The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
WSJ: "How Donald Trump’s Winning Coalition Came Together"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

From the Wall Street Journal:

He drew more white voters and Obama coalition enthusiasm waned

By LAURA MECKLER and AARON ZITNER
Nov. 9, 2016 8:11 p.m. ET

Donald Trump did what many leaders of his own party said couldn’t be done: He won a national election by drawing a larger share of votes from the nation’s shrinking pool of white voters.

I said it could be done.

Mitt Romney in 2012 won white voters by 20 percentage points—and lost the presidential election by 5 points. That persuaded many Republicans they no longer could count on drawing higher margins among white voters, making it imperative to reach minority voters to broaden the party’s base.

But Mr. Trump showed that a Republican could win by energizing big parts of the nation’s white majority. Though the white share of the voter pool declined, as expected, Mr. Trump won those voters by a 21-percentage-point margin, exit polls showed.

That gave him a winning hand, partly because Hillary Clinton couldn’t match President Barack Obama’s vote totals in Philadelphia, Detroit and other metropolitan areas that Democrats typically rely on. The result: Mr. Trump won the formerly Democratic Upper Midwest—Pennsylvania, Ohio and Wisconsin—and he leads in Michigan, where the race remains too close to call.

 
Hide 154 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Sailer Strategy! Sailer Strategy!

    Maybe if we say it enough times people will catch on?

  2. My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people “racist Nazi homerphobes” and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80’s that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60’s was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about “white voters” as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    • Replies: @Lot
    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

    His transition team is heavy on corporate lobbyists and Chris Christie cronies and does not inspire much confidence. Hopefully he will marginalize Christie and Pence in favor of paleocons.
    , @Marcus
    Of course they are doubling down. Hillary will surely be the last white Dem candidate.
    , @Jus' Sayin'...
    Even if White non-Hispanics become a minority they will still be a plurality into the foreseeable future. Operating as just another racial interest bloc they will still have the sole power to pick and choose which other racial bloc(s) will be allowed to form a majority coalition with them. So even if the dimocrat/stoopid party establishments succeed in their plan to colorize and racially divide this country, the new third-party that coalesces around the White race will be the one controlling things forever and ever amen.
    , @Lurker

    My guess is the Left will come away thinking
     
    For the rank & file thinking doesn't come into it, what they are about is feeling:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiX-pPQMgXc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNi1hKi9Z5c

    To which the only response can be:

    https://youtu.be/Oo9buo9Mtos?t=14

    , @anonn
    Liberals are doubling down on insult whitey till he likes you strategy. The left wanted Bernie, who would have won, but the corporate whores at the DNC stabbed us in the back. I will be very interested to see if Trump has the courage to govern like he campaigned, and also curious to see if the Warren/Sanders wing will cooperate. Working together they could get infrastructure and economic stimulus done in about a day. He could also forge a new path on trade that would unite the left and the right.

    I fear that instead he'll cave to the granny-starvers in the Paul Ryan wing of his party. If so, it will be an ugly four years. But if he's got the courage of his convictions, I'm pretty hopeful something good could happen.
    , @Anonymous
    There is a lot of chatter on the web today about the fact that white women in particular were the weak link in the Democrat's election coalition. There's a feeling that they let down people of colour and the LGBTXYZ Community -- and that they aren't the 'allies' they would have you believe.

    I saw one hash tag labelling them 'snakeskinthegrass' …they are bigots, just better at hiding it.

    This is going to get a foothold in Democratic circles I can assure you - which is a positive development in my opinion.

    Of course nobody mentions that blacks had the power to decide the election, but opted to stay home and watch Netflix!
    , @Anonym
    They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority.

    It's going to be harder when their future (and some of their present) voting base is in Mexico behind a freshly-minted nice big fat well-designed wall. I hope Trump has the sense to shut down the immigration of those who vote anti-Republican. And cuts off benefits to elderly who have chain migrated here, which if it works out well will cause them to go back home.

    , @Coemgen
    "Homerphobe" - that's good! My wife is definitely a Homerphobe. She can't leave the room fast enough when the Simpsons are on.
    , @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    'What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about “white voters” as a block.'

    Yes, even Mister Milquetoast himself, Rush Limbaugh, today asked aloud: If it's laudable when women, sodomites, and blacks vote monolithically, why is it deplorable when Whites and men vote monolithically?

    This election has brought White political solidarity Out Of The Shadows.
  3. Wish I had a dollar for every pundit that has breathlessly exclaimed, “Absolutely NO ONE expected this!”

    I did.
    Ever since Trump won the nomination.
    Although I did think he would have been several points higher in the popular vote…

  4. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The alt-right’s motivator is their opposition to the new organization of society in castes.

    A division that sees white people of almost all ethnicities at the bottom, and a tiny fraction of whites at the top together with blacks and non-Hispanic browns (Hispanics are situated in the middle).

    That those at the bottom of the pecking order are the only ones accused of pecking when once in a while they have enough of the constant racial harassment and peck back is normal and can’t surprise anybody.
    Inequality and subjection are always rationalized as fairness and equality in human societies.

    Some in the alt-right aren’t against castes, but only against white people taking the bottom slot.
    They are as racist as their present racial superiors, although, naturally, the only ones to be seen as such.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    The alt-right’s motivator is their opposition to the new organization of society in castes.

    A division that sees white people of almost all ethnicities at the bottom, and a tiny fraction of whites at the top together with blacks and non-Hispanic browns (Hispanics are situated in the middle).
     
    When low end service jobs are filled by whites, and the typical doctor, lawyer, realtor, accountant is a NAM, whites in general will buy this narrative. Otherwise, it comes off like a Turner Diaries scenario - an entertaining but overwrought fantasy.
  5. My prediction:Trump will become a cheerleader for more Asian Legal Immigrants. Native White Americans become racially disposed via President Trump.

    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    So, you're not gonna let my comment through Steve.
  6. Trump was able to get the blue collar workers to vote republican in record numbers. Not too long ago this was the base of the demcratic party….now that they have re-aligned with the GOP the Democrats call them depolorables and uneducated. But when they voted for Bill Clinton , Lyndon Johnson and JFK they were blue collar workers the backbone of America. Now the left lables them and their progeny as backwards racists and they wonder why they lost this important part of the electorate.

    hopefully the GOP will embrace the realignment and purge the Globalists from their ranks.

  7. I see a lot of older black women in the course of my work and suspect that more of them may have voted for Trump than they were letting on.

    First of all, Trump was a very good looking man when both he and they were in their sexual heyday, and was much admired at the time he published The Art of the Deal. Secondly, they are unlikely to have been put off by the pussy-grabbing allegations, since many of them were used to crude sexual approaches when younger, and in their dotage like while away their time watching Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch and the like on over-the-air TV in the mornings.

    Thirdly, and most importantly, Trump is definitely not gay, which helps to override allegations of sexual crudity, whereas, although it was little discussed during the election season, many people strongly suspect Hillary Clinton of being gay, or bisexual. This last point will also have helped win votes from heterosexual white women.

    • Replies: @Sean
    Yes, a man would have beaten him. But no, being gay is a positive boon for female politicians. It's like female comedians (the best ones are all gay). Enoch Powell once said that women are uncomfortable in politics because they cannot bear to make themselves ridiculous. Trump's outlandish and unapologetic ridiculousness was a ploy she could not match
  8. It’s not the Sailer strategy, but it’s the Southern strategy as first implemented by Nixon and then by Reagan.

    Working class families came to Trump’s camp because he made it a priority, just like Bernie Sanders. Each stressed how concerned they were about their status. Each plainly talked about how they would work to solve their problems. This same group voted for Obama…twice. It was clear on the CNN coverage when they looked at the counties in the swing states and compared Hillary’s progress to Obama’s progress that Hillary was underperforming with these particular whites.

    It was identity politics–working class families–who focused on a core ideology, e.g. gimmedats from a political candidate. In exit polls, they generally had YUGE concerns about Trump’s status as an elite and his temperament, yet voted for him because they felt at this time he would look out for their interests AND they felt (correctly) they could not trust Hillary.

    Trump now needs to deliver the goods to them. Will he revert back to his elitist, Wall Street ways or will he stay the course as a populist?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    He gave very few specifics in his victory speech but one of the few programs that he did mention was large infrastructure improvements. These tend to provide jobs for skilled blue collar white construction workers, people who work in rail car factories (there are no US mfrs left but in order to get govt contracts foreign mfrs such as Hyundai and Bombardier set up US factories), etc. and so are just the kind of programs that are appealing to them.

    Passenger rail improvements in the US have been crippled by the fact that due to the bureaucratic swamp of environmental studies, etc. they take forever to get done and cost many times as much as they should.

    One of Trump's signature accomplishments was building a skating rink in Central Park. The city government had been trying for years and had spent a fortune and it just wasn't getting done - the pipes leaked, the affirmative action hires in charge were pocketing kickbacks from incompetent minority contractors, etc. Trump took it over and finished the job under budget and ahead of schedule because compared to building a skyscraper, a skating rink was a piece of cake. So building infrastructure is one area he would feel very comfortable in. I could see him building a magnificent airport to replace the miserable LaGuardia in his home borough of Queens (hoping that someday it will be called Trump Airport).

    The truth is that infrastructure in the US is miserable. Even (0nce) third world places like China have more modern airports, rail stations and lines, etc. If (for example) you could get to NY from Phila in 45 minutes by rail (this is completely doable with current technology - it's only 100 miles) then Phila could be a suburb of NY and all the hipsters who can't afford to live in Brooklyn anymore could live in Phila instead. A high speed rail line would not be cheap, but it could create BILLIONS in increased real estate values. The outer boroughs of NYC were mostly farmland until they built the subways to connect them to Manhattan and then they became valuable real estate.
  9. Sorry to repeat myself, but I don’t trust these exit polls showing Trump only beat Romney’s white margin by 1 point but beat him on black males by a huge amount.

    Once we get precinct and city data I think this will be confirmed. Just with the county data I’ve seen, Trump ran ahead of Romney 5-10 points in a lot of rural and suburban white areas.

    • Replies: @Travis
    does not surprise me....Blacks typically give 10% of their votes to the Republican candidate, I expected Trump to get closer to 15% of the Black vote and he probably would have if the media didn't depict Trump as a racist and if there was no BLM movement. Most Blacks support the Trump agenda when asked about his agenda, they do not favor open borders and are much more likley to believe foreigners have taken their jobs than white Americans.


    Trump had a similar message as Ross Perot, and Perot won 18% of the Black vote. California Gov. Pete Wilson also won 21% of the Black vote due to his anti-immigration policies. I suspect the leaders of the democratic party put so much effort into BLM and depicting whites as racist this year, because they realized Trumps message was very attractive the Blacks. Without the BLM movement and the non-stop racialist propaganda Trump would have gotten closer to 20% of the Black votes, just like Perot and Pete Wilson.
    , @NOTA
    What biases are introduced by exit polls? I know phone polls have he problem that not everyone has a landline, some families have multiple phone numbers, and it's not clear that willingness to answer a pollster is not correlated with how you will vote. Exit polls will still have the problem of nonresponders (with some possibility that willingness to talk to the pollster is correlated with their vote), but what else can go wrong there?
    , @GW
    Trump lost 4-5% of white Romney voters due to Weed Man and Egg McMuffin or NeverTrump histrionics. He made up for this through the working class/independent white vote.

    If he has a successful first term he can potentially win the 5% he lost while maintaining the new white voters he picked up.
  10. > What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about “white voters” as a block.

    They first identified us as white in order to villainize us. And then once “whites” became acceptable to talk about as a political group, it was used as a galvanizing force (somewhat, still not totally in the open). Perfect poetic justice of unintended consequences.

    I never cared about politics until I had a rude awakening and found out that politics definitely cares about me, in fact has a mf’in target on my back.

    Black Men Assault White Man For Voting Trump

    • Replies: @boogerbently
    Ignorant, arrogant, violent.
    HBD in action.
    , @donut
    I've got a gun I just can't carry it . In the USA today the worst crime a white man can commit is to defend himself against a Google . Especially in BR Baltimore .
  11. @The Z Blog
    My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people "racist Nazi homerphobes" and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80's that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60's was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about "white voters" as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

    His transition team is heavy on corporate lobbyists and Chris Christie cronies and does not inspire much confidence. Hopefully he will marginalize Christie and Pence in favor of paleocons.

    • Replies: @anon

    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.
     
    Trump can only do so much . He can start by clamping down on doctors prescribing Oxys and the like to anyone who can stumble into their office and ask for it .They can stop prescribing Adderal to every white girl between the ages of 15-45. He can stop the flow of drugs from the Southern border and make it a LEO priority to stop the manufacture of Meth .

    Can he stop the media from glorifying a sex and the city lifestyle for females ?? Can he stop the media from non stop promotion of alternative lifestyles ?? Can he stop the mass importation of breeders from the 3rd world ??

    I can tell you what he cannot do , and that is forcing the breeding age white generation to get off the 24/7 internet addiction and start having babies again .
    , @Lot
    Hey, complaining on iSteve comments gets results, Kobach just was added to Trump transition team.
    , @NOTA
    Demographic change is the result of huge and slow interacting forces, and is very hard to change quickly. Current demographic change in the population of voters is driven by immigration policy 20-30 years ago. You're not steering a speed boat here, you're steering a huge overloaded oil tanker. Changes to policy now will start affecting the voting population a generation or two from now.
    , @Joe Schmoe

    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

     

    True, however, some of us hispanic whites are pretty darned white and pretty far right. I am actually mostly English with some other northern euro, but really and truly some in my family came right over the border from Mexico. Of course, they were white, too. But whatever. Just because some whites are willing to identify as hispanics doesn't mean they won't vote conservative pro America over the "other." Now I do hope that Trump enforces immigration laws but he also needs to appeal to Asians especially Chinese who are now the single biggest legal group of immigrants annually. They make good citizens and need to be won over, which he can do if he tries. It would be nice for them to be conservative American voters instead of crazy leftist voters.
  12. Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President – now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger – in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn’t hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that’s who will be at the top of the ticket next time – he will be Obama’s “son”. Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @okie
    I agree with your first two paragraphs, but not with your conclusion. I don't think Booker has the charisma to make 2020 work. I have never heard Kamela H or Deval P speak so i cant judge them yet, (but from what i hear he was obamba the first draft, complete with the errors you'd expect). After that you get into folk who will scare away more Whites and Asians than they increase black turnout. Dunno where they go in 2020 but i doubt it'll be black. Maybe Asian, ( isn't KH a toofer) if there is one out there, but for the life of me i dunno whom.

    If i have to guess, i bet that the Dems wait till mid 2018 to see if DJT angers the populist part of his base by reneging on immigration, then start looking at the bench and end up with a Hickenlooper, Chuck Schumer or Gavin Newsome type(assuming he succeeds Brown), what else do they have between their coastal and lower Rockies enclaves
    , @AnotherDad
    Excellent comment Jack--nailed it.

    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President – now THAT is exciting.
     
    I was going to make precisely this point. It's notable--especially for Steve's blog--that Trump still did not get to 60% of the white vote. In fact the overall white vote really didn't move that much. The key seems to be that minorities--blacks in particular--were not really all that motivated to turn out and less likely to vote for Clinton when they did.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger – in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?
     
    This is the other critical point and what elected Trump.

    I had predicted in several comments that my read was Trump--would do a bit better than the polls--would carry the states you'd expect including swingers FL, NC, OH and IA which would get him to 259, but that he had a hard road from there as he really--as i'd said from the beginning--needed Pennsylvannia or had to break through somewhere else in the upper midwest (Wisconsin) or cobble together an unlikely combo of all the little guys (NV, NH, Maine 1st).

    This proved to be exactly the case, except that i was a little too pessimitic--i felt Trump had blown the chance to really *win* the election going away with a crappy performance in the 1st debate. But Trump did breakthough--by the tiniest margins--in a few of these Great Lakes states, PA and WI and probably once the votes are counted, Michigan.

    ~~
    I'd say the question still out there is where we sit if Trump and Hillary's negatives are off the table?

    In particular Trump actually did worse--from the NYT graphic--among college educated white's than not just Romney but McCain.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/exit-poll-analysis.html?_r=0

    That's pretty bad, considering Hillary's negatives with regard to fundmental principles like oh say ... "rule of law" and not being bought and paid for by bribes from Wall Street.

    The outstanding question i'd see: Is Trump's poor showing primarily because college educated whites have so absorbed the left\establishment\Jewish media narrative, that they take Trump's--pretty soft-core--nationalism as "Hitler!" Or was it more that Trump's bombastic real estate mogul, reality-show host persona and lack of governing experience and credentials rendered him "unacceptable"? Obviously it's both, but which is dominant? How would college whites handle a similarly mild nationalist, immigration-restrictive campaign by someone as properly credentially as Kris Kobach?
    , @Rod1963
    I don't trust the exit polling at all, Trump drew a hell of lot more whites than 1% more than Romney. Same thing with the media spinning that Hillary got the popular vote and voters saying Hillary was more qualified.

    Remember the MSM is still playing games with us. The fact that Trump won is irrelevant to them, they will still take shots at him. CNN did a attack yesterday on Melania. Fox is still full on nasty on Trump among it's conservative commentators.
    , @Flinders Petrie
    On hindsight, Trump's victory does seem to have been the perfect storm, with a fair amount of luck involved. But he has proven to have incredible instincts, and dogged determination to follow those instincts. Compare that to Hillary, who's instincts are almost always wrong, and a lot of the events that seem to have been mostly luck were at least partially explained by instinct.
    , @candid_observer
    It's easy to think that a party simply needs to select a candidate with a given set of characteristics, such as being a well spoken black man, and that will do the trick.

    But actual candidates have actual downsides, often highly significant.

    Corey Booker, for example, seems to have his share:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/20/the-ugly-truth-about-cory-booker-new-jersey-s-golden-boy.html

    There's a reason that the only real opponent to the corrupt Hillary in the Democratic primaries turned out to be a 73 year old socialist from Vermont: all the other available alternatives were only less appealing.

    I don't see much of a bench among the Democrats at this point.
    , @Corvinus
    "Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time."

    Exactly! Rust Belt whites have their own thoughts on race, but to characterize them as being entirely or mostly racist is Coalition of the Fringe Left Cringeworthy.

    It was about identity through ideology.

    , @Bill
    The Dems may get back to near Obama level turnout among blacks with a black nominee. But you have to wonder how high the ceiling is on moving more whites to the GOP. In the South, whites routinely vote by gigantic margins for the GOP. So, the ceiling for white votes is probably a margin of sixty or seventy or higher for the GOP.

    If this election is the first stirrings of a big realignment, then not only might the Dems not get their mojo back by nominating a black, but that might actually backfire on them by speeding up the flow of whites out of their party. It's worth remembering as well that working class whites have, on balance, less insulation between themselves and real black people than do elite whites. So, it's entirely possible for elite whites to completely fail to "get" what an ever-closer embrace of the Negro Turnout Strategy would do.
    , @Pericles
    It was so lucky of Trump to wait for sick Hillary to enter the stage.

    At one point, I was wondering whether he could have taken the presidency as a Democrat instead. First defeat Hillary and Bernie, then take on the anointed ¡Jeb! most likely (and cruise to victory). But apparently that route was deemed to be harder.
    , @Anon
    I enjoy your posts, even though you insulted me awhile back. But, "old white lady judges..."? In my experience women judges are pushovers for the kinds of arguments criminal defense lawyers make for leniency toward their black clients. You won't find many women judges with nicknames like "Maximum" Mal (colm) or "Hammerin' Hank, to name two old California judges known for tough sentencing. I wonder how blacks felt about Rose Bird and her string of 64 consecutive death penalty reversals, many of which had to involve blacks.
  13. Maureen Dowd (Pauline Kael, NYT of yesteryear):

    It is unthinkable to imagine the most overtly racist candidate — and head of the offensive birther movement — driving in the limousine to the inauguration with the first African-American president. What would they discuss? How Trump plans to repeal Obamacare? How Trump will appoint Supreme Court justices that will transform America into a drastically more conservative landscape over the next 20 years? How Trump plans to undo the Iran deal? When will Trump begin deporting Hispanics? When will Attorney General Rudy Giuliani pardon Chris Christie and put Hillary in jail?

    What would they discuss? Let hope all of these things; oh, hell, let’s hope they know enough about the topics to discuss them intelligently.

    Maureen Dowd (Pauline Kael, NYT of yesteryear):

    I thought the hard-core support for Trump had dwindled down to a hardy band of loyalists: Rudy, Newt, Chris, Sarah, Kellyanne, Omarosa, the kids, Melania — the woman who told him “If you run, you’ll win” — Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, Jeff Sessions, Corey Lewandowski, Steve Bannon, Hope Hicks, David Bossie, Alex Jones, Bill Mitchell, Mike Pence and my brother, Kevin.

    Like Kael, Dowd does not understand how Trump won, because nobody she knows voted for Trump – save her brother, Kevin.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "It is unthinkable to imagine the most overtly racist candidate"

    Wasn't that Barry the Kenyan?

    "and head of the offensive birther movement "

    Wasn't that Hillary?

    This is why these moron liberals are so vicious. They wouldn't last a month outside of the carefully protected cocoon they live in.
  14. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Clinton couldn’t match Obama’s vote totals in some metropolitan areas? Gee, I wonder why? Perhaps because she isn’t black, could that be it? She just didn’t excite them. It seems probable that despite all the hype the average black just didn’t feel they had all that much at stake in her. When outfits like the WSJ refer to ‘white’ voters one gets the feeling they actually mean ‘those white’ voters as in Julian Assange pointing out that they’re regarded as ‘white trash’. Or ‘deplorables’.

  15. @War for Blair Mountain
    My prediction:Trump will become a cheerleader for more Asian Legal Immigrants. Native White Americans become racially disposed via President Trump.

    So, you’re not gonna let my comment through Steve.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    I told Steve to block your comments because they don't make any sense, but Steve did not listen to me.
  16. @The Z Blog
    My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people "racist Nazi homerphobes" and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80's that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60's was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about "white voters" as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    Of course they are doubling down. Hillary will surely be the last white Dem candidate.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    It's starting with the party leadership...

    http://www.twitter.com/KThomasDC/status/796750461927886848

  17. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Apparently, Donald Trump is half Scottish.
    His mother hailed from the Hebrides – the remotest, most marginal, bleakest, toughest, hardest location in Great Britain.

    Usually, if any American President has any sort of remote ancestral connection to the UK, the British press, and in particular the BBC, in a burst of national pride, play up the connection for all it’s worth, even, as it is usually the case, the connection is hundreds of years old.
    Donald Trump’s connection is terribly recent. He must have many, many cousins scattered throughout the UK, as most Hebrideans emigrated.

    But, strangely enough, absolutely none of the UK media is playing up the Trump/Scotland connection.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    "the remotest, most marginal, bleakest, toughest, hardest location in Great Britain."

    So, you've never been to Birmingham, then.
    , @Lurker
    Very good point and he is far more British than Obama is African (in a cultural sense) given that Obama snr. was totally AWOL. Whereas Trump's Ma was always around.

    I would venture that most people over here don't know any of this.

  18. @Corvinus
    It's not the Sailer strategy, but it's the Southern strategy as first implemented by Nixon and then by Reagan.

    Working class families came to Trump's camp because he made it a priority, just like Bernie Sanders. Each stressed how concerned they were about their status. Each plainly talked about how they would work to solve their problems. This same group voted for Obama...twice. It was clear on the CNN coverage when they looked at the counties in the swing states and compared Hillary's progress to Obama's progress that Hillary was underperforming with these particular whites.

    It was identity politics--working class families--who focused on a core ideology, e.g. gimmedats from a political candidate. In exit polls, they generally had YUGE concerns about Trump's status as an elite and his temperament, yet voted for him because they felt at this time he would look out for their interests AND they felt (correctly) they could not trust Hillary.

    Trump now needs to deliver the goods to them. Will he revert back to his elitist, Wall Street ways or will he stay the course as a populist?

    He gave very few specifics in his victory speech but one of the few programs that he did mention was large infrastructure improvements. These tend to provide jobs for skilled blue collar white construction workers, people who work in rail car factories (there are no US mfrs left but in order to get govt contracts foreign mfrs such as Hyundai and Bombardier set up US factories), etc. and so are just the kind of programs that are appealing to them.

    Passenger rail improvements in the US have been crippled by the fact that due to the bureaucratic swamp of environmental studies, etc. they take forever to get done and cost many times as much as they should.

    One of Trump’s signature accomplishments was building a skating rink in Central Park. The city government had been trying for years and had spent a fortune and it just wasn’t getting done – the pipes leaked, the affirmative action hires in charge were pocketing kickbacks from incompetent minority contractors, etc. Trump took it over and finished the job under budget and ahead of schedule because compared to building a skyscraper, a skating rink was a piece of cake. So building infrastructure is one area he would feel very comfortable in. I could see him building a magnificent airport to replace the miserable LaGuardia in his home borough of Queens (hoping that someday it will be called Trump Airport).

    The truth is that infrastructure in the US is miserable. Even (0nce) third world places like China have more modern airports, rail stations and lines, etc. If (for example) you could get to NY from Phila in 45 minutes by rail (this is completely doable with current technology – it’s only 100 miles) then Phila could be a suburb of NY and all the hipsters who can’t afford to live in Brooklyn anymore could live in Phila instead. A high speed rail line would not be cheap, but it could create BILLIONS in increased real estate values. The outer boroughs of NYC were mostly farmland until they built the subways to connect them to Manhattan and then they became valuable real estate.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    100% agree with what you said on Comment 7.
  19. @Lot
    Sorry to repeat myself, but I don't trust these exit polls showing Trump only beat Romney's white margin by 1 point but beat him on black males by a huge amount.

    Once we get precinct and city data I think this will be confirmed. Just with the county data I've seen, Trump ran ahead of Romney 5-10 points in a lot of rural and suburban white areas.

    does not surprise me….Blacks typically give 10% of their votes to the Republican candidate, I expected Trump to get closer to 15% of the Black vote and he probably would have if the media didn’t depict Trump as a racist and if there was no BLM movement. Most Blacks support the Trump agenda when asked about his agenda, they do not favor open borders and are much more likley to believe foreigners have taken their jobs than white Americans.

    Trump had a similar message as Ross Perot, and Perot won 18% of the Black vote. California Gov. Pete Wilson also won 21% of the Black vote due to his anti-immigration policies. I suspect the leaders of the democratic party put so much effort into BLM and depicting whites as racist this year, because they realized Trumps message was very attractive the Blacks. Without the BLM movement and the non-stop racialist propaganda Trump would have gotten closer to 20% of the Black votes, just like Perot and Pete Wilson.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    In Ohio, he might have cracked 20% of the black vote.
  20. @Jack D
    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President - now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger - in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn't hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that's who will be at the top of the ticket next time - he will be Obama's "son". Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    I agree with your first two paragraphs, but not with your conclusion. I don’t think Booker has the charisma to make 2020 work. I have never heard Kamela H or Deval P speak so i cant judge them yet, (but from what i hear he was obamba the first draft, complete with the errors you’d expect). After that you get into folk who will scare away more Whites and Asians than they increase black turnout. Dunno where they go in 2020 but i doubt it’ll be black. Maybe Asian, ( isn’t KH a toofer) if there is one out there, but for the life of me i dunno whom.

    If i have to guess, i bet that the Dems wait till mid 2018 to see if DJT angers the populist part of his base by reneging on immigration, then start looking at the bench and end up with a Hickenlooper, Chuck Schumer or Gavin Newsome type(assuming he succeeds Brown), what else do they have between their coastal and lower Rockies enclaves

  21. trump won by winning michigan and wisconsin and ohio and pennsylvania…and he got those states because he talked about bringing manufacturing jobs back from overseas…it was not that trump got that much more white votes…it was that he got votes in MI, WI, OH and PA….there are a lot of electoral votes there… trump won through a regional strategy..the rust belt strategy…thus a one percent increase in white votes was leveraged into a huge increase in electoral votes….

  22. I said it could be done.

    But unfortunately Steve, you aren’t a “party leader”.

  23. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Conservatives have taken to “reconfiguring” science to agree with their ideology. The creationists relabeled their beliefs to “intelligent design” and festooned it with pseudo-scientific garlands. They constructed Potemkin villages from falsehoods to deny the science of climate change. Their latest venture is the rebranding of racism under the oh-so scientific-sounding label “Human Biodiversity”, or HBD. Herewith an explanation of yet another ideological foray into science.

    Ever since the amassing of data from IQ tests in the 20s and 30s, people have noticed a strong, clear difference between the scores of Caucasians and blacks. The difference is typically about 15 points, or one standard deviation. Statistically, there is absolutely no question that blacks score poorly on these tests.

    This has always served as an embarrassment to the designers of IQ tests, and they have made many efforts to revise the tests to diminish that difference, but despite many decades of effort, have never succeeded in this endeavor.

    Be embarassed, Sailer.

    • Replies: @phil
    Why should Steve Sailer be embarrassed? Why should designers of IQ tests be embarrassed? The issue of "test bias" was addressed in an in-depth way more than 30 years ago. There is a consensus among intelligence researchers that the difference in average scores between blacks and whites represents a real difference in psychometric intelligence.

    In the field of psychology there is much discussion of a "replication crisis," but the findings of intelligence researchers are among the best-replicated findings in the social sciences. Nevertheless, the New York Times (which does not send anyone to the annual conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research) and other major media outlets continue to paint a very distorted picture of what intelligence research is about -- because they have a political agenda, not a scholarly one.

    You should do much more to educate yourself about intelligence research.

    , @Federalist
    So, it's the fault of the test designers that blacks consistently score poorly. Who is "reconfiguring science to agree with their ideology"?
    , @Jack D
    Activists love to make a big deal about cultural loading - getting rid of analogy questions that talk about yachts and regattas because blacks have no familiarity with those. But actually the sections that blacks score the worst on are those with the least cultural loading like block design. There are a lot of blacks with considerable verbal skills but black mathematical talent is rare. So efforts to reduce cultural loading usually only backfire - they lower black scores but raise Asian scores.
  24. @Jack D
    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President - now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger - in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn't hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that's who will be at the top of the ticket next time - he will be Obama's "son". Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    Excellent comment Jack–nailed it.

    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President – now THAT is exciting.

    I was going to make precisely this point. It’s notable–especially for Steve’s blog–that Trump still did not get to 60% of the white vote. In fact the overall white vote really didn’t move that much. The key seems to be that minorities–blacks in particular–were not really all that motivated to turn out and less likely to vote for Clinton when they did.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger – in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    This is the other critical point and what elected Trump.

    I had predicted in several comments that my read was Trump–would do a bit better than the polls–would carry the states you’d expect including swingers FL, NC, OH and IA which would get him to 259, but that he had a hard road from there as he really–as i’d said from the beginning–needed Pennsylvannia or had to break through somewhere else in the upper midwest (Wisconsin) or cobble together an unlikely combo of all the little guys (NV, NH, Maine 1st).

    This proved to be exactly the case, except that i was a little too pessimitic–i felt Trump had blown the chance to really *win* the election going away with a crappy performance in the 1st debate. But Trump did breakthough–by the tiniest margins–in a few of these Great Lakes states, PA and WI and probably once the votes are counted, Michigan.

    ~~
    I’d say the question still out there is where we sit if Trump and Hillary’s negatives are off the table?

    In particular Trump actually did worse–from the NYT graphic–among college educated white’s than not just Romney but McCain.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/exit-poll-analysis.html?_r=0

    That’s pretty bad, considering Hillary’s negatives with regard to fundmental principles like oh say … “rule of law” and not being bought and paid for by bribes from Wall Street.

    The outstanding question i’d see: Is Trump’s poor showing primarily because college educated whites have so absorbed the left\establishment\Jewish media narrative, that they take Trump’s–pretty soft-core–nationalism as “Hitler!” Or was it more that Trump’s bombastic real estate mogul, reality-show host persona and lack of governing experience and credentials rendered him “unacceptable”? Obviously it’s both, but which is dominant? How would college whites handle a similarly mild nationalist, immigration-restrictive campaign by someone as properly credentially as Kris Kobach?

    • Replies: @candid_observer

    . It’s notable–especially for Steve’s blog–that Trump still did not get to 60% of the white vote.
     
    I keep seeing this sort of statement being made, but I wonder how sound is its basis.

    I presume that the numbers are based on exit polls. But if the Shy Trumpers didn't show up in the standard polls before the election, why on earth would they show up when being queried right outside the precinct voting area, in person, and perhaps in front of neighbors? Wouldn't one expect even more of a Shy Trump effect under those circumstances? At bare minimum, wouldn't a Trump voter be more inclined to refuse to answer a pollster under those circumstances?

    In general, I wonder how much the currently touted statistics will be revised after more careful studies are conducted. Isn't that what happened in previous elections? As I recall, Steve himself delved into this issue, coming up with different numbers.
    , @Jack D
    As I have said before, the Democrat Party basically made the Marcia Clark mistake (not surprising because the whites in the party are a lot like Marcia Clark themselves). They assumed it was the turn of Hillary, the turn of women. A white woman had stepped aside in favor of a black man and the black man was strongly backed by the white women of the party, so naturally the Presidency should rotate among the members of the Coalition of the Fringes and this time the blacks should reciprocate and back the woman. Maybe in 8 years we would have our first gay or Latino President and then it would be the black's turn again 8 years after that. Blacks OTOH view it like they view the Academy Awards and the Grammys - once a black has won the category, then from now on ALL the winners should be black or else it's racism.
    , @ben tillman

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger – in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney.
     
    Which is a complete vindication of Steve's strategy for winning a Presidential election.
  25. I think the best part of a Trump administration is that it creates a real platform to get the word out to the public. They have been sucking in the media narrative without question for decades, and now there is a real chance to create an alternative narrative.

    I think many people are voting their guts over their heads right now, but we need to explain to their heads why their gut is right.

    If you look at the election data, the gut is where it should be, but the head doesn’t fit. Off with the head?

  26. So, on the last day of the campaign, Hillary Clinton tried to turn out the black vote in Philly with a big concert featuring………………….Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi?

    • LOL: Kylie
    • Replies: @Kyle
    No, she was trying to turn out the white vote in Bucks and Montgomery by having a Springsteen and friends concert at quaint independence hall, in old city. She totally took the black vote for granted, they weren't paying attention to the election this year I guess.
    , @Jefferson
    "So, on the last day of the campaign, Hillary Clinton tried to turn out the black vote in Philly with a big concert featuring………………….Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi?"

    Jovi and The Boss, I think Crooked Hildabeast tried to turn out the Italian vote. The 8 Italian voters in the whole country who like her.

  27. @Jack D
    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President - now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger - in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn't hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that's who will be at the top of the ticket next time - he will be Obama's "son". Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    I don’t trust the exit polling at all, Trump drew a hell of lot more whites than 1% more than Romney. Same thing with the media spinning that Hillary got the popular vote and voters saying Hillary was more qualified.

    Remember the MSM is still playing games with us. The fact that Trump won is irrelevant to them, they will still take shots at him. CNN did a attack yesterday on Melania. Fox is still full on nasty on Trump among it’s conservative commentators.

    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    CNN did a attack yesterday on Melania.
     
    Ugh, remember how the media went on and on about how beautiful Michelle Obama was, even though she isn't. Now that there is a truly beautiful first lady let's seen how the jealous chicks in the media react. I am guessing they will be all claws out like the vicious cat women they are.
  28. @Jack D
    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President - now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger - in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn't hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that's who will be at the top of the ticket next time - he will be Obama's "son". Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    On hindsight, Trump’s victory does seem to have been the perfect storm, with a fair amount of luck involved. But he has proven to have incredible instincts, and dogged determination to follow those instincts. Compare that to Hillary, who’s instincts are almost always wrong, and a lot of the events that seem to have been mostly luck were at least partially explained by instinct.

    • Replies: @Soviet of Washington
    Luck is the residue of design. - Branch Rickey
  29. No one has mentioned the 3% of the vote for Gary Dopehead…..er Johnson and also Kosher Egg McMuffin. These clowns deprived Trump of an absolute majority of the vote. And that’s before I mention the Democrats’ use of illegal voters and illegal voting.
    No claims of Trump being the luckiest man in the World, please. He won fair and square against very corrupt opponents.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "No one has mentioned the 3% of the vote for Gary Dopehead…..er Johnson and also Kosher Egg McMuffin."

    Kosher? Evan is a Mormon not a Jew. There are no Jews living in Utah, just like there are no Italians living in Utah.

  30. Or “How Hillary Clinton’s Winning Coalition Of The Fringes Came Apart”

    Also this in from Haaretz:

    Trump’s Election Means the End of Reform and Conservative Jewry, Says Dery

    Interior minister describes the current period as the ‘birth-pangs of the Messiah,’ during which everything is going right for the People of Israel.

    Donald Trump’s victory in the United States election represents the downfall of “the deniers and mimics of religion”

    Many Jews had said in recent days that the election of Trump would be “a miracle denoting the arrival of the days of the Messiah,” Dery noted. “Indeed we are experiencing the birth pangs of the Messiah, with everything changing for the good of the People of Israel.”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.752370

    BTW, Religious Jews are always saying that Messiah stuff, so don’t stock up on freeze dried beef stroganoff pouches just yet.

  31. @AnotherDad
    Excellent comment Jack--nailed it.

    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President – now THAT is exciting.
     
    I was going to make precisely this point. It's notable--especially for Steve's blog--that Trump still did not get to 60% of the white vote. In fact the overall white vote really didn't move that much. The key seems to be that minorities--blacks in particular--were not really all that motivated to turn out and less likely to vote for Clinton when they did.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger – in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?
     
    This is the other critical point and what elected Trump.

    I had predicted in several comments that my read was Trump--would do a bit better than the polls--would carry the states you'd expect including swingers FL, NC, OH and IA which would get him to 259, but that he had a hard road from there as he really--as i'd said from the beginning--needed Pennsylvannia or had to break through somewhere else in the upper midwest (Wisconsin) or cobble together an unlikely combo of all the little guys (NV, NH, Maine 1st).

    This proved to be exactly the case, except that i was a little too pessimitic--i felt Trump had blown the chance to really *win* the election going away with a crappy performance in the 1st debate. But Trump did breakthough--by the tiniest margins--in a few of these Great Lakes states, PA and WI and probably once the votes are counted, Michigan.

    ~~
    I'd say the question still out there is where we sit if Trump and Hillary's negatives are off the table?

    In particular Trump actually did worse--from the NYT graphic--among college educated white's than not just Romney but McCain.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/exit-poll-analysis.html?_r=0

    That's pretty bad, considering Hillary's negatives with regard to fundmental principles like oh say ... "rule of law" and not being bought and paid for by bribes from Wall Street.

    The outstanding question i'd see: Is Trump's poor showing primarily because college educated whites have so absorbed the left\establishment\Jewish media narrative, that they take Trump's--pretty soft-core--nationalism as "Hitler!" Or was it more that Trump's bombastic real estate mogul, reality-show host persona and lack of governing experience and credentials rendered him "unacceptable"? Obviously it's both, but which is dominant? How would college whites handle a similarly mild nationalist, immigration-restrictive campaign by someone as properly credentially as Kris Kobach?

    . It’s notable–especially for Steve’s blog–that Trump still did not get to 60% of the white vote.

    I keep seeing this sort of statement being made, but I wonder how sound is its basis.

    I presume that the numbers are based on exit polls. But if the Shy Trumpers didn’t show up in the standard polls before the election, why on earth would they show up when being queried right outside the precinct voting area, in person, and perhaps in front of neighbors? Wouldn’t one expect even more of a Shy Trump effect under those circumstances? At bare minimum, wouldn’t a Trump voter be more inclined to refuse to answer a pollster under those circumstances?

    In general, I wonder how much the currently touted statistics will be revised after more careful studies are conducted. Isn’t that what happened in previous elections? As I recall, Steve himself delved into this issue, coming up with different numbers.

    • Replies: @Bill
    It's not just "in front of their neighbors" either. The way the pollster looks has an effect. As I recall, a study done after the W exit poll debacle found that whites would not tell mutant pollsters the truth about voting for W---many would not even talk to mutant exit pollsters. There are not that many bored housewives to hire to do this kind of work any more. Think about who is going to be willing to do this kind of temporary, one day, job for crappy wages.

    Maybe they should fly in 18 year old Ukrainian girls to do the exit polling.
  32. Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama.

    The Math: Trump 2016 Would’ve Beaten Obama 2012

    • Replies: @George
    The National Review is flattering Trump? I guess they are walking back their belief Trump was going for the meth head vote.

    Voter turnout returns to the mean

    US presidential election turnout
    https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HyVPtXGZl
    , @ATate
    Now it states that Obama would have beaten trump.

    *Mea Culpa.

    All is right with the world again.
    , @AnotherDad
    This is an objectively stupid piece even before the guy admitted the NYT data he used wasn't complete and he got it wrong.

    The problem is the Trump's vote totals did not come against Hillary not Obama, and Obama's are against Romney not Trump, so comparing them straight up is just stupid.

    You have some adjustments to make:

    Obama votes:
    -- ones that would not have voted in race with Trump -- likely small
    -- ones that voted for Obama over Romney but would have switched to Trump -- some blue collar whites
    -- ones that voted Romney but would have voted for Obama against Trump -- some college whites

    Trump votes:
    -- ones that would not have voted in a race against Obama -- likely small, maybe some blue collar whites really disgusted with Hillary
    -- ones that voted for Trump over Hillary, but would have switched to Obama--likely a few percent of the black vote, a decent chunk of Trump's Asian support (particularly Indians)probably a few whites especially men not wanting to listen to hectoring Hillary
    -- ones that voted Hillary but would have voted for Trump if against Obama--likely non-existent

    You'd have to get numbers attached to these things, but I think a reasonable take is that Trump's numbers go down from defecting minorities and folks just disgusted with Hillary, while Obama's numbers likely stay in the same ballpark--picking up even more college educated whites, while losing some blue collar whites.

    Now someone with Trump's energy, persistence and charisma, without the pussy-grabbing baggage, but instead an articulate nationalist and with a resume more acceptable to white college grads--combine the best of Trump and Romney in say an auto exec rather than a finance or real estate\TV personality (Romney's dad with Trump's pizazz) ... maybe you've got a winner.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Isn't it funny that the same people who said Trump wasn't going to win are now saying it was luck?

    Hey you doofuses, Trump put to bed the two leading political dynasties in the same race in his first race!

    Some of you have been wrong this entire thing, and are unable to learn from it.
  33. The truth is that infrastructure in the US is miserable. Even (0nce) third world places like China have more modern airports, rail stations and lines, etc. If (for example) you could get to NY from Phila in 45 minutes by rail (this is completely doable with current technology – it’s only 100 miles) then Phila could be a suburb of NY and all the hipsters who can’t afford to live in Brooklyn anymore could live in Phila instead.

    This is true, but the question is why. It seems to me that government entities in the US are terrified of offending taxpayers by building state-of-the-art infrastructure, other than sports stadiums, apparently, and so everything is build as cheaply as possible and then subcontracted to corporate commercial interests. This is why US airports are so crummy and lack decent restaurants, free wifi (with some exceptions) and decent amenities, and resemble suburban shopping malls with food forecourts, but you still can’t buy anything really useful at a reasonable price while you are held captive waiting for the weather to improve.

    Americans are brilliant at building straight, wide roads, but as soon as you leave the main highways, the supporting transportation infrastructure is crummy. Gas stations have huge displays of overpriced cold sugary drinks, but the toilets are crummy and dirty, and you can’t get anything resembling a decent cup of coffee anywhere, other than the odd Cuban restaurant or cafe.

    Interstate highway official rest stops are just toilets with vending machines, when they could be so much more.

    Government buildings like drivers’ license centers are subsidized by placing candy vending machines at eye level for small children who soon get bored and start panhandling for coins, or snack and soda machines for adults.

    In spite of Obamacare and all that, we are still a long way from cheap and cheerful health clinics like most countries overseas have, where working people or parents can quickly stop by and get a prescription for antibiotics without taking half a day off work or school. In fact it would vastly reduce health care costs if patients could buy more common drugs from pharmacies without doctor’s prescriptions, as in many countries overseas. There are certain downsides to this proposal, but the BILLIONS of dollars in health care costs and missed work and school times would surely compensate. I don’t recall hearing any innovative ideas on health care from Hillary during the election campaign.

    There is just so much that could be done by government to improve the overall quality of life in the US, not that I personally have any particular faith in Trump, but at least his comments about making vast efforts to improve infrastructure show that he is walking around with his eyes open.

    And there is a problem with crime and immigrants and refugees. Of course not all Mexicans who head north are criminals, but Mexico hardly bends over backwards to ensure that delinquents stay at home, and many immigrants get sucked into crime when they find out that well-paid jobs are hard to come by, regardless of how hard working you are.

    I know a legal immigrant with a green card right now who is super law abiding, but is working as a private caregiver to an invalid in a private home where no taxes or social security are paid, which is technically a crime, but what are people to do to make a living? A family may be able to pay an immigrant $10 an hour, but be completely unable to afford the $17 for an agency employee with social security, health insurance, and workers comp.

    This individual also works in a “legal” job for a well-known national hotel chain in its expensive bistro, but gets minimum wage minus deductions for social and taxes, plus has FICA income tax withheld on imaginary tips that are never received.

    So immigrants come to the US with no intention of committing crimes, but end up doing so just to make ends meet, buy food and clothing for children, and so on. Is it any wonder that many will end up supplementing earnings via prostitution, drug dealing, and other black economy activities?

    Will Trump make anything change? Probably not, but we have already had a Clinton in the White House and don’t need more of the same.

    • Agree: (((Owen)))
    • Replies: @Joe Schmoe

    Gas stations have huge displays of overpriced cold sugary drinks, but the toilets are crummy and dirty,
     
    you must not have Buc-ee's

    https://www.buc-ees.com/restrooms.php
    , @Almost Missouri
    One thing that gets left out of these infrastructure discussions is that the US population is just plain more spread out than other first world populations, and therefore all infrastructure projects will always be more expensive per person than they are in the crowded confines of Europe and East Asia. Add in our greater dose of "diversity", both native and imported, who pay less for but impose greater costs on infrastructure systems, and infrastructure will always be more costly in the US than elsewhere. Comparisons to Tokyo and Amsterdam are not apples-to-apples.
  34. I am going to keep hammering “the math” until it sinks in.

  35. @Jack D
    He gave very few specifics in his victory speech but one of the few programs that he did mention was large infrastructure improvements. These tend to provide jobs for skilled blue collar white construction workers, people who work in rail car factories (there are no US mfrs left but in order to get govt contracts foreign mfrs such as Hyundai and Bombardier set up US factories), etc. and so are just the kind of programs that are appealing to them.

    Passenger rail improvements in the US have been crippled by the fact that due to the bureaucratic swamp of environmental studies, etc. they take forever to get done and cost many times as much as they should.

    One of Trump's signature accomplishments was building a skating rink in Central Park. The city government had been trying for years and had spent a fortune and it just wasn't getting done - the pipes leaked, the affirmative action hires in charge were pocketing kickbacks from incompetent minority contractors, etc. Trump took it over and finished the job under budget and ahead of schedule because compared to building a skyscraper, a skating rink was a piece of cake. So building infrastructure is one area he would feel very comfortable in. I could see him building a magnificent airport to replace the miserable LaGuardia in his home borough of Queens (hoping that someday it will be called Trump Airport).

    The truth is that infrastructure in the US is miserable. Even (0nce) third world places like China have more modern airports, rail stations and lines, etc. If (for example) you could get to NY from Phila in 45 minutes by rail (this is completely doable with current technology - it's only 100 miles) then Phila could be a suburb of NY and all the hipsters who can't afford to live in Brooklyn anymore could live in Phila instead. A high speed rail line would not be cheap, but it could create BILLIONS in increased real estate values. The outer boroughs of NYC were mostly farmland until they built the subways to connect them to Manhattan and then they became valuable real estate.

    100% agree with what you said on Comment 7.

  36. @Flinders Petrie
    On hindsight, Trump's victory does seem to have been the perfect storm, with a fair amount of luck involved. But he has proven to have incredible instincts, and dogged determination to follow those instincts. Compare that to Hillary, who's instincts are almost always wrong, and a lot of the events that seem to have been mostly luck were at least partially explained by instinct.

    Luck is the residue of design. – Branch Rickey

  37. @The Z Blog
    My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people "racist Nazi homerphobes" and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80's that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60's was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about "white voters" as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    Even if White non-Hispanics become a minority they will still be a plurality into the foreseeable future. Operating as just another racial interest bloc they will still have the sole power to pick and choose which other racial bloc(s) will be allowed to form a majority coalition with them. So even if the dimocrat/stoopid party establishments succeed in their plan to colorize and racially divide this country, the new third-party that coalesces around the White race will be the one controlling things forever and ever amen.

  38. @Jack D
    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President - now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger - in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn't hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that's who will be at the top of the ticket next time - he will be Obama's "son". Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    It’s easy to think that a party simply needs to select a candidate with a given set of characteristics, such as being a well spoken black man, and that will do the trick.

    But actual candidates have actual downsides, often highly significant.

    Corey Booker, for example, seems to have his share:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/20/the-ugly-truth-about-cory-booker-new-jersey-s-golden-boy.html

    There’s a reason that the only real opponent to the corrupt Hillary in the Democratic primaries turned out to be a 73 year old socialist from Vermont: all the other available alternatives were only less appealing.

    I don’t see much of a bench among the Democrats at this point.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Booker is clean by Joisey standards - probably cleaner than Christie. The stuff in the article is weak sauce. Hillary is a hundred times dirtier that Booker and that was no obstacle. And Trump is not exactly a choir boy either. I don't have the feeling that the electorate is really looking for saintly betas like Tim Kaine to be their President.
  39. @Jack D
    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President - now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger - in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn't hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that's who will be at the top of the ticket next time - he will be Obama's "son". Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    “Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time.”

    Exactly! Rust Belt whites have their own thoughts on race, but to characterize them as being entirely or mostly racist is Coalition of the Fringe Left Cringeworthy.

    It was about identity through ideology.

  40. One thing I’m seeing a lot of is POCs blaming whites, and in particular white women, for electing Trump. (See esp. Elie Mystal.) But in fact Trump did do worse with white women than Romney (right?); it’s just that in 2012 we hadn’t quite gotten to calling white women Auntie Toms for backing a Republican. The difference seems to be black voters staying home.

    Would be interesting to track this dynamic, Steve.

  41. @AnotherDad
    Excellent comment Jack--nailed it.

    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President – now THAT is exciting.
     
    I was going to make precisely this point. It's notable--especially for Steve's blog--that Trump still did not get to 60% of the white vote. In fact the overall white vote really didn't move that much. The key seems to be that minorities--blacks in particular--were not really all that motivated to turn out and less likely to vote for Clinton when they did.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger – in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?
     
    This is the other critical point and what elected Trump.

    I had predicted in several comments that my read was Trump--would do a bit better than the polls--would carry the states you'd expect including swingers FL, NC, OH and IA which would get him to 259, but that he had a hard road from there as he really--as i'd said from the beginning--needed Pennsylvannia or had to break through somewhere else in the upper midwest (Wisconsin) or cobble together an unlikely combo of all the little guys (NV, NH, Maine 1st).

    This proved to be exactly the case, except that i was a little too pessimitic--i felt Trump had blown the chance to really *win* the election going away with a crappy performance in the 1st debate. But Trump did breakthough--by the tiniest margins--in a few of these Great Lakes states, PA and WI and probably once the votes are counted, Michigan.

    ~~
    I'd say the question still out there is where we sit if Trump and Hillary's negatives are off the table?

    In particular Trump actually did worse--from the NYT graphic--among college educated white's than not just Romney but McCain.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/exit-poll-analysis.html?_r=0

    That's pretty bad, considering Hillary's negatives with regard to fundmental principles like oh say ... "rule of law" and not being bought and paid for by bribes from Wall Street.

    The outstanding question i'd see: Is Trump's poor showing primarily because college educated whites have so absorbed the left\establishment\Jewish media narrative, that they take Trump's--pretty soft-core--nationalism as "Hitler!" Or was it more that Trump's bombastic real estate mogul, reality-show host persona and lack of governing experience and credentials rendered him "unacceptable"? Obviously it's both, but which is dominant? How would college whites handle a similarly mild nationalist, immigration-restrictive campaign by someone as properly credentially as Kris Kobach?

    As I have said before, the Democrat Party basically made the Marcia Clark mistake (not surprising because the whites in the party are a lot like Marcia Clark themselves). They assumed it was the turn of Hillary, the turn of women. A white woman had stepped aside in favor of a black man and the black man was strongly backed by the white women of the party, so naturally the Presidency should rotate among the members of the Coalition of the Fringes and this time the blacks should reciprocate and back the woman. Maybe in 8 years we would have our first gay or Latino President and then it would be the black’s turn again 8 years after that. Blacks OTOH view it like they view the Academy Awards and the Grammys – once a black has won the category, then from now on ALL the winners should be black or else it’s racism.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "As I have said before, the Democrat Party basically made the Marcia Clark mistake (not surprising because the whites in the party are a lot like Marcia Clark themselves). They assumed it was the turn of Hillary, the turn of women."

    It was the turn of the most powerful person they believe they had, who happened to be a woman.

    "A white woman had stepped aside in favor of a black man and the black man was strongly backed by the white women of the party, so naturally the Presidency should rotate among the members of the Coalition of the Fringes and this time the blacks should reciprocate and back the woman."

    Yes, that's exactly how the conversation went in the bowels of the White House. (rolling of eyes)

    "Maybe in 8 years we would have our first gay or Latino President and then it would be the black’s turn again 8 years after that. Blacks OTOH view it like they view the Academy Awards and the Grammys – once a black has won the category, then from now on ALL the winners should be black or else it’s racism."

    Now you are falling off the rails.

    "I don’t have the feeling that the electorate is really looking for saintly betas like Tim Kaine to be their President."

    Please, just stop with this socio-sexual hierarchy characterization. Alpha and beta and gamma, just like cuck and Pepe, are silly memes.
    , @neutral
    It might make sense logically that they will rotate through all the victim groups, but I don't see this as a feasible long term system. The victim group list is large (and will keep on growing), would blacks really want to wait say 30 years for their turn again ? What I see happening is that as whites shrink in size and the coalition against them has and increasingly weaker and irrelevant enemy, the struggle who gets the levers of power will be battles amongst these previous allies. This is the general behaviour that can be observed in basically all of history.
  42. Money seems to be pouring into manufacturing dissent:

    It says: Fight the Trump Agenda. We’re hiring Full-Time Activists (Seattle) … Students, Women and Minorities are encouraged to apply.

    • Replies: @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    "Money seems to be pouring into manufacturing dissent:"

    The link wouldn't load, but this is nothing remotely new. Organizing Against White America has run similar ads in Portland, OR since at least 2008, offering $12.25/hour and great bennies (yeah, right) to professional astroturfers.
  43. @candid_observer
    It's easy to think that a party simply needs to select a candidate with a given set of characteristics, such as being a well spoken black man, and that will do the trick.

    But actual candidates have actual downsides, often highly significant.

    Corey Booker, for example, seems to have his share:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/20/the-ugly-truth-about-cory-booker-new-jersey-s-golden-boy.html

    There's a reason that the only real opponent to the corrupt Hillary in the Democratic primaries turned out to be a 73 year old socialist from Vermont: all the other available alternatives were only less appealing.

    I don't see much of a bench among the Democrats at this point.

    Booker is clean by Joisey standards – probably cleaner than Christie. The stuff in the article is weak sauce. Hillary is a hundred times dirtier that Booker and that was no obstacle. And Trump is not exactly a choir boy either. I don’t have the feeling that the electorate is really looking for saintly betas like Tim Kaine to be their President.

    • Replies: @Jefferson
    "Hillary is a hundred times dirtier that Booker"

    Crooked Hillary is quite dirty even by 3rd World African and Latin American politician standards, let alone by U.S standards.

    Even though Crooked Hillary is of Northern European descent, she's as dirty as any 3rd World politician.

  44. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

    His transition team is heavy on corporate lobbyists and Chris Christie cronies and does not inspire much confidence. Hopefully he will marginalize Christie and Pence in favor of paleocons.

    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

    Trump can only do so much . He can start by clamping down on doctors prescribing Oxys and the like to anyone who can stumble into their office and ask for it .They can stop prescribing Adderal to every white girl between the ages of 15-45. He can stop the flow of drugs from the Southern border and make it a LEO priority to stop the manufacture of Meth .

    Can he stop the media from glorifying a sex and the city lifestyle for females ?? Can he stop the media from non stop promotion of alternative lifestyles ?? Can he stop the mass importation of breeders from the 3rd world ??

    I can tell you what he cannot do , and that is forcing the breeding age white generation to get off the 24/7 internet addiction and start having babies again .

  45. Among whites, it was the Hurt Gap.

  46. @Jack D
    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President - now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger - in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn't hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that's who will be at the top of the ticket next time - he will be Obama's "son". Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    The Dems may get back to near Obama level turnout among blacks with a black nominee. But you have to wonder how high the ceiling is on moving more whites to the GOP. In the South, whites routinely vote by gigantic margins for the GOP. So, the ceiling for white votes is probably a margin of sixty or seventy or higher for the GOP.

    If this election is the first stirrings of a big realignment, then not only might the Dems not get their mojo back by nominating a black, but that might actually backfire on them by speeding up the flow of whites out of their party. It’s worth remembering as well that working class whites have, on balance, less insulation between themselves and real black people than do elite whites. So, it’s entirely possible for elite whites to completely fail to “get” what an ever-closer embrace of the Negro Turnout Strategy would do.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Remember that Trump won basically because he was able to flip working class whites in 4 Rust Belt states (esp. rural ones who really don't have much to do with vibrant minorities on a daily basis). Flip them from who? Obama, who they voted for twice. These folks have no deep allegiance to either party. Nor did they vote (the leftist line notwithstanding) out of racism or a sense of white racial solidarity (Hillary, who they DIDN't vote for is white and Obama, who they DID vote for is black).

    Rather they voted each time for the candidate whose populist message resonated the most for them and who was seen not to represent the hated Wall Street elites that sent their jobs and formerly comfortable middle class existence overseas to enrich themselves. Joe Lunchbox now makes $10/hr at Walmart instead of the $25 he used to make at the Carrier factory so that the CEO can have a $172 million payday:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-25/united-technologies-chenevert-leaves-with-172-million-package

    And the CEO gets this package as his reward from Wall Street for raising the quarterly earnings from 10 cents/share to 15 cents by any means necessary, even if that means moving the factory that' s been there providing thousands of middle class jobs for a century to Mexico. And Trump knows the game as well as anyone - the CEO can do this only because the trade laws, tax laws, etc. make it possible.

    So, if Trump is able to deliver on his promises to reverse this, then he (and the Republican Party that he now heads whether the party likes it or not) will do well, if not, they will flip back to whoever gives them more hope, whether that guy is white or black or green.

    The WaPo says (rightly) that Obama was not able to create a coalition that outlived him like Roosevelt (although the Presidency flipped, many elements of the New Deal have lasted until today) but the flip side of that is that Trump won't necessarily create anything lasting either.
    , @Corn
    "In the South, whites routinely vote by gigantic margins for the GOP. So, the ceiling for white votes is probably a margin of sixty or seventy or higher for the GOP."

    Whites in MS, AL, and some other Southern states routinely vote 75-88% Republican. If midwestern whites or whites nationwide voted like that elections wouldn't even be competitive.
    , @BucephalusXYZ
    I think Steve has written on this before. The Democrats were counting on being the "cool, multicultural" party, but will end up as the "black" party. And if Republicans are the "white" party, Republicans will win. Asians and Hispanics will vote for the "white" party in adequate numbers, for a long time to come.
    The best option for the Democrats really does seem to run another black. But who? Cory Booker is probably the best bet. There are definitely some things to like about him. Maybe part-black Kamala Harris. Are they ANY other "black" democratic politicians with any sort of charisma? Probably not Michael Nutter: he won his mayoral races in Phillly as the black guy who SWPL's prefer, which wins the game in Philly, but he is seeingly not as good as Obama at that. But he could run. If there are no politicians, then you probably have to go to celebrities. Will Smith? Kanye West? Absurd, but who expected Republicans would win with Trump?
    If Trump turns out to be a disaster, perhaps a corrupt laughingstock, maybe the Dems could still go with the multicultural angle and run Preet Bharara. Trump should probably promote him.
  47. @candid_observer

    . It’s notable–especially for Steve’s blog–that Trump still did not get to 60% of the white vote.
     
    I keep seeing this sort of statement being made, but I wonder how sound is its basis.

    I presume that the numbers are based on exit polls. But if the Shy Trumpers didn't show up in the standard polls before the election, why on earth would they show up when being queried right outside the precinct voting area, in person, and perhaps in front of neighbors? Wouldn't one expect even more of a Shy Trump effect under those circumstances? At bare minimum, wouldn't a Trump voter be more inclined to refuse to answer a pollster under those circumstances?

    In general, I wonder how much the currently touted statistics will be revised after more careful studies are conducted. Isn't that what happened in previous elections? As I recall, Steve himself delved into this issue, coming up with different numbers.

    It’s not just “in front of their neighbors” either. The way the pollster looks has an effect. As I recall, a study done after the W exit poll debacle found that whites would not tell mutant pollsters the truth about voting for W—many would not even talk to mutant exit pollsters. There are not that many bored housewives to hire to do this kind of work any more. Think about who is going to be willing to do this kind of temporary, one day, job for crappy wages.

    Maybe they should fly in 18 year old Ukrainian girls to do the exit polling.

  48. @Jack D
    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President - now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger - in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn't hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that's who will be at the top of the ticket next time - he will be Obama's "son". Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    It was so lucky of Trump to wait for sick Hillary to enter the stage.

    At one point, I was wondering whether he could have taken the presidency as a Democrat instead. First defeat Hillary and Bernie, then take on the anointed ¡Jeb! most likely (and cruise to victory). But apparently that route was deemed to be harder.

    • Replies: @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    "It was so lucky of Trump to wait for sick Hillary to enter the stage."

    Not luck -- it was cunning. President Trump calculated that he couldn't beat the Magic Negro in '08 or even '12, so he waited til he faced a very weak opponent: an ill, shrill, corrupt senior citizen who he could schlong with impunity.

    It's shrewd decisions like this that make me hopeful for a fruitful and successful Trump presidency. I hope he doesn't fail!
  49. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Trump was a good weatherman but it wasn’t just about finding the right supporters. It was about fighting the right targets and making the right enemies.

    He attacked Wall Street. The fact that he was more anti-wall-street and anti-war than Hillary but progs went with her has exposed their utter phoniness.

    By making the right enemies, he could validate his role was a genuine outsider than a mere log-cabin faker. He was as reviled by the Powers That Be as Obama/Hillary were rewarded by them. The hysterical attack on him by the Powers only strengthened this image in the eyes of his supporters.

    Romney’s closeness with Wall Street sunk him.

    ———————-

    While the Clintons did become very corrupt, on some level it was understandable.

    Even though the Powers decided to back her, it was not a sure thing. Look what happened in 2008 when the powers suddenly shifted to Obama. Obama didn’t have to be so corrupt since everything was handed to him on silver platter and media went all out to promote him.

    In contrast, Hillary really needed to build links and do favors(for a price) to make sure all the pegs were in the right place. Media favored her this time around but mainly by bashing Trump than promoting her(because I don’t think she is well-liked personally).

    But her greatest advantage — making deals with the powers to secure her position — was also her greatest weakness in the age of wikileaks and ‘citizen journalism’ that made her look like the most corrupt candidate ever.

    She made sure all the nails were hammered down this time around(and that got her past Bernie thanks to the Powers standing with her), but she discovered the nails were on her coffin.

  50. Frum sounds crazy to me, but what do I know?:

    David FrumVerified account
    ‏@davidfrum
    We may be living through the most successful Russian intelligence operation since the Rosenbergs stole the A-bomb.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I honestly don't get this obsession with Russia.

    Where did this come from? Russia is in a very weak state. They most likely want a decade or two to heal. What do they gain by agitating the US?

    For that matter, what does the US gain by agitating Russia?

    Something is bubbling beneath the surface, but I have to admit I don't have a clue. Well, actually …I guess I have 2 clues: 1/Israel.. 2/Oil ?
  51. @Jack D
    As I have said before, the Democrat Party basically made the Marcia Clark mistake (not surprising because the whites in the party are a lot like Marcia Clark themselves). They assumed it was the turn of Hillary, the turn of women. A white woman had stepped aside in favor of a black man and the black man was strongly backed by the white women of the party, so naturally the Presidency should rotate among the members of the Coalition of the Fringes and this time the blacks should reciprocate and back the woman. Maybe in 8 years we would have our first gay or Latino President and then it would be the black's turn again 8 years after that. Blacks OTOH view it like they view the Academy Awards and the Grammys - once a black has won the category, then from now on ALL the winners should be black or else it's racism.

    “As I have said before, the Democrat Party basically made the Marcia Clark mistake (not surprising because the whites in the party are a lot like Marcia Clark themselves). They assumed it was the turn of Hillary, the turn of women.”

    It was the turn of the most powerful person they believe they had, who happened to be a woman.

    “A white woman had stepped aside in favor of a black man and the black man was strongly backed by the white women of the party, so naturally the Presidency should rotate among the members of the Coalition of the Fringes and this time the blacks should reciprocate and back the woman.”

    Yes, that’s exactly how the conversation went in the bowels of the White House. (rolling of eyes)

    “Maybe in 8 years we would have our first gay or Latino President and then it would be the black’s turn again 8 years after that. Blacks OTOH view it like they view the Academy Awards and the Grammys – once a black has won the category, then from now on ALL the winners should be black or else it’s racism.”

    Now you are falling off the rails.

    “I don’t have the feeling that the electorate is really looking for saintly betas like Tim Kaine to be their President.”

    Please, just stop with this socio-sexual hierarchy characterization. Alpha and beta and gamma, just like cuck and Pepe, are silly memes.

  52. @Lot
    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

    His transition team is heavy on corporate lobbyists and Chris Christie cronies and does not inspire much confidence. Hopefully he will marginalize Christie and Pence in favor of paleocons.

    Hey, complaining on iSteve comments gets results, Kobach just was added to Trump transition team.

  53. @The Z Blog
    My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people "racist Nazi homerphobes" and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80's that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60's was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about "white voters" as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    My guess is the Left will come away thinking

    For the rank & file thinking doesn’t come into it, what they are about is feeling:

    To which the only response can be:

  54. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President - now THAT is exciting.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger - in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?

    If the Clintons hadn't hijacked the Dem. party as part of their own person grifting empire, the Dems would have done much better with Cory Booker and I suspect that's who will be at the top of the ticket next time - he will be Obama's "son". Maybe some Hispanic woman as VP. Among the nonsense that was being peddled when Hillary collapsed was that by not voting for Hillary this showed that Rust Belt whites were racist, even though these same Rust Belt whites actually voted for a black man the last time. Whites are willing to vote for blacks but blacks will not turn out in the same numbers for a white candidate. As I have said before, this was probably the last Dem ticket consisting only of old white people.

    I enjoy your posts, even though you insulted me awhile back. But, “old white lady judges…”? In my experience women judges are pushovers for the kinds of arguments criminal defense lawyers make for leniency toward their black clients. You won’t find many women judges with nicknames like “Maximum” Mal (colm) or “Hammerin’ Hank, to name two old California judges known for tough sentencing. I wonder how blacks felt about Rose Bird and her string of 64 consecutive death penalty reversals, many of which had to involve blacks.

  55. @Jack D
    As I have said before, the Democrat Party basically made the Marcia Clark mistake (not surprising because the whites in the party are a lot like Marcia Clark themselves). They assumed it was the turn of Hillary, the turn of women. A white woman had stepped aside in favor of a black man and the black man was strongly backed by the white women of the party, so naturally the Presidency should rotate among the members of the Coalition of the Fringes and this time the blacks should reciprocate and back the woman. Maybe in 8 years we would have our first gay or Latino President and then it would be the black's turn again 8 years after that. Blacks OTOH view it like they view the Academy Awards and the Grammys - once a black has won the category, then from now on ALL the winners should be black or else it's racism.

    It might make sense logically that they will rotate through all the victim groups, but I don’t see this as a feasible long term system. The victim group list is large (and will keep on growing), would blacks really want to wait say 30 years for their turn again ? What I see happening is that as whites shrink in size and the coalition against them has and increasingly weaker and irrelevant enemy, the struggle who gets the levers of power will be battles amongst these previous allies. This is the general behaviour that can be observed in basically all of history.

  56. http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/11/an-opening-to-israel.html

    Is Trump Hitler or Friend of Israel?

    Or Hitler as Friend of Israel?

    Politics can’t get any more pomo.

    • Replies: @SFG
    Read the rest of the blog, he seems to be a pro-Trump Republican. Weird for a therapist but hey.
  57. Somewhat related to the topic at hand:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-support-keith-ellison-231185

    A black Muslim leading the Democrats. Looks like Trump got an early Christmas present.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Democrats have been led by a black Muslim since 2009
    , @Corn
    Berty, I read that news over the Washington Post website. Bernie Sanders was saying how the Democrats need to reconnect with white working class voters. So he thinks Keith Ellison should run the DNC!

    Beatings will continue until morale improves.
  58. Interesting to note that Trump won PA by 70,000 votes…..and Trump won an extra 40,000 Black votes compared to Romney 4 years ago.

    according to exit polls Romney won just 3% of the Black vote in PA in 2012, thus Romney obtained just 21,000 votes form Blacks. While Trump obtained an estimated 9% of the Black vote, or ~60,000 Black votes in PA. Trump beat Hillary by 70,000 votes and 60,000 of these came from African-Americans.

    thus the Blacks gave Trump the win over Clinton, if Trump had done as poorly with Blacks as Obama Hillary would have picked up those 40,000 additional Black votes resulting in Trump losing by 10,000 votes

  59. @Lot
    Sorry to repeat myself, but I don't trust these exit polls showing Trump only beat Romney's white margin by 1 point but beat him on black males by a huge amount.

    Once we get precinct and city data I think this will be confirmed. Just with the county data I've seen, Trump ran ahead of Romney 5-10 points in a lot of rural and suburban white areas.

    What biases are introduced by exit polls? I know phone polls have he problem that not everyone has a landline, some families have multiple phone numbers, and it’s not clear that willingness to answer a pollster is not correlated with how you will vote. Exit polls will still have the problem of nonresponders (with some possibility that willingness to talk to the pollster is correlated with their vote), but what else can go wrong there?

  60. @Lot
    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

    His transition team is heavy on corporate lobbyists and Chris Christie cronies and does not inspire much confidence. Hopefully he will marginalize Christie and Pence in favor of paleocons.

    Demographic change is the result of huge and slow interacting forces, and is very hard to change quickly. Current demographic change in the population of voters is driven by immigration policy 20-30 years ago. You’re not steering a speed boat here, you’re steering a huge overloaded oil tanker. Changes to policy now will start affecting the voting population a generation or two from now.

    • Replies: @Anon
    "Demographic change is the result of huge and slow interacting forces, and is very hard to change quickly."

    We must think in terms of semantic wars.

    Notice how the Other side have associated 'nativism' with something negative.
    It is a near-slur to say someone is 'nativist', which is associated with 'xenophobia'.

    But the fact is humans are life forms or organisms, and nativism comes naturally to organisms. It is one of the facet of life survival and preservation.

    In environmentalism, we speak of native species and invasive species. In order for native species to survive, it must be wary of invasive species, some of which may be harmless, some of which may be competitive, some of which may be downright disastrous.

    So, there is more to fear from 'invasivism' than 'nativism'. We need to use that term 'invasivist'.
    Globalism is 'invasivist' against all cultures and nations. It's not just against white nations but all nations. Also, immigration can be a loss-loss for both sides. The host nation may get squeezed out by the invasive newcomers. But the newcomers may lose their identity and heritage and become McGlobalists like the dumbass 'seoul brothers'. When US invites immigrants, US is erasing their identity, culture, language, and history. And this is made worse by the fact that the children of these immigrants turn into globalized morons who spread this disease back to their homelands because they know NOTHING of their own ancestral lands, history, and culture; their only vision of right and wrong is "US is more evolved, so my ancestral nation must be like the US too'. "
    Some people point to Huma and say 'Muslim Brotherhood'. Please! She is a prime example of how a Muslim woman was turned into a globalist puppet of trash culture. I mean she married the Wiener-kid of all people. What kind of a self-respecting Muslim woman shacks up with some hornball Jewish guy who goes around waving the Israeli and Homo flag? I mean seriously.

    Globalism is invasivism. 'Invite' is just another aspect of invasive-ism. American trash culture, bombs, finance and bribery, and etc invade other nations, and in exchange other nations get to invade the US demographically. But only the elites win cuz the Babel created from this diversity cannot unite against the elites. Pressures against elites can only happen nationally. This is why imperialists feared the rise of nationalism among their subject peoples in places like India and Indochina.

    Invasivism leads to Divisivism. It's funny that progs bitch about 'divisive' politics, all the while creating the 'invasivist' conditions that turn politics divisive among so many diverse peoples who are held together only by KKKrazy Glue.

    Also, today's problem isn't 'xenophobia' but xenopathology. Xenopaths are like political sociopaths. They are divorced from their own people and attach themselves to the Other without understanding what the Others are really about. There is nothing more empty than the 'global citizen'. It's like world buffet of identity, all about sampling but no depth. It's like Globe Trekker identity where every nation is just a tourist trinket and t-shirt. It's Pokemon Go identity, a total childishness. Though Japan is still homogeneous, its shallow trash culture has deracinated the nation to the point where kids identify more with cartoon characters than with real people. And this idiocy has spread to US as well. So many kids in the US know more about Pokemon than about their own identity, history, and culture.

    Maybe such sense of deracination and detachment from the self is the product of Western revolution in thinking. Think of the concept of -ology, or the study of. When Western Man began to think -ologically, a kind of detached perspective developed in his mind. Instead of "this is what I am, what I feel, what I want, etc", he began to think "this is what I think I am, this is what I think of what I feel, this is what I think of what I want and why." Ological thinking created a critical, objective, and detached distance between the self and the mind that processed ideas and info about the self. It's like Harold Bloom says Shakespeare created proto-modern-psychology with Hamlet where there is actually two characters in one: Hamlet and Hamlet's thoughts of Hamlet. But it could be said to go back to the Greeks with their philosophy and stuff where it wasn't enough to say, "I believe this or I feel this" but "I think this is why believe this and I think this is why I feel this."

    Psychology isn't just about using the mind but using the mind to detach oneself from the mind to see the mind objectively. It is thought about the thought. Thus, it is disassociative from thought itself. Sociology isn't just knowing of one's environment but a detached and disassociated study of one's environment like a lab.
    This was a great revolution in how man saw himself and the world.

    But maybe it turned cancerous in political philosophy, indeed to the point where Western Man is loathe to feel attached to one's land, history, culture, and etc. Western Man feels he must detach himself from such things and study them. So far, not bad.
    After all, -ology calls for detached objective study. When a German student takes up German Studies in college, he is doing so objectively, not gung-ho-ly or patriotically. Scholarship must be detached and objective.
    But at some point, this detached view came to regard one's race, nation, and history as a kind of disease that one must not only detach oneself from but extinguish as 'toxic whiteness'.
    It went from detaching oneself from "my country right or wrong" to believing "my race always wrong". So, it is not enough to detach oneself from one's identity in order to study and understand it better. Instead, one must detach oneself from one's identity as the main source of disease and toxicity that must be expunged. It's like religious nuts believe their souls must detach from body and made pure from association with sickness and vileness of flesh.

    This may explain the SJW hideousness among whites.
    Non-whites have been PC-ized join in white-bashing, but it will destroy them too. After all, if white SJW are at vanguard of detaching and rejecting and purging their own identity in the name of Diversity and Inclusion, then the same logic will apply to all groups as PC spreads all over. Look how homomania has spreads so far and wide.
    Hillary's Huma may have been raised as a Muslim Brotherhood girl, but her long-term vision of Muslim World is Lena-Dunham-land. She now works to destroy white identity, but the globalist agenda is to destroy ALL identities(with possible exception of Israel even though even some Jews are getting so PC that they are turning against Jewishness as well).

    We need to understand humans first and foremost as organisms. We need organismology.
    We think idealistically or ideologically, so we put ideas, principles, and etc first and foremost as 'universal' principles.
    But organisms are adaptive depending on time and place. Organisms don't act consistently according to a single correct principle.

    When it comes to 'nativism' and 'invasivism', organisms are actually both. All organisms are nativist and invasivist. A tree puts its roots into the ground and tries to remain fixed where it is. But it also spreads its seeds and tries to make them take over new areas.
    Nativism is defensive, invasivism is offensive, and all animals have both aspects. Territorialism is both nativist and invasivist. Tigers and bears will mark territory to ward off other animals, but they also try to expand their territory by peeing on new areas.
    From an organismic viewpoint, neither 'nativism' or 'invasivism' is 'evil' or 'wicked'. They are strategies for survival and/or dominance.

    Same with predatorism and preyism. A black bear is into predatorism and preyism. As predator, it hunts other weaker animals for food. As prey, it tries to avoid grizzly bears, cougars, and wolves. Only a dumb black bear would, as a 'true conservative bear', choose only predatorism or preyism. A smart bear has to be predator when the opportunity arises, like when it sees a gopher or baby deer as easy kill. But it must think like a prey when dangerous animals come near; it must climb a tree for safety. Predatorism is about hunting; Preyism is about fleeing from hunters. A black bear would be dumb to be principled as predatorism all the time. It would be stupid to try to bring down a grizzly bear or tackle a pack of wolves.

    So, white folks as human organisms have been both invasivist and nativist. When America was mostly a vast natural empty territory with some 'red savages', it was just calling out be invaded by those with more numbers, better technology, more ambition, and etc. And America was created. But once this nation was created, those who settled and created it naturally turned natitvist since they want to preserve what they created.
    It's like modern Jews created Israel through invasivism but maintain it through nativisim(and ethnicism that welcomes only fellow Jews as future Israelis).

    In our time, nativism is better than invasivism. Why? Cuz all the world has been discovered, conquered, claimed, and settled by various peoples. The Age of Empire is over, and imperialism is nasty business, as recent history in Middle East shows.
    Nativism is un-aggressive. It only seeks to defend 'what is ours'. Invasivism as the arm of globalism is aggressive as war-making and massive invasions of other homelands, thus Palestinianizing peoples all over.

    Also, globalist invasivism is crassly materialist cuz it's mostly about bringing people to America and turning them from a people with identity, history, and culture into McGlobalists whose identity is about Pop Culture(like Lena Dunham and Miley Cyrus) and Political Correctness(whose attack on whiteness serves a template for attack on all races and cultures in future. After all, BBC denounces South African blacks for defending their nation from invasion by Zimbabwean blacks. And globalism has opened up borders all over the Middle East and North Africa. With open borders for Jidhadis, millions of lives have been destroyed by wars, terrorism, and pillaging).

    US must become the template for nativism. It should absorb people already here(as long as not illegal), but it needs to say NO MORE cuz Americanism as an invasivist model for the world will mean the whole world will turn into one strip mall of rap music, trash culture, and celebrity narcissism.

    Americans themselves should take up genealogy as an essential study of what each family is.

    Though Alex Haley turned out to be a fraud, his attempt to rediscover his roots was a noble one. And all peoples need to do this as globalism seeks to uproot everyone and cut them off from their roots.
  61. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    It is fitting that this was Trump vs Clinton.

    The great irony is Trump played the role of the GOP’s Clinton(though against the media storm whereas Billy Boy rode the friendly waves).

    Clinton revitalized the Democratic Party by shaking off rust-belt blues of Big Labor. He went for the future of high-tech and finance. He went for the re-posh-ification of cities.

    He went after the big money donor class that was giving to GOP. Billy Boy read their minds. He knew Big Money was giving to GOP reluctantly cuz GOP is uncool and associated with ‘reaction’. They did so cuz GOP was more pro-business. But when it came to soft power of arts, culture, glitz, Hollywood, fashion, and etc. Dems totally ruled. If you wanted to have fun, it was Entertainment Inc than 700 Club. Also, Clinton sensed that Jews would dominate as the New Big Money, esp with fading of manufacturing and rise of high tech, information industry, and finance. Billy Boy knew that if Dems offered favored economic deals to the Money Class, they would all flock to his side.
    So, Billy Boy was like a snake that began to swallow the tail of the GOP snake. As the big money donor class got swallowed by the Dems, GOP had less room to maneuver. They offered even more tax cuts, but the rich got so rich and got so much more with the Democratic party(the cool factor and the moral advantage of ‘progressive’ politics associated with Martin Luther Bling) that they gave up on GOP. Sure, GOP could offer them few more points on tax cuts, but they would give up all the ‘cool’ and ‘progressive’ factor associated with Dems.

    Desperate, GOP went big for the Jewish vote, and I think this was why the GOP gentiles gave Neocons all they wanted for the Iraq War. Let Neocons triumph in the Middle East, have even Liberal Zionists be wowed and impressed by Neocon triumph, mastery, and victory. And then, Neocons would dominate Jewish politics, and Jews would come over to GOP. (After all, even New Republic had its Neocon corner.) But Iraq turned into disaster, and even neocons got embarrassed for being associated with George Dubya.
    GOP also went a long way to give Wall Street all it wanted, even more so than Clintons, and the housing bubble wrecked the economy. Jews gave up on GOP.
    So, GOP had nothing in the end. It had moral deficit(cuz it was associated with ‘reaction’ than ‘progress’), no cool factor, and fading donor class.

    So, the ONLY thing left was for the GOP to start swallowing the Democrat tail. And this is where Dems were somewhat vulnerable. In having embraced globalism, free trade, donor class, the warfare state, and Diversity(aka inclusion of the servant scab class from around the world), the Democrats began to lose the working class. And even blacks began to feel angry. Blacks turned out huge in 2008 and 2012 cuz of Obama the Negro.

    So, Trump was right to swallow the Democratic tail of vulnerability: white working class and blacks. It didn’t really work with blacks cuz not many blacks voted for him. But the fact that many chose not to vote at all goes to show their disenchantment. Mass immigration called by Clinton didn’t work with blacks.

    So, if Billy Boy swallowed the donor tail of GOP, Trump swallowed the working class tail of Democrats.

    Now, Clinton swallowed the richer nutrient cuz one oligarch can provide more funds than a million working class ‘losers’. In contrast, the ‘rabble’ that were once Democratic that was swallowed by Trump is low on talent, creativity, ingenuity, and wealth.

    Still, the disadvantage of Clinton’s strategy was to associate Dems with the winners, the sharks, the globo-oligarchs, the 1%. This led to challenge from Bernie who hurt Clinton. Even many on her side voted for Hillary as anti-Trump than pro-Hillary.

    And even though Trump got himself a basketful of ‘losers’, some moral credit has been won over to the GOP side. Sure, because the ‘deplorables’ are white, they are denounced as ‘white supremacist’, but the fact is Trump demonstrated that these forgotten whites have no privilege. And if anything, whites with all the privilege and connections voted for Hillary.
    That has to be played on over and over and over.

    Anyway, politics is Ouroborusian.

    Billy Boy Clinton dumped labor and went after donors.
    Trump attacked the donor class and went after labor.
    It has come full circle in the snake eating the other snake.

    https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d4faed8d6a85fba558cd6580972b12ca?convert_to_webp=true

    https://www.quora.com/Symbols-What-is-an-Ouroborus

  62. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “I-will-leave-the-US-if-Donald-Trump-wins” is so very ‘racist’.

    All these famous people, even non-whites and blacks, choose nations even whiter than the US as favored destinations.
    They always favor Canada over Mexico or Latin America.
    They always favor New Zealand and Australia over India or China.
    They always favor Europe over Africa and Middle East. Even Jews say they will move to some white gentile nation than to Israel.

    That is so ‘racist’, I say!! Why do they all reject non-white majority nations? Don’t they like Diversity?

    They say they hate Trump cuz he threatens to slow the browning of America, but their idea of protest is to move to nations far less brown than America.

    Talk about Cogno-Disso or Cognisso, aka cognitive dissonance.

    Move to Congo, Pakistan, or Bolivia.

    Don’t be ‘racis’.

    Besides, I’m the only true race-ist.

  63. If you keep insulting and demeaning a group of people, sooner or later they turn upon you.

    Deplorables unite!

  64. Trump didn’t do as well as he could have with college educated whites because apart from the perceived sexism\racism he seemed very clueless about the actual issues he was likely to face as President. It was like the PJ O Rourke joke about Republicans saying government doesn’t work and then getting elected and proving it. That is why plenty would have voted for Clinton, not voted at all or plumped for the Libertarians as a protest vote.

    If Trump executes well over the next four years, he could bring a lot more over to him and form a strong paleo coalition.

    Anyway if he makes an actual serious effort to deport the millions of llegals and build a wall that should secure whites as the majority ethny in the US. Maybe Ivanka’s paid parental leave could be the start of a policy effort to encourage white natalism a la Israel.

  65. @Lot
    Sorry to repeat myself, but I don't trust these exit polls showing Trump only beat Romney's white margin by 1 point but beat him on black males by a huge amount.

    Once we get precinct and city data I think this will be confirmed. Just with the county data I've seen, Trump ran ahead of Romney 5-10 points in a lot of rural and suburban white areas.

    Trump lost 4-5% of white Romney voters due to Weed Man and Egg McMuffin or NeverTrump histrionics. He made up for this through the working class/independent white vote.

    If he has a successful first term he can potentially win the 5% he lost while maintaining the new white voters he picked up.

    • Replies: @Anon
    HuWhite Votes Matter.

    Hu-Hum
    , @Antonymous

    Trump lost 4-5% of white Romney voters due to Weed Man and Egg McMuffin or NeverTrump histrionics. He made up for this through the working class/independent white vote.
     
    This dynamic held true in my swing state, but a full 13% of Republican voters went off-label (vs 10% of Democrats), and a significant number just stayed home. Trump came close in new registrants and independents, but in the end Never Trump did him in. I imagine they'll come home in four years when Trump proves himself temperate and intelligent.
  66. @Svigor

    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama.
     
    The Math: Trump 2016 Would’ve Beaten Obama 2012

    The National Review is flattering Trump? I guess they are walking back their belief Trump was going for the meth head vote.

    Voter turnout returns to the mean

    US presidential election turnout
    https://www.theatlas.com/charts/HyVPtXGZl

  67. @GW
    Trump lost 4-5% of white Romney voters due to Weed Man and Egg McMuffin or NeverTrump histrionics. He made up for this through the working class/independent white vote.

    If he has a successful first term he can potentially win the 5% he lost while maintaining the new white voters he picked up.

    HuWhite Votes Matter.

    Hu-Hum

  68. @grapesoda
    > What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about “white voters” as a block.

    They first identified us as white in order to villainize us. And then once "whites" became acceptable to talk about as a political group, it was used as a galvanizing force (somewhat, still not totally in the open). Perfect poetic justice of unintended consequences.

    I never cared about politics until I had a rude awakening and found out that politics definitely cares about me, in fact has a mf'in target on my back.

    Black Men Assault White Man For Voting Trump

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WP-aAVN6zI

    Ignorant, arrogant, violent.
    HBD in action.

  69. Young folks for Trump: white millennials (18-29 year-olds) voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by 48% to 43%.

    When states still to declare (AZ, Mich, NH) are included, looks like Clinton will be just ahead in popular vote: circa 63.42m to 63.3m. Trump got more than Romney, despite two spoilers run against him and the whole system opposing him. I think this also suggests Trump won the popular vote once one subtracts out the fraudulent vote.

    • Replies: @Greasy William
    doesn't she also get another million net votes from CA early ballots?
  70. @Svigor

    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama.
     
    The Math: Trump 2016 Would’ve Beaten Obama 2012

    Now it states that Obama would have beaten trump.

    *Mea Culpa.

    All is right with the world again.

  71. @Travis
    does not surprise me....Blacks typically give 10% of their votes to the Republican candidate, I expected Trump to get closer to 15% of the Black vote and he probably would have if the media didn't depict Trump as a racist and if there was no BLM movement. Most Blacks support the Trump agenda when asked about his agenda, they do not favor open borders and are much more likley to believe foreigners have taken their jobs than white Americans.


    Trump had a similar message as Ross Perot, and Perot won 18% of the Black vote. California Gov. Pete Wilson also won 21% of the Black vote due to his anti-immigration policies. I suspect the leaders of the democratic party put so much effort into BLM and depicting whites as racist this year, because they realized Trumps message was very attractive the Blacks. Without the BLM movement and the non-stop racialist propaganda Trump would have gotten closer to 20% of the Black votes, just like Perot and Pete Wilson.

    In Ohio, he might have cracked 20% of the black vote.

  72. @The Z Blog
    My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people "racist Nazi homerphobes" and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80's that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60's was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about "white voters" as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    Liberals are doubling down on insult whitey till he likes you strategy. The left wanted Bernie, who would have won, but the corporate whores at the DNC stabbed us in the back. I will be very interested to see if Trump has the courage to govern like he campaigned, and also curious to see if the Warren/Sanders wing will cooperate. Working together they could get infrastructure and economic stimulus done in about a day. He could also forge a new path on trade that would unite the left and the right.

    I fear that instead he’ll cave to the granny-starvers in the Paul Ryan wing of his party. If so, it will be an ugly four years. But if he’s got the courage of his convictions, I’m pretty hopeful something good could happen.

    • Replies: @Anon

    Liberals are doubling down on insult whitey till he likes you strategy. The left wanted Bernie, who would have won, but the corporate whores at the DNC stabbed us in the back. I will be very interested to see if Trump has the courage to govern like he campaigned, and also curious to see if the Warren/Sanders wing will cooperate. Working together they could get infrastructure and economic stimulus done in about a day. He could also forge a new path on trade that would unite the left and the right.

    I fear that instead he’ll cave to the granny-starvers in the Paul Ryan wing of his party. If so, it will be an ugly four years. But if he’s got the courage of his convictions, I’m pretty hopeful something good could happen.
     
    Some excellent points there...rare insight
  73. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @The Z Blog
    My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people "racist Nazi homerphobes" and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80's that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60's was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about "white voters" as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    There is a lot of chatter on the web today about the fact that white women in particular were the weak link in the Democrat’s election coalition. There’s a feeling that they let down people of colour and the LGBTXYZ Community — and that they aren’t the ‘allies’ they would have you believe.

    I saw one hash tag labelling them ‘snakeskinthegrass’ …they are bigots, just better at hiding it.

    This is going to get a foothold in Democratic circles I can assure you – which is a positive development in my opinion.

    Of course nobody mentions that blacks had the power to decide the election, but opted to stay home and watch Netflix!

  74. @Jonathan Mason
    I see a lot of older black women in the course of my work and suspect that more of them may have voted for Trump than they were letting on.

    First of all, Trump was a very good looking man when both he and they were in their sexual heyday, and was much admired at the time he published The Art of the Deal. Secondly, they are unlikely to have been put off by the pussy-grabbing allegations, since many of them were used to crude sexual approaches when younger, and in their dotage like while away their time watching Jerry Springer and Maury Povitch and the like on over-the-air TV in the mornings.

    Thirdly, and most importantly, Trump is definitely not gay, which helps to override allegations of sexual crudity, whereas, although it was little discussed during the election season, many people strongly suspect Hillary Clinton of being gay, or bisexual. This last point will also have helped win votes from heterosexual white women.

    Yes, a man would have beaten him. But no, being gay is a positive boon for female politicians. It’s like female comedians (the best ones are all gay). Enoch Powell once said that women are uncomfortable in politics because they cannot bear to make themselves ridiculous. Trump’s outlandish and unapologetic ridiculousness was a ploy she could not match

  75. @Bill
    The Dems may get back to near Obama level turnout among blacks with a black nominee. But you have to wonder how high the ceiling is on moving more whites to the GOP. In the South, whites routinely vote by gigantic margins for the GOP. So, the ceiling for white votes is probably a margin of sixty or seventy or higher for the GOP.

    If this election is the first stirrings of a big realignment, then not only might the Dems not get their mojo back by nominating a black, but that might actually backfire on them by speeding up the flow of whites out of their party. It's worth remembering as well that working class whites have, on balance, less insulation between themselves and real black people than do elite whites. So, it's entirely possible for elite whites to completely fail to "get" what an ever-closer embrace of the Negro Turnout Strategy would do.

    Remember that Trump won basically because he was able to flip working class whites in 4 Rust Belt states (esp. rural ones who really don’t have much to do with vibrant minorities on a daily basis). Flip them from who? Obama, who they voted for twice. These folks have no deep allegiance to either party. Nor did they vote (the leftist line notwithstanding) out of racism or a sense of white racial solidarity (Hillary, who they DIDN’t vote for is white and Obama, who they DID vote for is black).

    Rather they voted each time for the candidate whose populist message resonated the most for them and who was seen not to represent the hated Wall Street elites that sent their jobs and formerly comfortable middle class existence overseas to enrich themselves. Joe Lunchbox now makes $10/hr at Walmart instead of the $25 he used to make at the Carrier factory so that the CEO can have a $172 million payday:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-25/united-technologies-chenevert-leaves-with-172-million-package

    And the CEO gets this package as his reward from Wall Street for raising the quarterly earnings from 10 cents/share to 15 cents by any means necessary, even if that means moving the factory that’ s been there providing thousands of middle class jobs for a century to Mexico. And Trump knows the game as well as anyone – the CEO can do this only because the trade laws, tax laws, etc. make it possible.

    So, if Trump is able to deliver on his promises to reverse this, then he (and the Republican Party that he now heads whether the party likes it or not) will do well, if not, they will flip back to whoever gives them more hope, whether that guy is white or black or green.

    The WaPo says (rightly) that Obama was not able to create a coalition that outlived him like Roosevelt (although the Presidency flipped, many elements of the New Deal have lasted until today) but the flip side of that is that Trump won’t necessarily create anything lasting either.

    • Replies: @Bill
    Those are good points.
    , @epebble
    Best analysis I have read so far.
  76. @Berty
    Somewhat related to the topic at hand:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-support-keith-ellison-231185

    A black Muslim leading the Democrats. Looks like Trump got an early Christmas present.

    Democrats have been led by a black Muslim since 2009

  77. @Anonymous

     "Conservatives have taken to "reconfiguring" science to agree with their ideology. The creationists relabeled their beliefs to "intelligent design" and festooned it with pseudo-scientific garlands. They constructed Potemkin villages from falsehoods to deny the science of climate change. Their latest venture is the rebranding of racism under the oh-so scientific-sounding label "Human Biodiversity", or HBD. Herewith an explanation of yet another ideological foray into science.

    Ever since the amassing of data from IQ tests in the 20s and 30s, people have noticed a strong, clear difference between the scores of Caucasians and blacks. The difference is typically about 15 points, or one standard deviation. Statistically, there is absolutely no question that blacks score poorly on these tests.

    This has always served as an embarrassment to the designers of IQ tests, and they have made many efforts to revise the tests to diminish that difference, but despite many decades of effort, have never succeeded in this endeavor.
     Be embarassed, Sailer.

    Why should Steve Sailer be embarrassed? Why should designers of IQ tests be embarrassed? The issue of “test bias” was addressed in an in-depth way more than 30 years ago. There is a consensus among intelligence researchers that the difference in average scores between blacks and whites represents a real difference in psychometric intelligence.

    In the field of psychology there is much discussion of a “replication crisis,” but the findings of intelligence researchers are among the best-replicated findings in the social sciences. Nevertheless, the New York Times (which does not send anyone to the annual conference of the International Society for Intelligence Research) and other major media outlets continue to paint a very distorted picture of what intelligence research is about — because they have a political agenda, not a scholarly one.

    You should do much more to educate yourself about intelligence research.

  78. One wonders if Barry the Kenyan will have the testicular fortitude to refuse to pardon the Clinton crime family for their many and obvious felonies.

    I hear there is no love lost.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Magic 8 Ball says : NFW
  79. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @fnn
    Frum sounds crazy to me, but what do I know?:

    https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/796189690575593477


    David FrumVerified account
    ‏@davidfrum
    We may be living through the most successful Russian intelligence operation since the Rosenbergs stole the A-bomb.

    I honestly don’t get this obsession with Russia.

    Where did this come from? Russia is in a very weak state. They most likely want a decade or two to heal. What do they gain by agitating the US?

    For that matter, what does the US gain by agitating Russia?

    Something is bubbling beneath the surface, but I have to admit I don’t have a clue. Well, actually …I guess I have 2 clues: 1/Israel.. 2/Oil ?

    • Replies: @Anon

    I honestly don’t get this obsession with Russia.

    Where did this come from? Russia is in a very weak state.

     

    Russia for the first time in 100 years is controlled by neither Bolsheviks nor jewish oligarchs, and some people (((ha ha))) are upset. It's sour grapes.
  80. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @NOTA
    Demographic change is the result of huge and slow interacting forces, and is very hard to change quickly. Current demographic change in the population of voters is driven by immigration policy 20-30 years ago. You're not steering a speed boat here, you're steering a huge overloaded oil tanker. Changes to policy now will start affecting the voting population a generation or two from now.

    “Demographic change is the result of huge and slow interacting forces, and is very hard to change quickly.”

    We must think in terms of semantic wars.

    Notice how the Other side have associated ‘nativism’ with something negative.
    It is a near-slur to say someone is ‘nativist’, which is associated with ‘xenophobia’.

    But the fact is humans are life forms or organisms, and nativism comes naturally to organisms. It is one of the facet of life survival and preservation.

    In environmentalism, we speak of native species and invasive species. In order for native species to survive, it must be wary of invasive species, some of which may be harmless, some of which may be competitive, some of which may be downright disastrous.

    So, there is more to fear from ‘invasivism’ than ‘nativism’. We need to use that term ‘invasivist’.
    Globalism is ‘invasivist’ against all cultures and nations. It’s not just against white nations but all nations. Also, immigration can be a loss-loss for both sides. The host nation may get squeezed out by the invasive newcomers. But the newcomers may lose their identity and heritage and become McGlobalists like the dumbass ‘seoul brothers’. When US invites immigrants, US is erasing their identity, culture, language, and history. And this is made worse by the fact that the children of these immigrants turn into globalized morons who spread this disease back to their homelands because they know NOTHING of their own ancestral lands, history, and culture; their only vision of right and wrong is “US is more evolved, so my ancestral nation must be like the US too’. ”
    Some people point to Huma and say ‘Muslim Brotherhood’. Please! She is a prime example of how a Muslim woman was turned into a globalist puppet of trash culture. I mean she married the Wiener-kid of all people. What kind of a self-respecting Muslim woman shacks up with some hornball Jewish guy who goes around waving the Israeli and Homo flag? I mean seriously.

    Globalism is invasivism. ‘Invite’ is just another aspect of invasive-ism. American trash culture, bombs, finance and bribery, and etc invade other nations, and in exchange other nations get to invade the US demographically. But only the elites win cuz the Babel created from this diversity cannot unite against the elites. Pressures against elites can only happen nationally. This is why imperialists feared the rise of nationalism among their subject peoples in places like India and Indochina.

    Invasivism leads to Divisivism. It’s funny that progs bitch about ‘divisive’ politics, all the while creating the ‘invasivist’ conditions that turn politics divisive among so many diverse peoples who are held together only by KKKrazy Glue.

    Also, today’s problem isn’t ‘xenophobia’ but xenopathology. Xenopaths are like political sociopaths. They are divorced from their own people and attach themselves to the Other without understanding what the Others are really about. There is nothing more empty than the ‘global citizen’. It’s like world buffet of identity, all about sampling but no depth. It’s like Globe Trekker identity where every nation is just a tourist trinket and t-shirt. It’s Pokemon Go identity, a total childishness. Though Japan is still homogeneous, its shallow trash culture has deracinated the nation to the point where kids identify more with cartoon characters than with real people. And this idiocy has spread to US as well. So many kids in the US know more about Pokemon than about their own identity, history, and culture.

    Maybe such sense of deracination and detachment from the self is the product of Western revolution in thinking. Think of the concept of -ology, or the study of. When Western Man began to think -ologically, a kind of detached perspective developed in his mind. Instead of “this is what I am, what I feel, what I want, etc”, he began to think “this is what I think I am, this is what I think of what I feel, this is what I think of what I want and why.” Ological thinking created a critical, objective, and detached distance between the self and the mind that processed ideas and info about the self. It’s like Harold Bloom says Shakespeare created proto-modern-psychology with Hamlet where there is actually two characters in one: Hamlet and Hamlet’s thoughts of Hamlet. But it could be said to go back to the Greeks with their philosophy and stuff where it wasn’t enough to say, “I believe this or I feel this” but “I think this is why believe this and I think this is why I feel this.”

    Psychology isn’t just about using the mind but using the mind to detach oneself from the mind to see the mind objectively. It is thought about the thought. Thus, it is disassociative from thought itself. Sociology isn’t just knowing of one’s environment but a detached and disassociated study of one’s environment like a lab.
    This was a great revolution in how man saw himself and the world.

    But maybe it turned cancerous in political philosophy, indeed to the point where Western Man is loathe to feel attached to one’s land, history, culture, and etc. Western Man feels he must detach himself from such things and study them. So far, not bad.
    After all, -ology calls for detached objective study. When a German student takes up German Studies in college, he is doing so objectively, not gung-ho-ly or patriotically. Scholarship must be detached and objective.
    But at some point, this detached view came to regard one’s race, nation, and history as a kind of disease that one must not only detach oneself from but extinguish as ‘toxic whiteness’.
    It went from detaching oneself from “my country right or wrong” to believing “my race always wrong”. So, it is not enough to detach oneself from one’s identity in order to study and understand it better. Instead, one must detach oneself from one’s identity as the main source of disease and toxicity that must be expunged. It’s like religious nuts believe their souls must detach from body and made pure from association with sickness and vileness of flesh.

    This may explain the SJW hideousness among whites.
    Non-whites have been PC-ized join in white-bashing, but it will destroy them too. After all, if white SJW are at vanguard of detaching and rejecting and purging their own identity in the name of Diversity and Inclusion, then the same logic will apply to all groups as PC spreads all over. Look how homomania has spreads so far and wide.
    Hillary’s Huma may have been raised as a Muslim Brotherhood girl, but her long-term vision of Muslim World is Lena-Dunham-land. She now works to destroy white identity, but the globalist agenda is to destroy ALL identities(with possible exception of Israel even though even some Jews are getting so PC that they are turning against Jewishness as well).

    We need to understand humans first and foremost as organisms. We need organismology.
    We think idealistically or ideologically, so we put ideas, principles, and etc first and foremost as ‘universal’ principles.
    But organisms are adaptive depending on time and place. Organisms don’t act consistently according to a single correct principle.

    When it comes to ‘nativism’ and ‘invasivism’, organisms are actually both. All organisms are nativist and invasivist. A tree puts its roots into the ground and tries to remain fixed where it is. But it also spreads its seeds and tries to make them take over new areas.
    Nativism is defensive, invasivism is offensive, and all animals have both aspects. Territorialism is both nativist and invasivist. Tigers and bears will mark territory to ward off other animals, but they also try to expand their territory by peeing on new areas.
    From an organismic viewpoint, neither ‘nativism’ or ‘invasivism’ is ‘evil’ or ‘wicked’. They are strategies for survival and/or dominance.

    Same with predatorism and preyism. A black bear is into predatorism and preyism. As predator, it hunts other weaker animals for food. As prey, it tries to avoid grizzly bears, cougars, and wolves. Only a dumb black bear would, as a ‘true conservative bear’, choose only predatorism or preyism. A smart bear has to be predator when the opportunity arises, like when it sees a gopher or baby deer as easy kill. But it must think like a prey when dangerous animals come near; it must climb a tree for safety. Predatorism is about hunting; Preyism is about fleeing from hunters. A black bear would be dumb to be principled as predatorism all the time. It would be stupid to try to bring down a grizzly bear or tackle a pack of wolves.

    So, white folks as human organisms have been both invasivist and nativist. When America was mostly a vast natural empty territory with some ‘red savages’, it was just calling out be invaded by those with more numbers, better technology, more ambition, and etc. And America was created. But once this nation was created, those who settled and created it naturally turned natitvist since they want to preserve what they created.
    It’s like modern Jews created Israel through invasivism but maintain it through nativisim(and ethnicism that welcomes only fellow Jews as future Israelis).

    In our time, nativism is better than invasivism. Why? Cuz all the world has been discovered, conquered, claimed, and settled by various peoples. The Age of Empire is over, and imperialism is nasty business, as recent history in Middle East shows.
    Nativism is un-aggressive. It only seeks to defend ‘what is ours’. Invasivism as the arm of globalism is aggressive as war-making and massive invasions of other homelands, thus Palestinianizing peoples all over.

    Also, globalist invasivism is crassly materialist cuz it’s mostly about bringing people to America and turning them from a people with identity, history, and culture into McGlobalists whose identity is about Pop Culture(like Lena Dunham and Miley Cyrus) and Political Correctness(whose attack on whiteness serves a template for attack on all races and cultures in future. After all, BBC denounces South African blacks for defending their nation from invasion by Zimbabwean blacks. And globalism has opened up borders all over the Middle East and North Africa. With open borders for Jidhadis, millions of lives have been destroyed by wars, terrorism, and pillaging).

    US must become the template for nativism. It should absorb people already here(as long as not illegal), but it needs to say NO MORE cuz Americanism as an invasivist model for the world will mean the whole world will turn into one strip mall of rap music, trash culture, and celebrity narcissism.

    Americans themselves should take up genealogy as an essential study of what each family is.

    Though Alex Haley turned out to be a fraud, his attempt to rediscover his roots was a noble one. And all peoples need to do this as globalism seeks to uproot everyone and cut them off from their roots.

  81. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @anonn
    Liberals are doubling down on insult whitey till he likes you strategy. The left wanted Bernie, who would have won, but the corporate whores at the DNC stabbed us in the back. I will be very interested to see if Trump has the courage to govern like he campaigned, and also curious to see if the Warren/Sanders wing will cooperate. Working together they could get infrastructure and economic stimulus done in about a day. He could also forge a new path on trade that would unite the left and the right.

    I fear that instead he'll cave to the granny-starvers in the Paul Ryan wing of his party. If so, it will be an ugly four years. But if he's got the courage of his convictions, I'm pretty hopeful something good could happen.

    Liberals are doubling down on insult whitey till he likes you strategy. The left wanted Bernie, who would have won, but the corporate whores at the DNC stabbed us in the back. I will be very interested to see if Trump has the courage to govern like he campaigned, and also curious to see if the Warren/Sanders wing will cooperate. Working together they could get infrastructure and economic stimulus done in about a day. He could also forge a new path on trade that would unite the left and the right.

    I fear that instead he’ll cave to the granny-starvers in the Paul Ryan wing of his party. If so, it will be an ugly four years. But if he’s got the courage of his convictions, I’m pretty hopeful something good could happen.

    Some excellent points there…rare insight

  82. @Berty
    Somewhat related to the topic at hand:

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-support-keith-ellison-231185

    A black Muslim leading the Democrats. Looks like Trump got an early Christmas present.

    Berty, I read that news over the Washington Post website. Bernie Sanders was saying how the Democrats need to reconnect with white working class voters. So he thinks Keith Ellison should run the DNC!

    Beatings will continue until morale improves.

  83. I said it could be done.

    Not only did you predict this, Steve, but in many ways you caused it. Your years of blogging and all the countless blogs you’ve inspired, including my own, really paved the way for a politically incorrect President. I hope he honors your legacy responsibly.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Not only did you predict this, Steve, but in many ways you caused it. Your years of blogging and all the countless blogs you’ve inspired, including my own, really paved the way for a politically incorrect President. I hope he honors your legacy responsibly.
     
    Presidential Medal of Freedom for Steve.

    In a just world--a done deal. But as we all know--or we wouldn't be here reading Steve--this is not a just world.
  84. @Marcus
    Of course they are doubling down. Hillary will surely be the last white Dem candidate.

    It’s starting with the party leadership…

    • Replies: @Marcus
    Damn they really are intent on an eventual civil war
  85. @Bill
    The Dems may get back to near Obama level turnout among blacks with a black nominee. But you have to wonder how high the ceiling is on moving more whites to the GOP. In the South, whites routinely vote by gigantic margins for the GOP. So, the ceiling for white votes is probably a margin of sixty or seventy or higher for the GOP.

    If this election is the first stirrings of a big realignment, then not only might the Dems not get their mojo back by nominating a black, but that might actually backfire on them by speeding up the flow of whites out of their party. It's worth remembering as well that working class whites have, on balance, less insulation between themselves and real black people than do elite whites. So, it's entirely possible for elite whites to completely fail to "get" what an ever-closer embrace of the Negro Turnout Strategy would do.

    “In the South, whites routinely vote by gigantic margins for the GOP. So, the ceiling for white votes is probably a margin of sixty or seventy or higher for the GOP.”

    Whites in MS, AL, and some other Southern states routinely vote 75-88% Republican. If midwestern whites or whites nationwide voted like that elections wouldn’t even be competitive.

  86. @The Z Blog
    My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people "racist Nazi homerphobes" and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80's that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60's was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about "white voters" as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority.

    It’s going to be harder when their future (and some of their present) voting base is in Mexico behind a freshly-minted nice big fat well-designed wall. I hope Trump has the sense to shut down the immigration of those who vote anti-Republican. And cuts off benefits to elderly who have chain migrated here, which if it works out well will cause them to go back home.

  87. @The Z Blog
    My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people "racist Nazi homerphobes" and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80's that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60's was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about "white voters" as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    “Homerphobe” – that’s good! My wife is definitely a Homerphobe. She can’t leave the room fast enough when the Simpsons are on.

  88. @Svigor

    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama.
     
    The Math: Trump 2016 Would’ve Beaten Obama 2012

    This is an objectively stupid piece even before the guy admitted the NYT data he used wasn’t complete and he got it wrong.

    The problem is the Trump’s vote totals did not come against Hillary not Obama, and Obama’s are against Romney not Trump, so comparing them straight up is just stupid.

    You have some adjustments to make:

    Obama votes:
    — ones that would not have voted in race with Trump — likely small
    — ones that voted for Obama over Romney but would have switched to Trump — some blue collar whites
    — ones that voted Romney but would have voted for Obama against Trump — some college whites

    Trump votes:
    — ones that would not have voted in a race against Obama — likely small, maybe some blue collar whites really disgusted with Hillary
    — ones that voted for Trump over Hillary, but would have switched to Obama–likely a few percent of the black vote, a decent chunk of Trump’s Asian support (particularly Indians)probably a few whites especially men not wanting to listen to hectoring Hillary
    — ones that voted Hillary but would have voted for Trump if against Obama–likely non-existent

    You’d have to get numbers attached to these things, but I think a reasonable take is that Trump’s numbers go down from defecting minorities and folks just disgusted with Hillary, while Obama’s numbers likely stay in the same ballpark–picking up even more college educated whites, while losing some blue collar whites.

    Now someone with Trump’s energy, persistence and charisma, without the pussy-grabbing baggage, but instead an articulate nationalist and with a resume more acceptable to white college grads–combine the best of Trump and Romney in say an auto exec rather than a finance or real estate\TV personality (Romney’s dad with Trump’s pizazz) … maybe you’ve got a winner.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    Composite or generic candidates always poll better than real humans because they have no baggage. Every real human has baggage of one sort or another.
    , @Bill Jones
    "Now someone with Trump’s energy, persistence and charisma, without the pussy-grabbing baggage, but instead an articulate nationalist and with a resume more acceptable to white college grads–combine the best of Trump and Romney in say an auto exec rather than a finance or real estate\TV personality (Romney’s dad with Trump’s pizazz) … maybe you’ve got a winner."

    Except, of course, the only one who has won was Trump- who had none of the bullshit behind him.

    If Trump grabbed my wife's pussy, I would chop his hand off but it wouldn't change my vote.
    , @SFG
    As opposed to the guy who actually won the election, ie Trump?

    Now could Trump 2016 beat Obama 2012? Could Romney 2012 beat Hillary 2016? Could Reagan 1980 beat Clinton 1992? How about FDR 1932 against Lincoln 1860? How about Hoover 1932 against Hitler 1932, if Hitler spoke English? Batman vs Superman?

    I don't know. Hypotheticals are always kind of hard. Let's just be happy he won.

  89. @LondonBob
    Young folks for Trump: white millennials (18-29 year-olds) voted for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton by 48% to 43%.

    When states still to declare (AZ, Mich, NH) are included, looks like Clinton will be just ahead in popular vote: circa 63.42m to 63.3m. Trump got more than Romney, despite two spoilers run against him and the whole system opposing him. I think this also suggests Trump won the popular vote once one subtracts out the fraudulent vote.

    doesn’t she also get another million net votes from CA early ballots?

    • Replies: @LondonBob
    Just regurgitating others. Not sure what happens with those R leaning absentee ballots either. Can Trump still take NH?
  90. Oh God…not the cannibal John Bolton!!!

  91. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    It kills me that all these progs blame Trump and white women(who sold their sisterhood) for Hillary’s loss and the failure to elect the first woman president.

    If anyone is to blame, it is the Progs themselves who went with Obama in 2008.

    2008 was supposed to be Hillary’s year. Everyone’s been saying that since 2000 and esp after 2004 when Kerry lost. It was her turn. Everyone close to her was saying she’s gonna be the next president, esp as GOP had imploded with the war gone bad and sinking markets.
    Media was all prepped to promote her. All her friends or people she thought were her friends said they are gonna be there for her.
    But Obama Johnny Fontaine comes along with his mulatto charm, and all rush to him and leave Hillary standing looking ridiculous. And she couldn’t afford to look ridiculous. Even feminists ditched her for the ‘first black president’, and etc. She was left in the cold. She was upstaged and outstaged. She was betrayed by all her friends. Even her friends who stuck around were half-hearted cuz they really wanted to join the Obammy party.

    This was a hard pill to swallow. But she swallowed it. She could have made things difficult for Obama, but she played along. And she looked for another chance, final chance, 8 yrs down the line. She had to let the GUY win cuz he is black.

    I think the Party and media and etc all felt kinda guilty and dirty for what they’d done to her in 2008. They let the Dude get in front of the line. He hadn’t paid his dues. He was a nothing and nobody but could do the Hollywood celebrity glitz in politics. Hillary’s record owed a lot to her husband, but she had paid the dues coming up.

    So, I think part of anti-Trump vitriol wasn’t entirely hatred for Trump but to make up for their shi*facing of Hillary in 2008. She had to be rewarded for having been cheated out of the top prize but having been a good sport about it and going along(though she surely hated Obama and resented the media and powers that be for what was done to her).

    So, the media went all out for her this time. But she failed again. Too old, too sick, too tainted from being too long in politics.

    Media and Progs look for scapegoats and blame white women who voted for Trump.
    But it was hers to lose in 2008, and she lost it cuz the powers that be flocked to Obama. The Party and Media and Progs sold her out for shammy obammy.
    If the entire Democratic Party establishment told him in 2008 that it is Hillary’s turn and he should wait and pay his dues, he would had too. But the powers-that-be urged him in and shooed him in.

    So, if Hillary lost her chance to be first woman president, the blame must go to the Great Betrayal by her Party and the media in 2008.

  92. A gem from a how Clinton lost post-mortem in NY times:

    “The emerging demographic majority isn’t quite there yet,” said (((Anita Dunn))), a Democratic strategist and former White House communications director. “The idea you can get to a presidential campaign and just press a button and they’ll vote, it’s not there yet.”

    She fully expects to get there soon though.

    • Replies: @epebble
    Ms. Dunn doesn't know math; The demographic majority is there; it is just not well distributed for maximum effect. Clinton got more votes; her votes were just not from helpful places. Trump got fewer votes; but they were located optimally.
  93. @pumpkinperson
    I said it could be done.

    Not only did you predict this, Steve, but in many ways you caused it. Your years of blogging and all the countless blogs you've inspired, including my own, really paved the way for a politically incorrect President. I hope he honors your legacy responsibly.

    Not only did you predict this, Steve, but in many ways you caused it. Your years of blogging and all the countless blogs you’ve inspired, including my own, really paved the way for a politically incorrect President. I hope he honors your legacy responsibly.

    Presidential Medal of Freedom for Steve.

    In a just world–a done deal. But as we all know–or we wouldn’t be here reading Steve–this is not a just world.

  94. @Lot
    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

    His transition team is heavy on corporate lobbyists and Chris Christie cronies and does not inspire much confidence. Hopefully he will marginalize Christie and Pence in favor of paleocons.

    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

    True, however, some of us hispanic whites are pretty darned white and pretty far right. I am actually mostly English with some other northern euro, but really and truly some in my family came right over the border from Mexico. Of course, they were white, too. But whatever. Just because some whites are willing to identify as hispanics doesn’t mean they won’t vote conservative pro America over the “other.” Now I do hope that Trump enforces immigration laws but he also needs to appeal to Asians especially Chinese who are now the single biggest legal group of immigrants annually. They make good citizens and need to be won over, which he can do if he tries. It would be nice for them to be conservative American voters instead of crazy leftist voters.

    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    So now Trump needs to import his voting bloc from India and China...that makes a lot of sense...absolutely brilliant demographic warfare policy against the Historic Native White Nation.
    , @Lurker
    But he needs to limit their numbers. Make them realise their bread is buttered by a majority white nation not on the promise of an ever-growing Chinese bloc of voters, business partners, employers.
  95. @Jack D
    Remember that Trump won basically because he was able to flip working class whites in 4 Rust Belt states (esp. rural ones who really don't have much to do with vibrant minorities on a daily basis). Flip them from who? Obama, who they voted for twice. These folks have no deep allegiance to either party. Nor did they vote (the leftist line notwithstanding) out of racism or a sense of white racial solidarity (Hillary, who they DIDN't vote for is white and Obama, who they DID vote for is black).

    Rather they voted each time for the candidate whose populist message resonated the most for them and who was seen not to represent the hated Wall Street elites that sent their jobs and formerly comfortable middle class existence overseas to enrich themselves. Joe Lunchbox now makes $10/hr at Walmart instead of the $25 he used to make at the Carrier factory so that the CEO can have a $172 million payday:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-25/united-technologies-chenevert-leaves-with-172-million-package

    And the CEO gets this package as his reward from Wall Street for raising the quarterly earnings from 10 cents/share to 15 cents by any means necessary, even if that means moving the factory that' s been there providing thousands of middle class jobs for a century to Mexico. And Trump knows the game as well as anyone - the CEO can do this only because the trade laws, tax laws, etc. make it possible.

    So, if Trump is able to deliver on his promises to reverse this, then he (and the Republican Party that he now heads whether the party likes it or not) will do well, if not, they will flip back to whoever gives them more hope, whether that guy is white or black or green.

    The WaPo says (rightly) that Obama was not able to create a coalition that outlived him like Roosevelt (although the Presidency flipped, many elements of the New Deal have lasted until today) but the flip side of that is that Trump won't necessarily create anything lasting either.

    Those are good points.

  96. @Rod1963
    I don't trust the exit polling at all, Trump drew a hell of lot more whites than 1% more than Romney. Same thing with the media spinning that Hillary got the popular vote and voters saying Hillary was more qualified.

    Remember the MSM is still playing games with us. The fact that Trump won is irrelevant to them, they will still take shots at him. CNN did a attack yesterday on Melania. Fox is still full on nasty on Trump among it's conservative commentators.

    CNN did a attack yesterday on Melania.

    Ugh, remember how the media went on and on about how beautiful Michelle Obama was, even though she isn’t. Now that there is a truly beautiful first lady let’s seen how the jealous chicks in the media react. I am guessing they will be all claws out like the vicious cat women they are.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    "Ugh, remember how the media went on and on about how beautiful Michelle Obama was, even though she isn’t."

    Ugh, I remember. She was a "fashion icon" with "well-toned arms". They even defended her when she emerged from Air Force One wearing baggy shorts. So embarrassing.

    "Now that there is a truly beautiful first lady let’s seen how the jealous chicks in the media react."

    I know it's frivolous of me but I look forward to having an elegant, graceful First Lady again. Melania Trump will be a gorgeous FLOTUS.

    , @Chrisnonymous
    This provides a nice entrée into commenting on Melania.

    As it happens, I didn't think she looked all that good throughout most of the campaign. However, I was just amusing myself by looking at Trump's cameo appearances when I saw the clip from Zoolander. That appears to be Melania standing next to him, and she looks incredible and pleased by Trump. I can see why Trump was attracted her. Amazing. I guess we have similar taste.

    On the other hand, when he kissed her on the cheek after his victory speech, she looked quite cold. She was with him when he made his first attempt at the presidency via the Reform Party, so she must be okay with a political life, but maybe the pussy-grabbing stories have taken a toll on their relationship.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOs_A-nzesA
  97. @Chrisnonymous
    It's starting with the party leadership...

    http://www.twitter.com/KThomasDC/status/796750461927886848

    Damn they really are intent on an eventual civil war

  98. @Hubbub
    Maureen Dowd (Pauline Kael, NYT of yesteryear):

    It is unthinkable to imagine the most overtly racist candidate — and head of the offensive birther movement — driving in the limousine to the inauguration with the first African-American president. What would they discuss? How Trump plans to repeal Obamacare? How Trump will appoint Supreme Court justices that will transform America into a drastically more conservative landscape over the next 20 years? How Trump plans to undo the Iran deal? When will Trump begin deporting Hispanics? When will Attorney General Rudy Giuliani pardon Chris Christie and put Hillary in jail?
     
    What would they discuss? Let hope all of these things; oh, hell, let's hope they know enough about the topics to discuss them intelligently.

    Maureen Dowd (Pauline Kael, NYT of yesteryear):


    I thought the hard-core support for Trump had dwindled down to a hardy band of loyalists: Rudy, Newt, Chris, Sarah, Kellyanne, Omarosa, the kids, Melania — the woman who told him “If you run, you’ll win” — Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Matt Drudge, Ann Coulter, Jeff Sessions, Corey Lewandowski, Steve Bannon, Hope Hicks, David Bossie, Alex Jones, Bill Mitchell, Mike Pence and my brother, Kevin.
     
    Like Kael, Dowd does not understand how Trump won, because nobody she knows voted for Trump - save her brother, Kevin.

    “It is unthinkable to imagine the most overtly racist candidate”

    Wasn’t that Barry the Kenyan?

    “and head of the offensive birther movement ”

    Wasn’t that Hillary?

    This is why these moron liberals are so vicious. They wouldn’t last a month outside of the carefully protected cocoon they live in.

  99. @Joe Schmoe

    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

     

    True, however, some of us hispanic whites are pretty darned white and pretty far right. I am actually mostly English with some other northern euro, but really and truly some in my family came right over the border from Mexico. Of course, they were white, too. But whatever. Just because some whites are willing to identify as hispanics doesn't mean they won't vote conservative pro America over the "other." Now I do hope that Trump enforces immigration laws but he also needs to appeal to Asians especially Chinese who are now the single biggest legal group of immigrants annually. They make good citizens and need to be won over, which he can do if he tries. It would be nice for them to be conservative American voters instead of crazy leftist voters.

    So now Trump needs to import his voting bloc from India and China…that makes a lot of sense…absolutely brilliant demographic warfare policy against the Historic Native White Nation.

  100. @The Z Blog
    My guess is the Left will come away thinking they did not call enough people "racist Nazi homerphobes" and work harder to purge undesirables. It was well into the 80's that it finally dawned on them that the radical language of the 60's was a loser politically.

    What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about "white voters" as a block. Many still stuttered and squirmed, mostly the males, but the nomalization of the concept is further along than I would have guessed. The White Party versus the POC Party is coming together.

    The Buckley Conservatives, neo-cons and TrueCons will rally around the argument that Trump is peak honky. They will have their nerdlings produce graphs showing that within ten years the Sailer Strategy will fail to produce a majority. Whether there is anyone around to listen is hard to know, but that will be their play.

    ‘What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about “white voters” as a block.’

    Yes, even Mister Milquetoast himself, Rush Limbaugh, today asked aloud: If it’s laudable when women, sodomites, and blacks vote monolithically, why is it deplorable when Whites and men vote monolithically?

    This election has brought White political solidarity Out Of The Shadows.

    • Replies: @Lurker
    I was mostly watching the BBC on the night. One (((pundit))) on their studio panel looked like he was about to burst into tears by the end (and he was quite jolly to start with). He was issuing dire predictions of what might happen to the political process if whites started acting like a bloc.

    I would be fascinated to see his comments on the bloc voting of Jews, blacks and hispanics over the last 30, 40, 50 years but I rather suspect it's not troubled him at any time.

  101. @Joe Schmoe

    CNN did a attack yesterday on Melania.
     
    Ugh, remember how the media went on and on about how beautiful Michelle Obama was, even though she isn't. Now that there is a truly beautiful first lady let's seen how the jealous chicks in the media react. I am guessing they will be all claws out like the vicious cat women they are.

    “Ugh, remember how the media went on and on about how beautiful Michelle Obama was, even though she isn’t.”

    Ugh, I remember. She was a “fashion icon” with “well-toned arms”. They even defended her when she emerged from Air Force One wearing baggy shorts. So embarrassing.

    “Now that there is a truly beautiful first lady let’s seen how the jealous chicks in the media react.”

    I know it’s frivolous of me but I look forward to having an elegant, graceful First Lady again. Melania Trump will be a gorgeous FLOTUS.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous

    I know it’s frivolous of me but I look forward to having an elegant, graceful First Lady again. Melania Trump will be a gorgeous FLOTUS.
     
    Agreed, but she needs to tone down her makeup, especially eye-liner. I think beautiful women look better if they age gracefully instead of overdoing the makeup and hair to look younger.

    Also, hopefully, no more plagiarism issues, justified or not.

    Also, hopefully, they can both (but especially Donald) lose a little weight and keep in condition. Fingers crossed, but not high hopes for Donald, who claims to eat whatever he wants to balance out his teetotaling.
    , @Bill Jones
    Yup, the replacement of the first wookie by the first babe is much to be wished for.
    , @Greasy William
    Michelle has a pretty face, period. Before Melania she probably was the best looking first lady we've ever had.

    You guys just don't like black girls.
  102. @Joe Schmoe

    CNN did a attack yesterday on Melania.
     
    Ugh, remember how the media went on and on about how beautiful Michelle Obama was, even though she isn't. Now that there is a truly beautiful first lady let's seen how the jealous chicks in the media react. I am guessing they will be all claws out like the vicious cat women they are.

    This provides a nice entrée into commenting on Melania.

    As it happens, I didn’t think she looked all that good throughout most of the campaign. However, I was just amusing myself by looking at Trump’s cameo appearances when I saw the clip from Zoolander. That appears to be Melania standing next to him, and she looks incredible and pleased by Trump. I can see why Trump was attracted her. Amazing. I guess we have similar taste.

    On the other hand, when he kissed her on the cheek after his victory speech, she looked quite cold. She was with him when he made his first attempt at the presidency via the Reform Party, so she must be okay with a political life, but maybe the pussy-grabbing stories have taken a toll on their relationship.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOs_A-nzesA

  103. @The most deplorable one
    Money seems to be pouring into manufacturing dissent:

    https://i.sli.mg/mPsovr.jpg

    It says: Fight the Trump Agenda. We're hiring Full-Time Activists (Seattle) ... Students, Women and Minorities are encouraged to apply.

    “Money seems to be pouring into manufacturing dissent:”

    The link wouldn’t load, but this is nothing remotely new. Organizing Against White America has run similar ads in Portland, OR since at least 2008, offering $12.25/hour and great bennies (yeah, right) to professional astroturfers.

  104. @Kylie
    "Ugh, remember how the media went on and on about how beautiful Michelle Obama was, even though she isn’t."

    Ugh, I remember. She was a "fashion icon" with "well-toned arms". They even defended her when she emerged from Air Force One wearing baggy shorts. So embarrassing.

    "Now that there is a truly beautiful first lady let’s seen how the jealous chicks in the media react."

    I know it's frivolous of me but I look forward to having an elegant, graceful First Lady again. Melania Trump will be a gorgeous FLOTUS.

    I know it’s frivolous of me but I look forward to having an elegant, graceful First Lady again. Melania Trump will be a gorgeous FLOTUS.

    Agreed, but she needs to tone down her makeup, especially eye-liner. I think beautiful women look better if they age gracefully instead of overdoing the makeup and hair to look younger.

    Also, hopefully, no more plagiarism issues, justified or not.

    Also, hopefully, they can both (but especially Donald) lose a little weight and keep in condition. Fingers crossed, but not high hopes for Donald, who claims to eat whatever he wants to balance out his teetotaling.

  105. @Jonathan Mason
    The truth is that infrastructure in the US is miserable. Even (0nce) third world places like China have more modern airports, rail stations and lines, etc. If (for example) you could get to NY from Phila in 45 minutes by rail (this is completely doable with current technology – it’s only 100 miles) then Phila could be a suburb of NY and all the hipsters who can’t afford to live in Brooklyn anymore could live in Phila instead.

    This is true, but the question is why. It seems to me that government entities in the US are terrified of offending taxpayers by building state-of-the-art infrastructure, other than sports stadiums, apparently, and so everything is build as cheaply as possible and then subcontracted to corporate commercial interests. This is why US airports are so crummy and lack decent restaurants, free wifi (with some exceptions) and decent amenities, and resemble suburban shopping malls with food forecourts, but you still can't buy anything really useful at a reasonable price while you are held captive waiting for the weather to improve.

    Americans are brilliant at building straight, wide roads, but as soon as you leave the main highways, the supporting transportation infrastructure is crummy. Gas stations have huge displays of overpriced cold sugary drinks, but the toilets are crummy and dirty, and you can't get anything resembling a decent cup of coffee anywhere, other than the odd Cuban restaurant or cafe.

    Interstate highway official rest stops are just toilets with vending machines, when they could be so much more.

    Government buildings like drivers' license centers are subsidized by placing candy vending machines at eye level for small children who soon get bored and start panhandling for coins, or snack and soda machines for adults.

    In spite of Obamacare and all that, we are still a long way from cheap and cheerful health clinics like most countries overseas have, where working people or parents can quickly stop by and get a prescription for antibiotics without taking half a day off work or school. In fact it would vastly reduce health care costs if patients could buy more common drugs from pharmacies without doctor's prescriptions, as in many countries overseas. There are certain downsides to this proposal, but the BILLIONS of dollars in health care costs and missed work and school times would surely compensate. I don't recall hearing any innovative ideas on health care from Hillary during the election campaign.

    There is just so much that could be done by government to improve the overall quality of life in the US, not that I personally have any particular faith in Trump, but at least his comments about making vast efforts to improve infrastructure show that he is walking around with his eyes open.

    And there is a problem with crime and immigrants and refugees. Of course not all Mexicans who head north are criminals, but Mexico hardly bends over backwards to ensure that delinquents stay at home, and many immigrants get sucked into crime when they find out that well-paid jobs are hard to come by, regardless of how hard working you are.

    I know a legal immigrant with a green card right now who is super law abiding, but is working as a private caregiver to an invalid in a private home where no taxes or social security are paid, which is technically a crime, but what are people to do to make a living? A family may be able to pay an immigrant $10 an hour, but be completely unable to afford the $17 for an agency employee with social security, health insurance, and workers comp.

    This individual also works in a "legal" job for a well-known national hotel chain in its expensive bistro, but gets minimum wage minus deductions for social and taxes, plus has FICA income tax withheld on imaginary tips that are never received.

    So immigrants come to the US with no intention of committing crimes, but end up doing so just to make ends meet, buy food and clothing for children, and so on. Is it any wonder that many will end up supplementing earnings via prostitution, drug dealing, and other black economy activities?

    Will Trump make anything change? Probably not, but we have already had a Clinton in the White House and don't need more of the same.

    Gas stations have huge displays of overpriced cold sugary drinks, but the toilets are crummy and dirty,

    you must not have Buc-ee’s

    https://www.buc-ees.com/restrooms.php

  106. @Pericles
    It was so lucky of Trump to wait for sick Hillary to enter the stage.

    At one point, I was wondering whether he could have taken the presidency as a Democrat instead. First defeat Hillary and Bernie, then take on the anointed ¡Jeb! most likely (and cruise to victory). But apparently that route was deemed to be harder.

    “It was so lucky of Trump to wait for sick Hillary to enter the stage.”

    Not luck — it was cunning. President Trump calculated that he couldn’t beat the Magic Negro in ’08 or even ’12, so he waited til he faced a very weak opponent: an ill, shrill, corrupt senior citizen who he could schlong with impunity.

    It’s shrewd decisions like this that make me hopeful for a fruitful and successful Trump presidency. I hope he doesn’t fail!

    • Replies: @Pericles
    "Not luck — it was cunning."

    Indeed.
  107. @Anonymous
    Apparently, Donald Trump is half Scottish.
    His mother hailed from the Hebrides - the remotest, most marginal, bleakest, toughest, hardest location in Great Britain.

    Usually, if any American President has any sort of remote ancestral connection to the UK, the British press, and in particular the BBC, in a burst of national pride, play up the connection for all it's worth, even, as it is usually the case, the connection is hundreds of years old.
    Donald Trump's connection is terribly recent. He must have many, many cousins scattered throughout the UK, as most Hebrideans emigrated.

    But, strangely enough, absolutely none of the UK media is playing up the Trump/Scotland connection.

    “the remotest, most marginal, bleakest, toughest, hardest location in Great Britain.”

    So, you’ve never been to Birmingham, then.

  108. @Kylie
    "Ugh, remember how the media went on and on about how beautiful Michelle Obama was, even though she isn’t."

    Ugh, I remember. She was a "fashion icon" with "well-toned arms". They even defended her when she emerged from Air Force One wearing baggy shorts. So embarrassing.

    "Now that there is a truly beautiful first lady let’s seen how the jealous chicks in the media react."

    I know it's frivolous of me but I look forward to having an elegant, graceful First Lady again. Melania Trump will be a gorgeous FLOTUS.

    Yup, the replacement of the first wookie by the first babe is much to be wished for.

  109. Anyone else hearing rumblings of “challenging” this election by screwing around with electoral voters? This might not be over … and judging by the absolute hysterical reactions going on (as I hide away in the bedroom while my wife consoles her SJW friends who dropped by) I don’t think these people are going to give up….being egged on by the media (Rachel Maddow has lost it)….this might not be f$)&king over….some of the stuff I’m hearing from these people is unbelievable lately. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be “interesting” this year.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Might make a difference if Michigan and its 16 EV votes finally wind up in Trump's column. Trump has a lead of just under 12,000 with 100% reporting in 100% of all counties.
    , @Kyle
    "(as I hide away in the bedroom while my wife consoles her SJW friends who dropped by"

    ....
    Go out there and lay down the long dick of the law, it's your house.
  110. @Poke646,0
    Anyone else hearing rumblings of "challenging" this election by screwing around with electoral voters? This might not be over ... and judging by the absolute hysterical reactions going on (as I hide away in the bedroom while my wife consoles her SJW friends who dropped by) I don't think these people are going to give up....being egged on by the media (Rachel Maddow has lost it)....this might not be f$)&king over....some of the stuff I'm hearing from these people is unbelievable lately. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be "interesting" this year.

    Might make a difference if Michigan and its 16 EV votes finally wind up in Trump’s column. Trump has a lead of just under 12,000 with 100% reporting in 100% of all counties.

    • Replies: @Poke646,0
    I stood just behind my door listening to screeds by otherwise sane, relatively intelligent (as much as "HuffPo-types" can be) mild mannered people talking about some effort underway to "get electoral college voters to flip key states back to Hillary." I'm not sure what "get" means. They were referencing some egg head professor who said this is possible and that lots of people are talking about it etc...(haven't bothered to look for these articles yet). This after a bunch of carrying on about how this second coming of hitler has to be stopped etc etc. A little unnerving coming from this group (SJW-ish. educators) bunch. I hope this nonsense dies down soon, but I'm starting to wonder.
    , @Federalist
    Wouldn't it be more likely to make a difference if Michigan does not wind up in Trump's column? In that case, Trump would have a smaller electoral college lead (20, I think) and so it would take a smaller number of faithless electors to flip the election.
  111. @Kylie
    "Ugh, remember how the media went on and on about how beautiful Michelle Obama was, even though she isn’t."

    Ugh, I remember. She was a "fashion icon" with "well-toned arms". They even defended her when she emerged from Air Force One wearing baggy shorts. So embarrassing.

    "Now that there is a truly beautiful first lady let’s seen how the jealous chicks in the media react."

    I know it's frivolous of me but I look forward to having an elegant, graceful First Lady again. Melania Trump will be a gorgeous FLOTUS.

    Michelle has a pretty face, period. Before Melania she probably was the best looking first lady we’ve ever had.

    You guys just don’t like black girls.

    • Replies: @Federalist
    I usually don't get into the comments about looks but Michelle Obama's face is not even remotely pretty.
  112. @Bill Jones
    One wonders if Barry the Kenyan will have the testicular fortitude to refuse to pardon the Clinton crime family for their many and obvious felonies.

    I hear there is no love lost.

    Magic 8 Ball says : NFW

  113. @AnotherDad
    This is an objectively stupid piece even before the guy admitted the NYT data he used wasn't complete and he got it wrong.

    The problem is the Trump's vote totals did not come against Hillary not Obama, and Obama's are against Romney not Trump, so comparing them straight up is just stupid.

    You have some adjustments to make:

    Obama votes:
    -- ones that would not have voted in race with Trump -- likely small
    -- ones that voted for Obama over Romney but would have switched to Trump -- some blue collar whites
    -- ones that voted Romney but would have voted for Obama against Trump -- some college whites

    Trump votes:
    -- ones that would not have voted in a race against Obama -- likely small, maybe some blue collar whites really disgusted with Hillary
    -- ones that voted for Trump over Hillary, but would have switched to Obama--likely a few percent of the black vote, a decent chunk of Trump's Asian support (particularly Indians)probably a few whites especially men not wanting to listen to hectoring Hillary
    -- ones that voted Hillary but would have voted for Trump if against Obama--likely non-existent

    You'd have to get numbers attached to these things, but I think a reasonable take is that Trump's numbers go down from defecting minorities and folks just disgusted with Hillary, while Obama's numbers likely stay in the same ballpark--picking up even more college educated whites, while losing some blue collar whites.

    Now someone with Trump's energy, persistence and charisma, without the pussy-grabbing baggage, but instead an articulate nationalist and with a resume more acceptable to white college grads--combine the best of Trump and Romney in say an auto exec rather than a finance or real estate\TV personality (Romney's dad with Trump's pizazz) ... maybe you've got a winner.

    Composite or generic candidates always poll better than real humans because they have no baggage. Every real human has baggage of one sort or another.

  114. @Anonymous
    Apparently, Donald Trump is half Scottish.
    His mother hailed from the Hebrides - the remotest, most marginal, bleakest, toughest, hardest location in Great Britain.

    Usually, if any American President has any sort of remote ancestral connection to the UK, the British press, and in particular the BBC, in a burst of national pride, play up the connection for all it's worth, even, as it is usually the case, the connection is hundreds of years old.
    Donald Trump's connection is terribly recent. He must have many, many cousins scattered throughout the UK, as most Hebrideans emigrated.

    But, strangely enough, absolutely none of the UK media is playing up the Trump/Scotland connection.

    Very good point and he is far more British than Obama is African (in a cultural sense) given that Obama snr. was totally AWOL. Whereas Trump’s Ma was always around.

    I would venture that most people over here don’t know any of this.

  115. @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    'What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about “white voters” as a block.'

    Yes, even Mister Milquetoast himself, Rush Limbaugh, today asked aloud: If it's laudable when women, sodomites, and blacks vote monolithically, why is it deplorable when Whites and men vote monolithically?

    This election has brought White political solidarity Out Of The Shadows.

    I was mostly watching the BBC on the night. One (((pundit))) on their studio panel looked like he was about to burst into tears by the end (and he was quite jolly to start with). He was issuing dire predictions of what might happen to the political process if whites started acting like a bloc.

    I would be fascinated to see his comments on the bloc voting of Jews, blacks and hispanics over the last 30, 40, 50 years but I rather suspect it’s not troubled him at any time.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    I occasionally read British political blogs/news — it's traditionally been less depressing than the American. On the "ConservativeHome" website,* someone in the comments section said, with several others voicing their agreement, that the awful no-good horribleness of Trump was proved by the fact that Hillary won over 80% of the black vote.

    Several others voiced their agreement in the same thread — I was very tempted to create an account and ask them to remind me what percentage of the black vote the Tories win. But, considering the audience, I figured that would not be in the partisan interest of ensuring Brexit.

    *Borderline-cuckish on British politics, extremely cuckish on American politics, though one can hardly blame them since they get all their info through an NYT-by-way-of-BBC filter, which the Mail/Sun/Telegraph don't bother to correct since it's not their country.

  116. @AnotherDad
    This is an objectively stupid piece even before the guy admitted the NYT data he used wasn't complete and he got it wrong.

    The problem is the Trump's vote totals did not come against Hillary not Obama, and Obama's are against Romney not Trump, so comparing them straight up is just stupid.

    You have some adjustments to make:

    Obama votes:
    -- ones that would not have voted in race with Trump -- likely small
    -- ones that voted for Obama over Romney but would have switched to Trump -- some blue collar whites
    -- ones that voted Romney but would have voted for Obama against Trump -- some college whites

    Trump votes:
    -- ones that would not have voted in a race against Obama -- likely small, maybe some blue collar whites really disgusted with Hillary
    -- ones that voted for Trump over Hillary, but would have switched to Obama--likely a few percent of the black vote, a decent chunk of Trump's Asian support (particularly Indians)probably a few whites especially men not wanting to listen to hectoring Hillary
    -- ones that voted Hillary but would have voted for Trump if against Obama--likely non-existent

    You'd have to get numbers attached to these things, but I think a reasonable take is that Trump's numbers go down from defecting minorities and folks just disgusted with Hillary, while Obama's numbers likely stay in the same ballpark--picking up even more college educated whites, while losing some blue collar whites.

    Now someone with Trump's energy, persistence and charisma, without the pussy-grabbing baggage, but instead an articulate nationalist and with a resume more acceptable to white college grads--combine the best of Trump and Romney in say an auto exec rather than a finance or real estate\TV personality (Romney's dad with Trump's pizazz) ... maybe you've got a winner.

    “Now someone with Trump’s energy, persistence and charisma, without the pussy-grabbing baggage, but instead an articulate nationalist and with a resume more acceptable to white college grads–combine the best of Trump and Romney in say an auto exec rather than a finance or real estate\TV personality (Romney’s dad with Trump’s pizazz) … maybe you’ve got a winner.”

    Except, of course, the only one who has won was Trump- who had none of the bullshit behind him.

    If Trump grabbed my wife’s pussy, I would chop his hand off but it wouldn’t change my vote.

    • Replies: @Kyle
    Nobody ever liked romney. Did you support him? Why, let me pick your brain?
    I'm one of the people who didn't vote last election. The reason I support trump is that I'm young, and America is demographically finished.
  117. @Joe Schmoe

    We will see if Trump actually slows the demographic changes. Each cycle the voting eligible population becomes about 1.6 points less NH white.

     

    True, however, some of us hispanic whites are pretty darned white and pretty far right. I am actually mostly English with some other northern euro, but really and truly some in my family came right over the border from Mexico. Of course, they were white, too. But whatever. Just because some whites are willing to identify as hispanics doesn't mean they won't vote conservative pro America over the "other." Now I do hope that Trump enforces immigration laws but he also needs to appeal to Asians especially Chinese who are now the single biggest legal group of immigrants annually. They make good citizens and need to be won over, which he can do if he tries. It would be nice for them to be conservative American voters instead of crazy leftist voters.

    But he needs to limit their numbers. Make them realise their bread is buttered by a majority white nation not on the promise of an ever-growing Chinese bloc of voters, business partners, employers.

  118. @Steve Sailer
    Might make a difference if Michigan and its 16 EV votes finally wind up in Trump's column. Trump has a lead of just under 12,000 with 100% reporting in 100% of all counties.

    I stood just behind my door listening to screeds by otherwise sane, relatively intelligent (as much as “HuffPo-types” can be) mild mannered people talking about some effort underway to “get electoral college voters to flip key states back to Hillary.” I’m not sure what “get” means. They were referencing some egg head professor who said this is possible and that lots of people are talking about it etc…(haven’t bothered to look for these articles yet). This after a bunch of carrying on about how this second coming of hitler has to be stopped etc etc. A little unnerving coming from this group (SJW-ish. educators) bunch. I hope this nonsense dies down soon, but I’m starting to wonder.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    They were talking about "faithless electors". When you vote for President you are not actually voting for President, you are voting for your state's electors - they are the ones who actually cast the electoral votes that determine who is the President. The electors are party officials who are "pledged" to a particular candidate and in practice always vote for that candidate but hypothetically some of the Trump electors could change their mind and vote for Hillary. It wouldn't take many to flip the election results. But it never has happened and probably won't this time or any other time.
    , @Pericles
    I have a premonition the same people would soon regret it.
  119. @Anonymous

     "Conservatives have taken to "reconfiguring" science to agree with their ideology. The creationists relabeled their beliefs to "intelligent design" and festooned it with pseudo-scientific garlands. They constructed Potemkin villages from falsehoods to deny the science of climate change. Their latest venture is the rebranding of racism under the oh-so scientific-sounding label "Human Biodiversity", or HBD. Herewith an explanation of yet another ideological foray into science.

    Ever since the amassing of data from IQ tests in the 20s and 30s, people have noticed a strong, clear difference between the scores of Caucasians and blacks. The difference is typically about 15 points, or one standard deviation. Statistically, there is absolutely no question that blacks score poorly on these tests.

    This has always served as an embarrassment to the designers of IQ tests, and they have made many efforts to revise the tests to diminish that difference, but despite many decades of effort, have never succeeded in this endeavor.
     Be embarassed, Sailer.

    So, it’s the fault of the test designers that blacks consistently score poorly. Who is “reconfiguring science to agree with their ideology”?

  120. @Poke646,0
    I stood just behind my door listening to screeds by otherwise sane, relatively intelligent (as much as "HuffPo-types" can be) mild mannered people talking about some effort underway to "get electoral college voters to flip key states back to Hillary." I'm not sure what "get" means. They were referencing some egg head professor who said this is possible and that lots of people are talking about it etc...(haven't bothered to look for these articles yet). This after a bunch of carrying on about how this second coming of hitler has to be stopped etc etc. A little unnerving coming from this group (SJW-ish. educators) bunch. I hope this nonsense dies down soon, but I'm starting to wonder.

    They were talking about “faithless electors”. When you vote for President you are not actually voting for President, you are voting for your state’s electors – they are the ones who actually cast the electoral votes that determine who is the President. The electors are party officials who are “pledged” to a particular candidate and in practice always vote for that candidate but hypothetically some of the Trump electors could change their mind and vote for Hillary. It wouldn’t take many to flip the election results. But it never has happened and probably won’t this time or any other time.

    • Replies: @epebble
    If the protest thing gets out of control, some electors may get cold feet and may be brainwashed by the media/popular culture that it is their patriotic duty to save the republic from self-destruction. That zeitgeist may push them to vote against the state's results - I am looking at PA, MI, WI (Anywhere the popular vote differential is, say, less that 1%). Just like the Brexit vote is now made conditional on parliamentary passage by a court.

    I think the electoral college may become a weaker institution in future since its actions are only defined by tradition and hence can always be broken some day when sufficient number of people feel it is warranted.
  121. @Jack D
    Remember that Trump won basically because he was able to flip working class whites in 4 Rust Belt states (esp. rural ones who really don't have much to do with vibrant minorities on a daily basis). Flip them from who? Obama, who they voted for twice. These folks have no deep allegiance to either party. Nor did they vote (the leftist line notwithstanding) out of racism or a sense of white racial solidarity (Hillary, who they DIDN't vote for is white and Obama, who they DID vote for is black).

    Rather they voted each time for the candidate whose populist message resonated the most for them and who was seen not to represent the hated Wall Street elites that sent their jobs and formerly comfortable middle class existence overseas to enrich themselves. Joe Lunchbox now makes $10/hr at Walmart instead of the $25 he used to make at the Carrier factory so that the CEO can have a $172 million payday:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-25/united-technologies-chenevert-leaves-with-172-million-package

    And the CEO gets this package as his reward from Wall Street for raising the quarterly earnings from 10 cents/share to 15 cents by any means necessary, even if that means moving the factory that' s been there providing thousands of middle class jobs for a century to Mexico. And Trump knows the game as well as anyone - the CEO can do this only because the trade laws, tax laws, etc. make it possible.

    So, if Trump is able to deliver on his promises to reverse this, then he (and the Republican Party that he now heads whether the party likes it or not) will do well, if not, they will flip back to whoever gives them more hope, whether that guy is white or black or green.

    The WaPo says (rightly) that Obama was not able to create a coalition that outlived him like Roosevelt (although the Presidency flipped, many elements of the New Deal have lasted until today) but the flip side of that is that Trump won't necessarily create anything lasting either.

    Best analysis I have read so far.

  122. @Greasy William
    Michelle has a pretty face, period. Before Melania she probably was the best looking first lady we've ever had.

    You guys just don't like black girls.

    I usually don’t get into the comments about looks but Michelle Obama’s face is not even remotely pretty.

  123. @Anon
    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2016/11/an-opening-to-israel.html

    Is Trump Hitler or Friend of Israel?

    Or Hitler as Friend of Israel?

    Politics can't get any more pomo.

    Read the rest of the blog, he seems to be a pro-Trump Republican. Weird for a therapist but hey.

  124. @27 year old
    A gem from a how Clinton lost post-mortem in NY times:

    “The emerging demographic majority isn’t quite there yet,” said (((Anita Dunn))), a Democratic strategist and former White House communications director. “The idea you can get to a presidential campaign and just press a button and they’ll vote, it’s not there yet.”

    She fully expects to get there soon though.

    Ms. Dunn doesn’t know math; The demographic majority is there; it is just not well distributed for maximum effect. Clinton got more votes; her votes were just not from helpful places. Trump got fewer votes; but they were located optimally.

  125. @Anonymous

     "Conservatives have taken to "reconfiguring" science to agree with their ideology. The creationists relabeled their beliefs to "intelligent design" and festooned it with pseudo-scientific garlands. They constructed Potemkin villages from falsehoods to deny the science of climate change. Their latest venture is the rebranding of racism under the oh-so scientific-sounding label "Human Biodiversity", or HBD. Herewith an explanation of yet another ideological foray into science.

    Ever since the amassing of data from IQ tests in the 20s and 30s, people have noticed a strong, clear difference between the scores of Caucasians and blacks. The difference is typically about 15 points, or one standard deviation. Statistically, there is absolutely no question that blacks score poorly on these tests.

    This has always served as an embarrassment to the designers of IQ tests, and they have made many efforts to revise the tests to diminish that difference, but despite many decades of effort, have never succeeded in this endeavor.
     Be embarassed, Sailer.

    Activists love to make a big deal about cultural loading – getting rid of analogy questions that talk about yachts and regattas because blacks have no familiarity with those. But actually the sections that blacks score the worst on are those with the least cultural loading like block design. There are a lot of blacks with considerable verbal skills but black mathematical talent is rare. So efforts to reduce cultural loading usually only backfire – they lower black scores but raise Asian scores.

  126. @Steve Sailer
    Might make a difference if Michigan and its 16 EV votes finally wind up in Trump's column. Trump has a lead of just under 12,000 with 100% reporting in 100% of all counties.

    Wouldn’t it be more likely to make a difference if Michigan does not wind up in Trump’s column? In that case, Trump would have a smaller electoral college lead (20, I think) and so it would take a smaller number of faithless electors to flip the election.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Right, if he gets Michigan, he could still withstand 46 electors defecting to Hillary. (I'm not sure if my arithmetic takes that one EV in Maine into account).
  127. @AnotherDad
    This is an objectively stupid piece even before the guy admitted the NYT data he used wasn't complete and he got it wrong.

    The problem is the Trump's vote totals did not come against Hillary not Obama, and Obama's are against Romney not Trump, so comparing them straight up is just stupid.

    You have some adjustments to make:

    Obama votes:
    -- ones that would not have voted in race with Trump -- likely small
    -- ones that voted for Obama over Romney but would have switched to Trump -- some blue collar whites
    -- ones that voted Romney but would have voted for Obama against Trump -- some college whites

    Trump votes:
    -- ones that would not have voted in a race against Obama -- likely small, maybe some blue collar whites really disgusted with Hillary
    -- ones that voted for Trump over Hillary, but would have switched to Obama--likely a few percent of the black vote, a decent chunk of Trump's Asian support (particularly Indians)probably a few whites especially men not wanting to listen to hectoring Hillary
    -- ones that voted Hillary but would have voted for Trump if against Obama--likely non-existent

    You'd have to get numbers attached to these things, but I think a reasonable take is that Trump's numbers go down from defecting minorities and folks just disgusted with Hillary, while Obama's numbers likely stay in the same ballpark--picking up even more college educated whites, while losing some blue collar whites.

    Now someone with Trump's energy, persistence and charisma, without the pussy-grabbing baggage, but instead an articulate nationalist and with a resume more acceptable to white college grads--combine the best of Trump and Romney in say an auto exec rather than a finance or real estate\TV personality (Romney's dad with Trump's pizazz) ... maybe you've got a winner.

    As opposed to the guy who actually won the election, ie Trump?

    Now could Trump 2016 beat Obama 2012? Could Romney 2012 beat Hillary 2016? Could Reagan 1980 beat Clinton 1992? How about FDR 1932 against Lincoln 1860? How about Hoover 1932 against Hitler 1932, if Hitler spoke English? Batman vs Superman?

    I don’t know. Hypotheticals are always kind of hard. Let’s just be happy he won.

  128. @Federalist
    Wouldn't it be more likely to make a difference if Michigan does not wind up in Trump's column? In that case, Trump would have a smaller electoral college lead (20, I think) and so it would take a smaller number of faithless electors to flip the election.

    Right, if he gets Michigan, he could still withstand 46 electors defecting to Hillary. (I’m not sure if my arithmetic takes that one EV in Maine into account).

  129. @Jack D
    They were talking about "faithless electors". When you vote for President you are not actually voting for President, you are voting for your state's electors - they are the ones who actually cast the electoral votes that determine who is the President. The electors are party officials who are "pledged" to a particular candidate and in practice always vote for that candidate but hypothetically some of the Trump electors could change their mind and vote for Hillary. It wouldn't take many to flip the election results. But it never has happened and probably won't this time or any other time.

    If the protest thing gets out of control, some electors may get cold feet and may be brainwashed by the media/popular culture that it is their patriotic duty to save the republic from self-destruction. That zeitgeist may push them to vote against the state’s results – I am looking at PA, MI, WI (Anywhere the popular vote differential is, say, less that 1%). Just like the Brexit vote is now made conditional on parliamentary passage by a court.

    I think the electoral college may become a weaker institution in future since its actions are only defined by tradition and hence can always be broken some day when sufficient number of people feel it is warranted.

  130. @Svigor

    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama.
     
    The Math: Trump 2016 Would’ve Beaten Obama 2012

    Isn’t it funny that the same people who said Trump wasn’t going to win are now saying it was luck?

    Hey you doofuses, Trump put to bed the two leading political dynasties in the same race in his first race!

    Some of you have been wrong this entire thing, and are unable to learn from it.

  131. @Anonymous
    The alt-right's motivator is their opposition to the new organization of society in castes.

    A division that sees white people of almost all ethnicities at the bottom, and a tiny fraction of whites at the top together with blacks and non-Hispanic browns (Hispanics are situated in the middle).

    That those at the bottom of the pecking order are the only ones accused of pecking when once in a while they have enough of the constant racial harassment and peck back is normal and can't surprise anybody.
    Inequality and subjection are always rationalized as fairness and equality in human societies.

    Some in the alt-right aren't against castes, but only against white people taking the bottom slot.
    They are as racist as their present racial superiors, although, naturally, the only ones to be seen as such.

    The alt-right’s motivator is their opposition to the new organization of society in castes.

    A division that sees white people of almost all ethnicities at the bottom, and a tiny fraction of whites at the top together with blacks and non-Hispanic browns (Hispanics are situated in the middle).

    When low end service jobs are filled by whites, and the typical doctor, lawyer, realtor, accountant is a NAM, whites in general will buy this narrative. Otherwise, it comes off like a Turner Diaries scenario – an entertaining but overwrought fantasy.

  132. @Bill
    The Dems may get back to near Obama level turnout among blacks with a black nominee. But you have to wonder how high the ceiling is on moving more whites to the GOP. In the South, whites routinely vote by gigantic margins for the GOP. So, the ceiling for white votes is probably a margin of sixty or seventy or higher for the GOP.

    If this election is the first stirrings of a big realignment, then not only might the Dems not get their mojo back by nominating a black, but that might actually backfire on them by speeding up the flow of whites out of their party. It's worth remembering as well that working class whites have, on balance, less insulation between themselves and real black people than do elite whites. So, it's entirely possible for elite whites to completely fail to "get" what an ever-closer embrace of the Negro Turnout Strategy would do.

    I think Steve has written on this before. The Democrats were counting on being the “cool, multicultural” party, but will end up as the “black” party. And if Republicans are the “white” party, Republicans will win. Asians and Hispanics will vote for the “white” party in adequate numbers, for a long time to come.
    The best option for the Democrats really does seem to run another black. But who? Cory Booker is probably the best bet. There are definitely some things to like about him. Maybe part-black Kamala Harris. Are they ANY other “black” democratic politicians with any sort of charisma? Probably not Michael Nutter: he won his mayoral races in Phillly as the black guy who SWPL’s prefer, which wins the game in Philly, but he is seeingly not as good as Obama at that. But he could run. If there are no politicians, then you probably have to go to celebrities. Will Smith? Kanye West? Absurd, but who expected Republicans would win with Trump?
    If Trump turns out to be a disaster, perhaps a corrupt laughingstock, maybe the Dems could still go with the multicultural angle and run Preet Bharara. Trump should probably promote him.

  133. @grapesoda
    > What struck me about the coverage is how the TV performers slowly got comfortable talking about “white voters” as a block.

    They first identified us as white in order to villainize us. And then once "whites" became acceptable to talk about as a political group, it was used as a galvanizing force (somewhat, still not totally in the open). Perfect poetic justice of unintended consequences.

    I never cared about politics until I had a rude awakening and found out that politics definitely cares about me, in fact has a mf'in target on my back.

    Black Men Assault White Man For Voting Trump

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WP-aAVN6zI

    I’ve got a gun I just can’t carry it . In the USA today the worst crime a white man can commit is to defend himself against a Google . Especially in BR Baltimore .

  134. I just realized that Preet Bharara is not a “natural-born citizen”. Kanye 2020?

  135. @Mr. Anon
    So, on the last day of the campaign, Hillary Clinton tried to turn out the black vote in Philly with a big concert featuring......................Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi?

    No, she was trying to turn out the white vote in Bucks and Montgomery by having a Springsteen and friends concert at quaint independence hall, in old city. She totally took the black vote for granted, they weren’t paying attention to the election this year I guess.

  136. @Lurker
    I was mostly watching the BBC on the night. One (((pundit))) on their studio panel looked like he was about to burst into tears by the end (and he was quite jolly to start with). He was issuing dire predictions of what might happen to the political process if whites started acting like a bloc.

    I would be fascinated to see his comments on the bloc voting of Jews, blacks and hispanics over the last 30, 40, 50 years but I rather suspect it's not troubled him at any time.

    I occasionally read British political blogs/news — it’s traditionally been less depressing than the American. On the “ConservativeHome” website,* someone in the comments section said, with several others voicing their agreement, that the awful no-good horribleness of Trump was proved by the fact that Hillary won over 80% of the black vote.

    Several others voiced their agreement in the same thread — I was very tempted to create an account and ask them to remind me what percentage of the black vote the Tories win. But, considering the audience, I figured that would not be in the partisan interest of ensuring Brexit.

    *Borderline-cuckish on British politics, extremely cuckish on American politics, though one can hardly blame them since they get all their info through an NYT-by-way-of-BBC filter, which the Mail/Sun/Telegraph don’t bother to correct since it’s not their country.

  137. @Bill Jones
    "Now someone with Trump’s energy, persistence and charisma, without the pussy-grabbing baggage, but instead an articulate nationalist and with a resume more acceptable to white college grads–combine the best of Trump and Romney in say an auto exec rather than a finance or real estate\TV personality (Romney’s dad with Trump’s pizazz) … maybe you’ve got a winner."

    Except, of course, the only one who has won was Trump- who had none of the bullshit behind him.

    If Trump grabbed my wife's pussy, I would chop his hand off but it wouldn't change my vote.

    Nobody ever liked romney. Did you support him? Why, let me pick your brain?
    I’m one of the people who didn’t vote last election. The reason I support trump is that I’m young, and America is demographically finished.

  138. @Poke646,0
    Anyone else hearing rumblings of "challenging" this election by screwing around with electoral voters? This might not be over ... and judging by the absolute hysterical reactions going on (as I hide away in the bedroom while my wife consoles her SJW friends who dropped by) I don't think these people are going to give up....being egged on by the media (Rachel Maddow has lost it)....this might not be f$)&king over....some of the stuff I'm hearing from these people is unbelievable lately. Thanksgiving dinner is going to be "interesting" this year.

    “(as I hide away in the bedroom while my wife consoles her SJW friends who dropped by”

    ….
    Go out there and lay down the long dick of the law, it’s your house.

    • LOL: Jim Don Bob
  139. @Anonymous
    I honestly don't get this obsession with Russia.

    Where did this come from? Russia is in a very weak state. They most likely want a decade or two to heal. What do they gain by agitating the US?

    For that matter, what does the US gain by agitating Russia?

    Something is bubbling beneath the surface, but I have to admit I don't have a clue. Well, actually …I guess I have 2 clues: 1/Israel.. 2/Oil ?

    I honestly don’t get this obsession with Russia.

    Where did this come from? Russia is in a very weak state.

    Russia for the first time in 100 years is controlled by neither Bolsheviks nor jewish oligarchs, and some people (((ha ha))) are upset. It’s sour grapes.

  140. @GW
    Trump lost 4-5% of white Romney voters due to Weed Man and Egg McMuffin or NeverTrump histrionics. He made up for this through the working class/independent white vote.

    If he has a successful first term he can potentially win the 5% he lost while maintaining the new white voters he picked up.

    Trump lost 4-5% of white Romney voters due to Weed Man and Egg McMuffin or NeverTrump histrionics. He made up for this through the working class/independent white vote.

    This dynamic held true in my swing state, but a full 13% of Republican voters went off-label (vs 10% of Democrats), and a significant number just stayed home. Trump came close in new registrants and independents, but in the end Never Trump did him in. I imagine they’ll come home in four years when Trump proves himself temperate and intelligent.

  141. @Je Suis Omar Mateen
    "It was so lucky of Trump to wait for sick Hillary to enter the stage."

    Not luck -- it was cunning. President Trump calculated that he couldn't beat the Magic Negro in '08 or even '12, so he waited til he faced a very weak opponent: an ill, shrill, corrupt senior citizen who he could schlong with impunity.

    It's shrewd decisions like this that make me hopeful for a fruitful and successful Trump presidency. I hope he doesn't fail!

    “Not luck — it was cunning.”

    Indeed.

  142. @Poke646,0
    I stood just behind my door listening to screeds by otherwise sane, relatively intelligent (as much as "HuffPo-types" can be) mild mannered people talking about some effort underway to "get electoral college voters to flip key states back to Hillary." I'm not sure what "get" means. They were referencing some egg head professor who said this is possible and that lots of people are talking about it etc...(haven't bothered to look for these articles yet). This after a bunch of carrying on about how this second coming of hitler has to be stopped etc etc. A little unnerving coming from this group (SJW-ish. educators) bunch. I hope this nonsense dies down soon, but I'm starting to wonder.

    I have a premonition the same people would soon regret it.

  143. @Greasy William
    doesn't she also get another million net votes from CA early ballots?

    Just regurgitating others. Not sure what happens with those R leaning absentee ballots either. Can Trump still take NH?

  144. @Jonathan Mason
    The truth is that infrastructure in the US is miserable. Even (0nce) third world places like China have more modern airports, rail stations and lines, etc. If (for example) you could get to NY from Phila in 45 minutes by rail (this is completely doable with current technology – it’s only 100 miles) then Phila could be a suburb of NY and all the hipsters who can’t afford to live in Brooklyn anymore could live in Phila instead.

    This is true, but the question is why. It seems to me that government entities in the US are terrified of offending taxpayers by building state-of-the-art infrastructure, other than sports stadiums, apparently, and so everything is build as cheaply as possible and then subcontracted to corporate commercial interests. This is why US airports are so crummy and lack decent restaurants, free wifi (with some exceptions) and decent amenities, and resemble suburban shopping malls with food forecourts, but you still can't buy anything really useful at a reasonable price while you are held captive waiting for the weather to improve.

    Americans are brilliant at building straight, wide roads, but as soon as you leave the main highways, the supporting transportation infrastructure is crummy. Gas stations have huge displays of overpriced cold sugary drinks, but the toilets are crummy and dirty, and you can't get anything resembling a decent cup of coffee anywhere, other than the odd Cuban restaurant or cafe.

    Interstate highway official rest stops are just toilets with vending machines, when they could be so much more.

    Government buildings like drivers' license centers are subsidized by placing candy vending machines at eye level for small children who soon get bored and start panhandling for coins, or snack and soda machines for adults.

    In spite of Obamacare and all that, we are still a long way from cheap and cheerful health clinics like most countries overseas have, where working people or parents can quickly stop by and get a prescription for antibiotics without taking half a day off work or school. In fact it would vastly reduce health care costs if patients could buy more common drugs from pharmacies without doctor's prescriptions, as in many countries overseas. There are certain downsides to this proposal, but the BILLIONS of dollars in health care costs and missed work and school times would surely compensate. I don't recall hearing any innovative ideas on health care from Hillary during the election campaign.

    There is just so much that could be done by government to improve the overall quality of life in the US, not that I personally have any particular faith in Trump, but at least his comments about making vast efforts to improve infrastructure show that he is walking around with his eyes open.

    And there is a problem with crime and immigrants and refugees. Of course not all Mexicans who head north are criminals, but Mexico hardly bends over backwards to ensure that delinquents stay at home, and many immigrants get sucked into crime when they find out that well-paid jobs are hard to come by, regardless of how hard working you are.

    I know a legal immigrant with a green card right now who is super law abiding, but is working as a private caregiver to an invalid in a private home where no taxes or social security are paid, which is technically a crime, but what are people to do to make a living? A family may be able to pay an immigrant $10 an hour, but be completely unable to afford the $17 for an agency employee with social security, health insurance, and workers comp.

    This individual also works in a "legal" job for a well-known national hotel chain in its expensive bistro, but gets minimum wage minus deductions for social and taxes, plus has FICA income tax withheld on imaginary tips that are never received.

    So immigrants come to the US with no intention of committing crimes, but end up doing so just to make ends meet, buy food and clothing for children, and so on. Is it any wonder that many will end up supplementing earnings via prostitution, drug dealing, and other black economy activities?

    Will Trump make anything change? Probably not, but we have already had a Clinton in the White House and don't need more of the same.

    One thing that gets left out of these infrastructure discussions is that the US population is just plain more spread out than other first world populations, and therefore all infrastructure projects will always be more expensive per person than they are in the crowded confines of Europe and East Asia. Add in our greater dose of “diversity”, both native and imported, who pay less for but impose greater costs on infrastructure systems, and infrastructure will always be more costly in the US than elsewhere. Comparisons to Tokyo and Amsterdam are not apples-to-apples.

  145. @War for Blair Mountain
    So, you're not gonna let my comment through Steve.

    I told Steve to block your comments because they don’t make any sense, but Steve did not listen to me.

  146. @Jack D
    Booker is clean by Joisey standards - probably cleaner than Christie. The stuff in the article is weak sauce. Hillary is a hundred times dirtier that Booker and that was no obstacle. And Trump is not exactly a choir boy either. I don't have the feeling that the electorate is really looking for saintly betas like Tim Kaine to be their President.

    “Hillary is a hundred times dirtier that Booker”

    Crooked Hillary is quite dirty even by 3rd World African and Latin American politician standards, let alone by U.S standards.

    Even though Crooked Hillary is of Northern European descent, she’s as dirty as any 3rd World politician.

  147. @Verymuchalive
    No one has mentioned the 3% of the vote for Gary Dopehead.....er Johnson and also Kosher Egg McMuffin. These clowns deprived Trump of an absolute majority of the vote. And that's before I mention the Democrats' use of illegal voters and illegal voting.
    No claims of Trump being the luckiest man in the World, please. He won fair and square against very corrupt opponents.

    “No one has mentioned the 3% of the vote for Gary Dopehead…..er Johnson and also Kosher Egg McMuffin.”

    Kosher? Evan is a Mormon not a Jew. There are no Jews living in Utah, just like there are no Italians living in Utah.

  148. @Mr. Anon
    So, on the last day of the campaign, Hillary Clinton tried to turn out the black vote in Philly with a big concert featuring......................Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi?

    “So, on the last day of the campaign, Hillary Clinton tried to turn out the black vote in Philly with a big concert featuring………………….Bruce Springsteen and Jon Bon Jovi?”

    Jovi and The Boss, I think Crooked Hildabeast tried to turn out the Italian vote. The 8 Italian voters in the whole country who like her.

  149. @AnotherDad
    Excellent comment Jack--nailed it.

    Trump is perhaps the luckiest man on earth. His greatest luck was running against an old white lady instead of a black man like Obama. The article says that Trump was up by only 1% vs. Romney among (a declining # of) whites (more on this below), so what REALLY put Trump over the top was the fact that blacks did not turn out for the old white lady who reminds blacks of old white lady assistant principals, old white lady probation officers, old white lady social workers, old white lady judges, etc. that they have been dealing with (always in unpleasant contexts) their whole lives. A BLACK President – now THAT is exciting.
     
    I was going to make precisely this point. It's notable--especially for Steve's blog--that Trump still did not get to 60% of the white vote. In fact the overall white vote really didn't move that much. The key seems to be that minorities--blacks in particular--were not really all that motivated to turn out and less likely to vote for Clinton when they did.

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger – in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney. Nationally, their numbers were perhaps almost balanced out by a shift in the voting of even more goodwhites in NY, SF, etc. toward Hillary, but who cares (under the Electoral College) if the Dems win DC 90-10 or 95-5?
     
    This is the other critical point and what elected Trump.

    I had predicted in several comments that my read was Trump--would do a bit better than the polls--would carry the states you'd expect including swingers FL, NC, OH and IA which would get him to 259, but that he had a hard road from there as he really--as i'd said from the beginning--needed Pennsylvannia or had to break through somewhere else in the upper midwest (Wisconsin) or cobble together an unlikely combo of all the little guys (NV, NH, Maine 1st).

    This proved to be exactly the case, except that i was a little too pessimitic--i felt Trump had blown the chance to really *win* the election going away with a crappy performance in the 1st debate. But Trump did breakthough--by the tiniest margins--in a few of these Great Lakes states, PA and WI and probably once the votes are counted, Michigan.

    ~~
    I'd say the question still out there is where we sit if Trump and Hillary's negatives are off the table?

    In particular Trump actually did worse--from the NYT graphic--among college educated white's than not just Romney but McCain.
    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/exit-poll-analysis.html?_r=0

    That's pretty bad, considering Hillary's negatives with regard to fundmental principles like oh say ... "rule of law" and not being bought and paid for by bribes from Wall Street.

    The outstanding question i'd see: Is Trump's poor showing primarily because college educated whites have so absorbed the left\establishment\Jewish media narrative, that they take Trump's--pretty soft-core--nationalism as "Hitler!" Or was it more that Trump's bombastic real estate mogul, reality-show host persona and lack of governing experience and credentials rendered him "unacceptable"? Obviously it's both, but which is dominant? How would college whites handle a similarly mild nationalist, immigration-restrictive campaign by someone as properly credentially as Kris Kobach?

    The only 1% shift among whites misses the fact that the shift was in all the right places (the Rust Belt from PA to Wisc.). In those areas, the white shift was MUCH larger – in some counties 10 or 15% toward Trump vs. Romney.

    Which is a complete vindication of Steve’s strategy for winning a Presidential election.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
How a Young Syndicate Lawyer from Chicago Earned a Fortune Looting the Property of the Japanese-Americans, then Lived...
Becker update V1.3.2