Tag: politics

The Great Partition has begun

As it is said, the value of any predictive model can only be found in its ability to correctly anticipate the future. So, you may recall that my expectations of the U.S. electorate are that it would increasingly consist of a white ethnic vote against a multi-colored alliance of non-white ethnics combined with an increasingly small number of left-wing white quislings. With the most recent election, we are now beginning to see that happen with the coalescing of the white vote.

Exit polling shows racial polarization of the electorate has begun to cross party lines, with whites less likely to back Democratic candidates than they have been in the past. Across 21 states where Senate races were exit polled, whites broke for the Republican by a significant margin in all but four – Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon. None of those four states has backed a GOP candidate for president in the post-Reagan era except when New Hampshire went for George W. Bush by 1 point in 2000.

The Senate seats on the ballot this year were last up for re-election in 2008, a presidential year. Democrats typically rely on greater turnout among their core voters when the presidential race tops the ticket. But still, Democratic Senate candidates lost ground among white voters by an average of 10 points compared with 2008. White voters abandoned Democrats in droves in places with heated contests as well as those without much action. The exceptions were Minnesota and Oregon – where Democratic incumbents improved their overall support across the board – and Mississippi – where Travis Childers managed to grow the Democratic share of the white vote from 8 percent to 16 percent.

The shift is particularly acute in the South, where some of the last white Democrats in the House of Representatives lost their seats on Tuesday.

  • In North Carolina, Sen. Kay Hagan carried just 33 percent of the white vote, down from 39 percent in 2008. White voters under age 30 backed Hagan decisively in 2008, 60 percent for her to 36 percent for her opponent, as they helped to sweep Barack Obama into office. But this year, younger white voters who cast ballots in North Carolina broke just as decisively for Thom Tillis, with 56 percent to 32 percent for Hagan. Twelve percent backed Sean Haugh, the Libertarian.
  •  In Louisiana, Mary Landrieu captured just 18 percent of the white vote, a sharp decline from the 33 percent she garnered in 2008. Younger whites there broke for her Republican opponent in 2008, 68 percent to 30 percent, and they were even more likely to back one of her GOP opponents this time around – 22 percent voted for Landrieu while 74 percent went for Bill Cassidy or Rob Maness.
  • In one surprisingly competitive Senate race Tuesday, whites in Virginia voted 37 percent for Mark Warner, 60 percent for Ed Gillespie. In 2008, Warner won the votes of 56 percent of whites. Younger whites broke heavily this year for Ed Gillespie in Virginia, 57 percent to 31 percent for Warner. In 2008, Warner carried 59 percent among this group.
  • Even winning Democrats aren’t immune to the drop-off in white support: Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin captured 43 percent of the white vote in his successful bid for re-election, that’s down 18 points from his support among whites in 2008.

FEW REPUBLICANS HAVE REACHED BEYOND WHITE VOTERS

But Republicans haven’t minimized racial polarization in the other direction either. The coalition behind Republican Senate candidates was predominantly white, 90 percent across all 21 states with Senate races that were exit polled, ranging from 79 percent white Alaska to 98 percent white in West Virginia. Dan Sullivan in Alaska managed to pool the most diverse electorate with a strong showing among Alaska natives, and more than 10 percent of those backing both John Cornyn in Texas and Cory Gardner in Colorado were Hispanic.

Those three – Sullivan, Cornyn and Gardner – were the only Republicans to assemble a coalition that was less white than Mitt Romney’s in the 2012 presidential election.

Notice this phrase in particular: “the last white Democrats in the House of Representatives”. Notice also the four outlying states where whites did not overwhelmingly favor Republicans: Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire and Oregon. Notice anything they have in common? 78.9, 85.3, 93.2.83.6. In other words, all of them are a) traditionally left-leaning, and b) considerably whiter than the national average of 72.4 percent. Call it the Scalzi effect, in which a white left-liberal, through ideology, hypocrisy or sheer ignorance, supports diversity and other left-wing policies that work to the detriment of his own race because he is geographically removed from experiencing the consequences of those policies… for the moment. Both traditionally right-leaning states and less white states are moving rapidly towards White Identity politics, as has been inevitable since the successful 1965 assault on the traditional U.S. ethnic identity.

This means the Great Partition has officially begun. Most people don’t realize it yet, even as they are beginning to take unconscious part in it. Republican and Democrat are no longer pure political identities, but are increasingly markers of ethno-cultural loyalties. It will, of course, end in bloodshed. Considerable bloodshed. When will the violent phase begin? You’ll know it when the Scalzi effectors belatedly attempt to join the side that doesn’t hate them for their genetic privilege. Which is to say, when John Scalzi and his wretched kind first stop openly supporting the Democratic Party, which will soon be followed by their open endorsement of the Republican Party.

You may or may not be pleased by this development, but how you feel about it is absolutely and utterly irrelevant. America is not special. This time is not different. And history is absolutely eloquent concerning the eventual fate of multi-ethnic states. If you’re having trouble understanding this, here is a useful question to ask yourself: how do all of these ethnically homogenous states throughout history keep magically coming into being?

That’s what you call a predictive model

The Anonymous Conservative wrote on November 5th:

While it is not clear why Lena Dunham canceled her book tour dates, it would not surprise me to find out that she is presently in bad shape health-wise – nauseous, headachy, weak, and probably fighting off some head-bug. One of the biggest things which will strike you about amygdala deficiency is how it will create physical illness from amygdala activation in those afflicted.

They really do live awful lives of horror.

That was followed the next day by this announcement concerning The Dunham Horror:

Lena Dunham postpones European book tour with ill health following claims she ‘sexually abused’ sister. Girls creator Lena Dunham has postponed two scheduled appearances on her European book tour until December citing ill health.

Considering the degree to which this lumpenrabbit is being subjected to widespread rejection, even by some inhabitants of the global warren, we should probably start a pool concerning the date of her upcoming “suicide attempt”.

Gridlock is not the problem

Rush is concerned, rightly, at the noises that are coming out of the Republican hierarchy concerning the need to “work with the President”. That’s not what they were elected to do:

What I want to do here is cut to the chase. The result yesterday is exactly what I said it would be. The Republican Party now has one of the most important and unquestionable mandates a political party has ever had at its junction with American history, especially a political party which did not run on a national agenda. The Republican Party purposely stood mute nationally.

Now, if you go into the races, the House and Senate raises all over the country, you will find that many Republican candidates ran specifically against Obamacare, and that is an important note to make and an important thing for you to remember. Individual Republican candidates won, and they won big. They won in a wave landslide running against Obamacare. The national Republican brand or image didn’t say a word, which makes the mandate that they have all the more incredible.

It is rare that a political party running for office in a midterm election not standing for anything ends up with a mandate, and they have one, and it is the biggest and perhaps the most important mandate a political party has had in the recent era, and it is very simple what that mandate is. It is to stop Barack Obama. It is to stop the Democrats. There is no other reason why Republicans were elected yesterday. Republicans were not elected to govern.

If the Republicans go along with amnesty for supposed fear of gridlock, they will throw away everything they have gained here. Which is why it would probably be the safe bet that the Republican leadership will try to do it, thereby sparking a revolt among House Republicans. We’re already hearing a lot of “the adults are in charge now” talk, which in Washington terms means “go along to get along”.

Rush added: “As I listen to the wizards of smart — all the analysts of both parties,
all movements on TV last night and today — the thing I’m hearing from
everybody is that what the voters want is for Washington to compromise
and people to work together.”

That is nothing more than an attempt to spin the narrative, to rewrite history and recreate reality. Don’t put ANY credence in anyone, left or right, you hear saying it.

Republican House, Republican Senate

It would be nice if the Republicans would attempt to do more with their newly won Congressional power than they did the last time they held both House and Senate, but given their objectives, I have no expectation whatsoever that they’ll even do something as trivial as overturn Obamacare. Indeed, I rather expect them to dig the hole deeper. Consider the words of the new Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell:

“This experiment in big government has lasted long enough. It’s time to go in a new direction,” McConnell boomed to supporters in his victory speech. But he sounded a conciliatory note as well, adding that while he and the president rarely see eye to eye, “we do have an obligation to work together on issues where we can agree.”

“It’s time for government to start getting results and implementing
solutions to the challenges facing our country, starting with our
still-struggling economy,” [House Majority Leader] Boehner added.

Translation: immigration amnesty and free trade. From the same article:

While Republicans are likely to cooperate on issues like tax reform, the
party will seek to breathe life into their stalled jobs bills, to gain
approval of the delayed Keystone XL pipeline, roll back some carbon
emission regulations and tweak Obamacare.

Well, that’s certainly an ambitious program that is all but guaranteed to completely turn things around, isn’t it? It’s fascinating how they’ve managed to completely evade addressing every single aspect of American decline.

And on a blog note, I can only observe that we need some saner trolls. It appears Ann Morgan is even less connected to objective reality than one would have assumed: “Hahahaha. Total democrat victory tonight proves my point is correct.”

Yeah, so, about that…. The constant laughter of the SJW isn’t, as they think it to be, the confident amusement of the superior being at the antics of his lessers. It’s the cackling of unhinged madness.

Election Day

I trust by now that anyone reading this blog has been sufficiently disabused of the notion that freedom has any causal relationship with voting. As the New York Times made clear today to even the slowest midwits, voting is not, and has never been, a Constitutional or human right. Women, like men, can be denied the privilege, it merely cannot be denied by “by the United States or by any State” on the sole basis of sex.

The 19th Amendment states “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Which raises the question, what right of the citizens of the United States to vote? It is not numbered amongst the unalienable rights listed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution “left the boundaries of suffrage undefined” and the only directly elected body specified was the House of Representatives, for which “voter qualifications were explicitly delegated to the individual states.”

In any event, as millions of voters exercise their privilege across the USA today, it is very, very unlikely that the replacement of a Democratic majority in the Senate with a Republican one, and the strengthening of the Republican majority in the House is going to signify much in the grand scheme of things. The federal government will continue its deficit spending, the banks will continue to loan out credit money they create ex nihilo, Wall Street will continue to dictate policy to Washington, the U.S. military will continue to intervene in the affairs of sovereign nations around the world, and the flow of diverse and semicivilized immigrants will continue unabated.

So enjoy the show, but understand it is merely rote and ritual, a piece of kabuki theater to which we all know the steps and the lines.

Dems are getting worried

The checked-out president is beginning to make Democrats, both politicians and in the media, observably nervous and twitchy. Consider Frank Bruno at the New York Times:

Rationally or not, this is one of those rare moments when Americans who typically tune out so much of what leaders say are paying rapt attention, and Obama’s style of communication hasn’t risen fully to the occasion. Even as he canceled campaign appearances and created a position — Ebola czar — that we were previously told wasn’t necessary, he spoke with that odd dispassion of his, that maddening distance.

About the ban, he said, “I don’t have a philosophical objection necessarily.” About the czar, he said that it might be good to have a person “to make sure that we’re crossing all the T’s and dotting all the I’s going forward.” He’s talking theory and calligraphy while Americans are focused on blood, sweat and tears.

Ebola is his presidency in a petri dish. It’s an example already of his tendency to talk too loosely at the outset of things, so that his words come back to haunt him. There was the doctor you could keep under his health plan until, well, you couldn’t. There was the red line for Syria that he didn’t have to draw and later erased.

With Ebola, he said almost two weeks ago that “we’re doing everything that we can” with an “all-hands-on-deck approach.” But on Wednesday and Thursday he announced that there were additional hands to be put on deck and that we could and would do more. The shift fit his pattern: not getting worked up in the early stages, rallying in the later ones.

It’s more understandable in this case than in others, because when it comes to statements about public health, the line between adequately expressed concern and a license for hysteria is thin and not easily determined. Still, he has to make Americans feel that he understands their alarm, no matter how irrational he deems it, and that they’re being leveled with, not talked down to, not handled. And he has a ways to go.

“If you were his parent, you’d want to shake him,” said one Democratic strategist, who questioned where Obama’s passion was and whether, even this deep into his presidency, he appreciated one of the office’s most vital functions: deploying language, bearing, symbols and ceremony to endow Americans with confidence in who’s leading them and in how they’re being led.

Right now in this country there’s a crisis of confidence, and of competence, and that’s the fertile ground in which the Ebola terror flowers. That’s the backdrop for whatever steps Obama and Frieden take from here. With the right ones, they can go a long way toward calming people who are anxious not just about Ebola but about America. I don’t even want to think about the wrong ones.

That is not the writing of a happy rabbit. After all, it is pretty hard to argue for more government intervention as one watches an indifferent president lurch half-heartedly from one potential disaster into the next one.

Barack Obama, homosexual harasser?

Some old news about the current resident of the Oval Office comes out of the closet:

Barack Obama served as the president of the Harvard Law Review while in law school there, and during his tenure in that position, he was allegedly accused of sexual harassment. Two editors at the law review filed complaints with the university administration alleging that Obama had engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior. The university allegedly settled the cases and offered them agreements that allegedly included financial compensation and required them to remain silent about the nature of the settlements.

The story, based on one reported in The Kansas Citian, is reported here. The claim is that Barack Obama, while president of the Harvard Law Review, engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with two male editors of the review.

Sodahead reported this about the allegations, “In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Obama and his administration repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the journal. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which men leveled complaints. THE KANSAS CITIAN has confirmed the identities of the two male journal editors who complained about Obama but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.”

The report also claims someone ask[ed] White House press secretary Jay Carney about the allegations, “White House spokesman Jay Carney told THE KANSAS CITIAN the president indicated to White House staff that he was “vaguely familiar” with the charges and that the university’s general counsel had resolved the matter.”

If this sort of completely unsurprising news about Obama’s predilections is finally surfacing, one can only conclude that the PTBs are very unhappy with his presidential performance. Is it the economy? Is it failing to pass or unilaterally declare the immigration amnesty? Or is it that even PTBs don’t want to find themselves bleeding from their eyeballs and they’re no happier about the lack of a travel ban than ordinary Americans?

Needless to say, one can expect that the mainstream media’s complete and determined lack of interest will be deafening. Their eyes will remain firmly averted unless and until a) the relevant documents surface or b) the two male journal editors speak out.

Once, twice, three times a failure

They’re not called The Stupid Party for nothing:

Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee and now the tacit head of the Republican Party, visited Iowa as part of a feverish nationwide tour designed to help the GOP take control of the Senate. He has insisted that he is not interested in running for president a third time. But his friends said a flurry of behind-the-scenes activity is nudging him to more seriously consider it.

Sometimes, people seriously ask me why I’m not a Republican. I usually just laugh. In part due to things like this. America has just staggered into its sixth year of the Obola-ridden Democratic administration, so naturally the Republicans are discussing whether to field a legacy, a loser, a lardass, or a legal immigrant.

Sex is a choice and age is just a number

If they think they’ve got problems now, just wait until the transagist freaks get into the act:

It had been a relatively quiet policy debate until the full-page ad appeared in the local newspaper. “A male wants to shower beside your 14-year-old daughter,” it said. “Are you OK with that?”

The ad, placed by a socially conservative group in Minnesota, was meant to snap attention to a proposal to allow transgender students to play on teams based on their preferred gender rather than the sex assigned to them at birth.

It appears to have worked. More than 100 community members flooded a meeting this week near Minneapolis, and thousands more sent e-mails. In response, the quasi-public body governing high school sports in Minnesota decided to delay a vote on a new policy covering sports participation by transgender students. Members of the board of directors said they needed more time to study the issue.

The policy, which they now plan to vote on in December, was an attempt to grapple with a question that has bedeviled many states: How do you deal with the growing number of children identifying as transgender who want to participate in the highly gender-specific worlds of high school sports and extracurricular activities?

The whole debate is blitheringly idiotic. There is no such thing as “transgender”. There are male psychological freaks pretending to be women and female psychological ruins pretending to be men. That’s it. Punto.

And to anyone who wants to argue otherwise, I will simply point out that I feel that I am 16 years old and fully eligible to play high school sports, and anyone who argues otherwise is transagist. After all, it should be obvious that the year of birth recorded on one’s birth certificate means no more than one’s sex recorded there, and “age” is nothing more than a social construct.

I know it’s hard to understand and there is a lot of controversy around
this, but to be misaged as a middle-aged man when you are actually a teenage boy
is incredibly offensive.

Other transaged feel that they are 65 and therefore legally eligible to collect Social Security. It would be outrageous to deny them their right to do so. The amusing thing about the Left is that they subscribe to all this ludicrous anti-definitional nonsense, and then turn around and call themselves “the reality-based community”. The truth is that their only connection to reality is their mass rejection of it combined with an enthusiastic embrace of perversion.