The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Trump's Closing Argument
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

Pretty good Trump ad tying together his themes of Hillary’s corruption and globalism. Rather than just attack Hillary over idiosyncratic scandals, he’s pulling together the threads of how Hillary’s ideology and self-interest support each other.

It’s funny how Trump is developing a more coherent big picture framework.

My recollection of Romney’s campaign is that he generally lacked an intellectual framework for tying together his a la carte issues.

With McCain, he had Invade the World / Invite the World. Sure, it doesn’t make much sense, but at least it’s an ethos.

Romney, though, was a more reasonable man than McCain, so he was kind of stuck in nowhere land in the middle.

In contrast to the remarkable spectacle of Donald Trump, of all people, evolving into an insightful critic of the conventional wisdom of the zeitgeist, Hillary’s big intellectual breakthrough in 2016 was realizing how much she really hates people who don’t vote for her due to their irredeemable deplorableness.

That doesn’t mean, however, the details will necessarily work together for Trump. For example, industrial protectionism was likely pretty good for America on the whole during the “infant industries” era (to quote the non-rap Alexander Hamilton). But you didn’t really want to see how the sausage is made. Tariff battles in Congress tended to gross out everybody who wasn’t a hired lobbyist or wardheeler.

Jerry Pournelle has proposed a modest tariff (e.g., 10%) on everything, no exceptions, as a way around the corruption problem. Of course, that’s the opposite approach to Trump’s Art of the Deal inclinations.

 
Hide 273 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. • Replies: @TontoBubbaGoldstein
    You quack me up.
    Leonard Pitts is the Tiny Duck of MSM op-ed columnists.
    BTW, your link doesn't work, little yeller feller.
    , @Chris Mallory
    I usually ignore Tiny Duck, but this one is just waiting for an answer.

    If you vote for Trump you are a bad person
     
    We are not just "bad", we are "DEPLORABLE!!!!!"
    , @Kyle a
    I saw this big frog take down a little duck in a swamp this summer. One gulp. I took it as a good omen.
    , @Hanoi Paris Hilton
    Bad link, Mister Duck. My kudos to you for having, like the Donald, brought down unspeakable pee onto your heads for months —both out in the hustings and here in these threads— for saying what you have to say.

    Except in The Donald's case, it's what he actually believes (one would hope) and in your case it's a vastly instructive goof that you've kept up for months, even years! Amazing how many otherwise smart people hereabouts have misconstrued where you're really coming from (one would hope). Live long and prosper.

    , @Kurt van Ghoye
    Tiny Duck is just so boring in his unprocessed form. I propose we feed him through an industrial food press and feast on the resultant drlixacy: canard a la presse! Which in addition to the culinary novelty and the aspect of atavistic cruelty confers the collateral benefit that we will no longer be pestered by this quaggot's infernal chuntering. Could also turn this into a theme for a rightist art show. A regular little cottage industry. Quaggot slurry cum hostile aesthetic action. C'est downright divine!
    , @Jim Christian
    I'm a bad person anyway, you Tiny Dick. I'm deplorable, a Veteran, White, Male, hetero. All that makes me so damned bad I'm sure to burn in Hell while you fairies are Saints in Heaven. What's one more reason for me to burn in Hell but to vote for Trump?
    , @Anonymous
    "If you vote for Trump you are a bad person"

    OH NO! How could I have been so wrong all this time? Here I thought it was more important to vote for a candidate who put America First, and sought to shut down illegal immigration and the flow of dangerous refugees to our country, than voting for a candidate with documented crimes and countless acts of corruption extending back decades to the present, who has no qualms about taking money from ISIS supporting nations and then pushing for expanded immigration of dangerous Muslim refugees, and for bringing in millions of welfare-dependent illegals and putting them ahead of Americans whose ancestors built the country and bled for it.

    But now, with this profoundly insightful, new and shocking revelation, that if I vote for Trump, I am a bad person, how can I not vote for Hillary? I mean, next you're gonna tell me that if I don't vote for Hillary, I must be a big dummy, and that would be more devastating than I could possibly bear.

  2. Trump is running for President because white men are scared.

    We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared.

    White men are the biggest cowards in the United States.

    • Replies: @bomag

    ...are the biggest cowards in the United States.
     
    I wasn't aware that courage was being rewarded today.

    That POC are wound so tight over the slightest racial slur or threat to the Welfare State bespeaks quite a bit of cowardice and insecurity.
    , @ic1000
    > We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared

    Agreed. Scared male people who think they are white must stop using their mind control powers. Their evil creations and include implicit bias and structural racism. These are the forces that compel guns held by young male black bodies to fire towards other black bodies, killing them.

    Some believe that young black men, like everyone else, make choices. This is deplorable, only racists think that such people could be anything other than victims.
    , @JohnnyWalker123
    These trolls are just "Donut" having fun.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    Trump is running for President because white men are scared.

    We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared.

    White men are the biggest cowards in the United States.
     
    And you're afraid of us white men, so you must be even bigger cowards.
    , @GFR
    Liberals are cowards because they're scared of cowardly White men with guns.
    .
    Better do what they say then - or they'll shoot you.
    , @Kyle
    We don't have a gun problem, black people have a gun problem. Black people aren't compatible with the second amendment.
  3. ^Hey Unz, are Tiny Duck and Luke Sellers the same person? Please check.

    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    Let's come back in an hour and mark the other one as "troll". (I can see you've already marked Tiny, I've already done the other.)
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Yeah, Unz, your button system doesn't work so well when a troll can keep posting in short order under multiple pseudonyms, but the other commenters can only use the Troll button once they've posted 10x and only once per hour...

    Also, Unz, your button system doesn't work so well when you don't take action against the trolls as you promised you would!

  4. Hillary’s big intellectual breakthrough in 2016 was realizing how much she really hates people who don’t vote for her due to their irredeemable deplorableness.

    But, unfortunately, that’s sorta how politics works: the biggest haters go the farthest.

  5. @Luke Sellers
    Trump is running for President because white men are scared.



    We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared.



    White men are the biggest cowards in the United States.

    …are the biggest cowards in the United States.

    I wasn’t aware that courage was being rewarded today.

    That POC are wound so tight over the slightest racial slur or threat to the Welfare State bespeaks quite a bit of cowardice and insecurity.

  6. The biggest story in the emails is the ISIS is funded by Saud and Qatar.

    You may want to mention that.

    It ties in nicely with Netanyahu’s Zionist campaign being funded by Saud, the Saud hijackers of the 9-11 plane, Osama’s family, the Mossad celebrations in the van after 9-11 and, dare I say it, The Real Axis of Evil:

    Saud, Zion, and The Cuckold Party (‘centrist’ New labour/lib Dem/Cameroonian Cons, New Dems/Necon Repubs, Social Dem/Christian Dem).

    The Enemies of the West are who you would imagine: people that look like bad guys in movies…AESTHETICS DONT LIE.

    If you look like a wild animal, you probably are. Nature doesn’t randomly assign aesthetics.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    By their actions we can infer an axis of evil eg Israel + Saudi/Gulf States + ISIS/ALQ though certain (((parties))) get red faced denying it.

    However it's always nice to get factual back up for that.
    , @anon

    The biggest story in the emails is the ISIS is funded by Saud and Qatar.
     
    Yes.

    If you accept the Yazidi thing was an attempted genocide then she's complicit under article 3e imo.

    The other was the banks wanting open borders across both north and south America - instant 3rd worldization for the US and Canada.
  7. The problem with Romney’s campaign was that the closest he came to a big picture message was the 47 percent speech.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    The whole point of the GOPe is to prevent the serfs from conceiving of the big picture, so this is hardly a surprise.
    , @Detective Club
    A big issue for Romney in 2012 was that "the Russians are coming."

    In 2016, Hillary says that Trump is a Russian stooge and that "the Russians are coming."

    2012 : Romney came in second.

    2016 : The Shape of Election Results to Come for Hillary?
    , @bomag

    the 47 percent speech
     
    ...which was given at a private event, then leaked.

    It is pretty much an accurate statement; I guess file it under the things we aren't supposed to notice.
  8. @IHTG
    ^Hey Unz, are Tiny Duck and Luke Sellers the same person? Please check.

    Let’s come back in an hour and mark the other one as “troll”. (I can see you’ve already marked Tiny, I’ve already done the other.)

  9. Must watch from Assange. Very poignant in the last 5 minutes:

    -UN ruled his detention is illegal.

    -Female rape accuser said the police made it up

    -Worries about his family. His world is the embassy.

    Knowing how mossad work, and how the co-founder of wikileaks got heart attacked, it would be insufferable being in that embassy for 5 years like that.

    He’s going to be remembered as one of the greats.

    • Replies: @anonguy
    Here is a nice image that is meming around:

    http://i.imgur.com/hd9Knfw.jpg

    , @Chrisnonymous
    Trump should buy airtime and just broadcast that interview.
    , @Anonymous
    It's been clear for some time that they're trying to force a chilling effect on Wikileaks.

    We're fortunate to have men like Assange and Trump who have principles and stick to them even in the face of overwhelming pressure. Someone like Hillary who swims in self-interested corruption would not be so hard to bend. Trump is clearly better leader material.
  10. @Tiny Duck
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article112632598.

    If you vote for Trump you are a bad person

    You quack me up.
    Leonard Pitts is the Tiny Duck of MSM op-ed columnists.
    BTW, your link doesn’t work, little yeller feller.

    • Replies: @Eric Novak
    Does Tiny Duck disappear on Tuesday night and vanish into the unemployed-troll vortex, or does he stick around? Will the non-profit he works for still have change in the till to pay the trolls after the election?
  11. The crowd looks unhealthily white.

  12. It’s a good one, but this sort of calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it’s not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I’m afraid.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    If Trump had come out of the gate like that he wouldn't have gotten an audience.
    , @(((Owen)))

    calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it’s not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I’m afraid.
     
    A narrow popular vote loss would be fine. A 1% loss would actually win Trump the presidency. It's a 3-5% popular vote loss that he's facing in current polls and that's going to elect Hillary.
    , @AnotherDad

    It’s a good one, but this sort of calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it’s not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I’m afraid.
     
    Yep. Very sad. Just an inability to be displinced about the most fundamental thing--what the election is about. It's not about Trump--at least if he wants to win--it's about the interest of Americans. We knew, he knew that the media would spend as much time as possible on him, trying to smear him and most of all avoid letting it be contest of ideas: elite-globalism vs. middle-class nationalism. Yet Trump was unable to avoid taking the bait and letting the focus drift off his message.
  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Steve, do you think, as U of Chicago and Cal-Berkeley-educated Ana Marie Cox does, that “the FBI is a problem because they are white males and ‘Women And People Of Color Are Going To Save This Nation From Psychopath Bigot Trump’”?

    Also Steve, do you think Anthony and Huma will get over this hiccup in their marriage and be able to put it all behind them and one day look back and laugh about all this?

    • Troll: CK
    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    It was all a scheme, they're going to drink champaign to Huma's good fortune.
    , @Anonymous
    I first saw Cox's byline on dippy light-entertainment pieces for indie rock scenesters in the East Village (this was in the B.D. period, Before Dunham). Then she acquired some meretricious attention by interviewing/publicizing the "Washingtonienne" blogger, a hapa Capitol Hill functionary who was turning mid-priced tricks on the side. This was in that blog briefly owned by Gawker but which even they decided wasn't worth owning, shortly after Cox somehow got hired at TIME Magazine. If she's contributed to the scholarship on literally anything since, I wasn't aware of it. I would be surprised to hear a description of her c.v. extending past "SWPL-society leech." And this in the year 2016 an intellectual makes?
  14. I agree that Trump’s trade policies would be the most difficult part of his agenda to implement. I can’t see t-shirt and television factories magically relocating to the US but I welcome being proved wrong.

    If Trump builds the wall, expels the gang bangers and stops Middle East nation building he’ll go down as one of the all-time greats.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    I can see that happening, but sadly for the wrong reasons. Automation is coming on strong to the point it is replacing even low cost labor. Foxconn in China has almost a million factory workers, but as cheap as these workers are, they have announced a trial run to replace 20,000 workers in one of their plants with automated equipment. As technology advances we start to approach a point where raw material and tooling drives most of the cost, overwhelming labor costs. What they call "dark factories" (because there are no humans running most of the production, you save on electricity by leaving most of the lights off except where you need them) can increasingly be placed close to the consumers. With some small environmental and labor practice penalty tariffs to compensate for Chines shortcuts in manufacturing, the stuff can come back to the US.
    The sad part is that it won't make many jobs. Some analysts are seeing 50% of all jobs being automated out of existence in 20 years. We won't be able to afford present trade deficits because we will need to keep production in the country in order to be able to pay the Purple Wage to all those consumers who effectively will never have a real job.
    Speculation, but check back with me in 20 years.
    , @RadicalCenter
    The factories won't return here due to magic. A hefty tariff -- phased in gradually -- will change the economic incentives substantially. (A "border-adjusted" national sales tax, in place of the income tax, would tend to have a similar effect if set high enough.)
  15. @Tiny Duck
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article112632598.

    If you vote for Trump you are a bad person

    I usually ignore Tiny Duck, but this one is just waiting for an answer.

    If you vote for Trump you are a bad person

    We are not just “bad”, we are “DEPLORABLE!!!!!”

  16. @Spotted Toad
    The problem with Romney's campaign was that the closest he came to a big picture message was the 47 percent speech.

    The whole point of the GOPe is to prevent the serfs from conceiving of the big picture, so this is hardly a surprise.

  17. @Tiny Duck
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article112632598.

    If you vote for Trump you are a bad person

    I saw this big frog take down a little duck in a swamp this summer. One gulp. I took it as a good omen.

  18. Trump is planning to use the tariff as a threat to get China to decontrol its currency.

    Doing so is a real win-win because it will bring some jobs back to the United States while creating investment opportunities and letting globalists in China look like the reasonable technocrats of an aspiring superpower successfully negotiating with a madman.

    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    "Trump is planning to use the tariff as a threat to get China to decontrol its currency."

    At the very least to establish a balance of trade. Actual surpluses must sooner or later come when as a society the US is finally forced to stop consuming more than it produces. That would mean an increase in exports, including manufactured goods, and thus a likely increase in manufacturing employment, but unfortunately it would also mean a further fall in the average standard of living, which is what happens when you stop consuming more than you produce. Still, the sooner the better.
  19. @Arclight
    It's a good one, but this sort of calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it's not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I'm afraid.

    If Trump had come out of the gate like that he wouldn’t have gotten an audience.

    • Disagree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Good fucking grief. Do some of you ever stop with the slave mentality around here?
    , @Anon
    Perhaps so, but at any point in past 5 months, he could have committed to a path of being on-message, much like the above ad. If he had, he would likely be favorite at this point.
  20. @Arclight
    It's a good one, but this sort of calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it's not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I'm afraid.

    calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it’s not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I’m afraid.

    A narrow popular vote loss would be fine. A 1% loss would actually win Trump the presidency. It’s a 3-5% popular vote loss that he’s facing in current polls and that’s going to elect Hillary.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Because the repeated LA Times polls showing Trump ahead nationally don't count?

    He's ahead of the rapefugee-importer by more than four points nationwide in the latest LAT poll.
  21. 1. Romney speaks conservatism as a second language.

    2. Romney is a bit too buttoned down to do a passable impression of “tribune of the plebs”.

    3. COMPETENCE is not a platform. Ask Michael Dukakis.

    4. You go to the polls with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Things would be looking a lot different if the GOPe and pundit class had united behind Trump, instead of continuing to fight him tooth and nail.
  22. Interesting. This is an abridged version of my very favorite video, which has been kicking around the internet for about a month. I don’t know if this came from the campaign or some internet warrior. Anybody know who did the original?

  23. @Busby
    1. Romney speaks conservatism as a second language.

    2. Romney is a bit too buttoned down to do a passable impression of "tribune of the plebs".

    3. COMPETENCE is not a platform. Ask Michael Dukakis.

    4. You go to the polls with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had.

    Things would be looking a lot different if the GOPe and pundit class had united behind Trump, instead of continuing to fight him tooth and nail.

    • Agree: reiner Tor, TWS
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Heck, things would be looking different if just the GOPe hadn't actively tried to sabotage him.

    Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer pens a column in Jeff Bezos' blog announcing that he will not vote for Trump.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ari-fleischer-heres-how-i-figured-out-whom-to-vote-for/2016/11/04/7bcee1ec-a1fd-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#comments
    , @James Braxton
    But they are the corrupt establishment. So that would have been impossible.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Uh, yes it would have. If they had been solidly united behind Trump from the get go, he wouldn't be the current GOP nominee, and we'd be seeing a Cruz vs. Hillary race or Jeb! vs. Hillary.

    Ironically, the four minute selectively edited video from Michael Moore's new documentary has gone a long way to help explaining a Trumpian coherent, big picture worldview.

    In other words, I'll be voting for Trump on Tuesday because Michael Moore endorsed him and persuaded me that I should vote for a person who's not a Romney globalist, pro-Wall Street, pro-Invade and Invite the world, etc.

    thank you, Mr. Moore, for endorsing Trump.
    , @AnotherDad

    Things would be looking a lot different if the GOPe and pundit class had united behind Trump, instead of continuing to fight him tooth and nail.
     
    Yes. And inexcusable.

    A--no *the*--key task for folks of a nationalist mind in the event Trump fails to pull this out is to carefully keep and settle scores with all the traitors, cucks, and "never Trumpers". Expose them. Denounce them. Work against them. Make it unacceptable for Republicans and conservatives to work with them. Boycott them. Never vote for them even if they are the lesser of two evils. Make it impossible for such "Republicans"--what a joke, "Republicans" who don't even know what a "republican" is--to win, ergo effectively grind at them until they are gone and the Republican party becomes a nationalist party that at least vaguely represents its voters.
  24. @The Anti-Gnostic
    If Trump had come out of the gate like that he wouldn't have gotten an audience.

    Good fucking grief. Do some of you ever stop with the slave mentality around here?

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Sorry AG - my last comment was directed at Arclight
  25. Sailer you faggot cuck, fuck you.

    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    This is NOT the comments section at Chateau Heartiste
    , @Anonymous
    Sheesh. I thought Ron was shutting down blatantly crude commentary like that with no substance at all.
  26. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    All these years it seemed Trump was just a flamboyant real estate developer and producer of beauty pageants. But now it’s apparent he’d been paying attention to all sorts of subjects all along. This comes as something of a surprise. He actually has a coherent world view unlike most others who offer disconnected homilies about this or that small issue. What did Romney stand for? Can anybody remember?

  27. @Jack Hanson
    Good fucking grief. Do some of you ever stop with the slave mentality around here?

    Sorry AG – my last comment was directed at Arclight

  28. re the politics of tariff setting: how about a “wage-price equalization tax” on imports from low-wage countries like China? The idea being to offset the wage advantage these countries enjoy in labor-intensive manufacturing industries? Thus, in the case of developed countries like Canada or UK, there would be little or no tariff, while the tariffs on imports from middle-income countries like Mexico would be less than from ultra low-wage countries like China or Vietnam.

    This would be an empirical, evidence based criterion. Sausage wouldn’t smell so bad.

    • Replies: @M
    Means if countries like Greece tried to deflate their labour costs by devaluing their currency, to gain more competitiveness as a less efficient economy, then they'd have more difficulties exporting. That's that's actually the intention I suppose. I'm mentioning it just as a basketcase European country where most people seem to agree that dropping the Euro and going down this route would be the best course for them.

    Long term, if it were the international norm, I guess you would want to use PPP wages after tax. Otherwise you'd probably see more countries moving to a high wage, high tax, high cost of living norm, to game the system. Fake high wage economies with lower PPP wages.

    It also wouldn't make as much sense to allow minimum wage work in a nation, topped up with tax credits and in-work benefits, if it would impact tariffs negatively, so central governments would set policy to prevent that and limit labour market participation in favour of just straight up long term unemployment benefits.
    , @anon
    yes - balanced trade

    that way both sides can have a middle class domestic economy without a balance of payments problem
    , @Alden
    Great idea.
  29. I wish he had made these arguments during the debates, especially the first debate.

    For the Republican side, this election has never been about Trump, but the issues that only he had the guts and patriotism to raise. It is the Democrats who wanted this election to be about Trump the man, and they got what they wanted. It’s too late for that to change.

    • Replies: @anon
    apparently there are huge numbers watching his live speeches online now - it seems he may have built his audience first with the showman stuff and is now hitting them between the eyes

    maybe
  30. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Things would be looking a lot different if the GOPe and pundit class had united behind Trump, instead of continuing to fight him tooth and nail.

    Heck, things would be looking different if just the GOPe hadn’t actively tried to sabotage him.

    Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer pens a column in Jeff Bezos’ blog announcing that he will not vote for Trump.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ari-fleischer-heres-how-i-figured-out-whom-to-vote-for/2016/11/04/7bcee1ec-a1fd-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#comments

    • Replies: @Rod1963
    The GOP was always against Trump and those like him. It was always hostile to the economic and social well being of blue collar and middle-class whites. In general it only catered to the wealthy and political class.

    Look at Romney, that goon's policies were only attractive to the wealthy. If you were middle-class or even upper middle-class, he offered you just more ot the same. More wars, more off-shoring, more H1-B's, etc. In short a kick in the teeth.

    Not to mention he was from a family of hatche men men for the GOP, his old man helped deep six Goldwater. Romney himself tried everything to kneecap Trump.

    That said, at best the GOP it was the right arm of the political class, the left arm being the Democrats. IOW a distinction without a difference.
    , @Stan Adams

    Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer pens a column in Jeff Bezos’ blog announcing that he will not vote for Trump.
     
    It's hard to call the news a shock. Fleischer always was a smug, pompous little prick.

    He was the White House press secretary in Bush's first term, when 9/11 and the Iraq Attaq overshadowed nearly everything else. At a time when the White House was shoveling some of the most rancid bullshit (the Iraqis will greet our boys with kisses and flowers! the war will be over in a week!) ever dumped on the American public (until the Obama years, that is), he was the shoveler-in-chief. His snotty persona didn't help Bush's image.

    How many Americans died in needless wars that you helped sell to the public, Ari? How many came back alive, but physically and psychologically devastated? How many deadly lies did you tell?
  31. It was a great ad – runs directly counter to the bleating narrative of the Left and NeverTrump Right that Trump is an authoritarian. That was just straight up meat and potatoes populism.

    It would be very fitting if Michigan or Pennsylvania give Trump the victory. The rust belt will rise again!

  32. HuffPo headline now blames white guys for America’s problems. Yesterday a horse’s ass on MSNBC (the former Wonkette) also blamed white guys. This is the smell of desperation on the Left. The hilarious thing to this brown guy is, I wouldn’t have considered immigrating to America 30 years ago if it hadn’t been predominantly white.

  33. @IHTG
    ^Hey Unz, are Tiny Duck and Luke Sellers the same person? Please check.

    Yeah, Unz, your button system doesn’t work so well when a troll can keep posting in short order under multiple pseudonyms, but the other commenters can only use the Troll button once they’ve posted 10x and only once per hour…

    Also, Unz, your button system doesn’t work so well when you don’t take action against the trolls as you promised you would!

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Yeah, Unz, your button system doesn’t work so well when a troll can keep posting in short order under multiple pseudonyms, but the other commenters can only use the Troll button once they’ve posted 10x and only once per hour…

    Also, Unz, your button system doesn’t work so well when you don’t take action against the trolls as you promised you would!
     

    Geez, what's with all the snark?
    , @Dissident
    Don't you realize that by responding to trolls at all, you are giving them what they want? If trolls see that they are ignored completely, they will likely go away.
  34. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Things would be looking a lot different if the GOPe and pundit class had united behind Trump, instead of continuing to fight him tooth and nail.

    But they are the corrupt establishment. So that would have been impossible.

  35. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Things would be looking a lot different if the GOPe and pundit class had united behind Trump, instead of continuing to fight him tooth and nail.

    Uh, yes it would have. If they had been solidly united behind Trump from the get go, he wouldn’t be the current GOP nominee, and we’d be seeing a Cruz vs. Hillary race or Jeb! vs. Hillary.

    Ironically, the four minute selectively edited video from Michael Moore’s new documentary has gone a long way to help explaining a Trumpian coherent, big picture worldview.

    In other words, I’ll be voting for Trump on Tuesday because Michael Moore endorsed him and persuaded me that I should vote for a person who’s not a Romney globalist, pro-Wall Street, pro-Invade and Invite the world, etc.

    thank you, Mr. Moore, for endorsing Trump.

  36. We’ll never really know how 2008 or 2012 would have turned out with candidates who actually prosecuted the case against Obama, rather than being cowed by the media and the dreaded R word.

    They must really be concerned. NBC had a piece on its morning program today about “militias” gearing up for the election, with the requisite shots of the Trump sign next to the Confederate Battle Flag and asking them why they like Trump. How many Americans are in militias that drill? Maybe 2,000? The point is clear: BE SCARED SUBURBAN SOCCER MOMS!

    In the future, fellas if you’re out there – don’t participate in these things or even acknowledge your existence to the media. They’re not your friends, they’re not there to listen to you or present your views fairly, and they’re using you to destroy everything you care about.

  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The government doesn’t seem to have a problem with agriculture tariffs. For example, American beekeepers were able to get the government to impose a tariff on Chinese honey that tripled its price in 2001, and little Chinese honey has been imported since then legally. This was followed by the largest food fraud case in US history, where a German food trading company laundered Chinese honey into the US:

    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-honey-launderers–uncovering-the-largest-food-fraud-in-u-s–history-171454285.html

    The US ag sector in general is quite favored and coddled in general by the government with subsidies and tariffs, so it doesn’t seem that the government has a problem with tariffs in principle. It could be that the government regards US predominance in military, energy (the US is now the largest producer of petrol and nat gas), and food power as sufficient for geopolitical primacy, and that reducing industrial production domestically can assuage domestic environmental concerns as well as allow the US to lead global climate change efforts abroad that foster greater global cooperation or acquiescence and promote a US run global order.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_power#United_States

  38. @Arclight
    It's a good one, but this sort of calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it's not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I'm afraid.

    It’s a good one, but this sort of calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it’s not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I’m afraid.

    Yep. Very sad. Just an inability to be displinced about the most fundamental thing–what the election is about. It’s not about Trump–at least if he wants to win–it’s about the interest of Americans. We knew, he knew that the media would spend as much time as possible on him, trying to smear him and most of all avoid letting it be contest of ideas: elite-globalism vs. middle-class nationalism. Yet Trump was unable to avoid taking the bait and letting the focus drift off his message.

    • Replies: @Arclight
    Exactly - he gave the media far too much ammunition with his tendency to go off-script and say something they could pounce on and then he tries to act like he didn't say it in the first place.

    It's a testament to just how weak Hilary is as a candidate that a guy armed only with his persona and a completely undisciplined campaign with a fraction of the campaign infrastructure the Democratic Party has in place is this close to winning. Truly a huge missed opportunity.

    Unless there is some other late-breaking piece of negative news about Hilary he's going to come up a bit short.
    , @Opinionator
    and most of all avoid letting it be contest of ideas: elite-globalism vs. middle-class nationalism.

    This is a great way to frame it.

    In defense of Trump, a lot of the media has tried to drown out the meaty public policy issues with made-up scandals.
    , @SFG
    Sailer's argument, which I agree with, is that someone disciplined enough to stay on message wouldn't have been daring enough to break the party's silence on immigration. Ideally, we'd get a Goldwater-like Trump to break the ice followed by an adoption of the message by a Nixon-like character TBD (Tom Cotton? Kris Kobach?) a few elections later who knows how to go moderate enough to win.

    However, Hillary's going to open the gates and let lots of immigrants in to create new Democrats, so we no longer have time.
  39. The add is good. Much closer to what i’ve been suggesting and ergo in my opinion better, than most of what we’ve seen.

    But i’d still like to see two points hit a lot harder:

    1) Mass immigration is flat out incompatible with rising working\middle class wages, living standards and quality of life. So immigration and amnesty cheerleaders like Hillary are not for “working families” but in fact their enemies.

    2) Hillary is filthy rich from taking bribes\payola from Wall Street and foreign banks and governments. She’s a Wall Street globalist tool.

    I can’t for the life of me–considering all the other random shit Trup has said–figure out, why Trump has not pointed out the Hillary “the public servant” is herself filthy stinking rich … without producing anything. Entirely because she sells public access\favors for her private gain. Some “public servant”.

    • Replies: @IHTG
    He has another ad addressing your second point.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1wiCtcK3gg
    , @The Practical Conservative
    He already has been running those ads about how a public servant got wealthy. For weeks now.
    , @James Braxton
    He points it out all the time. At his rallies, at the debates (where he challenged her to give some of her millions to her own campaign) in his TV commercials...I don't know if you are paying very close attention.
    , @EriK
    You haven't been following the campaign very carefully have you? Don't worry, you've got lots of company.
  40. 1. Snowflakes gotta melt.

    2. Asians love America- as it is.

    3. Tokenism is so 1970s.

    4. Blacks love America- as it is.

    5. Hispanics love their real estate.

    6. Trump wanted his reality show. He got it. It was never about any of you.

  41. Trump, the embodiment of Citizenism.

    – Steven J.

  42. Erdogan’s allies were making contribution to Hillary, per latest Wikileaks.

  43. @The Anti-Gnostic
    If Trump had come out of the gate like that he wouldn't have gotten an audience.

    Perhaps so, but at any point in past 5 months, he could have committed to a path of being on-message, much like the above ad. If he had, he would likely be favorite at this point.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  44. @AnotherDad
    The add is good. Much closer to what i've been suggesting and ergo in my opinion better, than most of what we've seen.

    But i'd still like to see two points hit a lot harder:

    1) Mass immigration is flat out incompatible with rising working\middle class wages, living standards and quality of life. So immigration and amnesty cheerleaders like Hillary are not for "working families" but in fact their enemies.

    2) Hillary is filthy rich from taking bribes\payola from Wall Street and foreign banks and governments. She's a Wall Street globalist tool.

    I can't for the life of me--considering all the other random shit Trup has said--figure out, why Trump has not pointed out the Hillary "the public servant" is herself filthy stinking rich ... without producing anything. Entirely because she sells public access\favors for her private gain. Some "public servant".

    He has another ad addressing your second point.

  45. @AnotherDad

    It’s a good one, but this sort of calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it’s not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I’m afraid.
     
    Yep. Very sad. Just an inability to be displinced about the most fundamental thing--what the election is about. It's not about Trump--at least if he wants to win--it's about the interest of Americans. We knew, he knew that the media would spend as much time as possible on him, trying to smear him and most of all avoid letting it be contest of ideas: elite-globalism vs. middle-class nationalism. Yet Trump was unable to avoid taking the bait and letting the focus drift off his message.

    Exactly – he gave the media far too much ammunition with his tendency to go off-script and say something they could pounce on and then he tries to act like he didn’t say it in the first place.

    It’s a testament to just how weak Hilary is as a candidate that a guy armed only with his persona and a completely undisciplined campaign with a fraction of the campaign infrastructure the Democratic Party has in place is this close to winning. Truly a huge missed opportunity.

    Unless there is some other late-breaking piece of negative news about Hilary he’s going to come up a bit short.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The problem is that they would have switched off his microphone if he didn't say anything controversial.
    , @C
    I always love the "undisciplined campaign" shtick.

    You only think its undisciplined because the media has made it seem so over the course of 9 months. Its been an incredible campaign run by a small team at a fraction of the cost with incredible results. And it might win. Just because Trump had a couple real blunders (around 90% were made-up nonsense) doesn't mean it was "undisciplined".
    , @Sean
    A British bookmaker has paid out on a Hillary win, yet the odds on Trump winning are falling fast. He took the right tack with the early full-on shock tactics to get the masses and become the candidate. Coming from behind in the final furlong with a more measured style aiming at convincing the vital undecided minority is perfect pacing. There was no other way for him, and no one else with the wherewithal dared to try.

    If Trump does not quite do something that absolutely no one thought he had any chance of coming anywhere near doing when he started, it's hardly evidence of avoidable strategic error on his part.

    , @Daniel H
    >>.......with his tendency to go off-script and say something they could pounce on and then he tries to act like he didn’t say it in the first place.

    Off-the-cuff, speaking from the gut is a feature, not a bug.
  46. If these people are raking in millions, why would they have to share a laptop?

  47. @AnotherDad
    The add is good. Much closer to what i've been suggesting and ergo in my opinion better, than most of what we've seen.

    But i'd still like to see two points hit a lot harder:

    1) Mass immigration is flat out incompatible with rising working\middle class wages, living standards and quality of life. So immigration and amnesty cheerleaders like Hillary are not for "working families" but in fact their enemies.

    2) Hillary is filthy rich from taking bribes\payola from Wall Street and foreign banks and governments. She's a Wall Street globalist tool.

    I can't for the life of me--considering all the other random shit Trup has said--figure out, why Trump has not pointed out the Hillary "the public servant" is herself filthy stinking rich ... without producing anything. Entirely because she sells public access\favors for her private gain. Some "public servant".

    He already has been running those ads about how a public servant got wealthy. For weeks now.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    No you see, we are always doomed no matter what and furthermore engaging in slave mentality is the way to win.
    , @AnotherDad

    He already has been running those ads about how a public servant got wealthy. For weeks now.
     
    Good to hear. I'd love to be completely mistaken.

    I don't generally watch broadcast TV--unless my son has a Seahawks game on. But while I was at my cousin's and occasionally at my uncles' for the corn harvest week before last, I did see a fair amount of broadcast TV during the World Series and some football games. Trump had a spot with the mother of a man murdered by an illegal alien. And one other spot I can not now even recall--I think something positive but pretty generic about Trump putting America to work again.

    I didn't see anything that was sharply on the immigration issue or sharply on Hillary getting rich selling out public access\favors to Wall Street.

    I thought it was the absolutely glaring missed opportunity during the debate both when Hillary was blabbing about her middle class small business dad and when she talked about her "public service". Was just waiting for Trump:

    "If have to laugh when I hear Hillary talk about her 'public service'. What you won't hear from Hillary is that she is a very rich woman--not as rich as me, but really very, very, rich. She and Bill left the White House claiming to be "broke", but are now worth 150 million dollars. Did she build a better mousetrap? did she create some new app for the iPhone? did she build condos and hotels like I did? No, no and no. She got rich by collecting bribes from Wall Street and foreign banks. They pay her a quarter million dollars to make a speech. Seriously. Can you think of anyone who actually wants to listen to Hillary speak--thinks she has anything interesting to say? Heck she can't get anyone to show up at her rallies where she's speaking for free! No, this is a great way for Hillary to collect bribes. Goldman Sachs pays Hillary a quarter million dollars for a "speech" and they know Hillary is looking out for their interests. Hillary got rich--not by making anything of value, but by selling something, something that belongs to *you*access to and favors from *your* government. Hillary's idea of 'public service' is you the public serving her need to get rich."
  48. If Crooked Hillary were running on Trump’s platform, and he on Hillary’s, I would vote Hillary. In this election the stark differences between the nationalist and globalist agendas have been laid on the table for all to review. It is no time to quibble about differences in candidate qualification. This is a referendum on priorities, not personalities.

  49. @Tiny Duck
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article112632598.

    If you vote for Trump you are a bad person

    Bad link, Mister Duck. My kudos to you for having, like the Donald, brought down unspeakable pee onto your heads for months —both out in the hustings and here in these threads— for saying what you have to say.

    Except in The Donald’s case, it’s what he actually believes (one would hope) and in your case it’s a vastly instructive goof that you’ve kept up for months, even years! Amazing how many otherwise smart people hereabouts have misconstrued where you’re really coming from (one would hope). Live long and prosper.

  50. Based on this video from Reddit user trumpeffect:

    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    Ah Ha! Thank you. I've been wondering who produced that wonderful video.
  51. This is how Trump is going to deal with China.

    Watch this. It’s good.

  52. @Luke Lea
    re the politics of tariff setting: how about a "wage-price equalization tax" on imports from low-wage countries like China? The idea being to offset the wage advantage these countries enjoy in labor-intensive manufacturing industries? Thus, in the case of developed countries like Canada or UK, there would be little or no tariff, while the tariffs on imports from middle-income countries like Mexico would be less than from ultra low-wage countries like China or Vietnam.

    This would be an empirical, evidence based criterion. Sausage wouldn't smell so bad.

    Means if countries like Greece tried to deflate their labour costs by devaluing their currency, to gain more competitiveness as a less efficient economy, then they’d have more difficulties exporting. That’s that’s actually the intention I suppose. I’m mentioning it just as a basketcase European country where most people seem to agree that dropping the Euro and going down this route would be the best course for them.

    Long term, if it were the international norm, I guess you would want to use PPP wages after tax. Otherwise you’d probably see more countries moving to a high wage, high tax, high cost of living norm, to game the system. Fake high wage economies with lower PPP wages.

    It also wouldn’t make as much sense to allow minimum wage work in a nation, topped up with tax credits and in-work benefits, if it would impact tariffs negatively, so central governments would set policy to prevent that and limit labour market participation in favour of just straight up long term unemployment benefits.

    • Agree: bomag
  53. Leonard Pitts may or may not be a bad person, I’ll assume he isn’t. But he has only modest abilities when it comes to thinking through issues. There’s scant profit to be gained from reading his opinion pieces.

  54. Jesus, now the pervert in the gimp mask is getting the first TWO comments. It sits around its mother’s basement refreshing iSteve all day.

    • Replies: @L Woods
    You say that like it's a bad thing.
    , @Eric Novak
    It sits around in an open office, surrounded by terminals and fifty other trolls awaiting orders for the day's trolling priorities.
  55. @AnotherDad
    The add is good. Much closer to what i've been suggesting and ergo in my opinion better, than most of what we've seen.

    But i'd still like to see two points hit a lot harder:

    1) Mass immigration is flat out incompatible with rising working\middle class wages, living standards and quality of life. So immigration and amnesty cheerleaders like Hillary are not for "working families" but in fact their enemies.

    2) Hillary is filthy rich from taking bribes\payola from Wall Street and foreign banks and governments. She's a Wall Street globalist tool.

    I can't for the life of me--considering all the other random shit Trup has said--figure out, why Trump has not pointed out the Hillary "the public servant" is herself filthy stinking rich ... without producing anything. Entirely because she sells public access\favors for her private gain. Some "public servant".

    He points it out all the time. At his rallies, at the debates (where he challenged her to give some of her millions to her own campaign) in his TV commercials…I don’t know if you are paying very close attention.

  56. re the politics of tariff setting: how about a “wage-price equalization tax” on imports from low-wage countries like China? The idea being to offset the wage advantage these countries enjoy in labor-intensive manufacturing industries? Thus, in the case of developed countries like Canada or UK, there would be little or no tariff, while the tariffs on imports from middle-income countries like Mexico would be less than from ultra low-wage countries like China or Vietnam.

    This would be an empirical, evidence based criterion. Sausage wouldn’t smell so bad.

    I was going to suggest exactly this, except 1) I wouldn’t have sounded so economically literate, and 2) it violates the KISS/”no exceptions” thing. Plus you’d have China routing all their goods through (high wage country here) and the like.

    Truly a huge missed opportunity.

    A mope like Boosh or Rubio probably would have lost.

  57. @Arclight
    Exactly - he gave the media far too much ammunition with his tendency to go off-script and say something they could pounce on and then he tries to act like he didn't say it in the first place.

    It's a testament to just how weak Hilary is as a candidate that a guy armed only with his persona and a completely undisciplined campaign with a fraction of the campaign infrastructure the Democratic Party has in place is this close to winning. Truly a huge missed opportunity.

    Unless there is some other late-breaking piece of negative news about Hilary he's going to come up a bit short.

    The problem is that they would have switched off his microphone if he didn’t say anything controversial.

  58. @The Practical Conservative
    He already has been running those ads about how a public servant got wealthy. For weeks now.

    No you see, we are always doomed no matter what and furthermore engaging in slave mentality is the way to win.

  59. “My recollection of Romney’s campaign is that he generally lacked an intellectual framework for tying together his a la carte issues.”

    I always find your apologia and man crush on Romney amazing, considering what you claim is your key issue.

    Romney was a NE Liberal who pushed an AWB, state funded abortion, and amnesty in his state, as well as socialized medicine. The only issue he was willing to go to the mat for was tax cuts for his buddies.

    Talk about “lacked an intellectual framework”.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I called that one early. Romney putting Seamus on the roof in a crate for a roadtrip & Ann spending $70,000.00 to transport her horse to London, to be ridden by an Olympic rider, was just yucky & stupid. Plus, Romney hazing the poor, fellow student at Cranbrook School by cutting his long hair, was just gross-me-out. Nuance can knock someone out.

    Now, the baffling part for me concerning Clinton is: she was defeated by Obama in 2008! No one wanted her then, and her & Bill's bizarre relationship grossed-people-out back then, too. And, now, with the facts we know (Brazile bs/millions from Wall St., millions from Saudis, Qataris, etc.) through Wikileaks & Weinerleaks, that plain-jane Democrats would still say "we're with her, " knowing she is busted, baffles me. Is it disbelief? What if she caused the death of your soldier child in the Middle East with her lack of interest in how to actually, stop and not exacerbate the implosion in that region ?

    I remember distinctly, celebrity and uber-wealthy liberals just going on and on about how Obama was sooooo much better. Yet, now, they are so appalled that people are wavering (she is the albatross that they didn't want back in 2007-8) over their support. Hypocrisy much? I mean, it will be a bitter pill to swallow that all the millions that all the celebrities and glitterati of the coasts gave to Hillary was money thrown into the Global Climate Change sea. Tides going out; surf's up in 6 hours!

  60. @Luke Sellers
    Trump is running for President because white men are scared.



    We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared.



    White men are the biggest cowards in the United States.

    > We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared

    Agreed. Scared male people who think they are white must stop using their mind control powers. Their evil creations and include implicit bias and structural racism. These are the forces that compel guns held by young male black bodies to fire towards other black bodies, killing them.

    Some believe that young black men, like everyone else, make choices. This is deplorable, only racists think that such people could be anything other than victims.

  61. I find it pretty astonishing that people are dismissing Trump’s chances in this election.

    He’s down by only 2% in the national poll average at this point.

    Any number of factors can put him over the top:

    Generally, in a change election, voters break toward the challenger.

    Turnout for Trump’s base may be distinctly higher than expected because of their far greater enthusiasm — and turnout for Hillary distinctly lower because of far lower enthusiasm than for, say, Obama.

    There may well be a Shy Trump effect, as there was in Brexit (which accounted for at minimum a 4%, and perhaps up to 7%, discrepancy between the final poll averages and the electoral outcome.)

    Any one of these factors could take Trump over the top, and in a perfect storm in which all played a role, could give him a dominant win.

    Of course it may be that none of these things really affect the outcome, and that he loses.

    But from my point of view, the factors that are now unknowable will be the decisive ones in this election. I can see no reason to assume his chances are worse — or better — than 50-50, given that we can’t know how they will work out. A 2% difference, given all the unknowables in this highly variable and unprecedented election seems negligible to me.

    • Replies: @JohnnyWalker123
    I'm also thinking that there could be a "Shy Tory" factor that shouldn't be discounted. In the Brexit final vote, Leave outperformed polls by +6 pts. That's enormous for such a highly polled vote. I think there might be quite a few Trump voters who either aren't responding to the polls or falsely claiming they're undecided.

    When the Brexit vote happened, all the undecideds broke for Leave. I'm hoping the same thing will happen on Tuesday. We need this to happen.
    , @candid_observer
    One other point to make my case that it's the unknowable factors that will decide this election, and that a 2% difference is negligible:

    It's very hard to come up with unknowable factors that would favor Clinton, rather than Trump.

    The only thing I can think of is that she has a far stronger GOTV apparatus than Trump. But is it plausible that her current GOTV effort is better than was Obama's, or that Trump's is so much worse than Romney's? I would guess that on balance the far more significant factor would be enthusiasm -- which Trump enjoys, over both Hillary and Romney. And, frankly, GOTV is probably a lot more important for Democrats than Republicans in general, because Democrats have less conscientious minorities to deal with.

    If all the unknowables favor Trump, and none Clinton, then whatever lower apriori probability a 2% deficit might suggest should readily be overcome by any one of these unknowables -- if of course they go through the formality of coming into existence.

    , @Seamus Padraig
    You forgot to mention the fact--revealed by Wikileaks--that pro-Dem polling firms have been deliberately skewing the results by over-counting Democrats and under-counting Republicans, as per John Podesta's orders. I really think Trump can pull it off.
    , @Paul Mendez

    A 2% difference, given all the unknowables in this highly variable and unprecedented election seems negligible to me.
     
    You're forgetting that a Republican candidate needs to be spotted 2% or more to compensate for Democratic election fraud.
    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    So, is the game to maintain hope as long as possible?
    , @colm
    Sailer and his followers are Bushites who would rather see Ms. Clinton win, so they have put on eyepads.
  62. I expect Trump to lose and if he wins I will be happy to own up to being wrong.

    However Hillary’s campaign hasn’t been for anything, just against Donald, and that will show up if she wins.

    The problems we have as a nation aren’t going away. The establishment isn’t going to be able to solve them.

    • Replies: @MG
    I have the opposite sentiment. At this stage, looking at the enthusiasm for him in the past week and with the wind at his back, I expect Trump to win. The desperation I now see on the Left also strengthens my feeling.
    , @ben tillman

    The problems we have as a nation aren’t going away. The establishment isn’t going to be able to solve them.
     
    The Establishment's only problem (in the short term, which s all it considers), is the presence of enough white people to vote them out of office and into prison. That is a problem that they can easily solve.
  63. Holy crap that is good ad.

    As others have said, he needed to be doing this from day 1 post-Convention. Stay on message, stay on message.

    That is the art of politics — saying the same thing, 50 times over, and staying on message (and making it fun and interesting).

    HRC is a tremendously weak politician, but she learned that robot style.

    Trump has re-invented politics in the short term, but he needed to learn robot style as well.

  64. @AnotherDad

    It’s a good one, but this sort of calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it’s not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I’m afraid.
     
    Yep. Very sad. Just an inability to be displinced about the most fundamental thing--what the election is about. It's not about Trump--at least if he wants to win--it's about the interest of Americans. We knew, he knew that the media would spend as much time as possible on him, trying to smear him and most of all avoid letting it be contest of ideas: elite-globalism vs. middle-class nationalism. Yet Trump was unable to avoid taking the bait and letting the focus drift off his message.

    and most of all avoid letting it be contest of ideas: elite-globalism vs. middle-class nationalism.

    This is a great way to frame it.

    In defense of Trump, a lot of the media has tried to drown out the meaty public policy issues with made-up scandals.

  65. @SPMoore8
    I expect Trump to lose and if he wins I will be happy to own up to being wrong.

    However Hillary's campaign hasn't been for anything, just against Donald, and that will show up if she wins.

    The problems we have as a nation aren't going away. The establishment isn't going to be able to solve them.

    I have the opposite sentiment. At this stage, looking at the enthusiasm for him in the past week and with the wind at his back, I expect Trump to win. The desperation I now see on the Left also strengthens my feeling.

  66. @Spotted Toad
    The problem with Romney's campaign was that the closest he came to a big picture message was the 47 percent speech.

    A big issue for Romney in 2012 was that “the Russians are coming.”

    In 2016, Hillary says that Trump is a Russian stooge and that “the Russians are coming.”

    2012 : Romney came in second.

    2016 : The Shape of Election Results to Come for Hillary?

  67. @Luke Sellers
    Trump is running for President because white men are scared.



    We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared.



    White men are the biggest cowards in the United States.

    These trolls are just “Donut” having fun.

  68. @candid_observer
    I find it pretty astonishing that people are dismissing Trump's chances in this election.

    He's down by only 2% in the national poll average at this point.

    Any number of factors can put him over the top:

    Generally, in a change election, voters break toward the challenger.

    Turnout for Trump's base may be distinctly higher than expected because of their far greater enthusiasm -- and turnout for Hillary distinctly lower because of far lower enthusiasm than for, say, Obama.

    There may well be a Shy Trump effect, as there was in Brexit (which accounted for at minimum a 4%, and perhaps up to 7%, discrepancy between the final poll averages and the electoral outcome.)

    Any one of these factors could take Trump over the top, and in a perfect storm in which all played a role, could give him a dominant win.

    Of course it may be that none of these things really affect the outcome, and that he loses.

    But from my point of view, the factors that are now unknowable will be the decisive ones in this election. I can see no reason to assume his chances are worse -- or better -- than 50-50, given that we can't know how they will work out. A 2% difference, given all the unknowables in this highly variable and unprecedented election seems negligible to me.

    I’m also thinking that there could be a “Shy Tory” factor that shouldn’t be discounted. In the Brexit final vote, Leave outperformed polls by +6 pts. That’s enormous for such a highly polled vote. I think there might be quite a few Trump voters who either aren’t responding to the polls or falsely claiming they’re undecided.

    When the Brexit vote happened, all the undecideds broke for Leave. I’m hoping the same thing will happen on Tuesday. We need this to happen.

    • Replies: @C
    This is likely the case. Remember, the white working class was undercounted in the exit polls in 2012. They were the hidden voters that likely allowed Romney to go from a 1 point loss to a 4 point loss. If Trump steals enough from Hillary to make up for his lost colleged-educated white and then some (he should) while millenials and blacks sit out, there is your Brexit.
    , @reiner Tor

    I’m also thinking that there could be a “Shy Tory” factor that shouldn’t be discounted. In the Brexit final vote, Leave outperformed polls by +6 pts. That’s enormous for such a highly polled vote. I think there might be quite a few Trump voters who either aren’t responding to the polls or falsely claiming they’re undecided.
     
    There might be some who falsely claim to be voting Hillary. That was the case with Brexit, some people must've been truly undecided, and it's impossible that all of them broke for Brexit. Some people must have told the pollsters that they were against Brexit when in fact they were for it.

    Expect more and more people to claim to be voting left when in fact they vote the hard right, as we move towards the soft totalitarianism, where some comrades become suspicious by not clapping enthusiastically enough.
  69. @candid_observer
    I find it pretty astonishing that people are dismissing Trump's chances in this election.

    He's down by only 2% in the national poll average at this point.

    Any number of factors can put him over the top:

    Generally, in a change election, voters break toward the challenger.

    Turnout for Trump's base may be distinctly higher than expected because of their far greater enthusiasm -- and turnout for Hillary distinctly lower because of far lower enthusiasm than for, say, Obama.

    There may well be a Shy Trump effect, as there was in Brexit (which accounted for at minimum a 4%, and perhaps up to 7%, discrepancy between the final poll averages and the electoral outcome.)

    Any one of these factors could take Trump over the top, and in a perfect storm in which all played a role, could give him a dominant win.

    Of course it may be that none of these things really affect the outcome, and that he loses.

    But from my point of view, the factors that are now unknowable will be the decisive ones in this election. I can see no reason to assume his chances are worse -- or better -- than 50-50, given that we can't know how they will work out. A 2% difference, given all the unknowables in this highly variable and unprecedented election seems negligible to me.

    One other point to make my case that it’s the unknowable factors that will decide this election, and that a 2% difference is negligible:

    It’s very hard to come up with unknowable factors that would favor Clinton, rather than Trump.

    The only thing I can think of is that she has a far stronger GOTV apparatus than Trump. But is it plausible that her current GOTV effort is better than was Obama’s, or that Trump’s is so much worse than Romney’s? I would guess that on balance the far more significant factor would be enthusiasm — which Trump enjoys, over both Hillary and Romney. And, frankly, GOTV is probably a lot more important for Democrats than Republicans in general, because Democrats have less conscientious minorities to deal with.

    If all the unknowables favor Trump, and none Clinton, then whatever lower apriori probability a 2% deficit might suggest should readily be overcome by any one of these unknowables — if of course they go through the formality of coming into existence.

    • Replies: @snorlax

    It’s very hard to come up with unknowable factors that would favor Clinton, rather than Trump.
     
    Voter fraud, which is why I remain cautiously pessimistic about the outcome.
    , @The Alarmist

    "If all the unknowables favor Trump ...."
     
    So he's got the Deplorables and likely many of the unknowables. I'm starting to like the odds.
  70. @candid_observer
    I find it pretty astonishing that people are dismissing Trump's chances in this election.

    He's down by only 2% in the national poll average at this point.

    Any number of factors can put him over the top:

    Generally, in a change election, voters break toward the challenger.

    Turnout for Trump's base may be distinctly higher than expected because of their far greater enthusiasm -- and turnout for Hillary distinctly lower because of far lower enthusiasm than for, say, Obama.

    There may well be a Shy Trump effect, as there was in Brexit (which accounted for at minimum a 4%, and perhaps up to 7%, discrepancy between the final poll averages and the electoral outcome.)

    Any one of these factors could take Trump over the top, and in a perfect storm in which all played a role, could give him a dominant win.

    Of course it may be that none of these things really affect the outcome, and that he loses.

    But from my point of view, the factors that are now unknowable will be the decisive ones in this election. I can see no reason to assume his chances are worse -- or better -- than 50-50, given that we can't know how they will work out. A 2% difference, given all the unknowables in this highly variable and unprecedented election seems negligible to me.

    You forgot to mention the fact–revealed by Wikileaks–that pro-Dem polling firms have been deliberately skewing the results by over-counting Democrats and under-counting Republicans, as per John Podesta’s orders. I really think Trump can pull it off.

    • Replies: @Kyle
    What do you have sources for this?
  71. @Luke Sellers
    Trump is running for President because white men are scared.



    We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared.



    White men are the biggest cowards in the United States.

    Trump is running for President because white men are scared.

    We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared.

    White men are the biggest cowards in the United States.

    And you’re afraid of us white men, so you must be even bigger cowards.

  72. The enthusiasm gap is going to decide this election. Mark my words. Trump to win.

  73. In the Brexit final vote, Leave outperformed polls by +6 pts.

    I believe it was more like +4. But I don’t think this effect will be replicated because the Leave campaign was aimed very much at the centre ground, because they could take the committed anti-immigration base for granted. I recall a lot of the same mood music from Drudge etc. four years ago, but the late surge never materialised. I think Trump will do worse than Romney.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Nope Brexit really did run 6 points ahead of the poll average (and 10 points ahead of early exit polls)

    However, there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US, where polls being wrong go both ways, most recently with Obama slightly outperforming the polls.

    Going in, I believed Shy Tory in this election would be worth about 2 points for Trump, but Hillary's better turnout operation would roughly offset that.

    So far, there is no sign of Hillary having a better early vote turnout operation except in Nevada, where Reid and the local unions have long had a well-oiled turnout machine, plus some evidence she has been able to turn out Orlando Puerto Ricans.

    In the end, however, I still don't see Trump winning Pennsylvania which he needs to.
  74. As a heads up, I see Tiny Duck posting on many other blogs, basically posting the same things. Although in one blog, he admits to having a micropenis (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=15157042&postID=9172977570453394288), which explains so many things about him.

  75. @candid_observer
    One other point to make my case that it's the unknowable factors that will decide this election, and that a 2% difference is negligible:

    It's very hard to come up with unknowable factors that would favor Clinton, rather than Trump.

    The only thing I can think of is that she has a far stronger GOTV apparatus than Trump. But is it plausible that her current GOTV effort is better than was Obama's, or that Trump's is so much worse than Romney's? I would guess that on balance the far more significant factor would be enthusiasm -- which Trump enjoys, over both Hillary and Romney. And, frankly, GOTV is probably a lot more important for Democrats than Republicans in general, because Democrats have less conscientious minorities to deal with.

    If all the unknowables favor Trump, and none Clinton, then whatever lower apriori probability a 2% deficit might suggest should readily be overcome by any one of these unknowables -- if of course they go through the formality of coming into existence.

    It’s very hard to come up with unknowable factors that would favor Clinton, rather than Trump.

    Voter fraud, which is why I remain cautiously pessimistic about the outcome.

  76. Voter fraud, which is why I remain cautiously pessimistic about the outcome.

    It occurs, dividing states up into electoral votes would put a serious crimp in election fraud.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    You mean a district system like ME and NE (with 2 votes per state being winner take all)? I agree.
  77. @Arclight
    Exactly - he gave the media far too much ammunition with his tendency to go off-script and say something they could pounce on and then he tries to act like he didn't say it in the first place.

    It's a testament to just how weak Hilary is as a candidate that a guy armed only with his persona and a completely undisciplined campaign with a fraction of the campaign infrastructure the Democratic Party has in place is this close to winning. Truly a huge missed opportunity.

    Unless there is some other late-breaking piece of negative news about Hilary he's going to come up a bit short.

    I always love the “undisciplined campaign” shtick.

    You only think its undisciplined because the media has made it seem so over the course of 9 months. Its been an incredible campaign run by a small team at a fraction of the cost with incredible results. And it might win. Just because Trump had a couple real blunders (around 90% were made-up nonsense) doesn’t mean it was “undisciplined”.

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Trump's campaign has a better GOTV than the RNC in 2012, but damn if you can convince some the cuck for lyfe crew on here of that.
  78. @JohnnyWalker123
    I'm also thinking that there could be a "Shy Tory" factor that shouldn't be discounted. In the Brexit final vote, Leave outperformed polls by +6 pts. That's enormous for such a highly polled vote. I think there might be quite a few Trump voters who either aren't responding to the polls or falsely claiming they're undecided.

    When the Brexit vote happened, all the undecideds broke for Leave. I'm hoping the same thing will happen on Tuesday. We need this to happen.

    This is likely the case. Remember, the white working class was undercounted in the exit polls in 2012. They were the hidden voters that likely allowed Romney to go from a 1 point loss to a 4 point loss. If Trump steals enough from Hillary to make up for his lost colleged-educated white and then some (he should) while millenials and blacks sit out, there is your Brexit.

  79. @candid_observer
    One other point to make my case that it's the unknowable factors that will decide this election, and that a 2% difference is negligible:

    It's very hard to come up with unknowable factors that would favor Clinton, rather than Trump.

    The only thing I can think of is that she has a far stronger GOTV apparatus than Trump. But is it plausible that her current GOTV effort is better than was Obama's, or that Trump's is so much worse than Romney's? I would guess that on balance the far more significant factor would be enthusiasm -- which Trump enjoys, over both Hillary and Romney. And, frankly, GOTV is probably a lot more important for Democrats than Republicans in general, because Democrats have less conscientious minorities to deal with.

    If all the unknowables favor Trump, and none Clinton, then whatever lower apriori probability a 2% deficit might suggest should readily be overcome by any one of these unknowables -- if of course they go through the formality of coming into existence.

    “If all the unknowables favor Trump ….”

    So he’s got the Deplorables and likely many of the unknowables. I’m starting to like the odds.

  80. @candid_observer
    I find it pretty astonishing that people are dismissing Trump's chances in this election.

    He's down by only 2% in the national poll average at this point.

    Any number of factors can put him over the top:

    Generally, in a change election, voters break toward the challenger.

    Turnout for Trump's base may be distinctly higher than expected because of their far greater enthusiasm -- and turnout for Hillary distinctly lower because of far lower enthusiasm than for, say, Obama.

    There may well be a Shy Trump effect, as there was in Brexit (which accounted for at minimum a 4%, and perhaps up to 7%, discrepancy between the final poll averages and the electoral outcome.)

    Any one of these factors could take Trump over the top, and in a perfect storm in which all played a role, could give him a dominant win.

    Of course it may be that none of these things really affect the outcome, and that he loses.

    But from my point of view, the factors that are now unknowable will be the decisive ones in this election. I can see no reason to assume his chances are worse -- or better -- than 50-50, given that we can't know how they will work out. A 2% difference, given all the unknowables in this highly variable and unprecedented election seems negligible to me.

    A 2% difference, given all the unknowables in this highly variable and unprecedented election seems negligible to me.

    You’re forgetting that a Republican candidate needs to be spotted 2% or more to compensate for Democratic election fraud.

  81. @JohnnyWalker123
    I'm also thinking that there could be a "Shy Tory" factor that shouldn't be discounted. In the Brexit final vote, Leave outperformed polls by +6 pts. That's enormous for such a highly polled vote. I think there might be quite a few Trump voters who either aren't responding to the polls or falsely claiming they're undecided.

    When the Brexit vote happened, all the undecideds broke for Leave. I'm hoping the same thing will happen on Tuesday. We need this to happen.

    I’m also thinking that there could be a “Shy Tory” factor that shouldn’t be discounted. In the Brexit final vote, Leave outperformed polls by +6 pts. That’s enormous for such a highly polled vote. I think there might be quite a few Trump voters who either aren’t responding to the polls or falsely claiming they’re undecided.

    There might be some who falsely claim to be voting Hillary. That was the case with Brexit, some people must’ve been truly undecided, and it’s impossible that all of them broke for Brexit. Some people must have told the pollsters that they were against Brexit when in fact they were for it.

    Expect more and more people to claim to be voting left when in fact they vote the hard right, as we move towards the soft totalitarianism, where some comrades become suspicious by not clapping enthusiastically enough.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Rosey
    At lunch at my workplace a Two Minutes Hate occurred which I did not participate in (along with the requisite Bernie worship.) A co-worker actually approached me afterward and said "I noticed you didn't say anything earlier...don't tell me you're a Trump supporter!" I said I didn't talk about politics at work which of course went over like a lead balloon and I have now felt the chill with my colleagues. We are all between 30 and 35 and I am the only woman. Unbelievable.
  82. I’ve mentioned it before, but the Richmans’ scaled tariff makes more sense than any fixed tariff. The scaled tariff is only applied to stuff from countries where we have the largest trade deficits, and the rate of the tariff declines to zero as our trade deficit with the other country does.

    The status quo on trade has been around so long that there’s little nuanced thinking about it among mainstream pundits.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Also, it's worth noting that the current "free trade" model includes plenty of tariffs. That's why trade deals involve detailed negotiations. The scaled tariff would eliminate that sausage-making. http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3283.shtml
    , @AnotherDad
    Dave,

    I don't think a scaled tariff is really a good idea. What you want is not necessarily balance with every country, but balance in your overall cycle. If you say run a deficit with Saudi Arabia for oil, and some other country sells them military hardware, food or luxury goods or builds their skyscapers, and you in turn sell that country stuff--all good.

    The obvious way to avoid trade induced instability is some sort of market based system:
    -- government determines overall deficit\surplus it wants
    -- exporters get "trade credits" for the dollars that they are paid for their exports
    -- importers must buy sufficient "trade credits" to cover each dollar they send out of the country to pay for their imports

    In other words you force the rough balance financially but let the market work it out. For the US, you'd continue to have exports of agricultural commodities, aerospace and high tech, and imports of lower value, more labor intensive goods (ex. clothing). But the mid range manufacturing would tend to head back to the US to achieve balance.

    You could call this "capital controls" if you like. I realize finance whines like a 2 year old toddler throwing a tantrum when there's the slightest suggestion that the regulatory regime be anything other than absolute free flow financial transactions without any taxes or regulations but we're well past time when those whiny snots are giving a good spanking.

    This sort of market based system will work well and would bring global financial stability as nations around the world adopt it.

    , @anon
    That's what I mean by balanced trade.
  83. @The Practical Conservative
    He already has been running those ads about how a public servant got wealthy. For weeks now.

    He already has been running those ads about how a public servant got wealthy. For weeks now.

    Good to hear. I’d love to be completely mistaken.

    I don’t generally watch broadcast TV–unless my son has a Seahawks game on. But while I was at my cousin’s and occasionally at my uncles’ for the corn harvest week before last, I did see a fair amount of broadcast TV during the World Series and some football games. Trump had a spot with the mother of a man murdered by an illegal alien. And one other spot I can not now even recall–I think something positive but pretty generic about Trump putting America to work again.

    I didn’t see anything that was sharply on the immigration issue or sharply on Hillary getting rich selling out public access\favors to Wall Street.

    I thought it was the absolutely glaring missed opportunity during the debate both when Hillary was blabbing about her middle class small business dad and when she talked about her “public service”. Was just waiting for Trump:

    “If have to laugh when I hear Hillary talk about her ‘public service’. What you won’t hear from Hillary is that she is a very rich woman–not as rich as me, but really very, very, rich. She and Bill left the White House claiming to be “broke”, but are now worth 150 million dollars. Did she build a better mousetrap? did she create some new app for the iPhone? did she build condos and hotels like I did? No, no and no. She got rich by collecting bribes from Wall Street and foreign banks. They pay her a quarter million dollars to make a speech. Seriously. Can you think of anyone who actually wants to listen to Hillary speak–thinks she has anything interesting to say? Heck she can’t get anyone to show up at her rallies where she’s speaking for free! No, this is a great way for Hillary to collect bribes. Goldman Sachs pays Hillary a quarter million dollars for a “speech” and they know Hillary is looking out for their interests. Hillary got rich–not by making anything of value, but by selling something, something that belongs to *you*access to and favors from *your* government. Hillary’s idea of ‘public service’ is you the public serving her need to get rich.”

    • Replies: @Vinteuil
    That would have been brilliant.

    Too bad *you're* not on the ballot.

    Seriously.
    , @The Practical Conservative
    He's been putting the ads all over facebook and other social media. You know, that thing that 80% of women use, especially white women? Ever wonder why Trump isn't actually losing white women at all and is going to get 45% of the female vote instead of the 35-40% that Reagan got?

    He's been making a big TV push now when it counts, but the last few months he's been showing the ads you couldn't be bothered to check out all over female-heavy social media to millions and millions of voters.
  84. @Arclight
    Exactly - he gave the media far too much ammunition with his tendency to go off-script and say something they could pounce on and then he tries to act like he didn't say it in the first place.

    It's a testament to just how weak Hilary is as a candidate that a guy armed only with his persona and a completely undisciplined campaign with a fraction of the campaign infrastructure the Democratic Party has in place is this close to winning. Truly a huge missed opportunity.

    Unless there is some other late-breaking piece of negative news about Hilary he's going to come up a bit short.

    A British bookmaker has paid out on a Hillary win, yet the odds on Trump winning are falling fast. He took the right tack with the early full-on shock tactics to get the masses and become the candidate. Coming from behind in the final furlong with a more measured style aiming at convincing the vital undecided minority is perfect pacing. There was no other way for him, and no one else with the wherewithal dared to try.

    If Trump does not quite do something that absolutely no one thought he had any chance of coming anywhere near doing when he started, it’s hardly evidence of avoidable strategic error on his part.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    He took the right tack with the early full-on shock tactics to get the masses and become the candidate.

    That hurt him more than anything. A lot of people found his vision and policies (when they could be discerned) very, very appealing. I speak of Republicans, Dems, Independents. But they were wary of him because of concerns about temperament, discipline, and whether he had a commitment to and command of those policies.
    , @ben tillman

    A British bookmaker has paid out on a Hillary win, yet the odds on Trump winning are falling fast.
     
    He was +245 on Thursday, +285 last night, and +335 20 seconds ago. The betting markets say he is fading.
  85. If Trump hadn’t run, it’d be Rubio or Jeb losing to Hillary right now, and I wouldn’t have given a rats ass one way or the other.

    I hope Trump wins, but even a close loss has accomplished something.

    Thanks Donald Trump!

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    If Trump was a horse he would be Seabiscuit.
  86. @Tiny Duck
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article112632598.

    If you vote for Trump you are a bad person

    Tiny Duck is just so boring in his unprocessed form. I propose we feed him through an industrial food press and feast on the resultant drlixacy: canard a la presse! Which in addition to the culinary novelty and the aspect of atavistic cruelty confers the collateral benefit that we will no longer be pestered by this quaggot’s infernal chuntering. Could also turn this into a theme for a rightist art show. A regular little cottage industry. Quaggot slurry cum hostile aesthetic action. C’est downright divine!

  87. @C
    I always love the "undisciplined campaign" shtick.

    You only think its undisciplined because the media has made it seem so over the course of 9 months. Its been an incredible campaign run by a small team at a fraction of the cost with incredible results. And it might win. Just because Trump had a couple real blunders (around 90% were made-up nonsense) doesn't mean it was "undisciplined".

    Trump’s campaign has a better GOTV than the RNC in 2012, but damn if you can convince some the cuck for lyfe crew on here of that.

  88. @The Anti-Gnostic
    Things would be looking a lot different if the GOPe and pundit class had united behind Trump, instead of continuing to fight him tooth and nail.

    Things would be looking a lot different if the GOPe and pundit class had united behind Trump, instead of continuing to fight him tooth and nail.

    Yes. And inexcusable.

    A–no *the*–key task for folks of a nationalist mind in the event Trump fails to pull this out is to carefully keep and settle scores with all the traitors, cucks, and “never Trumpers”. Expose them. Denounce them. Work against them. Make it unacceptable for Republicans and conservatives to work with them. Boycott them. Never vote for them even if they are the lesser of two evils. Make it impossible for such “Republicans”–what a joke, “Republicans” who don’t even know what a “republican” is–to win, ergo effectively grind at them until they are gone and the Republican party becomes a nationalist party that at least vaguely represents its voters.

    • Replies: @SFG
    I would like to respectfully disagree. It's awfully fun to fantasize about a purge but, much like my fantasies about Scarlett Johansson, inevitably leads nowhere. You don't have the manpower for a purge, and I don't have the billion-dollar bank account to get a famous actress in bed.

    You have to decide your #1 priority--which I believe is immigration restriction--and push for that within the party. To that extent, join your local party organization, and support candidates in local races who favor restriction. Even if Trump loses, the GOP leadership now realizes the base is really, really riled up about immigration, and has enough votes to defeat future Jebs and Rubios. Now that the Overton window's been shifted, it's up to us to get a GOP nominee who's strong on immigration, whatever his other failings. Walking away from the party doesn't do that, and a third party is just going to split the right-wing vote and hand more victories to Democrats.

    What I want to see is a GOP candidate who makes economic arguments about immigration, knows how not to ring the college-educated white vote's crazy alarms, and can make enough neutral arguments about acculturation and assimilation ('we want to help existing newcomers become Americans') to avoid causing mass antagonistic Hispanic turnout. It's not as much fun as tweeting memes, but it might keep the country paler.
  89. @Tha Philosopher
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4

    Must watch from Assange. Very poignant in the last 5 minutes:

    -UN ruled his detention is illegal.

    -Female rape accuser said the police made it up

    -Worries about his family. His world is the embassy.

    Knowing how mossad work, and how the co-founder of wikileaks got heart attacked, it would be insufferable being in that embassy for 5 years like that.

    He's going to be remembered as one of the greats.

    Here is a nice image that is meming around:

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I heard Sweden dropped the charges...now it is just USA that keeps him indoors.
  90. @Arclight
    Exactly - he gave the media far too much ammunition with his tendency to go off-script and say something they could pounce on and then he tries to act like he didn't say it in the first place.

    It's a testament to just how weak Hilary is as a candidate that a guy armed only with his persona and a completely undisciplined campaign with a fraction of the campaign infrastructure the Democratic Party has in place is this close to winning. Truly a huge missed opportunity.

    Unless there is some other late-breaking piece of negative news about Hilary he's going to come up a bit short.

    >>…….with his tendency to go off-script and say something they could pounce on and then he tries to act like he didn’t say it in the first place.

    Off-the-cuff, speaking from the gut is a feature, not a bug.

  91. @Tiny Duck
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article112632598.

    If you vote for Trump you are a bad person

    I’m a bad person anyway, you Tiny Dick. I’m deplorable, a Veteran, White, Male, hetero. All that makes me so damned bad I’m sure to burn in Hell while you fairies are Saints in Heaven. What’s one more reason for me to burn in Hell but to vote for Trump?

    • Agree: BenKenobi
  92. @Anonymous
    Steve, do you think, as U of Chicago and Cal-Berkeley-educated Ana Marie Cox does, that "the FBI is a problem because they are white males and 'Women And People Of Color Are Going To Save This Nation From Psychopath Bigot Trump'"?

    Also Steve, do you think Anthony and Huma will get over this hiccup in their marriage and be able to put it all behind them and one day look back and laugh about all this?

    It was all a scheme, they’re going to drink champaign to Huma’s good fortune.

  93. Wouldn’t it be more practical to simply establish a new party and abandon the Republican label?

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    It would be more practical to take over the GOP and exile the neoliberals and neocons. There's a big and effective GOP apparatus at the state and local level that would be useful to retain.

    And, odds are, Trump will be able to do this, win or lose on Tuesday. The only real victory for #NeverTrump would be if Trump loses in a landslide, which seems unlikely. If he wins, obviously they're discredited. But if he loses by Romney-like margins or less, despite them attacking him at every step, it will be hard to blame Trump or his supporters for the loss. The blame would go to NeverTrump + decades of mass immigration that tilted the electoral map so far against the party.

    Trump has exposed the GOP elite as generals with no army. Either the GOP makes way for him, or he can start a 3rd party and take 2/3rds of Republicans with him.
  94. @Opinionator
    Heck, things would be looking different if just the GOPe hadn't actively tried to sabotage him.

    Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer pens a column in Jeff Bezos' blog announcing that he will not vote for Trump.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ari-fleischer-heres-how-i-figured-out-whom-to-vote-for/2016/11/04/7bcee1ec-a1fd-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#comments

    The GOP was always against Trump and those like him. It was always hostile to the economic and social well being of blue collar and middle-class whites. In general it only catered to the wealthy and political class.

    Look at Romney, that goon’s policies were only attractive to the wealthy. If you were middle-class or even upper middle-class, he offered you just more ot the same. More wars, more off-shoring, more H1-B’s, etc. In short a kick in the teeth.

    Not to mention he was from a family of hatche men men for the GOP, his old man helped deep six Goldwater. Romney himself tried everything to kneecap Trump.

    That said, at best the GOP it was the right arm of the political class, the left arm being the Democrats. IOW a distinction without a difference.

  95. As I was driving through San Jose this morning, I saw an energetic group of some 30-40 folks standing with signs at a major intersection. My eyes bugged out when I realized they were pro-Trump signs. Even more surprising, the group looked looked diverse and mostly composed of minorities – Asians, Hispanics, a couple of Blacks. Brave are these souls to show their support for Trump in the heart of a Leftist swamp.

    Is this a sign of something? I don’t know.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    As I was driving through San Jose this morning, I saw an energetic group of some 30-40 folks standing with signs at a major intersection. My eyes bugged out when I realized they were pro-Trump signs. Even more surprising, the group looked looked diverse and mostly composed of minorities – Asians, Hispanics, a couple of Blacks. Brave are these souls to show their support for Trump in the heart of a Leftist swamp.

    Is this a sign of something? I don’t know.
     
    I think it signifies an absence of white people in that locale.
  96. @Tha Philosopher
    The biggest story in the emails is the ISIS is funded by Saud and Qatar.

    You may want to mention that.

    It ties in nicely with Netanyahu's Zionist campaign being funded by Saud, the Saud hijackers of the 9-11 plane, Osama's family, the Mossad celebrations in the van after 9-11 and, dare I say it, The Real Axis of Evil:

    Saud, Zion, and The Cuckold Party ('centrist' New labour/lib Dem/Cameroonian Cons, New Dems/Necon Repubs, Social Dem/Christian Dem).

    The Enemies of the West are who you would imagine: people that look like bad guys in movies...AESTHETICS DONT LIE.

    If you look like a wild animal, you probably are. Nature doesn't randomly assign aesthetics.

    By their actions we can infer an axis of evil eg Israel + Saudi/Gulf States + ISIS/ALQ though certain (((parties))) get red faced denying it.

    However it’s always nice to get factual back up for that.

  97. @candid_observer
    I find it pretty astonishing that people are dismissing Trump's chances in this election.

    He's down by only 2% in the national poll average at this point.

    Any number of factors can put him over the top:

    Generally, in a change election, voters break toward the challenger.

    Turnout for Trump's base may be distinctly higher than expected because of their far greater enthusiasm -- and turnout for Hillary distinctly lower because of far lower enthusiasm than for, say, Obama.

    There may well be a Shy Trump effect, as there was in Brexit (which accounted for at minimum a 4%, and perhaps up to 7%, discrepancy between the final poll averages and the electoral outcome.)

    Any one of these factors could take Trump over the top, and in a perfect storm in which all played a role, could give him a dominant win.

    Of course it may be that none of these things really affect the outcome, and that he loses.

    But from my point of view, the factors that are now unknowable will be the decisive ones in this election. I can see no reason to assume his chances are worse -- or better -- than 50-50, given that we can't know how they will work out. A 2% difference, given all the unknowables in this highly variable and unprecedented election seems negligible to me.

    So, is the game to maintain hope as long as possible?

    • Replies: @jason y
    Nate Silver's model currently has Trump at ~35% to win with many pre-Comey polls receiving more weight than they merit due to the game-changing significance of the FBI's announcement. Assigning Trump a win probability of under ~20% is less defensible today than it was mid-October. IOW, you're definitely wrong and/or signalling.
    , @candid_observer
    That's a childish criticism.

    Really, if you declare that a 2pt deficit is the final word, who's playing games?

    Obviously, Trump may well lose, but equally obviously, he may well win.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    - The LA Times poll, which was very accurate in 2012 and has Trump up by 5% nationally now.

    - The giant crowds Trump gets all over the country.

    - The tiny crowds Hillary gets without rappers or pop stars.

    - Trump's lead with independents in places like FL: https://anepigone.blogspot.com/2016/11/trump-should-win-florida.html

    But be sure to vote. If Trump loses, at least you went down swinging.
  98. @AnotherDad

    It’s a good one, but this sort of calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it’s not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I’m afraid.
     
    Yep. Very sad. Just an inability to be displinced about the most fundamental thing--what the election is about. It's not about Trump--at least if he wants to win--it's about the interest of Americans. We knew, he knew that the media would spend as much time as possible on him, trying to smear him and most of all avoid letting it be contest of ideas: elite-globalism vs. middle-class nationalism. Yet Trump was unable to avoid taking the bait and letting the focus drift off his message.

    Sailer’s argument, which I agree with, is that someone disciplined enough to stay on message wouldn’t have been daring enough to break the party’s silence on immigration. Ideally, we’d get a Goldwater-like Trump to break the ice followed by an adoption of the message by a Nixon-like character TBD (Tom Cotton? Kris Kobach?) a few elections later who knows how to go moderate enough to win.

    However, Hillary’s going to open the gates and let lots of immigrants in to create new Democrats, so we no longer have time.

    • Replies: @James Braxton
    Tom Cotton is a cuck.
    , @The Anti-Gnostic
    This is my hypothesis as well. If Trump hadn't swung for the fence, he'd be just another Jeb or Cruz droning on about policy. And that's what not what Trump does, because he's Trump. He swings for the fence.
    , @Glossy
    Who could pick up Trump's torch in a future election? I think the two leading candidates are nobody and Donald Trump Jr. Peter Thiel probably values his privacy too much for this.
    , @Opinionator
    You are somehow conflating courage and lack of discipline.

    One can easily be disciplined and courageous, especially in this context.
    , @ben tillman

    Sailer’s argument, which I agree with, is that someone disciplined enough to stay on message wouldn’t have been daring enough to break the party’s silence on immigration.
     
    Sailer never made that "argument", and it's not even an argument. It's just a ridiculous statement.
  99. @AnotherDad

    Things would be looking a lot different if the GOPe and pundit class had united behind Trump, instead of continuing to fight him tooth and nail.
     
    Yes. And inexcusable.

    A--no *the*--key task for folks of a nationalist mind in the event Trump fails to pull this out is to carefully keep and settle scores with all the traitors, cucks, and "never Trumpers". Expose them. Denounce them. Work against them. Make it unacceptable for Republicans and conservatives to work with them. Boycott them. Never vote for them even if they are the lesser of two evils. Make it impossible for such "Republicans"--what a joke, "Republicans" who don't even know what a "republican" is--to win, ergo effectively grind at them until they are gone and the Republican party becomes a nationalist party that at least vaguely represents its voters.

    I would like to respectfully disagree. It’s awfully fun to fantasize about a purge but, much like my fantasies about Scarlett Johansson, inevitably leads nowhere. You don’t have the manpower for a purge, and I don’t have the billion-dollar bank account to get a famous actress in bed.

    You have to decide your #1 priority–which I believe is immigration restriction–and push for that within the party. To that extent, join your local party organization, and support candidates in local races who favor restriction. Even if Trump loses, the GOP leadership now realizes the base is really, really riled up about immigration, and has enough votes to defeat future Jebs and Rubios. Now that the Overton window’s been shifted, it’s up to us to get a GOP nominee who’s strong on immigration, whatever his other failings. Walking away from the party doesn’t do that, and a third party is just going to split the right-wing vote and hand more victories to Democrats.

    What I want to see is a GOP candidate who makes economic arguments about immigration, knows how not to ring the college-educated white vote’s crazy alarms, and can make enough neutral arguments about acculturation and assimilation (‘we want to help existing newcomers become Americans’) to avoid causing mass antagonistic Hispanic turnout. It’s not as much fun as tweeting memes, but it might keep the country paler.

    • Replies: @bomag

    What I want to see is a GOP candidate who makes economic arguments about immigration, knows how not to ring the college-educated white vote’s crazy alarms, and can make enough neutral arguments about acculturation and assimilation (‘we want to help existing newcomers become Americans’) to avoid causing mass antagonistic Hispanic turnout.
     
    You are hoping for a unicorn to arrive.

    There is almost no path through that minefield.

    We could use some better groundwork, starting by taking back some political ground in the academy, then moving on to the courts and the media.
    , @Old Hispanic Geezer
    This analysis is, in my view, exactly correct. The way you win issues is to take over political parties and use them as a policy instrument – not walk away from them to a Benedictine Monastery.

    If you care about immigration, and we lose the Presidency on Tuesday, consider running for, joining or contesting, your local Republican organization. You will be surprised at how quickly the elected officials will come around. (This is essentially what happened to the Republican party in the West after Goldwater lost).
  100. I told you my idea. A VAT on all goods and services equal to the new individual income flat tax rate. Fully refunded for all value added within the US with the labor of American citizens.

    • Replies: @gda
    Too sensible. It'll never fly.
  101. @Stephen R. Diamond
    So, is the game to maintain hope as long as possible?

    Nate Silver’s model currently has Trump at ~35% to win with many pre-Comey polls receiving more weight than they merit due to the game-changing significance of the FBI’s announcement. Assigning Trump a win probability of under ~20% is less defensible today than it was mid-October. IOW, you’re definitely wrong and/or signalling.

    • Replies: @candid_observer
    Kind of amusingly, just a few hours ago there was quite a dustup on Twitter between Silver and the Washington bureau chief of Huffington Post over Silver's numbers.

    Apparently, the Huffington Post has Trump's likelihood of winning at 2%(!), and couldn't abide Silver's ~35%, so the HuffPo guy wrote an article trashing Silver and his methods.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate-silver-goes-to-war-with-huffpost-writer-after-highly-critical-column/

    Sample tweet:

    https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/794994593574113282

    , @Stephen R. Diamond
    Silvers is kind of a joke, after he said Trump had no chance to win the primaries. His current model totally fails to incorporate the results of early voting. Silver is the laughing stock of the statistical cogniscenti.

    Sam Wang has given Clinton >.99. (With a revised informal estimate of .91 - .93.
  102. @AnotherDad
    The add is good. Much closer to what i've been suggesting and ergo in my opinion better, than most of what we've seen.

    But i'd still like to see two points hit a lot harder:

    1) Mass immigration is flat out incompatible with rising working\middle class wages, living standards and quality of life. So immigration and amnesty cheerleaders like Hillary are not for "working families" but in fact their enemies.

    2) Hillary is filthy rich from taking bribes\payola from Wall Street and foreign banks and governments. She's a Wall Street globalist tool.

    I can't for the life of me--considering all the other random shit Trup has said--figure out, why Trump has not pointed out the Hillary "the public servant" is herself filthy stinking rich ... without producing anything. Entirely because she sells public access\favors for her private gain. Some "public servant".

    You haven’t been following the campaign very carefully have you? Don’t worry, you’ve got lots of company.

  103. @jim jones
    Based on this video from Reddit user trumpeffect:

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

    Ah Ha! Thank you. I’ve been wondering who produced that wonderful video.

  104. @Stephen R. Diamond
    So, is the game to maintain hope as long as possible?

    That’s a childish criticism.

    Really, if you declare that a 2pt deficit is the final word, who’s playing games?

    Obviously, Trump may well lose, but equally obviously, he may well win.

  105. Leading free trade critic Ian Fletcher also suggests that a low to moderate flat tariff on imports is probably the best way for the US to get back into protectionism (albeit at 25 percent rather than 10 percent). However, he is reasonably impressed with Trump’s trade proposals:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/trump-delivers-major-trad_b_10721588.html

    The correlation between free trade and open borders is a strong one. For example, illegal immigration to the US increased sharply following the NAFTA free trade agreement:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weekinreview/18uchitelle.html

  106. @Svigor

    Voter fraud, which is why I remain cautiously pessimistic about the outcome.
     
    It occurs, dividing states up into electoral votes would put a serious crimp in election fraud.

    You mean a district system like ME and NE (with 2 votes per state being winner take all)? I agree.

  107. Anonymous [AKA "Buckrakers Progress"] says:
    @Anonymous
    Steve, do you think, as U of Chicago and Cal-Berkeley-educated Ana Marie Cox does, that "the FBI is a problem because they are white males and 'Women And People Of Color Are Going To Save This Nation From Psychopath Bigot Trump'"?

    Also Steve, do you think Anthony and Huma will get over this hiccup in their marriage and be able to put it all behind them and one day look back and laugh about all this?

    I first saw Cox’s byline on dippy light-entertainment pieces for indie rock scenesters in the East Village (this was in the B.D. period, Before Dunham). Then she acquired some meretricious attention by interviewing/publicizing the “Washingtonienne” blogger, a hapa Capitol Hill functionary who was turning mid-priced tricks on the side. This was in that blog briefly owned by Gawker but which even they decided wasn’t worth owning, shortly after Cox somehow got hired at TIME Magazine. If she’s contributed to the scholarship on literally anything since, I wasn’t aware of it. I would be surprised to hear a description of her c.v. extending past “SWPL-society leech.” And this in the year 2016 an intellectual makes?

  108. @Svigor
    Jesus, now the pervert in the gimp mask is getting the first TWO comments. It sits around its mother's basement refreshing iSteve all day.

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  109. @melendwyr
    Wouldn't it be more practical to simply establish a new party and abandon the Republican label?

    It would be more practical to take over the GOP and exile the neoliberals and neocons. There’s a big and effective GOP apparatus at the state and local level that would be useful to retain.

    And, odds are, Trump will be able to do this, win or lose on Tuesday. The only real victory for #NeverTrump would be if Trump loses in a landslide, which seems unlikely. If he wins, obviously they’re discredited. But if he loses by Romney-like margins or less, despite them attacking him at every step, it will be hard to blame Trump or his supporters for the loss. The blame would go to NeverTrump + decades of mass immigration that tilted the electoral map so far against the party.

    Trump has exposed the GOP elite as generals with no army. Either the GOP makes way for him, or he can start a 3rd party and take 2/3rds of Republicans with him.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    Generals with no army, poor apprehension, and very poor judgment.
    , @Harry Baldwin
    George Will has declared that he hopes Trump loses in a landslide. He thinks that will save the Republican Party by allowing it to go back to business as usual. Where would we be without thought leaders like George?
  110. @Dave Pinsen
    I've mentioned it before, but the Richmans' scaled tariff makes more sense than any fixed tariff. The scaled tariff is only applied to stuff from countries where we have the largest trade deficits, and the rate of the tariff declines to zero as our trade deficit with the other country does.

    The status quo on trade has been around so long that there's little nuanced thinking about it among mainstream pundits.

    Also, it’s worth noting that the current “free trade” model includes plenty of tariffs. That’s why trade deals involve detailed negotiations. The scaled tariff would eliminate that sausage-making. http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3283.shtml

  111. You mean a district system like ME and NE (with 2 votes per state being winner take all)? I agree.

    Or fractional EVs assigned to counties, based on census data. Run the vote up as much as you like, Philadelphia and Chicago, but you’re not getting anything out of it. ‘Course that would mean blacks bused all over the place, to vote in as many counties as humanly possible, so it would still require voter ID.

    Wouldn’t it be more practical to simply establish a new party and abandon the Republican label?

    I think taking over the Republican party and purging the cucks is more practical.

  112. @AnotherDad

    He already has been running those ads about how a public servant got wealthy. For weeks now.
     
    Good to hear. I'd love to be completely mistaken.

    I don't generally watch broadcast TV--unless my son has a Seahawks game on. But while I was at my cousin's and occasionally at my uncles' for the corn harvest week before last, I did see a fair amount of broadcast TV during the World Series and some football games. Trump had a spot with the mother of a man murdered by an illegal alien. And one other spot I can not now even recall--I think something positive but pretty generic about Trump putting America to work again.

    I didn't see anything that was sharply on the immigration issue or sharply on Hillary getting rich selling out public access\favors to Wall Street.

    I thought it was the absolutely glaring missed opportunity during the debate both when Hillary was blabbing about her middle class small business dad and when she talked about her "public service". Was just waiting for Trump:

    "If have to laugh when I hear Hillary talk about her 'public service'. What you won't hear from Hillary is that she is a very rich woman--not as rich as me, but really very, very, rich. She and Bill left the White House claiming to be "broke", but are now worth 150 million dollars. Did she build a better mousetrap? did she create some new app for the iPhone? did she build condos and hotels like I did? No, no and no. She got rich by collecting bribes from Wall Street and foreign banks. They pay her a quarter million dollars to make a speech. Seriously. Can you think of anyone who actually wants to listen to Hillary speak--thinks she has anything interesting to say? Heck she can't get anyone to show up at her rallies where she's speaking for free! No, this is a great way for Hillary to collect bribes. Goldman Sachs pays Hillary a quarter million dollars for a "speech" and they know Hillary is looking out for their interests. Hillary got rich--not by making anything of value, but by selling something, something that belongs to *you*access to and favors from *your* government. Hillary's idea of 'public service' is you the public serving her need to get rich."

    That would have been brilliant.

    Too bad *you’re* not on the ballot.

    Seriously.

  113. @SFG
    Sailer's argument, which I agree with, is that someone disciplined enough to stay on message wouldn't have been daring enough to break the party's silence on immigration. Ideally, we'd get a Goldwater-like Trump to break the ice followed by an adoption of the message by a Nixon-like character TBD (Tom Cotton? Kris Kobach?) a few elections later who knows how to go moderate enough to win.

    However, Hillary's going to open the gates and let lots of immigrants in to create new Democrats, so we no longer have time.

    Tom Cotton is a cuck.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Cotton is awful on foreign policy but has been solid on immigration. Like with Cruz, however, there is reason to worry he would vote for a big "guest worker" plan.
    , @SFG
    He's been solid on immigration as far as I know. Hopefully the country's too sick of war for them to drag us into any more (I admit this is a big worry, I am anti-interventionist myself). And I really don't care what the guy thinks of Israel. We need to stop giving them everything they want like an overindulgent parent, but I don't think they're responsible for 100% of our problems.
  114. “Hillary’s big intellectual breakthrough in 2016”

    I’d say Hillary’s coherent big pictures is – a future “where the playing field is fair” will be a multiracial worldwide (Brazil-ified) empire. Any white people resisting this inevitable future – Trump, Putin, David Duke – are all be in league together as the rear guard for unfair privilege.

    It’s amazing to see her the audacity of her selling her corrupt Goldman Sach profits/gulf Arab kleptocrat record as “empowering the middle class” and “bringing us all together”.

  115. @Bragadocious
    I agree that Trump's trade policies would be the most difficult part of his agenda to implement. I can't see t-shirt and television factories magically relocating to the US but I welcome being proved wrong.

    If Trump builds the wall, expels the gang bangers and stops Middle East nation building he'll go down as one of the all-time greats.

    I can see that happening, but sadly for the wrong reasons. Automation is coming on strong to the point it is replacing even low cost labor. Foxconn in China has almost a million factory workers, but as cheap as these workers are, they have announced a trial run to replace 20,000 workers in one of their plants with automated equipment. As technology advances we start to approach a point where raw material and tooling drives most of the cost, overwhelming labor costs. What they call “dark factories” (because there are no humans running most of the production, you save on electricity by leaving most of the lights off except where you need them) can increasingly be placed close to the consumers. With some small environmental and labor practice penalty tariffs to compensate for Chines shortcuts in manufacturing, the stuff can come back to the US.
    The sad part is that it won’t make many jobs. Some analysts are seeing 50% of all jobs being automated out of existence in 20 years. We won’t be able to afford present trade deficits because we will need to keep production in the country in order to be able to pay the Purple Wage to all those consumers who effectively will never have a real job.
    Speculation, but check back with me in 20 years.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Excellent points. But what is a purple wage?
    , @GFR
    Eventually technology will have advanced to the point where you can use local automated factories to produce small numbers of anything.
    .
    Logically there will come a point when there is no advantage to producing more sophisticated automated factories.
  116. @Spotted Toad
    The problem with Romney's campaign was that the closest he came to a big picture message was the 47 percent speech.

    the 47 percent speech

    …which was given at a private event, then leaked.

    It is pretty much an accurate statement; I guess file it under the things we aren’t supposed to notice.

    • Replies: @Jay Fink
    If only the 53% realized how accurate it was.
  117. @Henry's Cat
    In the Brexit final vote, Leave outperformed polls by +6 pts.

    I believe it was more like +4. But I don't think this effect will be replicated because the Leave campaign was aimed very much at the centre ground, because they could take the committed anti-immigration base for granted. I recall a lot of the same mood music from Drudge etc. four years ago, but the late surge never materialised. I think Trump will do worse than Romney.

    Nope Brexit really did run 6 points ahead of the poll average (and 10 points ahead of early exit polls)

    However, there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US, where polls being wrong go both ways, most recently with Obama slightly outperforming the polls.

    Going in, I believed Shy Tory in this election would be worth about 2 points for Trump, but Hillary’s better turnout operation would roughly offset that.

    So far, there is no sign of Hillary having a better early vote turnout operation except in Nevada, where Reid and the local unions have long had a well-oiled turnout machine, plus some evidence she has been able to turn out Orlando Puerto Ricans.

    In the end, however, I still don’t see Trump winning Pennsylvania which he needs to.

    • Replies: @James Braxton
    He voted for TPA, which I think showed his true colors. His silence on the gang of fourteen amnesty was also pretty deafening compared to Jeff Sessions. I don't trust him at all.
    , @Henry's Cat
    I suspect the poll average you're talking about included the 'don't knows'; clearly this doesn't apply to the actual vote.

    As for the exit polls, there were no official ones, as is normally the case in general elections.

    Otherwise, carry on.

    , @Glossy
    I'm curious about the size of the gap between live interview polls and robo-polls. Calling people up and asking them questions is a low-wage job akin to customer service. In other words most live poll respondents are aksed, not asked whom they're voting for. Telling a live NAM that you're voting for Trump takes some balls.
    , @Ed
    Actually polling misses tend to be because they undercount non-college whites. Obama over performed due monster black turnout that for out performed white turnout for the first time ever.

    Many pollsters are weighing to 2012 electorate, electorate is actually trending whiter on % basis this year, similar to midterms.


    https://twitter.com/seantrende/status/794592175145230336

    , @Anonymous Nephew
    "there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US"


    Yes, but has any candidate before been Literally Hitler?
  118. @reiner Tor

    I’m also thinking that there could be a “Shy Tory” factor that shouldn’t be discounted. In the Brexit final vote, Leave outperformed polls by +6 pts. That’s enormous for such a highly polled vote. I think there might be quite a few Trump voters who either aren’t responding to the polls or falsely claiming they’re undecided.
     
    There might be some who falsely claim to be voting Hillary. That was the case with Brexit, some people must've been truly undecided, and it's impossible that all of them broke for Brexit. Some people must have told the pollsters that they were against Brexit when in fact they were for it.

    Expect more and more people to claim to be voting left when in fact they vote the hard right, as we move towards the soft totalitarianism, where some comrades become suspicious by not clapping enthusiastically enough.

    At lunch at my workplace a Two Minutes Hate occurred which I did not participate in (along with the requisite Bernie worship.) A co-worker actually approached me afterward and said “I noticed you didn’t say anything earlier…don’t tell me you’re a Trump supporter!” I said I didn’t talk about politics at work which of course went over like a lead balloon and I have now felt the chill with my colleagues. We are all between 30 and 35 and I am the only woman. Unbelievable.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Thank you for holding firm. Some retired/self-employed people here can forget how strong social pressure like this can be.
    , @newrouter
    >“I noticed you didn’t say anything earlier…don’t tell me you’re a Trump supporter!” I said I didn’t talk about politics at work which of course went over like a lead balloon and I have now felt the chill with my colleagues<

    Bring mocking humor to it: There's a shortage of toilet paper in Venezuela, can you explain that to me and when you can get back to me.
  119. @James Braxton
    Tom Cotton is a cuck.

    Cotton is awful on foreign policy but has been solid on immigration. Like with Cruz, however, there is reason to worry he would vote for a big “guest worker” plan.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  120. @Anon
    Sailer you faggot cuck, fuck you.

    This is NOT the comments section at Chateau Heartiste

    • Troll: CK
    • Replies: @Matt Stevens
    Completely agree. Heartiste is unreadable now. The comments section turned into s t o r m f r o n t. Let's not let that happen here.
  121. @James Braxton
    Tom Cotton is a cuck.

    He’s been solid on immigration as far as I know. Hopefully the country’s too sick of war for them to drag us into any more (I admit this is a big worry, I am anti-interventionist myself). And I really don’t care what the guy thinks of Israel. We need to stop giving them everything they want like an overindulgent parent, but I don’t think they’re responsible for 100% of our problems.

  122. @Lot
    Nope Brexit really did run 6 points ahead of the poll average (and 10 points ahead of early exit polls)

    However, there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US, where polls being wrong go both ways, most recently with Obama slightly outperforming the polls.

    Going in, I believed Shy Tory in this election would be worth about 2 points for Trump, but Hillary's better turnout operation would roughly offset that.

    So far, there is no sign of Hillary having a better early vote turnout operation except in Nevada, where Reid and the local unions have long had a well-oiled turnout machine, plus some evidence she has been able to turn out Orlando Puerto Ricans.

    In the end, however, I still don't see Trump winning Pennsylvania which he needs to.

    He voted for TPA, which I think showed his true colors. His silence on the gang of fourteen amnesty was also pretty deafening compared to Jeff Sessions. I don’t trust him at all.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Well no US Senator looks good compared to Jeff Sessions. I'd still put Cotton in the list of 10 best senators, but that is faint praise. He extreme right views on economic policy are all the worse considering his state is full of poorer whites who have been damaged by free trade and financial capitalism.

    On the plus side, Cotton is very solid on race issues. He left a high paying corporate law job to work for a small firm called Cooper & Kirk, still making good money but as as much and also taking unpopular cases. Some of the cases handled by the firm (from their website):


    In a series of a lengthy trials and appeals in several different cases, we successfully represented Tennessee’s efforts to reform its Medicaid system. As a result of these victories, the state has saved billions of dollars.

    We represented 39 members of the Duke Lacrosse team in connection with civil litigation arising out of the rape hoax scandal. On behalf of our clients, we sued Duke University and its top officers. After extensive discovery of Duke, the case settled.

    We represented Governor Jeb Bush and the other members of Florida’s clemency board in their defense of Florida’s felon disenfranchisement laws against a class action filed on behalf of 400,000 convicted felons. The plaintiffs brought suit under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc ordered the dismissal of the suit.

    We represented the Rockford, Illinois Board of Education in this school desegregation case. After a lengthy and trial appeal, the court of appeals awarded all the relief sought by our client.

     

  123. @Tha Philosopher
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4

    Must watch from Assange. Very poignant in the last 5 minutes:

    -UN ruled his detention is illegal.

    -Female rape accuser said the police made it up

    -Worries about his family. His world is the embassy.

    Knowing how mossad work, and how the co-founder of wikileaks got heart attacked, it would be insufferable being in that embassy for 5 years like that.

    He's going to be remembered as one of the greats.

    Trump should buy airtime and just broadcast that interview.

    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    That's what facebook live is for. You guys are old. Trump's been streaming his message directly to the most female-centric social media for weeks now, reaching millions of women voters and it's still whine, whine, whine that he isn't campaigning like the internet doesn't exist and have more voter reach than tv, which is down to a million viewers being an amazing audience.
  124. @SFG
    Sailer's argument, which I agree with, is that someone disciplined enough to stay on message wouldn't have been daring enough to break the party's silence on immigration. Ideally, we'd get a Goldwater-like Trump to break the ice followed by an adoption of the message by a Nixon-like character TBD (Tom Cotton? Kris Kobach?) a few elections later who knows how to go moderate enough to win.

    However, Hillary's going to open the gates and let lots of immigrants in to create new Democrats, so we no longer have time.

    This is my hypothesis as well. If Trump hadn’t swung for the fence, he’d be just another Jeb or Cruz droning on about policy. And that’s what not what Trump does, because he’s Trump. He swings for the fence.

  125. @Bragadocious
    I agree that Trump's trade policies would be the most difficult part of his agenda to implement. I can't see t-shirt and television factories magically relocating to the US but I welcome being proved wrong.

    If Trump builds the wall, expels the gang bangers and stops Middle East nation building he'll go down as one of the all-time greats.

    The factories won’t return here due to magic. A hefty tariff — phased in gradually — will change the economic incentives substantially. (A “border-adjusted” national sales tax, in place of the income tax, would tend to have a similar effect if set high enough.)

  126. @(((Owen)))

    calm on-message Trump has been missing too much during the last 2 months and it’s not going to be enough to avoid a narrow popular vote loss, I’m afraid.
     
    A narrow popular vote loss would be fine. A 1% loss would actually win Trump the presidency. It's a 3-5% popular vote loss that he's facing in current polls and that's going to elect Hillary.

    Because the repeated LA Times polls showing Trump ahead nationally don’t count?

    He’s ahead of the rapefugee-importer by more than four points nationwide in the latest LAT poll.

    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    The LAT poll methodology is invalid. They ask the same panel over and over again how they intend to vote. The result is that the voters in the panel pay more attention to the election news because they know they're going to be asked.

    In an ordinary election, that would be fine and produces good results. But what happens when the major media are wall-to-wall obvious nasty lies against one candidate? Anybody that pays more attention is likely to see through the propaganda and ask why it's there. But the purpose of a poll isn't to measure the opinion of voters that understand they're being lied to, it's to measure the opinion of real life voters. And real life voters believe what they're told.

    Suppose you see wall to wall news anchors, commentators, and talking heads telling you first that Trump is a tool of Putin working in the interests of the Russian and second that Trump is a dangerous maniac likely to start a third world war. Both of those messages have been all over the media and ordinary voters dislike Trump more and more whenever they hear them.

    But if you're on a panel and paying attention, you might begin to notice that the same commentators are pushing contradictory messages. Sometimes even in the very same sentence. And that makes you pay more attention to the fate of your nation and more likely to vote Trump.

    Usually the lies and hysteria of the major media are not nearly so obvious or biased. Therefore the LAT approach may be useful.

    But this year is special and ordinary voters won't have the LAT encouraging them to see past the fog of lies. So the LAT sample doesn't reflect real voter behavior and doesn't predict actual poll results at all.

    So you can forget all the results that show Trump leading. He isn't. Trump is 2-4 points behind nationally and you can't win that far behind on election day. That goes double when you cheaped out on a lousy ground game.
  127. @Lot
    Nope Brexit really did run 6 points ahead of the poll average (and 10 points ahead of early exit polls)

    However, there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US, where polls being wrong go both ways, most recently with Obama slightly outperforming the polls.

    Going in, I believed Shy Tory in this election would be worth about 2 points for Trump, but Hillary's better turnout operation would roughly offset that.

    So far, there is no sign of Hillary having a better early vote turnout operation except in Nevada, where Reid and the local unions have long had a well-oiled turnout machine, plus some evidence she has been able to turn out Orlando Puerto Ricans.

    In the end, however, I still don't see Trump winning Pennsylvania which he needs to.

    I suspect the poll average you’re talking about included the ‘don’t knows’; clearly this doesn’t apply to the actual vote.

    As for the exit polls, there were no official ones, as is normally the case in general elections.

    Otherwise, carry on.

  128. @AnotherDad

    He already has been running those ads about how a public servant got wealthy. For weeks now.
     
    Good to hear. I'd love to be completely mistaken.

    I don't generally watch broadcast TV--unless my son has a Seahawks game on. But while I was at my cousin's and occasionally at my uncles' for the corn harvest week before last, I did see a fair amount of broadcast TV during the World Series and some football games. Trump had a spot with the mother of a man murdered by an illegal alien. And one other spot I can not now even recall--I think something positive but pretty generic about Trump putting America to work again.

    I didn't see anything that was sharply on the immigration issue or sharply on Hillary getting rich selling out public access\favors to Wall Street.

    I thought it was the absolutely glaring missed opportunity during the debate both when Hillary was blabbing about her middle class small business dad and when she talked about her "public service". Was just waiting for Trump:

    "If have to laugh when I hear Hillary talk about her 'public service'. What you won't hear from Hillary is that she is a very rich woman--not as rich as me, but really very, very, rich. She and Bill left the White House claiming to be "broke", but are now worth 150 million dollars. Did she build a better mousetrap? did she create some new app for the iPhone? did she build condos and hotels like I did? No, no and no. She got rich by collecting bribes from Wall Street and foreign banks. They pay her a quarter million dollars to make a speech. Seriously. Can you think of anyone who actually wants to listen to Hillary speak--thinks she has anything interesting to say? Heck she can't get anyone to show up at her rallies where she's speaking for free! No, this is a great way for Hillary to collect bribes. Goldman Sachs pays Hillary a quarter million dollars for a "speech" and they know Hillary is looking out for their interests. Hillary got rich--not by making anything of value, but by selling something, something that belongs to *you*access to and favors from *your* government. Hillary's idea of 'public service' is you the public serving her need to get rich."

    He’s been putting the ads all over facebook and other social media. You know, that thing that 80% of women use, especially white women? Ever wonder why Trump isn’t actually losing white women at all and is going to get 45% of the female vote instead of the 35-40% that Reagan got?

    He’s been making a big TV push now when it counts, but the last few months he’s been showing the ads you couldn’t be bothered to check out all over female-heavy social media to millions and millions of voters.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    I hope he's buying ads on Pinterest. Women love that.
    , @anon
    yes, he's been running a social media campaign - which a lot of people haven't noticed

    he's a businessman - very cheap campaign
  129. @Alfa158
    I can see that happening, but sadly for the wrong reasons. Automation is coming on strong to the point it is replacing even low cost labor. Foxconn in China has almost a million factory workers, but as cheap as these workers are, they have announced a trial run to replace 20,000 workers in one of their plants with automated equipment. As technology advances we start to approach a point where raw material and tooling drives most of the cost, overwhelming labor costs. What they call "dark factories" (because there are no humans running most of the production, you save on electricity by leaving most of the lights off except where you need them) can increasingly be placed close to the consumers. With some small environmental and labor practice penalty tariffs to compensate for Chines shortcuts in manufacturing, the stuff can come back to the US.
    The sad part is that it won't make many jobs. Some analysts are seeing 50% of all jobs being automated out of existence in 20 years. We won't be able to afford present trade deficits because we will need to keep production in the country in order to be able to pay the Purple Wage to all those consumers who effectively will never have a real job.
    Speculation, but check back with me in 20 years.

    Excellent points. But what is a purple wage?

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riders_of_the_Purple_Wage

    In the story, all citizens receive a basic income (the purple wage) from the government, to which everyone is entitled just by being born.
     
  130. @Jasper Been
    This is NOT the comments section at Chateau Heartiste

    Completely agree. Heartiste is unreadable now. The comments section turned into s t o r m f r o n t. Let’s not let that happen here.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Whatever happened to commenter Great Books for Men?
    , @Lurker
    1) Only hasbarats kvetch about Stormfront. No one else ever seems to read it.

    2)" Let’s not let that happen here."

    But you've only made four comments here and thats only in the last two weeks, yet here you very exercised over trends on iSteve. While your concern is touching its also rather suspect. Verdict: concern troll.
  131. @Chrisnonymous
    Trump should buy airtime and just broadcast that interview.

    That’s what facebook live is for. You guys are old. Trump’s been streaming his message directly to the most female-centric social media for weeks now, reaching millions of women voters and it’s still whine, whine, whine that he isn’t campaigning like the internet doesn’t exist and have more voter reach than tv, which is down to a million viewers being an amazing audience.

  132. @SFG
    Sailer's argument, which I agree with, is that someone disciplined enough to stay on message wouldn't have been daring enough to break the party's silence on immigration. Ideally, we'd get a Goldwater-like Trump to break the ice followed by an adoption of the message by a Nixon-like character TBD (Tom Cotton? Kris Kobach?) a few elections later who knows how to go moderate enough to win.

    However, Hillary's going to open the gates and let lots of immigrants in to create new Democrats, so we no longer have time.

    Who could pick up Trump’s torch in a future election? I think the two leading candidates are nobody and Donald Trump Jr. Peter Thiel probably values his privacy too much for this.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Peter Thiel was born in Frankfurt, Germany and is ineligible to run for the presidency. Maybe Kris Kobach could take up Trump's mantle?
  133. My 8-year-old daughter told me not to vote for Donald Trump, because he is “selfish”.

    Suspecting that this might not be her original work, I asked her who had told her this. She indicated a dark-skinned woman on her tablet computer. “Oh,” I said, “that is Michelle Obama.”

    Came the reply: “Who is she?” So I explained she is the wife of President Obama.

    Apparently Mrs. Obama is telling children that Trump only wants to be President so that he can have lots of guards to protect him, and he is going to throw poor Cinderella Clinton in prison for doing absolutely nothing.

    I think my daughter is probably ready for Shakespeare’s history plays.

    • Replies: @GFR
    Just tell her you'll spank her if she doesn't vote for Trump.
    , @anonguy
    This is why I've been raising my offspring outside the U.S.

    It is kind of like in WWII where the British sent a bunch of their kids to the U.S. or countryside for the duration.
    , @S. Anonyia
    Not to take the wind out of your lighthearted tale.....but maybe you should start explaining politics to your daughter. My parents did around that age, and as a consequence I'm posting here, while my millennial female peers are having a collective hissy fit over Trump on various social media outlets.

    Talk to your kids like adults and they will rise. Just sayin'
  134. @Lot
    Nope Brexit really did run 6 points ahead of the poll average (and 10 points ahead of early exit polls)

    However, there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US, where polls being wrong go both ways, most recently with Obama slightly outperforming the polls.

    Going in, I believed Shy Tory in this election would be worth about 2 points for Trump, but Hillary's better turnout operation would roughly offset that.

    So far, there is no sign of Hillary having a better early vote turnout operation except in Nevada, where Reid and the local unions have long had a well-oiled turnout machine, plus some evidence she has been able to turn out Orlando Puerto Ricans.

    In the end, however, I still don't see Trump winning Pennsylvania which he needs to.

    I’m curious about the size of the gap between live interview polls and robo-polls. Calling people up and asking them questions is a low-wage job akin to customer service. In other words most live poll respondents are aksed, not asked whom they’re voting for. Telling a live NAM that you’re voting for Trump takes some balls.

  135. @Luke Sellers
    Trump is running for President because white men are scared.



    We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared.



    White men are the biggest cowards in the United States.

    Liberals are cowards because they’re scared of cowardly White men with guns.
    .
    Better do what they say then – or they’ll shoot you.

  136. @The Practical Conservative
    He's been putting the ads all over facebook and other social media. You know, that thing that 80% of women use, especially white women? Ever wonder why Trump isn't actually losing white women at all and is going to get 45% of the female vote instead of the 35-40% that Reagan got?

    He's been making a big TV push now when it counts, but the last few months he's been showing the ads you couldn't be bothered to check out all over female-heavy social media to millions and millions of voters.

    I hope he’s buying ads on Pinterest. Women love that.

  137. @Dave Pinsen
    It would be more practical to take over the GOP and exile the neoliberals and neocons. There's a big and effective GOP apparatus at the state and local level that would be useful to retain.

    And, odds are, Trump will be able to do this, win or lose on Tuesday. The only real victory for #NeverTrump would be if Trump loses in a landslide, which seems unlikely. If he wins, obviously they're discredited. But if he loses by Romney-like margins or less, despite them attacking him at every step, it will be hard to blame Trump or his supporters for the loss. The blame would go to NeverTrump + decades of mass immigration that tilted the electoral map so far against the party.

    Trump has exposed the GOP elite as generals with no army. Either the GOP makes way for him, or he can start a 3rd party and take 2/3rds of Republicans with him.

    Generals with no army, poor apprehension, and very poor judgment.

  138. @Luke Sellers
    Trump is running for President because white men are scared.



    We have a chronic gun problem because white men are scared.



    White men are the biggest cowards in the United States.

    We don’t have a gun problem, black people have a gun problem. Black people aren’t compatible with the second amendment.

  139. @Alfa158
    I can see that happening, but sadly for the wrong reasons. Automation is coming on strong to the point it is replacing even low cost labor. Foxconn in China has almost a million factory workers, but as cheap as these workers are, they have announced a trial run to replace 20,000 workers in one of their plants with automated equipment. As technology advances we start to approach a point where raw material and tooling drives most of the cost, overwhelming labor costs. What they call "dark factories" (because there are no humans running most of the production, you save on electricity by leaving most of the lights off except where you need them) can increasingly be placed close to the consumers. With some small environmental and labor practice penalty tariffs to compensate for Chines shortcuts in manufacturing, the stuff can come back to the US.
    The sad part is that it won't make many jobs. Some analysts are seeing 50% of all jobs being automated out of existence in 20 years. We won't be able to afford present trade deficits because we will need to keep production in the country in order to be able to pay the Purple Wage to all those consumers who effectively will never have a real job.
    Speculation, but check back with me in 20 years.

    Eventually technology will have advanced to the point where you can use local automated factories to produce small numbers of anything.
    .
    Logically there will come a point when there is no advantage to producing more sophisticated automated factories.

  140. @Jonathan Mason
    My 8-year-old daughter told me not to vote for Donald Trump, because he is "selfish".

    Suspecting that this might not be her original work, I asked her who had told her this. She indicated a dark-skinned woman on her tablet computer. "Oh," I said, "that is Michelle Obama."

    Came the reply: "Who is she?" So I explained she is the wife of President Obama.

    Apparently Mrs. Obama is telling children that Trump only wants to be President so that he can have lots of guards to protect him, and he is going to throw poor Cinderella Clinton in prison for doing absolutely nothing.

    I think my daughter is probably ready for Shakespeare's history plays.

    Just tell her you’ll spank her if she doesn’t vote for Trump.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    What's a good way to persuade wives and girlfriends?
  141. Last year the dirtbag media anointed Angela Merkel as the person of the year.

    Is it possible that Merkel is the person of the year for 2016?

    Would Brexit have won without Merkel’s immigration disaster?

    Would Trump have gained traction without it?

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    Well, Time once named Hitler the Man of the Year.

    Person of the Year is the politically-correct title. It was always Man/Woman of the Year until the '90s, maybe even the '00s.
    , @Blackpill Bob
    I think it's the other way around.

    Trump's terrifying rise on populist immigration rhetoric in Summer 2015 is what caused the global Deep State to go bonkers and get the Islamic invasion of Europe going in August '15.

    Merkel dutifully did her part by inviting them and holding the door open.

    The 2014 Central American mass-migration into the USA was the test run, and they knew from that experience they had a limited timeframe before pro-invasion politicians would start to get Cantored.
    , @BB753
    If Trump wins, will they make him person of the year and Nobel Price? Somehow I doubt it.
  142. @Glossy
    Who could pick up Trump's torch in a future election? I think the two leading candidates are nobody and Donald Trump Jr. Peter Thiel probably values his privacy too much for this.

    Peter Thiel was born in Frankfurt, Germany and is ineligible to run for the presidency. Maybe Kris Kobach could take up Trump’s mantle?

  143. Hillary’s closing argument: SEIU mass-busing Mexicans and blacks at key electoral locations.

    I like Trump’s argument, but I’m not sure it’s going to matter. It’s too late America. You took too long to wake up from your diabetic Boomer stupor.

  144. @Opinionator
    Heck, things would be looking different if just the GOPe hadn't actively tried to sabotage him.

    Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer pens a column in Jeff Bezos' blog announcing that he will not vote for Trump.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ari-fleischer-heres-how-i-figured-out-whom-to-vote-for/2016/11/04/7bcee1ec-a1fd-11e6-8d63-3e0a660f1f04_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-b%3Ahomepage%2Fstory#comments

    Meanwhile, Ari Fleischer pens a column in Jeff Bezos’ blog announcing that he will not vote for Trump.

    It’s hard to call the news a shock. Fleischer always was a smug, pompous little prick.

    He was the White House press secretary in Bush’s first term, when 9/11 and the Iraq Attaq overshadowed nearly everything else. At a time when the White House was shoveling some of the most rancid bullshit (the Iraqis will greet our boys with kisses and flowers! the war will be over in a week!) ever dumped on the American public (until the Obama years, that is), he was the shoveler-in-chief. His snotty persona didn’t help Bush’s image.

    How many Americans died in needless wars that you helped sell to the public, Ari? How many came back alive, but physically and psychologically devastated? How many deadly lies did you tell?

  145. Anonymous [AKA "TheSpiritOfSaintLouis"] says:

    Can some provide some suggested videos and articles by Jerry Pournelle?

  146. @Doc Dynamo
    Last year the dirtbag media anointed Angela Merkel as the person of the year.

    Is it possible that Merkel is the person of the year for 2016?

    Would Brexit have won without Merkel's immigration disaster?

    Would Trump have gained traction without it?

    Well, Time once named Hitler the Man of the Year.

    Person of the Year is the politically-correct title. It was always Man/Woman of the Year until the ’90s, maybe even the ’00s.

  147. @Stephen R. Diamond
    So, is the game to maintain hope as long as possible?

    – The LA Times poll, which was very accurate in 2012 and has Trump up by 5% nationally now.

    – The giant crowds Trump gets all over the country.

    – The tiny crowds Hillary gets without rappers or pop stars.

    – Trump’s lead with independents in places like FL: https://anepigone.blogspot.com/2016/11/trump-should-win-florida.html

    But be sure to vote. If Trump loses, at least you went down swinging.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson
    Yes. Vote Trump. If we all do, Trump will win. And Tiny Duck, and Corvinus will despair, because their vision of reducing America to a third-world cesspool will have been thwarted. But everyone else will rejoice.
  148. @RadicalCenter
    Excellent points. But what is a purple wage?

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

    In the story, all citizens receive a basic income (the purple wage) from the government, to which everyone is entitled just by being born.

  149. @Doc Dynamo
    Last year the dirtbag media anointed Angela Merkel as the person of the year.

    Is it possible that Merkel is the person of the year for 2016?

    Would Brexit have won without Merkel's immigration disaster?

    Would Trump have gained traction without it?

    I think it’s the other way around.

    Trump’s terrifying rise on populist immigration rhetoric in Summer 2015 is what caused the global Deep State to go bonkers and get the Islamic invasion of Europe going in August ’15.

    Merkel dutifully did her part by inviting them and holding the door open.

    The 2014 Central American mass-migration into the USA was the test run, and they knew from that experience they had a limited timeframe before pro-invasion politicians would start to get Cantored.

  150. @Dave Pinsen
    I've mentioned it before, but the Richmans' scaled tariff makes more sense than any fixed tariff. The scaled tariff is only applied to stuff from countries where we have the largest trade deficits, and the rate of the tariff declines to zero as our trade deficit with the other country does.

    The status quo on trade has been around so long that there's little nuanced thinking about it among mainstream pundits.

    Dave,

    I don’t think a scaled tariff is really a good idea. What you want is not necessarily balance with every country, but balance in your overall cycle. If you say run a deficit with Saudi Arabia for oil, and some other country sells them military hardware, food or luxury goods or builds their skyscapers, and you in turn sell that country stuff–all good.

    The obvious way to avoid trade induced instability is some sort of market based system:
    — government determines overall deficit\surplus it wants
    — exporters get “trade credits” for the dollars that they are paid for their exports
    — importers must buy sufficient “trade credits” to cover each dollar they send out of the country to pay for their imports

    In other words you force the rough balance financially but let the market work it out. For the US, you’d continue to have exports of agricultural commodities, aerospace and high tech, and imports of lower value, more labor intensive goods (ex. clothing). But the mid range manufacturing would tend to head back to the US to achieve balance.

    You could call this “capital controls” if you like. I realize finance whines like a 2 year old toddler throwing a tantrum when there’s the slightest suggestion that the regulatory regime be anything other than absolute free flow financial transactions without any taxes or regulations but we’re well past time when those whiny snots are giving a good spanking.

    This sort of market based system will work well and would bring global financial stability as nations around the world adopt it.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Interesting idea with "trade credits."

    As long as the USA is a better place to invest, with more safety from fraud and confiscations and decent returns, than the rest of the world, foreigners will use the dollars they earn from exports to the USA to invest here rather than buy imports from us, creating a structural trade deficit.

    I do not see this as a problem for our economy as a whole, if anything it reflects our strength. The problem is that it helps the people who are already winners in the country at the expense of the WWC especially. Setting up capital controls however is a roundabout and complex way to help the WWC compared to simply doing things like cutting their taxes and reforming immigration.

    It is remarkable and depressing that every Republican candidate for President, including Trump, has come out with a tax plan extremely weighted toward the rich.

    For the same money, they could have offered gigantic tax cuts to the working class through upper middle class. It isn't rocket science: cut the payroll tax, increase the deduction for dependent children (my favorite policy, eugenic and natalist too!), and cut the rate on the lowest couple tax brackets.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    IIRC, the Richmans' idea isn't to do this with every trading partner, just the 5 or so that have the largest trade surpluses with us.
  151. @Matt Stevens
    Completely agree. Heartiste is unreadable now. The comments section turned into s t o r m f r o n t. Let's not let that happen here.

    Whatever happened to commenter Great Books for Men?

    • Replies: @Matt Stevens
    GBFM disappeared. It seems like someone else took up the pseudonym for a while, but then faded into the mist like the original GBFM. It's too bad really. Steve and his commentors have always been top notch, but I do miss the old Heartiste and Guchi Little Piggy blogs with their quality comment sections.
  152. @jason y
    Nate Silver's model currently has Trump at ~35% to win with many pre-Comey polls receiving more weight than they merit due to the game-changing significance of the FBI's announcement. Assigning Trump a win probability of under ~20% is less defensible today than it was mid-October. IOW, you're definitely wrong and/or signalling.

    Kind of amusingly, just a few hours ago there was quite a dustup on Twitter between Silver and the Washington bureau chief of Huffington Post over Silver’s numbers.

    Apparently, the Huffington Post has Trump’s likelihood of winning at 2%(!), and couldn’t abide Silver’s ~35%, so the HuffPo guy wrote an article trashing Silver and his methods.

    http://www.mediaite.com/online/nate-silver-goes-to-war-with-huffpost-writer-after-highly-critical-column/

    Sample tweet:

  153. @Jack Hanson
    "My recollection of Romney’s campaign is that he generally lacked an intellectual framework for tying together his a la carte issues."

    I always find your apologia and man crush on Romney amazing, considering what you claim is your key issue.

    Romney was a NE Liberal who pushed an AWB, state funded abortion, and amnesty in his state, as well as socialized medicine. The only issue he was willing to go to the mat for was tax cuts for his buddies.

    Talk about "lacked an intellectual framework".

    I called that one early. Romney putting Seamus on the roof in a crate for a roadtrip & Ann spending $70,000.00 to transport her horse to London, to be ridden by an Olympic rider, was just yucky & stupid. Plus, Romney hazing the poor, fellow student at Cranbrook School by cutting his long hair, was just gross-me-out. Nuance can knock someone out.

    Now, the baffling part for me concerning Clinton is: she was defeated by Obama in 2008! No one wanted her then, and her & Bill’s bizarre relationship grossed-people-out back then, too. And, now, with the facts we know (Brazile bs/millions from Wall St., millions from Saudis, Qataris, etc.) through Wikileaks & Weinerleaks, that plain-jane Democrats would still say “we’re with her, ” knowing she is busted, baffles me. Is it disbelief? What if she caused the death of your soldier child in the Middle East with her lack of interest in how to actually, stop and not exacerbate the implosion in that region ?

    I remember distinctly, celebrity and uber-wealthy liberals just going on and on about how Obama was sooooo much better. Yet, now, they are so appalled that people are wavering (she is the albatross that they didn’t want back in 2007-8) over their support. Hypocrisy much? I mean, it will be a bitter pill to swallow that all the millions that all the celebrities and glitterati of the coasts gave to Hillary was money thrown into the Global Climate Change sea. Tides going out; surf’s up in 6 hours!

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    Maybe more guys like this will vote Trump, 3rd party, or stay home.

    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795064490568073216
    , @Jasper Been
    I think Hillary is an even more unappealing candidate now than she was in 2008.
  154. One very compelling graph that demonstrates how this election differs from 2008 and 2012 is this:

    Obviously, there are many more mostly uncommitted voters in this election.

    The question is, for whom do they actually plunk down?

    As I said earlier, typically in a change election they break for the challenger to the status quo.

  155. @Honesthughgrant
    If Trump hadn't run, it'd be Rubio or Jeb losing to Hillary right now, and I wouldn't have given a rats ass one way or the other.

    I hope Trump wins, but even a close loss has accomplished something.

    Thanks Donald Trump!

    If Trump was a horse he would be Seabiscuit.

    • Replies: @dr kill
    Just as long as he's not California Chrome.
  156. @Rosey
    At lunch at my workplace a Two Minutes Hate occurred which I did not participate in (along with the requisite Bernie worship.) A co-worker actually approached me afterward and said "I noticed you didn't say anything earlier...don't tell me you're a Trump supporter!" I said I didn't talk about politics at work which of course went over like a lead balloon and I have now felt the chill with my colleagues. We are all between 30 and 35 and I am the only woman. Unbelievable.

    Thank you for holding firm. Some retired/self-employed people here can forget how strong social pressure like this can be.

  157. @James Braxton
    He voted for TPA, which I think showed his true colors. His silence on the gang of fourteen amnesty was also pretty deafening compared to Jeff Sessions. I don't trust him at all.

    Well no US Senator looks good compared to Jeff Sessions. I’d still put Cotton in the list of 10 best senators, but that is faint praise. He extreme right views on economic policy are all the worse considering his state is full of poorer whites who have been damaged by free trade and financial capitalism.

    On the plus side, Cotton is very solid on race issues. He left a high paying corporate law job to work for a small firm called Cooper & Kirk, still making good money but as as much and also taking unpopular cases. Some of the cases handled by the firm (from their website):

    In a series of a lengthy trials and appeals in several different cases, we successfully represented Tennessee’s efforts to reform its Medicaid system. As a result of these victories, the state has saved billions of dollars.

    We represented 39 members of the Duke Lacrosse team in connection with civil litigation arising out of the rape hoax scandal. On behalf of our clients, we sued Duke University and its top officers. After extensive discovery of Duke, the case settled.

    We represented Governor Jeb Bush and the other members of Florida’s clemency board in their defense of Florida’s felon disenfranchisement laws against a class action filed on behalf of 400,000 convicted felons. The plaintiffs brought suit under the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc ordered the dismissal of the suit.

    We represented the Rockford, Illinois Board of Education in this school desegregation case. After a lengthy and trial appeal, the court of appeals awarded all the relief sought by our client.

  158. There was some kind of incident at Trump’s rally where Trump was rushed offstage and a man was led away by police.

    Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School (!) who used to be considered Supreme Court material (!!), offered this response on Twitter –
    Key takeaway: violence follows Trump because the essence of Trumpism is violence

    So I guess Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy had it coming, too.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School (!) who used to be considered Supreme Court material (!!), offered this response on Twitter –

    Key takeaway: violence follows Trump because the essence of Trumpism is violence

    Okay, Lawrence. What follows jews because the essence of Judaism is _____?

    We are really seeing the intelligentsia's true colors now. Amazing to behold.

  159. @Dave Pinsen
    - The LA Times poll, which was very accurate in 2012 and has Trump up by 5% nationally now.

    - The giant crowds Trump gets all over the country.

    - The tiny crowds Hillary gets without rappers or pop stars.

    - Trump's lead with independents in places like FL: https://anepigone.blogspot.com/2016/11/trump-should-win-florida.html

    But be sure to vote. If Trump loses, at least you went down swinging.

    Yes. Vote Trump. If we all do, Trump will win. And Tiny Duck, and Corvinus will despair, because their vision of reducing America to a third-world cesspool will have been thwarted. But everyone else will rejoice.

  160. @AnotherDad
    Dave,

    I don't think a scaled tariff is really a good idea. What you want is not necessarily balance with every country, but balance in your overall cycle. If you say run a deficit with Saudi Arabia for oil, and some other country sells them military hardware, food or luxury goods or builds their skyscapers, and you in turn sell that country stuff--all good.

    The obvious way to avoid trade induced instability is some sort of market based system:
    -- government determines overall deficit\surplus it wants
    -- exporters get "trade credits" for the dollars that they are paid for their exports
    -- importers must buy sufficient "trade credits" to cover each dollar they send out of the country to pay for their imports

    In other words you force the rough balance financially but let the market work it out. For the US, you'd continue to have exports of agricultural commodities, aerospace and high tech, and imports of lower value, more labor intensive goods (ex. clothing). But the mid range manufacturing would tend to head back to the US to achieve balance.

    You could call this "capital controls" if you like. I realize finance whines like a 2 year old toddler throwing a tantrum when there's the slightest suggestion that the regulatory regime be anything other than absolute free flow financial transactions without any taxes or regulations but we're well past time when those whiny snots are giving a good spanking.

    This sort of market based system will work well and would bring global financial stability as nations around the world adopt it.

    Interesting idea with “trade credits.”

    As long as the USA is a better place to invest, with more safety from fraud and confiscations and decent returns, than the rest of the world, foreigners will use the dollars they earn from exports to the USA to invest here rather than buy imports from us, creating a structural trade deficit.

    I do not see this as a problem for our economy as a whole, if anything it reflects our strength. The problem is that it helps the people who are already winners in the country at the expense of the WWC especially. Setting up capital controls however is a roundabout and complex way to help the WWC compared to simply doing things like cutting their taxes and reforming immigration.

    It is remarkable and depressing that every Republican candidate for President, including Trump, has come out with a tax plan extremely weighted toward the rich.

    For the same money, they could have offered gigantic tax cuts to the working class through upper middle class. It isn’t rocket science: cut the payroll tax, increase the deduction for dependent children (my favorite policy, eugenic and natalist too!), and cut the rate on the lowest couple tax brackets.

  161. @AnotherDad
    Dave,

    I don't think a scaled tariff is really a good idea. What you want is not necessarily balance with every country, but balance in your overall cycle. If you say run a deficit with Saudi Arabia for oil, and some other country sells them military hardware, food or luxury goods or builds their skyscapers, and you in turn sell that country stuff--all good.

    The obvious way to avoid trade induced instability is some sort of market based system:
    -- government determines overall deficit\surplus it wants
    -- exporters get "trade credits" for the dollars that they are paid for their exports
    -- importers must buy sufficient "trade credits" to cover each dollar they send out of the country to pay for their imports

    In other words you force the rough balance financially but let the market work it out. For the US, you'd continue to have exports of agricultural commodities, aerospace and high tech, and imports of lower value, more labor intensive goods (ex. clothing). But the mid range manufacturing would tend to head back to the US to achieve balance.

    You could call this "capital controls" if you like. I realize finance whines like a 2 year old toddler throwing a tantrum when there's the slightest suggestion that the regulatory regime be anything other than absolute free flow financial transactions without any taxes or regulations but we're well past time when those whiny snots are giving a good spanking.

    This sort of market based system will work well and would bring global financial stability as nations around the world adopt it.

    IIRC, the Richmans’ idea isn’t to do this with every trading partner, just the 5 or so that have the largest trade surpluses with us.

  162. @Lagertha
    I called that one early. Romney putting Seamus on the roof in a crate for a roadtrip & Ann spending $70,000.00 to transport her horse to London, to be ridden by an Olympic rider, was just yucky & stupid. Plus, Romney hazing the poor, fellow student at Cranbrook School by cutting his long hair, was just gross-me-out. Nuance can knock someone out.

    Now, the baffling part for me concerning Clinton is: she was defeated by Obama in 2008! No one wanted her then, and her & Bill's bizarre relationship grossed-people-out back then, too. And, now, with the facts we know (Brazile bs/millions from Wall St., millions from Saudis, Qataris, etc.) through Wikileaks & Weinerleaks, that plain-jane Democrats would still say "we're with her, " knowing she is busted, baffles me. Is it disbelief? What if she caused the death of your soldier child in the Middle East with her lack of interest in how to actually, stop and not exacerbate the implosion in that region ?

    I remember distinctly, celebrity and uber-wealthy liberals just going on and on about how Obama was sooooo much better. Yet, now, they are so appalled that people are wavering (she is the albatross that they didn't want back in 2007-8) over their support. Hypocrisy much? I mean, it will be a bitter pill to swallow that all the millions that all the celebrities and glitterati of the coasts gave to Hillary was money thrown into the Global Climate Change sea. Tides going out; surf's up in 6 hours!

    Maybe more guys like this will vote Trump, 3rd party, or stay home.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    well, there are Bernie bros that got the message even earlier. The big issue: after all these years, when these kids were in diapers, the Clinton Grifting Machine has been connected to the Middle East and the financing of these jihadies....and the counter-wars of other factions, that are all like lava flowing out of volcanoes...the Bernie Bros realized she is so not righteous. I mean, taking money from the bad guys/countries that took down 9/11!!! 9/11 still looms large for the parents of Bernie Bros, just like Pearl Harbor. And, Hillary is seen as a grifter with Bill on a huge level since Julian and Edward are sort of the heroes of the Millennials as far as how far all the other generations have F8Cked up TODAY. Hillary is a prime target of all the vitriol Millennials have for the subterfuge and depression of the economy and quality of life she leaves for the Millennials. They want us DEAD...especially all the old 80+ year old men who are major manipulators.
  163. Have you seen that Josh Marshall and Matty Yglesias have launched a big campaign calling this ad “anti-Semitic.”? Seems like a joke to me, but I never would have predicted Harvard would have cancelled its soccer season over private email “rating” girl soccer players either. Anyway, curious to see how much traction they get.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Jamie Kirchick too:

    https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/795005261119426560

    Gee, I wonder why these people are so triggered by attacks on corrupt elites that don't have Americans' interests at heart.

    , @Lot
    Richard Spencer did an anti-Semite remix of this type of ad, with images of non-white Trump supporters cut and lots of images of the Clintons and Obama hanging with Jews.

    http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2016/11/1/trumponly-the-beginning

    How nice of him to so eagerly spend the whole campaign meeting with the left-wing media, in interview after interview, and helping them try to turn Jews against Trump. The Hitler haircut made for some great visuals in these articles too. Why be subtle?

    , @Opinionator
    I wonder if this is a deliberate Trump campaign strategy to get free air time.
  164. @nglaer
    Have you seen that Josh Marshall and Matty Yglesias have launched a big campaign calling this ad "anti-Semitic."? Seems like a joke to me, but I never would have predicted Harvard would have cancelled its soccer season over private email "rating" girl soccer players either. Anyway, curious to see how much traction they get.

    Jamie Kirchick too:

    https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/795005261119426560

    Gee, I wonder why these people are so triggered by attacks on corrupt elites that don’t have Americans’ interests at heart.

    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Jamie Kirchick too:

    https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/795005261119426560

    Gee, I wonder why these people are so triggered by attacks on corrupt elites that don’t have Americans’ interests at heart.
     
    Jamie Kirchick might be the most anti-gentilic person on the face of the earth.
    , @Anonymous
    And Josh Marshall:

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-rolls-out-anti-semitic-closing-ad
  165. @Rosey
    At lunch at my workplace a Two Minutes Hate occurred which I did not participate in (along with the requisite Bernie worship.) A co-worker actually approached me afterward and said "I noticed you didn't say anything earlier...don't tell me you're a Trump supporter!" I said I didn't talk about politics at work which of course went over like a lead balloon and I have now felt the chill with my colleagues. We are all between 30 and 35 and I am the only woman. Unbelievable.

    >“I noticed you didn’t say anything earlier…don’t tell me you’re a Trump supporter!” I said I didn’t talk about politics at work which of course went over like a lead balloon and I have now felt the chill with my colleagues<

    Bring mocking humor to it: There's a shortage of toilet paper in Venezuela, can you explain that to me and when you can get back to me.

  166. @Lot
    Nope Brexit really did run 6 points ahead of the poll average (and 10 points ahead of early exit polls)

    However, there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US, where polls being wrong go both ways, most recently with Obama slightly outperforming the polls.

    Going in, I believed Shy Tory in this election would be worth about 2 points for Trump, but Hillary's better turnout operation would roughly offset that.

    So far, there is no sign of Hillary having a better early vote turnout operation except in Nevada, where Reid and the local unions have long had a well-oiled turnout machine, plus some evidence she has been able to turn out Orlando Puerto Ricans.

    In the end, however, I still don't see Trump winning Pennsylvania which he needs to.

    Actually polling misses tend to be because they undercount non-college whites. Obama over performed due monster black turnout that for out performed white turnout for the first time ever.

    Many pollsters are weighing to 2012 electorate, electorate is actually trending whiter on % basis this year, similar to midterms.

  167. @Lagertha
    If Trump was a horse he would be Seabiscuit.

    Just as long as he’s not California Chrome.

  168. @BB753
    Whatever happened to commenter Great Books for Men?

    GBFM disappeared. It seems like someone else took up the pseudonym for a while, but then faded into the mist like the original GBFM. It’s too bad really. Steve and his commentors have always been top notch, but I do miss the old Heartiste and Guchi Little Piggy blogs with their quality comment sections.

  169. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    Yeah, Unz, your button system doesn't work so well when a troll can keep posting in short order under multiple pseudonyms, but the other commenters can only use the Troll button once they've posted 10x and only once per hour...

    Also, Unz, your button system doesn't work so well when you don't take action against the trolls as you promised you would!

    Yeah, Unz, your button system doesn’t work so well when a troll can keep posting in short order under multiple pseudonyms, but the other commenters can only use the Troll button once they’ve posted 10x and only once per hour…

    Also, Unz, your button system doesn’t work so well when you don’t take action against the trolls as you promised you would!

    Geez, what’s with all the snark?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    For a while I was asking Unz for an LOL button, in jest more or less. but he gave it to us. Then he created the troll button and said he would take action against those who got "Troll"ed. Given my previous success with whining, I'm trying to get rid of Tiny Duck, who adds nothing here and sucks other commenters into filling up the comments section with replies to him.
  170. @nglaer
    Have you seen that Josh Marshall and Matty Yglesias have launched a big campaign calling this ad "anti-Semitic."? Seems like a joke to me, but I never would have predicted Harvard would have cancelled its soccer season over private email "rating" girl soccer players either. Anyway, curious to see how much traction they get.

    Richard Spencer did an anti-Semite remix of this type of ad, with images of non-white Trump supporters cut and lots of images of the Clintons and Obama hanging with Jews.

    http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2016/11/1/trumponly-the-beginning

    How nice of him to so eagerly spend the whole campaign meeting with the left-wing media, in interview after interview, and helping them try to turn Jews against Trump. The Hitler haircut made for some great visuals in these articles too. Why be subtle?

    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I couldn't agree more. What the hell is Spencer's problem anyway? As someone else wrote, he reeks of immaturity.

    His behavior is that of someone who is LARPing.

    (Mind you, I don't support his brand of White nationalism. But it's ironic is it not that someone who is held out as a leading and serious racial separatist acts like a LARPer.)
  171. @Jonathan Mason
    My 8-year-old daughter told me not to vote for Donald Trump, because he is "selfish".

    Suspecting that this might not be her original work, I asked her who had told her this. She indicated a dark-skinned woman on her tablet computer. "Oh," I said, "that is Michelle Obama."

    Came the reply: "Who is she?" So I explained she is the wife of President Obama.

    Apparently Mrs. Obama is telling children that Trump only wants to be President so that he can have lots of guards to protect him, and he is going to throw poor Cinderella Clinton in prison for doing absolutely nothing.

    I think my daughter is probably ready for Shakespeare's history plays.

    This is why I’ve been raising my offspring outside the U.S.

    It is kind of like in WWII where the British sent a bunch of their kids to the U.S. or countryside for the duration.

  172. @bomag

    the 47 percent speech
     
    ...which was given at a private event, then leaked.

    It is pretty much an accurate statement; I guess file it under the things we aren't supposed to notice.

    If only the 53% realized how accurate it was.

  173. @anonguy
    Here is a nice image that is meming around:

    http://i.imgur.com/hd9Knfw.jpg

    I heard Sweden dropped the charges…now it is just USA that keeps him indoors.

    • Replies: @Bill jones
    I did not know that. Source?
    , @Clyde
    wrong....but I read the Swedish woman Assange allegedly raped, wanted to drop the charges.
  174. @Dave Pinsen
    Maybe more guys like this will vote Trump, 3rd party, or stay home.

    https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/795064490568073216

    well, there are Bernie bros that got the message even earlier. The big issue: after all these years, when these kids were in diapers, the Clinton Grifting Machine has been connected to the Middle East and the financing of these jihadies….and the counter-wars of other factions, that are all like lava flowing out of volcanoes…the Bernie Bros realized she is so not righteous. I mean, taking money from the bad guys/countries that took down 9/11!!! 9/11 still looms large for the parents of Bernie Bros, just like Pearl Harbor. And, Hillary is seen as a grifter with Bill on a huge level since Julian and Edward are sort of the heroes of the Millennials as far as how far all the other generations have F8Cked up TODAY. Hillary is a prime target of all the vitriol Millennials have for the subterfuge and depression of the economy and quality of life she leaves for the Millennials. They want us DEAD…especially all the old 80+ year old men who are major manipulators.

  175. This new independent ad or short film (can’t tell which) about boxer William Campudoni’s recollections of working for Trump is impressive. He was Trump’s chauffeur at one point.

  176. Wow. Watched the video and saw the new haircut.

    Spencer is really trying to become the fuhrer.

    I’m not terribly worried of course but, after all, it does actually seem like there’s a cadre of alt-right folks that would make willing executioners should it become feasible.

    I don’t think that it will of course but if i did think it were feasible I’d join forces with the devil to crush these folk.

    Two important notes.

    The first is that George Soros actually IS an unrepentant nazi-allied war criminal. He was a teenager and the extent of crimes aren’t known but by his own mouth he had a fun time persecuting jews with his nazi buddy.

    The second is that while it disgusts me how much TPTB use and abuse the 6 million for their own petty purposes, 6 million jews WERE actually murdered by a civilized nation within living memory (my grandfather remembers).

    This isn’t a fairy tale. People still alive did this and their spirit is embraced by these (literal) c*******ers

    It’s a fairy tale to worry about it in America and I personally have a laugh at the hitler haircut homos but I understand the fear and loathing that some people have for them. That fear is mistaken and that loathing is ill spent but I can understand the error.

    • Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "6 million jews WERE actually murdered by a civilized nation ".
    Good luck convincing your future Chinese and Indian overlords to give a crap.
    , @M
    tl:dr, Jewish man feels "unsafe" due to hipster undercut.
  177. @Sean
    A British bookmaker has paid out on a Hillary win, yet the odds on Trump winning are falling fast. He took the right tack with the early full-on shock tactics to get the masses and become the candidate. Coming from behind in the final furlong with a more measured style aiming at convincing the vital undecided minority is perfect pacing. There was no other way for him, and no one else with the wherewithal dared to try.

    If Trump does not quite do something that absolutely no one thought he had any chance of coming anywhere near doing when he started, it's hardly evidence of avoidable strategic error on his part.

    He took the right tack with the early full-on shock tactics to get the masses and become the candidate.

    That hurt him more than anything. A lot of people found his vision and policies (when they could be discerned) very, very appealing. I speak of Republicans, Dems, Independents. But they were wary of him because of concerns about temperament, discipline, and whether he had a commitment to and command of those policies.

    • Replies: @Sean
    To be listened to Trump had to become the leading candidate .?He couldn't have got in a position to be taken seriously by thoughtful voters without first winning the much more numerous masses, and the masses can't be won over by the same things as the thoughtful. The intelligentsia, media and big business were almost against him. The odds of Trump becoming president when he announced he was running were what? No one could have done better.
  178. @Lot
    Richard Spencer did an anti-Semite remix of this type of ad, with images of non-white Trump supporters cut and lots of images of the Clintons and Obama hanging with Jews.

    http://www.radixjournal.com/blog/2016/11/1/trumponly-the-beginning

    How nice of him to so eagerly spend the whole campaign meeting with the left-wing media, in interview after interview, and helping them try to turn Jews against Trump. The Hitler haircut made for some great visuals in these articles too. Why be subtle?

    I couldn’t agree more. What the hell is Spencer’s problem anyway? As someone else wrote, he reeks of immaturity.

    His behavior is that of someone who is LARPing.

    (Mind you, I don’t support his brand of White nationalism. But it’s ironic is it not that someone who is held out as a leading and serious racial separatist acts like a LARPer.)

  179. @nglaer
    Have you seen that Josh Marshall and Matty Yglesias have launched a big campaign calling this ad "anti-Semitic."? Seems like a joke to me, but I never would have predicted Harvard would have cancelled its soccer season over private email "rating" girl soccer players either. Anyway, curious to see how much traction they get.

    I wonder if this is a deliberate Trump campaign strategy to get free air time.

  180. @GFR
    Just tell her you'll spank her if she doesn't vote for Trump.

    What’s a good way to persuade wives and girlfriends?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    Ahem...in some relationships, the same, but that's between consenting adults. ;-)
  181. @Jonathan Mason
    My 8-year-old daughter told me not to vote for Donald Trump, because he is "selfish".

    Suspecting that this might not be her original work, I asked her who had told her this. She indicated a dark-skinned woman on her tablet computer. "Oh," I said, "that is Michelle Obama."

    Came the reply: "Who is she?" So I explained she is the wife of President Obama.

    Apparently Mrs. Obama is telling children that Trump only wants to be President so that he can have lots of guards to protect him, and he is going to throw poor Cinderella Clinton in prison for doing absolutely nothing.

    I think my daughter is probably ready for Shakespeare's history plays.

    Not to take the wind out of your lighthearted tale…..but maybe you should start explaining politics to your daughter. My parents did around that age, and as a consequence I’m posting here, while my millennial female peers are having a collective hissy fit over Trump on various social media outlets.

    Talk to your kids like adults and they will rise. Just sayin’

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    I ask a lot of questions around here, I have to admit.

    What exactly did your parents explain to you about politics? And how has that prevented you from freaking out on Facebook?
  182. @SFG
    Sailer's argument, which I agree with, is that someone disciplined enough to stay on message wouldn't have been daring enough to break the party's silence on immigration. Ideally, we'd get a Goldwater-like Trump to break the ice followed by an adoption of the message by a Nixon-like character TBD (Tom Cotton? Kris Kobach?) a few elections later who knows how to go moderate enough to win.

    However, Hillary's going to open the gates and let lots of immigrants in to create new Democrats, so we no longer have time.

    You are somehow conflating courage and lack of discipline.

    One can easily be disciplined and courageous, especially in this context.

  183. @SPMoore8
    I expect Trump to lose and if he wins I will be happy to own up to being wrong.

    However Hillary's campaign hasn't been for anything, just against Donald, and that will show up if she wins.

    The problems we have as a nation aren't going away. The establishment isn't going to be able to solve them.

    The problems we have as a nation aren’t going away. The establishment isn’t going to be able to solve them.

    The Establishment’s only problem (in the short term, which s all it considers), is the presence of enough white people to vote them out of office and into prison. That is a problem that they can easily solve.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    That is a problem that they can easily solve
     
    If it was easy to solve neither you nor I would be here.
  184. @Sean
    A British bookmaker has paid out on a Hillary win, yet the odds on Trump winning are falling fast. He took the right tack with the early full-on shock tactics to get the masses and become the candidate. Coming from behind in the final furlong with a more measured style aiming at convincing the vital undecided minority is perfect pacing. There was no other way for him, and no one else with the wherewithal dared to try.

    If Trump does not quite do something that absolutely no one thought he had any chance of coming anywhere near doing when he started, it's hardly evidence of avoidable strategic error on his part.

    A British bookmaker has paid out on a Hillary win, yet the odds on Trump winning are falling fast.

    He was +245 on Thursday, +285 last night, and +335 20 seconds ago. The betting markets say he is fading.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    As Jean-Claude van Damme said, "Wrong bet."

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZp3SPXBR7A
    , @Anonymous
    Were they betting on a devastating November 5 blow from Wikileaks or are the early voting numbers that bad?
    , @Ed
    A widely followed Nevada reporter, Ralston, is moving the markets. It's difficult for Trump to win in most scenarios without Nevada, that's the conventional wisdom at least.

    Ralston has been making breathless claims since the start of early voting in Nevada that Trump is toast. Things reached a fever pitch when a line of Hispanics formed at a Latino grocery store in Vegas to vote on Friday night. The political press went into a state of excitement. Latinos will defeat Trump! Democrats outnumber Republicans! Ralston said its over.

    So ignoring the polling that shows a tight race or even slight Trump lean (Nate Silver currently has it red) the experts have declared Nevada over and with that Trump's chances. That's what is driving the market and also the nerd beef between Nate Silver & Huffington Post.
  185. @MG
    As I was driving through San Jose this morning, I saw an energetic group of some 30-40 folks standing with signs at a major intersection. My eyes bugged out when I realized they were pro-Trump signs. Even more surprising, the group looked looked diverse and mostly composed of minorities - Asians, Hispanics, a couple of Blacks. Brave are these souls to show their support for Trump in the heart of a Leftist swamp.

    Is this a sign of something? I don't know.

    As I was driving through San Jose this morning, I saw an energetic group of some 30-40 folks standing with signs at a major intersection. My eyes bugged out when I realized they were pro-Trump signs. Even more surprising, the group looked looked diverse and mostly composed of minorities – Asians, Hispanics, a couple of Blacks. Brave are these souls to show their support for Trump in the heart of a Leftist swamp.

    Is this a sign of something? I don’t know.

    I think it signifies an absence of white people in that locale.

  186. @SFG
    Sailer's argument, which I agree with, is that someone disciplined enough to stay on message wouldn't have been daring enough to break the party's silence on immigration. Ideally, we'd get a Goldwater-like Trump to break the ice followed by an adoption of the message by a Nixon-like character TBD (Tom Cotton? Kris Kobach?) a few elections later who knows how to go moderate enough to win.

    However, Hillary's going to open the gates and let lots of immigrants in to create new Democrats, so we no longer have time.

    Sailer’s argument, which I agree with, is that someone disciplined enough to stay on message wouldn’t have been daring enough to break the party’s silence on immigration.

    Sailer never made that “argument”, and it’s not even an argument. It’s just a ridiculous statement.

  187. @Moshe
    Wow. Watched the video and saw the new haircut.

    Spencer is really trying to become the fuhrer.

    I'm not terribly worried of course but, after all, it does actually seem like there's a cadre of alt-right folks that would make willing executioners should it become feasible.

    I don't think that it will of course but if i did think it were feasible I'd join forces with the devil to crush these folk.

    Two important notes.

    The first is that George Soros actually IS an unrepentant nazi-allied war criminal. He was a teenager and the extent of crimes aren't known but by his own mouth he had a fun time persecuting jews with his nazi buddy.

    The second is that while it disgusts me how much TPTB use and abuse the 6 million for their own petty purposes, 6 million jews WERE actually murdered by a civilized nation within living memory (my grandfather remembers).

    This isn't a fairy tale. People still alive did this and their spirit is embraced by these (literal) c*******ers

    It's a fairy tale to worry about it in America and I personally have a laugh at the hitler haircut homos but I understand the fear and loathing that some people have for them. That fear is mistaken and that loathing is ill spent but I can understand the error.

    “6 million jews WERE actually murdered by a civilized nation “.
    Good luck convincing your future Chinese and Indian overlords to give a crap.

    • Replies: @Moshe
    Your point eludes me. Is it that I should cheerlead the gay nazi guys because they're not Chinese?

    Speaking of the Haircuts, I'd heard a lot about Milo over the past 6 months or so and figure, 15 minutes ago, that I should give it a look.

    It was exactly what I thought it would be, pure repulsiveness.

    A man with a Bruno bleaching who wears a suit + pearls and has tgose fatty-faced features that are the tell-tale sign of female hormone ingestion.

    These facist freaks are now the leading alt-right spokesthings. How odd.
    , @Bill jones
    I did not know that. Source?
  188. @ben tillman

    A British bookmaker has paid out on a Hillary win, yet the odds on Trump winning are falling fast.
     
    He was +245 on Thursday, +285 last night, and +335 20 seconds ago. The betting markets say he is fading.

    As Jean-Claude van Damme said, “Wrong bet.”

  189. @MLK
    I told you my idea. A VAT on all goods and services equal to the new individual income flat tax rate. Fully refunded for all value added within the US with the labor of American citizens.

    Too sensible. It’ll never fly.

  190. @Anonymous
    Jamie Kirchick too:

    https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/795005261119426560

    Gee, I wonder why these people are so triggered by attacks on corrupt elites that don't have Americans' interests at heart.

    Jamie Kirchick too:

    https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/795005261119426560

    Gee, I wonder why these people are so triggered by attacks on corrupt elites that don’t have Americans’ interests at heart.

    Jamie Kirchick might be the most anti-gentilic person on the face of the earth.

    • Replies: @Jasper Been
    When I watched the video I actually thought it was a bit politically correct.
  191. @Tom Scarlett
    There was some kind of incident at Trump's rally where Trump was rushed offstage and a man was led away by police.

    Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School (!) who used to be considered Supreme Court material (!!), offered this response on Twitter -
    Key takeaway: violence follows Trump because the essence of Trumpism is violence

    So I guess Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy had it coming, too.

    Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School (!) who used to be considered Supreme Court material (!!), offered this response on Twitter –

    Key takeaway: violence follows Trump because the essence of Trumpism is violence

    Okay, Lawrence. What follows jews because the essence of Judaism is _____?

    We are really seeing the intelligentsia’s true colors now. Amazing to behold.

  192. @S. Anonyia
    Not to take the wind out of your lighthearted tale.....but maybe you should start explaining politics to your daughter. My parents did around that age, and as a consequence I'm posting here, while my millennial female peers are having a collective hissy fit over Trump on various social media outlets.

    Talk to your kids like adults and they will rise. Just sayin'

    I ask a lot of questions around here, I have to admit.

    What exactly did your parents explain to you about politics? And how has that prevented you from freaking out on Facebook?

    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    It wasn't explaining so much as including, starting around 2nd grade. Telling me what was going on in the news when we watched it together. Answering all my questions in a serious, thoughtful way and not just writing me off (like I see many parents do to kids). Giving me newspapers to read. Telling me who they were voting for and why. I absorbed it, it was interesting to me.

    My point is obvious: kids who are used to having serious discussions about serious issues at a young age, will have more common sense later in life. Too many parents shelter their kids from anything that isn't play or fun or school, with maybe some basic morals thrown in.

    On another thread a few days ago commenters were sharing advice about raising kids. The bit that struck me the most was the person who suggested using advanced vocabulary with small children, I.e "clean your room, it looks atrocious." That's some good advice, and it fits in with what I'm saying in a way. Throw the heavy stuff out there early, let kids absorb it and figure it out on their own.
  193. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3908536/Trouble-presidential-horizon-New-polling-indicates-potential-breach-Hillary-Clinton-s-electoral-firewall-problem-New-Hampshire.html
    Trouble on the presidential horizon? New polling indicates a ‘potential breach of Hillary Clinton’s electoral firewall‘… and the problem could be New Hampshire

    Renowned statistician Nate Silver warned there maybe trouble for Clinton

  194. @Anonymous

    Yeah, Unz, your button system doesn’t work so well when a troll can keep posting in short order under multiple pseudonyms, but the other commenters can only use the Troll button once they’ve posted 10x and only once per hour…

    Also, Unz, your button system doesn’t work so well when you don’t take action against the trolls as you promised you would!
     

    Geez, what's with all the snark?

    For a while I was asking Unz for an LOL button, in jest more or less. but he gave it to us. Then he created the troll button and said he would take action against those who got “Troll”ed. Given my previous success with whining, I’m trying to get rid of Tiny Duck, who adds nothing here and sucks other commenters into filling up the comments section with replies to him.

    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

    Tiny Duck, who adds nothing here
     
    As an example of SJW obtuseness the Duck is unparalleled, as an example of fallacious reasoning the Duck is matchless, and as an example of the mindless stupidity of our opponents no one can rise the the Duck's level.

    Hence, I must disagree. The Duck shows vividly, explicitly and unambiguously what we are up against.

    Cage matches have more constraining strictures and are less likely to end in death. Cowboy up gentlemen and ladies. We can win, and we must win. The alternative is the Soviet future envisioned by the left, enabled by the whores that work for them.
  195. @ben tillman

    A British bookmaker has paid out on a Hillary win, yet the odds on Trump winning are falling fast.
     
    He was +245 on Thursday, +285 last night, and +335 20 seconds ago. The betting markets say he is fading.

    Were they betting on a devastating November 5 blow from Wikileaks or are the early voting numbers that bad?

  196. How many of you people can remember “Rahodeb Affair “?

    Rahodeb was an online pseudonym of John Mackey,co-founder and chief executive of Whole Foods Market Inc. who for about eight years from 1998 to 2006, as his own company confirmed, posted numerous messages on Yahoo Finance stock forums under that nick.

    It was an anagram of Deborah, Mackey’s wife’s name.
    Rahodeb cheered Whole Foods’ financial results, trumpeted his gains on the stock and bashed Wild Oats. In 2007, his company agreed to buy Wild Oats for $565 million.

    Rahodeb even defended Mr.Mackey’s haircut when another user poked fun at a photo in the annual report. “I like Mackey’s haircut,” Rahodeb said. “I think he looks cute!”

    Well, unless Mr. Unz is having some fun on his own site during the slower traffic days, the real identity of Tiny Duck is finally revealed here:

    https://s15.postimg.org/7lna1u5iz/Alex_Soros_Is_The_Tiny_Duck.jpg

  197. @RadicalCenter
    Because the repeated LA Times polls showing Trump ahead nationally don't count?

    He's ahead of the rapefugee-importer by more than four points nationwide in the latest LAT poll.

    The LAT poll methodology is invalid. They ask the same panel over and over again how they intend to vote. The result is that the voters in the panel pay more attention to the election news because they know they’re going to be asked.

    In an ordinary election, that would be fine and produces good results. But what happens when the major media are wall-to-wall obvious nasty lies against one candidate? Anybody that pays more attention is likely to see through the propaganda and ask why it’s there. But the purpose of a poll isn’t to measure the opinion of voters that understand they’re being lied to, it’s to measure the opinion of real life voters. And real life voters believe what they’re told.

    Suppose you see wall to wall news anchors, commentators, and talking heads telling you first that Trump is a tool of Putin working in the interests of the Russian and second that Trump is a dangerous maniac likely to start a third world war. Both of those messages have been all over the media and ordinary voters dislike Trump more and more whenever they hear them.

    But if you’re on a panel and paying attention, you might begin to notice that the same commentators are pushing contradictory messages. Sometimes even in the very same sentence. And that makes you pay more attention to the fate of your nation and more likely to vote Trump.

    Usually the lies and hysteria of the major media are not nearly so obvious or biased. Therefore the LAT approach may be useful.

    But this year is special and ordinary voters won’t have the LAT encouraging them to see past the fog of lies. So the LAT sample doesn’t reflect real voter behavior and doesn’t predict actual poll results at all.

    So you can forget all the results that show Trump leading. He isn’t. Trump is 2-4 points behind nationally and you can’t win that far behind on election day. That goes double when you cheaped out on a lousy ground game.

    • Replies: @colm
    It is invalid for those who do not want to see the reality, like you.
    , @Amasius
    LoL. The LA Times poll is "invalid" because bro science and feels. Even though it was among the most accurate polls in 2012. THE most accurate poll in 2012, the IBD/TIPP, which shows a tie must also be "invalid" because bro science and feels.

    "Lousy ground game." We aren't low-agency porch monkeys. We don't need someone to knock on our door and remind us it's November 8th. Give it a rest.
    , @ScarletNumber

    That goes double when you cheaped out on a lousy ground game.
     
    I think it's pathetic that there is even a concept of a ground game.
  198. @TontoBubbaGoldstein
    You quack me up.
    Leonard Pitts is the Tiny Duck of MSM op-ed columnists.
    BTW, your link doesn't work, little yeller feller.

    Does Tiny Duck disappear on Tuesday night and vanish into the unemployed-troll vortex, or does he stick around? Will the non-profit he works for still have change in the till to pay the trolls after the election?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    At first I thought maybe TD was a misguided right-winger who gets a kick out of getting others to attack blatantly idiotic liberal pearls of wisdom, but the fact that he uses other handles to support himself makes me think he actually believes the drivel he types.

    I seriously think, based on the errors he makes at times, particularly when frustrated, that TD is a foreign troll or foreign-born troll, perhaps a propaganda-deluded Chinese troll who is annoyed that Trump is calling for bringing back manufacturing.
  199. @Svigor
    Jesus, now the pervert in the gimp mask is getting the first TWO comments. It sits around its mother's basement refreshing iSteve all day.

    It sits around in an open office, surrounded by terminals and fifty other trolls awaiting orders for the day’s trolling priorities.

  200. @(((Owen)))
    The LAT poll methodology is invalid. They ask the same panel over and over again how they intend to vote. The result is that the voters in the panel pay more attention to the election news because they know they're going to be asked.

    In an ordinary election, that would be fine and produces good results. But what happens when the major media are wall-to-wall obvious nasty lies against one candidate? Anybody that pays more attention is likely to see through the propaganda and ask why it's there. But the purpose of a poll isn't to measure the opinion of voters that understand they're being lied to, it's to measure the opinion of real life voters. And real life voters believe what they're told.

    Suppose you see wall to wall news anchors, commentators, and talking heads telling you first that Trump is a tool of Putin working in the interests of the Russian and second that Trump is a dangerous maniac likely to start a third world war. Both of those messages have been all over the media and ordinary voters dislike Trump more and more whenever they hear them.

    But if you're on a panel and paying attention, you might begin to notice that the same commentators are pushing contradictory messages. Sometimes even in the very same sentence. And that makes you pay more attention to the fate of your nation and more likely to vote Trump.

    Usually the lies and hysteria of the major media are not nearly so obvious or biased. Therefore the LAT approach may be useful.

    But this year is special and ordinary voters won't have the LAT encouraging them to see past the fog of lies. So the LAT sample doesn't reflect real voter behavior and doesn't predict actual poll results at all.

    So you can forget all the results that show Trump leading. He isn't. Trump is 2-4 points behind nationally and you can't win that far behind on election day. That goes double when you cheaped out on a lousy ground game.

    It is invalid for those who do not want to see the reality, like you.

  201. @Lagertha
    I heard Sweden dropped the charges...now it is just USA that keeps him indoors.

    I did not know that. Source?

  202. @Anonymous
    Jamie Kirchick too:

    https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/795005261119426560

    Gee, I wonder why these people are so triggered by attacks on corrupt elites that don't have Americans' interests at heart.

  203. Sailer and his followers are Bushites and they don’t give a crap about a Trump win since he is not a Bush.

    However , while I have no chips on the trump side, I wonder what they have to gain in a world ruled by the Clinton-Bush clan.

    Ms. Clinton will do whatever she pleases when she wins, and this site will be one of her victims.

    • Troll: Clyde
  204. @Seamus Padraig
    You forgot to mention the fact--revealed by Wikileaks--that pro-Dem polling firms have been deliberately skewing the results by over-counting Democrats and under-counting Republicans, as per John Podesta's orders. I really think Trump can pull it off.

    What do you have sources for this?

    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    Glad you asked!

    Original source: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/26551
    Nice story form: http://www.hangthebankers.com/wikileaks-podesta-emails-polls-rigged-hillary-clinton/
  205. @candid_observer
    I find it pretty astonishing that people are dismissing Trump's chances in this election.

    He's down by only 2% in the national poll average at this point.

    Any number of factors can put him over the top:

    Generally, in a change election, voters break toward the challenger.

    Turnout for Trump's base may be distinctly higher than expected because of their far greater enthusiasm -- and turnout for Hillary distinctly lower because of far lower enthusiasm than for, say, Obama.

    There may well be a Shy Trump effect, as there was in Brexit (which accounted for at minimum a 4%, and perhaps up to 7%, discrepancy between the final poll averages and the electoral outcome.)

    Any one of these factors could take Trump over the top, and in a perfect storm in which all played a role, could give him a dominant win.

    Of course it may be that none of these things really affect the outcome, and that he loses.

    But from my point of view, the factors that are now unknowable will be the decisive ones in this election. I can see no reason to assume his chances are worse -- or better -- than 50-50, given that we can't know how they will work out. A 2% difference, given all the unknowables in this highly variable and unprecedented election seems negligible to me.

    Sailer and his followers are Bushites who would rather see Ms. Clinton win, so they have put on eyepads.

  206. @(((Owen)))
    The LAT poll methodology is invalid. They ask the same panel over and over again how they intend to vote. The result is that the voters in the panel pay more attention to the election news because they know they're going to be asked.

    In an ordinary election, that would be fine and produces good results. But what happens when the major media are wall-to-wall obvious nasty lies against one candidate? Anybody that pays more attention is likely to see through the propaganda and ask why it's there. But the purpose of a poll isn't to measure the opinion of voters that understand they're being lied to, it's to measure the opinion of real life voters. And real life voters believe what they're told.

    Suppose you see wall to wall news anchors, commentators, and talking heads telling you first that Trump is a tool of Putin working in the interests of the Russian and second that Trump is a dangerous maniac likely to start a third world war. Both of those messages have been all over the media and ordinary voters dislike Trump more and more whenever they hear them.

    But if you're on a panel and paying attention, you might begin to notice that the same commentators are pushing contradictory messages. Sometimes even in the very same sentence. And that makes you pay more attention to the fate of your nation and more likely to vote Trump.

    Usually the lies and hysteria of the major media are not nearly so obvious or biased. Therefore the LAT approach may be useful.

    But this year is special and ordinary voters won't have the LAT encouraging them to see past the fog of lies. So the LAT sample doesn't reflect real voter behavior and doesn't predict actual poll results at all.

    So you can forget all the results that show Trump leading. He isn't. Trump is 2-4 points behind nationally and you can't win that far behind on election day. That goes double when you cheaped out on a lousy ground game.

    LoL. The LA Times poll is “invalid” because bro science and feels. Even though it was among the most accurate polls in 2012. THE most accurate poll in 2012, the IBD/TIPP, which shows a tie must also be “invalid” because bro science and feels.

    “Lousy ground game.” We aren’t low-agency porch monkeys. We don’t need someone to knock on our door and remind us it’s November 8th. Give it a rest.

  207. @SFG
    I would like to respectfully disagree. It's awfully fun to fantasize about a purge but, much like my fantasies about Scarlett Johansson, inevitably leads nowhere. You don't have the manpower for a purge, and I don't have the billion-dollar bank account to get a famous actress in bed.

    You have to decide your #1 priority--which I believe is immigration restriction--and push for that within the party. To that extent, join your local party organization, and support candidates in local races who favor restriction. Even if Trump loses, the GOP leadership now realizes the base is really, really riled up about immigration, and has enough votes to defeat future Jebs and Rubios. Now that the Overton window's been shifted, it's up to us to get a GOP nominee who's strong on immigration, whatever his other failings. Walking away from the party doesn't do that, and a third party is just going to split the right-wing vote and hand more victories to Democrats.

    What I want to see is a GOP candidate who makes economic arguments about immigration, knows how not to ring the college-educated white vote's crazy alarms, and can make enough neutral arguments about acculturation and assimilation ('we want to help existing newcomers become Americans') to avoid causing mass antagonistic Hispanic turnout. It's not as much fun as tweeting memes, but it might keep the country paler.

    What I want to see is a GOP candidate who makes economic arguments about immigration, knows how not to ring the college-educated white vote’s crazy alarms, and can make enough neutral arguments about acculturation and assimilation (‘we want to help existing newcomers become Americans’) to avoid causing mass antagonistic Hispanic turnout.

    You are hoping for a unicorn to arrive.

    There is almost no path through that minefield.

    We could use some better groundwork, starting by taking back some political ground in the academy, then moving on to the courts and the media.

  208. @ben tillman

    A British bookmaker has paid out on a Hillary win, yet the odds on Trump winning are falling fast.
     
    He was +245 on Thursday, +285 last night, and +335 20 seconds ago. The betting markets say he is fading.

    A widely followed Nevada reporter, Ralston, is moving the markets. It’s difficult for Trump to win in most scenarios without Nevada, that’s the conventional wisdom at least.

    Ralston has been making breathless claims since the start of early voting in Nevada that Trump is toast. Things reached a fever pitch when a line of Hispanics formed at a Latino grocery store in Vegas to vote on Friday night. The political press went into a state of excitement. Latinos will defeat Trump! Democrats outnumber Republicans! Ralston said its over.

    So ignoring the polling that shows a tight race or even slight Trump lean (Nate Silver currently has it red) the experts have declared Nevada over and with that Trump’s chances. That’s what is driving the market and also the nerd beef between Nate Silver & Huffington Post.

    • Replies: @Bill jones
    I did not know that. Source?
  209. @Chrisnonymous
    Yeah, Unz, your button system doesn't work so well when a troll can keep posting in short order under multiple pseudonyms, but the other commenters can only use the Troll button once they've posted 10x and only once per hour...

    Also, Unz, your button system doesn't work so well when you don't take action against the trolls as you promised you would!

    Don’t you realize that by responding to trolls at all, you are giving them what they want? If trolls see that they are ignored completely, they will likely go away.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    .
  210. @Lagertha
    I heard Sweden dropped the charges...now it is just USA that keeps him indoors.

    wrong….but I read the Swedish woman Assange allegedly raped, wanted to drop the charges.

  211. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tha Philosopher
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sbT3_9dJY4

    Must watch from Assange. Very poignant in the last 5 minutes:

    -UN ruled his detention is illegal.

    -Female rape accuser said the police made it up

    -Worries about his family. His world is the embassy.

    Knowing how mossad work, and how the co-founder of wikileaks got heart attacked, it would be insufferable being in that embassy for 5 years like that.

    He's going to be remembered as one of the greats.

    It’s been clear for some time that they’re trying to force a chilling effect on Wikileaks.

    We’re fortunate to have men like Assange and Trump who have principles and stick to them even in the face of overwhelming pressure. Someone like Hillary who swims in self-interested corruption would not be so hard to bend. Trump is clearly better leader material.

  212. Anonymous [AKA "Yorkshireman"] says:

    The “Trump, of all people” here is a failed shiv. And why would anyone think to take his “development” on such face value?

  213. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck
    http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article112632598.

    If you vote for Trump you are a bad person

    “If you vote for Trump you are a bad person”

    OH NO! How could I have been so wrong all this time? Here I thought it was more important to vote for a candidate who put America First, and sought to shut down illegal immigration and the flow of dangerous refugees to our country, than voting for a candidate with documented crimes and countless acts of corruption extending back decades to the present, who has no qualms about taking money from ISIS supporting nations and then pushing for expanded immigration of dangerous Muslim refugees, and for bringing in millions of welfare-dependent illegals and putting them ahead of Americans whose ancestors built the country and bled for it.

    But now, with this profoundly insightful, new and shocking revelation, that if I vote for Trump, I am a bad person, how can I not vote for Hillary? I mean, next you’re gonna tell me that if I don’t vote for Hillary, I must be a big dummy, and that would be more devastating than I could possibly bear.

  214. @Anon
    Sailer you faggot cuck, fuck you.

    Sheesh. I thought Ron was shutting down blatantly crude commentary like that with no substance at all.

    • Replies: @SPMoore8
    Steve probably gets hundreds of love notes of this kind on a daily basis, and this is a representative sample. Also it is distinguished in its brevity.
  215. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Eric Novak
    Does Tiny Duck disappear on Tuesday night and vanish into the unemployed-troll vortex, or does he stick around? Will the non-profit he works for still have change in the till to pay the trolls after the election?

    At first I thought maybe TD was a misguided right-winger who gets a kick out of getting others to attack blatantly idiotic liberal pearls of wisdom, but the fact that he uses other handles to support himself makes me think he actually believes the drivel he types.

    I seriously think, based on the errors he makes at times, particularly when frustrated, that TD is a foreign troll or foreign-born troll, perhaps a propaganda-deluded Chinese troll who is annoyed that Trump is calling for bringing back manufacturing.

  216. @Lagertha
    I called that one early. Romney putting Seamus on the roof in a crate for a roadtrip & Ann spending $70,000.00 to transport her horse to London, to be ridden by an Olympic rider, was just yucky & stupid. Plus, Romney hazing the poor, fellow student at Cranbrook School by cutting his long hair, was just gross-me-out. Nuance can knock someone out.

    Now, the baffling part for me concerning Clinton is: she was defeated by Obama in 2008! No one wanted her then, and her & Bill's bizarre relationship grossed-people-out back then, too. And, now, with the facts we know (Brazile bs/millions from Wall St., millions from Saudis, Qataris, etc.) through Wikileaks & Weinerleaks, that plain-jane Democrats would still say "we're with her, " knowing she is busted, baffles me. Is it disbelief? What if she caused the death of your soldier child in the Middle East with her lack of interest in how to actually, stop and not exacerbate the implosion in that region ?

    I remember distinctly, celebrity and uber-wealthy liberals just going on and on about how Obama was sooooo much better. Yet, now, they are so appalled that people are wavering (she is the albatross that they didn't want back in 2007-8) over their support. Hypocrisy much? I mean, it will be a bitter pill to swallow that all the millions that all the celebrities and glitterati of the coasts gave to Hillary was money thrown into the Global Climate Change sea. Tides going out; surf's up in 6 hours!

    I think Hillary is an even more unappealing candidate now than she was in 2008.

  217. @ben tillman

    Jamie Kirchick too:

    https://twitter.com/jkirchick/status/795005261119426560

    Gee, I wonder why these people are so triggered by attacks on corrupt elites that don’t have Americans’ interests at heart.
     
    Jamie Kirchick might be the most anti-gentilic person on the face of the earth.

    When I watched the video I actually thought it was a bit politically correct.

  218. @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "6 million jews WERE actually murdered by a civilized nation ".
    Good luck convincing your future Chinese and Indian overlords to give a crap.

    Your point eludes me. Is it that I should cheerlead the gay nazi guys because they’re not Chinese?

    Speaking of the Haircuts, I’d heard a lot about Milo over the past 6 months or so and figure, 15 minutes ago, that I should give it a look.

    It was exactly what I thought it would be, pure repulsiveness.

    A man with a Bruno bleaching who wears a suit + pearls and has tgose fatty-faced features that are the tell-tale sign of female hormone ingestion.

    These facist freaks are now the leading alt-right spokesthings. How odd.

    • Replies: @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "Your point eludes me".
    Non White cultures don't have holocaust guilt, and they're your future Moshe.
  219. @Opinionator
    I ask a lot of questions around here, I have to admit.

    What exactly did your parents explain to you about politics? And how has that prevented you from freaking out on Facebook?

    It wasn’t explaining so much as including, starting around 2nd grade. Telling me what was going on in the news when we watched it together. Answering all my questions in a serious, thoughtful way and not just writing me off (like I see many parents do to kids). Giving me newspapers to read. Telling me who they were voting for and why. I absorbed it, it was interesting to me.

    My point is obvious: kids who are used to having serious discussions about serious issues at a young age, will have more common sense later in life. Too many parents shelter their kids from anything that isn’t play or fun or school, with maybe some basic morals thrown in.

    On another thread a few days ago commenters were sharing advice about raising kids. The bit that struck me the most was the person who suggested using advanced vocabulary with small children, I.e “clean your room, it looks atrocious.” That’s some good advice, and it fits in with what I’m saying in a way. Throw the heavy stuff out there early, let kids absorb it and figure it out on their own.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Thanks
  220. @(((Owen)))
    The LAT poll methodology is invalid. They ask the same panel over and over again how they intend to vote. The result is that the voters in the panel pay more attention to the election news because they know they're going to be asked.

    In an ordinary election, that would be fine and produces good results. But what happens when the major media are wall-to-wall obvious nasty lies against one candidate? Anybody that pays more attention is likely to see through the propaganda and ask why it's there. But the purpose of a poll isn't to measure the opinion of voters that understand they're being lied to, it's to measure the opinion of real life voters. And real life voters believe what they're told.

    Suppose you see wall to wall news anchors, commentators, and talking heads telling you first that Trump is a tool of Putin working in the interests of the Russian and second that Trump is a dangerous maniac likely to start a third world war. Both of those messages have been all over the media and ordinary voters dislike Trump more and more whenever they hear them.

    But if you're on a panel and paying attention, you might begin to notice that the same commentators are pushing contradictory messages. Sometimes even in the very same sentence. And that makes you pay more attention to the fate of your nation and more likely to vote Trump.

    Usually the lies and hysteria of the major media are not nearly so obvious or biased. Therefore the LAT approach may be useful.

    But this year is special and ordinary voters won't have the LAT encouraging them to see past the fog of lies. So the LAT sample doesn't reflect real voter behavior and doesn't predict actual poll results at all.

    So you can forget all the results that show Trump leading. He isn't. Trump is 2-4 points behind nationally and you can't win that far behind on election day. That goes double when you cheaped out on a lousy ground game.

    That goes double when you cheaped out on a lousy ground game.

    I think it’s pathetic that there is even a concept of a ground game.

  221. @SFG
    I would like to respectfully disagree. It's awfully fun to fantasize about a purge but, much like my fantasies about Scarlett Johansson, inevitably leads nowhere. You don't have the manpower for a purge, and I don't have the billion-dollar bank account to get a famous actress in bed.

    You have to decide your #1 priority--which I believe is immigration restriction--and push for that within the party. To that extent, join your local party organization, and support candidates in local races who favor restriction. Even if Trump loses, the GOP leadership now realizes the base is really, really riled up about immigration, and has enough votes to defeat future Jebs and Rubios. Now that the Overton window's been shifted, it's up to us to get a GOP nominee who's strong on immigration, whatever his other failings. Walking away from the party doesn't do that, and a third party is just going to split the right-wing vote and hand more victories to Democrats.

    What I want to see is a GOP candidate who makes economic arguments about immigration, knows how not to ring the college-educated white vote's crazy alarms, and can make enough neutral arguments about acculturation and assimilation ('we want to help existing newcomers become Americans') to avoid causing mass antagonistic Hispanic turnout. It's not as much fun as tweeting memes, but it might keep the country paler.

    This analysis is, in my view, exactly correct. The way you win issues is to take over political parties and use them as a policy instrument – not walk away from them to a Benedictine Monastery.

    If you care about immigration, and we lose the Presidency on Tuesday, consider running for, joining or contesting, your local Republican organization. You will be surprised at how quickly the elected officials will come around. (This is essentially what happened to the Republican party in the West after Goldwater lost).

  222. the speech is NAPALM!

    he nailed it… i thought it was read script/recorded over vid….newp!

    MAGA!

  223. @Lot
    Nope Brexit really did run 6 points ahead of the poll average (and 10 points ahead of early exit polls)

    However, there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US, where polls being wrong go both ways, most recently with Obama slightly outperforming the polls.

    Going in, I believed Shy Tory in this election would be worth about 2 points for Trump, but Hillary's better turnout operation would roughly offset that.

    So far, there is no sign of Hillary having a better early vote turnout operation except in Nevada, where Reid and the local unions have long had a well-oiled turnout machine, plus some evidence she has been able to turn out Orlando Puerto Ricans.

    In the end, however, I still don't see Trump winning Pennsylvania which he needs to.

    “there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US”

    Yes, but has any candidate before been Literally Hitler?

    • Replies: @snorlax
    The Republican candidate is always Literally Hitler, although never before to this degree. Probably the highest-intensity previous Hitlerfication was of Goldwater '64 followed by Reagan '80, both of whom did outperform their polling numbers. But on the other hand there wasn't really any evidence of a "Shy Trump" effect during the GOP primaries.
  224. @Dissident
    Don't you realize that by responding to trolls at all, you are giving them what they want? If trolls see that they are ignored completely, they will likely go away.

    .

  225. @Moshe
    Wow. Watched the video and saw the new haircut.

    Spencer is really trying to become the fuhrer.

    I'm not terribly worried of course but, after all, it does actually seem like there's a cadre of alt-right folks that would make willing executioners should it become feasible.

    I don't think that it will of course but if i did think it were feasible I'd join forces with the devil to crush these folk.

    Two important notes.

    The first is that George Soros actually IS an unrepentant nazi-allied war criminal. He was a teenager and the extent of crimes aren't known but by his own mouth he had a fun time persecuting jews with his nazi buddy.

    The second is that while it disgusts me how much TPTB use and abuse the 6 million for their own petty purposes, 6 million jews WERE actually murdered by a civilized nation within living memory (my grandfather remembers).

    This isn't a fairy tale. People still alive did this and their spirit is embraced by these (literal) c*******ers

    It's a fairy tale to worry about it in America and I personally have a laugh at the hitler haircut homos but I understand the fear and loathing that some people have for them. That fear is mistaken and that loathing is ill spent but I can understand the error.

    tl:dr, Jewish man feels “unsafe” due to hipster undercut.

  226. @Anonymous
    Sheesh. I thought Ron was shutting down blatantly crude commentary like that with no substance at all.

    Steve probably gets hundreds of love notes of this kind on a daily basis, and this is a representative sample. Also it is distinguished in its brevity.

    • Replies: @BB753
    Not to mention the thousands of comments, worthy or not, sober or drunken, we non-trolls and regulars burden him with on a daily basis. Steve should outsource Komment Kontrol to India.
  227. @Matt Stevens
    Completely agree. Heartiste is unreadable now. The comments section turned into s t o r m f r o n t. Let's not let that happen here.

    1) Only hasbarats kvetch about Stormfront. No one else ever seems to read it.

    2)” Let’s not let that happen here.”

    But you’ve only made four comments here and thats only in the last two weeks, yet here you very exercised over trends on iSteve. While your concern is touching its also rather suspect. Verdict: concern troll.

  228. Look guys, she’s taking a dive under pressure.

    That deal with Jay Z was so horrible yesterday, the cursing, the optics, I thought, yeah the dive is on.

    And she was pretty hoarse, I thought, well, she is going to start coughing again if she is throwing it now:

    Sure enough:

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/video-hillary-coughing-fit-returns-short-speech-fl-campaign-workers/

    Wouldn’t surprise me if she has another fainting spell between now and the voting.

  229. Guys, if you don’t think the tide’s turned, checkout cnn.com front page at 1:15 est.

    Kind of a we are all in this together, we are all ok.

    Top two “Top Stories” are still about the “assassination attempt” on Trump, which was all just a minor misunderstanding played into a big thing.

    Like the zillions of other ones, but this is the first time it goes in Trump’s favor.

    Pundits everywhere are toning down the anti-Trump vitriol, hasn’t been hitler for days now….

    In the meantime, the faithful over at huffpo are still in some Stalinist/North Korea type reality with Huffpo internal polling telling them that Hillary has a 98.4% chance of winning.

    • Replies: @anon
    yes, the media lies this campaign have been so extreme the shock effect when he wins will be intense
  230. @Opinionator
    He took the right tack with the early full-on shock tactics to get the masses and become the candidate.

    That hurt him more than anything. A lot of people found his vision and policies (when they could be discerned) very, very appealing. I speak of Republicans, Dems, Independents. But they were wary of him because of concerns about temperament, discipline, and whether he had a commitment to and command of those policies.

    To be listened to Trump had to become the leading candidate .?He couldn’t have got in a position to be taken seriously by thoughtful voters without first winning the much more numerous masses, and the masses can’t be won over by the same things as the thoughtful. The intelligentsia, media and big business were almost against him. The odds of Trump becoming president when he announced he was running were what? No one could have done better.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Millions of us have been waiting for someone to come out hard against illegal immigration. to challenge out foreign policies, and to take on globalism. Anyone doing so would stand out.
  231. @Anonymous Nephew
    "there is a long history in the UK of Shy Tory, but no such history in the US"


    Yes, but has any candidate before been Literally Hitler?

    The Republican candidate is always Literally Hitler, although never before to this degree. Probably the highest-intensity previous Hitlerfication was of Goldwater ’64 followed by Reagan ’80, both of whom did outperform their polling numbers. But on the other hand there wasn’t really any evidence of a “Shy Trump” effect during the GOP primaries.

  232. @Opinionator
    What's a good way to persuade wives and girlfriends?

    Ahem…in some relationships, the same, but that’s between consenting adults. 😉

  233. @S. Anonyia
    It wasn't explaining so much as including, starting around 2nd grade. Telling me what was going on in the news when we watched it together. Answering all my questions in a serious, thoughtful way and not just writing me off (like I see many parents do to kids). Giving me newspapers to read. Telling me who they were voting for and why. I absorbed it, it was interesting to me.

    My point is obvious: kids who are used to having serious discussions about serious issues at a young age, will have more common sense later in life. Too many parents shelter their kids from anything that isn't play or fun or school, with maybe some basic morals thrown in.

    On another thread a few days ago commenters were sharing advice about raising kids. The bit that struck me the most was the person who suggested using advanced vocabulary with small children, I.e "clean your room, it looks atrocious." That's some good advice, and it fits in with what I'm saying in a way. Throw the heavy stuff out there early, let kids absorb it and figure it out on their own.

    Thanks

  234. @Sean
    To be listened to Trump had to become the leading candidate .?He couldn't have got in a position to be taken seriously by thoughtful voters without first winning the much more numerous masses, and the masses can't be won over by the same things as the thoughtful. The intelligentsia, media and big business were almost against him. The odds of Trump becoming president when he announced he was running were what? No one could have done better.

    Millions of us have been waiting for someone to come out hard against illegal immigration. to challenge out foreign policies, and to take on globalism. Anyone doing so would stand out.

  235. Anyone doing so would stand out.

    There were lots of people with Trump’s media recognition and business credibility. Why didn’t they run, eh?

  236. @SPMoore8
    Steve probably gets hundreds of love notes of this kind on a daily basis, and this is a representative sample. Also it is distinguished in its brevity.

    Not to mention the thousands of comments, worthy or not, sober or drunken, we non-trolls and regulars burden him with on a daily basis. Steve should outsource Komment Kontrol to India.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    nah; we are his demon children he has set upon the world!
  237. @Doc Dynamo
    Last year the dirtbag media anointed Angela Merkel as the person of the year.

    Is it possible that Merkel is the person of the year for 2016?

    Would Brexit have won without Merkel's immigration disaster?

    Would Trump have gained traction without it?

    If Trump wins, will they make him person of the year and Nobel Price? Somehow I doubt it.

  238. @Dave Pinsen
    It would be more practical to take over the GOP and exile the neoliberals and neocons. There's a big and effective GOP apparatus at the state and local level that would be useful to retain.

    And, odds are, Trump will be able to do this, win or lose on Tuesday. The only real victory for #NeverTrump would be if Trump loses in a landslide, which seems unlikely. If he wins, obviously they're discredited. But if he loses by Romney-like margins or less, despite them attacking him at every step, it will be hard to blame Trump or his supporters for the loss. The blame would go to NeverTrump + decades of mass immigration that tilted the electoral map so far against the party.

    Trump has exposed the GOP elite as generals with no army. Either the GOP makes way for him, or he can start a 3rd party and take 2/3rds of Republicans with him.

    George Will has declared that he hopes Trump loses in a landslide. He thinks that will save the Republican Party by allowing it to go back to business as usual. Where would we be without thought leaders like George?

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Hard to believe anybody ever considered this guy a conservative. I guess there was another Georgie deep inside.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsIbfYEizLk
    , @Lagertha
    I met him a long time ago (there's no way in hell he remembers a nobody serving drinks - even if I was dressed like a Punk..have to say, I looked gooood) at a function in DC; I don't feel sorry for him at all. I am appalled that he is so narrow-minded, who knew?! - he, who has always prided himself as a learned, informed person. I wonder if the brains of some of these guys over 70 are just calcifying/deteriorating from one too many cocktail parties in DC? OT: Trump is not a drinker....and I am astonished that not one journalist has written about this!

    For Will to be so beyond pompous, and turn his back on all the "real Americans" the ones the Republicans celebrated 4-36 years ago, is just, plain effin' sacrilege....I don't think he realizes that the formally, known in Reagan's years, as "the religious right/moral majority," are now the scourge by the likes of the Republicans like Will. You can't have it both ways, dude. You, sir, are a turncoat. Beware if someone sees the whites of your eyes...or your white hair and face. Ok, I'm getting into my nonsense-zone, but this guy needs to be punched in the face ;).
  239. @Harry Baldwin
    George Will has declared that he hopes Trump loses in a landslide. He thinks that will save the Republican Party by allowing it to go back to business as usual. Where would we be without thought leaders like George?

    Hard to believe anybody ever considered this guy a conservative. I guess there was another Georgie deep inside.

  240. @Luke Lea
    re the politics of tariff setting: how about a "wage-price equalization tax" on imports from low-wage countries like China? The idea being to offset the wage advantage these countries enjoy in labor-intensive manufacturing industries? Thus, in the case of developed countries like Canada or UK, there would be little or no tariff, while the tariffs on imports from middle-income countries like Mexico would be less than from ultra low-wage countries like China or Vietnam.

    This would be an empirical, evidence based criterion. Sausage wouldn't smell so bad.

    yes – balanced trade

    that way both sides can have a middle class domestic economy without a balance of payments problem

  241. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Tha Philosopher
    The biggest story in the emails is the ISIS is funded by Saud and Qatar.

    You may want to mention that.

    It ties in nicely with Netanyahu's Zionist campaign being funded by Saud, the Saud hijackers of the 9-11 plane, Osama's family, the Mossad celebrations in the van after 9-11 and, dare I say it, The Real Axis of Evil:

    Saud, Zion, and The Cuckold Party ('centrist' New labour/lib Dem/Cameroonian Cons, New Dems/Necon Repubs, Social Dem/Christian Dem).

    The Enemies of the West are who you would imagine: people that look like bad guys in movies...AESTHETICS DONT LIE.

    If you look like a wild animal, you probably are. Nature doesn't randomly assign aesthetics.

    The biggest story in the emails is the ISIS is funded by Saud and Qatar.

    Yes.

    If you accept the Yazidi thing was an attempted genocide then she’s complicit under article 3e imo.

    The other was the banks wanting open borders across both north and south America – instant 3rd worldization for the US and Canada.

    • Replies: @Opinionator

    The other was the banks wanting open borders across both north and south America – instant 3rd worldization for the US and Canada.
     
    Where did you see this?
  242. @Jewish Conservative Race Realist
    I wish he had made these arguments during the debates, especially the first debate.

    For the Republican side, this election has never been about Trump, but the issues that only he had the guts and patriotism to raise. It is the Democrats who wanted this election to be about Trump the man, and they got what they wanted. It's too late for that to change.

    apparently there are huge numbers watching his live speeches online now – it seems he may have built his audience first with the showman stuff and is now hitting them between the eyes

    maybe

  243. @ben tillman

    The problems we have as a nation aren’t going away. The establishment isn’t going to be able to solve them.
     
    The Establishment's only problem (in the short term, which s all it considers), is the presence of enough white people to vote them out of office and into prison. That is a problem that they can easily solve.

    That is a problem that they can easily solve

    If it was easy to solve neither you nor I would be here.

  244. @Dave Pinsen
    I've mentioned it before, but the Richmans' scaled tariff makes more sense than any fixed tariff. The scaled tariff is only applied to stuff from countries where we have the largest trade deficits, and the rate of the tariff declines to zero as our trade deficit with the other country does.

    The status quo on trade has been around so long that there's little nuanced thinking about it among mainstream pundits.

    That’s what I mean by balanced trade.

  245. Trump landslide imo

    it’s the ideological civil war afterwards that will be explosive

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    If Trump wins, we have to un-nonymous ourselves and fight like hell.
  246. @Chrisnonymous
    For a while I was asking Unz for an LOL button, in jest more or less. but he gave it to us. Then he created the troll button and said he would take action against those who got "Troll"ed. Given my previous success with whining, I'm trying to get rid of Tiny Duck, who adds nothing here and sucks other commenters into filling up the comments section with replies to him.

    Tiny Duck, who adds nothing here

    As an example of SJW obtuseness the Duck is unparalleled, as an example of fallacious reasoning the Duck is matchless, and as an example of the mindless stupidity of our opponents no one can rise the the Duck’s level.

    Hence, I must disagree. The Duck shows vividly, explicitly and unambiguously what we are up against.

    Cage matches have more constraining strictures and are less likely to end in death. Cowboy up gentlemen and ladies. We can win, and we must win. The alternative is the Soviet future envisioned by the left, enabled by the whores that work for them.

  247. @The Practical Conservative
    He's been putting the ads all over facebook and other social media. You know, that thing that 80% of women use, especially white women? Ever wonder why Trump isn't actually losing white women at all and is going to get 45% of the female vote instead of the 35-40% that Reagan got?

    He's been making a big TV push now when it counts, but the last few months he's been showing the ads you couldn't be bothered to check out all over female-heavy social media to millions and millions of voters.

    yes, he’s been running a social media campaign – which a lot of people haven’t noticed

    he’s a businessman – very cheap campaign

  248. @anonguy
    Guys, if you don't think the tide's turned, checkout cnn.com front page at 1:15 est.

    Kind of a we are all in this together, we are all ok.

    Top two "Top Stories" are still about the "assassination attempt" on Trump, which was all just a minor misunderstanding played into a big thing.

    Like the zillions of other ones, but this is the first time it goes in Trump's favor.

    Pundits everywhere are toning down the anti-Trump vitriol, hasn't been hitler for days now....

    In the meantime, the faithful over at huffpo are still in some Stalinist/North Korea type reality with Huffpo internal polling telling them that Hillary has a 98.4% chance of winning.

    yes, the media lies this campaign have been so extreme the shock effect when he wins will be intense

  249. @Harry Baldwin
    George Will has declared that he hopes Trump loses in a landslide. He thinks that will save the Republican Party by allowing it to go back to business as usual. Where would we be without thought leaders like George?

    I met him a long time ago (there’s no way in hell he remembers a nobody serving drinks – even if I was dressed like a Punk..have to say, I looked gooood) at a function in DC; I don’t feel sorry for him at all. I am appalled that he is so narrow-minded, who knew?! – he, who has always prided himself as a learned, informed person. I wonder if the brains of some of these guys over 70 are just calcifying/deteriorating from one too many cocktail parties in DC? OT: Trump is not a drinker….and I am astonished that not one journalist has written about this!

    For Will to be so beyond pompous, and turn his back on all the “real Americans” the ones the Republicans celebrated 4-36 years ago, is just, plain effin’ sacrilege….I don’t think he realizes that the formally, known in Reagan’s years, as “the religious right/moral majority,” are now the scourge by the likes of the Republicans like Will. You can’t have it both ways, dude. You, sir, are a turncoat. Beware if someone sees the whites of your eyes…or your white hair and face. Ok, I’m getting into my nonsense-zone, but this guy needs to be punched in the face ;).

  250. @BB753
    Not to mention the thousands of comments, worthy or not, sober or drunken, we non-trolls and regulars burden him with on a daily basis. Steve should outsource Komment Kontrol to India.

    nah; we are his demon children he has set upon the world!

  251. @Moshe
    Your point eludes me. Is it that I should cheerlead the gay nazi guys because they're not Chinese?

    Speaking of the Haircuts, I'd heard a lot about Milo over the past 6 months or so and figure, 15 minutes ago, that I should give it a look.

    It was exactly what I thought it would be, pure repulsiveness.

    A man with a Bruno bleaching who wears a suit + pearls and has tgose fatty-faced features that are the tell-tale sign of female hormone ingestion.

    These facist freaks are now the leading alt-right spokesthings. How odd.

    “Your point eludes me”.
    Non White cultures don’t have holocaust guilt, and they’re your future Moshe.

  252. @Luke Lea
    re the politics of tariff setting: how about a "wage-price equalization tax" on imports from low-wage countries like China? The idea being to offset the wage advantage these countries enjoy in labor-intensive manufacturing industries? Thus, in the case of developed countries like Canada or UK, there would be little or no tariff, while the tariffs on imports from middle-income countries like Mexico would be less than from ultra low-wage countries like China or Vietnam.

    This would be an empirical, evidence based criterion. Sausage wouldn't smell so bad.

    Great idea.

  253. @anon

    The biggest story in the emails is the ISIS is funded by Saud and Qatar.
     
    Yes.

    If you accept the Yazidi thing was an attempted genocide then she's complicit under article 3e imo.

    The other was the banks wanting open borders across both north and south America - instant 3rd worldization for the US and Canada.

    The other was the banks wanting open borders across both north and south America – instant 3rd worldization for the US and Canada.

    Where did you see this?

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    I think he's extrapolating/confused from Hillary's banker speech calling for hemispheric open borders.
    , @anon
    Hillary's speech to the banks.

    Why would she say it for donations if it wasn't what they wanted to hear?
  254. @Paul Walker Most beautiful man ever...
    "6 million jews WERE actually murdered by a civilized nation ".
    Good luck convincing your future Chinese and Indian overlords to give a crap.

    I did not know that. Source?

  255. @Ed
    A widely followed Nevada reporter, Ralston, is moving the markets. It's difficult for Trump to win in most scenarios without Nevada, that's the conventional wisdom at least.

    Ralston has been making breathless claims since the start of early voting in Nevada that Trump is toast. Things reached a fever pitch when a line of Hispanics formed at a Latino grocery store in Vegas to vote on Friday night. The political press went into a state of excitement. Latinos will defeat Trump! Democrats outnumber Republicans! Ralston said its over.

    So ignoring the polling that shows a tight race or even slight Trump lean (Nate Silver currently has it red) the experts have declared Nevada over and with that Trump's chances. That's what is driving the market and also the nerd beef between Nate Silver & Huffington Post.

    I did not know that. Source?

  256. @anon
    Trump landslide imo

    it's the ideological civil war afterwards that will be explosive

    If Trump wins, we have to un-nonymous ourselves and fight like hell.

  257. @Opinionator

    The other was the banks wanting open borders across both north and south America – instant 3rd worldization for the US and Canada.
     
    Where did you see this?

    I think he’s extrapolating/confused from Hillary’s banker speech calling for hemispheric open borders.

  258. @Roman Frege
    Trump is planning to use the tariff as a threat to get China to decontrol its currency.

    Doing so is a real win-win because it will bring some jobs back to the United States while creating investment opportunities and letting globalists in China look like the reasonable technocrats of an aspiring superpower successfully negotiating with a madman.

    “Trump is planning to use the tariff as a threat to get China to decontrol its currency.”

    At the very least to establish a balance of trade. Actual surpluses must sooner or later come when as a society the US is finally forced to stop consuming more than it produces. That would mean an increase in exports, including manufactured goods, and thus a likely increase in manufacturing employment, but unfortunately it would also mean a further fall in the average standard of living, which is what happens when you stop consuming more than you produce. Still, the sooner the better.

  259. Steven Pinker has denounced Trump’s ad as anti-semitic: https://mobile.twitter.com/sapinker/status/795429722419331072?p=v

    Sad to see Pinker reduced to this.

  260. @jason y
    Nate Silver's model currently has Trump at ~35% to win with many pre-Comey polls receiving more weight than they merit due to the game-changing significance of the FBI's announcement. Assigning Trump a win probability of under ~20% is less defensible today than it was mid-October. IOW, you're definitely wrong and/or signalling.

    Silvers is kind of a joke, after he said Trump had no chance to win the primaries. His current model totally fails to incorporate the results of early voting. Silver is the laughing stock of the statistical cogniscenti.

    Sam Wang has given Clinton >.99. (With a revised informal estimate of .91 – .93.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Who is Sam Wang? Is he well respected?
  261. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Silvers is kind of a joke, after he said Trump had no chance to win the primaries. His current model totally fails to incorporate the results of early voting. Silver is the laughing stock of the statistical cogniscenti.

    Sam Wang has given Clinton >.99. (With a revised informal estimate of .91 - .93.

    Who is Sam Wang? Is he well respected?

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Princeton Election Consortium. Very well-respected, but regarded as something of a methodological extremist. He pushes his models to the limit.
  262. @Opinionator
    Who is Sam Wang? Is he well respected?

    Princeton Election Consortium. Very well-respected, but regarded as something of a methodological extremist. He pushes his models to the limit.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    Thanks. Do you think he's right on this one?
  263. @Stephen R. Diamond
    Princeton Election Consortium. Very well-respected, but regarded as something of a methodological extremist. He pushes his models to the limit.

    Thanks. Do you think he’s right on this one?

  264. With election day near at hand, I’d like to give a shout out to a 3rd party challenger in WI-1, going up against the quintessential GOPe open borders shill Paul Ryan.
    Running as a “Trump Conservative” is Spencer Zimmerman. He is carrying on the fight that guys like Paul Nehlen and Dave Brat started, i.e., to wrest control of the party from the pawns of the lobbyists. If anyone on this board is a southern WI voter, please consider the merit of supporting someone who had the courage to step forward and help restore the party’s connection to its base, and to the interests of the middle class. The GOP is likely to retain control of the house, so a tactical vote against Ryan can only be a good thing for fixing the party leadership.
    https://vote4zimmerman.wordpress.com/

  265. @Opinionator

    The other was the banks wanting open borders across both north and south America – instant 3rd worldization for the US and Canada.
     
    Where did you see this?

    Hillary’s speech to the banks.

    Why would she say it for donations if it wasn’t what they wanted to hear?

  266. Hillary sucks))
    By the way, Trump has some interesting supporters among the American officers, either outstanding personalities

  267. Hillary sucks))
    By the way, Trump has some interesting supporters among the American officers, either outstanding personalities

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS