November 29, 2016

Further losses for Democrats: Atheists, liberaltarians, etc., not just populists

Since the most action during primary season was on the Republican side, we didn't hear much about the cracks that were already beginning to split apart the Democrat coalition, which has now turned into a full-on civil war.

The parallels drawn between the Bernie movement and the Trump movement focused mostly on their being anti-Establishment and oriented toward economic populism rather than the usual topics. That made it clear that the Left populists were breaking away from the mainstream of their party, but there was actually a far broader range of reliable Democrats who were starting to get fed up with the direction of their party toward identity politics uber alles.

Not conservative Democrats, who have already switched over to Republican or not involved.

They're not even moderates on social-cultural issues -- they support gay marriage, they hate religion, and they want increased gun control. They make a point of saying that racism, sexism, etc. exist, and that we should call it out and shame people for it.

Their distinguishing traits are atheism and skepticism, which doesn't mean that's their main cause, only that it separates them from other liberals. Stressing reason, logic, and facts, they bristle at identity politics, which stresses unthinking tribalism, airing of grievances rather than productive debates, and generally a more emotionalist approach to politics. It rejects the obsession with victimhood and oppression, and takes a more constructive engineering approach to fixing problems.

Demographically, they're mostly white, educated, under-40, living in major metro areas, both male and female. In other words, like the populist and environmentalist progs who supported Bernie in such large numbers. Sure enough, most of these non-progs were big on Bernie, too, even if they didn't care what the TPP was all about.

Bernie was not speaking to their major concerns -- boo religion, yay gays, etc. Of the economic topics he focused on, probably the only one that really got their attention was student debt. It was simply the fact that he wasn't making an emotional appeal to tribal identity (race, sex, or whatever), nor trying to win by having the biggest chip on his shoulder.

As an example, consider YouTuber Jaclyn Glenn, who has half a million subscribers, along with 100K each on Twitter and Instagram -- someone who resonates with enough people to make it worth studying just one person's output. And her videos go back to 2010, so there's plenty to study about how she has changed.

She's an early Millennial, college-educated, female, atheist, pro-gay, crazy cat lady, transplant to Los Angeles. Aside from being white, she checks the boxes for being a loyal Democrat. Sure enough, lots of her videos focus on how stupid, evil, etc., Republican voters and politicians are. Going through the titles of videos in her archive, and listening to a random sample, it was the same ol' predictable crap that you'd expect from her demographic background in the political scene of the 2010s.

In 2014, she did express exasperation at how easily offended the third-wave feminists were, but she didn't really stick with this, or turn against feminist identity politics per se. Just, "Wow, settle down -- we're fighting for the same thing ultimately."

On her twitter the term "feminists" shows up a few times in 2014, provoked by GamerGate. She was against the feminazis like Anita Sarkeesian, but also not on board with the anti-feminists. That was the first major time when she felt like there was no middle ground, and you had to pick which side you were on. GamerGate may have opened up young people not only to the future Alt-Right, but also to the future "Shut it, feminazis" strain within the Bernie movement.

That disappeared once the controversy died down by the end of 2014. It's not until primary season began late last year that she really starts sounding off against the identity politics mainstream of her party. The Democrat civil war was just warming up.

Here is her response to the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris. She all but says, "Hey Trump may have a point with his Muslim ban." It's not being an atheist that primes her to say that, since plenty of atheists apologize for Islamic terrorism. She knows they're the only ones who do this shit (despite a half-hearted reference to the Christian crusades nearly 1000 years ago). There's no room in the Democrat mainstream today for someone who is unapologetic about the danger that Islam uniquely poses to us here and now, and the need to do something about it.

Here is her explicit rejection of feminist identity politics, surrounding the denunciations by older feminazi types that women must vote for other women, or otherwise behave as mere drones in a hive serving the queen bee (that bitch). Wearing a Bernie t-shirt.

Here is an even better rejection of identity politics, reacting to some uppity black girl SJW whining about white privilege, and trying to shame white women for even having to ask what it is, as though they deserved an answer. (The uppity SJW actually demands that white women allies ought to pay her for droppin' dat knowledge on dere melanin-deficient ass.) Her response is pretty angry for a supposed ally. Sounds like she's this close to saying, "Well we don't need you dumb ghetto trash anyway."

