Sunday, August 27, 2017

C'Ville, another Fake News fail

From Reuters-Ipsos polling we see that just 28.3% of respondents (n = 2,532), when asked to "Describe your understanding of the events at the 'Unite the Right' rally in the city of Charlottesville, Virginia prompted by the city’s plan to remove a monument of Confederate General Robert E. Lee", described it as "rioting and intimidation" from the Alt Right against "mostly peaceful left-wing counter protests".

What I'm referring to as the Alt Right in the preceding paragraph is referred to as "white supremacists and neo-Nazis" in the poll. The response placing the blame on the Alt Right concludes with the weaselly aforementioned "mostly peaceful left-wing counter protests", allowing those sympathetic to the left but who know about the inherent violence of the its shock troops to minimize it without too much dissonance. Antifa and BLM are sanitized in the poll as merely "left-wing counter protest[er]s".

Despite the loaded terms the poll employs, barely 1-in-4 Americans buy The Narrative.

Excluding the "don't know" and "other" responses, the distribution of perceptions among the general public:


Looks like Trump had his finger on the public pulse with the "on many sides" remark.

The president's response evinced particular fidelity to the sentiments of his supporters. The distribution among those who voted for Trump (n = 791):


Tangentially, Reuters-Ipsos humorously uses the same image of a balaclava-clad Antifa punching a Trump supporter wearing an American flag that AmRen uses for its anti-Trump hate map. While it's probably coincidental, here's to hoping it's intentionally subversive.

Reuters-Ipsos riffing off AmRen?

17 comments:

Sid said...

What's unfortunate is that much of the Trump administration is in the DC-NY-Cambridge corridor bubble. People like Ivanka, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson almost surely believe that Charlottesville was an example of organized right-wing violence against innocent, well-meaning citizens. And because they're in that bubble, they believe that the negative MSM coverage against Trump reflects the overall national mood, and they're moving rapidly to purge the remaining Bannonites within the administration. Quite fittingly, they're also working to put Trump in their information bubble.

Trump the man has had his finger on the nation's and his base's pulse, and here's to hoping the rumors that Don Jr. is keeping his father based are true.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Junior is the shitlord of the Trump clan. He's reliably demonstrated as much over the last couple of years and unlike the rest of Trump's circle, there is no removing or isolating him from Trump.

He's coming to the Ozarks this Wednesday. If that's not a sign that he's realized his base is his the only reliable support he has, I don't know what is. I'm going, btw. The advertised topic is tax reform. I'll be sure to give polite golf claps to anything touching on that, and raucous, vociferous approval in response to anything that matters.

Sid said...

AE,

Social conservatives largely got on the Trump Train. As such, I'll defer to them on issues like gun rights, abortion, and gay marriage, because they are helping on the issues that really matter to me.

In contrast, I don't think the economic conservatives (which includes self-described libertarians) ever met my concerns even half-way. They still want open borders and they make up a disproportionately high number of Never Trumpers, and usually make for the most nauseating cucks.

Frankly, tax reform, deregulation, and austerity don't serve my personal interests. I have mixed feelings about them theoretically at this point in time - maybe they were badly needed in 1980, but they're not the most pressing issues today.

If economic conservatives and libertarians agree to renounce open borders and genuinely mean it, sure, I'll defer to them on those issues. But if you gave me a choice between a democratic socialist who will shut down the borders, and a conservative who will shove "refugees" down our throats, then I'll go with Scandinavia over Latin America. Summer 2015, I told my friends I'd gladly go with Bernie Sanders over Jeb Bush once I read that Bernie denounced open borders as a Koch Brothers idea.

Dan said...

Sid, my feelings about the open borders, tax cut crowd are not mixed.

Dan said...

I can't stand the people in the White House who would purport to manage Trump. Guys like Cohn make an eloquent case for antisemitism, and I must remind myself that NAJALT.

Audacious Epigone said...

If I were consul of the US and a leftist of good faith were the other consul, I'd concede just about everything for getting everything I wanted on the National Question. Everything is downstream of immigration. It's only slightly hyperbolic to say that it's the only issue that matters.

NAJALT

I think of Stephen Miller to remind myself that if a substantial number of Jews were like him, I wouldn't have to repeat Every. Single. Time., well, just about every single time.

Sid said...

What people like Gary Cohn need to realize is that life is compromise while staying loyal to your teammates. The stock market has been doing remarkably well under Trump. Good for them, but unless elite success translates to economic prosperity for Core Americans, then it's bad for the rest of society, because increased concentrations of wealth limited to the elites gives them more license to buy out our political system.

Again, I think I speak for a lot of the Trump base when I say I'm happy to reform the tax code, deregulate businesses, and reduce the overall bureaucratic reach of the federal government. But only if I get something out of it. If I don't get immigration enforcement, a wholehearted condemnation of alt-left violence, economic development investment in America, and other things I want, then no, I'm not going to support items in your agenda if you won't return the favor.

Feryl said...

Right, so Trump has really low approval ratings.

Things to consider: America is substantially less white than it used to be; the last time a Republican president did well in approval was the first couple years after 9/11, when people of all kinds were reluctant to complain about the government. Course, America was also whiter back then and highly diverse Millennials were too young to make an impact on ratings back then.

Polls were much less useful in 2016 due to the restive climate and anti-Trump blitzing. As time's gone by, it's become less and less socially acceptable to be supportive of Trump. By the time Trump was inaugurated, the Left was recharging it's batteries, the Deep State was quietly plotting, and Joe/Jane sixpack felt a moderate surge of excitement about a new era beginning (whether they realized it or not, they knew that Obama and his Western counterparts had fractured the West). So Jan-Mar of 2017 were an anomalous period of overt public support.

Other than that brief period, it's become the rule that to the extent that pollsters contact deplorables, it's quite variable as to whether said deplorables will be truthful about support. Agnostic during the campaign did a lot posting about supporters riding an emotional roller coaster, with spikes and valleys at fairly regular intervals. In light of Left-wing terrorism and McCarthyism (Goolag, etc.), one has to surmise that even the apparent approval spikes are becoming flatter and less common. Also, the recent exodus of Trumpites must've discouraged the more woke people out there, however it's still not clear just how many Trump voters go as far as say, Breitbart, as opposed to GOP loyalists who watch Fox and don't get the de facto coup that's been developing.

Feryl said...

Lastly, the partisan split that's been growing for 30 years, and the resulting alienation of non-ideologues, makes it more difficult for the public to reach a consensus about anything. One side that's not in power feels gypped and dissed, the side in power acts like a bully, and many people get sick and tired of the animosity. While many people out there may not like Trump, most people who aren't in the cultural elite, aren't ideologues, or are older, just want a fair shake and order to be restored.

Nixon spoke of the Silent Majority because he felt that activists and snotty kids had hi-jacked the megaphone and weren't representative of an American which at that time had plenty of modest and circumspect people. The failure of hard-Left candidates in the wake of LBJ proved Nixon right. Thing is, it's not 1970 anymore. White, Christian, private unionized, everyone wears a suit and tie to the office, middle-aged people are soft-spoken, new homes are plainly functional, etc. is not what America is anymore.

We're still in the grasp of a mercenary, cynical, brash, gotta make it to the top mood. The insecurity, jealousy, arrogance, and greed of people these days makes it impossible for a substantial number of people to unite in the face of obnoxious trouble-makers. Note that the FBI surveilled and infiltrated all manner of subversive groups in the late 60's and 70's; a change of pace from today when the majority of aging legacy Leftists, who exert control over all of our institutions, shield and exploit stupid college kids. The shaming of Trump's Charlottesville reaction arises from the Left's amoral and cruel edge that's been sharpened after decades of cultural decay. An inability to hold corrupt elites accountable is an omen portending a nasty fate for elites who refuse to cooperate with the changing mood.

Just fo fun, read up on the shootouts involving Law En. and the 60's generation. Again, such a thing would be unthinkable these days, even though BLM murders and beatings and such Leftist terrorism warrant greater Law E. attention. Did even LBJ welcome the Weathermen or the Black Panthers in the manner that Obama received BLM? Then again, in the earnest and egalitarian 1960's, Leftist groups sincerely wanted to take down all of the establishment. They weren't led by sellouts looking to get a pat on the head from a magic Negro. At least in the 60's, the radicals had guts and the Silent Majority didn't take shit.

Feryl said...

"In contrast, I don't think the economic conservatives (which includes self-described libertarians) ever met my concerns even half-way. They still want open borders and they make up a disproportionately high number of Never Trumpers, and usually make for the most nauseating cucks."

They've been pushing the economic and foreign policy conservative/social liberal line since the mid 90's. Either approach is bad enough, and now that 70-80% of the cultural elite is zealously devoted to one and/or the other ideology, well, that explains a lot.

And it turns out that most cultural conservatives are middle class/blue collar, and thus are less interested in neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism, both of which are very perverted distortions of the movements from which they came. So the cuck elite brigade may try and humor the base on a cultural level, but they're being very resistant to the economic and foreign policy reforms that the base wants more than ever.

James said...

The fact that only 20.3% of Trump supporters believe the counter-protestors were to blame and 63.4% accept that both the right and left were EQUALLY to blame is scary in itself. After the melee, the right and Trump supporters were jumping all over themselves trying to virtue signal about how "anti-racist" they are. The fact that anyone actually pretends to believe in the existence of racism in Whites and in those that would oppose the decline and want to MAGA is a sign of the cognitive dissonance those who have been raised in the West don't seem to be able to free themselves from. If anyone spends anytime actually reviewing what led up to Charlottesville, the leadership that promoted it, the outside agitators and 5th column LARPers involved, and what occurred due to concerted municipal manipulation, the only conclusion you can draw is that the Right was set up to achieve the media narrative the (((elite))) wanted.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

It's easy to imagine that we're past the point of a 50%+ approval rating president forever (or at least for into the indefinite future). Obama spent most of his second term under that mark and Trump has spent--and will likely spend all of--his presidency below it.

This is yet another signal to me that the question of political dissolution is when and how, not if.

James,

Don't think we could have expected much more from Trump than we did. He employed the "alt left" rhetorical kill shot and noted "on many sides". He harpooned Antifa and now the organization will slowly bleed out over time. The WaPo of all places reported relatively honestly about the Antifa violence in Berkeley a few days okay without even trying to insinuate that it was provoked. Instead, they took the angle that Antifa infiltrated peaceful protests and then began attacking from inside of them (which is standard Antifa tactics).

Unite the Right was a total setup. Permit pulled, kill box created, police standing down. Our guys have to be smarter than they were. The torch march was perfect. That should be the template--designate a metro area for a weekend meet up, but don't disclose any details until the day before or even the first day of.

Dan said...

The onion is now lampooning Antifa:
http://www.theonion.com/article/antifa-organizers-announce-plans-disrupt-neo-nazi--56783

And Nancy Pelosi condemned them yesterday and said "You should not respond to hate with hate." I'll take it.

Its disappointing that Trump has do to the heavily lifting basically himself (with some help from conservative media).

Would it be too much to ask that 'conservative' politicians like Mitt Romney, if they can't support their side, at least keep their mouths shut? Apparently yes. Mitt Romney must shoot at his own side, every time.

Neither Ivanka nor the rest of the Trump family ever badmouthed their father during all many attacks he endured, even though they were set up many times to do so. They would be presented with the latest 'condemnable' thing dad said, they would say something like, oh dad, he can get pretty into it sometimes, but you know, politics.

Meanwhile, so many official conservatives cannot seem to grasp that simple concept. Stop shooting at your own side, morons. Even with no camera in their face and nobody asking, they have to 'issue a statement' consisting of pathetic status signaling by emptying their chamber on their own team.


Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

The "alt left" and "on many sides" were rhetorical harpoons that squarely found their Antifa targets. It was clear that a subsequent bleeding out would occur to Antifa's detriment. I must confess, though, I didn't think it would happen this quickly--WaPo (of all places) reporting on unprovoked Antifa violence, the Onion lampooning Antifa, even Nancy Pelosi getting in on the action!

Anytime Romney tweets out anything it should be responded to with floods of "different moral universes".

Audacious Epigone said...

We'd suggested here, too, that getting Antifa out to protest phantom rallies that don't materialize is tactical gold. That Onion piece gets at exactly why.

Sid said...

One of Trump's greatest strengths as a politician (and probably in other capacities) is how he can identify what his opponents will do in the near future, and then labels it before it happens. Scott Adams has labeled them as "linguistic kill shots," and argues Trump knows how to utilize the human tendency to "confirmation bias." A lot of commenters in the alt-right call it "Trump's luck," where what he says comes to pass not long after he says it. Remember when he said Sweden was crawling with terrorists, people scoffed, then a jihadi attacked some Swedes? Bingo.

Except it isn't luck. It's a skill Trump utilizes. What he does sounds like basic common sense once you lay it out explicitly: People have habits, and you can identify and label their habits before they occur. But what's common sense isn't necessarily common practice, and I think it's a talent that propelled Trump to where he is now.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Yep, that's what I was groping for with the "rhetorical harpoon". It hits and at first it doesn't seem to have done much, maybe just make Trump look like a jerk for throwing something that lands but doesn't cause any immediate damage. Over time, though, the harpoon does its work.