Kamala was the worst candidate in U.S. presidential election history.
A longer answer, based on the above, I give here:
https://peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=3134 (See comment that begins with "The ancient Greeks called it 'hubris'...") --- It is an attempt to answer how the D-party, the System-party , ended up with such a candidate.
"I am 'not a fan"' to put it mildly, of that Guest007, but I just read up on [Thomas Dewey]. In comparison to Kameltoe, as a human being and a politician, well, there's no comparison actually -- he was an infinitely better person and his ideas were infinitely better. Dewey/Sheer Stupidity = Divide by zero ERROR! (....)
What Guest may have been talking about is that Dewey was worried about being negative against his opponent, Harry Truman, that is, based on things that happened in the '44 campaign. His campaign people convinced him to keep away from that, even when his own better judgement told him to defend himself."
You're too kind; guest007 has repeatedly proven himself a paid-for commie troll, arguing stupid things in bad faith. He meant nothing other than to stupidly compare "Dewey Defeats Truman" to Kamabla's implosion to The Donald because both "unexpeced" losses for D's; he didn't do any research beyond that.
The point is: US electorate is not divided between White-nonWhite, but between pro-White-ness and anti-White-ness. There is a fraction of non-Whites that would like to be white and a fraction of White that would rather not be so: if you assess it, the map make a lot of sense, more than the "gener gap".
The USA's "Coalition of the Fringes" is fuzzy at the borders.
In recent decades this system really does produce people like Rachel Dolezal at its extreme ends (the White woman who for years pretended to be Black and became a leader of an NAACP chapter).
The Rachel Dolezal phenomenon is widespread, if (usually) implicit. Another tragic product of the system: people like Robin DiAngelo.
As for the Nonwhites who "would like to be White," that group has a lot of con-men among its ranks. It seems like the "Whites who don't want to be White" group is more reliant on ideological true-believers.
To rephrase my comment in your speech, I may say that "non-Whites that would like to be white" are sincere Castizo futurists, i.e. people that would like to expunge that 13% from their DNA and hopes Trump-dillo can do it.
Imvho, the "pavlovian reflex" of self-hating Whites is too strong to authorize a full Sailer's Strategy, i.e. "colorblindness" authorizes Fucking-Decent-People to vote for White-ness because it is "open to anyone that wants to integrate": it is the same trick Lee Atwater pulled in the 80s, "Y'all don't quote me on this...but if you say colorblindness Richard Banania may vote for us".
The use of terms like "person of color" shows why the Democrats get themselves into trouble. One has to have background knowledge and know the context of the use of the term to understand who is being counted as a person of color. At an IT conference a black activist stated that Silicon Valley did not have enough people of color. Knowing that Silicon valley is heavily south and east Asian, I asked who counted as people of color. The activist then had to sheepishly state that she mean blacks and Latinx.
Desi (Asia subcontinent Indians who are generally Hindi) are one of the most college educated demographics groups in the U.S. And as the Democratic Party becomes more urban, more educated, and more socially liberal, where else are the Desi going to land politically.
Also, the Desi seem to have a get out of jail free card when it comes to racial discrimination, sexism, and nepotism.
Indians are suspicious of Christians and have no history of supporting small government. They aren't Jeffersonians by any means. Indians are probably as leftist as Jews.
Indians are suspicious of Christians and have no history of supporting small government. They aren't Jeffersonians by any means. Indians are probably as leftist as Jews.
> I asked who counted as people of color. The activist then had to sheepishly state that she mean blacks and Latinx
Yes, we understand that; there is a reason Half Sigma coined the term NAM, which officially stands for Non-Asian Minority but colloquially also stands for N-persons And Mexicans
A good example of this is the distinctly Prussian culture of the Chilean military. Lots of latino Marine Corps DI's too. Latino men love that shit, and more than a few black men. Trump 1) appeals to whiteness, and 2) appeals to maleness. Contrast Trump and Vance with the self-loathing goofball Tim Walz.
In Latin America, untill the Marxist revolution, people rose on the social ladder by whitening their skin through marriges: that's why Argentine constitution mandates European immigration, Chilean army uses stahlhelme, and Trujillo begged jewish immigration. They got the Sailer strategy better than Whites.
You need to differentiate between climbing and securing the level. Sorry, but securing the level is not climbing. No-one is going to give x anything just because x married white. After all, he still not looks white - so whoever gives him, gives him because of his merit that is not white color!
The only point where his "marrying white" is of impact is whether his offspring is upwardly marriageable. So let's say x is rich - so his offspring inherits. But because of "marrying white" x' offspring is now whitish - so gains in attractiveness for other people who use the "marrying white" algo.
As I said, like Henry 8th marrying Anne Boleyne. In that case, Boleynes were marrying high aristo/royalty. The algo killed both Anne and her brother, by the way.
Really off topic, but I would really update your Taki Mag pic. You have a distinguished, genteel look these days. That Taki pic looks like you are part of the Village People.
The prediction game is the essence of today’s culture. Every pundit and political analyst knows the answer and will give it to your for a small fee. So, the eager partisans pony up to get their own opinions verified and that is amplified in the media. I’m so uninterested that I turn to Steve to get my opinion on predictions verified. Thanks, Steve and thanks to the millions who crapped on the pundits and analysts. Seeing mass prediction failure is a wonderful thing.
Both sides often default to this "your turn now" selection process in their primaries which, for some really stupid reasons, are run as a big democratic votefest with the government's electoral machinery instead of an intra-party contest with delegates at a convention.
Of course, I write that and it instantly occurs to me Kamala Harris had the candidacy handed to her by internal party manuevering after Joe's senescence couldn't be covered up any longer and it was too late to have another primary. And she really was the worst candidate anybody could have ever picked: thin resume', socially awkward and unlikeable outside a Howard sorority, no intellectual chops, no executive ability, no appeal to anybody except whoever still watches Oprah.
Anyway, at this point we can call Donald Trump the most remarkable politician in anybody's lifetime, maybe in all of US history. In 2016, he saw the electoral $100 bill lying on the ground, and picked it up. Right from under the noses of 16 professional politicians. In 2020, he actually gains votes, then loses in a statistically improbable, procedurally flawed and opaque election. Impeached (twice). Indicted. Arrested. SHOT! (And the 78-yr old man who's never worked out stands up, pumps his fist, and yells "Fight, fight, fight!" in time for Evan Vucci to capture the most iconic photograph of a political candidate ever.)
Turns out Trump spent the four years from 2020 to 2024 making the Republican Party his own. The governors clean up their rotten voter rolls and slack procedures. Lara Trump gets a badly needed legal ground game in place (this time with real lawyers). And in 2024, the sonuvabich goes and gets himself ELECTED. Again.
Steve, we've never seen anything like Donald Trump.
> primaries which, for some really stupid reasons, are run as a big democratic votefest with the government's electoral machinery
In New Jersey at least, it is codified which political parties are allowed to use the government process to have their primaries rather than have them privately via convention. However, the law is written so that the criteria only applies to the Republicans and Democrats. If somehow the Green Party (or whoever) ever gained enough traction, they, too, would qualify.
I would like to point out that Steve must have been like a college kid writing a term paper, as he didn't post either here or his old place for three days, which must be a record. Also, like a college kid, he did read and respond on Twitter during his moments of downtime.
I liked QB Josh Rosen at UCLA. He had good technique and a lot of courage. But he struck me as too narrow in the shoulders to be a long-term NFL quarterback. His wealthy parents were right all along that he should have been a tennis player, but he loved football too much to go that route.
In contrast, at USC at the same time, Sam Darnold had bad throwing technique, a long windup that telegraphed to the DBs which receiver he was throwing too, and too much courage, which led him to try to play hero ball and force passes into heavy coverage. Indeed, his flaws caught up with him in the NFL, but he's hung around and is now having a good season. I suspect one reason is because he's built on a wider frame in the shoulders than Rosen.
Mr. Sailer disparages the fervor over election predictions, in which so many were engaged during the weeks and months preceding Election Day. He compares these discussions to arguing "Peyton Manning or Tom Brady" as all-time best football quarterback.
On the topic of the Sailer Strategy (a term he declines to use in the article), he says:
“I’ve been arguing since 2000 that immigration restriction is a better issue for the GOP than the Republican establishment believed. I’d say that as of 2024, I’ve proved prescient on that.”
This is all Sailer says on the interesting legacy of his own eponymous political-electoral strategy, which has been so (implicitly) influential over the past decade. It’s possible that Sailer is embarrassed over the success of (what might be called) the "Trump variant of the Sailer Strategy," because Trump has x, y, and z problems (and the narcissism and bravado-showmanship).
Sailer spends the most time on the shift by “Hispanics” to Trump in 2024. It’s not clear to me that the Hispanic shift was critical in the key states. In Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina (60 electoral votes between them), only ca. 6% of voters were reportedly Hispanic in 2024.
The Hispanic-shift-to-Trump phenomenon may have decided Arizona-2024 and Nevada-2024 (Hispanic share-of-voters at 27% and 18%, respectively, per the exit poll). But Arizona and Nevada have only 19 electoral votes between them (vs. 44 for the critical White-Midwest states; 60 electoral votes if including North Carolina). A very-large majority of Hispanic voters, I believe, live in "safe states," one way or the other. In electoral-vote terms, therefore, their impact may be considerably below their national share of votes cast (said to be 12% in 2024).
But Sailer is highly interested in the Hispanics-shifting-to-Trump trend. (I’d add two caveats, which he doesn't mention: the Hispanic shift to Trump is not necessarily a shift to the generic-R side, possibly “just to Trump”; and, it's not historically unprecedented for Hispanics to go as high as circa 60-40 D-R, in high-water-mark elections).
His interest in the changes in the Nonwhite vote are rooted in his years-long discussions of the possible fragility of the “Coalition of the Fringes.”
Sailer rightly points out that the current much-ballyhooed Hispanic shift-to-Trump phenomenon was not new in 2024. It was not, or should not be, some enormous and unexpected shock. In reality it had been building up for years. It was evident by 2020 already. Since then, the same energy has cycled through the general-population, to such degree that low-info and marginal Hispanic voters also came around.
But why did it happen?
Sailer's answer: the society-wide mania over Blacks in 2020 (featuring the likes of Robin DiAngelo hectoring people from on high) finally succeeded in driving a wedge between ethnopolitical elements of the "Coalition of the Fringes" (a Sailer coinage from the Obama era, I believe). It was a wedge large broad enough, alas, to show up in general-election results. The Regime has based its power, by the early 21st century, in no small part, on the Coalition of the Fringes, so this cannot fail to perk up Sailerite interest.
The Democratic Party's Coalition of the Fringes broke down because it ended up going too heavy on feminism, on the Transgender movement, and a few other things. The "rebuke of Transgender movement" does seem to be a story of 2024 that sticks. It is a storyline not quite expected by the pundits and prognosticators in October, but something near a consensus-view here in mid-November, one week after the election.
Sailer often writes with a playful, semi-ironic tone -- a little more often than one might wish. He writes this (with the previous sentence's caveat), summing up the D-side’s grand strategy:
“[M]ost Democratic pundits really were semi-shocked when accused of engaging in a Great Replacement to boost their vote. They felt that there was nothing cynical about their crusade to replace white men. It’s simply that white men are bad and deserve to be replaced. Any electoral benefits accruing to Democrats are merely due to the arc of history bending toward justice.”
Sailer sometimes, in recent years, goes out of his way to be a Gracious Nice Guy. It is admirable and commendable in a certain way. He appears to have less interest than he did in the 2000s in donning the cap of "political prophet." In other words, here in the mid-2020s he has little direct advice on how the Core-American ethnopolitical elements (of this sprawling, empire-like entity called the USA) can win elections.
ailer doesn't say so in this article, but for all the talk of modest Hispanic shifts (to the most-caudillo-like presidential candidate in U.S. history) and such, the whole "ball game" still depends on whether demographic emergency-measures can be successfully implemented, whether Third Worldization can, against all odds, be halted and even reversed: the great dream of the Trump-voting base. (And on which, see: "A Study on America's Demographic-National Crisis," 2023:)
The one person who was shocked and humiliated by the result was Prof. Alan Lichtman. Poor guy was confidently predicting a Kalama win and even shouting about it from the rooftops. Had a good track record and people were taking him seriously. Then at 3am on Nov. 5, he saw the results and said to his live audience, "This is nuts. I'm going to bed now."
Alal Lichtman was trying to influence the election, in 2024, in a way that was outright unethical.
The same for Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia. And others. But Lichtman and Sabato were egregious cases in 2024. They took advantage of their positions as academics and should be ashamed (but won't be).
Another contender, on smaller scale, is this Iowa pollster Ann Selzer. Her late-release poll predicting a Kamala +3 win in Iowa got, I guess, hundreds-of-millions of dollars-equivalent of free airtime. She was off by 16 points. Iowa was a 13-point Trump win in 2024.
The problem with these dishonest polls is that most normal people forget about them hours after the election. Only pol-dorks remember. So they can get away with their bogus polls and not pay any price.
