');
The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Bernie Wins Majority of Hispanics in Nevada
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
    List of Bookmarks

      From ABC13.com:

      With help from Latino voters, Bernie Sanders hits the Nevada jackpot

      By GARY LANGER
      Updated an hour ago

      Sen. Bernie Sanders ran competitively in unaccustomed support groups amid the Nevada Democratic caucuses while sweeping the table among Latino, young and very liberal voters, leaving his competitors wrestling inconclusively over the sharply fragmented remains, according to ABC News’ entrance poll results.

      Latinos joined the Sanders brigade in Nevada, the most diverse state to participate so far, giving him 51% of their votes, a vast tally in a seven-candidate race. Sanders fell off sharply among blacks, to 27% — yet that was good enough for second place to former Vice President Joe Biden’s 39% among blacks, Biden’s single best group. The Vermont senator won 29% of whites, easily first in this group…

      I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy. As I wrote skeptically in 2002, my impression is that Hispanic voters more tended toward family economic self-interest, which generally meant what FDR’s right hand man (or to be ideologically more accurate: left hand man) Harry Hopkins called “tax tax, spend spend, elect elect.”

      Are Hispanics – or, for that matter, blacks – going to vote Republican based on these moral views? The answer is already in: no. Except when voting on rare single-issue referendums, such as California’s anti-gay marriage initiative California two years ago, the Hispanic electorate seems far more concerned about bread and butter issues. Indeed, in their new book The Emerging Democratic Majority, … John Judis and Ruy Teixeira contend that in American politics, social issues are essentially a luxury item that primarily interest better-off groups.

      My general impression of Hispanic voters has long been that outside of some megachurch Protestant evangelicals, they aren’t really all that worked up over family values issues.

      Nor, outside of the Diversity Inclusion Equity racketeers are they all that worked up over immigration. (Much less use of terms like “Latinx:” the Sanders campaign did focus groups on whether Hispanics like the term “Latinx” and found that practically nobody did, so they announced they weren’t using it. In contrast, Elizabeth Warren did use “Latinx” and got something like 7% of the vote in Nevada.)

      Instead, they tend to be kind of poorly informed and not that interested in politics, but basically open toward voting themselves some benefits at other people’s expense in a no-hard-feelings but-this-is-good-for-me-and-mine way that I don’t take too personally either.

      They didn’t vote much for Sanders in 2016 because they didn’t know who he was, but now they know and they like what he’s selling.

      If and when this tips Texas Democratic, well, the GOP’s chances in the Electoral College are more or less over, except in occasional Schwarzenegger-in-California type elections. But the Republicans can’t say nobody warned them.

       
      Hide 275 CommentsLeave a Comment
      Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
      Trim Comments?
      1. Hispanics went with a socialist instead of a homosexual spook, an angry billionaire, a doddering and embezzling child molester, or … whatever Klobuchar is? Who could have foreseen this smashing upset?

        • Replies: @Corvinus
        So perhaps you favor the megalomaniac and serial liar in the Oval Office?

        And I can’t help but NOTICE how Mr Sailor butchers the characterization of Hispanic voters. But that’s just Steve being Steve.
        , @Inquiring Mind
        "whatever Klobuchar is"

        https://nypost.com/2019/02/13/amy-klobuchar-reportedly-threw-offices-supplies-at-employees-during-outbursts/

        Um, tape dispenser-throwing?

        One has to admire the Minnesota senator's, cough, passion?
      2. Bernie Wins Majority of Hispanics in Nevada

        In those small patches of the state that actually belong to Nevada.

        • LOL: Hail
        • Replies: @Hail
        If Area 51 had a vote,

        who among the D-Teamers would they back?
        , @Hibernian
        Nevada was admitted to the Union during the Civil War to bolster the Republican majority, when it had no business being a state. Since WW2 it has developed a substantial urban population concentrated in a very small portion of its land area. A lot of the Federal land in the west could be privatized (which I favor) or returned to the States (which I don't.) A lot of Nevada's is just plain wasteland which isn't suitable even for sheep ranching.
        , @The Wild Geese Howard
        Curiously, the amount of Nevada land owned by the Feds was also pointed out in Dean Koontz Wuhan virus novel, "Eyes of Darkness," as a reason the Feds would have a well-resourced, rapid response spook shop in Nevada.
      3. Funny how nobody here in the US paid attention to the last century of Latin American politics when prognosticating about Latin American voters.

        • Agree: Ed, RadicalCenter
        • Replies: @Anonymous
        Support for Sanders style big spending is popular even in Argentina, Latin America's most European and advanced major country. Argentina has had frequent economic crises and debt defaults because of the profligate government spending policies its voters support. It's about to have its 9th debt default.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2019-09-11/one-country-eight-defaults-the-argentine-debacles

        One Country, Eight Defaults: The Argentine Debacles

        Argentina is, by nearly all accounts, catapulting toward default after running up more than $100 billion of debt. Some say it’s just months away. Others say it’s actually already happened on a small portion of bonds.

        For even the casual observer, the whole thing has a certain feeling of deja vu. The South American nation is a defaulting machine with few peers in the world.

        The first episode came in 1827, just 11 years after independence. The most recent one came in 2014. In between, there were six others of varying size and form, according to Carmen Reinhart, a Harvard University economist. Almost all of them were preceded by boom periods as, perhaps most famously, when European migrants transformed Argentina into an agricultural powerhouse and one of the world’s wealthiest countries by the late 19th century. Invariably, profligate spending, combined with easy access to capital supplied by overzealous foreign creditors, did the nation in.

        “The big narrative is always that there’s no fiscal discipline,” said Benjamin Gedan, director of the Argentina Project at the Wilson Center in Washington. “They want to import products that require dollars, they overspend and borrow in dollars, and they don’t generate dollars because they have a closed economy. And so it’s this endless cycle. That’s the story every time.”
         
        , @Anonymous
        Gotta make that money. Privatize the gains from lower wages, dump the costs of education, medical care, policing, prisons, infrastructure deterioration on the government.

        # Profit
      4. Steve Sandernista means taking White people’s stuff, ever more. It guarantees a race based civil war.

        Dems are now wedded to Sandernista ism. Take Whiteys stuff. Even AWFULS will nuke their maids to save the Beemers.

        • Replies: @BenKenobi

        It guarantees a race based civil war.
         
        "God damn I love workin' on American soil!"

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShTVpGuzk1M
        , @Mr. Anon
        Sandernista. Hah! I like it.
        , @animalogic
        "It guarantees a race based civil war."
        Um, yep....
        , @El Dato
        https://i.imgur.com/wi772ts.jpg

        "Check out all those Bernie voters."
        "Sandernistas"
        "What?"
        "They are Sandernistas"
        "... REAGAN WAS RIGHT!!"
        , @Anon7
        https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1505066999i/23877984.jpg
      5. >I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy.

        A lot of Mexican-Americans on lower socioeconomic strata don’t like mass immigration because they understand the threat that poses to their economic interests, particularly when it is from Central American countries which they hold in contempt. But fortunately for the Democrats, they like free-market fundamentalism even less. This was the point that Karl Rove and Company never understood. Family values + amnesty != masses of blue-collar Hispanic voters ready to embrace Chamber of Commerce favored economic policies. Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it. (That, and what else can you do when the other party holds you in existential contempt?)

        The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society. The donors largely vote Democrat these days anyway, so why the heck not? Remain to the right on assimilation/crime/immigration/anti-SJWism. Embrace Hamiltonianism on free trade, and embrace realist anti-interventionism on foreign policy. Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays, and start focusing on important stuff like progressives who clearly despise their own society, wish for permanent revolution, and oligarchs that abet them because they profit from social atomization. That’s what’ll win. Forget liberal vs. conservative, make this about nationalist vs. globalist, and not just because that’ll build a big tent: that’s what it is in REALITY.

        • Replies: @Ed
        Ryanism is dead as an ideology capable of winning the White House. It gains you some votes in the affluent suburbs but you’ll lose working class whites in the Midwest.

        The GOP to win the WH going forward has to do as Trump did, gear their campaign towards whites in the Midwest, which means doing stuff that is against free trade, GOP orthodoxy like directing tariff money (or more accurately gov’t money) to farmers.
        , @Peter Akuleyev
        tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society.

        Neither party can do this without alienating donors. Trump talked a good game, but has been either neutered by the GOP on that issue or, more likely, never really believed in it. Trump has more to gain by putting his own friends and allies into the swamp than by actually changing the system. The Democratic establishment is horrified by Sanders - not so much because of his actual policies, but because people like Pelosi realize that Sanders will scare away all the very generous tech billionaires, rich lawyers and socially progressive finance types that have made life so easy for Blue State Dems the last 20 years.
        , @Hibernian

        Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays...
         
        And boys who call themselves girls competing in girls' sports and destroying them?
        , @gregor
        "Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it."

        "The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society."

        It should be clear at this point that we can't rely on the GOP for anything and we can't settle for being some neglected constituency of the GOP that gets nothing more than "dog whistles" during campaign season. They have never delivered and they never will unless the incentives change. We need to establish ourselves as a political force independent of either party, much like Zionists. You can see with Bernie that there are populist elements in both parties and that represents an opportunity.

        Regarding economic policy, the right has been talking about free market economics for decades in part because that's all they're really allowed to talk about. The only approved means of dissent on the right are muh Free Market and, to some extent, muh Bible. We saw this with the Tea Party for example where there was a deep frustration with the neocon/neoliberal order but they couldn't put their finger on the real problem and their anger was therefore misapplied toward generic libertarian frustration.

        Regarding the issue of "tacking left" on economics, I agree with some reservations. The right definitely needs to be more practical and less doctrinaire. The free market talking points are often groan-inducing, especially when it's so far removed from what we actually have. (What's your plan on health care? Uh, free market!) Rather than thinking of it as left/right, the idea should be to operate in the common interest of American citizens and to promote affordable family formation. The key economic agenda should be to use trade, industrial policy, and immigration restriction to boost wages. We also have to get away from the idea that we can't stop Wall Street chicanery or monopolies because of commitment to the free market. But I would caution against traditional big spending policies and the usual liberal boondoggles. Some people have this ideal of a glorious all-white welfare state, but that's not going to happen with our current federal bureaucracy. We need to operate under the assumption that we are under a hostile occupation government.

        "Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays"

        Uh, it's not like the right has been setting the agenda here. Gay rights has always been a top down propaganda blitz. All of our real problems are ignored while we are told what we really need is more gay, more trans, more interracial, etc. They push this stuff to destroy us, not to help us, and it is dumb to look the other way. (Note that abortion, homosexuality, feminism just happen to be anti-natalist). Now, it is also dumb to have protracted debates about these issues because it concedes the legitimacy of the left's agenda. It's better to call out their agenda for what it is, dismiss it, and pivot to something important.
        , @Anonymous
        You always whine about "abortion gays" but the evidence is not clear the conventional GOP posture on that costs them elections. People claim they vote against GOP because of holy gays, because that's a socially fashionable reason to give. It doesn't mean it's the real reason. On abortion, the preponderance of pro-choice women are Julias looking for the government to be their boyfriend-breadwinner, whether immediately or "just in case." These are women with no confidence in their ability to hold onto a man. The proportion of pro-life is not being swamped by sexually liberated ho's and their synthetic white knights, contrary to predictions back in 1992 "The Year of the Woman." If the swing voters don't care either way -- bc abortion will ALWAYS be legal in at least one populous state in the same time zone as yours -- what does it gain the GOP to surrender on this, which is furthermore a good proxy for % of secret liberalism the politician is concealing? Stupid advice.
        , @Jack Henson
        Ah yes, cant conserve the women's rest room but we are gonna change American trade policy in the most fundamental fashion since the turn of the 20th century.

        This place remains filled with unserious dilettantes who probably cant even deadlift their body weight.
        , @RadicalCenter
        That’s an astute analysis and sound political advice, sir. About the best we can hope for, probably.

        I’d add that we should go after a political majority built on strong Hispanic support by going MUCH tougher on real crime with direct physical victims (i.e. not adults smoking weed or selling it to other adults). Because of the persistent disparity in serious-crime rates, this will inevitably amount to a more severe crackdown on African violence.

        Institute stop-and-frisk and constant police surveillance of Africans on a level that would make Bloomberg look like the ACLU.

        Impose very short, but progressively increasing mandatory jail sentences (and fines) on people who make our public spaces filthy, intimidating, chaotic, and demoralizing: public indecency (which includes fondling your balls while walking down the street or showing your asscrack because you won’t wear a belt), throwing trash on the street, covering every freeking surface with retarded graffiti, aggressive panhandling, and the like.

        Where applicable— which is often — impose twenty-year mandatory-minimum prison sentences (No possibility of early release) for people who are found in possession of a firearm after a previous conviction for a violent felony. Make such people categorically ineligible for parole (or, in the federal system, “supervised release”).

        Execute murderers and repeat rapists nationwide. Again this will quite disproportionately eliminate Africans and protect all of us (including, as it happens, the good innocent African people stuck in neighborhoods full of their brethren).

        Hispanics suffer from Africans’ relentlessly violent and menacing presence in our midst just as we do. Difference is, most Hispanics lack the misplaced guilt, self-doubt, and foolish egalitarianism that many whites suffer from when it comes to our poor oppressed bruthas.

        Want the votes of sensible non-pussy Hispanics and whites alike? (1) Strike back unrelentingly against the african aggressors without apology, then (2) provide a universal basic income and universal medical and dental insurance. Fund the latter with MAJOR cuts to the military complex and/or public ownership of natural resources (oil, gas, and minerals), a huge overlooked source of federal revenue and relief for our people.
        , @MBlanc46
        Of course that’s the correct move for the Repubs. After Trump—whether next January or in 2025—the plutocrats will regain control and drive the party into oblivion.
      6. A theory: Latino voters in D primaries such as CA, TX, FL and other states with a Latino presence could be Bernie’s firewall vs Biden’s support from blacks. In other words, Bernie has figured out a way not to crash burn in flames like he did vs Hillary in ’16, when she ran into the D primary states with large percentages of black voters, which put her over in the delegate count.

        All Bernie has to do is do respectably well with blacks, and rack up votes from the latinos, and the D nomination is his. Especially since he does well with Millennials, and most white D voters.

        So basically unlike the other major D candidates, Bernie actually has a strong grass roots support across the board of diversity intersection pokemon points. People who are passionately enthusiastic to vote for him come what may. Can’t really say that about anyone else from among the D candidates.

        • Replies: @Ed
        I’m not sure about FL. The flirtation with socialism seems to be mostly centered among Mexican-Americans. Cubans aren’t going to go for it great numbers in FL, even the Dem ones. That leaves Puerto Rican’s who aren’t reliable voters.
      7. If and when this tips Texas Democratic,

        It’ll be a few elections away, at least.

        Texas Hispanics are more conservative than California ones. I assume Nevada follows next-door California.

        27% of Texas Hispanics identified as Republicans (vs. 46% Democratic) in 2014, which was a lot higher than the national average. Texas Hispanics were getting more Republican, while Hispanics outside Texas were getting less Republican:

        (don’t know to what if any extent Trump changed this)

        2018 Mid-term elections:

        Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as “extremely conservative.”

        https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Six-myths-about-Latino-Republicans-are-challenged-14484385.php

        • Replies: @South Texas Guy

        Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as “extremely conservative.”
         
        That seems about right to me. Middle and upwardly mobile working class Mex. Am.s tend to know what the deal is, which is giving your money to other people to sit on their ass. To a very much lesser extent, it seems to the same with blacks.

        I think I've told this story here before, but back when I was a kid, my dad's dream car was a Ford Bronco, but the family couldn't really afford one. But do to gov't handouts, lying on welfare vouchers and such, a whole lot of people with 'z' in their last name had one. It goes back to Steve's old saw about natives playing by the rules, and newcomers playing the system.
        , @Achmed E. Newman
        Well, 27% is better, but still no good, but the GOP can make it up in volume.

        (Snarky, I know, but I do get your basic point that Texas can hold out a teensy bit longer.)
        , @Twodees Partain
        "Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as “extremely conservative.”"

        I don't know what formula would produce the figure of 27% out of four people, but it's probably pretty complicated.
        , @RadicalCenter
        So the theory is, don’t worry too much about Texas because we are only losing the vote of the single largest and fastest-growing group in the State by 11 points in some races and 29 points in others?

        This sounds like, “sure, we’ll lose money on each item sold, but we’ll make it up in volume.”

        Yes, Hispanics in Texas are less leftist both economically and socially than Hispanics in California, but that means merely a somewhat slower descent into a less intelligent, dirtier, less orderly, less trusting, and more impoverished society. Massive Hispanic immigration spells permanent defeat for any fiscally conservative or limited constitutional government party — and probably makes authoritarian government and more constrained civil liberties inevitable as well. Not as if we are doing well in those areas in still-white regions either, honestly....
        , @Bernie
        Not so sure about that. Trump lost Texas 61% - 34% among Hispanics. Trump won Texas becaue whites voted 70% for Trump in the state.

        https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/texas/president

        In California, Trump only did slightly worse - he lost Hispanics 66% to 28%.

        https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

        So, sure, Texas Hispanics might be a bit more conerative and/or Republican than California Hispanics. But that is not saying much. Moreover, Asians vote even more solidly for Dems than Hispanics. Add that to the 90% (or more) of blacks who vote Dem and I wouldnt count on Texas staying red much longer than 2024.

        I did see a poll about a month ago that put Bernie up over Trump in Texas by a few points. Trump should carry Texas in 2020 but it will be close (it was only 9 points in 2016). And do you see any Republicans on the horizon who will galvanize working class whites like Trump does?
      8. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
        @Bill P
        Funny how nobody here in the US paid attention to the last century of Latin American politics when prognosticating about Latin American voters.

        Support for Sanders style big spending is popular even in Argentina, Latin America’s most European and advanced major country. Argentina has had frequent economic crises and debt defaults because of the profligate government spending policies its voters support. It’s about to have its 9th debt default.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2019-09-11/one-country-eight-defaults-the-argentine-debacles

        One Country, Eight Defaults: The Argentine Debacles

        Argentina is, by nearly all accounts, catapulting toward default after running up more than $100 billion of debt. Some say it’s just months away. Others say it’s actually already happened on a small portion of bonds.

        For even the casual observer, the whole thing has a certain feeling of deja vu. The South American nation is a defaulting machine with few peers in the world.

        The first episode came in 1827, just 11 years after independence. The most recent one came in 2014. In between, there were six others of varying size and form, according to Carmen Reinhart, a Harvard University economist. Almost all of them were preceded by boom periods as, perhaps most famously, when European migrants transformed Argentina into an agricultural powerhouse and one of the world’s wealthiest countries by the late 19th century. Invariably, profligate spending, combined with easy access to capital supplied by overzealous foreign creditors, did the nation in.

        “The big narrative is always that there’s no fiscal discipline,” said Benjamin Gedan, director of the Argentina Project at the Wilson Center in Washington. “They want to import products that require dollars, they overspend and borrow in dollars, and they don’t generate dollars because they have a closed economy. And so it’s this endless cycle. That’s the story every time.”

        • Replies: @ben tillman

        Support for Sanders style big spending is popular even in Argentina, Latin America’s most European and advanced major country.
         
        Uruguay is South America's most European country.
        , @Keypusher
        Same story here, except we have the world’s reserve currency — something those of us around today inherited rather than earned. It’ll be something to see if we ever lose it.
      9. I wonder if the conservatives ever believed that “natural conservative” stuff, or they just put it out there to give the rank and file a talking point so they can keep bringing in more cheap labor for their donors. If they lose elections because the imported Hispanics turn into a critical mass? Who cares, the Dems will support more immigration, endless war, Israel Israel Israel, etc.

        It’s also possible that conservatives knew what would happen, but were afraid of being called racist by Dems. Since being called mean names by your political opponent is literally the worst thing that can happen to anyone, they came up with “natural conservative” as more of a hope and prayer than anything.

        • Agree: Harry Baldwin
        • Replies: @notsaying
        I suspect that many conservatives actually believed this.

        I say that as someone who's a Democrat and not a conservative myself but I will tell you why:

        My impression is that small government conservatives sincerely feel that theirs is a philosophy that is waiting to be discovered by others. They say that even though with the possible exception of Australia and South Africa no other First World countries have conservative parties anywhere near as far to the right as America's far right conservatives.

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won't ever need help from the government -- even when that's not true. There's a lot of elderly receiving government help or wished they qualified for help but still voting against it by voting Republican, for example.

        It's the over-65 voters that are keeping the Republicans winning. Yet how many under 30 Republicans are there? Not very many, most young adults today know they may need government help sometime -- many are accepting parental help into their 30s and 40s -- and aren't lying to themselves about that.
        , @OscarWildeLoveChild
        As a Hispanic (I don't use "Latino" for myself), who is white, I can tell you, it is what they want to believe. Like the people that go around saying "but blind people have better hearing" (or vice versa) it's a sort of early "meme" if you will, based upon wishful thinking and some anecdotal experiences, mixed in with lots of transparently self-serving stereotypes.

        Someone meets a few blacks who like to hoot and holler in church and talk about giving their kids the belt, and how homosexuality is wrong, and they think they and all blacks are conservative. The truth is, those same blacks voted democrat and are very non-religious in their personal life. Most blacks do not live anything like a religious or pious life, but Hannity will still claim it because he has a "black church sings the old hymns" CD and he imagines a 1940s "don't chew sas your mama" world, full of strong black families that just want good jobs, like working in a Ford plant, etc.

        Similarly, someone meets some Latinos that "switched over" from being Catholics to join their Evangelical, non-denominational church, and they too, think abortion is wrong, and that all that "gay stuff es loco", but what that white person (like Hannity) doesn't get--usually those Latinos still vote democrat. In the end, we like having a public policy that brings in more people like us, and other than actual (especially fiscal) conservative Hispanics/Latinos, even the white ones tend to resent "Anglos" (a generic and incorrect term used in our culture for all non-Latino whites). The whole England vs. Spain thing--it never went away. We are the "other white people" and seeing your people diluted is good for us-or so my people say. It's not of course, but that's the thinking.
      10. Anon[167] • Disclaimer says:

        It looks like the normies will attempt to rally around an anti-Bernie, but the interesting thing is, there’s no consensus among the normie Democrats (the handful of them that are left) about who this is. Bloomberg isn’t seen as a legitimate Democrat and is hated by many in the party. Warren is seen as too radical by the normies. Pete has a gay problem that gives the normies pause. Biden’s too old and silly, and everybody knows it. There is no clear alternative to Sanders among the Democrats.

        The problem is, the Democrats need an alternative for 2 reasons. Bernie’s 78 and he’s already had a heart attack. Unless they stick him in the bottle until the election, he’s going to get Covid-19 and end up in the hospital on a ventilator. He’s got a good chance of dying. Unless the Democrats have a clear number 2, they’re going to have a civil war if Bernie becomes the nominee but dies before the election. Sanders might choose an acceptable Veep as a candidate, but if not, the Democrats are going to be strong-armed by their Bloomberg crowd, and may implode as a party right before the election.

        • Replies: @Hapalong Cassidy
        I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.
        , @RadicalCenter
        This sounds about right, except that the Dems won’t yet collapse as a party by any means.

        The Dems might do well to run Sanders for president and pick a Hispanic for Veep. Probably should be a white but Spanish-speaking Hispanic with no public record of alienating La Raza / reconquista-type statements.

        There is a vast pool of Hispanic US Citizens who are not yet registered to vote, and one would expect a Hispanic candidate speaking their language (or their parents or grandparents’ language) to incentivize a slew of new registrations. A surprising number of these unregistered Hispanic US Citizens are NOT in California or Texas, but in FLORIDA, Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and to some extent even Michigan and Ohio.

        Just tipping Florida to the dem column would make it very difficult for the republican ticket to win re-election. Florida has 29 electoral votes and was again very close in 2016. So, if the Dems ride a Hispanic registration and turnout increase to a narrow win in Florida, Sanders could win the presidency even if trump somehow flipped Minnesota’s 10 EVs (possible) plus any one of these three 2916 Clinton States: Washington State 12 EVs (unlikely), Virginia 13 EVs (increasingly unlikely), or Colorado 9 EVs.

        This Sanders/Hispanic Veep victory scenario still obtains even if we assume, realistically, that Africans will not turn out in the same numbers with no African (and no Obama Veep) on the ticket.
      11. Latin Americans have always had a soft spot for socialism (remember Che Guevara, Allende, the Sandinistas), so as the US has become more Latino through the importation of tens of millions of Latin Americans, it also will become more socialist.

        • Agree: Achmed E. Newman, Jack D
      12. Mexican political parties:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Mexico

        Most of them are socialist to some degree, not just the PRI but also the PRD, the PT and MORENA.

        Only the PAN and maybe the MC are not so socialist.

        Don’t tell Karl Rove.

        • Replies: @rexl
        Yes, the current President of Mexico is a socialist, his own desciption. Have you seen any change in Mexico? Has the country actually changed? Has the number of illegal aliens or undocumented slowed?
      13. @nebulafox
        >I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy.

        A lot of Mexican-Americans on lower socioeconomic strata don't like mass immigration because they understand the threat that poses to their economic interests, particularly when it is from Central American countries which they hold in contempt. But fortunately for the Democrats, they like free-market fundamentalism even less. This was the point that Karl Rove and Company never understood. Family values + amnesty != masses of blue-collar Hispanic voters ready to embrace Chamber of Commerce favored economic policies. Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it. (That, and what else can you do when the other party holds you in existential contempt?)

        The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society. The donors largely vote Democrat these days anyway, so why the heck not? Remain to the right on assimilation/crime/immigration/anti-SJWism. Embrace Hamiltonianism on free trade, and embrace realist anti-interventionism on foreign policy. Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays, and start focusing on important stuff like progressives who clearly despise their own society, wish for permanent revolution, and oligarchs that abet them because they profit from social atomization. That's what'll win. Forget liberal vs. conservative, make this about nationalist vs. globalist, and not just because that'll build a big tent: that's what it is in REALITY.

        Ryanism is dead as an ideology capable of winning the White House. It gains you some votes in the affluent suburbs but you’ll lose working class whites in the Midwest.

        The GOP to win the WH going forward has to do as Trump did, gear their campaign towards whites in the Midwest, which means doing stuff that is against free trade, GOP orthodoxy like directing tariff money (or more accurately gov’t money) to farmers.

      14. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
        A theory: Latino voters in D primaries such as CA, TX, FL and other states with a Latino presence could be Bernie's firewall vs Biden's support from blacks. In other words, Bernie has figured out a way not to crash burn in flames like he did vs Hillary in '16, when she ran into the D primary states with large percentages of black voters, which put her over in the delegate count.

        All Bernie has to do is do respectably well with blacks, and rack up votes from the latinos, and the D nomination is his. Especially since he does well with Millennials, and most white D voters.

        So basically unlike the other major D candidates, Bernie actually has a strong grass roots support across the board of diversity intersection pokemon points. People who are passionately enthusiastic to vote for him come what may. Can't really say that about anyone else from among the D candidates.

        I’m not sure about FL. The flirtation with socialism seems to be mostly centered among Mexican-Americans. Cubans aren’t going to go for it great numbers in FL, even the Dem ones. That leaves Puerto Rican’s who aren’t reliable voters.

        • Replies: @Mr. Anon

        Cubans aren’t going to go for it great numbers in FL, even the Dem ones.
         
        You sure? It's been three full generations since Castro came to power. The young may not share the anti-socialist sentiments of their grandparents generation.
        , @Justvisiting
        Good to see somebody gets that there are many different "Latino" voting blocs.

        The Sanders campaign worked from the ground up, and so was able to understand how to make the correct promises to the correct people.

        Warren and Klobo were pathetic 10,000 feet flyby candidates--the use of LatinX is a dead giveaway.

        At the end of the day this will be the DNC vs Sanders--will the DNC try to use the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Bernie?

        If they don't, they lose.

        If the do, they lose.

        You can call them ZombieX.
        , @RadicalCenter
        The proclaimed desire for socialism is by no means centered among Mexicans in Florida or most anywhere else in the USA. That understates the actual lack of opportunity for good-paying full-time jobs (let alone jobs with good benefits or LOL pensions) in suburban and rural communities that are still largely white. For better or worse, the resultant constant anxiety and resentment engenders willingness to risk drastic systemic change among tens of millions of white Americans.

        Younger Cubans aren’t very interested in the old fight against communism in Cuba or elsewhere, and they’re subject to the same relentless indoctrination in government schools, media, popular culture, and universities as anyone else. They will not vote overwhelmingly for republicans any more.

        There are many millions of Hispanic US Citizens who are neither Mexican nor Puerto Rican nor Cuban. There are likely several million Guatemalans and several million Salvadorans here — perhaps more than one percent of our national population each — and those groups are steadily growing. Luckily for political purposes, they are still concentrated on California, already a lost cause, but they are elsewhere as well, and will start moving for jobs, college, and relationships like anyone else in the USA, if at a lower rate of mobility.

        You’re right, thankfully, that PRs have not been reliable voters in terms of registration and turnout, but their numbers completely pale (bad choice of words) in comparison to Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and of course the 800-pound gorilla, Mexicans in the “United” States of America.
      15. Sen. Bernie Sanders ran competitively in unaccustomed support groups amid the Nevada Democratic caucuses while sweeping the table among Latino, young and very liberal voters, leaving his competitors wrestling inconclusively over the sharply fragmented remains, according to ABC News’ entrance poll results.

        Sounds like the UVA rape story. Bernie didn’t do a very good job of sweeping the table if there were a lot of sharply fragmented remains left to be wrestled inconclusively over.

        • LOL: Harry Baldwin
        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        Sanders collected almost half of all county delegates statewide in Nevada, more than his next three competitors combined (including a recent former vice-president from an administration wildly popular with democrats, supposedly “attractive” and young Media darling buttgig, and a US Senator who is widely mocked (including by me) but has been running a long time and has a built-in White female base and excellent debating skills).

        That cannot tenably be spun as inconclusive or unimpressive. I won’t be voting for him in the dem primary or the general election, if he makes it that far, but this was a solid win for Sanders and the characterization of the others fighting inconclusively over the rest of the delegates is pretty accurate.
      16. @Reg Cæsar

        Bernie Wins Majority of Hispanics in Nevada
         
        In those small patches of the state that actually belong to Nevada.


        https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f84b62_4f84d4ca35e44d5d88b49e3c96bdb0a4~mv2.gif

        If Area 51 had a vote,

        who among the D-Teamers would they back?

        • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
        Speaking as someone who drove to the edge of Area 51 and had breakfast at the Little A'Le'Inn in nearby Rachael, NV, I think the votes would mostly go toward the conservative side.

        The guys I met hanging out at the 'Inn were salt-of-the-American-Earth types who probably voted for Trump. They told me stories about seeing the first B-2s and F-111s flying around -- and lots of cement trucks heading into the Area for new construction.

        All I saw were the guards watching me from their white Jeep Cherokees up above on a ridge when I got to the border of the Area. Oh, and the sign that said they could shoot me.
        , @Cromwell4ver
        Depends on the majority alien of those currently interned at Area 51. My guess is that reptilians would go for Bloomberg, Greys for Biden, and Nordics for Sanders.
        , @snorlax
        One person(?) voted in the Area 51 precinct, for Elizabeth Warren.
      17. Does the tribe feel secure enough to just go for it, ditch their useful idiot Trumpstein, and install one of their own…..Bolshie Bernie or Billions Bloomie? The tribe owns finance, owns media, owns all the candidates (both R and D) so why not? With the right kind of TV coverage and lots of money, either Bernie or Bloomie could be repackaged as the “new FDR”……the working man’s friend, and champion of the downtrodden and aggrieved. A stock market crash and recession would almost guarantee a Bernie or Bloomie victory.

      18. Latinos joined the Sanders brigade in Nevada, the most diverse state to participate so far, giving him 51% of their votes

        In 2016, Hispanics went:

        – Hillary 53
        – Sanders 45

        45% (2016) to 51% (2020) is not really a big swing. If Bernie started with a strong base of those who voted for him last time, all he had to do was add a few marginals. Unclear to me whether this “about the same as last time” result really deserves to be news.

        The difference is the field is more crowded this time, which theoretically would reduce any one person’s total. But all the other leading candidates are very non-Hispanic.

        What if there’d been a plausible Hispanic candidate running? Whatever happened to Hoo-lee-yan Castro?

      19. @Hail
        If Area 51 had a vote,

        who among the D-Teamers would they back?

        Speaking as someone who drove to the edge of Area 51 and had breakfast at the Little A’Le’Inn in nearby Rachael, NV, I think the votes would mostly go toward the conservative side.

        The guys I met hanging out at the ‘Inn were salt-of-the-American-Earth types who probably voted for Trump. They told me stories about seeing the first B-2s and F-111s flying around — and lots of cement trucks heading into the Area for new construction.

        All I saw were the guards watching me from their white Jeep Cherokees up above on a ridge when I got to the border of the Area. Oh, and the sign that said they could shoot me.

        • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
        "and lots of cement trucks"

        Forgive this petty quibble, but were they ready mix concrete trucks or bulk cement semi tractor trailers?
      20. And Bernie is a socialist of pallor. What if he were a socialist of color, how much more support would he get?

        Stacey Abrams says she’s available to be anyone’s Democratic Vice Presidential nominee. She got 95% of the black vote in Georgia (but only about 30% of the white female vote).

        Would a body-positive, tooth-diverse, person of color be an electoral boost?

        Will we get to the point where both parties are just pushing the POCs out in front, because non-whites care more about the ethnicity of the candidates than whites.

      21. How much does Texas matter when Florida’s already tipping? Immigration and felon enfranchisement have wrapped that one up. Is there some legitimate path to Electoral College victory that doesn’t include Florida?

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        For the Dems without Florida, yes. For the republicans, very difficult. Florida has 29 electoral votes.

        If the republicans lose those, they’d have to flip Minnesota (10 EVs), quite possible, plus smaller States such as New Hampshire (4) and Maine (3 left, as trump got 1 of the 4).

        12 Washington, dubious
        9 Colorado, getting simultaneously mexicanized and californicated
        6 Nevada, feasible but not improving
        5 New Mexico, barely feasible as I think Trump and Gary Johnson together narrowly beat Clinton

        Virginia 13 is moving increasingly out of reach, primarily due to mass immigration.
      22. Since I can’t sleep, I will just say that I was hoping in 2016 for a Bernie vs. Donald contest. It would have made sense and probably was what The People™ wanted. A real choice. Whiskey vs. Wine instead of Coke vs. Pepsi.

        Do we have a chance for that now?

        Europeans sometimes say we Americans don’t really have the broad political smorgasbord that they have. This would be different, a real Left vs. Right…

        … Even though certain issues and subjects would remain off the table as always.

        • Replies: @candid_observer
        Yeah, I'm pretty excited about the idea of a Trump vs Bernie contest: populism will already have won, and the elites will have lost.

        The topics of controversy will mostly be issues which politicians have avoided for decades. Does immigration help or hurt the working class? How can the working class get the jobs they need? What form should health care reform take? How can traditional labor be given power, if at all?

        Bernie has long been immersed in these issues, and will have something to say.

        Of course, the Bernie of yore is not the Bernie of 2020, since he has had to make many concessions to identity politics to make it through the nomination process. I don't know how he's going to deal with that baggage.

        In the end, the tag of "socialist" will very likely put a low ceiling on his appeal to voters, and I'd very much expect Trump to win.

        But I can see how such a contest might effect a dramatic makeover of the American political landscape.
      23. Instead, they tend to be kind of poorly informed and not that interested in politics, but basically open toward voting themselves some benefits at other people’s expense in a no-hard-feelings but-this-is-good-for-me-and-mine way that I don’t take too personally either.

        That’s my impression even among the better educated, although sometimes you get flaming Leftists among college crowd Latinos.

        If and when this tips Texas Democratic, well, the GOP’s chances in the Electoral College are more or less over

        That may be a reason to abolish the electoral college. And work toward a multiparty system in which the White voters can be the dominant power in a field of several voting blocks. Close to 70% of White Gentiles vote the same way.

      24. @Whiskey
        Steve Sandernista means taking White people's stuff, ever more. It guarantees a race based civil war.

        Dems are now wedded to Sandernista ism. Take Whiteys stuff. Even AWFULS will nuke their maids to save the Beemers.

        It guarantees a race based civil war.

        “God damn I love workin’ on American soil!”

      25. @Whiskey
        Steve Sandernista means taking White people's stuff, ever more. It guarantees a race based civil war.

        Dems are now wedded to Sandernista ism. Take Whiteys stuff. Even AWFULS will nuke their maids to save the Beemers.

        Sandernista. Hah! I like it.

      26. But the Republicans can’t say nobody warned them.

        Kevin McCarthy ( (R) California – House Minority Leader) was on Laura Ingraham’s show last week. She was lamenting how California had changed, mentioning that as recently as the 80s, Republicans won state-wide offices and how it helped elect Ronald Reagan. McCarthy, wide-eyed and chipper, said that the GOP would get California back.

        What an idiot.

        These GOP goobers don’t understand that they are being turned into Boers in their own country by the 3rd World demographic tide. They’ll still be yammering on about America being a shining city on a hill long after its been turned into a stinking favela on a garbage heap.

        • LOL: BB753, bomag, Republic
        • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
        AGREE and LOL.
        , @Bugg
        McCarthy is from the invite/invade/borrow wing of the GOP. If you don't stem the tide of illegals at some point the Dems make Florida, Texas and probably North Carolina blue by the 2030 census,and then game over. Most unfortunate should the Dems lose the House he would be in line to be Speaker. So expect more nonsense about free trade, enterprise zones and tax cuts unless Trump steps in.
        , @anonymous
        Race mixing will mean the US will turn into a majority whitish population comparable to the southern half of Spain. And also be a black minority on top of the whitish blob. That's not as terrible as turning to into a favela.
        , @Stan
        "These GOP goobers don’t understand that they are being turned into Boers in their own country by the 3rd World demographic tide. They’ll still be yammering on about America being a shining city on a hill long after its been turned into a stinking favela on a garbage heap."


        They understand, they don't care. They have lucrative jobs waiting for them after their political careers are over. Paul Ryan, John Boehner and others use their contacts in DC to make fortune after retirement from their political careers. They have money to insulate themselves from the dire consequences of open borders.
      27. @AP

        If and when this tips Texas Democratic,
         
        It'll be a few elections away, at least.

        Texas Hispanics are more conservative than California ones. I assume Nevada follows next-door California.

        27% of Texas Hispanics identified as Republicans (vs. 46% Democratic) in 2014, which was a lot higher than the national average. Texas Hispanics were getting more Republican, while Hispanics outside Texas were getting less Republican:

        https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/5kartjupuuksx-ohbhlrbw.png

        (don't know to what if any extent Trump changed this)

        2018 Mid-term elections:

        https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18.11.09_LatinosMidterms_how-hispanics-voted-key-races.png

        Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as "extremely conservative."

        https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Six-myths-about-Latino-Republicans-are-challenged-14484385.php

        Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as “extremely conservative.”

        That seems about right to me. Middle and upwardly mobile working class Mex. Am.s tend to know what the deal is, which is giving your money to other people to sit on their ass. To a very much lesser extent, it seems to the same with blacks.

        I think I’ve told this story here before, but back when I was a kid, my dad’s dream car was a Ford Bronco, but the family couldn’t really afford one. But do to gov’t handouts, lying on welfare vouchers and such, a whole lot of people with ‘z’ in their last name had one. It goes back to Steve’s old saw about natives playing by the rules, and newcomers playing the system.

        • Replies: @Bugg
        More recent Latino arrivals are more inclined to vote for socialism. There's plenty of it south of the border. There's no reason for them not to vote for Sanders. Dems have been selling socialism for a very long time. As Bon Scott might say, if you want socialism, you got it.
      28. @Ed
        I’m not sure about FL. The flirtation with socialism seems to be mostly centered among Mexican-Americans. Cubans aren’t going to go for it great numbers in FL, even the Dem ones. That leaves Puerto Rican’s who aren’t reliable voters.

        Cubans aren’t going to go for it great numbers in FL, even the Dem ones.

        You sure? It’s been three full generations since Castro came to power. The young may not share the anti-socialist sentiments of their grandparents generation.

      29. @Hail
        If Area 51 had a vote,

        who among the D-Teamers would they back?

        Depends on the majority alien of those currently interned at Area 51. My guess is that reptilians would go for Bloomberg, Greys for Biden, and Nordics for Sanders.

        • Replies: @Hail
        It's also possible Area 51 is boycotting the election now that Marianne Williamson was forced out.

        https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/145658786131099649

        "Everyone feels on some level like an alien in this world, because we ARE. We come from another realm of consciousness, and long for home." -- Marianne Williamson
      30. @Whiskey
        Steve Sandernista means taking White people's stuff, ever more. It guarantees a race based civil war.

        Dems are now wedded to Sandernista ism. Take Whiteys stuff. Even AWFULS will nuke their maids to save the Beemers.

        “It guarantees a race based civil war.”
        Um, yep….

      31. It goes back to Steve’s old saw about natives playing by the rules, and newcomers playing the system.

        It doesn’t encapsulate the whole thing, but back in the 80s and up to the early to mid 90s, there were a spate of news features in major magazines and daily papers saying that South Texas was the nation’s third world. (I don’t have lexis-nexis, or I would link). But crimewise, it was nowhere near as bad the California, or other urban Metropolis’.

        Those stories were written by the same people who have the same mindset now (if not the very same people). Unions were against mass immigration, everyone agreed on border security, w#$%$%k was just regarded as particular person who broke the law in a certain way.

        I guess right to work laws, people waking up to the stupidity of socialism* and such made the lefties wake up. I know that’s not the whole answer, but I’m guessing it’s a large part of it.

        *Notice how the ACLU dropped ALL pretenses of free speech.

        State gov’t’s better begin to wake up. There’s no reason for insanely liberally administrators or professors in otherwise conservative states. Revise the rules on who gets to serve as a regent, revises the rules on who gets to sit in the campus office building, and revise the rules on getting and keeping tenure.

        • Replies: @Twodees Partain
        I see that you misspelled "wetback". Are you sure you're from south Texas? ;-)
        , @bomag

        State gov’t’s better begin to wake up. There’s no reason for insanely liberally administrators or professors in otherwise conservative states. Revise the rules on who gets to serve as a regent, revises the rules on who gets to sit in the campus office building, and revise the rules on getting and keeping tenure.
         
        The academy has pretty much been completely conquered by the Left and bureaucratic sclerosis; not worth saving in its present form.

        We need a different credentialing system. The academy needs to go back to being a monastery-like repository of knowledge, rather than a generator of bad political ideas.
      32. @Ed
        I’m not sure about FL. The flirtation with socialism seems to be mostly centered among Mexican-Americans. Cubans aren’t going to go for it great numbers in FL, even the Dem ones. That leaves Puerto Rican’s who aren’t reliable voters.

        Good to see somebody gets that there are many different “Latino” voting blocs.

        The Sanders campaign worked from the ground up, and so was able to understand how to make the correct promises to the correct people.

        Warren and Klobo were pathetic 10,000 feet flyby candidates–the use of LatinX is a dead giveaway.

        At the end of the day this will be the DNC vs Sanders–will the DNC try to use the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Bernie?

        If they don’t, they lose.

        If the do, they lose.

        You can call them ZombieX.

        • Agree: Ed
        • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
        "will the DNC try to use the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Bernie?"

        In 2016 it was easier to do that, since Hillary had the majority of the superdelegates locked up before she even officially announced her candidacy. It was all supposed to be a crowning ceremony, for all that she had done for loyal decades of service to the party. What she didn't expect was that Bernie would put up a strong fight to the finish the way that he did.

        This time, however, there is no one single candidate for whom the superdelegates can rally behind. So many of the other six or seven little indians will receive a number of superdelegates and thus cancel one another out.

        So again, Hispanics may definitely prove to be Bernie's firewall in the primaries. All he has to do is do respectable with blacks and he wins the nomination. Also he is wise to have party leftists such as AOC help campaign with him to attract Latino voters as well.

        And, Bernie's voters are for the most part, all in. They have skin in the game, they are passionately fanatical about their candidate. And this is translating to actual votes and delegates. If the people in the party get to speak (and so far they have in the ballot box) then Bernie wins.

        It's his turn, and his time.
      33. @nebulafox
        >I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy.

        A lot of Mexican-Americans on lower socioeconomic strata don't like mass immigration because they understand the threat that poses to their economic interests, particularly when it is from Central American countries which they hold in contempt. But fortunately for the Democrats, they like free-market fundamentalism even less. This was the point that Karl Rove and Company never understood. Family values + amnesty != masses of blue-collar Hispanic voters ready to embrace Chamber of Commerce favored economic policies. Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it. (That, and what else can you do when the other party holds you in existential contempt?)

        The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society. The donors largely vote Democrat these days anyway, so why the heck not? Remain to the right on assimilation/crime/immigration/anti-SJWism. Embrace Hamiltonianism on free trade, and embrace realist anti-interventionism on foreign policy. Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays, and start focusing on important stuff like progressives who clearly despise their own society, wish for permanent revolution, and oligarchs that abet them because they profit from social atomization. That's what'll win. Forget liberal vs. conservative, make this about nationalist vs. globalist, and not just because that'll build a big tent: that's what it is in REALITY.

        tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society.

        Neither party can do this without alienating donors. Trump talked a good game, but has been either neutered by the GOP on that issue or, more likely, never really believed in it. Trump has more to gain by putting his own friends and allies into the swamp than by actually changing the system. The Democratic establishment is horrified by Sanders – not so much because of his actual policies, but because people like Pelosi realize that Sanders will scare away all the very generous tech billionaires, rich lawyers and socially progressive finance types that have made life so easy for Blue State Dems the last 20 years.

        • Replies: @nebulafox
        Well, of course. Donald Trump believes in whatever is in his mind that minute. He's entirely state-less, entirely stochastic. It's only natural given who he is surrounded with, and whose approval he craves. His supporters are in denial about the nature of the man, he's a con artist.

        >Neither party can do this without alienating donors.

        I'm aware they think they can go on into a neo-feudal future without it blowing up. But that doesn't mean they are right. You watch. They'll go too far, they'll overstretch. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

        Whether it is good for the USA... no idea. But it'll happen. I feel it in my bones. And I want stability, predictability, I inherently crave it. But I know it won't happen.
        , @Corvinus
        “Trump has more to gain by putting his friends and allies into the swamp than by actually changing the system”.

        Trenchant comment. So why doesn’t Mr. Sailer, our fearless pattern noticer, dare to scribe an article or two on this very thing?
        , @Mr. Anon

        Neither party can do this without alienating donors.
         
        Since 2016, this term has become common: "donor". We talk about "the donors" and "the donor-class", and it is true in so far as it goes; they are the people who donate lots of money to campaigns.

        But this term is still rather innocuous. It is still a euphemism.

        What we really mean is not "donor", but rather "buyer" or "owner". These are the people who buy the politicians - who come to own them. These are the people whom the politicians really work for.
      34. @Whiskey
        Steve Sandernista means taking White people's stuff, ever more. It guarantees a race based civil war.

        Dems are now wedded to Sandernista ism. Take Whiteys stuff. Even AWFULS will nuke their maids to save the Beemers.

        “Check out all those Bernie voters.”
        “Sandernistas”
        “What?”
        “They are Sandernistas”
        “… REAGAN WAS RIGHT!!”

        • LOL: Redneck farmer
        • Replies: @Joe Stalin
        The gun community has finally caught on to the "replacing the people" scam:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU4oroRQ-ro
        , @MikeatMikedotMike
        One could produce a 5 part "Where are They Now?" mini series based on that still shot.
      35. @Peter Akuleyev
        tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society.

        Neither party can do this without alienating donors. Trump talked a good game, but has been either neutered by the GOP on that issue or, more likely, never really believed in it. Trump has more to gain by putting his own friends and allies into the swamp than by actually changing the system. The Democratic establishment is horrified by Sanders - not so much because of his actual policies, but because people like Pelosi realize that Sanders will scare away all the very generous tech billionaires, rich lawyers and socially progressive finance types that have made life so easy for Blue State Dems the last 20 years.

        Well, of course. Donald Trump believes in whatever is in his mind that minute. He’s entirely state-less, entirely stochastic. It’s only natural given who he is surrounded with, and whose approval he craves. His supporters are in denial about the nature of the man, he’s a con artist.

        >Neither party can do this without alienating donors.

        I’m aware they think they can go on into a neo-feudal future without it blowing up. But that doesn’t mean they are right. You watch. They’ll go too far, they’ll overstretch. They aren’t as smart as they think they are.

        Whether it is good for the USA… no idea. But it’ll happen. I feel it in my bones. And I want stability, predictability, I inherently crave it. But I know it won’t happen.

        • Replies: @International Jew

        He’s entirely state-less, entirely stochastic.
         
        That's pretty strong. I'll grant you he's not path-dependent though. The Markov Chain president.
        , @Anon

        Donald Trump believes in whatever is in his mind that minute... he’s a con artist.
         
        Trump has a degree from the top Ivy League business school, has written numerous NYT bestsellers, was star in a number one prime-time TV show, amassed billions of dollars of personal wealth from real estate in Manhattan and golf courses throughout the world, and on his first attempt to run for political office won the U.S. Presidency.

        But of course, he’s just a con artist and you could do better. 🤣
      36. @nebulafox
        Well, of course. Donald Trump believes in whatever is in his mind that minute. He's entirely state-less, entirely stochastic. It's only natural given who he is surrounded with, and whose approval he craves. His supporters are in denial about the nature of the man, he's a con artist.

        >Neither party can do this without alienating donors.

        I'm aware they think they can go on into a neo-feudal future without it blowing up. But that doesn't mean they are right. You watch. They'll go too far, they'll overstretch. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

        Whether it is good for the USA... no idea. But it'll happen. I feel it in my bones. And I want stability, predictability, I inherently crave it. But I know it won't happen.

        He’s entirely state-less, entirely stochastic.

        That’s pretty strong. I’ll grant you he’s not path-dependent though. The Markov Chain president.

      37. “…John Judis and Ruy Teixeira contend that in American politics, social issues are essentially a luxury item that primarily interest better-off groups.”

        White Southerners were and still are an exception.

        • Replies: @SF
        Well, a few Spanish language commercials about boys in the girls' locker room might be useful in a swing state with a dignificant latino vote.
        , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
        White Southerners are, at the end of the day, still white. And whites for the most part, are economically better off than most minorities (e.g. blacks, latinos in particular).
        , @Anonymous
        Not really. The South was a major part of the New Deal Democratic coalition because it benefited from federal spending financed by taxing the wealthier North.

        That coalition broke down in the 60s/70s because the Dems started giving out more of the pie to blacks and favoring blacks in doling out the pie. Also big business Republicans started putting more money in the South as a cheaper and less regulated alternative to the more unionized North in the 80s.
      38. @nebulafox
        >I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy.

        A lot of Mexican-Americans on lower socioeconomic strata don't like mass immigration because they understand the threat that poses to their economic interests, particularly when it is from Central American countries which they hold in contempt. But fortunately for the Democrats, they like free-market fundamentalism even less. This was the point that Karl Rove and Company never understood. Family values + amnesty != masses of blue-collar Hispanic voters ready to embrace Chamber of Commerce favored economic policies. Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it. (That, and what else can you do when the other party holds you in existential contempt?)

        The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society. The donors largely vote Democrat these days anyway, so why the heck not? Remain to the right on assimilation/crime/immigration/anti-SJWism. Embrace Hamiltonianism on free trade, and embrace realist anti-interventionism on foreign policy. Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays, and start focusing on important stuff like progressives who clearly despise their own society, wish for permanent revolution, and oligarchs that abet them because they profit from social atomization. That's what'll win. Forget liberal vs. conservative, make this about nationalist vs. globalist, and not just because that'll build a big tent: that's what it is in REALITY.

        Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays…

        And boys who call themselves girls competing in girls’ sports and destroying them?

        • Replies: @SFG
        My view is that the ladies have earned this sort of thing with feminism, but I'm sure lots of people here disagree with me.

        Just tell your daughter not to go into MMA or wrestling (a sound piece of advice even without biological males competing). Girls' sports are overrated anyway; exercise is good for all humans, but when they try to become elite athletes they have problems with bone mass and so on. The sexes really were made for different things.
        , @Jon

        And boys who call themselves girls competing in girls’ sports and destroying them?
         
        The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
      39. @Reg Cæsar

        Bernie Wins Majority of Hispanics in Nevada
         
        In those small patches of the state that actually belong to Nevada.


        https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f84b62_4f84d4ca35e44d5d88b49e3c96bdb0a4~mv2.gif

        Nevada was admitted to the Union during the Civil War to bolster the Republican majority, when it had no business being a state. Since WW2 it has developed a substantial urban population concentrated in a very small portion of its land area. A lot of the Federal land in the west could be privatized (which I favor) or returned to the States (which I don’t.) A lot of Nevada’s is just plain wasteland which isn’t suitable even for sheep ranching.

        • Replies: @Alden
        So you’ve been there. It’s just, it’s hard to describe. The Ca NV border is mountains. After that it’s just a flat moonscape. There’s dried salt on the ground that prevents anything from growing. Deserted highway, no traffic no people. It’s scary and strange.

        One of the world’s biggest gold mines is somewhere around Elko.
        , @Daniel H
        A lot of the Federal land in the west could be privatized

        And that's why you are a cuck. It's always about mone, economic utility. How about just leaving the land be, so that future generations can chill out there and do..........nothing. Just do nothing. Wow, what an idea, just do nothing.
        , @Alden
        Why should federal land be privatized?

        The useful land is rented to mines, loggers, farmers ranchers and other businesses. So capitalism uses the land for useful purposes and the government gets to keep it. The national parks belong to all of us and should stay in federal hands. And a lot of western and mountain federal land is just useless moonscape. Let the feds keep it.

        Financially, it’s often better for ranchers and farmers to lease the land and easier for the owner to collect rent than run a farm operation. Same with mining. Lease the land, extract the resource and leave when the mine runs out.

        Even some of the rice farms in Ca. are on state and federal land. There are thousands of gold claims on state and federal land as well. The lessors don’t get much gold, but it’s a nice cheap vacation home. Worse comes to worse, live on the gold claim, get welfare and be an old hippie hillbilly. There’s some really cheap trailer parks in the S California desert on state and federal land too.

        It’s not as though the land isn’t being used. It is used by all sorts of businesses and it’s cheaper to lease it than buy it.
      40. @AP

        If and when this tips Texas Democratic,
         
        It'll be a few elections away, at least.

        Texas Hispanics are more conservative than California ones. I assume Nevada follows next-door California.

        27% of Texas Hispanics identified as Republicans (vs. 46% Democratic) in 2014, which was a lot higher than the national average. Texas Hispanics were getting more Republican, while Hispanics outside Texas were getting less Republican:

        https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/5kartjupuuksx-ohbhlrbw.png

        (don't know to what if any extent Trump changed this)

        2018 Mid-term elections:

        https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18.11.09_LatinosMidterms_how-hispanics-voted-key-races.png

        Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as "extremely conservative."

        https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Six-myths-about-Latino-Republicans-are-challenged-14484385.php

        Well, 27% is better, but still no good, but the GOP can make it up in volume.

        (Snarky, I know, but I do get your basic point that Texas can hold out a teensy bit longer.)

      41. @Mr. Anon

        But the Republicans can’t say nobody warned them.
         
        Kevin McCarthy ( (R) California - House Minority Leader) was on Laura Ingraham's show last week. She was lamenting how California had changed, mentioning that as recently as the 80s, Republicans won state-wide offices and how it helped elect Ronald Reagan. McCarthy, wide-eyed and chipper, said that the GOP would get California back.

        What an idiot.

        These GOP goobers don't understand that they are being turned into Boers in their own country by the 3rd World demographic tide. They'll still be yammering on about America being a shining city on a hill long after its been turned into a stinking favela on a garbage heap.

        AGREE and LOL.

      42. @Hibernian
        "...John Judis and Ruy Teixeira contend that in American politics, social issues are essentially a luxury item that primarily interest better-off groups."

        White Southerners were and still are an exception.

        Well, a few Spanish language commercials about boys in the girls’ locker room might be useful in a swing state with a dignificant latino vote.

      43. @Anon
        It looks like the normies will attempt to rally around an anti-Bernie, but the interesting thing is, there's no consensus among the normie Democrats (the handful of them that are left) about who this is. Bloomberg isn't seen as a legitimate Democrat and is hated by many in the party. Warren is seen as too radical by the normies. Pete has a gay problem that gives the normies pause. Biden's too old and silly, and everybody knows it. There is no clear alternative to Sanders among the Democrats.

        The problem is, the Democrats need an alternative for 2 reasons. Bernie's 78 and he's already had a heart attack. Unless they stick him in the bottle until the election, he's going to get Covid-19 and end up in the hospital on a ventilator. He's got a good chance of dying. Unless the Democrats have a clear number 2, they're going to have a civil war if Bernie becomes the nominee but dies before the election. Sanders might choose an acceptable Veep as a candidate, but if not, the Democrats are going to be strong-armed by their Bloomberg crowd, and may implode as a party right before the election.

        I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.

        • Agree: Rob, Houston 1992
        • Replies: @Anon7
        Let's hope that the GOP decides to do more than shout "Socialism!"

        They could start peeling people off the Sanders bandwagon by describing exactly what will happen under Bernie and the Sandersnistas. (The italics mean you should pronounce it with a Hispanic [or, as Warren says, Latinx] accent.)

        - Under President Bernie, if you spent way more money on college than you should have and received no useful degree in return, and have paid nothing on your student loans - your debt is zeroed out, paid for by all the responsible people!

        - Under President Bernie, if you worked hard, and sacrificed and scrimped and saved for retirement - Bernie will take your money and redistribute it to the people who had no plan in life to support themselves in the past, in the present or in the future.

        The creation of additional examples is left as an exercise for the reader.
        , @Muggles
        >>I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.<<

        While this could work if Warren ends up w/ enough loyal delegates to pull off a deal, it does nothing to help the Dems defeat Trump. A harridan screecher from MA doesn't help a ticket with an elderly Brooklynite Jew who has been hiding out in Vermont. Yes, a female and a self proclaimed non Communist socialist. How does that sell outside of the Boston Commons? Both candidates are personally unpleasant to watch or hear. Warren is a serial but failed liar. Bernie makes Hillary seem like the picture of health. Few blacks seem to like Jews outside of Dem photo ops. Though I don't think Bernie's Jewishness is much of a factor with most Americans.

        BTW: it isn't just Repubs who are screaming "socialism" at Bernie. That's his mantra. And most Dem office holders/donors aren't socialists either. Denmark and Sweden aren't "socialist" like Bernie claims. Maybe Venezuela is though. Forty years ago not too bad. Today, Venezuelans are fleeing their socialist kleptocracy like starving Syrians.

        Vermont is full of rich/retired New Yorkers with second homes. The rest of America is considerably different. At barely above 626,000, Vermont is the second least populated state. The western side of the county I live in has more people. So even there Bernie hardly has a Mandate From Heaven.
        , @RadicalCenter
        He could, however, pick the African male lieutenant governor of ... MICHIGAN.

        UH-OH.
        , @Mr McKenna
        • Agree: Mr McKenna, Jack D, Lot

        Finally, we all agree on something!
        , @SFG
        Abrams apparently defended Bloomberg after her organization took $5 million from him.

        Yup, it's good to be rich.
      44. @AP

        If and when this tips Texas Democratic,
         
        It'll be a few elections away, at least.

        Texas Hispanics are more conservative than California ones. I assume Nevada follows next-door California.

        27% of Texas Hispanics identified as Republicans (vs. 46% Democratic) in 2014, which was a lot higher than the national average. Texas Hispanics were getting more Republican, while Hispanics outside Texas were getting less Republican:

        https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/5kartjupuuksx-ohbhlrbw.png

        (don't know to what if any extent Trump changed this)

        2018 Mid-term elections:

        https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18.11.09_LatinosMidterms_how-hispanics-voted-key-races.png

        Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as "extremely conservative."

        https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Six-myths-about-Latino-Republicans-are-challenged-14484385.php

        “Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as “extremely conservative.””

        I don’t know what formula would produce the figure of 27% out of four people, but it’s probably pretty complicated.

        • LOL: Hibernian
      45. @South Texas Guy

        It goes back to Steve’s old saw about natives playing by the rules, and newcomers playing the system.
         
        It doesn't encapsulate the whole thing, but back in the 80s and up to the early to mid 90s, there were a spate of news features in major magazines and daily papers saying that South Texas was the nation's third world. (I don't have lexis-nexis, or I would link). But crimewise, it was nowhere near as bad the California, or other urban Metropolis'.

        Those stories were written by the same people who have the same mindset now (if not the very same people). Unions were against mass immigration, everyone agreed on border security, w#$%$%k was just regarded as particular person who broke the law in a certain way.

        I guess right to work laws, people waking up to the stupidity of socialism* and such made the lefties wake up. I know that's not the whole answer, but I'm guessing it's a large part of it.

        *Notice how the ACLU dropped ALL pretenses of free speech.

        State gov't's better begin to wake up. There's no reason for insanely liberally administrators or professors in otherwise conservative states. Revise the rules on who gets to serve as a regent, revises the rules on who gets to sit in the campus office building, and revise the rules on getting and keeping tenure.

        I see that you misspelled “wetback”. Are you sure you’re from south Texas? 😉

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        Could be. Nobody in real south Texas speaks English.
        , @South Texas Guy
        I didn't misspell it. I am always just leary of getting either Sailer or Unz in trouble for badspeak on the site.
      46. @South Texas Guy

        It goes back to Steve’s old saw about natives playing by the rules, and newcomers playing the system.
         
        It doesn't encapsulate the whole thing, but back in the 80s and up to the early to mid 90s, there were a spate of news features in major magazines and daily papers saying that South Texas was the nation's third world. (I don't have lexis-nexis, or I would link). But crimewise, it was nowhere near as bad the California, or other urban Metropolis'.

        Those stories were written by the same people who have the same mindset now (if not the very same people). Unions were against mass immigration, everyone agreed on border security, w#$%$%k was just regarded as particular person who broke the law in a certain way.

        I guess right to work laws, people waking up to the stupidity of socialism* and such made the lefties wake up. I know that's not the whole answer, but I'm guessing it's a large part of it.

        *Notice how the ACLU dropped ALL pretenses of free speech.

        State gov't's better begin to wake up. There's no reason for insanely liberally administrators or professors in otherwise conservative states. Revise the rules on who gets to serve as a regent, revises the rules on who gets to sit in the campus office building, and revise the rules on getting and keeping tenure.

        State gov’t’s better begin to wake up. There’s no reason for insanely liberally administrators or professors in otherwise conservative states. Revise the rules on who gets to serve as a regent, revises the rules on who gets to sit in the campus office building, and revise the rules on getting and keeping tenure.

        The academy has pretty much been completely conquered by the Left and bureaucratic sclerosis; not worth saving in its present form.

        We need a different credentialing system. The academy needs to go back to being a monastery-like repository of knowledge, rather than a generator of bad political ideas.

        • Agree: Hibernian, Hail
      47. @South Texas Guy

        Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as “extremely conservative.”
         
        That seems about right to me. Middle and upwardly mobile working class Mex. Am.s tend to know what the deal is, which is giving your money to other people to sit on their ass. To a very much lesser extent, it seems to the same with blacks.

        I think I've told this story here before, but back when I was a kid, my dad's dream car was a Ford Bronco, but the family couldn't really afford one. But do to gov't handouts, lying on welfare vouchers and such, a whole lot of people with 'z' in their last name had one. It goes back to Steve's old saw about natives playing by the rules, and newcomers playing the system.

        More recent Latino arrivals are more inclined to vote for socialism. There’s plenty of it south of the border. There’s no reason for them not to vote for Sanders. Dems have been selling socialism for a very long time. As Bon Scott might say, if you want socialism, you got it.

        • Replies: @South Texas Guy

        More recent Latino arrivals are more inclined to vote for socialism.
         
        I believe that's true. Latinos aren't as inclined to be as inflexibly democrat as blacks, but there are a bunch. What I have seen is that group really doesn't give a crap about immigration policy (except maybe for family, if even then), but they do care about welfare, section 8 housing vouchers, etc., etc.

        Basically, everything south of the border, or in the Carribean is a 'what's in it for me' culture.
      48. @Mr. Anon

        But the Republicans can’t say nobody warned them.
         
        Kevin McCarthy ( (R) California - House Minority Leader) was on Laura Ingraham's show last week. She was lamenting how California had changed, mentioning that as recently as the 80s, Republicans won state-wide offices and how it helped elect Ronald Reagan. McCarthy, wide-eyed and chipper, said that the GOP would get California back.

        What an idiot.

        These GOP goobers don't understand that they are being turned into Boers in their own country by the 3rd World demographic tide. They'll still be yammering on about America being a shining city on a hill long after its been turned into a stinking favela on a garbage heap.

        McCarthy is from the invite/invade/borrow wing of the GOP. If you don’t stem the tide of illegals at some point the Dems make Florida, Texas and probably North Carolina blue by the 2030 census,and then game over. Most unfortunate should the Dems lose the House he would be in line to be Speaker. So expect more nonsense about free trade, enterprise zones and tax cuts unless Trump steps in.

        • Replies: @indocon
        I still think that if he is speaker next year, we have a better chance of 1924 style moratorium then if somebody like Paul Ryan was in that chair. You have to understand Paul Ryan's background as a hard core academic Ann Ryandist, facts in front of him won't change his mind, McCarthy on the other side comes from the last remaining outpost of white conservatism in California - Bakersfield. He's got to see with his own eyes the demographic transformation and the resulting political displacement that has happened, I am pretty sure whoever the Democrats nominate will rake up huge majority of non-white voters in 2020, and I'm going to bet that it will make him think about it vs Paul Ryan would not be capable of it.

        Plus keep in mind a financial and job market downturn is in front of us, for the first time the issue of legal/illegal immigration and temporary work visa us will be squarely juxtaposed with rising unemployment rate. I have seen 3 downturns in my time in US - early 1990s defense market cut backs, 2000's dot com bust, 2007 housing bust, in neither of those 3 times was immigration at the top of the list for anybody, not this time.
        , @Mr. Anon

        McCarthy is from the invite/invade/borrow wing of the GOP.
         
        Unfortunately, that pretty much IS the GOP - the whole Party, other than a very few Congressman, who are either ineffectual or irrelevant or both. I held out some hope when Trump was elected, that there might be a partial realignment of the Republican Party - that it might produce at least a significant caucus of representatives who are opposed to the ITW^2 doctrine. But it didn't happen. Certainly Trump didn't to anything to encourage it.

        By the way, here is the new (acting) White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney:

        https://www.salon.com/2020/02/23/white-house-chief-of-staff-mick-mulvaney-caught-on-tape-saying-us-is-desperate-for-more-immigrants_partner/

        Here's Mulvaney, back in 2016 revealing what he really thinks of Trump:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeCx12lT1zg

        Yet another case of The Donald elevating to an influential position somebody who a.) despises him, and b.) disagrees with him, or at least with the agenda he ran on. Trump isn't playing four dimensional chess. He's playing one dimensional Tic-Tac-Toe.
      49. @Whiskey
        Steve Sandernista means taking White people's stuff, ever more. It guarantees a race based civil war.

        Dems are now wedded to Sandernista ism. Take Whiteys stuff. Even AWFULS will nuke their maids to save the Beemers.

        • Replies: @Joe Stalin
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prz3MneQyo4
      50. It is perfectly simple.

        I speak Spanish fluently and I know a lot of Hispanic people. Nearly all Hispanic people favor Medicare for all or something similar. I do not know any Hispanic people who loveObamacare or their health insurance plans with massive deductibles that they get from their employers.

        Trump ran to the left of Clinton in the last general election, promising abolition of Obamacare with its massive deductibles and replacing it with something better that will provide everyone with really affordable health care, plus an end to profiteering by the drug companies.

        Affordable health care does not mean affordable health insurance premiums that you can afford to pay as long as no one in the family ever gets sick! It means having health care and medicines that working people can afford to pay for when they are sick or injured. It was recently brought to my attention that an albuterol inhaler for asthma costs an average of $70 in the US, but only $3 in Mexico. Mexican people know these kind of things.

        Trump has not delivered on his promises on health care, and has not even made them a priority. If Trump was fighting as fiercely for affordable health care as he does against Huawei or alleged corruption in Ukraine, people would appreciate his efforts.

        In a two party system parties need to calibrate their policies so that they can appeal to 51% of the electorate. Maybe the Republicans don’t want or need Hispanic votes, but if they do want them, they definitely need to find out what Hispanic voters want and improve their offerings on health care.

        • Replies: @Another Canadian
        Foreigners who spend any time in the United States quickly realise that medical health insurance is just a protection racket. Big insurers like Medicare, Humana, etc. all have their own pre-negotiated price list with medical providers that magically turn a $27,000 appendectomy into a $3,000 bill to the insurer of which the patient pays $600. Only a cash buyer is billed the full $27,000 that you see on TV. It's like the secret menu at a Chinese restaurant and Trump is in an arm-wrestling match with the hospitals to force disclosure.

        https://wreg.com/news/hospitals-sue-trump-administration-over-price-disclosure-rule/

        The US medical system is a minefield of these ripoffs that you hire an insurance company to navigate. This needs to change.
        , @Corvinus
        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?
      51. @Hail
        If Area 51 had a vote,

        who among the D-Teamers would they back?

        One person(?) voted in the Area 51 precinct, for Elizabeth Warren.

        • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

        One person(?) voted in the Area 51 precinct, for Elizabeth Warren.
         
        EW, phone home.



        https://zdnet3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2019/11/29/b29d819b-2564-4753-a82b-ec5137aff26c/resize/1200xauto/60ac5f7e39f50e7b1eff27cc2cd3a436/screen-shot-2019-11-29-at-8-40-23-am.png

        https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/05/GettyImages-1144063021-640x480.jpg
      52. I moved to Las Vegas from LA in 1969 for a music job. Right away I was amazed because there were no Mexicans working in the hotels, not even as barboys or maids.

        It was as if a white kid could graduate high school and go right to work in the hotels, making change or bussing tables, and move on up to make a career in the hotel industry.

        It had much more opportunity than LA, I thought.

      53. @Jonathan Mason
        It is perfectly simple.

        I speak Spanish fluently and I know a lot of Hispanic people. Nearly all Hispanic people favor Medicare for all or something similar. I do not know any Hispanic people who loveObamacare or their health insurance plans with massive deductibles that they get from their employers.

        Trump ran to the left of Clinton in the last general election, promising abolition of Obamacare with its massive deductibles and replacing it with something better that will provide everyone with really affordable health care, plus an end to profiteering by the drug companies.

        Affordable health care does not mean affordable health insurance premiums that you can afford to pay as long as no one in the family ever gets sick! It means having health care and medicines that working people can afford to pay for when they are sick or injured. It was recently brought to my attention that an albuterol inhaler for asthma costs an average of $70 in the US, but only $3 in Mexico. Mexican people know these kind of things.

        Trump has not delivered on his promises on health care, and has not even made them a priority. If Trump was fighting as fiercely for affordable health care as he does against Huawei or alleged corruption in Ukraine, people would appreciate his efforts.

        In a two party system parties need to calibrate their policies so that they can appeal to 51% of the electorate. Maybe the Republicans don't want or need Hispanic votes, but if they do want them, they definitely need to find out what Hispanic voters want and improve their offerings on health care.

        Foreigners who spend any time in the United States quickly realise that medical health insurance is just a protection racket. Big insurers like Medicare, Humana, etc. all have their own pre-negotiated price list with medical providers that magically turn a $27,000 appendectomy into a $3,000 bill to the insurer of which the patient pays $600. Only a cash buyer is billed the full $27,000 that you see on TV. It’s like the secret menu at a Chinese restaurant and Trump is in an arm-wrestling match with the hospitals to force disclosure.

        https://wreg.com/news/hospitals-sue-trump-administration-over-price-disclosure-rule/

        The US medical system is a minefield of these ripoffs that you hire an insurance company to navigate. This needs to change.

        • Replies: @snorlax

        Big insurers like Medicare, Humana, etc. all have their own pre-negotiated price list with medical providers that magically turn a $27,000 appendectomy into a $3,000 bill to the insurer of which the patient pays $600. Only a cash buyer is billed the full $27,000 that you see on TV. It’s like the secret menu at a Chinese restaurant and Trump is in an arm-wrestling match with the hospitals to force disclosure.
         
        Speaking of which, the Democrats are furiously fighting the price disclosure rule every step of the way, which one should keep in mind any time someone says Democrats are for "affordable healthcare."
      54. @Justvisiting
        Good to see somebody gets that there are many different "Latino" voting blocs.

        The Sanders campaign worked from the ground up, and so was able to understand how to make the correct promises to the correct people.

        Warren and Klobo were pathetic 10,000 feet flyby candidates--the use of LatinX is a dead giveaway.

        At the end of the day this will be the DNC vs Sanders--will the DNC try to use the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Bernie?

        If they don't, they lose.

        If the do, they lose.

        You can call them ZombieX.

        “will the DNC try to use the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Bernie?”

        In 2016 it was easier to do that, since Hillary had the majority of the superdelegates locked up before she even officially announced her candidacy. It was all supposed to be a crowning ceremony, for all that she had done for loyal decades of service to the party. What she didn’t expect was that Bernie would put up a strong fight to the finish the way that he did.

        This time, however, there is no one single candidate for whom the superdelegates can rally behind. So many of the other six or seven little indians will receive a number of superdelegates and thus cancel one another out.

        So again, Hispanics may definitely prove to be Bernie’s firewall in the primaries. All he has to do is do respectable with blacks and he wins the nomination. Also he is wise to have party leftists such as AOC help campaign with him to attract Latino voters as well.

        And, Bernie’s voters are for the most part, all in. They have skin in the game, they are passionately fanatical about their candidate. And this is translating to actual votes and delegates. If the people in the party get to speak (and so far they have in the ballot box) then Bernie wins.

        It’s his turn, and his time.

        • Replies: @Joe Stalin
        "It’s his turn, and his time."

        Indeed.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3kKqfTjsj0
        , @RadicalCenter
        I’d add that superdelegates made up 20% of all dem President is delegates in 2016, down to 15% this year. And this time they don’t get to vote on the first ballot. Both presumably good changes for sanders.

        But I understand that after the first ballot, all delegates become uncommitted. Even if Sanders has nearly half of all elected delegates, the majority of non-Sanders delegates could join most superdelegates to defeat sanders on the second ballot.

        Given how sanders caved after his voters were blatantly ripped off by the DNC and Clinton in 2026, I’m not confident that he would decline to endorse whomever the dnc and superdelegates pick in his stead. But perhaps enough of his supporters would stay home, or vote Green, to get trump re-elected.

        Neither scenario appears good for Americans, though I’ll take the relatively somewhat less bad judicial nominations and self defense / gun policies of a repub admin over the Dems.
      55. @Reg Cæsar

        Bernie Wins Majority of Hispanics in Nevada
         
        In those small patches of the state that actually belong to Nevada.


        https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f84b62_4f84d4ca35e44d5d88b49e3c96bdb0a4~mv2.gif

        Curiously, the amount of Nevada land owned by the Feds was also pointed out in Dean Koontz Wuhan virus novel, “Eyes of Darkness,” as a reason the Feds would have a well-resourced, rapid response spook shop in Nevada.

      56. @Hibernian
        "...John Judis and Ruy Teixeira contend that in American politics, social issues are essentially a luxury item that primarily interest better-off groups."

        White Southerners were and still are an exception.

        White Southerners are, at the end of the day, still white. And whites for the most part, are economically better off than most minorities (e.g. blacks, latinos in particular).

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        A large and growing number of white Americans — many millions — are no better off than the Latinos, as new jobs in most years typically go more to nonwhites: better-paying White-collar jobs to the Indians and Chinese (finance and banking, IT, Law, Government Policy, tenured academics, etc.), construction and home renovation jobs to Latinos, and so on,

        I’d focus not on mean compensation or net worth, but on the MEDIAN. We have a shrinking minority of white Americans (largely disloyal, nation-less college-“educated”, and disproportionately never-married, homosexual or barren misfits) in the high-paying jobs.

        The rest of us white Americans — any decent, normal, reasonably intelligent and productive US-born Christians trying to raise a family, actually — are either (1) struggling more than ever to get or keep such jobs, or (2) most often, far far below, trying to get or keep lower-paying insecure jobs that usually lack pensions or good medical insurance, whittled away each year by outsourcing, wage- and bargaining-power- destruction by mass immigrant competition, and increasingly automation and AI.

        MOST non-elderly WHITE AMERICANS ARE NOT DOING WELL AT ALL. They are dividing more into upper and lower classes. There is ever less real career opportunity, and less leverage against employers (as intended) for the lower and decaying middle class, and not a good outlook even for those of us clinging by our fingernails around the middle-to-upper-income area.
      57. @J.Ross
        Hispanics went with a socialist instead of a homosexual spook, an angry billionaire, a doddering and embezzling child molester, or ... whatever Klobuchar is? Who could have foreseen this smashing upset?

        So perhaps you favor the megalomaniac and serial liar in the Oval Office?

        And I can’t help but NOTICE how Mr Sailor butchers the characterization of Hispanic voters. But that’s just Steve being Steve.

        • Replies: @gabriel alberton

        And I can’t help but NOTICE how Mr Sailor butchers the characterization of Hispanic voters. But that’s just Steve being Steve.
         
        What would be a less butchered characterization, then, in your opinion, not Sailer's? Myself, from all what I've seen and know, US Hispanic voters behave rather like my fellow Brazilians when it comes to elections, and tend not to mind much one way or the other. With some rhetorical exaggeration, it's mostly you whites, and to a lesser extent blacks, who care to vote. (Here, turnout in the last presidential election was around 80%, without counting "blank'' and "null'' votes, even though voting is compulsory, takes place on a Sunday, and not doing so without justification causes quite a few problems)

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Voter_Turnout_by_Race-Ethnicity%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png
        , @fish
        Wow Corby.......struck a nerve.....no bonus this quarter due to your ongoing inability to change anyone’s mind here?
      58. @Jonathan Mason
        It is perfectly simple.

        I speak Spanish fluently and I know a lot of Hispanic people. Nearly all Hispanic people favor Medicare for all or something similar. I do not know any Hispanic people who loveObamacare or their health insurance plans with massive deductibles that they get from their employers.

        Trump ran to the left of Clinton in the last general election, promising abolition of Obamacare with its massive deductibles and replacing it with something better that will provide everyone with really affordable health care, plus an end to profiteering by the drug companies.

        Affordable health care does not mean affordable health insurance premiums that you can afford to pay as long as no one in the family ever gets sick! It means having health care and medicines that working people can afford to pay for when they are sick or injured. It was recently brought to my attention that an albuterol inhaler for asthma costs an average of $70 in the US, but only $3 in Mexico. Mexican people know these kind of things.

        Trump has not delivered on his promises on health care, and has not even made them a priority. If Trump was fighting as fiercely for affordable health care as he does against Huawei or alleged corruption in Ukraine, people would appreciate his efforts.

        In a two party system parties need to calibrate their policies so that they can appeal to 51% of the electorate. Maybe the Republicans don't want or need Hispanic votes, but if they do want them, they definitely need to find out what Hispanic voters want and improve their offerings on health care.

        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        Well self interest isnt exactly the highest level of cognition. More the most base, presumably the language barrier plays a large role in most of this. Reinforced by the lack of interest most shared before the emperor took the stage.

        In a nation and ancient cultural tradition of youthful idealism that permeates norther European races it just gets overlooked that other groups think, " is it good for us ? " first.

        When the northerners catch on they are being scammed however... watch out.
        , @Jonathan Mason

        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?
         
        Sailer says that Hispanics tend to vote for what is best for them, as opposed to many white working class voters who vote against their own economic interests, due to certain ideals that they may hold.

        For example, for a significant number of Americans abortion is the only political issue that counts and they just want to vote for the candidate who most opposes abortion, regardless of all else. Sailer is saying that Hispanics are pretty laissez-faire on issues like abortion. They might believe it is sinful, or regrettable, but they are not awfully concerned about whether other racial groups have access to legal abortion or not, and they are not going to vote against their own economic interests just because of abortion.

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says). Now, if you happen to be a middle manager with a health insurance company whose main concern is job security, it is obvious that you will not want to vote for Sanders.
      59. @Peter Akuleyev
        tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society.

        Neither party can do this without alienating donors. Trump talked a good game, but has been either neutered by the GOP on that issue or, more likely, never really believed in it. Trump has more to gain by putting his own friends and allies into the swamp than by actually changing the system. The Democratic establishment is horrified by Sanders - not so much because of his actual policies, but because people like Pelosi realize that Sanders will scare away all the very generous tech billionaires, rich lawyers and socially progressive finance types that have made life so easy for Blue State Dems the last 20 years.

        “Trump has more to gain by putting his friends and allies into the swamp than by actually changing the system”.

        Trenchant comment. So why doesn’t Mr. Sailer, our fearless pattern noticer, dare to scribe an article or two on this very thing?

      60. Hispanics are conservative

        They want a good life for their families

        Socialism is more conservative than GOPe crony capitalism.

        They don’t care about America’s “moral politics” because they can handle their own business within their own community.

        • Agree: dfordoom
      61. Anon[369] • Disclaimer says:
        @nebulafox
        Well, of course. Donald Trump believes in whatever is in his mind that minute. He's entirely state-less, entirely stochastic. It's only natural given who he is surrounded with, and whose approval he craves. His supporters are in denial about the nature of the man, he's a con artist.

        >Neither party can do this without alienating donors.

        I'm aware they think they can go on into a neo-feudal future without it blowing up. But that doesn't mean they are right. You watch. They'll go too far, they'll overstretch. They aren't as smart as they think they are.

        Whether it is good for the USA... no idea. But it'll happen. I feel it in my bones. And I want stability, predictability, I inherently crave it. But I know it won't happen.

        Donald Trump believes in whatever is in his mind that minute… he’s a con artist.

        Trump has a degree from the top Ivy League business school, has written numerous NYT bestsellers, was star in a number one prime-time TV show, amassed billions of dollars of personal wealth from real estate in Manhattan and golf courses throughout the world, and on his first attempt to run for political office won the U.S. Presidency.

        But of course, he’s just a con artist and you could do better. 🤣

        • Agree: Alden
        • Replies: @Mr. Anon
        None of the accomplishments you ticked off are incompatible with that person being a con-artist.
        , @Peter Akuleyev
        The best example of Trump being a con artist is that people like our anonymous troll actually believe this. In reality 1) Trump has a BA from UPenn, he did not graduate from the “business school” .2) His bestsellers were ghostwritten 3) he is not a billionaire after you account for his debts and he has had far more financial success as a reality star playing a real estate developer than actually being a real estate developer.
        , @Anon
        To be more specific, Trump has a bachelor rather than a proper business degree. He did not write a phrase for "his" bestsellers.Trump wealth grew at a slower rate than passive investment in, say, S&P 500 tracker funds.

        The Apprentice started as the the seventh show in Nielsen ratings in its first year. Over the next 6 seasons, The Apprentice lost at least 20% viewers year on year, with each annual iteration. Not precisely a success.

        Finally, Trump won the Reform Party primaries in 2000, in California and Michigan, and had an second attempt in 2012. 2016 was not his first run for president.

        Your comment is a list of alternative facts.

        FYI, any sane person thinks his daughters and wives are uglier than a gaggle of Jewesses.
      62. It ain’t that hard. The country’s about 4/9 liberal, 2/9 conservative, and 2.5/9 populist (socially conservative/economically liberal). The leftover rounding error is all those libertarian types.

        https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

        People hate ‘woke’ and free markets. Trump ran against ‘woke’ and free markets (by claiming to put America first while protecting Medicare and Social Security), so he won, but then tried to kick people off healthcare.

        Totally free markets suck unless you have maybe assets of $1 million or more. You go bankrupt if you get sick, have to compete with lots of people for crappy jobs, and wind up in debt.

        Ditch the free-market crap and go socially conservative (everyone is sick of purple-haired people telling everyone there are 57 genders…look at how great ‘Latinx’ did) but economically liberal (national healthcare system, paid for by hiking taxes on Wall Street and the rest of big business). On immigration, say ‘we need to give the new Americans time to assimilate’ and slam shut the borders. On trade, keep moving supply chains out of China. Bringing American manufacturing back will bring jobs back to the heartland and avoid our economy crashing with the next coronavirus.

        We’ll make less money, but we’ll all be better off.

        • Replies: @John Johnson
        Ditch the free-market crap and go socially conservative (everyone is sick of purple-haired people telling everyone there are 57 genders…look at how great ‘Latinx’ did) but economically liberal (national healthcare system, paid for by hiking taxes on Wall Street and the rest of big business). On immigration, say ‘we need to give the new Americans time to assimilate’ and slam shut the borders.

        This is exactly what I have been saying for years. The populist movement should be socially conservative with taxes on the wealthy and Wall St.

        Conservatives were wrong for basically abandoning poor Whites in favor of corporations. A disastrous tactical mistake that allowed Democrats to chase their pet issues. The workers still put their hopes in Democrats even if they know that transgendered tri-marriage might take precedence.

        But the problem is that most conservatives really do believe in free market magic. This is actually largely rooted in race denial. Too many Christian conservatives want to deny race which then requires them to jump on to "big government" theories holding back minorities. I honestly wish they were correct because it it would be closer to traditional moral explanations which are easier to deal with.
        , @bigdicknick
        free markets are mostly a good thing. They correlate highly with pretty much everything positive. The issue is the libertardian belief that you can have free markets, democracy and open borders all at the same time. Democracy + open borders will always turn into socialism.
        , @dfordoom

        People hate ‘woke’ and free markets.
         
        There should be enough such people to make appealing to them a viable political strategy. But the Republicans will never ditch the free market crap.
      63. An angry Queen’s Jew who sounds like he’s speaking Yiddish knows what’s best for Mexicans? Such a business!

        • Replies: @Hibernian
        Brooklyn, transplanted to Vermont, with a stopover in Chicago. Queens is the second least Jewish of the boroughs after Staten Island, although it is the home of Simon and Garfunkel and James Caan.
        , @SFG
        Before Bloomberg crashed, it was a 3-way race between a Jewish guy from Brooklyn, a Jewish guy from Massachusetts who spent most of his life in Manhattan, and a guy from Queens with Jewish grandkids.
      64. @Corvinus
        So perhaps you favor the megalomaniac and serial liar in the Oval Office?

        And I can’t help but NOTICE how Mr Sailor butchers the characterization of Hispanic voters. But that’s just Steve being Steve.

        And I can’t help but NOTICE how Mr Sailor butchers the characterization of Hispanic voters. But that’s just Steve being Steve.

        What would be a less butchered characterization, then, in your opinion, not Sailer’s? Myself, from all what I’ve seen and know, US Hispanic voters behave rather like my fellow Brazilians when it comes to elections, and tend not to mind much one way or the other. With some rhetorical exaggeration, it’s mostly you whites, and to a lesser extent blacks, who care to vote. (Here, turnout in the last presidential election was around 80%, without counting “blank” and “null” votes, even though voting is compulsory, takes place on a Sunday, and not doing so without justification causes quite a few problems)

        • Replies: @Corvinus
        Hispanics are a lot more nuanced in their approach to politics and voting than Sailer is telling you.
      65. One issue Republicans need to quickly get their head out of their rear is on healthcare, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and no replacement health care plan during the repeal Obama care episodes of Trump’s first year in office. I think the powers to be in the establishment still think they can wait this out by doing nothing.

        The sad thing is that Republicans should be in perfect position to screw with elements of healthcare system like drug companies, hardly any Republicans represent at state or local level any areas which of large concentration of drug companies, think San Diego, Bay Area, LA, New Jersey. I’m not even sure the drug companies give a whole lot of money to the Republicans anymore.

        • Agree: bigdicknick
        • Replies: @bigdicknick
        totally agree. Trump should have done healthcare instead of criminal justice "reform." That would have ended the democrats chances. whoever is advising this guy should be executed lmao.
      66. Noteworthy that Sanders also massively won voters under 45. Lots of overlap with Latinos of course. But I guess young people want Medicare too. Hard to blame them since they’re the ones paying for it.

        • Replies: @Mr McKenna

        Noteworthy that Sanders also massively won voters under 45. Lots of overlap with Latinos of course. But I guess young people want Medicare too. Hard to blame them since they’re the ones paying for it.
         
        Speaking as someone who's paid into Medicare for his entire working life, but who's nowhere near old enough to qualify, where do I fit into your scheme?

        Sanders didn't dominate so convincingly with voters over 45, but perhaps voters over 65 should be separated out instead. Along with AAs, old people are the main Dems in favor of Biden. Both groups watch lots of TV though, so might tilt toward Bloomberg... What with all the commercials.

        Heck, I'm seeing Bloomberg trolls on all sorts of web forums, including this one. They prattle on about 'Mike' and 'Mayor Mike' like he's just their buddy, and exhibit almost exactly the same tone as product placements in movies.
      67. @Bugg
        McCarthy is from the invite/invade/borrow wing of the GOP. If you don't stem the tide of illegals at some point the Dems make Florida, Texas and probably North Carolina blue by the 2030 census,and then game over. Most unfortunate should the Dems lose the House he would be in line to be Speaker. So expect more nonsense about free trade, enterprise zones and tax cuts unless Trump steps in.

        I still think that if he is speaker next year, we have a better chance of 1924 style moratorium then if somebody like Paul Ryan was in that chair. You have to understand Paul Ryan’s background as a hard core academic Ann Ryandist, facts in front of him won’t change his mind, McCarthy on the other side comes from the last remaining outpost of white conservatism in California – Bakersfield. He’s got to see with his own eyes the demographic transformation and the resulting political displacement that has happened, I am pretty sure whoever the Democrats nominate will rake up huge majority of non-white voters in 2020, and I’m going to bet that it will make him think about it vs Paul Ryan would not be capable of it.

        Plus keep in mind a financial and job market downturn is in front of us, for the first time the issue of legal/illegal immigration and temporary work visa us will be squarely juxtaposed with rising unemployment rate. I have seen 3 downturns in my time in US – early 1990s defense market cut backs, 2000’s dot com bust, 2007 housing bust, in neither of those 3 times was immigration at the top of the list for anybody, not this time.

        • Replies: @krustykurmudgeon
        if there's a recession - Trump isn't winning reelection.
      68. @Anon7
        https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1505066999i/23877984.jpg

        • Replies: @Anon7
        That's really cute. I wonder if Bernie's fact sheet has anything about putting a modest tax on sun tan lotion on mega yachts to make sure that every poor child in America can have one of these musical boxes free of charge!
      69. @El Dato
        https://i.imgur.com/wi772ts.jpg

        "Check out all those Bernie voters."
        "Sandernistas"
        "What?"
        "They are Sandernistas"
        "... REAGAN WAS RIGHT!!"

        The gun community has finally caught on to the “replacing the people” scam:

      70. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
        "will the DNC try to use the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Bernie?"

        In 2016 it was easier to do that, since Hillary had the majority of the superdelegates locked up before she even officially announced her candidacy. It was all supposed to be a crowning ceremony, for all that she had done for loyal decades of service to the party. What she didn't expect was that Bernie would put up a strong fight to the finish the way that he did.

        This time, however, there is no one single candidate for whom the superdelegates can rally behind. So many of the other six or seven little indians will receive a number of superdelegates and thus cancel one another out.

        So again, Hispanics may definitely prove to be Bernie's firewall in the primaries. All he has to do is do respectable with blacks and he wins the nomination. Also he is wise to have party leftists such as AOC help campaign with him to attract Latino voters as well.

        And, Bernie's voters are for the most part, all in. They have skin in the game, they are passionately fanatical about their candidate. And this is translating to actual votes and delegates. If the people in the party get to speak (and so far they have in the ballot box) then Bernie wins.

        It's his turn, and his time.

        “It’s his turn, and his time.”

        Indeed.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        Great voice. Too bad she's a communist.
      71. @Hapalong Cassidy
        I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.

        Let’s hope that the GOP decides to do more than shout “Socialism!”

        They could start peeling people off the Sanders bandwagon by describing exactly what will happen under Bernie and the Sandersnistas. (The italics mean you should pronounce it with a Hispanic [or, as Warren says, Latinx] accent.)

        Under President Bernie, if you spent way more money on college than you should have and received no useful degree in return, and have paid nothing on your student loans – your debt is zeroed out, paid for by all the responsible people!

        Under President Bernie, if you worked hard, and sacrificed and scrimped and saved for retirement – Bernie will take your money and redistribute it to the people who had no plan in life to support themselves in the past, in the present or in the future.

        The creation of additional examples is left as an exercise for the reader.

        • Replies: @anonn

        – Under President Bernie, if you worked hard, and sacrificed and scrimped and saved for retirement – Bernie will take your money and redistribute it to the people who had no plan in life to support themselves in the past, in the present or in the future.
         
        So all you have are lies, then? You are going to be so disappointed when we get a tax increase for financier parasites and no gulags. No part of what Bernie is proposing is related to the fantasies you describe.

        My grandfather was young in the Great Depression and he was convinced that the New Deal and Social Security were going to turn us all into Stalinist communists. He was convinced of that as a youth, in his middle ages. In his last 2 decades - when Social Security was literally the only thing keeping him from dying on the street - he was still convinced that Social Security and the New Deal were going to turn us all into Stalinists.

        He died in the late 1980s and I vividly remember political discussions with him, I was just a kid but I still thought, how the hell can this guy still be so mad that the predicted negative consequences of public policy didn't happen. Up until the end he would tell anyone who would listen that the New Deal was going to turn us all into Stalinists any day now.

        He had a good life and a good death, but I'll always wonder if, as he lay dying by the side of his favorite trout fishing spot, his last thoughts were about his family and his 35 grandchildren, or if he was still fuming about that damned New Deal.

        If you don't like Bernie's policies, fine. But if all you can muster as criticism are lies, man, this is going to be easier than I thought.
      72. @Buzz Mohawk
        Since I can't sleep, I will just say that I was hoping in 2016 for a Bernie vs. Donald contest. It would have made sense and probably was what The People™ wanted. A real choice. Whiskey vs. Wine instead of Coke vs. Pepsi.

        Do we have a chance for that now?

        Europeans sometimes say we Americans don't really have the broad political smorgasbord that they have. This would be different, a real Left vs. Right...

        ... Even though certain issues and subjects would remain off the table as always.

        Yeah, I’m pretty excited about the idea of a Trump vs Bernie contest: populism will already have won, and the elites will have lost.

        The topics of controversy will mostly be issues which politicians have avoided for decades. Does immigration help or hurt the working class? How can the working class get the jobs they need? What form should health care reform take? How can traditional labor be given power, if at all?

        Bernie has long been immersed in these issues, and will have something to say.

        Of course, the Bernie of yore is not the Bernie of 2020, since he has had to make many concessions to identity politics to make it through the nomination process. I don’t know how he’s going to deal with that baggage.

        In the end, the tag of “socialist” will very likely put a low ceiling on his appeal to voters, and I’d very much expect Trump to win.

        But I can see how such a contest might effect a dramatic makeover of the American political landscape.

        • Replies: @Twodees Partain
        "Bernie has long been immersed in these issues, and will have something to say."

        Nah, he's been out of that pool for so long that he has dripped dry by now. What he will have to say will consist of endorsements for the candidate he sold out to, if he can manage to keep from boasting about whatever new house he buys.
      73. @Mr. Anon

        But the Republicans can’t say nobody warned them.
         
        Kevin McCarthy ( (R) California - House Minority Leader) was on Laura Ingraham's show last week. She was lamenting how California had changed, mentioning that as recently as the 80s, Republicans won state-wide offices and how it helped elect Ronald Reagan. McCarthy, wide-eyed and chipper, said that the GOP would get California back.

        What an idiot.

        These GOP goobers don't understand that they are being turned into Boers in their own country by the 3rd World demographic tide. They'll still be yammering on about America being a shining city on a hill long after its been turned into a stinking favela on a garbage heap.

        Race mixing will mean the US will turn into a majority whitish population comparable to the southern half of Spain. And also be a black minority on top of the whitish blob. That’s not as terrible as turning to into a favela.

        • Disagree: RadicalCenter
        • Replies: @bomag
        IOW, a favela.
      74. @anon
        Mexican political parties:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Mexico

        Most of them are socialist to some degree, not just the PRI but also the PRD, the PT and MORENA.

        Only the PAN and maybe the MC are not so socialist.

        Don't tell Karl Rove.

        Yes, the current President of Mexico is a socialist, his own desciption. Have you seen any change in Mexico? Has the country actually changed? Has the number of illegal aliens or undocumented slowed?

      75. @Bill P
        Funny how nobody here in the US paid attention to the last century of Latin American politics when prognosticating about Latin American voters.

        Gotta make that money. Privatize the gains from lower wages, dump the costs of education, medical care, policing, prisons, infrastructure deterioration on the government.

        # Profit

      76. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
        @Corvinus
        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?

        Well self interest isnt exactly the highest level of cognition. More the most base, presumably the language barrier plays a large role in most of this. Reinforced by the lack of interest most shared before the emperor took the stage.

        In a nation and ancient cultural tradition of youthful idealism that permeates norther European races it just gets overlooked that other groups think, ” is it good for us ? ” first.

        When the northerners catch on they are being scammed however… watch out.

        • Replies: @Corvinus
        “Self interest isn’t exactly the highest level of cognition”

        Actually, when one ponders deeply about their place in the world and how they can be impacted by outside forces, the amount of intellectual horsepower displayed is demonstrably high.

        And what “scam” are you referring to?
      77. Many boomer conservatives, especially Evangelicals, are still pushing the “muh ‘spanics are natural conservatives” nonsense.

      78. @e
        An angry Queen's Jew who sounds like he's speaking Yiddish knows what's best for Mexicans? Such a business!

        Brooklyn, transplanted to Vermont, with a stopover in Chicago. Queens is the second least Jewish of the boroughs after Staten Island, although it is the home of Simon and Garfunkel and James Caan.

        • Replies: @e
        You're right. Don't know why I was thinking of Queens.
      79. Anonymous[375] • Disclaimer says:
        @Hibernian
        "...John Judis and Ruy Teixeira contend that in American politics, social issues are essentially a luxury item that primarily interest better-off groups."

        White Southerners were and still are an exception.

        Not really. The South was a major part of the New Deal Democratic coalition because it benefited from federal spending financed by taxing the wealthier North.

        That coalition broke down in the 60s/70s because the Dems started giving out more of the pie to blacks and favoring blacks in doling out the pie. Also big business Republicans started putting more money in the South as a cheaper and less regulated alternative to the more unionized North in the 80s.

      80. @Hibernian
        Nevada was admitted to the Union during the Civil War to bolster the Republican majority, when it had no business being a state. Since WW2 it has developed a substantial urban population concentrated in a very small portion of its land area. A lot of the Federal land in the west could be privatized (which I favor) or returned to the States (which I don't.) A lot of Nevada's is just plain wasteland which isn't suitable even for sheep ranching.

        So you’ve been there. It’s just, it’s hard to describe. The Ca NV border is mountains. After that it’s just a flat moonscape. There’s dried salt on the ground that prevents anything from growing. Deserted highway, no traffic no people. It’s scary and strange.

        One of the world’s biggest gold mines is somewhere around Elko.

      81. competitors wrestling inconclusively over the sharply fragmented remains

        It’s now the afternoon of the following day and I can’t find the actual results anywhere. I’m tired of looking (and I don’t click on NYT links). Even the AP (which Google quotes) comes up blank. They’re all showing only ~50% reporting. Isn’t this as bad as Iowa?

        Someone I saw pointed out that if this weren’t already in the bag for Bernie, there would be blood in the streets after yet another inconclusive/delayed result and poor performance by the DNC.

        If I’m wrong and 90% of precincts have reported by now, please someone show me where. Shouldn’t there be leader boards on the major sites, showing something more than 50% by now?

      82. I’m not convinced that politics are even a factor here. None of the candidates are being clear on immigration policy.

        What I think is bigger factor is that Hispanics and other minorities can smell pandering White liberals a mile away.

        Sanders comes off as genuine. For all his flaws he does come across as someone that cares about people that work for a living. I’m not a fan but I’ll give him that.

      83. @SFG
        It ain't that hard. The country's about 4/9 liberal, 2/9 conservative, and 2.5/9 populist (socially conservative/economically liberal). The leftover rounding error is all those libertarian types.

        https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

        People hate 'woke' and free markets. Trump ran against 'woke' and free markets (by claiming to put America first while protecting Medicare and Social Security), so he won, but then tried to kick people off healthcare.

        Totally free markets suck unless you have maybe assets of $1 million or more. You go bankrupt if you get sick, have to compete with lots of people for crappy jobs, and wind up in debt.

        Ditch the free-market crap and go socially conservative (everyone is sick of purple-haired people telling everyone there are 57 genders...look at how great 'Latinx' did) but economically liberal (national healthcare system, paid for by hiking taxes on Wall Street and the rest of big business). On immigration, say 'we need to give the new Americans time to assimilate' and slam shut the borders. On trade, keep moving supply chains out of China. Bringing American manufacturing back will bring jobs back to the heartland and avoid our economy crashing with the next coronavirus.

        We'll make less money, but we'll all be better off.

        Ditch the free-market crap and go socially conservative (everyone is sick of purple-haired people telling everyone there are 57 genders…look at how great ‘Latinx’ did) but economically liberal (national healthcare system, paid for by hiking taxes on Wall Street and the rest of big business). On immigration, say ‘we need to give the new Americans time to assimilate’ and slam shut the borders.

        This is exactly what I have been saying for years. The populist movement should be socially conservative with taxes on the wealthy and Wall St.

        Conservatives were wrong for basically abandoning poor Whites in favor of corporations. A disastrous tactical mistake that allowed Democrats to chase their pet issues. The workers still put their hopes in Democrats even if they know that transgendered tri-marriage might take precedence.

        But the problem is that most conservatives really do believe in free market magic. This is actually largely rooted in race denial. Too many Christian conservatives want to deny race which then requires them to jump on to “big government” theories holding back minorities. I honestly wish they were correct because it it would be closer to traditional moral explanations which are easier to deal with.

      84. @SFG
        It ain't that hard. The country's about 4/9 liberal, 2/9 conservative, and 2.5/9 populist (socially conservative/economically liberal). The leftover rounding error is all those libertarian types.

        https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

        People hate 'woke' and free markets. Trump ran against 'woke' and free markets (by claiming to put America first while protecting Medicare and Social Security), so he won, but then tried to kick people off healthcare.

        Totally free markets suck unless you have maybe assets of $1 million or more. You go bankrupt if you get sick, have to compete with lots of people for crappy jobs, and wind up in debt.

        Ditch the free-market crap and go socially conservative (everyone is sick of purple-haired people telling everyone there are 57 genders...look at how great 'Latinx' did) but economically liberal (national healthcare system, paid for by hiking taxes on Wall Street and the rest of big business). On immigration, say 'we need to give the new Americans time to assimilate' and slam shut the borders. On trade, keep moving supply chains out of China. Bringing American manufacturing back will bring jobs back to the heartland and avoid our economy crashing with the next coronavirus.

        We'll make less money, but we'll all be better off.

        free markets are mostly a good thing. They correlate highly with pretty much everything positive. The issue is the libertardian belief that you can have free markets, democracy and open borders all at the same time. Democracy + open borders will always turn into socialism.

      85. @e
        An angry Queen's Jew who sounds like he's speaking Yiddish knows what's best for Mexicans? Such a business!

        Before Bloomberg crashed, it was a 3-way race between a Jewish guy from Brooklyn, a Jewish guy from Massachusetts who spent most of his life in Manhattan, and a guy from Queens with Jewish grandkids.

        • Replies: @nebulafox
        I still half-think older liberal Jews pathologically hate Trump because he reminds them too much of their construction worker uncle.
      86. @Corvinus
        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?

        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?

        Sailer says that Hispanics tend to vote for what is best for them, as opposed to many white working class voters who vote against their own economic interests, due to certain ideals that they may hold.

        For example, for a significant number of Americans abortion is the only political issue that counts and they just want to vote for the candidate who most opposes abortion, regardless of all else. Sailer is saying that Hispanics are pretty laissez-faire on issues like abortion. They might believe it is sinful, or regrettable, but they are not awfully concerned about whether other racial groups have access to legal abortion or not, and they are not going to vote against their own economic interests just because of abortion.

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says). Now, if you happen to be a middle manager with a health insurance company whose main concern is job security, it is obvious that you will not want to vote for Sanders.

        • Agree: Ron Unz
        • Replies: @Hibernian
        Life issues are a slippery slope, and the candle is burned at both ends. "OK, Boomer" becomes "Die, Boomer."
        , @Reg Cæsar

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says).
         
        In an anthill, perhaps.

        I have never voted for "my interests", but for my state's and my country's. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.

        Yes, I agree that only five or ten percent of voters think this way. People mock libertarians, but they are among the few who can face Wednesday morning without a hangover.

        Come to think of it, voting in America does have this Carnavalesque aura about it-- go all out on Tuesday, feel like crap on Wednesday.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ujIZja_rIU
        , @ben tillman

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says).
         
        No, that is not how democracy is supposed to work. In fact, that is not democracy. Democracy means unanimous consent by the demos.
        , @S. Anonyia
        Great comment!

        Honestly, ideologues are mostly dimwitted and/or gullible.

        They've also started a lot of unnecessary wars over the past couple of centuries.
        , @John Arthur
        Jonathan Mason,
        Demographics play a hidden role here as well, in ways that most commentators often miss. Hispanics are often working class/working poor, and as such often live in poor neighborhoods filled with very violent Black people. The kind of resulting violence and poverty in those neighborhoods is what shifts them toward a large government mentality.

        High Crime?
        Well expand the police state and the prisons!
        Dumb Black Kids in School?
        Well invest more into education!
        Business's often don't want to invest in violent Black areas?( E.X: South Central L.A)
        Then use the government funds!
        Even immigration, which depresses their wages, leads to Gentification of Black people, so they support it.

        This isn't that suprising, the White working class is very similar, especially those around the heavily Black areas of America. It is only the ones in the rural, heavily Whites areas that are more free market.

        If Republicans want to win Hispanic voters, they should focus on crime and stuff like that. Lowering coporate taxes is nice, but it doesn't really help people in South Central LA

        Also, interesting note that I did not see discussed much on the punditsphere. Hispanic and Other voters showed up at a lower rate than 2016 as a share of the electorate. Turnout was only marginally higher than 2016. I'm guessing that most of the Hispanics that lean left shifted even more left, but the overall population shifted more moderate or right.
      87. @Bugg
        McCarthy is from the invite/invade/borrow wing of the GOP. If you don't stem the tide of illegals at some point the Dems make Florida, Texas and probably North Carolina blue by the 2030 census,and then game over. Most unfortunate should the Dems lose the House he would be in line to be Speaker. So expect more nonsense about free trade, enterprise zones and tax cuts unless Trump steps in.

        McCarthy is from the invite/invade/borrow wing of the GOP.

        Unfortunately, that pretty much IS the GOP – the whole Party, other than a very few Congressman, who are either ineffectual or irrelevant or both. I held out some hope when Trump was elected, that there might be a partial realignment of the Republican Party – that it might produce at least a significant caucus of representatives who are opposed to the ITW^2 doctrine. But it didn’t happen. Certainly Trump didn’t to anything to encourage it.

        By the way, here is the new (acting) White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney:

        https://www.salon.com/2020/02/23/white-house-chief-of-staff-mick-mulvaney-caught-on-tape-saying-us-is-desperate-for-more-immigrants_partner/

        Here’s Mulvaney, back in 2016 revealing what he really thinks of Trump:

        Yet another case of The Donald elevating to an influential position somebody who a.) despises him, and b.) disagrees with him, or at least with the agenda he ran on. Trump isn’t playing four dimensional chess. He’s playing one dimensional Tic-Tac-Toe.

        • Replies: @ATBOTL
        Trump even endorsed anti-Trump, pro-immigration incumbents over pro-Trump, anti-immigration challengers. There has been zero shift in the GOP at national or state level on immigration.
        , @Autochthon
        Trump's the kind of egotistical blowhard who cannot stand being around people who are more intelligent than he is because he finds them threatening. This phenomenon of his disordered personality is why Steve Bannon, probably the most intelligent, principled person to be a part of any presidency in at least a century, had to go.
        , @MEH 0910
        https://twitter.com/nytpolitics/status/1236098947879497729

        https://twitter.com/anniekarni/status/1236114087031058433
      88. @Anon

        Donald Trump believes in whatever is in his mind that minute... he’s a con artist.
         
        Trump has a degree from the top Ivy League business school, has written numerous NYT bestsellers, was star in a number one prime-time TV show, amassed billions of dollars of personal wealth from real estate in Manhattan and golf courses throughout the world, and on his first attempt to run for political office won the U.S. Presidency.

        But of course, he’s just a con artist and you could do better. 🤣

        None of the accomplishments you ticked off are incompatible with that person being a con-artist.

        • Agree: Dissident
      89. Sailer says that Hispanics tend to vote for what is best for them, as opposed to many white working class voters who vote against their own economic interests, due to certain ideals that they may hold.

        Liberals have been saying that about the White working class and yet most liberals are for open borders which is completely against the best interest of workers. Clinton wanted to bring in half a million Syrians on day one. How are liberals going to insure everyone if they bring in the entire third world? A recent poll showed that most of Guatemala would move here if they could.

        There isn’t a party that has represented the White working class. They either have to pick between wall st Republican whores or blame Whitey for everything and import the third world Democrats.

        If the White working class should be criticized for anything it is political indolence and allowing both parties to treat them with total disregard.

        Disclosure: I don’t care for liberals but support economic populism/national health care.

      90. @Peter Akuleyev
        tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society.

        Neither party can do this without alienating donors. Trump talked a good game, but has been either neutered by the GOP on that issue or, more likely, never really believed in it. Trump has more to gain by putting his own friends and allies into the swamp than by actually changing the system. The Democratic establishment is horrified by Sanders - not so much because of his actual policies, but because people like Pelosi realize that Sanders will scare away all the very generous tech billionaires, rich lawyers and socially progressive finance types that have made life so easy for Blue State Dems the last 20 years.

        Neither party can do this without alienating donors.

        Since 2016, this term has become common: “donor”. We talk about “the donors” and “the donor-class”, and it is true in so far as it goes; they are the people who donate lots of money to campaigns.

        But this term is still rather innocuous. It is still a euphemism.

        What we really mean is not “donor”, but rather “buyer” or “owner”. These are the people who buy the politicians – who come to own them. These are the people whom the politicians really work for.

      91. @nebulafox
        >I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy.

        A lot of Mexican-Americans on lower socioeconomic strata don't like mass immigration because they understand the threat that poses to their economic interests, particularly when it is from Central American countries which they hold in contempt. But fortunately for the Democrats, they like free-market fundamentalism even less. This was the point that Karl Rove and Company never understood. Family values + amnesty != masses of blue-collar Hispanic voters ready to embrace Chamber of Commerce favored economic policies. Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it. (That, and what else can you do when the other party holds you in existential contempt?)

        The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society. The donors largely vote Democrat these days anyway, so why the heck not? Remain to the right on assimilation/crime/immigration/anti-SJWism. Embrace Hamiltonianism on free trade, and embrace realist anti-interventionism on foreign policy. Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays, and start focusing on important stuff like progressives who clearly despise their own society, wish for permanent revolution, and oligarchs that abet them because they profit from social atomization. That's what'll win. Forget liberal vs. conservative, make this about nationalist vs. globalist, and not just because that'll build a big tent: that's what it is in REALITY.

        “Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it.”

        “The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society.”

        It should be clear at this point that we can’t rely on the GOP for anything and we can’t settle for being some neglected constituency of the GOP that gets nothing more than “dog whistles” during campaign season. They have never delivered and they never will unless the incentives change. We need to establish ourselves as a political force independent of either party, much like Zionists. You can see with Bernie that there are populist elements in both parties and that represents an opportunity.

        Regarding economic policy, the right has been talking about free market economics for decades in part because that’s all they’re really allowed to talk about. The only approved means of dissent on the right are muh Free Market and, to some extent, muh Bible. We saw this with the Tea Party for example where there was a deep frustration with the neocon/neoliberal order but they couldn’t put their finger on the real problem and their anger was therefore misapplied toward generic libertarian frustration.

        Regarding the issue of “tacking left” on economics, I agree with some reservations. The right definitely needs to be more practical and less doctrinaire. The free market talking points are often groan-inducing, especially when it’s so far removed from what we actually have. (What’s your plan on health care? Uh, free market!) Rather than thinking of it as left/right, the idea should be to operate in the common interest of American citizens and to promote affordable family formation. The key economic agenda should be to use trade, industrial policy, and immigration restriction to boost wages. We also have to get away from the idea that we can’t stop Wall Street chicanery or monopolies because of commitment to the free market. But I would caution against traditional big spending policies and the usual liberal boondoggles. Some people have this ideal of a glorious all-white welfare state, but that’s not going to happen with our current federal bureaucracy. We need to operate under the assumption that we are under a hostile occupation government.

        “Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays”

        Uh, it’s not like the right has been setting the agenda here. Gay rights has always been a top down propaganda blitz. All of our real problems are ignored while we are told what we really need is more gay, more trans, more interracial, etc. They push this stuff to destroy us, not to help us, and it is dumb to look the other way. (Note that abortion, homosexuality, feminism just happen to be anti-natalist). Now, it is also dumb to have protracted debates about these issues because it concedes the legitimacy of the left’s agenda. It’s better to call out their agenda for what it is, dismiss it, and pivot to something important.

      92. Anonymous[354] • Disclaimer says:
        @nebulafox
        >I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy.

        A lot of Mexican-Americans on lower socioeconomic strata don't like mass immigration because they understand the threat that poses to their economic interests, particularly when it is from Central American countries which they hold in contempt. But fortunately for the Democrats, they like free-market fundamentalism even less. This was the point that Karl Rove and Company never understood. Family values + amnesty != masses of blue-collar Hispanic voters ready to embrace Chamber of Commerce favored economic policies. Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it. (That, and what else can you do when the other party holds you in existential contempt?)

        The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society. The donors largely vote Democrat these days anyway, so why the heck not? Remain to the right on assimilation/crime/immigration/anti-SJWism. Embrace Hamiltonianism on free trade, and embrace realist anti-interventionism on foreign policy. Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays, and start focusing on important stuff like progressives who clearly despise their own society, wish for permanent revolution, and oligarchs that abet them because they profit from social atomization. That's what'll win. Forget liberal vs. conservative, make this about nationalist vs. globalist, and not just because that'll build a big tent: that's what it is in REALITY.

        You always whine about “abortion gays” but the evidence is not clear the conventional GOP posture on that costs them elections. People claim they vote against GOP because of holy gays, because that’s a socially fashionable reason to give. It doesn’t mean it’s the real reason. On abortion, the preponderance of pro-choice women are Julias looking for the government to be their boyfriend-breadwinner, whether immediately or “just in case.” These are women with no confidence in their ability to hold onto a man. The proportion of pro-life is not being swamped by sexually liberated ho’s and their synthetic white knights, contrary to predictions back in 1992 “The Year of the Woman.” If the swing voters don’t care either way — bc abortion will ALWAYS be legal in at least one populous state in the same time zone as yours — what does it gain the GOP to surrender on this, which is furthermore a good proxy for % of secret liberalism the politician is concealing? Stupid advice.

        • Agree: Dissident, dfordoom
      93. @nebulafox
        >I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy.

        A lot of Mexican-Americans on lower socioeconomic strata don't like mass immigration because they understand the threat that poses to their economic interests, particularly when it is from Central American countries which they hold in contempt. But fortunately for the Democrats, they like free-market fundamentalism even less. This was the point that Karl Rove and Company never understood. Family values + amnesty != masses of blue-collar Hispanic voters ready to embrace Chamber of Commerce favored economic policies. Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it. (That, and what else can you do when the other party holds you in existential contempt?)

        The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society. The donors largely vote Democrat these days anyway, so why the heck not? Remain to the right on assimilation/crime/immigration/anti-SJWism. Embrace Hamiltonianism on free trade, and embrace realist anti-interventionism on foreign policy. Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays, and start focusing on important stuff like progressives who clearly despise their own society, wish for permanent revolution, and oligarchs that abet them because they profit from social atomization. That's what'll win. Forget liberal vs. conservative, make this about nationalist vs. globalist, and not just because that'll build a big tent: that's what it is in REALITY.

        Ah yes, cant conserve the women’s rest room but we are gonna change American trade policy in the most fundamental fashion since the turn of the 20th century.

        This place remains filled with unserious dilettantes who probably cant even deadlift their body weight.

        • Replies: @Muggles
        >>Ah yes, cant conserve the women’s rest room but we are gonna change American trade policy in the most fundamental fashion since the turn of the 20th century.

        This place remains filled with unserious dilettantes who probably cant even deadlift their body weight.<<

        Ah, but this place is filled with serious dilettantes who can use apostrophes in their contractions. Deadlifting your own body weight is only one of the factors to becoming a serious dilettante.
      94. Bernie Sanders is a communist, not a socialist. but yeah, the mexicans are voting for what he’s selling. why wouldn’t they. that’s how all their countries are.

        jews are never socialists. that is extremely unnatural for them psychologically and biologically. they are always only ever ultra capitalists or communists. the two highly natural ideologies for them. all the money for me, whichever method. the idea of giving away their paychecks automatically to genetically unrelated gentiles is ludicrous nonsense to them.

        the Soviet Union was highly jewish, and they formed half the leaders. likewise in the US, which is highly capitalist.

        • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
        Notice that most of the West's Jews seem to really hate Vladimir Putin, and Russia in general? That would suggest that Jews don't have the same percentage of control of Russia the way they do on other nations. Like, they seldom ever railed against the USSR, and now they can hardly ever say nice things about today's Russia.
        , @SFG
        I'm sure Bernie's a commie at heart (remember the trip to the USSR?) but has settled for democratic socialism. Given he'd have to ram anything through a House full of moderates and a likely-majority-Republican Senate he would be unlikely to turn the US into the USSR.

        My big objection to the guy at this point is immigration.
      95. @Hibernian

        Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays...
         
        And boys who call themselves girls competing in girls' sports and destroying them?

        My view is that the ladies have earned this sort of thing with feminism, but I’m sure lots of people here disagree with me.

        Just tell your daughter not to go into MMA or wrestling (a sound piece of advice even without biological males competing). Girls’ sports are overrated anyway; exercise is good for all humans, but when they try to become elite athletes they have problems with bone mass and so on. The sexes really were made for different things.

      96. @Another Canadian
        Foreigners who spend any time in the United States quickly realise that medical health insurance is just a protection racket. Big insurers like Medicare, Humana, etc. all have their own pre-negotiated price list with medical providers that magically turn a $27,000 appendectomy into a $3,000 bill to the insurer of which the patient pays $600. Only a cash buyer is billed the full $27,000 that you see on TV. It's like the secret menu at a Chinese restaurant and Trump is in an arm-wrestling match with the hospitals to force disclosure.

        https://wreg.com/news/hospitals-sue-trump-administration-over-price-disclosure-rule/

        The US medical system is a minefield of these ripoffs that you hire an insurance company to navigate. This needs to change.

        Big insurers like Medicare, Humana, etc. all have their own pre-negotiated price list with medical providers that magically turn a $27,000 appendectomy into a $3,000 bill to the insurer of which the patient pays $600. Only a cash buyer is billed the full $27,000 that you see on TV. It’s like the secret menu at a Chinese restaurant and Trump is in an arm-wrestling match with the hospitals to force disclosure.

        Speaking of which, the Democrats are furiously fighting the price disclosure rule every step of the way, which one should keep in mind any time someone says Democrats are for “affordable healthcare.”

      97. @Mr. Anon

        McCarthy is from the invite/invade/borrow wing of the GOP.
         
        Unfortunately, that pretty much IS the GOP - the whole Party, other than a very few Congressman, who are either ineffectual or irrelevant or both. I held out some hope when Trump was elected, that there might be a partial realignment of the Republican Party - that it might produce at least a significant caucus of representatives who are opposed to the ITW^2 doctrine. But it didn't happen. Certainly Trump didn't to anything to encourage it.

        By the way, here is the new (acting) White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney:

        https://www.salon.com/2020/02/23/white-house-chief-of-staff-mick-mulvaney-caught-on-tape-saying-us-is-desperate-for-more-immigrants_partner/

        Here's Mulvaney, back in 2016 revealing what he really thinks of Trump:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeCx12lT1zg

        Yet another case of The Donald elevating to an influential position somebody who a.) despises him, and b.) disagrees with him, or at least with the agenda he ran on. Trump isn't playing four dimensional chess. He's playing one dimensional Tic-Tac-Toe.

        Trump even endorsed anti-Trump, pro-immigration incumbents over pro-Trump, anti-immigration challengers. There has been zero shift in the GOP at national or state level on immigration.

        • Replies: @Mr. Anon

        Trump even endorsed anti-Trump, pro-immigration incumbents over pro-Trump, anti-immigration challengers.
         
        Indeed. He is either a fraud or a moron. Or both.
        , @Massimo Heitor

        Trump even endorsed anti-Trump, pro-immigration incumbents over pro-Trump, anti-immigration challengers.
         
        I presume Trump supports strong established candidates over weak, unknown, unproven candidates. Trump probably also supports candidates that have better odds in competing against the Democrats. Those may be more important factors to Trump.

        Trump isn't a strict immigration-restrictionist ideologue. Trump is flexible. Trump chose to moderate on immigration, and that will probably help for his 2020 re-election odds to be seen as a moderate rather than an extremist.
      98. @Jonathan Mason

        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?
         
        Sailer says that Hispanics tend to vote for what is best for them, as opposed to many white working class voters who vote against their own economic interests, due to certain ideals that they may hold.

        For example, for a significant number of Americans abortion is the only political issue that counts and they just want to vote for the candidate who most opposes abortion, regardless of all else. Sailer is saying that Hispanics are pretty laissez-faire on issues like abortion. They might believe it is sinful, or regrettable, but they are not awfully concerned about whether other racial groups have access to legal abortion or not, and they are not going to vote against their own economic interests just because of abortion.

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says). Now, if you happen to be a middle manager with a health insurance company whose main concern is job security, it is obvious that you will not want to vote for Sanders.

        Life issues are a slippery slope, and the candle is burned at both ends. “OK, Boomer” becomes “Die, Boomer.”

        • Replies: @anonymous
        "One generation got old

        One generation got soul"

        A few (seems like) years later, we are no longer the Pepsi Generation.
      99. @Mycale
        I wonder if the conservatives ever believed that “natural conservative” stuff, or they just put it out there to give the rank and file a talking point so they can keep bringing in more cheap labor for their donors. If they lose elections because the imported Hispanics turn into a critical mass? Who cares, the Dems will support more immigration, endless war, Israel Israel Israel, etc.

        It’s also possible that conservatives knew what would happen, but were afraid of being called racist by Dems. Since being called mean names by your political opponent is literally the worst thing that can happen to anyone, they came up with “natural conservative” as more of a hope and prayer than anything.

        I suspect that many conservatives actually believed this.

        I say that as someone who’s a Democrat and not a conservative myself but I will tell you why:

        My impression is that small government conservatives sincerely feel that theirs is a philosophy that is waiting to be discovered by others. They say that even though with the possible exception of Australia and South Africa no other First World countries have conservative parties anywhere near as far to the right as America’s far right conservatives.

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won’t ever need help from the government — even when that’s not true. There’s a lot of elderly receiving government help or wished they qualified for help but still voting against it by voting Republican, for example.

        It’s the over-65 voters that are keeping the Republicans winning. Yet how many under 30 Republicans are there? Not very many, most young adults today know they may need government help sometime — many are accepting parental help into their 30s and 40s — and aren’t lying to themselves about that.

        • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won’t ever need help from the government — even when that’s not true.

         
        What's the difference between taking charity from the state and taking it from the church?

        The church just helps you out; it doesn't demand that you worship it.


        Note that the oldest and biggest hospitals in Rockford, Illinois, the poster child for Rust Belt deterioration, have roots in the Sisters of Mercy and the Swedish Lutherans. This story was repeated in cities small and large across America.

        Even the vaunted NHS (which wasn't exactly copied in the rest of the Anglosphere, which went with insurance rather than direct care schemes) still calls its nurses "sisters".

        There’s a lot of elderly receiving government help or wished they qualified for help but still voting against it by voting Republican, for example.
         
        Um, "still voting against it by voting Republican"? How about still voting for their country and their grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's country by not voting Democrat?

        Those "benefits" come at a stiff price. Your descendents will pay it. And not just with their wallets.
        , @Mr McKenna
        You are indeed a classic Democrat. People might need things, that's why we have a government! Government exists to provide things we might need (or want, to be honest). Where does this 'government' get all these things? That's someone else's problem.

        In your defense, I am constrained to add that we have several libertarian and self-styled alt-right types right here on this forum who insist that $22T debt isn't a problem so long as can service it, and interest rates are really low, anyway, right?
        , @ben tillman

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won’t ever need help from the government . . . .
         
        Needing help and needing help from the government are two entirely different things.
      100. @Corvinus
        So perhaps you favor the megalomaniac and serial liar in the Oval Office?

        And I can’t help but NOTICE how Mr Sailor butchers the characterization of Hispanic voters. But that’s just Steve being Steve.

        Wow Corby…….struck a nerve…..no bonus this quarter due to your ongoing inability to change anyone’s mind here?

        • Replies: @Corvinus
        "Wow Corby…….struck a nerve….."

        Not in the least.

        "no bonus this quarter due to your ongoing inability to change anyone’s mind here?"

        I don't expect to change anyone's mind here. I'm just stating the obvious about Trump and Sailer.
      101. @snorlax
        One person(?) voted in the Area 51 precinct, for Elizabeth Warren.

        One person(?) voted in the Area 51 precinct, for Elizabeth Warren.

        EW, phone home.

        • Replies: @Hail
        That is uncanny; Did you see it somewhere or is this a Reg Cæsar original?
      102. @Hapalong Cassidy
        I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.

        >>I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.<<

        While this could work if Warren ends up w/ enough loyal delegates to pull off a deal, it does nothing to help the Dems defeat Trump. A harridan screecher from MA doesn't help a ticket with an elderly Brooklynite Jew who has been hiding out in Vermont. Yes, a female and a self proclaimed non Communist socialist. How does that sell outside of the Boston Commons? Both candidates are personally unpleasant to watch or hear. Warren is a serial but failed liar. Bernie makes Hillary seem like the picture of health. Few blacks seem to like Jews outside of Dem photo ops. Though I don't think Bernie's Jewishness is much of a factor with most Americans.

        BTW: it isn't just Repubs who are screaming "socialism" at Bernie. That's his mantra. And most Dem office holders/donors aren't socialists either. Denmark and Sweden aren't "socialist" like Bernie claims. Maybe Venezuela is though. Forty years ago not too bad. Today, Venezuelans are fleeing their socialist kleptocracy like starving Syrians.

        Vermont is full of rich/retired New Yorkers with second homes. The rest of America is considerably different. At barely above 626,000, Vermont is the second least populated state. The western side of the county I live in has more people. So even there Bernie hardly has a Mandate From Heaven.

        • Replies: @Mr McKenna

        Yes, a female and a self proclaimed non Communist socialist. How does that sell outside of the Boston Commons?
         
        Try to remember the makeup of the American population now. We have easily half who will vote for 'free stuff' without ever imagining any possible consequences. And easily half of the women I know will vote for a woman, per se, damn the torpedoes.

        Vermont is full of rich/retired New Yorkers with second homes.
         
        You definitely have that part right. They spend as much time as possible in a place as different as possible from the one they created.
      103. @Jack Henson
        Ah yes, cant conserve the women's rest room but we are gonna change American trade policy in the most fundamental fashion since the turn of the 20th century.

        This place remains filled with unserious dilettantes who probably cant even deadlift their body weight.

        >>Ah yes, cant conserve the women’s rest room but we are gonna change American trade policy in the most fundamental fashion since the turn of the 20th century.

        This place remains filled with unserious dilettantes who probably cant even deadlift their body weight.<<

        Ah, but this place is filled with serious dilettantes who can use apostrophes in their contractions. Deadlifting your own body weight is only one of the factors to becoming a serious dilettante.

        • Replies: @Twodees Partain
        Since you failed to mention it, I will: The main factor in being a serious dilettante is the ability to tap dance and jack off at the same time. Glad to be of help.
      104. @notsaying
        I suspect that many conservatives actually believed this.

        I say that as someone who's a Democrat and not a conservative myself but I will tell you why:

        My impression is that small government conservatives sincerely feel that theirs is a philosophy that is waiting to be discovered by others. They say that even though with the possible exception of Australia and South Africa no other First World countries have conservative parties anywhere near as far to the right as America's far right conservatives.

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won't ever need help from the government -- even when that's not true. There's a lot of elderly receiving government help or wished they qualified for help but still voting against it by voting Republican, for example.

        It's the over-65 voters that are keeping the Republicans winning. Yet how many under 30 Republicans are there? Not very many, most young adults today know they may need government help sometime -- many are accepting parental help into their 30s and 40s -- and aren't lying to themselves about that.

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won’t ever need help from the government — even when that’s not true.

        What’s the difference between taking charity from the state and taking it from the church?

        The church just helps you out; it doesn’t demand that you worship it.

        Note that the oldest and biggest hospitals in Rockford, Illinois, the poster child for Rust Belt deterioration, have roots in the Sisters of Mercy and the Swedish Lutherans. This story was repeated in cities small and large across America.

        Even the vaunted NHS (which wasn’t exactly copied in the rest of the Anglosphere, which went with insurance rather than direct care schemes) still calls its nurses “sisters”.

        There’s a lot of elderly receiving government help or wished they qualified for help but still voting against it by voting Republican, for example.

        Um, “still voting against it by voting Republican”? How about still voting for their country and their grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s country by not voting Democrat?

        Those “benefits” come at a stiff price. Your descendents will pay it. And not just with their wallets.

        • Agree: ben tillman
        • Replies: @Paleo Liberal

        Note that the oldest and biggest hospitals in Rockford, Illinois, the poster child for Rust Belt deterioration, have roots in the Sisters of Mercy and the Swedish Lutherans. This story was repeated in cities small and large across America.
         
        Interesting, The staff at the Swedish hospital are now employees of the neighboring state of Wisconsin. Strange but true. The U of Wisconsin bought up that hospital, as part of an acquisition of the entire Swedish American Health system.

        The real estate in Rockford is rather interesting. One could buy a house close to the Swedish American Hospital for about $50-75k. The problem is, houses are on the market for such a long time in Rockford that the house could pretty much never be sold. The rents are fairly low in that area, but very expensive compared to the cost of the house. Mortgages are cheaper than rent. The problem is not that many people can afford to save up for a house, nor do they have the credit ratings to buy. Also, once a house is bought, it is extremely difficult to sell.

        Houses are much more expensive a couple of counties north in Madison, WI, but the houses can be sold quickly. A number of the houses on my block had offers the first week, and often the first day, on the market. In one case a fellow was literally putting up the sign when his across the street neighbor brought over his daughter to look at the house, which they bought. I constantly have real estate agents asking me to sell my house, saying they have buyers all ready.
      105. I think any candidate who favors open borders is going to have a hard time winning a presidential election.

        • Replies: @anon
        I think any candidate who favors open borders is going to have a hard time winning a presidential election.

        No candidate will come out and say they favor open borders at the Presidential level. Multiple candidates will likely embrace policies that are de facto open borders, given the chance.

        Ignore most of what they say, watch what they do. This simple rule applies at all political levels.
        , @J.Ross
        I want this to be true, but what's the alternative? Somebody has to actually run against the open borders guy, and the billionaires won't permit that to get off the ground. We voted for Trump to get basic government border service and he tolerates mutiny and sedition, tolerates sanctuary cities, rejects e-Verify, and "want[s] more immigration than ever." Recall Virginia, turned into a CIA-globalist experiment not because of immigrants but because establishment Republicans refused to even try.
        Not only will they all be open borders scum, but they'll laugh at you and directly lie when you try to get an answer about an open borders tweet they made months before: "That's a conspiracy, nobody is for open borders!"
      106. @Cromwell4ver
        Depends on the majority alien of those currently interned at Area 51. My guess is that reptilians would go for Bloomberg, Greys for Biden, and Nordics for Sanders.

        It’s also possible Area 51 is boycotting the election now that Marianne Williamson was forced out.

        https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/145658786131099649

        “Everyone feels on some level like an alien in this world, because we ARE. We come from another realm of consciousness, and long for home.” — Marianne Williamson

        • Replies: @MEH 0910
        https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/1231726953494962177
        https://twitter.com/EmmaKinery/status/1231718211915304964
      107. @Jonathan Mason

        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?
         
        Sailer says that Hispanics tend to vote for what is best for them, as opposed to many white working class voters who vote against their own economic interests, due to certain ideals that they may hold.

        For example, for a significant number of Americans abortion is the only political issue that counts and they just want to vote for the candidate who most opposes abortion, regardless of all else. Sailer is saying that Hispanics are pretty laissez-faire on issues like abortion. They might believe it is sinful, or regrettable, but they are not awfully concerned about whether other racial groups have access to legal abortion or not, and they are not going to vote against their own economic interests just because of abortion.

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says). Now, if you happen to be a middle manager with a health insurance company whose main concern is job security, it is obvious that you will not want to vote for Sanders.

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says).

        In an anthill, perhaps.

        I have never voted for “my interests”, but for my state’s and my country’s. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.

        Yes, I agree that only five or ten percent of voters think this way. People mock libertarians, but they are among the few who can face Wednesday morning without a hangover.

        Come to think of it, voting in America does have this Carnavalesque aura about it– go all out on Tuesday, feel like crap on Wednesday.

        • Replies: @Corvinus
        I would venture to say the majority of Americans decide what interests are important to them that they think will benefit the country. So you are in a way saying your nation’s interests reflect a preference that others ought to follow.
        , @SFG
        I don't mock libertarians--I just think they're wrong on politics. At the present time in the US, anyway. They might have been right 20 years ago in Eastern Europe, or 60 years ago here.

        By and large they are a lot more fun to talk politics with than either liberals or conservatives--fewer berserk buttons. You can complain about both SJWs and Trump.

        Or maybe they're just nerdier than the other 2 alignments--I remember when Gary Gygax and Bill Buckley died within a few days of each other, the only one to notice was some guy at Reason. ;)
        , @Jonathan Mason

        I have never voted for “my interests”, but for my state’s and my country’s. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.
         
        Comes to the same thing as voting for what is in the best interest of your children.
        , @Charles Erwin Wilson

        I have never voted for “my interests”, but for my state’s and my country’s. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.
         
        This is the definition of patriotism. Notice how much blowback you get when you point this out. I am no libertarian, but if all in our borders were patriots, we would not face the prospect of rapid decline.
      108. @Buzz Mohawk
        Speaking as someone who drove to the edge of Area 51 and had breakfast at the Little A'Le'Inn in nearby Rachael, NV, I think the votes would mostly go toward the conservative side.

        The guys I met hanging out at the 'Inn were salt-of-the-American-Earth types who probably voted for Trump. They told me stories about seeing the first B-2s and F-111s flying around -- and lots of cement trucks heading into the Area for new construction.

        All I saw were the guards watching me from their white Jeep Cherokees up above on a ridge when I got to the border of the Area. Oh, and the sign that said they could shoot me.

        “and lots of cement trucks”

        Forgive this petty quibble, but were they ready mix concrete trucks or bulk cement semi tractor trailers?

        • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
        They didn't say.
      109. @El Dato
        https://i.imgur.com/wi772ts.jpg

        "Check out all those Bernie voters."
        "Sandernistas"
        "What?"
        "They are Sandernistas"
        "... REAGAN WAS RIGHT!!"

        One could produce a 5 part “Where are They Now?” mini series based on that still shot.

      110. @Reg Cæsar

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says).
         
        In an anthill, perhaps.

        I have never voted for "my interests", but for my state's and my country's. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.

        Yes, I agree that only five or ten percent of voters think this way. People mock libertarians, but they are among the few who can face Wednesday morning without a hangover.

        Come to think of it, voting in America does have this Carnavalesque aura about it-- go all out on Tuesday, feel like crap on Wednesday.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ujIZja_rIU

        I would venture to say the majority of Americans decide what interests are important to them that they think will benefit the country. So you are in a way saying your nation’s interests reflect a preference that others ought to follow.

        • Replies: @Mr. Anon
        You seem to think everybody is a good judge of their own interests. Clearly a lot of people are not.

        Your act is old and it was always stupid. Nobody cares what you think. You're a yammering nitwit.
        , @Reg Cæsar
        As I've pointed out here before, constant commenter Corvinus, or, in Italian, La Gazza Ladra, is not anti-white, but pro-stupid-white. That's probably more destructive in the long run.


        https://www.radiolab.it/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/GazzaLadra20-1.jpg
      111. @Reg Cæsar

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says).
         
        In an anthill, perhaps.

        I have never voted for "my interests", but for my state's and my country's. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.

        Yes, I agree that only five or ten percent of voters think this way. People mock libertarians, but they are among the few who can face Wednesday morning without a hangover.

        Come to think of it, voting in America does have this Carnavalesque aura about it-- go all out on Tuesday, feel like crap on Wednesday.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ujIZja_rIU

        I don’t mock libertarians–I just think they’re wrong on politics. At the present time in the US, anyway. They might have been right 20 years ago in Eastern Europe, or 60 years ago here.

        By and large they are a lot more fun to talk politics with than either liberals or conservatives–fewer berserk buttons. You can complain about both SJWs and Trump.

        Or maybe they’re just nerdier than the other 2 alignments–I remember when Gary Gygax and Bill Buckley died within a few days of each other, the only one to notice was some guy at Reason. 😉

        • Replies: @Twodees Partain
        Wait, are you saying that there was still a libertarian at Reason back then?
      112. @Reg Cæsar

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says).
         
        In an anthill, perhaps.

        I have never voted for "my interests", but for my state's and my country's. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.

        Yes, I agree that only five or ten percent of voters think this way. People mock libertarians, but they are among the few who can face Wednesday morning without a hangover.

        Come to think of it, voting in America does have this Carnavalesque aura about it-- go all out on Tuesday, feel like crap on Wednesday.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ujIZja_rIU

        I have never voted for “my interests”, but for my state’s and my country’s. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.

        Comes to the same thing as voting for what is in the best interest of your children.

      113. Interesting development:

        Bernie Boycotts AIPAC.

        Bernie Sanders has just announced he will be boycotting AIPAC, has publicly rejected AIPAC’s invitation to their gala conference. In publicly announcing this, he cited Israeli brutality against Palestinians and said that AIPAC provides a “platform” for “bigots.”

        • Replies: @Thirdeye
        Just the same way it took Nixon to go to Beijing and Moscow in 1972, it takes a Jewish candidate to denounce AIPAC and have any hope of surviving.
        , @Lot
        Uncle Shel, you know what to do.

        https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/trump-adelson.png
        , @Mr. Anon
        It would be more impressive if he denounced it, and similar organizations, for having undo influence on American affairs. But I don't think he would cross that line.
        , @Ghost of Bull Moose
        Bernie's campaign is a platform for bigots who don't like Americans: AOC, Chic Omar, Tlaib, the black alpaca , Linda Sarsour, etc
        , @Dissident

        Bernie Sanders has just announced he will be boycotting AIPAC, has publicly rejected AIPAC’s invitation to their gala conference. In publicly announcing this, he cited Israeli brutality against Palestinians and said that AIPAC provides a “platform” for “bigots.”
         
        1.) Now if only Sanders would denounce the Congressional Black Caucus, MSNBC, the DNC, and any number of prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama and Bill DeBlasio, for their extensive history of honoring and providing a platform for such infamous bigots as Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton...

        2.) Echoing "Mr. Anon"s response, I, too, aver that Mr. Sanders would do better to denounce AIPAC along with all lobbies of foreign nations as wielding undue influence over United States policy.

        3.) One would have to be either blinded by bias or pathetically naive to not believe that the Zionist State that has usurped the name 'Israel' bears no culpability for any injustices against Palestinians. That said, I daresay that Mr. Sanders would demonstrate a considerable bit more courage if he were to denounce atrocities perpetrated upon Whites in South Africa or Rwanda. Or even just express sympathy for victims.

        4.) All the above said, it seems undeniably refreshing to see a prominent, mainstream political figure denounce AIPAC.
      114. If Texas does go blue, will liberals still attack the Electoral College and conservatives still defend it? It will be interesting to find out. But either way, it’s an archaic institution that disenfranchises millions of voters outside of the swing states and supports the two-party lock in presidential elections.

        • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
        In fact, the GOP had prepared a massive ad campaign to discredit the Electoral College in 2000. Polls were showing Bush with a lead in the popular vote but Gore ahead in Florida. Shortly before the election, news came out about W’s cocaine use that flipped the popular vote for Gore. As for Florida? Well, the Bush family controlled the state, and there were just enough election shenanigans to throw the state to Bush.

        At that point, the Republicans who hated the Electoral College fell in love with it.

        If immigration made either Florida or Texas permanently Democratic, the parties’ positions on the EC would change again.
        , @Bernie
        No, because it simply will not matter. Both the popular vote and electoral college vote will massively favor Dems.
      115. @Hail
        Interesting development:

        Bernie Boycotts AIPAC.

        Bernie Sanders has just announced he will be boycotting AIPAC, has publicly rejected AIPAC's invitation to their gala conference. In publicly announcing this, he cited Israeli brutality against Palestinians and said that AIPAC provides a "platform" for "bigots."

        Just the same way it took Nixon to go to Beijing and Moscow in 1972, it takes a Jewish candidate to denounce AIPAC and have any hope of surviving.

        • Replies: @Hail
        Blocked by this message:

        Only Three Reaction-Comments Allowed per Eight Hour Window.

        RETURN TO COMMENTING SECTION
         
        , let me say it here, and say it bold:

        • AGREE.
      116. @notsaying
        I suspect that many conservatives actually believed this.

        I say that as someone who's a Democrat and not a conservative myself but I will tell you why:

        My impression is that small government conservatives sincerely feel that theirs is a philosophy that is waiting to be discovered by others. They say that even though with the possible exception of Australia and South Africa no other First World countries have conservative parties anywhere near as far to the right as America's far right conservatives.

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won't ever need help from the government -- even when that's not true. There's a lot of elderly receiving government help or wished they qualified for help but still voting against it by voting Republican, for example.

        It's the over-65 voters that are keeping the Republicans winning. Yet how many under 30 Republicans are there? Not very many, most young adults today know they may need government help sometime -- many are accepting parental help into their 30s and 40s -- and aren't lying to themselves about that.

        You are indeed a classic Democrat. People might need things, that’s why we have a government! Government exists to provide things we might need (or want, to be honest). Where does this ‘government’ get all these things? That’s someone else’s problem.

        In your defense, I am constrained to add that we have several libertarian and self-styled alt-right types right here on this forum who insist that $22T debt isn’t a problem so long as can service it, and interest rates are really low, anyway, right?

        • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

        Where does this ‘government’ get all these things? That’s someone else’s problem.
         
        But it is all a matter of degree. Do you want a government that does not provide roads or schools. Abolish the military and border patrol?

        Once you accept that government can collect taxes and provide services, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which services we can afford to provide. Every economically developed country has universal health care as well as some that are not so economically advanced, and in all of those countries medical bankruptcies are practically unknown, or a tiny fraction of the number in the US.

        One possible exception is China where medical care is all fee for service.

        Yes, the US is not objectively so impoverished as to not be able to afford what other countries can afford, even Cuba, for God's sake.

        It is just that many people in our country (the US) believe that our method of financing health care, while incredibly inefficient, is somehow morally superior to what everyone else has.

        I have a friend whose wife died of cancer a few years ago. During her terminal illness he had to quit his job so that the family could obtain Medicaid after their job-related insurance was maxed out.

        Unfortunately before this happened, the family were medically advised to try a very expensive treatment that might prolong her life, and the wife being very sick, the husband signed his name to some papers, as a result of which he became legally responsible for vast debts incurred for her treatment, and to this day owes half a million dollars to the hospital. He is only paying a nominal amount, but they have put a lien on his house and property, so that when he dies, they will take it.

        In community property states the surviving spouse is held responsible for the medical costs of the dead spouse even if they have not signed anything, so there might be some advantage in obtaining a divorce when the spouse is diagnosed with a terminal illness.

        http://www.carbonelaw.com/2015/01/divorce-one-terminally-ill/

        That, my friends, is how the health care system works in the US. When I explain to Americans that this situation hardly ever occurs in other developed nations, this is beyond their comprehension, because they have never known anything else. Americans just accept that a serious terminal illness probably equals bankruptcy, and that is the way it always has been and always will be, and always ought to be.

        Under their philosophy of "better dead than red" they would rather die bankrupt than have their loved ones die under what they call "communism", even though any form of insurance or social security is really a type of communism, when you think about it.

        Of course not all Americans think this way, and the upcoming election may even show that they are in a minority. In which case there will probably be a high rate of suicide among the better dead than red crowd.
      117. @Muggles
        >>I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.<<

        While this could work if Warren ends up w/ enough loyal delegates to pull off a deal, it does nothing to help the Dems defeat Trump. A harridan screecher from MA doesn't help a ticket with an elderly Brooklynite Jew who has been hiding out in Vermont. Yes, a female and a self proclaimed non Communist socialist. How does that sell outside of the Boston Commons? Both candidates are personally unpleasant to watch or hear. Warren is a serial but failed liar. Bernie makes Hillary seem like the picture of health. Few blacks seem to like Jews outside of Dem photo ops. Though I don't think Bernie's Jewishness is much of a factor with most Americans.

        BTW: it isn't just Repubs who are screaming "socialism" at Bernie. That's his mantra. And most Dem office holders/donors aren't socialists either. Denmark and Sweden aren't "socialist" like Bernie claims. Maybe Venezuela is though. Forty years ago not too bad. Today, Venezuelans are fleeing their socialist kleptocracy like starving Syrians.

        Vermont is full of rich/retired New Yorkers with second homes. The rest of America is considerably different. At barely above 626,000, Vermont is the second least populated state. The western side of the county I live in has more people. So even there Bernie hardly has a Mandate From Heaven.

        Yes, a female and a self proclaimed non Communist socialist. How does that sell outside of the Boston Commons?

        Try to remember the makeup of the American population now. We have easily half who will vote for ‘free stuff’ without ever imagining any possible consequences. And easily half of the women I know will vote for a woman, per se, damn the torpedoes.

        Vermont is full of rich/retired New Yorkers with second homes.

        You definitely have that part right. They spend as much time as possible in a place as different as possible from the one they created.

      118. I don’t know about you all, but it makes it easier for me to accept the Mexification of America if I think of Mexicans as native American, reclaiming old turf, rather than as Latinos or Hispanics. The terms Latino/Hispanic realy grate on me.

      119. @Thirdeye
        Just the same way it took Nixon to go to Beijing and Moscow in 1972, it takes a Jewish candidate to denounce AIPAC and have any hope of surviving.

        Blocked by this message:

        Only Three Reaction-Comments Allowed per Eight Hour Window.

        RETURN TO COMMENTING SECTION

        , let me say it here, and say it bold:

        • AGREE.

      120. This is pretty good analysis. Based on my experience in California, the overwhelming majority of Latinos are not SJWs, and mostly have a working class ethos. That Elizabeth Warren thought saying “Latinx” was a good idea indicates that she probably doesn’t know any actual Latinos; that, and her political instincts are dogshit.

        As for the Conservatism Inc morons who thought Latinos were (are?) “natural conservatives,” have they ever actually looked at Latinos’ countries of origin? Let’s just say that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador isn’t exactly a Chamber of Commerce conservative. For that matter, absent US-backed coups and other shenanigans, Latin American countries often end up with socialist-leaning governments.

        But anyway, if Berniecrats end up seizing political power thanks to Latino voters, then these venal, cheap labor-obsessed, Big Business-worshipping cuckservatives have only themselves to blame. Ditto for centrist, culturally liberal Democrats who are appalled that their new base likes Bernie more than some phony turd like Pete Buttigieg.

        • Replies: @ben tillman

        That Elizabeth Warren thought saying “Latinx” was a good idea indicates that she probably doesn’t know any actual Latinos
         
        Yep.
      121. @Hail
        Interesting development:

        Bernie Boycotts AIPAC.

        Bernie Sanders has just announced he will be boycotting AIPAC, has publicly rejected AIPAC's invitation to their gala conference. In publicly announcing this, he cited Israeli brutality against Palestinians and said that AIPAC provides a "platform" for "bigots."

        Uncle Shel, you know what to do.

        • Replies: @Colin Wright
        Thanks for the 'remind me to vote for Sanders this N0vember' picture.

        'For it is evil things we shall be fighting...'
      122. I think it’s appropriate to be a little more precise:

        “Bernie Wins Majority of Hispanics in Nevada [Who Showed Up To Vote In the Democratic Caucus]”

      123. @Mr McKenna
        You are indeed a classic Democrat. People might need things, that's why we have a government! Government exists to provide things we might need (or want, to be honest). Where does this 'government' get all these things? That's someone else's problem.

        In your defense, I am constrained to add that we have several libertarian and self-styled alt-right types right here on this forum who insist that $22T debt isn't a problem so long as can service it, and interest rates are really low, anyway, right?

        Where does this ‘government’ get all these things? That’s someone else’s problem.

        But it is all a matter of degree. Do you want a government that does not provide roads or schools. Abolish the military and border patrol?

        Once you accept that government can collect taxes and provide services, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which services we can afford to provide. Every economically developed country has universal health care as well as some that are not so economically advanced, and in all of those countries medical bankruptcies are practically unknown, or a tiny fraction of the number in the US.

        One possible exception is China where medical care is all fee for service.

        Yes, the US is not objectively so impoverished as to not be able to afford what other countries can afford, even Cuba, for God’s sake.

        It is just that many people in our country (the US) believe that our method of financing health care, while incredibly inefficient, is somehow morally superior to what everyone else has.

        I have a friend whose wife died of cancer a few years ago. During her terminal illness he had to quit his job so that the family could obtain Medicaid after their job-related insurance was maxed out.

        Unfortunately before this happened, the family were medically advised to try a very expensive treatment that might prolong her life, and the wife being very sick, the husband signed his name to some papers, as a result of which he became legally responsible for vast debts incurred for her treatment, and to this day owes half a million dollars to the hospital. He is only paying a nominal amount, but they have put a lien on his house and property, so that when he dies, they will take it.

        In community property states the surviving spouse is held responsible for the medical costs of the dead spouse even if they have not signed anything, so there might be some advantage in obtaining a divorce when the spouse is diagnosed with a terminal illness.

        http://www.carbonelaw.com/2015/01/divorce-one-terminally-ill/

        That, my friends, is how the health care system works in the US. When I explain to Americans that this situation hardly ever occurs in other developed nations, this is beyond their comprehension, because they have never known anything else. Americans just accept that a serious terminal illness probably equals bankruptcy, and that is the way it always has been and always will be, and always ought to be.

        Under their philosophy of “better dead than red” they would rather die bankrupt than have their loved ones die under what they call “communism”, even though any form of insurance or social security is really a type of communism, when you think about it.

        Of course not all Americans think this way, and the upcoming election may even show that they are in a minority. In which case there will probably be a high rate of suicide among the better dead than red crowd.

        • Replies: @Onebelowall
        The people on this board don't want to hear stuff like this. They just want to say anything that they don't like is "communism", hear how Sanders is going to take their stuff with a Khmer Rouge style army to give it to lazy people who don't work, and ignore that we already have socialism in this country, but it's only really directed toward our wealthy oligarchs.

        Also keep in mind that "welfare/socialism/communism" is any benefit someone else, especially [the African-American community], gets from the government.
        , @ben tillman

        That, my friends, is how the health care system works in the US.
         
        And it's all due to government interference in the market. The solution is absolutely NOT further government intervention.
      124. @AP

        If and when this tips Texas Democratic,
         
        It'll be a few elections away, at least.

        Texas Hispanics are more conservative than California ones. I assume Nevada follows next-door California.

        27% of Texas Hispanics identified as Republicans (vs. 46% Democratic) in 2014, which was a lot higher than the national average. Texas Hispanics were getting more Republican, while Hispanics outside Texas were getting less Republican:

        https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/5kartjupuuksx-ohbhlrbw.png

        (don't know to what if any extent Trump changed this)

        2018 Mid-term elections:

        https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18.11.09_LatinosMidterms_how-hispanics-voted-key-races.png

        Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as "extremely conservative."

        https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Six-myths-about-Latino-Republicans-are-challenged-14484385.php

        So the theory is, don’t worry too much about Texas because we are only losing the vote of the single largest and fastest-growing group in the State by 11 points in some races and 29 points in others?

        This sounds like, “sure, we’ll lose money on each item sold, but we’ll make it up in volume.”

        Yes, Hispanics in Texas are less leftist both economically and socially than Hispanics in California, but that means merely a somewhat slower descent into a less intelligent, dirtier, less orderly, less trusting, and more impoverished society. Massive Hispanic immigration spells permanent defeat for any fiscally conservative or limited constitutional government party — and probably makes authoritarian government and more constrained civil liberties inevitable as well. Not as if we are doing well in those areas in still-white regions either, honestly….

        • Agree: Mr McKenna
        • Replies: @Anonymous

        Yes, Hispanics in Texas are less leftist both economically and socially than Hispanics in California, but that means merely a somewhat slower descent into a less intelligent, dirtier, less orderly, less trusting, and more impoverished society. Massive Hispanic immigration spells permanent defeat for any fiscally conservative or limited constitutional government party — and probably makes authoritarian government and more constrained civil liberties inevitable as well. Not as if we are doing well in those areas in still-white regions either, honestly….
         
        The problem is not that they are "Hispanics" , in the sense of "hispanic" meaning "of, or relating to , Spain". The problem is that they are Mesoamerican aboriginals and mestizos. In fact, they are mostly the people who can't prosper in their native countries because they are bovine and not very intelligent.

        As one commenter summed things up with clarity:

        The mestizos are, after all, acting rationally. It is we who are not.

        Labor is valueless in Mexico because in Mexico, corruption and the threat of confiscation of capital mean no one will invest there, or if they will they will demand a very high rate of return so as to pay off the investment before it is stolen or confiscated.

        The government of Mexico is corrupt and socialist because that is the government that suits Mexicans. They might grumble a little at these things, but only because they don’t get the spoils, not because they are malum in se. To them they are part of the natural order, like the urges to eat, have sex and make lowriders out of 1964 Chevys.

        Importing Mexicans makes economic sense for businesses that leverage Mexican labor with American management. The Mexicans work cheap and don’t expect medical benefits, won’t sue for frivolous or legitimate reasons, and while they might steal a little lumber or paint or defecate in the customers’ shrubbery, won’t steal their customer lists, won’t break into their computers, won’t learn their business and compete with them in two years. Their sons won’t compete for high school gridiron glory and pom-pom p***y with those of the business owners’, unlike the brighter sons of the white workers they displaced.

        The business owners will pay a little more in taxes because the Mexicans will go to the hospital when they are sick or pregnant, and not pay any bills. So will everyone else’s, but the business owners will pocket all the profits while others pay most all of the costs. They will also pay for the cost of arresting, trying and jailing the Mexicans when they get unruly or decide to ignore gringo law, or when the truly violent and criminal amongst them do their stuff in the United States with its far target-richer environment and cushy jails. But the real catastrophe is that when the illegal Mexicans produce a child, it is instantly an American citizen by law.

        The evidence shows that these American born children will still vote, participate in civic affairs and look at the world in general just like their parents-in other words, like Mexicans. California is living proof of that. They will vote for socialist leaders that promise them short term free stuff and piss off the gringos. If those politicians take bribes and are caught they won’t care. They will go to school for awhile, but the girls will get pregnant and drop out and the boys will get into fights, smoke pot, drink booze, drive and wreck cars, and drop out too. Not all, but the statistics will point that way. They will get entry level jobs and stay there a long time. Over decades, an elite will evolve, but for the masses life will go on like it always has.

        Meanwhile the rest of the country slowly changes, because of the greater political corruption, the disdain for progress, the lack of ambition to do things like go to the moon, build the Panama Canal, or do the other stuff those gringos did for reasons that will no longer make any sense to anyone. Government revenue will slow until the system has to be repudiated, and the currency will implode, but who cares? That happens in Latin America all the time. Our military will become like Mexico’s, or if we are lucky, Argentina’s.

        Lest you think I am just prejudiced against Mexicans, just go back and replace “Mexico” and “Mexicans” with any other non-European nation and its denizens, besides Japan, Taiwan, or maybe South Korea. It all still fits, except for the part about lowriderizing ’64 Chevys of course.

         
        , @cynthia curran
        You guys think the upper midwest states are safe. Pa is growing fast in minorities due to blacks, latinos, and asians moving out of New York. Plus, whites in Pa wheether they are working class or not tend to vote less for republicans than southern states like Alabama. Trump wins over 20 percent in Alabama and at the most 7 percent in Wisconsin. In fact, these states are likely to go more minority due to being next to New York or Minnesota. Minnesota has a lot of blacks and latinos near Minnespolis. So, they moved to where its cheaper.
      125. @candid_observer
        Yeah, I'm pretty excited about the idea of a Trump vs Bernie contest: populism will already have won, and the elites will have lost.

        The topics of controversy will mostly be issues which politicians have avoided for decades. Does immigration help or hurt the working class? How can the working class get the jobs they need? What form should health care reform take? How can traditional labor be given power, if at all?

        Bernie has long been immersed in these issues, and will have something to say.

        Of course, the Bernie of yore is not the Bernie of 2020, since he has had to make many concessions to identity politics to make it through the nomination process. I don't know how he's going to deal with that baggage.

        In the end, the tag of "socialist" will very likely put a low ceiling on his appeal to voters, and I'd very much expect Trump to win.

        But I can see how such a contest might effect a dramatic makeover of the American political landscape.

        “Bernie has long been immersed in these issues, and will have something to say.”

        Nah, he’s been out of that pool for so long that he has dripped dry by now. What he will have to say will consist of endorsements for the candidate he sold out to, if he can manage to keep from boasting about whatever new house he buys.

      126. @MikeatMikedotMike
        "and lots of cement trucks"

        Forgive this petty quibble, but were they ready mix concrete trucks or bulk cement semi tractor trailers?

        They didn’t say.

      127. @Muggles
        >>Ah yes, cant conserve the women’s rest room but we are gonna change American trade policy in the most fundamental fashion since the turn of the 20th century.

        This place remains filled with unserious dilettantes who probably cant even deadlift their body weight.<<

        Ah, but this place is filled with serious dilettantes who can use apostrophes in their contractions. Deadlifting your own body weight is only one of the factors to becoming a serious dilettante.

        Since you failed to mention it, I will: The main factor in being a serious dilettante is the ability to tap dance and jack off at the same time. Glad to be of help.

      128. @SFG
        I don't mock libertarians--I just think they're wrong on politics. At the present time in the US, anyway. They might have been right 20 years ago in Eastern Europe, or 60 years ago here.

        By and large they are a lot more fun to talk politics with than either liberals or conservatives--fewer berserk buttons. You can complain about both SJWs and Trump.

        Or maybe they're just nerdier than the other 2 alignments--I remember when Gary Gygax and Bill Buckley died within a few days of each other, the only one to notice was some guy at Reason. ;)

        Wait, are you saying that there was still a libertarian at Reason back then?

      129. @Reg Cæsar

        One person(?) voted in the Area 51 precinct, for Elizabeth Warren.
         
        EW, phone home.



        https://zdnet3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2019/11/29/b29d819b-2564-4753-a82b-ec5137aff26c/resize/1200xauto/60ac5f7e39f50e7b1eff27cc2cd3a436/screen-shot-2019-11-29-at-8-40-23-am.png

        https://media.breitbart.com/media/2019/05/GettyImages-1144063021-640x480.jpg

        That is uncanny; Did you see it somewhere or is this a Reg Cæsar original?

        • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
        I simply did a Google image search in two tabs, and chose the two that most resembled each other.

        That was the only one in which ET's mouth was open-- Liz should really take after him. Her mouth was shut in none of hers. At least on the first page.
      130. @fish
        Wow Corby.......struck a nerve.....no bonus this quarter due to your ongoing inability to change anyone’s mind here?

        “Wow Corby…….struck a nerve…..”

        Not in the least.

        “no bonus this quarter due to your ongoing inability to change anyone’s mind here?”

        I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind here. I’m just stating the obvious about Trump and Sailer.

      131. @Mycale
        I wonder if the conservatives ever believed that “natural conservative” stuff, or they just put it out there to give the rank and file a talking point so they can keep bringing in more cheap labor for their donors. If they lose elections because the imported Hispanics turn into a critical mass? Who cares, the Dems will support more immigration, endless war, Israel Israel Israel, etc.

        It’s also possible that conservatives knew what would happen, but were afraid of being called racist by Dems. Since being called mean names by your political opponent is literally the worst thing that can happen to anyone, they came up with “natural conservative” as more of a hope and prayer than anything.

        As a Hispanic (I don’t use “Latino” for myself), who is white, I can tell you, it is what they want to believe. Like the people that go around saying “but blind people have better hearing” (or vice versa) it’s a sort of early “meme” if you will, based upon wishful thinking and some anecdotal experiences, mixed in with lots of transparently self-serving stereotypes.

        Someone meets a few blacks who like to hoot and holler in church and talk about giving their kids the belt, and how homosexuality is wrong, and they think they and all blacks are conservative. The truth is, those same blacks voted democrat and are very non-religious in their personal life. Most blacks do not live anything like a religious or pious life, but Hannity will still claim it because he has a “black church sings the old hymns” CD and he imagines a 1940s “don’t chew sas your mama” world, full of strong black families that just want good jobs, like working in a Ford plant, etc.

        Similarly, someone meets some Latinos that “switched over” from being Catholics to join their Evangelical, non-denominational church, and they too, think abortion is wrong, and that all that “gay stuff es loco“, but what that white person (like Hannity) doesn’t get–usually those Latinos still vote democrat. In the end, we like having a public policy that brings in more people like us, and other than actual (especially fiscal) conservative Hispanics/Latinos, even the white ones tend to resent “Anglos” (a generic and incorrect term used in our culture for all non-Latino whites). The whole England vs. Spain thing–it never went away. We are the “other white people” and seeing your people diluted is good for us-or so my people say. It’s not of course, but that’s the thinking.

        • Agree: Daniel H, RadicalCenter
        • Replies: @SFG
        Weird. I was going to Brooks Brothers the day after Christmas, and watching Britcoms. I think my parents fell down on the Anglophobia job. They did have this weird jones for European culture. I had the vague idea there was some England-Spain thing but I thought it had died with the Armada.

        Maybe it was being white-skinned in a diverse city?
        , @Reg Cæsar

        The whole England vs. Spain thing–it never went away.
         
        Nor did the whole England ♥ Portugal thing. "Our oldest ally."

        History of Port Wine

        English merchants arrived in the city of Porto looking for a substitute for French wine when, in 1678, England and France entered into a war. The French government had launched a series of measures to restrict imports of British goods in their country, and the British government stopped trade with France. So, Porto was this alternative source of supply they were looking to find.

        But the wine got off on the long journey to England, and the need to preserve it led the merchants to add brandy to it. This stabilized the wine and allowed it to withstand the temperatures and humidity of boat trips. This mix excited the English, encouraging them to settle in the city and open their own cellars there. Hence, there are so many British names in the brands.

        https://catshostels.com/types-of-port-wine-wine-from-porto/
         
        Port wine was the Old World child. Bossa nova was the New World grandchild.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Kd2ki3f-t8
        , @Hibernian

        Similarly, someone meets some Latinos that “switched over” from being Catholics to join their Evangelical, non-denominational church, and they too, think abortion is wrong, and that all that “gay stuff es loco“, but what that white person (like Hannity) doesn’t get–usually those Latinos still vote democrat.
         
        They're more likely to vote Repub thatn the Hispanic Catholics, at least in Texas.
      132. @nebulafox
        >I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy.

        A lot of Mexican-Americans on lower socioeconomic strata don't like mass immigration because they understand the threat that poses to their economic interests, particularly when it is from Central American countries which they hold in contempt. But fortunately for the Democrats, they like free-market fundamentalism even less. This was the point that Karl Rove and Company never understood. Family values + amnesty != masses of blue-collar Hispanic voters ready to embrace Chamber of Commerce favored economic policies. Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it. (That, and what else can you do when the other party holds you in existential contempt?)

        The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society. The donors largely vote Democrat these days anyway, so why the heck not? Remain to the right on assimilation/crime/immigration/anti-SJWism. Embrace Hamiltonianism on free trade, and embrace realist anti-interventionism on foreign policy. Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays, and start focusing on important stuff like progressives who clearly despise their own society, wish for permanent revolution, and oligarchs that abet them because they profit from social atomization. That's what'll win. Forget liberal vs. conservative, make this about nationalist vs. globalist, and not just because that'll build a big tent: that's what it is in REALITY.

        That’s an astute analysis and sound political advice, sir. About the best we can hope for, probably.

        I’d add that we should go after a political majority built on strong Hispanic support by going MUCH tougher on real crime with direct physical victims (i.e. not adults smoking weed or selling it to other adults). Because of the persistent disparity in serious-crime rates, this will inevitably amount to a more severe crackdown on African violence.

        Institute stop-and-frisk and constant police surveillance of Africans on a level that would make Bloomberg look like the ACLU.

        Impose very short, but progressively increasing mandatory jail sentences (and fines) on people who make our public spaces filthy, intimidating, chaotic, and demoralizing: public indecency (which includes fondling your balls while walking down the street or showing your asscrack because you won’t wear a belt), throwing trash on the street, covering every freeking surface with retarded graffiti, aggressive panhandling, and the like.

        Where applicable— which is often — impose twenty-year mandatory-minimum prison sentences (No possibility of early release) for people who are found in possession of a firearm after a previous conviction for a violent felony. Make such people categorically ineligible for parole (or, in the federal system, “supervised release”).

        Execute murderers and repeat rapists nationwide. Again this will quite disproportionately eliminate Africans and protect all of us (including, as it happens, the good innocent African people stuck in neighborhoods full of their brethren).

        Hispanics suffer from Africans’ relentlessly violent and menacing presence in our midst just as we do. Difference is, most Hispanics lack the misplaced guilt, self-doubt, and foolish egalitarianism that many whites suffer from when it comes to our poor oppressed bruthas.

        Want the votes of sensible non-pussy Hispanics and whites alike? (1) Strike back unrelentingly against the african aggressors without apology, then (2) provide a universal basic income and universal medical and dental insurance. Fund the latter with MAJOR cuts to the military complex and/or public ownership of natural resources (oil, gas, and minerals), a huge overlooked source of federal revenue and relief for our people.

      133. @prime noticer
        Bernie Sanders is a communist, not a socialist. but yeah, the mexicans are voting for what he's selling. why wouldn't they. that's how all their countries are.

        jews are never socialists. that is extremely unnatural for them psychologically and biologically. they are always only ever ultra capitalists or communists. the two highly natural ideologies for them. all the money for me, whichever method. the idea of giving away their paychecks automatically to genetically unrelated gentiles is ludicrous nonsense to them.

        the Soviet Union was highly jewish, and they formed half the leaders. likewise in the US, which is highly capitalist.

        Notice that most of the West’s Jews seem to really hate Vladimir Putin, and Russia in general? That would suggest that Jews don’t have the same percentage of control of Russia the way they do on other nations. Like, they seldom ever railed against the USSR, and now they can hardly ever say nice things about today’s Russia.

        • Agree: ben tillman
      134. Good whites have abandoned the idea of vote your pocketbook. No one else has, especially not Hispanics.

        Hispanics and blacks get far more from public services than the taxes they pay. Now that the elite is well on its way to turning the US into a brown country with the majority paying way less in taxes than they get from government, people have an incentive to want higher taxes and more freebies.

        I am on the side of those who think this is great. The elite has filled the country with a new electorate that wants to levy high taxes on the wealthy, doesn’t like Jews and has no allegence to our greatest friend and overlord Israel.

        It is also a great slap in the face for all the gun worshiping fools who feel that they don’t have to care about what happens to the country as long as they have a gun. Hispanics overwhelming back serious gun control

      135. @Anon
        It looks like the normies will attempt to rally around an anti-Bernie, but the interesting thing is, there's no consensus among the normie Democrats (the handful of them that are left) about who this is. Bloomberg isn't seen as a legitimate Democrat and is hated by many in the party. Warren is seen as too radical by the normies. Pete has a gay problem that gives the normies pause. Biden's too old and silly, and everybody knows it. There is no clear alternative to Sanders among the Democrats.

        The problem is, the Democrats need an alternative for 2 reasons. Bernie's 78 and he's already had a heart attack. Unless they stick him in the bottle until the election, he's going to get Covid-19 and end up in the hospital on a ventilator. He's got a good chance of dying. Unless the Democrats have a clear number 2, they're going to have a civil war if Bernie becomes the nominee but dies before the election. Sanders might choose an acceptable Veep as a candidate, but if not, the Democrats are going to be strong-armed by their Bloomberg crowd, and may implode as a party right before the election.

        This sounds about right, except that the Dems won’t yet collapse as a party by any means.

        The Dems might do well to run Sanders for president and pick a Hispanic for Veep. Probably should be a white but Spanish-speaking Hispanic with no public record of alienating La Raza / reconquista-type statements.

        There is a vast pool of Hispanic US Citizens who are not yet registered to vote, and one would expect a Hispanic candidate speaking their language (or their parents or grandparents’ language) to incentivize a slew of new registrations. A surprising number of these unregistered Hispanic US Citizens are NOT in California or Texas, but in FLORIDA, Virginia, North Carolina, Kansas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and to some extent even Michigan and Ohio.

        Just tipping Florida to the dem column would make it very difficult for the republican ticket to win re-election. Florida has 29 electoral votes and was again very close in 2016. So, if the Dems ride a Hispanic registration and turnout increase to a narrow win in Florida, Sanders could win the presidency even if trump somehow flipped Minnesota’s 10 EVs (possible) plus any one of these three 2916 Clinton States: Washington State 12 EVs (unlikely), Virginia 13 EVs (increasingly unlikely), or Colorado 9 EVs.

        This Sanders/Hispanic Veep victory scenario still obtains even if we assume, realistically, that Africans will not turn out in the same numbers with no African (and no Obama Veep) on the ticket.

      136. @prime noticer
        Bernie Sanders is a communist, not a socialist. but yeah, the mexicans are voting for what he's selling. why wouldn't they. that's how all their countries are.

        jews are never socialists. that is extremely unnatural for them psychologically and biologically. they are always only ever ultra capitalists or communists. the two highly natural ideologies for them. all the money for me, whichever method. the idea of giving away their paychecks automatically to genetically unrelated gentiles is ludicrous nonsense to them.

        the Soviet Union was highly jewish, and they formed half the leaders. likewise in the US, which is highly capitalist.

        I’m sure Bernie’s a commie at heart (remember the trip to the USSR?) but has settled for democratic socialism. Given he’d have to ram anything through a House full of moderates and a likely-majority-Republican Senate he would be unlikely to turn the US into the USSR.

        My big objection to the guy at this point is immigration.

      137. Instead, they tend to be kind of poorly informed and not that interested in politics, but basically open toward voting themselves some benefits at other people’s expense in a no-hard-feelings but-this-is-good-for-me-and-mine way that I don’t take too personally either.

        They didn’t vote much for Sanders in 2016 because they didn’t know who he was, but now they know and they like what he’s selling.

        You nailed it.

      138. @Hail
        It's also possible Area 51 is boycotting the election now that Marianne Williamson was forced out.

        https://twitter.com/marwilliamson/status/145658786131099649

        "Everyone feels on some level like an alien in this world, because we ARE. We come from another realm of consciousness, and long for home." -- Marianne Williamson

      139. @Jonathan Mason

        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?
         
        Sailer says that Hispanics tend to vote for what is best for them, as opposed to many white working class voters who vote against their own economic interests, due to certain ideals that they may hold.

        For example, for a significant number of Americans abortion is the only political issue that counts and they just want to vote for the candidate who most opposes abortion, regardless of all else. Sailer is saying that Hispanics are pretty laissez-faire on issues like abortion. They might believe it is sinful, or regrettable, but they are not awfully concerned about whether other racial groups have access to legal abortion or not, and they are not going to vote against their own economic interests just because of abortion.

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says). Now, if you happen to be a middle manager with a health insurance company whose main concern is job security, it is obvious that you will not want to vote for Sanders.

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says).

        No, that is not how democracy is supposed to work. In fact, that is not democracy. Democracy means unanimous consent by the demos.

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        That’s odd, because there has probably never been unanimous consent for anything in any polity, ever.
      140. @Hibernian
        Life issues are a slippery slope, and the candle is burned at both ends. "OK, Boomer" becomes "Die, Boomer."

        “One generation got old

        One generation got soul”

        A few (seems like) years later, we are no longer the Pepsi Generation.

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        No, fool, we are the Negro Modelo generation ;)
      141. @notsaying
        I suspect that many conservatives actually believed this.

        I say that as someone who's a Democrat and not a conservative myself but I will tell you why:

        My impression is that small government conservatives sincerely feel that theirs is a philosophy that is waiting to be discovered by others. They say that even though with the possible exception of Australia and South Africa no other First World countries have conservative parties anywhere near as far to the right as America's far right conservatives.

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won't ever need help from the government -- even when that's not true. There's a lot of elderly receiving government help or wished they qualified for help but still voting against it by voting Republican, for example.

        It's the over-65 voters that are keeping the Republicans winning. Yet how many under 30 Republicans are there? Not very many, most young adults today know they may need government help sometime -- many are accepting parental help into their 30s and 40s -- and aren't lying to themselves about that.

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won’t ever need help from the government . . . .

        Needing help and needing help from the government are two entirely different things.

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        The people at our church will bring food and visit when I have surgery, and we appreciate it. They can’t afford to cover the tens of thousands of dollars that the scumbag hospital and doctors charged for the surgery and very short hospital stay.
      142. @Reg Cæsar

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won’t ever need help from the government — even when that’s not true.

         
        What's the difference between taking charity from the state and taking it from the church?

        The church just helps you out; it doesn't demand that you worship it.


        Note that the oldest and biggest hospitals in Rockford, Illinois, the poster child for Rust Belt deterioration, have roots in the Sisters of Mercy and the Swedish Lutherans. This story was repeated in cities small and large across America.

        Even the vaunted NHS (which wasn't exactly copied in the rest of the Anglosphere, which went with insurance rather than direct care schemes) still calls its nurses "sisters".

        There’s a lot of elderly receiving government help or wished they qualified for help but still voting against it by voting Republican, for example.
         
        Um, "still voting against it by voting Republican"? How about still voting for their country and their grandchildren's and great-grandchildren's country by not voting Democrat?

        Those "benefits" come at a stiff price. Your descendents will pay it. And not just with their wallets.

        Note that the oldest and biggest hospitals in Rockford, Illinois, the poster child for Rust Belt deterioration, have roots in the Sisters of Mercy and the Swedish Lutherans. This story was repeated in cities small and large across America.

        Interesting, The staff at the Swedish hospital are now employees of the neighboring state of Wisconsin. Strange but true. The U of Wisconsin bought up that hospital, as part of an acquisition of the entire Swedish American Health system.

        The real estate in Rockford is rather interesting. One could buy a house close to the Swedish American Hospital for about $50-75k. The problem is, houses are on the market for such a long time in Rockford that the house could pretty much never be sold. The rents are fairly low in that area, but very expensive compared to the cost of the house. Mortgages are cheaper than rent. The problem is not that many people can afford to save up for a house, nor do they have the credit ratings to buy. Also, once a house is bought, it is extremely difficult to sell.

        Houses are much more expensive a couple of counties north in Madison, WI, but the houses can be sold quickly. A number of the houses on my block had offers the first week, and often the first day, on the market. In one case a fellow was literally putting up the sign when his across the street neighbor brought over his daughter to look at the house, which they bought. I constantly have real estate agents asking me to sell my house, saying they have buyers all ready.

      143. ‘They didn’t vote much for Sanders in 2016 because they didn’t know who he was, but now they know and they like what he’s selling.’

        I think Hispanics like him.

        It’s like I said about Sanders in 2016: he’s the only one of the bunch I’d trust to collect my mail if I was out of town.

        That’s still true.

      144. @Ed
        I’m not sure about FL. The flirtation with socialism seems to be mostly centered among Mexican-Americans. Cubans aren’t going to go for it great numbers in FL, even the Dem ones. That leaves Puerto Rican’s who aren’t reliable voters.

        The proclaimed desire for socialism is by no means centered among Mexicans in Florida or most anywhere else in the USA. That understates the actual lack of opportunity for good-paying full-time jobs (let alone jobs with good benefits or LOL pensions) in suburban and rural communities that are still largely white. For better or worse, the resultant constant anxiety and resentment engenders willingness to risk drastic systemic change among tens of millions of white Americans.

        Younger Cubans aren’t very interested in the old fight against communism in Cuba or elsewhere, and they’re subject to the same relentless indoctrination in government schools, media, popular culture, and universities as anyone else. They will not vote overwhelmingly for republicans any more.

        There are many millions of Hispanic US Citizens who are neither Mexican nor Puerto Rican nor Cuban. There are likely several million Guatemalans and several million Salvadorans here — perhaps more than one percent of our national population each — and those groups are steadily growing. Luckily for political purposes, they are still concentrated on California, already a lost cause, but they are elsewhere as well, and will start moving for jobs, college, and relationships like anyone else in the USA, if at a lower rate of mobility.

        You’re right, thankfully, that PRs have not been reliable voters in terms of registration and turnout, but their numbers completely pale (bad choice of words) in comparison to Guatemalans, Salvadorans, and of course the 800-pound gorilla, Mexicans in the “United” States of America.

      145. @Lot
        Uncle Shel, you know what to do.

        https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/trump-adelson.png

        Thanks for the ‘remind me to vote for Sanders this N0vember’ picture.

        ‘For it is evil things we shall be fighting…’

      146. @the one they call Desanex

        Sen. Bernie Sanders ran competitively in unaccustomed support groups amid the Nevada Democratic caucuses while sweeping the table among Latino, young and very liberal voters, leaving his competitors wrestling inconclusively over the sharply fragmented remains, according to ABC News’ entrance poll results.
         
        Sounds like the UVA rape story. Bernie didn’t do a very good job of sweeping the table if there were a lot of sharply fragmented remains left to be wrestled inconclusively over.

        Sanders collected almost half of all county delegates statewide in Nevada, more than his next three competitors combined (including a recent former vice-president from an administration wildly popular with democrats, supposedly “attractive” and young Media darling buttgig, and a US Senator who is widely mocked (including by me) but has been running a long time and has a built-in White female base and excellent debating skills).

        That cannot tenably be spun as inconclusive or unimpressive. I won’t be voting for him in the dem primary or the general election, if he makes it that far, but this was a solid win for Sanders and the characterization of the others fighting inconclusively over the rest of the delegates is pretty accurate.

      147. @Thirdeye
        If Texas does go blue, will liberals still attack the Electoral College and conservatives still defend it? It will be interesting to find out. But either way, it's an archaic institution that disenfranchises millions of voters outside of the swing states and supports the two-party lock in presidential elections.

        In fact, the GOP had prepared a massive ad campaign to discredit the Electoral College in 2000. Polls were showing Bush with a lead in the popular vote but Gore ahead in Florida. Shortly before the election, news came out about W’s cocaine use that flipped the popular vote for Gore. As for Florida? Well, the Bush family controlled the state, and there were just enough election shenanigans to throw the state to Bush.

        At that point, the Republicans who hated the Electoral College fell in love with it.

        If immigration made either Florida or Texas permanently Democratic, the parties’ positions on the EC would change again.

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        While the republicans still have control of the Texas and Florida legislatures, they have one crucial task to give them some chance in future presidential elections (for a while, anyway):

        follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, and allocate one electoral vote to the candidate who wins the popular vote in each congressional district.

        That way, when the Texas and Florida electorates inevitably become majority nonwhite and majority Democrat, the republicans can still win a substantial minority of each State’s electoral votes. Perhaps slightly more than half of the electoral votes on each State in the near future, if the dem voters remain somewhat concentrated in dense urban congressional districts.

        Far better to get 40% of a big State’s electoral votes, or even 20% or 30%, than none.

        This change could spell the difference between some narrow victories and never winning again (after about 2032 at latest).

        Expect the stupid republicans NOT to bother doing it while they have the state legislative majority and the governorship in both places. After all, this is the party that went along with reenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people — mostly nonwhite and many Hispanic illegal aliens or noncitizens — convicted of violent felonies and serious narcotic (not marijuana) distribution felonies. Good to know that in some states, the votes of decent peaceful citizens can now be cancelled out by the votes of murderers, rapists, armed robbers, home invaders, and dealers of deadly highly-addictive drugs (cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and Fentanyl).
      148. @Anonymous
        Support for Sanders style big spending is popular even in Argentina, Latin America's most European and advanced major country. Argentina has had frequent economic crises and debt defaults because of the profligate government spending policies its voters support. It's about to have its 9th debt default.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2019-09-11/one-country-eight-defaults-the-argentine-debacles

        One Country, Eight Defaults: The Argentine Debacles

        Argentina is, by nearly all accounts, catapulting toward default after running up more than $100 billion of debt. Some say it’s just months away. Others say it’s actually already happened on a small portion of bonds.

        For even the casual observer, the whole thing has a certain feeling of deja vu. The South American nation is a defaulting machine with few peers in the world.

        The first episode came in 1827, just 11 years after independence. The most recent one came in 2014. In between, there were six others of varying size and form, according to Carmen Reinhart, a Harvard University economist. Almost all of them were preceded by boom periods as, perhaps most famously, when European migrants transformed Argentina into an agricultural powerhouse and one of the world’s wealthiest countries by the late 19th century. Invariably, profligate spending, combined with easy access to capital supplied by overzealous foreign creditors, did the nation in.

        “The big narrative is always that there’s no fiscal discipline,” said Benjamin Gedan, director of the Argentina Project at the Wilson Center in Washington. “They want to import products that require dollars, they overspend and borrow in dollars, and they don’t generate dollars because they have a closed economy. And so it’s this endless cycle. That’s the story every time.”
         

        Support for Sanders style big spending is popular even in Argentina, Latin America’s most European and advanced major country.

        Uruguay is South America’s most European country.

        • Agree: Autochthon
        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        Perhaps costa rica is in the same general demographic and cultural ballpark, too? Costa Rica has a lot of American, British, and European expatriates, typically white retirees, relative to its tiny population.
        , @Keypusher
        He said “major country.” That excludes Uruguay.

        Uruguayan demographics probably aren’t all that different from Argentina’s anyway, whatever that map someone posted may claim.
        , @Reg Cæsar

        Uruguay is South America’s most European country.
         
        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PMEsiJT6tSY


        Abbey Road before Abbey Road!



        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9s7ocLyxo
      149. @Corvinus
        I would venture to say the majority of Americans decide what interests are important to them that they think will benefit the country. So you are in a way saying your nation’s interests reflect a preference that others ought to follow.

        You seem to think everybody is a good judge of their own interests. Clearly a lot of people are not.

        Your act is old and it was always stupid. Nobody cares what you think. You’re a yammering nitwit.

        • Agree: Poco
        • Replies: @Corvinus
        Most people do understand quite well their own interests. How elitist to think otherwise.
      150. @Hail
        Interesting development:

        Bernie Boycotts AIPAC.

        Bernie Sanders has just announced he will be boycotting AIPAC, has publicly rejected AIPAC's invitation to their gala conference. In publicly announcing this, he cited Israeli brutality against Palestinians and said that AIPAC provides a "platform" for "bigots."

        It would be more impressive if he denounced it, and similar organizations, for having undo influence on American affairs. But I don’t think he would cross that line.

        • Agree: Hail
      151. @ATBOTL
        Trump even endorsed anti-Trump, pro-immigration incumbents over pro-Trump, anti-immigration challengers. There has been zero shift in the GOP at national or state level on immigration.

        Trump even endorsed anti-Trump, pro-immigration incumbents over pro-Trump, anti-immigration challengers.

        Indeed. He is either a fraud or a moron. Or both.

        • Replies: @Stan
        Trump only cares about results. Winning!!!!!!!!!
      152. @Hibernian
        Nevada was admitted to the Union during the Civil War to bolster the Republican majority, when it had no business being a state. Since WW2 it has developed a substantial urban population concentrated in a very small portion of its land area. A lot of the Federal land in the west could be privatized (which I favor) or returned to the States (which I don't.) A lot of Nevada's is just plain wasteland which isn't suitable even for sheep ranching.

        A lot of the Federal land in the west could be privatized

        And that’s why you are a cuck. It’s always about mone, economic utility. How about just leaving the land be, so that future generations can chill out there and do……….nothing. Just do nothing. Wow, what an idea, just do nothing.

        • Replies: @Hibernian
        I said a lot, not all. Grazing land should belong to the ranchers, and we could pay down some of the national debt. An old fashioned idea, to be sure. East of the Mississippi, the vast majority of the land is privately owned. when somebody owns something, they have an incentive to take care of it.
      153. @nebulafox
        >I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy.

        A lot of Mexican-Americans on lower socioeconomic strata don't like mass immigration because they understand the threat that poses to their economic interests, particularly when it is from Central American countries which they hold in contempt. But fortunately for the Democrats, they like free-market fundamentalism even less. This was the point that Karl Rove and Company never understood. Family values + amnesty != masses of blue-collar Hispanic voters ready to embrace Chamber of Commerce favored economic policies. Even their white counterparts vote GOP largely in spite of their economic platform, not because of it. (That, and what else can you do when the other party holds you in existential contempt?)

        The GOP has a very simple path forward to political victory in the future: tack left on domestic economic issues, above all on de-oligarchizing/de-rentiering American society. The donors largely vote Democrat these days anyway, so why the heck not? Remain to the right on assimilation/crime/immigration/anti-SJWism. Embrace Hamiltonianism on free trade, and embrace realist anti-interventionism on foreign policy. Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays, and start focusing on important stuff like progressives who clearly despise their own society, wish for permanent revolution, and oligarchs that abet them because they profit from social atomization. That's what'll win. Forget liberal vs. conservative, make this about nationalist vs. globalist, and not just because that'll build a big tent: that's what it is in REALITY.

        Of course that’s the correct move for the Repubs. After Trump—whether next January or in 2025—the plutocrats will regain control and drive the party into oblivion.

        • Replies: @nebulafox
        I don't think so. Look carefully at younger guys like Marco Rubio who were busy defending GOP orthodoxy in 2016. They can see where the future is and are shifting accordingly, from an ideological perspective. Bushism/Romneyism is dead as a dodo. Ironically, this would be far harder to deny but for Donald Trump winning the White House, because he's kept 80s nostalgia on life support.

        Money can only take you so far. If you stamp your feet and insist that candidates take up losing positions if they want your cash, then less are going to take your cash over time. The oligarchization of the US is so deeply entrenched and visible at this point that voters are willing to gravitate toward nearly anybody who *might* buck donor orthodoxy, in either party.
      154. @Hail
        That is uncanny; Did you see it somewhere or is this a Reg Cæsar original?

        I simply did a Google image search in two tabs, and chose the two that most resembled each other.

        That was the only one in which ET’s mouth was open– Liz should really take after him. Her mouth was shut in none of hers. At least on the first page.

      155. @Hibernian
        Brooklyn, transplanted to Vermont, with a stopover in Chicago. Queens is the second least Jewish of the boroughs after Staten Island, although it is the home of Simon and Garfunkel and James Caan.

        You’re right. Don’t know why I was thinking of Queens.

      156. @Jonathan Mason

        Where does this ‘government’ get all these things? That’s someone else’s problem.
         
        But it is all a matter of degree. Do you want a government that does not provide roads or schools. Abolish the military and border patrol?

        Once you accept that government can collect taxes and provide services, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which services we can afford to provide. Every economically developed country has universal health care as well as some that are not so economically advanced, and in all of those countries medical bankruptcies are practically unknown, or a tiny fraction of the number in the US.

        One possible exception is China where medical care is all fee for service.

        Yes, the US is not objectively so impoverished as to not be able to afford what other countries can afford, even Cuba, for God's sake.

        It is just that many people in our country (the US) believe that our method of financing health care, while incredibly inefficient, is somehow morally superior to what everyone else has.

        I have a friend whose wife died of cancer a few years ago. During her terminal illness he had to quit his job so that the family could obtain Medicaid after their job-related insurance was maxed out.

        Unfortunately before this happened, the family were medically advised to try a very expensive treatment that might prolong her life, and the wife being very sick, the husband signed his name to some papers, as a result of which he became legally responsible for vast debts incurred for her treatment, and to this day owes half a million dollars to the hospital. He is only paying a nominal amount, but they have put a lien on his house and property, so that when he dies, they will take it.

        In community property states the surviving spouse is held responsible for the medical costs of the dead spouse even if they have not signed anything, so there might be some advantage in obtaining a divorce when the spouse is diagnosed with a terminal illness.

        http://www.carbonelaw.com/2015/01/divorce-one-terminally-ill/

        That, my friends, is how the health care system works in the US. When I explain to Americans that this situation hardly ever occurs in other developed nations, this is beyond their comprehension, because they have never known anything else. Americans just accept that a serious terminal illness probably equals bankruptcy, and that is the way it always has been and always will be, and always ought to be.

        Under their philosophy of "better dead than red" they would rather die bankrupt than have their loved ones die under what they call "communism", even though any form of insurance or social security is really a type of communism, when you think about it.

        Of course not all Americans think this way, and the upcoming election may even show that they are in a minority. In which case there will probably be a high rate of suicide among the better dead than red crowd.

        The people on this board don’t want to hear stuff like this. They just want to say anything that they don’t like is “communism”, hear how Sanders is going to take their stuff with a Khmer Rouge style army to give it to lazy people who don’t work, and ignore that we already have socialism in this country, but it’s only really directed toward our wealthy oligarchs.

        Also keep in mind that “welfare/socialism/communism” is any benefit someone else, especially [the African-American community], gets from the government.

      157. @HammerJack
        How much does Texas matter when Florida's already tipping? Immigration and felon enfranchisement have wrapped that one up. Is there some legitimate path to Electoral College victory that doesn't include Florida?

        For the Dems without Florida, yes. For the republicans, very difficult. Florida has 29 electoral votes.

        If the republicans lose those, they’d have to flip Minnesota (10 EVs), quite possible, plus smaller States such as New Hampshire (4) and Maine (3 left, as trump got 1 of the 4).

        12 Washington, dubious
        9 Colorado, getting simultaneously mexicanized and californicated
        6 Nevada, feasible but not improving
        5 New Mexico, barely feasible as I think Trump and Gary Johnson together narrowly beat Clinton

        Virginia 13 is moving increasingly out of reach, primarily due to mass immigration.

        • Agree: Houston 1992
        • Replies: @Mr McKenna
        Sounds like the Republicans absolutely must win Florida, since several of those alternatives are well-nigh impossible. Their chances of winning states like Washington, Colorado, and now Virginia are roughly nil.

        The trouble is, between felon voting and mass immigration, Florida will be [D] territory forever more. And, I'm afraid, so goes America. The Dems have monster states like Calif & NY which will happily vote for a ham sandwich so long as it's Democratic. What states do the Reps have to match those? Even Texas is in play nowadays.
      158. @Hapalong Cassidy
        I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.

        He could, however, pick the African male lieutenant governor of … MICHIGAN.

        UH-OH.

      159. @Twodees Partain
        I see that you misspelled "wetback". Are you sure you're from south Texas? ;-)

        Could be. Nobody in real south Texas speaks English.

      160. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
        @RadicalCenter
        So the theory is, don’t worry too much about Texas because we are only losing the vote of the single largest and fastest-growing group in the State by 11 points in some races and 29 points in others?

        This sounds like, “sure, we’ll lose money on each item sold, but we’ll make it up in volume.”

        Yes, Hispanics in Texas are less leftist both economically and socially than Hispanics in California, but that means merely a somewhat slower descent into a less intelligent, dirtier, less orderly, less trusting, and more impoverished society. Massive Hispanic immigration spells permanent defeat for any fiscally conservative or limited constitutional government party — and probably makes authoritarian government and more constrained civil liberties inevitable as well. Not as if we are doing well in those areas in still-white regions either, honestly....

        Yes, Hispanics in Texas are less leftist both economically and socially than Hispanics in California, but that means merely a somewhat slower descent into a less intelligent, dirtier, less orderly, less trusting, and more impoverished society. Massive Hispanic immigration spells permanent defeat for any fiscally conservative or limited constitutional government party — and probably makes authoritarian government and more constrained civil liberties inevitable as well. Not as if we are doing well in those areas in still-white regions either, honestly….

        The problem is not that they are “Hispanics” , in the sense of “hispanic” meaning “of, or relating to , Spain”. The problem is that they are Mesoamerican aboriginals and mestizos. In fact, they are mostly the people who can’t prosper in their native countries because they are bovine and not very intelligent.

        As one commenter summed things up with clarity:

        The mestizos are, after all, acting rationally. It is we who are not.

        Labor is valueless in Mexico because in Mexico, corruption and the threat of confiscation of capital mean no one will invest there, or if they will they will demand a very high rate of return so as to pay off the investment before it is stolen or confiscated.

        The government of Mexico is corrupt and socialist because that is the government that suits Mexicans. They might grumble a little at these things, but only because they don’t get the spoils, not because they are malum in se. To them they are part of the natural order, like the urges to eat, have sex and make lowriders out of 1964 Chevys.

        Importing Mexicans makes economic sense for businesses that leverage Mexican labor with American management. The Mexicans work cheap and don’t expect medical benefits, won’t sue for frivolous or legitimate reasons, and while they might steal a little lumber or paint or defecate in the customers’ shrubbery, won’t steal their customer lists, won’t break into their computers, won’t learn their business and compete with them in two years. Their sons won’t compete for high school gridiron glory and pom-pom p***y with those of the business owners’, unlike the brighter sons of the white workers they displaced.

        The business owners will pay a little more in taxes because the Mexicans will go to the hospital when they are sick or pregnant, and not pay any bills. So will everyone else’s, but the business owners will pocket all the profits while others pay most all of the costs. They will also pay for the cost of arresting, trying and jailing the Mexicans when they get unruly or decide to ignore gringo law, or when the truly violent and criminal amongst them do their stuff in the United States with its far target-richer environment and cushy jails. But the real catastrophe is that when the illegal Mexicans produce a child, it is instantly an American citizen by law.

        The evidence shows that these American born children will still vote, participate in civic affairs and look at the world in general just like their parents-in other words, like Mexicans. California is living proof of that. They will vote for socialist leaders that promise them short term free stuff and piss off the gringos. If those politicians take bribes and are caught they won’t care. They will go to school for awhile, but the girls will get pregnant and drop out and the boys will get into fights, smoke pot, drink booze, drive and wreck cars, and drop out too. Not all, but the statistics will point that way. They will get entry level jobs and stay there a long time. Over decades, an elite will evolve, but for the masses life will go on like it always has.

        Meanwhile the rest of the country slowly changes, because of the greater political corruption, the disdain for progress, the lack of ambition to do things like go to the moon, build the Panama Canal, or do the other stuff those gringos did for reasons that will no longer make any sense to anyone. Government revenue will slow until the system has to be repudiated, and the currency will implode, but who cares? That happens in Latin America all the time. Our military will become like Mexico’s, or if we are lucky, Argentina’s.

        Lest you think I am just prejudiced against Mexicans, just go back and replace “Mexico” and “Mexicans” with any other non-European nation and its denizens, besides Japan, Taiwan, or maybe South Korea. It all still fits, except for the part about lowriderizing ’64 Chevys of course.

        • Replies: @Mr McKenna
        Strong stuff. Thanks.
      161. @ATBOTL
        Trump even endorsed anti-Trump, pro-immigration incumbents over pro-Trump, anti-immigration challengers. There has been zero shift in the GOP at national or state level on immigration.

        Trump even endorsed anti-Trump, pro-immigration incumbents over pro-Trump, anti-immigration challengers.

        I presume Trump supports strong established candidates over weak, unknown, unproven candidates. Trump probably also supports candidates that have better odds in competing against the Democrats. Those may be more important factors to Trump.

        Trump isn’t a strict immigration-restrictionist ideologue. Trump is flexible. Trump chose to moderate on immigration, and that will probably help for his 2020 re-election odds to be seen as a moderate rather than an extremist.

      162. @Jonathan Mason

        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?
         
        Sailer says that Hispanics tend to vote for what is best for them, as opposed to many white working class voters who vote against their own economic interests, due to certain ideals that they may hold.

        For example, for a significant number of Americans abortion is the only political issue that counts and they just want to vote for the candidate who most opposes abortion, regardless of all else. Sailer is saying that Hispanics are pretty laissez-faire on issues like abortion. They might believe it is sinful, or regrettable, but they are not awfully concerned about whether other racial groups have access to legal abortion or not, and they are not going to vote against their own economic interests just because of abortion.

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says). Now, if you happen to be a middle manager with a health insurance company whose main concern is job security, it is obvious that you will not want to vote for Sanders.

        Great comment!

        Honestly, ideologues are mostly dimwitted and/or gullible.

        They’ve also started a lot of unnecessary wars over the past couple of centuries.

        • Replies: @nebulafox
        To loosely quote Lee Kwan Yew, one of the most objectively successful politicians of the modern era, if a policy sounds good, try it. If it works, keep it. If it doesn't, throw it out and try another one.

        You could do far worse than that as a governing philosophy.
      163. @Mr. Anon

        But the Republicans can’t say nobody warned them.
         
        Kevin McCarthy ( (R) California - House Minority Leader) was on Laura Ingraham's show last week. She was lamenting how California had changed, mentioning that as recently as the 80s, Republicans won state-wide offices and how it helped elect Ronald Reagan. McCarthy, wide-eyed and chipper, said that the GOP would get California back.

        What an idiot.

        These GOP goobers don't understand that they are being turned into Boers in their own country by the 3rd World demographic tide. They'll still be yammering on about America being a shining city on a hill long after its been turned into a stinking favela on a garbage heap.

        “These GOP goobers don’t understand that they are being turned into Boers in their own country by the 3rd World demographic tide. They’ll still be yammering on about America being a shining city on a hill long after its been turned into a stinking favela on a garbage heap.”

        They understand, they don’t care. They have lucrative jobs waiting for them after their political careers are over. Paul Ryan, John Boehner and others use their contacts in DC to make fortune after retirement from their political careers. They have money to insulate themselves from the dire consequences of open borders.

        • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
        Do they understand?

        What is the old saying about being difficult to understand what you are paid not to understand?
      164. @Mr. Anon

        Trump even endorsed anti-Trump, pro-immigration incumbents over pro-Trump, anti-immigration challengers.
         
        Indeed. He is either a fraud or a moron. Or both.

        Trump only cares about results. Winning!!!!!!!!!

      165. @Hibernian
        Nevada was admitted to the Union during the Civil War to bolster the Republican majority, when it had no business being a state. Since WW2 it has developed a substantial urban population concentrated in a very small portion of its land area. A lot of the Federal land in the west could be privatized (which I favor) or returned to the States (which I don't.) A lot of Nevada's is just plain wasteland which isn't suitable even for sheep ranching.

        Why should federal land be privatized?

        The useful land is rented to mines, loggers, farmers ranchers and other businesses. So capitalism uses the land for useful purposes and the government gets to keep it. The national parks belong to all of us and should stay in federal hands. And a lot of western and mountain federal land is just useless moonscape. Let the feds keep it.

        Financially, it’s often better for ranchers and farmers to lease the land and easier for the owner to collect rent than run a farm operation. Same with mining. Lease the land, extract the resource and leave when the mine runs out.

        Even some of the rice farms in Ca. are on state and federal land. There are thousands of gold claims on state and federal land as well. The lessors don’t get much gold, but it’s a nice cheap vacation home. Worse comes to worse, live on the gold claim, get welfare and be an old hippie hillbilly. There’s some really cheap trailer parks in the S California desert on state and federal land too.

        It’s not as though the land isn’t being used. It is used by all sorts of businesses and it’s cheaper to lease it than buy it.

        • Replies: @Autochthon
        I expect you "could care less," but the expression is "if worse comes to worst."

        (Worse is already worse; that's the law of identity.)
      166. Bernie Wins Majority of Hispanics in Nevada

        Now that he’s won them, where is he going to store them all?

        Other times, as with the Center for Biological Diversity’s condom giveaway from 2010, the lifetime supply is a round number presented without explanation. The Center for Biological Diversity pinned a lifetime supply at 1,000 condoms, which, assuming a 60-year adult lifespan, breaks down to about 17 condoms a year.

        https://slate.com/business/2012/09/win-a-years-supply-what-does-that-mean.html

      167. @MBlanc46
        Of course that’s the correct move for the Repubs. After Trump—whether next January or in 2025—the plutocrats will regain control and drive the party into oblivion.

        I don’t think so. Look carefully at younger guys like Marco Rubio who were busy defending GOP orthodoxy in 2016. They can see where the future is and are shifting accordingly, from an ideological perspective. Bushism/Romneyism is dead as a dodo. Ironically, this would be far harder to deny but for Donald Trump winning the White House, because he’s kept 80s nostalgia on life support.

        Money can only take you so far. If you stamp your feet and insist that candidates take up losing positions if they want your cash, then less are going to take your cash over time. The oligarchization of the US is so deeply entrenched and visible at this point that voters are willing to gravitate toward nearly anybody who *might* buck donor orthodoxy, in either party.

        • Replies: @Gabe Ruth
        If getting money to win elections was ever the primary reason to court donors with socially hostile policy preferences, Trump should have ended that practice for good. The motivation has more to do with life after politics. That goes for pretty much all Republicans and a majority of Democrats.

        The only way out is policies that reduce wealth concentration. Or we will get money abolished in blood.
        , @MBlanc46
        We shall see.
      168. @S. Anonyia
        Great comment!

        Honestly, ideologues are mostly dimwitted and/or gullible.

        They've also started a lot of unnecessary wars over the past couple of centuries.

        To loosely quote Lee Kwan Yew, one of the most objectively successful politicians of the modern era, if a policy sounds good, try it. If it works, keep it. If it doesn’t, throw it out and try another one.

        You could do far worse than that as a governing philosophy.

        • Replies: @anon
        if a policy sounds good, try it. If it works, keep it. If it doesn’t, throw it out and try another one.

        Harry Truman said something similar in the 1940's. However in the US we never quite seem to get around to the "throw it out" stage. Perhaps because unlike Singapore, the US is a continent-sized country with a lot of competing interests. So "policy" is a blob that grows without bound, feeding upon older policies.

        Most people have no idea what it is like to try to change "policy", either.
      169. @Anon

        Donald Trump believes in whatever is in his mind that minute... he’s a con artist.
         
        Trump has a degree from the top Ivy League business school, has written numerous NYT bestsellers, was star in a number one prime-time TV show, amassed billions of dollars of personal wealth from real estate in Manhattan and golf courses throughout the world, and on his first attempt to run for political office won the U.S. Presidency.

        But of course, he’s just a con artist and you could do better. 🤣

        The best example of Trump being a con artist is that people like our anonymous troll actually believe this. In reality 1) Trump has a BA from UPenn, he did not graduate from the “business school” .2) His bestsellers were ghostwritten 3) he is not a billionaire after you account for his debts and he has had far more financial success as a reality star playing a real estate developer than actually being a real estate developer.

        • Replies: @Hibernian

        1) Trump has a BA from UPenn, he did not graduate from the “business school”
         
        Wharton is unusual for a B-school of an elite private university in that it has an undergraduate program, from which The donald graduated.
      170. @Corvinus
        I would venture to say the majority of Americans decide what interests are important to them that they think will benefit the country. So you are in a way saying your nation’s interests reflect a preference that others ought to follow.

        As I’ve pointed out here before, constant commenter Corvinus, or, in Italian, La Gazza Ladra, is not anti-white, but pro-stupid-white. That’s probably more destructive in the long run.

      171. Bernie, or one of his rivals, might make headlines with this proposal:

        An Indonesian government minister has come up with a surprising suggestion to fix his nation’s poverty rate – for poor people to marry the wealthy

        He went as far as pushing for a “fatwa” – a ruling on a point of Islamic law – to be issued to require mixed-class marriages.

        Under his hypothetical fatwa, “the poor are required to look for the rich (for marriage) and the rich should look for the poor”.

        He also suggested a “premarital certification program” which would mean couples planning to tie the knot who were not financially secure would have to get a “pre-employment card” from a government program.

        “The goal is that after marriage, the couples will form economically stable households,” he said

        Indonesian politician says poverty can be fixed if rich marry poor

      172. @SFG
        Before Bloomberg crashed, it was a 3-way race between a Jewish guy from Brooklyn, a Jewish guy from Massachusetts who spent most of his life in Manhattan, and a guy from Queens with Jewish grandkids.

        I still half-think older liberal Jews pathologically hate Trump because he reminds them too much of their construction worker uncle.

        • Replies: @Daniel H
        I still half-think older liberal Jews pathologically hate Trump because he reminds them too much of their construction worker uncle.

        Norman Lear has said that he based the Archie Bunker character on his own father.
        , @Alden
        Their union construction worker uncle who made more money than they did and married a red headed Irish beauty.
      173. @nebulafox
        I still half-think older liberal Jews pathologically hate Trump because he reminds them too much of their construction worker uncle.

        I still half-think older liberal Jews pathologically hate Trump because he reminds them too much of their construction worker uncle.

        Norman Lear has said that he based the Archie Bunker character on his own father.

      174. @nebulafox
        I still half-think older liberal Jews pathologically hate Trump because he reminds them too much of their construction worker uncle.

        Their union construction worker uncle who made more money than they did and married a red headed Irish beauty.

      175. @Stan
        "These GOP goobers don’t understand that they are being turned into Boers in their own country by the 3rd World demographic tide. They’ll still be yammering on about America being a shining city on a hill long after its been turned into a stinking favela on a garbage heap."


        They understand, they don't care. They have lucrative jobs waiting for them after their political careers are over. Paul Ryan, John Boehner and others use their contacts in DC to make fortune after retirement from their political careers. They have money to insulate themselves from the dire consequences of open borders.

        Do they understand?

        What is the old saying about being difficult to understand what you are paid not to understand?

      176. @Hapalong Cassidy
        I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.

        • Agree: Mr McKenna, Jack D, Lot

        Finally, we all agree on something!

      177. Warren couldn’t care less about Hispanic prole voters. Her use of Latinx was intended to strip away the (white, educated) people who care about such things from the Sanders coalition.

        hashtag free Aimee Terese

      178. @OscarWildeLoveChild
        As a Hispanic (I don't use "Latino" for myself), who is white, I can tell you, it is what they want to believe. Like the people that go around saying "but blind people have better hearing" (or vice versa) it's a sort of early "meme" if you will, based upon wishful thinking and some anecdotal experiences, mixed in with lots of transparently self-serving stereotypes.

        Someone meets a few blacks who like to hoot and holler in church and talk about giving their kids the belt, and how homosexuality is wrong, and they think they and all blacks are conservative. The truth is, those same blacks voted democrat and are very non-religious in their personal life. Most blacks do not live anything like a religious or pious life, but Hannity will still claim it because he has a "black church sings the old hymns" CD and he imagines a 1940s "don't chew sas your mama" world, full of strong black families that just want good jobs, like working in a Ford plant, etc.

        Similarly, someone meets some Latinos that "switched over" from being Catholics to join their Evangelical, non-denominational church, and they too, think abortion is wrong, and that all that "gay stuff es loco", but what that white person (like Hannity) doesn't get--usually those Latinos still vote democrat. In the end, we like having a public policy that brings in more people like us, and other than actual (especially fiscal) conservative Hispanics/Latinos, even the white ones tend to resent "Anglos" (a generic and incorrect term used in our culture for all non-Latino whites). The whole England vs. Spain thing--it never went away. We are the "other white people" and seeing your people diluted is good for us-or so my people say. It's not of course, but that's the thinking.

        Weird. I was going to Brooks Brothers the day after Christmas, and watching Britcoms. I think my parents fell down on the Anglophobia job. They did have this weird jones for European culture. I had the vague idea there was some England-Spain thing but I thought it had died with the Armada.

        Maybe it was being white-skinned in a diverse city?

      179. @vinny
        Noteworthy that Sanders also massively won voters under 45. Lots of overlap with Latinos of course. But I guess young people want Medicare too. Hard to blame them since they're the ones paying for it.

        Noteworthy that Sanders also massively won voters under 45. Lots of overlap with Latinos of course. But I guess young people want Medicare too. Hard to blame them since they’re the ones paying for it.

        Speaking as someone who’s paid into Medicare for his entire working life, but who’s nowhere near old enough to qualify, where do I fit into your scheme?

        Sanders didn’t dominate so convincingly with voters over 45, but perhaps voters over 65 should be separated out instead. Along with AAs, old people are the main Dems in favor of Biden. Both groups watch lots of TV though, so might tilt toward Bloomberg… What with all the commercials.

        Heck, I’m seeing Bloomberg trolls on all sorts of web forums, including this one. They prattle on about ‘Mike’ and ‘Mayor Mike’ like he’s just their buddy, and exhibit almost exactly the same tone as product placements in movies.

      180. @Hapalong Cassidy
        I could see Sanders offering the VP slot to Warren, which would completely head off any chance of a brokered convention. Warren is also the candidate with views most similar to his own, which would assure his policies continue if he shuffles off during his first term. A big mistake would be picking a radical black like Stacey Abrams, who would probably scare enough swing votes away to lose to Trump. And Trump supporters shouldn’t be salivating at the opportunity to take on Sanders. The GOP strategy seems to be to scream “Socialism”
        as if that were enough.

        Abrams apparently defended Bloomberg after her organization took $5 million from him.

        Yup, it’s good to be rich.

      181. @Bugg
        More recent Latino arrivals are more inclined to vote for socialism. There's plenty of it south of the border. There's no reason for them not to vote for Sanders. Dems have been selling socialism for a very long time. As Bon Scott might say, if you want socialism, you got it.

        More recent Latino arrivals are more inclined to vote for socialism.

        I believe that’s true. Latinos aren’t as inclined to be as inflexibly democrat as blacks, but there are a bunch. What I have seen is that group really doesn’t give a crap about immigration policy (except maybe for family, if even then), but they do care about welfare, section 8 housing vouchers, etc., etc.

        Basically, everything south of the border, or in the Carribean is a ‘what’s in it for me’ culture.

      182. @Twodees Partain
        I see that you misspelled "wetback". Are you sure you're from south Texas? ;-)

        I didn’t misspell it. I am always just leary of getting either Sailer or Unz in trouble for badspeak on the site.

        • Replies: @Twodees Partain
        'Wetback' ain't badspeak. Even Tejanos use that term.
      183. @OscarWildeLoveChild
        As a Hispanic (I don't use "Latino" for myself), who is white, I can tell you, it is what they want to believe. Like the people that go around saying "but blind people have better hearing" (or vice versa) it's a sort of early "meme" if you will, based upon wishful thinking and some anecdotal experiences, mixed in with lots of transparently self-serving stereotypes.

        Someone meets a few blacks who like to hoot and holler in church and talk about giving their kids the belt, and how homosexuality is wrong, and they think they and all blacks are conservative. The truth is, those same blacks voted democrat and are very non-religious in their personal life. Most blacks do not live anything like a religious or pious life, but Hannity will still claim it because he has a "black church sings the old hymns" CD and he imagines a 1940s "don't chew sas your mama" world, full of strong black families that just want good jobs, like working in a Ford plant, etc.

        Similarly, someone meets some Latinos that "switched over" from being Catholics to join their Evangelical, non-denominational church, and they too, think abortion is wrong, and that all that "gay stuff es loco", but what that white person (like Hannity) doesn't get--usually those Latinos still vote democrat. In the end, we like having a public policy that brings in more people like us, and other than actual (especially fiscal) conservative Hispanics/Latinos, even the white ones tend to resent "Anglos" (a generic and incorrect term used in our culture for all non-Latino whites). The whole England vs. Spain thing--it never went away. We are the "other white people" and seeing your people diluted is good for us-or so my people say. It's not of course, but that's the thinking.

        The whole England vs. Spain thing–it never went away.

        Nor did the whole England ♥ Portugal thing. “Our oldest ally.”

        History of Port Wine

        English merchants arrived in the city of Porto looking for a substitute for French wine when, in 1678, England and France entered into a war. The French government had launched a series of measures to restrict imports of British goods in their country, and the British government stopped trade with France. So, Porto was this alternative source of supply they were looking to find.

        But the wine got off on the long journey to England, and the need to preserve it led the merchants to add brandy to it. This stabilized the wine and allowed it to withstand the temperatures and humidity of boat trips. This mix excited the English, encouraging them to settle in the city and open their own cellars there. Hence, there are so many British names in the brands.

        https://catshostels.com/types-of-port-wine-wine-from-porto/

        Port wine was the Old World child. Bossa nova was the New World grandchild.

      184. Speaking as a Canadian, I don’t see what the fuss is about Bernie’s universal health care. Almost every First World white country has some form of it except the USA, and they’re not all borderline commies.

        However, they don’t suffer from an open border with Mexico either, or have a vast dark underclass of freeloaders(yet).

        If Republicans had brought in universal health care in the 1960’s like they should have, they could’ve had a winning reason to oppose open borders. (Instead you got the 1965 Immigration Act).

        • Replies: @Mr McKenna

        I don’t see what the fuss is about Bernie’s universal health care. Almost every First World white country has some form of it except the USA
         
        Maybe half of the white people in the USA are comparable to the populations of nations such as Denmark and Holland. We simply don't have the culture--much less the population--to make something like UHC work in this country. We're half third-world, essentially, and rapidly worsening.
      185. @South Texas Guy
        I didn't misspell it. I am always just leary of getting either Sailer or Unz in trouble for badspeak on the site.

        ‘Wetback’ ain’t badspeak. Even Tejanos use that term.

      186. @Anonymous
        Well self interest isnt exactly the highest level of cognition. More the most base, presumably the language barrier plays a large role in most of this. Reinforced by the lack of interest most shared before the emperor took the stage.

        In a nation and ancient cultural tradition of youthful idealism that permeates norther European races it just gets overlooked that other groups think, " is it good for us ? " first.

        When the northerners catch on they are being scammed however... watch out.

        “Self interest isn’t exactly the highest level of cognition”

        Actually, when one ponders deeply about their place in the world and how they can be impacted by outside forces, the amount of intellectual horsepower displayed is demonstrably high.

        And what “scam” are you referring to?

      187. @gabriel alberton

        And I can’t help but NOTICE how Mr Sailor butchers the characterization of Hispanic voters. But that’s just Steve being Steve.
         
        What would be a less butchered characterization, then, in your opinion, not Sailer's? Myself, from all what I've seen and know, US Hispanic voters behave rather like my fellow Brazilians when it comes to elections, and tend not to mind much one way or the other. With some rhetorical exaggeration, it's mostly you whites, and to a lesser extent blacks, who care to vote. (Here, turnout in the last presidential election was around 80%, without counting "blank'' and "null'' votes, even though voting is compulsory, takes place on a Sunday, and not doing so without justification causes quite a few problems)

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Voter_Turnout_by_Race-Ethnicity%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png

        Hispanics are a lot more nuanced in their approach to politics and voting than Sailer is telling you.

      188. It’s all over. Marianne Williamson has just endorsed Bernie.

        “This time, the Bern will win.”

        • Replies: @Autochthon
        She should sell milfy pin-up posters and prance around in a thong at rallies to stir up the Bernie Bros for larger campaign contributions.
        , @prosa123
        Sanders is only 12 years older than Williamson but looks like he could be her grandfather.
      189. @Hibernian

        Shut up about stupid stuff like abortion and gays...
         
        And boys who call themselves girls competing in girls' sports and destroying them?

        And boys who call themselves girls competing in girls’ sports and destroying them?

        The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

      190. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
        "will the DNC try to use the superdelegates to steal the nomination from Bernie?"

        In 2016 it was easier to do that, since Hillary had the majority of the superdelegates locked up before she even officially announced her candidacy. It was all supposed to be a crowning ceremony, for all that she had done for loyal decades of service to the party. What she didn't expect was that Bernie would put up a strong fight to the finish the way that he did.

        This time, however, there is no one single candidate for whom the superdelegates can rally behind. So many of the other six or seven little indians will receive a number of superdelegates and thus cancel one another out.

        So again, Hispanics may definitely prove to be Bernie's firewall in the primaries. All he has to do is do respectable with blacks and he wins the nomination. Also he is wise to have party leftists such as AOC help campaign with him to attract Latino voters as well.

        And, Bernie's voters are for the most part, all in. They have skin in the game, they are passionately fanatical about their candidate. And this is translating to actual votes and delegates. If the people in the party get to speak (and so far they have in the ballot box) then Bernie wins.

        It's his turn, and his time.

        I’d add that superdelegates made up 20% of all dem President is delegates in 2016, down to 15% this year. And this time they don’t get to vote on the first ballot. Both presumably good changes for sanders.

        But I understand that after the first ballot, all delegates become uncommitted. Even if Sanders has nearly half of all elected delegates, the majority of non-Sanders delegates could join most superdelegates to defeat sanders on the second ballot.

        Given how sanders caved after his voters were blatantly ripped off by the DNC and Clinton in 2026, I’m not confident that he would decline to endorse whomever the dnc and superdelegates pick in his stead. But perhaps enough of his supporters would stay home, or vote Green, to get trump re-elected.

        Neither scenario appears good for Americans, though I’ll take the relatively somewhat less bad judicial nominations and self defense / gun policies of a repub admin over the Dems.

        • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

        Even if Sanders has nearly half of all elected delegates, the majority of non-Sanders delegates could join most superdelegates to defeat sanders on the second ballot.
         
        Theoretically, yes, but it would be electoral suicide as many Sanders supporters would not vote for a centrist candidate and the compromise candidate would have little chance of beating Trump unless they could get a strong turnout of black and hispanic voters. The Democratic Party would have more chance if it just got behind Sanders.

        In the US the usual turnout of voters is quite low compared to most democracies, so the most important characteristic of a candidate for November is that he can arouse enough enthusiasm to get voters away from the fireside and the TV after a hard day at work.
      191. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
        White Southerners are, at the end of the day, still white. And whites for the most part, are economically better off than most minorities (e.g. blacks, latinos in particular).

        A large and growing number of white Americans — many millions — are no better off than the Latinos, as new jobs in most years typically go more to nonwhites: better-paying White-collar jobs to the Indians and Chinese (finance and banking, IT, Law, Government Policy, tenured academics, etc.), construction and home renovation jobs to Latinos, and so on,

        I’d focus not on mean compensation or net worth, but on the MEDIAN. We have a shrinking minority of white Americans (largely disloyal, nation-less college-“educated”, and disproportionately never-married, homosexual or barren misfits) in the high-paying jobs.

        The rest of us white Americans — any decent, normal, reasonably intelligent and productive US-born Christians trying to raise a family, actually — are either (1) struggling more than ever to get or keep such jobs, or (2) most often, far far below, trying to get or keep lower-paying insecure jobs that usually lack pensions or good medical insurance, whittled away each year by outsourcing, wage- and bargaining-power- destruction by mass immigrant competition, and increasingly automation and AI.

        MOST non-elderly WHITE AMERICANS ARE NOT DOING WELL AT ALL. They are dividing more into upper and lower classes. There is ever less real career opportunity, and less leverage against employers (as intended) for the lower and decaying middle class, and not a good outlook even for those of us clinging by our fingernails around the middle-to-upper-income area.

      192. @Alden
        Why should federal land be privatized?

        The useful land is rented to mines, loggers, farmers ranchers and other businesses. So capitalism uses the land for useful purposes and the government gets to keep it. The national parks belong to all of us and should stay in federal hands. And a lot of western and mountain federal land is just useless moonscape. Let the feds keep it.

        Financially, it’s often better for ranchers and farmers to lease the land and easier for the owner to collect rent than run a farm operation. Same with mining. Lease the land, extract the resource and leave when the mine runs out.

        Even some of the rice farms in Ca. are on state and federal land. There are thousands of gold claims on state and federal land as well. The lessors don’t get much gold, but it’s a nice cheap vacation home. Worse comes to worse, live on the gold claim, get welfare and be an old hippie hillbilly. There’s some really cheap trailer parks in the S California desert on state and federal land too.

        It’s not as though the land isn’t being used. It is used by all sorts of businesses and it’s cheaper to lease it than buy it.

        I expect you “could care less,” but the expression is “if worse comes to worst.”

        (Worse is already worse; that’s the law of identity.)

      193. @Buzz Mohawk
        It's all over. Marianne Williamson has just endorsed Bernie.

        "This time, the Bern will win."
        https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200223191746-marianne-williamson-endorses-bernie-sanders-2020-rally-austin-tx-exlarge-169.jpg

        She should sell milfy pin-up posters and prance around in a thong at rallies to stir up the Bernie Bros for larger campaign contributions.

      194. @Mr. Anon

        McCarthy is from the invite/invade/borrow wing of the GOP.
         
        Unfortunately, that pretty much IS the GOP - the whole Party, other than a very few Congressman, who are either ineffectual or irrelevant or both. I held out some hope when Trump was elected, that there might be a partial realignment of the Republican Party - that it might produce at least a significant caucus of representatives who are opposed to the ITW^2 doctrine. But it didn't happen. Certainly Trump didn't to anything to encourage it.

        By the way, here is the new (acting) White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney:

        https://www.salon.com/2020/02/23/white-house-chief-of-staff-mick-mulvaney-caught-on-tape-saying-us-is-desperate-for-more-immigrants_partner/

        Here's Mulvaney, back in 2016 revealing what he really thinks of Trump:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeCx12lT1zg

        Yet another case of The Donald elevating to an influential position somebody who a.) despises him, and b.) disagrees with him, or at least with the agenda he ran on. Trump isn't playing four dimensional chess. He's playing one dimensional Tic-Tac-Toe.

        Trump’s the kind of egotistical blowhard who cannot stand being around people who are more intelligent than he is because he finds them threatening. This phenomenon of his disordered personality is why Steve Bannon, probably the most intelligent, principled person to be a part of any presidency in at least a century, had to go.

        • Agree: Mr. Anon
      195. @J.Ross
        Hispanics went with a socialist instead of a homosexual spook, an angry billionaire, a doddering and embezzling child molester, or ... whatever Klobuchar is? Who could have foreseen this smashing upset?

        “whatever Klobuchar is”

        https://nypost.com/2019/02/13/amy-klobuchar-reportedly-threw-offices-supplies-at-employees-during-outbursts/

        Um, tape dispenser-throwing?

        One has to admire the Minnesota senator’s, cough, passion?

      196. anon[564] • Disclaimer says:
        @Paul
        I think any candidate who favors open borders is going to have a hard time winning a presidential election.

        I think any candidate who favors open borders is going to have a hard time winning a presidential election.

        No candidate will come out and say they favor open borders at the Presidential level. Multiple candidates will likely embrace policies that are de facto open borders, given the chance.

        Ignore most of what they say, watch what they do. This simple rule applies at all political levels.

      197. anon[564] • Disclaimer says:
        @nebulafox
        To loosely quote Lee Kwan Yew, one of the most objectively successful politicians of the modern era, if a policy sounds good, try it. If it works, keep it. If it doesn't, throw it out and try another one.

        You could do far worse than that as a governing philosophy.

        if a policy sounds good, try it. If it works, keep it. If it doesn’t, throw it out and try another one.

        Harry Truman said something similar in the 1940’s. However in the US we never quite seem to get around to the “throw it out” stage. Perhaps because unlike Singapore, the US is a continent-sized country with a lot of competing interests. So “policy” is a blob that grows without bound, feeding upon older policies.

        Most people have no idea what it is like to try to change “policy”, either.

      198. “…in their new book The Emerging Democratic Majority, … John Judis and Ruy Teixeira contend that in American politics, social issues are essentially a luxury item that primarily interest better-off groups.”

        Gotta admit, they got that right.

      199. @Paleo Liberal
        In fact, the GOP had prepared a massive ad campaign to discredit the Electoral College in 2000. Polls were showing Bush with a lead in the popular vote but Gore ahead in Florida. Shortly before the election, news came out about W’s cocaine use that flipped the popular vote for Gore. As for Florida? Well, the Bush family controlled the state, and there were just enough election shenanigans to throw the state to Bush.

        At that point, the Republicans who hated the Electoral College fell in love with it.

        If immigration made either Florida or Texas permanently Democratic, the parties’ positions on the EC would change again.

        While the republicans still have control of the Texas and Florida legislatures, they have one crucial task to give them some chance in future presidential elections (for a while, anyway):

        follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, and allocate one electoral vote to the candidate who wins the popular vote in each congressional district.

        That way, when the Texas and Florida electorates inevitably become majority nonwhite and majority Democrat, the republicans can still win a substantial minority of each State’s electoral votes. Perhaps slightly more than half of the electoral votes on each State in the near future, if the dem voters remain somewhat concentrated in dense urban congressional districts.

        Far better to get 40% of a big State’s electoral votes, or even 20% or 30%, than none.

        This change could spell the difference between some narrow victories and never winning again (after about 2032 at latest).

        Expect the stupid republicans NOT to bother doing it while they have the state legislative majority and the governorship in both places. After all, this is the party that went along with reenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people — mostly nonwhite and many Hispanic illegal aliens or noncitizens — convicted of violent felonies and serious narcotic (not marijuana) distribution felonies. Good to know that in some states, the votes of decent peaceful citizens can now be cancelled out by the votes of murderers, rapists, armed robbers, home invaders, and dealers of deadly highly-addictive drugs (cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and Fentanyl).

        • Agree: Hibernian
        • Replies: @ben tillman
        Better than that, they should limit the franchise to limit the impact of immigration on election results.
      200. #”brown”consultantsmatter

      201. @nebulafox
        I don't think so. Look carefully at younger guys like Marco Rubio who were busy defending GOP orthodoxy in 2016. They can see where the future is and are shifting accordingly, from an ideological perspective. Bushism/Romneyism is dead as a dodo. Ironically, this would be far harder to deny but for Donald Trump winning the White House, because he's kept 80s nostalgia on life support.

        Money can only take you so far. If you stamp your feet and insist that candidates take up losing positions if they want your cash, then less are going to take your cash over time. The oligarchization of the US is so deeply entrenched and visible at this point that voters are willing to gravitate toward nearly anybody who *might* buck donor orthodoxy, in either party.

        If getting money to win elections was ever the primary reason to court donors with socially hostile policy preferences, Trump should have ended that practice for good. The motivation has more to do with life after politics. That goes for pretty much all Republicans and a majority of Democrats.

        The only way out is policies that reduce wealth concentration. Or we will get money abolished in blood.

      202. @ben tillman

        Support for Sanders style big spending is popular even in Argentina, Latin America’s most European and advanced major country.
         
        Uruguay is South America's most European country.

        Perhaps costa rica is in the same general demographic and cultural ballpark, too? Costa Rica has a lot of American, British, and European expatriates, typically white retirees, relative to its tiny population.

        • Replies: @Autochthon
        https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2-Race-in-Latin-America.png

        Not even close.
      203. @Paul
        I think any candidate who favors open borders is going to have a hard time winning a presidential election.

        I want this to be true, but what’s the alternative? Somebody has to actually run against the open borders guy, and the billionaires won’t permit that to get off the ground. We voted for Trump to get basic government border service and he tolerates mutiny and sedition, tolerates sanctuary cities, rejects e-Verify, and “want[s] more immigration than ever.” Recall Virginia, turned into a CIA-globalist experiment not because of immigrants but because establishment Republicans refused to even try.
        Not only will they all be open borders scum, but they’ll laugh at you and directly lie when you try to get an answer about an open borders tweet they made months before: “That’s a conspiracy, nobody is for open borders!”

        • Replies: @Daniel H
        I want this to be true, but what’s the alternative?

        The alternative is to vote for Bernie to punish Trump, that which I am doing. Just say no to Cucks, always.
      204. @Mr. Anon
        You seem to think everybody is a good judge of their own interests. Clearly a lot of people are not.

        Your act is old and it was always stupid. Nobody cares what you think. You're a yammering nitwit.

        Most people do understand quite well their own interests. How elitist to think otherwise.

        • Replies: @Mr. Anon
        History suggests otherwise.

        I am unsurprised that you are so gullible. You are stupid.
      205. “Hispanic” is not a precise enough term to capture electoral demographics. Sanders maybe popular amongst Southwest Mexicans, but I do not sense any similar affinity amongst Cubans and venezuelans that dominate in Florida. My sense is that those more south american hispanics are much better candidates to become “conservative” in the US political sense.

        • Replies: @SFG
        I always liked it because (1) the left has ditched for Latino/x and (2) it refers to Spain, a European country.

        "It's a conqueror's word!"

        "Yup, and half of my ancestors did the conquering, so why not?"
      206. @AP

        If and when this tips Texas Democratic,
         
        It'll be a few elections away, at least.

        Texas Hispanics are more conservative than California ones. I assume Nevada follows next-door California.

        27% of Texas Hispanics identified as Republicans (vs. 46% Democratic) in 2014, which was a lot higher than the national average. Texas Hispanics were getting more Republican, while Hispanics outside Texas were getting less Republican:

        https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/5kartjupuuksx-ohbhlrbw.png

        (don't know to what if any extent Trump changed this)

        2018 Mid-term elections:

        https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18.11.09_LatinosMidterms_how-hispanics-voted-key-races.png

        Of Texas Hispanic Republicans, 27% identify themselves as "extremely conservative."

        https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/texas/article/Six-myths-about-Latino-Republicans-are-challenged-14484385.php

        Not so sure about that. Trump lost Texas 61% – 34% among Hispanics. Trump won Texas becaue whites voted 70% for Trump in the state.

        https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/texas/president

        In California, Trump only did slightly worse – he lost Hispanics 66% to 28%.

        https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls/national/president

        So, sure, Texas Hispanics might be a bit more conerative and/or Republican than California Hispanics. But that is not saying much. Moreover, Asians vote even more solidly for Dems than Hispanics. Add that to the 90% (or more) of blacks who vote Dem and I wouldnt count on Texas staying red much longer than 2024.

        I did see a poll about a month ago that put Bernie up over Trump in Texas by a few points. Trump should carry Texas in 2020 but it will be close (it was only 9 points in 2016). And do you see any Republicans on the horizon who will galvanize working class whites like Trump does?

      207. When I think of Hispanics voting, I think of SEIU types who are essentially told who to vote for and do so down the line without exception. Free Health Insurance (aka Single Payer) is a huge carrot for people who work but have extremely marginal economic value and will always be struggling to survive. The only ones who do climb above the daily grind do so by either getting Government jobs or becoming influential within their own communities. Give them a free purple tee shirt and a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and they will show up and bang pots together. Bernie is their guy.

      208. @Thirdeye
        If Texas does go blue, will liberals still attack the Electoral College and conservatives still defend it? It will be interesting to find out. But either way, it's an archaic institution that disenfranchises millions of voters outside of the swing states and supports the two-party lock in presidential elections.

        No, because it simply will not matter. Both the popular vote and electoral college vote will massively favor Dems.

      209. @Jonathan Mason

        So I reckon that Hispanic voters aren’t misinformed after all. How does that jibe with Sailer’s take on this group?
         
        Sailer says that Hispanics tend to vote for what is best for them, as opposed to many white working class voters who vote against their own economic interests, due to certain ideals that they may hold.

        For example, for a significant number of Americans abortion is the only political issue that counts and they just want to vote for the candidate who most opposes abortion, regardless of all else. Sailer is saying that Hispanics are pretty laissez-faire on issues like abortion. They might believe it is sinful, or regrettable, but they are not awfully concerned about whether other racial groups have access to legal abortion or not, and they are not going to vote against their own economic interests just because of abortion.

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says). Now, if you happen to be a middle manager with a health insurance company whose main concern is job security, it is obvious that you will not want to vote for Sanders.

        Jonathan Mason,
        Demographics play a hidden role here as well, in ways that most commentators often miss. Hispanics are often working class/working poor, and as such often live in poor neighborhoods filled with very violent Black people. The kind of resulting violence and poverty in those neighborhoods is what shifts them toward a large government mentality.

        High Crime?
        Well expand the police state and the prisons!
        Dumb Black Kids in School?
        Well invest more into education!
        Business’s often don’t want to invest in violent Black areas?( E.X: South Central L.A)
        Then use the government funds!
        Even immigration, which depresses their wages, leads to Gentification of Black people, so they support it.

        This isn’t that suprising, the White working class is very similar, especially those around the heavily Black areas of America. It is only the ones in the rural, heavily Whites areas that are more free market.

        If Republicans want to win Hispanic voters, they should focus on crime and stuff like that. Lowering coporate taxes is nice, but it doesn’t really help people in South Central LA

        Also, interesting note that I did not see discussed much on the punditsphere. Hispanic and Other voters showed up at a lower rate than 2016 as a share of the electorate. Turnout was only marginally higher than 2016. I’m guessing that most of the Hispanics that lean left shifted even more left, but the overall population shifted more moderate or right.

      210. @ben tillman

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says).
         
        No, that is not how democracy is supposed to work. In fact, that is not democracy. Democracy means unanimous consent by the demos.

        That’s odd, because there has probably never been unanimous consent for anything in any polity, ever.

      211. @anonymous
        "One generation got old

        One generation got soul"

        A few (seems like) years later, we are no longer the Pepsi Generation.

        No, fool, we are the Negro Modelo generation 😉

      212. @ben tillman

        These are people who feel financially secure or want to tell themselves they won’t ever need help from the government . . . .
         
        Needing help and needing help from the government are two entirely different things.

        The people at our church will bring food and visit when I have surgery, and we appreciate it. They can’t afford to cover the tens of thousands of dollars that the scumbag hospital and doctors charged for the surgery and very short hospital stay.

      213. @Bay Area Guy
        This is pretty good analysis. Based on my experience in California, the overwhelming majority of Latinos are not SJWs, and mostly have a working class ethos. That Elizabeth Warren thought saying "Latinx" was a good idea indicates that she probably doesn't know any actual Latinos; that, and her political instincts are dogshit.

        As for the Conservatism Inc morons who thought Latinos were (are?) "natural conservatives," have they ever actually looked at Latinos' countries of origin? Let's just say that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador isn't exactly a Chamber of Commerce conservative. For that matter, absent US-backed coups and other shenanigans, Latin American countries often end up with socialist-leaning governments.

        But anyway, if Berniecrats end up seizing political power thanks to Latino voters, then these venal, cheap labor-obsessed, Big Business-worshipping cuckservatives have only themselves to blame. Ditto for centrist, culturally liberal Democrats who are appalled that their new base likes Bernie more than some phony turd like Pete Buttigieg.

        That Elizabeth Warren thought saying “Latinx” was a good idea indicates that she probably doesn’t know any actual Latinos

        Yep.

      214. @Jonathan Mason

        Where does this ‘government’ get all these things? That’s someone else’s problem.
         
        But it is all a matter of degree. Do you want a government that does not provide roads or schools. Abolish the military and border patrol?

        Once you accept that government can collect taxes and provide services, it becomes a matter of discussion as to which services we can afford to provide. Every economically developed country has universal health care as well as some that are not so economically advanced, and in all of those countries medical bankruptcies are practically unknown, or a tiny fraction of the number in the US.

        One possible exception is China where medical care is all fee for service.

        Yes, the US is not objectively so impoverished as to not be able to afford what other countries can afford, even Cuba, for God's sake.

        It is just that many people in our country (the US) believe that our method of financing health care, while incredibly inefficient, is somehow morally superior to what everyone else has.

        I have a friend whose wife died of cancer a few years ago. During her terminal illness he had to quit his job so that the family could obtain Medicaid after their job-related insurance was maxed out.

        Unfortunately before this happened, the family were medically advised to try a very expensive treatment that might prolong her life, and the wife being very sick, the husband signed his name to some papers, as a result of which he became legally responsible for vast debts incurred for her treatment, and to this day owes half a million dollars to the hospital. He is only paying a nominal amount, but they have put a lien on his house and property, so that when he dies, they will take it.

        In community property states the surviving spouse is held responsible for the medical costs of the dead spouse even if they have not signed anything, so there might be some advantage in obtaining a divorce when the spouse is diagnosed with a terminal illness.

        http://www.carbonelaw.com/2015/01/divorce-one-terminally-ill/

        That, my friends, is how the health care system works in the US. When I explain to Americans that this situation hardly ever occurs in other developed nations, this is beyond their comprehension, because they have never known anything else. Americans just accept that a serious terminal illness probably equals bankruptcy, and that is the way it always has been and always will be, and always ought to be.

        Under their philosophy of "better dead than red" they would rather die bankrupt than have their loved ones die under what they call "communism", even though any form of insurance or social security is really a type of communism, when you think about it.

        Of course not all Americans think this way, and the upcoming election may even show that they are in a minority. In which case there will probably be a high rate of suicide among the better dead than red crowd.

        That, my friends, is how the health care system works in the US.

        And it’s all due to government interference in the market. The solution is absolutely NOT further government intervention.

      215. @Buzz Mohawk
        It's all over. Marianne Williamson has just endorsed Bernie.

        "This time, the Bern will win."
        https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/200223191746-marianne-williamson-endorses-bernie-sanders-2020-rally-austin-tx-exlarge-169.jpg

        Sanders is only 12 years older than Williamson but looks like he could be her grandfather.

      216. Anyone got a reliable source on turnout in the Nevada caucuses? It looks like fewer D’s than in 2016 but frankly the data be fuzzy.

      217. @BoBCobb
        "Hispanic" is not a precise enough term to capture electoral demographics. Sanders maybe popular amongst Southwest Mexicans, but I do not sense any similar affinity amongst Cubans and venezuelans that dominate in Florida. My sense is that those more south american hispanics are much better candidates to become "conservative" in the US political sense.

        I always liked it because (1) the left has ditched for Latino/x and (2) it refers to Spain, a European country.

        “It’s a conqueror’s word!”

        “Yup, and half of my ancestors did the conquering, so why not?”

      218. @RadicalCenter
        While the republicans still have control of the Texas and Florida legislatures, they have one crucial task to give them some chance in future presidential elections (for a while, anyway):

        follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska, and allocate one electoral vote to the candidate who wins the popular vote in each congressional district.

        That way, when the Texas and Florida electorates inevitably become majority nonwhite and majority Democrat, the republicans can still win a substantial minority of each State’s electoral votes. Perhaps slightly more than half of the electoral votes on each State in the near future, if the dem voters remain somewhat concentrated in dense urban congressional districts.

        Far better to get 40% of a big State’s electoral votes, or even 20% or 30%, than none.

        This change could spell the difference between some narrow victories and never winning again (after about 2032 at latest).

        Expect the stupid republicans NOT to bother doing it while they have the state legislative majority and the governorship in both places. After all, this is the party that went along with reenfranchising hundreds of thousands of people — mostly nonwhite and many Hispanic illegal aliens or noncitizens — convicted of violent felonies and serious narcotic (not marijuana) distribution felonies. Good to know that in some states, the votes of decent peaceful citizens can now be cancelled out by the votes of murderers, rapists, armed robbers, home invaders, and dealers of deadly highly-addictive drugs (cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and Fentanyl).

        Better than that, they should limit the franchise to limit the impact of immigration on election results.

      219. @RadicalCenter
        For the Dems without Florida, yes. For the republicans, very difficult. Florida has 29 electoral votes.

        If the republicans lose those, they’d have to flip Minnesota (10 EVs), quite possible, plus smaller States such as New Hampshire (4) and Maine (3 left, as trump got 1 of the 4).

        12 Washington, dubious
        9 Colorado, getting simultaneously mexicanized and californicated
        6 Nevada, feasible but not improving
        5 New Mexico, barely feasible as I think Trump and Gary Johnson together narrowly beat Clinton

        Virginia 13 is moving increasingly out of reach, primarily due to mass immigration.

        Sounds like the Republicans absolutely must win Florida, since several of those alternatives are well-nigh impossible. Their chances of winning states like Washington, Colorado, and now Virginia are roughly nil.

        The trouble is, between felon voting and mass immigration, Florida will be [D] territory forever more. And, I’m afraid, so goes America. The Dems have monster states like Calif & NY which will happily vote for a ham sandwich so long as it’s Democratic. What states do the Reps have to match those? Even Texas is in play nowadays.

      220. @Anonymous

        Yes, Hispanics in Texas are less leftist both economically and socially than Hispanics in California, but that means merely a somewhat slower descent into a less intelligent, dirtier, less orderly, less trusting, and more impoverished society. Massive Hispanic immigration spells permanent defeat for any fiscally conservative or limited constitutional government party — and probably makes authoritarian government and more constrained civil liberties inevitable as well. Not as if we are doing well in those areas in still-white regions either, honestly….
         
        The problem is not that they are "Hispanics" , in the sense of "hispanic" meaning "of, or relating to , Spain". The problem is that they are Mesoamerican aboriginals and mestizos. In fact, they are mostly the people who can't prosper in their native countries because they are bovine and not very intelligent.

        As one commenter summed things up with clarity:

        The mestizos are, after all, acting rationally. It is we who are not.

        Labor is valueless in Mexico because in Mexico, corruption and the threat of confiscation of capital mean no one will invest there, or if they will they will demand a very high rate of return so as to pay off the investment before it is stolen or confiscated.

        The government of Mexico is corrupt and socialist because that is the government that suits Mexicans. They might grumble a little at these things, but only because they don’t get the spoils, not because they are malum in se. To them they are part of the natural order, like the urges to eat, have sex and make lowriders out of 1964 Chevys.

        Importing Mexicans makes economic sense for businesses that leverage Mexican labor with American management. The Mexicans work cheap and don’t expect medical benefits, won’t sue for frivolous or legitimate reasons, and while they might steal a little lumber or paint or defecate in the customers’ shrubbery, won’t steal their customer lists, won’t break into their computers, won’t learn their business and compete with them in two years. Their sons won’t compete for high school gridiron glory and pom-pom p***y with those of the business owners’, unlike the brighter sons of the white workers they displaced.

        The business owners will pay a little more in taxes because the Mexicans will go to the hospital when they are sick or pregnant, and not pay any bills. So will everyone else’s, but the business owners will pocket all the profits while others pay most all of the costs. They will also pay for the cost of arresting, trying and jailing the Mexicans when they get unruly or decide to ignore gringo law, or when the truly violent and criminal amongst them do their stuff in the United States with its far target-richer environment and cushy jails. But the real catastrophe is that when the illegal Mexicans produce a child, it is instantly an American citizen by law.

        The evidence shows that these American born children will still vote, participate in civic affairs and look at the world in general just like their parents-in other words, like Mexicans. California is living proof of that. They will vote for socialist leaders that promise them short term free stuff and piss off the gringos. If those politicians take bribes and are caught they won’t care. They will go to school for awhile, but the girls will get pregnant and drop out and the boys will get into fights, smoke pot, drink booze, drive and wreck cars, and drop out too. Not all, but the statistics will point that way. They will get entry level jobs and stay there a long time. Over decades, an elite will evolve, but for the masses life will go on like it always has.

        Meanwhile the rest of the country slowly changes, because of the greater political corruption, the disdain for progress, the lack of ambition to do things like go to the moon, build the Panama Canal, or do the other stuff those gringos did for reasons that will no longer make any sense to anyone. Government revenue will slow until the system has to be repudiated, and the currency will implode, but who cares? That happens in Latin America all the time. Our military will become like Mexico’s, or if we are lucky, Argentina’s.

        Lest you think I am just prejudiced against Mexicans, just go back and replace “Mexico” and “Mexicans” with any other non-European nation and its denizens, besides Japan, Taiwan, or maybe South Korea. It all still fits, except for the part about lowriderizing ’64 Chevys of course.

         

        Strong stuff. Thanks.

      221. @Beavertales
        Speaking as a Canadian, I don't see what the fuss is about Bernie's universal health care. Almost every First World white country has some form of it except the USA, and they're not all borderline commies.

        However, they don't suffer from an open border with Mexico either, or have a vast dark underclass of freeloaders(yet).

        If Republicans had brought in universal health care in the 1960's like they should have, they could've had a winning reason to oppose open borders. (Instead you got the 1965 Immigration Act).

        I don’t see what the fuss is about Bernie’s universal health care. Almost every First World white country has some form of it except the USA

        Maybe half of the white people in the USA are comparable to the populations of nations such as Denmark and Holland. We simply don’t have the culture–much less the population–to make something like UHC work in this country. We’re half third-world, essentially, and rapidly worsening.

      222. @RadicalCenter
        I’d add that superdelegates made up 20% of all dem President is delegates in 2016, down to 15% this year. And this time they don’t get to vote on the first ballot. Both presumably good changes for sanders.

        But I understand that after the first ballot, all delegates become uncommitted. Even if Sanders has nearly half of all elected delegates, the majority of non-Sanders delegates could join most superdelegates to defeat sanders on the second ballot.

        Given how sanders caved after his voters were blatantly ripped off by the DNC and Clinton in 2026, I’m not confident that he would decline to endorse whomever the dnc and superdelegates pick in his stead. But perhaps enough of his supporters would stay home, or vote Green, to get trump re-elected.

        Neither scenario appears good for Americans, though I’ll take the relatively somewhat less bad judicial nominations and self defense / gun policies of a repub admin over the Dems.

        Even if Sanders has nearly half of all elected delegates, the majority of non-Sanders delegates could join most superdelegates to defeat sanders on the second ballot.

        Theoretically, yes, but it would be electoral suicide as many Sanders supporters would not vote for a centrist candidate and the compromise candidate would have little chance of beating Trump unless they could get a strong turnout of black and hispanic voters. The Democratic Party would have more chance if it just got behind Sanders.

        In the US the usual turnout of voters is quite low compared to most democracies, so the most important characteristic of a candidate for November is that he can arouse enough enthusiasm to get voters away from the fireside and the TV after a hard day at work.

      223. @J.Ross
        I want this to be true, but what's the alternative? Somebody has to actually run against the open borders guy, and the billionaires won't permit that to get off the ground. We voted for Trump to get basic government border service and he tolerates mutiny and sedition, tolerates sanctuary cities, rejects e-Verify, and "want[s] more immigration than ever." Recall Virginia, turned into a CIA-globalist experiment not because of immigrants but because establishment Republicans refused to even try.
        Not only will they all be open borders scum, but they'll laugh at you and directly lie when you try to get an answer about an open borders tweet they made months before: "That's a conspiracy, nobody is for open borders!"

        I want this to be true, but what’s the alternative?

        The alternative is to vote for Bernie to punish Trump, that which I am doing. Just say no to Cucks, always.

        • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

        The alternative is to vote for Bernie to punish Trump, that which I am doing. Just say no to Cucks, always.
         
        Good luck in the Gulag. If you are "lucky" enough to live to see its warm embrace of your myopia.
      224. @Reg Cæsar

        That is how democracy is supposed to work. Vote for the candidate who you think will provide the best future for yourself and your family (as Sailer says).
         
        In an anthill, perhaps.

        I have never voted for "my interests", but for my state's and my country's. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.

        Yes, I agree that only five or ten percent of voters think this way. People mock libertarians, but they are among the few who can face Wednesday morning without a hangover.

        Come to think of it, voting in America does have this Carnavalesque aura about it-- go all out on Tuesday, feel like crap on Wednesday.

        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ujIZja_rIU

        I have never voted for “my interests”, but for my state’s and my country’s. My interests are my own responsibility by definition.

        This is the definition of patriotism. Notice how much blowback you get when you point this out. I am no libertarian, but if all in our borders were patriots, we would not face the prospect of rapid decline.

      225. @OscarWildeLoveChild
        As a Hispanic (I don't use "Latino" for myself), who is white, I can tell you, it is what they want to believe. Like the people that go around saying "but blind people have better hearing" (or vice versa) it's a sort of early "meme" if you will, based upon wishful thinking and some anecdotal experiences, mixed in with lots of transparently self-serving stereotypes.

        Someone meets a few blacks who like to hoot and holler in church and talk about giving their kids the belt, and how homosexuality is wrong, and they think they and all blacks are conservative. The truth is, those same blacks voted democrat and are very non-religious in their personal life. Most blacks do not live anything like a religious or pious life, but Hannity will still claim it because he has a "black church sings the old hymns" CD and he imagines a 1940s "don't chew sas your mama" world, full of strong black families that just want good jobs, like working in a Ford plant, etc.

        Similarly, someone meets some Latinos that "switched over" from being Catholics to join their Evangelical, non-denominational church, and they too, think abortion is wrong, and that all that "gay stuff es loco", but what that white person (like Hannity) doesn't get--usually those Latinos still vote democrat. In the end, we like having a public policy that brings in more people like us, and other than actual (especially fiscal) conservative Hispanics/Latinos, even the white ones tend to resent "Anglos" (a generic and incorrect term used in our culture for all non-Latino whites). The whole England vs. Spain thing--it never went away. We are the "other white people" and seeing your people diluted is good for us-or so my people say. It's not of course, but that's the thinking.

        Similarly, someone meets some Latinos that “switched over” from being Catholics to join their Evangelical, non-denominational church, and they too, think abortion is wrong, and that all that “gay stuff es loco“, but what that white person (like Hannity) doesn’t get–usually those Latinos still vote democrat.

        They’re more likely to vote Repub thatn the Hispanic Catholics, at least in Texas.

      226. @Joe Stalin
        "It’s his turn, and his time."

        Indeed.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3kKqfTjsj0

        Great voice. Too bad she’s a communist.

      227. @Daniel H
        A lot of the Federal land in the west could be privatized

        And that's why you are a cuck. It's always about mone, economic utility. How about just leaving the land be, so that future generations can chill out there and do..........nothing. Just do nothing. Wow, what an idea, just do nothing.

        I said a lot, not all. Grazing land should belong to the ranchers, and we could pay down some of the national debt. An old fashioned idea, to be sure. East of the Mississippi, the vast majority of the land is privately owned. when somebody owns something, they have an incentive to take care of it.

        • Replies: @Daniel H
        I said a lot, not all. Grazing land should belong to the ranchers, and we could pay down some of the national debt. An old fashioned idea, to be sure. East of the Mississippi, the vast majority of the land is privately owned. when somebody owns something, they have an incentive to take care of it.

        Not an acre of people owned land should be privatized, not an acre. Screw the ranchers. They already act like they own the land they lease. Screw 'em.

        Yes, most of America is held by private landowners, and that is a good reason why most of America sucks. 300 million people crammed into pointless and sterile suburban/urban sprawl with no escape. No place to roam. No place to just get lost and do......nothing.

        America sucks. And it sucks because of the greed of white people, whose only reason to exist is to be a slave to the economy.
      228. @RadicalCenter
        Perhaps costa rica is in the same general demographic and cultural ballpark, too? Costa Rica has a lot of American, British, and European expatriates, typically white retirees, relative to its tiny population.

        Not even close.

        • Replies: @Keypusher
        There are some extremely weird numbers on that chart. Argentina 25% mestizo? No way in hell that is correct. Brazil also looks quite wrong, especially if they’re using mestizo to mean the same thing there as in Mexico.
      229. @Peter Akuleyev
        The best example of Trump being a con artist is that people like our anonymous troll actually believe this. In reality 1) Trump has a BA from UPenn, he did not graduate from the “business school” .2) His bestsellers were ghostwritten 3) he is not a billionaire after you account for his debts and he has had far more financial success as a reality star playing a real estate developer than actually being a real estate developer.

        1) Trump has a BA from UPenn, he did not graduate from the “business school”

        Wharton is unusual for a B-school of an elite private university in that it has an undergraduate program, from which The donald graduated.

      230. @indocon
        One issue Republicans need to quickly get their head out of their rear is on healthcare, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and no replacement health care plan during the repeal Obama care episodes of Trump's first year in office. I think the powers to be in the establishment still think they can wait this out by doing nothing.

        The sad thing is that Republicans should be in perfect position to screw with elements of healthcare system like drug companies, hardly any Republicans represent at state or local level any areas which of large concentration of drug companies, think San Diego, Bay Area, LA, New Jersey. I'm not even sure the drug companies give a whole lot of money to the Republicans anymore.

        totally agree. Trump should have done healthcare instead of criminal justice “reform.” That would have ended the democrats chances. whoever is advising this guy should be executed lmao.

        • Agree: RadicalCenter
      231. @Anon7
        Let's hope that the GOP decides to do more than shout "Socialism!"

        They could start peeling people off the Sanders bandwagon by describing exactly what will happen under Bernie and the Sandersnistas. (The italics mean you should pronounce it with a Hispanic [or, as Warren says, Latinx] accent.)

        - Under President Bernie, if you spent way more money on college than you should have and received no useful degree in return, and have paid nothing on your student loans - your debt is zeroed out, paid for by all the responsible people!

        - Under President Bernie, if you worked hard, and sacrificed and scrimped and saved for retirement - Bernie will take your money and redistribute it to the people who had no plan in life to support themselves in the past, in the present or in the future.

        The creation of additional examples is left as an exercise for the reader.

        – Under President Bernie, if you worked hard, and sacrificed and scrimped and saved for retirement – Bernie will take your money and redistribute it to the people who had no plan in life to support themselves in the past, in the present or in the future.

        So all you have are lies, then? You are going to be so disappointed when we get a tax increase for financier parasites and no gulags. No part of what Bernie is proposing is related to the fantasies you describe.

        My grandfather was young in the Great Depression and he was convinced that the New Deal and Social Security were going to turn us all into Stalinist communists. He was convinced of that as a youth, in his middle ages. In his last 2 decades – when Social Security was literally the only thing keeping him from dying on the street – he was still convinced that Social Security and the New Deal were going to turn us all into Stalinists.

        He died in the late 1980s and I vividly remember political discussions with him, I was just a kid but I still thought, how the hell can this guy still be so mad that the predicted negative consequences of public policy didn’t happen. Up until the end he would tell anyone who would listen that the New Deal was going to turn us all into Stalinists any day now.

        He had a good life and a good death, but I’ll always wonder if, as he lay dying by the side of his favorite trout fishing spot, his last thoughts were about his family and his 35 grandchildren, or if he was still fuming about that damned New Deal.

        If you don’t like Bernie’s policies, fine. But if all you can muster as criticism are lies, man, this is going to be easier than I thought.

        • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson

        If you don’t like Bernie’s policies, fine. But if all you can muster as criticism are lies, man, this is going to be easier than I thought.
         
        My criticism of Bernie is the same as Lincoln's criticism of slavery. You ought to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Bernieism is the contradictory; someone else enjoys the fruits of your labor.

        To subscribe to the Bernie agenda is enrollment in slavery. Most of us do not want to be slaves. You have a different idea. Go for it bro! But do expect resistance to your plan to enslave us. We do not want your boot stamping on our faces, forever.
      232. @Hibernian
        I said a lot, not all. Grazing land should belong to the ranchers, and we could pay down some of the national debt. An old fashioned idea, to be sure. East of the Mississippi, the vast majority of the land is privately owned. when somebody owns something, they have an incentive to take care of it.

        I said a lot, not all. Grazing land should belong to the ranchers, and we could pay down some of the national debt. An old fashioned idea, to be sure. East of the Mississippi, the vast majority of the land is privately owned. when somebody owns something, they have an incentive to take care of it.

        Not an acre of people owned land should be privatized, not an acre. Screw the ranchers. They already act like they own the land they lease. Screw ’em.

        Yes, most of America is held by private landowners, and that is a good reason why most of America sucks. 300 million people crammed into pointless and sterile suburban/urban sprawl with no escape. No place to roam. No place to just get lost and do……nothing.

        America sucks. And it sucks because of the greed of white people, whose only reason to exist is to be a slave to the economy.

      233. Anon[878] • Disclaimer says:
        @Anon

        Donald Trump believes in whatever is in his mind that minute... he’s a con artist.
         
        Trump has a degree from the top Ivy League business school, has written numerous NYT bestsellers, was star in a number one prime-time TV show, amassed billions of dollars of personal wealth from real estate in Manhattan and golf courses throughout the world, and on his first attempt to run for political office won the U.S. Presidency.

        But of course, he’s just a con artist and you could do better. 🤣

        To be more specific, Trump has a bachelor rather than a proper business degree. He did not write a phrase for “his” bestsellers.Trump wealth grew at a slower rate than passive investment in, say, S&P 500 tracker funds.

        The Apprentice started as the the seventh show in Nielsen ratings in its first year. Over the next 6 seasons, The Apprentice lost at least 20% viewers year on year, with each annual iteration. Not precisely a success.

        Finally, Trump won the Reform Party primaries in 2000, in California and Michigan, and had an second attempt in 2012. 2016 was not his first run for president.

        Your comment is a list of alternative facts.

        FYI, any sane person thinks his daughters and wives are uglier than a gaggle of Jewesses.

        • Replies: @Lot
        “ Trump has a bachelor rather than a proper business degree.“

        Not sure about Trump’s era, but the past 20 years Wharton undergraduate admissions are harder than regular Penn admissions, themselves very competitive.

        https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/223537-undergrad-admissions-to-wharton.html
      234. @Daniel H
        I want this to be true, but what’s the alternative?

        The alternative is to vote for Bernie to punish Trump, that which I am doing. Just say no to Cucks, always.

        The alternative is to vote for Bernie to punish Trump, that which I am doing. Just say no to Cucks, always.

        Good luck in the Gulag. If you are “lucky” enough to live to see its warm embrace of your myopia.

      235. @anonn

        – Under President Bernie, if you worked hard, and sacrificed and scrimped and saved for retirement – Bernie will take your money and redistribute it to the people who had no plan in life to support themselves in the past, in the present or in the future.
         
        So all you have are lies, then? You are going to be so disappointed when we get a tax increase for financier parasites and no gulags. No part of what Bernie is proposing is related to the fantasies you describe.

        My grandfather was young in the Great Depression and he was convinced that the New Deal and Social Security were going to turn us all into Stalinist communists. He was convinced of that as a youth, in his middle ages. In his last 2 decades - when Social Security was literally the only thing keeping him from dying on the street - he was still convinced that Social Security and the New Deal were going to turn us all into Stalinists.

        He died in the late 1980s and I vividly remember political discussions with him, I was just a kid but I still thought, how the hell can this guy still be so mad that the predicted negative consequences of public policy didn't happen. Up until the end he would tell anyone who would listen that the New Deal was going to turn us all into Stalinists any day now.

        He had a good life and a good death, but I'll always wonder if, as he lay dying by the side of his favorite trout fishing spot, his last thoughts were about his family and his 35 grandchildren, or if he was still fuming about that damned New Deal.

        If you don't like Bernie's policies, fine. But if all you can muster as criticism are lies, man, this is going to be easier than I thought.

        If you don’t like Bernie’s policies, fine. But if all you can muster as criticism are lies, man, this is going to be easier than I thought.

        My criticism of Bernie is the same as Lincoln’s criticism of slavery. You ought to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Bernieism is the contradictory; someone else enjoys the fruits of your labor.

        To subscribe to the Bernie agenda is enrollment in slavery. Most of us do not want to be slaves. You have a different idea. Go for it bro! But do expect resistance to your plan to enslave us. We do not want your boot stamping on our faces, forever.

        • Replies: @anonn

        You ought to enjoy the fruits of your labor.
         
        I agree, the workers should own the means of production.

        To subscribe to the Bernie agenda is enrollment in slavery.
         
        The aim of the movement is to free us all from our current enslavement, to the degenerate clique of immoral psychopaths, the bankers, venture capitalists and war profiteers in northern Virginia, Silicon Valley, Manhattan, Davos and wherever else.
      236. @Corvinus
        Most people do understand quite well their own interests. How elitist to think otherwise.

        History suggests otherwise.

        I am unsurprised that you are so gullible. You are stupid.

      237. @Anonymous
        Support for Sanders style big spending is popular even in Argentina, Latin America's most European and advanced major country. Argentina has had frequent economic crises and debt defaults because of the profligate government spending policies its voters support. It's about to have its 9th debt default.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2019-09-11/one-country-eight-defaults-the-argentine-debacles

        One Country, Eight Defaults: The Argentine Debacles

        Argentina is, by nearly all accounts, catapulting toward default after running up more than $100 billion of debt. Some say it’s just months away. Others say it’s actually already happened on a small portion of bonds.

        For even the casual observer, the whole thing has a certain feeling of deja vu. The South American nation is a defaulting machine with few peers in the world.

        The first episode came in 1827, just 11 years after independence. The most recent one came in 2014. In between, there were six others of varying size and form, according to Carmen Reinhart, a Harvard University economist. Almost all of them were preceded by boom periods as, perhaps most famously, when European migrants transformed Argentina into an agricultural powerhouse and one of the world’s wealthiest countries by the late 19th century. Invariably, profligate spending, combined with easy access to capital supplied by overzealous foreign creditors, did the nation in.

        “The big narrative is always that there’s no fiscal discipline,” said Benjamin Gedan, director of the Argentina Project at the Wilson Center in Washington. “They want to import products that require dollars, they overspend and borrow in dollars, and they don’t generate dollars because they have a closed economy. And so it’s this endless cycle. That’s the story every time.”
         

        Same story here, except we have the world’s reserve currency — something those of us around today inherited rather than earned. It’ll be something to see if we ever lose it.

      238. @Hail
        Interesting development:

        Bernie Boycotts AIPAC.

        Bernie Sanders has just announced he will be boycotting AIPAC, has publicly rejected AIPAC's invitation to their gala conference. In publicly announcing this, he cited Israeli brutality against Palestinians and said that AIPAC provides a "platform" for "bigots."

        Bernie’s campaign is a platform for bigots who don’t like Americans: AOC, Chic Omar, Tlaib, the black alpaca , Linda Sarsour, etc

      239. @Autochthon
        https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2-Race-in-Latin-America.png

        Not even close.

        There are some extremely weird numbers on that chart. Argentina 25% mestizo? No way in hell that is correct. Brazil also looks quite wrong, especially if they’re using mestizo to mean the same thing there as in Mexico.

        • Replies: @Autochthon
        Discuta con ellos. A mi, parece que tal vez pasa usted demasiado tiempo en Buenos Aires; es un gran país y un país grande.

        (La genética esta de acuerdo.)
      240. @ben tillman

        Support for Sanders style big spending is popular even in Argentina, Latin America’s most European and advanced major country.
         
        Uruguay is South America's most European country.

        He said “major country.” That excludes Uruguay.

        Uruguayan demographics probably aren’t all that different from Argentina’s anyway, whatever that map someone posted may claim.

        • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

        He said “major country.” That excludes Uruguay.
         
        They'll be back.


        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E5EoTcGEWF4


        https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yVa5uAol_Bg


        The border with Brazil at Chuy:


        https://http2.mlstatic.com/chuy-compras-paseos-excursion-D_NQ_NP_828790-MLU32032999769_092019-Q.jpg
        , @Autochthon
        The CIA, peer-reviewed genetic studies, and the professional demographers at Latinobarómetro = "that map someone posted."

        I see there is no getting anything past you, wily Odysseus....

        How come Argentina is major but Uruguay is not? Was there a memorandum sent 'round definitively categorising them? What were the criteria? Were their citizens' showings in the Miss BumBum competition accounted for? (I'm asking for Mr. Derbyshire.)
      241. @ben tillman

        Support for Sanders style big spending is popular even in Argentina, Latin America’s most European and advanced major country.
         
        Uruguay is South America's most European country.

        Uruguay is South America’s most European country.

        Abbey Road before Abbey Road!

      242. @Keypusher
        He said “major country.” That excludes Uruguay.

        Uruguayan demographics probably aren’t all that different from Argentina’s anyway, whatever that map someone posted may claim.

        He said “major country.” That excludes Uruguay.

        They’ll be back.

        The border with Brazil at Chuy:

      243. @Keypusher
        There are some extremely weird numbers on that chart. Argentina 25% mestizo? No way in hell that is correct. Brazil also looks quite wrong, especially if they’re using mestizo to mean the same thing there as in Mexico.

        Discuta con ellos. A mi, parece que tal vez pasa usted demasiado tiempo en Buenos Aires; es un gran país y un país grande.

        (La genética esta de acuerdo.)

        • Replies: @Keypusher
        Wow! Apologies for dismissing your map (although the Brazil results still look weird). Anyway, it appears that you were right about Argentina and I was quite wrong. I was also surprised to learn that they did a countrywide genetic ancestry survey in Argentina that early.

        I’ve spent a fair amount of time in and around Salta, and Indian ancestry is visible there, but I’m still astounded by the PLOS figures.

        Thanks for the links.
      244. @Keypusher
        He said “major country.” That excludes Uruguay.

        Uruguayan demographics probably aren’t all that different from Argentina’s anyway, whatever that map someone posted may claim.

        The CIA, peer-reviewed genetic studies, and the professional demographers at Latinobarómetro = “that map someone posted.”

        I see there is no getting anything past you, wily Odysseus….

        How come Argentina is major but Uruguay is not? Was there a memorandum sent ’round definitively categorising them? What were the criteria? Were their citizens’ showings in the Miss BumBum competition accounted for? (I’m asking for Mr. Derbyshire.)

        • Replies: @Keypusher
        Just population size. Argentina is over 40 million, Uruguay under 4 million. No aspersions intended, Uruguay is lovely and Argentina is a perpetual basket case.
      245. @Anon
        To be more specific, Trump has a bachelor rather than a proper business degree. He did not write a phrase for "his" bestsellers.Trump wealth grew at a slower rate than passive investment in, say, S&P 500 tracker funds.

        The Apprentice started as the the seventh show in Nielsen ratings in its first year. Over the next 6 seasons, The Apprentice lost at least 20% viewers year on year, with each annual iteration. Not precisely a success.

        Finally, Trump won the Reform Party primaries in 2000, in California and Michigan, and had an second attempt in 2012. 2016 was not his first run for president.

        Your comment is a list of alternative facts.

        FYI, any sane person thinks his daughters and wives are uglier than a gaggle of Jewesses.

        “ Trump has a bachelor rather than a proper business degree.“

        Not sure about Trump’s era, but the past 20 years Wharton undergraduate admissions are harder than regular Penn admissions, themselves very competitive.

        https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/223537-undergrad-admissions-to-wharton.html

        • Replies: @anon
        I mean, who has ever heard of rich people buying their way into an American "top" university?
      246. This is clickbait, and the cities are clumped by country, but it’s interesting nonetheless:

        50 Least-Healthy Cities in the World

        Of the 20 fattest US cities, only Louisville, Toledo, and Beckley, WV are north of 36 degrees, 30 minutes, that other Mason-Dixon line. (Detroit finishes a bit lower.)

        But it’s not all due to blacks– San Antonio, McAllen, Brownsville, and San Bernadino are also up there. And white-majority Pretoria was one of the worst in South Africa. Also, very white, very old Cape Coral is on the list.

        Some of the worst performers are famous for their food, primarily New Orleans and Memphis, and that other Mardi Gras capital, Mobile. In other words, the food is good, but not good for you.

        Boston is one of the five worst cities in the country– but that’s Boston, Lincolnshire.

      247. @Charles Erwin Wilson

        If you don’t like Bernie’s policies, fine. But if all you can muster as criticism are lies, man, this is going to be easier than I thought.
         
        My criticism of Bernie is the same as Lincoln's criticism of slavery. You ought to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Bernieism is the contradictory; someone else enjoys the fruits of your labor.

        To subscribe to the Bernie agenda is enrollment in slavery. Most of us do not want to be slaves. You have a different idea. Go for it bro! But do expect resistance to your plan to enslave us. We do not want your boot stamping on our faces, forever.

        You ought to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

        I agree, the workers should own the means of production.

        To subscribe to the Bernie agenda is enrollment in slavery.

        The aim of the movement is to free us all from our current enslavement, to the degenerate clique of immoral psychopaths, the bankers, venture capitalists and war profiteers in northern Virginia, Silicon Valley, Manhattan, Davos and wherever else.

      248. You ought to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

        I agree, the workers should own the means of production.

        This is the most basic logical error imaginable.

        Worker ownership is almost always, with the very rare exception of a very few true worker cooperatives, state capitalism. There is a century of historical experience to back this up. Not to mention the pile of millions of corpses, the eggs broken to make this omelet.

        If you believe in Communism, there is a list of Communist countries for you to move to.

        As for war profiteering, war is socialist. Defense contracting is a very unfree market.

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        Agree with much of what you just wrote, Hibernian. But our current military manufacturing system is NOT socialist.

        I’d ask, why do we allow military manufacturers to demand and get obscene profits from the taxpayers? Those profits flow mostly to very wealthy people who are the executives and major shareholders of those manufacturing corporations, in no way improving the effectiveness of our fighting forces or the safety of Americans.

        Why could we not have a federal defends agency manufacture the equipment that we need? Keep the same factories, the same talented technical and scientific experts and researchers, the same skilled arms factory workers, and give them at least the pay, benefits, and pension they receive now.

        Just cut out the large portion of the final price that is attributable to shareholder dividends and executive compensation. Russia has a government agency making most of its military equipment, and it appears that their equipment is generally more practically effective than ours these days. More bang for the buck, and more real-world utility. Whether that is “socialism” or not, isn’t it worth serious consideration?
        , @anonn
        So you prefer being ruled by Jeffrey Epstein, Hilary Clinton, Paul Singer, Jeffrey Adelson and the like. Laissez-faire capitalism has been a catastrophe for families and communities. I prefer democracy in the workplace.
      249. @Lot
        “ Trump has a bachelor rather than a proper business degree.“

        Not sure about Trump’s era, but the past 20 years Wharton undergraduate admissions are harder than regular Penn admissions, themselves very competitive.

        https://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/223537-undergrad-admissions-to-wharton.html

        I mean, who has ever heard of rich people buying their way into an American “top” university?

        • Replies: @Autochthon
        As Mr. Sailer has noted, there is of course a right way to do this...

        https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190324133452-dr-dre-daughter-usc-large-169.jpg

        ...and a wrong way...

        https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2019/03/loridrupal.jpg

        Remember, kids: if you negotiate the payoff with a lawyer, it's a confidential settlement, but otherwise, it's blackmail.

        The ABA thank you.
      250. @Hibernian

        You ought to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

         

        I agree, the workers should own the means of production.
         
        This is the most basic logical error imaginable.

        Worker ownership is almost always, with the very rare exception of a very few true worker cooperatives, state capitalism. There is a century of historical experience to back this up. Not to mention the pile of millions of corpses, the eggs broken to make this omelet.

        If you believe in Communism, there is a list of Communist countries for you to move to.

        As for war profiteering, war is socialist. Defense contracting is a very unfree market.

        Agree with much of what you just wrote, Hibernian. But our current military manufacturing system is NOT socialist.

        I’d ask, why do we allow military manufacturers to demand and get obscene profits from the taxpayers? Those profits flow mostly to very wealthy people who are the executives and major shareholders of those manufacturing corporations, in no way improving the effectiveness of our fighting forces or the safety of Americans.

        Why could we not have a federal defends agency manufacture the equipment that we need? Keep the same factories, the same talented technical and scientific experts and researchers, the same skilled arms factory workers, and give them at least the pay, benefits, and pension they receive now.

        Just cut out the large portion of the final price that is attributable to shareholder dividends and executive compensation. Russia has a government agency making most of its military equipment, and it appears that their equipment is generally more practically effective than ours these days. More bang for the buck, and more real-world utility. Whether that is “socialism” or not, isn’t it worth serious consideration?

        • Replies: @Joe Stalin
        "Russia has a government agency making most of its military equipment, and it appears that their equipment is generally more practically effective than ours these days. More bang for the buck, and more real-world utility. Whether that is “socialism” or not, isn’t it worth serious consideration?"

        What happens when your monopoly government agency has entrenched "Deep State" people?

        You get the M-14 rifle and not an FN-FAL or the Armalite AR-10.

        That's why the US military is using the commercially developed Armalite AR-15 (M16A1, M16A2, M4) and why Springfield Armory doesn't make stuff anymore.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mby4hOq-DpI
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4CFMVNT5K0
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYar4Zf8jH8
        , @Hibernian

        I’d ask, why do we allow military manufacturers to demand and get obscene profits from the taxpayers?
         
        A better question is: Why so many service personnel, why so many planes, ships, and tanks, and why so many wars?
      251. @anonymous
        Race mixing will mean the US will turn into a majority whitish population comparable to the southern half of Spain. And also be a black minority on top of the whitish blob. That's not as terrible as turning to into a favela.

        IOW, a favela.

      252. @RadicalCenter
        Agree with much of what you just wrote, Hibernian. But our current military manufacturing system is NOT socialist.

        I’d ask, why do we allow military manufacturers to demand and get obscene profits from the taxpayers? Those profits flow mostly to very wealthy people who are the executives and major shareholders of those manufacturing corporations, in no way improving the effectiveness of our fighting forces or the safety of Americans.

        Why could we not have a federal defends agency manufacture the equipment that we need? Keep the same factories, the same talented technical and scientific experts and researchers, the same skilled arms factory workers, and give them at least the pay, benefits, and pension they receive now.

        Just cut out the large portion of the final price that is attributable to shareholder dividends and executive compensation. Russia has a government agency making most of its military equipment, and it appears that their equipment is generally more practically effective than ours these days. More bang for the buck, and more real-world utility. Whether that is “socialism” or not, isn’t it worth serious consideration?

        “Russia has a government agency making most of its military equipment, and it appears that their equipment is generally more practically effective than ours these days. More bang for the buck, and more real-world utility. Whether that is “socialism” or not, isn’t it worth serious consideration?”

        What happens when your monopoly government agency has entrenched “Deep State” people?

        You get the M-14 rifle and not an FN-FAL or the Armalite AR-10.

        That’s why the US military is using the commercially developed Armalite AR-15 (M16A1, M16A2, M4) and why Springfield Armory doesn’t make stuff anymore.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory

        • Replies: @RadicalCenter
        Of course you’re right. Corrupt disloyal people will try to profit from any system.

        But which system has fleeced the citizens more, and which has produced better armament overall? Russia’s current system by far, it seems.
      253. @Joe Stalin
        "Russia has a government agency making most of its military equipment, and it appears that their equipment is generally more practically effective than ours these days. More bang for the buck, and more real-world utility. Whether that is “socialism” or not, isn’t it worth serious consideration?"

        What happens when your monopoly government agency has entrenched "Deep State" people?

        You get the M-14 rifle and not an FN-FAL or the Armalite AR-10.

        That's why the US military is using the commercially developed Armalite AR-15 (M16A1, M16A2, M4) and why Springfield Armory doesn't make stuff anymore.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Armory

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mby4hOq-DpI
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4CFMVNT5K0
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYar4Zf8jH8

        Of course you’re right. Corrupt disloyal people will try to profit from any system.

        But which system has fleeced the citizens more, and which has produced better armament overall? Russia’s current system by far, it seems.

      254. @RadicalCenter
        So the theory is, don’t worry too much about Texas because we are only losing the vote of the single largest and fastest-growing group in the State by 11 points in some races and 29 points in others?

        This sounds like, “sure, we’ll lose money on each item sold, but we’ll make it up in volume.”

        Yes, Hispanics in Texas are less leftist both economically and socially than Hispanics in California, but that means merely a somewhat slower descent into a less intelligent, dirtier, less orderly, less trusting, and more impoverished society. Massive Hispanic immigration spells permanent defeat for any fiscally conservative or limited constitutional government party — and probably makes authoritarian government and more constrained civil liberties inevitable as well. Not as if we are doing well in those areas in still-white regions either, honestly....

        You guys think the upper midwest states are safe. Pa is growing fast in minorities due to blacks, latinos, and asians moving out of New York. Plus, whites in Pa wheether they are working class or not tend to vote less for republicans than southern states like Alabama. Trump wins over 20 percent in Alabama and at the most 7 percent in Wisconsin. In fact, these states are likely to go more minority due to being next to New York or Minnesota. Minnesota has a lot of blacks and latinos near Minnespolis. So, they moved to where its cheaper.

      255. @Hibernian

        You ought to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

         

        I agree, the workers should own the means of production.
         
        This is the most basic logical error imaginable.

        Worker ownership is almost always, with the very rare exception of a very few true worker cooperatives, state capitalism. There is a century of historical experience to back this up. Not to mention the pile of millions of corpses, the eggs broken to make this omelet.

        If you believe in Communism, there is a list of Communist countries for you to move to.

        As for war profiteering, war is socialist. Defense contracting is a very unfree market.

        So you prefer being ruled by Jeffrey Epstein, Hilary Clinton, Paul Singer, Jeffrey Adelson and the like. Laissez-faire capitalism has been a catastrophe for families and communities. I prefer democracy in the workplace.

        • Replies: @Hibernian
        We haven't had laissez-faire capitalism since the Coolidge administration.
      256. @Hail
        Interesting development:

        Bernie Boycotts AIPAC.

        Bernie Sanders has just announced he will be boycotting AIPAC, has publicly rejected AIPAC's invitation to their gala conference. In publicly announcing this, he cited Israeli brutality against Palestinians and said that AIPAC provides a "platform" for "bigots."

        Bernie Sanders has just announced he will be boycotting AIPAC, has publicly rejected AIPAC’s invitation to their gala conference. In publicly announcing this, he cited Israeli brutality against Palestinians and said that AIPAC provides a “platform” for “bigots.”

        1.) Now if only Sanders would denounce the Congressional Black Caucus, MSNBC, the DNC, and any number of prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama and Bill DeBlasio, for their extensive history of honoring and providing a platform for such infamous bigots as Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton

        2.) Echoing “Mr. Anon”s response, I, too, aver that Mr. Sanders would do better to denounce AIPAC along with all lobbies of foreign nations as wielding undue influence over United States policy.

        3.) One would have to be either blinded by bias or pathetically naive to not believe that the Zionist State that has usurped the name ‘Israel’ bears no culpability for any injustices against Palestinians. That said, I daresay that Mr. Sanders would demonstrate a considerable bit more courage if he were to denounce atrocities perpetrated upon Whites in South Africa or Rwanda. Or even just express sympathy for victims.

        4.) All the above said, it seems undeniably refreshing to see a prominent, mainstream political figure denounce AIPAC.

        • Agree: Hail
      257. South Carolina’s primary is pretty much the last chance for Uncle Creepy Joe to get any cred. The debate should be interesting, especially if Bloomberg is positioned next to someone taller again.

      258. Bernie Wins Majority of Hispanics in Nevada

        Maybe that’s because there’s no Hispanic candidate, and the choice was between creepy, senile Joe Biden, some homosexual (yuck), a woman (machismo veto), and an old but somewhat less senile millionaire “socialist” promising them all kinds of free shit (recall the black woman rapturously proclaiming Obama as President would mean she wouldn’t have to worry about putting gas in her car).

        They didn’t vote much for Sanders in 2016 because they didn’t know who he was, but now they know and they like what he’s selling.

        Or maybe I’m wrong and they’re all really astute political decision-makers now that they’ve had the time to analyze the political landscape (ahem).

        FYI

      259. @Joe Stalin
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prz3MneQyo4

        That’s really cute. I wonder if Bernie’s fact sheet has anything about putting a modest tax on sun tan lotion on mega yachts to make sure that every poor child in America can have one of these musical boxes free of charge!

      260. @indocon
        I still think that if he is speaker next year, we have a better chance of 1924 style moratorium then if somebody like Paul Ryan was in that chair. You have to understand Paul Ryan's background as a hard core academic Ann Ryandist, facts in front of him won't change his mind, McCarthy on the other side comes from the last remaining outpost of white conservatism in California - Bakersfield. He's got to see with his own eyes the demographic transformation and the resulting political displacement that has happened, I am pretty sure whoever the Democrats nominate will rake up huge majority of non-white voters in 2020, and I'm going to bet that it will make him think about it vs Paul Ryan would not be capable of it.

        Plus keep in mind a financial and job market downturn is in front of us, for the first time the issue of legal/illegal immigration and temporary work visa us will be squarely juxtaposed with rising unemployment rate. I have seen 3 downturns in my time in US - early 1990s defense market cut backs, 2000's dot com bust, 2007 housing bust, in neither of those 3 times was immigration at the top of the list for anybody, not this time.

        if there’s a recession – Trump isn’t winning reelection.

      261. @SFG
        It ain't that hard. The country's about 4/9 liberal, 2/9 conservative, and 2.5/9 populist (socially conservative/economically liberal). The leftover rounding error is all those libertarian types.

        https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond

        People hate 'woke' and free markets. Trump ran against 'woke' and free markets (by claiming to put America first while protecting Medicare and Social Security), so he won, but then tried to kick people off healthcare.

        Totally free markets suck unless you have maybe assets of $1 million or more. You go bankrupt if you get sick, have to compete with lots of people for crappy jobs, and wind up in debt.

        Ditch the free-market crap and go socially conservative (everyone is sick of purple-haired people telling everyone there are 57 genders...look at how great 'Latinx' did) but economically liberal (national healthcare system, paid for by hiking taxes on Wall Street and the rest of big business). On immigration, say 'we need to give the new Americans time to assimilate' and slam shut the borders. On trade, keep moving supply chains out of China. Bringing American manufacturing back will bring jobs back to the heartland and avoid our economy crashing with the next coronavirus.

        We'll make less money, but we'll all be better off.

        People hate ‘woke’ and free markets.

        There should be enough such people to make appealing to them a viable political strategy. But the Republicans will never ditch the free market crap.

      262. @RadicalCenter
        Agree with much of what you just wrote, Hibernian. But our current military manufacturing system is NOT socialist.

        I’d ask, why do we allow military manufacturers to demand and get obscene profits from the taxpayers? Those profits flow mostly to very wealthy people who are the executives and major shareholders of those manufacturing corporations, in no way improving the effectiveness of our fighting forces or the safety of Americans.

        Why could we not have a federal defends agency manufacture the equipment that we need? Keep the same factories, the same talented technical and scientific experts and researchers, the same skilled arms factory workers, and give them at least the pay, benefits, and pension they receive now.

        Just cut out the large portion of the final price that is attributable to shareholder dividends and executive compensation. Russia has a government agency making most of its military equipment, and it appears that their equipment is generally more practically effective than ours these days. More bang for the buck, and more real-world utility. Whether that is “socialism” or not, isn’t it worth serious consideration?

        I’d ask, why do we allow military manufacturers to demand and get obscene profits from the taxpayers?

        A better question is: Why so many service personnel, why so many planes, ships, and tanks, and why so many wars?

      263. @anonn
        So you prefer being ruled by Jeffrey Epstein, Hilary Clinton, Paul Singer, Jeffrey Adelson and the like. Laissez-faire capitalism has been a catastrophe for families and communities. I prefer democracy in the workplace.

        We haven’t had laissez-faire capitalism since the Coolidge administration.

      264. @Autochthon
        Discuta con ellos. A mi, parece que tal vez pasa usted demasiado tiempo en Buenos Aires; es un gran país y un país grande.

        (La genética esta de acuerdo.)

        Wow! Apologies for dismissing your map (although the Brazil results still look weird). Anyway, it appears that you were right about Argentina and I was quite wrong. I was also surprised to learn that they did a countrywide genetic ancestry survey in Argentina that early.

        I’ve spent a fair amount of time in and around Salta, and Indian ancestry is visible there, but I’m still astounded by the PLOS figures.

        Thanks for the links.

      265. @Autochthon
        The CIA, peer-reviewed genetic studies, and the professional demographers at Latinobarómetro = "that map someone posted."

        I see there is no getting anything past you, wily Odysseus....

        How come Argentina is major but Uruguay is not? Was there a memorandum sent 'round definitively categorising them? What were the criteria? Were their citizens' showings in the Miss BumBum competition accounted for? (I'm asking for Mr. Derbyshire.)

        Just population size. Argentina is over 40 million, Uruguay under 4 million. No aspersions intended, Uruguay is lovely and Argentina is a perpetual basket case.

      266. @anon
        I mean, who has ever heard of rich people buying their way into an American "top" university?

        As Mr. Sailer has noted, there is of course a right way to do this…

        …and a wrong way…

        Remember, kids: if you negotiate the payoff with a lawyer, it’s a confidential settlement, but otherwise, it’s blackmail.

        The ABA thank you.

        • Replies: @Steve Sailer
        Similarly, if you threaten to reveal Bill Cosby's secrets without a lawyer, you could go to jail. With a lawyer, you could get a nice payoff.

        There really is a subtle difference between the two cases, but I can never remember what it is for more than 5 minutes after lawyers in my comments explain it to me. So if you know any dark secrets about rich individuals don't do anything without a lawyer.
      267. @Autochthon
        As Mr. Sailer has noted, there is of course a right way to do this...

        https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/190324133452-dr-dre-daughter-usc-large-169.jpg

        ...and a wrong way...

        https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2019/03/loridrupal.jpg

        Remember, kids: if you negotiate the payoff with a lawyer, it's a confidential settlement, but otherwise, it's blackmail.

        The ABA thank you.

        Similarly, if you threaten to reveal Bill Cosby’s secrets without a lawyer, you could go to jail. With a lawyer, you could get a nice payoff.

        There really is a subtle difference between the two cases, but I can never remember what it is for more than 5 minutes after lawyers in my comments explain it to me. So if you know any dark secrets about rich individuals don’t do anything without a lawyer.

        • Replies: @Anonymous
        Maybe you could write it down somewhere or save it as a file for future reference so that you could provide that for us as well. I'd like to know, personally. I'm sure there is some pretest or penumbra they at least repeat when asked.
      268. It really makes me sad that my Latino brothers & sisters would vote for Sanders WITHOUT doing research. I have followed him many years & know & see the lies he’s saying for votes! He is 78 yrs old. Lived on welfare till age 35. Hates Minorities. Never hired a black & ordered NUKE waste dumped in POOREST HISPANIC neighborhood. Those people, mothers, kids will probably develop cancer. Hispanic lives don’t matter. He is also for murdering babies after they are born, Its done by lethal injection like putting down a dog! Your vote for him is blood on your hands & these are Gods babies. You will pay dearly at judgement time. God’s commandment is thou shall not kill. A vote for this evil ungodly man is accepting his views and murdering babies! In his worthless 78 years he has never has a successful policy or Bill pass. He has NEVER introduced ANY form of Bill to help Latinos. poor.blacks. middle class. Now he vows he will remove your tax cuts P Trump gave you & raise it ALOT to pay for freebies you’ll never get. His policies will cause massive job losses . P Trump set records for jobs for Latinos & secured fair treatment on the job.He sees no colors. Every one is equal in his eyes. He put a Bill in for programs in inner cities to get adults out of poverty & kids off drugs but DEMS voted it down! He had a plan for a path to citizenship for DACA but DEMS voted it down & REFUSED TO MEET WITH HIM TO WORK OUT SOMETHING FOR THEM! P Trump didn’t abandon YOU don’t abandon him for a 78 YEAR OLD LIAR FOR FREEBIES HE CANT GIVE! Nothing in life is free & the Nation he wants us to be like pays HALF their paycheck for their freebies! STOP SELLING OUT YOUR BROTHERS & SISTERS LIKE BRAINLESS SHEEP LED TO SLAUGHTER BY POWER GRABBING OLD MAN WHO DOESN’T GIVE A SH$T ABOUT YOU!
        A boxer in Puerto Rico got injured and was loosing everything & not feed family. P Trump gave them money, food, clothes to help get on his feet! He put a homeless black lady up in his hotel for a YEAR! He doesn’t take a paycheck & gives it back to help Americans like the VETS program, YOU WONT HEAR THESE ON FAKE NEWS! He has a heart of gold. Loves AMERICAN people & puts us first! You wont see this old 78 yr old communist donate a salary, help anyone
        There was a basketball program in a very poor drug infested neighborhood that was keeping kids off drugs & the man who started it died. It was in trouble of being shut down but Trump gave them $$ keep it going HE CARES FOR PEOPLE! SANDERS TREATS PEOPLE NASTY & ADMITS IT. HE WAS NASTY AND ABUSIVE TO A WAITRESS & A WORKER IN A CAFE. HIS WIFE APOLOGIZED BUT LATER HE SAID YEA IM CRANKY AND ABRUPT SO WHAT!! Is that who you want for Pres?? WAKE UP, DO YOUR RESEARCH!! THE MEDIA HAS LIED & REFUSED TO REPORT THE MASSIVE THINGS & RECORDS P TRUMP HAS DONE. THEY ARE HUNDREDS. RESEARCH IT.

      269. @Steve Sailer
        Similarly, if you threaten to reveal Bill Cosby's secrets without a lawyer, you could go to jail. With a lawyer, you could get a nice payoff.

        There really is a subtle difference between the two cases, but I can never remember what it is for more than 5 minutes after lawyers in my comments explain it to me. So if you know any dark secrets about rich individuals don't do anything without a lawyer.

        Maybe you could write it down somewhere or save it as a file for future reference so that you could provide that for us as well. I’d like to know, personally. I’m sure there is some pretest or penumbra they at least repeat when asked.

      270. @nebulafox
        I don't think so. Look carefully at younger guys like Marco Rubio who were busy defending GOP orthodoxy in 2016. They can see where the future is and are shifting accordingly, from an ideological perspective. Bushism/Romneyism is dead as a dodo. Ironically, this would be far harder to deny but for Donald Trump winning the White House, because he's kept 80s nostalgia on life support.

        Money can only take you so far. If you stamp your feet and insist that candidates take up losing positions if they want your cash, then less are going to take your cash over time. The oligarchization of the US is so deeply entrenched and visible at this point that voters are willing to gravitate toward nearly anybody who *might* buck donor orthodoxy, in either party.

        We shall see.

      271. @Mr. Anon

        McCarthy is from the invite/invade/borrow wing of the GOP.
         
        Unfortunately, that pretty much IS the GOP - the whole Party, other than a very few Congressman, who are either ineffectual or irrelevant or both. I held out some hope when Trump was elected, that there might be a partial realignment of the Republican Party - that it might produce at least a significant caucus of representatives who are opposed to the ITW^2 doctrine. But it didn't happen. Certainly Trump didn't to anything to encourage it.

        By the way, here is the new (acting) White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney:

        https://www.salon.com/2020/02/23/white-house-chief-of-staff-mick-mulvaney-caught-on-tape-saying-us-is-desperate-for-more-immigrants_partner/

        Here's Mulvaney, back in 2016 revealing what he really thinks of Trump:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeCx12lT1zg

        Yet another case of The Donald elevating to an influential position somebody who a.) despises him, and b.) disagrees with him, or at least with the agenda he ran on. Trump isn't playing four dimensional chess. He's playing one dimensional Tic-Tac-Toe.

      Comments are closed.

      Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS