November 13, 2016

"What if minority voters just won’t turn out for non-minority candidates any more?"

"That’s a real problem for the Democrats, especially if all the racial politics they pursue in order to try to motivate minority voters (Black Lives Matter, immigration protests, etc.) actually serve to make minorities less likely to vote for whites, even if they’re Democrats. And if working-class whites start to vote Republican the way minorities have voted Democratic — and all that racial politics is likely to encourage that — the Dems are in trouble."

Writes Instapundit.

You can't control human minds. If you get people to think of one thing, they're not going to stay with that one thing. It will remind them of other things and there are consequences. It seems as though the Democratic Party had the idea of telling people in some groups that they should think of themselves as members of that group and to do what is advantageous to their group interests, which is to support the Democratic Party.

But the message doesn't stick and remain fixed. For one thing, everyone, not just the people in the targeted group, hears the message, and those non-targeted people may react, feeling perhaps that they should think of themselves as members of their group and to pursue the interests of their group.

And the people in the targeted groups might resist being grouped the way the Party wants them to stay grouped or they may accept the grouping but question whether the Party that wants to own that group really has its best interests at heart. After all, the Party has the open and obvious goal of getting power, and everyone can see that they are being used as a means to the Party's end.

162 comments:

traditionalguy said...

George Soros had better buy himself some more rioters.

AReasonableMan said...

Whites have been voting as a racial bloc for a while now. Trump just made it more explicit.

Carol said...

I thought this was supposed to be the End of the Republican Party, but today someone on ABC said the Democrat Party was "hollowed out."

Who can keep up.

James Pawlak said...

If, by "Minority Voters", you mean "Black Voters", some are breaking loose from the self-imposed slavery to the DNC.

Many second generation Latinos are becoming Americans and free from such racial groupings as was previously the case for many other "minorities".

I doubt me that those of Chinese decent have much interest in voting for the Left and Black dominated Democrat Party.

Anglelyne said...

Uh, "racists" (i.e., people who aren't deluded about human nature and aren't blind to the obvious) have been pointing this out for years - if you push "Everybody vs. Whitey" identity politics, you're going to push whites into racial identity politics.

Well, I guess it's nice that the obvious has now revealed itself to the fastidiously "non-racist", even if they have been a bit slow on the uptake.

There's a lesson in there about other kinds of "identity" mongering, too.

holdfast said...

ARM.

Bullshit, else Romney would be our current president.

Sebastian said...

White men for Trump: 63%. White women: 53%. Therefore, so far, whites are less of a racal "bloc" than any other groups in the US. But prog racial identity politics is already backfiring. Dems face a choice: stay the course and hope other minorities will grow enough and turn out enough to overcome the GOP white edge, or change course and pursue a less racial, more inclusive form of progressivism.

Someone should study blacks who said home before we all overinterpret their behavior. Perhaps black men thought that voting Dem wouldn't make a difference in their lives and actually liked some things Trump said and stood for. Without evidence to the contrary, attributing the worst BLM BS to black voters at large is a mistake.

If progs don't change course, the key next move for the GOP is to redefine Hispanics as white and build a coalition, on the assumption that the views and interests of working-class Hispanics are not that different from those of whites.


AReasonableMan said...

holdfast said...
Bullshit, else Romney would be our current president.


This doesn't really follow. It is not the case that 100% Jews or blacks or asians or hispanics vote Democrat. They still tend to vote as a bloc, as do whites.

Anglelyne said...

ARM: Whites have been voting as a racial bloc for a while now. Trump just made it more explicit.

It'll probably take a while for whites to reach the levels of racial bloc voting that other groups exhibit, though.

Hagar said...

FDR was a political genius who managed to make himself a coalition of "The Solid South" - still fighting reconstruction - blacks of the northern cities, and the urban intelligentsia and blue-collar labor of "Big labor."
In FDR's day it was possible for him to do this as communications still were such that these disparate "blocs" could be kept separate and prevented from "getting to know each other." That won't work any more.
Furthermore, "The Solid South" is long gone and has been for 40 these years and more, and "Big Labor" is on life support. (There is nothing "labor" with either capital or lower case "l" about teachers and government employees. In todays economics, they are privileged classes.)


Qwinn said...

White women voted for Trump 47%.
Black women voted for Hillary 94%.

But according to ARM, whites are the ones voting like an identity group.

(Note, btw, with the above numbers, how regularly the MSM takes the above disparity and reports it as a "gender gap" among all women, when it's clearly just a black women gap.)

Quaestor said...

ARM wrote: This doesn't really follow. It is not the case that 100% Jews or blacks or asians or hispanics vote Democrat. They still tend to vote as a bloc, as do whites.

Evasion.

You were caught staking a typically delusional bullshit claim, and you reply with an equally bullshit irrelevancy.

YoungHegelian said...

I think Obama raised the bar so high for the enthusiasm among minority, especially black voters, that it's going to be an almost impossible act to follow. You can only have one "the first black president". After Obama, how can minority voters not see a return to the standard parade of "powerful white people" candidates as a return to the same old, boring default position?

I don't think we as conservatives should yet see this as a crack in the Democratic mindset among minority voters, in spite of Trump's gains among them. I think this enthusiasm gap is systemic issue that will dog the Democrats' "high/low" coalition (always fragile at best) for years to come.

mikee said...

Identity politics, which groups people into subsets of the total population and then demands absolute conformity within the arbitrary and capricious group assignments, is a losing game in the long run. Eventually you can't please even a majority of the subdivided population, because each group is set against all the others for favored status and beneficial treatment at the hands of the government.

Much like Yugoslavia fell into violent civil war when finally the strong, but divisive, boot of the socialist government was removed from the necks of the people there, I expect the Democrat-supporting racial, gender, and other ssubdivisions to suddenly notice that when one group gets some goodies, everyone else gets squat. And reacting appropriately to this realization will involve fighting other groups, not making coalitions for mutual success.

And that is one reason, among many, that support for individual rights rather than "human" rights is the correct way to limit government damages wrought upon society.

Matthew Sablan said...

There's a lot of chickens coming home to roost this election post-season.

mikee said...

Identity politics, which groups people into subsets of the total population and then demands absolute conformity within the arbitrary and capricious group assignments, is a losing game in the long run. Eventually you can't please even a majority of the subdivided population, because each group is set against all the others for favored status and beneficial treatment at the hands of the government.

Much like Yugoslavia fell into violent civil war when finally the strong, but divisive, boot of the socialist government was removed from the necks of the people there, I expect the Democrat-supporting racial, gender, and other ssubdivisions to suddenly notice that when one group gets some goodies, everyone else gets squat. And reacting appropriately to this realization will involve fighting other groups, not making coalitions for mutual success.

And that is one reason, among many, that support for individual rights rather than "human" rights is the correct way to limit government damages wrought upon society.

Birkel said...

Watching #ThisWeek and not laughing at the transparent Leftism of Hillary stooge George Stephanopoulos is getting harder.

I do like the idea of Keith Ellison (D-MN) taking over the lead at the DNC. Nothing will scream centrism more. /sarc

I wonder if Ellison will be able to reach across the aisle. Maybe he will just "grab us by the pocketbook" instead of the female anatomy. That will be more inclusive.

Michael K said...

"Whites have been voting as a racial bloc for a while now."

So, 13% of the population elected Obama?

You are an idiot.

tim in vermont said...

Whites have been voting as a racial bloc for a while now. Trump just made it more explicit - ARM

Once again ARM stoutly refuses to grapple with the ideas presented because they might force him to think a little more deeply than is required to remember which slogan he heard last from the Democrats.

AReasonableMan said...

Anglelyne said...
It'll probably take a while for whites to reach the levels of racial bloc voting that other groups exhibit, though.


If you include gender as part of the bloc definition white men were 63% Trump compared to hispanics 65% for Clinton. If you include education it would be an even more distinct 'bloc'.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with whites voting as a bloc. It will likely become even more pronounced if the fraction of whites continues to decline. When whites could dominate both parties it made sense to split their votes. If there aren't enough to dominate both parties the next best option is to dominate one party.

Bay Area Guy said...

One of the best things Trump did was go directly to the black communities and ask for their vote.

It is ridiculous that 90% of blacks vote Dem. Indeed, it is artificial. They are many conservative strains within the black community (church, school choice, tough on crime), but they are drowned out by leftist activism.

30% of Blacks should be voting for the GOP, That number is similar to Asians and Hispanics, and reflects the actual number of minorities who have striven to attain the blessings and comforts of a middle-class lifestyle in the US, without all the bullshit, LeftWing political agitations.

Birkel said...

Katrina vanden Heuvel is sad. Nothing makes me happier than a commie's sadness.

cyrus83 said...

Well the Democrats have been asking for this for years. Hasn't the cry always been that minority districts need to be represented by someone who looks like them? Shocking that years of using that message might have caused racial minorities to want a racial minority as President, particularly after giving them the taste of having one for 8 years. That doesn't mean they won't vote for a white Democrat necessarily, just that the enthusiasm won't be there, as was plainly evident throughout Hillary's campaign.

Also, the problem with motivating groups of people to vote one way based on bloc solidarity is that eventually the message gets heard by the groups not being targeted. It is not possible to emphasize the black vote, the latino vote, the women vote, without eventually having the groups NOT focused on notice - such as the men or the whites. That should be concerning to Democrats because if whites start to vote in a truly lopsided fashion against them, winning elections will get far more difficult.

chickelit said...

What if minority voters just won’t turn out for non-minority candidates any more?

What if NFL viewership never comes back? Will salaries have to decline?

That’s a real problem for the Democrats, too.

Michael K said...

Ellison is talking on MTP right now. Is there any better illustration that Democrats are deep in delusions?

I suspect it will take another electoral disaster for Democrats to figure out that Progressivism is not the future.

They are talking about "Obama voters" and I assume they mean blacks. It is pretty obvious when they list the counties that Detroit and Cleveland are in.

Maybe they should think about doing a better job governing the blue cities but that would be too much cognitive dissonance,

Birkel said...

Van Jones too.

chickelit said...

The problem is that Hillary implicitly rejected whites. And men in general.

Michael K said...

"One of the best things Trump did was go directly to the black communities and ask for their vote."

And Todd asked Kellyann why Trump did not talk to those who opposed him.

Clueless. She pointed out that Obama voters he DID talk to switched to Trump voters.

Matthew Sablan said...

"I suspect it will take another electoral disaster for Democrats to figure out that Progressivism is not the future."

-- Do they really have enough seats to lose for there to BE another electoral disaster for them?

tim in vermont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Birkel said...

George Stephanopoulos to Bill Kristol:

"That may be true, BUT..."

Perfectly encapsulating the Left's reaction to reality.

tim in vermont said...

This doesn't really follow. It is not the case that 100% Jews or blacks or asians or hispanics vote Democrat. They still tend to vote as a bloc, as do whites.

Per the Democrats, if whites vote 53-47% for a non leftist, oh wait, I mean "reasonable" candidate, they are voting in a racist block.

I think that the Republicans are far more non-racial that the Democrats, and that correlation is not causation when it comes to skin color and policy preferences, but when you have large swaths of the electorate propagandized to believe that such a condition cannot exist, they will not believe that it exists. For instance, if one racial group sees itself as an "identity group" it will be hard to win over members of that group to a non racial coalition.

David Begley said...

The new Chairman of the DNC might be Keith X. Ellison. Go right ahead Dems. For the GOP it will be like playing Lower Valley State for every game.

Bob Ellison said...

AReasonableMan, that's not the case, but it may become so. Trump's victory may have provided a welcome obstacle to whites voting white-only.

There's always a fringe out there trying to unify whites against non-whites, and men against women. It doesn't coagulate into a bloc at all, and still hasn't.

And there would be something intrinsically wrong about whites voting as a bloc. It's racist. It's racists for blacks to vote as a block. Not for each of them-- plenty of blacks share leftist values. But 90%? There be racism here.

tim in vermont said...

When Todd blathered on that Trump had said that Obama and Clinton had "literally founded ISIS" Completely ruling out the possibility that Trump could speak figuratively, I knew he was hopeless. I can't see Tim Russert pretending that he didn't get a joke for political advantage, but partisan blindness, willful or not, is what it takes to get these jobs now.

Hagar said...


And the people in the targeted groups might resist being grouped the way the Party wants them to stay grouped or they may accept the grouping but question whether the Party that wants to own that group really has its best interests at heart. After all, the Party has the open and obvious goal of getting power, and everyone can see that they are being used as a means to the Party's end.


Especially when the "Party" obviously consist of only a small self-selected fraction of the Party.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

cyrus83,

I was going to bring up "majority-minority districts" myself. Don't these deliberately -- one might almost say "with malice aforethought" -- force voters to consider the races of the candidates? And don't they deliberately make it impossible to do otherwise, by segregating (yes, I'm using the word) black and Latino voters away from white voters so as to produce a predetermined racial outcome? This is possibly the dumbest thing ever to come out of the civil rights movement, dumber even than "affirmative action" in higher education. (On second thought, maybe that is the worst, because that one line of Justice Powell in Bakke has led to everyone, everywhere talking "diversity" about absolutely everything. And by "diversity" they flat-out all of them mean race, and nothing else. I mean, nothing else really matters, right?)

tim in vermont said...

I guess my definition of voting as a block is when large majorities of a group vote for a member of that group regardless of the policies espoused by that member. I haven't seen that, or, as has been pointed out Romney and McCain would have easily won.

I reject ARM's facile response. Maybe he could give us a working definition of voting as a bloc that takes into account both group identity and policies. That would be "reasonable," I think, and shouldn't be too hard for somebody who has professed himself to be so much smarter than the rest of us so many times.

AReasonableMan said...

Not much love for a future of white bloc voting? Whites as just another cog in the racial grievance industry? Wake up and look around. The future is here. Sean Hannity is just Al Sharpton in white face.

Hagar said...

It also leads to political machines that serve themselves rather than the electorate.

tim in vermont said...

I think that the reason Trump won the rust belt is quite easy to figure out non racially. Upper class white liberals are pushing environmental policies that put lower class white working people out of jobs, effectively kicking them out of the coalition.

But that would require introspection on the part of "reasonable" Democrats, and that ain't gonna happen.

Quaestor said...

"That may be true, BUT..." Perfectly encapsulating the Left's reaction to reality.

From the FoxNews site: The publisher of The New York Times penned a letter to readers Friday promising that the paper would “reflect” on its coverage of this year’s election while rededicating itself to reporting on “America and the world” honestly.

The NYT is still bullshitting, still distorting the unwelcome truth. Rededicating, eh? Drop the re and you'll be nearer to honesty, Punch Junior.

William said...

If there's one inflexible rule of history it's that minorities get screwed. I can see where white people feel threatened by their impending minority status. I don't understand why progressives so look forward to it......My childhood poverty didn't make me a better person, neither I fear will minority status. The progs are always saying all kinds of garbage about how poverty and minority status are ennobling. They're not.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Sean Hannity is just Al Sharpton in white face."

-- When has Sean Hannity ever advocated rioting against "diamond merchants?" Because, you know, Al Sharpton has actually inspired racist hate crimes, while as far as I know, Hannity has not.

tim in vermont said...

"Wake up PEOPLE!"

LOL ARM, you have seen objection after objection to your argument laid out for you by mulitple commenters, you answer none. This is why you are so unpersuasive.

Birkel said...

I agree with "AReasonableMan" in that all the networks invite Sean Hannity to talk to their broad audiences just as often as they do Al Sharpton. Further, the Notorious RBG is constantly measured by her skin-color-loyalty as is Clarence Thomas.

/sarc

(tag necessary?)

tim in vermont said...

Re The New York Times and "honesty" I have slightly better hope for that now that the Clintons are gone.

Hagar said...

Not as long as Pinch is talking about "re-dedicating."

chickelit said...

The Democratic party's undoing was at that early debate when a question was framed: "Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?" That the only acceptable answer was "black lives matter" repudiated inclusion. Watch it for yourselves in rerun.

Hagar said...

"I have seen the future, and it works!" and "Mao's people are not really communists, but just agricultural reformers."

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
When has Sean Hannity ever advocated rioting


That Sean Hannity is marginally better at his job than Sharpton doesn't mean they aren't working in the same industry.

JAORE said...

I suspect the 90% voting pattern of African Americans can be lowered next time. The economy is (despite cherry picked stats) crap. In Inner cites they are way below crap. Folk don't realize there is a distrust between blacks and Hispanics over who will get a bigger slice of the pie/jobs/economic opportunities.

If the economy improves under Trump, and it can hardly do worse, the economy will improve for AAs too. If Trump follows through on his plans to include cities in that growth some in those areas will notice.

Add in the increasing voices saying, "We've been voting D for 50 years, and it ain't helping much", and nibble, nibble, nibble away at the 90%.

Of course, as a counterbalance, El Predicto sez the press will suddenly awaken topics like to:
The elderly and the paltry return on CD's and other fixed income;
The homeless;
The huge numbers on food stamps and other forms of welfare;
The shrinking real income of working stiffs;
Every job relocated over seas; and
The real unemployment rate.

Achilles said...

"I suspect it will take another electoral disaster for Democrats to figure out that Progressivism is not the future."

2018 was going to be a disaster for democrats anyway. Whoever gets the DNC job now is getting screwed.

Matthew Sablan said...

"That Sean Hannity is marginally better at his job than Sharpton doesn't mean they aren't working in the same industry."

Working in the same industry =/= "Sean Hannity is just Al Sharpton in white face."

Be reasonable.

Gahrie said...

The Democratic Party has been racist and has played the race card literally its inception.

Trail of tears
slavery
Jim Crow
Separate but equal
Wilson re-segregating the military and the government
Japanese Internment
Affirmative action

Birkel said...

Matthew Sablan:

You are setting the bar too high for 'AReasonableMan' but I appreciate the humor anyway.

tim in vermont said...

Several times during the coverage I heard Democrat strategist say "I thought that the weakness in black turnout would be made up for by Hispanic turnout."

In other words, like white working class votes, black votes were thought to be expendable, all replaced by the shiny new Hispanic and Muslim votes that were going to give them majorities into the foreseeable future.

Achilles said...

Blogger AReasonableMan said...
Not much love for a future of white bloc voting? Whites as just another cog in the racial grievance industry? Wake up and look around. The future is here. Sean Hannity is just Al Sharpton in white face.

Trolls gotta troll.

ARM/Shiloh just coming up with the same garbage assertion without support.

AReasonableMan said...

Matthew Sablan said...
Working in the same industry =/= "Sean Hannity is just Al Sharpton in white face."


I think you are very confused about what Sean Hannity does for a living.

Anglelyne said...

I think a lot of you are knee-jerking to ARM's statement that "[w]hites have been voting as a racial bloc for a while now. Trump just made it more explicit". Yes, you can quibble that the phrase "bloc" is an overstatement or imprecise, but that aside, it's a neutral statement, and true, regardless of whether it gives anti-white ninnies the vapors. There has been an identifiable trend in white voting patterns, and it's likely to become more marked over time.

(Hey, it's not like ARM doesn't provide enough straightforwardly exasperating content that we have to go looking for it where it ain't.)

ARM: If you include gender as part of the bloc definition white men were 63% Trump compared to hispanics 65% for Clinton. If you include education it would be an even more distinct 'bloc'.

Good point. White men's votes for Trump were in the same high range as minority blocs. I haven't yet seen any breakdown of the white women's votes by anything except "education" (e.g., married vs. unmarried). I think Trump won every slice-and-dice of the white demographic (age, sex, income, etc.) except "educated white women", and I be interested to see that last one broken down.

Birkel said...

Irony. 'AReasonableMan' speaks it

tim in vermont said...

There is no doubt that this blog would be a better place if we could get a commenter who was contrarian to the majority view on issues like this with some intellectual wattage. Instead, the complete lack of serious counter argument lends the appearance that there are no serious counter arguments. I would happily argue this stuff on lefty blogs, but as we all know, we get banned sooner than quicker as "trolls." We all know what a Troll is, BTW, he is a guy who asks hard questions before he will let you pass.

Gahrie said...

Every Democratic minority serving in Congress was elected from a Gerrymandered safe seat.

Every republican minority serving in Congress was elected from a majority White district.

So who are the racists?

Birkel said...

Anglelyne:

Knees may jerk but we don't take 'AReasonableMan' seriously.

The better point is that neither self-identified latinos nor whites display monolithic voting patterns.

tim in vermont said...

White men's votes for Trump were in the same high range as minority blocs.

So we are to overlook that the upper class whites (a smaller number than lower class whites) have forced policies on the Democrat party that have harmed lower class whites? It's all just "Whites voting as a block"?

I guess that this kind of simplistic analysis does allow one to look away from the root causes of one's failures and to blame outsiders for a loss, both good things!

Correlation is not causation, and you and ARM are indulging a kind of cargo cult political science.

Bob Ellison said...

Here are a few numbers breaking down the gender and ethnic vote in 2016.

The only overwhelmingly biased conclusion that I can draw from those numbers is that non-whites still vote amazingly Dem. Almost Saddam-Hussein numbers. Weird, that, after so much loss and so much ugliness and terror over the last 150 years from the Democrats toward people of color.

Anglelyne, I don't understand your statement that "White men's votes for Trump were in the same high range as minority blocs." White men voted strongly (about 2/3) for Trump, but not like a true bloc. What do you mean?

tim in vermont said...

It is inevitable, though, that as the Democrats become more and more about race and identity politics, people on the outs in that coalition will be forced to other coalitions by those identity politics. So even if the other party were completely non racial in intent, voting patterns forced by the other party would still affect the said, hypothetical non-racial party, since it is impossible for the racialist party to see anything in any other terms. Wouldn't be reasonable!

Anglelyne said...

tim in vermont: I think that the reason Trump won the rust belt is quite easy to figure out non racially.

Sure. Rust belt whites who voted twice for Obama didn't all of a sudden become racist white identitarians. But I think it's foolish to believe that the relentless grinding anti-white (particularly anti-white male) propaganda from Dems/msm/the academy, along with uncontrolled immigration, isn't affecting a lot of white attitudes. It's sure as hell been pissing off and driving the votes of a lot of whites I know, and they're not people who've been losers in the globalist economy, either.

tim in vermont said...

What is really funny is how members of a party whose standard bearers called a significant part of their base "deplorable" is shocked that they left! "We didn't mean it!"

Also, the Democrats are the ones deriding as "protectionist" those who back policies seeking to protect these same "deplorables."

Bob Ellison said...

Washington, DC, voted 93% for Hillary. Washington, DC, is about 41% white.

This is not ethnic-bloc voting.

Quaestor said...

I have slightly better hope for that now that the Clintons are gone.

Premature. Hillary is busy constructing a mythos in which her candidacy was torpedoed by the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy through the perfidiousness of FBI Director James Comey. Her plan is to clear a path for Chelsea, the goofy ex-First Daughter and not the borough, to enter Congress by exploiting the Snowflake Vote.

The Clintons aren't gone until the cell doors clang shut.

madAsHell said...

Her plan is to clear a path for Chelsea, the goofy ex-First Daughter and not the borough, to enter Congress by exploiting the Snowflake Vote.

Weekend at Bernie's!!

wildswan said...

The grievance industry says America was founded as "white". So "All men are created equal" is white culture; "We, the people" is white culture; "All lives matter" is white culture; "E pluribus unum" is white culture. "One nation under God with liberty and justice for all" is white culture. "I have a dream that one day America will rise up and live the true meaning of its Constitution" is white culture. Democracy is white culture. The Nisei battalion was white culture. The 54th Massachusetts was white culture. The Khan family was white culture. In short, universal values are white culture in America so if we collapse into white identity politics we will bounce out again into American values along with all those who believe in them. That will be most everyone, as long as we don't say that we have already achieved the real American dream. I have a dream that every day America will rise a little more and come a little closer to living the true meaning of its Constitution.

Comanche Voter said...

No that 93% for Hillary in the DC area is protecting their rice bowl (as the Chinese would say). The pestilent and perpetually petulant swamp on the Potomac is where those hogs feed at the trough. You are danged straight that they would vote for more of the same with Hillary.

Anglelyne said...

Birkel: The better point is that neither self-identified latinos nor whites display monolithic voting patterns.

Nobody said that they voted "monolithically". They display identifiable voting patterns. Are you saying that there is no pattern and that group voting outcomes are entirely random and unpredictable?

People really are knee-jerking and responding emotionally here. We're just talking about statistics, guys. Where'd that "monolithic" come from?

Look, if you (and apparently a lot of other people here) desperately need to believe that nobody has any idea whatsoever from one election to the next how the majority of whites or the majority of Hispanics are likely to vote in this or that election, knock yourselves out. Why you'd want to believe such an obviously nonsensical thing, I don't know, but it's no skin off my back.

AReasonableMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Qwinn said...

"The Clintons aren't gone until the cell doors clang shut."

That didn't stop Marion Barry. Why would it stop a Clinton?

AReasonableMan said...

Anglelyne said...
Rust belt whites who voted twice for Obama didn't all of a sudden become racist white identitarians. But I think it's foolish to believe that the relentless grinding anti-white (particularly anti-white male) propaganda from Dems/msm/the academy, along with uncontrolled immigration, isn't affecting a lot of white attitudes.


I largely agree with this. In at least one respect the election of Trump has further hardened attitudes along another fault line. A large number of women see the election of Trump as a slap in the face. For them Trump is someone who sees women as nothing other than sexual objects, pretty things to glorify the world of Trump. The multiple marriages and affairs are evidence of someone who doesn't fully humanize women.

Gahrie said...

. A large number of women see the election of Trump as a slap in the face.

Yeah probably. Most women think it is all about them, and are only concerned with the feelz.

For them Trump is someone who sees women as nothing other than sexual objects, pretty things to glorify the world of Trump. The multiple marriages and affairs are evidence of someone who doesn't fully humanize women.

Yet somehow they see Bill Clinton, who has raped women, assaulted women, harassed women and has been having affairs his whole adult life, as a defender of women.

Go figure......repeal the 19th Amendment.

chickelit said...

A large number of women see the election of Trump as a slap in the face. For them Trump is someone who sees women as nothing other than sexual objects, pretty things to glorify the world of Trump. The multiple marriages and affairs are evidence of someone who doesn't fully humanize women.

I wonder if JFK and Bill Clinton fully humanized women? I also note that Trump did his womanizing as a Dem.

YoungHegelian said...

@ARM,

For them Trump is someone who sees women as nothing other than sexual objects, pretty things to glorify the world of Trump. The multiple marriages and affairs are evidence of someone who doesn't fully humanize women.

And that argument might have some weight if the Democratic candidate was anyone but Hillary Clinton. Now that the Kennedy boys are dead & buried, there is no other political family with a more sordid sexual history than the Clintons. That some women have decided that they'll get the vapors over Trump's peccadilloes & not the Clintons' just goes to show what we all know: modern feminism is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.

Michael K said...

A large number of women see the election of Trump as a slap in the face

But not a majority from what I read.

The Democrats have assembled a coalition of interest groups with conflicting agendas. Read Jay Cost's "Spoiled Rotten."

Trump may just be the guy to disassemble it.

tcrosse said...

Chelsea Clinton is being groomed for Congress. The traditional remedy for this is to appoint her Ambassador to some remote place, like they did Caroline Kennedy. Maybe when we've established a settlement on Mars....

bgates said...

You can only have one "the first black president"

Four years from now we'll hear plenty about how Real American Black people are descendants of west Africans, not like that raised-by-white-people Ivy Leaguer. Hell, they'll try to bring the term "half breed" back into polite society if they think it'll help Cory Booker.

bgates said...

If you include gender as part of the bloc definition white men were 63% Trump compared to hispanics 65% for Clinton. If you include education it would be an even more distinct 'bloc'.

If you include race, gender, education, and my mailing address it would be 100%, and do only slightly more violence to the definition of the word "bloc" than you're doing already.

tim in vermont said...

For them Trump is someone who sees women as nothing other than sexual objects, pretty things to glorify the world of Trump - ARM

Well, yeah, that is what they have been told over and over and over, by a, shall we say "flawed messenger." But the huge celebration of the first successful woman presidential campaign manager? Big fat yawn. PB&J allowed, misogynalistically, as to how she probably had nothing to do with it.

You guys have a great opportunity to run the money changers out of the temple at the DNC, take it!

JAORE said...

Lots to absorb here. But I'd add one thing,although I do not think it the dominant issue.

Democrats, or a large segment of their group, actively tossed white voters aside.

Not just economically, but:
- No! ALL lives don't matter, BLACK lives matter. Especially when the chosen, knee jerk heros prove to be crimianls and shootings justified. No back tracking allowed. Oh, and cops assasinated? Can't blame the BLM rhetoric, can we?
- "Hillbillies", "racists", "dog whistles" over matters really not related to race (Golf, really?) and to people that know their own heart.
- White privilege. Coming from the lips of a Yale student, how do you think THAT goes down to a coal miner?

Gets to sound a LOT like, you are not welcome here.

Anglelyne said...

Bob Ellison: Anglelyne, I don't understand your statement that "White men's votes for Trump were in the same high range as minority blocs." White men voted strongly (about 2/3) for Trump, but not like a true bloc. What do you mean?

What's a "true" bloc? If white men went 60+% percent for a candidate, and Hispanics the same percent for another, why is one a "true bloc" and not the other? If you think white voting patterns really have nothing to do with race, that it's just a correlational artifact (that it's all about class, or whatever), fine. You can make that argument, and there's good evidence for it. Same with other groups. But if just about every identifiable white demographic sub-group goes for a candidate, it looks to me that, statistically speaking, there is a "white" vote, just as there is a "Hispanic" vote, or a "black" vote.

I'm getting the strong impression here that some people (not you) are just very resistant to any speculation that whites might vote as whites. (You know, like those other groups do). The (not disputable) racially-correlated patterns in voting may indicate some meaningful "racial" identity voting, or just be obscuring the true correlates (like class). The patterns exist, that's all.

JAORE said...

"Chelsea Clinton is being groomed for Congress. The traditional remedy for this is to appoint her Ambassador to some remote place, like they did Caroline Kennedy. Maybe when we've established a settlement on Mars...."

Yeah, and, Lord willing, she will easily be shown to be the light weight that Ms. Kennedy proved to be. At best I predict Chelsea will attain the political prominence the second (following John, Bobby and Ted) generation of Kennedy's attained. A congressional seat, perhaps. A high profile activist, perhaps. No more.

tim in vermont said...

I think the answer is pretty simple, and as VDH put it, the identity politics card has diminishing returns. The more you press it on blacks and Hispanics, the more you force it on whites. There are lots of other factors affecting elections than identity politics, but those completely invested in identity politics can't see them. It's like people who don't like engineering because the answers are largely yes or no and one is usually right and the other is usually wrong. If these people ever take over Boeing, don't look for me to be flying on their planes.

Birkel said...

Anglelyne:

I said what I thought the better point was. Your attempt to place words in my typing or remove them at your whim is noted. And rejected.

Now what?

Bob Ellison said...

Anglelyne, it's a good question, and yes, I agree that whites do sometimes vote "as whites". That's part of human nature.

63% just doesn't seem like much of a "bloc". That's not even 2/3. I dunno...the dictionary definitions of "bloc" seem to require that the term implies crossing of other lines, like a farming bloc that includes both Dems and GOP. That definition sounds outdated to me.

I think in modern parlance, "bloc" implies an almost insurmountable advantage as defined by a simple variable. A farm bloc that votes >75% for ethanol subsidies-- that's a bloc. Blacks voting 90% for Dems, ditto.

White men voting 63% for Trump, when all men were well over 50% by themselves-- not a bloc. Very surmountable.

mockturtle said...

Identity politics is the stuff of pollsters and statisticians. Just as white women voted 53% for Trump, as did 29% of Hispanics, there is no reliable bloc any more. Thankfully! It has always been the Democrats who try to divide us, as this division has been their political bread and butter. Many, if not most, people are aware of that now. Why? Because of Trump and the alternativee media. We don't have to rely on the MSM any more.

NBC reports: "Latino leaders say they reject exit poll results that show President-elect Donald Trump won 29 percent of the Hispanic vote." NBC reports. New York Times reports. CNN reports. Who listens to these propagandists any more?

Unknown said...

I'm thinking whites should vote republican at a 90% clip for about a generation. Just enough time to load up the Supreme Court. Maybe we can get some actual non-lawyers in there, how refreshing would that be.

Fabi said...

In 2008 whites voted 43/55 D/R. Blacks voted 95/4 D/R. One is a bloc, one is a mix. ARM can't figure it out.

Anglelyne said...

tim in vermont: So we are to overlook that the upper class whites (a smaller number than lower class whites) have forced policies on the Democrat party that have harmed lower class whites? It's all just "Whites voting as a block"?

tim, you're the one putting some value judgment on a neutral observation about voting patterns.

Get a grip.

Unknown said...

Blogger YoungHegelian said...
I think Obama raised the bar so high for the enthusiasm among minority, especially black voters, that it's going to be an almost impossible act to follow. You can only have one "the first black president". After Obama, how can minority voters not see a return to the standard parade of "powerful white people" candidates as a return to the same old, boring default position?

I disagree. The next black candidate will get the same levels of black vote as Obama, within small percentages. The lesson of the inner cities should tell you that.

Quaestor said...

The multiple marriages and affairs are evidence of someone who doesn't fully humanize women.

Bullshit. (I need another word for ARM's ludicrous screeds. Hmmm... how about deceptive nonsense? Nah. ARM couldn't deceive anyone who wasn't already deceived by someone way smarter and more subtle. How about jive? Nope, could be considered complimentary in some benighted quarters. Looks like I'm stuck with bullshit.)

...humanize... It takes a special person to use that word without chagrin.

In 2013 about 46% of those someones were women. Obviously ARM thinks these women don't fully humanize men, no?

Quaestor said...

ARM can't figure it out.

Too many numbers.

robother said...

To speak to Ann's and Insty's point, Tavis Smiley was on MSNBC the night after the election, expressing open resentment at Obama's demand that "his" Black voters turn out for Hillary, or Obama would take it as a personal insult.

Quaestor said...

Tavis Smiley was on MSNBC the night after the election, expressing open resentment at Obama's demand that "his" Black voters turn out for Hillary, or Obama would take it as a personal insult.

And richly deserved, too. Obama's legacy might have been something other than shameful if he had not been insulated from many more such "personal insults".

Birkel said...

The word bloc implies immobility. It implies no real competition for the votes.

And they are not perpetual. Like everything else there are shifts.

See, e.g. The Eastern Bloc formerly under Soviet domination.

Fabi said...

Immobility is a good descriptor. Numerically, I'd put that at 80% -- it's hard to flip that degree of solidarity.

AReasonableMan said...

You guys are aware that Clinton got more votes than Trump, largely because women voted preferentially for Clinton? Since men and women have largely overlapping economic interests one reasonable interpretation is that something about Trump suppressed the vote of women who might otherwise have been open to his economic message. Open to suggestions on what that something might have been. Someone, not Trump, with Trump's basic message but without all the sexual baggage could have decimated the Dems in this election. They got a break and peak at the future if they don't change.

n.n said...

Class diversity is an unprincipled belief that judges people by the "color of their skin", rather than by the "content of their character". Hopefully, there will be a majority of people who will vote as a bloc to defeat class diversity and other Pro-Choice (i.e. selective, opportunistic) doctrines.

tim in vermont said...

tim, you're the one putting some value judgment on a neutral observation about voting patterns.

Get a grip.


Correlation is not causation, no matter how deeply you believe it.

Michael K said...

"The lesson of the inner cities should tell you that."

You mean the indiscriminate rioting and killing ?

Yes, I can see that.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am not worried about Chelsea Clinton in politics. Sure, in a couple of years, she may be able to beg, borrow, or steal a seat in Congress. But, there will be maybe 400 more powerful Representatives (all the Republicans, and most of the Dems, thanks to their reliance on seniority, and no committee term limits). Questionable whether her mother will be alive to see it, the way her health was going, and her father wasn't looking all that great either. And, she doesn't seem to have inherited her father's charisma or political instincts. Which, at best, probably means that we are a couple decades away from any of the Clintons being again in a position to engage in public corruption, by selling official favors.

The political scion whom I still think has a decent chance is George P Bush, JEB's son, as long as the Bushes didn't burn up all their political chits this election. Good looking, Hispanic, articulate, and doing his time in TX politics. He always impressed me more than his father did. We shall see.

tim in vermont said...

Someone, not Trump, with Trump's basic message but without all the sexual baggage could have decimated the Dems in this election. They got a break and peak at the future if they don't change.

Well, that is true enough. And if the Democrats hadn't run a candidate with completely similar, probably worse, sexual baggage, they might have won.

Bruce Hayden said...

@Dr K - talking about rioting, etc, I assume thay you managed to get through PHX in one piece, given your commenting today. Any problems?

Michael K said...

Hell, they'll try to bring the term "half breed" back into polite society if they think it'll help Cory Booker.

Hillary's choice of Kaine instead of Booker was a huge tactical mistake. I wonder whose bright idea that was ? Soros, as I have heard ?

Michael K said...

"I assume thay you managed to get through PHX in one piece, given your commenting today. Any problems?"

Actually, it was very smooth. We got a late start and went through PHX about 6:30 PM (MST). Slight slowdown but not bad at all. We got to Tucson about 1 1/2 hours after passing central PHX. I'm thinking about moving to Tucson and working a day or two a week in PHX. The time works as my commute in west LA takes 1/2 to 2 hours to go 50 miles.

We made an offer on a house in Tucson and we'll probably buy it or choice #2 while here. California, as an added incentive to flee, did a statewide ban on plastic bags that apparently went into effect the day after the election.

Quaestor said...

You guys are aware that Clinton got more votes than Trump, largely because women voted preferentially for Clinton?

Which conveniently ignores the large non-citizen vote in California.

Please cease the masturbation. It smells up the place and grows hair on your palms.

Anglelyne said...

Birkel:

I said what I thought the better point was.

And I said I thought your better point wasn't a very good point. Is there a problem here?

Your attempt to place words in my typing or remove them at your whim...

"Your successful attempt at drawing out the logical implications of my point..."

Now what?

Ditch the banal "not all X" observations. That's what I'd recommend, anyway.

Jack Wayne said...

Ann, you're looking st the symptom and not the disease. So the cure is beyond your grasp. The Electoal College encourages this problem. It's an easy thing for a politician to seek the city vote: there are a lot of people there and if you can win a really big city, it's possible to win a state. Win enough cities and you can win the nation. Trump managed to win enough rural voters to negate the city vote. But it is not a solution. It's far better to force politicians to appeal to a broader range of voters. One solution would be to modify the Electoral College to assign a vote to the winner of a Representative District. I believe in a couple of election cycles, the sea of red would recede. Another good thing to do would be to declare that the eventual winner must also receive the popular vote in at least half the States.

Anglelyne said...

tim in vermont:

Correlation is not causation, no matter how deeply you believe it.

Well, somebody here is deeply committed to a particular interpretation of the stats, and it ain't me.

Quaestor said...

I wonder whose bright idea that was ?

Tapping Kaine looks like a Hillary move to me. He probably groveled more sincerely. It's fashionable now among the desperate Democrats to make Nixonian excuses like Hillary was ill-advised, Mookie as campaign manager was an ineffectual poltroon, etc. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the sole author of her campaign, including the conspiracy to cheat Bernie Sanders of his earned standing at the convention for which the feckless Deborah Wasserman Schultz took the spear.

Obama poured the cement overshoes, but Hillary blew out her own brains.

mockturtle said...

Tapping Kaine looks like a Hillary move to me.

She probably thought he would help her with the Catholic vote.

Quaestor said...

I believe in a couple of election cycles, the sea of red would recede.

Take another toke

mockturtle said...

Per Jack Wayne: Another good thing to do would be to declare that the eventual winner must also receive the popular vote in at least half the States.

For the record, Trump got the popular vote in 30 states.

Bruce Hayden said...

My gut feeling is that a lot of Trump support was not so much voting as a white voting block, but voting against Crooked Hillary, and all that she and her party stood for. We have had eight years of Dem rule, where our President bowed to Muslim monarchs, while insulting our traditional enemies. Our victory in Iraq was not just squandered, but almost intentionally given away. Meanwhile, our military, stretched tighter than ever in recent memory, esp with Sequester cuts to its budgets, is fighting in more and more places. The Russians played us for fools and weaklings, and the Chinese are pushing almost as hard. A lot of us think that we really were a much greater nation eight years ago, before Obama and the Dems set out to destroy our country as we knew it, in order to build their socialist Utopia. During that eight years, the national debt doubled, while our health insurance system was destroyed, in the name of protecting a fraction of the country who mostly didn't deserve it. We lost our doctors so that illegals from Latin America could have US level health care. Etc. the rich got a lot richer, esp if they were cronies of powerful Democrats, while most everyone else got poorer. We were asked to vote for a woman who realistically should have been in prison for, among other things, selling official favors at an independent serial level, just because she had, apparently, a uterus at some point in her life. Voting for whom would guarantee four more years of US decline, in the name of diversity.

I don't think that the impact of nominating Crooked Hillary should be minimized here. For much of the country, they weren't voting for Trump, as much as they were voting against her, and it had nothing to do with her sex, race, religion, or national origin, and everything to do with her venal corruption over the last forty or so years. The Dems probably couldn't have nominated a more corrupt politician for President, if they had tried. Not even Dingy Harry Reid. She is everything that so much of the country hates about politicians and politics, but at a level rarely, if ever seen before here. She was deeply offensive to much of Red America, with a loathing I have never seen before. I was esp struck by this in MT, where your word is still your bond. When the election came up, things went white hot, immediately. These were people who would vote for a Dem county commissioner (and maybe governor), but would cut off their arm before voting for her.

n.n said...

the sea of red would recede

To produce an ocean of "blue" in the abortion fields and chambers.

When did left-wing ideologues manage to dissociate from their true colors?

Take another toke

Opiates are the preferred method, but marijuana may be substituted for a quick exit to the twilight zone.

hombre said...

"After all, the Party has the open and obvious goal of getting power, and everyone can see that they are being used as a means to the Party's end."

Not everyone.

mockturtle said...

Speaking of votes, why has Michigan not yet been declared? And New Hampshire?

Anglelyne said...

Bob Ellison: I think in modern parlance, "bloc" implies an almost insurmountable advantage as defined by a simple variable. A farm bloc that votes >75% for ethanol subsidies-- that's a bloc. Blacks voting 90% for Dems, ditto.

Well, we're arguing about definitions, then. Accepting your definition, then, we wouldn't call whites a "bloc" because the "simple variable" isn't apparent, at least not now. (Whereas, say, with blacks, race really does seem to be the single variable.)

Bruce Hayden said...

@Dr K - may see you there in Tucson. Step son and family are just east of there. We have been doing half the year in MT, and half in CO, which makes no sense, since we got more snow last year west of Denver by the mtns than we would have in MT. Tried to buy a house last spring east of Tucson, but couldn't put together the financing fast enough. Found same floor plan on west end of PHX area, and should close in a couple week. My partner probably prefers it to the Tucson area, partly because she has 60% of grand kids in PHX area, compared to 40% by Tucson, and partly because daughter-in-law was having a melt down with us potentially being so close to them in the Tucson area. I thought it was great, with a nice gun range a mile from their house. And, living for half the year in a county in MT larger than Rhode Island, with a population in the very low four digits, the transition to the area around Tucson would not be nearly as tramatic as it is in PHX. But, I got out voted by the women. Go figure.

Birkel said...

Anglelyne:

The next time you attribute a quote to me that was not mine and feign confusion, therefore, I will know beyond doubt you argue in bad faith.

You are making yourself a liar, above @ 12:45.

JaimeRoberto said...

Hopefully this defeat will bury the Dems' Presidential election plans for the next few decades: first black, first woman, first Hispanic, first openly gay, first openly Muslim, first illegal immigrant, first transgender, etc. But from all appearances they are going to double down on division.

Jack Wayne said...

If you think it's a good idea to have 2 angry factions, I disagree. Forcing politicians to pay more attention to the "rural" vote would be good for everyone. The blue would have to turn purple to win. Minority voters would be free to vote for the person that would be best for them. One thing I can guarantee: if something isn't done, we will be heading for bad times. Is that what you want?

exiledonmainstreet said...

But from all appearances they are going to double down on division.

11/13/16, 1:27 PM

I just heard some TV talking head say the Dems are trying to figure out how to appeal to white working class voters. They think making Keith Ellison, a far left black Muslim, DNC chair will do it.

I LOL'ed.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Left believes:

If you are black, you should vote for a black candidate (no matter how liberal he is)
If you are female, you should vote for a female candidate (no matter how liberal she is)
if you are Hispanic, you should vote for a Hispanic candidate (no matter how liberal he is)

Given that Dems have LOST (1) the House, (2) the Senate, (3) The Presidency, (4) the State Legislatures, (5) the Governorships, and (6) will soon lose the Supreme Court, the question becomes:

How's group/identity politics working out for you, Dems?

Anglelyne said...

Birkel: The next time you attribute a quote to me that was not mine and feign confusion, therefore, I will know beyond doubt you argue in bad faith.

You are making yourself a liar, above @ 12:45.


I'll assume you meant to type @12:25. If you want to call me a "liar" for the use of an obvious FTFY-style joke "attribution", I'm sure my honor can withstand the blow.

Geez, what is it with the out-of-control drama-queening around here today?

The Cracker Emcee said...

" The problem is that Hillary implicitly rejected whites. And men in general."

This is really the heart of it. Do everything you can think of to drive people out of your Party and then denounce them as racists when they don't vote for the old white lady.

Clearly, Democrats are going to have a very long learning curve on this one.

Birkel said...

You have to start with honor for it to withstand something. Or, if you start with none, your honor remains unchanged.

You have placed words into and out of my typing, belatedly claim jokes for fake 'quotes' (READ: lies) and otherwise argued in bad faith.

Had you started with "Well, we're arguing about definitions, then. Accepting your definition, then, we wouldn't call whites a "bloc" because the "simple variable" isn't apparent, at least not now. (Whereas, say, with blacks, race really does seem to be the single variable.)" you could have started and ended in good faith.

Pity you did not.

Of course, I would argue the "at least for now" is an example of bad faith. It puts the lie to the point that you cannot prove your assertion but cling bitterly to it nonetheless. (Irony intended.)

My point is demonstrably true, if continually ignored by you: the votes of self-identified whites are available to both parties. That the votes of some other groups are not contestable is the interesting thing.

Mark said...

There is another factor which blacks are increasingly coming to realize --

When it comes to minorities and grievance groups, the Democrats have consigned blacks to the back of the bus. Trans, radical Muslims, gays, lesbians, illegal aliens, Latinos (except for Cubans), abortionists, billionaire whites -- they all come before blacks on the Democrat bus.

Realizing that, a lot of black folk don't want to ride the bus anymore.

chickelit said...

Anglelyne asked: "Geez, what is it with the out-of-control drama-queening around here today?"

My gut tells me that Trump having won means that some supporters already miss the fight and are looking to shoot some survivors on the battlefield.

chickelit said...

The Cracker Emcee wrote: "Clearly, Democrats are going to have a very long learning curve on this one."

Unless Trump "poohs the scrooch" somehow, many of those new Trump voters are never going back Dem. Not where they are headed.

Mark said...

Again, about that popular vote --

If you actually look at the numbers, Trump had a substantial lead in popular vote in 49 states collectively. In fact, except for one county in the entire country, if you merely take that one county out of the equation (it's Los Angeles), then Trump still leads in popular vote in the rest of the country.

Los Angeles does not get to determine what the rest of the nation thinks.

Qwinn said...

"Open to suggestions on what that something might have been. Someone, not Trump, with Trump's basic message but without all the sexual baggage could have decimated the Dems in this election."

I dunno, looks like they *were* decimated to me, both in the literal and metaphorical meanings. And the way liberals across the country are reacting, it seems to me they heartily agree.

richardsson said...

Por La Raza todos, fuera La Raza nada Better up your Spanish, folks.

Quaestor said...

One thing I can guarantee: if something isn't done, we will be heading for bad times. Is that what you want?

If the Left insists I'm ready.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"If you are black, you should vote for a black candidate (no matter how liberal he is)
If you are female, you should vote for a female candidate (no matter how liberal she is)
if you are Hispanic, you should vote for a Hispanic candidate (no matter how liberal he is)"

It doesn't work in reverse, however. Black, female and Hispanic conservatives are considered traitors and unpersons. Clarence Thomas is not worthy of being in the AA Museum in DC.

It's a nice Catch 22. Upbraid the GOP for being the party of pale white guys, while dismissing any conservative who isn't white or male as a token and a patsy.

Rusty said...

ARM
"I largely agree with this. In at least one respect the election of Trump has further hardened attitudes along another fault line. A large number of women see the election of Trump as a slap in the face. "

More white women voted for Trump than Clinton.

Unknown said...

Blogger YoungHegelian said...
I think Obama raised the bar so high for the enthusiasm among minority, especially black voters, that it's going to be an almost impossible act to follow. You can only have one "the first black president". After Obama, how can minority voters not see a return to the standard parade of "powerful white people" candidates as a return to the same old, boring default position?

I disagree. The next black candidate will get the same levels of black vote as Obama, within small percentages. The lesson of the inner cities should tell you that.

Michael K said...

"Tucson would not be nearly as tramatic as it is in PHX. But, I got out voted by the women. Go figure."

We are defying my kids by moving here. I told them it's only a seven hour drive to see them every couple of months.

Phoenix is hotter and the downtown is sketchy, which is why I was a bit concerned about riots post 11/8.

I have spent time in Tucson, but not lived here, for over 20 years. We will probably be in northwest Tucson to be closer to PHX.

I almost bought a place here in 2010 but my kids had a fit. Anyway, this looks to be it. Tucson still has not recovered from the 2008 real estate crash and prices are better then PHX, as well.

AReasonableMan said...

chickelit said...
Anglelyne asked: "Geez, what is it with the out-of-control drama-queening around here today?"

My gut tells me that Trump having won means that some supporters already miss the fight and are looking to shoot some survivors on the battlefield.


Too much sugar would be my guess.

mockturtle said...

It's a nice Catch 22. Upbraid the GOP for being the party of pale white guys, while dismissing any conservative who isn't white or male as a token and a patsy.

I always noticed that, when NPR had a black guest, he had better well sound black. Although I haven't listened to NPR in years, I well remember that they studiously avoided any black or woman who had conservative views. Verboten!

Anglelyne said...

chickelit: My gut tells me that Trump having won means that some supporters already miss the fight and are looking to shoot some survivors on the battlefield.

Lol. Or maybe SJW/catlady hysteria has grown so massive that it can no longer be contained inside facebook and twitter. It's now seeping through the cracks in the internet bulkheads and infecting everyone regardless of political affiliation.

FullMoon said...

Someone, not Trump, with Trump's basic message but without all the sexual baggage could have decimated the Dems in this election.

Maybe Trump winning means not as many people care about sexual baggage.
Trump may have gotten vote because he is a TV celebrity.
Arnold made an appearance when Governor at a local hitech joint. My female neighbor in management said they shut down for a couple of hours and everyone turned out to see him.
When Jerry Brown showed up last year, nobody cared.

Birkel said...

Anglelyne:

While we are making unsupported assertions, I offer that Never Trump types are now looking for solace after their efforts at irrelevancy proved effective.

Jack Wayne said...

Quaestor, I disagree. Forcing the main Democratic candidate for President to the middle and marginalizing the zealous lefties would be good for this country. Let the Jill Stein's get 10-15%. Let the 2 mainstream candidates vie for the 85-90%. That's way better than what we have.

Harold said...

Bruce Hayden said...
My gut feeling is that a lot of Trump support was not so much voting as a white voting block, but voting against Crooked Hillary, and all that she and her party stood for.


Could you have gotten that gut feeling from posts that said things like: I'll crawl over broken glass to vote against Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife, corrupt alcoholic enabler of her sexual predator husband?

If you google "crawl over broken glass to vote" and time limit it to the last month, you get one hit for her, a crapload for Trump.

Rusty said...

Bruce Hayden nailed it.

SukieTawdry said...

The political scion whom I still think has a decent chance is George P Bush, JEB's son, as long as the Bushes didn't burn up all their political chits this election. Good looking, Hispanic, articulate, and doing his time in TX politics. He always impressed me more than his father did. We shall see.

I know George P only from Dubya's first campaign. He seemed a bit of a dim bulb to me. Of course, you can grow a lot in 16 years.

Chelsea Clinton is one of the dullest people ever, as unimaginative as her mother. I hear she shares her mother's temperament as well.

I don't know what it is to vote as a "woman" or as "white." There's nothing I want from a politician or the government that's defined by my sex or my race (if white is indeed a race--lots of people telling me it isn't).

Question: Where do all these statistics about who voted how come from?

mockturtle said...

Question: Where do all these statistics about who voted how come from?

Exit Polls

Sam L. said...

White people, UNITE! The Dems say we should, so let's do it and make them sorry, Sorry, SORRY!

cornroaster said...

I always felt that part of the Democratic strategy was to divide the white vote intentionally by paring off segments of white America. Note the "suburban soccer moms," the "Jewish" vote, the "Catholic" vote, unionized teachers (mostly white outside the big cities) that all have tended to be identified as Democratic blocs, while any mention of a white voting bloc is referred to as a "racist dog whistle."
Also, has anyone seen any analysis of those blocs and how they voted this year? Did the Jewish vote move more towards the Republicans? (Note the warm reception to Trump's election by the State of Israel?

SDN said...

"Folk don't realize there is a distrust between blacks and Hispanics over who will get a bigger slice of the pie/jobs/economic opportunities."

JAORE, that fight's been going on since at least 1995 when William Raspberry, a black columnist for WaPo, was caught admitting that it was not to blacks' advantage to let Hispanics get more political power because "Hispanics don't feel any of the guilt over slavery we have been using against whites."

SDN said...

"Another good thing to do would be to declare that the eventual winner must also receive the popular vote in at least half the States."

Not a problem, Jack, when the Left agrees that a) 100% voter ID with cross checks for duplicate and unissued SSNs are mandatory, and b) the party caught bragging on camera about organizing voter fraud forfeits all elections for 10 years.

Professional lady said...

My reaction to the "anti woman" stuff about Trump was "How does it compare to the alternative?" Yes, Trump certainly made lewd demeaning comments in a private conversation. Yes, there were allegations about him walking through dressing rooms etc. How does that compare to Hillary's complicity in Bill's unquestionable long history of sexual harassment and worse followed by vicious organized attacks on the victim? How does that compare to characterizing victims by the "dragging a dollar though a trailer park" comment? How does that compare to Al Gore's demands on women trying to provide a legitimate service and make a living?

Amanda said...

Since when have white people never thought of themselves as opposed to people in America?

American Americans have only been enfranchised since the late 60s

The last time I checked in America, white men have been voting for white presidents for the last three hundred years. But, right, "white identity politics" otherwise known as racism is a new phenomenon created by young people and the incumbent president.

Birkel said...

In which Amanda reveals her inability to subtract.

2016-1789 = 300 Amanda years.