industrial complex that a Romney or McCain would have. If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party. The parties need to differentiate their brands and offer "a choice, not an echo" so you can't have both parties offering the same thing because it opens up an opportunity for an outsider to come in and capture a party nomination. Dumping the social liberalism would make the Democrats the working class party. All the upper class socially liberal whites currently residing in the Democrat party don't really fit in anyway with the poorer whites, Hispanics and blacks in the same party. If they migrate over to the Republicans, their social liberalism would fit in better with the social liberalism of the current upper class Republican voters.

    Since getting elected, Trump seems to be following the same policies that benefit big Wall Street banks and the military-industrial complex that a Romney or McCain would have. If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party.

    It’s well known that the Dems started to lose some whites after the mid-1960’s. However, what’s less appreciated is that the Dems gained many affluent whites in the 1990’s because Clinton and Gore supported NAFTA and refused to raise taxes on the wealthy. On economic issues, there is no question that the Dems retained a lot of working class white support from the 1930’s-1980’s, which often grated on the nerves of wealthy whites who wanted cheaper labor, weaker unions, and lower taxes.

    Well, la-de-da, the Dems still can’t fully shed their New Deal past (since the GOP never fully welcomed some members of the New Deal coalition, e.g. unionized blue collar workers and ethnic minorities) in spite of the make-over they had in the 1990’s. So you are right that if the Dems can get the wokeness out of their system, they ought to be in a better position to appeal to normies compared to the GOP, whose pandering to the corrupt rich and the Pentagon rightly grosses most people out. Trouble is, the Left wokeness disease is managing to make the GOP look relatively sane, which if you think about it, is quite the accomplishment given how Republican driven attempts to open up the border, off-shore good jobs, and decimate our financial system over the last 40 years have all been an embarrassing mess.

    Should both parties run candidates who can’t get on the right track, that means that choosing the Republican will insure welfare for arrogantly corrupt elites, while choosing the Dems means accepting crappy ID politics and culture-war overreach.

    • Replies: @216

    However, what’s less appreciated is that the Dems gained many affluent whites in the 1990’s because Clinton and Gore supported NAFTA and refused to raise taxes on the wealthy. On economic issues, there is no question that the Dems retained a lot of working class white support from the 1930’s-1980’s, which often grated on the nerves of wealthy whites who wanted cheaper labor, weaker unions, and lower taxes.
     
    There was a realignment of affluent voters after 1989, when the Cold War coalition was no longer needed. This pattern was observed in the US, UK and Canada; but oddly not in Australia until much later. Old Labour Kinnock interrupted the trend, losing in 1992, but the trend was still apparent.

    Affluent voters for the left are mainly about cultural values, economics only to the extent that their taxes won't go up.
  33. @Charles Pewitt

    losing 3% of the european voters is more than enough for trump to lose by a lot.

     

    I was thinking Trump loses between 3 and 8 percent of his White vote total from 2016 to 2020 too. 1 or 2 percent doesn't get much interest and 10 percent might be too much, but it is reasonable to suggest that Trump might lose between 3 and 8 percent of the White Core American vote that he got in 2016.

    I think an independent political party called White Core America could rack up big vote totals in states that are crucial to Trump in the Electoral College and I think that White Core Americans born after 1965 are ready and willing to pay back Trump for his mass legal immigration extremism treason and for his refusal to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invader interloper infiltrators in the USA.

    Trump and the Republican Party globalizers are highly vulnerable to a political party that EXPLICITLY advances the interests of White Core Americans.

    The Republican Party is completely and totally controlled by the mass legal immigration extremist CHEAP LABOR FACTION.

    As a matter of fact, some Trump stooge putz named Andrew Puzder says that the USA should be flooded with mass legal immigration in order to make sure that businesses and cheap labor hogs have a massive oversupply of labor to keep wages down and advantage business owners at the expense of American workers. Puzder didn't say it exactly like that, but that is exactly what his call for more and more mass legal immigration will do to the American worker.

    I ain't voting for Trump because of guys like Andrew Puzder and the scoundrels in the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION.

    Trump Stooge Putzo Puzder Pushes For Mass Legal Immigration Invasion Of The USA:

    https://twitter.com/AndyPuzder/status/1174115431633870848

    As a matter of fact, some Trump stooge putz named Andrew Puzder says that the USA should be flooded with mass legal immigration in order to make sure that businesses and cheap labor hogs have a massive oversupply of labor to keep wages down and advantage business owners at the expense of American workers. Puzder didn’t say it exactly like that, but that is exactly what his call for more and more mass legal immigration will do to the American worker.

    Headline: Drug dealers complain that America isn’t creating enough drug addicts anymore.

    Gee, we might as well be living in Robocop (1987), where there is absolutely no shame about greed and corruption.

  34. @LondonBob
    Or is it really the case Hilldog did worse with the minorities rather than Trump doing better, it really was case of both candidates seeking to bring each other down.

    Not fully convinced by Trump's purported share of the White vote in these exit polls.

    To the extent that is the case, Warren isn’t going to fare any better–and probably worse. Her black support is staggeringly low.

  35. @Dieter Kief
    It looks as if over time Latinos and prospering blacks turn white = vote Trump.

    (The underlying question is: Is the siler-Strategy more about race or more about the productive part of the lower classes?)

    I think citizenism, where Steve’s heart is, is more about the latter.

  36. @iffen
    The 2020 figures are for Trump vs Warren

    Trump's dream ticket: Warren/Booker 2020

    The non-woke vote is up because of Warren and the black vote is down because they won't be coming out to vote for some guy on the down low in the 2nd spot.

    Cory Booker is the kind of black man white women like but black men despise.

  37. @Futurethirdworlder
    The first sentence of this article says that, 2016 Trump did modestly worse than 2012 Romney among whites but the graph shows him edging Romney by 1% point.

    What am I missing?

    Trump got 57% of the white vote in 2016 compared to Romney’s 59% in 2012. But in 2012, only 2% of the vote went to third-parties. In 2016, 6% did. As a consequence, Trump’s two-way white share against Clinton was marginally better than Romney’s two-way against Obama.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    McMullen and Johnson cost Trump Minnesota, given that historically speaking, American conservatives and moderates are more open to voting 3rd party than liberals are.

    -George Wallace in 1968 peeling off many paleoconservatives
    - John Anderson in 1980 peeling off some Rockefeller Republicans who disliked Reagan
    - Ross Perot in 1992 appealing to Rust-belt populists and costing Bush a lot of votes in the Northeast and Midwest (many of these people were culturally conservative "Reagan Democrats" in the 80's)

    Nader defied this trend, but that was in due in large part to Al Gore being about as "centrist" as the Dems got. So younger liberals were annoyed and voted for the more liberal Nader.

    The conservative and moderate camp tends to have more faction conflict than the liberal camp. So that's probably why conservatives and moderates are more willing to defect from the GOP. (The GOP has historically been fought over by at least three groups:Hardline cultural traditionalists, anti-government libertarians, and moderate "Rockefeller Republicans" who essentially are quasi-Democrats; Trump who has dipped his feet into many political and social circles over the years is rather obviously a Rockefeller type, I think he even used that term at one point). During the New Deal era, the Rockefeller faction was dominant as the Joe McCarthy and George Wallace traditionalist wing had discredited itself, while libertarians like Goldwater and Reagan were considered yahoos in the 60's and early 70's).

    , @Oblivionrecurs
    Fun fact

    Here's Trump's vote share (2-party) across that score. The results are *opposite* what pundits have said: Trump does best among voters who say he's *more* "conservative" than his party, true at every step away from center!

    If we bin the categories, Trump gets 61% of the vote among voters who think he's more conservative than Reps, 49% among those who think he's equal, and 43% for those who say he's more liberal. IOW, he does *worse* the more liberal he's perceived relative to Reps.

    In sum, voters *did* view Trump as more "moderate" in 2016 than past Reps, & more "liberal" than his party. But those perceptions *didn't* help Trump win votes. In fact, if anything, his seeming "moderation" overall seems to have hurt him. Infer voter ideology w/ care.
  38. “At least they will be on the same page as many (most?) Americans.”

    But the country is meant for them to do and what’s more most do so while making an investment in more ways than taxes.

    That’s the significant difference.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  39. @Sid
    President Trump hasn't governed too adeptly, and his delivery on his populist promises hasn't been satisfactory. The former has permanently soured college educated whites on him, while the latter has disappointed non-college educated whites.

    That said, he hasn't been anywhere near the dictatorial, militaristic catastrophe the Democrats in 2016 claimed he would be. I think blacks and Hispanics have seen that and some are warming up to him.

    Exactly. Trump perpetually overpromises and underdelivers. For someone so putatively detail-oriented, he is incredibly sloppy about his personnel picks. He regularly leaves allies twisting in the wind and rarely follows up on anything.

    But he is a master at bringing out the absolute worst in his opponents. The left promised us a dictator who would throw gays in concentration camps. Instead we got an innocuous blowhard who has put a new sheet of paint on the old neoliberal car. Blue collar blacks and Hispanics are thinking, “Trump ain’t so bad. And did you see that tweet with a Trump Tower on Greenland? Off the chain!”

    • Agree: 216, Twinkie
    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    replace "new sheet" with "fresh coat"

    English is my first language, I swear!
    , @Sid
    If Trump loses in 2020, his signature accomplishment will be his tax cut, and his longest lasting change in the direction of US policy will be the decoupling with China. Both changes resulted from certain parts of the Establishment agreeing with him.

    The tax cut had been long desired by the GOPe, their pundits, and their donors. The Democrats grumbled about it for a little while but haven't brought it up in a long time.

    The trade war with China has been more controversial, but both Schumer and Pelosi have gone easy on him for doing it, the national security apparatus is pleased, and even some corporations got burned by China and are happy to see tariffs rise.
  40. @Mark G.
    A Republican like Trump can use pro-working class rhetoric to attract working class voters but can he really govern like that since a large part of the funding for the Republicans come from the wealthy and many Republican politicians jump over to the private sector after leaving office and therefore don't want to burn their bridges when it comes to getting a plush corporate job later on? Since getting elected, Trump seems to be following the same policies that benefit big Wall Street banks and the military-industrial complex that a Romney or McCain would have. If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party. The parties need to differentiate their brands and offer "a choice, not an echo" so you can't have both parties offering the same thing because it opens up an opportunity for an outsider to come in and capture a party nomination. Dumping the social liberalism would make the Democrats the working class party. All the upper class socially liberal whites currently residing in the Democrat party don't really fit in anyway with the poorer whites, Hispanics and blacks in the same party. If they migrate over to the Republicans, their social liberalism would fit in better with the social liberalism of the current upper class Republican voters.

    With all due respect, it is staggering to me that people still think there is a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening. The Democrat electorate DOES NOT WANT IT AT ALL. Jim Webb got 1%. Hickenlooper got 1%. Bennett got 1%. Delaney–who spoke as forthrightly and directly as any Democrat in the last five years about the need to drop the Wokeism and reorient towards working-class, middle American concerns got heckled for his trouble… and then got 1%.

    This is not a case of the pols hoodwinking the voters who want something else. This is the pols giving the voters what they want–extra helpings of Woke–in the hopes of being able to do what the pols really want to do.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    There is a difference between "Moderate" and New Dealer. These also-rans you mention are a throwback to the 1990's. Dukakis and Mondale, who ran for the Dems in the 80's, were both committed New Dealers, not "centrists" or "moderates" (both terms describe the 1990's era consensus to globalize and privatize). On the 2016 campaign trail, both Trump (for older and truly conservative voters) and Bernie (younger and more culturally liberal voters) revived New Deal rhetoric about clawing away power from corrupt elites by implementing early-mid 20th century policies that would immediately make people's lives better. This wasn't just generic talk about bringing power to the people.

