The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Super Tuesday's Turnout: Hillary Depresses Dems
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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

Screenshot 2016-03-03 01.42.35

Here’s a way of thinking about turnout in Super Tuesday primary states: compare what % of primary voters on Tuesday were Republican compared to what % of general election voters in November of 2012 voted for Romney. For example, in Alabama, 68% of the voters on Tuesday who cast ballots did so in the Republican primary, while 61% of all voters in November 2012 voted for Romney.

So Republicans did better in 6 of the 10 states that held contests on Tuesday for both parties. Five of the six were states that voted Republican in 2012, the exception being Virginia (where Trump narrowly beat Rubio).

Trump looks like he’d have no problem winning the always-Republican deep south states in the fall. But Trump’s big victory in the GOP primary in Massachusetts was a tempest in a teapot: Democrats outvoted Republicans almost 2 to 1 in MA on Tuesday.

The turnout statistics suggest that Cruz’s big victory in his home state of Texas was indeed impressive, but his mojo didn’t really extend to Oklahoma. While Cruz won there, GOP turnout was mediocre by the high standards of OK.

Rubio’s one victory, Minnesota, looks hollow because Republicans only accounted for 37% of the participants there on Tuesday.

On the other hand, Democratic turnout was boosted in MA, OK, and MN by Bernie Sanders supporters.

In the four states where Democrats did better than or as well as Republicans in 2016 relative to 2012, Bernie Sanders won three (MN, OK, and VT) and came close in Massachusetts. Even as he seems to be sinking beneath the waves overall, Bernie remains the engine of Democratic enthusiasm.

Hillary had a good day piling up delegates, but she didn’t generate much excitement among Democrats in the states where she cruised to victory by getting her core loyalists to dutifully turn out.

The early word is that Hill and Bill, realizing they don’t have much to say for themselves, are planning to run a negative, ugly campaign against Donald Trump, with lots of charges of sexism and racism.

So we’ve got that to look forward to.

Meanwhile, the exit polls show the Democrats are suffering a gender gap, with poor turnout among men. In the 9 states with exit poll data, the Democrats had an average of 42% male voters, compared to a better balanced 51% male among Republicans. (All averages equally weighting each state.)

Screenshot 2016-03-03 02.31.13

Averaging each state, Trump won 41% of the GOP men and 33% of the GOP women, while Rubio earned 20% of the men and 25% of the women. Cruz’s vote was balanced between men (24%) and women (23%).

The Democratic candidates have big gender gaps with Hillary crushing Bernie 63-36 among women, but only 52-46 among men. In Massachusetts, Bernie won 58-42 among men (while losing 57-41 among women), but men made up only 42% of Democratic voters. So the BernieBros phenomenon is real … but limited in scope.

Screenshot 2016-03-03 02.37.05

It’s likely that Hillary’s victories in Southern states stemmed from the demographic that did so much for Obama in 2012 relative to 2008: the older black ladies who took up the slack when the cooler demographics of 2008 forgot to show up at the polls in the same numbers in 2012. Black church ladies are a respectable demographic, but how fashionable are they?

The concept of the “gender gap” is traditionally conceived of by the media as a problem for Republicans. But, you know, they still count men’s votes. Maybe in the future they’ll finally do something to rectify centuries of patriarchy, such as disenfranchising old white men, like they’re trying to do with Oscars voting (although they will probably end up disenfranchising actresses because SWJ projects are big on unintended consequences, like Black Lives Matter getting hundreds more blacks murdered by other blacks).

But, I dunno, I kind of don’t envy the Democrats running a lady whom even Democratic men have a hard time getting enthusiastic about.

Granted, I realize that we are all supposed to be excited over the historic election of Mrs. Bill Clinton only 50 years after a term-limited George Wallace got his wife Lurleen Wallace elected governor of Alabama.

What? You’re not enthralled? What kind of sexist are you?

Apparently, according to the early word out of Chappaqua, we’re going to be discussing at vast length just what kind of sexist you are all fall. And what kind of racist you are, too. Sounds exciting, huh?

 
Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Fascinating, Steve: fits my personal experience that women are more likely to like Rubio and dislike Trump.

    Of course, the two coming Big Events are:

    A) The GOP Establishment is going to try to throw the election if Trump is the nominee.

    B) The FBI is moving towards recommending indictment of Hillary and her cohorts.

    My guess is that how those two events play out determines the outcome of the general election.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    • Replies: @Johnnygeo
    Don't forget Bill's untimely passing this September.
    , @Ed
    I think comment # 1 nails the dynamic of this race. But that raises the possibility of what happens if the GOP e tries to throw the election to Hillary Clinton AND she is indicted for espionage. That could create a real mess.

    At the moment, I suspect the likeliest outcome is that both parties nominate someone who is not running in the primaries at all, the first time this would have happened since 1968. Some connected Republicans are already openly talking about taking advantage of proportional delegate allocation, and first denying Trump the nomination if he can't get a majority of the delegates, and then nominating someone else, but the current other candidates have to be on board with this, and they are more likely to agree to fall behind someone who isn't a candidate now at all than one of their current opponents. The Democratic situation is simpler, Hilary Clinton could be indicted or her health could take a turn for the worse (there is some evidence that it is shaky) and then they would have to find a substitute.

    If both of these things happen, the public would get the long awaited Romney vs Kerry contest.

    Apparently Sanders' campaign people gave a press conference on Wednesday when they told reporters that of course he is staying in the race, and said the campaign would raise the "integrity" issue more. If that is true, it is probably code for "why drop out, when even though we are behind we are winning some contests and it is our opponent who might have to drop out over ethics issues".

    This wasn't the comment I was originally planning to make. What I was going to point out is that the Democratic contest and the Republican contest are affecting each other, because you have a situation where the second choice for many voters in one party's primary is someone running in the other party's primary. I think there is a fair amount of overlap between Trump supporters and Sanders supports, and to a much lesser extent between Clinton and Rubio supporters. Trump himself has noted that Sanders and himself are addressing the same concerns, though with different solutions. This results in a situation where any remaining white working class Democrats, who would vote for Sanders over Clinton, are opting to go to the Republican primary and vote for Trump, who is getting more attention and running a stronger campaign. One way to test this theory is to track Sanders' support in each state with changes in Democratic and Republican turnout, as Steve just did, and also against whether the Republican primary/ caucus is open (you can show up and declare your registration that day) or closed (only previously registered voters can vote), if my theory is correct Sanders should do alot worse when there is an open Republican contest.
    , @Olorin
    Not in my household.

    Kicking the topic around the other night chez nous over XO cognac. Asked the wife why she liked Trump. She looked at me as though I had scorpions coming out my ears, laughed, and said, "Like I ever didn't like an opinionated guy who knows how to get things built. But who'd listen if you argue sensibly about which tool to use, or a better conduit path."

    I'm guessing a lot of women LIKE Trump but have been propagandized so long against their instincts, they're reacting as they think they're supposed to. That's a big part of the source of the tension and hysteria. Their gut keeps saying "alpha male, makes me wet," but their brains are running the PC formula matrices.

    His team should play on the concept of guys fixing up houses so women can live there with their families. I.e., how he established his career.

  2. Depends on where the rubio voters go. Republicans have poisoned the well in more than a few states.

    I can see establishment repubs not coming out and the establishment supporting that under the rationale that it will be better to take a temporary setback now and regroup in 18 and 20.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I can see establishment repubs not coming out and the establishment supporting that under the rationale that it will be better to take a temporary setback now and regroup in 18 and 20.
     
    The establishment Republicans may find they don't have a party to use as their playpen in the future.
  3. Ma Ferguson was twice governor of Texas, too, 1925-1927 and 1933-1935.

  4. She’s like Dole/McCain with some Mitt all wrapped up inside of an aging , deteriorating body.

  5. “early word out of Chappaqua”: the musings of the Chappaqua dick?

  6. I think I’d want some better data on states like Mass, where you can become a Republican on election day, if that’s where the action is that year. 2012 also had Scott Brown on the ballot. Then there’s the Mitt Romney factor. This time everyone knew Trump was the winner, but the chance to damage Hillary by voting Sanders became a “thing” that had more people voting Democrat.

    Maybe there’s something here, but I’d want to see this data going back into the 90’s to see if we have anything more than neat looking charts.

    That said, there needs to be a stadium show metric. In 2000, Bush was giving speeches at places like Red Rocks. In 2008, McCain was playing auditoriums, while Obama was playing Red Rocks. This time, Clinton is working small rooms and Trump is doing stadium shows with people tailgating all day in advance.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    And a certain number Massachusetts of Bernie Bros and Hillary Hos will have graduated in June and be off to parts yet unknown.
  7. For Massachusetts it may make more sense to compare the 2008 results with the 2016 results.

    In 2008 the Dem total was just over 1.2 million and the Repub total is just under 500 thousand votes.

    In 2016 the Dem total was just over 1.2 million and the Repub total is over 600 thousand votes.

    Note also that Hillary received 100 thousand fewer votes in 2016 than in 2008. This is especially notable because the Clintons took extreme measures to garner votes for this primary.

    Depending on how burned the Bernie voters feel in MA, Hillary may not be able to take the MA vote for granted in the general election this year.

  8. @polynikes
    Depends on where the rubio voters go. Republicans have poisoned the well in more than a few states.

    I can see establishment repubs not coming out and the establishment supporting that under the rationale that it will be better to take a temporary setback now and regroup in 18 and 20.

    I can see establishment repubs not coming out and the establishment supporting that under the rationale that it will be better to take a temporary setback now and regroup in 18 and 20.

    The establishment Republicans may find they don’t have a party to use as their playpen in the future.

  9. Women seem to dislike Trump on the basis that Trump would never date them.

    The really hot women love the guy, because they all envisage that they could snag him as a sugar daddy. But every chick below a 9 dislikes him because he’s the alpha who would never settle for anything below choice sirloin.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Don't be silly, I'm a 3 (on a good day) and I don't dislike Trump because he'd never date me. I've always disliked him (even when I was an 8) because he's a big blowhard.
    But just because I don't like him doesn't mean I won't vote for him. After all, he's not a bought-and-paid-for-by-big-donors big blowhard. Many commenters here have mentioned that they don't like him but they just happen to agree with almost everything he says. And who else but a big blowhard would have the nerve to say it!
    , @Brutusale
    Females outnumber males in MA, about 52% to 48%, and a higher number of females than average are lesbians. Add the fact that checking off the "D", especially in Greater Boston, is pretty much hereditary. Our Republicans are like Mittens and current RINO-in chief Charlie Baker, inoffensive to the moonbats. Unenrolled voters (no party affiliation) outnumber Dems and Reps put together. You live here, you must see the vast number of Melissa Clicks in the Commonwealth!

    I have hope, though, granting that a datum isn't a trend. My girlfriend, a solid 8 for the general population of women and a 12 judging only those 50+, is conservative like most attractive ladies. She's swimming in a pool of middle-aged colleagues, mostly white Southie girls with a smattering of Caribbean women. Eighteen of her 24 coworkers are currently having a weight-loss contest and they asked her to track the weigh-ins for them, as she was obviously not taking part. Fourteen of the 18 women are over 180 lbs.!

    Last election, she was the only one in her department who'd admit to voting for Mittens.

    One of her old colleagues transferred to her department about a month ago. She didn't have a very good relationship with her when they last worked together, and she didn't expect any warm fuzzies now. My girl was sitting at her desk reading a Trump story the WSJ during lunch last week. This coworker was asked if she could borrow the paper when she was done, and my girl asked her if she was supporting Trump. The coworker said that after what she's seen around the hospital over the past few years, as well as the stories her son and daughter bring home from college, her worldview is changing and she said she's voting for the guy who'll at least try to stop the madness. My girl says they've been much friendlier since. Who'd have thought it, Donald Trump bringing people together!

    I remain convinced that the Trump voter pool hasn't been properly plumbed.

  10. @PhysicistDave
    Fascinating, Steve: fits my personal experience that women are more likely to like Rubio and dislike Trump.

    Of course, the two coming Big Events are:

    A) The GOP Establishment is going to try to throw the election if Trump is the nominee.

    B) The FBI is moving towards recommending indictment of Hillary and her cohorts.

    My guess is that how those two events play out determines the outcome of the general election.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    Don’t forget Bill’s untimely passing this September.

  11. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    looking at these candidate rallies one sees all the time on television I always wonder ‘who are these people’? Why would anyone actually wave around a Hillary sign and jump around cheering for her? Are they paid to do so like movie extras or are they expecting to get some sort of job out of it later? How could anyone act enthusiastic about her at all? Does this country have that many chumps in it?

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    I think they were recruited from the people who got rejected from being part of Beyonce's Super Bowl crowd.
    , @Coemgen
    Many of the crowd are union members (especially teachers) bused in for the event. The teachers make a remarkably well behaved mob.
  12. Ed says:
    @PhysicistDave
    Fascinating, Steve: fits my personal experience that women are more likely to like Rubio and dislike Trump.

    Of course, the two coming Big Events are:

    A) The GOP Establishment is going to try to throw the election if Trump is the nominee.

    B) The FBI is moving towards recommending indictment of Hillary and her cohorts.

    My guess is that how those two events play out determines the outcome of the general election.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    I think comment # 1 nails the dynamic of this race. But that raises the possibility of what happens if the GOP e tries to throw the election to Hillary Clinton AND she is indicted for espionage. That could create a real mess.

    At the moment, I suspect the likeliest outcome is that both parties nominate someone who is not running in the primaries at all, the first time this would have happened since 1968. Some connected Republicans are already openly talking about taking advantage of proportional delegate allocation, and first denying Trump the nomination if he can’t get a majority of the delegates, and then nominating someone else, but the current other candidates have to be on board with this, and they are more likely to agree to fall behind someone who isn’t a candidate now at all than one of their current opponents. The Democratic situation is simpler, Hilary Clinton could be indicted or her health could take a turn for the worse (there is some evidence that it is shaky) and then they would have to find a substitute.

    If both of these things happen, the public would get the long awaited Romney vs Kerry contest.

    Apparently Sanders’ campaign people gave a press conference on Wednesday when they told reporters that of course he is staying in the race, and said the campaign would raise the “integrity” issue more. If that is true, it is probably code for “why drop out, when even though we are behind we are winning some contests and it is our opponent who might have to drop out over ethics issues”.

    This wasn’t the comment I was originally planning to make. What I was going to point out is that the Democratic contest and the Republican contest are affecting each other, because you have a situation where the second choice for many voters in one party’s primary is someone running in the other party’s primary. I think there is a fair amount of overlap between Trump supporters and Sanders supports, and to a much lesser extent between Clinton and Rubio supporters. Trump himself has noted that Sanders and himself are addressing the same concerns, though with different solutions. This results in a situation where any remaining white working class Democrats, who would vote for Sanders over Clinton, are opting to go to the Republican primary and vote for Trump, who is getting more attention and running a stronger campaign. One way to test this theory is to track Sanders’ support in each state with changes in Democratic and Republican turnout, as Steve just did, and also against whether the Republican primary/ caucus is open (you can show up and declare your registration that day) or closed (only previously registered voters can vote), if my theory is correct Sanders should do alot worse when there is an open Republican contest.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "At the moment, I suspect the likeliest outcome is that both parties nominate someone who is not running in the primaries at all, the first time this would have happened since 1968."

    Hold up. In 1968 both Dems and Repubs nominated a candidate who had run in the primaries so that's out the window, it goes farther back into history than that.

    2. Uh, what makes you think that disenfranchised Bernie voters wouldn't "hold their nose" and vote for Trump? If even 15% of them decide to do that, as a way to get even with Hillary, could make the difference in some crucial SWPL states. And remember, unlike neocons, donors, etc. Bernie actually has millions of actual voters so do the math: 15% of 3million primary voters does tend to add up nationally.

    3. The wild card remains Trump. IF he is dissed as you seem to suggest, he could go full third party. And actually take votes away from the GOP. I daresay that if Romney or some lightweight neoconish candidate is chosen by the GOP, that Trump would easily hands down get more votes than the GOP. We could see a third party candidate actually get enough votes to qualify for electoral votes (first time since '48 with the Dixiecrats).
    Possible scenario for November:

    Trump: 37%
    Hillary: 39%
    Romney/whoever: 29%
    Bernie type of left winger minor candidacy: 5%

    It's 1912 all over again, with a divided GOP allowing for the Dem to get thru. Of course, this time, if Trump carries enough electoral votes to deny both party candidates the chance to win, it goes to the House.

    So we get stuck with President Romney after all.

    Oh, what fun. Can't wait for the voters reaction.

    PS: Unless a deal is made behind the scenes. But then, Trump has enough ego to suggest "Hey, why should I give my votes to creep losers like you? I won more votes, if anything you should give your electoral votes to me and let me be president!"

    What fun times await us in November.

  13. Judge Andrew Napolitano has the top column at Lew Rockwell’s today https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/andrew-p-napolitano/hillarys-false-hopes/, wherein he gives us great hope that Swillary will enter the clink before any Oval Office. I’m in for a c-note (if they’re still legal tender . . . ).

    OOPS! Sorry, folks – Unz is already carrying the judge’s column today: https://www.unz.com/anapolitano/hillary-clintons-false-hopes/. Heh . . .

  14. I don’t understand how any white man can vote Democrat. How can they vote for a party that quite clearly and repeatedly conveys the message: We hate you, white man. F**k off and die already.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    I don't get it either. There are some white men whose livelihood depends on the diversity/feminism racket, but there aren't many of them. Whites are the only race who'll vote for someone who openly despises them.
    , @AndrewR
    Ethnomasochism ain't just a river in Egypt
  15. Excellent piece. And for the umpteenth time, exactly what–WHAT?–has this woman ever done? And now Clinton flunky Bryan Pagliano has been granted immunity in return for testimony on the emails. Wonder if his testimony will be identical in form to Frank Pentangeli’s testimony before the Senate as depicted in Godfather II.

  16. I hope this is not a stupid comment as I don’t know America that well. 20% of backs have above average IQ’s and they have been pummeled by the loss of manufacturing jobs at least as badly as whites. At the moment, they all vote Democrat, but could enough of them go over to Trump to swing the election?

    In Britain, blacks are recent arrivals and will never vote anything other than Labour. US blacks are, like it or not, old stock Americans.

    In NZ, Polynesians will always vote Labour, because they think Labour gives them more free stuff, but the decline of manufacturing has knocked Maoridom for six.

    In reality National (the NZ equivalent of the GOP) has been at least as willing to throw money at them as they are tangata whenua (people of the land).

    If an indigenous Brit called himself indigenous, unemployment would be instantaneous.

  17. e says:

    True, that Hillary doesn’t excite much of anyone on the democrat side, but Trump does inflame many of all political persuasions. Thus, while D turnout in the primaries is low, that doesn’t translate to a low General Election turnout for the democrat nominee. Hate/fear incites action as much as love, maybe more, I maintain.

    Assuming Trump survives the coming GOPe onslaught and evil convention and post-convention machinations, etc,. his ability to win the General against Hillary will rest with his ability to sound like the logical, smart guy he actually is behind the scenes. That might not move a fair number of dems to go to the polls and vote for him, but it WILL make them stay home.

  18. It’s telling how disproportionately Republican females voted for the young and handsome (as opposed to the young and very non-handsome or the old and used-to-be-handsome) candidate. That goes to show how much females vote with their ovaries.

  19. Steve:

    Maybe you can put out a coloring book:

    “Color my racism, color my sexism.”

    I imagine it would serve a useful “teaching moment” in the education of the young.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Tulip, Crayola has replaced the crayon formerly known as "Flesh" with a crayon called "Peach", no Hispanic crayon in the carton of 64 or a crayon called ViJayJay for coloring gender neutral images. Stay in the lines .
  20. The early word is that Hill and Bill, realizing they don’t have much to say for themselves, are planning to run a negative, ugly campaign against Donald Trump, with lots of charges of sexism and racism.

    Exactly. This will be the entirety of the campaign. And since we’ve humored this nonsense, and humored the complaints of women–particularly young single women–for 50 years, it’s going to be a tough slog unless Trump is willing to put in the effort to get a *lot* better about articulating the concerns of his prospective voters and being less of just a random jackass.

    These aren’t tough messages to articulate.

    #1 — Cheap Labor
    The Democrat and establishment Republican line is that our labor market should be open to the world–that you deserve nothing as an American. Do you really want to be competing for your job with anyone who shows up at the border, from millions of Indians and Chinese. What sort of lifestyle does Hillary have in mind for you working at Indian or Chinese wages? No matter what color you are … this is a shitty deal.

    #2 — Why we can’t have nice things — Diversity Creates Conflict
    Trump needs to nail precisely the ideas behind Steve’s “why we can’t have nice things”. The Sanders SWPLs want to live in (70s era) Scandinavia … but you can only do that when you have a coherent, competent, high-achieving, high-trust society. We don’t have that now–never did to the same level as Scandinavia–and Hillary’s diversity program makes it worse and worse and worse.

    Diversity creates conflict. Tiny diversity may add spice–ethnic restaurants! But big scale diversity means differences–in behavior, in achievement, in success–and creates friction and conflict.
    The examples write themselves:
    — diversity and conflict around the world
    — BLM — increased crime; black men need to obey the same rules as white men; there isn’t some sort of “you get to assault a cop” rule for black thugs; if they don’t want to, then separate communities–same community and different standards creates conflict
    — muslims
    “blood borders of Islam”–everywhere they are mixed with anyone else –> conflict and violence
    America has a particular culture–sort of Anglo\Christian. Muslims never had any presence here and that’s been to America’s great *benefit* … why import divisiveness and conflict; to me as a businessman that’s just insanity, you don’t set out to make your problems worse

    #3 Gender gap — Male bashing and “marriage vs. spinsterhood”
    To win Trump will need to at least somewhat neutralize Hillary’s “girl power” nonsense.

    First off, take a strong stand against the Democrat’s male bashing. Strong, productive men actually hold this joint together.
    A good line for Trump, is he has plenty of women in the Trump organization, doing business stuff, but his buldings are put up by guys–steel, concrete, piping, heating, AC, plumbing, hanging drywall, etc. etc. Out in the world: drilling for oil, designing engines, airplances, running power plants keeping your lights on, refineries gas for your car, fixing your car, building houses, installing your furnance and keeping natural gas in the pipe to keep it going. Hillary’s spent her life doing absolutely nothing productive so she probably doesn’t realize it–doesn’t *want* to realize it and thinks it all “just happens”. It doesn’t. It’s guys out there making our modern American lifestyle possible.

    Secondly take on *real* gap–single vs. married.
    Say explicitly there’s less a “gender gap” than a married gap. Democrats do well with single women who don’t have husbands and want the government to take care of them–by collecting money from all the guys out there that haven’t married them. Married women are much more Republican they look at their husbands paycheck and think “that’s mine”–that’s for *our* family, our children. They don’t want to hand it over to Hillary to spend.

    Trump should face the camera “I want to speak to young women out there who think Hillary’s laundry list of things she’ll do for you sounds good. Money doesn’t grow on trees. Men and women work for it. No one is entitled to be supported by someone else’s labor, someone else’s savings. Hillary promises to go out and loot men to give you stuff. I suggest that if you want some guy’s money–you marry him. That’s a fair deal. Find a good man with prospects, marry him, build a family together taking care of yourselves. And that will be easier to do when i’m president and America isn’t flooded with cheap foreign labor. But that’s really your choice. If you want a government supported spinsterhood–vote for Hillary. If you want to have a husband, children, a *family*, then vote for me.”

    ~~~

    We all could right a bunch of this stuff.

    But the bottom line is if Trump wants to win, he’s going to have to tackle these iSteve themes *head on*. Telling me Hillary is ugly or a bitch …useless. Every guy with two in the sack knows she’s the screechy “progressive” version of the controlling tell-everyone-what-to-do church lady from hell. Trump needs to say what needs to be said. Say it clearly and ram it home again and again and again.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Muslims never had any presence here and that’s been to America’s great *benefit* … why import divisiveness and conflict; to me as a businessman that’s just insanity, you don’t set out to make your problems worse"

    Please do some fact checking. Several hundred thousand Africans who came to the United States as slaves were Muslim, imported by white northerners and southerners.
    , @ILL-iterate
    #1 - Cheap Labor

    So a bunch of immigrants take our jobs... I like how the "argument" just sort of ends there. Remember how jobs are created? Aggregate demand - when people spend money. Immigrants function like American citizens... they spend on average 96% of the money they make back into the American economy, creating jobs. You know what's really stifling job creation? Not taxing the wealthy, who on average spend only 33% of their money and hoard the rest. And when they do spend money it's to bribe politicians to lower their taxes so they can get even more money. Or abolish estate tax because they have already planned to earn money that they will never spend. This is the kind of behavior that is economically and morally perverse.

    We don't compete in the labor market against immigrants but we do compete against other countries, hence why Sanders and Trump are strongly against bullcrap free trade deals that incentivize job outsourcing.

    #2 - Diversity Creates Conflict

    Good luck convincing any liberal of this, especially Sanders supporters. Poverty leads to crime leads to unrest. And lack of education contributes to poverty, as does systemic economic and political corruption. Young people don't care about anyone's race, gender, or orientation. I'm reminded of THE SEARCHERS. Old people aren't going to stop being racist; one day they'll just all die off and the remnants will be ostracized from the society they helped create.

    "No one is entitled to be supported by someone else’s labor, someone else’s savings."

    Tell that to my CEO who is supported by the labor of all 70,000 employees in our company. The value he creates is equivalent to 15-20 normal professional workers yet his pay is equivalent to 500 of them. Talk about welfare.
  21. Todd Zywicki has an article in Wapo that shows well for Cruz down the line.

    So far there have been only 4 closed primaries/caucuses and Cruz has won 3 (IA, OK, AK vs NV).

    Going forward there’s a lot more closed elections. For example this weekend there are 4 elections (KS, KY, LA, and ME). All are closed.

    And Cruz isn’t that far behind Trump.

    • Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
    "And Cruz isn’t that far behind Trump."

    Yeah, well, Texas only gets to vote one time.
  22. @Ed
    I think comment # 1 nails the dynamic of this race. But that raises the possibility of what happens if the GOP e tries to throw the election to Hillary Clinton AND she is indicted for espionage. That could create a real mess.

    At the moment, I suspect the likeliest outcome is that both parties nominate someone who is not running in the primaries at all, the first time this would have happened since 1968. Some connected Republicans are already openly talking about taking advantage of proportional delegate allocation, and first denying Trump the nomination if he can't get a majority of the delegates, and then nominating someone else, but the current other candidates have to be on board with this, and they are more likely to agree to fall behind someone who isn't a candidate now at all than one of their current opponents. The Democratic situation is simpler, Hilary Clinton could be indicted or her health could take a turn for the worse (there is some evidence that it is shaky) and then they would have to find a substitute.

    If both of these things happen, the public would get the long awaited Romney vs Kerry contest.

    Apparently Sanders' campaign people gave a press conference on Wednesday when they told reporters that of course he is staying in the race, and said the campaign would raise the "integrity" issue more. If that is true, it is probably code for "why drop out, when even though we are behind we are winning some contests and it is our opponent who might have to drop out over ethics issues".

    This wasn't the comment I was originally planning to make. What I was going to point out is that the Democratic contest and the Republican contest are affecting each other, because you have a situation where the second choice for many voters in one party's primary is someone running in the other party's primary. I think there is a fair amount of overlap between Trump supporters and Sanders supports, and to a much lesser extent between Clinton and Rubio supporters. Trump himself has noted that Sanders and himself are addressing the same concerns, though with different solutions. This results in a situation where any remaining white working class Democrats, who would vote for Sanders over Clinton, are opting to go to the Republican primary and vote for Trump, who is getting more attention and running a stronger campaign. One way to test this theory is to track Sanders' support in each state with changes in Democratic and Republican turnout, as Steve just did, and also against whether the Republican primary/ caucus is open (you can show up and declare your registration that day) or closed (only previously registered voters can vote), if my theory is correct Sanders should do alot worse when there is an open Republican contest.

    “At the moment, I suspect the likeliest outcome is that both parties nominate someone who is not running in the primaries at all, the first time this would have happened since 1968.”

    Hold up. In 1968 both Dems and Repubs nominated a candidate who had run in the primaries so that’s out the window, it goes farther back into history than that.

    2. Uh, what makes you think that disenfranchised Bernie voters wouldn’t “hold their nose” and vote for Trump? If even 15% of them decide to do that, as a way to get even with Hillary, could make the difference in some crucial SWPL states. And remember, unlike neocons, donors, etc. Bernie actually has millions of actual voters so do the math: 15% of 3million primary voters does tend to add up nationally.

    3. The wild card remains Trump. IF he is dissed as you seem to suggest, he could go full third party. And actually take votes away from the GOP. I daresay that if Romney or some lightweight neoconish candidate is chosen by the GOP, that Trump would easily hands down get more votes than the GOP. We could see a third party candidate actually get enough votes to qualify for electoral votes (first time since ’48 with the Dixiecrats).
    Possible scenario for November:

    Trump: 37%
    Hillary: 39%
    Romney/whoever: 29%
    Bernie type of left winger minor candidacy: 5%

    It’s 1912 all over again, with a divided GOP allowing for the Dem to get thru. Of course, this time, if Trump carries enough electoral votes to deny both party candidates the chance to win, it goes to the House.

    So we get stuck with President Romney after all.

    Oh, what fun. Can’t wait for the voters reaction.

    PS: Unless a deal is made behind the scenes. But then, Trump has enough ego to suggest “Hey, why should I give my votes to creep losers like you? I won more votes, if anything you should give your electoral votes to me and let me be president!”

    What fun times await us in November.

  23. Rubio’s one victory, Minnesota, looks hollow because Republicans only accounted for 37% of the participants there on Tuesday.

    Minnesota’s anomaly might have a simple, if unnoticed, explanation. The state has a time-consuming caucus rather than a primary. But in our precinct, DFLers were allowed to treat the caucus as a primary– just come in, cast your vote, and leave. Skip the caucus part. The GOP didn’t permit this; you had to stay at least an hour to get to the preference vote. (We were swamped anyway.)

    If this was true throughout the state, then it was simply simpler for DFLers to vote.

    early word is that Hill and Bill, realizing they don’t have much to say for themselves, are planning to run a negative, ugly campaign against Donald Trump, with lots of charges of sexism and racism.

    Yeah, make the theme “white privilege”. Go ahead! Make my election!

  24. The Democratic candidates have big gender gaps with Hillary crushing Bernie 63-36 among women,

    What people have forgotten is that it was once a given that women were more conservative than men in the voting booth. Two things that obscure this are that women who grew up under the welfare state want to conserve that. (Walter Mondale argued that he was “conservative” in this way, too), and that until the 1970s, the great majority of women of voting age were married. Now, many are single.

    So Hillary’s tromping of Bernie among the fair sex is a reflection of a more conservative disposition than that of their radical brothers.

    Also, don’t forget that black men, some of whom might like Bernie’s radicalism, are prevented from voting due to having felonies on record. Blacks who vote are not a cross-section.

  25. @AnotherDad

    The early word is that Hill and Bill, realizing they don’t have much to say for themselves, are planning to run a negative, ugly campaign against Donald Trump, with lots of charges of sexism and racism.
     
    Exactly. This will be the entirety of the campaign. And since we've humored this nonsense, and humored the complaints of women--particularly young single women--for 50 years, it's going to be a tough slog unless Trump is willing to put in the effort to get a *lot* better about articulating the concerns of his prospective voters and being less of just a random jackass.

    These aren't tough messages to articulate.

    #1 -- Cheap Labor
    The Democrat and establishment Republican line is that our labor market should be open to the world--that you deserve nothing as an American. Do you really want to be competing for your job with anyone who shows up at the border, from millions of Indians and Chinese. What sort of lifestyle does Hillary have in mind for you working at Indian or Chinese wages? No matter what color you are ... this is a shitty deal.

    #2 -- Why we can't have nice things -- Diversity Creates Conflict
    Trump needs to nail precisely the ideas behind Steve's "why we can't have nice things". The Sanders SWPLs want to live in (70s era) Scandinavia ... but you can only do that when you have a coherent, competent, high-achieving, high-trust society. We don't have that now--never did to the same level as Scandinavia--and Hillary's diversity program makes it worse and worse and worse.

    Diversity creates conflict. Tiny diversity may add spice--ethnic restaurants! But big scale diversity means differences--in behavior, in achievement, in success--and creates friction and conflict.
    The examples write themselves:
    -- diversity and conflict around the world
    -- BLM -- increased crime; black men need to obey the same rules as white men; there isn't some sort of "you get to assault a cop" rule for black thugs; if they don't want to, then separate communities--same community and different standards creates conflict
    -- muslims
    "blood borders of Islam"--everywhere they are mixed with anyone else --> conflict and violence
    America has a particular culture--sort of Anglo\Christian. Muslims never had any presence here and that's been to America's great *benefit* ... why import divisiveness and conflict; to me as a businessman that's just insanity, you don't set out to make your problems worse

    #3 Gender gap -- Male bashing and "marriage vs. spinsterhood"
    To win Trump will need to at least somewhat neutralize Hillary's "girl power" nonsense.

    First off, take a strong stand against the Democrat's male bashing. Strong, productive men actually hold this joint together.
    A good line for Trump, is he has plenty of women in the Trump organization, doing business stuff, but his buldings are put up by guys--steel, concrete, piping, heating, AC, plumbing, hanging drywall, etc. etc. Out in the world: drilling for oil, designing engines, airplances, running power plants keeping your lights on, refineries gas for your car, fixing your car, building houses, installing your furnance and keeping natural gas in the pipe to keep it going. Hillary's spent her life doing absolutely nothing productive so she probably doesn't realize it--doesn't *want* to realize it and thinks it all "just happens". It doesn't. It's guys out there making our modern American lifestyle possible.

    Secondly take on *real* gap--single vs. married.
    Say explicitly there's less a "gender gap" than a married gap. Democrats do well with single women who don't have husbands and want the government to take care of them--by collecting money from all the guys out there that haven't married them. Married women are much more Republican they look at their husbands paycheck and think "that's mine"--that's for *our* family, our children. They don't want to hand it over to Hillary to spend.

    Trump should face the camera "I want to speak to young women out there who think Hillary's laundry list of things she'll do for you sounds good. Money doesn't grow on trees. Men and women work for it. No one is entitled to be supported by someone else's labor, someone else's savings. Hillary promises to go out and loot men to give you stuff. I suggest that if you want some guy's money--you marry him. That's a fair deal. Find a good man with prospects, marry him, build a family together taking care of yourselves. And that will be easier to do when i'm president and America isn't flooded with cheap foreign labor. But that's really your choice. If you want a government supported spinsterhood--vote for Hillary. If you want to have a husband, children, a *family*, then vote for me."

    ~~~

    We all could right a bunch of this stuff.

    But the bottom line is if Trump wants to win, he's going to have to tackle these iSteve themes *head on*. Telling me Hillary is ugly or a bitch ...useless. Every guy with two in the sack knows she's the screechy "progressive" version of the controlling tell-everyone-what-to-do church lady from hell. Trump needs to say what needs to be said. Say it clearly and ram it home again and again and again.

    “Muslims never had any presence here and that’s been to America’s great *benefit* … why import divisiveness and conflict; to me as a businessman that’s just insanity, you don’t set out to make your problems worse”

    Please do some fact checking. Several hundred thousand Africans who came to the United States as slaves were Muslim, imported by white northerners and southerners.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Several hundred thousand Africans who came to the United States as slaves were Muslim, imported by white northerners and southerners.
     
    Unlike paganism, Islam didn't stick. Pagans make better music, that's probably why.
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Corvinus, According to Skip Gates, only a few hundred thousand slaves were imported to North America, the majority went to South America and the West Indies.
  26. Trump has already signaled what he will do against “sexism” etc. Highlight Bill Clinton’s rape charges and compare him directly to Bill Cosby. Hillary had said that line for a while, Trump brought up her Husband’s actions, and she shut up. I’m sure she will go at it again, but Trump is not Romney — the weak loser who wants to lose and roll over and show his tummy.

    Trump has ample ammo — Bill Clinton and credible rape charges, that Hillary and Bill were happy to take his money before, Hillary’s email server, the Clinton Foundation corruption machine, etc.

    I would have expected that Obama would have quashed the email investigation long ago, my guess is that he will have Hillary! indicted right before the convention, and Sanders figures this too so he’s staying hoping to make a deal with Kingmaker Obama. My second guess is that Obama already has someone in mind and its not an aging Jewish guy who gets on his nerves for existing — but someone Black and easily controlled.

    Re Trump, Christie is not a dummy, he’s already on board, and I expect a fight between those elected Republicans who are not part of the Washington axis — and the Romney types. Trump has shown ambition can be served not by foam party antics and donor pandering but by base satisfaction, and there is a whole slew of elected Republicans who would like to advance just by the means Trump has. My guess is that a rump of Republicans form a new party, but end up taking enough Bernie Bros unhappy with say Al Sharpton or Kamala Harris or Spike Lee as the nominee.

    Dems really are the Black Party, Republicans are now the White party, and White women are the only wild cards. White women have big issues with White men — they don’t need or want beta male provision and beta male placating and such enrage them. Moreover White women are allied with Blacks in all sorts of ways — principally to jettison White men save the Alphas and take over spoils in AA raiding parties. Europe’s immavasion suggests we are near the end of that free ride however. A society cannot run on White female disgust at the lack of sexy dominance of beta White males. Which is what Hillary’s entire career really has been, if you think about it.

    President Trump!

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    . . . my guess is that he will have Hillary! indicted right before the convention, and Sanders figures this too so he’s staying hoping to make a deal with Kingmaker Obama. My second guess is that Obama already has someone in mind and its not an aging Jewish guy who gets on his nerves for existing — but someone Black and easily controlled.

     

    Perhaps coincidentally, Obama has just announced he'll be staying a Washington for a few years after his presidency ends, because, you know, kid still in school and all that . . . .
  27. @Corvinus
    "Muslims never had any presence here and that’s been to America’s great *benefit* … why import divisiveness and conflict; to me as a businessman that’s just insanity, you don’t set out to make your problems worse"

    Please do some fact checking. Several hundred thousand Africans who came to the United States as slaves were Muslim, imported by white northerners and southerners.

    Several hundred thousand Africans who came to the United States as slaves were Muslim, imported by white northerners and southerners.

    Unlike paganism, Islam didn’t stick. Pagans make better music, that’s probably why.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Unlike paganism, Islam didn’t stick."

    Because self-righteous Christians of the time period beat the Islam out of the darkies and instilled the more "civilized" religion, Christianity. At least conversion wasn't forced. Oh, wait.

    https://www.southern.edu/history/Documents/Mocnik/HIST%20154B/ReligionasSocialControl.pdf
  28. @PhysicistDave
    Fascinating, Steve: fits my personal experience that women are more likely to like Rubio and dislike Trump.

    Of course, the two coming Big Events are:

    A) The GOP Establishment is going to try to throw the election if Trump is the nominee.

    B) The FBI is moving towards recommending indictment of Hillary and her cohorts.

    My guess is that how those two events play out determines the outcome of the general election.

    Dave Miller in Sacramento

    Not in my household.

    Kicking the topic around the other night chez nous over XO cognac. Asked the wife why she liked Trump. She looked at me as though I had scorpions coming out my ears, laughed, and said, “Like I ever didn’t like an opinionated guy who knows how to get things built. But who’d listen if you argue sensibly about which tool to use, or a better conduit path.”

    I’m guessing a lot of women LIKE Trump but have been propagandized so long against their instincts, they’re reacting as they think they’re supposed to. That’s a big part of the source of the tension and hysteria. Their gut keeps saying “alpha male, makes me wet,” but their brains are running the PC formula matrices.

    His team should play on the concept of guys fixing up houses so women can live there with their families. I.e., how he established his career.

  29. @anonymous
    looking at these candidate rallies one sees all the time on television I always wonder 'who are these people'? Why would anyone actually wave around a Hillary sign and jump around cheering for her? Are they paid to do so like movie extras or are they expecting to get some sort of job out of it later? How could anyone act enthusiastic about her at all? Does this country have that many chumps in it?

    I think they were recruited from the people who got rejected from being part of Beyonce’s Super Bowl crowd.

  30. @anony-mouse
    Todd Zywicki has an article in Wapo that shows well for Cruz down the line.

    So far there have been only 4 closed primaries/caucuses and Cruz has won 3 (IA, OK, AK vs NV).

    Going forward there's a lot more closed elections. For example this weekend there are 4 elections (KS, KY, LA, and ME). All are closed.

    And Cruz isn't that far behind Trump.

    And Cruz isn’t that far behind Trump.

    Yeah, well, Texas only gets to vote one time.

  31. @Mr. Anon
    I don't understand how any white man can vote Democrat. How can they vote for a party that quite clearly and repeatedly conveys the message: We hate you, white man. F**k off and die already.

    I don’t get it either. There are some white men whose livelihood depends on the diversity/feminism racket, but there aren’t many of them. Whites are the only race who’ll vote for someone who openly despises them.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Whites are the only race who’ll vote for someone who openly despises them.
     
    Blacks started voting Democratic in the 1930s, decades before that party stopped despising them.

    Or should I say, stopped despising them more than they did whites. From welfare to legalizing illegals to 200 years of gun control, Democrats' low opinion of blacks has been quite consistent, if expressed in very different ways according to the Zeitgeist.
  32. @Mr. Anon
    I don't understand how any white man can vote Democrat. How can they vote for a party that quite clearly and repeatedly conveys the message: We hate you, white man. F**k off and die already.

    Ethnomasochism ain’t just a river in Egypt

  33. Hussein could be letting the investigation go on because:

    1. He doesn’t care enough about Hillary to squash it. So he figures, why not let it run its course?
    2. He wants to use it to crush Hillary.
    3. He wants to be able to hold it over her head as long as possible, but ultimately squash it.
    4. It’s all just a pose to give the appearance of rule of law.

    There are more possible reasons than just 2, is my point.

    This time, Clinton is working small rooms and Trump is doing stadium shows with people tailgating all day in advance.

    NPR drove this home for me the other day, at least for the Republican side. They played an audio clip of Rubio or Cruz speaking before an audience. Whoever it was made some cracks about Trump, got polite laughter. Then they played a much shorter clip from a Trump crowd: “TRUMP!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!” it thundered. The shorter clip was much more effective.

    True, that Hillary doesn’t excite much of anyone on the democrat side, but Trump does inflame many of all political persuasions. Thus, while D turnout in the primaries is low, that doesn’t translate to a low General Election turnout for the democrat nominee. Hate/fear incites action as much as love, maybe more, I maintain.

    That’s what I thought, until 2012. Republicans can’t stand Hussein, but that didn’t do much for Romney. I suspect it’ll work out the same way for Democrats, Trump, and Hillary. Then there’s the fact that a lot of Democrats kinda do like Trump.

    Several hundred thousand Africans who came to the United States as slaves were Muslim, imported by white northerners and southerners.

    Their descendants all became non-Muslim, and the Muslims here and coming now (you know, the ones he was actually referring to) have more claim on being the descendants of Muslim owners of black slaves, descendants of Muslims who castrated black slaves, etc., than on being the descendants of black Muslim slaves.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Their descendants all became non-Muslim..."

    So, you admit that American slave owners imported Africans who were Muslim. Have a cookie.

    "and the Muslims here and coming now (you know, the ones he was actually referring to) have more claim on being the descendants of Muslim owners of black slaves, descendants of Muslims who castrated black slaves, etc., than on being the descendants of black Muslim slaves."

    Which is completely irrelevant to my point. Thanks.
  34. @Reg Cæsar

    Several hundred thousand Africans who came to the United States as slaves were Muslim, imported by white northerners and southerners.
     
    Unlike paganism, Islam didn't stick. Pagans make better music, that's probably why.

    “Unlike paganism, Islam didn’t stick.”

    Because self-righteous Christians of the time period beat the Islam out of the darkies and instilled the more “civilized” religion, Christianity. At least conversion wasn’t forced. Oh, wait.

    https://www.southern.edu/history/Documents/Mocnik/HIST%20154B/ReligionasSocialControl.pdf

  35. Hillary is a w-w-witch!

    http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/03/politics/bernie-baby-dies/index.html

    I, for one, welcome our new voodoo overlords.

  36. @AnotherDad

    The early word is that Hill and Bill, realizing they don’t have much to say for themselves, are planning to run a negative, ugly campaign against Donald Trump, with lots of charges of sexism and racism.
     
    Exactly. This will be the entirety of the campaign. And since we've humored this nonsense, and humored the complaints of women--particularly young single women--for 50 years, it's going to be a tough slog unless Trump is willing to put in the effort to get a *lot* better about articulating the concerns of his prospective voters and being less of just a random jackass.

    These aren't tough messages to articulate.

    #1 -- Cheap Labor
    The Democrat and establishment Republican line is that our labor market should be open to the world--that you deserve nothing as an American. Do you really want to be competing for your job with anyone who shows up at the border, from millions of Indians and Chinese. What sort of lifestyle does Hillary have in mind for you working at Indian or Chinese wages? No matter what color you are ... this is a shitty deal.

    #2 -- Why we can't have nice things -- Diversity Creates Conflict
    Trump needs to nail precisely the ideas behind Steve's "why we can't have nice things". The Sanders SWPLs want to live in (70s era) Scandinavia ... but you can only do that when you have a coherent, competent, high-achieving, high-trust society. We don't have that now--never did to the same level as Scandinavia--and Hillary's diversity program makes it worse and worse and worse.

    Diversity creates conflict. Tiny diversity may add spice--ethnic restaurants! But big scale diversity means differences--in behavior, in achievement, in success--and creates friction and conflict.
    The examples write themselves:
    -- diversity and conflict around the world
    -- BLM -- increased crime; black men need to obey the same rules as white men; there isn't some sort of "you get to assault a cop" rule for black thugs; if they don't want to, then separate communities--same community and different standards creates conflict
    -- muslims
    "blood borders of Islam"--everywhere they are mixed with anyone else --> conflict and violence
    America has a particular culture--sort of Anglo\Christian. Muslims never had any presence here and that's been to America's great *benefit* ... why import divisiveness and conflict; to me as a businessman that's just insanity, you don't set out to make your problems worse

    #3 Gender gap -- Male bashing and "marriage vs. spinsterhood"
    To win Trump will need to at least somewhat neutralize Hillary's "girl power" nonsense.

    First off, take a strong stand against the Democrat's male bashing. Strong, productive men actually hold this joint together.
    A good line for Trump, is he has plenty of women in the Trump organization, doing business stuff, but his buldings are put up by guys--steel, concrete, piping, heating, AC, plumbing, hanging drywall, etc. etc. Out in the world: drilling for oil, designing engines, airplances, running power plants keeping your lights on, refineries gas for your car, fixing your car, building houses, installing your furnance and keeping natural gas in the pipe to keep it going. Hillary's spent her life doing absolutely nothing productive so she probably doesn't realize it--doesn't *want* to realize it and thinks it all "just happens". It doesn't. It's guys out there making our modern American lifestyle possible.

    Secondly take on *real* gap--single vs. married.
    Say explicitly there's less a "gender gap" than a married gap. Democrats do well with single women who don't have husbands and want the government to take care of them--by collecting money from all the guys out there that haven't married them. Married women are much more Republican they look at their husbands paycheck and think "that's mine"--that's for *our* family, our children. They don't want to hand it over to Hillary to spend.

    Trump should face the camera "I want to speak to young women out there who think Hillary's laundry list of things she'll do for you sounds good. Money doesn't grow on trees. Men and women work for it. No one is entitled to be supported by someone else's labor, someone else's savings. Hillary promises to go out and loot men to give you stuff. I suggest that if you want some guy's money--you marry him. That's a fair deal. Find a good man with prospects, marry him, build a family together taking care of yourselves. And that will be easier to do when i'm president and America isn't flooded with cheap foreign labor. But that's really your choice. If you want a government supported spinsterhood--vote for Hillary. If you want to have a husband, children, a *family*, then vote for me."

    ~~~

    We all could right a bunch of this stuff.

    But the bottom line is if Trump wants to win, he's going to have to tackle these iSteve themes *head on*. Telling me Hillary is ugly or a bitch ...useless. Every guy with two in the sack knows she's the screechy "progressive" version of the controlling tell-everyone-what-to-do church lady from hell. Trump needs to say what needs to be said. Say it clearly and ram it home again and again and again.

    #1 – Cheap Labor

    So a bunch of immigrants take our jobs… I like how the “argument” just sort of ends there. Remember how jobs are created? Aggregate demand – when people spend money. Immigrants function like American citizens… they spend on average 96% of the money they make back into the American economy, creating jobs. You know what’s really stifling job creation? Not taxing the wealthy, who on average spend only 33% of their money and hoard the rest. And when they do spend money it’s to bribe politicians to lower their taxes so they can get even more money. Or abolish estate tax because they have already planned to earn money that they will never spend. This is the kind of behavior that is economically and morally perverse.

    We don’t compete in the labor market against immigrants but we do compete against other countries, hence why Sanders and Trump are strongly against bullcrap free trade deals that incentivize job outsourcing.

    #2 – Diversity Creates Conflict

    Good luck convincing any liberal of this, especially Sanders supporters. Poverty leads to crime leads to unrest. And lack of education contributes to poverty, as does systemic economic and political corruption. Young people don’t care about anyone’s race, gender, or orientation. I’m reminded of THE SEARCHERS. Old people aren’t going to stop being racist; one day they’ll just all die off and the remnants will be ostracized from the society they helped create.

    “No one is entitled to be supported by someone else’s labor, someone else’s savings.”

    Tell that to my CEO who is supported by the labor of all 70,000 employees in our company. The value he creates is equivalent to 15-20 normal professional workers yet his pay is equivalent to 500 of them. Talk about welfare.

  37. @Tulip
    Steve:

    Maybe you can put out a coloring book:

    "Color my racism, color my sexism."

    I imagine it would serve a useful "teaching moment" in the education of the young.

    Tulip, Crayola has replaced the crayon formerly known as “Flesh” with a crayon called “Peach”, no Hispanic crayon in the carton of 64 or a crayon called ViJayJay for coloring gender neutral images. Stay in the lines .

  38. @Corvinus
    "Muslims never had any presence here and that’s been to America’s great *benefit* … why import divisiveness and conflict; to me as a businessman that’s just insanity, you don’t set out to make your problems worse"

    Please do some fact checking. Several hundred thousand Africans who came to the United States as slaves were Muslim, imported by white northerners and southerners.

    Corvinus, According to Skip Gates, only a few hundred thousand slaves were imported to North America, the majority went to South America and the West Indies.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Buffalo Joe, cut it out. You are confusing Corvinus with facts.
    , @Corvinus
    "According to Skip Gates, only a few hundred thousand slaves..."

    So, you want to quibble with me saying "several" and you saying "few"? According to Gates, the estimate is 388,000. Fine.

    Regardless, my point still stands. AnotherDad made the claim that "Muslims never had any presence here". That is observably false--there were slaves brought to the United States who were from West Africa and who were Muslim.
  39. Not entirely germane to vote counting in the Presidential election but I found this story of manipulated electoral system too startling not to share with the gang here.

    I had no idea the the federal justice department was meddling so much to guarantee racial and ethnic “minority” representation.

    In Yakima Washington, the feds intervened to restructure the city constitution in order to create guaranteed minority districts because the previous ‘at-large’ council members meant that no minority candidates were guaranteed a seat on the council. The result however is that the council districts that were created to guarantee minority representation are turning out to be rotten boroughs and the result is that a hispanic vote counts almost 7.5 times a white vote.

    And yet, Yakima’s city council maps are decidedly lopsided now. In the November 2015 election, only 428 citizens voted in one district created for Latinos. In another district, created for mostly whites, 2,906 ballots were cast.

    http://crosscut.com/2016/03/state-must-take-the-lead-in-protecting-voting-rights/

    Where is the endpoint of this kind of chicanery that is manipulating the system? Is there any good-faith or sense of fair play in our American democracy any more?

  40. The Virginia results are interesting, many have already commented that Trump’s victory was narrow but the beltway did not overcome the increased Republican turnout. In this state that went to Obama in 2012, what does a significantly higher Republican participation for the primary bode for the general?

  41. @Buffalo Joe
    Corvinus, According to Skip Gates, only a few hundred thousand slaves were imported to North America, the majority went to South America and the West Indies.

    Buffalo Joe, cut it out. You are confusing Corvinus with facts.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Jim Don Bob, My bad. But just to reiterate, about 388,000 brought to N America and importation of slaves banned, by law, in 1808.
    , @Corvinus
    Do you acknowledge the fact that American slave owners imported Africans who were Muslim?
  42. I don’t foresee a shirtless hunk singing a song about a crush on Hillary any time soon.

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    http://www.people.com/article/caitlyn-jenner-likes-ted-cruz-president
  43. @Grandpa Jack
    I don't foresee a shirtless hunk singing a song about a crush on Hillary any time soon.
  44. @anonymous
    looking at these candidate rallies one sees all the time on television I always wonder 'who are these people'? Why would anyone actually wave around a Hillary sign and jump around cheering for her? Are they paid to do so like movie extras or are they expecting to get some sort of job out of it later? How could anyone act enthusiastic about her at all? Does this country have that many chumps in it?

    Many of the crowd are union members (especially teachers) bused in for the event. The teachers make a remarkably well behaved mob.

  45. @Whiskey
    Trump has already signaled what he will do against "sexism" etc. Highlight Bill Clinton's rape charges and compare him directly to Bill Cosby. Hillary had said that line for a while, Trump brought up her Husband's actions, and she shut up. I'm sure she will go at it again, but Trump is not Romney -- the weak loser who wants to lose and roll over and show his tummy.

    Trump has ample ammo -- Bill Clinton and credible rape charges, that Hillary and Bill were happy to take his money before, Hillary's email server, the Clinton Foundation corruption machine, etc.

    I would have expected that Obama would have quashed the email investigation long ago, my guess is that he will have Hillary! indicted right before the convention, and Sanders figures this too so he's staying hoping to make a deal with Kingmaker Obama. My second guess is that Obama already has someone in mind and its not an aging Jewish guy who gets on his nerves for existing -- but someone Black and easily controlled.

    Re Trump, Christie is not a dummy, he's already on board, and I expect a fight between those elected Republicans who are not part of the Washington axis -- and the Romney types. Trump has shown ambition can be served not by foam party antics and donor pandering but by base satisfaction, and there is a whole slew of elected Republicans who would like to advance just by the means Trump has. My guess is that a rump of Republicans form a new party, but end up taking enough Bernie Bros unhappy with say Al Sharpton or Kamala Harris or Spike Lee as the nominee.

    Dems really are the Black Party, Republicans are now the White party, and White women are the only wild cards. White women have big issues with White men -- they don't need or want beta male provision and beta male placating and such enrage them. Moreover White women are allied with Blacks in all sorts of ways -- principally to jettison White men save the Alphas and take over spoils in AA raiding parties. Europe's immavasion suggests we are near the end of that free ride however. A society cannot run on White female disgust at the lack of sexy dominance of beta White males. Which is what Hillary's entire career really has been, if you think about it.

    President Trump!

    . . . my guess is that he will have Hillary! indicted right before the convention, and Sanders figures this too so he’s staying hoping to make a deal with Kingmaker Obama. My second guess is that Obama already has someone in mind and its not an aging Jewish guy who gets on his nerves for existing — but someone Black and easily controlled.

    Perhaps coincidentally, Obama has just announced he’ll be staying a Washington for a few years after his presidency ends, because, you know, kid still in school and all that . . . .

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Where are the Obamas going to move to in Washington? The Hay Adams hotel across Lafayette Park from the White House?
  46. @Rob McX
    I don't get it either. There are some white men whose livelihood depends on the diversity/feminism racket, but there aren't many of them. Whites are the only race who'll vote for someone who openly despises them.

    Whites are the only race who’ll vote for someone who openly despises them.

    Blacks started voting Democratic in the 1930s, decades before that party stopped despising them.

    Or should I say, stopped despising them more than they did whites. From welfare to legalizing illegals to 200 years of gun control, Democrats’ low opinion of blacks has been quite consistent, if expressed in very different ways according to the Zeitgeist.

  47. @Jim Don Bob
    Buffalo Joe, cut it out. You are confusing Corvinus with facts.

    Jim Don Bob, My bad. But just to reiterate, about 388,000 brought to N America and importation of slaves banned, by law, in 1808.

  48. @The Last Real Calvinist

    . . . my guess is that he will have Hillary! indicted right before the convention, and Sanders figures this too so he’s staying hoping to make a deal with Kingmaker Obama. My second guess is that Obama already has someone in mind and its not an aging Jewish guy who gets on his nerves for existing — but someone Black and easily controlled.

     

    Perhaps coincidentally, Obama has just announced he'll be staying a Washington for a few years after his presidency ends, because, you know, kid still in school and all that . . . .

    Where are the Obamas going to move to in Washington? The Hay Adams hotel across Lafayette Park from the White House?

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    Where are the Obamas going to move to in Washington? The Hay Adams hotel across Lafayette Park from the White House?

     

    Yes, exactly. If they really did stay in DC, it would be quite a big deal, wouldn't it? Anyway, the article about this new development is linked on Drudge, and it's from USA Today, so it's right out there. It mentions that Obama would be the first president since Woodrow Wilson to remain in DC after leaving office, and wasn't Wilson half-dead already by that point? I wonder what kinds of reactions this story engenders . . . .
  49. @Buffalo Joe
    Corvinus, According to Skip Gates, only a few hundred thousand slaves were imported to North America, the majority went to South America and the West Indies.

    “According to Skip Gates, only a few hundred thousand slaves…”

    So, you want to quibble with me saying “several” and you saying “few”? According to Gates, the estimate is 388,000. Fine.

    Regardless, my point still stands. AnotherDad made the claim that “Muslims never had any presence here”. That is observably false–there were slaves brought to the United States who were from West Africa and who were Muslim.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
    Slaves were most likely voodoo or something like that (see modern day Haiti).
    , @Buffalo Joe
    Corvinus, Not to quibble, but you did say several hundred thousand came as Muslims, and I am pointing out that only about 388K TOTAL were imported. So, according to you, almost all were Muslims. But, I'm good.
    , @IBC

    Historians estimate that between 15 to 30 percent of all enslaved African men and less than 15 percent of the enslaved African women were Muslims. These enslaved Muslims stood out from their compatriots because of their "resistance, determination and education".[40]

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Slaves

    In Hugh Thomas' history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, he says that Europeans often saw Muslims as less desirable slaves because they had a reputation for being more trouble than they were worth, i.e. they were associated with insurrections. Despite that, significant numbers of Muslims (devout or nominal) did end up as slaves in the Americas.

    And if anything, I'd guess that in the historical record, the experiences of Muslim slaves are actually likely to be overrepresented, thanks to the simple fact that more Muslims were literate than people from other African cultural backgrounds.

    It's also worth pointing out that Muslims themselves were often heavily involved in slaving. In fact, for hundreds of years, their efforts to conquer and control the peoples of West, Central, and East Africa were one of the main reasons why there were so many captured black Africans available to be marched off to other parts of the Islamic World, or sent to the Atlantic and sold to European infidels.

  50. @Jim Don Bob
    Buffalo Joe, cut it out. You are confusing Corvinus with facts.

    Do you acknowledge the fact that American slave owners imported Africans who were Muslim?

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    You lefty types believe in the magic dirt theory. When they set foot on American dirt, they were no longer Muslim.
  51. @Steve Sailer
    Where are the Obamas going to move to in Washington? The Hay Adams hotel across Lafayette Park from the White House?

    Where are the Obamas going to move to in Washington? The Hay Adams hotel across Lafayette Park from the White House?

    Yes, exactly. If they really did stay in DC, it would be quite a big deal, wouldn’t it? Anyway, the article about this new development is linked on Drudge, and it’s from USA Today, so it’s right out there. It mentions that Obama would be the first president since Woodrow Wilson to remain in DC after leaving office, and wasn’t Wilson half-dead already by that point? I wonder what kinds of reactions this story engenders . . . .

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    A term-limited president ought to leave Washington DC when he leaves office.
  52. @Svigor
    Hussein could be letting the investigation go on because:

    1. He doesn't care enough about Hillary to squash it. So he figures, why not let it run its course?
    2. He wants to use it to crush Hillary.
    3. He wants to be able to hold it over her head as long as possible, but ultimately squash it.
    4. It's all just a pose to give the appearance of rule of law.

    There are more possible reasons than just 2, is my point.


    This time, Clinton is working small rooms and Trump is doing stadium shows with people tailgating all day in advance.
     
    NPR drove this home for me the other day, at least for the Republican side. They played an audio clip of Rubio or Cruz speaking before an audience. Whoever it was made some cracks about Trump, got polite laughter. Then they played a much shorter clip from a Trump crowd: "TRUMP!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!! TRUMP!!" it thundered. The shorter clip was much more effective.

    True, that Hillary doesn’t excite much of anyone on the democrat side, but Trump does inflame many of all political persuasions. Thus, while D turnout in the primaries is low, that doesn’t translate to a low General Election turnout for the democrat nominee. Hate/fear incites action as much as love, maybe more, I maintain.
     
    That's what I thought, until 2012. Republicans can't stand Hussein, but that didn't do much for Romney. I suspect it'll work out the same way for Democrats, Trump, and Hillary. Then there's the fact that a lot of Democrats kinda do like Trump.

    Several hundred thousand Africans who came to the United States as slaves were Muslim, imported by white northerners and southerners.
     
    Their descendants all became non-Muslim, and the Muslims here and coming now (you know, the ones he was actually referring to) have more claim on being the descendants of Muslim owners of black slaves, descendants of Muslims who castrated black slaves, etc., than on being the descendants of black Muslim slaves.

    “Their descendants all became non-Muslim…”

    So, you admit that American slave owners imported Africans who were Muslim. Have a cookie.

    “and the Muslims here and coming now (you know, the ones he was actually referring to) have more claim on being the descendants of Muslim owners of black slaves, descendants of Muslims who castrated black slaves, etc., than on being the descendants of black Muslim slaves.”

    Which is completely irrelevant to my point. Thanks.

  53. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @whorefinder
    Women seem to dislike Trump on the basis that Trump would never date them.

    The really hot women love the guy, because they all envisage that they could snag him as a sugar daddy. But every chick below a 9 dislikes him because he's the alpha who would never settle for anything below choice sirloin.

    Don’t be silly, I’m a 3 (on a good day) and I don’t dislike Trump because he’d never date me. I’ve always disliked him (even when I was an 8) because he’s a big blowhard.
    But just because I don’t like him doesn’t mean I won’t vote for him. After all, he’s not a bought-and-paid-for-by-big-donors big blowhard. Many commenters here have mentioned that they don’t like him but they just happen to agree with almost everything he says. And who else but a big blowhard would have the nerve to say it!

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Ima, Size three, right. All the women who post here get extra beauty points.
  54. @The Last Real Calvinist

    Where are the Obamas going to move to in Washington? The Hay Adams hotel across Lafayette Park from the White House?

     

    Yes, exactly. If they really did stay in DC, it would be quite a big deal, wouldn't it? Anyway, the article about this new development is linked on Drudge, and it's from USA Today, so it's right out there. It mentions that Obama would be the first president since Woodrow Wilson to remain in DC after leaving office, and wasn't Wilson half-dead already by that point? I wonder what kinds of reactions this story engenders . . . .

    A term-limited president ought to leave Washington DC when he leaves office.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
    I've never thought about that. Does it really matter where the ex-president takes up residence, and has there been an unwritten rule that he should leave DC once out of office?
  55. @Steve Sailer
    A term-limited president ought to leave Washington DC when he leaves office.

    I’ve never thought about that. Does it really matter where the ex-president takes up residence, and has there been an unwritten rule that he should leave DC once out of office?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Pretty much ...
  56. @Rob McX
    I've never thought about that. Does it really matter where the ex-president takes up residence, and has there been an unwritten rule that he should leave DC once out of office?

    Pretty much …

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    I believe I read that Eisenhower would not meet with Truman after the election. I will search for that.
  57. @Corvinus
    "According to Skip Gates, only a few hundred thousand slaves..."

    So, you want to quibble with me saying "several" and you saying "few"? According to Gates, the estimate is 388,000. Fine.

    Regardless, my point still stands. AnotherDad made the claim that "Muslims never had any presence here". That is observably false--there were slaves brought to the United States who were from West Africa and who were Muslim.

    Slaves were most likely voodoo or something like that (see modern day Haiti).

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Slaves were most likely voodoo or something like that (see modern day Haiti)."

    Not quite.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_African_religion
  58. @The Z Blog
    I think I'd want some better data on states like Mass, where you can become a Republican on election day, if that's where the action is that year. 2012 also had Scott Brown on the ballot. Then there's the Mitt Romney factor. This time everyone knew Trump was the winner, but the chance to damage Hillary by voting Sanders became a "thing" that had more people voting Democrat.

    Maybe there's something here, but I'd want to see this data going back into the 90's to see if we have anything more than neat looking charts.

    That said, there needs to be a stadium show metric. In 2000, Bush was giving speeches at places like Red Rocks. In 2008, McCain was playing auditoriums, while Obama was playing Red Rocks. This time, Clinton is working small rooms and Trump is doing stadium shows with people tailgating all day in advance.

    And a certain number Massachusetts of Bernie Bros and Hillary Hos will have graduated in June and be off to parts yet unknown.

  59. @Corvinus
    Do you acknowledge the fact that American slave owners imported Africans who were Muslim?

    You lefty types believe in the magic dirt theory. When they set foot on American dirt, they were no longer Muslim.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You lefty types believe in the magic dirt theory."

    I'm not a lefty or righty. I'm an American.

    "When they set foot on American dirt, they were no longer Muslim."

    Not quite. Slaves remained a follower of the religion of Islam until they were forcibly converted to Christianity.
  60. @whorefinder
    Women seem to dislike Trump on the basis that Trump would never date them.

    The really hot women love the guy, because they all envisage that they could snag him as a sugar daddy. But every chick below a 9 dislikes him because he's the alpha who would never settle for anything below choice sirloin.

    Females outnumber males in MA, about 52% to 48%, and a higher number of females than average are lesbians. Add the fact that checking off the “D”, especially in Greater Boston, is pretty much hereditary. Our Republicans are like Mittens and current RINO-in chief Charlie Baker, inoffensive to the moonbats. Unenrolled voters (no party affiliation) outnumber Dems and Reps put together. You live here, you must see the vast number of Melissa Clicks in the Commonwealth!

    I have hope, though, granting that a datum isn’t a trend. My girlfriend, a solid 8 for the general population of women and a 12 judging only those 50+, is conservative like most attractive ladies. She’s swimming in a pool of middle-aged colleagues, mostly white Southie girls with a smattering of Caribbean women. Eighteen of her 24 coworkers are currently having a weight-loss contest and they asked her to track the weigh-ins for them, as she was obviously not taking part. Fourteen of the 18 women are over 180 lbs.!

    Last election, she was the only one in her department who’d admit to voting for Mittens.

    One of her old colleagues transferred to her department about a month ago. She didn’t have a very good relationship with her when they last worked together, and she didn’t expect any warm fuzzies now. My girl was sitting at her desk reading a Trump story the WSJ during lunch last week. This coworker was asked if she could borrow the paper when she was done, and my girl asked her if she was supporting Trump. The coworker said that after what she’s seen around the hospital over the past few years, as well as the stories her son and daughter bring home from college, her worldview is changing and she said she’s voting for the guy who’ll at least try to stop the madness. My girl says they’ve been much friendlier since. Who’d have thought it, Donald Trump bringing people together!

    I remain convinced that the Trump voter pool hasn’t been properly plumbed.

  61. @Brutusale
    You lefty types believe in the magic dirt theory. When they set foot on American dirt, they were no longer Muslim.

    “You lefty types believe in the magic dirt theory.”

    I’m not a lefty or righty. I’m an American.

    “When they set foot on American dirt, they were no longer Muslim.”

    Not quite. Slaves remained a follower of the religion of Islam until they were forcibly converted to Christianity.

  62. @Hippopotamusdrome
    Slaves were most likely voodoo or something like that (see modern day Haiti).

    “Slaves were most likely voodoo or something like that (see modern day Haiti).”

    Not quite.

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

  63. @Corvinus
    "According to Skip Gates, only a few hundred thousand slaves..."

    So, you want to quibble with me saying "several" and you saying "few"? According to Gates, the estimate is 388,000. Fine.

    Regardless, my point still stands. AnotherDad made the claim that "Muslims never had any presence here". That is observably false--there were slaves brought to the United States who were from West Africa and who were Muslim.

    Corvinus, Not to quibble, but you did say several hundred thousand came as Muslims, and I am pointing out that only about 388K TOTAL were imported. So, according to you, almost all were Muslims. But, I’m good.

  64. @Anonymous
    Don't be silly, I'm a 3 (on a good day) and I don't dislike Trump because he'd never date me. I've always disliked him (even when I was an 8) because he's a big blowhard.
    But just because I don't like him doesn't mean I won't vote for him. After all, he's not a bought-and-paid-for-by-big-donors big blowhard. Many commenters here have mentioned that they don't like him but they just happen to agree with almost everything he says. And who else but a big blowhard would have the nerve to say it!

    Ima, Size three, right. All the women who post here get extra beauty points.

  65. @Steve Sailer
    Pretty much ...

    I believe I read that Eisenhower would not meet with Truman after the election. I will search for that.

  66. @Corvinus
    "According to Skip Gates, only a few hundred thousand slaves..."

    So, you want to quibble with me saying "several" and you saying "few"? According to Gates, the estimate is 388,000. Fine.

    Regardless, my point still stands. AnotherDad made the claim that "Muslims never had any presence here". That is observably false--there were slaves brought to the United States who were from West Africa and who were Muslim.

    Historians estimate that between 15 to 30 percent of all enslaved African men and less than 15 percent of the enslaved African women were Muslims. These enslaved Muslims stood out from their compatriots because of their “resistance, determination and education”.[40]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Slaves

    In Hugh Thomas’ history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, he says that Europeans often saw Muslims as less desirable slaves because they had a reputation for being more trouble than they were worth, i.e. they were associated with insurrections. Despite that, significant numbers of Muslims (devout or nominal) did end up as slaves in the Americas.

    And if anything, I’d guess that in the historical record, the experiences of Muslim slaves are actually likely to be overrepresented, thanks to the simple fact that more Muslims were literate than people from other African cultural backgrounds.

    It’s also worth pointing out that Muslims themselves were often heavily involved in slaving. In fact, for hundreds of years, their efforts to conquer and control the peoples of West, Central, and East Africa were one of the main reasons why there were so many captured black Africans available to be marched off to other parts of the Islamic World, or sent to the Atlantic and sold to European infidels.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Wouldn't it be more likely in west Africa that being Muslim correlated with being a slaver rather than being a slave?
  67. @IBC

    Historians estimate that between 15 to 30 percent of all enslaved African men and less than 15 percent of the enslaved African women were Muslims. These enslaved Muslims stood out from their compatriots because of their "resistance, determination and education".[40]

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States#Slaves

    In Hugh Thomas' history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, he says that Europeans often saw Muslims as less desirable slaves because they had a reputation for being more trouble than they were worth, i.e. they were associated with insurrections. Despite that, significant numbers of Muslims (devout or nominal) did end up as slaves in the Americas.

    And if anything, I'd guess that in the historical record, the experiences of Muslim slaves are actually likely to be overrepresented, thanks to the simple fact that more Muslims were literate than people from other African cultural backgrounds.

    It's also worth pointing out that Muslims themselves were often heavily involved in slaving. In fact, for hundreds of years, their efforts to conquer and control the peoples of West, Central, and East Africa were one of the main reasons why there were so many captured black Africans available to be marched off to other parts of the Islamic World, or sent to the Atlantic and sold to European infidels.

    Wouldn’t it be more likely in west Africa that being Muslim correlated with being a slaver rather than being a slave?

  68. IBC says:

    Some slavers ended up as slaves themselves and vice versa (interestingly enough). And in newly conquered areas there would have been many nominally Muslim people due to a combination of attempts at self preservation/lip service to the powerful, Stockholm syndrome, belief in the power of foreign totems or “medicine,” and of course for some; genuine interest in Islam’s message of universal redemption and acceptance by God.

    But given that Islam’s involvement in the African slave trade was overwhelmingly on the “wrong side of history,” and actually was a big part of why the trans-Atlantic slave trade was able to exist in the first place, the grievance-fact that a minority of slaves brought to America were Muslim, is nothing to crow about.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "But given that Islam’s involvement in the African slave trade was overwhelmingly on the “wrong side of history"...

    European Christian involvement in the slave trade was also on the "wrong side of history"...

    "And actually was a big part of why the trans-Atlantic slave trade was able to exist in the first place"...

    I was led to believe that European Christians were of a higher moral fiber than non-Christians. Wy were EC's tempted?

    "the grievance-fact that a minority of slaves brought to America were Muslim, is nothing to crow about."

    It's not crowing, it's addressing someone's historical error.
  69. The most deplorable one [AKA "Fourth doorman of the apocalypse"] says:

    Some slavers ended up as slaves themselves and vice versa (interestingly enough).

    That cannot be!

    Slaves were beautiful, innocent, sun people who built America from the ground up. (*)

    Slavers are evil white people who expropriated the labor of the beautiful, innocent, sun people.

    You cannot change your skin color (notwithstanding WrongSkin.)

    * However, I will admit to some confusion, because another story claims that it was the Chinese who built America.

  70. @IBC
    Some slavers ended up as slaves themselves and vice versa (interestingly enough). And in newly conquered areas there would have been many nominally Muslim people due to a combination of attempts at self preservation/lip service to the powerful, Stockholm syndrome, belief in the power of foreign totems or "medicine," and of course for some; genuine interest in Islam's message of universal redemption and acceptance by God.

    But given that Islam's involvement in the African slave trade was overwhelmingly on the "wrong side of history," and actually was a big part of why the trans-Atlantic slave trade was able to exist in the first place, the grievance-fact that a minority of slaves brought to America were Muslim, is nothing to crow about.

    “But given that Islam’s involvement in the African slave trade was overwhelmingly on the “wrong side of history”…

    European Christian involvement in the slave trade was also on the “wrong side of history”…

    “And actually was a big part of why the trans-Atlantic slave trade was able to exist in the first place”…

    I was led to believe that European Christians were of a higher moral fiber than non-Christians. Wy were EC’s tempted?

    “the grievance-fact that a minority of slaves brought to America were Muslim, is nothing to crow about.”

    It’s not crowing, it’s addressing someone’s historical error.

    • Replies: @IBC

    It’s not [crowing], it’s addressing someone’s historical error.
     
    Actually, I shouldn't have used that word because I confused your handle "Corvinus," with the Latin word for crow, "corvus." I had doubts about five minutes after pressing the "publish comment" button, but at least it made me smile when I first wrote it. Without that reference though, it does come across as a little sharp and my real motivation actually wasn't to peck at you but just to more accurately frame what you'd said. Contradictory evidence can be good --we can agree on that!
  71. IBC says:
    @Corvinus
    "But given that Islam’s involvement in the African slave trade was overwhelmingly on the “wrong side of history"...

    European Christian involvement in the slave trade was also on the "wrong side of history"...

    "And actually was a big part of why the trans-Atlantic slave trade was able to exist in the first place"...

    I was led to believe that European Christians were of a higher moral fiber than non-Christians. Wy were EC's tempted?

    "the grievance-fact that a minority of slaves brought to America were Muslim, is nothing to crow about."

    It's not crowing, it's addressing someone's historical error.

    It’s not [crowing], it’s addressing someone’s historical error.

    Actually, I shouldn’t have used that word because I confused your handle “Corvinus,” with the Latin word for crow, “corvus.” I had doubts about five minutes after pressing the “publish comment” button, but at least it made me smile when I first wrote it. Without that reference though, it does come across as a little sharp and my real motivation actually wasn’t to peck at you but just to more accurately frame what you’d said. Contradictory evidence can be good –we can agree on that!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings