Hmm. Verification

Ola, everyone. I ran across an interesting article yesterday that seems to verify a lot of what I've been talking about lately. Let's discuss.

The article is at Politico (LINK) and it involves a study conducted (on the left) to try to determine what is going on in the Democratic Party. Ostensibly, they are confused why Biden and Bernie would be front-runners and they have tried to investigate it. What they found is this:

● Democratic voters want a female candidate... like I've been saying. They found an overall preference of 7% for a female candidate over a male. Women prefer female candidates by 8%. That doesn't sound like much but when they focus on "liberals" that number goes up to 15%. That's really significant, and I suspect it's even higher among "liberal women." It would not surprise me if it's close to 20% or 25% in that group.

Why does that matter? Well, think of the age thing I talked about the other day. Almost all the "moderate" Democrats are seniors. They will die off. As they do, liberal women will become 60% of the party. That will be an overwhelming advantage for female candidates. As I said, the Democratic future is angry white women.

● What about blacks? The polls finds a 4% preference for blacks over whites. BUT there's a catch. Blacks have a 15% preference for blacks. Take them out and whites only have a 0.7% preference for blacks. So blacks are largely at 0% among whites. In other words, there is a real indifference to blacks among the very white women who will be running the party... as I said. There isn't a hate for them, there is just an indifference, even an ignore-ance. Again, that is why I see this becoming a white woman's party, because they simply aren't thinking about anyone but themselves.

As aside, Latinos have a negative preference for blacks which offsets the 0.7%, not that Latinos really matter to the Democrats at this point.

● What about gays? I've been telling you that gays have left the party and, therefore, have become persona non grata. There is evidence for this everywhere. Now we add this study to the list. Gays are the one group to show a negative preference. In other words, gays get a -1.2% preference overall, but have a -7% preference from religious Democrats and a -6% preference from blacks, who have never been comfortable with gays. So gays, at best, are seen indifferently among white woman (some chunk of whom are likely lesbians -- probably 3%, suggesting a nearly -2% preference among straight white women), and they are seen negatively among all the other groups except high income, nonreligious, liberals (college professors and lawyers).

● Now let's add one more factor. The authors of the study point out a reason why these numbers may be worse than they appear. There is a preference (certainly among leftists) to lie about their own views to virtue signal. In other words, they know it's wrong to not want black candidates or to dislike gay candidates or, frankly, to express any preference. Even choosing women over men, while considered virtuous by many liberals, is still a prejudicial position that many will claim not to support even as they do. So it is very possible that this study understates the pro-woman bias, the anti-black/indifference-to-blacks bias, and the anti-gay bias. These numbers are already significant handicaps. Add another 3-5% in the wrong direction and they become nearly impossible hurdles.


So what does all this mean? Frankly, I think it confirms what I've been talking about. Democrats seem more normal now than they will become. Crazy huh? They are drifting to becoming a party of angry white women who want white women in power by a large number... that means the end of the male facade. Blacks want blacks in power, but no one else does and white women don't think about them. That means blacks get left out. Gays are passe and I think you won't see much energy expended on their issues.

Thoughts?

Biden Mystery Solved

I've been trying to figure out who the Democrats are and who they are becoming. For the most part, I've got it solved. The one odd piece of data I could not connect involved Biden's lead in the primaries. I understand it now. There's an age break in the Democratic party.

Here's the deal. More than 60% of Democratic Primary voters will be women. As I've mentioned, there is a ton of activity from these women centered around wanting to toss out the men who form the party facade and instead run women. That said, there is a strange disconnect between this and polls which show Biden at 38%. Not only is Biden a white dude (and therefore flies in the face of the women's only movement), but he's not even an "interesting" white dude like Buttguy or Bernie. So what is happening?

It turns out, he's a nostalgia vote...

Apparently, Biden's support comes almost entirely from Democrats older than 55. They want someone "electable" and they view Biden as (1) having a long, respectable history in the Senate and (2) being Obama's right hand man... or is it left hand in the Democratic Party? Anyways, that's what they think.

Not coincidentally, only 20% of these Democrats describe themselves as "very liberal," with most describing themselves as "moderate" or even "conservative." 41% of these people support Biden.

Go younger than that, however, and everything changes. Just over 40% of younger Democrats call themselves "very liberal." None call themselves conservatives. The rest split between "liberals" and "moderates," with liberals winning. Biden draws 17% here, behind both Bernie and Elisabeth Warren.

So what we are seeing is likely a last hurrah of the older "conservative" Democratic vote. They've focused on Biden as compared to a split field on the left. What that means now is a good question. What it means for the future is bad for the Democrats. As these older Democrats die off, they are being replaced by a group that has a center much farther to the left (a true shift in ideology) and are basically devoid of anyone on the right. That puts them much further outside the ideological mainstream of America. Combining this with the rise of women in the party suggests a coming party that looks and sounds like something quite foreign to most Americans... a sort of Progressive Party of Single White Women. Indeed, white women under 45 voted 70% for Sanders in 2016, making them hardcore leftists and nothing like the dying Democrats.

So can Biden win? Good question. His support is about 40% among half the party. That's not a bad base if he can make it grow. But his support is an awful 17% among the other half of his base, the energetic portion. That's not good. The one grace he has is that no one else has grabbed the ring. But that sounds more like he's just waiting to get the boot by some new candidate rather than a march toward victory. If no one else comes along, then he might win a plurality election. But I think the problem with that is that Bernie Sanders will dominate the caucus states, which tend to be the middle of the country where the older voters are. That will quarantine his support and make him vulnerable to whoever wins the left. Who that is remains to be seen!

Bad Decisions

Some interesting arguments and bad decisions last week. Let's discuss.

● Something that really made me laugh last week was the Democratic freak out that Trump is dropping illegals into sanctuary cities. Apparently, Democrats aren't actually fans of these people... they just want the votes. Imagine that. That's not going to help win Hispanics over, who do seem to be drifting away from the Democrats. In the middle of this came this wonderful quote you have to hear. It comes from a Florida Democrat who was upset that Trump was shipping illegals to them. He said:

“That is so typically Trump. When the facts don’t fit the narrative, you slightly adjust the narrative.”

LOL! That's actually how it's supposed to work. When the facts don't fit your argument, you adjust your argument to fit the facts. That's logic. That's truth. Apparently, that's wrong in liberal circles though. No surprise there.

● Since I was in high school, the liberals who run the SAT have been tinkering with the test to try to help women and minorities. These groups have always done significantly worse than white males and the assumption is that this is because of vague clouds of sneaky racism that have somehow affected the test. So they keep removing questions on which women and minorities "under perform" and they keep trying to adjust the way the test works to help those groups. Despite decades of rigging the test, the white boys keep winning. So now the SAT is flat out going to adjust test scores to help women and minorities, and they aren't even saying how much they will be doing to make these adjustments. Not only is this completely discrediting on the test because it means you simply can't trust female or minority scores, but it won't work. The more you coddle a group, the less independent the group becomes, and the sharper the competitors become, because they need to be.

● I've been watching the abortion issue with interest. In particular, I've been watching the horrible Hollywood response. For those who don't know, Alabama just passed a law basically banning abortion in all cases. They did this to try to overturn Row v. Wade, but ironically, this case will likely cause the current Supreme Court to affirm Roe. But that's down the road. I'm thinking about the politics of it at the moment.

Politically, I don't think this hurts the GOP. The main thing is that no one outside of Alabama seems to be rushing to adopt this. Even normally strong pro-life GOP types are backing off. Pat Robertson even backed off. So it's hard to tar the GOP with this.

I don't think the Democrats are getting hurt either, though I think Buttguy made a mistake taking a position that even third-trimester abortions should be allowed. His appeal, to the extent there is any, is that he's "normal" but gay, but normal people don't take a hardcore abortion stance that far outside of even the pro-Choice mainstream.

Who I think is getting hurt is Hollywood. These dingbats have decided to fight the Alabama decision by telling stories of the abortions they've had. Uh, what? Talk about a bad idea! For one thing, they have wrongly assumed that people will see this sympathetically. People won't. That assumption relies on people seeing them as normal people trapped by events who had no choice. A necessary evil.

But that conflicts with them selling themselves as special, rich, powerful, influential. It also doesn't help that they are proud of these stories or that their abortion stories aren't "young girl in poverty" but "actress doesn't want career ruined." So rather than coming across as "good girl stuck in unfortunate situation," it comes across as "stupid rich girl bailing out of mistake." It also confirms the view most people have of these women: they're f-d up. These women made the short-sighted, long-shot decision to try to become famous and mistake their fame for wisdom... they used their bodies to take jobs from older actresses, and now whine about the importance of looks... they slept their way into their wealth and now try to rewrite their histories by claiming rape victim status... they complain incessantly of harassment, even as they live a life of privilege and command and even as they get caught doing the same... they tonedeaf-ly scream that their million dollar salaries are unfair to women... and they excuse their friends of all these crimes when caught. Unlikable to say the least.

● Speaking of Buttguy, he wants to drop any reference to Thomas Jefferson from the Democratic Party. He's pandering to the crowd who hate on Jefferson because he owned slaves. Not only is it stupid to abandon a national hero, but it's extra stupid to do so when that hero anchors your organization, especially when that organization is in danger of becoming unhinged. The less connected you are to the public's beliefs, the more you better cling to at least the appearance of tradition or you will become something foreign. The Democrats are headed that way fast.

Thoughts.

Ha Ha

I'm really enjoying the Democratic primary. It's bringing out the worst in these jokers. A couple thoughts.

● The biggest fun I'm having is watching the "ascent" of Mayor Buttguy. This guy is purely a media creation. They love him because he's white and gay and cute and gay and, gosh golly, he's what those stupid Americans in flyover country claim to want, and he's gay so shove that down their stupid throats! Did I mention that he's gay!! YES!!! HE'S GAY!!! ISN'T IT GLORIOUS?!!!! This is CNN reporting.

Sadly, in the rest of the party, Buttguy isn't selling quite so well. In the newsrooms, he's the new crush with about 100% support because he's just like them -- gay and white and better-than-you -- but elsewhere he seems to be about a 6% candidate. Real Clear Politics has him at 6.8% (down from 8.4%). Among blacks in South Carolina he has exactly 0.0% support.

And that brings me to what I've been enjoying lately. There has been a real pushback among blacks against Buttguy. Booker and Harris supporters have become furious that Buttguy is getting all this glowing coverage while they are being ignored even though their candidates have much better resumes. Hmm. Why could that be? Booker, who has Buttguy's resume and a lot more, couldn't get on the news right now if he took hostages, so his supporters have even gone so far in the past few days as to whisper the "P" word: privilege.

Apparently, being white and male makes you privileged, even if you are gay. Interesting, change from a few years ago, don't you think? (Told you.) Buttguy tried the "if you've ever been excluded then support me" line today which should only inflame this as Booker/Harris's people see Buttguy as an oppressor. So get your popcorn. Things are brewing ugly as race becomes a subtext. What's more, these same people whisper-screaming "privilege" also make a point of saying that it's time to hold the media accountable, so there should be plenty of fun as all these smug, white oppressor journalists have to either eat crow or deny their racism.

● Beto 2.0. I guess the first Beto campaign was just a Beta test. Beto has decided to reinvent himself now that his campaign has stalled and is starting to roll back downhill. It makes sense to do this, but it doesn't make sense to make it so obvious. Needing to reboot a campaign before the race has even begun reeks of desperation... which is what this is. So put a fork in Beto, he's done. (He's got 4.2% support, down from 10%.)

● The new Democratic litmus test is "break up Facebook!" //shakes head How small they have become... dumb*ss lemmings.

● Bernie just can't seem to understand why he's under constant attack at the moment. Pretty much everything he does is bringing criticism. He's definitely not used to that, nor does he know how to handle it.

Thoughts?

Stuff

Some political tidbits.

● San Francisco is banning the use of facial recognition software by the state. They are worried that it could discriminate because it's more likely to get minority faces wrong than white faces. So they aren't banning it because it's hyper-intrusive and reeks of 1984.. no. They're banning it because it isn't going to be racially fair in its oppression. That's a tad twisted.

● There's a poll out which shows that Biden has a 30 point lead over Bernie. There's something wrong with this. Not only is this a huge sudden shift, but it also conflicts with other data showing Bernie's approval within the party and 77% of the party embracing socialism. I suspect (1) polling error, (2) Republicans sneaking into the poll and picking Biden, and (3) other Democrats hoping to knock Bernie off, knowing that Biden has no chance to win.

● I've pointed out several times that women run the Democratic Party and that trend is going to increase. Here's another piece of data to support this: 60% of Democratic primary voters will be women. This is why they are pandering to women so heavily.

● My whole life, the left has claimed that men don't take women seriously when it comes to politics. I would argue this is men don't take liberal women seriously, but either way. So guess what Margaret Carlson said the other day which does nothing to help the case of taking liberal women voters seriously. She said that the reason Beto is finished (he's crashing in the polls) is that he remind women of their most irresponsible boyfriends and he's turning them off at that level. Not policy. Not electability. Not leadership ability. Boyfriend material. When even liberals say this is what other liberals are thinking, should we really take their views seriously?

● Mayor Buttguy is finding that his support has significant limits. In the news media, he's a darling. In black America, he has virtually zero support. He's laying this on not having had a chance yet for blacks to see that he will represent their interests. Doubt it. The reality is that blacks have never embraced gays and, now that gays are no longer part of the coalition, they embrace them even less so. Why does this matter? Without heavy (Obama-level) black turnout, he loses Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida for sure.

Thoughts?

Oh no!

Ladies and Gentlemen, Nancy Pelosi has warned us. She is worried that Trump might not "respect" the results of the election if he loses. She said he might try to "poison the public's mind." Makes me shudder. I can only imagine what that would look like...

I can see it now...

He begins be declaring that any victory except his own would be illegitimate because the other side conspired with Russia.

He would hold mass rallies calling for the invalidation of the election. There would be gnashing of teeth and drinking of Starbucks and littering of the public square and a great whine would go out among the public: "Somebody fix this for me!"

He would issue hashtags like #notmypresident

He would unleash the most unprofessional and childish attacks on anyone connected to the administration. Words like "fuck" and "asshole" would become common discourse among his boorish followers on television in interviews and in the streets. No insult would be considered too low, no allegation too false to alleged.

He would encourage his mindless followers to stalk administration people in restaurants... throw water on them... send death threats by the bushel.

He and his mindless followers might call themselves "the Resistance" with the intent of sabotaging the new government.

His followers would attack anyone in a Democratic hat. They would try to deny them service in stores. They would try to get them fired from jobs and expelled from schools.

He would scream about impeachment... and impeachment... and impeachment... and impeachment... and impeachment. Like a verbal tick. No false allegation would be too false to justify impeachment, not minor peeve too small to merit high treason.

He would tell lies about everything... obsess about everything... demand investigations of everything.

He would scream about impeaching the new administration's nominees and appointed judges.

It would be horrible! What kind of pathetic monsters could act in such a way? Oh wait... I think I've seen this before. But where? Who could possibly have done this before? Oh, that's right. Hi Nancy.

Feminism v. Racialism

I've been seeing something interesting growing for some time now. An article today kind of crystallized it for me. Let me share my thoughts.

As you know, the left -- owners of the Democratic Party -- have abandoned ideology and instead adopted identity politics. Gone are the sweeping ideas of dead white men like Marx, old-tyme union bosses and tweed covered college professors. In their place are the pet peeves of anyone who can form a group. As this is harder than it seems (you have to convince these people to make themselves victims), they're basically down to groups: angry single women and angry blacks.

The problem is that blacks and women have always been an uncomfortable alliance. Blacks and women compete for affirmative action at schools and in jobs. Rape-fearing white women (all modern feminists) often view black males as rapists. Black women view white women as sexual competitors who "steal" their men. And as a lot of recent chatter has shown, blacks view white women as "white" (read: oppressors) first and foremost. This does not a strong alliance make.

There is another problem. With white women outnumbering blacks by a hefty margin, and white women not being inclined to share, blacks will eventually be left out in the cold. Why won't white women share? Two reasons: (1) they are a group of spoiled human beings, being mainly upper and upper-middle class (read: pampered) and single (read: not accustomed to sharing), and (2) oppression theory has convinced them that they are the ultimate victims and, therefore, (a) they deserve everything they want and (b) as victims they can do no wrong.

At one time, blacks had moral authority to help their cause. When the Civil Rights Movement did their thing, for example, they had the moral high ground and the legal high ground of wanting equality. But since that time, the black community has made two huge mistakes. First, they squandered the moral high ground by (1) screaming racism as a means of stifling opposition rather than exposing actual racism, and (2) they ignored the racism of their liberal allies for political reasons and let a general belief take hold in liberal circles that their racism wasn't racism because they didn't see themselves as racist. Because of this, the charge of racism lost its punch and it couldn't be applied to liberals anyways.

What I'm seeing now is an attempt to undo this.

Where this really began, as far as I can tell, is in the heavily promoted idea of white privilege. This is the idea that somehow whites benefit from racism even if they "aren't racist," with the additional sub-theory that all whites are racist but they just can't see it because of this white privilege, i.e. whites can't see how racist they really are because they are so surrounded by racism that they can no longer see it.

Obviously, no conservative is going to accept this crap. But it wasn't meant for conservatives. This was meant to undermine the idea that liberals can't be racist. This was meant to unsettle all those victim-wannabe white women who felt they weren't racist because their maid was black and they gave her a Christmas bonus. "I can't be racist... I'm a liberal!" This was meant to undo that.

This was followed with a series of direct attacks. After the election, the black media blamed white women for Trump. In fact, in a rather famous piece, a black woman started her smear on white women with the words, "Dear White Women." What followed was a diatribe calling white women stupid, elitist and racist. This and dozens of other similar attacks tried to get white women to accept guilt by racial-gender association. There have since a steady trickle of articles written by black women in which they talk about elite white women being out of touch with the concerns of real (read: black) Americans.

Then came the #metoo movement. Interestingly, this "movement" was lacking black women. Where were they? Apparently, they were angrier at the white women of the #metoo movement than they were at the supposedly evil males. Why? Well, lots of articles were written at the time angrily denouncing #metoo as a movement of elitist white women who only care about their issues and who don't care at all about the concerns of genuine black women. Hmm. This was the first time I heard the term "white feminism." That's a direct challenge to any thoughts of black/white women unity, and a takedown of feminism that must sting feminists severely.

Since that time, there have been a huge number of claims of racism made against white liberal women by blacks. The Democratic campaign in particular has brought out a large number of black female (online) protesters who accuse the Democratic Party of being racist because all the top candidates (by polls) are white men and women. This is going on at the same time women's groups are upset that the top-top candidates are males. In other words, white women are angry that the very top candidates are men, but blacks are upset that white men and women are the top. Do you see how those interests do not fit well together? White women would be perfectly happy if it was all white women, blacks would be just as angry. Interestingly, the two groups haven't been able to merge their complaints into one movement.

Similarly, you had "Oscar so white" which complained about a lack of blacks getting awards in Hollywood, even as a large number of white women got them. The presence of white women did not alleviate their concerns.

So do white women care? Well, a handful of elitist white Hollywood women have recently attacked their own shows for not including enough "minority" (read: blacks... Asians, Hispanics and Indians need not apply) actors and crew. The lead actor(ess) on Grey's Anatomy did this and now Cynthia Nixon has done it to Sex in the City. Nixon attacked Sex as "white feminism," which she derogatorily dismissed as out of touch. But few other women seem willing to accept this.

I think what we are seeing is that blacks know they are being shoved out by a group of self-obsessed elitist white women and they are desperate to change the psyche of these women to accept them as fellow-victims. But I honestly don't think these women care. Yes, there are a couple who scream of white feminism, but they are outliers. The rest see themselves as suffering oppression and now they want power and they aren't going to share.

Thoughts?