The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My New Column: My Models of the Two Parties
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine:

The Grateful vs. the Guilty
Steve Sailer

November 09, 2022

Unlike you, who are reading this column on Wednesday, while writing it I didn’t have a clue what happened in Tuesday’s elections. …

So, I’m going to offer my highly stylized models of the appeal and inherent problems faced by the two parties, Republican and Democrat….

To my mind, the Republican Party suffers from the contradictions of being traditionally the party of the executive class but also increasingly lately the party of the working class. I’m not sure if the inevitable economic conflicts between management and labor within the modern GOP can ever really be squared in the long term.

One fundamental problem is that most of the expertise at complex tasks like changing the tax code is of course found at the higher economic level. Moreover, working-class Republicans lack large institutions thinking hard about how to make subtle tweaks to benefit them, the way that, say, sixty years ago the AFL-CIO employed numerous smart lawyers, economists, and lobbyists to dream up reforms to benefit working-class Democrats at the expense of executive-class Republicans.

Perhaps that helps explain the Trump cult of personality: the hope that at least one guy will fight for you because all the enemies he’s made means he doesn’t have any other friends.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 212 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Republicans got owned tonight

    Just embarrassing

    So much for that red wave

    The People have spoken

    • Agree: Supply and Demand
    • LOL: Muggles
    • Troll: IHTG, Eric Novak
    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Well, at least that odious warthog lost in Georgia.

    Replies: @HammerJack

    , @Anonymous
    @Ebony Obelisk

    LOL!!!

    The Republican party will never win another election ever again in America.

    We've got sky high inflation, cost of living increases and home prices too high, and the Democrats are still killing it.

    But wait for the real kicker. America only gets less and less white from here on out (since white women can't breed).

    The only minorities who were even willing to consider supporting Repuhlicans were Asians who were pissed off about affirmative action, and they are basement dwellers in their own communities.

    It's the end of the Unz commenter's grip on the escapist fantasy of political salvation.

    Joe Biden 2024

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Colin Wright, @TWS, @Curmudgeon

    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Considering the quality of candidates the Republicans fielded they did surprisingly well. Most educated conservative Americans dislike MAGA and don’t want to see freaks like Oz, Boebert and Walker representing the party. For all the flaws of politicians like Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance. The Republicans want to cede the field in those areas, they are just lucky the Dems are too beholden to shrieking black women and activists to take advantage of that.

    Replies: @BosTex, @Polistra, @Pincher Martin, @vinteuil

  2. Oddly enough the Democratic Party is now a high-low party, too, with a big bite out of the middle where the average white people used to be.

    Still odder and more unfortunate is that in this country with so many workers, there is not a single person who is known as Mr or Ms Worker or Dr. Labor. Not a single one. Not in government, not in academia as far as I know, not in the media or the public’s mind.

    We have no umbrella organization for workers similar to say what AAA is for car owners, a non-controversial organization that advocates for its members. There are a lot of things that most workers agree about that neither political party is associated with or tries to get done. We do not even have that so of course we don’t have any nonunion or general labor groups trying to do more, which we should have, too.

    The idea that unions speak for all workers is just wishful thinking from a bygone era — at best. They work for their members. Yes they get involved in Democratic politics but they do not speak for all workers, few of which are in unions outside government workers. I get so mad when people talk about labor leaders when they really mean union leaders.

    It has only been in the last 10 years that I realized all these very obvious things, which explains a lot about why our workers are in the weak position they have been in since the 1970s.

    So we the workers of the richest country in the world could hardly be more ignored, taken for granted and politically powerless. And we don’t even know it. Food for thought.

    • Agree: Jonathan Mason
    • Thanks: ic1000
    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @notsaying


    So we the workers of the richest country in the world could hardly be more ignored, taken for granted and politically powerless. And we don’t even know it.
     
    Agree with your points, mainly, but we're not the richest country in the world‐-not even close--and we haven't been for a long time.

    That keeps getting repeated all the time, but per capita measures are the only meaningful ones and the USA has been slipping for decades.

    Replies: @guest007

    , @Mike Tre
    @notsaying

    "The idea that unions speak for all workers is just wishful thinking from a bygone era — at best. They work for their members. "

    They don't even do this. My union collects my dues and wants me to STFU. The women who work in the pension and welfare division are some of the most rude and ignorant humans I have ever had to deal with. They literally speak to you with contempt when you have questions or they deny medical claims based on stupid procedural issues.

    I work for a very woke company, and its management team is openly hostile to its drivers. The union does nothing to protect us from that. The reps and BA's appear for elections or when it's contract negotiation time and then they are ghosts.

    , @Redneck farmer
    @notsaying

    "Well, if you did any meaningful work, Dirt Person, you would have representation."
    The number of people who assume modern Civilization just works because it will is astonishing. The grocery stores will be full, the lights will go on, transport available, and it will be cheap.

    , @SFG
    @notsaying

    I mean, that's what the AFL-CIO is supposed to be.

    With the decline of unions most workers are now not in a union and are now free to follow their culturally conservative leanings. Unfortunately they don't have a lot of influence over the GOP quite yet--it's all the money people. Whether they will in the future is anyone's guess. This is getting spun as a GOP defeat, when it's really more of a wash IMHO.

    But, hey, I didn't think PA would elect a stroke victim, so don't listen to me. ;)

    Replies: @guest007, @Arclight, @Desiderius

    , @AnotherDad
    @notsaying


    Oddly enough the Democratic Party is now a high-low party, too, with a big bite out of the middle where the average white people used to be.
     
    "Now"?

    The Democrats have been a high-low dumbbell for decades. Clinton was the consolidation.

    The Democrats are the Jewish run "Parasite Party", representing the interests of the verbalist overclass parasites, managing a broad minoritarian vote bank for which they offer gibmedats.
    With a lot stupid virtue signaling--ought to know better--middlebrow whites tacked on--particularly white women, especially young unmarried white women for which the Democrats act as a surrogate husband/provider until maybe a real one comes and they have kids at which time a certain number wise up a bit.

    Again, the transition has been going on my whole life and the consolidation under Clinton was 3 decades ago! (Dick Gephardt is the last candidate I can think of who even sort of tried to run under the old "labor" ideology of the FDR era Democrat party.)
  3. Brilliant analysis

    • Agree: SafeNow, mc23, New Dealer
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    @Werner

    Except that he ignored the most powerful group in the country, the group that finances both parties and controls the media.

    Yeah, other than that, it was brilliant.

  4. @notsaying
    Oddly enough the Democratic Party is now a high-low party, too, with a big bite out of the middle where the average white people used to be.

    Still odder and more unfortunate is that in this country with so many workers, there is not a single person who is known as Mr or Ms Worker or Dr. Labor. Not a single one. Not in government, not in academia as far as I know, not in the media or the public's mind.

    We have no umbrella organization for workers similar to say what AAA is for car owners, a non-controversial organization that advocates for its members. There are a lot of things that most workers agree about that neither political party is associated with or tries to get done. We do not even have that so of course we don't have any nonunion or general labor groups trying to do more, which we should have, too.

    The idea that unions speak for all workers is just wishful thinking from a bygone era -- at best. They work for their members. Yes they get involved in Democratic politics but they do not speak for all workers, few of which are in unions outside government workers. I get so mad when people talk about labor leaders when they really mean union leaders.

    It has only been in the last 10 years that I realized all these very obvious things, which explains a lot about why our workers are in the weak position they have been in since the 1970s.

    So we the workers of the richest country in the world could hardly be more ignored, taken for granted and politically powerless. And we don't even know it. Food for thought.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @Redneck farmer, @SFG, @AnotherDad

    So we the workers of the richest country in the world could hardly be more ignored, taken for granted and politically powerless. And we don’t even know it.

    Agree with your points, mainly, but we’re not the richest country in the world‐-not even close–and we haven’t been for a long time.

    That keeps getting repeated all the time, but per capita measures are the only meaningful ones and the USA has been slipping for decades.

    • Replies: @guest007
    @HammerJack

    Then one needs to list countries (other oil emirates) with higher per capita numbers.

  5. This is the Did You Know? Facts calendar page for Election Day, 2022:

    Anne Frank’s last diary entry was written on August 1, 1944. This is the year she decided to write her diary in the form of a novel, which she intended to publish after the war. On August 4th, she was taken by the Gestapo and sent to Auschwitz.

    These people can’t even leave you alone on your personal calendar!

    The publisher is Andrews McMeel, based in Kansas City, close to normal people. Looking them up, I happened upon the “Rejected Children’s Books” series of one Brad Gosse, not from Andrews McMeel, but apparently self-published. You can see why. Anyone familiar with him?

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @Reg Cæsar

    "Mom runs trains on the weekend with Dad's friends"? More like "On the weekend, Dad's friends run trains on Mom."

    As for the racist dog, Larry David is on the case:

    https://youtu.be/uh31FjpQrzA

    https://youtu.be/9BjbmKO85wl

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    , @J.Ross
    @Reg Cæsar

    The first sip leaves you with "it didn't happen," but "it should have" is waiting for you at the bottom of the glass.

  6. @Ebony Obelisk
    Republicans got owned tonight

    Just embarrassing

    So much for that red wave

    The People have spoken

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev

    Well, at least that odious warthog lost in Georgia.

    • LOL: Kylie
    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @JimDandy

    Hey watch it! That land whale is TD's grandma!

  7. What a f*cked night this was.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Yep. And I think it is much worse than it first appears.

    Outside of Florida, there was no red wave at all. The polls may have even favored the GOP a degree or two.

    Look at the New Hampshire senate race for one extreme outlier. The polling average gave the Democratic senator a 1.4% advantage. She is heading for a near double-digit victory.

    In Colorado, Bennet had a 5.7 point advantage in the polling. He's currently up by more than twelve.

    In Arizona, Blake Masters ended with a 0.3 advantage in the polls. That's essentially a tie, but with recent polling heading in his direction. Instead, Masters looks to be running behind Trump's 2020 margins in the state, and that is an election Trump lost. Currently, Masters is more than six down.

    Other than Rubio in Florida, every GOP senatorial candidate looks to be running behind their polling.

    Replies: @IHTG, @mc23

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @JohnnyWalker123

    "What a f*cked night this was."

    Grasping at straws, I'm hoping Jim Jordan and his like-minded fellows in the House will initiate a series of investigations with the ability to subpoena persons of interest in the DOJ/FBI situation. If reform doesn't occur within these two agencies our ability to lawfully resist government intrusion upon basic liberties like the right to privacy will wither and die as the regime media jackals cackle and howl at the funeral.

    The GOP needs to keep Trump policies but without the psychopathic narcissist Blumpft!. They cannot backslide into the country club Republicanism of the Romneys and Bushes because there is absolutely no demographic for MIC dominance and market magicalism. They, especially male Republicans, need to zip their lids on abortion because body autonomy, especially in light of the hideous mRNA mandates, is where it's at.

    If conservoguys want assistance in their battle against the well-funded transmutation of the human form and genital mutilation of children, and the Davos demi-gods who wish to build their Green bio-medical surveillance utopia on the ashes of our bones, they will have to appeal to interesting and attractive people like me who aren't slaves to any particular political ideology. Hey, I spend several hours each week building a time-machine to take me back to the 1980s; it's a hobby. But Reaganism Redux won't draw in the people consevoguys need for their movement. Smart and really good-looking people like me.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  8. Anonymous[274] • Disclaimer says:
    @Ebony Obelisk
    Republicans got owned tonight

    Just embarrassing

    So much for that red wave

    The People have spoken

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev

    LOL!!!

    The Republican party will never win another election ever again in America.

    We’ve got sky high inflation, cost of living increases and home prices too high, and the Democrats are still killing it.

    But wait for the real kicker. America only gets less and less white from here on out (since white women can’t breed).

    The only minorities who were even willing to consider supporting Repuhlicans were Asians who were pissed off about affirmative action, and they are basement dwellers in their own communities.

    It’s the end of the Unz commenter’s grip on the escapist fantasy of political salvation.

    Joe Biden 2024

    • Thanks: Supply and Demand
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Anonymous

    Worth adding, another big thing the voters are down with is throwing $100 billion at Ukraine, in hopes of more warz against whomever the jews don't like.

    Best of all, the race and tranny things will keep roaring along in top gear. The Republicans couldn't even win on male rapists in girls rest rooms.

    It's true though: having good candidates makes almost all the difference. Where are the strong GOP candidates? Who's going oppose Trump or DeSantis for president?

    Replies: @James Speaks

    , @Colin Wright
    @Anonymous

    'Joe Biden 2024'

    Wear it in good health.

    , @TWS
    @Anonymous

    We've already got TD, EO and the rest of his sock puppets. You're not needed. Unless you're another sock puppet.

    How does that work, does Unz or one of the minions say, 'knock it off for a while. ' Or do they just let you keep breaking the rules with impunity?

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Curmudgeon
    @Anonymous


    (since white women can’t breed).
     
    Apparently they can https://littlethings.com/entertainment/jim-bob-michelle-duggar-20-kids/4165507-4
    The problem is the "feminists" who, it seems, prefer to breed with their pet Knee-grow.
  9. Perhaps the simplest stylized map of US geopolitics is that the US is a red ocean in which float blue islands of concentrated population. So now every election is a contest of the blue urban core versus the red rural outback, with the purple suburbs as the swing vote. “Suburban soccer moms” may be a lazy trope of the political class, but it is a trope for a reason: whichever way middle class suburban women vote is a bellwether of how far up the beach the red waters will flow in any given election.

    Unfortunately for Republicans, the Democrats owning the blue city political machines and the media centers means that it’s easy for them to fraud as many votes as they need and the media will protect the fraud. So elections are something of a pantomime now. In order to get back to somewhat legitimate elections, the Republicans would have crush fraud first, but they show little appetite for this, preferring to play along with the pantomime and collect their donor checks.

    [MORE]

    If it weren’t for Vermont, the meme would be true.

    If it weren’t for fraud, it might actually matter.

    • Replies: @Renard
    @Almost Missouri

    Also areas where lots of blacks or amerinds live, but what's up with SW Wisconsin and NE Iowa?

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @beavertales
    @Almost Missouri

    "The US is a red ocean in which float blue islands of concentrated population. So now every election is a contest of the blue urban core versus the red rural outback"

    To the north, in Canada, the urban tail wags the rural dog.

    The Canadian electoral map is a sea of conservatism, with urban islands of liberals deciding elections. This is why the permanent governing class insists on high immigration of ethnic foreigners to add to their base, and lavishly funds multicultural progressivism.

    Different country, same prog strategy.

    , @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    It's not that simple anymore. In PA, as Philly has depopulated the suburbs have grown. Montgomery County (on the border of Philly) had as many voters last night as Philly itself. The 3 suburban counties together have twice as many votes as Philly.

    Unfortunately, they were mostly blue votes. In Montgomery, Fetterman won by a margin of +28. The abortion issue didn't help and Oz had his own issues as a perceived carpet bagger, but what you have now is a fundamental gap between suburban, mostly college whites and rural, mostly non-college whites.

    Now, non-college whites are even more lopsided in their support for R as suburbanites are for D. Fulton County was +68 for Oz. Unfortunately though, there are only 6,000 voters in Fulton County. You would need 70 or 80 Fulton Counties to make up for one Philly. If it was just Philly maybe it would still be possible but if it's Philly PLUS the suburbs it becomes impossible. There just aren't enough rural non-college whites to counterbalance Philly AND the suburban counties.

    Not only that, but if you look at the arrow map (scroll down), even the rural areas voted more blue this time than in 2020. This is not due to vote fraud. Here we are with high inflation and so on and yet not only was there NOT a red wave but even a shift toward blue:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-us-senate.html

    I don't know what the Republicans can do to make themselves appealing to college whites again without losing the non-college base but they have to because you can't win elections (at least in populous NE states) just off of non-college whites.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @Desiderius

    , @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    @Almost Missouri

    On that "There Are Zero Blue States, Only Blue Cities" map, why is northernmost New York State, near the Quebec border, so blue?

    , @Corvinus
    @Almost Missouri

    “Unfortunately for Republicans, the Democrats owning the blue city political machines and the media centers means that it’s easy for them to fraud as many votes as they need and the media will protect the fraud“

    Ma’am, there wasn’t the type of fraud that you insist occurred. Stephen Miller said to Trump that he lost, and that the fraud angle was overblown. Even Mr. Sailer cagily acknowledged it.

  10. The election of Uncle Festerman in PA is a sign that the Democratic Coalition of the Fringes has now cemented its hold on the dysfunctional-human vote, adding this coup to the representations of all of its other vaunted fringey constituencies.

    You’d think that locking down the brain-damaged vote would not be that crucial to winning elections, but tonight’s overall national results indicate that the Dems are well-prepared for the USA’s future.

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Dr OZ was maybe the only imaginable GOP candidate who could lose to Fetterman. Who wants to vote for a weird charlatan who is a Turkish citizen and never lived in PA?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Muggles, @Anonymous

    , @epebble
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Many people didn't hesitate to go on record saying "I am not going to vote for no Mahomet".

    Replies: @fnn

    , @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

    , @BB753
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Biden is also mentally impaired and that won't stop him from running for a second term.

    , @Barnard
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    For people who voted for Biden and Harris, is voting for Fetterman really that big of jump?

    In another sign we have a suicidal country, Vermont, voted 77-23% to allow abortion up until birth to be enshrined in the state constitution. It already has the lowest birth rates in the country, and no plan or even it appears desire to increase birth rates.

    , @ATBOTL
    @The Last Real Calvinist


    The election of Uncle Festerman in PA is a sign that the DemonRats blah blah blah...

     

    Or maybe white people just don't want to vote for a muslim? Did that ever occur to anyone around here?
  11. @Ebony Obelisk
    Republicans got owned tonight

    Just embarrassing

    So much for that red wave

    The People have spoken

    Replies: @JimDandy, @Anonymous, @Peter Akuleyev

    Considering the quality of candidates the Republicans fielded they did surprisingly well. Most educated conservative Americans dislike MAGA and don’t want to see freaks like Oz, Boebert and Walker representing the party. For all the flaws of politicians like Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance. The Republicans want to cede the field in those areas, they are just lucky the Dems are too beholden to shrieking black women and activists to take advantage of that.

    • LOL: BosTex, J.Ross, New Dealer
    • Replies: @BosTex
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Bush, Cheney and Romney. Component? Smart?

    Lol. Lay off the firewater!

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @Polistra
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance.
     
    Having read a number of your posts, I'm not really surprised by this remark.

    Replies: @anon

    , @Pincher Martin
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Yes, Fetterman, Barnes and Warnock just exude smarts and competence.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Jack D

    , @vinteuil
    @Peter Akuleyev


    For all the flaws of politicians like Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance.
     
    Stupity like this is almost charming.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  12. @The Last Real Calvinist
    The election of Uncle Festerman in PA is a sign that the Democratic Coalition of the Fringes has now cemented its hold on the dysfunctional-human vote, adding this coup to the representations of all of its other vaunted fringey constituencies.

    You'd think that locking down the brain-damaged vote would not be that crucial to winning elections, but tonight's overall national results indicate that the Dems are well-prepared for the USA's future.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @epebble, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @Barnard, @ATBOTL

    Dr OZ was maybe the only imaginable GOP candidate who could lose to Fetterman. Who wants to vote for a weird charlatan who is a Turkish citizen and never lived in PA?

    • Agree: Eric Novak, Ian Smith
    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Whatever the demerits of Dr. Oz, while I don't have figures for total ballots cast in Pennsylvania for 2022 but there were officially 4.2 million in 2020, 686,123 early ballots were cast this year before the debate per the first article I could find. Between that and obvious cheating repeating what happened in 2020 I don't think we can be very certain about the two candidates vs. the basic fact of the R and D after their names.

    I did come across a thesis that Trump candidates vs. distant from Trump ones in Purple states did not do well, but it only cited New Hampshire as a real example once I drilled down.

    , @Muggles
    @Peter Akuleyev


    who is a Turkish citizen and never lived in PA?
     
    I doubt either of these was a major factor.

    Lots of pols are dual citizens. Israeli, for instance. No one complains about that (much).

    Do you not recall that famous New Yorker Mme. Hillary Clinton?

    So many move in and out of state, sometimes for political reasons.

    If PA voters prefer a Senator Fester/Lurch to Dr. Oz, so be it.

    The Dems are the party of Oligarchy and their funders are mainly those. That didn't really improve the ancient Roman Republic, now did it?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    , @Anonymous
    @Peter Akuleyev

    The Armenians campaigned heavily against Oz and basically assembled an anti-Ottoman coalition against him.

    https://twitter.com/ANCA_DC/status/1590224998522060800

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZjl0OcEYU

    Replies: @BosTex

  13. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Considering the quality of candidates the Republicans fielded they did surprisingly well. Most educated conservative Americans dislike MAGA and don’t want to see freaks like Oz, Boebert and Walker representing the party. For all the flaws of politicians like Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance. The Republicans want to cede the field in those areas, they are just lucky the Dems are too beholden to shrieking black women and activists to take advantage of that.

    Replies: @BosTex, @Polistra, @Pincher Martin, @vinteuil

    Bush, Cheney and Romney. Component? Smart?

    Lol. Lay off the firewater!

    • LOL: Truth
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @BosTex

    “Bush, Cheney and Romney. Component? Smart?“

    Yes, decidedly so, compared to Trump, MTG, and Herschel Walker, and the rest of their election denier sycophants.

  14. @JimDandy
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Well, at least that odious warthog lost in Georgia.

    Replies: @HammerJack

    Hey watch it! That land whale is TD’s grandma!

    • Thanks: JimDandy
  15. @Anonymous
    @Ebony Obelisk

    LOL!!!

    The Republican party will never win another election ever again in America.

    We've got sky high inflation, cost of living increases and home prices too high, and the Democrats are still killing it.

    But wait for the real kicker. America only gets less and less white from here on out (since white women can't breed).

    The only minorities who were even willing to consider supporting Repuhlicans were Asians who were pissed off about affirmative action, and they are basement dwellers in their own communities.

    It's the end of the Unz commenter's grip on the escapist fantasy of political salvation.

    Joe Biden 2024

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Colin Wright, @TWS, @Curmudgeon

    Worth adding, another big thing the voters are down with is throwing $100 billion at Ukraine, in hopes of more warz against whomever the jews don’t like.

    Best of all, the race and tranny things will keep roaring along in top gear. The Republicans couldn’t even win on male rapists in girls rest rooms.

    It’s true though: having good candidates makes almost all the difference. Where are the strong GOP candidates? Who’s going oppose Trump or DeSantis for president?

    • Agree: Inverness
    • Replies: @James Speaks
    @HammerJack


    It’s true though: having good candidates makes almost all the difference. Where are the strong GOP candidates? Who’s going oppose Trump or DeSantis for president?
     
    Trump was the right candidate for 2016. Only a populist could break the stranglehold business_as_usual Republican leadership had on the party, and Trump was populist-light. In 2020 Trump’s negatives prevented him from leading a Republican sweep.

    What’s needed in 2022 is populist-strong, someone who can energize the base, bring in independents, and possibly a few of the saner Democrats. I just have no idea who that could be.

  16. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Considering the quality of candidates the Republicans fielded they did surprisingly well. Most educated conservative Americans dislike MAGA and don’t want to see freaks like Oz, Boebert and Walker representing the party. For all the flaws of politicians like Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance. The Republicans want to cede the field in those areas, they are just lucky the Dems are too beholden to shrieking black women and activists to take advantage of that.

    Replies: @BosTex, @Polistra, @Pincher Martin, @vinteuil

    Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance.

    Having read a number of your posts, I’m not really surprised by this remark.

    • Agree: Inverness
    • Replies: @anon
    @Polistra

    I happened to like both Bush and Cheney. I voted for the father Bush and the son. I would say his only character flaw like Romney is that Bush was a social democrat on some issues. Bush did what he could to stop spending on overseas abortions which Obama restarted when he got into office. Bush also didn't push to take peoples guns and ammo away. Bush made a promise during his campaign of "No Nation Building" and a tax break. But unfortunate for him 9 months into his presidency after giving the tax break the left really hated 9/11 happened. The left went into hyper-drive blaming Bush for an act of of terrorism. Could you imagine Bush doing nothing and saying, "well let's just forget about it"? The left at that time was truly pissed about that tax-break and how it messed up their SS "surplus" numbers. I would still take Bush/Cheney over Obama/Biden or Biden/Kamala any day.
    Out of one side of some people's mouths they say how ignorant Bush was and then out of the other side they say he was a mastermind behind 9/11.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  17. Dr. Oz vs. JD Vance, two different futures of the Republican party. One lost against a brain damaged candidate and the other won against a competitive candidate. JD Vance is one of very few political figures in America who have spoken out against getting entangled in the Ukraine. I’m not saying that’s the only reason he won. But the Republicans aren’t winning on the economy when they should be. Abortion ballot measures are trending well. Donald Trump couldn’t get it done on immigration. What other issue is there? In red states, they should start running nuclear attack drills in all the schools, including the small town ones that have 0 chance of ever getting nuked. This – highly effective – political theater will lead to controversy and media attention. Then national Republicans can hammer Biden on bringing the country to the brink of nuclear war over a country that no one gives a shit about and where his crooked son has been making money. They can tie in runaway energy prices to it as well, which right now they are unable to effectively tap into because most of the Republicans in Washington also support these insane pro-Ukraine measures and surreptitious NATO participation in a war against Russia as well. Or the Republicans can just sit in opposition permanently, until this country gets nuked then none of this will really matter.

    • Thanks: Mark G.
    • Replies: @HammerJack
    @Australoid


    Then national Republicans can hammer Biden on bringing the country to the brink of nuclear war over a country that no one gives a shit about
     
    No one gives, or should give?? I'd say the latter, because to the brainwashed electorate Ukraine is the current Most Important Thing Ever and anyone who disagrees is Literally Hitler.

    Here's the right-wing "opposition"

    https://i.ibb.co/rbQKDdH/f0987bf2af64d3021486add40db07265c6454788-14.jpg

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @HA
    @Australoid

    "most of the Republicans in Washington also support these insane pro-Ukraine measures..."

    Yeah, insane that the Republicans actually support something that actually delivers:


    BBC (1 hour ago): Russia's military has been ordered to pull out of the Ukrainian city of Kherson, the only regional capital it captured after invading in February.

    Russia's commander in Ukraine, Gen Sergei Surovikin, said it was no longer possible to keep supplying the city...It is a significant blow as Russia faces a Ukrainian counter-offensive.
     

    So Sailer wins another one. So what's left on Putin's copium list? The mid-terms aren't going to save him, and it doesn't look like Trump's chances of getting back into the White House have improved. I guess Europeans could still freeze over with their frost-bitten hands clasped towards Moscow as they plead for a few more BTU's, but the odds seem pretty slim. I guess we could also see "a manoeuver enveloping the Ukies... in a pincer movement", as the retreating Russians do a 180 and magically fly back across the Dnieper on their flying monkeys, but frankly, that seems a tad desperate at this point.

    Maybe it's time to face reality, Putinoids. Now that Kherson has turned out to be yet another "feint", Crimea is worthless as a military asset. I mean, talk about a pincer movement: with Turkey on one side, and a now-hostile Ukraine controlling its water supply on the other, it's a museum piece in terms of military value. Maybe that was part of the reason they decided to let Ukraine have it in the first place. It might have served a purpose in allowing Russia to beat up Georgia or Moldova, but that, too, is likely on the back burner for now.

    A short while ago, PhysicistDave was assuring us that if Putin lost Kherson or any of the four oblasts Russians have recently claimed, he could not remain in power. Let's see if PhysicistDave finally gets something right and Lil' BB gets ousted and has to start mowing Xi's lawn and picking up after his Tibetan Mastiff as a full-time gig. I hear Uncle Xi was getting a little testy at Putin's repeated threats to nuke his consumer base. With friends like PhysicistDave and Xi and all the rest who were cheering Putin on as he launched this debacle of a compaign, Russia has more worrisome matters to attend to than to keep digging in Ukraine.

  18. @The Last Real Calvinist
    The election of Uncle Festerman in PA is a sign that the Democratic Coalition of the Fringes has now cemented its hold on the dysfunctional-human vote, adding this coup to the representations of all of its other vaunted fringey constituencies.

    You'd think that locking down the brain-damaged vote would not be that crucial to winning elections, but tonight's overall national results indicate that the Dems are well-prepared for the USA's future.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @epebble, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @Barnard, @ATBOTL

    Many people didn’t hesitate to go on record saying “I am not going to vote for no Mahomet”.

    • Replies: @fnn
    @epebble

    You're time travelling back to 2002.

  19. Ctrl-F “Miami-Dade”
    Ctrl-F “majority Hispanic”

  20. i’ll stick with my analysis. Republican party is an expended political force.

    • Replies: @Sir Didymus
    @prime noticer

    Agreed. The US needs a political party that isn't controlled by the Zionists.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @That Would Be Telling
    @prime noticer


    i’ll stick with my analysis. Republican party is an expended political force.
     
    Can we really say that when the GOPe palpably didn't want to win this race in the Congress, because we'd then expect results it has no intention or the courage of delivering? Can you imagine them zeroing the FBI's budget??

    This observation does not necessarily contradict your thesis, defeat begins in the mind, and/or we could observe the GOPe and the Democrats are of one mind about the FBI and DoJ's targets, both are gun grabbers which is one way this election was sabotaged at the national level etc. etc.

    That Trump, now revealed to all to be so pathologically narcissist he doesn't care about our lives or the good of his adopted party (like Reagan he's a Democrat from an earlier age) as we can see from his pre-reelection attacks on DeSantis, still appears to be the party's top dog is illuminating. Although it's way too early to predict with any certainty who'll be on the Republican ticket in 2024, there for example we have a question of the Democrats' courage.
  21. @Anonymous
    @Ebony Obelisk

    LOL!!!

    The Republican party will never win another election ever again in America.

    We've got sky high inflation, cost of living increases and home prices too high, and the Democrats are still killing it.

    But wait for the real kicker. America only gets less and less white from here on out (since white women can't breed).

    The only minorities who were even willing to consider supporting Repuhlicans were Asians who were pissed off about affirmative action, and they are basement dwellers in their own communities.

    It's the end of the Unz commenter's grip on the escapist fantasy of political salvation.

    Joe Biden 2024

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Colin Wright, @TWS, @Curmudgeon

    ‘Joe Biden 2024’

    Wear it in good health.

  22. @Australoid
    Dr. Oz vs. JD Vance, two different futures of the Republican party. One lost against a brain damaged candidate and the other won against a competitive candidate. JD Vance is one of very few political figures in America who have spoken out against getting entangled in the Ukraine. I'm not saying that's the only reason he won. But the Republicans aren't winning on the economy when they should be. Abortion ballot measures are trending well. Donald Trump couldn't get it done on immigration. What other issue is there? In red states, they should start running nuclear attack drills in all the schools, including the small town ones that have 0 chance of ever getting nuked. This - highly effective - political theater will lead to controversy and media attention. Then national Republicans can hammer Biden on bringing the country to the brink of nuclear war over a country that no one gives a shit about and where his crooked son has been making money. They can tie in runaway energy prices to it as well, which right now they are unable to effectively tap into because most of the Republicans in Washington also support these insane pro-Ukraine measures and surreptitious NATO participation in a war against Russia as well. Or the Republicans can just sit in opposition permanently, until this country gets nuked then none of this will really matter.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @HA

    Then national Republicans can hammer Biden on bringing the country to the brink of nuclear war over a country that no one gives a shit about

    No one gives, or should give?? I’d say the latter, because to the brainwashed electorate Ukraine is the current Most Important Thing Ever and anyone who disagrees is Literally Hitler.

    Here’s the right-wing “opposition”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @HammerJack

    Ted Cruz was on TV two weeks ago saying the most important thing for U.S. national security is Ukraine. Not the flood of third-world illegals into the state he represents or the U.S. Not fentanyl. Not inflation. Not energy. But Ukraine.

  23. @prime noticer
    i'll stick with my analysis. Republican party is an expended political force.

    Replies: @Sir Didymus, @That Would Be Telling

    Agreed. The US needs a political party that isn’t controlled by the Zionists.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Sir Didymus

    Oh man, you people are just addicted to political failure, aren't you?


    Give it up. There is never going to be a political solution to your problems. Stop hoping for the magical politicians that are never going to exist. Your time has just about run out. Get up off the recliner.

  24. @The Last Real Calvinist
    The election of Uncle Festerman in PA is a sign that the Democratic Coalition of the Fringes has now cemented its hold on the dysfunctional-human vote, adding this coup to the representations of all of its other vaunted fringey constituencies.

    You'd think that locking down the brain-damaged vote would not be that crucial to winning elections, but tonight's overall national results indicate that the Dems are well-prepared for the USA's future.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @epebble, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @Barnard, @ATBOTL

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that “ugly politician” is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn’t Terry Crews as President, it’s …

    • Agree: BosTex
    • Replies: @TWS
    @Steve Sailer

    Oh for goodness sakes, there's no way Fetterman was elected honestly. He's literally a brain damaged hobo, screw anyone who thinks that was up and up. What's next an actual horse?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Russ
    @Steve Sailer


    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking
     
    He strikes me similarly. But he's tatted up, and hoodies are to him what haute couture (or whatever they call it) is to Tom Brady's supermodel ex-wife. So I wonder if he has become an icon of sorts to the Gen Z incels. Some early post-election speculation I've encountered asserts that Gen Z turnout was pretty good, and they voted heavily Dem. The tuition debt forgiveness has been credited for that, so perhaps Fetterman was a residual beneficiary.

    I also see that a corpulent man has won some beauty pageant in New Hampshire. Given that, given all these male-to-female trannies who simply don't exist if they don't "twerk" in public, given how Richard "Rachel" Levine holds the rank of Admiral in whatever faux-service is accommodating him ... Fetterman might even be handsome through the lens of 2022.
    , @ScarletNumber
    @Steve Sailer


    NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking
     
    Especially in a bathhouse
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Steve Sailer


    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn’t Terry Crews as President, it’s …
     

    Yes, it's easy to imagine Uncle Festerman challenging President Camacho in the pro wrestling ring to settle the 2506 election. It would probably be more of a fair contest than what we've got now.
    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer


    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn’t Terry Crews as President, it’s …
     
    Sort of like how women seem to be infatuated with psychotic serial killers, maybe women are also into monstrous, ogre-like men who look like they can eat normal men? It could be some primal thing that compels them to take an interest in men who look like they might prey on weaker, ordinary men.

    Here were some lib women on MSNBC this morning salivating over a Fetterman presidental run:

    https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1590517570095882240
    , @Anonymous
    @Steve Sailer


    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that “ugly politician” is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.
     
    Incidentally, it looks like Blake Masters will lose. Masters is very geeky looking. He looks like the stereotypical geek from junior high/high school.

    I think the major difference between Fetterman and Masters is that grotesque looking guys, if they're tall, large, and physically imposing like Fetterman is, tend to be feared and respected by people. Whereas geeks tend to be disliked and disrespected.
    , @zoos
    @Steve Sailer


    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn’t Terry Crews as President, it’s …
     
    Hey, look everyone!

    Steve says it here, and it comes out there!

    https://youtu.be/EAzrPuqzeUM

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    , @Corvinus
    @Steve Sailer

    “I’m going to go easy on presenting statistical evidence,”

    Right, because if you dug deep into the available data, your “models” would not be supported. This is the ideal time to look closely at it mathematically, but why put in the effort. In that way, you can proceed with your narrative.

    But I’ll lay it out simply for you. Trump wants to desperately run in 2024. Will the GOP support him over DeSantis? If yes, the Republican Party is a cuck. If no, Trump takes with him a tremendous chunk of “Republicans” and “conservatives” with him, which fractures the party.

    “but most of the time the employees of Google and Harvard (at both, 95+ percent of those who donated to a presidential candidate gave to Biden) are better positioned to put their thumbs on the scale.”

    Perhaps you should NOTICE…

    https://slate.com/technology/2022/07/big-tech-trump-jan-6-gaetz.html

    —It is no surprise that being reminded of the monolithic and dangerous aspects of “Big Tech” was table stakes for those joining Parler in June of 2020—any perceived freedoms afforded by the platform were meant as a tacit critique of bigger technology platforms and their practices. By demonizing Big Tech as all-influential, left-leaning, and capricious, Gaetz, Trump, and allies produced a two step messaging cycle that sowed doubt in election integrity: 1) Elections are rigged by thought controlling Big Tech; and 2) Alt-tech platforms can then define themselves against Big Tech, thereby reinforcing the prior political messaging.—

    “In general, big institutions such as academia, media, and tech have been increasingly closely aligned with Democrats, with a massive chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

    According to Who/Whom? Regardless, as your buddy Vox Day says, build your own platforms.

    “My basic model of the two parties is that contemporary partisan politics are shaped by the increasing diversity of the population”

    It’s not contemporary, it’s been that way since the inception of our two major political party system. You’re not breaking any new ground here.

    “Democrats are outraged that they don’t have an intellectual response”

    And now you’re being obtuse.

    https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf

    https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf

    https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf

    “What do I mean by “core Americans”?
    One way to phrase it: The more likely you are to have an ancestor’s statue torn down by a woke mob, the more likely you are to be defamed by Democrats, and thus to vote GOP. Or, the more your standard demographic identity checklist (race, sex, marital status, homeownership, etc.) resembles, say, George Washington’s, the more likely you are to register Republican”

    That’s a convoluted answer. You really expect us to buy that?

    , @Anon
    @Steve Sailer

    https://twitter.com/snow_monkey_/status/1590228672178708482

  25. @JohnnyWalker123
    What a f*cked night this was.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @SunBakedSuburb

    Yep. And I think it is much worse than it first appears.

    Outside of Florida, there was no red wave at all. The polls may have even favored the GOP a degree or two.

    Look at the New Hampshire senate race for one extreme outlier. The polling average gave the Democratic senator a 1.4% advantage. She is heading for a near double-digit victory.

    In Colorado, Bennet had a 5.7 point advantage in the polling. He’s currently up by more than twelve.

    In Arizona, Blake Masters ended with a 0.3 advantage in the polls. That’s essentially a tie, but with recent polling heading in his direction. Instead, Masters looks to be running behind Trump’s 2020 margins in the state, and that is an election Trump lost. Currently, Masters is more than six down.

    Other than Rubio in Florida, every GOP senatorial candidate looks to be running behind their polling.

    • Replies: @IHTG
    @Pincher Martin

    Vance?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    , @mc23
    @Pincher Martin

    The polls seem to be seriously off. Cheating, polling methodology or both?
    How does a communications diverse and fissured society accurately conduct polling?
    After Trump’s 2020 loss electoral integrity became highly suspect to half the country. Electoral integrity seems to be a very low priority for those in politics. It should be an easy problem to address but there's no will to even look into it. Technology has made cheating very easy.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  26. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Considering the quality of candidates the Republicans fielded they did surprisingly well. Most educated conservative Americans dislike MAGA and don’t want to see freaks like Oz, Boebert and Walker representing the party. For all the flaws of politicians like Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance. The Republicans want to cede the field in those areas, they are just lucky the Dems are too beholden to shrieking black women and activists to take advantage of that.

    Replies: @BosTex, @Polistra, @Pincher Martin, @vinteuil

    Yes, Fetterman, Barnes and Warnock just exude smarts and competence.

    • LOL: Old Prude
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @Pincher Martin

    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups. By trying to outfreak the Democrats they have only succeeded in alienating the suburban educated voters who used to see Republicans as a reliable alternative. In their desperation to get the working class vote the GOP has sold its soul like a cheap whore.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Rob, @fnn, @Pincher Martin

    , @Jack D
    @Pincher Martin

    I don't know about the others, but Fetterman is actually not as stupid as he looks. He basically wears a costume to make himself look like a blue collar white but he ain't. Is is actually a Bernie Sanders wing Democrat Leftist college white. Usually such people are very off-putting to blue collar whites but they are not put off by Fetterman because they get fooled by his getup. The clever disguise worked, so who is the stupid one?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Zoos, @Pincher Martin

  27. @Pincher Martin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Yep. And I think it is much worse than it first appears.

    Outside of Florida, there was no red wave at all. The polls may have even favored the GOP a degree or two.

    Look at the New Hampshire senate race for one extreme outlier. The polling average gave the Democratic senator a 1.4% advantage. She is heading for a near double-digit victory.

    In Colorado, Bennet had a 5.7 point advantage in the polling. He's currently up by more than twelve.

    In Arizona, Blake Masters ended with a 0.3 advantage in the polls. That's essentially a tie, but with recent polling heading in his direction. Instead, Masters looks to be running behind Trump's 2020 margins in the state, and that is an election Trump lost. Currently, Masters is more than six down.

    Other than Rubio in Florida, every GOP senatorial candidate looks to be running behind their polling.

    Replies: @IHTG, @mc23

    Vance?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @IHTG

    The final polling average had Vance winning Ohio by 8 points. With 92% of the vote in, he is currently up by 6.5 points. Slight underperformance (within the margin of error).

    Like I said, outside of Florida, the polling had a light red tint to it. That goes against the GOP conventional wisdom that polling generally favors Democrats.

  28. anonymous[376] • Disclaimer says:

    On the other hand, the Democrats have been trying hard during the Great Awokening to give the two economic classes within the GOP at least a common cultural ground in defense of reality and sanity.

    The danger of nuclear war because the US is fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine and the body bags from the Iran War next year will create common ground among both classes of the Republican Party against Jews for abusing their power in US foreign policy. Jews are hostile to Russia and Iran because of ethnic interests/history and are using the US as an instrument for settling scores and winning security for Israel.

  29. @HammerJack
    @notsaying


    So we the workers of the richest country in the world could hardly be more ignored, taken for granted and politically powerless. And we don’t even know it.
     
    Agree with your points, mainly, but we're not the richest country in the world‐-not even close--and we haven't been for a long time.

    That keeps getting repeated all the time, but per capita measures are the only meaningful ones and the USA has been slipping for decades.

    Replies: @guest007

    Then one needs to list countries (other oil emirates) with higher per capita numbers.

  30. @Sir Didymus
    @prime noticer

    Agreed. The US needs a political party that isn't controlled by the Zionists.

    Replies: @Anon

    Oh man, you people are just addicted to political failure, aren’t you?

    Give it up. There is never going to be a political solution to your problems. Stop hoping for the magical politicians that are never going to exist. Your time has just about run out. Get up off the recliner.

  31. That was an excellent piece! I like your pieces because they raise interesting points but don’t exhaust them, thus giving room to profitable debate. This one was above average, even.
    Some people say that you cannot put the fox in charge of the chicken coop, but if you put a chicken in charge of the chicken coop she will just free the chickens from the chicken coop, and the chickens will have to survive in the wild. For a while there will still be plenty of food for the fox, but harder to catch; eventually both chickens and fox will go extinct.

  32. @notsaying
    Oddly enough the Democratic Party is now a high-low party, too, with a big bite out of the middle where the average white people used to be.

    Still odder and more unfortunate is that in this country with so many workers, there is not a single person who is known as Mr or Ms Worker or Dr. Labor. Not a single one. Not in government, not in academia as far as I know, not in the media or the public's mind.

    We have no umbrella organization for workers similar to say what AAA is for car owners, a non-controversial organization that advocates for its members. There are a lot of things that most workers agree about that neither political party is associated with or tries to get done. We do not even have that so of course we don't have any nonunion or general labor groups trying to do more, which we should have, too.

    The idea that unions speak for all workers is just wishful thinking from a bygone era -- at best. They work for their members. Yes they get involved in Democratic politics but they do not speak for all workers, few of which are in unions outside government workers. I get so mad when people talk about labor leaders when they really mean union leaders.

    It has only been in the last 10 years that I realized all these very obvious things, which explains a lot about why our workers are in the weak position they have been in since the 1970s.

    So we the workers of the richest country in the world could hardly be more ignored, taken for granted and politically powerless. And we don't even know it. Food for thought.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @Redneck farmer, @SFG, @AnotherDad

    “The idea that unions speak for all workers is just wishful thinking from a bygone era — at best. They work for their members. ”

    They don’t even do this. My union collects my dues and wants me to STFU. The women who work in the pension and welfare division are some of the most rude and ignorant humans I have ever had to deal with. They literally speak to you with contempt when you have questions or they deny medical claims based on stupid procedural issues.

    I work for a very woke company, and its management team is openly hostile to its drivers. The union does nothing to protect us from that. The reps and BA’s appear for elections or when it’s contract negotiation time and then they are ghosts.

  33. Rufo probably started the CRT is bad push to early to affect the 2022 midterms. He also did not stick with it but moved on to world war trans instead. Also, the Republican Party consultants never figured out how to use CRT backlash to create a lasting issue.

  34. @notsaying
    Oddly enough the Democratic Party is now a high-low party, too, with a big bite out of the middle where the average white people used to be.

    Still odder and more unfortunate is that in this country with so many workers, there is not a single person who is known as Mr or Ms Worker or Dr. Labor. Not a single one. Not in government, not in academia as far as I know, not in the media or the public's mind.

    We have no umbrella organization for workers similar to say what AAA is for car owners, a non-controversial organization that advocates for its members. There are a lot of things that most workers agree about that neither political party is associated with or tries to get done. We do not even have that so of course we don't have any nonunion or general labor groups trying to do more, which we should have, too.

    The idea that unions speak for all workers is just wishful thinking from a bygone era -- at best. They work for their members. Yes they get involved in Democratic politics but they do not speak for all workers, few of which are in unions outside government workers. I get so mad when people talk about labor leaders when they really mean union leaders.

    It has only been in the last 10 years that I realized all these very obvious things, which explains a lot about why our workers are in the weak position they have been in since the 1970s.

    So we the workers of the richest country in the world could hardly be more ignored, taken for granted and politically powerless. And we don't even know it. Food for thought.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @Redneck farmer, @SFG, @AnotherDad

    “Well, if you did any meaningful work, Dirt Person, you would have representation.”
    The number of people who assume modern Civilization just works because it will is astonishing. The grocery stores will be full, the lights will go on, transport available, and it will be cheap.

  35. @notsaying
    Oddly enough the Democratic Party is now a high-low party, too, with a big bite out of the middle where the average white people used to be.

    Still odder and more unfortunate is that in this country with so many workers, there is not a single person who is known as Mr or Ms Worker or Dr. Labor. Not a single one. Not in government, not in academia as far as I know, not in the media or the public's mind.

    We have no umbrella organization for workers similar to say what AAA is for car owners, a non-controversial organization that advocates for its members. There are a lot of things that most workers agree about that neither political party is associated with or tries to get done. We do not even have that so of course we don't have any nonunion or general labor groups trying to do more, which we should have, too.

    The idea that unions speak for all workers is just wishful thinking from a bygone era -- at best. They work for their members. Yes they get involved in Democratic politics but they do not speak for all workers, few of which are in unions outside government workers. I get so mad when people talk about labor leaders when they really mean union leaders.

    It has only been in the last 10 years that I realized all these very obvious things, which explains a lot about why our workers are in the weak position they have been in since the 1970s.

    So we the workers of the richest country in the world could hardly be more ignored, taken for granted and politically powerless. And we don't even know it. Food for thought.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @Redneck farmer, @SFG, @AnotherDad

    I mean, that’s what the AFL-CIO is supposed to be.

    With the decline of unions most workers are now not in a union and are now free to follow their culturally conservative leanings. Unfortunately they don’t have a lot of influence over the GOP quite yet–it’s all the money people. Whether they will in the future is anyone’s guess. This is getting spun as a GOP defeat, when it’s really more of a wash IMHO.

    But, hey, I didn’t think PA would elect a stroke victim, so don’t listen to me. 😉

    • Replies: @guest007
    @SFG

    There was never a time when more than 50% of workers were in an union. In addition, unions succeed during boom times when employers can easily pass on costs but unions can put companies out of business during bad times.

    , @Arclight
    @SFG

    Agree, this is really more a reinforcement of the status quo than anything. However having dodged a bullet I suspect the Dems will not moderate so if the GOP has any brains at all they should continually take the opportunity to highlight Dem craziness to working class voters so in 2024 some of the gains they have made are baked in and they can pull in some of the suburban voters that are unhappy but couldn't quite bring themselves to vote GOP in this election.

    The activists on the left are not chastened and will continue to push for DIE politics that are framed as fairness-minded when in reality they are about punishment. This still represents an opportunity on for the right if they are willing to take it.

    , @Desiderius
    @SFG

    A vote for Fetterman was a vote against both McConnell *and* Trump.

    That Venn diagram's pretty fat in the middle alone, let alone adding both lobes.

    Replies: @Catdompanj

  36. We have two parties in this country: the Hate Whites Party (Repubs) and the Kill Whites Party (Dems).

    For a very long time now, we have had a Uniparty state (more like a Jewniparty state, really); but from now on we are going to have a literal One Party state — the Kill Whites party.

    Mazel tov! We’ve done it, lads — we’ve successfully destroyed the only country that was ever good to us. Huzzah!

  37. @SFG
    @notsaying

    I mean, that's what the AFL-CIO is supposed to be.

    With the decline of unions most workers are now not in a union and are now free to follow their culturally conservative leanings. Unfortunately they don't have a lot of influence over the GOP quite yet--it's all the money people. Whether they will in the future is anyone's guess. This is getting spun as a GOP defeat, when it's really more of a wash IMHO.

    But, hey, I didn't think PA would elect a stroke victim, so don't listen to me. ;)

    Replies: @guest007, @Arclight, @Desiderius

    There was never a time when more than 50% of workers were in an union. In addition, unions succeed during boom times when employers can easily pass on costs but unions can put companies out of business during bad times.

  38. @HammerJack
    @Australoid


    Then national Republicans can hammer Biden on bringing the country to the brink of nuclear war over a country that no one gives a shit about
     
    No one gives, or should give?? I'd say the latter, because to the brainwashed electorate Ukraine is the current Most Important Thing Ever and anyone who disagrees is Literally Hitler.

    Here's the right-wing "opposition"

    https://i.ibb.co/rbQKDdH/f0987bf2af64d3021486add40db07265c6454788-14.jpg

    Replies: @Anonymous

    Ted Cruz was on TV two weeks ago saying the most important thing for U.S. national security is Ukraine. Not the flood of third-world illegals into the state he represents or the U.S. Not fentanyl. Not inflation. Not energy. But Ukraine.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Thanks: Renard
  39. @Werner
    Brilliant analysis

    Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    Except that he ignored the most powerful group in the country, the group that finances both parties and controls the media.

    Yeah, other than that, it was brilliant.

  40. The GOP has engaged in effective institution-building to keep conservatism intellectually viable among judges via the Federalist Society, but that’s a rare exception. In general, big institutions such as academia, media, and tech have been increasingly closely aligned with Democrats, with a massive chilling effect on freedom of expression.

    I think what is scary to those of us who are paying attention is that it is increasingly clear that the left-Democrats’ domination of institutions means that they no longer need to provide intellectual bases for their demands and projects. They now just get declared and immediately enforced via all available levers of coercion. Consolidation of their powers means that the civil and criminal law are within reach to punish their political adversaries.

    The Democrats and their media apparatus can discipline the most milquetoast low tax Republican, and force him to distance himself from his own voters. This is a tremendous power – dividing the other party and constraining the narrow bounds of its acceptable internal discourse.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
  41. @SFG
    @notsaying

    I mean, that's what the AFL-CIO is supposed to be.

    With the decline of unions most workers are now not in a union and are now free to follow their culturally conservative leanings. Unfortunately they don't have a lot of influence over the GOP quite yet--it's all the money people. Whether they will in the future is anyone's guess. This is getting spun as a GOP defeat, when it's really more of a wash IMHO.

    But, hey, I didn't think PA would elect a stroke victim, so don't listen to me. ;)

    Replies: @guest007, @Arclight, @Desiderius

    Agree, this is really more a reinforcement of the status quo than anything. However having dodged a bullet I suspect the Dems will not moderate so if the GOP has any brains at all they should continually take the opportunity to highlight Dem craziness to working class voters so in 2024 some of the gains they have made are baked in and they can pull in some of the suburban voters that are unhappy but couldn’t quite bring themselves to vote GOP in this election.

    The activists on the left are not chastened and will continue to push for DIE politics that are framed as fairness-minded when in reality they are about punishment. This still represents an opportunity on for the right if they are willing to take it.

  42. @epebble
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Many people didn't hesitate to go on record saying "I am not going to vote for no Mahomet".

    Replies: @fnn

    You’re time travelling back to 2002.

  43. @The Last Real Calvinist
    The election of Uncle Festerman in PA is a sign that the Democratic Coalition of the Fringes has now cemented its hold on the dysfunctional-human vote, adding this coup to the representations of all of its other vaunted fringey constituencies.

    You'd think that locking down the brain-damaged vote would not be that crucial to winning elections, but tonight's overall national results indicate that the Dems are well-prepared for the USA's future.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @epebble, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @Barnard, @ATBOTL

    Biden is also mentally impaired and that won’t stop him from running for a second term.

  44. To paraphrase your article

    Christians were intellectually Out-Jewed

    P.S- The Protestant Elite or ‘WASPS’ didn’t drop down the social ladder, they just intermarried with the Jews and the children became Jewish because Protestantism is an extremely weak religion soon to go the way of the DoDo bird

  45. @Reg Cæsar
    This is the Did You Know? Facts calendar page for Election Day, 2022:

    Anne Frank's last diary entry was written on August 1, 1944. This is the year she decided to write her diary in the form of a novel, which she intended to publish after the war. On August 4th, she was taken by the Gestapo and sent to Auschwitz.
     
    These people can't even leave you alone on your personal calendar!


    The publisher is Andrews McMeel, based in Kansas City, close to normal people. Looking them up, I happened upon the "Rejected Children's Books" series of one Brad Gosse, not from Andrews McMeel, but apparently self-published. You can see why. Anyone familiar with him?



    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41jep8efZjL._SY498_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61G-AwNEQ+L._AC_UL480_SR480,480_.jpg
    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61xCnfs7EZL._AC_SS390_.jpg

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @J.Ross

    “Mom runs trains on the weekend with Dad’s friends”? More like “On the weekend, Dad’s friends run trains on Mom.”

    As for the racist dog, Larry David is on the case:

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @Gary in Gramercy

    That second link should be: https://youtu.be/nb_R1VZqLcE

    Where the ending (after youtu.be/) is nb_R1VZqLcE.

  46. The guilty aren’t smug about it.

  47. @SFG
    @notsaying

    I mean, that's what the AFL-CIO is supposed to be.

    With the decline of unions most workers are now not in a union and are now free to follow their culturally conservative leanings. Unfortunately they don't have a lot of influence over the GOP quite yet--it's all the money people. Whether they will in the future is anyone's guess. This is getting spun as a GOP defeat, when it's really more of a wash IMHO.

    But, hey, I didn't think PA would elect a stroke victim, so don't listen to me. ;)

    Replies: @guest007, @Arclight, @Desiderius

    A vote for Fetterman was a vote against both McConnell *and* Trump.

    That Venn diagram’s pretty fat in the middle alone, let alone adding both lobes.

    • Replies: @Catdompanj
    @Desiderius

    Yeah Philly and Pittsburgh Democrats were thinking about McConnell and Trump, just like they did in every year from 1956 until now. They probably were voting against Frank Rizzo too. Sigh.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  48. There’s a war on and a lot of people think we’re winning, whatever that means.

    There’s a generation of competent, bright professionals who don’t even take Rs seriously. That’s slowly changing as they become parents but a lot of those people just moved to R states. See:

    @politicalmath

    Who voted Biden as a matter of course in Seattle then moved his family to Chattanooga as the consequences of that choice (and that it was a choice) became more clear to him.

    https://polimath.substack.com/p/how-the-new-right-trusts-experts

  49. @Gary in Gramercy
    @Reg Cæsar

    "Mom runs trains on the weekend with Dad's friends"? More like "On the weekend, Dad's friends run trains on Mom."

    As for the racist dog, Larry David is on the case:

    https://youtu.be/uh31FjpQrzA

    https://youtu.be/9BjbmKO85wl

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    That second link should be:

    Where the ending (after youtu.be/) is nb_R1VZqLcE.

  50. @notsaying
    Oddly enough the Democratic Party is now a high-low party, too, with a big bite out of the middle where the average white people used to be.

    Still odder and more unfortunate is that in this country with so many workers, there is not a single person who is known as Mr or Ms Worker or Dr. Labor. Not a single one. Not in government, not in academia as far as I know, not in the media or the public's mind.

    We have no umbrella organization for workers similar to say what AAA is for car owners, a non-controversial organization that advocates for its members. There are a lot of things that most workers agree about that neither political party is associated with or tries to get done. We do not even have that so of course we don't have any nonunion or general labor groups trying to do more, which we should have, too.

    The idea that unions speak for all workers is just wishful thinking from a bygone era -- at best. They work for their members. Yes they get involved in Democratic politics but they do not speak for all workers, few of which are in unions outside government workers. I get so mad when people talk about labor leaders when they really mean union leaders.

    It has only been in the last 10 years that I realized all these very obvious things, which explains a lot about why our workers are in the weak position they have been in since the 1970s.

    So we the workers of the richest country in the world could hardly be more ignored, taken for granted and politically powerless. And we don't even know it. Food for thought.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Mike Tre, @Redneck farmer, @SFG, @AnotherDad

    Oddly enough the Democratic Party is now a high-low party, too, with a big bite out of the middle where the average white people used to be.

    “Now”?

    The Democrats have been a high-low dumbbell for decades. Clinton was the consolidation.

    The Democrats are the Jewish run “Parasite Party”, representing the interests of the verbalist overclass parasites, managing a broad minoritarian vote bank for which they offer gibmedats.
    With a lot stupid virtue signaling–ought to know better–middlebrow whites tacked on–particularly white women, especially young unmarried white women for which the Democrats act as a surrogate husband/provider until maybe a real one comes and they have kids at which time a certain number wise up a bit.

    Again, the transition has been going on my whole life and the consolidation under Clinton was 3 decades ago! (Dick Gephardt is the last candidate I can think of who even sort of tried to run under the old “labor” ideology of the FDR era Democrat party.)

  51. @Almost Missouri
    Perhaps the simplest stylized map of US geopolitics is that the US is a red ocean in which float blue islands of concentrated population. So now every election is a contest of the blue urban core versus the red rural outback, with the purple suburbs as the swing vote. "Suburban soccer moms" may be a lazy trope of the political class, but it is a trope for a reason: whichever way middle class suburban women vote is a bellwether of how far up the beach the red waters will flow in any given election.

    Unfortunately for Republicans, the Democrats owning the blue city political machines and the media centers means that it's easy for them to fraud as many votes as they need and the media will protect the fraud. So elections are something of a pantomime now. In order to get back to somewhat legitimate elections, the Republicans would have crush fraud first, but they show little appetite for this, preferring to play along with the pantomime and collect their donor checks.



    If it weren't for Vermont, the meme would be true.

    https://i.postimg.cc/kGDYShZW/Blue-Cities.jpg

    If it weren't for fraud, it might actually matter.

    Replies: @Renard, @beavertales, @Jack D, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Corvinus

    Also areas where lots of blacks or amerinds live, but what’s up with SW Wisconsin and NE Iowa?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Renard

    "...but what’s up with SW Wisconsin and NE Iowa?"

    There's an Irish-German Catholic area, straddling the Mississippi (the IA/Wisconsin border in that area) which stayed Democratic for a long time, but now it's Republican. A Republican just fipped the House district on the WI side. The district on the IA side, around Dubuque, flipped in 2020, I think.

  52. Anonymous[599] • Disclaimer says:

    Perhaps that helps explain the Trump cult of personality: the hope that at least one guy will fight for you because all the enemies he’s made means he doesn’t have any other friends.

    Totally unfair and misleading phrasing. “All the enemies he’s made” implies that Trump actually did something to deserve people hating him or making him their enemy.

  53. @Pincher Martin
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Yes, Fetterman, Barnes and Warnock just exude smarts and competence.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Jack D

    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups. By trying to outfreak the Democrats they have only succeeded in alienating the suburban educated voters who used to see Republicans as a reliable alternative. In their desperation to get the working class vote the GOP has sold its soul like a cheap whore.

    • Replies: @Barnard
    @Peter Akuleyev

    It fails as a point though, unless you are arguing women shouldn't have the franchise. They vote for Democrat freaks but not Republican ones appears to be your argument. Oz outperformed Mastriano significantly. Ron Johnson is barely winning a race that should have been ten points if white women were sensible, rational voters. Stacey Abrams won among Independent women. Unmarried women have come to view the Democratic party as their daddy. They are easily manipulated by the left.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    , @Rob
    @Peter Akuleyev


    In their desperation to get the working class vote the GOP has sold its soul like a cheap whore.
     
    It’s especially sad and dumb because Republicans don’t need to pick up the trappings of the working class if they would just support policies that would help the working class. No LARPing needed.

    The media decided one day that Trump supporters “liked his style” and liked that Trump pissed off liberals. Did anyone who supported Trump actually like his style? I’d like a respectable pol to advocate populist positions. Preferably, someone who married an American and stayed married, for starters. Maybe someone during the Stormy Daniels bruhaha would not have been involved with a porn “star” at all.

    Really, not a great champion, just someone who advances populist policies. The fact that neither party has had a populist realignment does not speak well of our system. There’s something like 40% of the (potential) electorate that is up for grabs. Someone should pick up the votes on the sidewalk.
    , @fnn
    @Peter Akuleyev


    The GOP used to be the party of grownups.
     
    You mean crazed warmongers like W and McCain along with Antifa and BLM-loving Bain Capital vulture capitalist Mitt Romney, who also lacked the common sense to know you don't store your pet dog on the roof of the car when you go on a road trip.

    Replies: @Director95

    , @Pincher Martin
    @Peter Akuleyev


    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups.
     
    The "grownups" drove the party into the ditch. Bush and Cheney ended the Reagan Era. Both Obama and Trump owe their presidencies to Dubya's two disastrous terms that ended with comprehensive failure, both for the U.S. economy and national security.

    Before you idealize what the GOP had been at the national level before Trump came long in 2016, look at how the GOP had performed in the six presidential elections from 1992 to 2012 (the Democratic performance follows in parentheses):

    1992 - 37.5% (43.0%)

    1996 - 40.7% (49.2%)

    2000 - 47.9% (48.4%)

    2004 - 50.7% (48.3%)

    2008 - 45.7% (52.9%)

    2012 - 47.2% (51.1%)

    The GOP average for their performance in those six pre-Trump presidential elections is 44.95%. (The Democratic average is 48.82%.) Trump's average in his two runs is 46.45%.

    I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to claim that we Republicans need to return the party to the "grownups" to bolster our electoral performance. It was their awful performance - both in elections and in governing - that led to Trump to begin with. If those "grownups" had the answers, President Trump would've never happened.

    Replies: @Prester John, @Corvinus

  54. @Almost Missouri
    Perhaps the simplest stylized map of US geopolitics is that the US is a red ocean in which float blue islands of concentrated population. So now every election is a contest of the blue urban core versus the red rural outback, with the purple suburbs as the swing vote. "Suburban soccer moms" may be a lazy trope of the political class, but it is a trope for a reason: whichever way middle class suburban women vote is a bellwether of how far up the beach the red waters will flow in any given election.

    Unfortunately for Republicans, the Democrats owning the blue city political machines and the media centers means that it's easy for them to fraud as many votes as they need and the media will protect the fraud. So elections are something of a pantomime now. In order to get back to somewhat legitimate elections, the Republicans would have crush fraud first, but they show little appetite for this, preferring to play along with the pantomime and collect their donor checks.



    If it weren't for Vermont, the meme would be true.

    https://i.postimg.cc/kGDYShZW/Blue-Cities.jpg

    If it weren't for fraud, it might actually matter.

    Replies: @Renard, @beavertales, @Jack D, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Corvinus

    “The US is a red ocean in which float blue islands of concentrated population. So now every election is a contest of the blue urban core versus the red rural outback”

    To the north, in Canada, the urban tail wags the rural dog.

    The Canadian electoral map is a sea of conservatism, with urban islands of liberals deciding elections. This is why the permanent governing class insists on high immigration of ethnic foreigners to add to their base, and lavishly funds multicultural progressivism.

    Different country, same prog strategy.

  55. One of the most interesting things is how liberals posit themselves as the oppressed, the marginalized, etc, when in reality they represent the bulk of the educated, bourgeoise, urban and affluent elites.

    Let’s make something clear here: the more you go up the socio-economic ladder, the more liberal people tend to become. The more higher education people have, the higher their income and the more urban they are, the more likely they are to be liberal. Even in the most “Red” states like Texas, the more urban, wealthy and educated classes tend to be liberal, or at least way more liberal than the more working-class or rural people.

    [MORE]

    One of the things that confuses the issue of the political orientation of Elites Vs Proles is the fact that, at the absolute highest level of income, there are as many “conservative” Republicans as there are liberals. In fact, there are slightly more “conservatives” among Plutocrats than there are liberals.

    But these plutocrats are not true conservatives, What happens is that, historically, the Republican Party is the party that gives tax breaks to the rich. The reason why these plutocrats claim to be “conservative” is only because they want those juicy tax cuts. They couldn’t care less about the things that true conservatives actually care about, like abortion, or gay marriage, or religion being taught in schools. They are either indifferent to that, or deep down they are liberal about it. If you are a multi-milllionaire or a billionaire, then of course you are supporting the party that wants to take less money from you. Just look at the “classic” liberal countries like Sweden and Denmark. It’s multimillionaires all live abroad. Why? Because these countries are hardcore liberal, being the cradle of liberalism, and the people expect plutocrats to pay high taxes since the liberal mentality is more communitarian and less tolerant of inequality.

    It is a FACT that, the more you go up the ladder of income and education, the more liberal people tend to become in their views. The more university-educated, urban and professional/bourgeoise classes tend to be more liberal.While conservatives are found more among the working class, the rural populations and among those without university degrees. Please note that I am talking about white people here. If you include blacks and hispanics, it throws a monkey wrench in that formula because non-whites are more likely to vote Democrat because they want government handouts. But white liberals tend to be wealthier and more educated than white conservatives on average.

    It’s paradoxical that, historically, Democrats are the party of the oppressed and the working-class and of the downtrodden since liberalism correlates so srongly with wealth and education.

    But to understand this paradox, one needs to understand that this is not really an issue of wealth and education that pushes one to become either a liberal or a conservative, but one of *mentality* .Liberals have an extreme hyper-focus on social harmony, and a low tolerance for social inequality. This is what pushes them to become leaders of the oppressed, even when they, themselves, are not oppressed. To quote Bill Clinton:”I feel your pain;.” While Clinton was a hypocrite, it’s true that liberals have this higher ability to experience other people’s pain, which pushed them to the pursuit of equality as priority #1. Even Marx remarked about how easy it would be for The Revolution to happen, because of how guilty the wealthy, the “intelligentsia”, the urban liberal bourgeoise felt over the fact that they had a higher quality of life than the rest of the population. In fact, during the communist revolutions in multiple countries, the liberal bourgeoise reacted with apathy and fatalism, and were slaughter. This is especially true since liberals are not very violent people, and are easily exterminated with the use of force. During the October Revolution in Russia, the liberal bourgeoise families from St.Petersburg and Moscow were taken to the back street ally, put on their knees and shot in the head. Liberals are not fighters. They are shop owners, professionals, professors and clerks, but not really warriors. Napoleon said it best about the strongly bourgeoise English Society:

    “A nation of shop keepers.”

    This profound cognitive dissonance of liberals, that they see themselves as weak, oppressed and marginalized while they actually represent the bulk of the wealthier and more educated classes is something very interesting worth noticing and discussing, but no one seems to do it.

    This is why liberals love the fact that there are those tiny number of super-rich plutocrats that vote Republican. Because that is the one elite that they can point out other than themselves that they can make opposition against and make a case that they represent the “weak”. Those plutocrats, who in reality are not social conservatives at all, but just greedy opportunists who want tax breaks or who deep down are actually liberal too but still want tax breaks, give liberals the only target that they can focus on an elite to be opposed. But even among plutocrats, despite the HUGE incentive to proclaim yourself to be conservative(big tax breaks), the majority are still liberal anyway, which is very bad P.R for liberals wanting to portray themselves as oppressed people leading other oppressed people. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg and many others are openly liberal and have donated huge sums to the Democratic Party.

    This is what explains Sailer’s paradox that liberals were historically the party of the working-class, despite the fact that white liberals on average are LESS likely to be working-class, while Republicans were the party of “management” or capitalists, even though typical Republican votera are more likely to be working-class and less likely to be managemt(the managereal class is heavily liberal)

    One you understand the nature of liberals, this paradox is easily solved. Liberals tend to be more pro-social than conservatives, and emotionally tend to be become more distressed over inequality of outcomes;. This pushes them to push for strongly egalitarian policies and o take the mantle of defenders of the weak, or at least the mantle of hypocrites who constantly virtue-signal, because virtue-signaling is absolutely essential for the emotional well-being of a person that is both successful but at the same time is intensely distressed over inequality of outcomes and feels guilty over being at the winning bracket.

    Liberalism has gone too far, and is imploding the West. The problem is that liberals have shown that they are completely unable to pull the breaks on themselves. Not because of a lack of intelligence, since, as discussed, liberals tend to be highly intelligent as a group, but because their emotional wiring precludes them from it. Conservatives arehoping that liberals will self-destroy and diappear, but this is not going to happen. As elsewhere in life, there are the victors and the vanquished.

    Old school liberals were never the enemies of the American People, and in fact some of the greatest improvements in living standards and work conditions were the result of activims on the part of old school liberals. But now “classic” liberals are being devoured by a sea of neo-Marxists that easily manipulate them due to their high tendency to feel guilty. No one has an answer for it, and we are all much worse for it since liberals have unfathomable power in the Society.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
    @Zero Philosopher

    The really big question is not the absolute morality of equality or inequality, or sentimentality versus pragmatism, but what form of government provides social stability so the next generation can grow and prosper.

    We see that here in Ecuador, where we had a kind of general strike or stoppage a few minutes ago led by indigenous people, but with some support from farmers and taxi drivers and such.

    The strikers had 10 demands which related to diverse issues like the price of gasoline and the price of fertilizer, and a demand for an amnesty on repayments for farmers' bank loans, and cessation of plans to privatize state-owned Banks (and sell them to US investors.)

    Main highways were blocked with boulders in an attempt to starve the major cities into submission by making it impossible to refill supermarkets, gas stations, or propane supplies.

    As usual the government caved in and canceled a planned increase in the price of gasoline, and made some other concessions.

    The price of gasoline in Ecuador remains around $2.50 per gallon with the largest part of oil production being sold to China on long-term contracts.

    In exchange for this, all Ecuadorians have Chinese or Korean smartphones and can't amuse themselves on Facebook.

    So now there is a truce until the next time around when it will flare up again.

    However the indigenous people also wanted a ban on oil drilling in indigenous lands in the Amazon basin, which is an impossibility, because of the prosperity of all depends on the oil being sucked out of the ground.

    So it is always a question of striking a balance between giving the poor enough to prevent civil warfare, but avoiding throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    It is fundamentally no different in the United States. Both parties posture a lot with ridiculously extreme positions, but in the end they don't differ so much and most of the actual daily business of government goes on in the middle ground and the people have to have their opium of religion, sport, and video games.

    The Republicans are going to throw out all the illegals, and the Democrats are going to castrate all the little white boys, but ultimately both parties are passengers on the Titanic in iceberg and shark infested waters, and they cannot afford to lean too far to port or starboard without capsizing the whole leaky ship and drowning everybody aboard.

    Replies: @Zero Philosopher

    , @John Johnson
    @Zero Philosopher

    It is a FACT that, the more you go up the ladder of income and education, the more liberal people tend to become in their views.

    That's not a fact but an oversimplification.

    Professionals with 4 year degrees are less likely to be liberal than doctorates. So grad students with various White guilt degrees are of course more likely to be liberal because the private sector doesn't reward their investment. High school drop outs and Sociology grad students are both very reliable Democrat voters.

    Income only divides politically after around 400k last I checked. Meaning 100k-400k still lean conservative. Then it splits about evenly. So the poor vote Democrat and so do the ultra wealthy. Which means people return to voting Democrat once they have gobs of money and have guilt over it or view themselves as a patronizing class. But even at that point it is still split.

    Business owners tend to be conservative regardless of income level. Inherited wealth correlates far better with liberalism than wealth in general.

    Replies: @Zero Philosopher

  56. I would disagree with your identification of the Republican supporters.

    Most managers in largish business are bureaucrats, they excel at pleasing their boss and getting on board whatever crap the organization wants. Most professionals seem to have spent too much time in academia – many dr and jd’s I run into are extremely progressive.

    The paradigmatic Republican is the local car dealer. He is a small businessman, not too academically inclined, has to pay the bills and manage employees. He is not dependent on one boss, the company. While he has to please his customers he can retain an independent mind because his income is diversified over hundreds of customers.

    When Obama got his clutches on GM in the government bailout I seem to remember not massive layoffs of middle managers but massive closing of GM dealerships.

    • Thanks: Russ
  57. @Almost Missouri
    Perhaps the simplest stylized map of US geopolitics is that the US is a red ocean in which float blue islands of concentrated population. So now every election is a contest of the blue urban core versus the red rural outback, with the purple suburbs as the swing vote. "Suburban soccer moms" may be a lazy trope of the political class, but it is a trope for a reason: whichever way middle class suburban women vote is a bellwether of how far up the beach the red waters will flow in any given election.

    Unfortunately for Republicans, the Democrats owning the blue city political machines and the media centers means that it's easy for them to fraud as many votes as they need and the media will protect the fraud. So elections are something of a pantomime now. In order to get back to somewhat legitimate elections, the Republicans would have crush fraud first, but they show little appetite for this, preferring to play along with the pantomime and collect their donor checks.



    If it weren't for Vermont, the meme would be true.

    https://i.postimg.cc/kGDYShZW/Blue-Cities.jpg

    If it weren't for fraud, it might actually matter.

    Replies: @Renard, @beavertales, @Jack D, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Corvinus

    It’s not that simple anymore. In PA, as Philly has depopulated the suburbs have grown. Montgomery County (on the border of Philly) had as many voters last night as Philly itself. The 3 suburban counties together have twice as many votes as Philly.

    Unfortunately, they were mostly blue votes. In Montgomery, Fetterman won by a margin of +28. The abortion issue didn’t help and Oz had his own issues as a perceived carpet bagger, but what you have now is a fundamental gap between suburban, mostly college whites and rural, mostly non-college whites.

    Now, non-college whites are even more lopsided in their support for R as suburbanites are for D. Fulton County was +68 for Oz. Unfortunately though, there are only 6,000 voters in Fulton County. You would need 70 or 80 Fulton Counties to make up for one Philly. If it was just Philly maybe it would still be possible but if it’s Philly PLUS the suburbs it becomes impossible. There just aren’t enough rural non-college whites to counterbalance Philly AND the suburban counties.

    Not only that, but if you look at the arrow map (scroll down), even the rural areas voted more blue this time than in 2020. This is not due to vote fraud. Here we are with high inflation and so on and yet not only was there NOT a red wave but even a shift toward blue:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-us-senate.html

    I don’t know what the Republicans can do to make themselves appealing to college whites again without losing the non-college base but they have to because you can’t win elections (at least in populous NE states) just off of non-college whites.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @rebel yell
    @Jack D


    even the rural areas voted more blue this time than in 2020. This is not due to vote fraud. Here we are with high inflation and so on and yet not only was there NOT a red wave but even a shift toward blue
     
    You see this in Washington state as well. It is not just Seattle that votes blue. Lesser cities vote democrat, as do many suburbs on the frontier of farmland.
    A Trump sign in your yard in Seattle can get a brick thrown through your window. A Trump sign in Redmond? You will be ostracized. You had to cross the mountains and get to where you smell the cowshit in the air to see Trump signs openly displayed.
    Eastern Washington is Republican country, but Rachel Doezel came out of Spokane, and Melissa Click is now a tenured professor there.
    Charles Murray has well documented the segregation of American life into the college educated class vs non-college class, Fishtown vs Belmont. People who work with their hands vs people who work at a keyboard. Keyboard people are everywhere.

    Replies: @New Dealer, @Desiderius

    , @Desiderius
    @Jack D

    They both hate Karl Rove.

  58. The downside for the Democrats of being the party of diversity is that diversity is divisive. The Democrats, having assembled a coalition of the fringes of American society, such as blacks, transgenders, lesbians, immigrants, the alienated, and so forth, must constantly deal with spats among their constituents, who are endlessly jockeying to be at the top of the totem pole of victimization.

    Steve, good solid column, but I have to say a paragraph like this becomes almost clunky/annoying when you specifically omit the Jews.

    I realize you have very good reasons–preserving your reach and influence–for being careful. (No reason for you to ever veer into my territory of saying minoritarianism is basically a Jewish created and propagandized project.) But it is a little ridiculous to talk through American politics and never mention Jews at all!

    Jews account for something like 50% of the Democrats’ money and utterly dominate its ideologues. Your “black party” idea was great marketing. But it wasn’t blacks who came up with the program of the Great Replacement. (Blacks don’t actually love being replaced by Mexicans.) Nor is it blacks who shriek when some white mentions–much less objects to–having their people replaced, that that is the worst thing ever just like being a Nazi. It’s your Dana Milbanks.

    • Agree: Angharad
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast. Fortunately for the Dems, coming up right behind them are other minorities such as Asians, especially S. Asians, both as donors and idealogues. Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air.

    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It's the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call "minoritarianism" is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don't hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn't cured.

    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong. We see them now on a global scale. The "reserve army of the unemployed" are not clustered around the factory gates driving wages down to poverty level in Lowell because the factory is now in Dhaka instead. The army is still there, it's just an invisible army that is 8,000 miles away. Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don't shoot the messenger.

    From now on, instead of Rahm you're going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Pat Kittle, @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @AnotherDad, @John Pepple

    , @Truth
    @AnotherDad

    You heard the man Steve; Nick, Kyrie, and Ye had much more to lose than you: We need a column where you give your opinion on the JQ, stat!

  59. @Pincher Martin
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Yes, Fetterman, Barnes and Warnock just exude smarts and competence.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Jack D

    I don’t know about the others, but Fetterman is actually not as stupid as he looks. He basically wears a costume to make himself look like a blue collar white but he ain’t. Is is actually a Bernie Sanders wing Democrat Leftist college white. Usually such people are very off-putting to blue collar whites but they are not put off by Fetterman because they get fooled by his getup. The clever disguise worked, so who is the stupid one?

    • Agree: David In TN, Desiderius
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    >stupid-looking
    >blue collar costume
    >like John Kerry
    >The same John Kerry who hasn't had a brain-damaging stroke and who can to this day speak spontaneously in coherent sentences
    >the same John Kerry who doesn't have a *#$^ing grapefruit growing out of his neck
    >no mention of Grug's frequent and reliable gaffes
    >which come from his brain-damaging stroke
    Can you just say you want sub-Jews to die in an assembly line of death?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Zoos
    @Jack D


    I don’t know about the others, but Fetterman is actually not as stupid as he looks. He basically wears a costume to make himself look like a blue collar white but he ain’t. Is is actually a Bernie Sanders wing Democrat Leftist college white. Usually such people are very off-putting to blue collar whites but they are not put off by Fetterman because they get fooled by his getup. The clever disguise worked, so who is the stupid one?
     
    Beginning from Clifford Odet's "Golden Boy," to the popularity of "The Andy Griffith Show," "Beverly Hillbillies," "Green Acres" and on to "Forrest Gump" and "Slingblade"…

    America loves their good natured retards. They make the mediocre feel special:

    "I’m not that smart, and he’s not as smart as me, which makes him de facto mildly retarded, but he has a good heart like me, so I will defend him, because that makes me a good person, in the wretched rejected Carly Simon song that I call My World."

    https://cdn.theatlantic.com/thumbor/-31xvVFIhJk7nPwppYQfQqj-70c=/0x0:2500x1406/960x540/media/img/mt/2021/03/GettyImages_978441216/original.jpg

    https://images.mubicdn.net/images/film/16497/cache-50601-1445919935/image-w1280.jpg

    , @Pincher Martin
    @Jack D

    Regardless of how Fetterman would have performed on an IQ test pre-stroke, it's clear he's now mentally incompetent for anything other than bagging groceries.

  60. Both parties are striving to attract as many voters as possible and repel as few voters as possible so as to get 50% of the electorate plus 1% in each constituency.

    The exact details of policy will always be fluid, because the losing party will try to tweak it’s platform so as to win the next time.

    Trump managed to get a majority running on reformed affordable Health Care insurance and the reduction in the price of drugs, which are grossly overpriced in the USA relative to the rest of the world.

    He was also going to build a 3000 mile impermeable wall that would close off at least one route for illegal immigrants to the USA at the southern border, while not actually penalizing employers who hire illegal immigrants in the US.

    He failed on almost everything. During his first month in office he went into a meeting with drug company chiefs stating that drug prices would have to come down, and emerged a couple of hours later a beaten man.

    And then along came COVID-19 which allowed a couple of drug companies to make billions and billions of dollars of excess profits. Trump claimed that his greatest achievement was getting the vaccines developed, although this was in fact a bipartisan achievement.

    There was never any talk from the White House of a windfall profits tax on the heroic drug manufacturers.

    However many Republicans turned against Trump over mandatory vaccines and other public health infection control measures and allowed the non-campaigning candidate Biden to be elected by default.

    The Democrats, as Steve suggests, have focused on putting together a big tent coalition of minorities large enough to form a plurality. It looks like there has been a bit of a backlash related to predictable post-Covid and Ukrainian war commodity price inflation and rising interest rates. (These problems are global and not confined to the United States.)

    It looks like the Republicans will get back majority control of the House of Representatives, and maybe the Senate, even though their selection of candidates who they think would be good legislators is bizarre.

    If that is the case, possibly Democrats will be obliged to drop the “cherry on the top”, the chicks with dicks, from the team roster next time around so has to get back to 50% plus 1% in the most marginal States.

    Other issues that might come up? Trump spoke of ending NATO altogether, and yet the Ukraine Civil War is largely about the expansion of NATO well beyond East Germany.

    Somebody, it might have been former British prime minister Harold Wilson, once said that all politics is local, and US voters have typically not been swayed much on issues of foreign policy, but a nuclear war in Ukraine might change all that.

  61. @Pincher Martin
    @JohnnyWalker123

    Yep. And I think it is much worse than it first appears.

    Outside of Florida, there was no red wave at all. The polls may have even favored the GOP a degree or two.

    Look at the New Hampshire senate race for one extreme outlier. The polling average gave the Democratic senator a 1.4% advantage. She is heading for a near double-digit victory.

    In Colorado, Bennet had a 5.7 point advantage in the polling. He's currently up by more than twelve.

    In Arizona, Blake Masters ended with a 0.3 advantage in the polls. That's essentially a tie, but with recent polling heading in his direction. Instead, Masters looks to be running behind Trump's 2020 margins in the state, and that is an election Trump lost. Currently, Masters is more than six down.

    Other than Rubio in Florida, every GOP senatorial candidate looks to be running behind their polling.

    Replies: @IHTG, @mc23

    The polls seem to be seriously off. Cheating, polling methodology or both?
    How does a communications diverse and fissured society accurately conduct polling?
    After Trump’s 2020 loss electoral integrity became highly suspect to half the country. Electoral integrity seems to be a very low priority for those in politics. It should be an easy problem to address but there’s no will to even look into it. Technology has made cheating very easy.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @mc23

    Actually, outside of Florida and some outlier states like New Hampshire, the polling seems to be quite accurate.

    What Republicans like me didn't plan for is that this year's polling generally had a GOP tilt to it.

    So when I saw the final polling average had Blake Masters up by 0.3% in the Arizona senate race, I figured he might win by three or four points in a wave election where the poling momentum over the last few weeks was for Republicans. Instead, it looks like he will lose by a couple of points, which is well within the MoE for the polling average.

  62. @AnotherDad

    The downside for the Democrats of being the party of diversity is that diversity is divisive. The Democrats, having assembled a coalition of the fringes of American society, such as blacks, transgenders, lesbians, immigrants, the alienated, and so forth, must constantly deal with spats among their constituents, who are endlessly jockeying to be at the top of the totem pole of victimization.
     
    Steve, good solid column, but I have to say a paragraph like this becomes almost clunky/annoying when you specifically omit the Jews.

    I realize you have very good reasons--preserving your reach and influence--for being careful. (No reason for you to ever veer into my territory of saying minoritarianism is basically a Jewish created and propagandized project.) But it is a little ridiculous to talk through American politics and never mention Jews at all!

    Jews account for something like 50% of the Democrats' money and utterly dominate its ideologues. Your "black party" idea was great marketing. But it wasn't blacks who came up with the program of the Great Replacement. (Blacks don't actually love being replaced by Mexicans.) Nor is it blacks who shriek when some white mentions--much less objects to--having their people replaced, that that is the worst thing ever just like being a Nazi. It's your Dana Milbanks.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Truth

    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast. Fortunately for the Dems, coming up right behind them are other minorities such as Asians, especially S. Asians, both as donors and idealogues. Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air.

    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It’s the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call “minoritarianism” is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don’t hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn’t cured.

    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong. We see them now on a global scale. The “reserve army of the unemployed” are not clustered around the factory gates driving wages down to poverty level in Lowell because the factory is now in Dhaka instead. The army is still there, it’s just an invisible army that is 8,000 miles away. Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    From now on, instead of Rahm you’re going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.

    • Agree: Old Prude, Desiderius
    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @Jack D

    "Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air."

    I like "just gives you an antique air." Wish I had thought of it. Much more polite than "what an alter kocker."

    , @Pat Kittle
    @Jack D


    From now on, instead of Rahm you’re going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.
     
    And who do we thank for a billion more Ramas?

    The Jew lobby.

    That's right, HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) and all the rest of the (((Great Replacement types))). Including you.

    , @Colin Wright
    @Jack D

    '...Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast...'

    They haven't faded just yet. In 2020, the eight top donors to Biden's campaign were all Jews.

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @Jack D

    It's not anti-Jewish to call out destructive Zionist supremacists like the Kagans and other neocon cultists who have hijacked American foreign policy big time beginning with the disastrous Bush-Cheney regime. Currently, their hatred of Russia and non-Jewish Russians is suppresing rational policy in regard to the Eurasian continent. Their schemes center around Israeli, not American interests. In the grey-blue eyes of a handsome, relatively bright goy like me, Jews aren't the problem. In fact, Jews can be quite great. It's the weird Zionist cult -- peopled by Jews and non-Jews, by the way -- who are absolutely dominationist and dangerous.

    , @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Jack, seriously dude, whenever anything regarding the Jews floats up you immediately drop about 20 IQ points. Not joking it's at least a standard deviation. (BTW, being able to step back and be objective "this is what is even if i don't like it" is a useful skill--personally and politically.)

    Your comment is just laughable nonsense--end to end:


    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party.
     
    First off--straw man. I didn't say anything about the future. (My future prediction for America--given in other comments--is "slumping toward Brazil". I actually think Jews have overbaked the cake, they were gifted the greatest possible position any middle man minority could have ... and proceeded to trash the joint anyway--a reflection upon their character.)

    Rather, my actual comment chided Steve on ignoring the obvious Jewish influence on American politics and specifically the Democrat party--it's transformation to being an anti-national coalition of the fringes.

    Secondly, "Biden Administration". Did you actually think about the right now before trotting out Father Coughlin? It's staring you in the face. Our first Jewish administration but with a demented Irish "Catholic" bozo as front man (while he can stand up).


    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It’s the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call “minoritarianism” is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don’t hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn’t cured.
     
    First, anytime you have to trot out "anti-Semitism" to answer a critique, you lose. It's like Hitler. Sorry, there is zero wrong with anyone opposing Jews--or any other ethnic group's--preferred policy set. I oppose the Jewish establishment's policy set. It is objectively stupid and toxic for my people.

    Secondly, you are just wrong. Minoritarianism is the problem. It is precisely what ails America. That gone the other stuff is all tractable--essentially technical: Foreign policy. Managing a nationalist trade policy. Tax and welfare policy promoting eugenic fertility. Developing nuclear power safely. Minoritarianism is the cancer.

    And ... LOL. If all the Jews made aliyah, American media and politics would immediately be dramatically better. There would be more open debate, more free speech, more diversity of opinions, less totalitarian policing.



    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong.
     
    Not 100% clear on you thinking here, but seems like you have it precisely backwards.

    The issues with capitalism--and unemployment--are there. (But tractable.) Jewish minoritarianism is precisely the replacement phony "leftist" ideology to divert leftist politics from economics and the interests of workers and create a "leftism" that is friendly to the interests of economically successful Jews.

    Actual, old-style pro-labor leftists make this point all the time. That the race+gender "identity politics" stuff a giant scam that is serves the interests of elites not workers.


    Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don’t shoot the messenger.
     
    LOL. Wow. This is why we love Jack D. Such humility.

    Yes, Jews are smart, and have made real useful contributions in the natural sciences.

    But back in the real world, the sum of Jewish "intelligent analysis" about anything revolving around the human condition is shit. Most Jews keep baking up nonsense that centers around their experience as an outgroup middle man minority. Essentially, Jewish thought tends to be stuck in their own little ghetto. They can't accept that their experience as an outgroup, a minority is just that--an outlier--that they and their interests and simply not normative nor important to successful societies.

    Steve's own HBD bailiwick demonstrates the point. A parade of Anglos--Darwin, Galton, Fischer, Hamilton, Watson, Crick, Wilson ... advancing understanding, shedding light. And a parade of Jews spreading nonsense and darkness --that unfortunately they've been able to impose on us as "science".

    The sum total of Jewish thought in anything in the social sciences is actually negative. If you could nuke all Jewish social/political thought ... our sum total of knowledge would be greater. We'd actually understand more and certainly have more functional culture and politics.

    Replies: @Hunsdon

    , @John Pepple
    @Jack D

    I don’t think in terms of ethnicities, but ideologies, and I have to say that the ideology of leftism has been a disaster for the West (and the entire world). Here are the basic problems:

    1. Leftists urge that we be hard on traditional society, the reason being that we can then uncover problems that would otherwise remain hidden. However, they never urge that leftists be hard on themselves or leftism itself. The result is lots of hidden problems in leftism.

    2. The basic activity of the left is to (i) find a problem, (ii) suggest some extreme transformation of society to solve that problem, and (iii) vilify to the max anyone who doesn’t go along with that extreme transformation or who is seen as an oppressor.

    3. Specifically regarding (2, ii), the extreme transformation is unlikely to be achieved; to the extent that it is, it doesn’t solve the problem; and even if it does, it creates so many other problems that it is not worth it.

    4. (1) and (2) together mean that when there are problems with leftism, they are never acknowledged or resolved. There are no checks and balances, there are no feedback mechanisms to help leftists change course; they simply spiral on down to the bottom and continue to dig. Anyone who points out a problem is immediately vilified (“counter-revolutionary,” “capitalist roader,” “racist,” etc.), and their viewpoint is dismissed.

    5. The downward spiral has been seen with communism and now racial equity. The transformation doesn’t usually work, but instead of giving up and trying something different, leftists will double down. Doubling down on communism didn’t help. Nor does doubling down on anti-racism. Nobody could possibly believe that after fifty years of tinkering, our standardized tests are still racist. Yet, they still insist on this, even though it’s obvious that the problem lies elsewhere.

    6. The problems of the workers didn’t need to be solved by destroying capitalism, which is nearly impossible anyway. Facilitating job creation, keeping costs imposed on the poor as low as possible, and keeping immigration under control all do quite well in helping workers (or the poor generally). As for blacks, their problems are at this point largely self-inflicted and can be solved by giving them some simple advice: emulate Asians. Study hard and avoid a life of crime.

    7. There is a lot more I could say, but let me close with this: the left is suicidally insane regarding Muslims. When I have pointed out to leftists that Muslims massacred leftists when they took over Iran in 1979, what has been the response? They have vilified me rather than those engaged in the massacre. Letting Muslims into the West, when they have shown that they hate leftists, is about the dumbest thing one can do as a leftist. What is the point of remembering the Holocaust, remembering the murder of Emmet Till, but completely forgetting about a massacre of leftists?

    Replies: @John Johnson

  63. @Reg Cæsar
    This is the Did You Know? Facts calendar page for Election Day, 2022:

    Anne Frank's last diary entry was written on August 1, 1944. This is the year she decided to write her diary in the form of a novel, which she intended to publish after the war. On August 4th, she was taken by the Gestapo and sent to Auschwitz.
     
    These people can't even leave you alone on your personal calendar!


    The publisher is Andrews McMeel, based in Kansas City, close to normal people. Looking them up, I happened upon the "Rejected Children's Books" series of one Brad Gosse, not from Andrews McMeel, but apparently self-published. You can see why. Anyone familiar with him?



    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/41jep8efZjL._SY498_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61G-AwNEQ+L._AC_UL480_SR480,480_.jpg
    https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61xCnfs7EZL._AC_SS390_.jpg

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @J.Ross

    The first sip leaves you with “it didn’t happen,” but “it should have” is waiting for you at the bottom of the glass.

  64. You can forget all the black and white stuff. In this day and age, all issues reduce to the economic. The economic question is the only true political question, and it is all the more effective for never being explicitly formulated by anybody. And when I say “economic,” I do not mean technocratic squabbling over interest rates and taxes, as people are wont to think. I mean that the crucial political issue involves competing visions about what economics is. On this there are two possible views.

    1. Economics is fiat and feelings. The role of government is wealth redistribution through social-democratic scrip. The fruits of production are to be used to control and mollify mobs and to hammer the populace, the demos, into objects of political expediency. This is the Bread and Circuses view, the paradigmatic view of modernity. We may also call it the view of The Management. It is coextensive with everything we often refer to as the Deep State.

    2. Economics is force and facts. The role of the government is to defend the lands, resources, and prerogatives that belong to the nation, and to enforce discipline and fairness in the cultivation of wealth. The fruits of production are to be reinvested in the people and the state. This is the perennial and aristocratic view, the paradigmatic view of traditional societies. Due to its intrinsic connection with the productive properties of land and soil, we may also call it the view of The Blood.

    The Democrats today are very emphatically the party of The Management. The Republicans, on the other hand, very ill at ease with representing The Blood, have acquiesced to being the other party of The Management. The Blood has nobody to speak for it, at least not in the West, but something of that attitude is represented on the world stage today by Russia, which accounts for the Uniparty’s hatred of it.

    The Blood is never really amenable to party politics, anyway. Democracy and republicanism were designed to serve the needs of The Management and to exclude The Blood as a forlorn relic. Any pivot away from The Management would mean, first and foremost, putting our own economic house in order, ceasing to run deficits and consume more than we produce. The very painful episode of sobering up from the age of fiat, is why nobody wants to undertake that task.

  65. @Jack D
    @Pincher Martin

    I don't know about the others, but Fetterman is actually not as stupid as he looks. He basically wears a costume to make himself look like a blue collar white but he ain't. Is is actually a Bernie Sanders wing Democrat Leftist college white. Usually such people are very off-putting to blue collar whites but they are not put off by Fetterman because they get fooled by his getup. The clever disguise worked, so who is the stupid one?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Zoos, @Pincher Martin

    >stupid-looking
    >blue collar costume
    >like John Kerry
    >The same John Kerry who hasn’t had a brain-damaging stroke and who can to this day speak spontaneously in coherent sentences
    >the same John Kerry who doesn’t have a *#$^ing grapefruit growing out of his neck
    >no mention of Grug’s frequent and reliable gaffes
    >which come from his brain-damaging stroke
    Can you just say you want sub-Jews to die in an assembly line of death?

    • Agree: puttheforkdown
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    John Kerry speaks with an accent that is so posh that no one even knows what it is anymore. He is a patrician and the polar opposite of Fetterman's shtick (although Fetterman doesn't come from blue collar poverty in reality). I don't recall him putting on plebian airs because no one would believe it with his billionaire heiress wife and his posh accent and his blue blood heredity (not counting the Kerry/Cohens of Budapest). The Forbes family made its money trading tea for opium in early 19th century China which makes them aristocracy not drug dealers.

    I will ignore your anti-Semitic taunts - they only make you look bad.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  66. Visuslize economically literate Gen X and zoomers killing themselves directly on front of their worthless parents so the blood runs down the faces of their parents and there is no argument or hope about this mythical “tomorrow.”

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @J.Ross

    "Visuslize economically literate Gen X and zoomers killing themselves directly on front of their worthless parents so the blood runs down the faces of their parents and there is no argument or hope about this mythical 'tomorrow.'"

    I'm embarrassed to admit it (not really) but you're exciting me (no, really).

    Replies: @J.Ross

  67. In regards to the comments above on how low quality the candidates and leaders are these days.
    Rich donors, NGOs, and party officials cultivate and promote candidates. The power brokers are well aware of how inferior these people are and promote them accordingly. There are exceptions to this, but they are fleeting.
    It is all part of destroying our Republic – turning our public debates, elections, and government into a bad carnival show. Useful crazy idiots will get caught up in the drama and sane people will tune it out and become apolitical. A win-win for the parasitic ruling class.

  68. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast. Fortunately for the Dems, coming up right behind them are other minorities such as Asians, especially S. Asians, both as donors and idealogues. Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air.

    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It's the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call "minoritarianism" is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don't hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn't cured.

    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong. We see them now on a global scale. The "reserve army of the unemployed" are not clustered around the factory gates driving wages down to poverty level in Lowell because the factory is now in Dhaka instead. The army is still there, it's just an invisible army that is 8,000 miles away. Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don't shoot the messenger.

    From now on, instead of Rahm you're going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Pat Kittle, @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @AnotherDad, @John Pepple

    “Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air.”

    I like “just gives you an antique air.” Wish I had thought of it. Much more polite than “what an alter kocker.”

    • LOL: Jack D
  69. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast. Fortunately for the Dems, coming up right behind them are other minorities such as Asians, especially S. Asians, both as donors and idealogues. Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air.

    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It's the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call "minoritarianism" is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don't hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn't cured.

    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong. We see them now on a global scale. The "reserve army of the unemployed" are not clustered around the factory gates driving wages down to poverty level in Lowell because the factory is now in Dhaka instead. The army is still there, it's just an invisible army that is 8,000 miles away. Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don't shoot the messenger.

    From now on, instead of Rahm you're going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Pat Kittle, @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @AnotherDad, @John Pepple

    From now on, instead of Rahm you’re going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.

    And who do we thank for a billion more Ramas?

    The Jew lobby.

    That’s right, HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society) and all the rest of the (((Great Replacement types))). Including you.

  70. @AnotherDad

    The downside for the Democrats of being the party of diversity is that diversity is divisive. The Democrats, having assembled a coalition of the fringes of American society, such as blacks, transgenders, lesbians, immigrants, the alienated, and so forth, must constantly deal with spats among their constituents, who are endlessly jockeying to be at the top of the totem pole of victimization.
     
    Steve, good solid column, but I have to say a paragraph like this becomes almost clunky/annoying when you specifically omit the Jews.

    I realize you have very good reasons--preserving your reach and influence--for being careful. (No reason for you to ever veer into my territory of saying minoritarianism is basically a Jewish created and propagandized project.) But it is a little ridiculous to talk through American politics and never mention Jews at all!

    Jews account for something like 50% of the Democrats' money and utterly dominate its ideologues. Your "black party" idea was great marketing. But it wasn't blacks who came up with the program of the Great Replacement. (Blacks don't actually love being replaced by Mexicans.) Nor is it blacks who shriek when some white mentions--much less objects to--having their people replaced, that that is the worst thing ever just like being a Nazi. It's your Dana Milbanks.

    Replies: @Jack D, @Truth

    You heard the man Steve; Nick, Kyrie, and Ye had much more to lose than you: We need a column where you give your opinion on the JQ, stat!

  71. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    It's not that simple anymore. In PA, as Philly has depopulated the suburbs have grown. Montgomery County (on the border of Philly) had as many voters last night as Philly itself. The 3 suburban counties together have twice as many votes as Philly.

    Unfortunately, they were mostly blue votes. In Montgomery, Fetterman won by a margin of +28. The abortion issue didn't help and Oz had his own issues as a perceived carpet bagger, but what you have now is a fundamental gap between suburban, mostly college whites and rural, mostly non-college whites.

    Now, non-college whites are even more lopsided in their support for R as suburbanites are for D. Fulton County was +68 for Oz. Unfortunately though, there are only 6,000 voters in Fulton County. You would need 70 or 80 Fulton Counties to make up for one Philly. If it was just Philly maybe it would still be possible but if it's Philly PLUS the suburbs it becomes impossible. There just aren't enough rural non-college whites to counterbalance Philly AND the suburban counties.

    Not only that, but if you look at the arrow map (scroll down), even the rural areas voted more blue this time than in 2020. This is not due to vote fraud. Here we are with high inflation and so on and yet not only was there NOT a red wave but even a shift toward blue:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-us-senate.html

    I don't know what the Republicans can do to make themselves appealing to college whites again without losing the non-college base but they have to because you can't win elections (at least in populous NE states) just off of non-college whites.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @Desiderius

    even the rural areas voted more blue this time than in 2020. This is not due to vote fraud. Here we are with high inflation and so on and yet not only was there NOT a red wave but even a shift toward blue

    You see this in Washington state as well. It is not just Seattle that votes blue. Lesser cities vote democrat, as do many suburbs on the frontier of farmland.
    A Trump sign in your yard in Seattle can get a brick thrown through your window. A Trump sign in Redmond? You will be ostracized. You had to cross the mountains and get to where you smell the cowshit in the air to see Trump signs openly displayed.
    Eastern Washington is Republican country, but Rachel Doezel came out of Spokane, and Melissa Click is now a tenured professor there.
    Charles Murray has well documented the segregation of American life into the college educated class vs non-college class, Fishtown vs Belmont. People who work with their hands vs people who work at a keyboard. Keyboard people are everywhere.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Thanks: Jack D
    • Replies: @New Dealer
    @rebel yell


    Charles Murray has well documented the segregation of American life into the college educated class vs non-college class, Fishtown vs Belmont. People who work with their hands vs people who work at a keyboard. Keyboard people are everywhere.
     
    I like Goodhart's formulation: the somewheres vs. the anywheres.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/22/the-road-to-somewhere-david-goodhart-populist-revolt-future-politics

    Replies: @Jack D, @Prester John

    , @Desiderius
    @rebel yell

    Town vs Clown

  72. @The Last Real Calvinist
    The election of Uncle Festerman in PA is a sign that the Democratic Coalition of the Fringes has now cemented its hold on the dysfunctional-human vote, adding this coup to the representations of all of its other vaunted fringey constituencies.

    You'd think that locking down the brain-damaged vote would not be that crucial to winning elections, but tonight's overall national results indicate that the Dems are well-prepared for the USA's future.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @epebble, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @Barnard, @ATBOTL

    For people who voted for Biden and Harris, is voting for Fetterman really that big of jump?

    In another sign we have a suicidal country, Vermont, voted 77-23% to allow abortion up until birth to be enshrined in the state constitution. It already has the lowest birth rates in the country, and no plan or even it appears desire to increase birth rates.

  73. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Pincher Martin

    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups. By trying to outfreak the Democrats they have only succeeded in alienating the suburban educated voters who used to see Republicans as a reliable alternative. In their desperation to get the working class vote the GOP has sold its soul like a cheap whore.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Rob, @fnn, @Pincher Martin

    It fails as a point though, unless you are arguing women shouldn’t have the franchise. They vote for Democrat freaks but not Republican ones appears to be your argument. Oz outperformed Mastriano significantly. Ron Johnson is barely winning a race that should have been ten points if white women were sensible, rational voters. Stacey Abrams won among Independent women. Unmarried women have come to view the Democratic party as their daddy. They are easily manipulated by the left.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Barnard


    Unmarried women have come to view the Democratic party as their daddy.
     
    Their fathers by and large weren't, across the political spectrum.

    Somebody's going to fill that vacuum.
  74. @Anonymous
    @Ebony Obelisk

    LOL!!!

    The Republican party will never win another election ever again in America.

    We've got sky high inflation, cost of living increases and home prices too high, and the Democrats are still killing it.

    But wait for the real kicker. America only gets less and less white from here on out (since white women can't breed).

    The only minorities who were even willing to consider supporting Repuhlicans were Asians who were pissed off about affirmative action, and they are basement dwellers in their own communities.

    It's the end of the Unz commenter's grip on the escapist fantasy of political salvation.

    Joe Biden 2024

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Colin Wright, @TWS, @Curmudgeon

    We’ve already got TD, EO and the rest of his sock puppets. You’re not needed. Unless you’re another sock puppet.

    How does that work, does Unz or one of the minions say, ‘knock it off for a while. ‘ Or do they just let you keep breaking the rules with impunity?

    • Replies: @Anon
    @TWS

    It's called freedom of speech!!! This ain't no white supremacist website it's a dissident website for all walks of life. You people think u own everythang. But y'all could never create a website like this. Only the Jews can do it! You just live here!!!

    Every website your side tries to create fails. Because you try to turn it in to an echo chamber where you wish the truth away. The truth is you people couldn't use politics or social media to fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

    Nationalists are the most incompetent human beings on the planet. Y'all mess up damn near everything. You're like kamikaze drones, ur only purpose is to self destruct and once you're locked on target its impossible to try and get to you.

    Thank Gah for the woke left, the only people on Earth with the moral high ground, who can finally show you the real way.

    RePUHlicans wasted 50 years fighting the wrong enemies. It was your ugly ass women who destroyed your country, by not having kids and by trying to one-up you in everything. Not trans people or minorities (who love you, by the way, unlike your own family). Now that your last hope has been destroyed, you have no choice but to join us on the woke left. Failure to do so will result in your continued spiritual ruination.

  75. @JohnnyWalker123
    What a f*cked night this was.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @SunBakedSuburb

    “What a f*cked night this was.”

    Grasping at straws, I’m hoping Jim Jordan and his like-minded fellows in the House will initiate a series of investigations with the ability to subpoena persons of interest in the DOJ/FBI situation. If reform doesn’t occur within these two agencies our ability to lawfully resist government intrusion upon basic liberties like the right to privacy will wither and die as the regime media jackals cackle and howl at the funeral.

    The GOP needs to keep Trump policies but without the psychopathic narcissist Blumpft!. They cannot backslide into the country club Republicanism of the Romneys and Bushes because there is absolutely no demographic for MIC dominance and market magicalism. They, especially male Republicans, need to zip their lids on abortion because body autonomy, especially in light of the hideous mRNA mandates, is where it’s at.

    If conservoguys want assistance in their battle against the well-funded transmutation of the human form and genital mutilation of children, and the Davos demi-gods who wish to build their Green bio-medical surveillance utopia on the ashes of our bones, they will have to appeal to interesting and attractive people like me who aren’t slaves to any particular political ideology. Hey, I spend several hours each week building a time-machine to take me back to the 1980s; it’s a hobby. But Reaganism Redux won’t draw in the people consevoguys need for their movement. Smart and really good-looking people like me.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @SunBakedSuburb


    Grasping at straws, I’m hoping Jim Jordan and his like-minded fellows in the House will initiate a series of investigations with the ability to subpoena persons of interest in the DOJ/FBI situation. If reform doesn’t occur within these two agencies....
     
    We know how this works, they'll ignore the subpoenas and absolutely nothing will happen to them.

    And why the [EXPLICITVE DELETED] do we need more "investigations?" We know what happened, the only question is will the Republicans zero the budget of the FBI, large parts of the DoJ, etc. which is totally within their power come next year before they get thrown in The Garland Archipelago, executed in one of our already host to torture Lubyankas. Of course it's probably a bit too late to try this, but thus they show themselves have not been worthy of our Founders for decades. Maybe use Waco as a hinge of history.

    Thus if you ignore how we'll struggle with the end of the Republic, can you make a convincing case we aren't better off without the GOPe ending like that? While we meant it figuratively, what we said six years ago still holds:

    You 'conservative pundits' still don't get it. Trump isn't our candidate, he's our murder weapon, and the GOP is our victim.
     
  76. @Jack D
    @Almost Missouri

    It's not that simple anymore. In PA, as Philly has depopulated the suburbs have grown. Montgomery County (on the border of Philly) had as many voters last night as Philly itself. The 3 suburban counties together have twice as many votes as Philly.

    Unfortunately, they were mostly blue votes. In Montgomery, Fetterman won by a margin of +28. The abortion issue didn't help and Oz had his own issues as a perceived carpet bagger, but what you have now is a fundamental gap between suburban, mostly college whites and rural, mostly non-college whites.

    Now, non-college whites are even more lopsided in their support for R as suburbanites are for D. Fulton County was +68 for Oz. Unfortunately though, there are only 6,000 voters in Fulton County. You would need 70 or 80 Fulton Counties to make up for one Philly. If it was just Philly maybe it would still be possible but if it's Philly PLUS the suburbs it becomes impossible. There just aren't enough rural non-college whites to counterbalance Philly AND the suburban counties.

    Not only that, but if you look at the arrow map (scroll down), even the rural areas voted more blue this time than in 2020. This is not due to vote fraud. Here we are with high inflation and so on and yet not only was there NOT a red wave but even a shift toward blue:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-us-senate.html

    I don't know what the Republicans can do to make themselves appealing to college whites again without losing the non-college base but they have to because you can't win elections (at least in populous NE states) just off of non-college whites.

    Replies: @rebel yell, @Desiderius

    They both hate Karl Rove.

  77. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast. Fortunately for the Dems, coming up right behind them are other minorities such as Asians, especially S. Asians, both as donors and idealogues. Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air.

    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It's the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call "minoritarianism" is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don't hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn't cured.

    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong. We see them now on a global scale. The "reserve army of the unemployed" are not clustered around the factory gates driving wages down to poverty level in Lowell because the factory is now in Dhaka instead. The army is still there, it's just an invisible army that is 8,000 miles away. Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don't shoot the messenger.

    From now on, instead of Rahm you're going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Pat Kittle, @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @AnotherDad, @John Pepple

    ‘…Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast…’

    They haven’t faded just yet. In 2020, the eight top donors to Biden’s campaign were all Jews.

  78. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Pincher Martin

    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups. By trying to outfreak the Democrats they have only succeeded in alienating the suburban educated voters who used to see Republicans as a reliable alternative. In their desperation to get the working class vote the GOP has sold its soul like a cheap whore.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Rob, @fnn, @Pincher Martin

    In their desperation to get the working class vote the GOP has sold its soul like a cheap whore.

    It’s especially sad and dumb because Republicans don’t need to pick up the trappings of the working class if they would just support policies that would help the working class. No LARPing needed.

    The media decided one day that Trump supporters “liked his style” and liked that Trump pissed off liberals. Did anyone who supported Trump actually like his style? I’d like a respectable pol to advocate populist positions. Preferably, someone who married an American and stayed married, for starters. Maybe someone during the Stormy Daniels bruhaha would not have been involved with a porn “star” at all.

    Really, not a great champion, just someone who advances populist policies. The fact that neither party has had a populist realignment does not speak well of our system. There’s something like 40% of the (potential) electorate that is up for grabs. Someone should pick up the votes on the sidewalk.

  79. anon[246] • Disclaimer says:
    @Polistra
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance.
     
    Having read a number of your posts, I'm not really surprised by this remark.

    Replies: @anon

    I happened to like both Bush and Cheney. I voted for the father Bush and the son. I would say his only character flaw like Romney is that Bush was a social democrat on some issues. Bush did what he could to stop spending on overseas abortions which Obama restarted when he got into office. Bush also didn’t push to take peoples guns and ammo away. Bush made a promise during his campaign of “No Nation Building” and a tax break. But unfortunate for him 9 months into his presidency after giving the tax break the left really hated 9/11 happened. The left went into hyper-drive blaming Bush for an act of of terrorism. Could you imagine Bush doing nothing and saying, “well let’s just forget about it”? The left at that time was truly pissed about that tax-break and how it messed up their SS “surplus” numbers. I would still take Bush/Cheney over Obama/Biden or Biden/Kamala any day.
    Out of one side of some people’s mouths they say how ignorant Bush was and then out of the other side they say he was a mastermind behind 9/11.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @anon

    Doing nothing would have been preferable to invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

  80. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast. Fortunately for the Dems, coming up right behind them are other minorities such as Asians, especially S. Asians, both as donors and idealogues. Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air.

    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It's the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call "minoritarianism" is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don't hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn't cured.

    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong. We see them now on a global scale. The "reserve army of the unemployed" are not clustered around the factory gates driving wages down to poverty level in Lowell because the factory is now in Dhaka instead. The army is still there, it's just an invisible army that is 8,000 miles away. Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don't shoot the messenger.

    From now on, instead of Rahm you're going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Pat Kittle, @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @AnotherDad, @John Pepple

    It’s not anti-Jewish to call out destructive Zionist supremacists like the Kagans and other neocon cultists who have hijacked American foreign policy big time beginning with the disastrous Bush-Cheney regime. Currently, their hatred of Russia and non-Jewish Russians is suppresing rational policy in regard to the Eurasian continent. Their schemes center around Israeli, not American interests. In the grey-blue eyes of a handsome, relatively bright goy like me, Jews aren’t the problem. In fact, Jews can be quite great. It’s the weird Zionist cult — peopled by Jews and non-Jews, by the way — who are absolutely dominationist and dangerous.

  81. @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

    Oh for goodness sakes, there’s no way Fetterman was elected honestly. He’s literally a brain damaged hobo, screw anyone who thinks that was up and up. What’s next an actual horse?

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @TWS

    There is a point where you have to stop crying "election fraud" for everything.

    First of all, the non-brain damaged Shapiro running for governor outpolled Fetterman by almost 300,000 votes. If you are going to do vote fraud, aren't you going to mark the ballots straight D?

    2nd, if you look at the arrow map here:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-pennsylvania.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=election-results&context=election_recirc&region=StateResultsFooter

    Fetterman improved on Biden's performance in every single county in the state. Even in the reddest of red counties, he still outperformed Biden (or, stated another way, Oz underperformed Trump).

    Yes, Fetterman is brain damaged but Oz was an out-of-state Muslim, a citizen of not only New Jersey but Turkey. A man who did not maintain much connection with PA until he decided he wanted a Senate seat. A man who appeared out of touch with the concerns of average Pennsylvanians. A slick TV doctor. Having Trump's endorsement will only get you so far.

    Was Oz really the best person that the Republicans could find in all of Pennsylvania?

    Pat Toomey is only 60 years old - a baby in the Senate. He was only in the Senate for 2 terms. He could have easily beaten Fetterman. Why did he retire?

    Replies: @AnotherDad

  82. @Peter Akuleyev
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Dr OZ was maybe the only imaginable GOP candidate who could lose to Fetterman. Who wants to vote for a weird charlatan who is a Turkish citizen and never lived in PA?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Muggles, @Anonymous

    Whatever the demerits of Dr. Oz, while I don’t have figures for total ballots cast in Pennsylvania for 2022 but there were officially 4.2 million in 2020, 686,123 early ballots were cast this year before the debate per the first article I could find. Between that and obvious cheating repeating what happened in 2020 I don’t think we can be very certain about the two candidates vs. the basic fact of the R and D after their names.

    I did come across a thesis that Trump candidates vs. distant from Trump ones in Purple states did not do well, but it only cited New Hampshire as a real example once I drilled down.

  83. Folks if you think it’s their own babies they wouldn’t mind keeping unborn (with plausible deniability no less) you might be too naïve to entrust with the defense of a nation.

  84. @prime noticer
    i'll stick with my analysis. Republican party is an expended political force.

    Replies: @Sir Didymus, @That Would Be Telling

    i’ll stick with my analysis. Republican party is an expended political force.

    Can we really say that when the GOPe palpably didn’t want to win this race in the Congress, because we’d then expect results it has no intention or the courage of delivering? Can you imagine them zeroing the FBI’s budget??

    This observation does not necessarily contradict your thesis, defeat begins in the mind, and/or we could observe the GOPe and the Democrats are of one mind about the FBI and DoJ’s targets, both are gun grabbers which is one way this election was sabotaged at the national level etc. etc.

    That Trump, now revealed to all to be so pathologically narcissist he doesn’t care about our lives or the good of his adopted party (like Reagan he’s a Democrat from an earlier age) as we can see from his pre-reelection attacks on DeSantis, still appears to be the party’s top dog is illuminating. Although it’s way too early to predict with any certainty who’ll be on the Republican ticket in 2024, there for example we have a question of the Democrats’ courage.

  85. @Jack D
    @Pincher Martin

    I don't know about the others, but Fetterman is actually not as stupid as he looks. He basically wears a costume to make himself look like a blue collar white but he ain't. Is is actually a Bernie Sanders wing Democrat Leftist college white. Usually such people are very off-putting to blue collar whites but they are not put off by Fetterman because they get fooled by his getup. The clever disguise worked, so who is the stupid one?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Zoos, @Pincher Martin

    I don’t know about the others, but Fetterman is actually not as stupid as he looks. He basically wears a costume to make himself look like a blue collar white but he ain’t. Is is actually a Bernie Sanders wing Democrat Leftist college white. Usually such people are very off-putting to blue collar whites but they are not put off by Fetterman because they get fooled by his getup. The clever disguise worked, so who is the stupid one?

    Beginning from Clifford Odet’s “Golden Boy,” to the popularity of “The Andy Griffith Show,” “Beverly Hillbillies,” “Green Acres” and on to “Forrest Gump” and “Slingblade”…

    America loves their good natured retards. They make the mediocre feel special:

    “I’m not that smart, and he’s not as smart as me, which makes him de facto mildly retarded, but he has a good heart like me, so I will defend him, because that makes me a good person, in the wretched rejected Carly Simon song that I call My World.”

    • LOL: Pincher Martin
  86. @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking

    He strikes me similarly. But he’s tatted up, and hoodies are to him what haute couture (or whatever they call it) is to Tom Brady’s supermodel ex-wife. So I wonder if he has become an icon of sorts to the Gen Z incels. Some early post-election speculation I’ve encountered asserts that Gen Z turnout was pretty good, and they voted heavily Dem. The tuition debt forgiveness has been credited for that, so perhaps Fetterman was a residual beneficiary.

    I also see that a corpulent man has won some beauty pageant in New Hampshire. Given that, given all these male-to-female trannies who simply don’t exist if they don’t “twerk” in public, given how Richard “Rachel” Levine holds the rank of Admiral in whatever faux-service is accommodating him … Fetterman might even be handsome through the lens of 2022.

  87. @IHTG
    @Pincher Martin

    Vance?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    The final polling average had Vance winning Ohio by 8 points. With 92% of the vote in, he is currently up by 6.5 points. Slight underperformance (within the margin of error).

    Like I said, outside of Florida, the polling had a light red tint to it. That goes against the GOP conventional wisdom that polling generally favors Democrats.

  88. @J.Ross
    Visuslize economically literate Gen X and zoomers killing themselves directly on front of their worthless parents so the blood runs down the faces of their parents and there is no argument or hope about this mythical "tomorrow."

    Replies: @Kylie

    “Visuslize economically literate Gen X and zoomers killing themselves directly on front of their worthless parents so the blood runs down the faces of their parents and there is no argument or hope about this mythical ‘tomorrow.’”

    I’m embarrassed to admit it (not really) but you’re exciting me (no, really).

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Kylie

    So you think there's economically literate zoomers?

  89. @mc23
    @Pincher Martin

    The polls seem to be seriously off. Cheating, polling methodology or both?
    How does a communications diverse and fissured society accurately conduct polling?
    After Trump’s 2020 loss electoral integrity became highly suspect to half the country. Electoral integrity seems to be a very low priority for those in politics. It should be an easy problem to address but there's no will to even look into it. Technology has made cheating very easy.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Actually, outside of Florida and some outlier states like New Hampshire, the polling seems to be quite accurate.

    What Republicans like me didn’t plan for is that this year’s polling generally had a GOP tilt to it.

    So when I saw the final polling average had Blake Masters up by 0.3% in the Arizona senate race, I figured he might win by three or four points in a wave election where the poling momentum over the last few weeks was for Republicans. Instead, it looks like he will lose by a couple of points, which is well within the MoE for the polling average.

  90. @Jack D
    @Pincher Martin

    I don't know about the others, but Fetterman is actually not as stupid as he looks. He basically wears a costume to make himself look like a blue collar white but he ain't. Is is actually a Bernie Sanders wing Democrat Leftist college white. Usually such people are very off-putting to blue collar whites but they are not put off by Fetterman because they get fooled by his getup. The clever disguise worked, so who is the stupid one?

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Zoos, @Pincher Martin

    Regardless of how Fetterman would have performed on an IQ test pre-stroke, it’s clear he’s now mentally incompetent for anything other than bagging groceries.

  91. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Pincher Martin

    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups. By trying to outfreak the Democrats they have only succeeded in alienating the suburban educated voters who used to see Republicans as a reliable alternative. In their desperation to get the working class vote the GOP has sold its soul like a cheap whore.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Rob, @fnn, @Pincher Martin

    The GOP used to be the party of grownups.

    You mean crazed warmongers like W and McCain along with Antifa and BLM-loving Bain Capital vulture capitalist Mitt Romney, who also lacked the common sense to know you don’t store your pet dog on the roof of the car when you go on a road trip.

    • Replies: @Director95
    @fnn

    The red party is still full of neocon war mongers. You can add Cheney to your Hall of Shame and Ted Cruz is 100% on board with funding ukraine war. The cucks and RINOs do not focus on the real national ills. They are totally focused on lining the pockets of their donor class owners.

  92. @anon
    @Polistra

    I happened to like both Bush and Cheney. I voted for the father Bush and the son. I would say his only character flaw like Romney is that Bush was a social democrat on some issues. Bush did what he could to stop spending on overseas abortions which Obama restarted when he got into office. Bush also didn't push to take peoples guns and ammo away. Bush made a promise during his campaign of "No Nation Building" and a tax break. But unfortunate for him 9 months into his presidency after giving the tax break the left really hated 9/11 happened. The left went into hyper-drive blaming Bush for an act of of terrorism. Could you imagine Bush doing nothing and saying, "well let's just forget about it"? The left at that time was truly pissed about that tax-break and how it messed up their SS "surplus" numbers. I would still take Bush/Cheney over Obama/Biden or Biden/Kamala any day.
    Out of one side of some people's mouths they say how ignorant Bush was and then out of the other side they say he was a mastermind behind 9/11.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Doing nothing would have been preferable to invading Afghanistan and Iraq.

    • Agree: HammerJack
  93. Anon[535] • Disclaimer says:
    @TWS
    @Anonymous

    We've already got TD, EO and the rest of his sock puppets. You're not needed. Unless you're another sock puppet.

    How does that work, does Unz or one of the minions say, 'knock it off for a while. ' Or do they just let you keep breaking the rules with impunity?

    Replies: @Anon

    It’s called freedom of speech!!! This ain’t no white supremacist website it’s a dissident website for all walks of life. You people think u own everythang. But y’all could never create a website like this. Only the Jews can do it! You just live here!!!

    Every website your side tries to create fails. Because you try to turn it in to an echo chamber where you wish the truth away. The truth is you people couldn’t use politics or social media to fight your way out of a wet paper bag.

    Nationalists are the most incompetent human beings on the planet. Y’all mess up damn near everything. You’re like kamikaze drones, ur only purpose is to self destruct and once you’re locked on target its impossible to try and get to you.

    Thank Gah for the woke left, the only people on Earth with the moral high ground, who can finally show you the real way.

    RePUHlicans wasted 50 years fighting the wrong enemies. It was your ugly ass women who destroyed your country, by not having kids and by trying to one-up you in everything. Not trans people or minorities (who love you, by the way, unlike your own family). Now that your last hope has been destroyed, you have no choice but to join us on the woke left. Failure to do so will result in your continued spiritual ruination.

    • LOL: TWS
    • Troll: Pat Kittle
  94. A lot, lot of copium here.

    The Midterms were stolen. Pure and simple. That’s it. Massive cuts to standards of living, voter turnout down and 75% White, Dems running on more inflation, more bugs, more cutting kids private parts off, more crime, and they won?

    Come on. It was fraud. Fraud that can never be proven because votes were just “found” on a thumb drive, or in the Dominion voting system. Or in mail in ballots.

    Its fraud, fraud fraud. IF there not a difference between the two parties that would not matter, but there is. As bad, as corrupt, as go-along as the Party of Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, and other squishes are, they are not freaks, weirdos, and furries. THAT is who runs the Democratic Party. That is exactly WHY they chose Festerman, instead of the old Torricelli for Lautenberg switch. Uncle Festerman fits right in with the freaks that run the party.

    So expect food rationing and bugs only for you. Mandatory cutting off (White only) kids private parts. A massive draft of White men 18-60 to go die in Ukraine in a war that never ends and can’t either. Outlawing all private vehicles, mandatory RFID implants, outlawing (White only) heterosexual marriage or kid together, more of that. Its FREAKS all the way down.

    Just look at them: Chucky Schemer is someone who would routinely play bad guys in TV shows in the 1970s. Nancy Pelosi is soused drunk. Beto O’Rourke is a furry. Gavin Newsom is Patrick Bateman writ large and looks creepy. Uncle Festerman. Stacy Abrams is a DMV lady. Gretchen Whitmer and Kathy Hochul make scheming, shrewish Hillary look good. They are all freaks and weirdos. They’ve been that way since the Clintons make the Party into Freaks and Weirdos Inc.

    There is something about modern technology that tends to elevate and empower freaks and weirdos. The lack of requirement to lead men into battle for leadership is one. The degeneracy of various dynasties in rapid time is another. The ability of freaks and weirdos to form decisive groups through the internet is another. Japan is full of freaks and weirdos, so its not uniquely Northern European either.

    Freaks and Weirdos think nuclear war with Russia is a good thing because it can be “won.” That’s the problem.

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Alt Right Moderate
    @Whiskey

    The liberal MSM media loves o here this stuff from conservatives as they know most of their liberal readers are law abiding types who will interpret this as an hysterical rants from undereducated redneck with a conspiracy bent.

    My impression is that the Democrats are engaging in every sneaking, unethical, but technically LEGAL thing they can to undermine the populist right, which is exactly how upper middle-class A-holes operate. The slow vote counting in Arizona is a classical example. Lake is a media darling of Fox News who has a good chance of winning, so if they can frustrate her for a week or two, it fits in with the CNN narrative that the Republicans did poorly and the US the electorate punishes "election deniers."

    In Australasian parlance, the Democrats are underarm bowlers. A reference to a cricket match between Australia and New Zealand, where the Australian captain ordered his bowler to dribble the ball along the ground so the batsmen had little or no chance of hitting the ball to the boundary and score the winning runs. Terrible sportsmanship, but technically within the sporting rules of the time:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnMSxXc8dHg

  95. “Regardless of how Fetterman would have performed on an IQ test pre-stroke, it’s clear he’s now mentally incompetent for anything other than bagging groceries.”

    And winning an election for US senator.

    Fingers crossed he doesn’t decide to run for president.

  96. @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    >stupid-looking
    >blue collar costume
    >like John Kerry
    >The same John Kerry who hasn't had a brain-damaging stroke and who can to this day speak spontaneously in coherent sentences
    >the same John Kerry who doesn't have a *#$^ing grapefruit growing out of his neck
    >no mention of Grug's frequent and reliable gaffes
    >which come from his brain-damaging stroke
    Can you just say you want sub-Jews to die in an assembly line of death?

    Replies: @Jack D

    John Kerry speaks with an accent that is so posh that no one even knows what it is anymore. He is a patrician and the polar opposite of Fetterman’s shtick (although Fetterman doesn’t come from blue collar poverty in reality). I don’t recall him putting on plebian airs because no one would believe it with his billionaire heiress wife and his posh accent and his blue blood heredity (not counting the Kerry/Cohens of Budapest). The Forbes family made its money trading tea for opium in early 19th century China which makes them aristocracy not drug dealers.

    I will ignore your anti-Semitic taunts – they only make you look bad.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Jack D


    his billionaire heiress wife
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiHo8Fb7qP4

    Replies: @Kylie

  97. @Peter Akuleyev
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Dr OZ was maybe the only imaginable GOP candidate who could lose to Fetterman. Who wants to vote for a weird charlatan who is a Turkish citizen and never lived in PA?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Muggles, @Anonymous

    who is a Turkish citizen and never lived in PA?

    I doubt either of these was a major factor.

    Lots of pols are dual citizens. Israeli, for instance. No one complains about that (much).

    Do you not recall that famous New Yorker Mme. Hillary Clinton?

    So many move in and out of state, sometimes for political reasons.

    If PA voters prefer a Senator Fester/Lurch to Dr. Oz, so be it.

    The Dems are the party of Oligarchy and their funders are mainly those. That didn’t really improve the ancient Roman Republic, now did it?

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Muggles


    I doubt either of these was a major factor.... Do you not recall that famous New Yorker Mme. Hillary Clinton?
     
    Hillary was following the tradition established by Robert Kennedy, who successfully ran for a NY senate seat despite being from Massachusetts.

    So many move in and out of state, sometimes for political reasons.
     
    True.

    https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/meet-the-senates-carpetbaggers

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

  98. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Pincher Martin

    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups. By trying to outfreak the Democrats they have only succeeded in alienating the suburban educated voters who used to see Republicans as a reliable alternative. In their desperation to get the working class vote the GOP has sold its soul like a cheap whore.

    Replies: @Barnard, @Rob, @fnn, @Pincher Martin

    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups.

    The “grownups” drove the party into the ditch. Bush and Cheney ended the Reagan Era. Both Obama and Trump owe their presidencies to Dubya’s two disastrous terms that ended with comprehensive failure, both for the U.S. economy and national security.

    Before you idealize what the GOP had been at the national level before Trump came long in 2016, look at how the GOP had performed in the six presidential elections from 1992 to 2012 (the Democratic performance follows in parentheses):

    1992 – 37.5% (43.0%)

    1996 – 40.7% (49.2%)

    2000 – 47.9% (48.4%)

    2004 – 50.7% (48.3%)

    2008 – 45.7% (52.9%)

    2012 – 47.2% (51.1%)

    The GOP average for their performance in those six pre-Trump presidential elections is 44.95%. (The Democratic average is 48.82%.) Trump’s average in his two runs is 46.45%.

    I’m sorry, but it’s ridiculous to claim that we Republicans need to return the party to the “grownups” to bolster our electoral performance. It was their awful performance – both in elections and in governing – that led to Trump to begin with. If those “grownups” had the answers, President Trump would’ve never happened.

    • Replies: @Prester John
    @Pincher Martin

    Hate to say it but...the Republican Party is dying out, and fast. All that will be left is the Democrat Party--who will proceed to drive what's left of this thing of ours right over a cliff.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    , @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “I’n sorry, but it’s ridiculous to claim that we Republicans need to return the party to the “grownups” to bolster our electoral performance“

    When tens of millions of people support Trump, a known grifter, just to “own the libs”, along with the ancillaries like Lauren Bobert and MTG, yes, you need to field “grown ups”. If Trump runs again, how many in the GOP will sour on him?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  99. The late Sam Francis said it best: The Republican Party is the Stupid Party, the Democrat Party the Evil Party.

  100. @rebel yell
    @Jack D


    even the rural areas voted more blue this time than in 2020. This is not due to vote fraud. Here we are with high inflation and so on and yet not only was there NOT a red wave but even a shift toward blue
     
    You see this in Washington state as well. It is not just Seattle that votes blue. Lesser cities vote democrat, as do many suburbs on the frontier of farmland.
    A Trump sign in your yard in Seattle can get a brick thrown through your window. A Trump sign in Redmond? You will be ostracized. You had to cross the mountains and get to where you smell the cowshit in the air to see Trump signs openly displayed.
    Eastern Washington is Republican country, but Rachel Doezel came out of Spokane, and Melissa Click is now a tenured professor there.
    Charles Murray has well documented the segregation of American life into the college educated class vs non-college class, Fishtown vs Belmont. People who work with their hands vs people who work at a keyboard. Keyboard people are everywhere.

    Replies: @New Dealer, @Desiderius

    Charles Murray has well documented the segregation of American life into the college educated class vs non-college class, Fishtown vs Belmont. People who work with their hands vs people who work at a keyboard. Keyboard people are everywhere.

    I like Goodhart’s formulation: the somewheres vs. the anywheres.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/22/the-road-to-somewhere-david-goodhart-populist-revolt-future-politics

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @New Dealer

    The "Somewhere" vs "Anywhere" analysis works better maybe in the UK than it does in the US where people for the most part are mobile (even blue collar workers follow around oil booms and construction booms and so on). Programmers aren't the only ones with portable skills.

    The population of Phoenix, AZ went from 100k in 1950 to over 1.5 million today so EVERYONE in AZ is an "anywhere".

    "Anywhere" also sounds suspiciously close to "rootless cosmopolitan". American don't, for the most part, have mystical bonds with any particular ancestral village (and never have - much of the original Puritan stock ended up in Kansas in the 19th century and someone from Mass. is more likely to be Portuguese than Pilgrim). As far as loyalty to the concept of "America" in general, this can grow every quickly, even in one generation (whereas people of ancient lineage can be traitors) . Recent immigrants from non-democratic countries can appreciate the virtues of America more than native sons with nothing to compare to.

    College whites and non-college whites are both loyal Americans, they just have differing visions of America. Don't confuse political disagreements with traitorous behavior. This is exactly what the Dems are doing with their J6 nonsense.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @Prester John
    @New Dealer

    Murray's formulation is true as far as it goes but I wonder sometimes what colleges he is referring to. In this context I'm not sure he is necessarily referring to XYZ community college or even ol' State U. Penn and Penn State are both accredited schools of higher education, but the former is pretty far up the pecking order academically from the latter, with the latter having been bestowed (unfairly IMHOP because it's a good school) with the snarky nickname "Linebacker U."

  101. @Pincher Martin
    @Peter Akuleyev


    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups.
     
    The "grownups" drove the party into the ditch. Bush and Cheney ended the Reagan Era. Both Obama and Trump owe their presidencies to Dubya's two disastrous terms that ended with comprehensive failure, both for the U.S. economy and national security.

    Before you idealize what the GOP had been at the national level before Trump came long in 2016, look at how the GOP had performed in the six presidential elections from 1992 to 2012 (the Democratic performance follows in parentheses):

    1992 - 37.5% (43.0%)

    1996 - 40.7% (49.2%)

    2000 - 47.9% (48.4%)

    2004 - 50.7% (48.3%)

    2008 - 45.7% (52.9%)

    2012 - 47.2% (51.1%)

    The GOP average for their performance in those six pre-Trump presidential elections is 44.95%. (The Democratic average is 48.82%.) Trump's average in his two runs is 46.45%.

    I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to claim that we Republicans need to return the party to the "grownups" to bolster our electoral performance. It was their awful performance - both in elections and in governing - that led to Trump to begin with. If those "grownups" had the answers, President Trump would've never happened.

    Replies: @Prester John, @Corvinus

    Hate to say it but…the Republican Party is dying out, and fast. All that will be left is the Democrat Party–who will proceed to drive what’s left of this thing of ours right over a cliff.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Prester John

    I don't think so. It just can no longer be the party of Reagan/Goldwater. It has to adapt to a new set of policies with potential appeal to a majority of today's voters.

    As flawed as Trump is as a candidate and a man, he helped show the way.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @BosTex

  102. @Muggles
    @Peter Akuleyev


    who is a Turkish citizen and never lived in PA?
     
    I doubt either of these was a major factor.

    Lots of pols are dual citizens. Israeli, for instance. No one complains about that (much).

    Do you not recall that famous New Yorker Mme. Hillary Clinton?

    So many move in and out of state, sometimes for political reasons.

    If PA voters prefer a Senator Fester/Lurch to Dr. Oz, so be it.

    The Dems are the party of Oligarchy and their funders are mainly those. That didn't really improve the ancient Roman Republic, now did it?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    I doubt either of these was a major factor…. Do you not recall that famous New Yorker Mme. Hillary Clinton?

    Hillary was following the tradition established by Robert Kennedy, who successfully ran for a NY senate seat despite being from Massachusetts.

    So many move in and out of state, sometimes for political reasons.

    True.

    https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/meet-the-senates-carpetbaggers

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @Pincher Martin

    In general, voters are suspicious of candidates for statewide office whose residency is so recent the moving truck is still in front of their house. Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are two notable exceptions, but their situations are unique and unlikely to be repeated.

    First, most New Yorkers don't mind political celebrities moving to the state to run for office. That someone like Robert Kennedy or Hillary Clinton would do such a thing is, in the eyes of many, almost flattering: it confirms the worldview gently mocked in that old New Yorker cartoon, showing the rest of the country and world from our parochial perspective. New York is the center of the universe; why wouldn't someone with plenty of options choose it as a base for a political career?

    Second, RFK and Hillary each got a pass on the carpetbagging charge that would have felled a lesser celebrity: Bobby's brother had been murdered, and Hillary had stood by her husband, thereby saving his presidency. (That she may have refrained from leaving the White House with Chelsea in tow -- perhaps after Bill testified before Kenneth Starr's grand jury -- with a future run for office already in mind doesn't alter this analysis.) If Hillary had left Bill, he would have been forced to resign. She stayed, so did he, and both he and the public owed her. A Senate seat was a small price to pay for not putting the country through another presidential resignation.

    By contrast, Dr. Oz got plenty of criticism for carpetbagging, probably much of it because he is really from New Jersey. He endured a bruising primary (something Hillary never had to worry about, since Judith Hope, then New York State Democratic Chairman, helpfully cleared the field), and diligently made the rounds in a large state with which he had been unfamiliar, but could never quite shake off the impression that he was just visiting.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Pincher Martin

  103. The red dribble was caused by the abortion issue.

    https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/abortion-as-the-affirmative-action

    During Roe v Wade, it’s no secret that Rs loved running on abortion knowing that there was nothing they could do about it. Now they get the stupid prize.

    I think the moral values on either side of the issue are worthy. We need not total ban or total permission but a compromise, such as the policies of many Western European countries, achieved by democratic back and forth rather than by judicial fiat.

    • Agree: James Speaks
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @New Dealer


    The red dribble was caused by the abortion issue.
     
    Not true. The GOP governors who signed measures limiting abortion - DeSantis, Kemp, Abbott, DeWine, etc. - all did very well last night.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-governors-who-signed-abortion-restrictions-cruise-to-reelection/ar-AA13VUb4

    Replies: @pirelli

  104. @SunBakedSuburb
    @JohnnyWalker123

    "What a f*cked night this was."

    Grasping at straws, I'm hoping Jim Jordan and his like-minded fellows in the House will initiate a series of investigations with the ability to subpoena persons of interest in the DOJ/FBI situation. If reform doesn't occur within these two agencies our ability to lawfully resist government intrusion upon basic liberties like the right to privacy will wither and die as the regime media jackals cackle and howl at the funeral.

    The GOP needs to keep Trump policies but without the psychopathic narcissist Blumpft!. They cannot backslide into the country club Republicanism of the Romneys and Bushes because there is absolutely no demographic for MIC dominance and market magicalism. They, especially male Republicans, need to zip their lids on abortion because body autonomy, especially in light of the hideous mRNA mandates, is where it's at.

    If conservoguys want assistance in their battle against the well-funded transmutation of the human form and genital mutilation of children, and the Davos demi-gods who wish to build their Green bio-medical surveillance utopia on the ashes of our bones, they will have to appeal to interesting and attractive people like me who aren't slaves to any particular political ideology. Hey, I spend several hours each week building a time-machine to take me back to the 1980s; it's a hobby. But Reaganism Redux won't draw in the people consevoguys need for their movement. Smart and really good-looking people like me.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    Grasping at straws, I’m hoping Jim Jordan and his like-minded fellows in the House will initiate a series of investigations with the ability to subpoena persons of interest in the DOJ/FBI situation. If reform doesn’t occur within these two agencies….

    We know how this works, they’ll ignore the subpoenas and absolutely nothing will happen to them.

    And why the [EXPLICITVE DELETED] do we need more “investigations?” We know what happened, the only question is will the Republicans zero the budget of the FBI, large parts of the DoJ, etc. which is totally within their power come next year before they get thrown in The Garland Archipelago, executed in one of our already host to torture Lubyankas. Of course it’s probably a bit too late to try this, but thus they show themselves have not been worthy of our Founders for decades. Maybe use Waco as a hinge of history.

    Thus if you ignore how we’ll struggle with the end of the Republic, can you make a convincing case we aren’t better off without the GOPe ending like that? While we meant it figuratively, what we said six years ago still holds:

    You ‘conservative pundits’ still don’t get it. Trump isn’t our candidate, he’s our murder weapon, and the GOP is our victim.

  105. I didn’t get my hopes up and I wasn’t disappointed.

  106. Democrats derive much benefit from being so closely allied with the commanding heights of media, tech, and academia, but they also can reap a few consequences when those institutions go truly nuts, as they did after George Floyd’s demise.

    One thing yesterday’s election proved: Those institutions NEVER will reap any consequences for their war on the rest of us over the past 2.5 years.

  107. @TWS
    @Steve Sailer

    Oh for goodness sakes, there's no way Fetterman was elected honestly. He's literally a brain damaged hobo, screw anyone who thinks that was up and up. What's next an actual horse?

    Replies: @Jack D

    There is a point where you have to stop crying “election fraud” for everything.

    First of all, the non-brain damaged Shapiro running for governor outpolled Fetterman by almost 300,000 votes. If you are going to do vote fraud, aren’t you going to mark the ballots straight D?

    2nd, if you look at the arrow map here:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-pennsylvania.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=election-results&context=election_recirc&region=StateResultsFooter

    Fetterman improved on Biden’s performance in every single county in the state. Even in the reddest of red counties, he still outperformed Biden (or, stated another way, Oz underperformed Trump).

    Yes, Fetterman is brain damaged but Oz was an out-of-state Muslim, a citizen of not only New Jersey but Turkey. A man who did not maintain much connection with PA until he decided he wanted a Senate seat. A man who appeared out of touch with the concerns of average Pennsylvanians. A slick TV doctor. Having Trump’s endorsement will only get you so far.

    Was Oz really the best person that the Republicans could find in all of Pennsylvania?

    Pat Toomey is only 60 years old – a baby in the Senate. He was only in the Senate for 2 terms. He could have easily beaten Fetterman. Why did he retire?

    • Agree: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    There is a point where you have to stop crying “election fraud” for everything.
     
    I'm not ever sure the Democrats were all that interested in "fortifying" this election. Trump/Hitler was not on the ballot.

    And, as I've noted in the last couple of days, the Democrats have a real problem with Biden--or specifically Biden backed by Harris. They really need to convince him not to run. It would be "problematic" for them to convince him to chuck Harris, and without that, another Biden administration--even if he wins--could quite likely lead to Harris presidency or to an embarrassment of a completely senile president kept in office simply to prevent a Harris presidency. And simply a bad president--Carter, W--can really damage a brand for a generation. Harris would be something well beyond that.

    Whether any particular election result was better or worse for that, I don't know. Not sure they do either.

    Replies: @epebble

  108. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast. Fortunately for the Dems, coming up right behind them are other minorities such as Asians, especially S. Asians, both as donors and idealogues. Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air.

    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It's the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call "minoritarianism" is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don't hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn't cured.

    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong. We see them now on a global scale. The "reserve army of the unemployed" are not clustered around the factory gates driving wages down to poverty level in Lowell because the factory is now in Dhaka instead. The army is still there, it's just an invisible army that is 8,000 miles away. Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don't shoot the messenger.

    From now on, instead of Rahm you're going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Pat Kittle, @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @AnotherDad, @John Pepple

    Jack, seriously dude, whenever anything regarding the Jews floats up you immediately drop about 20 IQ points. Not joking it’s at least a standard deviation. (BTW, being able to step back and be objective “this is what is even if i don’t like it” is a useful skill–personally and politically.)

    Your comment is just laughable nonsense–end to end:

    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party.

    First off–straw man. I didn’t say anything about the future. (My future prediction for America–given in other comments–is “slumping toward Brazil”. I actually think Jews have overbaked the cake, they were gifted the greatest possible position any middle man minority could have … and proceeded to trash the joint anyway–a reflection upon their character.)

    Rather, my actual comment chided Steve on ignoring the obvious Jewish influence on American politics and specifically the Democrat party–it’s transformation to being an anti-national coalition of the fringes.

    Secondly, “Biden Administration”. Did you actually think about the right now before trotting out Father Coughlin? It’s staring you in the face. Our first Jewish administration but with a demented Irish “Catholic” bozo as front man (while he can stand up).

    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It’s the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call “minoritarianism” is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don’t hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn’t cured.

    First, anytime you have to trot out “anti-Semitism” to answer a critique, you lose. It’s like Hitler. Sorry, there is zero wrong with anyone opposing Jews–or any other ethnic group’s–preferred policy set. I oppose the Jewish establishment’s policy set. It is objectively stupid and toxic for my people.

    Secondly, you are just wrong. Minoritarianism is the problem. It is precisely what ails America. That gone the other stuff is all tractable–essentially technical: Foreign policy. Managing a nationalist trade policy. Tax and welfare policy promoting eugenic fertility. Developing nuclear power safely. Minoritarianism is the cancer.

    And … LOL. If all the Jews made aliyah, American media and politics would immediately be dramatically better. There would be more open debate, more free speech, more diversity of opinions, less totalitarian policing.

    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong.

    Not 100% clear on you thinking here, but seems like you have it precisely backwards.

    The issues with capitalism–and unemployment–are there. (But tractable.) Jewish minoritarianism is precisely the replacement phony “leftist” ideology to divert leftist politics from economics and the interests of workers and create a “leftism” that is friendly to the interests of economically successful Jews.

    Actual, old-style pro-labor leftists make this point all the time. That the race+gender “identity politics” stuff a giant scam that is serves the interests of elites not workers.

    Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don’t shoot the messenger.

    LOL. Wow. This is why we love Jack D. Such humility.

    Yes, Jews are smart, and have made real useful contributions in the natural sciences.

    But back in the real world, the sum of Jewish “intelligent analysis” about anything revolving around the human condition is shit. Most Jews keep baking up nonsense that centers around their experience as an outgroup middle man minority. Essentially, Jewish thought tends to be stuck in their own little ghetto. They can’t accept that their experience as an outgroup, a minority is just that–an outlier–that they and their interests and simply not normative nor important to successful societies.

    Steve’s own HBD bailiwick demonstrates the point. A parade of Anglos–Darwin, Galton, Fischer, Hamilton, Watson, Crick, Wilson … advancing understanding, shedding light. And a parade of Jews spreading nonsense and darkness –that unfortunately they’ve been able to impose on us as “science”.

    The sum total of Jewish thought in anything in the social sciences is actually negative. If you could nuke all Jewish social/political thought … our sum total of knowledge would be greater. We’d actually understand more and certainly have more functional culture and politics.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
    @AnotherDad

    Well said, AD.

  109. @HammerJack
    @Anonymous

    Worth adding, another big thing the voters are down with is throwing $100 billion at Ukraine, in hopes of more warz against whomever the jews don't like.

    Best of all, the race and tranny things will keep roaring along in top gear. The Republicans couldn't even win on male rapists in girls rest rooms.

    It's true though: having good candidates makes almost all the difference. Where are the strong GOP candidates? Who's going oppose Trump or DeSantis for president?

    Replies: @James Speaks

    It’s true though: having good candidates makes almost all the difference. Where are the strong GOP candidates? Who’s going oppose Trump or DeSantis for president?

    Trump was the right candidate for 2016. Only a populist could break the stranglehold business_as_usual Republican leadership had on the party, and Trump was populist-light. In 2020 Trump’s negatives prevented him from leading a Republican sweep.

    What’s needed in 2022 is populist-strong, someone who can energize the base, bring in independents, and possibly a few of the saner Democrats. I just have no idea who that could be.

  110. @Australoid
    Dr. Oz vs. JD Vance, two different futures of the Republican party. One lost against a brain damaged candidate and the other won against a competitive candidate. JD Vance is one of very few political figures in America who have spoken out against getting entangled in the Ukraine. I'm not saying that's the only reason he won. But the Republicans aren't winning on the economy when they should be. Abortion ballot measures are trending well. Donald Trump couldn't get it done on immigration. What other issue is there? In red states, they should start running nuclear attack drills in all the schools, including the small town ones that have 0 chance of ever getting nuked. This - highly effective - political theater will lead to controversy and media attention. Then national Republicans can hammer Biden on bringing the country to the brink of nuclear war over a country that no one gives a shit about and where his crooked son has been making money. They can tie in runaway energy prices to it as well, which right now they are unable to effectively tap into because most of the Republicans in Washington also support these insane pro-Ukraine measures and surreptitious NATO participation in a war against Russia as well. Or the Republicans can just sit in opposition permanently, until this country gets nuked then none of this will really matter.

    Replies: @HammerJack, @HA

    “most of the Republicans in Washington also support these insane pro-Ukraine measures…”

    Yeah, insane that the Republicans actually support something that actually delivers:

    BBC (1 hour ago): Russia’s military has been ordered to pull out of the Ukrainian city of Kherson, the only regional capital it captured after invading in February.

    Russia’s commander in Ukraine, Gen Sergei Surovikin, said it was no longer possible to keep supplying the city…It is a significant blow as Russia faces a Ukrainian counter-offensive.

    So Sailer wins another one. So what’s left on Putin’s copium list? The mid-terms aren’t going to save him, and it doesn’t look like Trump’s chances of getting back into the White House have improved. I guess Europeans could still freeze over with their frost-bitten hands clasped towards Moscow as they plead for a few more BTU’s, but the odds seem pretty slim. I guess we could also see “a manoeuver enveloping the Ukies… in a pincer movement”, as the retreating Russians do a 180 and magically fly back across the Dnieper on their flying monkeys, but frankly, that seems a tad desperate at this point.

    Maybe it’s time to face reality, Putinoids. Now that Kherson has turned out to be yet another “feint”, Crimea is worthless as a military asset. I mean, talk about a pincer movement: with Turkey on one side, and a now-hostile Ukraine controlling its water supply on the other, it’s a museum piece in terms of military value. Maybe that was part of the reason they decided to let Ukraine have it in the first place. It might have served a purpose in allowing Russia to beat up Georgia or Moldova, but that, too, is likely on the back burner for now.

    A short while ago, PhysicistDave was assuring us that if Putin lost Kherson or any of the four oblasts Russians have recently claimed, he could not remain in power. Let’s see if PhysicistDave finally gets something right and Lil’ BB gets ousted and has to start mowing Xi’s lawn and picking up after his Tibetan Mastiff as a full-time gig. I hear Uncle Xi was getting a little testy at Putin’s repeated threats to nuke his consumer base. With friends like PhysicistDave and Xi and all the rest who were cheering Putin on as he launched this debacle of a compaign, Russia has more worrisome matters to attend to than to keep digging in Ukraine.

  111. @New Dealer
    @rebel yell


    Charles Murray has well documented the segregation of American life into the college educated class vs non-college class, Fishtown vs Belmont. People who work with their hands vs people who work at a keyboard. Keyboard people are everywhere.
     
    I like Goodhart's formulation: the somewheres vs. the anywheres.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/22/the-road-to-somewhere-david-goodhart-populist-revolt-future-politics

    Replies: @Jack D, @Prester John

    The “Somewhere” vs “Anywhere” analysis works better maybe in the UK than it does in the US where people for the most part are mobile (even blue collar workers follow around oil booms and construction booms and so on). Programmers aren’t the only ones with portable skills.

    The population of Phoenix, AZ went from 100k in 1950 to over 1.5 million today so EVERYONE in AZ is an “anywhere”.

    “Anywhere” also sounds suspiciously close to “rootless cosmopolitan”. American don’t, for the most part, have mystical bonds with any particular ancestral village (and never have – much of the original Puritan stock ended up in Kansas in the 19th century and someone from Mass. is more likely to be Portuguese than Pilgrim). As far as loyalty to the concept of “America” in general, this can grow every quickly, even in one generation (whereas people of ancient lineage can be traitors) . Recent immigrants from non-democratic countries can appreciate the virtues of America more than native sons with nothing to compare to.

    College whites and non-college whites are both loyal Americans, they just have differing visions of America. Don’t confuse political disagreements with traitorous behavior. This is exactly what the Dems are doing with their J6 nonsense.

    • Disagree: Kylie
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Jack D


    The population of Phoenix, AZ went from 100k in 1950 to over 1.5 million today so EVERYONE in AZ is an “anywhere”.
     
    Similarly with Calgary and Edmonton. The former went from five figures when toddler Tommy Chong moved there ca. 1940 to well into seven today.

    Asian male/black female marriages are exceedingly rare, but Tommy, a product of both cities, did it twice, first with Rae Dawn's mother, then with Robbi's. All of them must have stuck out like læsus pollices manus in the urban Alberta of the early 1960s.

    Okay, Tommy's half-Chinese and half Scots-Irish. His next wife was a blond American. Their son Paris's children, with a Chinese surname, could be ⅛ that. Some Texans descend from 19th-century Chinese workers. Then there are these people, though the original surname is long gone:

    Descendants gather for Siamese Twins Chang & Eng Bunker’s 207th birthday

  112. From your link:

    Goodhart said that for citizens willingly to hand some of their hard-earned cash to others via their taxes, they needed to feel a basic level of affinity with those others. He wrote that in the homogenous societies of old that was never a problem: citizens felt the mutual obligation of kinship. But in the highly mixed societies of today, such fellow-feeling was strained.

    Mrs Goodhart, in a Financial Times column questioning the cult of diversity insinuating itself into the business world, let it slip that in some firms, homogeneity might be the more effective set-up. That understatement made me sit up and take notice, considering where it appeared.

    Lucy and David had four children– she wrote a column about that, too, and the colleagues and contacts with surprisingly large families she occasionally ran into in her circle. But she left her job, her home, and him to become a schoolteacher, of all things. And learned lessons herself:

    Her first trainee placement was at an academy school with very strict rules – children could be given a detention just for being one minute late. At first she thought this was absurd, but after another placement in a more “relaxed” school, she became a total convert to authoritarianism, and when she qualified as a teacher she returned to the first school. “There is no nonsense about happiness or creativity – this is about getting exam results.” She has come to believe that worrying about happiness and creativity is a middle-class luxury; children from disadvantaged backgrounds need to pass exams so that they can go on to better things or at least find a job.

    https://gulfnews.com/friday/art-people/from-journalist-to-schoolteacher-lucy-kellaways-re-educated-is-a-tale-of-starting-over-1.2312772

    Also in your link:

    In 2004, the Polish plumber and the Czech barista were in Britain’s future rather than its present. Six full years would pass before Gordon Brown would be overheard describing Gillian Duffy as a “bigoted woman”, because she had asked about the arrivals from eastern Europe who she felt were transforming her native Rochdale.

    Would that our worst problems be Czechs and Poles!

  113. @The Last Real Calvinist
    The election of Uncle Festerman in PA is a sign that the Democratic Coalition of the Fringes has now cemented its hold on the dysfunctional-human vote, adding this coup to the representations of all of its other vaunted fringey constituencies.

    You'd think that locking down the brain-damaged vote would not be that crucial to winning elections, but tonight's overall national results indicate that the Dems are well-prepared for the USA's future.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @epebble, @Steve Sailer, @BB753, @Barnard, @ATBOTL

    The election of Uncle Festerman in PA is a sign that the DemonRats blah blah blah…

    Or maybe white people just don’t want to vote for a muslim? Did that ever occur to anyone around here?

  114. @Jack D
    @TWS

    There is a point where you have to stop crying "election fraud" for everything.

    First of all, the non-brain damaged Shapiro running for governor outpolled Fetterman by almost 300,000 votes. If you are going to do vote fraud, aren't you going to mark the ballots straight D?

    2nd, if you look at the arrow map here:

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/11/08/us/elections/results-pennsylvania.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=election-results&context=election_recirc&region=StateResultsFooter

    Fetterman improved on Biden's performance in every single county in the state. Even in the reddest of red counties, he still outperformed Biden (or, stated another way, Oz underperformed Trump).

    Yes, Fetterman is brain damaged but Oz was an out-of-state Muslim, a citizen of not only New Jersey but Turkey. A man who did not maintain much connection with PA until he decided he wanted a Senate seat. A man who appeared out of touch with the concerns of average Pennsylvanians. A slick TV doctor. Having Trump's endorsement will only get you so far.

    Was Oz really the best person that the Republicans could find in all of Pennsylvania?

    Pat Toomey is only 60 years old - a baby in the Senate. He was only in the Senate for 2 terms. He could have easily beaten Fetterman. Why did he retire?

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    There is a point where you have to stop crying “election fraud” for everything.

    I’m not ever sure the Democrats were all that interested in “fortifying” this election. Trump/Hitler was not on the ballot.

    And, as I’ve noted in the last couple of days, the Democrats have a real problem with Biden–or specifically Biden backed by Harris. They really need to convince him not to run. It would be “problematic” for them to convince him to chuck Harris, and without that, another Biden administration–even if he wins–could quite likely lead to Harris presidency or to an embarrassment of a completely senile president kept in office simply to prevent a Harris presidency. And simply a bad president–Carter, W–can really damage a brand for a generation. Harris would be something well beyond that.

    Whether any particular election result was better or worse for that, I don’t know. Not sure they do either.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @AnotherDad

    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @John Johnson

  115. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D


    There is a point where you have to stop crying “election fraud” for everything.
     
    I'm not ever sure the Democrats were all that interested in "fortifying" this election. Trump/Hitler was not on the ballot.

    And, as I've noted in the last couple of days, the Democrats have a real problem with Biden--or specifically Biden backed by Harris. They really need to convince him not to run. It would be "problematic" for them to convince him to chuck Harris, and without that, another Biden administration--even if he wins--could quite likely lead to Harris presidency or to an embarrassment of a completely senile president kept in office simply to prevent a Harris presidency. And simply a bad president--Carter, W--can really damage a brand for a generation. Harris would be something well beyond that.

    Whether any particular election result was better or worse for that, I don't know. Not sure they do either.

    Replies: @epebble

    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @epebble


    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.
     
    This is absolutely, positively, demonstrably not their revealed preference. I believe the reason is that they value their status much more than how easy it will be to cheat the next Republican Presidential candidate out of a victory.

    When it comes to trashing their status they have no other enemy with a fraction of his proven ability, although they've been able to temper that for now by canceling him from social media etc. Actively pushing him back on the national stage where he could more effectively attack them would be stark raving mad. Which they are, just not in this way, see for example Robert Conquest's First Law of Politics, "Everyone is conservative about what he knows best."

    Replies: @epebble, @Corvinus

    , @John Johnson
    @epebble

    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.

    And why would that be job number one when:

    1. Trumplicans had the worst losses in the election
    2. Trump's polling with moderates/independents is at a low

    2020 was a case of Trump's fanbase ignoring the polls which indicated that he had lost support from independents. Why repeat that in 2024?

    The main problem is not cheating by the Democrats. The main problem is that the Republicans don't offer much more than being not Democrat and that isn't enough for swing voters.

    Republicans have a losing strategy and that existed before Trump. There was an opportunity for Trump to change the party and move it towards populism but he instead stuck with swampy politics.

    The overall Republican strategy depends on a majority White nation getting tired of Democrats and switching back. Take away the White majority and they are just boomers waving flags and talking about muh markets. This already played out in California.

    Replies: @epebble

  116. @Almost Missouri
    Perhaps the simplest stylized map of US geopolitics is that the US is a red ocean in which float blue islands of concentrated population. So now every election is a contest of the blue urban core versus the red rural outback, with the purple suburbs as the swing vote. "Suburban soccer moms" may be a lazy trope of the political class, but it is a trope for a reason: whichever way middle class suburban women vote is a bellwether of how far up the beach the red waters will flow in any given election.

    Unfortunately for Republicans, the Democrats owning the blue city political machines and the media centers means that it's easy for them to fraud as many votes as they need and the media will protect the fraud. So elections are something of a pantomime now. In order to get back to somewhat legitimate elections, the Republicans would have crush fraud first, but they show little appetite for this, preferring to play along with the pantomime and collect their donor checks.



    If it weren't for Vermont, the meme would be true.

    https://i.postimg.cc/kGDYShZW/Blue-Cities.jpg

    If it weren't for fraud, it might actually matter.

    Replies: @Renard, @beavertales, @Jack D, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Corvinus

    On that “There Are Zero Blue States, Only Blue Cities” map, why is northernmost New York State, near the Quebec border, so blue?

  117. @Zero Philosopher
    One of the most interesting things is how liberals posit themselves as the oppressed, the marginalized, etc, when in reality they represent the bulk of the educated, bourgeoise, urban and affluent elites.

    Let's make something clear here: the more you go up the socio-economic ladder, the more liberal people tend to become. The more higher education people have, the higher their income and the more urban they are, the more likely they are to be liberal. Even in the most "Red" states like Texas, the more urban, wealthy and educated classes tend to be liberal, or at least way more liberal than the more working-class or rural people.

    One of the things that confuses the issue of the political orientation of Elites Vs Proles is the fact that, at the absolute highest level of income, there are as many "conservative" Republicans as there are liberals. In fact, there are slightly more "conservatives" among Plutocrats than there are liberals.

    But these plutocrats are not true conservatives, What happens is that, historically, the Republican Party is the party that gives tax breaks to the rich. The reason why these plutocrats claim to be "conservative" is only because they want those juicy tax cuts. They couldn't care less about the things that true conservatives actually care about, like abortion, or gay marriage, or religion being taught in schools. They are either indifferent to that, or deep down they are liberal about it. If you are a multi-milllionaire or a billionaire, then of course you are supporting the party that wants to take less money from you. Just look at the "classic" liberal countries like Sweden and Denmark. It's multimillionaires all live abroad. Why? Because these countries are hardcore liberal, being the cradle of liberalism, and the people expect plutocrats to pay high taxes since the liberal mentality is more communitarian and less tolerant of inequality.

    It is a FACT that, the more you go up the ladder of income and education, the more liberal people tend to become in their views. The more university-educated, urban and professional/bourgeoise classes tend to be more liberal.While conservatives are found more among the working class, the rural populations and among those without university degrees. Please note that I am talking about white people here. If you include blacks and hispanics, it throws a monkey wrench in that formula because non-whites are more likely to vote Democrat because they want government handouts. But white liberals tend to be wealthier and more educated than white conservatives on average.

    It's paradoxical that, historically, Democrats are the party of the oppressed and the working-class and of the downtrodden since liberalism correlates so srongly with wealth and education.

    But to understand this paradox, one needs to understand that this is not really an issue of wealth and education that pushes one to become either a liberal or a conservative, but one of *mentality* .Liberals have an extreme hyper-focus on social harmony, and a low tolerance for social inequality. This is what pushes them to become leaders of the oppressed, even when they, themselves, are not oppressed. To quote Bill Clinton:"I feel your pain;." While Clinton was a hypocrite, it's true that liberals have this higher ability to experience other people's pain, which pushed them to the pursuit of equality as priority #1. Even Marx remarked about how easy it would be for The Revolution to happen, because of how guilty the wealthy, the "intelligentsia", the urban liberal bourgeoise felt over the fact that they had a higher quality of life than the rest of the population. In fact, during the communist revolutions in multiple countries, the liberal bourgeoise reacted with apathy and fatalism, and were slaughter. This is especially true since liberals are not very violent people, and are easily exterminated with the use of force. During the October Revolution in Russia, the liberal bourgeoise families from St.Petersburg and Moscow were taken to the back street ally, put on their knees and shot in the head. Liberals are not fighters. They are shop owners, professionals, professors and clerks, but not really warriors. Napoleon said it best about the strongly bourgeoise English Society:

    "A nation of shop keepers."

    This profound cognitive dissonance of liberals, that they see themselves as weak, oppressed and marginalized while they actually represent the bulk of the wealthier and more educated classes is something very interesting worth noticing and discussing, but no one seems to do it.

    This is why liberals love the fact that there are those tiny number of super-rich plutocrats that vote Republican. Because that is the one elite that they can point out other than themselves that they can make opposition against and make a case that they represent the "weak". Those plutocrats, who in reality are not social conservatives at all, but just greedy opportunists who want tax breaks or who deep down are actually liberal too but still want tax breaks, give liberals the only target that they can focus on an elite to be opposed. But even among plutocrats, despite the HUGE incentive to proclaim yourself to be conservative(big tax breaks), the majority are still liberal anyway, which is very bad P.R for liberals wanting to portray themselves as oppressed people leading other oppressed people. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg and many others are openly liberal and have donated huge sums to the Democratic Party.

    This is what explains Sailer's paradox that liberals were historically the party of the working-class, despite the fact that white liberals on average are LESS likely to be working-class, while Republicans were the party of "management" or capitalists, even though typical Republican votera are more likely to be working-class and less likely to be managemt(the managereal class is heavily liberal)

    One you understand the nature of liberals, this paradox is easily solved. Liberals tend to be more pro-social than conservatives, and emotionally tend to be become more distressed over inequality of outcomes;. This pushes them to push for strongly egalitarian policies and o take the mantle of defenders of the weak, or at least the mantle of hypocrites who constantly virtue-signal, because virtue-signaling is absolutely essential for the emotional well-being of a person that is both successful but at the same time is intensely distressed over inequality of outcomes and feels guilty over being at the winning bracket.

    Liberalism has gone too far, and is imploding the West. The problem is that liberals have shown that they are completely unable to pull the breaks on themselves. Not because of a lack of intelligence, since, as discussed, liberals tend to be highly intelligent as a group, but because their emotional wiring precludes them from it. Conservatives arehoping that liberals will self-destroy and diappear, but this is not going to happen. As elsewhere in life, there are the victors and the vanquished.

    Old school liberals were never the enemies of the American People, and in fact some of the greatest improvements in living standards and work conditions were the result of activims on the part of old school liberals. But now "classic" liberals are being devoured by a sea of neo-Marxists that easily manipulate them due to their high tendency to feel guilty. No one has an answer for it, and we are all much worse for it since liberals have unfathomable power in the Society.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @John Johnson

    The really big question is not the absolute morality of equality or inequality, or sentimentality versus pragmatism, but what form of government provides social stability so the next generation can grow and prosper.

    We see that here in Ecuador, where we had a kind of general strike or stoppage a few minutes ago led by indigenous people, but with some support from farmers and taxi drivers and such.

    The strikers had 10 demands which related to diverse issues like the price of gasoline and the price of fertilizer, and a demand for an amnesty on repayments for farmers’ bank loans, and cessation of plans to privatize state-owned Banks (and sell them to US investors.)

    Main highways were blocked with boulders in an attempt to starve the major cities into submission by making it impossible to refill supermarkets, gas stations, or propane supplies.

    As usual the government caved in and canceled a planned increase in the price of gasoline, and made some other concessions.

    The price of gasoline in Ecuador remains around $2.50 per gallon with the largest part of oil production being sold to China on long-term contracts.

    In exchange for this, all Ecuadorians have Chinese or Korean smartphones and can’t amuse themselves on Facebook.

    So now there is a truce until the next time around when it will flare up again.

    However the indigenous people also wanted a ban on oil drilling in indigenous lands in the Amazon basin, which is an impossibility, because of the prosperity of all depends on the oil being sucked out of the ground.

    So it is always a question of striking a balance between giving the poor enough to prevent civil warfare, but avoiding throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    It is fundamentally no different in the United States. Both parties posture a lot with ridiculously extreme positions, but in the end they don’t differ so much and most of the actual daily business of government goes on in the middle ground and the people have to have their opium of religion, sport, and video games.

    The Republicans are going to throw out all the illegals, and the Democrats are going to castrate all the little white boys, but ultimately both parties are passengers on the Titanic in iceberg and shark infested waters, and they cannot afford to lean too far to port or starboard without capsizing the whole leaky ship and drowning everybody aboard.

    • Replies: @Zero Philosopher
    @Jonathan Mason

    "The really big question is not the absolute morality of equality or inequality, or sentimentality versus pragmatism, but what form of government provides social stability so the next generation can grow and prosper"

    Here lies the fault in your thinking. "provides social stability so the next generation can grow and prosper". Because you are a conservative, you put extreme hyper-focus on breeding and "future generations". Liberals don't care about this. Liberalism puts individuals and fair treatment as their supreme value. Favoring certain groups because they are more likely to breed and leave children is not something that liberals do. It's just not that mindset.

  118. America cannot disentangle from the web, because it, at the same time, preaches color-blind & anti-white rhetoric, while in reality recognizing racial & ethnic irreconcilable differences.

    To achieve some kind of racial-cultural-social-ethnic harmony, security and peace, you first have to diagnose the unpleasant condition of the country, going back to the 60′.

    And everybody is scared of that.

  119. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Ebony Obelisk

    Considering the quality of candidates the Republicans fielded they did surprisingly well. Most educated conservative Americans dislike MAGA and don’t want to see freaks like Oz, Boebert and Walker representing the party. For all the flaws of politicians like Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance. The Republicans want to cede the field in those areas, they are just lucky the Dems are too beholden to shrieking black women and activists to take advantage of that.

    Replies: @BosTex, @Polistra, @Pincher Martin, @vinteuil

    For all the flaws of politicians like Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance.

    Stupity like this is almost charming.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • LOL: BosTex, John Johnson
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @vinteuil


    Stupity
     
    …stupefying stupidity?
  120. @Pincher Martin
    @Muggles


    I doubt either of these was a major factor.... Do you not recall that famous New Yorker Mme. Hillary Clinton?
     
    Hillary was following the tradition established by Robert Kennedy, who successfully ran for a NY senate seat despite being from Massachusetts.

    So many move in and out of state, sometimes for political reasons.
     
    True.

    https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/meet-the-senates-carpetbaggers

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    In general, voters are suspicious of candidates for statewide office whose residency is so recent the moving truck is still in front of their house. Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are two notable exceptions, but their situations are unique and unlikely to be repeated.

    First, most New Yorkers don’t mind political celebrities moving to the state to run for office. That someone like Robert Kennedy or Hillary Clinton would do such a thing is, in the eyes of many, almost flattering: it confirms the worldview gently mocked in that old New Yorker cartoon, showing the rest of the country and world from our parochial perspective. New York is the center of the universe; why wouldn’t someone with plenty of options choose it as a base for a political career?

    Second, RFK and Hillary each got a pass on the carpetbagging charge that would have felled a lesser celebrity: Bobby’s brother had been murdered, and Hillary had stood by her husband, thereby saving his presidency. (That she may have refrained from leaving the White House with Chelsea in tow — perhaps after Bill testified before Kenneth Starr’s grand jury — with a future run for office already in mind doesn’t alter this analysis.) If Hillary had left Bill, he would have been forced to resign. She stayed, so did he, and both he and the public owed her. A Senate seat was a small price to pay for not putting the country through another presidential resignation.

    By contrast, Dr. Oz got plenty of criticism for carpetbagging, probably much of it because he is really from New Jersey. He endured a bruising primary (something Hillary never had to worry about, since Judith Hope, then New York State Democratic Chairman, helpfully cleared the field), and diligently made the rounds in a large state with which he had been unfamiliar, but could never quite shake off the impression that he was just visiting.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Gary in Gramercy


    ...both he and the public owed her.
     
    ¿Que Pasa? Whatever did the public owe her?

    A Senate seat was a small price to pay for not putting the country through another presidential resignation.
     
    Why? We survived the first.

    By the way, the man she succeeded, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was born in Tulsa. But Paddy grew up in Hell's Kitchen. Manhattanites, unlike many other islanders throughout the world, don't mind if you were born elsewhere.
    , @Pincher Martin
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Actually, RFK did have serious problems in his campaign with his carpetbagger status in NY. Read the following:

    https://www.americanheritage.com/carpetbaggers

    Kennedy was lucky that 1964 was a wave election year for Democrats. In a year in which LBJ beat Goldwater by 37 points in New York state, RFK could only beat Keating by 10 points.

    In fact, LBJ took great pleasure in the thought that only his huge electoral victory likely put Bobby over the top in the state. Early polling had Keating leading Bobby early in the race, but Goldwater's campaign weighed Keating down.

    *****

    I also wouldn't distinguish between "political celebrities" and other celebrities. Arnold was a long-time Californian when he won the governor's race in 2003, but I suspect his victory had nothing to do with his residency.

    Finally, Oz ran better than most Republican candidates in PA. The governor's race was a disaster and the Democrats actually picked up one House race in the state. I don't think Oz was a good candidate, but his minor celebrity probably helped him more than hurt him.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

  121. @New Dealer
    The red dribble was caused by the abortion issue.

    https://richardhanania.substack.com/p/abortion-as-the-affirmative-action

    During Roe v Wade, it's no secret that Rs loved running on abortion knowing that there was nothing they could do about it. Now they get the stupid prize.

    I think the moral values on either side of the issue are worthy. We need not total ban or total permission but a compromise, such as the policies of many Western European countries, achieved by democratic back and forth rather than by judicial fiat.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    The red dribble was caused by the abortion issue.

    Not true. The GOP governors who signed measures limiting abortion – DeSantis, Kemp, Abbott, DeWine, etc. – all did very well last night.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-governors-who-signed-abortion-restrictions-cruise-to-reelection/ar-AA13VUb4

    • Replies: @pirelli
    @Pincher Martin

    That article doesn’t offer any support for the view that Abbott, DeSantis, et al did well *because* they signed abortion measures, other than that conclusory statement from the Susan B Anthony organization. Texas, Georgia, and Ohio are all pretty socially conservative states, and DeSantis is a strong candidate for many reasons unrelated to his abortion stance.

    I think Dobbs definitely hurt republicans in places like Pennsylvania, New York, and Colorado, but we’ll have to see what the more detailed polling data show.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Pincher Martin

  122. @Jack D
    @New Dealer

    The "Somewhere" vs "Anywhere" analysis works better maybe in the UK than it does in the US where people for the most part are mobile (even blue collar workers follow around oil booms and construction booms and so on). Programmers aren't the only ones with portable skills.

    The population of Phoenix, AZ went from 100k in 1950 to over 1.5 million today so EVERYONE in AZ is an "anywhere".

    "Anywhere" also sounds suspiciously close to "rootless cosmopolitan". American don't, for the most part, have mystical bonds with any particular ancestral village (and never have - much of the original Puritan stock ended up in Kansas in the 19th century and someone from Mass. is more likely to be Portuguese than Pilgrim). As far as loyalty to the concept of "America" in general, this can grow every quickly, even in one generation (whereas people of ancient lineage can be traitors) . Recent immigrants from non-democratic countries can appreciate the virtues of America more than native sons with nothing to compare to.

    College whites and non-college whites are both loyal Americans, they just have differing visions of America. Don't confuse political disagreements with traitorous behavior. This is exactly what the Dems are doing with their J6 nonsense.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    The population of Phoenix, AZ went from 100k in 1950 to over 1.5 million today so EVERYONE in AZ is an “anywhere”.

    Similarly with Calgary and Edmonton. The former went from five figures when toddler Tommy Chong moved there ca. 1940 to well into seven today.

    Asian male/black female marriages are exceedingly rare, but Tommy, a product of both cities, did it twice, first with Rae Dawn’s mother, then with Robbi’s. All of them must have stuck out like læsus pollices manus in the urban Alberta of the early 1960s.

    Okay, Tommy’s half-Chinese and half Scots-Irish. His next wife was a blond American. Their son Paris’s children, with a Chinese surname, could be ⅛ that. Some Texans descend from 19th-century Chinese workers. Then there are these people, though the original surname is long gone:

    Descendants gather for Siamese Twins Chang & Eng Bunker’s 207th birthday

  123. @Gary in Gramercy
    @Pincher Martin

    In general, voters are suspicious of candidates for statewide office whose residency is so recent the moving truck is still in front of their house. Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are two notable exceptions, but their situations are unique and unlikely to be repeated.

    First, most New Yorkers don't mind political celebrities moving to the state to run for office. That someone like Robert Kennedy or Hillary Clinton would do such a thing is, in the eyes of many, almost flattering: it confirms the worldview gently mocked in that old New Yorker cartoon, showing the rest of the country and world from our parochial perspective. New York is the center of the universe; why wouldn't someone with plenty of options choose it as a base for a political career?

    Second, RFK and Hillary each got a pass on the carpetbagging charge that would have felled a lesser celebrity: Bobby's brother had been murdered, and Hillary had stood by her husband, thereby saving his presidency. (That she may have refrained from leaving the White House with Chelsea in tow -- perhaps after Bill testified before Kenneth Starr's grand jury -- with a future run for office already in mind doesn't alter this analysis.) If Hillary had left Bill, he would have been forced to resign. She stayed, so did he, and both he and the public owed her. A Senate seat was a small price to pay for not putting the country through another presidential resignation.

    By contrast, Dr. Oz got plenty of criticism for carpetbagging, probably much of it because he is really from New Jersey. He endured a bruising primary (something Hillary never had to worry about, since Judith Hope, then New York State Democratic Chairman, helpfully cleared the field), and diligently made the rounds in a large state with which he had been unfamiliar, but could never quite shake off the impression that he was just visiting.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Pincher Martin

    …both he and the public owed her.

    ¿Que Pasa? Whatever did the public owe her?

    A Senate seat was a small price to pay for not putting the country through another presidential resignation.

    Why? We survived the first.

    By the way, the man she succeeded, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was born in Tulsa. But Paddy grew up in Hell’s Kitchen. Manhattanites, unlike many other islanders throughout the world, don’t mind if you were born elsewhere.

  124. @Gary in Gramercy
    @Pincher Martin

    In general, voters are suspicious of candidates for statewide office whose residency is so recent the moving truck is still in front of their house. Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are two notable exceptions, but their situations are unique and unlikely to be repeated.

    First, most New Yorkers don't mind political celebrities moving to the state to run for office. That someone like Robert Kennedy or Hillary Clinton would do such a thing is, in the eyes of many, almost flattering: it confirms the worldview gently mocked in that old New Yorker cartoon, showing the rest of the country and world from our parochial perspective. New York is the center of the universe; why wouldn't someone with plenty of options choose it as a base for a political career?

    Second, RFK and Hillary each got a pass on the carpetbagging charge that would have felled a lesser celebrity: Bobby's brother had been murdered, and Hillary had stood by her husband, thereby saving his presidency. (That she may have refrained from leaving the White House with Chelsea in tow -- perhaps after Bill testified before Kenneth Starr's grand jury -- with a future run for office already in mind doesn't alter this analysis.) If Hillary had left Bill, he would have been forced to resign. She stayed, so did he, and both he and the public owed her. A Senate seat was a small price to pay for not putting the country through another presidential resignation.

    By contrast, Dr. Oz got plenty of criticism for carpetbagging, probably much of it because he is really from New Jersey. He endured a bruising primary (something Hillary never had to worry about, since Judith Hope, then New York State Democratic Chairman, helpfully cleared the field), and diligently made the rounds in a large state with which he had been unfamiliar, but could never quite shake off the impression that he was just visiting.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Pincher Martin

    Actually, RFK did have serious problems in his campaign with his carpetbagger status in NY. Read the following:

    https://www.americanheritage.com/carpetbaggers

    Kennedy was lucky that 1964 was a wave election year for Democrats. In a year in which LBJ beat Goldwater by 37 points in New York state, RFK could only beat Keating by 10 points.

    In fact, LBJ took great pleasure in the thought that only his huge electoral victory likely put Bobby over the top in the state. Early polling had Keating leading Bobby early in the race, but Goldwater’s campaign weighed Keating down.

    *****

    I also wouldn’t distinguish between “political celebrities” and other celebrities. Arnold was a long-time Californian when he won the governor’s race in 2003, but I suspect his victory had nothing to do with his residency.

    Finally, Oz ran better than most Republican candidates in PA. The governor’s race was a disaster and the Democrats actually picked up one House race in the state. I don’t think Oz was a good candidate, but his minor celebrity probably helped him more than hurt him.

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @Pincher Martin

    I stand corrected on RFK; I hadn't realized how much flak he took for being an out-of-stater. Thank you for the American Heritage article; it was a very fine piece of (somewhat) contemporary political history. If that's typical of American Heritage, I'll have to look at it regularly. Thanks again for the heads-up.

    The odd thing about the PA Senate race is that both parties chose the "wrong" candidate: if the Republicans had nominated David McCormick (ex-Bridgewater Associates; smart finance type), he would have beaten Fetterman soundly. If the Democrats had gone for Conor Lamb, he would have beaten Dr. Oz by ten points or more. In a battle of the "wrong" candidates, Fetterman had the distinct advantage of not having Trump's endorsement. Whether that embrace proves the kiss of death ("I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart") in Georgia and Arizona remains to be seen.

  125. @Jonathan Mason
    @Zero Philosopher

    The really big question is not the absolute morality of equality or inequality, or sentimentality versus pragmatism, but what form of government provides social stability so the next generation can grow and prosper.

    We see that here in Ecuador, where we had a kind of general strike or stoppage a few minutes ago led by indigenous people, but with some support from farmers and taxi drivers and such.

    The strikers had 10 demands which related to diverse issues like the price of gasoline and the price of fertilizer, and a demand for an amnesty on repayments for farmers' bank loans, and cessation of plans to privatize state-owned Banks (and sell them to US investors.)

    Main highways were blocked with boulders in an attempt to starve the major cities into submission by making it impossible to refill supermarkets, gas stations, or propane supplies.

    As usual the government caved in and canceled a planned increase in the price of gasoline, and made some other concessions.

    The price of gasoline in Ecuador remains around $2.50 per gallon with the largest part of oil production being sold to China on long-term contracts.

    In exchange for this, all Ecuadorians have Chinese or Korean smartphones and can't amuse themselves on Facebook.

    So now there is a truce until the next time around when it will flare up again.

    However the indigenous people also wanted a ban on oil drilling in indigenous lands in the Amazon basin, which is an impossibility, because of the prosperity of all depends on the oil being sucked out of the ground.

    So it is always a question of striking a balance between giving the poor enough to prevent civil warfare, but avoiding throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

    It is fundamentally no different in the United States. Both parties posture a lot with ridiculously extreme positions, but in the end they don't differ so much and most of the actual daily business of government goes on in the middle ground and the people have to have their opium of religion, sport, and video games.

    The Republicans are going to throw out all the illegals, and the Democrats are going to castrate all the little white boys, but ultimately both parties are passengers on the Titanic in iceberg and shark infested waters, and they cannot afford to lean too far to port or starboard without capsizing the whole leaky ship and drowning everybody aboard.

    Replies: @Zero Philosopher

    “The really big question is not the absolute morality of equality or inequality, or sentimentality versus pragmatism, but what form of government provides social stability so the next generation can grow and prosper”

    Here lies the fault in your thinking. “provides social stability so the next generation can grow and prosper”. Because you are a conservative, you put extreme hyper-focus on breeding and “future generations”. Liberals don’t care about this. Liberalism puts individuals and fair treatment as their supreme value. Favoring certain groups because they are more likely to breed and leave children is not something that liberals do. It’s just not that mindset.

  126. @Pincher Martin
    @Peter Akuleyev


    That’s my point. The GOP used to be the party of grownups.
     
    The "grownups" drove the party into the ditch. Bush and Cheney ended the Reagan Era. Both Obama and Trump owe their presidencies to Dubya's two disastrous terms that ended with comprehensive failure, both for the U.S. economy and national security.

    Before you idealize what the GOP had been at the national level before Trump came long in 2016, look at how the GOP had performed in the six presidential elections from 1992 to 2012 (the Democratic performance follows in parentheses):

    1992 - 37.5% (43.0%)

    1996 - 40.7% (49.2%)

    2000 - 47.9% (48.4%)

    2004 - 50.7% (48.3%)

    2008 - 45.7% (52.9%)

    2012 - 47.2% (51.1%)

    The GOP average for their performance in those six pre-Trump presidential elections is 44.95%. (The Democratic average is 48.82%.) Trump's average in his two runs is 46.45%.

    I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to claim that we Republicans need to return the party to the "grownups" to bolster our electoral performance. It was their awful performance - both in elections and in governing - that led to Trump to begin with. If those "grownups" had the answers, President Trump would've never happened.

    Replies: @Prester John, @Corvinus

    “I’n sorry, but it’s ridiculous to claim that we Republicans need to return the party to the “grownups” to bolster our electoral performance“

    When tens of millions of people support Trump, a known grifter, just to “own the libs”, along with the ancillaries like Lauren Bobert and MTG, yes, you need to field “grown ups”. If Trump runs again, how many in the GOP will sour on him?

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Corvinus

    Corvinus, once again you show that you don't read before you write out your response.

    Read my post again (and the post I was answering), and this time respond like a grownup.

  127. @BosTex
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Bush, Cheney and Romney. Component? Smart?

    Lol. Lay off the firewater!

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “Bush, Cheney and Romney. Component? Smart?“

    Yes, decidedly so, compared to Trump, MTG, and Herschel Walker, and the rest of their election denier sycophants.

  128. @Almost Missouri
    Perhaps the simplest stylized map of US geopolitics is that the US is a red ocean in which float blue islands of concentrated population. So now every election is a contest of the blue urban core versus the red rural outback, with the purple suburbs as the swing vote. "Suburban soccer moms" may be a lazy trope of the political class, but it is a trope for a reason: whichever way middle class suburban women vote is a bellwether of how far up the beach the red waters will flow in any given election.

    Unfortunately for Republicans, the Democrats owning the blue city political machines and the media centers means that it's easy for them to fraud as many votes as they need and the media will protect the fraud. So elections are something of a pantomime now. In order to get back to somewhat legitimate elections, the Republicans would have crush fraud first, but they show little appetite for this, preferring to play along with the pantomime and collect their donor checks.



    If it weren't for Vermont, the meme would be true.

    https://i.postimg.cc/kGDYShZW/Blue-Cities.jpg

    If it weren't for fraud, it might actually matter.

    Replies: @Renard, @beavertales, @Jack D, @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY), @Corvinus

    “Unfortunately for Republicans, the Democrats owning the blue city political machines and the media centers means that it’s easy for them to fraud as many votes as they need and the media will protect the fraud“

    Ma’am, there wasn’t the type of fraud that you insist occurred. Stephen Miller said to Trump that he lost, and that the fraud angle was overblown. Even Mr. Sailer cagily acknowledged it.

  129. @Corvinus
    @Pincher Martin

    “I’n sorry, but it’s ridiculous to claim that we Republicans need to return the party to the “grownups” to bolster our electoral performance“

    When tens of millions of people support Trump, a known grifter, just to “own the libs”, along with the ancillaries like Lauren Bobert and MTG, yes, you need to field “grown ups”. If Trump runs again, how many in the GOP will sour on him?

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Corvinus, once again you show that you don’t read before you write out your response.

    Read my post again (and the post I was answering), and this time respond like a grownup.

  130. @Prester John
    @Pincher Martin

    Hate to say it but...the Republican Party is dying out, and fast. All that will be left is the Democrat Party--who will proceed to drive what's left of this thing of ours right over a cliff.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    I don’t think so. It just can no longer be the party of Reagan/Goldwater. It has to adapt to a new set of policies with potential appeal to a majority of today’s voters.

    As flawed as Trump is as a candidate and a man, he helped show the way.

    • Agree: BosTex
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    Agreed.

    Goldwater (as should have been seen by his results at the time) was where the GOP went off track. The marketing of the pro-abortion stuff is just Goldwaterism wrought absurdly large.

    Hillary was and always will be a Goldwater Girl. That way lies death.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    , @BosTex
    @Pincher Martin

    Thanks Pincher.

    I always say that Trump was a great candidate, especially in 2016, where he took a wrecking ball to the Bushes and Clintons and Obamas.

    He is just a terrible political leader once he ceases being a candidate and actually takes office.

    We all would have been much better off if he had been Senator from New York or New Jersey, etc.

    Being president: requires a skill set that he does not possess and is unlikely to develop given age.

    For Trump: it is ok to retire.

    He has done his duty.

    Replies: @Corvinus

  131. @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

    NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking

    Especially in a bathhouse

  132. @Pincher Martin
    @New Dealer


    The red dribble was caused by the abortion issue.
     
    Not true. The GOP governors who signed measures limiting abortion - DeSantis, Kemp, Abbott, DeWine, etc. - all did very well last night.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-governors-who-signed-abortion-restrictions-cruise-to-reelection/ar-AA13VUb4

    Replies: @pirelli

    That article doesn’t offer any support for the view that Abbott, DeSantis, et al did well *because* they signed abortion measures, other than that conclusory statement from the Susan B Anthony organization. Texas, Georgia, and Ohio are all pretty socially conservative states, and DeSantis is a strong candidate for many reasons unrelated to his abortion stance.

    I think Dobbs definitely hurt republicans in places like Pennsylvania, New York, and Colorado, but we’ll have to see what the more detailed polling data show.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @pirelli


    That article doesn’t offer any support for the view that Abbott, DeSantis, et al did well *because* they signed abortion measures, other than that conclusory statement from the Susan B Anthony organization. Texas, Georgia, and Ohio are all pretty socially conservative states, and DeSantis is a strong candidate for many reasons unrelated to his abortion stance.
     
    I didn't say those governors did well *because* of their abortion measures. I offered the article as contrary evidence to the claim that the GOP did poorly last night because of its stance on abortion.

    There's no evidence that was the case.


    I think Dobbs definitely hurt republicans in places like Pennsylvania, New York, and Colorado, but we’ll have to see what the more detailed polling data show.
     
    The GOP did very well in NY. It won several competitive House districts in the state. Most informed observers knew the governor's race was always a long shot, even in a red wave election which never materialized.

    And in what world is PA a less socially conservative state (pro-life Senators Santorum & Casey) than Florida or even Ohio?

    , @Pincher Martin
    @pirelli

    BTW...

    https://twitter.com/LifeNewsHQ/status/1590549809454268416

    Replies: @Hibernian

  133. @vinteuil
    @Peter Akuleyev


    For all the flaws of politicians like Romney, Cheney and Bush, they were actually smart competent people of substance.
     
    Stupity like this is almost charming.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Stupity

    …stupefying stupidity?

  134. @pirelli
    @Pincher Martin

    That article doesn’t offer any support for the view that Abbott, DeSantis, et al did well *because* they signed abortion measures, other than that conclusory statement from the Susan B Anthony organization. Texas, Georgia, and Ohio are all pretty socially conservative states, and DeSantis is a strong candidate for many reasons unrelated to his abortion stance.

    I think Dobbs definitely hurt republicans in places like Pennsylvania, New York, and Colorado, but we’ll have to see what the more detailed polling data show.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Pincher Martin

    That article doesn’t offer any support for the view that Abbott, DeSantis, et al did well *because* they signed abortion measures, other than that conclusory statement from the Susan B Anthony organization. Texas, Georgia, and Ohio are all pretty socially conservative states, and DeSantis is a strong candidate for many reasons unrelated to his abortion stance.

    I didn’t say those governors did well *because* of their abortion measures. I offered the article as contrary evidence to the claim that the GOP did poorly last night because of its stance on abortion.

    There’s no evidence that was the case.

    I think Dobbs definitely hurt republicans in places like Pennsylvania, New York, and Colorado, but we’ll have to see what the more detailed polling data show.

    The GOP did very well in NY. It won several competitive House districts in the state. Most informed observers knew the governor’s race was always a long shot, even in a red wave election which never materialized.

    And in what world is PA a less socially conservative state (pro-life Senators Santorum & Casey) than Florida or even Ohio?

  135. To a lot of young adults the republicans are the party of two very long, costly and pointless wars. In their minds, party of the Bush family deserves to lose and lose hard. It is difficult to disagree.

    MAGA was a mirage. They will keep the border open and just break your heart. Trump allowed Kushner political influence. Jared hates ordinary white Americans and would sell you all to the highest bidder. Either Trump didn’t notice or didn’t care.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Thea

    MAGA was a mirage. They will keep the border open and just break your heart. Trump allowed Kushner political influence. Jared hates ordinary white Americans and would sell you all to the highest bidder. Either Trump didn’t notice or didn’t care.

    Well Mr. "art of the deal" was given a really good deal on the border and turned it down.

    Trump thought he could get a Chinese wall even though the Pelosi compromise would have massively reduced illegal immigration.

    I voted for the guy but he is a clown.

    The Trumplicans lost bigly in this election so please return to managing bankrupt hotels. Independents are sick of him and his rating has gone even lower since the election. Swing states matter which means independents and moderates matter. Waving flags and putting on hats won't change the data. I warned about independents in the last election but the MAGBOTs said I was just being negative and following the MSM.

  136. @Pincher Martin
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Actually, RFK did have serious problems in his campaign with his carpetbagger status in NY. Read the following:

    https://www.americanheritage.com/carpetbaggers

    Kennedy was lucky that 1964 was a wave election year for Democrats. In a year in which LBJ beat Goldwater by 37 points in New York state, RFK could only beat Keating by 10 points.

    In fact, LBJ took great pleasure in the thought that only his huge electoral victory likely put Bobby over the top in the state. Early polling had Keating leading Bobby early in the race, but Goldwater's campaign weighed Keating down.

    *****

    I also wouldn't distinguish between "political celebrities" and other celebrities. Arnold was a long-time Californian when he won the governor's race in 2003, but I suspect his victory had nothing to do with his residency.

    Finally, Oz ran better than most Republican candidates in PA. The governor's race was a disaster and the Democrats actually picked up one House race in the state. I don't think Oz was a good candidate, but his minor celebrity probably helped him more than hurt him.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    I stand corrected on RFK; I hadn’t realized how much flak he took for being an out-of-stater. Thank you for the American Heritage article; it was a very fine piece of (somewhat) contemporary political history. If that’s typical of American Heritage, I’ll have to look at it regularly. Thanks again for the heads-up.

    The odd thing about the PA Senate race is that both parties chose the “wrong” candidate: if the Republicans had nominated David McCormick (ex-Bridgewater Associates; smart finance type), he would have beaten Fetterman soundly. If the Democrats had gone for Conor Lamb, he would have beaten Dr. Oz by ten points or more. In a battle of the “wrong” candidates, Fetterman had the distinct advantage of not having Trump’s endorsement. Whether that embrace proves the kiss of death (“I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart”) in Georgia and Arizona remains to be seen.

    • Thanks: Pincher Martin
  137. @Renard
    @Almost Missouri

    Also areas where lots of blacks or amerinds live, but what's up with SW Wisconsin and NE Iowa?

    Replies: @Hibernian

    “…but what’s up with SW Wisconsin and NE Iowa?”

    There’s an Irish-German Catholic area, straddling the Mississippi (the IA/Wisconsin border in that area) which stayed Democratic for a long time, but now it’s Republican. A Republican just fipped the House district on the WI side. The district on the IA side, around Dubuque, flipped in 2020, I think.

  138. @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    John Kerry speaks with an accent that is so posh that no one even knows what it is anymore. He is a patrician and the polar opposite of Fetterman's shtick (although Fetterman doesn't come from blue collar poverty in reality). I don't recall him putting on plebian airs because no one would believe it with his billionaire heiress wife and his posh accent and his blue blood heredity (not counting the Kerry/Cohens of Budapest). The Forbes family made its money trading tea for opium in early 19th century China which makes them aristocracy not drug dealers.

    I will ignore your anti-Semitic taunts - they only make you look bad.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    his billionaire heiress wife

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @Stan Adams

    Money can't buy class.

    I'd forgotten Ter-AY-za is actually as charm-free as Hillary.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  139. @Zero Philosopher
    One of the most interesting things is how liberals posit themselves as the oppressed, the marginalized, etc, when in reality they represent the bulk of the educated, bourgeoise, urban and affluent elites.

    Let's make something clear here: the more you go up the socio-economic ladder, the more liberal people tend to become. The more higher education people have, the higher their income and the more urban they are, the more likely they are to be liberal. Even in the most "Red" states like Texas, the more urban, wealthy and educated classes tend to be liberal, or at least way more liberal than the more working-class or rural people.

    One of the things that confuses the issue of the political orientation of Elites Vs Proles is the fact that, at the absolute highest level of income, there are as many "conservative" Republicans as there are liberals. In fact, there are slightly more "conservatives" among Plutocrats than there are liberals.

    But these plutocrats are not true conservatives, What happens is that, historically, the Republican Party is the party that gives tax breaks to the rich. The reason why these plutocrats claim to be "conservative" is only because they want those juicy tax cuts. They couldn't care less about the things that true conservatives actually care about, like abortion, or gay marriage, or religion being taught in schools. They are either indifferent to that, or deep down they are liberal about it. If you are a multi-milllionaire or a billionaire, then of course you are supporting the party that wants to take less money from you. Just look at the "classic" liberal countries like Sweden and Denmark. It's multimillionaires all live abroad. Why? Because these countries are hardcore liberal, being the cradle of liberalism, and the people expect plutocrats to pay high taxes since the liberal mentality is more communitarian and less tolerant of inequality.

    It is a FACT that, the more you go up the ladder of income and education, the more liberal people tend to become in their views. The more university-educated, urban and professional/bourgeoise classes tend to be more liberal.While conservatives are found more among the working class, the rural populations and among those without university degrees. Please note that I am talking about white people here. If you include blacks and hispanics, it throws a monkey wrench in that formula because non-whites are more likely to vote Democrat because they want government handouts. But white liberals tend to be wealthier and more educated than white conservatives on average.

    It's paradoxical that, historically, Democrats are the party of the oppressed and the working-class and of the downtrodden since liberalism correlates so srongly with wealth and education.

    But to understand this paradox, one needs to understand that this is not really an issue of wealth and education that pushes one to become either a liberal or a conservative, but one of *mentality* .Liberals have an extreme hyper-focus on social harmony, and a low tolerance for social inequality. This is what pushes them to become leaders of the oppressed, even when they, themselves, are not oppressed. To quote Bill Clinton:"I feel your pain;." While Clinton was a hypocrite, it's true that liberals have this higher ability to experience other people's pain, which pushed them to the pursuit of equality as priority #1. Even Marx remarked about how easy it would be for The Revolution to happen, because of how guilty the wealthy, the "intelligentsia", the urban liberal bourgeoise felt over the fact that they had a higher quality of life than the rest of the population. In fact, during the communist revolutions in multiple countries, the liberal bourgeoise reacted with apathy and fatalism, and were slaughter. This is especially true since liberals are not very violent people, and are easily exterminated with the use of force. During the October Revolution in Russia, the liberal bourgeoise families from St.Petersburg and Moscow were taken to the back street ally, put on their knees and shot in the head. Liberals are not fighters. They are shop owners, professionals, professors and clerks, but not really warriors. Napoleon said it best about the strongly bourgeoise English Society:

    "A nation of shop keepers."

    This profound cognitive dissonance of liberals, that they see themselves as weak, oppressed and marginalized while they actually represent the bulk of the wealthier and more educated classes is something very interesting worth noticing and discussing, but no one seems to do it.

    This is why liberals love the fact that there are those tiny number of super-rich plutocrats that vote Republican. Because that is the one elite that they can point out other than themselves that they can make opposition against and make a case that they represent the "weak". Those plutocrats, who in reality are not social conservatives at all, but just greedy opportunists who want tax breaks or who deep down are actually liberal too but still want tax breaks, give liberals the only target that they can focus on an elite to be opposed. But even among plutocrats, despite the HUGE incentive to proclaim yourself to be conservative(big tax breaks), the majority are still liberal anyway, which is very bad P.R for liberals wanting to portray themselves as oppressed people leading other oppressed people. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg and many others are openly liberal and have donated huge sums to the Democratic Party.

    This is what explains Sailer's paradox that liberals were historically the party of the working-class, despite the fact that white liberals on average are LESS likely to be working-class, while Republicans were the party of "management" or capitalists, even though typical Republican votera are more likely to be working-class and less likely to be managemt(the managereal class is heavily liberal)

    One you understand the nature of liberals, this paradox is easily solved. Liberals tend to be more pro-social than conservatives, and emotionally tend to be become more distressed over inequality of outcomes;. This pushes them to push for strongly egalitarian policies and o take the mantle of defenders of the weak, or at least the mantle of hypocrites who constantly virtue-signal, because virtue-signaling is absolutely essential for the emotional well-being of a person that is both successful but at the same time is intensely distressed over inequality of outcomes and feels guilty over being at the winning bracket.

    Liberalism has gone too far, and is imploding the West. The problem is that liberals have shown that they are completely unable to pull the breaks on themselves. Not because of a lack of intelligence, since, as discussed, liberals tend to be highly intelligent as a group, but because their emotional wiring precludes them from it. Conservatives arehoping that liberals will self-destroy and diappear, but this is not going to happen. As elsewhere in life, there are the victors and the vanquished.

    Old school liberals were never the enemies of the American People, and in fact some of the greatest improvements in living standards and work conditions were the result of activims on the part of old school liberals. But now "classic" liberals are being devoured by a sea of neo-Marxists that easily manipulate them due to their high tendency to feel guilty. No one has an answer for it, and we are all much worse for it since liberals have unfathomable power in the Society.

    Replies: @Jonathan Mason, @John Johnson

    It is a FACT that, the more you go up the ladder of income and education, the more liberal people tend to become in their views.

    That’s not a fact but an oversimplification.

    Professionals with 4 year degrees are less likely to be liberal than doctorates. So grad students with various White guilt degrees are of course more likely to be liberal because the private sector doesn’t reward their investment. High school drop outs and Sociology grad students are both very reliable Democrat voters.

    Income only divides politically after around 400k last I checked. Meaning 100k-400k still lean conservative. Then it splits about evenly. So the poor vote Democrat and so do the ultra wealthy. Which means people return to voting Democrat once they have gobs of money and have guilt over it or view themselves as a patronizing class. But even at that point it is still split.

    Business owners tend to be conservative regardless of income level. Inherited wealth correlates far better with liberalism than wealth in general.

    • Replies: @Zero Philosopher
    @John Johnson

    Your post is pretty much 100% wrong. Liberals outcompete conservatives at all levels of income and education.

    The richest and most advanced states in the Union are all "Blue" states. Ivy League universities are all located in "Blue" states. A medical doctor or lawyer is far more likely to be liberal than a truck driver or construction worker.

    The poor that vote Democrat because they want government handouts tend to be non-white. The days are long gone when white working class people voted Democrat.

    Liberalism is the core value of New England and of the more bourgeoise classes of the population. This is NOT debatable. You got to almost any big city in America, and the wealthy and educated tend to be liberal. Even in "Red" states like Texas and Missouri, people in large cities and with university degrees tend to be liberal.

    Now, I don't know exactly what you mean by "business owners". That is as generic as description as it gets. But like I said, many rich people claim to be conservative and support the Republican Party because they the Republican Party gives tax breaks to the rich. But whether these people are true "conservatives" is left up in the air. We do know that some of the most iconic businessmen in America, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are self proclaimed liberals.

    Because the super-rich have a vested interest in voting Republican, and because few of them display conservative lifestyles(quite the opposite) I think that it's disingenuous to assume that they are truly conservative.

    Far more useful is to use data that excludes the top 0.01% of the income bracket because they are idiosyncratic. If you look at the remaining 99.99% of the population, the link between liberalism and higher income and education is not debatable.

  140. @Thea
    To a lot of young adults the republicans are the party of two very long, costly and pointless wars. In their minds, party of the Bush family deserves to lose and lose hard. It is difficult to disagree.

    MAGA was a mirage. They will keep the border open and just break your heart. Trump allowed Kushner political influence. Jared hates ordinary white Americans and would sell you all to the highest bidder. Either Trump didn’t notice or didn’t care.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    MAGA was a mirage. They will keep the border open and just break your heart. Trump allowed Kushner political influence. Jared hates ordinary white Americans and would sell you all to the highest bidder. Either Trump didn’t notice or didn’t care.

    Well Mr. “art of the deal” was given a really good deal on the border and turned it down.

    Trump thought he could get a Chinese wall even though the Pelosi compromise would have massively reduced illegal immigration.

    I voted for the guy but he is a clown.

    The Trumplicans lost bigly in this election so please return to managing bankrupt hotels. Independents are sick of him and his rating has gone even lower since the election. Swing states matter which means independents and moderates matter. Waving flags and putting on hats won’t change the data. I warned about independents in the last election but the MAGBOTs said I was just being negative and following the MSM.

  141. @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn’t Terry Crews as President, it’s …

    Yes, it’s easy to imagine Uncle Festerman challenging President Camacho in the pro wrestling ring to settle the 2506 election. It would probably be more of a fair contest than what we’ve got now.

  142. @Barnard
    @Peter Akuleyev

    It fails as a point though, unless you are arguing women shouldn't have the franchise. They vote for Democrat freaks but not Republican ones appears to be your argument. Oz outperformed Mastriano significantly. Ron Johnson is barely winning a race that should have been ten points if white women were sensible, rational voters. Stacey Abrams won among Independent women. Unmarried women have come to view the Democratic party as their daddy. They are easily manipulated by the left.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Unmarried women have come to view the Democratic party as their daddy.

    Their fathers by and large weren’t, across the political spectrum.

    Somebody’s going to fill that vacuum.

  143. @Pincher Martin
    @Prester John

    I don't think so. It just can no longer be the party of Reagan/Goldwater. It has to adapt to a new set of policies with potential appeal to a majority of today's voters.

    As flawed as Trump is as a candidate and a man, he helped show the way.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @BosTex

    Agreed.

    Goldwater (as should have been seen by his results at the time) was where the GOP went off track. The marketing of the pro-abortion stuff is just Goldwaterism wrought absurdly large.

    Hillary was and always will be a Goldwater Girl. That way lies death.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius

    You went a much different direction than I was going, but that's fine.

    Goldwater/Reagan was about free markets at home, confronting and defeating communism abroad, and law and order on the streets. Reagan later adapted it to include social conservatism when that became a larger force in the nation during the nineteen-seventies. He was very successful.

    After the Cold War, the party stagnated with the lack of a new mission. The Cold War was over. Crime was down. Democrats began accepting many free market tenets.

    George W. Bush later tried to update Reaganism by replacing communism with global terrorism, but he was not successful. He also failed to make his "big government conservatism" replace "free markets at home." The party's support cratered and the Reagan Era (1980-2008 RIP) was over.

    Trump turned the party populist, gaining many new adherents, but losing others in about equal measure. Hard to predict where it will go from here, but some form of populism seems destined to stay in the party.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @John Johnson

  144. @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    Agreed.

    Goldwater (as should have been seen by his results at the time) was where the GOP went off track. The marketing of the pro-abortion stuff is just Goldwaterism wrought absurdly large.

    Hillary was and always will be a Goldwater Girl. That way lies death.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    You went a much different direction than I was going, but that’s fine.

    Goldwater/Reagan was about free markets at home, confronting and defeating communism abroad, and law and order on the streets. Reagan later adapted it to include social conservatism when that became a larger force in the nation during the nineteen-seventies. He was very successful.

    After the Cold War, the party stagnated with the lack of a new mission. The Cold War was over. Crime was down. Democrats began accepting many free market tenets.

    George W. Bush later tried to update Reaganism by replacing communism with global terrorism, but he was not successful. He also failed to make his “big government conservatism” replace “free markets at home.” The party’s support cratered and the Reagan Era (1980-2008 RIP) was over.

    Trump turned the party populist, gaining many new adherents, but losing others in about equal measure. Hard to predict where it will go from here, but some form of populism seems destined to stay in the party.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    The alternative to Goldwater was Hatfield. Never lost an election. Look into him. Name was on a certain courthouse at a critical inflection point in recent history.

    Whatever AuH2O was, it’s becoming increasingly clear that it wasn’t meaningfully conservative. Grandiosely and gratuitously overstepping the Monroe Doctrine (following in the steps of Wilson and FDR) is not conservative. Taking American wages down to the lowest global common denominator is not conservative. Extremism in defense of liberty alone is closer to vice than virtue, as we’ve seen play out in the subsequent half century.

    Goldwaterism offers no defense against trans vivisection of children or abortion fanaticism, and so we see the inheritors of that tradition stricken silent in the face of almost unfathomable (for them) evil or absurdity depending on one’s disposition. Likewise the hollowing out and corruption of institutions that tradition taught it’s followers to abandon rather than lead.

    Absolutely not conservative.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    , @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    Trump turned the party populist, gaining many new adherents, but losing others in about equal measure.

    Trump never turned the party populist.

    He talked about doing so but it never existed in policy.

    His tax cuts mirrored the will of the same old GOP.

    Giving billions in tax cuts to corporations that already had billions in cash sitting around.

    Then he tried killing off the ACA and wouldn't pass legislation to protect individuals from amoral insurance companies.

    I voted for Trump but he is done. He could have been a great president but instead listened to the swamp. His Trumplicans were rejected in this election. He needs to go away.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  145. @Peter Akuleyev
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Dr OZ was maybe the only imaginable GOP candidate who could lose to Fetterman. Who wants to vote for a weird charlatan who is a Turkish citizen and never lived in PA?

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @Muggles, @Anonymous

    The Armenians campaigned heavily against Oz and basically assembled an anti-Ottoman coalition against him.

    • Thanks: BosTex
    • Replies: @BosTex
    @Anonymous

    That is a pretty tough ad. Thanks for sharing.

    I would think might cause some Republicans to stay home.

    Fetterman is awful, but people might think: “let the retard have it, we don’t know who Oz is.”

  146. @Pincher Martin
    @Prester John

    I don't think so. It just can no longer be the party of Reagan/Goldwater. It has to adapt to a new set of policies with potential appeal to a majority of today's voters.

    As flawed as Trump is as a candidate and a man, he helped show the way.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @BosTex

    Thanks Pincher.

    I always say that Trump was a great candidate, especially in 2016, where he took a wrecking ball to the Bushes and Clintons and Obamas.

    He is just a terrible political leader once he ceases being a candidate and actually takes office.

    We all would have been much better off if he had been Senator from New York or New Jersey, etc.

    Being president: requires a skill set that he does not possess and is unlikely to develop given age.

    For Trump: it is ok to retire.

    He has done his duty.

    • Agree: Pincher Martin
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @BosTex

    Trump was a great candidate in that he was a showman who didn’t even believe in what he was selling. Just like a grifter, he told people what they wanted to hear, repeatedly lied about his political opponents and trumped up his own accomplishments. Hell, his merchandise had been made overseas. The tax cuts he signed into law benefitted primarily the donor class, and he was actively involved in an insurrection, even throwing his own VP under the bus. And given his reputation, of course he was going tu be a terrible political leader. But he wants another shot at it. Will the GOP stand up yo him or cuck?

    Replies: @Prester John

  147. Anonymous[321] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn’t Terry Crews as President, it’s …

    Sort of like how women seem to be infatuated with psychotic serial killers, maybe women are also into monstrous, ogre-like men who look like they can eat normal men? It could be some primal thing that compels them to take an interest in men who look like they might prey on weaker, ordinary men.

    Here were some lib women on MSNBC this morning salivating over a Fetterman presidental run:

  148. @pirelli
    @Pincher Martin

    That article doesn’t offer any support for the view that Abbott, DeSantis, et al did well *because* they signed abortion measures, other than that conclusory statement from the Susan B Anthony organization. Texas, Georgia, and Ohio are all pretty socially conservative states, and DeSantis is a strong candidate for many reasons unrelated to his abortion stance.

    I think Dobbs definitely hurt republicans in places like Pennsylvania, New York, and Colorado, but we’ll have to see what the more detailed polling data show.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin, @Pincher Martin

    BTW…

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Pincher Martin

    Almost all of these are Governors of very conservative states. (Which is where you'd expect abortion bans to pass the Legislature.) Large margins for the Republican are to be expected, especially since the Democratic candidates in these states are increasingly almost as liberal as the ones in Purple and Blue states. The conservatism is not limited to abortion, and abortion is not the sole reason for the large margins.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  149. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that “ugly politician” is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Incidentally, it looks like Blake Masters will lose. Masters is very geeky looking. He looks like the stereotypical geek from junior high/high school.

    I think the major difference between Fetterman and Masters is that grotesque looking guys, if they’re tall, large, and physically imposing like Fetterman is, tend to be feared and respected by people. Whereas geeks tend to be disliked and disrespected.

  150. @Stan Adams
    @Jack D


    his billionaire heiress wife
     
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiHo8Fb7qP4

    Replies: @Kylie

    Money can’t buy class.

    I’d forgotten Ter-AY-za is actually as charm-free as Hillary.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Kylie

    She’s the vinegar in the ketchup.

    Speaking of her inheritance, surely it was just an odd coincidence that two prominent Republican senators named John just happened to die in separate plane crashes within 24 hours of each other.

    Replies: @Kylie

  151. @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius

    You went a much different direction than I was going, but that's fine.

    Goldwater/Reagan was about free markets at home, confronting and defeating communism abroad, and law and order on the streets. Reagan later adapted it to include social conservatism when that became a larger force in the nation during the nineteen-seventies. He was very successful.

    After the Cold War, the party stagnated with the lack of a new mission. The Cold War was over. Crime was down. Democrats began accepting many free market tenets.

    George W. Bush later tried to update Reaganism by replacing communism with global terrorism, but he was not successful. He also failed to make his "big government conservatism" replace "free markets at home." The party's support cratered and the Reagan Era (1980-2008 RIP) was over.

    Trump turned the party populist, gaining many new adherents, but losing others in about equal measure. Hard to predict where it will go from here, but some form of populism seems destined to stay in the party.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @John Johnson

    The alternative to Goldwater was Hatfield. Never lost an election. Look into him. Name was on a certain courthouse at a critical inflection point in recent history.

    Whatever AuH2O was, it’s becoming increasingly clear that it wasn’t meaningfully conservative. Grandiosely and gratuitously overstepping the Monroe Doctrine (following in the steps of Wilson and FDR) is not conservative. Taking American wages down to the lowest global common denominator is not conservative. Extremism in defense of liberty alone is closer to vice than virtue, as we’ve seen play out in the subsequent half century.

    Goldwaterism offers no defense against trans vivisection of children or abortion fanaticism, and so we see the inheritors of that tradition stricken silent in the face of almost unfathomable (for them) evil or absurdity depending on one’s disposition. Likewise the hollowing out and corruption of institutions that tradition taught it’s followers to abandon rather than lead.

    Absolutely not conservative.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius


    The alternative to Goldwater was Hatfield. Never lost an election. Look into him. Name was on a certain courthouse at a critical inflection point in recent history.
     
    The alternative to Goldwater in 1964 was Rockefeller or (had he run) Nixon. Both Republicans were liberals on domestic matters and flexible hawks on national security matters. Cultural matters, other than civil rights for blacks, didn't even enter into it in 1964.

    Grandiosely and gratuitously overstepping the Monroe Doctrine (following in the steps of Wilson and FDR) is not conservative.
     
    I'm not trying to get into a debate about what the principles of conservatism ought to have been. I'm simply stating what they were. (As it happens, I largely agree with them. But that wasn't my point.) Coalitions are built by individuals who don't agree on everything.

    After the Cold War was over, crime went down, and taxes were no longer at levels that the middle class cared about them that much, the Republican Party could no longer tether itself to Reaganism and expect to win clear national majorities. 9/11 gave Bush the opportunity to make one last move in that direction, but it didn't last.


    Goldwaterism offers no defense against trans vivisection of children or abortion fanaticism...
     
    Agreed. Both parties are still trying to find their national governing majorities.

    Replies: @Desiderius

  152. • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @Desiderius

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK5ZkuOYPKE

  153. @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn’t Terry Crews as President, it’s …

    Hey, look everyone!

    Steve says it here, and it comes out there!

    • Replies: @Brás Cubas
    @zoos

    Fetterman isn't presidential material yet. After a couple more debilitating strokes he will be a shoo-in though.

  154. @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    The alternative to Goldwater was Hatfield. Never lost an election. Look into him. Name was on a certain courthouse at a critical inflection point in recent history.

    Whatever AuH2O was, it’s becoming increasingly clear that it wasn’t meaningfully conservative. Grandiosely and gratuitously overstepping the Monroe Doctrine (following in the steps of Wilson and FDR) is not conservative. Taking American wages down to the lowest global common denominator is not conservative. Extremism in defense of liberty alone is closer to vice than virtue, as we’ve seen play out in the subsequent half century.

    Goldwaterism offers no defense against trans vivisection of children or abortion fanaticism, and so we see the inheritors of that tradition stricken silent in the face of almost unfathomable (for them) evil or absurdity depending on one’s disposition. Likewise the hollowing out and corruption of institutions that tradition taught it’s followers to abandon rather than lead.

    Absolutely not conservative.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    The alternative to Goldwater was Hatfield. Never lost an election. Look into him. Name was on a certain courthouse at a critical inflection point in recent history.

    The alternative to Goldwater in 1964 was Rockefeller or (had he run) Nixon. Both Republicans were liberals on domestic matters and flexible hawks on national security matters. Cultural matters, other than civil rights for blacks, didn’t even enter into it in 1964.

    Grandiosely and gratuitously overstepping the Monroe Doctrine (following in the steps of Wilson and FDR) is not conservative.

    I’m not trying to get into a debate about what the principles of conservatism ought to have been. I’m simply stating what they were. (As it happens, I largely agree with them. But that wasn’t my point.) Coalitions are built by individuals who don’t agree on everything.

    After the Cold War was over, crime went down, and taxes were no longer at levels that the middle class cared about them that much, the Republican Party could no longer tether itself to Reaganism and expect to win clear national majorities. 9/11 gave Bush the opportunity to make one last move in that direction, but it didn’t last.

    Goldwaterism offers no defense against trans vivisection of children or abortion fanaticism…

    Agreed. Both parties are still trying to find their national governing majorities.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    Hatfield (having served there already) was against US involvement in Vietnam. In 1964. The Monroe Doctrine is the wheel driving everything else. It's ultimately an (accurate) estimation of the extent of our national economic resources and the amount of territory that can be effectively defended with those resources. Setting our sights on a whole hemisphere is hardly isolationist. Mistaking it for a globe is how we got so far in debt, and not just financially. The Trojan War is instructive, especially regarding the domestic situation.

    And Hatfield absolutely was a viable alternative to Goldwater in 64, or would have been if the Milleys of the day didn't put the kibosh on it to protect their Special Military Operation. It's them or us, then and now. Republic or Empire. The Roman Republic lasted twice this long, and not without some close calls along the way.


    I’m not trying to get into a debate about what the principles of conservatism ought to have been.
     
    I am. I won't be the last.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  155. @AnotherDad
    @Jack D

    Jack, seriously dude, whenever anything regarding the Jews floats up you immediately drop about 20 IQ points. Not joking it's at least a standard deviation. (BTW, being able to step back and be objective "this is what is even if i don't like it" is a useful skill--personally and politically.)

    Your comment is just laughable nonsense--end to end:


    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party.
     
    First off--straw man. I didn't say anything about the future. (My future prediction for America--given in other comments--is "slumping toward Brazil". I actually think Jews have overbaked the cake, they were gifted the greatest possible position any middle man minority could have ... and proceeded to trash the joint anyway--a reflection upon their character.)

    Rather, my actual comment chided Steve on ignoring the obvious Jewish influence on American politics and specifically the Democrat party--it's transformation to being an anti-national coalition of the fringes.

    Secondly, "Biden Administration". Did you actually think about the right now before trotting out Father Coughlin? It's staring you in the face. Our first Jewish administration but with a demented Irish "Catholic" bozo as front man (while he can stand up).


    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It’s the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call “minoritarianism” is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don’t hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn’t cured.
     
    First, anytime you have to trot out "anti-Semitism" to answer a critique, you lose. It's like Hitler. Sorry, there is zero wrong with anyone opposing Jews--or any other ethnic group's--preferred policy set. I oppose the Jewish establishment's policy set. It is objectively stupid and toxic for my people.

    Secondly, you are just wrong. Minoritarianism is the problem. It is precisely what ails America. That gone the other stuff is all tractable--essentially technical: Foreign policy. Managing a nationalist trade policy. Tax and welfare policy promoting eugenic fertility. Developing nuclear power safely. Minoritarianism is the cancer.

    And ... LOL. If all the Jews made aliyah, American media and politics would immediately be dramatically better. There would be more open debate, more free speech, more diversity of opinions, less totalitarian policing.



    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong.
     
    Not 100% clear on you thinking here, but seems like you have it precisely backwards.

    The issues with capitalism--and unemployment--are there. (But tractable.) Jewish minoritarianism is precisely the replacement phony "leftist" ideology to divert leftist politics from economics and the interests of workers and create a "leftism" that is friendly to the interests of economically successful Jews.

    Actual, old-style pro-labor leftists make this point all the time. That the race+gender "identity politics" stuff a giant scam that is serves the interests of elites not workers.


    Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don’t shoot the messenger.
     
    LOL. Wow. This is why we love Jack D. Such humility.

    Yes, Jews are smart, and have made real useful contributions in the natural sciences.

    But back in the real world, the sum of Jewish "intelligent analysis" about anything revolving around the human condition is shit. Most Jews keep baking up nonsense that centers around their experience as an outgroup middle man minority. Essentially, Jewish thought tends to be stuck in their own little ghetto. They can't accept that their experience as an outgroup, a minority is just that--an outlier--that they and their interests and simply not normative nor important to successful societies.

    Steve's own HBD bailiwick demonstrates the point. A parade of Anglos--Darwin, Galton, Fischer, Hamilton, Watson, Crick, Wilson ... advancing understanding, shedding light. And a parade of Jews spreading nonsense and darkness --that unfortunately they've been able to impose on us as "science".

    The sum total of Jewish thought in anything in the social sciences is actually negative. If you could nuke all Jewish social/political thought ... our sum total of knowledge would be greater. We'd actually understand more and certainly have more functional culture and politics.

    Replies: @Hunsdon

    Well said, AD.

  156. @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

    “I’m going to go easy on presenting statistical evidence,”

    Right, because if you dug deep into the available data, your “models” would not be supported. This is the ideal time to look closely at it mathematically, but why put in the effort. In that way, you can proceed with your narrative.

    But I’ll lay it out simply for you. Trump wants to desperately run in 2024. Will the GOP support him over DeSantis? If yes, the Republican Party is a cuck. If no, Trump takes with him a tremendous chunk of “Republicans” and “conservatives” with him, which fractures the party.

    “but most of the time the employees of Google and Harvard (at both, 95+ percent of those who donated to a presidential candidate gave to Biden) are better positioned to put their thumbs on the scale.”

    Perhaps you should NOTICE…

    https://slate.com/technology/2022/07/big-tech-trump-jan-6-gaetz.html

    —It is no surprise that being reminded of the monolithic and dangerous aspects of “Big Tech” was table stakes for those joining Parler in June of 2020—any perceived freedoms afforded by the platform were meant as a tacit critique of bigger technology platforms and their practices. By demonizing Big Tech as all-influential, left-leaning, and capricious, Gaetz, Trump, and allies produced a two step messaging cycle that sowed doubt in election integrity: 1) Elections are rigged by thought controlling Big Tech; and 2) Alt-tech platforms can then define themselves against Big Tech, thereby reinforcing the prior political messaging.—

    “In general, big institutions such as academia, media, and tech have been increasingly closely aligned with Democrats, with a massive chilling effect on freedom of expression.”

    According to Who/Whom? Regardless, as your buddy Vox Day says, build your own platforms.

    “My basic model of the two parties is that contemporary partisan politics are shaped by the increasing diversity of the population”

    It’s not contemporary, it’s been that way since the inception of our two major political party system. You’re not breaking any new ground here.

    “Democrats are outraged that they don’t have an intellectual response”

    And now you’re being obtuse.

    https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf

    https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf

    https://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Replacement-Theory-Explainer-1122.pdf

    “What do I mean by “core Americans”?
    One way to phrase it: The more likely you are to have an ancestor’s statue torn down by a woke mob, the more likely you are to be defamed by Democrats, and thus to vote GOP. Or, the more your standard demographic identity checklist (race, sex, marital status, homeownership, etc.) resembles, say, George Washington’s, the more likely you are to register Republican”

    That’s a convoluted answer. You really expect us to buy that?

  157. @BosTex
    @Pincher Martin

    Thanks Pincher.

    I always say that Trump was a great candidate, especially in 2016, where he took a wrecking ball to the Bushes and Clintons and Obamas.

    He is just a terrible political leader once he ceases being a candidate and actually takes office.

    We all would have been much better off if he had been Senator from New York or New Jersey, etc.

    Being president: requires a skill set that he does not possess and is unlikely to develop given age.

    For Trump: it is ok to retire.

    He has done his duty.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Trump was a great candidate in that he was a showman who didn’t even believe in what he was selling. Just like a grifter, he told people what they wanted to hear, repeatedly lied about his political opponents and trumped up his own accomplishments. Hell, his merchandise had been made overseas. The tax cuts he signed into law benefitted primarily the donor class, and he was actively involved in an insurrection, even throwing his own VP under the bus. And given his reputation, of course he was going tu be a terrible political leader. But he wants another shot at it. Will the GOP stand up yo him or cuck?

    • LOL: James Speaks
    • Replies: @Prester John
    @Corvinus

    So, who should they nominate and why?

    Replies: @Corvinus

  158. @fnn
    @Peter Akuleyev


    The GOP used to be the party of grownups.
     
    You mean crazed warmongers like W and McCain along with Antifa and BLM-loving Bain Capital vulture capitalist Mitt Romney, who also lacked the common sense to know you don't store your pet dog on the roof of the car when you go on a road trip.

    Replies: @Director95

    The red party is still full of neocon war mongers. You can add Cheney to your Hall of Shame and Ted Cruz is 100% on board with funding ukraine war. The cucks and RINOs do not focus on the real national ills. They are totally focused on lining the pockets of their donor class owners.

  159. @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius

    You went a much different direction than I was going, but that's fine.

    Goldwater/Reagan was about free markets at home, confronting and defeating communism abroad, and law and order on the streets. Reagan later adapted it to include social conservatism when that became a larger force in the nation during the nineteen-seventies. He was very successful.

    After the Cold War, the party stagnated with the lack of a new mission. The Cold War was over. Crime was down. Democrats began accepting many free market tenets.

    George W. Bush later tried to update Reaganism by replacing communism with global terrorism, but he was not successful. He also failed to make his "big government conservatism" replace "free markets at home." The party's support cratered and the Reagan Era (1980-2008 RIP) was over.

    Trump turned the party populist, gaining many new adherents, but losing others in about equal measure. Hard to predict where it will go from here, but some form of populism seems destined to stay in the party.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @John Johnson

    Trump turned the party populist, gaining many new adherents, but losing others in about equal measure.

    Trump never turned the party populist.

    He talked about doing so but it never existed in policy.

    His tax cuts mirrored the will of the same old GOP.

    Giving billions in tax cuts to corporations that already had billions in cash sitting around.

    Then he tried killing off the ACA and wouldn’t pass legislation to protect individuals from amoral insurance companies.

    I voted for Trump but he is done. He could have been a great president but instead listened to the swamp. His Trumplicans were rejected in this election. He needs to go away.

    • Agree: Rob
    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson


    Trump never turned the party populist.
     
    I was speaking about the makeup of the GOP coalition based on Trump's campaigning. In office, I agree Trump governed like a traditional establishment Republican.

    One the last six years, the GOP has definitely shifted a lot toward uneducated white voters and away from the professional white class, who have shifted to the Democrats.

    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ds28mjdwjuwefjlq_c87kw.png

    Trump's entry into politics is remaking the GOP coalition. The party is far more populist than it once was.

    https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1120w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2021_15/3465723/microsoftteams-image_8.png

    You are correct that once in power that Trump governed like a standard establishment Republican who cared about serving businesses more than he did the people. But some of that was because he was hemmed in by his own party. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were in charge of the GOP congress in 2017.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  160. @Anonymous
    @Peter Akuleyev

    The Armenians campaigned heavily against Oz and basically assembled an anti-Ottoman coalition against him.

    https://twitter.com/ANCA_DC/status/1590224998522060800

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsZjl0OcEYU

    Replies: @BosTex

    That is a pretty tough ad. Thanks for sharing.

    I would think might cause some Republicans to stay home.

    Fetterman is awful, but people might think: “let the retard have it, we don’t know who Oz is.”

  161. @epebble
    @AnotherDad

    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @John Johnson

    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.

    This is absolutely, positively, demonstrably not their revealed preference. I believe the reason is that they value their status much more than how easy it will be to cheat the next Republican Presidential candidate out of a victory.

    When it comes to trashing their status they have no other enemy with a fraction of his proven ability, although they’ve been able to temper that for now by canceling him from social media etc. Actively pushing him back on the national stage where he could more effectively attack them would be stark raving mad. Which they are, just not in this way, see for example Robert Conquest’s First Law of Politics, “Everyone is conservative about what he knows best.”

    • Replies: @epebble
    @That Would Be Telling

    In the just concluded elections, any business-like analysis of the Cost/Benefit or Return on Investment would show that the best Dollar the Democrats spent was when they supported Trump's candidates for the House and the Senate etc., in the Primaries. Without that strategic thinking, they would not be having as good a day as they had on Tuesday. Any Democratic party strategist that does not work now to puff up Trump's ego (or taunt or tease or threaten him) and pull him into the arena should be fired for incompetence.

    , @Corvinus
    @That Would Be Telling

    This is absolutely, positively, demonstrably not their revealed preference.”

    It is the strategy. If Trump runs, the GOP either endorsed him or they go with DeSantis. It then becomes a Trumpian pissing match, with Trump taking his ball home-in this case, tens of millions of followers. So where does that leave Republicans? Fractured. Mr. Sailer conveniently left out this nugget in his “analysis”.

    “I believe the reason is that they value their status much more than how easy it will be to cheat the next Republican Presidential candidate out of a victory.”

    If you want to continue promoting this outright falsehood, be our guest.

    “Actively pushing him back on the national stage where he could more effectively attack them would be stark raving mad.”

    He barges his way back into into the limelight on his own accord. That’s what narcissists do.

  162. @epebble
    @AnotherDad

    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling, @John Johnson

    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.

    And why would that be job number one when:

    1. Trumplicans had the worst losses in the election
    2. Trump’s polling with moderates/independents is at a low

    2020 was a case of Trump’s fanbase ignoring the polls which indicated that he had lost support from independents. Why repeat that in 2024?

    The main problem is not cheating by the Democrats. The main problem is that the Republicans don’t offer much more than being not Democrat and that isn’t enough for swing voters.

    Republicans have a losing strategy and that existed before Trump. There was an opportunity for Trump to change the party and move it towards populism but he instead stuck with swampy politics.

    The overall Republican strategy depends on a majority White nation getting tired of Democrats and switching back. Take away the White majority and they are just boomers waving flags and talking about muh markets. This already played out in California.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @John Johnson

    why would that be job number one

    A grenade inside the tent has 360-degree coverage whereas the one outside has maximum 180-degree coverage. Tuesday's elections showed they have some sharp thinkers.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  163. @That Would Be Telling
    @epebble


    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.
     
    This is absolutely, positively, demonstrably not their revealed preference. I believe the reason is that they value their status much more than how easy it will be to cheat the next Republican Presidential candidate out of a victory.

    When it comes to trashing their status they have no other enemy with a fraction of his proven ability, although they've been able to temper that for now by canceling him from social media etc. Actively pushing him back on the national stage where he could more effectively attack them would be stark raving mad. Which they are, just not in this way, see for example Robert Conquest's First Law of Politics, "Everyone is conservative about what he knows best."

    Replies: @epebble, @Corvinus

    In the just concluded elections, any business-like analysis of the Cost/Benefit or Return on Investment would show that the best Dollar the Democrats spent was when they supported Trump’s candidates for the House and the Senate etc., in the Primaries. Without that strategic thinking, they would not be having as good a day as they had on Tuesday. Any Democratic party strategist that does not work now to puff up Trump’s ego (or taunt or tease or threaten him) and pull him into the arena should be fired for incompetence.

  164. @John Johnson
    @epebble

    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.

    And why would that be job number one when:

    1. Trumplicans had the worst losses in the election
    2. Trump's polling with moderates/independents is at a low

    2020 was a case of Trump's fanbase ignoring the polls which indicated that he had lost support from independents. Why repeat that in 2024?

    The main problem is not cheating by the Democrats. The main problem is that the Republicans don't offer much more than being not Democrat and that isn't enough for swing voters.

    Republicans have a losing strategy and that existed before Trump. There was an opportunity for Trump to change the party and move it towards populism but he instead stuck with swampy politics.

    The overall Republican strategy depends on a majority White nation getting tired of Democrats and switching back. Take away the White majority and they are just boomers waving flags and talking about muh markets. This already played out in California.

    Replies: @epebble

    why would that be job number one

    A grenade inside the tent has 360-degree coverage whereas the one outside has maximum 180-degree coverage. Tuesday’s elections showed they have some sharp thinkers.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @epebble

    A grenade inside the tent has 360-degree coverage whereas the one outside has maximum 180-degree coverage. Tuesday’s elections showed they have some sharp thinkers.

    I don't see any sharp thinkers.

    Suburban Whites decided to punish the Democrats over the economy and Republicans happily stepped in.

    Happens every 4 to 8 years.

    Not a long term strategy when Whites will be a plurality. The data points to an eventual Democrat supermajority from immigration which is what happened in California. But at a national level they can open the borders and increase the immigration quota.

    Buchanan warned about this years ago but our doofus Republicans still think that flag waving and feely good quotes from Sir Whitey Whiterson of 1898 will change everything.

    "Clearly America will be served well by minimal government and steam engines for the next 100 years"

    - Sir Whitey Whiterson, beloved economist and inspiration to conservatives everywhere

  165. @Desiderius
    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1590591513003986946?s=20&t=AiiFaod3tA663E69n-rJbw

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

  166. @Corvinus
    @BosTex

    Trump was a great candidate in that he was a showman who didn’t even believe in what he was selling. Just like a grifter, he told people what they wanted to hear, repeatedly lied about his political opponents and trumped up his own accomplishments. Hell, his merchandise had been made overseas. The tax cuts he signed into law benefitted primarily the donor class, and he was actively involved in an insurrection, even throwing his own VP under the bus. And given his reputation, of course he was going tu be a terrible political leader. But he wants another shot at it. Will the GOP stand up yo him or cuck?

    Replies: @Prester John

    So, who should they nominate and why?

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @Prester John

    “So, who should they nominate and why“

    DeSantis, of course. He will take his Florida game plan to the national stage. But again will GOP leadership approve?

  167. @zoos
    @Steve Sailer


    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn’t Terry Crews as President, it’s …
     
    Hey, look everyone!

    Steve says it here, and it comes out there!

    https://youtu.be/EAzrPuqzeUM

    Replies: @Brás Cubas

    Fetterman isn’t presidential material yet. After a couple more debilitating strokes he will be a shoo-in though.

    • LOL: John Johnson
  168. @Kylie
    @Stan Adams

    Money can't buy class.

    I'd forgotten Ter-AY-za is actually as charm-free as Hillary.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    She’s the vinegar in the ketchup.

    Speaking of her inheritance, surely it was just an odd coincidence that two prominent Republican senators named John just happened to die in separate plane crashes within 24 hours of each other.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @Stan Adams

    "Speaking of her inheritance, surely it was just an odd coincidence that two prominent Republican senators named John just happened to die in separate plane crashes within 24 hours of each other."


    Intriguing coincidence. Heinz's crash aka the Merion Air Disaster had seven fatalities. That equals Hillary's canonical body count.

  169. @New Dealer
    @rebel yell


    Charles Murray has well documented the segregation of American life into the college educated class vs non-college class, Fishtown vs Belmont. People who work with their hands vs people who work at a keyboard. Keyboard people are everywhere.
     
    I like Goodhart's formulation: the somewheres vs. the anywheres.

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/mar/22/the-road-to-somewhere-david-goodhart-populist-revolt-future-politics

    Replies: @Jack D, @Prester John

    Murray’s formulation is true as far as it goes but I wonder sometimes what colleges he is referring to. In this context I’m not sure he is necessarily referring to XYZ community college or even ol’ State U. Penn and Penn State are both accredited schools of higher education, but the former is pretty far up the pecking order academically from the latter, with the latter having been bestowed (unfairly IMHOP because it’s a good school) with the snarky nickname “Linebacker U.”

  170. @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    Trump turned the party populist, gaining many new adherents, but losing others in about equal measure.

    Trump never turned the party populist.

    He talked about doing so but it never existed in policy.

    His tax cuts mirrored the will of the same old GOP.

    Giving billions in tax cuts to corporations that already had billions in cash sitting around.

    Then he tried killing off the ACA and wouldn't pass legislation to protect individuals from amoral insurance companies.

    I voted for Trump but he is done. He could have been a great president but instead listened to the swamp. His Trumplicans were rejected in this election. He needs to go away.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Trump never turned the party populist.

    I was speaking about the makeup of the GOP coalition based on Trump’s campaigning. In office, I agree Trump governed like a traditional establishment Republican.

    One the last six years, the GOP has definitely shifted a lot toward uneducated white voters and away from the professional white class, who have shifted to the Democrats.

    Trump’s entry into politics is remaking the GOP coalition. The party is far more populist than it once was.

    You are correct that once in power that Trump governed like a standard establishment Republican who cared about serving businesses more than he did the people. But some of that was because he was hemmed in by his own party. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were in charge of the GOP congress in 2017.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    One the last six years, the GOP has definitely shifted a lot toward uneducated white voters and away from the professional white class, who have shifted to the Democrats.

    I guess but the non-White population continues to increase so I don't see a good long term strategy.

    You are correct that once in power that Trump governed like a standard establishment Republican who cared about serving businesses more than he did the people. But some of that was because he was hemmed in by his own party.

    No one forced him to drop Bannon and listen to the swamp. He could have capped the tax cuts at 200k and the swamp would have gone along with it. The libertarian wing would not have called his bluff since he could have pulled moderate Democrats with family targeted cuts.

    I don't know why anyone would expect him to be reliable. Before going into politics he was on a corny reality TV show where he enjoyed firing people. And his business practices stink to high heaven. Textbook case of an amoral businessman. He in fact seems addicted to chasing loopholes and tax exemptions. Honorable business seems uninteresting to him.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  171. @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    Maybe 20 years ago you would have been right but the times are passing you by. Jews are not the wave of the future in the Dem Party. They are fading fast. Fortunately for the Dems, coming up right behind them are other minorities such as Asians, especially S. Asians, both as donors and idealogues. Ranting and raving about Jews like Father Coughlin and Henry Ford just gives you an antique air.

    This is always the problem with anti-Semitism. It's the wrong diagnosis. You could get rid of every Jew and the things that are fundamentally wrong in your society would not change. What you call "minoritarianism" is a symptom, not a cause. Silencing the Jews is like taking cough syrup when you have lung cancer. Just because you don't hear the cough anymore, your lung cancer isn't cured.

    Marx was completely wrong in the nostrums he wanted to apply, but his analysis of the fundamental flaws of capitalism was not wrong. We see them now on a global scale. The "reserve army of the unemployed" are not clustered around the factory gates driving wages down to poverty level in Lowell because the factory is now in Dhaka instead. The army is still there, it's just an invisible army that is 8,000 miles away. Because of Jewish intelligence and their quasi-outsider status, they have the ability to offer an intelligent analysis of flaws that others might not see. Don't shoot the messenger.

    From now on, instead of Rahm you're going to have Rama. And there are a billion more Ramas where he came from. You are going to long for the old days when it was only Jews.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Pat Kittle, @Colin Wright, @SunBakedSuburb, @AnotherDad, @John Pepple

    I don’t think in terms of ethnicities, but ideologies, and I have to say that the ideology of leftism has been a disaster for the West (and the entire world). Here are the basic problems:

    1. Leftists urge that we be hard on traditional society, the reason being that we can then uncover problems that would otherwise remain hidden. However, they never urge that leftists be hard on themselves or leftism itself. The result is lots of hidden problems in leftism.

    2. The basic activity of the left is to (i) find a problem, (ii) suggest some extreme transformation of society to solve that problem, and (iii) vilify to the max anyone who doesn’t go along with that extreme transformation or who is seen as an oppressor.

    3. Specifically regarding (2, ii), the extreme transformation is unlikely to be achieved; to the extent that it is, it doesn’t solve the problem; and even if it does, it creates so many other problems that it is not worth it.

    4. (1) and (2) together mean that when there are problems with leftism, they are never acknowledged or resolved. There are no checks and balances, there are no feedback mechanisms to help leftists change course; they simply spiral on down to the bottom and continue to dig. Anyone who points out a problem is immediately vilified (“counter-revolutionary,” “capitalist roader,” “racist,” etc.), and their viewpoint is dismissed.

    5. The downward spiral has been seen with communism and now racial equity. The transformation doesn’t usually work, but instead of giving up and trying something different, leftists will double down. Doubling down on communism didn’t help. Nor does doubling down on anti-racism. Nobody could possibly believe that after fifty years of tinkering, our standardized tests are still racist. Yet, they still insist on this, even though it’s obvious that the problem lies elsewhere.

    6. The problems of the workers didn’t need to be solved by destroying capitalism, which is nearly impossible anyway. Facilitating job creation, keeping costs imposed on the poor as low as possible, and keeping immigration under control all do quite well in helping workers (or the poor generally). As for blacks, their problems are at this point largely self-inflicted and can be solved by giving them some simple advice: emulate Asians. Study hard and avoid a life of crime.

    7. There is a lot more I could say, but let me close with this: the left is suicidally insane regarding Muslims. When I have pointed out to leftists that Muslims massacred leftists when they took over Iran in 1979, what has been the response? They have vilified me rather than those engaged in the massacre. Letting Muslims into the West, when they have shown that they hate leftists, is about the dumbest thing one can do as a leftist. What is the point of remembering the Holocaust, remembering the murder of Emmet Till, but completely forgetting about a massacre of leftists?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @John Pepple

    Leftists urge that we be hard on traditional society, the reason being that we can then uncover problems that would otherwise remain hidden. However, they never urge that leftists be hard on themselves or leftism itself. The result is lots of hidden problems in leftism.

    Being hard on traditional society has everything to do with race and is not about problem solving.

    How often do they criticize non-White traditions?

    Just look at Islam. It is completely anti-liberal and yet the left wants to bring in millions of Muslims. If you criticize anything related to Islam they will call you a hater or bigot. Any criticisms towards Christianity are not only perfectly fine but celebrated. Put a crucifix in piss and the left will celebrate it as art.

    I noticed quickly in college that all criticism of religion just happened to be around Christianity. The politically incorrect aspects of Islam or Buddhism were never discussed. It was all about how Christians are tools for following a single book and they are most likely wrong. Race and gender were denied while White men were blamed for everything. Well how can they be to blame for everything if race doesn't exist?

    The left is just an anti-White and especially anti-Anglo male alliance. It was once about labor but that was dropped in favor of race denial and blaming Whites. Christianity is targeted because it is viewed as a White religion. Islam gets full protection from any vilification.

    The left is a collection of people that hate Whites and especially White men. Mostly Whites that view themselves as The Good Ones for protecting non-Whites from The Evil Ones. It's all very ego centered and not at all about problem solving.

  172. @Kylie
    @J.Ross

    "Visuslize economically literate Gen X and zoomers killing themselves directly on front of their worthless parents so the blood runs down the faces of their parents and there is no argument or hope about this mythical 'tomorrow.'"

    I'm embarrassed to admit it (not really) but you're exciting me (no, really).

    Replies: @J.Ross

    So you think there’s economically literate zoomers?

    • LOL: Kylie
  173. @Prester John
    @Corvinus

    So, who should they nominate and why?

    Replies: @Corvinus

    “So, who should they nominate and why“

    DeSantis, of course. He will take his Florida game plan to the national stage. But again will GOP leadership approve?

    • Thanks: Prester John
  174. @That Would Be Telling
    @epebble


    Job number one for Democrats now is to get Trump on the ticket (Republican). If Trump announces his intention next week, things may fall into place.
     
    This is absolutely, positively, demonstrably not their revealed preference. I believe the reason is that they value their status much more than how easy it will be to cheat the next Republican Presidential candidate out of a victory.

    When it comes to trashing their status they have no other enemy with a fraction of his proven ability, although they've been able to temper that for now by canceling him from social media etc. Actively pushing him back on the national stage where he could more effectively attack them would be stark raving mad. Which they are, just not in this way, see for example Robert Conquest's First Law of Politics, "Everyone is conservative about what he knows best."

    Replies: @epebble, @Corvinus

    This is absolutely, positively, demonstrably not their revealed preference.”

    It is the strategy. If Trump runs, the GOP either endorsed him or they go with DeSantis. It then becomes a Trumpian pissing match, with Trump taking his ball home-in this case, tens of millions of followers. So where does that leave Republicans? Fractured. Mr. Sailer conveniently left out this nugget in his “analysis”.

    “I believe the reason is that they value their status much more than how easy it will be to cheat the next Republican Presidential candidate out of a victory.”

    If you want to continue promoting this outright falsehood, be our guest.

    “Actively pushing him back on the national stage where he could more effectively attack them would be stark raving mad.”

    He barges his way back into into the limelight on his own accord. That’s what narcissists do.

  175. @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson


    Trump never turned the party populist.
     
    I was speaking about the makeup of the GOP coalition based on Trump's campaigning. In office, I agree Trump governed like a traditional establishment Republican.

    One the last six years, the GOP has definitely shifted a lot toward uneducated white voters and away from the professional white class, who have shifted to the Democrats.

    https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ds28mjdwjuwefjlq_c87kw.png

    Trump's entry into politics is remaking the GOP coalition. The party is far more populist than it once was.

    https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/t_fit-1120w,f_auto,q_auto:best/newscms/2021_15/3465723/microsoftteams-image_8.png

    You are correct that once in power that Trump governed like a standard establishment Republican who cared about serving businesses more than he did the people. But some of that was because he was hemmed in by his own party. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell were in charge of the GOP congress in 2017.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    One the last six years, the GOP has definitely shifted a lot toward uneducated white voters and away from the professional white class, who have shifted to the Democrats.

    I guess but the non-White population continues to increase so I don’t see a good long term strategy.

    You are correct that once in power that Trump governed like a standard establishment Republican who cared about serving businesses more than he did the people. But some of that was because he was hemmed in by his own party.

    No one forced him to drop Bannon and listen to the swamp. He could have capped the tax cuts at 200k and the swamp would have gone along with it. The libertarian wing would not have called his bluff since he could have pulled moderate Democrats with family targeted cuts.

    I don’t know why anyone would expect him to be reliable. Before going into politics he was on a corny reality TV show where he enjoyed firing people. And his business practices stink to high heaven. Textbook case of an amoral businessman. He in fact seems addicted to chasing loopholes and tax exemptions. Honorable business seems uninteresting to him.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson

    Put aside for a moment how Trump governed. Look instead at his coalition. Look at how he campaigned. Look at the issues he highlighted.

    Can that campaign and the coalition of new voters it attracted be fairly described as populist? Yes, it can. On trade, immigration, and national security issues, Trump took the populist positions. They were positions Perot and Buchanan had taken in previous populist campaigns. Not without reason, Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate since the 1980s to win MI, WI, and PA. Many of the new voters he attracted in those states were former Obama voters.


    No one forced him to drop Bannon and listen to the swamp.
     
    What happens to a single presidential advisor is unimportant. The more important question you raise is whether Trump after the election abandoned the new populist positions he pushed during his 2016 campaign for more typical GOP establishment positions. I think a fair answer is that, yes, he did.

    Some of this was Trump's fault, but some of it was not. The bipartisan establishment pushed back hard against Trump's ideas and against the men who helped him in his campaign. Trump, whose attention span is limited unless he is the topic of conversation, had trouble focusing on policy. He also was not good at fighting to protect his people in the same way he is good at fighting to protect himself.

    As Trump lost some of his prominent supporters from 2016 for various reasons (Flynn, Bannon, etc.), he began replacing them with "swamp creatures." Probably the biggest disappointment was watching Trump hire Mattis & Bolton to oversee his national security policies. This led to constant tension between Trump's rhetoric, which still signaled a desire for a new direction, and the policies of his government.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  176. @John Pepple
    @Jack D

    I don’t think in terms of ethnicities, but ideologies, and I have to say that the ideology of leftism has been a disaster for the West (and the entire world). Here are the basic problems:

    1. Leftists urge that we be hard on traditional society, the reason being that we can then uncover problems that would otherwise remain hidden. However, they never urge that leftists be hard on themselves or leftism itself. The result is lots of hidden problems in leftism.

    2. The basic activity of the left is to (i) find a problem, (ii) suggest some extreme transformation of society to solve that problem, and (iii) vilify to the max anyone who doesn’t go along with that extreme transformation or who is seen as an oppressor.

    3. Specifically regarding (2, ii), the extreme transformation is unlikely to be achieved; to the extent that it is, it doesn’t solve the problem; and even if it does, it creates so many other problems that it is not worth it.

    4. (1) and (2) together mean that when there are problems with leftism, they are never acknowledged or resolved. There are no checks and balances, there are no feedback mechanisms to help leftists change course; they simply spiral on down to the bottom and continue to dig. Anyone who points out a problem is immediately vilified (“counter-revolutionary,” “capitalist roader,” “racist,” etc.), and their viewpoint is dismissed.

    5. The downward spiral has been seen with communism and now racial equity. The transformation doesn’t usually work, but instead of giving up and trying something different, leftists will double down. Doubling down on communism didn’t help. Nor does doubling down on anti-racism. Nobody could possibly believe that after fifty years of tinkering, our standardized tests are still racist. Yet, they still insist on this, even though it’s obvious that the problem lies elsewhere.

    6. The problems of the workers didn’t need to be solved by destroying capitalism, which is nearly impossible anyway. Facilitating job creation, keeping costs imposed on the poor as low as possible, and keeping immigration under control all do quite well in helping workers (or the poor generally). As for blacks, their problems are at this point largely self-inflicted and can be solved by giving them some simple advice: emulate Asians. Study hard and avoid a life of crime.

    7. There is a lot more I could say, but let me close with this: the left is suicidally insane regarding Muslims. When I have pointed out to leftists that Muslims massacred leftists when they took over Iran in 1979, what has been the response? They have vilified me rather than those engaged in the massacre. Letting Muslims into the West, when they have shown that they hate leftists, is about the dumbest thing one can do as a leftist. What is the point of remembering the Holocaust, remembering the murder of Emmet Till, but completely forgetting about a massacre of leftists?

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Leftists urge that we be hard on traditional society, the reason being that we can then uncover problems that would otherwise remain hidden. However, they never urge that leftists be hard on themselves or leftism itself. The result is lots of hidden problems in leftism.

    Being hard on traditional society has everything to do with race and is not about problem solving.

    How often do they criticize non-White traditions?

    Just look at Islam. It is completely anti-liberal and yet the left wants to bring in millions of Muslims. If you criticize anything related to Islam they will call you a hater or bigot. Any criticisms towards Christianity are not only perfectly fine but celebrated. Put a crucifix in piss and the left will celebrate it as art.

    I noticed quickly in college that all criticism of religion just happened to be around Christianity. The politically incorrect aspects of Islam or Buddhism were never discussed. It was all about how Christians are tools for following a single book and they are most likely wrong. Race and gender were denied while White men were blamed for everything. Well how can they be to blame for everything if race doesn’t exist?

    The left is just an anti-White and especially anti-Anglo male alliance. It was once about labor but that was dropped in favor of race denial and blaming Whites. Christianity is targeted because it is viewed as a White religion. Islam gets full protection from any vilification.

    The left is a collection of people that hate Whites and especially White men. Mostly Whites that view themselves as The Good Ones for protecting non-Whites from The Evil Ones. It’s all very ego centered and not at all about problem solving.

  177. @rebel yell
    @Jack D


    even the rural areas voted more blue this time than in 2020. This is not due to vote fraud. Here we are with high inflation and so on and yet not only was there NOT a red wave but even a shift toward blue
     
    You see this in Washington state as well. It is not just Seattle that votes blue. Lesser cities vote democrat, as do many suburbs on the frontier of farmland.
    A Trump sign in your yard in Seattle can get a brick thrown through your window. A Trump sign in Redmond? You will be ostracized. You had to cross the mountains and get to where you smell the cowshit in the air to see Trump signs openly displayed.
    Eastern Washington is Republican country, but Rachel Doezel came out of Spokane, and Melissa Click is now a tenured professor there.
    Charles Murray has well documented the segregation of American life into the college educated class vs non-college class, Fishtown vs Belmont. People who work with their hands vs people who work at a keyboard. Keyboard people are everywhere.

    Replies: @New Dealer, @Desiderius

    Town vs Clown

  178. @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    One the last six years, the GOP has definitely shifted a lot toward uneducated white voters and away from the professional white class, who have shifted to the Democrats.

    I guess but the non-White population continues to increase so I don't see a good long term strategy.

    You are correct that once in power that Trump governed like a standard establishment Republican who cared about serving businesses more than he did the people. But some of that was because he was hemmed in by his own party.

    No one forced him to drop Bannon and listen to the swamp. He could have capped the tax cuts at 200k and the swamp would have gone along with it. The libertarian wing would not have called his bluff since he could have pulled moderate Democrats with family targeted cuts.

    I don't know why anyone would expect him to be reliable. Before going into politics he was on a corny reality TV show where he enjoyed firing people. And his business practices stink to high heaven. Textbook case of an amoral businessman. He in fact seems addicted to chasing loopholes and tax exemptions. Honorable business seems uninteresting to him.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Put aside for a moment how Trump governed. Look instead at his coalition. Look at how he campaigned. Look at the issues he highlighted.

    Can that campaign and the coalition of new voters it attracted be fairly described as populist? Yes, it can. On trade, immigration, and national security issues, Trump took the populist positions. They were positions Perot and Buchanan had taken in previous populist campaigns. Not without reason, Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate since the 1980s to win MI, WI, and PA. Many of the new voters he attracted in those states were former Obama voters.

    No one forced him to drop Bannon and listen to the swamp.

    What happens to a single presidential advisor is unimportant. The more important question you raise is whether Trump after the election abandoned the new populist positions he pushed during his 2016 campaign for more typical GOP establishment positions. I think a fair answer is that, yes, he did.

    Some of this was Trump’s fault, but some of it was not. The bipartisan establishment pushed back hard against Trump’s ideas and against the men who helped him in his campaign. Trump, whose attention span is limited unless he is the topic of conversation, had trouble focusing on policy. He also was not good at fighting to protect his people in the same way he is good at fighting to protect himself.

    As Trump lost some of his prominent supporters from 2016 for various reasons (Flynn, Bannon, etc.), he began replacing them with “swamp creatures.” Probably the biggest disappointment was watching Trump hire Mattis & Bolton to oversee his national security policies. This led to constant tension between Trump’s rhetoric, which still signaled a desire for a new direction, and the policies of his government.

    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    Put aside for a moment how Trump governed. Look instead at his coalition. Look at how he campaigned. Look at the issues he highlighted.

    He built a populist coalition and threatened the status quo. Definitely.

    I'm not saying he did everything wrong. But when you look at national policy he was a disappointment. Tax cuts for the wealthy and he turned down a very generous border deal from the Democrats. Tried to end the ACA and put forward a BS line about how he would regulate insurance companies at a later time. Right.

    On trade, immigration, and national security issues, Trump took the populist positions. They were positions Perot and Buchanan had taken in previous populist campaigns.

    He stood up to China and didn't bow to the free trade libertarians. I will give him credit for that. Overall on foreign relations he did better than any Republican could.

    I'm not saying he did everything wrong. I think it was a mix and he kept out Hillary which was job #1.

    But his populist rhetoric was compromised by swamp lizards. He kicked out Bannon who really understands the political situation.

    Even worse is that his current coalition is not at all populist and in tatters. He mostly picked up tea party and Qanon types that have been rejected by voters. A bunch of economic libertarians that don't want the burden of populism and having to think outside the minimal government religion. He had the chance to turn the GOP populist and instead cemented the status quo which is that the Democrats will eventually win. The GOP cannot be "not Democrats" and the leaders would rather the ship go down than move towards populism. They can't even conceive of limiting tax breaks for foreign based corporations. They are nutcase Randians at heart and really not Republicans. Nixon would have hated them.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  179. @Desiderius
    @SFG

    A vote for Fetterman was a vote against both McConnell *and* Trump.

    That Venn diagram's pretty fat in the middle alone, let alone adding both lobes.

    Replies: @Catdompanj

    Yeah Philly and Pittsburgh Democrats were thinking about McConnell and Trump, just like they did in every year from 1956 until now. They probably were voting against Frank Rizzo too. Sigh.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Catdompanj

    So were the ones in Palm Beach and Dade.

    Until they weren't.

    McConnell deserves to be voted against, as does the guy who failed to stand up to him with power of the Presidency the electorate gave him sadly enough. Is the alternative worse? Most intelligent people under forty I know don't think so.

    We can do better than this.

  180. @Catdompanj
    @Desiderius

    Yeah Philly and Pittsburgh Democrats were thinking about McConnell and Trump, just like they did in every year from 1956 until now. They probably were voting against Frank Rizzo too. Sigh.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    So were the ones in Palm Beach and Dade.

    Until they weren’t.

    McConnell deserves to be voted against, as does the guy who failed to stand up to him with power of the Presidency the electorate gave him sadly enough. Is the alternative worse? Most intelligent people under forty I know don’t think so.

    We can do better than this.

  181. @John Johnson
    @Zero Philosopher

    It is a FACT that, the more you go up the ladder of income and education, the more liberal people tend to become in their views.

    That's not a fact but an oversimplification.

    Professionals with 4 year degrees are less likely to be liberal than doctorates. So grad students with various White guilt degrees are of course more likely to be liberal because the private sector doesn't reward their investment. High school drop outs and Sociology grad students are both very reliable Democrat voters.

    Income only divides politically after around 400k last I checked. Meaning 100k-400k still lean conservative. Then it splits about evenly. So the poor vote Democrat and so do the ultra wealthy. Which means people return to voting Democrat once they have gobs of money and have guilt over it or view themselves as a patronizing class. But even at that point it is still split.

    Business owners tend to be conservative regardless of income level. Inherited wealth correlates far better with liberalism than wealth in general.

    Replies: @Zero Philosopher

    Your post is pretty much 100% wrong. Liberals outcompete conservatives at all levels of income and education.

    The richest and most advanced states in the Union are all “Blue” states. Ivy League universities are all located in “Blue” states. A medical doctor or lawyer is far more likely to be liberal than a truck driver or construction worker.

    The poor that vote Democrat because they want government handouts tend to be non-white. The days are long gone when white working class people voted Democrat.

    Liberalism is the core value of New England and of the more bourgeoise classes of the population. This is NOT debatable. You got to almost any big city in America, and the wealthy and educated tend to be liberal. Even in “Red” states like Texas and Missouri, people in large cities and with university degrees tend to be liberal.

    Now, I don’t know exactly what you mean by “business owners”. That is as generic as description as it gets. But like I said, many rich people claim to be conservative and support the Republican Party because they the Republican Party gives tax breaks to the rich. But whether these people are true “conservatives” is left up in the air. We do know that some of the most iconic businessmen in America, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are self proclaimed liberals.

    Because the super-rich have a vested interest in voting Republican, and because few of them display conservative lifestyles(quite the opposite) I think that it’s disingenuous to assume that they are truly conservative.

    Far more useful is to use data that excludes the top 0.01% of the income bracket because they are idiosyncratic. If you look at the remaining 99.99% of the population, the link between liberalism and higher income and education is not debatable.

  182. @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson

    Put aside for a moment how Trump governed. Look instead at his coalition. Look at how he campaigned. Look at the issues he highlighted.

    Can that campaign and the coalition of new voters it attracted be fairly described as populist? Yes, it can. On trade, immigration, and national security issues, Trump took the populist positions. They were positions Perot and Buchanan had taken in previous populist campaigns. Not without reason, Trump was the first Republican presidential candidate since the 1980s to win MI, WI, and PA. Many of the new voters he attracted in those states were former Obama voters.


    No one forced him to drop Bannon and listen to the swamp.
     
    What happens to a single presidential advisor is unimportant. The more important question you raise is whether Trump after the election abandoned the new populist positions he pushed during his 2016 campaign for more typical GOP establishment positions. I think a fair answer is that, yes, he did.

    Some of this was Trump's fault, but some of it was not. The bipartisan establishment pushed back hard against Trump's ideas and against the men who helped him in his campaign. Trump, whose attention span is limited unless he is the topic of conversation, had trouble focusing on policy. He also was not good at fighting to protect his people in the same way he is good at fighting to protect himself.

    As Trump lost some of his prominent supporters from 2016 for various reasons (Flynn, Bannon, etc.), he began replacing them with "swamp creatures." Probably the biggest disappointment was watching Trump hire Mattis & Bolton to oversee his national security policies. This led to constant tension between Trump's rhetoric, which still signaled a desire for a new direction, and the policies of his government.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Put aside for a moment how Trump governed. Look instead at his coalition. Look at how he campaigned. Look at the issues he highlighted.

    He built a populist coalition and threatened the status quo. Definitely.

    I’m not saying he did everything wrong. But when you look at national policy he was a disappointment. Tax cuts for the wealthy and he turned down a very generous border deal from the Democrats. Tried to end the ACA and put forward a BS line about how he would regulate insurance companies at a later time. Right.

    On trade, immigration, and national security issues, Trump took the populist positions. They were positions Perot and Buchanan had taken in previous populist campaigns.

    He stood up to China and didn’t bow to the free trade libertarians. I will give him credit for that. Overall on foreign relations he did better than any Republican could.

    I’m not saying he did everything wrong. I think it was a mix and he kept out Hillary which was job #1.

    But his populist rhetoric was compromised by swamp lizards. He kicked out Bannon who really understands the political situation.

    Even worse is that his current coalition is not at all populist and in tatters. He mostly picked up tea party and Qanon types that have been rejected by voters. A bunch of economic libertarians that don’t want the burden of populism and having to think outside the minimal government religion. He had the chance to turn the GOP populist and instead cemented the status quo which is that the Democrats will eventually win. The GOP cannot be “not Democrats” and the leaders would rather the ship go down than move towards populism. They can’t even conceive of limiting tax breaks for foreign based corporations. They are nutcase Randians at heart and really not Republicans. Nixon would have hated them.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson

    What is this great deal from the Democrats on immigration that you keep mentioning Trump gave up?

    Replies: @John Johnson

  183. @epebble
    @John Johnson

    why would that be job number one

    A grenade inside the tent has 360-degree coverage whereas the one outside has maximum 180-degree coverage. Tuesday's elections showed they have some sharp thinkers.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    A grenade inside the tent has 360-degree coverage whereas the one outside has maximum 180-degree coverage. Tuesday’s elections showed they have some sharp thinkers.

    I don’t see any sharp thinkers.

    Suburban Whites decided to punish the Democrats over the economy and Republicans happily stepped in.

    Happens every 4 to 8 years.

    Not a long term strategy when Whites will be a plurality. The data points to an eventual Democrat supermajority from immigration which is what happened in California. But at a national level they can open the borders and increase the immigration quota.

    Buchanan warned about this years ago but our doofus Republicans still think that flag waving and feely good quotes from Sir Whitey Whiterson of 1898 will change everything.

    “Clearly America will be served well by minimal government and steam engines for the next 100 years”

    – Sir Whitey Whiterson, beloved economist and inspiration to conservatives everywhere

  184. @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    Put aside for a moment how Trump governed. Look instead at his coalition. Look at how he campaigned. Look at the issues he highlighted.

    He built a populist coalition and threatened the status quo. Definitely.

    I'm not saying he did everything wrong. But when you look at national policy he was a disappointment. Tax cuts for the wealthy and he turned down a very generous border deal from the Democrats. Tried to end the ACA and put forward a BS line about how he would regulate insurance companies at a later time. Right.

    On trade, immigration, and national security issues, Trump took the populist positions. They were positions Perot and Buchanan had taken in previous populist campaigns.

    He stood up to China and didn't bow to the free trade libertarians. I will give him credit for that. Overall on foreign relations he did better than any Republican could.

    I'm not saying he did everything wrong. I think it was a mix and he kept out Hillary which was job #1.

    But his populist rhetoric was compromised by swamp lizards. He kicked out Bannon who really understands the political situation.

    Even worse is that his current coalition is not at all populist and in tatters. He mostly picked up tea party and Qanon types that have been rejected by voters. A bunch of economic libertarians that don't want the burden of populism and having to think outside the minimal government religion. He had the chance to turn the GOP populist and instead cemented the status quo which is that the Democrats will eventually win. The GOP cannot be "not Democrats" and the leaders would rather the ship go down than move towards populism. They can't even conceive of limiting tax breaks for foreign based corporations. They are nutcase Randians at heart and really not Republicans. Nixon would have hated them.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    What is this great deal from the Democrats on immigration that you keep mentioning Trump gave up?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    This one
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/schumer-pulls-back-offer-of-25-billion-for-trumps-wall-as-immigration-fight-continuse

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  185. @Steve Sailer
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    It is pretty interesting to see somebody as grotesque-looking as Fetterman elected to the Senate. The old cliche is that politics is show business for ugly people, but my impression is that "ugly politician" is a pretty relative term: e.g., NYC mayor Ed Koch was homely but still, for a lot of people, likable enough looking.

    Fetterman strikes me as nightmarish-looking.

    But, who knows, tastes can change, and maybe the Idiocratic future isn't Terry Crews as President, it's ...

    Replies: @TWS, @Russ, @ScarletNumber, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Anonymous, @Anonymous, @zoos, @Corvinus, @Anon

  186. @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson

    What is this great deal from the Democrats on immigration that you keep mentioning Trump gave up?

    Replies: @John Johnson

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson

    Thanks.

    That’s not much of an offer. It was thrown out in the midst of a battle over a government shutdown and then immediately withdrawn after the left criticized Schumer for it. Even if Trump had accepted the deal on the day it was offered, there was no chance of it getting done.

    I think a far better criticism of Trump is why he didn’t get a border deal done with the GOP Congress he had for the first two years of his administration.

  187. Thanks.

    That’s not much of an offer. It was thrown out in the midst of a battle over a government shutdown and then immediately withdrawn after the left criticized Schumer for it. Even if Trump had accepted the deal on the day it was offered, there was no chance of it getting done.

    I think a far better criticism of Trump is why he didn’t get a border deal done with the GOP Congress he had for the first two years of his administration.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    Thanks.

    That’s not much of an offer.

    Not much of an offer? 25 billion?

    Less than 1000 miles needed to be secured when he took office. Actual costs have been 20 million per mile. A traditional wall isn't even needed across all the openings. The remote sections just need electronic surveillance with additional spending for border patrol units. The desert sections are a natural deterrent.

    Mr. "art of the deal" totally blew it. He should have taken it but thought he could get even more.

    Schumer realized he went too far and withdrew the offer.

    Even if Trump had accepted the deal on the day it was offered, there was no chance of it getting done.

    Why do you say that? He added over 200 miles of walls and reinforcements. It was still being built until Biden took office.

    .I think a far better criticism of Trump is why he didn’t get a border deal done with the GOP Congress he had for the first two years of his administration.

    Well a harsh reality is that Texas Republicans have been split on the border. Some want to keep it open for cheap labor to the border factories.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  188. @Stan Adams
    @Kylie

    She’s the vinegar in the ketchup.

    Speaking of her inheritance, surely it was just an odd coincidence that two prominent Republican senators named John just happened to die in separate plane crashes within 24 hours of each other.

    Replies: @Kylie

    “Speaking of her inheritance, surely it was just an odd coincidence that two prominent Republican senators named John just happened to die in separate plane crashes within 24 hours of each other.”

    Intriguing coincidence. Heinz’s crash aka the Merion Air Disaster had seven fatalities. That equals Hillary’s canonical body count.

  189. @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius


    The alternative to Goldwater was Hatfield. Never lost an election. Look into him. Name was on a certain courthouse at a critical inflection point in recent history.
     
    The alternative to Goldwater in 1964 was Rockefeller or (had he run) Nixon. Both Republicans were liberals on domestic matters and flexible hawks on national security matters. Cultural matters, other than civil rights for blacks, didn't even enter into it in 1964.

    Grandiosely and gratuitously overstepping the Monroe Doctrine (following in the steps of Wilson and FDR) is not conservative.
     
    I'm not trying to get into a debate about what the principles of conservatism ought to have been. I'm simply stating what they were. (As it happens, I largely agree with them. But that wasn't my point.) Coalitions are built by individuals who don't agree on everything.

    After the Cold War was over, crime went down, and taxes were no longer at levels that the middle class cared about them that much, the Republican Party could no longer tether itself to Reaganism and expect to win clear national majorities. 9/11 gave Bush the opportunity to make one last move in that direction, but it didn't last.


    Goldwaterism offers no defense against trans vivisection of children or abortion fanaticism...
     
    Agreed. Both parties are still trying to find their national governing majorities.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    Hatfield (having served there already) was against US involvement in Vietnam. In 1964. The Monroe Doctrine is the wheel driving everything else. It’s ultimately an (accurate) estimation of the extent of our national economic resources and the amount of territory that can be effectively defended with those resources. Setting our sights on a whole hemisphere is hardly isolationist. Mistaking it for a globe is how we got so far in debt, and not just financially. The Trojan War is instructive, especially regarding the domestic situation.

    And Hatfield absolutely was a viable alternative to Goldwater in 64, or would have been if the Milleys of the day didn’t put the kibosh on it to protect their Special Military Operation. It’s them or us, then and now. Republic or Empire. The Roman Republic lasted twice this long, and not without some close calls along the way.

    I’m not trying to get into a debate about what the principles of conservatism ought to have been.

    I am. I won’t be the last.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius


    I am. I won’t be the last.
     
    Political principles are much talked about, but not ultimately important to the practice of politics. You and I can discuss principles until the moon drops out of the sky, but it won't change either of our minds.

    Politics is about building coalitions based on self-interest. While you and I might not be able to change the other person's mind, we can certainly work together to get things we both individually want.

    To the extent your belief in practical politics revolves around your own political principles rather than working together with people who think differently from you, you waste everyone's time, including your own. You become an egotist or a fantasist. You become someone who believes everyone ought to think like you.

    But political coalitions have never been like that. Not ever. And they will never be that way.

    If a conservative coalition is to succeed again, it will only be because various groups who hold different ideas of conservatism work together to help advance each other's agenda.

    I leave you with this quote which explains how politics works:

    “Diverse groups [in society] hold together because they practice politics – not because they agree about ‘fundamentals,’ or some such concept too vague, too personal, or too divine ever to do the job of politics for it. The moral consensus of a free state is not something mysteriously prior to or above politics: it is the activity (the civilizing activity) of politics itself.”

    -- Bernard Crick
     

    Replies: @Desiderius

  190. @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    This one
    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/schumer-pulls-back-offer-of-25-billion-for-trumps-wall-as-immigration-fight-continuse

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Thanks.

    That’s not much of an offer. It was thrown out in the midst of a battle over a government shutdown and then immediately withdrawn after the left criticized Schumer for it. Even if Trump had accepted the deal on the day it was offered, there was no chance of it getting done.

    I think a far better criticism of Trump is why he didn’t get a border deal done with the GOP Congress he had for the first two years of his administration.

  191. @Pincher Martin
    Thanks.

    That's not much of an offer. It was thrown out in the midst of a battle over a government shutdown and then immediately withdrawn after the left criticized Schumer for it. Even if Trump had accepted the deal on the day it was offered, there was no chance of it getting done.

    I think a far better criticism of Trump is why he didn't get a border deal done with the GOP Congress he had for the first two years of his administration.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    Thanks.

    That’s not much of an offer.

    Not much of an offer? 25 billion?

    Less than 1000 miles needed to be secured when he took office. Actual costs have been 20 million per mile. A traditional wall isn’t even needed across all the openings. The remote sections just need electronic surveillance with additional spending for border patrol units. The desert sections are a natural deterrent.

    Mr. “art of the deal” totally blew it. He should have taken it but thought he could get even more.

    Schumer realized he went too far and withdrew the offer.

    Even if Trump had accepted the deal on the day it was offered, there was no chance of it getting done.

    Why do you say that? He added over 200 miles of walls and reinforcements. It was still being built until Biden took office.

    .I think a far better criticism of Trump is why he didn’t get a border deal done with the GOP Congress he had for the first two years of his administration.

    Well a harsh reality is that Texas Republicans have been split on the border. Some want to keep it open for cheap labor to the border factories.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson


    Not much of an offer? 25 billion?
     
    No, it was not much of an offer, as in it was rescinded almost immediately.

    You've overestimated the importance of what was a trivial exchange. Schumer got too far out over his skis and pulled back immediately when the pro-immigration left protested.


    Why do you say that? He added over 200 miles of walls and reinforcements. It was still being built until Biden took office.
     
    I was talking about Schumer's offer of $25 billion. That was not going to happen even if Trump accepted it right on the spot.

    Well a harsh reality is that Texas Republicans have been split on the border. Some want to keep it open for cheap labor to the border factories.
     
    Agreed. But a better negotiator than Trump would have used the tax cuts as leverage to get the GOP Congress to give him money for the wall.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  192. @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    Hatfield (having served there already) was against US involvement in Vietnam. In 1964. The Monroe Doctrine is the wheel driving everything else. It's ultimately an (accurate) estimation of the extent of our national economic resources and the amount of territory that can be effectively defended with those resources. Setting our sights on a whole hemisphere is hardly isolationist. Mistaking it for a globe is how we got so far in debt, and not just financially. The Trojan War is instructive, especially regarding the domestic situation.

    And Hatfield absolutely was a viable alternative to Goldwater in 64, or would have been if the Milleys of the day didn't put the kibosh on it to protect their Special Military Operation. It's them or us, then and now. Republic or Empire. The Roman Republic lasted twice this long, and not without some close calls along the way.


    I’m not trying to get into a debate about what the principles of conservatism ought to have been.
     
    I am. I won't be the last.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    I am. I won’t be the last.

    Political principles are much talked about, but not ultimately important to the practice of politics. You and I can discuss principles until the moon drops out of the sky, but it won’t change either of our minds.

    Politics is about building coalitions based on self-interest. While you and I might not be able to change the other person’s mind, we can certainly work together to get things we both individually want.

    To the extent your belief in practical politics revolves around your own political principles rather than working together with people who think differently from you, you waste everyone’s time, including your own. You become an egotist or a fantasist. You become someone who believes everyone ought to think like you.

    But political coalitions have never been like that. Not ever. And they will never be that way.

    If a conservative coalition is to succeed again, it will only be because various groups who hold different ideas of conservatism work together to help advance each other’s agenda.

    I leave you with this quote which explains how politics works:

    “Diverse groups [in society] hold together because they practice politics – not because they agree about ‘fundamentals,’ or some such concept too vague, too personal, or too divine ever to do the job of politics for it. The moral consensus of a free state is not something mysteriously prior to or above politics: it is the activity (the civilizing activity) of politics itself.”

    Bernard Crick

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    I wasn't articulating principles but rather hard realities that have been neglected by those making the exact mistake you mistake me for making.

    It wasn't in the self-interest of my grandfather to have his favorite son sent off on some absurd colonial war, leaving a six-month-old child (me) behind to be effectively fatherless during my formative years. As a father of young children myself now the price of such follies has finally hit directly home.

    The colonial wars haven't stopped in the years since. Yet. Bill's come due.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  193. @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    Thanks.

    That’s not much of an offer.

    Not much of an offer? 25 billion?

    Less than 1000 miles needed to be secured when he took office. Actual costs have been 20 million per mile. A traditional wall isn't even needed across all the openings. The remote sections just need electronic surveillance with additional spending for border patrol units. The desert sections are a natural deterrent.

    Mr. "art of the deal" totally blew it. He should have taken it but thought he could get even more.

    Schumer realized he went too far and withdrew the offer.

    Even if Trump had accepted the deal on the day it was offered, there was no chance of it getting done.

    Why do you say that? He added over 200 miles of walls and reinforcements. It was still being built until Biden took office.

    .I think a far better criticism of Trump is why he didn’t get a border deal done with the GOP Congress he had for the first two years of his administration.

    Well a harsh reality is that Texas Republicans have been split on the border. Some want to keep it open for cheap labor to the border factories.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Not much of an offer? 25 billion?

    No, it was not much of an offer, as in it was rescinded almost immediately.

    You’ve overestimated the importance of what was a trivial exchange. Schumer got too far out over his skis and pulled back immediately when the pro-immigration left protested.

    Why do you say that? He added over 200 miles of walls and reinforcements. It was still being built until Biden took office.

    I was talking about Schumer’s offer of $25 billion. That was not going to happen even if Trump accepted it right on the spot.

    Well a harsh reality is that Texas Republicans have been split on the border. Some want to keep it open for cheap labor to the border factories.

    Agreed. But a better negotiator than Trump would have used the tax cuts as leverage to get the GOP Congress to give him money for the wall.

    • Thanks: MEH 0910
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    You’ve overestimated the importance of what was a trivial exchange. Schumer got too far out over his skis and pulled back immediately when the pro-immigration left protested.

    It would have covered the cost of the border that Trump wanted. You didn't even know about it so stop trying to defend him.

    I voted for the guy but that was his best offer. It was available and he didn't take it.

    Trump wrote a book on how he is the master of the deal and he left our border open.

    The swamp probably got to him just like they did with tax cuts for the wealthy. Or he really is that much of a blowhard and screwed up the one thing he promised to fix.

    I don't think he even understood what the border looks like. His one big Chinese wall never made sense. He was probably too busy doing important stuff like drinking diet coke and tweeting to bother reading about its flaws and what border patrol veterans actually recommend.

    He did more than what we could expect from Romney or a Bush. I'll give him that. Still a major disappointment given how much he talked about it.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  194. @Anonymous
    @Ebony Obelisk

    LOL!!!

    The Republican party will never win another election ever again in America.

    We've got sky high inflation, cost of living increases and home prices too high, and the Democrats are still killing it.

    But wait for the real kicker. America only gets less and less white from here on out (since white women can't breed).

    The only minorities who were even willing to consider supporting Repuhlicans were Asians who were pissed off about affirmative action, and they are basement dwellers in their own communities.

    It's the end of the Unz commenter's grip on the escapist fantasy of political salvation.

    Joe Biden 2024

    Replies: @HammerJack, @Colin Wright, @TWS, @Curmudgeon

    (since white women can’t breed).

    Apparently they can https://littlethings.com/entertainment/jim-bob-michelle-duggar-20-kids/4165507-4
    The problem is the “feminists” who, it seems, prefer to breed with their pet Knee-grow.

  195. @Pincher Martin
    @pirelli

    BTW...

    https://twitter.com/LifeNewsHQ/status/1590549809454268416

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Almost all of these are Governors of very conservative states. (Which is where you’d expect abortion bans to pass the Legislature.) Large margins for the Republican are to be expected, especially since the Democratic candidates in these states are increasingly almost as liberal as the ones in Purple and Blue states. The conservatism is not limited to abortion, and abortion is not the sole reason for the large margins.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Hibernian


    Almost all of these are Governors of very conservative states.
     
    Wyoming, Idaho, Tennessee, South Carolina, South Dakota, Alabama, Oklahoma, & Texas all fit your description, although the largest of those states (Texas) is less conservative than it once was.

    But Georgia is a swing state with two pro-abortion Democratic senators. Florida, Iowa, and Ohio were considered swing states until quite recently. Three of those states are quite large, ranking among the top ten in EVs.

    I think a fairer response is to say that abortion was important to the vote in some states, but not in others. Out West, for example, it might have made a difference in some competitive key races: Washington, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. Races in PA & MI, too, might have been affected. But why didn't the issue matter in NY, where the GOP was successful in flipping several competitive districts?

    Replies: @Hibernian

  196. @Hibernian
    @Pincher Martin

    Almost all of these are Governors of very conservative states. (Which is where you'd expect abortion bans to pass the Legislature.) Large margins for the Republican are to be expected, especially since the Democratic candidates in these states are increasingly almost as liberal as the ones in Purple and Blue states. The conservatism is not limited to abortion, and abortion is not the sole reason for the large margins.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Almost all of these are Governors of very conservative states.

    Wyoming, Idaho, Tennessee, South Carolina, South Dakota, Alabama, Oklahoma, & Texas all fit your description, although the largest of those states (Texas) is less conservative than it once was.

    But Georgia is a swing state with two pro-abortion Democratic senators. Florida, Iowa, and Ohio were considered swing states until quite recently. Three of those states are quite large, ranking among the top ten in EVs.

    I think a fairer response is to say that abortion was important to the vote in some states, but not in others. Out West, for example, it might have made a difference in some competitive key races: Washington, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. Races in PA & MI, too, might have been affected. But why didn’t the issue matter in NY, where the GOP was successful in flipping several competitive districts?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Pincher Martin


    But Georgia is a swing state with two pro-abortion Democratic senators.
     
    And it had the only single digit Gubernatorial margin of the group at 8%.

    Florida, Iowa, and Ohio were considered swing states until quite recently.
     
    Iowa seemed to change abruptly. Now it's more like Missouri and less like Wisconsin.

    Ohio went through some kind of trnsformation, that culminated in the election of J.D. Vance, after two healthy margins for Trump.

    I think you're right about Florida. It was transformed by refugees from Marxism in Venezuela, Nicaragua, New York, and New Jersey, not the abortion issue.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  197. @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson


    Not much of an offer? 25 billion?
     
    No, it was not much of an offer, as in it was rescinded almost immediately.

    You've overestimated the importance of what was a trivial exchange. Schumer got too far out over his skis and pulled back immediately when the pro-immigration left protested.


    Why do you say that? He added over 200 miles of walls and reinforcements. It was still being built until Biden took office.
     
    I was talking about Schumer's offer of $25 billion. That was not going to happen even if Trump accepted it right on the spot.

    Well a harsh reality is that Texas Republicans have been split on the border. Some want to keep it open for cheap labor to the border factories.
     
    Agreed. But a better negotiator than Trump would have used the tax cuts as leverage to get the GOP Congress to give him money for the wall.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    You’ve overestimated the importance of what was a trivial exchange. Schumer got too far out over his skis and pulled back immediately when the pro-immigration left protested.

    It would have covered the cost of the border that Trump wanted. You didn’t even know about it so stop trying to defend him.

    I voted for the guy but that was his best offer. It was available and he didn’t take it.

    Trump wrote a book on how he is the master of the deal and he left our border open.

    The swamp probably got to him just like they did with tax cuts for the wealthy. Or he really is that much of a blowhard and screwed up the one thing he promised to fix.

    I don’t think he even understood what the border looks like. His one big Chinese wall never made sense. He was probably too busy doing important stuff like drinking diet coke and tweeting to bother reading about its flaws and what border patrol veterans actually recommend.

    He did more than what we could expect from Romney or a Bush. I’ll give him that. Still a major disappointment given how much he talked about it.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @John Johnson


    It would have covered the cost of the border that Trump wanted. You didn’t even know about it so stop trying to defend him.
     
    I didn't know about it because it wasn't important. I keep track of immigration issues quite closely and follow both Mark Krikorian and Stephen Miller. So when you mentioned this offer I was intrigued. Perhaps I had missed something.

    But this was simply not a serious offer. It was a preliminary bargaining move that was pulled back immediately. Your own link shows that.

    You need to understand basic politics before you can evaluate news items like this.

    What's more, here is Mark Krikorian on the border wall deal:

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mark-krikorian-center-for-immigration-studies-immigration-plan-donald-trump/2018/01/26/id/839756/

    So even from the conservative viewpoint, this is not the deal you made it out to be.

  198. @John Johnson
    @Pincher Martin

    You’ve overestimated the importance of what was a trivial exchange. Schumer got too far out over his skis and pulled back immediately when the pro-immigration left protested.

    It would have covered the cost of the border that Trump wanted. You didn't even know about it so stop trying to defend him.

    I voted for the guy but that was his best offer. It was available and he didn't take it.

    Trump wrote a book on how he is the master of the deal and he left our border open.

    The swamp probably got to him just like they did with tax cuts for the wealthy. Or he really is that much of a blowhard and screwed up the one thing he promised to fix.

    I don't think he even understood what the border looks like. His one big Chinese wall never made sense. He was probably too busy doing important stuff like drinking diet coke and tweeting to bother reading about its flaws and what border patrol veterans actually recommend.

    He did more than what we could expect from Romney or a Bush. I'll give him that. Still a major disappointment given how much he talked about it.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    It would have covered the cost of the border that Trump wanted. You didn’t even know about it so stop trying to defend him.

    I didn’t know about it because it wasn’t important. I keep track of immigration issues quite closely and follow both Mark Krikorian and Stephen Miller. So when you mentioned this offer I was intrigued. Perhaps I had missed something.

    But this was simply not a serious offer. It was a preliminary bargaining move that was pulled back immediately. Your own link shows that.

    You need to understand basic politics before you can evaluate news items like this.

    What’s more, here is Mark Krikorian on the border wall deal:

    https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mark-krikorian-center-for-immigration-studies-immigration-plan-donald-trump/2018/01/26/id/839756/

    So even from the conservative viewpoint, this is not the deal you made it out to be.

    • Thanks: MEH 0910
  199. @Whiskey
    A lot, lot of copium here.

    The Midterms were stolen. Pure and simple. That's it. Massive cuts to standards of living, voter turnout down and 75% White, Dems running on more inflation, more bugs, more cutting kids private parts off, more crime, and they won?

    Come on. It was fraud. Fraud that can never be proven because votes were just "found" on a thumb drive, or in the Dominion voting system. Or in mail in ballots.

    Its fraud, fraud fraud. IF there not a difference between the two parties that would not matter, but there is. As bad, as corrupt, as go-along as the Party of Mitch McConnell, Mitt Romney, and other squishes are, they are not freaks, weirdos, and furries. THAT is who runs the Democratic Party. That is exactly WHY they chose Festerman, instead of the old Torricelli for Lautenberg switch. Uncle Festerman fits right in with the freaks that run the party.

    So expect food rationing and bugs only for you. Mandatory cutting off (White only) kids private parts. A massive draft of White men 18-60 to go die in Ukraine in a war that never ends and can't either. Outlawing all private vehicles, mandatory RFID implants, outlawing (White only) heterosexual marriage or kid together, more of that. Its FREAKS all the way down.

    Just look at them: Chucky Schemer is someone who would routinely play bad guys in TV shows in the 1970s. Nancy Pelosi is soused drunk. Beto O'Rourke is a furry. Gavin Newsom is Patrick Bateman writ large and looks creepy. Uncle Festerman. Stacy Abrams is a DMV lady. Gretchen Whitmer and Kathy Hochul make scheming, shrewish Hillary look good. They are all freaks and weirdos. They've been that way since the Clintons make the Party into Freaks and Weirdos Inc.

    There is something about modern technology that tends to elevate and empower freaks and weirdos. The lack of requirement to lead men into battle for leadership is one. The degeneracy of various dynasties in rapid time is another. The ability of freaks and weirdos to form decisive groups through the internet is another. Japan is full of freaks and weirdos, so its not uniquely Northern European either.

    Freaks and Weirdos think nuclear war with Russia is a good thing because it can be "won." That's the problem.

    Replies: @Alt Right Moderate

    The liberal MSM media loves o here this stuff from conservatives as they know most of their liberal readers are law abiding types who will interpret this as an hysterical rants from undereducated redneck with a conspiracy bent.

    My impression is that the Democrats are engaging in every sneaking, unethical, but technically LEGAL thing they can to undermine the populist right, which is exactly how upper middle-class A-holes operate. The slow vote counting in Arizona is a classical example. Lake is a media darling of Fox News who has a good chance of winning, so if they can frustrate her for a week or two, it fits in with the CNN narrative that the Republicans did poorly and the US the electorate punishes “election deniers.”

    In Australasian parlance, the Democrats are underarm bowlers. A reference to a cricket match between Australia and New Zealand, where the Australian captain ordered his bowler to dribble the ball along the ground so the batsmen had little or no chance of hitting the ball to the boundary and score the winning runs. Terrible sportsmanship, but technically within the sporting rules of the time:

  200. @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius


    I am. I won’t be the last.
     
    Political principles are much talked about, but not ultimately important to the practice of politics. You and I can discuss principles until the moon drops out of the sky, but it won't change either of our minds.

    Politics is about building coalitions based on self-interest. While you and I might not be able to change the other person's mind, we can certainly work together to get things we both individually want.

    To the extent your belief in practical politics revolves around your own political principles rather than working together with people who think differently from you, you waste everyone's time, including your own. You become an egotist or a fantasist. You become someone who believes everyone ought to think like you.

    But political coalitions have never been like that. Not ever. And they will never be that way.

    If a conservative coalition is to succeed again, it will only be because various groups who hold different ideas of conservatism work together to help advance each other's agenda.

    I leave you with this quote which explains how politics works:

    “Diverse groups [in society] hold together because they practice politics – not because they agree about ‘fundamentals,’ or some such concept too vague, too personal, or too divine ever to do the job of politics for it. The moral consensus of a free state is not something mysteriously prior to or above politics: it is the activity (the civilizing activity) of politics itself.”

    -- Bernard Crick
     

    Replies: @Desiderius

    I wasn’t articulating principles but rather hard realities that have been neglected by those making the exact mistake you mistake me for making.

    It wasn’t in the self-interest of my grandfather to have his favorite son sent off on some absurd colonial war, leaving a six-month-old child (me) behind to be effectively fatherless during my formative years. As a father of young children myself now the price of such follies has finally hit directly home.

    The colonial wars haven’t stopped in the years since. Yet. Bill’s come due.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius

    There is no "wheel driving everything." We didn't go into Vietnam because of the Monroe Doctrine. Contrary to your take, the Republicans' advocacy of the Cold War was electorally popular and one of the pillars of the Reagan coalition. Hatfield was not a serious option to Goldwater in 1964 nor would Hatfieldism - for lack of a better word - become a serious alternative to Reaganism in later years.

    A man's political principles are built around his ideas about the world, but a political coalition is built around diverse groups coalescing together for the sake of mutual advancement.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Desiderius

  201. @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    I wasn't articulating principles but rather hard realities that have been neglected by those making the exact mistake you mistake me for making.

    It wasn't in the self-interest of my grandfather to have his favorite son sent off on some absurd colonial war, leaving a six-month-old child (me) behind to be effectively fatherless during my formative years. As a father of young children myself now the price of such follies has finally hit directly home.

    The colonial wars haven't stopped in the years since. Yet. Bill's come due.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    There is no “wheel driving everything.” We didn’t go into Vietnam because of the Monroe Doctrine. Contrary to your take, the Republicans’ advocacy of the Cold War was electorally popular and one of the pillars of the Reagan coalition. Hatfield was not a serious option to Goldwater in 1964 nor would Hatfieldism – for lack of a better word – become a serious alternative to Reaganism in later years.

    A man’s political principles are built around his ideas about the world, but a political coalition is built around diverse groups coalescing together for the sake of mutual advancement.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    Sigh.

    Of course we didn’t. It was a direct violation of it. That’s the point.

    C’mon man if you want to have a conversation at least get the basic argument right.

    , @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    Hatfield never lost an election. Goldwater was so popular he lost to the worst man to ever hold the office by a record margin. Your revisionism makes no sense. Propping up a French colony was a net drag on our efforts in the Cold War and probably ended up losing Africa (and not just Africa) for a generation at least.

    The Monroe Doctrine is not a principle. It’s a prudent estimation of the extent of our relative resources and what we can hope to accomplish with them in this world as it is. It’s no coincidence that it was abrogated concurrently with the functional loss of Republican government as set forth in the Constitution (17th amendment, first “welfare payment”, income tax, Fed all in 1910s).

    Can an empire be rolled back to a Republic?

    That’s more or less what Talleyrand negotiated for France at the Congress of Vienna and what the Marshall Plan accomplished in Germany. No time like the present to prepare for that here, or to head off the necessity for it if possible.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  202. @Pincher Martin
    @Hibernian


    Almost all of these are Governors of very conservative states.
     
    Wyoming, Idaho, Tennessee, South Carolina, South Dakota, Alabama, Oklahoma, & Texas all fit your description, although the largest of those states (Texas) is less conservative than it once was.

    But Georgia is a swing state with two pro-abortion Democratic senators. Florida, Iowa, and Ohio were considered swing states until quite recently. Three of those states are quite large, ranking among the top ten in EVs.

    I think a fairer response is to say that abortion was important to the vote in some states, but not in others. Out West, for example, it might have made a difference in some competitive key races: Washington, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada. Races in PA & MI, too, might have been affected. But why didn't the issue matter in NY, where the GOP was successful in flipping several competitive districts?

    Replies: @Hibernian

    But Georgia is a swing state with two pro-abortion Democratic senators.

    And it had the only single digit Gubernatorial margin of the group at 8%.

    Florida, Iowa, and Ohio were considered swing states until quite recently.

    Iowa seemed to change abruptly. Now it’s more like Missouri and less like Wisconsin.

    Ohio went through some kind of trnsformation, that culminated in the election of J.D. Vance, after two healthy margins for Trump.

    I think you’re right about Florida. It was transformed by refugees from Marxism in Venezuela, Nicaragua, New York, and New Jersey, not the abortion issue.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Hibernian


    And it had the only single digit Gubernatorial margin of the group at 8%.
     
    But Kemp won his first race four years ago by a much smaller percentage, which was before he signed the abortion bill. If the abortion issue was salient across all states, then the opposite should have happened. He should have had either a tighter victory or lost the 2022 campaign.

    Ohio went through some kind of trnsformation, that culminated in the election of J.D. Vance, after two healthy margins for Trump.
     
    But DeWine blew his race wide open, and he - not Vance - was the man to sign an abortion ban in the state.

    Also, look at Pennsylvania. That swing state has elected and re-elected *three* pro-life politicians to the Senate over the last thirty years - Republicans Pat Toomey, Rick Santorum & Democrat Bob Casey. So does it really make sense to blame Oz's loss this year on Dobbs? The state's voters seem quite comfortable with politicians who are pro-life and vote that way in office.

  203. @Hibernian
    @Pincher Martin


    But Georgia is a swing state with two pro-abortion Democratic senators.
     
    And it had the only single digit Gubernatorial margin of the group at 8%.

    Florida, Iowa, and Ohio were considered swing states until quite recently.
     
    Iowa seemed to change abruptly. Now it's more like Missouri and less like Wisconsin.

    Ohio went through some kind of trnsformation, that culminated in the election of J.D. Vance, after two healthy margins for Trump.

    I think you're right about Florida. It was transformed by refugees from Marxism in Venezuela, Nicaragua, New York, and New Jersey, not the abortion issue.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    And it had the only single digit Gubernatorial margin of the group at 8%.

    But Kemp won his first race four years ago by a much smaller percentage, which was before he signed the abortion bill. If the abortion issue was salient across all states, then the opposite should have happened. He should have had either a tighter victory or lost the 2022 campaign.

    Ohio went through some kind of trnsformation, that culminated in the election of J.D. Vance, after two healthy margins for Trump.

    But DeWine blew his race wide open, and he – not Vance – was the man to sign an abortion ban in the state.

    Also, look at Pennsylvania. That swing state has elected and re-elected *three* pro-life politicians to the Senate over the last thirty years – Republicans Pat Toomey, Rick Santorum & Democrat Bob Casey. So does it really make sense to blame Oz’s loss this year on Dobbs? The state’s voters seem quite comfortable with politicians who are pro-life and vote that way in office.

  204. @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius

    There is no "wheel driving everything." We didn't go into Vietnam because of the Monroe Doctrine. Contrary to your take, the Republicans' advocacy of the Cold War was electorally popular and one of the pillars of the Reagan coalition. Hatfield was not a serious option to Goldwater in 1964 nor would Hatfieldism - for lack of a better word - become a serious alternative to Reaganism in later years.

    A man's political principles are built around his ideas about the world, but a political coalition is built around diverse groups coalescing together for the sake of mutual advancement.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Desiderius

    Sigh.

    Of course we didn’t. It was a direct violation of it. That’s the point.

    C’mon man if you want to have a conversation at least get the basic argument right.

  205. @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius

    There is no "wheel driving everything." We didn't go into Vietnam because of the Monroe Doctrine. Contrary to your take, the Republicans' advocacy of the Cold War was electorally popular and one of the pillars of the Reagan coalition. Hatfield was not a serious option to Goldwater in 1964 nor would Hatfieldism - for lack of a better word - become a serious alternative to Reaganism in later years.

    A man's political principles are built around his ideas about the world, but a political coalition is built around diverse groups coalescing together for the sake of mutual advancement.

    Replies: @Desiderius, @Desiderius

    Hatfield never lost an election. Goldwater was so popular he lost to the worst man to ever hold the office by a record margin. Your revisionism makes no sense. Propping up a French colony was a net drag on our efforts in the Cold War and probably ended up losing Africa (and not just Africa) for a generation at least.

    The Monroe Doctrine is not a principle. It’s a prudent estimation of the extent of our relative resources and what we can hope to accomplish with them in this world as it is. It’s no coincidence that it was abrogated concurrently with the functional loss of Republican government as set forth in the Constitution (17th amendment, first “welfare payment”, income tax, Fed all in 1910s).

    Can an empire be rolled back to a Republic?

    That’s more or less what Talleyrand negotiated for France at the Congress of Vienna and what the Marshall Plan accomplished in Germany. No time like the present to prepare for that here, or to head off the necessity for it if possible.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius

    I replied to you above.

  206. Hatfield never lost an election.

    Neither did Nelson Rockefeller (unless you count his half-hearted attempts at getting the GOP nomination in 1960, 64 & 68). He ran four times in the Democratic bastion of New York state and never once came close to losing to any Democrat.

    Yet many Republicans – correctly – wanted nothing to do with Rockefeller Republicanism at the national level. And with Reagan’s two presidential victories they eventually left the party or died out.

    Hatfield seems to be your own little political quirk. A way for you to express your own dissatisfaction with how the world turned out.

    I look at the political history far more simply. Reaganism was built on coalescing *four* groups. Some of these groups were small but powerful (because they were populated by elites). Others were far larger in number, but not as influential among conservative elites.

    1) Social conservatives – large in number, and thus important on election day, but they carried little influence among GOP policy-making elites. Winning the Culture War was their primary concern.

    2) National Security conservatives – both large in number and powerful in elite circles. Winning the Cold War was their primary concern.

    3) Low-tax/Small-government conservatives – a Jekyll and Hyde conservative group. The low-tax side was both large and influential in the GOP coalition, but the small-government side was far smaller and less influential. Getting lower taxes was really the primary concern of this group; smaller government was just an episodic concern.

    4) Tough-on-crime conservatives/legal eagle conservatives – another Jekyll and Hyde group. The tough-on-crime group was large, and included many Democrats, but was only somewhat influential among elites. The legal-eagle conservatives were focused on returning to sane constitutional rulings (mostly on business, but also on crime) in line with what we now take to be originalism. Getting crime down and returning to commonsense Constitutional rulings were the goals of this group.

    Reagan needed all four groups to build the Reagan coalition. They were all essential to one degree or another. But the national security and low tax conservatives were the biggest pigs at the trough when policy priorities were being made.

    How would a Republican like Hatfield have managed this coalition?

    Goldwater was so popular he lost to the worst man to ever hold the office by a record margin.

    No Republican candidate was winning against LBJ that year. The economy was in great shape, we were not at war, and JFK’s body hadn’t been interred for a full year.

    Would another Republican, like Rockefeller, have come closer than Goldwater in that election? Probably. But closer is not close. LBJ was going to win against any Republican candidate and it wasn’t going to be a competitive contest.

    Your revisionism makes no sense. Propping up a French colony was a net drag on our efforts in the Cold War and probably ended up losing Africa (and not just Africa) for a generation at least.

    Revisionism? How was propping up South Vietnam, the remnant of a French colony, any different than propping up South Korea, the remnant of a Japanese colony?

    And even if I were to agree with you about Vietnam’s impact on the fate of Africa, which I don’t, the Dark Continent was entirely meaningless to U.S. fortunes in the Cold War.

    The Monroe Doctrine is not a principle. It’s a prudent estimation of the extent of our relative resources and what we can hope to accomplish with them in this world as it is.

    For you, the Monroe Doctrine is a symbol. So there’s nothing “prudent” in seeking to understand its impact on modern day American politics. It’s intellectual fluff making connections between two such disparate historical items.

    I can understand and even sympathize with someone who does a simple cost-benefit analysis on Vietnam and believes defending it wasn’t worth the effort, but I can’t understand why anyone would refer to the Monroe Doctrine as a way to do so.

    It’s no coincidence that it was abrogated concurrently with the functional loss of Republican government as set forth in the Constitution (17th amendment, first “welfare payment”, income tax, Fed all in 1910s).

    ???

    You’ll have to explain this history with more detail, as it seems clear to me that these two things have nothing to do with each other.

  207. @Desiderius
    @Pincher Martin

    Hatfield never lost an election. Goldwater was so popular he lost to the worst man to ever hold the office by a record margin. Your revisionism makes no sense. Propping up a French colony was a net drag on our efforts in the Cold War and probably ended up losing Africa (and not just Africa) for a generation at least.

    The Monroe Doctrine is not a principle. It’s a prudent estimation of the extent of our relative resources and what we can hope to accomplish with them in this world as it is. It’s no coincidence that it was abrogated concurrently with the functional loss of Republican government as set forth in the Constitution (17th amendment, first “welfare payment”, income tax, Fed all in 1910s).

    Can an empire be rolled back to a Republic?

    That’s more or less what Talleyrand negotiated for France at the Congress of Vienna and what the Marshall Plan accomplished in Germany. No time like the present to prepare for that here, or to head off the necessity for it if possible.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    I replied to you above.

  208. This was in response to that.

    You’re wrong about the past in a way that makes you wrong about the present.

  209. Neither did Nelson Rockefeller

    Governor is a very different office from Senator, as one can see clearly in the late election. It requires translating the vision of a national party into the context of local concerns and values, since a vote for a Senator is also a vote for a potential Majority Leader. McConnell destroyed the fortunes of all but the finest Senate candidates such as Vance and Johnson this cycle. That was a burden Hatfield carried every time.

    Hatfield was *not* a Rockefeller R. In some important respects the opposite.

    Hatfield seems to be your own little political quirk. A way for you to express your own dissatisfaction with how the world turned out.

    Enemy of my enemy is my friend. I had never heard of Hatfield until Antifa chose the courthouse with his name on it to relentlessly attack as our Republican representatives all the way up to the White House sat on their hands and did nothing. That got me looking for better ones.

    Reaganism was built on coalescing *four* groups.

    Those four groups existed in the shape there were when Reagan found them because of the wreckage of Goldwaterism and the ever-increasing burden half a century of empire-building had placed on the populace.

    Social Conservatism wasn’t always a ghetto. “Low tax” conservatives (sic) in previous generations would have been captains of industry not flying a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. A secure Empire is an insecure Nation, as the Founders well knew. “Legal Eagles” terrorize the populace periodically to distract from their steady record of prosecutorial abuse while turning a blind eye to former Weathermen taking over the culture and through that the courts and permanent government.

    I’m giving you a drawing board. Go back to it.

    For you, the Monroe Doctrine is a symbol.

    You can keep repeating this until you’re blue in the face and it won’t make it true. It’s a policy based on something real. The Mississippi River basin is one of the richest in the world. Those who hold it will have the resources to project power. The question is how far. The Founders who were well-tutored and experienced in the kind of jockeying that Steve noted that we’re seeing in the Donbas, determined that a hemisphere would be about right. In particular this one.

    Were they right? Well, the century of evidence we now have subsequent to the decision to go for something more (and to violate the Founders vision on the other subjects I mentioned, which was all of a piece) suggests they were more right than the clowns in power now, including the Republican ones.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius


    Governor is a very different office from Senator, as one can see clearly in the late election. It requires translating the vision of a national party into the context of local concerns and values, since a vote for a Senator is also a vote for a potential Majority Leader. McConnell destroyed the fortunes of all but the finest Senate candidates such as Vance and Johnson this cycle. That was a burden Hatfield carried every time.
     
    My point is that many politicians have long careers with impressive streaks of victories. Like Rockefeller, Reagan never lost an election to a Democrat. Indeed, Reagan never came close to losing to a Democrat. Hatfield wasn't special because he was a highly successful career politician.

    Electability is a concern, but it's not my primary concern. Instead, I vote for politicians who will give me something of what I want. In return, I expect those same politicians will have to give to other Americans something they want, too. If what they give to other Americans doesn't vex me too much, then it works for me. But if there's no Republican politician who approaches this minimum standard I have set for myself, then I vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote.


    Hatfield was *not* a Rockefeller R. In some important respects the opposite.
     
    I never claimed he was. But Hatfield also wasn't a Goldwater or Reagan - two men, who despite their huge differences in personality and approach to retail politics, could both appeal to wide audiences outside their respective states. There was simply no national constituency for Hatfield. He had a brief moment on the national stage and it quickly passed.

    I'm not disparaging the man. I'm disparaging your inflated view of his political and historical importance.


    Those four groups existed in the shape there were when Reagan found them because of the wreckage of Goldwaterism and the ever-increasing burden half a century of empire-building had placed on the populace.
     
    You attribute too much to politics. The widespread American fear of international Communism preceded both Reagan and Goldwater's political careers. They responded to this fear; their political careers were shaped by it; they did not, however, create it.

    Reagan and Goldwater also did not create social conservatism. Indeed, Goldwater wanted little to do with the movement. It fit poorly with his rugged western individualism. Reagan was more accommodating to the movement, but he had to be. Religious conservatives grew in the seventies in large part because they were a reaction to the liberal zaniness of the sixties. First Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan cooperated with the movement to win the presidency. But both men gave the movement very few policy victories.


    Social Conservatism wasn’t always a ghetto. “Low tax” conservatives (sic) in previous generations would have been captains of industry not flying a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. A secure Empire is an insecure Nation, as the Founders well knew. “Legal Eagles” terrorize the populace periodically to distract from their steady record of prosecutorial abuse while turning a blind eye to former Weathermen taking over the culture and through that the courts and permanent government.
     
    With the exception of your first sentence, nothing you write in this paragraph is accurate.

    You can keep repeating this until you’re blue in the face and it won’t make it true. It’s a policy based on something real.
     
    No, it's not. It's symbolic history for you, a totem you use to explain American history.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

  210. @Desiderius

    Neither did Nelson Rockefeller
     
    Governor is a very different office from Senator, as one can see clearly in the late election. It requires translating the vision of a national party into the context of local concerns and values, since a vote for a Senator is also a vote for a potential Majority Leader. McConnell destroyed the fortunes of all but the finest Senate candidates such as Vance and Johnson this cycle. That was a burden Hatfield carried every time.

    Hatfield was *not* a Rockefeller R. In some important respects the opposite.


    Hatfield seems to be your own little political quirk. A way for you to express your own dissatisfaction with how the world turned out.
     
    Enemy of my enemy is my friend. I had never heard of Hatfield until Antifa chose the courthouse with his name on it to relentlessly attack as our Republican representatives all the way up to the White House sat on their hands and did nothing. That got me looking for better ones.

    Reaganism was built on coalescing *four* groups.

     

    Those four groups existed in the shape there were when Reagan found them because of the wreckage of Goldwaterism and the ever-increasing burden half a century of empire-building had placed on the populace.

    Social Conservatism wasn't always a ghetto. "Low tax" conservatives (sic) in previous generations would have been captains of industry not flying a "Don't Tread on Me" flag. A secure Empire is an insecure Nation, as the Founders well knew. "Legal Eagles" terrorize the populace periodically to distract from their steady record of prosecutorial abuse while turning a blind eye to former Weathermen taking over the culture and through that the courts and permanent government.

    I'm giving you a drawing board. Go back to it.


    For you, the Monroe Doctrine is a symbol.
     
    You can keep repeating this until you're blue in the face and it won't make it true. It's a policy based on something real. The Mississippi River basin is one of the richest in the world. Those who hold it will have the resources to project power. The question is how far. The Founders who were well-tutored and experienced in the kind of jockeying that Steve noted that we're seeing in the Donbas, determined that a hemisphere would be about right. In particular this one.

    Were they right? Well, the century of evidence we now have subsequent to the decision to go for something more (and to violate the Founders vision on the other subjects I mentioned, which was all of a piece) suggests they were more right than the clowns in power now, including the Republican ones.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    Governor is a very different office from Senator, as one can see clearly in the late election. It requires translating the vision of a national party into the context of local concerns and values, since a vote for a Senator is also a vote for a potential Majority Leader. McConnell destroyed the fortunes of all but the finest Senate candidates such as Vance and Johnson this cycle. That was a burden Hatfield carried every time.

    My point is that many politicians have long careers with impressive streaks of victories. Like Rockefeller, Reagan never lost an election to a Democrat. Indeed, Reagan never came close to losing to a Democrat. Hatfield wasn’t special because he was a highly successful career politician.

    Electability is a concern, but it’s not my primary concern. Instead, I vote for politicians who will give me something of what I want. In return, I expect those same politicians will have to give to other Americans something they want, too. If what they give to other Americans doesn’t vex me too much, then it works for me. But if there’s no Republican politician who approaches this minimum standard I have set for myself, then I vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote.

    Hatfield was *not* a Rockefeller R. In some important respects the opposite.

    I never claimed he was. But Hatfield also wasn’t a Goldwater or Reagan – two men, who despite their huge differences in personality and approach to retail politics, could both appeal to wide audiences outside their respective states. There was simply no national constituency for Hatfield. He had a brief moment on the national stage and it quickly passed.

    I’m not disparaging the man. I’m disparaging your inflated view of his political and historical importance.

    Those four groups existed in the shape there were when Reagan found them because of the wreckage of Goldwaterism and the ever-increasing burden half a century of empire-building had placed on the populace.

    You attribute too much to politics. The widespread American fear of international Communism preceded both Reagan and Goldwater’s political careers. They responded to this fear; their political careers were shaped by it; they did not, however, create it.

    Reagan and Goldwater also did not create social conservatism. Indeed, Goldwater wanted little to do with the movement. It fit poorly with his rugged western individualism. Reagan was more accommodating to the movement, but he had to be. Religious conservatives grew in the seventies in large part because they were a reaction to the liberal zaniness of the sixties. First Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan cooperated with the movement to win the presidency. But both men gave the movement very few policy victories.

    Social Conservatism wasn’t always a ghetto. “Low tax” conservatives (sic) in previous generations would have been captains of industry not flying a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. A secure Empire is an insecure Nation, as the Founders well knew. “Legal Eagles” terrorize the populace periodically to distract from their steady record of prosecutorial abuse while turning a blind eye to former Weathermen taking over the culture and through that the courts and permanent government.

    With the exception of your first sentence, nothing you write in this paragraph is accurate.

    You can keep repeating this until you’re blue in the face and it won’t make it true. It’s a policy based on something real.

    No, it’s not. It’s symbolic history for you, a totem you use to explain American history.

    • Replies: @That Would Be Telling
    @Pincher Martin


    Religious conservatives grew in the seventies in large part because they were a reaction to the liberal zaniness of the sixties. First Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan cooperated with the movement.....
     
    Um, no, hard no to Jimmy Carter "cooperating" with religious conservatives.

    In something of a repeat of what we're seeing today with CRT, LGB and World War T, albeit diminished by the greater control of the state, rampant election cheating, etc. is the state again going after people's children, which is generally a mistake. Once in office Jimmy Carter viciously attacked private religious schooling on the not exactly inaccurate claim it was racist. And thus political religious conservatism became a fairly big thing, not that the GOPe ever did much for it.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

  211. @Pincher Martin
    @Desiderius


    Governor is a very different office from Senator, as one can see clearly in the late election. It requires translating the vision of a national party into the context of local concerns and values, since a vote for a Senator is also a vote for a potential Majority Leader. McConnell destroyed the fortunes of all but the finest Senate candidates such as Vance and Johnson this cycle. That was a burden Hatfield carried every time.
     
    My point is that many politicians have long careers with impressive streaks of victories. Like Rockefeller, Reagan never lost an election to a Democrat. Indeed, Reagan never came close to losing to a Democrat. Hatfield wasn't special because he was a highly successful career politician.

    Electability is a concern, but it's not my primary concern. Instead, I vote for politicians who will give me something of what I want. In return, I expect those same politicians will have to give to other Americans something they want, too. If what they give to other Americans doesn't vex me too much, then it works for me. But if there's no Republican politician who approaches this minimum standard I have set for myself, then I vote for a third party candidate as a protest vote.


    Hatfield was *not* a Rockefeller R. In some important respects the opposite.
     
    I never claimed he was. But Hatfield also wasn't a Goldwater or Reagan - two men, who despite their huge differences in personality and approach to retail politics, could both appeal to wide audiences outside their respective states. There was simply no national constituency for Hatfield. He had a brief moment on the national stage and it quickly passed.

    I'm not disparaging the man. I'm disparaging your inflated view of his political and historical importance.


    Those four groups existed in the shape there were when Reagan found them because of the wreckage of Goldwaterism and the ever-increasing burden half a century of empire-building had placed on the populace.
     
    You attribute too much to politics. The widespread American fear of international Communism preceded both Reagan and Goldwater's political careers. They responded to this fear; their political careers were shaped by it; they did not, however, create it.

    Reagan and Goldwater also did not create social conservatism. Indeed, Goldwater wanted little to do with the movement. It fit poorly with his rugged western individualism. Reagan was more accommodating to the movement, but he had to be. Religious conservatives grew in the seventies in large part because they were a reaction to the liberal zaniness of the sixties. First Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan cooperated with the movement to win the presidency. But both men gave the movement very few policy victories.


    Social Conservatism wasn’t always a ghetto. “Low tax” conservatives (sic) in previous generations would have been captains of industry not flying a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag. A secure Empire is an insecure Nation, as the Founders well knew. “Legal Eagles” terrorize the populace periodically to distract from their steady record of prosecutorial abuse while turning a blind eye to former Weathermen taking over the culture and through that the courts and permanent government.
     
    With the exception of your first sentence, nothing you write in this paragraph is accurate.

    You can keep repeating this until you’re blue in the face and it won’t make it true. It’s a policy based on something real.
     
    No, it's not. It's symbolic history for you, a totem you use to explain American history.

    Replies: @That Would Be Telling

    Religious conservatives grew in the seventies in large part because they were a reaction to the liberal zaniness of the sixties. First Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan cooperated with the movement…..

    Um, no, hard no to Jimmy Carter “cooperating” with religious conservatives.

    In something of a repeat of what we’re seeing today with CRT, LGB and World War T, albeit diminished by the greater control of the state, rampant election cheating, etc. is the state again going after people’s children, which is generally a mistake. Once in office Jimmy Carter viciously attacked private religious schooling on the not exactly inaccurate claim it was racist. And thus political religious conservatism became a fairly big thing, not that the GOPe ever did much for it.

    • Replies: @Pincher Martin
    @That Would Be Telling

    In Carter's case, cooperate is the wrong word. But he did make electoral appeals to religious conservatives during his 1976 campaign. He was the first modern presidential candidate to do so. Those appeals helped Carter sweep the south (minus Virginia).

    However, you're right in pointing out that those same religious conservatives abandoned Carter four years later because he didn't give them the policies they wanted. They then joined up with Reagan, who I agree also did not do much for religious conservatives, but at least managed relations with the group better than did Carter. Reagan also did have Ed Meese as Attorney General in his second term.

  212. @That Would Be Telling
    @Pincher Martin


    Religious conservatives grew in the seventies in large part because they were a reaction to the liberal zaniness of the sixties. First Jimmy Carter and then Ronald Reagan cooperated with the movement.....
     
    Um, no, hard no to Jimmy Carter "cooperating" with religious conservatives.

    In something of a repeat of what we're seeing today with CRT, LGB and World War T, albeit diminished by the greater control of the state, rampant election cheating, etc. is the state again going after people's children, which is generally a mistake. Once in office Jimmy Carter viciously attacked private religious schooling on the not exactly inaccurate claim it was racist. And thus political religious conservatism became a fairly big thing, not that the GOPe ever did much for it.

    Replies: @Pincher Martin

    In Carter’s case, cooperate is the wrong word. But he did make electoral appeals to religious conservatives during his 1976 campaign. He was the first modern presidential candidate to do so. Those appeals helped Carter sweep the south (minus Virginia).

    However, you’re right in pointing out that those same religious conservatives abandoned Carter four years later because he didn’t give them the policies they wanted. They then joined up with Reagan, who I agree also did not do much for religious conservatives, but at least managed relations with the group better than did Carter. Reagan also did have Ed Meese as Attorney General in his second term.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?