Friday, April 29, 2016

What becomes of Bernie?

In the general election Trump will peel off some fraction of Sanders voters. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the extent to which that happens could be the state's deciding factor. It's increasingly looking like superdelegates alone won't constitute the entirety of Hillary's margin of victory, but they'll make up most of it. To the extent that there is electoral enthusiasm on the left, it's driven entirely by Sanders, who brings out much larger crowds to his rallies than Hillary does to hers. And there's the curious tendency for Hillary to regularly underperform in exit polls relative to actual preference vote results to a much greater and more consistent extent than anything that has happened on the Republican side.

All these problems go away if Hillary offers Sanders vice president. That's a long shot, though. The markets have him as only the seventh most likely Democrat VP. With over 40% of Democrat votes coming from non-whites, putting two whites on the ticket inherently threatens the unity of the Coalition of the Fringes. Yet Tim Kaine, a heterosexual white goy, is perceived as the most likely pick. Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, both white (Fauxcahontas notwithstanding), come in ahead of Sanders as well, and Mark Warren's odds are judged to be as good as Sanders', so the idea that an exclusively white ticket is perceived to be untenable isn't the only reason.

Commenting on Bill Clinton's interaction with BLM protesters, the Derb provides another explanation:
What's going on here is a classic pivot to the center. The Clintons had to be nice to blacks when the Southern primaries were in play. There are a lot of blacks down there, and Bonnie and Clyde wanted to get them out to vote. Now that's all over, the nomination is sewn up, and the Clintons are looking to the general in November. For that they need to get working-class white votes; so the blacks can go pound sand
I was in elementary school when Bill Clinton was inaugurated so I'm a generation removed from firsthand experience with the taken-for-granted assumption that the Clintons are deft, astute political operators. I'll defer to Derb with regards to Bill.

My impression of Hillary, though, is that she's a flat-footed, shambling behemoth who is as likely to lose a battle as she is to win one when she goes in with a massive numerical troop advantage. She's more a late-life Pompey than she is a Julius Caesar. She lost to a mostly unknown upstart in '08 and she's having a hell of a time with with a long-known and long-dismissed out-and-out socialist who looks like he crawled out of another century.

On the other hand she did learn from '08 that there is no winning the Democrat nomination without winning blacks so maybe I'm not giving her enough credit.

I'm not the first to notice Trump laying off Sanders as of late. This even though the vast majority of the rabble-rousing criminal miscreants at his rallies are, to the extent that they're politically engaged at all, claim to a person to be Sanders supporters.

As mentioned above this makes sense as a means of picking up some disaffected white men who are finally coming to terms with the fact that the influence of white men on the Democrat party is weak and getting weaker. But will Trump go full monty and actually offer Sanders a spot in a Trump administration? Agnostic writes:
Maybe head of the Federal Trade Commission, though, restoring the agency to its original function as trust-buster rather than milquetoast "consumer protection" stuff.
Whatever its demerits, a Trump administration with Sanders somewhere in the mix would accelerate the Republican = white, Democrat = non-white political dynamic that is probably a prerequisite for steering the American segment of the European diaspora off the slow, steady suicidal slide it's on now and for that reason alone I'd like to see it.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Lady's room? Don't mind if I do

That a man who thinks he's a lass is no more a woman than a LARPer who thinks he's a minotaur is actually an anthropomorphic bull is obvious.

Pointing out that the gender bender stuff is all make believe isn't the most effective way to hold the line on this latest front in the Culture War, though.

Instead, a modest suggestion for men who favor living in a society where each person feels compelled to use the restroom that corresponds to his or her biological sex: Every time you go into Target (or any other retailer who adopts a free-for-all restroom policy) and nature calls, use the women's room. No need to make a production out of it. Just take care of business and be on your way. If anyone questions you, dismissively respond with how you're trying to get in touch with your feminine side.

To take it up another level, use the women's changing rooms as well.

If enough men do this eventually critical mass will be reached and something will have to change--something radical, like maybe reverting back to the restroom policy that worked for 99.997% of the population until last week.

Parenthetically, social conservatives will lose on this issue just like they lose on every other one. Instead of a radical response like the one suggested here they'll instead try to objectively rationalize against a chorus of "why do you HATE HATE HATE trannies?!". The battle is over before it even begins.

Libertarians will lose, too, though it'll take a little longer. Tranny free-for-all restroom privileges will eventually be legislated into existence or discovered by the courts at some point in the future. Currently the issue has life because a city legislated tranny restroom protection and a state legislated conventional restroom policy in response. In the future things like this will be moot because federal protections mandating private organizations allow people to use whatever restrooms they want to use will be in existence.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Trump outperforms polling expectations

++Addition3++Steve Sailer takes note. It's worth pointing out that this overperformance is, to some extent, expected since undecided likely voters are excluded. That is somewhat offset by the votes for people no longer actively campaigning who aren't inquired about in polls but who still end up getting votes (Cruz lost to Ben Carson in one of New York's voting districts, for example) and for those who vote as "uncommitted". What is noteworthy, though, is that his overperformance gained considerable steam over time even as the number of undecideds decreased. What is clear regarding Trump is that the people who say they are going to vote for him do, in fact, end up voting for him, and then some.

++Addition2++In the 15 states that have gone since March 15, Trump has outperformed his RCP average in 14 of them, doing 5.4 points better than predicted. Indiana, the last competitive election of the nominating campaign, has been added to the table.

++Addition++The table in the body of the post has been updated to include the results from April 26 and May 3. Trump outperformed his RCP average in all five states, bringing the number of states he has outperformed polling predictions in up to 26 compared to 10 states where he fared worse than expected. Trump now averages 2.6 points better in actual results than in aggregate poll estimates.

Nate Silver continues to weep.

---

The stubborn belief that Trump has generally underperformed polling expectations came about after Iowa, a state where he in fact did do worse than the RCP average (which only includes polls taken less than two weeks out from the actual vote) predicted he would. He also fared more poorly than expected in Oklahoma and Kansas*. Excepting the cuck corridor, though, doing better than expected has been the rule rather than the exception.

Of the 30 states for which polling was conducted close to the preference vote, Trump did better than the RCP average expected he would in 20 of them and more poorly than expected in the remaining 10. Through New York, his average real performance shakes out to 1.6% more of the vote than polls predicted he would receive [Update: Through April 26, his average reals performance comes to 2.4% more of the total vote share than polls have predicted he would receive].

This tendency has been accentuated over the last month and a half. Of the nine states that have held their preference votes since March 15, Trump has exceeded RCP averages in eight of them, the only exception being North Carolina, where his polling average was 41.3% and his actual share of the vote was 40.2%. Even in Wisconsin he did marginally better than polls suggested he would. The story there was of Kasich's collapse, an implosion which redounded to Cruz's benefit.

The data are presented in the following table in descending order of actual performance vis a vis predicted performance:

StateRCPAvgActualBetter (worse)
Indiana42.854.6+11.8
Rhode Island52.363.8+11.5
Arkansas23.032.8+9.8
Arizona38.047.1+9.1
Pennsylvania48.356.8+8.5
New York53.160.4+7.3
Maryland47.754.4+6.7
Mississippi41.047.3+6.3
Delaware55.060.8+5.8
Alaska28.033.5+5.5
Alabama38.043.4+5.4
Missouri36.040.8+4.8
New Hampshire31.235.3+4.1
Massachusetts45.349.3+4.0
Connecticut53.757.7+4.0
Nevada42.045.9+3.9
Minnesota18.021.3+3.3
Utah11.014.0+3.0
Florida43.045.8+2.8
Illinois36.038.8+2.8
Georgia36.238.8+2.6
Kentucky35.035.9+0.9
Vermont32.032.7+0.7
South Carolina31.832.5+0.7
Wisconsin34.535.1+0.6
Ohio35.435.7+0.3
Michigan37.336.5(0.8)
North Carolina41.340.2(1.1)
Tennessee40.038.9(1.1)
Texas28.2(26.7)(1.5)
Idaho30.028.1(1.9)
Louisiana43.441.4(2.0)
Virginia36.834.7(2.1)
Iowa28.624.3(4.3)
Oklahoma32.728.3(4.4)
Kansas35.023.3(11.7)

Nate Silver's 538 continues to perpetually calibrate as his site misses the mark again and again (538's expert panel predicted Trump would get 71 delegates in New York; he picked up 90 of the state's 95). Silver uses what he calls a "polls-plus forecast" that tries to take endorsements and the inverse of national polling into account (see here for more details if you're so inclined, but the formula is garbage so I'd suggest you save your time).

On the Republican side, endorsements have been toxic. Initially, ¡Jabe! enjoyed a huge endorsement advantage. After he was gutted, Rubio claimed the endorsement crown. Then he got sliced up and Cruz, who is in hail mary mode, now has the dubious distinction.

Almost without fail--I can't recall seeing a single state where it's been otherwise, but I'm not going to dig through the archives to make absolutely certain--this "polls-plus" forecast shows Trump doing worse than the polling average alone does (see Indiana to get an idea of the usual gap; polls give Trump a 77% chance but polls-plus only a 45% chance).

This is in spite of the fact that Trump mostly outperforms polling averages! So the "polls forecast" slightly underestimates Trump's performances and then the "polls-plus forecast" underestimates them even more, yet Silver keeps putting more emphasis on the latter.

* I made several hundred dollars betting on the outcome in my home state. It's a closed caucus and it went for Huckabee in '08 and Santorum in '12. Kansas always goes for the theocrat.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

White men favor biologically-based restroom usage; Women, gays, Hispanics good with gender bender make believe

A Reuters-Ipsos poll finds that Americans who think a person should be required to use the restroom that corresponds with his or her sex narrowly outnumber those who feel the restroom designations are merely suggestive, 52.1%-47.9%, with "don't know" responses excluded (n = 2,850).

White men drive the overall preference for biologically-based restrooms, favoring use corresponding to sex, 58.3%-41.7% (n = 677).

And by a margin of more than 3-to-1, 75.4%-24.6%, conservative white men oppose men using women's restrooms (n = 389). When they're removed from the equation, the non-conservative white male majority opinion is that sex designations don't matter.

Since conservative white men should of course be removed from everything this is to be treated as the de facto national consensus!

Women, across races and political orientations, are more likely than men to favor gender bender make believe.

Hispanics, who we are told are "natural conservatives"--or at any rate, were told; do cuckservatives even bother making this argument anymore?--favor allowing a person to use whatever restroom he or she wants to use irrespective of sex, 52.3%-47.7% (n = 174).

Z suspects many gays resent the tranny stuff:
Homosexuals, like all minority populations, back the winner. Given the general lunacy on display, gays rightly see the lunatics as the winner. That said, I suspect a lot of gays resent the tranny stuff. From what I gather, homosexuals have never liked the trannies. Plus, this probably feels like a bridge too far. Gays could be concerned about where things are headed.
Gays and bisexuals are on board with this, at least publicly. While 78.3% are in favor of allowing people to use whichever restrooms they want just 21.7% are opposed (n = 219).

White men are about the only ones who will publicly refuse to assent to the CultMarx order of the day, so this result isn't surprising.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Nothing left to conserve

Charlotte empowers a fraction of 1% of the population to rub their insecurities in the faces of the 99% and change who find sex-segregated restrooms a uncontroversial aspect of civilized society. The state of North Carolina responds by mandating sex-segregated restrooms, legally overriding Charlotte's tranny triumph.

The state law only applies to schools and other government organizations so private companies are still free to enforce restroom usage policies as they see fit. Big businesses will happily allow trannies to do whatever they want to do, but smaller businesses may object to a tranny testing the water in an opposite sex restroom before being blasted to kingdom come by the full weight of the Establishment and their ever-zealous volunteer thought police. This is another skirmish in World War T, the ultimate outcome of which should not be in doubt.

Social conservatives will lose here, just as they lose on everything else--prayer in schools, abortion, same-sex marriage, drug legalization, and on and on. Going tit in reaction to the progressive tat always fails. The left's thesis is met by the right's antithesis and the new synthesis is somewhere in between where things were and where the left ultimately wants them to be. Then from the new location another tat brings on a tit. This happens time after time all over the place and after awhile the left has gained every inch of ground it was fighting for. Then it sets its sights on something new. It' happened with same-sex marriage and now it's happening with the trannies.

The federal apparatus has found or is in the process of finding a right not be discriminated against for every self-asserted identity no matter how deviant or absurd the putative identity is (heterosexual white male goys excepted). This inalienable right has marched through nearly every institution in society. When some retrograde entity objects, these institutions converge on said entity and crush it to smithereens. And that CultMarx institutional alliance isn't merely nationwide, it's global. Great Britain has issued a warning to people travelling to North Carolina in response to the bill.

Instead of trying to clumsily react to the left, the North Carolinas of the world should champion the right to free association as the ultimate liberty worth protecting in a free society. Or at least they should have. That ship sailed a long, long time ago.

Parenthetically, the attack on Trump for waving off North Carolina's reaction--from the same cucks who piled on him for asserting that if abortions are illegal there should be consequences for initiating them--is much ado about nothing.

Trump doesn't care about the Culture War stuff. This would be a non-priority in a Trump administration, and they all know it. He only talked about it because he was asked to. Revealingly, his biggest concern was one that shouldn't be unexpected from a business magnate, especially a person in construction--could this issue, like the incalculably wasteful boondoggle that is the ADA, end up requiring businesses to install additional tranny restrooms that will end up being used about as often as the handicapped parking stalls right in front of QuikTrips' entrances are?

The people leading the assault on North Carolina style themselves "progressive". It's more semantically precise than "liberal" since this is hardly about maximizing personal freedoms. A handful of people are free to invade the comprised space of the vast majority of the population that no longer finds itself free to abide by an overturned social custom that until last week everyone in America found perfectly agreeable.

Those of us on the right, broadly defined, should take a cue and ditch the term "conservative". There isn't much left to conserve, and every day that cache dwindles down further. Harriet Tubman's importance, such as it is, is symbolic. What she allegedly did--helped several slave families escape slavery--while impactful on an individual level, was historically trivial. It is utterly dwarfed by comparison to the lives of Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, or Franklin.

But she was brave, courageous, and suffered some hard knocks. Okay, well Jackson was nearly sliced in two by a captor's sword when he was a teenager. He put his life on the line in New Orleans to beat a larger British force when it wasn't even necessary to do so. Then he was elected president of the United States. He took it to the merciless Indian savages at a time when the country was pushing relentlessly westward. He was a larger-than-life character, a populist who obliterated the second national bank and a pugilist who stared down a bullet in the chest before returning the favor, replete with lethal enhancement.

He's a racist white Southerner, though (excuse the triple redundancy there). She's an oppressed twofer. And so another bit of American heritage worth preserving is relegated to the dustbin of history.

What, exactly, has occurred over the last six-plus decades that is worth conserving? The demographic replacement of America's founding population? Abortion on demand? Deficit spending? An ever-growing welfare state? Affirmative action? Sanctified buggery? Messianic democracy-spreading? Really, what is there? Dropping the sarcasm for a moment, maybe lower marginal tax rates for individuals? Yes, we'll trade that for the house in a heartbeat!

Conservatism is fast becoming synonymous with cuckservatism. As Heartiste so eloquently puts it:
Republican pundits, pols, and voters who surrender to leftoid race equalism premises in order to curry favor with the gatekeepers of polite discourse. Rhetorically, cuckservatives sell out their children’s and their nation’s future, and their ancestors’ pasts, on the altar of liberal dogma, in practice “raising another man’s ideology”. And they do so oblivious to the humiliations they visit upon themselves.
"Nationalist" is problematic for similar reasons. The nation is all of the things listed above. Many of us have become barbarians living inside the gates. "Antiquarian", perhaps? That could extend back to a conservatism that predating living memories, but fetishizing things like the Constitution are losing propositions, too. We've had the Constitution from the beginning and now Bruce Jenner has the right to walk into the stall next to your five year-old daughter. "Identitarian" is okay but it's difficult to articulate succinctly. "Citizenist" is more actionable. In the meantime, Alt-Right serves as a great placeholder, or even a larger umbrella term under which several like those mentioned above will exist.

Secession, nullification, poolside.

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Milo Yiannopolous says gays are shifting away from cultural Marxism

Nero asserts that gays are shifting away from the CultMarx left:



Maybe he's detecting the seminal stages of an impending shift but I suspect self-projection may be clouding his judgment.

I'd happily be proven wrong. Here, however, is how deviant sexual support shakes out in Reuters-Ipsos general election polling in a Trump vs Clinton match up (n = 683):


That's quite similar to the bugger drubbing Romney took in 2012:


This is more of an academic question than one of crucial electoral importance. Gays and bisexuals make up no more than 5% of the total electorate and tend to have demographic characteristics that favor the left (single, urban, irreligious, etc) even before sexuality is taken into account.

Yes, looking at the data here we see that Obama's strong margin of victory among gays was what gave him the edge over Romney, as both fared equally well among heterosexuals. But just like in the case of whites vis-a-vis Hispanics, if Republicans managed to do a few points better among heterosexuals the apparent electoral importance of gays would disappear.

Tuesday, April 19, 2016

Sanders once again wins big among white men while losing overall

There is another candidate who unapologetically welcomes the support of white men should those of you who've finally had enough of doing the bidding of a political machine that has no seat at the table for you:


Trump has prudently toned down the attacks on Sanders. Sanders' supporters are facing the same sort of Establishment opposition that Trumps' supporters are.

Sanders' supporters are going to be shut out by their wing of the Establishment. Despite the other Establishment wing's best efforts to prevent it, however, Trumps' supporters may well overcome the enemy's right flank. When they pour in through that opening to go Cannae on an Establishment no longer able to effectively draw its weapons, they would be prudent to welcome those unsuccessfully charging the Establishment's left to circle around and join in the bloodbath from the opening Trump's cavalry charge has created.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Trump must win on the first ballot but doesn't need 1,237 pledged to do it

The markets have Trump winning the GOP nomination at 60% and the likelihood of a contested convention at 57%, or a 43% chance the nomination is decided on the first ballot. It's inconceivable that Cruz wins in the first round. Consequently, we're looking at an 17% chance accorded to Trump if it goes into extra innings. Even that strikes me as far too optimistic. After the first round, there will be mass defections of Trump's initial pledged delegates. Party rules only require fidelity on the first ballot. Forget about poaching delegates from Rubio and Kasich, Trump won't be able to hold onto his own.

Trump has to win in round one. That does not necessarily mean that he needs to hit 1,237 in pledged delegates going into the convention, however. There are 109 unpledged delegates in the initial round who are not formally tied to any particular candidate. My best guess is that Trump will come in with 1,200 pledged delegates. The strategy then becomes getting ~37 of the 109 unpledged delegates to vote for Trump in the first round.

Can Trump get one-in-three of these unpledged delegates? Nine of them are from Guam, which is at the southern end of the Northern Mariana Islands where Trump won 73% of the vote. Another 9 come from the south Pacific as well, in the form of American Samoa. There are 3 in the Virgin Islands and one he'll get out of North Dakota. The balance in play are from Pennsylvania. They are the biggest question marks. Many have said they'll back whoever wins the popular vote, presumably even if it's just a plurality, but these commitments aren't backed by anything. If Trump gets close to 50% in the state, persuading these people becomes realistic.

Paul Manafort should be working exclusively on the unpledged delegates in the first round. Trying to win in subsequent rounds will be as futile as king Canute trying to control the tides.

Thursday, April 14, 2016

Majority of Republicans favor punishment of women who have illegal abortions

Since the beginning of April Reuters-Ipsos has conducted a daily tracking poll asking respondents what penalty, if any, should be given to a mother who chooses to illegally abort her fetus. Among Republicans, a modest majority, 55.8%, favors some sort of punishment for the woman to the 44.2% who do not think she should be punished (n = 1,114). Even among Republican women a slight majority, at 51.5%, favors punishment to 48.5% who do not (n = 748). Punishment is a minority position only just among likely general election voters, with 44.0% favoring some sort of punishment to 56.0% who are opposed (n = 2,414).

In Wisconsin, following an allegedly seriously damaging remark (that offered the only remotely consistent moral position for those who see abortion as tantamount to murder), Trump for the first time performed equally as well with women as he did with men. In every other state with exit polling data so far Trump has fared relatively poorly with women.

This isn't to cheer the injection the Culture War into an election that has been mostly devoid of it. Far from it. It is, however, a gentle reminder for those on the Trump Train that it's okay, often even politically advantageous, for our man to go with his gut, to let Trump be Trump. His instincts are good, and his supporters are the most committed of any candidate by far. When he steps off in an unexpected direction, he's not putting his support at much risk while simultaneously snagging some Cruz or Kasich voters who are less committed to their guys.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Colorado Republican caucus turnout likely down nearly 30% from 2012 while other states see large increases

Turnout in Colorado's Republican caucus on March 1 was likely down from 2012 in an election cycle where every other state's turnout was way up from four years ago. The following graph shows turnout changes between 2012 and 2016 in the Super Tuesday states for Republicans (in red) and Democrats (in blue):


As is now well known, Colorado did not hold a preference caucus but instead held a precinct caucus to elect delegates to go to district caucuses and elect some national convention delegates and also some state convention representatives who would then vote on national convention delegates six weeks later.

I've contacted the Colorado State Republican party asking about March 1 turnout figures but as of this posting have not heard back, nor do I expect to, even though the party's twitter feed is quite active.

The reason the turnout will likely never be made public is because the results would play right into accusations of realized voter suppression, not because registered Republicans couldn't vote, but because they didn't know who they were voting for and the delegates standing for election didn't have to tell them.

Fortunately, we can do a little algebra to come up with a good estimate of a turnout. Back on March 4, several weeks before the Colorado process got the national attention it's received in the last few days, The Denver Post ran an article stating:
The mechanics of a caucus, however, makes it difficult to participate. This year's caucus, despite big turnout on the Democratic side, drew only 11 percent of the party's registered voters. About 5 percent of Republicans attended their precinct meetings.
The Colorado Secretary of State's office maintains a statewide tally of party members. As of March 1, 2016 there were 948,658 registered Republicans in the state. Five percent of that is 47,433. The 2012 Republican turnout, in contrast, was 66,027. It is thus reasonable to assume that turnout in Colorado's Republican caucus in 2016 was down nearly 30% from 2012 even while Republican turnout in other states saw double- and triple-digit percentage increases from the previous presidential election cycle.

This, of course, was precisely the objective. North Dakota and Colorado are providing the GOPe templates for the future. Ron Paul was a nuisance and Trump is a genuine threat. The party isn't going to let it happen again.

Monday, April 11, 2016

It's written in the wind

Let's assess Colorado.

In August of 2015, the Colorado Republican party announced that it would be cancelling its scheduled presidential preference caucus set for the Spring of 2016. The party did this in response to national party rules requiring delegates awarded to candidates through preference caucuses and primaries--that is, elections where candidates are directly voted for--to be pledged to their respective candidates through at least the first round of convention voting.

Humorously, this rule went into effect to try and prevent a Ron Paul-style delegate insurgency threat from occurring. While Paul and Trump share an enemy in the GOPe, they threaten(ed) it different ways. Paul had a cerebral, libertarian message that punched above its popular weight. There was a concern that even though he had a far fewer votes than Romney, many delegates had been co-opted by him and there was a real concern that they could cause a huge headache at the convention, which is why the rules in 2012 were changed to keep Paul off any subsequent balloting if Romney didn't win in the first round. Paul's crowds were impressive, but several of them would fit comfortably inside of many of Trump's venues. Trump's populist message, in contrast, doesn't hit with as much political force as its sheer numbers might otherwise suggest.

Why did the Colorado Republican party choose not to be beholden to the outcome of their scheduled preference caucus? It had recently become apparent that Trump's wide lead in national polling among Republicans wasn't some flash in the pan like the Nate Silvers of the world had assured everyone it would be. Colorado made the move a couple of weeks after the first Republican debate, the one hosted by Fox News that was little more than ambuscade on Trump, designed to cut him down at the knees in his first "presidential" event. The loaded "do you still beat your wife?"-type questions rolled off the tongues of Megan Kelly and Chris Wallace, and the punditry class almost uniformly predicted Trump's imminent demise in the wake of the event.

But then something curious happened. Trump's numbers didn't drop at all. He continued to enjoy more than twice as much support as the second-place guy did. RCP's national polling average through August 2015:


Colorado realized what many other state parties (North Dakota notwithstanding) wished they would've realized several months ago and decided to take the necessary steps to ensure that #NeverTrump wouldn't just be an establishment plea but would actually define Colorado's convention delegation. If Trump was still threatening when Colorado's turn came around, the state party would cut the broad electorate out of the process to cripple him.

Replacing the preference vote was a series of caucuses to choose delegates who would then choose delegates who would then choose delegates (really). At precinct caucuses, which took place on different single days in different districts, participants could vote for delegates to go to district caucuses. Crucially, these delegates were publicly undeclared as to who they'd support. If you were someone not invested in party politics but wanted to vote for a certain candidate, you'd have to do your homework trying to decipher who was unofficially supporting who, and even then you couldn't be sure. The sordid details are here.

The information was there in varying degrees through party channels and campaign networks, however, and party activists naturally knew where to find the information they needed. Those delegates chosen at precinct caucuses then went to district caucuses where they selected some convention delegates (three per district) and also some more state delegates to participate in the statewide convention to choose the state's remaining 13 national convention delegates.

This bemusing, layered process was intentionally designed to be bemusing and layered, of course. Without a strong ground game communicating to potential supporters which delegates were likely to support a specific candidate--and the loyalty of those delegates was something that could be ensured by quid pro quo arrangements with the candidates themselves--and without the help of the state party whose #NeverTrump sentiments were blatantly obvious before they were made embarrassingly explicit (see below), the chances of the rank-and-file figuring out how to support an outsider they liked were slim, just as the party wanted them to be.

In the predictable protestations of and complaints levied against Colorado, I've not seen any apologists for the convoluted process give a single good reason as to why what transpired was objectively preferable to a regular preference caucus. All they can say in response is that there was a caucus process that occurred and regular voters were allowed to participate (never mind that they had no clear way to figure out who or what they were voting for!).

In short, this process was to a regular preference caucus what a regular preference caucus is to a primary. Candidates who have the most zealous, activist supporters have a relative advantage in a regular preference caucus compared to a primary, and this is doubly or more so the case in a process like the ones that took place in Colorado and North Dakota. This will be the future. The Republican party is learning how dangerous it is to allow its voters to determine who the party's presidential nominee will be.

The Colorado Republican party admitted what every objective observer already knew:


The party blamed the tweet--which it hastily deleted--on an unauthorized user (huh?) but the party's twitter feed is full of stuff in the same spirit as that especially revealing bit of candor.

At this point some people will interject that Trump only has himself to blame for allowing this to happen. The Cruz campaign did the requisite work to build a communication network within the state to alert supporters of which precinct delegates they needed to vote for. Cruz contacted the aspiring delegates--most (all?) of whom are either current, former, or hopeful state and local Republican party officials--and alternatively talked and bribed them into backing Cruz. Trump, whose total campaign staff numbers in the double-digits (Hillary Clinton has 765 on her payroll), was totally outmatched when it came to ground game logistics.

That's undeniably true. It is not, however, something that regular American are impressed by. To the contrary, it's something that they find off-putting, more of a bug than a feature. It's sneaky and corrupt, bemusing and byzantine. Most Americans don't want the insider who has all the right political connections and who, through a long career in politics, has learned all the right tactics to employ in an effort to out-technocrat the other guys to claw his way to the top. At least not if he fails to appeal to most of them, anyway. This seems to be especially true in this presidential election cycle.

Which leads me scratching my head at Cruz's victory remarks. The prudent thing to say would've been something along the lines of "I would have preferred a regular vote of the people to determine who Colorado supports at the convention. I'm confident I would've demonstrated that I'd earned that support if a vote had taken place. But since the rules were beyond my control, I had to adapt to what was in front of me. I did that, and I want to thank all of you who participated for my victory in this great state."

Instead, Cruz mocked Trump for crying foul while playing his victory up as seven separate victories (since the different districts voted on different days!). Cruz's supporters will like that, but for most people on the outside looking in, it does look foul, quite foul indeed. Beware hubris, Ted. Or as Cruz might prefer, pride comes before the fall. Since we're on the subject, these GOPe 'victories' are rapidly becoming ones a certain Pyrrus of Epirus might wearily recognize.

See, you can mock your enemies from atop the walls of the city you hold. You can spit at them and launch projectiles their way. You can afford to do this even if the besiegers outnumber you, at least for awhile. But if those besiegers manage to break through your fortifications and make their way inside the walls, where their numerical advantage puts you on the losing side of the conflict, well, they may remember that harassment. They may even decide it's reason enough to have the streets of your city run knee-deep in the blood of those who mocked them.

I've seen some variations on the idea that it cost Trump a measly 34 delegates to strip away any and all pretense of Cruz being some kind of outsider. He's a ruthless insider who rubs many of his colleagues the wrong way, but his roots are buried more deeply inside the party apparatus than anyone else's are. His machinations in several states that forego pledging convention delegates from preference voting attest to that.

In reality, it cost Trump far fewer delegates than 34. Colorado is right in the middle of the country's cuck corridor. Statewide results would've been similar to those in neighboring Kansas or Utah, where Cruz won a delegate majority and the entire haul, respectively.

Bring on New York, where more people will vote than did in Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Colorado combined. Time for the cuckservatives to get curb stomped.

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Churchgoers cheat on their spouses less than non-churchgoers do

++Addition++See Jayman's admonitions about the reliability of self-reported data, especially of the sexual variety as well as my response in the comments.

---

Heartiste reports that monotheistic religions may encourage paternal certainty. Patriarchal societies, more generally, probably require a high level of paternal certainty. Most societies throughout history have been patriarchal, so it's no surprise that cuckoldry rates among Europeans over time appear to have hung around in the 1%-2% range. In matriarchal societies, paternal certainty rates are presumably lower.

Monogamy, of course, guarantees paternal certainty. In encouraging--and to a large extent, normalizing--monogamy, monotheistic religions also encourage paternal investment. Paternal investment, in turn, is a prerequisite for advanced civilization (see sub-Saharan Africa, Haiti, or Detroit).

There is the question of causation to consider, too. Did monogamy and paternal certainty shape societal evolution or did evolution shape social norms vis-a-vis monogamy and paternal certainty? It's probably a combination of the two through the process of gene-culture coevolution, but I'm not qualified to comment on that with any certainty of my own.

Heartiste:
CH is on record (check the archives) predicting that the wholesale abandonment of religion by Western societies will lead to higher rates of cheating and cuckoldry, by both men and women.
The data to test that assertion exist. The percentage of married white men who have cheated on their wives by frequency of religious service attendance (for contemporary relevance all responses are from 2000 onward and attendance categories are exclusive, combined n = 9,205):

AttendCheat
Never25.5%
Yearly at most22.0%
Monthly at most19.1%
More than monthly16.0%
At least weekly15.5%

The same for married white women who have cheated:

AttendCheat
Never17.9%
Yearly at most18.6%
Monthly at most12.3%
More than monthly9.2%
At least weekly8.6%

Those actively involved in monotheistic religions are less likely to philander than those who are not.

Couple that with the decline in both church attendance and religious affiliation and it seems that the conditions for increasing cuckoldry are indeed present. Heartiste nailed it.

GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), SEX, YEAR(2000-2014), RACECEN1(1), ATTEND(0)(1-2)(3-4)(5-6)(7-8)

Correlation between IQ and educational attainment has decreased over time

Pumpkin Person writes:
In the 1950s, the correlation between Wechsler global IQ and years of education among American adults was a potent 0.7 (roughly as high as the correlation between two different IQ tests) but by the late 1970s it had sunk to 0.57, where it remained through the 1990s and presumably today.
His post on the relationship between IQ and education made me wonder if the GSS might shed some light on the presumption he makes.

Restricting respondents to those born in the US and aged 25-39 at the time of their participation in the survey, the correlation between mean years of education and mean wordsum scores by decade is as follows:

1970s -- .56
1980s -- .53
1990s -- .46
2000s -- .42
2010s -- .42

Although the earliest year for which both educational attainment and wordsum scores are available is 1978, the relationship between years of education and wordsum scores are virtually identical to the correlation between the Wecshler IQ test and years of education reported by Pumpkin Person (.56 and .57, respectively), lending credibility to the rest of the results.

This suggests that rather than holding steady since the seventies, the relationship between years of education and intelligence has continued to weaken and is now just over half of what it was in the 1950s.

As more and more people obtain degrees, a degree--generically, the correlative power of a specific degree will vary based on what area of study the degree is in--will tend to signal less and less about the cognitive capacities of people who have them.

Steve Sailer has pointed out multiple times in various contexts that the easiest way to reduce disparities in accomplishments is to water down the requirements necessary to enjoy said accomplishments. If a college degree becomes as common as 'graduating' from elementary school, the correlation between a degree and IQ will approach zero.

That is the direction that this age of educational romanticism will continue to drive us in if it doesn't end up on the side of the road because of a blown student loan gasket. The trend shows up in mean IQ* by decade among native-born college graduates under the age of 40. As the percentage of people who graduate college increases, the IQ of the average college graduate compensatorialy decreases:

1970s -- 113.7
1980s -- 110.8
1990s -- 106.6
2000s -- 104.4
2010s -- 104.3

Parenthetically, Inductivist pointed out this latter trend years ago.

* Computed by assuming the mean wordsum score of non-Hispanic whites to be the equivalent of an IQ of 100 with a standard deviation of 15.

GSS variables used: EDUC(16-20), YEAR, WORDSUM, BORN(1), AGE

Saturday, April 09, 2016

Lapdogs, not watchdogs

Quite a bit packed into a couple of minutes:



- Talking over a reporter as she asks a question about the Republican frontrunner, Obama sedately says "oh no". The giggling gaggle's reaction confirms what we already know about the efficacy of the term "Establishment". Professional journalism is a joke.

- Over the course of an answer less than two minutes in length, Obama says "uh" a staggering 22 times, or about once every five seconds. This guy does more public speaking than just about anyone else in the world and yet his ability to speak extemporaneously is worse than that of the average middle manager in corporate America. That he hasn't been coached out of this distracting tick makes me think either that he's so surrounded by yes-men that nobody has the sense to point it out to him and he's not self-critical enough to realize how buffoonish it makes him appear, or that it's perceived to be an indication of how profound and thoughtful his word choices are.

- If the latter explanation is the better one, then it doesn't take much work to pull back that curtain. Revisit the video at the 30-second mark. After a pregnant pause and some bumbling "uhs", he manages to plumb the depths of his internal lexicon for the word "wackier". Profundity indeed!

- Draconian. Ah, yes, the ancient Athenian, Draco, under whose constitution capital punishment was prescribed for the stealing of a cabbage. Removing people from property they're illegally occupying is clearly analogous. What a perspicacious president this country has!

- Obama claims it is impractical to track money order remittances from the US back to Mexico. Money orders in excess of $2,000 already are tracked (something Obama may at least be aware of, as he does seem to catch himself when talking about "the notion that we're going to track every Western Union, uh, uh, bit of money..."). A few years ago, that figure was $1,000 but the amount was subsequently doubled. It would simply be a matter of reducing the dollar amount required to trigger reporting. That reporting, incidentally, requires a lot more work from the retailers of the money orders than it does from the federal government. This there's-no-way-to-do-it is a risible replacement for the real we-don't-want-to-do-it explanation.

It'll be nice to see Obama go. That he might be replaced by someone with more strength and honor, strength and honor:

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

Make America Like Baseball Again

Steve Sailer reflecting on the big three American sports and their relative popularity (football and basketball on the ascent, baseball on the decline) includes this graph from John Rivers:


The correlations between the racial composition of the total US population and the racial compositions of the populations of Major League Baseball, the National Football League, and the National Basketball Association are .97, .14, and .08, respectively.

Baseball looks like America, but that's only an interim objective for institutions and organizations that are whiter than America at the point of consideration. Looking like America is better than something embarrassingly white like hockey, but it's not good enough. Because the NFL has too many white quarterbacks and coaches (and kickers, too, but it's better that way since kickers are targets of ridicule whenever they try to do something athletic like tackle a kick returner), the NBA is the most vibrant sport.

Monday, April 04, 2016

Trump is the quintessential anti-German

Drumpf is informative because it is yet another stark illustration of the inverse relationship between how proud one should be of an ethnicity and how much that ethnic tradition has objectively accomplished*, or of Who? Whom? more generally. As Red Phillips sardonically wrote:
I need clarification from the PC police. It's wrong to call Barack Obama by his middle name Hussein. It's wrong to call Ted Cruz by his given first name Rafael. It's wrong to call Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley by their real Indian names, because, you know, bigotry. But it's OK to call Donald Trump by his ancestral name Drumpf because bigotry against Germans is OK? Is that the official ruling?
It's also funny because of how poorly Trump does with ancestral Germans in the US (see Jayman's two-part series on Trump and the American Nations). Ethnic majorities/pluralities by county in 2000:


If Trump somehow pulls off a major upset in Wisconsin tomorrow, he'll hit the 1,237 not because Wisconsin's delegate haul is critical, but because it is one of the cuckiest states in the country. It's heavily German, Canadian-nice, conventional and friendly, enjoys little racial diversity outside of Milwaukee, etc. If he wins Wisconsin there isn't a state left besides Nebraska that he'll be incapable of taking.

As mentioned, that would constitute a stunning win. Iowa and Kansas are heavily German, too, and Trump fared poorly in both. The German (and Scandinavian) states of Minnesota, Nebraska, Montana, and South Dakota were and are going to be bad for him. Indiana is doable, and of course he won the open primaries in Michigan and Illinois, so it's not as though Germans are allergic to him (he is at 40% in national Republican polls, after all). The West Coast is a tough call but I'd guess his relative performance will be best in California, middling in Oregon, and worst in Washington, and that he'll win California but lose the other two.

(Non-Mormon) English is much better--he won Nevada, New Hampshire, Vermont, Florida, and rather surprisingly lost Maine (although less than 2% of the eligible adult population voted in the Republican caucuses in that state--if it were an open primary Trump would've won it). Pennsylvania is an outlier if he wins, which I think he will, but I'm not confident he'd be able to without Kasich in. The rest of the English/Irish/Italian northeast will be easy.

Missouri provides a nice illustration. Without the Scots-Irish "American" southern counties, Trump would've forfeited the state.

Finally, it's rich because of how critical Trump has been of Germany's civilizational-threatening handling of the migrant crisis. There is no Drumpf in Germania anymore.

* Jews are a major exception to what should be thought of as a tendency rather than a rule.

Sunday, April 03, 2016

North Dakota provides a template for the future

North Dakota swore off a primary or caucus this election cycle. The state's lone congressional representative pledged his support for Trump on account of a straw poll in March that indicated a plurality of North Dakota Republican voters preferred the front runner.

But the state party establishment is firmly behind Cruz. Eight of the delegates (mostly state party members who were selected from a list of names, devoid of any indication of who they were planning on backing, at a single location in a state nearly the size of Kansas) said they were backing him. The rest remained mum but the smart money is that a sizable majority of them go for Cruz.

Erstwhile, Paul Ryan offered this bit of Orwellian war-is-peace, freedom-is-slavery commentary ahead of potential plans to take the presidential nomination for himself:
"When people distrust politics, they come to distrust institutions. They lose faith in their government, and the future too. We can acknowledge this. But we don’t have to accept it. And we cannot enable it either."
North Dakota is a template for the future. Both parties are learning, in the age of free media where the traditional gatekeepers can't control the discussion, just how dangerous it is to allow their electorates to have a say in who gets their parties' nominations.

Sanders may well end up with more votes than Clinton, and Trump will go into the Republican convention with a leading plurality by a margin of several million votes, yet it's increasingly looking like both, at the behest of each parties' national leadership, will get cut out of their respective nominations.

If either one of them wins, that gives frustrated voters on the other side an opportunity to offer a cutting protest vote. But if they both reject their electorates simultaneously and then mutually agree to never let something like this happen again, the problem of representation is solved kicked down the road another four years.

Secession, nullification, poolside. Withdraw consent to and support for the system in whatever way you're able to.

Saturday, April 02, 2016

Support for free trade now a Democrat talking point?

Pew recently released a report on the intersection of presidential campaigning and the American cultural landscape that contains several interesting insights for those who enjoy that sort of thing. This graphic is especially worth taking a look at:


On identitarian issues Trump and Sanders supporters are worlds apart. Immigration launched Trump's campaign and it continues to be the primary reason the CultMarx left hates him so viscerally.

There had been some quixotic hope given his antagonism towards the interlocked global financial network and his criticism of the Federal Reserve bank cartel that Sanders, a la Cesar Chavez in his earlier days, might have represented a leftist perspective (relatively) unenthusiastic about mass migration into the Western world in general and the US in particular. If his abysmal NumbersUSA report card didn't dash those hopes entirely though, his rhetoric over the course of the campaign has.
I got to see Sanders' open
border bona-fides first-hand

A similar pattern emerges on the other identitarian question about Muslims being subjected to more scrutiny.

When it comes to military interventionism, nation-building, and the messianic spreading of democracy, however, Trump and Sanders are on one side while Cruz, Kasich, and Clinton are on the other.

Neocon presidential preference runs as follows: Kasich, Clinton, Cruz. When it comes to invading and inviting the world, the first two are totally on board, and while Cruz is iffy on the latter requirement, he compensates for it by felatting the pro-Israel lobby harder and deeper than anyone else. Unsurprisingly, many neocons will support Clinton if it's her and Trump in November.

For the sake of completeness, the neocons would almost unanimously push for an independent to run or disavow the election entirely if it came down to Trump and Sanders. A few might grudgingly back Trump on the chance that he turns out to malleable on invading the world, but they'd be in the neocon minority.

Americans by and large want the gargantuan welfare programs to stay in place. Social Security alone accounts for one-quarter of the federal government's annual spending, dwarfing so-called "discretionary spending" that is occasionally talked about being reduced (but that never actually is reduced). The only way the welfare state dies is by collapsing under its own weight.

The widest partisan divide is on health care. That Trump apparently maintains his support for an insurance mandate--the single most unpopular part of Obamacare--even though his supporters hate it is a testament to how unconventional his approach has been.

Cruz is the pro-life movement's remaining champion. It is why despite the hesitancy and awkwardness of its delivery, I was skeptical that Trump's putative 'gaffe' on abortion would hurt him in the Republican primaries as punditry across the political spectrum emphatically said it would.

Ben Shapiro, who fellates Cruz as well as Cruz fellates AIPAC, criticized Trump's remarks--remarks that are the unavoidable conclusion for anyone who thinks abortion is murder and that murder should be punished--resulting in a sympathetic readership tearing Shapiro to shreds in the comments.

Since last night, parenthetically, the top story on Reuters' polling website has been the following:


They'll try to conflate Trump's impending loss in Wisconsin--one of the cuckiest states in the country--with his alleged 'war-on-women' rhetoric, but we'll know better.

Finally, the most stunning bit of information in Pew's report is the data on 'free' trade. When it comes to trade, Pat Buchanan is getting the last laugh, as the Republican electorate is now more skeptical of trade than Democrats are.

When did this reversal occur? Is this election the first stark illustration of the political realignment that has occurred on trade?