Wednesday, December 13, 2017

Bittersweet home Alabama

Paul Kersey nailed it:


This is predictably being spun as a big loss for Trump.

Indeed, Trump could not have played the state any worse than he did--endorsing the loser in the primary, withholding an endorsement and staying mum on the GOPe's not mere abandonment but opposition to Moore until the 11th hour, endorsing Moore at said 11th hour, and then seeing Moore lose in a state that gave Trump one of his largest margins last November. Sad!

These are tactical errors largely attributable to Trump playing nice with the GOPe, however. The exit polling shows that the long game looks promising for MAGA Republicanism. Among those who voted yesterday, 48% approve of Trump. By comparison, 43% have a favorable opinion of the Republican party and just 16% (!) have a favorable opinion of Mitch McConnell.

Trump is more popular than the GOP brand. Consequently, said brand is being dragged, kicking and screaming, away from both the 'bible-thumping' religiosity of Roy Moore and the Chamber of Commerce cuckery of Ed Gillespie. The two recent high-profile Republican defeats were not of populist MAGA men but of, separately, values voters and big business, two factions of the Republican coalition whose glory days are in the past and for whom the future looks grim.

Additionally, Trump's last-minute endorsement probably helped Moore. It wasn't enough to close the gap (that Fox News, to its credit, appeared to have identified), but it likely did the judge more good than harm:



Those sitting on the fence until the end broke decisively for Moore, and those who said Trump factored into their voting decisions favored Moore over Jones by a 3-to-2 margin.

Takeaway for Team Trump? Get behind MAGA men (and women) in the 2018 mid-terms.

Parenthetically, blacks were clearly a lot more enthused than whites, especially rural whites. Sparsely populated Winston county, to the northwest of Birmingham, saw turnout cut nearly in half from 2016 to 2017 (with the latter year bringing out just 55% of what last November did). In contrast, Jefferson county, which includes Birmingham, saw turnout this time around that was 76% of 2016's. I've only eyeballed figures from county to county, but this appears to be a pretty consistent pattern across the state.

Finally, to end on a positive note, we keep hearing (and hoping!) that Gen Z, the generation with its back against the wall, may just be the one that delivers us all. In that vein, then, some encouragement:


Those under 25 (the oldest Zs are currently 22) went more heavily for Moore than those in their later twenties and those in their thirties did. Keep in mind that the younger the cohort, the less white the cohort, so this suggests that the front wave of white Zs went 10+ points stronger for Moore than white millennials did, and about as strongly for him as white Xers did. And this not for a god-emperor shitlord but for a stodgy old tradcon who wore a cowboy hat and rode a horse to vote!

41 comments:

DissidentRight said...

He could win a divided GOP primary, but he could’t unite them when it mattered.

If the scandal had broke before the primary, Moore would not have won the primary.

We can’t say for sure that a comparable scandal would have defeated a different candidate (like Mo Brooks), but I don’t see why not. The problem isn’t the candidate. The problem is the base. Evangelicals have a hypocrisy complex. We’re working on it.

Let this brand of conservatism die.

The Yankee Imperium is going to collapse under its own deadweight in a generation, give or take. Two generations at the latest. The Religious Right will still be here. We have birthrates on our side, after all. Play nice, don't punch right.

Dan said...

I don't know if voting three times reduced turnout. There was a first primary, and then a highly contested primary, and then the third time out.

How many people voted on all three days? Probably a good number of Moore supporters blew their wad the first couple of times around and didn't push as hard the third time around. It is hard to build excitement 3 times around.

It wasn't simply the scandal. Moore was up by only like 8 points before the scandal.

The primaries should have a simple rule: the runner up backs the winner.

The GOPe are turds. But Moore may not have helped his cause by attacking McConnell. I mean, he needed McConnell's money and support at the same time.

McConnell isn't all bad. He held the Gorsuch seat.


Feryl said...

Divorce (Yes?), Marital (Never Married?)
Every GSS Year after age 40

cohort(1900-1909), race(1), sex(2)
Divorced, Yes: 12.7%
Never Married: 4.1%

1910-1919 (GSS Years: 1973-2016)
Divorced, Yes: 15.2%
Never Married: 4.3%

1920-1929 (GSS Years: 1973-2016)
Divorced, Yes: 15.8%
Never Married: 2.6%

1930-1939 (GSS Years: 1979-2016)
Divorced, Yes: 20.7%
Never Married: 2.6%

1940-1949 (GSS Years: 1989-2016)
Divorced, Yes - 29.8%
Never Married: 4.0%

1950-1959 (GSS Years: 1999-2016)
Divorced, Yes - 35.9%
Never Married: 6.8%

1960-1969 (GSS Years: 2009-2016)
Yes: 28%
Never Married: 10.5%

The 1950's and 60's cohort is likely to have even more divorces in the future. Yikes. Economically speaking, go figure that the most privileged cohort (those born from 1920-1940) is also the most likely to have ever been married. The 1960's cohort really seems like a train wreck, given nearly 1/3 have been divorced even though 1/10 have never married in the first place!

Rather than get into airheaded discussions about society's moral values supposedly changing, it's safe to say that economic difficulties make it much more difficult to keep a family together. Those born in the 20's and 30's could've noticed the changing culture of the 60's and beyond, and said, bleep it, I'm getting outta this marriage to have more fun elsewhere. But they opted not to, probably because they felt secure in their finances, and with security comes satisfaction. We shouldn't confuse hedonism with bickering over money, or disappointment that your husband got laid off at the factory, can't find an equally rewarding job doing something else, or is in or near retirement age with no savings and little to no pension.

Tom said...

I don't dispute your numbers for a second (I wouldn't dream of it) but I dispute your analysis of the electoral motivation. I think the thing that lost this election was weaponized 'sexual misconduct' allegations. And come 2018, I'll bet we can expect allegations against greater than 50% of all Republican candidates baseless or otherwise. If we know one thing about the Democrats it's that when they get a tactic that will win them elections, they will use it until it stops working. There are no rules of war for the left.

Feryl said...

GSS variables I used for the above: DIVORCE and MARITAL

Feryl said...

Tom: if nearly everyone is accused, the accusations will start falling flat. The novelty wears off, and hell, it will come off as too commonplace to get worked up about it.

A lot of flamboyant men have done a lot of carousing; one thing we need to keep in mind (but amid the hysteria, good luck with this) is the vast difference between Al Franken touching a boob in a social setting and Harvey Weinsten locking a door, throwing a women down, and forcing sex on her.

Introverted/reserved men don't have anything to worry about (and most men born in the 70's and 80's are more likely to have this personality than are Boomers, and besides, people were much more tolerant of carousing in the 70's and 80's than they are now).

Some of the allegations have more credibility than others. Many of the Trump allegations never rang true to these ears, and some of their stories didn't objectively add up. That helped Trump deflect them (most Lefties hate Trump on account of him being a con man, a liar, an idiot, and a Russian dupe, not because he attacks or insults women). They also hate Trump because they think he single-handedly created a neo-Nazi movement (which is conflated with all manner of niche and nascent Right wing movements).

DissidentRight said...

Tom: if nearly everyone is accused, the accusations will start falling flat. The novelty wears off, and hell, it will come off as too commonplace to get worked up about it.

Exactly. As white evangelical candidates continue to get hit with sex accusations, the base will start to toughen up. In particular the kids who consume alt-media. The Xers and Boomers will be slower. Pain is the only way to learn. Christians aren't exempt.

Tom said...

Feryl & DR: These are good points and in the fullness of time, I don't dispute them. Eventually everything wears off, even the RACIST!!! charge. The question is whether there will still be enough 'sexual misconduct' hysteria in the 2018 election for it to sway a small number of female voters. My contention is that it absolutely will.

More than that, I think the Democrats will whip this horse till it's dead. Then it will whip the carcass, and then it will whip the bones, and then it will whip the spot where the bones fell. They will do absolutely everything they can to keep this hysteria going as long as it serves their purposes. And since a portion of unmarried women see this hysteria as an act of empowerment (taking power away from men) they too will do all they can to support greater and greater hysteria.

The Republicans will be cast as the party of rapists, and rape apologists. Trump-ish, alt-ish candidates will react correctly, which is to say, by ignoring it without apology. But the traditional Republicans will make the mistake of apology and genuflection, the same as always.

So who do you think we'll see running in 2018? Traditional "peace through unconditional surrender to the left" Republicans, or Trump-ish candidates?


Tom said...

It's not pertinent to the point, but I've just seen from my morning news brief that Rush agrees with me:

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/12/13/the-sexual-harassment-weapon-worked-for-democrats-in-alabama-and-they-will-continue-to-use-it/

Black Death said...

As far as this election goes, Ann Coulter nails it pretty well:

Rep. Mo Brooks was the true Trumpian candidate in Alabama, which is why I endorsed him in the primary. When the accusations against Roy Moore first arose, I proposed that the president make a deal to replace Moore with Brooks.

Obviously, the GOP would be in a much better position right now if only Republicans had learned to hang on my every word.

Instead, everyone did exactly the wrong thing, and they got the worst of all possible worlds.

Trump should have endorsed Brooks in the primary, but he endorsed Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's pro-amnesty candidate, Luther Strange, on the advice of his son-in-law. Because who knows Alabama politics better than Jared Kushner? (I guess we can scratch the expression, "As goes Kushner, so goes Alabama!")

Now Trump has lost twice in a state that voted for him by a nearly 3-to-1 margin over Hillary just last year. Apparently, Trump's voters won't blindly follow him, whatever he does. I wonder if this is relevant information for the midterms ...

McConnell spent millions upon millions of dollars in nasty ads to defeat Mo Brooks in the primary, because Brooks takes sensible positions on immigration.

Can't have that! McConnell pulled out all the stops to block Brooks, so he could keep big donors rolling in cheap foreign workers. Soon they'll have all the labor they need -- and a federal government run by Hugo Chavez. The Chamber of Commerce is "diversifying" Republicans out of their jobs.

Thanks to McConnell's brilliant strategy of opposing Brooks, now he's stuck with another Democrat -- and a razor-thin Senate majority. McConnell fully deserves to lose his majority, but the rest of us don't deserve the horror of a Democratic Senate. Unfortunately, I can't figure out a way to do one and avoid the other.

....

Roy Moore was a terrible candidate who ran an awful campaign. As far as the accusations of sexual misconduct are concerned, I don't know wheter they are true or not. The alleged misdeeds took place forty years ago and the woman who made the initial complaint was called a chronic liar by her stepson, who said he was voting for Moore. As far as "dating teenage girls" is concerned, the age of consent in Alabama is 16, so even if they had sex, as long as it was consenual, no crime was committed. Also, the way the story developed was suspicious. The initial report appeared in the Trump-hating, Republican-hating, Moore-hating WaPo, after the hotly contested primary but before the general election. Suspicious, to say the least. So, definite maybe to the whole thing.

As Ann Coulter points out, Trump should have stuck with Mo Brooks from the beginning. Mitch McConnell is trying to resurrect the Whig wing of the Republican party - he needs to go, along with his open-borders, Chamber of Commerce backers.

The interesting thing to observe is how the winner, Doug Jones, plays this out. Alabama went for Trump by nearly 3:1, and if Jones throws in with the rest of the lib-Dems in Congress and faces a strong Republican opponent in 2020, he is doomed. Will he vote with the Republicans or even switch to their party? Stay tuned....

Feryl said...

Tom:

Given the depth and breadth of accusations (that have been leveled at many liberals and have greatly affected the very liberal media/entertainment complex), I think the current hysteria is rooted mainly in two things:

1) People born after circa 1970 have been conditioned to think ill of flamboyant and adventurous men; the more virtuous assumption.

2) Many Gen X-ers and Millennials in highly competitive fields (media, entertainment, politics) are sick and tired of 50-60-70 year old men hogging the limelight, and now that a couple big fish have been hooked (mainly Weinstein) it's encouraged many once quiet "victims" to speak up, given that the former disincentives for doing so (like being intimidated and black listed) are no longer in place. This the cynical assumption.

Also, many 30 and 40 something players in these industries are getting genuinely tired of Boomer antics and, ya know, BAMN. Trump's excessive persona (which as 2016/2017 election results show is least bothersome to people 50 and older) may have been the key to unlocking the closet containing many skeletons. Many X-er and Millennial women in particular are probably in "payback" mode right now; all the times they got leered at and groped by a Boomer sleazeball and wished it didn't have to be this way. I don't agree with the PUA type idea (often promoted by Boomers) that many/most of these women got some kind of thrill out of being hit on (or preyed on) by horny middle aged and elderly men. At best, most of these women just accepted the sleaze as part of the cost of being in a particular field.

Feryl said...

Note: X-er and Millennial women were the ones grossed out. Boomer women are more amorous and bold than Millennial men (note that the hysteria over sexual harassment first appeared in the 1990's, when Gen X women entered the workforce in large numbers). Which generation gave us AIDS, after all?

DissidentRight said...

So who do you think we'll see running in 2018? Traditional "peace through unconditional surrender to the left" Republicans, or Trump-ish candidates?

Trumpish. As people have pointed out, the fact that Moore is populist doesn’t make him Trumpian. Trump wants to MAGA, and he’ll back candidates that he feels back him.

DissidentRight said...

I don't agree with the PUA type idea (often promoted by Boomers) that many/most of these women got some kind of thrill out of being hit on (or preyed on) by horny middle aged and elderly men. At best, most of these women just accepted the sleaze as part of the cost of being in a particular field.

Boomer solipsism is best solipsism.

thekrustykurmudgeon said...

@Dissident Right - while it is true evangelicals have had a higher birthrate - it hasn't really translated into anything so far. They're grip on america writ-large and even the gop has declined since the bush era.

@Feryl - obviously this would be impossible to find but it'd be interesting to see where the divide is within the 1940s. My guess is that there is a huge uptick in divorcing or never marrying around 1943 or 1944 which is sort of where the demarcation point is between the people who were in the counterculture and those who were too old or too busy raising a family.

DissidentRight said...

krusty - True. Obviously the Religious Right needs to come to grips with the fact that we are no longer "the Right". This will become increasingly true as more whites swing Trumpward: our share of the Right can only decrease. This doesn’t even count the significant secularization of the young generations, or the fact that Xeno Americans have nothing in common with the Religious Right.

Nevertheless, we will at least remain a significant portion of the MAGA voter base (perhaps a plurality?) up through the economic collapse of the Yankee Imperium, and a dominant political force in regions like Alabama.

Feryl said...

Women born later on aren't marrying as much because they can't find suitable men like older generations did. Men who entered the workforce in the 1930's and 1940's were blessed with low living costs and great jobs by the 1950's. Many of these men felt comfortable marrying at a pretty young age (which is why women from these generations have high marriage rates).

The "counter-culture" is over-rated. There were increasing economic difficulties for the generations born after 1940, caused by many problems (high immigration levels, elites ripping out good jobs, wages and benefits and pensions being hammered down, aging people hogging too many jobs, etc.) that older generations mostly avoided. And it's these economic difficulties that explain why the post-1940'ers are getting divorced more often or or not getting married at all. People born in 1935 were 25 when the 60's started; that's still a fairly impressionable age, yet people born in the 20's and 30's felt financially secure enough to want to maintain their marriages.

Elite Boomers can dwell on cultural issues all they want, but the lion's share of Boomers (e.g., blue collar and middle-middle class Boomers) know in their bones that the middle class paradise from which they arose (the 50's and 60's) was destroyed in the 70's and 80's, and much oxygen and ink has been spent by the Boomers in their effort to discover (and argue over) just what went wrong at some point in the 70's.

X-ers and Millennials just take it for granted that everything has always sucked, that elites have their little clubs where they plot to rob us blind, and so forth. We don't even have the luxury of having been a child/teen in the sunny 50's and 60's, let alone gotten to experience what the Silent generation did (being a young adult in the 50's and 60's).

What Silents experienced (the high point of the modern West) was extremely exceptional, something to not happen to damn near any other generation before or since. Silent and Boomer leaders could've done so much more to prevent us from sliding further into the abyss, but nope, wasn't gonna happen. Trump stood for a lot of things to bring us back, but legions of people born in the 30's-60's have no intention of heeding his best advice. Not when the FBI can openly engage in the most farcically slanted sham of an investigation that I've ever seen.

A Texan said...

Moore was an imperfect candidate, but GOpe spent a lot of money trying to defeat him in the primary. Why?

The Democrats had to register black felons to come out and vote for their candidate, so there was no real win here.

Audacious Epigone said...

Dan,

It wasn't simply the scandal. Moore was up by only like 8 points before the scandal.

There were a confluence of things that led to the defeat--the accusations, the lack of GOPe support (and money), the poor campaigning by Moore, the hard push to rile up blacks with Obama robo calls, and the bible-thumping religious right persona. All these things combined were just enough to bring him down. Remove one or two of them and Moore probably wins.

The primaries should have a simple rule: the runner up backs the winner.

That's what the Sanders side did in the general election, and again with Perez over Ellison. For the GOP to become America First, this internecine fighting will have to happen. Short-term losses for longer term gains. Upon reflection, that's how I'm viewing this election.

Feryl,

It's nice to see that broken out in the GSS. Divorce rates have actually been declining for awhile now, though that's at least in some part due to a greater reduction in marriage rates down the class ladder than up it over the last several decades.

Tom,

As alluded to above, that's part of it, and fixing any of the parts that caused Moore to come up short could have been enough to see him win. It's certainly relevant.

Undoubtedly that will be a tactic the left uses in 2018. But they used it against Trump, too, and it wasn't enough. With the exceptions of some inconsistencies early on--he should've just said "I never did anything inappropriate. I'm not going to answer questions about minute details from four decades ago. No one can be expected to remember things like that precisely"--Moore handled the accusations pretty well. He took a page out of the Trump playbook and fought back. That's what MAGA men need to do in 2018.

Over time, as DissidentRight notes, values voters on the right will learn to do the same.

Black Death,

Yes, Mo Brooks would've been ideal. He is the MAGA populist of the three--Strange being the CoC suck and Moore the religious right rep--and he is an acceptable figure for 'moderate' Republicans because he's been in the House for awhile. Maybe in 2020.

DissidentRight/Krusty,

Everything is downstream of immigration. If we can get unity on the National Question, we can accommodate a lot of other differences.

A Texan,

When Senate legislation is a vote away from bringing Pence in to break the deadlock, as will invariably happen between now and next year, it's imperative that McConnell be blamed. He is responsible for it and should be treated accordingly.

Jim Bowery said...

Democrat turnout was down 10% from the 2016 presidential election.

Republican turnout was down 50%.

While it is certainly reasonable to hypothesize a variety of alternative explanations that can all add up to such a disparity, it is also quite reasonable to ask "WTF!?"

Audacious Epigone said...

Jim,

Indeed. It is a curious thing. Quite curious.

Otoh, a lot of upper crust whites were embarrassed by Moore (Paul Kersey said the same thing, and he grew up there). It's anecdotal of course, but I have an aunt and uncle who live in Birmingham (suburbs of) who were big Trump supporters and lifelong Republicans. When I emailed my aunt urging her to vote against Strange in the primaries, she told me if Moore won she'd be voting for Jones. Seemed very strange to me but I'm not 'on the ground' there. In short, this result isn't as implausible to me as it is to a lot of others.

Audacious Epigone said...

Also, in 2012 and 2008, all the Republican institutions were behind the McCain and Romney cucks. Not so this time.

Feryl said...

And if some Boomers were reluctant to vote for a damaged goods candidate straight outta the 90's culture wars, how do you suppose X-ers and Millennials felt about it? You can't blame voters, moderate or conservative, who didn't feel compelled to show up. BTW, the race was still really close anyway. The GOP will field a much better candidate in 2020, and the GOP will take back the state unless Doug Jones starts defying elites and goes all in on populism.

DissidentRight said...

AE,

That's a remarkable anecdote considering how easily Moore won the primary. Turnout was low, far lower than expected, so it must have been Moore's people who turned out. Major case of buyer's remorse after the scandal.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/08/how_low_was_alabamas_voter_tur.html

Sid said...

Feryl,

Doug Jones is just a Schumer puppet, but he was competent enough to not go around tanking his popularity whenever he spoke. I can't say the same of that loser Roy Moore.

God willing, we'll hang tight until 2020 and then Mo Brooks will promptly win the Senate seat.

For 2018, Trump should push ahead with an infrastructure bill, which would include building the Wall. Of course all 49 Democrats will oppose it, but then the Dems would have to answer to the white working class why they don't support a bill that would be a godsend for them. Of course, the Republicans will probably push for entitlement reform. Here's to hoping they smart up.

Audacious Epigone said...

Feryl,

And if it's not enough in Alabama, where will it be enough?

DissidentRight,

Could be. It was especially memorable to me because of how taken aback I was by her reaction. Her possible support for Jones (I don't know how she actually voted, I'll ask when I talk to her next) was predicated entirely on his personal history, not his politics. If that, too, is fairly characteristic--as it almost has to be--then Jones will probably get crushed in 2020 after a couple of years of developing a voting record.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

The wall, or lack thereof, will be a referendum on his first term just as his candidacy was a referendum on a wall.

Sid said...

AE,

Trump can win if he builds the Wall, and win big if he creates infrastructure programs for the WWC.

Trump isn't going to get a single vote if he focuses on entitlements in 2018, and he's going to lose plenty of them if he signs onto DACA.

Simply put, Trump wins if he makes Americans rich, and he loses if impoverishes Americans on behalf of immigrants. It's that simple.

(Granted, I'm fine with entitlement reform if it means making some adjustments now that will keep us solvent over the long haul, but it's really not an election year issue - save it for 2019 or 2021 - and cutting Social Security and Medicare would be disastrous for Republican electability.)

Random Dude on the Internet said...

Maybe this is me with my head in the sand but I didn't think the election turned out all that bad. The media went all in against Moore for two straight months and despite the outright lies, obvious voter fraud, and upwards of $100 million spent against him, he still lost by 1.5% of the vote. That is obviously unsustainable for the midterms and a sign that the Democrats are in serious trouble for the 2018 midterms if this is the best they could do despite the entire system pushing against Moore, who was not a very strong candidate.

The biggest takeaway in my opinion is that the religious right is every bit as bad as the cuckservatives for different reasons. Moore spent almost no time talking about the issues that white working class Americans actually care about and instead talked about religion. As we saw with the 2016 primaries, just thumping the bible isn't good enough anymore. Moore's campaign would have worked gangbusters in the 90s and early 2000s but not when the stakes are as high as they are now for the People Who Matter (whites).

Feryl said...

As long as the (economic) populist call goes unheeded among the GOP leadership, poof, there goes stringent immigration controls. The last time a GOP president "efforted" immigration security with the full cooperation of his party was Eisenhower.

And logistics and legalities only matter so much; what counts is an ability and willingness to enforce a particular agenda. Since Sun Belt elites (outside of California) and Midwestern resource lords remain fairly faithful to the GOP, and since the public at-large doesn't want iron clad security and protection from aliens like they did in the 1950's, we're still getting heavy resistance from both party's elites against populist immigration control. Not helping matters today is that whereas in the 50's, many "ethnic" 1st or 2nd generation white Americans were partly or fully in tune with legacy WASP Americans, we just aren't seeing a similar thing develop among Mestizos, Arabs, Asians, etc. these days.

Under the watch of the GOP, we saw an increase in immigrant quantity and a decrease in immigrant quality in the early 70's, the 1980's, and the 2000's. Either the immigration laws were bad, or if they were good, they weren't enforced effectively (and esp. back in the 70's and 80's, the president, perhaps with some resistance, could've led a charge to keep more aliens out; remember, it wasn't until the 90's that most elites bought into misty-eyed blank slatism and PC) . Interestingly, this "pays off" as increased terrorism and "ethnic" activism under a Dem regime (foreigners perped a lot of terrorist attacks and/or POC riots increased in the late 70's, the 1990's, and the 2010's). The GOP has totally lost it's mind on national security; we engage in gratuitous wars, are insufficiently selective about alien entry, and some very GOP aligned industries (corrections, defense contractors, security equipment and weapons makers) laugh their way to the bank instead of preventing the entry of dangerous people in the first place (which would limit the ability of conservative elites to make money; remember Robocop from '87, in which corporations make alliances with criminals and cynically expose cops to dangerous situations).

The aforementioned elites (esp. resource lords) can't get enough of cheap labor, so why do you suppose the Kock Bros and such want to restrict immigration? Face it, we've been sold out by a generation(s) of people born from the 1930's-1960's, who are refusing to do anything that would restore the country to what it was in these older generation's youth. Any wonder why interest in actual communism has surged in young people? People under 45/40 are desperate for change; they know they've been jobbed and are tired of being called slackers and complainers. Time to sharpen the guillotine......

BTW, what spooked "well-educated" people (read: elites) about Trump was his dismissal of immigrants. Among DC insiders, Trump was alarming for foreign policy reasons. The twofold excess reductions of limiting immigration and limiting war explain why Trump was and still is hated by elites. Right now all Trump has is white proles and some middle-class die hard Republicans, and he'll lose more of the former if he promotes cuts to social services that affect everyone (cuts to immigrant services would be a win-win, but telling prole natives to screw off and find dual work at Wal-mart and McDonalds to better make ends meet is not the way to go).

Feryl said...

Lawful permanent residence status granted:

2008 1,107,126
2007 1,052,415
2006 1,266,129
2005 1,122,257
2004 957,883
2003 703,542
2002 1,059,356
2001 1,058,902
2000 841,002
1999 644,787
1998 653,206
1997 797,847
1996 915,560
1995 720,177
1994 803,993
1993 903,916
1992 973,445
1991 1,826,595
1990 1,535,872
1989 1,090,172

These are inconvenient numbers for anyone trying to tell us that the GOP is our friend. BS. The Bushes have done more to wreck our country than anyone else. The Soviets and Nazis didn't put us through this. Elites know exactly what they are doing. The GOP fucks up various countries, then tells foreigners: "hey, we just turned your country into an even bigger POS, so c'mon into America"

Joshua Sinistar said...

Trump is TOAST. This "Trucon" is ALREADY DEAD. Roy Moore was America. The Swamp is gonna DIE IN A FIRE. Either by Americans or the "immigrant".
The System has COLLAPSED. The Democrats PAID PEOPLE TO VOTE. I do not expect LOSER TRUMP to care. He is a creature of this DEAD SYSTEM. He is in too deep to extricate himself.
You can laugh or poo poo this. Say whatever about how "morality" has no place in politics. YOU ARE ON BORROWED TIME. YOU HAVE NO SUPPORTERS. THESE INVADERS WANT TO KILL YOU. WHO WILL STOP THEM?

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Simply put, Trump wins if he makes Americans rich, and he loses if impoverishes Americans on behalf of immigrants. It's that simple.

Indeed. Tax cuts and a nominally soaring stock market aren't enough to make that happen.

Feryl,

The last time a GOP president "efforted" immigration security with the full cooperation of his party was Eisenhower.

That's a sobering statement, one that cannot be repeated often enough.

Audacious Epigone said...

Random Dude,

Moore had the right answers on immigration and the National Question, but he only brought them up when prompted. Everything is downstream of immigration. It has to be the top priority, not an afterthought on the back burner.

Feryl said...

The best way to sum up bad immigration policy is that the Right brings in cheaper labor, and the Left ends up with more ammo for ID politics and destabilized communities (which conservative elites are usually isolated from). Left leaning urban areas are always going to have some degree of crime, instability, lack of trust, etc., but these things are all amplified by bringing in wave after wave of immigrants. The elite Left usually doesn't go out of it's way to oppose immigration per se, but they intuitively sense that something is really wrong and usually pin the blame on corrupt elites which can stir foreigners and minorities toward attacking native whites and things that symbolize native culture. The Right tends to have a nasty and vindictive attitude towards ethnic enclaves/urban areas, blaming the inhabitants for their poor behavior and the prevailing poor conditions. What's left unsaid (save for a handful of Right populists) is that Right elites/industries cynically import gobs of people to increase consumption and hammer down wages, while these elites are safely ensconced in rural areas and the most elite suburbs.

The establishment right since circa 1970 has tended to view every ethnic group as being a hop, skip, and a jump away from joining well-established Republican blocs (like say, Plains whites). They tend to think that encouraging the right "values" (of self reliance, patriotism, etc.) will wear down whatever animus there once was towards conservative elites and "red-necks". Bush encouraged a home-ownership society because sentimental modern conservatives thought that getting more POC out of those damn rentals, and likely into more suburbs and exurbs if not sooner than maybe later, might finally be the key to unlocking the conservatism in the hearts of more people. Uh-huh.

What also gets overlooked among conservatives is that the very thing they usually sponsor ("free trade" and free movement of people) contributes to inequality, less AFF, and making a handful of people/areas big winners while the rest lose and end up feeling resentful.

Areas that still have lots of opportunity for development, and/or a lack of restrictions on development, encourage conservative elites because there's an optimism associated with development and these areas attract people looking for the American dream of a nice new house and a nice family. This is why the traditional engine of growth, the Northeastern US, has been treated with increasing disdain by Republicans since the end of WW2. Powerhouse Republicans who emerged from quickly developing areas of the Western US and Deep South were able to gain power after WW2, and they were viciously contemptuous of unionized factory culture, "corrupt" urban politics (as though the South and West were saintly in comparison), and "strangely" idiosyncratic groups of white Democrats from the older regions of America, like Appalachian coal miners, Teutonic great Lakers, and big city Irish.

Oh, and hardcore Republicans are moronic for blaming Dems over crime, riots, terrorism. As the stats show, it was chiefly Republicans who naively imported the very people that the Dems stir up. How do these "natural conservatives" shout people down, beat people up, burn buildings, smash cop cars, and agitate for socialism? Why, it must be because the current Democrat president encourages ill-will towards the native majority's culture. 'Member Dubya being popular with the Mexicans? Ya see, there's still hope yet....

Feryl said...

Dems R Real racists and other such cuck sentiment (which the populist right has been poking holes in for years) is what holds us back. The partisan inanity of placing every single problem on the other side gets really, really old. GOP elites have been scoring own goals for years, but instead of reforming naive ideology ("there's nothing wrong with importing literally millions of foreigners") they lash at Left activists who benefit from the chaos that comes from a Laissez-faire what-me-worry mood promoted by Randian conservatives and airheaded dreamers.. Agnostic has often said, quite poignantly, that most conservatives would rather retreat to the countryside than confront the negligent policies and leaders that have so distorted and basically mangled whatever was left of basic social order and a sense of the commons.

You shouldn't shit where someone else eats, and then tell them to keep eating shit long after they figured out what was being served.

Jim Bowery said...

All this talk of "Boomers" is rather ironic given that "Boomers" were the only demographic to vote for Moore.

Seriously, guys, my _feels_ are the same about (((The Greatest Generation))) and I can make far stronger arguments for them being to blame -- and I don't mean because they "spoiled" the Boomers. I mean because they not only passed the disastrous laws of the 1960s but they and the Early Boomers (born before 1950 from which all Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates have been drawn until Pence), ate the grandchildren of (((The Greatest Generation))) in the form of real estate speculation and wage depression that rendered it impractical for mid to late Boomer males win the bidding war for fertile young women between The Economy and The Family.

However, _feels_ won't win this war.

Indeed, focusing on _feels_ that get you wishing that Boomers would please die off -- and then getting angry at Boomers because when they die they won't be voting right of center (I've actually heard The Right Stuff Radios talk about Boomers dying as their final crime against our people), is so fucking insane that I have to really wonder if there isn't some kind of anti-white psychological war tactic.

Think.

Feryl said...

Early Boomers side more with Democrats than do Late Boomers. But just the same, all Boomer cohorts (and early Gen X-ers) are prone to getting stuck on cultural crap and ignoring economic issues. It isn't until you get to mid 70's births that the focus moves towards economic justice and away from divisive moralizing. That's also why later born people are more Independent/non-partisan; economic concerns are pragmatic and don't weld you to one side of zealots or the other, like cultural issues do (if you think the Democrats or GOP is evil, you're never going to vote for them; if you're listening to how they plan to address economic issues, you're more open minded about going from one party to the other).

"All this talk of "Boomers" is rather ironic given that "Boomers" were the only demographic to vote for Moore."

Jones might actually be preferable on some issues, and from a populist standpoint, Moore started with a big handicap (decades of fundie schtick) and would've had to do a big metamorphosis into a Trump type pragmatist. Yes, decades of programming that Democrats are the party of baby killers, snotty kids, potheads, and marauding criminals can make it difficult to grasp the fact that in some elections, on the balance of what each candidate means to the long term financial stability of society, Democrats have often been preferable to Republicans. And if Moore comfortably fit into the 80's/90's GOP, then frankly he can get lost. The 80's and 90's finished off economic populism in America, and then the 90's and 2000's wrecked our foreign policy. Who's to blame? The GOP as much as the Dems (they attacked Bill Clinton for being a perv, not for being a neo-liberal globalist).

Feryl said...

"(born before 1950 from which all Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates have been drawn until Pence)"

Early Boomers tended to have two G.I. parents who doted on their kids. Early Boomers had a childhood and adolescence in the 1950's- ealier1960's, and tended to be rather studious and and idealistic. The fact that the 1940's produced so many enduring elites indicates that a wholesome early life and caring parents really do have their benefits.

As you get further into the Boom, having one or two Silent parents is the norm, and these youth came of age in the late 60's and 70's when diffident Silent parents didn't seem to care that their kids were as into rolling papers as they were into schoolwork papers. Early 60's births were the lowest scoring set of high school seniors ever recorded (presumably adjusted for race). Late Boomers understandably resent the privileges of 30's/40's births, whereas as X-ers and Millennials more or less accepted that a huge chunk of elites (born early or late, doesn't matter) were Boomers who never even considered sharing the spotlight with younger generations. Only quite recently have even late 60's births been permitted to "infiltrate" the elite sanctum, and it's a two-way street: Boomers feel entitled to these things and are too proud to let younger people share some of the power. Meanwhile, a lot of younger people got used to being ignored or passed over, and haven't fought all that much to reach the level of power that Boomers did.

It's striking; in the 1970's and 80's, G.I.s usually stepped aside and for the most part were confident that Silents and even Boomers could step up to the plate and keep things going. The Silents tended to feel that it was their job to mentor Boomers in political and cultural matters, even if Silents often neglected their own Boomer children. By 1980, G.I.s no longer had any influence on the culture, and the remaining powerful G.I.s were basically forced to heed the desires and mores of Boomers, as with every passing year more and more brashly confident Boomers were insisting that they be given greater and greater say over anything believed to have an effect on the individual's ability to live however they saw fit. By 1990, Boomers, though not necessarily being literally the ones in charge of everything (45-65 year old Silents often were), thoroughly dominated the priorities of society; the culture of the G.I.s was forgotten, Silents were expected to offer assistance (but not challenges) to Boomers and Boomer goals, and Gen X-ers were scarcely acknowleged to even exist, accept as a moralistic punching bag (X-ers were seen by middle aged Boomer adults as stupid, corrupt, ignorant, coarse, bizarrely oriented to the physical and detached from the spiritual and intellectual). When a lot of of Boomers finally chose to start having families in the 1980's and early 90's, they immediately vaulted Millennials over X-ers, as a generation worth protecting and cultivating. 30+ years on, they still are somewhat empathetic to Millennials, but by now they also tend to feel that Millennials are too entitled and high maintenance. The irony is that the young Boomers themselves were given countless opportunities back in the 70's and 80's, and back then older generations didn't treat young people as well, competitors. There certainly were exceptions to this, but over all hierarchies functioned better back then, with more ease of natural turnover.

Audacious Epigone said...

Silents set us up for collapse. Boomers had the opportunity to change course but instead doubled-down. Xers checked out. By the time of millennials, the collapse had already become an inevitability because of demographics. Zers will be the generation that manages the collapse.

Jim Bowery said...

All of which, while almost entirely valid, misses the point. If you are serious about winning a war, you don't permit your intelligence estimates to come from people who are less than deadly serious.

When I say "all this talk about boomers" I'm calling it less than serious. If you want to be serious and therefore have your intelligence estimates taken seriously by anyone but dolts, you have to probe more deeply into the causal structures. It's trivially obvious that "Jews" are behind the vast majority of the post WW II intergenerational warfare among whites -- something that "all this talk abut boomers" obscures with a thick haze of emotions. It's like a festering wound to intelligence.

Aside from clearing away squid ink issues like intergenerational blame, there is the serious question of disaggregating "The Jews" and analyzing what causes _them_ (or their subpopulations) to be so clearly and powerfully virulent.

This is what I meant when I responded to Anglin's gab.ai rants Boomers by saying if people want to be taken seriously about the BQ, they need to get as serious as did I about the JQ in my theory of their evolution of virulence:

http://fairchurch.org/Radio3FourteenJamesBoweryVirulenceGroupSelectionSortocracyAndStateOfNature.m4a

That got a lot of "likes" for the wrong reason. What I was really saying was not that Boomers are as causal as Jews, but that if one got serious about analyzing the causal structures in driving what might be called "boomer virulence", one will inevitably discover not only internal causal structures by disaggregating (early vs late boomers etc.) but discover, finally, that they've been indoctrinated by the most virulent component of Jews. This, of course, could not have happened if their parents had not abrogated their responsibility for indoctrination -- which again, demands causal analysis.

This is why I've latched, like a pit bull, onto causal analysis via lossless compression of a wide range of social data. Even the most shallow such analysis shows up with things like this:

https://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2017/06/which-social-constructs-tell-us-most.html

That was almost trivial, once the data had been gathered. I mean all I did was average the coefficients of determination in the correlation matrix!

The relation between r^2 and compression is precisely the same as the relation between prediction and compression. It is why lossless compression size provides a single metric by which to compare the value of causal structure hypotheses.

Imagine what would happen if the energy going into "all this talk of Boomers" were redirected into analyses like this.