Saturday, April 02, 2016

Support for free trade now a Democrat talking point?

Pew recently released a report on the intersection of presidential campaigning and the American cultural landscape that contains several interesting insights for those who enjoy that sort of thing. This graphic is especially worth taking a look at:

On identitarian issues Trump and Sanders supporters are worlds apart. Immigration launched Trump's campaign and it continues to be the primary reason the CultMarx left hates him so viscerally.

There had been some quixotic hope given his antagonism towards the interlocked global financial network and his criticism of the Federal Reserve bank cartel that Sanders, a la Cesar Chavez in his earlier days, might have represented a leftist perspective (relatively) unenthusiastic about mass migration into the Western world in general and the US in particular. If his abysmal NumbersUSA report card didn't dash those hopes entirely though, his rhetoric over the course of the campaign has.
I got to see Sanders' open
border bona-fides first-hand

A similar pattern emerges on the other identitarian question about Muslims being subjected to more scrutiny.

When it comes to military interventionism, nation-building, and the messianic spreading of democracy, however, Trump and Sanders are on one side while Cruz, Kasich, and Clinton are on the other.

Neocon presidential preference runs as follows: Kasich, Clinton, Cruz. When it comes to invading and inviting the world, the first two are totally on board, and while Cruz is iffy on the latter requirement, he compensates for it by felatting the pro-Israel lobby harder and deeper than anyone else. Unsurprisingly, many neocons will support Clinton if it's her and Trump in November.

For the sake of completeness, the neocons would almost unanimously push for an independent to run or disavow the election entirely if it came down to Trump and Sanders. A few might grudgingly back Trump on the chance that he turns out to malleable on invading the world, but they'd be in the neocon minority.

Americans by and large want the gargantuan welfare programs to stay in place. Social Security alone accounts for one-quarter of the federal government's annual spending, dwarfing so-called "discretionary spending" that is occasionally talked about being reduced (but that never actually is reduced). The only way the welfare state dies is by collapsing under its own weight.

The widest partisan divide is on health care. That Trump apparently maintains his support for an insurance mandate--the single most unpopular part of Obamacare--even though his supporters hate it is a testament to how unconventional his approach has been.

Cruz is the pro-life movement's remaining champion. It is why despite the hesitancy and awkwardness of its delivery, I was skeptical that Trump's putative 'gaffe' on abortion would hurt him in the Republican primaries as punditry across the political spectrum emphatically said it would.

Ben Shapiro, who fellates Cruz as well as Cruz fellates AIPAC, criticized Trump's remarks--remarks that are the unavoidable conclusion for anyone who thinks abortion is murder and that murder should be punished--resulting in a sympathetic readership tearing Shapiro to shreds in the comments.

Since last night, parenthetically, the top story on Reuters' polling website has been the following:

They'll try to conflate Trump's impending loss in Wisconsin--one of the cuckiest states in the country--with his alleged 'war-on-women' rhetoric, but we'll know better.

Finally, the most stunning bit of information in Pew's report is the data on 'free' trade. When it comes to trade, Pat Buchanan is getting the last laugh, as the Republican electorate is now more skeptical of trade than Democrats are.

When did this reversal occur? Is this election the first stark illustration of the political realignment that has occurred on trade?


Santoculto said...

Angry with assassin government

6% of extreme libtoid



they are still feeling (the cock of) current president,

so cute, ;)

if were bush,

very likely that would be the otherwise...

pithom said...

"The widest partisan divide is on health care. That Trump apparently maintains his support for an insurance mandate"

-Wasn't he talking about the mandate for insurance companies to provide coverage in case of pre-existing conditions, one of the most popular parts of the ACA?

pithom said...

Also, I just don't see any unfavorables for Trump in Wisconsin. Vermont, heavily English, is genuinely one of the cuckiest states in the country, and they heavily went against Cruz and went for Kasich (though Kasich only got a close second). Wisconsin is heavily German, and Trump placed first in a bunch of heavily German counties in Missouri and Illinois. Trump might lose Wisconsin, but I can't really forecast how. Maybe the polls are wrong. Who knows? We'll see. Trump did a really good performance in his rallies today. Sounded really populist. He does better when he isn't behind a podium.

"When did this reversal occur?"

-Maybe never. Republicans were always the traditional party of protection, while the Dems were always the traditional party of freer trade. Then the legislators of the two parties suddenly switched positions sometime in the 1950s-1980s, but maybe the GOP base consistently remained protectionist (and the Dem base consistently remained for freer trade)? Or maybe it's just an Obama thing. All I know is that the Dems sounded way more protectionist than the GOP candidates in the debates, though the GOP candidates sounded very protectionist, too.

Audacious Epigone said...


Great point, worth emphasizing. The same trend shows up in other polling data on government approval.


In the clarification of his initial commentary he did. But without the coverage mandate the coercive power goes away and Obamacare dies. He's since renounced support for any of it, including the mandate.

As my comments make obvious, I'm not well grounded on the details, but the way I understand it is 1) Obamacare is wildly unpopular among GOP voters, and 2) Obamacare doesn't work without the individual mandate.

Iowa and Kansas are heavily German, too, and Trump fared poorly in both. The German (and Scandinavian) states of Minnesota, Nebraska, and the Dakotas are also going to be bad for him. (Non-Mormon) English is much better--he won Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, and rather surprisingly lost Maine (although less than 2% of the eligible adult population voted in the Republican caucuses in that state--if it were an open primary Trump would've won it). Pennsylvania is an outlier if he wins, which I think he will, but I'm not confident he'd be able to without Kasich in. The rest of the English/Irish/Italian northeast will be easy.

The West Coast is a question mark, but I'd guess his relative performance will go California->Oregon->Washington, and that he'll win California but lose the other two.

He narrowly lost the German-plurality counties in Missouri but made up for it by comfortably winning the Scots-Irish "American" south central part of the state.

Watched his rally in Wassau (sp?). Yes, he was on his A-game extemporaneously monologuing. I've watched several of his rallies so far, and this is no deviation. He is always at his best up there.

The Z Blog said...

One of the least discussed topics is the collapse of American Liberalism as a coherent economic platform. Their arguments are mostly just symbolic stuff like the minimum wage and complaining about the wage gap. Otherwise, there's little daylight between the establishment Left and Right.

Look at Obama. He pushed for tax hikes, but was willing to settle for symbolic rollback of the evil Bush tax cuts, which never amounted to much anyway. Obama is otherwise a globalist like most of the GOP. The same is true when it comes to domestic spending. Obama and the GOP agree on most everything.

Anonymous said...

Dems see the economic interests at work but won't associate it with the federal government. It's maddening

pithom said...

"Iowa and Kansas are heavily German, too, and Trump fared poorly in both."

-Those were caucuses. Trump, like Hillary, has a caucus disadvantage. Especially in Kansas, which had a caucus in the early morning (?)

"The West Coast is a question mark, but I'd guess his relative performance will go California->Oregon->Washington, and that he'll win California but lose the other two."

-Plausible, but if he does, it's really difficult for him to get to 1237.

"He narrowly lost the German-plurality counties in Missouri but made up for it by comfortably winning the Scots-Irish "American" south central part of the state."

-Yes; he won Southeast Missouri handily, but also German-plurality Chariton, Franklin, St. Genevieve, Perry, and Osage counties in Missouri, as well as Adams, Randolph, Washington, and Clinton counties in Illinois. His German disadvantage isn't huge.

"He is always at his best up there."


Audacious Epigone said...


Latest WI poll, by ARG, has Trump up by a staggering 10 points. It is only 60% Republican but Trump's lead among them is wider in the poll than it is among independents so I'm suspicious about the reliability. If I am off the mark here, though, I will have never been so glad to have been so wrong!

Audacious Epigone said...

KS caucus was 10am-2pm. Servers crashed. I spoke for Trump at a caucus location at 10 (alongside Rick Santorum) and didn't end up voting until almost 1 in the afternoon. Many people left because the lines were stagnant for about two hours.

Santoculto said...

Would be interesting analyse if Sanders and Hillary supporters differ one each other considerably, relatively or little. Sanders supporters are basically Portlandia type (i'm little like that, hihihihihi, just at some very deep cultural aspects) and Killary supporters are basically, well, difficult to speculate in this case. I think that Jayman already wrote this matter.

Based on a spectrum of smart attitudes/choices/ideas, for a liberal, to vote for Sanders look irresistibly better than vote for Hillary by very obvious reasons.

The people who declare themselves as ''anti-system'' are those who appears to be completely pro-system but only when their favorite candidate is in the presidency.

Trump supporters look by now much more anti-system than other groups in the american politics.