Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

The Embittered Hour Has Come

And I will friend you, if I may, 
In the dark and cloudy day.

--A.E. Housman

I haven't blogged much about politics lately. In part I took August off, thinking there would be ups and downs after the conventions, as there always are. Then in September I watched things unfold, and nothing that happened changed my views and predictions of how things would play out in the election.


But now it is time to give an update. My prediction for the election remains the same: Trump in a landslide. I know hearing this will anger many of my friends, if they are reading this, but that is what I see.

In normal times, that's all there would be to the story---a simple election prediction. But we are not in normal times. We are approaching, and indeed have entered, one of the most extraordinary episodes in the history of civilization. What is going to happen over the course of the next 26 days and beyond is going to be unprecedented in its scale of overturning and smashing the thought paradigms in which most of Americans have lived for most of their lives.

It is going to be very chaotic. The prediction I have repeatedly made---that "many are going to lose their minds." Well, this is what I was talking about. We're at the threshold of that moment. Many people, including people I know, are going to have an extremely difficult time coping with what is about to unfold.

Perhaps I'm fooling myself to think I am emotionally prepared as well, but I feel I have been preparing for this moment for at least 11 years, and perhaps much longer.

If I'm wrong about all this---that the election plays out as a normal one, with maybe some ribald scandals to sauce it up---then I'll eat my words on November 9th, no matter who wins the election. But that 'is not what I see happening, so I share the message with you, my dear friend. One last warning of the approaching maelstrom in the era of Normal Times.

Tuesday, September 6, 2016

Iowa in Recent Presidential Elections

Iowa population by census (source). Notice how the number has no changed much over he last fifty years.  The shifts in voting patterns can't be chalked up to new arrivals or drastic demographic shifts.





1960 2,757,537
5.2%
1970 2,824,376
2.4%
1980 2,913,808
3.2%
1990 2,776,755
−4.7%
2000 2,926,324
5.4%
2010 3,046,355
4.1%


2012 (source)

Democratic Barack Obama Joe Biden 822,544 51.99% 6

Republican Mitt Romney Paul Ryan 730,617 46.18% 0

Libertarian Gary Johnson Jim Gray 12,926 0.82% 0



2008


2008 (source)

Democratic Barack Obama 828,940 53.93% 7

Republican John McCain 682,379 44.39% 0

Peace and Freedom Ralph Nader 8,014 0.52% 0

N/A Write-ins 6,737 0.44% 0

Libertarian Bob Barr 4,590 0.30% 0

 

2004


2004 (source)


Republican George W. Bush Richard Cheney 751,957 49.90% 7

Democratic John Kerry John Edwards 741,898 49.23% 0

Independent Ralph Nader Peter Camejo 5,973 0.40% 0

Libertarian Michael Badnarik Richard Campagna 2,992 0.20% 0

2000



2000 (source)

Democratic Al Gore 638,517 48.54% 7

Republican George W. Bush 634,373 48.22% 0

Green Ralph Nader 29,374 2.23% 0

Reform Pat Buchanan 5,731 0.44% 0

Libertarian Harry Browne 3,209 0.24% 0


1996


1996 (source)


Democratic Bill Clinton (incumbent) Al Gore 620,258 50.26% 7

Republican Robert Dole Jack Kemp 492,644 39.92% 0

Reform Ross Perot James Campbell 105,159 8.52% 0

Green Ralph Nader Anne Goeke[1][3] 6,550 0.53% 0


1992


1992 (source)

Democratic Bill Clinton 586,353 43.29% 7

Republican George H.W. Bush 504,891 37.27% 0

Independent Ross Perot 253,468 18.71% 0

Natural Law Dr. John Hagelin 3,079 0.23% 0

1988

1988 (source)

Democratic Michael Dukakis 670,557 54.71% 8

Republican George H.W. Bush 545,355 44.50% 0

Independent Lyndon LaRouche 3,526 0.29% 0

Libertarian Ron Paul 2,494 0.20% 0

1984


1984 (source)


Republican Ronald Reagan 703,088 53.27% 8

Democratic Walter Mondale 605,620 45.89% 0

Independent Lyndon LaRouche 6,248 0.47% 0

Libertarian David Bergland 1,844 0.14% 0

1980 

(source)

RRonald ReaganGeorge BushRepublican 676,026 51.31%8
DJames CarterWalter MondaleDemocrat 508,672 38.60%0
IJohn AndersonPatrick LuceyNom. Petition 115,633 8.78%0

1976 

(source)

RGerald FordRobert DoleRepublican 632,863 49.47%8
DJames CarterWalter MondaleDemocrat 619,931 48.46%0
IEugene McCarthy-Nom. Petition 20,051 1.57%

1972 

(source)

RRichard NixonSpiro AgnewRepublican 706,207 57.61%8
DGeorge McGovernR. Sargent ShriverDemocrat 496,206 40.48%0
IJohn SchmitzThomas AndersonAmerican Ind. 22,056 1.80%0

1968 

 (source)

RRichard NixonSpiro AgnewRepublican 619,106 53.01%9
DHubert HumphreyEdmund MuskieDemocrat 476,699 40.82%0
IGeorge WallaceS. Marvin GriffinAmerican Ind. 66,422 5.69%0

1964

 (source)

DLyndon JohnsonHubert HumphreyDemocrat 733,030 61.88%9
RBarry GoldwaterWilliam MillerRepublican 449,148 37.92%0

1960

(source)

RRichard NixonHenry LodgeRepublican 722,381 56.71%10
DJohn KennedyLyndon JohnsonDemocrat 550,565 43.22%0

Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Democratic Party Now In Ruins

First female nominee of a major party. Today, many of my liberal friends are having hard meltdowns .  Even Bill Clinton got panned. The reality that it is all over, and the party is going to lose big in November is setting in. It is hitting people I know in various ways, and they are not happy.

I feel a lot of compassion for my liberal brothers and sisters. I know this isn't easy for them. I went through it myself. I'd love to be able to share the road back to happiness and peace with them, but I don't think most of them want to hear about it right now.

I would tell them that it isn't going to be nearly as bad as you think. Much of what they imagine is going to happen is a fantasy, constructed by their complete misinterpretation of the Trump Revolution. Some of them actually act like George W. Bush won the nomination.

I suspect a lot of my friends will actually come to admire and like Donald Trump as President (just as many of his fervent supporters will be let down, although they will certainly many things they want as well).

In the meantime, as the Democratic Party burns to the ground,  and folks flee to various refugee centers (Trump, Johnson, Stein, BLM, etc.), the ones left in the burning edifice will ratchet up the discourse as they hash out who is most to blame for all of this. Everyone is a suspect in this crime (right now White Males for Bernie are at the top of the list). Everyone is blameworthy except, of course, themselves.*

*Edit: liberals are willing to blame themselves the debacle. It takes the form of "I didn't speak out enough. I didn't call out bigotry/racism/misogyny enough, etc." It is usually followed by a resolution to one's comrades to double down on finger wagging at the haters.

The Democrats came to Philadelphia to build a big bonfire to celebrate the success of the Obama Revolution by burning the party down. When everything was in place, Sarah Silvermann lit the match and everyone started to ooh and ahh.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Bernie's Supporters Going Hard to Trump

Yes, you're reading that right. The Richter level of this event is much higher than I thought.

I would not have believed Hillary could pull off driving so many Berniecrats away from the party so quickly, with such disgust that that readily embrace a Trump presidency---even over Jill Stein and Gary Johnson in many cases, perhaps with Trump winning the plurality.

Why? Because they want to win, and they want to see the Democratic Party burn to the ground.  Trump is going to do that for them. They have figured out that a Trump victory will let them take over the Party. They see it as win-win.

It's too late for even the ghost of a chance for Hillary.

The WikiLeaks coming up will be the coup de grace, people are saying. I don't know. Perhaps it could be the Nixon moment when even her hardest of  her hard-core supporters throws in the towel.  We'll see. Perhaps this entire election will be effectively over, sooner than we think.

Now wouldn't that be grand?







Hateshift on the Left

Lately I've noticed a shift in the target of hatred by liberals concerning the Trump campaign.

Last spring it seemed as if the most acerbic vitriol from the Left was aimed mostly at Trump's followers more than Trump himself. This was partly, I surmised, because liberals tend to hate the followers more than leaders of their opposition (which I still think as generally true). Also Donald Trump has Pop Culture cred, so he started with a bonus of respect for them.

Now, at least for the moment, things are different. The hate from liberals is definitely aimed right at Trump himself. I think this is because he is winning, and people are sensing that he is going to be President, so the dread and loathing of him has gone to a new level. Moreover, it's all that's holding together the Democratic Party at this point. It's all that's keeping Hillary's campaign from imploding.

Also Donald Trump spends a lot of time criticizing liberal leaders now, and that always makes liberals really angry, no matter who says it. By doing this, he has taken on the role of being a lightning rod of hate for the criticism of his entire movement.

Don't conservatives do the same thing, freaking out when people criticize their leaders? Not to the same degree as liberals. This is yet another asymmetry between the two parties/sides in American politics, about which the liberals are unaware, and one of the reasons they consistency fail to understand what motivates conservatives (and why their arguments always "fall on deaf ears.")

The Democrats, in a party sense, really are a Cult of the Leader, where one always falls in line behind the top person. The cast of heroes evolves over time, but at any given moment, one is supposed to fall in line Soviet style with the lack of criticism of the Democratic leadership. Criticism of fellow Democrats is helping the enemy.

On the other hand, the conservative base hasn't really trusted the leadership of the Republican Party since 1964. Since that election, a great many people on the Right have felt like outsiders within the Republican Party. They loved Reagan as a man, but many of them never trusted the Bushes, and they weren't so sad to see them go in 2008 (unlike how the Democrats now feel about Obama, which will probably boil down to throwing themselves on the ground and seizing Michelle's ankles to keep her from boarding the helicopter on January 20).

Why is this important, you ask? Why should liberals care about how conservatives think?

Well, perhaps you don't. But in the last week, I've read three different comments from extrememly liberal friends of mine on Facebook, ones who often share memes and links about politics. They were all three of them  bemoaning that they are, in their own words, "singing to the choir" with all their comments about how Trump is awful/evil/insane, etc. They all expressed a wish to actually be able to create arguments that would work, or at least be seen by conservatives.

Liberals have taught conservatives very well how to keep a low profile on social media. To be a conservative lately is to be chill with people disagreeing with you, or else you cut yourself off from the world (or at least mainstream culture).

That's the way it should be, you might be saying.

Yes indeed. Ironically that's exactly the title of Hymn Number 612 from the Progressive Songbook, sitting right in the pew in front of you. Lyric by John Oliver.  Are you bass, tenor, alto, or soprano?


Monday, July 25, 2016

The Great Rearrangement

The new American political line-up currently taking shape:

1. The Trump-publicans (Lincoln-Jackson Republicans. Strong federal government geared towards prosperity for the working class masses through industrial production. Protective of American interests against foreign powers. Pro-military. Secular and Gay-friendly but Pro-Christian. Anti-Establishment. Anti-Treaty in spirit (but probably not in practice). Anti-Elite).

2. The Green-Libertarians (Hippie-Yuppie-Post-Obama-Social-Justice-without-Judgment. Laid back government philosophically geared towards reining in the power of out-of-control President Trump. Thinking man's revitalization of Constitutionalism. Secular and pro-atheist. Pro-globalist in spirit but de-emphasizing global governance structures in favor of voluntarism. Techno-billionaires, Energy-futurists, and Hollywood Elite. "The New California." Friendly to treaties).

3. Party Democrats (The Democratic Establishment. "I Love the Government." Taxation enthusiasts. Clinton admirers. Members of Public Workers Unions. Bureaucrats. Hard-core old school feminists and rainbow activists. Public school teachers. Believers in the continuation of the race-oriented Culture War. Hard-core gun control folks).

4. The Establishment Renegades. Bush and the Neocons (Republican Establishment and Globalists at large).

5. Black Lives Matter.

Trumps' pick of Pence looks better and better in hindsight, and it allowed him to firm up the winning coalition not only for this election but going forward (otherwise Cruz would be leading a large renegade Christian faction in tandem with the Neocons, which isn't happening), The way things are trending now, by 2020, I suspect the Two-Party system to have re-arranged to be a battle between 1 and 2.  This might even happen by November 2016, depending on how far and how fast Hillary collapses in the days ahead. If John Hickenlooper walks, it's lights out for the old Democratic Party.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

The Democratic Party Has Left the Building

A year ago, the U.S. had two functioning political parties, both controlled by the Establishment. Everyone expected yet another same-old showdown between them, with so many "real issues" ignored yet again.

One year later, one of those two parties has been destroyed and hollowed out (the Republicans) by a populist uprising. The ruling family clique has fled the Party entirely, along with their Neocon loyalists.

It seemed improbable that the Democratic Party would survive for long in its current state as well. The Sanders movement was a symptom but was not the coup de grace. I knew it wouldn't be long when the Democrats officially turned against Andrew Jackson, and willingly handed that part of its founding soul over to the new Nationalist-Republicans (Trump), as if they couldn't get rid of it fast enough.

Now the crack-up of the Democrats seems to be in progress. I predict this week's convention is going to be the farewell tour of the Party as we know it, reaching its crest on Wednesday night as Obama gives his valediction to history (I'm already looking forward to having my Facebook feed filled with every liberal posting clips form his speech and sighing about how if only we could elect him again...). The drop-offs in enthusiastic video clip sharing from that to the next night, when Hillary speaks, are going to be telling.  It will be interesting to see who the die-hards are, who will stick with her to the bitter end.

The organization of the Democratic Party will survive of course. There is too much institutional inertia and power there, just as there was with the Republicans. But the process of transition to the new era is going to be very different than it was for the GOP (which will turn out to be smoother of the two).

Whereas the Republicans were sacked and captured by a hostile democratic takeover (basically a single outsider, together with the "ignored" base of voters, overwhelming the entire party structure over the course of the primaries and not even completed until the convention intself), the Democrats will likely fracture into multiple factions, some of which are going to walk away from the Party entirely. This is because the reboot of the Party did not occur through a democratic uprising (as it would have, if Sanders had won), but rather through a tightening of top-down control.

The Great Rearrangement is now underway.  The Democrats will split at least three ways: Rump, Johnson, and Stein. The liberals, especially in the media, may not realize how close to the tipping point we are, when the stampede away from Hillary towards immigrant-friendly marijuana-legalizing Johnson (!) will reach critical mass.  Half the wealthy tech crowd in Silicon Valley would walk away to him in a heartbeat, and take all that Party-financing money with them.  Only the Diversity Management Squad will remain. In that massive accelerated movement, the Berniecrats and Greens will be determined not to be left holding the toxic bag. Why not seize the moment? A strong Green could party would perhaps take over and re-invigorate the Democratic Party at some point by 2020.

Bernie himself has one last moment of possible relevance, with his speech tomorrow. If he doesn't throw down he gauntlet and challenge Hillary outright (which he won't), his movement will begin tipping hard to the Greens almost immediately and will leave him behind. He will never be leader of their movement again.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

The Kaine Play

EDIT 2: As this thing rolls in, it looks like Hillary has utterly blown it with ALL of Bernie's hard core supporters. Big time. I don't see how they vote for her, because they now hate her more than Trump. This is the point of inflection for the Clinton disaster, where it starts to go off rails in accelerated fashion.

EDIT: It seems clear that the DNC email leaks have a large probability of drastically changing all this. Bernie's folks are getting very, very angry as this comes out. Anything could happen in Philadelphia. I stand by my prediction that the Democrats will win the District of Columbia, so long as Kaine is on the ticket.

The Great Obama Wave, the cresting of the Democratic Party as the spearhead of Progressive politics, was born in the smashing defeat of the party in the 1984 elections at the hands of Ronald Reagan. In that defeat, especially during the primaries, the themes and elements of the coalition were formed that would eventually bring the Clintons to power, and after them Obama. It was a great free-for-all experiment that looked like pitiable chaos at the time, but created the political stew that would eventually come to dominate America for a time.

That time is winding down. The wave of '84 is receding. The price of success was that it had to elevate Obama as a great figurehead, and with his departure, there is an obvious drawing down of the energy. This is inevitable law of history. Revolutionaries love riding the upswing, but they hate the taste of the fruit at the end.

Now the Democrats are pretty much back to the Mondale set-up. Kaine is a pretty good pick for VP. He is excellent for solidifying the Party Democrats, the people who didn't have that big of a problem with Hillary all along, but were always open to voting for her. They love Kaine because they see him as the anti-Trump.

Kaine by himself might make a formidable challenger to Trump. If Clinton were not listed above it, the ticket might actually work. As such, in the fragmented Democratic caucus, Kaine's strengths also means he has terrible weaknesses too. T.

Picking Kaine uts any attack against Trump as misogynist over abortion. It weakens the War on Women issue, but that was not going to work much against Trump anyway. The Democrats have maxed on that line of attack and now it only digs into their dwindling support among men.

Mostly though, Kaine is pure D.C. The Democrats I know who have at any time worked for the federal government think he's the cat's meow. Like Mondale, the Democrats will easily grab the District's three electoral votes.

The ticket looks solid in many ways but has the feeling of one that will fall short in many ways, especially in connecting with the dilapidated Rust Belt that has been devastated by trade. The best scenario might be Hillary having another seizure during his address, and Kaine having to take over and pick a new V.P. (The Democrats will then have voted for Hillary so that she could pick the nominee)

And of course Kaine slaps a big question mark on the Bernie supporters. Jill Stein must be feeling her oats about now.

Everybody knows Kaine is TPP, as is Hillary.  The Berniecrats may break for/against Hillary based on this criterion:

Are you generally a believer and supporter of the necessity of the advancement what some call the cause of social justice as embodied by political corectness, especially when it comes to federal government hiring, hate crime laws, and public education, and this is this important enough to override your concerns about Hillary regarding issues of trade, globalism, and her backing by the Wall Street financial industry?

The Party Democrats will easily answer "yes" to this. Many are outright in favor of the globalist structures, because they see it as necessary for advancing world social and political goals (like environmentalism).  Others don't care about trade and globalism at all, and see all politics through social justice issues (for example, LGBTQ-driven voters). These people currently loathe Trump with a burning passion (although some of that comes across as twisted admiration on some level). Kaine was just icing on the cake for these folks.  Kaine-Schmain. Hillary is plenty enough for them.


But just for the record, on the eve of Sander's gut-wrenching endorsement of Hillary in New Hampshire (his one-stop crow-eating tour), when his die-hard supporters were pleading will all their  with him not to do it, this is what the top five links on the front page of the Reddit community /r/SandersForPresident looked like:


It is going to be an interesting convention next week.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Hillary Will Skip the Debates

Hillary Clinton will not debate Donald Trump on stage together. This is a prediction that is gaining ground among Trump supporters on Reddit. They expect she is going to find a reason to back out.  As evidence, they use the fact that she hasn't given a press conference in over seven months.

I happen to think they might be right about this. It is well known Hillary does better the more she stays out of the public eye. Since about 95% of the Democratic campaign rhetoric now consists of "all hands on deck to stop Trump, no exceptions," this week's RNC was actually Hillary's convention too.  Unfortunately for her, she has to have her own convention next week as well, which is only going to hurt her, probably, and kill the momentum of anti-Trump panic that Democrats are feeling lately.

But that doesn't mean she has to debate the guy! I personally think she would be wise to avoid it.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Meanwhile in Bernieland

More than a few Bernie Sanders supporters still think he will make a strong play for the nomination next week in Philadelphia, and that he still has a chance to win. They think his endorsement of Hillary was a pro forma requirement to be allowed to keep his delegates and to speak. Of course it is. This is Hillary's show.

Among other things, this shows Hillary's incredible weakness and insecurity as a candidate. Contrast this with Trump, who actually welcomed Cruz to speak without a prior endorsement, no doubt setting the trap that the idiot Cruz walked right into, and turned his political career into sawdust.

The DNC, in all its "democraticness", first wanted a bended knee from Sanders, or else he couldn't get near the podium at all, and his delegates wouldn't even be seated. At least, this is how I'm reading the discussion among the #BernieForever folks. They believe that fraud was committed in the election. They don't want to wait another cycle. A lot of them actually want to see Hillary burn.


Rant About Kasich

This one is personal. Hey asshole. Your party throws a national convention, which you helped lobby to bring to the state no doubt, and as the sitting governor of that state you can't bother to show up like a good and proper host and welcome folks?  Bad manners.

The Booing of Ted Cruz

Iconic moment of the campaign. Part of me cannot help be delighted at how the dastardly and wicked, when given one last shot at redemption, inevitably throw it away in petulance.

Ted Cruz could have given the same speech, but at the end, looked at the winner and said, "OK, you beat me. I'll vote for you. But if you screw up, I'm going to challenge your ass in 2020." Trump would have given him a thumb's up, and Cruz would have walked out to thunfdderous applause, and folks would have legitimately wondered if maybe the wrong guy was nominated after all.

Bonus: NBC mentions that Heidi Cruz was chased from the auditorium floor with chants of "Goldman Sachs!". Instead of ignoring it, the correspondents went on to explain that's where she used to work.

EDIT: now Trump's pick of Pence makes a lot more sense.

The Asymmetry of Hate in American Politics

One of the most striking features of this election to me so far has been the unprecedented amount of hate being broadcast by liberals to anyone who is not on their side. Many liberals have a set of issues with which one is not allowed to disagree, or else you are branded in their mind as a bad person.

If you're a liberal, you are certainly replying but the conservatives do the same thing!

Actually, no. The hate from the right is different, as I'll explain.  The fact that liberals think conservatives express hate in the same way as they do is part of the general trend of liberals having their heads up their arses and be unwilling to understand in the slightest how much of the rest of country thinks.  As I've said, most liberals don't want to understand conservatives. Generally they just want conservatives to shut up, go away, and die.

My working thesis is that generally conservatives hate the leaders of the opposition, whereas liberals generally hate the followers.

There are plenty of exceptions, of course, and I'm still refining this rule, but I think it explains a lot at first glance.

For example, most conservatives truly loathe Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore, among others. They also loathe media figures---t.v. pundits, actors, musicians, etc.---whom they see as the bobble-headed idiots who curate the public dialogue to make liberalism seem cool.

Yet, in this era, surprisingly conservatives generally don't really hate common-folk liberals. There is certainly bigotry among folks on the right, but not in the way, or to the degree, that most liberals imagine. Most conservatives lately know they are outnumbered, and they think liberals are, in varying measure, misguided, immature, out-of-touch, and in the thrall of a rigid and dangerous utopian ideology that severely warps their view of reality all the while claiming to have no other bias than being "reality based."

To conservatives, when a liberal "sees the light" and adopts a conservative viewpoint, it is a sign of maturation and being grounded in the reality of world. All is forgiven. No lasting rancor against individuals. Welcome to the cause, brother. The hate conservatives express is focused instead on the leaders, which of course very much disturbs liberals, who instinctively shunt such examples of extreme conservative rancor into bins of "-isms" that validate their view of conservatives as being hopelessly bigoted in some fashion (which some are). In this way, liberals re-enforce their view of their own righteousness through ongoing obvious "proof."

On the other hand, liberals actually don't really loathe the leaders of the conservative movement.  They might think that they do, and act like they do, but such rancor is generally fleeting and forgivable. Liberals will eagerly adopt an ex post facto admiration for conservative politicians of yesteryear, so long as it can be used to shame current conservatives. They love playing the "hypcrisy game", trotting out one-time villains whom they used to hate, but who now can serve as a cudgel against their current enemies. Dwight Eisenhower and Barry Goldwater are practically liberal icons now. Reagan, who was hated by liberals like no one else, regularly appears in my Facebook feed posted by a liberal source, with a quote aimed at demonstrating how far the current GOP has drifted from its roots.

I've seen liberals praise Dick Cheney as a wise statesmen to whom the Republican should use as a model instead that current dude, who is so much worse. If only the Bushes could come back, many of the are thinking now. If only good old Paul Ryan could restore some sanity. [edit: right on cue, after Ted Cruz's non-endorsement speech at the RNC, a post proclaiming his wisdom has rocketed to the top of Reddit. Hilarious].

Part of this admiration for conservative leaders, I believe, comes from a secret love by many liberals for hard-asses.  They like the knuckle-crackers who enforce their way in politics.  Fans of Hillary Clinton love this part about her, for example. They just want those folks to be on their side.

The conservative leaders that liberals loathe without mercy tend to be the populist, unrefined ones. Sarah Palin, for example, drives them bonkers. She is unsophisticated and thus repulsive to them, reflective of everything they hate about "America out there." Tea Partiers. Uggh. Need I say more?

Which brings me to my last point, that although liberals may readily forgive some of the leaders of the Right, at least after an election cycle or two, liberals really, really hate the common folk of the conservative moment.  Among themselves, many liberals permit and encourage a constant, unwavering siege of hatred against the conservative proletariat, with the idea of driving these people out of the public sphere entirely.  There is no such thing as too much hatred for the haters. YOU THINK YOU CAN HATE, WHITE BOY!? I'LL SHOW YOU HATE, MUTHAF@CKA!!!

In a dream liberal world, all the common-folk conservatives would just go poof and disappear, leaving the "common-sense" conservative leaders behind, who, being now liberated from the obligation of serving the whims of their disgusting unwashed Amerikkkun base, can turn their business-friendly talents to serving the ideal Progressive State as it emerges from the constraints of opposition. Liberals generally believe we are inevitably moving towards this society, and their counterparts in Red America are simply standing in the way of what could be an awesome world, shared by all of us. Why the f@ck are they slowing it down? Only an idiot would do that.

Personally I think this self-enclosure by liberals, which caught them so blindsided during this election cycle, is why they are going down the drain so fast now. One can feel the panic starting to set in. The intensity of hate is ratcheting up on the sigmoid curve, as they see the entire dream of Permanent Progressive America slipping away.

Eventually, after a few arse-whoopings at the ballot box, they will figure out a new way to advance their agenda. Until then it's going to be a bit ugly.

Really, dude? All that being plugged into America and you didn't see it coming at all? What validity do any of your observations have, if you were so blind?


Monday, July 18, 2016

The Dramaturgical Revolution of the 20th Century


(source) Bette Davis as Margo Channing in All About Eve, directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz, and produced by Darryl F. Zanuck.

It is valid to consider Pop Culture as a great mutual entanglement of narratives (and meta-narratives).

Narratives involve human characters. Pop Culture draws its characters principally from the three arenas of fame: entertainment, sports, and politics. The narratives directly produced by Pop Culture itself include television series, seasonal sports, and election cycles, etc. But those are only the basic layer of narrative threads.

In late Postmodernity, the narrative of Pop Culture had shifted more and more to include the "backstage," which are the stories about the real lives of the participants. On this level, the narrative threads of Pop Culture blend into a one single continent of threads, in which all participants of any arena of fame are included. This can be considered the canon of Pop Culture.

As a non-famous person, one participates in Pop Culture not simply by viewing or consuming the productions of Pop Culture within the canon, but moreover by forming and sharing commentary on the narratives and meta-narratives, as an internal dialogue during one's other activities, and also with others in one's real life, and lately on social media.

This is the reason why the Twentieth Century was the dramaturgical century. It is the Postmodern Revolution at its core. Essentially we all became participants in theater culture, which up until the mid Tweniteth century was confined to a very small subset of society. Postmodernity was in essence the takeover of mainstream culture by this subculture. That theater culture itself is highly skewed towards the feminine relative to previous mainstream culture has been much of the reason why the Twentieth Century has felt like the "female revolution."

Many great Hollywood motion pictures actually make direct commentary on this transition to what we call Pop Cutlure, in which we all participate. Among my favorites in this regard is All About Eve, which was released in 1950 by 20th Century Fox, exactly at the mid point of the Twentieth Century.

Almost all the characters in that movie are involved in the theater. They all lead miserable lives, in which no one can really trust each other, or be intimate with other without wearing some kind of mask. At least that's how audiences back then would have seen it. Back in 1950 this supposed to be seen as abnormal. In late Postmodernity, because we have a dramaturgical mainstream culture now, we hold as axiomatic that everyone lives that kind of life. 

(source) A young and then-unknown Marilyn Monroe as Miss Casswell in a scene with Anne Baxter, Bette Davis, and George Sanders.

1950 (Oct 13) All About Eve released by 20th Century Fox.

1949  The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce begins a contract with the City of Los Angeles Parks Department to repair and rebuild the Hollywood sign. The contract stipulates that "LAND" be removed to spell "Hollywood" and reflect the district, not the "Hollywoodland" housing development.

1935  20th Century Fox is formed by the merger of Twentieth Century Pictures with Fox Films.
Twentieth Century Pictures' Joseph Schenck and Darryl F. Zanuck left United Artists over a stock dispute, and began merger talks with the management of financially struggling Fox Film, under president Sidney Kent. Spyros Skouras, then manager of the Fox West Coast Theaters, helped make it happen (and later became president of the new company). Aside from the theater chain and a first-rate studio lot, Zanuck and Schenck felt there was not much else to Fox, which had been reeling since the founder William Fox lost control of the company in 1930. The studio's biggest star, Will Rogers, died in a plane crash weeks after the merger. Its leading female star, Janet Gaynor, was fading in popularity and promising leading men James Dunn and Spencer Tracy had been dropped because of heavy drinking.
After the merger was completed, Zanuck quickly signed young actors who would carry Twentieth Century-Fox for years Tyrone Power, Linda Darnell, Carmen Miranda, Don Ameche, Henry Fonda, Gene Tierney, Sonja Henie, and Betty Grable. Also on the Fox payroll he found two players who he built up into the studio's leading assets, Alice Faye and seven-year-old Shirley Temple. Favoring popular biographies and musicals, Zanuck built Fox back to profitability.

1932 Twentieth Century Pictures, an independent Hollywood motion picture production company,  is created y Joseph Schenck (the former president of United Artists) and Darryl F. Zanuck from Warner Bros.

1930 William Fox loses control of Fox Films following the stock market crash.

1928 Fox Films begins distributing Fox Movietone News, continuing to 1963.

1926 Fox Films buys the patents of the Movietone sound system for recording sound on to film.

1923 HOLLYWOODLAND sign is erected by H.J. Whitley to advertise the name of a new housing development in the hills above the Hollywood district of Los Angeles. 

1917 William Fox sends Sol M. Wurtzel to Hollywood, California to oversee the studio's new West Coast production facilities where a more hospitable and cost effective climate existed for filmmaking.

1915 Fox Films is created by William Fox with its first  studios in Fort Lee, New Jersey

Friday, July 15, 2016

The Pence Play

Trump supporters in general are not enthusiastic about Mike Pence yet. They don't trust him. Perhaps they will trust him, but they suspect he might be a globalist, when push comes to shove. It's obvious he's not yet an insider, but perhaps he tasted enough of the fruit of the path, to be unable to turn back (as most cannot). They are hashing it out as we speak.

For the same reason, Newt Gingrich was not trusted by many of them either (although this is not uniform---a great many wanted him as VP).

They are also not enthused that Pence brings the Cruz-like religious right element of the GOP back into the mix. They were hoping to be done with that. They were also hoping to start getting more Sanders voters by ditching traditional Republican stances on gay issues, which will still happen, albeit not quite as much, they now fear. Many of these folks will probably vote Jill Stein, which is just as good, all in all.

They are hoping Pence will be Trump's Biden, who didn't have to do anything for eight years.

The Trump Reddit thinks of itself as an integral part of his campaign. They style themselves a fraternal army of equals, democratic and quasi-anonymous, much as they imagine their grandfathers and great-grandfathers experienced in the armed forces of World War II---a great equalizing and ennobling experience that is largely masculine in character. The more philosophic among them see this as the return of the forgotten and repressed masculine, the good part that is the protector, as they see it. This is recognized by many liberals, and it strikes fear in the hearts of many liberal men, as if bringing it back will bring the "war gods" back alive (they already are).

They envision themselves as a benevolent Army of Liberation, as if the G.I.'s of that era could come back and smite America back into goodness, restoring what was discarded into the headlong rush to make the United States a "good global citizen." That's their vision of themselves, at least. You are free to see it otherwise, if it pleases you.

Trump's supporters see Trump as their leader in this fight, but they don't see it being about him ironically.  They yearn for the broader democratic revolution his victory will bring, and see him in all his faults as a necessary wild-card element at this hour of history.

For many of them it is refreshing to have an egomaniac like Trump to take all the ego focus into him, so that the rest of everyone can just do their thing. Ironically is a movement that embodies that antithesis of the fame hunger of Pop Culture.  The dank meme creation process, as open and democratic as it can be in their minds, has the air of being a derivative of Kilroy culture, obnoxious and disrespectful to the Powers-that-Be that would want to see them die off.

There's even a running cult of Trump as the possible re-incarnation of George S. Patton, based on their vital dates and appearance. If you can understand that, then you can probably understand why they forgive his crudeness and vulgarity with so much ease.  Not surprisingly, General Mike Flynn was one of their favorites for V.P.

Only Trump knows his true stance vis-à-vis the globalists. Same with Pence. Trump's base ultimately trusts Trump's play with Pence because they trust him. They consider him to be playing "5-D Korean Starcraft-level PokemonGo chess" against his opponents, who include not just the rest of the Republican Party, and the entire Democratic Party, but the entire media as well. They just don't want to be the ones played. They are trusting him to be authentic on this one point above all else.

In any case, the Democrats have now jettisoned the last bit of the populist democratic anti-Establishment revolution of Andrew Jackson (proclaiming Jackson to be badhistory), and have handed that over to the Republicans. That's Trump in a nutshell to me. That's why he stole populism from the Democrats. Ultimately they didn't want it.

The Democrats, if they can pull of a historic blow-out (by that I mean finishing nearly in third place in the Electoral College), will have a chance to completely reboot the party afterwards. But there is a nasty civil war for them ahead. Berniecrat-Green (led by John Hickenlooper?) vs. BlackLivesMatter (led by Cory Booker?).   The former would love to compromise with the latter. The latter are unable to compromise with anyone (because a new faction will always arise that is less compromising), until it burns out, so I put my money on them. Hello Class of 2027! We await your social justice guidance. Tell us how to run America! Tell us how to run the world! In any case, the Party apparatus will continue to exist, and be inherited by someone at least. The Clintons should count themselves lucky to be escaping from that.

George S. Patton signed photo by U.S. Army (source)

1945 (Dec. 21) Major General George Patton, U.S. Army, is killed at age 60 in Heidelberg, Germany, officially in a car accident. He is buried in American Cemetery and Memorial, Luxembourg City.

1885 (Nov. 11) George Smith Patton, Jr. born in San Gabriel, California, U.S.A.


Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Florida in Recent Presidential Elections

Obama 2012:    4,237,756 (50.01%)
Obama 2008:    4,282,367 (50.91%)
Kerry 2004:      3,583,544 (47.09%)
Gore 2000:       2,912,253 (48.84%)
Clinton: 1996:  2,546,870 (48.1%)
Clinton: 1992:  2,072,698 (39.00%)
Dukakis 1988:  1,656,701 (38.51%)
Mondale 1984: 1,448,816 (34.66%)
Carter 1980:     1,419,475 (38.50%)
Carter 1976:     1,636,000 (51.93%)

Romney 2012:  4,163,447 (49.13%)
McCain 2008:   4,046,219 (48.10%)
Bush 2004:        3,964,522 (52.10%)
Bush 2000:        2,912,790 (48.85%)
Dole: 1996:       2,244,536 (42.3%)
Bush: 1992:      2,173,310 (40.89%)
Bush 1988:       2,618,885 (60.87%)
Reagan 1984:   2,730,350 (65.32%)
Reagan 1980:   2,046,951 (55.52%)
Ford 1976:       1,469,531 (46.64%)

Nader 2008:      28,128
Nader 2000:       97,488
Buchanan 2000: 17,484
Perot 1996:        483,870 (9.1%)
Perot 1992:        1,053,067 (19.82%)
Anderson 1980: 189,692 (5.14%)

Comments for 2016


Florida's long-term steady population growth means that the Presidential vote totals for both Democrats and Republicans typically increase over time, in a ragged way from one election to another. The exception is when there is a very strong third party candidate, as in 1992.

Through the 1980s, Florida was reliably Republican in the Electoral College. Even Perot's huge total in 1992 wasn't enough to give the state to Clinton, as it did elsewhere in the nation. Once Clinton was in the White House,  however, Floridians both old and new apparently began finding it easier to vote for a Democrat for President, as did many in the rest of the nation, for various reasons.

The 2000 election made Florida into the ultimate swing state---the most infamous knife-edge and controversial election in American history. Even though Gore lost (heh), it showed the trend so lc that he got close. Since then, the Democrats have built on natural strength not only in south Florida (traditionally their strongest region), but also in other urban areas and in college towns such as Gainesville and Tallahassee (which is also the state capital, giving it double bonus Democratic base power, like Austin). As of now they have a patchwork of seemingly reliable counties across the state.

Yet Bill Clinton never got a majority here, even in 1996.  Kerry got smoked here in 2004, and even at the crest of the historic Democratic tide,  Obama managed only narrow victories over McCain and Romney, and his raw vote total actually decreased by a whisker from 2012 to 2008.

The Democrats have been hoping that the time and demography will deliver them this Electoral College prize as reliably blue at some point, like it did in California. When it comes to American politics, however, things usually don't work out as simply as that. Relying on demography to win your cause is usually a fool's game, historically speaking.

In 2016, as it stands now, even with natural population growth, it is hard to see Clinton's vote totals rising much above Obama's (just under 4.3 million). Her total may even go down (that would make the second decrease in a row for Democrats). In any case, it is hard to see a big push for her beyond 4.3-4.4 million, and that's if she holds up to November without her campaign collapsing. Anything beyond that would happen only if there is massive turnout (and no strong third party), but that would probably inflate everyone's numbers correspondingly as well.

Florida on Super Tuesday was probably Trump's most important victory in the primaries, even greater in importance than New Hampshire. Had he lost in either of those states, he probably would not be the presumptive nominee now.  But whereas New Hampshire was a cold water splash to the Republican Party (one they had coped with successfully before), and South Carolina was a flashing danger sign,  Florida. with its 99 winner-take-all delegates, was Trump's first true gut punch to the Establishment, one from which they have not recovered. At the time their means of coping with it was to highlight Kasich's victory in Ohio on the same day to the point of comic relief.

Romney and McCain give us Trump's floor in Florida. He will certainly surge far beyond those numbers perhaps even with a strong third party candidate. We can get a glimpse of this from the primaries in March. Florida was not just strong for Trump, he won every county across the state except for Dade (Miami), which went for Rubio. Trump even won in the college towns, whereas Rubio won many of those elsewhere in the country outside his own home state. Most Republicans in Florida like Trump without reservation. The #NeverTrumps and Cruz folk were a no show on Super Tuesday. Republicans in Florida will vote for Trump with great gusto, and as in Ohio and other states, many will vote who were not engaged at all in recent elections.

Enthusiasm as always is key. Hillary will take the deep blue counties (such as Gadsden, Dade and Broward), but other counties that were trending light blue in late cycles will flip to pale red. Even Osceola County may get interesting, if Trump's "unexpected" support among Hispanics (in this case Puerto Ricans), stays strong.  Most significantly, many if not most of the pale red counties in central Florida will almost certainly darken into solid blocks of maroon and deep carmine. Hillsborough and Flagler counties stand out as the bellwethers.

Prediction: The Democrats are looking at a buzz-saw here.  


2012 Election results in Florida (source)

2008 Election results in Florida (source)
2004 Election results in Florida (source)

2000 Election results in Florida (source)
1996 Election results in Florida (source)
1992  Election results in Florida (source)

1988 Election results in Florida (source)
1984 Election results in Florida (source)

Florida counties (source)

Map of Florida highlightin Hillsborough County (source). Hillsborough County is a county located in the U.S. state of Florida. As of the 2010 census, the population was 1,229,226, making it the fourth-most populous county in Florida. Its county seat and largest city is Tampa.
Map of Florida highlighting Gadsden County (source) Gadsden County is a county located in the panhandle of the U.S. state of Florida. As of the 2010 census, the population was 46,389. Its county seat is Quincy. It is included in the Tallahassee, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area, being one county west from the Tallhassee itself  It was created in 1823 and  named for James Gadsden of South Carolina, who served as Andrew Jackson's aide-de-camp in Florida in 1818. Gadsden County is historically known for its tobacco crop which is obsolete today. Gadsden County is the only predominantly African-American county in Florida.

Map of Florida highlighting Flagler County (source) Flagler County is a county on the east coast of the U.S. state of Florida. As of the 2010 census, the population was 95,696. Its county seat is Bunnell. Created in 1917 from portions of Saint Johns and Volusia Counties, it was named for Henry Morrison Flagler, who built the Florida East Coast Railway.

Map of Florida highlighting Osceola County (source). Osceola County is named for the Indian leader Osceola, whose name means "Black Drink Cry [Asi Yaholo]" As of the 2010 census, the population was 268,685.[1] Its county seat is Kissimmee. Osceola County is included in the Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Fla. Metropolitan Statistical Area. Since the late 20th century, Osceola County has experienced a significant influx of migrants from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. In the 2000 U.S. Census Puerto Rican was the largest self-reported ancestry group.
Map of Florida highlighting Palm Beach County (source).
Palm Beach County is a county located in the state of Florida, directly north of Broward County. As of the 2010 census, the population was 1,320,134 making it the third-most populous county in Florida. The largest city and county seat is West Palm Beach. Named after one of its oldest settlements, Palm Beach, The area had been increasing in population since the late 19th century, with the incorporation of West Palm Beach in 1894 and after Henry Flagler extended the Florida East Coast Railway and built the Royal Poinciana Hotel, The Breakers, and Whitehall. The county became the center of controversy during presidential election on November 7, 2000. Allegedly, the "butterfly ballot", designed by Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore, led to an unexpectedly large number of votes for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan, rather than for Democrat Al Gore. Due to the aforementioned "butterfly ballot" and the closeness of the statewide results between Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush, manual recounts were conducted. On December 8, The Florida Supreme Court voted 4-3 to mandate manual recounts in all counties with disputed results. However, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the decision in Bush v. Gore on December 12, allowing Florida Secretary of the State Katherine Harris to award the 25 electoral votes to Bush, as Harris's tally prior to the state-ordered recounts placed him ahead of Gore by 537 popular votes. In turn, this gave Bush victory in the national election.






Florida East Coast Railway, Key West Extension, express train at sea, crossing Long Key Viaduct, Florida. photo from Florida Photographic Collection. (source)
Henry Morrison Flagler (January 2, 1830 – May 20, 1913) was an American industrialist and a founder of Standard Oil. He was also a key figure in the development of the Atlantic coast of Florida and founder of what became the Florida East Coast Railway. He is known as the father of both Miami and Palm Beach, Florida.

1894 Flager's railroad network reaches present-day West Palm Beach. Flagler constructs the Royal Poinciana Hotel in Palm Beach overlooking the Lake Worth Lagoon. He also build The Breakers Hotel on the ocean side of Palm Beach, and Whitehall, his private 55-room, 60,000 square foot winter home. The development of these three structures, coupled with railroad access to them, establishes Palm Beach as a winter resort for the wealthy members of America's Gilded Age.

1889 Flager's railroad network reaches from Jacksonville to Daytona.

1888 President Grover Cleveland visits Florida, highlighting tourism there.

1888 Ponce de León Hotel opens in St. Augustine (now part of Flagler College).

1885 Origin of the Florida East Coast Railay. To support his hotel interests, Henry Flagler purchases the Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Halifax River Railway. "Flagler next purchased three additional existing railroads: the St. John's Railway, the St. Augustine and Palatka Railway, and the St. Johns and Halifax River Railway so that he could provide extended rail service on standard gauge tracks. Through the operation of these three railroads, by spring 1889 Flagler's system offered service from Jacksonville to Daytona."

1885 Flagler returns to Florida and begins planning for construction of the Ponce de León Hotel.

1882 Flagler steps down from active operations in Standard Oil (while remaining on the Board of Directors), to pursue his interests in Florida.

1881 Mary dies. Flagler later marries again to to Ida Alice Shourds, who had been a caregiver for Mary. After their wedding, the couple travel to St. Augustine."Flagler found the city charming, but the hotel facilities and transportation systems inadequate. Franklin W. Smith had just finished building Villa Zorayda and Flagler offered to buy it for his honeymoon. Smith would not sell, but he planted the seed of St. Augustine's and Florida's future in Flagler's mind."

1878 Henry Flager travels to Jacksonville with his first wife Mary, who is ill, on the advice of their physician.

1867 Henry Flagler, age 37, gives $100,000 to John D. Rockefeller to found Standard Oil, on the condition that Flagler be made partner. "Needing capital for his new venture, Rockefeller approached Flagler in 1867. Flagler obtained $100,000 (equivalent of $1.7 million in 2015) from family member Stephen V. Harkness on the condition that Flagler be made a partner. The Rockefeller, Andrews & Flagler partnership was formed with Flagler in control of Harkness' interest. The partnership eventually grew into the Standard Oil Corporation. It was Flagler's idea to use the rebate system to strengthen the firm's position against competitors and the transporting enterprises alike. Flagler was in a special position to make those deals due to his connections as a grain merchant. Though the refunds issued amounted to no more than fifteen cents on the dollar, they put Standard Oil in position to undercut other oil refineries."

1863 John D. Rockefeller of Cleveland acquires his first oil refinery, supplying distilled petroleum products (for lamp oil) to the Union Army in place of the turpentine lost from the embargo by the Southern states.

1862-1865 Union occupation of Jacksonville during the Civil War.

1855-1858 Third Seminole War, starting with the raid Chief Billy Bowlegs near Fort Myers. It consisted mainly of Seminole raids and American reprisals, with no large battles. In 1858, most of the remaining Seminoles, weary of war and with their villages and farms mostly destroyed, agreed to be shipped to Oklahoma in exchange for promises of safe passage and cash payments to their chiefs. An estimated 100 Seminoles still refused to leave and moved deep into the Florida Everglades to live on land that was unwanted by white settlers."

1845 (Mar. 3) Florida statehood.

1838 Death of Osceola, influential Seminole leader.
 
1835-1842 Second Seminole War. "Battles and skirmishes raged throughout the Florida peninsula, with the outgunned and outnumbered Seminoles often using guerrilla warfare tactics and both sides massacring civilians during the conflict. The war eventually resulted in most of the Seminole population in Florida being killed in battle, ravaged by starvation and disease or relocated to Indian Territory . A few hundred Seminoles were allowed to remain in an unofficial reservation in southwest Florida."

1832 Treaty of Payne's Landing between U.S. and Seminoles. Seminoles agree to leave Florida for the Indian Territory in modern Oklahoma. Seminoles later claim to have signed it under duress, leading to the Second Seminole War.

1832 The Florida Legislative Council approves the charter for Jacksonville, named after President Jackson. "In 1821, after the U.S. acquired Florida, American settlers on the north side of the Cow Ford had decided to plan a town, laying out the streets and plats. "

1830 Henry Morisson Flagler born in Hopwell, N.Y.

1824 Florida territorial capital moved to Tallahassee.

1823 Treaty of Moultrie Creek. Seminoles required to leave northern Florida and were confined to a large reservation in the center of the Florida peninsula.

1821 Spain cedes Florida to the United States. Florida Territory is organized with capital at St. Augustine.

1816-1819 First Seminole War. prompted by incursions by Gen. Andrew Jackson into Spanish Florida in support of American settlement there. "The governments of Britain and Spain both expressed outrage over the "invasion" but ultimately, the Spanish Crown agreed to cede Florida to the United States."

1813-1814 The Creek War. Osceola moves his family to Florida, "a regional war between opposing Creek factions, European empires, and the United States, taking place largely in Alabama and along the Gulf Coast. The major conflicts of the war took place between state militias and the "Red Stick" Creeks. Osceola migrates to Florida with his family and other Red Stick refugee after their defeat."

1804 Birth of Osceola."Born Billy Powell, of mixed parentage, Creek, Scots-Irish, and English, he was raised as a Creek by his mother, as the tribe had a matrilineal kinship system and later became an influential leader of the Seminole in Florida."

1783 Great Britain cedes Florida back to Spain, in the Treaty of Paris following the American Revolution.

1763 Spanish cede Florida to Great Britain, at the end of the French and Indian War.

1565 St. Augustine founded by Spanish admiral and Florida's first governor, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés. He named the settlement "San Agustín", as his ships bearing settlers, troops, and supplies from Spain had first sighted land in Florida on August 28, 1565, the feast day of St. Augustine. The city served as the capital of Spanish Florida for over 200 years,

1513 First voyage of Ponce de León along the coast of Florida.

1508 Juan Ponce de León (b. 1474) a lieutenant of Columbus, is appointed as the first governor of Puerto Rico, having founded the first Spanish settlement on the island.

1493 Second voyage of Columbus. The first contact of the Spanish with the natives of Puerto Rico.