    So what many people want is the tables getting overturned to benefit ordinary people; we know that the last 40-50 years have been designed primarily to benefit the bank accounts of the UMC. The SJW contingent is more rabid than it was 4 years ago, but the SJW contingent is still primarily representative of urban, well educated, and younger elites. Dave Chapelle's latest comedy special is getting good audience reviews but hostile critic reviews. See the pattern?

    I think the biggest change from 4 years ago is that many one-time Bernie supporters now regret their lack of enthusiasm for Hilary which for some was expressed by voting for Trump or not voting at all. Plus, younger people often don't vote so a lot of Bernie supporters who were college age back then are now in their mid-late 20's and are itching to get their "credibility" and self-respect back by voting for whichever Dem is nominated. However, it's also true that many "conservatives" who voted for Johnson/McMullen/Hillary (!) are now comfortable with Trump and will vote for him in 2020. The whole "never Trump" thing is finished. Would the converted Bernie Bros and converted anti-Trumpers off-set each other? We will see.

  41. @Charles Pewitt

    losing 3% of the european voters is more than enough for trump to lose by a lot.

     

    I was thinking Trump loses between 3 and 8 percent of his White vote total from 2016 to 2020 too. 1 or 2 percent doesn't get much interest and 10 percent might be too much, but it is reasonable to suggest that Trump might lose between 3 and 8 percent of the White Core American vote that he got in 2016.

    I think an independent political party called White Core America could rack up big vote totals in states that are crucial to Trump in the Electoral College and I think that White Core Americans born after 1965 are ready and willing to pay back Trump for his mass legal immigration extremism treason and for his refusal to deport the upwards of 30 million illegal alien invader interloper infiltrators in the USA.

    Trump and the Republican Party globalizers are highly vulnerable to a political party that EXPLICITLY advances the interests of White Core Americans.

    The Republican Party is completely and totally controlled by the mass legal immigration extremist CHEAP LABOR FACTION.

    As a matter of fact, some Trump stooge putz named Andrew Puzder says that the USA should be flooded with mass legal immigration in order to make sure that businesses and cheap labor hogs have a massive oversupply of labor to keep wages down and advantage business owners at the expense of American workers. Puzder didn't say it exactly like that, but that is exactly what his call for more and more mass legal immigration will do to the American worker.

    I ain't voting for Trump because of guys like Andrew Puzder and the scoundrels in the Republican Party CHEAP LABOR FACTION.

    Trump Stooge Putzo Puzder Pushes For Mass Legal Immigration Invasion Of The USA:

    https://twitter.com/AndyPuzder/status/1174115431633870848

    What a splash that piece made, too! Four likes, no comments, no retweets. Tens and tens of people are thrilled!

    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    GOP Cheap Labor Faction mouthpiece Andrew Puzder must be a favorite of that guy named Paul Gigot who runs the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. It is well known that the Wall Street Journal has been pushing open borders mass legal immigration for decades. It is also well known that the Wall Street Journal has been pushing open borders mass illegal immigration for decades.

    I won't vote for Trump nor any GOP chump who doesn't campaign on implementing an immigration moratorium and a pledge to push for the immediate deportation of all 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    Puzder was a shady lobbyist lawyer goon for the nasty CHEAP LABOR HOGS in the restaurant industry.

    My idea is that the evil and immoral restaurant industry needs to be financially liquidated immediately.

    The evil and immoral restaurant scam artists are some of the biggest cheap labor hogs who want to keep more and more illegal alien invaders pouring into the USA. The restaurant mafia wants to have a huge supply of cheap labor illegal alien invaders so as to keep wages and benefits in the restaurant scam at a low level.

    I think that the evil geezers born before 1965 are keeping the nasty turds in the restaurant industry in clover from their ill-gotten gains from the Fed-induced asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate. The fat walrus geezers born before 1965 like to eat out at restaurants and the greedy restaurant owners who use cheap labor illegal aliens and other foreigners to keep wages low love to keep those fat greedy bastards well-fed.

    That baby boomer Andrew Puzder guy is pure evil and so is that baby boomer Paul Gigot.

    The Wall Street Journal and Andrew Puzder and Paul Gigot and the GOP CHEAP LABOR FACTION are all evil and immoral and voters need to reject that evil by not voting for any GOP candidates whatsoever.

    If you vote for the Republican Party or the Democrat Party you are voting for PURE EVIL.

    I don't want to hear no crud talk about the "lesser of two evils."
  42. @The Alarmist

    While the total white vote remained essentially unchanged between 2012 and 2016, its composition changed substantially. Trump swapped Romney’s strong support among middle- and upper-class whites for strong support among working-class whites. Trump’s rhetorical focus on working-class issues like manufacturing and illegal immigration could account for his modest improvement among blacks and Hispanics. Obama’s absence is another potential explanation, though it doesn’t cover the apparent shift from 2016 to 2020.
     
    John Derbyshire recently summed up a good explanation of the re-alignment: Cosmopolitans vs. Communitarians.

    I’m a big booster of the term “cosmopolitan”. Not sure about “communitarian”, though. It sounds too much like “communist”.

  43. @Thomm

    i’m maintaining my prediction that trump loses handily, to any of the top 3 or 4 democrats today.
     
    I am 100% certain that, barring massive vote fraud, this will not be the case.

    Trump wins handily. A lot of white cuckservatives who were against Trump are now for him, but no one who was for him in 2016 is going to vote for the Democrat (unless it is Bernie Sanders (the preferred WN candidate), which it will not be).

    If Trump starts another war, I won’t be voting for him.

    I’d consider voting for Warren as long as the running mate isn’t someone odious like Abrams. I’d vote GOP for Congress in this scenario. If Andrew Yang is still in the running by the time the primary reaches Ohio, I will vote in the Dem primary for him.

    On cultural matters, Warren is the most conservative, you can sense she doesn’t exactly believe all this crap; but goes along for electoral reasons. She’d have the least to prove to SJW supporters as President because she would be the “first woman”, and she’d have done in in her own right.

    To the Gen Y/Z supporters, supporting Trump has come at a high cost; a cost that many simply won’t carry. The GOP has become near unacceptable in the UMC suburbs, and I’d really like to have a better candidate like Hutsman that would make it socially acceptable to be vaugely right wing again.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe

    To the Gen Y/Z supporters, supporting Trump has come at a high cost; a cost that many simply won’t carry. The GOP has become near unacceptable in the UMC suburbs, and I’d really like to have a better candidate like Hutsman that would make it socially acceptable to be vaugely right wing again.
     
    There's no law that says you have to shoot your mouth off about whichever candidate you plan to vote for. If people face a price for being Trump supporters, they could simply decline to mention that about themselves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot
  44. @Feryl

    Since getting elected, Trump seems to be following the same policies that benefit big Wall Street banks and the military-industrial complex that a Romney or McCain would have. If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party.
     
    It's well known that the Dems started to lose some whites after the mid-1960's. However, what's less appreciated is that the Dems gained many affluent whites in the 1990's because Clinton and Gore supported NAFTA and refused to raise taxes on the wealthy. On economic issues, there is no question that the Dems retained a lot of working class white support from the 1930's-1980's, which often grated on the nerves of wealthy whites who wanted cheaper labor, weaker unions, and lower taxes.

    Well, la-de-da, the Dems still can't fully shed their New Deal past (since the GOP never fully welcomed some members of the New Deal coalition, e.g. unionized blue collar workers and ethnic minorities) in spite of the make-over they had in the 1990's. So you are right that if the Dems can get the wokeness out of their system, they ought to be in a better position to appeal to normies compared to the GOP, whose pandering to the corrupt rich and the Pentagon rightly grosses most people out. Trouble is, the Left wokeness disease is managing to make the GOP look relatively sane, which if you think about it, is quite the accomplishment given how Republican driven attempts to open up the border, off-shore good jobs, and decimate our financial system over the last 40 years have all been an embarrassing mess.

    Should both parties run candidates who can't get on the right track, that means that choosing the Republican will insure welfare for arrogantly corrupt elites, while choosing the Dems means accepting crappy ID politics and culture-war overreach.

    However, what’s less appreciated is that the Dems gained many affluent whites in the 1990’s because Clinton and Gore supported NAFTA and refused to raise taxes on the wealthy. On economic issues, there is no question that the Dems retained a lot of working class white support from the 1930’s-1980’s, which often grated on the nerves of wealthy whites who wanted cheaper labor, weaker unions, and lower taxes.

    There was a realignment of affluent voters after 1989, when the Cold War coalition was no longer needed. This pattern was observed in the US, UK and Canada; but oddly not in Australia until much later. Old Labour Kinnock interrupted the trend, losing in 1992, but the trend was still apparent.

    Affluent voters for the left are mainly about cultural values, economics only to the extent that their taxes won’t go up.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    This pattern was observed in the US, UK and Canada; but oddly not in Australia until much later
     
    There were major realignments in Australian politics as early as the beginning of the 80s. The Hawke Labor Government was an explicitly pro-business government that cheerfully threw the working class under the bus. Labor became the party of the billionaires and bankers, and the Woke middle class.

    And the supposedly conservative Coalition was becoming very Woke even in the 70s. Malcolm Fraser (prime minister 1975-83) was hyper-Woke.

    There is no party in Australia representing working class interests and there hasn't been since the 1970s.

    Tony Abbott tried a variant of the Trump Strategy in 2013 and won a large share of the working class vote away from Labor.
  45. @Giuseppe

    In 2016, Trump did modestly worse among white voters than Romney did in 2012. That is in part attributable to Gary Johnson–in a two-way race with Clinton, Trump fared as well as Romney did in a two-way race against Obama (according to official exit polling, he technically did 0.4% better than Romney!).
     
    This is idea is based on the false premise that third party candidates actually cause one of the "major party" candidates to do worse. It's a false dichotomy because it rarely comes down to only two choices in an election. I don't believe asking people who they would have voted for in a theoretical presidential race without one of the candidates produces anything like accurate results. Furthermore, Johnson was also a "third party" candidate in 2012. You can't compare the results of the two elections in this way; it's wrong on so many levels.

    Trump hasn’t done *anything* to win over Gary voters.

    I mean, you don’t even see “Gary voters” covered as a topic in the news.

    • Replies: @anon
    I mean, you don’t even see “Gary voters” covered as a topic in the news.

    Sure you do. Pretty much everywhere.

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/pot-bust-mug-shot-shirt-687432

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/funny/criminal-possession-of-an-avocado-648293

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/florida/half-bearded-man-busted-in-miami-347290
  46. @Audacious Epigone
    With all due respect, it is staggering to me that people still think there is a snowball's chance in hell of that happening. The Democrat electorate DOES NOT WANT IT AT ALL. Jim Webb got 1%. Hickenlooper got 1%. Bennett got 1%. Delaney--who spoke as forthrightly and directly as any Democrat in the last five years about the need to drop the Wokeism and reorient towards working-class, middle American concerns got heckled for his trouble... and then got 1%.

    This is not a case of the pols hoodwinking the voters who want something else. This is the pols giving the voters what they want--extra helpings of Woke--in the hopes of being able to do what the pols really want to do.

    There is a difference between “Moderate” and New Dealer. These also-rans you mention are a throwback to the 1990’s. Dukakis and Mondale, who ran for the Dems in the 80’s, were both committed New Dealers, not “centrists” or “moderates” (both terms describe the 1990’s era consensus to globalize and privatize). On the 2016 campaign trail, both Trump (for older and truly conservative voters) and Bernie (younger and more culturally liberal voters) revived New Deal rhetoric about clawing away power from corrupt elites by implementing early-mid 20th century policies that would immediately make people’s lives better. This wasn’t just generic talk about bringing power to the people.

    So what many people want is the tables getting overturned to benefit ordinary people; we know that the last 40-50 years have been designed primarily to benefit the bank accounts of the UMC. The SJW contingent is more rabid than it was 4 years ago, but the SJW contingent is still primarily representative of urban, well educated, and younger elites. Dave Chapelle’s latest comedy special is getting good audience reviews but hostile critic reviews. See the pattern?

    I think the biggest change from 4 years ago is that many one-time Bernie supporters now regret their lack of enthusiasm for Hilary which for some was expressed by voting for Trump or not voting at all. Plus, younger people often don’t vote so a lot of Bernie supporters who were college age back then are now in their mid-late 20’s and are itching to get their “credibility” and self-respect back by voting for whichever Dem is nominated. However, it’s also true that many “conservatives” who voted for Johnson/McMullen/Hillary (!) are now comfortable with Trump and will vote for him in 2020. The whole “never Trump” thing is finished. Would the converted Bernie Bros and converted anti-Trumpers off-set each other? We will see.

  47. @Audacious Epigone
    Trump got 57% of the white vote in 2016 compared to Romney's 59% in 2012. But in 2012, only 2% of the vote went to third-parties. In 2016, 6% did. As a consequence, Trump's two-way white share against Clinton was marginally better than Romney's two-way against Obama.

    McMullen and Johnson cost Trump Minnesota, given that historically speaking, American conservatives and moderates are more open to voting 3rd party than liberals are.

    -George Wallace in 1968 peeling off many paleoconservatives
    – John Anderson in 1980 peeling off some Rockefeller Republicans who disliked Reagan
    – Ross Perot in 1992 appealing to Rust-belt populists and costing Bush a lot of votes in the Northeast and Midwest (many of these people were culturally conservative “Reagan Democrats” in the 80’s)

    Nader defied this trend, but that was in due in large part to Al Gore being about as “centrist” as the Dems got. So younger liberals were annoyed and voted for the more liberal Nader.

    The conservative and moderate camp tends to have more faction conflict than the liberal camp. So that’s probably why conservatives and moderates are more willing to defect from the GOP. (The GOP has historically been fought over by at least three groups:Hardline cultural traditionalists, anti-government libertarians, and moderate “Rockefeller Republicans” who essentially are quasi-Democrats; Trump who has dipped his feet into many political and social circles over the years is rather obviously a Rockefeller type, I think he even used that term at one point). During the New Deal era, the Rockefeller faction was dominant as the Joe McCarthy and George Wallace traditionalist wing had discredited itself, while libertarians like Goldwater and Reagan were considered yahoos in the 60’s and early 70’s).

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  48. @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Well, not necessarily.

    The Sailer Strategy is specifically about working class whites. I would bet that a large number of Trump's white supporters are from the working class, and that has been traded with the upscale "educated suburban women" and other morons who have switched to the DNC.

    You would be correct. The problem with most of the high power intellectuals around here is that the closest they ever get to a working class white guy is when they happen to be standing next to one in line at the DMV.

    The teamsters union I belong to saw an unprecedented shift from lifelong Democratic voters to voting Trump in 2016, despite the predictable endorsement of Hillary from the IBT. I seriously doubt my union was alone in this shift. Trump deserves credit for this, although he benefited from Hillary being the least likable candidate of all time.

    I’ll also go on to say based on Trump’s track record, he’s unlikely to get anywhere near the same support in 2020 from this group.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    The teamsters union I belong to saw an unprecedented shift from lifelong Democratic voters to voting Trump in 2016, despite the predictable endorsement of Hillary from the IBT. I seriously doubt my union was alone in this shift. Trump deserves credit for this, although he benefited from Hillary being the least likable candidate of all time.
     
    There is a larger trend that reflects this. Trump beat both Obama and Clinton in the small donation percentages in fundraising, indicating strong grassroots support. Meanwhile the big/corporate money percentage for the Democrats has been climbing dramatically. This is a reversal of a long-established trend.
  49. @216

    However, what’s less appreciated is that the Dems gained many affluent whites in the 1990’s because Clinton and Gore supported NAFTA and refused to raise taxes on the wealthy. On economic issues, there is no question that the Dems retained a lot of working class white support from the 1930’s-1980’s, which often grated on the nerves of wealthy whites who wanted cheaper labor, weaker unions, and lower taxes.
     
    There was a realignment of affluent voters after 1989, when the Cold War coalition was no longer needed. This pattern was observed in the US, UK and Canada; but oddly not in Australia until much later. Old Labour Kinnock interrupted the trend, losing in 1992, but the trend was still apparent.

    Affluent voters for the left are mainly about cultural values, economics only to the extent that their taxes won't go up.

    This pattern was observed in the US, UK and Canada; but oddly not in Australia until much later

    There were major realignments in Australian politics as early as the beginning of the 80s. The Hawke Labor Government was an explicitly pro-business government that cheerfully threw the working class under the bus. Labor became the party of the billionaires and bankers, and the Woke middle class.

    And the supposedly conservative Coalition was becoming very Woke even in the 70s. Malcolm Fraser (prime minister 1975-83) was hyper-Woke.

    There is no party in Australia representing working class interests and there hasn’t been since the 1970s.

    Tony Abbott tried a variant of the Trump Strategy in 2013 and won a large share of the working class vote away from Labor.

  50. @Audacious Epigone
    Exactly. Trump perpetually overpromises and underdelivers. For someone so putatively detail-oriented, he is incredibly sloppy about his personnel picks. He regularly leaves allies twisting in the wind and rarely follows up on anything.

    But he is a master at bringing out the absolute worst in his opponents. The left promised us a dictator who would throw gays in concentration camps. Instead we got an innocuous blowhard who has put a new sheet of paint on the old neoliberal car. Blue collar blacks and Hispanics are thinking, "Trump ain't so bad. And did you see that tweet with a Trump Tower on Greenland? Off the chain!"

    replace “new sheet” with “fresh coat”

    English is my first language, I swear!

  51. @Mark G.
    A Republican like Trump can use pro-working class rhetoric to attract working class voters but can he really govern like that since a large part of the funding for the Republicans come from the wealthy and many Republican politicians jump over to the private sector after leaving office and therefore don't want to burn their bridges when it comes to getting a plush corporate job later on? Since getting elected, Trump seems to be following the same policies that benefit big Wall Street banks and the military-industrial complex that a Romney or McCain would have. If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party. The parties need to differentiate their brands and offer "a choice, not an echo" so you can't have both parties offering the same thing because it opens up an opportunity for an outsider to come in and capture a party nomination. Dumping the social liberalism would make the Democrats the working class party. All the upper class socially liberal whites currently residing in the Democrat party don't really fit in anyway with the poorer whites, Hispanics and blacks in the same party. If they migrate over to the Republicans, their social liberalism would fit in better with the social liberalism of the current upper class Republican voters.

    If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party.

    The U.S. doesn’t have political parties in the sense that the term is understood in Britain and Australia. U.S. parties seem to be alliances of interest groups forced together by the rigid two-party system. And they don’t have political bases – they have collections of political bases. If you look at 2016 there was not much overlap between Bernie Sanders’ base and Hillary’s.

    Logically the parties should split but they can’t because of the two-party system. The Democrats can’t be recreated as a working class party because they’re stuck with the identity politics loons who loathe the working class. The Republicans can’t win the working class vote (except occasionally on a temporary basis) because they’re dominated by corrupt corporate whores and neocon scum.

    An Australian-style preferential voting system would fix all that but it’s not going to happen.

    • Replies: @iffen
    An Australian-style preferential voting system would fix all that but it’s not going to happen.

    And then we could fix "everything" just like Australia has.
    , @RadicalCenter
    You’re right. It seems that ranked voting would be better than our current system, at least. Doesn’t Maine have that system for state (not federal) elections?

    We would see millions, then hopefully tens of millions of voters, marking a third party as their top choice, with the dem or Repub as second choice. (I’m getting to the point where I’d usually name third parties as my number one AND number two choices.)

    It might be better to have a two-round federal election. The top two or three vote-getters from the first round would advance to the second round. This would make many people more willing to vote for someone other than the Dems and Repubs, because they would no longer fear “helping the greater of two evils” to win.

    Vote Nationalist (where is that party), Libertarian, Green, whatever, in the first round. If the preferred “third-party” candidate doesn’t make it to the second round, you still can vote for the supposed “lesser of two evils” old-party candidate (dem or Repub) in the second round.

  52. ““I told you all along he was a wrecker!” I strongly suspect it is the latter.”

    Apparently unfamiliar with views regarding the president.

    Short answer absolutely not. And while I have been in my view consistently critical — I have never come from a perspective that he is a “wrecker”. That he can be a transformational president if he chooses, despite his opposition and personal hurdles. And by transformational, I mean deep structural shifts.

  53. The GOP is the party of Capital, and thus will always want to import labor, if that labor is cheaper than what is available domestically. Any wage-earner who votes Republican is a chump.

    • Replies: @Justvisiting

    The GOP is the party of Capital, and thus will always want to import labor, if that labor is cheaper than what is available domestically. Any wage-earner who votes Republican is a chump.
     
    So, now that the Democrats have themselves become a second party of Capital who wants to import cheap labor, any wage-earner that votes is a chump!

    The good news--in a kleptocracy none of that public policy stuff matters anyway. :-(
  54. @dfordoom

    If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party.
     
    The U.S. doesn't have political parties in the sense that the term is understood in Britain and Australia. U.S. parties seem to be alliances of interest groups forced together by the rigid two-party system. And they don't have political bases - they have collections of political bases. If you look at 2016 there was not much overlap between Bernie Sanders' base and Hillary's.

    Logically the parties should split but they can't because of the two-party system. The Democrats can't be recreated as a working class party because they're stuck with the identity politics loons who loathe the working class. The Republicans can't win the working class vote (except occasionally on a temporary basis) because they're dominated by corrupt corporate whores and neocon scum.

    An Australian-style preferential voting system would fix all that but it's not going to happen.

    An Australian-style preferential voting system would fix all that but it’s not going to happen.

    And then we could fix “everything” just like Australia has.

    • Replies: @dfordoom


    An Australian-style preferential voting system would fix all that but it’s not going to happen.
     
    And then we could fix “everything” just like Australia has.
     
    There would at least be more political options.
  55. @Nodwink
    The GOP is the party of Capital, and thus will always want to import labor, if that labor is cheaper than what is available domestically. Any wage-earner who votes Republican is a chump.

    The GOP is the party of Capital, and thus will always want to import labor, if that labor is cheaper than what is available domestically. Any wage-earner who votes Republican is a chump.

    So, now that the Democrats have themselves become a second party of Capital who wants to import cheap labor, any wage-earner that votes is a chump!

    The good news–in a kleptocracy none of that public policy stuff matters anyway. 🙁

  56. @Audacious Epigone
    Exactly. Trump perpetually overpromises and underdelivers. For someone so putatively detail-oriented, he is incredibly sloppy about his personnel picks. He regularly leaves allies twisting in the wind and rarely follows up on anything.

    But he is a master at bringing out the absolute worst in his opponents. The left promised us a dictator who would throw gays in concentration camps. Instead we got an innocuous blowhard who has put a new sheet of paint on the old neoliberal car. Blue collar blacks and Hispanics are thinking, "Trump ain't so bad. And did you see that tweet with a Trump Tower on Greenland? Off the chain!"

    If Trump loses in 2020, his signature accomplishment will be his tax cut, and his longest lasting change in the direction of US policy will be the decoupling with China. Both changes resulted from certain parts of the Establishment agreeing with him.

    The tax cut had been long desired by the GOPe, their pundits, and their donors. The Democrats grumbled about it for a little while but haven’t brought it up in a long time.

    The trade war with China has been more controversial, but both Schumer and Pelosi have gone easy on him for doing it, the national security apparatus is pleased, and even some corporations got burned by China and are happy to see tariffs rise.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Aren’t most of the tax cuts, especially the reduction of Fed income tax rates for actual human beings, temporary? They sunset, and rates go back up for families and individuals, in 2025.

    By contrast, I remember reading that the corporate income tax cuts are NOT sunsetted. Yeah, this is a party that really cares about us. And has a brilliant sense of public relations and “optics.”
  57. @iffen
    An Australian-style preferential voting system would fix all that but it’s not going to happen.

    And then we could fix "everything" just like Australia has.

    An Australian-style preferential voting system would fix all that but it’s not going to happen.

    And then we could fix “everything” just like Australia has.

    There would at least be more political options.

  58. “Or would you be among those screaming “I told you all along he was a wrecker!” I strongly suspect it is the latter.”

    This comment is so bizarre in reference to anything I have said about the president, I keep coming back to it to see if I misunderstood you. My criticism of the president are from the perspective of a conservative. And my concerns have been stark and consistent they have never included anything that remotely resembles — that he “wrecks” everything. Others have made that reference. And clearly there are issues reflecting some past performances.

    My expectations are as follows:

    sovereignty — and the wall a real wall is just a part of that overall matter, halting illegal immigration- I don’t buy the legal immigration he espouses, that’s two step dance for which the only music comes from his enemies, if that makes his son in law his enemy so be it

    Revitalize manufacturing or in some other manner get low skilled and less educated back into the workplace/workforce primarily fueled by private industry – beyond part time work — a large boon would be ensuring that companies based in the US employ citizens, including government contractors

    Policies or measures to revitalize the cities, and that can certainly include criticisms of how they are managed — again the emphasis on private investment

    An overhaul — audit of the Federal spending practices

    Withdrawal from interventions whose goal of to overturn or replace sovereign nations leadership who pose no threat or engaged in any act against the US

    Reassessing out foreign relations commitment so that it better reflects the ROI of the US. It does mean defacto withdrawal from international organizations, but there some legitimate questions about our return on investment

    —————————-

    No discussion about the economy or the state of the union can be addressed without a look at:

    1. removing the our current models of what counts as real gdp
    2. the current relationship between government and business – ceasing elected and appointed members of governmemnt from having any business formal or informal relations to the financial community: no stock ownership, sitting on boards, advisors, etc. — all are conflicts of interest and the latest financial retraction — which remains in effect demonstrate
    3. the MIC is vital part of the defending US soveriegnty and foreign policy enactment – however, they need to e seriously audited, to include the current practice of outsourcing to foreign countries anything pertaining to US security —- this is a stunningly insane practice and heads should be rolling
    ———————–

    If the president loses this election, it will be cause he failed to be successful in the policies he was elected to pursue. And I have room for the attempts to remove him from office, something for which I think the democrats will be held to account for misleading the country.

    Nearly all the above is a press to take the country in a new direction or a standing different posture — He has had some movement forward. However, based on his stated positioning — there has been plenty of room for him to move forward and plenty of opportunities for him to turn the failures of his opponents to his advantage that is here and now assessment — with no looking to his past.

    He was elected the president of the US not the local clatchey club tit for tatting sewing circle — I expect him to govern, not get ceasely embroiled in the childishness of republicans or democrats who don’t like him. While falsely accused no has taken by force in violation of the law and damaged his future —- his defense by many has been a success, even when his action were the cause of interaction.

    I reject anyone making any claims that my support for this president has been anything other than completely sincere and to force, that despite serious disagreements about issues: such as fidelity, marriage, same behavior, criminal justice, relations with Israel, his initial appointments,etc. And I will take on anyone who suggests otherwise and I can neither be guilted or pressed to into any mamby pamby — whines about a lack of support.

    For unlike many or most, my support has cost me. I voted for the president because based on the positions, his best reflected what was good for the country — overall. And while I may like him (in spite of himself) – that is second, third, fourth and fifth to performance. Unlike most of the country — for me performance over likability.

    Take a hike, forget the kite as nothing can lift you from unsupportable accusation.

  59. @Intelligent Dasein
    So, as it turns out the Sailer Strategy was actually WRONG (hardly surprising), and the old establishment GOP strategy of bringing more minorities into the fold is what worked. They just needed someone who wasn't a neoliberal homo economicus douche-noodle to pull it off. The data seem to suggest that it was really neoliberalism that failed and that the old Democratic Party platform of protecting working class interests remains quite popular. The Democrats stupidly abandoned a winning ticket in favor of Wokeism, while the Republicans stupidly refused to pick up the $100 bill on the sidewalk until Trump came along.

    Perhaps race just isn't that big of a factor in American elections, at least not yet. Perhaps the class divide and the generational divide are more important after all.

    To use Trump’s results as an indictment of the Sailer strategy doesn’t seem very coherent to me; it’s not very clear that this was his actual strategy. He certainly wasn’t explicitly courting whites, and the “implicit” appeals to whites weren’t terribly strong.

    Secondly, his support among whites (supposedly) went down, so how does that test the utility of stripping off more whites in winning elections? At best it might be an aborted attempt at the Sailer strategy.

    Thirdly, if it indeed WAS the Sailer strategy, then where’s the failure? Last I checked he won.

    As far as him winning in 2020 I suspect he will. Just like in 2016 the polls are against him, but other metrics of enthusiasm seem high (or so I’ve read, I won’t claim to be an expert). I imagine there’s something the polls aren’t capturing, even if I can’t justify exactly what. All the criticisms as to his chances I see are from the perspective of political analysts; he didn’t deliver Y, X alienates Z and he’s polling bad with yada yada yada. The only problem with analysis like this is: if not delivering on your central campaign promises is enough to stop reelection, then how has anybody ever gotten reelected? If bad performance is enough to lose elections, then why is deeply entrenched poor governance the norm basically everywhere?

    So far he’s been a bit of a lame duck, but if he wins a second term he’ll probably be more of what his hard right base wants him to be, just like Obama was more of what the hard left wanted him to be his second term.

  60. And then there is Ginsburg. There is no way she makes it to 2024. If she kicks before the election, McConnell will quicky force a vote for confirmation. Trump becomes less important then.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    With how long the Kavanaugh circus--a complete hoax from top to bottom, just like Russia--went on, I'd say we're running out of time to get a confirmation prior to the election unless McConnell really goes to the mat.
  61. @Audacious Epigone
    What a splash that piece made, too! Four likes, no comments, no retweets. Tens and tens of people are thrilled!

    GOP Cheap Labor Faction mouthpiece Andrew Puzder must be a favorite of that guy named Paul Gigot who runs the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. It is well known that the Wall Street Journal has been pushing open borders mass legal immigration for decades. It is also well known that the Wall Street Journal has been pushing open borders mass illegal immigration for decades.

    I won’t vote for Trump nor any GOP chump who doesn’t campaign on implementing an immigration moratorium and a pledge to push for the immediate deportation of all 30 million illegal alien invaders in the USA.

    Puzder was a shady lobbyist lawyer goon for the nasty CHEAP LABOR HOGS in the restaurant industry.

    My idea is that the evil and immoral restaurant industry needs to be financially liquidated immediately.

    The evil and immoral restaurant scam artists are some of the biggest cheap labor hogs who want to keep more and more illegal alien invaders pouring into the USA. The restaurant mafia wants to have a huge supply of cheap labor illegal alien invaders so as to keep wages and benefits in the restaurant scam at a low level.

    I think that the evil geezers born before 1965 are keeping the nasty turds in the restaurant industry in clover from their ill-gotten gains from the Fed-induced asset bubbles in stocks, bonds and real estate. The fat walrus geezers born before 1965 like to eat out at restaurants and the greedy restaurant owners who use cheap labor illegal aliens and other foreigners to keep wages low love to keep those fat greedy bastards well-fed.

    That baby boomer Andrew Puzder guy is pure evil and so is that baby boomer Paul Gigot.

    The Wall Street Journal and Andrew Puzder and Paul Gigot and the GOP CHEAP LABOR FACTION are all evil and immoral and voters need to reject that evil by not voting for any GOP candidates whatsoever.

    If you vote for the Republican Party or the Democrat Party you are voting for PURE EVIL.

    I don’t want to hear no crud talk about the “lesser of two evils.”

  62. Considering Obama got statistically more than 99% of the black vote its not like Republicans can do much more than improve with blacks after that.

    North Carolina voter registration trends and NC03/09 shows us that national trends are continuing. Urban and College suburbia are moving Democrat, Rural/Exurbs moving Republican, Hispanics interested in voting, Blacks aren’t.

    And blacks just aren’t that enthusiastic after Obama…unless its Georgia or Florida or Texas in 2018…..but Dems dropped those balls by having blacks vote to the right of the usual. DeSantis getting so many black women was surprising, but I wouldn’t have been surprised by that margin with black men as a fuckton watched/showed up with rallies with me. Based Ghetto hoodlum black friends who hate liberal kkkrakkkers ftw

    (Texas will be competitive in 2020 btw….which even if Trump wins there, a house loss in Texas this cycle would be DEVASTATING)

    • Replies: @anon
    Considering Obama got statistically more than 99% of the black vote

    Except in parts of Phily where Obama received over 100% of the black vote.
    Truly a miracle!
  63. @Audacious Epigone
    Trump got 57% of the white vote in 2016 compared to Romney's 59% in 2012. But in 2012, only 2% of the vote went to third-parties. In 2016, 6% did. As a consequence, Trump's two-way white share against Clinton was marginally better than Romney's two-way against Obama.

    Fun fact

    Here’s Trump’s vote share (2-party) across that score. The results are *opposite* what pundits have said: Trump does best among voters who say he’s *more* “conservative” than his party, true at every step away from center!

    If we bin the categories, Trump gets 61% of the vote among voters who think he’s more conservative than Reps, 49% among those who think he’s equal, and 43% for those who say he’s more liberal. IOW, he does *worse* the more liberal he’s perceived relative to Reps.

    In sum, voters *did* view Trump as more “moderate” in 2016 than past Reps, & more “liberal” than his party. But those perceptions *didn’t* help Trump win votes. In fact, if anything, his seeming “moderation” overall seems to have hurt him. Infer voter ideology w/ care.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Here’s Trump’s vote share (2-party) across that score. The results are *opposite* what pundits have said: Trump does best among voters who say he’s *more* “conservative” than his party, true at every step away from center!
     
    This is all semantics. We've never agreed on what liberal or conservative even mean, and that's even more true now than it was in say, the 80's. I suspect that TrueCons consider Trump's "tough guy" persona, his constant hostility toward the media and high profile Dems, to be a sign that he's a Strong Man that Republicans like Rush Limbaugh have been looking for since Nixon was impeached. But this is evaluating someone on the basis of their mental character and social image, rather than evaluating them based on their policy promises and actual policy legislation. Boomers and die-hard partisans often consider personality to be more important than actual ideology (back on planet Earth, younger people and independents/moderates are more responsive to the legislation that's being passed). Thus, in the eyes of mindless partisans, Reagan was a commanding visionary and Obama is an avuncular peace-nik. Partisans make me sick. People care about safety, security, and financial well-being and want legislation that facilitates these things. They could give two shits about the personality or charisma of a politician (news flash: Trump won by running as a New Deal Rockefeller Republican, not yet another neo-con corporate whore). Then again, it would take a rebirth of true progressivism in order to make more people start thinking rationally again, and stop acting like crazed partisan idiots. Until such time, we have to put up with Team Red and Team Blue non-sense, where politics degenerates into zeal for your side rather than evaluating the effects of each team's policies.
  64. From Decision Desk HQ/WP

    In truth, the urban-rural divide is not the whole story of the Hispanic vote; highly Hispanic precincts in urban areas such as Denver, Albuquerque, San Antonio, Phoenix, and Los Angeles all either swung toward Trump or swung toward Clinton by substantially smaller margins than neighboring majority-white precincts.

    Latinos 2012-2016

    Democrats gained 2.5% overall in Arizona’s Latinos in 2016 (Gained 4% Urban Vote, Lost 1.5% of Rural Vote)

    Democrats gained 3% overall in California’s Latinos (Gained 3% Urban, Gained 3.5% Rural)

    Democrats lost 12% overall in Colorado’s Latinos in 2016 (Lost 11% Urban, Lost 15% Rural)

    Democrats lost 7% overall in Connecticut’s Latinos in 2016 (Lost 7% both rural and urban)

    Democrats gained 4% overall in Florida’s Latinos in 2016 (Gained 5% Urban, Lost 9% Rural)

    Democrats gained 6.5% overall in Georgia’s Latinos in 2016 (Gained 6.5% both rural and urban)

    Democrat gained 1% overall in Illinois Latinos in 2016 (Gained 1% Urban, Lost 3.5% Rural)

    Democrats remained the same in Kansas, though they gained in Rural areas and lost in urban. Washington remained the same but exact opposite reason why

    Democrats lost 4% overall in Nevada’s Latinos in 2016 (Lost 4% Urban and Rural)

    Democrat lost 7.5% overall in New Jerseys Latinos in 2016 (Lost both rural and urban at 7.5%)

    Democrats lost 6.5% overall in New Mexico Latinos in 2016 (Lost 4% Urban, Lost 8% Rural)

    Democrats lost 5% overall in New York Latinos in 2016 (Lost 4% Urban, Lost 30% Rural)

    Democrats lost 3% overall in Oregon’s Latinos in 2016 (Lost 5% Urban, Gained 2% Rural)

    Democrats lost 5% overall in Pennsylvania Latinos

    Democrats gained 3.5% overall in Texas’s Latinos in 2016 (Gained 6% Urban, Lost 4% Rural)

    • Replies: @LoutishAngloQuebecker
    Uh source?
  65. @216
    Trump hasn't done *anything* to win over Gary voters.

    I mean, you don't even see "Gary voters" covered as a topic in the news.
  66. @Oblivionrecurs
    Considering Obama got statistically more than 99% of the black vote its not like Republicans can do much more than improve with blacks after that.

    North Carolina voter registration trends and NC03/09 shows us that national trends are continuing. Urban and College suburbia are moving Democrat, Rural/Exurbs moving Republican, Hispanics interested in voting, Blacks aren't.


    And blacks just aren't that enthusiastic after Obama...unless its Georgia or Florida or Texas in 2018.....but Dems dropped those balls by having blacks vote to the right of the usual. DeSantis getting so many black women was surprising, but I wouldn't have been surprised by that margin with black men as a fuckton watched/showed up with rallies with me. Based Ghetto hoodlum black friends who hate liberal kkkrakkkers ftw

    (Texas will be competitive in 2020 btw....which even if Trump wins there, a house loss in Texas this cycle would be DEVASTATING)

    Considering Obama got statistically more than 99% of the black vote

    Except in parts of Phily where Obama received over 100% of the black vote.
    Truly a miracle!

  67. @MikeatMikedotMike
    You would be correct. The problem with most of the high power intellectuals around here is that the closest they ever get to a working class white guy is when they happen to be standing next to one in line at the DMV.

    The teamsters union I belong to saw an unprecedented shift from lifelong Democratic voters to voting Trump in 2016, despite the predictable endorsement of Hillary from the IBT. I seriously doubt my union was alone in this shift. Trump deserves credit for this, although he benefited from Hillary being the least likable candidate of all time.

    I'll also go on to say based on Trump's track record, he's unlikely to get anywhere near the same support in 2020 from this group.

    The teamsters union I belong to saw an unprecedented shift from lifelong Democratic voters to voting Trump in 2016, despite the predictable endorsement of Hillary from the IBT. I seriously doubt my union was alone in this shift. Trump deserves credit for this, although he benefited from Hillary being the least likable candidate of all time.

    There is a larger trend that reflects this. Trump beat both Obama and Clinton in the small donation percentages in fundraising, indicating strong grassroots support. Meanwhile the big/corporate money percentage for the Democrats has been climbing dramatically. This is a reversal of a long-established trend.

  68. Meanwhile the big/corporate money percentage for the Democrats has been climbing dramatically.

    I don’t know what you are looking at, but they have always hedged their bets (just like you know (((who)))).

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    they have always hedged their bets (just like you know (((who)))).
     
    Climbing means increasing. It doesn’t preclude prior existence. And going full Net Nazi, are you? Just say Jews if that’s what you meant.
  69. @Oblivionrecurs
    Fun fact

    Here's Trump's vote share (2-party) across that score. The results are *opposite* what pundits have said: Trump does best among voters who say he's *more* "conservative" than his party, true at every step away from center!

    If we bin the categories, Trump gets 61% of the vote among voters who think he's more conservative than Reps, 49% among those who think he's equal, and 43% for those who say he's more liberal. IOW, he does *worse* the more liberal he's perceived relative to Reps.

    In sum, voters *did* view Trump as more "moderate" in 2016 than past Reps, & more "liberal" than his party. But those perceptions *didn't* help Trump win votes. In fact, if anything, his seeming "moderation" overall seems to have hurt him. Infer voter ideology w/ care.

    Here’s Trump’s vote share (2-party) across that score. The results are *opposite* what pundits have said: Trump does best among voters who say he’s *more* “conservative” than his party, true at every step away from center!

    This is all semantics. We’ve never agreed on what liberal or conservative even mean, and that’s even more true now than it was in say, the 80’s. I suspect that TrueCons consider Trump’s “tough guy” persona, his constant hostility toward the media and high profile Dems, to be a sign that he’s a Strong Man that Republicans like Rush Limbaugh have been looking for since Nixon was impeached. But this is evaluating someone on the basis of their mental character and social image, rather than evaluating them based on their policy promises and actual policy legislation. Boomers and die-hard partisans often consider personality to be more important than actual ideology (back on planet Earth, younger people and independents/moderates are more responsive to the legislation that’s being passed). Thus, in the eyes of mindless partisans, Reagan was a commanding visionary and Obama is an avuncular peace-nik. Partisans make me sick. People care about safety, security, and financial well-being and want legislation that facilitates these things. They could give two shits about the personality or charisma of a politician (news flash: Trump won by running as a New Deal Rockefeller Republican, not yet another neo-con corporate whore). Then again, it would take a rebirth of true progressivism in order to make more people start thinking rationally again, and stop acting like crazed partisan idiots. Until such time, we have to put up with Team Red and Team Blue non-sense, where politics degenerates into zeal for your side rather than evaluating the effects of each team’s policies.

  70. @iffen
    Meanwhile the big/corporate money percentage for the Democrats has been climbing dramatically.

    I don't know what you are looking at, but they have always hedged their bets (just like you know (((who)))).

    they have always hedged their bets (just like you know (((who)))).

    Climbing means increasing. It doesn’t preclude prior existence. And going full Net Nazi, are you? Just say Jews if that’s what you meant.

    • Replies: @iffen
    This is a reversal of a long-established trend.

    This is what caught my eye.

    Just say Jews if that’s what you meant.

    When in Rome, lingua franca and all that.

    You seem to have no sense of parody which of course goes along with your lack of a sense of humor.

  71. @MarkinLA
    And then there is Ginsburg. There is no way she makes it to 2024. If she kicks before the election, McConnell will quicky force a vote for confirmation. Trump becomes less important then.

    With how long the Kavanaugh circus–a complete hoax from top to bottom, just like Russia–went on, I’d say we’re running out of time to get a confirmation prior to the election unless McConnell really goes to the mat.

  72. @Twinkie

    they have always hedged their bets (just like you know (((who)))).
     
    Climbing means increasing. It doesn’t preclude prior existence. And going full Net Nazi, are you? Just say Jews if that’s what you meant.

    This is a reversal of a long-established trend.

    This is what caught my eye.

    Just say Jews if that’s what you meant.

    When in Rome, lingua franca and all that.

    You seem to have no sense of parody which of course goes along with your lack of a sense of humor.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    When in Rome, lingua franca and all that.
     
    Romans didn’t speak French. You are mixing up your metaphors. And that sounds like an admission.

    You seem to have no sense of parody which of course goes along with your lack of a sense of humor.
     
    That wasn’t a parody. At best, that was pandering. Don’t backtrack.
  73. “But this is evaluating someone on the basis of their mental character and social image, rather than evaluating them based on their policy promises and actual policy legislation. Boomers and die-hard partisans often consider personality to be more important than actual ideology (back on planet Earth, younger people and independents/moderates are more responsive to the legislation that’s being passed).”

    Nonsense. Just the opposite and why conservatives comprise a small segment of the population.

    Being likeable is fine. But it is not the primary issue. And that is why conservatives would have supported the president. Most would be a chagrin at his persona. However on balance to polic ies he represents the best choice.

  74. “(back on planet Earth, younger people and independents/moderates are more responsive to the legislation that’s being passed).”

    Then you would be more supportive of the current president. Who is not a conservative, despite having some conservative leanings.

    In fact, given their knee jerk response to personality, they completely missed or ignored this president’s positions on healthcare, same sex behavior, education legal immigration and technological innovation, face to face with North Korea, less interventions, reconsidering our alliances to ROI . . .

    Nonsense they are listening to policy

    • Replies: @Feryl

    In fact, given their knee jerk response to personality, they completely missed or ignored this president’s positions on healthcare, same sex behavior, education legal immigration and technological innovation, face to face with North Korea, less interventions, reconsidering our alliances to ROI . . .
     
    I dunno what this is even supposed to mean. Are you saying that Trump has good policies at present? Most Trump Democrats/Trump Independents (who are moderates, populists, and New Dealers) are well aware that Trump has been mostly terrible on trade, mostly terrible on immigration, and has been ok on foreign policy. Trump campaigned in 2016 as a man who wanted to restore the trade policies of the New Deal era. He campaigned on closing the borders, ala the New Deal. He campaigned on ending pointless foreign invasions and occupations. So far he hasn't really made trade or immigration any better than what it was during the Obama era. He thankfully hasn't wrecked any more countries, although he hasn't scaled back pre-existing occupations to a level that Trump Democrats/Trump Independents want.

    On the other hand, Trump Republicans (people who gradually warmed up to Trump after Trump was co-opted by the Reaganites), being partisan dimwits and out of touch elitists, are over-joyed about his policies being in keeping with Reaganite conservatism.

