Friday, June 24, 2016

Swing states more white, black and less Hispanic, Asian than rest of US

The electoral emphasis given to Hispanics and to a lesser extent Asians is exaggerated because voter participation rates among members of these groups are lower than they are for whites and for blacks.

That's not the only reason their putative importance is exaggerated, though. It is also exaggerated because the swing states are whiter and blacker, and less Hispanic and less Asian, than the rest of the country is.

The following table and graphs show the total population racial/ethnic distribution in the 12 states Real Clear Politics lists as toss ups and the total population racial/ethnic distribution in the other 38 states plus DC.


While Hispanics are the largest non-white minority group in the country, they're heavily concentrated in electorally safe states like Texas and California. In the states most likely to decide the outcome of the general election, blacks outnumber Hispanics (in addition to being more likely to vote than Hispanics are).

Florida is the swing state with the largest number of Hispanics, but Florida's largely Cuban and Puerto Rican Hispanic population cares less about Mexican immigration into the US than the country's non-Floridian Hispanics do.

Proportionally, the non-Hispanic white population in the swing states is a little more than a decade 'behind' the country as a whole. The 2016 swing states are about as white as the country was in 2004.

Appealing to Old America looks to be a better electoral strategy than Hispandering to New América is.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Vera Lynn's veritas confirmed as the English vote to leave

As I was following Brexit coverage, this caught my eye:

There may not always be an England, but the assertion that there is no England now is at best premature. What has become abundantly clear, however--as this Telegraph reporting illustrates--is that London is no longer part of England. It's less English now than it was as Londinium during Boudica's uprising.

Paul Ryan, capitulating cuckservative

Mara Liasson, who has spent most of the last year smugly missing the mark, hit the bullseye yesterday in an article with the descriptive title "Trump Just Gave The Speech Republicans Have Been Waiting 20 Years To Hear".

I couldn't agree more. This is Pat Buchanan with even more moxie, with independent wealth, and without the religiosity.

This isn't an act. Trump has learned a lot in the last few years. He's internalized it. The Snake. The gene thing. The existential threat non-Western immigration into Western countries presents. The phrase "America First", unapologetically, over and over and over again (four times in yesterday's speech). The wall. Interests over principles.

Paul Ryan, epitome of a cuckservative, doesn't get any of it. As just one example, Ryan stands resolutely alongside Hillary and Obama and against Trump on the Muslim Question.

The following graph shows the percentages of people, since the Orlando shooting prompted Trump to reaffirm the call for a 'temporary' stop to the movement of Muslims into America, sans those answering "don't know", by partisan affiliation, who agree with his proposal for a moratorium on Muslim immigration and a ban on travel from majority-Muslim countries into the US (n = 1,793):

Women, especially fertile young women without children, have little desire to stop the invasion. The more likely the chances of that invasion being successful the less likely they are to resist, desiring submission to the invaders instead.

That tendency shows up here as well. Unmarried women under the age of 40 on the Muslim ban (n = 264):

Saturday, June 18, 2016

Trump to join Hadrian, Aurelian, Theodosius II

I remember more than a decade ago regularly encountering arguments that building a wall along the US-Mexico border would be a prohibitively expensive undertaking. It was a risible argument then and it's a risible argument now.

Trump says he can do it for under $12 billion. Skeptics say it'll cost upwards of $25 billion. Financially ruinous!

For some perspective, that's one day of current federal spending on the low end and three days on the high end. Three days! Factoring in maintenance costs for the next couple of decades could bring the total price tag to five days worth of government spending--almost a whole week's worth of government profligacy to construct a 50-foot high concrete barrier along the entire border and maintain it for twenty years! (It won't actually have to run along the full 1,951 miles of land border, of course, since there are natural barriers that preclude human crossing without the need for any additional artifice).

Trump has begun alluding to this in his speeches:

WEIRDOs tend to operate in a moral universe where anything that cannot be justified by an appeal to Kantian principles is to be dismissed. When a fecund, expansive West was conquering the world that approach was viable, laudable even. With Europeans on their way to having comprised one-quarter of the world's population in 1950 to less than one-tenth of it by 2050 while non-European and thus non-WEIRDO populations immigrate into European countries in massive numbers, the approach has rapidly become suicidal.

Trump offers a new paradigm (at least for those of European descent--it's standard operating procedure for non-Europeans all over the world): Principles are out, interests are in. He doesn't articulate it so explicitly, but this approach is detectable in virtually everything he says. For example:

Here's another example from the same speech, this time referencing article 9 of the Japanese constitution:

One of the most significant realignments taking place in this presidential election is the partisan reversal in which of the two major party nominees support military interventionism, nation-building, and cultural imperialism and which party nominee opposes it.

Hillary has backed every major military intervention the US has embarked on over the last two decades--Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. For guys like John Kasich, that wasn't meddlesome enough--he thinks the US should treat a Russian attack on Finland as an attack on America itself. It's why the neocons have so much animus for Trump and why many of them are backing Hillary. Conversely, it's why libertarians like Walter Block are supporting Trump.

Here's Trump horrifying warmongers everywhere by nonchalantly noting that Russia isn't an enemy:

Finally, some fine shitlordery on display. Another reminder that physiognomy is real (the stencil-necked, low-T twerp holding the microphone is the video host, not an actual Trump supporter):

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Trump opposes Zeroth amendment

Trump's speech on the history of Clintonian corruption was postponed so he could deliver one in response to the mass shooting in Orlando where an inanimate carbon assault rifle killed fifty people. The topic was to be covered was billed as terrorism. Substantively, though, it was more a speech on immigration that also included terrorism insofar as terrorism is downstream of immigration. A few highlights follow.

Channeling Derb, Trump recognizes that maximum freedom within the nation's borders requires maximum security at the nation's borders:

He also channels Steve Sailer's sagacious suggestion that when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging:

Trump points out fissures in the Coalition of the Fringes:

Trump has emphatically and vociferously proclaimed his unwavering support for the second amendment. He does not appear, however, to support the zeroth amendment:

A refreshing phrase to hear from a Republican presidential nominee:

After rhetorically boxing him in, it was clear that Trump had gotten under Obama's skin. He and Hillary read from the same talking points, They don't like Trump's renewed call for a ban on Muslim immigration into the US. That was only supposed to be a stunt to win the primaries--he wasn't supposed to be serious about it!

Parenthetically, from the second link in the preceding paragraph, note Lester Holt's smug remark that Trump's call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration wouldn't have prevented the Orlando shooting, as though he's just let loose some kind of polemical kill shot. To the contrary, if the US had adopted Trump's proposal generations ago, Omar Majeed wouldn't have been in the country at all, let alone a citizen. The time to adopt the moratorium was after the first battle of Poitiers. Better late than never, though.

Paul Ryan, GOP head cuckety-cuck, doesn't see it that way, of course. He agrees with Obama and Hillary.

This bipartisan attack on Trump, led by three of the government's highest profile establishment puppets, is coming hard and fast because Trump's idea is popular. After shuttering the ongoing poll over the last couple of weeks--apparently thinking they'd heard the end of the Muslim ban, too--Reuters-Ipsos opened it back up, asking respondents if they agreed or disagreed that "the United States should temporarily stop all Muslims from entering the United States". A plurality agreed:

The question is worded so that the proposal appears more strict than what Trump has actually called for. He's said it would only apply to non-citizen Muslims, but the poll--and Obama--mendaciously imply that it would apply to citizens, too. Even so, there's a lot of support for it.

Since Reuters-Ipsos began tracking responses in May, "disagree" holds a narrow edge over "agree" among likely general election voters in aggregate (N = 4,407):

To Ryan's dismay, it's massively favored among Republicans, 67.1%-28.2% (see here to support his primary challenger). It's also favored among independents, 49.0%-44.0%.

Ryan shouldn't assume he's safe behind the arena's walls. The gibbet glistens: