RSS
From Vox, some 99 44/100th uncut iSteveism:
Why Donald Trump dominates the Northeast and is poised to win big on Tuesday
Updated by Matthew Yglesias on April 25, 2016, 7:00 a.m. ET @mattyglesias [email protected]The Northeast is well-known terrain to the American media, and in political terms it’s known above all else for being liberal. But when the Republican primary turned to New York last week, it delivered Trump his best state yet.
The only majority he’s gotten so far came from New York — not Alabama or Mississippi — and the very Trumpiest country in the country so far is Staten Island, an affluent, leafy, fundamentally prosperous and suburban section of the northeastern megalopolis. This region of the country isn’t very friendly to Republicans, and Trump won’t carry it in November, but for the purposes of a GOP primary it’s his promised land. New York is Trump’s home state, but the forces that powered him to victory there will offer further wins — from Maryland and Delaware north through Connecticut — in primaries to come.
In past cycles, the Northeast has served as a stronghold of moderate Republicanism — checking the advance of pure conservative true-believer candidates and helping deliver the nomination to relatively electable mainstream alternatives.
Northeastern politics is about group conflict
There are two fundamental ways to look at politics.
To some people, politics is ideological — it’s about big ideas, big issues, and big principles.
To others, politics is about group conflict — it’s about who you stand with, and who you stand against.
Okay, but the folks who came up with “Who? Whom?” as their working philosophy — Lenin and Trotsky — were kind of ideological. Ideology and globalist ambitions is a pretty lethal combination.
Everyone feels the tug of both of these ideas, and every successful political movement incorporates a little of both. But the modern Republican Party as a whole has become a very ideological organization. Trump is, fundamentally, a backlash to that.
Huge swathes of white working-class America have moved into the GOP orbit because they see the modern Democratic Party as fundamentally not for “people like them.” Many of these voters aren’t particularly interested in the details of the conservative agenda, and have no principled opposition to programs (like Social Security) that they see as benefitting them personally. What they want is a politician who’ll stand up for their interests, not a politician who adheres to a particular ideology.
That’s Trump.
But it’s also the Northeast. On the Pacific Coast, state Republican Parties have generally clung to conservative ideology and simply contented themselves to be outvoted in statewide races. The Northeast is different. Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maryland all currently have Republican governors. George Pataki served three terms as governor of New York, and New City recently had a 20-year run of Republican mayors.
These politicians were (and are) pretty different from one another, but in that diversity there is a common theme: a fair amount of ideological flexibility that allowed them to build majority coalitions of white people prepared to stand against domination of state politics by “urban” machines.
This is Trump’s basic brand of politics. You may not know exactly what he stands for, but you do know exactly who he stands for — or at least who he stands against.
It’s not exactly as if Obama or Hillary have been reticent about whose side they’re on, with their tendency to evoke Leninist tropes like their groups being on the Right Side of History. The difference is simply that they’re just on the side of the groups that are allowed to have a side.
Matty must have gotten himself some new meds; he actually made sense there.
________
Was Mugging Of Matthew Yglesias A Hate Crime? | http://www.vdare.com/posts/was-mugging-of-matthew-yglesias-a-hate-crime
Was Mugging Of Matthew Yglesias A Hate Crime? > ... Yglesias should make sure to take it easy for a few days after being ... and being mugged while out walking can ...
Yglesias misused “who” and Sailer missused “whom[ever].”
This is a very sad day for us grammar snobs.
This is the social hierarchy in both prisons and the wider world:
Paedophiles < grammar snobs < journalists < drunk drivers < normal people.
If Trump wins the nomination but doesn’t carry Staten Island, I’ll eat my hat.
Vox over-analyzes this. (What else is new? Vox over-analyzes something? It wouldn’t be Vox without irritating too-clever-by-half Voxsplaining.) Trump is merely exposing the fact that a lot of northeastern whites are fundamentally oriented toward populist-nationalist politics, not toward lamestream conservatism, or neoconservatism, or right-libertarianism, or centrist establishmentarianism. When there is not a populist-nationalist option available in Republican politics, these whites stay home, which is why the centrist establishmentarian wins. When there is, the otherwise apathetic whites show up and drown out the establishment. Trump is opening up a new lane in American rightist politics, and the supply is creating its own demand.
Yes, the northeast delivered us electable mainstream alternatives like Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Sailerbait, sorta:
http://pointsandfigures.com/2016/04/25/a-moral-case-for-breaking-the-law/
https://twitter.com/pointsnfigures/status/637088314403590144
Can’t help but notice that that map in the article that tracks “white racism” pretty much tracks the precentage of blacks in the population…
re “Leninist tropes like their groups being on the Right Side of History”–The Atlantic in depth on the subject:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/obama-right-side-of-history/420462
The Wrong Side of ‘the Right Side of History’
President Obama espouses a facile faith in history bending toward perfection and morality—against evidence and reason.
http://incogman.net/2016/04/white-couple-birth-three-in-vitro-future-criminals/
new level of libtoid retardadism…
This is a very sad day for us grammar snobs.Replies: @Cagey Beast, @VainSaints
This is a very sad day for us grammar snobs.
This is the social hierarchy in both prisons and the wider world:
Paedophiles < grammar snobs < journalists < drunk drivers < normal people.
Would Santorum or Gingrich have been more electable than Mitt?
*What we learned from 1995 and 2013 is that shutdowns cripple the GOP, which has handed a regrettable and irreversible advantage to the Democrats by nullifying the "power of the purse".Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Andrew
Excellent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/04/21/my-wife-and-i-are-white-evangelicals-heres-why-we-chose-to-give-birth-to-black-triplets/
“The only majority he’s gotten so far came from New York — not Alabama or Mississippi.”
However, Trump won Alabama and Mississippi, beating the ostensibly evangelical christian Cruz by sizeable margins (over 20 points in Alabama). Trump is one yankee who has a lot of support in the old confederacy.
“This is Trump’s basic brand of politics. You may not know exactly what he stands for, but you do know exactly who he stands for — or at least who he stands against.”
Maybe there are a lot of whoms who are tired of being whoms and want to be whos for a change.
Lots of northeastern whites are ethnics – Irish, Italian, Greek, Slavic, etc. They tend to be non-cucked. Lots of them have populist-nationalist views. Also, their style tends to be very abrasive and harsh. They’re politically incorrect too on race. Trump is the perfect candidate for these people.
Trump also does well with northeastern prole whites (both ethnic and non-ethnic WASP). Their economic interests are well aligned with Trump’s positions (protectionism, immigration restriction, protecting Medicare).
Trump does very poorly among upper class non-ethnic northeasterners (Lincoln Chaffee types). These are the people who’ve long dominated the NE Republican party. This recent election has brought out a lot of people who normally don’t vote or may vote Democratic (for economic reasons), which is drowning out the Chaffee voters.
Outside of the northeast, Trump does well in the southern states. Mostly because there are lots of blood-and-soil patriotic types down there and they have economic anxiety (over joblessness and falling wages). Trump did well in Arizona, Nevada, and Florida too. Lots of people down there are wild, hedonistic, and like to party. So Trump’s celebrity and casinos help him with them.
Trump’s worst performance comes from groups who tend to be “nice” (Midwestern Scandinavians, Mormons), upper class voters (lots of them are pro-trade and pro-immigration, like the status quo), and westerners. I haven’t figured out why westerners dislike Trump and like Cruz so much. I’d guess it’s because Cruz’s small-government message appeals to the frontier types. Western frontiersman don’t want big government to “Make American Great Again.” They want big government to get out of their way. They also like the fiery apocalyptic evangelism of Cruz, not the more calm Christianity that Trump espouses (when he even talks about religion).
Since in terms of national politics Republicans are a minority in the Northeast it's not that Trump is doing doing well there - he is simply doing well among the fairly small minority who are Republicans. Success in a Republican primary translates as doing well in places such as the South where Republicans really have mass support. Polls show Trump getting blown out in the Northeast (Clinton beats him by 19 points in the latest poll in New York) - he's not really doing well there.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @LondonBob
You forgot to add Germans.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @anowow
Trump did poorly with Mormons but did great with Midwest Scandanavians. He won the Michigan Upper Peninsula, northern and western Wisconsin, and the Iron Range of Minnesota. That's the center of Scandanavians in the US.
People keep repeating what you say but that does not make it true.Replies: @Maj. Kong
I'm a western frontiers(wo)man. Let me explain why the western states are going for Cruz. It is because we have a caucus system, owned by the GOP establishment, that carefully arranges matters to prevent any of us *actual* frontiersmen from voting. In Wyoming, it's done by having a caucus that's very poorly advertised in regards to time, date and location of caucusing, as well as being closed to anyone who tries to register to vote at the polls. In Colorado and North Dakota, it is simply and straight-up a denial to let anyone but party insiders vote.Replies: @Anonymous
A small historical/linguistic note.
Lenin and Trotsky did not come up with “Who? Whom?” as their working philosophy. Lenin did use this expression in one of his last speeches but it was a warning, not any kind of action plan or anything like that.
That’s because, in Russian, “who whom” doesn’t mean what you think it does. It actually means “there is (or will be) a fight and the outcome is in question.”
Sample usage:
“My team is going to kick your team’s butt tonight!”
“Oh yeah? We’ll see who whom!”
Now, if you want to use a Lenin’s expression, I can give you one that would apply to immigration policy, education policy, foreign policy, and many other things. It’s the title of the very last work he wrote, Better Fewer But Better.
Also notice this is a relatively rare instance these days where Dixie and New England are on the same side of the ledger.
support what I am saying--although there are some partial exceptions like 1800 and the 1840's.
That said, you made an excellent point which bears repeating.Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
Let’s ask that question to President Romney.
I’m not quite sure what Trump is for or with whom he stands. He is rather vague on that.
His appeal seems to be whom he is against: Muslims, Mexicans, and China. But surprisingly not against Russia.
Trump got the symptoms right, but like all the others, he misdiagnosed the real disease. But then no one is allowed to name the disease.
I don’t think it’s a new lane. It’s the same one traveled less successfully by Buchanan and Perot. The reason it hasn’t been correctly exploited by the right until now is that it’s associated with Evil, White Racists like Wallace. They’ll get over it, I predict, when it’s too late.
Charles Koch said Trump reminds him of "Nazi Germany."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-i_DyCzXYsReplies: @Jefferson, @BB753, @Forbes
But the cheap labor lobby who own the media and GOPe don't care about racism; they care about money - getting their media to call it racism is just a good way of stopping white ppl doing what's good for them and bad for the cheap labor lobby.
There's a closer parallel between Trump's policies and Buchanan's. Trump is resonating more now for a few reasons:
1) The negative impact of establishment trade and immigration policies is a lot more obvious now than it was during the late '90s boom.
2) Trump is much more charismatic.
3) Trump doesn't have Buchanan's baggage.Replies: @DCThrowback, @iSteveFan
Trump also does well with northeastern prole whites (both ethnic and non-ethnic WASP). Their economic interests are well aligned with Trump's positions (protectionism, immigration restriction, protecting Medicare).
Trump does very poorly among upper class non-ethnic northeasterners (Lincoln Chaffee types). These are the people who've long dominated the NE Republican party. This recent election has brought out a lot of people who normally don't vote or may vote Democratic (for economic reasons), which is drowning out the Chaffee voters.
Outside of the northeast, Trump does well in the southern states. Mostly because there are lots of blood-and-soil patriotic types down there and they have economic anxiety (over joblessness and falling wages). Trump did well in Arizona, Nevada, and Florida too. Lots of people down there are wild, hedonistic, and like to party. So Trump's celebrity and casinos help him with them.
Trump's worst performance comes from groups who tend to be "nice" (Midwestern Scandinavians, Mormons), upper class voters (lots of them are pro-trade and pro-immigration, like the status quo), and westerners. I haven't figured out why westerners dislike Trump and like Cruz so much. I'd guess it's because Cruz's small-government message appeals to the frontier types. Western frontiersman don't want big government to "Make American Great Again." They want big government to get out of their way. They also like the fiery apocalyptic evangelism of Cruz, not the more calm Christianity that Trump espouses (when he even talks about religion).Replies: @AP, @Jefferson, @Andrew, @Das, @JSM, @Father O'Hara
Agree, with some caveats:
Since in terms of national politics Republicans are a minority in the Northeast it’s not that Trump is doing doing well there – he is simply doing well among the fairly small minority who are Republicans. Success in a Republican primary translates as doing well in places such as the South where Republicans really have mass support. Polls show Trump getting blown out in the Northeast (Clinton beats him by 19 points in the latest poll in New York) – he’s not really doing well there.
Trump is currently motivating the non-cucked masses to get to the polls. Unfortunately, they may not be enough to win in the general election. He'll need some swing voters too. I think he can do that. He should make the election about Hillary's past corruption. Remind voters why she's so uniquely unqualified for higher office.Replies: @AP, @Lagertha
Trump also does well with northeastern prole whites (both ethnic and non-ethnic WASP). Their economic interests are well aligned with Trump's positions (protectionism, immigration restriction, protecting Medicare).
Trump does very poorly among upper class non-ethnic northeasterners (Lincoln Chaffee types). These are the people who've long dominated the NE Republican party. This recent election has brought out a lot of people who normally don't vote or may vote Democratic (for economic reasons), which is drowning out the Chaffee voters.
Outside of the northeast, Trump does well in the southern states. Mostly because there are lots of blood-and-soil patriotic types down there and they have economic anxiety (over joblessness and falling wages). Trump did well in Arizona, Nevada, and Florida too. Lots of people down there are wild, hedonistic, and like to party. So Trump's celebrity and casinos help him with them.
Trump's worst performance comes from groups who tend to be "nice" (Midwestern Scandinavians, Mormons), upper class voters (lots of them are pro-trade and pro-immigration, like the status quo), and westerners. I haven't figured out why westerners dislike Trump and like Cruz so much. I'd guess it's because Cruz's small-government message appeals to the frontier types. Western frontiersman don't want big government to "Make American Great Again." They want big government to get out of their way. They also like the fiery apocalyptic evangelism of Cruz, not the more calm Christianity that Trump espouses (when he even talks about religion).Replies: @AP, @Jefferson, @Andrew, @Das, @JSM, @Father O'Hara
“Trump’s worst performance comes from groups who tend to be “nice” (Midwestern Scandinavians, Mormons),”
You forgot to add Germans.
Okay, but the folks who came up with “Who? Whom?” as their working philosophy — Lenin and Trotsky — were kind of ideological. Ideology and globalist ambitions is a pretty lethal combination.
Lenin and Trotsky used ideology only as a smokescreen; their true motivation were fundamentally tribal: To destroy strong White Gentile groups so as to remove competition that Jews might have to contend with.
It didn't end well for the Russians, but that's another story.
And the alien invasion marches on:
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/04/19/statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-united-states-key-charts/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/04/20/the-nations-latino-population-is-defined-by-its-youth/
I agree this is over-analysis.
These are Republican presidential primaries, so the best point of comparison is other Republican presidential primaries. It says nothing about the general election. Though its true that in state, local, and some Congressional elections state Republican parties in the Northeast have been more willing than the California Republican party to nominate candidates with cross-over appeal to Democratic voters, that has been true of state Republican parties in bluish and swing states everywhere, its one way the California Republicans are unique and doesn’t say much about the Northeast.
I checked the history of Republican Presidential primaries on Wikipedia. Keep in mind that with a few exceptions, one obvious one being New Hampshire, presidential primaries in the Northeast usually wind up being held after the nomination has been pretty much decided:
1976 sweep by Ford over Reagan
1980 mostly won by Reagan, GHW Bush won Pennsylvania and a few New England states, and did better than elsewhere in the country
1984 NA
1988 sweep by GHW Bush, same as in 1992
1996 sweep by Dole, except NH, but this was pretty much true everywhere
2000 McCain beat GW Bush in New England. He only one two states outside the Northeast
2004 NA
2008 mostly won by McCain, Romney won in New England and Huckabee won West Virginia if you count that as in the NE. But Romney showed as much or more strength in the Midwest and the mountain West
2012 sweep by Romney
There is no real pattern. The Northeast as a whole tends to favor whoever the party establishment favors, and if its a tossup will go for the less socially conservative/ evangelical candidate. That is because not many Protestant fundamentalists live in the region. Candidates with connections to New England do well in New England, McCain being favored over GW Bush (who was born in Connecticut) being the big exception.
The main difference with Trump is that the party establishment has been pretty open about opposing him. On the other hand, he is from the region, is the least socially conservative of the candidates, and his main opponent, Cruz, is not only the most socially conservative candidate but went out of his way to insult some Northeastern voters. So I don’t think Trump winning the primaries in the region is a big mystery. The regional outlier is how much he has struggled in the Midwest compared to elsewhere. He has done very well in the South.
In general elections, Northeast + South vs. Midwest + West dynamics did happen in 1976, and more mildly, in 1960 so they do happen on occasion.
AR 64%
AZ 51% (Closed)
FL 57% (Closed)
GA 63%
ID 53% (Closed)
IL 68%
LA 26% (Closed)
MI 62%
MS 59%
MO 63%
NH 87%
NY 35% (Closed)
NC 50%
OH 75%
OK 52% (Closed)
SC 69%
TN 59%
TX 62%
VA 56%
WI 78%
Note that the lowest turnout relative to 2012 has happened in closed states that limit crossover participation by Democrats or Independents.So for the most part, a huge proportion of the expected electorate is already voting, so it really does mean something and there is a pattern.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/obama-right-side-of-history/420462
The Wrong Side of 'the Right Side of History'
President Obama espouses a facile faith in history bending toward perfection and morality—against evidence and reason.Replies: @AndrewR
I don’t have it in me to read that or any other Atlantic article.
They have become so SJWified in recent years (Coates being the only the worst of multiple writers of shitlibtardation) that I don’t trust even the good writing. At best I could get to the end of a good Atlantic article and depressingly say “wow even the Atlantic published a reasonable article on this topic.” But the magazine long ago ceased to be a source of inspiration and light for me in any way.
Since in terms of national politics Republicans are a minority in the Northeast it's not that Trump is doing doing well there - he is simply doing well among the fairly small minority who are Republicans. Success in a Republican primary translates as doing well in places such as the South where Republicans really have mass support. Polls show Trump getting blown out in the Northeast (Clinton beats him by 19 points in the latest poll in New York) - he's not really doing well there.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @LondonBob
Well there are a lot of minorities in the northeast. If you restrict it just to whites, Trump does better. Trump’s strength is among the ethnics and proles. More upscale, non-ethnic whites dislike him a lot though.
Trump is currently motivating the non-cucked masses to get to the polls. Unfortunately, they may not be enough to win in the general election. He’ll need some swing voters too. I think he can do that. He should make the election about Hillary’s past corruption. Remind voters why she’s so uniquely unqualified for higher office.
You forgot to add Germans.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @anowow
Sure, add in Germans too. Germans + Scandinavians. Northern Euros.
It’s because oligarchs make a lot of money off immigration and free trade.
Charles Koch said Trump reminds him of “Nazi Germany.”
Like most media narratives, the one that tags them as conservatives is wrong.
It is eminently quotable and an observation not seen before. Congratulations to Steve.
Shiite
Charles Koch said Trump reminds him of "Nazi Germany."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-i_DyCzXYsReplies: @Jefferson, @BB753, @Forbes
“It’s because oligarchs make a lot of money off immigration and free trade.
Charles Koch said Trump reminds him of “Nazi Germany.”
Charles Koch is German, so I am not surprised. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not like Donald Trump either. He is Austrian, which is practically the same thing as being German.
He isn't. He was born in Wichita. The Koch line comes from the Netherlands.Replies: @Jefferson
Trump is currently motivating the non-cucked masses to get to the polls. Unfortunately, they may not be enough to win in the general election. He'll need some swing voters too. I think he can do that. He should make the election about Hillary's past corruption. Remind voters why she's so uniquely unqualified for higher office.Replies: @AP, @Lagertha
Not more than in other parts of the country. New York is slightly less white than the rest of the country (57.5% non-Hispanic white New York, 62.6% USA) but Massachusetts at 75.1% white is a lot whiter than the national average – and Clinton beats Trump 62% to 36% there according to the latest poll. NH is the 4th whitest state in the country, and Trump loses 50% to 31% there according to the latest poll (many undecideds in NH, but they wouldn’t all break for Trump).
This explains why Trump does poorly in the Northeast in a general election: lots of upscale whites. Most Lincoln Chafee types, the old Republican base from 30 years ago, no longer take part in Republican primaries but they will vote in the general election.
The leftover white proles in the NE who helped Trump win the Republican primaries are simply swamped by the white professionals.
Nor do they feel any kinship towards the dying white middle-class, blue collars or even about the country's descent into 3rd world status. After all they got their piece of the pie.
They are the perfect loyal soldiers of the establishment and also the same ones we label "cucks".
If Trump does get the nomination, I expect many of the GOP urban professionals to vote for Hillary.Replies: @AP
The article basically sums up the Trump phenomenon pretty well.
The national Republican party has gotten ossified and overly ideological to the point where, not only do they not deliver anything for their core constituency groups, they think that doing so would be improper or even corrupt.
Extremely ideological conservatives think that elected representatives should serve as philosopher kings who serve up True Conservatism, instead of, you know, representing their constituents.
People have grown tired of the Reagan Revolution and are craving some Nixon, and Trump is delivering.
Look at the others served up by the GOP: Dole, McCain, Romney. Kemp, Palin, Ryan.
Of those six, only Sarah Palin was loved by the base, and has any populist tendencies. But her low IQ and inexperience have rightfully sent her packing.
What the base wants is a Putin-like figure (Cruz) with Reagan-like charisma (Rubio?). But they base has failed to realize that you cant win by means of 'inreach'. A legend exists about 2004 being an example.
Both of the two GWB victories were by the skin of Rove's teeth, largely because of preventable errors that threw away 3-7 point leads in October. People have forgotten it now, but while people thought GWB was more conservative than GHWB, he was still considered more moderate than the Rs in Congress.
Probably got mugged again. Knocking some more sense into him. These days it takes at least five mugging to turn a liberal into a conservative.
________
Was Mugging Of Matthew Yglesias A Hate Crime? | http://www.vdare.com/posts/was-mugging-of-matthew-yglesias-a-hate-crime
Was Mugging Of Matthew Yglesias A Hate Crime? > … Yglesias should make sure to take it easy for a few days after being … and being mugged while out walking can …
Maybe there are a lot of whoms who are tired of being whoms and want to be whos for a change.Replies: @Lagertha
This is the exact phenomenon in this election.
These are Republican presidential primaries, so the best point of comparison is other Republican presidential primaries. It says nothing about the general election. Though its true that in state, local, and some Congressional elections state Republican parties in the Northeast have been more willing than the California Republican party to nominate candidates with cross-over appeal to Democratic voters, that has been true of state Republican parties in bluish and swing states everywhere, its one way the California Republicans are unique and doesn't say much about the Northeast.
I checked the history of Republican Presidential primaries on Wikipedia. Keep in mind that with a few exceptions, one obvious one being New Hampshire, presidential primaries in the Northeast usually wind up being held after the nomination has been pretty much decided:
1976 sweep by Ford over Reagan
1980 mostly won by Reagan, GHW Bush won Pennsylvania and a few New England states, and did better than elsewhere in the country
1984 NA
1988 sweep by GHW Bush, same as in 1992
1996 sweep by Dole, except NH, but this was pretty much true everywhere
2000 McCain beat GW Bush in New England. He only one two states outside the Northeast
2004 NA
2008 mostly won by McCain, Romney won in New England and Huckabee won West Virginia if you count that as in the NE. But Romney showed as much or more strength in the Midwest and the mountain West
2012 sweep by Romney
There is no real pattern. The Northeast as a whole tends to favor whoever the party establishment favors, and if its a tossup will go for the less socially conservative/ evangelical candidate. That is because not many Protestant fundamentalists live in the region. Candidates with connections to New England do well in New England, McCain being favored over GW Bush (who was born in Connecticut) being the big exception.
The main difference with Trump is that the party establishment has been pretty open about opposing him. On the other hand, he is from the region, is the least socially conservative of the candidates, and his main opponent, Cruz, is not only the most socially conservative candidate but went out of his way to insult some Northeastern voters. So I don't think Trump winning the primaries in the region is a big mystery. The regional outlier is how much he has struggled in the Midwest compared to elsewhere. He has done very well in the South.
In general elections, Northeast + South vs. Midwest + West dynamics did happen in 1976, and more mildly, in 1960 so they do happen on occasion.Replies: @Andrew
“These are Republican presidential primaries, so the best point of comparison is other Republican presidential primaries. It says nothing about the general election. ”
I’m calling BS on that, it says quite a bit.
In the states that voted in a primary (not a caucus) so far, Romney won 37,655,000 votes in the 2012 general election.
This year, the Republican primary candidates collectively have gotten 22,209,000 votes in those same states. I.e. 58.9% of the 2012 general GOP electorate has voted in the 2016 primary. By individual states, the percentages are:
AL 69%
AR 64%
AZ 51% (Closed)
FL 57% (Closed)
GA 63%
ID 53% (Closed)
IL 68%
LA 26% (Closed)
MI 62%
MS 59%
MO 63%
NH 87%
NY 35% (Closed)
NC 50%
OH 75%
OK 52% (Closed)
SC 69%
TN 59%
TX 62%
VA 56%
WI 78%
Note that the lowest turnout relative to 2012 has happened in closed states that limit crossover participation by Democrats or Independents.
So for the most part, a huge proportion of the expected electorate is already voting, so it really does mean something and there is a pattern.
Trump also does well with northeastern prole whites (both ethnic and non-ethnic WASP). Their economic interests are well aligned with Trump's positions (protectionism, immigration restriction, protecting Medicare).
Trump does very poorly among upper class non-ethnic northeasterners (Lincoln Chaffee types). These are the people who've long dominated the NE Republican party. This recent election has brought out a lot of people who normally don't vote or may vote Democratic (for economic reasons), which is drowning out the Chaffee voters.
Outside of the northeast, Trump does well in the southern states. Mostly because there are lots of blood-and-soil patriotic types down there and they have economic anxiety (over joblessness and falling wages). Trump did well in Arizona, Nevada, and Florida too. Lots of people down there are wild, hedonistic, and like to party. So Trump's celebrity and casinos help him with them.
Trump's worst performance comes from groups who tend to be "nice" (Midwestern Scandinavians, Mormons), upper class voters (lots of them are pro-trade and pro-immigration, like the status quo), and westerners. I haven't figured out why westerners dislike Trump and like Cruz so much. I'd guess it's because Cruz's small-government message appeals to the frontier types. Western frontiersman don't want big government to "Make American Great Again." They want big government to get out of their way. They also like the fiery apocalyptic evangelism of Cruz, not the more calm Christianity that Trump espouses (when he even talks about religion).Replies: @AP, @Jefferson, @Andrew, @Das, @JSM, @Father O'Hara
“Trump’s worst performance comes from groups who tend to be “nice” (Midwestern Scandinavians, Mormons),”
Trump did poorly with Mormons but did great with Midwest Scandanavians. He won the Michigan Upper Peninsula, northern and western Wisconsin, and the Iron Range of Minnesota. That’s the center of Scandanavians in the US.
People keep repeating what you say but that does not make it true.
Wisconsin is a bit odder, Trump did win North and West Wisconsin, but the D primary had a higher turnout. Bernie won those counties.
One problem he ran into in WI, which wasn't much noticed, is that he criticized Walker for reckless borrowing. In that state Walker still has a cult of personality surrounding him with the base. For whatever reason, Trump has kept on the kid gloves when it comes to Paul Ryan, who appears far less popular up there.Replies: @Andrew
In 1996*, a Gingrich/Santorum ticket would have been far more competitive than Dole/Kemp.
*What we learned from 1995 and 2013 is that shutdowns cripple the GOP, which has handed a regrettable and irreversible advantage to the Democrats by nullifying the “power of the purse”.
No, what we learned is that the GOP Congress is unwilling to use its power of the purse to prevent shutdowns by voting out the individual appropriation bills it is supposed to by law to fund each department.
The unwillingness to budget or appropriate in a normal process is why we get shutdowns and Omnibus bills.
The Omnibus/Shutdown fights are typically over a few billion dollars in a particular department or two.
It should be relatively uncontroversial to pass out bills funding Defense, Justice, Interior, and State.
You’re right that the obvious strategy for a Republican (and every other center-right party in the West) is associated with racism by the media who are owned by the cheap labor lobby.
But the cheap labor lobby who own the media and GOPe don’t care about racism; they care about money – getting their media to call it racism is just a good way of stopping white ppl doing what’s good for them and bad for the cheap labor lobby.
Trump did poorly with Mormons but did great with Midwest Scandanavians. He won the Michigan Upper Peninsula, northern and western Wisconsin, and the Iron Range of Minnesota. That's the center of Scandanavians in the US.
People keep repeating what you say but that does not make it true.Replies: @Maj. Kong
The UP has a high concentration of Finns, who while Lutheran, are distinct from the Nordic Scandinavians.
Wisconsin is a bit odder, Trump did win North and West Wisconsin, but the D primary had a higher turnout. Bernie won those counties.
One problem he ran into in WI, which wasn’t much noticed, is that he criticized Walker for reckless borrowing. In that state Walker still has a cult of personality surrounding him with the base. For whatever reason, Trump has kept on the kid gloves when it comes to Paul Ryan, who appears far less popular up there.
Finns are "Nordic". So are the Balts. Scandanavia is a culturally defined geographic region defined as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Faeroes, and Iceland which all share a common history.
"Wisconsin is a bit odder, Trump did win North and West Wisconsin, but the D primary had a higher turnout. Bernie won those counties."
Bernie supporters are essentially liberal Trump supporters ideologically. If you spoke with actual voters, you would know that, and you would also know it if you took the time to correlate election results.
Yes, prob been reading iSteve.
Trump also does well with northeastern prole whites (both ethnic and non-ethnic WASP). Their economic interests are well aligned with Trump's positions (protectionism, immigration restriction, protecting Medicare).
Trump does very poorly among upper class non-ethnic northeasterners (Lincoln Chaffee types). These are the people who've long dominated the NE Republican party. This recent election has brought out a lot of people who normally don't vote or may vote Democratic (for economic reasons), which is drowning out the Chaffee voters.
Outside of the northeast, Trump does well in the southern states. Mostly because there are lots of blood-and-soil patriotic types down there and they have economic anxiety (over joblessness and falling wages). Trump did well in Arizona, Nevada, and Florida too. Lots of people down there are wild, hedonistic, and like to party. So Trump's celebrity and casinos help him with them.
Trump's worst performance comes from groups who tend to be "nice" (Midwestern Scandinavians, Mormons), upper class voters (lots of them are pro-trade and pro-immigration, like the status quo), and westerners. I haven't figured out why westerners dislike Trump and like Cruz so much. I'd guess it's because Cruz's small-government message appeals to the frontier types. Western frontiersman don't want big government to "Make American Great Again." They want big government to get out of their way. They also like the fiery apocalyptic evangelism of Cruz, not the more calm Christianity that Trump espouses (when he even talks about religion).Replies: @AP, @Jefferson, @Andrew, @Das, @JSM, @Father O'Hara
“I haven’t figured out why westerners dislike Trump and like Cruz so much.”
Arizona and Nevada aren’t Western states? Trump crushed in both of them.
Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah were caucuses in states that have large Mormon populations. That’s the worst possible combination for Trump.
Cruz has dominated the caucuses because they turn out highly motivated activist types who don’t mind standing around for hours listening to political speeches, while Trump has won almost all of the primaries, because normal people can just show up, vote, and leave.
Trump is currently motivating the non-cucked masses to get to the polls. Unfortunately, they may not be enough to win in the general election. He'll need some swing voters too. I think he can do that. He should make the election about Hillary's past corruption. Remind voters why she's so uniquely unqualified for higher office.Replies: @AP, @Lagertha
Trump is not the best messenger of turning the country’s attention to all the BS going on in the world which is so full of strife; especially with regard to immigration/migration & jobs ( I whined about this a year or some ago), both within the EU and USA & other “western high-tech countries,” for the last 2 decades .
All the “fail” countries in S.A., Africa, middle-east, or Asia need to Man-up…find their own, fracking, unique strength, establish effing rule of law/institutions/universities/civil law within their borders, for God’s sake -stop sending your students to the USA & stop buying apartments in NYC or SF…CA if you feel that everything is the fault of U.S. policies. Look in the mirror; are you full of scheisse?
There can be no more people dependent on the charity/aid/prop-up of the EU and the USA if they especially, as economic migrants, believe their God is so all powerful, SO much more superior to our beliefs, and our lands that they wish to emigrate to. Stay home. We don’t need you to come here. If you can’t be nice, don’t come here.
In his weird and bombastic way, Trump reminds us that, in the long run: it’s just you and your ability, responsibility, and drive. It’s just you in charge of your own destiny. You make the decisions that carry you into the next day. If this is not THE mantra for all new, legal immigrants, then my family emigrated to the wrong country many decades ago.
In fact, I am confused with all the oligarchs and big business people who disregard Trump. He is on their team, but they don’t see it. Are they that provincial and low-energy? Are they NOT ruled by the: “it’s just me and my nuclear family,” ideology…an ideology which is just as vital whether you are voting for Hilary/Bernie, Trump & caustic co.
Now, I can believe mere millionaires want to make it to the billionaires club by selling their country by the pound. It's just the upstarts that want to turn the West into a third-world hell-hole, and evil billionaires like Zuckerberg or Soros.Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
“Since 1960, the nation’s Latino population has increased nearly ninefold, from 6.3 million then to 55.3 million by 2014. It is projected to grow to 119 million by 2060, according to the latest projections from the U.S. Census Bureau (2014)”
In 2060, California will still be mostly run by politicians who do not have Spanish last names. The same applies to New York, Texas, and Florida. And that is because Hispanics in The U.S punch below their weight when it comes to money and power.
The national Republican party has gotten ossified and overly ideological to the point where, not only do they not deliver anything for their core constituency groups, they think that doing so would be improper or even corrupt.
Extremely ideological conservatives think that elected representatives should serve as philosopher kings who serve up True Conservatism, instead of, you know, representing their constituents.
People have grown tired of the Reagan Revolution and are craving some Nixon, and Trump is delivering.Replies: @Maj. Kong
Unless you were born earlier than 1967, you never voted for Reagan. For people younger than that, they only know one name when it comes to GOP Presidents: Bush. And the first thing people think about Bush is: war. Now, that would work out OK if those wars had been won, but they weren’t. Voters dislike warmongering neocons, but they hate regressed to the mean neocons that got their position by inheritance.
Look at the others served up by the GOP: Dole, McCain, Romney. Kemp, Palin, Ryan.
Of those six, only Sarah Palin was loved by the base, and has any populist tendencies. But her low IQ and inexperience have rightfully sent her packing.
What the base wants is a Putin-like figure (Cruz) with Reagan-like charisma (Rubio?). But they base has failed to realize that you cant win by means of ‘inreach’. A legend exists about 2004 being an example.
Both of the two GWB victories were by the skin of Rove’s teeth, largely because of preventable errors that threw away 3-7 point leads in October. People have forgotten it now, but while people thought GWB was more conservative than GHWB, he was still considered more moderate than the Rs in Congress.
I haven’t figured out why westerners dislike Trump and like Cruz so much.
Haven;’t you been keeping up with recent news? Several of these Western states, such as Colorado and Wyoming, choose Republican primary winners by means of caucuses instead of primary elections. GOPe sorts of peepul tend to be the caucus-ers. The GOPe’s top priority is stopping Trump.
Many Western state Republican caucus-ers are LDS. The LDS is GOPe, even if most Mormons aren’t country club types. Why are the Latter Day Saints GOPe? My hypothesis is, Mormons are mutated New England Puritans.
Why didn’t Cruz do better in the South? : A big reason is ethnicity. Rafael Cruz is Cuban … Hispanic. Doesn’t help much if he belongs to some Protestant denomination.
The only southerners who voted for Cruz in the early primaries were evangelicals voting in lock-step with their pastor. Evangelicals tend to be the most "race-liberal" southerners, though they are conservative on everything else.
The country club crowd went for Rubio.
Everyone else voted for Trump. Carson was still in the race but I think most of his voters would have gone to Trump rather than Cruz.
Cruz did poorly in the South because of Rubio, and because a larger percentage of the white electorate votes Republican than in other states. So even though the South has a ton of evangelicals, they may not be as big a percentage of the Republican party as in other primaries. A lot of southerners are Republicans because it's the defacto white party. They are not that ideological.
I thought the Kochs were Dutch in ancestry. Ahnuld has been circumspect in his criticism. In many ways both men have much in common personally and politically. Many of the erudite Cruzers have a valid argument that Trump in office could follow the same path towards the left that Arnold did in CA.
That’s too reductionist for me. Communism is a bit more than a Jewish revenge fantasy. It’s intellectual background should be recognized as the threat that it was, and for the damage that it caused. Mao Zeodong wasn’t Jewish, but he was quite the Communist.
The UP has a high concentration of Finns, who while Lutheran, are distinct from the Nordic Scandinavians.
Could you please expand on that? I know nothing about the distinctiveness of Finnish Americans relative to Nordic Scandinavian Americans.
But her low IQ and inexperience have rightfully sent her packing.
What evidence can you offer that Sarah Palin has a low IQ?
What the base wants is a Putin-like figure (Cruz) with Reagan-like charisma (Rubio?).
The Republican base does not want a President who can speak Spanish or who looks Hispanic.
But they base has failed to realize that you cant win by means of ‘inreach’. A legend exists about 2004 being an example.
What is this inreach of which you speak?
My guess is that Major Kong is a Chinese American Kong who peaks English fluently but lacks any fingertip-feel for heartland America.
And those white urban professionals the very same ones that are the back bone of the Democratic party and GOP Being isolated from the economic and social ills besetting the lower classes they prefer the status quo which they consider normal. They look at people like Trump and Sanders and go WTF is wrong with them?
Nor do they feel any kinship towards the dying white middle-class, blue collars or even about the country’s descent into 3rd world status. After all they got their piece of the pie.
They are the perfect loyal soldiers of the establishment and also the same ones we label “cucks”.
If Trump does get the nomination, I expect many of the GOP urban professionals to vote for Hillary.
Lenin had as much German ancestry as he had Jewish ancestry (one fourth). And he was not Jewish by some technicality of religious law because it was his mother’s father who was born Jewish.
Also agree. It’s so good I’ll quote it again in my reply! I read that line and felt a small surge of victory, of being well understood.
http://pointsandfigures.com/2016/04/25/a-moral-case-for-breaking-the-law/Replies: @Dave Pinsen
Jeff Carter and I have followed each other for a few years on Twitter and both comment on Fred Wilson’s blog. He’s a good guy, but sort of an establishment/moderate Republican. Was a supporter of Walker early on.
https://twitter.com/pointsnfigures/status/637088314403590144
His appeal seems to be whom he is against: Muslims, Mexicans, and China. But surprisingly not against Russia. Trump got the symptoms right, but like all the others, he misdiagnosed the real disease. But then no one is allowed to name the disease.Replies: @Dave Pinsen
You’re allowed, so tell us.
- Jews and homosexuals.
Which is interesting because despite his rabid obsession with gays he repeatedly chooses female names as his handle and he is an obsessive movie reviewer, writing long winded essays on his various sites.
So he is most likely a closeted, self hating homosexual and he is antisemitic yet partially correct in noting Jewish ethic influences.
Or maybe he/she/it is actually female???Replies: @Anonymous, @Priss Factor
I don’t recall Perot making a big deal about immigration. He did criticize NAFTA, but IIRC, his bigger issue was the national debt, and that’s the issue he got the other candidates to tack toward him on.
There’s a closer parallel between Trump’s policies and Buchanan’s. Trump is resonating more now for a few reasons:
1) The negative impact of establishment trade and immigration policies is a lot more obvious now than it was during the late ’90s boom.
2) Trump is much more charismatic.
3) Trump doesn’t have Buchanan’s baggage.
If you believe Peter Brimelow, Buckley was quite jealous of his fellow Irish-Catholic brother because of electoral popularity, something Buckley was never able to achieve.
Since in terms of national politics Republicans are a minority in the Northeast it's not that Trump is doing doing well there - he is simply doing well among the fairly small minority who are Republicans. Success in a Republican primary translates as doing well in places such as the South where Republicans really have mass support. Polls show Trump getting blown out in the Northeast (Clinton beats him by 19 points in the latest poll in New York) - he's not really doing well there.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @LondonBob
Obama won NY by 28 points, 19 at this stage is fine. Also I don’t know how well these polls capture changes in turnout election to election, namely Trump getting a lot of blue collar whites to the polls?
*What we learned from 1995 and 2013 is that shutdowns cripple the GOP, which has handed a regrettable and irreversible advantage to the Democrats by nullifying the "power of the purse".Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Andrew
Did we really learn that lesson from 2013? Republicans cleaned up in the 2014 midterms.
More importantly, the shutdown almost certainly sent Ken Cuccinelli's campaign for VA Gov in 2013 into the hole. While he made too many unforced errors, he was headed for a blowout loss until the Obamacare website massively failed towards the end of the campaign. Thanks to that we now have a D governor that just re-enfranchised 100 K solid D felons.
I have been saying Idaho was a caucus, but it wasn’t for the GOP, it was a primary. Still Trump did well enough in the non Mormon west of Idaho to indicate potential for an upset in Montana. Cruz looking a bit stronger in eastern Washington than I would like though.
Why do you say it would be an upset? There is no evidence at all of Cruz being favored in Montana by the voters except for talking heads yapping. Ditto for South Dakota and Nebraska.
"Cruz looking a bit stronger in eastern Washington than I would like though."
Eastern Washington is like SE Wisconsin in that it is farm country dependent on illegals. It would not surprise me to see Cruz win there.
From the sound of it, Matty has never been to Staten Island.
This is buried and off topic, but I noticed this too. Like Yglesias, I am from New York. Unlike Yglesias (evidently), I have been to Staten Island several times.
There are neighborhoods there that are leafy, but that is true in all the outer boroughs. Matt Y. grew up in Manhattan and I'm guessing he didn't leave that island much, as is normal for people who live there. Though Bloomberg made an effort to get more trees planted, you really only get trees in Manhattan in the parks. But all the outer boroughs, less so the Bronx, have tree lined streets.
Staten Island is fairly suburban, especially compared with the other boroughs of course, and the average income of its residents are higher than the average income. So in some sense it is "leafy" and "affluent". But the image this conjures up is really all wrong. Staten Islands' reputation within the city is as the place with what Lion of the Blogosphere calls "high proles", unionized cops, firemen, and other city employees go to live. Its also known for mafiosi. These people make quite a bit of money, but when you think of "leafy" and "affluent" you think of educated professionals. Staten Island is included somewhere in the list of the least likely places in the New York metropolitan area for these types of people to live.Replies: @Jefferson
If Trump cuts trade (and immigration), those oligarchs are going to lose a LOT of money.
No, they won't lose a lot of money; they just won't be able to make more money as readily.
I thought it was a Dr. Strangelove reference.
Great comment. The Devil’s Pact between The Cucks is throwing all of Soros’s shekels to shut that lane down.
This Polly Perkins who also goes by the names Dominique Francon, Andrea Ostrov Letania, Priss Factory, The Priss Factory and others thinks the answer to your question is
– Jews and homosexuals.
Which is interesting because despite his rabid obsession with gays he repeatedly chooses female names as his handle and he is an obsessive movie reviewer, writing long winded essays on his various sites.
So he is most likely a closeted, self hating homosexual and he is antisemitic yet partially correct in noting Jewish ethic influences.
Or maybe he/she/it is actually female???
I'm just a composite, like New York magazine does.
Priss Factory? What in the hell is that?
Trump’s white voters are just playing out Europe’s enduring conflict. Hard working, order loving Germans against lazy cheats of Italian, Greek and slav descent, plus the low class Brits that instinctively hate Germans.
Wisconsin vs Staten island is basically Westfalia vs. Sicily.
The only twist is that trump is a race traitor. A German american leading non Germans and against german values.
Just as in Europe, White americans of all stripes want to keep the natural rulers of the continent, German Americans, who are the most numerous white immigrant group, from running the country. Not since Eisenhower has the been a German president.
Want to really make America great again? Vote for a German with German values. NeverTrump.
Amazingly though, this incorrect assertion about Eisenhower is the least incorrect thing in your comment.
If that is the enduring conflict, why has Germany never gone to war with Italy? Europe's real enduring conflicts are fighting to prevent the union of Russia and Germany, and division between France and Germany (read Prussia/Austria).
"Wisconsin vs Staten island is basically Westfalia vs. Sicily."
Both of which are European non-entities in history. Also, Wisconsin is much more like the Rhineland, Bavaria, and the Bohmerwald than Westphalia. Westphalia is much more like Ohio than Wisconsin.
"The only twist is that trump is a race traitor. A German american leading non Germans and against german values."
Would love, as a German-American, to hear your explanation of German values and how Trump is betraying them.
"Just as in Europe, White americans of all stripes want to keep the natural rulers of the continent, German Americans, who are the most numerous white immigrant group, from running the country. Not since Eisenhower has the been a German president."
German Americans are not the most numerous white group. That would be Britons (English, Scots, Scots-Irish, Welsh, Protestant Irish). Germans are also highly concentrated in a few states (Pennsylvania out to Nebraska and north to the Dakotas and Wisconsin), while British Americans dominate everywhere outside the upper midwest.
"Want to really make America great again? Vote for a German with German values. NeverTrump."
Which would be who? Rafael Cruz?
We don't get to vote which Germans rule us. Perhaps a prudent move.
Take it up with current C.E.O., H.M. Elizabeth von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, and her consort Philip Battenberg (House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg).
It’s ideology -driven billionaires who are on the open borders band-wagon. Really, if you’re already a billionaire you’d want to conserve the country and civilisation that made you thrive. You’d want to pass on your wealth and real estate intact to your children and grandchildren. This is the drive, I believe, behind Donald Trump. He does not want New York to turn into Detroit or Los Angeles.
Now, I can believe mere millionaires want to make it to the billionaires club by selling their country by the pound. It’s just the upstarts that want to turn the West into a third-world hell-hole, and evil billionaires like Zuckerberg or Soros.
The people at the top of the heap are getting fabulously wealthy off Scale. Millions of aggregated transactions, even of people barely scraping by, is enough to make somebody at the very top fabulously rich. And they could not care less that it ruins your school district.
I don't know why Trump has decided to bookend his life this way. Maybe just shallow ego and he spotted the $100 bill on the floor nobody else would pick up. Maybe the fact that he caters to luxury tastes and doesn't want to live in Brazil.
I've also heard the line that "he doesn't actually want to be President." This is all a big act and he'll tank at some point. Well, events and people are propelling him forward. I'm gambling that he becomes the man that circumstances will push him to be. I'm trying to think of a real-life example but right now all I can come up with is Tom Hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan: high-school English teacher gets drafted and becomes master of squad tactics and leader of men. Among the things that a future US president may face: our own Camp of the Saints scenario as the Global South surges on the US by land, sea and air; major economic correction; theater-wide warfare in Eurasia; maybe even low-grade street battles in the US, as whites adopt the identity politics of their ethnic and cultural rivals and the millions of privately owned guns start coming out.
Interesting times.Replies: @BB753, @Corvinus
*What we learned from 1995 and 2013 is that shutdowns cripple the GOP, which has handed a regrettable and irreversible advantage to the Democrats by nullifying the "power of the purse".Replies: @Dave Pinsen, @Andrew
“What we learned from 1995 and 2013 is that shutdowns cripple the GOP, which has handed a regrettable and irreversible advantage to the Democrats by nullifying the “power of the purse””
No, what we learned is that the GOP Congress is unwilling to use its power of the purse to prevent shutdowns by voting out the individual appropriation bills it is supposed to by law to fund each department.
The unwillingness to budget or appropriate in a normal process is why we get shutdowns and Omnibus bills.
The Omnibus/Shutdown fights are typically over a few billion dollars in a particular department or two.
It should be relatively uncontroversial to pass out bills funding Defense, Justice, Interior, and State.
Charles Koch said Trump reminds him of "Nazi Germany."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-i_DyCzXYsReplies: @Jefferson, @BB753, @Forbes
Some people are just plain evil. The Koch brothers are already billionaires. What do they need more money for, if the price is turning their own country into a Third-world shit-hole? Globalists should renounce their nationality and all the goodies that come with it, and depart with their dirty money to the countries they really like, like Mexico, India or Brazil.
For the super-wealthy, after a certain point, it isn't about making money any more. It is about imposing their will on the world - leaving their imprint upon history so that everyone else has to live in a world of their making. That is the only power that transcends death, and that is why they want it.Replies: @BB753
Wisconsin is a bit odder, Trump did win North and West Wisconsin, but the D primary had a higher turnout. Bernie won those counties.
One problem he ran into in WI, which wasn't much noticed, is that he criticized Walker for reckless borrowing. In that state Walker still has a cult of personality surrounding him with the base. For whatever reason, Trump has kept on the kid gloves when it comes to Paul Ryan, who appears far less popular up there.Replies: @Andrew
“The UP has a high concentration of Finns, who while Lutheran, are distinct from the Nordic Scandinavians.”
Finns are “Nordic”. So are the Balts. Scandanavia is a culturally defined geographic region defined as Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Faeroes, and Iceland which all share a common history.
“Wisconsin is a bit odder, Trump did win North and West Wisconsin, but the D primary had a higher turnout. Bernie won those counties.”
Bernie supporters are essentially liberal Trump supporters ideologically. If you spoke with actual voters, you would know that, and you would also know it if you took the time to correlate election results.
“I have been saying Idaho was a caucus, but it wasn’t for the GOP, it was a primary. Still Trump did well enough in the non Mormon west of Idaho to indicate potential for an upset in Montana.”
Why do you say it would be an upset? There is no evidence at all of Cruz being favored in Montana by the voters except for talking heads yapping. Ditto for South Dakota and Nebraska.
“Cruz looking a bit stronger in eastern Washington than I would like though.”
Eastern Washington is like SE Wisconsin in that it is farm country dependent on illegals. It would not surprise me to see Cruz win there.
Wisconsin vs Staten island is basically Westfalia vs. Sicily.
The only twist is that trump is a race traitor. A German american leading non Germans and against german values.
Just as in Europe, White americans of all stripes want to keep the natural rulers of the continent, German Americans, who are the most numerous white immigrant group, from running the country. Not since Eisenhower has the been a German president.
Want to really make America great again? Vote for a German with German values. NeverTrump.Replies: @biz, @Andrew, @Expletive Deleted, @anon
Both Nixon and LBJ had partial German ancestry, and in the Bush paternal line there is some German.
Amazingly though, this incorrect assertion about Eisenhower is the least incorrect thing in your comment.
Wisconsin vs Staten island is basically Westfalia vs. Sicily.
The only twist is that trump is a race traitor. A German american leading non Germans and against german values.
Just as in Europe, White americans of all stripes want to keep the natural rulers of the continent, German Americans, who are the most numerous white immigrant group, from running the country. Not since Eisenhower has the been a German president.
Want to really make America great again? Vote for a German with German values. NeverTrump.Replies: @biz, @Andrew, @Expletive Deleted, @anon
“Trump’s white voters are just playing out Europe’s enduring conflict. Hard working, order loving Germans against lazy cheats of Italian, Greek and slav descent, plus the low class Brits that instinctively hate Germans.”
If that is the enduring conflict, why has Germany never gone to war with Italy? Europe’s real enduring conflicts are fighting to prevent the union of Russia and Germany, and division between France and Germany (read Prussia/Austria).
“Wisconsin vs Staten island is basically Westfalia vs. Sicily.”
Both of which are European non-entities in history. Also, Wisconsin is much more like the Rhineland, Bavaria, and the Bohmerwald than Westphalia. Westphalia is much more like Ohio than Wisconsin.
“The only twist is that trump is a race traitor. A German american leading non Germans and against german values.”
Would love, as a German-American, to hear your explanation of German values and how Trump is betraying them.
“Just as in Europe, White americans of all stripes want to keep the natural rulers of the continent, German Americans, who are the most numerous white immigrant group, from running the country. Not since Eisenhower has the been a German president.”
German Americans are not the most numerous white group. That would be Britons (English, Scots, Scots-Irish, Welsh, Protestant Irish). Germans are also highly concentrated in a few states (Pennsylvania out to Nebraska and north to the Dakotas and Wisconsin), while British Americans dominate everywhere outside the upper midwest.
“Want to really make America great again? Vote for a German with German values. NeverTrump.”
Which would be who? Rafael Cruz?
Trump managed to hijack one of the two main parties of the most powerful country on Earth, quite a trick, so I wouldn’t completely rule him out. But he and Clinton are very well-known – their images won’t be changed by advertising that much – so I suspect polls involving these two are fairly accurate.
Now, I can believe mere millionaires want to make it to the billionaires club by selling their country by the pound. It's just the upstarts that want to turn the West into a third-world hell-hole, and evil billionaires like Zuckerberg or Soros.Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
If you’re a millionaire you can easily afford to move away from problems. Billionaire, there are still whole islands you can buy. Or just move to a nice neighborhood and buy the four houses around you and ring your place with armed men in SUVs. Keep your Chinese doctor-wife laboring like a Viet peasant in case it all comes crashing down.
The people at the top of the heap are getting fabulously wealthy off Scale. Millions of aggregated transactions, even of people barely scraping by, is enough to make somebody at the very top fabulously rich. And they could not care less that it ruins your school district.
I don’t know why Trump has decided to bookend his life this way. Maybe just shallow ego and he spotted the $100 bill on the floor nobody else would pick up. Maybe the fact that he caters to luxury tastes and doesn’t want to live in Brazil.
I’ve also heard the line that “he doesn’t actually want to be President.” This is all a big act and he’ll tank at some point. Well, events and people are propelling him forward. I’m gambling that he becomes the man that circumstances will push him to be. I’m trying to think of a real-life example but right now all I can come up with is Tom Hanks’ character in Saving Private Ryan: high-school English teacher gets drafted and becomes master of squad tactics and leader of men. Among the things that a future US president may face: our own Camp of the Saints scenario as the Global South surges on the US by land, sea and air; major economic correction; theater-wide warfare in Eurasia; maybe even low-grade street battles in the US, as whites adopt the identity politics of their ethnic and cultural rivals and the millions of privately owned guns start coming out.
Interesting times.
Also, if you happen to have children and grandchildren and actually care for them, like Trump does, you want them to be able to live in a nice country, not lead a sheltered life like billionaires in the Third World, not really at home anywhere, because "home" is an unlivable place, and having to travel to Switzerland for some fresh air.
Only a selfish prick would want his grand-children to live in Mexico, no matter how rich, instead of a safe First World country, with rule of law, low corruption and without frequent power outages.Replies: @Anonymous
So, where are YOU going to be in this Final Act? Front and center or behind the curtain?
Because you make the assumption that whites, however you want to define them (lord knows no one hear actually is able to figure out an accurate description), is going to magically get together, act as a unified group, and set aside their own personal differences, and tell their darkie neighbors, "Sorry, I'm siding with my fellow whites, so either you and your family have to leave or we are going to burn your entire house to the ground".Replies: @Brutusale
Nor do they feel any kinship towards the dying white middle-class, blue collars or even about the country's descent into 3rd world status. After all they got their piece of the pie.
They are the perfect loyal soldiers of the establishment and also the same ones we label "cucks".
If Trump does get the nomination, I expect many of the GOP urban professionals to vote for Hillary.Replies: @AP
Well, they constitute the upper part of the middle class, and perhaps even the middle part. The decline is among the white lumpen class (high school dropouts, simple laborers), working class, and lower middle class. Fishtown and the group immediately above it. These groups collectively are not a majority of whites, they are a (large) minority although geographic distribution varies. In some specific regions they might be most whites. But not in the Northeast.
This is indeed likely. They’ll be replaced by downscale whites who would have not voted or who would have voted Democratic, but I suspect this number won’t be enough to compensate for the losses. I suspect Trump results in Clinton, and they’ll get along beautifully after the election. Trump’s supporters won’t mind that, because he’ll tell them that he’s a businessman after all and he has to get along for business reasons.
- Jews and homosexuals.
Which is interesting because despite his rabid obsession with gays he repeatedly chooses female names as his handle and he is an obsessive movie reviewer, writing long winded essays on his various sites.
So he is most likely a closeted, self hating homosexual and he is antisemitic yet partially correct in noting Jewish ethic influences.
Or maybe he/she/it is actually female???Replies: @Anonymous, @Priss Factor
Polly Perkins was or is some tacky nightclub singer from the West End. Judging by your name I’m guessing you’re a product of Shaker Heights or Ann Arbor or some near-whitopic granolaville & mommy didn’t let you play with toy plastic firearms (which you still resent deeply). Also you were scolded if ever you errantly applied the verb “hate” in reference to another person– remember, it’s immoral to say you “hate” anyone. War is unhealthy to children and other living things
Trump also does well with northeastern prole whites (both ethnic and non-ethnic WASP). Their economic interests are well aligned with Trump's positions (protectionism, immigration restriction, protecting Medicare).
Trump does very poorly among upper class non-ethnic northeasterners (Lincoln Chaffee types). These are the people who've long dominated the NE Republican party. This recent election has brought out a lot of people who normally don't vote or may vote Democratic (for economic reasons), which is drowning out the Chaffee voters.
Outside of the northeast, Trump does well in the southern states. Mostly because there are lots of blood-and-soil patriotic types down there and they have economic anxiety (over joblessness and falling wages). Trump did well in Arizona, Nevada, and Florida too. Lots of people down there are wild, hedonistic, and like to party. So Trump's celebrity and casinos help him with them.
Trump's worst performance comes from groups who tend to be "nice" (Midwestern Scandinavians, Mormons), upper class voters (lots of them are pro-trade and pro-immigration, like the status quo), and westerners. I haven't figured out why westerners dislike Trump and like Cruz so much. I'd guess it's because Cruz's small-government message appeals to the frontier types. Western frontiersman don't want big government to "Make American Great Again." They want big government to get out of their way. They also like the fiery apocalyptic evangelism of Cruz, not the more calm Christianity that Trump espouses (when he even talks about religion).Replies: @AP, @Jefferson, @Andrew, @Das, @JSM, @Father O'Hara
I’ll tell you.
Wrong.
Cruz is small government? The same guy whose wife is one of the architects of the North American Union?
I’m a western frontiers(wo)man. Let me explain why the western states are going for Cruz. It is because we have a caucus system, owned by the GOP establishment, that carefully arranges matters to prevent any of us *actual* frontiersmen from voting. In Wyoming, it’s done by having a caucus that’s very poorly advertised in regards to time, date and location of caucusing, as well as being closed to anyone who tries to register to vote at the polls. In Colorado and North Dakota, it is simply and straight-up a denial to let anyone but party insiders vote.
There's a closer parallel between Trump's policies and Buchanan's. Trump is resonating more now for a few reasons:
1) The negative impact of establishment trade and immigration policies is a lot more obvious now than it was during the late '90s boom.
2) Trump is much more charismatic.
3) Trump doesn't have Buchanan's baggage.Replies: @DCThrowback, @iSteveFan
TBF, that baggage was given to Buchanan by WFB, whose image in the years since his death has not fared particularly well.
If you believe Peter Brimelow, Buckley was quite jealous of his fellow Irish-Catholic brother because of electoral popularity, something Buckley was never able to achieve.
“Cruz is small government? The same guy whose wife is one of the architects of the North American Union?”
I don’t think she can be called an architect of the NAU. It has been in planning for some time now. She is an advocate of it. The Cruz’s, like so many other Washington “power couples” are hirelings of the world overclass. They are not prime forces who initate things. They are retainers – minions – who carry out things.
“Some people are just plain evil. The Koch brothers are already billionaires. What do they need more money for, if the price is turning their own country into a Third-world shit-hole? ”
For the super-wealthy, after a certain point, it isn’t about making money any more. It is about imposing their will on the world – leaving their imprint upon history so that everyone else has to live in a world of their making. That is the only power that transcends death, and that is why they want it.
“If Trump cuts trade (and immigration), those oligarchs are going to lose a LOT of money.”
No, they won’t lose a lot of money; they just won’t be able to make more money as readily.
- Jews and homosexuals.
Which is interesting because despite his rabid obsession with gays he repeatedly chooses female names as his handle and he is an obsessive movie reviewer, writing long winded essays on his various sites.
So he is most likely a closeted, self hating homosexual and he is antisemitic yet partially correct in noting Jewish ethic influences.
Or maybe he/she/it is actually female???Replies: @Anonymous, @Priss Factor
Ridiculous.
I’m just a composite, like New York magazine does.
Priss Factory? What in the hell is that?
The Glob.
You forgot to add Germans.Replies: @JohnnyWalker123, @anowow
People should distinguish the descendants of the colonial German immigrants and the 19th-century immigrants, particularly the post-1848ers.
Trump’s support in Appalachia, the Border South and Mid-Atlantic is gonna include these people. Although, with the exception of Old Order Anabaptist groups, at this point you can’t extract them from their Anglo-Celtic neighbors because of intermarriage.
And, as the Wisconsin map in the Derbyshire article points out, Trump carried the rural counties, he lost in the suburban counties. In other words, probably being a Rick Warren mega-church goer or someone who runs in their social circles is a larger determinant than German ancestry.
“Charles Koch is German,”
He isn’t. He was born in Wichita. The Koch line comes from the Netherlands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_KochReplies: @Mr. Anon
Wisconsin vs Staten island is basically Westfalia vs. Sicily.
The only twist is that trump is a race traitor. A German american leading non Germans and against german values.
Just as in Europe, White americans of all stripes want to keep the natural rulers of the continent, German Americans, who are the most numerous white immigrant group, from running the country. Not since Eisenhower has the been a German president.
Want to really make America great again? Vote for a German with German values. NeverTrump.Replies: @biz, @Andrew, @Expletive Deleted, @anon
“Vote for a German with German values.”
We don’t get to vote which Germans rule us. Perhaps a prudent move.
Take it up with current C.E.O., H.M. Elizabeth von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha, and her consort Philip Battenberg (House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg).
The next US President is very likely to face: 1) a major economic correction, equivalent to the write-downs of the Great Depression; 2) a surge on US borders similar to Europe’s; 3) war across the entire Middle Eastern theater; 4) European civil wars; 4) terrorist attacks in the continental US by Islamic militants; and last but not least, 5) civil conflict in the US (we’ve got lots of guns).
It’s win-win: Trump is President and cancels elections; or daft old Hillary is led gibbering and drooling off the podium by the Joint Chiefs.
It's so easy to make such pronouncements now. If they turn out, you're a genius. If they don't turn out, well, you can say you were off.
Perhaps one of these things looms on the horizon. Maybe all five. Then again, it could be that nothing of the sort happens.
What percentage is "very likely" in your eyes?
By the way, this thread reminds me of some hyperbole I tell people that is beginning to sound not so shocking:
Billionaire money has become toxic as they use it to control government policy and hijack the democratic process. Either their wealth should be confiscated, or they should be made to run the country themselves.
There's a closer parallel between Trump's policies and Buchanan's. Trump is resonating more now for a few reasons:
1) The negative impact of establishment trade and immigration policies is a lot more obvious now than it was during the late '90s boom.
2) Trump is much more charismatic.
3) Trump doesn't have Buchanan's baggage.Replies: @DCThrowback, @iSteveFan
Trump has more baggage than anyone who has ever run for President. However he has the money, fame and persona to put most of it behind him.
On the contrary Buchanan carries very little baggage and not much money. Buchanan probably has two pieces of luggage that could be considered baggage. First, he is socially conservative and thus is against the gay agenda among other things. Now I don’t doubt this would hurt his chances in 2016. But in 1992 it definitely was not a show stopper. The US was far more socially conservative in 1992 than it is today. Pat made enemies, but that was not what prevented him from getting the nod.
Pat’s problem is really with his 2nd item of baggage. And long time iSteve readers are all aware of what that is.
The people at the top of the heap are getting fabulously wealthy off Scale. Millions of aggregated transactions, even of people barely scraping by, is enough to make somebody at the very top fabulously rich. And they could not care less that it ruins your school district.
I don't know why Trump has decided to bookend his life this way. Maybe just shallow ego and he spotted the $100 bill on the floor nobody else would pick up. Maybe the fact that he caters to luxury tastes and doesn't want to live in Brazil.
I've also heard the line that "he doesn't actually want to be President." This is all a big act and he'll tank at some point. Well, events and people are propelling him forward. I'm gambling that he becomes the man that circumstances will push him to be. I'm trying to think of a real-life example but right now all I can come up with is Tom Hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan: high-school English teacher gets drafted and becomes master of squad tactics and leader of men. Among the things that a future US president may face: our own Camp of the Saints scenario as the Global South surges on the US by land, sea and air; major economic correction; theater-wide warfare in Eurasia; maybe even low-grade street battles in the US, as whites adopt the identity politics of their ethnic and cultural rivals and the millions of privately owned guns start coming out.
Interesting times.Replies: @BB753, @Corvinus
Well, if you’re into real estate like Trump, you don’t want to turn your country into Mexico. It’s bad for business overall.
Also, if you happen to have children and grandchildren and actually care for them, like Trump does, you want them to be able to live in a nice country, not lead a sheltered life like billionaires in the Third World, not really at home anywhere, because “home” is an unlivable place, and having to travel to Switzerland for some fresh air.
Only a selfish prick would want his grand-children to live in Mexico, no matter how rich, instead of a safe First World country, with rule of law, low corruption and without frequent power outages.
Trump's motivation isn't his real estate business. It's his brand, which is most of his business these days anyway, rather than actual real estate development. He mainly licenses his name - his brand - to other people's real estate projects. And his brand is based on an image of success for lower middle-class and working class consumers. Running for president on an anti-immigration platform is the path to success and popularity, and thus supports his brand.
For the super-wealthy, after a certain point, it isn't about making money any more. It is about imposing their will on the world - leaving their imprint upon history so that everyone else has to live in a world of their making. That is the only power that transcends death, and that is why they want it.Replies: @BB753
Which can only mean most super-wealthy hate and resent their fellow citizens, for various reasons. The former nerds all carry a big chip on their shoulder ( Buffet, Gates, Cuckerberg, etc). Some felt like outsiders all their life ( Jobs, most Jewish billionaires, etc). Hatred for humanity (Soros).
What evidence can you offer that Sarah Palin has a low IQ?Replies: @george strong
Proof of low IQ would be her mudsharking with Glen Rice. She should be shamed and shunned for such traitorous behavior.
My inclination would be to say “ever” rather than “these days.” I think the historical electoral maps at http://www.270towin.com/historical-presidential-elections/
support what I am saying–although there are some partial exceptions like 1800 and the 1840’s.
That said, you made an excellent point which bears repeating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1928#/media/File:ElectoralCollege1928.svgReplies: @res
Haven;'t you been keeping up with recent news? Several of these Western states, such as Colorado and Wyoming, choose Republican primary winners by means of caucuses instead of primary elections. GOPe sorts of peepul tend to be the caucus-ers. The GOPe's top priority is stopping Trump.
Many Western state Republican caucus-ers are LDS. The LDS is GOPe, even if most Mormons aren't country club types. Why are the Latter Day Saints GOPe? My hypothesis is, Mormons are mutated New England Puritans.
Why didn't Cruz do better in the South? : A big reason is ethnicity. Rafael Cruz is Cuban ... Hispanic. Doesn't help much if he belongs to some Protestant denomination.Replies: @S. Anonyia
In many of the Southern states, Rubio was still in the race which probably hurt Cruz. Rubio got a decent percentage of the vote in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and (obv.) Florida.
The only southerners who voted for Cruz in the early primaries were evangelicals voting in lock-step with their pastor. Evangelicals tend to be the most “race-liberal” southerners, though they are conservative on everything else.
The country club crowd went for Rubio.
Everyone else voted for Trump. Carson was still in the race but I think most of his voters would have gone to Trump rather than Cruz.
Cruz did poorly in the South because of Rubio, and because a larger percentage of the white electorate votes Republican than in other states. So even though the South has a ton of evangelicals, they may not be as big a percentage of the Republican party as in other primaries. A lot of southerners are Republicans because it’s the defacto white party. They are not that ideological.
Also, if you happen to have children and grandchildren and actually care for them, like Trump does, you want them to be able to live in a nice country, not lead a sheltered life like billionaires in the Third World, not really at home anywhere, because "home" is an unlivable place, and having to travel to Switzerland for some fresh air.
Only a selfish prick would want his grand-children to live in Mexico, no matter how rich, instead of a safe First World country, with rule of law, low corruption and without frequent power outages.Replies: @Anonymous
As you say, Trump is in real estate. He’s not an industrialist. Real estate and industry have different business interests. For industry, rent is a cost of doing business. For real estate, rent is the name of the game – concentrating and capturing rent. Industrial growth and expansion can be bad for real estate. Manhattan real estate has had a tremendous bull market largely because of the contraction of the industrial economy outside of NYC and the influx of population and capital. The ultimate in industrial growth would be building habitats in space i.e. building more “land” which would be bad for NYC and other real estate.
Trump’s motivation isn’t his real estate business. It’s his brand, which is most of his business these days anyway, rather than actual real estate development. He mainly licenses his name – his brand – to other people’s real estate projects. And his brand is based on an image of success for lower middle-class and working class consumers. Running for president on an anti-immigration platform is the path to success and popularity, and thus supports his brand.
I'm a western frontiers(wo)man. Let me explain why the western states are going for Cruz. It is because we have a caucus system, owned by the GOP establishment, that carefully arranges matters to prevent any of us *actual* frontiersmen from voting. In Wyoming, it's done by having a caucus that's very poorly advertised in regards to time, date and location of caucusing, as well as being closed to anyone who tries to register to vote at the polls. In Colorado and North Dakota, it is simply and straight-up a denial to let anyone but party insiders vote.Replies: @Anonymous
We have polling data that fits the pattern as well. It’s not just the caucus data.
Organized by U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., the poll doesn’t have any binding results and was only instituted in the wake of state Republican leaders’ announcements that traditional caucusing wouldn’t happen this year." http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/politics/3982852-update-after-trump-wins-straw-poll-nd-cramer-says-its-time-help-him-be************************
And Colorado: Quote: "Behrens said she and her husband, both lifelong Republicans, have been angry ever since their local caucus in early March. Despite Trump winning 9 of 16 votes, (Cruz took five and Ben Carson 2) the two delegates sent to the county and state convention, she said, were both Cruz supporters."We had a very upsetting evening," she said. "Even though Trump won our straw poll, we wound up with two Cruz people going to the convention."
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/11/Angry-Trump-Voters-Plan-Protest-Over-Colorado-Delegate-Hijacking
Kindly stop pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.Replies: @res
According to the map, the Democratic race splits north and south and the Republican race more east-west (with an exception for Trump support in the west near the border). People see the Trump appeal in the old South and the far Southwest–but the northeast?
Could be that some of it is due to the fact that PC reigns supreme in this neck of the woods. I suspect people in the northeast have had to gag longer and harder on PC pieties than folks elsewhere.
support what I am saying--although there are some partial exceptions like 1800 and the 1840's.
That said, you made an excellent point which bears repeating.Replies: @Kevin O'Keeffe
You may find this Presidential electoral map from 1928 of interest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1928#/media/File:ElectoralCollege1928.svg
Reminds me of what Yeats said of something by Synge it was I believe: “Had this been true it would not have been necessary to write.” I have no idea where Cruz stands on war, trade, and immigration. And I really have no idea where Kasich stands on anything.
Can you enlighten me? Was it loyalty to the party itself?
Also in all likelihood,(unlike Trotsky)Lenin had no idea of his jewish ancestry.
The story of the Blank family makes fascinating reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_family
They seem to have converted more out of opportunism than conviction.
The Democrats retained the Senate seats in New Hampshire, Virginia, Minnesota, Oregon and New Mexico. The Rs lost all those seats in 2008. In only one of those seats was the R challenger a decent threat (Brown, NH), a true wave election would have seen all five go red.
More importantly, the shutdown almost certainly sent Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign for VA Gov in 2013 into the hole. While he made too many unforced errors, he was headed for a blowout loss until the Obamacare website massively failed towards the end of the campaign. Thanks to that we now have a D governor that just re-enfranchised 100 K solid D felons.
Also in Vox, and related to What’s the Matter With Kansas?: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism
“rom the sound of it, Matty has never been to Staten Island.”
This is buried and off topic, but I noticed this too. Like Yglesias, I am from New York. Unlike Yglesias (evidently), I have been to Staten Island several times.
There are neighborhoods there that are leafy, but that is true in all the outer boroughs. Matt Y. grew up in Manhattan and I’m guessing he didn’t leave that island much, as is normal for people who live there. Though Bloomberg made an effort to get more trees planted, you really only get trees in Manhattan in the parks. But all the outer boroughs, less so the Bronx, have tree lined streets.
Staten Island is fairly suburban, especially compared with the other boroughs of course, and the average income of its residents are higher than the average income. So in some sense it is “leafy” and “affluent”. But the image this conjures up is really all wrong. Staten Islands’ reputation within the city is as the place with what Lion of the Blogosphere calls “high proles”, unionized cops, firemen, and other city employees go to live. Its also known for mafiosi. These people make quite a bit of money, but when you think of “leafy” and “affluent” you think of educated professionals. Staten Island is included somewhere in the list of the least likely places in the New York metropolitan area for these types of people to live.
The real 3rd World toilet of New York City is The Bronx, not Staten Island.
The Bronx is the Blackest and most crime infested area out of the 5 boroughs.
Even The Social Justice Warriors who protested Ted Cruz in The Bronx admitted that they have one of the highest poverty rates in the country.
Now I have no idea why they blame Republicans and not Democrats for the high poverty rate in The Bronx.
The 538 blog has a good chart breaking down Republican primary voters by “high status” and “low status”, and then by whether they live in “blue” areas or “red” areas, using the Romney 2012 percentage.
Cruz turned out to dominate one quadrant, low status Republican voters living in red areas. He pretty much doesn’t get votes anywhere else.
Trump distinctly does best with low status Republican voters living in blue areas, but as you would expect by the leading vote getter, he does fine elsewhere is is leading with high status Republican voters. It turns out that with current partisan alignments, there are more high status voters in blue areas than in red areas. Trump polls alot better with Republican voters living in blue areas than Republican voters living in red areas generally. Kasich has been his leading competition with Republican voters living in blue areas, as shown by his carrying New York County (Manhattan) in the closed NY Republican primary, but is definitely second to Trump there and he never got any traction among Republican voters living in red areas.
On the flip side of that coin, I’m curious how many of Bernie’s supporters will vote Republican to protest Hillary’s nomination. In the wake of the overwhelming southern black turnout for Hillary the Bernie subreddit was filled with promises to do just that.
He isn't. He was born in Wichita. The Koch line comes from the Netherlands.Replies: @Jefferson
“Charles Koch is German,”
He isn’t. He was born in Wichita. The Koch line comes from the Netherlands.”
Charles Koch also has German in him, he is not pure Dutch.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Koch
This is buried and off topic, but I noticed this too. Like Yglesias, I am from New York. Unlike Yglesias (evidently), I have been to Staten Island several times.
There are neighborhoods there that are leafy, but that is true in all the outer boroughs. Matt Y. grew up in Manhattan and I'm guessing he didn't leave that island much, as is normal for people who live there. Though Bloomberg made an effort to get more trees planted, you really only get trees in Manhattan in the parks. But all the outer boroughs, less so the Bronx, have tree lined streets.
Staten Island is fairly suburban, especially compared with the other boroughs of course, and the average income of its residents are higher than the average income. So in some sense it is "leafy" and "affluent". But the image this conjures up is really all wrong. Staten Islands' reputation within the city is as the place with what Lion of the Blogosphere calls "high proles", unionized cops, firemen, and other city employees go to live. Its also known for mafiosi. These people make quite a bit of money, but when you think of "leafy" and "affluent" you think of educated professionals. Staten Island is included somewhere in the list of the least likely places in the New York metropolitan area for these types of people to live.Replies: @Jefferson
“Staten Island is fairly suburban, especially compared with the other boroughs of course, and the average income of its residents are higher than the average income. So in some sense it is “leafy” and “affluent”. But the image this conjures up is really all wrong. Staten Islands’ reputation within the city is as the place with what Lion of the Blogosphere calls “high proles”, unionized cops, firemen, and other city employees go to live. Its also known for mafiosi. These people make quite a bit of money, but when you think of “leafy” and “affluent” you think of educated professionals. Staten Island is included somewhere in the list of the least likely places in the New York metropolitan area for these types of people to live.”
The real 3rd World toilet of New York City is The Bronx, not Staten Island.
The Bronx is the Blackest and most crime infested area out of the 5 boroughs.
Even The Social Justice Warriors who protested Ted Cruz in The Bronx admitted that they have one of the highest poverty rates in the country.
Now I have no idea why they blame Republicans and not Democrats for the high poverty rate in The Bronx.
Trump also does well with northeastern prole whites (both ethnic and non-ethnic WASP). Their economic interests are well aligned with Trump's positions (protectionism, immigration restriction, protecting Medicare).
Trump does very poorly among upper class non-ethnic northeasterners (Lincoln Chaffee types). These are the people who've long dominated the NE Republican party. This recent election has brought out a lot of people who normally don't vote or may vote Democratic (for economic reasons), which is drowning out the Chaffee voters.
Outside of the northeast, Trump does well in the southern states. Mostly because there are lots of blood-and-soil patriotic types down there and they have economic anxiety (over joblessness and falling wages). Trump did well in Arizona, Nevada, and Florida too. Lots of people down there are wild, hedonistic, and like to party. So Trump's celebrity and casinos help him with them.
Trump's worst performance comes from groups who tend to be "nice" (Midwestern Scandinavians, Mormons), upper class voters (lots of them are pro-trade and pro-immigration, like the status quo), and westerners. I haven't figured out why westerners dislike Trump and like Cruz so much. I'd guess it's because Cruz's small-government message appeals to the frontier types. Western frontiersman don't want big government to "Make American Great Again." They want big government to get out of their way. They also like the fiery apocalyptic evangelism of Cruz, not the more calm Christianity that Trump espouses (when he even talks about religion).Replies: @AP, @Jefferson, @Andrew, @Das, @JSM, @Father O'Hara
Even a fat headed Scandanavian should’ve figured out that we have enough immigration.
Wisconsin vs Staten island is basically Westfalia vs. Sicily.
The only twist is that trump is a race traitor. A German american leading non Germans and against german values.
Just as in Europe, White americans of all stripes want to keep the natural rulers of the continent, German Americans, who are the most numerous white immigrant group, from running the country. Not since Eisenhower has the been a German president.
Want to really make America great again? Vote for a German with German values. NeverTrump.Replies: @biz, @Andrew, @Expletive Deleted, @anon
Brits don’t hate Germans; Germans are one of the few groups the English don’t feel quietly superior to so it confuses them.
has been to prevent any one country dominating. Before Germany it was France then Spain then France again then Germany then Russia.
In general, per General Social Survey, your Eye-tais and Irish and the Greeks, Czechoslovaks and Poles all tend to self identify more as Democrat voters and Liberal, compared to the more Germanic-British American groups (Scandinavians, Germans, English, Scottish) who are about the same as one another.
(Note, self identified Swedish and Danish ancestry Americans don’t really seem less conservative on GSS. Maybe less than the Anglo mainstream, not as liberal as Irish or Italians or Slavic groups).
So not even “cucked”. Relative to the Anglo-Americans the Irish and Italians are probably just straight up not even in the Republican primaries, but over there pulling the lever for Hilary and Blacks Lives Matter.
Wouldn’t be surprised if more of the Italians and Irish and White ethnics that actually were Conservative were uninterested in culture war and libertarian nonsense though, and were kind of marginal to the stodgy Conservative establishment, so favored Trump more.
Charles Koch said Trump reminds him of "Nazi Germany."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-i_DyCzXYsReplies: @Jefferson, @BB753, @Forbes
Charles and David Koch are hard core libertarians–they are not conservatives. They likely agree with Dems on as many issues (abortion, SSM, immigration), but are with Reps on economics–preferring smaller gov’t/lower tax rates/less regulations, which is not the Dems bread ‘n’ butter.
Like most media narratives, the one that tags them as conservatives is wrong.
I couldn’t agree more. And the Koch brothers are supposedly conservative–at least that’s what all the Democrats claim. They’re charter members of the Association of Dirty Rotten Bastards of the World.
Don’t forget that those Bernie supporters sitting out the election is almost as good.
Some innocuous generic Republican like Rubio ro Kasich would have picked up such votes, but I suspect not many leftist student types would go for “racist” billionaire Trump just to spite Clinton.
False. Lenin was well aware of his Jewish grandfather. http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2077413,00.html
The story of the Blank family makes fascinating reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_family
They seem to have converted more out of opportunism than conviction.
This has dropped off the comment list, but it’s worth mentioning that Communism was a reaction to awful inequality in the Industrial Revolution, and in Russia, to local backwardness in Russia–they still had serfs in the nineteenth century, for crying out loud.
It didn’t end well for the Russians, but that’s another story.
He was anti-Israel. And said Hitler had redeeming qualities, and went to bat for Ivan Demjanjuk, an accused concentration camp guard. One of the reasons they said the Florida ballots were bad back in 2000 was that he had huge amounts of votes from Jewish areas.
I don't believe that Buchanan is anti-Israel. He is just not pro-Israel.Replies: @Sailer has an interesting life
Could you please expand on that? I know nothing about the distinctiveness of Finnish Americans relative to Nordic Scandinavian Americans.Replies: @patrick
Language is a big part of it. Finns speak a Uralic language, while other Scandinavians speak Germanic languages derived from Old Norse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1928#/media/File:ElectoralCollege1928.svgReplies: @res
You’re right. I also missed 1976 and 1960 which were mentioned above.
Language is a big part of it. Finns speak a Uralic language, while other Scandinavians speak Germanic languages derived from Old Norse.
Yes, but what is the relevance of that to year 2016 politics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_KochReplies: @Mr. Anon
A great grandfather, or some such. There’s not that much difference between the dutch and north Germans (like Frisians) anyway. In any event, he is more dutch than german.
“He was anti-Israel.:
I don’t believe that Buchanan is anti-Israel. He is just not pro-Israel.
I don't believe that Buchanan is anti-Israel. He is just not pro-Israel.Replies: @Sailer has an interesting life
I don’t believe that you are anti-smart. You are just not pro-smart.
“The next US President is very likely to face: 1) a major economic correction, equivalent to the write-downs of the Great Depression; 2) a surge on US borders similar to Europe’s; 3) war across the entire Middle Eastern theater; 4) European civil wars; 4) terrorist attacks in the continental US by Islamic militants; and last but not least, 5) civil conflict in the US (we’ve got lots of guns)”
It’s so easy to make such pronouncements now. If they turn out, you’re a genius. If they don’t turn out, well, you can say you were off.
Perhaps one of these things looms on the horizon. Maybe all five. Then again, it could be that nothing of the sort happens.
What percentage is “very likely” in your eyes?
The people at the top of the heap are getting fabulously wealthy off Scale. Millions of aggregated transactions, even of people barely scraping by, is enough to make somebody at the very top fabulously rich. And they could not care less that it ruins your school district.
I don't know why Trump has decided to bookend his life this way. Maybe just shallow ego and he spotted the $100 bill on the floor nobody else would pick up. Maybe the fact that he caters to luxury tastes and doesn't want to live in Brazil.
I've also heard the line that "he doesn't actually want to be President." This is all a big act and he'll tank at some point. Well, events and people are propelling him forward. I'm gambling that he becomes the man that circumstances will push him to be. I'm trying to think of a real-life example but right now all I can come up with is Tom Hanks' character in Saving Private Ryan: high-school English teacher gets drafted and becomes master of squad tactics and leader of men. Among the things that a future US president may face: our own Camp of the Saints scenario as the Global South surges on the US by land, sea and air; major economic correction; theater-wide warfare in Eurasia; maybe even low-grade street battles in the US, as whites adopt the identity politics of their ethnic and cultural rivals and the millions of privately owned guns start coming out.
Interesting times.Replies: @BB753, @Corvinus
“maybe even low-grade street battles in the US, as whites adopt the identity politics of their ethnic and cultural rivals and the millions of privately owned guns start coming out.”
So, where are YOU going to be in this Final Act? Front and center or behind the curtain?
Because you make the assumption that whites, however you want to define them (lord knows no one hear actually is able to figure out an accurate description), is going to magically get together, act as a unified group, and set aside their own personal differences, and tell their darkie neighbors, “Sorry, I’m siding with my fellow whites, so either you and your family have to leave or we are going to burn your entire house to the ground”.
Forewarned AND armed.
*What* polling data?
In Wyoming, the only poll, prior to the caucus in March of 2016, of registered Republican voters who are not party insiders was done was in early summer 2013, before Trump had even *entered* the race.
Quote: In fact, while early primary states and states with large populations have been polled numerous times over the past several months, you would have to go back to July of 2013 to find a poll of Wyoming’s primary preferences.
That month, two polling firms – Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-based Harper Polling and Raleigh, North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling – asked Wyoming Republicans whom they favored as the GOP nominee in the 2016 election.
“It was during the time period when Liz Cheney’s Senate run was going on,” said Jim Williams, a polling analyst for PPP. “So we decided to take a look at that.”
The PPP poll, which surveyed 780 Republican primary voters, put Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul in the lead with 19 percent. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie came in second with 14 percent, while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush placed third with 13 percent support.
Around the same time, Harper Polling surveyed 422 Wyoming Republicans, with Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan emerging as the favorite with 15 percent support (Ryan has since ruled out another run for the White House and has instead taken up the mantle of Speaker of the House). Paul came in second at 12 percent, with Bush in third at 10 percent.
Of note, neither Harper nor PPP thought to include Trump or retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson in their polls at the time – after all, it was nearly two years before either man announced his presidential candidacy.
And while a new poll taken today would probably differ substantially from the July 2013 polls, no pollster appears in a hurry to return to the Cowboy State anytime soon.
http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/no-current-polls-in-wyoming-means-caucus-winners-unclear/article_0ff500e2-b832-11e5-a743-477d7f189048.html
**********************
In North Dakota, where the civilians weren’t allowed to vote, a straw poll conducted by U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. showed Donald Trump handily winning the state if they’d been allowed to vote. ” Donald Trump has won a straw poll gauging North Dakotans’ preference for Republican presidential candidates, winning more than 37 percent of the 4,740 votes submitted.
Organized by U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., the poll doesn’t have any binding results and was only instituted in the wake of state Republican leaders’ announcements that traditional caucusing wouldn’t happen this year.”
http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/politics/3982852-update-after-trump-wins-straw-poll-nd-cramer-says-its-time-help-him-be
************************
And Colorado: Quote: “Behrens said she and her husband, both lifelong Republicans, have been angry ever since their local caucus in early March. Despite Trump winning 9 of 16 votes, (Cruz took five and Ben Carson 2) the two delegates sent to the county and state convention, she said, were both Cruz supporters.
“We had a very upsetting evening,” she said. “Even though Trump won our straw poll, we wound up with two Cruz people going to the convention.”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/11/Angry-Trump-Voters-Plan-Protest-Over-Colorado-Delegate-Hijacking
Kindly stop pissing down my back and telling me it’s raining.
So, where are YOU going to be in this Final Act? Front and center or behind the curtain?
Because you make the assumption that whites, however you want to define them (lord knows no one hear actually is able to figure out an accurate description), is going to magically get together, act as a unified group, and set aside their own personal differences, and tell their darkie neighbors, "Sorry, I'm siding with my fellow whites, so either you and your family have to leave or we are going to burn your entire house to the ground".Replies: @Brutusale
Front and center. The girlfriend and I just completed the Massachusetts Gun Safety course, and the instructor said our towns (need police chief approval for LTC) are fairly easy approval locales.
Forewarned AND armed.
“Front and center. The girlfriend and I just completed the Massachusetts Gun Safety course, and the instructor said our towns (need police chief approval for LTC) are fairly easy approval locales.
Forewarned AND armed.”
The Internet is a breeding ground for tough guys. Ok, next question.
Mind you, if someone enters your house without permission, by all means protect yourself. Having said that, what to you constitutes a “low-grade street battle”?
Organized by U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., the poll doesn’t have any binding results and was only instituted in the wake of state Republican leaders’ announcements that traditional caucusing wouldn’t happen this year." http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/politics/3982852-update-after-trump-wins-straw-poll-nd-cramer-says-its-time-help-him-be************************
And Colorado: Quote: "Behrens said she and her husband, both lifelong Republicans, have been angry ever since their local caucus in early March. Despite Trump winning 9 of 16 votes, (Cruz took five and Ben Carson 2) the two delegates sent to the county and state convention, she said, were both Cruz supporters."We had a very upsetting evening," she said. "Even though Trump won our straw poll, we wound up with two Cruz people going to the convention."
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/04/11/Angry-Trump-Voters-Plan-Protest-Over-Colorado-Delegate-Hijacking
Kindly stop pissing down my back and telling me it's raining.Replies: @res
If Trump wants to promote his corrupt process narrative wouldn’t it serve him well to commission polls of WY, ND, and CO from a reputable organization and use their results as part of his argument? I wonder how much that would cost to do.
This is a very sad day for us grammar snobs.Replies: @Cagey Beast, @VainSaints
Also, Trump is not a backlash to anything. He is a backlash against something.
Forewarned AND armed."
The Internet is a breeding ground for tough guys. Ok, next question.
Mind you, if someone enters your house without permission, by all means protect yourself. Having said that, what to you constitutes a "low-grade street battle"?Replies: @Brutusale
It constitutes something better left to the likes of you, corvine. The very sorts involved in low-grade street battles are killing each other without help from the likes of me.
The Final Act is another story.
The darkie neighbors next door will have the same experience that the Croatian living next to the Serb in Yugoslavia had, that the Sunni living next to the Shiite had, that the Boer living next to the Zulu had, that the Uighur living next to the Han had. But hey, I’m sure they felt pretty safe right up until they were shown that they weren’t.
As your philosophical forebears said, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
And there’s no “Internet Tough Guy” here; I grew up with guns back when my state was still part of America. I have my home protection long weapon. It’s my tough girl girlfriend, who has a lot more experience with the wretched refuse washing up on our shores than I. She has already checked with the chief in her town, and was assured that, simply by dint of where she works, he has no problem issuing a LTC to her.
That’s not what I asked. You’re being purposely vague. What constitutes “low-grade street battles”?
“The very sorts involved in low-grade street battles are killing each other without help from the likes of me.”
Then such be the case, there is no reason for you to worry. Your turf is safe. No problem on my end for you to own a gun or proudly show it off, but it seems you are peacocking here by pronouncing you are ready to put those those varmint vibrants in their place. To what extent is this threat imminent in your neighborhood?
“The darkie neighbors next door will have the same experience that the Croatian living next to the Serb in Yugoslavia had, that the Sunni living next to the Shiite had, that the Boer living next to the Zulu had, that the Uighur living next to the Han had. But hey, I’m sure they felt pretty safe right up until they were shown that they weren’t.”
You make the false comparison that those longstanding feuds are exactly similar to our racial and ethnic problems in the States, and that the inevitable solution will be murder and mayhem. We already have segregation in our nation. What is the likelihood that rampaging Negroes and mestizos will be rummaging through your neighborhood looking for “free stuff” and “white women”?
“As your philosophical forebears said, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
So, if whites feel otherwise, are they part of the problem? How do you propose to solve that problem? Would that solution be anti-white?
“And there’s no “Internet Tough Guy” here; I grew up with guns back when my state was still part of America.”
[Laughs] Why so melodramatic. Your state is part of America, make no mistake about it.
“It’s my tough girl girlfriend, who has a lot more experience with the wretched refuse washing up on our shores than I”.
What one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.
“It constitutes something better left to the likes of you, corvine.”
That’s not what I asked. You’re being purposely vague. What constitutes “low-grade street battles”?
“The very sorts involved in low-grade street battles are killing each other without help from the likes of me.”
Then such be the case, there is no reason for you to worry. Your turf is safe. No problem on my end for you to own a gun or proudly show it off, but it seems you are peacocking here by pronouncing you are ready to put those those varmint vibrants in their place. To what extent is this threat imminent in your neighborhood?
“The darkie neighbors next door will have the same experience that the Croatian living next to the Serb in Yugoslavia had, that the Sunni living next to the Shiite had, that the Boer living next to the Zulu had, that the Uighur living next to the Han had. But hey, I’m sure they felt pretty safe right up until they were shown that they weren’t.”
You make the false comparison that those longstanding feuds are exactly similar to our racial and ethnic problems in the States, and that the inevitable solution will be murder and mayhem. We already have segregation in our nation. What is the likelihood that rampaging Negroes and mestizos will be rummaging through your neighborhood looking for “free stuff” and “white women”?
“As your philosophical forebears said, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”
So, if whites feel otherwise, are they part of the problem? How do you propose to solve that problem? Would that solution be anti-white?
“And there’s no “Internet Tough Guy” here; I grew up with guns back when my state was still part of America.”
[Laughs] Why so melodramatic. Your state is part of America, make no mistake about it.
“It’s my tough girl girlfriend, who has a lot more experience with the wretched refuse washing up on our shores than I”.
What one man’s trash is another man’s treasure.