Here she is parodying a hardline feminazi while interviewing pedestrians about inane SJW crap at Venice Beach of all places, underscoring what party-poopers the feminists are. During the past couple months, she's put out quite a few of these anti-feminazi videos.

Here is her "get over it" message to all of the #NotMyPresident complainers (she voted Hillary, too). And she was the one who made that not-really-anti Trump song during the summer, "Hump Trump". She isn't freaking out about his election bringing about the apocalypse, even if she doesn't like where it'll go.

The situation looks dire if the Democrat leadership can't even hold onto someone who was a stereotypical Democrat before primary season. She's not a populist / anti-war activist, showing that the Sanders supporters were drawing more broadly than just the progs. But she's not a rabid SJW or bound by the spell of tribal identity politics, so how can she still be a reliable Democrat?

Of course, she's not going to defect to the other side (unless she marries a Trump supporter). But the intense dissatisfaction with the party leadership means a deeply divided party for the foreseeable future.


  1. OT: but this made my day

    Also, maybe one of your readers:

  2. Who started this BS about Stein costing Hillary the election? She barely got any votes in the close states, and besides, whatever gains she made at Hillary's expense were offset by Johnson's gains at Trump's expense. Denial. Do these people realize that Johnson cost Trump New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Nevada? That's a good 20 electoral college votes. That's enough to offset the (now hypothetical) loss of PA. Had he won these states, it would've been even tougher to make the (dumb even in light of Trump's actual performance) argument that Trump didn't "really" win.

    What self-respecting voter went for Johnson? I guess it's just something we have to deal with in high striving eras, when even lame-ass 3rd party candidates still manage to claw votes away. Still, we won. Whining about 3rd party candidates is unnecessary. In the 2000 election, I didn't hate on Nader since I wasn't attached to either party. I still remember how bitter Dem partisans were, even though Nader didn't get many votes. Seems like the Leftist tendency is that in the event of an election loss, a cult of personality develops around the loser and everybody is blamed except the weak loser candidate himself. Face it, Dem suckers, B. Clinton was a globalist who intensified 1980's policies when he wasn't inventing new ways to bolster elitism. Gore would've been more of the same, with likely war mongering no different than what we got with G.W. Bush.

    1. "Johnson cost Trump New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Nevada"
      More importantly, McMullin, who was only running to screw over Trump, cost him Minnesota.

      Minnesota, the only state to vote Democrat in the Reagan '84 blowout, almost went Republican. That's really saying something about Hillary's historically bad campaign.

  3. There was a Somali cockroach on twatter bragging about how they cast the votes that gave Hillardy Minnesota (40,000)

  4. Yep, Marcus, MN like most states outside of the non-coastal South has gotten browner and/or blacker. MN, like the rest of the Upper Midwest, isn't as culturally liberal or as fashionable as the West coast or Northeast. Coastal swpl types and urban minorities have totally taken over the Dems, thereby alienating huge swaths of non-hipster white people in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and South.

    MN developed hostility towards the GOP as the GOP was regarded as being either the party of Eastern snobs (pre mid 1960's) or muh air conditioning Sunbelters (post mid 1960's). But it's never been that culturally liberal outside of big urban areas. Just like you see in the other Southern and Midwestern states. One particular dust-up that happened in the mid 2000's was when some pro-fag people/parents forced Anoka County (one of the larger counties to vote for Trump)to change their school policy mandating that teachers/admins not take sides in student disputes. Gay students were complaining that the teachers were being homophobic. Ironically, this sort of policy was designed with Scandi civics in mind.

    Now, MN and Wisconsin have a history of big government affinity, being Nordic and all. But that doesn't mean they want fag marriage or abortion on demand. New England Yankees and West coast flakes tend to be much more socially liberal.

    There's really no such thing as "typical" or "true" conservatism or liberalism. It's dependent on a regions culture and ethnicity. Upper Midwestern Nords are much more statist than people in other regions, so by some accounts they're more liberal than anyone else. Yet Midwesterners of all stripes are less PC than the Northeast and the West coast.

    We're building a coalition of order seeking teutons from the Midwest, Scots-Irish ass kickers from the South, and gruffly sincere Mid-Atlantic whites (let's not forget that Trump did well among white voters in NY and NJ; there just aren't enough whites left in these states to overcome the New Americans there).


    Sure, Trump hit hard where it counted, but one can only sigh about:
    - people Out West moping about how every candidate sucks
    - yuppies voting for globalism/open borders/cheap labor
    - non-white hordes polluting too many places
    - SWPLy Gen X-ers and Millennials buying into the "Trump is Hitler" hype

    We're in a very decadent time period, when someone as brazenly corrupt and deceitful as Hillary can still garner the votes that she did.

  6. To take a litmus test issue like "abortion for any reason," the Midwest is in the same league as the South (General Social Survey). Depending on the decade, it's as conservative or only slightly less.

    The Mountain states used to in the same league during the '70s and '80s, but since they've been colonized by liberal transplants from the '90s onward, they're now in the same league as the West Coast and East Coast.

  7. I bothered watching some of the news channels tonight, and wow, are the Dems tripping over themselves to convince people that they're not the freakshow party.

    A couple bland reassurances that gay marriage etc. are still being supported, but they don't need to lead with these issues in their messaging, which ought to turn back to helping out the lower 50-80% of the economic pyramid.

    Rep. Lynch from MA, and State Senator Cafaro from OH. Tim Ryan, challenger to Pelosi, states the party is no longer a party of middle America but rather a party of the Coasts.

    Just in case you weren't sure whether you can rag on Coastal elites or not -- full speed ahead, if even the other side's politicians are paying lip service to anti-Coastal hostility.

    1. Freakshow party... that is so apt! I'm wondering more if this intertwines with the populist movement we see playing across the western world. Moving to the right is the constant, but populist economics is mostly a part of this, but not always present.

      Thinking a lot about Europe, especially France where they lost it over same sex marriage a couple years ago... I remember your experiences at the weird club in Spain, and I vividly remember my sister when she got back from a tour of France, Spain, and Austria. The depravity when it came to sex just wore her down and she's very moderate, just normal. Very early on in the election, before Donald even announced, she was open to Hillary (she ended up swinging incredibly hard for Donald).

      In Spain, the prostitution near a beach was obvious and seeing a car parked on the side of the road knowing what was going on was depressing. The nudity at the beaches. And the worst of all, Austria, where they had posters up in the town center of a fully naked woman advertising some show.

      I just remember my sister sitting there with her shoulders stooped, worn down. We weren't meant for this stuff.

      A friend, a conservative lesbian, right after the election said Trump won because of trannies. I initially laughed because this is an obsession with her and it seemed silly, but after seeing the Republican bloodbath that's been occurring for a few years that nobody really seemed aware of and everything in Europe plus now this dark horse Francois Fillon in France, I'm starting to wonder if she isn't onto something, Agnostic, lol!!


    Keep in mind too that I don't mean to be moralistic about this stuff. Mainly 'cuz it can be superficial to just look at "values". After all, white people in Western Europe and the East Coast aren't as flaky, volatile, or irresponsible as people on the West Coast. Even though all 3 groups are very culturally liberal.

    Be that as it may, it's telling to look at where cultural liberalism hit first and hardest. The West coast was ground zero. Other areas remained more conservative into the 80's. In the later 90's other areas finally got on board as decadence and cocooning started to take their toll.

    WRT the mountain states, it seems like before the 90's (most) people just weren't full of shit. Ya know, people just wanted to do the right thing, be safe, and have fun. After the 80's, though, it became fashionable to just do all kinds of weird crap. Like promoting an "intellectual" or "information" economy where we didn't, like, produce anything anymore. The brain was idealized, the body was forgotten. Too many "creative" people, too many agents, too many lawyers, too many accountants, too many "financial" wizards (thieves and overlord apologists). Dick Florida-Americans have packed into way too many areas, sowing decadence, inequality, diversity, low-trust, and corruption.

    The destruction of the middle class and disdain for the factory are what really has galled Midwestern teutons. Other white sub-groups in the East and South are more driven by a sense that the homes built by their clans have been overrun by yuppies and non-Americans.

  9. Paging Dick Florida, creativity nosedived after 1992. You can't manufacture it. When people go out more often, they're more creative. That's it. Anyone with function ears and eyes knows that the paintings, songs, movies, etc. made from 1967-1992 are way better than stuff that preceded or succeeded that era. It's interesting how little hype or anxiety there was about art in the mid 70's-late 80's, when it was the best. People were entertained by stuff; there was no reason to over analyze or worry about it.

    If ya'll want a good laugh, go look at "contemporary" reviews of music made from 1993-1996 (the hey-day of Alternative BS). The writers are so anxious to push the idea that music had "matured", had greater depth, wasn't as gaudy or banal as it was in the "plastic" 80's. Hell, even a Metallica article said the band's 80's albums were a monument to bombast and excess. Well, trendy dipshit, stuff like For Whom the Bell Tolls has in excess of 20 million YouTube hits. Perhaps artists in the Disco and New Wave era knew what they were doing......

  10. Why would they care? The Dems made the decision to ditch white people in favor of importing a new electorate decades ago. They've made great strides along that path, and any white self-flagellating enough to approve will vote for them no matter what.

    The key is demographic change. If it can be reversed, they're done. If not, they'll reign unchallenged for a hundred years or more. The Dems' task is to stall, distract, and by any means possible prevent any program that would whiten America.

    All they have to do is stall and wait.

  11. Dems did not decide to ditch white people -- it was to market to liberals and multiculturalists, the majority of whom are self-praising good whites, leaving out the bad whites who aren't libs or multicultis.

    The party leaders are not retarded and can do basic math -- their dominance since the Clinton era relied on the Midwest and New England, where there are few immigrants outside of Chicago and Boston.

    Pac NW went blue in '88 -- when there were no immigrants, and it was 100% white -- while immigrant-plagued California still went red that year, not changing until the next cycle.

    Lutheran Triangle, same thing -- '88, no immigrants, all white.

    The Democrats' hubris was not about demographic change (they said that only about their pipe dream of turning GA or AZ or TX blue). It was that the good liberal whites would always vote their lib-vs.-con values over economics.

    While the Republicans were the unapologetic elitist party, that was a safe assumption.

    But now that Trump has made the GOP into the common / working / middle America party, the liberal whites will have to choose between liberalism and populism.

    In thriving regions, liberal whites felt no need for populism, and kept voting blue, perhaps even more so. Like in the Sun Belt.

    But in the Rust Belt, liberal schmiberal -- we need our real, manufacturing economy back.

    Demographic change was only going to make select blue states even bluer, which has no effect on elections. It wasn't going to flip TX or GA or AZ blue. And we didn't need to reverse demographic change in order to win the Rust Belt, since there are no immigrants there -- immigrants go where the jobs are plentiful.

    You're trying to push for nationalism alone -- it requires populism as well, or else the Rust Belt will flip right back to blue.

  12. Random Dude on the Internet11/30/16, 7:35 AM

    Democrats will continue to shed the moderate and independent whites in the next few years as their anti-white platform begins sinking in to the suburban college educated moderates who grow increasingly uncomfortable at being unwelcome in their own political party that their family has been a part of for generations. Some will switch to the Republicans and some will just drop out altogether. Obama did not run on an explicit or implicit anti-white platform. There's no guarantee that 2020 will be that way.

    This is a pure SWAG but I do also believe that we will start having third parties get a larger percentage of the vote than they used to. Will they be Libertarians, Greens, or a new party altogether, I don't know but I think there will be a platform that will emerge for the millions of adults who are disillusioned with the Democrats who have been instilled with too much anti-GOP rhetoric to go Republican and you have cuckservatives who have been instilled with too much anti-Democrat rhetoric to go Democrat but hate populism as well. This party can probably get 2-5 percent of every election moving forward with maybe a couple wins in some local or state elections. Basically a political party that idealizes the Clinton era of the 90s. I've been wrong before so we will see what happens.

  13. 3rd party candidates always do best out West, where people are most cynical about politics and a strong outsider/libertarian streak exists. This election cycle had such an Eastern bent (both tickets had Easterners) that Western alienation was intensified, to the point of California activists unironically advocating for secession.

    The best decision Trump ever made was tearing away the GOP nomination from the globalists. Had he run 3rd party, it would've been a total disaster, with Dem partisans committing to Hillary lest 2000 happen again, and cucks voting for the GOP cuck and populists voting Trump.

    If Trump makes good on most/all of his promises, he'll lure some of the cucks back (the ones who cost him Nevada, MN, and NH). These cucks will make future voting decisions with a bit more consideration, similar to how Dem voters became more reluctant to vote 3rd party after Nader voters were blamed for Bush. Of course, I don't doubt that a fair amount of yuppies and Western/libertarian voters will either refuse to cooperate or perhaps sit the next election out. We can't change everyone overnight.

  14. Populism is great. I'm all for populism. I'm just analyzing the Dem's most rational response - try and wait it out while burying good news in scandals real or imagined. Those margins in the Rust Belt were razor thin, another million Mexicans scattered throughout the region easily reverses them.

    But yes, Dems abandoned white people. They haven't won a majority of that demographic since 1964. Mexico was a one-party state in many places for well over 100 years, they are far less demanding and more reliable as a base.

    Say the devil grants Hillary eternal life, and she's the nominee in 2050. As things stand, she wins a 20-point landslide without even showing up on the campaign trail even once.

    Nationalism is a must.

  15. Dems haven't won whites since 1964? How did they win elections then?

    Dems have won 5 elections after 1964. They won whites in 3, lost them in 2. No change over time. Data from General Social Survey.

    Dems won whites...

    Obama '08, 50-47
    Clinton '96, 47-37
    Carter '76, 52-47

    Dems lost whites...

    Obama '12, 44-49
    Clinton '92, 39-43

    In the ones where they narrowly lost whites yet won the election, it was blacks who made up the gap -- they actually vote, unlike illegals or legal Hispanics. And blacks are distributed where they can impact key state races, while Hispanics and illegals are highly concentrated in a handful of solid-blue or solid-red states where they have no impact.

    And "since 1964" Repubs have won 8 elections, soon to be 9, compared to the Dems' 5.

  16. The real effect of illegals is not from their voting in our elections, but from their boosting the "resident population" which determines how many Representatives in Congress the state gets allocated, and therefore how many Electoral College votes the state carries in presidential elections.

    It's only the citizen population that is supposed to count toward Congressional / EC allocation, not "residents" including illegals and legal temp worker immigrants. That was the whole point of doing away with the Three-Fifths Compromise, where the slave-owning states got to count their non-citizen slaves toward their state's representation in Congress and weight of their vote in the EC.

    One of the main goals for the Trump admin is to legally clarify this matter, and re-allocate Reps and EC votes according to citizen population rather than resident.

    Suddenly California drops from 55 votes to around 45, while Ohio may go from 18 to 23, and Michigan from 16 to 20 (big populations, almost all citizens). Immigrant-heavy Texas would also lose quite a few -- all for the better.


    In American elections, third party votes are a punishment against the incumbent party by an aggrieved member group of the coalition.

    If the aggrieved group doesn't get satisfaction, they will either defect to the other side or return as battered wives to their abusive party, rather than continue bearing a grudge and getting nothing as a splinter vote.

    The Wallace splinter in '68 didn't keep trying to get the Democrats away from the Civil Rights movement -- they tried and failed, then switched to Republican.

    A majority of Perot voters were former Republicans, and didn't like the corporate globalist direction the Bushies were taking the party in. After they failed to get satisfaction from the GOP, they returned to the GOP as battered wives.

    Aggrieved Dems are more likely to bail, aggrieved Repubs more likely to suffer as battered wives.

    We'll have to wait and see who the Johnson voters were, when the 2018 GSS results come out in 2019. Add the former Obama voters among them to the Stein voters, and I think a majority of 3rd-party voters in 2016 were aggrieved Obama voters rather than aggrieved Romney voters.

    With the Dems now in civil war, the aggrieved Obama voters who chose Stein or Johnson will get their way more, and be happier in 2020 than in 2016. Should diminish their side of the 3rd-party vote.

    And it's rare for a splinter group to show up after just the 1st term of the incumbent party -- only exception is the disastrous Carter administration, who produced the Anderson protest vote in 1980. The cucks will give Trump a chance for a second term, and only after 8 years even consider a True-Con splinter. The Wall Street / Country Club types may simply defect to the elitist party, the Democrats.

    With all the work Trump is doing to satisfy the skeptical cuck Republicans, I don't see them being so angry after 8 years that they'd splinter off.