    Most younger people are not Trump Republicans (thank God). Younger people, to the exent that they vote for the GOP, do so out of populism and with intent to reform, not to further sanctify the elitist status quo that further rewards the Me Generation and their lousy neo-liberal crap that they've foisted on us since Jimmy Carter and Thatcher were elected in the late 70's, so that markets could be de-regulated, anti-trust rolled back, unions busted, and the tax burden of the rich would be lightened.

    The last president who over-saw declining immigration levels at the beginning of his 2nd term was Richard Nixon, who was our last New Deal president. Since then, Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama all blew the borders wide open after re-election. We know exactly what going on; arrogant elites want cheaper and less protected labor, and they aggressively moved to that position in the late 70's (when Mexicans suddenly started doing more and more of the menial labor in places like Los Angeles). Funny enough, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all made a big deal about sound immigration policy in their early terms (to placate the masses), and then promptly shivved America in the back after re-election (GW Bush was so moronic that he couldn't even emulate the immigration "security" rhetoric of the other neo-lib presidents, for which normie conservatives despised him).

    People would forgive Trump if his policies resulted in better wages and less social stress. Since Trump isn't making things cheaper, isn't reducing traffic, isn't building more and better infrastructure, isn't reducing wasteful spending, isn't reforming the tax code in a more progressive direction, etc., many people are justifiably hostile towards Trump. Look, Nixon was an asshole in terms of temperament, yet he won re-election in a land-slide in 1972. Nixon was hated by many TrueCons for being too loyal to the New Deal, but Americans were still largely satisfied with the economic stability provided by the New Deal. Meanwhile, LBJ and the Dems were also New Dealers but their military and cultural policy over-reach of the mid-60's threatened America's overall stability so Nixon got elected twice.

    Ever since the Carter era, our politicians have consistently failed to deliver policies that create stability of any kind. Infrastructure decays, spending exceeds revenue (what are they spending this money on, anyway?), the economic and cultural gap between the elites and the proles just gets worse and worse. Trump couldn't deliver because elites, for 40+ years, have been fubaring everything whether they realize it or not.
  75. @Oblivionrecurs
    From Decision Desk HQ/WP

    In truth, the urban-rural divide is not the whole story of the Hispanic vote; highly Hispanic precincts in urban areas such as Denver, Albuquerque, San Antonio, Phoenix, and Los Angeles all either swung toward Trump or swung toward Clinton by substantially smaller margins than neighboring majority-white precincts.

    Latinos 2012-2016

    Democrats gained 2.5% overall in Arizona's Latinos in 2016 (Gained 4% Urban Vote, Lost 1.5% of Rural Vote)

    Democrats gained 3% overall in California's Latinos (Gained 3% Urban, Gained 3.5% Rural)

    Democrats lost 12% overall in Colorado's Latinos in 2016 (Lost 11% Urban, Lost 15% Rural)

    Democrats lost 7% overall in Connecticut's Latinos in 2016 (Lost 7% both rural and urban)

    Democrats gained 4% overall in Florida's Latinos in 2016 (Gained 5% Urban, Lost 9% Rural)

    Democrats gained 6.5% overall in Georgia's Latinos in 2016 (Gained 6.5% both rural and urban)

    Democrat gained 1% overall in Illinois Latinos in 2016 (Gained 1% Urban, Lost 3.5% Rural)

    Democrats remained the same in Kansas, though they gained in Rural areas and lost in urban. Washington remained the same but exact opposite reason why

    Democrats lost 4% overall in Nevada's Latinos in 2016 (Lost 4% Urban and Rural)

    Democrat lost 7.5% overall in New Jerseys Latinos in 2016 (Lost both rural and urban at 7.5%)

    Democrats lost 6.5% overall in New Mexico Latinos in 2016 (Lost 4% Urban, Lost 8% Rural)

    Democrats lost 5% overall in New York Latinos in 2016 (Lost 4% Urban, Lost 30% Rural)

    Democrats lost 3% overall in Oregon's Latinos in 2016 (Lost 5% Urban, Gained 2% Rural)

    Democrats lost 5% overall in Pennsylvania Latinos

    Democrats gained 3.5% overall in Texas's Latinos in 2016 (Gained 6% Urban, Lost 4% Rural)

    Uh source?

  76. @iffen
    This is a reversal of a long-established trend.

    This is what caught my eye.

    Just say Jews if that’s what you meant.

    When in Rome, lingua franca and all that.

    You seem to have no sense of parody which of course goes along with your lack of a sense of humor.

    When in Rome, lingua franca and all that.

    Romans didn’t speak French. You are mixing up your metaphors. And that sounds like an admission.

    You seem to have no sense of parody which of course goes along with your lack of a sense of humor.

    That wasn’t a parody. At best, that was pandering. Don’t backtrack.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Romans didn’t speak French.

    Well, shut my mouth, you do have a sense of humor.

    Don’t backtrack.


    I frequently backtrack. That's how I get back to the point where I took the wrong turn.

    Of course someone who has never taken a wrong turn would have no need to ever backtrack and would be completely unfamiliar with what is involved.

    sarcasm:

    2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

    Since you don't understand parody, I thought you might not ...
  77. @216
    If Trump starts another war, I won't be voting for him.

    I'd consider voting for Warren as long as the running mate isn't someone odious like Abrams. I'd vote GOP for Congress in this scenario. If Andrew Yang is still in the running by the time the primary reaches Ohio, I will vote in the Dem primary for him.

    On cultural matters, Warren is the most conservative, you can sense she doesn't exactly believe all this crap; but goes along for electoral reasons. She'd have the least to prove to SJW supporters as President because she would be the "first woman", and she'd have done in in her own right.

    To the Gen Y/Z supporters, supporting Trump has come at a high cost; a cost that many simply won't carry. The GOP has become near unacceptable in the UMC suburbs, and I'd really like to have a better candidate like Hutsman that would make it socially acceptable to be vaugely right wing again.

    To the Gen Y/Z supporters, supporting Trump has come at a high cost; a cost that many simply won’t carry. The GOP has become near unacceptable in the UMC suburbs, and I’d really like to have a better candidate like Hutsman that would make it socially acceptable to be vaugely right wing again.

    There’s no law that says you have to shoot your mouth off about whichever candidate you plan to vote for. If people face a price for being Trump supporters, they could simply decline to mention that about themselves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot

    • Replies: @216
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence
  78. @Twinkie

    When in Rome, lingua franca and all that.
     
    Romans didn’t speak French. You are mixing up your metaphors. And that sounds like an admission.

    You seem to have no sense of parody which of course goes along with your lack of a sense of humor.
     
    That wasn’t a parody. At best, that was pandering. Don’t backtrack.

    Romans didn’t speak French.

    Well, shut my mouth, you do have a sense of humor.

    Don’t backtrack.

    I frequently backtrack. That’s how I get back to the point where I took the wrong turn.

    Of course someone who has never taken a wrong turn would have no need to ever backtrack and would be completely unfamiliar with what is involved.

    sarcasm:

    2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

    Since you don’t understand parody, I thought you might not …

  79. As for the critique on boomers and those that arrived soon after being the sole owners of damaging socio-politics

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-road-to-serfdom-is-still-the-best-indictment-of-centralized-power/

    • Replies: @Feryl

    As for the critique on boomers and those that arrived soon after being the sole owners of damaging socio-politics
     
    All generations have had their problems. The Boomers get taken behind the wood-shed, however, because:

    1) They were a massive generation, and with great numbers comes great responsibility.

    2) The media/corporate America "marketed" them as being distinctively brash, entitled, and clueless about the world as it was before 1946. That this "marketing" has never been "corrected" is an indication that many Boomers fit this stereotype to a T.

    3) The earlier Boomers benefited from generous hourly pay, little competition from immigrants, strong unions, and cheap living costs. The later Boomers weren't as lucky, but even the later Boomers got off much easier than people who joined the workforce after 1990 (the primary generational divide is between those born before 1972 and those born after 1972, and this is largely an economic issue; people under the age of 47 had no opportunity to participate in a middle class paradise)

    So people have good reason to resent Boomers. This generation could've spent their resources doing any number of things to benefit society, and yet they chose to ineffectually bicker with each other and polish their sports cars....And lecture younger generations about being worthless "slackers". Oh, and there's also rates of suicide, mental illness, drug abuse, violent crime etc. all going up a great deal in the 1970's and 80's. By the late 70's, there were massive drug running operations throughout the United States to feed the indulgence of Boomers.
  80. The youth of today are not much better at comprehending rhetorical than the 1960’s or 1970’s generation – the advocacy for socialism is a perfect and libertarian economics are cases in point.

    First they misidentify systemic abuses as capitalism, when in fact, said abuses are counter to capitalisms center creed — honest dealings. That is not the fault of capitalism, but the human heart, and power dynamics that protect careless behavior in markets from the consequences of their behavior. It’s akin to protecting the police or any authority from violations ad instead of calling them out — justify the behavior and worse make it policy. Getting the facts wrong is what typifies the generations being critiqued. examples: North Vietnam were the aggressors not the South Vietnamese or the US and Australia.

    Second, I am not opposed to supplements. But the suggestion that legalizing mind altering substances is the answer to lowering crime rates and that the use of said substances is harmless is unsupported by the facts. The damage done to the country by alcohol exceeds what it pays for by light years. Not because of what it does privately, but the costs socially from impaired thinking. And unlike alcohol, not even marijuna has a chemistry that can be measured determine legitimate operating levels. Never mind LSD, amphetemines, etc. And its odd that such advocates are ignoring the arguable epidemic of “pain killers (note the quotation marks.

    Note; the complaints about existing social theories remained theories until the last twenty years, outside the bounds of previous generations — i hate to break the news — those are the current generations who are rejecting boundaries of practical socialization.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    First they misidentify systemic abuses as capitalism, when in fact, said abuses are counter to capitalisms center creed — honest dealings


    Since when? Like that old saying in poker, "If you don't know who the sucker at the table it, then it probably is you". In the real world NOBODY in a deal can assume he isn't being taken so honesty is last on the list. Why do you think laws are created and contracts are drawn up specifically to make sure one side doesn't hide something from the other.
    , @dfordoom

    First they misidentify systemic abuses as capitalism, when in fact, said abuses are counter to capitalisms center creed — honest dealings. That is not the fault of capitalism, but the human heart,
     
    To fans of capitalism nothing is ever capitalism's fault. Capitalism is great - it's just never been done properly! Capitalism would work perfectly if it wasn't for human nature! If only we could get those pesky humans out of the equation.

    If capitalism works in theory but in practice leads to all sorts of ghastly problems then it is possible that it's an inherent fault of capitalism. It is possible that it's just not workable in practice on a large scale in a modern society, that it will always end up leading to abuses.

    North Vietnam were the aggressors not the South Vietnamese or the US and Australia.
     
    If the Americans hadn't started meddling when the French were kicked out in the 50s the whole disaster would never have happened. The Americans, as usual, had no real idea what they were doing or what they were dealing with. Australia was just being a faithful American lapdog.
  81. @Kevin O'Keeffe

    To the Gen Y/Z supporters, supporting Trump has come at a high cost; a cost that many simply won’t carry. The GOP has become near unacceptable in the UMC suburbs, and I’d really like to have a better candidate like Hutsman that would make it socially acceptable to be vaugely right wing again.
     
    There's no law that says you have to shoot your mouth off about whichever candidate you plan to vote for. If people face a price for being Trump supporters, they could simply decline to mention that about themselves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot
  82. @dfordoom

    If you want to recreate the old working class Democrat party, it might be better to change the current Democrat party than the current Republican party.
     
    The U.S. doesn't have political parties in the sense that the term is understood in Britain and Australia. U.S. parties seem to be alliances of interest groups forced together by the rigid two-party system. And they don't have political bases - they have collections of political bases. If you look at 2016 there was not much overlap between Bernie Sanders' base and Hillary's.

    Logically the parties should split but they can't because of the two-party system. The Democrats can't be recreated as a working class party because they're stuck with the identity politics loons who loathe the working class. The Republicans can't win the working class vote (except occasionally on a temporary basis) because they're dominated by corrupt corporate whores and neocon scum.

    An Australian-style preferential voting system would fix all that but it's not going to happen.

    You’re right. It seems that ranked voting would be better than our current system, at least. Doesn’t Maine have that system for state (not federal) elections?

    We would see millions, then hopefully tens of millions of voters, marking a third party as their top choice, with the dem or Repub as second choice. (I’m getting to the point where I’d usually name third parties as my number one AND number two choices.)

    It might be better to have a two-round federal election. The top two or three vote-getters from the first round would advance to the second round. This would make many people more willing to vote for someone other than the Dems and Repubs, because they would no longer fear “helping the greater of two evils” to win.

    Vote Nationalist (where is that party), Libertarian, Green, whatever, in the first round. If the preferred “third-party” candidate doesn’t make it to the second round, you still can vote for the supposed “lesser of two evils” old-party candidate (dem or Repub) in the second round.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    You’re right. It seems that ranked voting would be better than our current system, at least.
     
    Yes. I'm not suggesting that Australia has a perfect electoral system. But I think it's slightly less awful than the present British and American systems because it doesn't completely disenfranchise people who would prefer a third choice. And it avoids the problems of instability inherent in proportional representation systems.

    The best argument in favour of the Australian system is that the major parties in Australia hate it. They hate it because they don't have quite so much of a monopoly on power. Minor parties win Senate seats on a regular basis and they occasionally win House of Representative seats. They exert some real influence through preference deals. On occasion they can, and do, make or break governments.

    We would see millions, then hopefully tens of millions of voters, marking a third party as their top choice, with the dem or Repub as second choice.
     
    Yep, that's what happens in Australia.

    Of course the major parties keep trying to weaken the system to make things difficult for the minor parties but so far it still works.

    It also to some extent avoids the Tyranny of the Majority problem.
  83. @Sid
    If Trump loses in 2020, his signature accomplishment will be his tax cut, and his longest lasting change in the direction of US policy will be the decoupling with China. Both changes resulted from certain parts of the Establishment agreeing with him.

    The tax cut had been long desired by the GOPe, their pundits, and their donors. The Democrats grumbled about it for a little while but haven't brought it up in a long time.

    The trade war with China has been more controversial, but both Schumer and Pelosi have gone easy on him for doing it, the national security apparatus is pleased, and even some corporations got burned by China and are happy to see tariffs rise.

    Aren’t most of the tax cuts, especially the reduction of Fed income tax rates for actual human beings, temporary? They sunset, and rates go back up for families and individuals, in 2025.

    By contrast, I remember reading that the corporate income tax cuts are NOT sunsetted. Yeah, this is a party that really cares about us. And has a brilliant sense of public relations and “optics.”

  84. Didn’t you show a chart a while back that held that Hispanics and Asians were the most realistic about the White Black iq gap. Maybe that explains Trumps shocking rise with Hispanics. Did you find what Trumps survey numbers with asians are? Though it is probably lower than Hispanics since they are all obsessed with importing their family members even more.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Though the N was 7,000 in this SurveyUSA sample, the Asian results (around n = 200) weren't reported.

    Here is the post I believe you're referring to. It's from 2008. Man how time flies!

  85. @EliteCommInc.
    As for the critique on boomers and those that arrived soon after being the sole owners of damaging socio-politics


    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-road-to-serfdom-is-still-the-best-indictment-of-centralized-power/

    As for the critique on boomers and those that arrived soon after being the sole owners of damaging socio-politics

    All generations have had their problems. The Boomers get taken behind the wood-shed, however, because:

    1) They were a massive generation, and with great numbers comes great responsibility.

    2) The media/corporate America “marketed” them as being distinctively brash, entitled, and clueless about the world as it was before 1946. That this “marketing” has never been “corrected” is an indication that many Boomers fit this stereotype to a T.

    3) The earlier Boomers benefited from generous hourly pay, little competition from immigrants, strong unions, and cheap living costs. The later Boomers weren’t as lucky, but even the later Boomers got off much easier than people who joined the workforce after 1990 (the primary generational divide is between those born before 1972 and those born after 1972, and this is largely an economic issue; people under the age of 47 had no opportunity to participate in a middle class paradise)

    So people have good reason to resent Boomers. This generation could’ve spent their resources doing any number of things to benefit society, and yet they chose to ineffectually bicker with each other and polish their sports cars….And lecture younger generations about being worthless “slackers”. Oh, and there’s also rates of suicide, mental illness, drug abuse, violent crime etc. all going up a great deal in the 1970’s and 80’s. By the late 70’s, there were massive drug running operations throughout the United States to feed the indulgence of Boomers.

  86. @EliteCommInc.
    "(back on planet Earth, younger people and independents/moderates are more responsive to the legislation that’s being passed).”

    Then you would be more supportive of the current president. Who is not a conservative, despite having some conservative leanings.

    In fact, given their knee jerk response to personality, they completely missed or ignored this president's positions on healthcare, same sex behavior, education legal immigration and technological innovation, face to face with North Korea, less interventions, reconsidering our alliances to ROI . . .

    Nonsense they are listening to policy

    In fact, given their knee jerk response to personality, they completely missed or ignored this president’s positions on healthcare, same sex behavior, education legal immigration and technological innovation, face to face with North Korea, less interventions, reconsidering our alliances to ROI . . .

    I dunno what this is even supposed to mean. Are you saying that Trump has good policies at present? Most Trump Democrats/Trump Independents (who are moderates, populists, and New Dealers) are well aware that Trump has been mostly terrible on trade, mostly terrible on immigration, and has been ok on foreign policy. Trump campaigned in 2016 as a man who wanted to restore the trade policies of the New Deal era. He campaigned on closing the borders, ala the New Deal. He campaigned on ending pointless foreign invasions and occupations. So far he hasn’t really made trade or immigration any better than what it was during the Obama era. He thankfully hasn’t wrecked any more countries, although he hasn’t scaled back pre-existing occupations to a level that Trump Democrats/Trump Independents want.

    On the other hand, Trump Republicans (people who gradually warmed up to Trump after Trump was co-opted by the Reaganites), being partisan dimwits and out of touch elitists, are over-joyed about his policies being in keeping with Reaganite conservatism.

    Most younger people are not Trump Republicans (thank God). Younger people, to the exent that they vote for the GOP, do so out of populism and with intent to reform, not to further sanctify the elitist status quo that further rewards the Me Generation and their lousy neo-liberal crap that they’ve foisted on us since Jimmy Carter and Thatcher were elected in the late 70’s, so that markets could be de-regulated, anti-trust rolled back, unions busted, and the tax burden of the rich would be lightened.

    The last president who over-saw declining immigration levels at the beginning of his 2nd term was Richard Nixon, who was our last New Deal president. Since then, Reagan, Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama all blew the borders wide open after re-election. We know exactly what going on; arrogant elites want cheaper and less protected labor, and they aggressively moved to that position in the late 70’s (when Mexicans suddenly started doing more and more of the menial labor in places like Los Angeles). Funny enough, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama all made a big deal about sound immigration policy in their early terms (to placate the masses), and then promptly shivved America in the back after re-election (GW Bush was so moronic that he couldn’t even emulate the immigration “security” rhetoric of the other neo-lib presidents, for which normie conservatives despised him).

    People would forgive Trump if his policies resulted in better wages and less social stress. Since Trump isn’t making things cheaper, isn’t reducing traffic, isn’t building more and better infrastructure, isn’t reducing wasteful spending, isn’t reforming the tax code in a more progressive direction, etc., many people are justifiably hostile towards Trump. Look, Nixon was an asshole in terms of temperament, yet he won re-election in a land-slide in 1972. Nixon was hated by many TrueCons for being too loyal to the New Deal, but Americans were still largely satisfied with the economic stability provided by the New Deal. Meanwhile, LBJ and the Dems were also New Dealers but their military and cultural policy over-reach of the mid-60’s threatened America’s overall stability so Nixon got elected twice.

    Ever since the Carter era, our politicians have consistently failed to deliver policies that create stability of any kind. Infrastructure decays, spending exceeds revenue (what are they spending this money on, anyway?), the economic and cultural gap between the elites and the proles just gets worse and worse. Trump couldn’t deliver because elites, for 40+ years, have been fubaring everything whether they realize it or not.

  87. “All generations have had their problems. The Boomers get taken behind the wood-shed, however, because:”

    Laughing.

    All generations come in great numbers. And it’s not “with great numbers . . .”

    It’s,

    “With great power comes great responsibility.”

    I am not sure what to say to someone who is getting their social science from the media. And then to have any expectation that of wrong, they would correct themselves. But if you willing to dump your cell phone, computer, the internet, head back to the days of the cold war, etc. But don’t let those innovations get in your way.

    And your assessment about ease because the focus on self is paramount to soling the same. It has been the growth of internationalism, including immigration that has created issues — care to guess what generation is embracing international diversification, a world without borders, libertarian aspirations of power dynamics and socialism —- both inviting the very ills they think they will escape.

    I will just take one of these crime. The rate of crimes were relatively stable throughout US history with the occasional spikes. Ii would respond to the drugs issue. But i would prefer to avoid the twisted logic about why drugs should be legal today and why the drug runners of yesterday aren’t the heroes of today.

    You make one observation that has overall salience. Generations have reasons to critique. And your observation about political bickering among generations are as old as the country. The debt each generation inherits was largely inherited.

  88. @EliteCommInc.
    The youth of today are not much better at comprehending rhetorical than the 1960's or 1970's generation - the advocacy for socialism is a perfect and libertarian economics are cases in point.

    First they misidentify systemic abuses as capitalism, when in fact, said abuses are counter to capitalisms center creed -- honest dealings. That is not the fault of capitalism, but the human heart, and power dynamics that protect careless behavior in markets from the consequences of their behavior. It's akin to protecting the police or any authority from violations ad instead of calling them out -- justify the behavior and worse make it policy. Getting the facts wrong is what typifies the generations being critiqued. examples: North Vietnam were the aggressors not the South Vietnamese or the US and Australia.

    Second, I am not opposed to supplements. But the suggestion that legalizing mind altering substances is the answer to lowering crime rates and that the use of said substances is harmless is unsupported by the facts. The damage done to the country by alcohol exceeds what it pays for by light years. Not because of what it does privately, but the costs socially from impaired thinking. And unlike alcohol, not even marijuna has a chemistry that can be measured determine legitimate operating levels. Never mind LSD, amphetemines, etc. And its odd that such advocates are ignoring the arguable epidemic of "pain killers (note the quotation marks.

    Note; the complaints about existing social theories remained theories until the last twenty years, outside the bounds of previous generations -- i hate to break the news -- those are the current generations who are rejecting boundaries of practical socialization.

