The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
The Great Awokening, Political Orientation Edition
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

The GSS scale does not include descriptors like progressive or socialist, so liberal is as woke as the survey gets (for now):

Note the y-axis starts at 25 and ends at 75. I have an aesthetic preference for focusing on where the action is, deal with it!

Nearly 3-in-4 white Democrats now self-describe as liberal. The trend since 2014 has been an unbroken ascent towards full wokeness. Non-whites are tentatively following along but they are not keeping pace. The liberalism gap between white and non-white Democrats was the widest ever recorded in 2018, the most recent iteration of the survey to date. It is now six times as wide as it was in 2002, after 9/11 pushed self-described liberalism to a local minimum.

The oughts are a foreign country, we did things differently there.

GSS variables: PARTYID(0-1), POLVIEWS(1-3)(4-7), RACECEN1(1)(2-16), HISPANIC(1), YEAR

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: GSS, Politics, The Great Awokening 
Hide 51 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. SFG says:

    They don’t have ‘progressive’ or ‘socialist’, but you could look at answers to questions on racial issues, which I think more closely matches what people mean by ‘woke’. You might even try disentangling social and economic issues, maybe with a question on taxes–has the Democratic Party shifted from economic to racial issues? All up to you of course, your blog.

    Also sorry for sidetracking the abortion topic, though I hope you enjoyed it at least. 😉

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "Also sorry for sidetracking the abortion topic"
     
    Since modern abortion culture and modern divorce culture stem from the same moral matrix, I don't see that as such a sidetrack.

    The fixation on putative "50/50 asset" splits, I do see as a sidetrack, however.
  2. I have an aesthetic preference for focusing on where the action is, deal with it!

    I like to see the data presented with correct apparent ratios, for integrity’s sake. I can deal with it, but I don’t have to like it. ;-{

    Anyway, 2000 is beyond the year when anyone (besides me, when I clarity it) used the term “Liberal” in the sense of Classical Liberal, so there’s likely a real trend there. I predict that within 5 years, you’ll see a curve for “Communist” come well off the x-axis into significant territory. The center cannot hold … mere anarchy is loosed …

  3. The liberalism gap between white and non-white Democrats was the widest ever recorded in 2018, the most recent iteration of the survey to date. It is now six times as wide as it was in 2002, after 9/11 pushed self-described liberalism to a local minimum.

    Further evidence that there is a civil war brewing within the Coalition of the Fringes. I speculate that, after the blacks winning the Democratic primary twice in a row, we are about to see “The White Liberal Strikes Back” installment of the Woke Wars series.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    "The White Liberal Strikes Back"

    I'm assuming you're being sarcastic. I know these people very well. White progressives will continue to grovel and debase themselves at the feet of the Nubians. For some their careers depend upon it. The relatively normal whites in the Democratic Party now exist to serve the needs of the Nubian and the insane LBGTpedophiliacomesnext crowd. They are f*cked and they know it. But they won't fight back. They'll just wither away.
  4. It would be interesting to pair this graph with a graph of the numbers of the respective kinds of Democrats. In other words, to what extent are we seeing an intensification of “liberal” feeling among Democrats, versus seeing a boiling off of milder Democrats? (I especially wonder about this among the white ones. I suspect among non-whites, two trends are going on simultaneously: they are being propagandized to woker norms [not hard to do since “woker norms” for whites = easier gibs for non-whites] while simultaneously their numbers are increasing from imports [bad news for the rest of America].)

    “I have an aesthetic preference for focusing on where the action is”

    Hear, hear! It’s not just aesthetics. Magnifying the active region of the graph makes subtler trends manifest. Yes, the same tactic can be used to mislead, but AE’s graphs are clearly marked on the Y-axis and he noted it is the text, and anyway we’re all friends here.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, we're friends, and it's not that big a deal. I've always liked one full graph with the y-axis starting at 0 and then a close up to show what the point is. That'd probably just lengthen this post unnecessarily, and yeah, at least the y-axis was mentioned.

    On the gap itself, it is a political difference in SOME cases, such as with abortion, gay marriage, genderbender stupidity, etc, and can cause a feud among this coalition-of-the-fringes then. However, anytime the nutty "liberal" cntr-left white people push their really hard-left ideas that are ones in which the fringes will benefit financially, then they stay on the same page. AA and reparations are examples of this.

    You wonder what the brighter black folks are thinking: "What? Your plan is for us to get more money out of you white people? What's the catch, dog?"
    , @iffen
    seeing a boiling off of milder Democrats

    Boiling off and dying off.
  5. @SFG
    They don't have 'progressive' or 'socialist', but you could look at answers to questions on racial issues, which I think more closely matches what people mean by 'woke'. You might even try disentangling social and economic issues, maybe with a question on taxes--has the Democratic Party shifted from economic to racial issues? All up to you of course, your blog.

    Also sorry for sidetracking the abortion topic, though I hope you enjoyed it at least. ;)

    “Also sorry for sidetracking the abortion topic”

    Since modern abortion culture and modern divorce culture stem from the same moral matrix, I don’t see that as such a sidetrack.

    The fixation on putative “50/50 asset” splits, I do see as a sidetrack, however.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    No they don't.

    If that were the case, you'd see epic levels of divorce amongst UMC suburban couples in "coastal elite" areas.

    The people who support abortion the most, also have abortion the least. The people who support abortion the most, also divorce the least.
  6. @Almost Missouri
    It would be interesting to pair this graph with a graph of the numbers of the respective kinds of Democrats. In other words, to what extent are we seeing an intensification of "liberal" feeling among Democrats, versus seeing a boiling off of milder Democrats? (I especially wonder about this among the white ones. I suspect among non-whites, two trends are going on simultaneously: they are being propagandized to woker norms [not hard to do since "woker norms" for whites = easier gibs for non-whites] while simultaneously their numbers are increasing from imports [bad news for the rest of America].)

    "I have an aesthetic preference for focusing on where the action is"
     
    Hear, hear! It's not just aesthetics. Magnifying the active region of the graph makes subtler trends manifest. Yes, the same tactic can be used to mislead, but AE's graphs are clearly marked on the Y-axis and he noted it is the text, and anyway we're all friends here.

    Yeah, we’re friends, and it’s not that big a deal. I’ve always liked one full graph with the y-axis starting at 0 and then a close up to show what the point is. That’d probably just lengthen this post unnecessarily, and yeah, at least the y-axis was mentioned.

    On the gap itself, it is a political difference in SOME cases, such as with abortion, gay marriage, genderbender stupidity, etc, and can cause a feud among this coalition-of-the-fringes then. However, anytime the nutty “liberal” cntr-left white people push their really hard-left ideas that are ones in which the fringes will benefit financially, then they stay on the same page. AA and reparations are examples of this.

    You wonder what the brighter black folks are thinking: “What? Your plan is for us to get more money out of you white people? What’s the catch, dog?”

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You wonder what the brighter black folks are thinking: “What? Your plan is for us to get more money out of you white people? What’s the catch, dog?”
     
    “The catch is you people, I mean you, get to be in charge. You can run this thing, right? I mean, how much harder could it be than playing basketball? By the way, are we bros now? Because I need to tell my other friends that I have a cool black friend.”
    , @iffen
    and can cause a feud among this coalition-of-the-fringes then.

    I'm stockpiling popcorn in anticipation of the Democratic primaries and convention.
  7. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, we're friends, and it's not that big a deal. I've always liked one full graph with the y-axis starting at 0 and then a close up to show what the point is. That'd probably just lengthen this post unnecessarily, and yeah, at least the y-axis was mentioned.

    On the gap itself, it is a political difference in SOME cases, such as with abortion, gay marriage, genderbender stupidity, etc, and can cause a feud among this coalition-of-the-fringes then. However, anytime the nutty "liberal" cntr-left white people push their really hard-left ideas that are ones in which the fringes will benefit financially, then they stay on the same page. AA and reparations are examples of this.

    You wonder what the brighter black folks are thinking: "What? Your plan is for us to get more money out of you white people? What's the catch, dog?"

    You wonder what the brighter black folks are thinking: “What? Your plan is for us to get more money out of you white people? What’s the catch, dog?”

    “The catch is you people, I mean you, get to be in charge. You can run this thing, right? I mean, how much harder could it be than playing basketball? By the way, are we bros now? Because I need to tell my other friends that I have a cool black friend.”

  8. @Almost Missouri
    It would be interesting to pair this graph with a graph of the numbers of the respective kinds of Democrats. In other words, to what extent are we seeing an intensification of "liberal" feeling among Democrats, versus seeing a boiling off of milder Democrats? (I especially wonder about this among the white ones. I suspect among non-whites, two trends are going on simultaneously: they are being propagandized to woker norms [not hard to do since "woker norms" for whites = easier gibs for non-whites] while simultaneously their numbers are increasing from imports [bad news for the rest of America].)

    "I have an aesthetic preference for focusing on where the action is"
     
    Hear, hear! It's not just aesthetics. Magnifying the active region of the graph makes subtler trends manifest. Yes, the same tactic can be used to mislead, but AE's graphs are clearly marked on the Y-axis and he noted it is the text, and anyway we're all friends here.

    seeing a boiling off of milder Democrats

    Boiling off and dying off.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Good point. As with the candidates themselves, the white normal natural born citizen Dems are pretty much all over 70.

    EDIT:

    I was about to click publish when I decided to check who is actually running and was stunned to find there are bunch of straight whites Dems I never heard of or wasn't aware were running. Herewith, the AM guide to straight white Dem candidates under 70...

    John Delaney
    Age: 55
    Platform: getting richer
    Eventual fate: none

    Amy Klobuchar
    Age: 58
    Platform: taking men's jobs, selling the hard ones to foreigners
    Eventual fate: elected lobbyist of year at K-street convention

    Jay Inslee
    Age: 68
    Platform: climate raping you
    Eventual fate: lost in mudslide

    John Hickenlooper
    Age: 67
    Platform: less guns, more government
    Eventual fate: abandoned by side of the road

    Beto O’Rourke
    Age: 46
    Platform: unknown, still
    Eventual fate: dies in skateboard accident

    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Age: 52
    Platform: blonde ditz
    Eventual fate: blonde ditz

    Tim Ryan
    Age: 45
    Platform: white votes matter
    Eventual fate: assassinated by SJWs

    Eric Swalwell
    Age: 38
    Platform: further inflating student loan bubble
    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy

    Seth Moulton
    Age: 40
    Platform: worshipping veterans
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Michael Bennet
    Age: 54
    Platform: more Obamacare
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Steve Bullock
    Age: 53
    Platform: anti-corporate, pro-labor
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Bill de Blasio
    Age: 58
    Platform: mandatory pre-school and race mixing
    Eventual fate: ignored to death
  9. @Achmed E. Newman
    Yeah, we're friends, and it's not that big a deal. I've always liked one full graph with the y-axis starting at 0 and then a close up to show what the point is. That'd probably just lengthen this post unnecessarily, and yeah, at least the y-axis was mentioned.

    On the gap itself, it is a political difference in SOME cases, such as with abortion, gay marriage, genderbender stupidity, etc, and can cause a feud among this coalition-of-the-fringes then. However, anytime the nutty "liberal" cntr-left white people push their really hard-left ideas that are ones in which the fringes will benefit financially, then they stay on the same page. AA and reparations are examples of this.

    You wonder what the brighter black folks are thinking: "What? Your plan is for us to get more money out of you white people? What's the catch, dog?"

    and can cause a feud among this coalition-of-the-fringes then.

    I’m stockpiling popcorn in anticipation of the Democratic primaries and convention.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    You, me, and Pat Buchanan. I wonder how many rooms we could rent on the 19th floor of some hotel, a la Pat Buchanan in the summer o' 68. Buchanan reminisces,, and by his account, had a blast. I wish I were younger for this.

    ... just kickin' hippie's asses and raisin' hell.":

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcBOcwgb4OA
  10. @iffen
    and can cause a feud among this coalition-of-the-fringes then.

    I'm stockpiling popcorn in anticipation of the Democratic primaries and convention.

    You, me, and Pat Buchanan. I wonder how many rooms we could rent on the 19th floor of some hotel, a la Pat Buchanan in the summer o’ 68. Buchanan reminisces,, and by his account, had a blast. I wish I were younger for this.

    … just kickin’ hippie’s asses and raisin’ hell.”:

  11. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Almost Missouri

    "Also sorry for sidetracking the abortion topic"
     
    Since modern abortion culture and modern divorce culture stem from the same moral matrix, I don't see that as such a sidetrack.

    The fixation on putative "50/50 asset" splits, I do see as a sidetrack, however.

    No they don’t.

    If that were the case, you’d see epic levels of divorce amongst UMC suburban couples in “coastal elite” areas.

    The people who support abortion the most, also have abortion the least. The people who support abortion the most, also divorce the least.

    • Replies: @Mr Puroik
    It's true that people in conservative states tend to have a higher divorce rate, although the difference isn't that huge. I'm not sure what propaganda you've been reading about abortion though. Abortion rates are a whole lot lower in rural, pro-life states than in urban pro-choice ones:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pro-life-states-have-lower-abortion/
    , @Almost Missouri

    "The people who support abortion the most, also have abortion the least. The people who support abortion the most, also divorce the least."
     
    Is this true? I don't know. Maybe our host has some insight.

    Partly it depends how one defines terms. Certainly, the revealed preference of actually having an abortion seems like pretty strong support for abortion, which would make the second sentence impossible.

    Also, "most"...

    Group A has on lifetime average two conceptions and one abortion per woman. Group B has on lifetime average six conceptions and two abortions per woman.

    Group A terminates 50% of their pregnancies. Group B only terminates 33% of their pregnancies.

    But Group A had only one abortion per lifetime while Group B had double that per lifetime. Also Group B's generation times are much shorter than Group A, so on a per annum basis, Group B is triple or quadruple Group A.

    Which group has "most" abortions? If you are looking at raw abortion statistics, the answer is obviously Group B: they're aborting at triple or quadruple the rate of Group A. Yet paradoxically, it is Group A who are most diminished by abortions, because they are not making up the lost pregnancies with additional conceptions.

    Now which real world groups are these analogs for ... ?
  12. @iffen
    seeing a boiling off of milder Democrats

    Boiling off and dying off.

    Good point. As with the candidates themselves, the white normal natural born citizen Dems are pretty much all over 70.

    EDIT:

    I was about to click publish when I decided to check who is actually running and was stunned to find there are bunch of straight whites Dems I never heard of or wasn’t aware were running. Herewith, the AM guide to straight white Dem candidates under 70…

    John Delaney
    Age: 55
    Platform: getting richer
    Eventual fate: none

    Amy Klobuchar
    Age: 58
    Platform: taking men’s jobs, selling the hard ones to foreigners
    Eventual fate: elected lobbyist of year at K-street convention

    Jay Inslee
    Age: 68
    Platform: climate raping you
    Eventual fate: lost in mudslide

    John Hickenlooper
    Age: 67
    Platform: less guns, more government
    Eventual fate: abandoned by side of the road

    Beto O’Rourke
    Age: 46
    Platform: unknown, still
    Eventual fate: dies in skateboard accident

    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Age: 52
    Platform: blonde ditz
    Eventual fate: blonde ditz

    Tim Ryan
    Age: 45
    Platform: white votes matter
    Eventual fate: assassinated by SJWs

    Eric Swalwell
    Age: 38
    Platform: further inflating student loan bubble
    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy

    Seth Moulton
    Age: 40
    Platform: worshipping veterans
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Michael Bennet
    Age: 54
    Platform: more Obamacare
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Steve Bullock
    Age: 53
    Platform: anti-corporate, pro-labor
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Bill de Blasio
    Age: 58
    Platform: mandatory pre-school and race mixing
    Eventual fate: ignored to death

    • LOL: Mr. Rational, iffen
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I couldn't use the LOL earlier, A.M., but this deserves one. That's funny, funny stuff. Your comments in general have been on fire lately, and thanks for helping out with info on (attempts at) internet privacy.

    Oh, I got the 1st half of your message saying you don't mind my "borrowing" that earlier comment, with all due credit, of course. I don't know that Arabic 2nd part, maybe "you owe me a Salami", but I am just going by the context.

    Achmed ain't my real name. You can't believe everything you read on the internet. ;-}

    , @Twinkie
    Very good!

    Eventual fate: ignored to death
     
    It's a fate worse than death for actresses and elected officials.

    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy
     
    You obviously know the old saying in Southern politics, "So and so has his district locked down, he ain't going anywhere unless he's found in a hotel room with a dead girl or a live boy."

    Those were the days. Now a days if you are found with a live boy, they applaud your courage for coming out and being real.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Joking aside, the interesting thing is that maybe three of these guys have what might be called a "traditional Democrat" platform. Needless to say, the major media are giving them zero traction. We'll see what happens to them in Iowa and NH. If they can't make it there, they can't make it anywhere.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    Eric Swalwell: "caught in bed with live boy"

    The reverse is true with Swalwell. Born into a MKULTRA breeder family, he was the boy that politicians like Mike Pence were caught in bed with. Having survived his traumatic childhood, he was groomed to be one of the many CIA assets in Washington D.C..
    , @Jay Fink
    I took the istandwith.com test and John Delaney was my top match followed by Trump. I didn't match at all with the other Democrats...only Delaney and I have no idea who he is.
  13. Who is the average liberal white Democrat and what is there motivation?

  14. This time period roughly coincides with the MSM pushing a Corporate Marxist (a term I prefer to Cultural Marxist) agenda. The white liberals I know get their news and opinions overwhelmingly from the MSM. The ascent of Trump ratcheted up the process considerably.

  15. Do we have any numbers on how gov’t employees vote, anything on school teachers?

  16. is there a hint anywhere of white democrats drifting to independent (thereby concentrating the remainder?)

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    North Carolina - http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/2018/01/investigating-millennials-generation-z.html
  17. @notanon
    is there a hint anywhere of white democrats drifting to independent (thereby concentrating the remainder?)
  18. 216 says:

    o/t

    Update:

    I’ve been following this labor law campaign in NY. What’s interesting is that the farmers managed to convince (coerce?) some of their foreign labor into thinking that they don’t need labor unions. A window into the stupid boomercon ideal of “natural conservative” that still grips too many on the Right.

    https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/06/12/what-farmworkers-bill-rights-would-mean-new-york/1418925001/

    Also, using foreigners as political props is illegal in Mexico, but OK in the US.

    • Replies: @Feryl
    Ah, the lovably Orwellian tradition of Reaganite ideologues claiming that every union and every piece of Leftist favored pro-labor and pro-consumer legislation* is actually a disguised enemy of prole class Americans! The Americans who bought into this garbage over the last 40 years are single-handedly responsible for de-industrialization, rising suicide levels, and the vanished middle class.

    Thanks a lot, you stubborn fools. I know that "conservatives" love the joke that only problem with communism is that it was never "practiced correctly". Well, ya know, the only problem with Reaganism is that it was never "practiced correctly".

    *By "Leftist", i mean New Deal pro-labor Democrat, not the current corporate whore variety favored since the 90's.
  19. @Almost Missouri
    Good point. As with the candidates themselves, the white normal natural born citizen Dems are pretty much all over 70.

    EDIT:

    I was about to click publish when I decided to check who is actually running and was stunned to find there are bunch of straight whites Dems I never heard of or wasn't aware were running. Herewith, the AM guide to straight white Dem candidates under 70...

    John Delaney
    Age: 55
    Platform: getting richer
    Eventual fate: none

    Amy Klobuchar
    Age: 58
    Platform: taking men's jobs, selling the hard ones to foreigners
    Eventual fate: elected lobbyist of year at K-street convention

    Jay Inslee
    Age: 68
    Platform: climate raping you
    Eventual fate: lost in mudslide

    John Hickenlooper
    Age: 67
    Platform: less guns, more government
    Eventual fate: abandoned by side of the road

    Beto O’Rourke
    Age: 46
    Platform: unknown, still
    Eventual fate: dies in skateboard accident

    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Age: 52
    Platform: blonde ditz
    Eventual fate: blonde ditz

    Tim Ryan
    Age: 45
    Platform: white votes matter
    Eventual fate: assassinated by SJWs

    Eric Swalwell
    Age: 38
    Platform: further inflating student loan bubble
    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy

    Seth Moulton
    Age: 40
    Platform: worshipping veterans
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Michael Bennet
    Age: 54
    Platform: more Obamacare
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Steve Bullock
    Age: 53
    Platform: anti-corporate, pro-labor
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Bill de Blasio
    Age: 58
    Platform: mandatory pre-school and race mixing
    Eventual fate: ignored to death

    I couldn’t use the LOL earlier, A.M., but this deserves one. That’s funny, funny stuff. Your comments in general have been on fire lately, and thanks for helping out with info on (attempts at) internet privacy.

    Oh, I got the 1st half of your message saying you don’t mind my “borrowing” that earlier comment, with all due credit, of course. I don’t know that Arabic 2nd part, maybe “you owe me a Salami”, but I am just going by the context.

    Achmed ain’t my real name. You can’t believe everything you read on the internet. ;-}

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I'm between jobs at the moment, so I have a little too much time on my hands. That'll end soon though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-salamu_alaykum
  20. @Almost Missouri
    Good point. As with the candidates themselves, the white normal natural born citizen Dems are pretty much all over 70.

    EDIT:

    I was about to click publish when I decided to check who is actually running and was stunned to find there are bunch of straight whites Dems I never heard of or wasn't aware were running. Herewith, the AM guide to straight white Dem candidates under 70...

    John Delaney
    Age: 55
    Platform: getting richer
    Eventual fate: none

    Amy Klobuchar
    Age: 58
    Platform: taking men's jobs, selling the hard ones to foreigners
    Eventual fate: elected lobbyist of year at K-street convention

    Jay Inslee
    Age: 68
    Platform: climate raping you
    Eventual fate: lost in mudslide

    John Hickenlooper
    Age: 67
    Platform: less guns, more government
    Eventual fate: abandoned by side of the road

    Beto O’Rourke
    Age: 46
    Platform: unknown, still
    Eventual fate: dies in skateboard accident

    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Age: 52
    Platform: blonde ditz
    Eventual fate: blonde ditz

    Tim Ryan
    Age: 45
    Platform: white votes matter
    Eventual fate: assassinated by SJWs

    Eric Swalwell
    Age: 38
    Platform: further inflating student loan bubble
    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy

    Seth Moulton
    Age: 40
    Platform: worshipping veterans
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Michael Bennet
    Age: 54
    Platform: more Obamacare
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Steve Bullock
    Age: 53
    Platform: anti-corporate, pro-labor
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Bill de Blasio
    Age: 58
    Platform: mandatory pre-school and race mixing
    Eventual fate: ignored to death

    Very good!

    Eventual fate: ignored to death

    It’s a fate worse than death for actresses and elected officials.

    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy

    You obviously know the old saying in Southern politics, “So and so has his district locked down, he ain’t going anywhere unless he’s found in a hotel room with a dead girl or a live boy.”

    Those were the days. Now a days if you are found with a live boy, they applaud your courage for coming out and being real.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Too true.

    P.S. I too would choose waterboarding over nail pulling. I was glad to see it confirmed as the professional choice.
  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    I couldn't use the LOL earlier, A.M., but this deserves one. That's funny, funny stuff. Your comments in general have been on fire lately, and thanks for helping out with info on (attempts at) internet privacy.

    Oh, I got the 1st half of your message saying you don't mind my "borrowing" that earlier comment, with all due credit, of course. I don't know that Arabic 2nd part, maybe "you owe me a Salami", but I am just going by the context.

    Achmed ain't my real name. You can't believe everything you read on the internet. ;-}

    I’m between jobs at the moment, so I have a little too much time on my hands. That’ll end soon though.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-salamu_alaykum

  22. @Almost Missouri
    Good point. As with the candidates themselves, the white normal natural born citizen Dems are pretty much all over 70.

    EDIT:

    I was about to click publish when I decided to check who is actually running and was stunned to find there are bunch of straight whites Dems I never heard of or wasn't aware were running. Herewith, the AM guide to straight white Dem candidates under 70...

    John Delaney
    Age: 55
    Platform: getting richer
    Eventual fate: none

    Amy Klobuchar
    Age: 58
    Platform: taking men's jobs, selling the hard ones to foreigners
    Eventual fate: elected lobbyist of year at K-street convention

    Jay Inslee
    Age: 68
    Platform: climate raping you
    Eventual fate: lost in mudslide

    John Hickenlooper
    Age: 67
    Platform: less guns, more government
    Eventual fate: abandoned by side of the road

    Beto O’Rourke
    Age: 46
    Platform: unknown, still
    Eventual fate: dies in skateboard accident

    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Age: 52
    Platform: blonde ditz
    Eventual fate: blonde ditz

    Tim Ryan
    Age: 45
    Platform: white votes matter
    Eventual fate: assassinated by SJWs

    Eric Swalwell
    Age: 38
    Platform: further inflating student loan bubble
    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy

    Seth Moulton
    Age: 40
    Platform: worshipping veterans
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Michael Bennet
    Age: 54
    Platform: more Obamacare
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Steve Bullock
    Age: 53
    Platform: anti-corporate, pro-labor
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Bill de Blasio
    Age: 58
    Platform: mandatory pre-school and race mixing
    Eventual fate: ignored to death

    Joking aside, the interesting thing is that maybe three of these guys have what might be called a “traditional Democrat” platform. Needless to say, the major media are giving them zero traction. We’ll see what happens to them in Iowa and NH. If they can’t make it there, they can’t make it anywhere.

    • Replies: @iffen
    maybe three of these guys have what might be called a “traditional Democrat” platform.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/10/joe-biden-democrats-2020-strategy-1358530

    In case you missed it.
    , @Feryl
    The Dem faithful are in a defensive posture, trying desperately to push back against the bad orange man. Therefore, they seek the comforting security of a Clintonite (not a New Dealer, or a RadSocialist) veteran operator, who is Joe Biden this time around, because the Clintonites hold the promise of electoral success (whereas New Dealers Mondale and Dukakis got blown out in the 80's, and Bernie/AOC/Yang etc. are kukoos who nobody over 45 will vote for).

    They've talked themselves into the idea that a lack of enthusiasm for Centrist Hilary caused poor turnout (or defection to Trump/Gary Johnson!), so they have to make amends by throwing in with Biden this time around. In reality, Trump won relatively easily because he was percieved to be the less Centrist candidate than Hilary. But at this stage of the game, simply getting rid of the "R" in the White House takes precedence over noticing that neo-lib Centrism is a dying ideology.

    Absent an econ. crash, I don't think it will be that difficult for Trump to beat Biden. Were that to happen, the Dem base would advance beyond the dated notion that corporate friendly Centrism is the way to go. That would set the stage for the Dems to run a prole friendly candidate (on econ. issues, at least) for the first time since the 80's. And if he face a Reagan zombie from the GOP in 2024, the Dems would win.
  23. @Twinkie
    Very good!

    Eventual fate: ignored to death
     
    It's a fate worse than death for actresses and elected officials.

    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy
     
    You obviously know the old saying in Southern politics, "So and so has his district locked down, he ain't going anywhere unless he's found in a hotel room with a dead girl or a live boy."

    Those were the days. Now a days if you are found with a live boy, they applaud your courage for coming out and being real.

    Too true.

    P.S. I too would choose waterboarding over nail pulling. I was glad to see it confirmed as the professional choice.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I too would choose waterboarding over nail pulling. I was glad to see it confirmed as the professional choice.
     
    These were literally, exactly my responses to each:

    Simulated drowning: MoFo! That is unpleasant as F---! Now how about I f---ing dunk you in the water! (It made me really angry more than anything else and I wanted to shoot some people right there and then.) An hour later I was okay and was more worried about other things like the hunger pang I had (though I did have some bad dreams later).

    Nail being pulled out (during Judo practice): Oh, shit! (Slight shock for a moment or two). Arghhh! (My training partner gets the first aid kit on the wall, sprays iodine on my finger and proceeds to press hard with the bandaid.) Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (I let out a scream like a little girl and then when I am sane again, I whimper.) I am going to the ER now. (And then until that thing healed, any time and every time I gripped something, it hurt like heck. No thank you. Please.)
  24. @Almost Missouri
    Too true.

    P.S. I too would choose waterboarding over nail pulling. I was glad to see it confirmed as the professional choice.

    I too would choose waterboarding over nail pulling. I was glad to see it confirmed as the professional choice.

    These were literally, exactly my responses to each:

    Simulated drowning: MoFo! That is unpleasant as F—! Now how about I f—ing dunk you in the water! (It made me really angry more than anything else and I wanted to shoot some people right there and then.) An hour later I was okay and was more worried about other things like the hunger pang I had (though I did have some bad dreams later).

    Nail being pulled out (during Judo practice): Oh, shit! (Slight shock for a moment or two). Arghhh! (My training partner gets the first aid kit on the wall, sprays iodine on my finger and proceeds to press hard with the bandaid.) Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! (I let out a scream like a little girl and then when I am sane again, I whimper.) I am going to the ER now. (And then until that thing healed, any time and every time I gripped something, it hurt like heck. No thank you. Please.)

  25. @Anonymous
    No they don't.

    If that were the case, you'd see epic levels of divorce amongst UMC suburban couples in "coastal elite" areas.

    The people who support abortion the most, also have abortion the least. The people who support abortion the most, also divorce the least.

    It’s true that people in conservative states tend to have a higher divorce rate, although the difference isn’t that huge. I’m not sure what propaganda you’ve been reading about abortion though. Abortion rates are a whole lot lower in rural, pro-life states than in urban pro-choice ones:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pro-life-states-have-lower-abortion/

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Some really good abortion figures, even by demographics, are available here

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/#US
    , @Anonymous
    The people who support abortion the most are high IQ, educated, liberal elite whites.

    The people who support abortion a medium amount are blacks and hispanics.

    The people who support abortion the least are low IQ prole whites.

    The high rate of abortion in New York isn't due to the high IQ liberal elite whites. It's due to the blacks and hispanics.
  26. @Almost Missouri
    Joking aside, the interesting thing is that maybe three of these guys have what might be called a "traditional Democrat" platform. Needless to say, the major media are giving them zero traction. We'll see what happens to them in Iowa and NH. If they can't make it there, they can't make it anywhere.

    maybe three of these guys have what might be called a “traditional Democrat” platform.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/10/joe-biden-democrats-2020-strategy-1358530

    In case you missed it.

  27. @Anonymous
    No they don't.

    If that were the case, you'd see epic levels of divorce amongst UMC suburban couples in "coastal elite" areas.

    The people who support abortion the most, also have abortion the least. The people who support abortion the most, also divorce the least.

    “The people who support abortion the most, also have abortion the least. The people who support abortion the most, also divorce the least.”

    Is this true? I don’t know. Maybe our host has some insight.

    Partly it depends how one defines terms. Certainly, the revealed preference of actually having an abortion seems like pretty strong support for abortion, which would make the second sentence impossible.

    Also, “most”…

    Group A has on lifetime average two conceptions and one abortion per woman. Group B has on lifetime average six conceptions and two abortions per woman.

    Group A terminates 50% of their pregnancies. Group B only terminates 33% of their pregnancies.

    But Group A had only one abortion per lifetime while Group B had double that per lifetime. Also Group B’s generation times are much shorter than Group A, so on a per annum basis, Group B is triple or quadruple Group A.

    Which group has “most” abortions? If you are looking at raw abortion statistics, the answer is obviously Group B: they’re aborting at triple or quadruple the rate of Group A. Yet paradoxically, it is Group A who are most diminished by abortions, because they are not making up the lost pregnancies with additional conceptions.

    Now which real world groups are these analogs for … ?

    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Very true points. The worst is white people who abort after having only 2 kids, as if a third one isn't possible for them. I don't know where whites get this idea that they should only have 1 or 2 kids (okay actually I do).

    Will be interesting to see the GA, MO, AL etc. birth stats in the coming years and see what race's birth numbers see the most (if any) improvement.

    Best case: white people smarten up and start having larger families
    Worst case: No longer able to access abortion, Shaneequa has 3 extra kids each. Meanwhile, Becky gets pregnant but she goes to visit her friend in Illinois and aborts anyways.
  28. @Mr Puroik
    It's true that people in conservative states tend to have a higher divorce rate, although the difference isn't that huge. I'm not sure what propaganda you've been reading about abortion though. Abortion rates are a whole lot lower in rural, pro-life states than in urban pro-choice ones:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pro-life-states-have-lower-abortion/

    Some really good abortion figures, even by demographics, are available here

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/#US

  29. @Almost Missouri
    Good point. As with the candidates themselves, the white normal natural born citizen Dems are pretty much all over 70.

    EDIT:

    I was about to click publish when I decided to check who is actually running and was stunned to find there are bunch of straight whites Dems I never heard of or wasn't aware were running. Herewith, the AM guide to straight white Dem candidates under 70...

    John Delaney
    Age: 55
    Platform: getting richer
    Eventual fate: none

    Amy Klobuchar
    Age: 58
    Platform: taking men's jobs, selling the hard ones to foreigners
    Eventual fate: elected lobbyist of year at K-street convention

    Jay Inslee
    Age: 68
    Platform: climate raping you
    Eventual fate: lost in mudslide

    John Hickenlooper
    Age: 67
    Platform: less guns, more government
    Eventual fate: abandoned by side of the road

    Beto O’Rourke
    Age: 46
    Platform: unknown, still
    Eventual fate: dies in skateboard accident

    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Age: 52
    Platform: blonde ditz
    Eventual fate: blonde ditz

    Tim Ryan
    Age: 45
    Platform: white votes matter
    Eventual fate: assassinated by SJWs

    Eric Swalwell
    Age: 38
    Platform: further inflating student loan bubble
    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy

    Seth Moulton
    Age: 40
    Platform: worshipping veterans
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Michael Bennet
    Age: 54
    Platform: more Obamacare
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Steve Bullock
    Age: 53
    Platform: anti-corporate, pro-labor
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Bill de Blasio
    Age: 58
    Platform: mandatory pre-school and race mixing
    Eventual fate: ignored to death

    Eric Swalwell: “caught in bed with live boy”

    The reverse is true with Swalwell. Born into a MKULTRA breeder family, he was the boy that politicians like Mike Pence were caught in bed with. Having survived his traumatic childhood, he was groomed to be one of the many CIA assets in Washington D.C..

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/AP_19003664476820-e1554827676641.jpg?quality=75&strip=all&w=350&h=524&crop=1
  30. @Twinkie

    The liberalism gap between white and non-white Democrats was the widest ever recorded in 2018, the most recent iteration of the survey to date. It is now six times as wide as it was in 2002, after 9/11 pushed self-described liberalism to a local minimum.
     
    Further evidence that there is a civil war brewing within the Coalition of the Fringes. I speculate that, after the blacks winning the Democratic primary twice in a row, we are about to see "The White Liberal Strikes Back" installment of the Woke Wars series.

    “The White Liberal Strikes Back”

    I’m assuming you’re being sarcastic. I know these people very well. White progressives will continue to grovel and debase themselves at the feet of the Nubians. For some their careers depend upon it. The relatively normal whites in the Democratic Party now exist to serve the needs of the Nubian and the insane LBGTpedophiliacomesnext crowd. They are f*cked and they know it. But they won’t fight back. They’ll just wither away.

  31. @Almost Missouri

    "The people who support abortion the most, also have abortion the least. The people who support abortion the most, also divorce the least."
     
    Is this true? I don't know. Maybe our host has some insight.

    Partly it depends how one defines terms. Certainly, the revealed preference of actually having an abortion seems like pretty strong support for abortion, which would make the second sentence impossible.

    Also, "most"...

    Group A has on lifetime average two conceptions and one abortion per woman. Group B has on lifetime average six conceptions and two abortions per woman.

    Group A terminates 50% of their pregnancies. Group B only terminates 33% of their pregnancies.

    But Group A had only one abortion per lifetime while Group B had double that per lifetime. Also Group B's generation times are much shorter than Group A, so on a per annum basis, Group B is triple or quadruple Group A.

    Which group has "most" abortions? If you are looking at raw abortion statistics, the answer is obviously Group B: they're aborting at triple or quadruple the rate of Group A. Yet paradoxically, it is Group A who are most diminished by abortions, because they are not making up the lost pregnancies with additional conceptions.

    Now which real world groups are these analogs for ... ?

    Very true points. The worst is white people who abort after having only 2 kids, as if a third one isn’t possible for them. I don’t know where whites get this idea that they should only have 1 or 2 kids (okay actually I do).

    Will be interesting to see the GA, MO, AL etc. birth stats in the coming years and see what race’s birth numbers see the most (if any) improvement.

    Best case: white people smarten up and start having larger families
    Worst case: No longer able to access abortion, Shaneequa has 3 extra kids each. Meanwhile, Becky gets pregnant but she goes to visit her friend in Illinois and aborts anyways.

    • Replies: @Oblivionrecurs
    Shaneequa having 4 to 5 kids minimum should hopefully push the remaining whites rightward

    Or they ganna have a fucking hell of a time picking up the mess.

    Abortion rates by race are fascinating though - http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa_abortion_by_race.html
  32. @Almost Missouri
    Joking aside, the interesting thing is that maybe three of these guys have what might be called a "traditional Democrat" platform. Needless to say, the major media are giving them zero traction. We'll see what happens to them in Iowa and NH. If they can't make it there, they can't make it anywhere.

    The Dem faithful are in a defensive posture, trying desperately to push back against the bad orange man. Therefore, they seek the comforting security of a Clintonite (not a New Dealer, or a RadSocialist) veteran operator, who is Joe Biden this time around, because the Clintonites hold the promise of electoral success (whereas New Dealers Mondale and Dukakis got blown out in the 80’s, and Bernie/AOC/Yang etc. are kukoos who nobody over 45 will vote for).

    They’ve talked themselves into the idea that a lack of enthusiasm for Centrist Hilary caused poor turnout (or defection to Trump/Gary Johnson!), so they have to make amends by throwing in with Biden this time around. In reality, Trump won relatively easily because he was percieved to be the less Centrist candidate than Hilary. But at this stage of the game, simply getting rid of the “R” in the White House takes precedence over noticing that neo-lib Centrism is a dying ideology.

    Absent an econ. crash, I don’t think it will be that difficult for Trump to beat Biden. Were that to happen, the Dem base would advance beyond the dated notion that corporate friendly Centrism is the way to go. That would set the stage for the Dems to run a prole friendly candidate (on econ. issues, at least) for the first time since the 80’s. And if he face a Reagan zombie from the GOP in 2024, the Dems would win.

    • Replies: @Mr Puroik
    100% agree. If it were Trump vs. Bernie, there would be a Dem. landslide and a lot of working class areas of the country like Ohio or even West Virginia might be in play again. However, with the corporate bought-and-paid-for candidates that Woke Inc. are intent on running, the Dems will likely suffer a popular vote defeat this next time around, and potentially lose states like Minnesota or Maine that narrowly voted for the Hildebeest but whose large working class populations would be even less sold on the blandest of 'inclusive capitalist' stupidity than they were back in 2016
  33. @216
    o/t

    Update:

    I've been following this labor law campaign in NY. What's interesting is that the farmers managed to convince (coerce?) some of their foreign labor into thinking that they don't need labor unions. A window into the stupid boomercon ideal of "natural conservative" that still grips too many on the Right.


    https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/politics/albany/2019/06/12/what-farmworkers-bill-rights-would-mean-new-york/1418925001/

    Also, using foreigners as political props is illegal in Mexico, but OK in the US.

    Ah, the lovably Orwellian tradition of Reaganite ideologues claiming that every union and every piece of Leftist favored pro-labor and pro-consumer legislation* is actually a disguised enemy of prole class Americans! The Americans who bought into this garbage over the last 40 years are single-handedly responsible for de-industrialization, rising suicide levels, and the vanished middle class.

    Thanks a lot, you stubborn fools. I know that “conservatives” love the joke that only problem with communism is that it was never “practiced correctly”. Well, ya know, the only problem with Reaganism is that it was never “practiced correctly”.

    *By “Leftist”, i mean New Deal pro-labor Democrat, not the current corporate whore variety favored since the 90’s.

  34. @SunBakedSuburb
    Eric Swalwell: "caught in bed with live boy"

    The reverse is true with Swalwell. Born into a MKULTRA breeder family, he was the boy that politicians like Mike Pence were caught in bed with. Having survived his traumatic childhood, he was groomed to be one of the many CIA assets in Washington D.C..

  35. @Almost Missouri
    Good point. As with the candidates themselves, the white normal natural born citizen Dems are pretty much all over 70.

    EDIT:

    I was about to click publish when I decided to check who is actually running and was stunned to find there are bunch of straight whites Dems I never heard of or wasn't aware were running. Herewith, the AM guide to straight white Dem candidates under 70...

    John Delaney
    Age: 55
    Platform: getting richer
    Eventual fate: none

    Amy Klobuchar
    Age: 58
    Platform: taking men's jobs, selling the hard ones to foreigners
    Eventual fate: elected lobbyist of year at K-street convention

    Jay Inslee
    Age: 68
    Platform: climate raping you
    Eventual fate: lost in mudslide

    John Hickenlooper
    Age: 67
    Platform: less guns, more government
    Eventual fate: abandoned by side of the road

    Beto O’Rourke
    Age: 46
    Platform: unknown, still
    Eventual fate: dies in skateboard accident

    Kirsten Gillibrand
    Age: 52
    Platform: blonde ditz
    Eventual fate: blonde ditz

    Tim Ryan
    Age: 45
    Platform: white votes matter
    Eventual fate: assassinated by SJWs

    Eric Swalwell
    Age: 38
    Platform: further inflating student loan bubble
    Eventual fate: caught in bed with live boy

    Seth Moulton
    Age: 40
    Platform: worshipping veterans
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Michael Bennet
    Age: 54
    Platform: more Obamacare
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Steve Bullock
    Age: 53
    Platform: anti-corporate, pro-labor
    Eventual fate: genocided by SJWs

    Bill de Blasio
    Age: 58
    Platform: mandatory pre-school and race mixing
    Eventual fate: ignored to death

    I took the istandwith.com test and John Delaney was my top match followed by Trump. I didn’t match at all with the other Democrats…only Delaney and I have no idea who he is.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Neither does he apparently. I couldn't find any cogent platform for him, just a bunch of stuff that plays into his pre-existing advantages.
  36. @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Very true points. The worst is white people who abort after having only 2 kids, as if a third one isn't possible for them. I don't know where whites get this idea that they should only have 1 or 2 kids (okay actually I do).

    Will be interesting to see the GA, MO, AL etc. birth stats in the coming years and see what race's birth numbers see the most (if any) improvement.

    Best case: white people smarten up and start having larger families
    Worst case: No longer able to access abortion, Shaneequa has 3 extra kids each. Meanwhile, Becky gets pregnant but she goes to visit her friend in Illinois and aborts anyways.

    Shaneequa having 4 to 5 kids minimum should hopefully push the remaining whites rightward

    Or they ganna have a fucking hell of a time picking up the mess.

    Abortion rates by race are fascinating though – http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/usa_abortion_by_race.html

  37. @Feryl
    The Dem faithful are in a defensive posture, trying desperately to push back against the bad orange man. Therefore, they seek the comforting security of a Clintonite (not a New Dealer, or a RadSocialist) veteran operator, who is Joe Biden this time around, because the Clintonites hold the promise of electoral success (whereas New Dealers Mondale and Dukakis got blown out in the 80's, and Bernie/AOC/Yang etc. are kukoos who nobody over 45 will vote for).

    They've talked themselves into the idea that a lack of enthusiasm for Centrist Hilary caused poor turnout (or defection to Trump/Gary Johnson!), so they have to make amends by throwing in with Biden this time around. In reality, Trump won relatively easily because he was percieved to be the less Centrist candidate than Hilary. But at this stage of the game, simply getting rid of the "R" in the White House takes precedence over noticing that neo-lib Centrism is a dying ideology.

    Absent an econ. crash, I don't think it will be that difficult for Trump to beat Biden. Were that to happen, the Dem base would advance beyond the dated notion that corporate friendly Centrism is the way to go. That would set the stage for the Dems to run a prole friendly candidate (on econ. issues, at least) for the first time since the 80's. And if he face a Reagan zombie from the GOP in 2024, the Dems would win.

    100% agree. If it were Trump vs. Bernie, there would be a Dem. landslide and a lot of working class areas of the country like Ohio or even West Virginia might be in play again. However, with the corporate bought-and-paid-for candidates that Woke Inc. are intent on running, the Dems will likely suffer a popular vote defeat this next time around, and potentially lose states like Minnesota or Maine that narrowly voted for the Hildebeest but whose large working class populations would be even less sold on the blandest of ‘inclusive capitalist’ stupidity than they were back in 2016

    • Replies: @Feryl
    A major problem for the Dems is that the Southern/Mid-Atlantic primaries are not only, in effect, the black primaries, but are also plagued by voters who have no interest in economic populism. Whites in the Midwest and Appalachia (the Rust-belt, basically) want econ. populism; "minorities" have no investment in Norman Rockwell's America, and white voters in the (relatively) affluent Eastern seaboard states, and the Deep South, don't have all that much interest in reviving FDR's America, either (Deep South whites tend to be very Social Darwinist, often having as much contempt for prole whites as they have fear of "liberated" blacks).

    Blacks (and many other non-whites) want cheap pandering via openly racial spoils systems, not a restoration of a wholesome economy. Whites outside the Rust-belt, are, all too often, clueless about how miserable many whites have been for the last 30 years.
    , @Feryl

    lose states like Minnesota or Maine that narrowly voted for the Hildebeest but whose large working class populations would be even less sold on the blandest of ‘inclusive capitalist’ stupidity than they were back in 2016
     
    Trump's actual policies are 100% the same Reaganism that's been benefiting Wall Street and the Pentagon for 40 years. The Northeast only votes for the Dems because they are the secular party, and since Clinton have refused to implement New Deal type ideas. On econ. policy, both parties are largely interchangeable with the only cavaet that a Dem regime is going to do a better job of balancing the budget, because the GOP since Reagan is always quick to gut taxes and jack up military spending.

    The GOP has set the ideological tone since 1980; there's no way in hell that they'll ever let a Republican president govern like a New Dealer in the modern era, because the New Deal died in 1980 when neo-liberals (who gained control of the GOP in the 80's, and eventually the Dems in the 90's) sold America on the wonders of off-shoring, tax cuts for the rich, and de-investment in public resources.

    Rather proleish whites in places like MN and Maine aren't stupid; They took their chance with Trump, who betrayed nearly all of his promises the moment he entered office. Again, the "experts" who talk about things like personality and "experience" are so off-base that their analysis means nothing. The reality is that people vote based on policy, and Trump didn't campaign on Reaganism; matter of fact, Hilary did run on a variant of Reaganism and got blown out (she alienated cultural conservatives and economic liberals; great idea, huh?). Biden will easily win MN and Maine, because when push comes to shove, if we have to be stuck with Reaganism at least Biden will have a more responsible form of it (just like Clinton offered a more responsible version of Reaganism in the 90's; The Democrats have dominated the Northeast and Upper Midwest since the 90's in terms of pres. election, most likely because the military is relatively minor in the culture of these regions.
    , @Feryl
    Ohio will probably go for Trump again, if anyone besides Bernie is running for the Dems. Pennsylvania though....Just forget it. Trump barely won the state in 2016. Like-wise for Michigan.

    PA and MI are the heart of the Rust-Belt, and they saw Trump barely do a damn thing to help them.

    Wisconsin is a toss-up.

    Then again, if Biden sounds like a moron by riling up blacks, dumb college activists, and so forth*, he could quite possibly alienate working-middle class whites so much that he fails to get WI/PA/MI back to the Dems. Biden has to be careful to sound like a "centrist", which is after all what got Clinton and Obama elected.

    *Urban and campus unrest, in 2020, could very well spook a lot of whites who aren't in the top 20% away from the Dems. Given the events that have erupted over the last 5 years, it won't take much rhetoric to spur people to action; if Biden can't keep his mouth shut, he'll take a lot of the blame in the eyes of ordinary people(in 2016, the media and elite whites blamed Trump, but many ordinary whites didn't blame Trump for the unrest occurring)
  38. Anonymous[217] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr Puroik
    It's true that people in conservative states tend to have a higher divorce rate, although the difference isn't that huge. I'm not sure what propaganda you've been reading about abortion though. Abortion rates are a whole lot lower in rural, pro-life states than in urban pro-choice ones:

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/pro-life-states-have-lower-abortion/

    The people who support abortion the most are high IQ, educated, liberal elite whites.

    The people who support abortion a medium amount are blacks and hispanics.

    The people who support abortion the least are low IQ prole whites.

    The high rate of abortion in New York isn’t due to the high IQ liberal elite whites. It’s due to the blacks and hispanics.

    • Replies: @Mr Puroik
    true, however the abortion rate among liberal whites still seems to be higher than among conservative whites, if we compare states like VT and ME with WV or KY. All of those are overwhelmingly white states and yet the former have substantially higher abortion rates than the latter
  39. @Jay Fink
    I took the istandwith.com test and John Delaney was my top match followed by Trump. I didn't match at all with the other Democrats...only Delaney and I have no idea who he is.

    Neither does he apparently. I couldn’t find any cogent platform for him, just a bunch of stuff that plays into his pre-existing advantages.

  40. @Mr Puroik
    100% agree. If it were Trump vs. Bernie, there would be a Dem. landslide and a lot of working class areas of the country like Ohio or even West Virginia might be in play again. However, with the corporate bought-and-paid-for candidates that Woke Inc. are intent on running, the Dems will likely suffer a popular vote defeat this next time around, and potentially lose states like Minnesota or Maine that narrowly voted for the Hildebeest but whose large working class populations would be even less sold on the blandest of 'inclusive capitalist' stupidity than they were back in 2016

    A major problem for the Dems is that the Southern/Mid-Atlantic primaries are not only, in effect, the black primaries, but are also plagued by voters who have no interest in economic populism. Whites in the Midwest and Appalachia (the Rust-belt, basically) want econ. populism; “minorities” have no investment in Norman Rockwell’s America, and white voters in the (relatively) affluent Eastern seaboard states, and the Deep South, don’t have all that much interest in reviving FDR’s America, either (Deep South whites tend to be very Social Darwinist, often having as much contempt for prole whites as they have fear of “liberated” blacks).

    Blacks (and many other non-whites) want cheap pandering via openly racial spoils systems, not a restoration of a wholesome economy. Whites outside the Rust-belt, are, all too often, clueless about how miserable many whites have been for the last 30 years.

  41. @Mr Puroik
    100% agree. If it were Trump vs. Bernie, there would be a Dem. landslide and a lot of working class areas of the country like Ohio or even West Virginia might be in play again. However, with the corporate bought-and-paid-for candidates that Woke Inc. are intent on running, the Dems will likely suffer a popular vote defeat this next time around, and potentially lose states like Minnesota or Maine that narrowly voted for the Hildebeest but whose large working class populations would be even less sold on the blandest of 'inclusive capitalist' stupidity than they were back in 2016

    lose states like Minnesota or Maine that narrowly voted for the Hildebeest but whose large working class populations would be even less sold on the blandest of ‘inclusive capitalist’ stupidity than they were back in 2016

    Trump’s actual policies are 100% the same Reaganism that’s been benefiting Wall Street and the Pentagon for 40 years. The Northeast only votes for the Dems because they are the secular party, and since Clinton have refused to implement New Deal type ideas. On econ. policy, both parties are largely interchangeable with the only cavaet that a Dem regime is going to do a better job of balancing the budget, because the GOP since Reagan is always quick to gut taxes and jack up military spending.

    The GOP has set the ideological tone since 1980; there’s no way in hell that they’ll ever let a Republican president govern like a New Dealer in the modern era, because the New Deal died in 1980 when neo-liberals (who gained control of the GOP in the 80’s, and eventually the Dems in the 90’s) sold America on the wonders of off-shoring, tax cuts for the rich, and de-investment in public resources.

    Rather proleish whites in places like MN and Maine aren’t stupid; They took their chance with Trump, who betrayed nearly all of his promises the moment he entered office. Again, the “experts” who talk about things like personality and “experience” are so off-base that their analysis means nothing. The reality is that people vote based on policy, and Trump didn’t campaign on Reaganism; matter of fact, Hilary did run on a variant of Reaganism and got blown out (she alienated cultural conservatives and economic liberals; great idea, huh?). Biden will easily win MN and Maine, because when push comes to shove, if we have to be stuck with Reaganism at least Biden will have a more responsible form of it (just like Clinton offered a more responsible version of Reaganism in the 90’s; The Democrats have dominated the Northeast and Upper Midwest since the 90’s in terms of pres. election, most likely because the military is relatively minor in the culture of these regions.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Dem regime is going to do a better job of balancing the budget
     
    Right. By enlarging entitlements and then increasing taxes. No thanks.
    , @Twinkie

    The reality is that people vote based on policy,
     
    I see you’ve never worked in politics. People don’t vote on policy - they vote on personal likability.
  42. @Mr Puroik
    100% agree. If it were Trump vs. Bernie, there would be a Dem. landslide and a lot of working class areas of the country like Ohio or even West Virginia might be in play again. However, with the corporate bought-and-paid-for candidates that Woke Inc. are intent on running, the Dems will likely suffer a popular vote defeat this next time around, and potentially lose states like Minnesota or Maine that narrowly voted for the Hildebeest but whose large working class populations would be even less sold on the blandest of 'inclusive capitalist' stupidity than they were back in 2016

    Ohio will probably go for Trump again, if anyone besides Bernie is running for the Dems. Pennsylvania though….Just forget it. Trump barely won the state in 2016. Like-wise for Michigan.

    PA and MI are the heart of the Rust-Belt, and they saw Trump barely do a damn thing to help them.

    Wisconsin is a toss-up.

    Then again, if Biden sounds like a moron by riling up blacks, dumb college activists, and so forth*, he could quite possibly alienate working-middle class whites so much that he fails to get WI/PA/MI back to the Dems. Biden has to be careful to sound like a “centrist”, which is after all what got Clinton and Obama elected.

    *Urban and campus unrest, in 2020, could very well spook a lot of whites who aren’t in the top 20% away from the Dems. Given the events that have erupted over the last 5 years, it won’t take much rhetoric to spur people to action; if Biden can’t keep his mouth shut, he’ll take a lot of the blame in the eyes of ordinary people(in 2016, the media and elite whites blamed Trump, but many ordinary whites didn’t blame Trump for the unrest occurring)

    • Replies: @Mr Puroik
    At this point in time, I think Biden has a much poorer shot than Hillary did of winning largely because he will (and already has pointed to) abandon the working class in favor of wokeness and minority votes. Since announcing his run for the presidency he has basically 100% repeated all of the Clinton campaign's loser talking points (railing against Nazis and 'Russian interference' while also coming out against medicare for all and free college tuition) while also putting his foot in his mouth like the Blue Dan Quayle that he is. I imagine that the white working class will behave much like they did in 1996; by this time, it was clear that Clinton was not their friend by any means, yet they still preferred him to the hardcore social Darwinism and cuckservatism of Bob Dole (who infamously supported open borders at a time when 70-80% of Americans were for less immigration). Trump may have betrayed the white working class but he still uses the rhetoric, still talks about the 'forgotten America' and has a huge number of supporters who hang on his every word. Biden is currently 'popular' because nobody really remembers who he is, but his popularity keeps plunging as he reveals himself to be yet another bought-and-paid-for corporate shill who just happens to have grown up in a blue collar neighborhood. Like 1996, I imagine voter turnout will be drastically reduced since there is so much disillusionment with both candidates. But I imagine that will hurt handsy Joe more than Trump since there is just so little enthusiasm for more of the same, even among minorities (many of whom are likely to remember his role in the 1994 crime bill, and his formerly hard stance on immigration).

    Right now, the Democrats' chance of success pretty well rests on travelling the road of shifting the Overton window to the left on economic and foreign policy issues like Bernie or Tulsi are trying to do. But it seems the establishment would rather lose elections than lose their corporatist privilege, which is why they are so hell-bent on censoring candidates who stand for actual change that everyone can get behind in favor of divisive and unpopular identity politics.
  43. @Feryl

    lose states like Minnesota or Maine that narrowly voted for the Hildebeest but whose large working class populations would be even less sold on the blandest of ‘inclusive capitalist’ stupidity than they were back in 2016
     
    Trump's actual policies are 100% the same Reaganism that's been benefiting Wall Street and the Pentagon for 40 years. The Northeast only votes for the Dems because they are the secular party, and since Clinton have refused to implement New Deal type ideas. On econ. policy, both parties are largely interchangeable with the only cavaet that a Dem regime is going to do a better job of balancing the budget, because the GOP since Reagan is always quick to gut taxes and jack up military spending.

    The GOP has set the ideological tone since 1980; there's no way in hell that they'll ever let a Republican president govern like a New Dealer in the modern era, because the New Deal died in 1980 when neo-liberals (who gained control of the GOP in the 80's, and eventually the Dems in the 90's) sold America on the wonders of off-shoring, tax cuts for the rich, and de-investment in public resources.

    Rather proleish whites in places like MN and Maine aren't stupid; They took their chance with Trump, who betrayed nearly all of his promises the moment he entered office. Again, the "experts" who talk about things like personality and "experience" are so off-base that their analysis means nothing. The reality is that people vote based on policy, and Trump didn't campaign on Reaganism; matter of fact, Hilary did run on a variant of Reaganism and got blown out (she alienated cultural conservatives and economic liberals; great idea, huh?). Biden will easily win MN and Maine, because when push comes to shove, if we have to be stuck with Reaganism at least Biden will have a more responsible form of it (just like Clinton offered a more responsible version of Reaganism in the 90's; The Democrats have dominated the Northeast and Upper Midwest since the 90's in terms of pres. election, most likely because the military is relatively minor in the culture of these regions.

    Dem regime is going to do a better job of balancing the budget

    Right. By enlarging entitlements and then increasing taxes. No thanks.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  44. @Feryl

    lose states like Minnesota or Maine that narrowly voted for the Hildebeest but whose large working class populations would be even less sold on the blandest of ‘inclusive capitalist’ stupidity than they were back in 2016
     
    Trump's actual policies are 100% the same Reaganism that's been benefiting Wall Street and the Pentagon for 40 years. The Northeast only votes for the Dems because they are the secular party, and since Clinton have refused to implement New Deal type ideas. On econ. policy, both parties are largely interchangeable with the only cavaet that a Dem regime is going to do a better job of balancing the budget, because the GOP since Reagan is always quick to gut taxes and jack up military spending.

    The GOP has set the ideological tone since 1980; there's no way in hell that they'll ever let a Republican president govern like a New Dealer in the modern era, because the New Deal died in 1980 when neo-liberals (who gained control of the GOP in the 80's, and eventually the Dems in the 90's) sold America on the wonders of off-shoring, tax cuts for the rich, and de-investment in public resources.

    Rather proleish whites in places like MN and Maine aren't stupid; They took their chance with Trump, who betrayed nearly all of his promises the moment he entered office. Again, the "experts" who talk about things like personality and "experience" are so off-base that their analysis means nothing. The reality is that people vote based on policy, and Trump didn't campaign on Reaganism; matter of fact, Hilary did run on a variant of Reaganism and got blown out (she alienated cultural conservatives and economic liberals; great idea, huh?). Biden will easily win MN and Maine, because when push comes to shove, if we have to be stuck with Reaganism at least Biden will have a more responsible form of it (just like Clinton offered a more responsible version of Reaganism in the 90's; The Democrats have dominated the Northeast and Upper Midwest since the 90's in terms of pres. election, most likely because the military is relatively minor in the culture of these regions.

    The reality is that people vote based on policy,

    I see you’ve never worked in politics. People don’t vote on policy – they vote on personal likability.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Feryl

    I see you’ve never worked in politics. People don’t vote on policy – they vote on personal likability.
     
    Hmm, so I evidently hallucinated the fact that from FDR-Nixon, Americans elected presidents who mostly left the New Deal alone. And I also hallucinated that from Carter-Trump, America has elected one president after another who's dismantled the New Deal and prevented it from being rebuilt.

    Policy, and perceived competence at maintaining these policies, is what counts. LBJ got trashed (fairly or unfairly) for urban unrest and a dissatisfying war. Nixon went through hell after the CIA basically initiated a coup (w/ Nixon digging his own grave by attempting an inept cover up). Carter took the blame for America's growing dissatisfaction with the New Deal, only for Reagan and Clinton to enjoy life-long approval (from Silents and Boomers) for initiating the dismantling of the New Deal (which Carter wanted to do to some degree, but 1970's Dems would not allow it).

    You people don't give the populace enough credit for their innate understanding of which way the ideological wind is blowing. Mother Theresa could've run on Walter Mondale's platform in 1984, and Reagan still would've blown her away. "The era of big government is over".
  45. @Feryl
    Ohio will probably go for Trump again, if anyone besides Bernie is running for the Dems. Pennsylvania though....Just forget it. Trump barely won the state in 2016. Like-wise for Michigan.

    PA and MI are the heart of the Rust-Belt, and they saw Trump barely do a damn thing to help them.

    Wisconsin is a toss-up.

    Then again, if Biden sounds like a moron by riling up blacks, dumb college activists, and so forth*, he could quite possibly alienate working-middle class whites so much that he fails to get WI/PA/MI back to the Dems. Biden has to be careful to sound like a "centrist", which is after all what got Clinton and Obama elected.

    *Urban and campus unrest, in 2020, could very well spook a lot of whites who aren't in the top 20% away from the Dems. Given the events that have erupted over the last 5 years, it won't take much rhetoric to spur people to action; if Biden can't keep his mouth shut, he'll take a lot of the blame in the eyes of ordinary people(in 2016, the media and elite whites blamed Trump, but many ordinary whites didn't blame Trump for the unrest occurring)

    At this point in time, I think Biden has a much poorer shot than Hillary did of winning largely because he will (and already has pointed to) abandon the working class in favor of wokeness and minority votes. Since announcing his run for the presidency he has basically 100% repeated all of the Clinton campaign’s loser talking points (railing against Nazis and ‘Russian interference’ while also coming out against medicare for all and free college tuition) while also putting his foot in his mouth like the Blue Dan Quayle that he is. I imagine that the white working class will behave much like they did in 1996; by this time, it was clear that Clinton was not their friend by any means, yet they still preferred him to the hardcore social Darwinism and cuckservatism of Bob Dole (who infamously supported open borders at a time when 70-80% of Americans were for less immigration). Trump may have betrayed the white working class but he still uses the rhetoric, still talks about the ‘forgotten America’ and has a huge number of supporters who hang on his every word. Biden is currently ‘popular’ because nobody really remembers who he is, but his popularity keeps plunging as he reveals himself to be yet another bought-and-paid-for corporate shill who just happens to have grown up in a blue collar neighborhood. Like 1996, I imagine voter turnout will be drastically reduced since there is so much disillusionment with both candidates. But I imagine that will hurt handsy Joe more than Trump since there is just so little enthusiasm for more of the same, even among minorities (many of whom are likely to remember his role in the 1994 crime bill, and his formerly hard stance on immigration).

    Right now, the Democrats’ chance of success pretty well rests on travelling the road of shifting the Overton window to the left on economic and foreign policy issues like Bernie or Tulsi are trying to do. But it seems the establishment would rather lose elections than lose their corporatist privilege, which is why they are so hell-bent on censoring candidates who stand for actual change that everyone can get behind in favor of divisive and unpopular identity politics.

    • Replies: @Feryl

    Like 1996, I imagine voter turnout will be drastically reduced since there is so much disillusionment with both candidates. But I imagine that will hurt handsy Joe more than Trump since there is just so little enthusiasm for more of the same, even among minorities (many of whom are likely to remember his role in the 1994 crime bill, and his formerly hard stance on immigration).
     
    Ideological intensity got stronger from about 1930-1970, then it diminished from about 1970-2000. It's been getting much stronger since 2000. Elections like 1984 and 1996 took place during moments of civic and ideological calm, that we won't see for at least another 10-15 years. 2020 and 2024 are apt to have more in common with 1968 than they do with 1996.

    I don't think 90% of Dems care about what Biden did in the 80's or 90's. All's that matter is that he's perceived to be more wholesome than Trump, and is considered by the partisan zealots to be more electable than Sanders or whoever. Biden is a neo-liberal squish, who unlike even, say, Liz Warren, has never prominently stood out as rabble rouser who threatens to upend any aspect of the establishment. That's what the Dem faithful are looking for: a soft centrist, not a battle axe. Winning in 2020, getting the orange man out of the white house, surpasses any desire for real reform or rebellion. To put it another way: they just want to wake up one day and not have to worry about the "Neo-nazi sympathizer" running the show. A similar thing happened in 2004; Dems did not want reformer Nader, and were willing to support a Centrist Dem (John Kerry) in order to get Bush out. How'd that work out? Kerry would've just been a slightly less retarded version of Bush, which conservatives and moderates sensed and voted accordingly (at the time, Bush wasn't totally hated yet and it was evident that Kerry had little populist appeal).

    At some point in a future election, the eventually Millennial/Gen Z dominated electorate is going to be sick and damn tired of Silent/Boomer Centrists, and we can finally move on from "settling" for corporatist candidates. But for the time being, The Silent/Boomer and X-er political establishment is going to keep pimping the same old same old boring whore candidates, because all that matter is whether someone has a D or an R next to their name (and can be trusted to have the correct stance on guns and abortion), nothing more, nothing less. Trust me, that's not what many youngsters really think, and eventually that will bear ideological fruit in the coming decades.

    I do think that 2020 could be similar to 2004, in the sense that a divisive but not widely hated incumbent has to count on his luck holding up prior to his re-election campaign. Bush just barely squeaked by in '04, and Trump could squeak by if the economy stays up and he doesn't invade Iran.
  46. @Anonymous
    The people who support abortion the most are high IQ, educated, liberal elite whites.

    The people who support abortion a medium amount are blacks and hispanics.

    The people who support abortion the least are low IQ prole whites.

    The high rate of abortion in New York isn't due to the high IQ liberal elite whites. It's due to the blacks and hispanics.

    true, however the abortion rate among liberal whites still seems to be higher than among conservative whites, if we compare states like VT and ME with WV or KY. All of those are overwhelmingly white states and yet the former have substantially higher abortion rates than the latter

  47. @Mr Puroik
    At this point in time, I think Biden has a much poorer shot than Hillary did of winning largely because he will (and already has pointed to) abandon the working class in favor of wokeness and minority votes. Since announcing his run for the presidency he has basically 100% repeated all of the Clinton campaign's loser talking points (railing against Nazis and 'Russian interference' while also coming out against medicare for all and free college tuition) while also putting his foot in his mouth like the Blue Dan Quayle that he is. I imagine that the white working class will behave much like they did in 1996; by this time, it was clear that Clinton was not their friend by any means, yet they still preferred him to the hardcore social Darwinism and cuckservatism of Bob Dole (who infamously supported open borders at a time when 70-80% of Americans were for less immigration). Trump may have betrayed the white working class but he still uses the rhetoric, still talks about the 'forgotten America' and has a huge number of supporters who hang on his every word. Biden is currently 'popular' because nobody really remembers who he is, but his popularity keeps plunging as he reveals himself to be yet another bought-and-paid-for corporate shill who just happens to have grown up in a blue collar neighborhood. Like 1996, I imagine voter turnout will be drastically reduced since there is so much disillusionment with both candidates. But I imagine that will hurt handsy Joe more than Trump since there is just so little enthusiasm for more of the same, even among minorities (many of whom are likely to remember his role in the 1994 crime bill, and his formerly hard stance on immigration).

    Right now, the Democrats' chance of success pretty well rests on travelling the road of shifting the Overton window to the left on economic and foreign policy issues like Bernie or Tulsi are trying to do. But it seems the establishment would rather lose elections than lose their corporatist privilege, which is why they are so hell-bent on censoring candidates who stand for actual change that everyone can get behind in favor of divisive and unpopular identity politics.

    Like 1996, I imagine voter turnout will be drastically reduced since there is so much disillusionment with both candidates. But I imagine that will hurt handsy Joe more than Trump since there is just so little enthusiasm for more of the same, even among minorities (many of whom are likely to remember his role in the 1994 crime bill, and his formerly hard stance on immigration).

    Ideological intensity got stronger from about 1930-1970, then it diminished from about 1970-2000. It’s been getting much stronger since 2000. Elections like 1984 and 1996 took place during moments of civic and ideological calm, that we won’t see for at least another 10-15 years. 2020 and 2024 are apt to have more in common with 1968 than they do with 1996.

    I don’t think 90% of Dems care about what Biden did in the 80’s or 90’s. All’s that matter is that he’s perceived to be more wholesome than Trump, and is considered by the partisan zealots to be more electable than Sanders or whoever. Biden is a neo-liberal squish, who unlike even, say, Liz Warren, has never prominently stood out as rabble rouser who threatens to upend any aspect of the establishment. That’s what the Dem faithful are looking for: a soft centrist, not a battle axe. Winning in 2020, getting the orange man out of the white house, surpasses any desire for real reform or rebellion. To put it another way: they just want to wake up one day and not have to worry about the “Neo-nazi sympathizer” running the show. A similar thing happened in 2004; Dems did not want reformer Nader, and were willing to support a Centrist Dem (John Kerry) in order to get Bush out. How’d that work out? Kerry would’ve just been a slightly less retarded version of Bush, which conservatives and moderates sensed and voted accordingly (at the time, Bush wasn’t totally hated yet and it was evident that Kerry had little populist appeal).

    At some point in a future election, the eventually Millennial/Gen Z dominated electorate is going to be sick and damn tired of Silent/Boomer Centrists, and we can finally move on from “settling” for corporatist candidates. But for the time being, The Silent/Boomer and X-er political establishment is going to keep pimping the same old same old boring whore candidates, because all that matter is whether someone has a D or an R next to their name (and can be trusted to have the correct stance on guns and abortion), nothing more, nothing less. Trust me, that’s not what many youngsters really think, and eventually that will bear ideological fruit in the coming decades.

    I do think that 2020 could be similar to 2004, in the sense that a divisive but not widely hated incumbent has to count on his luck holding up prior to his re-election campaign. Bush just barely squeaked by in ’04, and Trump could squeak by if the economy stays up and he doesn’t invade Iran.

  48. @Twinkie

    The reality is that people vote based on policy,
     
    I see you’ve never worked in politics. People don’t vote on policy - they vote on personal likability.

    I see you’ve never worked in politics. People don’t vote on policy – they vote on personal likability.

    Hmm, so I evidently hallucinated the fact that from FDR-Nixon, Americans elected presidents who mostly left the New Deal alone. And I also hallucinated that from Carter-Trump, America has elected one president after another who’s dismantled the New Deal and prevented it from being rebuilt.

    Policy, and perceived competence at maintaining these policies, is what counts. LBJ got trashed (fairly or unfairly) for urban unrest and a dissatisfying war. Nixon went through hell after the CIA basically initiated a coup (w/ Nixon digging his own grave by attempting an inept cover up). Carter took the blame for America’s growing dissatisfaction with the New Deal, only for Reagan and Clinton to enjoy life-long approval (from Silents and Boomers) for initiating the dismantling of the New Deal (which Carter wanted to do to some degree, but 1970’s Dems would not allow it).

    You people don’t give the populace enough credit for their innate understanding of which way the ideological wind is blowing. Mother Theresa could’ve run on Walter Mondale’s platform in 1984, and Reagan still would’ve blown her away. “The era of big government is over”.

    • Replies: @Twinkie

    You people don’t give the populace enough credit for their innate understanding
     
    Volunteer on a few political campaigns and come back. Or go attend some campaign workshops. The first thing you learn is that personal likability is king in elections. No matter how attractive or sound the policies, most voters will not support you if they perceive you to be unlikable and indifferent to their problems. That’s why the “Would I have a beer with this guy?” test was invented. As is the saying “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

    I worked on the Hill at one point and am a veteran of several political campaigns.
    , @Disordered Deacon
    They vote for policies they like from people they like.
    It also depends on the stage of the campaign, and the kind of campaign/office you are running for. Some offices are more ideological than others, for example senator vs mayor.
    Presidentially, policy matters, but the candidate's degree cool matters too, specially in primaries. If Trump had been faced by someone with his same rightwing populist ideas but even more developed, but that someone was also a shy nerd, then Trump would have bested him anyway.
    As for 2020, we will see, the similar criticisms you make of Trump v Biden were made earlier regarding him v Hillary. I do agree that Trump has barely fulfilled the barest minimum, but do not subestimate the incompetence of Democrats. You are right in remembering wimps like Carter and Kerry that could not unify their party around a clear message that was not too commie nor too corporate - not to mention, the internationalism is killing its reputation, even among the non-military Northeasterners (lest we forget, they used to be pacifist nativist WASP Republicans).

    You are also right in that people do not want to minimize the state forever, the libertarian fad is passing. However, I do think people tire from ever increasing institutions and rolls of bureaucracy, the Democrat way to solve things, instead of actually articulating private and public actors with the state spending the least possible. I know, it is the state's rulers signatures and faces on bills (relatedly, why does the Fed have to intervene? it's been a mess since), but somehow the citizenry is also owned by these bills, when it is us who back the state's bills with our possessions.
  49. @Feryl

    I see you’ve never worked in politics. People don’t vote on policy – they vote on personal likability.
     
    Hmm, so I evidently hallucinated the fact that from FDR-Nixon, Americans elected presidents who mostly left the New Deal alone. And I also hallucinated that from Carter-Trump, America has elected one president after another who's dismantled the New Deal and prevented it from being rebuilt.

    Policy, and perceived competence at maintaining these policies, is what counts. LBJ got trashed (fairly or unfairly) for urban unrest and a dissatisfying war. Nixon went through hell after the CIA basically initiated a coup (w/ Nixon digging his own grave by attempting an inept cover up). Carter took the blame for America's growing dissatisfaction with the New Deal, only for Reagan and Clinton to enjoy life-long approval (from Silents and Boomers) for initiating the dismantling of the New Deal (which Carter wanted to do to some degree, but 1970's Dems would not allow it).

    You people don't give the populace enough credit for their innate understanding of which way the ideological wind is blowing. Mother Theresa could've run on Walter Mondale's platform in 1984, and Reagan still would've blown her away. "The era of big government is over".

    You people don’t give the populace enough credit for their innate understanding

    Volunteer on a few political campaigns and come back. Or go attend some campaign workshops. The first thing you learn is that personal likability is king in elections. No matter how attractive or sound the policies, most voters will not support you if they perceive you to be unlikable and indifferent to their problems. That’s why the “Would I have a beer with this guy?” test was invented. As is the saying “people don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.”

    I worked on the Hill at one point and am a veteran of several political campaigns.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  50. @Feryl

    I see you’ve never worked in politics. People don’t vote on policy – they vote on personal likability.
     
    Hmm, so I evidently hallucinated the fact that from FDR-Nixon, Americans elected presidents who mostly left the New Deal alone. And I also hallucinated that from Carter-Trump, America has elected one president after another who's dismantled the New Deal and prevented it from being rebuilt.

    Policy, and perceived competence at maintaining these policies, is what counts. LBJ got trashed (fairly or unfairly) for urban unrest and a dissatisfying war. Nixon went through hell after the CIA basically initiated a coup (w/ Nixon digging his own grave by attempting an inept cover up). Carter took the blame for America's growing dissatisfaction with the New Deal, only for Reagan and Clinton to enjoy life-long approval (from Silents and Boomers) for initiating the dismantling of the New Deal (which Carter wanted to do to some degree, but 1970's Dems would not allow it).

    You people don't give the populace enough credit for their innate understanding of which way the ideological wind is blowing. Mother Theresa could've run on Walter Mondale's platform in 1984, and Reagan still would've blown her away. "The era of big government is over".

    They vote for policies they like from people they like.
    It also depends on the stage of the campaign, and the kind of campaign/office you are running for. Some offices are more ideological than others, for example senator vs mayor.
    Presidentially, policy matters, but the candidate’s degree cool matters too, specially in primaries. If Trump had been faced by someone with his same rightwing populist ideas but even more developed, but that someone was also a shy nerd, then Trump would have bested him anyway.
    As for 2020, we will see, the similar criticisms you make of Trump v Biden were made earlier regarding him v Hillary. I do agree that Trump has barely fulfilled the barest minimum, but do not subestimate the incompetence of Democrats. You are right in remembering wimps like Carter and Kerry that could not unify their party around a clear message that was not too commie nor too corporate – not to mention, the internationalism is killing its reputation, even among the non-military Northeasterners (lest we forget, they used to be pacifist nativist WASP Republicans).

    You are also right in that people do not want to minimize the state forever, the libertarian fad is passing. However, I do think people tire from ever increasing institutions and rolls of bureaucracy, the Democrat way to solve things, instead of actually articulating private and public actors with the state spending the least possible. I know, it is the state’s rulers signatures and faces on bills (relatedly, why does the Fed have to intervene? it’s been a mess since), but somehow the citizenry is also owned by these bills, when it is us who back the state’s bills with our possessions.

  51. Also, love this graph. Notice the dip between 2010-2012, when after the Tea Party slaughter (Obamacare rollout, depths of Recession, and actual illegal kids in cages) the Left played down the extremism in order to get Barry elected. After that, Trayvon, Obergefell, le deluge.

    If anything should console your future, white Republicans, is that at least brown Democrats will be more conservative. The problem is, tearing them away from the white Democrats that tell them what to do and are actually setting them back on the path to civilization (which they have been on for less of a time). I know, we don’t wanna encourage more welfare queens… but simple stuff like a month or couple of weeks of paid family leave would be nice. It would encourage more white babies, more job openings (assuming “hire American” ever becomes more than a slogan), and happy black and Mexican mamis taking siestas. If Republicans did this, and not over the top pandering like bilingualism or the black felon thing (which only blacks can fail to give thanks to, such a huge favor – for Dems), or stopped the useless wealthy favors like repealing the death tax, or trying to get trade deals for big farmers and less deals for breadwinner manufacturers… perhaps even blacks would appreciate Republicans more.

    Oh and not going to war like Trump promised would also help – let’s see indeed, AE, if indeed the people can prevent another Iraq. Hopefully he can listen to the people; if any merit he has, even if out of sheer egotism, is feeling the popular pulse. Because, IF Trump’s numbers with minorities in 2016 show anything, it’s that enough of us can be appealed to. But, no more Ayn Rand-George Will-Rand Paul fantasies, please. If they ever work, must be in a vacuum or with bacteria, just like Engels and Marx’s fantasies. For now, it helps that Biden and that whole party is too terrible; upcoming debates should be must-watch-tv, but full of terrible people nonetheless. But people are getting progressively tired of “lesser evils”…

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS