The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Sailer Gap in Action: NYT Says in 2016 What I Said in 2001: "There Are More White Voters Than People Think"
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

With the New York Times running a giant analysis about how the conventional wisdom about the demographics of the electorate is wrong because exit polls exaggerate the number of minority voters, especially Hispanic voters, I’d like to point out that I’ve documented that bias repeatedly since 2001. Here are excerpts from the new NYT article and below is my July 24, 2001 UPI article on pretty much the exact same subject. And then I follow up with my 2013 VDARE article on how the exit polls got 2012 turnout wrong, which means the GOP Establishment’s support for “comprehensive immigration reform” was justified by innumeracy.

There Are More White Voters Than People Think. That’s Good News for Trump.
Nate Cohn @Nate_Cohn JUNE 9, 2016

… New analysis by The Upshot shows that millions more white, older working-class voters went to the polls in 2012 than was found by exit polls on Election Day. This raises the prospect that Mr. Trump has a larger pool of potential voters than generally believed.

The wider path may help explain why Mr. Trump is competitive in early general election surveys against Hillary Clinton. And it calls into question the prevailing demographic explanation of recent elections, which held that Barack Obama did very poorly among whites and won only because young and minority voters turned out in record numbers. This story line led Republicans to conclude that they had maximized their support from white voters and needed to reach out to Hispanics to win in 2016.

Those previous conclusions emerged from exit polls released on election night. The new data from the census, voter registration files, polls and the finalized results tells a subtly different story with potential consequences for the 2016 election.

… Latino voters did not put Mr. Obama over the top, as many argued in the days after Mr. Obama’s re-election. He would have won even if he had done as poorly among Latino voters as John Kerry.

This is all good news for Mr. Trump. There’s more room for him to make gains among white working-class voters than many assumed — enough to win without making gains among nonwhite or college-educated white voters.

But Mr. Trump’s narrow path could close if he loses ground among well-educated voters and alienates even more nonwhite voters than Mitt Romney did four years ago. …

When you hear about the demographic challenges facing the Republican Party, almost all of the data comes from exit polls: surveys conducted with tens of thousands of voters at precincts across the country on Election Day, along with a supplemental telephone survey with early voters.

The exit polls are excellent surveys. But like any survey, they’re imperfect. The problem is that analysts, including me, have treated the exit polls like a precise account of the electorate.

“There are campaigns and journalists who take the exit polls as the word of God about the shape of the electorate and their voting propensities,” said Michael McDonald, a political scientist at the University of Florida who researches voter turnout. “They’re meant to tell us why people voted. They’re not designed to tell us much about the demographic profile of the electorate.”

The exit polls have a series of subtle biases that depict a younger, better-educated and more diverse electorate. Mr. McDonald tentatively reached this conclusion in 2005, and the pattern has been seen in a broader set of data.

The evidence for a whiter, less-educated and older electorate comes from two main sources.

The first — and longest-standing — source of alternative data is the Current Population Survey, known as the C.P.S. Conducted by the Census Bureau, it is the same monthly survey that yields the unemployment report. After elections, it includes a question about whether people voted. …

But for many experts in the field, these issues pale next to those facing the exit polls. For Bernard Fraga, a professor of political science at Indiana University, there is “no question that the exit poll is not as accurate.” He added, “It’s clearly much more reliable to look at the C.P.S. or even better to look at the voter file-based work.” Today, virtually all major campaign polling, voter targeting and election law litigation is conducted using voter file data.

… Hispanic voters played only a modest role in Mr. Romney’s defeat. They cost him Florida — a must-win state for Republicans, but also the closest contest. Elsewhere, Mr. Obama would have easily survived even if Mr. Romney had equaled George W. Bush’s 2004 share of Hispanic voters.

I’ve written about this endlessly for almost 15 years. Here’s an early example from the summer of 2001 pointing out how the exit poll report that Hispanics cast 7% of the vote in 2000 Bush-Gore election was undermined by the Census Bureau analysis that pegged the Hispanic share at 5.4%.

Analysis: Mexican-Americans and the vote
By STEVE SAILER, UPI National Correspondent
LOS ANGELES, July 24, 2001 (UPI)

Pundits have been hailing as a “political masterstroke” the Bush Administration’s reported proposal to offer legalization to many, although not all, illegal Mexican immigrants. (Democrats have countered by suggesting programs should aid undocumented workers from all countries, not just Mexico.) Yet, new data now available on the Census Bureau’s website, although not yet formally issued to the press, shows that the voting strength of Mexican-Americans remains surprisingly limited. People identifying themselves as being of Mexican ethnicity cast only 3.0 percent of the vote in the 2000 election.

In contrast, the Census Bureau found that African-Americans accounted for 11.5 percent of voters, making them almost four times as numerous as Mexican-American voters. Even Hispanics with roots in countries other than Mexico comprised 2.3 percent of the electorate, not much less than the Mexican total.

Non-Hispanic whites dominated voting with 80.7 percent. Anglo whites cast almost 27 times more ballots than did Mexican-Americans.

Although it’s still small, the Mexican-American share has been growing steadily. It’s up from 2.6 percent in 1996. If recent trends continue, it should reach somewhere around 3.5 percent by 2004.

Similarly, the total Hispanic grew from 3.6 in 1988 to 4.7 percent in 1996 to 5.4 percent in 2000. It likely will be about six percent or slightly higher in 2004. The Voter News Service exit poll claimed that Hispanics comprised seven percent of the 2000 vote, but that was based on a sample only one quarter as large as the Census Bureau’s.

The Census Bureau survey’s main weakness is that respondents can falsely claim they voted. Yet, this would only bias the results reported here if some ethnic groups lied more than others. Exit polls, however, have a hard time handling absentee voters.

Although in the long term, Mexican-Americans – and Hispanics in general – are likely to wield massive influence, they probably will not play an outsized role in the 2004 election – in particular, they are unlikely to offer much aid to Bush’s expected re-election bid.

Numerous commentators have uncritically repeated the claim made by Bush pollster Matthew Dowd in The Washington Post that, “As a realistic goal, we have to get somewhere between … 38 to 40 percent of the Hispanic vote,” compared to the estimated 35 percent Bush earned in 2000. Yet, simple math shows that if Bush boosts his share of the Hispanic vote from 35 percent to 40 percent, and Hispanics cast six percent of the votes in 2004, then Bush will gain a mere 0.3 percentage points overall.

“Obviously, all this is trivial compared to such things as the economy,” one left-of-center election analyst commented on condition of anonymity. “If I were George W. Bush, I would just spend the next four years doing things for Florida and Pennsylvania, rather than playing Hispanic games.”

Further, the Electoral College, not the national popular vote, decides presidential elections. (Otherwise, Al Gore would be President.) In 2004, Mexican-American voters are likely to have even less influence there than in the popular vote.

That’s because 72.3 percent of Mexican-American voters in 2000 lived in just two states: California and Texas. Neither one is expected to be up for grabs in the next election.

Bush won his home state of Texas with 59.3 percent last year. He picked up 72 percent of Texas’ white vote. If he were to need in 2004 a higher share among Mexicans just to hold on to Texas, that’s a sure sign he would be doomed to lose nationwide.

In contrast, in California Bush took only 41.7 percent. Even if Bush had won 100 percent of the Mexican-American voters in California last November, he still would have lost California by around 400,000 votes.

In the extremely close 2000 race, 12 states were decided by less than five percentage points. Only seven percent of all Mexican-Americans voters lived in those states. Mexican-Americans accounted for merely 0.8 percent of the all the ballots cast in those 12 states.

Harry P. Pachon, head of the Tomás Rivera Policy Institute in Claremont, Calif., said, “The only countervailing facts are that in 23 of 50 states, Latinos are now the largest minority.” Pachon defended the political utility of Bush’s pro-Mexican-American push: “If 2004 is another squeaker, then it makes a lot of sense.” Pachon also pointed out that the U.S. House and Senate are almost evenly balanced, and the Mexican-American vote could decide which party controls them.

Where does this little-known data come from? Right after every national election, the Census Bureau supplements its monthly Current Population Survey of 50,000 households with additional questions about voting. Jennifer Day of the Bureau said it is not planning to issue a press release on the 2000 election findings for another half year or so, but the actual data is currently available to anyone willing to use FERRET (Federal Electronic Research and Review Extraction Tool), a data query tool on the Census.gov website.

This widespread assumption that policies benefiting Mexican-Americans are crucial to Bush’s reelection chances seems to have been fueled by the Census Bureau’s surprising announcement in March that Hispanics had overtaken African-Americans in numbers, and now comprise exactly one out of eight residents (12.5 percent).

Yet, only one out of 33 voters was Mexican-American. That low share is largely for two reasons.

First, not all Hispanics are Mexican-American. While this should be obvious, observers sometimes seem to conflate the two categories. The Bureau’s survey found that Mexicans comprised just 56 percent of all Hispanic voters in 2000.

Residents of Puerto Rican and Cuban ethnicity were more than twice as likely to vote as Mexican-Americans. Unlike Mexicans, Puerto Ricans are all U.S. citizens. Cubans tend to be older and more politically active than Mexicans.

This distinction between Mexicans and other Hispanics is particularly important in assessing the Bush Administration’s plan to strike an immigration deal to aid Mexican nationals with President Vicente Fox. Some non-Mexican Hispanics have complained that such a plan would be ethnically discriminatory against their peoples. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) has emphasized that the Democrats’ alternative will not be restricted to just Mexicans.

Thus, because the non-Mexican Hispanic voters (2.3% of the electorate) and Asian-American voters (1.8%) combined outnumber Mexican-American voters (3.0%), Bush’s Mexican-only initiative might end up actually costing him votes among immigrant groups.

Second, residents of America who identify as being of Mexican heritage are only three-eighths as likely to say they voted in November as the average American. There are several causes. Residents of Mexican descent are less likely to vote because they are less likely to be citizens. Further, they tend to be younger, poorer, and less educated than the typical American, all of which correlate with low turnout.

If there is little political gain in courting the Mexican-American vote, why the seeming focus on it? One political observer suggests a symbolic but politically potent reason: “I think it goes back to Bush being nice to Hispanics to help him with suburban moderates, who don’t like Republicans who are too mean spirited.” Because non-Hispanic whites cast four out of every five ballots, that might be the most sensible explanation.

This doesn’t mean the Brimelow-Rubenstein observation of 1997 that mass immigration is massively bad for the GOP in the long run is wrong. It just means that this future won’t go through the formality of taking place as quickly as the conventional wisdom assumes, leaving an opening to do something about it.

Nor does it mean that Trump will necessarily win. He has his a lot of work cut out for him to convince enough whites to vote for him.

But these observations raise major red flags about the innumeracy of the formulators of the conventional wisdom.

A standard topic for punditry these days is Why Trump? What did the Republican Establishment do wrong to let Trump become the nominee?

Here’s an answer you haven’t heard too often: The innumeracy of the Republican Establishment Brain Trust is a major reason why the Republicans didn’t field candidates who could stop Trump. They all believed in the Hispanic Tidal Wave Theory that meant they had to Hispander like crazy.

That’s why the GOP big money made Jeb Bush the 2015 frontrunner: they thought his message that he loves Mexicans more than he likes Americans was dictated by the numbers! That’s why in 2013 Marco Rubio wrecked his 2016 chances by deciding to be the face of the Democrats’ amnesty bill. That’s even one reason why Cruz, blessed with a Hispanic surname, became a major force, despite his evident shortcomings (although that’s minor compared to the major screw-ups of Jeb running at all and Rubio choosing the wrong side on amnesty).

Back on June 3, 2013, I wrote in VDARE:

Ever since last November’s election, we’ve been hearing that Hispanics comprised a record 10 percent of the vote—which therefore obliges Republican Congressmen to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” a.k.a the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill RIGHT NOW.

… But what if these nice, round turnout numbers provided by the Edison exit poll company weren’t true? What if the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” clamor is based on exit poll error?

What if in 2012 the Sleeping Giant of the Latino Vote didn’t actually awake—but instead rolled over and started a new siesta?

In short, what if the Main Stream Media exaggerated the Hispanic share of the 2012 vote by a factor of almost 20 percent?

Well, we now have the numbers. We now know that the suppositions behind these awkward questions are true.

After every national election, the Census Bureau conducts a massive survey of voter turnout. Then it bureaucratically mulls over the results for months—while the conventional wisdom congeals around whatever slapdash numbers the exit poll firm emitted in the early going.

In contrast to the Census Bureau survey, though, exit polls aren’t designed to measure turnout. Heck, exit polls aren’t even very good at figuring out who won the election—just ask President John F. Kerry.

Exit polls can’t be based on the random samples that would be needed to measure turnout accurately, because the exit poll company has to bake a forecast of the electorate’s demographics into its plan of which precincts to send workers to cover. Not surprisingly, it tends to get back the results it anticipated.

Moreover, Hispanics are both of interest to sponsors and difficult to survey (they can need Spanish-speaking pollsters). So their needs are typically given more weight in planning the exit poll. The result: national exit polls have overstated the Hispanic share of the vote at least since 2000.

 
Hide 138 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Disagree that Hispanic-outreach mentality boosted Cruz at all. He was only supported by the party people as a last ditch against Trump, and the immigrant background story never figured into his campaign narrative the same way it did with Rubio. + he tried to out-Trump Trump on immigration.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    The thing about Cruz is that

    a) he's only half "Hispanic"

    b) he never displayed much interest in the heritage of his father

    c) he threw both of his parents' heritage under the bus by going full Evangelical Protestant instead of being the good Catholic boy that one would expect the son of a Canarian-Cuban and an Irish-Italian to be.

    Rubio OTOH dedicated his entire political career to being a Professional Hispanic. And, well, that didn't play too well among voters who don't want the US to become just another Latin American cesspit.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @MEH 0910

    , @Anonym
    @Anonymous

    Cruz was only ever Trump-lite on immigration IIRC.

  2. Here’s an answer you haven’t heard too often: The innumeracy of the Republican Establishment Brain Trust is a major reason why the Republicans didn’t field candidates who could stop Trump. They all believed in the Hispanic Tidal Wave Theory that meant they had to Hispander like crazy.

    Yes, the Republican establishment is gross. They’re ashamed of their white skin, and that makes unable to do math.

    Unfortunately, whites ain’t what they’re used to be. Among college educated whites, Romney won by about 10 points, while Trump is only tied with Hillary. A lot of whites are having the “ewww” reaction to Trump every time the media calls them racist or sexist.

    Somewhat related, I recently found this article from 538:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-intolerant-supporters/

    They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Hepp

    I just HATE the KKK!

    Hate 'em!

    They're everywhere! Like cockroaches!

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @White Guy In Japan

    , @Jefferson
    @Hepp

    "They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK."

    The KKK of the 21st Century is too much of a harmless physical threat for me to feel extreme hatred for them. Today in 2016 anti-Donald Trump protesters are way more violent than the KKK.

    You don't see the KKK going to Hildabeast rallies to physically assault her supporters.

    Replies: @CK

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Hepp

    "They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK."

    That's funny. Based on their portrayal in movies and television, I would have thought that the FBI would be popular.

    , @AndrewR
    @Hepp

    It's almost like the KKK is not a significant political force in any way anymore and Islamist radicals are...

  3. It’s worse than innumeracy. Even if you take the Hispanic strategy seriously Jeb is a stupid choice, because he was a nonstarter. He didn’t pass the laugh test. He was only slightly more plausible than David French. All he had going for him is that they knew he would take orders. How hard would it have been to pick a Yes Man who didn’t also share the name that sunk the Republican brand down to its lowest ebb in a generation or two?

    Rubio as the face of amnesty was like saying Malcolm X should sell the civil rights movement to white people. Okay, not really. But if you wanted to sell amnesty to conservatives how about you get the biggest racist white guy to back it? That’s just off the top of my head. Anything but a Rubio. Didn’t they anticipate that maybe one of the hurdles he’d face running for national audience might be to convince people that he’s not in favor of precisely the thing the made him the face of? Or weren’t they thinking that far ahead?

    They were thinking that far ahead, because Rubio was their future face of the party. In part to prime him for the future they made him the face of amnesty. Which was perhaps the easiest way to sabotage his presidential chances. That’s how stupid they are.

    It’s like telling Hillary to run with a lady VP because of, um, grrl power. No, what she needs is man votes. Grrl power is exactly the wrong solution.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    @guest

    Shhhhh!

    Clinton-Warren (or Hill-Liz as it would probably turn into) is a sure winner!

    , @Glossy
    @guest

    It’s like telling Hillary to run with a lady VP because of, um, grrl power. No, what she needs is man votes. Grrl power is exactly the wrong solution.

    Fauxcahontas leads the Dem VP field in the betting markets:

    https://www.predictit.org/Market/1530/Who-will-win-the-2016-Democratic-vice-presidential-nomination

    Replies: @Jefferson

    , @The Alarmist
    @guest


    "It’s worse than innumeracy. Even if you take the Hispanic strategy seriously Jeb is a stupid choice, because he was a nonstarter."
     
    It amazes me that the best and brightest Republican "intellectuals" would have seriously thought Jeb was plausible after the two prior Bush Presidencies, but they did, so why should we listen to them on Trump?

    Replies: @AndrewR

  4. @Hepp

    Here’s an answer you haven’t heard too often: The innumeracy of the Republican Establishment Brain Trust is a major reason why the Republicans didn’t field candidates who could stop Trump. They all believed in the Hispanic Tidal Wave Theory that meant they had to Hispander like crazy.
     
    Yes, the Republican establishment is gross. They're ashamed of their white skin, and that makes unable to do math.

    Unfortunately, whites ain't what they're used to be. Among college educated whites, Romney won by about 10 points, while Trump is only tied with Hillary. A lot of whites are having the "ewww" reaction to Trump every time the media calls them racist or sexist.

    Somewhat related, I recently found this article from 538:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-intolerant-supporters/

    They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Jefferson, @Mr. Anon, @AndrewR

    I just HATE the KKK!

    Hate ’em!

    They’re everywhere! Like cockroaches!

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    I hate slavery. I hate it.

    Oh, also human sacrifice. And the carthaginians. I just can't abide carthaginians.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Harry Baldwin

    , @White Guy In Japan
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Subhuman rednecks yet many of them became judges and politicians.

    Clearly the goals of the Klan are being realized everyday in America.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

  5. The GOPe decided on amnesty because their paymasters told them to support it. The flawed numerical analysis was used to sell it to the more gullible rank and file.

    This article also seems to have a hidden message: to soften the mental blow to the left if Trump pulls off a general election victory. I think we’ll see more like it in the future if Trump keeps his numbers up.

    • Replies: @e
    @Lugash

    The GOPe decided on amnesty because their paymasters told them to support it. The flawed numerical analysis was used to sell it to the more gullible rank and file.

    Exactly. They also are calling Trump a "racist" for the same reason.

    , @Clifford Brown
    @Lugash


    The GOPe decided on amnesty because their paymasters told them to support it. The flawed numerical analysis was used to sell it to the more gullible rank and file.
     
    Bingo. This article assumes that the Republican Establishment is being sincere in their analysis. They support the policies that they are paid to support. They will espouse various theories to justify their positions, but first and foremost, it is driven by which policy positions are the most lucrative. K Street is a nest of serpents. These people have no moral or rational core.

    This is why it took an independent billionaire to tell the truth. Trump won not because the Republican Establishment consists morons who don't know what they are doing, he won because they are corrupt traitors who know exactly what they are doing.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  6. How many states can the “Latino vote” be decisive in, in this years presidential election? It could decide Florida. California must have half the nation’s Hispanic vote but it does Hillary no good because no Republican Presidential candidate wins California anyway. Texas? Remain Republican. Colorado? Libertarian flakes for Hillary. Nevada goes for Trump? Large Hispanic population.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Clyde

    Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. Maybe North Carolina.

    Florida is always important, although most of its Hispanic voters are Cubans and Puerto Ricans, who aren't illegal aliens. New Mexico doesn't get a lot of immigration.

    The black vote is more important in the Electoral College. It's a firewall against Trump breaking through in his home state.

    Replies: @Brutusale

  7. Hispanic turnout is so bad that there are surprisingly few Hispanic elected officials in *Los Angeles*.

    South Central flipped from majority black to majority Hispanic years ago, and yet all of the elected officials remain black.

    And on top of that, very few Hispanics live in swing states, so even if they did turn out, they wouldn’t have a large effect on the electoral college math.

    The extreme apathy of Hispanics towards basic civic participation is good news for the Republican party, but bad news for the long-run health of the country, because eventually it’s going to lead to Latin American-style corruption and poor governance as Hispanics make up a larger share of the population.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @Das


    The extreme apathy of Hispanics towards basic civic participation is good news for the Republican party, but bad news for the long-run health of the country, because eventually it’s going to lead to Latin American-style corruption and poor governance as Hispanics make up a larger share of the population.
     
    Well said Das--your comment just nailed it.

    Hispanics--and especially Mexicans--are just a disaster for those of us of a republican (small "r") bent. Though smarter and much better behaved than blacks, there's little to no republican virtue in the Latin American culture.

    I suspect that the smarter elements of our elites who hate nations, hate republics, hate the white peasantry are keenly aware of this and see it as a feature. A helot class that will work and can be coached and bribed to provide votes, but will be manageable to their elite direction for years and years to come. Whether it will really shake out that way ... not sure. But i think the usual suspects, expect to be in charge, pulling the strings with the Mexicans masses providing a vote bank for years and years to come.
  8. “There Are More White Voters Than People Think”

    Not in coming elections, 15 years down the line, there won’t be.. Most Boomers will be dead by then.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @BB753

    According to standard definitions of "boomers" and most plausible projected life expectancies, no, most "boomers" will not be dead in 15 years. Most of the eldest cohort (born in the 1940s) will likely be dead but not boomers in general.

    Replies: @BB753

    , @Travis
    @BB753

    true, imagine what the voting demographics will be like in 16 years. Half the boomers will have passed away. The Boomers are 75% white. The Millennials are just 57% white, but getting less white each year as many immigrants fall into the millennial classification.

    Closing the borders will slow down the ethnic cleansing , resulting in more assimilation and more multi-racial children. It will be interesting if the grandchildren of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will be considered white in 20 years. Today Cameron Diaz in considered hispanic because her Great great Grandfather immigrated from Cuba around 1900. It seems we have adopted a perverse one drop rule when people are considered hispanic if 1 of their 16 great great grandparents happened to be born in Latin America.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland, @epebble

    , @CK
    @BB753

    You underestimate the potential of cloning.
    Another 70 years of Boomers.

    , @Sgt. Joe Friday
    @BB753

    Even so, that doesn't explain why Republicans seem unwilling to do what it takes to win elections NOW. In politics, 15 years from now has absolutely zero relevancy.

    , @Jefferson
    @BB753

    "“There Are More White Voters Than People Think”

    Not in coming elections, 15 years down the line, there won’t be.. Most Boomers will be dead by then."

    My parents will be in their 80s in 15 years. They could still be alive by than, especially since they are upper middle class Italian Americans and not lower working class/underclass Scots-Irish Americans.

    Making it into your 80s is extremely common among certain demographics in The U.S, with Italian Americans being one of them.

  9. @Clyde
    How many states can the "Latino vote" be decisive in, in this years presidential election? It could decide Florida. California must have half the nation's Hispanic vote but it does Hillary no good because no Republican Presidential candidate wins California anyway. Texas? Remain Republican. Colorado? Libertarian flakes for Hillary. Nevada goes for Trump? Large Hispanic population.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. Maybe North Carolina.

    Florida is always important, although most of its Hispanic voters are Cubans and Puerto Ricans, who aren’t illegal aliens. New Mexico doesn’t get a lot of immigration.

    The black vote is more important in the Electoral College. It’s a firewall against Trump breaking through in his home state.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @Steve Sailer

    Given that Florida has had a Republican governor for the entire 21st Century (absent Charlie Crist's flirtation with Independent-turned-Democrat status for a couple years), there's clearly Something Different about their Latinos.

    Crist paid the price by having his ass handed to him by Little Marco in the Senate race.

    My half-Cuban sister-in-law is all in with Trump.

  10. • Replies: @artichoke
    @Wanderer

    Pelosi's substantially right, I would suppose.

    The internet is based on DARPAnet. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. But it's not just "government" research, it's "military". That's where the cool stuff happens and basic science is done, and largely it's on government contracts performed by private companies.

    It doesn't mean we should add a bunch of more affirmative action government employees.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

  11. The notion that the Hispanic vote is that massive or that important or wields that much influence isn’t just innumeracy, it’s political pseudo-science cooked up and peddled ultimately by billionaires and the cheap labor lobby for obvious purposes of greed.

    • Agree: Triumph104, Clyde
  12. It will be interesting to see what percentage of the black vote Trump gets. On one hand, they are dog-loyal Democrats, more so than any other group in the entire population is to either the Dems or the GOP. On the other, they love “big men” type politicians, and Trump is that, if nothing else.

    I can’t recall the exact figure, but the Dems basically need to capture at least 90% of the black vote to win national elections…trump might be able to chisel a few percentage points more out of black voters than GOPers in the last 20 years and put the final total under 90%. Unfortunately, so far he has zero political organization and until that changes I would still put Hillary as the likely winner of the election because the ground game really does matter.

    • Replies: @e
    @Arclight

    Obama will make the election personal to turn out the black vote.

    , @Anonymous
    @Arclight

    Lmao you really don't know a thing about black people.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    , @GOUSAAMER114
    @Arclight

    No one has ever tried to get blacks on the basis of immigration and trade like Trump is going to do. I think it can work to get 25% of the black vote. See what Trump is saying about Hillary taking inner city money and giving it to Muslim invaders? That's how we win. At least logically to me it makes sense. Blacks hate invaders and can see that manual jobs are being taken by them. At least 25%.

  13. @Hepp

    Here’s an answer you haven’t heard too often: The innumeracy of the Republican Establishment Brain Trust is a major reason why the Republicans didn’t field candidates who could stop Trump. They all believed in the Hispanic Tidal Wave Theory that meant they had to Hispander like crazy.
     
    Yes, the Republican establishment is gross. They're ashamed of their white skin, and that makes unable to do math.

    Unfortunately, whites ain't what they're used to be. Among college educated whites, Romney won by about 10 points, while Trump is only tied with Hillary. A lot of whites are having the "ewww" reaction to Trump every time the media calls them racist or sexist.

    Somewhat related, I recently found this article from 538:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-intolerant-supporters/

    They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Jefferson, @Mr. Anon, @AndrewR

    “They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK.”

    The KKK of the 21st Century is too much of a harmless physical threat for me to feel extreme hatred for them. Today in 2016 anti-Donald Trump protesters are way more violent than the KKK.

    You don’t see the KKK going to Hildabeast rallies to physically assault her supporters.

    • Replies: @CK
    @Jefferson

    It is illegal for the FBI to interfere in political rallies. Therefore the KKK will not appear at any rallies.

  14. I think we have just found a new unit of measure.

    1 SUR == 15 years is the amount of time that the MSM is behind Steve.

    I avoided using the SS and went for the Sailer Unit of Retardation.

    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @Wanderer

    Another option: Sailer Period Lambda Crest, or SPLC.

  15. Do white people who’re casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton), or is there so much resentment against President Obama and non-white Americans–the chief correlative of support for Trump–that putting a volatile, narcissistic, openly racist, unqualified, and constantly dissembling candidate in office the plan of action?

    Let’s put it another way: white voters, you’ll only have yourselves to blame if the entire country is forced to deal yet again with the debacle of a GOP Congress, which has done almost nothing for 8 years after nearly bringing the global economy to its knees, and a GOP President. The last one was the worst US leader in my lifetime, and the current candidate couldn’t even run his own company without repeatedly bankrupting it FOUR TIMES. And he already had a leg up with a multimillionaire father.

    Donald Trump is not going to do anything for you, but dog you out worse as bad as he will minorities, as the GOP does again and again. WAKE UP!

    • Replies: @Wanderer
    @Tiny Duck

    Do white people who’re casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton)

    You mean like her positive contribution to Libya?

    I guess racists like you don't care about almost-brown people.

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Tiny Duck

    I am going to keep adding to and re-posting the following every time I see any reference to Hillary Rodham Clinton's qualifications for any political office. All this material is readily confirmed from reputable news sources and with a minimal amount of research:

    A partial, chronological list, drawn from the public record, of instances of Hilary Clinton's corruption, poor judgement, and political and policy failures:

    (1) Failed DC bar exam;
    (2) Expelled from Watergate investigation staff for lying and other unethical behavior;
    (3) Involved in a series of financial scandals as Arkansas's first "lady";
    (4) Both initiated and botched the Whitewater coverup;
    (5) Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;
    (6) Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.];
    (7) Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;
    (8) Lost a "sure thing" presidential presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;
    (9) When Hillary Rodham Clinton became Secretary of State one of her legal obligations was to appoint an Inspector General for the State Department. She never did and for her entire term in office the State Department lacked an IG. This was a gross and utterly unprecedented violation of federal law. It strongly suggests that Clinton was planning illegal conduct in office before she even took her oath and was preparing mechanisms to enable her planned criminal acts.
    (10) Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplomatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long "special relation" between the UK and the USA;
    (11) A bit later her incredibly stupid "reset button" gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;
    (12) Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called "Arab Spring" which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;
    (13) Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;
    (14) Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the role she played in it;
    (15) While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint inteeligence sources [people may have died as a result;
    (16) While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her "foundation" had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.

    Some with a necon bent might argue about the following but they are part of a frightening pattern of foreign interventions having no apparent immediate advantage to the USA and which ultimately unravel in ways that endanger both world order and the USA's long term interests.

    (a) Clinton-inspired and directed interventions in Kosovo which led to the establishment of an anarchic region on the southern flank of Europe engaged in a massive narcotics trade and serving as a reservoir and exporter of Islamofascism and terrorism
    (b) While Secretary of State Clinton oversaw an engineered putsch which overthrew the legitimate and elected government of Ukraine and replaced it with a corrupt, unstable, and illegitoimate successor regime. As a result, and as might have been expected, Russia supported the secession of ethnically Russian parts of Ukraine from this state resulkting in a simmering civil war.
    (c) Perhaps not coincidentally just before this one of the Ukrainian oligarch beneficiaries of this disaster had made a donation of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which is basically a slush fund for Bill and Hill to pillagfe at will.

    , @Louie
    @Tiny Duck

    Hi Mr. Kristol!

    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Tiny Duck


    Do white people who’re casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton), or is there so much resentment against President Obama and non-white Americans–the chief correlative of support for Trump–that putting a volatile, narcissistic, openly racist, unqualified, and constantly dissembling candidate in office the plan of action?
     
    No amount of characterizing it in grotesquely biased terms, is going to disssuade those of us who are tired of all the "progressive" B.S. from hate-Whitey types such as yourself. The vast majority of us here support Donald J. Trump for President. And he will win. Deal with it, pinkboi.
  16. As Steve has pointed out here, and in other places, Central American Hispanic immigrants (Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadoreans, etc.) don’t show up for elections and don’t get politically agitated. As Steve has also pointed out, this means that future townhall and local political debates will be dominated by the few remaining gentile whites, Jews, and also the blacks bused in by the Dem party machines

    That’s actually preferable for both ruling parties, not just Democrats, so long as the Repubs don’t mind whites being ethnically cleansed (hint: they don’t). There will be fewer disruptions from large blocs of whites angry at the failures. The peasants accept what is due, and the party buys off the remnant of activists with payoffs or political office. Business as usual.

    This is also probably why more black leaders aren’t making a fuss about illegals (besides being bought off by Soros). Since Central-American-Hispanics care about politics less than whites, a majority-central-american-Hispanic population means that a small cadre of blacks can more easily get a hold of the spoils system than if whitey were around to block him.

    I would wonder if the Irish immigrants came over as politically active, or whether Tammany Hall recruited them and made them into the politically-corrupt group they came to be known as. If the latter, then the Dems might be planning something worse.

    That’s the plan: import a large docile population to let the elites rule in corrupt ease; remove those non-docile groups who are erratic, hard to buy off, and upset the applecart.

  17. I always wondered why increasing immigration was such a slam-dunk for getting the Hispanic vote. Why not attack illegal immigration in race-neutral terms–enforce the law, etc.? You’d pick up lots of white guys, avoid the sort of Hispanic reaction that’s going on now, and still get done what you wanted to do (cut illegal immigration). You could even go for cutting legal immigration on a platform of ‘acculturation takes time’ and ‘let’s give everyone time to assimilate’. A lot of politics is salesmanship.

    Yes, the media would go after you for ‘disparate impact’ and ‘dog whistles’, but you’d have much more plausible deniability with the white college-educated crowd who aren’t hardcore SJWs.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @SFG

    Oh come on. Other than maybe a few thousand Irish illegals, virtually all illegals are "visible ethnic minorities." Might as well be open about things.

    Replies: @SFG

  18. @Tiny Duck
    Do white people who're casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton), or is there so much resentment against President Obama and non-white Americans--the chief correlative of support for Trump--that putting a volatile, narcissistic, openly racist, unqualified, and constantly dissembling candidate in office the plan of action?

    Let's put it another way: white voters, you'll only have yourselves to blame if the entire country is forced to deal yet again with the debacle of a GOP Congress, which has done almost nothing for 8 years after nearly bringing the global economy to its knees, and a GOP President. The last one was the worst US leader in my lifetime, and the current candidate couldn't even run his own company without repeatedly bankrupting it FOUR TIMES. And he already had a leg up with a multimillionaire father.

    Donald Trump is not going to do anything for you, but dog you out worse as bad as he will minorities, as the GOP does again and again. WAKE UP!

    Replies: @Wanderer, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Louie, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Do white people who’re casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton)

    You mean like her positive contribution to Libya?

    I guess racists like you don’t care about almost-brown people.

  19. Roseanne Barr said she is going to vote for Donald Trump in November.

    Donald Trump does well with blue collar Whites and Roseanne did play a blue collar White on her show, lol. Her character worked blue collar jobs like a diner waitress and a factory worker, while her fictional husband John Goodman worked as a mechanic.

    Susan Sarandon also said she will not be voting for Hildabeast, although she did not go as far as to say she will vote for The Donald. She will probably sit out this election, which is good enough for me. We on the Alt-Right need more Liberals like her to sit out this election.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jefferson

    That is mainly because she supported Bernie Sanders. In other words for the consistent far leftists, Hillary isn't liberal enough for their tastes.

    It would also be a good thing if Bernie decides to run third party. This would take anywhere from 15-25% of the Democrat vote away from Hillary's vote total.

    Replies: @Wanderer, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    , @Reginald Maplethorp
    @Jefferson

    Norm MacDonald was a writer on Roseanne's show. I saw his act recently and it had some very good bits on TransJenner and related topics that iSteve readers would probably appreciate (I certainly did!)

    I'm not sure if he's an American citizen and he probably wouldn't admit Trump support because his ego is too fragile to handle the backlash. But he's a funny guy.

  20. There’s a scene in The Other Guys where cops played by Rob Riggle and Damon Wayans Jr. persuade the cop played by Will Ferrell that it’s a tradition to fire your gun in the police station–they call it a “desk pop.” Marco Rubio was pranked by Chuck Schumer into doing something equally stupid in fronting for the Gang of Eight.

    • Replies: @Ralph Raico
    @Harry Baldwin

    Thanks, Harry Baldwin, that clip is really funny. Incidentally, I always enjoy your other posts as well. Great community Steve has here.

  21. Off topic, another thing for you to brag about. You were talking about Google unpersoning Pat Buchanan and Dennis Mangan years ago. This time, they stepped in it big time by screwing around to help a presidential candidate.

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/here-are-10-more-examples-of-google-search-results-favorable-to-hillary/

  22. One of the more remarkable results of current polling regarding Trump’s appeal vs. Hillary is the stupendous gender gap.

    That gap does strike me as being so large that it can’t be accounted for mostly by single vs. married women — it must be that many, many married women are plunking down for Hillary, whereas their husbands plunk down for Trump.

    I wonder what Steve makes of the current gender gap, given his account of it in other situations in terms of single vs married women?

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    @candid_observer

    I've been a Trump supporter since he first announced his positions on dis-inviting the world, leaving the rest of the world alone, and getting out of debt to the world. I loathe the Clintons. However, it is foolish not to see that Trump does not project the persona of the alpha dog in the same way that Clinton did. Men can see through and discount Trump's bluster and braggadocio. It's a real turn off for a lot of the women I know. If Trump can eliminate these elements from his public persona or at least tone them down considerably his favorable ratings among women will improve considerably.

    Replies: @Eric Novak, @Lagertha, @dr kill

  23. As a sidenote, perhaps the NYT has underestimated poor black folks growing frustration with the onslaught of hispanics, and their growing political and media power.
    They probably don’t like dismissive spanish-speaking reporters in their neighborhoods. I would think poor blacks would find a reporter delivering the news in a language they don’t understand, to be rude…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3635704/Shocking-footage-captures-reporter-assaulted-LIVE-AIR-woman-punches-head.html#i-1e7faf8e819f219b

    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @Dew
    @V Vega

    Heard about that on the radio today. Of course, they did not mention the race of the attacker. Spread the word.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-J0POelsvw

    It's a dindu attack (stupid enough to show her fat face while punching the reporter).

    Replies: @artichoke, @AndrewR, @ScarletNumber

    , @AndrewR
    @V Vega

    I lack much interest in political statistics so I am not going to research before making this claim, but my gut feeling would be that blacks in so-called swing states are much less likely to have exposure to large hispanic populations. Places with large numbers of anti-hispanic blacks are unlikely to have a chance of "going red" in the presidential election.

    In related news, why the hell do we still have the electoral college? A candidate could get 74.999999% of the popular vote and still lose the election.

  24. That same innumeracy accounts for thinking a head of lettuce would cost $10 without illegal immigrants.

    Anyway, soon the Senate will be by ethnicity not state. Two senators for each ethnic group.

    • Replies: @Harold
    @Jean Cocteausten

    We have something like that. Wikipedia,


    In New Zealand politics, Māori electorates, colloquially also called Māori seats, are a special category of electorate that gives reserved positions to representatives of Māori in the Parliament of New Zealand. Consequently, every area in New Zealand is covered by both a general and a Māori electorate.

    Māori electorates were introduced in 1867 under the Maori Representation Act. The first Māori elections were held in the following year during the term of the 4th New Zealand Parliament.
     
    Here is a bit that won’t surprise,

    They were intended as a temporary measure and, despite numerous attempts to disestablish Māori electorates, they continue to form part of the New Zealand political landscape.
     

    Replies: @South Texas Guy

  25. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Trump has been falling in the polls against Hillary recently because instead of making hay out of the violent protests in San Jose last week and emphasizing their anti-American aspects (waving Mexican flags, burning American flags, etc.), which would have helped him, he blew the opportunity and instead focused on his fraud legal case and the judge, which just reminds people of his low-rent Trump University. He was apparently too stupid and or egotistical to look beyond his personal legal case.

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    @Anonymous

    He was apparently too stupid and or egotistical to look beyond his personal legal case.

    Here's what I don't understand about the psychology of backseat political strategists like yourself. Trump's been so damn stupid with his misfires that he cleaned the clocks of 16 als0-rans.

    History shows that Trump's judgment is superior to that of his critics and yet you deem him to be stupid.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    , @Eric Novak
    @Anonymous

    According to RCP's rolling poll average, Trump's polling percentages have increased since the La Raza judge news broke.

    Replies: @candid_observer

  26. @Tiny Duck
    Do white people who're casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton), or is there so much resentment against President Obama and non-white Americans--the chief correlative of support for Trump--that putting a volatile, narcissistic, openly racist, unqualified, and constantly dissembling candidate in office the plan of action?

    Let's put it another way: white voters, you'll only have yourselves to blame if the entire country is forced to deal yet again with the debacle of a GOP Congress, which has done almost nothing for 8 years after nearly bringing the global economy to its knees, and a GOP President. The last one was the worst US leader in my lifetime, and the current candidate couldn't even run his own company without repeatedly bankrupting it FOUR TIMES. And he already had a leg up with a multimillionaire father.

    Donald Trump is not going to do anything for you, but dog you out worse as bad as he will minorities, as the GOP does again and again. WAKE UP!

    Replies: @Wanderer, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Louie, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    I am going to keep adding to and re-posting the following every time I see any reference to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s qualifications for any political office. All this material is readily confirmed from reputable news sources and with a minimal amount of research:

    A partial, chronological list, drawn from the public record, of instances of Hilary Clinton’s corruption, poor judgement, and political and policy failures:

    (1) Failed DC bar exam;
    (2) Expelled from Watergate investigation staff for lying and other unethical behavior;
    (3) Involved in a series of financial scandals as Arkansas’s first “lady”;
    (4) Both initiated and botched the Whitewater coverup;
    (5) Put in charge of crafting the Clinton health insurance policy initiative then failed in a disastrous way that put off the possibilities of another Democrat bill for twenty years;
    (6) Partnered with Bill in admitting Poland to NATO, starting a new round of unnecessary hostilities with Russia. [George Kennon describes this as one of the greatest diplomatic blunders of the 20th century.];
    (7) Was losing NY senate election until Bill stepped in;
    (8) Lost a “sure thing” presidential presidential nomination to the relatively unknown Obama;
    (9) When Hillary Rodham Clinton became Secretary of State one of her legal obligations was to appoint an Inspector General for the State Department. She never did and for her entire term in office the State Department lacked an IG. This was a gross and utterly unprecedented violation of federal law. It strongly suggests that Clinton was planning illegal conduct in office before she even took her oath and was preparing mechanisms to enable her planned criminal acts.
    (10) Within two weeks of becoming Secretary of State committed an epic diplomatic faux pas that caused Whitehall to publicly and officially repudiate the century long “special relation” between the UK and the USA;
    (11) A bit later her incredibly stupid “reset button” gimmick publicly embarrassed Russian officials and widened the rift the Clintons had so assiduously created;
    (12) Fomented, aided and abetted the so-called “Arab Spring” which has permanently destabilized much of North Africa;
    (13) Fomented the overthrow of Qadafi in Libya which has turned that country into a failed anarchic mess and a haven for Islamo-fascist terrorists and helped spread terrorist movements like Boko Haram into much of central Africa;
    (14) Failed utterly to protect US diplomats in Benghazi and lied through her teeth about the causes of that disaster and the role she played in it;
    (15) While Secretary she violated an oath she took after being trained in how to handle classified materials, violated directly several section of the USC regarding the handling of such materials, and as a result exposed many US humint and elint inteeligence sources [people may have died as a result;
    (16) While Secretary her office and underlings negotiated deals with individuals and groups from which Clinton or her “foundation” had received emoluments, giving at least the appearance of pay-to-play and once again violating provisions of the USC.

    Some with a necon bent might argue about the following but they are part of a frightening pattern of foreign interventions having no apparent immediate advantage to the USA and which ultimately unravel in ways that endanger both world order and the USA’s long term interests.

    (a) Clinton-inspired and directed interventions in Kosovo which led to the establishment of an anarchic region on the southern flank of Europe engaged in a massive narcotics trade and serving as a reservoir and exporter of Islamofascism and terrorism
    (b) While Secretary of State Clinton oversaw an engineered putsch which overthrew the legitimate and elected government of Ukraine and replaced it with a corrupt, unstable, and illegitoimate successor regime. As a result, and as might have been expected, Russia supported the secession of ethnically Russian parts of Ukraine from this state resulkting in a simmering civil war.
    (c) Perhaps not coincidentally just before this one of the Ukrainian oligarch beneficiaries of this disaster had made a donation of tens of millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, which is basically a slush fund for Bill and Hill to pillagfe at will.

    • Agree: PV van der Byl
  27. @candid_observer
    One of the more remarkable results of current polling regarding Trump's appeal vs. Hillary is the stupendous gender gap.

    That gap does strike me as being so large that it can't be accounted for mostly by single vs. married women -- it must be that many, many married women are plunking down for Hillary, whereas their husbands plunk down for Trump.

    I wonder what Steve makes of the current gender gap, given his account of it in other situations in terms of single vs married women?

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    I’ve been a Trump supporter since he first announced his positions on dis-inviting the world, leaving the rest of the world alone, and getting out of debt to the world. I loathe the Clintons. However, it is foolish not to see that Trump does not project the persona of the alpha dog in the same way that Clinton did. Men can see through and discount Trump’s bluster and braggadocio. It’s a real turn off for a lot of the women I know. If Trump can eliminate these elements from his public persona or at least tone them down considerably his favorable ratings among women will improve considerably.

    • Replies: @Eric Novak
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Bill Clinton looks like a pandering hayseed politician compared to Trump. You'd be about the only person in the US who thinks Trump is low testosterone. Are you a volunteer troll, or does the organization pay you by the post?

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    , @Lagertha
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Well, I have mentioned that more must be said about Bill desecrating the Oval Office by getting a blow job from Monica. I believe that specific egotistical, cavalier, epitome-of-a-non-PC move, will revolt educated white women, feminists, religious leaders of all stripes, fathers of daughters who have forgotten about it. Sexy-time in the OO is just gross; and, poor, Monica, her young-adult life was destroyed. Hillary did just "stand by my man," when she should have banished him. I bet she will sanitize/re-upholster EVERYTHING in that space, again since the terms of GWB, O, if she gets in. I wonder if it will run across her mind? However, they must have made some kind of pact after his time was over. But, yeech, so not Presidential!

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Jasper Been

    , @dr kill
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    It ain't braggin' if it's the truth, Pilgrim.

  28. @guest
    It's worse than innumeracy. Even if you take the Hispanic strategy seriously Jeb is a stupid choice, because he was a nonstarter. He didn't pass the laugh test. He was only slightly more plausible than David French. All he had going for him is that they knew he would take orders. How hard would it have been to pick a Yes Man who didn't also share the name that sunk the Republican brand down to its lowest ebb in a generation or two?

    Rubio as the face of amnesty was like saying Malcolm X should sell the civil rights movement to white people. Okay, not really. But if you wanted to sell amnesty to conservatives how about you get the biggest racist white guy to back it? That's just off the top of my head. Anything but a Rubio. Didn't they anticipate that maybe one of the hurdles he'd face running for national audience might be to convince people that he's not in favor of precisely the thing the made him the face of? Or weren't they thinking that far ahead?

    They were thinking that far ahead, because Rubio was their future face of the party. In part to prime him for the future they made him the face of amnesty. Which was perhaps the easiest way to sabotage his presidential chances. That's how stupid they are.

    It's like telling Hillary to run with a lady VP because of, um, grrl power. No, what she needs is man votes. Grrl power is exactly the wrong solution.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Glossy, @The Alarmist

    Shhhhh!

    Clinton-Warren (or Hill-Liz as it would probably turn into) is a sure winner!

  29. @V Vega
    As a sidenote, perhaps the NYT has underestimated poor black folks growing frustration with the onslaught of hispanics, and their growing political and media power.
    They probably don't like dismissive spanish-speaking reporters in their neighborhoods. I would think poor blacks would find a reporter delivering the news in a language they don't understand, to be rude...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3635704/Shocking-footage-captures-reporter-assaulted-LIVE-AIR-woman-punches-head.html#i-1e7faf8e819f219b

    Replies: @Dew, @AndrewR

    Heard about that on the radio today. Of course, they did not mention the race of the attacker. Spread the word.

    It’s a dindu attack (stupid enough to show her fat face while punching the reporter).

    • Replies: @artichoke
    @Dew

    So Hillary's support is the black - hispanic coalition? After seeing that? Things are getting really tense and I see Trump getting in between and pulling a lot of votes with a message of we may have enough jobs that you can all have one rather than having to fight each other for them.

    , @AndrewR
    @Dew

    Well she did say excuse me...

    In all seriousness it angers but does not surprise me that this isn't national news. Dios forbid we show a black in a negative light or show the cracks in the Democrap alliance.

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Dew

    Dios mio, indeed.

  30. Given America’s low voter turn out, I guess there is a pretty large reserve army of Hispanic voters who could potentially do Trump some damage. However, there is also a very large reserve army of white voters and a pretty large reserve army of black voters situated in important swing states.

    Overall, the GOP would be better tapping into the large reserve army of native voters, then going after the smaller reserve army of Hispanic imports.

    Also, its about time the right did a survey of support for Trump and Hillary among working class white women. Hillary is gloating about how hot she is with women, but it would kind of take the wind out of her sails if she had to respond to reports about her being unfavourable with non-college educated white women. Hillary is very big with college-educated women, but even non-college educated black, Asian and Hispanic women probably aren’t as hot for Hillary as the media claims.

  31. The result: national exit polls have overstated the Hispanic share of the vote at least since 2000.

    Yes…but doesn’t this point to and reveal the elites’ Long Game, Steve?

    It’s the truth they want to believe in…and intend to make happen.

  32. How does exit polling work? I vote often but have never been exit-polled. If, having voted, I see someone lurking around carrying a clipboard to exit-poll me, I might just walk away rather than be detained to answer questions about whom I voted for and why. A certain percentage of people polled by telephone will just hang up. What percentage of exit-pollees just walk away? Do the non-participants have voting behavior that is different from that of participants? These are things that a pollster would want to know.

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Many years ago I studied survey research under Leslie Kish - a pioneer of scientific survey research - and as a result directed a large variety of big and small surveys. I'm no longer in the field but pay vague attention to what is going on. The response rates for pre-election polls are scandalously low, often in the single digit percentages. This suggests that sample bias is a major problem. As you point out, this bias is likely even greater in exit poll surveys, which are not designed as probability samples to start with. People who earn a living or make a killing from selling these things obviously don't want to admit how useless they are. But IMHO that's what they've become.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  33. @Lugash
    The GOPe decided on amnesty because their paymasters told them to support it. The flawed numerical analysis was used to sell it to the more gullible rank and file.

    This article also seems to have a hidden message: to soften the mental blow to the left if Trump pulls off a general election victory. I think we'll see more like it in the future if Trump keeps his numbers up.

    Replies: @e, @Clifford Brown

    The GOPe decided on amnesty because their paymasters told them to support it. The flawed numerical analysis was used to sell it to the more gullible rank and file.

    Exactly. They also are calling Trump a “racist” for the same reason.

  34. @Arclight
    It will be interesting to see what percentage of the black vote Trump gets. On one hand, they are dog-loyal Democrats, more so than any other group in the entire population is to either the Dems or the GOP. On the other, they love "big men" type politicians, and Trump is that, if nothing else.

    I can't recall the exact figure, but the Dems basically need to capture at least 90% of the black vote to win national elections...trump might be able to chisel a few percentage points more out of black voters than GOPers in the last 20 years and put the final total under 90%. Unfortunately, so far he has zero political organization and until that changes I would still put Hillary as the likely winner of the election because the ground game really does matter.

    Replies: @e, @Anonymous, @GOUSAAMER114

    Obama will make the election personal to turn out the black vote.

  35. @Wanderer
    I think we have just found a new unit of measure.

    1 SUR == 15 years is the amount of time that the MSM is behind Steve.

    I avoided using the SS and went for the Sailer Unit of Retardation.

    Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Another option: Sailer Period Lambda Crest, or SPLC.

  36. @Lugash
    The GOPe decided on amnesty because their paymasters told them to support it. The flawed numerical analysis was used to sell it to the more gullible rank and file.

    This article also seems to have a hidden message: to soften the mental blow to the left if Trump pulls off a general election victory. I think we'll see more like it in the future if Trump keeps his numbers up.

    Replies: @e, @Clifford Brown

    The GOPe decided on amnesty because their paymasters told them to support it. The flawed numerical analysis was used to sell it to the more gullible rank and file.

    Bingo. This article assumes that the Republican Establishment is being sincere in their analysis. They support the policies that they are paid to support. They will espouse various theories to justify their positions, but first and foremost, it is driven by which policy positions are the most lucrative. K Street is a nest of serpents. These people have no moral or rational core.

    This is why it took an independent billionaire to tell the truth. Trump won not because the Republican Establishment consists morons who don’t know what they are doing, he won because they are corrupt traitors who know exactly what they are doing.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Clifford Brown

    "Trump won not because the Republican Establishment consists morons who don’t know what they are doing, he won because they are corrupt traitors who know exactly what they are doing."

    And this time, the GOP voters weren't buying what the donor establishment was trying to sell them.

  37. Innumeracy plagues our humanities educated elites. Come to think of it, many STEM types I’ve met don’t do well in that regard either.

    The ability to use simple arithmetic on the fly to test facts, as one encounters them, is still a rare knack. It should not be.

    This is not so much a failure of education as of culture. I’m pretty sure we used to be better at this, but I may be wrong.

    • Replies: @artichoke
    @PiltdownMan

    Engineers and scientists should be trained this way. White people definitely can learn it. Were the inadequate STEM grads you ran into white?

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @PiltdownMan

    PiltdownMan said, "The ability to use simple arithmetic on the fly to test facts, as one encounters them, is still a rare knack. It should not be".

    Right. Whenever I hear some "statistic" that seems fishy I do a quick check. For instance, in the 90s, it was widely reported that there were 3 million homeless people. A little quick division put that at 1 in every 100 people in the USA. Obvious bs.

    Or take eating out once a week. Even if you just order in pizza, you will spend $20. Annualize that and you are spending $1000 a year on pizza.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Buffalo Joe

  38. @guest
    It's worse than innumeracy. Even if you take the Hispanic strategy seriously Jeb is a stupid choice, because he was a nonstarter. He didn't pass the laugh test. He was only slightly more plausible than David French. All he had going for him is that they knew he would take orders. How hard would it have been to pick a Yes Man who didn't also share the name that sunk the Republican brand down to its lowest ebb in a generation or two?

    Rubio as the face of amnesty was like saying Malcolm X should sell the civil rights movement to white people. Okay, not really. But if you wanted to sell amnesty to conservatives how about you get the biggest racist white guy to back it? That's just off the top of my head. Anything but a Rubio. Didn't they anticipate that maybe one of the hurdles he'd face running for national audience might be to convince people that he's not in favor of precisely the thing the made him the face of? Or weren't they thinking that far ahead?

    They were thinking that far ahead, because Rubio was their future face of the party. In part to prime him for the future they made him the face of amnesty. Which was perhaps the easiest way to sabotage his presidential chances. That's how stupid they are.

    It's like telling Hillary to run with a lady VP because of, um, grrl power. No, what she needs is man votes. Grrl power is exactly the wrong solution.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Glossy, @The Alarmist

    It’s like telling Hillary to run with a lady VP because of, um, grrl power. No, what she needs is man votes. Grrl power is exactly the wrong solution.

    Fauxcahontas leads the Dem VP field in the betting markets:

    https://www.predictit.org/Market/1530/Who-will-win-the-2016-Democratic-vice-presidential-nomination

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Glossy

    "Fauxcahontas leads the Dem VP field in the betting markets"

    Fauxcahontas is too scared to do a ancestry DNA test in order to be exposed for the fraud that she really is. Warren is willing to lie about her race in order to benefit from affirmative action, what else is she willing to lie about if she became the second most powerful woman on the planet as vice president of The United States? She is Lyin Elizabeth.

  39. Google is being labeled racist by the Left because when you type in “3 Black Teenagers”, you don’t see images popping up of Black Yoofs helping old senior citizens cross the street, you see images of thug life mugshots.

  40. OT: residents of Tikrit erect a statue in honor of the shoe thrown at G. W. Bush some years ago:

    • Replies: @Studley
    @Glossy

    Lovely isn't it. The US Army's efforts under Tommy Franks/Casey(Arab)/Petraeus and the surge/.

    What was the point of it all?

  41. @Hepp

    Here’s an answer you haven’t heard too often: The innumeracy of the Republican Establishment Brain Trust is a major reason why the Republicans didn’t field candidates who could stop Trump. They all believed in the Hispanic Tidal Wave Theory that meant they had to Hispander like crazy.
     
    Yes, the Republican establishment is gross. They're ashamed of their white skin, and that makes unable to do math.

    Unfortunately, whites ain't what they're used to be. Among college educated whites, Romney won by about 10 points, while Trump is only tied with Hillary. A lot of whites are having the "ewww" reaction to Trump every time the media calls them racist or sexist.

    Somewhat related, I recently found this article from 538:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-intolerant-supporters/

    They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Jefferson, @Mr. Anon, @AndrewR

    “They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK.”

    That’s funny. Based on their portrayal in movies and television, I would have thought that the FBI would be popular.

  42. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Hepp

    I just HATE the KKK!

    Hate 'em!

    They're everywhere! Like cockroaches!

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @White Guy In Japan

    I hate slavery. I hate it.

    Oh, also human sacrifice. And the carthaginians. I just can’t abide carthaginians.

    • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Mr. Anon

    You do realize that the forebearers of our La Raza brothers practiced human sacrifice, right? Quit being so culturally insensitive.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Mr. Anon

    Don't forget the Amalekites.

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Mr. Anon

    And sharks. Sharks can tear families apart. But they're also so majestic.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

  43. Hillarts strategy is White women plus NAMS against White men so Warren makes sense in that regard. Sadly White women love an entitled nasty older White woman. Look at the View talk show. And they hate Trump and White men. So its not an insane bet, taking advantage of the civil war between White sexes.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @Whiskey

    Even if we stipulate that what you've said is true, what additional voters does Fauxcahontas bring that Pants Suit doesn't already have?

    Replies: @Hibernian

  44. @Arclight
    It will be interesting to see what percentage of the black vote Trump gets. On one hand, they are dog-loyal Democrats, more so than any other group in the entire population is to either the Dems or the GOP. On the other, they love "big men" type politicians, and Trump is that, if nothing else.

    I can't recall the exact figure, but the Dems basically need to capture at least 90% of the black vote to win national elections...trump might be able to chisel a few percentage points more out of black voters than GOPers in the last 20 years and put the final total under 90%. Unfortunately, so far he has zero political organization and until that changes I would still put Hillary as the likely winner of the election because the ground game really does matter.

    Replies: @e, @Anonymous, @GOUSAAMER114

    Lmao you really don’t know a thing about black people.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Anonymous

    And neither does Billy Crystal (aside from impersonations).

  45. @Glossy
    @guest

    It’s like telling Hillary to run with a lady VP because of, um, grrl power. No, what she needs is man votes. Grrl power is exactly the wrong solution.

    Fauxcahontas leads the Dem VP field in the betting markets:

    https://www.predictit.org/Market/1530/Who-will-win-the-2016-Democratic-vice-presidential-nomination

    Replies: @Jefferson

    “Fauxcahontas leads the Dem VP field in the betting markets”

    Fauxcahontas is too scared to do a ancestry DNA test in order to be exposed for the fraud that she really is. Warren is willing to lie about her race in order to benefit from affirmative action, what else is she willing to lie about if she became the second most powerful woman on the planet as vice president of The United States? She is Lyin Elizabeth.

  46. OT: The country club meme will just not die.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/sports/lonnie-billy-crystal-bill-clinton-eulogies-for-muhammad-ali.html

    Billy Crystal Eulogy for Muhammad Ali:

    One time he asked me if I would like to run with him one morning, do road work. I said: “Well that would be amazing. Where do you run?”

    As Ali: “Well, I run at this country club, and I run on the golf course early in the morning. It’s very private. Nobody bothers me. We’ll have a great time.”

    I said: “Champ, I can’t run there. The club has a reputation for being restricted.”

    As Ali: “What does restricted mean?”

    “They don’t allow Jews there; they don’t have any Jewish members.”

    He was incensed: “I’m a black Muslim and they let me run there. Little brother, I’m never gonna run there again.” And he didn’t.

    BTW, I don’t believe a word of Crystal’s story.

    • Replies: @artichoke
    @Daniel H

    I would hope they wouldn't kick out the white Jew while "welcoming" the black Muslim. Yeah I don't believe the story either.

    , @Mr. Anon
    @Daniel H

    Billy Crystal was also patient zero in Hollywood's forty year campaign to normalize homosexuality.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Daniel H

    , @guest
    @Daniel H

    I don't believe the story, but notice all he says is that the club has a reputation for being restricted. All the more that has to mean is that Billy Crystal thinks it might be restricted because Billy Crystal associates golf courses and anti-semitism in his head.

  47. @guest
    It's worse than innumeracy. Even if you take the Hispanic strategy seriously Jeb is a stupid choice, because he was a nonstarter. He didn't pass the laugh test. He was only slightly more plausible than David French. All he had going for him is that they knew he would take orders. How hard would it have been to pick a Yes Man who didn't also share the name that sunk the Republican brand down to its lowest ebb in a generation or two?

    Rubio as the face of amnesty was like saying Malcolm X should sell the civil rights movement to white people. Okay, not really. But if you wanted to sell amnesty to conservatives how about you get the biggest racist white guy to back it? That's just off the top of my head. Anything but a Rubio. Didn't they anticipate that maybe one of the hurdles he'd face running for national audience might be to convince people that he's not in favor of precisely the thing the made him the face of? Or weren't they thinking that far ahead?

    They were thinking that far ahead, because Rubio was their future face of the party. In part to prime him for the future they made him the face of amnesty. Which was perhaps the easiest way to sabotage his presidential chances. That's how stupid they are.

    It's like telling Hillary to run with a lady VP because of, um, grrl power. No, what she needs is man votes. Grrl power is exactly the wrong solution.

    Replies: @Chrisnonymous, @Glossy, @The Alarmist

    “It’s worse than innumeracy. Even if you take the Hispanic strategy seriously Jeb is a stupid choice, because he was a nonstarter.”

    It amazes me that the best and brightest Republican “intellectuals” would have seriously thought Jeb was plausible after the two prior Bush Presidencies, but they did, so why should we listen to them on Trump?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @The Alarmist

    In fairness, Dubya still has a relatively good reputation among the mouth-breathing, low info, low IQ GOP base.

  48. @Anonymous
    Trump has been falling in the polls against Hillary recently because instead of making hay out of the violent protests in San Jose last week and emphasizing their anti-American aspects (waving Mexican flags, burning American flags, etc.), which would have helped him, he blew the opportunity and instead focused on his fraud legal case and the judge, which just reminds people of his low-rent Trump University. He was apparently too stupid and or egotistical to look beyond his personal legal case.

    Replies: @TangoMan, @Eric Novak

    He was apparently too stupid and or egotistical to look beyond his personal legal case.

    Here’s what I don’t understand about the psychology of backseat political strategists like yourself. Trump’s been so damn stupid with his misfires that he cleaned the clocks of 16 als0-rans.

    History shows that Trump’s judgment is superior to that of his critics and yet you deem him to be stupid.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @TangoMan

    So you think his reaction to the San Jose thuggery was appropriate??

  49. @Wanderer
    Trump just needs more government intervention:

    http://www.infowars.com/you-didnt-invent-that-pelosi-says-government-responsible-for-iphone/

    Replies: @artichoke

    Pelosi’s substantially right, I would suppose.

    The internet is based on DARPAnet. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. But it’s not just “government” research, it’s “military”. That’s where the cool stuff happens and basic science is done, and largely it’s on government contracts performed by private companies.

    It doesn’t mean we should add a bunch of more affirmative action government employees.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @artichoke


    Pelosi’s substantially right, I would suppose.

    The internet is based on DARPAnet. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. But it’s not just “government” research, it’s “military”. That’s where the cool stuff happens and basic science is done, and largely it’s on government contracts performed by private companies.

    It doesn’t mean we should add a bunch of more affirmative action government employees.
     
    And it certainly doesn't mean we should expand the cradle-to-grave welfare state, the regulatory agencies or any of the other non-traditional functions of government that are as necessary as teats on a bull, that Democrats have expanded ad nauseam just because they can.
  50. @Daniel H
    OT: The country club meme will just not die.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/sports/lonnie-billy-crystal-bill-clinton-eulogies-for-muhammad-ali.html

    Billy Crystal Eulogy for Muhammad Ali:

    One time he asked me if I would like to run with him one morning, do road work. I said: “Well that would be amazing. Where do you run?”

    As Ali: “Well, I run at this country club, and I run on the golf course early in the morning. It’s very private. Nobody bothers me. We’ll have a great time.”

    I said: “Champ, I can’t run there. The club has a reputation for being restricted.”

    As Ali: “What does restricted mean?”

    “They don’t allow Jews there; they don’t have any Jewish members.”

    He was incensed: “I’m a black Muslim and they let me run there. Little brother, I’m never gonna run there again.” And he didn’t.

    BTW, I don't believe a word of Crystal's story.

    Replies: @artichoke, @Mr. Anon, @guest

    I would hope they wouldn’t kick out the white Jew while “welcoming” the black Muslim. Yeah I don’t believe the story either.

  51. @PiltdownMan
    Innumeracy plagues our humanities educated elites. Come to think of it, many STEM types I've met don't do well in that regard either.

    The ability to use simple arithmetic on the fly to test facts, as one encounters them, is still a rare knack. It should not be.

    This is not so much a failure of education as of culture. I'm pretty sure we used to be better at this, but I may be wrong.

    Replies: @artichoke, @Jim Don Bob

    Engineers and scientists should be trained this way. White people definitely can learn it. Were the inadequate STEM grads you ran into white?

  52. @Dew
    @V Vega

    Heard about that on the radio today. Of course, they did not mention the race of the attacker. Spread the word.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-J0POelsvw

    It's a dindu attack (stupid enough to show her fat face while punching the reporter).

    Replies: @artichoke, @AndrewR, @ScarletNumber

    So Hillary’s support is the black – hispanic coalition? After seeing that? Things are getting really tense and I see Trump getting in between and pulling a lot of votes with a message of we may have enough jobs that you can all have one rather than having to fight each other for them.

  53. “A standard topic for punditry these days is Why Trump? What did the Republican Establishment do wrong to let Trump become the nominee?

    Here’s an answer you haven’t heard too often: The innumeracy of the Republican Establishment Brain Trust is a major reason why the Republicans didn’t field candidates who could stop Trump.”

    I’m gonna throw something out here: Could it also be that maybe, just maybe, a majority of the GOP rank and file voters, when push came to shove, actually agreed with the specific policy positions that Trump supported? (e.g. temporary ban on Muslim immigration until properly vetted; immigration in particular, unfair trade deals, etc) could it be that the specific policy stances that Trump has taken convinced a majority of GOP voters to vote for him?

    Yes, no? Anyone? Just throwing it out here. Maybe its the issues that he’s running on that made the difference with the GOP voters as he did win the nomination.

    Also, in a crowded field of 17 candidates, if the GOP powers that be really wanted to play it safe and nominate another Romneyesque candidate with no hard stances on anything in particular, with a nice resume of public service, executive leadership, etc. a possible consideration should’ve been John Kasich. And he’s governor of OH, a crucial swing state and home of the ’16 GOP convention. Sure, Kasich’s actual views aren’t all that much different than Jeb’s! on immigration, law and order, etc. and a case can be made that he’s basically a neo-con, but he comes across as caring, warm, somewhat open, admits that he doesn’t know all the answers, etc.

    Obviously its hindsight, but John Kasich should’ve been the obvious choice. Also unlike Jeb!, Kasich came from humble origins (as he never ceases to tell the voters) and thus isn’t tied to the Bush dynasty (and is still OH’s governor, unlike Jeb! who hasn’t been in office for about a decade).

    • Replies: @TangoMan
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Trump's Muslim ban was polling at about 2x (65% - 85%) the vote that Trump was winning in many primaries.

    I don't think it was the temporary aspect which people were keying in on, rather is was the Muslim ban, as in, no more, ever.

    If there's ever a time to prevent the US from growing its Muslim population like it's grown its Hispanic population, that time is now.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @GOUSAAMER114, @Anonym, @Brutusale

    , @candid_observer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    I think your point is well taken.

    I also think that it is the appeal of Trump on the issues which will have the greatest impact on the general election as well.

    If you think about the situation of the typical white working class voter, why would they not plunk down for Trump? For many of them, Trump is the only opportunity for a genuine change agent that they have been able to vote for in their lifetimes. They have seen their jobs and pay waste away. They can't look forward to the sort of stable lives their parents were able to enjoy, and the situation for their children looks even worse. These voters know that immigration has only had a negative effect on their lives, and that globalization is every bit as bad and probably worse. They have seen the big banks both parasitize on and crash the economy. In the previous many decades, they have seen no politician arise onto the scene who shows any sincere interest in coming to grip with these problems.

    Why is it not a perfect rational calculation for these voters to go for Trump? He has made it 100% clear that he will come at these problems from an angle that has never been tried before, and which seems to offer great promise. These voters are desperate for a change agent--and that is what Trump represents. They may or may not like his jihad against political correctness; they may see it as just part of what being a change agent demands these days; but it is the change itself they need and crave, and they will be willing to make many compromises if necessary to get that change.

    I myself won't pretend to know what Trump can actually achieve to turn things around for the working class. But I do very much believe that we've all been sold a bill of goods as to the benefits for American workers of globalism, immigration, and Big Finance. We will only find out what we can pull back from this maw by going in the opposite direction.

    I wish in many ways that the change agent who might make this happen would be more disciplined and less egotistical than Donald Trump. But I can also see that it might require someone of such transcendent ego, lack of a filter, and -- surprisingly, given what is often said of him -- tough skin as Trump to endure the names thrown at him and move forward with his program.

    Trump may not be the change agent many of us would want, but he may well be the sort of change agent we should have expected.

    Replies: @CJ, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  54. @Anonymous
    @Arclight

    Lmao you really don't know a thing about black people.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    And neither does Billy Crystal (aside from impersonations).

  55. @Clifford Brown
    @Lugash


    The GOPe decided on amnesty because their paymasters told them to support it. The flawed numerical analysis was used to sell it to the more gullible rank and file.
     
    Bingo. This article assumes that the Republican Establishment is being sincere in their analysis. They support the policies that they are paid to support. They will espouse various theories to justify their positions, but first and foremost, it is driven by which policy positions are the most lucrative. K Street is a nest of serpents. These people have no moral or rational core.

    This is why it took an independent billionaire to tell the truth. Trump won not because the Republican Establishment consists morons who don't know what they are doing, he won because they are corrupt traitors who know exactly what they are doing.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    “Trump won not because the Republican Establishment consists morons who don’t know what they are doing, he won because they are corrupt traitors who know exactly what they are doing.”

    And this time, the GOP voters weren’t buying what the donor establishment was trying to sell them.

  56. @Jefferson
    Roseanne Barr said she is going to vote for Donald Trump in November.

    Donald Trump does well with blue collar Whites and Roseanne did play a blue collar White on her show, lol. Her character worked blue collar jobs like a diner waitress and a factory worker, while her fictional husband John Goodman worked as a mechanic.

    Susan Sarandon also said she will not be voting for Hildabeast, although she did not go as far as to say she will vote for The Donald. She will probably sit out this election, which is good enough for me. We on the Alt-Right need more Liberals like her to sit out this election.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Reginald Maplethorp

    That is mainly because she supported Bernie Sanders. In other words for the consistent far leftists, Hillary isn’t liberal enough for their tastes.

    It would also be a good thing if Bernie decides to run third party. This would take anywhere from 15-25% of the Democrat vote away from Hillary’s vote total.

    • Replies: @Wanderer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    It would also be a good thing if Bernie decides to run third party. This would take anywhere from 15-25% of the Democrat vote away from Hillary’s vote total.

    I think Bernie has more to fear from the Clinton Crime Syndicate than Scott Adams does.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    , @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    That is mainly because she supported Bernie Sanders. In other words for the consistent far leftists, Hillary isn’t liberal enough for their tastes.
     
    True, but in fairness, she also claimed that even Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton. She obviously won't campaign on his behalf, but I suspect she may opt for him within the privacy of the voting booth. Or maybe she'll vote for the Green Party candidate (Jill Stein, presumably). Either way, its one less vote for the Democrats. This will be replicated, quite possibly millions of times, across the USA.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  57. @Jefferson
    Roseanne Barr said she is going to vote for Donald Trump in November.

    Donald Trump does well with blue collar Whites and Roseanne did play a blue collar White on her show, lol. Her character worked blue collar jobs like a diner waitress and a factory worker, while her fictional husband John Goodman worked as a mechanic.

    Susan Sarandon also said she will not be voting for Hildabeast, although she did not go as far as to say she will vote for The Donald. She will probably sit out this election, which is good enough for me. We on the Alt-Right need more Liberals like her to sit out this election.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Reginald Maplethorp

    Norm MacDonald was a writer on Roseanne’s show. I saw his act recently and it had some very good bits on TransJenner and related topics that iSteve readers would probably appreciate (I certainly did!)

    I’m not sure if he’s an American citizen and he probably wouldn’t admit Trump support because his ego is too fragile to handle the backlash. But he’s a funny guy.

  58. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "A standard topic for punditry these days is Why Trump? What did the Republican Establishment do wrong to let Trump become the nominee?

    Here’s an answer you haven’t heard too often: The innumeracy of the Republican Establishment Brain Trust is a major reason why the Republicans didn’t field candidates who could stop Trump."

    I'm gonna throw something out here: Could it also be that maybe, just maybe, a majority of the GOP rank and file voters, when push came to shove, actually agreed with the specific policy positions that Trump supported? (e.g. temporary ban on Muslim immigration until properly vetted; immigration in particular, unfair trade deals, etc) could it be that the specific policy stances that Trump has taken convinced a majority of GOP voters to vote for him?

    Yes, no? Anyone? Just throwing it out here. Maybe its the issues that he's running on that made the difference with the GOP voters as he did win the nomination.

    Also, in a crowded field of 17 candidates, if the GOP powers that be really wanted to play it safe and nominate another Romneyesque candidate with no hard stances on anything in particular, with a nice resume of public service, executive leadership, etc. a possible consideration should've been John Kasich. And he's governor of OH, a crucial swing state and home of the '16 GOP convention. Sure, Kasich's actual views aren't all that much different than Jeb's! on immigration, law and order, etc. and a case can be made that he's basically a neo-con, but he comes across as caring, warm, somewhat open, admits that he doesn't know all the answers, etc.

    Obviously its hindsight, but John Kasich should've been the obvious choice. Also unlike Jeb!, Kasich came from humble origins (as he never ceases to tell the voters) and thus isn't tied to the Bush dynasty (and is still OH's governor, unlike Jeb! who hasn't been in office for about a decade).

    Replies: @TangoMan, @candid_observer

    Trump’s Muslim ban was polling at about 2x (65% – 85%) the vote that Trump was winning in many primaries.

    I don’t think it was the temporary aspect which people were keying in on, rather is was the Muslim ban, as in, no more, ever.

    If there’s ever a time to prevent the US from growing its Muslim population like it’s grown its Hispanic population, that time is now.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @TangoMan

    "I don’t think it was the temporary aspect which people were keying in on, rather is was the Muslim ban, as in, no more, ever."

    Agreed. Many hoped that "temporary" would become "indefinitely". We don't need to import muslims - they add nothing to western nations that western nations need. We got along fine without them.

    , @GOUSAAMER114
    @TangoMan

    Bingo! After Trump announced his Muslim ban I would crawl through glass to vote for him. And I dont see it as temporary. Sessions and Kobaxh who both helped with the detailed immigration plan which in of itself would practically stop Muslims from coming in, know what they're doing

    , @Anonym
    @TangoMan

    The beauty of the 'temporary' ban is that no one will ever 'figure out what the hell is going on' other than in the Jeffersonesque sense of figuring it out, in which case the ban becomes permanent.

    And the Muslim ban is just so obvious. Buying into the establishment theory of 9/11, a group of 19 Muslims, 15 from Saudi Arabia, none from Iraq, fly jetliners into buildings. Do you:
    A) Immediately invade secular Iraq and go on to inadvertently found the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or
    B) Slap a ban on Muslims entering the US until the US figures out what the hell is going on?

    It's 15 years overdue but Muslims have not exactly been idle in the interim.

    , @Brutusale
    @TangoMan

    Omar Mateen just gave Trump a YUGE bump.

  59. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jefferson

    That is mainly because she supported Bernie Sanders. In other words for the consistent far leftists, Hillary isn't liberal enough for their tastes.

    It would also be a good thing if Bernie decides to run third party. This would take anywhere from 15-25% of the Democrat vote away from Hillary's vote total.

    Replies: @Wanderer, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    It would also be a good thing if Bernie decides to run third party. This would take anywhere from 15-25% of the Democrat vote away from Hillary’s vote total.

    I think Bernie has more to fear from the Clinton Crime Syndicate than Scott Adams does.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Wanderer

    Nope, not at his age. At 75 he's seen it all. Been there, done that and there's virtually nothing they can do to him that could scare him. If its his last go around at the rodeo, he might as well go out in a blaze of glory and run third party.

  60. @Jean Cocteausten
    That same innumeracy accounts for thinking a head of lettuce would cost $10 without illegal immigrants.

    Anyway, soon the Senate will be by ethnicity not state. Two senators for each ethnic group.

    Replies: @Harold

    We have something like that. Wikipedia,

    In New Zealand politics, Māori electorates, colloquially also called Māori seats, are a special category of electorate that gives reserved positions to representatives of Māori in the Parliament of New Zealand. Consequently, every area in New Zealand is covered by both a general and a Māori electorate.

    Māori electorates were introduced in 1867 under the Maori Representation Act. The first Māori elections were held in the following year during the term of the 4th New Zealand Parliament.

    Here is a bit that won’t surprise,

    They were intended as a temporary measure and, despite numerous attempts to disestablish Māori electorates, they continue to form part of the New Zealand political landscape.

    • Replies: @South Texas Guy
    @Harold

    I guy from New Zealand once told me a local joke: What's the difference between a pizza and a Maori man? A pizza can feed a family.

    Replies: @BRF

  61. @Harold
    @Jean Cocteausten

    We have something like that. Wikipedia,


    In New Zealand politics, Māori electorates, colloquially also called Māori seats, are a special category of electorate that gives reserved positions to representatives of Māori in the Parliament of New Zealand. Consequently, every area in New Zealand is covered by both a general and a Māori electorate.

    Māori electorates were introduced in 1867 under the Maori Representation Act. The first Māori elections were held in the following year during the term of the 4th New Zealand Parliament.
     
    Here is a bit that won’t surprise,

    They were intended as a temporary measure and, despite numerous attempts to disestablish Māori electorates, they continue to form part of the New Zealand political landscape.
     

    Replies: @South Texas Guy

    I guy from New Zealand once told me a local joke: What’s the difference between a pizza and a Maori man? A pizza can feed a family.

    • Replies: @BRF
    @South Texas Guy

    Reminds of the joke where a guy from Texas meets a Maori in a bar and says 'My ranch is so big it takes me a day to drive right across it'. The Maori guy says 'yeah I had a car like that once'.

  62. Pro-open borders Republican Meg Whitman said she is going to vote for Hildabeast. Meg also compared Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler.

    How come Democrats and pro-open border Republicans never compare Donald Trump to Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong? Why is it only Adolf Hitler?

    Do most of the the elites in this country actually like what Mao and Joseph stood for? These guys don’t get Demonized enough by the mainstream media. Like Marcia Marcia Marcia, it’s always Hitler Hitler Hitler. Stalin and Zedong are treated like Jan Brady.

  63. @Mr. Anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    I hate slavery. I hate it.

    Oh, also human sacrifice. And the carthaginians. I just can't abide carthaginians.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Harry Baldwin

    You do realize that the forebearers of our La Raza brothers practiced human sacrifice, right? Quit being so culturally insensitive.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Hapalong Cassidy

    "You do realize that the forebearers of our La Raza brothers practiced human sacrifice, right? Quit being so culturally insensitive."

    Some of the crimes committed by the mexican narco-gangs almost seem to have a human-sacrifice-like quality about them.

  64. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    How does exit polling work? I vote often but have never been exit-polled. If, having voted, I see someone lurking around carrying a clipboard to exit-poll me, I might just walk away rather than be detained to answer questions about whom I voted for and why. A certain percentage of people polled by telephone will just hang up. What percentage of exit-pollees just walk away? Do the non-participants have voting behavior that is different from that of participants? These are things that a pollster would want to know.

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    Many years ago I studied survey research under Leslie Kish – a pioneer of scientific survey research – and as a result directed a large variety of big and small surveys. I’m no longer in the field but pay vague attention to what is going on. The response rates for pre-election polls are scandalously low, often in the single digit percentages. This suggests that sample bias is a major problem. As you point out, this bias is likely even greater in exit poll surveys, which are not designed as probability samples to start with. People who earn a living or make a killing from selling these things obviously don’t want to admit how useless they are. But IMHO that’s what they’ve become.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Yep. I talked to Michael Barone about 10 years ago and he said even then that polling was becoming much more difficult because of the spread of caller id, which almost all cell phones have now. People just don't answer numbers they don't recognize.

    Pundits and journalists like them because they are instant stories, but saying that Hillary at 44% and Trump at 42% means something is bogus.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

  65. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Hepp

    I just HATE the KKK!

    Hate 'em!

    They're everywhere! Like cockroaches!

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @White Guy In Japan

    Subhuman rednecks yet many of them became judges and politicians.

    Clearly the goals of the Klan are being realized everyday in America.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @White Guy In Japan

    Clearly!

  66. @Mr. Anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    I hate slavery. I hate it.

    Oh, also human sacrifice. And the carthaginians. I just can't abide carthaginians.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Harry Baldwin

    Don’t forget the Amalekites.

  67. @Tiny Duck
    Do white people who're casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton), or is there so much resentment against President Obama and non-white Americans--the chief correlative of support for Trump--that putting a volatile, narcissistic, openly racist, unqualified, and constantly dissembling candidate in office the plan of action?

    Let's put it another way: white voters, you'll only have yourselves to blame if the entire country is forced to deal yet again with the debacle of a GOP Congress, which has done almost nothing for 8 years after nearly bringing the global economy to its knees, and a GOP President. The last one was the worst US leader in my lifetime, and the current candidate couldn't even run his own company without repeatedly bankrupting it FOUR TIMES. And he already had a leg up with a multimillionaire father.

    Donald Trump is not going to do anything for you, but dog you out worse as bad as he will minorities, as the GOP does again and again. WAKE UP!

    Replies: @Wanderer, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Louie, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Hi Mr. Kristol!

  68. @Glossy
    OT: residents of Tikrit erect a statue in honor of the shoe thrown at G. W. Bush some years ago:

    https://twitter.com/vijayprashad/status/741050151985401856

    Replies: @Studley

    Lovely isn’t it. The US Army’s efforts under Tommy Franks/Casey(Arab)/Petraeus and the surge/.

    What was the point of it all?

  69. @Anonymous
    Disagree that Hispanic-outreach mentality boosted Cruz at all. He was only supported by the party people as a last ditch against Trump, and the immigrant background story never figured into his campaign narrative the same way it did with Rubio. + he tried to out-Trump Trump on immigration.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Anonym

    The thing about Cruz is that

    a) he’s only half “Hispanic”

    b) he never displayed much interest in the heritage of his father

    c) he threw both of his parents’ heritage under the bus by going full Evangelical Protestant instead of being the good Catholic boy that one would expect the son of a Canarian-Cuban and an Irish-Italian to be.

    Rubio OTOH dedicated his entire political career to being a Professional Hispanic. And, well, that didn’t play too well among voters who don’t want the US to become just another Latin American cesspit.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @AndrewR

    c) was his father Rafael's doing.

    , @MEH 0910
    @AndrewR

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Bienvenido_Cruz#Religious_and_political_beliefs


    Cruz left the Roman Catholic Church in 1975 and became an Evangelical Christian after attending a Bible study with a colleague and having a born again experience. Explaining his leaving the Catholic church, Cruz stated in an interview with National Review, "The people at the Bible study had a peace that I could not understand, this peace in the midst of trouble. I knew I needed to find that peace by finding Jesus Christ." Following his conversion, his son and wife also became born-again Christians. In the Cruz home, talk at dinner time was frequently about the Bible.[4] He was ordained as a pastor in 2004.[20]
     
  70. @Hepp

    Here’s an answer you haven’t heard too often: The innumeracy of the Republican Establishment Brain Trust is a major reason why the Republicans didn’t field candidates who could stop Trump. They all believed in the Hispanic Tidal Wave Theory that meant they had to Hispander like crazy.
     
    Yes, the Republican establishment is gross. They're ashamed of their white skin, and that makes unable to do math.

    Unfortunately, whites ain't what they're used to be. Among college educated whites, Romney won by about 10 points, while Trump is only tied with Hillary. A lot of whites are having the "ewww" reaction to Trump every time the media calls them racist or sexist.

    Somewhat related, I recently found this article from 538:

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-doesnt-have-a-monopoly-on-intolerant-supporters/

    They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @Jefferson, @Mr. Anon, @AndrewR

    It’s almost like the KKK is not a significant political force in any way anymore and Islamist radicals are…

  71. @BB753
    "There Are More White Voters Than People Think"

    Not in coming elections, 15 years down the line, there won't be.. Most Boomers will be dead by then.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Travis, @CK, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Jefferson

    According to standard definitions of “boomers” and most plausible projected life expectancies, no, most “boomers” will not be dead in 15 years. Most of the eldest cohort (born in the 1940s) will likely be dead but not boomers in general.

    • Replies: @BB753
    @AndrewR

    Let's see: the very youngest Boomers, born in 1964 will be 67 years old in 2031, 15 years from now. While the oldest Boomers, born in 1946, will be 85 years old. Their future wont look so bright in 2031, will it?

  72. @SFG
    I always wondered why increasing immigration was such a slam-dunk for getting the Hispanic vote. Why not attack illegal immigration in race-neutral terms--enforce the law, etc.? You'd pick up lots of white guys, avoid the sort of Hispanic reaction that's going on now, and still get done what you wanted to do (cut illegal immigration). You could even go for cutting legal immigration on a platform of 'acculturation takes time' and 'let's give everyone time to assimilate'. A lot of politics is salesmanship.

    Yes, the media would go after you for 'disparate impact' and 'dog whistles', but you'd have much more plausible deniability with the white college-educated crowd who aren't hardcore SJWs.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    Oh come on. Other than maybe a few thousand Irish illegals, virtually all illegals are “visible ethnic minorities.” Might as well be open about things.

    • Replies: @SFG
    @AndrewR

    Why be open about things?

    'Racism' still carries a strong negative charge. Enforcing the law is one thing, discriminating against people is another. You get the same result, but it's a lot easier to sell the college-educated white crowd on 'enforce the law' (and give them plausible deniability in their heads) than 'keep out the brown people'.

    Salesmanship. Practically speaking, the result is the same.

  73. @V Vega
    As a sidenote, perhaps the NYT has underestimated poor black folks growing frustration with the onslaught of hispanics, and their growing political and media power.
    They probably don't like dismissive spanish-speaking reporters in their neighborhoods. I would think poor blacks would find a reporter delivering the news in a language they don't understand, to be rude...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3635704/Shocking-footage-captures-reporter-assaulted-LIVE-AIR-woman-punches-head.html#i-1e7faf8e819f219b

    Replies: @Dew, @AndrewR

    I lack much interest in political statistics so I am not going to research before making this claim, but my gut feeling would be that blacks in so-called swing states are much less likely to have exposure to large hispanic populations. Places with large numbers of anti-hispanic blacks are unlikely to have a chance of “going red” in the presidential election.

    In related news, why the hell do we still have the electoral college? A candidate could get 74.999999% of the popular vote and still lose the election.

  74. @TangoMan
    @Anonymous

    He was apparently too stupid and or egotistical to look beyond his personal legal case.

    Here's what I don't understand about the psychology of backseat political strategists like yourself. Trump's been so damn stupid with his misfires that he cleaned the clocks of 16 als0-rans.

    History shows that Trump's judgment is superior to that of his critics and yet you deem him to be stupid.

    Replies: @AndrewR

    So you think his reaction to the San Jose thuggery was appropriate??

  75. @Dew
    @V Vega

    Heard about that on the radio today. Of course, they did not mention the race of the attacker. Spread the word.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-J0POelsvw

    It's a dindu attack (stupid enough to show her fat face while punching the reporter).

    Replies: @artichoke, @AndrewR, @ScarletNumber

    Well she did say excuse me…

    In all seriousness it angers but does not surprise me that this isn’t national news. Dios forbid we show a black in a negative light or show the cracks in the Democrap alliance.

  76. @The Alarmist
    @guest


    "It’s worse than innumeracy. Even if you take the Hispanic strategy seriously Jeb is a stupid choice, because he was a nonstarter."
     
    It amazes me that the best and brightest Republican "intellectuals" would have seriously thought Jeb was plausible after the two prior Bush Presidencies, but they did, so why should we listen to them on Trump?

    Replies: @AndrewR

    In fairness, Dubya still has a relatively good reputation among the mouth-breathing, low info, low IQ GOP base.

  77. @BB753
    "There Are More White Voters Than People Think"

    Not in coming elections, 15 years down the line, there won't be.. Most Boomers will be dead by then.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Travis, @CK, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Jefferson

    true, imagine what the voting demographics will be like in 16 years. Half the boomers will have passed away. The Boomers are 75% white. The Millennials are just 57% white, but getting less white each year as many immigrants fall into the millennial classification.

    Closing the borders will slow down the ethnic cleansing , resulting in more assimilation and more multi-racial children. It will be interesting if the grandchildren of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will be considered white in 20 years. Today Cameron Diaz in considered hispanic because her Great great Grandfather immigrated from Cuba around 1900. It seems we have adopted a perverse one drop rule when people are considered hispanic if 1 of their 16 great great grandparents happened to be born in Latin America.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    @Travis

    Mestizos will still be mestizos and ditto for blacks.

    , @epebble
    @Travis

    "Today Cameron Diaz in considered hispanic ..."

    It is not her choice or decision. This has been the law and practice from 1924.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

    Its author was a physician, not a politician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Plecker

  78. @Tiny Duck
    Do white people who're casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton), or is there so much resentment against President Obama and non-white Americans--the chief correlative of support for Trump--that putting a volatile, narcissistic, openly racist, unqualified, and constantly dissembling candidate in office the plan of action?

    Let's put it another way: white voters, you'll only have yourselves to blame if the entire country is forced to deal yet again with the debacle of a GOP Congress, which has done almost nothing for 8 years after nearly bringing the global economy to its knees, and a GOP President. The last one was the worst US leader in my lifetime, and the current candidate couldn't even run his own company without repeatedly bankrupting it FOUR TIMES. And he already had a leg up with a multimillionaire father.

    Donald Trump is not going to do anything for you, but dog you out worse as bad as he will minorities, as the GOP does again and again. WAKE UP!

    Replies: @Wanderer, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Louie, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    Do white people who’re casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton), or is there so much resentment against President Obama and non-white Americans–the chief correlative of support for Trump–that putting a volatile, narcissistic, openly racist, unqualified, and constantly dissembling candidate in office the plan of action?

    No amount of characterizing it in grotesquely biased terms, is going to disssuade those of us who are tired of all the “progressive” B.S. from hate-Whitey types such as yourself. The vast majority of us here support Donald J. Trump for President. And he will win. Deal with it, pinkboi.

  79. @Wanderer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    It would also be a good thing if Bernie decides to run third party. This would take anywhere from 15-25% of the Democrat vote away from Hillary’s vote total.

    I think Bernie has more to fear from the Clinton Crime Syndicate than Scott Adams does.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Nope, not at his age. At 75 he’s seen it all. Been there, done that and there’s virtually nothing they can do to him that could scare him. If its his last go around at the rodeo, he might as well go out in a blaze of glory and run third party.

  80. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jefferson

    That is mainly because she supported Bernie Sanders. In other words for the consistent far leftists, Hillary isn't liberal enough for their tastes.

    It would also be a good thing if Bernie decides to run third party. This would take anywhere from 15-25% of the Democrat vote away from Hillary's vote total.

    Replies: @Wanderer, @Kevin O'Keeffe

    That is mainly because she supported Bernie Sanders. In other words for the consistent far leftists, Hillary isn’t liberal enough for their tastes.

    True, but in fairness, she also claimed that even Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton. She obviously won’t campaign on his behalf, but I suspect she may opt for him within the privacy of the voting booth. Or maybe she’ll vote for the Green Party candidate (Jill Stein, presumably). Either way, its one less vote for the Democrats. This will be replicated, quite possibly millions of times, across the USA.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Kevin O'Keeffe

    If the Green Party were smart, they'll draft Bernie to run on their ticket. This will accomplish gaining them more votes in their party's history than ever before, and of course prevent Hillary from winning certain key states in the Electoral College. If Ralph Nader could run on the Green Party in '00, then why not Bernie? And by dint of being a former governor and current US Senator, Sanders is more "qualified" for public office than Nader ever was.

  81. A certain percentage of people polled by telephone will just hang up.

    An infamous pollster (PPI? Forget the name) was recently caught designing their polls to get Trump supporters to hang up before completing the robocall.

  82. This article also seems to have a hidden message: to soften the mental blow to the left if Trump pulls off a general election victory.

    I agree, except it’s not really hidden.

    Do white people who’re casting ballots this fall want to elect a qualified candidate and make history in a positive way (i.e., vote for Clinton)

    Funny stuff. Hillary’s qualifications as a pol are best suited to Venezuela, Brazil, etc.

    This is also probably why more black leaders aren’t making a fuss about illegals (besides being bought off by Soros). Since Central-American-Hispanics care about politics less than whites, a majority-central-american-Hispanic population means that a small cadre of blacks can more easily get a hold of the spoils system than if whitey were around to block him.

    The problem with this “plan” is that a majority-central-american-Hispanic population means a shriveled tax base (inter alia) too small to produce enough goodies to keep even blacks happy. Not that blacks will get what little there is, mind you. Mexico really is instructive here: small productive class much more interested in buying the gov’t to keep their hands off their wealth than in paying anybody’s way. Gated communities surrounded by poverty. Weak state that has difficulty competing with drug cartels and autodefensas.

  83. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    "A standard topic for punditry these days is Why Trump? What did the Republican Establishment do wrong to let Trump become the nominee?

    Here’s an answer you haven’t heard too often: The innumeracy of the Republican Establishment Brain Trust is a major reason why the Republicans didn’t field candidates who could stop Trump."

    I'm gonna throw something out here: Could it also be that maybe, just maybe, a majority of the GOP rank and file voters, when push came to shove, actually agreed with the specific policy positions that Trump supported? (e.g. temporary ban on Muslim immigration until properly vetted; immigration in particular, unfair trade deals, etc) could it be that the specific policy stances that Trump has taken convinced a majority of GOP voters to vote for him?

    Yes, no? Anyone? Just throwing it out here. Maybe its the issues that he's running on that made the difference with the GOP voters as he did win the nomination.

    Also, in a crowded field of 17 candidates, if the GOP powers that be really wanted to play it safe and nominate another Romneyesque candidate with no hard stances on anything in particular, with a nice resume of public service, executive leadership, etc. a possible consideration should've been John Kasich. And he's governor of OH, a crucial swing state and home of the '16 GOP convention. Sure, Kasich's actual views aren't all that much different than Jeb's! on immigration, law and order, etc. and a case can be made that he's basically a neo-con, but he comes across as caring, warm, somewhat open, admits that he doesn't know all the answers, etc.

    Obviously its hindsight, but John Kasich should've been the obvious choice. Also unlike Jeb!, Kasich came from humble origins (as he never ceases to tell the voters) and thus isn't tied to the Bush dynasty (and is still OH's governor, unlike Jeb! who hasn't been in office for about a decade).

    Replies: @TangoMan, @candid_observer

    I think your point is well taken.

    I also think that it is the appeal of Trump on the issues which will have the greatest impact on the general election as well.

    If you think about the situation of the typical white working class voter, why would they not plunk down for Trump? For many of them, Trump is the only opportunity for a genuine change agent that they have been able to vote for in their lifetimes. They have seen their jobs and pay waste away. They can’t look forward to the sort of stable lives their parents were able to enjoy, and the situation for their children looks even worse. These voters know that immigration has only had a negative effect on their lives, and that globalization is every bit as bad and probably worse. They have seen the big banks both parasitize on and crash the economy. In the previous many decades, they have seen no politician arise onto the scene who shows any sincere interest in coming to grip with these problems.

    Why is it not a perfect rational calculation for these voters to go for Trump? He has made it 100% clear that he will come at these problems from an angle that has never been tried before, and which seems to offer great promise. These voters are desperate for a change agent–and that is what Trump represents. They may or may not like his jihad against political correctness; they may see it as just part of what being a change agent demands these days; but it is the change itself they need and crave, and they will be willing to make many compromises if necessary to get that change.

    I myself won’t pretend to know what Trump can actually achieve to turn things around for the working class. But I do very much believe that we’ve all been sold a bill of goods as to the benefits for American workers of globalism, immigration, and Big Finance. We will only find out what we can pull back from this maw by going in the opposite direction.

    I wish in many ways that the change agent who might make this happen would be more disciplined and less egotistical than Donald Trump. But I can also see that it might require someone of such transcendent ego, lack of a filter, and — surprisingly, given what is often said of him — tough skin as Trump to endure the names thrown at him and move forward with his program.

    Trump may not be the change agent many of us would want, but he may well be the sort of change agent we should have expected.

    • Replies: @CJ
    @candid_observer


    If you think about the situation of the typical white working class voter, why would they not plunk down for Trump? For many of them, Trump is the only opportunity for a genuine change agent that they have been able to vote for in their lifetimes. They have seen their jobs and pay waste away. They can’t look forward to the sort of stable lives their parents were able to enjoy, and the situation for their children looks even worse. These voters know that immigration has only had a negative effect on their lives, and that globalization is every bit as bad and probably worse. They have seen the big banks both parasitize on and crash the economy. In the previous many decades, they have seen no politician arise onto the scene who shows any sincere interest in coming to grip with these problems.
     
    Well stated. This the most issue-driven election I have ever seen, and I've been observing them since the 1960s. (It's also, improbably or not, the most entertaining.) The issues are pretty much just as you've laid them out, plus the issue of the endless wars that don't seem to achieve anything, and the theme of political corruption preventing any resolution of those same issues.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @candid_observer

    Very well stated and appreciated on Trump. What is interesting is that for all this alleged support for Cruz during the primary season, not one article (or very, very few and not anywhere near the majority of opinion) attempted to define Cruz as a change agent, as something new vs the same old, same old way of doing things in DC, which hasn't worked out so well for working class Americans in general. What exactly was/is Cruz hoping to conserve? What issues were so compelling him to run for the highest office that he would stake his reputation on? I don't count immigration as he had more to gain by confusing the issue, muddying his own tracks so to speak as he was originally a part of the Gang of Eight. He wasn't officially, and yet he was. He was nowhere to be found out front and center a la Senator Jeff Sessions sounding the call, the warning vs the entire policy. All we have to do is ask the question: If Trump hadn't have run, would Cruz have made immigration front and center or at least given the issue such a prominent role in his campaign? I believe that the answer, based on common sense, is no. Without Trump in the race, Cruz wouldn't have finished nearly as high as he did. At best, he'd have finished in the top four but probably would've been overwhelmed by Jeb!'s ground game, donor money bags, campaign war chest, etc. Trump actually made Cruz tack more to the right than he probably wanted to but knew he had to in order to achieve any chance of winning the nomination.

    Also, another first in a long, long time: On June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination. Since that time, for nearly a solid full year, he has totally dominated every single major (as well as minor) political news cycle, as well as been at the top of news in general, world news, even pop culture news. It truly is amazing. Nearly every single major issue of this presidential election, from both parties, is in large part a direct reaction a la "What does Trump think about this issue?"; or "Which side does Trump stand on the issue?". This has to be a first. Bill Clinton in '92 wasn't that dominant of every single major news cycles and the major amount of coverage that he received was in large part due to his "bimbo erruptions" and not his platform for "Don't Stop thinking about tomorrow". [Wonder if Hillary will ask Fleetwood Mac to perform at Philadelphia Convention for her when she accepts the nomination].

    Honestly. Every single major political news cycle has been totally dominated by Donald Trump and no one else. Every single candidate from both parties, from both ideological movements, have done little else but reacted to just about everything that Trump has either said or done.
    He couldn't fake that for an entire year if he wasn't serious about the issues he's running on.

    And the amazing thing is that most voters at this point are well aware of the issues that Donald Trump is running on as well as the ones that are the centerpiece of his campaign. Mitt Romney didn't have this kind of gravitas over his entire adult life on any major issue let alone during the '12 campaign. Its a safe bet to say that "Change Agent" and "Romney" will never find themselves lumped together in the same sentence under any circumstances. Even now, Donald Trump is making Mitt Romney relevant past his shelf time which is a feat in and of itself. He made Cruz appear more relevant than he's ever been in public office, and is getting under Hillary's skin as well as the establishment of his own party.

    Only one single major candidate has driven this election for a full year, and it started from the moment he uttered his campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again." And with the nomination or semi-finals over, its only now moving in to ACT II. Fasten the seat belts, can't wait to see what the ride has in store for the next round but its safe to say that Trump will be the dominant cause if not in the thick of things as usual.

    Replies: @guest

  84. @Harry Baldwin
    There's a scene in The Other Guys where cops played by Rob Riggle and Damon Wayans Jr. persuade the cop played by Will Ferrell that it's a tradition to fire your gun in the police station--they call it a "desk pop." Marco Rubio was pranked by Chuck Schumer into doing something equally stupid in fronting for the Gang of Eight.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=948-2Vzgi3w

    Replies: @Ralph Raico

    Thanks, Harry Baldwin, that clip is really funny. Incidentally, I always enjoy your other posts as well. Great community Steve has here.

  85. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @candid_observer

    I've been a Trump supporter since he first announced his positions on dis-inviting the world, leaving the rest of the world alone, and getting out of debt to the world. I loathe the Clintons. However, it is foolish not to see that Trump does not project the persona of the alpha dog in the same way that Clinton did. Men can see through and discount Trump's bluster and braggadocio. It's a real turn off for a lot of the women I know. If Trump can eliminate these elements from his public persona or at least tone them down considerably his favorable ratings among women will improve considerably.

    Replies: @Eric Novak, @Lagertha, @dr kill

    Bill Clinton looks like a pandering hayseed politician compared to Trump. You’d be about the only person in the US who thinks Trump is low testosterone. Are you a volunteer troll, or does the organization pay you by the post?

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Eric Novak

    Try re-reading my post. It should be quite clear to anyone who reads at above a sixth grade level that i did not call into question Trump's machismo; quite the contrary. I think an apology is in order.

  86. @Anonymous
    Trump has been falling in the polls against Hillary recently because instead of making hay out of the violent protests in San Jose last week and emphasizing their anti-American aspects (waving Mexican flags, burning American flags, etc.), which would have helped him, he blew the opportunity and instead focused on his fraud legal case and the judge, which just reminds people of his low-rent Trump University. He was apparently too stupid and or egotistical to look beyond his personal legal case.

    Replies: @TangoMan, @Eric Novak

    According to RCP’s rolling poll average, Trump’s polling percentages have increased since the La Raza judge news broke.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    @Eric Novak

    I was under the impression that Trump has lost a point or two lately in national polls, but seemed, on the other hand, to getting better numbers than before in battleground states like PA and FL, which might put things at a wash.

    What strikes me as remarkable about this is that this is in the wake of Hillary "clinching" the nomination, which I would have expected to give her a real bounce -- as Trump's clinching did for him. That doesn't seem to be happening. Of course, Sanders hasn't actually removed himself from the race, so the parallel isn't exact -- but it's also possible I think that Hillary's never going to get this bounce, because so many of Sander's supporters just don't like her, and she's not going to consolidate more of them in the future than Trump will with Republican voters who haven't yet come around to him.

  87. @Anonymous
    Disagree that Hispanic-outreach mentality boosted Cruz at all. He was only supported by the party people as a last ditch against Trump, and the immigrant background story never figured into his campaign narrative the same way it did with Rubio. + he tried to out-Trump Trump on immigration.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Anonym

    Cruz was only ever Trump-lite on immigration IIRC.

  88. @TangoMan
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Trump's Muslim ban was polling at about 2x (65% - 85%) the vote that Trump was winning in many primaries.

    I don't think it was the temporary aspect which people were keying in on, rather is was the Muslim ban, as in, no more, ever.

    If there's ever a time to prevent the US from growing its Muslim population like it's grown its Hispanic population, that time is now.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @GOUSAAMER114, @Anonym, @Brutusale

    “I don’t think it was the temporary aspect which people were keying in on, rather is was the Muslim ban, as in, no more, ever.”

    Agreed. Many hoped that “temporary” would become “indefinitely”. We don’t need to import muslims – they add nothing to western nations that western nations need. We got along fine without them.

  89. @Daniel H
    OT: The country club meme will just not die.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/sports/lonnie-billy-crystal-bill-clinton-eulogies-for-muhammad-ali.html

    Billy Crystal Eulogy for Muhammad Ali:

    One time he asked me if I would like to run with him one morning, do road work. I said: “Well that would be amazing. Where do you run?”

    As Ali: “Well, I run at this country club, and I run on the golf course early in the morning. It’s very private. Nobody bothers me. We’ll have a great time.”

    I said: “Champ, I can’t run there. The club has a reputation for being restricted.”

    As Ali: “What does restricted mean?”

    “They don’t allow Jews there; they don’t have any Jewish members.”

    He was incensed: “I’m a black Muslim and they let me run there. Little brother, I’m never gonna run there again.” And he didn’t.

    BTW, I don't believe a word of Crystal's story.

    Replies: @artichoke, @Mr. Anon, @guest

    Billy Crystal was also patient zero in Hollywood’s forty year campaign to normalize homosexuality.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    @Mr. Anon

    "Billy Crystal was also patient zero in Hollywood’s forty year campaign to normalize homosexuality."

    Billy Crystal's character on the 1970s television show Soap went from being a Homosexual to a Heterosexual.

    If they transformed a Gay character into a Straight character on a television show in 2016, it would be considered a microaggression and the LGBTQ community would demand that show be taken off the air because it is a threat to their safe spaces.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    , @Daniel H
    @Mr. Anon

    For my gaydar, Crystal has always given off a gay vibe. I know, he's been married for 40 years...., but still.

    Furthermore, Crystal is not funny. He's never been funny, has no skill in being funny. He just doesn't do or get being funny. How he has made a career out of being a comedian and comedic actor is beyond me.

  90. @Das
    Hispanic turnout is so bad that there are surprisingly few Hispanic elected officials in *Los Angeles*.

    South Central flipped from majority black to majority Hispanic years ago, and yet all of the elected officials remain black.

    And on top of that, very few Hispanics live in swing states, so even if they did turn out, they wouldn't have a large effect on the electoral college math.

    The extreme apathy of Hispanics towards basic civic participation is good news for the Republican party, but bad news for the long-run health of the country, because eventually it's going to lead to Latin American-style corruption and poor governance as Hispanics make up a larger share of the population.

    Replies: @AnotherDad

    The extreme apathy of Hispanics towards basic civic participation is good news for the Republican party, but bad news for the long-run health of the country, because eventually it’s going to lead to Latin American-style corruption and poor governance as Hispanics make up a larger share of the population.

    Well said Das–your comment just nailed it.

    Hispanics–and especially Mexicans–are just a disaster for those of us of a republican (small “r”) bent. Though smarter and much better behaved than blacks, there’s little to no republican virtue in the Latin American culture.

    I suspect that the smarter elements of our elites who hate nations, hate republics, hate the white peasantry are keenly aware of this and see it as a feature. A helot class that will work and can be coached and bribed to provide votes, but will be manageable to their elite direction for years and years to come. Whether it will really shake out that way … not sure. But i think the usual suspects, expect to be in charge, pulling the strings with the Mexicans masses providing a vote bank for years and years to come.

  91. The NYT wrote “This story line led Republicans to conclude that they had maximized their support from white voters and needed to reach out to Hispanics to win in 2016.”

    Steve, we both know the GOPe started this pretense long before 2016. There is no way with the amount of power and money at stake that they do not know exactly what they are doing.

    The problem is treason, not innumeracy.

  92. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @candid_observer

    I've been a Trump supporter since he first announced his positions on dis-inviting the world, leaving the rest of the world alone, and getting out of debt to the world. I loathe the Clintons. However, it is foolish not to see that Trump does not project the persona of the alpha dog in the same way that Clinton did. Men can see through and discount Trump's bluster and braggadocio. It's a real turn off for a lot of the women I know. If Trump can eliminate these elements from his public persona or at least tone them down considerably his favorable ratings among women will improve considerably.

    Replies: @Eric Novak, @Lagertha, @dr kill

    Well, I have mentioned that more must be said about Bill desecrating the Oval Office by getting a blow job from Monica. I believe that specific egotistical, cavalier, epitome-of-a-non-PC move, will revolt educated white women, feminists, religious leaders of all stripes, fathers of daughters who have forgotten about it. Sexy-time in the OO is just gross; and, poor, Monica, her young-adult life was destroyed. Hillary did just “stand by my man,” when she should have banished him. I bet she will sanitize/re-upholster EVERYTHING in that space, again since the terms of GWB, O, if she gets in. I wonder if it will run across her mind? However, they must have made some kind of pact after his time was over. But, yeech, so not Presidential!

    • Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Lagertha

    People have been warning about the Clinton the sexual predator since before he began his run for president. They've also warned that Hillary just as complicit in attacks on these women as Bill. Of course Trump and his supporters should keep hitting on this and hard. I do regularly.

    But it's also true that Trump's public persona has turned off many women. One reason seems to be his bluster and braggadocio. Tuning this down a bit will probably get Trump a lot more votes from women than relying on a stale old strategy - pointing out that the Clintons are sexual predators -- which seems to have a twenty-five year record of little success.

    , @Jasper Been
    @Lagertha

    As always, you are quite a character! But I have no sympathy for Monica.

  93. @Jefferson
    @Hepp

    "They asked people who there least favorite group was, and their choices were, among others, the KKK, Islamic fundamentalists, pro-life activists, etc. Trump supporters were the only ones who disliked Islamic fundamentalists more than the KKK."

    The KKK of the 21st Century is too much of a harmless physical threat for me to feel extreme hatred for them. Today in 2016 anti-Donald Trump protesters are way more violent than the KKK.

    You don't see the KKK going to Hildabeast rallies to physically assault her supporters.

    Replies: @CK

    It is illegal for the FBI to interfere in political rallies. Therefore the KKK will not appear at any rallies.

  94. @Dew
    @V Vega

    Heard about that on the radio today. Of course, they did not mention the race of the attacker. Spread the word.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-J0POelsvw

    It's a dindu attack (stupid enough to show her fat face while punching the reporter).

    Replies: @artichoke, @AndrewR, @ScarletNumber

    Dios mio, indeed.

  95. @BB753
    "There Are More White Voters Than People Think"

    Not in coming elections, 15 years down the line, there won't be.. Most Boomers will be dead by then.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Travis, @CK, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Jefferson

    You underestimate the potential of cloning.
    Another 70 years of Boomers.

  96. @Arclight
    It will be interesting to see what percentage of the black vote Trump gets. On one hand, they are dog-loyal Democrats, more so than any other group in the entire population is to either the Dems or the GOP. On the other, they love "big men" type politicians, and Trump is that, if nothing else.

    I can't recall the exact figure, but the Dems basically need to capture at least 90% of the black vote to win national elections...trump might be able to chisel a few percentage points more out of black voters than GOPers in the last 20 years and put the final total under 90%. Unfortunately, so far he has zero political organization and until that changes I would still put Hillary as the likely winner of the election because the ground game really does matter.

    Replies: @e, @Anonymous, @GOUSAAMER114

    No one has ever tried to get blacks on the basis of immigration and trade like Trump is going to do. I think it can work to get 25% of the black vote. See what Trump is saying about Hillary taking inner city money and giving it to Muslim invaders? That’s how we win. At least logically to me it makes sense. Blacks hate invaders and can see that manual jobs are being taken by them. At least 25%.

  97. @TangoMan
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Trump's Muslim ban was polling at about 2x (65% - 85%) the vote that Trump was winning in many primaries.

    I don't think it was the temporary aspect which people were keying in on, rather is was the Muslim ban, as in, no more, ever.

    If there's ever a time to prevent the US from growing its Muslim population like it's grown its Hispanic population, that time is now.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @GOUSAAMER114, @Anonym, @Brutusale

    Bingo! After Trump announced his Muslim ban I would crawl through glass to vote for him. And I dont see it as temporary. Sessions and Kobaxh who both helped with the detailed immigration plan which in of itself would practically stop Muslims from coming in, know what they’re doing

  98. @BB753
    "There Are More White Voters Than People Think"

    Not in coming elections, 15 years down the line, there won't be.. Most Boomers will be dead by then.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Travis, @CK, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Jefferson

    Even so, that doesn’t explain why Republicans seem unwilling to do what it takes to win elections NOW. In politics, 15 years from now has absolutely zero relevancy.

  99. @BB753
    "There Are More White Voters Than People Think"

    Not in coming elections, 15 years down the line, there won't be.. Most Boomers will be dead by then.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @Travis, @CK, @Sgt. Joe Friday, @Jefferson

    ““There Are More White Voters Than People Think”

    Not in coming elections, 15 years down the line, there won’t be.. Most Boomers will be dead by then.”

    My parents will be in their 80s in 15 years. They could still be alive by than, especially since they are upper middle class Italian Americans and not lower working class/underclass Scots-Irish Americans.

    Making it into your 80s is extremely common among certain demographics in The U.S, with Italian Americans being one of them.

  100. @Travis
    @BB753

    true, imagine what the voting demographics will be like in 16 years. Half the boomers will have passed away. The Boomers are 75% white. The Millennials are just 57% white, but getting less white each year as many immigrants fall into the millennial classification.

    Closing the borders will slow down the ethnic cleansing , resulting in more assimilation and more multi-racial children. It will be interesting if the grandchildren of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will be considered white in 20 years. Today Cameron Diaz in considered hispanic because her Great great Grandfather immigrated from Cuba around 1900. It seems we have adopted a perverse one drop rule when people are considered hispanic if 1 of their 16 great great grandparents happened to be born in Latin America.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland, @epebble

    Mestizos will still be mestizos and ditto for blacks.

  101. I think Ivanka Trump should run for President.

  102. @Mr. Anon
    @Daniel H

    Billy Crystal was also patient zero in Hollywood's forty year campaign to normalize homosexuality.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Daniel H

    “Billy Crystal was also patient zero in Hollywood’s forty year campaign to normalize homosexuality.”

    Billy Crystal’s character on the 1970s television show Soap went from being a Homosexual to a Heterosexual.

    If they transformed a Gay character into a Straight character on a television show in 2016, it would be considered a microaggression and the LGBTQ community would demand that show be taken off the air because it is a threat to their safe spaces.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Jefferson

    More like a macroagression. They'd go crazy.

  103. @TangoMan
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Trump's Muslim ban was polling at about 2x (65% - 85%) the vote that Trump was winning in many primaries.

    I don't think it was the temporary aspect which people were keying in on, rather is was the Muslim ban, as in, no more, ever.

    If there's ever a time to prevent the US from growing its Muslim population like it's grown its Hispanic population, that time is now.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @GOUSAAMER114, @Anonym, @Brutusale

    The beauty of the ‘temporary’ ban is that no one will ever ‘figure out what the hell is going on’ other than in the Jeffersonesque sense of figuring it out, in which case the ban becomes permanent.

    And the Muslim ban is just so obvious. Buying into the establishment theory of 9/11, a group of 19 Muslims, 15 from Saudi Arabia, none from Iraq, fly jetliners into buildings. Do you:
    A) Immediately invade secular Iraq and go on to inadvertently found the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or
    B) Slap a ban on Muslims entering the US until the US figures out what the hell is going on?

    It’s 15 years overdue but Muslims have not exactly been idle in the interim.

    • Agree: MEH 0910
  104. @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    The thing about Cruz is that

    a) he's only half "Hispanic"

    b) he never displayed much interest in the heritage of his father

    c) he threw both of his parents' heritage under the bus by going full Evangelical Protestant instead of being the good Catholic boy that one would expect the son of a Canarian-Cuban and an Irish-Italian to be.

    Rubio OTOH dedicated his entire political career to being a Professional Hispanic. And, well, that didn't play too well among voters who don't want the US to become just another Latin American cesspit.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @MEH 0910

    c) was his father Rafael’s doing.

  105. @Eric Novak
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Bill Clinton looks like a pandering hayseed politician compared to Trump. You'd be about the only person in the US who thinks Trump is low testosterone. Are you a volunteer troll, or does the organization pay you by the post?

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'...

    Try re-reading my post. It should be quite clear to anyone who reads at above a sixth grade level that i did not call into question Trump’s machismo; quite the contrary. I think an apology is in order.

  106. @Lagertha
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Well, I have mentioned that more must be said about Bill desecrating the Oval Office by getting a blow job from Monica. I believe that specific egotistical, cavalier, epitome-of-a-non-PC move, will revolt educated white women, feminists, religious leaders of all stripes, fathers of daughters who have forgotten about it. Sexy-time in the OO is just gross; and, poor, Monica, her young-adult life was destroyed. Hillary did just "stand by my man," when she should have banished him. I bet she will sanitize/re-upholster EVERYTHING in that space, again since the terms of GWB, O, if she gets in. I wonder if it will run across her mind? However, they must have made some kind of pact after his time was over. But, yeech, so not Presidential!

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Jasper Been

    People have been warning about the Clinton the sexual predator since before he began his run for president. They’ve also warned that Hillary just as complicit in attacks on these women as Bill. Of course Trump and his supporters should keep hitting on this and hard. I do regularly.

    But it’s also true that Trump’s public persona has turned off many women. One reason seems to be his bluster and braggadocio. Tuning this down a bit will probably get Trump a lot more votes from women than relying on a stale old strategy – pointing out that the Clintons are sexual predators — which seems to have a twenty-five year record of little success.

  107. SFG says:
    @AndrewR
    @SFG

    Oh come on. Other than maybe a few thousand Irish illegals, virtually all illegals are "visible ethnic minorities." Might as well be open about things.

    Replies: @SFG

    Why be open about things?

    ‘Racism’ still carries a strong negative charge. Enforcing the law is one thing, discriminating against people is another. You get the same result, but it’s a lot easier to sell the college-educated white crowd on ‘enforce the law’ (and give them plausible deniability in their heads) than ‘keep out the brown people’.

    Salesmanship. Practically speaking, the result is the same.

  108. @Eric Novak
    @Anonymous

    According to RCP's rolling poll average, Trump's polling percentages have increased since the La Raza judge news broke.

    Replies: @candid_observer

    I was under the impression that Trump has lost a point or two lately in national polls, but seemed, on the other hand, to getting better numbers than before in battleground states like PA and FL, which might put things at a wash.

    What strikes me as remarkable about this is that this is in the wake of Hillary “clinching” the nomination, which I would have expected to give her a real bounce — as Trump’s clinching did for him. That doesn’t seem to be happening. Of course, Sanders hasn’t actually removed himself from the race, so the parallel isn’t exact — but it’s also possible I think that Hillary’s never going to get this bounce, because so many of Sander’s supporters just don’t like her, and she’s not going to consolidate more of them in the future than Trump will with Republican voters who haven’t yet come around to him.

  109. The term “well educated voters” doesn’t mean that they are smarter, wiser, better citizens or more worthy of praise. It simply means, to the author, that in this case they more closely follow his point of view. “Well educated” means ultra liberal, nothing more.

  110. @Mr. Anon
    @Daniel H

    Billy Crystal was also patient zero in Hollywood's forty year campaign to normalize homosexuality.

    Replies: @Jefferson, @Daniel H

    For my gaydar, Crystal has always given off a gay vibe. I know, he’s been married for 40 years…., but still.

    Furthermore, Crystal is not funny. He’s never been funny, has no skill in being funny. He just doesn’t do or get being funny. How he has made a career out of being a comedian and comedic actor is beyond me.

  111. @Daniel H
    OT: The country club meme will just not die.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/sports/lonnie-billy-crystal-bill-clinton-eulogies-for-muhammad-ali.html

    Billy Crystal Eulogy for Muhammad Ali:

    One time he asked me if I would like to run with him one morning, do road work. I said: “Well that would be amazing. Where do you run?”

    As Ali: “Well, I run at this country club, and I run on the golf course early in the morning. It’s very private. Nobody bothers me. We’ll have a great time.”

    I said: “Champ, I can’t run there. The club has a reputation for being restricted.”

    As Ali: “What does restricted mean?”

    “They don’t allow Jews there; they don’t have any Jewish members.”

    He was incensed: “I’m a black Muslim and they let me run there. Little brother, I’m never gonna run there again.” And he didn’t.

    BTW, I don't believe a word of Crystal's story.

    Replies: @artichoke, @Mr. Anon, @guest

    I don’t believe the story, but notice all he says is that the club has a reputation for being restricted. All the more that has to mean is that Billy Crystal thinks it might be restricted because Billy Crystal associates golf courses and anti-semitism in his head.

  112. @Jefferson
    @Mr. Anon

    "Billy Crystal was also patient zero in Hollywood’s forty year campaign to normalize homosexuality."

    Billy Crystal's character on the 1970s television show Soap went from being a Homosexual to a Heterosexual.

    If they transformed a Gay character into a Straight character on a television show in 2016, it would be considered a microaggression and the LGBTQ community would demand that show be taken off the air because it is a threat to their safe spaces.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    More like a macroagression. They’d go crazy.

  113. CJ says:
    @candid_observer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    I think your point is well taken.

    I also think that it is the appeal of Trump on the issues which will have the greatest impact on the general election as well.

    If you think about the situation of the typical white working class voter, why would they not plunk down for Trump? For many of them, Trump is the only opportunity for a genuine change agent that they have been able to vote for in their lifetimes. They have seen their jobs and pay waste away. They can't look forward to the sort of stable lives their parents were able to enjoy, and the situation for their children looks even worse. These voters know that immigration has only had a negative effect on their lives, and that globalization is every bit as bad and probably worse. They have seen the big banks both parasitize on and crash the economy. In the previous many decades, they have seen no politician arise onto the scene who shows any sincere interest in coming to grip with these problems.

    Why is it not a perfect rational calculation for these voters to go for Trump? He has made it 100% clear that he will come at these problems from an angle that has never been tried before, and which seems to offer great promise. These voters are desperate for a change agent--and that is what Trump represents. They may or may not like his jihad against political correctness; they may see it as just part of what being a change agent demands these days; but it is the change itself they need and crave, and they will be willing to make many compromises if necessary to get that change.

    I myself won't pretend to know what Trump can actually achieve to turn things around for the working class. But I do very much believe that we've all been sold a bill of goods as to the benefits for American workers of globalism, immigration, and Big Finance. We will only find out what we can pull back from this maw by going in the opposite direction.

    I wish in many ways that the change agent who might make this happen would be more disciplined and less egotistical than Donald Trump. But I can also see that it might require someone of such transcendent ego, lack of a filter, and -- surprisingly, given what is often said of him -- tough skin as Trump to endure the names thrown at him and move forward with his program.

    Trump may not be the change agent many of us would want, but he may well be the sort of change agent we should have expected.

    Replies: @CJ, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    If you think about the situation of the typical white working class voter, why would they not plunk down for Trump? For many of them, Trump is the only opportunity for a genuine change agent that they have been able to vote for in their lifetimes. They have seen their jobs and pay waste away. They can’t look forward to the sort of stable lives their parents were able to enjoy, and the situation for their children looks even worse. These voters know that immigration has only had a negative effect on their lives, and that globalization is every bit as bad and probably worse. They have seen the big banks both parasitize on and crash the economy. In the previous many decades, they have seen no politician arise onto the scene who shows any sincere interest in coming to grip with these problems.

    Well stated. This the most issue-driven election I have ever seen, and I’ve been observing them since the 1960s. (It’s also, improbably or not, the most entertaining.) The issues are pretty much just as you’ve laid them out, plus the issue of the endless wars that don’t seem to achieve anything, and the theme of political corruption preventing any resolution of those same issues.

  114. @AndrewR
    @Anonymous

    The thing about Cruz is that

    a) he's only half "Hispanic"

    b) he never displayed much interest in the heritage of his father

    c) he threw both of his parents' heritage under the bus by going full Evangelical Protestant instead of being the good Catholic boy that one would expect the son of a Canarian-Cuban and an Irish-Italian to be.

    Rubio OTOH dedicated his entire political career to being a Professional Hispanic. And, well, that didn't play too well among voters who don't want the US to become just another Latin American cesspit.

    Replies: @Hibernian, @MEH 0910

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Bienvenido_Cruz#Religious_and_political_beliefs

    Cruz left the Roman Catholic Church in 1975 and became an Evangelical Christian after attending a Bible study with a colleague and having a born again experience. Explaining his leaving the Catholic church, Cruz stated in an interview with National Review, “The people at the Bible study had a peace that I could not understand, this peace in the midst of trouble. I knew I needed to find that peace by finding Jesus Christ.” Following his conversion, his son and wife also became born-again Christians. In the Cruz home, talk at dinner time was frequently about the Bible.[4] He was ordained as a pastor in 2004.[20]

  115. @Travis
    @BB753

    true, imagine what the voting demographics will be like in 16 years. Half the boomers will have passed away. The Boomers are 75% white. The Millennials are just 57% white, but getting less white each year as many immigrants fall into the millennial classification.

    Closing the borders will slow down the ethnic cleansing , resulting in more assimilation and more multi-racial children. It will be interesting if the grandchildren of Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will be considered white in 20 years. Today Cameron Diaz in considered hispanic because her Great great Grandfather immigrated from Cuba around 1900. It seems we have adopted a perverse one drop rule when people are considered hispanic if 1 of their 16 great great grandparents happened to be born in Latin America.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland, @epebble

    “Today Cameron Diaz in considered hispanic …”

    It is not her choice or decision. This has been the law and practice from 1924.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act_of_1924

    Its author was a physician, not a politician https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Plecker

  116. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @candid_observer

    I've been a Trump supporter since he first announced his positions on dis-inviting the world, leaving the rest of the world alone, and getting out of debt to the world. I loathe the Clintons. However, it is foolish not to see that Trump does not project the persona of the alpha dog in the same way that Clinton did. Men can see through and discount Trump's bluster and braggadocio. It's a real turn off for a lot of the women I know. If Trump can eliminate these elements from his public persona or at least tone them down considerably his favorable ratings among women will improve considerably.

    Replies: @Eric Novak, @Lagertha, @dr kill

    It ain’t braggin’ if it’s the truth, Pilgrim.

  117. NY Times finally discovers that Americans are being laid off by employers using shady H1B practices:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/us/laid-off-americans-required-to-zip-lips-on-way-out-grow-bolder.html?_r=0

  118. @AndrewR
    @BB753

    According to standard definitions of "boomers" and most plausible projected life expectancies, no, most "boomers" will not be dead in 15 years. Most of the eldest cohort (born in the 1940s) will likely be dead but not boomers in general.

    Replies: @BB753

    Let’s see: the very youngest Boomers, born in 1964 will be 67 years old in 2031, 15 years from now. While the oldest Boomers, born in 1946, will be 85 years old. Their future wont look so bright in 2031, will it?

  119. @Lagertha
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Well, I have mentioned that more must be said about Bill desecrating the Oval Office by getting a blow job from Monica. I believe that specific egotistical, cavalier, epitome-of-a-non-PC move, will revolt educated white women, feminists, religious leaders of all stripes, fathers of daughters who have forgotten about it. Sexy-time in the OO is just gross; and, poor, Monica, her young-adult life was destroyed. Hillary did just "stand by my man," when she should have banished him. I bet she will sanitize/re-upholster EVERYTHING in that space, again since the terms of GWB, O, if she gets in. I wonder if it will run across her mind? However, they must have made some kind of pact after his time was over. But, yeech, so not Presidential!

    Replies: @Jus' Sayin'..., @Jasper Been

    As always, you are quite a character! But I have no sympathy for Monica.

  120. @Kevin O'Keeffe
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi


    That is mainly because she supported Bernie Sanders. In other words for the consistent far leftists, Hillary isn’t liberal enough for their tastes.
     
    True, but in fairness, she also claimed that even Donald Trump is better than Hillary Clinton. She obviously won't campaign on his behalf, but I suspect she may opt for him within the privacy of the voting booth. Or maybe she'll vote for the Green Party candidate (Jill Stein, presumably). Either way, its one less vote for the Democrats. This will be replicated, quite possibly millions of times, across the USA.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    If the Green Party were smart, they’ll draft Bernie to run on their ticket. This will accomplish gaining them more votes in their party’s history than ever before, and of course prevent Hillary from winning certain key states in the Electoral College. If Ralph Nader could run on the Green Party in ’00, then why not Bernie? And by dint of being a former governor and current US Senator, Sanders is more “qualified” for public office than Nader ever was.

  121. @Hapalong Cassidy
    @Mr. Anon

    You do realize that the forebearers of our La Raza brothers practiced human sacrifice, right? Quit being so culturally insensitive.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    “You do realize that the forebearers of our La Raza brothers practiced human sacrifice, right? Quit being so culturally insensitive.”

    Some of the crimes committed by the mexican narco-gangs almost seem to have a human-sacrifice-like quality about them.

  122. @candid_observer
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    I think your point is well taken.

    I also think that it is the appeal of Trump on the issues which will have the greatest impact on the general election as well.

    If you think about the situation of the typical white working class voter, why would they not plunk down for Trump? For many of them, Trump is the only opportunity for a genuine change agent that they have been able to vote for in their lifetimes. They have seen their jobs and pay waste away. They can't look forward to the sort of stable lives their parents were able to enjoy, and the situation for their children looks even worse. These voters know that immigration has only had a negative effect on their lives, and that globalization is every bit as bad and probably worse. They have seen the big banks both parasitize on and crash the economy. In the previous many decades, they have seen no politician arise onto the scene who shows any sincere interest in coming to grip with these problems.

    Why is it not a perfect rational calculation for these voters to go for Trump? He has made it 100% clear that he will come at these problems from an angle that has never been tried before, and which seems to offer great promise. These voters are desperate for a change agent--and that is what Trump represents. They may or may not like his jihad against political correctness; they may see it as just part of what being a change agent demands these days; but it is the change itself they need and crave, and they will be willing to make many compromises if necessary to get that change.

    I myself won't pretend to know what Trump can actually achieve to turn things around for the working class. But I do very much believe that we've all been sold a bill of goods as to the benefits for American workers of globalism, immigration, and Big Finance. We will only find out what we can pull back from this maw by going in the opposite direction.

    I wish in many ways that the change agent who might make this happen would be more disciplined and less egotistical than Donald Trump. But I can also see that it might require someone of such transcendent ego, lack of a filter, and -- surprisingly, given what is often said of him -- tough skin as Trump to endure the names thrown at him and move forward with his program.

    Trump may not be the change agent many of us would want, but he may well be the sort of change agent we should have expected.

    Replies: @CJ, @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Very well stated and appreciated on Trump. What is interesting is that for all this alleged support for Cruz during the primary season, not one article (or very, very few and not anywhere near the majority of opinion) attempted to define Cruz as a change agent, as something new vs the same old, same old way of doing things in DC, which hasn’t worked out so well for working class Americans in general. What exactly was/is Cruz hoping to conserve? What issues were so compelling him to run for the highest office that he would stake his reputation on? I don’t count immigration as he had more to gain by confusing the issue, muddying his own tracks so to speak as he was originally a part of the Gang of Eight. He wasn’t officially, and yet he was. He was nowhere to be found out front and center a la Senator Jeff Sessions sounding the call, the warning vs the entire policy. All we have to do is ask the question: If Trump hadn’t have run, would Cruz have made immigration front and center or at least given the issue such a prominent role in his campaign? I believe that the answer, based on common sense, is no. Without Trump in the race, Cruz wouldn’t have finished nearly as high as he did. At best, he’d have finished in the top four but probably would’ve been overwhelmed by Jeb!’s ground game, donor money bags, campaign war chest, etc. Trump actually made Cruz tack more to the right than he probably wanted to but knew he had to in order to achieve any chance of winning the nomination.

    Also, another first in a long, long time: On June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination. Since that time, for nearly a solid full year, he has totally dominated every single major (as well as minor) political news cycle, as well as been at the top of news in general, world news, even pop culture news. It truly is amazing. Nearly every single major issue of this presidential election, from both parties, is in large part a direct reaction a la “What does Trump think about this issue?”; or “Which side does Trump stand on the issue?”. This has to be a first. Bill Clinton in ’92 wasn’t that dominant of every single major news cycles and the major amount of coverage that he received was in large part due to his “bimbo erruptions” and not his platform for “Don’t Stop thinking about tomorrow”. [Wonder if Hillary will ask Fleetwood Mac to perform at Philadelphia Convention for her when she accepts the nomination].

    Honestly. Every single major political news cycle has been totally dominated by Donald Trump and no one else. Every single candidate from both parties, from both ideological movements, have done little else but reacted to just about everything that Trump has either said or done.
    He couldn’t fake that for an entire year if he wasn’t serious about the issues he’s running on.

    And the amazing thing is that most voters at this point are well aware of the issues that Donald Trump is running on as well as the ones that are the centerpiece of his campaign. Mitt Romney didn’t have this kind of gravitas over his entire adult life on any major issue let alone during the ’12 campaign. Its a safe bet to say that “Change Agent” and “Romney” will never find themselves lumped together in the same sentence under any circumstances. Even now, Donald Trump is making Mitt Romney relevant past his shelf time which is a feat in and of itself. He made Cruz appear more relevant than he’s ever been in public office, and is getting under Hillary’s skin as well as the establishment of his own party.

    Only one single major candidate has driven this election for a full year, and it started from the moment he uttered his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.” And with the nomination or semi-finals over, its only now moving in to ACT II. Fasten the seat belts, can’t wait to see what the ride has in store for the next round but its safe to say that Trump will be the dominant cause if not in the thick of things as usual.

    • Replies: @guest
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Any instance in which the phrase "change agent" isn't used is a victory for humanity.

  123. @South Texas Guy
    @Harold

    I guy from New Zealand once told me a local joke: What's the difference between a pizza and a Maori man? A pizza can feed a family.

    Replies: @BRF

    Reminds of the joke where a guy from Texas meets a Maori in a bar and says ‘My ranch is so big it takes me a day to drive right across it’. The Maori guy says ‘yeah I had a car like that once’.

  124. @artichoke
    @Wanderer

    Pelosi's substantially right, I would suppose.

    The internet is based on DARPAnet. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. But it's not just "government" research, it's "military". That's where the cool stuff happens and basic science is done, and largely it's on government contracts performed by private companies.

    It doesn't mean we should add a bunch of more affirmative action government employees.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke

    Pelosi’s substantially right, I would suppose.

    The internet is based on DARPAnet. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. But it’s not just “government” research, it’s “military”. That’s where the cool stuff happens and basic science is done, and largely it’s on government contracts performed by private companies.

    It doesn’t mean we should add a bunch of more affirmative action government employees.

    And it certainly doesn’t mean we should expand the cradle-to-grave welfare state, the regulatory agencies or any of the other non-traditional functions of government that are as necessary as teats on a bull, that Democrats have expanded ad nauseam just because they can.

  125. @Mr. Anon
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    I hate slavery. I hate it.

    Oh, also human sacrifice. And the carthaginians. I just can't abide carthaginians.

    Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Harry Baldwin

    And sharks. Sharks can tear families apart. But they’re also so majestic.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    @Harry Baldwin

    Sharks are the worst.

  126. @PiltdownMan
    Innumeracy plagues our humanities educated elites. Come to think of it, many STEM types I've met don't do well in that regard either.

    The ability to use simple arithmetic on the fly to test facts, as one encounters them, is still a rare knack. It should not be.

    This is not so much a failure of education as of culture. I'm pretty sure we used to be better at this, but I may be wrong.

    Replies: @artichoke, @Jim Don Bob

    PiltdownMan said, “The ability to use simple arithmetic on the fly to test facts, as one encounters them, is still a rare knack. It should not be”.

    Right. Whenever I hear some “statistic” that seems fishy I do a quick check. For instance, in the 90s, it was widely reported that there were 3 million homeless people. A little quick division put that at 1 in every 100 people in the USA. Obvious bs.

    Or take eating out once a week. Even if you just order in pizza, you will spend $20. Annualize that and you are spending $1000 a year on pizza.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jim Don Bob

    Yeah, but eating out once a week is doable. For example, McDonald's dollar menu for a family of three, and that's less than $10.

    So families eating out once a week isn't total bs. In fact, that's probably on the lower end of estimates.

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @Jim Don Bob

    Jim Bob, I could not agree more. I always double check the math, especially when the source leans left. I keep a newspaper article in my desk, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, that bemoaned the slaughter of birds and small mammals by cats, both domestic and feral in the USA. Using their high range and low range to just get an average, cats in Erie county, my home locale, killed more than 1400 birds a day! I call BS, but news readers and writers throw these type of numbers out as rock solid fact.

  127. @Jus' Sayin'...
    @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)

    Many years ago I studied survey research under Leslie Kish - a pioneer of scientific survey research - and as a result directed a large variety of big and small surveys. I'm no longer in the field but pay vague attention to what is going on. The response rates for pre-election polls are scandalously low, often in the single digit percentages. This suggests that sample bias is a major problem. As you point out, this bias is likely even greater in exit poll surveys, which are not designed as probability samples to start with. People who earn a living or make a killing from selling these things obviously don't want to admit how useless they are. But IMHO that's what they've become.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Yep. I talked to Michael Barone about 10 years ago and he said even then that polling was becoming much more difficult because of the spread of caller id, which almost all cell phones have now. People just don’t answer numbers they don’t recognize.

    Pundits and journalists like them because they are instant stories, but saying that Hillary at 44% and Trump at 42% means something is bogus.

    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @Jim Don Bob

    It means that the MSM can continue to promote their biased agenda.

  128. @Jim Don Bob
    @PiltdownMan

    PiltdownMan said, "The ability to use simple arithmetic on the fly to test facts, as one encounters them, is still a rare knack. It should not be".

    Right. Whenever I hear some "statistic" that seems fishy I do a quick check. For instance, in the 90s, it was widely reported that there were 3 million homeless people. A little quick division put that at 1 in every 100 people in the USA. Obvious bs.

    Or take eating out once a week. Even if you just order in pizza, you will spend $20. Annualize that and you are spending $1000 a year on pizza.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Buffalo Joe

    Yeah, but eating out once a week is doable. For example, McDonald’s dollar menu for a family of three, and that’s less than $10.

    So families eating out once a week isn’t total bs. In fact, that’s probably on the lower end of estimates.

  129. @Jim Don Bob
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    Yep. I talked to Michael Barone about 10 years ago and he said even then that polling was becoming much more difficult because of the spread of caller id, which almost all cell phones have now. People just don't answer numbers they don't recognize.

    Pundits and journalists like them because they are instant stories, but saying that Hillary at 44% and Trump at 42% means something is bogus.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    It means that the MSM can continue to promote their biased agenda.

  130. @Harry Baldwin
    @Mr. Anon

    And sharks. Sharks can tear families apart. But they're also so majestic.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Sharks are the worst.

  131. “Right. Whenever I hear some “statistic” that seems fishy I do a quick check. For instance, in the 90s, it was widely reported that there were 3 million homeless people.”

    Only up through November 3rd, 1992. On that day the number of homeless people began to drop dramatically. By January 20th, 1993, there were no homeless people at all.

  132. @Steve Sailer
    @Clyde

    Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. Maybe North Carolina.

    Florida is always important, although most of its Hispanic voters are Cubans and Puerto Ricans, who aren't illegal aliens. New Mexico doesn't get a lot of immigration.

    The black vote is more important in the Electoral College. It's a firewall against Trump breaking through in his home state.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    Given that Florida has had a Republican governor for the entire 21st Century (absent Charlie Crist’s flirtation with Independent-turned-Democrat status for a couple years), there’s clearly Something Different about their Latinos.

    Crist paid the price by having his ass handed to him by Little Marco in the Senate race.

    My half-Cuban sister-in-law is all in with Trump.

  133. @Whiskey
    Hillarts strategy is White women plus NAMS against White men so Warren makes sense in that regard. Sadly White women love an entitled nasty older White woman. Look at the View talk show. And they hate Trump and White men. So its not an insane bet, taking advantage of the civil war between White sexes.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    Even if we stipulate that what you’ve said is true, what additional voters does Fauxcahontas bring that Pants Suit doesn’t already have?

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Brutusale

    Far leftist Bernie supporters who might otherwise vote Green Party or stay home.

  134. @TangoMan
    @Yojimbo/Zatoichi

    Trump's Muslim ban was polling at about 2x (65% - 85%) the vote that Trump was winning in many primaries.

    I don't think it was the temporary aspect which people were keying in on, rather is was the Muslim ban, as in, no more, ever.

    If there's ever a time to prevent the US from growing its Muslim population like it's grown its Hispanic population, that time is now.

    Replies: @Mr. Anon, @GOUSAAMER114, @Anonym, @Brutusale

    Omar Mateen just gave Trump a YUGE bump.

  135. @Brutusale
    @Whiskey

    Even if we stipulate that what you've said is true, what additional voters does Fauxcahontas bring that Pants Suit doesn't already have?

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Far leftist Bernie supporters who might otherwise vote Green Party or stay home.

  136. @Jim Don Bob
    @PiltdownMan

    PiltdownMan said, "The ability to use simple arithmetic on the fly to test facts, as one encounters them, is still a rare knack. It should not be".

    Right. Whenever I hear some "statistic" that seems fishy I do a quick check. For instance, in the 90s, it was widely reported that there were 3 million homeless people. A little quick division put that at 1 in every 100 people in the USA. Obvious bs.

    Or take eating out once a week. Even if you just order in pizza, you will spend $20. Annualize that and you are spending $1000 a year on pizza.

    Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Buffalo Joe

    Jim Bob, I could not agree more. I always double check the math, especially when the source leans left. I keep a newspaper article in my desk, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, that bemoaned the slaughter of birds and small mammals by cats, both domestic and feral in the USA. Using their high range and low range to just get an average, cats in Erie county, my home locale, killed more than 1400 birds a day! I call BS, but news readers and writers throw these type of numbers out as rock solid fact.

  137. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    @candid_observer

    Very well stated and appreciated on Trump. What is interesting is that for all this alleged support for Cruz during the primary season, not one article (or very, very few and not anywhere near the majority of opinion) attempted to define Cruz as a change agent, as something new vs the same old, same old way of doing things in DC, which hasn't worked out so well for working class Americans in general. What exactly was/is Cruz hoping to conserve? What issues were so compelling him to run for the highest office that he would stake his reputation on? I don't count immigration as he had more to gain by confusing the issue, muddying his own tracks so to speak as he was originally a part of the Gang of Eight. He wasn't officially, and yet he was. He was nowhere to be found out front and center a la Senator Jeff Sessions sounding the call, the warning vs the entire policy. All we have to do is ask the question: If Trump hadn't have run, would Cruz have made immigration front and center or at least given the issue such a prominent role in his campaign? I believe that the answer, based on common sense, is no. Without Trump in the race, Cruz wouldn't have finished nearly as high as he did. At best, he'd have finished in the top four but probably would've been overwhelmed by Jeb!'s ground game, donor money bags, campaign war chest, etc. Trump actually made Cruz tack more to the right than he probably wanted to but knew he had to in order to achieve any chance of winning the nomination.

    Also, another first in a long, long time: On June 16, 2015, Donald Trump announced his candidacy for the GOP nomination. Since that time, for nearly a solid full year, he has totally dominated every single major (as well as minor) political news cycle, as well as been at the top of news in general, world news, even pop culture news. It truly is amazing. Nearly every single major issue of this presidential election, from both parties, is in large part a direct reaction a la "What does Trump think about this issue?"; or "Which side does Trump stand on the issue?". This has to be a first. Bill Clinton in '92 wasn't that dominant of every single major news cycles and the major amount of coverage that he received was in large part due to his "bimbo erruptions" and not his platform for "Don't Stop thinking about tomorrow". [Wonder if Hillary will ask Fleetwood Mac to perform at Philadelphia Convention for her when she accepts the nomination].

    Honestly. Every single major political news cycle has been totally dominated by Donald Trump and no one else. Every single candidate from both parties, from both ideological movements, have done little else but reacted to just about everything that Trump has either said or done.
    He couldn't fake that for an entire year if he wasn't serious about the issues he's running on.

    And the amazing thing is that most voters at this point are well aware of the issues that Donald Trump is running on as well as the ones that are the centerpiece of his campaign. Mitt Romney didn't have this kind of gravitas over his entire adult life on any major issue let alone during the '12 campaign. Its a safe bet to say that "Change Agent" and "Romney" will never find themselves lumped together in the same sentence under any circumstances. Even now, Donald Trump is making Mitt Romney relevant past his shelf time which is a feat in and of itself. He made Cruz appear more relevant than he's ever been in public office, and is getting under Hillary's skin as well as the establishment of his own party.

    Only one single major candidate has driven this election for a full year, and it started from the moment he uttered his campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again." And with the nomination or semi-finals over, its only now moving in to ACT II. Fasten the seat belts, can't wait to see what the ride has in store for the next round but its safe to say that Trump will be the dominant cause if not in the thick of things as usual.

    Replies: @guest

    Any instance in which the phrase “change agent” isn’t used is a victory for humanity.

  138. @White Guy In Japan
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Subhuman rednecks yet many of them became judges and politicians.

    Clearly the goals of the Klan are being realized everyday in America.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Clearly!

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS