Thursday, February 04, 2016

Election alert voter violation

Sending messages out about an alleged but unsubstantiated last minute dropout to 1,000 or so precinct captains for them to have incorporated into caucus location speeches prior to voting is slimy and evinces a lack of integrity.

For one, it'd be absurd to drop out the day of a caucus or primary. Instead, people drop out the following day because that caucus or primary is the last one on a candidate's record and, irrespective of what his next move is, it's always better for him if the numbers in that showing are higher rather than lower. Secondly, these are putative rock-ribbed Fox News-loving Republicans who are interpreting an insinuation from CNN as gospel truth?

But this "election alert voter violation" mailer takes the sleaze to another level:

It's impossible to spin away as anything other than a blatant attempt at coercing--through deception and perceived duress--low-information voters into showing up at caucus locations, many of whom presumably knew little about the caucus they'd shown up to participate in.

In a primary, this would be a questionable tactic from a strictly results-oriented perspective, since the people flushed out to the polls in this manner would just end up clueless in front of a list of names on a screen, but the Iowa caucuses are public. People make pitches for the candidates they're supporting, and campaign volunteers are crawling all over the place.

Ted Cruz, having campaigned for years in the state, had the most expansive ground game and the widest amount of personal contact with caucus participants of anyone in the GOP field. His people were everywhere, and they presumably all knew about these mailers. It's conceivable that they were on the lookout for people unsure of what they needed to do to make right this "voter violation" before "a follow-up notice" was "issued following Monday's caucuses" to them.

Unlike the shifty Carson play, Cruz didn't grovel on the mailer:
Cruz, however, was defiant to reporters when asked about the mailer in Sioux City, Iowa, on Saturday night.

"I will apologize to no one for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote," he said.
Keep your eye on the prize, (t)Eddie Cruz!

Parenthetically, as Heartiste pointed out, the results head-scratcher comes not from Cruz's performance, but from Rubio's. The polling averages were actually quite accurate across the board--off by a couple of percentage points here and there--except for Trump and Rubio. Trump's polling numbers putatively turned out to be over-hyped by over 4 points while Rubio's were more than 6 points worse than his caucus-day performance.

The narrative of fence-sitting Trump supporters switching to Rubio at the last minute is almost inconceivable, so why were the data so off the mark when it came to these two while managing to get it just about right on everybody else?

Wednesday, February 03, 2016

Mother knows best

From a Pew report entitled "Parenting in America":

In this case, (educated white) mother knows best.

NAMs are more likely to attribute their children's outcomes to the specifics of their parental approaches than whites are. That's a recipe for perpetual frustration and heartache. Beyond making sure basic needs are met, a parent's two most important jobs are in choosing the other half of the genetic equation and ensuring the child gets in with a desirable peer group. (In fairness, for single-parent NAMs just getting these fundamentals nailed down is often a challenge. Coming up short is a real problem that may lead some to, understandably, attribute their children's shortcomings to their failures in this regard).

That's it. Everything else is qualitative, subjective stuff. Enjoy the journey.

Tuesday, February 02, 2016

Cuck yeah!

Jack Cashill, a fantastic investigative journalist who has turned up a lot of big stories that would've otherwise gone unnoticed, is my favorite cuckservative. But a cuckservative he is:

Because liberals are the real racists.

One upshot of this trend is that a higher percentage of white Americans will be able to run for office in the future and they will be pitching themselves to progressively larger electorates! On the other hand, non-whites won't have anyone to vote for them!

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Iowa cucks

Some 99%--and that's not hyperbole--of Iowa's Republican caucus-goers are white. Here are candidate favorability percentages among Iowa Republicans from the last poll to be released before voting takes place tomorrow:

Do not underestimate the implicit self-loathing of even the most outwardly patriotic, traditionalist pink skins. The inchoate identitarianism that seemed so salient in 2015 is still a long, long way from maturity.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Sanders now holds slight edge among white Democrats while Hillary leads substantially among non-whites

I've predicted that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination because non-whites, especially blacks, won't vote for a carpetbagging Jew from lily white, rural Vermont who appeals to white college kids, and white Democrats won't vote for a candidate that black Democrats don't like.

That prediction is looking more precarious by the day (but hey, I do this for fun, while Nate Silver makes a living doing it, so cut me more slack than you cut him!). The first part is holding up--that non-whites won't back Sanders--but the second part--that liberal whites won't contradict non-whites--appears tenuous. Support among white Democrats in the latest Reuters/Ipsos five-day national tracking poll:

The same, among non-white Democrats:

The Clinton campaign's criticism of Bernie Sanders' implicit whiteness is drawn into sharper focus.

If having my powers of prognostication humbled is collateral damage in the process of the Coalition of the Fringes tearing itself apart, I'll suffer those slings every day!