Among those offering "How did the pollsters do" is the blog Electoral-Vote.com: yesterday they wrote about the NYT/Sienna poll ("The #1 ranked pollster at FiveThirtyEight")'s performance in 2024. The NYT/Sienna poll underestimated Trump votes consistently in every swing-state by between 2.5% and 5.0%, constituting a statistical "polling error" in half the swing-states and nearly so (although still within the statistical confidence-interval) in the rest. The NYT/Sienna poll also underestimated R-Senate votes in the key states.
Of course, media coverage, average people, and especially low-info voters, DON'T pay attention to "margin of error" talk at all, may not understand it and/or be skeptical of statistical techniques in the first place. It's the "big board" number they can make sense of, and care about.
The Electoral-Vote.com main-blogger says this on why the big pollsters generally underestimated Trump votes in 2024:
"It has to do with who was polled and also who was a likely voter. Trump's campaign put a huge emphasis on getting (young) men who normally don't vote to show up for him. The campaign went to sports events and certain music festivals and bars, and places where low-propensity male voters tend to show up and pitched their candidate. These people probably didn't answer when asked to take part in a poll, so they were probably missed. And those that did would be asked screening questions like "Did you vote in 2020?" "Do you think voting is everyone's duty?" "Do you think your vote will count?" A "no" on everything will get you marked as an unlikely voter.
It is also possible that the "undecided voters" really were undecided and then broke for Trump nationally in the last couple of days. A huge question is whether this effect holds when Trump is not on the ballot."
Abortion is currently a less important issue because the number of abortions in 2023 exceed the number in 2019. Passing Dobbs does not seem to affect many women's ability to get an abortion. That may be why the Democrats focused on women dying the parking lot of the Emergency room during a high risk pregnancy.
However, if the Trump Administration withdraws FDA approval of mifepristone or uses the Comstock Act to ban most forms of birth control, the abortion will be back as a major issue.
I don't know which data is right and can imagine lots of methodological difficulties.
Another abortion-counting organization -- https://societyfp.org/research/wecount/ -- also shows an increase: 100,000 abortions per month throughout 2024; versus the 2022 pre-"Dobbs" baseline of around 80,000/month.
But with officially 0 abortions going on in some states, there is probably some demographic distortions on who is getting the abortions and who is carrying a pregnancy to term that would have aborted before 2022.
A lot of the abortion in states like Texas or Florida are being done using telemedicine and the interstate shipping of mifepristone. For later term abortions, those living in Florida or Texas just have to go to other states.
Abortions per year had been falling modestly but fairly steadily. The culture seemed increasingly anti-abortion. So, that was one reason I didn't put much effort into the topic. But then it increased as the culture deteriorated over the last ten years. Then came the 2020s and a big push to make abortion fashionable.
One would probably be more correct blaming Title IX more than anything else. As women raced based men in education and moved into the professional workforce, there were many good reasons to not want a child.
This election result is a repudiation of the Sailer strategy. The Sailer strategy was that reaching out to non-whites is useless and counterproductive, and the focus should be on maximizing the white vote. However, as unsexy and un-edgy as it is, the traditional multi-racial "civic nationalism" apparently won the day. The one difference is, reaching out to non-whites doesn't have to be about being soft on the border and demographics -- you can be as shrill about it as you want, and that's not necessarily a turnoff to minorities. But the minorities can be and now are part of the GOP coalition, that's just reality. Whites voted for Trump to a lesser extent in this election than non-whites did. There's some food for thought here.
"Whites voted for Trump to a lesser extent in this election than non-whites did. "
That is definitely incorrect.
You may mean that Trump lost White vote-share but gained Nonwhite vote-share. But in absolute terms, Trump-2024 was extremely, extremely reliant everywhere-and-always on White votes.
I don't think he did lose white share, but rather he didn't gain nearly as much as with Hispanics, so the white percentage of the Trump vote overall declined slightly despite whites voting more for Trump in the recent election than in 2020.
Since no cheating was ever proven in 2020, the level was the same: none. I always tell people to go sign up to be a poll worker and learn why cheating would be impossible.
> There is and never has been any proof of cheating in 2020.
So you have an innocent explanation for the synchronized stopping of the count across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the numerous incidence of observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting room followed by the count resuming, in once case the counters literally boarding up the windows so the observers couldn't see what they were up to, the video of the same ballots being fed multiple times through the machine, the multiple sword eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, including the 10 million voters who mysteriously appeared to vote for Biden in 2020 and just as mysteriously disappeared in 2024, etc.
> And since I have been a poll worker
Oh, you're just a troll, got it. Next time at least think up a more creative username.
"...They felt that there was nothing cynical about their crusade to replace white men. It’s simply that white men are bad and deserve to be replaced."
Yes, this is emblematic of what feels like a big realignment. Since some time in the 90s the elite has taken it for granted that white Christian men are simply evil and should be replaced.
Now, after the results of the great awokening and the COVID debacle, elites have discredited themselves to the extent that people are beginning to reject their values.
“One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.” -- Christopher Caldwell, 2009
Who could have predicted this? Mike Judge and the Simpsons writers.
What caused the Trump victory? A lot of things.
I would like to think that a big part of it was that the silent majority of Americans think POTUS is a fairly important job and having a babbling dope in that job would not be ideal. I would also like to think that the silent majority was voting against lawfare and social media suppression of dissent.
I would like to think that, so it is probably wrong.
It is hard to claim that Biden's mental faculties were an issue when Trump would answer questions with a five minute with what Trump called "The Weave" which means that Trump rambles without answering the question.
We will just have to disagree on this. It's quite possible Trump is going to be demented soon, but what you describe as "The Weave" is just standard political speak, answer the question you want instead of the one you got. Based on his three hours with Rogan, he is still intact. Biden clearly is not.
Go to the Dailywire and listen to the interview that Ben Shapiro had with Trump. Shapiro asked about the Trump campaign's ground game. Trump spoke for over 4 minutes and did not mention campaign ground game.
Those do not contradict my point. On the YouTube video he did the same thing every politician and salesman does- you never answer a question "no" that is supposed to be answered yes. Obviously he has no specific legislation to support for child care or whatever. I would have said "no". That's why he's president and I am not.
I haven't watched the video but yeah, winners are people who stay on message, THEIR message, not their opponents. And weaving is just fine too. There is no right and wrong, in either the universe or Trump's cranium. There's just a whole buncha creatures trying to eat each other.
Politicians, salesmen, or priests with values - whether genuine or just for public consumption - play to win with every weapon they can wield that doesn't feel immoral to them (or which they fear will make them look immoral to others).
This invariably includes "not answering the question", when they see a benefit in talking about something else instead.
Trump is sui generis in having NO values, ingrained or advertised, beside the most basic human will to power.
He doesn't even *hear* questions whose true answers could harm him or even just bore him.
Is he? I'm not good at remembering screen names. I assumed he was just a sincere anti-Trump guy. I don't find his arguments convincing but at least he responds somewhat to what I write. I'll try to remember this
Steve wrote, "I can also remember that there have been a number of elections during that period when nobody seemed to care much about immigration."
Like many Republican voters, since the 1980s I cared very strongly about that issue but our party made it impossible for a candidate to win the nomination who was not pro-immigration. In 2008, I unenthusiastically actually voted for Obama over McCain because McCain would have been, if anything, worse than Obama on immigration and more of a warmonger.
People have a tendency to not care as much about illegal immigration during a boom time. Wages are going up and there are jobs and one can get a new roof, new house, or lawn service cheaply.
And by that time "the neighborhood they grew up in is being taken over," the original people's power and influence will usually have become too weak reverse the situation, and a national elite stands off to one side, glowering at them, whip in hand, and willing to enforce discipline on whatever off-the-reservation Whites pop up. The original people either demoralize and sink into despair, or go into a siege-mentality, or find some other 'out.' Most often they leave the area.
There has historically been lots of slack to "leave," even within a single city, or certainly within a larger metro area (but even that has become difficult).
At larger scale, Whites of European-Christian origin have been leaving California, on net, for now almost 35 years. There are, maybe surprisingly, few million fewer in California than was true in 1990. Those Whites who remain are often, if you encounter them, marked by a peasant-like passivity and pessimism uncharacteristic of California's first 125 to 150 years but now easily recognizable.
The pressure-release valve of internal "emigration" to flee Diversity is more important than Guest007's flippant "people don't care at all about the Third Worldization as long as average salaries are rising."
But the increasing wages are what allow them to move to nicer neighborhoods. Look at the recent stories out of the Dallas Fort Worth area. The good suburbs of the 1980's (think Garland) are now majority Hispanic, the good suburbs of the 1990's like Plano are becoming more Hispanic, The suburbs of the 2000's like Southlake or Allen are now very expensive. So people are moving to Frisco where businesses cannot be enough service workers.
I grew up in a Washington DC suburb called Seabrook. It was 99 % white when I moved there with my family. It was a great place to grow up. School busing to racially balance the schools of Prince George's County began in January 1973. Gradually whites left Seabrook and PG County and blacks moved in. By the mid-80s, no new whites moved into Seabrook, only blacks. The businesses, bars and restaurants closed down or moved in the 90s. Seabrook was about half-black when my folks left Seabrook in 1996. Seabrook is 7 % white today, all of them old. Interestingly, Seabrook is now one-quarter Hispanic.
Yes. I knew that losing to Obama was preferable to winning with McCain. However disgusting it was to have Barry Sotero as president. If McCain had won in 2008, the Republican Party might have been destroyed.
Likewise if GHWB had been reelected in '92. I doubt Ford in the late 70s would have been followed by Reagan, the pivotal Prez after LBJ, except in a positive direction.
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a vain effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No you can’t camp in this city. No you can’t shit in our streets No you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bond to rob and murder again.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
Guest: “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Of course, the Republicans used these as talking points. That’s how they won and will continue to win unless the Democrats wake up.
The use of the meme that people like Charlie Kirk use every day shows that one is not a Democrat.
And playing hot potato with the homeless never works and making the county jail a homeless shelter is very expensive and means that others have to be released.
Guest: If I were a Republican I would urge Democrats to stay the course on every one of these stupid issues that helped them lose. Your response shows just how stupid they are.
The people who foisted an obviously impaired Biden and incompetent Harris on us in 2020 and 2024, while telling us they were fine, deserve to be punished--BO, DNC, & MSM. In a sane country, they would have lost 2020 or been wiped out in 2024. But mean tweets!
"But both sides are pretty dumb". Seems accurate.
True, but one side was a little less dumb this election season.
Was it dumb or smart to have Hulk Hogan endorse Trump-2024?
One simple and elegant answer:
Kamala was the worst candidate in U.S. presidential election history.
A longer answer, based on the above, I give here:
https://peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=3134 (See comment that begins with "The ancient Greeks called it 'hubris'...") --- It is an attempt to answer how the D-party, the System-party , ended up with such a candidate.
Thomas Dewey was worse but Harris could go down as the Democrats version of Thomas Dewey.
Huh? Dewey put away scumbag Lucky Luciano and was great governor of NY. A serious and competent man.
Yeah, and let's not forget his very successful term as NY Governor and being the "Dewey" in the successful lawfirm Dewey Ballantine.
Comparing Harris to Dewey is comparing a Special Olympics ice dancer to Michelle Kwan.
Only an insane idiot could make such a laughably bad comparison oh wait its communist troll guest007 ok I should have guessed.
Carry on, Soros bot!
From Peak Stupidity:
"I am 'not a fan"' to put it mildly, of that Guest007, but I just read up on [Thomas Dewey]. In comparison to Kameltoe, as a human being and a politician, well, there's no comparison actually -- he was an infinitely better person and his ideas were infinitely better. Dewey/Sheer Stupidity = Divide by zero ERROR! (....)
What Guest may have been talking about is that Dewey was worried about being negative against his opponent, Harry Truman, that is, based on things that happened in the '44 campaign. His campaign people convinced him to keep away from that, even when his own better judgement told him to defend himself."
https://peakstupidity.com/index.php?post=3134
You're too kind; guest007 has repeatedly proven himself a paid-for commie troll, arguing stupid things in bad faith. He meant nothing other than to stupidly compare "Dewey Defeats Truman" to Kamabla's implosion to The Donald because both "unexpeced" losses for D's; he didn't do any research beyond that.
"Revisiting the “Sailer Strategy” after the Trump-2024 victory: Whites cast 80%+ of Trump’s votes, but some call the Sailer Strategy obsolete–Why?"
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2024/11/12/revisiting-the-sailer-strategy-after-the-trump-2024-victory-whites-cast-80-of-trumps-votes-but-some-call-the-sailer-strategy-obsolete-why/
The point is: US electorate is not divided between White-nonWhite, but between pro-White-ness and anti-White-ness. There is a fraction of non-Whites that would like to be white and a fraction of White that would rather not be so: if you assess it, the map make a lot of sense, more than the "gener gap".
To rephrase your point into Sailer-speak:
The USA's "Coalition of the Fringes" is fuzzy at the borders.
In recent decades this system really does produce people like Rachel Dolezal at its extreme ends (the White woman who for years pretended to be Black and became a leader of an NAACP chapter).
The Rachel Dolezal phenomenon is widespread, if (usually) implicit. Another tragic product of the system: people like Robin DiAngelo.
As for the Nonwhites who "would like to be White," that group has a lot of con-men among its ranks. It seems like the "Whites who don't want to be White" group is more reliant on ideological true-believers.
To rephrase my comment in your speech, I may say that "non-Whites that would like to be white" are sincere Castizo futurists, i.e. people that would like to expunge that 13% from their DNA and hopes Trump-dillo can do it.
Imvho, the "pavlovian reflex" of self-hating Whites is too strong to authorize a full Sailer's Strategy, i.e. "colorblindness" authorizes Fucking-Decent-People to vote for White-ness because it is "open to anyone that wants to integrate": it is the same trick Lee Atwater pulled in the 80s, "Y'all don't quote me on this...but if you say colorblindness Richard Banania may vote for us".
The use of terms like "person of color" shows why the Democrats get themselves into trouble. One has to have background knowledge and know the context of the use of the term to understand who is being counted as a person of color. At an IT conference a black activist stated that Silicon Valley did not have enough people of color. Knowing that Silicon valley is heavily south and east Asian, I asked who counted as people of color. The activist then had to sheepishly state that she mean blacks and Latinx.
Still Indians vote in drove for D and are as nepotist as our beloved model minority (https://arctotherium.substack.com/p/the-case-against-indian-immigration): Indians do not want to be White, while Criollos, Limpios, Castizos, and Mestizos do and vote accordingly.
The desi are the foot soldiers of the politically correct. They also are some of the most college educated and are socially liberal.
I miss your point here.
Desi (Asia subcontinent Indians who are generally Hindi) are one of the most college educated demographics groups in the U.S. And as the Democratic Party becomes more urban, more educated, and more socially liberal, where else are the Desi going to land politically.
Also, the Desi seem to have a get out of jail free card when it comes to racial discrimination, sexism, and nepotism.
Indians are suspicious of Christians and have no history of supporting small government. They aren't Jeffersonians by any means. Indians are probably as leftist as Jews.
Indians are suspicious of Christians and have no history of supporting small government. They aren't Jeffersonians by any means. Indians are probably as leftist as Jews.
> I asked who counted as people of color. The activist then had to sheepishly state that she mean blacks and Latinx
Yes, we understand that; there is a reason Half Sigma coined the term NAM, which officially stands for Non-Asian Minority but colloquially also stands for N-persons And Mexicans
A good example of this is the distinctly Prussian culture of the Chilean military. Lots of latino Marine Corps DI's too. Latino men love that shit, and more than a few black men. Trump 1) appeals to whiteness, and 2) appeals to maleness. Contrast Trump and Vance with the self-loathing goofball Tim Walz.
In Latin America, untill the Marxist revolution, people rose on the social ladder by whitening their skin through marriges: that's why Argentine constitution mandates European immigration, Chilean army uses stahlhelme, and Trujillo begged jewish immigration. They got the Sailer strategy better than Whites.
It's the other way round. They rose through whatever semblence of merit they did. But they consolidated their uprise by marrying white.
A bit like Boleyns first becoming merchants (1) and then Lord Mayor of London (2), then marrying Howards (3), and then marrying Tudors (4).
So marrying whites was how they truly climbed the ladder: thanks to confirm my point.
You need to differentiate between climbing and securing the level. Sorry, but securing the level is not climbing. No-one is going to give x anything just because x married white. After all, he still not looks white - so whoever gives him, gives him because of his merit that is not white color!
The only point where his "marrying white" is of impact is whether his offspring is upwardly marriageable. So let's say x is rich - so his offspring inherits. But because of "marrying white" x' offspring is now whitish - so gains in attractiveness for other people who use the "marrying white" algo.
As I said, like Henry 8th marrying Anne Boleyne. In that case, Boleynes were marrying high aristo/royalty. The algo killed both Anne and her brother, by the way.
Really off topic, but I would really update your Taki Mag pic. You have a distinguished, genteel look these days. That Taki pic looks like you are part of the Village People.
I've lost some weight over the years.
Clearly, the mustache and goatee were a heavy weight to bear.
Plus they make him look like a douchebag, which Steve is not. There is a reason why David Brent had one.
The prediction game is the essence of today’s culture. Every pundit and political analyst knows the answer and will give it to your for a small fee. So, the eager partisans pony up to get their own opinions verified and that is amplified in the media. I’m so uninterested that I turn to Steve to get my opinion on predictions verified. Thanks, Steve and thanks to the millions who crapped on the pundits and analysts. Seeing mass prediction failure is a wonderful thing.
Both sides often default to this "your turn now" selection process in their primaries which, for some really stupid reasons, are run as a big democratic votefest with the government's electoral machinery instead of an intra-party contest with delegates at a convention.
Of course, I write that and it instantly occurs to me Kamala Harris had the candidacy handed to her by internal party manuevering after Joe's senescence couldn't be covered up any longer and it was too late to have another primary. And she really was the worst candidate anybody could have ever picked: thin resume', socially awkward and unlikeable outside a Howard sorority, no intellectual chops, no executive ability, no appeal to anybody except whoever still watches Oprah.
Anyway, at this point we can call Donald Trump the most remarkable politician in anybody's lifetime, maybe in all of US history. In 2016, he saw the electoral $100 bill lying on the ground, and picked it up. Right from under the noses of 16 professional politicians. In 2020, he actually gains votes, then loses in a statistically improbable, procedurally flawed and opaque election. Impeached (twice). Indicted. Arrested. SHOT! (And the 78-yr old man who's never worked out stands up, pumps his fist, and yells "Fight, fight, fight!" in time for Evan Vucci to capture the most iconic photograph of a political candidate ever.)
Turns out Trump spent the four years from 2020 to 2024 making the Republican Party his own. The governors clean up their rotten voter rolls and slack procedures. Lara Trump gets a badly needed legal ground game in place (this time with real lawyers). And in 2024, the sonuvabich goes and gets himself ELECTED. Again.
Steve, we've never seen anything like Donald Trump.
> primaries which, for some really stupid reasons, are run as a big democratic votefest with the government's electoral machinery
In New Jersey at least, it is codified which political parties are allowed to use the government process to have their primaries rather than have them privately via convention. However, the law is written so that the criteria only applies to the Republicans and Democrats. If somehow the Green Party (or whoever) ever gained enough traction, they, too, would qualify.
Steve still underestimates Trump.
Trump best demonstrates Steve's American civic nationalism, which I don't think Steve has acknowledged.
OK Steve has acknowledged.
I would like to point out that Steve must have been like a college kid writing a term paper, as he didn't post either here or his old place for three days, which must be a record. Also, like a college kid, he did read and respond on Twitter during his moments of downtime.
Before the Manning v Brady debate there was the Manning v Ryan Leaf debate for the no 1 pick.
I was 100% a Leaf man. Shows you what I know.
Me too.
Hell I'm still stunned that Josh Rosen flamed out so spectacularly in the NFL
I liked QB Josh Rosen at UCLA. He had good technique and a lot of courage. But he struck me as too narrow in the shoulders to be a long-term NFL quarterback. His wealthy parents were right all along that he should have been a tennis player, but he loved football too much to go that route.
In contrast, at USC at the same time, Sam Darnold had bad throwing technique, a long windup that telegraphed to the DBs which receiver he was throwing too, and too much courage, which led him to try to play hero ball and force passes into heavy coverage. Indeed, his flaws caught up with him in the NFL, but he's hung around and is now having a good season. I suspect one reason is because he's built on a wider frame in the shoulders than Rosen.
A review of "So, what happened?" in Taki-Mag, by Steve Sailer, his (first?) Election 2024 reaction:
(originally posted here: https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2024/11/12/revisiting-the-sailer-strategy-after-the-trump-2024-victory-whites-cast-80-of-trumps-votes-but-some-call-the-sailer-strategy-obsolete-why/#comment-52074)
_________________
Mr. Sailer disparages the fervor over election predictions, in which so many were engaged during the weeks and months preceding Election Day. He compares these discussions to arguing "Peyton Manning or Tom Brady" as all-time best football quarterback.
On the topic of the Sailer Strategy (a term he declines to use in the article), he says:
“I’ve been arguing since 2000 that immigration restriction is a better issue for the GOP than the Republican establishment believed. I’d say that as of 2024, I’ve proved prescient on that.”
This is all Sailer says on the interesting legacy of his own eponymous political-electoral strategy, which has been so (implicitly) influential over the past decade. It’s possible that Sailer is embarrassed over the success of (what might be called) the "Trump variant of the Sailer Strategy," because Trump has x, y, and z problems (and the narcissism and bravado-showmanship).
Sailer spends the most time on the shift by “Hispanics” to Trump in 2024. It’s not clear to me that the Hispanic shift was critical in the key states. In Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina (60 electoral votes between them), only ca. 6% of voters were reportedly Hispanic in 2024.
The Hispanic-shift-to-Trump phenomenon may have decided Arizona-2024 and Nevada-2024 (Hispanic share-of-voters at 27% and 18%, respectively, per the exit poll). But Arizona and Nevada have only 19 electoral votes between them (vs. 44 for the critical White-Midwest states; 60 electoral votes if including North Carolina). A very-large majority of Hispanic voters, I believe, live in "safe states," one way or the other. In electoral-vote terms, therefore, their impact may be considerably below their national share of votes cast (said to be 12% in 2024).
Trump’s victories (2016, 2024) or defeat (2020) have run through the White-Midwest, as my essay "Revisiting the Sailer Strategy" shows (https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2024/11/12/revisiting-the-sailer-strategy-after-the-trump-2024-victory-whites-cast-80-of-trumps-votes-but-some-call-the-sailer-strategy-obsolete-why/).
But Sailer is highly interested in the Hispanics-shifting-to-Trump trend. (I’d add two caveats, which he doesn't mention: the Hispanic shift to Trump is not necessarily a shift to the generic-R side, possibly “just to Trump”; and, it's not historically unprecedented for Hispanics to go as high as circa 60-40 D-R, in high-water-mark elections).
His interest in the changes in the Nonwhite vote are rooted in his years-long discussions of the possible fragility of the “Coalition of the Fringes.”
Sailer rightly points out that the current much-ballyhooed Hispanic shift-to-Trump phenomenon was not new in 2024. It was not, or should not be, some enormous and unexpected shock. In reality it had been building up for years. It was evident by 2020 already. Since then, the same energy has cycled through the general-population, to such degree that low-info and marginal Hispanic voters also came around.
But why did it happen?
Sailer's answer: the society-wide mania over Blacks in 2020 (featuring the likes of Robin DiAngelo hectoring people from on high) finally succeeded in driving a wedge between ethnopolitical elements of the "Coalition of the Fringes" (a Sailer coinage from the Obama era, I believe). It was a wedge large broad enough, alas, to show up in general-election results. The Regime has based its power, by the early 21st century, in no small part, on the Coalition of the Fringes, so this cannot fail to perk up Sailerite interest.
The Democratic Party's Coalition of the Fringes broke down because it ended up going too heavy on feminism, on the Transgender movement, and a few other things. The "rebuke of Transgender movement" does seem to be a story of 2024 that sticks. It is a storyline not quite expected by the pundits and prognosticators in October, but something near a consensus-view here in mid-November, one week after the election.
Sailer often writes with a playful, semi-ironic tone -- a little more often than one might wish. He writes this (with the previous sentence's caveat), summing up the D-side’s grand strategy:
“[M]ost Democratic pundits really were semi-shocked when accused of engaging in a Great Replacement to boost their vote. They felt that there was nothing cynical about their crusade to replace white men. It’s simply that white men are bad and deserve to be replaced. Any electoral benefits accruing to Democrats are merely due to the arc of history bending toward justice.”
Sailer sometimes, in recent years, goes out of his way to be a Gracious Nice Guy. It is admirable and commendable in a certain way. He appears to have less interest than he did in the 2000s in donning the cap of "political prophet." In other words, here in the mid-2020s he has little direct advice on how the Core-American ethnopolitical elements (of this sprawling, empire-like entity called the USA) can win elections.
ailer doesn't say so in this article, but for all the talk of modest Hispanic shifts (to the most-caudillo-like presidential candidate in U.S. history) and such, the whole "ball game" still depends on whether demographic emergency-measures can be successfully implemented, whether Third Worldization can, against all odds, be halted and even reversed: the great dream of the Trump-voting base. (And on which, see: "A Study on America's Demographic-National Crisis," 2023:)
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/white-birth-share-percentage-in-the-usa-1925-2025-b.png
_________
https://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2024/11/12/revisiting-the-sailer-strategy-after-the-trump-2024-victory-whites-cast-80-of-trumps-votes-but-some-call-the-sailer-strategy-obsolete-why/#comment-52074
The one person who was shocked and humiliated by the result was Prof. Alan Lichtman. Poor guy was confidently predicting a Kalama win and even shouting about it from the rooftops. Had a good track record and people were taking him seriously. Then at 3am on Nov. 5, he saw the results and said to his live audience, "This is nuts. I'm going to bed now."
Alal Lichtman was trying to influence the election, in 2024, in a way that was outright unethical.
The same for Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia. And others. But Lichtman and Sabato were egregious cases in 2024. They took advantage of their positions as academics and should be ashamed (but won't be).
Another contender, on smaller scale, is this Iowa pollster Ann Selzer. Her late-release poll predicting a Kamala +3 win in Iowa got, I guess, hundreds-of-millions of dollars-equivalent of free airtime. She was off by 16 points. Iowa was a 13-point Trump win in 2024.
The problem with these dishonest polls is that most normal people forget about them hours after the election. Only pol-dorks remember. So they can get away with their bogus polls and not pay any price.
You're right, Derek.
Among those offering "How did the pollsters do" is the blog Electoral-Vote.com: yesterday they wrote about the NYT/Sienna poll ("The #1 ranked pollster at FiveThirtyEight")'s performance in 2024. The NYT/Sienna poll underestimated Trump votes consistently in every swing-state by between 2.5% and 5.0%, constituting a statistical "polling error" in half the swing-states and nearly so (although still within the statistical confidence-interval) in the rest. The NYT/Sienna poll also underestimated R-Senate votes in the key states.
Of course, media coverage, average people, and especially low-info voters, DON'T pay attention to "margin of error" talk at all, may not understand it and/or be skeptical of statistical techniques in the first place. It's the "big board" number they can make sense of, and care about.
The Electoral-Vote.com main-blogger says this on why the big pollsters generally underestimated Trump votes in 2024:
"It has to do with who was polled and also who was a likely voter. Trump's campaign put a huge emphasis on getting (young) men who normally don't vote to show up for him. The campaign went to sports events and certain music festivals and bars, and places where low-propensity male voters tend to show up and pitched their candidate. These people probably didn't answer when asked to take part in a poll, so they were probably missed. And those that did would be asked screening questions like "Did you vote in 2020?" "Do you think voting is everyone's duty?" "Do you think your vote will count?" A "no" on everything will get you marked as an unlikely voter.
It is also possible that the "undecided voters" really were undecided and then broke for Trump nationally in the last couple of days. A huge question is whether this effect holds when Trump is not on the ballot."
https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Nov13-2.html
> Then at 3am on Nov. 5, he saw the results
That would be November 6
Abortion is currently a less important issue because the number of abortions in 2023 exceed the number in 2019. Passing Dobbs does not seem to affect many women's ability to get an abortion. That may be why the Democrats focused on women dying the parking lot of the Emergency room during a high risk pregnancy.
However, if the Trump Administration withdraws FDA approval of mifepristone or uses the Comstock Act to ban most forms of birth control, the abortion will be back as a major issue.
What is the data source on absolute number of abortions by year? How certain are we that 2023>2019?
https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/despite-bans-number-abortions-united-states-increased-2023
And if one is going to argue over cites, then please provide one of your own.
I don't know which data is right and can imagine lots of methodological difficulties.
Another abortion-counting organization -- https://societyfp.org/research/wecount/ -- also shows an increase: 100,000 abortions per month throughout 2024; versus the 2022 pre-"Dobbs" baseline of around 80,000/month.
But with officially 0 abortions going on in some states, there is probably some demographic distortions on who is getting the abortions and who is carrying a pregnancy to term that would have aborted before 2022.
A lot of the abortion in states like Texas or Florida are being done using telemedicine and the interstate shipping of mifepristone. For later term abortions, those living in Florida or Texas just have to go to other states.
Abortions per year had been falling modestly but fairly steadily. The culture seemed increasingly anti-abortion. So, that was one reason I didn't put much effort into the topic. But then it increased as the culture deteriorated over the last ten years. Then came the 2020s and a big push to make abortion fashionable.
One would probably be more correct blaming Title IX more than anything else. As women raced based men in education and moved into the professional workforce, there were many good reasons to not want a child.
This election result is a repudiation of the Sailer strategy. The Sailer strategy was that reaching out to non-whites is useless and counterproductive, and the focus should be on maximizing the white vote. However, as unsexy and un-edgy as it is, the traditional multi-racial "civic nationalism" apparently won the day. The one difference is, reaching out to non-whites doesn't have to be about being soft on the border and demographics -- you can be as shrill about it as you want, and that's not necessarily a turnoff to minorities. But the minorities can be and now are part of the GOP coalition, that's just reality. Whites voted for Trump to a lesser extent in this election than non-whites did. There's some food for thought here.
"Whites voted for Trump to a lesser extent in this election than non-whites did. "
That is definitely incorrect.
You may mean that Trump lost White vote-share but gained Nonwhite vote-share. But in absolute terms, Trump-2024 was extremely, extremely reliant everywhere-and-always on White votes.
That's what I mean, yes. He lost the white share while gaining the non-white vote.
I don't think he did lose white share, but rather he didn't gain nearly as much as with Hispanics, so the white percentage of the Trump vote overall declined slightly despite whites voting more for Trump in the recent election than in 2020.
Around 95% of black women who voted, voted for Harris. However, the turnout was lower in 2020 and Trump benefitted from that.
Or did the Democrats cheat less successfully in 2024 than in 2020.
Since no cheating was ever proven in 2020, the level was the same: none. I always tell people to go sign up to be a poll worker and learn why cheating would be impossible.
> Since no cheating was ever proven in 2020
Well nothing outside mathematics can actually be "proven".
As for looking at the actual evidence, yeh there was a lot of cheating in 2020.
> I always tell people to go sign up to be a poll worker and learn why cheating would be impossible.
You haven't talked to many poll workers, have you?
There is and never has been any proof of cheating in 2020. And since I have been a poll worker, I have talked to many of them.
> There is and never has been any proof of cheating in 2020.
So you have an innocent explanation for the synchronized stopping of the count across multiple states followed by statistically impossible jumps for Biden, the numerous incidence of observers being tricked or kicked out of the counting room followed by the count resuming, in once case the counters literally boarding up the windows so the observers couldn't see what they were up to, the video of the same ballots being fed multiple times through the machine, the multiple sword eyewitness affidavits, the miscellaneous statistical irregularities, including the 10 million voters who mysteriously appeared to vote for Biden in 2020 and just as mysteriously disappeared in 2024, etc.
> And since I have been a poll worker
Oh, you're just a troll, got it. Next time at least think up a more creative username.
"...They felt that there was nothing cynical about their crusade to replace white men. It’s simply that white men are bad and deserve to be replaced."
Yes, this is emblematic of what feels like a big realignment. Since some time in the 90s the elite has taken it for granted that white Christian men are simply evil and should be replaced.
Now, after the results of the great awokening and the COVID debacle, elites have discredited themselves to the extent that people are beginning to reject their values.
“One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.” -- Christopher Caldwell, 2009
Who could have predicted this? Mike Judge and the Simpsons writers.
What caused the Trump victory? A lot of things.
I would like to think that a big part of it was that the silent majority of Americans think POTUS is a fairly important job and having a babbling dope in that job would not be ideal. I would also like to think that the silent majority was voting against lawfare and social media suppression of dissent.
I would like to think that, so it is probably wrong.
It is hard to claim that Biden's mental faculties were an issue when Trump would answer questions with a five minute with what Trump called "The Weave" which means that Trump rambles without answering the question.
We will just have to disagree on this. It's quite possible Trump is going to be demented soon, but what you describe as "The Weave" is just standard political speak, answer the question you want instead of the one you got. Based on his three hours with Rogan, he is still intact. Biden clearly is not.
Go to the Dailywire and listen to the interview that Ben Shapiro had with Trump. Shapiro asked about the Trump campaign's ground game. Trump spoke for over 4 minutes and did not mention campaign ground game.
Also, watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=porNCYAWYhU
Those do not contradict my point. On the YouTube video he did the same thing every politician and salesman does- you never answer a question "no" that is supposed to be answered yes. Obviously he has no specific legislation to support for child care or whatever. I would have said "no". That's why he's president and I am not.
Is this your first election ?
What a way to spin Trump's inability to focus on anything for more than a minute.
thanks
I haven't watched the video but yeah, winners are people who stay on message, THEIR message, not their opponents. And weaving is just fine too. There is no right and wrong, in either the universe or Trump's cranium. There's just a whole buncha creatures trying to eat each other.
Politicians, salesmen, or priests with values - whether genuine or just for public consumption - play to win with every weapon they can wield that doesn't feel immoral to them (or which they fear will make them look immoral to others).
This invariably includes "not answering the question", when they see a benefit in talking about something else instead.
Trump is sui generis in having NO values, ingrained or advertised, beside the most basic human will to power.
He doesn't even *hear* questions whose true answers could harm him or even just bore him.
Guest007 is a troll, ignore him.
Is he? I'm not good at remembering screen names. I assumed he was just a sincere anti-Trump guy. I don't find his arguments convincing but at least he responds somewhat to what I write. I'll try to remember this
Steve wrote, "I can also remember that there have been a number of elections during that period when nobody seemed to care much about immigration."
Like many Republican voters, since the 1980s I cared very strongly about that issue but our party made it impossible for a candidate to win the nomination who was not pro-immigration. In 2008, I unenthusiastically actually voted for Obama over McCain because McCain would have been, if anything, worse than Obama on immigration and more of a warmonger.
People have a tendency to not care as much about illegal immigration during a boom time. Wages are going up and there are jobs and one can get a new roof, new house, or lawn service cheaply.
People tend to notice when the neighborhood they grew up in is being taken over by another ethnic or racial group. Home isn't home anymore.
And by that time "the neighborhood they grew up in is being taken over," the original people's power and influence will usually have become too weak reverse the situation, and a national elite stands off to one side, glowering at them, whip in hand, and willing to enforce discipline on whatever off-the-reservation Whites pop up. The original people either demoralize and sink into despair, or go into a siege-mentality, or find some other 'out.' Most often they leave the area.
There has historically been lots of slack to "leave," even within a single city, or certainly within a larger metro area (but even that has become difficult).
At larger scale, Whites of European-Christian origin have been leaving California, on net, for now almost 35 years. There are, maybe surprisingly, few million fewer in California than was true in 1990. Those Whites who remain are often, if you encounter them, marked by a peasant-like passivity and pessimism uncharacteristic of California's first 125 to 150 years but now easily recognizable.
The pressure-release valve of internal "emigration" to flee Diversity is more important than Guest007's flippant "people don't care at all about the Third Worldization as long as average salaries are rising."
But the increasing wages are what allow them to move to nicer neighborhoods. Look at the recent stories out of the Dallas Fort Worth area. The good suburbs of the 1980's (think Garland) are now majority Hispanic, the good suburbs of the 1990's like Plano are becoming more Hispanic, The suburbs of the 2000's like Southlake or Allen are now very expensive. So people are moving to Frisco where businesses cannot be enough service workers.
I grew up in a Washington DC suburb called Seabrook. It was 99 % white when I moved there with my family. It was a great place to grow up. School busing to racially balance the schools of Prince George's County began in January 1973. Gradually whites left Seabrook and PG County and blacks moved in. By the mid-80s, no new whites moved into Seabrook, only blacks. The businesses, bars and restaurants closed down or moved in the 90s. Seabrook was about half-black when my folks left Seabrook in 1996. Seabrook is 7 % white today, all of them old. Interestingly, Seabrook is now one-quarter Hispanic.
Yes. I knew that losing to Obama was preferable to winning with McCain. However disgusting it was to have Barry Sotero as president. If McCain had won in 2008, the Republican Party might have been destroyed.
Likewise if GHWB had been reelected in '92. I doubt Ford in the late 70s would have been followed by Reagan, the pivotal Prez after LBJ, except in a positive direction.
After the election the Democratic Party (my party) must rethink many of its policies as it ponders its future.
To be entrusted with power again Democrats must start listening to the concerns of the working class for a change. As a lifelong moderate Democrat I share their disdain for many of the insane positions advocated by my party.
Democrat politicians defy biology by believing that men can actually become women and belong in women’s sports, rest rooms, locker rooms and prisons and that children should be mutilated in pursuit of the impossible.
They believe borders should be open to millions of illegals which undermines workers’ wages and the affordability of housing when we can’t house our own citizens.
They discriminate against whites, Asians and men in a vain effort to counter past discrimination against others and undermine our economy by abandoning merit selection of students and employees.
Democratic mayors allow homelessness to destroy our beautiful cities because they won't say no to destructive behavior. No you can’t camp in this city. No you can’t shit in our streets No you can’t shoot up and leave your used needles everywhere. Many of our prosecutors will not take action against shoplifting unless a $1000 of goods are stolen leading to gangs destroying retail stores. They release criminals without bond to rob and murder again.
The average voter knows this is happening and outright reject our party. Enough.
There are way too many tells in the post to believe that one is or ever was a Democrat.
Guest: “There are none so blind as those who will not see.” Of course, the Republicans used these as talking points. That’s how they won and will continue to win unless the Democrats wake up.
The use of the meme that people like Charlie Kirk use every day shows that one is not a Democrat.
And playing hot potato with the homeless never works and making the county jail a homeless shelter is very expensive and means that others have to be released.
Guest: If I were a Republican I would urge Democrats to stay the course on every one of these stupid issues that helped them lose. Your response shows just how stupid they are.
The people who foisted an obviously impaired Biden and incompetent Harris on us in 2020 and 2024, while telling us they were fine, deserve to be punished--BO, DNC, & MSM. In a sane country, they would have lost 2020 or been wiped out in 2024. But mean tweets!