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?