RSS
Commenter Richard writes:
The number of men voting in Democratic primaries has been very low this year. If you look at the exit polling data on CNN, the Republican primaries are typically about 50/50 in male/female participation, while on the Democrats’ side it’s more like 44/56 male/female. Ohio, for example:
http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/oh/
And since Hillary isn’t doing so hot with those few men who do vote, she has an extremely lopsided gender gap among her supporters that the raw preference numbers are concealing. In Ohio, for instance, she lost men to Sanders by only 3 points which doesn’t sound so bad, but because so few men actually voted in the Dem primary only 36% of her supporters were male, while “BernieBro” Sanders actually had a very balanced supporter demographic that was 51% male, 49% female. Do those calculations for all the major candidates in a few recent states, and you get:
OHIO
Cruz (47/53)
Kasich (50/50)
Trump (55/45)
Clinton (36/64)
Sanders (51/49)ILLINOIS
Cruz (49/51)
Kasich (46/54)
Trump (55/45)
Clinton (41/59)
Sanders (50/50)MICHIGAN
Cruz (45/55)
Kasich (50/50)
Trump (64/36)
Clinton (41/59)
Sanders (50/50)FLORIDA
Cruz (48/52)
Rubio (38/62)
Trump (56/44)
Clinton (37/63)
Sanders (51/49)NORTH CAROLINA
Cruz (49/51)
Kasich (46/54)
Rubio (36/64)
Trump (54/46)
Clinton (38/62)
Sanders (48/52)First number is the percentage of voters for that candidate that was male, second female.
The news media is talking about Trump’s problems with women, but the only state in this group where Trump had a more sex-imbalanced group of supporters than Clinton was in Michigan. Everywhere else it isn’t close. Clinton seems to repel men.
Trump got a simple average of 57% of his vote in these states from men.
A lot of the disaffected during the primaries straggle back to their party’s candidate in the general, but these numbers are interesting.
This is a bit odd given that Bernie panders to feminists too.
Be interesting to examine what effect a great many hitherto male democrats voting in the open primaries for Trump had on this.
The media keep going on about Trump being a racist but as Steve has repeatedly mentioned, he hardly seems to be, many of his supporters are plenty ambivalent about non-whites, but he personally doesn’t seem to hate them. (Not that a great many people on this Earth really hate ethnic outgroups, most white nationalists seem to just want to be left alone.)
His platforms of “deport the illegal immigrants already it’s been years of non-enforcement and wages and unemployment among the native born are the worst they’ve been in a generation”, “end these damaging free trade agreements” and “stop all these insane wars in the middle east”, sound like they ought to be coming pretty comfortably out of any good Democrats mouth and certainly anyone who likes Social Democracy.
People need to start pushing Sanders and Clinton on why they care so much about foreigners (You know, those people you aren’t elected to represent or ever put forward over your own citizens…) when they are disrupting the US labour market and so little when they are Muslims with the misfortune of living in the same general area as Israel.
Or Yezidis, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, pagans...
Any thoughtful or introspective Democrat has got to be wondering how in the world the party of Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy has come to this.
A lot of Hillary’s potential male voters are in prison.
Still, only about 25% of black men have criminal records, so it's not a huge factor.Replies: @Lot, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Actually I'm not at all sure Bill will vote for her....
So she’s man repellent? That would be nice to know if you were a woman being picked up in a bar by a guy you didn’t like. Just tell him you only date Hillary supporters. He won’t be bothering you again.
I do wonder just how much effect the “OMG WOMAN PREZ” factor will have, one way or another. I’m sure they’ll try and play it like this is just the proper continuation of the Obama phenomenon but I don’t know how well that’ll work. It might backfire. As much crazy feminist foolish as there is, as a whole this country just isn’t nearly as obsessed with pretending women are identical to men as it is with pretending that blacks are identical to whites. After all, black fantasies rely on the fact that huge swathes of the public have very limited exposure to blacks. But women are pretty evenly spread all about the country, I’ve noticed. Pretty much everyone knows a few. It’s harder to get obsessed with a myth when you see the truth everyday. Maybe some apolitical women will be motivated by Hillary’s femaleness, but it’s tough to see any man who isn’t a total libfag being too worked up over this. They’d never go Trump anyway. And a few will stay home, since they’d likely be bitter Bernouts.
Regardless, god it’s gonna be sweet watching Trump tear into Hillary. I so hate the media hyping overpromoted nonentity tokens as inspiring and heroic. I don’t think Trump will win, but the weeping, enraged lefties are gonna be great.
It would have been a lot more OMG if Hildabeast was a Black woman running for POTUS. But she is just Tim Wise with a vagina.
“A lot of Hillary’s potential male voters are in prison.”
BAZINGA.
And now we hear they are having buyer’s remorse:
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/18/kurtz-liberal-pundits-experiencing-hillary-buyers-remorse/
Is there a flip side to the potential of “red pilling” Bernie Bros into supporting Trump based on their fears that their little slice of Portlandia heaven might be completely wrecked by “Mutti Hilary”???
Perhaps it would be the single moms who have to already send their daughters to diverse schools, and now have to look towards a future of having to contend with protecting their girls from horny twenty year old Central American mestizos and “Syrian” Rapefugees.
An endless series of commercials with Hilary going “Full Retard” on immigration intercut with face and neck tattooed mestizo gang bangers and well muscled Jihadis should do the job.
Where’s the next Lee Atwater when you need him???
I heard Hilary’s paid speaking engagement contracts include provisions against more than two steps up to the podium. Because I guess she’s actually that decrepit. Oldest ever was a sheela!
There are plenty of reasons to believe that large numbers of BernieBros will turn Trump or sit out if/when Hillary gets the nom.
You also have to factor in turnout, which has been higher on the Republican side so far.
Also: the fact that Hillary’s best performances have been in red states where she won’t win in the general no matter what.
I honestly think we might see Hillary fail to garner even 1/3 of men nationwide.
Contra the pundit class’s incessant assertions: she is NOT inevitable. In fact, she’s doomed.
I laughed pretty hard at that one.
Still, only about 25% of black men have criminal records, so it’s not a huge factor.
I’m pretty surprised that crinkly old battle-ax got as many male votes as she did. I didn’t think the Trader Joe’s/neckbeard demographic was that big.
And somewhere in there: Does Trump's campaign implode in the way we can all imagine it doing? Does Hillary get indicted or sick and have her campaign fall apart?
I suspect this election year is more fundamentally unpredictable than any we've had in the last two or three decades.Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Thea
If a candidate has more female voters than male voters, it is almost always a sign that the candidate is the popular or the establisment candidate.
rubio had more female voters than male ones, that shows that he was the establishment candidate.
Trump had more male voters than female ones, he was the vilified candidate.
In Germany, the AfD got 9,5 percent in some state. They got 17 percent of the male vote but only 2 percent of the female vote.
The same pattern happened with the scottish independence referendum.
Women are more likely to be influenced by media and peer pressure.
Female voting behavior can tell you much about the media of a country.
Great comment.
Also applies in music. Look at the top 100 most viewed music vids of all time. 90%+ will be viewed by females more. Just the most slow, plodding, tedious, old-fashioned, unimiginative MOR vomit.
It’s what I said — Hillary has a serious problem with heterosexual males — whatever their race.
Well I’m pretty sure Bill will vote for her, and he’s not in prison.
Actually I’m not at all sure Bill will vote for her….
Hillary Clinton is every man’s ex-wife. Arf arf arf!
Lol.
I have to admit that I do think felons should be able to vote. Otherwise there is nothing stopping the government from imprisoning entire classes of people it wants disenfranchised. America (at least white America) already has a very strong bias against prisoners so the government would face little resistance if it wanted to vastly increase felon rolls, as long as it played its cards right.
Somewhat off topic but my question is why do women support Hillary. She is supposedly some kind of a feminist but isn’t Bill Clinton almost certainly guilty of some kind of sexual assault? Hasn’t he been accused of groping or trying to force himself on several different women? I know that Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill of rape.
Democratic men can’t vote for Hillary this year– not if they register Republican!
The trick for Trump is to get his men to persuade their wives and girlfriends to vote the same way.
That will make up for the WhINOs like Peter Weiner (in Time) who flat-out refuse to vote for their party’s candidate. No need to leave your country, fellas. Your country’s leaving you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.htmlReplies: @Anonymous, @Jefferson
Are all those women voting for Cruz because zhir androgynous face is confusing them as to zhir gender?
Never a truer word spoken.
It is interesting how the gender gap is always reported as a negative towards the candidate/party trailing in female support, but not so for the candidate/party trailing in male support. In the former case the party is perceived as having something wrong with it that it must correct. In the latter the problem lies with an unenlightened electorate.
The trick for Trump is to get his men to persuade their wives and girlfriends to vote the same way.
That will make up for the WhINOs like Peter Weiner (in Time) who flat-out refuse to vote for their party's candidate. No need to leave your country, fellas. Your country's leaving you.Replies: @Anonymous
Any thoughts on Hulk Hogan being awarded $115 million by a Florida jury? Is this the most anyone has ever made off of a sex tape?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.html
This is the greatest Hulkamania moment since he bodyslammed Andre The Giant God bless his soul in front of 93,000 screaming fans.
That is because women make or influence 85% of consumer purchases. Female cultural domination flows from consumer purchase domination
The Neocons are scared Steve:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/why-trump-betrayal-narrative/
Ask yourself how a bunch of Jewish liberal neurotics become the GOP establishment?
My prediction is that if -this is a big if- Trump is allowed to become the Republican nominee, he will defeat Hillary Clinton by a popular vote margin somewhat similar to Reagan’s 9.8% margin over Carter.
Its not so much that Trump is that strong, but Hillary Clinton is a really weak candidate. Actually, a generic Democratic candidate with her funding and establishment and media support should normally have been able to seen off Obama fairly easily and Sanders really easily. Those races would have resembled Kerry’s defeat of Dean, and Gore’s defeat of Bradley.
You generally don’t get blowout popular vote margins when there isn’t a popular president running for re-election, but a 10% margin would be similar to 1980 in that all but a half dozen or states wind up in Trump’s corner. The relatively close presidential elections in recent cycles have hid the fact that most states don’t deviate that far from the national average in presidential preference.
Passive voice.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/why-trump-betrayal-narrative/
Ask yourself how a bunch of Jewish liberal neurotics become the GOP establishment?Replies: @Steve Sailer
By donating a lot of money?
Back in 2000, Maureen Dowd wrote, “George Bush senior reminded every woman of her first husband.” So I guess it’s fair to say Hillary is every man’s ex-wife.
You also have to factor in turnout, which has been higher on the Republican side so far.
Also: the fact that Hillary's best performances have been in red states where she won't win in the general no matter what.
I honestly think we might see Hillary fail to garner even 1/3 of men nationwide.
Contra the pundit class's incessant assertions: she is NOT inevitable. In fact, she's doomed.Replies: @NOTA
My impression is that trump is bringing in a lot of voters who normally don’t vote in primaries. I wonder if he will similarly manage to get a lot of voters who normally don’t bother voting to show up on Election Day.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.htmlReplies: @Anonymous, @Jefferson
Sorry, that question was directed to Steve, not Reg Caesar.
In the general election, probably a lot of men will vote for her because she’s their party’s candidate or they don’t like Trump. I suspect the interesting thing to watch will be turnout: Does Trump get a lot of usually-discouraged voters to show up and vote for him? Does Hillary fail to inspire a lot of her base to get out of a warm bed and vote for her? Alternatively, does she or the MSM and ruling class manage to drum up enough fear or dislike of Trump to keep his voters home/bring hers out?
And somewhere in there: Does Trump’s campaign implode in the way we can all imagine it doing? Does Hillary get indicted or sick and have her campaign fall apart?
I suspect this election year is more fundamentally unpredictable than any we’ve had in the last two or three decades.
On the stoopid party side, I think the irresponsible way the anti-Trump rhetoric has been ramping up is steadily increasing the possibility that some "progressive" fanatic will try and take him out. Whether such an attempt is successful and whether it occurs before or after his (IMHO likely) nomination could determine the course of the election. Trump's choice of a running mate will also be a determinative factor. If Trump gets the nomination and steers a steady course after that, adhering to the main principles he has enunciated thus far, I think he's more or less a shoo-in for becoming our next president.
I don't think they can swap in a new candidate after they choose her. It would be too late.Replies: @NOTA
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.htmlReplies: @Anonymous, @Jefferson
“Any thoughts on Hulk Hogan being awarded $115 million by a Florida jury? Is this the most anyone has ever made off of a sex tape?”
This is the greatest Hulkamania moment since he bodyslammed Andre The Giant God bless his soul in front of 93,000 screaming fans.
“I do wonder just how much effect the “OMG WOMAN PREZ” factor will have”
It would have been a lot more OMG if Hildabeast was a Black woman running for POTUS. But she is just Tim Wise with a vagina.
Hillary is a born loser. Even Michelle Obama would have made a better candidate.
And somewhere in there: Does Trump's campaign implode in the way we can all imagine it doing? Does Hillary get indicted or sick and have her campaign fall apart?
I suspect this election year is more fundamentally unpredictable than any we've had in the last two or three decades.Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Thea
This election really could be a roller coaster ride. If Hilary is indicted before the election (not improbable IMHO) will she graciously bow out (not likely IMHO)? If she does not bow out will the dimocrat establishment win its fight to replace her and with whom (Biden/Warren IMHO)? Either way the dimocrats will alienate a lot of the Hilary base; mostly the usually trustworthy older women.
On the stoopid party side, I think the irresponsible way the anti-Trump rhetoric has been ramping up is steadily increasing the possibility that some “progressive” fanatic will try and take him out. Whether such an attempt is successful and whether it occurs before or after his (IMHO likely) nomination could determine the course of the election. Trump’s choice of a running mate will also be a determinative factor. If Trump gets the nomination and steers a steady course after that, adhering to the main principles he has enunciated thus far, I think he’s more or less a shoo-in for becoming our next president.
And somewhere in there: Does Trump's campaign implode in the way we can all imagine it doing? Does Hillary get indicted or sick and have her campaign fall apart?
I suspect this election year is more fundamentally unpredictable than any we've had in the last two or three decades.Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Thea
What could the democrats do if she is indicted or too sickly? Encourage a write in campaign maybe? Have her vp pick step up?
I don’t think they can swap in a new candidate after they choose her. It would be too late.
This is my not too informed speculation: I think until the nomination, it's a party matter. Like if Hillary or Trump had to drop out today, I expect the procedures at the conventions could handle it. But once they're nominated and get on the ballots in all the states (an intentionally hard process to push back on third parties, and done state by state under different rules in each state), I think their name would be on the ticket even if they were dead, indefinitely hospitalized, or in jail.
I don't recall reading about this ever coming up before--anyone know?Replies: @Jim Don Bob
I don't think they can swap in a new candidate after they choose her. It would be too late.Replies: @NOTA
I’m not sure what the law is there–Anyone know?
This is my not too informed speculation: I think until the nomination, it’s a party matter. Like if Hillary or Trump had to drop out today, I expect the procedures at the conventions could handle it. But once they’re nominated and get on the ballots in all the states (an intentionally hard process to push back on third parties, and done state by state under different rules in each state), I think their name would be on the ticket even if they were dead, indefinitely hospitalized, or in jail.
I don’t recall reading about this ever coming up before–anyone know?
Or Christians living in the same general area as Dar al-Islam.
Or Yezidis, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians, pagans…
One precedent I can think of: Mel Carnahan was running for a senate seat from Missouri (against John Ashcroft), when he died in a plane crash. He remained on the ballot, but his wife won in his place, with the Governor’s promise to appoint her to fill his seat if he won. (Ashcroft got to be attorney general, so sometimes it pays to lose.)
Just as well, as anyone named Hulk inspires no thoughts in me.
That would only increase her bona fides with them. The stickler is that she probably did threaten some of these women into silence, at least by implication. Good wife, bad citizen.
Liberal males may be able to keep up their illusions about blacks because they have little actual experience with ghetto blacks, but when it comes to women, they all know someone like Hillary. They’re either related to, or have dated, worked for, or married a woman like Hillary. They cannot maintain their illusions about her because they know her type too well, which is why Hillary’s male liberal support is weak. Hillary is the sort of person who uses liberal politics as her stepping stone to wealth and power, and they understand this and see her as being a two-faced weather vane with little real inner core.
And today the New York Post reports that Hillary is NOT receiving the same level of black democrats voting for her at the same level that they did for Obama. That is lining up with what I originally said: It spells 1-2 million fewer black votes for Hillary nationwide (they will stay home and some will break for Trump if he is the GOP nominee).
Pat Buchanan (among others in MSM) has reported that the GOP is seeing historic proportions of millions of new voters being added thru the primaries. Its fairly reasonable to say that its entirely due to one person, and it isn’t because of Rubio, Jeb!, Kasich, or Cruz that nearly 20 million new registered GOPs have occurred, with several primaries left to vote and this is past the ’08 totals for new voters for Obama.
Again. Trump vs. Hillary and Trump carries over 70-75% (perhaps as high as ca.77%) of the male vote. Couple that with the fact that he will certainly receive 50% of the women vote since married women tend to break for the GOP and he could expect some single women to decide at the end “Well, he’s not trying to take away my birth control since he used to support Planned Parenthood. He’s hired plenty of women exces at his various businesses, and he doesn’t have nervous barking, coughing, cackling weird ticks every ten seconds or so. What the hell….” And they’ll hold their noses and vote for him.
Its starting to line up as I have been saying for several months:
ca.70% of the total white vote nationally, come November.
Or their mother-in-law.
So the Republican Party is becoming the Men’s Party, as well as the White Party.
It’s always been the manly party.
My parents were examples: Dad republican, Mom democrat. It’s a combination I’ve seen repeated in other families.
BTW: I noticed months ago that large numbers of supporters at Hillary events are, um, matronly or boxy-dykie females of mature age. Then they started placing blacks and muslims behind her…
The way it’s going, the R party could end up with a majority just by collecting the men and the whites. Hmm…that’s a strategy!
I’m standing by my prediction post-New Hampshire: 55-45 Trump.
If it ever comes to that, elections won’t matter anyway.
Adlai Stevenson’s father was a Protestant Democrat and his mother a Unitarian Republican. Adlai said he chose his mother’s faith but his father’s party.
When idiots are allowed to vote….idiots are elected.
Still, only about 25% of black men have criminal records, so it's not a huge factor.Replies: @Lot, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
It is much higher than this. You might be thinking of felony records.
Problem is, there are more women than men voters. So if it comes down to Clinton vs Trump, the ladies may well cause us to have 4 more years of illegal immigrants flooding the country, and welfare state liberalism, despite how obviously bad it is for the country, particularly since 1) Clinton would be a “historic first” (despite seeing how well those turn out), and 2) They are more easily swayed by the media/schools and the fictional picture created of what “everyone believes” that Trump is an evil, terrible racist for wanting to deport illegals, and want to do what “everyone else” does. 3) They get special privilege from liberalism for being women, preferential programs for women only, preferential scholarships, etc.
"Ma'am, when she says she'll fight 'white privilege', that means your son."
Mrs Sailer made this point to Mr Sailer once, years ago, about affirmative action for women.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Brutusale
OT or maybe not: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/03/facebooks-ad-platform-now-guesses-at-your-race-based-on-your-behavior/
If what Obama did for race relations is any indication of how these sorts of aspirational identity politics presidencies pan out, then I expect the war between the sexes to get to the shooting phase.
Maybe if he’d chosen the converse he would have been president.
Adlai is an example of a “nerd” candidate who lost to a “big man” (five-star army general Eisenhower). If I understand my rudimentary history, Stevenson was too cerebral for most voters — though it might have been impossible to beat a top war celebrity at that time.
In the case of Adlai Stevenson, the democrat-as-the-female image holds, at least in my twisted, irrelevant thinking.
As the lady told him, “You’ll win the votes of the intelligent people.” And as he replied, “That’s not enough, ma’am. I need a majority.”
Concerning replacing candidates on the ballot:
Horace Greeley ran for President against Grant in 1872 and died a week after the election. His electoral votes were split among 4 others.
James Sherman was Taft’s Vice-President and died a week before Election Day in 1912. The ever helpful Wikipedia tells us that “President Taft was left with no running mate with less than a week before the election, although Nicholas Murray Butler was designated to receive the electoral votes that Sherman would have received.”
In August 1972 less than a month after being nominated for Vice-President by the Democrats, Thomas Eagleton withdrew from the race and was replaced by Sargent Shriver.
In 2002 NJ Senator Bob Toricelli found himself in a competitive race and under ethics investigations. He withdrew from the race on September 20th after the ballot deadline had passed, but the NJ Supreme Court allowed former Senator Frank Lautenberg to take this place and Lautenberg easily defeated Republican Doug Forrester.
1972 is interesting. The Democrats saw they were going to be shellacked and no one: Kennedy, Mondale, Muskie, Bayh, Humphrey, etc. wanted to waste their time as a losing VP candidate.
If the Republican Establishment continues to be hostile to Trump, who will be willing to go against the leadership, knowing that if he runs with Trump and loses, his political career is over?
Christie is term-limited and he’s probably can’t displace Menendez or Booker from the Senate. Rick Scott is term-limited and not a life-time pol. Rand Paul probably will never get the leadership to like him, so he doesn’t have much to lose, but he’s young and could be delusional about his chances in 2020 or 2024. I like Jim Webb, but that would be the one choice that would make the GOPe hate Trump even more.
From the moment she burst onto the national scene almost 25 years ago the rumors were floating around that in her personal life, Hillary Clinton has had problems with men, going back to her relationship with her father. Leaving aside the issues concerning her husband’s philandering and her alleged bi-sexuality (the latter which in and of itself is irrelevant), it is nonetheless clear that she repels alpha males and even alpha male wannabes. Her sole focus in life seems to be that she wants to be the first woman POTUS, but the question for the house is as follows: Is Hillary Clinton the kind of woman who we want as president?
Because the Democrat Party sold its collective soul to identity politics.
GOP as the masculine party – so that’s why they shit their collective pants over the “threat” of terrorism or when a foreign country like China or Russia does anything? The only masculine political “party” is independent, if that’s a statistic that means anything.
Romney-Obama with men went 52-45 and people think Trump will carry 70+% of all men? LOL delusional. General election polling has been pretty blue for months now with very consistent trends of Sanders > Clinton = Rubio | Kasich > Cruz | Trump. Age demographics in American are heavily trending blue and Trump’s bigot flip-flopper “wages are too high” persona won’t help him cover traditional GOP general election weaknesses. I expect old people to trend towards Clinton as well because they can’t deal with change; she’s normal and centrist, he (and Sanders) are perceived as radical and different.
From this chart:
White working-class men really like Donald Trump. Women, not so much.
Educated Republican women really like Marco Rubio. Republican men, not so much.
Maybe this is the ticket? I don’t love Trump or Rubio, but I really can’t stand John Kasich. And while I love Ted Cruz, he probably can’t win a general election, because unfortunately we have that ridiculous 19th Amendment. So maybe Rubio is the guy who can help Trump beat the witch.
This is my not too informed speculation: I think until the nomination, it's a party matter. Like if Hillary or Trump had to drop out today, I expect the procedures at the conventions could handle it. But once they're nominated and get on the ballots in all the states (an intentionally hard process to push back on third parties, and done state by state under different rules in each state), I think their name would be on the ticket even if they were dead, indefinitely hospitalized, or in jail.
I don't recall reading about this ever coming up before--anyone know?Replies: @Jim Don Bob
It has happened at the state level. In the early 2000s, Bob Toricelli got so toxic that the Democrats replaced him on the ballot, After The Deadline, with Frank Lautenberg. The NJ SC, composed of Ds, said this was hunky-fry.
Yeah, something like 1/3 of black men under 30 are “involved” in some way in the criminal justice system.
Maybe that would explain why some escort women put no Black guys in their ads. Maybe they have had bad experiences in the past, where what was suppose to be a normal pay for sex transaction ended up being a robbery at gunpoint, with the Brotha robbing the sex worker.
Scott Adams has an interesting blog post on the subject of the potential sex differential:
Excellent summary! You have just outlined the Big Three issues propelling Trump right there. The trade agreements issue is part of a larger issue around favoring Wall Street over Main Street, and I would have phrased the endless wars issue differently, maybe something like “let’s just dial the whole military intervention thing way way back”, but those are quibbles. You have identified the Big Three issues on which Trump is arguably to the left of Hillary. (If left-right classifications aren’t appropriate, then let’s say Trump is closer to the center of the American electorate on those three issues.)
Hillary exudes hatred, hatred of Bill, hatred of Bernie, hatred of men in general, hatred of anyone who does not bow before her. Going after Khaddafi was an expression of that hatred. Her comment … “we came he saw he died” … was deranged and alone should disqualify her from office. Most men, most people pick this up, even left-liberals. This is why the media hatred of Trump is so strong and relentless. Any concession to him, any hint that Trump is not a monster, any hint that he makes sense and those liberals will not hold their nose and vote Hillary. The campaign against Trump has barely begun but it will be savage. It has to be or there is no question that Hillary loses.
Still, only about 25% of black men have criminal records, so it's not a huge factor.Replies: @Lot, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Hold it, hold it. Only.
1 in every 4 is now considered to be “only”, as in no big deal.
Wait, what?
“only” = 1 in about 30 million, not 1 in every 4.
Sounds like in 1965 with Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s report on “The Negro Family”, which stated that the out of wedlock rate was then “only” about 25%. At the time, he was denounced as a bigot merely for reporting the facts.
Today, it is close to 75% and by 2029, the total black out of wedlock rate will be ca.88-90%. In other words the total out of wedlock rate is now 3 out of every 4.
Only. Sheesh.
Talk about dumbed down expectations or hardly having any expectations at all.
You’re the consummate snob.
http://peanuts.wikia.com/wiki/Thibault
Could everyone hatching theories about how this means Hillary is a hag at least put some effort into why Rubio’s numbers with men were just as bad?
I suspect that was a widespread impression.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
Would you care to make an electoral college vote prediction ?
PROVING her major political asset is her uterus.
Or murder convictions.
The establishment candidates have always more female voters and the anti-establishment candidates have always more male voters. Women are easier to influence through the MSM.
Noumenon72 asked:
He came across as callow and effeminate to me. (To be sure, I would have put up with that if he had not been a neocon chickenhawk.)
I suspect that was a widespread impression.
Dave Miller in Sacramento
“Yeah, something like 1/3 of black men under 30 are “involved” in some way in the criminal justice system.”
Maybe that would explain why some escort women put no Black guys in their ads. Maybe they have had bad experiences in the past, where what was suppose to be a normal pay for sex transaction ended up being a robbery at gunpoint, with the Brotha robbing the sex worker.
By not being organized at even the most minimal level, men are fighting with one hand behind their backs both politically and socially. The support Trump is getting from men is purely organic. They instinctively understand that Hillary will do for men what Obama did for whites. Much of her support is economic. Women have very specific needs and they are in much better position to advocate for them whereas men are just playing defense. I suspect that much of the angst women are having is that they understand that they have a lot to lose and not so much to gain. The worst thing for women that could come from a Hillary Presidency is that men will finally get it.
I agree, though are most women going nuts over Trump apart from a few SJWs? Mostly it’s the Mexicans and Muslims everyone’s worried about.
Horace Greeley ran for President against Grant in 1872 and died a week after the election. His electoral votes were split among 4 others.
James Sherman was Taft's Vice-President and died a week before Election Day in 1912. The ever helpful Wikipedia tells us that "President Taft was left with no running mate with less than a week before the election, although Nicholas Murray Butler was designated to receive the electoral votes that Sherman would have received."
In August 1972 less than a month after being nominated for Vice-President by the Democrats, Thomas Eagleton withdrew from the race and was replaced by Sargent Shriver.
In 2002 NJ Senator Bob Toricelli found himself in a competitive race and under ethics investigations. He withdrew from the race on September 20th after the ballot deadline had passed, but the NJ Supreme Court allowed former Senator Frank Lautenberg to take this place and Lautenberg easily defeated Republican Doug Forrester.
1972 is interesting. The Democrats saw they were going to be shellacked and no one: Kennedy, Mondale, Muskie, Bayh, Humphrey, etc. wanted to waste their time as a losing VP candidate.
If the Republican Establishment continues to be hostile to Trump, who will be willing to go against the leadership, knowing that if he runs with Trump and loses, his political career is over?
Christie is term-limited and he's probably can't displace Menendez or Booker from the Senate. Rick Scott is term-limited and not a life-time pol. Rand Paul probably will never get the leadership to like him, so he doesn't have much to lose, but he's young and could be delusional about his chances in 2020 or 2024. I like Jim Webb, but that would be the one choice that would make the GOPe hate Trump even more.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
Rick Scott is the ideal choice, barring any October surpise skeletons in his closet. An outsider but from a state that counts and is quite needed in November for the GOP.
Or maybe Oprah.
Yes, but it’s felonies that keep you out of the voting booth. The minor stuff doesn’t.
But ladies with husbands and children, especially sons, can be reasoned with.
“Ma’am, when she says she’ll fight ‘white privilege’, that means your son.”
Mrs Sailer made this point to Mr Sailer once, years ago, about affirmative action for women.
Abraham had nothing on these women.
Trump wins Florida anyway. Kobach keeps the soccer moms, the Midwest, the nice people and the evangelicals onside whilst potentially leaving a legacy.
Or maybe Oprah.
“Clinton seems to repel men.” Or is it that most everybody sees that Clinton sucks, except for those women that insist on voting for one of their own? If a better female candidate came along would men vote for her?
rubio had more female voters than male ones, that shows that he was the establishment candidate.
Trump had more male voters than female ones, he was the vilified candidate.In Germany, the AfD got 9,5 percent in some state. They got 17 percent of the male vote but only 2 percent of the female vote.
The same pattern happened with the scottish independence referendum.Women are more likely to be influenced by media and peer pressure.Female voting behavior can tell you much about the media of a country.Replies: @Mr Curious
“If a candidate has more female voters than male voters, it is always a sign that the candidate is the establishment candidate.”
Great comment.
Also applies in music. Look at the top 100 most viewed music vids of all time. 90%+ will be viewed by females more. Just the most slow, plodding, tedious, old-fashioned, unimiginative MOR vomit.
True. Here in GB our uc twit PM is always boasting how “more women are employed”: cos it’d be awful if more men were employed, right Dave?
I guess they would vote for a woman if they had a reason to. The best I can tell, Hillary Clinton has not advocated for one single issue that would exclusively benefit men. I can think of dozens that she has pushed for women. It is all about her. At best, she is indifferent towards men and only cares because she needs their resources. Hillary gives the impression that she would not lift a finger to help a drowning man.
I would have voted for Margaret Thatcher.
Its not so much that Trump is that strong, but Hillary Clinton is a really weak candidate. Actually, a generic Democratic candidate with her funding and establishment and media support should normally have been able to seen off Obama fairly easily and Sanders really easily. Those races would have resembled Kerry's defeat of Dean, and Gore's defeat of Bradley.
You generally don't get blowout popular vote margins when there isn't a popular president running for re-election, but a 10% margin would be similar to 1980 in that all but a half dozen or states wind up in Trump's corner. The relatively close presidential elections in recent cycles have hid the fact that most states don't deviate that far from the national average in presidential preference.Replies: @Vooch
true – Hillary is such a weak candidate that she struggles to beat Bernie. I’ve been predicting since last AUGUST Il Ducé will win Virginia, Ohio, PA, Michigan, NC, FLA, and Nevada. He will come close to winning in California & NY. It will be a blow out.
If he dares mention population growth via immigration, he ought to have those states in the bag. The size of the country is the great unspoken issue.
And at that, there’s no reason to believe that she will carry the total woman vote in November.
VA; FL; NV; and either PA; OH; MI and you have President Trump.
"Ma'am, when she says she'll fight 'white privilege', that means your son."
Mrs Sailer made this point to Mr Sailer once, years ago, about affirmative action for women.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Brutusale
Hillary is also having trouble winning the white vote. There are millions of women who fit this racial category as well, contrary to what her southern state primary’s victory margins might suggest.
It’s actually 70% and has been declining for the last half decade. The trend is reversing, albeit very slowly. It’s driven by married black women having more children and single mothers being held down with quite a bit of success to one child. The often-predicted 75%+ OOW rates never came to pass.
"Ma'am, when she says she'll fight 'white privilege', that means your son."
Mrs Sailer made this point to Mr Sailer once, years ago, about affirmative action for women.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Brutusale
Come to Massachusetts, Reg, and I’ll introduce you to some True Believers more than willing to sacrifice their sons to the Goddess of Social Justice.
Abraham had nothing on these women.
That and the fact that black women account for almost 40% of all abortions in America.
I have something to be snobbish about? That’s kind of a left-handed compliment, as Charlie Brown reasoned with Thibault:
http://peanuts.wikia.com/wiki/Thibault
G.I. Joe doesn’t want to be governed by Ken.
If he wins NY with its 29 electoral votes (same as FL), it’s game over for Killary!
If I knew nothing else about HRC this would seriously disturb me; channeling Julius Caesar, the original charismatic despot (at least in Western history), speaks volumes about her true character/nature.
It disturbs the hell out of me, the egomaniacal nature of it and the attempt to be “clever” and cavalier when thousands died. Rubbing the defeated’s face in the dirt ? The fact the media does not take her over the coals for it shows how debased they are. The line was sick.