Tuesday, January 30, 2018

Agnostic: Browning of America good for GOP

Agnostic regularly offers unique insights that are not found elsewhere. With thought-provoking takes so often unconventional, he can be forgiven for not bowling 300.

But I'm compelled to take issue with his reading of the DACA showdown. Several months ago he asserted matter-of-factly that DACAmnesty was a foregone conclusion and that it would be bad for Democrats but good for Republicans. As I pointed out at the time, that looks foolish. Increasingly foolish. Odds are DACA expires in a month.

No Democrat will be able to vote for legislation that includes border wall funding and an end to chain migration. Nancy Pelosi was humiliated by illegal aliens for merely planning on discussing immigration with Trump. And now she's going to rally members of her party to give him what he wants?

Stephen Miller--heaven preserve him--knows this. He's working the optics now. It's why he sprung Tom Cotton, David Purdue, and himself on unsuspecting Democrats and open borders Republicans who thought they were going to be able to monopolize Trump's attention in a televised bipartisan meeting on immigration.

Miller is aware that--as can be verified by referencing the indispensable NumbersUSA grade cards--that virtually no Democrats ever vote on anything that has any immigration restrictionism of any kind included in it. Of the 242 congressional Democrats currently in office, 239 of them earn an "F" (two get a "D", and one gets a "C"), and 232 of them get a score of 0%!

Trump is able to strike a reasonable, tough-but-fair pose secure in the knowledge that the Democrats are completely incapable of giving up any ground on anything at all:


Trump wins if nothing happens, and the Democrats lose if anything happens. GG, faggots.

There is no saving face for the venerable Agnostic by falling back on the fact that they'll get de facto amnesty, either. It's not the same thing. All but the very worst of the 11 to 30 million illegal aliens currently in the country already have de facto amnesty. They've had it from the moment they set foot on US soil.

It's the de jure amnesty that we've pulled off successful rearguard actions again and again. This one must not end any differently. We are not passive spectators in this. Contact your congress critters and the White House if you've not done so already (or even if you have, do so again). Send messages to all four of them in less than four minutes total here.

More recently, Agnostic audaciously wrote:
The least insightful way to analyze politics is focusing on race and ethnicity.
There are several points that need addressing, so here it goes.

Agnostic:
California is one of the states where Democrats win the presidential vote even among white voters only.
California's whites are pretty evenly split politically. Bush won them by 4 points, McCain lost them by 6 points, Romney won them by 8 points, and Trump lost them by 5 points.

The reason California is settling into a deeper and deeper blue hue is revealed not by the figures from the last four presidential elections that are circled in red and blue but by those that are circled in green:





In 2004, two-thirds of California voters were white. Today, fewer than half of them are.

A white California would still be a politically competitive California. A non-white California--just like a non-white anywhere--is not.

That's not to dismiss changes in the composition of the white population. White Californians were more right-leaning a couple of generations ago because the Mexican migration into the state, the ignoring of proposition 187, and the subsequent immigrant deluge propped up the top, swelled the ranks of the bottom, and pushed out the middle. The non-white bottom welfared their way out of regulations and zoning restrictions and plastic bag taxes while the top gladly accepted these nuisance expenses in return for uncontested dominion over some of the most prized real estate in the hemisphere.

Agnostic also puts too much emphasis on the shifting of various industries that putatively drive white voting patterns, namely finance, tech, and the media, for Democrats and agriculture, natural resources, and the military for Republicans. A glaring problem with this template for understanding electoral trends is that Vermont, which contains none of the Democrat industries and a couple of the Republican ones, has the most Democrat-voting whites in the country (save for the Imperial Capital itself).

If industry told the whole story, we'd expect Vermont and West Virginia to vote the same way. Hardly anything could be further from the truth. The American Nations--that is, ethnicity--matters more.

To reiterate, this is not to deny any impact of cultural changes among whites. It is, however, to point out that what takes place within various white sub-groups only matters when the country is mostly white. As goes California, so goes the country.

Contemporary California is still mostly the country's future rather than the country's present. It's certainly not the country's past. In beating Carter by 10 points in the popular vote and 440 votes in the Electoral College, Ronald Reagan garnered 56% of the white vote. In losing to Clinton by 2 points in the popular vote and winning by 'just' 77 votes in the Electoral College, Trump garnered 58% of the white vote.

Yes, in his first landslide victory, Reagan performed worse among whites than Trump did in his relatively narrow Electoral College win in 2016.

The shift is virtually entirely attributable to the growth in the Hispanic (and to a lesser extent, Asian) population(s) over that period of time. In 1980, Hispanics and Asians comprised 2% of the electorate. The November before last, they made up 15%. What a difference a generation--and a disastrous 1986 immigration bill--makes!

The place where shifting demographics matter most is within the Democrat party itself. Agnostic wants Bernie Sanders to get the Democrat nomination (and presidency) in 2020. That will only happen if Bernie is able to win the party's non-white voters.

Sanders narrowly beat Hillary Clinton among whites in the Democrat primaries in 2016. He lost the nomination because she beat him among Hispanics and crushed him among blacks.

She'd learned a valuable lesson from 2008, when she beat Obama among both whites and Hispanics in the Democrat primaries but lost the nomination because Obama crushed her among blacks.

The takeaway is that the Democrat nomination now runs through non-whites, and specifically through blacks. Blacks vote nearly monolithically, not just in general elections but also in primaries. White Democrats will not vote overwhelmingly against the candidate blacks have chosen. If they did, it would signal a drastic change in the American landscape.

In light of this, it seems delusional to think Sanders will beat Oprah Winfrey if she pursues the nomination in 2020 (something I doubt she will do, but if she doesn't monopolize the blacks vote, Kamala Harris, Corey Booker, maybe even Michelle Obama, or some other thus far unforeseen brown person probably will).

31 comments:

Sid said...

This post is an excellent summation of the work you've put into understanding American politics. I found myself agreeing with every point you made, and I will likely go back to this article often in the future for how well it lays everything out.

I agree Bernie stands no chance in 2020 against the black candidate, on account of how blacks vote so monolithically. What's striking, however, is that there will likely be at least two black candidates - Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Furthermore, it's not impossible that more, such as Deval Patrick, will come in. I think that Bernie (or someone else like Elizabeth Warren) has a shot if the black vote is divided but the white progressive candidate can rally the SWPL vote.

Of course, I don't know how blacks will vote in 2020 if they have a number of black candidates to choose from. Will they all go with one candidate for whatever reason? Will the vote be split? I'm not sure. I'm wondering if anyone has analyzed mayoral, city council, state senator and Congressional races where black voters had more than one black to choose from. That may give us an insight.

Anonymous said...

If California Morena decides to become an Independent country, it would benefit the GOP tremendously. It would also help if they took Hawaii with them, and attached the wet side of Cascadia to Vancouver-Victoria. Interior BC, as conservative as Alberta, could then become its own Canadian province.

I think there is a good chance of this happening IF Trump is re-elected with a good margin in 2020, and if the GOP owns all of the rural Senate seats. California could stay a NATO member, as no one pretends that the Canadian military is in any sense independent of the US.

We would also benefit tremendously if the NYC metro (or even the entire Acela corridor) became a Singapore/Hong Kong style city-state.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

It's a giant pill to swallow: to admit that racial dynamics play a critical role in how elections turn out for the foreseeable future. The Democrats are well aware of it which is why they've been trying to stack the deck in their favor whenever they can. It seems to be Republicans and goodwhites who continue to deny reality.

As we've discussed, demographics have cost the GOP a lot of formerly safe states that used to be considered a given in terms of Republican strongholds: California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia. Next on the chopping block are North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. Then the crown jewel: Texas. A lot of people were shocked how Virginia's elections turned out last November until you realize that demographically Virginia has radically transformed in the last 10-15 years. They're doing the same for North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida as a 1-2 punch of blue state transplants and unchecked immigration turn reliably red states into purple states and then blue. Typically within a generation.

I guarantee you that every Democratic strategist knows the demographic trends. The right wing used to be in denial but more and more are starting to pull their head out of the sand and see what is going on, which is a root cause of why the left seems to be throwing a perpetual tantrum since July 2015 when Trump stood up to Jorge Ramos about immigration from Central America. They'd laugh at Jeb the way they did his brother last decade, by comparison.

mark auld said...

If the left coast and sympathetic parts of U.S. secede,we might avoid a martial civil war.

sam boa said...

Maybe it'll turn out like NY or Chicago or LA, the whites and Hispanics will vote against the black candidate and compromise on a white candidate who blacks can support. That's how Chicago got Daley after Washington and Giuliani after Dinkins. That would make Garcetti from LA (who seriously dated one of my relatives btw) into a prime candidate. Once you go black, you never go back.

Audacious Epigone said...

Sid,

Thanks, that means a lot coming from you.

If it's somebody like Kamala Harris or even Corey Booker, I suspect Oprah will still be able to dominate the black vote. Those two would fairly quickly recognize as much, drop out, and endorse her in return for plum positions in her 'historic' administration.

The idea of Michelle Obama seems unserious to me. She doesn't speak well on her feet nor does she seem very smart. Her infamous college master's thesis suggests she is fit only to be included as part of Z-Man's black science segment, not as chief executive.

Anon,

The electoral advantage Republicans would gain by a loss of California--or even worse, the loss of the coast while California's interior remained in the union would be devastating for the Democrat party as currently constituted. It could conceivably start a cascade. That's how I envision the eventual political dissolution of the US to begin.

Random Dude,

It is remarkable how far away we've moved from the Karl Rovian stupidity about needing to appeal Hispanics, natural conservatives that they are, since they were inevitably going to become a larger and larger--and eventually the largest--racial/ethnic group in the country. The only Republicans who make that argument now are the dinosaurs on their way out, like John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Bob Corker. Just about everyone knows the score now.

mark auld,

Agree. I don't visit and revisit the idea just to be contentious or flippant. If political dissolution is a question of when, not if--as I think it is--better to do whatever we can to make sure it is at least peaceful.

sam boa,

That would require a major change in the Democrat electorate because for it to occur, non-blacks would have to vote significantly against the anointed black candidate. The last time something like it happened was in 2004, when Al Sharpton unsuccessfully ran. But he has nowhere near the star power that Oprah does, a lot of blacks don't even like him, and expectations changed a lot during the Obama presidency. As you say, once they went black, it's hard to see how they're going to go back.

sam boa said...

Which is the baseline, Obama or Sharpton? Obama was a once in century candidate. Obama was a fluke. Between Kamala Harris and Garcetti, I'd say Garcetti pulls Hispanics pretty easily but time will tell, of course.

Anonymous said...

I think someone like Governor Steve Bullock of Montana might be a good pick. He doesn't send off alarm bells in people like Gilly or Harris would.

mark auld said...

It occurred to me that a peaceful separation is probably impossible considering that the only money the blue party has to spend is ours. As the z man often says...this will not end well.

Wency said...

Random Dude:
The rest of your post is sound, but my understanding is that the "(white) interstate migration from blue to red states is helping flip red states" thesis is not really supported by the facts.

Not a beloved source, but 538 has some data on this:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/migration-isnt-turning-red-states-blue/

White emigration from CA probably has something to do with why Trump lost CA so badly -- it was a Republican-leaning group that left. This is mostly a good thing so long as the current electoral system remains intact.

Audacious Epigone said...

sam boa,

Obama created a new standard. My guess is there is no going back. The lack of a non-white on the Dem ticket in 2016 will be the last time that ever happens.

krusty,

The Democrats going the Northam/Jones moderate-white-guy route would present a big electoral challenge for the GOP, but they'll never get one to the Democrat National Convention.

mark auld,

Yeah, a financial collapse will accelerate our journey on the path towards dissolution. It might even be the impetus for it. But it'll also make dissolution a lot messier. It'd be optimal to split before a dollar collapse instead of after one.

Wency,

Thanks. That's another thing for Agnostic to contend with.

Jig Bohnson said...

"the only money the blue party has to spend is ours"

It is well established that in the US blue states subsidize red states, and even beyond that, blue areas subsidize red areas. That doesn't necessarily imply the oft-cited claim that on an individual level blues subsidize reds, because the blues are a high/low coalition doing both a lot of paying and a lot of taking. But it doesn't matter - geographically blue subsidizes red. So in this supposed breakup of the US, what will the rump US do without the tax revenue from NY/SF/LA/Seattle/Chicago/Miami and their superzips and 1%ers?

mark auld said...

BS.All those cities collapse and burn without the stable working Anglo base and underlying civilization.

Feryl said...

"s we've discussed, demographics have cost the GOP a lot of formerly safe states that used to be considered a given in terms of Republican strongholds: California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Virginia. Next on the chopping block are North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. Then the crown jewel: Texas. A lot of people were shocked how Virginia's elections turned out last November until you realize that demographically Virginia has radically transformed in the last 10-15 years. They're doing the same for North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida as a 1-2 punch of blue state transplants and unchecked immigration turn reliably red states into purple states and then blue. Typically within a generation."

Pax Americana.Per Steve Sailer, the reason mega elites are so gung-ho about open borders is because.....America, and every other country, has lost or will eventually lose it's unique national identity and sovereignty. As such, D.C. has become the capital of the entire world.......And a lot of greedy and conceited shit-bags want to get in on the action. Cities like St. Louis, Detroit, Birmingham, Columbus, Duluth, etc. used to matter quite a bit. But now vast numbers of smaller towns and even some decent to large sized cities have been brain-drained, and most of these places are in the Northeast, Midwest, and Appalachia. Tons of gifted white X-ers and Millennials were born in these places, then they skedaddle to Bos-Wash (Bos-Charlotte, really, by now), the West Coast, and the yuppified parts of the South. Some feel guilty about the rat race and come back eventually, but some never really do. Remember that the key to Trump's election was the oldest part of America, the Northeastern quadrant. If they don't sense that enough is being done to rein in the things that have depopulated vast sections of the Northeastern quarter. then poof, there goes the GOP's chances in national elections. And Senate seats and governerships will be up for grabs too.

The odd thing is that geographic mobility has declined since the mid-80's. But the people who moved about in the 40's-early 80's were drawn from different classes and often had unpretentious motivations. I read a good article talking about how non-embarrassed elites used to be about living and doing business in less fashionable areas decades back. But by the 90's elites began a mad scramble to the coast and to the Sun-belt, while prole Boomers and X-ers have not been as mobile as their GI and Silent counterparts.

The only solution to this that I see is either the crack-up/collapse of Pax Americana, or elites "finding Jesus" and remembering that it's their job to listen to us, not just line their pockets while blathering the most dunderheaded sentiment that barely even attempts to keep one foot in reality and is a disgrace to Western Civilization.

Feryl said...

Yes, if mountains could be installed into Texas and Florida, then those states would become Democrat overnight. The problem is AFF.....Oceans and mountains compress and squelch development, and attract eco warrior shit libs many of whom aren't willing or able to have kids and stay married.

Deserts, prairies, and swamps=GOP

Oceans, big lakes, and mountains=Donkey

An additional thing to consider is that Colorado, the West Coast, North Carolina, etc. are getting progressively more urbanized, within the confines of what the eco terrorists will permit. That portends AFF difficulty. The GOP and pro-capitalists caw about muh growth, but funny, unless you live on the Plains, you will eventually reach a point where: 1)Development-ready virgin land literally does not practically exist anymore (which is basically what happened in much of coastal Southern Cal by the 80's) almost anywhere in the area, or 2)The remaining "unspoilt" land is protected vehemently by conservationists who don't want the entire area/state/country to be asphalt and mortar.

AFF is nightmarish in Japan and Western Europe, temperate and geographically small regions that, thanks to modern medicine, are going to be perpetually densely populated. Unless the Gulf Stream shuts off, or there's a massive plague or something, I dunno what Western Europe plans on doing about AFF. They didn't have to import foreigners; Japan could at any moment economically collapse, but it least it will always be Japanese....Until they either leave the island or import millions of non-Japanese.

Take:
1)GIs and Silents being the longest lived generations in human history
2)drastically reduced infant mortality
3)Vast numbers of Boomers causing possibly the biggest demographic bulge in human history (in the early 70's, the average age in America was something like 35; now it's a lot older)
4)environmentalism
5)Elites wanting growth, growth, growth......

What do you get? AFF is harder now than maybe ever before.

Random Dude on the Internet said...

> It is remarkable how far away we've moved from the Karl Rovian stupidity about needing to appeal Hispanics, natural conservatives that they are, since they were inevitably going to become a larger and larger--and eventually the largest--racial/ethnic group in the country. The only Republicans who make that argument now are the dinosaurs on their way out, like John McCain, Jeff Flake, and Bob Corker. Just about everyone knows the score now.

Yeah, it's pretty hard to look back at that era. We got sold so many lies just to grease the skids for unlimited immigration, which didn't really ramp up until the Bush era and continued through the Obama era. You had religious leaders who swooned over how Christian they were, we got told by various Chamber of Commerce toadies that they were hard workers and how us natives were lazy and complacent, and you had the Rove wing who told us that their takeover of America was inevitable, and then you had the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys who told us how Democrats were the real racists. Cringeworthy.

But you're right, after this year*, that will just leave Lindsey Graham, who will either change his tune or just switch over to the Democrats. Wouldn't shock me if he switches over if the Senate makeup is 50/50 so that way he can be adored by the media as he changes it to 49/51. The Rovian and neocon wings of the party are dying off while Trumpism/paleocons are on the rise. Better late than never I suppose.

* - I'm assuming John McCain will pass away or retire due to his poor health this year

Anonymous said...

do you have similar voting data for texas? it's a key state. if trump had lose texas, he wouldnt had be able to won in 2016, for example.

it certainly have a demographic change similar to california, unfortunately

Audacious Epigone said...

Jig Bohnson,

How rigorous is that assertion? Does it take into account that younger people tend to live in urban areas and older ones, often retired, in suburban and rural areas? If military spending and agricultural subsidies are removed? The latter, for example, is a big chunk of change in my state of Kansas even though the percentage of the population that works in agriculture here is in the single digits.

Further, those who benefit from the transfers are mostly blue voters whether they be in red or blue areas. One major insight from Andrew Gelman's Rich State, Poor State is that this is especially true in red states.

Whatever the case, I've no concern it wouldn't be worked out. If Poland can survive on half our per capita purchasing power here in the US, we will survive, too.

Random Dude,

Graham has probably been the least openly antagonistic towards Trump of that group of quislings. He'll probably do what he needs to do to survive.

Anon,

Albeit only just. If he lost Texas but was able to pick up, say, New Hampshire, he still would've won. The point is well taken, though.

Unfortunately there were no exit polls conducted in Texas in 2016, when Trump won by 9 points (compared to Romney's 15).

Joshua Sinistar said...

Actually, he's right. The GOP would love a much browner country. It would put them in the minority FOREVER, and then they could make promises of ending abortion, bringing prayer back into schools and addressing other moral issues to sucker donations from Conservative Christians without EVER having to worry about being forced to actually do anything because they don't have the votes to pass ANYTHING BY THEMSELVES.

The Stupid Party. Party of the Stupid for the Stupid. Its Lincoln's legacy.

D. said...

AE,

"She doesn't speak well on her feet nor does she seem very smart. "

Yea here:

Michelle Obama Explains That Awkward Inaugural Gift Exchange – Gets Hit With A TRUTH BOMB
http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/31/michelle-obama-melania-gift/

Feryl said...

"We got sold so many lies just to grease the skids for unlimited immigration, which didn't really ramp up until the Bush era and continued through the Obama era. You had religious leaders who swooned over how Christian they were, we got told by various Chamber of Commerce toadies that they were hard workers and how us natives were lazy and complacent, and you had the Rove wing who told us that their takeover of America was inevitable, and then you had the Bill O'Reillys and Sean Hannitys who told us how Democrats were the real racists. Cringeworthy."

It may be hard to believe, but......Back in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, all the Me Generation wanted to hear was that paradise awaited any individual, provided he worked hard enough and wasn't weighed down by......The government. His boss. The unions. etc. There was basically no urgent sentiment to downplay individual characteristics and egos, in favor of strengthening the unit, the team, etc. so as to keep society strong, functional, efficient, etc. When one considers the rampant individualism that people born from 1940-1970 promoted heavily in the 70's-90's, it's not surprising that we got so much happy talk about how so many great foreigner individuals with their wonderful families were raring to Make Great America Great again, and if native born whites (or blacks) complained, well, tough shit. Don't complain, work harder.

This kind of callous rhetoric has diminished; on the Right, we only really hear this nasty stuff from a handful of D-bags like Kevin Williamson, who must be clinically devoid of empathy or compassion. More people on the Right are coming around to the idea that "we" (e.g., the Me Generation) dropped the ball big time over the last 40+ years, but maybe there's still time left to come to the rescue with bona fide Good Works. As opposed to the "every man for himself" horseshit that has socially, financially, and psychologically crippled so many lower class people.

Oh, and the mainstream elite Right did go full retard in the Bush era. However, libertarian/Ayn Randian and blank slate ideas began to simultaneously fall almost totally out of favor among proleish whites in the 2000's and 2010's. The generally boomy economy of the 80's and 90's (and the cynicism of the 70's) fed into a very individualistic mindset among all classes during those decades; after the 2000's war fiascoes and the late 2000's crash, most mid-lower class people totally lost any kind of affinity with Reagan/Clinton era neo-liberal ideology, and there's no reason to go and revive it at this juncture.

Feryl said...

Michelle O doesn't strike me at all as a career politician type, and I'm nut sure that Oprah does either. Michelle, all cheap shots about her appearance aside, seems more cautious, refined, and wholesome than does, oh, Hillary.

Steve likes to spin yarns about the charisma these Boomers usually have, but ya know, it takes guts to run for president. My theory about why America's general elections favor men is that there's nothing more brutal, politically speaking, in the First World than a presidential campaign. Everything about your life will be examined, prodded, scrutinized, and exploited. Do you want people claiming that your kid has autism? Do you want your integrity, intelligence, mental stability, etc. to be questioned? Do you want millions of people across the world passing judgement on you for minor incidents that happened 40 years ago? I don't think Michelle or Oprah has it in them to tolerate this. And consider that your life, your image, your identity, will never be the same after you make a deep run for the White House. Trump and his children will get death threats for the rest of their lives.

We've seen growing angst and animosity WRT presidencies over the last 30 or so years. It really seemed to start with many elites saying hysterical and retarded things about Reagan in the 80's (about him using astrology, and wanting to turn America into a theocracy, and taking away the voting rights of woman and blacks, and being senile fool a split second away from launching thermo-nuclear war, etc.). Proles started to get into this crap in the 90's (the X-Files), too. After 9/11, we had a chance to hit the reset button, find common ground in a war against the real radical Islamists. But we got neo-conned. So in the 2000's a lot of people did have reasonable concerns about the president's judgement pertaining to important issues. But the recent anti-Trump sentiment on the Left seems to be a revival of stoopid 90's conspiracy culture, where the focus is on moral panics and wild and outrageous rumors, causing the material issues at hand to get lost in the maelstrom of hand-wringing and paranoia. In addition, legitimate concerns about foreign policy and the economy, which Obama should have addressed but mostly didn't, have been swept aside by a Left that's become addicted to anti-Trump hysteria and Russophobia.

Feryl said...

I suppose what I should've said instead of "career politician" was that being a higher level politician requires a certain resilience to being criticized, attacked, debated, and so forth. And of course you need to be able to dish it out too. Trump is think skinned, but he's great with comebacks and nicknames. He's rambunctious and cheerful.

Women who get to a high level in law and politics (but I repeat myself) are going to be more masculine, outgoing, and calloused than most women. Michelle and especially Oprah are quite behaviorally feminine and shy away from confrontations and being overly bombastic. It comes as little surprise that late Silent and Boomer women, who tend to be very extroverted, seem to have really dove into politics and law. Be that as it may, the more feminine ones by and large don't get very far in those fields. Me Generation woman blowing smoke about the Sisterhood really alienated Bernie babes in the '16 election. Gen X and especially Millennial women (the better adjusted ones) are not comfortable with combative feminist crap, and though it might be fashionable on campus to do this stuff most of the chicks getting into it are going thru a phase that they'll leave behind soon enough. Millennials get even less joy out of beating the competition than X-ers, who in turn were less competitive than Boomers.

Audacious Epigone said...

Joshua,

Many would, many genuinely would not. I've met some of them firsthand (Kris Kobach, for example). The point is well taken, though.

D.,

Ha, I'd forgotten about that. So much social grace!

Feryl,

Wrt to the conspiratorial crap, the Dems held a press conference today criticizing Trump for not mentioning the Russia investigation ("election integrity") in his SOTU address. They're beyond parody.

Is Trump thin-skinned? I get the sense that he has a hyper sense of reputational honor, but that's not necessarily the same thing.

D. said...

"Ha, I'd forgotten about that. So much social grace!"

yea the obama couldn't do a laura bush impersonation. needed gov't assistance spit.

Anonymous said...

Good piece, and I always appreciate numbers backing up an article.

Here's my take: Right after 9/11, a group of suits in D.C. decided if they could winnow out of the 2000 Census data trove the actual number of illegal aliens in the U.S. Now, this is what I was advised as a mere no one - a network administrator in a 3-letter agency in a large city. I got zero feedback or explanation of the numbers, and there was no data to corroborate the numbers, but it seems the suits came up with the range of 31 to 33 million illegals here, as of 2000.

Think maybe there are a few more inside our borders, now that it's 18 years later? So is it stupidity or disinformation when we are told repeatedly that there are 12 million illegals here who "deserve their rights?"

Jig Bohnson said...

Yes, as I mentioned I don't think the blue to red wealth transfer paradigm holds up on an individual level, because of the high-low nature of the blue coalition. However it certainly holds up on a regional level, and that's what's relevant if you are talking about breaking up the US along regional lines.

To first order it doesn't matter what activities are subsidized in red areas, whether it is straight up welfare or something like military bases, because in either case the source of that money entering the local economy, which in many cases is the only substantial money entering the local economy, is government transfers.

Jim Bowery said...

I told Trump, in response to a fund raising email and request for feedback, DACA's guaranteed demographic hemorrhagic fever via the courts is why I'm shifting my efforts off of nuking the social pseudo-sciences with algorithmic information theory and onto physical weapons technology. For those who think there is some hope of a political solution via "the national conversation", I'm writing up an extensive article explaining, in detailed terms anyone with an undergraduate understanding of statistics should be able to understand, why there's no point to further discourse unless it involves algorithmic information theory's standard of Kolmogorov Complexity approximations. After that, you're on your own.

Sorry, that's just the way it is, guys.

PS: If you don't want to bother understanding why Ockham's Razor in the form of algorithmic information theory is the standard for discourse, and you don't want to bother to prepare to kill as many of the enemy as is practical with on-hand materials, tools and skills, I'd advise also not bothering to bring up Democrat vs Republican voting with the "citizenists" and bring up, instead, those who vote against an all-sides stand-down via the Laboratory of the States under the instauration of the 10th Amendment. In other words, focus on those who vote for ever greater Federal arrogation of social policy powers and their correlates. This instauration the plausible promise around which a successful open source insurgency can form. Who knows? You might even convince the Social Pozness Zombies to stand down and let people sort proponents of social theories into governments that test them instead of relying solely on AIT to discover social etiology.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Is the lack of concern that complete? Our intelligence agencies really don't care if it's 10 million or 30 million? Fixing a potential 8-digit discrepancy in the number of people illegally camped out in the country isn't a priority?

Feryl said...

On the Left, as we all know, any talk of putting Americans first pretty much died out in the late 90's. I suspect that even some law enforcement/military elites were making the transition to full time SWPL by that point (and it goes without saying that other fields of the government, and all other institutions, had lost their minds by that point). Trends always start with elites first. In the 1940's-early 1990's, super elites weren't so contemptuous of ordinary Americans. Certainly in the 80's and early 90's elites were beginning to bitterly snipe at each other.....But they typically were sympathetic to lowerish class people (however misguided they may have been, Reaganomics and the war on crime/drugs were fairly popular with a lot of middle middle class people). That changed by the later 90's, when Clinton fired up neo-liberalism and globalism to new heights (picking up where Reagan/Bush left off, albeit Clinton did better at balancing the budget, partly due to him slashing benefits to many people).

Whereas the Left eventually came to detest anyone perceived as a nationalist dino, the Right basically refused to even consider placing any collective identity on a group of people. Anyone could come to America and live the dream....Live large. Hell, practically anyone could serve in "our" (the world's) military. Well, whatta ya know, the Left gets to enjoy more recruits for ethnic ID politics (there was only so much hay to be made from pre-1970 America when nearly everyone under 45 was white and born in America), while the Right gets to pat itself on the back for contributing to "growth" (of what?) and promoting numbskull platitudes about America being a shining city, a model for which other countries (and ethnic groups) could aspire to emulate....But gee, progress seems awful slow in most parts of the world. If they can't have it over there, then let's let them come over here and see the greatness firsthand.

By the 1950's, we were getting to a point at which whites could smooth over their differences (WW2 stamped out a lot of Ellis Island/old country nostalgia, the South was finally developing and advancing). True, prosperity among most Americans meant that we succumbed to guilt over the nature of white-black relations as the 50's went on and eventually became the 60's, but the neurosis and tensions between a mostly white population and small black minority peaked in the late 60's then receded as the 70's went on. And the Left in the 60's and 70's wasn't whoring itself out to ideas cynically promoted by corporations; it really was about making Earth closer to paradise, for everyone.The America of the 1960's, being almost totally white, with some of the Deep South and urban North belonging to blacks, and smaller pockets for Mexicans and Asians largely Out West, was doable. And foreigner influenced demographic changes were mostly limited to Bos-Wash, Texas, and Cali as late as the early 90's. We had a chance, demographically.....But we blew it. But as long as elites are comfortable, why should they care?

Anonymous said...

You may be correct but it is the non-whites who keep the Democrats from being completely insane. White Democrats go for the likes Bernie Sanders. If they were to get a hold of the Democratic party and win the Presidency and Congress you could see them turn the USA into Venezuela.