    First they misidentify systemic abuses as capitalism, when in fact, said abuses are counter to capitalisms center creed — honest dealings

    Since when? Like that old saying in poker, “If you don’t know who the sucker at the table it, then it probably is you”. In the real world NOBODY in a deal can assume he isn’t being taken so honesty is last on the list. Why do you think laws are created and contracts are drawn up specifically to make sure one side doesn’t hide something from the other.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  89. @John Arthur
    Didn't you show a chart a while back that held that Hispanics and Asians were the most realistic about the White Black iq gap. Maybe that explains Trumps shocking rise with Hispanics. Did you find what Trumps survey numbers with asians are? Though it is probably lower than Hispanics since they are all obsessed with importing their family members even more.

    Though the N was 7,000 in this SurveyUSA sample, the Asian results (around n = 200) weren’t reported.

    Here is the post I believe you’re referring to. It’s from 2008. Man how time flies!

    • Replies: @John Arthur
    Yeah lol. Its been a long time. I also remember a sailer article on this as well. It had an even better graph. I think it was called perceived White-Black intelligence gap by race. It showed that Hispanics and Asians correctly perceived the gap to be around 1sd.
    I think you made the graph showcased in that article
  90. As were the original responses — a complete nonsequitor. But at least they had some salience. Yours,

    “Since when? Like that old saying in poker, “If you don’t know who the sucker at the table it, then it probably is you”. In the real world NOBODY in a deal can assume he isn’t being taken so honesty is last on the list. Why do you think laws are created and contracts are drawn up specifically to make sure one side doesn’t hide something from the other.”

    on the other hand makes no sense to the conversation at hand. I am sure you intend a relevant point. I am guessing you are talking about laws to prevent fraud. No one recognizing the violation of law calls the same lawful, as is generally understood. In that same vein, breaking the rules of what constitutes capitalist behavior is called capitalism –

    And engaging in fraud violates every aspect of capitalist theory and practice. That there are principles is clear — but suckering others is a violation that can be entirely legal. Honesty goes well beyond the law and requires a depth of integrity that the law simply doesn’t touch.

    While I am not opposed to being cautious, your cynicism is not only revealing of your depth of integrity it speaks volumes about anything you might design as to a system that is workable outside graft — or taking opportunities to take advantage of the other. So whether capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, — the model you intend is predicated on getting what you can irrespective of honest intent —- on that basis, even laws are no barrier to your understanding.

    So much for a critique of previous generations.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Talk about somebody not making sense. Pretending that there is some idealized capitalism based on honest dealing only shows you to be just as foolish as any other idealogue.
  91. @EliteCommInc.
    As were the original responses -- a complete nonsequitor. But at least they had some salience. Yours,

    "Since when? Like that old saying in poker, “If you don’t know who the sucker at the table it, then it probably is you”. In the real world NOBODY in a deal can assume he isn’t being taken so honesty is last on the list. Why do you think laws are created and contracts are drawn up specifically to make sure one side doesn’t hide something from the other."


    on the other hand makes no sense to the conversation at hand. I am sure you intend a relevant point. I am guessing you are talking about laws to prevent fraud. No one recognizing the violation of law calls the same lawful, as is generally understood. In that same vein, breaking the rules of what constitutes capitalist behavior is called capitalism -

    And engaging in fraud violates every aspect of capitalist theory and practice. That there are principles is clear -- but suckering others is a violation that can be entirely legal. Honesty goes well beyond the law and requires a depth of integrity that the law simply doesn't touch.

    While I am not opposed to being cautious, your cynicism is not only revealing of your depth of integrity it speaks volumes about anything you might design as to a system that is workable outside graft -- or taking opportunities to take advantage of the other. So whether capitalism, libertarianism, socialism, communism, -- the model you intend is predicated on getting what you can irrespective of honest intent ---- on that basis, even laws are no barrier to your understanding.

    So much for a critique of previous generations.

    Talk about somebody not making sense. Pretending that there is some idealized capitalism based on honest dealing only shows you to be just as foolish as any other idealogue.

  92. @EliteCommInc.
    The youth of today are not much better at comprehending rhetorical than the 1960's or 1970's generation - the advocacy for socialism is a perfect and libertarian economics are cases in point.

    First they misidentify systemic abuses as capitalism, when in fact, said abuses are counter to capitalisms center creed -- honest dealings. That is not the fault of capitalism, but the human heart, and power dynamics that protect careless behavior in markets from the consequences of their behavior. It's akin to protecting the police or any authority from violations ad instead of calling them out -- justify the behavior and worse make it policy. Getting the facts wrong is what typifies the generations being critiqued. examples: North Vietnam were the aggressors not the South Vietnamese or the US and Australia.

    Second, I am not opposed to supplements. But the suggestion that legalizing mind altering substances is the answer to lowering crime rates and that the use of said substances is harmless is unsupported by the facts. The damage done to the country by alcohol exceeds what it pays for by light years. Not because of what it does privately, but the costs socially from impaired thinking. And unlike alcohol, not even marijuna has a chemistry that can be measured determine legitimate operating levels. Never mind LSD, amphetemines, etc. And its odd that such advocates are ignoring the arguable epidemic of "pain killers (note the quotation marks.

    Note; the complaints about existing social theories remained theories until the last twenty years, outside the bounds of previous generations -- i hate to break the news -- those are the current generations who are rejecting boundaries of practical socialization.

    First they misidentify systemic abuses as capitalism, when in fact, said abuses are counter to capitalisms center creed — honest dealings. That is not the fault of capitalism, but the human heart,

    To fans of capitalism nothing is ever capitalism’s fault. Capitalism is great – it’s just never been done properly! Capitalism would work perfectly if it wasn’t for human nature! If only we could get those pesky humans out of the equation.

    If capitalism works in theory but in practice leads to all sorts of ghastly problems then it is possible that it’s an inherent fault of capitalism. It is possible that it’s just not workable in practice on a large scale in a modern society, that it will always end up leading to abuses.

    North Vietnam were the aggressors not the South Vietnamese or the US and Australia.

    If the Americans hadn’t started meddling when the French were kicked out in the 50s the whole disaster would never have happened. The Americans, as usual, had no real idea what they were doing or what they were dealing with. Australia was just being a faithful American lapdog.

  93. @RadicalCenter
    You’re right. It seems that ranked voting would be better than our current system, at least. Doesn’t Maine have that system for state (not federal) elections?

    We would see millions, then hopefully tens of millions of voters, marking a third party as their top choice, with the dem or Repub as second choice. (I’m getting to the point where I’d usually name third parties as my number one AND number two choices.)

    It might be better to have a two-round federal election. The top two or three vote-getters from the first round would advance to the second round. This would make many people more willing to vote for someone other than the Dems and Repubs, because they would no longer fear “helping the greater of two evils” to win.

    Vote Nationalist (where is that party), Libertarian, Green, whatever, in the first round. If the preferred “third-party” candidate doesn’t make it to the second round, you still can vote for the supposed “lesser of two evils” old-party candidate (dem or Repub) in the second round.

    You’re right. It seems that ranked voting would be better than our current system, at least.

    Yes. I’m not suggesting that Australia has a perfect electoral system. But I think it’s slightly less awful than the present British and American systems because it doesn’t completely disenfranchise people who would prefer a third choice. And it avoids the problems of instability inherent in proportional representation systems.

    The best argument in favour of the Australian system is that the major parties in Australia hate it. They hate it because they don’t have quite so much of a monopoly on power. Minor parties win Senate seats on a regular basis and they occasionally win House of Representative seats. They exert some real influence through preference deals. On occasion they can, and do, make or break governments.

    We would see millions, then hopefully tens of millions of voters, marking a third party as their top choice, with the dem or Repub as second choice.

    Yep, that’s what happens in Australia.

    Of course the major parties keep trying to weaken the system to make things difficult for the minor parties but so far it still works.

    It also to some extent avoids the Tyranny of the Majority problem.

  94. “Talk about somebody not making sense. Pretending that there is some idealized capitalism based on honest dealing only shows you to be just as foolish as any other idealogue.”

    Laughing.

    “Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” 1776

    Mr. (Dr.) Adam Smith

    Good greif

    if you don’t have an ideology from which to work, you are liable to blown to and fro by whatever the prevailing wind. Odd that people think that having a ideological foundation is an insult.

  95. Anonymous[199] • Disclaimer says:

    EliteCommInc. :prevented from using my screen name for some reason (as indicated it is not mine) —- ???

    “To fans of capitalism nothing is ever capitalism’s fault. Capitalism is great – it’s just never been done properly!”

    First capitalism is a system. To the extent that one obeys or adhere’s to the system of the system, capitalism around even before Dr. Smith works fairly well. At the core of that system is honest dealings.

    now anyone who has even grazed the model that Dr. Smith describes knows that there are glitches in the system that occur due to the forces at play, even when all players act honestly. I agree that anyone making claims to a “perfect” smooth ride is making dubious claims. The real point is that the system will and should self correct. And where human intervention is involved requires care and again fairness. Bailing out one side of the 2008 matter and not the other is not part of the capitalist model, if bailing must be done, and I am not sure I buy that is the case, then one bails so as to balance, not leverage one side against the interests of the other.

    And absolute there are no sure ways to ensure equitable distribution and that is the principle of the “invisible hand”. Now I don’t advocate perfection, but I do advocate capitalism as the robust flexible system in creating wealth for most. And provides the best mechanism to create possibilities of choice.

    Hence the practical reasons for having an ideology — you can at least have an idea what and where a system might be broken. There are constraints granted, the most obvious is that of nation state sovereignty.

  96. “To fans of capitalism nothing is ever capitalism’s fault. Capitalism is great – it’s just never been done properly!”

    First capitalism is a system. To the extent that one obeys or adhere’s to the system of the system, capitalism around even before Dr. Smith works fairly well. At the core of that system is honest dealings.

    now anyone who has even grazed the model that Dr. Smith describes knows that there are glitches in the system that occur due to the forces at play, even when all players act honestly. I agree that anyone making claims to a “perfect” smooth ride is making dubious claims. The real point is that the system will and should self correct. And where human intervention is involved requires care and again fairness. Bailing out one side of the 2008 matter and not the other is not part of the capitalist model, if bailing must be done, and I am not sure I buy that is the case, then one bails so as to balance, not leverage one side against the interests of the other.

    Second,

    And absolute there are no sure ways to ensure equitable distribution and that is the principle of the “invisible hand”. Now I don’t advocate perfection, but I do advocate capitalism as the robust flexible system in creating wealth for most. And provides the best mechanism to create possibilities of choice.

    Hence the practical reasons for having an ideology — you can at least have an idea what and where a system might be broken. There are constraints granted, the most obvious is that of nation state sovereignty.

  97. @Audacious Epigone
    Though the N was 7,000 in this SurveyUSA sample, the Asian results (around n = 200) weren't reported.

    Here is the post I believe you're referring to. It's from 2008. Man how time flies!

    Yeah lol. Its been a long time. I also remember a sailer article on this as well. It had an even better graph. I think it was called perceived White-Black intelligence gap by race. It showed that Hispanics and Asians correctly perceived the gap to be around 1sd.
    I think you made the graph showcased in that article

    • Replies: @John Arthur
    I found Steve Sailer's article!
    http://www.unz.com/isteve/asians-are-most-realistic-about-white-black-iq-gap/
  98. @John Arthur
    Yeah lol. Its been a long time. I also remember a sailer article on this as well. It had an even better graph. I think it was called perceived White-Black intelligence gap by race. It showed that Hispanics and Asians correctly perceived the gap to be around 1sd.
    I think you made the graph showcased in that article
  99. Oh, it looks like I did an abbreviated update a couple of years ago.

    Is this what middle age is like? I really need to come up with a better cataloging system.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS